DOCSLIB.ORG

From Very Early Germanic and Before Towards the “Old” Stages of the Germanic Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

F. Plank, Early Germanic 1 FROM VERY EARLY GERMANIC AND BEFORE TOWARDS THE “OLD” STAGES OF THE GERMANIC LANGUAGES 160,000+ years of human population history summarised, up to ca. 10,000 Before Now: Journey of Mankind: The Peopling of the World http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ The origin of Language and early languages – fascinating questions and challenges for geneticists, palaeontologists, archaeologists, physical and cultural anthropologists. Alas, this is not something historical linguists could do much/anything to shed light on. F. Plank, Early Germanic 2 No speech acts performed by early homines sapientes sapientes have come down to us to bear witness to their mental lexicons & grammars. From human fossils nothing can be inferred about the linguistic working of brains and little about the organs implicated in speech. Speech acts were given greater permanence through writing only much later: from around 3,200 BCE in Mesopotamia as well as in Egypt, from around 1,200 BCE in China, and from around 600 BCE in Mesoamerica. The technology for actually recording speech (and other) sounds was only invented in 1857. F. Plank, Early Germanic 3 What cannot be observed must be (rationally) hypothesised. The standard method in historical linguistics for rationally forming hypotheses about a past from which we have no direct evidence is the comparative method. Alas, the comparative method for the reconstruction of linguistic forms (lexical as well as grammatical) only reaches back some 8,000 years maximum, given the normal life expectancy and recognisability limits of forms and meanings. And it is questionable whether constructions can be rigorously reconstructed. The comparative method consists in observing systematic differences (not identities!) between languages and suggesting plausible stories to account for how such difference could develop from earlier sameness. For example, long parallel lists can be drawn up of English words with /t/ corresponding to German words with /ts/: E toll, ten, to, town, snout, cat, sit ... – G Zoll, zehn, zu, Zaun, Schnauze, Katze, sitzen ... The meanings are either the same or can be plausibly connected (e.g., a town is or used to be an enclosed, ‘fenced in’ place of habitation). A historical story that would make sense of correspondences which are so numerous that they can be considered systematic would be as follows. F. Plank, Early Germanic 4 Let’s assume that English and German derive from a single ancestral language, with these words (“cognates”) being part of the shared heritage, acquired again and again by new generations. But how have they come to sound systematically different? The continuation of the story is that speakers of German, once they had split off from speakers of English, would begin to pronounce /t/’s as [ts] (relevant features would be [continuant] or [strident]). Then, after a period of applying a pronouncing rule with the effect of affricating voiceless stops (also affecting /p/ and partly also /k/: pound/Pfund, apple/Apfel, rump/Rumpf, elk/Elch, sickle/Sichel ...), and not hearing anybody pronouncing such words with a stop any longer in their own speech community, they would eventually restructure these words in their mental lexicons so as to have basic affricates. The reverse story of historical de-affrication – with /ts/ [ts] in the common ancestral language and with the English changing the pronunciation to [t] and eventually the lexical representation to /t/ – would make less phonological sense. Later loan words, such as ton/Tonne, taboo/Tabu, state/Staat, chat/chatten etc. would therefore be spared affrication, and sound the same in the two borrowing languages, as such giving no evidence of direct historical relatedness. F. Plank, Early Germanic 5 No other method for throwing light on the distant linguistic past is considered sound by experts – notwithstanding the numerous efforts of amateurs (who may well be experts in their own fields, such as genetics, palaeontology, archaeology) to trace the history of lexicons and grammars back further through the mass comparison of words or other such dubious ventures. Mass comparatists hope that the more words they find with similar sound and similar meaning, the stronger will be their case for a historical relationship between the languages compared. However, words which sound similar and mean something similar now will in all probability have sounded differently and will have meant something different in the past of each of the languages concerned, and are therefore unreliable guides into those earlier times when the languages compared would conceivably have been close family members and possibly even one single language. F. Plank, Early Germanic 6 The Journey of Mankind shown above assumes monogenesis: all exemplars of homo sapiens sapiens ever can ultimately be traced back to the same mother. There is substantial genetic support for this theory. What is hotly debated is precisely how other species came into play: now extinct, there formerly were Neandertals, Denisovans and perhaps further humans, and they demonstrably mixed and intermarried with “us”. It is an open question whether they had Language, in the sense of a system for the expression of thought and feeling and for communication based on a mental lexicon & grammar. But what does that mean for Language and languages? Can all languages ever spoken also be traced back to a single language spoken in our common ancestral community some 150,000 years ago, “proto-Human”? Is English, for example, the way it is because it is historically descended from proto- Human, allowing for lexical and gramatical changes that over time have distinguished it, or its more immediate ancestors, from other languages? Possibly, but not necessarily. New languages have been devised even recently, with no model to follow, namely sign languages of village deaf communities, and oral languages may equally have been invented or reinvented more than once in the past. Therefore, genetic monogenesis of homo sapiens does not necessarily preclude linguistic polygenesis – even disregarding the possible contributions of Neandertals and Denisovans. F. Plank, Early Germanic 7 Where does deep time seriously begin for historical linguists? Perhaps here: The Nostratic or Eurasian super/macrofamily Comprising these families (all or some – you choose): Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Kartvelian, perhaps also Afroasiatic, (Elamo-) Dravidian, Sumerian, Etruscan, Nivkh, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut. Member languages of this supposed superfamily are (now) located in Europe, North/Northeast Asia, Arctic; the supposed Urheimat: The Fertile Crescent. When was the supposed proto-language spoken? Meso/Epipalaeolithic, end of last glacial period (20,000 – 9,500 BCE) Established (?) by which methods? Comparative method and/or mass comparison, fantasy. Here is how the supposed superfamily may have split up into (supposed) families: from A. Bomhard, Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic, 2008 F. Plank, Early Germanic 8 The Common Indo-European speech community: the Sredny Stog culture (±4500–3500 BCE) of nomadic Kurgan (burial mound) builders, fast travellers on horse-drawn chariots spreading in all directions in several waves of migrations/invasions [from Beekes, Comparative Indo-European linguistics, 1995] F. Plank, Early Germanic 9 Competing IE Urheimat theories; current favourites: 1. Pontic-Caspian Steppe/Kurgan theory: unity until 4th or 5th millennium BCE 2. Anatolian theory: wave(s) of advance of farming, since 7th millennium BCE or earlier [J. P. Mallory, In search of the Indo-Europeans, 1989, p144] plus Out-of-India theory; plus Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm: “Old Europeans” themselves as the Proto-Indo-Europeans, not later immigrants; plus Sprachbund theory (Trubetzkoy); plus ... F. Plank, Early Germanic 10 How did the Proto-Indo-Europeans speak? What was their (mental) lexicon and grammar like? This fable about a sheep and horses they would have told something like this, as August Schleicher saw it in 1868: [Das] schaf und [die] rosse [Ein] schaf, [auf] welchem wolle nicht war (ein geschorenes schaf) sah rosse, das [einen] schweren wagen fahrend, das [eine] große last, das [einen] menschen schnell tragend. [Das] schaf sprach [zu den] rossen: [Das] herz wird beengt [in] mir (es thut mir herzlich leid), sehend [den] menschen [die] rosse treibend. [Die] rosse sprachen: Höre schaf, [das] herz wird beengt [in den] gesehen-habenden (es thut uns herzlich leid, da wir wissen): [der] mensch, [der] herr macht [die] wolle [der schafe [zu einem] warmen kleide [für] sich und [den] schafen ist nicht wolle (die schafe aber haben keine wolle mehr, sie werden geschoren; es geht ihnen noch schlechter als den rossen). Dies gehört-habend bog (entwich) [das] schaf [auf das] feld (es machte sich aus dem staube) Avis akvāsas ka Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat. F. Plank, Early Germanic 11 This is of course hypothetical, a text fabricated on then current hypotheses about the reconstruction of forms and on assumptions about rules of syntactic construction. As reconstructions changed, so changed this story. Here are two recent versions, based on the reconstructions of Frederik Kortlandt (2007) and Craig Melchert (2009) (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable): ʕʷeuis ʔiḱ:ueskʷ:e ʕʷeuis i ʕueli nēʔst ʔeḱ:ums uēit:, t:o kʷ’rʕeum uoḱom uḱent:m, t:o mḱ’eʕm porom, t:o tḱmenm ʔoʔḱ:u prent:m. uēuk:t ʕʷeuis ʔiḱ:uos, ʕetḱo ʔme ḱ:ērt ʕnerm uit’ent:i ʔeḱ:ums ʕḱ’ent:m. ueuk:nt: ʔiḱ:ues, ḱ:luti ʕʷue, ʕetḱo nsme ḱ:ērt: uit’ent:i, ʕnēr p:ot:is ʕʷuiom ʕueli sue kʷermom uesti kʷ:rneut:i, ʕʷuēi kʷ:e ʕueli neʔsti. t:o ḱ:eḱ:luus ʕʷeuis pleʕnom pēuk’t. Hⁿówis (h⁾)ékŵ ōs-kʷe hⁿáwej josméj hⁿwlh̥ ⁾náhⁿ né h⁾ést, só h⁾ékwomŝ derkt.̂ só gʷrh̥ ₓúm wóĝhom wéĝhet; méĝhⁿm ̥ bhórom; só (dh)gĥémonm ̥ hⁿṓkû bhéret.
Recommended publications
  • The English Language

    The English Language

    The English Language Version 5.0 Eala ðu lareow, tæce me sum ðing. [Aelfric, Grammar] Prof. Dr. Russell Block University of Applied Sciences - München Department 13 – General Studies Winter Semester 2008 © 2008 by Russell Block Um eine gute Note in der Klausur zu erzielen genügt es nicht, dieses Skript zu lesen. Sie müssen auch die “Show” sehen! Dieses Skript ist der Entwurf eines Buches: The English Language – A Guide for Inquisitive Students. Nur der Stoff, der in der Vorlesung behandelt wird, ist prüfungsrelevant. Unit 1: Language as a system ................................................8 1 Introduction ...................................... ...................8 2 A simple example of structure ..................... ......................8 Unit 2: The English sound system ...........................................10 3 Introduction..................................... ...................10 4 Standard dialects ................................ ....................10 5 The major differences between German and English . ......................10 5.1 The consonants ................................. ..............10 5.2 Overview of the English consonants . ..................10 5.3 Tense vs. lax .................................. ...............11 5.4 The final devoicing rule ....................... .................12 5.5 The “th”-sounds ................................ ..............12 5.6 The “sh”-sound .................................. ............. 12 5.7 The voiced sounds / Z/ and / dZ / ...................................12 5.8 The
  • The Germanic Heldenlied and the Poetic Edda: Speculations on Preliterary History

    The Germanic Heldenlied and the Poetic Edda: Speculations on Preliterary History

    Oral Tradition, 19/1 (2004): 43-62 The Germanic Heldenlied and the Poetic Edda: Speculations on Preliterary History Edward R. Haymes One of the proudest inventions of German scholarship in the nineteenth century was the Heldenlied, the heroic song, which was seen by scholars as the main conduit of Germanic heroic legend from the Period of Migrations to the time of their being written down in the Middle Ages. The concept stems indirectly from the suggestions of several eighteenth-century Homeric scholars that since the Homeric poems were much too long to have been memorized and performed in oral tradition, they must have existed as shorter, episodic songs. Friedrich August Wolf’s well-known Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) collected evidence for the idea that writing was not used for poetry until long after Homer’s time. He argued for a thorough recension of the poem under (or perhaps by) Pisistratus in the sixth century BCE as the first comprehensive written Homer. These ideas were almost immediately applied to the Middle High German Nibelungenlied by Karl Lachmann (1816), who was trained as a classical philologist and indeed continued to contribute in that area at the same time that he was one of the most influential members of the generation that founded the new discipline of Germanistik. On the basis of rough spots and contradictions (not only Homer nods!) Lachmann thought he could recognize twenty separate Lieder in the Middle High German epic. At the same time that Lachmann was deconstructing the German medieval epic, Elias Lönnrot was assembling the Finnish epic he called Kalevala from shorter songs in conscious imitation of the Homer (or Pisistratus) described by Wolf.
  • 6 X 10.Long New.P65

    6 X 10.Long New.P65

    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-61803-8 - German: A Linguistic Introduction Sarah M. B. Fagan Index More information Index abbreviation 102, 258–260 analytic language 111n.45, 199 ablaut 57, 75, 80, 88, 97, 107, 113n.72, 186 anaphor 142 (Der) Abrogans 188 Anglo-Americanism 275–276 A.c.I. construction 143 antonymy 150–152 acronym 102–104 apex 12 address, forms of 252–255 approximant 13, 48n.6 in FWG 270 arytenoid cartilages 4–5, 50n.36, 211n.15 history of 252–253 aspect 153–155 adjective 90, 116, 119, 259 habitual 122, 155 attributive 71, 110n.33, 124 imperfective 153–154 and case 120–122 perfective 153 comparative form 71, 150–151, 190 progressive 155, 161–163, 216 inflection of 70–75 aspiration 11, 21, 23–24, 49n.16, 184–185, predicative 71–72, 110n.33, 111n.35, 241n.1 124–125 Aspiration (rule) 23–24 strong endings 72 assimilation 21, 26, 190, 248 superlative form 71, 111n.35 in colloquial German 246 weak endings 72–73 see also Nasal Assimilation, Velar Fricative see also compound Assimilation, voicing assimilation adjective phrase 63, 124–125, 193–194 Auslautverhartung¨ , see Final Fortition extended 125, 278n.10 Auslautsgesetze (laws of finals) 212n.33 adjunct 128 Austrian Standard German (ASG) 224–228 adjunction 135–136, 141–142 grammar 226–227 adverb 92, 116, 124–126, 141–142, 146n.15, legal language 279n.21 250–251; see also compound pronunciation 225–226 adverb phrase 124–126, 176–177 vocabulary 227–228 affix 55–56, 99, 106, 212n.29 auxiliary verb 85, 113n.78, 116, 129, 197, 199, derivational 90, 108n.3 251, 270 inflectional 56,
  • The Shared Lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic

    The Shared Lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic

    THE SHARED LEXICON OF BALTIC, SLAVIC AND GERMANIC VINCENT F. VAN DER HEIJDEN ******** Thesis for the Master Comparative Indo-European Linguistics under supervision of prof.dr. A.M. Lubotsky Universiteit Leiden, 2018 Table of contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Background topics 3 2.1. Non-lexical similarities between Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 3 2.2. The Prehistory of Balto-Slavic and Germanic 3 2.2.1. Northwestern Indo-European 3 2.2.2. The Origins of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 4 2.3. Possible substrates in Balto-Slavic and Germanic 6 2.3.1. Hunter-gatherer languages 6 2.3.2. Neolithic languages 7 2.3.3. The Corded Ware culture 7 2.3.4. Temematic 7 2.3.5. Uralic 9 2.4. Recapitulation 9 3. The shared lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 11 3.1. Forms that belong to the shared lexicon 11 3.1.1. Baltic-Slavic-Germanic forms 11 3.1.2. Baltic-Germanic forms 19 3.1.3. Slavic-Germanic forms 24 3.2. Forms that do not belong to the shared lexicon 27 3.2.1. Indo-European forms 27 3.2.2. Forms restricted to Europe 32 3.2.3. Possible Germanic borrowings into Baltic and Slavic 40 3.2.4. Uncertain forms and invalid comparisons 42 4. Analysis 48 4.1. Morphology of the forms 49 4.2. Semantics of the forms 49 4.2.1. Natural terms 49 4.2.2. Cultural terms 50 4.3. Origin of the forms 52 5. Conclusion 54 Abbreviations 56 Bibliography 57 1 1.
  • Languages and Migrations in Prehistoric Europe Roots of Europe Summer Seminar

    Languages and Migrations in Prehistoric Europe Roots of Europe Summer Seminar

    Languages and migrations in prehistoric Europe Roots of Europe summer seminar 7–12 August 2018 National Museum of Denmark & the University of Copenhagen Languages and migrations in prehistoric Europe Roots of Europe summer seminar 7–10 August 2018 National Museum of Denmark Festsalen Ny Vestergade 10 Prinsens Palæ DK-1471 København K 11–12 August 2018 University of Copenhagen Faculty of Humanities (KUA) Multisalen (Room 21.0.54) Emil Holms Kanal 6 The Roots of Europe Summer Seminar Preface The Roots of Europe Research Center has its origins in a so-called Programme of Excellence funded by the University of Copenhagen and hosted by the De- partment of Nordic Studies and Linguistics. The founding members were a group of historical linguists specializing in Indo-European Studies, a disci- pline that goes back two centuries at the University of Copenhagen, to the days when the linguist and philologist Rasmus Rask (1787–1832) carried out 2 his ground-breaking research. The programme marked a new epoch in modern-day Indo-European stud- ies in that it began to incorporate the findings of archaeology and genetics in its quest to understand the prehistorical spread of the Indo-European lan- guages. This was not the first attempt to relate the many branches of the fam- Preface ily tree to material cultures and, indeed, genes. However, previous attempts were abandoned, after the field was, figuratively speaking, taken hostage by a nefarious alliance of pseudoscientific researchers and politicians around the turn and first half of the 20th century. After the Second World War, collaborations between archaeologists and linguists became rare and generally frowned upon.
  • The Oksywie Culture on the Right-Bank Lower Vistula1

    The Oksywie Culture on the Right-Bank Lower Vistula1

    ISSN 1392-6748 The Oksywie Culture on the Right-Bank Lower Vistula1 Milena Teska The late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC saw major research procedure adopted by the present author is cultural changes and transformations which brought best reflected in the arrangement of the monograph. about a change in the appearance of not only the lands Volume I comprises the textual body of the thesis, i.e. of modern Poland but also of the whole of central Eu- introductory remarks and the history and state of ar- rope. The changes were precipitated by the impact chaeological research on the right-bank lower Vistula coming from the societies of the La Tène culture that prior to 1945. grew in strength, both economically and politically Next, investigations carried out there after 1945 no doubt, at that time (Godłowski, 1977, s. 111–120; are discussed. The study includes a detailed catalogue Woźniak, 1970; 1986, s. 12–13). The arrival of goods of 44 sites (Fig.), forming the source basis of the the- of a Celtic character marks thus the inception of an sis. The catalogue presents artefacts from the 23 cem- intensive La Tène influence process – a far-reaching eteries (18 archival) and 21 settlements (8 archival) impact of Celt civilization – going far beyond the area of the Oksywie Culture. It also presents the sites that of their compact settlement. The impact, in combina- have been explored under the programme of the Ar- tion with the strong traditions of the local sub-stratum, chaeological Record of Poland (AZP) (7 in all) and the caused new cultural patterns, typical of the younger finds the context of which could not be determined.
  • The Germanic Third Weak Class

    The Germanic Third Weak Class

    THE GERMANIC THIRD WEAK CLASS JAY H. JASANOFF Harvard University Germanic verbs of the 3rd weak class form presents characterized by an alternation between predesinential *ai (e.g. Go. 3sg. habai1» and *a (e.g. Ipl. habam). These verbs are usually compared with the 'e-verbs' of Italic and Balto­ Slavic, but no IE present built on the stative suffix *-e- will account phonologi­ cally for the form of the suffix in Germanic. Instead, it can be shown that the characteristic Germanic paradigm results from the 'activization' of an older middle paradigm in which a 3sg. in *-ai « IE *-oi; cf. Skt. duh~ 'milks') was further suffixed by the productive active ending *-Pi « IE *-ti). 1. The inflection of the third class of weak verbs (exemplified by the verb 'to have': Gothic haban, Old Norse hafa,! Old High German hab~, Old Saxon hebbian, Old English habban) presents one of the classic problems in the historical morphology of Germanic. Not only do the verbs of this class show peculiarities in all the older Germanic languages, but they differ remarkably in their conjugation from one language to another, so that it is not at all obvious how the Common Germanic paradigm should be reconstructed. Given this diversity of forms, we will do well to begin with a short review of the morphological facts themselves. The situation is simplest in Old High German. The entire conjugation of hab~n is athematic (to the extent that this term still has any meaning), and is based on the single stem hab~-: 1sg. hab~, 3sg. hab~t, 3pl.
  • Šiauliai University Faculty of Humanities Department of English Philology

    Šiauliai University Faculty of Humanities Department of English Philology

    ŠIAULIAI UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY RENDERING OF GERMANIC PROPER NAMES IN THE LITHUANIAN PRESS BACHELOR THESIS Research Adviser: Assist. L.Petrulion ė Student: Aist ė Andži ūtė Šiauliai, 2010 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................3 1. THE CONCEPTION OF PROPER NAMES.........................................................................5 1.2. The development of surnames.............................................................................................6 1.3. Proper names in Germanic languages .................................................................................8 1.3.1. Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic surnames.................................................9 1.3.2. Dutch surnames ..........................................................................................................12 1.3.3. English surnames........................................................................................................13 1.3.4. German surnames .......................................................................................................14 2. NON-LITHUANIAN SURNAMES ORTHOGRAPHY .....................................................16 2.1. The historical development of the problem.......................................................................16 2.2. The rules of transcriptions of non-Lithuanian proper names ............................................22 3. THE USAGE
  • For the Official Published Version, See Lingua 133 (Sept. 2013), Pp. 73–83. Link

    For the Official Published Version, See Lingua 133 (Sept. 2013), Pp. 73–83. Link

    For the official published version, see Lingua 133 (Sept. 2013), pp. 73–83. Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00243841 External Influences on English: From its Beginnings to the Renaissance, D. Gary Miller, Oxford University Press (2012), xxxi + 317 pp., Price: £65.00, ISBN 9780199654260 Lexical borrowing aside, external influences are not the main concern of most histories of the English language. It is therefore timely, and novel, to have a history of English (albeit only up to the Renaissance period) that looks at English purely from the perspective of external influences. Miller assembles his book around five strands of influence: (1) Celtic, (2) Latin and Greek, (3) Scandinavian, (4) French, (5) later Latin and Greek input, and he focuses on influences that left their mark on contemporary mainstream English rather than on regional or international varieties. This review looks at all chapters, but priority is given to Miller’s discussions of structural influence, especially on English syntax, morphology and phonology, which often raise a number of theoretical issues. Loanwords from various sources, which are also covered extensively in the book, will receive slightly less attention. Chapter 1 introduces the Indo-European and Germanic background of English and gives short descriptions of the languages with which English came into contact. This is a good way to start the book, but the copious lists of loanwords from Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, German, Low German, Afrikaans etc., most of which appear in English long after the Renaissance stop-off point, were not central to its aims. It would have been better to use this space to expand upon the theoretical framework employed throughout the book.
  • And *- in Germanic

    And *- in Germanic

    Archaisms and innovations four interconnected studies on Germanic historical phonology and morphology Hansen, Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Publication date: 2014 Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (APA): Hansen, B. S. S. (2014). Archaisms and innovations: four interconnected studies on Germanic historical phonology and morphology. Det Humanistiske Fakultet, Københavns Universitet. Download date: 27. sep.. 2021 FACULTY OF HUMANITIE S UNIVERSITY OF COPENH AGEN Ph .D. thesis Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen Archaisms and innovations four interconnected studies on Germanic historical phonology and morphology i Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... V 1. Grammatical terms ....................................................................................................................................................... v 2. Linguanyms .................................................................................................................................................................. vi 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 5 1.1. Archaisms and innovations ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2. Aim and purpose of the present thesis ....................................................................................................................
  • Europaio: a Brief Grammar of the European Language Reconstruct Than the Individual Groupings

    Europaio: a Brief Grammar of the European Language Reconstruct Than the Individual Groupings

    1. Introduction 1.1. The Indo-European 1. The Indo-European languages are a family of several hundred languages and dialects, including most of the major languages of Europe, as well as many in South Asia. Contemporary languages in this family include English, German, French, Spanish, Countries with IE languages majority in orange. In Portuguese, Hindustani (i.e., mainly yellow, countries in which have official status. [© gfdl] Hindi and Urdu) and Russian. It is the largest family of languages in the world today, being spoken by approximately half the world's population as their mother tongue, while most of the other half speak at least one of them. 2. The classification of modern IE dialects into languages and dialects is controversial, as it depends on many factors, such as the pure linguistic ones (most of the times being the least important of them), the social, economic, political and historical ones. However, there are certain common ancestors, some of them old, well-attested languages (or language systems), as Classic Latin for Romance languages (such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Rumanian or Catalan), Classic Sanskrit for the Indo-Aryan languages or Classic Greek for present-day Greek. Furthermore, there are other, still older -some of them well known- dialects from which these old language systems were derived and later systematized, which are, following the above examples, Archaic Latin, Archaic Sanskrit and Archaic Greek, also attested in older compositions and inscriptions. And there are, finally, old related dialects which help develop a Proto-Language, as the Faliscan (and Osco-Umbrian for many scholars) for Latino-Faliscan (Italic for many), the Avestan for Indo-Iranian or the Mycenaean for Proto-Greek.
  • Architecture, Style and Structure in the Early Iron Age in Central Europe

    Architecture, Style and Structure in the Early Iron Age in Central Europe

    TOMASZ GRALAK ARCHITECTURE, STYLE AND STRUCTURE IN THE EARLY IRON AGE IN CENTRAL EUROPE Wrocław 2017 Reviewers: prof. dr hab. Danuta Minta-Tworzowska prof. dr hab. Andrzej P. Kowalski Technical preparation and computer layout: Natalia Sawicka Cover design: Tomasz Gralak, Nicole Lenkow Translated by Tomasz Borkowski Proofreading Agnes Kerrigan ISBN 978-83-61416-61-6 DOI 10.23734/22.17.001 Uniwersytet Wrocławski Instytut Archeologii © Copyright by Uniwersytet Wrocławski and author Wrocław 2017 Print run: 150 copies Printing and binding: "I-BIS" Usługi Komputerowe, Wydawnictwo S.C. Andrzej Bieroński, Przemysław Bieroński 50-984 Wrocław, ul. Sztabowa 32 Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER I. THE HALLSTATT PERIOD 1. Construction and metrology in the Hallstatt period in Silesia .......................... 13 2. The koine of geometric ornaments ......................................................................... 49 3. Apollo’s journey to the land of the Hyperboreans ............................................... 61 4. The culture of the Hallstatt period or the great loom and scales ....................... 66 CHAPTER II. THE LA TÈNE PERIOD 1. Paradigms of the La Tène style ................................................................................ 71 2. Antigone and the Tyrannicides – the essence of ideological change ................. 101 3. The widespread nature of La Tène style ................................................................