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

Re: The Far Western Slavyane

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Aug 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 17 , Aug 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 17 , Aug 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 17 , Aug 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 17 , Aug 13, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 17 , Aug 13, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 17 , Aug 30, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 17 , Sep 3 9:24 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >> 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 9 of 17 , Sep 3 8:25 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.