Is Germanic closer to Indo-Iranian or Italo-Celtic languages?

[Cyrus]

Of course all of them are Indo-European languages but my question is that which ones have more common Indo-European-origin words?

For example about pronouns, the first person plural pronoun in Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages is from proto-IE *wéy (Compare English we and Avestan wae but Latin nōs and Welsh ni) or the second person plural pronoun in Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages is from proto-IE *yū- (Compare English you and Avestan yuž but Latin vos and Cornish why).

I can list numerous words, for example compare proto-Germanic *yera and Avestan yārə to Italo-Celtic words for "year" or Germanic *austra and Avestan ušastra to Italo-Celtic words for "east", ...

About Indo-European s-mobile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile

This "movable" prefix s- appears at the beginning of some Indo-European roots, but is absent from other occurrences of the same root. For example, the stem *(s)táwros, perhaps 'bison', gives Latin taurus and Old English steor (Modern English steer), both meaning 'bull'. Both variants existed side by side in PIE, with Germanic preserving the forms as *steuraz and *þeuraz respectively, but Italic, Celtic, Slavic and others all have words for 'bull' which reflect the root without the s. Compare also: Gothic stiur, German Stier, Avestan staora (cattle); but Old Norse þjórr, Greek tauros, Latin taurus, Old Church Slavonic turъ, Lithuanian tauras, Welsh tarw, Old Irish tarb, Oscan turuf and Albanian taroç.

Is Avestan a Germanic language?! It seems to be clear that proto-Germanic is colser to Indo-Iranian languages.

[Ygorcs]

Typologically, phonologically (it's centum like Italo-Celtic, for instance, among other phonological characteristics) and lexically Germanic is usually classified by linguists as closer to Italo-Celtic, but also with some relationship with Balto-Slavic and particularly Baltic. It certainly also shared some isoglosses with Indo-Iranian. I do not think the examples given above are enough to make it "clear" that proto-Germanic is closer to Indo-Iranian languages. It's sufficient, though, to state that there are links between Germanic and Indo-Iranian and that Germanic did not derive from Italo-Celtic, but from an earlier IE split, but that's already widely recognized by linguists.

[bicicleur]

I guess proto-Germanic was spoken in the Nordic Bronze Age, which was born out of a mixture of Corded Ware, Bell Beaker (Celtic) and even some TRB farmers.
And Indo-Iranian was derived from Sintashta and ultimately Corded Ware.

[Cyrus]

Typologically, phonologically (it's centum like Italo-Celtic, for instance, among other phonological characteristics) and lexically Germanic is usually classified by linguists as closer to Italo-Celtic, but also with some relationship with Balto-Slavic and particularly Baltic. It certainly also shared some isoglosses with Indo-Iranian. I do not think the examples given above are enough to make it "clear" that proto-Germanic is closer to Indo-Iranian languages. It's sufficient, though, to state that there are links between Germanic and Indo-Iranian and that Germanic did not derive from Italo-Celtic, but from an earlier IE split, but that's already widely recognized by linguists.

Please explain, for example about phonology, why you say Germanic is closer to Italo-Celtic than Indo-Iranian?

Consonants which exist in Germanic and Iranian languages but not Celtic:

1. p (Voiceless bilabial stop)
2. β (Voiced bilabial fricative)
3. θ (Voiceless dental fricative)
4. ð (Voiced dental fricative)
5. ŋ (Velar nasal)
6. x (Voiceless velar fricative)
7. ɣ (Voiced velar fricative)
8. ŋʷ (Labiovelar nasal)
9. xʷ (Labiovelar fricative)

In fact about one half of proto-Germanic sounds don't exist in proto-Celtic.

[Cyrus]

I guess proto-Germanic was spoken in the Nordic Bronze Age, which was born out of a mixture of Corded Ware, Bell Beaker (Celtic) and even some TRB farmers.
And Indo-Iranian was derived from Sintashta and ultimately Corded Ware.

As far as I know there is not any evidence which shows proto-Germanic was spoken in the Nordic Bronze Age (1700-500 BC), just mention one proto-Germanic word which can be dated back to this period in this region.

[bicicleur]

As far as I know there is not any evidence which shows proto-Germanic was spoken in the Nordic Bronze Age (1700-500 BC), just mention one proto-Germanic word which can be dated back to this period in this region.

there is no evidence I know of, it just seems the most likely place to me
geneticaly the Germanic tribes seem derived from the population that formed ca 4.5 ka in southern Scandinavia

[Srbadija]

Germanic is closer to Italo-Celtic, IMHO. Since both of them are basically Centum languages, while Indo-Iranian is Satem.

[Cyrus]

Germanic is closer to Italo-Celtic, IMHO. Since both of them are basically Centum languages, while Indo-Iranian is Satem.

What about Tocharian, a Centum which was spoken in China, was it also colser to Italo-Celtic? But linguists believe Hittite was the closest language to Tocharian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages

[Srbadija]

Of course all of them are Indo-European languages but my question is that which ones have more common Indo-European-origin words?

For example about pronouns, the first person plural pronoun in Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages is from proto-IE *wéy (Compare English we and Avestan wae but Latin nōs and Welsh ni) or the second person plural pronoun in Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages is from proto-IE *yū- (Compare English you and Avestan yuž but Latin vos and Cornish why).

I can list numerous words, for example compare proto-Germanic *yera and Avestan yārə to Italo-Celtic words for "year" or Germanic *austra and Avestan ušastra to Italo-Celtic words for "east", ...

About Indo-European s-mobile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile



Is Avestan a Germanic language?! It seems to be clear that proto-Germanic is colser to Indo-Iranian languages.

In some segments, Germanic is closer to Indo-Iranian, in other segments to Italo-Celtic. Generally to which of these 2 languages is closer, it's hard to say.

[Ygorcs]

I guess proto-Germanic was spoken in the Nordic Bronze Age, which was born out of a mixture of Corded Ware, Bell Beaker (Celtic) and even some TRB farmers.
And Indo-Iranian was derived from Sintashta and ultimately Corded Ware.

That's also my personal opinion about the origin of Pre-PGM until further evidences on the contrary. I think Proto-Germanic had three successive layers that made it so "unusual" (much like English is the weirdest child of Proto-Germanic in comparison with the other Germanic languages): first a remote CWC dialect, far removed from the innovations and areal features that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian (also CWC-derived) shared, and profoundly changed by heavy TRB and maybe GAC influence somewhere near the North Sea; later a very heavy Bell Beaker Northwestern IE influence altering its lexicon and partly its grammar, partially reconverging the CWC-derived language with the Northwestern IE dialect that became socially dominant (the two languages by that time wouldn't have been as divergent as French and Old English for instance in the formation of Middle English, it would've been more like a prolonged dominance of Castillian over Catalan). In that process of linguistic formation, Germanic would naturally come to share characteristics with "eastern" Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian and also with "western" Italo-Celtic and also little known IE branches like Venetic/Liburnian (Venetic famously has the inscription "selb selboi" for "himself" or something like that, remarkably similar to the Germanic counterpart). Germanic even share higher than average isoglosses with Albanian (presumably Illyrian-derived). People need to remind that originally all these languages were not distinct branches totally unintelligible to each other, but a dialect continuum with a patchwork of speeches that were not linked just to their most immediate and closest neighbors, but shared some characteristics and words with one dialect and others with other dialects.

[Ygorcs]

What about Tocharian, a Centum which was spoken in China, was it also colser to Italo-Celtic? But linguists believe Hittite was the closest language to Tocharian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages

AFAIK Tocharian is considered to be indeed closer to Italo-Celtic, too, as well as to Anatolian, but not necessarily because they came from one common ancestor different from the other IE branches. Rather linguists assert that because these branches would be a bit more "archaic" in some aspects, less innovative, and they possibly diverged from the rest of IE earlier than other branches (and probably also from a similar group of dialects). So they would share some common characteristics that were once more widespread in the IE-speaking territory.

[Ygorcs]

Please explain, for example about phonology, why you say Germanic is closer to Italo-Celtic than Indo-Iranian?

Consonants which exist in Germanic and Iranian languages but not Celtic:

1. p (Voiceless bilabial stop)
2. β (Voiced bilabial fricative)
3. θ (Voiceless dental fricative)
4. ð (Voiced dental fricative)
5. ŋ (Velar nasal)
6. x (Voiceless velar fricative)
7. ɣ (Voiced velar fricative)
8. ŋʷ (Labiovelar nasal)
9. xʷ (Labiovelar fricative)

In fact about one half of proto-Germanic sounds don't exist in proto-Celtic.

I'm not talking about sounds. I'm talking about phonological development of the language from the PIE stage until Proto-Germanic, especially in its earlier stages. Common or very similar sound change rules (e.g. the ones related to the development of centum languages) are what determines a closer relationship or not, not a similar sound inventory. Sounds do not mean much. By that account we'd have a hard time accepting that French and Spanish are so closely related historically and linguistically, as in fact Spanish shares more phonemes with Greek than with French.

Also, it is not I who say Germanic shares more with Italo-Celtic than with Indo-Iranian in terms of isoglosses and grammatical and phonological development, it is linguists who say so. I'm no professional in historical linguistics and reconstruction of proto-languages, so I think it's sensible to base my opinions on what experts in the subject have to say and trust them above non-scientific personal impressions/wishes/ideas of an amateur like me. I honestly do not feel I can explain these technicalities in detail here, my memory is not that good, lol, but you should be able to find more information about that in a comprehensive Google search, preferably looking for actual work by professional linguists.

Personally, my "hypothesis" for the origin of Proto-Germanic would fit very well with a closer connection to Indo-Iranian (and even more so with Balto-Slavic), as I see it either as CWC-ized BB language or a BB-ized CWC language, but I'm not sure that idea is well accepted among the mainstream linguists.

[Ygorcs]

What about Tocharian, a Centum which was spoken in China, was it also colser to Italo-Celtic? But linguists believe Hittite was the closest language to Tocharian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages

Btw, this should interest you: this author has a somewhat "unusual" hypothesis the method of which he explains to state that Italo-Celtic is indeed ancestrally linked with Tocharian, and that Germanic in fact shares more Indo-Iranian than with Italo-Celtic, but according to him the connection to Balto-Slavic is even much more significant (not surprising if Germanic were, as I think, a CWC language heavily changed by BB influence), and just as relevant is the connection to Greek (maybe because, as some have speculated in the past, it derived from Srubnaya, with a language changed by CWC influx back into the steppes? I don't know how to explain it yet, but linguists have already obserbed higher than average lexical connections to Albanian, too, another Paleo-Balkanic remnant).

http://armchairprehistory.com/2018/0...indo-european/

[hrvclv]

Personally, my "hypothesis" for the origin of Proto-Germanic would fit very well with a closer connection to Indo-Iranian (and even more so with Balto-Slavic), as I see it either as CWC-ized BB language or a BB-ized CWC language, but I'm not sure that idea is well accepted among the mainstream linguists.

I imagine very much the same thing : a non-IE substratum + a CWC (probably satem) layer + a centum superstratum. The non-IE substratum could have something to do with the Scandinavian I1 haplogroup (?). CWC were 70.5% R1a (Maciamo's figures) - enough for a link with Balto-Slavic languages. The centum-speakers would have been R1b-U106 (probably not BB proper though).

[Cyrus]

I'm not talking about sounds. I'm talking about phonological development of the language from the PIE stage until Proto-Germanic, especially in its earlier stages. Common or very similar sound change rules (e.g. the ones related to the development of centum languages) are what determines a closer relationship or not, not a similar sound inventory. Sounds do not mean much. By that account we'd have a hard time accepting that French and Spanish are so closely related historically and linguistically, as in fact Spanish shares more phonemes with Greek than with French.

Also, it is not I who say Germanic shares more with Italo-Celtic than with Indo-Iranian in terms of isoglosses and grammatical and phonological development, it is linguists who say so. I'm no professional in historical linguistics and reconstruction of proto-languages, so I think it's sensible to base my opinions on what experts in the subject have to say and trust them above non-scientific personal impressions/wishes/ideas of an amateur like me. I honestly do not feel I can explain these technicalities in detail here, my memory is not that good, lol, but you should be able to find more information about that in a comprehensive Google search, preferably looking for actual work by professional linguists.

Personally, my "hypothesis" for the origin of Proto-Germanic would fit very well with a closer connection to Indo-Iranian (and even more so with Balto-Slavic), as I see it either as CWC-ized BB language or a BB-ized CWC language, but I'm not sure that idea is well accepted among the mainstream linguists.

I am studying and researching linguistics about 10 year, I created this chart some years ago:



What do you think about it?

[hrvclv]

I am studying and researching linguistics about 10 year, I created this chart some years ago:



What do you think about it?

Interesting. You seem to have left out all the labiovelars (kw, gw, gwh...), though. Was that deliberate or not ? They would deserve some consideration, in my opinion. Good job, anyway.

[Cyrus]

Interesting. You seem to have left out all the labiovelars (kw, gw, gwh...), though. Was that deliberate or not ? They would deserve some consideration, in my opinion. Good job, anyway.

I actually believe labiovelar sound changes are the most important ones in the Indo-European languages, look at my map in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...(by-Phonology) We see labiovelars in the Middle Eastern IE languages which were changed to labial sounds in the western IE languages but velars in the Eastern IE languages (including Tocharian).

[Ygorcs]

I am studying and researching linguistics about 10 year, I created this chart some years ago:



What do you think about it?

Interesting work. As far as I've read the Germanic sound changes (not just the phonology, but the specific sound rules) are more comparable to those of Armenian, but that does not necessarily imply they are more closely related phylogenetically, particularly because the changes seem to have occurred independently, not as part of one common process.

However, can you explain to me why there is so much variation in the Iranian columns (e.g. p/f, k/x etc.)? Did the sound change really vary according to the position of the consonant in the word in the common and earliest Proto-Iranian language, or did you include all the variation found in later Iranian languages (so that some of that variation, the most innovative ones mainly, arose just in part of the daughter languages of Proto-Iranian independently and much later?)? I ask that because the best comparison should be between Proto-Iranian and Proto-Germanic (actually more like Pre-Proto-Germanic, because the lenition of consonants is assumed by linguists to have happened ealy in the linguistic history from PIE to Germanic). What are the older/most conservative forms of those consonants before later diversification, /p/ or /f/, /k/ or /x/? Or does it depend on their specific situation in the syllables?

As for the links of Proto-Germanic with other IE branches, it's definitely even more relevant to analyze the morphology and syntax of the language, because phonological developments may make two closely related languages change a lot (e.g. French vs. Spanish), whereas some other distantly related languages may end up with reasonably close sound correspondences just because of stronger phonetic conservatism. But as a starting point your chart is very interesting, indeed.

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

I'm taking this technical discussion (beyond my understanding) to mean Germanic, unlike Italo-Celtic, can be associated with the Corded Ware folk.

[Cyrus]

Interesting work. As far as I've read the Germanic sound changes (not just the phonology, but the specific sound rules) are more comparable to those of Armenian, but that does not necessarily imply they are more closely related phylogenetically, particularly because the changes seem to have occurred independently, not as part of one common process.

However, can you explain to me why there is so much variation in the Iranian columns (e.g. p/f, k/x etc.)? Did the sound change really vary according to the position of the consonant in the word in the common and earliest Proto-Iranian language, or did you include all the variation found in later Iranian languages (so that some of that variation, the most innovative ones mainly, arose just in part of the daughter languages of Proto-Iranian independently and much later?)? I ask that because the best comparison should be between Proto-Iranian and Proto-Germanic (actually more like Pre-Proto-Germanic, because the lenition of consonants is assumed by linguists to have happened ealy in the linguistic history from PIE to Germanic). What are the older/most conservative forms of those consonants before later diversification, /p/ or /f/, /k/ or /x/? Or does it depend on their specific situation in the syllables?

As for the links of Proto-Germanic with other IE branches, it's definitely even more relevant to analyze the morphology and syntax of the language, because phonological developments may make two closely related languages change a lot (e.g. French vs. Spanish), whereas some other distantly related languages may end up with reasonably close sound correspondences just because of stronger phonetic conservatism. But as a starting point your chart is very interesting, indeed.

You are certainly right that these sound changes occurred independently but I don't believe that there were no reason behind them and they could happen everywhere and then finished.
For example the change of a voiceless non-continuant sound to a voiceless continuant sound, especially in a cluster, is a characteristic of languages which were spoken in Iran, we see this change in loanwords from other languages too, like Persian oxtapus "octopus" from Greek oktopous, it is one of the main differences between Iranian and Indian languages but there are some exceptions in the eastern Iranian languages, like Avestan hapta "seven" but Persian haft.
The same thing can be said about devoicing (b>p, d>t, g>k) in the Armenian language, it can be seen in many Armenian loanwords from Persian and Greek too, it is actually one of characteristics of languages which were spoken in the east of Anatolia.
I believe proto-Germanic was spoken originally in a region in the west of Iran and east of Anatolia, so it had both characteristics, the same land that I said about haplogroup I in another thread.

[Cyrus]

It is good mention that we see Germanic sound shifts in loanwords from other languages too but these are languages which were spoken in the Middle East, some examples from Semitic:

Semitic root q-n-b "hemp" > proto-Germanic *xanapiz (k>x & b>p) "hemp", compare Arabic qannab and Greek κάνναβις (kánnabos), probably from Sumerian kunibu "hemp".

Semitic root kʷ-l-b "dog, puppy" > Proto-Germanic *xʷelpaz "whelp, puppy" (kʷ>xʷ & b>p), compare Ethiopian kʷähila and Arabic kalb

Semitic root s-r/l-p "silver" > proto-Germanic *silubra "silver" (p>b (Verner's law)), compare Akkadian sarpu and Arabic sarif "silver". (p>f in Arabic)

Semitic root ṣ-b-r "sparrow" > proto-Germanic *sparwo "sparrow" (b>p), compare Akkadian ṣibaru "sparrow"

Semitic root g-l-d "clot" > proto-Germanic *klutto "clot" (g>k & d>t), compare Hebrew root ג ל ד (g-l-d) and Arabic root ج ل ط (j-l-t).

Semitic root k-r-y "hire" > proto-Germanic *xuriyo "hire" (k>x), compare Arabic kiraya "hire, rent"

Semitic root k-l-l "whole" > proto-Germanic *xailo "whole" (k>x), compare Akkadian kalu "whole"

Semitic root d-r-g "track" > proto-Germanic *trako "track" (d>t & g>k), compare Akkadian daraggu "path, track"

Semitic root p-r-q "fright" > proto-Germanic *furxtaz "fright" (p>f & k>x), compare Arabic fariqa "fright"

Semtic root p-r-h "happy" > proto-Germanic *frawaz "happy" (p>f), compare Arabic farah "glad, happy, merry" and German froh and English frolic

[Srbadija]

It is good mention that we see Germanic sound shifts in loanwords from other languages too but these are languages which were spoken in the Middle East, some examples from Semitic:

Semitic root q-n-b "hemp" > proto-Germanic *xanapiz (k>x & b>p) "hemp", compare Arabic qannab and Greek κάνναβις (kánnabos), probably from Sumerian kunibu "hemp".

Semitic root kʷ-l-b "dog, puppy" > Proto-Germanic *xʷelpaz "whelp, puppy" (kʷ>xʷ & b>p), compare Ethiopian kʷähila and Arabic kalb

Semitic root s-r/l-p "silver" > proto-Germanic *silubra "silver" (p>b (Verner's law)), compare Akkadian sarpu and Arabic sarif "silver". (p>f in Arabic)

Semitic root ṣ-b-r "sparrow" > proto-Germanic *sparwo "sparrow" (b>p), compare Akkadian ṣibaru "sparrow"

Semitic root g-l-d "clot" > proto-Germanic *klutto "clot" (g>k & d>t), compare Hebrew root ג ל ד (g-l-d) and Arabic root ج ل ط (j-l-t).

Semitic root k-r-y "hire" > proto-Germanic *xuriyo "hire" (k>x), compare Arabic kiraya "hire, rent"

Semitic root k-l-l "whole" > proto-Germanic *xailo "whole" (k>x), compare Akkadian kalu "whole"

Semitic root d-r-g "track" > proto-Germanic *trako "track" (d>t & g>k), compare Akkadian daraggu "path, track"

Semitic root p-r-q "fright" > proto-Germanic *furxtaz "fright" (p>f & k>x), compare Arabic fariqa "fright"

Semtic root p-r-h "happy" > proto-Germanic *frawaz "happy" (p>f), compare Arabic farah "glad, happy, merry" and German froh and English frolic

Yes, but to proclaim any relation with those languages would be false (perhaps, if there was really in ancient times it can not be proved). But, it might be just paralel word, accidentaly specific similarity in structure and root. Same as turkic name "Hakan" and Germanic "Hakon". But no one of the real scientist believes in relation between those 2 languages.

[Cyrus]

Yes, but to proclaim any relation with those languages would be false (perhaps, if there was really in ancient times it can not be proved). But, it might be just paralel word, accidentaly specific similarity in structure and root. Same as turkic name "Hakan" and Germanic "Hakon". But no one of the real scientist believes in relation between those 2 languages.

I think most of linguists also believe in relation between the words that I mentioned but they have different theories about them, for example they say some of them are wanderwort (loanwords that have spread among remote languages) or they were spread by Scythians and other people who lived in Eurasia, ... But there can be better theories too, like what I said above.

[MOESAN]

Please explain, for example about phonology, why you say Germanic is closer to Italo-Celtic than Indo-Iranian?

Consonants which exist in Germanic and Iranian languages but not Celtic:

1. p (Voiceless bilabial stop)
2. β (Voiced bilabial fricative)
3. θ (Voiceless dental fricative)
4. ð (Voiced dental fricative)
5. ŋ (Velar nasal)
6. x (Voiceless velar fricative)
7. ɣ (Voiced velar fricative)
8. ŋʷ (Labiovelar nasal)
9. xʷ (Labiovelar fricative)

In fact about one half of proto-Germanic sounds don't exist in proto-Celtic.

a part of these sounds are known in modern Celtic languages in words of PIE origin (not loans) and we cannot rely completely on the orthograph of ancient texts. it seems by example que some times the same sound in Gaulish or Brittonic could be written -TT- or -SS-, and some scholars had proposed a phonetic /θ/ for this sound - Germanic "orthographs" that we know developped rather lately, so were surely more adapted to their phonology : Gothic: 4th Cy - (Norse about 200 AD, but a word only according to Wikipedia) - Gauls wrote with loaned graphies (Latin, Greek, even Etruscan), around 300 BC firstable, so we can suppose they had some difficulties to represent their precise phonology.

[MOESAN]

It is good mention that we see Germanic sound shifts in loanwords from other languages too but these are languages which were spoken in the Middle East, some examples from Semitic:

Semitic root q-n-b "hemp" > proto-Germanic *xanapiz (k>x & b>p) "hemp", compare Arabic qannab and Greek κάνναβις (kánnabos), probably from Sumerian kunibu "hemp".

Semitic root kʷ-l-b "dog, puppy" > Proto-Germanic *xʷelpaz "whelp, puppy" (kʷ>xʷ & b>p), compare Ethiopian kʷähila and Arabic kalb

Semitic root s-r/l-p "silver" > proto-Germanic *silubra "silver" (p>b (Verner's law)), compare Akkadian sarpu and Arabic sarif "silver". (p>f in Arabic)

Semitic root ṣ-b-r "sparrow" > proto-Germanic *sparwo "sparrow" (b>p), compare Akkadian ṣibaru "sparrow"

Semitic root g-l-d "clot" > proto-Germanic *klutto "clot" (g>k & d>t), compare Hebrew root ג ל ד (g-l-d) and Arabic root ج ل ط (j-l-t).

Semitic root k-r-y "hire" > proto-Germanic *xuriyo "hire" (k>x), compare Arabic kiraya "hire, rent"

Semitic root k-l-l "whole" > proto-Germanic *xailo "whole" (k>x), compare Akkadian kalu "whole"

Semitic root d-r-g "track" > proto-Germanic *trako "track" (d>t & g>k), compare Akkadian daraggu "path, track"

Semitic root p-r-q "fright" > proto-Germanic *furxtaz "fright" (p>f & k>x), compare Arabic fariqa "fright"

Semtic root p-r-h "happy" > proto-Germanic *frawaz "happy" (p>f), compare Arabic farah "glad, happy, merry" and German froh and English frolic

my #24 post is a bit out of work, because what is of worth is the regularly reconstructed forms in front of supposed PIE. That said, all that is reconstruction is partly a guess and we are not sure the evolution of every family of IE has taken place directly from common PIE just after dispersion; in the case of Germanic, the Grimm law mutations occurred seemingly very late, when the language was already separated from the common trunk since a long time, with already a specific evolution.
I believe in the PIE existance. But some weird reconstructions are maybe due to the supposition that every family of language went its way directly from this common stock. It could have been very more complicated, and language shift have surely made their work.
in your example where you present Germanic "cognates" of Semitic words (some are dubtful), we cannot be sure some Semitic words are not themselves loans made by Semitic speakers, loans to a third language.
SO we have some words whose deep origin we don't know about, some words whose sure far origin cannot tell us through what way they arrived into Germanic and maybe some hazard results. It would be very hard to base the geographic origin of proto-Germanics on these words, loans or not.
What I think is true is that some tendancies can produce their effects more than a time, spite the opposition of structure to too fast drastic changes and spite some results of mutations become fixed. It's possible that some phonetical tendancies remained among pops of Central Europe, and that they imposed themselves by time upon some acquired IE dialects; ATW history of Germanic seems very complicated.
@others:
CWC could be the cause of links with Satem dialects of North (see the B. Sergent 's affirmation that the first dialects in NW Europe would have been "Indo-Iranian"like! This doesn't exclude later exchanges with Baltic), but doesn't seem to me the giver of proto-Germanic which I see as a Central Europe IE dialect close to Pan-Italic (which would have been spoken as far north as Belgium/The Netherlands), maybe tied later to subsequent Venetic language: it seems Italics are somewhat more close to Germanics than are Celtics...
here I think at loud voice: my mind is not definitely made, it 's so fuzzy.
&: add some salt and pepper, and a strong non-IE substratum of North (Y-I1?) -