Re: [gothic-l] "Victovaloke" article critical of linguistics
- On 06.08.2006, at 14:18, akoddsson wrote:
> There are some telling phrases, like theHails Konrad,
> one about IE being of 'no practical value'.
Yes, I think his drift is to dismiss certain ideas about the history
of Romania which result from linguistic research. Clearly his beef is
with the historical comparative method which, however, he never
really mentions, far less discusses. It is understandable that a
layman might be overwhelmed by the often bitter in-fighting over
certain details and thereby would miss the basic concepts. I've read
other articles by him. For instance, he seems to have difficulties to
grasp why _iubesc_ 'to love' is considered a loan from Slavic. He
counters the claim by saying it's recorded in an 11/12. century poem.
The latter, of course, has nothing to do with it, it's simply the
phonetic structure that leads to the assumption. However, I suppose
one must seriously question the sanity of a person that claims
'linguistics' hasn't produced anything positive in the last 200
years. He apparently tries to dismiss Indo-European linguistics in
particular. Nevertheless progress there has, of course, been enormous.
I wonder how much he really knows about modern phonetics, grammatical
theory of various types, pragmatics etc.
What is actually disconcerting is, that the unsuspecting reader might
believe some of those ravings.
As for the practical value of Indo-European linguistics - I always
found that to be enormous. It helped me learn languages so much
faster and more efficiently.
I quite agree with you on evolutionary theory and the progress of
Gabriel Gheorghe is an engineer by training, it would appear. Of
course, that is a rather different trade.
At any rate, on a nicer note, I do love roses too.
- I begin to become bored by this discussion, that seems to be off-
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "dciurchea" <dciurchea@...> wrote:
> Dear Francisc,
> I sincerely regret that you continue to excuse or arrange the
> mistifications in "Erdely Tortenete".
I have read through that famous "Erdély Története" (History of
Transylvania) and I don't agree with all that they wrote there, but
this is not the subject here (and is has nothing to do with the
Gothic list). But the Victofali existed independent of the "Erdély
> The links you indicated talk about some victofali, but as allies to
> Decebalus, not as the east german tribe who settled in the Spomes
> valley in 168 AD:"Daciam Decibalo victo subegit, provincia trans
> Danubium facta in his agris, quos nunc Taifali, Victoali et
This is from Eutropius (Breviarium Historiae Romanae VIII/2).
But your interpretation denote either mistification or an attempt to
translate a Latin text without knowing Latin. The correct translation
of this phrase is:
"he subdued Dacia by the overthrow of Decebalus, and formed a
province beyond the Danube, in that territory which the Thaiphali,
Victoali, and Theruingi now occupy"
"now" (nunc) means in Eutropius' time, who lived in the 4th century.
Thus your interpretation that the Victofali were allies of Decebalus
(who died in 106) is the real mistification.
> Therefore only my reading and interpretation remain correct.
> The trick with valoke (if correct) in "Erdely Tortenete" should be
> demonstrated with the primary data.
There is no trick there, it is just a grammatical form. I thought I
explained it clearly, but you didn't understand anything. Let me
explain it other way: "Victovaloké" is the genitive plural of
Victoval, exactly like it would be in Romanian "Victovalilor". Thus
to extract from "Victovaloké" a tribe name "Valoke" is exactly the
same error as extracting a tribe name "Valilor" from "Victovalilor".
Thus any interpretation like "Victo Valoke = Romans vainquished the
Waloks" is totally aberrant.
> - Where is the primary data ?(photo ?)
> - What connection do you see between an antique inscription and the
> current Hungarian ? How do you guess it is an east german tribe ?
> Did they have Trabi or Wartburg PKW's :)?
It is not MY interpretation that it is an east Germanic tribe
(Germanic, not German! In Hungarian, "germán" means "Germanic"; the
Hungarian word for "German" is "német"!! Or maybe you don't
undersatnd the difference between "Germanic" and "German", making any
further discussion useless). The Germanic character of the Victoali
is asserted by first-line historians, already by Edward Gibbon (The
History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, 1776):
"At a later stage, when the Sarmatians made common cause with the
Germans, it was called the Bellum Germanicum Sarmaticum. The Romans
took the field in 167, and hostilities lasted, with a short interval
of peace, till the accession of Commodus, 180. The following German
peoples took part in it: Marcomanni, Quadi, Narisci, Victovali,
Hermunduri, Vandals, Buri" (footnote no. 83)
Everywhere where I read about the Victoali, they are presented as a
Germanic (sometimes more precisely: Eastern-Germanic) people, being
regarded by some as a branch of the Vandals.
Information on the Internet about the Germanic character of the
(The "Viktovalen" are enumerated among the Eastern Germanic, as a
branch of the Vandals)
(The "Viktofalen" enumerated among Western Germanic tribes)
> I take short vacation now. Have more inspiration by my return,
> D. Ciurchea
> P.S. Theodosia and Theodosius are frequent names in the
> thracian/greek world, including today. King Theodosie was educated
> in Byzantium and beared the eastern name (and traditional thracian
> clothes), until 410 I believe, when he was advised to adapt to the
> West roman fashion, mainly because of his pants.
Who is this "King Theodosie"? Do you mean Theodoric the Great (454-
526), the King of the Ostrogoths? But this is a different person than
your "King Theodosie" who beared pants until 410 (i.e 44 years before
the birth of Theodoric the Great)
> There are other examples also.