Re: [tied] Dirmar

> --- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > This is circular, isn't it, as far as <Dirmar> is
> concerned,
>
> *****GK: Circular in what sense? I don't understand
> the point.*****
>
> (PG)Because the original question was why Dirmar

should

> be analysed as Dir-mar.

****GK: Specifically the question was: (PG)"I've never
heard of <-mar> as an Iranian ethnonymic

> suffix.
> Any examples?"==== So I looked up M.H. and lo and

behold he gives us "Itimar", which three pretty fair
linguists, viz., himself, Tomaschek, and Markwart
accept in that sense.*****


(PG)A convincing argument would

> require _independent_ evidence for *-mar, rather
> than Dirmar itself. That was what I asked for.

*****GK: I guess you'll have to look up Tomaschek and
Markwart for that. Whatever they came up with seemed
to satisfy M.H..*****

(PG)The

> only other example is apparently Itimar

****GK: So far as we know. I have another question
below after all this.*****

- --(PG) an

> isolated,

*****GK: It's in Priskos as "Itimaroi". His
information is usually given high marks by
historians.****

(PG)otherwise unattested and therefore dubious

> form,

*****GK: Sometimes one good witness is all it takes,
although more would be helpful of course. If
historians were to toss out all single "attestations"
as dubious quite a lot of good stuff would go out the
window, unnecessarily in my opinion, so I'm not
prepared to do that along with most others.*****

(PG)not necessarily Iranian even if genuine.

*****GK: My favourite mediaeval political philosopher
distinguishes three levels of proof: demonstrative,
probable, and apparent. Many times the last is the
best that we can do. If something is plausible, fits
the general context, has explanatory value, and cannot
be demonstrated to be false, then it becomes a
building brick. Very little is eternal here, but for
the time being "apparent" proofs seem adequate.*****

(PG)The

> analysis of either ethnonym is incomplete anyway,
> since we are not told how to interpret Dir- and Iti-
> in Iranian or any other terms.

*****GK: Actually Markwart tries to interpret "Iti" as
a reference to the Volga. But even I find this
unsatisfactory. Doesn't matter much though. There are
plenty of terms around components of which remain
elusive. like "AUKHATA" "CATIARI" and such (:=))*****

>
> *****GK: Maenchen-Helfen
> never "cites in vain" as far as I can detect, and
> never hides criticism of any opinion.*****
>
> (PG)Well, it seems as if he might have been off his
> guard in this particular case.

*****GK: And then again, maybe he wasn't.*****

>
> *****GK: For what it's worth he presents "mar" as
> "men" (plural). His work was
> published posthumously (he died in 1969). What this
> tells me is that at least until that time no one had
> refuted this particular contention. And since you're
> pretty up to date and don't really know of anything
> anyone might have written to the contrary then I see
> no reason at this time to reject M.H. and his
> sources.*****
>
> (PG)Iranian words for "men" or "people" are quite

simply

> different, so there's little to discuss here.

*****GK: That's what you say. But Maenchen-Helfen,
Tomaschek and Markwart say differently.*****

(PG)Few

> experts find it worth their while to contend
> outdated ideas.

*****GK: Seems to me that experts spend a lot of time
and effort "proving" that idea X or Y is "outdated".
It's part of the wonderful academic life about which
Henry Kissinger once quipped that its debates are
vicious "because the stakes are so small".*****



(PG)To defend M-H's interpretation it

> would be enough to show that *mar- 'men' exists
> somewhere in Old or Middle Iranian. Why plural, BTW?
> Iranian languages have plural inflections and
> collective suffixes, but none is visible here. "Men"
> is <martiya:> in Old Persian, <mas^ya:> in Avestan,
> etc. The noun <mard-> 'man' would be OK as the
> second element of compound personal names (it's in
> fact common in Persian names), but "ethnonymic
> <-mar>" without the final stop makes no sense.

*****GK: If anyone has the opportunity to consult the
contexts of Tomaschek and Markwart perhaps they can
let us know if your questions get answers there.*****

>
> Piotr

*****GK: And now my extraneous question. What do you
make of "Rosomoni" in the text of Jordanes where he
discusses the events in Hermanaric's state just prior
to the Hun invasions? I've seen it interpreted as, if
I remember correctly, "Roso-monji" (Iranic, perhaps
Ossetian?) = "Ros-men". Would that make sense? If not
what other interpretation might be useful?******

>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1