Origin of slave = Slav; Puvod slova otrok = Slovan
ib
historical prospective, looking at matters not from one's egocentric
generation (or a centrury), but few centuries or a millenium.
Looking at the authority and the most popular dictionary in the US,
standard Webster (Webster Family Concise Dictionary), one finds under:
slave [ME schlave, fr. schlave fr. Sclavus Slav ; fr. the reduction to
slavery of many slavic peoples of central Europe]
1.: a person held in servitude as property
Not exactly something to cheer up. But every new learning starts with
discovery, even the unpleasant one.
Neni to novinka, ale stale to ma cenu si vzpomenout, podivat se na veci
z lepsi historicke perspektivy, divaje se na svet ne z egocentrickeho
pohledu [soucasne] generace (nebo tohoto stoleti), ale spise z pohledu
nekolik stoleti ci [jednoho] tisicileti.
Listuje nedavnym vydanim americkeho ekvivalentu Ottova slovniku naucneho
, m.j. nejrozsirenesi "referencni" priruckou anglo-americkeho sveta (a
diky rozsireni anglictiny uzivanym i jinde ve svete), Websterovym
Dictionary (Webster Family Concise Dictionary), clovek nalezne pod:
otrok [z "schlave, z Sclavus = Slovan; z puvodniho vyznamu zobtoceni
nebot mnoho slovanskych narodu stredni Evropy bylo snizeno do otroctvi]
1: clovek drzeny v podanstvi jako majetek
Takze, neni to prave neco nad cim clovej zajasa. Ale kazdy novy poznatek
zacina s objevenim, dokonce i s neprijemnym.
The Foreigner
ok ok ok?
Michael Lipin wrote in message ...
|ok ok ok people..... you that slave came from Slav, right? well.... |that's
English only. In most other lnagues word 'slave' is not even |related to
word 'Slav'
|
|ib пишет в сообщении <3687CC...@erols.com> ...
|>Jiri Mruzek wrote:
|>>
|>> ib wrote:
|>> >
|>> > It's old news, but still worthwile to remember, to get the better
|>> > historical prospective, looking at matters not from one's egocentric
|>> > generation (or a centrury), but few centuries or a millenium.
|>>
|>> But not much longer than that, because the further back
|>> you go, the more the national groups fuse. It is quite
|>> obvious that Europeans had lived together for many thousands
|>> of years. Before the forestation of Europe, the Magdalenians
|>> rove the entire continent in pursuit of the herds. The tribes
|>> mingled. All Europeans probably spoke the same dialect of Indo-
|>> European. Anyhow, their culture spread from the Atlantic to the
|>> Urals. That was the situation still some 14,000 years ago.
|>
|>???
|>What is your point, patriot?
|>
|>> > Looking at the authority and the most popular dictionary in the US,
|>> > standard Webster (Webster Family Concise Dictionary), one finds under:
|>> >
|>> > slave [ME schlave, fr. schlave fr. Sclavus Slav ; fr. the reduction to
|>> > slavery of many slavic peoples of central Europe]
|>>
|>> The dictionary does not say that at all. It simply refers
|>> to Slavonian individuals held in servitude, such as prisoners
|>> of war, not peoples.
|>
|>Not true and big lie. Ask any qualified scholar on that part of history
|>or specialist on slavery and they will tell you that:
|>
|>a) until 13th century hunted, captured or into slavery sold fellow Slavs
|>were SLAVES (not serfs) in different parts of Roman Empire. All around
|>the Mediterreenian Sea, even manning sugar cane plantation on Crete!
|>The longest recorded slavery in Western civilization
|>
|>b) Slavs can claim (like some African Americans now do), that part of
|>success of Roman Empire development was due to their slave labor (as AA
|>claims their share to building the US). It was not only thge longest but
|>very extensive slave system.
|>
|>I asked one professor (Ira Berlin) who is among 3 top scholars on
|>subject of slavery why these facts are not known among Slavs: his
|>response was that West Europeans and scholars publish that for many
|>decades (actually centuries now) and discuss these fact at seminars. The
|>reason for their Slavic country scholars lack of enthuisiasm for letting
|>their own population know are easy to understand: If it will be revealed
|>to the population that "dark ages" of their history (especially the
|>second half on the 1st millenium and first 1/3 of the second millenium,
|>where only "legends" fill the void, were long centuries where being
|>often in slavery played important role, this does not fit the heroic and
|>pride boosting needs.
|>
|>> In that context, you should note that when the Roman armies
|>> got to the Czech border, they did not dare to advance an inch
|>> further. Instead, they built forts, because they were afraid
|>> of the tall, powerful, and intrepid Czechs. The Czechs did not
|>> build any forts, did they? They were the forts!
|>
|>To je neuveritelne!
|>Why aborigins in Africa did not built fortresses? The fact that they did
|>not advanced "inch further" might have several causes:
|>- every expansion has to spot somewhere
|>- backward region with backward population was of very little economic
|>(or strategic) use at those centuries
|>- these outpost were only good to collect slaves from Slave (sorry
|>Slavic) tribes as they were hunted or sold by other Slaves into slavery
|>
|>Of course, pathetic patriot like you would portray that fact (lack of
|>Roman interest in Bohemian region) as sign of bravery of those barbarian
|>savages.
|>But I understand your (desperate) need to portrey things to your needs -
|>regardless the facts.
|>
|>You can expand on your brave theory (why Czech barbarians did not build
|>fortresses or anything else, including any city and other signs of
|>civilization): because, like Pigmies in Papua New Guinea they were wise
|>to live "in harmony" with environment and did not want to "abuse it"
|>with "overdevelopment". Try to be creative!
|>
|>
|>> > 1.: a person held in servitude as property
|>> >
|>> > Not exactly something to cheer up. But every new learning starts with
|>> > discovery, even the unpleasant one.
|>> >
|>> Nope, this is exhilarating, because reading the dictionary
|>> reminds one of the radically different ancient reality.
|>> Dictionaries aside, it was the Slavonians, who drove all
|>> the Non-Slavonians to the edge of the sea in the west, in
|>> the final stages of the great migrations of nations.
|>> The Czechs had succesfully defied the Roman Empire unlike
|>> much larger nations like Gauls, and Normans, Germans, and
|>> countless others, in Europe, Britain, Asia and Africa.
|>> They were all conquered by Rome. Therefore, they were the
|>> true slaves.
|>
|>I do not know if "all vere slaves", but historians in the West (and the
|>most popular reference books and dictionaries) also know that Slavs
|>(being the most abundant and longest lasting source of slave labor) gave
|>the very name to slavery.
|>
|>Getting equally backward, but physicaly fit slaves from non-Arabic
|>Africa (as historian agree), i.e. black Africans, was a problem:
|>navigation around Africa did not exist and taking them through Sahara
|>was impractical. They knew little about black Africa. Fortunately there
|>were Slavs - the original and most abundant slaves.
|>
|>The fact that massses of Slavs overhelmed and pushed back sparcely
|>populated Eastern and Central Europe serve as neither a proof of
|>"bravery" (of course, not cultural advancement), and especially does not
|>refute the original point:
|>
|>the extent and duration of Slav-fed slavery (which gave slavery the very
|>name) was the fact and masses of Slavs on borders of Roman Empire
|>served as feeder for those needs.
|>
|>The fact that certain population overtakes certain parts of cities or
|>country or land mass does not mean that they are "brave" or were not
|>used as prime supply of slaves.
|>
|>> Jiri
|>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html
|>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/namon.htm
|>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/atma.htm
|>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/seat1.htm
|>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/seat1a.htm
|>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/pyrostar.htm
|>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/frapent1.htm
|
|
Jiri Mruzek
>
> It's old news, but still worthwile to remember, to get the better
> historical prospective, looking at matters not from one's egocentric
> generation (or a centrury), but few centuries or a millenium.
But not much longer than that, because the further back
you go, the more the national groups fuse. It is quite
obvious that Europeans had lived together for many thousands
of years. Before the forestation of Europe, the Magdalenians
rove the entire continent in pursuit of the herds. The tribes
mingled. All Europeans probably spoke the same dialect of Indo-
European. Anyhow, their culture spread from the Atlantic to the
Urals. That was the situation still some 14,000 years ago.
> Looking at the authority and the most popular dictionary in the US,
> standard Webster (Webster Family Concise Dictionary), one finds under:
>
> slave [ME schlave, fr. schlave fr. Sclavus Slav ; fr. the reduction to
> slavery of many slavic peoples of central Europe]
The dictionary does not say that at all. It simply refers
to Slavonian individuals held in servitude, such as prisoners
of war, not peoples.
In that context, you should note that when the Roman armies
got to the Czech border, they did not dare to advance an inch
further. Instead, they built forts, because they were afraid
of the tall, powerful, and intrepid Czechs. The Czechs did not
build any forts, did they? They were the forts!
> 1.: a person held in servitude as property
>
> Not exactly something to cheer up. But every new learning starts with
> discovery, even the unpleasant one.
>
Nope, this is exhilarating, because reading the dictionary
reminds one of the radically different ancient reality.
Dictionaries aside, it was the Slavonians, who drove all
the Non-Slavonians to the edge of the sea in the west, in
the final stages of the great migrations of nations.
The Czechs had succesfully defied the Roman Empire unlike
much larger nations like Gauls, and Normans, Germans, and
countless others, in Europe, Britain, Asia and Africa.
They were all conquered by Rome. Therefore, they were the
true slaves.
Jiri
ib
>
> ib wrote:
> >
> > It's old news, but still worthwile to remember, to get the better
> > historical prospective, looking at matters not from one's egocentric
> > generation (or a centrury), but few centuries or a millenium.
>
> But not much longer than that, because the further back
> you go, the more the national groups fuse. It is quite
> obvious that Europeans had lived together for many thousands
> of years. Before the forestation of Europe, the Magdalenians
> rove the entire continent in pursuit of the herds. The tribes
> mingled. All Europeans probably spoke the same dialect of Indo-
> European. Anyhow, their culture spread from the Atlantic to the
> Urals. That was the situation still some 14,000 years ago.
???
What is your point, patriot?
> > Looking at the authority and the most popular dictionary in the US,
> > standard Webster (Webster Family Concise Dictionary), one finds under:
> >
> > slave [ME schlave, fr. schlave fr. Sclavus Slav ; fr. the reduction to
> > slavery of many slavic peoples of central Europe]
>
> The dictionary does not say that at all. It simply refers
> to Slavonian individuals held in servitude, such as prisoners
> of war, not peoples.
Not true and big lie. Ask any qualified scholar on that part of history
or specialist on slavery and they will tell you that:
a) until 13th century hunted, captured or into slavery sold fellow Slavs
were SLAVES (not serfs) in different parts of Roman Empire. All around
the Mediterreenian Sea, even manning sugar cane plantation on Crete!
The longest recorded slavery in Western civilization
b) Slavs can claim (like some African Americans now do), that part of
success of Roman Empire development was due to their slave labor (as AA
claims their share to building the US). It was not only thge longest but
very extensive slave system.
I asked one professor (Ira Berlin) who is among 3 top scholars on
subject of slavery why these facts are not known among Slavs: his
response was that West Europeans and scholars publish that for many
decades (actually centuries now) and discuss these fact at seminars. The
reason for their Slavic country scholars lack of enthuisiasm for letting
their own population know are easy to understand: If it will be revealed
to the population that "dark ages" of their history (especially the
second half on the 1st millenium and first 1/3 of the second millenium,
where only "legends" fill the void, were long centuries where being
often in slavery played important role, this does not fit the heroic and
pride boosting needs.
> In that context, you should note that when the Roman armies
> got to the Czech border, they did not dare to advance an inch
> further. Instead, they built forts, because they were afraid
> of the tall, powerful, and intrepid Czechs. The Czechs did not
> build any forts, did they? They were the forts!
To je neuveritelne!
Why aborigins in Africa did not built fortresses? The fact that they did
not advanced "inch further" might have several causes:
- every expansion has to spot somewhere
- backward region with backward population was of very little economic
(or strategic) use at those centuries
- these outpost were only good to collect slaves from Slave (sorry
Slavic) tribes as they were hunted or sold by other Slaves into slavery
Of course, pathetic patriot like you would portray that fact (lack of
Roman interest in Bohemian region) as sign of bravery of those barbarian
savages.
But I understand your (desperate) need to portrey things to your needs -
regardless the facts.
You can expand on your brave theory (why Czech barbarians did not build
fortresses or anything else, including any city and other signs of
civilization): because, like Pigmies in Papua New Guinea they were wise
to live "in harmony" with environment and did not want to "abuse it"
with "overdevelopment". Try to be creative!
> > 1.: a person held in servitude as property
> >
> > Not exactly something to cheer up. But every new learning starts with
> > discovery, even the unpleasant one.
> >
> Nope, this is exhilarating, because reading the dictionary
> reminds one of the radically different ancient reality.
> Dictionaries aside, it was the Slavonians, who drove all
> the Non-Slavonians to the edge of the sea in the west, in
> the final stages of the great migrations of nations.
> The Czechs had succesfully defied the Roman Empire unlike
> much larger nations like Gauls, and Normans, Germans, and
> countless others, in Europe, Britain, Asia and Africa.
> They were all conquered by Rome. Therefore, they were the
> true slaves.
I do not know if "all vere slaves", but historians in the West (and the
most popular reference books and dictionaries) also know that Slavs
(being the most abundant and longest lasting source of slave labor) gave
the very name to slavery.
Getting equally backward, but physicaly fit slaves from non-Arabic
Africa (as historian agree), i.e. black Africans, was a problem:
navigation around Africa did not exist and taking them through Sahara
was impractical. They knew little about black Africa. Fortunately there
were Slavs - the original and most abundant slaves.
The fact that massses of Slavs overhelmed and pushed back sparcely
populated Eastern and Central Europe serve as neither a proof of
"bravery" (of course, not cultural advancement), and especially does not
refute the original point:
the extent and duration of Slav-fed slavery (which gave slavery the very
name) was the fact and masses of Slavs on borders of Roman Empire
served as feeder for those needs.
The fact that certain population overtakes certain parts of cities or
country or land mass does not mean that they are "brave" or were not
used as prime supply of slaves.
Michael Lipin
English only. In most other lnagues word 'slave' is not even related to word
'Slav'
ib пишет в сообщении <3687CC...@erols.com> ...
Peter J. Vanatko
>In that context, you should note that when the Roman armies
>got to the Czech border, they did not dare to advance an inch
>further. Instead, they built forts, because they were afraid
>of the tall, powerful, and intrepid Czechs. The Czechs did not
>build any forts, did they? They were the forts!
The forts chased the farts through the fords. In the 2nd century AD,
Marcus Aurelius briefly considered incorporating the region into
the Holy Roman Empire, but thought better of the idea, it was simply
too wild. It was some 3 centuries before the Czechs have arrived,
but he was so scared already that he didn't want it, not even for
free. But German monks began to scurry across the Moravian Empire
with their version of the Good Book, and after Rostislav turned to
the Eastern Church to invite Methodius and Cyril, jealous Germans
leveled charges of heresy and in 885, Pope Steven V. declared the
Slavonic lithurgy to be heretical. And that's how the endless
tussles with Germans started, 8-)#.
>Nope, this is exhilarating, because reading the dictionary
>reminds one of the radically different ancient reality.
>Dictionaries aside, it was the Slavonians, who drove all
>the Non-Slavonians to the edge of the sea in the west, in
>the final stages of the great migrations of nations.
Unity, man, unity, that's what did it. Pan-Slavism in its
purest form. The Saxons were turned into fish and the
Czechs have been masquerading as them ever since, like Kurt
Waldheim.
>The Czechs had succesfully defied the Roman Empire unlike
>much larger nations like Gauls, and Normans, Germans, and
>countless others, in Europe, Britain, Asia and Africa.
>They were all conquered by Rome. Therefore, they were the
>true slaves.
Whenever I come to Rome, the girls are so nice to me, maybe this
is some remainder of that ancient respect for the Czechs, 8-)#.
(´¯`·.¸¸.Peter, in New York.¸¸.·´¯)
ib
>
> ok ok ok people..... you that slave came from Slav, right? well.... that's
> English only. In most other lnagues word 'slave' is not even related to word
> 'Slav'
Dear friend:
Why not you look into German Sklave = Slave to start with.
But even better: why not you make an effort and get the following
questions answered by qualified college professor of history who knows
something about these matters:
a) did Slavic tribes give the very name to slave and slavery
b) was it because in Western civilization Slavs were the most
significant (volume and lenght of centuries) source of slave labor to
various parts of Roman Empire and what was left out of that
c) did Slavs (as slaves) worked and toiled around big part of
Mediterrenian Sea
(including sugar cane plantation on Creta and elsewhere)
d) did slave trade in Slaves tapered off at 12th and 13th century (being
replaced by serfdorm in their region)
e) could the need for massive slave supply be satisfied in Roman Empire
when no navigation of high seas was really known and black Africa was
generally unknown and transport of slaves from their impossible?
f) was hunting down odf Slavic slaves, trading of Slavic chieftains with
fellow Slavs into slavery somehow similar to well-known slave trade
milenium later in equitorial Africa?
After you will get answers to some of these questions you will know why
London, Paris, Rome, or Frankfurt is not in Prague, Kiev, or Luanda. And
your dreams of having Slavs (Czechs or other) "returning back to -
democratic - Europe" will become more realistic.
> ib ďčřĺň â ńîîáůĺíčč <3687CC...@erols.com> ...
ib
>
> Not only that, he claims that the USA has 35,000,000 "Eskymo"
> ok ok ok?
You know that this is your ... made up smear. When I (in a context) said
that Canada (unlike US) does not have its 12% African Americans, 18%of
Hispanics (suggesting that the equivalent cannot comeup from Canadian
Eskimos or Natives).
So, let's do not let your Canadian pride cloud what I have posted here.
It should not be that difficult, Wally.
> Michael Lipin wrote in message ...
> |ok ok ok people..... you that slave came from Slav, right? well.... |that's
> English only. In most other lnagues word 'slave' is not even |related to
> word 'Slav'
> |
> |ib ďčřĺň â ńîîáůĺíčč <3687CC...@erols.com> ...
Paul J Kriha
>Jiri Mruzek wrote in message <36876C5D...@lynx.bc.ca>...
>
>>got to the Czech border, they did not dare to advance an inch
>>further. Instead, they built forts, because they were afraid
>>of the tall, powerful, and intrepid Czechs. The Czechs did not
>>build any forts, did they? They were the forts!
This is quite amusing. Romans fighting Czechs! Gosh!
And all this time I thought that the Bohemian Plateau
was at that time settled by Celtic Boiis and Cottinis,
later on invaded by Germanic Marcomani and Quadi in
today's Moravia.
It took centuries before the first Slavic tribes arrived
and about 600 years before anybody called anybody 'Czachy'.
>The forts chased the farts through the fords. In the 2nd century AD,
>Marcus Aurelius briefly considered incorporating the region into
>the Holy Roman Empire, but thought better of the idea, it was simply
>too wild. It was some 3 centuries before the Czechs have arrived,
>but he was so scared already that he didn't want it, not even for
>free. But German monks began to scurry across the Moravian Empire
Yah, nice! But can you tellme why would Marcus Aurelius call his
empire Holy Roman, when he was a pagan. And German monks at it
already. What religion were they?
[...]
>Whenever I come to Rome, the girls are so nice to me, maybe this
>is some remainder of that ancient respect for the Czechs, 8-)#.
Oh, guys, keep away from those Gipsy pickpockets in the streets!
Paul JK.
>
>
> (´¯`·.¸¸.Peter, in New York.¸¸.·´¯)
--
Know what's weird? Day by day nothing seems to
change, but pretty soon everything is different.
Peter J. Vanatko
>In article <769nv0$3...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, "Peter J. Vanatko"
<jav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Jiri Mruzek wrote in message <36876C5D...@lynx.bc.ca>...
>>>In that context, you should note that when the Roman armies
>>>got to the Czech border, they did not dare to advance an inch
>>>further. Instead, they built forts, because they were afraid
>>>of the tall, powerful, and intrepid Czechs. The Czechs did not
>>>build any forts, did they? They were the forts!
>This is quite amusing. Romans fighting Czechs! Gosh!
>And all this time I thought that the Bohemian Plateau
>was at that time settled by Celtic Boiis and Cottinis,
>later on invaded by Germanic Marcomani and Quadi in
>today's Moravia.
>It took centuries before the first Slavic tribes arrived
>and about 600 years before anybody called anybody 'Czachy'.
>>The forts chased the farts through the fords. In the 2nd century AD,
>>Marcus Aurelius briefly considered incorporating the region into
>>the Holy Roman Empire, but thought better of the idea, it was simply
>>too wild. It was some 3 centuries before the Czechs have arrived,
>>but he was so scared already that he didn't want it, not even for
>>free. But German monks began to scurry across the Moravian Empire
>Yah, nice! But can you tellme why would Marcus Aurelius call his
>empire Holy Roman, when he was a pagan. And German monks at it
>already. What religion were they?
Paul, there are many more 'inconsistencies' in that article, 8-)#,and
I dutifully supplied several smileys to the slapstick. The sentence
where I said the Czechs turned Saxons into fish and were impersonating
them ever since was the clue. They told me I was too serious for the
happy season, so I only try to oblige, whenever invited by a rare
opportunity, 8-)#.
Jonas
ib píše ve zprávě <3687CC...@erols.com>.
>
>> > Looking at the authority and the most popular dictionary in the US,
>> > standard Webster (Webster Family Concise Dictionary), one finds under:
>> >
>> > slave [ME schlave, fr. schlave fr. Sclavus Slav ; fr. the reduction to
>> > slavery of many slavic peoples of central Europe]
>>
Naproti tomu slovo kunda pochazi zcela zjevne z nemeckeho vyrazu
der Kunde, ktery je jeste dnes hojne pouzivan devcaty v ceskem pohranici k
oznaceni jejich platicich klientu. Z (etymo)logickeho hlediska by tomu melo
byt spis naopak, pak bychom mohli povazovat za puvodni tvar die Kunde.
Jazykobrusicum zdar
Jonas
======================
This is not bug, it's the feature.
Paul J Kriha
>Paul J Kriha wrote in message <76de10$ro_...@actrix.gen.nz>...
>
>>In article <769nv0$3...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, "Peter J. Vanatko"
><jav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Paul, there are many more 'inconsistencies' in that article, 8-)#,and
>I dutifully supplied several smileys to the slapstick. The sentence
>where I said the Czechs turned Saxons into fish and were impersonating
>them ever since was the clue. They told me I was too serious for the
>happy season, so I only try to oblige, whenever invited by a rare
>opportunity, 8-)#.
>
>
> (´¯`·.¸¸.Peter, in New York.¸¸.·´¯)
Oh I seeeeee, it was a joke, a humorous joke, a funieee joke!
Okay then, if you say so.
Paul JK.
Ivan Sever
petr...@riksnett.no writes:
>I just wondered if someone could help me get some more
>information about Czech and Slovak pop music.
>I'm very interested in music from all over the world, but from
>these two countries I have not any knowledge at all, so
>I really need some help.
For reviews of Czech pop music recordings, please visit the Luna Kafe at
http://www.fuzzlogic.com/lunakafe/index.shtml
Ivan