Re: [tied] Re: PIE's closest relatives

From: Alexander Stolbov
Message: 29308
Date: 2004-01-09

Torsten wrote:
> > What made Schrijver to conclude that this stem is not-IE if it is
> met in
> > such a wide (both geographically and genetically) range of IE
> languages?
>
> North European languages.


Well, both Germanic and Baltic are North European languages - from the
formal geographical point of view. But there is nothing common in their
substrates.

The Germanic speaking population has formed on the territory of modern North
Germany and South Scandinavia. The southern part of this area was settled by
the LinearBandKeramik people, who later were substituted by megalithic
cultures. Then came IE (Corded Ware culture). Thus the possible substrate
for Germanic could have only Central European (LBK) or Western/South-Western
(megalithic cultures) origin.

The Baltic speaking population has formed on the territory of the East
European forests. There were several waves of IE tribes who originated from
steppes, and it is not easy to point which of them represented Proto-Balts.
But it is easy to distinguish them from the previous block of cultures
(Volosovo c. and related) which demonstrate affinity with more eastern
groups (till Ural and even North Kazakhstan). Thus the possible non-IE
substrate for Balticic could have only Eastern/South Eastern origin.

I spoke here only about Nolithic and Post-Neolithic cultures as candidates
for substrate. If we went deeper in the past (earlier than 6000 BC), we
can't so surely rule out a common Mesolithic massif for territories of the
Central and East European forests (however it is not obvious, that it was
so). But first, Proto-Balts and Proto-Germani did not contact with them
directly. Second, those 2 parts of that possible massif had to spend a few
thousands years being separated, thus it would not be _the same_ substrate.
And third, primitive Mesolithic hunters and fishermen never dealt with such
matters as ores, ships, sheep etc. (let's remember what Tacitus wrote about
the "Fenni").


> The relationship is obvious, true. The direction of derivation isn't.
> The alternative explanation is that PIE *h1roudh-ro- means "copper-
> colored" and not that copper is "the red metal". The color red is not
> very common in nature.

What about blood and meat?

Alexander