--- tgpedersen <
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > BTW
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemetes
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niemcza
> > >
> > > That would make sense if the Nemetes had come
> all the way from
> > > Przeworsk-land with Ariovistus. The question is
> then: how close
> > > would the Slavs have to have been at the time A.
> left with them
> > > for that to be their designation for Germanic?
> > >
> > >
> > > Torsten
> >
> >
> > GK: I don't think the Nemetes have anything to
> do
> > with the "Nemtsi/Nimtsi" of the later Slavs.
>
> I do. 1 - 1.
****GK: Explain the etymology of "Nimptsch" and how
this would relate to Nemetes, Niemtsi/Nemtsi. When was
Nimptsch founded? ****
>
>
> > I agree with Kortlandt and Shchukin: it is
> impossible to
> > identify a "Slavic" group as of your mentioned
> dates <72-58 BCE>.
>
> ?? Please explain.
Kortlandt:
THE SPREAD OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS (on line)
... Perhaps the best example of a disintegrating
proto-language is furnished by the
Slavic material. Apart from the rise of x all the
major developments which differentiate
Slavic from its Baltic prototype are usually dated to
the first millennium
AD (e.g., Shevelov 1964, Kortlandt 1982). The earliest
dialectal divergences
within Slavic which have survived into historical
times can hardly be older than
the fourth century, and the last shared innovations of
the entire group, such as the
rise of the neo-acute tone, may be dated to the ninth
century. The modern dialectal
situation is essentially the same as it was in the
twelfth century. When we reconstruct
Proto-Slavic, the result can largely be identified
with the language of the
ninth century, apart from the dialectal
differentiation which started half a millennium
earlier, apparently in connection with the earliest
expansion of the Slavic
territory. It is reasonable to assume that many
dialects arose and disappeared at
earlier stages, but it is not obvious that the term
Slavic is appropriate before the
expansions of the first millennium AD.
Shchukin is also on line. I've already outlined his
thesis: no "Slavs" before the post-Zarubinian
"goulash" comes together. The "Kyivan culture" is the
first Slavic culture.*****
>
>
> > There is also an interesting recent
> > genetic study which locates the "Slavic homeland"
> > somewhere in the basin of the Dnipro/Dnepr: cf.
> >
> >
>
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c3ht013txp686v71/
P.S. I shall no longer bother with truncations...****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ