the earlist Germanic

[zanipolo]

First of all cool down, concentrate and read again what I wrote.

I am calm, I find it annoying that you question me and not the link. Your question should have said something to that. By quering me, you try to gain some kind of points on me..........this is how it feels to me.
If you believe that link is wrong , written badly or that you have a more correct theory, then reply to that and not against me who provided a link just because I believe in ancient Gothic settlement in the crimea.

 

[LeBrok]

I barely pointed the inconsistency of your statement with your link. You said:

there is still gothic spoken in the crimea today

You didn't say that it was spoken, that it used to be spoken. You said that it is spoken today. The link that you gave us clearly states that Gothic is not spoken today in Crimea. On contrary it says that it got extinct around 17 hundreds.

My one sentence post was just about yours inconsistent statement with the link, and nothing more. If you claim that goth is still spoken than link us with material that confirms your hypothesis, but don't link us with contrary material. It is not helpful and as you can see, it created a little misunderstanding here.

Furthermore, from this mentioned sentence of mine, you has built up whole opinion of mine over goth in Crimea.

or are you saying the Gothic raised its head in the 18th century and never existed before in the Crimea!

That's creative. Without me saying anything, even remotely like this, you can have a whole argument with me.
Did you ever read the article that you linked us with? You are not in agreement with the article, period.

If this is what you believe then let me know where this 18th century Gothic derived from?

Again, you know what I believe without me telling you what I believe?
I have to state again that the link you gave us contradicts your opinion. The link says that Gothic was extinct by 18th century, not that it has just started. The link says that Gothic was gone, extinct, over, finito by 18th century, and it is not spoken today in Crimea.
Don't argue with me, I'm just a messenger, argue with your link.


And for your information, I do believe that there were leftover communities of goths since their main departure to the west. Some villages might have survived till recent times, even 19 century. I'm not sure if what survived at the end would have been recognized as gothic language though. After 1500 hundred years under tatars, slavs, plus small size of communities would create unrecognizable gothic dialect.

 

[zanipolo]

I barely pointed the inconsistency of your statement with your link. You said:

You didn't say that it was spoken, that it used to be spoken. You said that it is spoken today. The link that you gave us clearly states that Gothic is not spoken today in Crimea. On contrary it says that it got extinct around 17 hundreds.

My one sentence post was just about yours inconsistent statement with the link, and nothing more. If you claim that goth is still spoken than link us with material that confirms your hypothesis, but don't link us with contrary material. It is not helpful and as you can see, it created a little misunderstanding here.

Furthermore, from this mentioned sentence of mine, you has built up whole opinion of mine over goth in Crimea.


That's creative. Without me saying anything, even remotely like this, you can have a whole argument with me.
Did you ever read the article that you linked us with? You are not in agreement with the article, period.




Again, you know what I believe without me telling you what I believe?
I have to state again that the link you gave us contradicts your opinion. The link says that Gothic was extinct by 18th century, not that it has just started. The link says that Gothic was gone, extinct, over, finito by 18th century, and it is not spoken today in Crimea.
Don't argue with me, I'm just a messenger, argue with your link.


And for your information, I do believe that there were leftover communities of goths since their main departure to the west. Some villages might have survived till recent times, even 19 century. I'm not sure if what survived at the end would have been recognized as gothic language though. After 1500 hundred years under tatars, slavs, plus small size of communities would create unrecognizable gothic dialect.

Its because I read Michael Kazinski - Les Goths Iep-VIIe Apres written in 1991 which claims that the goths who remained became the Tatars. The name was given by Turkic people as Tat which means renegade. The crimean tatars still call themselves Goths and Circassians. He also said the dialect is not dead.

Besides, what I link and what I think are sometimes different, so you would realise that Wiki stuff is not entirely accurate ( sometimes written by nationalists) , yet the links to that article could resolve the questions one seeks.

 

[MOESAN]

You seem to have a misconception about the Centum/Satem split. You have to consider that neither Centum nor Satem is the original state. You have to consider that we are talking about a set of three different sounds called the palatovelars (*k´, *g´and *g´h) which are merged with the plain velars in the Centum languages (*k, *g, *gh), whereas they are turned into fricative sounds in the Satem languages. Since both Centum and Satem languages have plain velars (*k, *g, *gh) and a fricative inherited from PIE (*s) that correspond to each other regardless of their centum/satem affiliation (though they are obviously subject to individual sound laws in the respective language / language family).

My point with the above example was that this is a word that requires a common root word from before the Centum/Satem split.

OK but
1° how it's possible in a global shift that some consonnants already in a language could mutate when others of the same qulity could remain without change? look at french, every latin word susceptible to change had changed, in langue d'oïl - the ones thant don't change are loan words from others néo-latin languages (occitan, spanish, italian...) or dialects (normanno-picard) - Even if that point is not central to our discussion here, I'm tempted to think that the slavic words with velar sounds are late enough loan words on other languages
2° 'gold'/'zlato' is a good example of the 'satem' shift; it seams to prove contacts between germanic speakers and satem speakers (or proto-satem) before the satem shift - does it prove that the satem shift had not yet occurred at the corded period? Not for me - because I don't know if the loan traffic for this word was proto-satem to proto-germanic or proto-germanic to proto-satem (if it there was not yet a true satem language) - because Cordeds is not yet proved to be proto-germanic and because the contacts between proto-germanic speakers and (hypothetic I know) satem speakers could have taken place before, say in central or east-central Europe - so, the couple 'gold'-'zlato' could prove something only if it was from future 'satem' and future germanic.
3° contacts are not a tight linguistic community
it explains my question I have no answer to them for now.

 

[Taranis]

MOSEAN, I cannot give a specific answer here because I am under the impression that you have a misconception of what Centum and Satem actually are. Therefore, I pick up LeBrok's proposal:

I have a small request. Can you make a thread with explanation of the sounds. I'm not sure often what are the sounds you are referring too. Is there a website on internet with these sounds recorded, so we can hear them?

... I will get back to that. :cool-v:

 

[ElHorsto]

Maybe becausse Gothic starts from Crimaia and Romania Staring Point?
Maybe cause Strabo clarifies Visigotjs at Balck sea at early 1rst Millenium AD,
or you do not Consider Goths as Germanic family speaking,
maybe cause centum satem is not that old in IE?

and at least dacian seems to be a link among modern Germanic and modern Slavic,
Centum-satem split in North should be that old, as you believe,
we probably have movements of population much near today than we believe to modern languages, even at known Historical times,
besides the typical R1a = Slavic is tottaly wrong
since we have very low ratio in areas of South Balkans, although we have south slavic languages,
by reading Herodotus we find 2 groups in Thracian the Getae and the Thracians
that probably is the time of split to Centum-satem
and these languages especially Getae should be at the move of Germans to west (already had started but did not finish at Herodotus times)

Considering that Herodotus mentions them as the 2nd Biggest nation in the world and from the Geografy Herodotus knew, he means either the Slavs either the Germans (all branches)

Just think the wallachians the Bastarnae and the Crimea
Gothic were spoken until 1900 at Crimea,

except if you believe that all the above were remnants of Viking invasion at Volga river and their settling at Ucraine,

I'm not sure I understand. You are talking about Gothic settlement in SE-Europe, right? I did not deny this happened, quite the opposite. But what has it to do with Germanic language? You think Goths created Germanic language in SE-Europe and brought it back to North? It could be they introduced some satem words from their east journeys. I don't understand, sorry.
I also never mentioned Slavs. And right, there is not much R1a in balkans.
Regarding Thracians, there is even a Swedish legend saying that Vikings were originally Thracian refugees from Troy. Could be true, or not, I don't know. The R1a in Balkans is not frequent, but yet very diverse. Thracians/Dacians are believed to have been mostly HG E and J2. But if steppe-origin theory of Thracians is true, then they could have been R1a. But then I wonder why there is so few R1a today in Balkans if Thracians were most numerous people in the past.

 

[Yetos]

I'm not sure I understand. You are talking about Gothic settlement in SE-Europe, right? I did not deny this happened, quite the opposite. But what has it to do with Germanic language? You think Goths created Germanic language in SE-Europe and brought it back to North? It could be they introduced some satem words from their east journeys. I don't understand, sorry.
I also never mentioned Slavs. And right, there is not much R1a in balkans.
Regarding Thracians, there is even a Swedish legend saying that Vikings were originally Thracian refugees from Troy. Could be true, or not, I don't know. The R1a in Balkans is not frequent, but yet very diverse. Thracians/Dacians are believed to have been mostly HG E and J2. But if steppe-origin theory of Thracians is true, then they could have been R1a. But then I wonder why there is so few R1a today in Balkans if Thracians were most numerous people in the past.

That is the start of a clear view and Thinking,
Germans came after celts and Slavs after germans
at least as language.

the option are many, I believe that dacian were Germanic speaking Goths,
that means that either other Germanic speaking tribes moved west before 400 BC and the rest at the Visigoths times Germanic movement from east europe or anatolia started unknown but finished at known times,

or Baltic Germanic and Slavic were once Thracian-Dacian and split their language at known more modern times times (probably the times Herodotus mentions was already going on)

But IE moved from South to North and from east to west,

the only opposite case if we might call them so are 4 known

1 Greeks to Asia
2 Romans to Asia
2 Galatians to lower balkans -Asia
3 Vikings to Ucraine (Varangians - warrang)

the first we know why,
Second was for expand Empire
the 3rd was after roman pressure and survive of the tribe,
the 4rth was for trade mainly with Byzantines, the Volga Amber road,

following History we also see that Turkic people are pressing west and even enter Europe much before Visi move west,
the weakness of roman empire, the new trade roads that opened by romans with North, the cities that were build seems like were the start of huge devastations,
the Varangians as we see already knew the path and were to stop and settle,

for me it seems like Turkic were pressing Slavs who moved more west to the empty space that germans created when they moved west.
when the first movements start?
that is something I can not tell for sure,
but runic system of writing can help us
consider that Germanic is an outer name, an exonym,
for me it seems possible that Thracians expand to Gottland Scandinavia,

Thracians could be primary either R1a either I Hg

simply the diverse road west to east it does not seems correct to iron age times,
Although the case of Slavs is mentioned that Byzantines were leaving south due to very cold years, same cold that led Slavs to pass south Donav river,

 

[MOESAN]

MOSEAN, I cannot give a specific answer here because I am under the impression that you have a misconception of what Centum and Satem actually are. Therefore, I pick up LeBrok's proposal:... I will get back to that. :cool-v:

what misconception? I don't know ALL the conditions of the satem (çatem) shift that occurred in a number of I-E languages, but I know what palatization is and I know for example that three successive mutations occurred in slavic languages (without speaking of other changes) that mutate principally velar consonants (I know this phenomene in french and partially in S-E breton) - all these palatization are evidently on the same way but don't change so completely concerning the last ones because the first one went further (as in N-Auvergne dialects today)
to simplify: K>>TCH>>TS>>S - G>>DJ>>DZ>>Z - HH>>HY>>çH>>SH for true velar (I was not focalized on ancient palato-velar°
sure it's a simplification but it's to show you I' m aware of a part of the problem - and sure too, the phonetical cases are not 100% identical for every 'satem' language without speaking about vocabulary- I know a 'S' proceding from an old 'K' can't reverse to this 'K' and so on and so on - I know too velars can know no change in a back vowel background -
I keep on:
1- are we sure that a root close to *gold or *gelt has passed from proto-germanic to proto-slavic ?
2- we don't know (I believe, I'm not sure) neither where nor when nor on the cost of which this loan could have taken place - we can just say it was before the principal first shift for slavic or unknown satem velars -
all that to say that it's not proved that Corded people was not in good way for satemization because they showed themselves about 2900 BC and the first ATTESTED WRITTEN palatizations in satem languages appeared about 2200 BC or before that for indo-iranian languages: the first attested WRITTEN forms are not the FIRST SPOKEN forms - all that concerning the question about the hypothetic place of Corded in the process of creation of a proto-germanic and about their questionnable language, without speake about the more general question of the exchanges between germanic and slavic languages at proto- and final stages

sorry for my english
sure you 'll have some informations for me -

 

[zanipolo]

I'm not sure I understand. You are talking about Gothic settlement in SE-Europe, right? I did not deny this happened, quite the opposite. But what has it to do with Germanic language? You think Goths created Germanic language in SE-Europe and brought it back to North? It could be they introduced some satem words from their east journeys. I don't understand, sorry.
I also never mentioned Slavs. And right, there is not much R1a in balkans.
Regarding Thracians, there is even a Swedish legend saying that Vikings were originally Thracian refugees from Troy. Could be true, or not, I don't know. The R1a in Balkans is not frequent, but yet very diverse. Thracians/Dacians are believed to have been mostly HG E and J2. But if steppe-origin theory of Thracians is true, then they could have been R1a. But then I wonder why there is so few R1a today in Balkans if Thracians were most numerous people in the past.

He could be referring to the germanic bastanae tribe ( which was hundreds of years earlier than the goths ) who lived north of the carpathian mountains for about 500 years, but also touching the black sea. North of these where the Germanic peucini tribe as well

 

[zanipolo]

That is the start of a clear view and Thinking,
Germans came after celts and Slavs after germans
at least as language.

the option are many, I believe that dacian were Germanic speaking Goths,
that means that either other Germanic speaking tribes moved west before 400 BC and the rest at the Visigoths times Germanic movement from east europe or anatolia started unknown but finished at known times,

or Baltic Germanic and Slavic were once Thracian-Dacian and split their language at known more modern times times (probably the times Herodotus mentions was already going on)

But IE moved from South to North and from east to west,

the only opposite case if we might call them so are 4 known

1 Greeks to Asia
2 Romans to Asia
2 Galatians to lower balkans -Asia
3 Vikings to Ucraine (Varangians - warrang)

the first we know why,
Second was for expand Empire
the 3rd was after roman pressure and survive of the tribe,
the 4rth was for trade mainly with Byzantines, the Volga Amber road,

following History we also see that Turkic people are pressing west and even enter Europe much before Visi move west,
the weakness of roman empire, the new trade roads that opened by romans with North, the cities that were build seems like were the start of huge devastations,
the Varangians as we see already knew the path and were to stop and settle,

for me it seems like Turkic were pressing Slavs who moved more west to the empty space that germans created when they moved west.
when the first movements start?
that is something I can not tell for sure,
but runic system of writing can help us
consider that Germanic is an outer name, an exonym,
for me it seems possible that Thracians expand to Gottland Scandinavia,

Thracians could be primary either R1a either I Hg

simply the diverse road west to east it does not seems correct to iron age times,
Although the case of Slavs is mentioned that Byzantines were leaving south due to very cold years, same cold that led Slavs to pass south Donav river,

i am confused, I thought the Getae where the germanic speaking goths after they mingled with the bastanae and the Dacians where thracians speaking celts next to the danube. Inward of these where the scordisci who according to strabo, where illyrian/celtic/thracian people
and inside of them the norici tribe a illyrian/celtic people
and inside of them next to the alps where illyrian/celtic/venetic Iapydes tribe and
illyrian/venetic tribe the luburni

thats what i read and was taught - these tribes mostly follow the danube inland

 

[Taranis]

what misconception? I don't know ALL the conditions of the satem (çatem) shift that occurred in a number of I-E languages, but I know what palatization is and I know for example that three successive mutations occurred in slavic languages (without speaking of other changes) that mutate principally velar consonants (I know this phenomene in french and partially in S-E breton) - all these palatization are evidently on the same way but don't change so completely concerning the last ones because the first one went further (as in N-Auvergne dialects today)
to simplify: K>>TCH>>TS>>S - G>>DJ>>DZ>>Z - HH>>HY>>çH>>SH for true velar (I was not focalized on ancient palato-velar°
sure it's a simplification but it's to show you I' m aware of a part of the problem - and sure too, the phonetical cases are not 100% identical for every 'satem' language without speaking about vocabulary- I know a 'S' proceding from an old 'K' can't reverse to this 'K' and so on and so on - I know too velars can know no change in a back vowel background -

Well, I say that again, you have a misconception. You seem to assume that the PIE sound *g´ was pronounced exactly like a /g/, which basically implies that Centum was the original condition. However, it is clear that PIE had another, actual /g/ sound which was unchanged by the effects of Centumization/Satemization. We obviously do not know the original condition. It's also possible that indeed *g´ was pronounced like a /g/, but this requires that /g/ was shifted to a fricative in the various Satem languages (/z/ in Balto-Slavic), and that the sound *g previously had another value (such as /ɢ/) which was shifted to /g/, not only in the Satem languages but all branches o IE. Which one is more likely?

I keep on:
1- are we sure that a root close to *gold or *gelt has passed from proto-germanic to proto-slavic ?

I at no point claimed that this was a word that was borrowed from Proto-Germanic to Proto-Slavic. In my opinion we are talking about dialect level close to PIE, with a still high degree of mutual intelligibility. And also, as I said, the common root word is not *gelt, but *g´elt-.

2- we don't know (I believe, I'm not sure) neither where nor when nor on the cost of which this loan could have taken place - we can just say it was before the principal first shift for slavic or unknown satem velars -
all that to say that it's not proved that Corded people was not in good way for satemization because they showed themselves about 2900 BC and the first ATTESTED WRITTEN palatizations in satem languages appeared about 2200 BC or before that for indo-iranian languages: the first attested WRITTEN forms are not the FIRST SPOKEN forms - all that concerning the question about the hypothetic place of Corded in the process of creation of a proto-germanic and about their questionnable language, without speake about the more general question of the exchanges between germanic and slavic languages at proto- and final stages

I never claimed that the people of Corded Ware spoke Proto-Germanic. As I said above, I say that they spoke a language close to PIE level, one that predates the Centumization/Satemization (*g´ > *g and *g´ > *z), respectively.

 

[Yetos]

i am confused, I thought the Getae where the germanic speaking goths after they mingled with the bastanae and the Dacians where thracians speaking celts next to the danube. Inward of these where the scordisci who according to strabo, where illyrian/celtic/thracian people
and inside of them the norici tribe a illyrian/celtic people
and inside of them next to the alps where illyrian/celtic/venetic Iapydes tribe and
illyrian/venetic tribe the luburni

thats what i read and was taught - these tribes mostly follow the danube inland

Strabo names clearly the Visi as getae, in area south Romania north Bulgaria, (VisiGoths)
By Herodotus the Getae where more North Central Romania and North and Ucraine,

from herodotus to Strabo we have some changes,

The Celts are considered as you said mainly west of dinaric Alps, and Pannoni Basin (except Galatians)
there was an interesting post of how yes no and dagne about Celtic and Slavic,
except lower Thracian like Bryges, some other tribes got or turned to Hellenic Sounds,
the rest thracian should balance among satem and Centum, (Thracian Getae)
the existance of Gothic in Balkans means as I said many,

1 Thracian were both Slavic -Germanic in a process of split (linguistic)
2 Goths in Balkans were the last of a big devastation of Germanic from east to west or from south to North
and left the known time in History,

other cases could be Getae being a Balto-Germanic that came south to para-slavic Thracian,

Celts moved west much before germans,
Germans moved west and North or South after the Celts
Slavic enter balkans after Germans devastation,

The case of Scordisci Serdi is clear that Celts lived as remants east of Dinaric Alps and many of them where assimilated, The case of galatians is clear for survivor of tribe,

for devastation like scordisci and some others seems like to be either military alliances either return to known lands that were left to get reborn,
we know that more primitive tribes moved from areas to areas every few years so that areas to get reborn,
I mean rich hunt, trees clean enviroment etc

to complete,
I believe at least in Linguistics that the ones we call today Germanic languages are not a product of west europe, but from Central-East europe,
I make all the posts just to show that it is impossible to consider that Germanic proto speakers were from netherlands or Norway or even modern Germany,
Germanic was proto spoken around Black sea - Baltic and moved West to complete as sounds and vocabulary.
That is my point and where i conclude,

from written in Greek we have view that authors had knowledge of Celtic and Thracian as already seperated. but living near or even among each other.

to make more simplify, if I can use the words Illyro-celts, they were west oF dinaric alps and in pannoni Basin sharing it or fighting for it with Thracians, probably and in some areas east of Dinaric alps,

south Thracians and getae, well personally I do not have a clear view of what south Thracian was, but north Thracian Getae turn more to Gothic or a ancestor of Gothic,

 

[Taranis]

Yetos, there is no connection between the Getae and the Goths. The Getae probably spoke Dacian, which is distinct (Satem) language rather unrelated with Germanic. Dacian was closer with Albanian on the one hand (there are what appears to be Dacian loanwords in Albanian and Romanian) and Baltic on the other hand.

Also, Yetos, what you say makes not the slightest sense, and has no basis in evidence. It is very clear that the Germanic peoples originated from the area of the Nordic Bronze Age and the Jastorf Culture, and not from the area adjacent to the black sea.

Pytheas of Massilia (4th century BC) mentiones the Teutones and Gothones living along the shores in northern Europe.

Also, early Germanic peoples had extensive contact with the Celts, as there are multiple Celtic loanwords (notably the word "iron"!) commonly found in the Germanic languages.

 

[Diurpaneus]

I'm not sure I understand. You are talking about Gothic settlement in SE-Europe, right? I did not deny this happened, quite the opposite. But what has it to do with Germanic language? You think Goths created Germanic language in SE-Europe and brought it back to North? It could be they introduced some satem words from their east journeys. I don't understand, sorry.
I also never mentioned Slavs. And right, there is not much R1a in balkans.
Regarding Thracians, there is even a Swedish legend saying that Vikings were originally Thracian refugees from Troy. Could be true, or not, I don't know. The R1a in Balkans is not frequent, but yet very diverse. Thracians/Dacians are believed to have been mostly HG E and J2. But if steppe-origin theory of Thracians is true, then they could have been R1a. But then I wonder why there is so few R1a today in Balkans if Thracians were most numerous people in the past.

Vikings don't have a Thracian origin.Some legends are way beyond mythology. .
Although there are some interesting similarities between Germanic tribes and the Dacians.
Probably because common Corded Ware (R1a) roots such as:
Dacians had special breaking-lines troops(the Greek call them Drapanai) that fought bare chested. So closely to Berserk.
The Greek historians mention that the Dacians go to battle with the smile on their face becouse if they fight well they go to their god Zalmox.They believed in immortality.So it's close to Odin and Walhalla.Historians says that the Thracians probably had similarish believes but they were strongly influenced by the Greek and lost it.
The Greek never heard of something like that in this area. So they invented that Zalmox was a slave of Pitagora in Egypt where he learned immortality.
Regarding Neolithic cultures in the Dacians, Getae and Thracians land.
In the Dacian land were Linear Pottery and Cucuteni -Tripilye(also a Linear Poterry influenced culture). So they had majority of I2a1bHG.
The Getae land is influeced both northern Linear Pottery and southern Anatolian Neolithic(who had even bigger influence than previos). So they had almoust the same ratio of I2a1b and J2+E.
The Tharcians had most of J2+E HG, becouse the neolithic culture were of Greek and Anatolian origin but few I2a1b as well.
There were various Indoeruopeans waves on this land. I looked at some Bronze age mapes.You hardly can track those populations.I saw that there were many back migrations from Unetice Proto-Italo-celts on the Tisa and Danube rivers.So the Getae, Moesians and western Dacians could have significant quantity of R1b Hg.
But what gives identity to those populations is northern wave(R1a hg)Globular Amphora culture.
The slavs weren't so many.Almost anyone could rule in the Balkans in those chaotic ages( as confederation)
They couldn't have much density in their homeland(which is a quite small area).Some of them probably stayed.
And they spread all over.So it is very unlikely to create density where they settled.
I think Florin Curta' s book The Making of the Slavs it's a turning point to a much more realistic approach.

 

[Beowuld]

I agree that there are also native satem words in scandinavian languages, for instance 'gaate' (riddle) and 'paa' (at/on). But I believe this comes either from Corded Ware or Iranian Languages from the east.

My first post. Sorry for my username. I tapped the wrong key when registering. Anyway this name will do.

I have a general interest in what you all are discussing and some specific knowledge.

The word "på" (paa) does not constitute evidence for satem. På is a an abbreviation of uppå = upon. Where å = on. And upp is up. You can still write "å" instead of "på" in Sweden if you want to be a little literary. Anyway "å", or Old Norse "a", is a common Scandinavian word, directly derived from the same proto-Germanic word as "on" and German "an" are. (The ending ns were lost in the syncopation. For example all verbs lost their ns: haitan -> haita). This did not happen in West Germanic.

 

[pipinnacanus]

there is still gothic spoken in the crimea today

Gothic has been dead in the Crimea for at least hundreds of years, and even the wikipedia link you post says this. You are pontificating like expert, when you truly do not possess any information or personal study in the matter at all.

maybe I need to supply you with more infor than just wiki. Since I thought you clever enough to realise that this gothic in the crimea is from ancient times and not modern times .............or are you saying the Gothic raised its head in the 18th century and never existed before in the Crimea!

There should be 'shame points' subtracted for this type of open deceit. You know that you clearly claimed Gothic was still today spoken, you posted a link you did NOT read first, thinking that it confirmed your claim, and when you were 'caught',

and shown not to know what you are talking about, and proven to be clearly wrong and thoroughly incorrect, you tried to shamefully change what you said in a unsuccessful and desperate attempt to avoid simply admitting you are wrong and lacking in knowledge.

Shameful, truly.

 

[spongetaro]

Also, early Germanic peoples had extensive contact with the Celts, as there are multiple Celtic loanwords (notably the word "iron"!) commonly found in the Germanic languages.

Is it possible to date the first contact between Celts and Germanic people with the emergence of Iron in Northern Germany?

 

[Taranis]

Is it possible to date the first contact between Celts and Germanic people with the emergence of Iron in Northern Germany?

Absolutely, yes. As I said in the previous post, the Germanic word for iron is in itself a Celtic loanword (this is most striking if you compare Gothic 'eisarn' and Gaulish 'isarnos'). This language contact also gives an upper end when the First Germanic sound shift might have happened (that is, later), since most Celtic loanwords are affected it.

 

[MOESAN]

Possible thread: is Y-I1 germanic?, origin of Germanic people etc...

Some observations about the general distribution of Y Hgs I1, R1b and R1a in Scandinavia:
based (helas!) on old enough surveys:
Y-R1b seams having crossed south-western Sweden from South and having been pushed back in Norway on the western fringes of the land: south-central and western more than northern, more than eastern, even more than north-central (Norway Ströndelag) as a whole – rarest in Eastern Swede than in Norway -
Y-R1a seams having crossed south-western Sweden too but appears as push northwards trough east-central Norway to the northern shores this country – seldom enough in Sweden: more than 15%: only in extreme South, in Värmland near Norway and surprisingly at first sight in Sweden Lappland!
Y-I1 is stronger enough in southern Scandinavia (Sweden & Norway) even if its distribution is more even than the others HG ones – as a whole it does not appear as only “autochtonous” in these northernmost lands of Europe, at first sight! Västerbotten close to ancient Lappish and finnish regions shows some tendencies to Finland... - the relative high % of Y-R1b (but only 14,6%) there is due to some internal immigration in Sweden not to far ago that brought southern Swedes until there.
I know it is dangerous postulating to precise theory about so rough material without looking to more SNPs an STRs but to have a look from above is not without some worth too...

• there are too much Y-R1bs in western Norway to be based on seafaring colonization only even if some of them could be came there with megalithic cultures or after and the less heavy but actual presence of them in eastern Sweden seams prove a lot of them came by Danmark – the denser spot is Aust-Agder where Y-R1b runs around 45% (!): it is a “blond dolicho-mesocephalic” region and we can expect here a danish imput from Jutland by sea -
  
• the lighter presence of Y-I1 in North could be due to the weight of Y-N because aside of that we find in Västerbotten and Saami lands that Y-I1 is by far more important than Y-R1b & Y-R1a – that is for Sweden, because in Norway, that do not evacuate the stronger weight of Y-R1b, surprising if the most of R1b arrived after the most of Y-I1 (the communications ways have to be studied here)...

• the very light weight of Y-R1a in Sweden, (not so astonishing for Västerbotten and N-W) Finland is surprising compared to its weight in east-central and north-central Norway – even the Norrland of Norway has very more important %s than everywhere in Sweden! Here also we can imagine more than a wave of tribes in Scandinavia but seamingly the bulk of the bearers of this HG reached Scandinavia by South. Western Norway is intermediary for Y-R1a, low enough in Aust-Agder (S-W): 13,2% only (Jutland people?) - in one or more waves Y-R1a came chiefly by South and early enough for the first wave to be pushed northwards by some newcomers that was I think germanic speakers and bore surely a stabilized mixture of the 3 Hgs in question, stabilization where Y-R1a lost weight and that took place around Danmark and the future Hansa place ??? -
  
• Norway Norrland seams a maritime colony from Tröndelag, with a light impact of Y-N (Finns or Saami) bearers – so it tells us nothing I believe -
  
• H.Hubert thought that Scandinavia was the place of a germanic acculturation of previous North people (we: Y-I1 as a majority???) by people arrived from north-central Europe of I-E culture (Y-R1b+Y-R1a as a majority???) -
  
• more complicated? Some traces of I-E 'satem' and 'bascoid' (sorry for the word!) substrates in finnish saami languages, for some specialists: for the 'satem' we can think to a first wave of Y-R1a among others? - for 'bascoid' or 'euskaroid' or 'aquitanoid' languages we maybe think to some Y-I1 ? I think to the mt-DNA V heavy presence among the Saami, we do not find among typical Finns of Finland... - all that seamed to put later the arrival of finnish speakers in the far North!!! (History says Lapps culture was not soo early in that country: about 3000 BC?- coming from S-E) -

As others the Y-I1 HG has surely enough more than a place of ancient development and I see as others a south Baltic old settlement before I-Es arrived, from Danmark to Finland: a so streched settlement was to produce separation and local evolutions – I believe the western part population was accultured by a first wave of something akin enough to the 'corded' people, maybe with a language in a state of proto-satemization and came up to Scandinavia a first time – after that the melting pot of the Nieder-Sachsen region put together some kinds of Y-R1b (I-E too but 'kentum') with Y-R1a and Y-I1 again (for the most, because there was yet some others minoritary Hgs) that came up too to Scandinavia with a germanic language: but there the mixture would have been very more R1b than R1a (Y-R1b-U152 for the most) the eastern parts of Sweden show 25 to 32% of Y-R1b (I have not the SNPs helas!) – that let us others (different?) Y-R1b that seams have colonized only the westernmost parts of Norway – the pouch of southern-Sweden with 'old' R1b is interesting: the fathers of U152? Not too much I think – “fathers” and brothers to R-L21??? this pouch could be related to the others R1bs of western Norway, separated by the late Germanics ? What culture, what language? Celts? Others? - central and northwestern shores of Norway show the higher percentages of dark and middle coloured hairs (and some red hairs locally) of Norway when we let the far North (not the case for the true South as Aus-Agder) -
All that is speculation but what is a blog or a forum? I think we have to take in account the degree of civilization when we trace the ancient demic movements: the hunters-gatherers and fishers of the old times in the far North of Europe should have “produced” less people than the first agricultors and less yet than the Bronze or iron Age tribes, I think -
Now we can look at STRs distributions for more details putting them together with global repartitions, not forgetting the common sense.