IS THE WORD COBAN OF TURKIC ORIGIN OR IRANIAN ONE ?
ATT?LA
I would like to say something about the origin of The word CSABA OR
COBAN....
You set forward that This word is of Iranian origin.... but You must
know that The same word is avaliable in Sümerian of Ural-altaic
origin ,that has nothing to do with Indian-European stock at all...
All of linguistics who are interested in Sümerian language know very
well the truth that The very closest language to Sümerian on Earth is
Turkic...
How can we accept that This word is of Iranian origin ??? ..The
avaliability of This word in Sümerian ,hat has not any connection
with Indıan-European languages, support The view that the word
COBAN is of Turkic origin...
Yusuf B Gursey
: DEAR YUSUF
: I would like to say something about the origin of The word CSABA OR
: COBAN....
: You set forward that This word is of Iranian origin.... but You must
: know that The same word is avaliable in Sümerian of Ural-altaic
: origin ,that has nothing to do with Indian-European stock at all...
well, I can't say anything about its being "Indo-European" since I don't
know its further etymology, but the form it is derived from is found in
Avestan, so turkic borrowed it Iranian, specifically middle persian. read
the entry of the etymological dictionary of Hasan Eren.
: All of linguistics who are interested in Sümerian language know very
: well the truth that The very closest language to Sümerian on Earth is
: Turkic...
this is way off the mark, since modern accepted theories do not posit a
special relationship of Sumerian (without an umlaut on the u in englidh
and most other languages). even "Ural - Altaic" is not an accpeted
grouping and "Altaic" is controversial.
: How can we accept that This word is of Iranian origin ??? ..The
hhubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> In sci.lang ATT?LA <rua...@yahoo.com> wrote in <e56ba549.03102...@posting.google.com>:
> : DEAR YUSUF
>
> : I would like to say something about the origin of The word CSABA OR
> : COBAN....
> : You set forward that This word is of Iranian origin.... but You must
> : know that The same word is avaliable in S?merian of Ural-altaic
> : origin ,that has nothing to do with Indian-European stock at all...
>
>
> well, I can't say anything about its being "Indo-European" since I don't
> know its further etymology, but the form it is derived from is found in
> Avestan, so turkic borrowed it Iranian, specifically middle persian. read
> the entry of the etymological dictionary of Hasan Eren.
Rules of Linguistics Science:
Rule 1: wherever you find the word first written, it belongs to that
language.
Rule 2: wherever you find something written in some book, it must be true.
As Prince Eugene of Austria said of the Ottomans circa 1700s, "They have
learned nothing and they have forgotten nothing."
Someone with a PhD should be able to do better after 10 years.
ATT?LA
DEAR YUSUF
I want you to know this well. European historians and academicians
have always been two faced against the history of the nations of
URAL-ALTAIC (especially against the history of Turks)... All of
European linguistics and historians know well that The civilization
SUMER is completely of URAL-ALTAIC...
but They dont in no way want to accept This truth because of fact that
They aim at deriving All of civilizations from themselves...according
to them, The civilization SUMER must be of INDIAN-EUROPEAN
orıgın as well..so They have done their best for the purpose
of showing This civilization as one of INDIAN-EUROPEAN..But They have
always been unsuccessful in the subject of proving the lie They set
forward...
for example, once upon a time,There was a nation named MED in the
region of middle east.. It is not known what The origin of This nation
is.. There is only one word belonging to MED language which has
survived to the present-day...It is cobako ...It means DOG in MED
language.. These european historians and linguistics at once set
forward the theory MEDS are of INDIAN -CIVILIZATION when taking into
consideration the only this word...
I can comfortably say that This word is originally of Turkish origin
by looking at the change K,C ...KOPEK= COPAK...
I want you to know that I never mean being MED of Turkish....
The main reason I give this example is to show european academicians's
approach to the history and origin of other nations ...
with my regards..
Yusuf B Gursey
: DEAR YUSUF
: I want you to know this well. European historians and academicians
: have always been two faced against the history of the nations of
: URAL-ALTAIC (especially against the history of Turks)... All of
: European linguistics and historians know well that The civilization
: SUMER is completely of URAL-ALTAIC...
: but They dont in no way want to accept This truth because of fact that
: They aim at deriving All of civilizations from themselves...according
: to them, The civilization SUMER must be of INDIAN-EUROPEAN
: orıgın as well..so They have done their best for the purpose
: of showing This civilization as one of INDIAN-EUROPEAN..But They have
: always been unsuccessful in the subject of proving the lie They set
: forward...
actually they have not claimed Sumerian is IE either.
: for example, once upon a time,There was a nation named MED in the
: region of middle east.. It is not known what The origin of This nation
: is.. There is only one word belonging to MED language which has
: survived to the present-day...It is cobako ...It means DOG in MED
: language.. These european historians and linguistics at once set
: forward the theory MEDS are of INDIAN -CIVILIZATION when taking into
: consideration the only this word...
: I can comfortably say that This word is originally of Turkish origin
: by looking at the change K,C ...KOPEK= COPAK...
IIRC the Median word was slightly different, but anyway. it did suggest a
change from k to s IIRC, and AFAIK the k- version would be older, and a
relationship of the turkic word anf the Median word is acknowledged.
whoever encountered domestic dogs first past the name on.
: I want you to know that I never mean being MED of Turkish....
: The main reason I give this example is to show european academicians's
: approach to the history and origin of other nations ...
:
: with my regards..
I gave the opinion of a former head of the turkish language institute. an
older form is suggested in old iranian, whereas some tukic languages and
middle persian are similar, thus suggesting an iranian origin for
"c,oban". I didn't invent this theory, I am merely reporting it, and it
seems to have satisfied other linguists. I am obviously not responsible
for what happened, nor can anyone change it. if a more plausible
reconstruction is found, I am sure it will be accepted by all, turkish or
non-turkish alike, and I would be happy to report that finding as well.
mb
...
> Rules of Linguistics Science:
> Rule 1: wherever you find the word first written, it belongs to that
> language.
> Rule 2: wherever you find something written in some book, it must be true.
Whereas the rules of hubeyistics are:
1. any word can be assigned to any language.
2. whatever is undocumented must be true.
ATT?LA
> Rules of Linguistics Science:
>
> Rule 1: wherever you find the word first written, it belongs to that
> language.
>
> Rule 2: wherever you find something written in some book, it must be true.
>
> As Prince Eugene of Austria said of the Ottomans circa 1700s, "They have
> learned nothing and they have forgotten nothing."
>
>
> Someone with a PhD should be able to do better after 10 years.
Which language Turkic has borrowed this word from and in which book
It is written as well as being found is not so important.. supposing
that It was of Iranian origin....would It change the truth that The
origin of the word belonged to the civilization Sümer,that is accepted
to be the oldest one on earth ???*
To sum up, It is more likely to be of URAL-ALTAIC rather than
INDIAN-EUROPEAN one.....
ATT?LA
> In sci.lang ATT?LA <rua...@yahoo.com> wrote in <e56ba549.03102...@posting.google.com>:
> : Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<bn3u5a$71j$2...@pcls4.std.com>...
>
Dear Yusuf and Hubey..
here is a site which indicates that The word COBAN is originated from Sümerian ...
http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/SU-C.html
have a look at thit site for Ural-Altaic-Sumerian-Dravidian comparison list
http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<bn6k7g$ces$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
> > In sci.lang ATT?LA <rua...@yahoo.com> wrote in <e56ba549.03102...@posting.google.com>:
> > : Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<bn3u5a$71j$2...@pcls4.std.com>...
> >
>
> Dear Yusuf and Hubey..
>
> here is a site which indicates that The word COBAN is originated from Sümerian ...
>
> http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/SU-C.html
>
> have a look at thit site for Ural-Altaic-Sumerian-Dravidian comparison list
>
> http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm
Yup, if you find it on a website, it must be true.
Especially one that doesn't even know how to spell "millennia."
Or is it an advertisement for a model of Mazda car?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
:> In sci.lang ATT?LA <rua...@yahoo.com> wrote in <e56ba549.03102...@posting.google.com>:
:> : Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<bn3u5a$71j$2...@pcls4.std.com>...
:>
: Dear Yusuf and Hubey..
: here is a site which indicates that The word COBAN is originated from Sümerian ...
: http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/SU-C.html
I didn't make any claim of the history of the word beyond iranian, which I
simply don't know (and don't care that much)
the absence of a native turkic word for "shepherd" is explained as among
the ancient turkic people tending the herds was a collective
responsibility and not a specialty.
: have a look at thit site for Ural-Altaic-Sumerian-Dravidian comparison list
: http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm
at least this site claims only a "long-range" relationship between
sumerian and other language groups.
Henry Polard
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ATT?LA wrote:
<snip>
> > here is a site which indicates that The word COBAN is originated from
> > Sümerian ...
> >
> > http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/SU-C.html
> >
> > have a look at thit site for Ural-Altaic-Sumerian-Dravidian comparison list
> >
> > http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm
>
> Yup, if you find it on a website, it must be true.
>
> Especially one that doesn't even know how to spell "millennia."
>
> Or is it an advertisement for a model of Mazda car?
http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/
is labeled "Hungarian Heritage Page."
The diagram on:
http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm
features a diagram of the claimed relationship between Uralic, Altaic,
Dravidian, and Sumerian.
Feh.
Henry Polard || At least Basque is basking in solitude.
ATT?LA
>
> > here is a site which indicates that The word COBAN is originated from Sümerian ...
> >
> > http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/SU-C.html
> >
> > have a look at thit site for Ural-Altaic-Sumerian-Dravidian comparison list
> >
> > http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm
>
> Yup, if you find it on a website, it must be true.
>
> Especially one that doesn't even know how to spell "millennia."
>
> Or is it an advertisement for a model of Mazda car?
DEAR PETER..
I have never learnt the absence of the word COBAN in Sümer thanks to
this site. This is first one. Second one is that The main reason I
sent the site in question was only to show the avaliability of the
word COBAN in Sümerian through this site...
As to the matter on whether or not There is a connection between
URAL-ALTAIC and SUMERIAN ..All of linguistics accept the absence of a
connection among these languages ,but This truth is pretented not to
see by The same academicians ,who have accepted MEDS as a nation of
Iranian origin by looking at only one word...
The approach of European academicians to origin of All civilizations
are very different from ...
We can sum these rules of this approach..
1. The origin of All of nations and civilizations must be derived from
INDO-EUROPEAN circle..
so some academicians like Peter GOLDEN has set forward a comic theory
that The place where INDO-EUROPEANS firstly emerged is the areas in
the vicinity of the lands of the civilization Sümer in spite of fact
that They knew well The civilization Sümer had nothing to do with
INDO-EUROPEANS.....The main reason which lies at the bottom of this
comic lie was to try to show the civilization Sümer is one of
Indo-european..
2. The origin of Super-stratum who have established all civilizations
must firstly be searcht in INDO-EUROPEAN origins..
3. NON INDO-EUROPEAN nations can not have not the ability to any state
4. If there is a common word between INDO-EUROPEAN and NON
INDO-EUROPEAN languages . It is certainly of INDO -EUROPEAN origin..
(for example according to european linguistics ,Iranian languages can
not borrow any word from Turkic.. so All of common words between
Turkic and Iranian languages are of Iranian origin..)
5. That word is enough to say The civilization in question is of
INDO-EUROPEAN If any found word belonging to the languages of the
nations whose origin is not completely known belongs to the languages
of INDO-EUROPEAN languages..
and the other rules.. What I have summurizied so far are true..
What I am trying to explain with the messages I have sent so far is to
show the approach of European academicians..
The history of INDO -EUROPEANS is full of numberless lies like that..
For example, according to European academicians , ALANS are a nation
originating in IRAN , so They must be of INDO-EUROPEAN origin.. as the
natural result of this idea. A connection between ALANS and OSSETS is
looked for and Alans are accepted to be a nation of Irainian origin..
Those who have set forward the theory that OSSETS are descended from
ALANS , have never found any linguistic or written resource indicating
the OSSETS are steemming from ALANS .... but according to them, ALANS
must be one of IRANian origin as well.....
All of information obtained regarding the origin of ALANS are
indicating that They are a different nation rather than one of Iranian
origin..
For example,
BIRUNI-----------------ALANS are of Turkic origin and They speak
pecheneg Turkic..
JOSEPH FLAVIUS ----------- ALANS are descended from Pecheneg Turks
EBU'L FIDA ---------------ALANS are Turks who have accepted
Christianity
CHINESE ANNALS ------------ALANS are a Hsı-ungnus which are
accepted to be a nation of Turkic origin
The book named HEIMSKGRING by a viking called SNORRI STURLUSON from a
ICELAND --
------------------------- ALANS are of Turks ..
and the other resources
( Alans were a warrior race , so Roman empire settled them in Britain
under the name of POTENTIORES troops in order to stop rebels..They
have assimilated into the native people living there over times..and
even Roman Empire established a troop named COMITES ALANI ... This
troop were serving to Roman empire in Italia... in the book by SNORRI
STURLUSON It is written that Alans have had marriages with the native
peoples...)
.The found Turkic inscriptions in scandanivian peninsula are propably
belonging to these ALANS...
Why are OSSETS call themselves IRON while They call Turkic people
living next to them ALAN? ? This can not be explained by
Academicians..
If Turks set forward a theory that ALANS are of Turkic origin.. Will
these two-faced european academicians accept this? of course NO...
If there are still many people in Europea who beleives that ATTILA
,BARBAROS ,FATIH SULTAN MEHMET and the others are of INDO-EUROPEAN
origin or They must be of INDO-EUROPEAN origin ..This is a natural
result of this approach..
Yusuf B Gursey
> All of information obtained regarding the origin of ALANS are
> indicating that They are a different nation rather than one of Iranian
> origin..
>
> For example,
>
> BIRUNI-----------------ALANS are of Turkic origin and They speak
> pecheneg Turkic..
Biruni was a (iranian) Khawrezmian and spoke no turkic. in his list of
turkic month names (which are merely ordinals), he adds "I don't know
what tehy mean and I don't knwo the (exact) order". his ordering in
fact has errors.
(iranian) Khwarezmian is consodered the closest of th ethe central
asian iranain langauges to iranain languages of Southg Russia. form
hsi statements, Alanic is described as an iranian langugae closely
related to the central asian iranain langauges (part. Khwarezmian)
with Pecheneg turkic loanwords.
cocnerning this, see this post (last lines deleted):
From: cluste...@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 17 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3717dfd1...@news.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang
>
I just founds such a discussion in studia orientalia I (budapest -
1961 I think) J. Harmata, the language of the iranian tribes in south
russia
<<
It was Zeki Validi who first succeeded in discovering Chorasmian
texts in any quantity and who found a passage in Bi:ru:ni: (in the
Introduction to the tajdid niha:ya:t al-ama:kin) which seems to be of
decisive importance in forming a judgement about the language of teh
Alans. According to Validi teh passage in Bi:ru:ni: informs us that
"the Alans or A:s. had formerly lived, together with the Pechenegs,
around th elower reaches of the Amu-darya (the Uzboy), and later,
after the river had changed its course, they migrated to the coast of
the Sea of the Khazars"; Bi:ru:ni: also telss us that "the language of
these Alans is a compound Chorasmian and Pecheneg-Turkish". ...
>>
the historical error abouit the pechenegs aside, and leaving aside the
question of the relation between alanian ansd ossetian (which is
basically one of th efine points argued in the article) this would
tend to show an awarness (biruni was a kwarezmian) of the east-iranain
nature of alanic.
bad24
<snip>
> Biruni was a (iranian) Khawrezmian and spoke no turkic. <snip>
> (iranian) Khwarezmian is consodered the closest of th ethe central
> asian iranain langauges to iranain languages of Southg Russia. form
> hsi statements, Alanic is described as an iranian langugae closely
> related to the central asian iranain langauges (part. Khwarezmian)
> with Pecheneg turkic loanwords.>
> Alans. According to Validi teh passage in Bi:ru:ni: informs us that
> "the Alans or A:s. had formerly lived, together with the Pechenegs,
> around th elower reaches of the Amu-darya (the Uzboy), and later,
> after the river had changed its course, they migrated to the coast of
> the Sea of the Khazars"; Bi:ru:ni: also telss us that "the language of
> these Alans is a compound Chorasmian and Pecheneg-Turkish".
But did Biruni or any of the other Iranian and Arabic writers of the
Middle Ages actually refer to people as "Alans" or some obvious
variant of that name or did they use another name that is reliably (or
doubtfully) taken to refer to the same people? From what I have read,
I gather that Byzantine sources must have referred to Alans living
north of the Caucasus somewhere. How late were they mentioned as
being there?
> the historical error abouit the pechenegs aside,
What error?
and leaving aside the
> question of the relation between alanian ansd ossetian (which is
> basically one of th efine points argued in the article) this would
> tend to show an awarness (biruni was a kwarezmian) of the east-iranain
> nature of alanic.
How clear is it that the Alans, A:s, and Ossets are directly
connected?
---bad24
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> What I am trying to explain with the messages I have sent so far is to
> show the approach of European academicians..
> The history of INDO -EUROPEANS is full of numberless lies like that..
> For example, according to European academicians , ALANS are a nation
> originating in IRAN , so They must be of INDO-EUROPEAN origin.. as the
the name Alan and Iran are cognate.
> natural result of this idea. A connection between ALANS and OSSETS is
> looked for and Alans are accepted to be a nation of Irainian origin..
>
> Those who have set forward the theory that OSSETS are descended from
> ALANS , have never found any linguistic or written resource indicating
according ot Enc. of Islam II "Alan" (Ala:n) armenian sources make the
conection.
> the OSSETS are steemming from ALANS .... but according to them, ALANS
> must be one of IRANian origin as well.....
>
> All of information obtained regarding the origin of ALANS are
> indicating that They are a different nation rather than one of Iranian
> origin..
>
"turks" sometimes had a political connotation (under the rule of
turkic state, especially under the Asina clan)
>
>
> ( Alans were a warrior race , so Roman empire settled them in Britain
> under the name of POTENTIORES troops in order to stop rebels..They
> have assimilated into the native people living there over times..and
> even Roman Empire established a troop named COMITES ALANI ... This
> troop were serving to Roman empire in Italia... in the book by SNORRI
> STURLUSON It is written that Alans have had marriages with the native
> peoples...)
>
> .The found Turkic inscriptions in scandanivian peninsula are propably
> belonging to these ALANS...
either bogus (mistaking Scandinavian runes with turkic ones) or simply
Khazar and other material through trade (this is mentioned by a
historian).
>
> Why are OSSETS call themselves IRON while They call Turkic people
Iron comes from Iran as well. Iti s a branch of the Ossets, while
Osset comes from As.
see Enc. of Islam II "Osset"
> living next to them ALAN? ? This can not be explained by
acc. to Enc. of Islam II the neighboring region of Mt. Elbruz is
called Asi, because they formerly lived there.
> Academicians..
Yusuf B Gursey
> y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
the following passage was taken from an anonymous poster "Cluster
User":
(the passage itself is a quote from (in the words of "Cluster
User")"studia orientalia I (budapest - 1961 I think) J. Harmata, the
language of the iranian tribes in south russia) I myself had looked up
the refernce as well when it was posted)
> <snip>
> > Biruni was a (iranian) Khawrezmian and spoke no turkic. <snip>
> > (iranian) Khwarezmian is consodered the closest of th ethe central
> > asian iranain langauges to iranain languages of Southg Russia. form
> > hsi statements, Alanic is described as an iranian langugae closely
> > related to the central asian iranain langauges (part. Khwarezmian)
> > with Pecheneg turkic loanwords.>
> > cocnerning this, see this post (last lines deleted):<snip>
> > Alans. According to Validi teh passage in Bi:ru:ni: informs us that
> > "the Alans or A:s. had formerly lived, together with the Pechenegs,
> > around th elower reaches of the Amu-darya (the Uzboy), and later,
> > after the river had changed its course, they migrated to the coast of
> > the Sea of the Khazars"; Bi:ru:ni: also telss us that "the language of
> > these Alans is a compound Chorasmian and Pecheneg-Turkish".
>
> But did Biruni or any of the other Iranian and Arabic writers of the
> Middle Ages actually refer to people as "Alans" or some obvious
they refered to them Ala:n , the arabs interpreting it as al-la:n
(i.e. al-La:n), according to Enc. of Islam II "Ala:n". they also
refered to the As (a:s or al-'arsiyya).
> variant of that name or did they use another name that is reliably (or
> doubtfully) taken to refer to the same people? From what I have read,
> I gather that Byzantine sources must have referred to Alans living
> north of the Caucasus somewhere. How late were they mentioned as
> being there?
I understand in the 13th, 14th cent. they are attested with
settlements extending from Derbend to the Volga and in the Mongol
court.
>
> > the historical error abouit the pechenegs aside,
>
> What error?
>
I assume the poster refers to the comment implying that they lived
together with hte Pechenegs in Central Asia.
> and leaving aside the
> > question of the relation between alanian ansd ossetian (which is
> > basically one of th efine points argued in the article) this would
> > tend to show an awarness (biruni was a kwarezmian) of the east-iranain
> > nature of alanic.
>
> How clear is it that the Alans, A:s, and Ossets are directly
> connected?
Osset is derived from As (Georgian Ows-Et`i), Armenian Ash-tigor which
refered to the westernmost Alans. the muslim Ossets (minority) call
themselves Digor (the major christian group is Iron < Iran).
the As are described as "sister tribes" in the article of Enc. Islam
II. the Harmata article described that the iranians of South Russia
had a number of dialects, which it reconstructs from meager evidence.
A:s is apaprently from older Aorsi (NB the arabic al-'arsiyya).
Enc. Iranica (only up to "G" is available)ought to have more
information.
>
> ---bad24
Inger E Johansson
while many things you write are things I can second I think it's fair to
tell the others that not all Alans where from Iranic speaching areas. More
than one, actually a whole group of people with names as Steinar, Sveinar,
Kol and Alanarik(Alan's Erik) spoke an early Scandinavian language and
origin from Östergötland(Ostrogothia) and Södermanland in today's Sweden.
Their origin and roots are mentioned in many ancient and early medieval
sources. their way to the Black Sea regions as well.
Same persons and with same names were active in same events from 240 AD to
552 AD but called 'Herman' or 'Alleman' in West Roman Empire's sources.
Inger E
"
Brian M. Scott
<inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in
news:fySnb.31583$mU6....@newsb.telia.net in sci.lang:
> Yusuf,
> while many things you write are things I can second I think
> it's fair to tell the others that not all Alans where from
> Iranic speaching areas. More than one, actually a whole
> group of people with names as Steinar, Sveinar, Kol and
> Alanarik(Alan's Erik) spoke an early Scandinavian language
> and origin from Östergötland(Ostrogothia) and Södermanland
> in today's Sweden.
<Alanarik> is not 'Alan's Erik'.
[...]
Inger E Johansson
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns9423A2BCE6C7As...@130.133.1.4...
Brian,
how should you know, you are excused for your lack of knowledge. You are by
no means neither teaching history nor are you a scholar of Medieval History.
As I said same person are mentioned in many many contemporary sources same
events.
You better learn a bit more and read at least the most essential
prime/primare sources written before before 600 AD. I suggest that you start
by reading the Sofists, forgotten by so many but they do have information to
tell.
Inger E
>
> [...]
Brian M. Scott
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> skrev i meddelandet
> news:Xns9423A2BCE6C7As...@130.133.1.4...
>> On 29 Oct 2003 "Inger E Johansson"
>> <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in
>> news:fySnb.31583$mU6....@newsb.telia.net in sci.lang:
>> > Yusuf,
>> > while many things you write are things I can second I
>> > think it's fair to tell the others that not all Alans
>> > where from Iranic speaching areas. More than one,
>> > actually a whole group of people with names as Steinar,
>> > Sveinar, Kol and Alanarik(Alan's Erik) spoke an early
>> > Scandinavian language and origin from
>> > Östergötland(Ostrogothia) and Södermanland in today's
>> > Sweden.
>> <Alanarik> is not 'Alan's Erik'.
> Brian,
> how should you know,
Because I've spent years studying onomastics, and especially
Germanic onomastics. You, on the other hand, have
demonstrated repeatedly over the years that it's a subject
about which you are woefully ignorant.
You can't get away with that kind of nonsense in s.h.m.; how
the hell do you expect to get away with it here in sci.lang?
[...]
Inger E Johansson
as I said you are excused - you know nothing at all about me your fantasy
has played you a trick over and over during the years. You are no scholar of
Medieval History. I am. You don't teach History. I do. I am the experienced
person in this subject. You are the fool trying to make believe that you
know something you don't have one fingernail knowledge about.
Inger E
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns9423A741BB50Es...@130.133.1.4...
Renia
What is it then? No point to make. Just interested.
Renia
bad24
> I understand in the 13th, 14th cent. they are attested with
> settlements extending from Derbend to the Volga and in the Mongol
> court.
Wasn't that where the Khazars had lived? I gather from another
internet source that the A:s were scattered among other peoples.
<snip>
> > How clear is it that the Alans, A:s, and Ossets are directly
> > connected?
>
> Osset is derived from As (Georgian Ows-Et`i), Armenian Ash-tigor which
> refered to the westernmost Alans. the muslim Ossets (minority) call
> themselves Digor (the major christian group is Iron < Iran).
> the As are described as "sister tribes" in the article of Enc.
siters to the Ossets or consisting of sister tribes?
--bad24
Brian M. Scott
<inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>Brian,
>as I said you are excused - you know nothing at all about me your fantasy
>has played you a trick over and over during the years. You are no scholar of
>Medieval History. I am. You don't teach History. I do. I am the experienced
>person in this subject. You are the fool trying to make believe that you
>know something you don't have one fingernail knowledge about.
The subject under discussion isn't history, din dumbom; it's the
etymology of the name <Alanarik>, and it's one in which you are
profoundly unqualified. (Mind you, your qualifications in
history are piss-poor, too, and if you teach it, I pity your
students.)
Brian M. Scott
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
Fairly standard sort of dithematic Germanic name. The second
element is Germanic */ri:kjaz/ 'ruler' or a closely related
adjective 'mighty, powerful', found in umpteen Germanic names
(<Heinrich>, <Dietrich>, etc.); this is also the second element
of Old Norse <Eiríkr>. The first element of <Alanarik> is most
likely an n-extension of the name theme */ala-/ 'all', though
other possibilities could be considered. There is no doubt,
though, that the segmentation is <Alana-rik>, not <Alan-arik>.
(The notion that <Ala-> has been extended with <-na-> is not ad
hoc, by the way; l-, n-, and r-extensions are quite common in
Germanic naming.)
The first element of <Eiríkr> isn't entirely certain, but the
most commonly held view seems to be that it's from */aina-/
'one', by extension 'alone, separate', though I've also seen the
suggestion that it's from */aizo:-/ 'honor', which does have
something to recommend it. The earliest appearances of the name
don't really offer much to distinguish these two possibilities,
unfortunately. For instance, the earliest example known to me is
a runic <airikis> ca.800 (in the genitive case), in which the
first element has already collapsed to <ai->, the precursor of ON
<Ei->.
Part of Inger's problem is that she thinks in terms of modern
forms of the names. Even thinking in terms of 13th century
<Eiríkr> ought to make it pretty clear that there's a problem
with her interpretation, and realizing that in the 6th century
the name would still have been something like *<ainarikiaR> (or
*<aiRarikiaR>, if the 'honor' suggestion is correct) pretty well
kills it stone dead: there's just no room for the name in
<Alanarik>. (<R> is the standard transcription of a runic letter
denoting a sound that developed from Proto-Germanic */z/; it
didn't merge with /r/ until quite a bit later.)
Brian
Inger E Johansson
"bad24" <dab...@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com...
> y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message
news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> > I understand in the 13th, 14th cent. they are attested with
> > settlements extending from Derbend to the Volga and in the Mongol
> > court.
>
> Wasn't that where the Khazars had lived? I gather from another
> internet source that the A:s were scattered among other peoples.
Yes,
and if many scholars trying so desperately to understand the Alans had read
the Khazars papers they would have known that the Alans were Goths still
living on with full contact with Gotland and Östergötland in Sweden.
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
you are excused. In all content and context of the phrase. You are by no
means a scholar of Medieval History. I am. Educated teacher, History main
subject, experienced teacher. You better stick to your Mathematic. You might
do some good if you consentrate your efforts on your students and stop
attacking specialists in other disciplines.
Plonk.
Inger E
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:3fa04496....@enews.newsguy.com...
Renia
> Brian,
> you are excused. In all content and context of the phrase. You are by no
> means a scholar of Medieval History. I am. Educated teacher, History main
> subject, experienced teacher. You better stick to your Mathematic. You might
> do some good if you consentrate your efforts on your students and stop
> attacking specialists in other disciplines.
>
> Plonk.
>
> Inger E
The study of onomastics or etymology is not the same thing as the study
of history, though the two are related. If you like, they are separate
branches of history and require different skills and emphasis to study
and understand them. Unless a student or teacher of medieval history has
studied onomastics or etymology, then s/he cannot say s/he is more
educated in it than someone else. You teach medieval history. OK. But
you don't teach onomastics or etymology. You have never studied it.
Brian has. Therefore, in the study of these matters, Brian is more
qualified than you.
You are such an intellectual snob, Inger, that I don't know how you
learn anything, let alone teach it.
Renia
Harlan Messinger
that you can't actually bring any of it to bear against Brian's
analysis, or to explain why he's wrong when he points out that you are
using the modern form of "Eric" to explain a sixth century etymology.
All you can do is repeat your credentials. How impressed do you expect
anyone to be?
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
ATT?LA
> dab...@aol.com (bad24) wrote in message news:<88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
>
According to FIRIDUN AGASIOGLU, The nation AZ is one of the oldest
nations of the present day-Azerbaıjan ..The lands of Armenia and
Nakhıchevan are called AZA in old resources..For example, The
areas beyond the river ARAS were called AZA in the period of URARTU..
In Roman period, This word were used for the same lands mentioned
above ...This word has turned into AZER over times..There is already a
resource that confirms The change AZA and AZER..It is Historian
STRABO ..He confirms this..
Original form of the word OSSETS is OSETI ...The suffix ETI is of
georgian origin. It means Homeland ,country in the georgian
language.. OSSET = THE LANDS OF OSSETS..
Russians calls this nation OSETIN adding the ethnic relation
suffıx N in russian ....
Ossets speak an iranian dialect and They have came to this region from
the northern parts ..for this reason ,Nearly All of Historians accept
ALANS-ASES ,which lived in the Cafcasia in the past, the ancestor of
OSSETS . ...Being look at this acceptance,Sarmat union including ALANS
are accepted to be Iranian origin without presenting any evidence...
Any evidence which confirms that ALANS are directly of Iranıan
origin have not been able to found so far.. contrary to public
opinion. All of te resources which tells of ALANS , reveals that They
are of Turkic origin..
Czegledy says TUXS,which is one of Turkish tribes among western
Gokturk union , are descended from ASES..
IbNI-RUSTEH , who saw ALANS in CAFCASIA closely , reveals the name of
the kingdom that governs ALAN tribes in CAFCASIA is DXSAS(DUXS-AS)
..This points that There is a connectiom the words and DUXS and TUXS..
Let's present some testimonials about Alans. Roman historian of the4
c. Ammianus Marcellinus, who was well acquainted with Alans, and
wholeft the most complete description of them, wrote, that Alans
‘in everythingare similar to Huns, but are a little bit softer
in customs and way oflife' [Ammianus Marcellinus, 1908, Issue 3, 242].
The translator of the‘History of Judean war by Josephus Flavius'
(written in 70 AD) to Old Russianlanguage the ethnonim Alans
translates by a word Yass and,without a shadow of doubt, asserts that
the ‘language of Yasses is knownas born from the Pecheneg kin'
[Meschersky N.A., 1958, 454]. Vs. Milleralso gives this citation,
where Alans-Yasses are identified with Pechenegs-Türks,and he points
out that the interpreter has replaced Scythians with Pechenegs,and
Alans with Yasses [Miller Vs., 1887, 40]. It is clear that this
remarkdoes not help Vs. Miller at all to identify Alans with
Ossetians, on thecontrary, it says that in the 11 c. the interpreter
realized very wellthat Pechenegs are descendents of Scythians, and
that Alans are Yasses.
Russians and Magyars called ALANS JAS/JASZ.. It points that There is
a certain connection between the words and YASSES AND JASZ .
EBU'L FIDA, who visited CAFCASIA, makes a statement like that about
the origin and language of the ALANS in CAFCASIA----------ALANS are of
Turkic origin and They have the same traditions with the neighbouring
Turkish tribes..
A viking named SNORRI STURLUSON writes a book named HEMISKRING
collecting the sagas among people around 1220 years ..It is told that
ALANS have came to the scandanivian peninsula by way of SAKSONY ...
Some of the statements made regarding the ALANS are as the following;
(tHE ALANS brought Turkish laws to scandanivia and Turkish laws were
followed here). Many Turkish names are avaliable in the books..
ANAR,TERKEL,ATIL,GAMLI,YEKUL ,EPIL,ERP,EYRIK,EYNAR,ELLI and etc..
As to the found turkish inscriptions in scandanivian.. Many Turkish
writings in scandanivia are written and rocks.. did These come to the
region through trade as well?...The names of many geographical places
in the peninsula of Scandanivia are of Turkic origin. for example,
GOL,ORUN,KOMUL,EYKIN. and etc..
did These names came to the region through trade?
OSSETS calles the neighbouring Turkic nations in CAFCASIA ALAN..
MEGRELS of Georgian origin calls these Turks ALAN... The main
interesting thing is that Turkish tribes in CAFCASIA called
Themselves ALAN..
The ALANS are a very big possibly to be of Turkic origin . and They
borrowed many words from KHWAREZMIAN language..
and even The word ALAN has no Iranıan ethymology while It is
comfortably explained in Turkic.. .
Chinese annals reveals The ALANS are one of Hsıung-nu tribes of
Turkic origin..
but These truth will always be pretented not to see by European
Academicians who have accepteD MEDS a nation of Iranıan
orıgın by only looking at the only one word.. because
,According to them, All civilizations on Earth must be of
INDO-EUROPEAN .. as a natural result of this approach. ALANS must be a
nation of INDO-EUROPEAN as well..
Peter T. Daniels
Or, to put it another way, philology has been called the Handmaid of
History (as mathematics is the Handmaid of Science), and it's rather
irresponsible to claim to be a historian without at least an elementary
feeling for what philology does, and how. Once you have your "Prime
sources," you need to understand how to interpret them -- you can't just
read them as if they were written yesterday.
Yusuf B Gursey
: y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
: <snip>
:> I understand in the 13th, 14th cent. they are attested with
:> settlements extending from Derbend to the Volga and in the Mongol
:> court.
: Wasn't that where the Khazars had lived? I gather from another
: internet source that the A:s were scattered among other peoples.
they lived amongst them.
: <snip>
:> > How clear is it that the Alans, A:s, and Ossets are directly
:> > connected?
:>
:> Osset is derived from As (Georgian Ows-Et`i), Armenian Ash-tigor which
:> refered to the westernmost Alans. the muslim Ossets (minority) call
:> themselves Digor (the major christian group is Iron < Iran).
:> the As are described as "sister tribes" in the article of Enc.
: siters to the Ossets or consisting of sister tribes?
to the alans.
Alan is another development of << aryan >> (as is Iron, Iran)
apparently after the Huns they were split into caucasian and european
alans. the european alans did eventually mix with germanic peoples (see
enc. iranica "Alans")
: --bad24
ATT?LA
> Yes,
> and if many scholars trying so desperately to understand the Alans had read
> the Khazars papers they would have known that the Alans were Goths still
> living on with full contact with Gotland and Östergötland in Sweden.
>
> Inger E
> >
Turkic origin.. These have not been able to read in none of viking
dialects,so These have been called Magician writings.. Some in
question have been read in Turkic .. have a look at this site
http://www.antalya-ws.com/futhark/index.htm
contact Turgay KURUM if you want to get more information... As far as
I know, Some of these writings have been read by a german Turcologist
..
Yusuf B Gursey
: "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message news:<6e1ob.35537$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net>...
:> "bad24" <dab...@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
:> news:88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com...
:> .
:> Yes,
:> and if many scholars trying so desperately to understand the Alans had read
:> the Khazars papers they would have known that the Alans were Goths still
:> living on with full contact with Gotland and Östergötland in Sweden.
:>
:> Inger E
:> >
: Some of the writings found in the peninsula of Scandanivia are of
: Turkic origin.. These have not been able to read in none of viking
: dialects,so These have been called Magician writings.. Some in
: question have been read in Turkic .. have a look at this site
: http://www.antalya-ws.com/futhark/index.htm
that site is utterly crackpot.
IGNORE COMPLETELY.
they even try to change the accpeted readingof asiatic turkic and not
surprisingly end up with nonesense.
: contact Turgay KURUM if you want to get more information... As far as
Soren Larsen
"ATT?LA" <rua...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:e56ba549.0310...@posting.google.com...
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:<6e1ob.35537$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net>...
> > "bad24" <dab...@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > .
> > Yes,
> > and if many scholars trying so desperately to understand the Alans
had read
> > the Khazars papers they would have known that the Alans were Goths
still
> > living on with full contact with Gotland and Östergötland in Sweden.
> >
> > Inger E
> > >
> Some of the writings found in the peninsula of Scandanivia are of
> Turkic origin..
Nope
>These have not been able to read in none of viking
> dialects,
They have been read
Istaby Stone:
AfatR hAriwulafa
hAşuwulafR hAeruwulafiR
warAit runAR şAiAR
Aftr Hariwulfa. HaşuwulfR HeruwulfiR wrait runaR şaiaz.
After Hariwulf. Hadwulf Heruwulf's (son) wrote these runes
The Kylver Stone simply lists the futhark
The Möjbro stone:
A: frawaradaR
B: anahahaislagina
A: 'Frawarath '
B: possibly 'slain on horse'
>so These have been called Magician writings.. Some in
> question have been read in Turkic .. have a look at this site
Those are the stones mentioned above
ATT?LA
> "ATT?LA" <rua...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:e56ba549.0310...@posting.google.com...
> > "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> news:<6e1ob.35537$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net>...
> > > "bad24" <dab...@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > > news:88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > > .
> > >
>
> They have been read
>
> Istaby Stone:
>
> AfatR hAriwulafa
> warAit runAR ţAiAR
>
> Aftr Hariwulfa. HaţuwulfR HeruwulfiR wrait runaR ţaiaz.
>
> After Hariwulf. Hadwulf Heruwulf's (son) wrote these runes
>
> The Kylver Stone simply lists the futhark
what are written on this stone? will u give information on about it?
> The Möjbro stone:
>
> A: frawaradaR
> B: anahahaislagina
>
> A: 'Frawarath '
> B: possibly 'slain on horse'
This is far away from a certain statement ..It is only related to the
possibility ...
ATT?LA
> In sci.lang bad24 <dab...@aol.com> wrote in <88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com>:
> : y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> : <snip>
> :> I understand in the 13th, 14th cent. they are attested with
> :> settlements extending from Derbend to the Volga and in the Mongol
> :> court.
>
> :
>
> :> > How clear is it that the Alans, A:s, and Ossets are directly
> :> > connected?
> :>
> :> Osset is derived from As (Georgian Ows-Et`i), Armenian Ash-tigor which
> :> refered to the westernmost Alans. the muslim Ossets (minority) call
> :> themselves Digor (the major christian group is Iron < Iran).
> :> the As are described as "sister tribes" in the article of Enc.
>
> : siters to the Ossets or consisting of sister tribes?
>
> to the alans.
>
Academicians have not been able to found any ethymology of Iranian
origin in related to the word ALAN so far.. so That It is derived from
ARYAN is said.. no evidence indicating that Alans are of Iranıan
origin has been found to date.. being counstructed a connection
between the words AS and OS ,That They are of Iranian origin is tried
to be explained..
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message news:<bnrvis$150dah$1...@ID-131301.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "ATT?LA" <rua...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:e56ba549.0310...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> > news:<6e1ob.35537$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net>...
> > > > "bad24" <dab...@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > news:88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > dialects,
> >
> > They have been read
> >
> > Istaby Stone:
> >
> > AfatR hAriwulafa
> > warAit runAR şAiAR
> >
> > Aftr Hariwulfa. HaşuwulfR HeruwulfiR wrait runaR şaiaz.
> >
> >
> > The Kylver Stone simply lists the futhark
>
> what are written on this stone? will u give information on about it?
"futhark" is simply the equivalent of the runic alphabet. The
inscription presumably reads
f u th a r k ...
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<bnrgc2$4l3$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
:> In sci.lang bad24 <dab...@aol.com> wrote in <88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com>:
:> : y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
:> : <snip>
:> :> I understand in the 13th, 14th cent. they are attested with
:> :> settlements extending from Derbend to the Volga and in the Mongol
:> :> court.
:>
:> :
:>
:> : <snip>
:> :> > How clear is it that the Alans, A:s, and Ossets are directly
:> :> > connected?
:> :>
:> :> Osset is derived from As (Georgian Ows-Et`i), Armenian Ash-tigor which
:> :> refered to the westernmost Alans. the muslim Ossets (minority) call
:> :> themselves Digor (the major christian group is Iron < Iran).
:> :> the As are described as "sister tribes" in the article of Enc.
:>
:> : siters to the Ossets or consisting of sister tribes?
:>
:> to the alans.
:>
:> Alan is another development of << aryan >> (as is Iron, Iran)..
: Academicians have not been able to found any ethymology of Iranian
: origin in related to the word ALAN so far.. so That It is derived from
: ARYAN is said.. no evidence indicating that Alans are of Iranıan
: origin has been found to date.. being counstructed a connection
: between the words AS and OS ,That They are of Iranian origin is tried
: to be explained..
part of the evidnece is given in the refernce given by the poster I
quoted.
you repeated your own views enough.
:>
:> apparently after the Huns they were split into caucasian and european
Uno Hu
> The first element of <Eiríkr> isn't entirely certain, but the
> most commonly held view seems to be that it's from */aina-/
> 'one', by extension 'alone, separate', though I've also seen the
> suggestion that it's from */aizo:-/ 'honor', which does have
> something to recommend it. The earliest appearances of the name
> don't really offer much to distinguish these two possibilities,
> unfortunately. For instance, the earliest example known to me is
> a runic <airikis> ca.800 (in the genitive case), in which the
> first element has already collapsed to <ai->, the precursor of ON
> <Ei->.
[...] realizing that in the 6th century
> the name would still have been something like *<ainarikiaR> (or
> *<aiRarikiaR>, if the 'honor' suggestion is correct) pretty well
> kills it stone dead: there's just no room for the name in
> <Alanarik>. (<R> is the standard transcription of a runic letter
> denoting a sound that developed from Proto-Germanic */z/; it
> didn't merge with /r/ until quite a bit later.)
> Brian
Or you could just point to Latvian 'Ainars' or 'Einars'(as in the
current Latvian prime minister's name) and also to Latvian
'reks/rekis'', revert the hypothetical *Z to a proper 'S' and call it
obviously Baltic rather than hypothetical *'proto-germanic'.
Ainarekis/Ainareks = 'ruler of the land/sea' (all which is seen to the
horizon)
Uno Hu
Marcus Gustavsson
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message news:<bnrvis$150dah$1...@ID-131301.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> The Kylver Stone simply lists the futhark
> what are written on this stone? will u give information on about it?
>> The Möjbro stone:
>>
>> A: frawaradaR
>> B: anahahaislagina
>>
>> A: 'Frawarath '
>> B: possibly 'slain on horse'
> This is far away from a certain statement ..It is only related to the
> possibility ...
There are two inscriptions on the Kylver stone. One is, as said, simply
the futhark. The other is the word sueus.
Opinions about the Möjbro stone differ widely. Some say it is a student
joke from the 17:th century, but the official view is that it is genuine.
The theory about it being false says that the as function as interpunctions
and that the other runes are initials for some of the forgers.
Like this:
fr.w.r.d.R.n.ha ha islaginaR
according to that theory "ha islagina" means have made it. The last R
they say is golden no. for the year of the forgery. (they hit upon this
because that rune stands alone above the rest of the text.)
The stone was found close to a parish where the infamous Nils Rabenius
had worked. The other initials are supposedly those of his friends.
The person coming up with this theory also checked for printings of
copper plates of this stone and found that someone had taken a printing
from about 1680 and put it in a catalogue from the 1620s.
A very nice theory, because we know that Rabenius forged himself into
the nobility. Other factors also seem to be right. But I checked the
golden no. for the year 1676 (when it was supposedly made) and the sign
isn't right. An error that casts doubts over the other assertions.
Looking at the stone, you do get a feeling that something is fishy. How come
that the carver manages to make a very vivid picture of a horseman and his
dogs, but is unable to fit the carving into neat lines? That single R spoils
the harmony of the stone.
People in defence of the stone has said that the old futhark was unknown
in the 1680s, mind you in the same breath they pointed out that there were
copper plate printings of it possibly dating from the 20s. :-)
We really don't know whether it is a forgery or if it is genuine. There
are perhaps 70 North Germanic inscriptions in Sweden. The amount of extant
text is simply too small for us to give clear cut answers.
What is very clear is that we don't need a connection with some Turkish
script. At least those people have to come up with something better than
trying to make a sentence out of the futhark. They also have to explain
why we find most of the early rune texts in central Germany and
not somewhere off to the east.
--
Dake-san: - You sure are confident to say you | Professor:
don't need a handicap. How strong are you kid? | what's another word for
Hikaru: - How strong - hm - about as strong as | "indolent gamer"?
Honinbo Shusaku, probably. | Well, I think it's Mof.
Inger E Johansson
Brian has proven himself without knowledge what so ever re. the context and
origin for the old name Eiríkr today's Erik. It's no use discussing with a
person who neither are a Swede nor a scholar of Swedish and still, as Brian
is and always has been, believe himself to know more than the Swedish
Academy...
The name Erik's origin and content:
Nordiskt namn med bet. 'ensam härskare'.
source: http://www.svenskaakademien.se/SVE/akademialmanackan/namnetym.html
Plonk
Inger E
"Uno Hu" <lora...@cs.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:9dff2144.03103...@posting.google.com...
ATT?LA
> In sci.lang ATT?LA <rua...@yahoo.com> wrote in <e56ba549.03103...@posting.google.com>:
> : Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<bnrgc2$4l3$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
> :> In sci.lang bad24 <dab...@aol.com> wrote in <88f68220.03102...@posting.google.com>:
> :> : y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> :> : <snip>
> :> :> I understand in the 13th, 14th cent. they are attested with
> :> :> settlements extending from Derbend to the Volga and in the Mongol
> :> :> court.
>
> :> :
>
> :>
> : origin in related to the word ALAN so far.. so That It is derived from
> : ARYAN is said.. no evidence indicating that Alans are of Iranıan
> : origin has been found to date.. being counstructed a connection
> : between the words AS and OS ,That They are of Iranian origin is tried
> : to be explained..
>
> part of the evidnece is given in the refernce given by the poster I
> quoted.
>
> you repeated your own views enough.
This is not my view. It is an idea accepted by many academicians and
researches..
I can recommend you the books by Hose Manuel Thomas Tabenara,who is a
spanish researcher ,on the subject that ALANS are of Turkic origin....
and have a look at this site.
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/24Alans/AlansEn.htm
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/70%20Dateline/alan%20dateline%20En.htm
If ALANS were really of Iraniain origin. At least an researcher would
say They a nation of Iranian origin.. No evidence indicating Their
Iranian origin has not been found so far.. Many persons such as
Plano Caprini, Wilhelm Rubruk, Yosifato Barbaro ,who saw closely ALANS
in the past, didnt tell about anything on the topic that They were of
Iranian origin While They said They were a Turkic-speaking Tribe..
Soren Larsen
"Marcus Gustavsson" <m...@cd.chalmers.se> skrev i en meddelelse
news:bnvjkp$kn7$1...@eol.dd.chalmers.se...
> In soc.history.medieval ATT?LA <rua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:<bnrvis$150dah$1...@ID-131301.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> >> The Kylver Stone simply lists the futhark
>
> > what are written on this stone? will u give information on about
it?
>
> >> The Möjbro stone:
> >>
> >> A: frawaradaR
> >> B: anahahaislagina
> >>
> >> A: 'Frawarath '
> >> B: possibly 'slain on horse'
>
> > This is far away from a certain statement ..It is only related to
the
> > possibility ...
>
> There are two inscriptions on the Kylver stone. One is, as said,
simply
> the futhark. The other is the word sueus.
A palindrome - and we know that the early germanic rune writers
liked to put riddles and word-puzzles in the text.
The precense of the name 'Frawarath' does argue for authenticity.
The futhark was certainly known in the 17th c. But it is one thing
to come up with a text written in runes and quite another to
come up with what looks like a genuine early germanic
duothematic name centuries before there was any serious research
in germanic name construction.
>
> We really don't know whether it is a forgery or if it is genuine.
There
> are perhaps 70 North Germanic inscriptions in Sweden.
I should hope there are a bit more than that ;-)
The number of early germanic/early norse text are limited though.
>The amount of extant
> text is simply too small for us to give clear cut answers.
>
> What is very clear is that we don't need a connection with some
Turkish
> script. At least those people have to come up with something better
than
> trying to make a sentence out of the futhark. They also have to
explain
> why we find most of the early rune texts in central Germany and
> not somewhere off to the east.
The earliest runic text are not even from central Germany but northern
Germany and southern Scandinavia
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Uno,
> Brian has proven himself without knowledge what so ever re. the context and
> origin for the old name Eiríkr today's Erik. It's no use discussing with a
> person who neither are a Swede
Did everyone else already recognize that Inger is a bigot? I previously
thought she was just ignorant and stupid.
> nor a scholar of Swedish and still, as Brian
> is and always has been, believe himself to know more than the Swedish
> Academy...
> The name Erik's origin and content:
> Nordiskt namn med bet. 'ensam härskare'.
> source: http://www.svenskaakademien.se/SVE/akademialmanackan/namnetym.html
Inger E Johansson
I am neither bigot nor ignorant or stupid. You might be because a normal man
doesn't behave against a lady, any lady, the way you do against me.
As for the Erik part. I have had that up in academic seminary long before
these two discussiongroups were formed.
Inger E
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3FA3AA...@att.net...
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter,
> I am neither bigot nor ignorant or stupid. You might be because a normal man
> doesn't behave against a lady, any lady, the way you do against me.
Anyone who would suggest that only a Swede is fit to discuss Swedish
matters is a bigot.
> As for the Erik part. I have had that up in academic seminary long before
> these two discussiongroups were formed.
Then perhaps your seminary was ignorant, or perhaps research conducted
since your seminary days has shown the earlier knowledge to be mistaken.
And in most of the Western world in the 21st century, no distinction
regarding intelligence or scholarship takes a scholar's gender into
account.
Kjetil Rå Hauge
E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
> Uno,
> Brian has proven himself without knowledge what so ever re. the context and
> origin for the old name Eiríkr today's Erik. It's no use discussing with a
> person who neither are a Swede nor a scholar of Swedish and still, as Brian
> is and always has been, believe himself to know more than the Swedish
> Academy...
> The name Erik's origin and content:
> Nordiskt namn med bet. 'ensam härskare'.
Translation: "Nordic name with the meaning 'lone ruler'.
> source: http://www.svenskaakademien.se/SVE/akademialmanackan/namnetym.html
Brian seems to be quite in line with the Swedish Academy here, because this
is exactly what he explained, though in more detail and with a slightly
hedged claim.
Brian M. Scott
<inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>Uno,
>Brian has proven himself without knowledge what so ever re. the context and
>origin for the old name Eiríkr today's Erik. It's no use discussing with a
>person who neither are a Swede nor a scholar of Swedish and still, as Brian
>is and always has been, believe himself to know more than the Swedish
>Academy...
>The name Erik's origin and content:
>Nordiskt namn med bet. 'ensam härskare'.
Which is indeed one of the interpretations that I gave, din
dumbom. But they're wrong to imply that this etymology is
universally accepted.
>source: http://www.svenskaakademien.se/SVE/akademialmanackan/namnetym.html
Yusuf B Gursey
Alans and turkic people did mix over the ages, accounting for a
certain amount of confusion, but on the whole the thesis that you
expound is not generally accepted. if still happens to be correct,
then it will.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Inger E Johansson wrote:
[...]
>> As for the Erik part. I have had that up in academic seminary long before
>> these two discussiongroups were formed.
>Then perhaps your seminary was ignorant, or perhaps research conducted
>since your seminary days has shown the earlier knowledge to be mistaken.
She means 'seminar'. Whether it actually existed, and if so what
she was taught in it, are other matters altogether.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
>>source: http://www.svenskaakademien.se/SVE/akademialmanackan/namnetym.html
And I see that they have an error -- probably just a typo -- in
the entry for <Osvald>: the explanation should read:
Engelskt namn, sammansatt av ord med bet. 'gud' och
'härskare'.
Brian
Matthew Harley
>
> Peter,
> I am neither bigot nor ignorant or stupid. You might be because a normal man
> doesn't behave against a lady, any lady, the way you do against me.
>
> these two discussiongroups were formed.
As you have been told before, a "seminary" is where priests,
etc., are trained.
A "seminar" is where acacdemic papers are discussed
informally.
Get it right for once!
You're posting to sci.lang, for God's sake!
Matt Harley
Peter T. Daniels
Persons associated with The Johns Hopkins University would beg to differ
with you.
Inger E Johansson
Peter I don't know what you are differing to. Any how a seminar here is a
type of ordinary lesson a seminary(seminarium in Swedish) is not an ordinary
lesson but an academic seminary where an essay/thesis below Ph.D. degree is
presented and at least one person has been chosen to be opponent on the
essay/thesis. For the C-level(we start with A-course, continue with B-level
and so on) there normally is only one apart from the scholar leading the
seminary who supports the opponent. In some subjects, such as History, we on
D-level can have two opponents participating in the opposition on the
essay/thesis. Observe that a D-level Essay/Thesis is needed for a MA-degree
but a C-level Essay is sufficient to apply with for those who want to
continue to a Ph.D degree.
Inger E
Brian M. Scott
<inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
[...]
>Any how a seminar here is a
>type of ordinary lesson a seminary(seminarium in Swedish) is not an ordinary
>lesson but an academic seminary where an essay/thesis below Ph.D. degree is
>presented and at least one person has been chosen to be opponent on the
>essay/thesis.
You are an ineducable idiot. You've been told over and over
again that the English word <seminary> is NOT the correct
translation of Swedish <seminarium> in this sense. A seminary is
a prästseminarium.
[...]
Harlan Messinger
>Peter,
>I am neither bigot nor ignorant or stupid. You might be because a normal man
>doesn't behave against a lady, any lady, the way you do against me.
How does NOT treating a woman differently from a man make someone a
bigot?
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Harlan Messinger
Quoting from Inger earlier today, with a few pertinent substitutions,
we get:
"It's no use discussing with a person who neither are a native English
speaker nor a scholar of English and still, as Inger is and always has
been, believe herself to know more than ..."
Inger E Johansson
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:5qo8qv0i4q4k03tff...@4ax.com...
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter,
> >I am neither bigot nor ignorant or stupid. You might be because a normal
man
> >doesn't behave against a lady, any lady, the way you do against me.
>
> How does NOT treating a woman differently from a man make someone a
> bigot?
Harlan,
did I say that the treating shouldn't be the same - any gentleman knows that
he should treat ladies and unknown men the same.
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
what I believe you don't know, neither do you know what papers in my CV can
tell. Thus you are proposterous in the way you are acting. Btw there are
major difference between American-English and Australian English on one hand
and British English on the other. If you don't see that, you do have
problems which aren't related to my beliefs of myself etc.
Good Night or should I say Good Morning.
Inger E
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:puo8qvguv8jr07jkc...@4ax.com...
Renia
> Harlan,
> what I believe you don't know, neither do you know what papers in my CV can
> tell. Thus you are proposterous in the way you are acting. Btw there are
> major difference between American-English and Australian English on one hand
> and British English on the other.
Rubbish.
We are the ones speaking English here and understanding each other
perfectly well. You are the one who doesn't understand us, because you
aren't a native speaker.
You have accused Brian Scott of having nothing to contribute because he
isn't a native Swedish speaker. Harlan has simply said the same back to
you: that because you aren't a native English speaker, you can't comment
on our English.
Particularly when yours is so bad.
Renia
Harlan Messinger
this, it makes you wrong. If you are right about "seminary" and I am
wrong, in spite of my being a native English speaker and your not
being one, then you were wrong when you told Brian that his not being
a Swede means he couldn't know more than you about something having to
do with Swedish.
So choose your poison. Either you were right to tell Brian what you
told him, in which case, by your own generalization, you can't be
right to contradict me about "seminary", or you are right about
"seminary", in which case your remark to Brian was wrong.
Harlan Messinger
>
>"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
>news:5qo8qv0i4q4k03tff...@4ax.com...
>> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Peter,
>> >I am neither bigot nor ignorant or stupid. You might be because a normal
>man
>> >doesn't behave against a lady, any lady, the way you do against me.
>>
>> How does NOT treating a woman differently from a man make someone a
>> bigot?
>
>Harlan,
>did I say that the treating shouldn't be the same - any gentleman knows that
>he should treat ladies and unknown men the same.
>
Maybe you don't understand how your own remark came out, but you were
making it sound like he should treat you nicely because you are a
"lady". (You may be unaware of the connotations of the word "lady".
"Woman" is the unmarked word.)
Inger E Johansson
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:5qo8qv0i4q4k03tff...@4ax.com...
> >> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Peter,
> >> >I am neither bigot nor ignorant or stupid. You might be because a
normal
> >man
> >> >doesn't behave against a lady, any lady, the way you do against me.
> >>
> >> How does NOT treating a woman differently from a man make someone a
> >> bigot?
> >
> >Harlan,
> >did I say that the treating shouldn't be the same - any gentleman knows
that
> >he should treat ladies and unknown men the same.
> >
>
> Maybe you don't understand how your own remark came out, but you were
> making it sound like he should treat you nicely because you are a
> "lady". (You may be unaware of the connotations of the word "lady".
> "Woman" is the unmarked word.)
It's different in this part of the world a lady is a lady is a lady not the
idiom usage of Australia and America. Look in OED for usage of the word,
both under 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the British English usage clear as cristal and
not the one you refer to. Under 2 it's said "Woman to whom man is devoted,
mistress" since that obviously aren't correct in the usage here that one is
excluded from my refered sources.
Inger E
Harlan Messinger
You ought to stop going by the OED, when it's a question of *current
actual usage and connotations*. The OED tells you what a word has been
used for at some time. It does not get into the nuances in current
usage that native speakers know without having to look them up or
being corrected by some Scandinavian. And you need to stop imagining
that England is such a foreign country to Americans, and particularly
that it's any less foreign to you than it is to them.
Inger E Johansson
current usage here in Europe are according to OED when you write and/or
speak proper British-English.
Inger E
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:e9eaqv0bukr47e7el...@4ax.com...
Kjetil Rå Hauge
E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
> Harlan,
> current usage here in Europe are according to OED when you write and/or
> speak proper British-English.
I quote from the OED website <http://www.oed.com/about/>:
"The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of
the English language over the last millennium. It is an unsurpassed guide to
the meaning, history, and pronunciation of over half a million words, both
present and past. It traces the usage of words through 2.5 million
quotations from a wide range of international English language sources, from
classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery
books.
The OED covers words from across the English-speaking world, from North
America to South Africa, from Australia and New Zealand to the Caribbean."
Harlan Messinger
I repeat: *by your own argument to Brian*, you are not qualified to
contradict me on matters of the English language, no matter what you
think the validity of your reference material is. Unless you retract
your argument, you cannot expect to be paid heed no matter how many
reference works you bring to the table, and I don't have any cause to
take account of any of them.
Harlan
Peter T. Daniels
... and shows itself to be resolutely non-American-oriented by using
"cookery books" instead of "cookbooks."
Harlan Messinger
>
>It's different in this part of the world a lady is a lady is a lady not the
>idiom usage of Australia and America. Look in OED for usage of the word,
>both under 1, 3, 4 and 5
Perhaps you should look up the word "both" while you're at it.
>are the British English usage clear as cristal and
>not the one you refer to. Under 2 it's said "Woman to whom man is devoted,
>mistress" since that obviously aren't correct in the usage here that one is
>excluded from my refered sources.
In spite of the inadmissibility of your bringing references to the
table in light of your own decree to Brian, I've looked up "lady" in
the OED on-line, and I have no idea what you're talking about. The
quotation you give from definition 2 doesn't appear there at all. And
none of the definitions leaves the possibility of using "lady" as an
unmarked synonym for "woman". The ones you mention are:
1. A mistress in relation to servants or slaves; the female head of a
household.
3. The Virgin Mary.
4. A woman of superior position in society, . . . .
5. A woman whose manners, habits, and sentiments have the refinement
characteristic of the higher ranks of society.
None of these indicates a use of "lady" as a simple, unmarked
reference to adult human females.
Harlan Messinger
>On 02-11-03 18:32, in article Hcbpb.32054$mU6....@newsb.telia.net, "Inger
>E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>
>> Harlan,
>> current usage here in Europe are according to OED when you write and/or
>> speak proper British-English.
>
>I quote from the OED website <http://www.oed.com/about/>:
>
>"The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of
>the English language over the last millennium. It is an unsurpassed guide to
>the meaning, history, and pronunciation of over half a million words, both
>present and past.
Note the use of the words "and past". *Not* all the usages listed in
the OED are current.
>It traces the usage of words through 2.5 million
>quotations from a wide range of international English language sources,
...including some from centuries ago, in case you didn't notice...
>from
>classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery
>books.
>
>The OED covers words from across the English-speaking world, from North
>America to South Africa, from Australia and New Zealand to the Caribbean."
Dictionaries, including the OED, include older meanings rarely or
never encountered any more, in order to serve people who are reading
older works. You understand, for example, that the definitions and
words marked "Obs." are no longer in use at all, don't you?
Tom McDonald
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>It's different in this part of the world a lady is a lady is a lady not the
>>idiom usage of Australia and America. Look in OED for usage of the word,
>>both under 1, 3, 4 and 5
>
>
> Perhaps you should look up the word "both" while you're at it.
>
>
>>are the British English usage clear as cristal and
>>not the one you refer to. Under 2 it's said "Woman to whom man is devoted,
>>mistress" since that obviously aren't correct in the usage here that one is
>>excluded from my refered sources.
>
>
> In spite of the inadmissibility of your bringing references to the
> table in light of your own decree to Brian, I've looked up "lady" in
> the OED on-line, and I have no idea what you're talking about. The
> quotation you give from definition 2 doesn't appear there at all. And
> none of the definitions leaves the possibility of using "lady" as an
> unmarked synonym for "woman".
Harlan,
I don't know if it spilled over to shm, but on
sci.archaeology, we went round and round with Inger about the
version of the OED she's using. It doesn't seem to be any of
the versions of the main OED (she says it's a single very
large version, but I don't recall if it was the one-volume
photo reduced version or if it was another from the Oxford
English Dictionary line of products). The one she has, she
says, is on a box by her computer, and says "Oxford English
Dictionary" on the spine and title page. I forget the
publication date.
If you get a straight answer from her about what she's using,
I for one would be enchanted to know.
<snip>
Tom McDonald
--
remove 'nohormel' to reply
Peter T. Daniels
The on-line is presumably the 2.5th edition, and Inger presumably has
the paper 1st edition. Her quote of (2) would seem to reflect the "lady"
who is counterpart of the "liege" -- to whom the Knight in Shining Armor
is devoted and all that. (Cf. *Camelot*.)
And, of course, the Jerry Lewis variety of "Hey, La-a-a-a-a-dy" (which
Jack MacFarlane made James Earl Jones do on *Will & Grace* this week).
hhubey
bad24 wrote:
> y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
>
>>I understand in the 13th, 14th cent. they are attested with
>>settlements extending from Derbend to the Volga and in the Mongol
>>court.
>
>
> Wasn't that where the Khazars had lived? I gather from another
> internet source that the A:s were scattered among other peoples.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>How clear is it that the Alans, A:s, and Ossets are directly
>>>connected?
>>
>>Osset is derived from As (Georgian Ows-Et`i), Armenian Ash-tigor which
>>refered to the westernmost Alans. the muslim Ossets (minority) call
>>themselves Digor (the major christian group is Iron < Iran).
>>the As are described as "sister tribes" in the article of Enc.
>
>
> siters to the Ossets or consisting of sister tribes?
There are 2 Ossetian/Ossetic dialects/languages, Ironic and Digoric.
Ironic corresponds to the -ar root e.g. aryan, iron, etc. Nobody knows
if they are in any way connected to Alans. It is all fantasy. Russians
invented the term Ossetian. The root As- (Ossete, Ossetian) also is used
for others. The worst part is that Ossetians use these words to refer to
Karachays e.g. Stur Assiag, and to Balkars as Assiag. Why would any
dimwit use the word that is supposed to be their own ethnonyn to refer
to some other people? Miziev says that the word Alan never existed in
Ossetian and was picked up recently from Russian sources.
All the dimwit chauvinist IEanists (and other racist linguist scum)
never get this no matter how many times it is explained.
I am sure I will have to explain this again. Mental retardation and
short memory seems to be an epidemic in historical linguistics.
>
> --bad24
Kjetil Rå Hauge
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Kjetil Rå Hauge <k.r....@east.uio.no> wrote:
>
>> On 02-11-03 18:32, in article Hcbpb.32054$mU6....@newsb.telia.net, "Inger
>> E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Harlan,
>>> current usage here in Europe are according to OED when you write and/or
>>> speak proper British-English.
>>
>> I quote from the OED website <http://www.oed.com/about/>:
>>
>> "The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of
>> the English language over the last millennium. It is an unsurpassed guide to
>> the meaning, history, and pronunciation of over half a million words, both
>> present and past.
>
> Note the use of the words "and past". *Not* all the usages listed in
> the OED are current.
You don't think I didn't read what I posted, do you?
Inger E Johansson
I suggest that you go to the nearest library if you have any with later
editions, re-editions etc. instead of behaving as if the only thing you like
is to attack me as a person. But then again that's your only purpose, isn't
it?
Inger E
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3FA5A0...@att.net...
Renia
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>
> Harlan,
>
> I don't know if it spilled over to shm, but on sci.archaeology, we
> went round and round with Inger about the version of the OED she's
> using.
Yes, it did.
> It doesn't seem to be any of the versions of the main OED (she
> says it's a single very large version, but I don't recall if it was the
> one-volume photo reduced version or if it was another from the Oxford
> English Dictionary line of products). The one she has, she says, is on
> a box by her computer, and says "Oxford English Dictionary" on the spine
> and title page. I forget the publication date.
She said it was 1981 and all the Oxford Dictionary expertes discovered
there was no such publication date. They asked her for the ISBN number
so they could clarify exactly which dictionary this was, but she
resulutely refuses to give it.
> If you get a straight answer from her about what she's using, I for
> one would be enchanted to know.
I wonder if she knows what the word "straight" means in this context?
Renia
Harlan Messinger
>On 03-11-03 00:47, in article jm5bqvsii9tplh3sh...@4ax.com,
>"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Kjetil Rå Hauge <k.r....@east.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02-11-03 18:32, in article Hcbpb.32054$mU6....@newsb.telia.net, "Inger
>>> E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Harlan,
>>>> current usage here in Europe are according to OED when you write and/or
>>>> speak proper British-English.
>>>
>>> I quote from the OED website <http://www.oed.com/about/>:
>>>
>>> "The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of
>>> the English language over the last millennium. It is an unsurpassed guide to
>>> the meaning, history, and pronunciation of over half a million words, both
>>> present and past.
>>
>> Note the use of the words "and past". *Not* all the usages listed in
>> the OED are current.
>
>You don't think I didn't read what I posted, do you?
Knowing that people often fail to read every last detail or have it
fully register, that seemed like a possibility considering that these
two simple words caused the entire passage to support what I was
saying and not the opposite.
Harlan Messinger
>Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>> Harlan,
>>
>> I don't know if it spilled over to shm, but on sci.archaeology, we
>> went round and round with Inger about the version of the OED she's
>> using.
>
>Yes, it did.
>
>> It doesn't seem to be any of the versions of the main OED (she
>> says it's a single very large version, but I don't recall if it was the
>> one-volume photo reduced version or if it was another from the Oxford
>> English Dictionary line of products). The one she has, she says, is on
>> a box by her computer, and says "Oxford English Dictionary" on the spine
>> and title page. I forget the publication date.
>
>She said it was 1981 and all the Oxford Dictionary expertes discovered
>there was no such publication date. They asked her for the ISBN number
>so they could clarify exactly which dictionary this was, but she
>resulutely refuses to give it.
Extraordinary.
Harlan Messinger
of dictionary editions and then mentioned Jerry Lewis and Will &
Grace. He didn't say one personal thing about you, as an attack or in
any other way. You're not paranoid, are you?
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>Peter T,
>I suggest that you go to the nearest library if you have any with later
>editions, re-editions etc. instead of behaving as if the only thing you like
>is to attack me as a person. But then again that's your only purpose, isn't
>it?
>
>Inger E
>
>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> skrev i meddelandet
>news:3FA5A0...@att.net...
[snip]
>>
>> The on-line is presumably the 2.5th edition, and Inger presumably has
>> the paper 1st edition. Her quote of (2) would seem to reflect the "lady"
>> who is counterpart of the "liege" -- to whom the Knight in Shining Armor
>> is devoted and all that. (Cf. *Camelot*.)
>>
>> And, of course, the Jerry Lewis variety of "Hey, La-a-a-a-a-dy" (which
>> Jack MacFarlane made James Earl Jones do on *Will & Grace* this week).
>> --
>> Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
Renia
Inger sees any disagreement with her as a personal attack. Her English
comprehension is quite limited, but she does not think it is. For this
reason, I think she does not always understand what we are actually
writing here.
Renia
Inger E Johansson
no I am not. Not when he is the sender of messages.
Inger E
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:specqvobi6hu8lfr3...@4ax.com...
Harlan Messinger
definition a personal attack, regardless of his message's content. That,
Inger, is paranoia.
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:ZRspb.32160$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
David B.
>
>She said it was 1981 and all the Oxford Dictionary experts discovered
>there was no such publication date. They asked her for the ISBN number
>so they could clarify exactly which dictionary this was, but she
>resulutely refuses to give it.
It may be helpful to check out message ID
01bf2aae$3c8098c0$d838...@win95.swipnet.se
and, just to add a little confusion
W7Oda.1120$sJ3....@newsb.telia.net
on Google Groups.
Pete Stretton
You need to add confusion to a thread involving Inger?
Let us instead remove confusion by stating categorically, once again,
that there was no 1981 edition of the OED, and that Inger has thus
demonstrated yet again that she is reluctant to state the truth.
I stand open to refutation, Inger, if you just give us the ISBN of
your 1981 Edition of the OED.
Pete Stretton
-- I don't disclaim my standards --
Michael Kuettner
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8hecqv41irianb4ps...@4ax.com...
> Kjetil Rå Hauge <k.r....@east.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >On 03-11-03 00:47, in article
jm5bqvsii9tplh3sh...@4ax.com,
> >"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Kjetil Rå Hauge <k.r....@east.uio.no> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 02-11-03 18:32, in article Hcbpb.32054$mU6....@newsb.telia.net,
"Inger
> >>> E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Harlan,
> >>>> current usage here in Europe are according to OED when you write
and/or
> >>>> speak proper British-English.
> >>>
Before you two gentlemen come to blows over the stupid cunt Ingwer,
read the thread where she claimed to own an OED which rests just beside
her computer. She still hasn't given the ISBN - number or equivalent
since roughly three months now.
IOW, she's talking out of her ass again.
And please note that the "current usage in Europe" has nothing to do with
the rantings of an infamous net-kook.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Peter T. Daniels
There may well have been a 1981 _printing_. European publishers don't
distinguish between new printings and new editions -- that is, the "7.
unveränderte Auflag" may come before the first revision, which would be
the "8. Auflag." American publishers would say there have been 7
printings of the first edition and one printing of the second edition.
Tom McDonald
Peter,
IIRC, the Oxford English Dictionary folks use the same
convention as us USAians. IOW, there have been two editions
of the OED (first edition from the 1930's, and a recent second
edition), with supplements and updates of each. I think it
was you that refered to a 2.5th edition (which I take it is
the on-line version of the Second Edition?), so clearly
Inger's version (edition aside) is not as current as that.
Renia
I think we've been through all this already. Check out the archives.
Renia
Peter T. Daniels
Oxford UP puts the date of the latest _printing_, not of the latest
_edition_, on its title pages: you can find Brown, Driver and Briggs
Hebrew lexicons with any number of dates since the last new edition in
1927.
I called the on-line version ed. 2.5 because it is a continually-updated
version based on the 2nd, and a paper version of the 3rd is expected in
the next decade or so.
Inger E Johansson
If you haven't found the book edition I have - your problem. Anyone who want
to can find it in ordinary libraries, I checked.
Inger E
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3FA7A7...@att.net...
Harlan Messinger
bothers to keep participating in the conversation. (I assume you don't care,
since your response, instead of "Here's the information you need to verify
my claim", is "Nyah nyah nyah".)
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:4KOpb.32303$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
Phil Healey
> Peter T,
> If you haven't found the book edition I have - your problem. Anyone who want
> to can find it in ordinary libraries, I checked.
>
> Inger E
So why not tell us?
Peter T. Daniels
She _never_ reveals her sources.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T,
> If you haven't found the book edition I have - your problem. Anyone who want
> to can find it in ordinary libraries, I checked.
That doesn't follow in the least: a library that already owned a (paper)
copy of the OED wouldn't have any reason to buy a copy of a new printing
that happened to be made in 1981.
Renia
> Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
>>Peter T,
>>If you haven't found the book edition I have - your problem. Anyone who want
>>to can find it in ordinary libraries, I checked.
>
>
> That doesn't follow in the least: a library that already owned a (paper)
> copy of the OED wouldn't have any reason to buy a copy of a new printing
> that happened to be made in 1981.
>
Besides, any library worth its salt would have a much more up-to-date
version.
Renia
Phil Healey
> Phil Healey wrote:
>
>>Inger E Johansson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Peter T,
>>>If you haven't found the book edition I have - your problem. Anyone who want
>>>to can find it in ordinary libraries, I checked.
>>>
>>>Inger E
>>
>>So why not tell us?
>
>
> She _never_ reveals her sources.
She must not have any, then.
Pete Stretton
And the whole sorry tale started when Inger claimed that modern usage
among scholars referring to writings by those actually present at an
event was "prime source", rather than "primary source". She supported
this by referring to her 1981 Edition of the OED, which she keeps by
her workstation at all times.
Pete Stretton
-- Not a Scholar --
Phil Healey
That would work in hacker-talk. "We cracked Redmond and scored some
totally prime source!"
But not elsewhere, of course.
Hey, idea! Has she actually stated that OED stands for "Oxford English
Dictionary"? It could be something else, you know.
Harlan Messinger
In the on-line edition, "prime source" appears under none of the
definitions for either "prime" or "source". Either Inger is lying, or
she's speaking obsolete English. I think it's the former.