--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > I have a basic question here. I can see that
> > 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: Each "archaeological" situation should be
> carefully studied on its own, since there are many
> possible patterns of linguistic interaction within a
> "mixed" culture. Naturally, the availability of
> historical records is a big help, though even that
> probably won't deal with all aspects of this. In the
> matter of the Przeworsk culture, the identifiable
> "pre" stages would give us an idea of where e.g. Celts
> and Germanics settled among the locals. The emergence
> of a unified "mixed" culture would not necessarily
> imply an immediate linguistic fusion. Thus Prz. area A
> might remain preponderantly Celtic-speaking, while
> Prz. are B would be Germanic-speaking, and Prz. area
> C, "local"-speaking. As time went by Germanic dialects
> became more and more dominant everywhere. When I get
> the expected materials, I'll probably have more to say
> on this.******
I might have some candidates here. Eg. the "language of geminates"
from
Peter Schriver
Lost Languages in Northern Europe
Lappish *ku:ti- "fish roe, fish sausage"
Middle Low German ku:t, ku:te
Mecklenburg Low German kü(h)t "entrails, weak part of the body"
Middle Dutch cute, cuut, kiet, kijte < *ku:ti-, *ku:tian
borrowed
Modern Icelandic kút-magi "fish stomach"
kýta "fish stomach, roe"
Frisian ku:t "roe, calf"
Macedonian góda
Vedic gúda:- "bowel"
gudá "bowel, rectum, vagina"
It is called the language of the geminate since roots from it show a
variation "of the final root consonant which may be single or double,
voiced or voiceless, and prenasalised". Therefore the following are
the same root:
*kunt-
Middle Low German kunte
Dutch kont
English cunt "buttocks, cunnus"
*kutt-
Dutch kut "cunnus"
Bavarian kütze "part of intestines"
Middle High German kotze "prostitute"
Middle Low German kutte "cunnus"
to which I'd add
Danish kød
Swedish kött
Old Norse kjo,tv- "meat"
Proto-Norse *ketwa-, *ketwu- ("of uncertain origin", Dansk
Etymologisk Ordbog)
(and perhaps Dutch kwaad "evil", Quadi "swamp people"?)
Schrijver seems not have noticed the cognates of Finnish kusi "urine"
(s < t) with a cognate missing or dubious in "only one of the
languages or language family branches [of Fino-Ugric].
Other words of the language of geminates (Schrijver)
Proto-Germanic *manag- *manig- "many"
Old Churh Slavonic mUnogU "much"
Proto-Celtic menekki- "often"
Finno-Permian *moni >
Finnish moni "many a"
Finno-Ugric *mïxï- "land"
Proto-Celtic *maGos "field, plain"
Proto-Finno-Ugric *kårkï- "crane"
North Saami guor'gâ
Finnish kurki
Celtic *korkijos, *kutkijos "heron"
Welsh crychydd
Breton kerc'heiz
(but Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog has
Danish hejre "heron"
PIE *kroikro-, *krikro-
so the word might be IE?)
So, contact with Finnish, Germanic, Celic (and Balto-Slavic).
Przeworsk culture?
As for an idea that the Baltic area migh have been Finno-Ugric
speaking: Samsø in Denmark, Samland in East Prussia and Latvian
Sa:msala (the island of Saaremaa), cognate with Suomi and Saami?
Several legendary church-destoying trolls in Denmark are named Finn.
Torsten