>Yes. I know. And?
And... that part of posted text was superfluous.
>I know. And?
If you know, then we oughta cease inferring anything for
the period between the Bastarnians were last mentioned
and the inception of the separation of a certain Mundart
called de jiddische Sproch.
>A small community is a community. If a small community
>exist, a community exists.
Yeah. But the east European community, by comparison
was, actually we *must* say *has been*... gigantic. And
this community learned and started speaking some kind
of German. That's what's relevant. A German "Sproch",
not a German "spraak", neither Bastarnian.
>Yes, that is the standard theory, and I understood it the
>first time I read about it.
But then we can't all this knowledge of yours be taken into
consideration when speculating about a Bastarnian-Yiddish
continuity?
>I see that you have come round to accept the point of view
>which you argued against a few threads ago.
Namely? Remember: I only underlined the ... evidence:
Yiddish is a "modern" German (not a Germanic idiom from
times prior to the forming of "lingua teodisca/diutisca"),
but not from Rhineland provinces (not from Speyer >
Shapira, not from Heilbronn > Halper(i)n), but an idiom
showing closeness to German dialects and subdialects
spoken in Suebia, Bavaria+Austria, Bohemia, Silezia (as
well as "isles" of German in Slovakia, Hungary, except
Transylvania, where so-called Transylvanian Saxons
have spoken dialects close to Letzebuergesch and
Ripoarisch German = Moselfränkischdeutsch. Why isn't
East-European Yiddish influenced by this kind of German?
This kind of German has been in the Carpathians area
since the 1180s! Up to 1366, some Ashkenazic Jews had
privileged positions at the court of the Hungarian king,
inter alia having monetary and fiscal prerogatives. On
top of that, as the mainstream continues to say, early
medieval middle European Jewish communities were
there, in the same Moselfränkisch language areas, North
of the Alemanian ones. And yet, Yiddish is way much
closer to Bavarian and Franconian and share local
peculiarities with German dialects spoken by Transylvanian
Saxons merely due to general Middle German and Ober-
German features, but esp. due to the influence of
Austrian german exerted on both dialectal groups: those
German groups in Hungary and "shtetl" communities in
Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia.).
>>>But in fact we know nothing whatsoever of them, other than
>>>a couple of later and improbable legends, a vague reference
>>>to Jewish slave dealers in the region (in 1085)
>>
>>This doesn't matter.
>
>The fact that we know nothing whatsoever of them, other
>than a couple of later and improbable legends etc doesn't
>matter?
What significance can this have in the context of the
taxonomy place of the Yiddish language among all dialects
of Deutsch? What German *slaves* were there in 1085?
Who bought them? If certain Turkic or Alanic languages-
speaking tribal warriors procured slaves, I don't think
that among them German (Mittelhochdeutsch) speaking-slaves
were numerous. Even if: how on earth would they have
managed to convince Jewish dealers to abandon their
mother tongue and start speaking German? For such a
feat, they should have had... time, as well as staying
around, i.e. not being taken hundreds of km farther
to the East by their "lords". On top of that: in the relevant
period of time (I mean relevant to your speculation,
9th-10th-11th c.), in Eastern Europe there was a Germanic-
Khazar encounter (to the detriment of the latter and
former power): the Varangians/Vikings. But why isn't
Yiddish influenced by Swedish, Danish, Norse?! Kiev was
a Khazar foundation (even the toponym is, AFAIK, an
onomastic relic, of some Khazar Kiy), and the new
northern rulers who founded a new ("Rus") state were
people from "Scandza". Where is the Scandinavian impact
in the vernacular of the "Z^ydovskaia" community in the
same region? On top of that, German tradespeople and
ambassadors discovered in Crimea in the 16th c. rests of
populations whom some deem as Goths; again: where
is that kind of Germanic trace in Yiddish? Esp. since
Karaite Jews were chiefly from the same Crimea, and
have spoken some kind of "KIrIm-Tatardja" subdialect of
Tatar-Turkish.
>This must be the 27th time you say this
Hoping that in the end "gutta cavat lapidem" will have been
efficient. :-)
>I've never claimed otherwise, why do you keep repeating this
>fact over and over (and again you're not hearing what I'm
>saying; in the next posting you will restate this with even
>more text)?
For it is because of this complex of nexuses that your
Bastarnian speculation has no bases, unless you prove
that a Bastarnian population somwhere in Poland or
in adjacent areas (A) survived and (B) their language
suffered exactly the same transformation as did Deutsch
south of Frankfurt am Main and East of Ulm-Augsburg-
Munich. (I'd be eager to learn which German immigrant
settlers, namely from which areas of the "Holy Empire"
managed to influence that surviving Bastarnian, that
then became Yiddish.
> Of course the difficulty of building up a consistent picture of Jewish origins in medieval Europe causes difficulties for building up a consistent picture of the origin of Yiddish. What are you talking about?
No: Yiddish has a certain "fingerprint". If it hadn't, then why
don't you assume that Yiddish is a ... Danish dialect or
West-Vlaams or some kind of Wessex former English?
Or at least some kind of Münster-Platt or of Lübbeck or
Stettin-Platt?
>Yes, that is the standard theory. I know.
OK.
>The problem is that these researchers were not aware of the >presence of a possibly Germanic Bastarnian language so didn't >consider that in their theories.
OK. Let's assume there was a population that managed to
speak Bastarnian the entire period of time until after
Mittelhochdeutsch. Your task is to demonstrate how, in
which way, managed German (die deutsche Sprache)
influence Bastarnian to such an extent that Bastarnian
also went through the sound shifts and lexical innovations
as did the German language especially in the southern
dialectal areas of the "Holy Reich". Since Yiddish shares
zillions of such Southern features, whereas all the rest
is shared with other Germanic languages as does any
dialect of Deutsch, Hochdeutsch included - nothing more.
Pipe and pepper are Fejfe & Feffer, and not *piep &
*pepper. And this has it's significance. AFAIK, Yiddish
has no "he, to, et/it, wat, dat".
So, show me how could Bastarnian language become
Oberdeutsch or at least Mitteldeutsch. Do bin i gschpannt.
>As I understand it, Talmudic Judaism is the result of the loss
>of the temple in 70 CE. One could argue that the Karaites were
>those Jews in the Bosporan Kingdom who didn't want to join
>that new development (and the Karaites in Lithuania would
>have arrived there with the Bastarnians arriving in Przeworsk).
But why do you forget the detail that Eastern Europe
had no people of Jewish faith whatsoever priort to the
great conversion in Khazaria during Bulan-khan's reign?
This is attested even by the correspondence between
Khazar king Joseph and Andalusia's prime-minister
Hasdai ibn Shaprut, a learned guy.
For your speculation only that caraitism is of relevance,
that has stayed as such, in opposition to talmudism,
*within the communities of east-european Ashkenazim*.
The chronology of the spreading of Talmudism and many
other features is to be corroborated with other elements
that are relevant to this group of population(s). Other
caraite populations or other populations that turned
Christian or muslim aren't relevant to the evolving of
the German dialect called Yiddish. So, your area of
speculation has certain limits one can't neglect.
>For the 28th time: I never said or believed otherwise.
>If you think I did, point it out.
You don't, but your speculation does, until you
demonstrate the Germanic language Bastarnian
survived there, and then it became as German as
Bairisch, Fränkisch, Schwäbisch, Schlesisch and
Dresden-Leipzig Sächsisch, and then (finally)
Allgemeinjiddisch (the rest I find in the Atlas der
deutschen Sprache printed by dtv = Deutscher
Taschenbuch-Verlag, incl. maps with isoglosses).
> > I'm talking of this language all the time; not of the
> > origin of the *people* who've been in command of it
> > (they may have various origins, Slavic, Turkic, Sephardic,
> > Byzantine Jewish, Iranian Jewish, Alexandria-Egyptian
> > Jewish, it doesn't matter).
>
> So am I.
No: you've talked all the time of various populations
you implied taking part in forming the community
that later on spoke Yiddish, and you've insisted
Yiddish can't have the origin both "schools" say it
has (Rhineland German or South-Eastern German), but
it'd be a continuation of Bastarnian - a Bastarnian
that resisted in Poland despite all vicissitudes between,
say, the 4th and the 14th-15th centuries. (I give you
an alternative "inspiration": Bastarnian might have
been a Proto-Bavarian Germanic idiom, that already
during Charlemagne's time *anticipated* Walther von
der Vogelweide's and Nibelungenlied's kind of German. :-))
>Separated in the linguistic sense. If it hadn't, it would
>be a separate dialect.
I suspect all the time that you, in spite of the fact that
you're in command of German, are not aware how close
Yiddish is to Bavarian, and Fränkisch and Schwäbisch,
in contrast to the rest of deutsche Dialekte (and esp.
to Niederdeutsch/Plattdeutsch)! Many Yiddish phonetical
"distortions" are perfectly OK only seen through the
prism of these Oberdeutsch dialects. You are not aware
of what an enormous dialectal chasm there is between
Oberdeutsch and Niederdeutsch, let alone Scandinavian
Germanic. This is why I insist you show me how that
(unknown) Bastarnian managed to transform itself into
Yiddish without any (South)German linguistic link or
influence.
>I know. This of course presupposes physical contact with
>other German-speakers.
That's the 1st step. Fine. Now go on, carry on: which
Germans, from which regions, and how was the
coexistence, where, and for how long.
>Yes, it has separated from the other MHG dialects.
In a superficial way - which you seem not to realize.
>For the 29th time: I am not doubting that Yiddish is a
>dialect separating from Central or High German in MHG
>times.
Your (Bastarnian) speculation/theory *does*, unless
you demonstrate Bastarnian survived and turned
Oberdeutsch. (There were at least several Germanic
tribes that left Poland and the Elbe region and their
idioms became Oberdeutsch: but the transformation
occurred in their new countries, around the Alps,
by the upper Rhine, the upper and middle Danube,
by Main, in Switzerland, in Northern Italy, in
Caranthania (Austria), western Hungary and Bohemia
- during a timespam of approximately 1,000 years.
And those tribes who became Alemanians, Suebians,
Bavarians, Franconians, Austrians lived "unter sich",
and not as isolated small "isles" in "seas" of Romance or
Slavic languages. Even the "isles" of Mosel-Franks
(and assimilated Vallons) in Eastern Hungary (Slovakia
and Transylvania), in order to be able to survive
linguistically and culturally, had to be in significant
big number and had to have a significant degree of
autonomy/independence, which was granted by the
Hungarian kings and was maintained almost eight
centuries (and the link to the "mainland" of Germanhood
was reinforced around 1700 and kept until 1918, within
the Austrian Empire.
Methinks, similar conditions would have been a "must"
for the Bastarnians as well. In the case of the Yiddish-
speaking "archipelago", the population was (has been)
*numerous*: millions (not only 100-200 thousand as in
the case of Transylvanian Germans or 300-400 thousand
as in the case of the so-called "Suebians" living in
4-5 areas of the same Hungary, and of which towards
the end of the 19th c. roughly 1/2 was Magyarized for
good).
>You haven't been paying attention, it seems. In the
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture
>area is what I meant. I thought that would be clear
>from the context.
Quite the contrary: even not knowing anything of
the Przeworsk thing, I knew that roughly this area
is of relevance for the Ashkenasic-German encounter
and the evolving of the Yiddish language (with all
the influences and immigrations from the "Reich",
among which the Jewish presence in the 14th-15th
c. in Bohemia must've been of great importance
due to certain history changes/occurrences).
So, your "task" would be to show why all those elements
taken into consideration by experts didn't count, but
only an imaginary Bastarnian population could have
had the Germanic language that turned Yiddish. And
due to what quality/status of that Bastarnian population
felt Jewish neighbors attracted to abandon their own
idiom and replace it with that German dialect. And
how come that the dialect is so... "Alpine" (Yiddish
better preserves enk ("euch") and ets ("ihr")) pronouns
than mountain and Bayerischer Wald peasant Bavarian
does, and says "i bin gwen" and "aso a" (so ein/e) as does
any peasant from the same regions.)
>Yes, that is the standard theory. I know. The reason I
>propose something else is not that I didn't understand
>the standard theory, but that I think I have a better one.
OK, but now it's high time you ... substantiated. :)
> Erh, okay. Off-topic.
Everything you deem off-topic is an obstacle in the path
of your theory. Unfortunately, the obstacles are numerous
and each is as high as the Everest and Nanga Parbat peaks.
But you insist you're Heinz Rühmann in the movie "A man
goes throw the wall".
>I don't understand you.
Yes, I see. The territory fits or might fit. Not the territory
is the problem, but how could a Bastarnian population
(provided that it resisted there, which is to be demonstrated)
get Yiddish, or pass on its own idiom *turned Oberdeutsch*
on to a Ashkenazim Jewish population in the neighborhood.
>I was being imprecise. The Bastarnians in PoieneÅti-LukaÅ¡evka
>who disappear in mid-1st century BCE according to CriÅan were
>the northern tribes (Atmoni and Sidoni in Strabo)
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae
>The southern Peucini stayed on longer, as you mention.
It doesn't matter: you can even have some birth and
residence certificates for them. Of interest, in the
context of your speculation, is how they managed to
preserve their Germanic language there from the 1st
century BCE until the 11th-12th-13th-14th centuries
CE and how did they convince Ashkenazic Jews learn
their Germanic language. And "die Kirsche auf der
Sahnetorte": how did they manage to transform their
Germanic idiom into Oberdeutsch. Did they get teachers
sent from Berlitz-Schools and Goethe-Institut in Passau,
Freising, Salzburg or from Prague? Details, svp. :)
>I know. But I think the Harudes who left with Ariovistus were the >Croatians and that they were the douloi of Ariovistus' Suevi, their
>serfs or slaves.
>Further I think the Przeworsk culture was mixed Germanic-Slavic, >Germanic ruler, Slavic farmer, exactly on the old k.u.k. >Donaumonarchie model. You'll have to give up the old
But all these occurrences belonged to a time period
in the 1st c. BCE, 1st-2nd-3rd c. CE. Of Yiddish we can
talk in the 14th-15th-16th...19th-20th-21th centuries.
The time span of that "in-between" is tremendous,
mind-boggling. In the absence of a cultured stratum,
with institutions (schools, written culture - as Greek
Hebrew, Latin has had), how on earth can a population
resist for such a long time, especially since you yourself
say that such a population was anyway mixed with Slavs!
>No, the Northern Bastarnae there were gone for good.
OK. Then what do Polish and German and Lithuanian
medieval chronicles say of that area and its population.
Do they mention "Bastarnae"? Do they mention that
such "Bastarnae" spoke... niemetzku? Do they say that
this population mixed with masses of immigrant Germans
from the "Reich"?
>How about this then
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilamovian_language
>a German dialect, also sprung from MHG.
According to the experts, it was a language determined
by settlers who imigrated there coming from various
areas not earlier than the 12th century. Remember:
Bastarnian must have had the same evolution for
thousand years as did have German dialects (Nieder-
deutsch included). Otherwise there is no possibility
for Bastarnian to evolve, all of a sudden, as a MHG
dialect.
How can we be sure this is the result of German Ostsiedlung and not an old language island?
Because of what I stated above.
>But that's exactly what the
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhanite
>network would have provided. A trade autobahn.
>That would have provided the regular linguistic
>update from the (new) motherland.
OK. Then, it is to be explained how those
regular updates functioned.
>As I said, because the Radhanite network would have
>made it into one linguistic community.
This is a good idea (after all, nothing new: on it is based
the theory of the linguistic conversion to Yiddish anyway
- "only" that as "donors" are seen *German settlers* and
German learned Jews and not those Bastarnians. The
other theory, the "mainstream" one, is based on something
similar as well: the imigrations of Jews from "Reich" lands
because of Anti-Semitic waves and pogroms esp. in the
14th-15th c.).
> Not AFAIK. Good point.
This is the most important think: without a vigurous
"chain" of "carriers" and "multiplicators", a "regular update"
is difficult to occur (those were not the times of printed
and more and more circulated books, not the times of
modern telecommunications).
>'"Szlachta" derives from the Old German word "slahta" (now "(Adels)
>Geschlecht", "(noble) family"), much as many other Polish words
>pertaining to the nobility derive from German words â" e.g., the
>Polish "rycerz" ("knight", cognate of the German "Ritter") and the
>Polish "herb" ("coat of arms", from the German "Erbe", "heritage").
>Poles of the 17th century assumed that "szlachta" was from the
>German "schlachten" ("to slaughter" or "to butcher"); also
>suggestive is the German "Schlacht" ("battle").
But in a "Schlacht" warriors ... "schlachten" (slaughter) one
another, be they of noble "Geschlecht", be they simple
peasant "Gesindel". :)
>If those words are from German, they've undergone a strange >semantic development. Perhaps they are from Bastarnian words?
"Strange"? To me, not at all strange: "Geschlecht" and "Szlachta"
fit perfectly.
>And why
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folwark ?
>What did Germans have to do with that?
You see the explanation given in the article (Vorwerk).
And the same structure & tradition spread in Hungary
as well (the Hungarian notion of "tanya" is a perfect
rendering of medieval Vorwerk/folwark. Hungary was
during the medieval centuries and later on under the
same Slavic-German influence and customary inter-
changes).
> No, to declare High German, and by consequence Yiddish, to be a continuation of the Bastarnian language. :) That would mean the Germans are bastards, so I expect many interesting discussions, since the Germans always wondered why the other Germanic peoples don't see them as their natural cousins.
Other Germanic peoples don't see them as such only
since Kaiser Willy the 2nd von Habsburg, when Germans
became "Huns", and then because of a certain corporal
from Braunau am Inn, who invented the Schutzstaffel
and a certain socialist ideology.
Otherwise, look at Aenglisc: it is much closer to deutsche
Dialekte than English itself! :-D (Of course, ethnically,
many Germans are of Roman, Celtic and, in the East,
much of ex-DDR, Silezia, Pommerania, Eastern Prussia
and Austria, of Slavic descent. But on the other hand,
the other Germanic cousins also moved there where
they live coming from the neighborhood of the ...
Caspian sea and from Turkmenistan and Khwarizm.
In fact your Snorri is right, yet not in the way he
tells the story. :-))
>BTW, Tarantino won't explain the provenance of the 'e' in
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_basterds
This must be a joke based on dyslexic and lazybones
aspects typical of English spelling (along with such
spellings as "seperate", "definately"). Another joking
spelling is basturd.
>which, however, occurs also in
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae
>so I suspect he had been reading Wikipedia too and is considering
>the same theory.
I see there an Old-Iranic assumption: bastarna. This would
be in German "Kinderbund". (Of course, bastards are also
children, offspring. :))
George