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

Re: [tied] Croats and Slavs

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... Not a root etmology. ... Not a root etymology. ... Nor that one. ... So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed? ... Ditto. Also not a root
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 1, 2009
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
      >
      > GK: On the matter of the historical "Croats": I am leaning
      > > towards the notion that they might have been named after their
      > > initial organizer. The name does appear separately in the list of
      > > the migrant clans given by Constantine Porph. in the mid-10th c.
      > > If the Avar Khan Bayan appointed an Avar warrior called "Horvat"
      > > (or something similar) to the task of putting together Avaria's
      > > northern defenses in and along the Carpathians (against the
      > > threatening Turks of Asia who conquered Kerch in 576 and made
      > > demands on Constantinople against the Avars), this Horvat might
      > > have drafted a considerable numbern of subject Slavs (and others)
      > > into his divisions (or whatever they were called), and the
      > > various groups would become "Horvat's men" = Croats. There are
      > > many historical analogies to this onomastic procedure.
      >
      >
      > No. This is what is known as a 'root etymology': the root element
      > matches, but the suffixes don't.
      >
      > ****GK: The similarity I'm thinking about is that manifested in the
      > name of the Nogai Tatars,
      Not a root etmology.

      > the Uldingir (from the Hun ruler Uldin, a generation before Attila),
      Not a root etymology.

      > the Aspurgiani of the Bosporos,
      Nor that one.

      > the "Scythians" of the Greek Pontic genealogical myth,

      So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed?

      > the theory of a Byzantine author (I forget the name for the moment)
      > that the "rus'" were named after a chieftain by that name,
      Ditto. Also not a root etymology.

      > the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.
      Ditto. And ditto.

      > I don't actually remember the precise word in Constantine
      > porphyrogenitos (it might have been identical to the Tanais
      > inscription but I'd have to check).

      > So you'll have to do a lot better than para- pro- pre-"root
      > etymologize" to dispose of this particular idea.

      You didn't get a word of it, did you? This is how it is: if the leaders name is James, his followers might call themselves 'Jamesites' or 'Jacobites'; they won't call themselves James. A Jesuite is someone who follows Jesus more than most others, a Jesús doesn't necessarily.

      > Not that I insist on it. And it doesn't involve your Harudes
      > fantasy.****
      >

      Erh? So?

      > In this case because there aren't any. More likely his name was
      > Horvat because that's what he was.
      >
      > ****GK: That's quite possible. Which doesn't refute the main idea
      > of course.

      No, but the fact that it's a root etymology does.

      > That is also independent of whatever etymology you come up with as
      > to the name.****

      Meaning what??

      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horvath
      >
      > If my proposal *xaruG-át- is true, they had a separate religion having to do with stone altars etc.
      >
      > ****GK: Whatever. I have no idea, and neither have you.

      The phonological correspondence Semitic-Zan-Germanic is perfect, and the Semantic corespondence for at least the last two could hardly be better, so there must have been some transfer of the idea. Whether it includes the name of the Croats, I can't be sure, but that name also seems toi get around in the same neighborhoods.

      > just the usual vapours.****

      I am sorry to hear you have the vapors. Don't hesitate to comment on my postings when you are feeling better.


      Torsten
    • george knysh
      ... Not a root etmology. ... Not a root etymology. ... Nor that one. ... So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed? ... Ditto. Also not a root
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 1, 2009
        --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:


        > GK: On the matter of the historical "Croats": I am leaning

        > > towards the notion that they might have been named after their

        > > initial organizer. The name does appear separately in the list of

        > > the migrant clans given by Constantine Porph. in the mid-10th c.

        > > If the Avar Khan Bayan appointed an Avar warrior called "Horvat"

        > > (or something similar) to the task of putting together Avaria's

        > > northern defenses in and along the Carpathians (against the

        > > threatening Turks of Asia who conquered Kerch in 576 and made

        > > demands on Constantinople against the Avars), this Horvat might

        > > have drafted a considerable numbern of subject Slavs (and others)

        > > into his divisions (or whatever they were called), and the

        > > various groups would become "Horvat's men" = Croats. There are

        > > many historical analogies to this onomastic procedure.

        >

        >

        > No. This is what is known as a 'root etymology': the root element

        > matches, but the suffixes don't.

        >

        > GK: The similarity I'm thinking about is that manifested in the

        > name of the Nogai Tatars,

        Not a root etmology.



        > the Uldingir (from the Hun ruler Uldin, a generation before Attila),

        Not a root etymology.



        > the Aspurgiani of the Bosporos,

        Nor that one.



        > the "Scythians" of the Greek Pontic genealogical myth,



        So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed?

        ****GK: No. But some of the Olbians obviously did.****



        > the theory of a Byzantine author (I forget the name for the moment)

        > that the "rus'" were named after a chieftain by that name,

        Ditto. Also not a root etymology.

        ****GK: You're wrong on this one I'm afraid. And if the people of "Rus'" can be called "the Rus'" how do you prove this acceptable irregularity ( as per your notion) can't apply to the Croats?****



        > the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.

        Ditto. And ditto.

        ****GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...****



        > I don't actually remember the precise word in Constantine

        > porphyrogenitos (it might have been identical to the Tanais

        > inscription but I'd have to check).



        > So you'll have to do a lot better than para- pro- pre-"root

        > etymologize" to dispose of this particular idea.



        You didn't get a word of it, did you? This is how it is: if the leaders name is James, his followers might call themselves 'Jamesites' or 'Jacobites'; they won't call themselves James. A Jesuite is someone who follows Jesus more than most others, a Jesús doesn't necessarily.


        ****(GK: I got it all right. Did you get my point about "Rus'"? *****



        > Not that I insist on it. And it doesn't involve your Harudes

        > fantasy.





        Erh? So?

        ****GK: So.****



        > In this case because there aren't any. More likely his name was

        > Horvat because that's what he was.

        >

        > GK: That's quite possible. Which doesn't refute the main idea

        > of course. *****



        No, but the fact that it's a root etymology does.


        ****GK: See above.****



        > That is also independent of whatever etymology you come up with as

        > to the name.



        Meaning what??

        ****GK: Meaning that it doesn't matter what "Croat" means if the Croats are named after Horoathos. Like I said I don't insist on this possibility, but I do believe that the concept emerged in the context of Avar state-building. ****
      • tgpedersen
        ... Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So, first a people invent a person they imagine founded their ethnic etc group, and then they
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 1, 2009
          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
          >
          > > GK: On the matter of the historical "Croats": I am leaning
          > > > towards the notion that they might have been named after their
          > > > initial organizer. The name does appear separately in the list
          > > > of the migrant clans given by Constantine Porph. in the
          > > > mid-10th c.
          > > > If the Avar Khan Bayan appointed an Avar warrior called
          > > > "Horvat" (or something similar) to the task of putting together
          > > > Avaria's northern defenses in and along the Carpathians
          > > > (against the threatening Turks of Asia who conquered Kerch in
          > > > 576 and made demands on Constantinople against the Avars), this
          > > > Horvat might have drafted a considerable numbern of subject
          > > > Slavs (and others) into his divisions (or whatever they were
          > > > called), and the various groups would become "Horvat's men" =
          > > > Croats. There are many historical analogies to this onomastic
          > > > procedure.
          > >
          > >
          > > No. This is what is known as a 'root etymology': the root element
          > > matches, but the suffixes don't.
          > >
          > > GK: The similarity I'm thinking about is that manifested in the
          > > name of the Nogai Tatars,
          > Not a root etmology.
          >
          > > the Uldingir (from the Hun ruler Uldin, a generation before
          > > Attila),
          > Not a root etymology.
          >
          > > the Aspurgiani of the Bosporos,
          > Nor that one.
          >
          > > the "Scythians" of the Greek Pontic genealogical myth,
          > So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed?
          >
          > ****GK: No. But some of the Olbians obviously did.****

          Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So, first
          a people invent a person they imagine founded their ethnic etc group,
          and then they decide to refer to themselves individually by that
          person's name?

          > > the theory of a Byzantine author (I forget the name for the
          > > moment) that the "rus'" were named after a chieftain by that
          > > name,
          > Ditto. Also not a root etymology.
          >
          > ****GK: You're wrong on this one I'm afraid.
          In what sense? If you are implying that mr. Rus' actually existed why
          do you call that Byzantine author's account of the naming a 'theory'?

          > And if the people of "Rus'" can be called "the Rus'" how do you
          > prove this acceptable irregularity ( as per your notion) can't
          > apply to the Croats?****
          >
          Exactly, if. Please answer the above question.

          > > the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.
          > Ditto. And ditto.
          >
          > ****GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...****

          See above...

          > > I don't actually remember the precise word in Constantine
          > > porphyrogenitos (it might have been identical to the Tanais
          > > inscription but I'd have to check).
          >
          > > So you'll have to do a lot better than para- pro- pre-"root
          > > etymologize" to dispose of this particular idea.
          >
          > You didn't get a word of it, did you? This is how it is: if the
          > leaders name is James, his followers might call themselves
          > 'Jamesites' or 'Jacobites'; they won't call themselves James. A
          > Jesuite is someone who follows Jesus more than most others, a Jesús
          > doesn't necessarily.
          >
          > ****(GK: I got it all right.

          Apparently not.

          > Did you get my point about "Rus'"? *****

          I might, depending on your clarification.


          ...

          >
          > > In this case because there aren't any. More likely his name was
          > > Horvat because that's what he was.
          > >
          > > GK: That's quite possible. Which doesn't refute the main idea
          > > of course. *****

          > No, but the fact that it's a root etymology does.
          >
          > ****GK: See above.****

          Yes, please do.

          >
          > > That is also independent of whatever etymology you come up with
          > > as to the name.
          >
          > Meaning what??
          >
          > ****GK: Meaning that it doesn't matter what "Croat" means if the
          > Croats are named after Horoathos.

          It is true that if your proposal is true, then mine is wrong. Tertium
          non datur. Your logic is impeccable.

          > Like I said I don't insist on this possibility, but I do believe
          > that the concept emerged in the context of Avar state-building. ****
          >
          Yes, I got that the first time.


          Torsten
        • george knysh
          ... GK: On the matter of the historical Croats : I am leaning ... Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So, first a people invent a
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 1, 2009
            --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

            GK: On the matter of the historical "Croats": I am leaning

            > > > towards the notion that they might have been named after their

            > > > initial organizer. The name does appear separately in the list

            > > > of the migrant clans given by Constantine Porph. in the

            > > > mid-10th c.

            > > > If the Avar Khan Bayan appointed an Avar warrior called

            > > > "Horvat" (or something similar) to the task of putting together

            > > > Avaria's northern defenses in and along the Carpathians

            > > > (against the threatening Turks of Asia who conquered Kerch in

            > > > 576 and made demands on Constantinople against the Avars), this

            > > > Horvat might have drafted a considerable numbern of subject

            > > > Slavs (and others) into his divisions (or whatever they were

            > > > called), and the various groups would become "Horvat's men" =

            > > > Croats. There are many historical analogies to this onomastic

            > > > procedure.

            > >

            > >

            > > No. This is what is known as a 'root etymology': the root element

            > > matches, but the suffixes don't.

            > >

            > > GK: The similarity I'm thinking about is that manifested in the

            > > name of the Nogai Tatars,

            > Not a root etmology.

            >

            > > the Uldingir (from the Hun ruler Uldin, a generation before

            > > Attila),

            > Not a root etymology.

            >

            > > the Aspurgiani of the Bosporos,

            > Nor that one.

            >

            > > the "Scythians" of the Greek Pontic genealogical myth,

            > So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed?

            >

            > GK: No. But some of the Olbians obviously did.



            Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So, first

            a people invent a person they imagine founded their ethnic etc group,

            and then they decide to refer to themselves individually by that

            person's name?

            ****GK: Why ask me? Ask the Olbians (:=))))****



            > > the theory of a Byzantine author (I forget the name for the

            > > moment) that the "rus'" were named after a chieftain by that

            > > name,

            > Ditto. Also not a root etymology.

            >

            > GK: You're wrong on this one I'm afraid.

            In what sense? If you are implying that mr. Rus' actually existed why

            do you call that Byzantine author's account of the naming a 'theory'?

            ****GK: I think you understand perfectly what I am saying. "Rus'" is a term which can be used as either a personal name (as per the Byzantine's view) or as an ethnic referent for a people. The suffix problem you raised doesn't apply here. Where's the reason it should apply to the Croats? And the basic idea (like Nogais from Nogai etc.) holds. ****



            > And if the people of "Rus'" can be called "the Rus'" how do you

            > prove this acceptable irregularity ( as per your notion) can't

            > apply to the Croats?


            >

            Exactly, if. Please answer the above question.

            ****GK: See above.****



            > > the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.

            > Ditto. And ditto.

            >

            > GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...






            See above...

            ****GK: See above.****
          • tgpedersen
            ... You envisioned the scenario here. So I ll ask again: walk me through it. ... Yes I do and it makes no sense. Now will you answer the question you tried to
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 1, 2009
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
              >
              > GK: On the matter of the historical "Croats": I am leaning
              >
              > > > > towards the notion that they might have been named after their
              >
              > > > > initial organizer. The name does appear separately in the list
              >
              > > > > of the migrant clans given by Constantine Porph. in the
              >
              > > > > mid-10th c.
              >
              > > > > If the Avar Khan Bayan appointed an Avar warrior called
              >
              > > > > "Horvat" (or something similar) to the task of putting together
              >
              > > > > Avaria's northern defenses in and along the Carpathians
              >
              > > > > (against the threatening Turks of Asia who conquered Kerch in
              >
              > > > > 576 and made demands on Constantinople against the Avars), this
              >
              > > > > Horvat might have drafted a considerable numbern of subject
              >
              > > > > Slavs (and others) into his divisions (or whatever they were
              >
              > > > > called), and the various groups would become "Horvat's men" =
              >
              > > > > Croats. There are many historical analogies to this onomastic
              >
              > > > > procedure.
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > No. This is what is known as a 'root etymology': the root element
              >
              > > > matches, but the suffixes don't.
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > GK: The similarity I'm thinking about is that manifested in the
              >
              > > > name of the Nogai Tatars,
              >
              > > Not a root etmology.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > the Uldingir (from the Hun ruler Uldin, a generation before
              >
              > > > Attila),
              >
              > > Not a root etymology.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > the Aspurgiani of the Bosporos,
              >
              > > Nor that one.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > > the "Scythians" of the Greek Pontic genealogical myth,
              >
              > > So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed?
              >
              > >
              >
              > > GK: No. But some of the Olbians obviously did.
              >
              >
              >
              > Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So,
              > first a people invent a person they imagine founded their ethnic
              > etc group, and then they decide to refer to themselves individually
              > by that person's name?
              >
              > ****GK: Why ask me? Ask the Olbians (:=))))****

              You envisioned the scenario here. So I'll ask again: walk me through it.

              >
              > > > the theory of a Byzantine author (I forget the name for the
              >
              > > > moment) that the "rus'" were named after a chieftain by that
              >
              > > > name,
              >
              > > Ditto. Also not a root etymology.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > GK: You're wrong on this one I'm afraid.
              >
              > In what sense? If you are implying that mr. Rus' actually existed why
              >
              > do you call that Byzantine author's account of the naming a 'theory'?
              >
              > ****GK: I think you understand perfectly what I am saying.

              Yes I do and it makes no sense. Now will you answer the question you tried to dodge with that last line?

              > "Rus'" is a term which can be used as either a personal name (as
              > per the Byzantine's view) or as an ethnic referent for a people.

              And that is because that person never existed but was made up. The proof is that you won't find Rus' as a fist name (but possible as a last name) anywhere outside that foundation myth.


              > The suffix problem you raised doesn't apply here. Where's the
              > reason it should apply to the Croats?

              There is nothing to apply.

              > And the basic idea (like Nogais from Nogai etc.) holds. ****

              No.

              >
              > > And if the people of "Rus'" can be called "the Rus'" how do you
              > > prove this acceptable irregularity ( as per your notion) can't
              > > apply to the Croats?
              >
              >
              > >
              >
              > Exactly, if. Please answer the above question.
              >
              > ****GK: See above.****
              >
              >
              >
              > > > the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.
              >
              > > Ditto. And ditto.

              Anyone else with first names of Lekh, Czech and Rus'?

              > >
              >
              > > GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > See above...
              >
              > ****GK: See above.****
              >
              And you still can't figure out how to clean up your posting of annoying extra lines?


              Torsten
            • george knysh
              ... GK: On the matter of the historical Croats : I am leaning ... You envisioned the scenario here. So I ll ask again: walk me through it. ... Yes I do and it
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 1, 2009
                --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

                GK: On the matter of the historical "Croats": I am leaning

                >

                > > > > towards the notion that they might have been named after their

                >

                > > > > initial organizer. The name does appear separately in the list

                >

                > > > > of the migrant clans given by Constantine Porph. in the

                >

                > > > > mid-10th c.

                >

                > > > > If the Avar Khan Bayan appointed an Avar warrior called

                >

                > > > > "Horvat" (or something similar) to the task of putting together

                >

                > > > > Avaria's northern defenses in and along the Carpathians

                >

                > > > > (against the threatening Turks of Asia who conquered Kerch in

                >

                > > > > 576 and made demands on Constantinople against the Avars), this

                >

                > > > > Horvat might have drafted a considerable numbern of subject

                >

                > > > > Slavs (and others) into his divisions (or whatever they were

                >

                > > > > called), and the various groups would become "Horvat's men" =

                >

                > > > > Croats. There are many historical analogies to this onomastic

                >

                > > > > procedure.

                >

                > > >

                >

                > > >

                >

                > > > No. This is what is known as a 'root etymology': the root element

                >

                > > > matches, but the suffixes don't.

                >

                > > >

                >

                > > > GK: The similarity I'm thinking about is that manifested in the

                >

                > > > name of the Nogai Tatars,

                >

                > > Not a root etmology.

                >

                > >

                >

                > > > the Uldingir (from the Hun ruler Uldin, a generation before

                >

                > > > Attila),

                >

                > > Not a root etymology.

                >

                > >

                >

                > > > the Aspurgiani of the Bosporos,

                >

                > > Nor that one.

                >

                > >

                >

                > > > the "Scythians" of the Greek Pontic genealogical myth,

                >

                > > So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed?

                >

                > >

                >

                > > GK: No. But some of the Olbians obviously did.

                >

                >

                >

                > Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So,

                > first a people invent a person they imagine founded their ethnic

                > etc group, and then they decide to refer to themselves individually

                > by that person's name?

                >

                > GK: Why ask me? Ask the Olbians (:=))))



                You envisioned the scenario here. So I'll ask again: walk me through it.

                ****GK: The Olbians thought the Scythians were named after Scythes. I disagree. So do practically all other sources. But I think they disagree on susbstantive grounds, not on technical linguistic grounds.****





                >

                > > > the theory of a Byzantine author (I forget the name for the

                >

                > > > moment) that the "rus'" were named after a chieftain by that

                >

                > > > name,

                >

                > > Ditto. Also not a root etymology.

                >

                > >

                >

                > > GK: You're wrong on this one I'm afraid.

                >

                > In what sense? If you are implying that mr. Rus' actually existed why

                >

                > do you call that Byzantine author's account of the naming a 'theory'?

                >

                > GK: I think you understand perfectly what I am saying.



                Yes I do and it makes no sense.

                ****GK: That "Rus" from "Rus" is independent of your root etymology rule? Distinct issues.****

                Now will you answer the question you tried to dodge with that last line?

                ****GK: You're the one whio's dodging.****



                > "Rus'" is a term which can be used as either a personal name (as

                > per the Byzantine's view) or as an ethnic referent for a people.



                And that is because that person never existed but was made up. The proof is that you won't find Rus' as a fist name (but possible as a last name) anywhere outside that foundation myth.

                ****GK: But that could be purely accidental. After all "Lekh" exists even today as a first name. And I don't know if "Horvat" still does, but it did then. So again, you are confusing two distinct issues. As I said repeatedly I am not insisting on this solution. But your comments are of little use, so you can have your last grunt if you wish.****





                > The suffix problem you raised doesn't apply here. Where's the

                > reason it should apply to the Croats?



                There is nothing to apply.



                > And the basic idea (like Nogais from Nogai etc.) holds. ****



                No.

                ****GK: Yes.****



                >

                > > And if the people of "Rus'" can be called "the Rus'" how do you

                > > prove this acceptable irregularity ( as per your notion) can't

                > > apply to the Croats?

                >

                >

                > >

                >

                > Exactly, if. Please answer the above question.

                >

                > ****GK: See above.****

                >

                >

                >

                > > > the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.

                >

                > > Ditto. And ditto.



                Anyone else with first names of Lekh, Czech and Rus'?



                > >

                >

                > > GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                > See above...

                >

                > ****GK: See above.****

                >

                And you still can't figure out how to clean up your posting of annoying extra lines?

                ****GK: I'm on a different computer with a mind of its own apparently. And since it "talks to itself" it doesn't seem to reflect the annoying things you refer to.****



                Torsten
              • tgpedersen
                ... A few links to sum up the discussion: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63992 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64289 I
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 20, 2009
                  > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horvath
                  > >
                  > > If my proposal *xaruG-át- is true, they had a separate religion
                  > > having to do with stone altars etc.
                  > >
                  > > ****GK: Whatever. I have no idea, and neither have you.
                  >
                  > The phonological correspondence Semitic-Zan-Germanic is perfect,
                  > and the Semantic corespondence for at least the last two could
                  > hardly be better, so there must have been some transfer of the
                  > idea. Whether it includes the name of the Croats, I can't be sure,
                  > but that name also seems to get around in the same neighborhoods.
                  >

                  A few links to sum up the discussion:
                  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63992
                  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64289

                  I just noted something I think supports this etymology:
                  both words, *xarux- and (*xaruxþ- >) *xaruþ- I used in the proposal occur in this list of the group of Germanic nouns which have Verner alternation (and in this case also with root vowel /a/),
                  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62159
                  a group which I already suspected of being loans.


                  Torsten
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.