Genava55

I think there is a misconception here. Country (or countryside) doesn't equate to farmlands. The semantic flexibility of the Greek ἀγρός (agros) hinges on the shift from a functional unit to a geographical zone. The meaning diverges based on the narrative focus: it either refers to "farmlands" as a collection of tangible assets and wealth (emphasizing what a person owns), or it refers to the "countryside" as a rural region (emphasizing where a person is, which is often the case in the New Testament). This distinction is most visible when the plural is used to describe the "open country" surrounding a settlement; in these instances, the word ceases to be about farming specifically and instead serves as a spatial contrast to the urban center. Essentially, the word transitions from a private asset (singular field/plural estates) to a public landscape (the rural surroundings). See: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=a)gro/s In the Gothic Bible, there are several references to fields, contexts that unambiguously refer to fields in an agricultural sense, whether in the plural or singular. For example, in Matthew 6:28: "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin." In this passage, the Gothic Bible uses haiþjos, the singular genitive of haiþi. It is the ancestor of the English heath and heathen. https://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/01/06/28.html#S1097 Therefore, I insist, weihs designates either a village or the country in its geographical sense. Not farmlands. If weihs was translating the word 'farm', it would have been used at least once in that sense. There are about ten instances where the Bible unambiguously mentions one or more fields. Similarly, that's why current translations of the Bible distinguish between country and fields.

I don’t see any relevance in this line of argument. Proto‑Indo‑European dates back to the Neolithic; its origin is probably around 4000 BC, which means it is even further removed from Proto‑Germanic than Proto‑Germanic is from our modern languages. In this situation, we’re comparing things that simply can’t be compared anymore. The purpose of this discussion is to try to understand what vocabulary speakers of Proto‑Germanic might have used to refer to their settlements. The Cimbri migrations took place around 100 BC. I don’t see the point of going back that much further. And if you want to talk about the reconstructed PIE form *ḱóymos, it did indeed yield *haimaz in Proto‑Germanic, but it also produced κώμη (kōmē) in Ancient Greek and káimas in Lithuanian, both of which can be used to refer to a village. Kōmē is precisely the form chosen to designate the first phase (village) for Greek civilizations in the game… So it’s a bit inconsistent to criticize that choice on the grounds that the older PIE form doesn’t necessarily refer to a settlement. That’s really stretching the argument, and I don’t see the point of it. In your message, you criticize me several times for relying on place names that date from a few centuries after the Cimbri period, but in the end, you are constructing an argument based on reconstructions of a language that predates Proto-Germanic by several millennia. Once again, I don’t understand the point of your message. I never said that Old Norse or Old English was older than the other. I’m simply saying that the source you used (Lehmann) suggests that the word þurpą originally referred to a farm, and that the meaning “village” appeared later. In this discussion, the only reason to use medieval Germanic languages is to understand the semantic evolution of words from Proto‑Germanic onward. The context we’re interested in is Proto‑Germanic. In Old Norse, as in Gothic, the word derived from þurpą seems to have preserved its original meaning, that of a farm or agricultural estate. This supports my initial point: the meaning of þurpą in Proto‑Germanic must have been “farm.” And there is no doubt that Old Norse preserved the meaning of “farm” or “agricultural estate.” This is very clear in the poems of the Edda, especially in Hávamál and Vafþrúðnismál. In the Danelaw and in the earliest written records from Denmark, we see that þorps refers exclusively to secondary settlements that depend on a larger primary settlement. In those cases, þorps can refer both to hamlets and to isolated farms. We see the same thing in medieval Scandinavian law codes: þorp retains the meaning of “farm” as well as “village.” There is, however, a notable case in medieval Swedish law where þorp still means specifically “farm” in Old Swedish, which seems to have preserved this original meaning even longer. The evolution of the Germanic languages clearly shows this semantic shift from “farm” to “village.” It’s an understandable shift, since it follows the same pattern as Latin villa, which eventually gave the word “village.” I have taken the time to demonstrate that studies of place names generally indicate that -Heim was used in the oldest layer of place names. Without exception, these studies show that there were several periods characterized by different dynamics in the rules governing the naming of new settlements. It is clear that the trend involving -Dorf emerged relatively late, and this precisely explains what we observe in the various Germanic languages. There was a semantic shift that accompanied the social changes that transformed Germanic societies.

New anthem?

The Caledonians are considered to be part of the Britons. Besides Brochs and Crannogs, there isn't a lot of information. There is a book called Celtic Scotland by Ian Armit. During the period 500 BC - 1 AD ? I don't know much about Pre-Roman Sweden. I don't think I can help you with those.

for inspiration

What place names can tell us (Was Ortsnamen uns erzählen können) Selected excerpts from this article: https://nationalatlas.de/nadbeitrag/was-ortsnamen-uns-erzaehlen-koennen/ I translated them from German to English. Here: The oldest settlement names in Central Europe date back to pre‑Germanic times. They are of Celtic or Romance origin and appear above all in the western and southern Germanic regions of the Germania Romana. The earliest Germanic names occur somewhat more frequently; they often end, for example, in ‑lar or ‑mar. After the Migration Period, beginning in the 4th century, the first major wave of land appropriation took place, during which fertile and easily cultivable areas were settled. Typical place‑name endings from this period include ‑heim, ‑ingen, ‑stedt, and ‑stetten. In the Merovingian era (6th–8th century), the settlement area was expanded (early period of development). Settlement names ending in ‑dorf, ‑hausen, and ‑weiler generally date from this time. The greatest expansion of settlement in Central Europe occurred during the clearing periods beginning around the 8th century. The old settlement landscapes were largely populated; people then began to push into the low mountain ranges. At first, the edges of the mountains and the valleys were settled (e.g., ‑bach, ‑born, and ‑brunn). From about the 10th century onward, and throughout the High Middle Ages, the forest was increasingly pushed back and new settlements were established. Typical place‑name endings from this period indicate the clearing process, such as ‑roth, ‑rieth, ‑reut, ‑brand, ‑schwand, ‑hau, ‑schneid. – dorf The most common place‑name ending of the Middle Ages is likely ‑dorf (in northwestern Germany also ‑trup and ‑drup). Settlements of this name type first appeared during the early development phase (5th/6th century) in the Rhine–Moselle region. They then spread throughout the entire German‑speaking area and remained in use throughout the Middle Ages. As in most early place names, the determining element is usually a personal name or the name of a kin group. – ingen Place names ending in ‑ingen are, alongside the ‑heim names, among the typical settlement names of the Germanic land‑taking period (from around the 4th century). Although modern scholarship rejects the earlier ethnic interpretation—‑ingen in Alemannic areas, ‑heim in old Frankish regions—the distribution map clearly shows a strong spatial concentration of ‑ingen names in the southwestern German Alemannic‑Swabian area. In the Bavarian region, the corresponding ending is ‑ing. The linguistic adaptation in French is ‑ange. Place names as sources for settlement history using the example of Northwest Switzerland (Ortsnamen als Quellen für die Siedlungsgeschichte am Beispiel der Nordwestschweiz) I'm posting a translated excerpt from the article; the original is available here: https://toponymes.ch/Texte/Siedlungsgeschichte.pdf 6.6. ‑heim and ‑dorf Names, Other Alemannic Settlement Names The ‑heim and ‑dorf names in northwestern Switzerland are not entirely easy to interpret. ‑heim names are usually assigned to the oldest naming layer. In our region they occur only twice (Arlesheim and Riehen) and are generally regarded as outliers of the numerous Alsatian ‑heim names. ‑dorf names are likewise rare here; apart from Rodersdorf, all of them lie near the Hauenstein route. Niederdorf and Oberdorf are clearly secondary. They were introduced in 1285, after a massive landslide, to designate the remaining parts of the village of Onoltzwil. Frenkendorf, Füllinsdorf, and Arisdorf—since they lie in the middle of a zone with demonstrably unchanged Romance names—are hardly to be counted among the oldest Alemannic layer either, but should rather be attributed to the period of territorial expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries. The remaining Alemannic settlement names, which all belong at the earliest to the period of Alemannic territorial expansion, are distributed fairly evenly across our region. Gothic Online - Lesson 6 - Todd B. Krause and Jonathan Slocum https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/gotol/60 Interesting article on the Gothic Social Organization, using both etymology and semantic analysis of the Gothic bible to interpret the structure of the Gothic society. The introduction explains correctly why etymology alone is not a solution to understand ancient societies. háims: the organized village. This is the basic center of agriculture and commerce. weihs: essentially equivalent to the háims as the organized village and basic center of commerce. Schwarz, Ernst (1952). Die namenkundlichen Grundlagen der Siedlungsgeschichte des Landkreises Regensburg. Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Oberpfalz und Regensburg 93, 25–64. PDF: https://www.heimatforschung-regensburg.de/1636/1/1355091_DTL1354.pdf Ernst Schwarz’s 1952 article offers one of the most detailed onomastic analyses of early Bavarian settlement in the Regensburg region. It pays particular attention to the rare and archaic suffix -weichs, documenting its limited survival in the oldest settlement zones south of the Danube and its rapid replacement by more productive suffixes. Here is a summary of the information concerning the toponyms in -wihs or -weichs in Ernst Schwarz’s document: Etymology and meaning Linguistic origin: The suffix derives from Old High German (OHG) wihs meaning “village” (compare Gothic weihs, which means “hamlet” or “settlement”). Link with Latin: The text specifies that this term is cognate with Latin vicus (“village”), but stresses that it is not a borrowing from Latin; it is a native Germanic root. Semantic distinction: This root must not be confused with the word wih meaning “sacred” (as found in Weillohe or Weihenlinden). Chronology and period of colonization Oldest layer: Names in -weichs are classified among the earliest foundations, dating from the initial colonization period (Landnahmezeit) in the 6th century and the expansion phase of the 7th century. Reference group: They are systematically associated with toponyms in -ing, -inghofen and -heim as evidence of the primitive Bavarian settlement in the Regensburg region. Specific examples identified to illustrate this type Weichs: Mentioned around the year 881 in the form ad Uuihsfo. Schwabelweis: Attested since 821 in the form Suabiluuis. The text explains that this name is a compound of the root -wihs and the personal name Swäbilo. Geographical distribution and decline Geography: These names are found in the oldest settlement zones, notably along the Danube and south of the river. Disappearance of the suffix: The use of wihs remained very localized and ceased early. It is not found in later colonization areas (such as the Upper Palatinate or Austria). Linguistic competition: The term eventually disappeared in favor of other synonyms or semantically related words such as bur, heim, hofen, hausen and especially dorf, which became far more common for designating villages in the subsequent phases of settlement history.

Sure. It pretty straightforward for those. Teutobod = *þeudō (people, tribe) + *budô (voice, message, command) = Þeudōbudô Lugius = *Lugi- (of the Lugii) + *-jaz (equivalent to Latin name ending in -ius) = Lugijaz Boiorix = *Bajā-/*Boio- (of the Boii) + *-rīks (king) = Bajārīks

By the way, your own source supports my point: "Similarly Go. þaurp 'land, lived-on property' is the translation for Gk agrós 'land', much like ON þorp 'farm, estate'; only in the later West Germanic texts does its cognate mean 'village' as in OE þorp, OHG dorf." And when he writes "It is found only in the accusative plural in Gothic, where haimos in Matthew 9:35 translates the Greek word for village, and in Mark 5:14 the word for country;", I just proved above that there are mentions in singular forms. Just see Mark 11:02, Luke 9:52 and Luke 19:30

Boiorix and Lugius are probably Celtic but we can Germanize their names. So it would be Þeudōbudô, Lugijaz and Bajārīks.

Good. It is easier then.

A first draft, some names are quite difficult to interpret in Proto-Germanic (PGmc) Historical names Etymology Meaning PGmc reconstruction Claodicus *hlūd- + *īk- "Powerful through his fame" *Hlūdagīkaz Caesorix *gaizaz + *rīks "King of the spear" *Gaizarīks Teutagonus *theudō + *gunthiz "People's battle" *Theudagunthaz Cotto *kath- / *kott- "The fighter (diminutive)" *Kottō Deldo *dal- / *del- "The shining one or the sharer" *Deldō Atès / Atas *attō "Father (honorific title)" *Attō Nasua *nas- "The one who has a (large) nose" *Nasuō Cimberius *kimbra- + *-jaz "The one of the Cimbri" *Kimbarjaz

I'd like to return to this point because I've noticed my message wasn't understood. When I say that Euler represents a school of thought from the mid-20th century, I don't mean that he originated from that era, but rather that he is associated with that methodology. Wolfram Euler is a German linguist specializing in Indo-European languages, whose work is rooted in the tradition of classical philology. An independent but prolific researcher, he distinguishes himself through an approach based on traditional comparative analysis, the study of hydronyms, and internal reconstruction, rather than the multidisciplinary methods that dominate the field today (such as phylogenetic modeling, computational linguistics, or historical sociolinguistics). This methodological orientation, rigorous yet conservative, gives his publications strong internal consistency while placing him on the fringes of mainstream theoretical trends. His best-known contributions concern the history of Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages, where he defends several minority positions: a prolonged cohesion of West Germanic, a location of the Germanic Urheimat in Central Germany rather than Scandinavia, an internalist interpretation of Germanic innovations, and a critique of the existence of a unitary Proto-Balto-Slavic language. He also adopts a late chronology for the formation of Proto-Slavic, following the thesis of Georg Holzer. While these propositions are rigorously argued, they stand in clear opposition to the prevailing consensus and are regarded as heterodox contributions rather than authoritative reference models. For these reasons, Euler cannot be presented as a representative of the general scientific community's viewpoint. His work is respected for its erudition and precision, but it does not form the basis of the reconstructions accepted by the majority of Indo-Europeanists. His adherence to an ethno-historical lens, which explains linguistic shifts primarily through population movements and ethnic continuities, stands in sharp contrast to the modern archaeological and linguistic 'caution' (notably due to the rejection of the Siedlungsarchäologie). Coupled with his ties to conservative intellectual circles (like the Bibliothek des Konservatismus in Berlin), this methodological stance consigns his work to the margins of mainstream academia, even as the erudition of his research remains recognized. Personally, I don't think this is a figure to be put forward as an absolute reference in a debate.

I know, I saw the repo. This is a good idea but again I want to advise you that you should really avoid carving up certain civs just to force them into one side of the fence. For example, with the Germanic peoples, I find it clumsy to restrict oneself to representing either the period before our era or the period after our era. You will have this problem with other civs like the Dacians and the Parthians. It's best to put these kinds of civs in Empires Besieged rather than Empires Ascendant. Since Empires Besieged is a kind of expansion, it is less of a problem to have a civ that includes some of its elements that date back to the period before our era. I understand that you did not want Empires Ascendant to extend into the period of our era. It seems that this is the key point of contention. So it's better to accept some overlap in the other direction. If the mod includes civs with characters and references that span both periods, it's much less of a problem than if it were the base game.

It's good to return to a more reasonable position. I would remind you that in 2021, there were proposals to replace Boudicca in order to respect this cutoff. Especially if the team members decide to make Empires Besieged an official mod that simply adds content (notably new playable civilizations), it has to be flexible. Historical cultures that fall on both sides of this arbitrary boundary will pose a problem otherwise.

In any case, it's you and @real_tabasco_sauce who decide. Noted.

I don't know, probably a bad dream. Thanks for the clarification. Should we use names that do not originate from the migration of the Cimbri?

@real_tabasco_sauce@Vantha Which option do you prefer? @Obelix suggested making variations on the few known names. I posted a series of character names related to Germanic peoples dating back to the period before our era. Which ones are you interested in? Should we reconstruct them in Proto-Germanic?

Yes, unfortunately, that's somewhat of a problem with conceptualizing the Germanic peoples based on a very short period in their history, namely the migrations of the Cimbri, Teutones, Ambrones, and Tigurini. Not only are these historical events not very well documented, but it's also unclear what is Celtic and what is Germanic in the accounts. To my knowledge, only the names Boiorix, Lugius, Teutobod, Claodicus, and Caesorix are known. There is also Divico for the Tigurini mentioned by Caesar as having fought against Lucius Cassius in 107 BC (Agen). If we look elsewhere among the other Germanic peoples, there are Cotto, Clondicus, Deldo and Teutagonus, chiefs of the Bastarnae or of the Peucini. They are all mentioned by Livy except Teutagonus who is mentioned by Valerius Flaccus. There is also a chief of the Sciri mentioned on a stelae decree of Histria/Istros, his name is 'Atès' or 'Atas'. Finally there is Ariovistus of the Suebi mentioned by Caesar. There are also two brothers, Nasua and Cimberius, leading a coalition of the Suebi from Germany to reinforce Ariovistus' forces. There are, of course, many well-known characters such as Arminius and Maroboduos, but there is no chance of ever seeing them appear in the base game. Now, the problem with the names I mentioned above is that we need to reconstruct them into Proto-Germanic for the Germanic characters and translate them into Gaulish for the Celtic characters.

It is indeed quite difficult to find exact equivalents for village, town, and city in Proto-Germanic, but Wufila's Bible is a truly incredible resource for this, as he had to translate many Greek terms into Gothic so that they would be understandable to the Goths. In Wufila's Bible, there is a sort of hierarchy with Haims << Baurgs and Weihs << Baurg. Haim- is used for villages and hamlets. To designate less densely populated rural communities. A few examples: Mark 6:56 : ...jah þisƕaduh þadei iddja in haimos aiþþau baurgs aiþþau in weihsa... / ...And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country... Mark 5:14 : ...gataihun in baurg jah in haimom. / ...they announced it in the city and in the countryside. Mark 11:2 : ...gaggats in haim þo wiþrawairþon iggqis... / ...go your way into the village over against you... Luke 9:52 : ...galiþun in haim Samareite... / ...entered into a village of the Samaritans... Luke 19:30 : ...in þo wiþrawairþon haim.../ ...in the village across the way... Luke 5:17 : ...þaiei wesun gaqumanai us allamma haimo Galeilaias... / ...which were come out of every village of Galilee... Luke 17:12 : ...jah inngaggandin imma in suma haimo, gamotidedun imma taihun þrutsfillai mans... / ...And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers... Matthew 9:35 : jah bitauh Iesus baurgs allos jah haimos laisjands in gaqumþim ize... / And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues... Luke 8:1 : ...ei jah is wratoda and baurgs jah haimos merjands... / ...that he went throughout every city and village... Luke 9:6 : ...and haimos wailamerjandans... / ...and went through the villages... Luke 9:12 : ...ei galeiþandans in þos bisunjane haimos jah weihsa saljaina... / ...that they may go into the villages and country round about... Mark 8:26 : ...ni in þata weihs gaggais, ni mannhun qiþais in þamma wehsa. / ... Don't even go into the village, nor tell anyone in the village. Luke 8:34 : ...jah gataihun in baurg jah in weihsa. / ...and went and told it in the city and in the country. The issue with Þaurp is that it is mentioned only a single time in a fragment of the Old Testament in Gothic (Codex Ambrosianus D) and it can only mean in this case 'farmland' or 'estate' because it is used for Nehemiah 5:16. It cannot refer to a village or a hamlet in this context, it is a field.

The original Latin text is the following: "Nullas Germanorum populis urbes habitari satis notum est, ne pati quidem inter se iunctas sedes. Colunt discreti ac diversi, ut fons, ut campus, ut nemus placuit. Vicos locant non in nostrum morem conexis et cohaerentibus aedificiis: suam quisque domum spatio circumdat, sive adversus casus ignis remedium sive inscitia aedificandi." Note that he uses the word "vicos" (accusative plural of vicus). So for him, they are like vici, not like villae, aedes, casae or domus. If these were truly isolated, solitary farmsteads miles apart from one another, the word vicus would actually be quite misleading. By choosing this terminology, Tacitus is making a specific point about the Germanic social structure. He describes dwellings that form local communities. Here is why he uses that specific term even if the houses don't touch. In fact, it doesn't really matter whether the buildings are close to each other or not. The real question is whether it is a territorial unit. Consequently, did the Germanic peoples give a name to this group of buildings? I think so. And I think that the word *haima- is more appropriate in this case. Because it is a terminology that can be applied to a family, a clan, or a tribe. I am reposting the description from the Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017): -heim (page 254) -heim. Germ. *haima- ‘Home of a tribe’ (Heimat) ; in the individual Germanic languages with various stem formations and genders, e.g.: OHG heima Fem. ‘Home, homeland, residence’, late OHG/MHG heim Neutr. ‘Homeland, dwelling place, house’, OSax. hēm Neutr., MLG hēm(e) Fem. / hēm also Neutr., OFris. hām / hēm Masc. or Neutr., ON heimr Masc., OE hām Masc. ‘Village, estate’, Goth. haims Fem. ‘Village, small town’. The latter meaning likely applied from the beginning to -heim group settlements, although -heim originally occurred for individual settlements (farmsteads) as well. The -heim names, like those ending in -ingen, show characteristics of great age. They likely occurred sporadically as designations as early as the early phase (around the birth of Christ) and then became common during the early land acquisition (frühn Landnahme) of the 3rd–5th centuries (perhaps also as a translation of the Latin villa). In contrast to the PN-orientation (personal name) of -ingen names, the defining factor here is possession (‘Home / Estate of ...’). By the Merovingian period, the type was fully established and remained productive until the Middle Ages (MA), though varying by region. The fact that the -heim type played practically no role in the area of the Ostsiedlung (Eastern settlement) suggests its simultaneous unproductivity in the Altland (ancient lands). Most -heim names have a PN as the specific element (Bw.), usually in the genitive case. Younger names are mostly those formed with appellatives (common nouns), of which the schematically oriented ones with Nord-, Süd-, Ost-, West-, Berg-, Tal-, etc. (“Bethge-type”) certainly represent the result of Frankish-controlled naming in the vicinity of former royal estates or fisks; these predominantly arose in the 7th/8th centuries. The geographical occurrence of -heim names essentially corresponds to that of -ingen names in locations favorable for settlement; however, a striking distribution of the two types is evident particularly in the Upper and Middle Rhine regions, which can be explained by "compensation" and "radiation," as is known from dialectology. Notable are the mixed forms -ingheim, which occur with varying distribution in Westphalia, Lower Saxony (NI), Hesse (HE), Thuringia (TH), in the Rhineland, and further south. In addition to -heim, dialectal variants are encountered early on, some of which are fixed in official settlement names (SiN), such as -ham, -hem / -hēm, -um, -em, -an, -en, -m, -n, -a, -e, or total loss (elision). Literature: Bach DNK II, 2; Schuster I; Wiesinger 1994; Jochum-Godglück; NOB III; Debus / Schmitz, H.-G. FD I am also adding the translated definition from ortsnamen.ch which is the digital portal for place-name research (onomastics) in Switzerland. heim [related] to Middle High German heim (strong neuter noun) ‘house, home, place’, < Germanic *haimaz (Gothic haims, feminine: ‘village, countryside in contrast to the city’; Old Norse heimr, masculine: ‘home, residence, homeland; inhabited earth; earthly world; world, earth, region of the world’, heima, neuter: ‘home, dwelling place, place of residence; house’). The name-type -heim, which is widespread across a large part of the German-speaking area, is only sparsely attested as an ancient form in German-speaking Switzerland. Usually, ancient -heim is combined with a personal name [PN] as the defining element (Bestimmungswort), thereby naming a hamlet or a village and its leader. In contrast, in Switzerland, the so-called "Bethge-type" (named after the founder of this research approach, Oskar Bethge) is most prevalent. This consists of more or less schematic names composed of appellative defining elements (e.g., Kirch- [church], Mül(l)- [mill], Talheim [valley-home]) or with adjectives (e.g., Neuheim [new-home]), which are to be attributed to the influence of Frankish administration in the 8th/9th century. In Switzerland, heim-names are found increasingly in the northern territory (Kilchmann 54). There are two Gothic 'weihs' in the Gothic bible. One is used for 'holy' and 'saint' while the other one is used for village. When it translates the Greek kōmē (Marc 8:23), it is obviously a village. When it translates the word agroi (in plural), it also means villages or it means countryside because of the context. Because agros means different things. The only reason I chose it as my second choice is that it seems to have been used much later, in the early Middle Ages, to refer in some cases to small Roman towns. Settlements which were more urbanized than the usual Germanic settlement. Anyway, it is also interesting because it is already mentioned in Gothic with a meaning that designates a kind of settlement, which is 4 centuries earlier than the later evidences. In Gothic bible, it seems Weihs was equivalent to Haims. My point of view is mainly to take a critical approach to linguistic reconstructions. These reconstructions are based solely on phonological rules and sound laws. A reconstruction is not a semantic analysis. That's why I prefer words that are closer chronologically. And the Gothic Bible provides an excellent case study for semantic analysis. Here what the Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017) says about it: -wik / -wiek (page 692): Old Saxon wīk ‘dwelling, village’, Middle Low German wīk ‘place, settlement, (sea) bay’, Old/Middle High German wīch (masculine) ‘residence, city’ has been a subject of controversial debate regarding its origin and meaning. While older research assumed a loanword from Latin vīcus (‘quarter / city district, farmstead, manor, hamlet’) or assumed the meaning ‘trading/market place’ based on the North Germanic vīk (‘bay’), wīk has more recently been traced back to a Germanic word related to the same root as Latin vīcus, with the original meaning of ‘fence.’ This meaning evolved further in various contexts, for example, to ‘manor’ or ‘small settlement,’ and eventually to ‘district with special legal status or immunity’ (linked to terms like wikbelde / -greve). -wīk names are encountered in: Nordic countries and England; Particularly in the Dutch-Flemish region; In the Lower Saxon-Westphalian area (e.g., Braunschweig, NI); In Schleswig-Holstein (e.g., Schleswig; Wyk auf Föhr, District of Nordfriesland). This formation type likely dates back to the period of land development (Landesausbau) in its productive phase; in the Western Netherlands, it remained active until the 12th/13th century. Literature: Bach DNK II, 2; Schütte 1976; Debus / Schmitz, H.-G. FD

Ground plan for the village of Grøntoft in its last year. Grøntoft existed from around 450 to 150 BC. For most of the period it comprised of 12-20 buildings and accommodated around 50 people and 70-80 animals: Aerial photo of the fortified settlement in Borremose, Himmerland. Borremose is known for and identified with a former fortified settlement dating from the Pre-Roman Iron Age (400-100 BC). It was constructed during the 4th century BC, as one of the largest structures of its kind in Northern Europe, but was already abandoned during the 2nd century BC, when the houses were burned down and the whole site levelled to the ground. A plan showing the fortified settlement Lyngsmose, Ringkøbing. The rectangular houses are protected by a moat. There had been 15 long houses and two small houses. It is believed that around 8-10 people lived in each house, which means that there were around 120-150 people living in the village. The settlement was occupied between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century AD. Reconstruction of the Iron Age village of Hodde, which was located between Varde and Grindsted. As can be seen, Hodde was somewhat larger than Grøntoft. At its greatest extent it included 22 farms, blacksmiths and potters workshops. The village Hodde existed in the last century before the birth of Christ. It was a large village; at its peak, it included 27 farms with 53 houses and 200 to 300 inhabitants. Each farm was surrounded by a fence and the whole village was surrounded by a palisade as high as a person. Feddersen Wierde is an ancient terp settlement in Wremen (Lower Saxony, Germany), model displayed in the museum Burg Bederkesa. It was inhabitated from the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD. The village was built on a terp (artificial mound for flood protection), with multiple farms and longhouses evolving towards a hierarchical structure (central chief's house). Traces of collective dwellings, agriculture and livestock farming across several phases. But thanks for the effort. I think that if a linguistic dictionary said that the ancient Germanic peoples traveled on camels, you would believe it without hesitation.

You don't seem to understand the abbreviation. Gl stands for Die althochdeutschen Glossen gesammelt und bearbeitet von Elias Steinmeyer und Eduard Sievers. 5 Bde. Berlin 1879–1922. For example Gl 1,242,35 means Volume 1 page 242, line 35... So once again you are arguing without knowing and without checking your info. Definition 1 uses Gl 1,242,35 which is the "Codex Sangallensis 911" from the 8th century AD. Definition 2 uses Gl 3,16,51 which is the "Codex Sangallensis 242" dated between the 9th to 10th century AD. Definition 2 uses Gl 3,209,19 which is from a version of the Summarium Heinrici dated to the 11th century AD. It should be noted that I had to go to the library and consult several encyclopedias to find these references. I would really appreciate it if you would make an effort before arguing from now on. It is important to understand that the "Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch" dictionary has a strict classification system and that the order of definitions for the same word follows a precise logic. The primary meanings are generally the oldest and/or most frequent. The aim is to provide a practical reading experience and to understand the evolution and diversification of meanings. This dictionary truly emphasizes this aspect and is known for its quality in this regard. Once again, I am right. The primary meaning in Old High German is indeed that of a farm or agricultural estate. It was the original meaning. I know I may sound like I'm defending something weird that nobody talks about, but it's actually something well-known in German when you're interested in the study of place names. Let's take a recent source on the subject, Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017) by Manfred Niemeyer. On page 133, there is an entry for place names ending in -dorf. Here my translation: -dorf. Germ. *þurpa-, Goth. þaurp, OHG / MHG dorf, MLG dorp Neutr.; through metathesis (accent shift) -trop, -trup, -druf, -droff (e.g., Bottrop, NRW). Originally ‘(cultivated) land, field, isolated farmstead’, later extended to ‘group settlement’ in accordance with the modern lexeme. Within the German-speaking area, it is an extremely productive formation type and widely distributed (though less frequent in Alemannic); in the West, some instances are as old as the -heim settlement names (SN). Different developments can be seen in the individual regions. In Bavaria, for example, with the first evidence dating back to the 8th century, the type became highly productive at the end of the older expansion period (älteren Ausbauzeit). In Schleswig-Holstein there was also a similar pattern. In Eastern Germany, in the areas of the medieval Ostsiedlung (Eastern settlement), -dorf is the most frequent generic element (Gw.) and is particularly numerous since the 12th/13th century. The -dorf settlement names predominantly feature personal names (PN) in the genitive case as their specific element (Bw.). However, this is less common in the Wolfenbüttel region, for example; this fact, combined with a relatively high proportion of abandoned settlements (Wüstungen), points toward a late period of land development. -dorf can still be used today for new formations. I'm not making this up, it's something that's already known. No problem with that, I recognize that Old Saxon and Old English have kept mostly the collective meaning (village or hamlet). My point is that Gothic, which is oldest, only has the first meaning, as farmstead or farmland. You suggested that the Gothic language might be the one that deviated from its original meaning (this is already not very intuitive and rather inconsistent with what we generally observe in linguistics for the direction of the shift). I am disagreeing on this. And as I said, Old High German uses the first meaning in the oldest records. For me it is quite obvious that this is a change of meaning which is taking place at the beginning of the Middle Ages and which is not yet universal in all Germanic languages. There is also an interesting aspect to Old Norse þorp, a semantic analysis shows that it generally refers to a secondary or dependent hamlet, such as an isolated farm or a hamlet subordinate to a larger main village. Old Norse seems to have captured a different shift from Old English. But again, for me this is further evidence that this was a process underway during the early Middle Ages. The concept of home is not that simple and you are taking its historical dimensions too lightly. See the concept of Heimat for example, which is very difficult to translate in other languages. You seem to have a modern perception of the concept of home. I am just saying that during the pre-Roman Iron Age, this is a very different situation. Archaeologically, we observe the proximity of different families under the same roof. On the topic there are two interesting work: Adolf Bach, "Deutsche Namenkunde" (several volumes, 1952-1956). Bach explicitly categorizes -heim names as representing the oldest layer of communal village foundations (the Urdörfer). Henning Kaufmann, "Die Namen der rheinischen Städte" (1973). Here Kaufmann discusses how names like Mannheim or Bad Dürkheim reflect the Frankish Landnahme (land-taking), where a leader established a collective settlement for his entire retinue. But since they are old studies, I can simply cite the Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017): Mannheim (page 390) III. It is a compound (Zuss.) with the generic element (Gw.) -heim; the specific element (Bw.) is based on the personal name (PN) Manno: ‘Settlement of Manno’. The dialect form Manm is likely influenced by the demonym (inhabitant name) Mannemer. -heim (page 254) -heim. Germ. *haima- ‘Home of a tribe’ (Heimat) ; in the individual Germanic languages with various stem formations and genders, e.g.: OHG heima Fem. ‘Home, homeland, residence’, late OHG/MHG heim Neutr. ‘Homeland, dwelling place, house’, OSax. hēm Neutr., MLG hēm(e) Fem. / hēm also Neutr., OFris. hām / hēm Masc. or Neutr., ON heimr Masc., OE hām Masc. ‘Village, estate’, Goth. haims Fem. ‘Village, small town’. The latter meaning likely applied from the beginning to -heim group settlements, although -heim originally occurred for individual settlements (farmsteads) as well. The -heim names, like those ending in -ingen, show characteristics of great age. They likely occurred sporadically as designations as early as the early phase (around the birth of Christ) and then became common during the early land acquisition (frühn Landnahme) of the 3rd–5th centuries (perhaps also as a translation of the Latin villa). In contrast to the PN-orientation (personal name) of -ingen names, the defining factor here is possession (‘Home / Estate of ...’). By the Merovingian period, the type was fully established and remained productive until the Middle Ages (MA), though varying by region. The fact that the -heim type played practically no role in the area of the Ostsiedlung (Eastern settlement) suggests its simultaneous unproductivity in the Altland (ancient lands). Most -heim names have a PN as the specific element (Bw.), usually in the genitive case. Younger names are mostly those formed with appellatives (common nouns), of which the schematically oriented ones with Nord-, Süd-, Ost-, West-, Berg-, Tal-, etc. (“Bethge-type”) certainly represent the result of Frankish-controlled naming in the vicinity of former royal estates or fisks; these predominantly arose in the 7th/8th centuries. The geographical occurrence of -heim names essentially corresponds to that of -ingen names in locations favorable for settlement; however, a striking distribution of the two types is evident particularly in the Upper and Middle Rhine regions, which can be explained by "compensation" and "radiation," as is known from dialectology. Notable are the mixed forms -ingheim, which occur with varying distribution in Westphalia, Lower Saxony (NI), Hesse (HE), Thuringia (TH), in the Rhineland, and further south. In addition to -heim, dialectal variants are encountered early on, some of which are fixed in official settlement names (SiN), such as -ham, -hem / -hēm, -um, -em, -an, -en, -m, -n, -a, -e, or total loss (elision). Literature: Bach DNK II, 2; Schuster I; Wiesinger 1994; Jochum-Godglück; NOB III; Debus / Schmitz, H.-G. FD In your opinion it doesn’t originally refer to a settlement, but that's the case for many linguists. I am doing it right now. Just consider the Brandolini's law and the time it takes to refute something. Here I took the time to construct a coherent and well-sourced argument.