LL-L "History" 2007.04.03 (01) [E]
Lowlands-L List
lowlands.list at gmail.com
Tue Apr 3 15:15:10 UTC 2007
L O W L A N D S - L - 03 April 2007 - Volume 01
=========================================================================
From: "Clarkedavid8 at aol.com" <Clarkedavid8 at aol.com>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2007.04.02 (03) [E]
John Welch wrote:
"If Scythians did not become "Saxons", the Scythian influence was a
long-term fact of life, with Polish nobles identifying with it until last
century."
I thought that the Slavonic and specifically Russian identification with the
"Scythians" only occurred in the late nineteenth century and was a
phenomenon of nineteenth-century nationalism, when nation states emphasised
their uniqueness and raison d'etre by identifying their original ancestors,
such as the Anglo Saxons, Celts or Gauls. This provides much of the humour
of Asterix the Gaul and also led to Alexander Blok's very silly early 20th
century poem "The Scyths".
David Clarke
----------
From: Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2007.04.02 (03) [E]
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 08:57, Lowlands-L List wrote:
<snip>
> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: History
>
> Hi, Bryan!
>
> You lost me somewhere along the way ...
>
> - The Romance and Celtic language branches grew from a common branch
> off Indo-European. They are therefore more closely related to each
other
> than to other Indo-European branches. In Roman times, Latin (Romance)
> and Gaulish (Celtic) were to a certain degree mutually intelligible, but
> apparently only in the sense that certain words could be made out here and
> there (which is why Romans in Gaul needed .
> - Latin is only one of many Romance languages and is not the earliest
Specifically, it is the Italic language that grew up from the people who
settled the township/city called Roma. Other Italic languages include Oscan
and Umbrian, which happen to be the most closely related Italic languages
known at present - Oscan spoken to the south-west, if I remember correctly -
Pompei was an Oscan-speaking town, again IIRC, and Umbrian to the north.
They are relatively widely attested - which means that they have a large
number of grave-stones inscribed in them, and there are some longer
inscriptions. No racy novels, alas! ;)
There are a set of other Italic languages - Venetic is one, and the names of
the rest I've forgotten.
Italic is the term for Indo-European languages spoken in Italy before the
rise
of the Roman Empire; Romance is the term for the languages developed from
Latin during the later [mostly Western] Roman Empire and the interregnum
following its collapse and the establishment of modern Europe. (Sorry to
nit-pick. ;)
> or only early one; it is only the most noted ("powerful") early one. It
> grew from a mixture of Italic Romance languages with Etruscan (and other
Etruscan's not an Indo-European language. It would be interesting to find
out
if any aspects of the Tuscany dialect developed out of Etruscan "flavouring"
the Vulgar Latin spoken in that province.
Unfortunately, time has not been kind to us - most of the surviving Etruscan
happens to be grave inscriptions, and the like. The longest Etruscan text
is
unaccompanied by any translation, so we can only read dribs and drabs of it.
In such conditions, speculation runs rife.
> Old Italic), Greek, Germanic and Celtic admixtures. When we say that
"Latin
> is the ancestor of modern Romance languages (such as Italian, Spanish,
> Romanian)" it is a case of simplification. Latin as we know it, used to
> serve as a "high" language, as a literary language and as an imperial
> lingua franca already during most of the Roman period, and there were many
> socially and regionally distributed spoken varieties alongside it. Modern
> Roman languages were derived from various spoken varieties that we refer
to
> as "Vulgar Latin," though some of those may have been separate languages
in
> Roman times already, just weren't written because they were considered ...
> well, "vulgar."
<snip>
> Information and assumedly people used to be transported across Eurasia
very
> early. Most people traveled only parts of the way, some apparently all
the
> way. The Indian Subcontinent and, north of it, the heartland of Central
> Asia may be seen as halfway marks; they had direct exchanges with both
> China and the Eastern Mediterranean region.
>
> Please note what I mentioned in my introduction to the Kannada language (
> lowlands-l.net/anniversary/kannada-info.php) at our anniversary site --
and
> bear in mind that Kannada is not an Indo-European language but a Dravidian
> language now used in Southern India (though it appears to have been
shifted
> there from the north):
>
> Of particular interest to European tradition is that a Kannada skit
> dialogue is featured in a Greek burlesque play, the Charition mime, which
Now you have my mouth wide open. This is the first I've ever heard of a
language from the Indian subcontinent recorded in a Mediterranean script!
Subconsciously, I would have expected Sanskrit - but it doesn't sound like
it
was "serious" enough to include a classical Indian language. It sounds like
the way the Prakrit speeches are used in Sanskrit drama - lesser beings such
as the women and the servants speak in Prakrit, while the gods, kings,
princes, and generals all speak Sanskrit.
> is found on Papyrus 413 of Oxyrhynchus (Pr-Medjed, al-Bahnasa), Egypt, and
> dates back at least to the second century CE. The play seems to be based
> upon
> Euripides' Iphigeneia
> in Tauris (Iφιγένεια ή έν Ταύροις) but is set in India instead of Greece.
> This seems to prove that linguistic knowledge was passed on between India
> and the Mediterranean region at least as far back as in the early part of
> the first millennium CE.
> Published in 1904, these findings by E. Hultzsch were criticized and
> dismissed at the time. Discovered in the meantime, the Halmidi Kannada
> inscription of 450 AD corroborates many of Hultzsch' theories about the
> development of Kannada and lends much credence to his work on the papyrus
> inscription.
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron
Wesley Parish
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
----------
From: "Isaac M. Davis" <isaacmacdonalddavis at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2007.04.02 (03) [E]
Ron wrote:
>
> - The Romance and Celtic language branches grew from a common branch
> off Indo-European. They are therefore more closely related to each other
> than to other Indo-European branches. In Roman times, Latin (Romance) and
> Gaulish (Celtic) were to a certain degree mutually intelligible, but
> apparently only in the sense that certain words could be made out here and
> there (which is why Romans in Gaul needed [to speak Greek(?)].
>
> Actually, as far as I know, the Italo-Celtic hypothesis is pretty much
defunct. There are definitely similarities, even within IE as a whole, but
the current line of thinking is that the resemblance between the Italic*
languages and Celtic ones is due to areal proximity rather than genetic
relationship.
* (Romance is a subgroup of Italic, albeit the only extant one, in the same
way that the Insular group of Celtic languages is the only extant one.)
> - Latin is only one of many Romance languages and is not the
> earliest or only early one; it is only the most noted ("powerful") early
> one. It grew from a mixture of Italic Romance languages with Etruscan (and
> other Old Italic), Greek, Germanic and Celtic admixtures. When we say that
> "Latin is the ancestor of modern Romance languages (such as Italian,
> Spanish, Romanian)" it is a case of simplification. Latin as we know it,
> used to serve as a "high" language, as a literary language and as an
> imperial lingua franca already during most of the Roman period, and there
> were many socially and regionally distributed spoken varieties alongside it.
> Modern Roman languages were derived from various spoken varieties that we
> refer to as "Vulgar Latin," though some of those may have been separate
> languages in Roman times already, just weren't written because they were
> considered ... well, "vulgar."
>
> As I noted, I think it's important to distinguish between Italic languages
as a whole and the Romance subgroup. Oscan, Umbrian, and the like have only
transmitted their legacy as substrates on modern Romance languages (probably
only ones in Italy, actually, as Latin vanquished its siblings before
expanding outside of the peninsula, and I don't think there was much or any
outmigration of speakers of Italic languages before that time), but even
that is enough to merit the distinction.
Nitpickingly yours,
Isaac M. Davis
--
Westron wynd, when wilt thou blow
The smalle rain down can rain
Christ yf my love were in my arms
And I yn my bed again
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: History
Thanks loads for your "nitpicking," Wesley and Isaac. I consider it
justified. In hindsight I can see that those clarifications are needed,
because I came across sounding as though I believed Etruscan was
Indo-European, and in my endeavor to simplify I muddled up the Italic vs
Romance thing.
Isaac, interesting about the advance regarding theories about Celtic vs
Romance! I must say that it makes me feel relieved, because I've wondered
all along if we weren't mostly dealing with borrowing, i.e., contacts. And
I wonder if the same will come about (if it hasn't already) regarding the
"Balto-Slavonic" hypothesis.
Wes, remember that the Dravidian languages, and Kannada in particular, have
very long histories, and some of them were classical languages in their
days. Extant Kannada works go back about one and a half millennia, and the
earliest ones show signs of highly developed literary languages. Extant
Tamil literature goes back to 200 BCE, and in 2004 the Indian government
officially declared Tamil a "classical language."
Besides, as I mentioned, most Dravidian varieties of Southern India
(Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, etc.) are now believed to have been northern
ones originally, that the survivors are descendants of a northern refugee
community in the south, so to speak, while those now used north of them
(Central Dravidian, e.g., Telugu) do not seem to have migrated. Apparently
Brahui, Kurukh, Malto and the Paharia varieties of Pakistan, Nepal and
Northern India are therefore holdout enclaves of Northern Dravidian.
Sanskrit and Dravidian influenced each other, very much so. (Indo-Aryan
phonology is strongly Dravidicized, for instance, something we need to bear
in mind when we use Sanskrit data in etymological research.) It may thus be
fair to assume that the earlier strata of Indo-Aryan influences on what are
now the South Dravidian languages (Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, etc.) are due
to contacts in the north of the Indian Subcontinent, are pre-migration
influences, in other words.
It's a great big peeve among speakers of Dravidian that all attention is on
Indo-Aryan languages and Classical Dravidian is usually disregarded. I
suppose this goes along with the common refusal, especially in the south, to
accept Hindi as India's national language. Many would rather use English as
the national lingua franca because it is "neutral."
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
----------
From: Marcel Bas <roepstem at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2007.04.02 (02) [E]
Sandy Fleming wrote:
>I've often come across polemics about the "duality of nature" and then
>again other effusions about how so many things come in threes. I think
>these numbers crop up more frequently because they're small, and
>moreover because we can visualise them and so tend to notice them more,
>not because any of this means anything, or that connections can be made
>based on small cardinals.
Besides the common attempts to show that the magic number 'three' is a
recurrent theme in Indo-European (nay, universal) mythology, there is
also 'something' about the magic number 'two'. There seem to be powerful
twin brothers in the Celtic, Germanic and Greek pantheons. According to
some scholars this demonstrates a common origin for these mythologies. Does
anyone know about twins operating in the Walhallas of non-Indo-European
peoples? I think these themes are so recurrent and universal that it is not
likely that they demonstrate a common mythologic origin, but rather that it
demonstrates universal characteristics of the human psychology and family
(twins happen to be born, whether it happens in Oceania or in Africa; three
people have better and perhaps more convincing outcomes of discussions when
it's three of them, etc.
Ed Alexander wrote:
>The way we see it up here is that the Davidian spoken in places like Waco
descended from the Kanadian up here in the >north.
Blame Canada!
Groetnis,
Marcel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070403/f32a6866/attachment.htm>
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list