From: malmqvist52@...
Message: 9060
Date: 2001-09-05
--- In cybalist@..., "Joseph S Crary" <pva@...> wrote:
>
> >Does that mean that the ethnogenesis (or rather glotto-genesis?)
of
> Germanic should be put at shortly before that year?<
>
> I think the main move from Sweden began within a few years of the
> Cimbric migration south, around 120 BC. A much bigger Nordic-German
> move during the period of the Roman-German wars, from roughly 55 BC
> to AD 45. At present just a formative theory.
>
> >Did Germanic (as a recently established creole) suddenly spread on
> previously Celtic territory? <
>
> I think for the most part yes. I believe the Roman sources document
> that the Celt-Germans were so depleted by intertribal wars, wars
with
> rome, and the migration of populations into the Roman held
Rhineland,
> that there was a virtual flood of Nordic-Germans from Sweden into
> Denmark and northern Germany.
>
> This would explain why there is so little impact of Celtic on
> continental Germanic. If the Nordic-Germans had lived side-by-side
> with the Celts on the continent for a long time one would expect to
> find more evidence in German. For example, the type of similarities
> found between Brythonic and Baltic. To me this indicates that
> Brythonic-speakers shared a common border with Baltic-speakers at
> some relatively recent point in time. This leaves no room for the
> Nordic German except in Sweden and points north.
>
It's the first time I encounter this theory and it find it quite
amazing, so forgive me if my questions migth be a little stupid.
Does this mean that before 120 BC (- AD 45) germanic languages were
only spoken two areas: In sweden (Nordic german) and around Vistula
(gothic german)? (As I understand it the goths had at this time been
on the continent for more than a thousand years)
To me this sounds like germanic then was spoken by two amazingly
small groups of people(relatively). Is this correct?
Or is this illusitory -I'm thinking Sweden-sparse populated-continent-
dense populated as the situation is today( I'm living in the small
town 'Geatburg';-) myself) .
Was the Scandinavian peninsula perhaps even overpopulated at this
time, as the migration path might suggest?
In any case in absolute numbers and at least after the migrations to
the continent, the population on the scandinavian peninsula would , I
assume, be rather sparse populated, compared to today.
Wouldn't then a (hypothetical) immigration of (a) people(s) with (a)
non-indoeuropean or a far-related indoeuropean language to
Scandinavia have a great inpact on this remaining nordic german,
regarding lexicology and phonetics?
I imagine that the immigrating people eventually has to learn the
germanic language, and that some expressions( useful)words and
expressions will be transferred to the germanic language in the
process (perhaps paralelled to todays Rinkebysvenska).
Alternatively to the this hypothetical immigration benefiting from
the depopulation it could of course be the cause of overpopulation,
but I imagine that the above still would apply.
Is it then not quite sane to try to look for possible substrates in
the germanic languages of these processes?
At least for me it's a really intriguing detective work to try to
look for paths of words and other evidence of culture flow. It has
almost become like a drug for me.
Maybe my question is specifically directed to Torsten who hasn't
ruled out the possibilty that there is a hitorical kernel in
Snorri's stories.
BTW it's funny today I only read about the seriousness of Snorri(
only topos stories or not), while in school we were taught that he
was a liar and a joker.
Which is really the thruth about him?
Wouldn't it be a good thing if we could find out what really happened
(whenever that will be)?
Best whishes
Anders Malmqvist
Best whishes