| 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 |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in