From: george knysh
Message: 21594
Date: 2003-05-07
> I have a basic question here. I can see that******GK: Each "archaeological" situation should be
> archaeologists have no
> trouble assuming that a particular culture was
> mixed, made up of
> distinct components known from other cultures. On
> the other hand, in
> linguistics, as opposed to common use, languages are
> never mixed,
> they are grafted, so to say, that is, an existing
> language is
> modified and a large part of the vocabulary is
> replaced by that of
> another language. In other words, how should one
> translate an
> archaelogical statement of the presence of a mixed
> culture into a
> linguistic statemenet about an overlaid language
> (the most famous
> example is of course the English language, except
> its genesis in
> historical times).
>*****GK: Yes they are******
> Obviously the authorities in Olbia had no trouble
> telling the
> components apart. All those Pontic inscriptions are
> in Greek, I
> assume?
>__________________________________
> The northern limit of Celtic settlements did not
> move in the time
> Peschel covers (later than the decree), but an
> impoverished branch of
> Jastorf grew towards and met that area from
> Thuringia. Basically that
> Celtic limit seems to correspond to the present
> cultural border that
> the Germans refer to as "der Weisswurst-�quator".
>
> Torsten
>
>
>