Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2930313233 72>
Author
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?
    Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 15:36
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

As you read it says "There is a spinoff from Verner's Law: the rule accounts also for PGmc *z as the development of PIE *s in some words.", the example is the Egnlish word "Choose" from PIE base *geus-, here: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637&PID=461702#461702 however we were discussing about "Ch" sound in the Germanic languages but I mentioned that the Middle Persian word for "Choose" was "Chuztan", so I think it is obvious that PIE sound "s" was changed to "z" first in the Iranian languages.
Verner's law is that entire array of transformations, not only one of them. s->z is an often met sound change, especially in the case of intervocalic s (Elizabeth/Elisabeth - the original Greek form was with "s", Magnesium pronounced in many languages with "z", etc.)


Edited by Chilbudios - 15-Nov-2008 at 15:37
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 18:32
There are some important differences between Slavic and Irano-Germanic languages, Slayertplsko mentioned some of them in this thread, for example we know proto-IE "g" is usually changed to "z" sound in the Slavic languages, whenas according to Grimm's law, we know it changes to "k" in the Germanic and Iranian languages, a good sample can be the word "Know" (Old English "Cnawan") from Proto-IE base *gno-, the Avestan word is "Cinasti" (Avestan Dictionary: http://www.avesta.org/avdict/avdict.htm#dctc), Slavic "Znati", Greek "Ginosko" (cf. English "Gnostic"), Old Indian "Janati", Lithuanian "Zinoti", Celtic "Gninim", ...

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 15-Nov-2008 at 18:35
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061
  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 23:33
I've got a feeling that Cyrus is getting nervous since he starts to push harder now.
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Some View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
  Quote Some Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 01:19
Originally posted by Slayertplsko

I've got a feeling that Cyrus is getting nervous since he starts to push harder now.
 
Yes not only that when I counter his bullshit then he seldom counters back. Like when I disproved his idea that Iranian langauges also hade primary stress on the first syllable and that is 100% factual incorrect it is the oposite on the last syllable for the most of times if not then the stress is rather free moving like in Pahsto .
 
He cannot deny the fact that Grimms law and Verners law are based on PIE phonology and not Iranian or Indo-Iranian and if that is wrong he haft to explain how Germanic evolved out of Iranian. Not only linguisticaly but also cultural.
 
And he tried to despreatly try to disprove over 250 years linguist work. But end looking a bit silly.
 
And he does not awnser many key arguments from other who posts here and myself included.
 
All love
Back to Top
Some View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
  Quote Some Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 01:29
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

There are some important differences between Slavic and Irano-Germanic languages, Slayertplsko mentioned some of them in this thread, for example we know proto-IE "g" is usually changed to "z" sound in the Slavic languages, whenas according to Grimm's law, we know it changes to "k" in the Germanic and Iranian languages, a good sample can be the word "Know" (Old English "Cnawan") from Proto-IE base *gno-, the Avestan word is "Cinasti" (Avestan Dictionary: http://www.avesta.org/avdict/avdict.htm#dctc), Slavic "Znati", Greek "Ginosko" (cf. English "Gnostic"), Old Indian "Janati", Lithuanian "Zinoti", Celtic "Gninim", ...
 
If Germanic and Slavic are realeted they of course split before Grimms law what they have notice is that lexicaly Balto-Slavic and Germanic are very close if this is because of loan or coencidence or relation is debatable.. Also Iranian is govern by other sound laws(That I have allready mentiond before)  . Have you looked at the book I linked to? You might learn many things about IE langauges there.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 13:11
Originally posted by Slayertplsko

I've got a feeling that Cyrus is getting nervous since he starts to push harder now.
There is no reason for my nervousness, but I don't know about our European friends who feel really humble when they hear their proud Germanic language was descended from the despised Iranian langauges!!!


Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 16-Nov-2008 at 13:13
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 13:46

Should be so,  after all "Aryan", "Iran" and "Ireland" have the same root, haven't they?

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 13:56
Originally posted by gcle2003

I don't see anyone claiming that French descended from Spanish though.
 
 
 
That's a curious observation. It is probably the other way around. When one read ancient Spanish it sound more like French; which makes sense. Christian Spanish provinces were at the border of France during the Middle Ages. At least for me, French "sounds" as a more ancient language than Spanish, which was reformed later and it is sort of synthetic.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061
  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 14:16
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Originally posted by Slayertplsko

I've got a feeling that Cyrus is getting nervous since he starts to push harder now.
There is no reason for my nervousness, but I don't know about our European friends who feel really humble when they hear their proud Germanic language was descended from the despised Iranian langauges!!!


Humble, huh? As you may have worked out, I'm a Slav and therefore this can't concern me at all. Neither are the others offended, despite your delusion. We just don't see a single shred of logics in your thesis, that's all - and to prevent further delusions, this isn't meant as any kind of insult either. Also, I don't think either of us is proud of being Germanic (I definitely not, neither of being a Slav), but you seem to be kind of obsessed with the accusations of the others of nationalist pride, which makes one wonder why - is there an implication in our actions that would suggest nationalist pride, or is it a delusion of yours, that there is no other reason for which one would defend certain ethnicity or nation, a fact, that would suggest you being proud of your origin??


Edited by Slayertplsko - 16-Nov-2008 at 14:42
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 15:44

Yes not only that when I counter his bullshit then he seldom counters back. Like when I disproved his idea that Iranian langauges also hade primary stress on the first syllable and that is 100% factual incorrect it is the oposite on the last syllable for the most of times if not then the stress is rather free moving like in Pahsto

You are talking about Modern Persian (Farsi) language that more than 50% of its words, except verbs, have non-Persian origin (mostly Arabic and Turkish), anyway you can read from this academic and professional research about Farsi: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/workpapph/105/3-ArbisiKelm_UCLAWPP_Farsi.pdf  that most Persian words, especially verbs, have the stress on the first syllable in this language.

Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 17:45
Originally posted by Slayertplsko

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Originally posted by Slayertplsko

I've got a feeling that Cyrus is getting nervous since he starts to push harder now.
There is no reason for my nervousness, but I don't know about our European friends who feel really humble when they hear their proud Germanic language was descended from the despised Iranian langauges!!!


Humble, huh? As you may have worked out, I'm a Slav and therefore this can't concern me at all. Neither are the others offended, despite your delusion. We just don't see a single shred of logics in your thesis, that's all - and to prevent further delusions, this isn't meant as any kind of insult either. Also, I don't think either of us is proud of being Germanic (I definitely not, neither of being a Slav), but you seem to be kind of obsessed with the accusations of the others of nationalist pride, which makes one wonder why - is there an implication in our actions that would suggest nationalist pride, or is it a delusion of yours, that there is no other reason for which one would defend certain ethnicity or nation, a fact, that would suggest you being proud of your origin??
May I know why you strongly deny any relation between Iranian and Germanic langauages except their Indo-European origin? Is it logical to believe that almost all proto-IE words have been changed to similar words in these languages by coincidence?
 
I have the same problem with my some Iranian friends who can't believe a Persian word could have a Germanic origin, for example the word "Shup" never means "sheep" in Modern Persian language, if you remember, you asked me to give you a referrence for this word here: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637&PID=463445 and I replied the very Persian word for "Shepherd" is "Shupan", the second part "pan" just means "keeper" in Persian, what could mean the first part "Shup"? I asked the same question from one of my Iranian friends and he just said the first part is "Shu" not "Shup" but anyway couldn't find a logical meaning for it!
 
All Iranians certianly know something about the very ancient Iranian festival of "Yalda" which is still celebrated in the late December, if you ask them what "Yalda" means, they either don't know it or will reply it has a Semitic origin (from the root u-l-d = birth), so means "birthday" and refers to the birthday or rebirth of the sun in the  the longest night of the year (winter solstice)!! they will wonder, if you talk about a very similar Germanic pagan festival in the same days and say it was called "Yuluda" (Yuletide).


Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 16-Nov-2008 at 18:00
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 18:03
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

There is no reason for my nervousness, but I don't know about our European friends who feel really humble when they hear their proud Germanic language was descended from the despised Iranian langauges!!!

Humble? I think you confuse that word with something else. Or are you saying we all should bow down and pay respect to the über-Persian language?

Anyhow, you are starting to go too far now. First of all, I don't give a damn about whatever language my mother tongue is a descendant from. Neither do I think of it as a member of some Germanic over-language - I simply don't care. The Germanic languages are indeed descendants from an immigrating Indo-European language, and this original language probably did come from someplace in the vicinity of Persia anyway: in short, your insinuations that those who do not agree with you does it out of racism is total bollocks.

Lastly, YOU are the only one who put "proud", "despised" and other adjectives on languages. Personally I don't consider any language inherently better than any other. What I object to is your non-scientifc approach with claims with no basis or proof whatsoever. You are not a linguist, yet you totally ignore what linguists actually have to say on the topic.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 18:15
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

 they will wonder, if you talk about a very similar Germanic pagan festival in the same days and say it was called "Yuluda" (Yuletide).

Well, then I'd inform them they're wrong, because there is no such thing as "Yuluda". I'm guessing you just made it up! If you didn't make it up, please provide source where you read it.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061
  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 19:55
It wouldn't surprise me at all since it wouldn't be the first time Cyrus invented something. Yuluda still can't beat the legendary Sakagerrak and Sakaland though.
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 20:29
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

There is no reason for my nervousness, but I don't know about our European friends who feel really humble when they hear their proud Germanic language was descended from the despised Iranian langauges!!!

Humble? I think you confuse that word with something else. Or are you saying we all should bow down and pay respect to the über-Persian language?
 
I think I said it ironically, otherwise I wouldn't say "the despised Iranian langauges"!

Anyhow, you are starting to go too far now. First of all, I don't give a damn about whatever language my mother tongue is a descendant from. Neither do I think of it as a member of some Germanic over-language - I simply don't care. The Germanic languages are indeed descendants from an immigrating Indo-European language, and this original language probably did come from someplace in the vicinity of Persia anyway: in short, your insinuations that those who do not agree with you does it out of racism is total bollocks.

Lastly, YOU are the only one who put "proud", "despised" and other adjectives on languages. Personally I don't consider any language inherently better than any other. What I object to is your non-scientifc approach with claims with no basis or proof whatsoever. You are not a linguist, yet you totally ignore what linguists actually have to say on the topic.
 
Who are these linguists that you are talking about? I'm sure you don't consider Sharon Turnor and some other ones who were expert in both Iranian and Germanic languages as linguists, but just some modern European linguists who don't know the differnces between Iranian verbs and nouns!! I met one of them in Iran, the interesting thing was that he called himself an Iranologist!!!
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 20:37
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

 they will wonder, if you talk about a very similar Germanic pagan festival in the same days and say it was called "Yuluda" (Yuletide).

Well, then I'd inform them they're wrong, because there is no such thing as "Yuluda". I'm guessing you just made it up! If you didn't make it up, please provide source where you read it.
As you read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule Yule is also called "Jõulud", and as you know "J" here is pronounced like 'Y' in English.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061
  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 21:22
That clearly fails as an argument since Jõulud is Estonian, which is Finno-Ugric, and we're speaking of Germanic. You don't want to use 'keskiviikko' as well, do you??

Edited by Slayertplsko - 16-Nov-2008 at 21:33
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061
  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 21:29
Who are these linguists that you are talking about? I'm sure you don't consider Sharon Turnor and some other ones who were expert in both Iranian and Germanic languages as linguists, but just some modern European linguists who don't know the differnces between Iranian verbs and nouns!! I met one of them in Iran, the interesting thing was that he called himself an Iranologist!!!


THis is getting utterly ridiculous. Who do you think deciphered the Persian cuneiform for you Iranian uebermenschen?? You can now read and learn Old Persian just because those Europeans who can't tell Persian noun from verb taught you that.

And we've already discussed Turner. He had no knowledge of Old Saxon as I had then pointed out. His list contained only a few OS words, the rest was made up, a technique you seem to favour. Whence have you got that he was an ''expert''?? And ''linguist''?? He was a solicitor anyway.


Edited by Slayertplsko - 16-Nov-2008 at 21:40
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Some View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
  Quote Some Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 21:29
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Yes not only that when I counter his bullshit then he seldom counters back. Like when I disproved his idea that Iranian langauges also hade primary stress on the first syllable and that is 100% factual incorrect it is the oposite on the last syllable for the most of times if not then the stress is rather free moving like in Pahsto

You are talking about Modern Persian (Farsi) language that more than 50% of its words, except verbs, have non-Persian origin (mostly Arabic and Turkish), anyway you can read from this academic and professional research about Farsi: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/workpapph/105/3-ArbisiKelm_UCLAWPP_Farsi.pdf  that most Persian words, especially verbs, have the stress on the first syllable in this language.

(Note all I copied from is from http://www.britannica.com/ )
This is not about racism or pride in ones langauge. This is about you being incorrect about linguist evoloution because you offer no proof on how to connect them linguisticaly historicaly and culturaly.
 
Your wrong about the stress first of all most Iranian langauges either have it primarly on the last syllable or very free moving stress. I gave you some examples before all from Taijk that have it for the most on the first syllable or Pashto that is free moving.
 
And this what I have found about old iranian stress.¨
 
''In Old Iranian the stress lay on the next to the last syllable if it was heavy (i.e., contained a long vowel or was closed by a consonant)—otherwise on the preceding syllable. With the loss of final unstressed vowels in the development of many Iranian languages, the stress often came to be on the final syllable. End stress is characteristic of Modern Persian.''
 
This is what I found on the Germanic accent.
 
''Proto-Indo-European had a variable pitch accent that could fall on any syllable of a word, but in late Proto-Germanic, two changes occurred: first, the quality of the accent changed, such that articulatory energy was increasingly focused on the accented syllable; second, the position of the accent was regularized on the initial (root) syllable. These changes had far-reaching effects on the subsequent development of Germanic, for nonaccented syllables became subject to reduction and even total loss; thus, Proto-Germanic *kuningaz but German König, Danish konge, English king. Reduction of unstressed vowels was often associated with the mutation or “umlaut” of preceding accented vowels. In some instances grammatical information that had been carried by suffixes came instead to be marked by alternations of root vowels—e.g., *fōt/*fōti but English foot/feet, German Fuss/Füsse.''
 
Connected to PIE clearly.
 
Another interesting info I found that connects Germanic to PIE was this.
 
 ''addition to the above consonants (12 stops and the sibilant s), Proto-Indo-European also had vowels and resonants. The vowel of any given root was not necessarily fixed but varied in an alternation called ablaut. Thus, the root that means ‘sit’ was alternately *sed-, *sod-, *sd-, *sēẖ-, and *sōd- (English sit is from *sed-, sat from *sod-, and seat from *sēd-); and the root that means do was *dhē-, *dhō-, and *dhə- (English deed is from *dhē-, and do is from *dhō-). Other Proto-Indo-European vowels were *a, *ā, *ī, and *ū. The Proto-Indo-European resonants, which functioned as vowels in some positions and as consonants in others, were *i, *u, *m, *n, *l, and *r. Thus, *bhṛtó- (Sanskrit bhṛtá- ‘borne’) had syllabic * (i.e., ṛ functioning as a vowel), but *bhéreti (Sanskrit bhárati ‘he bears’) had nonsyllabic *r (i.e., r functioning as a consonant).

This Proto-Indo-European system of vowels contrasting with resonants was reshaped in Germanic by a number of changes. Syllabic *i, *u, *, *, *, and * became in Proto-Germanic the vowels *i and *u and the sequences *um, *un, *ul, and *ur, respectively; nonsyllabic *m, *n, *l, and *r developed into the nasals and liquids *m, *n, *l, and *r, respectively; nonsyllabic *i and *u before vowels resulted in the semivowels *j (also symbolized as *y) and *w, though after vowels they continued to form diphthongs (*ei, *ai, *oi; *eu, *au, *ou). The Proto-Indo-European vowels and diphthongs then changed into Proto-Germanic sounds as follows:

%5bCredits%20:%20Encyclopædia%20Britannica,%20Inc.%5d

In this diagram the lines between two sounds indicate that the Proto-Indo-European sound developed into the corresponding Proto-Germanic sound; for example, Proto-Indo-European *i became either *i or *e, and Proto-Indo-European *ə, *a, and *o coalesced in Proto-Germanic as *a. These changes gave the following vowels for Proto-Germanic: short vowels, *i, *e, *a, *uo; long vowels, *ī, *ē2, *ē1, *ū, *ō; diphthongs, *ai, *au, *iueo. The origins of the vowel *ē2 are disputed, but it probably first arose from the diphthong ei in certain environments; *ē2 and *ē1 were high and low midvowels, respectively. In Gothic the two ē’s merged, while elsewhere they remained distinct; thus, with *ē2, Old High German hiar and Old Saxon, Old Norse, and Old English hēr ‘here’ but with *ē1, Old High German tāt, Old Saxon dād, Old Norse dāð, and Old English dæd ‘deed.’ Proto-Germanic also had three nasalized vowels: long *ĩ, *ã, and *ũ, which arose when, in the sequences *inx, *anx, and *unx, the n was lost with nasalization and lengthening of the preceding vowel.

Linguistic characteristics of the protolanguage » Grammar » Declensions

Proto-Germanic kept the Proto-Indo-European system of three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) and three numbers (singular, dual, plural), though the dual was becoming obsolete. It reduced the Proto-Indo-European system of eight cases to six: nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, instrumental, and vocative, though the last two were becoming obsolete. In the adjective declensions there were two innovations: (1) To the Proto-Indo-European vowel types (*o-, *ā-, *i-, and *u- stems) it added some pronominal endings to give the Germanic “strong” adjective declension. (2) It extended the Proto-Indo-European *n- stem endings to all adjectives to give the Germanic “weak” adjective declension. Contrast, in modern German, strong gutes Bier ‘good beer’ with weak das gute Bier ‘the good beer.’

Linguistic characteristics of the protolanguage » Grammar » Conjugations

The Proto-Indo-European verb seems to have had five moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive, injunctive, and optative), two voices (active and mediopassive), three persons (first, second, and third), three numbers (singular, dual, and plural), and several verbal nouns (infinitives) and adjectives (participles). In Germanic these were reduced to indicative, imperative, and subjunctive moods; a full active voice plus passive found only in Gothic; three persons; full singular and plural forms and dual forms found only in Gothic; and one infinitive (present) and two participles (present and past). The Proto-Indo-European tense-aspect system (present, imperfect, aorist, perfect) was reshaped to a single tense contrast between present and past. The past showed two innovations: (1) In the “strong” verb, Germanic transformed Proto-Indo-European ablaut into a specific tense marker (e.g., Proto-Indo-European *bher-, *bhor-, *bhēr-, *bhṛ- in Old English beran ‘bear,’ past singular bær, past plural bæron, past participle boren). (2) In the “weak” verb, Germanic developed a new type of past and past participle (e.g., Old English fyllan ‘fill,’ past fylde, participle gefylled). Weak verbs fell into three classes depending on the syllable following the root (e.g., Old High German full-e-n [from *full-ja-n] ‘fill,’ mahh-ō-n ‘make,’ sag-ē-n ‘say’). Gothic also had a fourth class: full-nō-da ‘it became full.’

Many Proto-Germanic strong verbs showed a consonant alternation between *f and *b, *þ and *ð, *x and *g, and *s and *z that was the result, through Verner’s law, of the alternating position of the Proto-Indo-European accent. See table for illustration of changes resulting from Verner’s law. In this particular word, English has generalized the *s (now z): ‘freeze,’ ‘froze,’ ‘frozen.’ German has generalized the *z (now r): frieren, fror, gefroren. And Netherlandic still shows the alternation: vriezen, vroor, gevroren. English has kept the alternation in only one verb: singular was, plural were. Traces of it still survive, however, in a few now isolated forms: seethe (Proto-Germanic *þ) and its old past participle sodden (Proto-Germanic *ð); lose (Proto-Germanic *s) and its old past participle (for)lorn (Proto-Germanic *z).

The emergence of Germanic languages

Like every language spoken over a considerable geographic area, Proto-Germanic presumably consisted of a number of geographic varieties or dialects that over time developed in different ways into the different early and modern Germanic languages. Late-19th-century scholars used a family tree diagram to show this splitting into dialects and the relationships among the dialects:

Though there is much truth in such a diagram, it overemphasizes the notion of “splits” into separate “branches” and obscures the fact that the transition from one dialect to another may be gradual rather than abrupt.

Mid-20th-century scholars, using the findings of archaeology and the methods of geographic linguistics, attempted to correct the distortions of this family-tree model by noting also the linguistic features shared by two or more dialect areas. Archaeological evidence suggests that about 750 bc a relatively uniform Germanic people was located in southern Scandinavia and along the North Sea and Baltic coasts from what is now The Netherlands to the Vistula River. By roughly 250 bc they had spread south, and five general groups are distinguishable: North Germanic in southern Scandinavia, excluding Jutland; North Sea Germanic, along the North Sea and in Jutland; Rhine-Weser Germanic, along the middle Rhine and Weser; Elbe Germanic, along the middle Elbe; and East Germanic, between the middle Oder and the Vistula rivers.

By roughly ad 250 the division was much the same, though the Elbe group had spread southward to the Danube River, and the East Germanic group had moved southeast into the Carpathian Mountains and beyond. Then, toward the end of the 4th century, began the great Germanic tribal migrations. North Sea Germanic speakers spread south along the coast of the Low Countries and began their conquest of Britain; North Germanic speakers moved into Jutland; the Rhine-Weser group (Franks) expanded farther into Gallo-Roman territory west of the Rhine; the Elbe group (Alemanni, Bavarians, and Langobardi [Lombards]) spread farther south to the Alps and beyond; and several East Germanic groups left the Oder-Vistula area to begin their wanderings.

This five-way division of Germanic peoples is based on archaeological evidence, and, while it agrees to some extent with deductions that can be made from the early linguistic evidence, the correspondence between archaeological and linguistic groupings is not completely straightforward.

The first major linguistic division that developed in Germanic was between East Germanic and Northwest Germanic. It can be dated roughly to the 1st–3rd centuries ad. Northwest Germanic is attested in the early runic inscriptions (c. ad 200–500) from Scandinavia and northern Germany and encompassed all the Germanic territory from Scandinavia southward across much of Germany and the Low Countries. Spoken over such a relatively large area, Northwest Germanic had at least minor dialectal distinctions from the start, but several linguistic innovations spread throughout.

The fragmentation of Northwest Germanic can be dated roughly to the period of the 3rd–6th centuries with the development of three major dialect divisions: in Scandinavia, North Germanic; in Jutland and the northwest of Germany, North Sea Germanic; and in central Germany, South Germanic. A number of linguistic developments from this period are shared by North Sea Germanic and South Germanic (but not by North Germanic), and the term West Germanic is used in recognition of the strong affinities between these two groups. During this same period, however, North Sea Germanic and North Germanic also sometimes follow similar lines with regard to phonological developments in contrast with South Germanic. The three-way division is then based in part on the differing participation of North Sea Germanic in shared developments with either North or South Germanic and in part on developments that were peculiar to each of the three dialects. North Sea Germanic was at once a transitional dialect and a centre of innovation within the larger Northwest Germanic dialect continuum.

In a position analogous to that of North Sea Germanic within Northwest Germanic, there surely existed transitional dialects between North Sea and South Germanic within West Germanic; the Old Saxon language may well reflect such a dialect, given that it shows a mixture of features agreeing with North Sea Germanic, as in English and Frisian, and with South Germanic, as in Old High German. The dialectal position of Netherlandic is complicated, and it is discussed further below.

Some linguistic features associated with these dialect divisions are the following:

1. Northwest Germanic versus East Germanic: In Northwest Germanic, the reduplicated forms found in the past tense of certain strong verbs were eliminated and instead new ablaut alternations were employed (often involving the vowel ē2), while, in East Germanic (Gothic), reduplicated forms were maintained—e.g., Old Norse, Old English, Old Saxon hēt, Old High German hiez versus Gothic haihait ‘was called.’

2. In East Germanic, Proto-Germanic *z was maintained as z (or s in final position), but, in Northwest Germanic, *z generally became re.g., Proto-Germanic *maiz- ‘more,’ Gothic maiza but Old Norse meire, Old English māra, Old High German mēro. Within Northwest Germanic, however, treatment of *z in final position varied dialectally: (a) in North Germanic, it was maintained and appears as r; (b) in West Germanic (i.e., North Sea and South Germanic), *z was generally lost in final position in polysyllabic words; (c) in North Sea Germanic, *z was also lost in final position in monosyllabic words; for example, Proto-Germanic *dagaz ‘day,’ Gothic dags, Old Norse dagr, Old High German tag, Old Saxon dag, Old English dæg; Proto-Germanic *wīz or *wiz ‘we,’ Gothic weis, Old Norse vēr, Old High German wir, Old Saxon wī, Old English wē.

3. Associated with the West Germanic grouping are: (a) the change of *ð to d in all positions—e.g., Proto-Germanic *blōð- ‘blood,’ Old Norse blōð- but Old English and Old Saxon blōd, Old High German bluot; (b) the replacement of the inherited second person singular past tense forms of strong verbs—e.g., Proto-Germanic *namt ‘you took,’ Old Norse namt but Old English nōme, Old Saxon and Old High German nāmi.

4. Some changes were shared across major dialects but carried out to markedly differing degrees or at different times. For example, in West Germanic all consonants (except r) preceded by a short vowel and followed by j were geminated (doubled), but in North Germanic only velars (k, g) were affected: compare Proto-Germanic *satjanan ‘set,’ Gothic satjan, Old Norse setja but Old English settan, Old Saxon settian, Old High German setzen; Proto-Germanic *lagjanan ‘lay,’ Gothic lagjan but Old Norse leggja, Old English lecgan, Old Saxon leggian, Old High German lecken. Similarly, the loss of nasals in the cluster nx with lengthening and nasalization of a preceding short vowel occurred in Proto-Germanic; in North Germanic this change also occurred in sequences of a short vowel plus ns (compare Old Norse oss ‘us,’ Old High German uns) and in North Sea Germanic when the nasal was followed by any voiceless fricative (mf, nþ, ns; compare English below). In addition, fronting of nonfront vowels under the influence of following i or j in unaccented syllables, “i-umlaut,” developed earlier (6th–7th centuries) and more consistently in North Sea Germanic and North Germanic than in South Germanic (8th–9th centuries).

William G. MoultonAnthony F. Buccini ''

Once again profesional linguistics goes against your claim I found this info and copied from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/231026/Germanic-languages/75493/Accent#ref=ref603761 .
 
And Cyrus give up allready.. I think yoyu have lost by now.  I am sorry that I copied all the info.. but if it makes you stop being so stubborn then it is worth it.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Some - 16-Nov-2008 at 21:35
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1061
  Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 22:05
Let me ask you the same question Cyrus:

Sharon Turner and the other ''experts'' lived between 17th and 20th centuries, right?? The real linguists we follow lived mostly in 20th century or are still alive. The supposed time of separation of Germanic from Iranian is set to several thousands of years ago. So the time in which these people lived really makes no difference, right??

Why should we believe an ex-lawyer who fell in love with Icelandic sagas and failed to even provide a list that really would contain Saxon words?? Why not the modern linguists?? And why not European?? The fact that they're European by your logics means that they can't be well-educated in Iranian languages - but by the same logics, the fact that someone is from Iran means he can't know anything about European languages, so it's advisable to abandon this nonsensical thinking, shall we?? And as you may know, the cuneiform was deciphered by Europeans and only this allowed the study of Old Persian you are, apparently, so proud of. So that's another reason why to respect European linguists equally to your own, even when it comes to your language history.

And by the way, could you designate the names of the other supposed-to-be experts on Iranian and Germanic languages?? I remember you stating only Turner, well, him being the only one that you at least didn't misunderstand when speaking of languages.
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2930313233 72>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.