>Are those places in -eÅti known earlier under other names in sources
>in other languages or are they new settlements?
Mostly or always new ones. Among place names with typical and
highly frequent suffixes, the most frequent seem to be those
ending in -eni (or -ani) and -e$ti - both of them being perceived
in Romanian as plurals. Family names corresponding to them, in
the singular, have the corresponding suffixes -eanu (-anu)
[or shorter: -ean and -an esp. in Transylvania and those parts
of Moldova that belonged to Austria and Russia, as well as in
Banat, esp. in that part of it that belongs to Serbia], and -escu.
In recent times, esp. since the 18th c., second names ending in
-escu have been extended to any kind of names, that semantically
have nothing to do with a place and the name or some historic
or legendary fact pertaining to a place of origin (e.g. words
meaning a trade, or a profession or an administrative or
military position, including loanwords, in this respect, from
other languages, e.g. Isbä$escu from Turkish yüzba$ı "oberleutnant
or captain", CeauSescu from Turkish çavuŠ(chavoosh) "earlier
in the Turkic world some higher military rank; in modern times
some sergeant or bailiff", Stegärescu < probably from stegar
"Fähnrich"). It has been used in a similar way as -sen/-son in
Low German and Scandinavian names or as -shvili in Kartvelian
or -oÄlu in Turkish onomastics.
In any case, if -e$ti is however some relic of the ancient
-(e)st(e)- you're talking about, the Romanian native-speakers
aren't aware of -e$ti as a traditional place name suffix, but
they instinctively perceive it as a community of -esc's. On
top of that, -esc also has the value of an adjectival ending
in adjectives that answer the questions "what kind of? which
quality? welche Beschaffenheit?" (as it does in the borrowed
-esque in English: e.g. picturesque). (And don't forget: this
phonetical relationship also work in the IV conjugation of
-ire and -rîre: indicative present: I pers. sing. + III pers.
plur. -esc & -&sc versus II pers. sing. -e$ti & III pers. sing.
-e$te; as well as in the forming noun plurals with -$t(i,e) of
nouns having in the singular form -sc<vowel> [sk]. Because
Romanian vernacular has always had problems with the cluster
[sÄe, sÄi] _ALTHOUGH_ standard Romanian much easier comes to
terms with it than Italian (that turns the cluster to [Se,
Si]); (e.g. see the pronunciations of the words fascicul,
fascism, scenä ("stage" + "scenery"), that are pronounced
[sÄe, sÄi] excepting by uneducated people or by some who need
logopedic training who pronounce *fa$icul, fa$izm, $Äenä.)
>The problem is that of the Bastarnian language we have only three
>names of their leaders.
Ja, dann, wat sull dat janze Jefasel? :-)
>I've tried to find a Germanic etymology for one of them which
>turned to have been both the first and second Lautverschiebung
>My first attempt
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64761
>and the correction to Proto-Hochdeutsch
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67156
But what if it reflected another kind of cluster: chl-?
As in Frankish Chlodowech, Chlothar or in Nordic Hrothgar,
Hrörekr. (To Roman scribblers it would have been difficult
to transcribe them, so that they would've been tempted to
"extract" *Clodouec (they did: Clovis), *Clotar, *Crotgar,
*Crorec (it ended up Rurik, didn't it?).)
>No, you've had too much candy already.
But no biscuit.
[snip: again an enormous chunk of quotation; why don't you
quote only a few sentences that suffice so that the reader
gets it?]
>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.
OK, but where (in which area) could Bastarnians have become
an upper class stratum ruling an old Saxon social stratum?
Between the Weser and Elbe?
>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.
But Marcomanians, Bastarnians, Goths, Gepids, Heruls, Langobards
didn't belong to this group, did it?
>>OTOH, you're fascinated/obsessed by Bastarnians
>
>Erh, not really. I don't like them.
>
>[---]
>
>They were punks who *made* themselves upper class, based on their
>greater proficiency in war.
As any upper class until the modern ... parliament. :)
>Here's the plot: for around 200 BCE, the Scirii and the Bastarnae
>are the only Germanic peoples we have written testimony of.
>As for Scirii, Pekkanen has a theory that the exonym 'Germani' is
>actually a Latin loan translation of 'Scirii' "the pure ones,
>the real ones". As for the further family of *skir-/*skin-, see
So are then the words schier & sheer the continuations of
sciri(i)??
(In German, schier is also a quite common surname, Schier, but
more frequent in eastern parts of the "reich"; in Mecklenburg
it seems it has the semantic connotation "der/die Schöne",
for which in the Yiddish world there there is the equivalent
Yaffe (Yoffe, Jaffe, Joffe).)
>I 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.
Or southern:
Pferd < paraveredus; Pfalz < palatia; Pfand < pand
< pannus (idem Pfennig); Pfahl < palus; Pfaffe < papas.;
Pfingsten < paintekuste < pentekoste; Pforte < porta.
>But I think the bulk of High German is Bastarnian.
The bulk seems to be Latin loanwords. So, you imply Bastarnian
to have been the intermediary Germanic language? (Scholars say
in some cases it must have been the Gothic language.) And
those with assumed Germanic (or substrate) origin don't seem
to be more numerous than the Latin-Greek ones (e.g. pflegen,
Pflicht, Pfriem).
>I know.
>But imagine you are an archaeologist 2000 years from now;
>you'd find 'Silesian' objects west of the Neisse mixed with
>stuff from other 'tribes'. The archaeologist would conclude
>that the tribe had disappeared as an independent people.
Yeah, but this is a quite simplistic way of seeing the whole
thing. Silezian and East Prussian Germans weren't "independent"
in the sense of genuine "Volksstämme" with their *real*
specific dialects. They were in fact quite recent populations
with ancestors who moved in those regions in the 12th-13th
centuries and coming from different western areas - some
Low German-speaking groups, some Middle German-speaking
groups and some Oberdeutsch-speaking groups (even Netherlands-
speaking groups - these way into Mecklenburg hinein). Which
is attested. So, except for areas of Low German in the Eastern
territories Germany had to give up in 1945, the rest has had
types of German (actually sub-dialects) that are very close to
the standard Hochdeutsch (and therefore intelligible by anyone).
In this respect they have been unlike "angestammte" "old"
dialectal groups. On top of that, all German populations in
the East do have an immense genetic substrate of Slavic and
Baltic origin (which can be seen even today to a huge extent
by merely reading surnames of such Germans with roots there,
e.g. Baltic: Naujocks, Wowereit, Kalluweit; let alone the
enormous number of barely or not Germanized names such as
Porsche, Borsche, Bienek, Suhlke, Tetzlaff, Stahnke, Stanjek,
Matzke, Matulla, Schimanski, Nowakowski, Przybilski, Krull,
Czaja, Slomka, Litschka, Prohaska, Dersch, Kausch, Klopsch,
Kupsch, Zauch, Zeuch, Zech, Zenk, Marschner, Zietz, Zühl,
Schuppan, Saupe etc.).
>>I'm free to cite whatever I want and to address
>>whatever parts of your posts I desire.
>
>No 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.
Maybe you're a veteran netizen, but you still don't know some
procedere/netiquette features. Quoting techniques on mailing
lists and in Usenet groups require the observance of something
I'd call "posting economy". So, whenever citing/quoting from
the text to which I give a reply, I'll take only a minimum
amount so that, for further reading __within a thread__ one
doesn't lose the... thread of what's being discussed.
If it happens that wrong inferences pop up, then you or others
are free to point out ("you neglect" or "you didn't see the
sentences x,y,z, so that your idea/conclusion is wrong; pls,
therefore, re-read that part of the previous statement you're
now missing" or "you didn't pay attention to"). As simple as
that.
What you are doing is what I've seen for over 15 years now
so often: complaining that I brutally apply machete slashes
to the thicket of your prose. This reaction is based on a
false assumption that what has been posted "*must*" always
be quoted as a block, and whoever does pick up fragments out
of this "block" he/she is a wrongdoer.
Well, quite the opposite is true: this attitude is an attitude
of a bloody newbie. To ad-nauseam repeat huge chunks of posted
and reposted and reposted many a time in long quotations does
not fit the netiquette (and does not provide clarity for the
readers). My 2c. (I appreciate though that you use the "old"
">>" quotation style, incl. putting your reply underneath the
quoted paragraph.)
>>But to what avail do you mention them again and again and ad
>>nauseam?
>
>Because you ask me.
I didn't. What I did was to ask for some substance that might
sustain your allegations that Ariovistus, Bastarnians etcetera
had something to say in order to contribute to a certain way
of development/transformation of Germanic idioms into Oberdeutsch
(incl. into the kind of Oberdeutsch known as Yiddish).
You don't have any linguistic element whatsoever to demonstrate
that only Bastarnians and no other Germanic-speaking people had
this possibility. As simple as that. Even if you'd have dynastic
lists of princelings that conquered southern regions where
MHG and Oberdeutsch-HG developed and even you'd be able to
demonstrate all of them had Bastarnian extraction, you cannot
demonstrate that no other Germanic groups participated in the
colonization *and* giving the language those certain particulari-
ties that makes it different from Low German and other German or
Germanic idioms.
IMHO, this is the gist of the entire discussion. How on earth can
you establish Bastarnians exerted a certain LINGUISTIC influence
when you've got no idea how their Germanic dialect was? You
rather might show that Bastarnians had continuators in some
ruling dynasties or upper class social strata in Germanic or
German kindoms and duchies later on. But this is something different.
Yet even in this respect, for the time being, you can't offer
interesting details/judgments. The fact that Ariovist + auxiliary
Charudes were there, in the region of the upper Rhine, means...
nothing. What really has a significance is how South Germany,
Austria, Switzerland, Alsatia etc. were gradually colonized by
Germanic colonists after SPQR went bust and how quickly and in
which way did the autochtonous Latin, Celtic etc. populations
germanize. And that happened esp. 6-7 centuries after Ariovist.
In Ariovist's time, South Germany was as Celtic and Roman as
they come. Places such as Rottweil and Augsburg were Roman urbes
(Augsburg was a municipium, and its name Augusta Vindelicorum
shows the area was or had been inhabited by the Celts called
Vindelici, it wasn't called Augusta Bastarniorum or Charudesiorum :))
>Ariovistus was the brother-in-law of king Voccio of Noricum,
OK, then take Noricum (which lays a bit farther to the east):
is there archeologic and written evidence attesting a Bastarnian
presence at least in Noricum? I mean a significant population,
not merely some cohorts of warriors paid by a chieftain called
Ariovist.
>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.
Leave them aside. They're not on-topic at this moment. (Besides,
the territory of the Croats is a next-door neighbor to Noricum;
and besides: Austria had anyway an early Slavic presence in
the East and the South and the situation has been quite unchanged
from the early Slavic impact up to day: yesterday, Carinthia's
legislature adopted a law referring to the bilingual traffic
signs in the relevant area bordering Slovenia.)
Your topic is Bastarnae and their *linguistic* impact in the
southern part of the future "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation".
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA)
>Concentrated in Croatia and Scandinavia, of all places.
>Good for my scenario.
Really? How can you establish any I-haplogroup connection with
(1) Bastarnae; (2) Ariovist; (3) South-Germans? And, if you
could (say: Bastarnae or another Germanic group) would have
consisted of many I-people, how can you make a distinction?
How can you separate them from other populations that got
Germanized in the 5th-6th-7th centuries around the Alpine
region? :)
>Well, what I'm doing is to construct a scenario (migrations etc) >which would not be discordant with those facts.
And my reactions so far have been to say: your scenario keeps
being discordant. So, do improve it.
>Well 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.
First of all, verify all _other possibilities_ the SPQR
empire _had_ in order to procure slaves of Germanic extraction!
And only when you scientifically can prove Rome had no other
sources...
>We 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.
Okay, but this gives you no hint whatsoever on what kind of
Germanic dialect Bastarnians spoke, let alone that their
dialect showed up later on (1,200 years later on) as the
incipient Bavarian, Suebian, Franconian. (By the same token:
show me why, for example, Lonobards didn't play a role in
the linguistic process later on.)
>The 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.
That's okay. But where's the beef as far as the specific
linguistic transformation is of concern? How can you be sure
only Bastarnians played a certain role, and all the others
didn't? Why had all relevant Germanic groups, that built
kingdoms and other states in the relevant territories, why
did they have other names, and were never called Bastarnians?
Of course, many came from North-East and East, everybody
knows that. (Moreover, Bavarians have an ethnic name that's
reminiscent of Boiohemum = Bohemia, the country of the
Celtic Boii, whom the same Burebista defeated.)
I won't mind if Siegfried, Gunther, Hagen von Tronje,
Kriemhild as well as Arnulf, Garibald and Tassilo were of
Bastarnian origin. But show us some substance. :)
>No, the only remaining free Bastarnian tribe, the Peucini
>disppeared at that time. The Atmoni and Sidoni disappeared
>in mid 1st century BCE
Of course, "disappearance" not in the real sense (death), but
in the sense of ... assimilation. Of course, Bastarnians
further existed, and their chromozomes still exist, scattered
in Germany, Bohemia, Poland etcetera. It is only that you
maintain they were the 1st violin in developing of a certain
German (Deutsch) dialect in southern regions of the "reich".
To me, this is an impossibility to ascertain. To you, this
is tantamount to evidence, in spite of lacking any evidence
whatsoever. By the same token: where are the Goths? Where
are the Burgundians? They also "disappeared" and those
"inheritors" of them (Italians, Catalans, French, Swiss,
Spaniards etc.) you can't tell from other populations that
also have built these modern nations. Yet Gothic left a big
written corpus: one can get an idea how that Germanic language
was. Bastarnae left nothing, zilch, yet you assert: Bastarnae
spoke a "(proto) high German" dialect. :)
>Those are the results of the Jastorf culture being reorganized
>by the Bastarnians and South Germany being conquered.
South Germany was conquered/colonized by Germanic populations
(3-4-5-6) centuries after those events around Ariovist and
Boerebist. (Weren't they the one and the same person actually? :))
>No, you underline that they never thought of resisting being
>the target of slavers, which they were, cf. the Strabo quote in
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66620
Does your inference happen to rely only on the information
that in some epoch in arenas with gladiators and in some
plays (theater shows) some slaves were called Geta and Daos
because there might have been quite numerous slaves from
among the Getae/Daci population? This has no signification.
This was as is today when, e.g. all Germans are called by
outsiders "Fritz" and "Kraut" or Britishers as "Limey" or
Russians as "Ivan" or all Turks "Ali". Or all Greek ...
"Danaos", as they were actually called: "timeo Danaos dona
ferentes".
>Why do you say it then?
In order to explain it to you, in order to teach you.
So you'll be spared some Fressepolierung. :)
>How about Gesocks then? Or saudumm?
"Wie man in den Wald hinein ruft..."
>If you think this is off-topic, you can't read.
If you think that that is on-topic, you should put some
order in the elements you try to combine; this way it is
to no avail to the Bastarnae-Ariovist impact on Schöffe.
(In other terms, up to now... Du schöpfst aus dem falschen
Scheffel.)
>Of course I did, and you're wrong.
OK then, you are right, and... ich habe meine Ruhe! :)
>Let 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.
Then ignore me, and listen to how will react the (1) community
on cybalist; and (2) the sci-community out there. :)
>Yes, you told me that now several times; besides I knew
>that already.
Then it's worse than I thought it already was.
>No. If I think the Dacians/Thracians in the 1st century BCE were
>split into a group which were dependent on the Romans
In which way "dependent"? In what territory? Based on what
written sources? When exactly? In Burebista's years (approx.
80-44 BCE)? Between 44 BCE and 100 CE?
>helping them procure slaves
If it was Dacians who were able & entitled to *help* "Romania"
(which was a monstrous colossus of a state!), how were they...
"dependent"? This would mean that the SPQR-state depended on
Dacia. (I'm writing it only for the sake of discussion, coz
otherwise this is a consumate bunkum: the Roman Empire didn't
depend of slave procurement from Dacia; it had its own millions
of slaves and a potential of other masses from other countries
as well, from the Atlantic to Persia, and from Morocco to
Persia. But I understand by now that your idea was induced by
Roman theater literature containing those slave characters
with symbolic ethnic names "Geta" and "Daos". And then to
infer that these Geta and Daos were actually ... Bastarnian
slaves, as though people in Rome were as stupid as to not
being able to distinguish the ethnicity of those who entered
their "Schengen" area! <tsk-tsk-tsk> :))
>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.
OK, do that, it's a free country. :)
>Dilemma: Should I believe George or Jordanes?
Believe Jordanes if you prefer. So, Getae were the ancestors of
Goths and the rest of Scandinavians, right? So, you yourself are
sort of a Mucapor Tzinto Dakensen. Zufrieden? (Look at those two
genuine Dacian names! :))
>No, that the Albanians were the descendants of 'the then free >Dacians' I mentioned, ie.
This is impossible. If of Dacians or of Thracians, then in much
later times (after the 6th c., after the Avar-Slavic invasions,
and after the crashing of the East-Roman authority and admini-
stration). At that time (1st c. BCE and 1st c. CE) in today's
Albanian territory there lived Illyrians and a bit farther to
the North (where there's much I-haplogroup frequency) there
lived their cousins, the Pannonians, and "spots" of Veneti.
In those times, the Romanization merely was in its inception;
it had to last further 5 centuries.
>the population which were the targets of slave procurement.
You put it so as though poor Rome didn't have other sources of
procurement. (As though Washington must rely only on Libya's
crude, as though there were no Saudi Arabia and no Gulf
emirates. :))
>No, I confirm that I already have a train with a locomotive,
>and a cruising ship, so thank you, but no thank you.
Remember what Brian told you: it isn't enough to garner heaps
of data.
>SOB is not what it was in 1945. 'Lazy SOB' is pretty mild
>compared to 'Gesocks' and 'saudumm'
In your opinion.
>Verstanden? (the last word gebrüllt), and then he struck with
>his open hand onto my dining room table so that the ashtray
>danced and the lamp shook. Four hands flew up, eight heels
>clicked. Proud Germanic sortie, immediately, while one stands >quietely wondering.â'
>
>Now *that*'s Bastarnian. Do you recognize yourself? I think
>he would have been proud of me.
Meine Güte, Du hast einen anner Waffel. Zweifelsohne. OK, it
doesn't matter: don't worry, be happy. :)
>No, that's at the other end of Germany. The one where you live.
>We pay our bills.
Whaddaya? That's the joke of the year! I pay your bill. The whole
EU is paid and thus kept alive by Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg,
assisted by Hessen. (At least export to us some eolian-generated
electric current! Coz your fish is contaminated and your Dansk
feta cheese is not as tasty as the Greek and Bulgarian one. :))
>he did have an incredible amount of factual
>knowledge on the subject.
Of course, he has: he has studied the history of those relevant
areas of Eastern Europe in a professional way. I read some
fragments of your exchanges but I saw you were not willing to
accept any of his objections.
>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? ;-)
Alas, by no means! I'd be contented to merely watch the ceremony on
TV having some Franziskaner beer and some popcorn, and to read the
newscast headlines at news.google.com: "A cybalist author managed
to rewrite the 'Nibelungenlied'!" :)