III. How do we know that the Suevi were “Germanic”?

Because they lived in “Germania”? But so do the Turks, Poles, Portuguese, Croats, Serbs and Syrians today.

The Langobards and Angles bear Nordic names. But the origin myth of the former speaks of the far north when the Suevi were in the south. It is not improbable that they simply took over the local Suevic tribes.

The names of Suevic rulers (e.g., Ariovistus) or sorceresses (e.g., Veleda) have Slavic explanations and many sound Slavic.

IV. Why German writers insist on writing Suevi as Suebi? And Legii/Lougii as Lugii?

The sources speak of the SueVi almost exclusively so why all the effort to write Suebi? Because it sounded more like Schwaben?

Sources speak of Legii or Lougii, the German scholarship tries to use the spelling of Lugii. Is that because Lechy is a commonplace nickname for the Poles and that would suggest population continuity?

V. Why do all Slavic languages have “słaby” as “weak”?

Shouldn’t someone ask whether this may be a reference to the Schwaben, the weak Suevi that let themselves be taken over by the Alemanni?

VI. Isn’t it strange that the Suevi of the Danube suddenly become Suavi in the 6th century?

Just before the Sclavi show up the Suevi become Suavi. Curious.

But note also that the very first mention of the Suevi may already have been in the form Suavi [see L. Cornelius Sisenna]

VII. If the Slavs appear, as per their own records in Pannonia, isn’t it convenient to find the Suevi there right before?

Slavs record their beginnings in Pannonia. We know there were Suevi (Suavi) there right before the Slavs appeared. Isn’t that odd?