Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:n19n9191qa6i8bohtvigvo0icrsul4tot3@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:11:44 GMT, "IEJ" <Iejohansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:32vm91lh0n6btaui52str87javcgg1k93v@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:49:38 GMT, "IEJ" <Iejohansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> >> >news:gpll91t2rmi6uu58m6p8j1chjmqeds0vdt@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 07:09:11 GMT, "IEJ" <Iejohansson@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> >> >> >news:o13l91de6bmmblvglsfserj9al7fpp46m9@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:27:24 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> >> >> >> <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
> >> >> >> >news:cpqk919grm7rpgsshetksmghvqlan08ogu@xxxxxxx:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>There are people and there are times. She is arguing Norwegian
> >> >> >> >>>and Swede after 1350, not Norse during the 11th century.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You seem to be equating Norse with Viking. They are not the
same
> >> >> >> >> thing.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The Viking period ended at the end of the 10th century. The
> >> >> >> >greenlanders were christianized thereafter and would have been
> >Norse.
> >> >> >> >The swedish state with recognized borders did not begin until
1323,
> >> >> >> >however a partial definition was in place by the 12th century.
> >Prior
> >> >> >> >to that people would have been informally called Swedes if they
> >were
> >> >> >> >from eastern trading portion of the viking world, prior to 1323
> >there
> >> >> >> >was a contested claim over finland, so at that time the Swedish
> >state
> >> >> >> >would have been Swedo-finnic.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> All of which is correct.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not at all correct. Sweden's borders were recognised in a tract
> >between
> >> >> >Sweden, Denmark and Norway in early 11th century. Officially the
> >> >consensus
> >> >> >refer to the 12th century meeting in Kongahälla 1101, but there are
> >> >> >fragments left of the earlier meeting which was held in Olof
> >Skötkongungs
> >> >> >days. Sweden as a country is documented long before that.
Unfortunatly
> >> >for
> >> >> >the Icelandic Sagas which tried/tries to make believe that it
started
> >in
> >> >Old
> >> >> >Uppsala there are documents older than the mythical Bråvallaslaget
> >which
> >> >> >confirms that there was a type of union between the Goths living in
> >> >> >Wisigothia and Ostrogothia on one hand and the group living around
> >> >> >Aros(Västerås, Västmanland) in Migration Age whenever enemies were
> >> >> >attacking. The oldest mentioning of Sweden as a country goes back
> >before
> >> >> >migration age and stipulates that it starts on the eastern shore of
> >> >Wigotha
> >> >> >Elf.....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They all come under the umbrella term
> >> >> >> 'norse'. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Norse
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not in Medieval Age. That's a later fabricated word which assumes
that
> >> >the
> >> >> >Roman Historians meant the same with the Latin words they used for
> >> >'Nordmen'
> >> >> >and people living in the Nordic countries.
> >> >>
> >> >> You will have to argue with the dictionary. It says " Of or relating
> >> >> to medieval Scandinavia or its peoples, languages, or cultures."
> >> >
> >> >English Dictionary I presume, not Scandinavian ones. There is a
distinct
> >> >difference from Migration Age up between the different Scandinavian
> >groups
> >> >and countries.
> >>
> >> Inger, we are all writing in English. I'm using english words with
> >> english meanings.
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In Medieval Age up to 1390's there were a clear distinction between
> >the
> >> >> >three Nordic countries: Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Finland
belonged
> >to
> >> >> >Sweden as it done most of the time since Hermaneric's days.(Roman
and
> >> >East
> >> >> >European sources up to 1115 AD) What's also forgotten is that the
real
> >> >Kvens
> >> >> >up to around same period were in majority north of a line from
Gävle
> >to
> >> >> >Bergen.
> >> >>
> >> >> But what are Nordic countries if not Norse?
> >> >
> >> >Norse is your way of placing four eggs that used to be three eggs
under
> >one
> >> >and the same hat. But we aren't in a hat. There are and have always
been
> >> >very strong borders between our different groups. Skane has belonged
to
> >> >Sweden since mid 1600's but many Skåningar as well as many here
doesn't
> >look
> >> >upon them as Swedes.
> >>
> >> But in the english world we tend to look on them all as norse.
> >
> >Well what I was trying to tell you in the English speaking world was that
> >you use this in a wrong way. It's like saying that NZ was Aussie.
> >
>
> Its like talking about Australasians.

I guess you would LOVE to be called that. Wouldn't you?? :-)
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Merchandise harbor Greenland - killing a Myth
    ... Now Inger, if you are being grammatical, you should have a comma after ... of why and how someone with a demonstrated inability to use English ... > lack of contact and only one ship the Royal Knarr sailing to Greenland after ... In English one usually arrives AT rather than arrives TO. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: a question for inger
    ... The Oxford Dictionary of English: ... Sorry Inger, you're wrong. ... >I must say it's asthonishing that linguists who protests and assume some ... Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Stopped discussion in sci.archaeology.moderated
    ... like to know what people here mean when they say negative things about her, you may wish to compare her postings from, say, five years ago and her postings now. ... references; she asserts that she has posted adequate references to specific questions many times in the past, and therefore will not repeat them because that would be pearls before swine; she makes claims that there are studies afoot that will totally vindicate her in pretty much any situation in which she is being asked to support her claims, but these studies either never materialize or do not, in fact, support her claims; she will mis-read other people's posts as though they were attacks on her when they are not, and will refuse to admit her mis-reading when it is patiently and explicitly explained to her by many other posters; she claims superior skills in English to native readers and writers of English, and when cornered with a real corker of a cock-up, she will attack the native English speakeras not speaking British English; not aware of an old-fashioned English usage which, she will assert, is still current in the specialist field under consideration; not aware of an extremely new English usage that is only known by those on the cutting edge of the field in question; or being prejudiced against Swedish dyslexics. ... Take a look at his posts now, ... But if someone comes here with a real desire to learn, and thinks Inger has something useful to say about all the things she claims, being taken by Inger down the garden path is unconscionable. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Interesting archeological discovery - Emperor Qins tomb
    ... The British English ... often are very good in understanding and speaking several other languages ... Inger E ... > British and American English. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: a question for inger
    ... >> Inger, this is where your poor understanding of English is confusing you. ...
    (sci.archaeology)