Re: Language - Area - Routes

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> I just remain unconvinced that 'River People' is the correct

etymology of the Danes (I don't claim that I know the right one).
Honest to God, I never said nothing about nobody having no ships.

>
> Piotr
>
> From: tgpedersen@...
>
> I was afraid my remarks might be appreciated as the vindictive

remarks

> of a offended Danocentric. Which of course they were, too.
> But, to put it shortly, since you are aware of the importance of
> transport by sea in Denmark's recent history, how come this
> geographically determined water-destiny doesn't apply earlier? Or,
> rather, why are you so sure these *D-n- river peoples had no ships?

This is what you said:

>I didn't call it "faraway" -- as far as I recall, this was the word

I used -- from a Polonocentric or a landlubber's perspective (for a
Pole, Denmark lies just round the corner and is anything but exotic),
but from the point of view of the Pontic Scytho-Sarmatians.

So I inferred from "faraway" to "having no ships" since, if you have
a ship, and people call you a "river people", you are a prone to use
it, and then Denmark ("Jutland") is not far away.

And I remain convinced. That's life.

Remember that the present division between sea and land/river
transport with the today's harbors ("Umschlagplätze", "transshipment
points", "logistics centers") in the Baltic is a product of
the Hanse and their 300-400 ton ships. The size of earlier ships
meant they were both open sea- and river-.

Torsten