Re: Schoeffe I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:

>
> >even in those places where they were hundreds of miles away from
> >non-Jewish German-speakers and where learning German thus would
> >not be useful.
>
> Not useful in your opinion, not in theirs: to them, it must have
> been useful - otherwise they wouldn't have learnt it;

Circular; invalid.

> they anyway
> had spoken enough other "Mamme Loshns" (Turkic, Slavic, Baltic,
> Greek, Romance (e.g. the so-called Romaniotes in Greece/the
> Byzantine Empire), Iranian, Arab & of course Hebrew). The fact
> that such an important community (millions!) opted for German
> hat was zu bedeuten! And they didn't opt for a German spoken
> in Cologne, Hannover, Bremen, Hamburg, Lüneburg, Schwerin,
> Berlin, Szczeczin, Königsberg/Kaliningrad, but for one spoken
> esp. in Bavaria+Austria+Bohemia (and Slovakia and Western
> Hungary up to Buda), from which Yiddish even today preserves
> old features that even the most isolated Bavarian and Austrian
> villages have forgotten or tend to forget. Bastarnae were
> completely 'unschuldig' in this occurrence. They might have
> played a role only as hypothetical forefathers of South-Germans.
>
> >You didn't understand my sentence so I'll rephrase:
> >
> >Wechsler
>
> [You may spell it Wexler if that's the original/official spelling;
> I merely jokingly spelled Wechsler, so that one can see what the
> name means.]

Oh, I get it.
His name is Wexler; I was too lazy to look it and assumed you knew better. It won't happen again ;-)

> >does that because he has to, he does not seem to aware
> >of the Germanic-speaking Bastarnae peoples Atmoni and Sidones
>
> Get in touch with him and tell him this assumptions of this in
> an emailed message, and see his reaction. :)

Hm. Why not?

> >So Proto-Romanian might have started in the area on both sides
> >on the lower Danube in the 1st century BCE.
>
> That's what the standard theory says - but only as far as geography
> is concerned. Chronology is a bit different (starts a bit later on
> north of the Danube: the massive Roman presence was necessary;
> south of the Danube, it had been more and more there).

Please tell me if you see any reasons why it couldn't have happened then.

> >OK, so you say your claim might be justified by an ethnic
> >contribution that isn't listed in the article?
>
> It is not *my* claim, it is the claim by those who've dealt
> with those aspects (for about 100 years now; many or most of
> them Jewish scholars).

But that is irrelevant to your claim that they are genetically mainly non Eastern Mediterranean.

> >??? That makes no sense at all.
>
> Am I communicating with a... bot? :-D

Typical bot to say that. ;-)

> >Okay so I should not trust the genetics because genes don't reflect
> >true inheritance?
>
> No: you didn't read all relevant text parts and tables/lists.

Did too, they matched the conclusion.

> (On top of that, unfortunately, Wp. & al. available data for
> the time being do not show us enough comparable material on
> Semitic populations over there, incl. Neopalestinians, Arabs
> & the like.)

I understand that you have been looking in Wikipedia for facts to support your claim that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly non Eastern Mediterranean and didn't find any.

> >I think I'll stick with genetics.
>

> Do it. But try getting out now and then (in essential moments)
> of your narrow Torsten-frame in order to be able to see the
> Alps. ;)

If I believe what Wikipedia tells me, then I can't see the Alps?

> >A smaller but still significant part of the Ashkenazi male line
> >population is more likely to have originated from central and
> >eastern European populations.'
>
> Da liegt der Hase im Pfeffer!

10-20% Hase and 80-90% Pfeffer. Atchoo!!!

> Due to contemporary politics, this
> group must be "small", but OTOH it can't be minimized, so the
> wording "but still significant" must be added. But it doesn't
> matter to our discussion. The genetic afiliation doesn't play
> any role in opting for one language or another, for one culture
> or another, for one faith or another. But you should be aware
> of the fact that to Judaistic faith and culture adhered not
> only those "abrahamite" and canaanite tribes, but also other,
> foreign, populations in certain epochs and in certain geographic
> areas. (To the "newcomers" also belonged all Christians, but
> today Christians aren't deemed Jews because of reasons pertaining
> to theology, to dogmas. But most Ashkenasic Jews became Jews
> 4-5-6 centuries after the Christianization of various peoples
> around the Mediterranean Sea.)

Yes and they are genetically 80-90% Eastern Mediterranean, says Wikipedia.

> >Not really. Since Ashkenazi Jews have predominantly eastern
> >Mediterranean genes
>
> I doubt that dominance. And I expect that the prose of the
> summarizing presentations ("abstract") duly exaggerates in
> a certain direction for obvious synchronous (contemporary)
> reasons (i.e. politics). (For similar reasons is there the
> insisting on the Romanian ethnogenesis linked to the
> northern Dacia - since Romanians' continuity in the
> territory north of the Danube is contested esp. by Hungarian
> and Ukrainian historiography).

Are you saying some people are editing Wikipedia to show that these people are of Eastern Mediterranean descent to support the claim of someone to some entity in the Eastern Mediterranean? That's preposterous. It's like saying that if someone realizes that said entity isn't tenable due to certain economic, military and demographic trends they will edit it to show instead that they are of non Eastern Mediterranean descent. Do you really believe that?

> But science ought, should and must have a different approach
> (as Brian has underlined).

So I noted.

> >they must have traveled to eastern Europe from the eastern
> >Mediterranean
>
> Keep in mind that all humanity traveled from the eastern
> Mediterranean: even Australian aborigines, the Inuits and
> Chuktchen and the Indians in Tierra de Fuego (according to
> the same genetic science).

You are insulting my intelligence.

> >which means that any scenario we propose which includes them
> >will have to account for that.
>
> Of course! Yet not at all because of mitochondrial or Y-chromosome
> peculiarities, but only because of possible participations of
> certain groupings characterized inter alia by belonging to the
> religion of Moshe and Akharon, namely of worshippers of "barukh
> adonai" according to certain rites (since Christians and Muslims
> worship the same deity, but they aren't stricto sensu Jews).

Erh, what?

> I.e., Jews in the religious and cultural sense, not in the
> "völkisch" sense.
>
> >If they had been local converts, such as you claim, against
> >Wikipedia, we would not have needed to do so.
>
> Even the text you cited admits that at least one part ("a signifi-
> cant one") has roots in Eurasia.

10-20%.

> OTOH, the Jewish community itself
> (with all rabbinate) knows/admits that Jewry also has been based
> on conversions. There is even written attestation of that major
> East-Europan conversion: the correspondence between Hasdai ibn
> Shaprut and king Joseph ben Akharon (in the lineage of Benyamin
> and Ovadiya).

80-90% of Eastern Mediterranean descent.


Torsten