Re: [tied] Re: Interpreting some Scythian names

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: george knysh
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 11:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Interpreting some Scythian
> names
>
>
> *****GK: There are in fact many such figurative
> extensions, incl. "slender body", "swordblade",
> "lightning", "woman" and not just "thong of a whip"
> but "whip" itself. Presumably this indicates that we
> need not only refer to the principal meanings when
> wondering about a term.*****
>
> PG: Sure, but you must realise that the more

semantic

> leeway, the weaker etymology you get. You can
> combine the various meanings in any which way,
> getting "superior sword-blades", "foreign women",
> "distant lightnings" or what not. With a little
> imagination you could even find a historical
> justification for any single one of them.

*****GK: "Superior sword-blades"? That sounds more
like the akinaks (the Scythian word for "sword")
Scythian "slaves" would be making for them at the
unnamed "Kamians'ke horodyshche" (but it did not yet
exist in Herodotus' time). Nope won't work. There's no
archaeological ewvidence that the Royals' akinaks were
any better than those of the Aukhata. "Foreign women"?
Hmmm... Maybe some jealous Aukhata might come up with
that one re their suzerains. But not out loud (:=)).
"Distant lightnings"? I think their presence was too
close for comfort to the others. So these
possibilities fall down pretty fast. You can't
"imagine" away the historical context. One's
imagination isn't "para" enough for that.*****

>
>
>

PG: <-aspie-> < *ek^w-yo- (=

> Skt. as'vya-) looks really tempting.

*****GK: You'll note that I was (and still am) very
tempted by that one.*****

>
>>PG: Roots are never "good enough" without

morphological

> analysis.

*****GK: Sorry Piotr. I should have said "word" rather
than use "root" which would have other connotations
for you. But then I am a nominalist rather than a
realist. Voca sunt ad placitum. But I'll try to be
more careful in the future.*****

PG: "Root equations" are what amateurs are

> fond of, since detailed analysis is too difficult
> and too boring :). But <kHa:ta-> is NOT a root. It
> is <kHa:-> (the preconsonantal zero grade
> corresponding to <kHani->, where <a:> derives from a
> sylabic nasal plus a laryngeal) with the participle
> ending <-ta->. This is Indo-European, not just
> Saskrit grammar (<-ta-> = *-to-); you simply can't
> escape it. I am afraid that any etymology invented
> to prove a point but ignoring formal difficultes
> qualifies as "folk". If it isn't quite naive, let's
> call it "scholarly folk etymology".

***GK: All that might well be so. But the fact remains
that however you technically dearticulate "AUKHATA"
you still come up with terms intimating a sense that
is identical with the names retained for us by
Herodotus and Pliny (plus Pliny's sources). This
should be a cue for linguists to work harder and see
if they can discover some way to overcome "formal
difficulties". Even taking into account that good old
Herodotus may have occasionally garbled things. After
all they wouldn't want to be historical amateurs would
they?(:=))*****

>
> PG: As a matter of fact, I do have a few suggestions
> concerning some of these Scythian names, but I'd
> like to do a little research before I post them.

****GK: Looking forward to it with huge
anticipation.*****

>
> Piotr
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com