Re: Slovanik, Enamyn, and Slavic slaves

On Friday 02 August 2002 01:24, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> That is my impression, too. So history much be altered somehow (but
> wouldn't it be anyway, even by the very existence of a new language?). Now,
> our task is to keep the changes as minimal as possible (see Brithenig).
        Well, in my mind it is possible to alter *our knowledge* of history without
making it a *there*. For instance, the Enamyn people were (probably) tucked
into a couple of valleys in the Crimean mountains. Who's to say that they
weren't *here*? There are undoubtably many, many languages and cultures that
have passed on without leaving much of a trace; likewise, there are many
cultures that even now escape much attention. What's one more to the mix?
        Now, when you start messing with history on a major scale, then you have to
create a *there*. But if you keep it small, there's nothing that says that
the Slovanik language could not have developed. It's just not been noticed
much *here*, that's all.

> I agree that Dacia seems the most obvious place to use, but I'm still
> considering the possibility of "using" Pannonia instead, or some place
> North or East from it; this would allow me to make Slovanik Polish-based in
> the same way as Brithenig is Welsh-based.
        Well, it depends upon the time; Slavic languages are remarkably conservative,
all things considered. Moreover, they don't go back very far. For instance, I
think that Russian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian only split about four hundred
years ago. I don't know when Polish emerged, but I can't imagine that it
would be any more than a thousand years ago. In all likelihood, you'll be
dealing with Western Slavonic more than Polish proper.
        Actually, I'd be interested in a history of the Slavic langauges; when did
Western, Eastern, and Southern Slavonic diverge?

> Besides, if I would choose for the region North and/or East of Dacia, this
> would also require solutions for other problems: what to do with the
> Mongols, the Magyars, the Avars, etc.?
        Study the history of Romania. That's why I suggested Dacia first, since there
seems to be something in its history that allowed the Romanians to continue
as Romanians.

> Theoretically, there is a third possibility: the story of some lost Roman
> legion, that settled down somewhere on Slavic territory and assimilated
> part of the local population. I'm not sure if I like that, though; it comes
> a bit too close to stories about alien abduction.
        Hmm...now we know what really happened in the Teutoburger forest! The three
legions weren't wiped out, they defected!!!

> Beautiful, really beautiful! Even knowing that the whole story is just the
> product of someone's imagination, it's still difficult not te believe it.
> I'm still eager to learn more.
> This made me also curious about the language itself. Is it related to any
> other language in the region?
        Nope. It borrowed some liturgical language from Greek (Christianity reached
the Crimea early on, 250 AD IIRC--I know that two bishops at Nicea (325) were
from the Crimea) and later some terms from Khazarian, but the language itself
is an isolate. Just another people group that got caught in the Crimean
bottle.

> Then Mrs. Webster is at least partly wrong, because the truth is that we
> don't know anything for certain. Numerious theories exist about the origin
> of the name "Slavs"; the most popular and sensible theory supposes a
> connection with the word /slovo/ "word". Hence, the Slavs called themselves
> "those with words", "those who can speak words", their Germanic neighbours
> being /Nemci/ "those who cannot speak". This may sound strange, but if you
> consider the fact that there was a huge overlap between Germanic and Slavic
> territories, it become more understandable.
        Ah, yes, in Russian, Germans are still "njemets" - the deaf and dumb ones.
Although a case could also be made for "slava," fame, glory.

> The Latin name "Sclaveni" (that has an ancient Greek counterpart too:
> "Sthlabenoi") is most probably based on the name the Slavs used for
> themselves, appearantly "Slovene" (Polish: "Sl/owianie").
> All this not withstanding the fact, that the Slavs indeed had a reputation
> in the field of slave trade, by capturing and exporting their own
> countrymen as slaves.
        What I think Webster is thinking is that the word "Sclaveni," which
originally refered to just the Slavs, became generalized to all slaves,
because of the disproportionate number of Slavic slaves. For instance,
"Xerox" is one company that makes copy machines, but "xerox" has now become a
generic term for all copiers. Should Google last long enough, "google" in the
future may acquire the broad meaning "to search the internet." "Sclaveni"
definitely once meant Slavs in general, slave or free, but Webster suggests
that the word became associated with slaves in general. It has nothing to do
with the origin of the word "Slav," which was definitely pre-existant to
"slave."
        :Peter

Replies