About Proto-Germanic

[PopGenist82]

“Angles, it would be artificial to separate “pre-proto-Germanic” and proto-Germanic as it was a long process.”

I am well aware of how artificial it is to separate a process from its accomplishment. But, apart from the fact that sometimes certain assumed artifices are useful during a presentation, there is a big difference here. No thesis concerning the pre-Germanic process has decisive linguistic arguments (see, once again, the difficulties of Ringe in his cladistic experiment), although the linguistic elements allowing us to speak of proto-Germanic are massive. Obviously subject to discussion, but nonetheless massive. Given the fact that we are here on the linguistics sub-forum, it does not seem scandalous to me to advocate for the separation of the two subjects.

Words and loans cannot be dated with precision (as many sober linguists have expressed), ...

Let's say there are several approaches. The comparison of these approaches is an example of a subject that could be addressed in this thread.

...and therefore linguistics must be guided by archeogenetics.

I am as passionate about paleogenetics as you are. But in this case, I unfortunately don't see how it could intervene.

 

I’m strongly advising that Nordic-west Uralic interactions had begun by 1500 bc.

I have defended this idea, which from time to time still floats in the back of my mind. But the arguments in its favour seem very weak to me today.

We can critique Udolph’s central German homeland, but to be open and fair the same critique & need for corrections must also be directed at the Germanic-Finnic-Baltic realm.

Certainly not "the same".

Theres no doubt that at least some form of early Uralic speakers were present in north east Baltic by 1500 bc. This is supported by (other) linguists.

Given that the arguments against them are based on a false pedestal - on several levels- I will simply say I have little confidence in them and would personally seek more up to date, cognitively malleable and empirically consistent linguistic views. Secondly, you can’t claim “this is purely a linguistic question”, when linguists consistently invoke archeology (& increasingly DNa) to formulate their theories. Ie we cannot have our cake & eat it too.

Nevertheless, I invite you to lay out your linguistic arguments (for why some form of Uralic could not have been spoken in NE Baltic/ karelia region by 1500 BC) here for sport.