Re: The harvest of suppressing evidence

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 4:11:18 AM on Monday, August 10, 2009, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@>
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> = Germanic spread due to the arrival into Germania in the
> >> 1rst c. CE of "Romanized Sarmatian deserters" who had
> >> largely forgotten their Iranic speeches, and used "some
> >> version of Latin for everyday purposes". (This is what
> >> enabled them to become leaders of the Germanic tribes and
> >> creators of the genuine Germanic languages.)
>
> > Apart from the fact that you don't create languages, at
> > most you make them literate languages by inventing an
> > alphabet and the rudiments of a grammar (from observation
> > of the spoken language), yes, that's what I think
> > happened.
>
> The idea that PGmc. developed from the speech of people who
> used 'some version of Latin for everyday purposes' doesn't
> pass the laugh test.

Did someone propose that?
As for me, I proposed they switched to the local language.

> By the way, it's rather obvious that George was using
> 'creators of' as a shorthand for 'the people whose speech
> developed into';

No.

> a language has a grammar irrespective of
> whether it's a written language or any attempt has been made
> to describe that grammar;

Yes. And?

> and one doesn't need an alphabet to have writing.

You are thinking of some type of ideographic writing like Hieroglyphs etc. True. And how is that relevant?

> As long as I'm wasting my time, what evidence do you imagine
> to have been suppressed?

Snorri etc.

> If you say 'Snorri's', you're merely displaying your continued
> profound ignorance of medieval studies.

I tried to make sense of all those attempts at imparting some other purpose to those sources other than the straightforward one of of passing on oral traditions, but it really got so complicated.



Torsten