Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?

> ==========
>
>> The author does commit herself to any hypotheses of that kind.

>OK, so she doesn't say outright that there are no languages between
>Celtic and Germanic. That doesn't mean that she doesn't believe there
>are no languages between Celtic and Germanic; the whole NWB debarte
>started more or less in 1962 with Hachmann, Kossack and Kuhn's
>'Dreimännerbuch', 'Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten'
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock
>(it seems the authors haven't even yet got their own Wikipedia
>entries) and the idea is still not considered mainstream. So unless
>she has stated expressly that there were languages between Celtic and
>Germanic I will assume that she believes there weren't.

==============
The hypothesis of some variety of language west of, or north of La-Tene
Celtic sounds interesting for me.
Three questions remain open :
Q1 : are they IE ?
Q2 : are they close to Celtic ?
Q3 : what can be ascribed to them with a reasonably high level of
probability ?
Arnaud
===========

>> My next point is we are looking for PIE languages between Celtic,
>> Italic and Balto-slavic.

>You mean IE languages.

=======
Yes
Arnaud
========

>> Germanic being a family coming from somewhere else far away,

>That is your claim, and all you've offered to back it is proposed
>etymologies in common with Siberian (Uralic and Yeniseian) languages.
>According to my scenario, Proto-Germanic was spoken in the Przeworsk
>culture, which must have been in contact with para-Germanic and other
>cultures further east. How do you know that the cognates you propose
>aren't loans in Germanic?

=========
I have written another mail to M. Knysh about that.
I consider that Przeworsk is not Eastward enough to account for Germanic
features.
Przeworsk looks like Thraco-dacian homeland.

Another point is : Die erste Lautverschiebung of Germanic is the same Law
that applies to ST according to my own reconstructions.
That is to say :
Glottalized > plain unvoiced
Voiced > voiced
Plan unvoiced > aspirated
I have the feeling that Germanic became phonetically Germanic as a result of
ST adstratic influence.
Germanic having *hu:s and *dannwo when PY also has *xu?s and *dinnje
suggests that this change occured _before_Germanic changed place.

But I remain open to your contention that Germanic became phonetically
Germanic at some unknown later period, although this is (obviously) not what
I am most inclined to believe, at the present moment.

Arnaud
============

>> languages between Celtic and Germanic include about all PIE, except
>> Anatolian and Tocharian.

If that is so, how did the Germanic speakers make their way past all
those the-rest-of-IE speaking peoples, and when? What archaeological
culture do you identify them with?

===========

How did Hungarians make their way throughout half Eurasia and reach Hungary,
still being a typically Ugric language ?
What's the problem with Germanic stepping out of "nowhere" and conquering
all North Europe ?

Eurasia -2 000 BC was not compartimented in States with barbed-wire borders
and customs officers.
It's hardly surprising that a mobile population with the help of horses and
horse-driven carriages can pop up anywhere, very far away from the place
where it previously was.

Srubnaja Culture is clearly Indo-Iranian.
I would choose Afanasevo and Andronovo cultures as Germanic homeland,
not excluding that these cultures could be homeland to Yenisei and Tocharian
as well.

Arnaud

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

>> NWB if it exists is a kind of para-celtic western PIE dead branch,

>There is nothing particularly Celtic about NWBlock. The *kW > *p rule
>you adduced as proof takes place in Germanic and Italic besides
>Celtic.

======
ok
This does not make it un-Celtic either, or un-para-Celtic either.
Arnaud
==========

>> and it remains to be determined what the substrate in western
>> Scandinavia could be (PIE or not).

>What is 'western Scandinavia'?

==========
I mean Norway and Sweden.
Finland and Lappland (eastern Scandinavia) have a Baltic substrate.
Arnaud
==========

>> And another point is the difficult of analysing toponyms is not a
>> proof that any hypothesis is acceptable.

>I think what you want to say here is that the difficulty of analyzing
>toponyms is proof that not any hypothesis is acceptable? That would
>make sense, unlike your statement as it stands. On the other hand,
>that's what I said in the previous post, so what's your point?
>Torsten

=========
I think you make hasardous use of place-names.
More often than not, your affirmations are highly conjectural and unproved.

Arnaud
=========