Did Latin merge with Celtic languages to form Romance languages ?

[zanipolo]

I am sorry, but this is definitely wrong. What is true is that knowledge of the British Isles is scarce before the 1st century BC. However, in the 4th century BC, Pytheas of Massilia visited the British Isles, and he recorded the name 'Pretannike' (modern Welsh 'Prydain'), which is where the later name 'Britain' (or Latin 'Britannia') comes from.

As for the language situation, it's unclear wether the Picts really were distinct from the Britons or wether this is a pure artifact of the Hadrian's Wall and the 'Picts' actually just spoke Brythonic too. Either way, what little is known of the Pictish language (tribal names, place names) it can be said that they spoke a P-Celtic language akin to Brythonic or Gaulish.

Ireland spoke Goidelic (specifically, an earlier variant of the language recorded in the Ogham inscriptions).

Still there is a timeframe where these original languages dominated over celtic or did Latin dominate them first,. Or do you mean, that before Latin arrived in the british isles, celtic was there.
I am unsure who came after the brittonic and Goidelic languages of the isles

[Taranis]

Still there is a timeframe where these original languages dominated over celtic or did Latin dominate them first,. Or do you mean, that before Latin arrived in the british isles, celtic was there.
I am usure who came after the brittonic and Goidelic languages of the isles

I think you don't understand, Goidelic, Brythonic and Pictish are (or in the case of the latter, were) Celtic languages. I described the situation as it was described before the Romans arrived. The critical point really is that by the time the Romans showed up in Britain, no non-Celtic languages were apparently spoken in Britain.

[Sile]

I think you don't understand, Goidelic, Brythonic and Pictish are (or in the case of the latter, were) Celtic languages. I described the situation as it was described before the Romans arrived. The critical point really is that by the time the Romans showed up in Britain, no non-Celtic languages were apparently spoken in Britain.

So is this link wrong in regards to dates of the celtic languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine...ltic_languages

If not, what was spoken in the isles pre 300BC
If it is wrong, then what are the starting dates of all these celtic languages

[Taranis]

So is this link wrong in regards to dates of the celtic languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine...ltic_languages

If not, what was spoken in the isles pre 300BC
If it is wrong, then what are the starting dates of all these celtic languages

In the case you didn't notice, the article talks about Continental Celtic languages. Brythonic and Goidelic, in contrast, are Insular Celtic languages.

[Sile]

In the case you didn't notice, the article talks about Continental Celtic languages. Brythonic and Goidelic, in contrast, are Insular Celtic languages.

yes true , which is why you need to start with the continent and since the continental languages begin in 300BC and you say the isles is a branch of celtic , the question is who
"laid" the first celtic linguistic egg?

If it was the continent , then clearly the isles language was not truly celtic. If it was the isles, then this business that celtic originated in southern Germany is wrong

Edit: Proto-celtic

• P-Celtic
  
  • Gaulish
    
    • Lepontic
    • Noric
    • Galatian
    
    
  • Brythonic
    
    • Cumbric
    • Pictish
    • Old Welsh
    • Middle Welsh
      
      • Welsh
      
      
    • Southwestern Brythonic
      
      • Breton
      • Cornish
      
      
    
    
  
  
• Q-Celtic
  
  • Celtiberian
  • Goidelic
    
    • Primitive Irish
    • Old Irish
    • Middle Irish
      
      • Irish
      • Scottish Gaelic
      • Manx
      
      
    
    
  
  

The question still remains, for celtic P or Q where did it start

[Taranis]

yes true , which is why you need to start with the continent and since the continental languages begin in 300BC and you say the isles is a branch of celtic , the question is who
"laid" the first celtic linguistic egg?

If it was the continent , then clearly the isles language was not truly celtic. If it was the isles, then this business that celtic originated in southern Germany is wrong

The terms "Insular" and "Continental" Celtic languages are mostly just geographic designations, though one of the Insular Celtic languages (Breton) is actually spoken on the continent. This has little to do with the actual relationship between the Celtic languages, since the Brythonic languages are P-Celtic languages (like Gaulish and Galatian), whereas Goidelic (like Celtiberian) is Q-Celtic.

Anyways, in terms of features, the distinction (very broadly) goes as follows:

The Continental Celtic languages have an SVO order (subject-verb-object) and an elaborate declension system (akin to Latin, Greek or Sanskrit), whereas the Insular Celtic languages have VSO order (verb-subject-object) and largely made away with the declension system, and developed very unique features such as inflected prepositions and initial consonant mutations. However, it's clear that this is a later innovation of the Insular Celtic languages, because Oghamic Irish is essentially Continental Celtic in character, and often it's declension forms are identical to those of Gaulish.

Also, the oldest attestations of continental Celtic languages are actually from the 6th century BC (Lepontic).

[Sile]

The terms "Insular" and "Continental" Celtic languages are mostly just geographic designations, though one of the Insular Celtic languages (Breton) is actually spoken on the continent. This has little to do with the actual relationship between the Celtic languages, since the Brythonic languages are P-Celtic languages (like Gaulish and Galatian), whereas Goidelic (like Celtiberian) is Q-Celtic.

Anyways, in terms of features, the distinction (very broadly) goes as follows:

The Continental Celtic languages have an SVO order (subject-verb-object) and an elaborate declension system (akin to Latin, Greek or Sanskrit), whereas the Insular Celtic languages have VSO order (verb-subject-object) and largely made away with the declension system, and developed very unique features such as inflected prepositions and initial consonant mutations. However, it's clear that this is a later innovation of the Insular Celtic languages, because Oghamic Irish is essentially Continental Celtic in character, and often it's declension forms are identical to those of Gaulish.

Also, the oldest attestations of continental Celtic languages are actually from the 6th century BC (Lepontic).

As i suspected, 6th century BC by the lepontic in the Italian alps. Which would mean the isles would have spoken there own language which was later modified by celtic vocabulary and then associated as an insular celtic tongue.

Puts an end to the theory of western areas as a starting point for celtic

[Taranis]

As i suspected, 6th century BC by the lepontic in the Italian alps. Which would mean the isles would have spoken there own language which was later modified by celtic vocabulary and then associated as an insular celtic tongue.

Well, as for who "layed the first egg", it's hard to say: I would personally argue for an origin of the P-Celtic languages in southern Central Europe (due to the absence of Q-Celtic languages in the east) and a subsequent spread to Atlantic France and Britain, whereas Q-Celtic languages survived in Ireland and Iberia. Where Proto-Celtic was spoken is a matter of hot dispute. I maintain however:

- there was an earlier and/or more thorough Celtization of the British Isles than of Iberia due to the numerous presence of non-Indo-European languages (Basque, Iberian, possibly Tartessian) on the Iberian penninsula in Antiquity, and the complete absence of non-Celtic languages on the British Isles at the same time. I think that this is a significant signal, and that the different terrain of Britain and Iberia does not explain the whole story.

- There is a strong 'Para-Celtic' element (Lusitanian, and possibly other languages, according to Eugenio R. Luján Martínez) in western Iberia which in my opinion predates the arrival of the Celtic languages. However, at the same time the Celtiberian language is a very distinct language that is generally considered the first branch of the Celtic languages to have diverged.

Puts an end to the theory of western areas as a starting point for celtic

Not directly. By the time the Celtic languages are attested, they are already diversified (Lepontic is P-Celtic). I would argue however that the presence of non-Indo-European and otherwise non-Celtic languages is a good argument that an area was not the starting point.

[spongetaro]

- there was an earlier and/or more tho



Not directly. By the time the Celtic languages are attested, they are already diversified (Lepontic is P-Celtic). I would argue however that the presence of non-Indo-European and otherwise non-Celtic languages is a good argument that an area was not the starting point.

We consider Caucasus to be the starting point of IE languages, still there are non IE languages in the Caucasus.

[Taranis]

We consider Caucasus to be the starting point of IE languages, still there are non IE languages in the Caucasus.

Well, do we? If we go by the Kurgan hypothesis, I would say the Pontic-Caspian steppe, rather than the Caucasus. In any case, disregarding that, everybody (except for people who would argue for a Paleolithic continuity of Indo-European, which is a minority view that is quite in conflict with a lot of evidence) should agree that the Celtic (and more broadly non-Indo-European) languages are not native to Western Europe. From that perspective, we would expect non-Indo-European languages to have been spoken there at least at one point. If the Iberian penninsula was the starting point of the Celtic languages, we would expect it to be most thoroughly Celticized region since it has the longest Celtic language tradition, wouldn't we?

[spongetaro]

Well, do we? If we go by the Kurgan hypothesis, I would say the Pontic-Caspian steppe, rather than the Caucasus. In any case, disregarding that, everybody (except for people who would argue for a Paleolithic continuity of Indo-European, which is a minority view that is quite in conflict with a lot of evidence) should agree that the Celtic (and more broadly non-Indo-European) languages are not native to Western Europe. From that perspective, we would expect non-Indo-European languages to have been spoken there at least at one point. If the Iberian penninsula was the starting point of the Celtic languages, we would expect it to be most thoroughly Celticized region since it has the longest Celtic language tradition, wouldn't we?

Imagine that a certain region of Iberia (western and central Iberia) suddendly spread the Celtic languages northward but that part of the Peninsula remains non-Celtic.
Compare it with the spread of Buddhism. Buddhism was created in India but was most successful in other countries (Thailand, Japan). We don't expect India to be the most buddhist country because it originated there.
Look at Christianism. We don't expect near east to be the most Christian area of the world because it originated there.

I read on DNA forum that they've found high levels of L11* in Portugal. This could be an evidence of early IE move in the area (Bell beakers?).

[Taranis]

Imagine that a certain region of Iberia (western and central Iberia) suddendly spread the Celtic languages northward but that part of the Peninsula remains non-Celtic.
Compare it with the spread of Buddhism. Buddhism was created in India but was most successful in other countries (Thailand, Japan). We don't expect India to be the most buddhist country because it originated there.
Look at Christianism. We don't expect near east to be the most Christian area of the world because it originated there.

Well, you definitely have a about these comparisons, but for this scenario to work out (especially the India analogy), we would expect the Iberian penninsula at one point to have been predominantly Celtic, and this would (potentialy) require that Para-Celtic and non-Indo-European languages arrived later (or expanded later towards the positions they have in Antiquity). And I'm quite sceptical of that.

I read on DNA forum that they've found high levels of L11* in Portugal. This could be an evidence of early IE move in the area (Bell beakers?).

I'm personally divided about that. I must add this: for a while, I was definitely was a strong proponent of the idea that Beaker-Bell spread R1b as well as the Indo-European languages in Western Europe, but as of lately I have become very sceptic of that. The main linguistic argument is the presence of non-Indo-European words for metals and metal-working in the Basque languages. This is something that should not be expected if metal-working in the Atlantic region was originally spread by Indo-Europeans. In contrast, there are Indo-European loans amongst the Finnic languages for metals, as is to be expected due to early contact with Indo-Europeans. My conclusion is that either the Basques arrived later from somewhere else (the more unlikely option in my opinion, due to the fact that Basque is an isolate language with no clearly demonstrable relationship to another language family, and we have a number of demonstrable language relationships that are considerably older), or that we must assume the existence of a non-Indo-European culture in Western Europe that spread metal-working. For the latter, the Beaker-Bell Culture is the only sensible candidate in my opinion. There is the additionally complicating issue (noted by the late Vascologist R. L. Trask) that there are surprisingly few loans from Celtic into Basque, and indeed most Indo-European loans into Basque are Latin or Romance. So, my conclusion is that while we cannot ad-hoc rule out from current data that Beaker-Bell was indeed Indo-European, I think that if it was Indo-European it makes the 'Basque problem' (and it isn't just a Basque problem, since we also have Iberian and Tartessian attested in Antiquity) even worse and even more inexplicable because we are forced to explain how the Basque language ended up with non-Indo-European terms for metals and metal-working.

The studies I have seen (Myres, Busby), L11* is very rare in Western Europe as a whole. There appares to be a lot of S116* in Iberia, but I personally suspect that much of Iberian S116 actually belongs to the recently-discovered subclade Z196. While we are at Y-DNA, there is also the relative abundance of G2a, J1, E1b and T in western Iberia.

EDIT:
Below is a small list of Basque terms that visualize the problem:

hammer - gabi
forge - sutegi
lead - beruna
smith - (h)arotz
blacksmith - olagizon
iron - burdina

[MOESAN]

[QUOTE=Diviacus;370851]I quite agree with your post, but :



Even if Gaulish and Latin were similar, Caesar required interpreters to understang the Gauls or to be understood from them, which tends to mean it was not so easy to pass from a language to the other one.


to go further on latin and celtic gaulish connections, they are not very tighter than their connectiosn with proto-germanic languages, quickly said : western I-E languages - but by no mean was it possible for an italic speaker (a lot of difficulties of understanding between latin and osco-ombrien languages yet!) to undertstand a celtic speaker, maybe already 800 years B.C., and sure at the Julius Caesar time !!! in place or searching the few understandable words of common origin, we have to search the everyday life needed words an compare: no way to go very farwitjout aninterprete -
big problems: loss of common words + I-E 'P' fall in celtic + lenition in celtic + 'Kw' >> 'P' in gaulish and brythonic + I-E *BH >> B in celtic+germanic but >> F in latin and so on and so on...
latin was adopted by the big majority of the countries conquered by Rome thank to the system of social promotion instaured by the Empire for the vanquished elites (to become roman citizen) and the military and commercial net - South Germany, Belgia, lot of Britannia, of Iberia, Romania, Norica, and other lands that lost the latin for the great historic invasions, all of this countries was almost entirely latinized: it's not by force but by organization and time maybe 400 for Gaul - celtic languages was spoken in Switzerland and Bohemia after that yet, according to some scholars, and perhasp in western Aremorica ... the lands that keeped their language was the most remote ones, outside the core of the big commercial traffic.

[MOESAN]

Well, that Urnfield wasn't homogenous is clear (the best examples the Urnfields in Catalonia, in an area that is later on inhabited by the non-Indo-European Iberians).

OK with your answers as a whole (good based) but even if a believe that Urnfields cultures was not homogenous, what push you to conclude the Urnfields was only a cultural movement on the only basis of Iberians occupying a previous Urnfield culture zone? I'm sure of nothing and I ask you: do you know if Iberians of Catalunia keep on the Urnfield way of burying?
I ask that because:
1- I red that Urnfields developments could have implied demic movements (even if not big invasions: I think in R1b-U152 in central Italy and western Poland and the possible tiny links between Urnfields of Villanova and of Lusace, some 'corded' phenotypes in western France at the same periods in nevertheless a poor Urnfield region
2- I red at the contrary that iberization of North Catalunia and South Languedoc implied very poor demic movements
waiting to read you, good evening and good brain storm .

[Taranis]

OK with your answers as a whole (good based) but even if a believe that Urnfields cultures was not homogenous, what push you to conclude the Urnfields was only a cultural movement on the only basis of Iberians occupying a previous Urnfield culture zone? I'm sure of nothing and I ask you: do you know if Iberians of Catalunia keep on the Urnfield way of burying?
I ask that because:
1- I red that Urnfields developments could have implied demic movements (even if not big invasions: I think in R1b-U152 in central Italy and western Poland and the possible tiny links between Urnfields of Villanova and of Lusace, some 'corded' phenotypes in western France at the same periods in nevertheless a poor Urnfield region
2- I red at the contrary that iberization of North Catalunia and South Languedoc implied very poor demic movements
waiting to read you, good evening and good brain storm .

The problem with the Iberians is this: if we look to the north, the evidence for Iberian place names only extends towards the Roussillon (Elne, which is called "Iliberris" by Ptolemy). In the south and west, the evidence extends as far as the southern central meseta and eastern Andalusia (Granada). It's very clear that the Iberians did not enter Iberia from north.

[zanipolo]

OK with your answers as a whole (good based) but even if a believe that Urnfields cultures was not homogenous, what push you to conclude the Urnfields was only a cultural movement on the only basis of Iberians occupying a previous Urnfield culture zone? I'm sure of nothing and I ask you: do you know if Iberians of Catalunia keep on the Urnfield way of burying?
I ask that because:
1- I red that Urnfields developments could have implied demic movements (even if not big invasions: I think in R1b-U152 in central Italy and western Poland and the possible tiny links between Urnfields of Villanova and of Lusace, some 'corded' phenotypes in western France at the same periods in nevertheless a poor Urnfield region
2- I red at the contrary that iberization of North Catalunia and South Languedoc implied very poor demic movements
waiting to read you, good evening and good brain storm .

I recently read similar from modern historians saying basically than iberians where from murcia to western montpellier, next to them was the ligurians from montpellier to the eastern alps, then next to them was the luburni.
The Ligurian Elisices tribe where neighbours of the iberian Sordones tribe in Languedoc

The iberians mixed with the ligurians in corsica.
This is mid bronze age.

Some historians even say that the iberians, ligurians and luburnians are all from the same tribe.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_kMODKN1odwC&pg=PA251&dq=iberians+and+lig urians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cln0ToqnKvDxmAWbp9moAg&ved=0C DYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q= ligurians&f=false



and another book

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...age&q=iberians and ligurians&f=false
see page 268

[MOESAN]

The problem with the Iberians is this: if we look to the north, the evidence for Iberian place names only extends towards the Roussillon (Elne, which is called "Iliberris" by Ptolemy). In the south and west, the evidence extends as far as the southern central meseta and eastern Andalusia (Granada). It's very clear that the Iberians did not enter Iberia from north.

in my mind the Iberians was coming from South, as you say
a lot of questions (I have not the answers)
-even these names like Iliberris: are they sure Ibérian names ?- could they not be linked to Aquitanians?
-was the Iberians rulers in South France/Rossillô a numerous population or only an elite?
-I haven't had a response for the burying: did they keep on with the Urnfields use or did they change it?

concerning languages I'm not convinced by the extreme theories: paleolitic celtic or too recent celtic in Britain and Ireland - and the theory saying ancient goidelic and ancient brythonic was very similar and that brythonic was very apart from gaulish have to be proved - at the contrariy some ancients said that this two last languages was very close one togther (could we rely on the linguisitc competences of these ancients? - but I red somewhere Cesar said there was no need of interprete between Britons and Gauls)
concerning Picts and old Britons, it seams that the northern Britons had the same habits than the Picts (colouring their body in blue and other ) - the most "culturally advanced" Britons would have been the last arrived ones: Belgae? closer to Gauls in they way of life...

[Taranis]

in my mind the Iberians was coming from South, as you say
a lot of questions (I have not the answers)
-even these names like Iliberris: are they sure Ibérian names ?- could they not be linked to Aquitanians?
-was the Iberians rulers in South France/Rossillô a numerous population or only an elite?
-I haven't had a response for the burying: did they keep on with the Urnfields use or did they change it?

Well, the relationship between Basque and Iberian is unclear, but what is clear is that there is a shared Basque/Iberian vocabulary. Wether these are Basque loanwords into Iberia, or the other way round, or Basque and Iberian are part of the same language family is not (yet) known.


As for the Roussillon, it would seem that the Gauls expanded into a formerly Iberian area.


From what I know, the Iberians did practice Urnfield-styled cremation.

concerning languages I'm not convinced by the extreme theories: paleolitic celtic or too recent celtic in Britain and Ireland - and the theory saying ancient goidelic and ancient brythonic was very similar and that brythonic was very apart from gaulish have to be proved - at the contrariy some ancients said that this two last languages was very close one togther (could we rely on the linguisitc competences of these ancients? - but I red somewhere Cesar said there was no need of interprete between Britons and Gauls)

Well, the Celtic languages are clearly not Paleolithic. Since the core vocubulary of Proto-Indo-European is only from the copper age, it's hardly possible for the Celtic languages to be any older than that.

There are two rivaling concepts about the relationship of the Celtic languages to each other: Insular Celtic vs. P-Celtic.


The Insular Celtic hypothesis points out that there's many features such as verb-subject-object word order and inflected prepositions which are found nowhere in other Indo-European languages, and were absent in the Contintal Celtic languages (Celtiberian and Gaulish), which were much more like other ancient IE languages such as Greek or Sanskrit.


The P-Celtic hypothesis states that Brythonic and Gaulish are closer to each other, in particular due to the common innovation of *kw > *p (compare Latin "quattuor" and Old Irish "cethair" with Gaulish "petuarios" and Welsh "pedwar"), but also other common sound laws not found in Goidelic or Celtiberian.


What both hypotheses concede is that Celtiberian is the first branch of Celtic to diverge: there are innovations found in Celtiberian not found in the other Celtic languages.


The problem is that the Insular Celtic hypothesis requires that Brythonic was later on influenced by Gaulish, whereas the P-Celtic hypothesis requires that the "Insular Celtic" features are a later common innovation of Goidelic and Brythonic.


My opinion is probably that the P-Celtic hypothesis is more correct, and that the "insular Celtic" features probably only arose during the Dark Ages due to a common sprachbund. Possible evidence for this is the archaic Irish language that is recorded in the Ogham inscriptions, which often exhibit identical declension forms to Gaulish.

concerning Picts and old Britons, it seams that the northern Britons had the same habits than the Picts (colouring their body in blue and other ) - the most "culturally advanced" Britons would have been the last arrived ones: Belgae? closer to Gauls in they way of life...

Well, I agree that the concept of the "Picts" is probably a result of the Hadrian's Wall and that there was not much a difference between the "Picts" and the Britons otherwise.

[MOESAN]

Well, the relationship between Basque and Iberian is unclear, but what is clear is that there is a shared Basque/Iberian vocabulary. Wether these are Basque loanwords into Iberia, or the other way round, or Basque and Iberian are part of the same language family is not (yet) known.


As for the Roussillon, it would seem that the Gauls expanded into a formerly Iberian area.


From what I know, the Iberians did practice Urnfield-styled cremation.





Well, the Celtic languages are clearly not Paleolithic. Since the core vocubulary of Proto-Indo-European is only from the copper age, it's hardly possible for the Celtic languages to be any older than that.

There are two rivaling concepts about the relationship of the Celtic languages to each other: Insular Celtic vs. P-Celtic.


The Insular Celtic hypothesis points out that there's many features such as verb-subject-object word order and inflected prepositions which are found nowhere in other Indo-European languages, and were absent in the Contintal Celtic languages (Celtiberian and Gaulish), which were much more like other ancient IE languages such as Greek or Sanskrit.


The P-Celtic hypothesis states that Brythonic and Gaulish are closer to each other, in particular due to the common innovation of *kw > *p (compare Latin "quattuor" and Old Irish "cethair" with Gaulish "petuarios" and Welsh "pedwar"), but also other common sound laws not found in Goidelic or Celtiberian.


What both hypotheses concede is that Celtiberian is the first branch of Celtic to diverge: there are innovations found in Celtiberian not found in the other Celtic languages.


The problem is that the Insular Celtic hypothesis requires that Brythonic was later on influenced by Gaulish, whereas the P-Celtic hypothesis requires that the "Insular Celtic" features are a later common innovation of Goidelic and Brythonic.


My opinion is probably that the P-Celtic hypothesis is more correct, and that the "insular Celtic" features probably only arose during the Dark Ages due to a common sprachbund. Possible evidence for this is the archaic Irish language that is recorded in the Ogham inscriptions, which often exhibit identical declension forms to Gaulish.





Well, I agree that the concept of the "Picts" is probably a result of the Hadrian's Wall and that there was not much a difference between the "Picts" and the Britons otherwise.

usefull post - thanks for the answer about 'urnfields' way of burying amongst Iberians (at what time?) -

not to reply you but to show some (no)correspondances between gaulish and latin, I put here a short list of words (sometimes the cases endings was not clear for gaulish words and I dropped them and I put some synonymes to show that I was not looking for artificial differences or trying to magnify them - it's a very late reply to the beginning of this topic -
have good feasts

GAULISH	LATIN
cattos	feles	cat
ibos?- eburos	taxus	yew
camba	curvus	curve
talo	frons, frontis	forehead, front
tâxo	meles	badger
caliavos	lepillus, silex	little stone
briga	altitudo, munimentum	hill, height,
brog	regio-nis, pagus	country, region
magos	campus, planities	plain, open fields
lanon	terra, planities	plain, open fields
math	sus, suis, porcus	pig
nanto	vallis, vallicula	valley, dale
novios	novus, recens	new
seno	vetus, senilis	old
(s)asiam	secale	rye
mâros	magnus, procerus	big, large
medio	medium, medius	half, middle
epos, marca-	equus, caballus	horse
are	prae, ante	ahead
ver	super	on
vindo	albus, candidus	white
rix	rex, regis	king
isarno	ferrum	iron
carruca	aratrum	plough
verno	alnus	elder tree ?
mori	mare	sea
upsello/uxello	summus, superior	high, superior
nerto/naritu	vires	strenght
-samo	-issim	superlatif
sonno	sol, solis	sun
vidu	arbor, lignum	wood, timber
bud	victoria, praeda	victory, win,
tutto	gens, gentis	people, folk
gabros	capra	goat
labar-	loquor-	speak-
ambi	circum, circa	around
isca, dobro-	aqua	water
bona	terminus, fines,	boundary stone
cladios	ensis, gladius	sword
ritom	vadum (portus)	ford
genos?- gnatos	natus	born
pennos	caput, capitis	head
garr-*	crus, cruris	leg
cavan-	noctua, bubo, bubonis	chat-huant
bron-	pectus, sinus	bossom
braca-	bracae	breeches
druto	spissus, densus	dense (thick,fat...)
nemeton	templum, fanum, aedes	temple
tarvos	taurus	bull
allo	alius, alter	other
sedlon	sedes, sella	seat
bardos	poeta, bardus	bard, poet
gaesa	lancea	lance
ratis	filix, filicis	fern
doula	folium	leaf
betulla	betulla	birch
beccos	rostrum, culmen	beak, tip, peak
leuga	leuca
carpentom	plaustrum	cart
cambi-	mutat-, permutat-	(ex)change-
cocos, rud	ruber, rutilus, cocus ?	red
treicle	pes,pedis	foot
aballo	malum	apple
doro	janua, ostium, porta	dor
trebo	tribus	folk, tribe
berula	cardamina, nasturcium	watercress
brucos	myrica	heather
blato	frumenta, triticum, farina	wheat, meal
bedo-	fossa (sepulcrum?)	dith, grave
artos	ursus	bear
abonna	flumen, amniculus	river
ander	vacca	cow
catu	pugna, proelium	fight
vobera	plaustria	marsh
benno	acume, vertex	tip, peak
cumba	vallicula	small dry valley
biber	fiber, castor	beaver
bag	fagus, faginum	beek
ambactos	obses, obsidis	servant, hostage
anuana	nomen	name
allos	secundus, alter	second, other
matu	bonus	good
ater-	pater	father
bnanom<<ban-	femina, mulier	woman
curmi	cervisia	beer, ale
cert-	recte, justus	right
cintux	primus	first
da	da-	give !
dios	dies	day
duxtir + gnata	filla + nata	daughter + born
eti	item, quoque	also, too
exo	praeter, excepta	excepted
mapo-, gnate	filius, natu	son
in	in	in
isoc	sic, ita	like, as
carata*	amata	loved (fem.)
bratu*	judictum, sententia	judgment
lubi	ama-	love !
lugos	corvus	raven, crow
matir	mater	mother
nane	fames	hunger
nepi/nepon	quidam, aliquis	somebody
nu	nunc	now
ponc	quando	when
regu-	offerre, praebere, da-	offer, give
rigan-	regina	queen
toncnaman	jus jurandum	oath, pledge
vo	sub	under
vero		superior

[Estel]

The Basques are another good example of the difficulty of imposing a completely different language on a population. Although all the surrounding Celtic speakers quickly adopted Latin, the Basques, whose language is not part of the Indo-European family, retained their language up to the present day.

The theory might work with the Basques, but not with Iberians -as it's been mentioned before-, despite being a more homogeneous group, a relatively more solid culture and occupying a larger area. Even when taking into consideration that the Basque Pyrenean corner is a more inaccessible place, it is a bit surprising.

The problem with the Iberians is this: if we look to the north, the evidence for Iberian place names only extends towards the Roussillon (Elne, which is called "Iliberris" by Ptolemy). In the south and west, the evidence extends as far as the southern central meseta and eastern Andalusia (Granada). It's very clear that the Iberians did not enter Iberia from north.

In my opinion, I concur with the theory of Iberians being a late (7th/6th BC) political expansion of the eastern brothers/cousins of Basco-Aquitanians, spreading from the low eastern Pyrenean area southwards, instead of the other way round, as it has ofteen been thought before.

[Maciamo]

The theory might work with the Basques, but not with Iberians -as it's been mentioned before-, despite being a more homogeneous group, a relatively more solid culture and occupying a larger area. Even when taking into consideration that the Basque Pyrenean corner is a more inaccessible place, it is a bit surprising.

In my opinion, I concur with the theory of Iberians being a late (7th/6th BC) political expansion of the eastern brothers/cousins of Basco-Aquitanians, spreading from the low eastern Pyrenean area southwards, instead of the other way round, as it has ofteen been thought before.

I don't really see how nor why the Basco-Aquitanian language would have expanded to the Mediterranean coast of Spain at the time of the Carthaginian colonisation of this very coast. If Iberian language was related to Basco-Aquitanian at all (a big if), the expansion of the ancestral language was probably Neolithic, and nothing says that the expansion was necessarily from the Pyrenees to the eastern coast of Spain. It could have been the other way round, or from another extinct source (central Iberia, southern France, Sardinia, or even further away like the Levant).

Going back to the Indo-Europeanization of Iberia, it seems that the (Proto-)Celts of the early Bronze Age failed to impose their language not just over the Basque and Aquitanians, but also over all Mediterranean Iberia. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that (Proto-)Celtic was spoken in Iberia before the Iron Age, with the La Tène expansion of the Celts to Northeast Iberia. Iberian was still spoken when the Romans arrived. It was the Romanisation that eventually obliterated Iberian language around the 2nd century.

I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions. As I have explained in the R1b history and in this post, the survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages. Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women. After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

[spongetaro]

I don't really see how nor why the Basco-Aquitanian language would have expanded to the Mediterranean coast of Spain at the time of the Carthaginian colonisation of this very coast. If Iberian language was related to Basco-Aquitanian at all (a big if), the expansion of the ancestral language was probably Neolithic, and nothing says that the expansion was necessarily from the Pyrenees to the eastern coast of Spain. It could have been the other way round, or from another extinct source (central Iberia, southern France, Sardinia, or even further away like the Levant). Going back to the Indo-Europeanization of Iberia, it seems that the (Proto-)Celts of the early Bronze Age failed to impose their language not just over the Basque and Aquitanians, but also over all Mediterranean Iberia. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that (Proto-)Celtic was spoken in Iberia before the Iron Age, with the La Tène expansion of the Celts to Northeast Iberia. Iberian was still spoken when the Romans arrived. It was the Romanisation that eventually obliterated Iberian language around the 2nd century. I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions. As I have explained in the R1b history and in this post, the survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages. Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women. After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

This scenario doesn't explain why places such as Greece, Iran and Anatolia became places where IE languages were spoken. The R1b or R1a invaders must have been a minority too there (including their wifes).

And SRY2627 might be an evidence that Iberians and Aquitanians were indeed related. Note that 3 R1b have been also found among medieval Guanches (1000 AD) which might signify that R1b is not necessary linked with proto Celts. Actually the answer for the supposed link between R1b and Proto Italo-Celtic speakers is in the distribution and variance of Z196. If the highest Z196 variance appears to be in Western Europe (like other P312 subclades) it would be problematic to associate it with Proto Italo Celtic speakers.

[Maciamo]

This scenario doesn't explain why places such as Greece, Iran and Anatolia became places where IE languages were spoken. The R1b or R1a invaders must have been a minority too there (including their wifes).

Perhaps because

1) Greece, Anatolia and Iran, were closer to the IE homeland and sustained a constant flux of IE invasions that prevented the language family to die (although it eventually did in Anatolia)

and

2) probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference.

From the time writing was invented, literate societies had much easier to impose their language over illiterate ones. That's also why European languages spread so well in the Americas and Africa, even in regions were Europeans colonists were only a tiny minority.

Conversely, the more literate a society becomes (in terms of literacy rate and percentage of culture associated to written texts) the harder it gets for foreign conquerors/colonists to replace their language. This is basically why :

- the Greeks failed to establish their language beyond the administration in the Middle East in the centuries of Hellenisation that followed Alexander's conquest.
- the Romans managed to impose Latin on mostly illiterate societies like the Celts and Dacians, but failed in literate societies like Greece, Anatolia, the Middle East and North Africa.
- mostly illiterate Germanic tribes adopted Latin after conquering the Western Roman Empire, rather than the other way round.
- European languages survived colonisation in the Americas, even in advanced but functionally illiterate societies like the Aztecs and Incas, and Africa, but not really in literate Asian societies (e.g. French is hardly spoken anymore in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, a mere 60 years after the end of the French colonial rule), except those that used the colonial language as a lingua franca between various ethnic groups (India, Malaysia and Singapore).

[spongetaro]

Perhaps because 1) Greece, Anatolia and Iran, were closer to the IE homeland and sustained a constant flux of IE invasions that prevented the language family to die (although it eventually did in Anatolia), and 2) probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference. From the time writing was invented, literate societies had much easier to impose their language over illiterate ones. That's also why European languages spread so well in the Americas and Africa, even in regions were Europeans colonists were only a tiny minority.

You should include that fact in your R1b history. This is also a reason for the spread of Latin in the western Empire.

[Diviacus]

... probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference.

From the time writing was invented, literate societies had much easier to impose their language over illiterate ones. That's also why European languages spread so well in the Americas and Africa, even in regions were Europeans colonists were only a tiny minority.
...
- the Romans managed to impose Latin on mostly illiterate societies like the Celts and Dacians, but failed in literate societies like Greece, Anatolia, the Middle East and North Africa.

This doesn't explain why neither the Roman, nor the "French" have not been able to replace the Basque language.
The Basques were not more "literate" than the Celts.
So if there is a special strength of the Basque culture to explain why it could resist for 2000 years, it can also explain it has been able to resist to the Celtic language.