Re: Croats and Slavs

--- On Wed, 7/1/09, 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?

****GK: No. But some of the Olbians obviously did.****

> 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.

****GK: You're wrong on this one I'm afraid. And if the people of "Rus'" can be called "the Rus'" how do you prove this acceptable irregularity ( as per your notion) can't apply to the Croats?****

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

Ditto. And ditto.

****GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...****

> 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.


****(GK: I got it all right. Did you get my point about "Rus'"? *****

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

> fantasy.

Erh? So?

****GK: 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.


****GK: See above.****

> That is also independent of whatever etymology you come up with as

> to the name.

Meaning what??

****GK: Meaning that it doesn't matter what "Croat" means if the Croats are named after Horoathos. Like I said I don't insist on this possibility, but I do believe that the concept emerged in the context of Avar state-building. ****