From: tgpedersen
Message: 19732
Date: 2003-03-12
> At 4:29:35 AM on Tuesday, March 11, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:'vígtamr' and 'valtamr' might be loans through different
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> According to Hunibald, the people that came from the east
> >>> changed their language during their sojourn in Germania.
> >>> His work is generally considered a forgery, but he has an
> >>> interesting detail
>
> >> > http://www.northvegr.org/lore/grimmst/013_16.html
>
> >>> He uses the name Wechtam of a holy minstrel and singer, a
> >>> name reminiscent of the Old Norse name Vegtam-r, Odin uses
> >>> of him self,
>
> >> Note that the name has an obvious meaning in ON and is one
> >> of several similar constructions (<vígtamr>, <gangtamr>,
> >> <valtamr>). It would appear unlikely to be a borrowing.
>
> > Folk etymology.
>
> That would be far more convincing if the epithet weren't one
> of a matched set.
>A word can't be loaned if there exists a plausible etymology for it
> >>> but also of Vakhtang, the Georgian (I think it was)
> >>> version of Iranian V&r&Tragna. Georgia is in the
> >>> vicinity of the old kingdom of Vani, where I suggested
> >>> before that the Vanir came from. Now how would a forger
> >>> come up with a coincidence like that?
>
> >> What coincidence, exactly? You've pointed to superficial
> >> resemblances between <Wechtam> and <Vegtamr> on the one
> >> hand and between <Vakhtang> and <Vegtamr> on the other.
> >> In order to claim that both are significant, you must
> >> further claim that there is a connection between
> >> <Vegtamr> and <Vakhtang>. This appears most unlikely, to
> >> put it mildly.
>
> > And that's what I'm claiming.
>
> And added subsequently:
>
> > Just for completeness' sake: Armenian Vahagn (also <
> > V&r&Tragna), the Germanic tribe Vangiones, the runic
> > inscription 'vangijo' on weapons finds in Denmark and the
> > Danish given name Vagn.
>
> There seems to be no good reason not to see it as identical
> with the appellative 'wagon, sledge'.
> > Add a (South?) Caucasian or Armenian contingent (= Vanir)Obviously all the words on the Aesir side of the list are odd. They
> > to the Iranian elite (= Aesir) of the Tungri.
>
> I see. Clearly we have very different ideas of what
> constitutes evidence.
>
> * Your assertions about <sól> and <sunna> are questionable
> to begin with and are cherry-picked out of a much longer
> list that doesn't appear to support your claim.
>
> * In the case of <Vegtamr> (and probably <Vagn> as well)'Evidentiary weight'? That's the kind of language I use when I run
> you appeal to folk etymology when there is a natural and
> reasonably convincing etymology, and you place great
> evidentiary weight on superficial resemblances.
>The pre-Grimm roots of "Thuringian" would be *turing-. The root
> * You do the same when you say that 'the names [<Tungri>
> and <Thuringian>] are alike'.
>
> * In the case of the Tungri and Thuringians you go on toI suggested, not concluded. I suppose you have a better idea?
> say that this superficial similarity, combined with the
> simultaneous appearance of these peoples in the
> historical record, is sufficient reason for you to
> conclude that they are the same people.
>Where does the "known forgery" get 'Wectam' from then?
> * You treat a known forgery (Trithemius's Hunibald) as a
> serious source
> and appeal to a known pseudo-scholarI never appeal to authorities.
> (Heyerdahl) as if he were a serious authority.
>I might waste people on cybalists' time by declaring what I am afraid
> This looks very much like an attempt to justify an idée
> fixe, and I'm afraid that I'm strongly reminded of some of
> the odder folks in sci.lang and sci.archaeology.
>At anySuit yourself.
> rate it does not appear that productive discussion is
> possible.