slavic/romance/german

Guest   Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:25 pm GMT
I think that Latin is closer to Celtic languages and Slavic languages are more related to the Germanic branch.
guest   Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:38 pm GMT
<<I think that Latin is closer to Celtic languages and Slavic languages are more related to the Germanic branch. >>

That is a widely held belief, but it's been declining in recent years. It's now believed that the similarities between Celtic and Italic are shared conservative features from IE rather than features that developed from a supposedly shared Celto-Italic ancestor.
Guest   Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:50 pm GMT
<< Slavic languages are more related to the Germanic branch.>>

-- Absolutely not.


<<Germanic and Slavic appear more closely related because they share similarities in how words are used=
loaf = khleb, roof = krov, small = malo, love = ljub, people (OE liodi, Ger. Leute) = ljudi, nose = nos, son = sin, how (like, as) = kao, who = ko ">>

-- Those examples are utterly unconvincing.

- 'Loaf' is related to Lat. 'levare' ('to lift'), describing the fact that bread raises under the effect of yeast and baking. And 'khleb' is a borrowing from Germanic languages.

- "roof = krov": 'roof' is specifically English, while continental Germanic uses 'Dach', 'Tak' (related to 'Thatch'). The (weak) resemblance with 'krov' is merey incidental.

- 'Ljub', people, is not distant from Lat. 'liber' (='free'), which orignally contained the noton that real people are free men.

- "nose = nos", Germ. 'Nase', Lat. 'Nasus'

- "how (like, as) = kao, who = ko ": the series of pronouns based on the '(k)hv' scheme is extremely consistant also with Latin (quis, quod etc.). The Danish written forms have kept 'hvem', 'hvor', 'hvad' etc.


<< the similarities between Celtic and Italic are shared conservative features from IE rather than features that developed from a supposedly shared Celto-Italic ancestor.>>
-- Celtic, German and ancient Italic languages were once obviously part of a continuum, but it's very hard to tell where are the common original IE features and the later interaction.
There is some interesting similarities in the grammar of the Italic and Celtic groups. On the other hand, what is known of the old Gaulish language shows a stunning similarity with Germanic vocabulary.
Guest   Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:25 pm GMT
<<<< Slavic languages are more related to the Germanic branch.>>

-- Absolutely not.
>>

--That wasn't even mine. I didn't say that.

<<<<Germanic and Slavic appear more closely related because they share similarities in how words are used=
loaf = khleb, roof = krov, small = malo, love = ljub, people (OE liodi, Ger. Leute) = ljudi, nose = nos, son = sin, how (like, as) = kao, who = ko ">>

-- Those examples are utterly unconvincing.>>

--You're insane. They're toatally convincing.

<<- 'Loaf' is related to Lat. 'levare' ('to lift'), describing the fact that bread raises under the effect of yeast and baking. And 'khleb' is a borrowing from Germanic languages. >>

Loaf < pGmc *khlaibuz is of uncertain origin. One *THEORY* is that is may be related to OE hlifian-to raise higher, which still wouldn't relate it to "levare". Levare < levis is related to "leoht" (light in weight), pGmc *lingkhtaz. In any event, Old Church Slavic chlebu is not positively attested as a borrowing. That is just one other theory. Besides, I don't see any Latin word derived from "levare" that means bread. So there is no shared similarity in word useage, as I proposed in my original post.

<<- "roof = krov": 'roof' is specifically English, while continental Germanic uses 'Dach', 'Tak' (related to 'Thatch'). The (weak) resemblance with 'krov' is merey incidental. >>

This is totally inaccurate and shows the limitedness of your knowledge. While German "Dach" (cf. Eng. "thatch") is the now general word for roof in that region, there are many other germanic cognates to OE hrof < pGmc *khrofaz: Dutch "roef" (cover, roof) < M.Du. "roof"; MHG "rof" (penthouse), and ON "hrof" (boat shed). The Serbian word "krov" may or may not be a gmc borrowing, I do not know. However, the unchanged "k" corresponding to pGmc "h" (IE correspondences) suggests to me a likelihood otherwise.

<<- 'Ljub', people, is not distant from Lat. 'liber' (='free'), which orignally contained the noton that real people are free men. >>

You didn't even get this one right. Ljub is LOVE; Ljudi is PEOPLE. Get your "facts" straight before you go on the rampage. In any event, *if* "liber" is related (and I could agree that it is, but it is still speculated)
"free" doesn't mean "love". That's venus/amor/etc. So there is a *DISSILIMAR* deviation in meaning.

It's already well known and accepted that Germanic and Slavic shared influences due to regional proximity in the same way that Celtic and Italic did. No contest.

I'll finish with a phrase I learned while in Serbia: "On je moi sin" which means "He is my son."
[Serb. "je' ,= "is" comes from an earlier form "jest".]

What is this phrase in Latin look like? Chances are, not as close.
Guest   Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:31 pm GMT
Well, Celtic and Italic languages are believed to share the same Basque substratum, it's not only a matter of geographic closeness . On the other hand the non IE substratum of the Germanic languages is believed to be Finno-Ugric. I have no idea about the substratum of the Slavic languages, do you?
Guest   Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:08 pm GMT
<<I have no idea about the substratum of the Slavic languages, do you? >>

Well considering the proximity of the SLavic area to the supposed original homeland for IE, and the fact that Slavic retains close to most if not all the case distinctions of IE, I would say that Slavic isn't impacted by a substratum--the Slavs are *linguistically* some of the most direct descendants of the IEs (so to speak).
Travis   Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:20 pm GMT
Northern East Slavic (that is, Russian) definitely has a Finno-Ugric substratum present, but I do not think that Slavic as a whole has a shared Finno-Ugric substratum at all, from what I know.
Guest   Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:54 pm GMT
<<Northern East Slavic (that is, Russian) definitely has a Finno-Ugric substratum present, but I do not think that Slavic as a whole has a shared Finno-Ugric substratum at all, from what I know. >>

This would be from the movement of the Russian language into former Finno-Ugric speaking areas in, say, Western Siberian and abouts?
Guest   Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:59 pm GMT
Travis,

That is fascinating. Could you expand on why Russian has a shared
Finno-Ugric substratum?
Travis   Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:10 pm GMT
>><<Northern East Slavic (that is, Russian) definitely has a Finno-Ugric substratum present, but I do not think that Slavic as a whole has a shared Finno-Ugric substratum at all, from what I know. >>

This would be from the movement of the Russian language into former Finno-Ugric speaking areas in, say, Western Siberian and abouts?<<

Much of the core Russian-speaking area today, such as the area around Moscow, was once Finno-Ugric speaking; the original Finno-Ugric speaking population was largely assimilated by Slavs who had moved north into that area from the original Slavic Urheimat (approximately present Ukraine). There are still Finno-Ugric minorities today in European Russia, such as speakers of Karelian, Veps, Mari, Moksha, Erzya, Udmurt, Komi-Zyrian, and Komi-Permyak, but they are far outnumbered by speakers of Russian today.
Linguist   Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:03 am GMT
@Travis

yes, it's all right about Finno-Ugric minorities, but how does it affect Russian language? There's still no any connection between Russian and Finnish for example, or even Udmurt, except Russian minorities use cyrillic. Ok, may be there are some loan words, but true linguists find the similarities in grammar if they want to find the connection.

IMHO Slavic languages are more related to Baltic ones, then to Germanic or Romance.
Travis   Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:19 pm GMT
The matter is that when Russian came into contact with and assimilated Finno-Ugric-speakers during the Middle Ages, such had substratum influence upon Russian in return. I would have to look into it further to say more about such, though.
guest   Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:01 pm GMT
<<IMHO Slavic languages are more related to Baltic ones, then to Germanic or Romance. >>

This is true, but the thread only seeks to compare Slavic, Germanic and Romance. Since Germanic and Romance are genetically equi-distant from Slavic, the aforementioned Germanic-Slavic influence due to locality probably moves Germanic a little closer to Slavic and vice versa.
guest   Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:08 pm GMT
<<-- Those examples are utterly unconvincing.>>

Other near identical Slavic{Russian}-Germanic cognates are
молоко (moloko)>"milk" (Serbo-Croatian mleko/mljeko)
многие (mnogie, mnogje)>"many" (Anglo-Saxon manig/maneg)
вода (voda)>"water"
ветер (veter)>"wind" (Anglo-Saxon weder>wind, weather)
cam (sam)>"self" [cf. "same"]
брат (brat)>"brother"
сестра (sestra)>"sister"
дедушка (dedushka)>"grandfather" [cf. English "dad/daddy", Gothic "attas">father, Serbo-Croatian "deda">grandfather]
common slavonic 'yed-'>"eat"
and I love this one, Serbo-Croatian 'trd'>"excrement" (i.e."turd", AS tord)

On a certain level there does appear to be a greater familiarity between Slavic and Germanic than Germanic and Romance, as if Slavic were neatly positioned right in between the two [Germanic < > Slavic < > Romance]
john   Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:34 am GMT
do slavs, finns, and germans share a common ancestor that is not profaund but recent.