|
Post by parastais on Aug 28, 2023 15:19:38 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. Could you name some of those changes? In phonology under Baltic influence? I know of loanwords influence, but don't know of phonology. It would not be much of a surprise, of course
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 28, 2023 16:29:22 GMT
In phonology, the only precise case that comes to my mind is the shift *ti > si that Posti viewed as a result of a Baltic influence. This view has been since contested (mainly for reasons of chronology). In "The non-initial-syllable vowel reductions from Proto-Uralic to Proto-Finnic", Petri Kallio is rather vague:
But I'm sure I read elsewhere that these changes could be more likely attributed to a Baltic influence, but I'm unable to remember where. I have to search.
In fact, I thought more of syntactic innovations. Lars-Gunnar Larsson in "Baltic influence on Finnic languages" ( in "The Circum-Baltic Languages, Typology and Contact", John Benjamins Publishing Company. PM me if you want an electronic version) writes: (details follow in the article)
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Aug 30, 2023 13:22:19 GMT
I'll post here the whole page from Hyllestedt's thesis about the etymology of PGmc *halba, which is one of the most likely Uralic loanwords into PGmc. It has much to see with the discussion that goes on on parastais' thread devoted to proto-Finnic.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Aug 31, 2023 11:40:46 GMT
So could we draw a conclusion that the proto-Germanic language during BA and IA was spoken-most probably in different variants- in Southern Scandinavia and on the North German Plain?
North German/ European Plain: Southern Scandinavia:
|
|
|
Post by Strabo on Aug 31, 2023 19:44:08 GMT
Maybe relative, maybe not, but on some of the threads dedicated to R1b P312 gang like L21, DF27 and U152 they were speculating about various parts of the Rhine river basin and/or Danube as the staging areas for the mentioned sub haplogroups in Beaker era
Where would be placed U106 and its subclades, as brother of P312, To the east of the Rhine river basin? When/where were U106 clades assimilated by proto Germanics (I1, R1a?)
I dont know anything substantial about U106 but I take a guess it was not in original proto germanic Scandinavia area? Or is it the case of very early U106 splinter branches that migrated to Scandinavia and they later eliminated or assimilating other U106 branches further south as proto germanics ?
If U106 is not considered ancestral to the earliest proto germanics, then where we would find U106 would be the southern border of the proto Germanic world?
|
|
|
Post by Dewsloth on Aug 31, 2023 22:09:30 GMT
Maybe relative, maybe not, but on some of the threads dedicated to R1b P312 gang like L21, DF27 and U152 they were speculating about various parts of the Rhine river basin and/or Danube as the staging areas for the mentioned sub haplogroups in Beaker era Where would be placed U106 and its subclades, as brother of P312, To the east of the Rhine river basin? When/where were U106 clades assimilated by proto Germanics (I1, R1a?)I dont know anything substantial about U106 but I take a guess it was not in original proto germanic Scandinavia area? Or is it the case of very early U106 splinter branches that migrated to Scandinavia and they later eliminated or assimilating other U106 branches further south as proto germanics ? If U106 is not considered ancestral to the earliest proto germanics, then where we would find U106 would be the southern border of the proto Germanic world? Some U106 made it north early enough ;-) I know I'm missing people below. I had a better, revised list but it's somewhere in AG archives. I5748 DF19>Z302* Oostwoud, Noord-Holland 2579-2211 calBCE Aceramic Single Grave [Pre-Beaker?] I13028 DF19>DF88* Ottoland-Kromme, Zuid-Holland 2456-2141 calBCE Barbed Wire Beaker RISE 98 U106 > Z2265+ > BY30097- 2431-2238 BCE Sweden, Lille Beddinge 56, Culture: Battle Axe/Nordic LN. Note that most of U106 men are Z2265+ > BY30097+. I7196 U106 > Z381 > Z156 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894 C. 2300-2000 BC, Early/Older Unetice, Prague-Jinonice “Zahradnictví”, Prague 5 – Jinonice, Czech Republic, I3025 U106 Molenaarsgrsaf, Zuid-Holland 2136-1892 calBCE Barbed Wire Beaker
I4070 U106 > Z381 Oostwoud, Noord-Holland 1881–1646 calBCE Tumulus/Sögel-Wohlde?
I26830 DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281 Wervershoof-Zwaagdijk, Noord-Holland 1620-1311 calBCE Netherlands_MBA/Hoogkarspel culture? I11972 U106>>Z381+/Z301- Westwoud, Noord-Holland 1501-1310 calBCE Elp
I17019 U106>>Z156>>Z304 Vlaardingen, Zuid Holland 1421-1216 calBCE Hilversum
I13788 U106>>Z156>>Z304 Chouc, Teplice, NW Bohemia 1300-800 BCE Urnfield
I17607 DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281 Louny, Stradonice, NW Bohemia 800-550 BCE Czech_IA_Hallstatt C or D (autosomally like the NLD samples above) I23978 Z156>S552->FT221936 Zegorje ob Savi, Slovenia 742-400 calBCE Hallstatt C or D
I11149 Z156 Taversham, Cambridgeshire 733-397 calBCE [pre?] Catuvellauni
I15950 Z156>>Z304>>Y28944 Teplice, NW Bohemia 480-390 BCE La Tene
I12907 Z156>>Z304 "Aak" Ultgeest-Dorregeest, Noord-Holland 356-57 calBCE IA West-Frisia
[Rome Happens] R10657, 26 - 126 calCE, Klosterneuburg, Austria: DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281>S4268>Z17112>S9287 (Batavi auxiliary?)* R10659, 26 - 126 calCE, Klosterneuburg, Austria: U106>S263>S264 (infant son of Batavi auxiliary)*
3DT16 U106>Z381>S264/Z156>Z305>Z307>S265/Z304>DF96>~18274596-G-A>S11515>L1/S26 Driffield Terrace, York, England c. 175-225 AD
6DT3 U106>Z381>S264/Z156>Z305>Z307>S265/Z304>~22365047-G-A>S1911>S1894>FGC14818>FGC14823>FGC14814 Driffield Terrace, York, England c. 275-375 AD
6DT23 DF19>DF88>FGC11833>S4281>S4268>Z17112>S17075> Z43034 Driffield Terrace, York, England c.250CE
|
|
|
Post by Webb on Sept 1, 2023 1:43:10 GMT
Maybe relative, maybe not, but on some of the threads dedicated to R1b P312 gang like L21, DF27 and U152 they were speculating about various parts of the Rhine river basin and/or Danube as the staging areas for the mentioned sub haplogroups in Beaker era Where would be placed U106 and its subclades, as brother of P312, To the east of the Rhine river basin? When/where were U106 clades assimilated by proto Germanics (I1, R1a?) I dont know anything substantial about U106 but I take a guess it was not in original proto germanic Scandinavia area? Or is it the case of very early U106 splinter branches that migrated to Scandinavia and they later eliminated or assimilating other U106 branches further south as proto germanics ? If U106 is not considered ancestral to the earliest proto germanics, then where we would find U106 would be the southern border of the proto Germanic world? What you have just posted about the P312 chatter and Jonik’s and others observations in regards to I1 are some of the most important clues in this discussion. We have DF27 and U152 Bell Beaker in Quedlinburg, Germany. Where we find DF27 and U152, we do not find I1. We can surmise that whatever path our Beaker P312 took through Germany on their way into Eastern and Western Europe, they most likely didn’t encounter I1, and this path was probably right through the middle of Germany as Quedlinburg is well north of the Danube/ Rhine corridor. If we assume that L21 were in the Dutch Bell Beaker area, they most likely didn’t encounter I1 either. It’s not until we see U106 in the genetic record, that we start to see I1. So whichever path that the brunt of U106 took, brought them into contact with I1, and we have to assume it was a different path than P312 took. If that’s the case, which it seems likely, then it had to be north of Quedlinburg, at least. I think the observations of the I1 group is probably the most likely scenario. U106 and I1 were the partnership that created Germanic, with a little bit of P312 who reached the far North.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 1, 2023 10:42:54 GMT
When we talk about Y-DNA in relation to Germanic I think we have to consider the following. We had a gigantic expansion of the Funnelbeakers in 3400 BC from the current area of Holstein and Mecklenburg that expanded into the Netherlands up to the Rhine. Those were in fact the Ertbølle people provided with a farmer package, the arrows of the Ertebølle have been found in the Netherlands from that period. What kind of Y-DNA did those people have? Something with I1 I assume? Or? Then we have the next break with the Single Grave or the IE input, around 2850BC. And then we are talking about the range of the Northern Netherlands, NW Germany, Denmark (west side). The IE language that said had must have left a footprint in proto-Germanic. Incidentally, the entrance of the SIngle Grave was via the Elbe. And up Elbe find in NW Bohemia the oldest R1b U106 PLN0001 from about 2900-2800 BC. We did find a lot of R1b P312 at Single Grave, not yet a R1b U106, although with the oldest R1b U106 in pole position (in time and place) along upstream Elbe that is a real possibility. Building on this legacy, the Bell Beakers are basically Single Gravers with a tap Funnelbeaker from the area (see Davidski). According to R1b U106 expert Iain Mc Donald, R1b U106 therefore has an emphatic distribution from Central Europe to the Northwest. By the way, not all lines under R1b U106 have reached Scandinavia, Z18 is a typical Nordic n R1b U106, but many lines under Z156 (from memory) certainly haven't either! I think we should not fall into the trap of tracing Germanic speakers back to R1b U106 in combination with I1. Because R1a probably also played a role in and around the Baltic Sea. And some minor lines from, for example, the EEF population were also present for a long time. Nevertheless, R1b (P312/ R1b U106) do play a major role under the Single Grave and R1a under the Battle Ax. Both constitute the IE input in both language and genes. Undoubtedly too simplistic but brought back to a core .... to be able to put it immediately into perspective after that
|
|
|
Post by Riverman on Sept 1, 2023 11:19:19 GMT
TRB/Funnelbeaker were no IE and related to Globular Amphora/GAC. They were mostly I2 and G2 and had little to do with later Indoeuropeans and Pre-Germanics, especially not on the paternal side of things. I-M253 is similar to E-V13 and probably J-L283 in most likely being picked up, probably just a single male, by incoming IE and integrated into their communities, starting its founder event from there. This means the earlier, pre-steppe invasion story of I-M253 is irrelevant for the Pre-/Proto-Germanic question, in all likelihood.
However, the founder event and expansion of I-M253 is the most tightly associated event to the Proto-Germanic formation and expansion in the biological record. The final formation of the Proto-Germanics being, very clearly, the combined founder event and expansion of I-M253 and R-U106. So the question is always where those two met, when they started to rapidly grow together. Because once their combined expansion and founder event started, we can be pretty sure that the Germanic ethnogenesis was finished and the expansion started. Before that is hard to answer, as is whether they were one unity early in the Bronze Age or one side brought the Pre-Germanic dialect to the other during the BA.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 1, 2023 11:25:19 GMT
TRB/Funnelbeaker were no IE and related to Globular Amphora/GAC. They were mostly I2 and G2 and had little to do with later Indoeuropeans and Pre-Germanics, especially not on the paternal side of things. I-M253 is similar to E-V13 and probably J-L283 in most likely being picked up, probably just a single male, by incoming IE and integrated into their communities, starting its founder event from there. This means the earlier, pre-steppe invasion story of I-M253 is irrelevant for the Pre-/Proto-Germanic question, in all likelihood. However, the founder event and expansion of I-M253 is the most tightly associated event to the Proto-Germanic formation and expansion in the biological record. The final formation of the Proto-Germanics being, very clearly, the combined founder event and expansion of I-M253 and R-U106. So the question is always where those two met, when they started to rapidly grow together. Because once their combined expansion and founder event started, we can be pretty sure that the Germanic ethnogenesis was finished and the expansion started. Before that is hard to answer, as is whether they were one unity early in the Bronze Age or one side brought the Pre-Germanic dialect to the other during the BA. Yes of course Funnelbeaker is not IE. And to a certain extent there is a relationship with GAC. But the HG/EEF ratio is very differentiated. Gøkhem Sweden and GAC Germany and Poland had high EEF. In large parts of Northern Germany it contained high HG, Ertebölle like. Which Y-DNA had Ertebölle? Don't we have finds near Ostorf with some kind of I1? I-M253 could well be a "successful branche" that did pop up during NBA. So an initial Funnelbeaker line that suvived the IE influx, of Single Grave and Battle Axe and made furore in BA. The Danish Isles is a typical place for such a fuze. Nevertheless there ae ore such area's in Southern Scandinavia and on thd North German Plain, no doubt.....
|
|
|
Post by Riverman on Sept 1, 2023 11:43:38 GMT
TRB/Funnelbeaker were no IE and related to Globular Amphora/GAC. They were mostly I2 and G2 and had little to do with later Indoeuropeans and Pre-Germanics, especially not on the paternal side of things. I-M253 is similar to E-V13 and probably J-L283 in most likely being picked up, probably just a single male, by incoming IE and integrated into their communities, starting its founder event from there. This means the earlier, pre-steppe invasion story of I-M253 is irrelevant for the Pre-/Proto-Germanic question, in all likelihood. However, the founder event and expansion of I-M253 is the most tightly associated event to the Proto-Germanic formation and expansion in the biological record. The final formation of the Proto-Germanics being, very clearly, the combined founder event and expansion of I-M253 and R-U106. So the question is always where those two met, when they started to rapidly grow together. Because once their combined expansion and founder event started, we can be pretty sure that the Germanic ethnogenesis was finished and the expansion started. Before that is hard to answer, as is whether they were one unity early in the Bronze Age or one side brought the Pre-Germanic dialect to the other during the BA. Yes of course Funnelbeaker is not IE. And to a certain extent there is a relationship with GAC. But the HG/EEF ratio is very differentated. Gøkhem Sweden and GAC Germany and Poland had high EEF. In large parts of Northern Germany it contained high HG, Ertebölle like. Which Y-DNA had Ertebölle? Don't we have finds near Ostorf with some kind of I1? I-M253 could well be a "succesfull branche" that did pop up during NBA. So an initial Funnelbeaker line that suvived the IE influx, of Single Grave and Battle Axe and made furore in BA. The Danish Isles is a typical place for such a fuze. Nevertheless there ae ore such area's in Southern Scandinavia and on thd North German Plain, no doubt.....
I made the deliberate comparison with E-V13 because the situation is the same for I-M253 with just one single individual or maximal clan surviving the steppe invasion and joining the IE ranks. The TMRCA of I-M253 according to FTDNA is about 2.600 BC: discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-M253/tree
Therefore we can say that's when it started to recover in a sustainable manner and gain some importance. Northern Germany-Denmark is surely a good place to search.
|
|
|
Post by Dewsloth on Sept 1, 2023 13:31:36 GMT
Looking at the other end of things, timewise, the oldest group from Gretzinger is Baltic Coastal Haeven (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) it's I1/U106 [no R1a] with one sample (HVN001) whose terrible quality prevents a decent read, but it did trip the 2xRead Teepean SNP test for a SNP under P312>DF19.
From Sheepslayer's spreadsheet: HVN007 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 I M253+ I-M253 I-M253 HVN008 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 I M253+ I-M253 I-M253 HVN010 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 I M253+ DF29+ CTS10028- Z58- I-M253 > DF29 > Y18697 > Y10633 > Y17940 > Y10637 > A5635 I-A5635 HVN001 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ HVN003 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ U106+ HVN006 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ U106+ HVN005 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ U106+ BY30097+ FTT8+ Z381+ Z301+ L48+ L47+ Z159+ > S6924 > S3251 > FGC17298 > BY41548 > FGC17308 > FGC17304 R-FGC17304 HVN004 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ U106+ BY30097+ Z18+ HVN009 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 Ungrouped A-L1090 A-L1090
Edit: Funny thing is if you look at HVN001's G25, he plots a bit more West/NLD than the others from the same site.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 1, 2023 15:34:41 GMT
Nearly exactly 9 years ago (August 31, 2014), Jaakko Häkkinen wrote on Dienekes:
In fact the linguistic evidence makes the problem of proto-Germanic homeland rather easy, it becomes difficult only when one refuses to see the linguistic evidence. In conclusion of his thesis Mikko Heikkilä wrote:
I couldn't say it better.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 1, 2023 15:35:22 GMT
Looking at the other end of things, timewise, the oldest group from Gretzinger is Baltic Coastal Haeven (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) it's I1/U106 [no R1a] with one sample (HVN001) whose terrible quality prevents a decent read, but it did trip the 2xRead Teepean SNP test for a SNP under P312>DF19. From Sheepslayer's spreadsheet: HVN007 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 I M253+ I-M253 I-M253 HVN008 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 I M253+ I-M253 I-M253 HVN010 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 I M253+ DF29+ CTS10028- Z58- I-M253 > DF29 > Y18697 > Y10633 > Y17940 > Y10637 > A5635 I-A5635 HVN001 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ HVN003 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ U106+ HVN006 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ U106+ HVN005 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ U106+ BY30097+ FTT8+ Z381+ Z301+ L48+ L47+ Z159+ > S6924 > S3251 > FGC17298 > BY41548 > FGC17308 > FGC17304 R-FGC17304 HVN004 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 R M173+ P297+ M269+ L23+ L51+ P310+ L151+ U106+ BY30097+ Z18+ HVN009 M Germany Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 200-400 CE 300 Ungrouped A-L1090 A-L1090 Edit: Funny thing is if you look at HVN001's G25, he plots a bit more West/NLD than the others from the same site. Indeed Dewsloth, they fit in this picture by Jockenhövel (thanks to Orentil):
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 1, 2023 15:52:49 GMT
Nearly exactly 10 years ago (August 31, 2014), Jaakko Häkkinen wrote on Dienekes: In fact the linguistic evidence makes the problem of proto-Germanic homeland rather easy, it becomes difficult only when one refuses to see the linguistic evidence. In conclusion of his thesis Mikko Heikkilä wrote: I couldn't say it better. Well I can embrace the early contacts with the Finns and the evidence of loanwords. But as said it's also a kind of ignorance, desintrest or just a narrow view from the Finns to watch only at their own backyard. The Suebi ancestors the ELb-Havel and Saale-Unstrut group of LBA, part of NBA, stood in contact-and sometimes periodically even overlaps with the world of Unetice, Urnfield, La Tene and Hallstatt. Very rich and advanced cultures that for sure left traces in proto Germanic. The refusal to see the Suebi/ Elbe Germanics and their ancestors as (proto) Germanic is astonishing to me. And to see a linguistic proto Germanic Urheimat in mind you Finland- besides the lack of evidence- is imho even to a level of being ridiculous. Kind of otherworldly.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 1, 2023 17:22:21 GMT
Add. Of course could innovation from a linguistic frontier in casu proto-Germanic and Finnic have had repercussions for both languages. Seen from the proto-Germanic side certain aspects of the Finnic language and loanwords could have been crept into the proto Germanic language, first in the Scandic proto Germanic variant and through contacts also with the rest of the (proto) Germanic world. But adopting a new language from Finland in BA or IA along the Elbe, is against my sober common sense. Because when we talk about BA and IA the basis for a flourishing culture was the agriculture. In Finland the start- repeat the start of agriculture- was about EBA, but fragile. Some-mind you Finnic- researchers state: "Cultivation of cereals in Finland may have started as late as the start of the Iron Age in c. 500 BC." www.researchgate.net/publication/263963680_Early_Farming_in_Finland_Was_there_Cultivation_before_the_Iron_Age_500_BCAnd on the other side we have the ancestors of the Elbe Germanics, for example along the ELbe-Saale, according to some the area with oldest Germanic namegiving for places and rivers etc. There we can find world's richest soils called löss, and with a microclimate so they nowadays can cultivate grapes. They had a surplus that already in BA produces a very rich culture, even an embryonal state that was able to produce this magnificent: And then the magic thing happens, around LBA/IA these Elb Germanic ancestors totally adopted a new language developed- in ultiimate splendid isolation - in "Urheimat Finland" in the form of proto Germanic, so from an area on a very great distance, that just started with cultivating cereals. And were the agriculture was still marginal, with many backlashes (on the way). I know just one Germanic word for this: Quatsch.
|
|
|
Post by parastais on Sept 1, 2023 17:47:37 GMT
Add. Of course could innovation from a linguistic frontier in casus proto-Germanic and Finnic have had repercussions for both languages. Seen from the proto-Germanic side certains aspects of the Finnci language and loanword could have been crept into the proto Germanic language, first in the Scandic proto Germanic variant and through contacts also with the rest of the (proto) Germanic world. But adopting a new language from Finland in BA or IA along the Elbe, is against my sober common sense. Because when we talk about BA and IA the basis for a flourishing culture was the agriculture. In Finland the start- repeat the start of agriculture- was about EBA, but fragile. Some-mind you Finnic- researchers state: "Cultivation of cereals in Finland may have started as late as the start of the Iron Age in c. 500 BC." www.researchgate.net/publication/263963680_Early_Farming_in_Finland_Was_there_Cultivation_before_the_Iron_Age_500_BCAnd on the other side we have the ancestors of the Elbe Germanics, for example along the ELbe-Saale, according to some the area with oldest Germanic namegiving for places and rivers etc. There we can find world's richest soils called löss, and with a microclimate so that they nowadays can cultivate grapes. They had a surplus that already in BA produces a very rich culture, even an embryonal state that was able to produce this magnificent: And then the magic thing happens, around LBA/IA these Elb Germanic ancestors totally adopted a new language developed- in ultiimate splendid isolation - in "Urheimat Finland" in the form of proto Germanic, so from an area on a very great distance, that just started with cultivating cereals. And were the agriculture was still marginal, with many backlashes (on the way). I know just one Germanic word for this: Quatsch. Agriculture historically is very important for autosomal genetic profile but less of an argument for language. Neither Hungarians nor Turks were agricultural or even numerous, yet agriculturalists of Pannonia and Turkey switched their language whilst keeping most of their genes. Similarly I guess Estonians. Not sure if Slavs were more advanced agriculturally than people they assimilated in Balkans or Central Europe. Even PIE themselves had no issue assimilating early European farmers.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 1, 2023 18:06:27 GMT
Add. Of course could innovation from a linguistic frontier in casus proto-Germanic and Finnic have had repercussions for both languages. Seen from the proto-Germanic side certains aspects of the Finnic language and loanword could have been crept into the proto Germanic language, first in the Scandic proto Germanic variant and through contacts also with the rest of the (proto) Germanic world. But adopting a new language from Finland in BA or IA along the Elbe, is against my sober common sense. Because when we talk about BA and IA the basis for a flourishing culture was the agriculture. In Finland the start- repeat the start of agriculture- was about EBA, but fragile. Some-mind you Finnic- researchers state: "Cultivation of cereals in Finland may have started as late as the start of the Iron Age in c. 500 BC." www.researchgate.net/publication/263963680_Early_Farming_in_Finland_Was_there_Cultivation_before_the_Iron_Age_500_BCAnd on the other side we have the ancestors of the Elbe Germanics, for example along the ELbe-Saale, according to some the area with oldest Germanic namegiving for places and rivers etc. There we can find world's richest soils called löss, and with a microclimate so that they nowadays can cultivate grapes. They had a surplus that already in BA produces a very rich culture, even an embryonal state that was able to produce this magnificent: And then the magic thing happens, around LBA/IA these Elb Germanic ancestors totally adopted a new language developed- in ultiimate splendid isolation - in "Urheimat Finland" in the form of proto Germanic, so from an area on a very great distance, that just started with cultivating cereals. And were the agriculture was still marginal, with many backlashes (on the way). I know just one Germanic word for this: Quatsch. Agriculture historically is very important for autosomal genetic profile but less of an argument for language. Neither Hungarians nor Turks were agricultural or even numerous, yet agriculturalists of Pannonia and Turkey switched their language whilst keeping most of their genes. Similarly I guess Estonians. Not sure if Slavs were more advanced agriculturally than people they assimilated in Balkans or Central Europe. Even PIE themselves had no issue assimilating early European farmers. I know no historical precedent in which a brand new language is adopted (voluntary) by a flourishing culture from a culture which was in certain aspects kind of marginal (geographic, economic, cultural). The only way I can imagine in such a case is capturing an area and then the invaders can introduce their own language. Not a likely scenario in this case. To put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 2, 2023 12:05:56 GMT
It would be long and tedious to straighten out everything that is twisted in folcwanding's interventions, but I cannot overlook one point that is important for the understanding of the general problem of this thread. About the “brand new language”. Between the first mutations (probably vocalic) which distinguish the pre-Germanic branch from the common Western Indo-European, and the first which signal the beginning of the dialectalization of Proto-Germanic, many centuries pass. How many? There is not and will never be a consensus obviously, but for example in Heikkilä's analysis a millennium and a half. To imagine the PGmc emerging fully formed, like Athena emerging fully armed from the thigh of Jupiter, is an error, and a dramatic one. It would undoubtedly be much closer to reality to see the PGmc, in relation to the late pre-Proto-Germanic continuum which very probably surrounded it, as a "new accent". I really liked on AG the comparison that Æsir made with "Rally English", the accent with which the Finns speak English (which has a lot to do with the absence of voiced 'b' and 'g' in their language, and the intonations which are never very marked and always descending). It was only a humorous comparison, but I think it was probably quite realistic. One consequence of this observation is that the question "how long did PGmc take to spread?" doesn't actually make much sense. The situation is quite close to that of living traditions, for which the innovative dimension and the conservative dimension are inseparable. What we can say absolutely categorically is that all the mutations with which we mark, as milestones, the evolution towards Proto-Germanic and beyond, are reflected by the loans in the stratigraphy of the languages from the Finno-Saamic family, so that we can sync their respective chronologies. Obviously this does not happen without difficulties and debates. Above all, what results from this synchronization is a relative chronology. Fixing this relative chronology into an absolute chronology requires having fixed points, for which linguistics often requests help from other disciplines. Because the only thing we are more or less certain of is the terminal datings (and even then, only approximate). As for the beginnings, it is another adventure, which explains why for the Finno-Saamic chronology, for example, there is still no consensus as to its depth. Some specialists defend (this seems to me to be a fairly recent but very combative trend) a very short chronology, while others (like Kallio and Heikkilä) choose a chronology deeply anchored in the Bronze Age. I take the example of the Finno-Saamic chronology, but I think everyone will have understood that the options defended on this subject have fatal repercussions on the Germanic chronology. A point which concerns me greatly, and which I will probably write about one day soon, is that of the Celtic borrowings transmitted to pre-proto-Finnish. Can the examination of these borrowings provide information on the beginnings of Germanic chronology? We'll see. That's all for today. Needless to say, none of this has the slightest connection with stories of "flourishing cultures" or soil quality.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 2, 2023 15:11:06 GMT
It would be long and tedious to straighten out everything that is twisted in folcwanding's interventions, but I cannot overlook one point that is important for the understanding of the general problem of this thread. About the “brand new language”. Between the first mutations (probably vocalic) which distinguish the pre-Germanic branch from the common Western Indo-European, and the first which signal the beginning of the dialectalization of Proto-Germanic, many centuries pass. How many? There is not and will never be a consensus obviously, but for example in Heikkilä's analysis a millennium and a half. To imagine the PGmc emerging fully formed, like Athena emerging fully armed from the thigh of Jupiter, is an error, and a dramatic one. It would undoubtedly be much closer to reality to see the PGmc, in relation to the late pre-Proto-Germanic continuum which very probably surrounded it, as a "new accent". I really liked on AG the comparison that Æsir made with "Rally English", the accent with which the Finns speak English (which has a lot to do with the absence of voiced 'b' and 'g' in their language, and the intonations which are never very marked and always descending). It was only a humorous comparison, but I think it was probably quite realistic. One consequence of this observation is that the question "how long did PGmc take to spread?" doesn't actually make much sense. The situation is quite close to that of living traditions, for which the innovative dimension and the conservative dimension are inseparable. What we can say absolutely categorically is that all the mutations with which we mark, as milestones, the evolution towards Proto-Germanic and beyond, are reflected by the loans in the stratigraphy of the languages from the Finno-Saamic family, so that we can sync their respective chronologies. Obviously this does not happen without difficulties and debates. Above all, what results from this synchronization is a relative chronology. Fixing this relative chronology into an absolute chronology requires having fixed points, for which linguistics often requests help from other disciplines. Because the only thing we are more or less certain of is the terminal datings (and even then, only approximate). As for the beginnings, it is another adventure, which explains why for the Finno-Saamic chronology, for example, there is still no consensus as to its depth. Some specialists defend (this seems to me to be a fairly recent but very combative trend) a very short chronology, while others (like Kallio and Heikkilä) choose a chronology deeply anchored in the Bronze Age. I take the example of the Finno-Saamic chronology, but I think everyone will have understood that the options defended on this subject have fatal repercussions on the Germanic chronology. A point which concerns me greatly, and which I will probably write about one day soon, is that of the Celtic borrowings transmitted to pre-proto-Finnish. Can the examination of these borrowings provide information on the beginnings of Germanic chronology? We'll see. That's all for today. Needless to say, none of this has the slightest connection with stories of "flourishing cultures" or soil quality. I don't exactly see your response as a substantiated argument (and to me that's the core). If you only see it as distortions then you don't really need anything with it. Then you can ust play the gray turned record of the proto Germanic Urheimat in Finland, because well, the other person twists it all anyway. I think I have made real objections to the concept of Urheimat at all. And besides that: when I asked what kind of language the ancestors of the Suebi (NBA/Jastorf) spoke. I never got a clear answer to that. In addition, it just seems almost impossible to spread a language from Finnish over a very large area while they were still at the beginning of the cultivation of cereals in IA .With that I am not a denial of loanwords or otherwise influence on PGmc. But Finland as a proto-Germanic Urheimat, in my opinion, needs a big thumb. In IA they could sometimes just keep their heads above water and/or were dependent on an HG-like lifestyle. Literally and figuratively in the margins. So in certain aspect in a still 'primitive' state, not able to develop much exposure to a language. The spread of a language has a social component that you completely ignore, or you brush it away. Again if you only see this as a twist, and not as a sense of reality (which can always be argued, no doubt!). If that is the attitude then I think it has become a matter of old men with long gray beards Lots of fantasy....and lots of wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 2, 2023 20:45:24 GMT
It would be long and tedious to straighten out everything that is twisted in folcwanding's interventions, but I cannot overlook one point that is important for the understanding of the general problem of this thread. About the “brand new language”. Between the first mutations (probably vocalic) which distinguish the pre-Germanic branch from the common Western Indo-European, and the first which signal the beginning of the dialectalization of Proto-Germanic, many centuries pass. How many? There is not and will never be a consensus obviously, but for example in Heikkilä's analysis a millennium and a half. To imagine the PGmc emerging fully formed, like Athena emerging fully armed from the thigh of Jupiter, is an error, and a dramatic one. It would undoubtedly be much closer to reality to see the PGmc, in relation to the late pre-Proto-Germanic continuum which very probably surrounded it, as a "new accent". I really liked on AG the comparison that Æsir made with "Rally English", the accent with which the Finns speak English (which has a lot to do with the absence of voiced 'b' and 'g' in their language, and the intonations which are never very marked and always descending). It was only a humorous comparison, but I think it was probably quite realistic. One consequence of this observation is that the question "how long did PGmc take to spread?" doesn't actually make much sense. The situation is quite close to that of living traditions, for which the innovative dimension and the conservative dimension are inseparable. What we can say absolutely categorically is that all the mutations with which we mark, as milestones, the evolution towards Proto-Germanic and beyond, are reflected by the loans in the stratigraphy of the languages from the Finno-Saamic family, so that we can sync their respective chronologies. Obviously this does not happen without difficulties and debates. Above all, what results from this synchronization is a relative chronology. Fixing this relative chronology into an absolute chronology requires having fixed points, for which linguistics often requests help from other disciplines. Because the only thing we are more or less certain of is the terminal datings (and even then, only approximate). As for the beginnings, it is another adventure, which explains why for the Finno-Saamic chronology, for example, there is still no consensus as to its depth. Some specialists defend (this seems to me to be a fairly recent but very combative trend) a very short chronology, while others (like Kallio and Heikkilä) choose a chronology deeply anchored in the Bronze Age. I take the example of the Finno-Saamic chronology, but I think everyone will have understood that the options defended on this subject have fatal repercussions on the Germanic chronology. A point which concerns me greatly, and which I will probably write about one day soon, is that of the Celtic borrowings transmitted to pre-proto-Finnish. Can the examination of these borrowings provide information on the beginnings of Germanic chronology? We'll see. That's all for today. Needless to say, none of this has the slightest connection with stories of "flourishing cultures" or soil quality. I don't exactly see your response as a substantiated argument (and to me that's the core). If you only see it as distortions then you don't really need anything with it. Then you can ust play the gray turned record of the proto Germanic Urheimat in Finland, because well, the other person twists it all anyway. I think I have made real objections to the concept of Urheimat at all. And besides that: when I asked what kind of language the ancestors of the Suebi (NBA/Jastorf) spoke. I never got a clear answer to that. In addition, it just seems almost impossible to spread a language from Finnish over a very large area while they were still at the beginning of the cultivation of cereals in IA .With that I am not a denial of loanwords or otherwise influence on PGmc. But Finland as a proto-Germanic Urheimat, in my opinion, needs a big thumb. In IA they could sometimes just keep their heads above water and/or were dependent on an HG-like lifestyle. Literally and figuratively in the margins. So in certain aspect in a still 'primitive' state, not able to develop much exposure to a language. The spread of a language has a social component that you completely ignore, or you brush it away. Again if you only see this as a twist, and not as a sense of reality (which can always be argued, no doubt!). If that is the attitude then I think it has become a matter of old men with long gray beards Lots of fantasy....and lots of wishful thinking. Please go a few posts back. You will find an overview of proto-Finnish vocabulary relating to agriculture. edit: as a moderator I moderate my own post. I was actually angry yesterday night when I responded to this post. Let's only say this morning that this is false, deeply false. edit edit: As a moderator, I moderate my moderation. Be careful though, folc, about what you write, otherwise you could give the impression that you are motivated by racist ulterior motives against the Finns (Saamis included) and their ancestors, this type of thought that was still common in certain Swedish circles a few decades ago (I want to believe that they have since disappeared). For this time I will be content to read in this post the symptom of a profound ignorance of the subject you are talking about. But the tone was worrying, so be careful.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 3, 2023 8:03:42 GMT
I don't exactly see your response as a substantiated argument (and to me that's the core). If you only see it as distortions then you don't really need anything with it. Then you can ust play the gray turned record of the proto Germanic Urheimat in Finland, because well, the other person twists it all anyway. I think I have made real objections to the concept of Urheimat at all. And besides that: when I asked what kind of language the ancestors of the Suebi (NBA/Jastorf) spoke. I never got a clear answer to that. In addition, it just seems almost impossible to spread a language from Finnish over a very large area while they were still at the beginning of the cultivation of cereals in IA .With that I am not a denial of loanwords or otherwise influence on PGmc. But Finland as a proto-Germanic Urheimat, in my opinion, needs a big thumb. In IA they could sometimes just keep their heads above water and/or were dependent on an HG-like lifestyle. Literally and figuratively in the margins. So in certain aspect in a still 'primitive' state, not able to develop much exposure to a language. The spread of a language has a social component that you completely ignore, or you brush it away. Again if you only see this as a twist, and not as a sense of reality (which can always be argued, no doubt!). If that is the attitude then I think it has become a matter of old men with long gray beards Lots of fantasy....and lots of wishful thinking. Please go a few posts back. You will find an overview of proto-Finnish vocabulary relating to agriculture. edit: as a moderator I moderate my own post. I was actually angry yesterday night when I responded to this post. Let's only say this morning that this is false, deeply false. That's besides the point. I guess you see the history of proto-Germanic as a kind of "level playing field". It wasn't.
This gives a nice overview: "Cultural Insights: How Culture Shapes Language Development in Society Asa service for learning languages, we are interested in the history of origin, evolution and other aspects related to the language itself. The intricate relationship between culture and language has a profound impact on how language develops and evolves within a society. Language, as a tool of communication, not only reflects the beliefs, customs, and traditions of a culture but also plays a crucial role in shaping and preserving that culture. In this article, we will explore how culture influences the development of language in society. Vocabulary and Concepts As the Main Influence On the Development of the Language. Culture significantly influences the vocabulary and concepts present in a language. Different cultures prioritize and focus on distinct aspects of life, resulting in the creation of unique words to describe specific phenomena or emotions. For example, the Inuit people have multiple words for snow, reflecting the significance of snow in their daily lives. Similarly, certain cultures may have rich vocabularies for describing family relationships, food, or natural elements based on their cultural values and experiences. Language Structure. The grammatical structure of a language can also be influenced by cultural norms and values. For instance, some languages may have specific grammatical rules for showing respect or politeness to elders or higher authorities. In contrast, other languages may not have such distinctions. These variations in language structure reflect the cultural values and social hierarchies prevalent in a society. Cultural Concepts and Idioms That Influence Language Development. Cultural concepts and idioms are phrases or expressions that have a deeper meaning within a specific culture. These idiomatic expressions often draw from cultural practices, historical events, or folklore. Understanding cultural concepts and idioms is essential for effective communication within a culture, as they convey nuanced meanings and emotions that may not be apparent in a direct translation. Influence of Traditions and Rituals. Cultural traditions and rituals are often embedded in language use. Special phrases or greetings may be used during ceremonies, festivals, or significant life events. Language is a way to preserve and pass down cultural knowledge, and its use during rituals and traditions reinforces the importance of these cultural practices. Taboos and Euphemisms. Language also adapts to cultural taboos and norms. Certain topics may be considered sensitive or inappropriate to discuss openly, leading to the creation of euphemisms or indirect language to address them. Culturally-sensitive language use helps maintain social harmony and respect cultural boundaries. Historical and Geographic Factors. The history and geographical context of a society influence its language development. Historical events, such as invasions, colonization, or trade, can introduce new vocabulary and influence the pronunciation and grammar of a language. Additionally, the geographical landscape may lead to the development of specific words related to agriculture, animals, or weather. Multilingualism and Language Contact is The Reason for The Development of the Language. In multicultural societies, languages often come into contact, leading to language borrowing and the exchange of linguistic features. Multilingual communities may adopt certain words or expressions from neighboring languages, resulting in a blending of linguistic elements and enriching the cultural diversity within the society. Evolution of Language Over Time. As culture evolves, so does language. Social, technological, and political changes influence the development of new words and expressions. For example, advancements in technology have led to the creation of new terms related to computers, the internet, and social media. Learning not only the basics of language, but also modern vocabulary is available with our application. In conclusion, culture plays a vital role in shaping the development of language in society. Vocabulary, grammar, idioms, and language structure are all influenced by cultural beliefs, traditions, and historical factors. Understanding the interplay between culture and language is essential for effective communication and fostering mutual respect and appreciation for diverse cultures. Language not only reflects culture but also acts as a bridge that connects people, promoting a deeper understanding of different societies and their unique ways of life." Where I see a point in the Germanic/Finnic-Saami case is this: "Multilingualism and Language Contact is The Reason for The Development of the Language. In multicultural societies, languages often come into contact, leading to language borrowing and the exchange of linguistic features. Multilingual communities may adopt certain words or expressions from neighboring languages, resulting in a blending of linguistic elements and enriching the cultural diversity within the society." But that's also the case with proto Germanic/ Celtic! And besides the situation along the Elbe (the old NBA/ Jastorf) area was differentiated. In this sense "Social, technological, and political changes influence the development of new words and expressions." The introduction of cereals in Finland in IA is a sign, an illustration, that their development was stil on another level than along the Elbe, which had such introduction much much earlier (about 3000 years). As said already during Unetice they reached a kind of social, technological an political level (even a state development), symbolized by the Nebra Sky Disc.At that time on the proto Germanic/ Finnic border it was still a complete HG life style....(no need for words for cereals. let alone the complicated level as represented in the Nebra Sky Disk). In such different circumstances it's complete fare fetched (and that's mild) to state this like Häkkinen does: "It is even possible that the Germanic homeland was in Finland, because the contacts between Germanic and for example Celtic or Baltic started later than with Finnic and Saami!" Because we have no evidence of the timing of those contacts (only speculations). And for example in Sweden case the contacts with Unetice for example were there in LNBA etc etc .And from the proto-germanic/ celtic border pure the necessity of new words for new social, technological en political changes couldn't wait for example about 3000 years (in the case of the introduction of cereals in FBC) until in the Finnic area these chances occurred and there was a need for new words. So with all the respect and sorry for the inconvenience but the idea of a Germanic homeland in Finland is imo complete fata morgana, wishful thinking. Just like this from Parastais: "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."
A complete ignorance and underestimate what occurred along the Elbe in LNBA and IA. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00334-011-0328-9voccent.medium.com/cultural-insights-how-culture-shapes-language-development-in-society-f68136a4d22f
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Sept 3, 2023 8:49:24 GMT
Because we have no evidence of the timing of those contacts (only speculations). Just a side note but does it make any sense to discuss linguistics if you don't accept the whole idea of that scientific approach? This is a linguistic thread, after all.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 3, 2023 8:55:16 GMT
Because we have no evidence of the timing of those contacts (only speculations). Just a side note but does it make any sense to discuss linguistics if you don't accept the whole idea of that scientific approach? This is a linguistic thread, after all. I respect the scientific rules of the noble Science of Arts completely! As in the need for sources to make a qualified narrative. I'm master of Arts and you?
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 3, 2023 9:08:02 GMT
Because we have no evidence of the timing of those contacts (only speculations). Just a side note but does it make any sense to discuss linguistics if you don't accept the whole idea of that scientific approach? This is a linguistic thread, after all. I fully agree, but I fear that we will have to put up with this indigestible chatter for a long time to come. I have seen others over the last few years, but I admit that the last gem ( connecting PGmc with soil quality ) was really brilliant. Okay, come on, it's better to laugh about it.
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Sept 3, 2023 9:20:14 GMT
Just a side note but does it make any sense to discuss linguistics if you don't accept the whole idea of that scientific approach? This is a linguistic thread, after all. I respect the scientific rules of the noble Science of Arts completely! As in the need for sources to make a qualified narrative. I'm master of Arts and you? Master of Arts. Should I be impressed? Or, are you referring to some kind of an artistic approach such as cherry picking regarding the scientific results?
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 3, 2023 9:50:18 GMT
Just a side note but does it make any sense to discuss linguistics if you don't accept the whole idea of that scientific approach? This is a linguistic thread, after all. I fully agree, but I fear that we will have to put up with this indigestible chatter for a long time to come. I have seen others over the last few years, but I admit that the last gem ( connecting PGmc with soil quality ) was really brilliant. Okay, come on, it's better to laugh about it. It is not the soil as such, but the fertile circumstances it figuratively/literally creates, but some can see it obvious only literaly. I guess the biggest joke stays Finland as the Germanic homeland, with no qualified narrative. Brought by traders with L550 to the South, yeah right! Dream on🥳
|
|
|
Post by parastais on Sept 3, 2023 9:59:24 GMT
I fully agree, but I fear that we will have to put up with this indigestible chatter for a long time to come. I have seen others over the last few years, but I admit that the last gem ( connecting PGmc with soil quality ) was really brilliant. Okay, come on, it's better to laugh about it. It is not the soil as such, but the fertile circumstances it figuratively/literally creates, but some can see it obvious only literaly. I guess the biggest joke stays Finland as the Germanic homeland, with no qualified narrative. Brought by traders with L550 to the South, yeah right! Dream on🥳 Tell me which IE language(s) was spoken in Sweden since 1000 BCE up to today? Celtic? Baltic? Slavic?
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 3, 2023 10:03:25 GMT
I repeat that my "minimal thesis" doesn't use any metaphoric term (such as "Germanic homeland") and doesn't pretend to develop any sort of narrative. It's a purely linguistic thesis that as such cannot be challenged.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 3, 2023 11:35:09 GMT
It is not the soil as such, but the fertile circumstances it figuratively/literally creates, but some can see it obvious only literaly. I guess the biggest joke stays Finland as the Germanic homeland, with no qualified narrative. Brought by traders with L550 to the South, yeah right! Dream on🥳 Tell me which IE language(s) was spoken in Sweden since 1000 BCE up to today? Celtic? Baltic? Slavic? About this point too I could refer to older posts on AG, where I linked to the works of the greatest Scandinavian specialists of toponymy, and especially hydronymy (Strandbeg, Nyman, etc.). The Uralic toponyms put apart, Scandinavian toponymy is exclusively IE and Germanic (from pre-Germanic to proto-Germanic and beyond, without any gap). I imagine that folc will only refer to the crappy works of this old fool Udolph. Well, that's his problem, not ours.
|
|