Re: Schöffe I

From: Torsten
Message: 67395
Date: 2011-04-26

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:
>
> >Then you shouldn't ignore those facts.
>
> I don't ignore BASIC facts. You, the linguist, ignore BASIC,
> fundamental facts, post after post.

No.


> >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?".

So why answer them?


> >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

I don't understand you use of
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nexus
here

> 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).

The language itself is not documented before that time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language#Writing_system

> >True, since I always complained of being censored, I shouldn't say
> >that.
>
> The subjugated and persecuted ones become the worst tyrants. ;-)

So I've noticed ;-)

> >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. :-)

Anyone else here think I restate standard opinions?


> (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? ;))

Exactly.


> >>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? :)

What thing?


> >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.

I should be more exact and take care to call that language Proto High German in the future.

> >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.

That community isn't aware of the history of the area in as much detail as we have covered here in Cybalist.

> I myself don't care.

Yeah, right.

> 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.

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper#Problem_of_induction
'there are no such things as good positive reasons; nor do we need such things ...'


> >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.

Please state them.

> >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.

Any concrete objections?


> >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.

You asked my so explain my proposal. I did and you don't want to read it.

> >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.

I 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.

> >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.

No, they would be in traditional Elbe Germanic area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic

> But, BTW, tell me: where were the Franks in the same
> century? Roughly in what area?

Here, in their traditional home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Germanic

> >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?

Ptolemy's ´ελουητίων ´ερημος
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetii#Earliest_historical_sources_and_settlement
probably destroyed by Ariovistus.


> >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.

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?

> 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.

Not quite, I also have the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negau_helmet
(check the archives) and the fact that the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scirii
in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture
(and possibly in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarubintsy_culture )
and the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae
in the
Poieneşti-Lukaševka culture (no Wiki)
spoke Germanic languages. That's a 500 year gap I have fill out.


> 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.

'nobody knows' -> 'nonsense' doesn't follow if you can produce evidence from other sciences which has been overlooked.

> >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.)

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.


> >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.)

Why did you delete the premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an absolute statement?

> >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?

The 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.

> >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, you didn't. You deleted the premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an absolute statement.

> > You, as a trained linguist, know better than outsider dilettantes
> > 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?

I 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.

> >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.

That was clumsy. Let me rewrite that:
The languages of linguistic relic groups such as the kentum languages don't necessarily have anything in common.


> >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.

You deleted the premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an absolute statement.


> > > >Nobody wants to be a slave, they don't need an Abe Lincoln to tell
> > > >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.

I 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.

> >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.

Strunzdumm? Why? They weren't slaves yet.


> >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.

No 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toussaint_L%27ouverture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Dessalines


> >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).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#African_conflicts
'In letters written by the Manikongo, Nzinga Mbemba Affonso, to the King João III of Portugal, he writes that Portuguese merchandise flowing in is what is fueling the trade in Africans. He requests the King of Portugal to stop sending merchandise but should only send missionaries. In one of his letter he writes:
"Each day the traders are kidnapping our peopleâ€"children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family. This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated. We need in this kingdom only priests and schoolteachers, and no merchandise, unless it is wine and flour for Mass. It is our wish that this Kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves.

Many of our subjects eagerly lust after Portuguese merchandise that your subjects have brought into our domains. To satisfy this inordinate appetite, they seize many of our black free subjects.... They sell them. After having taken these prisoners [to the coast] secretly or at night..... As soon as the captives are in the hands of white men they are branded with a red-hot iron."

Before the arrival of the Portuguese, slavery had already existed in Kongo. Despite its establishment within his kingdom, Afonso believed that the slave trade should be subject to Kongo law. When he suspected the Portuguese of receiving illegally enslaved persons to sell, he wrote in to King João III in 1526 imploring him to put a stop to the practice.

The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery, who otherwise would have been killed in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. As one of West Africa's principal slave states, Dahomey became extremely unpopular with neighbouring peoples. Like the Bambara Empire to the east, the Khasso kingdoms depended heavily on the slave trade for their economy. A family's status was indicated by the number of slaves it owned, leading to wars for the sole purpose of taking more captives. This trade led the Khasso into increasing contact with the European settlements of Africa's west coast, particularly the French. Benin grew increasingly rich during the 16th and 17th centuries on the slave trade with Europe; slaves from enemy states of the interior were sold, and carried to the Americas in Dutch and Portuguese ships. The Bight of Benin's shore soon came to be known as the "Slave Coast".

King Gezo of Dahomey said in the 1840s:
The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery.

In 1807, the UK Parliament passed the Bill that abolished the trading of slaves. The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice:
We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.'

So
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afonso_I_of_Kongo
was a modern nationalist?
The world is much more complicated that your 'nationalism was invented in the 19th century' standard fare.


> >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.

Nope.

> 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.

I never disputed that.

> Dass Du darüber
> schreibst und unterstreichst, dass Dezeneus dies und jenes
> tat,

Excuse me, that was Jordanes wrote that.

> 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.

No, I don't

> Also strenge Dich an, komme mir nimmer so saudumm
> daher (außerdem so frech: Denn gleich werd' ich Dir sagen,
> an wen Du, Dösbattel, Dein "SOB" richten sollst!).

Saudumm?

> >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.

You were the one introducing the subject of Carpi and Costoboci, not I.


> 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.

Well, don't mention it then.


> >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."

Thank you, but I already have that.


> >I'm pretty friendly
>
> You're pretty friendly and call me a "lazy SOB"?

That was a observation.

> 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?

No, I assumed some (many) might be clueless to this deep psychological fault line in German-speaking lands, which would be explained by my proposal.

> >That's what people do here.
>
> Then behave

That's a different thing here and there ;-)

> >I expected you to behave like a German.
>
> Like a German in 1940?

See if you can make sense of this with Google translate
http://www.aalkat-gym.dk/378-271-churchill-klubben_og_besaettelsestiden.htm
http://www.aalkat-gym.dk/default.asp?id=395
http://www.aalkat-gym.dk/default.asp?id=396&pId=395
http://www.aalkat-gym.dk/default.asp?id=398
http://www.aalkat-gym.dk/default.asp?id=399
Rektor Galster was my grandfather


> >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?

Don't worry. We'll be gone. The EU will see to that.

> >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?)

I am sorry if looking on too much of your own posting have mad you feel bad.

> 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.
>

Aha, I do wrong things because I do wrong things. Thanks for the advice.



Torsten