Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
>
> Given a claim that Germanic developed while dominated by Iranian
> speakers (those that are disgusted with my Odin-Galicia-Thuringia
> story can think of it instead as King Arthurs Sarmatians arriving

for

> Roman duty in Germania), a good candidate for the choice of Iranian
> language in which to find features similar of those in Germanic is
> Ossetian; it is generally considered to be the descendant of Alanic,
> the speakers of which are on historical record as participating in

the

> Germanic migration, roving from Portugal to China),

****GK: The Alans remain east of the Don until the mid-first c. CE.
If "Alani" in Pliny is not a later addition, it would mean that some
contingents had reached the Danube by 77 CE. They are no longer known
there (again if the text of Pliny we have is his unedited original)
in the time of Ptolemy, who localizes them about the Don. And indeed
that is where they remain (in Europe) until the time of the Huns,
except for some groups which reach the southern shores of the Crimea
by the early 3rd c. CE (near Theodosia/Artabda =these may have been
Zoroastrians), and other groups which form part of the Gothic complex
in the 4th c. CE. All this seems way too late for creative Iranian-

>Germanic linguistic contacts particularly since there is

no "domination" involved here except for that of Germanics over
Iranians. As for "King Arthur and his Sarmatians" in the present
context the less said the better...*****