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.
|