From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60892
Date: 2008-10-14
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> ======
> 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.
==========
English people have been _occupying_ places,
in the same fashion as French people,
This modern form of colonisation has nothing to do with Veneti's eventual
trading.
Arnaud
========
> 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?
======
Yes, I do !
I 'd be extremely grateful to be able to read this.
Un très grand merci
Arnaud
=======
> 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.
======
> =======
> 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
========
It's hard to say anything on these two statements.
I don't understand (nor know) which is your scenario of IE split and
framework.
What does native mean ?
If you don't provide a clear (even though provisional) scenario,
not a single one of your statements makes any sense.
Arnaud
======