Re: Suffix -ock

> > Thank you, Torsten,
> > I was expecting you would be one of the first to react to my
> > request.
>
> I was expecting you come asking sooner or later, you French
> crypto-Belg ;-)
> =====
> Great,
> What do you figure out I shall do next ?
> I have a little Swiss gene, I need to check if you are right or wrong.
> I'm not crypto-belg, I definitely have Flemish ancestors.
> I'm more an unproved NWB offspring,
> but I know I can rely on your help to shed some light on that.
> Arnaud
> ======
> > Baltic does not account for everything, even though it's a good
> > track.
>
> Forget Baltic. Baltic-speakers were latecomers to the Baltic. At the
> coast they replaced the Veneti and the Aestii, whichever languages
> they spoke.
> ======
> I'm afraid I have to disagree.
> I'm not sure we should accept some kind of Baltic "uber alles" from
> Scandinavia to Kazan,
> like some people say.
> but I see no reason, Baltic should be "late" whatever that means.
> I tend to think Baltic is primo-arriver here.
> It predates Uralic at least on the eastern side of Scandinavia.
> Arnaud
> ==========

If you read Okulicz 'Einige Aspekte der Ethnogenese der Balten und
Slawen im Lichte archäologischer und sprachwissenschaftlicher
Forschungen' and Gol/a,b 'Origin of the Slavs' you won't have to base
your conviction of what you tend to think. They give pretty good
reasons why the Balts would be latecomers on the Baltic.

> Be careful Chris and Brian don't hear you talking like that, or they
> will have you wash your mouth out with soap.
>
> =========
> They react only when I say bad words.
> I suppose M. Gwinn is sulking because I have not been expelled and
> the current moderators have not commited suicide.
> Arnaud
> =========

It's not Monday yet. We may both be out by Tuesday.


Torsten