From: tgpedersen
Message: 20192
Date: 2003-03-22
> At 10:38:23 AM on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:"If it ain't broke..." etc. In other words, if we have a "perfectly
>
> >>>>>>>> * 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