From: Torsten
Message: 67796
Date: 2011-06-17
> ÂI looked back in the archives. I think this
> In denying Ptolemy's southern Finnoi you are also denying Tacitus'
> Fenni. I can't follow you there.
> ****GK: I don't deny Tacitus' Fenni at all. Nor Ptolemy's northern
> Finnoi.****
> Â
>  Also I don't understand why you want to apply Schütte's doublet
> reduction here if you don't believe in the results of applying it
> elsewhere?
>
> ****GK: I don't understand this point. What I had doubts about is
> whether Schutte's Vistula sequence= Baltic sequence held. It would
> have involved finding "Finnoi" on the Baltic right after "Gutones"
> on the Venedicus Bay. Of course if one emended further and placed
> the Finnoi there AFTER the Venedi it might work. But that would be
> too many emendations. One might as well rewrite the text completely
> (:=))). My point was simply that the difficulties with Finns on the
> Vistula (in Ptolemy) could be solved more easily since Schutte
> himself admitted (and many others) that there were plural instances
> of such singular misplacements in Ptolemy. In other words in the
> standard Ptolemy text, leave the sequence Venedi--Gutones-
>-Phrungudiones etc. and just take out these misplaced "Finni". They
> would be OK anywhere beyond the Venedi (even on the Baltic). Or
> beyond the area of the Baltic hydronyms where the Dyakovo culture
> begins.*****
> BTW, since the group of Magyar invaders seem to have been polyglot,Erh, as far as I know those numbers became what they were through action, if I may put it that way. It's my impression that the various FU groups were allowed to survive, unlike other peaceful groups, because they provided honey and wax
> and since they untypically for a FU group were cattle nomads, one
> has to ask oneself why the FU language Hungarian came out on top?
> ****GK: Numbers probably. A similar issue as to why Turkic replaced
> Iranic in the steppes. Or why Cumanic rather than Mongol became the
> language of the "Tartars" of the West.****