Talk:Ambrones

Cimbri and Ambrones

I don't know, what do you think? Hermann becomes Armin-ius and Herminones become Erminones, but not to themselves, only to the foreign Romans. Apparently, the Romans recognized Cimbri (which ought to have been native *himmer) but did not recognize the Ambrones, calling them by a different name. If they were in fact recognizing that they used a different name, what name could that have been and why was it different? If these questions are not answerable, are we justified in presenting it that way, rather than just taking the source at face value?

Of course we can find answers. I saw on the Internet a very amusing piece by a Turkish scholar, which rendered some Indo-european text into very good original Turkish. He was making a good point there. To what extent are we justified in hypothesizing a transition from Cimbri to Ambrones? I would leave the question in and see if we can't get some insights from other people. it would be nice if we could get a few different derivations and present them together as possibilities.PS I forgot to sign. Here:Dave 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

PPS I read the article on Sugambri, which connects -gambri to Cimbri. And there is the Gambrivii. The possible Celtic connection is not addressed. I think we are misusing Grimm's Law. Here is what is bothering me about the whole hypothetical connection: we have cimb-, himm-, gamb- and amb-, not as different stages in time, but all together at the same time and place in a language that must have been common over the whole region! I don't see how Grimm's Law can connect all of them. I think we need some more work with the etymological dictionaries. Eventually I'll be looking into that but right now these people names need some faces instead of a thin red underline. Let's see what turns up.Dave 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)