--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen@...
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:07 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Language - Area - Routes
>
> > The Danes are an IndoEuropean "urfolk" originally living in the
land of the Dan-rivers, Scythia. In the remote past they have sent
contingents to Hellas and Palestine (the Dan tribe).
>
> Do you mean the Danes were not originally Germanic? Or do all the
other Germani belong to the same "urfolk"? How were they related to
other ethnic groups in and around "Scythia" (Iranians, Slavs,
Thracians)? What, by the way, is an IE "urfolk"? Is it someting
different from ordinary "folks"? Is there any archaeological or
linguistic evidence of the suggested migrations?
>
> > After centuries of fighting with the Slavic Ruthenians...
>
> Why "Ruthenians"? Sergei has explained to you very clearly the
origin and meaning of the term. It's completely meaningless when
applied to any Slavs in the fourth century or earlier.
>
> > The South Danes flee to the south west, joining up with the
> Hreidgoter (Danzig "Dan-vic-" (you probably have a lot to say on
that
> one)...)
>
> I'll leave your Norse etymologies for later (I'd like to check a
few details first), but I won't let you get away with this one.
Danzig is a German adaptation of Slavic *gUdan-Isk- (Polish Gdan'sk,
first mentioned in AD 997 as "urb[s] Gyddanyzc"). The element *gUd-
is also visible in the name of the neighbouring city of Gdynia (*gUd-
yn-ja); there are other Slavic and Baltic names containing *gUd-
(Sergei and I discussed them on Cybalist some time ago). The meaning
of the element is disputable (it may be ultimately of Germanic
origin), but the analysis of similar names shows at least that the
correct division of *gUdan- is *gUd-an-. Gdan'sk has been
romantically equated with "Gothiskandza", as if it had been a Gothic
capital. But there is no indication that Gdan'sk existed as a
settlement before the 9th century, let alone in Gothic times.
Besides, *gUd- doesn't quite match Germanic *gut-. No plausible
connection with *dan- can be established.
>
> Piotr
First of all: it seems to have escaped your attention that I was
quoting a book, the opinions of the author of which (who is deceased)
I don't necessarily share. That's the reason for my remark of his
derivation of "Danzig", which I found suspicious too. As to "no
indication that..", absence of proof is not proof of absence.
As to the antiquity of the term "Ruthenian" see
http://www.wu-wien.ac.at/groups/ukraine_hp/artifacts.html
and a small note:
I don't say things like "so-and-so has explained to you very clearly"
and it would be nice if you didn't either.
As to what language the supposed "urfolk" (not my term) spoke, I
haven't the faintest. Nobody has asked that question of the heap of
terms earlier accused of being related in the forum, the dnn- sea
people, the Dan tribe, the people of the *d-n- rivers. Adding the
Danes to this heap neither increases or decreases the complexity of
that question, which hasn't been asked until now.
Besides, if they were a trading people, busy with trading among
peoples doing other things, they could easily have switched languages
in the interest of trade. Examples of that have been seen both before
and later.
As for linguistic evidence, this model places a (by then) Germanic-
speaking people close to a Baltic-Finnic speaking one at the right
time (approx.) for the contested Germanic-Finnic loans.
Torsten