|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 26, 2023 12:24:52 GMT
We (not "I") precisely have a source, namely the Saami and Finnic loans. These loans are what makes the difference between Mälaren (or "Mälaren" in the sense I indicated) and any other geographical zone in northern Europe. We have no source to pinpoint proto-Germanic in time and place.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 26, 2023 12:57:06 GMT
It's a very serious question, that I would correct : "What kind of language did they speak in Denmark and in Northern Germany before the linguistic influx from Sweden and Norway?". This question is intimately linked to the question of the split of of W-Gmc in N-Gmc and NW-Gmc. My pet theory is that NW-Gmc formed in the late Jastorf under the influence of non-Germanic languages. But I have only speculative arguments in support of it, and anyway it's off-topic on this thread. I miss the focus in this answer. Can you clearify it for me? So you state that on the North Germanic Plain they spoke a non-Germanic language before the entrance of PGmc from the Mälaren? But the evidence for it is only speculative (c.q. not there)? Has the non-Germanic language on the North German Plain- before the entrance of PGmc- a name? And do you have a timing when the Mälaren PGmc made furore on the North German Plain? And what's the evidence for that or again only speculation? And how would explain the old Germanic kind of giving names to places on the North German Plain, the Mälaren must have swept away all traces of the non-Germanic names. How come? Are there indices of a total roll over from the Mälaren on the North German Plain, without leaving a single trace? So if it has to be more than pet theory than you have to made this clear imo.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 26, 2023 15:13:44 GMT
I'm not certain I understand this question. I guess, but I may be wrong, that you are alluding to the first part of my response. Loanwords (above all when they are so numerous as in the case we're discussing) are a "source", and much more reliable than epigraphic or onomastic testimonies. Speaking of onomastics there are toponyms in SW Finland that are undoubtedly old Germanic names (I'll write a post about that one of these days, you can search in the archives of AG in Genoplot). Now, if you need period texts written in Proto-Germanic, well, there aren't, and there won't ever be. But there are no more to certify that Proto-Germanic was spoken in the regions that for some reason are your choice. So the match ended in a zero to zero draw? No, let's be serious. Obviously you contest MT (but are unable to contest its premisses) and you put an alternative MT (sort of...) but are unable to argue it. I take note. For the rest, I don't want to speak about the linguistic situation in the North German plain before the common Era. Nobody knows with certainty which languageS WERE spoken there before the Migration Times, and anyway it's not my topic on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 26, 2023 16:00:36 GMT
I'm not certain I understand this question. I guess, but I may be wrong, that you are alluding to the first part of my response. Loanwords (above all when they are so numerous as in the case we're discussing) are a "source", and much more reliable than epigraphic or onomastic testimonies. Speaking of onomastics there are toponyms in SW Finland that are undoubtedly old Germanic names (I'll write a post about that one of these days, you can search in the archives of AG in Genoplot). Now, if you need period texts written in Proto-Germanic, well, there aren't, and there won't ever be. But there are no more to certify that Proto-Germanic was spoken in the regions that for some reason are your choice. So the match ended in a zero to zero draw? No, let's be serious. Obviously you contest MT (but are unable to contest its premisses) and you put an alternative MT (sort of...) but are unable to argue it. I take note. For the rest, I don't want to speak about the linguistic situation in the North German plain before the common Era. Nobody knows with certainty which languageS WERE spoken there before the Migration Times, and anyway it's not my topic on this thread. Loanwords are not a direct source to detect time and place. To be clear I certainly not deny that Finnic could have modified Germanic, and that there are loanwords vice versa. But as such is not enough to declare the frontier between Germanic and Finnic to the "birthplace" of proto Germanic in LBA/IA. Quit simple if you want to be sure that this is the "founding" area you have to have sources (for example inscriptions), but sources and pre historic languages are contradictio in terminis. And there are also loanwords from Celtic into Germanic and Koch (2020) even saw them for a long time as fellow traveller. And you can spit on the method of Udolph but his conclusions that parts of the Jastorf area have very old Germanic namegiving (places, rivers etc) is not yet turned around. And there is zero really zero evidence that it was roll over from Sweden in the Jastorf area, a roll over which would have been needed to wipe away the traces of your NN non Germanic language. But the same as for Mälaren, you can't state that the North German plain or the Jastorf area is for sure the birthplace of proto-Germanic, no evidence either. And by the way proto Germanic is an abstract language, is a reconstruction, so probably nowhere spoken exactly in this reconstructed way. It's in some sense a kind of average. So seen the situation of the past PGmc would have had in reality lots of diversity! Anyhow we only have an impression of where the PGmc turned into other languages ("walkhiskaz") in the South(west) with (proto) Celtic and in the Northeast as you made clear! So seen this "sandwich construct", admitted rather vague- but nevertheless- so on the North German Plain and in Southern Scandinavia most probably variants of PGmc would have been spoken. And I guess: it is what it is, without real sources and therefore evidence we don't come in this respect any further in, but I guess we can agree that the change of finding inscriptions and such like in LBA/IA either in Northern Germany or in Scandinavia are nihil
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 26, 2023 16:01:30 GMT
Back to my topic, I just finished reading a very interesting text: Gottberg, V. 2020. Challenging Old Truths : Viewing Cultural Hybridity from the perspective of the Tarand-Graves. www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1446327&dswid=7555 . It's a master's dissertation for Uppsala University. Keywords [en]: Tarand-grave, cultural hybrid, cultural hybridity, ritual practice theory, the Baltic Sea, Bronze Age, Pre-Roman Iron Age, Roman Iron Age, Åland Islands.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 26, 2023 16:56:33 GMT
Back to my topic, I just finished reading a very interesting text: Gottberg, V. 2020. Challenging Old Truths : Viewing Cultural Hybridity from the perspective of the Tarand-Graves. www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1446327&dswid=7555 . It's a master's dissertation for Uppsala University. Keywords [en]: Tarand-grave, cultural hybrid, cultural hybridity, ritual practice theory, the Baltic Sea, Bronze Age, Pre-Roman Iron Age, Roman Iron Age, Åland Islands. You dig up nice research Angles, I will read it. Nevertheless you are usually quit strict, 'Jastorf is archeology from Schwantes, no relationship with Germanic language!' and such like.... But do the Tarand-Graves suddenly speak proto-Germanic (on topic)? genarchivist.freeforums.net/post/2472/thread
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 26, 2023 17:12:53 GMT
I guess this one from Wolfram Euler published just a few weeks ago, could be spot on with regard to proto Germanic: www.lesejury.de/wolfram-euler/buecher/fruehgermanische-studien/9783945127469I guess Euler gives us a nice clue on the front
Google translate: EARLY GERMAN STUDIES CONSIDERATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY IN THE OLDEST GERMANIC Research into the earliest Germanic before the first sound shift has made leaps and bounds in recent years. As early as 1960, in his Germanic Linguistics (Volume I, p. 40), Hans Krahe formulated the scientific desideratum of researching more closely the inner development of pre-literary Germanic from its separation from Indo-European to the reconstructed Proto-Germanic. It still took a good 45 years before the main features of the work with the well-known monographs on the oldest Germanic language before the first sound shift, as Krahe had called for, were completed. A lot of research has been done in this area since then, but a number of questions remain unanswered, especially about the processes involved in changing the system of forms and the changes in the vocabulary of the oldest Germanic of the Bronze Age and pre-Roman Iron Age. The present volume is dedicated to these very topics in three articles. The first two deal with morphological questions, especially the transformation of the inflectional system in the earliest Germanic: The first contribution examines the inner development of those form categories that are only tangible in relics or have disappeared completely in the (reconstructed) late Proto-Germanic. The second contribution examines stem class changes in the verbal system of the oldest Germanic, which is also a morphological question. The reconstructable vocabulary of (late) Proto-Germanic also shows significant changes compared to the Indo-European lexicon. Many lexemes that can be deduced from Indo-European are completely missing from the Germanic vocabulary, others are only preserved in relics. The third work in this book intensively investigates the question of why Indo-European "hereditary words" are no longer tangible in the individual Germanic languages that have come down to us, or why their meaning has changed. Surprisingly clear answers are often possible here, and in some cases there are even indications of the approximate dating of these changes. Seems promising!
|
|
|
Post by psynome on Aug 26, 2023 19:50:05 GMT
To quickly add some speculative support to the Scania-Sjaelland/Southern Scandinavia hypothesis:
This region forms the most natural corridor for trade and travel between the Scandinavian peninsula and mainland western Europe. It is then not difficult to imagine that a group local to this area was in position to dominate economic and cultural exchange between these two regions during the Bronze Age, becoming wealthy and prestigious in the process.
They may have been the group most responsible for the transition from the Battle Axe culture to the Nordic Bronze Age through the introduction of cultural influences and trade goods from the south. Of course we can't rule out violent expansion either, stimulated by economic growth and superior armaments. I might include Jutland and the rest of Denmark in the possible "core region" as well given its heavy representation in NBA artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 26, 2023 20:57:25 GMT
Back to my topic, I just finished reading a very interesting text: Gottberg, V. 2020. Challenging Old Truths : Viewing Cultural Hybridity from the perspective of the Tarand-Graves. www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1446327&dswid=7555 . It's a master's dissertation for Uppsala University. Keywords [en]: Tarand-grave, cultural hybrid, cultural hybridity, ritual practice theory, the Baltic Sea, Bronze Age, Pre-Roman Iron Age, Roman Iron Age, Åland Islands. You dig up nice research Angles, I will read it. Nevertheless you are usually quit strict, 'Jastorf is archeology from Schwantes, no relationship with Germanic language!' and such like.... But do the Tarand-Graves suddenly speak proto-Germanic (on topic)? genarchivist.freeforums.net/post/2472/threadIs it some subtle humour? I openly rely on Lang who associates the early Tarand Graves with the first pre-proto-Finnic migrants ( those that travelled by the SW-route). I'm sure you know that this association has since received some pretty clear confirmation from genetics. (L. Saag "The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East" , 2019) edit: Nebra disk has nothing to see with PGmc. Euler is truly incorrigible (unless it is only a fantasy of his editor?)
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 27, 2023 6:58:39 GMT
One item is really missing from the presentation of "my" thesis, axes of the "Akozino-Mälar-Ananinyo" type. I can't just post a map like this, which is quite fascinating: Indeed my knowledge about it is really superficial. Is there anyone among the readers who has studied the subject? I would be happy to know how this element fits into all the archaeological parameters mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 27, 2023 7:34:15 GMT
I have experimented with querying ChatGPT about this. Of course, all these answers must be carefully checked (because I often had the opportunity to see that this A.I. "often says a lot of bullshit"). But it seems to fit pretty well with what results from my messy reads. I imagine that friend Folc will ask "what relationship with proto-Germanic?". The relationship is not direct and trivial (nothing like: "Look on the map at the hatched area between Skåne and Mälaren, isn't that pretty?"). No, but it requires a change of perspective. If indeed we take into account these interactions with the Volga and its metallurgy, the region of Mälaren ceases altogether to appear peripheral and on the contrary occupies a central position. I give you my conversation with ChatGPT:
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 8:45:04 GMT
You dig up nice research Angles, I will read it. Nevertheless you are usually quit strict, 'Jastorf is archeology from Schwantes, no relationship with Germanic language!' and such like.... But do the Tarand-Graves suddenly speak proto-Germanic (on topic)? genarchivist.freeforums.net/post/2472/threadIs it some subtle humour? I openly rely on Lang who associates the early Tarand Graves with the first pre-proto-Finnic migrants ( those that travelled by the SW-route). I'm sure you know that this association has since received some pretty clear confirmation from genetics. (L. Saag "The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East" , 2019) edit: Nebra disk has nothing to see with PGmc. Euler is truly incorrigible (unless it is only a fantasy of his editor?) Well....humour is at stake when we see some inconsistencies as in archeology is not involved in linguistic matters until it suits me In your frame the Nebra disk has no kind of connection wit PGmc that's clear, but let's see-with an open mind- what Euler himself has to say about this. Last but not least I must correct myself there is an inscription written in proto-Germanic on the helmet from Negau (harigasti etc). This inscription plays a part in Euler's magnificent book Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (2009). This inscription is part of his argument about the consonant shift that, according to him, ran from the southeastern part of the Germanic world to the northwestern part. My heartland was, so to speak, in this respect the linguistic gatekeeper. It's all much more multifaceted and nuanced than all the blessing (or PGmc) came from Uppsala Angles!
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 9:04:51 GMT
One item is really missing from the presentation of "my" thesis, axes of the "Akozino-Mälar-Ananinyo" type. I can't just post a map like this, which is quite fascinating: Indeed my knowledge about it is really superficial. Is there anyone among the readers who has studied the subject? I would be happy to know how this element fits into all the archaeological parameters mentioned. Interpersonal communication took place via the water. So the linguistically become the 'innovations' and loanwords are also shared through the water. In this case the superhighway the Baltic Sea. In this archaeological example we see the close connection between the Mälaren and what has come to be called Jastorf.... So analogously you could say that certain innovations in this area were shared. In my opinion, however, you cannot derive from this one example that it was linguistically true that the developments and innovations of Proto-Germanic only know one wind direction! No skipper sails on only one wind direction Angles.... That does 'too much violence to the reality' (from Dutch: doet de werkelijkheid teveel geweld aan). NB sometimes I have to make a triple translation, friso-saxon>dutch>anglo-saxon, and sometimes dutch>anglo-saxon, only incidental friso-saxon>anglo-saxon, or friso-saxon> proto
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 9:17:44 GMT
The Baltic Sea as a cultural living room reminds me that certain linguistic innovations do not need the intervention of the Mälaren at all from present-day Denmark, Schleswig Holstein (Anglo-Saxons aka Northern Suebi) and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Suebi) the Malaren have had connections with Finnish. In fact, that's very plausible!
|
|
|
Post by JonikW on Aug 27, 2023 12:21:25 GMT
Is it some subtle humour? I openly rely on Lang who associates the early Tarand Graves with the first pre-proto-Finnic migrants ( those that travelled by the SW-route). I'm sure you know that this association has since received some pretty clear confirmation from genetics. (L. Saag "The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East" , 2019) edit: Nebra disk has nothing to see with PGmc. Euler is truly incorrigible (unless it is only a fantasy of his editor?) Well....humour is at stake when we see some inconsistencies as in archeology is not involved in linguistic matters until it suits me In your frame the Nebra disk has no kind of connection wit PGmc that's clear, but let's see-with an open mind- what Euler himself has to say about this. Last but not least I must correct myself there is an inscription written in proto-Germanic on the helmet from Negau (harigasti etc). This inscription plays a part in Euler's magnificent book Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (2009). This inscription is part of his argument about the consonant shift that, according to him, ran from the southeastern part of the Germanic world to the northwestern part. My heartland was, so to speak, in this respect the linguistic gatekeeper. It's all much more multifaceted and nuanced than all the blessing (or PGmc) came from Uppsala Angles! I've read a fair amount about the Negau B helmet in the context of runic studies. The text itself isn't runic of course but the fact that this inscription seems to be in an unspecified early language of the Germanic group makes it of interest for the field. One thing that always comes up is that while it may date to the second century BC (some guesses put it earlier) and have formed part of a trader's stock of secondhand wargear, we have no idea whether it was inscribed in the area where it was discovered or much further afield. Even if we were to allow that a speaker of an early Germanic language did inscribe the helmet (or have it inscribed) near Negau*, that in itself would tell us nothing about where PGmc originated at an earlier date. We all know from recent studies that individuals could be highly mobile in the Iron Age. *ADD: I should probably add here that a relatively local inscription event is most likely in my own view.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 13:11:58 GMT
Well....humour is at stake when we see some inconsistencies as in archeology is not involved in linguistic matters until it suits me In your frame the Nebra disk has no kind of connection wit PGmc that's clear, but let's see-with an open mind- what Euler himself has to say about this. Last but not least I must correct myself there is an inscription written in proto-Germanic on the helmet from Negau (harigasti etc). This inscription plays a part in Euler's magnificent book Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (2009). This inscription is part of his argument about the consonant shift that, according to him, ran from the southeastern part of the Germanic world to the northwestern part. My heartland was, so to speak, in this respect the linguistic gatekeeper. It's all much more multifaceted and nuanced than all the blessing (or PGmc) came from Uppsala Angles! I've read a fair amount about the Negau B helmet in the context of runic studies. The text itself isn't runic of course but the fact that this inscription seems to be in an unspecified early language of the Germanic group makes it of interest for the field. One thing that always comes up is that while it may date to the second century BC (some guesses put it earlier) and have formed part of a trader's stock of secondhand wargear, we have no idea whether it was inscribed in the area where it was discovered or much further afield. Even if we were to allow that a speaker of an early Germanic language did inscribe the helmet (or have it inscribed) near Negau*, that in itself would tell us nothing about where PGmc originated at an earlier date. We all know from recent studies that individuals could be highly mobile in the Iron Age. *ADD: I should probably add here that a relatively local inscription event is most likely in my own view. Indeed Jonik, and Euler uses Negau with the same kind of caution. In the English summary it is even left out when he talks about the first soundshift (not about a supposed Urheimat). I'm bit short of time, so I make it myself comfortable and publish a photo from the Englis passage about the soundshift, Euler (2009):
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 13:15:03 GMT
PS about the Helmet he states that obviously with "harigasti" the soundshift already had occured.....
|
|
|
Post by Ambiorix on Aug 27, 2023 15:17:33 GMT
Well....humour is at stake when we see some inconsistencies as in archeology is not involved in linguistic matters until it suits me In your frame the Nebra disk has no kind of connection wit PGmc that's clear, but let's see-with an open mind- what Euler himself has to say about this. Last but not least I must correct myself there is an inscription written in proto-Germanic on the helmet from Negau (harigasti etc). This inscription plays a part in Euler's magnificent book Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (2009). This inscription is part of his argument about the consonant shift that, according to him, ran from the southeastern part of the Germanic world to the northwestern part. My heartland was, so to speak, in this respect the linguistic gatekeeper. It's all much more multifaceted and nuanced than all the blessing (or PGmc) came from Uppsala Angles! I've read a fair amount about the Negau B helmet in the context of runic studies. The text itself isn't runic of course but the fact that this inscription seems to be in an unspecified early language of the Germanic group makes it of interest for the field. One thing that always comes up is that while it may date to the second century BC (some guesses put it earlier) and have formed part of a trader's stock of secondhand wargear, we have no idea whether it was inscribed in the area where it was discovered or much further afield. Even if we were to allow that a speaker of an early Germanic language did inscribe the helmet (or have it inscribed) near Negau*, that in itself would tell us nothing about where PGmc originated at an earlier date. We all know from recent studies that individuals could be highly mobile in the Iron Age. *ADD: I should probably add here that a relatively local inscription event is most likely in my own view. Potentially off topic but wanted to mention: the typical interpretation for "Harigasti teiva" (when interpreting the text as Germanic) is of course to render the inscription as meaning "Harigast the priest", thus grouping it within the schema of the Negau A helmets that bear Celtic personal names and religious titles. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, but recently I came across speculation (in one of the countless papers I have bookmarked) that instead, "Harigasti teiva" represents an epithet for * Wōðanaz, invoking his role as psychopomp and leader of the Wild Hunt (connected to the Harii and Einherjar, therefore an early invocation of this folkloric motif and providing a meaning of army-guest god/companion of the warhost, especially alluding to the importance of guests in Germanic culture - we can also think of the epithets Herjan and Hertýr for Odin). Evidently there might be more to glean from the aforementioned Negau B helmet than meets the eye, and this might also represent a mobility of ideas related to the worship of gods? Interesting in many ways that seem to overlap with one-another
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 16:03:59 GMT
I've read a fair amount about the Negau B helmet in the context of runic studies. The text itself isn't runic of course but the fact that this inscription seems to be in an unspecified early language of the Germanic group makes it of interest for the field. One thing that always comes up is that while it may date to the second century BC (some guesses put it earlier) and have formed part of a trader's stock of secondhand wargear, we have no idea whether it was inscribed in the area where it was discovered or much further afield. Even if we were to allow that a speaker of an early Germanic language did inscribe the helmet (or have it inscribed) near Negau*, that in itself would tell us nothing about where PGmc originated at an earlier date. We all know from recent studies that individuals could be highly mobile in the Iron Age. *ADD: I should probably add here that a relatively local inscription event is most likely in my own view. Potentially off topic but wanted to mention: the typical interpretation for "Harigasti teiva" (when interpreting the text as Germanic) is of course to render the inscription as meaning "Harigast the priest", thus grouping it within the schema of the Negau A helmets that bear Celtic personal names and religious titles. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, but recently I came across speculation (in one of the countless papers I have bookmarked) that instead, "Harigasti teiva" represents an epithet for * Wōðanaz, invoking his role as psychopomp and leader of the Wild Hunt (connected to the Harii and Einherjar, therefore an early invocation of this folkloric motif and providing a meaning of army-guest god/companion of the warhost, especially alluding to the importance of guests in Germanic culture - we can also think of the epithets Herjan and Hertýr for Odin). Evidently there might be more to glean from the aforementioned Negau B helmet than meets the eye, and this might also represent a mobility of ideas related to the worship of gods? Interesting in many ways that seem to overlap with one-another Ambiorix , Euler is more careful, does not venture into interpretations, but soberly notes that the inscription is from after the sound shift. He also notes that in the tribe Macromanni ("border men, men of the margins") there had been a sound shift from g (marge) to the k (c) (marke) sound. You just have to read it because he deals with many more tribes and there is more nuance than I can explain here. However, the purport is crystal clear. According to him, the sound shift in PGmc went from South to North cq from Southeast to Northwest. And I don't know where to find the controversy. In my opinion it is impossible to get an exact Urheimat in the case of PGmc, so pinpointing the speaking of PGmc in time and place is needed. This can only be done if for example "helmets with inscriptions" are found in the area itself. Would be world news because that would mean that the Germanics could already write before the runes. And he has not been able to substantiate Angles' argument that a non-PGmc language was spoken around the Elbe, so Angles is simply not convincing on that point. In my opinion, an extremely rich PGmc language and culture has developed on the extremely rich loess soils of Central Germany. So I am convinced that some form of PGmc was spoken not only in Southern Scandinavia but also on the North German Plain, specifically along the Elbe (which probably differed in parts from that in Southern Scandinavia). And which in turn probably differed from that of the Rhine delta and the area around the North Sea. Perhaps a somewhat more "conservative" variant was spoken there and partly (via the Rhine, Meuse and Weser-connnected with the centers of the Celts!) also somewhat closer to the Celtic language. The elite of the Frisians and the Cimbri, at least in Roman times, had Celtic names (a la your name) may be for external use?. In any case indicating that Celtic had a certain status in the area around the North Sea. And that usually seeps through elsewhere in language use.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 27, 2023 16:09:17 GMT
On the questions of chronologies (relative and absolute) of the Germanic phonological shifts, I recommend reading in Heikkilä ("Bidrag ...") pages 97 to 101 (and the preceding ones that are their justifications). I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with these timelines (who am I to say I agree or disagree?). But you might be interested to see how the alignment of Germanic, Finnic and Saami chronologies leads to another methodology, which there is no reason to think would be less productive than the use of onomastic evidence (filtered by Latin) or epigraphic (as fragile as the Negau inscriptions). Incidentally, it would not be surprising in my opinion that in the last centuries BC and even in the first of our era certain non-Scandinavian "Germanic" groups spoke languages still preliminary to "complete" Proto-Germanic. This would obviously not mean that it would be necessary to delay the initial dates of the Germanic shifts. It would only come as a useful reminder that in a process of diffusion, the peripheral areas take time to be touched by the influences coming from the centre. One thing is certain (well... it seems to me): the language of the elder futhark (proto-Norse) differs very little from the theoretical PGmc. At least as much as we can say because the writings in proto-Norse constitute the oldest assured attestation of the Germanic language and as such have greatly contributed to the construction of the PGmc. I would therefore not be unduly shocked if one suspected a somewhat treacherous form of circular thinking here.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 27, 2023 16:34:13 GMT
Potentially off topic but wanted to mention: the typical interpretation for "Harigasti teiva" (when interpreting the text as Germanic) is of course to render the inscription as meaning "Harigast the priest", thus grouping it within the schema of the Negau A helmets that bear Celtic personal names and religious titles. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, but recently I came across speculation (in one of the countless papers I have bookmarked) that instead, "Harigasti teiva" represents an epithet for * Wōðanaz, invoking his role as psychopomp and leader of the Wild Hunt (connected to the Harii and Einherjar, therefore an early invocation of this folkloric motif and providing a meaning of army-guest god/companion of the warhost, especially alluding to the importance of guests in Germanic culture - we can also think of the epithets Herjan and Hertýr for Odin). Evidently there might be more to glean from the aforementioned Negau B helmet than meets the eye, and this might also represent a mobility of ideas related to the worship of gods? Interesting in many ways that seem to overlap with one-another Ambiorix , Euler is more careful, does not venture into interpretations, but soberly notes that the inscription is from after the sound shift. He also notes that in the tribe Macromanni ("border men, men of the margins") there had been a sound shift from g (marge) to the k (c) (marke) sound. You just have to read it because he deals with many more tribes and there is more nuance than I can explain here. However, the purport is crystal clear. According to him, the sound shift in PGmc went from South to North cq from Southeast to Northwest. And I don't know where to find the controversy. In my opinion it is impossible to get an exact Urheimat in the case of PGmc, so pinpointing the speaking of PGmc in time and place is needed. This can only be done if for example "helmets with inscriptions" are found in the area itself. Would be world news because that would mean that the Germanics could already write before the runes. And he has not been able to substantiate Angles' argument that a non-PGmc language was spoken around the Elbe, so Angles is simply not convincing on that point. In my opinion, an extremely rich PGmc language and culture has developed on the extremely rich loess soils of Central Germany. So I am convinced that some form of PGmc was spoken not only in Southern Scandinavia but also on the North German Plain, specifically along the Elbe (which probably differed in parts from that in Southern Scandinavia). And which in turn probably differed from that of the Rhine delta and the area around the North Sea. Perhaps a somewhat more "conservative" variant was spoken there and partly (via the Rhine, Meuse and Weser-connnected with the centers of the Celts!) also somewhat closer to the Celtic language. The elite of the Frisians and the Cimbri, at least in Roman times, had Celtic names (a la your name) may be for external use?. In any case indicating that Celtic had a certain status in the area around the North Sea. And that usually seeps through elsewhere in language use. Well, that's all well and good, but I hold fast to what will be my anchor from now on: MT. I can't see how MT could be challenged. I explain (some readers will find me repetitive, they will be right and I beg their forgiveness): 1) The oldest "Germanic" borrowings to Finnish (let's say Finnish for simplicity, this is sufficient in the restricted context which is mine here) are from a language for which our constructed PGmc is a good proxy. Unquestionable.
2) These borrowings are very numerous (more than 500 at present), nothing comparable to the handful of Celticisms which cannot simply be interpreted as Celto-Germanic isoglosses. Unquestionable.
3) They cover a semantic spectrum that excludes that they come from simple commercial relations. Unquestionable.
4) This language had to be spoken somewhere and by people. This area and these people must therefore have maintained a continuous and close relationship with the pre-proto-Finnic speakers who settled on the Estonian and Finnish coasts. Unquestionable.
5) The Mälaren area and its indigenous inhabitants correspond perfectly to the conditions set out in 4). The archaeological documentation of this claim is plethoric.
6) Is there another answer to condition 4) that could compete with it with comparable documentation? Answering this question other than with a categorical "no" would be pure bad faith. It is no coincidence that Saarikivi and Holopainen qualify, very politely, the "Jastorf-model" as "problematic". For me, it is not even problematic. Germanic-Balto-Finnic linguistic data reduces it to nothing. It is obviously possible to try to drown this logical sequence of indisputable facts (which I could precisely source; It would be tedious, but without difficulty) under a tide of various chatter, possibly interspersed with references to the outdated etymologies of Udolph, or to Euler's books (which no one has read or will read). It's hopeless and pointless. And I won't say anything about other theses even more fantastical than Jastorf.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 16:50:36 GMT
Ambiorix , Euler is more careful, does not venture into interpretations, but soberly notes that the inscription is from after the sound shift. He also notes that in the tribe Macromanni ("border men, men of the margins") there had been a sound shift from g (marge) to the k (c) (marke) sound. You just have to read it because he deals with many more tribes and there is more nuance than I can explain here. However, the purport is crystal clear. According to him, the sound shift in PGmc went from South to North cq from Southeast to Northwest. And I don't know where to find the controversy. In my opinion it is impossible to get an exact Urheimat in the case of PGmc, so pinpointing the speaking of PGmc in time and place is needed. This can only be done if for example "helmets with inscriptions" are found in the area itself. Would be world news because that would mean that the Germanics could already write before the runes. And he has not been able to substantiate Angles' argument that a non-PGmc language was spoken around the Elbe, so Angles is simply not convincing on that point. In my opinion, an extremely rich PGmc language and culture has developed on the extremely rich loess soils of Central Germany. So I am convinced that some form of PGmc was spoken not only in Southern Scandinavia but also on the North German Plain, specifically along the Elbe (which probably differed in parts from that in Southern Scandinavia). And which in turn probably differed from that of the Rhine delta and the area around the North Sea. Perhaps a somewhat more "conservative" variant was spoken there and partly (via the Rhine, Meuse and Weser-connnected with the centers of the Celts!) also somewhat closer to the Celtic language. The elite of the Frisians and the Cimbri, at least in Roman times, had Celtic names (a la your name) may be for external use?. In any case indicating that Celtic had a certain status in the area around the North Sea. And that usually seeps through elsewhere in language use. Well, that's all well and good, but I hold fast to what will be my anchor from now on: MT. I can't see how MT could be challenged. I explain (some readers will find me repetitive, they will be right and I beg their forgiveness): 1) The oldest "Germanic" borrowings to Finnish (let's say Finnish for simplicity, this is sufficient in the restricted context which is mine here) are from a language for which our constructed PGmc is a good proxy. Unquestionable.
2) These borrowings are very numerous (more than 500 at present), nothing comparable to the handful of Celticisms which cannot simply be interpreted as Celto-Germanic isoglosses. Unquestionable.
3) They cover a semantic spectrum that excludes that they come from simple commercial relations. Unquestionable.
4) This language had to be spoken somewhere and by people. This area and these people must therefore have maintained a continuous and close relationship with the pre-proto-Finnic speakers who settled on the Estonian and Finnish coasts. Unquestionable.
5) The Mälaren area and its indigenous inhabitants correspond perfectly to the conditions set out in 4). The archaeological documentation of this claim is plethoric.
6) Is there another answer to condition 4) that could compete with it with comparable documentation? Answering this question other than with a categorical "no" would be pure bad faith. It is no coincidence that Saarikivi and Holopainen qualify, very politely, the "Jastorf-model" as "problematic". For me, it is not even problematic. Germanic-Balto-Finnic linguistic data reduces it to nothing. It is obviously possible to try to drown this logical sequence of indisputable facts (which I could precisely source; It would be tedious, but without difficulty) under a tide of various chatter, possibly interspersed with references to the outdated etymologies of Udolph, or to Euler's books (which no one has read or will read). It's hopeless and pointless. And I won't say anything about other theses even more fantastical than Jastorf. This all can be true. Still not enough for a qualified argument about the Urheimat, that needs a source that confirms time and place of speaking a kind of language. A la the Negau helmet. These sources are in PGmc case not there. So the agnostic stance with regard to the Urheimat is unfortunately the max in this either Jastorf or the Mälaren.
|
|
|
Post by Orentil on Aug 27, 2023 16:56:23 GMT
Potentially off topic but wanted to mention: the typical interpretation for "Harigasti teiva" (when interpreting the text as Germanic) is of course to render the inscription as meaning "Harigast the priest", thus grouping it within the schema of the Negau A helmets that bear Celtic personal names and religious titles. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, but recently I came across speculation (in one of the countless papers I have bookmarked) that instead, "Harigasti teiva" represents an epithet for * Wōðanaz, invoking his role as psychopomp and leader of the Wild Hunt (connected to the Harii and Einherjar, therefore an early invocation of this folkloric motif and providing a meaning of army-guest god/companion of the warhost, especially alluding to the importance of guests in Germanic culture - we can also think of the epithets Herjan and Hertýr for Odin). Evidently there might be more to glean from the aforementioned Negau B helmet than meets the eye, and this might also represent a mobility of ideas related to the worship of gods? Interesting in many ways that seem to overlap with one-another Ambiorix , Euler is more careful, does not venture into interpretations, but soberly notes that the inscription is from after the sound shift. He also notes that in the tribe Macromanni ("border men, men of the margins") there had been a sound shift from g (marge) to the k (c) (marke) sound. You just have to read it because he deals with many more tribes and there is more nuance than I can explain here. However, the purport is crystal clear. According to him, the sound shift in PGmc went from South to North cq from Southeast to Northwest. And I don't know where to find the controversy. In my opinion it is impossible to get an exact Urheimat in the case of PGmc, so pinpointing the speaking of PGmc in time and place is needed. This can only be done if for example "helmets with inscriptions" are found in the area itself. Would be world news because that would mean that the Germanics could already write before the runes. And he has not been able to substantiate Angles' argument that a non-PGmc language was spoken around the Elbe, so Angles is simply not convincing on that point. In my opinion, an extremely rich PGmc language and culture has developed on the extremely rich loess soils of Central Germany. So I am convinced that some form of PGmc was spoken not only in Southern Scandinavia but also on the North German Plain, specifically along the Elbe (which probably differed in parts from that in Southern Scandinavia). And which in turn probably differed from that of the Rhine delta and the area around the North Sea. Perhaps a somewhat more "conservative" variant was spoken there and partly (via the Rhine, Meuse and Weser-connnected with the centers of the Celts!) also somewhat closer to the Celtic language. The elite of the Frisians and the Cimbri, at least in Roman times, had Celtic names (a la your name) may be for external use?. In any case indicating that Celtic had a certain status in the area around the North Sea. And that usually seeps through elsewhere in language use. When speaking about the North German Plain or the Harz region we should always keep in mind that the cultures in this regions changed over time, i.e. it is important to mention the absolute chronology, otherwise it can get confusing. Therefore I attach here a map showing the situation for the middle bronze age, approx. 1600/1550 - 1100 BC and the late bronze age, approx. 1100-800/750 BC. What we can see is that the Nordic Bronze Culture already reached the Northern Harz region in the late bronze age, already before Jastorf culture developed out of the Nordic Bronze culture. I don't want to take any side for the Lautverschiebung, just wanted to show that both "Mälaren" and "Harz" point to the Nordic Bronze Age - for me this is enough And to pick up JonikW's aspect, I would not be surprised if the extension of the Nordic Bronze Age in the North German Plain to the Harz would fit quite nicely with the spread of I1 (even I'm more interested in the spread of R1b-U106 ). Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 27, 2023 17:04:51 GMT
folcwalding: Are you serious? Are you actually claiming that the language of the inscriptions (whatever it is) is necessary the language that was spoken where the helmet was found?
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 17:27:19 GMT
folcwalding: Are you serious? Are you actually claiming that the language of the inscriptions (whatever it is) is necessary the language that was spoken where the helmet was found? I'm deadly serious (I'm germanic you know . Lesson one for the (aspirant) historian worldwide. Sources are basic for a reliable narrative. Angles knows better? I'm claiming that if you want to pinpoint a linguistic Urheimat, then your are talking about pinpointing speaking of a language in time and place. Isn't it? Loanwords for example fail in this respect, because no exact reference to time and place. An inscription on a helmet (on a house, carving in stone you name it) does tell something about time and place. But in a case of prehistoric language like PGmc with a illiterate population the chances for that are nearly zero of course. It is what it is Angles.....
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 27, 2023 17:41:29 GMT
Ambiorix , Euler is more careful, does not venture into interpretations, but soberly notes that the inscription is from after the sound shift. He also notes that in the tribe Macromanni ("border men, men of the margins") there had been a sound shift from g (marge) to the k (c) (marke) sound. You just have to read it because he deals with many more tribes and there is more nuance than I can explain here. However, the purport is crystal clear. According to him, the sound shift in PGmc went from South to North cq from Southeast to Northwest. And I don't know where to find the controversy. In my opinion it is impossible to get an exact Urheimat in the case of PGmc, so pinpointing the speaking of PGmc in time and place is needed. This can only be done if for example "helmets with inscriptions" are found in the area itself. Would be world news because that would mean that the Germanics could already write before the runes. And he has not been able to substantiate Angles' argument that a non-PGmc language was spoken around the Elbe, so Angles is simply not convincing on that point. In my opinion, an extremely rich PGmc language and culture has developed on the extremely rich loess soils of Central Germany. So I am convinced that some form of PGmc was spoken not only in Southern Scandinavia but also on the North German Plain, specifically along the Elbe (which probably differed in parts from that in Southern Scandinavia). And which in turn probably differed from that of the Rhine delta and the area around the North Sea. Perhaps a somewhat more "conservative" variant was spoken there and partly (via the Rhine, Meuse and Weser-connnected with the centers of the Celts!) also somewhat closer to the Celtic language. The elite of the Frisians and the Cimbri, at least in Roman times, had Celtic names (a la your name) may be for external use?. In any case indicating that Celtic had a certain status in the area around the North Sea. And that usually seeps through elsewhere in language use. When speaking about the North German Plain or the Harz region we should always keep in mind that the cultures in this regions changed over time, i.e. it is important to mention the absolute chronology, otherwise it can get confusing. Therefore I attach here a map showing the situation for the middle bronze age, approx. 1600/1550 - 1100 BC and the late bronze age, approx. 1100-800/750 BC. What we can see is that the Nordic Bronze Culture already reached the Northern Harz region in the late bronze age, already before Jastorf culture developed out of the Nordic Bronze culture. I don't want to take any side for the Lautverschiebung, just wanted to show that both "Mälaren" and "Harz" point to the Nordic Bronze Age - for me this is enough And to pick up JonikW's aspect, I would not be surprised if the extension of the Nordic Bronze Age in the North German Plain to the Harz would fit quite nicely with the spread of I1 (even I'm more interested in the spread of R1b-U106 ). Totally agree. And mark that the first soundshift is in IA (500 BC and -according to Euler even first century BC in the NW) that's past those pictures. The Elb-Havel group as the ancestors of the Suebi? And the Saale-Unstrut group on the rich löss soils? Ok they had to face the collaps of Unetice....but I guess the harvest staid big enough to maintain a surplus! Loanwords etc from the Finnic-Saami all well, perfect Angles made a good point (real ambassador!). Nevertheless speaking a whole language taken over (CC) from an area on the edges of agriculture towards an area with the richest soils of the world and with a microclimate that even guarantees grapes. It's incredible. It's at least against my common sense....but I guess most are taking this like god's word in an elder....But ok enough. I guess seen the Y-DNA in my country the I1 spread could be well from the Anglo-Saxons (in our case). But ok so from mind, could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by parastais on Aug 27, 2023 20:56:10 GMT
Just my 2 cents: 1) Situation about Baltic loanwords and Finnic phonology in Lithuanian is very much the same as the one you mentioned on the first post about Germanic. Many loanwords from Baltic into Finnic (suggesting bilingual population or even part of Balts switching language to Finnic), but not sure whether also phonologically there are Finnic developments coming from Baltic. On the other hand in Lithuanian there are no Finnic loanwords (not mediated via Latvian, that is), but in Old Lithuanian there are some grammar/phonetic paralels to Finnic; 2) Situation about Finnic paternal lines in Lithuanian/Baltic is very much the same as the one in Germanic. Here is one specific line N-L550, which is clearly found at Malaren and its son line Y4706 was found in aDNA as far ar Oland island. His other son lines are found in high frequencies among modern Balts. 3) Akozino Malar Axes = split of L550 and L1025, with two main "nests" - Tatarstan (Akozino) and Sweden (Malaren). Split is dated around 700-900 bce, KAM axes are dated - yes, about same time. What I had learned from some Russian users on molgen - somewhere ca 500 BCE Akozino dies off for whatever reason (Darius campaign comes to my mind, but I can be wrong). Somewhere ca 500 BCE L550 and its children L1025 enter in some half millenia long bottleneck.
Based on 1, 2, 3 My view is following: Akozino trader/smith/warriors established themselves in Malaren region 900-600 bce, Finnic language was language of trade, lingua franca of the area perhaps and Akozino played some significant role in establishing and maintaining that prestige for Finnic. Therefore they could establish themselves over Baltics and Sweden and Finland. But with demise of Akozino role of Finnic language get out of fashion. Pre-Germanic became fashion with trade likely going South instead of East. Malaren folk L550 assimilated into Germanic, but they managed to somehow keep their prestigious position. Which meant their Finnic way of speaking Germanic got promoted among all Germanic world, perhaps not among Goths fully, but that is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 27, 2023 21:19:48 GMT
Very interesting parastais. Your last sentence in particular really echoes what I thought (without being able to justify it) and my exchanges with Æsir on AG. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 28, 2023 9:06:06 GMT
What about this? Please comment.
It's the great contribution of linguist Elmar Seebold, it's a translation from a part of 'Die Aufgliederung der germanischen Sprachen', Seebold, Elmar. (2013) - In: North-western European language evolution vol. 66 (2013) p. 55-77 (2013)
Imo he links linguistics and history very well. It's a longer contribution, excuse me, but seen the discussion here I think it's valuable (google translate):
"(1) Until the middle of the 5th c. we have no indication that the old remnant continuum from Scandinavia to southern Germany ceased to be a continuum. A clear bundle of isoglosses between Scandinavia and Continental Germany (including Jutland) did exist, however. When assessing the relevant equations, however, it is necessary to take into account the breakdown of the Germanic languages become that we do not know the language of the transition area (original Northern Jutlandic). The few runic evidence that indicate “Jutland before the middle of the 5th century.” can be cited are by no means sufficient for an assessment (the old Jutlandic runes date from the late 2nd and 3rd centuries and some of them did not originate at the place where they were found - this is probably even before the development assumed here; later it states Jutlandic runes only the spear shaft of Kragehul and the bracteates).
(2) Since about the 3rd century, sea warriors from Jutland (and Scandinavia?) have been making the coastal areas around the North Sea unsafe and settling in northern Germany (“Lower Saxony”) and probably also Friesland and parts of Britain. Her self-designation is Sachsen (a "war name"). This movement gets a center through the colonization of Britain, where the sea warriors then bring the inhabitants of the whole Anglic hinterland to Britain. This movement weakens the population of Jutland on the one hand (but the country must not have been deserted afterwards) and on the other hand the position of the sea warriors in northern Germany - the language there is again more strongly determined by the continental continuum, although the name Sachsen stands for land and people and carries over to later conquests. Friesland remained under the influence of the sea warriors and thereby isolated itself from the continental languages, and later (due to the repression of the Eutes in Britain) also from the British ones.
(3) At the end of the development are the secondary continuations of North Germanic (Scandinavia + northern Jutland) – Continental Germanic (“Dudic”) – Frisian – and English (Germanic in Britain). A language boundary is formed between the continuations of North Germanic and Continental Germanic; corresponding between Continental Germanic and Frisian. Frisian is unusually well subdivided, which can only partly be attributed to the geographical structure of the country (many islands).
(4) The interpretation given here is based primarily on a reinterpretation of the “Saxons”: the name initially refers to the (largely Anglic) sea warrior; then to the land they conquer at the mouth of the Elbe and its inhabitants; then to other sub-tribes, which are connected (presumably: defeated) - this affects the Chauken first and foremost. Finally, the participation of the sea warriors in this state system recedes; but the name of Saxony remains with the country and people who were not originally “Saxons” (= sea warriors).
(5) The resistance of the original population against the sea warriors probably led to the newly emerging tribe of the Franks (a name of the resistance movement, so to speak) among the Frisians (also the Chamaven) and Chauken. From this time on, the Frisians are not mentioned in the sources for several centuries; they then reappear—obviously because the eutic ones sea warriors have adopted the name of the Frisians; the name of the Chauken disappears forever from lore.
(6) The areas for which a linguistic overlay by other Germanic dialects can be assumed are emerging as new problem areas in linguistic-historical research: (a) We do not know the language spoken in Friesland before the action of the sea warriors. It was probably a Germanic or Germanized language, representing the westernmost expression of Remnant Germanic and then Continental Germanic. A little guesswork to show what these mean: The NSg. of the Germanic a-tribes ends in -u in the Frisian runic inscriptions. Seen from the rest of the Germanic development, this is completely incomprehensible. But it could be that in this westernmost speech expression that idg. -o- was retained in secondary syllables, and was then not lowered to -a-, but raised to -u-. This assumption could be supported by the Merovingian compositional vowel -o- (type Dagobert). (b) Know the language spoken in Jutland before the Danes immigrated neither do we - the assessment of the Jutlandic runes does not bring clarity. It must have been the northernmost form of the continental Germanic language forms; at the same time a transition to the Scandinavian language characteristics. Perhaps there is occasional access to this form of speech possible via English, especially if its Jutish peculiarities can be worked out. Thus Old English (with a clear center in its Jutish area) has the possibility of forming factual and inchoative verbs from adjectives with a prefix derivation (ge- + -lǣcan) which requires a suffix *laik-ija-. A suffix with this sound form is otherwise only found in the Nordic languages, in which abstracts can be formed from adjectives with a suffix -leikr. I tried to show in 1989 that this very likely derives from word groups with *līka- being univerted in derivations where a hind limb Vriddhi occurs, such as: *kunþa- 'known' (awn. kunnr, ae. cūð) – *kunþa-laika- (m.) 'acquaintance' (awn. kunnleikr) – *kunþalaik-ija- 'to make acquaintance' (ae. gecuðlǣcan). The abstract type is only Nordic, the verbal type only (Jutish) English. The example shows the conspicuous proximity between Nordic and Jutish English, regardless of my attempt at an explanation.
(7) The question of whether there was still unity among the non-Scandinavian tribes after the dissolution of the rest of the Germanic continuum (which would justify a West Germanic grouping) must therefore remain open; but the chances of a positive answer are not great. Even before that when the rest of the Germanic continuum gave up its connection through the migration of the Angles to Britain, the sea warriors were on the move and created the basis for new linguistic connections, which are now clearly no longer were based on a breakdown of grown continuities, but on a merger of units that were already characterized by individual languages, for which a geographical connection was not necessary. The merger was now more of a Sprachbund than an integral part of a grown continuum, and the exclusion of High German and the optional inclusion of Nordic were on a completely different level than the spatial context of West Germanic (= Continental Germanic at an early stage). Britain - Scandinavia + Jutland - northern continental Germania (at the later stage, excluding Jutland) - and Friesland were now independent parts linked by the practical need for mutual understanding. Linguistic equations that reflect this connection are called Ingwaonian or North Sea Germanic (or something else) in research; North Sea Germanic is a purely geographically descriptive and therefore preferable term, while Ingwaonian points back to the approach of ancient cult groups, which certainly no longer played a role in the late period. So it is unclear (and not probable) whether there was ever a sufficiently uniform language form, i.e. “West Germanic”, that was clearly distinct from Nordic after the division into three (or four) of the rest of the Germanic group."
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 28, 2023 14:16:37 GMT
Just my 2 cents: 1) Situation about Baltic loanwords and Finnic phonology in Lithuanian is very much the same as the one you mentioned on the first post about Germanic. Many loanwords from Baltic into Finnic (suggesting bilingual population or even part of Balts switching language to Finnic), but not sure whether also phonologically there are Finnic developments coming from Baltic. On the other hand in Lithuanian there are no Finnic loanwords (not mediated via Latvian, that is), but in Old Lithuanian there are some grammar/phonetic paralels to Finnic; 2) Situation about Finnic paternal lines in Lithuanian/Baltic is very much the same as the one in Germanic. Here is one specific line N-L550, which is clearly found at Malaren and its son line Y4706 was found in aDNA as far ar Oland island. His other son lines are found in high frequencies among modern Balts. 3) Akozino Malar Axes = split of L550 and L1025, with two main "nests" - Tatarstan (Akozino) and Sweden (Malaren). Split is dated around 700-900 bce, KAM axes are dated - yes, about same time. What I had learned from some Russian users on molgen - somewhere ca 500 BCE Akozino dies off for whatever reason (Darius campaign comes to my mind, but I can be wrong). Somewhere ca 500 BCE L550 and its children L1025 enter in some half millenia long bottleneck. Based on 1, 2, 3 My view is following: Akozino trader/smith/warriors established themselves in Malaren region 900-600 bce, Finnic language was language of trade, lingua franca of the area perhaps and Akozino played some significant role in establishing and maintaining that prestige for Finnic. Therefore they could establish themselves over Baltics and Sweden and Finland. But with demise of Akozino role of Finnic language get out of fashion. Pre-Germanic became fashion with trade likely going South instead of East. Malaren folk L550 assimilated into Germanic, but they managed to somehow keep their prestigious position. Which meant their Finnic way of speaking Germanic got promoted among all Germanic world, perhaps not among Goths fully, but that is a different story. Indeed several authors suggest that the language of the pre-proto-Finnic groups who settled in Estonia after travelling on what Lang calls the South-West route had seen its phonology deviate from Proto-West-Uralic under a pre-proto-Baltic influence.
|
|