Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 49732
Date: 2007-08-31

From what I've read, Kartvelian arrived from the East,
maybe Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan c. 2000 BC
The Finnish linguists on lists with whom I've spoken
all say that Uralic arrived in Finland sometime
between 2000 BC & 1 AD from the East. I've never run
into one who claimed Finnish is autochthonous to
Finland, they also mention a strong pre-Uralic
substate in Saami.
I think a better argument is that Germanic was the NNW
edge of IE and was between Central IE and Uralic,
perhaps moving west at roughly the same pace as
Uralic, and that as it moved to the NW, Celtic, Baltic
and Slavic followed right behind, filling any vacuums.


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

> About Germanic Homeland and migrations,
> My point of view is that Proto-Germanic originates
> somewhere in the south of Urals mountains,
> in between Balto-slavic at its north-west,
> Indo-Iranian and Kartvelian at its south-west,
> proto-Finno-Permic at its north-east,
> and Tibetan and Tokharian at its south-east.
> Proto-Germanic was pushed westward by Uralic
> expansion
> (at a date I don't know but most probably after -
> 5000 :
> that is after Kartvelian neolithic influence had
> been felt on Pontic Areas)
> Proto-Germanic then was cut in two branches :
> the northern branch went to the north avoiding
> Balto-Slavic at its south
> and then invaded Scandinavia from Finland
> southwards.
> the southern branch (westic) went under Balto-Slavic
> at its north
> and encroached upon Celtic homeland, pushing them
> westward.
> Westic and Nordic Germanic abruptly met in
> Schlesvig-Holstein.
> this is no dialectal continuity between westic and
> nordic because
> they had been separated for too long when they met
> again there.
>
> I consider Scandinavia was once inhabited by people
> that are neither Uralic, nor Germanic, nor
> Kartvelian.
> This can be a branch of PAleo-European, akin to BAsk
> and ETruscan.
> This remains to be proved by lexical substrates in
> Norse.
> Maybe it can also be a variety of Celtic.
> This could happen to be the more suitable hypothesis
> (see below)
>
> I don't know if we can accept a strong connection
> between Armenian and Germanic.
> I think Germanic got Kartvelian loanwords when it
> was still in the south of Ural mountains.
> Armenian first "tried" to become a Satem language *g
> > *z > s
> but shifted to a kind of "germanic-like" mutation.
> The weakening/strengthening processes of Armenian
> are more complex than
> the Germanic Lautverschiebung, and therefore is
> likely to be unrelated.
> Armenian may have reached its phonetic profile after
> it was transported in Armenia.
> I will leave this as a open question.
>
> Uralic Home-land is not to be found in Europe, nor
> in the west of Ural mountains.
> There is a strong tendency among Finnish workers to
> claim "autochthonous" status
> in Northern Europe. I consider this as totally
> unfounded.
> I do not believe in Finnish "paleolithic continuity"
> theory.
> My point of view is : Finno-Ugric is connected with
> Ob river, Samoyedic with Ienissei.
> Uralic languages are basically North-Asiatic
> languages, with strong connections with
> Sino-Tibetan and Japanese. (I will provide examples
> afterwards)
> In general, I have very little confidence in works
> made by Finnish linguists
> and only scanty confidence in Hungarian linguists.
> (Hungarians are less biased than Finish linguists)
> Proto-Uralic as reconstructed in the Uralisches
> Etymologisches Woerterbuch
> is really pathetic, even though it is written by
> Hungarians.
> All this reconstruction has to be reworked on the
> basis
> of standard comparative methodology to make it
> reliable.
> I plan to rework this in 2009
> (for private reasons, I won't be able to do it
> before)
>
> I have no idea what Venneman's Semitimid is.
> It has to be based on Phoenician to make sense
> otherwise I cannot imagine what Semitic is doing in
> Western Europe.
>
> If we look at the diverse substrates previously
> evoked in Cybalist :
> 1. the language of bird's names (Schrijver)
> 2. the language of geminates
> My point of view is this :
>
> 1. this substrate is not a substrate but just a
> glaring hole
> in orthodox PIE morphology.
> Morpheme H2a- is part of PIE, as exemplified by
> Greek.
> H2o- is rare but present in a bird-name.
> H2i- also exists in :
> Greek ip(h)nos oven
> Celt a-pa-tinos > Irish a:th
> from *kwH2 "to burn, to heat".
>
> 2. the geminate phenomenon is more interesting.
>
> This geminate phonomenon is connected with glottalic
> phonemes.
> As some people claim that PIE might have had
> glottalic phonemes
> and some of these some people claim these are
> pre-glottalized,
> I wondered if it was possible find macro-examples of
>
> alif + unvoiced stop in Semitic > voiced stop in
> PIE.
> So far, the result of my quest is this :
> 1. I have found no example of initial alif +
> unvoiced > PIE voiced.
> 2. A clear example of unvoiced + alif > Voiced is
> *dwo "two".
> Hebrew te?omi "twin" where t+?=d,
> and w and m are from m? (glottalized m).
> Cf. saw "sun" versus sham and yam-ani versus yam
> "sea".
> All PIE agrees with the result t+? =d.
> 3. the result of alif + unvoiced is more
> "diffractive"
> In Celtic, ?+C = CC (so called expressive geminate)
> In Latin, ?+C sometimes v:+C or dialectal v+CC
> Osco-umbrian ?+C = CC
> Elsewhere ?+C = Voiced.
> Pre-glottalization is an eastern feature that
> applies to
> Germanic, Greek, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, etc.
> One Semitic example is : l_(?)w_k "swallow"
> hence Celtic *s-lukk- > Irish slug-im
> Greek lu(n)g-
> Germanic s-lu(k)k
>
> Although I have much respect for Meillet,
> I totally disagree with his "populaire expressifs"
> words.
> This is glottalic phonology.
>
> This applies to -k and -t.
> Cf. BhelH-k :
> LAtin ful-c-
> Greek phalang-
> Germanic bal-k-
> Sanscrit bhur-j-
> etc
>
> Hence this geminate language is probably Celtic.
> Considering the fact that Islandic displays some -kk
> words,
> we are maybe allowed to posit that Scandinavia
> substrate
> is a variety of Celtic language,
> or a third branch of western PIE alongside Celtic
> and ITalic.
> this has to be determined thru careful analysis of
> data.
>
> If you have data to send, I am ready to try to
> disentangle the knots.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick McCallister
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme
>
>
> Well.yes and no
> N Europe was their homeland, and from there they
> expanded south
> BUT they had to arrive in Lower Saxony and
> Scandinavia
> from somewhere, so you have a point
> Do you have a timetable? Was Germanic an IE
> outlier
> and one of the 1st to enter NW Europe?
> I imagine Uralic was a subtrate in Scandinavia,
> possibly the southern Baltic shore BUT not too
> Uralic
> words turn up in Germanic, as I recall
> Supposedly, some 25% of Saami is pre-Uralic
> substrate
> and their is a Finnish Saami linguist who has
> quite a
> few articles in Finnish on that topic
> The Kartvelian conection is interesting in that
> Germanic and Armenian are said by some to have
> similar
>
=== message truncated ===



____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/