The Name SLAV*

 � First texts written with Ulphila �Gothic� alphabet: It is accepted that this is the Bible, translated from Greek in the midle of 4 c. AD by the west gothic bishop Ulphila himself (in the Nicopolis ad Istrum in central Moesia (present Bulgaria). This translated Bible is considered as the first literary monument of the German culture. The oldest available transcript of the translation known as Codex argenteus was made around a 100 years later in Ravena [see e.g. E. Staycheva, Literaturen forum, 12 (2002) 496 (electronic version:   estaycheva.htm , in Bulgarian)] .  The alphabet pictures provided here reveal large similarity, including coinciding letters, between Ulphila alphabet and the Cyrillic one. ���
  Many respectful scholars, ancient and modern ones (in particular Jordanes (6 c. AD) and G. Tzenoff and S. Lesnoy (20 c.) � see e.g. the above cited new book �Goti i Geti� (�Goths and Geths� ) by A. Tschilingirov and the extensive bibliography there in) identify� Goths� from the lower Danube and Black see area with the Geths of the same territory, and not with the German (Teuton) Goths (Gothones). In the light of this the arian (aryan) bishop Ulphila (Urphila),� and his alphabet are �Gethic�. In the middle ages narratives the terms �Geths� (Getas), �Goths� (Gothos) or �Schyths' (Schitians) are frequently used for Thracs (Thracians), Slaves or Bulgarians.� For example, St. Hieronimus (4c., the translator of the Aethicus Cosmopgraphy, writes about �seven Getic or Gothic tribes� which live in the north, since Getas are called by the learned men� Gothos� (�Et certe Gothos omnes retro erudity, magis Getas � appellare��� -- this citation is taken from the G. Tzenoff book �The Huns�, Sofia, 2002 (first edition in 1940)), while on his World map St. Hieronimus notes �Moesia this is (also) Bulgaria� (�Misia hec et Vulgaria�). On the other hand it is commonly accepted that in the 4 c. AD Gothos (in particular the gothic bishop Ulphila) lived in Moesia. (Note that in old narratives Vulgaria = Bulgaria: the change B --> V comes from Greek, where sound B is missing, the character B being pronounced as V).

 It's same with Serbian/Servian and Hrvati/Hrbati(Greek call them Hroboatos wich mean Hrbati in our language,but today they are Hrvati)

 To much for you? Don't worry,for me is to,but a like to discover. I supose  it was for historian to. It was easyer to open a  BOX with name SLAVS and trow it inside everything wich can't be explainable.
 

 Give me a minute,i'm gonna post something  what has writted a great  Friedrich Nietzsche but only in German. I have translation in my language wich doesn;t help you. He sad that Gots are not Germans,so who are they?

                          Autobiographie
                  [Aus dem Jahre 1862] (i)

Michaelis 1861 war es, wo ich in wenigen Tagen das vorliegende Bruchst�ck der Ermanarichsinfonie anfing und vollendete; f�r zwei Klaviere berechnet nach dem Vorbild der Dantesinfonie, die ich kurz vorher hatte kennenlernen. Es war eine Zeit, in der der Ermanarichstoff mich heftiger als je bewegte, zur Dichtung war ich noch zu sehr ersch�ttert und noch nicht fern genug, um ein objektives Drama zu schaffen; in der Musik aber erfolgte der Niederschlag meiner Stimmung, in der sich die Ermanarichsage v�llig inkarniert hatte. Trotzdem schwankte ich noch, wie ich das Produkt taufen sollte, ob �Ermanarichsinfonie� oder �Serbia�, da ich den Plan hatte, �hnlich wie in der �Hungaria� Liszts geschehen, die Gef�hlswelt eines slawischen Volkes in einer Komposition zu umfassen, da ich ferner den Gef�hlsgang, der die Sch�pfung durchwogte, noch nicht unparteiisch sezieren konnte und nur ahnte, was ich darin ausgesprochen. Es ist jetzt gerade ein Jahr danach, wo ich genau die Stimmungen, die Wechsel der Gef�hle sich in ihr dr�ngen und sto�en finde, oft unvermittelt und herbe, die die Hauptpersonen des Ermanarichstoffes durchw�hlen und damals meine Seele erf�llten.
Jetzt bei der Revision des Bruchst�ckes habe ich das in der ersten Fassung oft nur Angedeutete in sch�rferer Fassung wiederzugeben gesucht. Einzelne fehlende Momente habe ich eingef�gt, insbesondere ist das Ende ziemlich ganz neu und seiner Wildheit nach bei weitem alles �berbietend, was mir in der ersten Fassung vorlag.
Allerdings, es sind keine Goten, keine Deutschen, die ich gezeichnet, es sind - ich wage es zu behaupten - Ungargestalten; der Stoff ist aus der germanischen Welt in die ungarischen Pu�ten, in die ungarischen Glutseelen getragen. Und das ist der Hauptfehler des Ganzen. Sodann fehlen auch den Personen jene urgermanischen, m�chtigen Z�ge und Eigenschaften, die Gef�hle sind mehr w�hlend, modernisiert, zu viel Reflexion und zu wenig Naturkraft. Nach diesen allgemeinen Bemerkungen werde ich m�glichst deutlich das aussprechen, was mir jetzt, als ich das Bruchst�ck genauer durchforschte, als die F�den des Verst�ndnisses in die H�nde fielen.
 http://www.friedrichnietzsche.de/?REM_sessid=&acti on=11

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Because Nietzsche is such a revered historian? I repeat myself: try writing something of your own instead of copy-pasting all the time. It will be much clearer to understand you With this passage I can understand that you *really* are trying to say the Goths were Slavs? And yeah, they were Germanic, of the simple facts they spoke a Germanic language, had Germanic names, Germanic customs and Germanic traditions, and considered the other Germanic tribes kin, a favour they returned. BTW, the piece you copied is about a 19th century classical piece of music called Ermanarischsymfonie which was based on a symphony called Hungaria.

 Finaly someone who want's to discuss.
Much more conections we can find betwen Goths and Gets.
Slav=Got thats far away,i never say that.
 About their language...       Gots for work used word "Arbotha" I don't know how to spell it,corect me if i'm wrong, we have  "Rabota"
                                                              Germans  today   "Arbeith"
 Just a quick exampl,i can find them more. Check the link below,i find him recently.
http://sava-the-goth.brainsip.com/

Surbel: As moderator, I ask you to subdivide your speculations and limit your copy-paste activity to the most essential. If you don't I fear that the topic will be locked, as this topic is lacking of minimal quality standards.

As forumer: I must protest strongly about those speculations on Goths and Getae. I know that the likehood of name has given room to some obsolete speculation but everybody knows that Goths were German-speakers and Gothic is a language that it is relatively well known and... well just read the Wikipedia article.

I must also protest at your unelaborated and confuse hypothesis which in my opinion lacks of the minimal consistence standards. You must study much more (hopefully in neutral sources) and you must meditate a lot about it before you will be able to set forth a hypothesis like the one you are so vehemently but weakly defending.

Both the name Serb and Croat are found in the Carpathian basin and were likely to have been transported into the Balkans around the time of the Avars or Huns. According to John Fine's Early Medieval Balkans. Both terms were of Iranian origins.

 Just check the Sorbs on google! They put them between Slavs and Wends are those  two things can be together?
 Wends are indigenous

Let's take it here instead, so everyone can enjoy it.

Originally posted by Surbel � -- Previous Private Message -- Sent by /B] Surbel Sent /B] Today at 1:08am �I didn't understand you what did you mean by last posting (And? .....are not Germanic)It's better like this,cous i don't want to bother others.I supose you never meet a Sorb/Sorbi/Sorby/Sorbs/Sorben/Wenden/... same name for one nation. To clarify some problems with this one-sided view, I would like to quote from the book Veneti: First Builders of European Community: Tracing the History and Language of Early Ancestors of Slovenes by Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, and Ivan Tomazic.� This book very much supports the opposite view, namely, that Slovenians were/are indigenous in their traditional lands, and that their language did not just suddenly materialize for the convenience of historians and linguists.� Slovenian has ancient roots going back to Vedic Sanskrit, the oldest of Indo-European languages.� Aside from Vedic Sanskrit, only Slovenian and the Lusatian in eastern Germany have preserved the dual grammatical form.� This, too, is generally avoided by establishment historians and linguists.�Please read it on this link the hole storyhttp://www.angelfire.com/country/veneti/Distortions.htm l

We were discussion Goths, and I asked what relevance the Sorbs had with them.

I'm rather familiar with the Wends, and they were not the same as Sorbs. Wends were the German and Scandinavian name of the Slavic peoples living in modern day Mecklenburg, Pommerania and surrounding areas - the Sorbs were one of those peoples. I still don't get why you brought them up though.

BTW, the dual form has survived as remains in some other language and dialects of Sweden, and I do think some of the Gaelic languages still use it.

Edited by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by Surbel � �You should read some other books too. Your knowledge is realy questionable and thats a fact!

I'm talking history, not modern day. The Sorbs are the only ones remaining as a distinct people, but originally the term included Sorbs, Polabians, Obodrites, Ranes, etc.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends

Now can you stop avoiding the question and answer if you really think the Goths weren't Germanic, and why?

Edited by Styrbiorn

Stop avoiding the question.