Author Topic: The language of old Europe  (Read 115776 times)

Offline lx

  • Global Moderator
  • Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 164
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2014, 02:53:35 PM »
Quote
Let me continue with the core language analysis:
Please could you address the questions freknu has put to you twice now.
I'm suspicious of how you're not answering them. It would put my mind to ease and bring me back on track if you could provide a good answer. After all, you're all for proving a theory and if you're as geared up and excited about this prospect as I think you are, you must have good answers or even tentative suggestions that are realistic.

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2014, 04:21:10 PM »
Quote
Well you will miss a lot of interesting reading, and i really couldn't be bothered repeating what i already said.
A short summary that seems convincing would be fine.
Quote
I would again ask you to read through the material i posted links for. It is customary for any scientific paper review to actually read the paper first, then ask questions...
There simply isn't time to consider every idea in science, and there must be some burden of proof on thoroughly investigating new ideas. That's the case for realizing the world was in fact not flat, for Einstein defending his ideas, and every other innovation. As for a peer review process, often it begins with an abstract that the editor will briefly consider and decide whether it is a candidate for peer review.

Quote
I know. I didn't start this thread because i wanted to "join the gang" and repeat "official" well known and "agreed" dogma. I started it because I believe that I have discovered something new, which doesn't fit into the "common understanding", because common understanding was developed before all the advances in genetics and new archaeological discoveries.
That's entirely irrelevant. Agreeing or disagreeing doesn't make you right or wrong. I'm not suggesting you can't innovate; you should, if that's where the data leads. But innovation requires a convincing argument. Innovation just because it is new is irrelevant.

Quote
Quote
...and it is not plausible to me.
Why? Because it does not confirm to what you believe in, or because there is something wrong with my arguments?
Both. The fact that your main arguments so far are based on potential coincidences and DNA make me very skeptical. I would be skeptical of that from a well established theory. And then you also are going against relatively widely accepted research.

You are consistently selecting convenient evidence that supports your claims while dismissing all other evidence as irrelevant. This is a huge sampling bias!

In terms of plausibility the major problem I have is this: your theory is just as plausible as about any other random theory that could be made. Therefore, I find it implausible. The PIE hypothesis makes sense to me. I'd be willing to consider counterevidence, but not in the form of a claim that doesn't stand out as better than other claims.

Quote
I beg to differ. I believe that tribes are are carriers of languages. Tribes are family related, therefore genetically related groups. So languages and genes are quite well correlated.
Sometimes. But languages can easily spread to speakers in different regions with very different genetic backgrounds. What typically happens is that a relatively small group moves to a new location and then they begin to inter-marry and the genetic code shifts while the language stays the same (or you could phrase it the other way around).
As a very basic example, skin color in the United States varies a lot, certainly, but you won't find many correlations between language and skin color, although it is possible you will find some.

As a very simple test, what would happen if you checked the DNA of speakers of neighboring languages? Would you find that Dravidian speakers are clearly genetically distinct from Indo-Aryan speakers? And that Welsh speakers are clearly genetically distinct from English speakers?

There are sometimes correlations (to some degree) between languages and DNA, but it's not like a fingerprint-- it wouldn't hold up as evidence in court.

Quote
The reason why we have Common language, customs, between Ireland and Serbia, is because of old European R1a and I2 genes found in Ireland and language and culture they carried with them and R1b genes in Serbia and language and culture they carried with them. The reason why we have common language and customs between Slavs and Germanics is because of their common R1a and I genes and language and culture they carried with them. And so on.
No... the genes aren't causing anything. It *might* be the case that the genes and language are distributed as they are because they were distributed by the same migrations of people.
In order to show this convincingly you'd need to consider alternative explanations and show they they can't be correct.


Now, looking more broadly:
1. Do you believe that Slavic is a family of languages? Are Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian closely related?
2. Do you believe that Celtic is a family of languages? Are Irish Gaelic, Welsh and Breton closely related?
3. If so, then please refer to your hypothesized relationship between Slavic and Celtic.
4. What about Iberian Celtic? And Baltic? There are well known reasons for supposing that these are related to Insular Celtic and Slavic respectively.
5. If all of that is true, then why is it only showing up in Serbian and Irish? Is it by chance? Is it due to a shared history now hidden in the other languages? If either of those, when why does your argument hold up?

Quote
The only reason i can use modern Serbian to give etymology for Vedic, Greek, Germanic, Celtic god names, which have no etymologies in Sanscrit, old Greek, Germanic of Gaelic,  is because these goods were originally named in R1a or I2 language, preserved by R1a and I2 population of Ireland and Balkans...There is no other explanation for this. .Too many "coincidences" to be coincidences. Especially because Serbian and Irish language based etymologies solve some very old "mysteries" of the ancient world and make sense of a lot of "nonsense" in the old belief systems...
Perhaps. But given that we already know all of these languages are related anyway, it's just a matter of determining the direction of change and so forth.



In the end, if you want to argue this, then:
1. You must show that the current theory is wrong.
2. You must support your new theory.
3. You must show that your theory not only explains the new evidence but that it also explains the old evidence.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2014, 05:58:32 AM »
djr33

Quote
Please could you address the questions freknu has put to you twice now.
I'm suspicious of how you're not answering them. It would put my mind to ease and bring me back on track if you could provide a good answer.

Let me try to answer freknu's questions. I can only do it here in short, for more details please have a look at links provided.

I already answered why term "Indoeuropean" needs reevaluation. But let me here elaborate a bit more.  We need to reevaluate term "Indoeuropean", because it does not take into account latest current and paleo genetic data. It is absolutely clear that language is linked with tribe and tribe is linked with genes. Language is invented so that members of the same family and later the same tribe can communicate. When tribe moves and comes in contact with another tribe with different language, they have to find ways of communicating with each other. This is the case regardless of the relationship between the two tribes. If they are in friendly relationship, they need to trade, they intermarry and so need to communicate. A hybrid border language is created which allows this to happen. We have examples of trading and border languages all over the world. If one tribe conquers another, they still have to communicate. The rulers need to be able to issue commands to the slaves, or subdued population. Subdued population is forced to adopt the language of the new elite, but the new elite also adopts some of the subdued population language. The subdued population uses the language of the new elite when communicating with the new masters and when they are engaged in official business. But they continue using their old language at home. Eventually new language is formed as a mix of old and new language. The new language does not just replace the old. The example is the preservation of Irish language and emerging of Hiberno English. Irish language is peppered with foreign words, but at the same time English spoken in Ireland is full of Irish words and grammatical constructs. Sometimes new ruling elite, if it is small in numbers, completely adopts the language and customs of the local subdued population, bringing into the mix only few phrases, god names and such. The example are Normans in Ireland which became completely gaeicised.
This is why it is possible to reconstruct old, Pre Indo European languages of Europe (there were at least two), by intersecting distant Indo European languages. Old Europe (pre 3000 bc) had no R1b population at all. The most dominant genetic type was R1a and I (I2). People of old Europe belonged to tribes and had to therefore use some common language to communicate. That language is still used by people of R1a and I2 populations of Europe. In Serbia and In Ireland we find the mix of the oldest strands of R1a and I2. This is why Irish and Serbian (Croatian, Bosnian..) have preserved the most conservative the oldest elements of these old European languages. They are buried under many layers of languages which came after, but the core has been preserved. This core I am trying to present to you here for evaluation.
What official linguistic science is calling "Indo European" is a mix created from R1a agricultural people of old Europe and R1b herders coming from central Asia and probably from north Africa via Iberian peninsula. This is still debated. The mix, I believe, occurred at the southern edge of the Eurasian steppe, and gave us Vučedol culture, the first Indo European culture which later gave us mixed R1a + R1b + I2 Celtic culture of Central Europe. The expansion of R1b population into Europe was accommodated by the catastrophic climate change which occurred in the middle of the third millennium BC, and which almost wiped out the old European agricultural population, and had left huge tracts of land empty. This brought about huge cultural shift from old sun centered agricultural society, to new animal centered herding and warring society. this is all well documented and supported by archaeological and other scientific evidence.
But this period also brought the emergence of a new "Indoeuropean" language, the mix of R1a, I2 as subdued and R1b as dominant language in Central Europe which gave us Germanic, and Celtic languages. The I2 population remained out of reach of the R1b below Sava and Danube rivers and formed Ilirian culture. The mix of I2 and R1a gave us Etruscan, Venetic cultures. The R1a and I2 cultures mixed with E1b and R1b gave us Greeks. All these cultures together created Rome and Latin culture. The R1a from the northern Eurasia gave us Slavs. R1a mixed with central Asian population gave us Avestan culture and R1a mixed with native Indian population gave us Vedic culture.

This is why it is possible for me to use cross section between Serbian and Irish to canalize the roots of all these "Indoeuropean" languages. They have both preserved the oldest layers of the building blocks of Indoeuropean languages, R1a, I2 and R1b tribal, old languages...

I hope this clearly explains my understanding of what "Indoeuropean" is and why we have pre "Indoeuropean" roots of "Indoeuropean" languages. I will continue with answering freknu's questions soon.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 06:01:45 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline lx

  • Global Moderator
  • Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 164
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2014, 06:24:24 AM »
Quote
But they continue using their old language at home
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. You can't hold a personal speculation about what seems right and then put it across as a scientific fact to which there would be no counter evidence and then use that as a logical backbone to the argument. If anything, that would only be an acceptable side-point about a potential tendency which backs up other evidence. There are so, so many incidents of people taking up a whole new language and not using the old one anymore. Look at the Normans, for example. It only took 2-3 generations for them to completely stop speaking Germanic and pick up the French surrounding them.
Quote
Sometimes new ruling elite, if it is small in numbers, completely addopts the language and customs of the local subdued population, bringing into the mix only few phrases, god names and such. The example are Normans in Ireland which became completely gaeicised.
Ah, it was just, moments ago you were making the opposite argument.  :o
Quote
Old Europe (pre 3000 bc) had no R1b population at all. The most dominant genetic type was R1a and I (I2)
Ehhh? The daughter marker of R1b (R1b1) has been found in modern humans all around modern France and Spain during the last Ice Age, the last point of which ended 10,000 years ago. That places a clear massive string of R1b DESCENDANTS in a period that ended at 8,000BC. There are more holes in this argument than Swiss cheese. Is your argument that the pre-Ice age DNA was wiped out? Well, I'm here (R1b1b2a1a2f3) at least.

Linguists and archaeologists don't use the term Indo-European with reference to genes, so how can they be wrong? If they're talking about a culture, culture crosses gene pools the world over. It's not linked to genes. This is the absolute quintessential rationale for needing to point out correlation does not imply causation. You could make the same argument about types of animal skins people wore were signals of cultures, different tribes would have brought different traditions with them and they might be different across tribes, but it's still as little connection between languages as genetic markers. Correlation, yes, causation, no.
Quote
This is why it is possible for me to use cross section between Serbian and Irish to analize the roots of all thes "Indoeuropean" languages. They have both preserved the oldest layers of the building blocks of Indoeuropean languages, R1a, I2 and R1b tribal, old languages...
You really did not even take any successful step in setting up the argument of what this has to do with the Serbian-Irish connection, nor did you even make any attempt to talk about the building blocks of languages. Genetic markers might be linked to populations that brought specific languages to specific places, but I can't pull a coherent argument out on the connection.

I can appreciate that sometimes an idea seems so appealing, you don't want to let it go and you might see some pieces of evidence as fundamentally supporting, but sometimes you really need to get the big picture back again.
Quote
I will continue with answering freknu's questions soon.
I haven't really seen you start answering them in any sort of academic fashion. How about sticking to agreeable premises and then providing a solid backing for why/how these distinctions can connect Serbian and Irish or something. I know this isn't stuff you might want to hear, but a theory needs to be a hell of a lot better presented than how you're doing now. You'd never get anywhere in the scientific world with that. Maybe this can be considered the first steps to honing in on how to present it - I doubt it, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 06:27:17 AM by lx »

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2014, 06:39:51 AM »
Let's make my questions even more direct:
  • provide a list of Serbian and/or Irish words which you claim to be of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
  • explain why you believe these words are of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 06:41:28 AM by freknu »

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2014, 10:33:36 AM »
I'm far from convinced. You're making assertions that don't strike me as factual in any way.
Can you cite any sources other than your imagination/observations?

If you really do know something about the theories you're rejecting, then I might be willing to see where your argument goes. If not, I don't see the point. Feel free to comment on that if you'd like.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2014, 05:08:22 AM »
djr33

Quote
I'm far from convinced. You're making assertions that don't strike me as factual in any way.

How are you going to be convinced after reading three of my posts interspersed with all the "no no it is not possible"? Did you go and read any of the material on the external links? I bet you didn't. If you guys let me explain and elaborate you might get convinced. Are you going to let me do that? Do you really want to know what i have to present, or do you only care about the fact that i am not conforming to what you believe in?

Quote
Can you cite any sources other than your imagination/observations?

Quote
I did say this is new, so no. New, Original, Inventive, Imaginative...Do you remember these words? They all have positive connotation.

Quote
If you really do know something about the theories you're rejecting, then I might be willing to see where your argument goes. If not, I don't see the point. Feel free to comment on that if you'd like.

First how do you know what I am rejecting? Secondly, i am not your student or your child so change your tone please. And actually i don't care if you don't are willing or not to participate in this discussion. If you want do it If you don't do something else. It is up to you.
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2014, 05:25:37 AM »
lx

Quote
Ah, it was just, moments ago you were making the opposite argument.

Actually you should maybe read the whole text through, think about it and then write comments.

What i was trying to explain, but you didn't get, is that languages don't get replaced by new languages.  They merge with, they merge into, they get overlayed, but they don't disappear completely. There is always a trace of the old language left. I am not talking about single person or even a family migrating into a new language zone. I am talking about whole tribes and clans migrating. And evidence here is that once you have large enough numbers of the people in mixing populations, their languages merge rather than replace each other. The percentage of the old and new language in the mix varies depending on number of people from each group and their economic political and reproductive power.

You are talking about present day single person migration, i am talking about tribal migrations. Completely different things.
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline ibarrere

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
  • Country: fi
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2014, 05:27:12 AM »
Are you going to let me do that? Do you really want to know what i have to present, or do you only care about the fact that i am not conforming to what you believe in?

Nobody is stopping you from presenting what you have. The problem is that what you've presented so far is not very convincing. If you have some solid evidence that you have not yet presented, by all means, do so. What you're attempting to undermine is based on hundreds of years of systematic scientific method; that's not to say that it can't and shouldn't be overturned, it's simply saying that the body of evidence with which to overturn it needs to be exceptionally convincing.
http://americanwerewolfinbelgrade.com/

ymmärtämättömyyttään

Offline Corybobory

  • Global Moderator
  • Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
  • Country: gb
    • English
    • Coryographies: Handmade Creations by Cory
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2014, 06:09:25 AM »
What i was trying to explain, but you didn't get, is that languages don't get replaced by new languages.  They merge with, they merge into, they get overlayed, but they don't disappear completely. There is always a trace of the old language left.

The past languages of Canada would like to disagree with you.
BA Linguistics, MSt Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology, current PhD student (Archaeology, 1st year)

Blog: http://www.palaeolinguist.blogspot.com
My handmade book jewellery: http://www.coryographies.etsy.com

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2014, 06:46:35 AM »
Corybobory

Quote
The past languages of Canada would like to disagree with you.

Are people who spoke these languages still with us? Can they disagree too, or are they all dead? If you destroy a population that speaks certain language, the language disappears as well. Murderous genocidal invasions where one population replaces another are one thing, merging of populations is another. In Serbia and in Ireland we have mix of all major European haplogroups from oldest to newest. And at the same time we find cultural and language traits and words from major languages from all these haplogroups (tribes). What conclusion can you draw from this? Replacement of merging?

ibarrere

Quote
Nobody is stopping you from presenting what you have. The problem is that what you've presented so far is not very convincing. If you have some solid evidence that you have not yet presented, by all means, do so. What you're attempting to undermine is based on hundreds of years of systematic scientific method; that's not to say that it can't and shouldn't be overturned, it's simply saying that the body of evidence with which to overturn it needs to be exceptionally convincing.

As i said i only managed to write three posts about the core language analysis. Not enough to convince anyone that i am right about what i am talking about. But i have hundreds of pages of data on the links i posted in my first post. Did you bothered reading any of it?

And i know it is new, and i know it is going against official dogma, but as i said, when official dogma was created they didn't have data we have today. Maybe it is time to reevaluate the whole thing?

« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 07:22:45 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2014, 07:14:31 AM »
Ls

Quote
Look at the Normans, for example. It only took 2-3 generations for them to completely stop speaking Germanic and pick up the French surrounding them.

Normans melted into subdued population, because they were not homogeneous genetic, cultural and linguistic group. Normans were mix of Norse, Danes and south Baltic Slavs.

Have a look at this discussion about ring forts and Slavic solders in Viking armies:

http://historum.com/european-history/56897-old-europe-vinca-language-culture-early-layers-serbian-irish-culture-8.html#post1503554?postcount=76

This is the bit that concerns Normans:

Harald blue tooth united Danmark, Norway and south Baltic Slavic lands into one country. Does that mean that he fought the Slavs and Conquered them? Not really. He was allied with them as it is seen from the mention of Obodrites and the Danes fighting the Germans together. Of course Slavs were also fighting on the German side but that is understandable when we know what we know about the tribal organisation of the Slavic society. Harold also had a Slavic Obodrite princess as his second wife, so the alliance must have been quite strong:

Quote
Tove of the Obotrites, also called Tova, Tofa or Thora, (10th century) was a Slavic princess and a Danish Viking Age queen consort, the spouse of King Harald I of Denmark. Thora (Tova) was the daughter of Prince Mistivir of the Obotrites. She married King Harald in 970.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tove_of_the_Obotrites

Tova was daughter of Obodrite king Mstivoj.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mstivoj

Was this alliance between the Danes and the Obodrtes something new and temporary? No. It all started much Earlier as we can read in The origin of the Anglo Saxon race. There we can read that the Anglo Saxon Alliance was ethnically mixed and included Danes and Slavs. This link between the Danes and the Slavs probably started even Earlier as both were living in the same clan, tribal society where clan tribe alliances of mixed ethnic origin were completely normal. But This is what i managed to find about our friend Harald the father of Danmark and his clan's link with Obodrites Slavs.

Harald Bluetooth,s mother was Thyra. Thyra's father was another Harald: Harald Klak Halfdansson. Does his name mean that this Halfdansson was half Dane? Yes.

Quote
Harald 'Klak' Halfdansson (c. 785 – c. 852) was a king in Jutland (and possibly other parts of Denmark) around 812–814 and again from 819–827.[1]
The identity of Harald's father is uncertain. He had at least three brothers. Anulo (d. 812), Ragnfrid (d. 814) and Hemming Halfdansson (d. 837).[2][3] An 837 entry in the Annales Fuldenses calls Hemming a son of Halfdan.[4] This is the only mention of their father in a primary source.

The Royal Frankish Annals entries of 814 start with the death of Charlemagne. Louis the Pious became sole emperor and turned to diplomatic relations with other European powers. The Royal Annales then mention the continuation of the conflict among the Danes and that Harald Klak sought refuge in the court of Louis. "Heriold and Reginfrid, kings of the Danes, had been defeated and expelled from their kingdom the year before [813] by the sons of Godofrid, against whom they regrouped their forces and again made war. In this conflict Reginfid and the oldest son of Godofrid were killed. When this had come to pass, Heriold despaired of his cause, came to the emperor [Louis], and put himself under his protection. The emperor received him and told him to go to Saxony and to wait for the proper time when he would be able to give him the help which Heriold had requested."...The 815 entries of the Royal Annals focus on the campaign for restoring Harald to his throne. "The emperor [Louis] commanded that Saxons and Obodrites should prepare for this campaign, and twice in that winter the attempt was made to cross the Elbe. But since the weather suddenly turned and made the ice on the river melt, the campaign was held up. Finally, when the winter was over, about the middle of May, the proper time to begin the march arrived. Then all Saxon counts and all troops of the Obodrites, under orders to bring help to Heriold, marched with the imperial emissary Baldrich across the River Eider into the land of the Norsemen called Silendi....But the sons of Godofrid, who had raised against them a large army and a fleet of two hundred ships, remained on an island three miles of the shore and did not dare engage them.... "He [Louis] settled the affairs of the Slavs and of Heriold, and, leaving Heriold behind in Saxony, returned to his palace in Frankfurt."... Harald apparently continued operations against his rivals. An 817 entry of the Royal Annals reports "Because of the persistent aggression of Heriold, the sons of Godofrid, king of the Danes, also sent an embassy to the emperor [Louis], asked for peace, and promised to preserve it. This sounded more like hypocrisy than truth, so it was dismissed as empty talk and aid was given to Heriold against them"....A next attempt in 819, again with help from the Obotrites, met with more success and some kind of settlement seems to have been reached with the sons of Gudfred, since Harald was joint king with two of them in 821....In 823, tensions had appeared in Harald's relations with his co-rulers. Louis was asked to mediate....According to the Vita Ansgari by Rimbert, "After this it happened that a king named Heriold (Latin:Herioldus), who ruled over some of the Danes, was assailed by hatred and malignity, and was driven from his kingdom by the other kings of the same province....

During the reign of Louis the Pious, the Frankish Empire had no effective fleet, and this made the coast of Frisia a weak point in the defense of his realm. The motivation for granting Harald a fief in Frisia possibly had to do with Harald committing himself to defending the Frisian coastline against future Viking raids. The center of his fief was located in northwestern Germany, west of Oldenburg. This may have been the first piece of Frankish territory given to a Dane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Klak

And so on it goes. So this particular Half Danish king, the ancestor of Harald Bluetoot, the Norman king, was brought to power in Danmark by Obodrite (Slavic) - Saxon army under command of the Franks. And he has in return created first Frankish navy and has protected the Frankish coast from the "Vikings". Interesting.

If Harald blue Tooth was using Slavic army in Scandinavia, then these Slavic solders built for themselves Slavic ring forts in places where they were stationed.

Quote
While quiet prevailed throughout the interior, Harold Bluetooth turned his energies to foreign enterprises. He came to the help of Richard the Fearless of Normandy in 945 and 963...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Bluetooth

Quote
Motte-and-bailey castle

A motte-and-bailey castle is a fortification with a wooden or stone keep situated on a raised earthwork called a motte, accompanied by an enclosed courtyard, or bailey, surrounded by a protective ditch and palisade. Relatively easy to build with unskilled, often forced labour, but still militarily formidable, these castles were built across northern Europe from the 10th century onwards, spreading from Normandy and Anjou in France, into the Holy Roman Empire in the 11th century.

]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey]

Very soon after Harald Bluetooth's Slavic army arrived in Normandy Slavic type gards and gords start appearing in north western Europe under the name Motte-and-bailey castle. There were no fortifications of this type there before.

Now here is a question worth million pounds: Where did Fitz in Norman surnames come from?

Quote
Fitz is a prefix in patronymic surnames of Anglo-Norman origin. This usage derives from the Norman fiz / filz, pronunciation: /fits/ (cognate with French fils < Latin filius), meaning "son of". In noble families, this was preposed to the name of the father (e.g. Fitz Gilbert, meaning "son of Gilbert"), mirroring the Scandinavian tradition of adding -son after (usually) the father's name. There are, however, exceptions in which the name of a more noteworthy mother (Fitz Wymarch) or a parent's title (Fitz Count, Fitz Empress) was used instead. Such surnames were later created for illegitimate children of royal princes.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitz

It is strange that this prefix is used by Normans, but not by Norse or by French. The official explanation is that it derives from Latin filius, meaning "son of". However this does not explain how come Normans all of a sudden decided to start using it. Especially when they already had de- as "of the, son of":

Quote
De: "of the": a Norman-French habitational prefix used by some of the most common Irish surnames among which are De Búrca, Le Brún, De Barra, De Cíosóg, Devane and de Faoite. 'De' historically has signaled ownership of lands and was traditionally therefore a mark of prestige.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name

So who were the Norman Fitzes? If we look at the Wiki page about family names we see this:

Quote
-ić -vić -ović -ič -vič -ovič -ich, -vich, -vych, -ovich, -owicz: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia, Republic of Macedonia (rare), occasionally Bulgaria. Yugoslav ex.: Petrović, means Petar's son. In Russia, where patronyms are used, a person would have two -(ov)ich names in a row; first the patronym, then the family name (see Shostakovich).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name

So in Central Europe among the western Slavs, the same people who were fighting on the side of the Harold Bluetooth and his descendants, who built first "Norman" castles, "Vić" means son of. This word is often pronounced by Germanic people as witz as in Clausewitz and was probably pronounced by the new Slavic Normans as "fitz".

Did this Slavic suffix become prefix when South Baltic "Norman" Slavs from the army of Harold Bluetooth, decided to change their names to be more "Norman" in line with the local fashion and real Norman "de-" was translated into Fitz? Probably.

What is really interesting is how strongly the Fitz surnames took root in Ireland:


Quote
Fitz: a Norman-French word derived from the Latin word filius ("son"). It was used in patronymics by thousands of men in the early Norman period in Ireland (e.g. fitz Stephen, fitz Richard, fitz Robert, fitz William) and only on some occasions did it become used as an actual surname, the most famous example being the FitzGerald Earls of Kildare. Yet well into the 17th and 18th century it was used in certain areas dominated by the Hiberno-Norman of Ireland in its original form, as a patronymic. The Tribes of Galway were especially good at conserving this form, with examples such as John fitz John Bodkin and Michael Lynch fitz Arthur, used even as late as the early 19th century. A number of illegitimate descendents of the British royal family were given surnames with this element: some of the illegitimate children of King Charles II were named FitzCharles or FitzRoy ("son of the King"); those of King James II were named FitzJames; those of Prince William, Duke of Clarence and St Andrews (later King William IV) were named FitzClarence. Note that "Fitzpatrick" is not Norman: it is actually a Normanisation of the Gaelic surname Mac Ghiolla Phádraig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name

Quote
In later times, similar forms were coined for members of the English and British royal family, who historically lacked a surname, and particularly for illegitimate children of kings and princes (Fitzroy, son of the king; Fitzjames, son of the king James II of England; and FitzClarence, son of the Duke of Clarence). From this later use, it has been inferred that the name indicates illegitimacy, which was not originally the case. More generally, the prefix has been used to connote nobility as is the case in Anthony Trollope's 1862 novel Orley Farm which features the rakishly aristocratic figure of Lord John Fitzjoly.
The Irish surname FitzGerald is thought to derive from Gerald de Windsor, a Cambro-Norman nobleman whose son and grandson were involved in the Norman invasion of Ireland.
The Irish name Fitzpatrick does not indicate a Norman origin of the family; it is the translation into English of the Gaelic surname Mac Giolla Phádraig. Other surnames beginning "Mac Giolla" were made into "McGilli-" (e.g. McGillicuddy), but the Fitzpatricks claimed Norman heritage in a time when the Normans dominated much of Ireland.
Fitz is also a stand-alone German surname originating in the Palatinate region of Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitz

So Normans merged into local population because they were band of mercenary soldiers who married local wives. And as anyone who married a girls from another tribe and moved to that tribe's territory will tell you, you quickly become one of them.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 07:23:41 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2014, 07:15:53 AM »
Quote
How are you going to be convinced after reading three of my posts interspersed with all the "no no it is not possible"? Did you go and read any of the material on the external links? I bet you didn't. If you guys let me explain and elaborate you might get convinced. Are you going to let me do that? Do you really want to know what i have to present, or do you only care about the fact that i am not conforming to what you believe in?
As with any new idea, the burden of proof is on you. This isn't me treating you unfairly. I'm treating you like I would anyone making new claims. Given that you have not summarized the information in a way that makes me suspicious of the old ideas or curiously intrigued by the plausibility of yours, I don't think that's unfair at all. Quite literally, you could be saying just about anything else ("Basque must be related to Japanese!!!!") and I would feel similar. Your arguments seem to rely on rejecting a lot of what has been established and are based on very controversial (at best) claims like an assumed close relationship between genetics and language.


Quote
First how do you know what I am rejecting?
I asked you, and your ideas appear to be rejecting established ideas about Indo-European at least. For this to hold up, I think you'd need to reject a lot more. If you could reply by saying "oh, no, look, this can very conveniently fit into the existing theory in this way" and include some citations, I'd be more likely to buy your argument. Sweeping rejections, controversial evidence and just-new ideas don't make a convincing argument.
Quote
Secondly, i am not your student or your child so change your tone please. And actually i don't care if you don't are willing or not to participate in this discussion. If you want do it If you don't do something else. It is up to you.
Then, sincerely, good luck. But you seem more interested in being defensive and making undefended sweeping claims (or telling us "no, it'll make more sense if you just believe me and read all of what I've written"-- it makes less sense as I read more, to be honest). You're welcome to claim/write whatever you'd like. I'm just asking for a summary addressing some basic points that strike me as implausible. Being right (or wrong) and getting others to believe you (or not) are two very different things!


In general as a simple example, I'm very concerned about your perceived association between genetics and language. You use it to defend your argument, but in fact it makes me more skeptical because in itself, it is very controversial (at best). You don't seem to want to question your assumption on this (or explain the details to us), but this is fundamental: you can't use it to support your argument if you can't first establish it as a general convention of how to do science, and you certainly can't support it via your argument because that would be circular. If it does matter to you whether I/we believe you, this would be a crucial point to start with: try citing some existing literature and giving us less controversial examples to start (if they exist); then show how you can use similar (thus established) argumentation for the new data to reach your final conclusions.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 07:21:20 AM by djr33 »
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline ibarrere

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
  • Country: fi
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2014, 07:51:40 AM »
But i have hundreds of pages of data on the links i posted in my first post. Did you bothered reading any of it?

You can't seriously expect the members of this forum to go out and read hundreds of pages of text willy-nilly. With the sheer amount of misguided linguistic theory there is out there, it would be unrealistic for linguists to have read it all. That's why an abstract, or a short summary of work goes a long way during the peer review process. With an abstract, the editors or peer reviewers have a good idea of what the paper is about (and whether or not its worth their time) before they dive into the unsorted bulk of it.

I, like others on this forum, am hesitant to adopt any view that relates language with genetics. If the two were truly related, then how does a child whose parents are both Chinese become a native speaker of Swedish after growing up in Stockholm? How is it that we, as language learners, are able to move anywhere in the world and start learning the language? Regardless of our genetic makeup, we are native speakers of the language(s) to which we are  exposed as children.
http://americanwerewolfinbelgrade.com/

ymmärtämättömyyttään

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2014, 07:53:59 AM »
djr33

Quote
In general as a simple example, I'm very concerned about your perceived association between genetics and language.

If you are implying that i could be racist let me tell you this: I don't know what my haplogroup is, i don't know what haplogroup any of my family members and friends belong to. And i don't care. Genes are not something we choose. They determine a lot of who we are, but we should strive to be as best human being as possible regardless of what tribe we come from. I was brought up not to care what culture, religion or nationality someone belongs to, and to take difference as positive and enriching.

But saying all that, if you want to research anything to do with anthropology, you always come to genes sooner or later. Why? Because you always come to family, which becomes extended family, which becomes clan, which becomes tribe, which becomes confederation of tribes, which becomes people...Nucleus is always in the family. And family needs to be able to communicate. So they agree on a language that everyone understands. As the family expands the language develops and evolves, but always stays understandable to all members of the family. Otherwise family will break up. The more family spreads geographically, the more it comes in contact with other families that it needs to communicate with, the more and more foreign elements enter the fringe dialects of the original family language. But the core stays the same. Otherwise the family, clan, tribe can not function as a unit. Family is a carrier of genes and language. So these two were originally directly linked. The bigger the family gets, the more likely it is for members of other tribes to be absorbed into the family, either through marriage, clan mergers, mercenaries, slaves... These people bring in their genes and adopt the culture and language. Some of them may become progenitors of new powerful families and clans withing tribes and then we have situation where we have genetically different people sharing the same language. Examples are in Ireland where multiple ceps of the same clan have different genetic type. Serbia is the best example, where we have every haplogroup known to man, all sharing the same language. But with different local dialects and customs, which you can identify as links to old cultures belonging to the original genetic tribe from which particular local family or clan came from.

I use genetics as a tool to track spread of cultures and languages. So far i think it works. I know everyone cringes when they hear genes and cultures mixed together, but just because someone abused something in the past, doesn't mean that we should never use it again. Just because someone killed someone with a knife, should we never use knife again?

Tribes develop from families, and families propagate genes. This is a fact and can not be ignored. Look at Slavs. From Central Europe to Siberia, they can all more or less understand each other. They are all more or less R1a. Their cultures are also very similar, and all that after crusades, conversions, occupations, exterminations, communism, nazism, huns, avars, mongols, turks, germans, austrians, hungarians, vikings and all the other invaders and conquerors. After thousands of years, over two continents, the language and culture is the same where the population is the of the same genetic type (R1a). All this without schools and without books to codify the language.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 10:24:56 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing