Slaven
Junior Member
SURG GASTOY I NAS - Cheers to the guests and us
Posts: 56
|
Post by Slaven on May 6, 2004 7:23:37 GMT -5
In some South Slavic languages RUS = blonde and VAR = be aware, keep save...
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 6, 2004 14:58:40 GMT -5
I thought it's tipical for any dinasty, isn't it? You are missing the point entirely. There was NO Russian dynasty before Romanovs because no concept of Russia existed until late 1600s.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 6, 2004 15:07:35 GMT -5
In some South Slavic languages RUS = blonde and VAR = be aware, keep save... I guess that must be pretty much the case for all Slavic or Slavonic languages. Is this board acting up or is it my computer that acts funny? It's slow and sometimes says there are too many connections to this board.
|
|
Noric
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by Noric on May 6, 2004 17:45:01 GMT -5
There was NO Russian dynasty before Romanovs because no concept of Russia existed until late 1600s. I understand you clear - I'm just not agree with you. What "concept" appears at 1600s? Where is the bordering line between 'Rus' and 'Russia'? 'Russian' is usually translated into russian(!) language as 'russkiy'. In this meaning, 'russian'='one of Rus'. Terms 'Russian land'('russkaya zemlia'), 'russian language', 'Rus' - are used from the start of its written history. I can't see any bordering line - as I said before. Once they'd called it 'Russian land' - and it's been a 'Russian land' until now. F.e.'Russian kingdom' of Adam of Bremen - is it already Russia or not yet?... Russians themselves make no difference between 'Rus' and 'Russia'. 'Rus' - is just a medieval 'Russia'. The different case - is Russian Empire... The specific word 'rossiyskiy' - associated mostly with Russian Empire appears I guess at 17th century. English word 'russian' makes no difference between 'russkiy' and 'rossiyskiy'. Let me remind you - that there is such a thing as 'Russian Kaganat' of medieval arabic sources. It can be an unknown medieval russian state (pre-Rurik?).
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 6, 2004 17:53:38 GMT -5
I understand you clear - I'm just not agree with you. What "concept" appears at 1600s? Where is the bordering line between 'Rus' and 'Russia'? 'Russian' is usually translated into russian(!) language as 'russkiy'. In this meaning, 'russian'='one of Rus'. Terms 'Russian land'('russkaya zemlia'), 'russian language', 'Rus' - are used from the start of its written history. I can't see any bordering line - as I said before. Once they'd called it 'Russian land' - and it's been a 'Russian land' until now. F.e.'Russian kingdom' of Adam of Bremen - is it already Russia or not yet?... Russians themselves make no difference between 'Rus' and 'Russia'. 'Rus' - is just a medieval 'Russia'. The different case - is Russian Empire... The specific word 'rossiyskiy' - associated mostly with Russian Empire appears I guess at 17th century. English word 'russian' makes no difference between 'russkiy' and 'rossiyskiy'. Let me remind you - that there is such a thing as 'Russian Kaganat' of medieval arabic sources. It can be an unknown medieval russian state (pre-Rurik?). This is total bull. A citizen of Novgorod might have considered himself Novgorodian or even someone who belongs to the greater "Rus" but certainly not to a state called Russia. Russia was not a nation pretty much until late 17 century. Well, Italy was a geographic and linguistic concept too, not a nation. So was Germany.
|
|
Noric
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by Noric on May 6, 2004 18:47:31 GMT -5
Maybe. A citizen of Novgorod might have considered himself Novgorodian or even someone who belongs to the greater "Rus" but certainly not to a state called Russia. 1. Russian state existed from 9th century at least. 2. Russia - is a name for russian state from 16 century. 3. Novgorod -was- a part of Russian state. It was independent in 1136-1478. So what? Soviet republics -were- parts of Russian Empire, than USSR - now they are independent... Russia was not a nation pretty much until late 17 century. What it was?... A "concept"?... a) we are talkin' bout -state-, not nation. b) anyway I guess it -was- a nation much earlier, than you say.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 6, 2004 19:23:22 GMT -5
symmakhos, "the British Isles, the original home of the Celts.." You lost me there, with that BS. The Kelts were immigrants from the continent, not native sons of the soil. The true homeland of the Kelts is Central Europe - the area from France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria.., not Britain. Britain is where Goidelic Gaelic developed, everywhere else it was Brythonic including Gaulish. Your DNA information was not news. The Scottish Islands have and are populated by people who came from Scandinavia. No Kelts there except immigrants from Scotland proper. Southern England was not the main point of immigration of Scandinavians, it was not in the Danelaw area. It is also reasonable that Southern English have Keltic admixture as did their progenitors the Angles and Saxons. Not all the Kelts jumped ship and headed to Britain. Sorry Graeme, have been drinking for a few days and not been able to keep up. My post was in answer to AWAR (did you read his post?), and you are not really addressing the main issues, are you?
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 6, 2004 19:43:12 GMT -5
Better explain what is uteservering, you don't need dictionary for that. It's a place outside a café or a bar where you sit and eat and drink. I suppose you southerners don't need a name for it?
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 7, 2004 9:20:58 GMT -5
Maybe. 1. Russian state existed from 9th century at least. 2. Russia - is a name for russian state from 16 century. 3. Novgorod -was- a part of Russian state. It was independent in 1136-1478. So what? Soviet republics -were- parts of Russian Empire, than USSR - now they are independent... What it was?... A "concept"?... a) we are talkin' bout -state-, not nation. b) anyway I guess it -was- a nation much earlier, than you say. I would advance an argument that even today Russia is not a nation in any conventional sense. It is not a nation like Sweden, Brazil, France or Poland or Japan. In any case, any talk about Russia in pre-Petrine sense is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 7, 2004 9:27:54 GMT -5
It's a place outside a café or a bar where you sit and eat and drink. I suppose you southerners don't need a name for it? das Straßencafé, café terrace
|
|
Noric
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by Noric on May 7, 2004 16:41:48 GMT -5
I would advance an argument that even today Russia is not a nation in any conventional sense. Please, argue. *‘Russian’ nation appears at 9th century and it is united by Russian state – ‘Rus’, ‘Russian land’. *Than Rurikovichi tear the state apart into duchies. *Then mongols subdue most of russian lands. (13th c) They do not rule but tax. Rurikovichi are stiil rulers, but now subduded to the Golden Horde. *Then mongols are overhelmed – the russian ducies are united –again-. (14-15th c) Westernized name ‘Russ+ia’ appears. Russia – united russian duchies - is ruled by ‘King of all Rus’. Since then Russia grows. In 18th c. it grows into an Empire. At the same time, 2 complex opposite processes run. Let’s call them ‘homogenization’ and ‘heterogenization’ of nation. ‘Russian’ nation separates to ‘velikorussi’, ’malorossi/ukraintsi’, ’belorussi’. ‘Velikorussi’ keep the name ‘russians’. Todays [slavonish part of] Russia = Velikorossija of 19th c. But it’s direct genetical, cultural and mental successor of “ancient” Rus. ? Illustration – take ‘America’ (USA), tear it into 50 independent states (governors will be ‘dukes’), then put it under Chiniese occupation, then re-unite it (with part of Canada and Mexico added). Name it ‘American Federation’. Would it be still ‘America’ – or not?…<br> In any case, any talk about Russia in pre-Petrine sense is meaningless. It depends… on the purpose of the talk. However it’s funny – I guess Mr. Ivan Grozniy – “Russian Tzar and King of all Rus” (or smth like that) – wouldn’t agree with you…
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 7, 2004 17:46:24 GMT -5
das Straßencafé, café terrace Beautiful
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 7, 2004 17:55:06 GMT -5
Well, Graeme this is like that Said Muhammad or whatever is his name. These people are so alike. Let him have "his" Egypt too. Please don't break other people's toys. Cheap. I'm sure both of you are aware that the post in question just consisted of a quote from a regular science website, and that it was an answer to AWAR's claim that Scandinavia is heavily infected with Slavic DNA? I think it would be interesting to do a similar DNA test on the population of Western Russia, and see how great a genetic legacy my great ancestors have left behind. ;D
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on May 7, 2004 18:24:42 GMT -5
Cheap. I'm sure both of you are aware that the post in question just consisted of a quote from a regular science website, and that it was an answer to AWAR's claim that Scandinavia is heavily infected with Slavic DNA? I think it would be interesting to do a similar DNA test on the population of Western Russia, and see how great a genetic legacy my great ancestors have left behind. ;D There is no such thing as Slavic or Germanic DNA, although, it's visible that Scandinavians were largely influenced by two eastern European groups.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 7, 2004 19:02:52 GMT -5
There is no such thing as Slavic or Germanic DNA, although, it's visible that Scandinavians were largely influenced by two eastern European groups. I'm perfectly certain that you mentioned "Slavic DNA" in an earlier post in this thread.
|
|