From: Torsten
Message: 67169
Date: 2011-02-14
>AFAIK, yes.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@> wrote:
> >
> > In various places in postings and popular press stuff, I've read
> > about Germanics supposedly residing in Finland before the arrival
> > of the Finns as well as an IE-substrate in Finland before the
> > arrival of the Finns. I've never seen any real lx evidence to
> > prove this --just the idea that Finns are supposedly genetically
> > closer to Scandinavians than to their linguistic congeners. Any
> > truth to this?
> > It would make sense if Germanic entered W. Europe via Finland fromThat's one scenario.
> > the east and then moved south from southern Scandinavia.
> > That would seem to explain Germanic's links with Baltic and SlavicHow so? Finland doesn't have any particular relationship with Slavic and Baltic moved into its present area ca. 2000 years ago.
> > with as well as its later adstratal relationship with Celtic andThe period 500 BCE - 0 is known as Celtic Iron Age in Danish archaeology, but the most recent interpretation is that whatever Celtic is in that culture was confined to the upper layer, and there are no toponyms identified as Celtic in Scandinavia, AFAIK.
> > Celtic- looking names as far north as Denmark.
> > Tell me Torsten, swear on the hammer of Thor, is there anyI am not aware of anyone having proposed a Germanic substrate for Finnish; a Germanic adstrate is standard theory.
> > viability to this idea or is it DOA?
>
> It's beyond the temporal horizon of the things I think I have
> cleared up, ie it's before ca. 200 BCE. At that time there seems to
> have been some residual Finnic-speaking population on the Baltic,
> among the Aestii, enough that it pays off for me to include Uralic
> glosses when I try to untangle Germanic and Slavic for the Przeworsk
> time. That time, BTW, gives me plenty of contact between
> Baltic/Slavic and Germanic, so that I am not forced to seek an
> explanation for those links in an earlier time.
> ****R
> Well, then you're gonna hafta switch to a bigger hammer. A
> pre-Germanic move through present day Finland would have been a
> substrate for Finnish, right?
> Whatever was then spoken in Finland would have possibly have been aIf such a move happened, yes.
> substrate to Germanic.
> Perhaps this hypothesized Germanic move through Finland displacedAFAIK, the standard is that Saami replaced pre-Saami in northern Norway and Finland, and Finnish replaced pre-Saami in southern Finland.
> Saami and/or the pre-Saami language.
> Given that Finish and Basque have such complicated morphologies, IWhen people shift to a new language, the old language may live on as a substrate in the old one, whether the old language was objectively morphologically complicated or not (and no language is complicated to a native speaker). Thousands of years from now, English may be detectable as a substrate in the Neo-Spanish spoken in North America.
> can't imagine either being a major substrate to Germanic, unless
> we're talking about a creolized version on one of them.
> You might be referring to this guyThat makes sense.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevi_Wiik
> ***R Yeah, I've read that before. He takes the ball and runs a bit
> too far with it. Judging by the size of the area I'd imagine there
> were probably about 5-10 language families in N Europe (north of the
> Alps and Carpathians. Maybe closer to 5 if you compare to NE US and
> E Canada c. 1490.
> cf.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle-axe_people#Language
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis
> ****R Tell me more about Battle-Axeian, if there is more to tell.
> Is it the same as "Folkish"?Folkish: