Re: Origin of *marko- Margus murg ma'rgas amurg

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-04-17 20:55, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > To show you that 'Marcomani' is no so 'Transparent' as Piotr and
> > George try to assert here without any argument here please read

black

> > and white :
> >
> > "The same element marc- is attested in local Gaulish names, such

as

> > Mrco-durum 'horse gate'(?) Marcomagus 'Horse-valley' (DAG 221)
> > Marco-lica 'horse-stone (? Spain; Delammare 2003:217) Compare the
> > Gaulish proper names Marcomarus, Marcosena, Marcomani, Marcus
> > (?, the king's name in the Tristan Legend). Consider Ambio-Marcis
> > (dat. pl) a "Matronen-name" (Schmidt 1957:123), mat be relevant

here"

>
> "The same" as what? The Celtic names with <Marco-> of course

contain the

> 'horse' word. Germanic names with Latinised <Marco-> (*marka-)

don't.


This is an assertion Poitr or an argumentation?

For me is a simple asssertion only.

Why is was for sure 'Germanic' or more exactly why not 'a loan in
that Germanic dialect'?


Where are the arguments????


II.

> That Germanic element corresponds to Celtic *mrogi- (cf. Celt.
> Allo-broges and ORun. alja-markiz 'outlander').

Another assertion. Again, where are the arguments?

Why not a loan of Celtic marko- in Germanic ?

or a loan of a Balkanic marg- (before Grimm Law g>k) (or a loan of
Balcanic Thracian *marku (after the Grimm Law)) etc...


II.

> If Mikhailova thinks the
> name Marcoma(n)ni is Gaulish, I'd like to see some justification

for

> that claim, plus a Gaulish interpretation of the second element (it
> can't mean 'men' in Celtic!). Similarity is not enough. Theodoric

and

> Theodore have nothing to do with each other, notwithstanding their
> similarity. Placing Theodoric among a dozen Greek names with Theo-

and

> -do:ros is not a valid etymological method.

This is a 'poor' logic, Piotr.

Let's make it simple to see that your argument above is 'poor'

1. Celtic marko (or a Balkanic marg-/mark-) was loaned in that
Germanic dialect with the meaning 'horse'

2. Next of course that loan-word became a 'germanic word' too (like
ran& is a Romanian word today too) so a Germanic compound Marco-manni
is understandable.
So why to suppose that the whole compound was Celtic? an not only
marko- was laoned? -> this is the poor logic here...

Examples:
Finally Bulgarians have a non Slavic names but they are Slavs
Wallachians(Romanians) have a Germanic name but they are
Wallachians(Romanians)

3. And in addition there is no need to suppose a Latinised o- inside


So all you have said above means 'nothing' finally, based on what I
have showed you now....





III.

> > and don't talk:
> >
> > about "o- of marco as a Latinized Process"
> >
> > supposed to transform "all the Daco-Celtic-Germanic marco- names

in

> > the same time from a supposed a- to o-"
>
> Again, misrepresenting what I said, and repeating the same silly

thing

> ad nauseam. I give up (which I should have done a few postings ago).
>
> Adieu,
>
> Piotr

Of course, is your choice Piotr, to write or not on this topic, but
this Latinization sounds for me like 'a Kind of Analogy' when you
cannot derive something directly based on the Known Rules, or like
that 'reduplication that disappeared in some cases but not in all
cases' etc...

The simple Question For you is :

What not to think that that o- is not due to a Latinisation
process?
Why such a think is unthinkable for you? Is not this, a fix ideea?

What happens if Marko- in Marcomanni was a Celtic Loan (or
another type of loan) in that Germanic Dialect?

Why such a think is un-thinkable for you?

WHY TO IGNORE THIS POSSIBILITY THAT IS A REASONABLE ONE?

Marius