Re: Grimm shift as starting point of "Germanic"

> ****GK: Yes. I can see where you're coming from. And I
> don't disagree with any of it. But my point was a
> little different. The Germanic language family as
> presently constituted,

Now there's the problem.

> and as historically attested
> from at least ca. the time of Caesar if not slightly
> earlier, must have possessed a certain number of
> "unique characteristics" in order to be considered
> something sui generis.

'As presently constituted'. If Germanic had close relatives then,
which later disappeared, Germanic as constituted now and Germanic as
constituted then is are not identical. It is not the same thing. If
part of the Germanic family, say, the North Germanic languages
disappeared from living memory, 'Germanic' to future generations would
be something much more narrowly defined than the family we understand
it as today.

> It was not Celtic, it was not
> Latin, it was not Greek etc.. And it was sui generis
> no matter what the relationship of its structures
> (lexical, syntactic, morphological etc..) was to PIE.
> I understood you to imply that we had no clear way of
> establishing a timeline for the emergencce of any of
> these structures (incl. Grimm, the most "defining"
> one).

That's not so, see my answer to Arnaud.

> So let's try a bit of retroactive logic.
> We can assume, can we not, that by the time Caesar
> spoke of the Germani, enough of these characteristics
> existed to justify his belief as to the
> distinctiveness of the Germanic language(s). We could
> probably agree that the Grimm shift had largely if not
> completely occurred by then.

OK.

> Let us turn our attention to the Bastarnae.
> According to Tacitus, they were a Germanic-speaking
> people. Torsten's "para-Germanic" hypothesis has no
> basis outside of his imagination. If we have to choose
> between Torsten and Tacitus it is clear who is the
> better witness.

Isn't that a nice argument? I remember the first time I used it
against you. It must have made a certain impression, after all.
'Para-Germanic' is seen from our perspective, not Tacitus'. If
WGermanic should solely survive, NGermanic would be 'para-Germanic' to
future Generations who only know WGermanic.

> Tacitus did not think they were as "Germanic" as to
> appearance (though largely so as to general culture)
> by comparison to the Germans of Germania west of the
> Visla.But there can be no doubt as to their language.
> His witness is absolutely decisive on this. This is
> where we have to start.

That sounds pretty para- to me. And see above.

> Archaeologically and historically the Bastarnae were
> rather special. Except for the very beginning of their
> existence in their Moldavian and nearby haunts (when
> they demonstrate 'jastorfian' arch.traits) their
> material culture was their own (shared with
> non-Germanic locals such as the Daco-Getans) and bore
> little similarity to the material culture of even
> their nearest Germanic neighbours the Przeworsk
> Vandals/Lugians.

More para- to them.

> But that obviously did not stop them
> from being Germanic-speaking. This bears repeating
> again and again.

Yep. Germanic as Tacitus saw it.

>As far as Tacitus was concerned the
> Bastarnae of 98 CE were as "Germanic-speaking" as the
> Vandals, the Goths, and any other of the Germanic
> populations he mentioned. Given the known fact (stated
> by Gibbon and mentioned by Torsten) that the
> historical associations of the Bastarnae were
> practically always with non-Germanic populations,the
> question arises: just when did they become "Germanic"?
> When did they acquire the Germanic speech they
> undoubtedly spoke? There is nothing to suggest that
> this is some later development due to later contacts
> with indubitable Germanic populations since such
> contacts are not recorded. The obvious conclusion is
> that the Bastarnae who settled in Moldavia and
> surrounding areas ca. 200 BCE (or a little earlier if
> the Sciri were a component)were already
> Germanic-speaking when they arrived.

No, they spoke whatever language was the predecessor of (the various?)
para-Germanic languages and Germanic proper, which developed from
Przeworsk.

> We have three "leader names" from the 2nd c.BCE.
> Torsten, following Gibbon, does not think they are
> Germanic. But Gibbon's text is at least partially
> defective. Muellenhoff, a much stronger scientific
> authority than Gibbon, thinks they are indeed
> Germanic. And I see no reason to doubt this.
> Muellenhoff believes that 1."Clondicus" resembles
> O.Sax. "Indico", that 2."Cotto" resembles Old Sax.
> "Goddo", and 3."Talto" has Alemannic analogues.

Typical Germanic names are two-element: Ro-bert, Sigi-mar, and yours
truly. The three names M. compares with are much more similar to some
of the NWBlock names Kuhn lists (I can find them if you want to press
the point), with -Vk suffix and gemination as typical features, not
surprising given they are Old Saxon. They might have come from their
Jastorf origin.

> Since the Bastarnae can be archaeologically traced to
> the area of Western Pomerania and of the Jastorf
> culture generally, we conclude that the language they
> brought with them to Moldavia was also spoken at that
> time in the area whence they came.

> There was no Przeworsk culture prior to contacts of
> Jastorfians and late Lusatians,and there was no
> Przeworsk culture in the Bastarnian areas. Since the
> Bastarnae were undoubtedly Germanic-speaking,there is
> no way this can be due to expansion of Przeworsk.

That is, Germanic in the Tacitus perspective. Przeworsk became the
center of the Germanic languages in our perspective.

> As to Grimm, take your choice. The prevailing view is
> that the shift occurred sometime in the first
> millennium BCE.

You will have noticed that they offer no reason why this should be so.

> If one can be "Germanic" before the
> shift, then its dating becomes irrelevant.

I don't think Tacitus mentions the Grimm-shift, or offers any relevant
information on that point. And yes, you can, as you can be German even
though your northern dialect has not undergone the second sound-shift.

>IF NOT,
> then we must accept that it occurred prior to the
> Bastarnian out-migration from the southern Baltic, and
> prior to the constitution of the Goths in their
> historic Swedish and Polish locations.In neither case
> is it associated with the spread of Przeworsk.****

Since the three names which is all we have of the para-Germanic
languages offers no clue as to whether those languages had undergone
Grimm-shift, we must use other evidence. And that tells us the
Grimm-shift took place during Przeworsk expansion into Germania.


Torsten