Re: Belgs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen"
>
> > > Such a culture : late and widespread can hardly coincide with
> > > one particular language.
> >
> > If the people who spoke it were traders it would. Cf. English
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > Traders usually leave about no traces at all.
> > CF. Phoenicians.
> ======
> Cf. English
> And how about all Venneman's and Møller's IE-Semitic matches?
> =======
>
> I cannot see the relevance of English as regards Traders and Veneti.
> Please explain.

Well, most people see that where the English have traded, English has
become the lingua franca if the locals needed one (ie. if there wasn't
a strong state backing up a state language). The French might see that
otherwise, of course.

> Moeller's matches could be cognates, hence irrelevant.

They match too well for the languages, which match badly, so no, I
don't think so.
BTW, I made a .pdf copy of Møller's Vergleichendes
indogermanisch-semitisches Wörterbuch for Ishinan. Do you want a copy?

> Venneman's work is highly suspect of being nothing but fanciful.

That's the word in the community, mostly by people who haven't read
him. You should check for yourself.

> > And be they traders or not, those Veneti, wherever they came from,
> > were not spreading in a human vacuum.
> > At that time (- 2000 BC) about all Europe is covered by
> > Indo-European Agricultural people.
>
> Yes, and?
> =======
> The place was already occupied by other people, who had their own
> cultures, which we can observe.

Actually it was the other way round. The Lusatians were encroached
upon, not the other way round.

> I expect the traces of traders to be archeological nil.

They were the native population.


Torsten