Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins
- --- In email@example.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>No, I can see that, but where does that leave Öku-Þor?
> At 5:09:33 PM on Friday, October 30, 2009, Torsten wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
> >> At 7:46:46 PM on Wednesday, October 28, 2009, Torsten
> >> wrote:
> >>> -- In email@example.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>.
>I was asking *you*.
> >> 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.
> >> if you think that <Ukko> is the source of <Öku->, theMaybe you should cut back on the booze? It does things to your brain.
> >> source of <Ukko> is still irrelevant.
> > Erh, why?
> Why ask such a stupid question?
> If the Norse byname isWell, I was thinking more along the lines of a common substrate, not surprisingly.
> 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>.
> >> The real point is that this is a very basic error, as isBlind høne kan også finde et korn.
> >> 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
Regardless of whether he knows what yli- means in Finnish.
> I couldn't care less about his formal credentials.I thought that was you did that.
> 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'?
> [...]Oh, you're in that mood.
> >>> 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?
> >> [...]Whatever.
> >>>> 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.
> >> Besides, the manner in which DB was constructed meansYou definitely need to cut back.
> >> 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.
--- On Mon, 11/2/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
From: Torsten <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins
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
'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.