From: george knysh
Message: 20619
Date: 2003-04-01
> George,meaningless in
>
> For easier reference, I'll split the thread and deal
> exclusively with
> Ardagast before addressing the other questions.
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> > GK: ARDAGAST is the recorded name of a 6th c.
> "Sklav" leader.
> It is not certain that this is a Slavic name (B.
> Struminski, "Were
> the Antes Eastern Slavs?" , HARVARD UKRAINIAN
> STUDIES, III-IV (1979-
> 1980), pt.2, pp. 786ff. argued that it wasn't, and
> suggested a Gothic
> provenance.)
>
> (Piotr)But as far as I'm aware, <arda-> is
> Gothic terms,******GK: What do you think of Abdullah's non-Gothic,
> while for Slavic we reconstruct *�rdU [�rdU] as the*****GK: As to the latter. I criticized Struminski for
> protoform or
> <radU>, a well-known adjective and onomastic
> element. The name
> <radogastU> is excellently attested, as are other
> Slavic names with
> <rado-> or <-radU>. The Slavic etymology is
> therefore entirely
> unproblematic, while the Germanic ones leaves us
> with an unsolved
> problem (plus the question why the "Sklavs" should
> have been Gothic).
>__________________________________________________
> > Also: if the original ARDAGAST is a garbled
> RADAGAST,
>
> The advantage of the Slavic explanation is that it
> needn't be garbled
> at all. *[�rdagastU] is precisely how we reconstruct
> the old
> pronunciation of <radogostU>, a name that does not
> have to be
> invented.
>
> > it is comparable to RADAGAISUS (+405). And the
> -GAST ending seems
> quite Germanic ( cf. ARBOGAST).
>
> Slavic onomastic *-gostU is just as good as Germanic
> *-gastiz. Both
> are independently inherited reflexes of the same IE
> word. As I have
> said before, *[a] in *[-gastU] is just a way of
> transcribing the
> early Slavic pronunciation of *o.
>
> Piotr
>
>