>Then you shouldn't ignore those facts.
I don't ignore BASIC facts. You, the linguist, ignore BASIC,
fundamental facts, post after post.
>I have never entertained the idea that Trieste was a slave market.
>But the idea is intriguing, given that that "market" word has
>almost the same distribution as the "slave" word.
OK, but these issues ("slaves" and "trg & truck") are different
discussion threads, different aspects of history and linguistics.
They have nothing to do with the evolvement of the Romanian
language, nor with the question "what could have been the
origin of the German notion Schöffe? Iranian-Turkic shooban-
chaban via Protobulgar žo(a)pan/župan? Via West-Slavic župa/n?
Or via other paths from the Punic & Hebrew Å -P-T?".
>if you have have any respect for scientific fact, you look up
>stuff before you make categorical statements about it:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste#Name
I understood that your nexus was the 2nd part of Tergeste: -este
meaning "place". It may be so, but this is not enough to infer
that all over SE European territory where there are similar
sounding suffixes it must have been derived from that obscure
Venetic -este. Until real scientific work and results are there,
do learn and take into consideration other explanations as well.
Namely, in Romanian, before there is a locality with the ending
-e$ti, there has to be a community <called-what-they're-called>;
very often from the name of a foundering ancestor (in the case
of Bucharest, there is a legend that its name comes from the
name of some guy, Bucur, who lived there). And a single one often
has in his name the ending -escu (female either -easca or -easa).
But there is a "but": the names/morphems built with these
suffixes (both as toponyms and as anthroponyms) are very *recent*
in Romanian: prior to the 16th c. they aren't attested in documents.
So, here another time gap (an enormous one).
>True, since I always complained of being censored, I shouldn't say
>that.
The subjugated and persecuted ones become the worst tyrants. ;-)
>Let me put it this way: When you dogmatically and unreasoned
>restate standard opinions, you're wasting everybody's time.
This is a very good sentence: it fits in your approaching your
topix (Ariovist, Bosporans & Bastarnae) 150%. (Organize a poll
on the list: you'll get 150% votes saying "yes, indeed".) So
remember the saying with the kettle talking of burnt arse. :-)
(And, last but not least, it's up to us, to both of us, to
waste time on the crap of one of the discussing people by
giving a reply or to not waste time by giving a darn on the
same crap. Gell? ;))
>>It is way richer (for obvious reasons)
>>than in the case of German (Deutsch: old high German and middle
>>high German) as compared with Germanic idioms 1,000-1,100 years
>>earlier Germanic idioms (i.e. 400 and 600 years earlier than
>>Wulfila's and Jordanes's Gothic).
>
>And?
OK, if you don't see the thing, then let's talk about soccer.
Did you see Madrid-Barcelona? :)
>And that's why I try to fill out those time spans with whatever
>information I can get. You don't.
But *how* you do that? Like an ignoramus! Not even as a non-linguist,
but a mere high-school student, is it acceptable to "fill the gap"
the way you do. As we underlined a few months ago: nobody denies
that a part of the ancestors of South-Germans lived for a while
in the Elbe area ("Elbgermanen"). If there were Bastarnae among
them or not, it is of lesser importance. What's important: you
can't talk (esp. as a... linguist) of "high German" stuff in the
context of Bastarnae during Caesar's and Burebista's time.
>No, you ignore them, citing as reason their enormousness which
>precludes you from discovering anything beyond the conclusion of >standard works.
It's not me, but the community of the real professionals. I
myself don't care. What's important: it is you who should and
must prove something in order that your theories are accepted.
Do that. I for one, as a simple spectator only tell my opinion
(and prediction :)): it won't work.
>So what are you basing your criticism of my proposals then,
>when you don't know what happened in those centuries?
I haven't learnt the *details* by heart, but the main ideas and
principles = the reasons why your speculations aren't good at
all.
>Translation: you are a lazy SOB
What's this: "SOB"? Spinnst Du?
>who can't be bothered, and you don't have an OCR program
>like I do. Well, get one.
The problem of your judgments in your theories/speculations is
that you can't grasp what basic elements in them don't fit other
elements in order to sustain your judgments. You are neither able
to see them even if one insists on showing them to you. Even if
you wouldn't have any education of a linguist and of a historian
you should have understood.
>Amateur. Who's Tagliavini?
Google's your friend. And Wikipedia.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture
>people expanded westward toward the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
>people, becoming there the
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture
>part of that expanded to the southeast, becoming the
No need to repeat all this ad nauseam.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae
>people speaking Hochdeutsch etc.
Spinnerei! :)
>turning it into the
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic
>culture, which was thus a layered culture, Old High German
>on top, Old Saxon (Old Low German) speaking at the bottom.
(Bis hierher klingt das noch vernünftig. :))
>For the benefit of absolutely clueless Anglo-Saxons here,
Behave yourself.
>Wrong.
>The Elbgermanen in my scenario is a mixed culture consisting
>of a Bastarnian High German speaking upper class and an
>ethnic Jastorf Low German / Saxon speaking lower class.
What "Saxons" so far away in the East in the 1st c. BCE?!
The probability is almost nill. Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt
are there where they are due to much later developments.
But, BTW, tell me: where were the Franks in the same
century? Roughly in what area?
>After that, people from the Elbe Germani culture would have
>followed to take the deserted land in possession.
When (in which centuries) did they get deserted and due to
which events & migrations?
>In the new land, the Jastorf people were not 'bodenständig',
>which means the Bastarnian element, plus language, prevailed
>there.
Of course, this is a hypothesis (perhaps only yours) for
which you don't have any linguistic elements ("markers")
nor any other proofs. The only thing that you have is that
what it is: the peculiarities of the German language,
starting with the first phase called Old High German, which
was the German spoken by Southern Germans in the Carolingian
time (that what later on got the dialect names: Alemanian,
Suebian, Bavarian and Franconian - alemannisch, schwäbisch,
altbairisch, fränkisch; the kind of "been tsi beena, lid tsi
geliden", "gib mir miin swerda", "diine naso in hundes arso").
But nobody knows for sure how the Germanic idioms were, how
they differed from one another, in an era of a few centuries
before the incarnation of our Lord and a few centuries after
His crucification, namely until Wulfila's text, that showed
how one of the Germanic idioms looked like.
So, it is tantamount to nonsense to talk of "high German" and
"low German" in the context of Bastarnians when they lived
in the Pževorsk area.
>You might compare eg. German Silesians after 1945.
German Silezians, by and large, are Germanized Slavs. Even
today, an immense number of Germans from Silezia have Slavic
(Polish) names. Moreover: most of the East-German (and Austrian)
population has Slavic (and Baltic) roots. (And no wonder that
between the variant Schöffe and the Slavic term župa there is
the East-German variant Saupe, typical of Bohemia, Saxony
and Silezia.)
>No, they already had it.
Yeah, sure. :-)
>Explain.
I did. In addition, read old high-German texts.
>Grandstanding, nothing else. Ignored.
Indeed, you ignore realities and are fond of tales.
>Why did you delete it?
Delete what exactly? (In my replies I delete everything that
doesn't belong to the reply-text, unlike many of you here on
the list, who've never learned Usenet and mailing-list quoting
techniques and who quote entire posts and add a few new lines
of a reply to them.)
>I'm not talking about Slavicization, but of arrival some centuries
>earlier.
If the much earlier arrived Slavs (or what they were) didn't play
any role in the era of Slavicization of certain populations, then
what is the reason you repeatedly and repeatedly mention those
Charudes and that Charudes meant (Proto-)Croats? Or is your logics
circuitry switched off again?
>That would have been a relevant reply if I had made an absolute
>statement there, but I didn't, I made a conditional one, from
>which you deleted the premise in order to make it look like
>I said something else so that you could sidetrack the
>discussion onto something irrelevant.
Poor fella, don't you realize that what Ah'm doin' is to apply
a kind of subtle censorship? :)
>No they weren't.
Based on what do you maintain that Illyrian, Thracian,
Dacian, Scythian weren't satem languages?
>Relic groups, such as the speakers of kentum languages
>don't necessarily have anything in common.
What do you mean by "having in common"? We were talking of
their languages, not of their looks and customs.
>Deleting a premise from a conditional statement in order to
>make look like an absolute statement is dishonest, George.
This is not true. I delete only what is not relevant for
a discussion. Your problem is that you swim in an ocean of
nonsequiturs, for God's sake.
>No, as I already stated, it doesn't. Such a claim might serve
>your argumentative purpose, but it is untrue. Don't tell me what
>I believe
Another inference/conclusion that has nothing to do with what
we're discussing here.
>Obviously you didn't or you are purposely ignoring it.
"Free Dacians" only after the Roman conquest of a part of Dacia.
Comprende? Before the contest ist es strunzdumm von "freien
Dakern" zu reden.
>I said 'the then free', where 'free' should be understood in
Even worse: why the heck were and are you prompted to add
"the then free"? What for? It makes sense only and only in
a context that means this "there were Dacian slaves only if
they were conquered and subdued". Which is not true. In those
times virtually any nation had its own slaves who had the
same ethnic origin.
>opposition to those Thracians/Dacians who cooperated with
>the Romans in the slave trade.
It wasn't a matter of cooperation or not cooperation in terms
of "we won't sell (out) our people". This is a modern way of
thinking, after the development of the modern nationalist
culture. That's what I was underlining, and you still can't
grasp what I'm talking about, so you still can't see what
and where are the elements you should discard in presenting
your theory (because these are either irrelevant or simply
false).
>The *then* free Dacians. Hello?
>You're the one who made the Fehler.
Indem Du das Wort "frei" einbaust, so stellst Du automatisch
eine Verbindung mit der unfreien Zeit her, also mit der Zeit
der römischen Besatzung. Bist Du tatsächlich so schwer von
Ka-Pe oder Du tust nur so? (Du tust mir echt leid, Torsten.)
Dass die Daker auch Sklaven besassen und diese kauften oder
verkauften, war die normalste Sache der Welt. Dass Du darüber
schreibst und unterstreichst, dass Dezeneus dies und jenes
tat, implizierst Du nolens-volens die Idee, die Daker hätten
kaum was am Hut mit der Sklaverei und dass "normalerweise" nur
unter der Fittiche der Römer gerieten viele von denen in die
Sklaverei. Also strenge Dich an, komme mir nimmer so saudumm
daher (auÃerdem so frech: Denn gleich werd' ich Dir sagen,
an wen Du, Dösbattel, Dein "SOB" richten sollst!).
>Well, call it optional, then ;-)
Yeah, you dare complain of "wasting time" and you waste my time
on such collateral aspects that can't tell us anything useful
for discussing within our thread.
It has no relevance to this Schöffe I thread whether some
"free Dacians", some Carpi and some Costobocae were assimilated
into the Roman Empire population in the provinces of Illyricum,
Thracia, Moesia in the 3rd/4th centuries.
>If you want me to say that, supply similar information on the
>topic under discussion, not on peripheral topics.
Even if I'd supply a train with a locomotive, and a cruising
ship, your reaction would be the same: "And?" or "Says Grimm."
>I'm pretty friendly
You're pretty friendly and call me a "lazy SOB"?
You're pretty friendly and call the Anglo-Saxon subscribers
to this list "clueless" only because some people out of
hundreds of millions have knowledge of the Third Reich only
based on some Hollywood movies?
>That's what people do here.
Then behave
>I expected you to behave like a German.
Like a German in 1940?
>You haven't disappointed me. You guys think we're a defeated
>people like Jastorf. We're not.
Who's "we"? How many Torstens are here?
>I know that Omelyan Pritsak has looked into the Turkish
>connection. To my shame, I haven't yet.
(Why on earth do you leave so long fragments as quotings
out of my own post? To what avail is such a bad quoting
habit?)
No problem. The problem is when you've read stuff and
you establish wrong connections due to the fact that
you often throw into the same bowl things that can't
stay together.
George