Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

----- Original Message -----

From: Rick McCallister

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:59 PM

Subject: Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

No one says that Scandinavia was the original homeland
of Germanic --just that it was centered there and the
NW Baltic c. 500 BCE.
Before that, well, probably present Saxony and Poland.
Regarding Uralic lexicon --look at Scandinavia and the
N. Baltic, who else besides Germanics live there?

====================

Look at South Germany :

There is no Celtic speaker there.

So what do you want to prove ?

You think (pre-)History is standstill ?

=====================

Uralic-speakers --Saami and Finns. Germanic is STILL
in contact with Uralic.

==============

A.F :

The difference is that loanwords are supposed to be from IE into Uralic,

the fact that Germanic has borrowed URalic words is the key.

Do you have Uralic loanwords into Balto-Slavic or Indo-Iranian ?

==================
Tokharian, from what I've read, was definitely in
contact with Uralic but at the opposite end of the
continuum.

================

A.F

What about D.Q. Adams who sees close connections between Germanic and Tokharian ?

======================
Indo-Iranian was also in contact with Uralic.
Regarding Georgian --from what I've read, Kartvelian
arrived in the Southern Caucasus c. 2000 BC from
somewhere to the east. I don't see any possible direct
connection

===============

A.F

What is your source for Kartvelian immigration into Caucasus ?

====================

--- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

> I noticed that you moved from "laughable" to "highly
> implausible" .
> Under progress.
>
> It is quite natural that Scandinavia has been
> preempted as the most obvious
> homeland for proto-Germanic in the XIX century.
> The question is :
> Should this obvious solution be kept or be changed ?
>
> I believe it has to be changed,
> for several reasons :
>
> 1. There are several loanwords from KArtvelian in
> Germanic,
> as in Balto-Slavic and western Uralic,
> and these words show no signs of having reached
> Germanic
> through another language before.
> So the "orignal" position in Scandinavia is a
> problem.
>
> The loanword sajwa < *zaghva is a worse problem.
> Why is it that Germanic needed borrow a KArtvelian
> word for sea ?
> This branch must have been away from any sea.
>
> 2. Germanic shows a certain number of features in
> common
> with Tokharian, a far-off eastern language in PIE
> tree.
> One of my favorites is the innovation : skalm for
> "boat".
> This is also a problem with an original position in
> Scandinavia.
> The Centum status of Germanic can also be achieved
> if it is so far to the East that it is not be
> involved in Satem processes.
>
> 3. Germanic has close connections with Central PIE
> (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian)
> this is compatible with an original position in
> Scandinavia.
> or elsewhere more to the east.
>
> 4. the word mar-ko "horse" is a loanword from
> Asiatic *mor- "horse"
> and you need a language where *o > a
> Germanic is a good candidate.
> just as Tokharian is a good candidate for yakw >
> Greek (h)ippos
> we bump again on the Tokharian / Germanic pair.
> Norse seems to have more words for horse than all
> the rest of PIE.
>
> 5. Germanic also has a good deal of Uralic
> loanwords,
> So it must have been in a position to receive MORE
> Uralic loanwords
> than the rest of PIE.
> This is not possible with Scandinavia as homeland.
> Germanic must have been a buffer between Uralic and
> the rest of PIE.
>
> These are already troublesome facts.
>
> 6. The final blows are ST loanwords
> like back = Cantonese baak
> If we had nothing else, we could discard this as
> coincidence.
> I think they are not coincidence.
> They are the last drop.
>
> All this points ever and ever in the same direction
> :
> far eastern origin for proto-Germanic
>
> I have reached this conclusion gradually.
> I understand this is not what tradition has taught
> us to believe.
> I could change my mind
> only in case very serious and strong arguments make
> me
> think I was wrong to reach this conclusion.
> So far, I see nothing.
> The shallow and cheap reaffirmation that tradition
> has
> Scandinavia as homeland counts for nil.
> And the fact you are (not yet) convinced also counts
> for nil.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian M. Scott
> To: fournet.arnaud
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:48 AM
> Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory
> renamed as Vasco-Caucasian
>
>
> At 3:19:16 AM on Saturday, September 22, 2007,
> fournet.arnaud wrote:
>
> > What is your own explanation ?
>
> For OE <brid(d)>? I have none: I've never seen a
> concrete
> explanation that was at all convincing. And I
> consider an
> admission that we don't know far preferable to a
> highly
> implausible explanation.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink. yahoo.com/ gmrs/yahoo_ panel_invite. asp?a=7