From: Torsten
Message: 67402
Date: 2011-04-27
>Are those places in -eÅti known earlier under other names in sources in other languages or are they new settlements?
> >The language itself is not documented before that time
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language#Writing_system
>
> But whole lotta place names were documented. -escu + -e$ti showed
> up like a ... fad in the 16th-17th centuries and spread esp. in
> the 18th-19th c. (To be precise: there are whole lotta Transylva-
> nian place names ending in -e$ti, but person names ending in -escu
> are not autochtonous, these being spread outside the Carpathian
> range.)
> >I should be more exact and take care to call that language ProtoThe problem is that of the Bastarnian language we have only three names of their leaders. I've tried to find a Germanic etymology for one of them which turned to have been both the first and second Lautverschiebung
> >High German in the future.
>
> Don't insist on "high" unless you have a proof that their
> Protogerman differed too much from other Protogerman idioms of
> populations later on also contributed to the "creation" of
> Oberdeutsch and Mitteldeutsch.
> >That community isn't aware of the history of the area in as muchNo, you've had too much candy already. We won't risk you getting unreasonable, would we?
> >detail as we have covered here in Cybalist.
>
> Oh, come on, puhleeeze! :)
> > No, they would be in traditional Elbe Germanic area.I know. What I meant and should have written is 'Old Low German / Old Saxon' since Old Saxon is the 'reference language' for Old Low German. In Lower Saxony / Niedersachsen, thus.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic
>
> I meant Saxons in that epoch (1st c. BCE - 1st CE), i.e. their
> ancestors:
>
> <<Die Sachsen waren ein westgermanischer Stammesverband, der sich
> vermutlich im 3. Jahrhundert bildete und seit dem 4. Jahrhundert
> sicher belegt ist.
>
> Die Stämme der Chauken, Angrivarier und Cherusker, die sich zu
> den Sachsen zusammenschlossen, lebten im 1. Jahrhundert im
> Nordwesten des heutigen Deutschlands und im Osten der heutigen
> Niederlande (siehe Niedersächsisch).>>
>
> (So, they hadn't yet arrived in the area wich today is called
> Sachsen and was/is a compact Slavic area (containing Lusatia
> and such Slavic place names as Leipzig, Dresden, Chemnitz.)
>
> Moreover:
>
> <<Der heutige Freistaat Sachsen, historisch auch Kurfürstentum
> Sachsen (Kursachsen) bzw. Obersachsen, hat mit dem historischen Volk
> der Sachsen im niederdeutschen Sprachraum "auÃer dem Namen" nichts
> gemein: Die Vorfahren der Bewohner des heutigen Freistaates Sachsen
> gehör(t)en dem mittelhochdeutschen Dialektraum an.
> Die Namenswanderung geschah dadurch, dass der Titel des Herzogs von
> Sachsen an Fürsten fiel, die auÃerhalb des alten Stammesgebietes
> residierten, und der Name auf deren Länder übertragen wurde. Der
> Herzogstitel von Sachsen fiel nach dem Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen im
> Jahr 1180 an den Askanier Bernhard, der in Wittenberg residierte.
> Bereits zu diesem Zeitpunkt verlor im deutschen Reich der Titel
> eines "Herzogs" seine Bindung an ein Stammesgebiet.>>
> >Here, in their traditional home:Erh, no, Ingvaeonic, if you wish, and NWBlock. All the Germanic peoples I've mentioned so far (outside of Scandinavia) have spoken West Germanic languages.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Germanic
>
> Westgermanen.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/GermanenAD50.pngErh, not really. I don't like them.
>
> OTOH, you're fascinated/obsessed by Bastarnians
> (OK, I understand: > to you, they were a special, "upper class",They were punks who *made* themselves upper class, based on their greater proficiency in war.
> populace).
> But not byI know, but they are known only later.
> their "colleagues" living in the same Vistula area: Gepids, Gotons
> (Goths), Rugii, Scirii - who played a way greater role for a long
> while in the Roman Empire. And not by the next-door neighbors of
> them: Lugii, Burgundians and Vandals - other important populations
> that played great roles in various events (the Burgundians even
> until the 16th c.)
> >You would want to attack the unfamiliar (to you) theory if it wasAlright.
> >mine, but you're afraid it might be a well-established theory you
> >haven't heard of?
>
> Neither - nor! It'd be interesting for your theory to have
> substance: we'd get something new. But it must have Hand-und-Fuss.
> :)
> >Not quite, I also have theImagine then how tired I am of them.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negau_helmet
> >(check the archives) and the fact that the
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scirii
>
> Aha, so there are further groups, not only those overwhelming and
> ubiquitous Bastarnians (I'm growing fed up with them langsam)! :)
> <<Must (1957) reads HariÏas Titieva as a Raetic personal name, theI think it's the most reasonable hypothesis.
> first element from the Indo-European (Venetic rather than Germanic),
> the second from the Etruscan.>>
>
> So it is not sure that the inscription Harigasti teiwaz is Germanic,
> it's only a hypothesis that it contains Germanic words.
> >That's a 500 year gap I have fill out.I said 'from other sciences'.
>
> Ahem. :)
>
> >'nobody knows' -> 'nonsense' doesn't follow if you can produce
> >evidence from other sciences which has been overlooked.
>
> Then go ahead, produce them. Produce evidence on how were the
> Germanic idioms/dialects in the 1st c. as compared with Southern
> Deutsch of the 12th-21st century - when you lack scribblings and
> you lack other devices & techniques.
> Nobody contests the finds that show some populations in someHere's the plot: for around 200 BCE, the Scirii and the Bastarnae are the only Germanic peoples we have written testimony of.
> periods of time were Germanic (or Slavic or Celtic or whatever).
> Your thesis is that one population out of several others in
> a certain area, the Bastarnians, were those who were continuated
> by the Oberdeutsch (and perhaps by Mitteldeutsch) Germans.
> Your thesis is that South-German dialects were started byI think they are the Sueui, Ariovistus' own people. They are the ones that constantly cause trouble *among the locals* on the Rhine. The Charudes were their settlers, or serfs. The others, Triboci, Vangiones and Nemetes are opportunistic fickle allies, like Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in WWII, which can be seen from the fact that Caesar permits them to stay in Gaul (Alsace) unlike the Sueui and Charudes.
> Bastarnians and only by them. By which tools, method, markers
> are you able to dissociate Bastarnians (in this respect) from
> all the others who also colonized South Germany? How can you
> prove only Bastarnians' own dialect prevailed.
> Even if you take old high German texts of which you know whereI can't, of course. For one thing, all words in p- in Germanic languages are loans from a substrate, either from NWBlock or some substrate in Przeworsk. But those same words have correspondences in pf- in High German, which demonstrates the presence of northern loans in that language. But I think the bulk of High German is Bastarnian.
> they were written: how can you establish the Bastarnian
> filiation without any mixing with elements from the idioms
> spoken (8-9 centuries earlier) by Rhine-Weser Germanic tribes
> or by North-Sea Germanic tribes?
> >I know. Irrelevant. The German Silesians have disappeared asI know.
> >a distinct people by being absorbed into the two Germnan
> >states after 1945, which was what the comparison was about.
>
> No, this is completely wrong! Until they completely vanish as
> a certain dialect or subdialect speakers and connoisseurs of
> their own customs and tradition, you have to wait for a few
> more decades. Today, they are still here. (In the locality
> where I live there is an important group of them, with their
> own Landsmannschaft-like organization. The same applies to the
> Sudetendeutsche community.
> >Why did you delete the premise of a conditional statement soAnd in your answers minus the parts you delete.
> >that it appeared as an absolute statement?
>
> I don't know what you're talkin' about, and it doesn't matter
> anyway: what you've stated is *there*, once posted and distributed
> and archived.
> I'm free to cite whatever I want and to addressNo you can't. You can't you delete the premise of a conditional statement so that it appears as an absolute statement. That's either incompetent or dishonest.
> whatever parts of your posts I desire.
> (Especially since I'veErh, when did you do that?
> seen that you do not react or you discard as "nonsense" very
> important objections I make pertaining to some judgments of
> yours to show you why your hypothesis doesn't work or why it
> is rickety.)
> >The Charudes / Croats arriving with Ariovistus would remainBecause you ask me.
> >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.
>
> But to what avail do you mention them again and again and ad
> nauseam?
> As far as (1) Schöffe I, (2) Bastarnians, (3) theAriovistus was the brother-in-law of king Voccio of Noricum, who must then have been his ally. The 30,000 Charudes Ariovistus was expecting for settlement when Caesar attacked him would have nowhere else to go after his defeat. So I think they ended up in Noricum / Austria. The rest is history, as they say.
> creation of Oberdeutsch in the southern areas of the Holy Roman
> Empire are concerned, addressed and discussed: what contribution
> has the mentioning of Charudes = Croats?
> >This is why Southern Slavs are genetically distinct from otherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA)
> Slavs.
>
> Of course they are to a certain extent: examinations of haploid
> groups in various areas show a concentration of old I haplogroup
> in their area (i.e. in former Illyricum). Which might be interpreted
> as marking a considerable concentration of populations that had
> stayed longer in Europe than those who came along during the
> Völkerwanderunszeit. OTOH, we know that in their area there were
> other immigrants too who came just in those centuries of the
> Great Migrations, from eastern Eurasian regions (for instance Huns,
> Avars and Iranian-speaking Alans or similar populations), and that
> older populations were of various stocks from various provinces of
> the Roman Empire. But the Slavic impact must have been important,
> otherwise Croats would be Italians or Albanians or Hungarians
> today.
> >No, you didn't. You deleted the premise of a conditional statementOh, I see. It was diversion.
> >so that it appeared as an absolute statement.
>
> I won't repeat why inserting "free" along with "Dacians" isn't OK
> in the 1st c. BCE.
>
>Well, what I'm doing is to construct a scenario (migrations etc) which would not be discordant with those facts.
> OK, let's close this sub-collateral (off-)topic. By now I know
> what you try to explain in the 1st c. BCE Dacia's context when
> you refer to these topix: (1) Bastarnians+Przeworsk; (2) Jewish
> merchants; (3) the real and postulated links between Dacians and
> a neo-Romance language-speaking population which has been called
> Vlachs (exonym) and Rumanians (endonym).
> *How were the slaves traffic and commerce in Dacia under variousWell it sort of is, since Burebista attacking the Bastarnae, prevailing and enslaving them is part of my scenario, since I need to explain the large number of Germanic Slaves in Spartacus' army at a time when the Romans had not yet been at war with, or indeed in contact with any Germanic peoples.
> Dacian rulers* is not of main interest as far as these topics are
> concerned.
> The chief issue is to show why the Bastarnians played theWe know archaeologically that a new upper layer appear suddenly in the until then egalitarian Przeworsk culture at about this time. They introduce inhumation, and they bury separately.
> main role in the building of the South-German ethno-linguistic
> groups.
> Why only them, and to a lesser or no extent theirThe introduction of the new upper class in Przeworsk was an abrupt event, which must have been caused by another abrupt event, such as the defeat of the the Bastarnae and the expulsion from their old homes. Think 1945.
> neighboring groups.
> The historic fact being that the term BastarnianNo, the only remaining free Bastarnian tribe, the Peucini disppeared at that time. The Atmoni and Sidoni disappeared in mid 1st century BCE
> ceased to exist (to be mentioned) in the 3rd-4th c. CE,
> whereas theThose are the results of the Jastorf culture being reorganized by the Bastarnians and South Germany being conquered.
> names of some of their contemporaries are still in use (e.g.
> Suebi, Baiuvari, Turingi, Franci, Saxoni; and even Burgundi,
> if we think of some red wine or of a word used by Hungarians,
> burgonya, that means "potato" :-) and has almost the same
> pronuncition as the French Bourgogne).
>No, you underline that they never thought of resisting being the target of slavers, which they were, cf. the Strabo quote in
> >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,
>
> What on earth are you talking about?!? How the heck did *I*
> induce to you these thoughts? What I do is exactly the contrary:
> I underline that slavery was the most common thing before
> baptization (i.e. officially adopting the Christian faith).
> >in other words that they are no nationality but a profession. IsWhy do you say it then?
> >that what you mean?
>
> You have no idea in which context was concocted the bon (mal)
> mot "not a nationality but a profession". Therefore, don't repeat
> it since it is higly (I mean very!) offensive! It is at least as
> offensive as saying kike/hymie to a Jew or boch to a German or
> wop to an Italian.
> It is far more offensive than Fischkopp utteredHow about Gesocks then? Or saudumm?
> by an Alpine rube when addressing a Northsea or Baltic sea German
> or Scandinavian.
> >was a modern nationalist?If you think this is off-topic, you can't read.
> >The world is much more complicated that your 'nationalism was
> >invented in the 19th century' standard fare.
>
> Now I realize that you poured this amount of off-topic crap
> because you absolutely did not understand what I meant byOf course I did, and you're wrong.
> the modern perspective of our times pertaining to nationalism
> - and why some of our modern "optic" doesn't fit the way ofThat quote showed that some African kings in the 15th century thought in terms of protecting their people from being the target of slavers, which contradicts your (fashionable) claim that such a way of thinking belongs exclusively to the modern age.
> thinking in ancient as well as early medieval times.
> >>Indem Du das Wort "frei" einbaust, so stellst Du automatischLet there be light? I think you overestimate yourself, George. Things don't become so just because you say so. I gave up that idea when I was five. I think you should too.
> >>eine Verbindung mit der unfreien Zeit her, also mit der Zeit
> >>der römischen Besatzung.
> >
> >Nope.
>
> I am aware that you do not understand this, but pay attention
> to what I'm telling you: ES IST SO!
> Because of logic, becauseErh ... yes. And?
> of our cultural socialization, because of the structures of...
> language: we don't chaotically pick up words in order to build
> sentences in order to convey something - we do that constrained
> by some needs, by some... logic.
> So is the case of free.???
> The syntagm "free Dacians" was invented by historians toYes, you told me that now several times; besides I knew that already.
> dissociated those living in territories never occupied by the
> SPQR from those Dacians who became subjects to SPQR and after
> Caracalla citizens.
> So, only in this context does "free Dacians" make sense. InNo. If I think the Dacians/Thracians in the 1st century BCE were split into a group which were dependent on the Romans, helping them procure slaves, and another group which wasn't, I can refer to the latter group as 'free' if I want, and if I want to make sure the reader distinguishes them from the later 'free Dacians' I can call them 'the then free Dacians', given an appropriate time reference in the text.
> the context of Burebista the syntagm has no purpose.
> >Excuse me, that was Jordanes wrote that.Dilemma: Should I believe George or Jordanes?
>
> Take Jordanes cum grano salis.
> >You were the one introducing the subject of Carpi and Costoboci,No, that the Albanians were the descendants of 'the then free Dacians' I mentioned, ie. the population which were the targets of slave procurement.
> >not I.
>
> Of course, since you were talking of Northern Dacians who
> moved to the South. Thus, I pointed out: (1) the South had had
> enough masses of Dacian-speaking populace (some of them were
> called Moessi); (2) not only "free Dacians" from the North and
> East moved thither, but also populations called Carpi and
> Costoboces, whom various historians have deemed as being
> some Dacian populations too. And all this in the context of
> an hypothesis that says Albanians are rather descendants of
> a Thracian and/or Daco-Moesian population (from middle regions
> of the Balkan Peninsula) than of Illyrians near the shores of
> the Adriatic Sea (Illyrians anyway having been the first regional
> population to be Romanized as compared with the rest of the
> natives over there).
> > > Even if I'd supply a train with a locomotive, and a cruisingNo, I confirm that I already have a train with a locomotive, and a cruising ship, so thank you, but no thank you.
> > > ship, your reaction would be the same: "And?" or "Says Grimm.
> >Thank you, but I already have that.
>
> So you confirm that I am to be given these retorts "And?" and
> "sez Grimm" in most of the cases, don't you. :)
> >>You're pretty friendly and call me a "lazy SOB"?SOB is not what it was in 1945. 'Lazy SOB' is pretty mild compared to 'Gesocks' and 'saudumm'
> >
> >That was a observation.
>
> You allow yourself to call me a son of a bitch, i.e. to call
> my mother a bitch? Are you healthy up there in the vessel
> that's fixed on your neck and in which those few neurons are
> swimming in a Brownian way?
> >Rektor Galster was my grandfatherErrh, did you say 'innocent, friendly and witty'?
>
> I don't think Herr Rektor would be amused today to see how
> you call an innocent, friendly and witty discussion partner
> a "SOB".
> >Don't worry. We'll be gone. The EU will see to that.No, that's at the other end of Germany. The one where you live.
>
> Whenever there is trouble, you all run away. It's left to
> us to pay and pay and forever pay (although our own incomes
> are less and less and unemployment rampant)...
> >I am sorry if looking on too much of your own posting haveWell thank you ;-)
> >mad you feel bad.
>
> OK, for these kind words I'll almost rehabilitate your status. :)
> >Aha, I do wrong things because I do wrong things. Thanks forBelieve it or not: I thought of, if I ever get myself together to write about this, putting a dedication to George Knysh on the front page, because, even if he was the greatest SOB I've met here on Cybalist, he did have an incredible amount of factual knowledge on the subject. But if you can manage to be an even greater SOB that he was, maybe I can find a space beneath his name? Can you do that? ;-)
> >the advice.
>
> Which advice'll do you good: you'll improve your theory, and
> when you'll get the Nobel prize you'll mention a certain "SOB"
> George who opened the path to the ceremony where you'll utter
> those "thank you" words into the mike, on the stage. :)