Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who were the TARTARS...?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who were the TARTARS...?
    Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 00:09

We must be carefull in making comparisons, instead it would be better to analyse each language group instead of trying to understand them by observing other large linguistic groups.

Oghuz and Kipchack Turkic, the main differences can be attributed to geographical difference. events in history and time living in seperation. An interesting point is that where Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic groups lived close together, like after the Ottoman expansion into Crimea and the Caucusus, the difference over years became reduced. This occured to an extent where Crimean and some of the traditionally Kipchak Turkic speakers of the Caucusus linguistic affliation is sometimes referred to as Oghuz-Kipchak. Today Crimean Tatar is more similar to the Turkish spoken in Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran than Kazakhistan, although Kazakh is Kipchak aswell.

The issue of why and how this occured can only be resolved by analyses of the specific language group, is it due to the influence of the Ottomans? is it to do with the Turkic language being flexible in adapting lexis while keeping its structure intact? or other socio-cultural reasons? such issues have to be understood by investigating the actual language in question, its not sufficient to make comparisons as there are unique factors involved as to why this happened...why that happened.
 
Early examples of Kipchak Turkic can be found in the Mamluk, Kipchak-Arabic dictionaries, or the Codex Cumanicus.
 
Examples from the Codex Cumanicus
 

Atamız kim kktesi. Alğışlı bolsun seni atı, kelsin seni xanlığı, bolsun seni tilemeki neikkim kkte, alay [da] yerde. Kndeki tmegimizni bizge bugn bergil. Dağı yazuqlarımıznı bizge boşatqıl neik biz boşatırbiz bizge yaman etkenlerge. Dağı yekni sınamaqına bizni quurmağıl. Basa bara yamandan bizni qutxarğıl. Amen!

In Anatolian Turkish, the text is:

Atamız sen gktesin. Alkışlı (kutlu) olsun senin adın, gelsin senin hanlığın, olsun senin dileğin nasıl ki gkte, ve yerde. Gndelik ekmeğimizi bize bugn ver. Ve de yazıklarımızdan (sularımızdan) bizi bağışla nasıl biz bağışlarız bize yaman (ktlk) edenleri. Ve de şeytanın sınamasından bizi koru. Tm yamandan (ktlkten) bizi kurtar. Amin!

The two are very similar.
 
 
           Oturğanım oba yer basqanım baqır canaq. Ol zengi.
"Oturduğum oba yer bastığım bakır anak. O zengi." (Anatolian Turkish)
 
An example of common proverbs
 
          Aq qoynı avuzı yoq. Ol yumurtqa.
"Ak koyunun ağızı yok. O yumurta." (Anatolian Turkish)
Aq qoyunun agizi yoq. O yumurta. (Azeri Turkish)

 I included the Azeri Turkish version in this one, its even closer.

 


Edited by Bulldog - 24-Jan-2008 at 00:18
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 00:21
Ah, Chili Wink, geography does more than trigger labels its also generates dialects of a common language and affects vocabulary. Yet, to one degree or another mutual intelligibility persists.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 01:28

Let's put aside the Diamondesque theses, Gonzo LOL, can you explain the innovations from Cuman language based on their north-western geographical position (eventually related to Black Sea, Carpathians or other geographical realities they have experienced)?

And in case you put a heavy bid on geography, take this case for study: most Romanians understand fairly well Italian. However Romanian is a Eastern Romance language, while Italian is a Western Romance language. On the other hand Romanians do not understand well neither Magyar, nor Serbian, nor Bulgarian, nor Ukrainian, Gagauz or Russian (except for some recognizable loan words), nor are these language related (Magyar and Turkic languages are not even IE languages), though they are geographically close.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Jan-2008 at 01:30
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 01:47
Originally posted by drgonzaga

Ah, but these differences are more-or-less a historic phenomenon surfacing rather late and the key is the commonality found in Old Church Slavonic, Sarmat. The Latinization of the Western Slavs is a relatively recent (in historical terms) phenomenon. Even recall the tinkering the Soviets did with the Slavic Cyrillic, which it sought to impose in the Balkans as well. Which then brings us once again full circle over the antic with identity with the denigration of Ukrainian as peasant speak and when contrasted to "Great" Russian Big%20smile and the question of who are the real Rus!
 
I don't follow you at all.  Latinization of Slavs happened almost at the same time period with the "Byzanitnization." Poland was converted by Rome earlier than Rus was converted by Byzantine.
 
While Southern Slavs indeed were under influence of Constantinopole, western Slavs were always under constant influence of of the western branch of Christianity.
 
Moreover, some Slavic groups like Croatians or Slovenians although Catholics still are considered Southern Slavs. So, all these discussions about the Church Slavonic are irrelevant.
 
Poles never used Church Slavonic, for example, and began to use Latin earlier than Russians started to use Church Slavonic.
 
Your point about Russian, Ukrainian and Real Rus don't fit in this discussion at all. I don't understand what you want to say.
 
I also don't undersand your point about Cyrillic. There were only 2 countries in the Balkans under Soviet control i.e. Romania and Bulgaria. Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece were complitely out of Soviet control. Bulgaria historically uses Cyrillic. And I never heard about any attempts by the Soviets to impose Cyrillic in Romania. Please enlight me if I'm mistaken.
 
Yes, Soviets imposed Cyrillic in Bessarabia, which was complitely under Soviet control. But Bessarabia was not an independent country but just a territory, moreover the imposition of Cyrillic there was not related  to some global campaign for the imposition of Cyrillic in Balkans but to the attempt to artificially create so-called "Moldavian ethnicity,"which logically required "Moldavian language" and perhaps the only way to make it really different than Romanian was to give it a Cyrillic alphabet .


Edited by Sarmat12 - 24-Jan-2008 at 02:02
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 08:06
Good points, Sarmat.
 
I'll make few comments though.
- AFAIK Soviet Russia controlled in a way or another the entire Eastern Bloc.
- Romanian, a Romance language, used Cyrillic in its history. In the Middle ages the official language of the Romanian Orthodox principalities was Church Slavonic, the first attempts to use the own language were in Cyrillic. It was only in 19th century when first a mixed Latin-Cyrillic alphabet was used, then only Latin. However your point still stands, Soviet Russia did not impose Cyrillic alphabet in Romania.


Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Jan-2008 at 09:41
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 18:23
Latinization of Slavs happened almost at the same time period with the "Byzanitnization." Poland was converted by Rome earlier than Rus was converted by Byzantine.

Not so and not so fast Sarmat. The spoken language has little to do with the orthography. The Poles may have adopted the Latin alphabet but the language would remain tied to the ethos expressed by Old Church Slavonic. [as an aside the process in religious ritual is another matter entirely and can not be closed in terms of Poles, Czechs and Moravians until the time of the Counter-Reformation]. After all, you forget that for several years after 1917, the Soviets even envisioned the imposition of the Latin alphabet in "Revolutionary" society as official policy--after the notion of world revolution died they simply turned to tinkering with classic Cyrillic. Unfortunately (or fortunately as it may be) this is a subject worthy of its own thread. Just as it was indicated by the clarification on Romania, where while the root of the language might have been Romance, Cyrillic script persisted well into the 19th century (and I am not making reference to the nonsense undertaken by the Soviets in Moldavia). Distinction characteristic of regional variants in speech in the passage of time also forms another strata that can not be ignored (see a discussion on Polish peculiarities-- http://www.poland.gov.pl/The,Polish,Language,317.html

I believe the differences in perspective between us stems from different historical assumptions as to what should receive emphasis: commonality or uniqueness. I may be an old fogey boiled in the cauldron of historicism and culturalism (pace Braudel), but I do have contempt (particularly in terms of contemporary analysis) for the old vestiges of nationalism and its mythologies [or its last variation scientism in historical analysis].  The premise that one is a this Turk or a that Turk comes at the sacrifice of the central element setting essential identity, particularly in terms of culture.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 18:35
Originally posted by drgonzaga

Latinization of Slavs happened almost at the same time period with the "Byzanitnization." Poland was converted by Rome earlier than Rus was converted by Byzantine.

Not so and not so fast Sarmat. The spoken language has little to do with the orthography. The Poles may have adopted the Latin alphabet but the language would remain tied to the ethos expressed by Old Church Slavonic. [as an aside the process in religious ritual is another matter entirely and can not be closed in terms of Poles, Czechs and Moravians until the time of the Counter-Reformation].

 
I have to say again that you are not very familiar with the stuff you are trying to argue about. Old Church Slavonic was created in Thesaloniki it didn't have anything to do with the Spoken language of Poles and even Ancient Russians. It was more based on the language which was used by the Slavic population of modern Bulgaria i.e. Southern Slavic dialects.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 27-Jan-2008 at 05:44
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 19:27
How about a download of music from the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Chili? Evil%20Smile First, let me remind you that Italian, Sardinian, and Romanian compose the grouping known as Eastern Romance Latin. So if we are going to get technical guess where Tatar falls in the Altaic family tree--that's right Western...
 
 
And here we come to the crux of this divertissement, which is essentially an etymological one, the intimate relation of the Turkic groups as you can assess by employing this engine.
 
 
Upon which one has to hang the often arbitrary distinctions imposed by interpretational analyses drawn from different perspectives. To further cloud the matter is the fact that persistent reference to the Kypchak language in terms of the Tatar today is more than problematic in that Kypchak is extinct and what is entered into classification as Tatar is so heavily influenced by Oghuz as to generate incessant snarling. The thread provides a perfect example thus the hyphenation Oghuz-Western, while it might grate some sensibilities, is the most apt generalization no matter the proclivities toward asserting dubious semi-mythical geneaologies tied to long dead clan identities. What the linguistic composition of the Golden Horde might have been at a given moment in time is another matter entirely, particularly since the nationalist sensitivities honed by the 19th century are essentially irrelevant to the mentality of past ages. For the most part even conquerors were assimilated by the conquered... 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 20:17
Old Church Slavonic was created in Thesaloniki it didn't have anything to do with the Spoken language of Poles and even Anciant Russians. It was more based on the language which was used by the Slavic population of modern Bulgaria i.e. Southern Slavic dialects.
 
And that's how Sts. Cyril and Methodius ended up in Rome? Besides, Old Church Slavonic is not Glagolitic (bukvitsa), which is what was employed in the conversion of the Slavicized Bulgars and the Moravians, while the Cyrillic alphabet we know today originated at Ohrid a century or so later. Slavic in the 9th century, ancient Slavonic, was not what you wish to imply. Further, Glagolitic continued in use into the early 20th century as an ecclesiatical alphabet among the Adriatic Slavs.
 
I do not want to get into a battle of footnotes and correct terminology, nor do I wish to ignite a FYROM push and shove, nor the polemic of the Rusyns as the first Slavic Christians, but let us not allow such turf fighting actually distort history further.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 20:20
Originally posted by drgonzaga

. The Poles may have adopted the Latin alphabet but the language would remain tied to the ethos expressed by Old Church Slavonic
Can you explain that?
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 24-Jan-2008 at 20:28
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 20:33
Originally posted by drgonzaga

Old Church Slavonic was created in Thesaloniki it didn't have anything to do with the Spoken language of Poles and even Anciant Russians. It was more based on the language which was used by the Slavic population of modern Bulgaria i.e. Southern Slavic dialects.
 
And that's how Sts. Cyril and Methodius ended up in Rome? Besides, Old Church Slavonic is not Glagolitic (bukvitsa), which is what was employed in the conversion of the Slavicized Bulgars and the Moravians, while the Cyrillic alphabet we know today originated at Ohrid a century or so later. Slavic in the 9th century, ancient Slavonic, was not what you wish to imply. Further, Glagolitic continued in use into the early 20th century as an ecclesiatical alphabet among the Adriatic Slavs.
 
Complete nonsense. You confuse the language Old Church Slavonic the alphabet Glaglitic. Old Church Slavonic was written both in Glagolitic and Cyrillic,
 
Do you understand yourself what you wrote? How does it prove your point that Polish is inherently close to Old Church Slavonic?
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 20:34
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by drgonzaga

. The Poles may have adopted the Latin alphabet but the language would remain tied to the ethos expressed by Old Church Slavonic
Can you explain that?
 
 
 
One can't explain this nonsense.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 11:01
How about a download of music from the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Chili? Evil%20Smile First, let me remind you that Italian, Sardinian, and Romanian compose the grouping known as Eastern Romance Latin. So if we are going to get technical guess where Tatar falls in the Altaic family tree--that's right Western...
Actually in the "classical" taxonomy the northern Italian dialects (like Venetian, Ligurian) are in the Western Romance group while the southern Italian dialects (like Neapolitan) are in the Eastern Romance group, while standard Italian is a language built on the Tuscan dialect with influences both from north and south, thus being somehow in the middle, being characterized by varios scholars as either in the Western (for an example check Merritt Ruhlen's A Guide to World Languages, vol. 1: Classification) or in the Eastern group (while Sardinian is never placed in the Eastern group, is either in the Western group  or somehow in a different group, called Southern Romance or Sardinian Romance). However this taxonomy was criticized on good reasons (because to the so-called rules of differentiation there are too many exceptions and also those rules fail to grasp a larger picture: e.g. Italian has a grammar closer to French than to Romanian, though phonetically it may resemble more Romanian; lexically Italian shares more with French, Catalan or Spanish than with Romanian), and today a site like the reputed Ethnologue.com classifies Italian in a Italo-Western group, thus the language bound rather to the Western group than to the Eastern one ( http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90057 ). However this paranthesis misses the actual point, that geography (Romanian developed practically in isolation from the other Romance languages) may have little to do with the linguistic developments, and the relation of closeness between languages can be more complex than one of simple geographical neighbourhood. That's why the geographical "excuse" shouldn't be used for justification in a serious linguistic discussion.

On Slavic languages, Sarmat does a very fine job to expose your confusions, so there's no need for me to repeat similar criticisms.

In these circumstances, your attempts of humor become extremely unsalty and besides, insistence ruins most jokes. I suggested once, perhaps a bit too subtle, that a reader of Procopius would have come with something else (and this is no joke). If however you wish to share your musical preferences, the AE tavern might be a much more suitable place for you.

 



Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Jan-2008 at 11:01
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 13:29
Geography is more than location and if you will excuse the directness, the smugness of the commentary is indicative of careless reading and insistence on refusing to comprehend the limitations of your own vocabulary. Further, it is obvious that personal animosity is directing the urge to excise out of context so as to construct retorts. Glagolitic pertains to  orthography, as does Cyrillic--a later development. Old Church Slavonic is a liturgical language and its first written examples come from Moravia and not Ohrid (bosh to the Thessalonika appellative generated by modern politics), and its existence is evidence of the commonality of словѣне throughout Eastern Europe. The later surge of vernacular adaptives has little to do with Old Slavic and the prejudices introduced not only by nationalism but by linguists themselves in the push to jargonize the discipline. Claiming to be historians does not permit ignorance of both the human and intellectual conveniences. For example, Proto-Slavic is an intellectual conjecture lacking historical evidence and the fact that Methodius and Cyril could devise in the Aegean circumference an alphabet (Glagolitic) that served their purposes in Moravia simply serves to underscore the commonality of the Vulgar among the Slavs of the 9th century and formed the basis of what became by the 10th century Old Church Slavonic. Further, the language of the actual Bulgars was Turkic and not Slavic so if we are to discuss conditions in the 8th and 9th centuries, then we can not employ the term Bulgarian given the differences between the ruling class (the Bulgars) and the subject populations (the Slavs, who themselves had replaced the earlier inhabitants) it would be akin to labeling Spanish as Visigothic! In the 9th century Slavic remained mutually intelligible throughout its geographic parameters, it is as simple as that. Further, in the first historical contacts with the Poles, Christianity came with Old Church Slavonic and it persisted in certain areas of Southern Poland even after the consolidation of a Latin script by the 11th century.
 
Further, the historical distinctions raised by migratory groups such as their number in terms of conquered or displaced populations, their cultural interactions, as well as homogenization as a process in developing a new identity must be considered in terms of history. Present exigencies and conditionals can not be thrown upon the past in any effort that seeks to consider the past, which must be analyzed on its own terms.
 
 
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 14:30

I cannot excuse your remarks because on one hand, I precisely asked you how Cuman language was influenced by geography (and I enumerated few geographical entities, not neighbourhoods, please reread my reply if you need a memory refreshment) which you have not answered and thus implicitely conceded on my point. And on the other hand, your geographical argument was entirely based on neighbourhood (Oghuz and Qipchak as Western Turks plus an analogy on Slavic languages divided in three groups as Western, Eastern and Southern; you still employ the same argument of neighbourhood in this last reply of yours when you claim that Slavic mutual intelligibility is due its geographic parameters).
Thus to revert our positions in a mirror is a petty intellectual cheating, since the discussion is already registered in this thread and can be easily followed. Instead of moving the discussion ad hominem, better please focus on the subject if you insist to reply.

To conclude from a liturgical (actually literary) language used in two remote points that the respective language was common in the territory between them is an absurdity. The Kiev Folia, the most archaic OCS manuscript (10th century) shows aside of some local Czech influences - normal, if we assume it was copied by local scribes - clear signs of Bulgarian (the southern Slavic language, not the Turkic language of the Bulgars) phonetics. The confusion between a literary language and the vernacular is a mistake, and obviously leads to the wrong conclusion. England did not speak Latin just because we can find Latin manuscripts in the 8th century England. OCS was certainly the language of the south-Slavs which under the Byzantine influence acquired a system of writing, and later developed particular characteristics from the languages of the other Slavs which used it as a literary language .
Unwritten languages (like proto-Slavic) do not need historical evidences, but linguistic ones. Attempting to solve through history all the riddles of the past leads only to dead-ends. Revisionism is a bad joke when done with no scholarship at hand.



Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Jan-2008 at 14:42
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 16:26

I still would like to know how a language can have an ethos. Or be tied to one. Or express one for that matter. The ethos (what's the plural of 'ethos') of the various Slav groups changed immensely with the coming of Christianity, but the language didn't.

Of course you can express an ethos in any language, and for that matter you can express any ethos in a single language (of sufficient complexity to express one in the first place).

I guess I could put the thought in the Lingustics forum.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 16:45

Well Chili what you have insistently inferred was not what was implied, nor is the diversion over the ad hominem appreciated since the bulk of the commentary has been leveled in a personal tone (including the entry by a passerby notorious for such conduct). I need no primer on the Internet foible known as "Swarming". The Prague Fragments of the Moravian Recension are older than your Kiev Folia and whatever you may wish to make of it, your fracturing is in conflict with the interpretative flow.

 
Likewise, you chide for there not being a response on Cuman, when in actuality how could a response be entertained when persistent distractions are put forth and then couched in a manner that is simply guaranteed to offend. So much for the accusatory absence of scholarship because the "revising" has been more than persistent on this topic throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in line with the foibles of politics. It is quite a convenience to claim "authority" behind anonimity and if you wish to hurl insults as to competence then put forth your bona fides.
 
Now as to your play with Cuman (and the compilation known as the Codex Cumanicus) set that as a thread apart if you wish such a discussion not only in terms of the Kypchak but with reference to the Hungarian Cuman, including the riddles! We will not even hazard what you might make of a statement that equates Cuman to Crimean Tatar.

"The people known in Turkic as Kipchaks were the same as the Polovtsy of the Russians, the Komanoi of the Byzantines, the Qumani (Cumans) of the Arab geographer Idrisi, and the Kun (Qoun) of the Hungarians. According to Gadrisi, they originally formed part of the group of Kimak Turks who lived in Siberia along the middle reaches of the Irtysh, or along the Ob. The Kimaks and the Oghuz were closely related."

Rene Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1970, 185
 
By the way, the name of the forum indicates it is devoted to history and its interpretations and not the peculiarities of other disciplines. Further why do languages become extinct if not as a result of pressures raised by geographic, social, and cultural considerations and interactions.
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 17:07
Originally posted by gcle2003

what's the plural of 'ethos'
 
In Greek and in formal Rhetoric the plural of ethos is ethe. In usage the term is defined as the disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, phenomenon or movement.
 
With regard to Old Chuch Slavonic, its preservation (literally its cosolidation as a customary language of the Church establishment) despite the changes in the vernacular is sufficient reason to employ the term.


Edited by drgonzaga - 25-Jan-2008 at 17:12
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 17:38

The Prague fragments are not older than "my" Kiev Folia (are also known as Kiev leaflets, in case you had problems of identification). For instance, in Old Church Slavonic Grammar by Horace Gray Lunt at page 9 you will find written: "the seven glagolitic folia known as the Kiev Folia (KF) are generally considered as most archaic from both the paleographic and the linguistic point of view" or in Roman Jakobson's Selected Writings try page 131: "There exist only two Old Church Slavonic manuscripts of Czech provenance - the Kiev Leaflets from the tenth century and the Prague Fragments from the eleventh" (and AFAIK 10 < 11). The following JSTOR link repeats the same information as in the previous book: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507(195004%2F06)26%3A2%3C333%3ACTCSJP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V 

I keep the rest of your incoherent diatribe outside my focus to save this thread from degenerating even more. I'll make an exception just to note that the forum may be devoted to history, but languages are studied by linguists, not historians or geographers.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Jan-2008 at 17:46
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 20:18
Originally posted by drgonzaga

Originally posted by gcle2003

what's the plural of 'ethos'
 
In Greek and in formal Rhetoric the plural of ethos is ethe. In usage the term is defined as the disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, phenomenon or movement.
Thanks. It doesn't really help with deciding what to say in English, because 'ethe' looks like a misprint. I guess the thing to do is try and paraphrase. 
 
With regard to Old Chuch Slavonic, its preservation (literally its cosolidation as a customary language of the Church establishment) despite the changes in the vernacular is sufficient reason to employ the term.
I don't see any way that justifies saying OCS had an 'ethos', let alone at the time Poles started using the Latin alphabet when OCS wasn't particularly 'preserved'. 
 
How are you defining 'ethos', remembering we are talking English here?
 
Webster's has:
The characteristic and distinguishing attitudes, habits, beliefs etc. of an individual or of an ethnic, political, occupational or other group.
 
Languages are not individuals or groups of people, nor do they have attitudes, habits or beliefs.
 
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.