--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: george knysh
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Interpreting some Scythian
> names
>
>
> PG: Well, well, well... Work harder? We do work
hard.
> Some way to overcome "formal difficulties"? I hope
> you aren't suggesting that we should relax our
> methodology and lower our critical standards in
> order to get preconceived results.
*****GK: Not at all. You should just remember that you
don't live in an insulated world where the only thing
that matters is your particular understanding of
currently established linguistic methodology. Or to
misconstrue the search for analogies as a statement of
verifiable patterns with respect to a known language.
And to avoid preconceived results such as the
postulation of IE advances from west to east when the
archaeological evidence backing up your linguistic
speculations is infinitely more tenuous than the
assumptions about historical and linguistic
relationships you accuse me of having made below.*****
PG:That would be
> very bad science. From the fact that the Aukhatai
> were "agricultural Scythians" it doesn't
> automatically follow that their ethnonym must mean
> "earth-diggers", "farmers", or the like.
****GK: Very little "automatically" follows in issues
of historical reconstructions. It's nearly always "the
best that we can do (or see)under the circumstances".
Absolute certainties are at a premium. In the case of
the "AUKHATA" the hypothesis looks pretty good. But
I'll be curious as to whatever alternative you can
come up with. If that looks better I'll borrow it
(with proper acknowledgement).*****
Herodotus,
> with all due respect, offers many a completely
> spurious etymology -- e.g. Arimaspoi, the allegedly
> cyclopic Scythians, from "arima" meaning 'one' and
> "spou" meaning 'eye' (or "ari" 'one' + "maspo"
> 'eye', as other auctores divide it). If I reject
> such naive guessing, does it make me a historical
> amateur?
*****GK: No. What makes you a historical amateur is
the belief that the Arimaspoi were "Scythians" (:=))).
which neither Herodotus nor any reputable historian
has ever held. The Scythians had very "poetic" (if
that is the right word perhaps "expressive" is better}
designations for many of the populations falling
within the ambit of their perspective. Actually even a
linguistic dunce like myself can see that Herodotus'
"spu" is quite appropriate (cpr. Latin SPECIO and
Sanskr. SPASATI for "to see" to observe"). And as for
"arima" let me send you up the wall again. The
Scythian language seems to have used the negative "a"
in verbal compositions (like Iranic, and I think
Sanskrit and other languages). So here I essayed
"a-rama" where "rama" (for "rima") would mean
"beloved" "spouse" or the like and "arimaspi" would
poetically construe as "they of the unmarried eye".
Again, more ingenious than provable. But not bad when
compared to "black cloacks" "man-killers" "man eaters"
"beautifully horsed" "rich in horses" et sim. Come up
with something better and I'll lap it up.*****
>
> Piotr
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com