On Thursday 09 August 2001 23:58, you wrote:

>
>
> Hi everybody
>
> I feel a bit sorry to write my first mail with a kind<BR>
> of weird feeling.
>
> Eysteinn Bjornsson wrote:
> "The theological ideas in this paragraph are far
> removed from any linguistic reality. Who is this Green
> anyway? Sounds like a theosophist to me - shades of
> Madame Blavatsky"
> <BR>
> in a reaction to Steven Hatton's mail:
> "I've been trying to summarize Green's chapter on
> Germanic religious
> termonology." I'm wondering what others who have more
> knowledge of the
> subject think of what I have so far."
> [snip] [snip] [snip]<BR>
>
>
> I can hardly find anything in Steven's mail, apart<BR>
> from the references to the Germanic words which are<BR>
> quoted and treated in the book, that resembles the<BR>
> theory stated by Green. And though i can imagine that<BR>
> the book provokes reactions on linguistic and or<BR>
> historical bases, the level of Blavatsky-ness is less<BR>
> than zero. In the *book* (and imho) at least.<BR>
> Since i'm only an amateur who happened to lately have<BR>
> read Green's "Language and History in the Early<BR>
> Germanic world", i'm rather looking forward to a more<BR>
> close reading of it, and some comments and critiques<BR>
> on the original text, and not on an odd interpretation<BR>
> of it (and i don't want to sound offensive at all).<BR>
> <BR>
> Best regards,<BR>

> Frank Verhoft<BR>

Frank,

I will say if any "Blavatsky-ness" (ouch!) entered into my summary of Green's
work, I introduced it. Green is a careful scholar. It's my intent to
understand, as well as I can, the paradigm of the ancient Germanic people.
One of the better tools for doing so is linguistics. The critique Eysteinn
provided was extremely helpful in keeping me honest and accurate. That is
what I was seeking when I posted. I have some changes to make regarding my
summary on the basis of his valuable feedback. I don't want to use this list
for discussing theological issues beyond their relevance to language.

As far as Green's discussion goes; Eysteinn's reply caused me to review the
relevant sections of Green's book which, in turn, helped me understand its
intent better. I realize now that part of my confusion is that Green
approaches the problem from the opposite direction. He was trying to explain
why the Heathen word 'Goþ' became the Christian word 'God'. He was basically
saying that there were several choices, and one of them was linguistically
more suited to the purpose. My objective in reading Green was to attempt an
understanding of how the Heathens perceived Goþ. This is very difficult,
particularly because the Heathens probably didn't give the subject much
philosophical review. It was simply assumed as a given fact.

Anyhow. To address the concerns of all. I am not offended at the charge of
"Blavatsky-ness" <grumble>. I accept that some of my interpretations of
Green's work are wrong. I don't intend to go beyond the discussion of
language on this list. I deserve all blame for corrupting Green's scholarly
work. And I categorically deny any Blavatsky influences! {;-)>

Steven