Re: [tied] Re: Tor/Tur/(e)

From: Joao
Message: 29615
Date: 2004-01-15

Snorri wanted to link Scandinavians to Troy and Thrace. Why? Was he trying to follow Virgilius's model in Aeneida? I know there was a fictional genealogy - in some medieval French tale - about a Francus that was son or grandson of Priamos. Camoes in Lusiadas also mentions a "Lusus", descendant of Dionysos, founder of Lusitania. All these authors were following a path to link Epic Europe to Greco-Roman legends, since he couldnt link then to the Bible, like Irish did.
 
Joao SL
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Tor/Tur/(e)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@......> wrote:
>  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote:
>
> >>>>> [...] As for what *tur- in Turicum is, none of us can say.
> >>>>
> >>>>  Well, a 100% safety would be excessive, but since:
> >>>> a) the city was founded by Romans in 15 B.C. and called
> >>>> "Turicum";
> >>>> b) first inhabitants were Celtic lake dwellers;
> >>>> c) "dur" means `water` in Celtic;
> >>>
> >>> Thus, in the local Celtic, /d/ > /t/, but no change in /k/?
> >>
> >>  "-icum" is the Latin ending. Whick /k/ are you referring at?
> >
> > <-acum> is a Celtic ending. It was used also in new towns founded
> > by the Romans, even with Latin roots, eg. *Juliacum > Jülich. I
> > assumed <-icum> was a parallel Celtic suffix.
>
>  It was more or less something like that (up to some minor
> phonetical changes from Celtic to Latin). So why would that /k/
> (from the suffix) change from Celtic to Latin to make you wonder
> about?!

I don't understand what you mean.

>
> >>>> d) there were no "Thor"-inspirational sources in immediate
> >>>> vicinity of the city at Roman establishment: Alamans came
> >>>> centuries later;
> >>>
> >>> Circular.
> >>
> >>  No. That's what history says.
> >
> > Your argument is circular, not your recounting of historical
facts.
>
>  Of course not. Read again. The only people involved in Turicum
> early history were Celts and Romans. None of them had a god called
> "Thor". _Maybe_ they had some knowledge about existence of a
> Germanic god called "Thor", but that's not an inspirational source
> for placenames. Celts were calling their equivalent god with a
> different name, so -- at most -- they could have used their own
> name for geographical fun.
> 

If the a people calls themselves "the people of Tur" (Hermun-duri/Tur-
ingi) there must have been something or somebody called Tur. I was
wondering if it was a divine name and if that was behind Snorri's
mention of Thor's stay in Thrace. If that hypothesis is true, then
those peoples might have had a god named "Tur". To which you counter
that it isn't so because it isn't so.


> >> If you think local Celtic population were responsible for
> >> propagating the cult of a foreign god just for making a nice
> >> placename, you have to bring out some more stuff than a vague
> >> sound similarity.
> >
> > Why foreign? Snorri has Thor move about also outside Thrace.
>
>  That doesn't make it neither Celtic nor adopted. It is still a
> foreign name one might be aware of, or not.
> 
> >>>>> I'm just observing that the element *tur- is all over the
place.
>  [...]
> >>  Well, according to your fitness criteria ("element *tur-" --
BTW,
> >> there is no need of *), I can make similar cases for placenames
> >> containing say initial "element tar-" or "element ter-". A short
> >> string of characters as "tVr-" has little meaning in itself (if
> >> any meaning is to be considered). See also above.
> >
> > The reason I concentrated on *tur-/*tor- is the Hermun-
duri/Turingi
> > name. Those ethnonyms state that they were a 'tur' people,
whatever
> > that means. I think the Shahname talks of one part of the world
> > taken by the Turan people?
>
>  The rub ain't there. Too short and very common strings of phonemes
> are by far the worst misleading departure point for any reasoning
> unsupported by other facts. In principle, one could advocate that
> the sequence "tur-" from "Turicum" might come from any "tor/tur"
> word used around year 15 B.C.. Since people known to have something
> to do with foundation of the city are Celts & Romans, assuming a
> different origin for its name without any clue about meanings is
> an unsupported speculation.
>

Kuhn's "other Old Europe" is characterised by hydronyms in *ar-/*ur-,
plus prefixed consonants. Tell him about your concerns.

 
> >> [...] Were you despotical ruler of (say) Germany, would you
> >> call a new city "Allahstadt"? :-)
> >> 
> > No, "Kreuzberg" is OK. No reason to rock the boat.
>
>  "Kreuzberg" is perfectly OK, especially taking into account the
> simple fact that Germans are mainly Christian people, so "Kreuz"
> is a symbol of their own religion. Unlike "Allah" or "Buddha".

The inhabitants of Kreuzberg, a part of Berlin, aren't.

Torsten



Yahoo! Groups Links