Re: Croats and Slavs

From: george knysh
Message: 64313
Date: 2009-07-01

--- 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

person's name?

****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...

See above...

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