Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50077
Date: 2007-09-25

I noticed that you moved from "laughable" to "highly implausible".
Under progress.
 
It is quite natural that Scandinavia has been preempted as the most obvious
homeland for proto-Germanic in the XIX century.
The question is :
Should this obvious solution be kept or be changed ?
 
I believe it has to be changed,
for several reasons :
 
1. There are several loanwords from KArtvelian in Germanic,
as in Balto-Slavic and western Uralic,
and these words show no signs of having reached Germanic
through another language before.
So the "orignal" position in Scandinavia is a problem.
 
The loanword sajwa < *zaghva is a worse problem.
Why is it that Germanic needed borrow a KArtvelian word for sea ?
This branch must have been away from any sea.
 
2. Germanic shows a certain number of features in common
with Tokharian, a far-off eastern language in PIE tree.
One of my favorites is the innovation : skalm for "boat".
This is also a problem with an original position in Scandinavia.
The Centum status of Germanic can also be achieved
if it is so far to the East that it is not be involved in Satem processes.
 
3. Germanic has close connections with Central PIE
(Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian)
this is compatible with an original position in Scandinavia.
or elsewhere more to the east.
 
4. the word mar-ko "horse" is a loanword from Asiatic *mor- "horse"
and you need a language where *o > a
Germanic is a good candidate.
just as Tokharian is a good candidate for yakw > Greek (h)ippos
we bump again on the Tokharian / Germanic pair.
Norse seems to have more words for horse than all the rest of PIE.
 
5. Germanic also has a good deal of Uralic loanwords,
So it must have been in a position to receive MORE Uralic loanwords
than the rest of PIE.
This is not possible with Scandinavia as homeland.
Germanic must have been a buffer between Uralic and the rest of PIE.
 
These are already troublesome facts.
 
6. The final blows are ST loanwords
like back = Cantonese baak
If we had nothing else, we could discard this as coincidence.
I think they are not coincidence.
They are the last drop.
 
All this points ever and ever in the same direction :
far eastern origin for proto-Germanic
 
I have reached this conclusion gradually.
I understand this is not what tradition has taught us to believe.
I could change my mind
only in case very serious and strong arguments make me
think I was wrong to reach this conclusion.
So far, I see nothing.
The shallow and cheap reaffirmation that tradition has
Scandinavia as homeland counts for nil.
And the fact you are (not yet) convinced also counts for nil.
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian M. Scott
To: fournet.arnaud
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:48 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

At 3:19:16 AM on Saturday, September 22, 2007,
fournet.arnaud wrote:

> What is your own explanation ?

For OE <brid(d)>? I have none: I've never seen a concrete
explanation that was at all convincing. And I consider an
admission that we don't know far preferable to a highly
implausible explanation.

Brian