Re: Grimm shift as starting point of "Germanic" (Was:Re: Strange w

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> Just so that other people don't feel I've been
> defated

****GK: Defated? Defeated? Deflated? All three?
(:=)))***

and start

> harassing me with tired dead-horse metaphors, I
> think I better answer
> this although it's become loathsome to me.

****GK: Indeed, facing up to reality and abandoning
one's fantasies can be pretty loathsome. Healthy, but
loathsome. Many people prefer to "invincibly" carry
on. "Good bye Lenin" is tough indeed.****

>
>
> > GK: I don't know where the Grimm shift
> initially
> > occurred, and how it spread.
>
> We linguists thought we did. Now we'll have to give
> it up.
>
> > That's not the point, Torsten. The issue was:
> where did Germanic
> > begin? (The Grimm shift was surely not the
> beginning of this
> > linguistic group even if subsequently one of its
> most
> > obvious characteristics).
>
> I'm afraid it is in linguistics. No one tries to
> pursue its history
> beyond the Grimm shift.

****GK: Are you saying that ALL the characteristics
which distinguish Germanic from other IE linguistic
families developed AFTER the Grimm shift (certainly
one of the most spectacular and differentiating of
these characteristics)? From what I've read, that's
not true. Even such a simple source as the Wikipedia
article on "Germanic languages" denies it.

Do the other fine linguists on cybalist agree with you
on this point?****

(Rest later)




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ