Re: [tied] Re: Non-IE elements in Scandinavian

Hei, Håkan!

If the experts are right, and Germanic tribes dominated Scandinavia
already in 2000 BC, there would probably be little or nothing left of
original names and words, since Scandinavian have evolved tremendously
from 500 AD to present. If on the other hand they were still a significant
ethnic minority of pre-IE people as late as 1000-700 BC, then one would
expect a larger amount of non-IE words, especially in Norrøn (Old
Norse). One could even imagine some local communities would survive until
600-800 AD when the crowding became to great in Southern Scandinavia. This
is unlikely, but could possibly have influenced the formation of dialects.

Although this idea is unpopular among linguists, it is a fact that someone
lived in Scandinavia before the Germanic peoples. It would be extremely
interesting to know what portion of our Scandinavian genes we have in
common with other IE groups and the Uralic peoples, and how large a
portion is "unique" to Scandinavia. If the portion of "unique" genes is
large, then it means that a large portion of our ancestors were
non-Germanic.

The degree to which a language influences another varies greatly. If the
language barrier is great (f. ex. Kartvelian vs. IE) the exchange of
words is limited. Afro-Asiatic languages are usually more compatible with
IE, and therefore exchange more words. The pre-IE languages of Scandinavia
could have been so uncompatible that it wouldn't influence the Germanic
language much.

I've also noticed that all my suggestions for non-IE words have been
explained etymologically as IE. Although it is possible for example to
explain 'fjell' as derived from 'fall', then about any word can be
explained as derived from another. Torsk = cod could for example be
explained as derived from tosk = jerk/idiot.