Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> > GK: Ariovistus was certainly a name for Caesar.
> (TP)He didn't know any better.
>
> GK: Without Caesar you would know practically nothing of
> Ariovistus (:=))

Irrelevant.

****GK: As is everything which deviates from your Snorrist orthodoxy (:=)).****

> End of discussion since what follows is likely: did too- did not--
> did too-- did not---


> > His title (since 59 BCE) was "rex".
>
> Not to his men it wasn't.

****GK: You interviewed them? (:=))****

>
> GK: How would one translate "rex" into 1rst c. BCE German?

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ariovistus
'He was recognised as a king by the Roman Senate, but how closely the Roman title matched Ariovistus' social status among the Germans remains unknown.' "Called", rather.

> That's what his men would call him.

A baseless postulate.

****GK: And "irrelevant" of course. As above (:=)))****

> That was what the Romans called him. Besides the difference wasn't
> that great, cf dux/herizogo.
> Check for yourself
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ariovistus# Etymology
>
>
> GK: Most of this analysis supports the notion that "Ariovistus"
> was a name not a title. You'd better find a better source.

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is a good enough source for me.

****GK: Once one tosses out the "irrelevancies" (:=)))****

Besides, as a linguist I like to make my own etymologies.

****GK: Bypasses the point of "name" versus "title" (typical)

> (The citations which follow here are irrelevant since you've not
> made the major point.

What does that mean? That I haven't addressed a major point in your reply?

> Fairly typical procedure on your part.)

If you want to accuse me of something, could you please be more clear?

> >(GK No point in rehashing the Odin pseudo-history of Snorri
> > Sturluson BTW.
>
> Not with you there ain't. I look forward to you actually refuting
> it.
>
> ****GK: It's been refuted a zillion times, and not only by me.

I don't think you know what 'refute' means. You refute someone's proposal by showing it can't have happened that way. You have never done that.

****GK: Snorri's "history" runs counter to all that we know of factual events in this area of the world on the basis of contemporary documents and archaeology. That has been demonstrated to you ad nauseam. If your scientific "technique" consists in postulating historically unrecorded events (which by definition cannot be refuted [just as a statement that there was an unrecorded extra-terrestrial landing in Rome in 37 AD cannot be "refuted") and then triumphantly claiming "they have not been refuted", then your place is obviously with Ryabchikov and his ilk, not with serious scholars. I'm not alone in my opinion as you well know.****

On the other hand several people have denounced what I propose about a zillion times and you have been the most active.

****GK: Let's rather say that I have been among themore patient of your interlocutors.****

> Since you refused to accept this, while incapable of providing any > new evidence on its behalf, you had to be stopped, and you were.

Every time I commented on my proposal I provided new facts that could be explained by my proposal but not by the received set of proposals.
You know that.

****GK: Does anyone else except you (:=)))? ****

> All those interested in your endless repetitions of your refuted
> thesis can consult the cybalist archives.

As I said, I didn't repeat anything. You, on the other hand, droned on with calls for me to be silenced.

****GK: I am not an administrator. Why should intelligent scholars and investigators listen to my "dronings" and act upon them? What strange power of compulsion do I possess which causes them to silence your "new facts"? Is there some sort of fiendish conspiracy at work here? (:=))?****

> > (GK)The old idea that there were "Slavs" in 1rst c. BCE Przeworsk
> > is untenable.
>
> They would only have had to be there long enough, coming from the
> east, to join Ariovistus' campaign.
>
> GK: Where is your evidence that Slavs (as distinct from
> Baltoslavs) were an identifiable group in the time of
> Ariovistus?

The identifiable group or rather the identifiable group name is Hrvaty/Charudes/ Horouathos.

****GK: The Croats were certainly not Charudes. Nor were they Slavs in the 1rst c. BCE. The name is not even attested until the 3rd c.AD (Bosporan Kingdom). You rate an F- on this one.****

And on the question of method: I don't have to prove it happened a certain way, since that is in principle not possible. I have to make sure instead that my proposal does not contradict known facts.

****GK: That is precisely what your Snorrist idee fix does.****

And in the competition with other unrefuted proposals, the one should be preferred which provides the most explanations for known facts.

****GK: Yours is not even in the ball park. Correction: it's not even on the same planet.(:=)))****

P.S. Do read Shchukin.