Re: Belgs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > ======
> > Cf. English

...

> > =======
> >
> > 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,

No, the French people have come to people with the generous offer of
making them French, so they could read their history books, which
started with: 'Nos ancêtres, les Gaulois...'. The English wanted
trade. All the wars and policing were incidental on that. Occupation,
where it happened, was a private enterprise and secondary to trade.

> This modern form of colonisation has nothing to do with Veneti's
> eventual trading.

Has too.

> ========

...

> > 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.
>

Well, I don't do grands projets. I try to reconstruct backwards from
what we know historically, not forwards. And I haven't gotten further
back than Veneti.


Torsten