History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedHistory of the germanic nations

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 15:31
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:

Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Which underlnes my point very well; When the phonemes were (relaitevely) new and (rather) circumstantial it would surely give various results when different litterates came by to listen, comprehend, understand, analyze and distuinguish the various dialectial expressions into written words...

What do you mean that phonemes were new??

 
When the modern phonemes - today called "letters" (Latin and Cyrilic) - arrived, to substitute the old runes, they had to be adapted, fitted, implemented, polished and reviewed - over and ov again, to serve their purpose in t various languages - eh?

As expected, you don't know what a phoneme is. Please...

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 17:35

Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

The inadequacy lies in the alphabets (code-of-letters) that doesn't clearly and distinctively cover all sounds nessecary to reflect the nuances of the spoken language. There are NO alphabets that cover more than 85% of the sounds inclued in their respective language. Normally the coverage is far less.

Might be true (I don't know the exact numbers) if you mean regular alphabets. But you spoke about phonetics alphabets and I'm asking you what sound of English (or Norwegian if you wish) does IPA not cover.

 
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

The trick is that we learn how to compensate for the missing part of the signs an read each word correctly - anyway - and express the rigth sounds to fullfill the correct pronounciation - by practice. Thats why you always learn to read and write in your native toungue - cause you already know the correct pronounciation. (Imagine if you should learn a 6-year old to read and write -  in an unknown language...)
Thanks, that's true and we all know it.
 
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

The resarch in classic Latin, Sanskrit and Chineese is possible because there already exists a basic understanding of the axioms, semantics and expressions of these languages. As long as there are Latin, Hindi and Mandarin forms existing we still have the basics nessecary to start anayzing - BUT with sharp care to and a great deal of common sense and reason.  Although we can hardly be complety SURE of how a gone language were spoken, even if we have some tablets left.  With a lot of lost languages - such as many the archaic Altaian langages - we don't even have any reference left.
We can never be sure of anything of course, but we can tell serious and well-educated theories from pseudo-historical blabberings. And the works of Šavli, Bor or other Venetists belong to the latter.
 
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

The case here is a population of (estimated) 202.000 people. They populate a large country with (smal) cities, villages and rural villages - and have done so for 7000 years - permanently.
I would question that date, where does this information come from?
 
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Their economy is based on a combination of agriculture a fishing/hunting, where every family have their own turfs. Tools, jewlery, etc. are produced locally - travel and trade are regional and their economy as well as their language and folklore culture is homogenous. There are local characteristics, as the dialects and all other cultural expressions follow a strong tradition -  to survive and thrive unde the climate here.
 
Since the room for improvisation is lizzy thin, they all live according to the same traditions and laws - where the older sons and daugthers inherrit their parents turfs, duties and rigths. Their need of communication with neighbouring villages and distrcts are critical, so the dialects vary only slightly, even if clearly, from village to village - district to district.  Thus we may say that as "man has formed the land - the land has formed man".
 
As the population "grew into the landscape" and established a coherent and conservative culture it came to populate every nooks and corner of the country. As the local characteristics was established there was a intrinsic, fine-masked net of local dialects came to cover the country. Due to a commn origin and seasonal travels and trade they all spun out - and back into - a common stem and mainframe of language and culture - today called Norwegian. Basicly independant from each others genetics; the Swedes, Danes and Finns developed paralelly - throughout the neolitic, the bronze age and iron age.
What's the main point here?? Because I feel we're getting away from the topic - the Norse language didn't develop much because of harsh conditions?? No matter what, languages keep evolving all the time - that's a fact.
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

(The same culture seem to have developed in a similar manner throughout northern Eurasia - until the "Asian soldiers" arrived in Anatolia, the Trojan wars broke out and the Romans started to march into Europe. In the high north the relative peace remained, until the expension of HRE provoked the Vikings...
What is this about?? Trojan warS? Romans?? It was actually Germanic tribes who moved southwards, not Romans moving to Scania.
 
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

One of the conseqences from the new regime was that the islanders in the Atlantic got direct connection to mainland Europe. Thus the Icelanders came to trade directly with Scotland and Friesland.  The new trade-partners had a different toungue and the Icelanders - as well as the Faeroers - came to develop their language in a specific way.
Be specific - how EXACTLY did those Old Norse dialects develop as a result of an intercourse with Celts??
 
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

The finemasked net of Scanianvian dialects remined intac though, more or less, on the mainland. Thus the Norweigan villages and districts STILL speak their archaic dialects, just as the Swedes and Danes - who managed to keep their basic tounges.
Now, I'm curious about this. Could you give me a reference on those archaic dialects?? ANything written or spoken somewhere?? Or could you at least say WHICH Norwegian dialects they are??
 
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Consider that the mainland Sandinavians have continued their language and culture for thousands of years yu may better understand that it was the emigrants - to the islands -that came under new influences and thus had a need to change...
I don't know whence you've got that thousand of years - however I count, I can't get such a number. Under what influences?? There were several Irish monks.
 
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

The written language not what I dscussed here. Writing-systes/languages are naturally constructed from the stem of a language, so that it may embrace all the dialects as good as possible. In Norway we have two; One to serve the connection to Demark, another (similar, but still different) to embracethe native dialects...

You have what two - writing systems??



Edited by Slayertplsko - 18-Mar-2009 at 12:43
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 01:22
Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:

Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:

Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Which underlnes my point very well; When the phonemes were (relaitevely) new and (rather) circumstantial it would surely give various results when different litterates came by to listen, comprehend, understand, analyze and distuinguish the various dialectial expressions into written words...

What do you mean that phonemes were new??

 
When the modern phonemes - today called "letters" (Latin and Cyrilic) - arrived, to substitute the old runes, they had to be adapted, fitted, implemented, polished and reviewed - over and ov again, to serve their purpose in t various languages - eh?

As expected, you don't know what a phoneme is. Please...

 
Your welcome. As always - your arrogance is only disgraced by your distasteful ignorance.
Don't even TRY to understand - and please leave your harrasment within your family - if you still have any.

Quote A phonemic orthography is a writing system where the written graphemes correspond to phonemes, the spoken sounds of the language. These are sometimes termed true alphabets, but non-alphabetic writing systems like syllabaries can be phonemic as well.

Scripts with a good grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence include those of Albanian, Bulgarian, Basque, Czech, Estonian, Finnish, Georgian, Hungarian, Macedonian, Polish, Romanian, Sanskrit, Turkish, Croatian, and Serbian. Most constructed languages such as Esperanto and Lojban have phonemic orthographies.

As dialects of the English language vary significantly, it would be difficult to create a phonemic orthography that encompassed all of them. However, it is fairly easy to create one based on a standard accent such as Received Pronunciation. This would, however, exclude certain sound differences found in other accents, such as the bad-lad split in Australian English. With time, pronunciations change and spellings become out of date, as has happened to English and French. In order to maintain a phonemic orthography such a system would need periodic updating, as has been attempted by various language regulators and proposed by other spelling reformers.



Edited by Boreasi - 24-Mar-2009 at 01:23
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 01:36
Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi

The written language not what I dscussed here. Writing-systes/languages are naturally constructed from the stem of a language, so that it may embrace all the dialects as good as possible. In Norway we have two; One to serve the connection to Demark, another (similar, but still different) to embracethe native dialects...

You have what two - writing systems??

Sorry - actually we have three - at least...
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4433
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 01:38
Guys - please drop the personal nitty gritty - you are both too good for that rubbish.
 
Attack the arguments - not the person.
 
 
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 12:44
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Your welcome. As always - your arrogance is only disgraced by your distasteful ignorance.
Don't even TRY to understand - and please leave your harrasment within your family - if you still have any.
Please, be polite and don't call people arrogant/ignorant just because they point out that you are confused about certain terms (in this case, phoneme).
A phoneme is not a letter and never was. Phonemic alphabet, as wiki says, is an alphabet in which letters correspond to phonemes - from that it must be clear to you, even if you never knew what a phoneme was before, that it's not the same. There is a big different between a phoneme and a letter. To simplify it, letter is written and phoneme is spoken.


Edited by Slayertplsko - 24-Mar-2009 at 15:09
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 12:47
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Sorry - actually we have three - at least...

OK, but what three?Smile

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 23:01
Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:

QUOTE]
Please, be polite and don't call people arrogant/ignorant just because they point out that you are confused about certain terms (in this case, phoneme).
A phoneme is not a letter and never was. Phonemic alphabet, as wiki says, is an alphabet in which letters correspond to phonemes - from that it must be clear to you, even if you never knew what a phoneme was before, that it's not the same. There is a big different between a phoneme and a letter. To simplify it, letter is written and phoneme is spoken.
Your the one to tell about politeness - and linguistics....
 
1. Is a sign from a true phonetic alphabeth a phoneme - or not?
2. Can pigs fly backwards?
 
I have probably discussed causation, phenomenology, morphogenetics before you even learned to use proper phonemes.


Edited by Boreasi - 24-Mar-2009 at 23:14
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2009 at 04:39
Let's keep the discourse polite.  Belittling another poster/member does nothing for your argument, we are better than personal attacks on each other.  Please knock it off!
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2009 at 12:54

Quote 1. Is a sign from a true phonetic alphabeth a phoneme - or not?

I suppose you meant phonemic, not phonetic. The answer is: not really. It's a sign or a letter (depends on your point of view), which CORRESPONDS to a phoneme. In this sentence, it would be OK to use the term phoneme, even though a letter can never be a phoneme (a sign is a sign and a sound is a sound).

But the discussion about phonemes started from your first reference to the term and that was:

Which underlnes my point very well; When the phonemes were (relaitevely) new and (rather) circumstantial it would surely give various results when different litterates came by to listen, comprehend, understand, analyze and distuinguish the various dialectial expressions into written words...

No offence of course, but in this context the use is moreover confusing. And that's why I asked the question ''What do you mean by phonemes here?'', because phoneme is not a substitutional term for letter.

Quote 2. Can pigs fly backwards?
I'm sorry, I think I missed the point.

Quote I have probably discussed causation, phenomenology, morphogenetics before you even learned to use proper phonemes.
OK, but what do they have to do with the topic??



Edited by Slayertplsko - 25-Mar-2009 at 12:56
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Hungo View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 46
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hungo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2009 at 13:48

Other languages use the Alemanni , for Germany:

Alemania (Spanish)
Allemagne (French)
Deutschland (German)
Germania (Italian & Latin)

BTW Tacitus' work was largely a political commentary which reflected the political atmosphere back in Rome according to him. Also much of it is second hand information, so just how accurate his work is.. is questionable.
[/QUOTE]

in hungarian language german is német, Germania - Németország. Német comes from 2 words, one is nation/popualtion -ném, and the ending -et stays for öt, what means five.  5 nations, 5 tribes, ,,,


Attila király katonája
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2009 at 18:23
Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:

Quote 1. Is a sign from a true phonetic alphabeth a phoneme - or not?

I suppose you meant phonemic, not phonetic. The answer is: not really. It's a sign or a letter (depends on your point of view), which CORRESPONDS to a phoneme. In this sentence, it would be OK to use the term phoneme, even though a letter can never be a phoneme (a sign is a sign and a sound is a sound).

In my part of the world we still talk about phonetic alphabets - as a general term. My use of the phrase "phonemic" was thus pinpointing that our WRITTEN letters are based on the ORAL phonemes, aiming to cover all the sounds that are implicit in the human range of speech. Thus the "true alphabetis" have to consists of letters that corresponds identically - both ways - to the various phonems of our language.
 
If and when this becomes a common understanding we should definitely use the term "phonemic letters". I do not have aproblem to agree with that, but - so far - the common expression have been "phonetic letters", none-the-less.
 
The intrinsic relationship between the two was the reason why I pinpointed the phonemes - as the carrier of the very basic unit of the advanced (phonetic) alphabets. My point is that the delibrate exhaltation, distinction,  definition and refinement of these abstract, symbolic sounds called phonemes - as the basic building-blocks of all spoken languages - required an incredibly deep insigth and prior development of the complexty of the oral languages in question. Consequently it should be obvious that the practical implementations of these "phonemic signs" (as I called them) went through a lot of phases before they could cover the various, native languages to a satisfactory degree of precision and accuracy...
 
You seemed to overlook the intent of tha comment and choose rather to discuss its semantics. I am sorry but I can't understand that any other way than a side-tracking of the discussion - in absurdum.  I am trying to "describe the birds, not pluck their fedders". 
 
Originally posted by Slayerplsko Slayerplsko wrote:

Quote But the discussion about phonemes started from your first reference to the term and that was:

Which underlnes my point very well; When the phonemes were (relaitevely) new and (rather) circumstantial it would surely give various results when different litterates came by to listen, comprehend, understand, analyze and distuinguish the various dialectial expressions into written words...

No offence of course, but in this context the use is moreover confusing. And that's why I asked the question ''What do you mean by phonemes here?'', because phoneme is not a substitutional term for letter.

[quote]2. Can pigs fly backwards?
I'm sorry, I think I missed the point.
 
Pigs don't have fedders nor wings. Try understanding what I mean, rather than what I do not mean. The quote above relates directly to the core problem of transforming an oral language into written signs, especially if they are using inadequate alphabeths, rather than true (completed) phonetic alphabets. Please read the quote (above) again, and try to see the moon I am pointing to, rather than bitin' my finger - or tryin' to pluck my feathers. Like the reversing pig I don't have any, UC...LOL

 


Edited by Boreasi - 08-Apr-2009 at 06:35
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2009 at 18:30

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Please give ONE reference to Rudbeck expressing "racist propaganda". (As far as I know racism - as we know it - is something that developed as a consequence of the Darwin-ism that evolved untill the start of WWII.
You are right about racism, but I never said anything about racism (propaganda doesn't have to be racist).
 
Well - I mgth be rigth about "propaganda" as well. The accusation that the 17th century historians Messenius and Rudbeck exercising "nationalistic propanda" seems - to my knowledge -  to be an invention by modernist critics of the last century. As far as I have read Messenius and Rudbeck they seem to be misplaced – not to say speculative. Perhaps you have examples to show the contrary?!   
 
A different story is that later philosophers/poets/politicans of the 18th and 19th century may have used their works for “nationalistic romance” – a litterary trend that sprung out of the 19tth century, that in Sweden took the form of the so-called "Göticism". But as little as we can blame Darwin for the politicavl racism of the 20th century, we can't blame 17th century Rubeck for the 19th century “Göticism”.
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

 
Your "thousands of runestones" doesn't prove katso - as they do not emanate the S-O-U-N-D of the language spoken at the time. The ONLY reference we have to the rune alphabeth is the paralells we find with names written in modern letters. The true pronouncition of the words they describe is far from defined - they're just anticipated.
Before the spelling reforms each rune corresponded to one or several sounds. If you discard all etymological research that ever has been done, not only about Scandinavian, but all langauges before the invention of the phonograph there is no point whatsoever in using comparisons of words in the first place. Which would make you own claims baseless as well.
Not att all. I just heeded your fundamental belief in old, primitively writing-systems as absolutisms. The modern form of writing went through many phases of adjustments fore it would cover the Nordic laguages with the present level of precission. Please try to look for the sense, logic and purpose of this analyzis - rather than giving the polemic factor priority...
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

Do you really think that the name written "Ubsola" and "Uppsòlum" are differemt places?
 The difference between p and b is very floating. Which is not the case with gau and gjö. The ending -um is just the dative case conjugation.
Please don’t duck the question and the point of the argument. Does the toponyms “Ubsola” and “Uppsòlum” point to different places – yes or no?
 


Edited by Boreasi - 08-Apr-2009 at 06:31
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2009 at 18:33
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

"Jormun" is not a land. From where did you get this?
I was hoping that you could get the basis of “geats” and “goths” – from the archeological material that definitly link Gotland as the common origin of both Geats and Goths;
As you may see their southern location, between Visla and Oder,  are immediate neighbours of the Vends/Vans/Vandals (eventually “Sarmatians”) to the east, and the Danish/Saxon peoples to the west.
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

How did the old Swedes pronounce "Jòr-mund" and "Jòr-man" and "Gö-ta" (as in "Goeta" or "Gaeta")? Please verify.
G was pronounced with a hard g until quite recently. In the 16th century the pronounciation started to change to dj and later to j. Göta was gauta, like in modern Norwegian 'gaupe' (well, I think you have a hard g). Check any book on Swedish phonology to verify. G is still pronounced with a hard g in Gutamål, Gotlandic.
1) That’s a nice theory. What observations is it based on – oral or graphic?
Facts till remains facts; The hundreds of various dialects in Scandinavia still pronounce the etnonym “Jöran” precisely the same way they pronounce the “Göran”. How we WRITE one and the same word may vary – according to the various writing-systems and the evolution of their grammar.  The common consent of how a specific word (name) is spoken is still a result of ORAL traditions. 
2) Please understand that the ORAL language evoloved first – for thousands of years – before the written languages were made, as an attempt to “catch” and reflect the sounds of the language as correct as possible. Your logic is based on a reflective deduction of written sources, which must be used with utter carefullness. Investigating historical details with deduction is different from understanding history backwards…   

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

 
Widsith says Eorman-ricis, where "ricis" means "kingdom or land".

Please keep the quotes correct. You are reffering to the line;
"eastan of Ongle, Eorman-rices..."


I didn't change the quote, so I don't know what you mean with that line.
Are you insisting that Eormanric was a land? The -s in the end is a genetive marker - not plural. I'll provide you with a translation:

"Along with Ealhild, the kind peace-weaver,
for the first time, from the Baltic coast,
he sought the home of Eormanric,
king of the Ostrogoths, hostile to traitors."
 
Sorry, but you did change the quote – on a small, but very important detail; LEAVING out the genitiv and leaving the semantic content of the last I, thus aborting the meaning “kingdom’s” – to diminish a genetiv etnonym (“Eormanricis”), to a plain antroponym (“Eormanric”). (Just check your own post.)  Now - how that translation can still be reffered to is beyond me…
 
THE ORIGINAL – as Wiki refers it - says;
 
Quote
 
Him from Myrgingum æþele onwocon.
He mid Ealhhilde,
fælre freoþuwebban, forman siþe
Hreðcyninges ham gesohte
eastan of Ongle, Eormanrices,
wraþes wærlogan. Ongon þa worn sprecan:
"Fela ic monna gefrægn mægþum wealdan!
 
 
     The translation you refer to have troubled European lingvists for a century already – and the question has still not found a clear solution. The last translation - from the Norwegian school of NL, 2005 -  does NOT translate “Eormanricis” to “Ermanarik”, but to “Home of the Eormen”  [pron. :goer-men] – as in “Kingdom of the Eormen”:
 
Quote
 
Av ætt var han av Myrgingfolket.
Sammen med Ealhild, den milde freds-vever,
for første gang, fra den Baltiske kyst,
han søkte Eormannernes hjem,
konge over Øst-Gøtene, hard mot svikere.
Han begynte så sin lange tale:
'Jeg har hørt om mange menn som hersket over riker.
 
 
the marked two lines translates to;
 
“He sougth the home of the Eormen [pronounced as in modern "German"],
King over the East-Goths, hard to traitors.”
 
 
 
It’s clear that the –s is a genitive not a plural marker, just as -rici refers to A “kingdom” and not A “king”. Consequently “rici’s” relate to “kingdom’s” or “Kingdom of” . Duely we may have a new try in translating the verse:
 
The Man from Myrgingum, of noble ancestors,
with Earlhild made av web of relatives,
a prosperous peace among dwelling men.

The king of the Reid-Goths sougth him up,
east of Anglia, in Germany, were wrathful traitors.
Persuasive then, he started to speak;
“Friends I may find all around the world!”
 

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Another interesting part of the poem is the list of tribes and kings. The very first line identifies Eormanric as the king of the Goths:


Quote ætla weold Hunum,         Eormanric Gotum,
    Becca Baningum,         Burgendum Gifica.
    Casere weold Creacum         ond Cælic Finnum,
    Hagena Holmrygum         ond Heoden Glommum.
    Witta weold Swæfum,         Wada Hælsingum,
    Meaca Myrgingum,         Mearchealf Hundingum.
 
1) It’s considered a fact that there existed a north-european warlord in the 4th century that was refered to as a “king of the Goths”. He is also described to rule from Saxony througout Moldavia. In northern sources he is refered to as “Ermunrek”, “Eormaric” in latin he is “Hermanricus” and “Germanricus”.
 
Ermanriks marriage with Svanhild of “the Rosomanni” seems to attest to close relations with both “Hunaland” and “Roso-land” – who joined the Goths AND Germans in their pursue to free central and (partly) western Europe from the enslavement of the Roman empire. Referenced sources attest to his alliance with his alledged nephew; Atle/Attila and the Budlungs/Huns, that took over as the head of these allied forces after Ermanriks death.
 
 
 
2) Please note that a main issue in Widsiths poem is the description of all European kingdoms at the time, from Egypt to arctic Finland.  Describing northern Europe he accounts for all of them – from Anglons to Franks and Wends.
 
But where are the Saxons, why are they not mentioned all all in the entire poem?! Could it be that they are incuded in the etnonym “Eormanni” – substituting the “Kingdom of Ger-mans” -  by Widsith written “Eorman-rici”. Looking through the geographical resume of verses 50 – 85 Widsith starts his travel with the “German Goths” (differring then from the Scandinavian Goths) - and and ends at the same place.
 
 
3) In Widsith there are several references to Eormanric, as WELL as to Eormanrici and Eormanricis - where the -s is genitiv. Consequently we have to spearate the two, just as A king Rane is different from Rana-rici ("kingdom of the Rans") and King Ring is different from “Ringe-riki”. Now "ranaricis" means "Ran-kingdom's" - as in "of" or "from "The Kingdom of Ran(s)".
  
Paralell to the old norse suffix for kingdom; “rik-i” you find the old English “ric-i” and the latin “regis”.  The supplementary suffix (rik/ric) mean “king” (only) - rrather than “kingdom” or “regime”.  Synonymosly we find; “rek”/”rik”/”ric”.
 
Add the genitiv -s and we describe what "belongs to the Rik (=The King). Thus "Rik-s" in modern Scandinavian means "national" - as in "Rike" and "Riks-dag" (=Parlament).  Paralell we find the modern German terms "Reich" und "Reichstag".
 
From old Francon and Latin we have the forms of ”rix”/”rex” - that have adapted the genitive form of "rik"/"rek" - but eradicated the genitiv impact (!) Today the latin "Rex" are simply translated to 'king' or "the king' - rather than the original 'king's'. In old Francon we find a paralell in Rix, as in Beotrix - the king of the Boiiti in the days of Caesar. (Later called Boe-men/Böh-men, today Boem-ians)
 
When the Old Norse decribes someof their kigdoms as “Rauma-riki", "Ringe-rikr" and “Sveariki” – the old English and Francon writes “Rana-rici” and “Eorman-rici”. Consequently "Eormanric-i-s" - from Widsith - must be interpretated as a genitiv; "Of The Kingdom of Eormanric". 
 
4) In Widsith verse 85 you may find another etnonym expressed as Eorman-rice.
Again, as "rik" refers to king, "rike" can only mean "kingdom". Thus we find another Old English reference to "Kingdom of the Germans" - in old Norse written "Jòrmanni".
 
Quote
 
Mid Eastþyringum ic wæs
ond mid Eolum ond mid Istum ond Idumingum.
Ond ic wæs mid Eormanrice ealle þrage,
þær me Gotena cyning gode dohte;
 
 
 
That may translate to;
 
With the East-Thuringans I was - 
and with the Aeolians and the Estonians and the Edomites
And I was in the Eorman kingdom, drafting everybody,
to join the Gothic king (in) doing good…
 
---
 
5. Please note that the row of kings not only have a range of the entire Europe, but also across centuries. Examples; Ermanrik died 375, Ealwine died 573 and Offa died 796. The manuscript – from the Exeter-book is supposedly written ust after the year 1000 AD.
 
See also other variants of Widsith – which means “wide-seen” (synonymous to “wide-travelled”). In the parallell poems of the 10th century Egils-saga (from one of Sorres ancestors) he is called “Faravid”, which litterally means “the wide-traveller”.
 

 



Edited by Boreasi - 08-Apr-2009 at 06:29
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2009 at 18:39
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:


You started off stating that "Gjö" and "Gö" were not cognates - which they OBVIOUSLY are, according to evry existing wordbook as well as the common language of Swedes an Norwegians...
Let me repeat myself and clarify once and for all that I never stated they were not cognates. Götar comes from gautar, while göra comes from gjöra. The two different stems are gau and gö/gjö.
 
Sorry but your last example is turn around: “Gjöra” comes from “Göra” – the later spelling is the older one. Regarding "Gau-tr/gau-ta"; I just said its not used in present-day Scandinavian, because its not NEEDED anymore. Though Gaute still exists as a common surname in Norway. Todays alphabet fetches the spoken word better that the old futhark. Consequently we have the more precise letter "ö" in stead of the old - and more circumstencial - dipthong "au". Duely it is more easy to read, understand and pronounce the correct sound of the word - from the text. So please forget that the old writing-form of  “Gau” and “Gö” should have different backgrounds and semantic contents. They OBVIOUSLY do share a common origin and semantic content, eventhough the spelling is sligthly different. Paralell variations in spelling are “sön”/”son“/sån” [eng.: son] and “datter”/”dotter”/”dåtter” [eng.: daugther]…  
 
“Sjö” has a similar history. In German its written “See” and in England its “Sea”. In Finland and Baltikum the word is “Meeri”. In German you find both, as “Meer” is also used for “Sea”. In Latin the common word is “Mare”, except for the Alantic Sea which was called “Mare Oceanus”, from “O-see-an”. Later the latin name for the “Big Blue”came back to England as the common word “Ocean”.
As mentioned you can still find this old spelling today pronounced in an archaic way. In the backwaters of the Scandinavian mountain-range you may still find "Gaut-e" - as well as the old but still valid surname of "As-gaut". The semantic of Gaute (In Old Norse written Gautr og gauti) is interpretad as “Man from Gautland/Götaland. As-gaut means “a Gaut relative/offspring of the Aser”.
Moreover; the common Norwegian word for "boy is still "Gut", pluralis; "Gutar" – with a strong G. Norwegians also pronounce Gaut and Goth with the same G. Their Gautic origin is still imminent. Duely I asked the question – that you still did not answer;
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

1. Where did these "Gautigoths" come from?
2. Did all Scandinavians spoke Icelandic untill the 12th century...?!
Languages doesn't work that way. People don't change pronounciation when someone invents a letter; letters are invented when people starts to use new sounds. For example the introduction of "w" into Swedish some year ago.
 
Which did not answer the question - but colportes a new misunderstanding.
 
Alphabets improve with time - because the scholars of a certain period finit nessecary to do so - not because people start talking new dialects. The change from the rune-signs to the latin letters - as of 11th/12th century - was purely political and had little or nothing to do with a change of language. I gave a specific line of reasons and your generalisation simply doesn’t hold up as a counter-argument – nor does it answer any of my two questions…
 
Moreover it’s interesting to se the post-roman merge between Saxons and Goths, which seem to have made the Göta (read: Geta) and the Saxomans (Saxomanni) into Jör-manni [read: Ger-manni]. The link between these etnonyms all reflect the sound “Gö” [read “Geo”, as in modern; German]. No doubt that “Gö-ta” and “Gö-ra” are reflecting a common ancestry, still present in the Scandinavian word “Göra”/”Gjøra”, meanng “Doing”, as well as “Göda”/“Gjöda”, meaning “Fertilizing”. Plain farmers, all of them, basically…
 
Old legends;
 
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

My point was just to refer to the etynoms of the FIRST gots - named "Tjelvar"and "Stierna" in the mideval litterature. Which definitly proves that these etynoms have nothing to do with your "19th century romanticism"... 

Granted, I just wanted to make sure no one got confused and thought that the Gutasaga is speaking about Goths.
 
Now - the first part of the "Gutalag" is speaking about the first people (NOT gods) that arrived in the northern hemisphere – landing on the island today called “Gotland”.  Living from a fishing-culture the specificly mild climate and old soil of Gotland seem to have made it a “hot-spot” for the first people arriving to the Baltic area – after ice-age.
In understanding that the very first domestic animal in the arctic waters were goats,  there may be a linguistic thread of history behind the name of ”Geatland” or ”Goatland”. This may also explain why their off-spring- branches that populated the neighbouring “Götalands” – from where they migrated south – east as well as west - to develop various dialects and mingle with foreign toungues. A consequense  the various written forms of endonyms and exonyms would then explain the various words and their consequent spelling - such as “Geats”, “Gauts”, “Goths”, “Gots” and “Guti” - as well as ”Gautland” and ”Gotland”. That doesn’t change the fact that the origin of all these presumtive Goat-farmers, travellers and traders shared a close geographical and cultural proximity to the islands of Gotland, Borgholm and the old Wolin, at the mount of Visla. 
According to the saga the very first geats/goths established themselves on Gotland, which also explains the relation between the toponym and the etonym. Evidently they split in three branchs - from which all later Geats/Gauts/Goths are said to have come - according to the mideval “Lawbook of the Geats” - of course!  Wink


Edited by Boreasi - 07-Apr-2009 at 19:17
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2009 at 19:47
Ossetians call they country "Iron", not "Iran", Tajiks speak "Forsi/Porsi", not "Farsi/Parsi", we know Gothic was an ancient Germanic  language, what was Gathic?
 
 

Gathic

Definition: Gathic

Gathic

Noun

1. An ancient Iranian language.



Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 07-Apr-2009 at 19:49
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2009 at 20:35
A form of Avestan called after Gathas. Cyrus, how are your studies of etymology going on??
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2009 at 08:17

I think it is not difficult for you to believe that Jats of India and Pakistan who originally lived in the west of Caspian sea, were related to Germanic tribe Jutes, look at: History and study of the Jats by Professor B.S Dhillon, or Slavic Serbs who also originally lived there were also related to Sorbs of Germany, but when I talk about their Iranian neighbour Saksen (Saqsin in Arabic sources) and provide several evidences, you never believe there could be any connection between them and Saxons, or about Semnani, one of the most widely-spoken Northwestern Iranian languages and Germanic Semnoni, ... I think it is just enough that you replace Germanic "o" with Iranian "a/e"!!

Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2009 at 08:46

Please go and do some studies if you want to use linguistics - that is lexical comparison, ethnonym similarities or anything, because you really need it. Do you want to do serious research or just boast with your origin and glorify Iranians?? If the latter, OK so be it, but don't try to take us in that you're searching for historical facts.

Why should I believe there is any connection between Jats and Jutes?? Just because of name similarity?? There are many peoples with similar names in the world, so what?? You'll really need more than this.



Edited by Slayertplsko - 09-Apr-2009 at 08:51
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2009 at 08:56
I'm not familiar with his research, if you have the book, please send it to me. But I googled his name and found out that he is a professor of Engineering Management in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Ottawa. Why is it, that you always refer us to a work by someone from agriculture or engineering?? (I'm not being mean)
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.