Re: [tied] Whence Grimm?

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

> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> 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,
>
> *****GK: Do "most people" assume that Proto-Germanic
> was formed in the 1rst c. BC? Do they include the
> expert linguists on this list?*****

Let's ask them.

>
> with Tacitus'
> > information
> > > we have a
> > > migration
>
> ****GK: What "migration" would that be?*****
>

It takes some proximity to produce common offspring.

> (and at least one loanword) from
> > > Indo-Iranian to Proto-
> > > Germanic territory.
>
> *****GK: Your assumption about this loanword has not
> been corroborated.*****
>

I forgot to mention that the saddle (according to what I could find
on the net) is considered to be a Sarmatian invention. The Iranian
and Indic mismatching cognates of "saddle" that Piotr provided are
from Avestan and Sanskrit repectively, so they don't disprove the
assumption of a Sarmatian provenance for *saDula. Apart from it being
Iranian, we don't know much about Sarmatian.

> > (GK)The
> > > mix of Przeworsk with Jastorf that you mention
> > does
> > > not support your pet theory.
> > >
> >
> > (TP)Well, it does provides the last link in the
> chain.
>
> ******GK: What chain are you talking about?

As I said, last link. I'll get back to the rest.

>There is
> no chain, not even spider's web tendrils floating in
> the wind. The connection between Przeworsk and Jastorf
> exists and is verifiable. Proto-Vandals not only moved
> into Thuringia, but also participated in Ariovist's
> raid. That is fine.

Thank you.

>But where is the connection
> between the Vandals (Przeworsk) and the Bastarnians
> (Poeneshti-Lukashovka)? Nothing similar to Przeworsk->
> Jastorf has been demonstrated here.

Coming up.

>Hence there is no
> "link". The "Sarmat influenced" culture of the
> Bastarnians for your needed time frame is likewise
> undemonstrated (Tacitus won't do it I'm afraid, and
> neither does archaeology).

Now I'll have to choose between your and Tacitus' version.

>So that's strike two
> against you.

>And strike three (as usual) is your
> complete incapacity to prove that the steppe cultures
> of the 1rst c. BC (and of prior centuries), especially
> those of the Lower Don basin and Azov seashores had a
> Germanic component.

I think what you mean is the reverse: a Sarmatian component in the
Germanic culture.

>Quotes from Snorri cannot be
> verified by archaeological research, by historical
> documentation, or by linguistic analysis.

So far we've been able to agree on the arrival of people from the
east in 'Saxland'.

>So your
> so-called "chain" is nothing but an unsubstantiated
> romantic speculation which has nothing to do with
> science. And you have repeatedly demonstrated (yes
> that you have)that such speculation seems immune to
> rational argument.******
>

Oh. Does that mean I get no biscuit?


Torsten