Re: Ancient ´German´ can´t have been Indoeuropean
- From: greymaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 10 Jan 2006 14:07:27 GMT
On 8 Jan 2006 06:23:26 -0800, dhobraasch wrote:
>
> This in mind back to the linguistics.
> After KLUGE *Etymologisches Woerterbuch der deutschen Sprache 1989*
>
> "for the designation as indogermanic or basiclinguistic we require
> that a word EXEPT IN THE GERMANIC ONE still appear in Ari ( Indic,
> Iranian) or Hittitie or Tokharic"
>
>>> für die Bezeichnung als indogermqnisch oder grundsprachlich verlangen wir, dass
> ein Wort ausser im Germanischen noch im Arischen (Indisch, Iranisch)
> oder im
> Hethtischen oder Tocharischen auftritt*<<
>
> i.e. ALL Indo-European languages have one in common, provable words,
> which appear also in the Germanic one. This taken for true then
>
> German words may be taken as a prerequisit for the linguistic
> designation >> Indogermanic<<
> or for english trained scholars >>Indoeuropean<<.
>
> Why ?
>
> Dieter Braasch
This whole area is the preserve of the uber-crank. Leave it to the
specialists.
Good source is "How to kill a dragon"
--
greymaus
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ancient ´German´ can´t have been Indoeuropean
- From: dhobraasch
- Re: Ancient ´German´ can´t have been Indoeuropean
- References:
- Ancient ´German´ can´t have been Indoeuropean
- From: dhobraasch
- Ancient ´German´ can´t have been Indoeuropean
- Prev by Date: Re: Ancient village outside Jerusalem rises questions
- Next by Date: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Previous by thread: Re: Ancient ´German´ can´t have been Indoeuropean
- Next by thread: Re: Ancient ´German´ can´t have been Indoeuropean
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|