Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

65341Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins

Expand Messages
  • Torsten
    Nov 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
      >
      > At 5:09:33 PM on Friday, October 30, 2009, Torsten wrote:
      >
      >
      > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
      > > <BMScott@> wrote:
      >
      > >> At 7:46:46 PM on Wednesday, October 28, 2009, Torsten
      > >> wrote:
      >
      > >>> -- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
      > >>> <BMScott@> wrote:
      >
      > >>>> At 4:10:01 PM on Sunday, October 25, 2009, Torsten wrote:
      >
      > >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yjcsxkk
      > >>>>> Danish original
      > >>>>> http://www.verasir.dk/show.php?file=chap22-1-1.html
      >
      > >>>> He writes:
      >
      > >>>> I Kalevala har Ukko heitet "ylijumala", der i dag
      > >>>> oversættes til "God of Mercy/Lykkens Gud", men
      > >>>> oprindeligt må have haft betydningen "Julens Herre",
      > >>>> jvf. julemandens navn "Ýlir" i Norge/Island i 900
      > >>>> tallet e.Kr.
      >
      > >>>> But <ylijumala> is 'high god' (<yli> 'over, above; more
      > >>>> than', <jumala> 'god'). In fact, Václav Blaz^ek thinks
      > >>>> that the name <Ukko> itself is an adaptation of Baltic
      > >>>> *uka- > Prussian <ucka-> 'prefix expressing the
      > >>>> superlative' (as in <ucka-kuslaisin> 'weakest'): the
      > >>>> first god of the Prussian pantheon is in record as
      > >>>> <Occopirmus> 'Saturnus' 1530, <Ockopirmus> 'der erste
      > >>>> Gott Himmels vnd Gestirnes' (16th cent.), and
      > >>>> <Occopirnum> 'deum coeli et terrae' 1563. He concludes:
      > >>>> 'It is generally accepted that the compound *Uka-pirmas
      > >>>> meant "most first"'.
      >
      > >>> But where does that leave Öku-Þor then?
      >
      > >> It says nothing about it at all.
      >
      > > What it?
      >
      > Blaz^ek's hypothesis says nothing about the Scandinavian
      > name <Öku-Þórr>.

      No, I can see that, but where does that leave Öku-Þor?

      >
      > >> If you believe Snorri, Ukko is totally irrelevant;
      >
      > > ?? How so?
      >
      > Because Snorri takes <Öku-> to be a derivative of <aka> 'to
      > drive (a vehicle)', referring to Thor's goat-drawn cart,
      > thereby making it a purely Norse development.

      I was asking *you*.

      > >> if you think that <Ukko> is the source of <Öku->, the
      > >> source of <Ukko> is still irrelevant.
      >
      > > Erh, why?
      >
      > Why ask such a stupid question?

      Maybe you should cut back on the booze? It does things to your brain.

      > If the Norse byname is
      > borrowed from the Finnish theonym, the source of the theonym
      > is prima facie irrelevant to that act of borrowing. Middle
      > English borrowers of Old North French <cherise> 'cherry'
      > didn't know that it was from Greek <kerasos> by way of Latin
      > <cerasus> and Late Latin <ceresia>.


      Well, I was thinking more along the lines of a common substrate, not surprisingly.

      > >> The real point is that this is a very basic error, as is
      > >> the error about <Ýlir>. If he can't even get this stuff
      > >> right, I'm not inclined to trust him about much of
      > >> anything, or to take him very seriously as a scholar.
      >
      > > I can understand that these matters of prestige are very
      > > important to you so I won't press the point.
      >
      > Don't be an ass. I'm talking about his evident lack of
      > *competence*.

      Blind høne kan også finde et korn.
      Regardless of whether he knows what yli- means in Finnish.

      > I couldn't care less about his formal credentials.
      >
      > Are you unable to distinguish 'doesn't know what he's
      > talking about' from 'doesn't have a high reputation in the
      > field' or from 'doesn't have the usual formal credentials'?

      I thought that was you did that.

      > [...]
      >
      > >>> True, bungled, but...
      > >>> I don't think we can escape 'jól' on this one.
      >
      > >> It's certainly a possibility. But then Yule itself is the
      > >> underlying idea, referring to a time and a festival.
      >
      > > And still one of Odin's names is Jólnir
      >
      > So what?
      >
      Oh, you're in that mood.

      > >> [...]
      >
      > >>>> De tidligst kendte stednavne i Britannien, hvori indgår
      > >>>> "Jól", er "Youlton" (Jól's tun) i North Yorkshire, og
      > >>>> "Youlthorpe" (Jól's thorp) i East Riding, Yorkshire.
      >
      > >>>> Here's what Watts has to say about the place-names:
      >
      > >>>> S.n. <Youlton>: 'Joli's estate'. <Loletun(e)> (for
      > >>>> <Iole-> 1086, <Yolton'> 1295-1508.
      >
      > >>>> S.n. <Youlthorpe>: 'Eyjulfr's outlying farm', later
      > >>>> 'Yole's outlying farm', with spellings <Aiul(f)torp> 1086,
      > >>>> <Hiel-, Hioltorp> 12th c., <Yolt(h)orpe(e)> 12th-1359.
      > >>>> From the 12th cent. this name contains a different
      > >>>> pers.n., ME <Yole> from ON <Jól>, <Jóli>.
      >
      > >>>> So this one apparently never did contain the Scandinavian
      > >>>> name as such and didn't acquire its ME borrowing until the
      > >>>> 12th century.
      >
      > >>> Apparently Watts' Eyulfr hangs on the 1086 form alone.
      > >>> Are you sure that is not a folk normalization of an
      > >>> unusual name?
      >
      > >> As sure as one can be in such cases. If it were a folk
      > >> normalization, it would most likely have persisted.
      >
      > > It can go either way, as you very well know.
      >
      > I know how to play the odds.

      Whatever.

      > >> Besides, the manner in which DB was constructed means
      > >> that odd forms are generally the result of Anglo-Norman
      > >> misunderstanding of native input. Here we have a
      > >> perfectly expectable AN rendering of a late OE form of
      > >> <Eyjulfsþorp>.
      >
      > > Can't say it couldn't happen. [...]
      >
      > I *can* say, however, that it's very unlikely, and that
      > there's no evidence for it. I also cannot absolutely
      > exclude the possibility that it's the result of telepathic
      > control of the scribes by invisible pink unicorns.

      You definitely need to cut back.


      Torsten
    • Show all 69 messages in this topic