Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Germanic and Proto-Slavic

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Germanic and Proto-Slavic

    Following this thread on the relationship between the Celtic and Pre-Germanic languages, I would like to focus on a different but kind of similar linguistic question: when was Proto-Slavic (or "Common Slavic", if you will) spoken?

    In Common Balto-Slavic, Proto-Indo-European Initial *g´ becomes *z. This must clearly be an innovation that occured in Balto-Slavic, because it is well-attested in both the Baltic family and the Slavic family, many cognates exist with Germanic. What I previously already picked are the words for "silver" and "gold" (the latter is also a word that obeys to the *g´ -> *z rule).

    English - Silver - Gold
    German - Silber - Gold
    Danish - Sølv - Guld
    Gothic - Silubr - Gulth
    Lithuanian - Sidabras - (Auksas)
    Latvian - Sudabra - Zelta
    Bulgarian - Srebro - Zlato
    Czech - Stribrna - Zlato
    Russian - Serebra - Zolota

    However, there is a few words in the Slavic languages that are clearly cognates with Germanic, but do not obey to Balto-Slavic sound laws. This is very interesting because it means that these words must have entered into Slavic vocabulary in the Common Slavic stage (after Baltic and Slavic separated, but before the Slavic languages split up), primarily because they are attested in all branches of Slavic:

    English - Goose - Garden
    German - Gans - Garten
    Swedish - Gås - Gård (actually rather "courtyard", "enclosure")
    Gothic - Gansu - Gards ("courtyard")
    Polish - Ges - Gród ("city")
    Czech - Husa - Hrad (actually "castle")
    Croat - Guska - Grad ("town")
    Bulgarian - Gyska - Grad ("city", also "Gradina" means "garden")
    Ukrainian - Gusak - Gorod
    Russian - Gusí - Gorod (actually means "town" or "city")
    Lithuanian - Zasis - Zarda (actually "stockyard", but clearly a cognate)
    Latvian - Zoss - (no apparent cognate)

    Note that I've taken various branches of the Germanic, Slavic and Baltic languages to get a representative overview here. Also, mea culpa for the poor transliterations from those Slavic languages which are written in the Cyrilic script. Also note that in Czech and Slovak, Proto-Slavic initial *g is changed to *h. As can evidently be seen, the words must have entered into Slavic vocabulary in the Common Slavic stage, since it is attested in all major branches of the Slavic family).

    Now, the question is, can we refine the timing of this language contact further? When did these words enter into Common Slavic, and from what language (Pre-Germanic, Proto-Germanic, or East Germanic?)

    What helps us are borrowings from Gothic, or otherwise presumably East Germanic:

    ("donkey" - "to buy")
    German - Esel - Kaufen
    Gothic - Asil - Kaup (purchase/bargain)
    Polish - Osioł - Kupić
    Czech - Osel - Koupit
    Croatian (-) - Kupiti
    Bulgarian - (-) Kupya
    Ukrainian - Osel - Kupiti
    Russian - Osel - Kupit

    (note that Bulgarian, Croat and Serbian use "Magare", "Magarac" and "Magarats" respectively for "donkey" - nonetheless the word is attested in the South Slavic branch via Slovenian "Osel"). Also note that Slavic changes initial K to S (this is actually something very old, compare with Satemization). In the above example, the words clearly do not obey to that, meaning that they must have entered into Slavic vocabulary significantly later.

    There's also, interestingly, quite a few words in Common Slavic which were apparently borrowed from Latin via Gothic:

    (English - Wine - Vinegar - Caesar)
    Latin - Vinum - Acetum - Caesar
    Gothic - Wein - Akeit - Kaisar
    Polish - Wina - Ocet - Cesarz
    Czech - Vino - Ocet - Císař
    Croatian - Wino - Ocat - Car
    Bulgarian - Wino - Otset - Tsar
    Russian - Wina - Uksus - Tsar
    Ukrainian - Wina - Otset - Tsar

    Even if these words entered Slavic vocabulary directly from Latin (which is also conceivable), it is very clear that Common Slavic must have been spoken unexpectedly late (essentially the Roman period), at an earliest 1st century AD, more probably 4th century AD (to account for contact with Gothic / East Germanic peoples).
    Last edited by Taranis; 24-09-11 at 12:43. Reason: typos/format...

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    reading this long article below surely says that the slavic language did not appear anywhere near ancient german, celtic lands until the 6th century AD

    http://yalepress.yale.edu/excerpts/0300058462_1.pdf

  3. #3
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    reading this long article below surely says that the slavic language did not appear anywhere near ancient german, celtic lands until the 6th century AD

    http://yalepress.yale.edu/excerpts/0300058462_1.pdf
    Well, the 4th century AD estimate primairily stems from the idea that contact occured between the early Slavs and the Gothic Chernyakhov Culture.

  4. #4
    Marquis Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-10-10
    Posts
    863


    Country: Netherlands



    don't you think you are oversimplifying?

    I do not have any knowledge about linguistic, but just by using common sense I can see how wild and wrong your assumptions are, how flawed are your proofs

    I will ignore your Germano-centric view in which people have no words until they get them from Germans(did it ever occurred to you that some words could have travelled other way around?) and will focus on obvious flaws in your reasoning

    1) you have used 9 randomly chosen words in total to make a theory about splitting languages, and to propose timing for it... do you actually have any knowledge of linguistic, or are you just a school kid pretending to be linguist...

    2) you propose that Slavs have obtained some latin words via Gothic
    let's see latin -> gothic -> slavic

    vinum -> Wein -> Vino
    caesar -> kaisar -> car
    acetum-> akeit->ocet

    neither of proposed makes any sense
    obviously words were not obtained via Gothic but directly from latin

    this clearly places Slavs west of Goths and not east of Goths as you want to show by claiming that many words were obtained from latin via Gothic

    3)
    donkey
    Finish - aasi
    Lituanian - asilas
    German - Esel
    Letonian - eesel
    Gothic - Asil
    Polish - Osioł
    Czech - Osel
    Russian - Osel
    Serb-Croat-Bulgarian - magare

    how on earth does this tell you that common Slavic must have been spoken unexpectedly late?

    when obviously west and east Slavs share word with neighbouring nations while south Slavs have their own word (not used by any of nearby nations)?



    btw. Slovenian is not really good representative of south Slavic language - it is much closer to west Slavic languages... it does have more words shared with south-Slavic than e.g. Slovak does only due to living in same state with Serbs and Croats...


    4)
    English - Goose - Garden
    German - Gans - Garten
    Swedish - Gås - Gård (actually rather "courtyard", "enclosure")
    Gothic - Gansu - Gards ("courtyard")
    Polish - Ges - Gród ("city")
    Czech - Husa - Hrad (actually "castle")
    Croat - Guska - Grad ("town")
    Bulgarian - Gyska - Grad ("city", also "Gradina" means "garden")
    Ukrainian - Gusak - Gorod
    Russian - Gusí - Gorod (actually means "town" or "city")
    Lithuanian - Zasis - Zarda (actually "stockyard", but clearly a cognate)
    Latvian - Zoss - (no apparent cognate)

    now, west Slavs use "h" where east Slavs, south Slavs and Germans use "g"
    how does that tell you that common Slavic was spoken unexpectadely late?
    it would tell me that in past south Slavs perhaps lived closer to Germany than west Slavs did... google white Serbia and white Croatia... check why I2a2 has highest variation in Bohemia and in Serb settled areas...

    if common Slavic developed unexpectedly late, how come same word means "town"in some languages and "castle"in others?

    5) you use word "kaufen" as an example that there was no centum /satem distinction so it must have been later loan word from German....

    did it occur to you that perhaps Germanic people got word from proto-Slavic because Veneti were the traders...
    e.g. all Slavic languages have the word but not all Germanic
    english - buy

    or that word was not even PIE that it comes from e.g. Finnish word for "trade"?.....

    how do you explain that Slavs share the word with Germanic and Finnish people while Balts do not? don't you think it suggests that Slavs perhaps lived closer to Germanic people than Balts did?

    how do you explain that in Slavic and Finish it is "kupovati" and "kauppa", while in Germanic languages it is "kaufen" (German), "Köp (Sweden), "kopen" (dutch), "Kjøp"(Norway), Køb"(Denmark), "kaupa"(Iceland) and "buy"("english")?

    obviously, "buy" "kaufen" and "kob" are outliers in the set... my guess is word spread from Finnish people....


    bottom line is you base your proof on a word whose history you do not know...




    6) your timing estimations have no direct logical connections to "proofs" you made...

    7)
    Finish

    donkey - aasi
    trade - kauppa
    wine - viini
    caesar - Keisari
    gold - kulta


    I guess, following your logic Finish departed from Germanic (the mother of all languages in your mind) unexpectedly late too...


    8) you use word "kaufen" as an example that there was no centum /satem transition so it must have been later loan word from German....

    do you really think that centum/satem division is reflected in every word? that every "k"in Germanic you can just substitute with "s" and get Slavic cognjate? do you think Slavic languages have no "k" at all?

    idea of PIE theory was that there was some mystic letter let's call it K* that gave "K" in centum languages, and "s" in satem languages....

    but if you ask me PIE had "s" where satem languages do... Indo-Aryans, Sanskrit, Persian, Iranian - they all use "s" and not "k" in those shared words...
    inventing some mysterious initial letters of PIE is just political correctness...
    truth is probably that some people, when they were learning language of IE people, were not able to adopt that to their previous tribal languages..




    in short,
    your logic is full with flaws,
    you have chosen 9 words that seems to suit your wishes, but even that you were not able to do properly.... your analysis is extremely low level if someone without any knowledge of linguistics can so easily dispute it...... so, if you are, by any chance, linguist perhaps you should think about prequalification...

  5. #5
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by how yes no View Post
    don't you think you are oversimplifying?

    I do not have any knowledge about linguistic, but just by using common sense I can see how wild and wrong your assumptions are, how flawed are your proofs
    My assumptions are not "wild and wrong". If you can readily demonstrate to me how Proto-Slavic could possibly be spoken earlier, I'm willing to listen to that.

    I will ignore your Germano-centric view in which people have no words until they get them from Germans(did it ever occurred to you that some words could have travelled other way around?) and will focus on obvious flaws in your reasoning
    I did not say that, and I certainly didn't imply that people "didn't have words before". It's also that the Slavic family doesn't only have borrowings from East Germanic, there is, for instance also borrowings from Iranic languages.

    1) you used 9 words in total to make a theory about splitting languages, and to propose timing for it... do you actually have any knowledge of linguistic, or are you just a school kid pretending to be linguist...
    If I'm guilty of anything here, it is that I picked such few examples because I thought they were exemplary/representative because they visualized certain sound laws (and how words adhere to these sound laws - or not). I might have picked more words, but I didn't want to make this post too long. If you desire so, I can certainly post other examples.

    And yet again, you are insulting me.

    2) you propose that Slavs have obtained some latin words via Gothic
    let's see latin -> gothic -> slavic

    vinum -> Wein -> Vino
    caesar -> kaisar -> car
    acetum-> akeit->ocet

    neither of proposed makes any sense
    obviously words were not obtained via Gothic but directly from latin

    this places Slavs west of Goths and not east of Goths as you want to show by claiming that many words were obtained from latin via Gothic
    But it makes no sense to assume that the Slavs lived west of the Goths. Also, as demonstrated, these aren't the only words that Slavic borrowed from Gothic. To give you another example, the word for "cattle" in various branches of Slavic:

    German - Schatz ("treasure")
    Gothic - Skatts ("wealth")
    Czech - Skot
    Serbian - Skota
    Bulgarian - Skotowe
    Ukrainian - Skotyna
    Russian - Skoty


    3) regarding your reasoning about words "donkey" and "to buy"

    Finish

    donkey - aasi
    trade - kauppa

    does it mean that Finnish language was spoken unexpectedly late?
    No, while it certainly seems plausible that "Aasii" and "Kauppa" are borrowings from Germanic into Finnish, that does ad-hoc by no means allow one date anything here. The key issue is that I didn't just check one language here: the key point is that words I present are present in ALL branches of Slavic, hence it is reasonable to assume that they were also present in Proto-Slavic. Finnish is by itself just one language (looking into other Finnic languages might make a whole lot more sense to attempt to estimate the timing of Finnic-Germanic contact). I have given a whole lot more thought into this than you think.

    4) you use word "kaufen" as a proof that there was no kentum /satem transition

    do you really think that centum/satem division is reflected in every word? that every "k"in Germanic you can just substitute with "s" and get Slavic cognjate?
    do you think Slavic language has no "k" at all?
    Generally, sound laws have no exceptions. When they apparently so have exceptions, the only explanation is that the word(s) in question must have entered the vocabulary of a language after a sound change.

    Since the Centum -> Satem change occurs in Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic and Thracian, it stands to reason that the change did occur very early in Slavic (far more probably Pre-Balto-Slavic).

    did it occur to you that perhaps Germanic people got word from proto-Slavic because Veneti were the traders...
    e.g. all Slavic languages have the word but not all Germanic
    english - buy

    or that word was not even PIE that it comes from e.g. Finnish word for "trade"?.....

    either explains well why there is no "k"to "s"...
    bottom line is you base your proof on a word whose history you do not know...

    if you ask me PIE had "s" where satem languages do... Indo-Aryans, Sanskrit, Persian, Iranian - they all use "s" and not "k" in those shared words...
    inventing letters of PIE is just political correctness...
    truth is some people, when they were learning language of IE people, were not able to adopt that to their previous tribal languages...

    5)
    donkey
    Finish - aasi
    Lituanian - asilas
    German - Esel
    Letonian - eesel
    Gothic - Asil
    Polish - Osioł
    Czech - Osel
    Russian - Osel
    Serb-Croat-Bulgarian - magare

    how on earth does this tell you that common Slavic must have been spoken unexpectedly late?

    when obviously west and east Slavs share word with neighbouring nations while south Slavs have their own word (not used by any of nearby nations)?

    btw. Slovenian is not really good representative of south Slavic language - it is much closer to west Slavic languages... it does have more words shared with south-Slavic than e.g. Slovak does only due to living in same state with Serbs and Croats...

    6) finish
    wine - viini
    caesar - Keisari
    gold - kulta
    donkey - aasi
    trade - kauppa

    I guess, following your logic Finish departed from Germanic (the mother of your languages in your mind) unexpectedly late too...

    7) your timing estimations have no direct logical connections to "proofs" you made...
    They have logical connections. If these words are found as cognates in all branches of the Slavic family, it is logical to assume that the word entered before the language split up. If you have borrowings from Latin or Gothic this means the Slavic languages cannot have split up before the appearance of the Romans or the Goths. Therefore the dates I gave are perfectly logical.

    in short, you analysis is extremely low level if someone without any knowledge of linguistics can so easily dispute it...... so, if you are, by any chance, linguist perhaps you should think about prequalification...
    Again you are insulting me.

    It's very clear that unlike me, you haven't given any deeper thought into this, however.

  6. #6
    Marquis Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-10-10
    Posts
    863


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    If I'm guilty of anything here, it is that I picked such few examples because I thought they were exemplary/representative because they visualized certain sound laws (and how words adhere to these sound laws - or not). I might have picked more words, but I didn't want to make this post too long. If you desire so, I can certainly post other examples.

    And yet again, you are insulting me.
    you want to make instant conclusions about history of languages that you do not even speak.... you even use wrong words...you make giant assumptions based on few words whose history you do not know, every single example you provided is heavily flawed at least in one respect...

    what do you want me to tell you, that you are genius of linguistics? sorry, but I do not lie... I tell what I think...sometimes is harsh, but it's honest...


    But it makes no sense to assume that the Slavs lived west of the Goths.
    why not?
    if they were Veneti, they clearly did live west of Goths...
    and that agrees with loan words from latin being clearly not transfered via gothic...



    German - Schatz ("treasure")
    Gothic - Skatts ("wealth")
    Czech - Skot
    Serbian - Skota
    Bulgarian - Skotowe
    Ukrainian - Skotyna
    Russian - Skoty
    this is wrong!!!

    cattle = goveda, marva, stoka in serbian and south Slavic languages
    skot = retard, idiot, someone who offended you, person who has sexual intercourse with animals...


    no cognjate in Polish, Slovak, Slovenian & Belarus
    Serbo-Croat word is not really cognjate as it means something different...

    again this example shows that common Slavic was further in past than you think

    it shows that influence of Gothic is limited to rather nearby areas (Bulgars lived on Volga)

    and that Czechs perhaps did live closer to Russians, or adapted word from Russians or Germans...note that it is not their primary word for cattle...their primary word is dobytek that has cognjate only in Slovak (e.g. similar word to dobytek in serbo-croat actually means something you win (e.g. on lottary))

    so, you are suggesting that the languages that have large set of mostly non-overlapping words for cattle are single language that was invented unexpectedly recently?

    let's apply same logic to germanic languages

    english - cow
    german - Kuh
    dutch - koe
    swedish - ko
    danish - ko
    norwegian - kua

    now, this suggests rather recent separation of languages... 50 years ago?

    No, while it certainly seems plausible that "Aasii" and "Kauppa" are borrowings from Germanic into Finnish, that does ad-hoc by no means allow one date anything here. The key issue is that I didn't just check one language here: the key point is that words I present are present in ALL branches of Slavic, hence it is reasonable to assume that they were also present in Proto-Slavic. Finnish is by itself just one language (looking into other Finnic languages might make a whole lot more sense to attempt to estimate the timing of Finnic-Germanic contact). I have given a whole lot more thought into this than you think.
    I see no proof there that common Slavic was unexpectadely late? do you have a proof that it is word that was invented unexpectedly late? people did trade long long time ago... and sharing this word tells that Finnish, Slavic and Germanic were trading among themselves, while Balts perhaps were not part of it.... that clearly places Slavs on Baltic


    Generally, sound laws have no exceptions. When they apparently so have exceptions, the only explanation is that the word(s) in question must have entered the vocabulary of a language after a sound change.
    yes, but that would hold only for PIE words...if PIE word entered both languages, than cogjates would have "k"and "s"...so this is not PIE word... it could have been Finnish, Celtic or from any language... why it has to be german? cause you believe germans are superior? it is word for trading, and I have shown you that every single mentioned part of Serians (Caucasus, northwest China, red sea) was into trading...also Veneti were into trading... so why not assuming the word came from I2 people vocabulary whatever it was...

    Since the Centum -> Satem change occurs in Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic and Thracian, it stands to reason that the change did occur very early in Slavic (far more probably Pre-Balto-Slavic).
    there is no such a thing as centum->satem change
    but PIE to both Centum and Satem...

    that is quite a difference....
    note that if you want to deny PIE theory and negate common letter from whom K and s developed, than it is much more plausible to propose satem->centum change as Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit, Persian, Avestan are all satem...


    They have logical connections. If these words are found as cognates in all branches of the Slavic family, it is logical to assume that the word entered before the language split up. If you have borrowings from Latin or Gothic this means the Slavic languages cannot have split up before the appearance of the Romans or the Goths. Therefore the dates I gave are perfectly logical.
    your timing has no sense at all....
    it is wild guess completely devoid of logic...

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Again you are insulting me.

    It's very clear that unlike me, you haven't given any deeper thought into this, however.
    nope, you are insulting all Slavic people with so crude and inaccurate analysis.... perhaps your proposal about common Slavic appearing very late is correct, but examples you provided are completely worthless and if that is what you call deep thinking than you have serious problem...

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by how yes no View Post

    why not?
    if they were Veneti, they clearly did live west of Goths...
    and that agrees with loan words from latin being clearly not transfered via gothic...

    yes, but that would hold only for PIE words...if PIE word entered both languages, than cogjates would have "k"and "s"...so this is not PIE word... it could have been Finnish, Celtic or from any language... why it has to be german? cause you believe germans are superior? it is word for trading, and I have shown you that every single mentioned part of Serians (Caucasus, northwest China, red sea) was into trading...also Veneti were into trading... so why not assuming the word came from I2 people vocabulary whatever it was...

    nope, you are insulting all Slavic people with so crude and inaccurate analysis.... perhaps your proposal about common Slavic appearing very late is correct, but examples you provided are completely worthless and if that is what you call deep thinking than you have serious problem...
    You missunderstand the point

    1 - was there slavs in the current polish lands in 200AD ?

    2 - Is the terminolgy of using proto-slavic in this area at this time too early, why not use proto- finnic or proto-baltic or why was there not a proto-venedi since they seem too big and non-warlike tribe

    3 - All languages borrowed words from other languages

    4 - word association is not a guarantee on anything
    we have a city of venta in latvia, vendel in Sweden, Venssysel in denmark. They mean nothing. maybe as I said before, Vendus mean a trader in Latin.

    5 - tactisus says that the venedi was assimated in sarmatian by marriages, but kept there germanic lifestyle

    6 - in my opnion, the current polish lands in the year 0 was still a baltic or finnic linguistic area ( maybe check aestii ) as they where mentioned by Jordanes

  8. #8
    Marquis Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-10-10
    Posts
    863


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    You missunderstand the point

    1 - was there slavs in the current polish lands in 200AD ?
    all I can say is Przeworsk is clear continuation of Pomeranian culture... there is no doubt about that....

    it has just lost its north most area of Baltic shores probably to I1 Nordic bronze people...which resulted in Baltic sea getting name mare Suebicum (Suebi = Swedes = I1) as opposed to north sea which was mare Germanicum (I2b people)



    what language did those people speak it is hard to say...
    but early Slavs fit well with Przeworsk...


    2 - Is the terminolgy of using proto-slavic in this area at this time too early, why not use proto- finnic or proto-baltic or why was there not a proto-venedi since they seem too big and non-warlike tribe
    no you can perhaps speak of Balto-Slavs as same people at that time, but I do not believe it...


    5 - tactisus says that the venedi was assimated in sarmatian by marriages, but kept there germanic lifestyle
    nope, he doesnot say that....
    he says they do not speak Germanic, they borrow much from Sarmatians, but because they live in houses, fight on foot, and carry shields he classify them as Germanic

    As to the tribes of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni, I am in doubt whether I should class them with the Germans or the Sarmatæ, although indeed the Peucini called by some Bastarnæ, are like Germans in their language, mode of life, and in the permanence of their settlements. They all live in filth and sloth, and by the intermarriages of the chiefs they are becoming in some degree debased into a resemblance to the Sarmatæ. The Veneti have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations, carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot, thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatæ, who live in waggons and on horseback.
    http://books.google.nl/books?id=VWne...veneti&f=false


    6 - in my opnion, the current polish lands in the year 0 was still a baltic or finnic linguistic area ( maybe check aestii ) as they where mentioned by Jordanes
    still? do you know they ever were?

  9. #9
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by how yes no View Post
    you want to make instant conclusions about history of languages that you do not even speak.... you even use wrong words...you make giant assumptions based on few words whose history you do not know, every single example you provided is heavily flawed at least in one respect...

    what do you want me to tell you, that you are genius of linguistics? sorry, but I do not lie... I tell what I think...sometimes is harsh, but it's honest...
    You apparently do not get tired of repeatedly insulting me. These are not "instant conclusions", these are well-thought-out and in accordance with sound laws, which verymuch allow the words to tell their own history.

    why not?
    if they were Veneti, they clearly did live west of Goths...
    and that agrees with loan words from latin being clearly not transfered via gothic...
    I stated before, take a look at Tacitus or Ptolemy. There is no evidence whatsoever of any Slavic peoples in the area west of the Vistula in the 1st/2nd century AD. Ptolemy places the Goths on the right bank of the Vistula. The earliest mentioning of Slavs in Roman/Byzantine sources occurs during the Migration Period. It is therefore absolutely plausible that these words entered into Proto-Slavic via Gothic.

    Even if you completely disregard all Germanic-derived words in Proto-Slavic it is clear that Proto-Slavic cannot be older than the Roman Period because these Latin-derived words must have entered into Slavic vocabulary during the Proto-Slavic stage.

    this is wrong!!!

    cattle = goveda, marva, stoka in serbian and south Slavic languages
    skot = retard, idiot, someone who offended you, person who has sexual intercourse with animals...

    no cognjate in Polish, Slovak, Slovenian & Belarus
    Serbo-Croat word is not really cognjate as it means something different...

    again this example shows that common Slavic was further in past than you think

    it shows that influence of Gothic is limited to rather nearby areas (Bulgars lived on Volga)

    and that Czechs perhaps did live closer to Russians, or adapted word from Russians or Germans...note that it is not their primary word for cattle...their primary word is dobytek that has cognjate only in Slovak (e.g. similar word to dobytek in serbo-croat actually means something you win (e.g. on lottary))

    so, you are suggesting that the languages that have large set of mostly non-overlapping words for cattle are single language that was invented unexpectedly recently?

    let's apply same logic to germanic languages

    english - cow
    german - Kuh
    dutch - koe
    swedish - ko
    danish - ko
    norwegian - kua

    now, this suggests rather recent separation of languages... 50 years ago?
    Don't be silly. You have nothing to compare that word against except languages that are all members of the same family. The fact that this word is attested in all modern branches of Germanic however suggests that it was present in Proto-Germanic. This does not help in any way provide evidence to when Proto-Germanic was spoken, since you're not comparing it against anything else: no sound laws, no other language families. However, I gave a detailed assessment of when Proto-Germanic probably was spoken in this thread.

    I see no proof there that common Slavic was unexpectadely late? do you have a proof that it is word that was invented unexpectedly late? people did trade long long time ago... and sharing this word tells that Finnish, Slavic and Germanic were trading among themselves, while Balts perhaps were not part of it.... that clearly places Slavs on Baltic
    If there's entire sets of words that are found in all branches of the Slavic language family, do not adhere to Proto-Slavic or Balto-Slavic sound laws, but are readily identifiable as cognates with words from other languages (Germanic, Latin) then it perfectly stands to reason that they must have entered into Common Slavic at some late point.

    yes, but that would hold only for PIE words...if PIE word entered both languages, than cogjates would have "k"and "s"...so this is not PIE word... it could have been Finnish, Celtic or from any language... why it has to be german? cause you believe germans are superior? it is word for trading, and I have shown you that every single mentioned part of Serians (Caucasus, northwest China, red sea) was into trading...also Veneti were into trading... so why not assuming the word came from I2 people vocabulary whatever it was...
    Look, this is what I have been trying to tell: if the word (or words) would have entered into the Slavic languages from Proto-Indo-European (or otherwise Pre-Balto-Slavic), it would adhere to Proto-Slavic sound laws. They obviously don't, and I actually readily provdided examples of this:

    - In Balto-Slavic, PIE *Gh yields *Z.
    The word for "Gold" must have entered into Balto-Slavic from Proto-Indo-European (or otherwise Pre-Balto-Slavic), since this is attested in both the Baltic and Slavic families:

    Germanic Gold, Guld, Gulth
    Baltic (Latvian) Zelta
    Slavic Zelta, Zlato, Zolota

    If, for whatever reason, the word for gold had entered into Slavic vocabulary after the Proto-Balto-Slavic stage (which is silly, but it's just a thought experiment here to visualize things), these words would not adhere to these sound laws. Hence, it would be "Gelda", "Glato" and "Golota" instead. Since it obviously isn't the case we can be certain that the word was present in both Slavic and Baltic in the Proto-Balto-Slavic stage and participated in the sound shift. Conversely we can argue that the word for gold must have entered into the vocabulary of Pre-Germanic before Proto-Balto-Slavic shifted from Gh to Z.

    However, I also provided examples of words (goose, garden) which clearly do not obey to the above sound laws. This means that these words must have entered into Proto-Slavic after the Gh to Z change. Had they done so, the word for goose should be something like "Zes", "Zusa", "Zuska", "Zusak"garden/city/court should be something like "Zród", "Zrad" and "Zorod". In fact, we have attested this development in the Baltic languages ("Zasis", "Zoss" for goose, and "Zarda" for (stock-)yard). Therefore, the words must have entered into Baltic via Proto-Balto-Slavic, but not into Slavic, and Slavic must have acquired these words later from contact with German languages.

    What is also very interesting is that Czech and Slovak made the innovation from G to H clearly long after Proto-Slavic, in fact, this must have occured after common West Slavic, because the word is attested as "Gród" in Polish, which is also a West Slavic language but does not share the G to H innovation. This shows us how these words must clearly have entered at the Proto-Slavic stage.

    there is no such a thing as centum->satem change
    but PIE to both Centum and Satem...

    that is quite a difference....
    note that if you want to deny PIE theory and negate common letter from whom K and s developed, than it is much more plausible to propose satem->centum change as Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit, Persian, Avestan are all satem...
    I have no idea what you are trying to say there. It is generally established that the change is from PIE K -> S in the Satem languages. Every linguist will agree on that. Since the change occurs in various branches of IE (and conversely, does not happen in various branches of IE, in particular Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Greek and Tocharian), it stands to reason that this change is very old.

    your timing has no sense at all....
    it is wild guess completely devoid of logic...
    My timing make verymuch sense - and also, it's not that I'm the first one to come up with this. And again, you apparently take pleasure in repeatedly insulting me.

    nope, you are insulting all Slavic people with so crude and inaccurate analysis.... perhaps your proposal about common Slavic appearing very late is correct, but examples you provided are completely worthless and if that is what you call deep thinking than you have serious problem...
    I'm not insulting anybody. If you feel insulted by my analysis for whatever reasons, no offense, this is not my problem. What I'm saying is provided by the languages themselves. The examples I have provided are not "worthless", as demonstrated above, and I think they visualize the issues reasonably well enough. My goal was to point out that the languages themselves can often verymuch shed light into when the contact between various ethno-linguistic groups took place.

  10. #10
    Marquis Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-10-10
    Posts
    863


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    You apparently do not get tired of repeatedly insulting me. These are not "instant conclusions", these are well-thought-out and in accordance with sound laws, which verymuch allow the words to tell their own history.
    oh, but I am not insulting you. I am insulting your linguistic capabilities. Those are quite different categories....

    To anyone with a tiny bit of common sense it is quite clear that your examples are pure bullshit and that your conclusions are extremely far fetched and not in accordance even with those few examples that you provide...

  11. #11
    Marquis Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-10-10
    Posts
    863


    Country: Netherlands



    so, you are suggesting that the languages that have large set of mostly non-overlapping words for cattle are single language that was invented unexpectedly recently?

    let's apply same logic to germanic languages

    english - cow
    german - Kuh
    dutch - koe
    swedish - ko
    danish - ko
    norwegian - kua

    now, this suggests rather recent separation of languages... 50 years ago?
    Don't be silly. You have nothing to compare that word against except languages that are all members of the same family. The fact that this word is attested in all modern branches of Germanic however suggests that it was present in Proto-Germanic. This does not help in any way provide evidence to when Proto-Germanic was spoken, since you're not comparing it against anything else: no sound laws, no other language families. However, I gave a detailed assessment of when Proto-Germanic probably was spoken in this thread.
    would you agree that word for "cow"must be very old as people must have had a word for "cow" long time ago...

    let's see

    cow-> koe -> doesnot give slavic "krava"
    "krava" (most Slavs) -> "karova" (Belarus) -> "karve"(Lithuanian) -> "kauve"- > "kau"/"kua (Germanic languages)

    clearly, simplification of Slavic word gives Germanic word...

    but with your logic one would expect that slavic word is "sau" and than because it is not "sau" it means it was late import from germanic languages...

    kupovati/kaufen (to buy) is similar example where you naively expect "s"in Slavic languages on position where "k""is found in Germanic cognjates... while in fact, as in example above, lack of centum/satem difference can be indication that word entered germanic via slavic... and also you assume that PIE language didnot have sound "k" while in fact in addition to "k" it had a sound e.g. k* that was transformed to k in centum and to s in satem variants... following your logic there would not exist "k"in Slavic languages except in words that are imported from Germanic...

    also, taking into consideration that trading is old as humans ability to produce or to hunt, it is just stupid to assume that any nation could obtain word for buying in recent past... that is another clear example in what seems to be infinite series of examples of how flawed is your logic...

  12. #12
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by how yes no View Post
    would you agree that word for "cow"must be very old as people must have had a word for "cow" long time ago...

    let's see

    cow-> koe -> doesnot give slavic "krava"
    "krava" (most Slavs) -> "karova" (Belarus) -> "karve"(Lithuanian) -> "kauve"- > "kau"/"kua (Germanic languages)

    clearly, simplification of Slavic word gives Germanic word...
    That is, with all due respect, nonsense, because there is no such sound law. In contrast, anything I've stated before can be readily comprehended from well-known Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic sound laws.

    In contrast, I would like to argue that the cognate of Baltic/Slavic with Germanic is NOT "Cow", but the word "Calf".

    but with your logic one would expect that slavic word is "sau" and than because it is not "sau" it means it was late import from germanic languages...

    kupovati/kaufen (to buy) is similar example where you naively expect "s"in Slavic languages on position where "k""is found in Germanic cognjates... while in fact, as in example above, lack of centum/satem difference can be indication that word entered germanic via slavic... and also you assume that PIE language didnot have sound "k" while in fact in addition to "k" it had a sound e.g. k* that was transformed to k in centum and to s in satem variants... following your logic there would not exist "k"in Slavic languages except in words that are imported from Germanic...
    And actually, I would think that it is verymuch conceivable that the word is indeed a borrowing, but not from Germanic into Slavic but from an early Centum language into Balto-Slavic (because the word is, as seen above, attested in both Baltic and Slavic.

    also, taking into consideration that trading is old as humans ability to produce or to hunt, it is just stupid to assume that any nation could obtain word for buying in recent past... that is another clear example in what seems to be infinite series of examples of how flawed is your logic...
    Well, it's not stupid at all. Sometimes newly-introduced terms replace just olders ones. For example, the word in Latin for "horse" was "Equus". However, universally, the Romance languages have dumped "Equus" in favour of "Caballus":

    Portuguese - Cavalo
    Spanish - Caballo
    Catalan - Cavall
    French - Cheval
    Italian - Cavallo
    Romanian - Cal

    In no way this implies that a language did not have any word for something.

  13. #13
    Marquis Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-10-10
    Posts
    863


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    That is, with all due respect, nonsense, because there is no such sound law. In contrast, anything I've stated before can be readily comprehended from well-known Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic sound laws.
    really?
    I think 6 year old would understand transition

    "krava" (most Slavs) -> "karova" (Belarus) -> "karve"(Lithuanian) -> "kauve"- > "kau"/"kua (Germanic languages)

    from "karve"to "kauv(e)" goes via person or people who are not good in spelling "r"...


    In contrast, I would like to argue that the cognate of Baltic/Slavic with Germanic is NOT "Cow", but the word "Calf".
    calf and cow are clearly words of same origin...

    Well, it's not stupid at all. Sometimes newly-introduced terms replace just olders ones. For example, the word in Latin for "horse" was "Equus". However, universally, the Romance languages have dumped "Equus" in favour of "Caballus":

    Portuguese - Cavalo
    Spanish - Caballo
    Catalan - Cavall
    French - Cheval
    Italian - Cavallo
    Romanian - Cal
    "kobila" = female horse in Slavic

  14. #14
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    I have a identified a few other probable borrowings from Germanic:

    "onion"
    English - (Leek)
    German - Lauch (Leek)
    Danish - Løg
    Swedish - Lök
    Gothic - Lauks
    Croatian - Luk
    Serbian - Luk
    Belorussian - Luk
    Ukrainian - Luk
    Bulgarian - Luk

    "cure", "medicine"
    Danish - Læge ("doctor")
    Swedish - Läkare ("doctor")
    Gothic - Lekinon ("cure", "Medicine"), also "Lekeis" (approximately doctor/medic)
    Czech - Lék
    Slovak - Liek
    Polish - Lek ("medicine")
    Croatian - Lijek
    Serbian - Lek
    Russian - Lek
    Ukrainian - Liky

    "bread"
    German - Laib ("loaf")
    Gothic - Hlaib ("bread loaf")
    Czech - Chléb
    Slovak - Chlieb
    Polish - Chleb
    Serbian - Khleb
    Bulgarian - Khlyab
    Russian - Khleb
    Ukrainian - Khlib

  15. #15
    Marquis Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-10-10
    Posts
    863


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I have a identified a few other probable borrowings from

    "bread"
    German - Laib ("loaf")
    Gothic - Hlaib ("bread loaf")
    Czech - Chléb
    Slovak - Chlieb
    Polish - Chleb
    Serbian - Khleb
    Bulgarian - Khlyab
    Russian - Khleb
    Ukrainian - Khlib
    not correct

    Serbian - hleb
    Croatian, Slovenian - kruh
    Macedonian - leb

    I would say Croatian word is outlier in set... can you figure out where does it come from?


    btw. not sure it is a loan... loans usually do not have words with related sounds and meaning

    halapljiv/ (h)alav = to eat in hasty way
    gladan = hungry

    btw. Estonian - leib
    Finnish - leipä

  16. #16
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    I'd like to point out a few other hints which help us to further narrow this down:

    - Proto-Germanic can be thought to have spoken roughly 1st century BC through 1st century AD. After this time, the Germanic languages are thought to have split up. This is the earliest time frame that any Germanic words could have entered Slavic- or Proto-Slavic, since one would be talking about Pre-Germanic before the 1st century BC. If the words entered through East Germanic languages, then the timing would be even later.

    - Gothic is the oldest well-attested Germanic language, and it is at the same time only well-attested East Germanic language. Ulifiliaz (4th century AD) is credited with having translated the bible into Gothic. The Gothic bible translations represent the main corpus of the Gothic language.

    - Roman conquest of Dacia - the lands geographically closest to the presumed Proto-Slavic homeland - occurs in the early 2nd century AD. Any Latin-derived terms into Proto-Slavic must have arrived in this period at an earliest.

    - The (Gothic) Chernyakhov Culture is dated roughly 2nd through 5th century AD. It is ended with the Hunnic invasions. In any case, Gothic words (and Latin words transported via Gothic) could have entered Proto-Slavic language in this timeframe.

    - The earliest mentioning of Slavic people ("Sklavenoi") by Roman/Byzantine sources occurs in the 6th century AD.

    - Old Church Slavonic (the oldest well-attested corpus of the Slavic languages) is from the 9th century AD. Old-Church Slavonic also represents the oldest well-attested corpus of the Slavic languages. However, by this time, splitting of the Slavic family into sub-branches is already complete.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    233
    Points
    5,110
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,110, Level: 21
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    An excellent summary Taranis!

    What do your sources tell about PIE timing - Is it 6000-8000 BC?

    Do you know the timing of Balto - Slavic / Baltic developments?

    I just can find that the Proto Baltic appeared from 200 BC and existed until 400 AD.
    The other source tells that arround 100 BC there already were some variations in the Baltic dialects. The third sources tells that Latvian and Lithuanian (east Baltic languages) fully separated as late as 600- 700 AD

    The Proto Baltic-Slavic is not mentioned at all, though as I understand studies of the proto Baltic-Slavic are one of the most dynamic now. For instance, there is an opinion that Old Prussian as other Western Baltic Languages were evem more closely related to Slavic than modern Latvian or Lithuanian. Currenlty linguist can count arround 300 similar words in the Baltic and Slavic languages and many similarities in grammar structures, declentions, etc.

    If the R1a Indoeuropeans mooved in the territory of Baltic sea at arround 2000 BC (at least reached Lithuania, where they started mixed with N1c1 Sami peoples forming Proto Baltic peoples). Does that mean that at that time the Proto-Baltic-Slavic must already have formed? I am confused.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    An excellent summary Taranis!

    What do your sources tell about PIE timing - Is it 6000-8000 BC?

    Do you know the timing of Balto - Slavic / Baltic developments?

    I just can find that the Proto Baltic appeared from 200 BC and existed until 400 AD.
    The other source tells that arround 100 BC there already were some variations in the Baltic dialects. The third sources tells that Latvian and Lithuanian (east Baltic languages) fully separated as late as 600- 700 AD

    The Proto Baltic-Slavic is not mentioned at all, though as I understand studies of the proto Baltic-Slavic are one of the most dynamic now. For instance, there is an opinion that Old Prussian as other Western Baltic Languages were evem more closely related to Slavic than modern Latvian or Lithuanian. Currenlty linguist can count arround 300 similar words in the Baltic and Slavic languages and many similarities in grammar structures, declentions, etc.

    If the R1a Indoeuropeans mooved in the territory of Baltic sea at arround 2000 BC (at least reached Lithuania, where they started mixed with N1c1 Sami peoples forming Proto Baltic peoples). Does that mean that at that time the Proto-Baltic-Slavic must already have formed? I am confused.
    If you say proto-baltic is from that time, then it would be proto-finnic before hand and also saami. But "pure" finnic is called the grandmother of languages.

    scholars say saami language split from finnic around 1000BC

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    233
    Points
    5,110
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,110, Level: 21
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    The question is about languages
    When did proto Slavic-Baltic split took place? Logically it seems that the proto Slavic Baltic might have developed only somewhere in Euroasian steppes before Kurgan culture movement (around 2500 BC)? But it seems so early... Perhaps linguists have some more advanced theories on that?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    233
    Points
    5,110
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,110, Level: 21
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    The proto Baltic tribes arrived to the Baltic sea and more Eastern territories of the present Russia with the Kurgan culture. They apparently brought their language with them (proto-Baltic?). The new Baltic tribes of the Kurgan peoples started mixing with native Finno-Ugrian hunter-fishers who had been here very long ago since 8000 BC (according to some Finnish sources). But the languages of those peoples were very different, and though the tribes seemed to cohabite quite amicably for some time (Kurgan people spreading more along the rivers, according to archaeological finds) in the longer term, the hunter gathering culture where assimilated apart from ther most very northern Sami. However, the people of Estonia, Finland and Sami retained native Finnic languages. Genetically the composition is of the present day Finns, Estonians, Sami, Lithuanians and Latvians is rather close.

    Fig. 3. The tentative expansion of the Eurasiatic “Kurgan” culture to Europe and the Proto-Baltic area. 1, expansion not later than c. 2300-2200 B.C.; 2, expansion before and around 2100 B.C. (chronology not yet fixed by Carbon 14 dating. The arrows in the Caucasus and Anatolia may indicate an earlier period, c. 2300 B.C.); 3, the area occupied or influenced by the “Kurgan” (Corded, Battle-Axe) people; 4, the proto-Baltic area during the first half of the second millennium B.C. (unchanged limits in the west until c.1200 B.C.). The southern limits almost coincide with the limits between the forest and forest-steppe zones in eastern Europe.
    http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbu...mbutas-02.html

  21. #21
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Regarding Proto-Balto-Slavic, I am not sure. The problem is that it's very difficult to estimate when such early or "deep" split-up events happened because there's few signature terms to time this (mainly words that must have entered into vocabulary at a certain stage because they obey or do not obey to certain sound laws). Generally, it's pretty clear that amongst the living language families, the Germanic languages are closest to the Baltic- and Slavic languages, but when Pre-Germanic and Pre-Balto-Slavic diverged from each other is very hard to estimate. As a rule of thumb, the changing rate of languages is not homogenous: languages can exhibit few changes across comparably long stretches, but have considerable changes in relatively short time.

    One "signature innovation" if you will of Balto-Slavic is the change Initial Gh to Z. I gave multiple examples of that above. When did this change happen? Very hard to say, in my opinion. It also stands to reason that not all Balto-Slavic sound laws did occur simultaneously, so we might be talking about a relatively long "Balto-Slavic stage".

    Regarding the differences between Latvian and Lithuanian, as well as the (extinct) West-Baltic languages (ie, Old Prussian), there are indeed some considerable differences there (if you give me some time, I can work out some demonstrable evidence of that). But, I think it's absolutely conceivable to argue that the splitup of the Baltic languages occured earlier than the split-up of the Slavic languages.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-01-11
    Posts
    12


    Country: Greece



    This theme is Ouroboros ...

  23. #23
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,043
    Points
    15,698
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,698, Level: 38
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 752
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Itas Argis View Post
    This theme is Ouroboros ...
    Elaborate?

    If by "Ouroboros" you mean "endless", let me derefer you to the "Celts of Iberia" thread in "European Culture & History". This thread has not even one finished page.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    233
    Points
    5,110
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,110, Level: 21
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Yes, if you could, explain about the changes in Baltic languages! (that can be a separate topic)
    Regarding Gh to Z - in Latvian it is correct, but in Lithuanian the chagne to seems to be from Gh to Ž (pronounced as Zh)
    Goose - žąsis, (stock)yard žardas [old word] [or modern] gardas, which must have be borrowed from Germanic languages latter)

  25. #25
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    After many countless hours and documents, the conclusion is

    1- that the goths where on the east of the vistula - tribe was the Gythones

    2- the venedi where never anywhere away for the coastal area and whereonly on the baltic sea .

    3- the slavs where not in central europe until after 400Ad

    4- Jonanes is ethically wrong in his naming of tribes

    http://www.bible-history.com/maps/ro.../Sarmatia.html

    The venedi only occupied the coast from memel to vilna , which is eastern prussia to estonia through courland and livonia
    They could only speak a baltic or finnic language and disappeared around 300AD


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bl...eris_typus.jpg

    On the right bank are the Gythones. It would not be surprising to find Goths there too, but if the Gythones are Danzigers, they must have extended to Vistula Spit. East of them were the Venedae, south of whom were the Galindae (one of the Prussian tribes). The Venedae therefore must have been the coastal Estonians, Western Baltic ancestral speakers.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. who were Slavic people?
    By how yes no 2 in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 07-11-14, 15:20
  2. Were the Croatians originally Slavic?
    By zanipolo in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 11-10-14, 16:00
  3. Slovenians , west-slavic, south-slavic or celtic
    By zanipolo in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 01-08-14, 20:14
  4. About Basques and Slavic people
    By kgnju in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-11-10, 12:34
  5. The original Proto-Semitic marker
    By Semitic Duwa in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 26-06-10, 13:41

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •