| Author |
Message |
Igor Sklar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:13 pm
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
piotr panek wrote...
| Quote: | So there are at least two possibilities:
- Proto-Eastern Slavs meet tribe/land called "samojednam" or sth. like
that, and adopted this name. Later (maybe very early) as this word
looked like "self-eater", they start to use word "samojed'" already used
as a name of tribe, in the meaning of "a cannibal".
|
I think so it was.
| Quote: | - Proto-Eastern Slavs had had a word "samojed'" = "cannibal" and while
|
What you call "Proto-Eastern Slavs" called themselves Rus, and their
language is known as Old Russian. They didn't have "samojed" as a word
for cannibal. The traditional Russian word for cannibal is "lyudoed".
| Quote: | met Northern Finnic tribes called "samejennam", they thought they call
themselves "cannibals" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
piotr panek
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:58 pm
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
Dnia 04-09-14 14:13, w li¶cie od osoby znanej jako Igor Sklar było:
| Quote: | piotr panek wrote...
So there are at least two possibilities:
- Proto-Eastern Slavs meet tribe/land called "samojednam" or sth. like
that, and adopted this name. Later (maybe very early) as this word
looked like "self-eater", they start to use word "samojed'" already used
as a name of tribe, in the meaning of "a cannibal".
I think so it was.
- Proto-Eastern Slavs had had a word "samojed'" = "cannibal" and while
What you call "Proto-Eastern Slavs" called themselves Rus, and their
language is known as Old Russian.
|
In Polish we call them Ru¶ (country), Rusini (group of tribes). Into
international it was transformed as Ruthenia/ns, but I've had an
argument with Xenia about this word recently...
| Quote: | They didn't have "samojed" as a word
for cannibal. The traditional Russian word for cannibal is "lyudoed".
|
Well, the Polish one is "ludojad" (now it is a name of shark species),
but as I saw a word "samojedĽ" in medieval poem, I'm not sure which one
is older...
piotrek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul J Kriha
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:16 pm
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
Igor Sklar <yaroslavl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:870e846a.0409140413.6d06fe1e@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | piotr panek wrote...
So there are at least two possibilities:
- Proto-Eastern Slavs meet tribe/land called "samojednam" or sth. like
that, and adopted this name. Later (maybe very early) as this word
looked like "self-eater", they start to use word "samojed'" already used
as a name of tribe, in the meaning of "a cannibal".
I think so it was.
- Proto-Eastern Slavs had had a word "samojed'" = "cannibal" and while
What you call "Proto-Eastern Slavs" called themselves Rus, and their
language is known as Old Russian. They didn't have "samojed" as a word
for cannibal. The traditional Russian word for cannibal is "lyudoed".
|
That is what I was thinking of. "lyudoed", "lidojed", or similar exist AFAIK
in all slavic languages and existed in OS. If Samoyeds were known as
cannibals it would be more natural to derive their name from that word.
It takes extra effort to imagine "samo-jed" mean the same as "lido-jed".
Paul JK
| Quote: |
met Northern Finnic tribes called "samejennam", they thought they call
themselves "cannibals" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bjorn Olsson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:43 am
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
Yusuf B Gursey <ybg@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<chqa8u$npk$1@pcls4.std.com>...
| Quote: | In sci.lang Joanne Marinelli <Jozanny@yahoo.com> wrote in <uC10d.571827$Gx4.158669@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
: "Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
: news:chq75i$tuo$1@pcls4.std.com...
:> In sci.lang Joanne Marinelli <Jozanny@yahoo.com> wrote in
xQ00d.336187$OB3.237690@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
:
:
:> : Point taken, and I also realize this is going to an Iranian culture
:> : newsgroup, but I am not arguing about ethnic relevance, of which I'm
:> : ignorant when it comes to Middle Eastern frames of reference-- I was
looking
:> : at the words themselves, and to my mind Iranian holds equal footing with
:> : Persian.
:
:> then change your mind.
:
: Give me a good enough reason to  To my mind, Persia is classical,
: historical and tribal, given your information on that point. Iran is the
: name of a modern day country which encompasses part of the ancient Persian
"Iran" came to be the name of the empire in their native language.
: empire. Nothing for me to change.
"Persia" was a central kingdom that lead the empire. it remained a
province on which the official language was based. "Iran" came to be the
name of the empire. "Persia" implies only persian speakers, "Iran" others
as well.
|
Quite analogous to "Great Britain" versus "England". A Briton may not
be English-speaking and may not live in the English part of GB, but
England was (and is) a central kingdom that led the empire and remains
a province on which the official language is based.
Bjorn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jacques Guy
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:25 am
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
Paul J Kriha wrote:
| Quote: | Is there any evidence what-so-ever that Samoyeds engaged in
any kind of self-eating pasttime?
|
Well, I suppose that "self-eating" means cannibalism, and
many societies have engaged in that. The Celts, the
Fijians, the Chinese, the Polynesians, the Aztecs, the
list just about covers the whole globe. Like a Tongan
friend once told me: "Oh, we never ate people! The
Fijians did". When I told that to my half-Tongan, half-
English dentist, he burst out laughing: "The Tongans
were as much cannibals as the Fijians!" Of course,
you have a cretin by the name Robert Ahrens whose
thesis got its 15 minutes of celebrity: "cannibalim
never existed". His argument? "It's all second-hand
evidence". In other words: no-one has ever been eaten
and lived to tell the tale. Do a Google search for
"Ahrens cannibalism" and see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yusuf B Gursey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:54 am
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
bjorne@ida.his.se (Bjorn Olsson) wrote in message news:<42e37e54.0409141443.50c82999@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | Yusuf B Gursey <ybg@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<chqa8u$npk$1@pcls4.std.com>...
In sci.lang Joanne Marinelli <Jozanny@yahoo.com> wrote in <uC10d.571827$Gx4.158669@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
: "Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
: news:chq75i$tuo$1@pcls4.std.com...
:> In sci.lang Joanne Marinelli <Jozanny@yahoo.com> wrote in
xQ00d.336187$OB3.237690@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
:
:
:> : Point taken, and I also realize this is going to an Iranian culture
:> : newsgroup, but I am not arguing about ethnic relevance, of which I'm
:> : ignorant when it comes to Middle Eastern frames of reference-- I was
looking
:> : at the words themselves, and to my mind Iranian holds equal footing with
:> : Persian.
:
:> then change your mind.
:
: Give me a good enough reason to To my mind, Persia is classical,
: historical and tribal, given your information on that point. Iran is the
: name of a modern day country which encompasses part of the ancient Persian
"Iran" came to be the name of the empire in their native language.
: empire. Nothing for me to change.
"Persia" was a central kingdom that lead the empire. it remained a
province on which the official language was based. "Iran" came to be the
name of the empire. "Persia" implies only persian speakers, "Iran" others
as well.
Quite analogous to "Great Britain" versus "England". A Briton may not
be English-speaking and may not live in the English part of GB, but
England was (and is) a central kingdom that led the empire and remains
a province on which the official language is based.
|
good analogy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piotr panek
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:30 pm
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
Dnia 04-09-09 21:17, w li¶cie od osoby znanej jako Yusuf B Gursey było:
| Quote: | "Persia" was a central kingdom that lead the empire. it remained a
province on which the official language was based. "Iran" came to be the
name of the empire. "Persia" implies only persian speakers, "Iran" others
as well.
|
I agree (if you need my agreement from Central Europe ) until you
speak about presence. But while speaking about warriors fighting against
Greeks near Marathon or Issos, I use term "Persians" despite the real
nationality of those people, be they people from Persia (sensu stricto),
Babilon, Parthia, Asia Minor or even Thracia. As long they were
underlies of the king of kings, king of Persians and Medes etc., they
were just Persians for me... I just use official name of "citizenship"
despite of actual, ie. ethnic, nationality.
regards
piotrek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yusuf B Gursey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:56 pm
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
piotr panek <piotrpanek@onegazetatwo.threeplfour> wrote in message news:<ci95me$fp1$1@inews.gazeta.pl>...
| Quote: | Dnia 04-09-09 21:17, w li¶cie od osoby znanej jako Yusuf B Gursey było:
"Persia" was a central kingdom that lead the empire. it remained a
province on which the official language was based. "Iran" came to be the
name of the empire. "Persia" implies only persian speakers, "Iran" others
as well.
I agree (if you need my agreement from Central Europe ) until you
speak about presence. But while speaking about warriors fighting against
Greeks near Marathon or Issos, I use term "Persians" despite the real
nationality of those people, be they people from Persia (sensu stricto),
Babilon, Parthia, Asia Minor or even Thracia. As long they were
underlies of the king of kings, king of Persians and Medes etc., they
were just Persians for me... I just use official name of "citizenship"
despite of actual, ie. ethnic, nationality.
|
the official name (short form) in persian, at least since the
beginning of the Sasanid Empire, was Iran. Darius simply listed the
territories he was king of, starting with Persia, but called his
language, in an old form, Iranian. it was also the name of a wider
group of peoples speaking simialr languages, who had a privileged
position even if they were not subjects of the smaller unit called
Persia. for the Old Empire, Persia is not inapproproate. but the
Sasanians called their Empire Iran (rather e:ra:n) in short. so for
the late 2nd millenium kingdom, especially when it became clear that
expansion beyond present Iran was not possible. in the 19th cent. it
was Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ludo
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:08 am
Post subject: Re: More stupidities |
|
|
| Jacques Guy wrote: | Paul J Kriha wrote:
| Quote: | Is there any evidence what-so-ever that Samoyeds engaged in
any kind of self-eating pasttime?
|
Well, I suppose that "self-eating" means cannibalism, and
many societies have engaged in that. The Celts, the
Fijians, the Chinese, the Polynesians, the Aztecs, the
list just about covers the whole globe. Like a Tongan
friend once told me: "Oh, we never ate people! The
Fijians did". When I told that to my half-Tongan, half-
English dentist, he burst out laughing: "The Tongans
were as much cannibals as the Fijians!" Of course,
you have a cretin by the name Robert Ahrens whose
thesis got its 15 minutes of celebrity: "cannibalim
never existed". His argument? "It's all second-hand
evidence". In other words: no-one has ever been eaten
and lived to tell the tale. Do a Google search for
"Ahrens cannibalism" and see. |
Seemingly the entire concept of "canibalism" and "vampyrism" developed as an obscurious description of the core of the pre-religious, heathen and barbarian cultures.
Primarily the concept of "heathen" refers to the non-christian people of the heaths of N-Europe.
Barbar/Barbari refers to "bare", as in naked. "Bar-bar" refers to "completly bare" as well as "open" as in "honest". The natives of the old world - as well as the indignenous people mentioned above - seem to have been unaware of the (theologic) concept that nakedness is a "sin and shame". On the contrary they viewed the "open nakedness" as a proof of trust, honesty, truthfullness and trustworthyness. The Gaelic school of rhetorics seem to have viewed this quality - in its various aspect - as a prerequisite for (sane) philosophy and (higher) knowledge...
The pre-religious culture based their philosophy - as far as they managed - on the laws of nature. Please remember that the obscure pictures about their "primitive", "wild" and "uncivilized" behavior was CREATED by the agressors and conqerors of these peoples. To motivate their home-public to hate and their soldiers to go killing, plundering and surpressing - the warlords had to slander, stignmatize and demonize their target populations. The propaganda have to be effective to - if one are to order soldiers to unprovoked commit autrocities towards inncent people. The example of how Moses got his "holy messages" about the "horrible rituals" and "mortal sins" of the Medianites is a strikingly old example of what scrupleless, desperate and/or soul-less people can do. Not strange that they need to place their bad counsciousness on an invissible "high command"... 
Since those days we been having all sorts of propaganda - as the history have been re-written over and over again by various warmongers, fundamentalists and dictators. One of the stigmata from the "holy" dictators of the middle ages were their outrooting of the old "nature philosophy" of the heathen cultures. A core element in those cultures were the gratifcation of the family-lines and the fertility of naure, man included. Conseqently the men of the old cultures seem to have had a general custom of "keeping their fitness, feritility and pleasure" at a maximum, by "saving their seeds" and performing the "self-knowledge" of the physical realm. The old schools of Vedic, Egyptian and Roman philosopy and seem have practized this - and a final key position of the old Yoga exercises were the ablility flex the spine and curl up in a circle - "the O of Yo-ga" - as the performer were able to suck their own willies (sic!).
The principal philosophy were that the entire program needed to reach that flexibility was very healthy - as was the act of releasing the recreational energy and recycle the very materialization and expression of male fertility and vigour. 
Since useless spilling of their "wisdom water" was viewed as a "spill" or "failure" it became a "sin" (="sin") to waste your highest nature - your seeds - "to the ground". The old testament still has this commandment - not to "waste thy seed to the ground, than better place it in the loins of a whore". Twisting that view our fundamental religions have prohibitted not only the masturbation but also the "heaten customs" of yogic tantra and auto-fellatio.
Part of this concept was obviously the custom of bonding and brotherhood by "taking oats" and "sharing seeds" - as we know it from the "homosexual rites" of both Spartans and Greeks, as well as the "Lotus-eaters" of the western Mediterranean. In antiquity these rites of sharing - for both men and women - were viewed as the "most sacred" part of their customs and holidays - along with its end-product, that was "the best possible preparation and circumstance for reproduction" - as expressed in the Greek tradition called "Hieros Gamos" (Holy Marriage). Eventually these rites of sacri-fices were to be strictly forbidden by the new monotheisms that came to rule the ancient world... 
Since the temples of the "new world", along with the holy groves and sanctuaries of the arctic world, were the last to get "christianized" we can still find traces of the old customs there. But not before our time and the new air of free speech and open research has it been possible to bring these old, hidden and forgotten core-elements of the heathern cultre back to philosophic discussion. Lookig into this matter we may start to understand why and how mideval teocrats and missionaries have been so eager to describe the morbid and twisted picture of any indigenous population that may still have exercized these traditions - as disgusting "canibals" or horrible "vampyres". 
A more objective description can be seen in some of the folklore that have survived unto our time - whereof the name of the "self-eating" Samojeds may be one of the few clear examples... 
http://www.beyond-the-pale.org.uk/zxMauriac.htm
http://www.deiweb.com/UNMITOENPIEDRA/2-05%20Otras%20formas%20sexualidad.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio
http://www.solosuck.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ora et Labora |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
