From: tgpedersen
Message: 57696
Date: 2008-04-20
>Wikipedia contradicts you.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Given a claim that Germanic developed while dominated by Iranian
> > speakers (those that are disgusted with my Odin-Galicia-Thuringia
> > story can think of it instead as King Arthurs Sarmatians arriving
> > for Roman duty in Germania), a good candidate for the choice of
> > Iranian language in which to find features similar of those in
> > Germanic is Ossetian; it is generally considered to be the
> > descendant of Alanic, the speakers of which are on historical
> > record as participating in the Germanic migration, roving from
> > Portugal to China),
>
> ****GK: The Alans remain east of the Don until the mid-first c. CE.
> If "Alani" in Pliny is not a later addition, it would mean that some
> contingents had reached the Danube by 77 CE. They are no longer
> known there (again if the text of Pliny we have is his unedited
> original) in the time of Ptolemy, who localizes them about the Don.
> And indeed that is where they remain (in Europe) until the time of
> the Huns, except for some groups which reach the southern shores of
> the Crimea by the early 3rd c. CE (near Theodosia/Artabda =these may
> have been Zoroastrians), and other groups which form part of the
> Gothic complex in the 4th c. CE. All this seems way too late for
> creative Iranian->Germanic linguistic contacts particularly since
> there is no "domination" involved here except for that of Germanics
> over Iranians. As for "King Arthur and his Sarmatians" in the
> present context the less said the better...*****
>