From: Torsten
Message: 67395
Date: 2011-04-26
>No.
> >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.So why answer them?
> >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 upI don't understand you use of
> >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: -esteThe language itself is not documented before that time
> 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 saySo I've noticed ;-)
> >that.
>
> The subjugated and persecuted ones become the worst tyrants. ;-)
> >Let me put it this way: When you dogmatically and unreasonedAnyone else here think I restate standard opinions?
> >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, toExactly.
> 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)What thing?
> >>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 whateverI should be more exact and take care to call that language Proto High German in the future.
> >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 whichThat community isn't aware of the history of the area in as much detail as we have covered here in Cybalist.
> >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.Yeah, right.
> What's important: it is you who should andNo.
> 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,Please state them.
> >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 SOBAny concrete objections?
>
> 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.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_cultureYou asked my so explain my proposal. I did and you don't want to read it.
> >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/BastarnaeI didn't write 'the absolutely clueless Anglo-Saxons'. What I meant, and what the sentence says is "those Anglo-Saxons which might be absolutely clueless here", which would be many, judging from the surprise expressed in some of the comments that capt. Thomsen should speak English.
> >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.No, they would be in traditional Elbe Germanic area.
> >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 sameHere, in their traditional home:
> century? Roughly in what area?
> >After that, people from the Elbe Germani culture would havePtolemy's Â´ÎµÎ»Î¿Ï Î·ÏίÏν ´εÏημοÏ
> >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',You would want to attack the unfamiliar (to you) theory if it was mine, but you're afraid it might be a well-established theory you haven't heard of?
> >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 thatNot quite, I also have the
> 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'nobody knows' -> 'nonsense' doesn't follow if you can produce evidence from other sciences which has been overlooked.
> "low German" in the context of Bastarnians when they lived
> in the Pževorsk area.
> >You might compare eg. German Silesians after 1945.I know. Irrelevant. The German Silesians have disappeared as a distinct people by being absorbed into the two Germnan states after 1945, which was what the comparison was about.
>
> 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.)
> >Why did you delete it?Why did you delete the premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an absolute statement?
>
> 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 centuriesThe Charudes / Croats arriving with Ariovistus would remain unnoticed since they were no military threat, until they got organized around a cause (that of not becoming a slave) in the 6th and 7th centuries, when many local joined them, switching to their language. This is why Southern Slavs are genetically distinct from other Slavs.
> >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 absoluteNo, you didn't. You deleted the premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an absolute statement.
> >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? :)
> > You, as a trained linguist, know better than outsider dilettantesI inserted the statement in my previous post which you deleted. Obvioulsly I didn't claim in that that Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, Scythian weren't satem languages. If this isn't deliberate obfuscation, it's incompetence.
> > the significance of kentum-satem, and that far-Eastern plaid-
> > wearing, kentum-speaking Tokharians were closer to western PIE-
> > language-speakers in spite of geographic spreading. :)
> >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 languagesThat was clumsy. Let me rewrite that:
> >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 toYou deleted the premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an absolute statement.
> >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.
> > > >Nobody wants to be a slave, they don't need an Abe Lincoln to tellI have reinserted the text two answers back which you deleted. As is obvious I have presented no inference or conclusion such as you claim; instead I am denying that I have the opinion you ascribe to me, viz. that Burebista necessarily had noble 'freedom' motives for his campaigns. You ignore that and proceed as if I had those opinions.
> > > >them that. Going to war against your neighbor and enslaving him was
> > > >also the option favored over merely selling a slow trickle of
> > > >domestic criminals among 18th century African Burebistas. You may
> > > >call it job security for tyrants. I'm not presupposing any French-
> > > >Revolution type concept of 'freedom' as a motive for Burebista, as
> > > >you seem to think I do. Greed would suffice. Not that one excludes
> > > >the other.
> > >
> > > Yes. But it seems that *TO YOU* it is not yet clear that in
> > > those ancient societies slaves were something ... "natural",
> > > i.e. normal.
> >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.Strunzdumm? Why? They weren't slaves yet.
>
> "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 inNo it doesn't. Not that I care, but it seems to me that you want the scientific community to accept as axiomatic that the Dacians/Romanians are a people that would never be capable of that, in other words that they are no nationality but a profession. Is that what you mean? I don't think it's true. Cf.
>
> 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 withhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#African_conflicts
> >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?Nope.
> >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 vonI never disputed that.
> 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 darüberExcuse me, that was Jordanes wrote that.
> schreibst und unterstreichst, dass Dezeneus dies und jenes
> tat,
> implizierst Du nolens-volens die Idee, die Daker hättenNo, I don't
> 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 saudummSaudumm?
> daher (auÃerdem so frech: Denn gleich werd' ich Dir sagen,
> an wen Du, Dösbattel, Dein "SOB" richten sollst!).
> >Well, call it optional, then ;-)You were the one introducing the subject of Carpi and Costoboci, not I.
>
> 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 someWell, don't mention it then.
> "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 theThank you, but I already have that.
> >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 friendlyThat was a observation.
>
> You're pretty friendly and call me a "lazy SOB"?
> You're pretty friendly and call the Anglo-Saxon subscribersNo, I assumed some (many) might be clueless to this deep psychological fault line in German-speaking lands, which would be explained by my proposal.
> 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.That's a different thing here and there ;-)
>
> Then behave
> >I expected you to behave like a German.See if you can make sense of this with Google translate
>
> Like a German in 1940?
> >You haven't disappointed me. You guys think we're a defeatedDon't worry. We'll be gone. The EU will see to that.
> >people like Jastorf. We're not.
>
> Who's "we"? How many Torstens are here?
> >I know that Omelyan Pritsak has looked into the TurkishI am sorry if looking on too much of your own posting have mad you feel bad.
> >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 andAha, I do wrong things because I do wrong things. Thanks for the advice.
> you establish wrong connections due to the fact that
> you often throw into the same bowl things that can't
> stay together.
>