[tied] Re: Germanic Scythians?

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

> 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.

Yes, I'll concede that.

> > <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.

If you are using 'superficial' in its usual sense, you are merely
restating your belief that there is nothing to the etymology I
propose, and then parading your own statement as 'fact'. I give up.

> > There is no need for you to be insolent.
>
> Impatient. Your question implies an ignorance that, if not
> feigned, is certainly most surprising.

Ignorance of what? Of the concept of 'superficial resemblance'? Or of
the principles of its application (other than your whims)?

>
> >>>> * 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.

You would make a good lawyer. And you still didn't answer the
question. "I don't know" is not a legitimate answer in this
situation. I wasn't asking you for information on a fact. If you
believe 'Hunibald' is a forgery, you will have to come up with an
explanation of where he got 'Wechtam' from.

And the whole problem with your postings is that you always, instead
of argument, refer to your own points of view as common sense. I must
say I admire your self confidence but conviction and truth are
different concepts. There is no way one can discuss with someone who
thinks who is also the sole arbiter of what constitutes the "right"
opinion. It's like playing football with a referee who's the twelth
member of the other team.

Torsten