From: Torsten
Message: 67378
Date: 2011-04-25
>Then you shouldn't ignore those facts.
>
> >>What fits in other languages, is' mir schnuppe.
> >
> >Yes, apparently, since you're not a linguist. I can't ignore those
> >facts.
>
> I am a linguist, albeit not a PIE specialist. And I ceased
> dealing with theoretical linguistics in 1978 or so.
> Definitely, the suffix -e$ti has nothing to do with your assumptionsI have never entertained the idea that Trieste was a slave market. But the idea is intriguing, given that that "market" word has almost the same distribution as the "slave" word.
> on Tergeste as a slave market.
> >>The same way in names ending in -escu: Ionescu > Ione$ti,if you have have any respect for scientific fact, you look up stuff before you make categorical statements about it:
> >>Popescu > Pope$ti, i.e. the idea of plurality/community/group.
> >
> >I know.
>
> If you knew this, and if you're a linguist, then wouldn't think
> of such nexuses as "Tergeste"
> and people speaking Romanian 5-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages#Vulgar_Latin
> centuries before there were linguistic conditions for the creation
> of this neo-Romance language.
> >And that word, we established, was probably a substrate word.I proposed that the -sk-/-st- alternation originated in a substrate, not in Romanian, so it's relevant.
>
> Maybe, yet irrelevant in that sub-thread of the discussion.
> > I propose that the Romanian language originated in the mid-first'from the end of 1st century BC'.
> > century BCE
>
> It started as popular Latin in the centuries when various
> Italian and esp. non-Italian populations *had* to speak Latin,
> in order to be able to communicate with one another and to
> understand the orders issued by military commanders and
> administrative bosses ... within the borders of Imperium Romanum.
> In the 1st c. BC it was too early. The fitting time span was
> approx. from the 2nd to the 6th c. (when Latin all over the
> empire got more and more dialectal and sociolect features that
> *enabled* the gradual transformation into neo-Romance languages:
> phonetical and lexical ones, e.g. so that the Latin speakers
> hat enough time to get accustomed to use instead albus, -a, -um
> bianco, blanco, blanche, instead of equus caballo and cheval,
> instead of mansio casa, instead of the old pronunciation [kajsar],
> [kikero] the new ones [Äezare], [se:zar] (that enabled the English
> si:z&) and [ÄiÄero(ne)]. And myriads of other changes.
> >If you know of any reason why this couldn't have happened, sayTrue, since I always complained of being censored, I shouldn't say that. Let me put it this way: When you dogmatically and unreasoned restate standard opinions, you're wasting everybody's time.
> >so or keep quiet.
>
> Tell me "keep quiet" as soon as you become a co-owner of cybalist,
> but not earlier than that, que te lya mamma dreaqu. :)
> >But those 'specific transformations' are dated only relatively, ie.Such as?
> in the sequence of the development of Latin into Romance languages,
> not absolutely, which means they can't be used to date stages in
> that development.
>
> Have a look. The scholar literature on that phase of transformations
> (i.e. of a tremendous and growing gap betw. class. Latin and "latina
> vulgata" in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th ... 8th, 9th centuries)
> contains a richness of data.
> It is way richer (for obvious reasons)And?
> than in the case of German (Deutsch: old high German and middle
> high German) as compared with Germanic idioms 1,000-1,100 years
> earlier Germanic idioms (i.e. 400 and 600 years earlier than
> Wulfila's and Jordanes's Gothic).
> No real linguist can ignore suchAnd that's why I try to fill out those time spans with whatever information I can get. You don't.
> long time spans that engulf tremendous linguistic transformations.
> (You tend to ignore them, although you, occasionally, mentionNo, you ignore them, citing as reason their enormousness which precludes you from discovering anything beyond the conclusion of standard works.
> certain sound shift laws.)
>So what are you basing your criticism of my proposals then, when you don't know what happened in those centuries?
> >As usual, you give no reasons why it *must* be so, so I'll ignore >that.
>
> Because:
>
> 1) I don't know all relevant shifts and changes by heart (that
> happened in a relevant period of 4-5 centuries);
> 2) I ain't gonna copy all of them in order to pour all of themTranslation: you are a lazy SOB who can't be bothered, and you don't have an OCR program like I do. Well, get one.
> here, in a posting. (Which wouldn't respect the netiquette &
> wouldn't be polite.)
> Since you're a professional linguist yourself, you know very wellAmateur. Who's Tagliavini?
> what I'm alluding to, so I don't have to point to any of those
> "tagliavinis et Co". :)
> >I propose that West Germanic in the 2nd century BCE split into twoFunny, that's what the Veneti said too when they arrived.
> >languages:
> >
> >1) Proto-English/Low German/Frisian spoken by the Sciri/Cimbri in
> >the Przeworsk culture,
>
> Why did they have to be in the Przeworsk area?
> There were enoughI'll back up a little.
> Germanic people in the relevant areas towards the North Sea shores.
> >2) Proto-Hochdeutsch spoken by the BastarniansWrong.
>
> I know that, you've mentioned many times that. By now, I know that
> what the mainstream community calls "Elbgermanen", to you they
> were "Bastarnians". OK with me ("jedes Tierchen hat sein
> Plaisierchen" :)).
> The only question would be: is it plausibleI think they came in two waves.
> that an entire population that was able to Germanize South
> Germany, Alsacia, Switzerland (Rhaetia) and Austria (Noricum)
> consisted only of Bastarnae?
> And, if so, how come that thisThe Atmoni and Sidoni were the ones which migrated into Przeworsk and became a social class, thus disappearing as an independent people. You might compare eg. German Silesians after 1945. The remaining subtribe, Peucini, the only one to stay independent was the one which disappeared in the 3rd century.
> name (Bastarnae) vanished in the 3rd c. forever,
> whereasNo, they already had it.
> Southern Germanic tribes that later on developed the so-called
> lingua diutiska/teodiska (old High German), called themselves
> only Suebians (incl. Langobards), Bavarians, Franconians and
> Burgundians?
> But, agreed, this is of lesser importance; what'sAs I said, no =. Layered. The Bastarnae were on top.
> important: those "Elbgermanen", including Bastarnae or not,
> indeed played the decisive role in Germanizing the areas South
> of Main and Danube, and around the upper Rhine, way into the
> area of the southern Alps in Italy.
> >'My' Bastarnae would have spoken a language which was the
> >ancestor of the languages you love so much. Bugs you, doesn't
> >it?
>
> Not at all! Quite the contrary: if one (you or whoever) could
> prove that the "Elbgermanen" were actually that Bastarnae group,
> then it would be fine. We'd have a refined image of who were
> the ancestors of "mir san mir". :-)
> >Are you trying to say that my proposal can't explain that?Explain.
>
> It can't.
> >>On top of that, a considerable population of colonists from allGrandstanding, nothing else. Ignored.
> >>over the Empire took part in the process of the Romanization of
> >>the relevant SE European regions for centuries (most of them
> >>military veterans; NB: in Romanian, "old man" is expressed by
> >>a derivation of veteran: bätrân. The word vechi (fem. veche) is
> >>semantically restricted and can't be interchanged with bätrân/ä
> >>except for certain few situations).
> >
> >I know. Irrelevant.
>
> Quite the opposite of your "conclusion": it is in as much relevant
> that it thwarts 100% your assumptions. It is, for your thesis,
> such an obstacle that the tag attached to it reads "No pasaran!"
> (Of course, if you're a linguist. If not, then no wonder: you may
> very well take Fomenko and Heribert Illig for granted! :-))
> >I said:Why did you delete it?
> >'If the Slavic languages arrived in the Balkans (-> South Slavic)
> >with Ariovistus' Charudes / Croats
>
> I know what you had written: I'm in pretty good command of
> alphabetagammadelta.
> If Charudes really were *SLAVIC* Croats,I'm not talking about Slavicization, but of arrival some centuries earlier.
> it won't be enough. For the Slavicization of the aria, the
> relevant epoch wasn't that of Ariovist (when the Romanization
> of the Balkan Peninsula hadn't arrived its peaks yet!), but
> much later on: after the Avar conquest - i.e. when the late
> Latin-speaking population cum Germanic (Gepidic)-speaking
> population were beaten and had to retreat (and decay). Only
> then had the Slavs, underlings of the Scythian-Turkic Avars,
> the chance to take over (in the better regions of the Peninsula,
> the Romance-speaking populations having to withdraw to worse,
> chiefly mountaineous, regions).
> >which means we don't have to assume any close genetic relationshipThat would have been a relevant reply if I had made an absolute statement there, but I didn't, I made a conditional one, from which you deleted the premise in order to make it look like I said something else so that you could sidetrack the discussion onto something irrelevant.
> >between Slavic and Dacian / Thracian.'
>
> We must, since, at least linguistically, the big "Thracian"
> group was closer akin to the Balto-Slavic branch than to the
> Italic-Celtic-Germanic one.
> You, as a trained linguist, know better than outsider dilettantesNo they weren't. Relic groups, such as the speakers of kentum languages don't necessarily have anything in common.
> the significance of kentum-satem, and that far-Eastern plaid-
> wearing, kentum-speaking Tokharians were closer to western PIE-
> language-speakers in spite of geographic spreading. :)
> >You deleted the premise of that, which means that what you quotedDeleting a premise from a conditional statement in order to make look like an absolute statement is dishonest, George.
> >is no what I said, so I won't comment on it.
>
> What I delete isn't worth wasting time on. ;)
> >Nobody wants to be a slave, they don't need an Abe Lincoln to tellNo, as I already stated, it doesn't. Such a claim might serve your argumentative purpose, but it is untrue. Don't tell me what I believe.
> >them that. Going to war against your neighbor and enslaving him was
> >also the option favored over merely selling a slow trickle of
> >domestic criminals among 18th century African Burebistas. You may
> >call it job security for tyrants. I'm not presupposing any French-
> >Revolution type concept of 'freedom' as a motive for Burebista, as
> >you seem to think I do. Greed would suffice. Not that one excludes
> >the other.
>
> Yes. But it seems that *TO YOU* it is not yet clear that in
> those ancient societies slaves were something ... "natural",
> i.e. normal.
> So much so, that, even without wars and subjugations,Yes, as I pointed out posting several articles on the subject, which you have now read and imagine you reached those conclusions yourself.
> and without the *national* component, there were slaves who
> were bought or sold. The same way within the framework of the
> Imperium Romanum, of Greece, of Thrace, of Dacia, of the Persian
> (Iranian) empire.
> > I said 'the *then* free Dacians', which you don't seem to haveObviously you didn't or you are purposely ignoring it.
> > noticed.
>
> I've noticed very well, but it is you who (still) doesn't
> understnd that it is a ... NONSENSE to use the wording "free
> Dacians" in Burebista's century!
> You oughta use that syntagmI said 'the then free', where 'free' should be understood in opposition to those Thracians/Dacians who cooperated with the Romans in the slave trade.
> for occurrences in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries in the *Christian
> era*, and not *before the Christian era*. Because the
> dichotomy "free-unfree" has a sense (is justified/warranted)
> only in this context: "were they or weren't they subdued by
> the Imperium Romanum?".
> >The *then* free Dacians. Hello?The *then* free Dacians. Hello?
>
> Es ist blödsinnig von freien Dakern im ersten Jahrhundert
> vor Christus zu reden! Geht das endlich in dei'n Schädel
> nei? >:-( Du hast einen Fehler gemacht, gib auf und
> konzentrier Dich auf andere Sachen.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Albanian#.28Old.29_AlbanianWell, call it optional, then ;-)
> >That would make Albanian a direct descendant of Daco-Moesian
>
> OK! But this means that, for this occurrence, the
> emigration/immigration of Carpi & Costoboces contingents
> were not inherently necessary. (I.e.: migrations from the
> "Polish/Ukrainian" Carpathians to the Balkan-Rhodopi-
> Yugoslav Alps.)
> >Interesting.If you want me to say that, supply similar information on the topic under discussion, not on peripheral topics.
>
> Translated from Torsten's English into plain English: "Wow,
> I've never heard of that before!" :-)
> >>we shouldn't expect anything. The ethnogenesis andI'm pretty friendly and I tend to stay that way in interactions based on reciprocity. That's what people do here.
> >>the numerous changes and Umwälzungen were far too
> >>complicated and over long period of times that the
> >>minor aspects (which occurred centuries earlier) really
> >>have nothing to do with that.
> >
> >Did you actually say anything there?
>
> Of course I did, you frecher Dösbattel! I thought the
> Fischköppe in that Dansk arhipelago were a friendly,
> polite kind of fellas, and no pack of Gesocks.
> But II expected you to behave like a German. You haven't disappointed me. You guys think we're a defeated people like Jastorf. We're not.
> have to agree with my fellow Alpine brethren: Fischkopp
> bleibt Fischkopp. (Zufrieden? :))
> >>Just take into consideration that for 2-3 centuries,I know that Omelyan Pritsak has looked into the Turkish connection. To my shame, I haven't yet.
> >>in all areas which today are called Albania, Croatia,
> >>Serbia, Bulgaria everybody spoke popular Latin (and
> >>educated people Greek as well), and some Gothic and
> >>Gepidic; and some Hunnic. The substrate languages
> >>virtually vanished, Slavic + Prototurkic + Alanian
> >>Iranian hadn't yed arrived there.
> >>
> >>After the Roman provinces were distroyed by invasions,
> >>among which the first important one was the Avar-Slavic,
> >>the Romance-language speaking population *decayed* and
> >>took refuge or was chased away. Sources tell us that
> >>the great Avar kagan Bayan displaced 100-200 thousand
> >>Vulgata-speaking population from the NW of the Peninsula
> >>to other areas to the East or North-East. (To begin with!)
> >
> >Interesting, but not relevant here.
>
> Quite the contrary, it's highly relevant! You ain't seen
> nothing yet. Even, AFA your Snorri tales are concerned, it
> is relevant: since what Snorri says it has to do with the
> "gesta Scytorum", namely with the "adventures" of various
> Scythian tribes, that gradually replaced their Iranian
> (satem PIE idioms) with Turkic. Ruling clans with such
> origins were those who were the highest ranks in the
> "Avar", "Protobulgar", and perhaps "Croate & Serbian",
> configurations. If something of Snori Sturlasson's tales
> is true then perhaps those parts referring to Scythian-
> Turkic ancestry (during the "Hunnic"-Germanic cohabitation).