[Facts] Re: Which philologist?
in reply to a message by Elfstone
A source (reliable or not) is always important when somebody comments a supposed origin/meaning/etc. of a name. So the name of the particular philologist is important. Perhaps somebody can say if this philologist has in general a very solid knowledge, and his/her affirmation can be considered (Joan Coromines, e.g.), if he/she is simply a dilettante, if he/she is usually solid in some languages, but his/her knowledge about other languages is very inexact...
Moreover, some apparently reliable sources (philologists, onomastics authors) make a big number of mistakes. So to know that a "considered as reliable" philologist/author made a mistake is important to estimate his/her reliability (a little mistake + another little mistake + another little mistake +... = a very big mistake = a not as reliable source).
So, since in this case the source of your affirmation is this philologist, I'm very interested to know his/her name.
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
Moreover, some apparently reliable sources (philologists, onomastics authors) make a big number of mistakes. So to know that a "considered as reliable" philologist/author made a mistake is important to estimate his/her reliability (a little mistake + another little mistake + another little mistake +... = a very big mistake = a not as reliable source).
So, since in this case the source of your affirmation is this philologist, I'm very interested to know his/her name.
Lumia
http://onomastica.mailcatala.com
Replies
Well, the guy's name is V.A.Hanov, he's Russian most probably. I've never heard of him before, and I've no idea how reliable his sources are. He's certainly not well-known, I would have heard of him if he were.
___________________________________________
Pureness rules the world
___________________________________________
Pureness rules the world