The Neolithic Hypothesis

[Eduard Selleslagh]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

M.Carrasquer wrote:

>The Frisians and/or Ingvaeones were not Scandinavian (in the
>sense of North Germanic speaking).  They merely inhabitated the
>North Sea Coast area from the Roman limes up to the tip of
>Jutland, the latter now linguisticaly Scandinavian territory.
>After the collapse of Roman power, they spread along the coast to
>South Holland, Zeeland and Western Flanders, while presumably
>exchanging Jutland and Angeln for England.  In any case these
>areas became Danish-speaking, like Skaane and the Danish islands.

 [ES]

Maybe they spoke that mixture called 'northwest Germanic' (understood as a
mixture of west and north, NOT northeast, Germanic), but the linguistic
result is the same, although it might not be 'a Scandinavian base profoundly
influenced by Dutch/Low German' but just as well the opposite order of
influence.

On the other hand: I am not so sure the migration started only after the
collapse of Roman power. The coastal people have always been a rather
independant bunch, beginning with the Celtic Menapii of Caesar's time,
probably because of the then still existing geographical isolation I
depicted in the previous posting.

>>I am not sure at all that you can say English wasn't influenced by
>>Dutch/Low German, albeit in a somewhat convoluted way: Saxon itself is -
>>or was - a (collection of) Dutch/Low German dialect(s), while Anglian may
>>be considered to have been something in between Danish and Low German.

>>[...]

>>As to 'northwestern Germanic', I am very, very skeptical about that idea.

>If you say Anglian was "in between Danish and Low German", I
>don't see how you can be that skeptical.

[ES]

I was referring to the graphically rather confusing diagram of McCallister,
that seems to suggest 'NW Germanic' to be a common child of NE and W
Germanic, before the split of NE into N and E Germanic.  Probably, that
interpretation of the diagram was wrong. In that case : sorry.

>>The least you can say, is that it is not a necessary hypothesis.
>>Postulating mutual (or one-way west > east?) influence between east- and
>>west Germanic seems sufficient to explain the observed phenomena.  There
>>was ample opportunity for it to occur after the split of northeast into
>>north and east Germanic

[MC]

>That's indeed all "North-West Germanic" means.  Mutual influence
>between North and West Germanic, after the split between North
>and East Germanic, and of course long after the split between
>West and North-East Germanic.

[ES]

See above, plus this:
I was also speaking about E<=>W mutual influence: a certain (hypothetical?)
'westernization' of Gothic, and some rare cases of E Germanic penetration in
the west (mainly toponyms, like the various little rivers called Aa < Ahwa,
and derivations like Breda, as far as I know), probably during the
migrations of the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, I presume.
Does anyone have more precise and substantiated data on this?

Ed. Selleslagh