--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> It does, though it doesn't prove much about the origin of tribal
names. There can be no doubt that all the early Germani were "boat
people". The area encompassing southern Norway and Sweden (roughly,
south of the 61st parallel), the islands in the southern Baltic and
the Danish archipelago, Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony,
Mecklenburg and west Pomerania had a relatively uniform culture as
long ago as 4300-4000 BC (the emergence of the Northern group of the
Funnel Beaker culture, the oldest phase of the Scandinavian
Neolithic). The Skagerrak/Kattegat and the SW Baltic have always been
the inner ("mediterranean") sea of the region, unifying rather than
separating its parts.
>
> For this reason I think it's illogical to regard the Danish Straits
as the natural barrier between the early Scandinavian and West
Germanic dialects -- a view expressed or tacitly assumed in many
handbooks.
Which I've said all along. That's what happens when you leave the
writing of the history of the Germanic speaking peoples to Germans.
Germans - or rather "High Germans" are land people.
>I doubt if a clear division line existed at all before the late
fifth century; more likely, there was a dialectal continuum extending
from northern Germany to coastal Scandinavia, with "North Sea"
and "West Sea" influences interpenetrating.
Not necessarily a continuum. If trafic is by sea, you must take
account of the harborless and dangerous stretch of West Jutland
coast (Esbjerg and Hanstholm are recent and artificial). West
Jutland, because of poor soil, was almost empty until 150 years ago.
>
> On the one hand, several linguistic groups classified as West
Germanic (including the Angles and the Jutes) originated in the
peninsula; on the other hand, the earliest Runic inscriptions from
Denmark to Norway show basically undifferentiated Proto-NW-Germanic
traits. In early historical times there were numerous migrations from
the Scandinavian Peninsula to mainland Europe via the straits and
Jutland or across the Baltic. Some scholars believe that the Danes
began to expand from the Oslofjorden area towards Scania and Blekinge
about the 3rd century. Whether that was the case, or whether they
were native to Scania, it's certain
??
>that by the 5th-6th c. they also occupied the islands, Jutland and
Schleswig, superseding the Jutes
the Jutes were never "superseded". West Jutish dialects have w (vs.
v), hw- (vs. v), "thick" l (as in English) and trilled r (vs.
uvular). Final schwa disappears. They have one gender (vs. two).
What you say is all textbook stuff, dreamed up by English and German
linguists. I can't blame you for that, of course.
>and the Angles. There was again linguistic uniformity from southern
Norway to the River Eider, but now the expansion of the Danes had
disrupted the NW Germanic continuum, and a clear linguistic boundary
appeared at the root of Jutland, later reinforced by the Danevirke
ramparts.
>
> If you say that early Denmark (including the part that now belongs
to Sweden) was "glued together" by the sea, I certainly agree. If you
say the same applies to the Proto-Germanic (or even pre-Germanic)
cultures of the region, I also agree. The local conditions enforced
reliance on boats as the main means of transport. I don't see any
Austronesian connections here -- that's all.
>
> Piotr
A sudden conversion! I'm shocked but pleased.
I disagree on some minor details.
As I pointed out in an earlier posting, there is a major dialect
boundary line running from northwest (around Lemvig) to southeast
(around Kolding), southwest of which you find things that are
suspiciously West Germanic (preserved w- before o, independent
preceding definite article "æ" instead of enclitic as in the other
Nordic languages, no "j" in "a", 1st p. sg. vs. "jeg"). I suspect
Friesian influence, but this is taboo in Denmark for political
reasons (Germany used to consider itself as "successor state" to
the Friesians).
Either way, I suspect the dialect gap between North and West Germanic
has more to do with the expansion of the Slavs into Holstein
(Wagrien, Obodrites).
So, next step in my reasoning is this: If you have a boatload of
something that will get a good price in the Black Sea/Mediterranean
"Raum" (as the Germans call it; unfortunately there is no good
English equivalent expression for "area well connected internally by
routes and less so externally") and your boat has no keel and is no
deeper in the water than you can reach the river Tanew, would you
then sell your wares on the local market (there are always markets
on transfer points, most cities started out as a fenced market at a
harbor or a crossroads) or would you try to drag your ship across to
the other, southwards river system? It can be done by means of horses
and rollers, they tried it here some years ago.
I've raised some of these points in earlier mails, also of whether
the Danes came to Denmark early in the first millenium (the question
of the Heruleans).
Torsten