From: neckfil
Message: 64688
Date: 2009-08-10
>I don't think there is any point trying to prove the origin of germanic lang. outside central Europe or Scandinavia without having any evidence, any bridge with which one could connect Germanic archaic lexicon to someplace in Asia. Goths, for example, simply spoke IE that is in the right place and within the right time bracket. Nothing out of ordinary with the gothic lang. Gothic vocabulary can be compared with what was or is spoken in Europe and suchl inguistic bridge is valid. And since gothic is the most archaic Germanic lang, there is no need to look any further for a breakthrough. Slavic langs. otoh resemble much more Asian IE lexicon and even have, for example, some word endings that are native to Turkic langs., and thus a connection with alleged invaders like Sarmatians can be found, based solely on morphology, but in the lexicon as well. No such connection in gothic, or I may be wrong of course.
> 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.
>
> By the way, it's rather obvious that George was using
> 'creators of' as a shorthand for 'the people whose speech
> developed into'; a language has a grammar irrespective of
> whether it's a written language or any attempt has been made
> to describe that grammar; and one doesn't need an alphabet
> to have writing.
>
> As long as I'm wasting my time, what evidence do you imagine
> to have been suppressed? If you say 'Snorri's', you're
> merely displaying your continued profound ignorance of
> medieval studies.
>
> Brian
>