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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> > <gknysh@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Come to think about it, Marius' proposal might even be
> > > > possible. The geminate -nn- in -manni and the connection
> > > > with the ancestor Mannus means the Marcomanni were of the same
> > > > kind as eg. the Chatti, ie. a displaced NWBlock people. But
> > > > that means we should not expect k -> x -> h in the name, cf
> > > > Chatti, in the first sources called Catti (and remember that
> > > > this is the mark of the NWBlock, that it had no Grimm-shift).
> > > > So in such a language we would have *marko- "horse". That also
> > > > fits with Caesar's description that the Germani used a very
> > > > new tactic of pairing men of infantry and of cavalry in pairs
> > > > (he doesn't specifically single out the Marcomanni), so
> > > > "horsemen" would make sense.
> > >
> > > GK: And the "Suebi" would be the infantrymen
> > > (:=)))??
> >
> >
> > No, the whole thing would be a Marcomanni regimen which Ariovistus
> > might have let extend to the other peoples of his army.
>
> ****GK: We only know of these early Marcomanni via
> Caesar. And he presents them quite clearly as one
> "Germanic" tribe among others. I prefer not to go
> beyond this, as do all expert commentators.

Erh, what do you mean?

> I suspect that if there was more to it, Caesar, interested as he
> was in military tactics, would have mentioned it. He didn't. Nor did
> anyone else (in the old texts) for that matter. Good enough for
> me.****

He did mention those tactics, but not any specific origin for them.
Given the need for one horse per two soldiers, and given the size of
his army, it can only have applied in part of it.

> > Sorry to have been so disloyal to you in this feud ;-) ,
> > but with the changes I propose it is possible.
>
> ****GK: What isn't? (:=))) Very little...

If you're implying I've introduced more slack into the story with that
proposal, nope, not so. We've admitted that there was
non-Grimm-shifted elements in the later Germania at that time; me
shifting one ethnic group between two pre-existing categories does not
increase the number of categories.

> I prefer not to reopen the solidly established merely on the basis
> of a 0.00001% possibility.(:=))).****

I heartily agree to that principle.


Torsten