From: Rick McCallister
Message: 49732
Date: 2007-08-31
> About Germanic Homeland and migrations,=== message truncated ===
> My point of view is that Proto-Germanic originates
> somewhere in the south of Urals mountains,
> in between Balto-slavic at its north-west,
> Indo-Iranian and Kartvelian at its south-west,
> proto-Finno-Permic at its north-east,
> and Tibetan and Tokharian at its south-east.
> Proto-Germanic was pushed westward by Uralic
> expansion
> (at a date I don't know but most probably after -
> 5000 :
> that is after Kartvelian neolithic influence had
> been felt on Pontic Areas)
> Proto-Germanic then was cut in two branches :
> the northern branch went to the north avoiding
> Balto-Slavic at its south
> and then invaded Scandinavia from Finland
> southwards.
> the southern branch (westic) went under Balto-Slavic
> at its north
> and encroached upon Celtic homeland, pushing them
> westward.
> Westic and Nordic Germanic abruptly met in
> Schlesvig-Holstein.
> this is no dialectal continuity between westic and
> nordic because
> they had been separated for too long when they met
> again there.
>
> I consider Scandinavia was once inhabited by people
> that are neither Uralic, nor Germanic, nor
> Kartvelian.
> This can be a branch of PAleo-European, akin to BAsk
> and ETruscan.
> This remains to be proved by lexical substrates in
> Norse.
> Maybe it can also be a variety of Celtic.
> This could happen to be the more suitable hypothesis
> (see below)
>
> I don't know if we can accept a strong connection
> between Armenian and Germanic.
> I think Germanic got Kartvelian loanwords when it
> was still in the south of Ural mountains.
> Armenian first "tried" to become a Satem language *g
> > *z > s
> but shifted to a kind of "germanic-like" mutation.
> The weakening/strengthening processes of Armenian
> are more complex than
> the Germanic Lautverschiebung, and therefore is
> likely to be unrelated.
> Armenian may have reached its phonetic profile after
> it was transported in Armenia.
> I will leave this as a open question.
>
> Uralic Home-land is not to be found in Europe, nor
> in the west of Ural mountains.
> There is a strong tendency among Finnish workers to
> claim "autochthonous" status
> in Northern Europe. I consider this as totally
> unfounded.
> I do not believe in Finnish "paleolithic continuity"
> theory.
> My point of view is : Finno-Ugric is connected with
> Ob river, Samoyedic with Ienissei.
> Uralic languages are basically North-Asiatic
> languages, with strong connections with
> Sino-Tibetan and Japanese. (I will provide examples
> afterwards)
> In general, I have very little confidence in works
> made by Finnish linguists
> and only scanty confidence in Hungarian linguists.
> (Hungarians are less biased than Finish linguists)
> Proto-Uralic as reconstructed in the Uralisches
> Etymologisches Woerterbuch
> is really pathetic, even though it is written by
> Hungarians.
> All this reconstruction has to be reworked on the
> basis
> of standard comparative methodology to make it
> reliable.
> I plan to rework this in 2009
> (for private reasons, I won't be able to do it
> before)
>
> I have no idea what Venneman's Semitimid is.
> It has to be based on Phoenician to make sense
> otherwise I cannot imagine what Semitic is doing in
> Western Europe.
>
> If we look at the diverse substrates previously
> evoked in Cybalist :
> 1. the language of bird's names (Schrijver)
> 2. the language of geminates
> My point of view is this :
>
> 1. this substrate is not a substrate but just a
> glaring hole
> in orthodox PIE morphology.
> Morpheme H2a- is part of PIE, as exemplified by
> Greek.
> H2o- is rare but present in a bird-name.
> H2i- also exists in :
> Greek ip(h)nos oven
> Celt a-pa-tinos > Irish a:th
> from *kwH2 "to burn, to heat".
>
> 2. the geminate phenomenon is more interesting.
>
> This geminate phonomenon is connected with glottalic
> phonemes.
> As some people claim that PIE might have had
> glottalic phonemes
> and some of these some people claim these are
> pre-glottalized,
> I wondered if it was possible find macro-examples of
>
> alif + unvoiced stop in Semitic > voiced stop in
> PIE.
> So far, the result of my quest is this :
> 1. I have found no example of initial alif +
> unvoiced > PIE voiced.
> 2. A clear example of unvoiced + alif > Voiced is
> *dwo "two".
> Hebrew te?omi "twin" where t+?=d,
> and w and m are from m? (glottalized m).
> Cf. saw "sun" versus sham and yam-ani versus yam
> "sea".
> All PIE agrees with the result t+? =d.
> 3. the result of alif + unvoiced is more
> "diffractive"
> In Celtic, ?+C = CC (so called expressive geminate)
> In Latin, ?+C sometimes v:+C or dialectal v+CC
> Osco-umbrian ?+C = CC
> Elsewhere ?+C = Voiced.
> Pre-glottalization is an eastern feature that
> applies to
> Germanic, Greek, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, etc.
> One Semitic example is : l_(?)w_k "swallow"
> hence Celtic *s-lukk- > Irish slug-im
> Greek lu(n)g-
> Germanic s-lu(k)k
>
> Although I have much respect for Meillet,
> I totally disagree with his "populaire expressifs"
> words.
> This is glottalic phonology.
>
> This applies to -k and -t.
> Cf. BhelH-k :
> LAtin ful-c-
> Greek phalang-
> Germanic bal-k-
> Sanscrit bhur-j-
> etc
>
> Hence this geminate language is probably Celtic.
> Considering the fact that Islandic displays some -kk
> words,
> we are maybe allowed to posit that Scandinavia
> substrate
> is a variety of Celtic language,
> or a third branch of western PIE alongside Celtic
> and ITalic.
> this has to be determined thru careful analysis of
> data.
>
> If you have data to send, I am ready to try to
> disentangle the knots.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick McCallister
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme
>
>
> Well.yes and no
> N Europe was their homeland, and from there they
> expanded south
> BUT they had to arrive in Lower Saxony and
> Scandinavia
> from somewhere, so you have a point
> Do you have a timetable? Was Germanic an IE
> outlier
> and one of the 1st to enter NW Europe?
> I imagine Uralic was a subtrate in Scandinavia,
> possibly the southern Baltic shore BUT not too
> Uralic
> words turn up in Germanic, as I recall
> Supposedly, some 25% of Saami is pre-Uralic
> substrate
> and their is a Finnish Saami linguist who has
> quite a
> few articles in Finnish on that topic
> The Kartvelian conection is interesting in that
> Germanic and Armenian are said by some to have
> similar
>