Monday, November 12, 2018

Do Macron and Merkel Know the History of World War I?

War of 14 a Rehearsal for Harmageddon? · Do Macron and Merkel Know the History of World War I?

I just saw an article promoting some excerpts from their speeches yesterday. I will now link to it and then comment on excerpt after excerpt.

mail . com : Excerpts of French, German speeches commemorating WWI's end

First, let me note, as having grown up partly in Germany and as residing in France, I am NOT against their immediate purported goal, fraternity between German and French.

I have some issues with their historiography though.


"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. In saying 'our interests first, whatever happens to the others,' you erase the most precious thing a nation can have, that which makes it lives, that which causes it to be great and that which is most important: Its moral values."

Totally depends on what kind of nationalism we are dealing with, not all are bad and obviously not all are good.

Also, as I suppose this is with reference to preludes of WW-I, German régime, while manipulating a popular nationalism (with even some Anti-French bias, both born in 1813 in the Völkerschlacht bei Leipzig which beat Napoleon's troops), was not itself a nationalist régime, rather it was an élitist and bureaucratic régime, trying to "manage" nationalism in a good way, but not really nationalist itself.

The one extreme nationalist involved was Gavril Princip - he was ready to kill in open street to get his nation rid of an imperialist oppressor.

"I know, the old demons are resurging, ready to finish off their work of chaos and death. New ideologies manipulate religions, push a contagious obscurantism. Sometimes, history threatens to retake its tragic course and threaten our heritage of peace that we believed we had definitively settled with our ancestors' blood."

Obscurantism is definitely NOT one of the old demons from just before WW-I.

If Austro-Hungary protected Bosniaks, it was not because they were Muslims. Austro-Hungary was a Catholic power with ample religious tolerance.

If Serbs had a somewhat more religiously communitarian take, it was because of bitter memories of Turks. The Serbian side definitely showed some talent of building a multi-religious (but not multi-ethnic as to include Germans in charge in administration) state between the two World Wars. It was known as Kraljevina Srbov, Hrvatov in Slovencev or as Kraljevina Jugoslavija. Muslims were disfavoured, but definitely not persecuted. A truly "obscurantist" régime would not have been able to do this.

So, where in all the build-up to this war does Macron find the "obscurantism" which he considers as an "old demon" resurging?

And as for "definitely settling a heritage of peace"? Come on! Will not happen until Harmageddon. Chamberlain thought he had settled "peace in our time", and while he was wrong, he was at least realistic, he did not say "for all times to come".

"For four years, Europe almost committed suicide. Humanity had sunk into a hideous labyrinth of merciless battles, in a hell that engulfed all fighters, whichever side they were on, whatever nationality they had ... 10 million dead, 6 million injured and mutilated, 3 million widows, 6 million orphans, millions of civilian victims."


But let's put it down to where the blame belongs. Imperial bureaucracies, disregarding Christian morality, a Kantian (I suppose without being expert on that "philosopher") sense of "obedience" as solution to problem how to tell right from wrong in society ... obeying even evils when there is reason of state ... and not "nationalism" or "obscurantism."

Unless, of course, you want to blame posthumously both Serbia and US for the war, rather than Austria and Germany.

I would say Austria was fairly innocent except the part of the ultimatum. They were of course nothing like nationalist in it, they were simply asking a police case be solved by competent police, like Bush not trusting Taliban to track Ben Laden down for him. But they were disregarding the possibility of a nationalist revulsion against this.

And even then, you only have nationalism, not "obscurantism."


"This war, with its senseless bloodshed, showed where national arrogance and military hubris can lead. And it made clear what disastrous consequences a lack of compromise in politics and diplomacy can have."

Did Germany have some national arrogance? Arguably, yes.

But it was not nationalist arrogance, rather it was arrogance of the most progressive state, as Prussian-Germany thought itself to be. Much like later Sovietic arrogance, from régime quarters, was not Russian or Pan-Slavic nationalist arrogance, but arrogance of being most progressive state (on a somewhat but not totally different model of how progress should go on).

Military hubris is of course correct - especially about violating Belgian neutrality.

"It's anything but self-evident" that Germany and France should have such friendship now, "especially after the suffering that Germans caused to their neighbor, to Europe and the world in two world wars."

Hope it lasts, anyway.

Not sure Merkel is not overdoing the German part in causing suffering, but humility is at least a decent attitude.

"The First World War showed us what kind of ruin isolationism can lead us into. And if seclusion wasn't a solution 100 years ago, how could it be so today?"

What exact state was isolationist?


Germany previous to WW-I was anything but. They had tried to isolate France on the pretext it was nationalistic and expansive, but there was no attempt to isolate Germany itself. On the contrary, it was part of the one complex of competing alliances.

There was an attempt of US to isolate itself - and US entry into the war ended US isolationism.

It was this end of US isolationism which brought on Woodrow Wilson's very generous attitude to all nationalisms, except the German one (to some extent even including it). It was Woodrow Wilson's solution which brought the Sudetenland into two competing nationalisms, that of Benesh and that of Hitler.

Would a German victory have been preferrable? With my take on Schleswig Holstein and on Königgrätz, as well as how I see Bismarck's Kulturkampf (a war on what he termed "obscurantism") - I don't quite think so, no.

The Austrian peace, as negotiated by Pope Benedict XV and willed by Charles the Last would have been preferrable, though.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Josaphat of Polotsk

Saturday, November 10, 2018

Is this valid in your English? It is in mine.

In the following snip of dialogue, correlate in one man's sentence is followed by its relative pronoun in another man's sentence. I have underlined correlate and the relative.

Henrikas Klovas
Follow the link, “Starting in the late 3rd century BCE, politicians began distributing grain to the lower classes, mostly to men who could vote, in an effort to gain popularity and get elected…”

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Which takes care of a certain claim that "the present concern" St Paul was talking of to Corinthians was not a question on relative values overall of marriage and virginity, but a famine.

It needed no famine to have grain distributions in Roman Empire.

I can restate my sentence this way:

The fact, that “[s]tarting in the late 3rd century BCE, politicians began distributing grain to the lower classes, mostly to men who could vote, in an effort to gain popularity and get elected…”, takes care of a certain claim that "the present concern" St Paul was talking of to Corinthians was not a question on relative values overall of marriage and virginity, but a famine.

Or, if even this is too big a mouthful for you, like this:

The fact, that “[s]tarting in the late 3rd century BCE, politicians began distributing grain to the lower classes, mostly to men who could vote, in an effort to gain popularity and get elected…”, is a fact that takes care of a certain claim that "the present concern" St Paul was talking of to Corinthians was not a question on relative values overall of marriage and virginity, but a famine.

It seems, today all Bibles I can access have replaced "the present concern" with "the thing you were writing about", but that is another matter.

My point is, as given in next sentence of mine : It needed no famine to have grain distributions in Roman Empire.

In other words, "it is better for a man not to marry" was written as an answer about God's normal everyday preferences for Christian lives and not as an answer about what urgency measure to take in a famine.

Perhaps some people don't think it is good grammar to use the other guy's last sentence as correlate for a relative pronoun starting your first one, but I do.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Andrew Avellini

PS, Since someone wondered about the use of neuter pronoun:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
neuter pronouns also refer to verbs and sentences

that is for instance their only function in Spanish, where lo can never refer to a neuter noun, since Spanish has only masculine and feminine ones

it is also one of the neuter pronouns' functions in Latin and Greek

Thursday, November 8, 2018

When it Comes to Inquisitions and Witches

there are people willing to quote one Kurt Baschwitz.

For those reading German:

Siegfried Kurt Baschwitz (* 2. Februar 1886 in Offenburg; † 6. Januar 1968 in Amsterdam) war ein deutsch-holländischer Journalist, Sozialpsychologe und Publizistikwissenschaftler. Baschwitz, der seine journalistische Tätigkeit 1908 begann, ist vor allem für seine Bücher über die Masse und Massenwahn bekannt. Von 1909 bis 1924 war Baschwitz Redakteur beim Hamburger Fremdenblatt, u. a. als Korrespondent in den Niederlanden. Danach arbeitete er bis 1928 für die Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (DAZ). Ab Juli 1929 amtierte Baschwitz als Chefredakteur des Verlegerorgans Zeitungsverlag (ZV) in Berlin, aus dem er im April 1933 entlassen wurde. Als Sohn jüdischer Eltern musste er anschließend fliehen und ging in die Niederlande.

Kurt Baschwitz

For establishing facts about the topic, he is:

  • wrong discipline
  • wrong regional background in Germany and also otherwised biassed
  • and wrong time, since better historiography was made available after he died.

What he had to say about mass hysteria may be very correct, but it was not so correct of him to project it on the Inquisitions hunting witches (Salem seems a bit more like what he was talking of, but even there some have dug up some credible arguments there could have been real witchcraft around).

Fortunately, there are people of Jewish background these days who seem more truthful and less biassed, more fair and less interested in calling opponents jerks who have researched Inquisition. One of their defenders is one Kamen, and I did not know, but he is a Polish Jew. Or, perhaps that was a fake info I saw, here is an article not saying such a thing:

Anyway, his researfch on Inquisition is more recent than Baschwitz:

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. London and New Haven: Yale University Press (1997)

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of All Souls

Friday, November 2, 2018

Disinformation on Columbus' Time

Here is a sentence:

For in those days, most people thought that if you sailed far enough out into the ocean you would come to the end of the world. They still thought that the earth was flat as a platter. They laughed at the learned men who said that the world was not small and flat but a huge ball that spun around in space.

P. 7 of Columbus, by Edgar Parin D'Aulaire, Ingri D'Aulaire

Now, I cannot say that it can be disproven, all of it, with breezy ease.

If you speak of "most people" you are for back then speaking of unknown, undocumented people. We only know of very few people back then, not of "most".

However, unless there is a direct indication, like in Columbus diary, on how he and his men were talking on ship, I'd not consider it likely that most people thought the earth was flat.

They would have known learned men in general thought it round and they might have typically respected that.

However, one thing is impossible, namely that learned men in general thought it "spun around in space" - this theory was very uncommon among learned men in 1492 - or earlier, since we talk of Columbus' childhood or youth on this page.

When did Copernicus live, the man who invented its spinning around in space for Earth?

Nicolaus Copernicus (Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik;[5] German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Niklas Koppernigk; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance-era mathematician and astronomer who formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe, likely independently of Aristarchus of Samos, who had formulated such a model some eighteen centuries earlier.

At what date did he formulate his theory and when was it published?

Copernicus cited Aristarchus of Samos in an early (unpublished) manuscript of De Revolutionibus (which still survives), though he removed the reference from his final published manuscript.

The article doesn't state when it is from.

In Copernicus' dedication of On the Revolutions to Pope Paul III—which Copernicus hoped would dampen criticism of his heliocentric theory by "babblers... completely ignorant of [astronomy]"—the book's author wrote that, in rereading all of philosophy, in the pages of Cicero and Plutarch he had found references to those few thinkers who dared to move the Earth "against the traditional opinion of astronomers and almost against common sense."

So, let's get to the publication date on that article, instead:

De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is the seminal work on the heliocentric theory of the Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543). The book, first printed in 1543 in Nuremberg, Holy Roman Empire, offered an alternative model of the universe to Ptolemy's geocentric system, which had been widely accepted since ancient times.

1543 - and Columbus had already died in 1506.

Copernicus initially outlined his system in a short, untitled, anonymous manuscript that he distributed to several friends, referred to as the Commentariolus. A physician's library list dating to 1514 includes a manuscript whose description matches the Commentariolus, so Copernicus must have begun work on his new system by that time.[1] Most historians believe that he wrote the Commentariolus after his return from Italy, possibly only after 1510.

And 1510 was 4, 1514 was 8 years after Columbus died.

What predecessors did Copernicus? His article cites mostly Islamic ones.

Hard to say how well known they were in Europe, but Copernicus was able to use some of them.

Anyway, the major astronomic system in Europe was still the Ptolemaic one, and some of the Islamic ones agreed with the later Tychonic one. Back when Columbus was sth like 14 in 1455. This is what most people would have known about insofar as they knew anything of learned men, and this involved really and truly no spinning of earth at all.

To return to the devious part : it is equally devious to dismiss what we know with very exact precision about diverse known men, like them dying around 60 - 65 if they survived childhood and early youth and suppose a spooky "most men" dying at 35. We would not normally judge the unknown as opposite of the known, we would normally judge the unknown from the known. Therefore, if known men are shown to believe Earth was round and still, and no indication is given for unlearned men (South of Iceland and Scotland) thinking it was flat, and nearly certainly no learned people calling Earth spinning around were available, we would conclude the unleared men, that is most, tended to agree Earth was round and still. As in Ptolemy, and, a man who died about a century after Columbus, Tycho.

So, while D'Aulaire are popular and probably enjoyable to read (unless you have a horrible cold and an axe to grind in the issue, as I here), they are not perhaps always accurate. They may have contributed in the meantime (it's from 1996) to the subconscious belief that round Earth and spinning Earth go together.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
All Souls' Day

PS, wait, the book is even older, first edition is not from 1996, but 1955 (and Edgar died in 1986, his wife had already died in 1980)./HGL

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Peintres italiens du XVIIe siècle

Ceux qui me connaissent savent très bien de quoi il peut s'agir.

Oui, les longueurs de vie. Je vais prendre un matériau statistique assez large ...

Catégorie:Peintre italien du XVIIe siècle

Bon, 713 est un peu trop large pour l'instant, mais j'en prends une poignée, les nombres Fibonacci 1 - 610 se trouvant entre les 713:

Ercole dell'Abate
Naissance 1563 Modène
Décès 1613 Modène
Guido Ubaldo Abbatini
Naissance 1600 Città di Castello
Décès 1656 Rome
Filippo Abbiati
Naissance 1640 Milan
Décès 1715 Milan
Pietro Afesa
Naissance 1579 Satriano di Lucania
Décès 1656 Pignola
Cherubino Alberti
Naissance 1553 Sansepolcro
Décès 1615 Rome
Alessandro Algardi
Naissance 31 juillet 1598 Bologne
Décès 10 juin 1654(à 55 ans) Rome
Stefano Amadei
Naissance 20 janvier 1589 Pérouse
Décès 20 janvier 1644(à 55 ans) Pérouse
Ottavio Amigoni
Naissance 1605 Brescia
Décès 1661 Brescia
Onofrio Avellino
Naissance 1674 Naples
Décès 17 avril 1741 Rome
Bartolomeo Biscaino
Naissance 1632 Gênes
Décès 1657 Gênes
Orazio Borgianni
Naissance 16 avril 1574 Rome
Décès 11 janvier 1616 ou 14 janvier 1616 Rome
Jacopo Chiavistelli
Naissance 2 juin 1618 Florence
Décès 27 avril 1698(à 79 ans) Florence
Giuseppe Ghezzi
Naissance 6 novembre 1634 Comunanza
Décès 10 novembre 1721(à 87 ans) Rome
Naissance 1550 ou 1550 Ferrare
Décès 27 octobre 1620 ou 28 octobre 1620 Ferrare

Arrangeons les âges en ordre croissante:


Minimum, 25, maximum, 87.
Médiane, 56/62. Moyenne, 61.
Quartile basse, 55, quartile haute 75.

Raisonnons, un peu. Un peintre en Italie même à cette époque, ce n'était pas forcément un homme très riche, ayant accès mieux que tous les autres aux soins ou à l'alimentation. Mon choix quasi-arbitraire et chaotique n'a pas permis aux plus connus, peut-être donc aux plus riches à prévaloir. Un peintre appartenait à la bourgeoisie, pas à la noblesse. Donc, ceci devrait être assez représentatif pour au moins la classe moyenne, probablement aussi les grands nombres - une fois survécues les années d'enfance et jeunesse à cette époque là à une assez haute mortalité.

Un mémento mori, bien à propos ces jours qui mènent aux jours de Toussaint et des Défunts.

Et, bien entendu, encore une fois une réfutation de l'idée reçue "tout le monde mourait autour de 35 ou 40". Bien entendu, si on compte la mortalité infantile et juvénile, ça pourrait donner un peu ça au total, mais on ne peut pas prétendre, comme le font certains que de vivre à 60 était rarissime. Au contraire, c'était assez normale. Et de nos jours, mourir à 60 n'est pas rarissime non plus, Hitchens et un boulanger en Ve sont les deux morts à un âge comparable (55 pour le boulanger, 62 pour Hitchens).

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Sts Zénobe et Zénobie
un évêque et sa soeur, martyrs

Aegeae, in Cilicia, passio sanctorum Zenobii Episcopi, et Zenobiae sororis, sub Diocletiano Imperatore et Lysia Praeside.

Monday, October 29, 2018

Göbekli Tepe, se trouve-t-il en "Mésopotamie"? Oui

Quand on voit une image comme celui-ci:

Alors, on peut imaginer, que "Mésopotamie" veut dire Iraq.

Or, j'ai ajouté du vert dans cette image, en deux versions. D'abord entre les frontières d'Iraq, ensuite entre les fleuves Euphrates et Tigris.

Et, oui, c'est cette dernière version qui donne vraiment l'essence du concept "Mésopotamie" ou, en termes bibliques, Sennaar.

J'ai sur la seconde version aussi montré par flèche où se trouve Göbekli Tepe dans la Mésopotamie./HGL

Les langues nordiques, sont-elles germaniques, commencent-elles au Moyen Âge? (Voir Lèguest du Bois)

Oui, les langues germaniques comprennent trois groupes, germaniques du Nord, ou nordiques, germaniques de l'Ouest, et germaniques de l'Est, ces dernières toutes éteintes sauf en écriture.

Germaniques du Nord se divisent en:

  • nordiques de l'Ouest (islandais, faroé, nynorsk)
  • nordiques de l'Est (bokmål, suédois et danois)
  • gutnique.

Le norvégien n'est pas qu'une langue, mais nynorsk et bokmål, les deux langues officielles de Norvège, et gutnique n'est pas langue officielle, et compte parfois comme un dialecte du suédois.

Les Germaniques de l'Ouest se divisent en

  • langues anglo-frisonnes
  • langues allemandes

Les langues anglo-frisonnes se divisent en

  • frison (hormis frison de l'Est)
  • langues anglo-saxonnes

Les langues anglo-saxonnes se divisent chronologiquement en

  • anglo-saxon (en plusieurs dialectes)
  • Moyen Anglais (_"_)
  • les langues anglo-saxonnes actuelles

Celles-ci se divisent en

  • anglais
  • écossais (pas à confondre avec gaélique d'Écosse)
  • Yola, resté à une prononciation assez du Moyen Anglais

Les langues allemandes se divisent en

  • bas-allemand
  • haut-allemand

Le bas-allemand se divise en

  • néerlandais (avec afrikaans)
  • platt-deutsch (y compris frison de l'Est)

Le haut-allemand se divise en

  • lombard germanique (éteint, pas à confondre avec les dialectes romans de la même région)
  • haut-allemand proprement parlé (en plusieurs dialectes, dont regardées comme langues séparés)
  • l'alsacien
  • le suisse-allemand

Et, troisième grande groupe, le germanique de l'Est se divise en

  • gothique (en plusieurs chronolectes, classique et gothique du Krim, notamment, éteint)
  • autres langues germaniques de l'Est (aussi éteintes, en plus presque inconnues)

Bon, quand commence-t-on alors à écrire les langues germaniques?

Premièrement, le gothique:

Wulfila, Ulfila ou Ulfilas (en gotique 𐍅𐌿𐌻𐍆𐌹𐌻𐌰 / Wulfila), né vers 311 et mort à Constantinople en 383, est une personnalité du christianisme ancien.

Consacré « évêque de Gothie » par l'arien modéré Eusèbe de Nicomédie, Wulfila est un tenant de l'homéisme, puis d'un subordinationisme trinitaire. On lui attribue l'évangélisation des Goths et la traduction de la Bible dans leur langue à l'aide d'un alphabet conçu par ses soins, un événement aux répercussions religieuses et culturelles importantes.

De la Wikipédie : Wulfila

Donc, en IVe s. Les manuscrits qui restent de la bible gothique viennent des VIe à VIIIe siècles

Le Codex Argenteus est un luxueux évangéliaire du VIe siècle écrit en langue gotique. 188 feuillets sur 336 ont été retrouvés. Il s'agit du plus ancien document complet attestant une langue germanique qui nous soit parvenu (quelques inscriptions en alphabet runique sur des objets quotidiens et des armes sont plus anciennes). Une partie du Codex Argenteus est la copie d'un texte antérieur : la traduction en gotique de la bible faite par l'évêque Wulfila (ou Ulfila, 311 – 383).

(C'est bien un codex, et il est antérieur à la vie de Mahomet, ceci dit à propos d'un propos erroné de Deedat (ou son disciple))

The Codex Ambrosianus refers to five manuscripts, c. 6th-11th century CE,[1] written by different hands and in different alphabets. The codices contain scattered passages from the Old Testament (Nehemiah) and the New Testament (including parts of the Gospels and the Epistles), as well as some commentaries known as Skeireins, rare survivals in the Gothic language. It is therefore likely that the text had been somewhat modified by copyists.

Codex Carolinus is a Gothic-Latin diglot uncial manuscript of the New Testament on parchment, dated to the 6th or 7th century.

Ceci, par contre, ne sont pas les plus vieilles écritures en langue germanique.

Avant, il y a au moins une inscription courte et isolée.

Wikipédie : Cornes d'or de Gallehus

Bon, semble qu'elles soient aussi de la limite basse antiquité, moyen âge. Ve siècle ... pourquoi le proto-nordique (avant la division entre nordique de l'Est ou de l'Ouest ou gutnique) compte-t-il du début de l'ère chrétienne? Ah, oui, l'épieu de Øvre Stabu en Norvège est du IIe siècle.

Bon, Gallehus:
(l'autre corne, moins clair: luba horns ens helpa hjoho)

Øvre Stabu

Traductions : "moi, Lèguest du-Bois, fis la corne" (moins clair : "que je, boisson/contenu de la corne, aide la maisonnée"), "explorateur". Restons sur le premier.

En islandais, on dirait, avec les mêmes vocables:

"ég Hlægestur Höltingur **táðði hornið"*

Le -z final du nominatif devenu -r dans l'islandais ou le norrois classique (500 - 1000 ans plus tard) et -ur en islandais moderne, l'article défini final ajouté pour la corne, -it en islandais classique, -ið en islandais moderne. La désinence -do affaibli en -ði ou encore -do en première personne remplacé par -ði de la troisième.

En suédois ce serait:

"jag, Lägest Hölting **tådde hornet"

hl- initial (comme hr- et hn-) devenu très tôt l-, æ=ä, perte du nominatif remplacé par un accusatif sans -er final, les i de l'islandais sont en suédois remplacés par e.

En danois ce serait:

"jeg, Lægæst Hølting **tådde hornet"

Seules différences du suédois, prononciations pour les derniers deux mots, l'orthographe pour ø=ö, et "jeg" au lieu de "jag" pour "moi".

Or, le vocable tådde n'existe plus, peut-être pas non plus táðði. Voici les vrais tradictions en suédois et danois (mon islandais n'est pas à point):

"Jeg, Lægæst, Holts søn, skabte hornet" / "Jeg Lægæst, skovmand, gjorde hornet"

Il y a une différence d'opinion si "holtingaz" veut dire "du bois" ou "fils de Holt" (d'un Holt dont le nom veut dire "bois").

En suédois, ce serait:

"Jag, Lägest Hölting gjorde hornet" ("Holts son"/"från Hultet" selon la même distinction d'une traduction plus claire que "Hölting").

Pour revenir donc à la première question, non, on n'appelle pas les langues nordiques un sous-ensemble des "langues anglo-saxonnes" parce que celles-ci sont déjà un sous-ensemble d'un autre sous-ensemble des langues germaniques. Les seules langues anglo-saxonnes de nos jours sont, l'anglais, l'écossais, le yola. Et si on veut, on peut aussi considérer le Jamaïcain et d'autres langues créoles basés sur l'anglais comme des langues anglo-saxonnes. Celui qui a voulu dire "ce ne sont pas des langues germaniques mais des langues anglo-saxonnes" a dû confondre en anglais "Germanic language" (tous les trois grands gropes) avec "German language" (l'allemand, sous-ensemble des langues germaniques de l'Ouest). Tant pis, le dernier ignare n'est pas encore né.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Déposition de St. Théodore de Vienne

* L'article Urnordisk me vient en aide, pour le norrois classique, Ek Hlégestr Hyltir táða hornit; et la première personne garde encore une désinence séparée dans le prétérit faible, et pour l'islandais moderne, Ég Hlégestur Hyltir gerði hornið; le verbe et la désinence ayant été remplacés tous les deux. L'islandais gerði correspond au suédois gjorde.

PS: parmi les langues anglo-saxonnes, j'ai énuméré écossais et yola.

Voici un article sur Yola:

Et voici en un sur écossais: