Re: [tied] Re: Germanic Scythians?

At 5:24:53 AM on Thursday, March 13, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:

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

>> 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,

Nothing? Of course they have.

> phonetically almost everything, and they are not
> descriptions of any of Odin's known properties (Odin the
> Roadmaster?).

I note <fráríðr>, <gangleri>, <gangráðr>, and probably
<farmögnuðr>, among an extraordinary variety of descriptive
epithets, most in a context in which they appear to be
deliberately heaped up.

> <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.

It seems rather odd to make this claim immediately after
mentioning <gangtamr>.

>>>> * 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.

Still true; see below.

>>>> * 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.

I'm not. As far as I'm concerned, I made a very
straightforward statement. If you don't understand it, I'll
try to reword it. If you do, your objection is empty.

>>> 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.

And I was telling you that I was using it in its usual
sense. One cannot venture very far into historical
linguistics without encountering the notion of superficial
resemblance.

> There is no need for you to be insolent.

Impatient. Your question implies an ignorance that, if not
feigned, is certainly most surprising.

>>>> * 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.

(1) I have no idea whom you think you're quoting before the
the question mark.

(2) I did answer the question: 'I don't know' is a
legitimate answer. Indeed, I commend it to your serious
consideration.

(3) You're not in a position to complain about others'
failures to answer questions; see above.

Brian