Re: Tudrus

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> At 4:52:47 AM on Saturday, January 15, 2011, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> In short, there is no reason to see -RĪK as a suffix and
> >> every reason to see it as the deuterothematic counterpart of
> >> the prototheme RĪK-.
>
> > Actually, I think I ended up claiming that the name
> > Theodoric should be analyzed as Theodor-ik-, not
> > Theodor-rīk-. Quote from Wexler:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67011
> > 'The Greek name means 'gift of God' and is synonymous with
> > He nətān`el, nətān-jāh(ū). See also OGY (He) *tə´adrīx
> > (corrected from tə´azrīx - with vocalization in the text:
> > Würzburg 1298);209 in German Latin texts the Jewish name
> > appears as Thiderich (Köln, mid-12th c), Tidericus
> > (1230).'
>
> > So, are you now going to maintain that the Theodor and
> > Theodoric might have been seen as one in daily use, but
> > they were of different origin?
>
> Certainly. Similarly, <Simund> (from ON <Sigmundr>) and
> <Simon> were being conflated as early as Domesday Book.

Which means that if one proliferates, so does the other, which, I think, was Wexlers point.

> > It might seem surprising that I should use a putative
> > Greek substrate in the German dialect of Ashkenazi Jews as
> > evidence that Snorri might have been right about the Odin
> > invasion, [...]
>
> This fantasy has been ruled off-topic.

This is how I see that situation, scientific-method-wise:
me: Snorri might have described actual facts.
opposition: Sources written more than a couple centuries after the fact are inadmissible (but Jordanes may be right anyway).
me: I find that arbitrary, but I'll provisionally accept it.
opposition: And since we thus have no written evidence of that time, we must assume the null hypothesis, which is that there was no migration and everyone stayed in their place.
me: Okay, here is archaeological, linguistic proof that they can't all have stayed in their place.
opposition: You *must* believe the no-migration null hypothesis!
me: ???
Which is where, as far as I'm concerned, scientific method stops and enforcement of a single belief begins. As for off-topic: a migration as large as we see in the new upper class in Przeworsk and in Ariovistus' army must necessarily have had an impact on linguistic facts on the ground similar to the one caused by the Roman armies.

> > The only time the Elbe was a major political boundary was
> > in the few decades up to the Clades Variana in 9 CE where
> > the land south and west of the Elbe was part of the Roman
> > Empire. A scenario in which Yiddish-speakers arrived in
> > that area from the east before that time, taking up
> > contact with Latin-speakers in that short period, would
> > not be in disagreement with the above facts.
>
> Yiddish speakers 2000 years ago is absurd fantasy.

If so, I'm sure you can find facts which show it didn't happen. What are they?


Torsten