About Proto-Germanic

[Anglesqueville]

Guys, this thread is going in all directions, and I think the time has come for a necessary clarification.
The subject of this thread is very explicitly the proto-Germanic language.
1) If he applies to himself the rule that he claims to impose on others ("No Source -> No Theory"), Rodoorn has nothing to say on this subject, and short of a miracle this is not likely to change.
2) As soon as there are "sources" (that is to say if I correctly understood written sources), it means that we very significantly post-date the time window within from which a question relating to proto-Germanic may arise. This is particularly true for all groups described as "Germans" by Roman sources. These subjects, although quite fascinating, are out of place here.
On the previous forum Rodoorn had opened a thread dedicated to the questions mentioned in 2). I urge him to revive this thread on our new GenArchivist.

With regard to 1. I like to speculate about  time and place of proto Germanic, but I'm honest this is speculation not science!
With regard to 2. I accept that with regard to proto Germanic things are with marges and not with certainties.

For the rest, about a scientific attitude. You are not open to countervailing information and in fact you are not afraid to cover your dogmas with fake stories. Angles' big thumb.....huh scientific?

Am I to understand that you refuse my proposal and that you have decided to continue posting on this linguistics forum thread information that has nothing to do with its explicitly announced subject, nor in general with linguistics? If this is indeed the case, I will consider your attitude to be trolling. Open this thread in the history forum, it's in your interest.

[Rodoorn]

Guys, this thread is going in all directions, and I think the time has come for a necessary clarification.
The subject of this thread is very explicitly the proto-Germanic language.
1) If he applies to himself the rule that he claims to impose on others ("No Source -> No Theory"), Rodoorn has nothing to say on this subject, and short of a miracle this is not likely to change.
2) As soon as there are "sources" (that is to say if I correctly understood written sources), it means that we very significantly post-date the time window within from which a question relating to proto-Germanic may arise. This is particularly true for all groups described as "Germans" by Roman sources. These subjects, although quite fascinating, are out of place here.
On the previous forum Rodoorn had opened a thread dedicated to the questions mentioned in 2). I urge him to revive this thread on our new GenArchivist.

With regard to 1. I like to speculate about  time and place of proto Germanic, but I'm honest this is speculation not science!
With regard to 2. I accept that with regard to proto Germanic things are with marges and not with certainties.

For the rest, about a scientific attitude. You are not open to countervailing information and in fact you are not afraid to cover your dogmas with fake stories. Angles' big thumb.....huh scientific?

Am I to understand that you refuse my proposal and that you have decided to continue posting on this linguistics forum thread information that has nothing to do with its explicitly announced subject, nor in general with linguistics? If this is indeed the case, I will consider your attitude to be trolling. Open this thread in the history forum, it's in your interest.

 Did you read my answer, recap:

With regard to 1. I like to speculate about  time and place of proto Germanic, but I'm honest this is speculation not science!
With regard to 2. I accept that with regard to proto Germanic things are with marges and not with certainties.

Or is ostracism your last straw Angles?

[Anglesqueville]

The accusation of the non-scientificness of historical linguistics is a serious accusation, which would require to be backed by a deep epistemological reflection as to what it is, in the field of the human sciences, that a scientific discipline. You seem very far from being able to provide such a reflection, in any case, you have not until now seemed to be able to do so. In the absence of such reflection, such an accusation amounts to trolling, especially on a linguistics forum. I will not accept these accusations being made again on this thread. If you claim to put linguistics on trial, do it, but elsewhere.

[Rodoorn]

The accusation of the non-scientificness of historical linguistics is a serious accusation, which would require to be backed by a deep epistemological reflection as to what it is, in the field of the human sciences, that a scientific discipline. You seem very far from being able to provide such a reflection, in any case, you have not until now seemed to be able to do so. In the absence of such reflection, such an accusation amounts to trolling, especially on a linguistics forum. I will not accept these accusations being made again on this thread. If you claim to put linguistics on trial, do it, but elsewhere.

No, now you are not realistic and not fair. I have praised the true historical linguistics. Certainly in the reconstruction of proto Germanic. And at the same time the limitation is also indicated, namely that when it comes to the time and place of proto-Germanic, no certainty can be given without original sources, at least not if you intend to do historical scholarship. That does not seem to me to be an exorbitant comment, rather one that is in accordance with the widely accepted form of writing history.... The fact that some people cannot handle it is something else, Angles. In any case, it is not trolling under any circumstances, these are substantively motivated comments.

[Anglesqueville]

I have nothing to add. If you intend to confront historical linguistics with the narrative history of Frank Ankersmit, do it, but elsewhere.

[Rober_tce]

A reminder to all users, personalization of discussion isn’t allowed. This thread is being monitored. The next step is moderation of posts. This is the first warning.

[Rodoorn]

I have nothing to add. If you intend to confront historical linguistics with the narrative history of Frank Ankersmit, do it, but elsewhere.

Wrong this is not exclusive Frank Ankersmit this is worldwide the norm in history writing.

Example:
https://bestessayhelp.com/examples/histo...say-sample

But the underlying message is clear Angles......

[Rodoorn]

old europe:

“FWIW given the fact that I have no horse in the race on the issue of proto-germanic I would say that it could not be accurate to say that the first evidence of proto germanic is attested only in Scandinavia in the first centuries CE. There is the Negau helmet inscriptions in Slovenia dated at circa 300/200 BC and at the same latitude of northern Italy. The inscription in now universally considered germanic:”

I have only said that the early runic inscriptions are Northwest Germanic > Proto-Scandinavian.

There are indeed earlier attestations of Germanic words and names. These represent very archaic language stage, practically Proto-Germanic. 

old europe:

“So the presence of protogermanic folks in 500 BC in the Elbe region is quite sure.
Of course everything depends on WHEN exactly protogermanic is dated.”

Yes, I agree that the presence of Germanic lineage in Central Europe is that early, and probably even much earlier (since Pre-Germanic times). But this cannot change the result that Northwest Germanic and East Germanic expansions seem to have begun from Scandinavia. Therefore, all the later and still extant Germanic languages are descendants of these proto-dialects from the north. By definition, this means that all the earlier representatives of the Germanic lineage in Central Europe are labeled Para-Germanic ( = cousins or aunts of the actual Germanic languages).

So, there was an update of closely related language form from the north, leading to the known West Germanic languages, and Para-Germanic itself has no survived offsprings. Still, the early written examples most probably represent Para-Germanic languages.

The thing is Jaska, we have a big lack of information about the Suebi language. We know that the Northern Suebi, the Angli and Warini were for sure Germanic speakers (founding for old English, old Frisian, and old Saxon), and the Southern Suebi were founding for High Germanic. But wit regard to the 1000 years presence  (LBA/edge IA 500 BC-500 AD/ c.q. incoming of the Slaves) of Suebi along the Elbe and surrounding area, we have meager info. That's a pretty loss because the Suebi had a kind of ethnogenesis in which language for sure played a part......

[Rodoorn]

Old Europe:
"So the presence of protogermanic folks in 500 BC in the Elbe region is quite sure.
Of course everything depends on WHEN exactly protogermanic is dated."

Jaska:
"Yes, I agree that the presence of Germanic lineage in Central Europe is that early, and probably even much earlier (since Pre-Germanic times). "

Ergo:
That early is 500 BC, or much earlier.

@Jaska we are talking about the Suebi here! Who according to you talked probably Germanic in much earlier times too. I agree their ancestors were the Elbe-Havel group according to archeologist part of NBA and later on Jastorf.

And, Jaska:
"But this cannot change the result that Northwest Germanic and East Germanic expansions seem to have begun from Scandinavia. Therefore, all the later and still extant Germanic languages are descendants of these proto-dialects from the north. By definition, this means that all the earlier representatives of the Germanic lineage in Central Europe are labeled Para-Germanic ( = cousins or aunts of the actual Germanic languages)."

@Jaska, Northwest Germanic was also spoken by the Northern Suebi as Angli and Warini.....that's not Scandinavia. For the rest we don't now exactly if it all begun in Scandinavia. The Suebi (ancestors) could have been a candidate too, certainly with the oldest Germanic topic name giving in this area, but because we have lack of information (also about the Suebi language) we simply don't know....may be will have to accept that.....

[Rodoorn]

 I will not accept these accusations being made again on this thread. If you claim to put linguistics on trial, do it, but elsewhere.

On trial? The following is highly qualified linguistics (imo). Don Ringe is a linguistic star! Chapeau (hat of). And he underlines the statements of Jaska (^^^), Schleswig and Southwards (is Angli and Warini and more): PGmc>NWGM! 

[Jaska]

Rodoorn:

"Northwest Germanic was also spoken by the Northern Suebi as Angli and Warini.....that's not Scandinavia. For the rest we don't now exactly if it all begun in Scandinavia. The Suebi (ancestors) could have been a candidate too, certainly with the oldest Germanic topic name giving in this area, but because we have lack of information (also about the Suebi language) we simply don't know....may be will have to accept that....."

Angli and warini spoke West Germanic, actually sub-branch of it. It is later than Northwest Germanic. 
PG > NwG > WG > Anglo-Frisian and other branches. 

We do have information: Germanic loanwords and placenames from several reconstruction stages adopted in Finland. They give us absolute dating and location, although the dating is not precise. But neither is the dating of Proto-Germanic. It is enough to know that Proto-Germanic itself had speakers in Finland, because earlier and later stages had, too.

You must understand that even though this is a prehistoric event, it is just as certain as the random items in the south with Germanic inscriptions in them.

1. Identifying the language as Proto-Germanic through old writing is no different from identifying the language as Proto-Germanic through loanwords in Finnic and Saami. 

2. Also dating is not much more accurate concerning the items with inscriptions, taken the margins of error in radiocarbon datings, possible freshwater reservoir effect in bones distorting the dating, etc. Only dendrochronological evidence would give a precise year, but only the year when the tree was cut down. 

Is there something here you cannot accept? Please try to explain your point as clearly as possible.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn:

"Northwest Germanic was also spoken by the Northern Suebi as Angli and Warini.....that's not Scandinavia. For the rest we don't now exactly if it all begun in Scandinavia. The Suebi (ancestors) could have been a candidate too, certainly with the oldest Germanic topic name giving in this area, but because we have lack of information (also about the Suebi language) we simply don't know....may be will have to accept that....."

Angli and warini spoke West Germanic, actually sub-branch of it. It is later than Northwest Germanic. 
PG > NwG > WG > Anglo-Frisian and other branches. 

We do have information: Germanic loanwords and placenames from several reconstruction stages adopted in Finland. They give us absolute dating and location, although the dating is not precise. But neither is the dating of Proto-Germanic. It is enough to know that Proto-Germanic itself had speakers in Finland, because earlier and later stages had, too.

You must understand that even though this is a prehistoric event, it is just as certain as the random items in the south with Germanic inscriptions in them.

1. Identifying the language as Proto-Germanic through old writing is no different from identifying the language as Proto-Germanic through loanwords in Finnic and Saami. 

2. Also dating is not much more accurate concerning the items with inscriptions, taken the margins of error in radiocarbon datings, possible freshwater reservoir effect in bones distorting the dating, etc. Only dendrochronological evidence would give a precise year, but only the year when the tree was cut down. 

Is there something here you cannot accept? Please try to explain your point as clearly as possible.

Well if I read Donald Ringe well he states that "in and near Schleswig and areas immediately to the South of it" and that was de facto the area of the Angli and Warini (Northern Suebi according to Tacitus) it was: PGMC> NWGMC> West Germanic. I guess we can agree on this point! Or?



For the rest you know my opinion (I guess agree to disagree) with loanwords and even more between proto-languages (prehistoric) you can't pinpoint the earliest speakers (Urheimat) imo. And topology older names are available in the area of the Suebi and this was als the departure point of the SGC (imo a major ancestral component in the Germanics). But I'm convinced that we can't pinpoint an Urheimat. So on this point I rest my case. 

I only state that the Germanic lineage was imo born in the NBA network (Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany), nothing more nothing less.

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

Well if I read Donald Ringe well he states that "in and near Schleswig and areas immediately to the South of it" and that was de facto the area of the Angli and Warini (Northern Suebi according to Tacitus) it was: PGMC> NWGMC> West Germanic. I guess we  can agree on this point! Or?

Is not it obvious that Ringe was simply wrong in this assesment ? Finnic nor Saamic was spoken nowhere near Schleswig (ok Saamic could have been spoken somewhere in Southern Central Norway but it's still way too far away). Massive quantity of pre- and proto-Germanic lexicon in Finnic would require placing it at Southern Scandinavia, in immediate neighbourhood of Schleswig anyway. 

There ofcource is zero evidence for Finnic ever been spoken there. Because we can't find Finnic in that place means we have to move proto-Germanic. We need to move it to a place where it can have intense and long standing contact with speakers of Finnic. 

Ringe was simply wrong in his assesment. He got it wrong. It happends.

[Anglesqueville]

^^ On this question, Ringe simply functioned as an echo chamber by following tradition without question, a few lines at most in the mass of his works. Furthermore, I do not believe that Ringe ever mentioned (even briefly) the fact of interference with the Finno-Saamic family. This fact simply does not interest him.

[Rodoorn]

^^ On this question, Ringe simply functioned as an echo chamber by following tradition without question, a few lines at most in the mass of his works. Furthermore, I do not believe that Ringe ever mentioned (even briefly) the fact of interference with the Finno-Saamic family. This fact simply does not interest him.

How do you dare to question such a high qualified linguist? And accuse him by following tradition without question, why put him such a high professional linguist on trial?

He has reasons for placing PGmc in Jastorf and even a part of Jastorf (so not the whole Jastorf), that sounds if he for sure made a considerations (and a choice!) not one based on the whole of Jastorf was PGmc. 

The reason he is convinced of that "because an archaeological continuity between the Jastorf culture, its successors and offshoots, and populations known from Roman sources to have been Germanic can be demonstrated." Imo absolutely right.

And he used dialect geography. So not just following tradition.

We don't know if Ringe don't interest the interference with the Finno-Saamic family. May be there are reasons to make this not to the core of the PGmc quest.

Let him speak for himself: