PDA

View Full Version : Germanic and Proto-Slavic



Taranis
07-05-11, 23:54
Following this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26447-Celtic-and-Pre-Germanic) 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).

zanipolo
08-05-11, 00:54
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

Taranis
08-05-11, 01:02
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.

how yes no 2
08-05-11, 01:50
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...

Taranis
08-05-11, 02:18
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. :disappointed:

how yes no 2
08-05-11, 03:11
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...


Again you are insulting me.

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

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...

zanipolo
08-05-11, 03:44
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

how yes no 2
08-05-11, 04:12
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=VWne2bcwpZIC&dq=Tacitus%20Germania&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=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?

Taranis
08-05-11, 13:27
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 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26447-Celtic-and-Pre-Germanic).



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.

how yes no 2
08-05-11, 14:17
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...

how yes no 2
08-05-11, 14:56
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...

Taranis
08-05-11, 17:19
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.

how yes no 2
08-05-11, 17:56
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

Taranis
08-05-11, 18:59
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

how yes no 2
08-05-11, 20:05
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

Taranis
08-05-11, 20:46
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.

Dagne
08-05-11, 22:04
:good_job: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.

zanipolo
09-05-11, 11:15
:good_job: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

Dagne
09-05-11, 15:16
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.
http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/figure-3.jpg
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/gimbutas/gimbutas-02.html

Dagne
09-05-11, 15:53
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?

Taranis
09-05-11, 17:03
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.

Itas Argis
09-05-11, 18:14
This theme is Ouroboros ...

Taranis
09-05-11, 18:21
This theme is Ouroboros ...

Elaborate? :o

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. :laughing:

Dagne
09-05-11, 21:28
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)

zanipolo
10-05-11, 09:20
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/romanempire/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:Blaeu_1645_-_Germaniae_veteris_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Languages) ancestral speakers.

zanipolo
10-05-11, 11:16
link below on proto- slavic and proto-baltic as well as proto-germanic

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=JcmwuoTsKO0C&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=venedi+town+names&source=bl&ots=iG5GTPNEjY&sig=-k1rpa3rH2ATP9ZAbwQMtGfvtgA&hl=en&ei=8fnITZq9F47qrQeH18CLBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

zanipolo
10-05-11, 11:51
link below on proto- slavic and proto-baltic as well as proto-germanic

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=JcmwuoTsKO0C&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=venedi+town+names&source=bl&ots=iG5GTPNEjY&sig=-k1rpa3rH2ATP9ZAbwQMtGfvtgA&hl=en&ei=8fnITZq9F47qrQeH18CLBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q&f=false


confusion by jordanes
Jordanes
Sixth Century historian Jordanes makes two references the Aesti in his book "The Origins and the Deeds of the Goths", which was a treatment of Cassiodorus' longer book (which no longer survives) on the history of the Goths. The first quote places the Aestii beyond the Vidivarii, on the shore of the Baltic: "But on the shore of Ocean, where the floods of the river Vistula empty from three mouths, the Vidivarii dwell, a people gathered out of various tribes. Beyond them the Aesti, a subject race, likewise hold the shore of Ocean." The next quote concerns the subjugation of the Aesti by Hermanaric, king of the Gothic Greuthungi: "This ruler also subdued by his wisdom and might the race of the Aesti, who dwell on the farthest shore of the German Ocean" History of Latvia This article is part of a series Ancient Latvia Kunda culture Narva culture Corded Ware culture Amber Road and Aesti Baltic Finns: Livonians, Vends Latgalians, Curonians, Selonians, Semigallians

Surely the aesti are on the coast , yet jordanes calls the venedi ............Vidivani
Maps and other writes have venedi next to the aesti

He later say venethi for central lands north of with the sklavenians and antes.

Clearly as per the roman map shows, there was 2 different venedi and venethi - different people
as well as adriatic veneti and brittany veneti

Taranis
10-05-11, 18:53
Sorry, I've been caught up by other things as I am quite busy in the background. I would like to make a few short comments, however.


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)

Yes, I'm going to address the changes later. I think I'm going to post it in here, however, because I think it is relevant in regard for the timing of when Proto-Slavic was spoken.


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/romanempire/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:Blaeu_1645_-_Germaniae_veteris_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Languages) ancestral speakers.

Sorry, I think you are pushing things here a little. First off, the map showing Ptolemy's Germania is not the most accurate one. I would personally suggest, in regard for the Venedi is to actually read in Ptolemy's Geography itself, specifically the chapter about European Sarmatia. The problem is, however that the localization is a bit vague - it is clear however that Ptolemy places the Venedae at the shores of the Baltic Sea. There is, by the way, one tribe mentioned in that chapter which I ostensibly identify as a potential Slavic tribal name:

The "Savari" may be the same as the later "Severians" ("Severyane" in Russian). Ptolemy places them into the vicinity of the so-called "Riphaean Mountains", which are unfortunately unclear in their localization, however. In any case, the later Severians inhabited an area that roughly corresponds to modern-day northeastern Ukraine (along the Desna river).

Also, although I'd like to refine the timing of Germanic/Proto-Slavic contact a bit more. What I gave was just the rough timeframe. But, more of this later.

iapetoc
11-05-11, 01:12
well let me put some words you won't found in Lexicons

In Greece when we ask someone if he ate a lot, we use
2 phrases

1 is χλαπακιασες xhlapa-liases
the simmilarity of Slavic chleb etc is Northen Greece mainly but we find and elsewere,

the word-virb Chlap as Eat Bread is mostly were Thracians live,

the word is Κολυβα Koluva -Koliva and is connected with soup,
it is an ancient Pre-Christian custom to eat boiled wheat or semolina,
by replace Dental K with dental Ch we have Choluva -> chlap

2 the second is Abakos,
Phrygian word for Bread was Bekos,
the word artos enter Greek culture from Christians, artos means perfect
and has yeast

the bread or pasta that was made by flour is Makaronia
(food of the makarioi - happy or dead)
while living and lameting eat koluva -> chlap
and bread with yeast artos

the connection of Chlap with chleb
as also artos with Brot Bread,
and the ancient Greek virb βροττω (I eat) Vrott-o Brott-o
lead us the Brot-Bread is connected with artos and IE word-bread eat Βροττω
while chlap and Koluva probably change to chleb in slavic and soup in west,
I still don't get why in Greek we find either none connection with rest IE languages either 2 - 3 words same root,

well modern Greek mostly use the word ψωμι psomi for bread
and makaronia for semolina spaggeti, instead of traditional flour pasta,
but word Koliva still exist as the word-virb chlapak-iazo and abakos (tones of food) and bukia (Vrygian Bekos)

zanipolo
11-05-11, 08:32
Sorry, I think you are pushing things here a little. First off, the map showing Ptolemy's Germania is not the most accurate one. I would personally suggest, in regard for the Venedi is to actually read in Ptolemy's Geography itself, specifically the chapter about European Sarmatia. The problem is, however that the localization is a bit vague - it is clear however that Ptolemy places the Venedae at the shores of the Baltic Sea. There is, by the way, one tribe mentioned in that chapter which I ostensibly identify as a potential Slavic tribal name:

The "Savari" may be the same as the later "Severians" ("Severyane" in Russian). Ptolemy places them into the vicinity of the so-called "Riphaean Mountains", which are unfortunately unclear in their localization, however. In any case, the later Severians inhabited an area that roughly corresponds to modern-day northeastern Ukraine (along the Desna river).

Also, although I'd like to refine the timing of Germanic/Proto-Slavic contact a bit more. What I gave was just the rough timeframe. But, more of this later.

I think we need to clarify what was Venethi and venedi

Jordanes states/declares 2 different peoples with similar names

He states venethi at the beginning of the vistula river ( mountains) and then he states the Vidivarii at the delta of the vistula ( baltic sea)
Sixth Century historian Jordanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes) makes two references the Aesti in his book "The Origins and the Deeds of the Goths", which was a treatment of Cassiodorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiodorus)' longer book (which no longer survives) on the history of the Goths. The first quote places the Aestii beyond the Vidivarii, on the shore of the Baltic:
"But on the shore of Ocean, where the floods of the river Vistula empty from three mouths, the Vidivarii dwell, a people gathered out of various tribes. Beyond them the Aesti, a subject race, likewise hold the shore of Ocean."

Next the map below has the venedi on the baltic and no where else

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Blaeu_1645_-_Germaniae_veteris_typus.jpg

Jordanes then says
The Vidivarii are described by Jordanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes) in his Getica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getica) as a melting pot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot) of tribes who in the mid-6th century lived at the lower Vistula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula):[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidivarii#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidivarii#cite_note-DeJong-1)
Ad litus oceani, ubi tribus faucibus fluenta Vistulae fluminibus ebibuntur, Vidivarii resident ex diversis nationibus aggregati.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidivarii#cite_note-2)
Though differing from the earlier Willenberg culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willenberg_culture), some traditions were continued,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidivarii#cite_note-DeJong-1) thus the corresponding archaeological culture is sometimes described as the Vidivarian or widiwar stage of the Willenberg culture. The bearers of the Willenberg culture have been associated with a heterogeneous people comprising Vistula Veneti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti), Goths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths), Rugii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugii), and Gepids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepids).



then we have goth leader Hermanric
http://books.google.com/books?id=fQkUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA304&dq=hermanric&hl=en&ei=yCzKTb6IJo-cvgPNtMHjBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=hermanric&f=false

He marched of the venedi and destroyed them , then marched on there neigbours the aestii and destroyed them. He then incorporated the men of the venedi and aestii into his army.


scholars now say that the venedi on the baltic coast where the old prussians who spoke a baltic language
http://books.google.com/books?id=CbEhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA450&dq=Vidivarii&hl=en&ei=1i3KTfa2FYGAvgOh2YjkBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Vidivarii&f=false

We then have the willenberg culture which was the vidivarii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willenberg_culture

...............

I do think as per the roman document the Tabula Peutingeriana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Peutingeriana), which originated from the 4th century AD,. This document separately mentions the Venethii on the northern bank of the Danube and the Venedi along the Baltic coast.

Only question is the language, to me it must be baltic , if the venedi are old prussians, it must be baltic since there where no slavs in the area at that time for another 300 years ( or more) or it must be gothic since this was the starting point in which the goths left to invade the black sea and later illyria and italy.
This brings me to the east pommerains who where the rugii, they spoke baltic

I cannot see who the pommerians or venedi could be apart from either baltic or gothic people.

In regards to severains. The original naming of serbians was the servians

razor
14-12-11, 21:32
I'm not quite sure where to post my question, but since it involves at least three languages perhaps this place is as good as any.
I'm interested in the origin of the family name "Dupelka". It has a Polish meaning [dupelka= the metathetized version of "pudelka" which= (female) poodle. The male canine being "dupelek".] It is also a river name in the Kaliningrad region of Russia (the old Koenigsberg area) which flows close to the border of this region with Lithuania. It is part of a system of river names nearby with clear Baltic (Lithuanian) meanings, many of which have the basic Baltic term "upe" internalized (and one actually starts with a d- preceding the -upe). So I was wondering if (a) "Dupelka" could be an original Baltic-Lithuanian term for the river (are there other river names in Lithuania ending in -ka?). If not, then (b ) could it be the slavicized version of a Baltic river name like say "dupelis" or sim. Or (3) could it have already borne the name "dupelka" prior to 1945, when the region belonged to Germany? Or are there other explanations? I have checked sonme genealogical sites about the family name, and see that it was used both north and south of the Carpathians.

Maciamo
14-12-11, 21:51
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).

Unless the colder climate slowed down the mutation rate. :laughing: I say that half joking, but that is what happens with biological mutations. I wonder if heat could have any influence at all on the evolution of human society.

Taranis
14-12-11, 23:06
Interesting that this thread got revived.

I admit, I probably am going to make a few revisions here with what I originally posted, because I believe it is actually possible to make a case of longer between Germanic and Proto-Slavic peoples, because I think there's a sequence from Proto-Germanic to East Germanic loanwords, reflecting prolonged contact spanning several centuries (circa 1st century AD to 4th century AD).


I'm not quite sure where to post my question, but since it involves at least three languages perhaps this place is as good as any.
I'm interested in the origin of the family name "Dupelka". It has a Polish meaning [dupelka= the metathetized version of "pudelka" which= (female) poodle. The male canine being "dupelek".] It is also a river name in the Kaliningrad region of Russia (the old Koenigsberg area) which flows close to the border of this region with Lithuania. It is part of a system of river names nearby with clear Baltic (Lithuanian) meanings, many of which have the basic Baltic term "upe" internalized (and one actually starts with a d- preceding the -upe). So I was wondering if (a) "Dupelka" could be an original Baltic-Lithuanian term for the river (are there other river names in Lithuania ending in -ka?). If not, then (b ) could it be the slavicized version of a Baltic river name like say "dupelis" or sim. Or (3) could it have already borne the name "dupelka" prior to 1945, when the region belonged to Germany? Or are there other explanations? I have checked sonme genealogical sites about the family name, and see that it was used both north and south of the Carpathians.

An excellent question. Unfortunately, I cannot answer it offhand, and you will need to give me some time to research.

Unless the colder climate slowed down the mutation rate. :laughing: I say that half joking, but that is what happens with biological mutations. I wonder if heat could have any influence at all on the evolution of human society.

I don't think there is any effect on language evolution, but biological evolution is, at much larger timescales, definitely affected by temperature. It's no surprise that the biggest hotspots of biodiversity (rainforests, the great barrier reef, etc.) are all located in warm climates.

razor
14-12-11, 23:23
An excellent question. Unfortunately, I cannot answer it offhand, and you will need to give me some time to research.



Thank you very much. Greatly appreciated.

LeBrok
15-12-11, 00:01
I'm not quite sure where to post my question, but since it involves at least three languages perhaps this place is as good as any.
I'm interested in the origin of the family name "Dupelka". It has a Polish meaning [dupelka= the metathetized version of "pudelka" which= (female) poodle. The male canine being "dupelek".] It is also a river name in the Kaliningrad region of Russia (the old Koenigsberg area) which flows close to the border of this region with Lithuania. It is part of a system of river names nearby with clear Baltic (Lithuanian) meanings, many of which have the basic Baltic term "upe" internalized (and one actually starts with a d- preceding the -upe). So I was wondering if (a) "Dupelka" could be an original Baltic-Lithuanian term for the river (are there other river names in Lithuania ending in -ka?). If not, then (b ) could it be the slavicized version of a Baltic river name like say "dupelis" or sim. Or (3) could it have already borne the name "dupelka" prior to 1945, when the region belonged to Germany? Or are there other explanations? I have checked sonme genealogical sites about the family name, and see that it was used both north and south of the Carpathians.

Dupelka, sounds Czech to me. Dupelek, you can say about poodle, but only when jocking.

Sile
15-12-11, 01:31
Dup - Archaic, meaning To Open

Elka is polish for a girl's name meaning - 'My God is a vow'

:confused2::rolleyes2:

Maciamo
15-12-11, 10:06
I don't think there is any effect on language evolution, but biological evolution is, at much larger timescales, definitely affected by temperature. It's no surprise that the biggest hotspots of biodiversity (rainforests, the great barrier reef, etc.) are all located in warm climates.

Heat or cold has an influence on biological evolution at any time scale. Viruses and bacteria have also a lower mutation rate at colder temperatures, and we are talking of hours or days, not millennia here. Yet they also affect humans.

mihaitzateo
29-05-12, 13:03
Other clear cognate between slavic and germanic:
honey is called med in slavic languages.
Now the drink called mead - english, mead - icelandic, met - german and so on is made from a mixture of honey with water put to be fermented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead
To be more clear,in russian the words used for mead and honey are same,med.

Taranis
29-05-12, 13:42
Other clear cognate between slavic and germanic:
honey is called med in slavic languages.
Now the drink called mead - english, mead - icelandic, met - german and so on is made from a mixture of honey with water put to be fermented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead
To be more clear,in russian the words used for mead and honey are same,med.

Hi, you are correct that this is a cognate, however, this is not a Germanic borrowing into Slavic. Instead, in both language families, the word is descended from Proto-Indo-European. In fact, it is found in several other branches:

- Celtic has Celtiberian "mezu-" Irish "méa", Welsh "medd"
- Baltic has "medus" (in both Latvian and Lithuanian)
- Indo-Iranic has Sanskrit "madhu" (same word in modern Hindi)
- Anatolian has "maddu" (in Luwian)
- Tocharian B has "mit".
- in Greek, the root survives in the word "methysmenos" ("drunk").

What is perhaps interesting here is that the meaning: in Anatolian, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic and Tocharian, the meaning is "honey", whereas in Celtic, Germanic and Greek, the meaning is "mead" instead.