Re: New way of getting Goth-

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 63905
Date: 2009-05-07



--- On Thu, 5/7/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Re: [tied] New way of getting Goth-
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 6:20 PM

--- In cybalist@... s.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@ ...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 5/7/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...>

> > OK, but we also have *kot- as in cottage I forget all its
> > cogeners
> > but I'm sure they're in the files somewhere, if not in Hubschmid
> > et al.
>
> True, I forgot to mention those. And this:
> http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/5929
>
> On the -unya suffix:
> http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/51061
>
> Torsten

> A true and cunning linguist you are.

Well, thank you, but not quadruply so.

> The s-kut/s-gud does need to be looked atif cott is "shelter",
> maybe the Goths are "protectors" , i.e. originally a martial clan;
> but skut- was also linked to "pirate, darkness" in Scot and Scythia

Not in my book; I see them as the oppressed original population of most Scandinavia who left for greener pastures south of the Baltic, but under leaders who were part of the Odinist invaders (which is why we know Gothic as a Germanic language). That explains the mixed cremation/inhumatio n, they are a characteristic of the respective groups, as also claimed by Snorri. BTW, if the Goths had a leading layer who kept to themselves, that would explain the later limpieza de sangre etc traditions and why their language left so little mark in the Romance countries they conquered.


But if they were an oppressed group, they would need "protectors" more than "semen pourers"

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Wielbark_ Culture
This article has the usual 'please let's re-separate archaeology from history and linguistics' drift; ignore that.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Goths
Please ignore the 'Götaland' map, Götaland does not include the southern part of Sweden, but only a swath across Sweden plus Gotland. The two component parts of Sweden, Götaland and Svealand (the latter around Stockholm) are traditionally seen as equal partners; I think the Götar were subjugated by the Svear (but this is a rather infected topic in Swedish prehistory, I understand); Götaland is geographically not a viable area (no major traffic arteries define it); it looks more like a refuge area.

But on the other hand, got- and jut- are most likely identical and the Øresund is the 'Jute Stream' in Finnish, so the invaders from the North called Goths would have come from Denmark and Southern Sweden both.

BTW the Kashubian Gdun´sk in
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Gdansk
intrigued me (cf. Polish dun´ski "Danish"),
is that a regular development in Kashubian?

Torsten