From: Torsten
Message: 66605
Date: 2010-09-15
> Our topic was which kind of German is Yiddish, whether it is aMiddle German is not = vague Germanic
> vague "Germanic" and Middle German relic
> or whether it is someAnd relevant to the origin of their language.
> kind of South German dialect. In this respect, those few cited by
> Köstler were important, since they seem to have been the first
> generation of scholars who concluded this (a conclusion which is
> still not shared by everybody).
> Whether the Yiddish-language speakers have more haplotypes
> typical of Georgians or Kurds or Turks or Slavs or Ugrians or of
> Semite-Hamite people, is another thing.
> Or whether the SephardicLinguists think language change makes a difference. You rarely do it without trace.
> adstratum in east-European Jewish communities was very important
> or not. IMHO, of little relevance to linguistics (I think it makes
> no difference to Yiddish if some Ladino-speaking people changed
> their vernacular switching to Yiddish).
> >I tried translating your attempts at Danish and the Yiddish(?)My words exactly.
> > glosses, and it still doesn't make sense. Could you rephrase it,
> > please?
>
> What attempts at Danish?!? Only because I inserted the petty word
> tyske? OMG! :-)
> >Well, the whole thing started when I mentioned my nutty uncle'sI wish you wouldn't mix religion into it. I assume Odin was a person (as Snorri and Saxo claim) and the same as Ariovistus and Harigasti (the one with the helmet). If he was Caesar's age, he was born around 100 BCE and he died around 55 BCE.
> >book on the travels of Odin which I didn't believe myself; the
> >reaction to that made me suspicious that there might be something
> >to it after all. And Odin's travels would have taken him through
> >Przeworsk.
>
> But you assume that Odin's "visit(s)" there happened in centuries
> before the Christian era, don't you?
> And if so, that in PrzeworskThere was a significnt Jewish presence in the Bosporan Kingdom.
> there were no Jewish population yet, nor those populations that
> later on were converted to Judaism during Bulan khan's times and
> during the times of his Jewish successors.
> Or did you think of some linguistic elements passed on by thoseYes.
> Przeworsk people to east-european Jews without any German
> intermediates "agents" from Germany?
> What's your theory? Until now, you haven't shown any theoryNo, the above is a new addendum to my theory of the origin of Germanic.
> pertaining to Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim in connection with
> Odin's Przeworsk. (Or you had done it before I subscribed to
> cybalist.)
> >No! Surprise!That statement is in direct contradiction to what the text says. Please offer evidence to back it up.
> >You do realise of course that those volksetymologische derivations
> >are at variance with the sources you so adamantly insist I take as
> >gospel truth, to wit:
> >
> > '<<*No linguistic components derived from the parts of Germany
> > bordering on France are found in the Yiddish language. Not a
> > single word from the entire list of specifically
> > Moselle-Franconian origin* compiled by J. A. Ballas (/Beiträge zur
> > Kenntnis der trierischen Volkssprache/, 1903, 28ff.)
>
> Ballas's list must have contained vocabulary of the Mosel-Franconian
> dialect.
> My examples Heilbronn, Speyer, Trier are "Eigennamen",That is exactly what it does.
> place names, rendered in a peculiar way, as soon as the consonants
> get again vowels around them. IMHO, this doesn't contradict at all
> the assertion "No linguistic components derived from the parts of
> Germany bordering...".
> On top of that, my examples are very rare as compared with the'No' does not mean 'rare'.
> majority of personal and place names that are concentrated in
> Bohemia, Poland and the Ukraine (and to a lesser extent to Italy,
> e.g. Lurie and Rappaport).
> But those names that are made ofIIRC, Schiller and his contemporaries rhymed -ü- with -i- and -eu- with -ei-, and they were hardly Bavarians.
> German words, have very often South-German peculiarities. For
> example Millner, that I already mentioned, has something to do
> with Austria. You don't need the expertise of a linguist, it
> suffices to have a vague idea of German dialects. Or why Streisand
> and not Streusand.
> It's for the same reason why the manufacturer ofI don't want to be bossed around and told to read stuff by someone who hasn't read it through himself.
> the Sennheiser microphones is Sennheiser and not Sennheuser or
> Sennhäuser; and it has something to do with a certain characteristic
> of German, that I hear day after day, but I don't insist on it,
> since you know better and don't wish to be bothered with such
> "insignificant" nebbich stuff. :)
> >(!!!)'Yes, they agree with me! Obviously something must be wrong with them.
> >
> >Those exclamation signs are your own, George. I thought they meant
> >you'd read the text.
>
> I put the exclamation marks to underline my astonishment and awe
> seeing that the conclusion of those authors are 1,000 times more
> radical than they could have been if I had been the analyst and
> author! I put my exclamation marks not because I'd disagree with
> those people. Gelle? ;)
> > It is a nice theory which would explain the existence of YiddishI mean 'outside it'
> > in the area of contact with the Germans, but not outside it.
>
> What do you mean by "outside it"?
> For example Birobidjan? Or Brooklyn, New York? Or Tel Aviv andNot really, no.
> Jerusalem?
> If so, it is simple: people... travel. The same way as, say,Because your standard theory would require the Sephardim to have lived concentrated in the area of contact with German colonists, changed language there and then dispersed, and the pattern of dialect distribution of Yiddish
> Sephardim took with them the knowledge of the Spanish Jewish dialect
> to Salonika, Isaac Bashevis Singer or Eli Wiesel took with them
> their knowledge of Yiddish and were able to make use of it in New
> York and Paris.
> Why not? ;)
> > I don't think you should be talking to people who have such sillyYes, if you are afflicted with an irritable and suspicious temperament, the resulting mental agitation can put a strain on your nervous system.
> > ideas.
>
> Is it dangerous? :)
> > Wikipedia says 600 CE, and cites one word to back up that itErh, what? That must have made them very Germanic.
> > happened in situ at all.
>
> 600 CE is a bit late. The Germanization of the former Celtic-Roman
> Germania was being Germanized.
> And on the banks of the Rhine "flumen", the Frankish models ofAre you arguing aginst the timing of the High German Lautverschiebung here or something else?
> Siegfried and Kriemhild were already dead.
> At the same time, in the East on the shores of the Black Sea,Possibly influenced by the Jewish element in the Bosporan Kingdom
> the Khazars barely started flexing their muscles as rivals of the
> Avars and of the remnants of the former Huns. They had to wait for
> another 2-3-4 centuries until the Judaization of a part of their
> realm (under Bulan's successor kings).
> > That conclusion now hinges on the interpretation of one word.Accoirding to the standard theory, without actual incontrovertible evidence.
>
> I haven't dealt with Przeworsk, and I don't see (because of
> "Chronos" and geography) any link of Ashkenazic Yiddish-speaking
> people to Przeworsk and Odin (except for some Viking
> merchant-soldiers in Gardarike/Russia who might have dealt with the
> Khazar kingdom, when this kingdom was in its decline, and when
> Petchenegs, and Kievan Rus and others grew more and more stronger.
> Yet at that time, those new-fangled Jews didn't speak Yiddish, but
> Turkish;
> and king Joseph gave the el-Andalus prime-minister Hasdai ibn-Etc.
> Shaprut some significant details on all that.)
> > Nonsense. There exists, as I've now said a couple of times, oneThat was 'cupa', as you would know if you had read my last posting.
> > word in the sources supposed to reflect the pre-2ndLV stage (ie
> > that of Platt, Dutch, English) in an Oberdeutsch dialect.
>
> And what is that? Mouse? House? Which are the same as their
> south-German equivalents (Maus, Haus). Or the ending -ham, as
> in Tottenham, and as in Bavaria and Austria (Baldham and many
> other place names)? Or the fact that the "Anglo" says griin and
> spells it green, and the South Bavarian says and writes grean
> instead of grün? <hehe>
> > I'm not fascinated by anything that happened in the course theSee above.
> > great migrations/Völkerwanderungen of the 3rd-6th centuries CE.
> > But I'm very interested in those of the 1st cent. BCE - 1st cent.
> > CE.
>
> Yes. But what relevance can be there for this period of time so
> that you mentioned Yiddish? Which is a linguistic occurrence of
> times roughly after the 13th-14th centuries? (Provided that nobody
> made use of the shuttle services mentioned by Herbert George
> Welles.)
> >Yes, that is one prevailing theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heribert_Illig
>
> By the way: do you incidentally take those "dark ages" theories
> seriously? (e.g. that of Heribert Illig
> and Fomenkohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)
> )No.
> > Yes, that is the interesting part. If I am right, then theThat is the prevailing theory, yes.
> > Yiddish-speakers were alone in maintaining this dialect,
> > originally a high sociolect of Proto-Germanic, in Eastern Europe,
> > after the departure >of the last other Germanic speakers with the
> > arrival of Attila.
>
> Mit Verlaub, sir, das ist aber, as they say on the Usenet,
> "Lötzinn"! :-) Yiddish is a medieval German creation, not a Germanic
> one from an epoch 1,000-1,300 years earlier. Or, put it in another
> way: it is linked to Germanic idioms at the end of the 1st c. BCE
> and the 1st half of the 1st millennium CE only via the German
> language (the German language, i.e. via Deutsch, and not via other
> Germanic languages).