From: tgpedersen
Message: 64311
Date: 2009-07-01
>Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So, first
> --- 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 theIn what sense? If you are implying that mr. Rus' actually existed why
> > 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 youExactly, if. Please answer the above question.
> 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.See above...
> Ditto. And ditto.
>
> ****GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...****
> > I don't actually remember the precise word in ConstantineApparently not.
> > 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'"? *****I might, depending on your clarification.
>Yes, please do.
> > 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.****
>It is true that if your proposal is true, then mine is wrong. Tertium
> > 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 believeYes, I got that the first time.
> that the concept emerged in the context of Avar state-building. ****
>