Re: etruscan

--- In cybalist@egroups.com, s.tarasovas@... wrote:

> >
> > Oops. In the sense that I heard that some people have claimed

that

> > today's Ruthenians are "a kind of" Ukrainians. I retract my

claim.

> > But I still believe that if Saxo approx 1250 mentions Ruthenians,
> it
> > must have been a people that lived close to where they live today.
> >
>
> Now I got your point. Today's Ruthenians (they call themselves
> rusiny 'Russians', because the ethnicon Ukrainian 'borderlander [of
> Wthe estern border of Russia, vs. proper 'Russians' from the

central

> regions]' can't help it - they're 'Ukrainians of Ukrainians' and

the

> most western 'Russians') can indeed be treated as Ukrainian
> subethnos. But. It's a big question if they can be realibly
> identified with the Ruthenians of the medieval annalistic tradition
> (and the label Ruthenians might as well have had different meaning
> with different author). The general 'medieval' meaning of this

label

> is 'of Rusj' (~='Russian'), but 'Russian' had different meanings

in,

> eg, V c.(some Germanic ethnical group), IX c.(the East Slavs united
> by [the relics of] this group) and XIV c. (Russians in more or less
> today's sense).
> The etymology of the term is obscure (?< Old Norse roths 'oarsmen

as

> social>subethnic stratum [?]').
>
> Sergei

Hm. Now I am much wiser. Did you just move the Ruthenians (of
medieval chroniclers) much away from where I thought they were
supposed to be, or didn't you?

Torsten