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

Re: The Far Western Slavyane

Expand Messages
  • Ben McGarr
    ... Now, Alastair, I wouldn t dream of competing with you on that score, so you ll have to be contented with a simple Hello this time! ... Saale), ... the
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 3, 2004
      --- In sig@yahoogroups.com, "Alastair Millar" <alastair@i...> wrote:
      > Yo. And other hip words.

      Now, Alastair, I wouldn't dream of competing with you on that score,
      so you'll have to be contented with a simple 'Hello' this time!

      > Er, no. Some river names are based on Slavic names (like the
      Saale),
      > but other than the general term "Polabian" (meaning 'living along
      the
      > Labe', i.e. Elbe) - which was applied to, rather than used by, the
      > groups concerned - this doesn't seem accurate to me.

      Well, I can do no better than to give you what I've got so what do
      you think of these?;

      Ruf' Ageeva [kandidat filologicheskikh nauk], in her 2002 'Strany i
      Narody; proiskhozhdenie nazvanii' {{Countries and Peoples, Origins of
      Names}} believes that the following Rivers found their way into
      ethnonyms - Laba, Gavola, Spreva [Spree???], Ukra, Dolenitsa, Pena
      and Odra.

      THat's seven at least. Not to mention the Wislane, Slenzane and
      Buzhane

      > A net with holes that large is probably only going to catch
      dolphins -
      > or confuse the hell out of the cod... ;-)

      I seem to have caught you, my boy. What's it to be then? Codfish,
      or Dolphin? Or else opportunistic Seagull, cackling at the amateur
      Fisherman's efforts? ;o)

      > Modern historians recognise that 'Wend' is a synonym for 'Slav',
      > while 'Sorbs' are a specific group. It's really the same word
      > as 'Serb'.

      Naturally. Ageeva reports they call themselves Serby. She offers
      several elucidations of this name;
      - "person, clan member", cognates of which hypothetical word being
      Ukrainian priserbitisya, paserb, meaning join/adopt/unite/link etc.
      - something connected with Russian dialect serbat' = khlebat'
      nourish/wean etc, invoking milk kinship metaphors.
      - an old word refering to guardians of cattle, or pastoralists in
      general, nicely paralleling a supposed Iranian interpretation of
      Hrvat/Croat.

      Any comments on this?

      > > How else should we term these non Czech, non Lech,
      > > Western-Slovene?
      >
      > Using the assorted other tribal names that are known? Consider the
      > case of the Luchans of West Bohemia...

      I would if I could, but I don't know what you're talking about. Am I
      being dense and merely not getting a Czeshkophile/Bohemian-
      expansionist joke?!!?

      You don't disagree that a common term is needed for these extinct
      groups? Would you consider them closer to the Poles or the Czechs,
      or Kaszubs or whoever, I wonder?

      > The immediate caution would have to be... "beware the Pan-
      Slavist!";

      Slava, svyashennomy znamyu vseslavyanskizma! [urgh, grammatichka...]


      > > As their very name suggests, these latter lived on
      > > the Laba [Elbe, Albis],
      >
      > Er, no. As noted above, 'Polabian' is a label of geographical
      > convenience only. Roman Zaroff, for example, in his excellent (and
      > now classic) essay on the Germanisation of the Slavs - apparently
      > available online only at http://luzicane.h1.ru/RZaroff.html these
      > days - notes the division of the Polabian Slavs into the Obodrite,
      > Veleti and Sorbs.

      Alastair, I can't thank you enough for this link. Scholar and a
      Gentleman, so you are.

      And about the Polabs, I read somewhere that a group calling itself
      Polaben managed to hold on to their speech and identity into the
      Nineteenth Century, in the hinterland of Hamburg. A primer was
      published apparantly. Long out of date, no doubt, but does anyone
      know anything further about this little remnant?


      > > and so represent the westward
      > > push of the Slavs here, not the northern.
      >
      > This makes me uneasy, because of the implied assumption that the
      > Slavs were some kind of unified people when they turned up

      I would have thought that my choice of phrase there implied quite the
      opposite, as though we're dealing with a series of uncoordinated
      waves and ebbs.

      > in Bohemia (suggesting that, for example, there were two influxes
      of
      > culturally different Slavs some 2 centuries apart).

      Now that is curious. Does it link in with the supposed greater
      antiquity of such names as Khorvaty, Serby and Dudlebi? THe latter
      name interests me especially, given its occurence in the Ukraina
      also. Ageeva claims it as a Germanic borrowing of some kind.

      > Well the politics of the period was all about marriage alliances...
      > so most ruling families would have done the same. The Premyslids in
      > Bohemia certainly did.

      My point was that the smaller Houses would have been more likely to
      engage in this sort of practice with their more IMMEDIATE
      neighbours. Shouldn't there be a funny old Zapadnoslavyansky 'Z'
      after the 'R' in the Boehmischer dynasty's name, by the way?


      > Hope all this helps

      Muchly and mnogo. Spasibo bolshoe!
      Cheers,
      Ben
    • Rick Orli
      This is a great article, thanks! There was only one rather strange assertion, flipped out in the intro, that I have heard before: that the lands that had been
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 4, 2004
        This is a great article, thanks! There was only one rather strange
        assertion, flipped out in the intro, that I have heard before: that
        the lands that had been german were (nearly) deserted, before the
        slavs moved in.
        First, these were mostly gothic lands... I don't think the germans
        can quite claim the goths, not completly anyway. Second, the Idea
        that all this nice land was voluntarly emptied by anyone is most
        incredible. I can see some scenarios that would empty a land: no-
        mans land between two warring nations... like south carolina in the
        16th C., between north carolina and georgia warring nations. Or, a
        wipe out, like when the mongols passed through the kievian lands
        killing most, or a particularly brutal yet regional plague. What
        else? I think we can rule out a severe but temporary climate change
        since lands to either side seem unaffected. There could be a
        perceptive lapse - Roman-Italian rural lands always seemed empty to
        visitors because the population was unusually concentrated in cities-
        other lands seemed unpopulated to italians because the towns were
        tiny.
        Migrations usually involve only surplus populations, unless the
        migration is forced, militarily.

        essay on the Germanisation of the Slavs - apparently
        > > available online only at http://luzicane.h1.ru/RZaroff.html
        these
        > > days - notes the division of the Polabian Slavs into the
        Obodrite,
        > > Veleti and Sorbs.
      • Alastair Millar
        Rick writes... ... I think the point is that they had already been scoured by various other migrating tribes beforehand, meaning that settled (let alone
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 6, 2004
          Rick writes...

          > There was only one rather strange
          > assertion... [snip]... that the lands
          > that had been german were (nearly)
          > deserted, before the slavs moved in.

          I think the point is that they had already been scoured by various other
          migrating tribes beforehand, meaning that settled (let alone semi-urbanised)
          life would have been extremely difficult.

          Certainly in Bohemia the Migration Period is an archaeological nightmare,
          with the disappearance of earlier material and then a whole jumble of
          not-easily-distinguishable stuff, and some semblance of order only coming
          with the arrival *and settlement* of the Slavs.

          Alastair

          -----------------------------------------------------
          Alastair Millar BSc (Hons) - http://www.skriptorium.info
          Translation & Consultancy for the Heritage Industry
          P.O. Box 11, CZ 413 01 Roudnice, Czech Republic
          Tel.: +420.607.993.041, Fax.: +420.416.832.090
        • Alastair Millar
          Ello Ben! ... Well I d use a good Czech ahoj but I probably wouldn t be able to resist adding sailor to the end... ... Good point! Never given it much
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 6, 2004
            'Ello Ben!

            > so you'll have to be contented with a
            > simple 'Hello' this time!

            Well I'd use a good Czech "ahoj" but I probably wouldn't be able to resist
            adding "sailor" to the end...

            > ethnonyms - Laba, Gavola, Spreva [Spree???], Ukra,
            > Dolenitsa, Pena and Odra.
            > THat's seven at least. Not to mention the Wislane,
            > Slenzane and Buzhane

            Good point! Never given it much thought previously.

            But to play devil's advocate... how many of those were applied to the groups
            BY THEMSELVES, and how many were applied to them from outside? And how many
            are *back* formations, where the river has taken its name from the people?

            > I seem to have caught you, my boy. What's it to be then?
            > Codfish, or Dolphin? Or else opportunistic Seagull,

            Albatross more like... appearing round the neck in the millstone tradition
            ;-)

            > cackling at the amateur Fisherman's efforts? ;o)

            Never that ;-)

            > Naturally. Ageeva reports they call themselves Serby.

            Or Srby, depending where they are.

            > Any comments on this?

            Nope. I tend to be quite skeptical about things like this because (a) we
            aren't sure just WHEN the word came into use, and (b) linguistics is a very
            very easy place for amateurs to come unstuck through seeing false
            connections and incorrect roots.

            > I would if I could, but I don't know what you're talking about.

            Well, to put it another way: why do we NEED a more distinct terminology than
            the triple (linguistics-based) division of the Slavs into Western, Southern
            and Eastern, which is nevertheless less specific than particular tribal
            names? If we apply a single term (like "Polabian Slav" we are immediately
            implying social and/or cultural affiliations that *uniquely* apply to the
            people so grouped... and can we really justify this?

            > Am I being dense and merely not getting a Czeshkophile/
            > Bohemian-expansionist joke?!!?

            The Luchans were a minor tribe believed to have occupied a small area of
            what is now West Bohemia. They are mentioned in the early chronicles, solely
            because the "real" Czechs beat them in a war.

            > You don't disagree that a common term is needed
            > for these extinct groups?

            I most certainly do disagree (see above).

            > Would you consider them closer to the Poles or
            > the Czechs, or Kaszubs or whoever, I wonder?

            Would I consider WHO closer? If you mean the Lusatian Sorbs, then I would go
            no further than to say that they were reasonably closely related -
            linguistically! - to the Poles and the Czechs. And let's not forget that the
            Sorbs themselves are subdivisible.

            > Slava, svyashennomy znamyu vseslavyanskizma! [urgh, grammatichka...]
            Urgh, Russian...
            *ducks & runs before Yana notices*

            > Alastair, I can't thank you enough for this link. Scholar
            > and a Gentleman, so you are.

            Well one out of two ain't bad. I'm not saying whcih, tho'!

            > Long out of date, no doubt, but does anyone
            > know anything further about this little remnant?

            Not me.

            > I would have thought that my choice of phrase
            > there implied quite the opposite, as though we're
            > dealing with a series of uncoordinated
            > waves and ebbs.

            Personally, I'd see the use "the Slavs" in your original statement as
            suggesting something else, but I can be a pedantic so-and-so ;-)

            > Now that is curious.

            Not really. If we accept that the movement of Slavic peoples was the last
            great act of the Migration Period, why should such an event have occurred
            only once when it had been preceded by numerous such events (Langobards,
            Franks etc.)

            > Does it link in with the supposed greater
            > antiquity of such names as Khorvaty, Serby

            I didn't know these names were of supposedly greater antiquity? What is the
            evidence for this?

            > and Dudlebi?

            Never heard of this one.Who/what is it?

            > My point was that the smaller Houses would
            > have been more likely to engage in this sort
            > of practice with their more IMMEDIATE
            > neighbours.

            Possibly. Depends how much they needed protection from an aggressive
            neighbour, or how strategically placed they were, I suspect.

            > Shouldn't there be a funny old Zapadnoslavyansky
            > 'Z' after the 'R' in the Boehmischer dynasty's name,
            > by the way?

            No. Correctly, one should write Premyslids in English, with a hook over the
            r. (This hook is correctly called a hac'ek in English - according to
            Chambers). Przemyslid is a horrible early/mid-20th century attempt to be
            cosmopolitan, and is very much avoided by translators today. (Trust me on
            this, in real life I am the leading translator of heritage and
            archaeological texts from Czech to English! ;-)).

            > Spasibo bolshoe!
            You're a ballet fan?

            Alastair

            -----------------------------------------------------
            Alastair Millar BSc (Hons) - http://www.skriptorium.info
            Translation & Consultancy for the Heritage Industry
            P.O. Box 11, CZ 413 01 Roudnice, Czech Republic
            Tel.: +420.607.993.041, Fax.: +420.416.832.090
          • Ben McGarr
            ... resist ... Well don t mind me! Would that be moryak in Czeski then? We have a very funny word in Russkiy, matros. Apparently it s through German from
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 9, 2004
              --- In sig@yahoogroups.com, "Alastair Millar" <alastair@i...> wrote:
              > Well I'd use a good Czech "ahoj" but I probably wouldn't be able to
              resist
              > adding "sailor" to the end...

              Well don't mind me! Would that be moryak in Czeski then? We have a
              very funny word in Russkiy, matros. Apparently it's through German
              from French Matelot from an original Dutch maat-genoot, or 'mess-
              mate', comrade, bloke you eat with.

              > Good point! Never given it much thought previously.
              > But to play devil's advocate... how many of those were applied to
              the groups
              > BY THEMSELVES, and how many were applied to them from outside?

              Which outside? Germans wrote them down, but they're not German, nor
              are they some kind of scholarly Latin creation. The suffices are
              obviously Slavonic. Why would a German invader care to find out what
              the Poles and Czechs call the Wendish subunits? They'd all just be
              Wends to him anyway. They must be local names. Maybe they were
              applied by members of one unit to another, but that's very normal for
              ethnonyms. Most Welsh are quite happy to use this Germanic adjective
              to describe themselves.

              And, Helmond knew their language, and even saw fit to elaborate on
              how some groups had second names, or entered into broader overgroups,
              and he even tried to etymologise some. Wouldn't he have said if the
              names in general use were in some way incorrect, or at least had
              alternatives?

              Anyway, we were talking about geographic distribution, and I argued
              for the use of watersheds [and other geographical boundaries] as some
              kind of vague guide, so if a tribe is named after [or even named] the
              river then what does it matter if this name is external or not?

              >And how many
              > are *back* formations, where the river has taken its name from the
              people?

              The Odra and the Elbe at least already bore those names when the
              Germanics were sstill living there in Ptolemy's day, and I bet a fair
              few other streams have Germanic names. Dolenitsa at least looks
              Slavonic, but I'd bet 10 Rubles on the majority predating Adventus
              Sclavonum.

              > Albatross more like... appearing round the neck in the millstone
              tradition

              I made a joke about this the first time I tried to reply, butchering
              a few lines of Coleridge's finest. However, I have thought better of
              it and repent. "Wends, Wends everywhere, and not a drop to ....

              > Or Srby, depending where they are.

              Nu, da. But we're not talking about the Balkans.

              > Nope. I tend to be quite skeptical about things like this because
              (a) we
              > aren't sure just WHEN the word came into use, and (b) linguistics
              is a very
              > very easy place for amateurs to come unstuck through seeing false
              > connections and incorrect roots.

              We have the Byzantine Imperator/Historian's first witness of the
              word, and I wouldn't call Trubachev, Fasmer, Ilinskiy or Schuster-
              S<ews amateurs. With sound phonological understanding such
              hypothesising is valid, and, what's more, the people demand it.

              > Well, to put it another way: why do we NEED a more distinct
              terminology than
              > the triple (linguistics-based) division of the Slavs into Western,
              Southern
              > and Eastern, which is nevertheless less specific than particular
              tribal

              Is the period under discussion 600 - 900+ too early to suppose any
              divergence in speech? No. Do the Polaby-Obodrichy-Serby display a
              broad linguistic unity amongst themselves vis a vis Polska and
              Czeska? I believe so, though am open to argument here. I would
              specifically like to compare what was written by Johannes Schultze
              near Hannover in the Eighteenth Century, and modern Luzhitski.
              Having heard nothing to the contrary about the unity of the group,
              and having seen entries of its language in my Russian dictionary, I
              say they need a term to distinguish them.

              Anyway, outside of linguistics, we're dealing wiht a group of groups
              that had the same historical fate. Look at the chimaera that is the
              Scottish 'nation'. A right ethnosociolinguistic hodgepodge, but
              there is this element of common historical fate.

              > names? If we apply a single term (like "Polabian Slav" we are
              immediately
              > implying social and/or cultural affiliations that *uniquely* apply
              to the
              > people so grouped... and can we really justify this?

              I'd say that anyone with half an ounce of intellectual discernment
              [and I suspect anyone who has seen fit to join this Group falls into
              this category!] would see that such is not the intended implication.

              > The Luchans were a minor tribe believed to have occupied a small
              area of
              > what is now West Bohemia. They are mentioned in the early
              chronicles, solely
              > because the "real" Czechs beat them in a war.

              Where exactly were they? Can you say anything as to their name? I
              see the Sedlichane, Litomerzhitsy and Dechane, among others are named
              after their home territory.

              > no further than to say that they were reasonably closely related -
              > linguistically! - to the Poles and the Czechs. And let's not forget
              that the
              > Sorbs themselves are subdivisible.

              There must be rough indices of lexical correspondence and
              intelligibility [very high between almost all Slovene, but surely at
              different rates between different groups] to determine their relative
              distance from other Western Slavs.

              > Personally, I'd see the use "the Slavs" in your original statement
              as
              > suggesting something else, but I can be a pedantic so-and-so ;-)

              Bringing out the pedant in me; we often use the definite article when
              dealing with ethnic matters. The Spanish, or the French are sets of
              people differing far more widely by language and culture and
              anthropology than the Wends ever did, yet we happily employ the 'the'
              here. To escape the criticism that these have long political
              traditions, I often say 'the Finns' when discussing humans living
              from anywhere between Norway and the Urals. There's no question of
              there ever having been any cohesion between the Livs and the Komi,
              but we say the Finns all the same.

              > > Does it link in with the supposed greater
              > > antiquity of such names as Khorvaty, Serby
              >
              > I didn't know these names were of supposedly greater antiquity?
              What is the
              > evidence for this?

              There are morphological reasons, but perhaps more tellingly, each
              name here is recorded for at least two [and possibly all] out of the
              three main zones of Slavdom. The names therefore predate the
              migrations. Croats for instance were found independently in the
              Sudeten, Illyria, and the Volyn.


              > > and Dudlebi?
              >
              > Never heard of this one.Who/what is it?

              Likewise a tribal name encountered in areas very far apart. One set -
              Dudleb - by the Dnestr, another [which I'm surprised a man who knows
              the Luchane hasn't heard of] lived in the extreme south of your
              Chekhiya.

              There's supposedly a consensus on a Germanic origin for the name.
              *daud-laiba [nasledstvo umershego] being one reconstruction. Gothic
              is even supposed.

              > r. (This hook is correctly called a hac'ek in English - according to
              > Chambers). Przemyslid is a horrible early/mid-20th century attempt
              to be
              > cosmopolitan, and is very much avoided by translators today.

              Influence of Polish orthography? Lots of people can't do haceks on
              their computers. I always find diacritics a real pain in the
              zadnitsa myself - I'm always having to switch encoding. I've got
              used to the fact that O-umlaut is a Cyrillic Ts, and the E Acute
              shows up as a Russkiy I-igrik.

              S nailuchshimi pozhelaniyami,
              Ben
            • Alastair Millar
              ... (a) no, it would usually be namor nik (lit. one who is on the sea/ocean ). Alternatives might under certain circumstances include lodnik (lit. one on a
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 11, 2004
                Ben writes:

                > Would that be moryak in Czeski then?

                (a) no, it would usually be namor'nik (lit. 'one who is on the sea/ocean').
                Alternatives might under certain circumstances include lodnik (lit. 'one on
                a boat'), marin'ak (slang, lit. 'mariner'), or plavec (river sailor, lit.
                'one who floats/swims').
                (b) what is Czeski? In English the language is called Czech... and in Czech
                we
                call it c'esky jayzk informally or c'es'tina more correctly.

                > Which outside?

                Well we have convincing evidence for Germans, Jews, Arabs and Byzantine
                Greeks in period. Later scholars have certainly applied names as well,
                however.

                > The suffices are obviously Slavonic.

                To take Polabian, the -ian suffix is most certainly not Slavonic. It's not
                related to the Slavonic -an or -c'an.

                > Why would a German invader care to find out what
                > the Poles and Czechs call the Wendish subunits? They'd all
                > just be Wends to him anyway. They must be local names.

                But that was my point. You were the one suggesting we need other 'group'
                names for collections of tribes; personally, I don't agree that geographic
                location should be the defining factor. This is not a subject I wish to
                debate any further: accept that we are not going to agree on this, please.

                > and I bet a fair few other streams have Germanic names.

                And many others, like the Ohr'e in Bohemia (known to the Germans as the
                Eger) are Celtic.

                > Nu, da.

                "Nuda" in Czech means "boredom"! :-(

                > But we're not talking about the Balkans.

                Aren't we?

                > We have the Byzantine Imperator/Historian's
                > first witness of the word,

                Ouch. We also have a Byzantine Emperor's word for "Great Moravia", which
                could have meant something very general indeed according to recent research.
                Who says the Byzantine Emperor was working from primary sources or direct
                knowledge?

                > With sound phonological understanding such
                > hypothesising is valid, and, what's more, the people
                > demand it.

                Well I agree, but the fact is that most people who try it are NOT experts,
                so unless I see a convincing reference cited I default to natural/healthy
                scepticism.

                > Is the period under discussion 600 - 900+ too
                > early to suppose any divergence in speech? No.

                Agreed.

                > Do the Polaby-Obodrichy-Serby display a
                > broad linguistic unity amongst themselves vis a vis
                > Polska and Czeska? I believe so, though am
                > open to argument here.

                I have no idea about the language of the Obdorites. Both flavours of
                Sorbian, however, are *extremely* close to Czech and Polish. (I have read
                Sorbian texts that are a lot closer to Czech than Slovak is, for instance).

                You don't seem to have taken on board my earlier reference to Zaroff,
                though - the Obdorites are a division of the 'Polabians' (a group defined
                geographically and not necessarily culturally/linguistically), and the
                latter are therefore not a separate tribe.

                Where is this place called Czeska by the way? I assume you mean Bohemia,
                known to the Czechs as C'echy. The Czech word "C'esko" (English translation:
                Czechia) is a 1992 invention designed to abbreviate "C'eska republika"
                (Czech Republic, i.e. Bohemia, Moravia and part of Silesia), and should not
                therefore be applied when referring to any historical region.

                > Having heard nothing to the contrary about the
                > unity of the group, and having seen entries of its
                > language in my Russian dictionary, I
                > say they need a term to distinguish them.

                They have one: "Polabian Slavs".

                > Anyway, outside of linguistics, we're dealing
                > wiht a group of groups that had the same
                > historical fate.

                I think that modern Sorbs would disagree with you there: they still exist,
                for a start.

                > I'd say that anyone with half an ounce of intellectual
                > discernment [and I suspect anyone who has seen fit
                > to join this Group falls into this category!] would see
                > that such is not the intended implication.

                I shall pretend not to be offended by that statement.

                > Where exactly were they? Can you say anything as
                > to their name?

                They were allegedly around what is now the town of Z'atec in West Bohemia.
                Previously this area, now called Z'atecko, was known as Lucko. A Luc'an is
                one from Lucko.

                For those with a further interest, I am proposing to submit a retelling of
                the story of the war of the Czechs and Luc'ans for Slovo.

                > I see the Sedlichane, Litomerzhitsy and Dechane, among others
                > are named after their home territory.

                (a) If you wish to be understood, you will have to stop making up spellings.
                (b) To take these in order:
                - the Sedlc'ane are "those living in farmstead families"
                - the second are correctly the L'utmirici, "the people of L'utomir"
                - the third are "the people of De'ka".

                These are CLAN names, not tribal names: there is no evidence that their
                language differed.

                In all three cases, the clan names gave rise to the place names (presumably
                clan centres - Sedlc'any, Litome'r'ice and De'c'in respectively), and not
                the other way around.

                Considering the baptism of the 14 Bohemian princes at Regensburg in 845 and
                that the 9th century Geographus Bavarus states that the Czechs (Bohemians)
                had 15 strongholds (civitates), it is interesting that these are considered
                a SINGLE people, distinct from, for example, the Moravians and Poles. This
                too implies that in Bohemia we are dealing with clan and not tribal names.
                This is an essential distinction.

                > There must be rough indices of lexical correspondence
                > and intelligibility

                I am sure that there are. We have to keep linguists off the streets
                somehow...

                > [very high between almost all Slovene,

                I assume you mean Slavs here. Slovenes are distinct group in their own
                right - their modern capital is Ljubljana.

                > Bringing out the pedant in me; we often use the
                > definite article when dealing with ethnic matters.

                Define "we", please. And don't bother trying to lecture me on English usage.

                >>> Does it link in with the supposed greater
                >>> antiquity of such names as Khorvaty, Serby
                >>
                >> I didn't know these names were of supposedly
                >> greater antiquity? What is the evidence for this?
                >
                > There are morphological reasons,

                Well disregarding your invention of Khorvat for what everyone refers to as
                Croats (or Charvats or Chorvats), this seems rather weak.

                > but perhaps more tellingly, each name here is
                > recorded for at least two [and possibly all] out of the
                > three main zones of Slavdom. The names therefore
                > predate the migrations.

                Er no, because AFAIK there is no evidence for them in the written sources of
                the
                pre-immigration period. We have no evidence that they were indeed applied IN
                PERIOD, however universal their application now.

                > Croats for instance were found independently in the
                > Sudeten, Illyria, and the Volyn.

                The Sudetenland (if you wish to offend people) or the Sudety. "The Sudeten"
                doesn't make sense. Also, I believe that you are not quite correct here:
                Croats/Charvats are said to have occupied an area in what is now north-EAST
                Bohemia,
                just beyond the Sudetenland as usually defined, and away from the Sudety.
                Charvat is still a common Czech surname.

                >>> and Dudlebi?
                >>>
                >> Never heard of this one.Who/what is it?
                >
                > Likewise a tribal name [snip]
                > [which I'm surprised a man who knows
                > the Luchane hasn't heard of] lived in the
                > extreme south of your Chekhiya.

                Czechia is an artificial term coined in 1992 to refer to the Czech Republic
                as a country (see above). Chekhiya is, I believe, a part of what is
                generally called Chechyna.

                Further, I have never claimed to possess encylopedic, or even complete,
                information; I do however heartily endorse the cornerstone of the SIG, which
                is to share what we know. I am quite happy to discuss anything provided that
                we agree at the outset that there are at least two points of view, neither
                of which need necessarily be correct.

                > There's supposedly a consensus on a Germanic origin
                > for the name. *daud-laiba [nasledstvo umershego]
                > being one reconstruction. Gothic
                > is even supposed.

                Er, but one set was by the Dnestr? So why a Germanic origin, given your
                earlier comments about the unlikelihood of German names being adopted into
                Slavonic?

                Anyway, having done a little digging, I have come up with Doudleby in South
                Bohemia, which I assume is the place you are talking about. My trusty
                'Zeme'pisna jmena v Cechach, na Morave' a ve Slezsku' ("Placenames in
                Bohemia, Moravia & Silesia", by I. Lutterer & R. S'ramek, publ. TOBIAS,
                Havlic'kuv Brod, 2004, ISBN 80-7311-025-3) notes that there is considerable
                disagreement over the origin of the name.

                Some authors see a link to a tribe known as the Dulebi or Dudlebi - with Al
                Masudi suggesting Dulabe (!) in the 10th cent. - supposedly present in
                Carinthia, Pannonia and Volynia as well as Bohemia. There is, and I quote,
                "a rich literature on the origin of this tribal name, opinions thus far at
                variance".

                One suggestion is indeed a root in the west German Deudo- ('people, tribe,
                land') and -laifs ('remnant, inheritance'), despite (quoting again) "its
                weakness being the assumption that it must have been adopted from the
                Germanic name into Slavonic prior to the shift in the Old High German
                consonant, i.e. before 600 AD".

                Others, perhaps not surprisingly, see a stronger connection to the common
                Slavonic duda-, meaning reed or (pan) pipe...

                >> Przemyslid is a horrible early/mid-20th century attempt
                >> to be cosmopolitan, and is very much avoided by
                >> translators today.
                >
                > Influence of Polish orthography?

                Possibly. But now archaic if not positively obsolete for use in Czech.
                Anyway, if a reader doesn't know how to pronounce r', how likely are they to
                know the correct pronunciation of a Polish rz (which is not the same sound
                anyway)?

                > Lots of people can't do haceks on their computers.

                No kidding? You will probably have noticed that due to the inability of
                e-mail to handle full 8-bit characters, I usually adopt the US Dept. of
                Defense (sic) standard, which is to indicate letters with a hac'ek by the
                use of an apostrophe after that letter, and to skip the other accents. This
                is the standard adopted on professional mailing lists for translators, for
                example (one of the more successful of which for Czech I happen to run).

                > S nailuchshimi pozhelaniyami,

                S pozdravem, snad

                Alastair

                -----------------------------------------------------
                Alastair Millar BSc (Hons) - http://www.skriptorium.info
                Translation & Consultancy for the Heritage Industry
                P.O. Box 11, CZ 413 01 Roudnice, Czech Republic
                Tel.: +420.607.993.041, Fax.: +420.416.832.090
              • Ben McGarr
                Zdrave Alastair! ... sea/ocean ). A funny abstract idea for the landlocked Czechs! I wonder do they make good sailors? Joseph Conrad seemed to manage it
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 11, 2004
                  Zdrave Alastair!

                  --- In sig@yahoogroups.com, "Alastair Millar" <alastair@i...> wrote:
                  > (a) no, it would usually be namor'nik (lit. 'one who is on the
                  sea/ocean').

                  A funny abstract idea for the landlocked Czechs! I wonder do they
                  make good sailors? Joseph Conrad seemed to manage it despite being
                  born in Galich. And there's that Sorb polyarnik [polar explorer]
                  Leichhardt.

                  > (b) what is Czeski? In English the language is called Czech... and
                  in Czech
                  > we
                  > call it c'esky jayzk informally or c'es'tina more correctly.

                  Manc'estersky dialekt Vseslavjanskistic'eskogo yazyka, sorry!

                  > > Which outside?
                  >
                  > Well we have convincing evidence for Germans, Jews, Arabs and
                  Byzantine
                  > Greeks in period.

                  I doubt the latter three would have had much influence on the Germans
                  who recorded the majority of the tribal names of this region known to
                  us. What's the Jewish source if you please? I hadn't heard of this
                  before.

                  > > The suffices are obviously Slavonic.
                  > To take Polabian, the -ian suffix is most certainly not Slavonic.
                  It's not
                  > related to the Slavonic -an or -c'an.

                  Of course not, it's a modern word, originating in Anglophone media.
                  Germans would say Polaben, the Russkies Polaby, and the fellows
                  themselves - well, only Triglav knows! But it can't have been that
                  far from the Russkiy. The root is Polab and the prefix and the
                  metathesis of the River name are Very Slavonic.

                  > > Why would a German invader care to find out what
                  > > the Poles and Czechs call the Wendish subunits? They'd all
                  > > just be Wends to him anyway. They must be local names.
                  >
                  > But that was my point.

                  But he does care what the Wends themselves called them. Such
                  knowledge would be vital for the interpretation of Intelligence by
                  the Margraves in the face of possible uprisings, or in dealings with
                  the Slavonic elites.

                  >You were the one suggesting we need other 'group'
                  > names for collections of tribes; personally, I don't agree that
                  geographic
                  > location should be the defining factor. This is not a subject I
                  wish to
                  > debate any further: accept that we are not going to agree on this,
                  please.

                  Alright, but I'm just chatting, I have no real axe to grind for the
                  sake of these dead foreigners. >;o)

                  > > and I bet a fair few other streams have Germanic names.
                  > And many others, like the Ohr'e in Bohemia (known to the Germans as
                  the
                  > Eger) are Celtic.

                  Marvellous! Any details on that and any others? I'm Three Eighths
                  Bogtrotter myself, the remaining Five doubtless containing much
                  residual Briton, so I like to cast a winsome eye over our Celtic
                  Kin's former lands!

                  > "Nuda" in Czech means "boredom"! :-(

                  Nice. Is it some kind of slang? Looks like some kind of borrowing
                  from Romance. Ennui, nudity, words not often seen in the same
                  sentence...

                  > > We have the Byzantine Imperator/Historian's
                  > > first witness of the word,
                  >
                  > Ouch. We also have a Byzantine Emperor's word for "Great Moravia",
                  which
                  > could have meant something very general indeed according to recent
                  research.
                  > Who says the Byzantine Emperor was working from primary sources or
                  direct
                  > knowledge?

                  Conscientious chap though, heart in the right place, with an Empire's
                  resources at his academic disposal [enviable position!] and probably
                  sensitive to criticism from those in the know, and wishing to prove
                  himself a capable man of affairs. Be thankful he wrote anything at
                  all!

                  > > With sound phonological understanding such
                  > > hypothesising is valid, and, what's more, the people
                  > > demand it.
                  > Well I agree, but the fact is that most people who try it are NOT
                  experts,
                  > so unless I see a convincing reference cited I default to
                  natural/healthy
                  > scepticism.

                  Schuster-S'ewc H. 1985 Zur Geschichte und Etymologie des
                  ethnischen Namens Sorb / Serb / Sarb / Srb. Zeitschrift Slawistik
                  Bd.30, H6 S. 851-856.


                  > I have no idea about the language of the Obdorites. Both flavours of
                  > Sorbian, however, are *extremely* close to Czech and Polish. (I
                  have read
                  > Sorbian texts that are a lot closer to Czech than Slovak is, for
                  instance).

                  This is what I'm after. If only you had access to some older Polab
                  stuff to compare.

                  You know, I've noticed a peculiar thing out in Russia, and maybe you
                  have in That Place You Live In Which I Daren't Now Attempt To Spell.
                  As an outsider I can look at familiar Russian and compare it with
                  what I hear now and then of Polish [like today in that film 'Three
                  Colours; White'] or SerboCroat [in that Bosnian War film with the
                  bouncing mine] and be amazed at how similar still they all are, apart
                  from accent and a few phrases; and YET, Russians themselves will
                  obstinately insist they are not understanding any of it! I know I'm
                  being very superficial in my PanSlavic fervour but the Russians do
                  often act like that. Maybe it's a feature of Former Dominant
                  Nationalities?

                  > You don't seem to have taken on board my earlier reference to
                  Zaroff,
                  > though - the Obdorites are a division of the 'Polabians' (a group
                  defined
                  > geographically and not necessarily culturally/linguistically), and
                  the
                  > latter are therefore not a separate tribe.

                  I did! I just skipped my stubby little paws over the keyboard and
                  let the memory of the glorious Veleti slip into oblivion...

                  Zaroff reckons

                  "The names used to describe the Slavic inhabitants of these region is
                  a confusing issue due to lack of commonly accepted terminology.
                  Recently, it has become more common to call them Polabians or Polabs,
                  instead of Wends. There are also some problems with their division.
                  In the following work three large tribal groups are distinguished:
                  Obodrites in north-west, Veleti in north-east and Sorbs in the south
                  (for their distribution see Appendix 2)."

                  I interpret this as merely a means for readers to gain a mental
                  purchase on the peoples and territories under discussion, groupings
                  which coincidentally accord with the different manners of
                  Germanisation in different areas. I don't think he's implying any
                  fundamental ethnic or linguistic division.

                  In my Russkiy book it says of the Khizhane, Cherezpenyane, Dolenchane
                  and Ratary quoting Helmold's Slavic Chronicle that "These four tribes
                  for their bravoury are called Viltsy or Lyutichi." Any idea why
                  Veleti is spelt so strangely here? Lyutiy, for non Russkiys means
                  Ferocious, as in the epithet of our King Harold Godwinson's Daughter
                  Gytha's Great Grandson Mstislav Lyutiy of Kiev. Does Czech have the
                  word too?

                  > Where is this place called Czeska by the way? I assume you mean
                  Bohemia,
                  > known to the Czechs as C'echy. The Czech word "C'esko" (English
                  translation:
                  > Czechia) is a 1992 invention designed to abbreviate "C'eska
                  republika"
                  > (Czech Republic, i.e. Bohemia, Moravia and part of Silesia), and
                  should not
                  > therefore be applied when referring to any historical region.

                  Ponyal.

                  > > Anyway, outside of linguistics, we're dealing
                  > > wiht a group of groups that had the same
                  > > historical fate.
                  >
                  > I think that modern Sorbs would disagree with you there: they still
                  exist,
                  > for a start.

                  Barely! And yet German names, customs and dress are well entranched
                  among them.

                  > > I'd say that anyone with half an ounce of intellectual
                  > > discernment [and I suspect anyone who has seen fit
                  > > to join this Group falls into this category!] would see
                  > > that such is not the intended implication.
                  >
                  > I shall pretend not to be offended by that statement.

                  I'll pretend not to be surprised at the offence taken for none was
                  intended. You were talking about the need to be wary of using broad
                  brush language when dealing with complex past realities for fear some
                  will take statements on face value, and I feel that we can be over
                  careful here, as I know, and you know, and I know that you know, and
                  we both know that the vast majority of people reading this will know,
                  that things are like that in the human universe.

                  > For those with a further interest, I am proposing to submit a
                  retelling of
                  > the story of the war of the Czechs and Luc'ans for Slovo.

                  Lovely.

                  > > I see the Sedlichane, Litomerzhitsy and Dechane, among others
                  > > are named after their home territory.
                  > (a) If you wish to be understood, you will have to stop making up
                  spellings.

                  HEY! I'm just transliterating as best I can from Cyrillic! I try to
                  indicate pronunciation and if that galls a Czechophone reader then so
                  be it. I like to have a bit of fun now and then with the languages
                  and the influence of my Manc'esterskiy dialect of Russian
                  occasionally interferes with my English, I must admit, but we all
                  know the Roman alphabet is occasionally a rather hit and miss tool!

                  > (b) To take these in order:
                  > - the Sedlc'ane are "those living in farmstead families"

                  Sedlo being the ancestor to modern Russian Selo or village/hamlet.

                  > - the second are correctly the L'utmirici, "the people of L'utomir"

                  I know it's quite unrelated, but does anyone have any idea of the
                  meaning of the Lud element in German Ludwig? It's spelt Chlodowic by
                  the Franks too, so there's obviously nothing in common with our
                  Slavonic element, I'm just asking out of curiosity.

                  > - the third are "the people of De'ka".

                  Being a personal name? [Some of my Romanian nationalist friends
                  would have a field day on this 'Dacian' name - should I tell them in
                  the interests of mischief, or restrain myself and save mainstream
                  linguistics from yet more PseudoDacian headaches?]

                  > These are CLAN names, not tribal names: there is no evidence that
                  their
                  > language differed.

                  Accepted, but as a digression how much do we really know of clan
                  instituions in old Boii-home?

                  > > [very high between almost all Slovene,
                  >
                  > I assume you mean Slavs here. Slovenes are distinct group in their
                  own
                  > right - their modern capital is Ljubljana.

                  Lovely Laibach. I'm just using the reconstructed word that the first
                  Slavs used themselves. I didn't put an S on the end. Don't the
                  Slovenes call themselves Slovenci any way? I dislike the word Slav
                  myself, not enough syllables and annoying connotations.

                  Funny how a little group can just keep on calling themselves by the
                  name they always have done, while things elsewhere go their own way
                  until the day when someone comes along and tells them that their name
                  has a different official meaning now. Like the Rusyns, or the
                  speakers of Ladin in Switzerland.

                  Slovene as a title was also preserved by the Eastern Slavs around
                  Lake Il'men, and Lord Novgorod the Great. Has anyone else here
                  visited that area? I saw one of the most amazing sights of my life
                  on that lake, I'll tell yous about it another time if ye like.

                  I hear that the Kaszubs also bore a name Slovintsy too.

                  > > Bringing out the pedant in me; we often use the
                  > > definite article when dealing with ethnic matters.
                  > Define "we", please.

                  Ben McGarrs.

                  > Well disregarding your invention of Khorvat for what everyone
                  refers to as
                  > Croats (or Charvats or Chorvats),

                  Oh excuse me, I didn't know that all 200,000,000+ Russians,
                  Ukrainians and Belorussians had been disqualified from being counted
                  under the term 'everyone'.

                  >this seems rather weak.

                  Why? We can discern several layers of ethnonyms among the Slavs,
                  judging by function, source and formation principles and Khorvat is
                  included by some in the earlier strata. There's no obvious means of
                  breaking down XorBat into any constituent parts, and it makes little
                  sense if looked at in Slavonic isolation. I still stand by the logic
                  of the 'being in three separate places' subsequent to the Great
                  Migrations argument. How do you account for it otherwise?

                  I invoke in support of this perceived ancientness of name Ivanov,
                  V.V. & Toporov, V.N. 1980 O Drevnikh Slavyanskikh Etnonimakh. Kiev.
                  and Kovalev, G.F. 1991 Etnonimiya Slavyanskikh Yazykov. Voronezh.

                  > > but perhaps more tellingly, each name here is
                  > > recorded for at least two [and possibly all] out of the
                  > > three main zones of Slavdom. The names therefore
                  > > predate the migrations.
                  >
                  > Er no, because AFAIK there is no evidence for them in the written
                  sources of
                  > the
                  > pre-immigration period.

                  Bozhe! THere's no evidence for ANYTHING AT ALL pre-immigration. We
                  still have to find ways of explaining situations that were written
                  down.

                  >We have no evidence that they were indeed applied IN
                  > PERIOD, however universal their application now.

                  Where did they come from then?

                  > The Sudetenland (if you wish to offend people)

                  It wouldn't offend my FinnoGerman mate's Grandmother who was forcibly
                  evicted from there as a child!

                  >or the Sudety. "The Sudeten"
                  > doesn't make sense.

                  I have heard and read it. I'll try and think where.

                  >Also, I believe that you are not quite correct here:
                  > Croats/Charvats are said to have occupied an area in what is now
                  north-EAST
                  > Bohemia,
                  > just beyond the Sudetenland as usually defined, and away from the
                  Sudety.

                  Okay. I don't really know anything of Czech geography.

                  > Charvat is still a common Czech surname.

                  Superb!

                  > Czechia is an artificial term coined in 1992 to refer to the Czech
                  Republic
                  > as a country (see above). Chekhiya is, I believe, a part of what is
                  > generally called Chechyna.

                  Chekhiya is how the Russkies say Czechia. Do you mean Chechnya in
                  your last sentence? A place rather near the bottom of my To visit
                  when back in Russia list.

                  > Further, I have never claimed to possess encylopedic, or even
                  complete,
                  > information; I do however heartily endorse the cornerstone of the
                  SIG, which
                  > is to share what we know. I am quite happy to discuss anything
                  provided that
                  > we agree at the outset that there are at least two points of view,
                  neither
                  > of which need necessarily be correct.

                  For sure, but you do know some pretty obscure facts.

                  > > There's supposedly a consensus on a Germanic origin
                  > > for the name. *daud-laiba [nasledstvo umershego]
                  > > being one reconstruction. Gothic
                  > > is even supposed.
                  >
                  > Er, but one set was by the Dnestr? So why a Germanic origin, given
                  your
                  > earlier comments about the unlikelihood of German names being
                  adopted into
                  > Slavonic?

                  I didn't say it was unlikely that a Slavonic tribe should have a
                  Germanic title, merely that the specific names known from modern East
                  Germany don't look German. Germanics got about a fair bit before the
                  Slavs ever came on the scene, especially the "Glorious Goths" so it's
                  only natural that some echoes should be felt in a later period when
                  these lands had become Slavonicised.


                  > Anyway, having done a little digging, I have come up with Doudleby
                  in South
                  > Bohemia, which I assume is the place you are talking about. My
                  trusty
                  > 'Zeme'pisna jmena v Cechach, na Morave' a ve Slezsku' ("Placenames
                  in
                  > Bohemia, Moravia & Silesia", by I. Lutterer & R. S'ramek, publ.
                  TOBIAS,
                  > Havlic'kuv Brod, 2004, ISBN 80-7311-025-3) notes that there is
                  considerable
                  > disagreement over the origin of the name.
                  > Some authors see a link to a tribe known as the Dulebi or Dudlebi -
                  with Al
                  > Masudi suggesting Dulabe (!)

                  French aristos! Maybe the Arabic alphabet's lack of vowels is the
                  problem here.

                  >in the 10th cent. - supposedly present in
                  > Carinthia, Pannonia and Volynia as well as Bohemia. There is, and I
                  quote,
                  > "a rich literature on the origin of this tribal name, opinions thus
                  far at
                  > variance".
                  > One suggestion is indeed a root in the west German Deudo- ('people,
                  tribe,
                  > land') and -laifs ('remnant, inheritance'), despite (quoting
                  again) "its
                  > weakness being the assumption that it must have been adopted from
                  the
                  > Germanic name into Slavonic prior to the shift in the Old High
                  German
                  > consonant, i.e. before 600 AD".

                  THat's not so much a weakness if we suppose an Eastern Germanic
                  source, as in the Gothic Daud-laiba.

                  Has anyone considered a Celtic etymology? The same IE root gives
                  Tuath in Irish, the Gaulish God Teutates, and gave another word in
                  Old Welsh which is now obsolete but which gave the first part of the
                  rather well known name 'Tudor'. [Funny how Tudor means exactly the
                  same as Englisc Theodric and Gothic Theodoric, and the Deutsch name
                  Volker and Dietrich, and the very word Deutsch itself]. The same
                  Celtic root is sometimes supposed to underly the name of the Germanic
                  tribe Teutones, so Douleby wouldn't be alone if regarded as a Celtic
                  borrowing.

                  There were plenty of Celts around in the area, and who knows into
                  what divergent forms their language developed once they slipped from
                  the notice of Classical chroniclers into the mists of the endless
                  wanderings of folks.

                  > Others, perhaps not surprisingly, see a stronger connection to the
                  common
                  > Slavonic duda-, meaning reed or (pan) pipe...

                  Doesn't ring true on the face of it, but there's nowt so queer as
                  folk so who knows. I would say though, that I wouldn't expect so
                  many reeds or marshes in the mountainous areas concerned. What's
                  the -leby bit if the first part is fife?

                  > > Lots of people can't do haceks on their computers.
                  >
                  > No kidding? You will probably have noticed that due to the
                  inability of
                  > e-mail to handle full 8-bit characters, I usually adopt the US
                  Dept. of
                  > Defense (sic) standard, which is to indicate letters with a hac'ek
                  by the
                  > use of an apostrophe after that letter, and to skip the other
                  accents. This
                  > is the standard adopted on professional mailing lists for
                  translators, for
                  > example (one of the more successful of which for Czech I happen to
                  run).

                  Awkward for me, I use apostrophes to indicate the Cyrillic soft sign,
                  and two apostrophes for the hard sign. In welsh they have the 'ty
                  bach' ['little house'] sign like a French circumflex accent, and the
                  Welsh convention is to use a + sign; maybe that would have been a
                  better choice for the Pentagon. Or else the '>' or '<'. I wonder
                  what the Frenchies do? In practice the Welsh usually just miss it
                  out on the web. Too ugly. Jonny Foreigner should consider adopting
                  a purely phonetic and simplified orthography, just like in
                  English. ;o))

                  By the bye, it's the 12th of Avgust, so Happy Beating-Of-The-Apostles-
                  Saints-Paul-And-Silas Day!
                  http://www.days.ru/Images/im1097.htm

                  All the Bestest,
                  Ben
                • Ben McGarr
                  Hi everyone, I ve just posted a map I d found deep at the bottom of my hard drive showing the tribes me and Alastair have been talking about, if you d like to
                  Message 8 of 17 , Aug 11, 2004
                    Hi everyone,

                    I've just posted a map I'd found deep at the bottom of my hard drive
                    showing the tribes me and Alastair have been talking about, if you'd
                    like to see.

                    Its in the Files section at the group's webssite under the name
                    Karte2.

                    All the Best
                    Ben
                  • Alastair Millar
                    Ben writes... ... Ah well done, that s the one that vanished off my own hard drive! I still don t agree with its designation of Polaben as a single and
                    Message 9 of 17 , Aug 13, 2004
                      Ben writes...
                      > I've just posted a map... [snip]

                      Ah well done, that's the one that vanished off my own hard drive!

                      I still don't agree with its designation of "Polaben" as a single and
                      distinct group tho'!

                      Alastair
                    • Alastair Millar
                      Ben writes... ... Naaah. There s this litle river called the Elbe that leads straight down to the sea, navigable since the late 18th century IIRC (and
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 13, 2004
                        Ben writes...

                        > A funny abstract idea for the landlocked Czechs!

                        Naaah. There's this litle river called the Elbe that leads straight down to
                        the sea, navigable since the late 18th century IIRC (and certainly since the
                        19th).

                        > I wonder do they make good sailors?
                        Apparently so, strangely enough. The nationalised maritime fleet was quite
                        successful until Viktor 'the Pirate of Prague' Kozeny bought it after the
                        Velvet Revolution and sold it off in bits to make a profit.

                        > Manc'estersky dialekt Vseslavjanskistic'eskogo yazyka, sorry!

                        Bah. Pan-slavism. Grmbl.

                        > What's the Jewish source if you please? I hadn't
                        > heard of this before.

                        Well for a start we have Ibrahim ibn Ya'qub at-Turtushi, who in the mid-10th
                        century
                        travelled down from Pomerania to Magdeburg and thence to Prague, before
                        going home to Spain via Fulda and the Rhineland.

                        > But it can't have been that far from the Russkiy.

                        Why this fixation with Russian? There is a nasty habit among pan-Slavists in
                        particular of ascribing some sort of "elder brother"-like seniority or
                        superiority to the Russians... need I point out that the first Slavic
                        proto-state was actually in Moravia, however?

                        > But he does care what the Wends themselves
                        > called them. Such knowledge would be vital
                        > for the interpretation of Intelligence by
                        > the Margraves in the face of possible
                        > uprisings, or in dealings with the Slavonic elites.

                        Ummmm... actually, his assorted retainers might be interested, but he
                        himself probably wouldn't be. Which is why the few written records we have
                        tend to refer to Wends en bloc. (I could also suggest that your
                        interpretation of "intelligence" is far too modern...)

                        > Alright, but I'm just chatting, I have no real axe to grind
                        > for the sake of these dead foreigners. >;o)

                        No comment.

                        > Marvellous! Any details on that and any others?

                        I think there are books available on this. There is certainly one in Czech,
                        by Jir'i Svoboda, on Celtic place-names in Bohemia - I know because I
                        translated the English summary for it. I'll dig it out at some point (I'm in
                        the process of relocating my workplace, so a lot of things are in boxes at
                        the moment).

                        > > "Nuda" in Czech means "boredom"! :-(
                        > Nice. Is it some kind of slang?

                        Nope.

                        > Conscientious chap though, heart in the right place,
                        > with an Empire's resources at his academic disposal
                        > [enviable position!]

                        Well yes, IF he had time to use them rather than just delegating a slave to
                        do the research for him. Isn't this how many modern university academics
                        work, too??? Oh wait, those half-starved creatures are post-grad.
                        students...

                        > and probably sensitive to criticism from those in the know

                        ... who will have their own agendas and who will filter the information
                        reaching his ears/eyes accordingly.

                        > and wishing to prove himself a capable man of affairs.

                        ... while those around him want to see him fall on his face, metaphorically
                        speaking.

                        > Be thankful he wrote anything at all!


                        Oh I am, I just think we need to take it in context and keep our minds open,
                        rather than accepting everything as being the literal truth simply because
                        it's written down...

                        > Schuster-S'ewc H. 1985 Zur Geschichte und Etymologie des
                        > ethnischen Namens Sorb / Serb / Sarb / Srb. Zeitschrift Slawistik
                        > Bd.30, H6 S. 851-856.

                        See? I *knew* that if I kept on at you you'd start sourcing your comments!

                        > This is what I'm after. If only you had access to
                        > some older Polab stuff to compare.

                        Well there ARE whole Polabian websites out there, ya know. Google for them!
                        (For some reason some of them keep e-mailing me newsflashes about their
                        struggle for self-identity/determination...)

                        > and YET, Russians themselves will obstinately
                        > insist they are not understanding any of it!

                        Oh I think I have to let Alex answer that one... you still out there
                        somewhere Alex???? *grin*

                        > I interpret this as merely a means for readers to
                        > gain a mental purchase on the peoples... [snip]
                        > I don't think he's implying any
                        > fundamental ethnic or linguistic division.

                        My point PRECISELY - it's a convenient geographic label, nothing more.

                        > Any idea why Veleti is spelt so strangely here?

                        Nope.

                        > Does Czech have the word too?

                        Nope.

                        > HEY! I'm just transliterating as best I can from Cyrillic!

                        Yes but why not use acceptable English words where they exist? Words like
                        "Czech" aren't THAT hard to spell, ya know...

                        > > - the third are "the people of De'ka".
                        > Being a personal name?

                        Apparently. Don't forget the hook over the "e", so it's pronounced Dyeka.

                        > Accepted, but as a digression how much do we
                        > really know of clan instituions in old Boii-home?

                        Absolutely nothing. That doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise them as having
                        existed, though.

                        Part of the problem for non- or limited-Czech speakers is undoubtedly the
                        Czech word "kmen", which can mean tribe OR race OR people OR group... the
                        situation is so bad that contemporary Czech historians now use the Latin
                        'gens' for 'tribe', to prevent confusion.

                        > Lovely Laibach. I'm just using the reconstructed
                        > word that the first Slavs used themselves.

                        Errrrrrrrrrrr... surely they would have used Slovan or something similar,
                        rather than Slovene?

                        > Don't the Slovenes call themselves Slovenci any way?

                        Slovaci, as far as I know... which is also what Slovaks call themselves. Oh
                        yes, and both refer to their country as "Slovensko" I believe...

                        > I dislike the word Slav myself, not enough syllables and annoying
                        connotations.

                        Nah. Perfectly good word, and doesn't waste ink. And it's got ONE vowel,
                        which is more than a lot of Czech words do... As long as you remember that
                        in linguistics the adjective is Slavonic, and everywhere else it's Slavic,
                        you're okay.

                        > Slovene as a title was also preserved by the
                        > Eastern Slavs around Lake Il'men, and Lord
                        > Novgorod the Great.

                        See above. Slovene is not a Slavonic word.

                        > Oh excuse me, I didn't know that all 200,000,000+
                        > Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians had been
                        > disqualified from being counted under the term 'everyone'.

                        As noted above, if a perfectly good/acceptable English word exists, why not
                        use it, since we're writing in English?

                        > How do you account for it otherwise?

                        I don't, I'm trying (successfully) to get you to explain your ideas more
                        fully, so that everyone can follow them.

                        > I invoke in support of this perceived ancientness of name
                        > Ivanov, V.V. & Toporov, V.N. 1980 O Drevnikh
                        > Slavyanskikh Etnonimakh. Kiev. and Kovalev, G.F.
                        > 1991 Etnonimiya Slavyanskikh Yazykov. Voronezh.

                        See? more sources, it works!

                        > Bozhe! THere's no evidence for ANYTHING
                        > AT ALL pre-immigration.

                        Archaeology. It's a thing of the past, but still... you could dig it if you
                        tried.

                        > Where did they come from then?

                        Dontcha love a mystery?

                        > > The Sudetenland (if you wish to offend people)
                        > It wouldn't offend my FinnoGerman mate's Grandmother

                        Using the German name among Czechs, however, will almost certainly offend.

                        > Chekhiya is how the Russkies say Czechia.

                        Again, why make up a word when an English one already exists?

                        > Do you mean Chechnya in your last sentence?

                        Dat's da bunny!

                        > For sure, but you do know some pretty obscure facts.

                        Not really. Some of them can be quite hard to get to for non-Czech speakers,
                        admittedly.

                        > French aristos! Maybe the Arabic alphabet's lack
                        > of vowels is the problem here.

                        The a has a hat on it, for what it's worth.

                        > THat's not so much a weakness if we suppose an
                        > Eastern Germanic source, as in the Gothic Daud-laiba.

                        I feel no need to make that assumption without further evidence. Besides,
                        the Goths only started moving in what, the 200's AD? A mere 250 years or so
                        before the Slavs started appearing, not much time to set a standard, I feel.

                        > There were plenty of Celts around in the area,
                        > and who knows into what divergent forms their
                        > language developed

                        P-Celtic and Q-Celtic, as I recall.

                        > once they slipped from the notice of Classical
                        > chroniclers into the mists of the endless
                        > wanderings of folks.

                        That closet romaticism of yours is showing again.

                        > Jonny Foreigner should consider adopting a purely
                        > phonetic and simplified orthography, just like in
                        > English. ;o))

                        But Czech DOES have a purely phonetic, regular system of
                        spelling/pronunciation already.

                        Cheers

                        Alastair

                        -----------------------------------------------------
                        Alastair Millar BSc (Hons) - http://www.skriptorium.info
                        Translation & Consultancy for the Heritage Industry
                        P.O. Box 11, CZ 413 01 Roudnice, Czech Republic
                        Tel.: +420.607.993.041, Fax.: +420.416.832.090
                      • Ben McGarr
                        Hello Alastair, I ve just got back from a fortnight on the Isle of Skye, but I still thought I d reply to a few points you made last time we spoke. ...
                        Message 11 of 17 , Aug 30, 2004
                          Hello Alastair,
                          I've just got back from a fortnight on the Isle of Skye, but I still
                          thought I'd reply to a few points you made last time we spoke.

                          --- In sig@yahoogroups.com, "Alastair Millar" <alastair@i...> wrote:

                          > Why this fixation with Russian? There is a nasty habit among pan-
                          Slavists in
                          > particular of ascribing some sort of "elder brother"-like seniority
                          or
                          > superiority to the Russians... need I point out that the first
                          Slavic
                          > proto-state was actually in Moravia, however?

                          My fixation with Russian comes merely from the fact that I have lived
                          ate, worked and slept with them for several years. I don't see them
                          as any sort of 'elder brother' or anything, it's just that through
                          this 'brother' I met the rest of the 'family'. Lots of my Russkiy
                          friends like to use this 'State-builder' kind of terminology, but I
                          don't, having a different view of what makes a people great,
                          something bundled up in their ability to preserve a sense of
                          themselves over vast spans of time and other cultural factors.


                          > > Lovely Laibach. I'm just using the reconstructed
                          > > word that the first Slavs used themselves.
                          >
                          > Errrrrrrrrrrr... surely they would have used Slovan or something
                          similar,
                          > rather than Slovene?

                          That's how I've seen it in etymological dictionaries. There isn't
                          any online dictionaries you can point me to in which this is refuted,
                          is there?

                          > > Don't the Slovenes call themselves Slovenci any way?
                          >
                          > Slovaci, as far as I know... which is also what Slovaks call
                          themselves.

                          I read that only the Slovaks use that term.

                          > > Slovene as a title was also preserved by the
                          > > Eastern Slavs around Lake Il'men, and Lord
                          > > Novgorod the Great.
                          >
                          > See above. Slovene is not a Slavonic word.

                          I don't follow you here. What is the word if it's not Slavonic?


                          > > Oh excuse me, I didn't know that all 200,000,000+
                          > > Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians had been
                          > > disqualified from being counted under the term 'everyone'.
                          >
                          > As noted above, if a perfectly good/acceptable English word exists,
                          why not
                          > use it, since we're writing in English?

                          We are talking about ethnic realities a millenium in the past, when
                          these 'Croats' were called Khorvaty in the Russian chronicles. The
                          English term Croat is used now to name people who live between Bosnia
                          and Slovenia [despite their own ideas on what they are called] so I
                          don't see how it's a better term than Khorvat to describe people on
                          the Dnestr in the 1000s. Your Charvat or whatever is hardly a good
                          term to use for people who lived in the modern Ukraine, being a Czech
                          form of the original.

                          > > Bozhe! THere's no evidence for ANYTHING
                          > > AT ALL pre-immigration.
                          >
                          > Archaeology. It's a thing of the past, but still... you could dig
                          it if you
                          > tried.

                          I've got a degree in it, but I look to Philology as much these days.

                          > > THat's not so much a weakness if we suppose an
                          > > Eastern Germanic source, as in the Gothic Daud-laiba.
                          >
                          > I feel no need to make that assumption without further evidence.
                          Besides,
                          > the Goths only started moving in what, the 200's AD? A mere 250
                          years or so
                          > before the Slavs started appearing, not much time to set a
                          standard, I feel.

                          The movement of which you speak was from the Pontic area to the Roman
                          limes. They [or a core of their predecessors or whatnot] had a
                          previous homeland nearer the Baltic. I said Eastern Germanic anyway
                          which includes all those Burgundians and Vandals and Gepids too, and
                          some of these fellows were around before the Roman Empire, more than
                          enough time to make an impression on any Proto Slavs that may have
                          fallen into their orbit.

                          > > There were plenty of Celts around in the area,
                          > > and who knows into what divergent forms their
                          > > language developed
                          >
                          > P-Celtic and Q-Celtic, as I recall.

                          We are only dealing with P Celts at this time in this part of the
                          Continent. The Q lot are only known from Ireland and perhaps
                          northern Iberia. I was talking about the possibility of a unique
                          development of Celtic speech in the centre of Europe where it may
                          have lingered on after its period of political dominance there. I
                          wonder does the bok for which you translated the prefix dare to make
                          any suppositions on the presence of any peculiar developments in
                          phonology in your region?

                          > > once they slipped from the notice of Classical
                          > > chroniclers into the mists of the endless
                          > > wanderings of folks.
                          >
                          > That closet romaticism of yours is showing again.

                          Oh and so what? That sentence can easily be dried to its bare husk,
                          but should it really have to be? Let me play Alastair! It hardly
                          harms the bulk of what I was saying last time. And since when has my
                          Romanticism been hidden in a closet?!!

                          > > Jonny Foreigner should consider adopting a purely
                          > > phonetic and simplified orthography, just like in
                          > > English. ;o))
                          >
                          > But Czech DOES have a purely phonetic, regular system of
                          > spelling/pronunciation already.

                          I know. What I said was obviously a joke, as evinced by the tacky
                          little smiley following it, the absurd assertion that English has a
                          decent phonetic orthography, and the use of old fashioned stereotypic
                          epithets like Jonnie Foreigner.

                          T'rah for now,
                          Ben
                        • Alastair Millar
                          ... *shrug* I ve never come across it. ... Nope. ... At some point I shall ask my Slovene friends again. ... The root is Slavonic, but Slovene is not a
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 3, 2004
                            >> Errrrrrrrrrrr... surely they would have used Slovan or
                            >> something similar, rather than Slovene?
                            > That's how I've seen it in etymological dictionaries.

                            *shrug* I've never come across it.

                            > There isn't any online dictionaries you can point
                            > me to in which this is refuted, is there?

                            Nope.

                            >> Slovaci, as far as I know... which is also what
                            >> Slovaks call themselves.
                            >
                            > I read that only the Slovaks use that term.

                            At some point I shall ask my Slovene friends again.

                            >> See above. Slovene is not a Slavonic word.
                            > I don't follow you here. What is the word if it's not Slavonic?

                            The root is Slavonic, but Slovene is not a Slavonic word afaik.

                            >> As noted above, if a perfectly good/acceptable
                            >> English word exists, why not use it, since we're writing
                            >> in English?
                            >
                            > We are talking about ethnic realities a millenium in
                            > the past, when these 'Croats' were called Khorvaty
                            > in the Russian chronicles.

                            Do try not to patronise, it really doesn't help your argument.

                            > The English term Croat is used now to name people
                            > who live between Bosnia and Slovenia [snip]

                            But not to refer *exclusively* to them - it's also used for those who used
                            to live in, for example, North-East Bohemia, and indeed those on the Dnestr
                            in the 1000's - that's my point.

                            > so I don't see how it's a better term than Khorvat
                            > to describe people on the Dnestr in the 1000s.

                            It is better because it is the accepted English word for that group. If you
                            use something else, you will end up looking either (a) so pretentious that
                            your original points are lost, (b) stubborn and/or (c) uninformed.

                            > Your Charvat or whatever is hardly a good
                            > term to use for people who lived in the modern
                            > Ukraine, being a Czech form of the original.

                            I never suggested using Charvat - and indeed I would not, since we have a
                            perfectly good English word already.... see above.

                            >> Archaeology. It's a thing of the past, but still... you
                            >> could dig it if you tried.
                            >
                            > I've got a degree in it,

                            That makes at least three of us on the list, then.

                            > but I look to Philology as much these days.

                            Ah, an apostate from the True Path...

                            > The movement of which you speak was from the
                            > Pontic area to the Roman limes. They [or a core
                            > of their predecessors or whatnot] had a
                            > previous homeland nearer the Baltic.
                            [snip]
                            > I said Eastern Germanic anyway which includes
                            > all those Burgundians and Vandals and Gepids too,
                            > and some of these fellows were around before the
                            > Roman Empire, more than enough time to make
                            > an impression on any Proto Slavs that may have
                            > fallen into their orbit.

                            Well (a) I still reserve judgement until seeing more evidence, and (b) there
                            is no evidence that were any proto-Slavs around TO influence prior to the
                            5th or 6th centuries.

                            > We are only dealing with P Celts at this time
                            > in this part of the Continent. The Q lot are
                            > only known from Ireland and perhaps
                            > northern Iberia.

                            I am aware of that. The point I was trying to make is that these are the
                            ONLY major flavours of Celtic that we know - and specifically, that we do
                            not have any evidence at all for your Central European version.

                            > I was talking about the possibility of a unique
                            > development of Celtic speech in the centre of
                            > Europe where it may have lingered on [snip]

                            How nice. And is there any actual evidence for this? Bearing in mind the
                            generally accepted view that any lingering Celts were either wiped out or
                            well and truly assimilated after the arrival of the Slavs?

                            > wonder does the bok for which you translated
                            > the prefix dare to make any suppositions on the
                            > presence of any peculiar developments in
                            > phonology in your region?

                            It is not supposition, it is observation of Celtic elements in some place
                            names. It also does not suggest peculiar developments in local phonology,
                            and I did not say that it did so.

                            Even if it did, though, surely this is just the sort of thing you should be
                            in favour of if you want to find any evidence to back up your 'third way' of
                            Celtic linguistic development in Central Europe? Either you think there were
                            phonological developments in the region or you don't, make your mind up.

                            > Oh and so what? [snip]
                            > Let me play Alastair! [snip]
                            > And since when has my Romanticism been
                            > hidden in a closet?!!

                            Which of course is the nub of this discussion anyway, and I'm glad you've
                            finally come out and said it. You may be here just to play around and wander
                            off down some wild hypotheses that are very difficult to support, but some
                            of us prefer to share information which can actually be substantiated, and
                            which can feed into the practicalities of (historical) reconstruction....
                            which is what this list is about.

                            Given the foregoing, pressure of work and an almost total disinterest in
                            linguistics, I see no point in pursuing this thread any further

                            Alastair

                            -----------------------------------------------------
                            Alastair Millar BSc (Hons) - http://www.skriptorium.info
                            Translation & Consultancy for the Heritage Industry
                            P.O. Box 11, CZ 413 01 Roudnice, Czech Republic
                            Tel.: +420.607.993.041, Fax.: +420.416.832.090
                          • Ben McGarr
                            ... Does that mean you ve never looked? If so, I don t see why you can get away with such a long Errrrrrrrrrrrr [as the actress said to the bishop]. ... Ruf
                            Message 13 of 17 , Sep 3, 2004
                              In sig@yahoogroups.com, "Alastair Millar" <alastair@i...> wrote:
                              > >> Errrrrrrrrrrr... surely they would have used Slovan or
                              > >> something similar, rather than Slovene?
                              > > That's how I've seen it in etymological dictionaries.
                              > *shrug* I've never come across it.

                              Does that mean you've never looked? If so, I don't see why you can
                              get away with such a long "Errrrrrrrrrrrr" [as the actress said to
                              the bishop].

                              > > I read that only the Slovaks use that term.
                              > At some point I shall ask my Slovene friends again.

                              Ruf Ageeva says they should be "Sloventsy" or however their peculiar
                              orthography attempts to get across something on those lines. She
                              reserves Slovaci as an autonym for the Slovaks, and Slovintsi for the
                              Kaszub/Pomeranians of NW Polska.

                              > The root is Slavonic, but Slovene is not a Slavonic word afaik.

                              When it's pronounced Slow - Veen to signify those chaps in Illyria
                              it's just an English thing, but if it's something more like slo veh
                              nye then it's Slavonic, surely?

                              This is what the Novgorod people called themselves before the
                              Scandinavian descended aristos and the Orthodox clergy got em to
                              recognise emselves as Rusichi. How can it not be Slavonic in this
                              case?

                              Incidentally, does anyone have any idea why there are two forms of
                              this word in Russkiy? Slovene and Slavyane. Is the latter
                              an 'educated' form owing its different shape to OLd Church Slavonic,
                              I wonder?

                              > > We are talking about ethnic realities a millenium in
                              > > the past, when these 'Croats' were called Khorvaty
                              > > in the Russian chronicles.
                              >
                              > Do try not to patronise, it really doesn't help your argument.

                              Where's the patronising there? I'm just trying to spell things out
                              a bit. You did accuse me a while back of being too obscure at
                              times. Christ, I can't win, can I?! All I'm saying is that I think
                              the Russian convention for naming this long dead polity is better
                              than what you say is the English. You even said I had made up my
                              word, which is rather ridiculous as it's there in the letopisy. I
                              suppose we could compromise with a more specific "White Croats".
                              Does that mean the Balkan and the Central European ones were Black
                              Croats or something? Is there any colour terminology seen for the
                              Slavs in your ppart of the world?

                              On a personal note, perhaps I am guilty of an unusual desire to use,
                              or at least promote knowledge of, the names of folks as they call [or
                              called] themselves, but I see that as something quite honourable.
                              Isn't this exactly the sort of way of speaking we should be employing
                              on this list? After all, we're not in Academia here, and should be
                              allowed the freedom to relax a bit.

                              > It is better because it is the accepted English word for that
                              group. If you
                              > use something else, you will end up looking either (a) so
                              pretentious that
                              > your original points are lost, (b) stubborn and/or (c) uninformed.

                              No (d)? Mercy!

                              > I never suggested using Charvat - and indeed I would not, since we
                              have a
                              > perfectly good English word already.... see above.

                              But you did throw 'Charvat' at me as though to prove my ignorance and
                              inability to spell, despite Khorvat being the normal Russian form,
                              dating from the time it was used in the mouths of people whom it
                              referred to.

                              Indeed, I'm very happy to learn how the Czechs call their Croats, and
                              especially that the word survives as a surname, but I'd prefer it if
                              you introduced such things to me as curious additional facts rather
                              than as absolute replacements for my own supposed falsities. And you
                              must admit how clumsy the accepted English words are. No doubt
                              they'll change in years to come as fashions change, so forgive me a
                              little innovation.

                              > > but I look to Philology as much these days.
                              >
                              > Ah, an apostate from the True Path...

                              I'd love to see a true working synthesis of Archaeology with
                              Philology, Genetics, Physical and Social Anthropology, and even with
                              a more developed scientific approach to Folklore, Dance, Musicology
                              and anything else that could possibly help in untangling the great
                              story of humanity and culture. That would be a True Path! Can't see
                              it happening in our lifetimes though. I'd blame this on the present
                              state of academia in general, and especially on theory and
                              interdisciplinary jealousy. Or perhaps the present state of our
                              knowledge necessarily precludes it.

                              You just don't see the wide-ranging scholars of the past any more.
                              Where are the J.G. Frazers of today? Our education systems simply
                              cannot produce their ilk any more, to our great loss. THey were men
                              of their time naturally, and politically would hardly be very
                              fashionable now, or even acceptable, but if they or others of their
                              outlook and ambition were in possession of one half the data
                              available to us today, they'd be fifty years ahead of us in their
                              concclusions.

                              I suppose Renfrew is trying his best to go some way toward this, I
                              wonder what you think of his Indo European hypothesis? I am very
                              scathing of it myself!

                              {concerning the Dudlebi deriving their name from Gothic or somesuch}
                              > Well (a) I still reserve judgement until seeing more evidence,

                              I believe there never will be any more evidence of any relevance to
                              this question, so I reckon that we should try our damnedest to do
                              what we can with what we have, rather than throw our arms up in the
                              air in despair.

                              >and (b) there
                              > is no evidence that were any proto-Slavs around TO influence prior
                              to the
                              > 5th or 6th centuries.

                              Slavonic split from Baltic LONG before the Fifth Century AD. Sure we
                              don't know exactly where they were, but we know where they weren't
                              and are left only with those areas of the Forest/Steppe belt not
                              occupied by Balts, Finns, or Iranians, not too big an area
                              considering.

                              > I am aware of that. The point I was trying to make is that these
                              are the
                              > ONLY major flavours of Celtic that we know - and specifically, that
                              we do
                              > not have any evidence at all for your Central European version.

                              I'm not proposing an entirely new subfamily, I'm just musing over the
                              fact that there were P Celts in the area from the first few centuries
                              BC, lingering around until well into the First Millenium AD [as my
                              former lecturer Malcolm Todd says in his Early Germans, 1995], if not
                              later. The Poles around Cracow are quite enthusiastic about this
                              sort of thing lately. Anyway, we're left with almost a millennium in
                              which the form of P Celtic here must have gone its merry way so who
                              knows how this might have affected later tribal terminology. The
                              Celts here were quite a force to be reckoned with, what with their
                              control of the amber trade and all, and nothing easily disappears in
                              this world without leaving some reminder of itself. The Bavarians
                              preserve a memory of a long forgotten Celtic race in their name, so
                              why shouldn't the Doudleby have done?

                              > > wonder does the book for which you translated
                              > > the prefix dare to make any suppositions on the
                              > > presence of any peculiar developments in
                              > > phonology in your region?
                              >
                              > It is not supposition, it is observation of Celtic elements in some
                              place
                              > names. It also does not suggest peculiar developments in local
                              phonology,
                              > and I did not say that it did so.

                              I was only asking. You know, in British linguistics [see Kenneth
                              Jackson's Language and History in Early Britain – my favourite!] we
                              have no records for the form of `Welsh' that was spoken in Northern
                              England and Southern Scotland before the switch to English in about
                              the Eighth Century or beyond, apart from three words found in a law
                              code of Scotland. Nevertheless, our scholars have made tentative
                              suggestions as to possible developments that would serve to
                              distinguish this `Cumbric' from Welsh, drawing on placename evidence
                              and onomastica. I'm the same could be done, or may indeed have
                              already been done, in Czechland.

                              > Even if it did, though, surely this is just the sort of thing you
                              should be
                              > in favour of if you want to find any evidence to back up
                              your 'third way' of
                              > Celtic linguistic development in Central Europe? Either you think
                              there were
                              > phonological developments in the region or you don't, make your
                              mind up.

                              I would expect there to have been something.

                              > > Oh and so what? [snip]
                              > > Let me play Alastair! [snip]
                              > > And since when has my Romanticism been
                              > > hidden in a closet?!!
                              > Which of course is the nub of this discussion anyway, and I'm glad
                              you've
                              > finally come out and said it. You may be here just to play around
                              and wander
                              > off down some wild hypotheses that are very difficult to support,
                              but some
                              > of us prefer to share information which can actually be
                              substantiated, and
                              > which can feed into the practicalities of (historical)
                              reconstruction....
                              > which is what this list is about.

                              Well, so much for trying to inject a little lightheartedness. I'm
                              not here to play around and wander, I'm here to learn and discuss and
                              provide food for thought and stop my ideas bouncing around inside my
                              head with no outlet. How is any progress to be made if ideas are not
                              freely exchanged and debated. What does Sherlock Holmes say? "First
                              eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable
                              …"

                              I'm not mad on this Celtic idea, it was just a digression, but not
                              one too absurd given the established presence of those lads in the
                              region for all that time. I would tend to favour the East Germanic
                              theory though, despite your problem with further evidence. Philology
                              is mature enough a discipline to trace a word back in time and
                              compare the result with other languages subjected to the same
                              treatment. Germano-Slavonic linguistic contacts are far more common
                              than you seem to realise at this early period, and can even be
                              decently dated when the evidence of peculiar sound shifts is seen.

                              As for the aims and boundaries of this list, on the home page it says
                              "Anything relating to pre-1650 Slavic history , or anything Slavic
                              as it pertains to the SCA is welcome here."
                              I think I am within that. I'm not one for dressing up myself, though
                              given time and opportunity I can see it might be fun, but I still
                              don't think I've wasted too much of anyone's time here [and would
                              appreciate if any onlookers who have hitherto been content to just
                              watch would support me here!], and I did help Marija with her
                              povoinik. ;o))

                              > Given the foregoing, pressure of work and an almost total
                              disinterest in
                              > linguistics, I see no point in pursuing this thread any further

                              That is a damned shame, Alastair. I hope you will reconsider, as I
                              have enjoyed talking with you here, and wish that you'd remember that
                              you started out as playing Devil's Advocate and therefore that any
                              patronising or offence from me is for Old Nick to care about, not
                              yourself. We're zemlyaki, Alastair, yedinorodtsy! And even more
                              than that, we're fellow Britons in a Sea of Slavs too! I'm sorry if
                              maybe I'm a little abrupt in my manner of speech sometimes, but Hey,
                              that's me. The Russkies don't mind. So far… Postuchi po derevu!

                              And how can a professional translator [let alone one in the
                              heritage/humanities trade] have "an almost total disinterest in>
                              linguistics" ??? Doesn't ring true!

                              Ah well, what do you want to argue about next?

                              All the bestest,
                              Ben

                              PS. It's the 4/9/04 so Happy Ìó÷åíèêè Àãàôîíèê, Çîòèê, Ôåîïðåïèé
                              (Áîãîëåï), Àêèíäèí, Ñåâåðèàí, Çèíîí è ïðî÷èå's day. [Martyrs
                              Agathonicos, Zotikos, Theoprepius, Acindinus, Severianus and Zinon,
                              of Nicomedia in Anatolia]. All tortured, forced marched to Thrakia
                              and put to death in the reign of Maximian [284 – 305 AD].
                              http://www.days.ru/Images/im1624.htm
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.