Re: Tor/Tur/(e)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote:

>>>>> 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.

I underlined your own question "but no change in /k/?". I fail to
see what are you referring at and I already asked twice what is
_your_ point about. If you tell me you don't understand what I
mean, I think there's a communication trouble.

>>>>>> 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.

Obviously not. My point is that Celts were not an inspirational
source for placenames containing god Thor's name. As well as they
weren't very willing to tell Romans to nickname their city "Buddha",
"Mithra" or "Zalmoxis". All these were foreign deities for them.
For "Thor" there was even a rough equivalent in the person of the
Celtic deity "Taranis", as god of thunder, they had no particular
reason to adopt a foreign name instead of their own. There is no
known material to support the idea that Celts were venerating the
god of thunder under the name of "Thor". Nothing. Consequently it
is not up to me to prove anything about that, it is your task to
come with a decent argument supporting your strange idea that local
Celts could possibly have been using the name of "Thor" for their
thunder deity. I'm sorry to say that, but mentioning the presence
of the "Thor" guy in Thrace (even admitting Snorri's stuff has a
grain of validity) amounts to null komma null in arguing about
Helvetian Celts. These were not Thracians. Even if Thracians knew
about existence of a guy called "Thor" having spent some time
among them, they had no valid reason to adopt him as own god of
thunder, for they already had the place occupied. There is no trace
of the name "Thor" in Thracian mythology. So wondering about names
in "tor/tur" without any peculiar reason is just a funny hobby for
passing the time, but is no longer a valid method in linguistics
since the beginning of XIX-th century. If you have an _argument_,
not some doubtful information about Thor making his summer holidays
in Thrace "allowing" you to wonder about "what if some Helvetian
Celts (conveniently labeled "those peoples") had venerated also
the god Thor?!", please state it.

>> 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.

I am not concerned with Kuhn which is not a member of cybalist, but
with your own groundless allegations.

>>>> [...] 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.

Here we were speaking about linguistics and not about inhabitants'
feelings. I made the point that even being aware of a foreign god
name, a despotical ruler (or local administration) wouldn't pick
it as favorite root for a local placename. Since despotical rulers,
local administration or majority of people in Germany were (are)
not venerating the supreme god under the name of "Allah", there is
no reason to choose the name "Allahstadt" for a new city founded
by Germans. You mentioned the historical name "Kreuzberg", given
some time ago: the name was perfecly OK from a religious point of
view since it made reference to a Christian symbol; the guys having
given it were Germans, a Christian people. That some modern guys
aren't happy with the name is completely irrelevant. The issue was
not "religious names are not permitted" but "a foreign god name
is a highly unlikely pick as toponym". With your last reply you
make nothing but a diversion. I hope you will stick to the subject.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi