--- Rick McCallister <
gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> I agree there was a core group, probably originally
> Turkic but they picked up or assimilated whoever
> they
> could.
****GK: Like the Magyar raiders of the 10th century?
Something like that may have happened (it always
does). But if this makes the Huns a "goulash" then I
don't know what imperial nation is exempt, and why the
Huns should be particularly singled out in this
respect.****
But their elite seems to have heavily
> intermarried with elites from other groups.
****GK: Again, nothing new. If the "goulash" is
Hunnish-speaking and identifies as Hunnish, there is
no real point to be made.****
So, in a
> sense, they were a goulash and the orginally was the
> paprika --a true anachronism, to be sure.
> BTW: on Wikipedia, there is a reference to attempts
> to
> prove Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Attila
****GK: Here's a point: there might have been a time
frame [ca. 430-454] when the Attilanic elite (at least
those located more to the west) was effectively
becoming bilingual through intermarriage. But then it
would be a Turko-Germanic mixture rather than some
general "goulash".Perhaps a conclusion might be drawn
from the term "Attila" itself. Why did the Hunnish
version not survive? Or was this Germanic word
borrowed into Hunnish?****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs