Re: [tied] Re: Germanic Scythians?

At 10:38:23 AM on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, tgpedersen 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',

That is correct: it is not unusual. It is, so far as I
know, the accepted position. As such it could conceivably
still be wrong, of course, but the burden of demonstration
at this point is on those who wish to deny it. Similarly, I
do not have to justify a claim that men landed on the moon
in 1969, even though there are quite a few people who don't
believe it.

> so you don't have to substantiate that claim.

That is correct.

>> 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'.

You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. You have no idea
how the name might have appeared in a *translated* source.
Note that in Icelandic <vegtam-> the <g> is pronounced [x],
not [g] or even [G] (voiced velar fricative). And there is
also an ON <vegr> 'honor, distinction', so <Weg> isn't even
the only possibility.

> 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?

You were right the first time: it remains a mystery.

> And on top of that there remains the (you: 'superficial' )
> similarity between Georgian 'Vakhtang', Armenian 'Vahagn',
> Runic 'vangijo',

Presumably you mean <wagnijo>.

> 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.

<Vagn> is adequately explained from <vagn> 'wagon'. The
English forename <Wayne> is irrelevant, being a transferred
use of the identical surname. (This phenomenon first
becomes noticeable in the 16th century, when, for instance,
the surname <Douglas> came to be used as both a masculine
and a feminine forename, and later became quite common.)
The surname is metonymic for such occupations as wainwright
and wagoner and derives directly from Middle English <wain>
'wagon'.

It is certainly possible that runic <wagnijo> is related to
the ethnonym <Vangiones>, especially if it's an n-stem
masculine personal name; it's even possible that both are
related to <vagn>. Alternatively, the ethnonym might be
akin to <vangr> 'a field'. Or, considering the shape of a
the objects in question, perhaps <wagnijo> is from Watkins'
*/wogWh-ni-/ 'a plowshare, a wedge'.

In any case there is no reason to relate this possible
cluster to <Vakhtang> and <Vahagn>, or even to <Vegtamr>.

>> 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.

Look again. I did not dismiss what you said because Barry
Fell said the same thing; indeed, so far as I know he did
not. I said that you were engaging in the same kind of
quasi-argument.

From a later post:

> From a now defunct site of mythology I learn

> (Avestan) V&reTragna = (Armenian) Vahagn = (Georgian)
> Vakhtang = (Pahlevi) Vahram = Artagnes = (Phrygian)
> Hyagnis (male in at least some sources), some of which are
> associated with Mars and Hercules (plus Vahagn is the
> ancestor of a line of high priests). So, if V&r&Tragna
> gets around this much, why not throw in the name 'Wodan'
> too?

Because it has a perfectly satisfactory Gmc. etymology.

Brian