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

[gothic-l] Ingemar Nordgren, _Goterkaellan_, 1998

Expand Messages
  • Bertil Häggman
    Actually I fail to see the point of the two lines underneath, Could you please develop the assimilation theme? ... Fail to see why Catalonia is squeezed in
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually I fail to see the point of the two lines
      underneath, Could you please develop the
      "assimilation" theme?

      > Then how was it I wonder that they were so easily assimiliated all
      >over Europe, plainly small population?


      Fail to see why Catalonia is squeezed in here.
      The Visigothic capital was at Toledo. No doubt
      Caltalonia was included in the Visigothic kingdom
      of Toulouse and the Visigoths passed through Catalonia
      when moving to Spain under the pressurre of the Franks
      but I am curious. Please enlighten me? "Signify
      the same thing" is an interesting way to express
      oneself. The goetar of Goetaland, the jutar of Jutland
      and the gutar of Gotland are of course related.
      Could you please expand on the influence of
      the languange of the Jutes on English, I am not very
      informed on that linguistic link.

      > Wow! So Gõtland in Sweden, Catalonia in Spain and now Jylland
      >(Jutland) in Denmark basically signify the same thing? If the Goths and
      >the Jutes were the same people, then that would mean that the English
      >language contains a serious degree of Gothic influence (or even
      >origin), wouldn't it?


      > Then the idea of migration from flooding is basically nullified? In
      >fact, the Goths do not derive their name from rushing waters, but
      >instead the tribal name was applied TO the water they lived near. All
      >pretty cool nonetheless.


      Could you please explain the last sentence,
      Mr/Ms/Mrs (?) Anon. So the Gothic people around
      the mouth of the Goeta River decided on a name for
      themselves and then gave the river their name? Is that
      it?

      Bertil Haggman
    • etsasse@acsu.buffalo.edu
      ... Well, do you see any Goths today? Genetically at least you might, but it s I imagine impossible to tell since there were assimilated into other cultures.
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        > Actually I fail to see the point of the two lines
        > underneath, Could you please develop the
        > "assimilation" theme?

        Well, do you see any Goths today? Genetically at least you might,
        but it's I imagine impossible to tell since there were assimilated into
        other cultures. Look at the pattern of assimilation into Roman society
        for instance, especially since there it wasn't only the Goths, but
        various tribes/peoples. Where are the Visigoths now, in Spain I imagine
        (some of them at least), unless you believe that the Moors got every
        last one of them. The pattern of assimilation is particully evident in
        Busbecq's encounter, the one Goth who he met couldn't even speak Gothic
        anymore! I am assuming that Busbecq was correct in believeing this man
        to be a true Goth for whatever reasons he saw fit.

        >
        > > Then how was it I wonder that they were so easily assimiliated
        all
        > >over Europe, plainly small population?
        >
        >
        > Fail to see why Catalonia is squeezed in here.
        > The Visigothic capital was at Toledo. No doubt
        > Caltalonia was included in the Visigothic kingdom
        > of Toulouse and the Visigoths passed through Catalonia
        > when moving to Spain under the pressurre of the Franks
        > but I am curious.

        Gõt - land
        Cata - lon -ia
        Jy(l)- land assuming that the first (l) is an assimilated t.
        On assimilation, see
        above.

        > Please enlighten me? "Signify
        > the same thing" is an interesting way to express
        > oneself.

        See above, it seems to be that all three names SIGNIFY a history of
        being a 'Goth-land', all with the SAME roots. Why is what I said
        difficult to infer?

        > Could you please expand on the influence of
        > the languange of the Jutes on English, I am not very
        > informed on that linguistic link.

        English is often said to be of Anglo-Saxon origin, though some would
        go so far as to actually say Anglo-Saxon-Jutish origin since there is a
        history of the Jutes being involved in the mix. It's been a long time
        since I read the Hengist tale, but I believe that story sheds some
        light on how this can be.

        > > Then the idea of migration from flooding is basically nullified?
        In
        > >fact, the Goths do not derive their name from rushing waters, but
        > >instead the tribal name was applied TO the water they lived near. All
        > >pretty cool nonetheless.

        Was I really being so obtuse that nothing could be inferred. Why do
        I have to 'please explain' everything I wrote!?
        My view on this was that it has been claimed that the Goths derive
        their name from a root for rushing water, which I believe I read in
        Bennett's intro to Gothic book, along with one or two interpretations
        of the Cantilena. But if what this new dissertation is claiming about
        the location of the Goths' origin, then the issue of flooding is
        seemingly a non-issue. Instead, although I haven't read the
        dissertation, it seems as though it's possible that they named a
        geographical feature after themselves. I don't know if this happened,
        nor do I claim it did, I was just impressed by the fact that it seems
        possible.

        > Could you please explain the last sentence,
        > Mr/Ms/Mrs (?) Anon. So the Gothic people around

        What's makes me Anon.? I see my name listed on some of the messages
        I post, and my username listed on the others. Are you asking for my
        resume?

        > the mouth of the Goeta River decided on a name for
        > themselves and then gave the river their name? Is that
        > it?

        Why not? People generally do decide on a name for themselves, even
        if that name just means 'people'. And later on in time, they start
        naming things after themself. Where did the Indian Ocean gets its name?
        Hudson River is named after a person. This also happens in reverse too,
        probably much more so I admit, so that we have a people called
        Bulgarians named after a river they lived near, the Volga. However I
        can see that when a people come to a new place, let's say one that has
        a river, that the place/river may not have a name yet, or that the
        newcomers don't know, or care to know, the current name. America was
        given a new name despite what the natives may have called their
        surrounding lands, whereas Canada was basically given the local name,
        within reason.

        > Bertil Haggman

        Anon.
      • Keth
        Hello! I just arrived on the list (barely had time to read more than a few posts) and I also reacted to this post, at the exact same point that Bertil Haggman
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello! I just arrived on the list
          (barely had time to read more than a few posts)
          and I also reacted to this post, at the exact same point that
          Bertil Haggman now is reacting:

          Bertil Haggman wrote:
          >Actually I fail to see the point of the two lines
          >underneath, Could you please develop the
          >"assimilation" theme?
          >
          >> Then how was it I wonder that they were so easily assimiliated all
          >>over Europe, plainly small population?

          In particular, I thought the above sentence was odd.
          I already composed a post to answer it, but I think it did not
          arrive at the list, because I am testing out a new browser, and apparently
          it sometimes sends two messages, and sometimes none. Well, be that as it may,
          and assuming it did nor arrive on the list, let me try to recapture what I
          wrote:

          First I thought that it should perhaps have read:

          "Then how was it I wonder that they were so easily assimiliated all
          over Europe's plainly small population?"

          But it still doesn't make sense. And so I now think a verb is missing
          somewhere.


          >
          >Fail to see why Catalonia is squeezed in here.
          >The Visigothic capital was at Toledo. No doubt
          >Caltalonia was included in the Visigothic kingdom
          >of Toulouse and the Visigoths passed through Catalonia
          >when moving to Spain under the pressurre of the Franks
          >but I am curious. Please enlighten me? "Signify
          >the same thing" is an interesting way to express
          >oneself. The goetar of Goetaland, the jutar of Jutland
          >and the gutar of Gotland are of course related.
          >Could you please expand on the influence of
          >the languange of the Jutes on English, I am not very
          >informed on that linguistic link.
          >
          >> Wow! So Gõtland in Sweden, Catalonia in Spain and now Jylland
          >>(Jutland) in Denmark basically signify the same thing? If the Goths and
          >>the Jutes were the same people, then that would mean that the English
          >>language contains a serious degree of Gothic influence (or even
          >>origin), wouldn't it?

          Here I remarked that it is not a good idea to start a sentence with
          "Wow!" in a written discussion. It makes one think that the writer
          is being sarcastic, and as far as I know, sarcasm has never
          done much good in mailing list discussions. It is much better to
          state ones objections as plainly as possible in rational terms.

          Also, I know that the Icelandic sources relate that Jutland was
          formerly called "Reiðgotland". I have seen several instances
          of this in the Icelandic litterature (in Snorri for example).
          "Denmark" was further East, because that is where the Danes came from
          according to the legend.

          Whether the "Angles" (-> "English") actually came from Jutland
          is also a bit uncertain, according to some comments I have read.
          The easy solution is to say that the "Angles" came from the place
          that is today called "Angeln", but that was the point being disputed
          (don't recall the source right now)
          >
          >> Then the idea of migration from flooding is basically nullified? In
          >>fact, the Goths do not derive their name from rushing waters, but
          >>instead the tribal name was applied TO the water they lived near. All
          >>pretty cool nonetheless.


          Here I remark that we do not know the answer to this question.
          But as long as we are in the process of building hypothesises to
          explain historic and pre-historic events, one cannot demand
          consistency on all points and levels while the construction
          is still going on. Consistency is only something that can be
          hoped for after all the research has been done, and a solution
          has been found (I got this idea from Richard P. Feynman).


          Best Regards
          Keth
        • etsasse@acsu.buffalo.edu
          ... all ... Actually I did miss putting in an a . It should be a plainly small population . What I meant by that was to as ask if their assimilation was the
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 3, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            > >> Then how was it I wonder that they were so easily assimiliated
            all
            > >>over Europe, plainly small population?

            > First I thought that it should perhaps have read:
            >
            > "Then how was it I wonder that they were so easily assimiliated all
            > over Europe's plainly small population?"
            >
            > But it still doesn't make sense. And so I now think a verb is missing
            > somewhere.

            Actually I did miss putting in an 'a'. It should be "a plainly small
            population". What I meant by that was to as ask if their assimilation
            was the result of having a small population to start out with.

            > >> Wow! So Gõtland in Sweden,
            >
            > Here I remarked that it is not a good idea to start a sentence with
            > "Wow!" in a written discussion. It makes one think that the writer
            > is being sarcastic, and as far as I know, sarcasm has never
            > done much good in mailing list discussions. It is much better to
            > state ones objections as plainly as possible in rational terms.

            This sucks. I apologize for my enthusiasm for I really did mean to
            say Wow! without sarcasm. I was impressed by the connection of the
            names I mentioned, that's all. In he future when I wish to express wow
            in a sentence, I will substitue the word 'Flub!' in its place.


            > Whether the "Angles" (-> "English") actually came from Jutland
            > is also a bit uncertain, according to some comments I have read.
            > The easy solution is to say that the "Angles" came from the place
            > that is today called "Angeln", but that was the point being disputed
            > (don't recall the source right now)


            I never claimed that the Angles came from Jutland, only that there
            is a connection between them and the Jutes. Modern day
            Jutlandish/Jutlandic/Jutish (Jysk), whatever its name is in English,
            even has some characteristics which it shares more with English than it
            does Danish. Not that I'm using this as absolute proof of anything mind
            you, I guess I'm more just expressing the connections I'm making in my
            head here.
          • Keth
            ... Ok - So it was Europe s population that was big, and the Goth s that was small. Still I wonder if it was such a small percentage if measured locally. What
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 3, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              etsasse@... wrote:

              >>>>Then how was it I wonder that they were so easily assimiliated all
              >>>>over Europe, plainly small population?

              > Actually I did miss putting in an 'a'. It should be "a plainly small
              >population". What I meant by that was to as ask if their assimilation
              >was the result of having a small population to start out with.

              Ok - So it was Europe's population that was big, and the Goth's
              that was small. Still I wonder if it was such a small percentage
              if measured locally. What can Italy's population have been?
              And how many Goths were there?


              The assimilation clearly has two stages:
              1. disappearance of language
              2. loss of ancestral line

              Your example was the Visigoths.
              Does any one know when Visigothic stopped being used in Spain?
              As far as I recall, many Spanish nobles regarded themselves as
              descendants of the Visigoths until quite late, or am I mistaken?

              Another example is the Langobards.
              I hear that there is today a separatist movement going on there,
              and that the protagonists regard themselves as ethnical descendants
              of Langobards and Kelts (Gallia cisalpina), rather than as descendants
              of the Romans -- yes, it does puzzle me a bit, and I have no idea
              how widespread this non-identification with the ancient Romans is there.


              >> >> Wow! So Gõtland in Sweden,
              >>
              >> Here I remarked that it is not a good idea to start a sentence with
              >> "Wow!" in a written discussion. It makes one think that the writer
              >> is being sarcastic, and as far as I know, sarcasm has never
              >> done much good in mailing list discussions. It is much better to
              >> state ones objections as plainly as possible in rational terms.
              >
              > This sucks. I apologize for my enthusiasm for I really did mean to
              >say Wow! without sarcasm. I was impressed by the connection of the
              >names I mentioned, that's all. In he future when I wish to express wow
              >in a sentence, I will substitue the word 'Flub!' in its place.

              Thank you for the elucidation!
              No, honestly, my first impression was definitely one of sarcasm.
              I am glad I misunderstood, though I must confess that I also have
              problems with the word "suck".

              >
              >
              >> Whether the "Angles" (-> "English") actually came from Jutland
              >> is also a bit uncertain, according to some comments I have read.
              >> The easy solution is to say that the "Angles" came from the place
              >> that is today called "Angeln", but that was the point being disputed
              >> (don't recall the source right now)
              >
              >
              > I never claimed that the Angles came from Jutland, only that there
              >is a connection between them and the Jutes. Modern day
              >Jutlandish/Jutlandic/Jutish (Jysk), whatever its name is in English,
              >even has some characteristics which it shares more with English than it
              >does Danish. Not that I'm using this as absolute proof of anything mind
              >you, I guess I'm more just expressing the connections I'm making in my
              >head here.

              I have also heard this about the "jydske sprog" (udtalen).
              I think there was a TV program some years ago, where you heard
              some people from the West coast of Jutland speaking their dialect,
              and it was amazing to hear how similar some of the sounds
              were to those of British English, and not to just any English,
              but to the most snobbish English that you can imagine!
              (the "Queens" English) Well, it is a while ago, but at least
              that is the impression I have retained.

              Whether this similarity of sounds has alternative explanations,
              I do not know, but apparently the people who were exploring
              the similarities were serious linguists. Does any one have
              some further information on this interesting phenomenon?

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