>Odd.
It is not odd, it's the reality.
>So you're saying there was a settlement boom in Transylvania in the
>16th-17th centuries?
No boom, but the spreading of such suffixes as a... fad. And I
didn't limit this to Transylvania: I merely pointed out that in
Transylvania there are *also* such place names, but, compared
with other regions, this one doesn't have person names ending in
-escu. Where there are such persons, their roots are outside.
>I know, cunosc, cunoÅti, cuno[a]Åte, like finisco, finisci, finisce
So you see that there is a phonologic reason behind it (sc > $t
and in rarissima cases sc > $k). An ancient SE european substrate
-(e)st to have been preserved in Romanian is hardly imaginable
and, if it is, then it is hardly plausible that it was converted
to -e$ti. A -(a,e,i,o,u)st place name suffix would be exotic in
Romanian. (I don't reject your hypothesis, I only point out I
can't see how it could have been preserved, and I've never heard
it in works by people specialized in Romanian linguistics. But
ya never know, perhaps this would be a new insight. :))
>But it is still intriguing that Kuhn's NWBlock/Venetic -st- suffix
>might have been the plural of the adjective -sk- suffix.
If your NWB/V. assumption were justified, a next step would be
to show how this -st- might have been borrowed into Romanian
and Albanian.
>I 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
Well, they aren't thaaat different. Only that during the
MHG and NHG time periods the gap grew bigger due to sothern
innovations. If we look at the older southern German, esp.
at the OHG level, the differences are less. The real gap is
when you compare all German dialects with Danish, Swedish,
Norse, Icelandic and with North-Frisian. For these kind of
"deutsche Sprachen" one needs either to learn them or hire a
translator. :) (Let alone English!) I understand much of a
text written in some of Belgium's and Netherland's vernacular
than of a text in Danish or Swedish.
>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?
OMG! It is this that prompted you think of Bastarnians? But
the explanation is far more recent! It had to do with the
Frankish empire and with the fact that southern Church and
administrative centers in the middle and South (incl. Switzerland)
played (for centuries) a far greater role than in old Saxony!
To a certain extent, a major role played the missionary monks
and bishops (most of them Irish) who coordinated the Christiani-
zation of Germans and who chiefly lived in the southern provinces
(under the Merowingian and Carolingian auspices). Fulda, Passau,
Salzburg, St. Galen & al. played a greater role in those times
until after AD 1000 than the North Sea and the Baltic Sea regions.
Towards the middle of the 2nd millennium, a tremendous role
was played by the influence of the language Martin Luther's
translated Bible.
(Be rather puzzled by the big difference between OHG and MHG:
compare *southern* OHG texts with those of Walter von der
Vogelweide and the Nibelungenlied! Atta big difference! Compared
with OHG, MHG German is almost today's 8High) German.)
I'm citing from the Atlas der deutschen Sprache:
<<Geschriebenes und gesprochenes Althochdeutsch
In ahd. Zeit war die Kirche die Trägerin der Schriftkultur, v.a.
in den Domschulen und den Klöstern. Einzige geschriebene Sprache
war bis ins 8. Jh. hinein das Latein. Und das lat. Alphabet, das
zur Verfügung stand, war nur beschränkt geeignet, die fremden
germ. Lautungen wiederzugeben. So ist uns vom fränk. Merowinger-
könig Chilperich I (+584) überliefert, dass er das Alphabet um
vier Zeichen (für e:, o:, w, th) erweitert habe, um es zur Auf-
zeichnung fränk. Wörter geeigneter zu machen. Und Otfried
kritisiert um 865 die fränk. Sprache im Vergleich zum Latein als
''inculta'' und ''indisciplinabilis''. Sie biete orthograph.
Schwierigkeiten, die nur durch Zeichen, die das Latein nicht
habe (damit meinte er k, z und Nebensilbenvokal y) behoben werden
könnten.
Wir sehen daraus die grundsätzlichen Schwierigkeiten, die sich
den ahd. Gelehrten für das "bis dahin nahezu unerhörte" Unternehmen
(so Notker Labeo von St. Gallen noch um 1000), deutsch zu
schreiben, boten. Ihr Bemühen um genaue phonet. Wiedergabe der
gesprochenen Sprache (verschiedene Behandlung des Anlauts je nach
vorhergehendem Laut bei Notker, differenziertes Orthogr'system
im _Isidor_) gelingt nur den hervorragendsten unter ihnen; manche
scheitern, wie Wisolf, der Aufzeichner des _Georglieds_, der am
Ende seines mehr schlechten als rechten Produkts ein "ich kann
nicht mehr" hinmalt, und zwar auf Latein, das ihm in der Schrift
nicht so viel Schwierigkeiten macht.
Die _Schreibmundart eines Ãberlieferungsortes repräsentiert oft
nicht die Mundart seiner Umgebung: so schreibt das Kloster Fulda
im 9. Jh. ostfränk. und nimmt dann allmählich das Rheinfränk. seiner
Umgebung an. Oder die Reichenau schreibt nach der Gründung 724
zunächst fränk., ab 780 alemannisch und im 9 Jh. teilweise wieder
ostfränkisch. In diesen Veränderungen spiegelt sich die Zusammen-
setzung des jeweiligen Konvents und der Einfluss bedeutender Lehrer
(zB Walahfried Strabo als Franke auf der Reichenau).
Häufig stellen ahd. Texte auch Mischungen verschiedener Mundarten
dar. Sie beruhen in der Regel auf Abschriften, bei denen versucht
wurde, einen Dialekt in einen anderen zu übertragen, was bei den
verschiedenen Werken nur mit unterschiedlichem Grad der Voll-
kommenheit gelang.
So zB ist das Hildebrandlied nur in einer asächs. Abschrift eines
bair. oder langobard. Originals erhalten, was man aus hyperkorrekten
und nicht umgesetzten Formen erschlieÃen kann.
Die ahd. Dialekte sind uns nur als Schreibsprachen greifbar: die
aus vielen Gegenden zusammengekommenen Mönche bewirkten einen
Ausgleich in den Schreibsprachen, der grobmundartliche Formen
eliminierte; so erscheinen die typischen Kennzeichen des Bair. ös
und enk für die Formen des Personalpronomens 'ihr' und 'euch'
(Nom. und Akk.) erst im 13. Jh. in der schriftliche Ãberlieferung.
Anhand der Personennamenschreibung in selten erhaltenen Notizen
(Vorakten), die der Reinschrift einer Urkunde vorausgingen, stellte
Stefan Sonderegger fest, dass in den Konzepten die Entwicklung
der Sprache (zB Primärlaut) weiter fortgeschritten ist als in den
Urkunden selbst>> [!!!] <<Die stärker phonetische Schreibweise der
Vorakte wurde zugunsten einer konservativen Einheitsschreibung auf-
gegeben. So sind lokale Schreibtraditionen sehr oft entscheidend
für das Aussehen des Schriftdialekts eines Schreiborts, wobei sehr
groÃe Unterschiede zwischen geschriebener und gesprochener Sprachform
bestehen können.
Das Ahd. ist, so wie es uns entgegentritt, die Sprache der Kirche
und der Klöster, und so sind wir vor allem über den Wortschatz der
Kirche gut unterrichtet. Von der Sprache des stabreimenden alt-
germ. Heldenliedes wissen wir nur wenig.
Die Aufzeichnung von "gesungenen, vorgetragenen, heimischen, sehr
wichtigen und altehrwürdigen Liedern, die das Leben und die
Kriege der früheren Könige vergegenwärtigten", die Karl d. GroÃe
anregte, ist verloren, und von der gesprochenen Alltagssprache ist
in den poet. Werken und in der lat. überformten Ãbersetzungsliteratur
kaum etwas zu spüren. Einzig zwei karge Gesprächsbüchlein (in Paris
und Kassel) lassen die Alltagssprache des Volkes anklingen:
_wer pist du? wanna quimis? fona weliheru lantskeffi sindos?_
"Wer bist du, woher kommst du? Aus welcher Gegend reist du an?"
Oder: "Sclah en sin hals! (H)undes ars in dine naso! - >>
>One explanation would be a conquest from the east and we know from >history and archeology that that was what Ariovistus did.
Well, feel free to illustrate-demonstrate this. Until then, I'll
tend to accept the mainstream finds, namely that, at such an
early stage of the language transformations it did not matter
whether Elbe Germanic groups or Rhine-Weser-North Sea groups
had the "upper hand" 500-600 years prior to the colonization
of the South.
>1. *xr- isn't *xl-.
Isn't but, can't they be related in a way or another? After
all, [r] and [l] are neighbors.
>Old Saxon - speaking.
>The newly upper layer (says archaeology) of Bastarnae (says I)
>spread as a homogenous layer (says archaeology) over several
>similar but related cultures (says archaeology) in the
>Przeworsk culture (ie. today's Poland) and the Jastorf
>culture (today's Northern Germany). Thus also between the
>Weser and the Elbe.
Then how did the next generations gotten into Rhineland-
Palatinate, Hesse, Alsatia, Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria,
Switzerland? Under the "tag" of the Frankish kings?
>Langobards would have originally spoken Proto Low German
>because of their origin.
Linguistically they were rather Suebians.
>A more fascinating possibility is that a basic Christian
>vocabulary arrived with a second wave of immigrants from
>Przeworsk in the first centuries CE.
But the main impediment is the fact that Christian culture
came into those lands from the West (Gallia & Irish & Anglo-
Saxon missionaries) and the South (inter alia via Gothic:
experts say that in Bavaria (it is meant the historic Bavaria, i.e.
incl. Noricum up to the Lake Balaton) some terminology was
conveyed by Gothic). Whereas regions to the east, into Poland
stayed pagan for a longer time. (Most of the Slavic areas had
to wait for Cyrill and Method brethren's mission.)
Referring to the anglo-saxon mission, the Atlas der deutschen
Sprache (in the paperback variant) says:
<<Der Gegensatz zwischen fränk.-ags. und süddeutscher Kirchensprache
erweisen folgende Beispiele:
fränkisch (ags.) - lat. - ahd.-süddt. (got.)
--------------------------------------------
geba (ags. gifu) - gratia - ginada, anst (got. ansts)
huldi
heilant (ags. haeland) - salvator - neriand (got. nasjands)
odmuoti (ags. eaDmod) - humilitas - deomuati
miltherzi - misericors - armherzi (got. armahairts)
geist (ags. gaest, ga:st) - spiritus - atum (got. ahma)
heilag (ags. ha:lig) - sanctus - wi:h (got. weihs)
(Note how close is this Gothic weihs to today's German Weihe,
geweiht! Closer than to old High German wihs.)
<<Das Fränkische stimmt in der Regel mit dem Angelsächsischen
überein, die süddeutsche, meist bairische Form oft mit dem
Gotischen. In unserem heutigen Deutsch haben sich teils die
nördlichen teils die südlichen Formen durchgesetzt.>>
<<Für einen engeren süddt.-got. Zusammenhang sprechen ferner
folgende Parallelen: abair. pfaffo "Pfaffe" in seiner Bedeutung
got. papan (< griech. papas) im Gegensatz zu lat. Bedeutung
"Papst"; ahd. ginist für lat. salus "Heil, Rettung" (~ got.
ganists); ahd. touffen "taufen" = got. daupjan (vgl. ags.
fulwi:an). Ãhnlich stimmen die bair. Dialektwörter Dult ("Fest")
und Maut ("Zoll") zu got. dulDs und mo:ta (abair. mu:ta).>>
<<Während bei den früh übernommenen ursprünglich griech. Kirchen-
wörtern wie Engel und Teufel, die oft got. Einfluss zugeschrieben
werden, auch an einen lat.-gall. Vermittlungsweg zu denken ist,
ist das bei den bair. Wörtern nicht der Fall. Man verwies parallel
zumm ags. Missionseinfluss auf eine gotische Mission bei den
Baiern, die aber historisch nicht bezeugt>> [!!!] <<und bei der
Toleranz ___des arianisch-got. Christentums auch kaum wahr-
scheinlich ist___.>> [i.e. sort of a Church "ministry of truth"
acted with censorship and deleting traces! :-)] <<Vielleicht sind
die Einflüsse auf got.-christliche Bevölkerungsteile bei dem um
500 plötzlich>> [!!!] <<auftauchenden Mischvolk der Baiern
zurückzuführen.>>
<<Ein Einfluss der keltisch sprechenden Iren auf die Bildung
einer sog. süddeutschen Kirchensprache ist zwar nachzuweisen
versucht worden, doch man ist bisher noch nicht zu Ergebnissen
gekommen, die allgemeine Zustimmung gefunden hätten.>>
And this in spite of the tremendous influence exerted by those
Irish clergy people who Christianized Bavaria and who are still
today very popular in Bavaria and Austria: Kolumban (+615),
Gallus (+645), Emmeram (+715), Kilian (+689), Korbinian (+725),
Rupert (+720) (who lived and acted in the area near Bodensee,
St. Gallen, Regensburg, Würzburg, Freising, Salzburg - in the
order of the afore-mentioned names).
>I think I recall that. But the Goths weren't particularly active
>in Southern Germany AFAIK?
It seems quite the contrary - at least according to the abridged
"Atlas der Deutschen Sprache"; see above.
BTW, the Germanic populations taxonomy in this book says:
Alemanians, Bavarians, Langobards continuated the "Elbgermanen"
lineage (and these the Irmions). The Franks, Hesses etc. the
"Weser-Rheingermanen" (Istväonen), with the question-mark addition
that Franks may also have had "Nordseegermanen" ancestry, along
with the Saxons. So: Elbe, Rhein & Weser (apud Fr. Maurer, you
also have quoted on various occasions).
Elbgermanen (according to FM): Semnonen, Hermunduren (Thüringer),
Langobarden, Markomannen, Quaden, Baiern, Alemannen ("die Sprache
der letzteren seit dem 8. Jahrhundert überliefert").
Your thesis is akin to Theo Frings's one: <<betont die gotisch-
elbgerm. (= hochdeutschen) und nordsee-germ.-weser-rheingerm.
Beziehungen. Er bringt die Dreiteilung des Tacitus (in der
"Germania") in die Kultbünde der Ingväonen, Istväonen und Irmionen
mit der sprachlichen Dreiteilung des Westgerm. zusammen (Nordsee-,
Weser-Rhein-, Elbgermanen) und sieht diese auch in der heutigen
Mundartgliederung im Küstendeutsch (Niederländisch), Binnendeutsch
(Niederdeutsch) und Alpendeutsch, Süddeutsch (Hochdeutsch) wieder.
Die Entstehung der gotisch-hochdt. Gemeinsamkeiten verlegt er in
eine Zeit früher Nachbarschaft im Ostseeraum, in die Mitte des 1.
Jahrtausends.>> (On Bastarnians, nothing.)
As far as the Germanic tribes decades after Ariovist and Burebista
are mentioned (and shown on maps) in the Rhine area (from S to N):
Triboci, Nemetes, Vangiones, Treveri, Tencteri-Usipi, Tubantes,
Chatti, Marsi Chattuarii, Chamavi, Batavi, Bructeri, Cherusci,
Chasuarii, Angrivarii (colored as "Weser-/Rheingermanen").
"Elbgermanen": Hermunduri, Langobardi, Marcomanni, Semnones, Quadi.
"Ostgermanen" (except Heruli, then in Denmark, all between Oder
and Vistula): Bastarnae, Sciri, Vandali, Burgundiones, Guones,
Gepidi, Rugii.
(At the inception of the Rhine and all along the Danube, only
Celtic tribes: Lingones, Sequani, Rauraci, Vindelici, Taurisci
(Norici), Cytini, Cotini, Teurisci (all of them West of Tisa).)
>>Pflicht, Pfriem).
>
>True. Probably reflecting the low importance of the speakers of
>NWBlock et sim.
BTW, "Pfriem": a curiosity is the fact that Latin subula has
German derivates spread all over Middle and Northern Germany
(into Mecklenburg-Pommern) & 2/3 of Switzerland: Seila, Saul,
Suggel, Sühl, Suhl, Sügel, whereas all Gallia (except Bretagne),
Northern Italy and Spain + Catalunya (except Portugal and Galicia),
Corsica, Sicily and part of Reggio borrowed the germanic alansa
as: alêne, leseno, lezna, alena, alesna, lésina. (Portugal,
Galicia, Sardinia, Southern Italy and Romania preserved subula
as: sovela, solla, sula, suglia and sula.)
Another BTW: there is the mentioning of a pf- word, Bavarian
pfaid "Hemd" from Gothic paida < Greek baite & Thracian *baita
"Leibrock".
>That is irrelevant to the subject, namely that you deleted the
>premise of a conditional statement so that it appeared as an
>absolute statement.
Quatsch mit SoÃe.
>I didn't claim that the Charudes had any influence on the
>development of Oberdeutsch or Yiddish.
Then don't mention them so often, if they are irrelevant in
this discussion.
>No, 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).
How can some archeological artefacts prove what kind of
Germanic dialect Bastarnae spoke?!
>A 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.
Franks. They really were unifiers and "nation builders". But
5-6 centuries later. In Teutoburger Wald battle against Varus's
army, there were the Cherusci and Arminius who played a
the role of coordinators, but Bastarnae aren't mentioned, AFAIK.
>Look up 'Fürstengräber'. That's the layer I'm talking about.
>Their graves are full of Roman provincial stuff.
I'm even ready to accept a thesis of yours stating "there were
no Franks actually, the so-called Franks were Bastarnians". But
show us how you can know - with the help of artefacts showing
a high *social* status - that Bastarnians were the "inventors"
of Hochdeutsch. The whole community dealing with "Germanistik"
has said other Germanic populations were in charge of "Hoch-
deutsch".
>I am not so sure. The Vangiones, Triboci and Nemetes sayed in >Alsace. The Sueui stayed in Swabia.
But these were not = Charudes. So, we don't care.
>Before, north of the
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes
Yes, but Hochdeutsch is a German dialects group chiefly
extant south of the Limes. Therefore, the essential thing
is to know which Germanic tribes passed the limes and
settled south of it and from which regions did they come.
Since "Germanistik" tells me there were other populations
who were "in charge" of hochdeutschization, whereas Bastarnae
were marginal until they were never mentioned again. So, if
they changed "tags", you're to show me some hints/proof etc.
(Show me that chieftains of South-Germans had Bastarnian
origins.)
>No, wrong.
What is wrong? That in the area of Augusta Vindelicorum
there were no Vindelici?
>Okay, 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".
It is the main point of *your* topic! It is you who has
suggested this: Bastarnae as the carriers of the Proto-
Hochdeutsch, with social and linguistic influence even
in the southern regions of the German-speaking populations,
where Hochdeutsch developed (OHG, MHG, NHG) (roughly
between Frankfurt and South-Tyrol).
>I'd have to claim that Southern Germany was repopulated from
>Norther Germany.
And that's correct, to a great extent. (Even if Bavarians came
from Bohemia, it's quite the same direction.)
>Between what and what?
Between Bastarnae and other groups (from their area and from
other areas). Methinks, you can do only based on written
data (in Latin) and on distinctive artefacts revealed by
archeology (if there are such objects unearthed).
>I couldn't.
If you can't, then how can you postulate Bastarnians's
influence upon those who in the 4th-5th-6th-7th centuries
colonized South Germany and kept their dialects developing
as a High German idiom? (Especially since in the relevant
centuries no contemporary source talks of Bastarnians, but
of various other Germanic populations, among which the
most important were the Franks. If you could prove that
Franks, at least the dynasty and the kernel of power, were
actually Bastarnians, then I'd exclaim "aha!")
>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).
Is this assertion correct?
>There were no Germani in Southern Germani before Ariovistus.
Didn't have the Roman Empire borders in the region of the
lower Rhine in those years? (I'm lazy to look for adequate
maps. :))
>No, but I think I have an case that they showed up themselves,
>bringing the language with them.
OK, but where the heck did they stay then? Nobody mentions
them in the centuries that are relevant for the Germanization
of Southern Germany, Switzerland and Noricum. So they must
have been assimilated into other groups. But which one(s)?
And if we take some, how do we know? Based on what sources
or signs?
>The 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.
But where? Within the frame of which populations? Among
the Franks? The Alamanians? Suebians? Bavarians? Thuringians?
Langobards?
>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?
Exactly! So much the more: which other Germanic name of a
major group kommt in Frage? (Now really!) Do you have any
assumption? (If they were a caste, I'd be tempted to
automatically think of the Franks. But they were Rhein-Weser-
Germanic ones, and not an Elbe or Vistula group. So, Bastarnae
would have had to stay for a while in the West.)
>I don't assert stuff, I propose it. Important methodological
>difference.
Yes, you propose, but the proposal has to have some fleshy
substanc, hasn't it?
>No, I think Ariovistus and Harigasti was the same person (the king
>Voccio connection). Ariovistus was Germanic. Burebista attacked the
>Germani.
But look how close they are phonetically: Ariovist, Arigast,
Boerebist (this one is a variant of Burebista; what if
"*Boii-Erebist", "*Boii-Eregist"? :)).
>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.
To avoid enslavement is one thing, but to upkeep and maintain
slavery and import-export of slaves by the same nation is
another thing. You neglect or ignore or didn't pay attention
to the fact that I more than one time said: selling and buying
of slaves (with the same ethnic origin) was an usual occurrence
in ancient Europe (prior to the Christian kingdoms era).
>Dependent for their livelihood like the Imbangala and Nyamwezi
>in Africa.
That would imply Dacians had nothing else, no agriculture,
no trades, no gold, no silver, no wood, no activities of
simple gatherers and hunters. :)
>>In what territory?
>
>North of the lower Danube
Why only north of it? Dacians also lived in Moesia inferior,
Moesia superior, Dacia ripensis, Dacia mediterranea, Dardania
and some areas between them and Pannonia+Illyricum. (Most of
Serbia was Dacia. The North strip of Bulgaria, up to the
Haemus and Rhodopi ranges were Dacia. Dacia was not limited
to some regional kingdoms. And, by and large, Dacia was
ethnically nothing else than another... Thracia. And Thracia
was not only the smaller province called Thracia by the Greek.)
>>Based on what written sources?
>
>As I said:
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66820
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66827
>and ff.
Yeah, slavery was a normal thing, an economic dimension.
Something which could have benn "tapped" in peace times
based on economic exchanges. So, not only in wars.
>The Romans paid them.
OK. But "help" didn't fit too well in this description.
Dacians were also present in that sort of "market", and
Romans had many other partners in the same market (that
also included Northern Africa & the Middle East).
>No, see the reference I gave.
Then cite such references whenever you refer to this
topic, and not that habit in theater comedies with
the comic characters Geta and Daos. :)
>No, the Geta and Daos names show that Dacia through
>centuries was a preferred slave procurement area
I know.
>Slave traders had the reputation of used car dealers, for eg.
>falsifying information of the ethnic origin of slaves,
>which Romans took seriously.
Yes, but traders usually didn't apply tongue excision to
their "merchandise", so the new acquisition, upon graduating
from the Rome "Berlitz" school, were very well able to tell
their lords, Gnaeus or Sempronius or Pomponius "Look here,
boss, I'm from Przeworsk" or "I'm from Solingen, Rhenania".
Or to be able to give interviews to uncle Strabo or uncle
Tacitus. :)
>I believe you might be on to something.
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66620
Oh, yeah, of course: medieval texts always referred to Danes
as "Dacians", and Denmark as "Dacia". Even in Britain in
Alfred the Great's time. (Until roughly the 17th century,
correct?)
So you're kind of an ... ancestor of today's Romanians? :)
>The Albanians come from a coast-free area, according to the
>vocabulary of Albanian.
Yep. (Hopefully, KonuÅ¡eviÄ won't read this. :))
>Brian finds it difficult to entertain more than one idea at
>the same time.
Multitasking is not always a good thing. :)
>We ran a surplus until last year, I believe.
Is Denmark a "Nettozahler" or a "Nettokassierer"? :)
>And he accepted none of mine.
Well, that's bad news. So, you have to do more, carry on,
honing your alternating solutions for the "dark ages".
>Hm. Maybe I should buy a piano?
Or a moog synthesizer.