Re: Germanic Scythians?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
wrote:

> At 5:11:27 AM on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, tgpedersen 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.
>
> > 'vígtamr' and 'valtamr' might be loans through different
> > languages. 'gangtamr' would be analogy.
>
> Special pleading. It seems especially pointless to suggest
> that <vígtamr> might be a loan, the elements being so
> obviously native stock. (I do hope that you're not
> suggesting that <vígtamr>, <valtamr>, and <vegtamr> are
> loans through different languages of one and the same word;
> that would be truly absurd.)

Obviously what's obvious to you isn't obvious to me. And that's what
I'm suggesting. Alternatively, consider this: if the word that's been
folk-etymologized was <waxtam> or similar, <vígtam-> and <vegtam->
would be good folk etymologies. Semantically, they have nothing in
common, phonetically almost everything, and they are not descriptions
of any of Odin's known properties (Odin the Roadmaster?). <valtam->
matches Odin's profession better, but it's the one that's the
furthest removed from the original <waxtam>. Even <gangtam-> might be
a folk-etymological reinterpretation of that original. And now you
have the problem of explaining why all the known compunds of *-tam-
are phonetically, but not otherwise similar.

>
> >>>>> 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'.

Danish va > vo, as in 'vogn' "waggon". But not in the name Vagn.
Obviously they are not the same word.

> > A word can't be loaned if there exists a plausible
> > etymology for it within the language? How about this:
> > (obsolete) Low Copenhagen 'undervisitet' "university" (cf
> > 'undervise' "teach"). By your definition it is improper to
> > suggest Latin loan here.
>
> No, because <undervisitet> doesn't exist in a vacuum; the
> evidence is in fact perfectly clear in this case.

And what exactly does that mean? That <vegtamr> etc contrariwise do
exist in a vacuum?

>
> >>> Add a (South?) Caucasian or Armenian contingent (=
> >>> Vanir) 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.
>
> > Obviously all the words on the Aesir side of the list are
> > odd.
>
> You have yet to offer any evidence for this claim.
>
> >> * In the case of <Vegtamr> (and probably <Vagn> as well)
> >> you appeal to folk etymology when there is a natural and
> >> reasonably convincing etymology, and you place great
> >> evidentiary weight on superficial resemblances.
>
> > 'Evidentiary weight'? That's the kind of language I use
> > when I run out of arguments.
>
> <shrug> Sounds like perfectly normal English to me. If you
> didn't understand it, I'll be happy to paraphrase.

Don't try the 'redefining the question' stunt on me.

>
> > And 'superficial' by what criterion?
>
> If you don't have access to the OED, try <www.m-w.com> or
> <www.bartleby.com/61/>; I'm sure that both have adequate
> definitions of 'superficial'.

I was asking in what sense you were using the word here. There is no
need for you to be insolent.

>
> >> * You do the same when you say that 'the names [<Tungri>
> >> and <Thuringian>] are alike'.
>
> > The pre-Grimm roots of "Thuringian" would be *turing-.
>
> No.

Yes. Of 'þuring-'.

>
> >> * In the case of the Tungri and Thuringians you go on to
> >> 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.
>
> > I suggested, not concluded. I suppose you have a better
> > idea?
>
> When asked why you thought that the Tungri and Thuringians
> were the same people, you mentioned the similarity in the
> names and the simultaneous appearance in the historical
> record of the people bearing them and said (from memory)
> 'That's good enough for me'. If it's merely a suggestion,
> it is nevertheless one of which you appear to be convinced,
> and thus a conclusion that you have in fact drawn.
>
> >> * You treat a known forgery (Trithemius's Hunibald) as a
> >> serious source
>
> > Where does the "known forgery" get 'Wectam' from then?
>
> I have no idea; it's not out of the question that Trithemius
> simply invented it, you know. But mind-reading is beyond
> me, especially 400 years after the fact.

"I don't know what you're talking about"? I note that you didn't
answer the question.

>
> Coincidences are a dime a dozen. Consider Hawaiian <aeto>
> 'eagle' and Greek <aetós> 'eagle'.
>

And therefore what decide to a coincidence is a coincidence?

> Brian

Torsten