Re: Schoeffe I

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 67418
Date: 2011-04-28

From: Torsten <tgpedersen@...>
Sent: Thu, April 28, 2011 3:41:38 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Schoeffe I


--- In, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:
> >Yes, that's your scenario.
> *Mine*? You gotta be kiddin'. :) Not mine (I don't have any
> scenario of my own). It's by historians (of the relevant
> countries), based on documents they've studied.
> >But you are claiming that they switched away from Slavic to a
> >German dialect
> I didn't and don't do that. I merely said they didn't stop talking
> Slavic. But what I tend to accept is the hypothesis that their
> original Mamme Losch'n was some sort of Ogur (or even Onogur)
> Turkic (and here and there some sort of Alanian), esp. in times
> when they had to do to a lesser extent with Slavic populations.
> >even if they were hundreds of miles away from where such a dialect
> >would be useful.
> Not at all: look at the map of the German colonists expansion
> (the military one only under the auspices and swords of the
> Teutonic Order) after 1100-1200-1300. Take a look at the
> spreading of German newcomers in Poland and Lithuania in those
> centuries. Also take a look at the migration of Jewish waves
> from the "Reich" in the 14th c., during the Plague time, when
> German-speaking Jews had to take refuge in eastern countries
> such as Poland and Hungary. Don't you think that German Jews
> could have been good... teachers of language and Talmud to
> their co-worshippers in the East?

You didn't understand my sentence so I'll rephrase:

even in those places where they were hundreds of miles away from non-Jewish German-speakers and where learning German thus would not be useful.

> >Wechsler does that because he has to, he is not aware of those
> >Germanic dialects which were spoken in the relevant time and area.
> How do you know he doesn't know? I assume he very well knows
> the theses by his predecessors who showed (in the 20th c.)
> the structures of Yiddish being south German and the assumptions
> as to why has it evolved so and not, say as some Frisian-like or
> Saxon-like or Münster-Platt-like German.

You didn't understand my sentence so I'll rephrase:

Wechsler does that because he has to, he does not seem to aware of the Germanic-speaking Bastarnae peoples Atmoni and Sidones in Poieneşti-Lukaševka until ca 70 BCE or Peucini in the Danube delta until the 3rd century CE nor of the Germanic-speaking Scirii in the Przeworsk culture until the 5th century BCE, because he mentions none of them.

> >So Proto-Romanian might have started here.
> It might have started in a time period and conditions that very
> probable were similar to those in which French, Provençal,
> Catalan, Aragones, Italian, Rhaeto-Romanic etc. evolved. (If
> you take old French, that has some of the oldest written
> relics, then you remark the great phonetic similarity when
> compared with esp. middle, southern Italian dialects and with
> Romanian dialects. If you compare Italian dialects, esp.
> phonetics, with Romanian, the similarities are striking,
> although the chronologic gap is as long as it is in the case
> of Angles, Saxons and Jutes in Britain when you compare them
> with those Germans, Frisians and Danes that never migrated
> to Britain. Phonetics differences between English and
> German (or Low German) are bigger than phonetix diffs betw.
> Romanian and Italian dialects, incl. Sicilianu,

***R Evidently Sicilianu only goes back about 1000 years. It seems to be a form of S. Italian that moved into Sicily to replace Arabic and Greek. At least accordning to what I've read on Wikipedia.


> the Romance population that became "Vlach"/Romanian had no
> linguistic links and exchanges with the Italian world after
> the dramatic Avar-Slavic impact that severed all natural
> ties (betw. approx. 604 and the 19th c.)

Etc etc.

So Proto-Romanian might have started in the area on both sides on the lower Danube in the 1st century BCE.

> >>Look at the percentage tables yourself.
> (Again you quote all paragraphs referring to the haplotype issue:
> why? The text had been posted once - why repost the whole of it?)
> >Your claim was:
> >Ashkenazi Jews's origins are Scythian, Balto-Slavic, Turkic (Tatar)
> >and Iranian.
> Well, I forgot (but it is self-understood) the contribution of
> the "cohanim" elements, i.e. of rabbies coming from Constantinople,
> Baghdad, Spain and northern Africa. Those might have had more of
> the "appropriate" haplotypes (as well as of M's & A's chromozome).

OK, so you say your claim might be justified by an ethnic contribution that isn't listed in the article?

> >From the article:
> >'All relevant Y DNA studies have concluded that the majority
> >of the paternal genetic heritage among Ashkenazim and other
> >Jewish communities is similar to those found dominating
> >Middle Eastern populations, and probably originated there.
> Don't read only this conclusion and only that part of the
> material provided by Wp. - read the whole stuff (divided into
> several different articles). And keep in mind: the minimization
> of the Near East lineage and the emphasizing of the Eurasian
> (Yaphetic) lineage can't be done as overtly, for obvious synchronic
> reasons.

??? That makes no sense at all.

> >A smaller but still significant part of the Ashkenazi male line
> >population is more likely to have originated from central and
> >eastern European populations.'
> But look at them with your eyes and not with the paragraphs by
> half-religious fellas who believe 1:1 in ... legends: the looks
> of the vast majority of the Ashkenasic population are Europid
> looks (pinkish-white, blue-eyed, green-eyed, blond-haired, red-
> haired, brown-haired), and those who are darker are rather of
> the Caucasoid-Iranid Turkish kind, even having many members with
> obvious mongolid looks. Compare them with the real semitic
> populations, even with Jews from Yemen. Even the looks show you
> a population that rather looks like those populations you find
> in Turkey, in the Balkans, in Poland, the Baltic countries,
> Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasian countries, and former Persian
> and Khwarizmian countries (incl. Afghanistan) up to Uyguria
> (Sinkiang).

Okay so I should not trust the genetics because genes don't reflect true inheritance?

> Massive conversions to the Jewish faith were possible in a
> certain period of time, after the 7th c., and later on never
> again to such an extent (due to some dogmatic reasons). So,
> later populations mixtures were to a much lesser extent.
> (And don't forget those Caraite Jews from Eastern Europe who
> still today speak their old Turkic dialects, esp. the one that
> is related to the Crimea Cuman-or-Tatar Turkish. Which they
> speak even in their communities in America.)

I think I'll stick with genetics.

> >The Scythian, Balto-Slavic, Turkic (Tatar) and Iranian peoples are
> >not Middle Eastern populations.
> Nor are the majority of the Ashkenasic population. I was referring
> to the Ashkenasic population, and not to the Sephardic one. Of
> course, there were small adstrata of immigrants, and a greater
> adstratum from Spain after 1492, in times when many Sephardic Jews
> emigrated chiefly to the Ottoman Empire provinces.

You are incredible.
'All relevant Y DNA studies have concluded that the majority of the paternal genetic heritage among Ashkenazim and other Jewish communities is similar to those found dominating Middle Eastern populations, and probably originated there. A smaller but still significant part of the Ashkenazi male line population is more likely to have originated from central and eastern European populations.'

> Anyway, this issue (whether the Ashkenasic population has a
> considerable Semitic origin or an ... Ashkuza (Saka = Scythian)
> origin) is off-topic within the "Schoeffe I" trade. It would
> be on-topic if we had some hint/info showing that this population
> might have been passed on to central Europe the notion shofet
> in order to become zhupan and/or Saupe/Schuppe/Schöffe. But if
> the Ashkenasic (or Sephardic or early medieval Rhineland Jewry)
> had passed on this notion, then, anyway, the ethnic origins of the
> Jewish population(s) (even if some of them might have been of
> ... Bastarnian extraction :-)) didn't and doesn't matter. What
> matters (in this respect) is their religion (whose vocabulary
> contains many Hebrew words).

Not really. Since Ashkenazi Jews have predominantly eastern Mediterranean genes they must have traveled to eastern Europe from the eastern Mediterranean, which means that any scenario we propose which includes them will have to account for that. If they had been local converts, such as you claim, against Wikipedia, we would not have needed to do so.