From: Torsten
Message: 67407
Date: 2011-04-27
>Odd. So you're saying there was a settlement boom in Transylvania in the 16th-17th centuries?
> >Are those places in -eÅti known earlier under other names in
> >sources in other languages or are they new settlements?
>
> Mostly or always new ones.
> Among place names with typical andI know, cunosc, cunoÅti, cunoÅte, like finisco, finisci, finisce
> highly frequent suffixes, the most frequent seem to be those
> ending in -eni (or -ani) and -e$ti - both of them being perceived
> in Romanian as plurals. Family names corresponding to them, in
> the singular, have the corresponding suffixes -eanu (-anu)
> [or shorter: -ean and -an esp. in Transylvania and those parts
> of Moldova that belonged to Austria and Russia, as well as in
> Banat, esp. in that part of it that belongs to Serbia], and -escu.
> In recent times, esp. since the 18th c., second names ending in
> -escu have been extended to any kind of names, that semantically
> have nothing to do with a place and the name or some historic
> or legendary fact pertaining to a place of origin (e.g. words
> meaning a trade, or a profession or an administrative or
> military position, including loanwords, in this respect, from
> other languages, e.g. Isbä$escu from Turkish yüzba$ı "oberleutnant
> or captain", CeauSescu from Turkish çavuŠ(chavoosh) "earlier
> in the Turkic world some higher military rank; in modern times
> some sergeant or bailiff", Stegärescu < probably from stegar
> "Fähnrich"). It has been used in a similar way as -sen/-son in
> Low German and Scandinavian names or as -shvili in Kartvelian
> or -oÄlu in Turkish onomastics.
>
> In any case, if -e$ti is however some relic of the ancient
> -(e)st(e)- you're talking about, the Romanian native-speakers
> aren't aware of -e$ti as a traditional place name suffix, but
> they instinctively perceive it as a community of -esc's. On
> top of that, -esc also has the value of an adjectival ending
> in adjectives that answer the questions "what kind of? which
> quality? welche Beschaffenheit?" (as it does in the borrowed
> -esque in English: e.g. picturesque). (And don't forget: this
> phonetical relationship also work in the IV conjugation of
> -ire and -rîre: indicative present: I pers. sing. + III pers.
> plur. -esc & -&sc versus II pers. sing. -e$ti & III pers. sing.
> -e$te; as well as in the forming noun plurals with -$t(i,e) of
> nouns having in the singular form -sc<vowel> [sk]. Because
> Romanian vernacular has always had problems with the cluster
> [sÄe, sÄi] _ALTHOUGH_ standard Romanian much easier comes to
> terms with it than Italian (that turns the cluster to [Se,
> Si]); (e.g. see the pronunciations of the words fascicul,
> fascism, scenä ("stage" + "scenery"), that are pronounced
> [sÄe, sÄi] excepting by uneducated people or by some who need
> logopedic training who pronounce *fa$icul, fa$izm, $Äenä.)
> >The problem is that of the Bastarnian language we have only threeI am reconstructing backwards from the dual dialect division in Germany. That is the explicandum. Why does the Northern and Southern half of Germany speak dialects so different that they might have been separate states, and yet history says they never were, and why is the Southern dialect the upper dialect in the North yet there was no historical nor prehistorical conquest from the South? One explanation would be a conquest from the east and we know from history and archeology that that was what Ariovistus did.
> >names of their leaders.
>
> Ja, dann, wat sull dat janze Jefasel? :-)
> >I've tried to find a Germanic etymology for one of them which1. *xr- isn't *xl-.
> >turned to have been both the first and second Lautverschiebung
> >My first attempt
> >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64761
> >and the correction to Proto-Hochdeutsch
> >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67156
>
> But what if it reflected another kind of cluster: chl-?
> As in Frankish Chlodowech, Chlothar or in Nordic Hrothgar,
> Hrörekr. (To Roman scribblers it would have been difficult
> to transcribe them, so that they would've been tempted to
> "extract" *Clodouec (they did: Clovis), *Clotar, *Crotgar,
> *Crorec (it ended up Rurik, didn't it?).)
>Old Saxon - speaking.
> >I know. What I meant and should have written is 'Old Low German /
> >Old Saxon' since Old Saxon is the 'reference language' for Old
> >Low German. In Lower Saxony / Niedersachsen, thus.
>
> OK, but where (in which area) could Bastarnians have become
> an upper class stratum ruling an old Saxon social stratum?
> Between the Weser and Elbe?
> >Erh, no, Ingvaeonic, if you wish, and NWBlock. All the GermanicIf my proposal is true, then
> >peoples I've mentioned so far (outside of Scandinavia) have
> >spoken West Germanic languages.
>
> But Marcomanians, Bastarnians, Goths, Gepids, Heruls, Langobards
> didn't belong to this group, did it?
>More accurately, they're cognate (this is standard)
> >Here's the plot: for around 200 BCE, the Scirii and the Bastarnae
> >are the only Germanic peoples we have written testimony of.
> >As for Scirii, Pekkanen has a theory that the exonym 'Germani' is
> >actually a Latin loan translation of 'Scirii' "the pure ones,
> >the real ones". As for the further family of *skir-/*skin-, see
>
> So are then the words schier & sheer the continuations of
> sciri(i)??
>Good question.
> >I can't, of course. For one thing, all words in p- in Germanic
> >languages are loans from a substrate, either from NWBlock or
> >some substrate in Przeworsk. But those same words have
> >correspondences in pf- in High German, which demonstrates the
> >presence of northern loans in that language.
>
> Or southern:
>
> Pferd < paraveredus; Pfalz < palatia; Pfand < pand
> < pannus (idem Pfennig); Pfahl < palus; Pfaffe < papas.;
> Pfingsten < paintekuste < pentekoste; Pforte < porta.
>
> >But I think the bulk of High German is Bastarnian.
>
> The bulk seems to be Latin loanwords. So, you imply Bastarnian
> to have been the intermediary Germanic language?
> (Scholars say in some cases it must have been the Gothic language.)I think I recall that. But the Goths weren't particularly active in Southern Germany AFAIK?
> And those with assumed Germanic (or substrate) origin don't seemTrue. Probably reflecting the low importance of the speakers of NWBlock et sim.
> to be more numerous than the Latin-Greek ones (e.g. pflegen,
> Pflicht, Pfriem).
> >I know.Our putative future archaeologist would have no choice but to be simplistic about it. The same for our knowledge of archaeological matters of 2000 years ago.
> >But imagine you are an archaeologist 2000 years from now;
> >you'd find 'Silesian' objects west of the Neisse mixed with
> >stuff from other 'tribes'. The archaeologist would conclude
> >that the tribe had disappeared as an independent people.
>
> Yeah, but this is a quite simplistic way of seeing the whole
> thing.
> >>I'm free to cite whatever I want and to addressThat is irrelevant to the subject, namely that you deleted the premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an absolute statement.
> >>whatever parts of your posts I desire.
> >
> >No you can't. You can't you delete the premise of a conditional
> >statement so that it appears as an absolute statement. That's
> >either incompetent or dishonest.
>
> Maybe you're a veteran netizen, but you still don't know some
> procedere/netiquette features. Quoting techniques on mailing
> lists and in Usenet groups require the observance of something
> I'd call "posting economy". So, whenever citing/quoting from
> the text to which I give a reply, I'll take only a minimum
> amount so that, for further reading __within a thread__ one
> doesn't lose the... thread of what's being discussed.
> If it happens that wrong inferences pop up, then you or othersI did object to that, and you dodged that objection, like you're doing now.
> are free to point out ("you neglect" or "you didn't see the
> sentences x,y,z, so that your idea/conclusion is wrong; pls,
> therefore, re-read that part of the previous statement you're
> now missing" or "you didn't pay attention to"). As simple as
> that.
> What you are doing is what I've seen for over 15 years nowNo, I complained that you deleted the premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an absolute statement. Now you are trying to make it look like I complained in general that you had deleted text. I didn't and you know it. Claiming otherwise is also either incompetent or dishonest.
> so often: complaining that I brutally apply machete slashes
> to the thicket of your prose. This reaction is based on a
> false assumption that what has been posted "*must*" always
> be quoted as a block, and whoever does pick up fragments out
> of this "block" he/she is a wrongdoer.
> Well, quite the opposite is true: this attitude is an attitudeThis is relevant only to your false accusation, so ignored.
> of a bloody newbie. To ad-nauseam repeat huge chunks of posted
> and reposted and reposted many a time in long quotations does
> not fit the netiquette (and does not provide clarity for the
> readers). My 2c. (I appreciate though that you use the "old"
> ">>" quotation style, incl. putting your reply underneath the
> quoted paragraph.)
> > > > > >I'm not talking about Slavicization, but of arrival someI didn't claim that the Charudes had any influence on the development of Oberdeutsch or Yiddish.
> > > > > >centuries earlier.
>
> > > > > If the much earlier arrived Slavs (or what they were) didn't
> > > > > play any role in the era of Slavicization of certain
> > > > > populations, then what is the reason you repeatedly and
> > > > > repeatedly mention those Charudes and that Charudes meant
> > > > > (Proto-)Croats? Or is your logics circuitry switched off
> > > > > again?
> > > > 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. This is why Southern Slavs are genetically
> > > > distinct from other Slavs.
> >>But to what avail do you mention them again and again and ad
> >>nauseam?
> >
> >Because you ask me.
>
> I didn't. What I did was to ask for some substance that might
> sustain your allegations that Ariovistus, Bastarnians etcetera
> had something to say in order to contribute to a certain way
> of development/transformation of Germanic idioms into Oberdeutsch
> (incl. into the kind of Oberdeutsch known as Yiddish).
> You don't have any linguistic element whatsoever to demonstrateNo, that is true. The arguments I use to support the proposal of a Bastarnian origin of High German speaking upper layer in Germany are archaeological and historical, necessarily, since I only know three measly words of Bastarnian (if that many).
> that only Bastarnians and no other Germanic-speaking people had
> this possibility. As simple as that.
> Even if you'd have dynasticA competitor to the title of the tribe who brought Germanness to the Germans would have to fulfill the requirement of showing a documented Germany-wide historically or archaeologically attested dispersal. Bastarnae fulfill that criterion. No other German tribe does, AFAIK. If you know of any, I'd like to hear about it.
> lists of princelings that conquered southern regions where
> MHG and Oberdeutsch-HG developed and even you'd be able to
> demonstrate all of them had Bastarnian extraction, you cannot
> demonstrate that no other Germanic groups participated in the
> colonization *and* giving the language those certain particulari-
> ties that makes it different from Low German and other German or
> Germanic idioms.
> IMHO, this is the gist of the entire discussion. How on earth canI can't.
> you establish Bastarnians exerted a certain LINGUISTIC influence
> when you've got no idea how their Germanic dialect was?
> You rather might show that Bastarnians had continuators in someLook up 'Fürstengräber'. That's the layer I'm talking about. Their graves are full of Roman provincial stuff.
> ruling dynasties or upper class social strata in Germanic or
> German kindoms and duchies later on. But this is something
> different. Yet even in this respect, for the time being, you can't
> offer interesting details/judgments.
> The fact that Ariovist + auxiliaryI am not so sure. The Vangiones, Triboci and Nemetes sayed in Alsace. The Sueui stayed in Swabia.
> Charudes were there, in the region of the upper Rhine, means...
> nothing.
> What really has a significance is how South Germany,Before, north of the
> Austria, Switzerland, Alsatia etc. were gradually colonized by
> Germanic colonists after SPQR went bust
> and how quickly and inNo it was Celtic. Helvetic to be precise.
> which way did the autochtonous Latin, Celtic etc. populations
> germanize. And that happened esp. 6-7 centuries after Ariovist.
> In Ariovist's time, South Germany was as Celtic and Roman as
> they come.
> Places such as Rottweil and Augsburg were Roman urbesNo, wrong.
> (Augsburg was a municipium, and its name Augusta Vindelicorum
> shows the area was or had been inhabited by the Celts called
> Vindelici, it wasn't called Augusta Bastarniorum or Charudesiorum :))
> >Ariovistus was the brother-in-law of king Voccio of Noricum,That's good question. I don't know.
>
> OK, then take Noricum (which lays a bit farther to the east):
> is there archeologic and written evidence attesting a Bastarnian
> presence at least in Noricum? I mean a significant population,
> not merely some cohorts of warriors paid by a chieftain called
> Ariovist.
> >The 30,000 Charudes Ariovistus was expecting for settlement whenI know, that's the point, they would have expanded in that direction.
> >Caesar attacked him would have nowhere else to go after his defeat.
> >So I think they ended up in Noricum / Austria. The rest is history,
> >as they say.
>
> Leave them aside. They're not on-topic at this moment. (Besides,
> the territory of the Croats is a next-door neighbor to Noricum;
> and besides: Austria had anyway an early Slavic presence inI know.
> the East and the South and the situation has been quite unchanged
> from the early Slavic impact up to day: yesterday, Carinthia's
> legislature adopted a law referring to the bilingual traffic
> signs in the relevant area bordering Slovenia.)
> Your topic is Bastarnae and their *linguistic* impact in theOkay, you would like me to discuss the Bastarnae and their *linguistic* impact in the southern part of the future "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation".
> southern part of the future "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation".
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA)How about this? Look at Moldvia, the home of the Bastarnae.
> >Concentrated in Croatia and Scandinavia, of all places.
> >Good for my scenario.
>
> Really? How can you establish any I-haplogroup connection with
> (1) Bastarnae;
> (2) Ariovist;I can't of course.
> (3) South-Germans?Now that's a problem, if want to maintatain that Ariovistus' invasion had an effect on the ethnic make-up there. I'd have to claim that Southern Germany was repopulated from Norther Germany.
> And, if youBetween what and what?
> could (say: Bastarnae or another Germanic group) would have
> consisted of many I-people, how can you make a distinction?
> How can you separate them from other populations that gotI couldn't.
> Germanized in the 5th-6th-7th centuries around the Alpine
> region? :)
> >Well, what I'm doing is to construct a scenario (migrations etc)With what facts?
> >which would not be discordant with those facts.
>
> And my reactions so far have been to say: your scenario keeps
> being discordant. So, do improve it.
> >Well it sort of is, since Burebista attacking the Bastarnae,We have a difference of method here. I see it as being up to my various opponents to point out alternative scenarios. But if I have to do it, here it is: According to the official version of history, Romans did not have any contact with Germani before Caesar's dealing with Ariovistus (apart from the Cimbri and Teutoni). There were no Germani in Southern Germani before Ariovistus. Any possible POWs from the Cimbri debacle in
> >prevailing and enslaving them is part of my scenario, since
> >I need to explain the large number of Germanic Slaves in
> >Spartacus' army at a time when the Romans had not yet been at
> >war with, or indeed in contact with any Germanic peoples.
>
> First of all, verify all _other possibilities_ the SPQR
> empire _had_ in order to procure slaves of Germanic extraction!
> And only when you scientifically can prove Rome had no other
> sources...
> >We know archaeologically that a new upper layer appear suddenlyTrue.
> >in the until then egalitarian Przeworsk culture at about this
> >time. They introduce inhumation, and they bury separately.
>
> Okay, but this gives you no hint whatsoever on what kind of
> Germanic dialect Bastarnians spoke,
> let alone that theirNo, but I think I have an case that they showed up themselves, bringing the language with them.
> dialect showed up later on (1,200 years later on) as the
> incipient Bavarian, Suebian, Franconian.
> (By the same token:They don't fulfill the criterion of a Germania-wide dispersion.
> show me why, for example, Lonobards didn't play a role in
> the linguistic process later on.)
> >The introduction of the new upper class in Przeworsk was anSee above.
> >abrupt event, which must have been caused by another abrupt
> >event, such as the defeat of the the Bastarnae and the
> >expulsion from their old homes. Think 1945.
>
> That's okay. But where's the beef as far as the specific
> linguistic transformation is of concern? How can you be sure
> only Bastarnians played a certain role, and all the others
> didn't?
> Why had all relevant Germanic groups, that builtThe Bastarnae had ceased to be an independent people with a separate state (whatever that meant to them) and were now just a political caste in Germania. Besides, given the later attested connotations of the word, I don't think 'Bastarna' was something you called a Bastarna to his face; cf Pliny: 'The Peucini, however, who are sometimes called Bastarnae, ...'; they probably preferred to be named by their subtribe. I mean, that would be like calling a modern-day German a bastard, and who does that?
> kingdoms and other states in the relevant territories, why
> did they have other names, and were never called Bastarnians?
>Yes, yes, of course.
> >No, the only remaining free Bastarnian tribe, the Peucini
> >disppeared at that time. The Atmoni and Sidoni disappeared
> >in mid 1st century BCE
>
> Of course, "disappearance" not in the real sense (death), but
> in the sense of ... assimilation. Of course, Bastarnians
> further existed, and their chromozomes still exist, scattered
> in Germany, Bohemia, Poland etcetera. It is only that you
> maintain they were the 1st violin in developing of a certain
> German (Deutsch) dialect in southern regions of the "reich".
> To me, this is an impossibility to ascertain. To you, this
> is tantamount to evidence, in spite of lacking any evidence
> whatsoever. By the same token: where are the Goths? Where
> are the Burgundians? They also "disappeared" and those
> "inheritors" of them (Italians, Catalans, French, Swiss,
> Spaniards etc.) you can't tell from other populations that
> also have built these modern nations. Yet Gothic left a big
> written corpus: one can get an idea how that Germanic language
> was.
> Bastarnae left nothing, zilch, yet you assert: BastarnaeI don't assert stuff, I propose it. Important methodological difference.
> spoke a "(proto) high German" dialect. :)
> >Those are the results of the Jastorf culture being reorganizedNo, I think Ariovistus and Harigasti was the same person (the king Voccio connection). Ariovistus was Germanic. Burebista attacked the Germani.
> >by the Bastarnians and South Germany being conquered.
>
> South Germany was conquered/colonized by Germanic populations
> (3-4-5-6) centuries after those events around Ariovist and
> Boerebist. (Weren't they the one and the same person actually? :))
> >No, you underline that they never thought of resisting beingThat Dacia was a preferred slave procurement area? No, read more here:
> >the target of slavers, which they were, cf. the Strabo quote in
> >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66620
>
> Does your inference happen to rely only on the information
> that in some epoch in arenas with gladiators and in some
> plays (theater shows) some slaves were called Geta and Daos
> because there might have been quite numerous slaves from
> among the Getae/Daci population?
> >Why do you say it then?No, why did *you* say that of the Dacians?
>
> In order to explain it to you, in order to teach you.
> So you'll be spared some Fressepolierung. :)
> >How about Gesocks then? Or saudumm?I'll remember that.
>
> "Wie man in den Wald hinein ruft..."
> >If you think this is off-topic, you can't read.We were discussing whether 'nationalism' which you equated with the intent of a people to collectively try to avoid enslavement, claiming such a notion did not exist before the 19th century, and I showed you it did.
>
> If you think that that is on-topic, you should put some
> order in the elements you try to combine; this way it is
> to no avail to the Bastarnae-Ariovist impact on Schöffe.
> (In other terms, up to now... Du schöpfst aus dem falschen
> Scheffel.)
> >Of course I did, and you're wrong.Du får ret og jeg får fred ;-)
>
> OK then, you are right, and... ich habe meine Ruhe! :)
> >No. If I think the Dacians/Thracians in the 1st century BCE wereDependent for their livelihood like the Imbangala and Nyamwezi in Africa.
> >split into a group which were dependent on the Romans
>
> In which way "dependent"?
> In what territory?North of the lower Danube
> Based on what written sources?As I said:
> When exactly?The middle of the first century BCE
> In Burebista's years (approx. 80-44 BCE)?Yes.
> Between 44 BCE and 100 CE?Partially.
>The Romans paid them.
> >helping them procure slaves
>
> If it was Dacians who were able & entitled to *help* "Romania"
> (which was a monstrous colossus of a state!), how were they...
> "dependent"?
> This would mean that the SPQR-state depended onNo, see the reference I gave.
> Dacia. (I'm writing it only for the sake of discussion, coz
> otherwise this is a consumate bunkum: the Roman Empire didn't
> depend of slave procurement from Dacia; it had its own millions
> of slaves and a potential of other masses from other countries
> as well, from the Atlantic to Persia, and from Morocco to
> Persia. But I understand by now that your idea was induced by
> Roman theater literature containing those slave characters
> with symbolic ethnic names "Geta" and "Daos".
> And then toNo, the Geta and Daos names show that Dacia through centuries was a preferred slave procurement area, the surge in Bastarnian / German slaves from there occurred only in a very short period during the
> infer that these Geta and Daos were actually ... Bastarnian
> slaves,
> as though people in Rome were as stupid as to notSlave traders had the reputation of used car dealers, for eg. falsifying information of the ethnic origin of slaves, which Romans took seriously.
> being able to distinguish the ethnicity of those who entered
> their "Schengen" area! <tsk-tsk-tsk> :))
> >and another group which wasn't, I can refer to the latter groupThank you.
> >as 'free' if I want, and if I want to make sure the reader
> >distinguishes them from the later 'free Dacians' I can call
> >them 'the then free Dacians', given an appropriate time reference
> >in the text.
>
> OK, do that, it's a free country. :)
> >Dilemma: Should I believe George or Jordanes?I think I'll reserve judgment on that.
>
> Believe Jordanes if you prefer. So, Getae were the ancestors of
> Goths and the rest of Scandinavians, right?
> So, you yourself are sort of a Mucapor Tzinto Dakensen. Zufrieden?I believe you might be on to something.
> (Look at those two genuine Dacian names! :))
> >No, that the Albanians were the descendants of 'the then freeThe Albanians come from a coast-free area, according to the vocabulary of Albanian.
> >Dacians' I mentioned, ie.
>
> This is impossible. If of Dacians or of Thracians, then in much
> later times (after the 6th c., after the Avar-Slavic invasions,
> and after the crashing of the East-Roman authority and admini-
> stration). At that time (1st c. BCE and 1st c. CE) in today's
> Albanian territory there lived Illyrians and a bit farther to
> the North (where there's much I-haplogroup frequency) there
> lived their cousins, the Pannonians, and "spots" of Veneti.
> In those times, the Romanization merely was in its inception;
> it had to last further 5 centuries.
> >the population which were the targets of slave procurement.They had war and trade. They were not at war with any Germanic people in the relevant period and the main market was closed to them.
>
> You put it so as though poor Rome didn't have other sources of
> procurement. (As though Washington must rely only on Libya's
> crude, as though there were no Saudi Arabia and no Gulf
> emirates. :))
> >No, I confirm that I already have a train with a locomotive,Brian finds it difficult to entertain more than one idea at the same time.
> >and a cruising ship, so thank you, but no thank you.
>
> Remember what Brian told you: it isn't enough to garner heaps
> of data.
>We ran a surplus until last year, I believe.
> >No, that's at the other end of Germany. The one where you live.
> >We pay our bills.
>
> Whaddaya? That's the joke of the year! I pay your bill. The whole
> EU is paid and thus kept alive by Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg,
> assisted by Hessen. (At least export to us some eolian-generated
> electric current! Coz your fish is contaminated and your Dansk
> feta cheese is not as tasty as the Greek and Bulgarian one. :))
> >he did have an incredible amount of factualAnd he accepted none of mine.
> >knowledge on the subject.
>
> Of course, he has: he has studied the history of those relevant
> areas of Eastern Europe in a professional way. I read some
> fragments of your exchanges but I saw you were not willing to
> accept any of his objections.
> >But if you can manage to be an even greater SOB that he was,Hm. Maybe I should buy a piano?
> >maybe I can find a space beneath his name? Can you do that? ;-)
>
> Alas, by no means! I'd be contented to merely watch the ceremony on
> TV having some Franziskaner beer and some popcorn, and to read the
> newscast headlines at news.google.com: "A cybalist author managed
> to rewrite the 'Nibelungenlied'!" :)