Re: was The Finnic issue

From: Torsten
Message: 67902
Date: 2011-07-06

> > There is a discussion in the cybalist archives (inconclusive) trying to make sense of Caesar's famous statement. The best I could come up with is that Caesar's initial description of the Belgae fits the Nervii very well (they are thus his prime "Belgan" reference point). If we then add the fact that the Belgae crossed over from Germania, chased out the locals, and had Germanic associates (some mentioned directly as such others (the Nervii et al.) possible by implication) the idea dawned that the "3rd" language of Gallia (for Caesar) besides Gaulish and Aquitanian was simply...Germanic. Despite the fact that many Belgae were actually Gaulish-speaking (including those who conquered portions of Britain). Cf. also final query below after your other analyses.*****
>
> Caesar tangled with the Germans several times. He needed Germanic interpreters to learn about the business of coordinating attacks with lunar phases, and some of his own lieutenants spoke Gaulish. That he was aware of the difference between Germanic and Gaulish is also shown by his comment about Ariovistus acquiring fluent Gaulish during his years occupying part of Gaul. Had Belgic been a Germanic dialect, it would be astonishing if Caesar were unaware of it.
>
> Caesar regarded the distinction between British and Gaulish as unimportant; whatever difference existed at the time was, to him, merely dialectal. Thus we cannot regard Belgic as a Gaulish dialect either.


If we define Germanic as those related languages who have been subject to the process known as Grimm's law, the NWBlock area is excluded since in that area we observe that process in action in historical times
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66375

The question can then be rephrased as: how much similarity to Germanic is displayed by the un-Germanic elements which by Kuhn's methods can be sifted out of the Germanic languages now spoken in those regions (roots in p-, roots of the form T1VT2, for T1,T2 unvoiced unaspirated stops)? Enough that we may claim they formed a separate family descended from a Proto-Proto-Germanic language? In my opinion this is not the case, neither wrt. to the set of roots obtained for the NWBlock area, for England or for Scandinavia, cf the roots here
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/list.html
for which there are seeming cognates in both Finnic and Celtic
and here for Jysk
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30336

Alternatively, we could follow Kuhn and propose the existence of not one but two substrate layers for Germanic in the NWBlock area:

1 a non-IE language, called the ar-/ur-language by Kuhn

2 an IE language, spoken but for a short time before Germanic took over

and assign the Germanic-like NWBlock roots to the latter, eg Meid's
German flur, English floor, NWB placename Plore, OI lar "field"

(<- *plar-/*plan- <- *plaN- ?)


Torsten