Re: Post-Postscript on Przeworsk

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

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was the east-west trek, under whichever leaders.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Torsten
> > > > >
> > > > > GK: Are you still maintaining that:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) "Germanic proper... developed from Przeworsk"
> > > > > (2) "Przeworsk became the center of the Germanic languages
> > > > > in our perspective."
> > > > > (3) "the Grimm-shift took place during Przeworsk expansion
> > > > > into Germania" ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, on all three counts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Torsten
> > >
> > > GK: Fine. Then explain why
> > >
> > > (1) Jastorf+Silesian Celts+Bornholm and other
> > > islanders+ Pomeranians (=Przeworsk) creates
> > > "Germanic",
> > The Germanic language family, that is.
> >
> > >WHILE
> > > (2) Jastorf+ Pomeranians+ Scandinavians (=Oksywie)
> > > DOES NOT, and
> > Para-Germanic?
>
> ****GK: What was the difference between "the Germanic
> language family" and "Para-Germanic"?

I should have written 'some para-Germanic language' since
'para-Germanic' just means "contemporaneous with, closely related to,
but not identical to, Proto-Germanic"

> In this case between the Lugian/Vandilic and Gothic groups?
> What was the reason for the difference?****

None of these are Przeworsk, right? The reason why
Przeworsk/Proto-Germanic and the various para-Germanic languages were
different was that they had been separated for some time.

> > > (3) Jastorf+ Pomeranians+ Milohrad c.+ Scythian
> > > Thrakoids (=Zarubintsi) DOES NOT, and
> > >
> > > (4) Jastorf+ Pomeranians + Geto/Dacian c. (=
> > > Poeneshti-Lukashovka) DOES NOT.
> > >
> > > ****
> >
> > That's not really a problem.
> > Some ex-British colonies speak English, some don't.
> > Some ex-Roman colonies speak Romance, some don't.
> > If several heterogenous components come together
> > linguistically, the
> > end result is that one of the components is favored,
> > depending on
> > extra-linguistic circumstances.
>
>
> ****GK: Fine. Which component was favoured among the 4
> Latenized cultures mentioned above and why?

I have no idea. To be solved.

> Who played
> the role of the British and of the Romans within these
> four combinations?

I have no idea. To be solved.

> What was it about the "Przeworsk"
> combination which resulted in the "Germanic language
> family"

It expanded fast over a large area. And it developed a written
language, probably a literature too.

> while the "Oksywie" combination only yielded
> "Para-Germanic"?

Not 'only'. Przeworsk and Oksywie might have been related, in which
case Oksywie was a para-Germanic language, or different elements might
have won in the two cultures, in which case it wasn't.
And Berig arrived with a written language, which was not Oksywie.

> We'll get to the rest of your theory later. ****

How exciting! How many 'hail mary's am I looking at so far?


Torsten