Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:08:12 +1200
On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:23:27 GMT, "IEJ" <Iejohansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"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
I don't know about LOVE but I have absolutely no objection when the
collective activities of the two countries are under discussion. It's
quite common usage.
Eric Stevens
.
- References:
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: IEJ
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: IEJ
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: IEJ
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- From: IEJ
- Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Prev by Date: Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Next by Date: Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Previous by thread: Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Next by thread: Re: Why only crap in this NG? (was Wolter claims ...)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|