From: george knysh
--- 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.
Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So, first
a people invent a person they imagine founded their ethnic etc group,
and then they decide to refer to themselves individually by that
****GK: Why ask me? Ask the Olbians (:=))))****
> > 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.
In what sense? If you are implying that mr. Rus' actually existed why
do you call that Byzantine author's account of the naming a 'theory'?
****GK: I think you understand perfectly what I am saying. "Rus'" is a term which can be used as either a personal name (as per the Byzantine's view) or as an ethnic referent for a people. The suffix problem you raised doesn't apply here. Where's the reason it should apply to the Croats? And the basic idea (like Nogais from Nogai etc.) holds. ****
> 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?
Exactly, if. Please answer the above question.
****GK: See above.****
> > the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.
> Ditto. And ditto.
> GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...
****GK: See above.****