Vistula Veneti

OK, I don't know much about that centum-origin evidence (that's why I opened the thread), but from what I've read it's based on linguistics. Proto-Slavic had borrowed some amount of centum-origin loan words at a very early stage (due to remoteness, this excludes Italic and Adria-Venetic, as well as Illyrian and Greek - Germanic is improbable as well). Secondly, there is to be some centum-origin hydronyms in the area. What's more, early Proto-Slavic had weak maritime vocabulary and the earliest sources put the Veneti around the shore.

It seems more probable that Veneti were absorbed by Slavs (mainly) and Germanic peoples continued to use the old name for their new neighbours (so did the Greek and Roman historiography). It happened many times in history.

For instance, the name Hungarian comes from a Turkic tribe union Onogur, which settled in the Carpathian Basin around 670. At least in 860 we have attested name of the area as Uuangaria, so before the arrival of Magyars. Their Slavic neighbours called them Ǫgri, which as you may know (as a Czech) shifted to Ugri in the 10th century (as part of a regular disappearance of nasal vowels in most of the Slavic languages) and later in the 12th century to Uhri (as part of the regular g->h shift). But at the time it was already used for their new neighbours - Magyars. Around the 13th century we see the shift of the soft r in some Central Czech dialects to raised alveolar fricative trill, which would later spread into all West Slavic languages except Slovak, where the soft r had already merged with the hard r - so Uhři in Czech.

Another example would be how the Norse gave their name to a large land (inhabited mostly by Slavs, but also by Turks and Finno-Ugrians), and the Russian nation - the Norse became Slavs, but the name is still the same. Or how Germans transeferred Boehmer (coming from the Celtic tribe of Boii) to Czechs, or Lithuanians the name Gudai (originally for Goths) to Slavs. Or how the tribe of Franks gave name to the Romance speaking inhabitants of Gallia and so on and so on...

The earliest sources mentioning Vistula Veneti are Pliny and Tacitus. Pliny calls them Sarmatae Venedi, but Tacitus associates them with Germanic tribes. Moreover, Ptolemy mentions a large people called Σουοβενοι ([swovεn-] or [swɔvεn-], confer proto-Slavic Slověn [slɔvæn] and consider the fact that an initial 'sl' cluster is impossible in ancient Greek, if I'm not mistaken - Slavic 'sl' cluster comes form PIE 'kl' cluster, which, since Greek is a centum language, didn't shift to an initial s in Greek) to the east of Ουενεδαι (notice that the pronunciation is practically the same as in Classical Latin [wened-]) - this means they inhabited the mainland, which would explain the lack of maritime terminology in early Slavic.

So in the earliest sources, there is no indication that Venedi be Slavs, actually it implies the contrary.As for the fact that in the 6th century (and probably even earlier) this ethnonym is used for Slavs, this might be just an adoption of an old ethnonym for a different people - perhaps due to ignorance (which is common in ancient Greek and Roman sources).

So I really don't see any evidence they were Slavs. And as far as I know, the current scientific consensus is that they were not Slavs.

Edited by Slayertplsko - 13-Mar-2009 at 09:10

Originally posted by Boreasi Regarding "the neighbours in the east" you will find;   1. "Venejä" is still found the Finish dictionary. Today it means "Russians" 2. "Vendi" (Vender) and "Vanir" (Vaner) in Snorre Sturlasssons "Heimskringla".

That's not what I asked - that you can find vendir and vanir in Heimskringla and Venejä in a Finnish dictionary does in no way mean they are the same. I'm really curious if there is a connection, so I want to know where you got it from.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 16-Mar-2009 at 11:43

Originally posted by Slayertplsko Firstly, I can't imagine what would eastern Eurasia be, if not Siberia, China, Mongolia and neighbouring territories. Unless you choose not to consider central Eurasia. So please clarify, what is eastern Eurasia according to you?? And what are those western and eastern linguistic traditions??

Originally posted by Slayertplsko Exactly, pseudo-linguistics and home-made etymologies. That's what connecting two just by name similariy is called. Will you try to make a link between the aforesaid and the speakers of the African Venda language, too?? Or Vano, which is spoken on Solomon Islands?? Or Wandala from Cameroon (This must be the same as Vandals!!! NOT), Wanda from Tanzania, Wannu from Nigeria, Wintu from California...

Edited by Boreasi - 16-Mar-2009 at 12:25

Please, Boreasi, go and learn some basic facts from the field of linguistics, sometimes it's laughable. No offence though.

1, I would rather say that there is a difference between Germanic/Slavic on one side and FU on the other, only then between G and S....FU and S have nothing in common except geography - but I still don't get the point of your west-east division, it seems to be rather based on present-day geography of the languages

2, Gauls spoke, however unbelievable it may seem, Gaulish, which is a Celtic language - the language is well studied today by linguists

3, What's your source for those 400 languages in Gallia?

4, Shakespeare's English is classified as Modern English (OMG!!!!!!), or particularly Early Modern English....Middle English was the language used by Chaucer, Old English is a term usually used to refer to pre-10th-century English (though sometimes pre-Hastings)

5, your methodology is based on mass lexical comparison - go and read any book about etymology, they'll tell you, but to give you some foreword, here's a well-informed article: http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm

6, I never accused you of being a propagandist. My personal opinion is that you're just an ethusiast without a political agenda.

7, There is no consensus so far what wen- means, but using pseudo-linguistics won't help the problem. If you want some possible explanations, Pokorny (one of the most important figures in IE studies) had a theory, so you can check his works.

8, Venezuela actually has a common etymology with Adriatic Veneti through Venice, but I wasn't serious about it, you know.

9, ''the old (norse) languages of Breton, Normandy and Brittain'' - what do you mean by Norse here?

10, FU languages definitely are not subgroup of Slavic

One basic substratum of the Slavic languages is FU. That goes without saying - since former FU areas - such as Russia and the Baltics - today speak slavon. Now, since you seem to be educated in the slavic languages I have one question: As latin+gallic+norse became the normative for French (and in turn English), what was the other (old) language(s) essential to form the present Slavon? (Greek? Alan? Bulgar? Khazar? Avar?)

As for French, it developed from Vulgar Latin, with some Celtic influence (by means of loanwords etc.). Norse languages have nothing to do with it (well, this term is used for the northern branch, of which Frankish was not part). English was already a separate language when French was just separating. The French influence on English is in those numerous loanwords - basic vocabulary, as well as phonetics and grammar remain Germanic.

As for Proto-Slavic, it evolved from PIE. I have many books concerning this issue, but most of them are in Slovak or Czech. There is one book in English that I know: Dawn of Slavic by A. M. Schenker.

______________________________________________-

Again, I have explored your theory and I see a theory by someone who lack the slightest understanding of etymology (sorry, I would send you a book, but it's in Czech). To put it rough, people actually almost always say ''that's bullshit'' AFTER hearing the theory.

Edited by Slayertplsko - 16-Mar-2009 at 13:43

Originally posted by Boreasi http://finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25827 http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3818/finnugr.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_language

What did you want to say by pasting these links here?? All of them deny genetic relation to Slavic languages (or IE in general). Did you have a different point perhaps??

What exactly do you mean by specific background??

Originally posted by Boreasi   Sorry I cant serve it all on a silver-plate. Try reading the material first - then you may argue.   http://finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25827 http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3818/finnugr.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_language   http://fax.libs.uga.edu/PT7234xE211/ http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/heim/index.htm

I've read Heimskringla twice - in Swedish and Icelandic (at least the Saga of the Ynglings, which I suppose is the target here). Please show me where the Wends and Vanir are stated to be the same, directly or indirectly, because I sure couldn't find it. In fact, they are treated as separate peoples. Also notice that Snorri was making a real people out of the then mythological Vanir in order to give a Christian explanation to the Old Gods.

In none of your links an etymological link between Vanir and Vänejä is to be found. When you make bold statements of course you should be ready to support it. Just mentioning Heimskringla and expecting people to plow through it won't help (a chapter reference would ). Still, the only argument you seem to have is word similarity.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 16-Mar-2009 at 14:13

[QUOTE=Slayertplsko]

Please, Boreasi, go and learn some basic facts from the field of linguistics, sometimes it's laughable. No offence though.

2, Gauls spoke, however unbelievable it may seem, Gaulish, which is a Celtic language - the language is well studied today by linguists

4, Shakespeare's English is classified as Modern English (OMG!!!!!!), or particularly Early Modern English....Middle English was the language used by Chaucer, Old English is a term usually used to refer to pre-10th-century English (though sometimes pre-Hastings)

8, Venezuela actually has a common etymology with Adriatic Veneti through Venice, but I wasn't serious about it, you know.

10, FU languages definitely are not subgroup of Slavic

Edited by Boreasi - 16-Mar-2009 at 17:48

"Simple man" is nothing but hersay in the perspective of your inert reactions. If you really want to get anywhere with this debate you rather read my comments s-l-ow-l-y and at least give the impression that you have t-r-i-e-d to understand what I aim to explain.

Edited by Boreasi - 17-Mar-2009 at 10:18