LL-L "History" 2007.03.26 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L - 26 March 2007 - Volume 01

=========================================================================

From: Larry Granberg <lgranberg at usa.com>
Subject: plattdeutsch

Ron would be more able to comment on the difference between Balto and
Southern Germanic.....However your using the term Ukrainian Scythians is
incorrect. Scythians settled in more places than the Ukraine - Southern
Russia and Central Asia among them. Properly one should say, from the
territories of modern day Ukraine or Poland or found within such. Trying to
connect either the Scythian or Lusatian cultures to modern ethnic groups is
limiting, unfounded and unfortunately ties into nationalistic sentiments.
One has to look at the current Ukrainian claims of the Trypillian culture
being the fount of present day Ukraine (ians).

----------

From: "Bryan E. Schulz" <bryans at lodging1.com>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2007.03.25 (08) [E]

The Baltic region was occupied/ruled by Germany for several centuries  The
main reason for the keen interest in the Baltic countries  from the northern
European countries was the expansion of the trading routes and the
establishment of the Hanseatic League.
  Another source of the influence on the German language from Russia and its
surrounds may be the effects of the Viking forays deep into the territories
now claimed by Russia.  The naval references you present could have
easily been assimilated into the languages as the Vikings went
back-and-forth from Russia, France and most of the Middle East countries.

What is more intriguing to me is the place of the Finnish language which
seems rather isolated from its immediate neighbors. Some think there is
Sanskrit connection to this language.

Bryan E. Schulz

----------

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

Hi, guys!

Larry:

> Ron would be more able to comment on the difference between Balto and
Southern Germanic.....

I defer to others.  In fact I don't even know what "Balto-Germanic" is
supposed to mean.  Is it Germanic languages that are spoken along the Baltic
coast?  In that case it would include (in a traditional sense) Low Saxon
("Low German"), Anglic, Jutish, Danish, Scanian, Gutnish and Swedish, and,
yes, also Gothic, perhaps also Darlecarlian, but it would exclude Norwegian
and Jamtlandish (and of course Faeroese and Icelandic).  Is it the Germanic
languages spoken in the "Baltic Countries"?  That would be Low Saxon and,
added later, German.  So I'm a bit lost here.

> Trying to connect either the Scythian or Lusatian cultures to modern
ethnic groups is limiting, unfounded and
> unfortunately ties into nationalistic sentiments

Too true, as I would say wearing my Australian hat.  One has to be extremely
careful with that sort of thing.  Too often have we seen "historical
fantasies" being used for nationalistic propaganda purposes, especially when
"purity" comes into it, or emphasis on one supposedly prestigious admixture
and the notion of "national/ethnic characteristics/mentality."  Just think
of the exploitation of the name "Aryan" and persistent echoes of that past
in the unfortunate German and Dutch terms Indogermanisch and
indogermaansfor "Indo-European"!

Of course it's very interesting to research what sort of ethnic groups once
passed through a certain area, which ones got absorbed where, and all the
linguistic and cultural ramifications this may have.  All this assumes that
you accept that all ethnic groups, cultures and languages are mixtures, that
there is no such thing as purity.  You may remember that I once mentioned
that at one point an alliance of Goths and Alans hung around parts of what
are now northeastern Germany and northern Poland, areas in which some of my
ancestors lived.  While it is not impossible that I got some of that gene
material I merely joke when I say I must have gotten some Persian blood from
the Alans (the ancestors of today's Osetians) and that my once black unibrow
proves it.  (I should also claim Arab blood considering that there are early
Arabic descriptions of the peoples of the Baltic coast and Arabic coins have
been unearthed there.) Obviously this is supposed to poke fun at notions of
ancestry research that's gone off the deep end.

Bryan:

> What is more intriguing to me is the place of the Finnish language which
seems rather isolated
> from its immediate neighbors. Some think there is  Sanskrit connection to
this language.

Now there's where "Balto-" is used, namely "Balto-Finnic" or "Baltic
Finnic," the name of the Finnic (thus Uralic) languages that are used at or
near the Baltic Sea, and this includes not only Finnish but also Karelian,
Estonian, Livian, Ingrian, Ludic, Veps, Votic and Võro (and other varieties
of Southern Estonia).  While I personally do not dismiss the possibility of
very ancient links between the Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European languages,
to say that there are Sanskrit connections with Finnish or Finnic is in my
opinion a glaring example of a bright red herring that jumped out of a vat
with an underpickled batch. Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, the
oldest known Indo-Aryan variety to which Hindustani, Nepali, Panjabi,
Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali and others belong.  So Sanskrit is a heck of a
lot more closely related to English, Norwegian, German, Russian, French,
Gaelic etc. than it is related to Finnish and other Uralic languages.  Or
were there supposed to have been contacts between Finnic and Sanskrit at one
point in time.  How so?  Who comes up with that stuff, and how ... and why?

Have a good week!
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070326/ca845f5f/attachment.htm>