--- In
cybalist@... s.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > This is what Gol/a,b has to say in The origins of the Slavs
> > > about the origin of the etnonym of the Croatians
>
> > > My contention is that PSl. *XUrvat- // *Xorvat- (a consonantal
> > > stem!) was derived from a common noun *xUrvU // *xorvU 'armor'
> > > (primarily 'horn-armor' ), which should be treated as a
> > > prehistorical loanword from Germc. *hurwa- // *harwa-,
>
> > > We can even hypothesize that the borrowing of the Germc.
> > > *hurwa- 'horn-armor' took place somewhere in the sub-Carpathian
> > > region, and that its source was the PGermc. dialect of the
> > > Bastarnians, who dwelt along the eastern Carpathians in the
> > > first to third centuries A.D.
>
> ****GK: The Bastarnians disappear from the area some two hundred years before the arrival of the Slavs.****
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Bastarnaehttp://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ SlavsTell me where these are wrong then.
>
> > Note that this horn-armor is attributed to the Sarmatians by
> > Ammianus Marcellinus.
>
> ***GK: The Slavs contacted Sarmatians independently. There is no
> reason why they should have borrowed this term from Bastarnians or
> any other Germanic folk. OTOH a borrowing in Avar times is
> historically much more plausible,
Actually, whereas Avestan
has spirantization of unvoiced stops before consonants, Ossetian has it everywhere (AFAIK, but other people know that better than me), which means the loan might also have taken place through some Iranian steppe language.
> esp. since Golomb's linguistic
> analyses are weak and unconvincing, and his historical hypothesis
> simply incompetent. ****
You'll have to argue that. Don't forget that whereas in archaeology a culture may be made up of components from several ancestors, in linguistics a language has only one main predecessor. This is because because people keep speaking, no matter how destroyed their material culture gets.
> > > Now this unknown Germanic language would have been the
> > > para-Germanic Bastarnian. If true, those Croatians were in
> > > contact with Germanic-speakers early. So why shouldn't they be
> > > Ariovistus' Charudes?
> > >
> > > One thing puzzled me about the story of Ariovistus giving away
> > > free land to some tribe who had done nothing to win it. Perhaps
> > > they were just too lazy to work the land and let
> > > Charudes/Croatians colonize the land for them, in return for
> > > their products?
>
> ****GK: As long as Golomb's silly hypothesis is around, why not try
> something even sillier?****
Did you have something factual you wanted to say?
> > Another attempt at the name:
> > Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit
> > 'krabban m. Krebs, Krabbe.
> > an. krabbi m. Krabbe;
> > ags. crabba m. (engl. crab),
> > nnd. krabbe.
> > Dazu
> > ahd. chrepaz(o), crebiz,
> > mhd. krebez, krebz,
> > nhd. Krebs, mnd. krevet, kreft.
> > Aus krabita(n).
> > Vgl. von
der Nebenwurzel (s)kar(a)b
> > gr. kárabos Krebs, Käfer und
> > *skarabaios (lat. scarabaeus) Käfer.'
> >
> > If this is NWBlock, *xraBi-þ- would have been the corresponding
> > Germanic word. Calling scale armor clad people lobsters makes
> > sense.
That -þ- suffix is unusual in Germanic, AFAIK. The only other example I'm aware of is *xal-iþ-.
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/64637http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/64804http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/64959If it's might be from some substrate's version
of PIE *-et- denoting ethnicity, the crab word may be the transferred sense, not the "Croat" one.
>
> ****GK: Especially since there is no "Popperian" counter-proof to
> the intensifying downward spiral of sillinesses. ****
There rarely is in historical sciences. Instead you'll have to do with Occam.
Torsten