Re: Grimm shift as starting point of "Germanic"

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 54760
Date: 2008-03-06

I see your point. At one time, there were transition
dialects between IE families but they got squeezed out
or fragmented as some IE groups moved out and new
families moved in

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

> > ****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
=== message truncated ===



____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping