Re: Croats and Slavs

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

>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> GK: On the matter of the historical "Croats": I am leaning
> > towards the notion that they might have been named after their
> > initial organizer. The name does appear separately in the list of
> > the migrant clans given by Constantine Porph. in the mid-10th c.
> > If the Avar Khan Bayan appointed an Avar warrior called "Horvat"
> > (or something similar) to the task of putting together Avaria's
> > northern defenses in and along the Carpathians (against the
> > threatening Turks of Asia who conquered Kerch in 576 and made
> > demands on Constantinople against the Avars), this Horvat might
> > have drafted a considerable numbern of subject Slavs (and others)
> > into his divisions (or whatever they were called), and the
> > various groups would become "Horvat's men" = Croats. There are
> > many historical analogies to this onomastic procedure.
>
>
> No. This is what is known as a 'root etymology': the root element
> matches, but the suffixes don't.
>
> ****GK: The similarity I'm thinking about is that manifested in the
> name of the Nogai Tatars,

Not a root etmology.

> the Uldingir (from the Hun ruler Uldin, a generation before Attila),

Not a root etymology.

> the Aspurgiani of the Bosporos,

Nor that one.

> the "Scythians" of the Greek Pontic genealogical myth,

So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed?

> the theory of a Byzantine author (I forget the name for the moment)
> that the "rus'" were named after a chieftain by that name,

Ditto. Also not a root etymology.

> the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.

Ditto. And ditto.

> I don't actually remember the precise word in Constantine
> porphyrogenitos (it might have been identical to the Tanais
> inscription but I'd have to check).

> So you'll have to do a lot better than para- pro- pre-"root
> etymologize" to dispose of this particular idea.

You didn't get a word of it, did you? This is how it is: if the leaders name is James, his followers might call themselves 'Jamesites' or 'Jacobites'; they won't call themselves James. A Jesuite is someone who follows Jesus more than most others, a Jesús doesn't necessarily.

> Not that I insist on it. And it doesn't involve your Harudes
> fantasy.****
>

Erh? So?

> In this case because there aren't any. More likely his name was
> Horvat because that's what he was.
>
> ****GK: That's quite possible. Which doesn't refute the main idea
> of course.

No, but the fact that it's a root etymology does.

> That is also independent of whatever etymology you come up with as
> to the name.****

Meaning what??

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horvath
>
> If my proposal *xaruG-át- is true, they had a separate religion having to do with stone altars etc.
>
> ****GK: Whatever. I have no idea, and neither have you.

The phonological correspondence Semitic-Zan-Germanic is perfect, and the Semantic corespondence for at least the last two could hardly be better, so there must have been some transfer of the idea. Whether it includes the name of the Croats, I can't be sure, but that name also seems toi get around in the same neighborhoods.

> just the usual vapours.****

I am sorry to hear you have the vapors. Don't hesitate to comment on my postings when you are feeling better.


Torsten