That old Ariovistus scenario. Was: [tied] Re: That old Odin scenario

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > Call it the Ariovistus (Harjagist-) scenario then. It's the same
> > thing. Both are titles, not names.
> >
> > GK: Ariovistus was certainly a name for Caesar.
> He didn't know any better.
>
> ****GK: Without Caesar you would know practically nothing of
> Ariovistus (:=))

Irrelevant.

> End of discussion since what follows is likely: did too- did not--
> did too-- did not---****

What followed was a link to Wikipedia which quotes Smith's analysis of Ariovistus as a title.

> > His title (since 59 BCE) was "rex".
>
> Not to his men it wasn't.
>
> ****GK: How would one translate "rex" into 1rst c. BCE German?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariovistus
'He was recognised as a king by the Roman Senate, but how closely the Roman title matched Ariovistus' social status among the Germans remains unknown.' "Called", rather.

> That's what his men would call him.*****

A baseless postulate.

> That was what the Romans called him. Besides the difference wasn't
> that great, cf dux/herizogo.
> Check for yourself
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariovistus# Etymology
>
>
> ****GK: Most of this analysis supports the notion that "Ariovistus"
> was a name not a title. You'd better find a better source.****

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is a good enough source for me. Besides, as a linguist I like to make my own etymologies.

> (The citations which follow here are irrelevant since you've not
> made the major point.

What does that mean? That I haven't addressed a major point in your reply?

> Fairly typical procedure on your part.)

If you want to accuse me of something, could you please be more clear?

> >(GK No point in rehashing the Odin pseudo-history of Snorri
> > Sturluson BTW.****
>
> Not with you there ain't. I look forward to you actually refuting
> it.
>
> ****GK: It's been refuted a zillion times, and not only by me.

I don't think you know what 'refute' means. You refute someone's proposal by showing it can't have happened that way. You have never done that. On the other hand several people have denounced what I propose about a zillion times and you have been the most active.

> Since you refused to accept this, while incapable of providing any > new evidence on its behalf, you had to be stopped, and you were.

Every time I commented on my proposal I provided new facts that could be explained by my proposal but not by the received set of proposals.
You know that.

> All those interested in your endless repetitions of your refuted
> thesis can consult the cybalist archives.****

As I said, I didn't repeat anything. You, on the other hand, droned on with calls for me to be silenced.

> > (GK)The old idea that there were "Slavs" in 1rst c. BCE Przeworsk
> > is untenable.
>
> They would only have had to be there long enough, coming from the
> east, to join Ariovistus' campaign.
>
> ****GK: Where is your evidence that Slavs (as distinct from
> Baltoslavs) were an identifiable group in the time of
> Ariovistus?****

The identifiable group or rather the identifiable group name is Hrvaty/Charudes/Horouathos. And on the question of method: I don't have to prove it happened a certain way, since that is in principle not possible. I have to make sure instead that my proposal does not contradict known facts. And in the competition with other unrefuted proposals, the one should be preferred which provides the most explanations for known facts.


Torsten