[tied] Re: Germanic Scythians?

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

> At 5:57:18 AM on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, tgpedersen
> wrote:
>
> > --- 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:
>
> >>>>>> * 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> No, Torsten. That is the whole point. You're the one
> making unusual claims.

I get it. The claim that 'Hunibald' is a forgery is not 'unusual', so
you don't have to substantiate that claim.

> While it would be nice to know how he came up with the name,
> those who accept that his Hunibald is a forgery are under no
> obligation to come up with an explanation of what is no more
> than a curiosity. On the contrary, the onus is on those who
> offer explanations to provide adequate justification. You
> have not done so for yours; your justification amounts to
> pointing to a couple of surface resemblances and observing
> that your explanation fits into your grand scheme.

A curiosity in whose book? Now you're at it again.

> And there's still less here than meets the eye.

>It is
> certainly conceivable that Trithemius's <Wechtam> is based
> on one or another of the names/epithets that you would like
> to relate; I do not think that it's particularly likely, but
> in that it's no different from any of the other explanations
> that have occurred to me. But it really doesn't matter,
> because even if he did get the name from one of those
> sources, his having done so provides no support for
> connecting the names/epithets themselves.

But as I pointed out, if he took it from a translated Old Norse
source, he would have rendered 'Veg-tam-' as *Wegtam, not 'Wechtam',
since he would have recognized (like everyone else, apparently) 'veg-
' as a cognate of German 'Weg'. And I think it unlikely that he
should have had access to Armenian or Georgian manuscript, or, if so,
been able to read them. Thus it remains a mystery, unless we assume
there was a third, presumably German source, perhaps the one he
claimed to have borrowed?

And on top of that there remains the (you: 'superficial' ) similarity
between Georgian 'Vakhtang', Armenian 'Vahagn', Runic 'vangijo', the
Germanic tribe Vangiones (also in Britain) and the name 'Vagn'
(and 'Wayne')? Of course it won't stand of its own, it needs a lot of
more circumstantial evidence for there to have been a connection.

>If you think
> otherwise, you're welcome to try to make a real case; what
> you've offered so far is all smoke and mirrors à la Barry
> Fell.

Ah, one of those we don't talk to. Another one of your arguments.

> > And the whole problem with your postings is that you
> > always, instead of argument, refer to your own points of
> > view as common sense.
>
> The complaint is inaccurate. I have offered arguments --
> indeed, you accepted one earlier in this post -- and I have
> requested justification of unsubstantiated claims; both of
> these fall under the heading of argument. Finally, it is
> certainly not just *my* notion of (linguistic) common sense
> according to which you place undue reliance on superficial
> resemblances.

I am happy to learn that you confer with other linguists before
pronouncing what is superficial and what is not.

> You can hardly fail to be aware that your
> views are somewhat idiosyncratic.

But of course they are. That's the whole point. Otherwise they would
be a restatement of what everybody assumes to be true.

>

Torsten