From: Rick McCallister
Message: 54760
Date: 2008-03-06
> > ****GK: Yes. I can see where you're coming from.=== message truncated ===
> And I
> > don't disagree with any of it. But my point was a
> > little different. The Germanic language family as
> > presently constituted,
>
> Now there's the problem.
>
> > and as historically attested
> > from at least ca. the time of Caesar if not
> slightly
> > earlier, must have possessed a certain number of
> > "unique characteristics" in order to be considered
> > something sui generis.
>
> 'As presently constituted'. If Germanic had close
> relatives then,
> which later disappeared, Germanic as constituted now
> and Germanic as
> constituted then is are not identical. It is not the
> same thing. If
> part of the Germanic family, say, the North Germanic
> languages
> disappeared from living memory, 'Germanic' to future
> generations would
> be something much more narrowly defined than the
> family we understand
> it as today.
>
>
> > It was not Celtic, it was not
> > Latin, it was not Greek etc.. And it was sui
> generis
> > no matter what the relationship of its structures
> > (lexical, syntactic, morphological etc..) was to
> PIE.
> > I understood you to imply that we had no clear way
> of
> > establishing a timeline for the emergencce of any
> of
> > these structures (incl. Grimm, the most "defining"
> > one).
>
> That's not so, see my answer to Arnaud.
>
>
> > So let's try a bit of retroactive logic.
> > We can assume, can we not, that by the time Caesar
> > spoke of the Germani, enough of these
> characteristics
> > existed to justify his belief as to the
> > distinctiveness of the Germanic language(s). We
> could
> > probably agree that the Grimm shift had largely if
> not
> > completely occurred by then.
>
> OK.
>
> > Let us turn our attention to the Bastarnae.
> > According to Tacitus, they were a
> Germanic-speaking
> > people. Torsten's "para-Germanic" hypothesis has
> no
> > basis outside of his imagination. If we have to
> choose
> > between Torsten and Tacitus it is clear who is the
> > better witness.
>
> Isn't that a nice argument? I remember the first
> time I used it
> against you. It must have made a certain impression,
> after all.
> 'Para-Germanic' is seen from our perspective, not
> Tacitus'. If
> WGermanic should solely survive, NGermanic would be
> 'para-Germanic' to
> future Generations who only know WGermanic.
>
>
> > Tacitus did not think they were as "Germanic" as
> to
> > appearance (though largely so as to general
> culture)
> > by comparison to the Germans of Germania west of
> the
> > Visla.But there can be no doubt as to their
> language.
> > His witness is absolutely decisive on this. This
> is
> > where we have to start.
>
> That sounds pretty para- to me. And see above.
>
> > Archaeologically and historically the Bastarnae
> were
> > rather special. Except for the very beginning of
> their
> > existence in their Moldavian and nearby haunts
> (when
> > they demonstrate 'jastorfian' arch.traits) their
> > material culture was their own (shared with
> > non-Germanic locals such as the Daco-Getans) and
> bore
> > little similarity to the material culture of even
> > their nearest Germanic neighbours the Przeworsk
> > Vandals/Lugians.
>
> More para- to them.
>
>
> > But that obviously did not stop them
> > from being Germanic-speaking. This bears repeating
> > again and again.
>
> Yep. Germanic as Tacitus saw it.
>
>
> >As far as Tacitus was concerned the
> > Bastarnae of 98 CE were as "Germanic-speaking" as
> the
> > Vandals, the Goths, and any other of the Germanic
> > populations he mentioned. Given the known fact
> (stated
> > by Gibbon and mentioned by Torsten) that the
> > historical associations of the Bastarnae were
> > practically always with non-Germanic
> populations,the
> > question arises: just when did they become
> "Germanic"?
> > When did they acquire the Germanic speech they
> > undoubtedly spoke? There is nothing to suggest
> that
> > this is some later development due to later
> contacts
> > with indubitable Germanic populations since such
> > contacts are not recorded. The obvious conclusion
> is
> > that the Bastarnae who settled in Moldavia and
> > surrounding areas ca. 200 BCE (or a little earlier
> if
> > the Sciri were a component)were already
> > Germanic-speaking when they arrived.
>
> No, they spoke whatever language was the predecessor
> of (the various?)
> para-Germanic languages and Germanic proper, which
> developed from
> Przeworsk.
>
> > We have three "leader names" from the 2nd c.BCE.
> > Torsten, following Gibbon, does not think they are
> > Germanic. But Gibbon's text is at least partially
> > defective. Muellenhoff, a much stronger scientific
> > authority than Gibbon, thinks they are indeed
> > Germanic. And I see no reason to doubt this.
> > Muellenhoff believes that 1."Clondicus" resembles
> > O.Sax. "Indico", that 2."Cotto" resembles Old Sax.
> > "Goddo", and 3."Talto" has Alemannic analogues.
>
> Typical Germanic names are two-element: Ro-bert,
> Sigi-mar, and yours
> truly. The three names M. compares with are much
> more similar to some
> of the NWBlock names Kuhn lists (I can find them if
> you want to press
> the point), with -Vk suffix and gemination as
> typical features, not
> surprising given they are Old Saxon. They might have
> come from their
> Jastorf origin.
>
>
> > Since the Bastarnae can be archaeologically traced
> to
> > the area of Western Pomerania and of the Jastorf
> > culture generally, we conclude that the language
> they
> > brought with them to Moldavia was also spoken at
> that
> > time in the area whence they came.
>
> > There was no Przeworsk culture prior to contacts
> of
> > Jastorfians and late Lusatians,and there was no
> > Przeworsk culture in the Bastarnian areas. Since
> the
> > Bastarnae were undoubtedly Germanic-speaking,there
> is
> > no way this can be due to expansion of Przeworsk.
>
> That is, Germanic in the Tacitus perspective.
> Przeworsk became the
> center of the Germanic languages in our perspective.
>
> > As to Grimm, take your choice. The prevailing view
> is
> > that the shift occurred sometime in the first
> > millennium BCE.
>
> You will have noticed that they offer no reason why
> this