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

Re: [tied] Ovid

Expand Messages
  • alexmoeller@t-online.de
    ... From: george knysh To: Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid ... [Moeller] The
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
      To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 6:19 AM
      Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid


      > Alex wrote:
      > what chances are there that "colchi" became
      > "volchi" and later "Vlochi" in the slavic languages?
      >
      > ****GK: What's wrong with the traditional explanation
      > that Slavic "Vlakhi" "Volokhi" et sim. are borrowed
      > terms (here probably from the Goths)? And ultimately
      > related to words such as Walloon and Welsh, all of
      > which ultimately go back to a Germanic meaning
      > ("foreigner")? In the East this applied to the
      > Roman-speaking populations in areas controlled by
      > Germanic tribes. The Slavs subsequently extended the
      > meaning to include Italy and the Italians. This sounds
      > quite plausible to me.*****

      [Moeller] The name itself. To answer well this question we
      need to know when does appears first in history such names as
      wallon and welsh. Are they records and if so from which time?
      Do not forget, the name "colchi" was a generic name for the
      population from north and east of the Black Sea. And this does
      not exclude several hypothesis. One of them should be that the
      celts who were until Galatia and east shore of the Black Sea
      could be identified by germanic tribes as the "old volcae"
      under the name of colchi. I have no basis on what I say now. I
      repeat myself, i never read carefully there where someone
      wrotte about colchis.
      As a matter of fact I was looking on the net for Laz language
      and I found several similarities:
      da= sister, romanian has a "dada"= sister
      ciogar=dog, romanian has "ogar"= dog
      seri=evening, romanina has too "seri"=evenings.
      there are just simple curiosities , but enough to think about.
      Of course such words from Laz-language for child=laz. "bere"
      doesnt match with the romanian and albanian words "copil".
      There are some research to do.
    • Piotr Gasiorowski
      ... From: alexmoeller@t-online.de To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid [Moeller] The name itself. To
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 9:57 AM
        Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

         
        [Moeller] The name itself. To answer well this question we need to know when does appears first in history such names as wallon and welsh. Are they records and if so from which time?
         
        The earliest written attestation of <walha> known to me is on an Old Runic inscribed bracteate datable to the first half of the fifth century. The probable meaning is 'foreign, imported'. The noun <wealh>, pl. <wealas> and the adjective <wylisc, welisc> (hence Wales, Welsch) occur in Old English from the late seventh century onwards, i.e. throughout its recorded history. The word exists in OHG (<walh>, adj. <walhisc>) and ON (pl. <valir>, adj. <valskr>) as well, to make its Northwest Germanic attestation complete. <Walloon> is *walh- Latinised with the suffix -o:n-. Since the prototype *walxaz 'Gaul' > 'Roman, Briton, foreigner' shows the operation of Grimm's Law (from hypothetical pre-Gmc. *walk-a-s = Celtic Volc-), we can accept the word as Proto-Germanic despite the fact that it isn't documented in Wulfila's Gothic.
         
        Whether the Slavs borrowed it early from East Germanic or later from West Germanic, the predicted common Slavic adaptation of strong masculine <walh-> is *wolxU, giving with perfect Neogrammarian regularity the forms that are actually attested in all the subbranches of Slavic (including South Slavic vlax-). As opposed to fantastic derivations from Colchis or Vologaesus (why not ancient Indic Meluhha? If you turn the M upside down, you'll get Weluhha), which (1) ignore historical and semantic difficulties, (2) require special explanations involving undocumented forms in poorly known languages plus a battery of ad hoc sound changes, and (3) still leave some questions unanswered, the standard etymology presents no formal difficulties whatsoever, is semantically plausible and explains the known linguistic facts. This is my last word on it. You may save this message for future reference, for I'm not going to repeat myself.

        [Moeller] Do not forget, the name "colchi" was a generic name for the population from north and east of the Black Sea. And this does not exclude several hypothesis. One of them should be that the celts who were until Galatia and east shore of the Black Sea could be identified by germanic tribes as the "old volcae" under the name of colchi. I have no basis on what I say now. I repeat myself, i never read  carefully there where someone wrotte about colchis. As a matter of fact I was looking on the net for Laz language and I found several similarities:
         
        Hang me if I understand any of this. If you have no basis for a claim, why make it?

        [Moeller] > da= sister, romanian has a "dada"= sister
         
        A typical nursery term -- no probative value.

        [Moeller] > ciogar=dog, romanian has "ogar"= dog
         
        This 'hound' word is also found in Slavic and Hungarian. If it is an eastern Wanderwort, it was brought to Europe by the Avars or the Magyars.
         
        [Moeller] > seri=evening, romanina has too "seri"=evenings.
         
        ... an french has <soir> :). From Latin se:rus 'late'.
         
        Piotr

         
         
      • alexmoeller@t-online.de
        ... From: Piotr Gasiorowski To: Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
          To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:06 PM
          Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid


          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: alexmoeller@...
          > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 9:57 AM
          > Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

          otgoing point : volxU

          [Piotr]
          Whether the Slavs borrowed it early from East Germanic or
          later from West Germanic, the predicted common Slavic
          adaptation of strong masculine <walh-> is *wolxU,

          [Moeller]

          that all will assume that when the slavs got in the north side
          of danube they found there in V centuries an romanic
          population. And this is historicaliy wrong.
          I saved your message and I keep it here . Your sarcasm here is
          not necessary ((why not ancient Indic Meluhha? If you turn the
          M upside down, you'll get Weluhha) as we have atested the
          greek form of "Kolxi" and there is a possiblity :
          a)"It´s an odd sugestion, but ... how about something like
          *Xwolxis?
          Xw could > Kh in Greek or > V
          b) we have attested this name "Kolxi" and not a supposed "must
          be" *wolxU
          c) the colchis are localisated with the capital at the
          confluence of Siret with Buzau, actualy where rumanians are.

          Beside of all this I have to have clear something here, on
          cybalist Do I have to ask something just when I know for sure
          about something? Must I first search everywhere and after I
          did it exhaustive, then to comme here on cybalist , as to the
          last point ,where I have to tell the people "my true"?Or is
          this list supposed to ask if some hypothesis could have a
          basis or not?

          regards

          a. moeller
        • Piotr Gasiorowski
          ... From: alexmoeller@t-online.de To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid ... a) It´s an odd sugestion,
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:31 PM
            Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

             
            > ... we have atested the greek form of "Kolxi" and there is a possiblity :
            a)"It´s an odd sugestion, but ... how about something like
            *Xwolxis?
                Xw could > Kh in Greek or > V
             
            "Could?" Why then did the Greeks called it Kolkhis (<kolkHid->), not "Volchis/Bolchis"? The suggestion is odd indeed.

            > b) we have attested this name "Kolxi" and not a supposed "must
            be" *wolxU
            *wolxU is not "a supposed must-be" but a perfectly legitimate Slavic reconstruction, just like *gordU (> hrad, grad, gorod, gród). And whereas *wolxU explains all the Slavic reflexes (vlax-, volox-, vlox-), "kolxi" explains nothing (even if there should have been a Colchis in the Danube Delta), since there's no way in which "Vlakh" could be derived from it, in Slavic, Greek, Dacian or whatever.
             
            Piotr
          • Piotr Gasiorowski
            Not at all. The Slavs first heard of the Roman Empire from Germanic (perhaps Ostrogothic) intermediaries; at that time the Germanic term was commonly
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Not at all. The Slavs first heard of the Roman Empire from Germanic (perhaps Ostrogothic) intermediaries; at that time the Germanic term <walh-> was commonly applied to the Romans, the inhabitants of the Empire, as well as any speakers of "lingua romana" (hence Ger. Welschland 'Italy', Wallgau in Tirol, etc., and hence also /vlox-/ 'Italian' in Polish). When the Slavs crossed the Danube and entered the former Roman provinces, they called the local Romanised population the *volx- (meaning 'Romans', a term that had been in use before with more general reference). After the South Slavic metathesis of liquids *volx- became /vlax-/ -- the form that Byzantine writers borrowed as <blakH-> when they renewed their acquaintance with Romanised Balkan peoples, this time through a Slavic medium.
               
              Piotr
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:31 PM
              Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

              that all will assume that when the slavs got in the north side of danube they found there in V centuries an romanic population. And this is historicaliy wrong.
            • João Simões Lopes Filho
              I m not sugesting that the name has IE origin. the initial kH and the medial kH could represent different foreign phonemes, perhaps x and kH, for example.
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm not sugesting that the name has IE origin.
                the initial kH and the medial kH could represent different foreign phonemes, perhaps x and kH, for example.
                Greek equated both to kH, but in Western people the first was treated as H (so Hw> W) , and second as K or X.
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 8:59 AM
                Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:31 PM
                Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

                 
                > ... we have atested the greek form of "Kolxi" and there is a possiblity :
                a)"It´s an odd sugestion, but ... how about something like
                *Xwolxis?
                    Xw could > Kh in Greek or > V
                 
                "Could?" Why then did the Greeks called it Kolkhis (<kolkHid->), not "Volchis/Bolchis"? The suggestion is odd indeed.

                > b) we have attested this name "Kolxi" and not a supposed "must
                be" *wolxU
                *wolxU is not "a supposed must-be" but a perfectly legitimate Slavic reconstruction, just like *gordU (> hrad, grad, gorod, gród). And whereas *wolxU explains all the Slavic reflexes (vlax-, volox-, vlox-), "kolxi" explains nothing (even if there should have been a Colchis in the Danube Delta), since there's no way in which "Vlakh" could be derived from it, in Slavic, Greek, Dacian or whatever.
                 
                Piotr


                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              • João Simões Lopes Filho
                It s an use similar of GRINGO in Spanish (whose origin is a corrupt form of GRIEGO Greek ) in the meaning of foreign , used mainly for North Americans. This
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  It's an use similar of GRINGO in Spanish (whose origin is a corrupt form of GRIEGO "Greek") in the meaning of "foreign", used mainly for North Americans. This word reached Portuguese, and is used for any foreign, although mainly North Americans.
                  There's also the word GALEGO "Galician" that is used in some parts of Brazil to call blond foreigners, due the fact of immigrants from  North Portugal and Galicia was usually blond. 
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 10:27 AM
                  Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

                  Not at all. The Slavs first heard of the Roman Empire from Germanic (perhaps Ostrogothic) intermediaries; at that time the Germanic term <walh-> was commonly applied to the Romans, the inhabitants of the Empire, as well as any speakers of "lingua romana" (hence Ger. Welschland 'Italy', Wallgau in Tirol, etc., and hence also /vlox-/ 'Italian' in Polish). When the Slavs crossed the Danube and entered the former Roman provinces, they called the local Romanised population the *volx- (meaning 'Romans', a term that had been in use before with more general reference). After the South Slavic metathesis of liquids *volx- became /vlax-/ -- the form that Byzantine writers borrowed as <blakH-> when they renewed their acquaintance with Romanised Balkan peoples, this time through a Slavic medium.
                   
                  Piotr
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:31 PM
                  Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

                  that all will assume that when the slavs got in the north side of danube they found there in V centuries an romanic population. And this is historicaliy wrong.


                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                • Piotr Gasiorowski
                  What Western peoples, João? The Germani surely had their own *xw so if the term had been derived from something like *xwalx-, we d get OE *hwealh and ON
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    What Western peoples, João? The Germani surely had their own *xw so if the term had been derived from something like *xwalx-, we'd get OE *hwealh and ON *hvalr. In Slavic too the cluster *xv- [xw-] was perfectly permissible.
                     
                    Piotr
                     
                     

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: João Simões Lopes Filho
                    To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 4:06 PM
                    Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid


                    I'm not sugesting that the name has IE origin.
                    the initial kH and the medial kH could represent different foreign phonemes, perhaps x and kH, for example.
                    Greek equated both to kH, but in Western people the first was treated as H (so Hw> W) , and second as K or X.
                  • danjmi
                    Although Piotr said all that needs to be said on the linguistics of , I m curious whether there is a historical explanation why one particular Gallic
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Although Piotr said all that needs to be said on the linguistics of
                      <walha>, I'm curious whether there is a historical explanation
                      why one particular Gallic tribe (or two?) started calling
                      themselves by the foreigners' word for "foreigner". I presume
                      Volcae was their self-identification; it seems unlikely that the
                      Romans got the name directly from the Germans.
                      And are there etymologies for Tectosages and Arecomici?
                      Dan Milton
                      --- In cybalist@y..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@i...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: alexmoeller@t...
                      > To: cybalist@y...
                      > Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 9:57 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid
                      >
                      >
                      > [Moeller] The name itself. To answer well this question we
                      need to know when does appears first in history such names as
                      wallon and welsh. Are they records and if so from which time?
                      >
                      > The earliest written attestation of <walha> known to me is on
                      an Old Runic inscribed bracteate datable to the first half of the
                      fifth century. The probable meaning is 'foreign, imported'. The
                      noun <wealh>, pl. <wealas> and the adjective <wylisc, welisc>
                      (hence Wales, Welsch) occur in Old English from the late
                      seventh century onwards, i.e. throughout its recorded history.
                      The word exists in OHG (<walh>, adj. <walhisc>) and ON (pl. <
                      valir>, adj. <valskr>) as well, to make its Northwest Germanic
                      attestation complete. <Walloon> is *walh- Latinised with the
                      suffix -o:n-. Since the prototype *walxaz 'Gaul' > 'Roman, Briton,
                      foreigner' shows the operation of Grimm's Law (from
                      hypothetical pre-Gmc. *walk-a-s = Celtic Volc-), we can accept
                      the word as Proto-Germanic despite the fact that it isn't
                      documented in Wulfila's Gothic.
                      >
                      > Whether the Slavs borrowed it early from East Germanic or
                      later from West Germanic, the predicted common Slavic
                      adaptation of strong masculine <walh-> is *wolxU, giving with
                      perfect Neogrammarian regularity the forms that are actually
                      attested in all the subbranches of Slavic (including South Slavic
                      vlax-). As opposed to fantastic derivations from Colchis or
                      Vologaesus (why not ancient Indic Meluhha? If you turn the M
                      upside down, you'll get Weluhha), which (1) ignore historical and
                      semantic difficulties, (2) require special explanations involving
                      undocumented forms in poorly known languages plus a battery
                      of ad hoc sound changes, and (3) still leave some questions
                      unanswered, the standard etymology presents no formal
                      difficulties whatsoever, is semantically plausible and explains
                      the known linguistic facts. This is my last word on it. You may
                      save this message for future reference, for I'm not going to
                      repeat myself.
                      >
                      > [Moeller] Do not forget, the name "colchi" was a generic name
                      for the population from north and east of the Black Sea. And this
                      does not exclude several hypothesis. One of them should be
                      that the celts who were until Galatia and east shore of the Black
                      Sea could be identified by germanic tribes as the "old volcae"
                      under the name of colchi. I have no basis on what I say now. I
                      repeat myself, i never read carefully there where someone
                      wrotte about colchis. As a matter of fact I was looking on the net
                      for Laz language and I found several similarities:
                      >
                      > Hang me if I understand any of this. If you have no basis for a
                      claim, why make it?
                      >
                      > [Moeller] > da= sister, romanian has a "dada"= sister
                      >
                      > A typical nursery term -- no probative value.
                      >
                      > [Moeller] > ciogar=dog, romanian has "ogar"= dog
                      >
                      > This 'hound' word is also found in Slavic and Hungarian. If it is
                      an eastern Wanderwort, it was brought to Europe by the Avars or
                      the Magyars.
                      >
                      > [Moeller] > seri=evening, romanina has too "seri"=evenings.
                      >
                      > ... an french has <soir> :). From Latin se:rus 'late'.
                      >
                      > Piotr
                    • alexmoeller@t-online.de
                      ... From: danjmi To: Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid ... linguistics of ...
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "danjmi" <dmilt1896@...>
                        To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:26 PM
                        Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid


                        > Although Piotr said all that needs to be said on the
                        linguistics of
                        > <walha>, I'm curious whether there is a historical
                        explanation
                        > why one particular Gallic tribe (or two?) started calling
                        > themselves by the foreigners' word for "foreigner". I
                        presume
                        > Volcae was their self-identification; it seems unlikely that
                        the
                        > Romans got the name directly from the Germans.
                        > Dan Milton

                        [Moeller] I ask myself which is the ethymology for folk now in
                        english and volk in German. They looks more appropiate with
                        "volcae" as wallon, wlesh or wallahian.
                      • Piotr Gasiorowski
                        folk
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          folk < PGmc. fulka- , probably from the root *plh1- (as in 'full') plus an extension (*plh1gom), or a compound like *plh1-h2g^om. No connection with the Volcae is possible. Slavic *pUlkU and Lith. pulkas are loans from Germanic (with /p/ substituted for *f in languages that lacked phonemic /f/). As you can see, they are quite different from the Vlakh word.
                           
                          Piotr
                           
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:35 PM
                          Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid

                          [Moeller] I ask myself which is the ethymology for folk now in english and volk in German. They looks more appropiate with "volcae" as wallon, wlesh or wallahian.
                        • alexmoeller@t-online.de
                          ... From: Piotr Gasiorowski To: Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 1, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
                            To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:59 PM
                            Subject: Re: [tied] Ovid


                            > folk < PGmc. fulka- , probably from the root *plh1- (as in
                            'full') plus an extension (*plh1gom), or a compound like
                            *plh1-h2g^om. No connection with the Volcae is possible.
                            Slavic *pUlkU and Lith. pulkas are loans from Germanic (with
                            /p/ substituted for *f in languages that lacked phonemic /f/).
                            As you can see, they are quite different from the Vlakh word.
                            >
                            > Piotr

                            [Moeller]
                            hmm so far I know, the slavic *plUkU became in romanian " a
                            hand full of", "some people" but , interesting without
                            methathesis like in Lithuanian . The rum. word for is "pâlc"
                            Anyway, is not so important now this "volcae". It remains
                            strange that the greeks mentioned them very late .The
                            "sepparation " between romaioi and romanized population was
                            already in VI centuries. And first after 4 centuries appears
                            this ominous therm , blacki. I have to verify a source more. I
                            found several entries for carpians who are mentioned as
                            "harpi" or "arpi".So the "c" was somehow eludated or changed
                            in "h". If for "Arpii" instead of "Carpii" are in fact almost
                            everywhere to read about, the form "Harpi" is just only one
                            entry which I could find. And I must do some research
                            first..Or in this case it is possible to have some surprise
                            with my funny "clochis" If there is something to find, I will
                            tell you:-)
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.