No, it means nothing. You shall not needlessly anglicize.
The name Hallstadt (not the two l letters) means Salt Town.
Or, actually "place". In a lot of location names of germanic origin "stadt" doesn't the current semantics, of being a town with > 10.000. More often than not it just means "place".
And "Hall" is an old term for salt. Many towns related to salt have it in their names, in many places of Germany and Austria. "Halle an der Saale" in Thüringen, Bad Reichenhall (Bayern), Hall im Tirol (Österreich), Schwäbisch-Hall (Baden-Württemberg) etc.
"Hall" is believed to be of celtic origin.
And the double l is important. German is a language where in the written form you look at the letters and you immediately see how it is spoken. A double vocal makes the speed slower, and a double consonant makes the speech faster. So "Halstadt" would be slow Hal (so more emphasize on the "a" instead), and "Hallstadt" would be a fast "Hall", similar in speed like the english "hell": little emphasize on the "a".
Medieval German didn't have fixed rules for writing. The same word was written in different ways on the same page, so many words inherited from the Middle Ages cannot be taken literally under modern writing rules.
> German is a language where in the written form you look at the letters and you immediately see how it is spoken.
Lol, written vs spoken German is just as ambigious as any other language with too few letters in the alphabet. Just look at "ich" vs "ach" (and then of course there's dozens of local dialects that don't even have spelling rules and would need even bigger alphabets if "done right").
"You speak what you see" does not mean that every letter or combination of consonants is pronounced the same, but that there are clear rules that determine how every thing is spoken (with exceptions being rare). The fact that "ch" is pronounced differently depending on the vowel before is a consistent rule. In contrast in languages like english you do not have consistent rules like that for a big part of the language, to the extent that a native speaker encountering a new word (eg a street or town name) may not know how to speak or write it.
No, not all languages are the same about the correlation of spelling and pronunciation. Of European languages, English is the least predictable, Spanish is the most predictable, and German is (about equidistant) between them. Spanish had a spelling reform the shortest time ago, English never had one.
> He changed the –ce in words like defence, offence, and pretence to –se; abandoned the second, silent "l" in verbs such as travel and cancel when forming the past tense; dropped the "u" from words such as humour and colour; and dropped the "k" from words such as publick and musick.
Isn't most of it just the difference between british and american english? I was definitely taught the "old" style in my english education and still see it being used. So it does not seem to have been really universally acknowledged/adhered to as a reform?
Not that english language has not changed but it seems that there is not as much of a centralised, widely adopted and intentional reform to match the written form with the spoken one.
The editors of major English dictionaries have certainly had significant impact on English as She is Spoke, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Spanish language is centrally codified and prescriptive (like the French language), while English is distinctly decentralized, and its dictionaries are correspondingly descriptive, more often than not.
Spanish has notably gone through some orthography reforms since I learned it in high school, in the 1980s, and so among other things, the idiosyncratic "sort order" which we learned doesn't really apply anymore. In school, we also learned to be aware of the vosotros first-person plural, but we didn't really learn all the forms, because we were chiefly learning Mexican/LatAm vernacular Spanish.
Hallstatt is one of these places to visit. It's topology alone is crazy, built on the edge of a mountain right above a lake. Nobody reasonable would build a city there, unless there was a really good reason for it. And the value of salt was that reason. But that topology is also the reason why a lot of the city is extremely old today.
Hallstatt as a town is also affected by overtourism, especially since some Asian soap opera used it as a film location. But it is one of the places that is still worth a visit.
This is one of the problems with what the Celts did: they didn't write. And they used a lot of biological material (like leather, wood) which is all gone by now. AFAIK the celts were already "gone" (assimilated / diversified into local tribes) when the Romans (which were writers) arrived. So we don't even have roman writing about the celtic customs.
For example, there is are excavations around https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltenwelt_am_Glauberg and AFAIK it's still not clear if that area is mostly a castle, or if it was mostly some cultic thing -> nothing written, not even in clay or chiseled into stone.
So, did they use torches? They have decayed over this time.
We know however that they had some kind of meat industry at Hallstein. They had plenty of salt, and so they used that to make meat durable. Animal skulls survived the times ...
"This is one of the problems with what the Celts did: they didn't write."
That is a common misconception. We don't have much in the way of ancient Celtic writing, or even enough, but we do have some . The best known example is the Coligny Calendar. Some of the Celtic peoples used the Greek script and variants. There is also debate about how old Ogham is (although AFAIK there is no evidence of it from Hallstatt and La Tene).
I would not be surprised if some pre-Roman Celtic writing does turn up from this region at some point.
I just finished listening to the audiobook of Mark Kurlanskys Salt: A World History[0]. Fascinating and highly recommended.
[0] https://www.markkurlansky.com/books/salt-a-world-history/
Can confirm, it's a fantastic book!
The name Halstatt seems to mean Salt Town.
Hallstatt means salt stead - a place where you find salt.
Stadt (town) was derived from Statt - here's a good explanation of that: https://www.duden.de/sprachwissen/sprachratgeber/Stadt-Statt...
Thanks! Learned a lot
No, it means nothing. You shall not needlessly anglicize.
The name Hallstadt (not the two l letters) means Salt Town.
Or, actually "place". In a lot of location names of germanic origin "stadt" doesn't the current semantics, of being a town with > 10.000. More often than not it just means "place".
And "Hall" is an old term for salt. Many towns related to salt have it in their names, in many places of Germany and Austria. "Halle an der Saale" in Thüringen, Bad Reichenhall (Bayern), Hall im Tirol (Österreich), Schwäbisch-Hall (Baden-Württemberg) etc.
"Hall" is believed to be of celtic origin.
And the double l is important. German is a language where in the written form you look at the letters and you immediately see how it is spoken. A double vocal makes the speed slower, and a double consonant makes the speech faster. So "Halstadt" would be slow Hal (so more emphasize on the "a" instead), and "Hallstadt" would be a fast "Hall", similar in speed like the english "hell": little emphasize on the "a".
Medieval German didn't have fixed rules for writing. The same word was written in different ways on the same page, so many words inherited from the Middle Ages cannot be taken literally under modern writing rules.
> German is a language where in the written form you look at the letters and you immediately see how it is spoken.
Lol, written vs spoken German is just as ambigious as any other language with too few letters in the alphabet. Just look at "ich" vs "ach" (and then of course there's dozens of local dialects that don't even have spelling rules and would need even bigger alphabets if "done right").
"You speak what you see" does not mean that every letter or combination of consonants is pronounced the same, but that there are clear rules that determine how every thing is spoken (with exceptions being rare). The fact that "ch" is pronounced differently depending on the vowel before is a consistent rule. In contrast in languages like english you do not have consistent rules like that for a big part of the language, to the extent that a native speaker encountering a new word (eg a street or town name) may not know how to speak or write it.
No, not all languages are the same about the correlation of spelling and pronunciation. Of European languages, English is the least predictable, Spanish is the most predictable, and German is (about equidistant) between them. Spanish had a spelling reform the shortest time ago, English never had one.
Source: Read it somewhere a long time ago, sorry.
English never had a spelling reform? Noah Webster might beg to differ...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/about-us/spelling-reform
Maybe you meant a "complete" spelling reform, but hardly any reform is 'complete' if you look at it closely.
> He changed the –ce in words like defence, offence, and pretence to –se; abandoned the second, silent "l" in verbs such as travel and cancel when forming the past tense; dropped the "u" from words such as humour and colour; and dropped the "k" from words such as publick and musick.
Isn't most of it just the difference between british and american english? I was definitely taught the "old" style in my english education and still see it being used. So it does not seem to have been really universally acknowledged/adhered to as a reform?
Not that english language has not changed but it seems that there is not as much of a centralised, widely adopted and intentional reform to match the written form with the spoken one.
The editors of major English dictionaries have certainly had significant impact on English as She is Spoke, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Spanish language is centrally codified and prescriptive (like the French language), while English is distinctly decentralized, and its dictionaries are correspondingly descriptive, more often than not.
Spanish has notably gone through some orthography reforms since I learned it in high school, in the 1980s, and so among other things, the idiosyncratic "sort order" which we learned doesn't really apply anymore. In school, we also learned to be aware of the vosotros first-person plural, but we didn't really learn all the forms, because we were chiefly learning Mexican/LatAm vernacular Spanish.
The not/note typo strikes again, it reverses the meaning of a phrase.
Hallstatt is one of these places to visit. It's topology alone is crazy, built on the edge of a mountain right above a lake. Nobody reasonable would build a city there, unless there was a really good reason for it. And the value of salt was that reason. But that topology is also the reason why a lot of the city is extremely old today.
Hallstatt as a town is also affected by overtourism, especially since some Asian soap opera used it as a film location. But it is one of the places that is still worth a visit.
because of the overtourism problem I would advise against a visit
What did they do for light?
They used wood splinters.
There is a german wikipedia article with pictures.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kienspan
Usually they used spruce wood because it does not create soot.
IIRC it was torches there seem to be several archaeological finds
This is one of the problems with what the Celts did: they didn't write. And they used a lot of biological material (like leather, wood) which is all gone by now. AFAIK the celts were already "gone" (assimilated / diversified into local tribes) when the Romans (which were writers) arrived. So we don't even have roman writing about the celtic customs.
For example, there is are excavations around https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltenwelt_am_Glauberg and AFAIK it's still not clear if that area is mostly a castle, or if it was mostly some cultic thing -> nothing written, not even in clay or chiseled into stone.
Similarly, in this article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_(Arch%C3%A4ologie) that describes the salt mining in Hallstadt since the bronze age there is only so much that they know.
So, did they use torches? They have decayed over this time.
We know however that they had some kind of meat industry at Hallstein. They had plenty of salt, and so they used that to make meat durable. Animal skulls survived the times ...
"This is one of the problems with what the Celts did: they didn't write."
That is a common misconception. We don't have much in the way of ancient Celtic writing, or even enough, but we do have some . The best known example is the Coligny Calendar. Some of the Celtic peoples used the Greek script and variants. There is also debate about how old Ogham is (although AFAIK there is no evidence of it from Hallstatt and La Tene).
I would not be surprised if some pre-Roman Celtic writing does turn up from this region at some point.
I would expect oil lamps.