Bring back the real Piotr!
- ... and when he comes back, I hope he gives the Gasiorowski
Definitive Statement as to this Bibbs Jute/Geat business. Maybe I
have read too many Nineteenth Century books for my own good, but up
until now I'd always assumed that these Iotes Iutes chaps were one
and the same to them Beowulf folks, and had just moved around a bit.
All on the same grounds as this invocation of the 'funny g', as in
the one the Gaelic speakers use now.
William Butler Jutes ;o)
<<<ge:atas> in Beowulf and Widsith>>
I have a note here that from an H. Bibbs: "The name Geats is actually
and the yogh, "z", is pronounced "y" before fronting vowels, so the
transcription would be Yeats, which is close enough to Jeats (Jutes)
argued that they are one and the same." I'm as likely to believe H.
whoever he is, at this point. So I don't find anything here you say
- "ravichaudhary2000" <ravi9@h...>
<<Having followed this list for some time ,I would like to suggest that Steve
is getting unnecssaily upset at some good natured banter from Piotr.>>
You're of course right, Ravi. And I do apologize to Piotr for going
Sorry, Piotr. And sorry to the list (except for George, of course.)
- Steve, the ancient texts confused them as well, for precisely the same reason that modern amateurs do. It is only today, with the tools of comparative linguistics and our knowledge of the _local_ North European sources (such as Old English texts and the Old Norse sagas) that we are able to clear the confusion. I repeat: nobody who knew anything about the local affairs called the Gauts "Guts", "Goths" or "Jutes". Fellow Scandinavians called them <Gautar> and nothing else. Old English texts distinguish the Gotan (sg. Gota) 'Goths' from the Ge:atas (sg. Ge:at) 'Geats' with 100% consistency. These names are not a distortions of each other but phonologically regular reflexes of *gut-o:n- and *gaut-a-.Piotr----- Original Message -----From: x99lynx@...Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:38 AMSubject: [tied] Bring back the real Piotr!But wait!! according to Piotr, the "ancient sources" had them all correct and
straight !!!! Obviously, they were professional linguists (who probably
never heard the words spoken by Germanic speakers) who had the modern day
linguistic advantage over 19th-century Anglo-Saxonists and could mysteriously
tell the difference between Gutes, Gauts, Geats, Jutes, Goths, Gountoi,
Gutones, Gothones, Gotones, Gutae, Gountigots, etc., even though they were a
thousand miles away and speaking some very different languages.
Piotr, you are doing what the Atlanteans do. You are just doing it with a
more arcane mysticism to get at your results. The ancient text tell all! You
just have to have the magical knowledge to read them. <snip, snip, snip>
From: x99lynx@... [mailto:x99lynx@...]
Sent: 2002 m. spalio 2 d. 00:39
Subject: [tied] Bring back the real Piotr>> Wulfila generally transliterated Greek <o>s into Gothic as
<au>. So in Greek perhaps this would read "gotoi" or even "gothoi.")Not in Greek proper. <au> was just that in Old Greek, and began to render [av]~[af] in Middle Greek. The reason Wulfila have chosen <au> for Gothic open [O] is obvious -- Greek <o> was (and still is) a close [o] and the <o>-grapheme didn't seem to fit.Sergei