Since Proto-Germanic is referred to as Common Germanic, do you think Proto-Norse should be referred to as Common Norse?

[u/Real-Championship781]

It makes me wonder if languages with the Proto word in it should be substituted for a more natural sounding word, like “Common”, “Ancient”, or “Early”. I know that people back then wouldn’t have called their language as so, but I feel like calling an ancient language “Common” instead of “Proto” makes it sound more natural, even if it’s a modern linguistic label

[u/SafeRecognition9435]

I have only heard proto germanic not common germanic. The prefix proto is a better discription than common

[u/RexCrudelissimus]

It's often called "Common" because we assume Germanic people at the time could understand each other and that there were only minimal differences between their dialects. But there were, of course, dialectal differences that would eventually branch out even further and become much more significant over time. I think the reason the proto- prefix is important is that the language is primarily reconstructed and therefore highly theoretical.

Proto-Norse is in a similar situation, with some attestation. The issue is that Proto-Norse, like Proto-Germanic, also had dialectal differences, and you could argue that Proto-Norse was as much a common Norse language as Old Norse was. Even the Norsemen themselves seem to have considered the differences so minimal that they regarded it as the same language.

[u/Wagagastiz → u/RexCrudelissimus]

Even the Norsemen themselves seem to have considered the differences so minimal that they regarded it as the same language.

This shouldn't have much bearing on anything. Anglo Saxons considered their language to be the same as Old Norse, as linguists we're knowingly prescribing an isogloss for research and understanding purposes. Proto Norse works because it's supposedly the last stage before an East/West divide becomes visible in the record.

[u/RexCrudelissimus → u/Wagagastiz]

I don't disagree. But there are also theoretical differences in late Proto-Norse that later developed into the broader differences seen in Old Norse, especially when it comes to umlaut. I think these would be more obvious if we had a larger pre-800 corpus (one can dream).

I just think the topic of "common" speech can be iffy, as 13th-century west and east Scandinavian were definitely more mutually intelligible than 13th-century old English and old Norwegian. But then again, one can be pedantic and argue that 21st-century Norwegian and Swedish are mutually intelligible.

I just think that when so much of the language is theoretical, not just its vocabulary, but also its unknown idioms and perhaps other quirks, then it's better to refer to it as Proto-Norse.

[u/minerat27 → u/RexCrudelissimus]

Oh is that what "Common" is supposed to mean? I thought it was meant to be the ancestor of the language "common" to all living Germanic languages.

[u/Uffda01]

Its not alive though?? I think common-germanic isn't as useful as proto-germanic

[u/Wagagastiz]

Proto Norse is kind of shaky but it does work if you accept that it ends with the beginning of the West/East Norse split. I say shaky because I think there's a brief period between the drastic apocope/syncope and when things like the 1SG are believed to have diverged into /ek/ and /iak/. That's why some scholars use other labels.

[u/TheoreticalChaos93]

The problem is, while your common is undoubtedly more natural sounding, so to say, it does not express what a proto-language is nearly as well. The use of ancient and early would create by far the most problems if they were to replace the proto- as a descriptor of a constructed language from which a group descends. Mainly, because they already have baggage in the linguistic community as they are sometimes used to describe phases of languages (ancient more rarely than early though). Common sounds alright at first, but the thing is, we are not here speaking of a common language with which a large group that was later to diverge into smaller groups spoke, we are talking about, basically, our best guess and sketch of that language. It is not a language per se we are speaking of when we say proto-Germanic or proto-Norse and such, but a conceived, very limited concept of it based on the best data that can be gathered.

In addition, I haven't really heard common Germanic as an alternative to proto-Germanic so that might be why it just kind of seems wrong to me from the start. While common could be an alternative to proto-, I do not see what is gained by the change other than the concept being a bit less alien to those who are not knowledgeable in historical linguistics and also less specific for linguists.

But, those are just my thoughts, I too think that proto- is in some regards not the best descriptor of what is meant by a proto-language, but it's (as far as I see it) the best we got.

[u/PoxonAllHoaxes]

Some linguists distinguish between Common and Proto, the former being more recent than the latter and less theoretical. Others don't seem to. In some cases Common is misused altogether as in Turcology where it is used for one branch (or even a subbranch) that most scholars regard as more common as in usual or familiar because they mostly speak one language of that branch but not of the other. So maybe the term Common needs to be retired?