Re: Rut(h)eni

--- In cybalist@..., "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
> > Hm. Let me reconstruct this conversation.
> > 1. You suggest Celtic influence in *wal-/*gal- in Polish and
> Russian
> > place names.
> > 2. I suggest the root might have to with -gal- in Lat-gal- and
> > (sorry!) Zem-gal-.
>
> > 3. You go absolutely ballistic and claim that even excentrics
> > wouldn't Celtic connections for *gal-.
>
> May be that's because of my poor English that I can't explain

myself

> adequately enough, thus I'll try to use the standard technique

that's

> usually applied in such cases - I'll change the wording. My

personal

> practice shows two or three iterations will usually do.
> (Another guess would be that you just didn't read what I wrote
> carefully enough).
>
> My version of what has happened is:
> You offered a new etymology for -gal- in *lat(-gal)- and *z'e(i)m-

gal-

> .
>
> I tried to draw your attention to the fact that no one of the
> linguists which analyzed the issue has supposed that this -gal-
> reflexes Celtic influence (to exclude any ipse dixit impression, I
> added a brief of their opinions), and that even Schmid with his a

bit

> eccentric hypotheses suppose *genetic* relationship of Baltic *-gal-

> and some Celtic forms (see my posting), he doesn't suppose that

this -

> gal- indicate a Celtic origin of the *lat(-gal)- and z'e(i)m-gal-.
>
> I noted explicitly that this is not a brief of *my opinions* -
> ballistic or not, I haven't claimed anything whatsoever yet - I

just

> tried to prepare the ground for a discussion. I didn't say "gal- in
> the Western Ukrain is OK because that's my suggestion, -gal- in the
> Baltic languages is wrong because that's Torsten's suggestion". If
> you please, I'll give *my* opinion in the next posting after we

have

> straightened a misunderstanding.
>
> I also guessed that it would be clear from my posting that -gal- is
> optional in *lat(-gal)- and that an etymological chain most

probably

> might have been *lat-:*let- 'tribonym' > *lat-gal- 'toponym
> ("Latmark")' > 'alternative tribonym'. This is not my opinion on

the

> origin of -gal- yet, just a note.
>
> By placing a paragraph on *gal-ind- in my posting I tried to
> carefully remind you that you didn't commented this tribonym

(despite

> my polite invitation to).
>
> > You are a very strange man, Sergei.
>
> This is offtopic, Torsten.
>
> > On the other hand I recall having reacted the same way when Piotr
> > suggested the Danes were not autochthonous. But as you can see, I
> now
> > live happily with the idea of Danes roaming all over Europe and
> Asia
> > (and Africa?). Perhaps an example to emulate?
>
> I don't understand. Your idea probably is that I'm x-centric (x for
> some ethnos?) and that x-centrism makes me unhappy when I hear that
> some Balts are of the Celtic origin? I'm anxious to know if I

guessed

> right. Your example is impressive, but is it relevant?
>
> >
> > As I recall having read (was it in a Lonely Planet guide?)

Latvian

> > replaced Livonian (Baltic Finnic) in large ares of Latvia in
> > historical times.
> >
> But you talked about *z'e(i)m-gal-, not *lat-gal-. Could you

clarify

> your point of view: what was the role of the Celts, the Balto-

Finnic

> tribes and the Balts? Who replaced who in ethnical terms? In
> linguistic terms? I don't know what this Lonely Planet guide is, I
> used mostly P. Dini's synopsys (issued last year, 600 pages of

rather

> meaty text) of the Baltic studies to prepare the brief.
>
> The last note, before you start shooting :) . I gathered some
> interesting facts about Dano-Baltic contacts, especially those
> between the Danes and the Curonians (which make me attend to what
> Saxo says about the Danes and the *Curetes). Please let me know in
> case you're interested.
>
> Sergei

Bang! Pow!
Sorry, you're right, I was wrong, and I apologize for being rude. My
paranoid mind blew up from being overwhelmed by so many respectable
linguists disagreeing with me. It seemed to me that you first were
quite happy to let the Poles and Russians to be Celts, and then
suddenly appalled when I suggested that the Balts might be too.
And I thought that was strange. But now I see you didn't actually put
that view forward as your own. Oops. Bad. Sorry again. Should have
put a least a couple of smileys:):).
"Lonely Planet" is a series of travel guides, usually quite good. I
am not sure I read it there, but I am sure I read somewhere that
Livonian was spoken originally in large parts of Latvia, also where
Riga now is.
I heard that Lithuanians (jokingly) say that Latvian is Estonians
trying to speak Lithuanian? (stress on first syllable)
Isn't Latgale the province to the east, where Daugavpils is? I would
expect possible Finno-Ugric remains to be in the north of the country
(Estonian dialects).
I would love to clarify my view, but it was just a loose thought,
that came to me while answering your posting: *gal- is Celtic in
Poland and Russia, so is *gal- also Celtic in Latgal- and Zeimgal-? I
don't really have a point of view yet. And all your alternatives seem
worth considering.
Scandinavian researchers agree (I think) that some Finno-Ugric
culture and language stretched much further to the south earlier, all
the way to Denmark (stories of Finn the troll trying to stop churches
being built). A root *sem- (as occurs in Saami and Suomi (Finland))
might indicate that too (Samland?).
Yes, I'd love to hear about Danish-Curonian contacts! I read a book
once about Latvian dialects, since I was interested in whether
all "sea-contact" languages are creolized. I think the book said
Curonian had lost all person- and number- suffixes in the verb, as in
the Scandinavian languages. Is this true?

Torsten