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

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

Expand Messages
  • george knysh
    ... . So Vannius came down out of his fortresses, and though he was defeated in battle, notwithstanding his reverse, he won some credit by having fought with
    Message 1 of 69 , Oct 7, 2009
      --- On Wed, 10/7/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:


      "So Vannius came down out of his fortresses, and though he was defeated in battle, notwithstanding his reverse, he won some credit by having fought with his own hand, and received wounds on his breast. He then fled to the fleet which was awaiting him on the Danube, and was soon followed by his adherents, who received grants of land and were settled in Pannonia."

      In other words, with no information to the contrary, we must assume

      ****GK: Correction. "You must assume".****

      that the Romans settled part of Vannius' Yazygian allies in Pannonia.

      ****GK: No. The normal assumption is that the Iazigi cavalrymen fled back to Iazigia, whence they had come to assist Vannius. And there is also the possibility that they switched sides (less likely). So your assumption is only one of three possibilities. Of course we know that you only need one ia a million (:=))).*****

      That would explain why Pannonia became so important to Rome in the era of the soldier emperors
      http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/65077
      http://bib.irb. hr/datoteka/ 167165.FIllyrica _antiqua- h-gracanin. pdf
      when the Roman army was being Sarmatized in weaponry.

      ****GK: weapon "sarmatization" does not require the presence of settled Sarmatians as per your scenario. Elementary.****
    • Rick McCallister
      ... From: Torsten Subject: Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 4:12 PM  
      Message 69 of 69 , Nov 2, 2009

        --- On Mon, 11/2/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

        From: Torsten <tgpedersen@...>
        Subject: Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins
        To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 4:12 PM


        --- In cybalist@yahoogroup s.com, johnvertical@ ... wrote:
        > > > > And on that standard assumption of Baltic Finnic loans from
        > > > > Baltic: don't forget that Baltic is now considered a newcomer
        > > > > to the Baltic
        > > >
        > > > How new exactly? Baltic-Finnic is not original in the area
        > > > either. I've indeed seen it proposed that Baltic Finnic
        > > > originally expanded on a Baltic substrate (south of the Gulf of
        > > > Finland, that is).
        > >
        > > At least later than Tacitus' Germania (written around 98 CE).
        > > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Germania_ %28book%29
        > Doesn't sound too bad (even tho I can't say if I would agree with
        > your interpretation of Tacitus). Recent datings for Uralic are
        > generally younger than what has been previously assumed.

        Einige Aspekte der Ethnogenese der Balten und Slawen
        pp 17-18
        'Die obigen Darlegungen zusammenfassend kann man feststellen, daß;

        1) die in den antiken und frühmittelalterliche n Quellen genannten Aestii (Ost-Est) eine auf der Halbinsel Samland und an der Memelmündung nördlich der baltischen Stämme aus der Masurischen Seeplatte — der Galinden aus dem Bericht des Ptolemäus und der Sudinern, der späteren Jatwinger aus der Gegend um Suwal/ki wohnende Volksstammgruppe gewesen waren;

        2) die Anhäufung der alteuropäischen Gewässernamen in diesem Gebiet und das wahrscheinliche Vorkommen des Ethnonyms Aestii in den baltischen und germanischen Sprachen läßt vermuten, daß diese Gruppe ursprünglich nicht baltisch war und erst verhältnismäßig spät baltisch geworden war. Wenn man dabei den Bericht des Tacitus, daß „Aestiorum... lingua Britannicae proprior" (Germania 45) wörtlich nimmt, so bedeutet dies, daß die Sprache der Aestii dem Menschen, der diesen Gelehrten informierte, dem Keltischen ähnlich vorkam. Die italo-keltische Verwandtschaft mit den alteuropäischen Mundarten berechtigt in höherem Grade zu dieser Behauptung als die weitgehende Verschiedenheit des Baltischen und des Keltischen;

        3) es unterliegt keinem Zweifel, daß angesichts der ungewöhnlichen Dauerhaftigkeit der archäologischen Kultur und des Siedlungswesens auf der Halbinsel Samland und an der Memel im 1. Jh. u.Z. ein globaler Bevölkerungswechsel in diesen Gebieten nicht in Frage kommt, Die Aestii müssen demzufolge durch den Prozeß der sprachlichen Baltisierung in der Zeit zwischen dem Anfang unseres Zeitalters und dem 6. Jh. erfaßt worden sein, denn Jordanes bezieht diesen Namen auf weite, durch die Balten bewohnte Gebiete oder gar, wie obenerwähnt, auf das ganze ethno-sprachliche den Goten seit Hermanarich gut bekannte Massiv;

        4) aus der oben vorgestellten Hypothese folgt das von den Linguisten bisher nicht genauer untersuchte Problem des Verhältnisses der alteuropäischen Veneter aus der Weichselmündung zu den nachbarlichen Aestii. Man kann sogar die Hypothese, daß der Name Aestii einen Teil der Veneter bezeichnete, nicht ausschließen. '

        Rather short article, I can send it to you if you're interested.

        As for me, I try to solve that annoying information of Baltic-British language identity by assuming the language of Britain, at least partly (in the east), was Venetic.
        ***R There were early pre-IE British peoples who did arrive from pre-IE Scandinavia. Someone, I don't know how reliable, made a claim that the Picts were Scandinavian in origin

        > > > > which makes a common 'North European' substrate more likely as
        > > > > donor.

        As you can see, the candidates are Venetic and Aestian, whatever they are.

        > > >
        > > > Just as with Germanic, plenty of the loans to Finnic are from
        > > > the inherited Baltic lexicon, so direct contacts between the
        > > > two are needed (be it in the Baltic region or further east).
        > >
        > > No.
        > >
        > > > So direct contacts with Finnic and any substrates to Baltic may
        > > > still not be necessary.
        > >
        > > Yes.
        > >
        > > A North European substrate would be substrate to the Baltic as
        > > well as the Baltic Finnic languages so that's the only contact
        > > needed.
        > >
        > Hm, that's possible. Then however we would need it to not only be a
        > substrate that happens to be around and vanishes; it would also
        > have to transfer those words with an IE etymology to Finnic (not
        > ALL of them are "North European" or whatever), eg. *ghombhos >
        > Baltic *Zambas > F. *hampas "tooth".


        > And in that case I'd also expect to see some effects of the words
        > not being assimilated directly by Finnic, but first by this
        > substrate & then by Finnic. I'm not sure I can see anything of this
        > sort going on.

        Occurrence in IIr does not preclude NEuropean substrate-ness; George tells me the Alans(?) traded on India. I need a dated Sanskrit etymological dictionary. Some of the words I found with all the hallmarks of NEuropean substrate-ness turn up in Sanskrit anyway.


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