Kicking Roman Butt

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

I'd say that baltic tribes would have spoken a baltic language.

Well, that settles it, Baltic languages are different from Gothic languages.

I think it's far from settled.

If Goths were from the Baltic and in the Baltic, Baltic languages were spoken (we know this because they were spoken until the XVIII Century in Prusia, and are spoken in Luthuania and Latvia even nowadays), then it's easier to see that the Goths would speak a baltic language, rather than suppose that the Goths were Germanic speaking people, and womehow the Baltic people weren't related to the tribes that lived there (and, somehow, magically happened to be there).

All I am saying is, to say that the Goths were German because some said so, ignoring other possibilities just because, is not a logically satisfying procedure.

The (in-)famous Ulfila's bible being the only historical source about a supposedly 'Goths' language, it's a very weak position to base a germanic origin of the Goths

I would say it is an excellent position. You're mixing things up I'm afraid. This bible is not so much a historical source as it is a linguistical source, and as such it identifies the Gothic language clearly in favour of a Germanic-related language. Not similar, mind you, but as a related group. Baltic languages, afaik, are different. And besides the Ulfila bible, there are of course name, inscriptions, etc.

Alright, I admit, I was meaning a linguistic source. The thing is, according to authors, the percentage of germanic-related words in only slightly higher than baltic-related words. I know I read that frequency analysis somewhere, but I cannot find the reference right now.

Apart from that, the said source is not used to pinpoint the geographical origin of the Goths. That's mostly done from Jordanes et al. All these sources all point to a Scandinavian origin in however mythical terms. I my opinion, other sources aopart from Ulfila are by no means ignored, and not in the least to 'hide' a baltic origin.

I distrust any source that hides others, be baltic or anything else.

I am aware that there's a strong germanic-phile litherature behind our studies of the area

Be that as it may, I kinda resent such discussions. For mentioning such a thing immediately politicices the discussion and makes it impossible to exchange ideas on an impartial footing, "because the other party is such-and-such". Germano-phile or not, the discussion can only be scientifically sound if it's a good discussion. Apart from that, I think that these days, Gothic studies are not that tarnished any longer by germanophile or baltophile or hispanophile sentiments.

i hope it is so. Not that discerning their origins with complete certainty would throw more knowledge to their culture, but different understandings of which cultural aspects can be considered, can allow to make connections from primary and secondary sources that may be disregarded as "fabulous" within the current (or late mid-XX) flow of thought about the subject.

I think the authors that propose a baltic cultural affiliation for the goths (with germanic connections, but with a different and distinct linguistical and cultural traits) present an interesting linguistic and historical case through many historical sources, and present an interesting hypothesis that may help to understand things that aren't well connected nowadays.

PS- as an aside, it's pretty clear that there was a pangermanic feeling about linguistics and indoeuropean studies, and it may be diminishing, but a host of linguists currently working on this subkect are from germanic-speaking languages, and have a big influence within the international community, even when throwing hypothesis... science is also made of these kind of "paradigms", it's part of the method... denying the humane dimension is vain, anyway. i just wish I knew more...