![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discussion on another article about the creation of this one [1]. This article was created using adapted material from Goths.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
(stray comment, with no ambitions for further discussion under the given circumstances:)
This article makes a good approach towards the topic. It is about the name of the "Goths", a name which has a good match with the name of the "Gutones" and "Gutes", and an imperfect but plausible match (per ablaut) with the name of the "Geats". The lede explicitly states "the implications of these similarities, and the actual meaning of the Gothic name, is disputed", and this is how it is discussed in "Historical significance". All linguistic material is discussed, but focus remains on the Goths, in agreement with the title. The length of the article and the depth of the discussion justify a standalone. It's a good start, the rest is community editing based on well-thought and balanced WP:BRD, hopefully without overblown discussions and endless "stream-of-consciousness" talk posts.
In order to avoid diverging statements (aka POV-forking) in either article, the corresponding section in "Goths" should be trimmed to a minimum. – Austronesier ( talk) 09:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
As long as the difference between a linguistic cognate and an ethno-cultural similarity is addressed in the article, they will not be any issue.I don't think this is coming across in the article yet, and I suspect there will be great resistance to any attempt to put it in the article. But don't shoot me for being worried about this. I would love to be proved wrong.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe this should be re-ordered logically according to the several distinct and obvious categories of attestations; with the same approach as Alcaios recently on Goths. By this I mean something like this:
Concerning the first bullet, I have looked in the past but never actually found the text of Shapur I's inscription. Anyone else seen it?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We have The simplex variant of this name, *Gutans (Goth), or possibly *Gutôs, is inferred from a presumed genitive plural form gutani in the Pietroassa inscription.[1][5]
The RGA article (already in the bibliography, but not on this sentence) says, in contrast: Eine einheimisch got. Form liegt in der Inschr. auf dem Goldring von Pietroassa aus der zweiten Hälfte des 4. Jh.s n. Chr. vor: gutani, nunmehr allg. als Gen. Pl. gutané augefasst.
A tweak could probably bring us into better line with the RGA article.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
09:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I have added some material to the last section, partly to address a dab tag. I am wondering if this sentence should be removed or adapted:
The Romans frequently applied this name to peoples from beyond the Danube, though the Goths had no relation whatsoever to the Scythians.{{sfn|Dickens|2018|pp=1346-1347}}.
For some reason we are citing a weaker source to get this simple/strong wording, but I feel the sentence ignores two ideas which are found in better sources: (1) the term Scythian might not have been understood as implying ethnicity in the sense of common ancestry or traditions (2) the Ukrainian Goths may well have absorbed other peoples and seen themselves as "Scythian" in terms of ethnicity also (especially if we take Jordanes seriously on that point). To me it seems the sentence could be adapted to say something which does not exclude these options, or it could be removed because other parts of the paragraph now also attempt to spell the problem out.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not have access to all the sources we cite for the following, however from what I can see I wonder if we have this right:
A [[runic]] inscription on the [[Ring of Pietroassa]] can be read as ''Gutaniwiheilag'', which is usually interpreted as 'the sacred heritage of the Goths'.{{sfn|Strid|2010|p=445}} The name ''Gutani'' probably reflects a form of the Gothic endonym *''Gutans''.{{sfn|Brink|2008|p=104}}{{sfn|Brink|2002|p=688}} Alternatively it reflects a form of the ethnonym of the Gutes.{{sfn|Strid|2010|p=445}}
Comparing to our own article on the Ring of Pietroassa, and also to other articles by Strid, it seems there IS agreement that the last part says "hAilag", but there is not much certainty about everything between GUTANI and HAILAG? Can anyone help check this? At the very least we seem to have a typo. As it is important evidence perhaps this paragraph needs expansion and reference to more sources.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Gary Miller here treats *Gutanē as hypothetical, but this article calls it 'biblical'. What exactly does the latter mean here and is this word attested or not? Srnec ( talk) 01:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Derva in Lithuanian language means Tar and Dervingiai are the PEOPLE PRODUCING THE TAR and living in Lithuanian forest (North of Vistula and Bug till Neva river where now is St. Petersburg and Mozhaisk). Grudai in Lithuanian means Grains and Grudingiai are the PEOPLE PRODUCING GRAINS and living in Ukrainian half-steppe. It was written even that Grudingiai called themselves so because they were agricultural people and Dervingiai called themselves so because they lived in the forest.
One may get the impression that academics in history and language are allowed to speculate freely. Just throwing in: In modern-day Norwegian, "gutt" means "boy", "gud" means "deity" (or "god"), "god" means "good" and "geit" means "goat". "Gaute" is a common masculine given name. Elias ( talk) 11:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discussion on another article about the creation of this one [1]. This article was created using adapted material from Goths.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
(stray comment, with no ambitions for further discussion under the given circumstances:)
This article makes a good approach towards the topic. It is about the name of the "Goths", a name which has a good match with the name of the "Gutones" and "Gutes", and an imperfect but plausible match (per ablaut) with the name of the "Geats". The lede explicitly states "the implications of these similarities, and the actual meaning of the Gothic name, is disputed", and this is how it is discussed in "Historical significance". All linguistic material is discussed, but focus remains on the Goths, in agreement with the title. The length of the article and the depth of the discussion justify a standalone. It's a good start, the rest is community editing based on well-thought and balanced WP:BRD, hopefully without overblown discussions and endless "stream-of-consciousness" talk posts.
In order to avoid diverging statements (aka POV-forking) in either article, the corresponding section in "Goths" should be trimmed to a minimum. – Austronesier ( talk) 09:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
As long as the difference between a linguistic cognate and an ethno-cultural similarity is addressed in the article, they will not be any issue.I don't think this is coming across in the article yet, and I suspect there will be great resistance to any attempt to put it in the article. But don't shoot me for being worried about this. I would love to be proved wrong.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe this should be re-ordered logically according to the several distinct and obvious categories of attestations; with the same approach as Alcaios recently on Goths. By this I mean something like this:
Concerning the first bullet, I have looked in the past but never actually found the text of Shapur I's inscription. Anyone else seen it?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We have The simplex variant of this name, *Gutans (Goth), or possibly *Gutôs, is inferred from a presumed genitive plural form gutani in the Pietroassa inscription.[1][5]
The RGA article (already in the bibliography, but not on this sentence) says, in contrast: Eine einheimisch got. Form liegt in der Inschr. auf dem Goldring von Pietroassa aus der zweiten Hälfte des 4. Jh.s n. Chr. vor: gutani, nunmehr allg. als Gen. Pl. gutané augefasst.
A tweak could probably bring us into better line with the RGA article.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
09:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I have added some material to the last section, partly to address a dab tag. I am wondering if this sentence should be removed or adapted:
The Romans frequently applied this name to peoples from beyond the Danube, though the Goths had no relation whatsoever to the Scythians.{{sfn|Dickens|2018|pp=1346-1347}}.
For some reason we are citing a weaker source to get this simple/strong wording, but I feel the sentence ignores two ideas which are found in better sources: (1) the term Scythian might not have been understood as implying ethnicity in the sense of common ancestry or traditions (2) the Ukrainian Goths may well have absorbed other peoples and seen themselves as "Scythian" in terms of ethnicity also (especially if we take Jordanes seriously on that point). To me it seems the sentence could be adapted to say something which does not exclude these options, or it could be removed because other parts of the paragraph now also attempt to spell the problem out.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not have access to all the sources we cite for the following, however from what I can see I wonder if we have this right:
A [[runic]] inscription on the [[Ring of Pietroassa]] can be read as ''Gutaniwiheilag'', which is usually interpreted as 'the sacred heritage of the Goths'.{{sfn|Strid|2010|p=445}} The name ''Gutani'' probably reflects a form of the Gothic endonym *''Gutans''.{{sfn|Brink|2008|p=104}}{{sfn|Brink|2002|p=688}} Alternatively it reflects a form of the ethnonym of the Gutes.{{sfn|Strid|2010|p=445}}
Comparing to our own article on the Ring of Pietroassa, and also to other articles by Strid, it seems there IS agreement that the last part says "hAilag", but there is not much certainty about everything between GUTANI and HAILAG? Can anyone help check this? At the very least we seem to have a typo. As it is important evidence perhaps this paragraph needs expansion and reference to more sources.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Gary Miller here treats *Gutanē as hypothetical, but this article calls it 'biblical'. What exactly does the latter mean here and is this word attested or not? Srnec ( talk) 01:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Derva in Lithuanian language means Tar and Dervingiai are the PEOPLE PRODUCING THE TAR and living in Lithuanian forest (North of Vistula and Bug till Neva river where now is St. Petersburg and Mozhaisk). Grudai in Lithuanian means Grains and Grudingiai are the PEOPLE PRODUCING GRAINS and living in Ukrainian half-steppe. It was written even that Grudingiai called themselves so because they were agricultural people and Dervingiai called themselves so because they lived in the forest.
One may get the impression that academics in history and language are allowed to speculate freely. Just throwing in: In modern-day Norwegian, "gutt" means "boy", "gud" means "deity" (or "god"), "god" means "good" and "geit" means "goat". "Gaute" is a common masculine given name. Elias ( talk) 11:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)