Heruls :[gothic-l] : Etymology and Scandinavia.

[Lada]

----- Original Message -----
From: <keth at online.no>
To: <gothic-l at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Heruls :[gothic-l] : Etymology and Scandinavia.


> Bertil,
> I sort of expected you'd answer like a pomplemousse.
> By not adressing the presented argument, which was
> illustrated by a small sample dialogue between a ROMAN and a HERUL.
>
>
> Here for example:
> >That must be a great advantage in your research
> >to have this flasback scenes plauíd out in your mind.
>
> No Sir, it was "recorded" for your benefit.
>
>
> >So once more the scientific facts: h- is inorganic.
>
> I shall assume that you are trying to say that Greek/Roman H of
> the period is inorganic.
> But is "organic" or "inorganic" the correct term?
> I think it should be either voiced versus voiceless, OR pronounced
> versus unpronounced. Which of the two is it?
>
>
>
> >Organic h- would have been Ch-, which never occurs.
>
> I agree that if it was an H like the Russians have it,
> (you'll know what I mean, if you've ever spoken to
> a Russian who recently learned to speak Swedish)
> then the Romans might have transliterated it as Ch-
>
> But how can we be sure the various Germanic groups spoke
> uniformly? Granted, some may have used a "rough" H (à la Russe)
> but others may have used the H pretty much like it is
> used in modern German or Swedish.
>
> What we know is that for example Jordanes (or better:
> the various Mss. that derive from Jordanes original Ms.)
> sometimes writes ChILPERIC, and at other times HILPERIC.
>
> Now what does that tell us about how the Germanic groups
> of the period used H?
>
> And note that Heruls is also with H in the Jordanes Mss.
>
> The fact that he never writes "Cheruls", can be easily
> explained as being either due to:
> 1) convention
> 2) non-uniformity in the voicing of H among different Germanic groups.
>    (Hilperic was a Frank, not a Herul)
> 3) chance (tilfäldighet)
>
> >Se also Jordanes eluri in Getic 117.
> 117?
> In § 23 Jordanes says that the Greeks call them "Eluri",
> without H. But that is entirely according to our understanding
> that Greek had no H. Hence they simply dropped the sound.
>
>
>
> >Sorry, Keth, this is a no winner for you.
>
> As long as your argue in an unconvincing manner,
> I think I am neither a winner nor a loser:
>
> The HERUL says: "Greetings you Greek-kerl, I'm a Herul !"
> The GREEK answers: "Beg you pardon!?"
> The HERUL: "I said I am a HERUL."
> The GREEK: "Oh, I see! You are en Erul!"
>
>
> un-pomplemoussically
> Keth
>
>            I hope I'm not starting to sound like a nagger, but /h/ cannot
be voiced, if voiced it would be written otherwise, phonetics mostly use
Greek gamma or yogh (3). Pronounced versus unpronounced ( or better
graphical ?) is a much better way of classifying.
                                      Spiranticaly
                                                          Il Akkad
>
>
> You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email
to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>




You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/