PDA

View Full Version : Gothic and Gutnish



zanipolo
02-01-12, 08:03
Since Gothic language is east germanic and Gutnish is from Gothic swedish lands like ostergotten, gotland etc etc

Can we assume that the gothic originated in east german lands , migrated into sweden and back into west-baltic lands and beyond to the black sea.

They call Gutnish a swedish dialect now

Yetos
03-01-12, 06:39
how about more east to greater Scythia?

I mean Gothic being from greater Scythia

Taranis
03-01-12, 09:41
Sorry, neither makes sense.

Gutnish is a North Germanic language/dialect, wheras Gothic is East Germanic.

Yetos, why should the Goths be originally from Scythia?

It should be added that the origin of the East Germanic peoples is, from the archaeological perspective, fairly unclear. One issue is that the ethnic ascription of the Lusatian and Pomeranian Cultures is uncertain, and the case for a large-scale migration from Scandinavia and when is thus also somewhat disputed. The connection between Gotland/Gotaland in Scandinavia and the Goths is also not clear. Was this the original homeland of the Goths?

Also Yetos, the East Germanic tribes had moved into Sarmatia/Scythia by the 2nd century AD (where Ptolemy places them adjacent to Baltic and Iranic tribes), but they were clearly not native there.

Yetos
03-01-12, 14:57
Clavdius, Olympiodoros, Πρισκος Priscus clearly name the Goths as Scythians that came from east of Ucraine to Moldova,
the name that Herodotus uses Getae for Dacians,

the place were Strabon places Visigoths, today North Bulgaria south Romania

and many more lead us to a conclusion that Gothic Language came from East to Europe and was present at Dacia at 400 BC about
(compare Getae and Cetatea Alba)

so the case that Goths moved to Balkans at least from Herodotus is about 400 BC at least,
although I believe it is older probably before Troy times,
Even the inner name Dacian Deutsch Dutch might be assuption to you,
the Get - Cet = soldier = warrior (serbian Cetnik),
also, but you must admit that the possibilities are Big,
for me it seems like Scythians first came to Moldova Moldavia then went to Scandinavia and return much after with Viking invasion to Volga river to ucraine to make the east amber-fur road with Con/polis and Trapezous
the west was the road to Venice and Genoua and the central was the aquatic system that passes Serbia, the one that in ottomans times change from Greece to Austria Hungary etc. that aquatic system is known from Alexander's times as the exit to Istria river

remember that Varangians although a nation or a quard also means warrang /w/->/v/

So at least for me Goths were in Dacia at least at 400 BC (probably even earlier)
they could not pass the west of Alps so they went to Scandinavia and North Germany,
when west roman empire was weak they overpass Alps, but the creation of Con/polis as a strong trading center make them return to create trading roads. since the main road to Thessaloniki (Central road) was primary Slavic-Serbian,

The R1a1 - M17 road from Siberia to Norway

to be more specific, it seems like when getae moved North, Celts moved to balkans as Scordisci-Galatians etc, then Sarmatian and turkic start entering Central Europe as the last goths moved west, then Goths from North return to establish old trading roads, but the land was already speaking another language

Taranis
03-01-12, 15:22
Ckavdius, Olympiodoros, Πρισκος Priscus clearly name the Goths as Scythians that came from east of Ucraine to Moldova,
the name that Herodotus uses Getae for Dacians,

the place were Strabon places Visigoths,

and many more lead us to a conclusion that Gothic Language came from East to Europe and was present at Dacia at 400 BC about
(compare Getae and Cetatea Alba)

400 BC? That makes no sense. The Getae were no Goths, as you said, Herodotus uses the term for the Dacians. Even if you assume that Grimm's Law (first germanic sound shift) occured early, that makes no sense in the slightest because it is far away from what is generally presumed to be the homeland of the Germanic peoples (Nordic Bronze Age).

The earliest mentioning of the Goths is however from the late 4th century BC, by Pytheas of Massilia, who mentions the Teutones and Gothones along the shore of the sea. Where exactly Pytheas encountered them is unclear (if he visited Scandinavia, or if he visited as far east as the Baltic Sea), but this is the earliest reference to the Germanic peoples.

The earliest mentioning of Germanic peoples after that is the incursion of the Cimbri and Teutones in the late 2nd century BC, and it is clear that these migrated from Jutland (referenced by Strabo and Ptolemy as Cimbrian penninsula).

My opinion is that the Germanic sound shift only occured in the 1st century BC.

By the way, the division between Ostrogoths and Visigoths didn't occur until shortly before the migration period (ca. 4th century AD).

Yetos
03-01-12, 21:26
Strabo names clearly the Visi at today bulgaria as chieftains of Getae,
exactly at Scythia minor,
Strabo Name Scythians as Daheans (any similarity with Dakia)
and massagetae and Saceans (Saxons maybe?)

also
declaration of Arbroath


as you see although Herodotus might exagerate or add the later Strabo descriptions clearly say that Getae and Scythians are connected,
and Strabo is not 4rth century,

Germanic language is not an old Scandinavian language but moved there from Balkans,
the R1-M17 road,
the split to Germanic and Slavic has to do with connection of Getae, Scythians and Sarmatians,

Besides the name of Scythian kings are not unknown to German,
Atteas Skiler Palak

Taranis
03-01-12, 23:40
Strabo names clearly the Visi at today bulgaria as chieftains of Getae,
exactly at Scythia minor,
Strabo Name Scythians as Daheans (any similarity with Dakia)
and massagetae and Saceans (Saxons maybe?)

also
declaration of Arbroath


as you see although Herodotus might exagerate or add the later Strabo descriptions clearly say that Getae and Scythians are connected,
and Strabo is not 4rth century,

Yes, Strabo is 1st century AD, but you explicitly said "400 BC" earlier.

Read about the Getae in Strabo's Geography, Book VII, chapter III.

Do names like "Salmoxis" or "Burebista" really sound Germanic to you?

(hint: "salmoxis", via the common root *k´el-, actually has a cognate in Germanic, see English "helmet". That should tell you everything).


Germanic language is not an old Scandinavian language but moved there from Balkans,
the R1-M17 road,
the split to Germanic and Slavic has to do with connection of Getae, Scythians and Sarmatians,

Besides the name of Scythian kings are not unknown to German,
Atteas Skiler Palak

Seriously?! :petrified:

Where did you get that idea from?! There is no archaeological evidence for such a mass migration as you envision it.

There is also abundant linguistic evidence, namely Celtic loanwords in Germanic which clearly predate Grimm's Law, such as:

"markos" ("mare", from Proto-Germanic *marχaz), compare with Welsh "march" and Breton "marc'h".

"rigs" (king) (ruler, as in the name "Theoderic", Proto-Germanic *rīks), compare with Irish "rí" and Gaulish "rix".

the demonym "wolkos", ie the later Volcae (Proto-Germanic *walχaz, meaning "foreigner", "Celt" and later "Roman"), the source of place names such as "Wales", "Wallonia" and "Wallachia".

All of the above are Celtic loanwords into Germanic, and if your scenario was accurate, that shouldn't be the case.

Also, R1a-M17 has been in Germany since 2600 BC (Corded Ware Culture).

(Haag et. al, 2008) (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/17/0807592105.full.pdf+html)

zanipolo
04-01-12, 01:35
At Yetos

are you reffering to this from december 2011

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/FauxDKGeneticLinkOfVikingEn.htm

Yetos
04-01-12, 01:36
The markos case also reminds me the Greek Makkaros which in Celtic I do not know the form but in English is merrie
so the case of Marcus Markos might mean Happy and not walk,-start

the celtic that enter germanic or the Celtic that entered Gothic could also from the time of Dacians,
remember that Galatians entered and inhabit dacia,
and pannoni Basin next to Dacia was keltos land,
the case of Wolkos also reminds me another word Value and Valhala and Valois
the connection of Celts with Germanic is another point, and does not reject my scenario,
on the other Hand the case of Strabo and his descriptions comparing with Herodotus of 450 BC then surely Scythians and Goths lived by Side in Dacia and Scythia minor and Great, much before you mention,
the legend that Goths of Sweden are descedants of Tyras (river in Ucraine) is true,
Besides the legend that Franks were Scythians although it can be just to claim a royal dynasty might also be true,

now if celts pass first the same area, or the connection of Celts with Goths was in Pannoni Basin the roman times , the time of Scordisci-galatians does not change the scenario

Taranis
04-01-12, 01:39
At Yetos

are you reffering to this from december 2011

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/FauxDKGeneticLinkOfVikingEn.htm

No offense Zanipolo, but why do you keep posting this? That website is clearly outdated:


There is general agreement that by 8000 BC the retreat of the glaciers had left most of Scandinavia open for human settlement; that there has likely been continuous settlement in Norway and Sweden since this time.
It is generally accepted that descendants of these hunter – gatherers from three southern European glacial refugia ultimately became the Scandinavian Vikings circa 800 AD.

Sorry, but the idea that Haplogroups R1b, I and R1a reflect glacial refugia is hopelessly oudated.

zanipolo
04-01-12, 01:54
No offense Zanipolo, but why do you keep posting this? That website is clearly outdated:



Sorry, but the idea that Haplogroups R1b, I and R1a reflect glacial refugia is hopelessly oudated.

I was asking yetos if his theory of scythians to scandinavians came from that site

Yetos
04-01-12, 03:43
At Yetos

are you reffering to this from december 2011

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/FauxDKGeneticLinkOfVikingEn.htm

not exactly,
I don't believe that Scythian = onogurs
neither that Thracians = Turkic

its late I will expand more another time.

simply in the post you mentionthe time among 800 BC to 100 Ad was inhabited by Getae

simply to be honest that which problematise me is the burial system that the author describes,
it is something strong

on the other hand sauromates or samaratians is another discuss

probably you were problematised by the getae and cetatea alba

but the case of goths being turkic, hmmm
well if goths were turkic, then viking would be turkic, varangians turkic, and since getae= thracians then thracians would be turkic etc,
that makes almost the half eastern europe turkic,
although were they all gone?
only non ie in east europe is magyar and finno-ugric, even the Balkhs-balkars-bulgars have low gennetical connection,

if the scenario that the author describes in your link is true, then all R1a is Turkic and has nothing to do with IE language,
well then what options we have?
half East and North Europe is Turkic but speak IE?
so the IE at least in that areas were who?
The I HG that exists there?

the scenario although makes me wonder with burial customs, gives very big numbers to Turkic, and sends them back to early europe of 600 BC where no, at least written, eidence of Turkic exists,
Even the case of Etruscans, the writter analyze them as 45% Turkic, well we know that Etruscans were minor Asians, but were they Turkic?
Zanipolo simply I don't believe that Turkic enter Europe before the known times, and personally I believe that followed Scythians,

my scenario is that Getae enter Germany and North much before strabo, while in their return the join with Scythians to the known Goths of AD

North was empty or Inhabited By Saami

Taranis
04-01-12, 17:07
Yetos, why are you to rewrite history like that against overwhelming evidence, especially, why do you to paint huge events that occured effectively in proto-historic times and that are effectively in violation with all available archaeological, linguistic and even written historic evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Roman_Iron_Age

Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that Goths and Getae are not the same, because the difference between "o" and "e" is crucial, hinting to completely different roots. Also, the Goths are refered to by Tacitus as Gotones. Furthermore, Pliny cites Pytheas of Massilia (4th century BC) and refers to the Gutones living at the shore of the (presumably Baltic) sea:

(Pliny, 37.11) "Pytheas says that the Gutones, a people of Germany, inhabit the shores of an æstuary of the Ocean called Mentonomon, their territory extending a distance of six thousand stadia; that, at one day's sail from this territory, is the Isle of Abalus, upon the shores of which, amber is thrown up by the waves in spring, it being an excretion of the sea in a concrete form; as, also, that the inhabitants use this amber by way of fuel, and sell it to their neighbours, the Teutones."

Yetos
04-01-12, 21:30
Yetos, why are you to rewrite history like that against overwhelming evidence, especially, why do you to paint huge events that occured effectively in proto-historic times and that are effectively in violation with all available archaeological, linguistic and even written historic evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Roman_Iron_Age

Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that Goths and Getae are not the same, because the difference between "o" and "e" is crucial, hinting to completely different roots. Also, the Goths are refered to by Tacitus as Gotones. Furthermore, Pliny cites Pytheas of Massilia (4th century BC) and refers to the Gutones living at the shore of the (presumably Baltic) sea:

(Pliny, 37.11) "Pytheas says that the Gutones, a people of Germany, inhabit the shores of an æstuary of the Ocean called Mentonomon, their territory extending a distance of six thousand stadia; that, at one day's sail from this territory, is the Isle of Abalus, upon the shores of which, amber is thrown up by the waves in spring, it being an excretion of the sea in a concrete form; as, also, that the inhabitants use this amber by way of fuel, and sell it to their neighbours, the Teutones."

exactly, and where this amber was more stockpile? i Baltic lands or in Gutland?

History is written according the evidence data that exists or summed by author,
many times History of ancient is rewriten since we find a new relic-kterisma or a text etc,
just consider that the late Archimedes book that is found maybe change even philosophy's History,
some authors hide data, some have less data, and some just rewrite,
the scenario I propose is not rewriting History, neither goes against data,

about the case of o Goth and e Getae is not that rare but i say enough common
besides only the case that goat is Dacian get and scandinavia Got then you see that even the same animal name can change the e to o or opposite,

About that I am rewriting History,
well you might be true, but history many times has been written again in modern times,
and since you already know the lack of Historical texts can create many,
no matter you oppose the scenario i wrote above, you know that is difficult to reject it,
my scenario starts with Getae= goth and both were from a pre Slavic-Germanic split,
your only arquement is that Getae= not Goth,
even the one Pytheas is writing might be after the time that Dacians moved to Scandinavia.
almost same time with Herodotus,

I wonder if Thracians were IE and R1a were all that R1a went?
also is there any I HG conection among Black sea and Scandinavia, especially Sweden?


And to Continue the rewrite of History,

Lets see the Greek the Latin and Sansqrit
Deus Διος Deva (Dewa?)
as you see at Greek goes e->ι γιοτ ορ ιωτ
lets see the Norse and Germanic

1) Ziu hmm might be in Greek Za compare Zalmoxis?
2) Teiva or Teiwa?
3) Gothic Teiws

Now let us compare it with no Dacian Za-lmoxis (Ziu-lmoxis) but Thracian known forms the Brygian

4) Brygian (thracian) TIOS
and Greco-Vrygian Θεος in neutral person Θειοv

as you see Gothic is similar to Greco-Brygian especially Brygian,

that makes either Brygians Germanic tribe either Goths a Thracian tribe, the Getae.

on the other hand we also know the Brygian deity Βακχος Bacchus the only comparing similarity is the Slavic Bog.

The Thor case
well only a compare with south Thracian and Gaulish
Gaulish Tanaros and taranuo
Thracian θουρδος Thiur-dos

now about the Links from wiki,
simply compare the time of Bronze and iron age

it is possible that Thracian-getae who knew the bronze and iron at least 1000 years before to move to Scandinavia, with easy pass and small battles, while it is was much difficult to enter Roman territories
while Scans should wait for Christianity (no one wants to fight-become soldier) and weakness of Rome to enter Thrace,

in fact considering the weather climate the most suitable era was at 2000 BC and later at 450 BC since at 750-500 Bc had killing climate,
the one that drove Lappi to black sea, the reign-deers that Herodotus describes as tarandos



the Getae even in some religious names are connected with Goths,


moden Germany was inhabited by people
But IE Germans pass from Black to sea and Balkans to settled in today Germany-Gutland
we do not have a Parthenogenesis of Germanic IE
especially in Gutland where we know that saami were first and older inhabitants of region,


Zalmoxis
hmm as you said Grims law gives Helmet
but what about an analysis

Ζα με αχις (αξις οξυς ακις) Ζα με οξυς
Ziu mit Axis
Zeus with Axe

zanipolo
07-01-12, 05:21
exactly, and where this amber was more stockpile? i Baltic lands or in Gutland?

History is written according the evidence data that exists or summed by author,
many times History of ancient is rewriten since we find a new relic-kterisma or a text etc,
just consider that the late Archimedes book that is found maybe change even philosophy's History,
some authors hide data, some have less data, and some just rewrite,
the scenario I propose is not rewriting History, neither goes against data,

about the case of o Goth and e Getae is not that rare but i say enough common
besides only the case that goat is Dacian get and scandinavia Got then you see that even the same animal name can change the e to o or opposite,

About that I am rewriting History,
well you might be true, but history many times has been written again in modern times,
and since you already know the lack of Historical texts can create many,
no matter you oppose the scenario i wrote above, you know that is difficult to reject it,
my scenario starts with Getae= goth and both were from a pre Slavic-Germanic split,
your only arquement is that Getae= not Goth,
even the one Pytheas is writing might be after the time that Dacians moved to Scandinavia.
almost same time with Herodotus,

I wonder if Thracians were IE and R1a were all that R1a went?
also is there any I HG conection among Black sea and Scandinavia, especially Sweden?


And to Continue the rewrite of History,

Lets see the Greek the Latin and Sansqrit
Deus Διος Deva (Dewa?)
as you see at Greek goes e->ι γιοτ ορ ιωτ
lets see the Norse and Germanic

1) Ziu hmm might be in Greek Za compare Zalmoxis?
2) Teiva or Teiwa?
3) Gothic Teiws

Now let us compare it with no Dacian Za-lmoxis (Ziu-lmoxis) but Thracian known forms the Brygian

4) Brygian (thracian) TIOS
and Greco-Vrygian Θεος in neutral person Θειοv

as you see Gothic is similar to Greco-Brygian especially Brygian,

that makes either Brygians Germanic tribe either Goths a Thracian tribe, the Getae.

on the other hand we also know the Brygian deity Βακχος Bacchus the only comparing similarity is the Slavic Bog.

The Thor case
well only a compare with south Thracian and Gaulish
Gaulish Tanaros and taranuo
Thracian θουρδος Thiur-dos

now about the Links from wiki,
simply compare the time of Bronze and iron age

it is possible that Thracian-getae who knew the bronze and iron at least 1000 years before to move to Scandinavia, with easy pass and small battles, while it is was much difficult to enter Roman territories
while Scans should wait for Christianity (no one wants to fight-become soldier) and weakness of Rome to enter Thrace,

in fact considering the weather climate the most suitable era was at 2000 BC and later at 450 BC since at 750-500 Bc had killing climate,
the one that drove Lappi to black sea, the reign-deers that Herodotus describes as tarandos



the Getae even in some religious names are connected with Goths,


moden Germany was inhabited by people
But IE Germans pass from Black to sea and Balkans to settled in today Germany-Gutland
we do not have a Parthenogenesis of Germanic IE
especially in Gutland where we know that saami were first and older inhabitants of region,


Zalmoxis
hmm as you said Grims law gives Helmet
but what about an analysis

Ζα με αχις (αξις οξυς ακις) Ζα με οξυς
Ziu mit Axis
Zeus with Axe

Really I do not see the association with sycthians

http://www.antropo.uni.wroc.pl/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Krzy%C2%ACanowska_et_al.-Mankind_Quarterly.pdf

Link above has some clues on goth area, and also after landing in the vistula area, as per ptolemy ( Guttones North of the Peucini , south of the Venedi who bordered the Venedi Baltic sea ) , they where in area of Masovia Poland, north of the Vistula where it straights up to go to the baltic sea. Masovians although slavic now have still to this day say they are part related with goths.

zanipolo
10-04-12, 09:05
good book to get
The Well Spring of the Goths: (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-wZYqf3G45cC&pg=PA537&dq=aestii+goths&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2daDT_L6CI7GmQWy0P2vBw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw) by Nordgren ( edition 2004)


Basically , all you need to know about goths and all the other nordic tribes.

One, interesting topic , says Strabo said
For a theory that the Aestii are the Osismii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osismii) of Strabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabo) and the Ostimii of Pytheas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas) also mentioned by Strabo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osismii

According to Strabo , both of these tribes spkoe Byrtonic, even though the aestii where in the baltic sea.
Makes one wonder who migrated from where to where

how yes no 3
10-04-12, 20:30
I believe that origin of tribal name Goths is the same as origin of tribal names Gutians and Getae and that link can be traced to I2b.... but I do not claim anything about languages of the people being the same in times when they are mentioned nor about time of the split that may have easily been more than thousand of years before the mention of the names

zanipolo
02-05-12, 08:09
Recently read some oldish and newish books that the goths speak a high german linguistic trait. The scenario from these books is that the ancient goths originated in and around bohemia on the north side of the danube and learnt this high german there. they where pushed to migrate to the north east near the vistula by the marcomanni, quadi and Boii people.

A linguistic examination of the gothic bible and its 200 plus words indicate that over 120 are of high german and 40 in low german and the rest in middle german.

In my opinion, i think they learnt this high german after they settled in austria and north italy after the collapse of the Roman empire ...............but my opinion would result in that then the goths would or could not have spoken german , but a mixed baltic or even slavic tongue. They did destroy the scythian people on there march to the black sea.

Anyway, one of the links below

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=tuwRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA122&dq=goths+in+southern+germany&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T5egT7LAJqzKmQXUn4mRCA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=goths in southern germany&f=false

Taranis
02-05-12, 08:42
No offense Zanipolo, but that makes no sense.

1) The Goths never were in Bohemia. If you read Strabo or Caesar, Bohemia was occupied first by the (Celtic) Boii and later by the (Germanic) Marcomanni. There's no evidence the Goths ever were in Bohemia. The earliest references places the Goths approximately at the right-bank of the middle Vistula.

2) This "linguistic examination" is moot because it's quite ignorant Gothic sound laws as well as linguistic innovations in the Germanic languages. Gothic is NOT the descendant of Old High German (which is actually multiple centuries younger), but both languages are descended from Proto-Germanic which was spoken around the time of Julius Caesar.

- A common linguistic innovation absent in Gothic (found in Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Old High German) is the Germanic umlaut.

- Gothic lacks the shift from *z to *r which all other Germanic languages also have in common.

3) Stop using 19th century literature. You wouldn't include the theory of the Luminiferous Aether in a modern physics lecture, would you?

zanipolo
02-05-12, 09:20
No offense Zanipolo, but that makes no sense.

1) The Goths never were in Bohemia. If you read Strabo or Caesar, Bohemia was occupied first by the (Celtic) Boii and later by the (Germanic) Marcomanni. There's no evidence the Goths ever were in Bohemia. The earliest references places the Goths approximately at the right-bank of the middle Vistula.

2) This "linguistic examination" is moot because it's quite ignorant Gothic sound laws as well as linguistic innovations in the Germanic languages. Gothic is NOT the descendant of Old High German (which is actually multiple centuries younger), but both languages are descended from Proto-Germanic which was spoken around the time of Julius Caesar.

- A common linguistic innovation absent in Gothic (found in Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Old High German) is the Germanic umlaut.

- Gothic lacks the shift from *z to *r which all other Germanic languages also have in common.

3) Stop using 19th century literature. You wouldn't include the theory of the Luminiferous Aether in a modern physics lecture, would you?

firstly you never read my post.......my opinion was below in the post. Secondly, the reference by you refers to strabo and not prior to roman historians, there was an age prior to Roman you know.
thirdly I can place modern books as i noted with the same linguid=stic theories in regard to High ( upper) german for the goths


another book, modern

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-wZYqf3G45cC&pg=PA529&dq=the+wish+of+the+goths&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n-CgT4-JF8_jmAXZwN23CA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=upper german&f=false

AGAIN, this is not my opinion, but of linguistic people

Druhtinaz_x00r
28-12-13, 00:16
firstly you never read my post.......my opinion was below in the post. Secondly, the reference by you refers to strabo and not prior to roman historians, there was an age prior to Roman you know.
thirdly I can place modern books as i noted with the same linguid=stic theories in regard to High ( upper) german for the goths


another book, modern


AGAIN, this is not my opinion, but of linguistic people

At least the Manszack-table seems poorly conducted, Nordgren summarizes the results but he doesn't really embrace them, rather the opposite.

mihaitzateo
28-12-13, 20:22
Gothic language is preserved,in the Bible of Wulfilla and also there are some texts preserved,from Old Gutnish.
Old Gutnish is very closed to Old Norse,Gothic is East Germanic,the names are closed,but the languages were not really mutually intelligible.
Here a sample of Old Gutnish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Gutnish
There is a text preserved,from Old Gutnish:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutasaga
As for Gothic,is different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Bible
Getae were a Thraco-Dacian tribe so speakers of a Satem IE language,Geats were some kind of Norse people,so speakers of Old Gutnish,Goths were some East Germanic tribes,so speakers of East Germanic.
Speakers of Germanic languages are speakers of Centum languages,so what is the link with Thraco-Dacians?Only the fact that they were both Indo-Europeans.
As for that story of Jordanes,that tells that Goths came from South Sweden and are identical to Dacians,I do not think that part is actually true in that they were not identical to Dacians,not even by far.
Goths were allied with Dacians,but were not the same people.
Is possible that Goths might have started to migrate from South Sweden and as they were moving south their language shifted,becoming East Germanic,but how you can explain that I1 is not seen in the populations were Goths settled at so significant percentages?
Since in South Sweden most present paternal line is I1.
That Goths existed,that is clear,that they settled in Romania,Balkans,Italy,Spain that is also clear,but I doubt they were bearing mostly I1 on their paternal lines.So I doubt that they were actually Scandinavians.A thing that shows very clear the difference between them and Scandinavians is the fact they were not sea people,as Scandinavians were.
EDIT:
Yetos,you need more than a few resemblances of words to link two Germanic populations.
Now I remember another thing,look a little how Gothic leaders are named,Alaric,Ermenaric,Teodoric etc see that most of their leaders are named with a ric at the name ending.
While Old Norse leaders are having different names,a very clear characteristic being that they have the name composed from 2 words,usually:
Haraldr Hálfdanarson (known as Harald Fairhair) son of Halfdanr Svarti or Ívarr Ragnarsson (also known as Ivar the Boneless) etc.
Notice please,that the names of Old Norse leaders are ending in r preceded by another consonant,not in ric,as those of Gothic people.

Sile
28-12-13, 21:19
EDIT:
Yetos,you need more than a few resemblances of words to link two Germanic populations.
Now I remember another thing,look a little how Gothic leaders are named,Alaric,Ermenaric,Teodoric etc see that most of their leaders are named with a ric at the name ending.
While Old Norse leaders are having different names,a very clear characteristic being that they have the name composed from 2 words,usually:
Haraldr Hálfdanarson (known as Harald Fairhair) son of Halfdanr Svarti or Ívarr Ragnarsson (also known as Ivar the Boneless) etc.
Notice please,that the names of Old Norse leaders are ending in r preceded by another consonant,not in ric,as those of Gothic people.

ric ending names are pommeranian and refer to as king or royal, so alaric , was king Ala,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Teodoric was King Teodo.

Norse use rik endings

mihaitzateo
28-12-13, 21:33
ric ending names are pommeranian and refer to as king or royal, so alaric , was king Ala,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Teodoric was King Teodo.

Norse use rik endings

Well it seems I was wrong,Ermanaric was called in Gothic Aírmanareiks,Theodoric,that was his name,while Alaric was called Alareiks.
I do not saw any rik endings,at Old Norse names of kings,I just saw the r ending,preceded by a consonant.
But as you have said,not exactly right,reiks in Gothic means king (tribal ruler more exactly):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiks
As for Old Norse,since I did not found Old Gutnish so easy,all words used for King are ending in r except thengill (used the instead the special Old Norse closed to this sound,since I can not type that).
The only word closed to Reiks is reik,which means kingdom in Old Norse.

Anyway,this word (reiks) is a Celtic borrowing and from what I know,Goths migrated through Slavic lands till the got in Dacia,after most accepted theory.
Or,this theory is actually wrong and Goths came from somewhere in Central Europe,to Dacia,where (in Central Europe) they should have had links with Celtic people.And this means that Goths actually do not have links with Scandinavians,but with other Germanic populations from Central Europe,like Austrians,Germans.
EDIT:
Here a fragment from a saga that was gathered by Snorri,see how they are calling Alaric:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaric_and_Eric
Fell Alrekr,
þar er Eiríkibróður vápnat bana urðu,ok hnakkmarsmeð höfuðfetlum Dags fríendrof drepask kváðu;frá-at maðr áðreykja greiði Freys afspringí folk hafa.
EDIT:
Now since this thread is about Gutnish (I think the author was referring to Old Guthnish) and Gothic,anyone got a link with the full text of Gutasaga?
For free normally.

Sile
28-12-13, 22:06
Well it seems I was wrong,Ermanaric was called in Gothic Aírmanareiks,Theodoric,that was his name,while Alaric was called Alareiks.
I do not saw any rik endings,at Old Norse names of kings,I just saw the r ending,preceded by a consonant.
But as you have said,not exactly right,reiks in Gothic means king (tribal ruler more exactly):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiks
As for Old Norse,since I did not found Old Gutnish so easy,all words used for King are ending in r except thengill (used the instead the special Old Norse closed to this sound,since I can not type that).
The only word closed to Reiks is reik,which means kingdom in Old Norse.

Anyway,this word (reiks) is a Celtic borrowing and from what I know,Goths migrated through Slavic lands till the got in Dacia,after most accepted theory.
Or,this theory is actually wrong and Goths came from somewhere in Central Europe,to Dacia,where (in Central Europe) they should have had links with Celtic people.And this means that Goths actually do not have links with Scandinavians,but with other Germanic populations from Central Europe,like Austrians,Germans.
EDIT:
Here a fragment from a saga that was gathered by Snorri,see how they are calling Alaric:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaric_and_Eric
Fell Alrekr,
þar er Eiríkibróður vápnat bana urðu,ok hnakkmarsmeð höfuðfetlum Dags fríendrof drepask kváðu;frá-at maðr áðreykja greiði Freys afspringí folk hafa.
EDIT:
Now since this thread is about Gutnish (I think the author was referring to Old Guthnish) and Gothic,anyone got a link with the full text of Gutasaga?
For free normally.

They speak gutnish in gothland .they do not speak gothic

mihaitzateo
28-12-13, 22:38
Just another interpretation of what is said in Gutasaga that people from Gotaland migrated and settled in Russia:
is known that the Scandinavians that were in Russia,were Swedes and this is from where the name Rus came.
So I think those who established Russia were actually these Old Gutnish speakers.
If Geats (old Gutnish speakers) were same with Goths,why is not anything written about their fights with Roman Empire or with Huns,in Gutasaga?