--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
[snip]
One could easily compile a list of _hundreds_ of homonymic doublets
(and many triplets as well) involving not loanwords (as Torsten would
have it) but good Anglo-Saxon words that have became homophones
because of perfectly regular mergers (meat -- meet -- mete, ewe --
yew -- you, wright -- right -- write, so -- soe -- sew, bare -- bear
[1] -- bear[2], roe -- row[1] -- row[2], weather -- wether --
whether, etc.)
>
> Piotr
>
I don't recognize this as something I said. I did propose loanwords,
but not as an explanation for homophones, but rather, I proposed
several times over (into different branches if IE) loaned words, to
explain "minimally different" pairs, e.g. Møller's "Wechselformen" or
r/l/n alternations.
I should perhaps add a remark of general nature. I has to do, in a
roundabout way, with what we consider to be a language, or, rather,
how we differentiate one language from its neighbor.
In the last decade two large (both about 15 km long) bridges have
been built in Denmark. There was furious debate preceding and during
the construction of them, also of what are bridges good for, why
would people prefer to use the old ferries, etc. One of the outcomes
of the more fundamental part of the debate was the maxim:
"It used to be that water connected and land divided. Today this is
reversed" (because of the invention of train and trucks).
This is now (and wasn't before) a trivial commonplace of Danish
thinking (thus also mine). But because of the nature of language
(let's define a language community in Dawkins' sense as a set of
parasitic "memes") and since Danish is such a small language, this
particular "meme" has not infected the minds of non-Danish speakers
yet (except possibly the readers of Braudel?). To them, an area (also
in the linguistic sense of the word) must be geographically
contiguous, dry-land wise, and not, as in my thinking, a set of roads
(or rivers, sea lanes). (After all, a language is for communicating.
A language area is therefore an area where people communicate. But,
as you prbably know, language doesn't reach many meters, thus you
must be physically close to communicate. Therefor a language must
have routes (roads, rivers, sea lanes). Yes, I know you guys admit of
the existence of sea peoples, but where were their raison d'etre,
their routes?
This, I think, is the reason why Piotr assumes I mean Jutland, when I
speak of Denmark (since it is contiguous with the continent, thus
"accessible", not like the islands, where you would get wet feet,
should you dare to try to travel to them, and why he calls
it "remote" (I won't get into Danish estimates of the remoteness of
the river Tanew).
Also, occasionally I see the Urheimat of Proto-Germanic described as
"Denmark and Southern Scandinavia" (whereupon they proceed to
concentrate on "Southern Scandinavia", ie. Swedish material).
The now Swedish provinces of Skåne (Scania), Halland, and Blekinge
were Danish until 1658. They are the coasts of "Southern
Scandinavia" (the interior, Småland, known from "The Immigrants" is
not economically important until quite recently.
The provinces were part of Denmark exactly because it make good
sense for a "sea people" to have them, as the Anatolian Western
coast did for the Greeks.
A historian here said there have always been two schools of
political ideas in Denmark about our possibilities in the world.
One ("continental"?) sees Denmark as a very small country with a
very large neighbor and very limited freedom. The other ("sea
people"?) sees us a very small country at a very large ocean with
unlimited freedom.
This is a fate we share with eg. Holland.
Most foreigners I talk to (especially "continentals", people living
far from a harbor) see only option 1. I (and many others here) see
option 2. Sjælland and Fyn and many of the smaller islands offer
1. Protection (they are islands)
2. Accessibility (for the same reason)
So did the Greek Islands.
Further:
3. Access to the whole Baltic
4. Access to the North Sea
5. Access to all rivers flowing thereinto,
whereever depth > 1.5 m
For a later example, look to Britain. Since they are an island state,
they didn't (like the French) have to worry about wasting resources on
a large army. So they won colonies from France.
So "remote", no. For a sea people, there is every possible reason to
be here (and you do get used to the climate).
This might not be relevant to our fundamental differences of opinion.
But I thought I would like to clear up this particular (perceived)
misunderstanding.
Torsten