Re: [tied] Germanic

If Germanic goes back to 8000BC, then please account
for the fact that Germanic langauges were mutually
comprehensible until c. 1000 AD.
Unless you're going to make a Dixon-like argument that
Germanic is the product of ever fissioning and
refusing tribes, then your argument seems a bit
far-fetched. But even if you use Dixon, you'll still
have to account for why they didn't fuse with their
neighbors, I can't imagine ancient Germanics were that
isolated --even the Scandinavian chronicles include
Saami ancestors.


--- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

> > And to suppose "Germanic" requires to identify
> > which "Germanic" language is involved (ter
> > repetitas) ?
>
> ****GK: Were there already clearly distinct Germanic
> languages in 58 BC?
>
> =============
> A.F
> Proto-Germanic is a branch of PIE languages that
> separated from PIE
> at the least of the least 4000 years before -58 BC
> (And most probably at least 8000 years before -58
> BC)
> I can't believe it remained unchanged until -58 BC
> until we suddenly discover that Saxon, Frankish,
> Norse,
> Gothic are different around + 400.
> We have to try to know what kind of Germanic
> language(s)
> is involved.
>
>
> I disagree with this method that consists of
> creating
> catch-all words such as "Gauls", "Belgians",
> "Germanic"
> that are fuzzy and uncontrollable
> that in the end describe about nothing
> that allow all kinds of unfalsifiable theories,
> that overlook available data .
> etc
> This is not science.
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/