--- 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
[snip]
>
> > 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.
>
This is what Sergei said:
--- In
cybalist@egroups.com, "Torsten Pedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:
> 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?
>
If you meant a wide strip from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, the
answer is positive. But my objection concerned the equation
Ruthenians=Ukranians, not the the geographical setting of Saxo's
Ruthenians. Honestly, I can't check with his text and I'm not sure
what he meant exactly.
Sergei.
Torsten:
I fail to see he has explained to me "very clearly the origin and
meaning of the term". He did have (in an earlier mail) a possible
origin of the the word but not a definitive one. Concluding from
this, as you do, that the term is "completely meaningless" when used
of fourth century Slavs, is, shall we say, jumping to conclusions. I
suggest you take up the matter with mr Grammaticus himself.
It has nothing to with "hurt feelings", but with... allow me a quote:
"It is not enough to be right, you have to be polite, too"
Torsten
> Piotr