Re: [tied] Vanir

--- Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...>
> wrote:
>
> > ****GK: You've misunderstood me Sergejus. I don't
> > doubt this. I asked specifically about attested
> > borrowings from Baltic into Gothic.*****
>
> (ST)Let me ask why are you interested in this

specific

> direction (X ->
> Gothic)? What was the point of your question?

*****GK: Since we were discussing a Latin text in
Jordanes which went back to some Gothic source, the
obvious assumption would be that this source used
Gothic words. When you suggested a Baltic explanation
for "INAUXIS" I was curious as to whether other Baltic
terms (assuming this one was) had been borrowed into
Gothic.******

> > *****GK: [re Slavic>Gothic] Until yesterday I was

actually only aware

> of
> > one: the Gothic word for "dance" or "to dance" (I
> > don't have my notes at hand so forgive me the
> > barbarism: I remember it as "PLINSJANS" or
> something
> > close to this.) As I surfed through the messages
> on a
> > Gothic list I encountered a claim that there were
> > actually two more borrowings from Slavic (I think
> one
> > pertains to "cloth") but didn't jot them down
> since I
> > intended to return to this archive soon.*****
>
> (ST)But Slavic *ple,sati is itself problematic as to

its

> etymology, and
> Slavic > Gothic plinsjan can't be considered proven.

*****GK: Well it's not up to me to decide this. I can
only go by what seems to be the established current
consensus.*****

> (ST)By the way,
> there's indeed a number of putative Slavic loans
> from Gothic. Again,
> why this only direction?

*****GK: See above.*****

>
>
> > *****GK: I think that we should try to focus on
> what
> > might have been the situation in the mid 4th c.
> AD.
>
> (ST)Why? Balto-Gothic contacts could have started

much

> earlier (Klaipe.da
> - Gotland is a normal yachtsmen route :) ), they
> could also meet the
> Balts soon after their famous landing at the
> Vistula's mouth.
>
> >(GK) The Proto-Balts were both gaining and losing
> ground at
> > that time. In the south they were retreating
> before
> > the Slavic expansion. But in the north they had
> just
> > made some gains at the expense of the Ugro-Finns,
> > especially the Galindian push into the Moscow
> river
> > basin.
>
> (ST)I have second-hand information that some works

have

> appeared recently
> proving the Galindians were _not_ the first Balts in
> the region -
> they seem to assimilate some other Baltic
> predecessors.

*****(GK) I can't comment on this without knowledge of
specifics. My current assumption would be that the
archaeologically verified Proto-Baltic push which
replaced the Dyakovo culture in some areas of the
Volga-Oka mesopotamia could be associated with the
Galindians. But if there was another push subsequently
to that of the 2nd-6th cs. and that second push was in
fact that of the Galindians that's fine too. It
doesn't affect the reality of the Ugro-Finnish
territorial losses.******

>
> > At any rate the various Proto-Baltic groups
> > still possessed much more territory in the time of
> > Hermanaric than do the Balts of today. One thing
> I've
> > always been curious about. Do the Balts of today
> have
> > a special (Baltic) name for the Dnipro/Dnepr?*****
>
> >
>
>(ST) No, though there is a number of speculations,

like

> those that
> Ne~munas is the Dnieper-name re-applied. Curiously
> enough, Duno~jus
> is The River in Lithuanian folklore.
>
> Sergei
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com