LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.10.02 (09) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 02.OCT.2005 (09) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L Language varieties

Hi Ron and Luc and everyone else

I think (regarding migrations of Indo-European tribes
across Europe) that when the earliest 'Germanic'
tribes were underway, they were probably still very
much Indo-European and they only started changing to
become 'Germanic' ie. their own branch of IE long
after they had settled in the area. So people that
were 'left behind' developed into Celts or Slavs or
whoever else happened to be in the way. To talk of
them being a mixture of Celtic and Germanic etc. (in
prehistory anyway) is thus not really applicable as
they were all just Indo-Europeans.

The spread of the Indo-Europeans might very well have
been a spread of the language as opposed to the spread
of the people, so it might have been that the
'Germanic' tribes were always there, but they adopted
the IE language of a (culturally superior) minority
and made it their own, with their own particular
accent, which eventually developed into the various
Germanic dialects and languages.

I'm not a historian so I don't know for sure (not that
historians would either)...

Gary

http://hometown.aol.com/taylor16471/myhomepage/index.html

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language use

Thanks, Gary.

I see it pretty much the way you do, but that didn't exactly come across 
now, did it?  That's due to poor phrasing and terminology.

Yes, I assume that there were people already (going back a long time) and 
that they merged with immigrating Indo-Europeans whose language varieties 
prevailed, developing on native substrates, thus increasing Indo-European 
language diversity even more.

I assume that there was not a single, homogenous Indo-European language by 
the time of migration into Northern Europe, namely that migration was slow 
and tribal diversity had already led to linguistic diversity, in part by way 
of absorbing linguistic influences (including substrates) along the way.

Take in much, much later times the migration of the Roma (_Rroma_, 
"Gypsies") from Northwestern India to Northwestern Europe.  It is estimated 
to have begun in the 12th century C.E., and it went on well into the 15th 
century.  (I believe the earliest recorded presence in the northwest was in 
Hildesheim, Northern Germany.)

The Indo-Europeans may have had horses, but I doubt everyone rode on 
horseback.  Migrating must have been something like "we" observed among 
indigenous Native Americans after they adopted the horse.  Some rode and 
some walked.  Traveling those distances must have taken a long, long time, 
interrupted by countless settlements (perhaps for generations) and rounds of 
absorption along the way.  Though the Roma's language varieties are still 
basically Indo-Aryan, they appear to be a far cry from what they were back 
in India, having absorbed all sorts of influences along the way.  This is 
what I imagine to have happened much, much earlier in Indo-European 
migration.  When I said, "Germanic settlements" on the way north I actually 
meant a particular Indo-European-speaking branch, some of the ancestors 
whose language varieties came to be adopted and later developed into 
"Germanic," assumedly on indigenous substrates.

So, yes, those of us who are Northwest Europeans are no doubt descendants of 
people who had been there already (whose ancient stone monuments we can 
still see) with admixtures of immigrating Indo-European speakers (who may 
have made up only a small percentage for all we know, if they were powerful 
enough to make the "natives" adopt their language).

Although we'll probably never now what sort of languages those natives 
spoke, it is kind of fascinating to "fantasize" about it (going along with 
our Luc's sentiment there).  Theoretically, though, there could be a way of 
reconstructing special "native" features by comparing all the most ancient 
known Northern European languages with each other and "shaving off" the 
common parts of their Indo-European crust.  Branch-specific features 
(Germanic, Celtic, Romance, Slavonic, Baltic, Grecian) might offer some 
clues as to linguistic features of pre-Indo-European times.

And then there is the phenomenon of language isolates, assumedly orphans of 
extinct language groups.  In Europe the only surviving one is Basque, and a 
now extinct one of which texts are extant is Etruscan.  Basque influences, 
especially phonological influences, on Northern Spain's Romance language 
varieties have been accepted to be evident.  Clearly, Etruscans, generally 
considered speaking an isolate rumored to have arrived from Anatolia, 
eventually came to adopt Latin, but their language also influenced Latin, 
not only varieties of Tuscany (Etruria) and the Po region, but also of Latin 
as a whole, apparently also of Greek (then used in Southern Italy), if not 
also indirectly other languages, such as Celtic ones (Gaulish having been 
used not far north of there).  Take Etruscan words like these: _alumnathe_ 
sacred society (L alumnus), _abcar_ abacus, _athre_ building (L atrium?), 
_cape_ container (L capio?), _cela_ room (L cella), _clan_ son (Celt 
clánn?), _cletram_ basin, basket (Umbrian kletra), _creice_ Greek (L 
Graecus), _cupe_ cup, _favi_ grave, vault, temple (L favissa?), _herma_ 
statue (L Greek Έρμης Hermēs?), _ister_ actor (L histrio?), _lauchum_ king, 
prince (L lucumō), _leu-_ lion (L leo), _man(i)_ 'the dead (L Manes), _math_ 
honeyed wine (Ger *met?), _mi_ I, me, _nef(t)š_ ~ _nefiš_ grandson, nephew 
(L nepos), _neri_ water (Gk νερό neró), _pachathur_ maenad, Bacchante, 
_put(h)-_ cup, vase, well (L puteus, puteal), _cutun_ ~ _cutum_ vase (Gk 
κόθων kóthon), _ratum_ according to law (L rite), _sac-_ perform a sacred 
act (L sacrus?), _suplu_ flautist (L subulo), _tut(h)i_ community, nation (L 
totus? Umbrian tota? Ger thiud?), _thina_ vase, jar (L tina, Gk δίνως 
dīnos), _ulpaia_ jug (Gk ολπή olpē), _vinum_ wine (L vīnum). Note also 
suffixes like _-um_ and _-r_ found also in Latin.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==============================END===================================
Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")
are  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================