Re: Imperialism as the source of new geographical knowledge

From: Torsten
Message: 67643
Date: 2011-05-29

--- In, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:
> >The present size and social importance of a dialect is in principle
> >irrelevant to its role in the past so your objection is invalid.
> I meant the whole time period: 1,500 years. Insignificance and
> recentness in the Croatian-Slovenian history.

'Insignificant' and 'recent' because that's what the standard theory says, so you can't use that as an argument for the standard theory. Circular, invalid, ignored.

> >It is very common in the common conception of languages outside of
> >linguistic circles to ascribe great conservatism to minor
> I'm talking about real facts, that have been studied by the most
> competent scholars in the field. On top of that, some of the
> "frozen" features can be remarked even without linguistic
> knowledge (for instance, the intermediary status of the -l- in
> the article and demonstrative pronoun, which in Romanian can be
> assumed based on linguistic rules/laws, but which in Aromanian can
> be seen as living fossiles; and many scores of other groups of
> features).
> I ain't telling you my own impressions (or "beliefs", as you put
> it), but what science, esp. Romance linguistics, has published
> (above all the first "echelon" of researchers in the 19th-20th-21th
> cent.).

And you know their conclusions, but not their evidence. Okay.
And why are you dropping three paragraphs' worth of comment between 'minor' and 'and' in my
'It is very common in the common conception of languages outside of
linguistic circles to ascribe great conservatism to minor and isolated dialects, but they rarely have any factual basis, and that is the case here too with Aromanian etc.'?
What's the point of that? Couldn't you try to restrain your incontinent style of commenting?

> I can't provide you references and citations, because this would
> require weeks, months, and I don't have the time - unless you'd
> pay me 3,000 euro a month plus VAT: then I'd "ransack" the
> libraries and copy all relevant stuff for you.

That's what I do, all for free. Should I begin to charge you for it?

> And I'm not quite
> "outside of l. circles": I myself studied linguistics towards the
> end of the '70s, but I had to renounce for reasons that had
> nothing to do with this "hobby", that stayed alive 'n' kickin'
> (this is why I've subscribed to the list, where I enjoy learning
> some stuff).

> >and isolated dialects, but they rarely have any factual basis, and
> >that is the case here too with Aromanian etc.
> How can you make a judgment if you have no knowledge on these
> languages and on which is what and of the significant details?!?
> Don't you realize that you follow only the thread of a tale your
> mind has randomly imagined, and then you try adapting history
> (and linguistics only as a "footnote") on Procrust's bed?

I didn't make a judgment, I made a proposal in a forum where I hoped those who know more than me of the subject would set me straight with the requisite facts, but I hadn't expected to have to pay for that (do you charge by word or by fact, BTW? Or by argument?).

> >I proposed, which has escaped your attention, that Istro-Romanian
> >and Daco-Romanian came into being on a Dacian substrate and the
> >rest on a Thracian substrate.
> No need to tell me, man, because I've known that since 1965.
> (BTW, were you born in 1965?)
> And keep in mind: "the rest on a Thracian substrate" is BS.
> It is only an assumption by some (not all) Aromanian scholars
> (of whom only some have the adequate level of linguistic training,
> such as was dame Matilda Caragiu-Mariotzeanu).

Okay, so my proposal is BS, because it has already been made by (not all) Aromanian scholars of which at least one had the adequate level of linguistic training. I understand.

> Because nobody knows what exactly was the substrate; and nobody
> knows in how far Dacian-Moesian-Thracian were differentiated: only
> as Mundart? As dialects? As languages (e.g. as Czech and Slovakian)?

Have you considered a career as a professional arguer?

> Both Dacian and Thracian languages are not known, except some
> scattered words, some antroponyms, toponyms, hydronyms, oronyms.
> So no researcher on earth can ascribe most of the Romanian
> substrate vocabulary.

Now, in principle your objection is valid, except of course for distinction betyween -dava and -para etc, since the direct evidence, specifically the linguistic evidence of that time period is so sparse. In general, however, if you have an evidence-rich period A, a subsequent evidence-poor period B, and an again subsequent evidence-rich period C, we should deem as successful those proposals regarding the development of structures and institutions pertaining to period B which best 'fits at the ends' of structures and institutions proposed for period A and period C.

> >Yes that is the standard theory, which you are now lecturing me
> >about, as every linguist knows.
> And I understand your intention: you'd like to be an "iconoclast".

No, I don't, but you can play with that sockpuppet if you think it's fun.

> OK, be an iconoclast, but put some substance on display. Up to
> now, esp. as far as that Thracoid Romanized region is concerned,
> the substance is zilch;

I haven't backed up that part of the proposal with evidence since I didn't have any; I am delighted to hear, of course, that professional linguists who I presume would know the requisite linguistic details have made the same proposal.

> only weak speculations on some slaves and dealers

I find the 'speculations' of Crawford and Lockyear pretty solid.

> as well as the using of the word Proto-Romanian in the context of
> the 1st century BCE.

Yes I did.

> You don't take seriously my objections. That's OK.

I haven't heard any yet.

> But present your
> theory to the luminaries in this field of research, do publish it
> in linguistic reviews.

Nah, I'm quite happy here. I don't like to pick fights.

> (And those Romanists and Tracologues who
> might have subscribed to Cybalist keep mum. I presume why. :))

You mean you wonder why. So do I.

> > > So that the Avar kagan Bayan could order the relocation
> > > of a considerable Romance population from there to other
> > > provinces (I forgot which chroniclers wrote on this).
> >
> >Etc etc.
> Then how. in your imagination, could have a tiny population around
> Trieste generate a huge population speaking Latina vulgata in the
> entire area between Greece and Noricum and the Tissa plus nothern
> Dacia and the Black Sea without the contribution of the Roman
> Empire by extending its system in the whole area and without the
> contribution of colonists? (Colonists of which most of the chro-
> niclers wrote until the Renaissance and baroque eras.)

The Latin creole of Histria would have spread by commercial contact, esp. the slave trade, down the Danube as the language of inter-tribal contact in that intermingling area. Burebista would have chosen that language, rather than some Dacian dialect, as the language of his army to facilitate inter-group communication, much as Papua New Guinea has chosen Tok Pisin as the official language.

> I.e. how can an insignificant population of, say, 2-3 thousand
> people speaking sort of a Pidgin-Latin

Creolized Latin

> create a vast population
> of hundreds of thousands or 1-2 milion people that give up their
> own language and culture in order to use that Pidgin idiom


> and observe Saturnalia, Lupercalia & many other such festivities
> *exclussively*?

Necessity. The area was ethnically mixed and subject to constant violent incursions which would have destroyed those native elites who keep the old language and traditions live.

> Since this would be an outstanding feat.

Not really, as you can see in the development of

> > I won't doubt Bonfante's assertion that 'Romanian is ... the
> > popular Latin of the second century after Christ', but I will
> > doubt the following one: 'it is neither older nor younger than
> > that date, which is the date of the colonization of Dacia'; I
> > grant that it is not younger, but all he can deduce from his data
> > is that Romanian *separated* from popular Latin at that time, not
> > that was generated then.
> I read it in a bit different way: that the Latin type which
> centuries later on turned to Proto-Romanian show (according to him
> and other analysts) features of the one spoken in those centuries,
> which coincide with the timeframe of the defeat of Decebalus's
> Dacia.

The question is then whether those features were part of the original Proto-Romanian or due to Roman influence in Decebalus' time.

> (The southern linguistic Dacian areas had then already been included
> in the Roman Empire: areas that today are called Dardania, Serbia,
> Northern Bulgaria; and the province that's called Thrace.)

And there's your problem, with the classical proposal you would have to assume that Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian are imports from north of the Danube, and that no independent Latin derivative language arose there, or at least left no trace, whereas I can assume that those two languages are other dialects derived from the original Istro-Romanian, in the same manner as Daco-Romanian, but on a Thracian substrate.

> If these researchers are right (that there are some "markers" in
> the Romanian dialects for the timeframe of the beginnings), then
> this is an additional objection to your hypothesis (1st c. BCE).

If they are not due to later contact influence, yes.

> >A Creole can coexist with the language it is based on for some time
> I know that. It's high time you reduce these generalities and
> concentrate your attention on the subject matter, and really
> denkst nach when reading the replies.

What did you want to say with that generality?

> >I'll wager eg., without actually having proof of it, that Tok Pisin
> >adopted and still adopts words from English after its inception.
> This doesn't have to mean something.

I this context it does, since it shows a creole can adopt words from its originating language at a later time, thus showing that the same might have happened with Romanian.

> Look, Romanian has whole
> lotta Slavic words (you'd be baffled to realize how much of
> them).

Răsboi, zăpadă, I know. Except they're using them wrong.

> The same apply to Hungarian. Yet neither Romanian, nor
> Hungarian are incipient creolized, pidginized Slavic languages.

So? Nor is English a creolized Romance, in spite of havin borrowed a lot of Picardian French, but a creolized Germanic language.

> Moreover, about 65% of the English vocabulary is Romance, and
> still nobody says English is sort of a German language turned
> to Pidgin-French.


> But you dare advance such thoughts on unknown peoples and languages,

I have never proposed that English is sort of a German language turned to Pidgin-French.

> and at the same time you completely
> neglect, or deliberately ignore that what really happened:
> Italy, that is the Roman Empire, occupied those territories and
> kept them as its own provinces for about 5-6 centuries (except
> for Northern Dacia), starting from the West (where Illyricum
> became the first area of the Romanization: there one can
> speculate that the Romanization started in the 1st c. BCE,
> and that perhaps all of Illyrians (and their brethren Pannonians)
> were Latin native-speakers by the 2nd century CE, unlike Dacians,
> of whom many were never included in the Roman Empire under
> Roman jurisdiction and administration).

I know. And German New Guinea was made part of the British Empire after WWI and how can Wikipedia ignore that and blah-blah-blah.

> 5-6 centuries of Romanization of the whole kit and caboodle,
> as well as with the entire arsenal of "tools" and possibilities
> and opportunities -- and all this means nothing to you.

I am sorry if I have offended the Roman Empire.

> Instead, you fix your attention on some hypothetical and minor
> ethno-social aspect some time prior to "Romania's" extension in
> the Peninsula
'Republican denarii exported to Dacia between the mid-60s and 30 B.C.
[Lockyear: 73 - 65 BCE] might then account for something approaching 30,000 slaves per year. This is a substantial part of the annual requirement of Italy, if one assumes a total slave population of 2,000,000 and an annual requirement of 50,000 by purchase and 50,000 by breeding.'

In what sense 'hypothetical and minor ethno-social aspect'?

> and try to establish a link to the Proto-Romanian
> population during the Proto-Bulgar and Slavic domination of
> the era (i.e. a jump from the beginning of the 1st c. BCE to
> the 8th-9th-10th c. CE, i.e. almost one millennium; exactly as
> in the case of Bastarnae > Alt-/Mittelhochdeutsch Germans). As
> though there was no "Romania" there for about five centuries.

I fail to comprehend what you are saying. Of course I haven't proposed that thre was no 'Romania' inthat period.

> >That would just show that Istro-Romanian and Daco-Romanian made up
> >one trading community apart from the other Romanian dialects.
> Which is not true.

Sez you.

> Moreover, all studied features of the other
> two dialects of the South, Aromanian and Meglenite Romanian,
> had their territorial origin in the same area with the other
> two - and namely roughly North of the lines proposed by Skok
> and Jir^ec^ek. Which means that all Aromanians of Southern
> Albania and Greece some time prior to the 10th c. moved from
> the North to the South. (Which would also fit the geography
> and graduality of the South-Slavic spreading/colonization.)

Okay, so they could have started in Istria.

> >>But all Romanian dialects are late developments (7-8-9 centuries
> >>after the era of those slave markets); they are the result of
> >>those *centuries* of Roman state extended in the whole area.
> >
> >We have no evidence for that one way or another.
> There's a lot: whole lotta evidence of the Roman state in all
> those provinces (when, how long, in which way, in how far).

Of course I haven't denied that the Roman state was there.

> And
> evidence on how spoken Latin diverged from written Latin, how
> and when certain features (phonology, syntax, vocabulary)
> occurred, and which of them were significant for the later
> Romance languages (e.g. why k became c^ in Italian, Old French,
> Romanian, why s in French and Spanish, and why tz in other
> idioms). Nix geschieht von ungefähr.

Yes, Appendix Probi etc
'Between the fifth and tenth centuries, the dialects of spoken Vulgar Latin diverged in various parts of their domain, eventually becoming distinct languages[citation needed]. This evolution is poorly documented because the literary language, Medieval Latin, remained close to the older Classical Latin.'

Thus: no evidence.

> >What will you build on 'Torna, torna, fratre'?
> I'd only wonder whether fratRe instead of the later (and definitive,
> for Italian and Romanian) frate really was still there in the 6th
> century. Otherwise, it could be a hint that they were members of
> the speaker community of addled Latin becoming Proto-Romanian.

So an early Romania was spoken then. What bearing does that have on a proposed origin of that language in the 1st century BCE?

> >Restating your belief again, with no evidence one way or
> >another. Ignored.
> OK, then be happy in your state of an ignoramus, who's fond of
> ingoring (hence his/her fitting name :)).

No, I'm just afraid of copying your state of ignorance of why reputed linguist have proposed the theories.

> > > Show me an author who has stated and given
> > > evidence that prior to the 6th-8th century there were additional
> > > Romance languages, and not only Latin and its neighboring
> > > ancient "Italic" Romance languages.

> >?? Is that what you think I've proposed? I didn't.
> Of course you did - by using the wording "Proto-Romanian" for
> a hypothetical few people who hypothetically spoke some bad
> Latin near the Adriatic Sea in the 1st half of the 1st century
> BCE. You repeat this (and prompt my replies) many a time, but
> you forget it.

Your usual sloppy quotation techniques.
No, I have never proposed that prior to the 6th-8th century there were additional Romance languages, and not only Latin and its neighboring ancient "Italic" Romance languages.

> >I make my own proposals, I don't regurgitate other people's. If I
> >have nothing new to contribute, I shut up.
> But you are still aware of the dichotomy of the possibilities,
> I suppose: that your "proposals" might be good, or might be
> completely wrong.

Of course.

> >a Latin-based creole is not Latin. You have no clue what you are
> >talking about.
> Indeed, it is in vain to discuss with you (the real linguist
> members of this group are justified in their not interfering!):
> in almost every post of you there are moments when you simply
> do not understand what the other person says and, moreover, you
> misunderstand what's said.

What is it you think I have misunderstood here?

> >It would be another matter if a massive number of Germans moved
> >into the country and learned Danish badly (unlikely scenario,
> >instead of speaking German LOUDLY to the natives).
> Of course it is unlike, because their children will attend
> the Danish schooling system within a Danish environment, so
> they'd speak a perfect Danish and no perfect German (i.e.
> many of them with foreign accent, flawed grammar and poor
> vocabulary). Pidgin and creole phenomena can occur only in
> certain conditions.

Eg. in a slaving context.

> >That would produce a creole, which BTW you could already argue
> >the modern Continental North Germanic (Swedish, Danish,
> >Norwegian) languages are.
> Well, from the "reich"'s point of view, these are sort of ...
> kaputtes Deutsch. :)

I know. That also shines through in the attitude of many Germans towrds those languages and their speakers.

> (Actually, the comparison is quite useful,
> damit du dir ein näheres Bild machen kannst, was aber oft nicht
> gelingt: in some circumstances, Aromanian, Istroromanian,
> Meglenoromanian are as close/remote to Romanian as are Swedish
> and Norwegian to Danish, in some circumstances as far as
> German dialects to Danish; with a major difference: phonology
> is very similar though).


> >You haven't read them and you present no evidence for them. You
> >presenting factoids you haven't researched yourself will hardly
> >rewrite history.
> Read and *understand* what I'm writing! Don't project your
> preconceived rickety thoughts in my sentences. I wrote of
> *your* procedure. It's not me the one who's obsessed with
> rewriting Odin's, Ariovist's, Harigast's story, neither that
> of Bastarnians, and of the German and Romanian languages!
> Only because Snorri Sturlasson put that tale on paper saying
> that you, Fischöppe are actually Alan Scythians.

No, he didn't. He spoke of an invasion, as the Arab one of Iran. That doesn't make us Alans, nor the Iranians Arabs.

> BTW, why
> don't you deal with Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Iazyges, Alans?
> They better fit the (fictitious) Odin lineage than Burebista,
> according to all traces left.

According to Brøndsted
there were two invasions of Denmark, one in the period 50-0 BCE, and one around 200 CE. I propose to ascribe the first one to the 'Odin people' and the second one to the 'Danes'.

> >No, you learn some goddam manners and academic decorum!! Your
> >debating style of commenting on half sentences before you have
> >read even to the next full stop with wild rants which show you
> >have misunderstood the half sentence to mean something else is
> >particular to you and to no one else.
> No, you are wrong.
> And this time I respectfully ask the intervention of the owners
> and moderators of Cybalist for an arbitrage. On top of that,
> AFAIK, everyone among them is a reputed real linguist.
> So, gentlemen, pls. tell us: who is right as far as the layout
> style in messages, esp. the quotation "techniques", is concerned?
> >Das ist eine Schlamperei, George, and not worthy of someone who
> >wants to participate in an academic debate.
> An academic debate does not require the REPETITION (and ad nauseam
> at that) of long texts parts on which both parties agree. An
> academic debate does not allow itself repeat long text excerpts
> to put below them an insolent line consisting in "circular;
> ignored; sockpuppetry" and no other brief explanations, arguments,
> judgments in order to show the other fugger WHY.

You are not answering my points against you here.

> And finally: an academic debate means an exchange of info based
> on logical nexuses, and paying attention to hints alerting one
> that something goes wrong with the network of nexuses. These are
> the most important aspects, IMHO.

What is this nexus thing you keep talking about?

> >Result: immigrants are developing sub-dialects.
> Jetzt biste in meinen Klauen gelandet! >:-) Now an additional
> mental step, please: think of "Romania" after her destruction;
> the Latin-speaking population bereaved of administration, schools
> etc. developed Latin/Romance idioms that year after year diverged
> in such a way from written Latin that, after 2-3-4 centuries,
> those dialects became independent languages (with their own,
> individual, structures - from any point of view).


> This is what in the case of the neo-Romance languages you neglect,
> ingnore or disconsider. This is why you cling to your theory
> (that might function when applied to a tiny population, not to
> the entire area, that was divided, and redivided, and reredivided
> into various entities under various other dominant nations).

So your last defence is that Romania isn't tiny so it couldn't happen there?

> This must be your first thought in judging the possibilities.
> And then, the second thought, if in a beginning phase there
> was a "creolization", then how could the Romanization get
> so profound, so thorough?

Why is Tok Pisin so pervasive in Papua New Guinea?

> I mean during those 4-5-6 centuries
> of SPQR-statehood. You imply that during the entire period
> there was only sort of creole or "Yiddish" kind of Latin spoken
> by all the people (even by the colonists who came from other
> Roman provinces),

Erh, Yiddish?

> and that the Roman civilization with its
> institutions and population played no role from Aquileia/Venice
> to Tomis and Callatis.

No, I never said that.

> This is what you imply with your statements "Proto-Romanian"
> 7 centuries earlier and with "creole".

What is it I imply?

> >>The "bastardization" and pidginization of Latin in order to
> >>become French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Rumansh,
> >>Romanian, Sardinian, Corsican etc. happened only because of the
> >>decay of Latin in the aftermath of the ... implosion of
> >"Romania"!
> >
> >Restatement of belief ... Ignored.
> But there are some written statements from old times where
> scholars and clergy people complained of wrong usage of
> words and on wrong grammar!

Yes, yes.
Do you feel this proves that there was no Proto-Romanian creole spoken in Romania?

> Pieces of written information
> attesting instances in the long period of the transformation
> of Latin > any of the neo-Romance languages. There was always
> a small community of learned people who were in command of
> correct Latin and who saw the divergent linguistic movement
> within the community of the former Imperium Romanum population
> of native-speakers.


> I have no beliefs, I would gladly accept your theory, but
> the evidence shown and analyzed so far is an obstacle one
> cannot do away with. :)

Which evidence are you refering to? I thought you said you wouldn't provide any?

> >Standard theory, which we all know.
> Then why doesn't it interact with your thoughts? Hm? If it
> doesn't, then, ergo, something must be wrong with your type
> of judgment. And this ought to prompt you re-reflect your
> judgment.

No, it's because I think I have a better proposal.

> >Multisecular? You mean centuries-long?
> Yes, saecula saeculorum. It happens when one's in a hurry.
> >Interesting, since those are the provinces of the Arberësht
> >dialects of Albanian. So perhaps those Italian dialects are based
> >on the Latin sociolect of the slaves (cf. the similar situation in
> >Greece)?
> Bißerl gewagt your hypothesis, since 2/3 of the Italian dialects
> (they say) incl. those on the isles are in the same position; and
> that some Romanists for many decades have proposed a different
> taxonomy within the Romance languages classification: Italian &
> Romanian forming a separate group.

There were huge latifundias all over Italy with plenty of slaves, I would be surprised if their descendants didn't make up a large part of the present population of Italy. At least I find it difficult to recognize the achievements of Roman civilization in that country.

> But here again: aren't you able to realize the enormous time
> span?

Erh, what do you mean?

> Let's say, if there is something in your hypothesis concerning
> the slaves (since they were a considerable part of an ancient
> population), but how the heck can such a foreign population
> maintain its non-Latineness in Italy from the 1st c. BCE until
> the immigrations of the Langobards and of the Avars, and not
> be able to learn proper Latin during so many centuries? Moreover:
> and to teach the autochtonous people their own kind of Kaputtlatin
> and prompt the native-speakers forget proper Latin!

For that we have to assume a reversion of status of proper Latin and Slave Latin. That happened, and the causation factor was Christianity.

> >Long and boring repetition of things we all know.
> Well, if you know all that and if you aren't able to use the
> information in order to see what's relevant and why some parts
> of your hypotheses can't work, then ... "lasciate ogni speranza".


> >I put the passage there not for its content but to show that
> >the two sentences you split apart belonged together.
> Sheesh, again with your "splits". As if you were ... a bot that keep
> giving me these retorts! (Childish, really.)

You are not taking this seriously, obviously.

> >Me: To any Roman, Proto-Romanian would be very bad Latin. So would
> >Proto-Spanish, Proto-French etc.
> >
> >To which you now comment:
> >Hey, Mistah Linguist: this is a "Binsenweisheit", mah man,
> >really! This is taught in the 1st semester to students (at least
> >here in Germany).
> I realise that I should have put it in other words: no Roman
> would have deemed Proto-Romanian or Proto-French or Proto-Italian
> or Proto-Whatchamacallit *Latin*! Exactly because they were already
> Proto-Italian/French/Spanish/Romanian etc. Different languages.
> As differentiated as is your Danish compared with low German or
> with high German. It is you the one who's taxonomy of the notions
> subdialect, dialect, language, creolized, pidginized etc. is a
> little bit tohuwabohued.

In which way?

> >So what you are saying is
> >
> >1) Nobody knows how good or how bad was the Latin spoken by the
> >Romanized populations in the relevant provinces from the 1st
> >century CE etc was.
> But every real linguist (which you are by no means, even if you
> show me a diploma and a title summa cum laudae) agrees that
> Romanized populations spoke a Latin or another as good as the
> Latin spoken by Italy's populations (in Latium, Etruria,
> Padania, Messapia, Iapygia, Sicily etc.) Which is a Binsenweisheit,
> a self-understood thing.
> >2) It is a Binsenweisheit, ie common knowledge, that
> > Proto-Romanian, Proto-Spanish, Proto-French etc was very bad
> > Latin.
> Of course. But that "proto" belongs to a timeperiod after the 5th,
> 6th, 7th centuries and not prior to the year of the incarnationis
> of our Lord Yehoshua ben Yussef.
> >In other words, you are saying I should know this supposed common
> >knowledge which you yourself flat out contradicted a few postings
> >ago.
> No, you are wrong: you misread, or (rather) misunderstood. And why?
> Because you are full of preconceived thoughts. Because I read in
> your posts only sporadically in the past, I didn't realize how
> flawed are your logic, imagination and acumen (Urteilskraft). If
> I had realized, I would have never started any discussion with
> you. I regret having wasted *my* time.

In other words, you are saying I should know this supposed common
knowledge which you yourself flat out contradicted a few postings
ago. You slipping into banalities and ad hominems doesn't change that.

> >This unbelievable slovenliness of yours will have to go, George.
> >This is not something grown-ups do, let alone academics.
> Okay, then drive the other George crazy with your foolish
> topsy-turvy cabbage that's in your skull. His comparison in
> which he resorted to the Holocaust thingamagig showed that
> you must unnerved him with your logic from the Andromeda
> galaxy in such a way that I thought he'd plonkomatize you. :-)

I don't know what he was trying to achieve by pulling a Godwin on a Dane.

> > Restatement of belief. Ignored.
> If it is the belief based on facts and exhaustive analysis by
> an army of scientific scholars, then the "belief" will be OK
> with me. Who am I to contradict them? I ain't no Torsten. :)

I am not contradicting anybody. I still haven't heard any evidence disproving my proposals. I'm still waiting.

> >>In AD400 (the era of St. Hieronym's Vulgata Bible) there were
> >>no proto-languages derived from Latin; only after about 400
> >>more years, when hoc ille est gradually "shrank" to oc and oui.
> >
> >Zzzzz.
> Wake up! In AD400 there was no proto-neo-Romance blabla.


> This is why your Trieste slave hypothesis has nothing to
> do with Romance languages. Period. Rather stick to your
> Harigasti-und-andre-Spastis.

No evidence, restatement of belief. Ignored.

> >No, you didn't. You criticized the first sentence for not putting
> >Spanish and French on an equal footing with Romanian.
> I was and am criticizing that you put Proto-Romanian in the
> 1st century BCE;

No, you didn't. You criticized the first sentence for not putting
Spanish and French on an equal footing with Romanian. And to avoid commenting that you now claim you said something else.

> then that you deem Proto-Romanian as the
> result of language habits of a few slaves

30,000 a year

> (language habits of which you won't ever have any idea);

other than that they would most likely have spoken a Latin creole

> then that to you
> the 7-8 century gap means nothing; and finally that the
> "creolization" or "pidginization" or <name it> of the
> spoken Latin language (i.e. the totality of dialects spoken
> in the 6th-7th centuries) occurred as a result of... decay.

Yes, that is the classical explanation of the origin of the Romance and Germanic languages.

> To you (as you put it in every post), the aspects that prompt
> you use the terms "creole" and "Pidgin" must have stemmed
> from some stupidity or reluctance of a few thousand slaves
> in the 1st century BCE, and which was then transmitted to
> their inheritors who spoke Proto-Languages, as though the
> time gaps "described" by such authors as Fomenko and Illig
> (that's why I once semi-jokingly asked you whether you're
> under their influence) would have been there - i.e. as if
> 6-7-8 centuries must be deleted from historiography, as if
> they had been fictitious!

You keep telling that I want to delete that time period. I don't.

> >The next sentence does that. In other words, you are commenting at
> >whim on your first reading through the posting without even reading
> >one sentence ahead. And as usual, when someone points out your
> >mistakes, you change the subject and wildly accuse your opponent of
> >something completely unrelated.
> You are completely wrong. And I know why, but I won't tell
> you.

You summed up your attitude completely there.

> >The fact that you try to revive that old accusation shows how
> >desperately short of counterarguments you are.
> You are completely wrong: the opposite is true. I only take part
> in a discussion, that contains some aspects interesting to me.
> (And I'm doing a bit of English training so that I won't forget
> this lingo completely.) But I don't care if you cling to stupid
> conclusions based on flawed logic. Feel free, "it's a free
> country". So your word choice "desperately" is utterly
> inappropriate.

Ooooh, desparate... ;-)

> Rather search for such ones as "cold shoulder". :-) The other
> one is also wrong: "accusation". I don't accuse you of anything.
> I only state my opinion on this or that and tell the discussion
> partner why I deem that one thing wouldn't fit the other. That's
> all.
> By using such inappropriate words as "despair" and "accusation",
> you show me a bit of how distorted might be your perception of
> these threads of discussion. Wherefore (and because of your
> frequent misunderstanding of sentences) I'm gonna get out of
> these threads, so that you'll have more time to concentrate on
> the data kindly supplied by the historian George.

I thought you were the kind one, you told me so yourself?

> >>I'm no representative of the "guild". You disagree with the
> >>"community".
> >
> >The difference being?
> I'm a "spectator", and I didn't make "proposals" of mine regarding
> Peuce, Ariovist, Spartacus, Mithridates, Burebista. That's the
> difference.

And what does that have to do with the difference you imply there is between 'guild' and 'community'?

> >>So, show me how you manage to convince the community
> >>you are right and the community has been for many decades wrong.
> >
> >No.
> What "no"?! If you publish your theses and if the sci.comm.
> publishes comments on them, they'll be public - so I'd theoretically
> be able to read them; thus, you'd show me, nolens-volens.

As I said in another posting, too much effort, too strong an immune reaction from the established community.

> >You don't know what you are saying? What have you been smoking?
> I put those retorts because your replies were so odd and weird
> as if you had written them under the condition of 2 per thousand
> of Akvavit or too much pot.

Could you stay on the subject?

> >If it would take you weeks and months to get an overview over the
> >fields on which you have so strong opinions perhaps you should let
> >the matter rest?
> Because I would have to look them up in 4 libraries in Munich,
> for which I would have to travel every time 80 kilometers.
> And because I give a shit on most of the stuff one can find
> on the web; or one must pay more on good stuff one can get
> via Net. I could get much stuff from those libraries as PDF
> or al. docs, but the mistake rate would be considerable. It's
> better when you yourself search the catalog and the files,
> and browse in the books and then copy the appropriate fragm.
> or photocopy those pages.

That's what I'm doing, and you're not, and that's why, I gather, that you are right and I'm wrong because it says so in those documents you don't quote?

> Of course I'll let the matter rest - for ever. I'd search
> stuff for you that you lack only if I'd be paid for it.

I thought you were joking at first. Apparently you're not.

> >Okay, so you're restating your belief in what you think you would
> >have found the authories to have said if you had read them.
> >Satisfied now?

> Gleich I'm gonna tellya what I give on your restating. But do me a
> favor and state clearly: do you really believe that the Romance
> languages spoken today already existed in an incipient, "creolized",
> form in the 1st century BCE, independent of vernacular and written
> Latin?


> Here I deleted a long quotation that contained a previous
> long cotation - the latter being thus posted for the 3rd
> time.
> And a few lines lower again a big chunk of fullquote, after
> which you inserted these two letters:
> >Ok.
> And you pretend you observe the mailing-list and usenet posting
> styles. (At least you make use of the ">" reply signs.)
> >Strabo 7, 3, 11
> >*.html
> [snip]
> >Critasirus, and also of the Taurisci.'
> >
> >In other words,
> In other words, this one I was taught in school when I was about
> 9-10 years old - only that some details (Taurisci, Illyrians etc)
> weren't mentioned. And afterwards, I've been presented in school,
> in mass-media, in books many such things. Lots of them I possess
> in my personal library. I'm quite fed up with them. :-)
> >Satisfied?
> No, because you cannot make real use of such details for your
> purpose. Every second attempt of yours fails because of judgment
> flaws.

It must have been hard to live under socialism.

> >>I know your "proposals" referring to Odin as well as to Bastarnae.
> >>But I still don't get why dealing with how were Romanized some of
> >>those populations living in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania: Vlachs
> >>and Albanians played no role in the movements concerning
> >>Bastarnae, Elbgermanen, Langobards & al. Germanic tribes, or did
> >>they?
> >
> >How were Romanized ... played no role ...? Could you rephrase?
> "But I still don't get why Torsten's attempt at analyzing
> of the typology of the Romanization of some South-Eastern
> Europe's population is introduced in the discussion on
> the events related to (1) Ariovist + Bastarnae; (2) Rome's
> slaves & Spartacus, (3) Dacia's slaves (as an exporter);
> (4) Mithridates & Burebista.

Okay. I don't think I can give you an overview of that. It developed from thread to thread.

> To me, the way the Latin-speaking and substrate-langu.-speaking
> populotions wound up as Romanians, Dalmatians, Albanians has
> no relevance in the discussion on the Germanization of Middle
> Europe south of the Danube and east of the Rhine.

I think it does. In order to explain the presence of Germans and Bastarnae in Southern Germany you would have to understand what would have motivated them to move there, and a possible explanation would be the collapse of the Bastarnian cultures by Burebista's wars against them.

> Or, there is an alternative possibility: you left the main area
> for topix (linguistics), in order to for a while discuss history.

Linguistics in general tends to assume sedentary populations remaining in one place, that obviously doesn't fit the facts, so history becomes important to linguistics, as you are aware yourself.

> >Crawford doesn't mention Sarmizegetusa, those hoards were found
> >all over Dacia.
> Does Crawford include/cite all finds previously described/published
> by Hungarian and Romanian archeologists? In other terms: does he
> present a complete list?

Yes, in one of the illustrations which I couldn't copy as text.

> >The hoards are from 73-65 BCE.
> But in several previous posts you referred not only to Burebista's
> years and not only to the years between 100-60 BCE, yet also to
> later decades (mentioning Diurpaneus, Deceneus and Decebalus; i.e.
> a time period of about 160 later; suggesting to me that the selling
> of slaves to Rome was relevant for the whole timeframe).

There is a huge peak in the finds of Republican denarii in 73-65 BCE and a smaller one in the 40's BCE according to Lockyear, I don't know of any direct evidence of slave trade from Dacia after that time.

> >Your nausea over linguistic definitions is not relevant to the
> >question of their validity.
> But don't repeat generalities that are accepted and self-understood.
> Stick to what's being discussed.

Yes, that's what I keep telling you.

> I for one, when I underline
> defining thing, I do that because you declaredly ignore them,
> despise them, reject them - and you do that in such a stubborn
> and insolent way, that anyone in the scientific world would laugh
> even with the buttocks at your mumblings. So schaut's aus.

Is that meant as a criticism or are you just being an ass?

> >I would be, if I made such sweeping statements of the Albanians.
> Who the heck made something like that? You're nuts. I only said
> a population that remained in the phase of the beginning of its
> Romanization process must have had some reason: either a "late
> comer" (perhaps living in remote/peripheral regions or perhaps
> your own assumption might be justified: Carpi) or else. Or some
> "ideology" (which is not the case) or some lack of talent (which
> is not the case: no population can resist for 3-8 centuries
> and be as stubborn as speak only creolized or pidgin-Latin as
> you imagine they did).

A large part of the Roamanian-speaking are was never part of the Roman Empire and so can't have acquired the language by direct contact with the Romans.

> These reactions and misperceptions or yours are typical and
> annoying - as well as the extremely stupid thing that you
> imagine I would deem you a pro-Dacist Dane only because of
> that historic confusion (which for centuries misled Transylvania
> Germans too). I made a simple joke, and you take
> it seriously like a sucker. How could you be that? You have
> nothing in common with the stuff, nor have you been conditioned
> thru' education, school and environment to be influenced by
> that - unlike us, who grew up there and who really carry
> parts of that substrate genes as well as are using day by day
> some of the substrate vocabulary relics.

Erh, and?

> >Is that advice from your own perspective, George?
> Ask the opinion of other cybalist-members on this: to see how
> they deem your "discussion" approach. (Forget about my replies.)
> >Yes, and by the way, you didn't want that ice cream cone anyway.
> >That's the way they usually react to that information, so normally
> >I keep it to myself.
> I understand that you, as a member of a small nation between
> the former European powers Sweden and Germany have some problems;
> I can feel compassion but it is a terra incognita to me. With
> the mentioning that Germany, i.e. the state Schleswig-Holstein,
> has a Danisch *ethnical* political party that has taken part in
> the regional government over there, and implicitly at the federal
> level. So that being neglected or being oppressed look a bit
> different than that...

Thank you for the commiseration which you used as a wrapper for an accusation that the SSW is a Blut-und-Boden Danish-ethnic party, which you have done before after which I told you that the Danish definition of Danishness is by intent, not by bloodline.
Their deputies in the local Landtag are:
Anke Spoorendonk,
Lars Harms,
Silke Hinrichsen
and Flemming Meyer
ie. two possibly Danish names out of four.
So spare me your insinuations.