7 ms·

Any discussion that doesn't even mention the possibility of origin in semitic forms (which, of course, Greek and ultimately Roman also trace to) seems unlikely

Any discussion that doesn't even mention the possibility of origin in semitic forms (which, of course, Greek and ultimately Roman also trace to) seems unlikely to enlighten. Carthaginians certainly got around. You would seem to need a plausible reason for them to have been unable or unwilling to visit Denmark.

sillyquiet 4y ago
Just because they don't mention this not-widely-accepted hypothesis you're going to dismiss it? Ok.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  It doesn't offer anything else. So, yes. "Not widely accepted" means, exactly, "usefully checked against new evidence". If you can point to anything beyond "woohoo, new older runes" and "maybe this helps distinguish between Greek and italic origin", do.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
_a_a_a_ 4y ago
If you have any info on this, post it.
- eesmith 4y ago
  I was also curious about the topic. I think this book review by Nelson Goering of Robert Mailhammer & Theo Vennemann's book "The Carthaginian North: Semitic Influence on Early Germanic: A Linguistic and Cultural Study" at https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:40752/CONTENT/goering-2021-review-of-mailhammer-and-vennemann.pdf/ https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:40752/CONTENT/goer... and https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.20028.goe https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.20028.goe does a good job of summarizing the argument and the review author's issues with it. > The thesis presented in this book – that there was a substantial linguistic impact on what would become Proto-Germanic from the Punic spoken by Carthaginians who allegedly established outposts in northern Europe – has been argued by one of the authors in various articles for many years (see the collected articles in Vennemann 2003, 2013), and is already known as ‘controversial’. ... This book can be taken as arguing the best possible case for Punic influence on Germanic ... > This, then, is the sum of the strictly linguistic evidence marshalled by MV for the alleged Punic contact and linguistic influence on Germanic. They supplement it with an appeal to writing systems, arguing that runes are best derived directly from the Punic alphabet. They make a number of points, but a large core of their argument turns on the supposed derivation of the first four runes (for f, u, þ, and a), in order, shape, and sound, from the Punic alphabet. . > The result of this, it should by now be clear, is that I must conclude that the central thesis of the book – that there was linguistic influence from Punic on pre-Germanic – is not supported by the evidence marshalled here. More than that, I would say that this Punic hypothesis may now be confidently rejected as very probably untrue. If such influence were real, then the combined labours of two talented linguists, one working on the problem for very many years, and with ample (if often critical) feedback to build on, would have uncovered convincing traces by now. That they have not strongly suggests that such do not exist. If this is the best argument that can be made for the Punic hypothesis, then the hypothesis would appear to be incorrect.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Either new evidence changes the picture, or it doesn't. Objecting to checking is not science.
    - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
      What new evidence. The guy's post said it was checked by linguists and found inadequate to support your claim. Not that your claim is wrong, just unsupportable by that checking.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        Are you aware of the article your post is attached to?
        _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        Yes. Iust can't see the word 'semitic' or 'carthage' there, am I missing something?
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        It is new evidence. Previous conclusions formed in its absence are obsolete. The new conclusion might be the same, or not, but not without checking first.
        _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        What explicitly is the link. What is the new evidence. Please be specific.
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        It is right there at the top of the window you are looking at right now. They call it TFA around here.
- crabbycarrot 4y ago
  This sounds like "edenics" (as in garden of Eden), which posits that there was original language (probably Hebrew) from which all languages descend. Other popular "original" languages are Tamil, Sanskrit, Basque, or whatever language some nationalist crackpot decides they want to promote. It's totally disconnected from reality. Here's a Language Log post on it: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005278.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005278.h...
  - msrenee 4y ago
    This is super reminiscent to me of the arguments you see claiming Tamil is the oldest language. It's just not based on sound evidence or reasoning.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - bazoom42 4y ago
      > If you insist (why?) that semitic alphabets can have made no contribution, and you are correct, then the evidence will show that How could evidence show lack of contribution? You can’t prove a negative like that. You can’t prove lack of influence from Korean or ancient aliens either.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        Then what are you worried about?
        bazoom42 4y ago
        What are you referring to?
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        If you are certain that comparing the oldest runes to semitic glyphs won't show up a closer match than more recent runes do, what is wrong with comparing them, or talking about comparing them? The only possible objection is that you don't like what might come from it.

sillyquiet 4y ago

Just because they don't mention this not-widely-accepted hypothesis you're going to dismiss it? Ok.

moloch-hai 4y ago
It doesn't offer anything else. So, yes. "Not widely accepted" means, exactly, "usefully checked against new evidence". If you can point to anything beyond "woohoo, new older runes" and "maybe this helps distinguish between Greek and italic origin", do.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

_a_a_a_ 4y ago

If you have any info on this, post it.

eesmith 4y ago
I was also curious about the topic. I think this book review by Nelson Goering of Robert Mailhammer & Theo Vennemann's book "The Carthaginian North: Semitic Influence on Early Germanic: A Linguistic and Cultural Study" at https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:40752/CONTENT/goering-2021-review-of-mailhammer-and-vennemann.pdf/ https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:40752/CONTENT/goer... and https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.20028.goe https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.20028.goe does a good job of summarizing the argument and the review author's issues with it. > The thesis presented in this book – that there was a substantial linguistic impact on what would become Proto-Germanic from the Punic spoken by Carthaginians who allegedly established outposts in northern Europe – has been argued by one of the authors in various articles for many years (see the collected articles in Vennemann 2003, 2013), and is already known as ‘controversial’. ... This book can be taken as arguing the best possible case for Punic influence on Germanic ... > This, then, is the sum of the strictly linguistic evidence marshalled by MV for the alleged Punic contact and linguistic influence on Germanic. They supplement it with an appeal to writing systems, arguing that runes are best derived directly from the Punic alphabet. They make a number of points, but a large core of their argument turns on the supposed derivation of the first four runes (for f, u, þ, and a), in order, shape, and sound, from the Punic alphabet. . > The result of this, it should by now be clear, is that I must conclude that the central thesis of the book – that there was linguistic influence from Punic on pre-Germanic – is not supported by the evidence marshalled here. More than that, I would say that this Punic hypothesis may now be confidently rejected as very probably untrue. If such influence were real, then the combined labours of two talented linguists, one working on the problem for very many years, and with ample (if often critical) feedback to build on, would have uncovered convincing traces by now. That they have not strongly suggests that such do not exist. If this is the best argument that can be made for the Punic hypothesis, then the hypothesis would appear to be incorrect.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Either new evidence changes the picture, or it doesn't. Objecting to checking is not science.
  - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
    What new evidence. The guy's post said it was checked by linguists and found inadequate to support your claim. Not that your claim is wrong, just unsupportable by that checking.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Are you aware of the article your post is attached to?
      - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        Yes. Iust can't see the word 'semitic' or 'carthage' there, am I missing something?
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        It is new evidence. Previous conclusions formed in its absence are obsolete. The new conclusion might be the same, or not, but not without checking first.
        _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        What explicitly is the link. What is the new evidence. Please be specific.
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        It is right there at the top of the window you are looking at right now. They call it TFA around here.
crabbycarrot 4y ago
This sounds like "edenics" (as in garden of Eden), which posits that there was original language (probably Hebrew) from which all languages descend. Other popular "original" languages are Tamil, Sanskrit, Basque, or whatever language some nationalist crackpot decides they want to promote. It's totally disconnected from reality. Here's a Language Log post on it: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005278.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005278.h...
- msrenee 4y ago
  This is super reminiscent to me of the arguments you see claiming Tamil is the oldest language. It's just not based on sound evidence or reasoning.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - bazoom42 4y ago
    > If you insist (why?) that semitic alphabets can have made no contribution, and you are correct, then the evidence will show that How could evidence show lack of contribution? You can’t prove a negative like that. You can’t prove lack of influence from Korean or ancient aliens either.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Then what are you worried about?
      - bazoom42 4y ago
        What are you referring to?
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        If you are certain that comparing the oldest runes to semitic glyphs won't show up a closer match than more recent runes do, what is wrong with comparing them, or talking about comparing them? The only possible objection is that you don't like what might come from it.