From: Rick McCallister
Message: 49704
Date: 2007-08-30
> The proto-Germanic homeland usually is considered=== message truncated ===
> to be found in Northern Europe,
> especially Scandinavia.
> I now have very strong doubts about such a supposed
> home-land.
> Here are my reasons in order of increasingly
> unacceptability :
>
> 1. Germanic displays some morphological affinities
> with Balto-Slavic
> 2. Germanic shares some lexical innovations only
> with Tokharian
> such as *skalm "boat"
> 3. Germanic displays very few affinities with Celtic
> and Italic
> Contacts seem to be fairly recent.
> 4. Germanic displays apparently Kartvelian Loanwords
> :
> saxli "house", zghva "sea", tsvari "sheep", dzixgi
> "goat"
> to cite the most obvious ones
> 5. Germanic displays Uralic loanwords :
> hunt = Cf. Moksha kunda-ms "seize, capture"
> hand = Cf. kem-t, kum-t "five, ten, hand"
> s-wi-m = Cf. Uralic uje-ms
> Morphemes -t plural and -m- infinitive are now parts
> of the root.
> 6. Germanic displays apparently Sino-Tibetan
> loanwords :
> Tib phag = pig
> Tib bya = bird < brid (r > y is frequent in ST)
> Tib smug = fog (Cf. smoke)
> Tib skjag = shit
> Chin pok = back
> Tib rtsib = rib
> Tib sme = mole
> I do not take into account some other words :
> bru = eye-brow
> sna = snout
> that look like loanwords into Tibetan.
>
> On account of this, Germanic displays a very strong
> eastern (and not northern) tropism.
> Somewhere in the middle of Kazakhstan seems the
> right place ?!?
>
> So if we mix the difficulty of telling what is
> P-celt from non P-celt
> with the problem of what is to be considered
> Germanic,
> we are in front of tough trouble.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick McCallister
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme
>
>
> My understanding of the "known historical facts"
> of
> the lower Rhine area is that it was originally
> Celtic
> and then was invaded by Germanic speakers. The
> resulting people were mixed and perhaps spoke a
> Mischsprache. And maps I've seen in many books
> show
> the Germanic people as originally in a limited
> area of
> present N Germany and Scandinavia (Lower Saxony
> and
> points north).
> Perhaps the Belgae were a mixed group with a
> Germanic
> elite who spoke a form of Celtic mixed with
> Germanic
> on top of whatever substrate language that
> persisted
> in the area. Is there anything in the local names
> or
> surviving modern languages that leads to such a
> conclusion?
>
> --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: george knysh
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme
> >
> >
> >
> > > ========================================
> > >
> > > A.F :
> > > This statement you write about the originally
> > > Celtic status
> > > of the two parts : "Belgica" and "Gallia"
> proper
> > > does not seem to be meeting everybody's
> opinion
> > > (on your side).
> >
> > ****GK: There is no "your side". We converge on
> > some
> > isues and diverge on others. Take this as
> > individually
> > stated. My opinion is as above.****
> >
> >
> > ========================
> >
> > A.F : I wrote this sentence this way because I
> had
> > (wrongly) perceived you had the same core idea :
> So
> > there are in fact three groups of hypotheses :
> >
> > A : the 1+ 1 = 1, which I represent (All Celtic
> > people)
> >
> > B : the 1 + 1 = 1,25, which you represent (Most
> > Celtic but with "Germanic" invaders in the
> > northernmost area)
> >
> > C : the 1 + 1 = 2, which Torsten was advocating
> > with the sub-group C.2 that believe the
> "Belgian"
> > area is not only non Celtic but may represent a
> > separate branch of PIE to be defined.
> >
> > ================================
> >
> >
> > > My point of view from the start was that there
> > is
> > > no known
> > > criterion to distinguish these two parts.
> >
> > ****GK: There is Caesar's opinion, an excellent
> > one,
> > based on information passed on by many local
> > Gauls,
> > esp. Iccius and Antebrogius of the Remi (DBG
> 2:3).
> > This is much more reliable than speculative
> > reinterpretations two thousand years
> removed.****
> > ==========================================
> >
> > A.F :
> >
> > I don't know who is reinterpretating
> > speculatively. So far, I made it clear that I
> deem
> > DBG as not trustworthy.
> >
> > What you are describing in an "act of faith" :
> one
> > has no reason to express doubts about words
> > (unrecorded) transmitted by a man, Caesar,
> > (notoriously untrustworthy enough to get
> murdered by
> > his own familly), transmitted by a chain of
> people
> > (we know about none at 99% rate). That kind of
> "act
> > of faith" could also apply to Jesus, for
> example. It
> > is probably easier to list of the chain of popes
> and
> > apostles from Jesus to present-day, than to list
> the
> > chain of people from Iccius down to us. How can
> we
> > be sure that Iccius even existed ? We might also
> > believe everything Herodotes wrote with such an
> "act
> > of faith". And Heraklês resisting Sirens'
> singing,
> > tied to his mast.
> >
> > So far, my approach is based on historical
> > phonology : I consider that we have enough data
> kept
> > in sufficiently precise state to be able to make
> > documented statements about what is what, what
> is
> > clear, what is unclear. And From this lexical
> and
> > phonological basis, duly ascribed to known (or
> > supposed) languages, we can try to figure out a
> > scenario, without forgetting Occam's razor :
> > undocumented languages do not exist.
> >
> > I will not move from this way of dealing with
> this
>