Re: Post-Postscript on Przeworsk

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> > 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?

****GK: The Lugian/Vandilic group was. From the start
and to the end of Przeworsk. The saga of the
Vandals...****

The reason why

> Przeworsk/Proto-Germanic and the various
> para-Germanic languages were
> different was that they had been separated for some
> time.

****GK: When did this "separation" occur? You mean
there was a time when Proto/Germanic and Para-Germanic
were united? Where?****

>

> >
> >
> > ****GK: Fine. Which component was favoured among
> the 4
> > Latenized cultures mentioned above and why?
>
> I have no idea. To be solved.

****GK: It's already been solved. Long ago(:=)))
Jastorf was Germanic, so were other areas of the north
(such as Bornholm etc...).****

>
> > Who played
> > the role of the British and of the Romans within
> these
> > four combinations?
>
> I have no idea. To be solved.

****GK: See above.****

>
>
> > 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.

****GK: Przeworsk did not annihilate the cultures of
Western Germania when it mingled with them. What's
your evidence that it is the carriers of Przeworsk who
developed a written language and literature? The
Vandals didn't.****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ