 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » IMO: Germanic was VERY widespread during the Roman... |
|
Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Trond Engen... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:13 pm, Trond Engen <trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote:
2.7182818284590...:
Could you please give me some Celtic Loanwords in German?
The two groups lived side-by-side for a while.
_Annotated list of Celtic loanwords, and possible Celtic loanwords,
in Proto-Germanic_:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt...
(Anonymous, but found on the professional webpage of professor
Anthony Kroch at University of Pennsylvania)
The ringe- in the url strongly suggests it's by Don Ringe.
[/quote]
Yes it does. I should've seen that (but I'm a native Sloven and miss
obvious clues). Editing the url, I find this page:
<http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/>
I know what I'll be doing tonight.
[quote]As you'll see, there's doubt about several of the words. The author
of this document seems to be rather careful with attributing them to
Celtic.
Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical
phonology of Germanic, published quite recently?
[/quote]
Contemporary, I'd say, since they're "ringe-handouts-09" and "Germanic
Phonology" is a sister document.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:39:18 +0100, Trond Engen
<trondnet at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote in
<news:hd21h0$anv$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels:
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical
phonology of Germanic, published quite recently?
Contemporary, I'd say, since they're "ringe-handouts-09"
and "Germanic Phonology" is a sister document.
[/quote]
Both 'Germanic morphology' and 'Germanic phonology' are very
reminiscent of the book, and the latter even cites it.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| erilar... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<22affe7b-febd-4892-896a-de605488b07f at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Panu <craoibhin66 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The CELTS, you mean. The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
[/quote]
And a basketball team in Boston.
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-06 13:24:08 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> said:
On Nov 6, 4:57 am, "noesy_parker" <noesy_par... at (no spam) clara.co.uk> wrote:
Panu <craoibhi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in news:22affe7b-febd-4892-896a-
de605488b... at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
No, Celtics are the basketball team. The football team in Glasgow is
Celtic.
Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the hoopsters
have /s/.)
/s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise starts
/k/ in British usage.
[/quote]
It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joachim Pense... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DKleinecke (in sci.lang):
[quote]On Nov 5, 9:49 pm, Joachim Pense <s... at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
DKleinecke (in sci.lang):
On Nov 5, 8:15 am, hazchem <thewhitehor... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 4 Nov, 21:41, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
IMO: Germanic was VERY widespread during the Roman Empire
Slavic language was only introduced to the Balkans around the end of
the Roman Empire (around 500 AD). I'm convinced that prior to the
expansion of Slavic languages, that Germanic languages were spoken
in abundance in Central Europe in areas like Hungary, Poland, Czech
Republic, Western Ukraine, Belarus, etc.
What do you think about this?
The Lombards, who were a German tribe, lived on the Hungarian plain
before they moved into northern Italy. Goths and Vandals occupied
parts of eastern Europe like Poland and Ukraine.
There is a theory that the Belgae tribe were at least in part
Germanic. Apparently they settled parts of Britain. Maybe a Germanic
tongue was spoken in parts of Britain at the time of the Roman
invasion.
The precise relationship between the Germanic tribes and the Celtic
tribes before, say, 200 BC does not seem to ever have been worked out
in any great detail. However it is not a linguistic problem, at least
not so far as Germanic (that part for which there are surviving
records) and insular Celtic are concerned. We have no way to be sure
how much continental Celtic may have borrowed from Germanic. Since the
Celts appear to have been culturally dominant there is likely to have
been very little borrowing into Celtic. Conversely the surviving
Germans were located well behind the front lines during the time of
Celtic domination and may have rejected Celtic borrowing
hypothetically made by tribes closer to the Celts.
But all this is pure speculation. So far as I know there is very
little evidence of post-PIE interaction between the Germans and the
Celts.
There is one famous Celtic borrowing in Germanic, which is the name
suffix -rix (King, cf Vercingetorix), which became -rich in Germanic (cf
Heinrich and the word Reich).
Joachim
If Germanic -rich is really a borrowing from Celtic and not a
continuation of PIE root (I am not up to suggesting one) then it is a
very interesting one. Sort of proves what I said about the Celts being
dominant (here specicially politically).
[/quote]
There is a PIE root (that also led to Latin rex, and - although that is
AFAIK debated - of Skr. raja), but nevertheless rich is said to be a loan
from Celtic. Someone gave a link elsewhere in this thread.
Joachim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christian Weisgerber... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PaulJK <paul.kriha at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> wrote:
["Celtic"]
[quote]Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the hoopsters
have /s/.)
/s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise starts
/k/ in British usage.
It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
[/quote]
Now that you mention it, it's weird that Latin "Celta" gives "Kelte"
in German with initial k- rather than z-. The only other example
I can think of immediately is Cyrillic/"Kyrillisch", but presumably
that involves Greek.
Actually, "Celtae" is latinized from Greek "Keltoi" (Herodotus),
so that may have something to do with it.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy at (no spam) mips.inka.de |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Athel Cornish-Bowden... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-11-07 03:40:32 +0100, "PaulJK" <paul.kriha at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> said:
[quote]Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2009-11-06 13:24:08 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> said:
On Nov 6, 4:57 am, "noesy_parker" <noesy_par... at (no spam) clara.co.uk> wrote:
Panu <craoibhi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in news:22affe7b-febd-4892-896a-
de605488b... at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
The "Celtics" are a football team in Glasgow.
No, Celtics are the basketball team. The football team in Glasgow is
Celtic.
Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the hoopsters
have /s/.)
/s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise starts
/k/ in British usage.
It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
pjk
[/quote]
I wonder if the C spelling arose because the letter c is always (I
think) /k/ in Welsh and Irish. The /s/ pronunciation seems natural for
anyone meeting the word for the first time in writing. (Indeed, there
are probably some who don't realize that the /selt/ they hear is the
same word as the "Celt" they read.)
--
athel |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 10:16am, na... at (no spam) mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
[quote]PaulJK <paul.kr... at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> wrote:
["Celtic"]
Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the hoopsters
have /s/.)
/s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise starts
/k/ in British usage.
It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
Now that you mention it, it's weird that Latin "Celta" gives "Kelte"
in German with initial k- rather than z-. The only other example
I can think of immediately is Cyrillic/"Kyrillisch", but presumably
that involves Greek.
[/quote]
how about Caesar / Kaiser . I guess that invovels a literary loan.
[quote]
Actually, "Celtae" is latinized from Greek "Keltoi" (Herodotus),
so that may have something to do with it.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na... at (no spam) mips.inka.de[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian M. Scott:
[quote]On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:39:18 +0100, Trond Engen
trondnet at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote in
news:hd21h0$anv$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
Peter T. Daniels:
[...]
Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical
phonology of Germanic, published quite recently?
Contemporary, I'd say, since they're "ringe-handouts-09"
and "Germanic Phonology" is a sister document.
Both 'Germanic morphology' and 'Germanic phonology' are very
reminiscent of the book, and the latter even cites it.
[/quote]
Here's a tidbit from _Germanic morphology_ (2. Loss of aspect) p. 6:
(carrying the notation over as beat I can)
[quote]
In any case, the only imperfect that survived was the imperfect of
‘put’. The indicative singular forms developed as follows by regular
sound change:
PIE *dHédHeh1m = *[dHédHēm] ‘I was putting’ (cf. Skt. ádadHām, Gk.
ετίθην /etítHę:n/, both with the “augment” prefix) > *dedę: > *dedą: >
PGmc. *dedǫ ‘I did’ (cf. OS deda, OHG teta) and weak past 1sg. *-dǫ (cf.
Goth. -da, Runic Norse -do, ON -ða, OE -de, OS -da, OHG -ta);
PIE *dHédHeh1s ‘you were putting’ (cf. Skt. ádadHās, Gk. ετίθης
/etíthę:s/) > PGmc. *dedēz ‘you did’ (the ending of OS dedōs has been
remodelled) and weak past 1sg. *-dēz (cf. Goth. -des, ON -ðir; OE
-des(t), etc. exhibit remodelling);
PIE *dHédHeh1d ‘(s)he was putting’ (cf. Skt. ádadHāt, Gk. ετίθη
/etítHę:/) > PGmc. *dedē ‘(s)he did’ (cf. OS deda, OHG teta, probably
with remodelling) and weak past 1sg. *-dē (cf. Goth. -da, ON -ði, OE
-de, OS -da, OHG -ta).
Native learners reinterpreted the reduplicated sequence *ded- as the
root of the verb and introduced a long *ē into the nonsingular
indicative and the modal forms, apparently applying the rule appropriate
to strong verbs of class V. (This change must have happened
comparatively late in the development of PGmc.) The 3pl. indicative
illustrates this development:
PIE 3pl. *dHédHh1n.d ‘they were putting’ (cf. Av. dadat; Skt. ádadHur
has replaced the ending) > *dedun → PGmc. *dēdun ‘they did’ (cf. OS
dādun, OHG tātun) and weak past 3pl. *-dēdun (cf. Goth. -dedun).
Why this one imperfect survived is not known, but its survival had
important consequences for Germanic verb inflection, since it is the
source of the indicative 3pl. ending for all past tenses and of the weak
past tense suffix.
[/quote]
[1sg. in the two latter of three subsequent paragraphs must be a typo
for 2sg and 3sg, respectively.]
My point: Occam's recut of the last paragraph: "The imperfect survived
because the verb was grammaticized as an auxiliary."
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 4:15pm, Joachim Pense <s... at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[quote]Yusuf B Gursey (in sci.lang):
On Nov 7, 10:16am, na... at (no spam) mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
PaulJK <paul.kr... at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> wrote:
["Celtic"]
Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the
hoopsters have /s/.)
/s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise
starts /k/ in British usage.
It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
Now that you mention it, it's weird that Latin "Celta" gives "Kelte"
in German with initial k- rather than z-. The only other example
I can think of immediately is Cyrillic/"Kyrillisch", but presumably
that involves Greek.
how about Caesar / Kaiser . I guess that invovels a literary loan.
There is also Cista / Kiste (box). Maybe less literary. BTW, why
should "Caesar" have been literary, that word was surely used very often?
[/quote]
I guessed so because I was told it was irregular. perhaps the Emperors
wanted to stick to Classical Latin for their titles!
[quote]
Joachim[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joachim Pense... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yusuf B Gursey (in sci.lang):
[quote]On Nov 7, 10:16 am, na... at (no spam) mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
PaulJK <paul.kr... at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> wrote:
["Celtic"]
Doews the Glaswegians' name start with /s/ or /k/? (Americans have
trouble learning that the language name has /k/, because the
hoopsters have /s/.)
/s/. I've no idea why, and it's odd, because the word otherwise
starts /k/ in British usage.
It's even spelled with <K> in many European languages.
Now that you mention it, it's weird that Latin "Celta" gives "Kelte"
in German with initial k- rather than z-. The only other example
I can think of immediately is Cyrillic/"Kyrillisch", but presumably
that involves Greek.
how about Caesar / Kaiser . I guess that invovels a literary loan.
[/quote]
There is also Cista / Kiste (box). Maybe less literary. BTW, why
should "Caesar" have been literary, that word was surely used very often?
Joachim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Antnio Marques... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 11:50pm, Trond Engen <trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote:
[quote]Trond Engen:
Brian M. Scott:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:39:18 +0100, Trond Engen
trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote in
news:hd21h0$anv$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
Peter T. Daniels:
[...]
Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical
phonology of Germanic, published quite recently?
Contemporary, I'd say, since they're "ringe-handouts-09"
and "Germanic Phonology" is a sister document.
Both 'Germanic morphology' and 'Germanic phonology' are very
reminiscent of the book, and the latter even cites it.
Here's a tidbit from _Germanic morphology_ (2. Loss of aspect) p. 6:
The short _Morphological innovations shared by Germanic and other
subgroups of IE_ seems to be part of a case made for an IE subgrouping
consisting of Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (and
possibly Armenian and Albanian but all evidence either way is lost). It
would mean that after Anatolian and Tocharian, the next group to branch
off was Italo-Celtic (or both of them).
I can't see that there's anything on this in his _From
Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic_, or at least nothing that has
made it into the table of contents in the Amazon preview. Is there an
even more recent treatment somewhere?
[/quote]
Pardon me - is Italo-Celtic still supported by most researchers? II
and BS, aiui, are quite solid, but no other branch groupings have been
universally recognised, and I was under the impression that IC had
come into serious doubt. But this is by no means a subject I know much
about. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Trond Engen:
[quote]Brian M. Scott:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:39:18 +0100, Trond Engen
trondnet at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote in
news:hd21h0$anv$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
Peter T. Daniels:
[...]
Is the list dated? Is it from before or after his historical
phonology of Germanic, published quite recently?
Contemporary, I'd say, since they're "ringe-handouts-09"
and "Germanic Phonology" is a sister document.
Both 'Germanic morphology' and 'Germanic phonology' are very
reminiscent of the book, and the latter even cites it.
Here's a tidbit from _Germanic morphology_ (2. Loss of aspect) p. 6:
[/quote]
The short _Morphological innovations shared by Germanic and other
subgroups of IE_ seems to be part of a case made for an IE subgrouping
consisting of Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (and
possibly Armenian and Albanian but all evidence either way is lost). It
would mean that after Anatolian and Tocharian, the next group to branch
off was Italo-Celtic (or both of them).
I can't see that there's anything on this in his _From
Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic_, or at least nothing that has
made it into the table of contents in the Amazon preview. Is there an
even more recent treatment somewhere?
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Antnio Marques:
[quote]On Nov 8, 11:50 pm, Trond Engen <trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote:
[on handouts on Germanic (presumedly) by Don Ringe:]
The short _Morphological innovations shared by Germanic and other
subgroups of IE_ seems to be part of a case made for an IE
subgrouping consisting of Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranian and
Balto-Slavic (and possibly Armenian and Albanian but all evidence
either way is lost). It would mean that after Anatolian and
Tocharian, the next group to branch off was Italo-Celtic (or both of
them).
I can't see that there's anything on this in his _From
Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic_, or at least nothing that has
made it into the table of contents in the Amazon preview. Is there
an even more recent treatment somewhere?
Pardon me - is Italo-Celtic still supported by most researchers? II
and BS, aiui, are quite solid, but no other branch groupings have
been universally recognised, and I was under the impression that IC
had come into serious doubt. But this is by no means a subject I know
much about.
[/quote]
I'm not sure. They group together by lacking these innovations. I don't
know if there's more to it than that. It's one of the things I'd like to
read about.
FWIW, it seems to fit with Anthony's mainly archaeologically based view,
that an offshoot of the Kurgan culture into the Pannonian basin
eventually gave rise to Italic and Celtic, and that what were to become
the other younger branches still interacted on the Pontic steppe.
"Pontic" and "Pannonian" IE? But it's not a complete fit -- I seem to
remember that he had Greek and Armenian in Southern Balkan by then.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joachim Pense... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
António Marques (in sci.lang):
[quote]
Pardon me - is Italo-Celtic still supported by most researchers? II
and BS, aiui, are quite solid, but no other branch groupings have been
universally recognised, and I was under the impression that IC had
come into serious doubt. But this is by no means a subject I know much
about.
[/quote]
What are the current view on separating the augment-languages (II, Greek,
Armenian, Phrygian IIRC) as a group?
Joachim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:32 am
|
|