lapin-puukko (aka puukko) revisited

tom hyle · 29th April 2005, 03:39 PM

Thanks. There's something to be said for understanding things from the inside, and there is equally sometimes an inability to, as said in modern English (German mixed with Greek and Latin and very little Celtic) "see the forest for the trees" ie it can be difficult to see an overall picture past all the details. I do not think that whether the current English (for instance) consider themselves German is much the issue (or at all important, actually); I consider them German, as do the Irish and Scotts, for instance, as I do (even moreso) the scandinavians; this is what I was explaining; that I am using a different slant on language; not any new or individual one (not that there'd be anything wrong with that) but an ancient/outmoded one, BTW. One that refers to the ancient past and to migrations and social movements as real, meaningful, and important things; taht thus emphasizes those more than the tribal/political divisions that fascinate most humans but seem much less important/informative IMHO. The most difficult thing about the word German is we have a modern polity sometimes called that (Germany, but actually Dutch Land, of course), about which there are even more emotions than about most such, and which is not a nation-state, but only a small, even random-seeming, part of the Germannic world; a tribe using the name of the whole nation; a common phenomenon, but no less confusing for that. There is not only no need, but no possibility for correctness in this matter, as it is a matter not of fact, but of interpretation; of outlook; of paradigm. Thus when reading me try to understand from/though my paradigm (which I try to explain); as when reading you I try to understand from yours.
Huns are more Tartars, at least originally, when they came to Europe.

VVV · 29th April 2005, 03:59 PM

Hi again,

Of course you could describe Central and North Europe as once a Germanic tribe and having different Germanic languages (except Finland, Hungary and the Baltic states). And we could discuss in depth if Danes are closer to Germans in a cultural way than f.i. Norwegians and Swedes etc.
Maybe we should drop this discussion and focus on the knife instead?

I only wanted to clarify the overall differences between Scandinavian and Nordic countries/languages/people.

Kind regards,

Michael

PS Don't forget that there is also a lot of old Viking terms in English - like sword and knife ;-)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

29th April 2005, 03:39 PM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Thanks. There's something to be said for understanding things from the inside, and there is equally sometimes an inability to, as said in modern English (German mixed with Greek and Latin and very little Celtic) "see the forest for the trees" ie it can be difficult to see an overall picture past all the details. I do not think that whether the current English (for instance) consider themselves German is much the issue (or at all important, actually); I consider them German, as do the Irish and Scotts, for instance, as I do (even moreso) the scandinavians; this is what I was explaining; that I am using a different slant on language; not any new or individual one (not that there'd be anything wrong with that) but an ancient/outmoded one, BTW. One that refers to the ancient past and to migrations and social movements as real, meaningful, and important things; taht thus emphasizes those more than the tribal/political divisions that fascinate most humans but seem much less important/informative IMHO. The most difficult thing about the word German is we have a modern polity sometimes called that (Germany, but actually Dutch Land, of course), about which there are even more emotions than about most such, and which is not a nation-state, but only a small, even random-seeming, part of the Germannic world; a tribe using the name of the whole nation; a common phenomenon, but no less confusing for that. There is not only no need, but no possibility for correctness in this matter, as it is a matter not of fact, but of interpretation; of outlook; of paradigm. Thus when reading me try to understand from/though my paradigm (which I try to explain); as when reading you I try to understand from yours. Huns are more Tartars, at least originally, when they came to Europe.

29th April 2005, 03:59 PM	#2
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Hi again, Of course you could describe Central and North Europe as once a Germanic tribe and having different Germanic languages (except Finland, Hungary and the Baltic states). And we could discuss in depth if Danes are closer to Germans in a cultural way than f.i. Norwegians and Swedes etc. Maybe we should drop this discussion and focus on the knife instead? I only wanted to clarify the overall differences between Scandinavian and Nordic countries/languages/people. Kind regards, Michael PS Don't forget that there is also a lot of old Viking terms in English - like sword and knife ;-)