Re: Schöffe I (a few details on OHG)

>Brian has recently commended me for using normal quoting practices. >I am very proud.

You wouldn't be proud if he criticized you for the enormously long
Würste of cited stuff you so often put on display - only to add
1-2 words in the reply line attached to the quoted chunks...

>>Yeah sure.
>
>Concrete objection?

Hör auf.

>Pls. stay on the subject.

If you don't observe the netiquette, there ain't be no subject.
Enormously long quotations are annoying.

>Some facts point in that direction, eg the later presence of
>Swabians across the Rhine from where Ariovistus' Suebi were defeated >by Caesar.

Thus (for the record): according to your theory "Suebian = Schwabe".
Right?

>Ariovistus' brother-in-law was king Voccio of Noricum

These words in the 1st sentence of a paragraph you put as a reply
to my remark on the importance of Germanic continuity in South
Germany between Ariovists's years and the start of the real
Germanic colonization of South Germany (5th/6th century):

as nonsequitur and as off-topic as they come!

>The fact that they were, is shown by the matching non-Germanic words
>in p- in Low German and pf- in High German.

Why? Do you know of any of the Elbe & Vistula area Germanic tribes
to have spoken Germanic dialects having this weird phonem [pf]???

>Or much earlier. This has also to do with the destruction of the
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum_of_Manching
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum_of_Manching#The_end_of_the_oppidum
>Ščukin speculates that it might have been destroyed by Ariovistus.

What the heck "earlier"?! Don't you understand that some centuries
afterwards (and prior to the real German colonization) has to be
left to be filled in with the history of the Roman Empire in
that area? You've written all the time of Ariovist's epoch and
the late, real German epoch, as though between them there had
been mere 2-3 decades and not 6-7-8 centuries! By doing so, you
obstruct any discussion whatsoever.

>so Suebians might have hidden here.

<OMG>

>Yes. They were the people who lived in Southern Germany before >Ariovistus arrived.

Where was the mass of Germanic population afterwards, in the
6 centuries to come, in the same southern Germany?

>And irrelevant, since they were Celts.

So, no pre-German proto-Germans there in S-Germany in the centuries
between the 1st c. BCE and the 6th c. CE.

>True. Some claim there are Slavic toponyms in Graubünden.

<Jessasmariaunjosef>

>All of them. I propose that simultaneously with Ariovistus' >expedition south (perhaps lured by a offer from Caesar),
>Bastarnian infiltrated and took over the whole
>Germanic-speaking area, including Western Germania and
>Scandinavia.

On what do you base your parallel proposal?

>As you have (mis)understood it.
>
>>Not the sentences regarding Ariovist's and
>>Germanic people's movements back and forth in the 1st century
>>BCE. Especially since your theory is aimed at a precisely
>>uttered thesis: Bastarnae's own vernacular was the inception of
>>the Oberdeutsch German dialect group (i.e., ich/ech + er sayers
>>versus the ik + he sayers :)).
>
>Yes.

Make a decision: either I've misunderstood or I've understood.

>>>Those are two wild goose chases you hope to set me on.
>>
>>I only can hope you'll be dealing with this part of your
>>theory in the next decade. :)
>
>I already did.

You didn't.

>Don't forget that the description of the 'Südsiedlung' includes
>fights with native peoples.

Native peoples were Celtic and Romance (hence Wallis, Waals, Walch
and not because of the stultitiously assumed "Slavic" thingamajig).

>Okay. First you give me a short (say, 20-21 lines) description of
>all the details of how Prussians took over Germany in the years
>following 1871.

Wenn ich mit der Muffe jepufft wäre, dann täte ich's. :-)

>I need critical input.

No, you need admiration, praize, elogious Blubber...

>And besides, no one else has anything to offer for the period in >question.

You are not able to understand the objections raised by "no one
else" to certain aspects of your "proposal" (esp. the ones
regarding chronologies).

>All they offer is attempts at censorship

<Jessasmariaunjosef>

>I wouldn't get so much qualified criticism in a blog.

But you anyway give a darn on qualified criticism.

>The dialects which retain *Å« have nothing in common besides
>being conservative;

Yes of course, but how come that this conservativeness coincides
with the historic "inroads" of the northern/western Germanic
groups, in contrast with the "Bastarnian" south-German area.
(Besides, English is not a good example: although it has many
features of Low German, it's [au] shift is as clear and broad
as it is in the "Bastarnian" area (cf. house, mouse etc. in
contrast with regional German u:s, u:t, Hu:s, Mu:s & Netherlandish
[üjt] etc.), from Augsburg to the Balaton lake in Hungary.
A second curious feature in common with the "Bastarnians",
after "-ham".)

>Possibly Italic.

In the sense that Venetix spoke a Romance or language or one
related to Messapian/Yapygian? Or one related to Etruscan?

>>On topic is your own theory, esp. the part of it dealing with
>>the history of the penetration by the "Bastarnian noble ones"
>>of other Germanic "Pfalz" dwellers.
>
>OK.

Why don't you elaborate on this? Coz it is this that's the
gist of your theory, and not merely the "start" of your story
(Ariovist)!!! Can't you see that? Or you were in need of a
nudge?

>Check Georgian dances on Youtube. Some of the costumes look
>very Medieval European nobility.

<OMG>

>>Yes-yes, but... *why*. Only because of the later spreading of
>>that type of deutsche Sprache one calls "Hochdeutsch"? If only
>>because of this, then it is very thin: the spreading might have
>>had various different (and later) causes (esp. the way *how*
>>and *where* Church centers & monasteries developed better and
>>in higher numbers).
>
>No, because of archaeology: the new upper class in the finds in
>those years is spread evenly and homogeneously over all of
>heterogeneous Germany (Przeworsk and Jastorf).

And archeologues also find whole lotta recording tapes. BTW,
are the tapes made by Grundig or Telefunken? Or did they find
disks? Made by Decca? :)

>>If Sueui > Suebians.
>
>Yes.

So, for the record, Torsten's theory is also based on the
precondition that ancient Suebians were related to the later
Schwaben because Sueui = Suebians.

>>So let's retain that your theory says Vangiones, Triboci and
>>Nemetes weren't important within the link Bastarnae -> Hochdeutsch.
>
>Yes.

So, for the record: let's forget about Triboci+Vangiones+Nemetes.
Among those scattered Germanic groups, only Suebians played the
later role of participants in "reforming" the language.

>Immediately north of the Limes. No way.

No way thousand and 1-2-3 hundred years later on?!? You gotta be
kidding.

>You have a thing with the Franks I don't share.

Too bad for your theory: it's its only chance.

>No one doubts the Germanic invasions south of the former Roman
>border. It's the supposed invasion north of it I doubt.

Nobody has talked about that. I was talking of the Ostsiedlung
that occurred after Anno ab incarnationem Domini 1,000, i.e. in
the SECOND millennium! I wasn't even talking of the Frankish
Carolingian conquests (in the 8th-9th-10th centuries)!

>>not my invention, this is common standard stuff taught as
>>such for centuries now here, where the vernacular
>>neo-"Bastarnian" is spoken (and where the last "Bastarnian"
>>empire started, that of "Dolfi" 78 years ago :)).
>
> It sounds a bit fuzzy to me.

"neo-Bastarnian" = Oberdeutsch. "the last 'Bastarnian' empire"
= das Dritte Reich. (And I add: the whole Germanic bullshit
was in the 3rd Reich sort of a state dogma/religion. Had
have Bastarnians played a role, then Himmler himself would
have issued some dogma mentioning them.)

>No, as I said, the Ariovistus campaign and the Bastarnization of
>Northern Germania were two parallel, but separate events. The
>Bastarnization of the Franks possibly a third one.

Wait a minute: do you imply that the low-German area was
high-Germanized? :-)

>???

You forget what you've said a few paragraphs earlier?!?
You told me I should develop a theory referring to a
Bastarnization of Franks. (And in this post, to which I'm
replying at this moment, you reiterated that. Look it up
yourself.)

> Archaeologically it is clear that Ariovistus or whoever did a thorough job of removing the Helvetii from the area.

But to what avail this forever mentioning ad nauseam Ariovist
and his impact in South-Western Germany, since you yourself
state that the Bastarnians had a D I F F E R E N T impact,
namely in Northern Germany?? (See above.)

So, Ariovist has to be discarded in a junkbin, since the
hochdeutschization of Souther Germany was the deed of some
other configuration.

>Good point.

Of course, since I pay heed to chronology, logic etc. And, as soon
as new facts, aspects, insights pop up, my approach automatically
adapts. (I'm not at all an adept of Procruste's bed, as you are. :))

>As I said, some evidence points to continued presence of Germani in
>the area, other evidence says the area was only populated again
>after immigration from the north.

Hehe, but... *w________h____________e____________________n*!!!

>is an old memory of slaver raids in the south, with Ariovistus as
>Wotan (Croatian voda "army detachment", thus *wodin- would be
>a titel similar to *vožd- "(military) leader".

This one is much more interesting than the (unproductive)
Bastarnian speculation.

George