File talk:Germanic dialects ca. AD 1.png

Recent change to map

I was surprised to see this change, as it is not consistent with what I have long understood. Would you please supply a reference.

I looked for evidence and what I found is consistent with what I thought. See this article. However, I guess there was a dialect continuum 2000 years ago, with North Germanic and West Germanic fading into each other somewhere in present-day Denmark, and so it may be difficult to determine where the boundary was. LynwoodF (對話) 09:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@LynwoodF: The article you linked to first says the Angles, Saxons and Jutes spoke West Germanic, and then a couple of sections down says they spoke "North Germanic or Norse", so they obviously can't make up their mind. Claiming they spoke "Norse" is also totally wrong, since Norse didn't appear until around 800AD (being known before then as "Proto-Norse"), well after the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England, and 800 years after the period depicted by the map (AD 1, when there was still a dialect continuum within Proto-Germanic, with distinct North and West-Germanic languages not appearing until the 2nd century AD). Thomas.W ^talk 10:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I think you have misread the article I linked. Where he refers to Norse, Christopher Mulvey is talking about the invaders of the 9th and 10th centuries. However, you are confirming my view that it is difficult to know where to put the boundary 2,000 years ago.

I have the map on my watchlist because I recently used it to show someone that the Jutes spoke more or less the same kind of Germanic as the Angles and Saxons, but you are now putting doubt in my mind. This is rather outside my field, so I am not au fait with all the ins and outs. LynwoodF (對話) 15:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I should still like to see a reference or two. In particular, I should be interested in evidence of any specifically North Germanic elements in the speech of the Jutes who settled in Britain in the middle of the first millennium AD. I have never heard anyone suggest that there were any, but it is something which has been niggling at the back of my mind for decades. LynwoodF (對話) 17:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to restore earlier version

Since no justification was offered for changes to the map, I decided to revert to the earlier version. However, the change appeared to be ineffective, as the newer version was still displayed. I waited a little to see whether the image changed back, but it did not, and so I decided to replace the image with my own copy of the earlier version. Both changes are now shown on the file page, but the second of my versions is identical with the first. I now assume that the software was just being very slow. LynwoodF (對話) 11:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The entire map is wrong since there was no Western Germanic or North Germanic in 1 AD, they didn't split until 200 years later, as I pointed out above. Which of course means that there are no sources supporting one or the other... Thomas.W ^talk 20:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Language of Jutes

What language was spoken by Jutes? North Germanic or Ingvaeonic? --Propatriamori (對話) 13:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have long understood that the Jutes spoke Ingvaeonic. I had trouble finding a reference for this and the only one I did find is the one I mentioned above. Here is the link to it again. The only other clue I have is the fact that I have never come across any claim that there were any specifically North Germanic features in the speech of the Jutes who settled in Britain in the 5th century CE. They appear to have been speaking more or less the same kind of Germanic as the Angles and Saxons. LynwoodF (對話) 23:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As there seems to be so little evidence online, I thought I would see who the author of the article is. Here is his profile. He seems to have pretty good credentials. LynwoodF (對話) 23:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that Christopher Mulvey has retired and the link above is dead. However, there is something about him here. LynwoodF (對話) 13:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda

Greater Third Reich

The reverted map looks suspiciously like the boundaries of the Greater Third Reich, and it's claims are extremely questionable, how could the author with such confidence outline the boundaries of the "Germanic" territory, if there is no written record of the so called East Germanic peoples, also the map makes the whole territory look like it was permanently inhabited by Germanic peoples, yet at the time these were migratory settlements not permeant dwelling, with huge swaths of uninhabited wilderness. Thus, this map should not be used, it is not accurate in terms of academic understanding of the movement of peoples, and as I said before it pushes a 19th century pseudo-science of German-nationalism. --E-960 (對話) 10:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)