Re: Scandinavia and the Germanic tribes such as Goths, Vandals, Angl

> . . .
> >
> > We don't know much about the Burgundian and Vandalic languages;
> > the idea that they are East Germanic is purely geographic. I
> > don't want to change the meaning of the words 'Goth' and 'Jute',
> > I am just proposing that they were once the same word and
> > designated probably just one tribe.
> >

> Okay, so you need some kind of ad/sub-strate in Juteland to account
> for /g/ > /y/ --which also presupposes that /u/ > /ü/ or /yu/.

I'm not so sure that's necessary for Jutland alone. As you may have
seen from the Wikipedia references, 'Jute' and similar words designate
peoples all over the Germanic-speaking area, which is usually stitched
up by claims of migration. Suppose they were all different
pre-Germanic splinter groups, but once of the same people?

> But once you did have *güt or *giut, you can argue that Anglo-Saxon,
> which originated nextdoor changed gi, ge > /y/.

English does that for yester-day vs. Germ. gestern, yield vs. geld,
but is this regular, or limited to a few words?

> But if that's so, then Angle or Saxon could fill the bill as
> substrate of Jute.

Not likely. Angles are not documented north of the present Angeln.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

Besides, I'm not sure I get what you are saying. Are you calling
'Jute' a language? If so, what affiliation do you see for it?


Torsten