--- Peter Clark wrote:
> 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.
Agreed.
> > 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?
Well, I don't have my books here with me (which is painful enough :) ), but the
Polish language is old enough. I'm positive it was already there when the
Polish state was founded, in the 10th century. Since nothing was written
before, we know nothing for certain.
It is generally assumed, that West, East and South Slavonic languages started
to diverge around the beginning of our era, say, in the first century A.D. The
South Slavs moved to the Balkans in the 5th/6th century and were later cut of
their fellow Slavs by the Magyars.
> > 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.
Yes, but there is one problem: in Romania the Slavs came after the Romans.
Which The substratum of Romanian must have been largely Dacian (a language
related to Thracian), while the Slavs formed rather a superstratum.
Besides, I like the Romanian language a lot, but for Slovanik, I don't want to
have anything to do with it.
> > [...] Numerious theories exist about the origin
> > of the name "Slavs"; the most popular and sensible theory supposes a
> > connection with the word /slovo/ "word".
> Although a case could also be made for "slava," fame, glory.
That's one theory, too. But somehow, I can't tell why, I don't believe it.
> 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."
Actually, I don't know when the word /sclavus/ for slave first appeared. It
would perhaps be a mere coindicence that the two names look alike a lot.
Jan
=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com