From: lsroute66@...
Message: 10349
Date: 2001-10-17
--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
<<But if the root in question exists in Germanic (*gHeud- gives e.g.
German giessen) and explains the attested Germanic forms, (all based
on *gut- < *gHud-), why propose a loan from Greek in the first
place?>>
A. Because, based on how names were often given in those times, it
might be true, though less convenient.
B. Because the word Goth appears only in Greek and Latin and never in
ancient German.
C. Because it has been given so little consideration, even though we
have no direct evidence that the Goths even called themselves Goths -
a distinct possibility based on the patterns of ancient name-giving -
without their writings we might assume Greeks called themselves
Greeks.
D. Because of current popular theories like those of Vennemann(sp?),
in which Goth is translated as something like "pouring semen" - a
piece of modern ethno-mythology that matches nothing in history.
E. Because it opens up the possibility that Goths was a third party
name that acquired its many variations not through internal genetic
development, reflecting a cross-lingual rather than an insulated
Germanic meaning (e.g., giessen, Chk, guth, Uk, hut)
<<Some of the Greek words you quote are related to <kHeo:>, but most
aren't, and are just "phonetically similar",... so what's the purpose
of the whole exercise?>>
Relatedness would have little to do with this. These would be
borrowed words, so "phonetical similarity" has everything to do with
it. This is the illusion that <*gut-> and <*gaut-> may be creating.
They may not have ever existed as the actual name of the Goths.
Regards, Steve Lo