|
Post by alanarchae on Oct 1, 2023 11:03:21 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. It’s generally accepted that there is a unique Celto-Germanic lexicon and many of these seem to be very early indeed making direction of borrowing (if they were borrowed from each other at all) impossible to work out. There are many papers about this. And some of the unique shared vocab (often relating to wild nature and farming) comes from a shared non IE substratum. This of course is a very long time (possibly 2300-2000BC) before proto Germanic and doesn’t tell us much about the geography of proto Germanic. Proto Germanic likely arose among a subset of a much older more widespread group of dialects derived from the era when pre-proto Germanic had just broken off NW IE. Probably in the era where bell beaker spread east and intermingled with older CW groups and some sort of TRB descended substrate element was involved or had already effected the single grave area. But as I said, this is much much earlier than proto Germanic so it doesn’t tell us much about exactly where proto Germanic evolved. The sprinkling of shared vocab with Celtic can be dated right across the period 2300BC-700BC but the less old subset could be explained by contact between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Atlantic Brinze Age. There were occasional Nordic influences and contacts even as far west as Ireland (presumably via Scotland) in the later bronze age around 1200-800BC. As for the origin point of proto Germanic, that might be difficult to recover. If you look at Greek history, you can see the way that elites could switch to prestige dialects without any denographic reason - like the Macedonians who dropped their dialect for the more prestigious Greek koine.
|
|
|
Post by alanarchae on Oct 1, 2023 11:15:33 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. It’s obvious to me that the key place in the pre proto Germanic world from 2500BC-500BC was always Denmark and immediately adjacent. It’s geographically pivotal to links to the rest of scandinavia, central Europe, NW Atlantic Europe and the Baltic. Proto Germanic inherited not just common pre proto vocab only shared with Celtic but it also had direct bronze age links with Italic not shared with Celtic. And Demark was the key hub of the Nordic Bronze Age as well as having the best land and surely the biggest population by far. Denmark is one of those geographical places that makes it a clear interface node between north, south, east and west. Other obvious geographical interface nodes in northern Europe are the Rhine and Armorica. They all were obviously recognised as such from the beaker era onwards through the whole bronze age.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Oct 1, 2023 11:31:40 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. It’s generally accepted that there is a unique Celto-Germanic lexicon and many of these seem to be very early indeed making direction of borrowing ( if they were borrowed from each other at all) impossible to work out. There are many papers about this. And some of the unique shared vocab (often relating to wild nature and farming) comes from a shared non IE substratum. This of course is a very long time (possibly 2300-2000BC) before proto Germanic and doesn’t tell us much about the geography of proto Germanic. Proto Germanic likely arose among a subset of a much older more widespread group of dialects derived from the era when pre-proto Germanic had just broken off NW IE. Probably in the era where bell beaker spread east and intermingled with older CW groups and some sort of TRB descended substrate element was involved or had already effected the single grave area. But as I said, this is much much earlier than proto Germanic so it doesn’t tell us much about exactly where proto Germanic evolved. The sprinkling of shared vocab with Celtic can be dated right across the period 2300BC-700BC but the less old subset could be explained by contact between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Atlantic Brinze Age. There were occasional Nordic influences and contacts even as far west as Ireland (presumably via Scotland) in the later bronze age around 1200-800BC. As for the origin point of proto Germanic, that might be difficult to recover. If you look at Greek history, you can see the way that elites could switch to prestige dialects without any denographic reason - like the Macedonians who dropped their dialect for the more prestigious Greek koine. When I spoke of "common Indo-European past" I was implicitly including common borrowings from non-IE languages. This "unique Celto-Germanic lexicon" is mainly made of isoglosses, as Koch himself recognizes when he tells that very few are loanwords :" A second point is that most of these items in all the subgroups do not look like loanwords (p. 65) The CG Corpus contains relatively few clear-cut loanwords (p. 79)".
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 1, 2023 11:52:16 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. It’s generally accepted that there is a unique Celto-Germanic lexicon and many of these seem to be very early indeed making direction of borrowing (if they were borrowed from each other at all) impossible to work out. There are many papers about this. And some of the unique shared vocab (often relating to wild nature and farming) comes from a shared non IE substratum. This of course is a very long time (possibly 2300-2000BC) before proto Germanic and doesn’t tell us much about the geography of proto Germanic. Proto Germanic likely arose among a subset of a much older more widespread group of dialects derived from the era when pre-proto Germanic had just broken off NW IE. Probably in the era where bell beaker spread east and intermingled with older CW groups and some sort of TRB descended substrate element was involved or had already effected the single grave area.
But as I said, this is much much earlier than proto Germanic so it doesn’t tell us much about exactly where proto Germanic evolved. The sprinkling of shared vocab with Celtic can be dated right across the period 2300BC-700BC but the less old subset could be explained by contact between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Atlantic Brinze Age. There were occasional Nordic influences and contacts even as far west as Ireland (presumably via Scotland) in the later bronze age around 1200-800BC. As for the origin point of proto Germanic, that might be difficult to recover. If you look at Greek history, you can see the way that elites could switch to prestige dialects without any denographic reason - like the Macedonians who dropped their dialect for the more prestigious Greek koine. And this occurred in the middle Elbe Saale, according to Harald Meller was Unetice a blend of CW and BB. The rich kingly graves of this culture contained references to CW and BB! Besides that it was the area of the neolithic Schönfelder culture. www.komoot.com/highlight/831539German wiki: "The Schönfeld culture was located on the Elbe from the Wendland via the Middle Elbe-Saale area (focus) to Bohemia. In terms of time, it follows the Elb-Havel, Funnel Beaker and Bernburg cultures. Elements of both these cultures and the spherical amphora culture can be found in the Fischbeck group, which is viewed as an early variant of the Schönfeld culture. As a regional group of the late Neolithic, the main phase of the Schönfeld culture runs largely at the same time as the single grave culture/string pottery and the bell beaker culture. In the developed Schönfeld culture, two regional subgroups can be distinguished, which overlap around Magdeburg: Ammenslebener Group (centre of Saxony-Anhalt) Schönfelder Nordgruppe (north of Saxony-Anhalt)"
|
|
|
Post by alanarchae on Oct 1, 2023 11:52:19 GMT
It’s generally accepted that there is a unique Celto-Germanic lexicon and many of these seem to be very early indeed making direction of borrowing ( if they were borrowed from each other at all) impossible to work out. There are many papers about this. And some of the unique shared vocab (often relating to wild nature and farming) comes from a shared non IE substratum. This of course is a very long time (possibly 2300-2000BC) before proto Germanic and doesn’t tell us much about the geography of proto Germanic. Proto Germanic likely arose among a subset of a much older more widespread group of dialects derived from the era when pre-proto Germanic had just broken off NW IE. Probably in the era where bell beaker spread east and intermingled with older CW groups and some sort of TRB descended substrate element was involved or had already effected the single grave area. But as I said, this is much much earlier than proto Germanic so it doesn’t tell us much about exactly where proto Germanic evolved. The sprinkling of shared vocab with Celtic can be dated right across the period 2300BC-700BC but the less old subset could be explained by contact between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Atlantic Brinze Age. There were occasional Nordic influences and contacts even as far west as Ireland (presumably via Scotland) in the later bronze age around 1200-800BC. As for the origin point of proto Germanic, that might be difficult to recover. If you look at Greek history, you can see the way that elites could switch to prestige dialects without any denographic reason - like the Macedonians who dropped their dialect for the more prestigious Greek koine. When I spoke of "common Indo-European past" I was implicitly including common borrowings from non-IE languages. This "unique Celto-Germanic lexicon" is mainly made of isoglosses, as Koch himself recognizes when he tells that very few are loanwords :" A second point is that most of these items in all the subgroups do not look like loanwords (p. 65) The CG Corpus contains relatively few clear-cut loanwords (p. 79)". yea I agree that many look like some kind of shared not borrowed vocab but the fact very little of it is not known i’m Italic would push it into maybe the post-2200BC era when somehow the distant ancestors of Celtic and Germanic were adjacent but Celtics old Celto-Italic partner had moved away from contact. So it looks to me like late beaker/EBA date rather than going right back to earlier eras. The shared non IE part in Celtic and Germanic is not in Italic which similarly suggests it dated to late beaker times c.2200BC at earliest and was not absorbed immediately in the single grave culture 2900-2300BC.
|
|
|
Post by alanarchae on Oct 1, 2023 11:55:06 GMT
It’s generally accepted that there is a unique Celto-Germanic lexicon and many of these seem to be very early indeed making direction of borrowing ( if they were borrowed from each other at all) impossible to work out. There are many papers about this. And some of the unique shared vocab (often relating to wild nature and farming) comes from a shared non IE substratum. This of course is a very long time (possibly 2300-2000BC) before proto Germanic and doesn’t tell us much about the geography of proto Germanic. Proto Germanic likely arose among a subset of a much older more widespread group of dialects derived from the era when pre-proto Germanic had just broken off NW IE. Probably in the era where bell beaker spread east and intermingled with older CW groups and some sort of TRB descended substrate element was involved or had already effected the single grave area. But as I said, this is much much earlier than proto Germanic so it doesn’t tell us much about exactly where proto Germanic evolved. The sprinkling of shared vocab with Celtic can be dated right across the period 2300BC-700BC but the less old subset could be explained by contact between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Atlantic Brinze Age. There were occasional Nordic influences and contacts even as far west as Ireland (presumably via Scotland) in the later bronze age around 1200-800BC. As for the origin point of proto Germanic, that might be difficult to recover. If you look at Greek history, you can see the way that elites could switch to prestige dialects without any denographic reason - like the Macedonians who dropped their dialect for the more prestigious Greek koine. When I spoke of "common Indo-European past" I was implicitly including common borrowings from non-IE languages. This "unique Celto-Germanic lexicon" is mainly made of isoglosses, as Koch himself recognizes when he tells that very few are loanwords :" A second point is that most of these items in all the subgroups do not look like loanwords (p. 65) The CG Corpus contains relatively few clear-cut loanwords (p. 79)". Just to be clear, I think all this stuff is very interesting for very deep time roots of the Germanics, Celts and Italics but it has no bearing on the location of proto Germanic maybe 1500 years later. So i’m not making any case for where that was.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 1, 2023 12:06:23 GMT
When I spoke of "common Indo-European past" I was implicitly including common borrowings from non-IE languages. This "unique Celto-Germanic lexicon" is mainly made of isoglosses, as Koch himself recognizes when he tells that very few are loanwords :" A second point is that most of these items in all the subgroups do not look like loanwords (p. 65) The CG Corpus contains relatively few clear-cut loanwords (p. 79)". Just to be clear, I think all this stuff is very interesting for very deep time roots of the Germanics, Celts and Italics but it has no bearing on the location of proto Germanic maybe 1500 years later. So i’m not making any case for where that was. Indeed and an Urheimat can't be shown. That said you- may be without knowing- made with this description "Proto Germanic likely arose among a subset of a much older more widespread group of dialects derived from the era when pre-proto Germanic had just broken off NW IE. Probably in the era where bell beaker spread east and intermingled with older CW groups and some sort of TRB descended substrate element was involved or had already effected the single grave area."..... .....a perfect set up for the Unetice Middle Elbe Saale and Circum Harz in which such blend really exactly occured!
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Oct 1, 2023 15:09:16 GMT
I am reluctant to talk about the early days of the branch leading to Proto-Germanic. In the absence of serious positive linguistic clues we are reduced to pure speculations where appeals to archaeological considerations (we know their little informative value regarding linguistics) and/or genetics (same thing) compete with personal preferences. I write "positive linguistic cues". The absence of significant innovations shared among other Indo-European dialects is a significant negative indicator, as Winfred Lehmann abruptly points out: "In view of the absence of common innovations shared among other dialects, such as the augment, I assume that Germanic broke off independently — early — from Proto-Indo-European. Its archaic structure has been pointed out variously (...)". Another negative clue (which is worth what it's worth) is that when Don Ringe applies his "lexico-cladistic" method to the Germanic case, it crashes miserably. Reduced to interpreting (speculatively) this failure Ringe writes: I would like to point out that this (interrogative) conclusion is in fact quite related to Lehmann's assertion, although on as different grounds as possible. This shows that the idea that the Germanic branch came out of the same pot as the Italo-Celtic is perhaps ultimately nothing but a... preference. Speaking of preferences, it has been clear for years now that our friend Folc's entire approach is directed behind the scenes by his (guilty) love of Unetice. As for me, my heart has long been acquired by the culture of battle axes, and its descendants (those who built the Kivik sanctuary and engraved comic strips on the rocks of the Swedish coast). My own preferences are quite angry to see you all dismissing these people, who had been there since the end of the Neolithic, and their language, very probably the daughter of that spoken by the first Indo-European settlers of Scandinavia. However, these certainly did not all come from the southwest (via Denmark). There is every indication that the early Corded Ware settlers of Sweden were closely related (if not the same) to the Corded Ware of Estonia and Finland. And I add in passing that the best qpAdm models for Swedish Battle Axes are obtained by taking Estonian Corded Ware as an Indo-European source.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 1, 2023 16:10:15 GMT
I am reluctant to talk about the early days of the branch leading to Proto-Germanic. In the absence of serious positive linguistic clues we are reduced to pure speculations where appeals to archaeological considerations (we know their little informative value regarding linguistics) and/or genetics (same thing) compete with personal preferences. I write "positive linguistic cues". The absence of significant innovations shared among other Indo-European dialects is a significant negative indicator, as Winfred Lehmann abruptly points out: "In view of the absence of common innovations shared among other dialects, such as the augment, I assume that Germanic broke off independently — early — from Proto-Indo-European. Its archaic structure has been pointed out variously (...)". Another negative clue (which is worth what it's worth) is that when Don Ringe applies his "lexico-cladistic" method to the Germanic case, it crashes miserably. Reduced to interpreting (speculatively) this failure Ringe writes: I would like to point out that this (interrogative) conclusion is in fact quite related to Lehmann's assertion, although on as different grounds as possible. This shows that the idea that the Germanic branch came out of the same pot as the Italo-Celtic is perhaps ultimately nothing but a... preference. Speaking of preferences, it has been clear for years now that our friend Folc's entire approach is directed behind the scenes by his (guilty) love of Unetice. As for me, my heart has long been acquired by the culture of battle axes, and its descendants (those who built the Kivik sanctuary and engraved comic strips on the rocks of the Swedish coast). My own preferences are quite angry to see you all dismissing these people, who had been there since the end of the Neolithic, and their language, very probably the daughter of that spoken by the first Indo-European settlers of Scandinavia. However, these certainly did not all come from the southwest (via Denmark). There is every indication that the early Corded Ware settlers of Sweden were closely related (if not the same) to the Corded Ware of Estonia and Finland. And I add in passing that the best qpAdm models for Swedish Battle Axes are obtained by taking Estonian Corded Ware as an Indo-European source. My motivation is a completely different one Angles. When I came across something a few years ago about Germanic and Unetice, I was called an idiot, tackled ad hominem etc. In addition, you were not afraid to follow the lead of a number of Finnish linguists in the Urheimat of proto-Germanic: the Gulf of Bothnia. By the way, without much words or phrases later on changed to the Malären. An absolute dogma, it seemed like. I'm not really into playing on the man nor dogma's, sometimes spread with a haughty tone to my taste and in my eyes with many references to "important scholars" that you should not dare to doubt. Now, a few years later, we have already made some "progress." "However, these certainly did not all come from the southwest (via Denmark)." Hear hear! Now the door stands a tiny little open ("not all" so still quit a bit that Germanic does not come unisono from the Malären. I know you would rather eat your skipper's hat than admit it, but that absolution is no longer 100% ... Indeed, a bit of iconoclasm- the real guilty love?- is no stranger to me
|
|
|
Post by Orentil on Oct 1, 2023 16:15:27 GMT
While I also like the Unetice culture as a culture, I support that they do not have to much to do with the topic of this thread. It's a culture that collapsed as we can see archaeologically and genetically nearly 1000 years before proto-Germanic developed. Even Udolph would not go so much back in time, his argumentation starts 500 years after Unetice: " Aufgrund der 1. Lautverschiebung und weiterer Prozesse darf seine Entstehung aus einem indogermanischen Dialektgebiet etwa in die Zeit um 500 v. Chr. datiert werden. Vorgermanische Namen müssen ein höheres Alter besitzen und sind in eine Zeit von ca. 1.000–500 v. Chr. zu setzen."" Fassen wir diese Ergebnisse zusammen, so kommen wir – ich denke, das ist keine Überraschung – auf eine indogermanische geprägte Gewässernamenschicht, die in die Zeit um 1.000 v. Chr. in Mitteleuropa nachgewiesen werden kann und die mit einiger Sicherheit den Osten Frankreichs, Mittel- und Norddeutschland und das östliche Mitteleuropa geprägt hat." It is therefore a coincidence that Udolphs preference for the circum Harz region matches parts of the Unetice culture. Just to mention that
|
|
|
Post by alanarchae on Oct 1, 2023 16:22:25 GMT
I am reluctant to talk about the early days of the branch leading to Proto-Germanic. In the absence of serious positive linguistic clues we are reduced to pure speculations where appeals to archaeological considerations (we know their little informative value regarding linguistics) and/or genetics (same thing) compete with personal preferences. I write "positive linguistic cues". The absence of significant innovations shared among other Indo-European dialects is a significant negative indicator, as Winfred Lehmann abruptly points out: "In view of the absence of common innovations shared among other dialects, such as the augment, I assume that Germanic broke off independently — early — from Proto-Indo-European. Its archaic structure has been pointed out variously (...)". Another negative clue (which is worth what it's worth) is that when Don Ringe applies his "lexico-cladistic" method to the Germanic case, it crashes miserably. Reduced to interpreting (speculatively) this failure Ringe writes: I would like to point out that this (interrogative) conclusion is in fact quite related to Lehmann's assertion, although on as different grounds as possible. This shows that the idea that the Germanic branch came out of the same pot as the Italo-Celtic is perhaps ultimately nothing but a... preference. Speaking of preferences, it has been clear for years now that our friend Folc's entire approach is directed behind the scenes by his (guilty) love of Unetice. As for me, my heart has long been acquired by the culture of battle axes, and its descendants (those who built the Kivik sanctuary and engraved comic strips on the rocks of the Swedish coast). My own preferences are quite angry to see you all dismissing these people, who had been there since the end of the Neolithic, and their language, very probably the daughter of that spoken by the first Indo-European settlers of Scandinavia. However, these certainly did not all come from the southwest (via Denmark). There is every indication that the early Corded Ware settlers of Sweden were closely related (if not the same) to the Corded Ware of Estonia and Finland. And I add in passing that the best qpAdm models for Swedish Battle Axes are obtained by taking Estonian Corded Ware as an Indo-European source. I personally think pre Germanic is hard to fit into some of the branching models because of its pivotal position and that quite early on you can see the future nordic bronze age zone being subject to a west to east/north-east beaker overlay/dragging into the beaker network c.2300BC of the older eastern derived single grave culture in Denmark and battle axe culture of Norway that were there for 5-600 years before that beaker influence. So even by 2000BC there had been a bit of complexity in pre-Germanic caused by two IE groups blending at a time when they were probably still fairly similar but not entirely so. So I think even by 2000BC if not 2200BC the pre Germanics would have broken any simple tree model. Tree models don’t work too well if there was a pretty early sideways influence. Then of course the expansive nordic bronze age network pulled in a very wide area of Scandinavia and beyond likely touching on somewhat drifted dialects and even non IE ones and also had contacts with the central European world through the bronze age and a slighter (but not absent) contact with the NW Atlantic network area. So i’m not surprised Germanic is hard to place on a tree. I think the tree model only works well if an IE dialect had a long period of relative isolation from other IE branches so that borrowings are easily spotted. If contact with other IEs is strong early on it gets more uncertain. I’ve little doubt that very early pre Germanic has its core in corded ware (single grave and battle axe) c. 2800BC. And I have little doubt that Italo-Celtic emerged from CW groups on the Rhine by the 2400-2200BC era, gradually evolving from some kind of NW IE that existed on the Rhine c. 2750-2500BC. Lusitanian is a fascination languagez Almost certainly a remnant of the steppe beaker incursion into Iberia about 2450BC and isolated for a very long time thereafter. It looks by far closest to Italic but seems to have a lexicon that you sometimes can’t find parallels in Celtic or Italic and need to draw on wider NW European to find matches. It’s like it broke off from very early Italo-Celtic or Italic before the surviving descendants had fully formed into their branches (which involved a cull of some NW IE vocab that survived in other branches.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Oct 1, 2023 16:57:20 GMT
Folc, I wrote: " My own preferences are quite angry to see you all dismissing these people, who had been there since the end of the Neolithic, and their language, very probably the daughter of that spoken by the first Indo-European settlers of Scandinavia. However, these certainly did not all come from the southwest (via Denmark)." I didn't call "these people" Germanic in this post. In fact, I never used the adjective "Germanic" (otherwise perhaps by distraction) for anything other than the linguistic family or one of its languages. I hope you have noticed also that I wrote "the branch leading to proto-Germanic", and not "the Germanic branch". Furthermore, I never imagined that the genesis of Proto-Germanic could be modelled by a purely neo-grammarian methodology (internal evolution, period). If there is anyone here who thinks that this genesis is unthinkable without influences having their sources in other branches and other families (perhaps, this is the thesis that I call Helimski-Schrijver) it's me. Simply the further we advance, the more the supposed importance of influences coming from languages from central European cultures is reduced to little. Ringe himself imagines that the branch leading to PGmc, perhaps initially sister to the branches leading to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, very quickly came into contact with cousin languages "from the West", that is to say coming from the Italo-Celtic node, which would explain a massive lexical influx from these languages. But this is only a somewhat desperate attempt to explain the failure of his method. Because when we try, independently of Ringe's method, to define this lexical influx a little more concretely, for example by relying on Celto-Germanisms, well we don't find much. That being said, I also consider it quite likely (which does not mean "certain" and even less "proven") that most of the U106 subclades in Scandinavia originated in central Europe, and that they infiltrated via Single Graves, not Baltic Corded Wares. But what does this have to do with linguistics? Finally, as for Unetice, Euler is the only one to imagine being able to associate it in any way with Germanic genesis. So no, I didn't open a door. This door has never been closed. But it is no more open today than yesterday, just open enough to take into account the undeniable exchanges of technologies, commercial contacts, and perhaps a genetic influx that is difficult to quantify (and which, apart from speculation on U106, will undoubtedly remain limited to the uncertain considerations of Allentoft on shared IBD rates). Difficult to quantify, but in any case too limited to disturb the astonishing autosomal continuity which characterizes Scandinavia, from the final Neolithic to the modern era.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 1, 2023 17:27:40 GMT
While I also like the Unetice culture as a culture, I support that they do not have to much to do with the topic of this thread. It's a culture that collapsed as we can see archaeologically and genetically nearly 1000 years before proto-Germanic developed. Even Udolph would not go so much back in time, his argumentation starts 500 years after Unetice: " Aufgrund der 1. Lautverschiebung und weiterer Prozesse darf seine Entstehung aus einem indogermanischen Dialektgebiet etwa in die Zeit um 500 v. Chr. datiert werden. Vorgermanische Namen müssen ein höheres Alter besitzen und sind in eine Zeit von ca. 1.000–500 v. Chr. zu setzen."" Fassen wir diese Ergebnisse zusammen, so kommen wir – ich denke, das ist keine Überraschung – auf eine indogermanische geprägte Gewässernamenschicht, die in die Zeit um 1.000 v. Chr. in Mitteleuropa nachgewiesen werden kann und die mit einiger Sicherheit den Osten Frankreichs, Mittel- und Norddeutschland und das östliche Mitteleuropa geprägt hat." It is therefore a coincidence that Udolphs preference for the circum Harz region matches parts of the Unetice culture. Just to mention that It's not a matter of like or dislike Orentil! Nevertheless this from alanarchea (that guy got sense!!!) is really a perfect fit for Unetice: "Proto Germanic likely arose among a subset of a much older more widespread group of dialects derived from the era when pre-proto Germanic had just broken off NW IE. Probably in the era where bell beaker spread east and intermingled with older CW groups and some sort of TRB descended substrate element was involved or had already effected the single grave area." So the phase in which it just broken off NW IE. Needless to say that this is only, the start and there more than 1500 years to proto Germanic (in the scheme of Koch). Allow me a metaphor, this point in the track record of Germanic is not insignificant because it is comparable to the implantation of the embryo! A new born in spé! And my reference is primarly Wolfram Euler in Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (2009, 2021), he speaks about the creators of the Nebra Sky Disc as the direct ancestors of the Germanics.... For you the relevant page (also related to the Celtic and Italic discussion), click on it to enlarge:
|
|
|
Post by Orentil on Oct 1, 2023 18:22:36 GMT
For me this interesting observation that there have been more contacts to italic than to celtic point even more to the Nordic Bronze Age than to the Harz region.
I think I will also stop to post here hoping for good discussions on genarchivist.com
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 1, 2023 18:50:02 GMT
For me this interesting observation that there have been more contacts to italic than to celtic point even more to the Nordic Bronze Age than to the Harz region. I think I will also stop to post here hoping for good discussions on genarchivist.com NBA and Italic wow explain.....Italic seems at least to Kuhn et al all closer to the Single Grave and BB language aka NW block. So along the North Sea coast....not Sweden......or do you have the same in mind as I do.... Alanarchae "Proto Germanic inherited not just common pre proto vocab only shared with Celtic but it also had direct bronze age links with Italic not shared with Celtic." Or do we now get the chapter Italic-Finnic-Saami loans? bring the popcorn in.
|
|
|
Post by Orentil on Oct 1, 2023 19:13:31 GMT
Right, I think the NW block has a true core. But to disappoint you, I look more to Jutland, the Danish isles, Skane and the Baltic coast as the core before the Lautverschiebung.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 1, 2023 19:29:29 GMT
Right, I think the NW block has a true core. But to disappoint you, I look more to Jutland, the Danish isles, Skane and the Baltic coast as the core before the Lautverschiebung. Again wrong, I don't consider the NW block not for a moment as core proto-Germanic. Nevertheless as mostly Anglo-Saxon derived even with quality stamp of a Qadm by Angles like two drops of water with Danish IA.... So may be you made me happy with in stead of disappointed! Who knows
|
|
|
Post by Orentil on Oct 1, 2023 19:35:46 GMT
Now you might have got me wrong. I meant North West Block as a puffer between the ancestors of Celtic and Germanic.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 1, 2023 19:53:15 GMT
Now you might have got me wrong. I meant North West Block as a puffer between the ancestors of Celtic and Germanic. Indeed I really don't get it: puffer. In English this is the first match: We had herrings, wales, seals.....but this one? Puffer is in high Dutch what in my Friso-Saxon dialect- more familiair for Germans- means puusten c.q ain puuster. Which is in Finnic a tree (puuster). So is this a classic Finnic-Saami loan in Germanic? The woods between Celtic and Germanics? Or do you mean buffer? No I don't follow Kuhn in this respect I guess the NW block doesn't represent a kind of coherent folk. Single Grave and Bell Beaker just like dort drüben in Denmark! So the fare nephews came back in migration time
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Oct 2, 2023 7:59:38 GMT
I think calm has now returned, and I will add some comments to the last posts. First of all, I don't know anything about the word "puuster" (I should write **puuster to do like the linguists) in Finnish. I know the word "puu", with the meaning of "tree" and "wood", which is declined into "puusta" in the elative case. Perhaps Folc was thinking of it? Most important. Two words about the Nordwestblock. As far as I know, this theory is highly speculative. Even more speculative is, within this theory, the position of proto-Italic. In short, there is nothing solid about all this, and I am, for example, quite intrigued that the same people who brush aside Schrijver's theories on possible German-Finno-Saamic relations (which are based even on a precise and abundant phonological apparatus) are ready to give him carte blanche when he starts to rave from the Nordwestblock ("Keltisch in de buren"). I am wondering if this might not be a Dutch disease, whose center of spread would be Leiden. We could call it “substrate disease”. Beyond that, I would like those who speak of a close connection (or even closer than with Proto-Celtic) between Proto-Germanic and Proto-Italic to elaborate a little. Because apart from Kuzmenko's completely outdated developments and Euler's nonsense, I don't remember ever reading anything convincing on this subject. But I'm ready to learn. What I tell myself (in my little amateur brain) is that if such relationships exist, they cannot fail to leave lexical traces. So, I am curious to be informed of these lexical borrowings (at the proto-Germanic level, I mean, obviously not wandering words late inherited from the cultural influence of the Empire). Personally, I don't know any.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 2, 2023 8:30:59 GMT
I think calm has now returned, and I will add some comments to the last posts. First of all, I don't know anything about the word "puuster" (I should write **puuster to do like the linguists) in Finnish. I know the word "puu", with the meaning of "tree" and "wood", which is declined into "puusta" in the elative case. Perhaps Folc was thinking of it? Most important. Two words about the Nordwestblock. As far as I know, this theory is highly speculative. Even more speculative is, within this theory, the position of proto-Italic. In short, there is nothing solid about all this, and I am, for example, quite intrigued that the same people who brush aside Schrijver's theories on possible German-Finno-Saamic relations (which are based even on a precise and abundant phonological apparatus) are ready to give him carte blanche when he starts to rave from the Nordwestblock ("Keltisch in de buren"). I am wondering if this might not be a Dutch disease, whose center of spread would be Leiden. We could call it “substrate disease”. Beyond that, I would like those who speak of a close connection (or even closer than with Proto-Celtic) between Proto-Germanic and Proto-Italic to elaborate a little. Because apart from Kuzmenko's completely outdated developments and Euler's nonsense, I don't remember ever reading anything convincing on this subject. But I'm ready to learn. What I tell myself (in my little amateur brain) is that if such relationships exist, they cannot fail to leave lexical traces. So, I am curious to be informed of these lexical borrowings (at the proto-Germanic level, I mean, obviously not wandering words late inherited from the cultural influence of the Empire). Personally, I don't know any. ROFLOL Well I guess that's the whole thing what is meant as gimmick, is going to be a kind of nitpicking linguistic thing.....fantastic! Well may be I have to tune into to something different also (proto) Germanic, and well to your look a like aus Emden.....also riddling but with humor! Ok as fare as humor in Germany goes (Otto is Friso-Saxon, a positive exception of course German humour through the eyes of the Dutch:
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 2, 2023 8:48:05 GMT
and as I'm Germanic a serious reaction too:
"I would like those who speak of a close connection (or even closer than with Proto-Celtic) between Proto-Germanic and Proto-Italic to elaborate a little. Because apart from Kuzmenko's completely outdated developments and Euler's nonsense, I don't remember ever reading anything convincing on this subject. But I'm ready to learn. What I tell myself (in my little amateur brain) is that if such relationships exist, they cannot fail to leave lexical traces. So, I am curious to be informed of these lexical borrowings (at the proto-Germanic level, I mean, obviously not wandering words late inherited from the cultural influence of the Empire). Personally, I don't know any."
I can recommend to read the works of Euler and Kuzmenko even Kuhn very well and come back later with comments. When as you said the reconstructed proto Germanic mostly is based on old Norse the Italic-Germanic sharing would be less than if you took the proto Germanic 'dialect' from around the Elbe or along the Weser. But gone with the wind....I personally don't have much patience with those pure lexical things....excusez moi!
|
|
|
Post by Orentil on Oct 2, 2023 8:56:08 GMT
I think calm has now returned, and I will add some comments to the last posts. First of all, I don't know anything about the word "puuster" (I should write **puuster to do like the linguists) in Finnish. I know the word "puu", with the meaning of "tree" and "wood", which is declined into "puusta" in the elative case. Perhaps Folc was thinking of it? Most important. Two words about the Nordwestblock. As far as I know, this theory is highly speculative. Even more speculative is, within this theory, the position of proto-Italic. In short, there is nothing solid about all this, and I am, for example, quite intrigued that the same people who brush aside Schrijver's theories on possible German-Finno-Saamic relations (which are based even on a precise and abundant phonological apparatus) are ready to give him carte blanche when he starts to rave from the Nordwestblock ("Keltisch in de buren"). I am wondering if this might not be a Dutch disease, whose center of spread would be Leiden. We could call it “substrate disease”. Beyond that, I would like those who speak of a close connection (or even closer than with Proto-Celtic) between Proto-Germanic and Proto-Italic to elaborate a little. Because apart from Kuzmenko's completely outdated developments and Euler's nonsense, I don't remember ever reading anything convincing on this subject. But I'm ready to learn. What I tell myself (in my little amateur brain) is that if such relationships exist, they cannot fail to leave lexical traces. So, I am curious to be informed of these lexical borrowings (at the proto-Germanic level, I mean, obviously not wandering words late inherited from the cultural influence of the Empire). Personally, I don't know any. ROFLOL Well I guess that's the whole thing what is meant as gimmick, is going to be a kind of nitpicking linguistic thing.....fantastic! Well may be I have to tune into to something different also (proto) Germanic, and well to your look a like aus Emden.....also riddling but with humor! Ok as fare as humor in Germany goes (Otto is Friso-Saxon, a positive exception of course German humour through the eyes of the Dutch: All Germans struggle with "th" and we Frankonians also struggle to differentiate b/p (we always pronounce b) like in buffer/puffer. Linguistically I might therefore have used a 'hypercorrect' form by writing buffer with a "p" OK, now I really stop spamming this thread, see you in the new forum.
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Oct 2, 2023 9:12:12 GMT
I've read "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der ersten Lautverschiebung". Unfortunately, I returned the book to the German friend who lent it to me. As for buying it, that's out of the question, my library is already quite saturated with useless books. I've read Kuzmenko (РАННИЕ ГЕРМАНЦЫ И ИХ СОСЕДИ). My only comment: outdated. I never said that "reconstructed proto-Germanic is based on old Norse"! I said that reconstructed old Norse is very close to reconstructed proto-Germanic (as everybody knows), it's not the same. Furthermore, I don't know the meaning of the words "proto Germanic dialect". You "don't have much patience with those pure lexical things". I just want to remind you that you're on a linguistic thread. I hope you remember this when I've moved this thread to the new forum. If one is not interested in linguistics, the most logical thing for him is to stay away from linguistics debates.
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 2, 2023 11:16:50 GMT
I've read "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der ersten Lautverschiebung". Unfortunately, I returned the book to the German friend who lent it to me. As for buying it, that's out of the question, my library is already quite saturated with useless books. I've read Kuzmenko (РАННИЕ ГЕРМАНЦЫ И ИХ СОСЕДИ). My only comment: outdated. I never said that "reconstructed proto-Germanic is based on old Norse"! I said that reconstructed old Norse is very close to reconstructed proto-Germanic (as everybody knows), it's not the same. Furthermore, I don't know the meaning of the words "proto Germanic dialect". You "don't have much patience with those pure lexical things". I just want to remind you that you're on a linguistic thread. I hope you remember this when I've moved this thread to the new forum. If one is not interested in linguistics, the most logical thing for him is to stay away from linguistics debates. jawohl Herr Angles! Of course but even on a linguistic theme and even more on a linguistic thema with historical aspects, my basic intrest goes to the historic component, not to loanwords chit chat I leave that to others...." nu elck sijn sin" in old Dutch, or do I have to say ist das erlaubt Herr Angles?
|
|
|
Post by alexfritz on Oct 2, 2023 11:57:45 GMT
today ZDFneo is bringing all the Otto films starting 13:10 'Der Film'
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 2, 2023 11:59:30 GMT
today ZDFneo is bringing all the Otto films starting 13:10 'Der Film' I knew it!
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 2, 2023 12:02:10 GMT
ROFLOL Well I guess that's the whole thing what is meant as gimmick, is going to be a kind of nitpicking linguistic thing.....fantastic! Well may be I have to tune into to something different also (proto) Germanic, and well to your look a like aus Emden.....also riddling but with humor! Ok as fare as humor in Germany goes (Otto is Friso-Saxon, a positive exception of course German humour through the eyes of the Dutch: All Germans struggle with "th" and we Frankonians also struggle to differentiate b/p (we always pronounce b) like in buffer/puffer. Linguistically I might therefore have used a 'hypercorrect' form by writing buffer with a "p" OK, now I really stop spamming this thread, see you in the new forum. Weren't the -p words typical for the NW block? Some of them survived the sound shifts (especial the intimate ones but ok....see you there!
|
|
|
Post by Anglesqueville on Oct 2, 2023 12:55:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by folcwalding on Oct 2, 2023 13:42:07 GMT
. I never said that "reconstructed proto-Germanic is based on old Norse"! I said that reconstructed old Norse is very close to reconstructed proto-Germanic (as everybody knows), it's not the same. The exact quote: " 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 say comes closer to my quote then your retrospect interpretation
|
|