The Neolithic Hypothesis (Germanic)

[Robert Whiting]

On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

Subject: Re: The Neolithic Hypothesis (Germanic)

>I wrote:
><<Or isn't it more likely that Germanic was
>either cut-off, isolated or geographically distant from the
>"innovative core" - all external factors.

What all?  What are the subtle differences in meaning that you
see between "cut-off", "isolated" and "geographically distant"
that makes this three factors instead of one?

<snip>

>The 'Germanic' we are talking about happened @3000 years ago.
>Its speakers were primitive, poor and had lost contact with the
>rich and "linguistically innovative" regions to the south.

<irony>
Ah, I get it now.  The Ur-Germans were too poor to afford new
words and too primitive to think up their own so they were just
stuck with what they had.  I can see it all now:

Ur-Hans:  What are you doing?

Ur-Fritz:  I'm making a shoe for my hand.

Ur-Hans:  What are you going to call it?

Ur-Fritz:  Call it? -- You know we can't afford new words.

Ur-Hans:  Well, we sure can't make up any of our own, so I guess
          it's just a handshoe.

Ur-Fritz:  Yeah, it's a pity none of those rich foreigners ever
           come by so we could borrow a word from them.

(Author's note:  This exchange has been translated from
                 Ur-Germanisch for the benefit of the audience
                 since the purpose is dramatization, not
                 reconstruction.)
</irony>

>Is this the only explanation for its archaism?  No.  But it is
>better than pop sociology.

Well, I'm glad to know that "poor" and "primitive" are not
sociological factors.  Or are you saying that your pop sociology
can beat my pop sociology? :>

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi