>The language itself is not documented before that time
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language#Writing_system
But whole lotta place names were documented. -escu + -e$ti showed
up like a ... fad in the 16th-17th centuries and spread esp. in
the 18th-19th c. (To be precise: there are whole lotta Transylva-
nian place names ending in -e$ti, but person names ending in -escu
are not autochtonous, these being spread outside the Carpathian
range.)
>I should be more exact and take care to call that language Proto
>High German in the future.
Don't insist on "high" unless you have a proof that their
Protogerman differed too much from other Protogerman idioms of
populations later on also contributed to the "creation" of
Oberdeutsch and Mitteldeutsch.
>That community isn't aware of the history of the area in as much >detail as we have covered here in Cybalist.
Oh, come on, puhleeeze! :)
> No, they would be in traditional Elbe Germanic area.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic
I meant Saxons in that epoch (1st c. BCE - 1st CE), i.e. their
ancestors:
<<Die Sachsen waren ein westgermanischer Stammesverband, der sich
vermutlich im 3. Jahrhundert bildete und seit dem 4. Jahrhundert
sicher belegt ist.
Die Stämme der Chauken, Angrivarier und Cherusker, die sich zu
den Sachsen zusammenschlossen, lebten im 1. Jahrhundert im
Nordwesten des heutigen Deutschlands und im Osten der heutigen
Niederlande (siehe Niedersächsisch).>>
(So, they hadn't yet arrived in the area wich today is called
Sachsen and was/is a compact Slavic area (containing Lusatia
and such Slavic place names as Leipzig, Dresden, Chemnitz.)
Moreover:
<<Der heutige Freistaat Sachsen, historisch auch Kurfürstentum
Sachsen (Kursachsen) bzw. Obersachsen, hat mit dem historischen Volk
der Sachsen im niederdeutschen Sprachraum â" auÃer dem Namen â" nichts
gemein: Die Vorfahren der Bewohner des heutigen Freistaates Sachsen
gehör(t)en dem mittelhochdeutschen Dialektraum an.
Die Namenswanderung geschah dadurch, dass der Titel des Herzogs von
Sachsen an Fürsten fiel, die auÃerhalb des alten Stammesgebietes
residierten, und der Name auf deren Länder übertragen wurde. Der
Herzogstitel von Sachsen fiel nach dem Sturz Heinrichs des Löwen im
Jahr 1180 an den Askanier Bernhard, der in Wittenberg residierte.
Bereits zu diesem Zeitpunkt verlor im deutschen Reich der Titel eines
"Herzogs" seine Bindung an ein Stammesgebiet.>>
>Here, in their traditional home:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Germanic
Westgermanen.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/GermanenAD50.png
OTOH, you're fascinated/obsessed by Bastarnians (OK, I understand:
to you, they were a special, "upper class", populace). But not by
their "colleagues" living in the same Vistula area: Gepids, Gotons
(Goths), Rugii, Scirii - who played a way greater role for a long
while in the Roman Empire. And not by the next-door neighbors of
them: Lugii, Burgundians and Vandals - other important populations
that played great roles in various events (the Burgundians even
until the 16th c.)
>You would want to attack the unfamiliar (to you) theory if it was
>mine, but you're afraid it might be a well-established theory you
>haven't heard of?
Neither - nor! It'd be interesting for your theory to have
substance: we'd get something new. But it must have Hand-und-Fuss. :)
>Not quite, I also have the
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negau_helmet
>(check the archives) and the fact that the
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scirii
Aha, so there are further groups, not only those overwhelming and
ubiquitous Bastarnians (I'm growing fed up with them langsam)! :)
<<Must (1957) reads HariÏas Titieva as a Raetic personal name, the
first element from the Indo-European (Venetic rather than Germanic),
the second from the Etruscan.>>
So it is not sure that the inscription Harigasti teiwaz is Germanic,
it's only a hypothesis that it contains Germanic words.
>That's a 500 year gap I have fill out.
Ahem. :)
>'nobody knows' -> 'nonsense' doesn't follow if you can produce
>evidence from other sciences which has been overlooked.
Then go ahead, produce them. Produce evidence on how were the
Germanic idioms/dialects in the 1st c. as compared with Southern
Deutsch of the 12th-21st century - when you lack scribblings and
you lack other devices & techniques.
Nobody contests the finds that show some populations in some
periods of time were Germanic (or Slavic or Celtic or whatever).
Your thesis is that one population out of several others in
a certain area, the Bastarnians, were those who were continuated
by the Oberdeutsch (and perhaps by Mitteldeutsch) Germans.
Your thesis is that South-German dialects were started by
Bastarnians and only by them. By which tools, method, markers
are you able to dissociate Bastarnians (in this respect) from
all the others who also colonized South Germany? How can you
prove only Bastarnians' own dialect prevailed.
Even if you take old high German texts of which you know where
they were written: how can you establish the Bastarnian
filiation without any mixing with elements from the idioms
spoken (8-9 centuries earlier) by Rhine-Weser Germanic tribes
or by North-Sea Germanic tribes?
>I know. Irrelevant. The German Silesians have disappeared as
>a distinct people by being absorbed into the two Germnan
>states after 1945, which was what the comparison was about.
No, this is completely wrong! Until they completely vanish as
a certain dialect or subdialect speakers and connoisseurs of
their own customs and tradition, you have to wait for a few
more decades. Today, they are still here. (In the locality
where I live there is an important group of them, with their
own Landsmannschaft-like organization. The same applies to the
Sudetendeutsche community.
>Why did you delete the premise of a conditional statement so
>that it appeared as an absolute statement?
I don't know what you're talkin' about, and it doesn't matter
anyway: what you've stated is *there*, once posted and distributed
and archived. I'm free to cite whatever I want and to address
whatever parts of your posts I desire. (Especially since I've
seen that you do not react or you discard as "nonsense" very
important objections I make pertaining to some judgments of
yours to show you why your hypothesis doesn't work or why it
is rickety.)
>The Charudes / Croats arriving with Ariovistus would remain
>unnoticed since they were no military threat, until they got
>organized around a cause (that of not becoming a slave) in the 6th
>and 7th centuries, when many local joined them, switching to their
>language.
But to what avail do you mention them again and again and ad
nauseam? As far as (1) Schöffe I, (2) Bastarnians, (3) the
creation of Oberdeutsch in the southern areas of the Holy Roman
Empire are concerned, addressed and discussed: what contribution
has the mentioning of Charudes = Croats?
>This is why Southern Slavs are genetically distinct from other Slavs.
Of course they are to a certain extent: examinations of haploid
groups in various areas show a concentration of old I haplogroup
in their area (i.e. in former Illyricum). Which might be interpreted
as marking a considerable concentration of populations that had
stayed longer in Europe than those who came along during the
Völkerwanderunszeit. OTOH, we know that in their area there were other immigrants too who came just in those centuries of the
Great Migrations, from eastern Eurasian regions (for instance Huns,
Avars and Iranian-speaking Alans or similar populations), and that
older populations were of various stocks from various provinces of
the Roman Empire. But the Slavic impact must have been important,
otherwise Croats would be Italians or Albanians or Hungarians
today.
>No, you didn't. You deleted the premise of a conditional statement
>so that it appeared as an absolute statement.
I won't repeat why inserting "free" along with "Dacians" isn't OK
in the 1st c. BCE.
>I inserted the statement in my previous post which you deleted.
>Obvioulsly I didn't claim in that that Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian,
>Scythian weren't satem languages.
Then it's OK. (Abgehakt; so don't insist on this petitesse any
longer.)
>I have reinserted the text two answers back which you deleted.
>As is obvious I have presented no inference or conclusion such
>as you claim; instead I am denying that I have the opinion you
>ascribe to me, viz. that Burebista necessarily had noble
>'freedom' motives for his campaigns. You ignore that and proceed
>as if I had those opinions.
OK, let's close this sub-collateral (off-)topic. By now I know
what you try to explain in the 1st c. BCE Dacia's context when
you refer to these topix: (1) Bastarnians+Przeworsk; (2) Jewish
merchants; (3) the real and postulated links between Dacians and
a neo-Romance language-speaking population which has been called
Vlachs (exonym) and Rumanians (endonym). *How were the slaves
traffic and commerce in Dacia under various Dacian rulers* is
not of main interest as far as these topics are concerned. The
chief issue is to show why the Bastarnians played the main role
in the building of the South-German ethno-linguistic groups.
Why only them, and to a lesser or no extent their neighboring
groups. The historic fact being that the term Bastarnian ceased
to exist (to be mentioned) in the 3rd-4th c. CE, whereas the
names of some of their contemporaries are still in use (e.g.
Suebi, Baiuvari, Turingi, Franci, Saxoni; and even Burgundi,
if we think of some red wine or of a word used by Hungarians,
burgonya, that means "potato" :-) and has almost the same
pronuncition as the French Bourgogne).
>Strunzdumm? Why? They weren't slaves yet.
You still don't get it? ("Lasciate ogni speranza..." :))
>No it doesn't. Not that I care, but it seems to me that you want
>the scientific community to accept as axiomatic that the
Dacians/Romanians are a people that would never be capable of
>that,
What on earth are you talking about?!? How the heck did *I*
induce to you these thoughts? What I do is exactly the contrary:
I underline that slavery was the most common thing before
baptization (i.e. officially adopting the Christian faith).
>in other words that they are no nationality but a profession. Is >that what you mean?
You have no idea in which context was concocted the bon (mal)
mot "not a nationality but a profession". Therefore, don't repeat
it since it is higly (I mean very!) offensive! It is at least as
offensive as saying kike/hymie to a Jew or boch to a German or
wop to an Italian. It is far more offensive than Fischkopp uttered
by an Alpine rube when addressing a Northsea or Baltic sea German
or Scandinavian.
>was a modern nationalist?
>The world is much more complicated that your 'nationalism was
>invented in the 19th century' standard fare.
Now I realize that you poured this amount of off-topic crap
because you absolutely did not understand what I meant by
the modern perspective of our times pertaining to nationalism
- and why some of our modern "optic" doesn't fit the way of
thinking in ancient as well as early medieval times.
>>Indem Du das Wort "frei" einbaust, so stellst Du automatisch
>>eine Verbindung mit der unfreien Zeit her, also mit der Zeit
>>der römischen Besatzung.
>
>Nope.
I am aware that you do not understand this, but pay attention
to what I'm telling you: ES IST SO! Because of logic, because
of our cultural socialization, because of the structures of...
language: we don't chaotically pick up words in order to build
sentences in order to convey something - we do that constrained
by some needs, by some... logic. So is the case of free.
The syntagm "free Dacians" was invented by historians to
dissociated those living in territories never occupied by the
SPQR from those Dacians who became subjects to SPQR and after
Caracalla citizens.
So, only in this context does "free Dacians" make sense. In
the context of Burebista the syntagm has no purpose.
>Excuse me, that was Jordanes wrote that.
Take Jordanes cum grano salis.
>You were the one introducing the subject of Carpi and Costoboci,
>not I.
Of course, since you were talking of Northern Dacians who
moved to the South. Thus, I pointed out: (1) the South had had
enough masses of Dacian-speaking populace (some of them were
called Moessi); (2) not only "free Dacians" from the North and
East moved thither, but also populations called Carpi and
Costoboces, whom various historians have deemed as being
some Dacian populations too. And all this in the context of
an hypothesis that says Albanians are rather descendants of
a Thracian and/or Daco-Moesian population (from middle regions
of the Balkan Peninsula) than of Illyrians near the shores of
the Adriatic Sea (Illyrians anyway having been the first regional
population to be Romanized as compared with the rest of the
natives over there).
>Thank you, but I already have that.
So you confirm that I am to be given these retorts "And?" and
"sez Grimm" in most of the cases, don't you. :)
>>You're pretty friendly and call me a "lazy SOB"?
>
>That was a observation.
You allow yourself to call me a son of a bitch, i.e. to call
my mother a bitch? Are you healthy up there in the vessel
that's fixed on your neck and in which those few neurons are
swimming in a Brownian way?
>Rektor Galster was my grandfather
I don't think Herr Rektor would be amused today to see how
you call an innocent, friendly and witty discussion partner
a "SOB".
>Don't worry. We'll be gone. The EU will see to that.
Whenever there is trouble, you all run away. It's left to
us to pay and pay and forever pay (although our own incomes
are less and less and unemployment rampant)...
>I am sorry if looking on too much of your own posting have
>mad you feel bad.
OK, for these kind words I'll almost rehabilitate your status. :)
>Aha, I do wrong things because I do wrong things. Thanks for
>the advice.
Which advice'll do you good: you'll improve your theory, and
when you'll get the Nobel prize you'll mention a certain "SOB"
George who opened the path to the ceremony where you'll utter
those "thank you" words into the mike, on the stage. :)