About Proto-Germanic

[Rodoorn]

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.

He is a top linguist, and has made very qualified works, so how on earth could you doubt that event man?

May be the contacts with the Saami-Finnic room were not that decisive for PGmc as you describe. 

Last but not least from the area of the Angli and Warini the area's were the Finns and Saami lived were also within reach, for sure as we consider the Baltic Sea as an old highway of the past. No problem.

Seen the qualifications of Don Ringe and therefore his high linguistic qualities I don't think he has not made such a "basic mistake".

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

Rodoorn, I'm familiar enough with Ringe's work to know his main interest is in early formation, phonology and morphology of West Germanic clade. Something that does not concern Finnic or Saamic, as obviously West Germanic clade, if it exists as independent node, developed somewhere between Jutland and Frisia. For my knowledge Ringe is not really interested about the geographic location or archeology, his works mostly focus on proving that West Germanic existed as a node in first place!

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn, I'm familiar enough with Ringe's work to know his main interest is in early formation, phonology and morphology of West Germanic clade. Something that does not concern Finnic or Saamic, as obviously West Germanic clade, if it exists as independent node, developed somewhere between Jutland and Frisia. For my knowledge Ringe is not really interested about the geographic location or archeology, his works mostly focus on proving that West Germanic existed as a node in first place!

That this is his major interest doesn't mean his consideration about PGmc and the supposed location can't be objective.

Have you read the passage? Probably not because he spends some words about archeology and geographic location. In shortness the mastership is shown

So your considerations are as such no proof he is wrong!

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

^^

He is simply wrong when parroting Jastorf as proto-Germanic.  Linguistic evidence does not support Jastorf.

This whole Jastorf thing is fishy. Like how entire culture supposedly has "continuity to migration period with dynamic developments", I've literally seen archeological mambo jambo like that.

What we know for fact is that Goths took a piece of it and rest might have just as easily been taken by other migrant groups from north. Hence the dynamic developments. 

What we have in Jastorf is highly LaTene influenced culture, with specific Urn burials and that it vanished. Likely just in time when Germanics got there to cause some dynamic developments.

[Jaska]

Rodoorn:

"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."

We all know by now that archaeological continuity alone CANNOT testify for linguistic continuity. Archaeological continuity is evident everywhere, but linguistic situation is almost everywhere quite recent.

Evidence by Ringe:
1. Ringe talks about Jastorf as the traditionally supported homeland for Proto-Germanic. 
2. Ringe apparently does not even consider Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami - or can you find such a mention from him? 

Tradition is not a strong argument, as we all know.
Omitting important evidence means that the result can be wrong.

[Rodoorn]

^^

He is simply wrong when parroting Jastorf as proto-Germanic.  Linguistic evidence does not support Jastorf.

This whole Jastorf thing is fishy. Like how entire culture supposedly has "continuity to migration period with dynamic developments", I've literally seen archeological mambo jambo like that.

What we know for fact is that Goths took a piece of it and rest might have just as easily been taken by other migrant groups from north. Hence the dynamic developments. 

What we have in Jastorf is highly LaTene influenced culture, with specific Urn burials and that it vanished. Likely just in time when Germanics got there to cause some dynamic developments.

So you put a high profession linguist on trial, imo he made qualified works to underline this all. And then you talk about La Tene and Jastorf? What are the strict linguistic consequences of that event man?

[Anglesqueville]

Okay, so the game now consists of launching a linguist into the race, that is to say, after showing off his authority record, extracting a few lines from his work that are pleasing.... OK. I would throw Jorma Koivulehto (but... too old and Finnish), Petri Kallio (quite old and Finnish), Mikko Heikkilä (Finnish), I can't forget many others who would do the trick if they weren't Finnish. I prefer to choose a compatriot of Rodoorn. His authority is incontestable, to say the least, and his arguments are linguistic (unlike those of Ringe, whose use of archaeological continuity is an admission of his little interest in the question). The excerpted lines come from "Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages" (of course).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schrijver

A consequence of this account of the origins of the Proto-Germanic consonantal system is that the transition from Pre-Germanic to Proto-Germanic was entirely directed by Finnic. Or, to put it in less subtle words: Indo-European consonants became Germanic consonants when they were pronounced by Finnic speakers.(p. 176)

The alternative scenario is one according to which a group of speakers of Balto-Finnic were in such intensive contact with speakers of Pre-Germanic that they first became bilingual and then switched to Pre-Germanic, which in the process became Proto-Germanic because those new speakers preserved a Balto-Finnic pronunciation when speaking Pre-Germanic (p. 178)

This clinches the decision between the two scenarios about the nature of Germanic-Finnic language contact: in all probability, Balto-Finnic speakers switched to Germanic and introduced a Balto-Finnic accent into Germanic. A Balto-Finnic accent is what defines Germanic: there is no Germanic without a Balto-Finnic accent. (p. 179)

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn:

"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."

We all know by now that archaeological continuity alone CANNOT testify for linguistic continuity. Archaeological continuity is evident everywhere, but linguistic situation is almost everywhere quite recent.

Evidence by Ringe:
1. Ringe talks about Jastorf as the traditionally supported homeland for Proto-Germanic. 
2. Ringe apparently does not even consider Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami - or can you find such a mention from him? 

Tradition is not a strong argument, as we all know.
Omitting important evidence means that the result can be wrong.

Ringe supposes this because of:

a. an archaeological continuity between the Jastorf culture, its successors and offshoots, and populations known from Roman sources to have been Germanic can be demonstrated.

b.dialect geography the area of origin is the area with the most diversity.
See above.

Both seem legitimate to me.

And he spends attention to loanwords (the fact that you don't know, does this mean ypu are not familiar with this standard linguistic work with regard to PGMC????);

[Rodoorn]

Okay, so the game now consists of launching a linguist into the race, that is to say, after showing off his authority record, extracting a few lines from his work that are pleasing.... OK. I would throw Jorma Koivulehto (but... too old and Finnish), Petri Kallio (quite old and Finnish), Mikko Heikkilä (Finnish), I can't forget many others who would do the trick if they weren't Finnish. I prefer to choose a compatriot of Rodoorn. His authority is incontestable, to say the least, and his arguments are linguistic (unlike those of Ringe, whose use of archaeological continuity is an admission of his little interest in the question). The excerpted lines come from "Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages" (of course).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schrijver

A consequence of this account of the origins of the Proto-Germanic consonantal system is that the transition from Pre-Germanic to Proto-Germanic was entirely directed by Finnic. Or, to put it in less subtle words: Indo-European consonants became Germanic consonants when they were pronounced by Finnic speakers.(p. 176)

The alternative scenario is one according to which a group of speakers of Balto-Finnic were in such intensive contact with speakers of Pre-Germanic that they first became bilingual and then switched to Pre-Germanic, which in the process became Proto-Germanic because those new speakers preserved a Balto-Finnic pronunciation when speaking Pre-Germanic (p. 178)

This clinches the decision between the two scenarios about the nature of Germanic-Finnic language contact: in all probability, Balto-Finnic speakers switched to Germanic and introduced a Balto-Finnic accent into Germanic. A Balto-Finnic accent is what defines Germanic: there is no Germanic without a Balto-Finnic accent. (p. 179)

This can exist besides pre-Germanic in NBA and PGmc in Jastorf, no problemo.

[Jaska]

Rodoorn, what of many Ringe's works are you referring to? You should tell the source always when you quote someone. We are not telepaths here.

[Anglesqueville]

It is quite gratifying to note that the necessary consideration of Germanic vs Finno-Saamic contacts, after having been ignored for a long time by many Western linguists (through ignorance, intellectual laziness, or pure bad faith), is now making its way into certain works intended for a non-specialized audience. As proof, I cite Peter Trudgill's recent book, "The Long Journey of English", where the author notes:
 

"We can say with some degree of certainty that the ancestor of modern English, Proto-Germanic, was originally a dialect of the Indo-European language which traveled from the borderlands of Asia and Europe to southern Scandinavia. It also seems rather likely that Proto-Germanic was significantly linguistically influenced at some stage by contact with another language or languages. And it is by no means impossible that much or some of that influence was exerted by Finno-Samic."

As far as I am concerned, I remind you that I have muted my support for Schrijver's theses regarding the intervention of rhythmic gradation in Germanic consonant shifts and that I do not feel competent to support or criticize what he also says about a possible convergence of phonologies. The simple observation of the lexical transfer is for me a sufficient reason to exclude, as for the area where the final phase of the Germanic process took place, any location other than that which I defined in my first posts.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn, what of many Ringe's works are you referring to? You should tell the source always when you quote someone. We are not telepaths here.

Sorry Jaska, I have quoted him so much here that I was forgotten to mention him completely, Donald Ringe, From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (2017)

[Anglesqueville]

Rodoorn, what of many Ringe's works are you referring to? You should tell the source always when you quote someone. We are not telepaths here.

The last quote comes from "A Linguistic History of English Volume I From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic". "Rengas" and "Kuningas" are the two (2!) only allusions to Germanic loans to Finnish, and Saami is completely ignored. The point of view is very restrictively "constructivist".
edit: ... and the publication year is not 2017, but 2006.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn, what of many Ringe's works are you referring to? You should tell the source always when you quote someone. We are not telepaths here.

The last quote comes from "A Linguistic History of English Volume I From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic". "Rengas" and "Kuningas" are the two (2!) only allusions to Germanic loans to Finnish, and Saami is completely ignored. The point of view is very restrictively "constructivist".

 
I see nowhere a countervailing narrative towards the primal considerations of Donald Ringe. And is this a topic about proto-germanic or is this the topic about the loanwords between Germanic and Finnic-Saami. When the last is the case I strongly advice you to start a new topic under this name  

Proto-Germanic is about much more than the effect of a bilingual situation on the Northern periphery of the Germanic world.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn, what of many Ringe's works are you referring to? You should tell the source always when you quote someone. We are not telepaths here.

The last quote comes from "A Linguistic History of English Volume I From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic". "Rengas" and "Kuningas" are the two (2!) only allusions to Germanic loans to Finnish, and Saami is completely ignored. The point of view is very restrictively "constructivist".
edit: ... and the publication year is not 2017, but 2006.

Wisecrack, the quote is from the second revised edition in 2017.