Did Latin merge with Celtic languages to form Romance languages ?

[spongetaro]

Perhaps because

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.

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 :

You're contardicting yourself. If these regions were already literate, why did they adopt the language of iliterate people (the IE invaders)?

mostly illiterate Germanic tribes adopted Latin after conquering the Western Roman Empire, rather than the other way round

Then why mostly iliterate Indo Iranic tribes didn't adopt Elamite language after conquering present day Iran?

[Maciamo]

You're contardicting yourself. If these regions were already literate, why did they adopt the language of iliterate people (the IE invaders)?

We obviously don't know all the details of how things happened, but my guess is that at the time of the IE invasions, literacy was very piecemeal in Greece, Anatolia and Iran.

In the case of Greece, the Mycenaeans imported the Minoan script (Linear B) from Crete, which wasn't really used on the mainland before. Therefore they effectively conquered an illiterate society and immediately imposed their language on the local population by adopting a new writing system.

The (rather brief) success of Hittite, which was written in cuneiform, was surely due to its very close proximity to the IE homeland.

Iranian tribes might have been literate before they conquered what is now called Iran. I am not sure exactly when the Avestan script first appeared, but Vedic Sanskrit as a language dates from around 2000 BCE, and the oldest written texts from at least 1500 BCE (although there might very well be older texts which were lost). I admit not knowing the exact chronology of languages spoken in Iran since the early Bronze Age, or when Iranian languages became dominant in the region. But I know that there were many Iranic invasions from Central Asia (Gutians, Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Cyrtians, Parthians), which all contributed to the survival of Iranian languages (Persian, Pashto, Balochi, Kurdish, Lurish) in the region today.

As for Elamite, it seems that it was still widely used in the Achaemenid Persian period (550–330 BCE), which proves that written languages die harder than non-written ones, even after 2000 years of rule by speakers of a completely different language. AFAIK, Elamite was never spoken in all of what is now Iran, but only in the Southwest.

[zanipolo]

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.

Regardless of which form of literacy the tribes had pre IE introduction, they did the function of communication. So, they where to this degree equal to the IE languages.
If IE languages dominated it was due to either because it was a superior form of literacy or that the IE languages was a trading language and easier to learn.

Latin only dominated in europe in a language sense due to commerce/trade, the Romans never insisted that the other languages could not be spoken. other trade langauges would have been celtic, venetic, gallic, balto-slavic etc etc


basque language is equal to any language, today or yesterday

[Franco]

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.

Considering that the Basque language was spoken in a territory much bigger than it is nowadays, and now that territory is fully Romance speaking I would not say it has resisted that well. Even in the Basque country main cities like Bilbao have been predominantly Romance since the Middle Ages. In my opinion Basque has survived for the same reason the North of Spain in general was less romanised than other parts and later on never arabised: relative geographical isolation, lack of interest of foreign powers in controlling that territory tightly due to lack of resources, which left more freedom for indigenous culture to persist, etc. Interestly enough the Romans considered that among all the Roman provinces Aquitanians spoke Latin better than the rest, even the Romans themselves. Aquitanian is considered nowadays to be a form of ancient Basque, but only a tiny part of Aquitaine is Basque speaking nowadays in France, the one closer to the Pyrenees and thus more isolated. It happens exactly the same with the Celtic languages. They only persisted in the westermost parts of Europe and less accesible. Their geographical situation acted as shelter from the expansion of Latin and Germanic languages.

[LeBrok]

Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?
I would say close to zero. Mostly because there was no need or time to learn. There were no public schools nor funds for it, writing is not needed to do farming or herding, kids worked hard from the day they could, there were no newspapers, sport sections to enjoy, and handwritten books costed a fortune.
From lower classes only richer merchants could afford teachers for kids, and needed writing to keep records of big inventory and to track money.

I would say that the language shift is more related to ratio of invaders to locals, and whether invasion was permanent or only temporary. Also when languages are related it is much easier for locals to learn new language.

One of very important factors might be the way invaders mixed with locals. Did they settle in local villages as farmers and herders, or they built their own separated settlements?

Interesting thing would be the influence of invaders language used as lingua franca over local population consisted of many different tribes and languages. The way english is used in Singapore and India these days.

[Yetos]

well in the case of ancient civilisations

Egypt indeed was a class

but in Makedonia we find katadesmos,
meaning low class knew to write and read
Athens we know that majority could read
more than 80 % could read basic, example the Ερμαι stele dedicated to Hermes
but only 40-50% could write,

on the other hand we find so many onogurs in Europe,
why only few millions speak that language?

cause sometimes alphabet was stronger than sword,

[zanipolo]

Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?
I would say close to zero. Mostly because there was no need or time to learn. There were no public schools nor funds for it, writing is not needed to do farming or herding, kids worked hard from the day they could, there were no newspapers, sport sections to enjoy, and handwritten books costed a fortune.
From lower classes only richer merchants could afford teachers for kids, and needed writing to keep records of big inventory and to track money.

I would say that the language shift is more related to ratio of invaders to locals, and whether invasion was permanent or only temporary. Also when languages are related it is much easier for locals to learn new language.

One of very important factors might be the way invaders mixed with locals. Did they settle in local villages as farmers and herders, or they built their own separated settlements?

Interesting thing would be the influence of invaders language used as lingua franca over local population consisted of many different tribes and languages. The way english is used in Singapore and India these days.

well dante, wrote in many of his books, that the regional languages in Italy established themselves around, 500AD, he said it grew from the community in there own area with their own original language mixed with latin to be a Vulgar Latin.
He then gathered information to create the Italian Language around the 13th century. ( 700 years after the regional ones )
He said he only did this, because while the nobles, still spoke Latin, the merchants and artisans spoke their own regional language - basically, Italian was created for the merchant class

In regards literacy, peasants are peasants the same over usually illiterate, but soldiers, merchants and artisans needed to know how to read and write from the ancient times, how else would you conduct business, trade, keep ledgers and stocks etc etc

[LeBrok]

well dante, wrote in many of his books, that the regional languages in Italy established themselves around, 500AD, he said it grew from the community in there own area with their own original language mixed with latin to be a Vulgar Latin.
He then gathered information to create the Italian Language around the 13th century

It is pretty much how I imagined the process of lingua franca. Vulgar latin, later Italian connecting all regions and classes. Villages are very stubborn and conservative when it comes to languages. Even with all the effort of intelligentsia, merchants and cities, I'm pretty sure many villages retained their languages till recent times, till national education and cultural integration of mas-media finished them off.

Understanding how Italian finally became dominant language in Italy, we should extrapolate this onto whole romance part of europe. It should be obvious that vulgar latin didn't do much for villages (90% of population), but was embraced in cultural and economical centers. As I said before, villagers didn't write books, thus we don't have a clue what language was spoken by most of population, even though we know very well what language elite spoke.
Languages never cared for political borders. We had few language centers in Iberia, few in France, few in Italy, with their strong influence on pronunciation and vocabulary. At the end the strongest centers spread their webs farther into the country, then at the end the strongest politically centers influenced their language over the rest of country by public education.
Now we have the last stage of language unification by cultural means like: movies, tv and music. Now the national language can get to villages, the last bastion of ancient languages and dialects.

In regards literacy, peasants are peasants the same over usually illiterate, but soldiers, merchants and artisans needed to know how to read and write from the ancient times, how else would you conduct business, trade, keep ledgers and stocks etc etc

Yes, the written words have origin in book keeping, when first cities started to grow on our planet.
I wouldn't have much hope in ordinary soldier knowing how to read till 19th century though. He just need to follow an order of a commander.

[LeBrok]

well in the case of ancient civilisations

Egypt indeed was a class

but in Makedonia we find katadesmos,
meaning low class knew to write and read
Athens we know that majority could read
more than 80 % could read basic, example the Ερμαι stele dedicated to Hermes
but only 40-50% could write,

on the other hand we find so many onogurs in Europe,
why only few millions speak that language?

cause sometimes alphabet was stronger than sword,

Yes, if it comes to Athenian/city citizens it is possible that your figures can be right. It doesn't change the fact that most greeks lived in villages and didn't have a need for reading and writing. What would they read, biblos?
Same could be similar to big none citizen class in Greece, women included. At the end we can say that 80-90% of population didn't read and write. It still could be 10 fold better in comparison to others with only 1% and less of literate populous.

[Maciamo]

Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?

When I say literate, I don't mean it in the modern sense that 99% to 100% of the population should be able to read and write. I mean that use of writing is widespread enough at least among the elite and administration in the whole country. Only a small percentage of the population of Ancient Greece and Rome could read, yet these were undeniably literate societies because they had written laws, written administrative documents, they developed a written literature, philosophy, etc.

In other words, literate means that the society had the knowledge and usage of writing, even if most people were illiterate.

I would say that the language shift is more related to ratio of invaders to locals, and whether invasion was permanent or only temporary. Also when languages are related it is much easier for locals to learn new language.

That doesn't explain how Greece shifted to an Indo-European language, when haplogroup frequencies shows that less than 10% of the ancient population was of Indo-European origin (if you exclude later arrivals of R1a and R1b through the Celts, Anatolians, Romans, Slavs, etc.).

One of very important factors might be the way invaders mixed with locals. Did they settle in local villages as farmers and herders, or they built their own separated settlements?

That's a good point, but in the case of the Indo-Europeans in the Bronze Age, I believe that they always took over as rulers (and therefore mixed through female lineages only) because of the very nature of Indo-European and Bronze Age culture, which was very hierarchical and patriarchal.

Interesting thing would be the influence of invaders language used as lingua franca over local population consisted of many different tribes and languages. The way english is used in Singapore and India these days.

It may indeed have happened with Indo-European languages, which is one way of explaining their fast spread. But Y-DNA shows that in most cases most male were replaced by Indo-European ones too. So the language shift also involved a (partial) population shift.

[Maciamo]

but in Makedonia we find katadesmos,
meaning low class knew to write and read
Athens we know that majority could read
more than 80 % could read basic, example the Ερμαι stele dedicated to Hermes
but only 40-50% could write,

You are referring to Athenian society at one particular moment of the Classical Antiquity (presumably its heyday). The shift from non-IE to IE language in Greece happened about 1500 years before that. The Mycenaeans were the first to diffuse the usage of writing for administration in continental Greece. I think it is one important factor in explaining why Mycenaean Greek wasn't absorbed by the indigenous language(s).

[Estel]

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.

The Carthaginian invasion took place at least two or three centuries later, on already Iberian territory.

If Iberian language was related to Basco-Aquitanian at all (a big if),

What has been deciphered so far already points to a relationship that seems to go far beyond a mere language contact scenario. Obviously it does not imply that we can translate Iberian via Basque or Aquitanian.

the expansion of the ancestral language was probably Neolithic,

That does not seem very plausible if we consider: 1, the attested presence of other linguistic substrata; 2, the homogeneity (lack of evident dialectalization) of the language; 3, no evidence of it before 6th aC

Iberianists concur with the big homogeneity of the language, from the Roussillon to Almeria. If Iberians had been living for so long in the eastern coast, dialectalization of the language should be more than obvious, even at the first stage of its decoding. Specially when we take into account that there was no real agglutinative power. The homogeneity is evident when comparing texts from such distant places, and what might even be more important, written on a variety of materials, an indicator of social homogeneity in the language too. That homogeneity effectively points at a late expansion, more political than cultural.

According to Villar, four linguistic strata are detected in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula before the Romans: 1, Bascoid; 2, Indo-European of the Southern-Ibero-Pyrenean type; 3, Celtiberian (within its well-known limits); 4, Iberian -this one being a clearly late superstratum, which would not have been able to eradicate the Indo-European stratum. This Southern-Ibero-Pyrenean substratum would be the oldest identifiable language layer in the Peninsula.

According to Ballester (2001), the Indo-European presence in Iberian territory must have been very very old, as that territory also shows material from the so-called ancient European or Paleo-European, attested in a hydronimy that is also shown abundantly in most of Europe, datable as a whole in Paleolythic times.

Most of the Iberian leads are posterior to the 6th century bC. But there is a Greek inscription from the 5th bC, a commercial document where a purchase of ships to Emporitans is mentioned, as well as the names of the witnesses, which are already definitely Iberian: Basigerros, Elerbas, Golobiur, Segedon, Nabarbas, Nalbeadin.

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).

I'd say that much of the consideration of a South-North expansion was based on the belief of a South-North spread of the Iberian writing systems, an issue not only still debated, but also partially debunked. There is more than a hint pointing at the reverse movement, a North-South spread of the script too, the origin having probably been in the very Emporitan territory, land of the oldest inscription attested (Ullastret) and area of abundant trading with the Greeks, already present there since the beginning of 6th bC.

[Taranis]

According to Villar, four linguistic strata are detected in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula before the Romans: 1, Bascoid; 2, Indo-European of the Southern-Ibero-Pyrenean type; 3, Celtiberian (within its well-known limits); 4, Iberian -this one being a clearly late superstratum, which would not have been able to eradicate the Indo-European stratum. This Southern-Ibero-Pyrenean substratum would be the oldest identifiable language layer in the Peninsula.

According to Ballester (2001), the Indo-European presence in Iberian territory must have been very very old, as that territory also shows material from the so-called ancient European or Paleo-European, attested in a hydronimy that is also shown abundantly in most of Europe, datable as a whole in Paleolythic times.

I must say that I have not the slightest idea where either Villar or Ballester take the claim from that there's an Indo-European substrate in eastern Iberia, because there is no evidence of Indo-European languages in eastern Iberia, apart from what appears to be a relatively recent intrusion of the Gauls into Aquitanian and Iberian-speaking areas. This is also in correlation with evidence from the Basque language: while Basque has a substantial amount of loanwords from Romance and Latin, there is only a very small amount of Celtic loanwords. There are no older Indo-European loanwords in Basque, and Basque has non-Indo-European words for metal-working, for instance. Thus, it is my opinion that the Basques didn't have any contact with Indo-Europeans until at least the bronze age, perhaps even the iron age. Otherwise we would see older strata of Indo-European loanwords in Basque.

As for the Basque/Iberian relationship, it is pretty unclear. My opinion is that the languages were not, or at least, probably not related, but that there was an extended contact between them. There is also a common "pool" of terms found in Basque/Aquitanian and Iberian, which may be either Basque loanwords into Iberian, or vice versa.

The claim that there were Indo-Europeans in Iberia since the Paleolithic makes no sense either, since Proto-Indo-European itself is a language of the Chalcolithic.

[Maciamo]

What has been deciphered so far already points to a relationship that seems to go far beyond a mere language contact scenario. Obviously it does not imply that we can translate Iberian via Basque or Aquitanian.

That does not seem very plausible if we consider: 1, the attested presence of other linguistic substrata; 2, the homogeneity (lack of evident dialectalization) of the language; 3, no evidence of it before 6th aC

Iberianists concur with the big homogeneity of the language, from the Roussillon to Almeria. If Iberians had been living for so long in the eastern coast, dialectalization of the language should be more than obvious, even at the first stage of its decoding. Specially when we take into account that there was no real agglutinative power. The homogeneity is evident when comparing texts from such distant places, and what might even be more important, written on a variety of materials, an indicator of social homogeneity in the language too. That homogeneity effectively points at a late expansion, more political than cultural.

According to Villar, four linguistic strata are detected in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula before the Romans: 1, Bascoid; 2, Indo-European of the Southern-Ibero-Pyrenean type; 3, Celtiberian (within its well-known limits); 4, Iberian -this one being a clearly late superstratum, which would not have been able to eradicate the Indo-European stratum. This Southern-Ibero-Pyrenean substratum would be the oldest identifiable language layer in the Peninsula.

What I meant was that Iberian was descended from a language which arrived or developed in Iberia in the Neolithic. Obviously the language would have evolved and diversified with time, and as if often the case one dialect would have become dominant and replaced other dialects (just look at how Latin replaced other Italic dialects, then Celtic ones). Iberian might have been part of the same linguistic family as Basco-Aquitanian, although by the 6th century BCE, one dialect would have expanded and replaced other dialects, giving an impression of uniformity and recent arrival. That does not contradict the hypothesis that Proto-Iberian could have been in East Iberia since the Neolithic.

According to Ballester (2001), the Indo-European presence in Iberian territory must have been very very old, as that territory also shows material from the so-called ancient European or Paleo-European, attested in a hydronimy that is also shown abundantly in most of Europe, datable as a whole in Paleolythic times.

A Palaeolithic origin of Indo-European in Iberia is close to impossible, unless everything we know about the history IE languages is wrong.

[Yetos]

You are referring to Athenian society at one particular moment of the Classical Antiquity (presumably its heyday). The shift from non-IE to IE language in Greece happened about 1500 years before that. The Mycenaeans were the first to diffuse the usage of writing for administration in continental Greece. I think it is one important factor in explaining why Mycenaean Greek wasn't absorbed by the indigenous language(s).

by what I see you are mentioning how non IE dwellers accepted IE language, and i quess you mean the Pelasgians,


well 4 answers,

1) the possible role of J2 HG in IE (can explain very well the southern corridor from France to India leaving outside the Germanic and Slavic)

2) an para-IE area before 2000 (hettit) next to non IE (Sesclo/dimini, Desphlio case)
meaning that IE living next to non IE at least from 4000 BC (continental and sea merchants cities)

3) the case of Driopes Kouretes etc
by the story/myth we learn that Groups from minor Asia passed from Greece and from there spread North to the Balkans and Central Europe


4) HG missing and low ratio due to eternal wars and Christianity cleansing
in that case surely we speak that many modern ratios are possibly imported after Alexander's march
considering that known villages in Makedonia were settled after the division and the later Achaian union vs Roman empire we find lack of free Greeks and usage of slaves as soldier,
if you know ancient Greek society, then you realize that when you use slave as soldier, that means you consider him as 'equal' ομοιοι , something above citizenship,
considering the after that christianity holocaust of Greeks as pagans, then you may understand a lot,

about the R1a in central Greece,
I still believe that is the primary Hellenic, not Mycenean HG
consider that Ellas has 2 meanings
1 is the Pelasgian El-La meaning stones and sun
2 is the IE Hell-as the eel people (Ελλυες Ελλανας river etc)

R1a is what Homers describes as Greeks



ALthough the case of Hettits is indded a solved case or a mystery,

a) Hettits might be original IE that rule and pass IE with Copper -iron swords, they need no alphabet.

b )Hettits might not IE but learn IE, since their grammar is very poor comparing other ancient known IE