Talk:Vates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok! I didn't know of the use in early Latin. Can you give some more context (authors/texts)? Does that defeat the idea of a celtic origin, and of faith as a cognate? dab (ᛏ) 17:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Celtic origin is possible (only among those Celtic languages where early IE 'w'--->'v'), but quite likely the Latin word is a cognate. Many references also indicate that the Latin word is indigenous, from IE *wat (or *wet), 'to spiritually arouse, inspire'. Decius 07:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be an uncertain issue among references whether Vates is indigenous to Latin or from Celtic. Decius 11:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decius, you misunderstood the Woden part (admittedly, I was less clear than on the Odin article): That the two words are derived from the same PIE root is undisputed. But the Ruebekeil suggestion is that Woden is actually derived from the Vates (the celtic word), as *Vatinos, i.e. the god associated with the Vates. dab (ᛏ) 08:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I see now. The article didn't say that though: "Rubekeil suggested that the name of the Germanic god Woden may be connected etymologically with the Vates. The word is also cognate with the Irish, faith---" so I couldn't know what Ruebekeil was saying: the sentence appeared to only suggest that this was a cognate, just as the Irish word is "also a cognate". Decius 09:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ruebekeil has surely studied this topic extensively, but it wouldn't surprise me if his suggestion is wrong. Decius 09:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I know it wasn't clear, sorry, I was going to improve it, but you beat me :p — yes, it is speculative. It's published, so it's okay to mention the idea, but nobody claims that it is in any way an obvious theory. I do think he is making a few good points, and I am prepared to entertain the possibility (I can send you the article if you like). dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It's okay, no problem mentioning the idea in the article: he might be right; he has studied the question in depth at least. But as usual, I'm skeptical till his idea is further reviewed. Decius 13:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of reviews, it would be interesting to find a review of his essay. Decius 13:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Basically, what has got me "riled up" is that the tendency appeared to be to derive both the Latin and Germanic forms from Celtic: this may be "reductionism" (i.e., reducing probable cognates to loanwords) or "celtism" at work. It is probable that these words were not found indigenously solely among the Celts (since it may be PIE root, and the Latin & Germanic forms correspond to the root according to Latin & Germanic evolutions, at least generally). Decius 13:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

it could be a common "Western Indo-European" word. Note that the load would have been into pre-proto-Germanic, i.e. Vatinos was there, and became Wodinaz with the Germanic sound shift. So the idea is that either the Celts (around 500 BC or so) had so much influence that the term spread both into Italic and pre-Germanic -- or that the common ancestors of Celtic, Italic and Germanic speakers in the 2nd millennium BC already had vates and vatinos. The loan from Celtic into pre-Germanic around 500 BC is very credible though, since the Celts were the more advanced civilization at that time, and other loans are known. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems that *wat has not been established as a PIE root due to scarcity of cognates. I'm wondering then, if all the examples are then traced back to Celtic, then the idea that *wat may be a PIE root would be unfounded: if the Latin & Germanic forms are derived from Celtic, would there be any indigenous forms derived from this root then outside of Celtic? If not, then "PIE *wat" becomes "non-IE *vat" perhaps. I'll look in Pokorny or something. Decius 15:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pokorny has

Lat. va:te:s, -is (wohl kelt. Lw.?) `Weissager, Seher', gall. ou)a:'teis N. Pl. ds., air. fa:ith `Seher, Prophet', mir. fa:th (*va:tu-) `Prophezeiung, Ursache' = cymr. gwawd `Gedicht'; got. wo:ds `besessen', aisl. o:ðr, ags. wo:d ds. (*wo:da-), ahd. wuot `insanitus'; aisl. œ:sa `rasend, verrückt machen', ags. we:dan, ahd. wuoten, alts. wo:dian `wüten, rasend, verrückt sein'; ahd. *wuot (Gen. wuoti), mhd. wuot `heftige Gemütsstimmung, Wut'; dazu aisl. O:ðinn, as. ags. Wo:den, ahd. Wuotan; auf germ. *wo:þa- weist aisl. o:ðr m. `Poesie', ags. wo:þ `Gesang, Laut, Stimme, Dichtung'; Thieme (Asiatica, Festschrift Weller 656 ff.) deutet ai. api-vat- als ursprünglich `anblasen, inspirieren' (anders oben S. 346), und stellt es zu unserer Sippe, die dann als Erweiterung von *ave:- `blasen' (oben S. 81 ff.) aufgefaßt werden könnte.

i.e. he assumes Lat. vates is a Celtic loan. However, the root is very well attested in Germanic, in meanings "poetry" and "madness". Note the suggested connection to Sanskrit api-vat-, but that's of course speculative. dab (ᛏ) 15:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the lack of definite cognates outside the Celtic sphere does make a very good case for Celtic origin then---or perhaps to some older pre-IE western European source. Decius 15:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

yes, most people would agree that it is probably an extension of veh (breathe, blow, in vati "wind"). These 't-extensions' are common enough, and in this case, it is apparently restricted to "the West". That doesn't make it "Celtic", mind you, it is much better attested in the "Germanic sphere". The spread of meanings makes it look older, probably the root was "constructed" in the European bronze age, ca. 2000 BC, i.e. pre-Celtic, pre-Germanic, and pre-Italic. This means that the question whether Woden is derived from the Germanic wodaz/wothaz or from the Celtic vatos is meaningful. However, this is assuming that the god is not much older than the final couple of centuries BC. This makes sense, however, since Tiwaz has left clear traces, and was likely "on top" up to the Migration Age / 2nd century AD or so. The idea is that the early Germans were really impressed by the sophiosticated Celtic religion, especially by those mad vates, and their god, the vatinos. This god would have had enough prestige (much like the shiny new christian god had a lot of prestige in the 7th/8th century, over the moldy old idols) to be allowed beside old Tiwaz, and eventually replacing him. dab (ᛏ) 16:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

PIE *we/*veh does look like the likely source, judging from all those t-extensions that I see listed under that root (and of course, the linked meaning), including ancient Greek atmos, 'breath'. So then pre-IE would be unlikely. On the other hand, since PIE *we is well established, the development from PIE *we to *vat in Latin is very possible, so it is once again up in the air whether it is also indigenous to Latin, Germanic, and so on. Decius 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, Latin vannus (from PIE *we) is from an earlier *wat-no according to my reference, and there we see the t-extension in Latin. Decius 17:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

that's what I mean. the root is likely PIE, or shortly-post-PIE. The word "vates" in the sense "seer, prophet etc." may still be a loan from Celtic, in spite of the root being present in both Italic and Germanic natively (you agree that there is no obvious synchronic connection of vannus with vates). But we don't know. Judging from the meanings, the root may have referred to "rage" in Germanic, to "inspiration" in Celtic, and to "air, breath" in Italic. However, that the vannus was also something carried around at Bacchic festivals [1] may point to a "ecstatic" meaning of vat in "Western PIE". We can at least note the possibility. dab (ᛏ) 17:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The current state of the evidence is inconclusive. I guess at the present it depends on one's personal preferences. I'm somewhat of a "Latinist", so I'll stick to my guns and consider that vates may well be indigenous to Latin as well. Decius 17:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"IE" in my terminology is applied to forms such as *we-nt-o (source of Latin ventus, Germanic *windaz), from PIE *we. So I might often say "IE *we-nt-o, from PIE *we". Similarly, I would say "IE *vat, from PIE *we", but this may be my own personal usage. Decius 17:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

yes, I think that usage would require explanation. I think we are drifting away from the topic of this article though :o) dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with what is in the article so far for now: it is balanced, and the possibility is left open for either the *vat form being also native to Italic and Germanic (and perhaps others), and on the other hand the Celtic origin of vates theory. Decius 18:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I found some more data that again suggests indigenous origin for Italic and Germanic forms: according to my reference, Old High German wedel or wadal (=winnowing fan) is from *we-thla/*we-tlo, from PIE *we, 'to blow'. Now, let's compare: Germanic wadal, 'winnowing fan', from PIE *we, juxtaposed to Germanic Woden, presumably from "PIE" *wat (notice wad<->wod); Latin vannus (*vat-no), 'winnowing fan', from PIE *we, juxtaposed to Latin vates, presumably from "PIE" *wat. These correspondances incline me to support the view that Woden is indigenous to Germanic, and Vates to Latin. Though I realize that this is not conclusive, nevertheless for me it casts more doubt on the Celtic origin theory. Decius 19:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't follow you here. Keep in mind that the relationship of ve and vat is speculative. You cannot switch between ve and vat several times. We do have 'indigenous' vat in Germanic. It means "rage". In Italic, vannus appears to be from vat. If it is, vat in Italic seems *not* to mean "spiritually excited", so that vates would appear to be borrowed (you know, you can have Italic vat meaning "breathe" or something, and still borrow vates "seer"). Wodinaz could without question be derived from indigenous Germanic wod "rage": This is the communis opinio, and this is also the synchronic understanding of the name in the Middle Ages. Only Ruebekeil believes, based on hints that the Wodan-furor association may be secondary, popular etymology, that Wodinaz may have been borrowed in spite of indigenous wod. The Italic side is less clear, since we don't know for certain the root is indigenous. As far as I can see, there are two possibilities,

• vatos meant "seer" back in 1800 BC and was inherited, independent of its root, as a noun, by both Italic and Celtic
• vatos only came to mean "seer" in 700 BC Celtic, and was borrowed into Italic around 500 BC.

as far as I'm concerned, we cannot decide between the two versions, and for all practical purposes, vates *is* a native Latin word. dab (ᛏ) 20:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The correspondances to me seem very suggestive of something more than chance correspondances. These are very "recondite" matters that require more research of course---but so far it looks to me that the Latin word is indigenous to Latin. Decius 20:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The German example shows that you cannot simply say that in Italic *vat meant only "air, breath" (by excluding vates). If I exclude Woden and its related 'rage' forms and consider only wadal (=winnowing fan), I can say that in Germanic the form also only meant "air, breath". It's more complex it seems. Decius 21:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

One note though: my 1969 AHD says German wadal is from that *we root. I haven't referenced any other work on this etymology. If that etymology has been abandoned since, then that substracts something from the argument. I'll see what I find. Decius 22:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

sure, we just don't know. I'm not saying your scenario is impossible, or wrong. I am entertaining an idea that vat was a "secondary Urheimat" "centum areal" root, but that's beyond the provable, so I am not trying to score points, your guess is as good as mine. dab (ᛏ) 09:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason I was motivated against the Celtic origin of the word was a cultural issue as well as a linguistic issue (the linguistic evidence so far can't tell us for sure). Culturally, I think (though I have no definite evidence) that the pre-Romans (pre-Latins, early Italics, etc.) had the word as well as the function of vates. Decius 00:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs an Italo-Celtic article. Decius 04:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wtf

[2] -- I hope you are jesting, but I am not sure after what you managed to do on Talk:Odin. Do you really think "Forschungsgeschichtliche Leichen exhumiert" refers to Iron Age graveyards, or are you just pulling my leg now? dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)