Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems no one has considered a possible Sarmatian origin for
> > > Roman Mithraism.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras
> >
> > Since the wikipedia article to which you linked indicates that
> > modern scholarship tends towards the belief that Mithraism
> > originated in the Graeco-Roman world rather than in the Iranian
> > why should they consider a Sarmatian origin?
> >
> > Ned Smith
>
> ****GK: Facile respondetur. Quia necesse est probare per quocunque
> modo quod Germania ab "Odine" fundata. Et si prima via (a Snorri
> immediate sumpta) non potest ad finem optatam intellectum ducere,
> tunc aliam invenitur, mediatam, sive per Ariovistum (cuius origo
> apud incolas Scythiae remotae queritur), sive per aliquem Maeotem
> temporibus Mithridaticis proximum, sive per aliquem alium ignotum
> regem sarmaticum (et hic utile est loqui de sarmatis miscendis sive
> proto-"Germanis" populis, sive aliis propinquis finibus Germaniae.)
> Intentio semper idem, per nullo argumento refutanda, usque ad finem
> vitae si non in aeternum per aspera defendenda.*****

What's this, papal bull?
That Google translate gets better every day.


I think I've explained a couple of times that I am trying to figure out if including the normally excluded medieval sources in the source material would help in reconstructing the early ontogenesis of the Germanic language and peoples and their neighbors. Now if you or Brian know any principle by which they should be excluded please tell me. That and that alone. Leave out the other BS.


Torsten