Re: Indo-European family tree (was Re: Celtic and Afro-Asiatic?)

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:
> >
> > > Hallo!
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I don't understand what you are aiming at.  As you say,
> > > the climatological argument is against *nomads* carrying IE westward,
> > > and not against *farmers* doing so.
My thought here: W.Europe was heavily forested, no? That would totally
flummox nomads.  Farmers at least would figure out slash-and-burn, even if
they didn't have the tools to cut down large numbers of trees.

> > > What allowed the Anglo-Saxons to replace Celtic and Latin in Britain?
Sheer numbers? Constant in-migrations, thanks to the relative ease of
getting there? As a result, not only a ruling elite, but lots of common folk
too.

> True.  The Goths, Franks and Lombards failed to displace Romance,
> while the Anglo-Saxons displaced Celtic and whatever kind of Romance
> (or Vulgar Latin) may have existed in Roman Britain.
As I proposed, numbers probably counted. What's surprising is that France
did not become more germanified, though French is the most germanified of
the Romance langs., Italian next. Spanish the least-- suggesting to me that
there were fewer migrations into Spain. And IIRC, the Visigoths had some
quaint laws or customs about not marrying with the locals (surely more
honored in the breach, however)

But you offered
> an explanation by yourself above.  Thomas Wier says that it was
> "more or less now accepted that the Anglo-Saxons exterminated most
> of the Romano-Celtic population in Britain".  I am doubtful of that;
Me too; given sufficient numbers, the A-S could simply marginalize the
natives-- grabbing their lands, competing in the trades, etc.

Reply