The German Question, Part One

Slightly edited and updated, 6/28/2015

Historically, the “German Question” is simply, “Who is a German?” The answer has not been an easy one, but did the outcome of World War Two give us a definitive answer? This is the first of a multiple part series, and it is not an all encompassing and detailed history, but rather a basic history of people who are, or were, in some sense, called German. Some things are purely my own opinion; after all, this is "Pontificating." If you are an American, you should see something of a connection to the German attempts at unity over the centuries, as we have become so divided in recent times. If you are interested in this subject, there are tons of books in libraries around the world on various parts of German history, and certainly there are many articles available online, and there will be a list of sources I used at the end of the series.

First, we have to go back thousands of years to a group of people known to us in modern times as Indo Europeans (they did NOT use this term for themselves, nor did they even know this term, it is purely more modern). While there are varying opinions, the Indo Europeans likely lived in an area along or near the Black Sea. The theory is, they shared a common culture, including a common language, known to linguists as Proto Indo European. Language goes a long way toward giving us our identity, and thus groups of people from the past are often classified, to a great degree, by their language. As centuries passed some of these people wandered off in various directions. Their common language developed into dialects; that is, variations, which grew further and further apart from their original language and from the dialects of other groups that had split off, as time separated them from one another, and as they interacted with other peoples, even with other people of Indo European descent.* One of the split off groups came to be known as the Germanic people.** This group gradually developed a culture and distinct dialect of its own, forming new words (as all people do) as they encountered new things. Again, according to archaeologists, the Germanic people seem to have settled in much of northern Europe, perhaps initially in Scandinavia. The same process took place with the Germanic people as had taken place with their ancestor Indo Europeans; that is, some groups split off going their own separate ways, along with developing dialects that gradually became increasingly more difficult for other Germanic speakers to understand. Over the centuries, some of these Germanic groups migrated to distant lands like (using the modern names) Spain, Portugal, the Balkans, North Africa, and even possibly North America, and, of course they went to Britain, where they founded England.

English took on the Anglicized form “Germany” from the Roman name for the areas of northern Europe settled by the various Germanic tribes; that term being “Germania.” English speakers then naturally called the people of these areas “Germans.” This term has resulted in much confusion for many a speaker of English, as not everyone understands the difference between “German” and “Germanic.” For example, the Norwegians are Germanic, but they are NOT German. The English are Germanic, but they are NOT German. The Bavarians are German AND Germanic. The Germans do not call themselves “Germans;” that is, they don’t use a term derived from German or Germany, but rather they use “Deutsche,”*** which is really the same word as “Dutch,” (“duitsch” in Dutch) just one of many variations (from dialects) from long ago.^ The French call the Germans the “Allemande,” after the name of a specific Germanic tribe, the Allemanni/Alamanni (if only they had settled in Alabama/Alabami). The Italians call the Germans “tedesco,” which is their form of “Deutsche,” although it may not look quite so similar. The Finns call the Germans “Saxons,” again, after a specific Germanic tribe, part of which helped found England.

One thing to remember, as the ancient Germanic people (just as with people from the other groups mentioned in the note below) split off into various tribes, they did not necessarily see themselves as related, nor did they always cooperate with each other, even if their particular dialects were mutually intelligible. In fact, they often clashed, most likely over territory due to hunting and fishing (perhaps over farm land, but that more than likely came a bit later). Gradually some tribes established themselves as distinct entities: the Norwegians and the Swedes in Scandinavia. The other Germanic tribes in northwest and central Europe took a while longer to “sort themselves out.” Essentially a few tribes became dominant, as they either took over (as in “conquered”) other tribes, or they combined in confederations, perhaps to make them stronger militarily, or perhaps from marriages.

More in "Part Two" ... 


* What does this mean? Well, Americans do not speak English the way English is spoken in England, and not all people in England speak the same, nor do all Americans speak English the same. Time, geography, topography, climate, and contact with non-English speakers have changed the way Americans speak English vs. the English spoken in England. And this is after just a few hundred years. About a hundred years ago, some English language experts were very concerned that American English was changing and diverging so much from that of England, they feared that within a fairly short time Americans and Englishmen would not be able to understand one another. Of course, more modern communication, like radio and television, developed, keeping a common bond, and the fear of separate languages has subsided. Dialects that can essentially be understood by speakers of each are called “mutually intelligible.” For instance, people in New York City and Birmingham, Alabama speak English in their own particular ways, but they still can understand one another. When various Germanic tribal elements invaded Britain in the mid 400s (A.D.), most historians believe they could understand one another, more or less, although since there were no sound recorders from those times, no one knows that to be an absolute fact.

** The other major Indo European groups, besides Germanic, were: Greek, Celtic, Italic, Baltic, Slavic, Armenian, Albanian, Indic, Iranian, Tocharian, and Anatolian.

*** Pronounced “doytsh-eh,” which is plural: “Germans.” They call their language “Deutsch,” with no “e” at the end.

^ The variations are numerous, with some dialects having a “T” instead of a “D,” to start the word, and other dialects having “Tuutsch,” as well as other forms. See: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-do-we-call-them-these-names.html

WORD HISTORY:
Pamper-I did not find a history tracing this word back to any Indo European base, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one (see further). The word seems to have been borrowed during the mid to late 1300s from Low German "pampen" or "pampfen" (I found both), which meant "to cram with food," or perhaps Flemish (another Germanic language, spoken in Belgium, now seen more as a dialect of Dutch by many linguists), which had "pamperen," with the same basic meaning. Trade was quite common between England and the areas of northwest Europe, present day Holland and northern Germany, and words could easily be picked up from one language to another. Gradually the idea of cramming someone with food took on the notion of "overindulging someone, spoiling them." While I mentioned that I could not find a direct link to an Indo European base, some linguists "suggest" that it "could" be related to Latin "pappere," which meant "to eat (soft food);" so that we have "eating" involved in the Latin word, too, and "soft food," might lead to the notion of "pampering someone who is ill," if you get the drift, and indeed English got "pap" from the French "papa" ("watered down meal") in the 1400s, and it still seems to have limited use in England, meaning "food for babies." This word carries back to Latin "papilla," "nipple of a woman's breast," and eventually to the Indo European root "pap," meaning "to swell." To confuse matters a little more, English already had another word "pap," which also meant "nipple," which is assumed to have come from Old Norse around 1200, as Swedish dialect has "pappe." All of these words and forms in various languages are tough to resist as the ancestor of "pamper," and to me, the most interesting link is to Lithuanian, the language considered by many linguists to be the closest living European language to Indo European, which has "papas," which is not considered proper, but rather vulgar, and is equivalent to English "tits," or "titties." All of these forms have connections to "food," from the mother's nipple providing food to a baby, watered down or soft food, etc. It "could" be that the Germanic form just added the "m" sound for "pamper/pamperen."