From: tgpedersen
Message: 64247
Date: 2009-06-24
>It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Ariovistus is a name or a title. Stay focused.
>
> --- 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- didYou 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?No, baseless.
>
> 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 differenceThat etymology is the only one of Smith's Wikipedia mentions. What is it you accuse me of ignoring here?
> > 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 notThat's almost too funny. You knew zilch about the archeology of Germania until I translated the relevant passages of Peschel, Hachmann, Kossack and Kuhn, which described an invasion from the Przeworsk area into the Wetterau, which fact Polish archaeologists equate with Caesar's description of the Ariovistus invasion. Which of the facts I translated for you (for which you were appropriately grateful, thank you very much; I'm not angling for more appreciation, just setting the record straight) do you feel you have used, and ad nauseam at that, to prove to me that Snorri's scenario couldn't have happened?
> > 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 historicallySorry, they were recorded both by Caesar, Snorri, Saxo, plus a host of minor sagas.
> unrecorded events
> (which by definition cannot be refutedThat depends. We both agree (I presume, following Peschel et al. and after the long discussions we had on the various movements in the Wetterau valley and surroundings) that there was an invasion from the east in Germania at the relevant time. My claim is that this invasion is what Snorri, Saxo et al. describe as Odin's conquest of land in Germany. Your claim is that everything they say is fabrication or has to do with a much later time. Both our claims are unverifiable, since we don't have access to those guys' minds since they're dead, so we can't prove one way or another that they didn't lie. But my proposal is the most economical one, since it requires the fewest assumptions; if we assume they were making up their stories we will have to explain why so much of it matches what we know from other sources.
> [just as a statement that there was an unrecorded extra-terrestrialMore like: Just as a statement that Ariovistus' soldiers addressed him as 'king' cannot be refuted.
> landing in Rome in 37 AD cannot be "refuted")
> and then triumphantly claiming "they have not been refuted", thenAs I explained, it is a little more complicated.
> your place is obviously with Ryabchikov and his ilk, not with
> serious scholars.
> I'm not alone in my opinion as you well know.****It is always comforting that other people share your opinions.
> On the other hand several people have denounced what I proposeHahaha. Funny man.
> about a zillion times and you have been the most active.
>
> ****GK: Let's rather say that I have been among the more patient of
> your interlocutors.****
> > Since you refused to accept this, while incapable of providingI can understand why the administrators stopped me when I went on with a historical theory in a forum the subject of which is linguistics. I've now linked up this proposed scenario with one for the origin of the Germanic and Slavic languages which means my proposed historical scenario is linguistically relevant.
> > 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? (:=))?****A proposal by me that there is could not in principle be verified by me, since, after all, it's a conspiracy, so it would unscientific of me to propose that. Is there, oh conspirator? ;-)
> > > (GK)The old idea that there were "Slavs" in 1rst c. BCEWhy not? It would certainly explain the odd distribution of
> > > 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.There were Charudes
> The name is not even attested until the 3rd c.AD (BosporanAh, so you do recognize the name on the Tanais stone to represent "Croat".
> Kingdom).
> You rate an F- on this one.****Which ones?
>
> 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 oneGeorge, your blood presssure.
> 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.My Russian sucks. It would take me weeks to translate the whole site. Could you point out the paragraphs you find relevant?