Re: [tied] Whence Grimm?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> (GK)>It is interesting that both
> > Skiri and Galatae (as groups functioning together)
> > disappear from the sources with the first note about
> > the Bastarnians (early 2nd c. BC). Perhaps the
> Celtic
> > element was primary in the first generations
> (sources
> > note that Bastarnians at that period were "Gallic"
> in
> > speech)
>
> (TP)Which?
>
> *****GK: Polybius, Livy, Plutarch.*****
>
> (TP) I'm looking forward to any counter-argument of
> yours against Tacitus'
> statement that there was a Sarmatian component in the
> Bastarnian
> culture, other than his not being contemporary with
> the events. Since
> we have established that there was an influx into the
> Jastorf culture
> from the Przeworsk culture just before the time most
> people assume
> Proto-Germanic was formed, with Tacitus' information
> we have a
> migration (and at least one loanword) from
> Indo-Iranian to Proto-
> Germanic territory.
>
> *****GK: You obviously don't understand what you read…
> In the first place, Tacitus does not say that there is
> a Sarmatian component in "Bastarnian culture". The
> latter (manner of life) was Germanic (unlike that of
> the Venedae whom he does hold to have borrowed some
> aspects of Sarmatian "culture"). What Tacitus says is
> that the appearance of the Bastarnians had been
> influenced by intermarriage with the Sarmatians. You
> grasp the difference?

I get it. They intermarried with them, but they were not influenced
by their culture. No mean feat.

>The mother of Prince A.
> Bogoliubskij of Suzdalia (d. 1174) was a Cuman
> princess, and his recently reconstructed appearance
> (from his skull) is very "Asiatic". But there was
> nothing Cumanic about his "culture". And if you read
> Polybius, you will note that in the early 2nd c. BC
> there was nothing "Sarmatian" about the appearance of
> Bastarnians.

I understand that A. Boguljubskij didn't listen to his mother. But
you can't assume that to be the case in every mixed marriage.

>You also seem to lack elementary acumen
> as to the implication of loan words in a language.
> Just because language A borrows from language B
> (assuming that you are right about your "saddle"
> point, which is still being discussed) does not mean
> that a population speaking language B had to migrate
> into the area of a population of language A and mix
> with them.

True, that's why I invoked Tacitus. I'll see if I can purchase some
elementary acumen somewhere.

>What you need to prove the latter fact is
> additional historical or archaeological evidence. The
> mix of Przeworsk with Jastorf that you mention does
> not support your pet theory.*******
>

Well, it does provides the last link in the chain.


Torsten