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

Re: The Far Western Slavyane

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 of 17 , Sep 3, 2004
          • 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 5 of 17 , Sep 3, 2004
            • 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.