Re: Language - Area - Routes

--- In cybalist@..., S.Tarasovas@... wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
> > 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
>
> You (I hope accidently) just didn't cite the postings which

contained

> the proper explanation. Again,
>
> all the mentions of Rutheni(Lat.)/hoi' Rho:~s(Greek) in contexts
> where their ethnicity is clearly identified (for instance,
> anthroponymy and toponymy provided) indicate their Germanic origin,
> their language probably being close to Old Norse. If it's really
> important, I can provide you with concrete examples, but, as it

might

> be time-consuming (I wouldn't like to to quote from memory), I need
> your indication of such importance.
>
> In turn, would YOU provide us with any evidence the term Rutheni
> could be applied to Slavs before X c.?
>
> Sergei

Yes, you're right. But the point I (or rather "Hemming") was trying
to make hinges not on the ethnicity of the Ruthenians but on their
geographical position. Something like "If the Ruthenians were in the
Ukraine and the Danes were fighting them, then the Danes were in the
Ukraine".

Torsten