[Manuel_D]

No, there are continuities in language. It's changed over time, but it's still descended from those older cultures. French has it's roots in Frankish people that settled there in the migration period, with Latin and other influence. It's not just people arbitrarily claiming lineage. There are also specifics in culture and tradition, e.g. Christmas trees date back to pagan Germanic festivals.

[neilkk]

Modern German is no closer to the language of a randomly chosen 'Germanic Tribe' than English, Prussian, Danish, Yiddish, Swedish, Czech, etc.

Most people living in what is now France would have spoken other languages than French well past the time of the Frankish people.

Literally all over Europe, and a lot of the world, people have trees at Christmas.

[Manuel_D]

Incorrect, English does indeed have German influence but it also has more Celtic influence. One is closer to Old German than the other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_High_German

[neilkk]

Germanic tribes in the ancient world did not speak Old High German. The status of Old High German as the origin language of modern German is part of the construction of German history in exactly the manner I have described.

There is very little Celtic in Old English. It's very close to a synthesis of Anglish and French. There's much more Danish in English than there is Celtic.

[Manuel_D]

> Germanic tribes in the ancient world did not speak Old High German.

As per the link, it was spoken around 500 AD. Which is at the tail end of the Ancient World but it's still far older than Germany as a country.

> The status of Old High German as the origin language of modern German is part of the construction of German history in exactly the manner I have described

Are you just rejecting the entire field of linguistics? Languages absolutely do have descendants, and while there is admixture and external influences there is broad continuity between old German and contemporary German.

[neilkk]

I don't think you've established any factual challenge to either of my statements:

> But the only real connection between 'Germanic tribes' and the modern state of Germany is that people from the latter believe the former to be their forefathers. They are not genetically closer to them than other Europeans, nor do they speak the same language or call themselves the same word or have the same lifestyle or inhabit the same places.

> Modern German is no closer to the language of a randomly chosen 'Germanic Tribe' than English, Prussian, Danish, Yiddish, Swedish, Czech, etc

The fact that there is some connection between modern German and Old High German and some connection between Old High German and the languages of the Germanic tribes does not contradict either.

[Manuel_D]

You stated that old Germany wasn't spoken in the ancient world, when the link I posted explicitly said it was. You also wrote that "the only real connection between 'Germanic tribes' and the modern state of Germany is that people from the latter believe the former to be their forefathers", which is also not true. The languages are indeed linguistically descended from old Germany.

English is also less closely related to old German on account of the Norman french influence.

The Czech language is Slavic [1], it's substantially different than German. It's more similar to Polish or Russian.

Swedish and Danish are both North Germanic [2] rather than West Germanic [3] languages. Related to, but distinct from the West Germanic that would evolve into contemporary German.

Yes, there is a lot factually wrong with your posts.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_language

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Germanic_languages

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germanic_languages