About Proto-Germanic

[Vinitharya]

The reason I find the Germanic urheimat in southern Scandinavia has nothing to do with Finnic borrowings but rather dialectal. If Germanic came from the south into Scandinavia, they would find the descendants of the Battle-Axe Culture there, who were derived from Corded Ware and therefore spoke an Indo-European dialect. If speakers of a southern Germanic dialect that was ancestral to proto-Norse encountered this people, the resulting Early North Germanic would diverge sharply from western Germanic, which is not the case. English underwent change at the end of the Anglo-Saxon period due to the Viking invasion because the early East Norse spoken by the Vikings who settled the Danelaw, a North Germanic language, was still somewhat intelligible to speakers of Anglo-Saxon, a West Germanic language. The main area of Germanic origin appears to me to be in southern Sweden and Denmark, with West Germanic splitting when migrations to the south encountered people speaking Nordwestblock languages, and East Germanic splitting, of course, when they crossed the Baltic, but as there were fewer inhabitants there (shout out to my M458 cousins that were among the few, though), it took longer for the dialects to diverge and Biblical Gothic thus appears to be more primitive.

[Rodoorn]

Jaska and Angles, I mentioned in my last post that your observations on the Finnic contacts have persuaded me that a neighbouring part (or parts) of Sweden spoke PGmc. I also feel Rodoorn has made some good observations about the region to the south. Under current linguistic theories, how far might the PGmc language zone have extended beyond where you envisage its focal point in Sweden? Is it completely beyond the bounds of current theory that it could have included much of the area beyond that had also belonged to the earlier Nordic Bronze Age (say the Baltic German coast and/or Jutland?

@JonikW now it's time for me to say blimey (just like you did with the amber find  

I was somewhat searching around about runes (I know your knowledge on this subject is much more than mine) and NWGmc.....

And then my goodness, first the conclusion:


https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/di...TEXT01.pdf

It's really worth a  whole read: amazing!!!

Ok I know this this under fire because of:
a. the development of runes starts before 200 AD (even more seen the pretty recent findings in Norway):
b. why didn't they cc the whole Nabatean alphabet and was it also based on the Latin one.
I guess pretty much stuff for discussion between experts.
https://www.schwedisch-intensiv.de/publi...ufsatz.pdf

But then brainwave. 





What about my - for Frisians/Germanics- white raven Y-DNA E-V22 and especially my subclade E-L1401? Along the Nabateans this was most probably a prominent Y-DNA, we see it even in what in general regarded as a kind of "preserved"  heir of the Nabateans in the same region: the Druzes.

E-V22 is pretty frequent among the Druzes:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Dru...e=yresults

Nature:
"Fascinatingly, most Lebanese individuals were predicted along the northwestern Incense Route leading from southern Arabia to the Mediterranean, used by merchants between the 4th century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. This multi-origin of the Lebanese (Fig. 3[C1]) may be explained either by the 7th century Arabian expansion, which saw a large scale movement of Arabian tribes from the Arabian Peninsula into the Middle East, or by the northern expansion of nomadic Bedouin tribes known as the Nabataeans. By the end of the fourth century the Nabataeans had established an empire which occupied Northern Arabia and the Southern Levant for four hundred years, making migration into Lebanon at this time highly probable35. However, as both Nabatean and late Arab conquerors inhabited the same geographical regions and emerged around similar historical periods, they likely share the same genetic background. Therefore, the exact ancestry of Lebanese cannot be properly deciphered without ancient DNA from the potential ancestral populations, currently unavailable."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35837

To make it concrete, my link on y-full (full gnome Y-DNA):

Well that's pretty spot on.

But even on a autosomal level I could find a tiny trace, on Your DNA Portal they segmented the autosomal DNA, and although in earlier -versions it was was higher- in my fathers autosomal DNA, allround pretty migration time Anglo-Saxon like-is a tiny trace Druze:



Seen the fact that the NWGmc speaking and 'rune bearing'  Mischgruppe went in migration time to Friesland (were my Y-DNA can be traced until the late 17 th century), there is a chance (no more no less) that I'm a (Y-DNA) descendant of these Nabatean archers!

So excuse for my enthousiasm and the final proof would be a direct link with Y-DNA of that time in Denmark, but still there seems to be a certain plausibility.....

[Dewsloth]

One for you:
https://www.academia.edu/4623198/Ex_Orie...man_Empire

[JonikW]

Jaska and Angles, I mentioned in my last post that your observations on the Finnic contacts have persuaded me that a neighbouring part (or parts) of Sweden spoke PGmc. I also feel Rodoorn has made some good observations about the region to the south. Under current linguistic theories, how far might the PGmc language zone have extended beyond where you envisage its focal point in Sweden? Is it completely beyond the bounds of current theory that it could have included much of the area beyond that had also belonged to the earlier Nordic Bronze Age (say the Baltic German coast and/or Jutland?

@JonikW now it's time for me to say blimey (just like you did with the amber find  

I was somewhat searching around about runes (I know your knowledge on this subject is much more than mine) and NWGmc.....

And then my goodness, first the conclusion:


https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/di...TEXT01.pdf

It's really worth a  whole read: amazing!!!

Ok I know this this under fire because of:
a. the development of runes starts before 200 AD (even more seen the pretty recent findings in Norway):
b. why didn't they cc the whole Nabatean alphabet and was it also based on the Latin one.
I guess pretty much stuff for discussion between experts.
https://www.schwedisch-intensiv.de/publi...ufsatz.pdf

But then brainwave. 





What about my - for Frisians/Germanics- white raven Y-DNA E-V22 and especially my subclade E-L1401? Along the Nabateans this was most probably a prominent Y-DNA, we see it even in what in general regarded as a kind of "preserved"  heir of the Nabateans in the same region: the Druzes.

E-V22 is pretty frequent among the Druzes:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Dru...e=yresults

Nature:
"Fascinatingly, most Lebanese individuals were predicted along the northwestern Incense Route leading from southern Arabia to the Mediterranean, used by merchants between the 4th century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. This multi-origin of the Lebanese (Fig. 3[C1]) may be explained either by the 7th century Arabian expansion, which saw a large scale movement of Arabian tribes from the Arabian Peninsula into the Middle East, or by the northern expansion of nomadic Bedouin tribes known as the Nabataeans. By the end of the fourth century the Nabataeans had established an empire which occupied Northern Arabia and the Southern Levant for four hundred years, making migration into Lebanon at this time highly probable35. However, as both Nabatean and late Arab conquerors inhabited the same geographical regions and emerged around similar historical periods, they likely share the same genetic background. Therefore, the exact ancestry of Lebanese cannot be properly deciphered without ancient DNA from the potential ancestral populations, currently unavailable."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35837

To make it concrete, my link on y-full (full gnome Y-DNA):

Well that's pretty spot on.

But even on a autosomal level I could find a tiny trace, on Your DNA Portal they segmented the autosomal DNA, and although in earlier -versions it was was higher- in my fathers autosomal DNA, allround pretty migration time Anglo-Saxon like-is a tiny trace Druze:



Seen the fact that the NWGmc speaking and 'rune bearing'  Mischgruppe went in migration time to Friesland (were my Y-DNA can be traced until the late 17 th century), there is a chance (no more no less) that I'm a (Y-DNA) descendant of these Nabatean archers!

So excuse for my enthousiasm and the final proof would be a direct link with Y-DNA of that time in Denmark, but still there seems to be a certain plausibility.....

The origin of the runes deserves a thread of its own but that Nabatean theory is full of holes and I see you've realised that. As for your Y line Rodoorn, this is a very exciting lead to examine!  Apologies for the off topic, Angles…

[JonikW]

On topic again, Jaska I'd be extremely interested to learn your professional views on my questions at #569 if you feel you can comment. Angles made an interesting reply and I think it's an important area for discussion.

[Rodoorn]

Jaska and Angles, I mentioned in my last post that your observations on the Finnic contacts have persuaded me that a neighbouring part (or parts) of Sweden spoke PGmc. I also feel Rodoorn has made some good observations about the region to the south. Under current linguistic theories, how far might the PGmc language zone have extended beyond where you envisage its focal point in Sweden? Is it completely beyond the bounds of current theory that it could have included much of the area beyond that had also belonged to the earlier Nordic Bronze Age (say the Baltic German coast and/or Jutland?

@JonikW now it's time for me to say blimey (just like you did with the amber find  

I was somewhat searching around about runes (I know your knowledge on this subject is much more than mine) and NWGmc.....

And then my goodness, first the conclusion:


https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/di...TEXT01.pdf

It's really worth a  whole read: amazing!!!

Ok I know this this under fire because of:
a. the development of runes starts before 200 AD (even more seen the pretty recent findings in Norway):
b. why didn't they cc the whole Nabatean alphabet and was it also based on the Latin one.
I guess pretty much stuff for discussion between experts.
https://www.schwedisch-intensiv.de/publi...ufsatz.pdf

But then brainwave. 





What about my - for Frisians/Germanics- white raven Y-DNA E-V22 and especially my subclade E-L1401? Along the Nabateans this was most probably a prominent Y-DNA, we see it even in what in general regarded as a kind of "preserved"  heir of the Nabateans in the same region: the Druzes.

E-V22 is pretty frequent among the Druzes:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Dru...e=yresults

Nature:
"Fascinatingly, most Lebanese individuals were predicted along the northwestern Incense Route leading from southern Arabia to the Mediterranean, used by merchants between the 4th century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. This multi-origin of the Lebanese (Fig. 3[C1]) may be explained either by the 7th century Arabian expansion, which saw a large scale movement of Arabian tribes from the Arabian Peninsula into the Middle East, or by the northern expansion of nomadic Bedouin tribes known as the Nabataeans. By the end of the fourth century the Nabataeans had established an empire which occupied Northern Arabia and the Southern Levant for four hundred years, making migration into Lebanon at this time highly probable35. However, as both Nabatean and late Arab conquerors inhabited the same geographical regions and emerged around similar historical periods, they likely share the same genetic background. Therefore, the exact ancestry of Lebanese cannot be properly deciphered without ancient DNA from the potential ancestral populations, currently unavailable."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35837

To make it concrete, my link on y-full (full gnome Y-DNA):

Well that's pretty spot on.

But even on a autosomal level I could find a tiny trace, on Your DNA Portal they segmented the autosomal DNA, and although in earlier -versions it was was higher- in my fathers autosomal DNA, allround pretty migration time Anglo-Saxon like-is a tiny trace Druze:



Seen the fact that the NWGmc speaking and 'rune bearing'  Mischgruppe went in migration time to Friesland (were my Y-DNA can be traced until the late 17 th century), there is a chance (no more no less) that I'm a (Y-DNA) descendant of these Nabatean archers!

So excuse for my enthousiasm and the final proof would be a direct link with Y-DNA of that time in Denmark, but still there seems to be a certain plausibility.....

The origin of the runes deserves a thread of its own but that Nabatean theory is full of holes and I see you've realised that. As for your Y line Rodoorn, this is a very exciting lead to examine!  Apologies for the off topic, Angles…

Suppose his theory is incorrect (about runes and the Nabatean archers), then the Nabatean arches as such may still have been present  in Denmark 200 AD and the descendants may have been part of the "NWGmc speaking Anglo-Saxons" who spread along the North Sea (also not that  off topic, right?).

[PopGenist82]

PopGenist82:
"That’s not really the case, apart from debates on what are essentially minutiae (such as ‘how CHG arrived to the steppe’), or overt omissions which have been glaringly obvious to the broader community. In terms of the big picture, each publication adds details to previous rather than upturning."

The same is true also for linguistics. At the same time, there will always be subjects open for different interpretations in linguistics and genetics. This cannot nullify their status as scientific disciplines, because there are also very solid and permanent views and results in those disciplines.
 
You cannot just pick the most speculative parts of linguistics and judge the whole discipline on that basis. You must compare it to the most speculative parts of genetics. Most importantly, you should first know and understand linguistics, before you could try to criticize it.

P.S. This is off-topic, so perhaps we need to move this discussion to another thread.

We respect & uphold the comparative method; that’s not the issue.

[PopGenist82]

The reason I find the Germanic urheimat in southern Scandinavia has nothing to do with Finnic borrowings but rather dialectal.  If Germanic came from the south into Scandinavia, they would find the descendants of the Battle-Axe Culture there, who were derived from Corded Ware and therefore spoke an Indo-European dialect.  If speakers of a southern Germanic dialect that was ancestral to proto-Norse encountered this people, the resulting Early North Germanic would diverge sharply from western Germanic, which is not the case.  English underwent change at the end of the Anglo-Saxon period due to the Viking invasion because the early East Norse spoken by the Vikings who settled the Danelaw, a North Germanic language, was still somewhat intelligible to speakers of Anglo-Saxon, a West Germanic language.  The main area of Germanic origin appears to me to be in southern Sweden and Denmark, with West Germanic splitting when migrations to the south encountered people speaking Nordwestblock languages, and East Germanic splitting, of course, when they crossed the Baltic, but as there were fewer inhabitants there (shout out to my M458 cousins that were among the few, though), it took longer for the dialects to diverge and Biblical Gothic thus appears to be more primitive.

I know some modern R1a- enthusiasts wish that BAx was proto-Germanic, but it was a substrate onto which the quasi-Beaker R1b-U106 migration from the continent impacted on, and then proto-Germanic developed from this admixture, relatively isolated (everythign is only relative), within the cutural context of the NBA and their Urnfield-era descendants over the next hundreds & 2-thousand years. 
There was no mass migration across the Baltic Sea, East Germanic was a land-based folk migration from the Elbe.
The only question is what was the 'southern border' of the NBA, scholars have slightly different views there, but it is certainly limited to the very north of continental Germany & northern Netherlands. Once we get into central Germany, Free Saxony, etc , we are looking at different cultures, such as Tumulus, Lausits, etc

[JonikW]

Jaska and Angles, I mentioned in my last post that your observations on the Finnic contacts have persuaded me that a neighbouring part (or parts) of Sweden spoke PGmc. I also feel Rodoorn has made some good observations about the region to the south. Under current linguistic theories, how far might the PGmc language zone have extended beyond where you envisage its focal point in Sweden? Is it completely beyond the bounds of current theory that it could have included much of the area beyond that had also belonged to the earlier Nordic Bronze Age (say the Baltic German coast and/or Jutland?

@JonikW now it's time for me to say blimey (just like you did with the amber find  

I was somewhat searching around about runes (I know your knowledge on this subject is much more than mine) and NWGmc.....

And then my goodness, first the conclusion:


https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/di...TEXT01.pdf

It's really worth a  whole read: amazing!!!

Ok I know this this under fire because of:
a. the development of runes starts before 200 AD (even more seen the pretty recent findings in Norway):
b. why didn't they cc the whole Nabatean alphabet and was it also based on the Latin one.
I guess pretty much stuff for discussion between experts.
https://www.schwedisch-intensiv.de/publi...ufsatz.pdf

But then brainwave. 





What about my - for Frisians/Germanics- white raven Y-DNA E-V22 and especially my subclade E-L1401? Along the Nabateans this was most probably a prominent Y-DNA, we see it even in what in general regarded as a kind of "preserved"  heir of the Nabateans in the same region: the Druzes.

E-V22 is pretty frequent among the Druzes:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Dru...e=yresults

Nature:
"Fascinatingly, most Lebanese individuals were predicted along the northwestern Incense Route leading from southern Arabia to the Mediterranean, used by merchants between the 4th century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. This multi-origin of the Lebanese (Fig. 3[C1]) may be explained either by the 7th century Arabian expansion, which saw a large scale movement of Arabian tribes from the Arabian Peninsula into the Middle East, or by the northern expansion of nomadic Bedouin tribes known as the Nabataeans. By the end of the fourth century the Nabataeans had established an empire which occupied Northern Arabia and the Southern Levant for four hundred years, making migration into Lebanon at this time highly probable35. However, as both Nabatean and late Arab conquerors inhabited the same geographical regions and emerged around similar historical periods, they likely share the same genetic background. Therefore, the exact ancestry of Lebanese cannot be properly deciphered without ancient DNA from the potential ancestral populations, currently unavailable."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35837

To make it concrete, my link on y-full (full gnome Y-DNA):

Well that's pretty spot on.

But even on a autosomal level I could find a tiny trace, on Your DNA Portal they segmented the autosomal DNA, and although in earlier -versions it was was higher- in my fathers autosomal DNA, allround pretty migration time Anglo-Saxon like-is a tiny trace Druze:



Seen the fact that the NWGmc speaking and 'rune bearing'  Mischgruppe went in migration time to Friesland (were my Y-DNA can be traced until the late 17 th century), there is a chance (no more no less) that I'm a (Y-DNA) descendant of these Nabatean archers!

So excuse for my enthousiasm and the final proof would be a direct link with Y-DNA of that time in Denmark, but still there seems to be a certain plausibility.....

The origin of the runes deserves a thread of its own but that Nabatean theory is full of holes and I see you've realised that. As for your Y line Rodoorn, this is a very exciting lead to examine!  Apologies for the off topic, Angles…

Suppose his theory is incorrect (about runes and the Nabatean archers), then the Nabatean arches as such may still have been present  in Denmark 200 AD and the descendants may have been part of the "NWGmc speaking Anglo-Saxons" who spread along the North Sea (also not that  off topic, right?).

Yes, I would say those are separate matters. From a skim read it seems to me he doesn't go into the actual evidence for this cohort recruited at Hauran, just gives what look like reputable sources where it's been discussed. If you can find out more, please feel free to post on the Germanic artefacts thread because I feel that's a suitable place for all kinds of eclectic discussion, while here we're obviously focused on linguistics and want to keep other members happy.

[Anglesqueville]

Notice to all followers of this thread. This thread, which belongs to the linguistics forum, was opened to present a linguistics thesis. This thesis has been exposed, discussed and defended, so that the mission of this thread has been fulfilled. The risk now is that, as has happened in other places, the debates will be carried away in an endless circularity, ever further from the initial subject. In agreement with the administrators, I therefore decided to put an end to this thread. Everyone will feel free to continue sharing their thoughts on other discussion threads they have defined for this purpose. But as for this one, this post will be its last. Thank you all.