|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 4, 2023 11:40:43 GMT
*rauda is nothing but the nominative neuter of the adjective *raudaz = "red". Your "only" is dismissed by the fact that this theme was kept in proto-Scandinavian and several of its dialects under the meaning "bog iron". In Finnish and Saami "iron" is its only meaning and the celto-germanism *isarna was not inherited. About *isarna the Grimms' etymology is now considered outdated. Matasovic gives:
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 4, 2023 14:33:23 GMT
Often when we use a dictionary we do not read enough, if at all, the introductory information. In the case of the Läglös, it would be a shame. We must obviously place this monumental work in its time (1991). What in particular is said about the chronology of Germanic-Balto-Finnic contacts would be severely contested today, due to its depth. But as for their geographical location and the nature of the relationships, I don't find much to complain about. The only complaint I could find concerns the last sentence, which considers obvious the absence of lexical transfer in the Finnic > Germanic sense. That, if there was a transfer, it was very reduced, this is indisputable. But Hyllestedt, in his thesis, asks us to nuance. Saarikivi and Holopainen, in the presentation that I published above, announce new etymologies that could be added to those proposed by Hyllestedt. I hope to read them one day, and I'm not the only one. It should be noted that until recently, the rare Germanists who have really asked themselves the question of non-Indo-European etymologies in Germanic languages have never explored the Balto-Finnic domain (due likely to a lack of knowledge in this area). I now copy the page that Läglös devotes to the location and nature of the contacts.
Translation (Google)
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 4, 2023 15:32:55 GMT
parastais, another (weak perhaps) argument in favor of "rauta" as a Germanic loan, not a Baltic one, is the following: ahjo: forge, furnace. From Proto-Finnic *ahjo, borrowed from Proto-Germanic *asjǭ (whence Swedish ässja) (Wiki). As to the meaning Läglös is rather vague, but the Kielitoimiston sanakirja is very precise: "tulisija jossa taottava metalli kuumennetaan hehkuvaksi" = "a hearth where the metal to be forged is heated to a glowing state"
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 4, 2023 16:37:12 GMT
I guess this is a part of the puzzle, the one of the NE part of the PGmc speaking world. I have read Schrijvers thesis. I remark that he is specific linguistic so matters of a heartland or Urheimat as fare as I know (but correct me) he doesn't mention this. I think it's imaginable that a bilingual situation has influenced PGmc as the Finnic/Saami language. Nevertheless I also thinks that Schrijver draws a grand narrative on a limited basis. He did also in the Frisian case in which he states that in Roman times there was a North Sea Celtic, but the basis for that is limited... So it could be right (in the Germanic/Finnic case) but with these footnotes. I'm convinced that for a complete picture you must also take in account the ancestors of the Suebi/ Elbe Germanics, so NBA and Jastorf in nowadays NE Germany. Imo they also spoke a kind of PGmc, there are no contraindications for that. Here play R1b U106 and I-M253 also a part. And this is also the area were there is in the most southern part of Jastorf a bilangual situation with the (proto) Celtic language. And least but not least the PGmc between Rhine and Weser. It was a kind of PGmc that was most probably most close to NW IE (Single Grave influx...?), see also the NWblock theory. Influences from upwards Rhine and Weser (Meuse), with important oppida's in those area's upwards those rivers were real. I think that Angels made a good point: "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." The PGmc of the Rhine-Weser area and that of Elbe Germanic had not such an influence on the reconstructed PGmc, in other words we have only very limited knowledge about those variants. May be old Frankish comes most close to PGmc between Rhine and Weser? I have very minimal knowledge on Celtic vs Germanic ties. My main interest is Baltic and then by extension other contact languages. But due to those reasons you mentioned I decided that best solution to Finnic features in Germanic was if a specific Finnic impacted dialect (say Uppsala version of Proto-Germanic as a perfect candidate) became a vehicle to transmit stress on first syllable and Verner’s law to other Germanics one way or another, because it is hard to imagine Finnic substrate for all Proto-Germans. Both genetically and archeologically. The parallel linguistically is for example Great Vowel Shift in English which impacted all English versions, but main hypothesis include London speech of assimilated foreigners, or ethnic French lords assimilating into English speaking population which made others want to pronounce words as aristocracy or as capital folk. So, similarly one dialect or pronunciation which at certain time period became attractive enough for whole group. I totally understand, I myself have the least insight into the extreme NE of the PGmc world. What can occur here is the famous metaphor of a few blindfolded people who each touch a part of an elephant and then write what an elephant looks like, with the trunk you get a different picture than with the ears or stomach What I but that is to say that the PGmc was spoken in my impression in a very wide area, probably not in one and the same form but nevertheless. I think both "frontier areas" Finnic/Germanic and Germanic/Celtic are important, both are areas where innovations have been hurled into the PGmc area. I think that the "Finnish" influences you point out precisely in the migration period in which the Elbe Germanic Suebi (with the most northern part being the Anglo-Saxons) may well have taken this with them in spreading west and south. On the other hand, the Germanic soundshift, for example, probably proceeded from South(east) to North(west), as argued by Euler (2009).
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 4, 2023 16:46:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 4, 2023 17:24:57 GMT
*rauda is nothing but the nominative neuter of the adjective *raudaz = "red". Your "only" is dismissed by the fact that this theme was kept in proto-Scandinavian and several of its dialects under the meaning "bog iron". I recognize this from my own dialect (wiki, google translate): "* Rodoorn, "red thorns" or "red veins" is an old Groningen name for a ferruginous soil with a red to red-brown or gray-brown color. This is often bog iron." nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodoorn
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 4, 2023 20:40:52 GMT
^^ Folcwalding, the words "at least in the West" are essential in the Euler extract you published. Furthermore, Koch's diagram is very misleading in my opinion for two main reasons. First, it does not include the linguistic family with which “old” Germanic (pre-, proto-) maintained the most regular and intimate relationships (Balto-Finnic). Secondly, it leaves room for interpretation in terms of geographical proximities, including in the case that is the centre of Koch's attention, the Celtic case. Now precisely, if I remember correctly, the text itself suggests that the less uncertain Celto-Germanic borrowings may all have travelled on commercial routes. This is also at the heart of Koch's entire enterprise, of his collaboration with the Scandinavians, and of his interest in the rock carvings of Sweden.
edit:
If you want to argue the idea that Celto-Germanic contacts took place in a CNE contact zone, it is not Koch that you should appeal to. On the idea of a pre-Celtic vs pre-Germanic mutual intelligibility which would have continued so late (until Grimm), I am really very skeptical. But it would be quite presumptuous in my opinion to scrap this point. The gist of Koch's conclusion is that the Celto-Germanic loanwords are very old (before 500 BC). Häkkinen's quote from the other day disagrees with this, but Heikkilä's thesis supports this idea, by putting these loanwords as low as -800 (from memory), and also before Grimm. From my point of view, in any case these borrowings are not, or very little, informative regarding proto-Germanic. In this respect I remain in total agreement with Kallio: what weight do a few handfuls of Celtic borrowings, all very old and mediatable through long-distance contacts, in the face of the enormous corpus of Finno-Germanic borrowings, and what it teaches us about the relationships between the groups and cultures concerned?
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 5, 2023 8:36:50 GMT
^^ Folcwalding, the words "at least in the West" are essential in the Euler extract you published. Furthermore, Koch's diagram is very misleading in my opinion for two main reasons. First, it does not include the linguistic family with which “old” Germanic (pre-, proto-) maintained the most regular and intimate relationships (Balto-Finnic). Secondly, it leaves room for interpretation in terms of geographical proximities, including in the case that is the centre of Koch's attention, the Celtic case. Now precisely, if I remember correctly, the text itself suggests that the less uncertain Celto-Germanic borrowings may all have travelled on commercial routes. This is also at the heart of Koch's entire enterprise, of his collaboration with the Scandinavians, and of his interest in the rock carvings of Sweden. edit: If you want to argue the idea that Celto-Germanic contacts took place in a CNE contact zone, it is not Koch that you should appeal to. On the idea of a pre-Celtic vs pre-Germanic mutual intelligibility which would have continued so late (until Grimm), I am really very skeptical. But it would be quite presumptuous in my opinion to scrap this point. The gist of Koch's conclusion is that the Celto-Germanic loanwords are very old (before 500 BC). Häkkinen's quote from the other day disagrees with this, but Heikkilä's thesis supports this idea, by putting these loanwords as low as -800 (from memory), and also before Grimm. From my point of view, in any case these borrowings are not, or very little, informative regarding proto-Germanic. In this respect I remain in total agreement with Kallio: what weight do a few handfuls of Celtic borrowings, all very old and mediatable through long-distance contacts, in the face of the enormous corpus of Finno-Germanic borrowings, and what it teaches us about the relationships between the groups and cultures concerned? Indeed these are Koch's assumptions: "By ~1500 BC Southern Scandinavia had become a brilliant participant in the Bronze Age. Leading up to this, we must suppose that young men who were native speakers of Pre-Germanic (most of whom probably lacked comfortable inheritance) sought their fortunes by undertaking long travels beyond the lands of their native dialect. These journeys included two types: (a) expeditions to acquire metals in Central Europe or the Atlantic West and (b) service as ‘mercenaries’ in warbands recruited by foreign potentates. Later, many of these adventurers returned home with enhanced wealth and status and special knowledge that included words for new-fangled equipment, institutions, and concepts for which there had previously been no words in Pre-Germanic. The question that these activities raise for historical linguistics is to what extent this transfer of knowledge had obliged Bronze Age adventurers from Scandinavia to learn a second language. Or had the interaction taken place through still mutually intelligible Indo-European dialects? If the latter, at what time did this situation give way to that of separate languages as found in historical times?" "~1800–1200/900 BC Pre-Celtic and Pre-Germanic remained in close contact, due at least in part to the long-distance trade of metals to Scandinavia. As a result, they maintained a high degree of mutual intelligibility. New words shared between these languages at this period are not detectable as loanwords." For what it's worth. No certainties in this respect. I only think that we can assume there were "no mutual fences" around proto Germanic and proto-Celtic.....
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 5, 2023 8:51:32 GMT
PS not to mention that Koch and Häkkinen do mutual exclude eachother:
Häkkinen: "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!"
Koch suggests that PGmc and proto-Celtic were very early-not late- fellow travellers.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 5, 2023 10:02:54 GMT
PS not mention that Koch and Häkkinen do mutual exclude eachother: Häkkinen: "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!" Koch suggests that PGmc and proto-Celtic were very early-not late- fellow travellers. I presume that Häkkinen was following old models of Germanic-La Tene contacts. For my part I'm not entirely convinced by Koch's demonstration, in particular by his assumption of long lasting mutual intelligibility. Such a condition is not required for transmission of loanwords, and I don't see any reason to exclude the possibility of some recent continental celtic loans infiltrating Scandinavia from Denmark or even Poland.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 5, 2023 13:43:10 GMT
PS not mention that Koch and Häkkinen do mutual exclude eachother: Häkkinen: "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!" Koch suggests that PGmc and proto-Celtic were very early-not late- fellow travellers. I presume that Häkkinen was following old models of Germanic-La Tene contacts. For my part I'm not entirely convinced by Koch's demonstration, in particular by his assumption of long lasting mutual intelligibility. Such a condition is not required for transmission of loanwords, and I don't see any reason to exclude the possibility of some recent continental celtic loans infiltrating Scandinavia from Denmark or even Poland. Agree. When he was following the old model of Germanic-La Tene contacts, then this is outdated imo. Koch pressumes that with metal exchange there was also language exchange. And so from mind the Scandics used in BA (until Viking times) the Weser (and Rhine) for metals. And of course this brought them in contact with more Celtic speaking groups in the upper Weser (and Rhine). This is meanwhile researched. But again we know this from metal exchange but in how fare this had consequences for the language in the form of loanwords etc is highly assumptive.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 14, 2023 14:20:34 GMT
Focus on Celtic borrowings in Proto-GermanicIn his book " CELTO-GERMANIC Later Prehistory and Post-Proto-Indo-European vocabulary in the North and West" (2020) J. Koch, after collecting a total of 276 Celto-Germanisms, notices: " A second point is that most of these items in all the subgroups do not look like loanwords". It is indeed very important to differentiate actual loanwords from simple isoglosses. I've searched which among those celto-germanisms are most likely loanwords, and actually only found a handful. I used two sources, Wikipedia and Kroonen. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Proto-Germanic_terms_borrowed_from_Proto-CelticKroonen: "Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic" , Brill, 2013 Note that I left out geography terms, like the names of the Rhine, the Danube, and Rome, for obvious reasons. 1) brunjǭ ( = breastplate) Wiki: Perhaps borrowed from an ancestral form of Old Irish bruinne (“breast, bosom, chest”), i.e. Proto-Celtic *brusnyos, derived from *brusū (“breast”), from Proto-Indo-European *bʰrews- (“to swell”) and cognate with Proto-Germanic *breustą, *brusts Kroonen: Suspected to be a loanword from Celtic, perhaps from a pre-form of Oir. bruinne m. 'breast' < *bhrus-n-io- 2) gīslaz (= hostage) Wiki: Borrowed from Proto-Celtic *gēstlos (“hostage, pledge”) (compare Old Irish gíall, Welsh gwystl), perhaps from Proto-Indo-European *gʰeydʰ- (“to desire, wait for”). Kroonen: A Germanic-Celtic isogloss of ambiguous origin. Given the potential ablaut correlation of Olr. giall with gell n. 'pledge, surety' within Celtic, it seems logical to assume that the Germanic word was borrowed from Celtic (cf. Matasovic 2008: 159). 3) īsarną (= iron) Wiki: Borrowed from Proto-Celtic *īsarnom, from Proto-Indo-European *h₁ésh₂r̥ (“blood”). Kroonen: A PGm. loanword from PCelt. *fsarno- 'iron', cf. Olr. farn 'id.'. 4) lēkijaz ( = doctor) Wiki: Uncertain; possibly from *lēkiz (“healing; medicine; healer”) + *-jaz, or borrowed from Proto-Celtic *lēgis[1][2] of the same root.[3] Perhaps also from Proto-Indo-European *leǵ- (“to collect, gather”), and thus related to Latin legō. Kroonen: A word that is usually assumed to have been borrowed from Celtic *legio-, cf. Olr. liaig 'doctor', before the great sound shifts. If the original meaning was 'blood-letter' ('leech'), however, the word can definitely be linked to the cluster of *lekan- 'to leak' (q.v.), in particular to the formally close *lekjon- 'rivulet' (q.v.). This would rather imply a Germanic origin. 5) leþrą (= leather) Wiki: Related to Middle Irish lethar, Welsh lledr. Further origin uncertain. The Germanic term may be a borrowing from Proto-Celtic *ɸletrom or *ɸlitrom, from Proto-Indo-European *pl-etro-[1] or *pl̥-tro-,[2] from Proto-Indo-European *pel- (“to cover, wrap; skin, hide”). Other suggested origins include borrowing from a pre-Indo-European substrate. Kroonen: A Celtic loanword, cf. M ir. lethar, MW l/edr m. 'leather' < PCelt. *rplitro- < PIE *pl-tro-. 6) plōgaz (= plough) Wiki: Mario Alinei[1] has proposed a borrowing from Proto-Celtic *ɸlowyos, *ɸlowyā (“rudder”)[2], itself from Proto-Indo-European *plówyos (“ship”), ultimately from the root *plew- (“to fly, flow, swim, float, run”). Compare Cornish lew (“rudder”), Old Irish luí (“rudder, tail”), Welsh llyw (“rudder, tail, leader, pilot”). Ancient Greek πλοῖον (ploîon) is derived from the same root formation. Compare furthermore Albanian plor or pluar (“prow, ploughshare, vomer bone”), supposedly from Ancient Greek πλώρη (plṓrē, “prow”), which should be from πρῷρα (prôira, “prow”), whence also prow. Alinei also mentions the Latin plaumoratum (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 18.69), with the second element possibly relating to the family of Latin rota, Proto-Celtic *rotos and Proto-Germanic *raþą (“wheel”). Guus Kroonen has suggested a connection of the Germanic and the Latin words to *plehan (“to take responsibility, care”) (“to care for one’s life” > “to plow”); compare Old High German pfluog (“livelihood”) and Icelandic plógur, plóg (“profit”), which could nevertheless point as well to the opposite morpho-semantic evolution. Otherwise he proposes a connection with Proto-Germanic *plag/kkōn- (“rag, sod”), which seems a bit far-fetched.[3] Kroonen: The etymology of 'plow', first attested in the enigmatic "plaumorati" mentioned by Pliny, is disputed (see e.g. Puhvel 1964 ). It is believed by many to be derived from the verb PGm. *plehan- - *plegan- ( q.v.), in which case there must have been a shift of meaning from 'to be used to' to 'live' to 'to plow' (cf. OHG pjluog 'livelihood'). However, the opposite semantic evolution from 'plow' to 'livelihood' cannot be excluded in view of e.g. Icel. plógur m., plóg n. 'profit'. 7) rīks ( = king) Wiki: An early borrowing from Proto-Celtic *rīxs, from Proto-Indo-European *h₃rḗǵs. Kroonen: id. 8) rūnō ( = secret, mystery, rune) Wiki: From Proto-Indo-European *rewHn-, from *rewH-, *rēwH- (“to roar; grumble; murmur; mumble; whisper”). Compare Latin rūmor. Possibly a borrowing either from Proto-Celtic *rūnā or from the same source as it. Kroonen: this theme is absent in Kroonen. 9) tūną ( = fence, enclosure) Wiki: Borrowed from Proto-Celtic *dūnom (“stronghold, rampart”). Kroonen: A Pre-Gm. loanword from Celtic *duno-, cf. Olr. dun n. 'fort, rampart', MW din m. 'id.'. OE dun f. 'hill, down', MLG dune f., MDu. dunen f.pl., Du. duin c.jn. 'dune' can be a later adoption, but has also been interpreted as belonging to the root *du- 'to blow', cf. *duna- 'down'. In Kroonen only: * ambahta- m. 'servant' - Go. andbahts m. 'servant, minister', MDu. ambacht m. 'servant', OHG ambaht m. 'servant, employee, official', MHG ambet, amt m. 'servant, caretaker' (Lw). A loanword from Celtic, cf. Gaul. ambactus 'vassal', W amaeth m. 'servant' < *h2mbhi- 'around' (cf. *umbl) + *h2eg-to- 'goer' (see *akan- 1). Unlike PCelt. *rig- 'king' (see *rik-), the word entered Germanic after the great sound shifts. Conclusion: it seems that only 4 lexemes can be with total certainty considered as loanwords. Note: According to Heikkilä 5 Celto-Germanisms passed into Finnish: rikas, lääkäri, levätä, lievä, hamppu . One only is a Proto-Germanic word borrowed from Celtic (rikas). Lääkäri is very likely a Swedish loan. levätä is "probably borrowed from Proto-Germanic *slēpaną." but afaik this PGmc root is no celto-germanism. lievä comes from PGmc *hlēwaz, that has cognates inside the Celtic family , but in other indo-european subgroups as well. As for the famous hamppu ( = hemp), it is most likely a Swedish loan.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 15, 2023 15:21:44 GMT
I delved into one of the articles published in "The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited" (Kristiansen et al. ed. Cambridge University Press), namely "European Prehistory between Celtic and Germanic: The Celto-Germanic Isoglosses Revisited", by Paulus van Sluis, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, and Guus Kroonen. Today I only want to talk about one detail that really irritated me, their treatment of PGmc *sigla ("sail"). They write:
It is truly annoying to observe the mania of prehistorians to produce dogmas and the ease with which these dogmas become embedded in the place like a mussel on a rock. The dogma to which I am referring is that Scandinavia did not know the use of sail before the Middle Ages. Its only justification is a line from Tacitus and an alleged absence of evidence of presence as if the absence of evidence was equivalent to evidence of absence. I say "alleged" because this evidence exists. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read Boel Bengtsson's thesis "Sailing Rock Art Boats A reassessment of seafaring abilities in Bronze Age Scandinavia and the introduction of the sail in the North". I'll just quote the summaries of the opening and of the concluding chapters:
Read this text (around 140 pages) and you will undoubtedly be as convinced as I am that this dogma is nothing but bullshit. I therefore remain firmly attached (as firmly as the mussel on its rock) to the idea that Olr. seól is a loan from Proto-Germanic, and not the other way around. I add to this (this will not be news for AG veterans) that the proto-Finnic *purjëh > Finn. purje ("sail") is a loan from Proto-Germanic, namely PGmc *buriz ("favorable wind"). It is difficult to imagine how someone could have the idea of "carrying wind, favorable wind" without having the idea of sail. Furthermore the semantic evolution from "carrying wind" to "sail" leaves no doubt on all this.
|
|
|
Post by alanarchae on Sept 16, 2023 21:27:08 GMT
I delved into one of the articles published in "The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited" (Kristiansen et al. ed. Cambridge University Press), namely "European Prehistory between Celtic and Germanic: The Celto-Germanic Isoglosses Revisited", by Paulus van Sluis, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, and Guus Kroonen. Today I only want to talk about one detail that really irritated me, their treatment of PGmc *sigla ("sail"). They write: It is truly annoying to observe the mania of prehistorians to produce dogmas and the ease with which these dogmas become embedded in the place like a mussel on a rock. The dogma to which I am referring is that Scandinavia did not know the use of sail before the Middle Ages. Its only justification is a line from Tacitus and an alleged absence of evidence of presence as if the absence of evidence was equivalent to evidence of absence. I say "alleged" because this evidence exists. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read Boel Bengtsson's thesis " Sailing Rock Art Boats A reassessment of seafaring abilities in Bronze Age Scandinavia and the introduction of the sail in the North". I'll just quote the summaries of the opening and of the concluding chapters: Read this text (around 140 pages) and you will undoubtedly be as convinced as I am that this dogma is nothing but bullshit. I therefore remain firmly attached (as firmly as the mussel on its rock) to the idea that Olr. seól is a loan from Proto-Germanic, and not the other way around. I add to this (this will not be news for AG veterans) that the proto-Finnic *purjëh > Finn. purje ("sail") is a loan from Proto-Germanic, namely PGmc *buriz ("favorable wind"). It is difficult to imagine how someone could have the idea of "carrying wind, favorable wind" without having the idea of sail. Furthermore the semantic evolution from "carrying wind" to "sail" leaves no doubt on all this. old Irish only dates from about 550AD. However the sail in known from a beautiful gold boat model in Ireland dating to about 0. It’s also known on north Gaulish and British coins in the last few centuries BC and classical references indicate the sail used in these same seas from the 6th century BC. The general understanding of the spread of the sail idea was its arrival in SW Iberia with Phoenician contacts and it’s likely spread up to northern France and the Isles by about 1000-900BC along the Atlantic Brinze Age routes. A lot of that sailing route was perfect for the prevailing south-westerly or westerly winds when heading north-east and east. I’m not saying it couldn’t then have made it to Scandinavia soon after too but there is literally no chance of the sail being borrowed by Celts from Germanics. The absolute pinnacle of northern sailing in the BC era was the kind of ships described among the Armoricans by the romans but also attested elsewhere in northern Gaul on coinage. They were far and away the most advanced sailing ships native to northern Europe. So imo there is no chance that the sail was borrowed from Germanics by the Celts. It almost certainly was a Celtic to Germanic cultural borrowing because the sail likely spread through Europe in an Iberia-northern France-British isles route before it would have reached the Germanic zone. That said, I don’t disagree that the sail could have reached Scandinavia in prehistory and perhaps not long after it arrived in western and northern France and the British Isles. But I don’t think the sail was known in any parts of Atlantic or northern Europe until 1000BC.
|
|
|
Post by alanarchae on Sept 16, 2023 22:03:12 GMT
I delved into one of the articles published in "The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited" (Kristiansen et al. ed. Cambridge University Press), namely "European Prehistory between Celtic and Germanic: The Celto-Germanic Isoglosses Revisited", by Paulus van Sluis, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, and Guus Kroonen. Today I only want to talk about one detail that really irritated me, their treatment of PGmc *sigla ("sail"). They write: It is truly annoying to observe the mania of prehistorians to produce dogmas and the ease with which these dogmas become embedded in the place like a mussel on a rock. The dogma to which I am referring is that Scandinavia did not know the use of sail before the Middle Ages. Its only justification is a line from Tacitus and an alleged absence of evidence of presence as if the absence of evidence was equivalent to evidence of absence. I say "alleged" because this evidence exists. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read Boel Bengtsson's thesis " Sailing Rock Art Boats A reassessment of seafaring abilities in Bronze Age Scandinavia and the introduction of the sail in the North". I'll just quote the summaries of the opening and of the concluding chapters: Read this text (around 140 pages) and you will undoubtedly be as convinced as I am that this dogma is nothing but bullshit. I therefore remain firmly attached (as firmly as the mussel on its rock) to the idea that Olr. seól is a loan from Proto-Germanic, and not the other way around. I add to this (this will not be news for AG veterans) that the proto-Finnic *purjëh > Finn. purje ("sail") is a loan from Proto-Germanic, namely PGmc *buriz ("favorable wind"). It is difficult to imagine how someone could have the idea of "carrying wind, favorable wind" without having the idea of sail. Furthermore the semantic evolution from "carrying wind" to "sail" leaves no doubt on all this. old Irish only dates from about 550AD. However the sail in known from a beautiful gold boat model in Ireland dating to about 0. It’s also known on north Gaulish and British coins in the last few centuries BC and classical references indicate the sail used in these same seas from the 6th century BC. The general understanding of the spread of the sail idea was its arrival in SW Iberia with Phoenician contacts and it’s likely spread up to northern France and the Isles by about 1000-900BC along the Atlantic Brinze Age routes. A lot of that sailing route was perfect for the prevailing south-westerly or westerly winds when heading north-east and east. I’m not saying it couldn’t then have made it to Scandinavia soon after too but there is literally no chance of the sail being borrowed by Celts from Germanics. The absolute pinnacle of northern sailing in the BC era was the kind of ships described among the Armoricans by the romans but also attested elsewhere in northern Gaul on coinage. They were far and away the most advanced sailing ships native to northern Europe. So imo there is no chance that the sail was borrowed from Germanics by the Celts. It almost certainly was a Celtic to Germanic cultural borrowing because the sail likely spread through Europe in an Iberia-northern France-British isles route before it would have reached the Germanic zone. That said, I don’t disagree that the sail could have reached Scandinavia in prehistory and perhaps not long after it arrived in western and northern France and the British Isles. But I don’t think the sail was known in any parts of Atlantic or northern Europe until 1000BC. rh I should add that given the way the sail likely passed from non-UE peoples on the Med to Atlantic Iberia to northern France and the isies and then perhaps further east, the world might have passed through all sorts of languages and dialects and might not be either Celtic or Germanic in origin.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 17, 2023 7:16:23 GMT
Orel: Sifter: Van Sluis, Jørgensen, & Kroonen: The last part of Sluis-Jörgensen-Kroonen's text is a quotation of Thier's study (with a curious typo. I added the <NOT> that is in Tacitus). The authors' conclusion, once they have eliminated the possibility of a C>G borrowing from stratum II (stratum II corresponds to the end of the Bronze Age for them, in other words, pre-Germanic/proto-Celtic), is logically supported by the hypothesis that sailing was unknown to the Scandinavians before stratum III. I already said what Bengtsson thinks of it. I would like to add that if we remember Kristiansen's studies about the close contacts between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Mycenaean maritime culture (around 1600), it is likely that the great Swedish culture which produced for example the Kivik sanctuary knew about sailing from that time. Now where did the word come from? The only consensus is that we don't know for sure. edit: I'm among the ones who "liked this post". This is of course an effect of a false maneuver.
|
|
|
Post by alanarchae on Sept 17, 2023 9:34:44 GMT
Orel: Sifter: Van Sluis, Jørgensen, & Kroonen: The last part of Sluis-Jörgensen-Kroonen's text is a quotation of Thier's study (with a curious typo. I added the <NOT> that is in Tacitus). The authors' conclusion, once they have eliminated the possibility of a C>G borrowing from stratum II (stratum II corresponds to the end of the Bronze Age for them, in other words, pre-Germanic/proto-Celtic), is logically supported by the hypothesis that sailing was unknown to the Scandinavians before stratum III. I already said what Bengtsson thinks of it. I would like to add that if we remember Kristiansen's studies about the close contacts between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Mycenaean maritime culture (around 1600), it is likely that the great Swedish culture which produced for example the Kivik sanctuary knew about sailing from that time. Now where did the word come from? The only consensus is that we don't know for sure. edit: I'm among the ones who "liked this post". This is of course an effect of a false maneuver. Norway prior to Viking age and use of that big current over the Shetland’s was ironically a really bad location for sailing west being on a west facing coast against the prevailing wind. The currents off the coasts were strongly north-south too so even rowing west was not a great option and even following the coasts between Denmark and the English channel was against both the prevailing winds and currents. The most favourable journeys from west coast Norway were north-sourh along the rest of the Norwegian coast and Jutland (distinctly not a sail-friendly route) and then east into Sweden and the baltic. It’s the latter bit would seem easier as you would have both the current and the winds in your favour. That’s the bit where sails would make more sense. Though I wouldn’t fancy the sweden to Denmark/west Norway return journey which would likely be against both the wind and currents. Probably in those days a lot of trade and networking was done using a chain of people at nodes doing short hops to make the current/winds issue less bad. Personally I have my doubts about the logic of using sails in west Norway but they might have been the useful for journeys east from south Norway, Jutland to Sweden etc . If If I had to guess how the sail got to Scandinavia i’d look at the prevailing west winds as well as the prevailing north European inshore currents when follow the english channel anc southern north sea coasts as far as Denmark. So the sail most likely arrived in the pre proto Germanic world at Denmark from the west:south-west by thst route. I think the sail arrived from Iberia around 1000BC when you suddenly see an unexpected much stronger connectivity between Atlantic Iberia and the English channel area. My guess is the sail is why. It made journeys from Atlantic Iberia to Armorica and Britain much easier. My guess is that knowledge of the sail wouldn’t have taken long to reach Denmark.
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Sept 17, 2023 9:35:37 GMT
I add to this (this will not be news for AG veterans) that the proto-Finnic *purjëh > Finn. purje ("sail") is a loan from Proto-Germanic, namely PGmc *buriz ("favorable wind"). It is difficult to imagine how someone could have the idea of "carrying wind, favorable wind" without having the idea of sail. Furthermore the semantic evolution from "carrying wind" to "sail" leaves no doubt on all this. I'm inclined to think that the Finnic loan word i.e. purje "sail" is actually not based on *buriz "favourable wind" but something related to *burjaną" "to lift up (a tree)", during a favourable wind. Apparently the oldest form of sailing with boats without a keel was just running with the wind and the rigging, including the sail, was just a suitable young tree, such as birch, which was attached to a thwarth in the fore. Buriz, if I'm right, would also have ended up in Finnic as something like puris, cf. Ger *wiizas "wise" > Fi viisas. Also, because of the suggested original here and the lack of specific Germanic *burj- "sail, not wind" based cognates, the loan is apparently very old, probably much older than Proto Norse, for example.
It BTW really works, I've seen that done as a child when I used to go fishing with my relatives in the lake area.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 17, 2023 9:56:44 GMT
Here is the entry of "purje" in Läglös:
|
|
|
Post by JMcB on Sept 17, 2023 16:17:06 GMT
edit: I'm among the ones who "liked this post". This is of course an effect of a false maneuver. If you click on the icon again, your like will come off.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 24, 2023 11:10:00 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. I guess the trade was basically from Circum Harz towards Southern Scandinavia. And I guess R1b (U106) was involved. See: genarchivist.freeforums.net/post/4699
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 24, 2023 11:32:51 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. I guess the trade was basically from Circum Harz towards Southern Scandinavia. And I guess R1b (U106) was involved. See: genarchivist.freeforums.net/post/4699They were trading haplogroups ?
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 24, 2023 11:46:13 GMT
They were trading haplogroups ? Yes until today and master sailors too The oldest R1b U106, (PLN001 just after 2900 BC), genetically pure steppe, was buried in a place pole postion along the upper Elbe. Nice position, seen Single Grave people (and offshoot Bell Beakers, Unetice etc etc) his descendant became at least a major Y-DNA line in Germanic populations.....no doubt!
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 24, 2023 16:55:15 GMT
About the Herring Herring gives rise to two themes: the Proto-West Germanic *hāring, the origin of which is debated (it could be related to PG *hār, =hair, because of its fine bones, or to PWG *hari < PG *harjaz =army, but there are other hypotheses) and the Proto-Germanic *sīlą. It is about the latter that I would like to say a few words. From the outset, it starts off badly, because the belonging of this theme to Proto-Germanic, and not only to North Germanic, is based only on an uncertain Old Dutch zeelt. *sīlą would then be a very ancient t-stem (which would give a genitive *sildaz, hence the proto-Scandinavian theme). Kroonen, in his dictionary, adopts *siled- (I'll let you read the corresponding entry and add the qualifications of the "i" which do not pass with my font). Let's pass over these subtleties, and keep *sīlą. This word has no known etymology. The Estonian has the word "silk" for this fish. The Baltic themes ( Lit. sil̃kė f., dial. silkis m. ) reflect this theme with an unexplained consonantal group -lk ( like in Estonian!). More surprisingly, we reconstruct a proto-Saami *silä-tɜ with the original meaning of “fat fish”. As for the Finnic "silakka" (= (originally salted) herring), it is likely a late borrowing from ... Swedish (!). Many linguists imagine a complicated game of borrowings between the three Germanic, Baltic and Finno-Saamic families, but there is complete disagreement over the direction of these borrowings. The most intriguing theory is that of the Polish linguist Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak who believes he can assert that the Proto-Germanic theme is a borrowing from Proto-Saami. The origin would then to be found in the proto-Uralic theme PUr: *śilä (= fat) > Finn: silava (= pork fat). It would perhaps be simpler to imagine Proto-Germanic as a borrowing, not from Proto-Saami (which really strikes me as very strange), but from an older proto- or pre-proto-Finnic. The Finnish theme would in this hypothesis have been later rearranged under Swedish influence. The fact remains that anyway *sīlą has no sound indo-european etymology. We therefore cannot exclude an early borrowing from an unknown non-indo-European non-Uralic source. Proto-Saami, proto-Balto-Finnic, proto-Germanic and proto-Baltic words would in that case be independent or partially independent borrowings from the same source. One element that I find intriguing is the resemblance of the PGmc *sīlą with the PGmc *selkaz (= seal (animal)). We have already debated on AG the case of this word, which has a reflex in early proto-Finnic *šülkeš > Finn. hylje, Est. hüljes. Now let me rave a little. The French word for "catfish" is "silure." This word comes from the Greek (via Latin) σίλουρος. This Greek word is also mysterious. The traditional etymology which sees the word οὐρά (= tail) suffixed to a derivative of the verb σείειν (= to agitate) is today most often rejected, and the specialists lean towards a compound of two pre-Greek elements. The “sil-” of “silouros/catfish” would therefore also come from a non-Indo-European substrate. Could it be that the "sil-" in "silouros" is the same as that of *sīlą and the *sel- of *selkaz? I leave this question unanswered (and I won't react if someone points out to me that catfish sometimes weigh as much as seals, but always much, much more than herring! )
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Sept 24, 2023 17:42:44 GMT
About the Herring Herring gives rise to two themes: the Proto-West Germanic *hāring, the origin of which is debated (it could be related to PG *hār, =hair, because of its fine bones, or to PWG *hari < PG *harjaz =army, but there are other hypotheses) and the Proto-Germanic *sīlą. It is about the latter that I would like to say a few words. From the outset, it starts off badly, because the belonging of this theme to Proto-Germanic, and not only to North Germanic, is based only on an uncertain Old Dutch zeelt. *sīlą would then be a very ancient t-stem (which would give a genitive *sildaz, hence the proto-Scandinavian theme). Kroonen, in his dictionary, adopts *siled- (I'll let you read the corresponding entry and add the qualifications of the "i" which do not pass with my font). Let's pass over these subtleties, and keep *sīlą. This word has no known etymology. The Estonian has the word "silk" for this fish. The Baltic themes ( Lit. sil̃kė f., dial. silkis m. ) reflect this theme with an unexplained consonantal group -lk ( like in Estonian!). More surprisingly, we reconstruct a proto-Saami *silä-tɜ with the original meaning of “fat fish”. As for the Finnic "silakka" (= (originally salted) herring), it is likely a late borrowing from ... Swedish (!). Many linguists imagine a complicated game of borrowings between the three Germanic, Baltic and Finno-Saamic families, but there is complete disagreement over the direction of these borrowings. The most intriguing theory is that of the Polish linguist Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak who believes he can assert that the Proto-Germanic theme is a borrowing from Proto-Saami. The origin would then to be found in the proto-Uralic theme PUr: *śilä (= fat) > Finn: silava (= pork fat). It would perhaps be simpler to imagine Proto-Germanic as a borrowing, not from Proto-Saami (which really strikes me as very strange), but from an older proto- or pre-proto-Finnic. The Finnish theme would in this hypothesis have been later rearranged under Swedish influence. The fact remains that anyway *sīlą has no sound indo-european etymology. We therefore cannot exclude an early borrowing from an unknown non-indo-European non-Uralic source. Proto-Saami, proto-Balto-Finnic, proto-Germanic and proto-Baltic words would in that case be independent or partially independent borrowings from the same source. One element that I find intriguing is the resemblance of the PGmc *sīlą with the PGmc *selkaz (= seal (animal)). We have already debated on AG the case of this word, which has a reflex in early proto-Finnic *šülkeš > Finn. hylje, Est. hüljes. Now let me rave a little. The French word for "catfish" is "silure." This word comes from the Greek (via Latin) σίλουρος. This Greek word is also mysterious. The traditional etymology which sees the word οὐρά (= tail) suffixed to a derivative of the verb σείειν (= to agitate) is today most often rejected, and the specialists lean towards a compound of two pre-Greek elements. The “sil-” of “silouros/catfish” would therefore also come from a non-Indo-European substrate. Could it be that the "sil-" in "silouros" is the same as that of *sīlą and the *sel- of *selkaz? I leave this question unanswered (and I won't react if someone points out to me that catfish sometimes weigh as much as seals, but always much, much more than herring! ) When I was once member of a regional parliament, there was a ritual. When new herring was caught, a barrel was opened and swallowed down with 'korenwien' (at about 10 a.m. Etymology.nl google translate: herring n. 'sea fish (Clupea haargus)' category: substrate word Onl. harinc as personal name in Arnoldo Haring [1171; Schoonheim 2003], erchenalt harinc [12th century; Schoonheim 2003]; The Latinisations haringorum, harengorum (both genitive pl.) 'of the herrings' [ca. 1088, respectively. 1179; Niermeyer]; mnl. sesse haringhe 'six herrings' [1276-1300; CG I, 18], verschen arinc droghen arinc 'fresh herring, dried herring' [1288-1301; CG I, 1334], in addition with umlaut mnl. herinc [1240; Bern.]. Month. hārink; ohd. hārinc; orri. hēreng (nfri. hjerring); ooh. hǣring (ne. herring); < pgm. *hēringa-; in addition with umlaut: os. hering (monthly hering); ohd. herinc (nhd. Hering); < pgm. *haringa- (West Germanic only). The word is exclusively West Germanic; the Scandinavian forms for 'herring' (nijsl. síld, nno., nde. sild, nzw. sill) are probably related to zeelt/tench.
The word is unknown outside Germanic and cannot be etymologized in Indo-European. It must therefore be derived from a pre-Indo-European substrate language (Boutkan 2000). The ending -ing is very frequent in fish names (e.g. in bucking, eel, whiting) and can therefore be regarded as a suffix. The root pgm. *har-/*hēr- itself also occurs in other fish names, see e.g. mullet, and Lithuanian karsìs 'bream', kirslys 'greyling', which indicates a pre-Germanic root *kar-/*kār-. Boutkan (2000) adds, with reservations, the undisturbed Germanic fish names carp and dab. Literature: D. Boutkan (2000), 'Pregermanic Fishnames: III. A new etymology of herring', in: ABäG 53, 1-6
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Sept 24, 2023 21:05:32 GMT
To stay in the register of sea beasts, here are a word that poses much less problems: PGmc: *hwalaz m = whale. From Proto-Indo-European *(s)kʷálos (“large fish, sheatfish”). This word is perfectly reflected in the proto-Saami *fālēs and the proto-Finnic *valas. Proto-Saami is unanimously considered to be a Germanic borrowing. Läglös also sees in *valas an ancient Germanic borrowing. Oddly, the US Wikipedia page sees it as a borrowing from Northern Saami, unlike its Finnish counterpart which sees the same thing as everyone else, namely an ancient Germanic borrowing (vanha germaaninen laina).
|
|
|
Post by Strabo on Oct 1, 2023 0:10:57 GMT
I have not followed the thread for a while and maybe this issue has already been discussed but I am puzzled about these Celtic-Germanic connections, mainly addressed from the framework of the east Sweden/Finland homeland of Proto Germanic.
Some users want to put Proto Celtic in the mid or even lower rhine (despite Proto Celtic completely lacking vocabulary related to the ocean/seafaring etc), maybe even north Germany. I guess that's based on the assumption that Proto Germanic was spoken all the way to the German-Danish border or the entire geographic area of nordic bronze age, especially the southern parts.
I dont get how celtic and germanic could have deep connections based on such a north east homeland for Proto Germanic.
Another issue is the dating of Proto Celtic, mainly its disintegration. I wonder did the Proto Germanic already have ALL of its uralic contacts by the time of the celtic interaction? therefore Germanic-Celtic interactions would be dated after most if not all of Proto Germanic-Uralic contacts?
I am not sure if celtic was dealing with actual Proto Germanic (during/after Uralic contacts), "pre Uralic contacts Germanic" or a later form of germanic, such as North-West Germanic, or just West Germanic. A later post Proto Germanic interaction with late Proto Celtic would make sense vis a vis an expansion of Proto Germanic ( or later off shoot) into north Germany. I remember I think it was Ambiorix who suggested that Rhine-Wesser Germanics were not a LIA arrival but had a steady development since the BA. Perhaps he meant to say that any migrations or Germaniziations had already happened since the BA.
So Anglesqueville, as the champion of the east Sweden/Finland proto Germanic area argument, how would you explain the Celtic-Germanic deep connections? All I can think right now is
1. Expansive spread of Proto Germanic (during or after Uralic contacts) at least to north holland/north germany, with Proto Celtic in lower rhine/rhineland/north central Germany
2. A post Proto Germanic NW Germanic, or West Germanic early split and spread to north Holland/north Germany before the end of late Proto Celtic in lower Rhine/Rhineland/north central Germany
3. A very northern extension of Proto Celtic, almost to Denmark
4. Pre Germanic-Uralic contacts (aka a more "pure" IE ) Proto Germanic influences on Celtic
5. Proto-Celtic was more north than Celto-Italic, or Celto-Italic predates or was slighly isolated from earliest Proto Germanic
I ask primarily from the Celtic point of view, with regards to dating and locating of Proto Celtic, which I think the uralic-germanic contacts can help with
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Oct 1, 2023 7:02:05 GMT
Related to the possible Uralic-Celtic loans as proposed by Hyllested, such as *mokku "pig" cf. fex Finnish emakko "female pig", Hyllestedt and also fex Merlin de Smit have been discussing whether Aestii and Phinnoi on the southern shores of the Baltic were, partially or wholly, Germanized Uralic speakers. According to Hyllestedt the Germanic origin for the ethnonymes "protuberance on the skin (including fins and fish scale, larvae under the skin) matches a Baltic translation based on the Germanic original. Aestii, on the other hand: "ey worship the mother of the gods: as an emblem of that superstition they wear the figures of wild boars: this boar takes the place of arms or of any human protection, and guarantees to the votary of the goddess a mind at rest even in the midst of foes". In other words, there seem to be a reason to believe that pigs, including the pig related vocabulary, were of special importance to the Aestii. If there was a Uralic connection, Aestii could have fex lived somewhere near the Curonian Spit, because of KAM axes found in the sort of relative neighborhood. Then, related to the original meaning of the ethnonyme, it is interesting that even nowadays the term suomupaita "fish scale shirt" in Finnish denotes everything looking like the armours which were used in the BA Siberia, such as this one: siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/warriors-3900-year-old-suit-of-bone-armour-unearthed-in-omsk/Related reading: www.academia.edu/32294247/Again_on_pigs_in_Ancient_Europe_The_Fennic_connectionstatic-curis.ku.dk/portal/files/136022384/Ph.d._2015_Adam_Hyllested.pdfwww.academia.edu/40045312/Contacts_between_Finnic_and_CelticOn the distribution of KAM axes, fex here, fig 10: www.sgr.fi/susa/96/susa96parpola.pdfThen there's of course the question concerning the origins of the Baltic paternal N, related or not.
EDIT after some googling I noticed that a more common term in modern Finnish is suomupanssari "fish scale armour". It is of course impossible to say how old the semantic connection is.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Oct 1, 2023 7:06:33 GMT
There are no "deep connections" between the Celtic and Germanic families. I know this idea is widely held, but just because an idea is widely held does not make it true. The fact is that there are only a handful (literally) of Proto-Germanic themes that are Celtic borrowings. All other Celto-Germanisms are simple isoglosses, all inherited from the common Indo-European past. In addition, commercial contacts, amply documented, in particular with the British Isles (the only hypothesis worked by Koch) but also later with the area of extension of La Tène are a natural explanation for the few lexical borrowings. For the rest, the profound phonological divergence, and the absence of common morphological innovations (see W. Lehmann for this) attest that the two branches developed entirely independently. No, I say and repeat that the examination of the Celtic family is in no way informative regarding the Germanic linguistic genesis.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 1, 2023 7:34:59 GMT
Nice contribution to the debate here Strabo! From my point of view (I guess Angles will also react soon!). 1. An Urheimat of proto Germanic (as proto Celtic) needs pinpointing in time and place, this can't be done, so every proposal will be speculative. 2. Koch 2020 already gave a (tentative) 'timeline' with cultures involved into, pre and proto Germanic (as he supposes the close fellow traveller proto Celtic): When we take this serious, you immediately see that the whole timeline of pre (proto) Germanic can't have happened-all the way- in the Swedish room, see the supposed involvement of Corded Ware and the Bell Beakers. 3. I think for the very early foundation we must look at the IE influx, so the Single Grave people. According to Egfjørd (2021) the middle Elbe-Saale region is the departure point of the Single Grave people towards the line Northern Netherlands-Denmark, just after 2900 BC. Wolfram Euler (2009, 2021, 2023) places the first proto-Germanic (or Ur Germanic) exactly in the Unetice area of Middle- Elbe Saale and Circum Harz. See also the oldest R1b U106 in Bohemia in pole position along the upper Elbe, just after 2900 BC. The Middle Elbe is also the place were Udolph has stated the oldest kind of Germanic was spoken. 4. The centers of proto-Germanic on the continent were close to the proto-Celtic centers as you already mentioned. I guess that new words for example for more complicated types of society were derived from proto-Celtic. 5. The Unetice culture of middle Elbe Saale and Circum Harz has had a tremendous influence on Southern Sweden, a direct influence on the language there in LN/(E)Ba can be suspected. These area is close to the Finnic/Saami room of course, in which also interaction took place. 6. With regard the old Single Grave/ BB Northern Netherlands- Denmark area it can be doubted if they spoke the same kind of proto Germanic as in Middle ELbe Saale or Southern Sweden....may be a language more close to NW Indo European? (see timeline Koch), see for example the supposed NW-block theory of Kuhn (1962) or the North Sea Celtic idea of Schrijver (2017). 7. In IA and specific during migration time there was a Germanic shift from the NE to the SW, the Anglo-Saxons for example brought most probably a language more flavored by the bilingual area of NE Scandinavia. Here we see the difference between Frankish and Anglo-Saxon.Even more during Viking time. My two cents.
|
|