IMO: Germanic was VERY widespread during the Roman Empire
2.7182818284590...
Slavic language was only introduced to the Balkans around the end of
the Roman Empire (around 500 AD). I'm convinced that prior to the
expansion of Slavic languages, that Germanic languages were spoken in
abundance in Central Europe in areas like Hungary, Poland, Czech
Republic, Western Ukraine, Belarus, etc.
What do you think about this?
From Wikipedia: "It is now believed that South Slavs came to the
Balkans in two streams, and that between them was a large non-Slavic
population of Romance-speaking Vlachs from the remnants of the old
Roman Empire."
Panu
wrote:
> IMO: Germanic was VERY widespread during the Roman Empire
>
> Slavic language was only introduced to the Balkans around the end of
> the Roman Empire (around 500 AD). I'm convinced that prior to the
> expansion of Slavic languages, that Germanic languages were spoken in
> abundance in Central Europe in areas like Hungary, Poland, Czech
> Republic, Western Ukraine, Belarus, etc.
>
> What do you think about this?
For starters, you obviously have no idea of the presence of
Continental Celtic in what is now Czech Republic. The very name
Bohemia refers to the Celtic tribe of Boii.
PaulJK
And the same applies for the name of Bavaria.
pjk
hazchem
> IMO: Germanic was VERY widespread during the Roman Empire
>
> Slavic language was only introduced to the Balkans around the end of
> the Roman Empire (around 500 AD). I'm convinced that prior to the
> expansion of Slavic languages, that Germanic languages were spoken in
> abundance in Central Europe in areas like Hungary, Poland, Czech
> Republic, Western Ukraine, Belarus, etc.
>
> What do you think about this?
>
before they moved into northern Italy. Goths and Vandals occupied
parts of eastern Europe like Poland and Ukraine.
There is a theory that the Belgae tribe were at least in part
Germanic. Apparently they settled parts of Britain. Maybe a Germanic
tongue was spoken in parts of Britain at the time of the Roman
invasion.
DKleinecke
The precise relationship between the Germanic tribes and the Celtic
tribes before, say, 200 BC does not seem to ever have been worked out
in any great detail. However it is not a linguistic problem, at least
not so far as Germanic (that part for which there are surviving
records) and insular Celtic are concerned. We have no way to be sure
how much continental Celtic may have borrowed from Germanic. Since the
Celts appear to have been culturally dominant there is likely to have
been very little borrowing into Celtic. Conversely the surviving
Germans were located well behind the front lines during the time of
Celtic domination and may have rejected Celtic borrowing
hypothetically made by tribes closer to the Celts.
But all this is pure speculation. So far as I know there is very
little evidence of post-PIE interaction between the Germans and the
Celts.
Trond Engen
[Context irrelevant for my comment]
> The precise relationship between the Germanic tribes and the Celtic
> tribes before, say, 200 BC does not seem to ever have been worked out
> in any great detail. However it is not a linguistic problem, at least
> not so far as Germanic (that part for which there are surviving
> records) and insular Celtic are concerned. We have no way to be sure
> how much continental Celtic may have borrowed from Germanic. Since
> the Celts appear to have been culturally dominant there is likely to
> have been very little borrowing into Celtic. Conversely the surviving
> Germans were located well behind the front lines during the time of
> Celtic domination and may have rejected Celtic borrowing
> hypothetically made by tribes closer to the Celts.
>
> But all this is pure speculation. So far as I know there is very
> little evidence of post-PIE interaction between the Germans and the
> Celts.
There are Celtic loanwords in Germanic, mainly in the military-political
sphere. Best known, perhaps, is the rich-word that even yielded the
onomastic suffix -rik.
--
Trond Engen
2.7182818284590...
The two groups lived side-by-side for a while.
2.7182818284590...
> Germanic. Apparently they settled parts of Britain. Maybe a Germanic
> tongue was spoken in parts of Britain at the time of the Roman
> invasion.
Without a doubt, a Germanic tongue *IS* being spoken in Britain now,
called ENGLISH! Albania became AngleLand due to Germans named Angles,
Saxons, and Jutes. These Germans displaced Celtic languages some
times after 410 AD.
2.7182818284590...
> Continental Celtic in what is now Czech Republic. The very name
> Bohemia refers to the Celtic tribe of Boii.
I'm keenly aware of the Celtics and how much territory that they
occuped in Europe! They lived around the Rhine River around modern
day Czech Republic! They inhabited all of England, lots of Poland,
and other areas.
Peter T. Daniels
I.e., NOT at the time of the Roman invasion. Not until after the
Romans were long gone.
Joachim Pense
There is one famous Celtic borrowing in Germanic, which is the name
suffix -rix (King, cf Vercingetorix), which became -rich in Germanic (cf
Heinrich and the word Reich).
Joachim
Panu
> > For starters, you obviously have no idea of the presence of
> > Continental Celtic in what is now Czech Republic. The very name
> > Bohemia refers to the Celtic tribe of Boii.
>
> I'm keenly aware of the Celtics
The CELTS, you mean. The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
Yusuf B Gursey
or a basketball team in Boston, MA, USA
Panu
I see. Are they a historically Irish-immigrant team, like the Glasgow
Celtics?
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
>There is one famous Celtic borrowing in Germanic, which is the name
>suffix -rix (King, cf Vercingetorix), which became -rich in Germanic (cf
>Heinrich and the word Reich).
And the Dutch name of France: Frankrijk.
So France is a now a Romance-speaking country with a mixed Germanic
and Celtic name!
One more reason for the European parliament and other international
bodies to be in Strassbourg!
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu
noesy_parker
de6054...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
No, Celtics are the basketball team. The football team in Glasgow is
Celtic.
Peter T. Daniels
> Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:22affe7b-febd-4892-896a-
> de605488b...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
>
> No, Celtics are the basketball team. The football team in Glasgow is
> Celtic.
Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the hoopsters
have /s/.)
BTW today is James Naismith's birthday.
Harlan Messinger
Or a basketball team in Boston.
Panu
> Could you please give me some Celtic Loanwords in German?
You were already given one: Reich. But you'll find more in the first
chapter of any respectable book about the history of German.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Nov 6, 9:05 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 1:20 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 3:21 am, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > For starters, you obviously have no idea of the presence of
> > > > > Continental Celtic in what is now Czech Republic. The very name
> > > > > Bohemia refers to the Celtic tribe of Boii.
>
> > > > I'm keenly aware of the Celtics
>
> > > The CELTS, you mean. The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
well, in my native country football is what you mean by it, but since
there are a lot of American English Speakers here let's call it soccer
to avoid confusion.
>
> > or a basketball team in Boston, MA, USA
>
> I see. Are they a historically Irish-immigrant team, like the Glasgow
> Celtics?
since Boston is known for its large Irish immigrant community I would
presume so. they are a well known basketball team.
Christian Weisgerber
> Could you please give me some Celtic Loanwords in German?
The words "reich"/"rich" and "Eisen"/"iron" are generally considered
to be loans from Celtic into Common Germanic. Don Ringe wrote an
in-depth explanation of the underlying reasoning here:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1012
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Athel Cornish-Bowden
/s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise starts
/k/ in British usage.
--
athel
Yusuf B Gursey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_F.C.
<<
The Celtic Football Club (pronounced /ˈsɛltɪk/) (LSE: CCP) is a
Scottish football club based in the Parkhead area of Glasgow, which
currently plays in the Scottish Premier League.
>>
in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic
many of the sports clubs are listed under /ˈsɛltɪk/ (incl. two in N.
Ireland)
Pronounced /ˈsɛltɪk/
Celtic F.C. - Scottish football club
Boston Celtics - American professional basketball team
Celtic - the Secret Service codename for US vice president, Joe Biden
Celt (tool) - a type of stone tool
Belfast Celtic - former Irish/Northern Irish football club
Bloemfontein Celtic - South African football club
Dewsbury Celtic - English rugby League club
Donegal Celtic - Northern Irish football team
Farsley Celtic A.F.C. - English football club
Lurgan Celtic Football Club - Northern Irish football club
Oban Celtic - Scottish shinty club
Stalybridge Celtic F.C. - English football club
under /ˈkɛltɪk/ the only sports clubs are:
Crusaders Rugby League, a Welsh rugby league club previously known as
"Celtic Crusaders".
Celtic League (rugby union)
Yusuf B Gursey
> Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:22affe7b-febd-4892-896a-
> de605488b...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> No, Celtics are the basketball team. The football team in Glasgow is
> Celtic.
you are right (from Wikipedia)
Trond Engen
> Could you please give me some Celtic Loanwords in German?
>
> The two groups lived side-by-side for a while.
_Annotated list of Celtic loanwords, and possible Celtic loanwords, in
Proto-Germanic_:
<http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt-loans.pdf>
(Anonymous, but found on the professional webpage of professor Anthony
Kroch at University of Pennsylvania)
As you'll see, there's doubt about several of the words. The author of
this document seems to be rather careful with attributing them to Celtic.
--
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
> 2.7182818284590...:
>
> > Could you please give me some Celtic Loanwords in German?
>
> > The two groups lived side-by-side for a while.
>
> _Annotated list of Celtic loanwords, and possible Celtic loanwords, in
> Proto-Germanic_:
>
>
> (Anonymous, but found on the professional webpage of professor Anthony
> Kroch at University of Pennsylvania)
The ringe- in the url strongly suggests it's by Don Ringe.
> As you'll see, there's doubt about several of the words. The author of
> this document seems to be rather careful with attributing them to Celtic.
Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical phonology
of Germanic, published quite recently?
Trond Engen
> On Nov 6, 1:13 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>> 2.7182818284590...:
>>
>>> Could you please give me some Celtic Loanwords in German?
>>> The two groups lived side-by-side for a while.
>> _Annotated list of Celtic loanwords, and possible Celtic loanwords,
>> in Proto-Germanic_:
>>
>> <http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt...>
>>
>> (Anonymous, but found on the professional webpage of professor
>> Anthony Kroch at University of Pennsylvania)
>
> The ringe- in the url strongly suggests it's by Don Ringe.
Yes it does. I should've seen that (but I'm a native Sloven and miss
obvious clues). Editing the url, I find this page:
<http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/>
I know what I'll be doing tonight.
>> As you'll see, there's doubt about several of the words. The author
>> of this document seems to be rather careful with attributing them to
>> Celtic.
>
> Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical
> phonology of Germanic, published quite recently?
Contemporary, I'd say, since they're "ringe-handouts-09" and "Germanic
Phonology" is a sister document.
--
Trond Engen
Christian Weisgerber
> <http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt-loans.pdf>
>
> (Anonymous, but found on the professional webpage of professor Anthony
> Kroch at University of Pennsylvania)
Presumably the author is Kroch's colleague Don Ringe.
Brian M. Scott
<tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in
<news:hd21h0$anv$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
> Peter T. Daniels:
[...]
>> Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical
>> phonology of Germanic, published quite recently?
> Contemporary, I'd say, since they're "ringe-handouts-09"
> and "Germanic Phonology" is a sister document.
Both 'Germanic morphology' and 'Germanic phonology' are very
reminiscent of the book, and the latter even cites it.
Brian
Yusuf B Gursey
> Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
> > <http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt...>
>
> > (Anonymous, but found on the professional webpage of professor Anthony
> > Kroch at University of Pennsylvania)
>
> Presumably the author is Kroch's colleague Don Ringe.
yes, they are in the same department:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/faculty.html
erilar
<22affe7b-febd-4892...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Panu <craoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The CELTS, you mean. The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
And a basketball team in Boston.
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
DKleinecke
If Germanic -rich is really a borrowing from Celtic and not a
continuation of PIE root (I am not up to suggesting one) then it is a
very interesting one. Sort of proves what I said about the Celts being
dominant (here specicially politically).
DKleinecke
I see that there a good list of possible Celtic loan words into
Germanic. Now, conversely, what about Germanic loanwords in Celtic -
in the old days, of course, say before the Christian era began. What
I am trying to measure is the extent and nature of the Celtic
domination over the Germans. It would be very interesting to know what
was going on in central Europe about 1000 BCE or even later.
PaulJK
It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
pjk
Joachim Pense
There is a PIE root (that also led to Latin rex, and - although that is
AFAIK debated - of Skr. raja), but nevertheless rich is said to be a loan
from Celtic. Someone gave a link elsewhere in this thread.
Joachim
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I wonder if the C spelling arose because the letter c is always (I
think) /k/ in Welsh and Irish. The /s/ pronunciation seems natural for
anyone meeting the word for the first time in writing. (Indeed, there
are probably some who don't realize that the /selt/ they hear is the
same word as the "Celt" they read.)
--
athel
Christian Weisgerber
["Celtic"]
> >> Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
> >> trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the hoopsters
> >> have /s/.)
> >
> > /s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise starts
> > /k/ in British usage.
>
> It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
Now that you mention it, it's weird that Latin "Celta" gives "Kelte"
in German with initial k- rather than z-. The only other example
I can think of immediately is Cyrillic/"Kyrillisch", but presumably
that involves Greek.
Actually, "Celtae" is latinized from Greek "Keltoi" (Herodotus),
so that may have something to do with it.
Trond Engen
Here's a tidbit from _Germanic morphology_ (2. Loss of aspect) p. 6:
(carrying the notation over as beat I can)
[quote]
In any case, the only imperfect that survived was the imperfect of
‘put’. The indicative singular forms developed as follows by regular
sound change:
PIE *dHédHeh1m = *[dHédHēm] ‘I was putting’ (cf. Skt. ádadHām, Gk.
ετίθην /etítHę:n/, both with the “augment” prefix) > *dedę: > *dedą: >
PGmc. *dedǫ ‘I did’ (cf. OS deda, OHG teta) and weak past 1sg. *-dǫ (cf.
Goth. -da, Runic Norse -do, ON -ða, OE -de, OS -da, OHG -ta);
PIE *dHédHeh1s ‘you were putting’ (cf. Skt. ádadHās, Gk. ετίθης
/etíthę:s/) > PGmc. *dedēz ‘you did’ (the ending of OS dedōs has been
remodelled) and weak past 1sg. *-dēz (cf. Goth. -des, ON -ðir; OE
-des(t), etc. exhibit remodelling);
PIE *dHédHeh1d ‘(s)he was putting’ (cf. Skt. ádadHāt, Gk. ετίθη
/etítHę:/) > PGmc. *dedē ‘(s)he did’ (cf. OS deda, OHG teta, probably
with remodelling) and weak past 1sg. *-dē (cf. Goth. -da, ON -ði, OE
-de, OS -da, OHG -ta).
Native learners reinterpreted the reduplicated sequence *ded- as the
root of the verb and introduced a long *ē into the nonsingular
indicative and the modal forms, apparently applying the rule appropriate
to strong verbs of class V. (This change must have happened
comparatively late in the development of PGmc.) The 3pl. indicative
illustrates this development:
PIE 3pl. *dHédHh1n.d ‘they were putting’ (cf. Av. dadat; Skt. ádadHur
has replaced the ending) > *dedun → PGmc. *dēdun ‘they did’ (cf. OS
dādun, OHG tātun) and weak past 3pl. *-dēdun (cf. Goth. -dedun).
Why this one imperfect survived is not known, but its survival had
important consequences for Germanic verb inflection, since it is the
source of the indicative 3pl. ending for all past tenses and of the weak
past tense suffix.
[/quote]
[1sg. in the two latter of three subsequent paragraphs must be a typo
for 2sg and 3sg, respectively.]
My point: Occam's recut of the last paragraph: "The imperfect survived
because the verb was grammaticized as an auxiliary."
--
Trond Engen
Yusuf B Gursey
> PaulJK <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> ["Celtic"]
>
> > >> Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
> > >> trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the hoopsters
> > >> have /s/.)
>
> > > /s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise starts
> > > /k/ in British usage.
>
> > It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
>
> Now that you mention it, it's weird that Latin "Celta" gives "Kelte"
> in German with initial k- rather than z-. The only other example
> I can think of immediately is Cyrillic/"Kyrillisch", but presumably
> that involves Greek.
how about Caesar / Kaiser . I guess that invovels a literary loan.
Joachim Pense
> On Nov 7, 10:16 am, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>> PaulJK <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>> ["Celtic"]
>>
>> > >> Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
>> > >> trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the
>> > >> hoopsters have /s/.)
>>
>> > > /s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise
>> > > starts /k/ in British usage.
>>
>> > It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
>>
>> Now that you mention it, it's weird that Latin "Celta" gives "Kelte"
>> in German with initial k- rather than z-. The only other example
>> I can think of immediately is Cyrillic/"Kyrillisch", but presumably
>> that involves Greek.
>
> how about Caesar / Kaiser . I guess that invovels a literary loan.
>
There is also Cista / Kiste (box). Maybe less literary. BTW, why
should "Caesar" have been literary, that word was surely used very often?
Joachim
Yusuf B Gursey
I guessed so because I was told it was irregular. perhaps the Emperors
wanted to stick to Classical Latin for their titles!
>
> Joachim
Trond Engen
> Brian M. Scott:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:39:18 +0100, Trond Engen
>> <tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in
>> <news:hd21h0$anv$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
>>
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical
>>>> phonology of Germanic, published quite recently?
>>
>>> Contemporary, I'd say, since they're "ringe-handouts-09"
>>> and "Germanic Phonology" is a sister document.
>>
>> Both 'Germanic morphology' and 'Germanic phonology' are very
>> reminiscent of the book, and the latter even cites it.
>
> Here's a tidbit from _Germanic morphology_ (2. Loss of aspect) p. 6:
The short _Morphological innovations shared by Germanic and other
subgroups of IE_ seems to be part of a case made for an IE subgrouping
consisting of Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (and
possibly Armenian and Albanian but all evidence either way is lost). It
would mean that after Anatolian and Tocharian, the next group to branch
off was Italo-Celtic (or both of them).
I can't see that there's anything on this in his _From
Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic_, or at least nothing that has
made it into the table of contents in the Amazon preview. Is there an
even more recent treatment somewhere?
--
Trond Engen
António Marques
> Trond Engen:
>
>
>
> > Brian M. Scott:
>
> >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:39:18 +0100, Trond Engen
Pardon me - is Italo-Celtic still supported by most researchers? II
and BS, aiui, are quite solid, but no other branch groupings have been
universally recognised, and I was under the impression that IC had
come into serious doubt. But this is by no means a subject I know much
about.
Trond Engen
> On Nov 8, 11:50 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
> [on handouts on Germanic (presumedly) by Don Ringe:]
>
>> The short _Morphological innovations shared by Germanic and other
>> subgroups of IE_ seems to be part of a case made for an IE
>> subgrouping consisting of Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranian and
>> Balto-Slavic (and possibly Armenian and Albanian but all evidence
>> either way is lost). It would mean that after Anatolian and
>> Tocharian, the next group to branch off was Italo-Celtic (or both of
>> them).
>>
>> I can't see that there's anything on this in his _From
>> Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic_, or at least nothing that has
>> made it into the table of contents in the Amazon preview. Is there
>> an even more recent treatment somewhere?
>
> Pardon me - is Italo-Celtic still supported by most researchers? II
> and BS, aiui, are quite solid, but no other branch groupings have
> been universally recognised, and I was under the impression that IC
> had come into serious doubt. But this is by no means a subject I know
> much about.
I'm not sure. They group together by lacking these innovations. I don't
know if there's more to it than that. It's one of the things I'd like to
read about.
FWIW, it seems to fit with Anthony's mainly archaeologically based view,
that an offshoot of the Kurgan culture into the Pannonian basin
eventually gave rise to Italic and Celtic, and that what were to become
the other younger branches still interacted on the Pontic steppe.
"Pontic" and "Pannonian" IE? But it's not a complete fit -- I seem to
remember that he had Greek and Armenian in Southern Balkan by then.
--
Trond Engen
Joachim Pense
>
> Pardon me - is Italo-Celtic still supported by most researchers? II
> and BS, aiui, are quite solid, but no other branch groupings have been
> universally recognised, and I was under the impression that IC had
> come into serious doubt. But this is by no means a subject I know much
> about.
What are the current view on separating the augment-languages (II, Greek,
Armenian, Phrygian IIRC) as a group?
Joachim
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk
> On Nov 5, 8:16 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > These Germans displaced Celtic languages some times after 410 AD.
> I.e., NOT at the time of the Roman invasion. Not until after the
> Romans were long gone.
You both seem to be claiming that Germanic wasn't spoken in Britain
until after 410AD. Is there any evidence for that assertion? It was
once accepted doctrine, but has now been challenged. Stephen
Oppenheimer covers it in great detail in "Origins of the British".
Oppenheimer is a geneticist by trade so his analysis of the linguistic
and archaeological evidence isn't flawless, but it's worth a read. Off
the top of my head Oppenheimer's argument boils down to this:
1. Genetic evidence proves that genes moved from Scandinavia/Germany
to east England starting from some early date, off teh top of my head
I think 700BC. To Oppenheimer this is the most important evidence. The
rest is all just in support of the genetics.
2. There are no non-Latin inscriptions in south-east England before
AD600, after which Germanic but not Celtic ones appear.
3. Roman authors mention that the Belgae on the south coast of Britain
speak the same language as the Belgae immediately across the English
Channel, and analysis of De Bello Gallico leads Oppenheimer to
conclude that these northern Belgae spoke Germanic (while southern
Belgae spoke Celtic; the Belgae were an alliance of mixed peoples).
4. The coast of south-east England was called _Litus Saxonicum_ "Saxon
Coast" in late antiquity. This has traditionally been taken to mean
that Saxon sailors raided it, but another (not mutually exclusive)
theory is that Saxon sailors traded on it and had permanent trade
bases. To support this, Oppenheimer claims that archaeological
structures traditionally interpreted as Roman forts are really Roman
storehouses for coastal trade.
5. There are few or no place-names in south-east England with
plausible Celtic etymologies.
6. Therefore the only evidence for Celtic languages ever existing in
south-east England comes from personal names like Boudicca and
Cogidumnus. But this would be like claiming that all the people in
England today with names of Hebrew origin proves that the English
speak Semitic.
7. The name Badon Hill is from the Germanic root in English _bath_,
proving very early Germanic penetration into southern England.
On this basis, Oppenheimer proposes that Celtic languages were never
spoken in south-east England, and that Germanic arrived centuries
before the Romans. I should stress that this is Oppenheimer's work,
not mine, and that I'm repeating it from memory some years after
reading it. You would do best to read the book, "Origins of the
British".
Samuel
Christian Weisgerber
> > > how about Caesar / Kaiser . I guess that invovels a literary loan.
> >
> > There is also Cista / Kiste (box). Maybe less literary. BTW, why
> > should "Caesar" have been literary, that word was surely used very often?
>
> I guessed so because I was told it was irregular. perhaps the Emperors
> wanted to stick to Classical Latin for their titles!
I think "Kaiser" and "Kiste" are considered early loans from Latin
preceding the palatalization of initial c- before front vowels and
the monophthongization of ae. I seem to remember that this puts
the borrowing of Caesar > Kaiser into a very narrow time window,
but I now can't find the putative time of the sound changes in
Vulgar Latin.
"Caesar" /'tsE:zar/ follows the traditional German pronunciation
of Latin.
Trond Engen
In every other piece I read on IE there seems to be a mention of either
Indo-Iranian, Armenian or Phrygian as the closest relative of Greek, but
I've never seen a claim that they're all grouped together. I don't know
why not. Or why, for that matter.
Of course, if the augment is an archaism rather than an innovation, it's
of limited value as evidence. But then, what is the current view on that?
--
Trond Engen
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 6, 3:26 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 9:05 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 1:20 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 6, 3:21 am, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > For starters, you obviously have no idea of the presence of
> > > > > > Continental Celtic in what is now Czech Republic. The very name
> > > > > > Bohemia refers to the Celtic tribe of Boii.
>
> > > > > I'm keenly aware of the Celtics
>
> > > > The CELTS, you mean. The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
>
> well, in my native country football is what you mean by it, but since
> there are a lot of American English Speakers here let's call it soccer
> to avoid confusion.
What do British English speakers call American football to avoid
confusion? Why not "rugger" rather than "American football"?
Yusuf B Gursey
Richard Herring
<0d9c517a-b821-42ae...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> writes
"American football", of course.
> Why not "rugger" rather than "American football"?
Because that means "Rugby Union" or "Rugby League", two entirely
different games.
--
Richard Herring
Yusuf B Gursey
> * Richard Herring wrote:
> > In message
> > <0d9c517a-b821-42ae-9e68-82d3c032a...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >>What do British English speakers call American football to avoid
> >>confusion?
>
> > "American football", of course.
>
> >> Why not "rugger" rather than "American football"?
>
> > Because that means "Rugby Union" or "Rugby League", two entirely
> > different games.
>
> "football" and (any style of) rugby look rather similar, whereas
> Association football bears more superficial resemblance to Team Handball
> or Field Hockey than to those.
>
> I did ask myself the question before why it's "American football" rather
> than "American rugby". I seem to remember that the reason is that
> "football" is what the people who started it were calling that which we
> call rugby (or "rugby football").
>
> Sorry, this is a question better suited for alt.usage.english than
> sci.lang.
not so far off-topic than some other posts. I found it interesting.
thanks.
>
> --
DKleinecke
Back around 1910 American Football was considered too rough and the
big California Colleges - Cal and Stanford - played rugby instead of
American Football. According to my father one year the New Zealand All-
Blacks (I believe they still exist) came to California on a tour and
walloped the tar out of the American teams. The next year all the New
Zealanders turned up as freshmen at Stanford.
My father was neutral - he attended neither school. He was, however,
a bit cynical.
Christian Weisgerber
> I did ask myself the question before why it's "American football" rather
> than "American rugby". I seem to remember that the reason is that
> "football" is what the people who started it were calling that which we
> call rugby (or "rugby football").
Wikipedia has the history in excruciating detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Establishment_of_modern_codes
John Atkinson
(Apparently because of the way the field is marked.)
J.
Peter T. Daniels
But that's because you have that curious pastime called "Australian
rules football" or "Ozzie football" or, apparently, "footie," which in
the US is a kind of pajama (UK: pyjamas).
--
For a few weeks here in New York a UHF station carried ESPN4 (or
something like that), and it had a _lot_ of Ozzie football. It was
even more incomprehensible than American football, but the costumes
were fetching and the umpires (linesmen?) were epicene.
John Atkinson
> On Nov 16, 10:06 pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 11:17 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>> well, in my native country football is what you mean by it, but since
>>>> there are a lot of American English Speakers here let's call it soccer
>>>> to avoid confusion.
>>
>>> What do British English speakers call American football to avoid
>>> confusion? Why not "rugger" rather than "American football"?
>>
>> Not sure about the Brits, but here in Oz we always call it "gridiron".
>> (Apparently because of the way the field is marked.)
>
> But that's because you have that curious pastime called "Australian
> rules football" or "Ozzie football" or, apparently, "footie," which in
> the US is a kind of pajama (UK: pyjamas).
>
Eh? Why "because"? Your logic escapes me.
The term "gridiron" is used everywhere in Australia for the yank game,
not just in the places in the south and west where Aussie Rules is
traditionally played.
And the abbreviation "footie" is the standard term used for Rugby League
by its supporters in the states where League's the dominant code, just
as it is for Rules in the AFL states.
[...]
J.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 10:06 pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Nov 6, 11:17 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> well, in my native country football is what you mean by it, but since
> >>>> there are a lot of American English Speakers here let's call it soccer
> >>>> to avoid confusion.
>
> >>> What do British English speakers call American football to avoid
> >>> confusion? Why not "rugger" rather than "American football"?
>
> >> Not sure about the Brits, but here in Oz we always call it "gridiron".
> >> (Apparently because of the way the field is marked.)
>
> > But that's because you have that curious pastime called "Australian
> > rules football" or "Ozzie football" or, apparently, "footie," which in
> > the US is a kind of pajama (UK: pyjamas).
>
> Eh? Why "because"? Your logic escapes me.
Because the word "football" is used for something else.
> The term "gridiron" is used everywhere in Australia for the yank game,
> not just in the places in the south and west where Aussie Rules is
> traditionally played.
Yet even in the north and east, they have _heard_ of the game.
> And the abbreviation "footie" is the standard term used for Rugby League
> by its supporters in the states where League's the dominant code, just
> as it is for Rules in the AFL states.
You have such a he-man image [which is what makes the costumes so
fetching -- the short-shorts are even shorter than, and certainly
tighter than, the uniforms that used to be worn by pro basketball
players here] yet you talk such baby talk!
erilar
Oliver Cromm <lispa...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> I did ask myself the question before why it's "American football" rather
> than "American rugby". I seem to remember that the reason is that
> "football" is what the people who started it were calling that which we
> call rugby (or "rugby football").
Well, you use feet and a funny-shaped ball for ours(US) and for rugby,
soccer, etc. We don't use feet except to kick it here, however.
"Football" strikes me as a more appropriate name for soccer, but I knew
nothing but US "football" when I was young. It's pervasive here.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
John Atkinson
> On Nov 17, 2:15 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 10:06 pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 6, 11:17 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> well, in my native country football is what you mean by it, but since
>>>>>> there are a lot of American English Speakers here let's call it soccer
>>>>>> to avoid confusion.
>>
>>>>> What do British English speakers call American football to avoid
>>>>> confusion? Why not "rugger" rather than "American football"?
>>
>>>> Not sure about the Brits, but here in Oz we always call it "gridiron".
>>>> (Apparently because of the way the field is marked.)
>>
>>> But that's because you have that curious pastime called "Australian
>>> rules football" or "Ozzie football" or, apparently, "footie," which in
>>> the US is a kind of pajama (UK: pyjamas).
>>
>> Eh? Why "because"? Your logic escapes me.
>
> Because the word "football" is used for something else.
>>
The dictionary definition of "football" is "An open-air game played by
two sides, each of which endeavours to kick or carry the ball to the
goal [sic!] of the other; an inflated ball used in the game."
I haven't noticed it being used for anything else here -- not even
something people wear in bed.
>>
>> The term "gridiron" is used everywhere in Australia for the yank game,
>> not just in the places in the south and west where Aussie Rules is
>> traditionally played.
>
> Yet even in the north and east, they have _heard_ of the game.
>
Yes, everywhere in Australia there are people who've _heard_ of American
football. That's why we have a name for it, even in "the north and east".
It may seem strange to you, but we also have names for the various other
varieties of the game too, such as "union", "league", "aerial
ping-pong", and "the round-ball game" (meaning soccer, not gaelic
football -- AFAIK, we don't have a special name for the latter, even
though it's at least as well known here as the kind you play, and
generally considered a much more enjoyable game to watch than yours).
[...]
J.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 2:15 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Nov 16, 10:06 pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 6, 11:17 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>>> well, in my native country football is what you mean by it, but since
> >>>>>> there are a lot of American English Speakers here let's call it soccer
> >>>>>> to avoid confusion.
>
> >>>>> What do British English speakers call American football to avoid
> >>>>> confusion? Why not "rugger" rather than "American football"?
>
> >>>> Not sure about the Brits, but here in Oz we always call it "gridiron".
> >>>> (Apparently because of the way the field is marked.)
>
> >>> But that's because you have that curious pastime called "Australian
> >>> rules football" or "Ozzie football" or, apparently, "footie," which in
> >>> the US is a kind of pajama (UK: pyjamas).
>
> >> Eh? Why "because"? Your logic escapes me.
>
> > Because the word "football" is used for something else.
>
> Like what? I've no idea what your "something else" might be.
You call (American) football "gridiron" because its real name,
"football," is used for something else that is peculiar to Australia.
> The dictionary definition of "football" is "An open-air game played by
> two sides, each of which endeavours to kick or carry the ball to the
> goal [sic!] of the other; an inflated ball used in the game."
>
> I haven't noticed it being used for anything else here -- not even
> something people wear in bed.
That description is vague enough to refer to _all_ the games in
question -- rugby, soccer, football, and Australian Rules Football.
"Footies" is American for pajamas whose legs end with socks. They are
worn by small children.
> >> The term "gridiron" is used everywhere in Australia for the yank game,
> >> not just in the places in the south and west where Aussie Rules is
> >> traditionally played.
>
> > Yet even in the north and east, they have _heard_ of the game.
>
> Yes, everywhere in Australia there are people who've _heard_ of American
> football. That's why we have a name for it, even in "the north and east".
That's why you have the special name "gridiron" for the American game,
even where Australian Rules Football is not played, because even where
Australian Rules Football is not played, the word "football" is
already occupied being the name for Australian Rules Football.
> It may seem strange to you, but we also have names for the various other
> varieties of the game too, such as "union", "league", "aerial
> ping-pong", and "the round-ball game" (meaning soccer, not gaelic
Some of those look like nicknames.
> football -- AFAIK, we don't have a special name for the latter, even
> though it's at least as well known here as the kind you play, and
> generally considered a much more enjoyable game to watch than yours).
You just _refuse_ to acknowledge that your football players look good
in, and love to show off in, their extremely abbreviated outfits!
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:f324436e-cb4d-4927...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Nov 17, 7:23�pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 2:15 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 16, 10:06 pm, John Atkinson
>>>>> <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>> What do British English speakers call American
>>>>>>> football to avoid confusion? Why not "rugger"
>>>>>>> rather than "American football"?
Because it isn't rugger: that's a term sometimes used for
(rugby) union.
>>>>>> Not sure about the Brits, but here in Oz we always
>>>>>> call it "gridiron". (Apparently because of the way
>>>>>> the field is marked.)
I've also seen the term 'gridiron (football)' used to cover
Canadian football, which, though played on a gridiron, is a
little different from American football. Mind you, I
imagine that the American version is a little more salient
in Oz.
>>>>> But that's because you have that curious pastime
>>>>> called "Australian rules football" or "Ozzie
>>>>> football" or, apparently, "footie," which in the US
>>>>> is a kind of pajama (UK: pyjamas).
>>>> Eh? �Why "because"? �Your logic escapes me.
>>> Because the word "football" is used for something else.
>> Like what? �I've no idea what your "something else" might be.
> You call (American) football "gridiron" because its real
> name, "football," is used for something else that is
> peculiar to Australia.
I believe that in parts of Australia 'football' and 'footy'
are most likely to refer to rugby league, and in New Zealand
the terms are used as cover terms for rugby in general.
>> The dictionary definition of "football" is "An open-air
>> game played by two sides, each of which endeavours to
>> kick or carry the ball to the goal [sic!] of the other;
>> an inflated ball used in the game."
>> I haven't noticed it being used for anything else here --
>> not even something people wear in bed.
> That description is vague enough to refer to _all_ the
> games in question -- rugby, soccer, football, and
> Australian Rules Football.
You left out a few; even ignoring minor variants, the games
in question include rugby league football, rugby union
football, association football, American football, Canadian
football, Australian rules football, and Gaelic football.
It refers to all of them for the very good reason that all
of them are forms of football.
> "Footies" is American for pajamas whose legs end with
> socks. They are worn by small children.
Footies are also low-cut socks.
[...]
>> It may seem strange to you, but we also have names for
>> the various other varieties of the game too, such as
>> "union", "league", "aerial ping-pong", and "the
>> round-ball game" (meaning soccer, not gaelic
> Some of those look like nicknames.
'Union' and 'league' are simply short forms of 'rugby union
football' and 'rugby league football'; they're no more
nicknames than 'soccer' is. The other two of course are, on
all fours with 'roundball' and 'bucketball' as mildly
disparaging terms for basketball.
[...]
Brian
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:46:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Indeed. And (as I noted here in a discussion of these terms a couple
of years ago), Aussie Rules (more formally referred to as "AFL
(football)") is as distant, exotic and faintly ridiculous to New
Zealanders as "gridiron". Yet the latter term is the normal one here
to specify the North American variety (differences between American
and Canadian being hardly visible to the naked eye). It never struck
me as odd because I'm sure it was used by sports writers in North
America, and I had known it all my life.
Ross Clark
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Hm, yes, I guess the short shorts and sleeveless jerseys do give it a
certain distinctive look. But I thought you were referring to those
funny little men on the sidelines in their peculiar white jackets and
hats, who appear from time to time and make ritualistic gestures
apparently full of deep significance for the game. Those, to me, are
the cherry on top of the Strangeness that is AFL.
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
<news:e2f78443-3bf4-4ee7...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Nov 18, 12:28�am, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
>> You have such a he-man image [which is what makes the
>> costumes so fetching -- the short-shorts are even
>> shorter than, and certainly tighter than, the uniforms
>> that used to be worn by pro basketball players here] yet
>> you talk such baby talk!
> Hm, yes, I guess the short shorts and sleeveless jerseys
> do give it a certain distinctive look. But I thought you
> were referring to those funny little men on the sidelines
> in their peculiar white jackets and hats, who appear from
> time to time and make ritualistic gestures apparently
> full of deep significance for the game. Those, to me, are
> the cherry on top of the Strangeness that is AFL.
Ah, but has any of them ever sported as splendid a name as
the English cricket umpire Dickie Bird?
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
For the playing field, not for the game. ("He's a king on the
gridiron!") (Not that I ever pay attention to sports reports, except
for baseball.)
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
Those are the ones I referred to as epicene (umpires? linesmen?).
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Also metonymically (?) for the game itself. As almost in your example,
and phrases like 'Gridiron Greats'.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
I'm waiting for John to explain who they are, what they do, and why
they wear those funny costumes.
John Atkinson
Try Wikipedia perhaps if you really want to know.
J.
John Atkinson
form", analogous to "union" and "league", is "rules".
However "the round-ball game" is more accurately a euphemism, used
because the old term "soccer" is no longer politically correct. For the
same reason, the national team previously known as the Socceroos is now
called "the Worldgameroos" by many sports reporters.
J.
Peter T. Daniels
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:46:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
An epidemic of domestic violence ("sock her")?
lorad
> IMO: Germanic was VERY widespread during the Roman Empire
>
> Slavic language was only introduced to the Balkans around the end of
> the Roman Empire (around 500 AD). I'm convinced that prior to the
> expansion of Slavic languages, that Germanic languages were spoken in
> abundance in Central Europe in areas like Hungary, Poland, Czech
> Republic, Western Ukraine, Belarus, etc.
>
> What do you think about this?
>
> From Wikipedia: "It is now believed that South Slavs came to the
> Balkans in two streams, and that between them was a large non-Slavic
> population of Romance-speaking Vlachs from the remnants of the old
> Roman Empire."
Prior to the expansion [existence] of Slavic languages there was only
the Baltic group.
Germanic itself was formed from Baltic and then Celtic layering.
The Vandals are described as a Baltic tribe.
The Goths and Lombards out-migrated from Baltic speaking areas.
I think that if you'd replace generic usages of 'germanic' with
'baltic' you would have a better picture of reality.
erilar
<8ad44e81-f9c0-45d8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
lorad <lora...@cs.com> wrote:
> Prior to the expansion [existence] of Slavic languages there was only
> the Baltic group.
> Germanic itself was formed from Baltic and then Celtic layering.
> The Vandals are described as a Baltic tribe.
> The Goths and Lombards out-migrated from Baltic speaking areas.
>
> I think that if you'd replace generic usages of 'germanic' with
> 'baltic' you would have a better picture of reality.
You can't be serious!
Brian M. Scott
<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in
<news:drache-63C95B....@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:
> In article
> <8ad44e81-f9c0-45d8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> lorad <lora...@cs.com> wrote:
>> Prior to the expansion [existence] of Slavic languages there was only
>> the Baltic group.
>> Germanic itself was formed from Baltic and then Celtic layering.
>> The Vandals are described as a Baltic tribe.
>> The Goths and Lombards out-migrated from Baltic speaking areas.
>> I think that if you'd replace generic usages of 'germanic' with
>> 'baltic' you would have a better picture of reality.
> You can't be serious!
He's completely serious. He's a Baltic (and especially
Latvian) chauvinist who thinks that everything IE can be
traced back to the Baltic languages. He pops up every now
and then in sci.lang to display his ignorance.
Brian
PaulJK
I must say he knows exactly how to do that and does
an excellent job of it.
pjk
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> There are Celtic loanwords in Germanic, mainly in the military-political
> sphere. Best known, perhaps, is the rich-word that even yielded the
> onomastic suffix -rik.
In my opinion Celtic and Germanic evolved from
the same substratum, which is of course Magdalenian.
The rich-word comes from RAG meaning the line of
head and back of an animal in cave art, the first line
drawn by an artist, strongly evocative of the whole
animal, as Leroy-Gourhan demonstrated. Now this
word has many derivatives, ancient Greek rakhos
'back, mountain ridge', German Rücken 'back' and
Bergrücken 'mountain ridge', Old English ryc 'back'
and ridge, German ragen 'to loom, tower' and recht
'right' and Recht 'law', Latin rex 'king' regina 'queen'
and Sanskrit raj 'king', their word being the law,
German Regel 'rule', then also Rigi, the Swiss
mountain famous for having been 'climbed' by
Mark Twain, from Rigine for the layers of stone
that have been uplifted by the pressure of opposing
tectonic plates, then we have also rich and German
reich, and Reich 'kingdom, empire', and old names
ending on -rix in Celtic, Asterix and Obelix, and on
-rik in Germanic ...
Peter T. Daniels
> On Nov 6, 2:08 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There are Celtic loanwords in Germanic, mainly in the military-political
> > sphere. Best known, perhaps, is the rich-word that even yielded the
> > onomastic suffix -rik.
>
> In my opinion Celtic and Germanic evolved from
> the same substratum, which is of course Magdalenian.
Languages don't "evolve from" substrata. A substrate is a language
that was already being spoken when some other language arrives in its
territory, and after there's considerable linguistic interaction
between the indigenous and the arriviste communities, the newcomers'
language picks up some features of it. Vocabulary is obvious, but some
grammatical influence makes it more likely that the effect will be
called "substratal." (And since "Magdalenian" has no grammar that's
ever been revealed, that's not an option.)
erilar
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> He's completely serious. He's a Baltic (and especially
> Latvian) chauvinist who thinks that everything IE can be
> traced back to the Baltic languages. He pops up every now
> and then in sci.lang to display his ignorance.
AHA! An Inger!
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Languages don't "evolve from" substrata. A substrate is a language
> that was already being spoken when some other language arrives in its
> territory, and after there's considerable linguistic interaction
> between the indigenous and the arriviste communities, the newcomers'
> language picks up some features of it. Vocabulary is obvious, but some
> grammatical influence makes it more likely that the effect will be
> called "substratal." (And since "Magdalenian" has no grammar that's
> ever been revealed, that's not an option.)
Magdalenian would have been the fully developed language
of Eurasia in the Ice Age, spoken from the Franco-Cantabrian
space in the west to lake Baikal in the east, Malta near Irkutsk
having been a Magdalenian center. Languages evolved then
from this mother language or substratum, and it also happened
that other languages were involved in the process of generating
new languages. I explained how Celtic -rix and Germanik -rik
and -rich evolved from RAG. Now another word of as many
derivatives was DhAG meaning able. The supreme Celtic god
Dagda was the good god in the sense of the able god, in my
opinion a rump form of DhAG DhAG meaning able able. In
German we have taugen 'to be fit, apt, able', and Ding 'thing'
and Werkzeug 'tool', each thing and tool able in a certain
respect, or enabling us to do something. DhAG would also
account for fox, whose full generic name would have been
DhAG KAL PAS, able DhAG Underworld KAL everywhere PAS,
the able guide through the labyrinth of the Underworld, he who
gets everywhere in the Underworld and knows it and can lead
a worthy soul back to daylight so that it may climb a heavenly
abode (Göbekli Tepe mythology). DhAG would account for
English fox and German Dachs English dachshund, and
KAL PAS for Latin vulpus 'fox', then perhaps also for whelp
and even wolf, canides having been linked with the fate of
the dead also in ancient Egypt (Anubis) and in the religion
of Zoroaster (where dogs are used for smelling whether
someone really died or whether the soul lingers on, and,
by the way, in modern medicine dogs are used for detecting
certain cancers they can smell). DhAG also accounts for
Latin dux 'leader', for Ugaritic dingir 'god', probably also for
deus 'god' and Sanskrit diva 'demon, god', and for German
Tag English day, the sun being the able one that shines
and overcomes the night. And so on. All these words evolved
from the Magdalenian substratum, depending on the specific
conditions of a given culture. The word for god has a second
root in TYR meaning to overcome, in the double sense of
rule and give. TYR evolved to the emphatic Middle Helladic
Sseyr on the Tiryns disc deciphered by Derk Ohlenroth,
then to Doric Sseus and Homeric Zeus. The full title of this
god was ShA PAD TYR AS CA, ruler ShA who goes ahead
PAD and overcomes in the double sense of rule and give TYR
up above AS in the sky CA. Rump forms are ShA PAD Shiva,
ShA PAD TYR Jupitter Jupiter Giove, DhAG PAD TYR Dis
Pater, TYR CA Turk-names and words, and Sankrit Durga,
one of the incarnations of Shiva's wive, killer of the buffalo
demon, TYR AS CA Tiwaz Tir, the Norse god of war and
justice, ShA CA Jahwe from Mount Seir (!) in the Negev,
and ShA PAD TYR AS CA Giubiasco in the Swiss canton
of Ticino, apparently once an important station on the way
to and from the Swiss Alps, where people implored good
weather when climbing the mountains, or thanking for
the good weather they had when leaving the Alps and
coming to the lovely lake of Ascona and Locarno ...
johnk
> On Dec 11, 7:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Languages don't "evolve from" substrata. A substrate is a language
> > that was already being spoken when some other language arrives in its
> > territory, and after there's considerable linguistic interaction
> > between the indigenous and the arriviste communities, the newcomers'
> > language picks up some features of it. Vocabulary is obvious, but some
> > grammatical influence makes it more likely that the effect will be
> > called "substratal." (And since "Magdalenian" has no grammar that's
> > ever been revealed, that's not an option.)
>
> Magdalenian would have been the fully developed language
> of Eurasia in the Ice Age, spoken from the Franco-Cantabrian
> space in the west to lake Baikal in the east, Malta near Irkutsk
> having been a Magdalenian center. Languages evolved then
> from this mother language or substratum, and it also happened
> that other languages were involved in the process of generating
The term substratum was just defined for you so why do you still use
it in the wrong way? You even included Peter's post where he tells
you what a substratum language is. Do you really believe that all you
have to do is repeat your misstatements over and over and over and
over; and that that will make them true? Your ramblings in no way
show any grammar for Magdalenian as Peter pointed out.
You remind me of a bad door-to-door salesman who, when the customer is
closing the door, talks faster and faster hoping some pathetic thing
you say will cause them to pause and maybe buy something from you.
Not here, SLAM!
Franz Gnaedinger
I forgot to mention that Magdalenian was embedded
in body language. The grammar of Magdalenian was
the grammar of gestures and mimics and glances.
Why does my stalker still follow me around, just now
in form of his junk alias? I don't read his replies,
I absolutely don't want anything to do with him,
I have long given up replying to him. Why is he thus
obsessed with me?
Yusuf B Gursey
how about phonology plus lexica?
Peter T. Daniels
Sure, phonology is part of grammar. But do we know anything about
"Magdalenian" phonology other than that it has some sort of bilabial
click to set it off from Standard Average European?
Reminds me of the bit that was cut out of my Book Notice on
Greenberg's IE and Its Closest Relatives: I went to the trouble of
making a chart of the phonological "system" found in his Eurasiatic
reconstructions; the segments he used in them did not make up a
coherent consonant chart.
Trond Engen
> I must say he knows exactly how to do that and does
> an excellent job of it.
Well, at least he uses real words, so there's something there that
someone else can straighten out. And once in a long while he's
accidentally right.
--
Trond Engen
Trond Engen
> Reminds me of the bit that was cut out of my Book Notice on
> Greenberg's IE and Its Closest Relatives: I went to the trouble of
> making a chart of the phonological "system" found in his Eurasiatic
> reconstructions; the segments he used in them did not make up a
> coherent consonant chart.
Greenberg aside, can we expect a reconstructed proto-language to have a
coherent phonological system, especially one of such an old age? I'd
think that as more and more features are obscured by the mist of the
distant past, more and more of what we can reconstruct are what is most
likely to be transmitted. Has anyone made a systematic study of
phonological skewness in reconstruction?
--
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
One word, Benjamin: Indo-European.
Also Semitic.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Sure, phonology is part of grammar. But do we know anything about
> "Magdalenian" phonology other than that it has some sort of bilabial
> click to set it off from Standard Average European?
The grammar of body language, gestures, mimics,
and glances. Sounds can enhance body language,
a grumble, a humming, etc. By and by clear sounds
were produced and combined. I can render most
words with the letters provided by the Roman alphabet,
and pronounced in the Latin way, not in the English
and American way. Then there are a few special sounds
I needed in order to make distinctions, namely the
humming m given as Mm, for example in body SOMm,
and the tip of the tongue touching both lips given as -:
for example in CER -: I -: or CER LIL, the divine hind
who licked moon bulls into life, and the flapping L given
as ) and produced this way: curve your tongue, let the
tip of the tongue glide along the palate and let your tongue
smack into its wet bed. This phoneme is present in )
or El, the Hebrew god, and in )OG or LOG for the one
who has the say, origin of Allah and of Greek logos
and in the English translation Lord, also in the L of the
lion words. Clicks are the hunting language of the San
(former bush people) in southern Africa. The sound -:
goes along with the licking of lips that was an element
of body language, a lip lick still is in certain occasions,
by licking your lips you can demonstrate appetite and
lust, even in a sense we now find obscene but that
once might have been quite normal, licking the lips
as a sign of love when you see a woman you like ...
The humming Mm also comes from body language,
the humming that once marked presence, explaining
the difference between je and moi in French, or I and
me myself in English; I is related to the eye, and je to
yeux in French, while moi and me and myself come
from the humming Mm of old, which is the reason
that many prefer to say: she and me, for example,
instead of she and I, which is the correct form, but
the grammatically incorrect me is prefered for the
humming m indicates a deep inner involvement.
Prof. Dr. Nathan Sanders, recently in another thread,
spoke of the importance of children being taught the
correct form, him and I, and of not tolerating the
incorrect form, him and me, but why is the incorrect
form so persistent? because it keeps an older form
of saying I, marking presence by humming ... Humming
itself can be used as a form of language. I told several
times about my first big love and I humming along one
afternoon, saying everything by humming, even selecting
the film we would go looking, only humming, and then
also pointing with the finger in the case of the film we
chose from a list in the newspaper, but we commented
on each film by humming, and only humming. It was
a lot of fun, and it worked! What grammar can you expect
from a humming language? You have to discover yourself.
Spoken language can do with much less formal grammer
than written language, for language is spoken from one
to another person, you have direct contact, you are in
the same environment, you don't have to establish
a context via lengthy descriptions and a complicated
formalism before you can come to the point of interest.
Another topic that interests me are glottal and dental
stops that seem to be interchangeable in some cases,
but this doesn't concern the origininal Magdalenian
words, only the derivatives of compounds.
johnk
> On Dec 12, 11:39 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sure, phonology is part of grammar. But do we know anything about
> > "Magdalenian" phonology other than that it has some sort of bilabial
> > click to set it off from Standard Average European?
>
> The grammar of body language, gestures, mimics,
> and glances. Sounds can enhance body language,
> a grumble, a humming, etc. By and by clear sounds
> were produced and combined. I can render most
> words with the letters provided by the Roman alphabet,
> and pronounced in the Latin way, not in the English
> and American way.
If you had even a smidgen of knowledge about phonetics you would see
this is a pointless thing to say (and do).
>Then there are a few special sounds
> I needed in order to make distinctions, namely the
> humming m given as Mm, for example in body SOMm,
> and the tip of the tongue touching both lips
It's called a Bronx Cheer...I use it every time I see your crap.
>given as -:
> for example in CER -: I -: or CER LIL, the divine hind
> who licked moon bulls into life, and the flapping L given
> as ) and produced this way: curve your tongue, let the
> tip of the tongue glide along the palate and let your tongue
> smack into its wet bed.
Please learn the basic terminology.
>This phoneme
Are you talking phonemes now? Please define a phoneme for us.
>is present in )
> or El, the Hebrew god, and in )OG or LOG for the one
> who has the say, origin of Allah and of Greek logos
> and in the English translation Lord, also in the L of the
> lion words.
No clue what a 'lion' word is. How about trying to use accepted
terminology.
>Clicks are the hunting language of the San
> (former bush people) in southern Africa.
Absolutely false.
>The sound -:
> goes along with the licking of lips that was an element
> of body language, a lip lick still is in certain occasions,
> by licking your lips you can demonstrate appetite and
> lust, even in a sense we now find obscene but that
> once might have been quite normal, licking the lips
> as a sign of love when you see a woman you like ...
How is this different from your Bronx Cheer 'phoneme'?
> The humming Mm also comes from body language,
> the humming that once marked presence, explaining
> the difference between je and moi in French, or I and
> me myself in English; I is related to the eye, and je to
> yeux in French, while moi and me and myself come
> from the humming Mm of old, which is the reason
> that many prefer to say: she and me, for example,
> instead of she and I, which is the correct form, but
> the grammatically incorrect me is prefered for the
> humming m indicates a deep inner involvement.
Pure and utter garbage. You are an idiot.
> Prof. Dr. Nathan Sanders, recently in another thread,
> spoke of the importance of children being taught the
> correct form, him and I, and of not tolerating the
> incorrect form, him and me,
He did not say that. Now you are a liar.
>but why is the incorrect
> form so persistent? because it keeps an older form
> of saying I, marking presence by humming ...
I'm running out of words to express my surprise at your ignorance.
>Humming
> itself can be used as a form of language. <snip> compounds.
I know you claim you don't read my posts, but please, please, please,
open an elementary text on linguistics and learn the basics.
Trond Engen
Lock up your *gW�n-eh2's and dhugH-t�r's!
> Also Semitic.
I take this to mean that since both PIE and PSem as reconstructed are
phonologically coherent the question is moot? At least PIE is somewhat
unbalanced in that there are few vowels and an apparent accumulation of
velars, and I understand that Proto-Athabascan shows an unusually large
inventory of affricates. And all these are shallow compared to the
proposed Eurasiatic and Nostratic.
I don't mean to say that these things can't reflect reality, let alone
on the level of a single proto-language (I, too, have gone out of my way
to explain various analysts that strange phonologies are ubitiquous). I
meant to ask if there's been made systematic comparisons of attested and
reconstructed languages in search of cross-linguistical tendencies to
skewedness, either in one common or any arbitrary direction.
--
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 9:10 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> >>> Reminds me of the bit that was cut out of my Book Notice on
> >>> Greenberg's IE and Its Closest Relatives: I went to the trouble of
> >>> making a chart of the phonological "system" found in his Eurasiatic
> >>> reconstructions; the segments he used in them did not make up a
> >>> coherent consonant chart.
>
> >> Greenberg aside, can we expect a reconstructed proto-language to
> >> have a coherent phonological system, especially one of such an old
> >> age? I'd think that as more and more features are obscured by the
> >> mist of the distant past, more and more of what we can reconstruct
> >> are what is most likely to be transmitted. Has anyone made a
> >> systematic study of phonological skewness in reconstruction?
>
> > One word, Benjamin: Indo-European.
>
>
> > Also Semitic.
>
> I take this to mean that since both PIE and PSem as reconstructed are
> phonologically coherent the question is moot? At least PIE is somewhat
> unbalanced in that there are few vowels and an apparent accumulation of
> velars, and I understand that Proto-Athabascan shows an unusually large
> inventory of affricates. And all these are shallow compared to the
> proposed Eurasiatic and Nostratic.
>
> I don't mean to say that these things can't reflect reality, let alone
> on the level of a single proto-language (I, too, have gone out of my way
> to explain various analysts that strange phonologies are ubitiquous). I
> meant to ask if there's been made systematic comparisons of attested and
> reconstructed languages in search of cross-linguistical tendencies to
> skewedness, either in one common or any arbitrary direction.
Sure -- the Stanford project that descended from Greenberg's immense
typology survey; the huge Atlas of such things has a lot of phonology.
PaulJK
> On Dec 13, 6:23 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 11:39 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sure, phonology is part of grammar. But do we know anything about
>>> "Magdalenian" phonology other than that it has some sort of bilabial
>>> click to set it off from Standard Average European?
>>
>> The grammar of body language, gestures, mimics,
>> and glances. Sounds can enhance body language,
>> a grumble, a humming, etc. By and by clear sounds
>> were produced and combined. I can render most
>> words with the letters provided by the Roman alphabet,
>> and pronounced in the Latin way, not in the English
>> and American way.
>
> If you had even a smidgen of knowledge about phonetics you would see
> this is a pointless thing to say (and do).
>
>> Then there are a few special sounds
>> I needed in order to make distinctions, namely the
>> humming m given as Mm, for example in body SOMm,
>> and the tip of the tongue touching both lips
>
> It's called a Bronx Cheer...I use it every time I see your crap.
Is that something like "blowing rasberries"?
That's what I do when I accidentally stumble over his posts.
>> given as -:
>> for example in CER -: I -: or CER LIL, the divine hind
>> who licked moon bulls into life, and the flapping L given
>> as ) and produced this way: curve your tongue, let the
>> tip of the tongue glide along the palate and let your tongue
>> smack into its wet bed.
[...]
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Is that something like "blowing rasberries"?
> That's what I do when I accidentally stumble over his posts.
Blowing rasperries? No, simply touch both lips
with the tip of your tongue, shouldn't be difficult,
or else look up the cover of the book by my
stalker, it shows a deep blue face with a rose
tongue just about to produce that sound. My
stalker is so deeply affected by Magdalenian
that he used it for his cover. The production
of the book took longer, he had announced,
for they want a sexy cover, now that, Magdalenian
apart from the deep blue color of the face, but
it sure enhances the color of the tongue by contrast,
and thus, by the over-exposure of the tongue and
lips, points out the sexual connotation of that sound.
PaulJK
> On Dec 14, 6:38 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Is that something like "blowing rasberries"?
>> That's what I do when I accidentally stumble over his posts.
>
> Blowing rasperries?
Thanks for reminding me that I misspelled raspberries.
> No, simply touch both lips
> with the tip of your tongue, shouldn't be difficult,
> or else look up the cover of the book by my
> stalker, it shows a deep blue face with a rose
> tongue just about to produce that sound. My
> stalker is so deeply affected by Magdalenian
> that he used it for his cover. The production
> of the book took longer, he had announced,
> for they want a sexy cover, now that, Magdalenian
> apart from the deep blue color of the face, but
> it sure enhances the color of the tongue by contrast,
> and thus, by the over-exposure of the tongue and
> lips, points out the sexual connotation of that sound.
Yeah, right.
John Atkinson
p...[
> > Humming
> > itself can be used as a form of language.
> >
Take for example the following words (from Suarez, The Mesoamerican
languages, p 45):
/m?1/ 'ant';
/m:23/ 'sandal';
/hm?3/ 'tomato';
/?m:3m?4/ you (pl) pinch';
/m:42m?m24/ 'we (excl) pinch'.
(The numerals denote tones.)
The language can also be whistled, but only by men.
> >
[...]
> > What grammar can you expect
> > from a humming language?
> >
Well, the Chinantec languages are verb-first and ergative, with four
persons. Verbs are marked for person of subject, and for status as
direct and inverse. Verbs are inflected by tone-stress changes for
person and for present and future tenses. Verbs are also inflected in
combination with a prefix for past tense, aspect, mood, motion and
voice. Only prefixes occur, whether inflectional or derivational. (So
I was wrong in that other thread, there _are_ prefix-only languages.)
There are two ways of forming passives, one of which can be used to
express impersonal passives. There is also an antipassive construction.
Instead of an honorific system, there is a “de-honorific system”: A
variety of first and second-person pronouns enables the speaker to
express her/his attitude to self and/or the addressee.
So there you go.
J.
Richard R. Hershberger
I'm late to this party, but...
Why is "soccer" politically incorrect? And over what geographic range
is this the case? The United States has the rather optimistically
named "Major League Soccer". Some might scoff at the "Major" part,
but I have never heard an objection to the "Soccer" part.
Richard R. Hershberger
António Marques
I took it as meaning that soccer is homophone with sucker in Ustrellier.
Peter T. Daniels
"Major league" simply means the topmost professional level of the
sport. Baseball has the two Major Leagues and a plethora of minor
leagues, mostly based regionally.