Celtic - Serbian parallels

Status
Not open for further replies.
before falling under Roman empire Serbia was settled by Celtic Scordisci
I argue that part of those people moved up the Danube to Bohemia, from where in 6th century they came back Slavicized (unless they were Slavic(ized) even before)...

only historic source speaking of arrival of modern Serbs to Balkan says they came from land they call in own language Boika where they were called "white". Description of Boika being beyond Turkia (= Hungary of today) and neighbouring Frankia and white Croatia only maps land of Boii (hence Boika) that is Bohemia/Bavaria)..the historic source also clearly says that it is the location where they have also originally dwellt...

http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al...istrando imperio&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false

that is also clear from genetics...
I2a2 has local island of elevated frequences in Bohemia (2-3 times larger than in the rest of Czech republic) and it has higher molecular diversity in Bohemia and Serb populated lands

Bohemia is also perfect place to be source of all I2, as I2a1 is found south of it, I2b north of it, and I2a2 east of it...

btw. Scordisci spread to Serbia roughly from Bohemia area....
their zone of influence was along Danube from Bohemia to Greece...

from area of Scordisci came into Thrace and Asia minor Celtic Serdi who later became Thracian...
Serdi is in my opinion just Thracian version of tribal name Scordisci...

Rusi, Srbi, Česi are Slavic tribal names (Russians, Serbs, Czechs)
thus, suffix -i as in Serdi, while Serdi+ celtic ending -isci = Serdisci

now note that Scordisci has "Sc" in the same as Sclaveni was a way to write Slavs (Sloveni in slavic languages)
thus, already obvious logic gives Scordisci->Sordisci->Sordi.... taken into account that they are Celtic and enter Thrace from area of Celtic Scordisci it is clear that Serdi are thracianized version of tribal name Scordisci

Thracians = russians same as Thyrsenians is used for Rasena (Etruscans)

You do know that the link you provided refers to inforamtion written in and around 900AD !

better to read this
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=scordisci&f=false
 
bella? what does this mean.

In latin the word bellum is war , so
Bellum Pannonicum is war in pannonia against the illyrians 15BC,
ante = before .
The US congress befroe the american civil war still used the phase Antebellum = before the war ( us civil war)

Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin adage translated as, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war"

bella bello is white in slavic

I know 'casus Belli'
 
@ how yes no
You can't be serious. There is no evidence of Celticity in Serbia. The highest confirmed levels of Celtic settlement are in Western Europe - France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and parts of England, followed by the Alpine region.

nop
there is anoter P-celtic in Balkans,
scordisci Norici Galatians etc
Celtic blood reach minor asia,
even some tribes from thracian are after debate like Brygians, celtic brigandi

these celtic you mention are q celtic
 
nop
there is anoter P-celtic in Balkans,
scordisci Norici Galatians etc
Celtic blood reach minor asia,
even some tribes from thracian are after debate like Brygians, celtic brigandi

these celtic you mention are q celtic

In the ancient times, asia started in asia minor, so the Brygians where classifed asiatics
 
when he speaks of meeting with them in europe, Africa and Asia
he clearly speaks of nations wandering not about individuals wandering....
nations wandering implies settlement...

Explain to me why there is zero onomastic evidence of Celtic presence of any kind in North Africa then, whereas in about every other area inhabited by Celts at a given time there is some legacy in place names - even centuries later?

Why does Ptolemy, who meticulously recorded town names across a huge area - not record any Celtic town names in Africa? The answere is simple: because no Celtic peoples ever settled there.

your timeline is inversed....
Berbers partly origin from Garamantes...

That's a complete nonsense, and every linguist, archaeologist and historian is probably going to be out there to kill you for claiming that. The Berber family of languages is part of the Afro-Asiatic languages, along with Egyptian, Semitic, etc. Afro-Asiatic is one of the oldest-attested language families thanks to Egyptian hieroglyphs and Akkadian cuneiform inscriptions (early 3rd millennium BC). Afro-Asiatic is the oldested attested language family (barring Sumerian - which is an isolate language) and it is logical to assume that the other branches of Afro-Asiatic (including Berber branch) were already around in the early 3rd millennium BC. In fact, the earliest attestation of a Berber people the Libu ("Libyans") is attested from the 16th century BC, when the Egyptians made the Libyans their vassals.

@ how yes no
You can't be serious. There is no evidence of Celticity in Serbia. The highest confirmed levels of Celtic settlement are in Western Europe - France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and parts of England, followed by the Alpine region.

Actually, like the other said, there were Celts in what later became Serbia - at least for a while. The Scordisci were a remnant of the same migration/invasion force that entered Greece, and which, after being defeated, moved further into Anatolia to establish the kingdom of Galatia.
 
Explain to me why there is zero onomastic evidence of Celtic presence of any kind in North Africa then, whereas in about every other area inhabited by Celts at a given time there is some legacy in place names - even centuries later?
first, did anyone study in detail Celtic onomastic in north Africa... if yes, please send reference...

you talk about "even centuries later", in countries that were conquered by people speaking related languages and that were genetic minority so that population of today still have many layers of Celtic languages... there is partial continuity of population and culture there...

but this was much more than few centuries...we speak about at least around 2000 years ago... and we have completely unrelated languages becoming dominant in the area.....



Why does Ptolemy, who meticulously recorded town names across a huge area - not record any Celtic town names in Africa? The answere is simple: because no Celtic peoples ever settled there.
Celtic people existed much before Ptolemy....
languages develope with time and change....
town names might have sounded quite different than in late Celtic period that you are somewhat familiar with...
can you link to that text of Ptolemy?



That's a complete nonsense, and every linguist, archaeologist and historian is probably going to be out there to kill you for claiming that. The Berber family of languages is part of the Afro-Asiatic languages, along with Egyptian, Semitic, etc. Afro-Asiatic is one of the oldest-attested language families thanks to Egyptian hieroglyphs and Akkadian cuneiform inscriptions (early 3rd millennium BC). Afro-Asiatic is the oldested attested language family (barring Sumerian - which is an isolate language) and it is logical to assume that the other branches of Afro-Asiatic (including Berber branch) were already around in the early 3rd millennium BC. In fact, the earliest attestation of a Berber people the Libu ("Libyans") is attested from the 16th century BC, when the Egyptians made the Libyans their vassals.
you are not reading correctly what I wrote....
I said Berbers (of today is implied) origin partly from Garamantes... which means that in my opinion Garamantes people have assimilated into Berbers contributing I2a1 genetics to them...
 
first, did anyone study in detail Celtic onomastic in north Africa... if yes, please send reference...

I cannot pinpoint you to any study because there is none, because there is no evidence of Celtic settlements in North Africa. There are many maps of Celtic name influence, including the one Koch attached in his paper on Tartessian (Acta Paleohispanica, page 351). As you may know, I don't agree with Koch on Tartessian, but this is the first map that came to my mind displaying Celtic name evidence (it's also fairly accurate).

you talk about "even centuries later", in countries that were conquered by people speaking related languages and that were genetic minority so that population of today still have many layers of Celtic languages... there is partial continuity of population and culture there...

but this was much more than few centuries...we speak about at least around 2000 years ago... and we have completely unrelated languages becoming dominant in the area.....

Have you considered the possibility that unrelated languages were spoken there all along, and that there never were Celts there? Also, I was (amongst other sources) refering to Ptolemy and Strabo, who lived in the 2nd/1st centuries AD, respectively.

Celtic people existed much before Ptolemy....
languages develope with time and change....
town names might have sounded quite different than in late Celtic period that you are somewhat familiar with...

That's a strawman argument. You say "languages develop and change over time", yet you refuse to accept any of the methodology that helps us to quantify these changes.

can you link to that text of Ptolemy?

Ptolemy mentions the Garamantes in his fourth Book, chapter 6 ("Interior Libya"). He also gives various geographic features in the region, including town names. Ptolemy places them near the Bagrada river (which today is called Medjerda river), and also gives towns there.

you are not reading correctly what I wrote....
I said Berbers (of today is implied) origin partly from Garamantes... which means that in my opinion Garamantes people have assimilated into Berbers contributing I2a1 genetics to them...

More chromosomal tribalism. May I remind you that a while back you also claimed that the Celts originally came from Galatia, and that the Germanic peoples came originally from Kerman province, Iran... man, your 'hypotheses' don't get any better...
 
I cannot pinpoint you to any study because there is none, because there is no evidence of Celtic settlements in North Africa.
ok, so there is no study. it is your educated guess.. nothing more than that...


More chromosomal tribalism. May I remind you that a while back you also claimed that the Celts originally came from Galatia, and that the Germanic peoples came originally from Kerman province, Iran... man, your 'hypotheses' don't get any better...


I still claim that proto-Germanic people (haplogroup I2 - Cimmerians /Gomer) have dwellt in province of Kerman /Germania/Zermanya in Persia, Iran.... path leading there is clear from Y-DNA....I claimed it is origin place because I2* reported in Asia, but it turned out that I2* means just we were too lazy to analyze subbranches... so I can't claim anymore that direction was from province of Kerman to Europe, as it coukld have been other way around... e.g. as Sherdana entered central west Asia region from north, same as Cimmerians later....

but if you look at haplogroup I in Asia
I.png


it is clear that persia spread gets wider going north in a way that looks as spreading from Persian gulf towards north, while spreads matching settlement of Serians in northwest China (Serica) and arc of Serians from China to India (Serica in wider sense, and note that Pasthun Sarbans perfectly match lower part of arc) are clear example of conquest from west...



thing that Celts originally came from Galatia was not claimed by me...for that I did quote ancient historian... I can search who was that but I think Josephus...I have just agreed with that due to I2* argument...

what is considered to be Celtic R1b hovever did come to Europe from Asia minor... we can even associate timeline to that... R1b is not native to Celtic areas...
 
In the ancient times, asia started in asia minor, so the Brygians where classifed asiatics

what?

so the Europeans who migrate in Australia are classified Aborigin Australian Vacant Origins


you have a point settlers from Europe to America became Indians etc
Learn the Iroquis language and live in tents and eat tatanca not buffalo

so if I mariied to an american gilr, I will not call her wife but scaw
 
ok, so there is no study. it is your educated guess.. nothing more than that...

It's not just an educated guess. Go ahead, read Ptolemy's entry on Interior Libya. In fact, read all his chapters on Africa. None of the names there have anywhere Celtic-sounding names. There's also no "-briga", no "-dunum" and no "-lanum" there (which would be signature Celtic name elements, that you can find across the Celtic-speaking world).

I still claim that proto-Germanic people (haplogroup I2 - Cimmerians /Gomer) have dwellt in province of Kerman /Germania/Zermanya in Persia, Iran.... path leading there is clear from Y-DNA....I claimed it is origin place because I2* reported in Asia, but it turned out that I2* means just we were too lazy to analyze subbranches... so I can't claim anymore that direction was from province of Kerman to Europe, as it coukld have been other way around... e.g. as Sherdana entered central west Asia region from north, same as Cimmerians later....

but if you look at haplogroup I in Asia

https://sites.google.com/site/thelineagesofasia/_/rsrc/1251225494370/home/I.png

it is clear that persia spread gets wider going north in a way that looks as spreading from Persian gulf towards north, while spreads matching settlement of Serians in northwest China (Serica) and arc of Serians from China to India (Serica in wider sense, and note that Pasthun Sarbans perfectly match lower part of arc) are clear example of conquest from west...

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but this is complete nonsense, because Haplogroup I2a was present in Neolithic France (3000 BC).

treilles.png


In my opinion - and in fact the opinion of probably most people on this board, is that Haplogroup I (and it's subclades) originated in Mesolithic Europe. The fact that I2a shows up in a Neolithic site in Western Europe supports this.

What you claim is also utterly nonsense from the linguistic perspective: the term "Germani" is an exonym (probably coined by the Romans, but actually Celtic in etymology, meaning "neighbour", compare Welsh "ger y man"), and the Germanic people never refered to themselves as "Germani". Tacitus in his "Germania" even states (in chapter 2) that the term "Germani" is newly introduced.

Instead, the Germanic people refered to thsemelves as something akin to "Touta-" ("people", "tribe") - a word which is also attested in Celtic languages (Gaulish "Toutatis" - "tribal father", Irish "Tuath", Welsh "Tud"), Baltic languages (Latvian, Lithuanian "Tauta") and even modern Germanic languages themselves ("Dutch", "Deutsch").

thing that Celts originally came from Galatia was not claimed by me...for that I did quote ancient historian... I can search who was that but I think Josephus...I have just agreed with that due to I2* argument...

You know that the arrival of the Galatians in Anatolia and the events that preceeded it (the failed Celtic invasion of Greece) is a well-recorded event that occured verymuch in historic times (3rd century BC). You cannot claim that well-documented events did not actually happen that way. If you do, you will find yourself in the domain of very strange fringe people:

Phantome Time
New Chronology

... which is, of course, complete madness and nonsense. :petrified:

what is considered to be Celtic R1b hovever did come to Europe from Asia minor... we can even associate timeline to that... R1b is not native to Celtic areas...

Yes, R1b obviously wasn't native to the regions later inhabited by Celts, which is very obvious from the samples from Treilles, southern France as I gave them above. Not necessarily from Asia Minor. Might also be Central Asia or Northern Caucasus - we don't really know. In any case R1b isn't exclusively Celtic: the Basque, Germanic and (probably) Pre-Etruscan population of Italy were probably major carriers of R1b too.
 
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but this is complete nonsense, because Haplogroup I2a was present in Neolithic France (3000 BC).

how exactly does I2a being in Europe 3000BC exclude it from being settled in parts of Asia as well in some points of time?

according to my understanding, when we talk of I2 related tribal names we do also talk about following folks...

138 Few nations have wandered so far and wide as the Galatæ. We meet with them in Europe, Asia, and Africa, under the various names of Galatæ Galatians, Gauls, and Kelts. Galatia, in Asia Minor, was settled by one of these hordes.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...99.01.0239:book=1:chapter=3&highlight=galatia

well, look at Galicia area in east Europe

250px-Ukraine-Halychyna.png

250px-Galiz20.gif


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)

those are cores of I2a areas...


Haplogroup_I2a.gif



In my opinion - and in fact the opinion of probably most people on this board, is that Haplogroup I (and it's subclades) originated in Mesolithic Europe. The fact that I2a shows up in a Neolithic site in Western Europe supports this.
finding means that I2a is present in Europe at least from 3000 BC.... though I propose older date... but it doesnot in any way say that it was not present in Asia minor and Persia in same, later or earlier period...




What you claim is also utterly nonsense from the linguistic perspective: the term "Germani" is an exonym (probably coined by the Romans, but actually Celtic in etymology), and the Germanic people never refered to themselves as "Germani". Tacitus in his "Germania" even states (in chapter 2) that the term "Germani" is newly introduced.
you just said in fact what I claim all along...
Germani is wrongly attributed to Germans of today, because real Gomer people are Cimmerians/Serians - I2 people... among proto-Germans lived just I2b which could have gave birth to name, as I2b is marker of Germanic people....

I also said that Cimmerians/Gomer are original Celts....
because Josephus claimed Cimmerians are original Celts, and because numerous Roman historians claimed that word German means 'seed'and is probably introduced to denote original Celts...
but thing is German comes from Gomer and is tribal name... it was spread by part of original Celts - I2 Cimmerians who settled Germany (I2b)


Instead, the Germanic people refered to thsemelves as something akin to "Touta-" ("people", "tribe") - a word which is also attested in Celtic languages (Gaulish "Toutatis" - "tribal father", Irish "Tuath", Welsh "Tud"), Baltic languages (Latvian, Lithuanian "Tauta") and even modern Germanic languages themselves ("Dutch", "Deutsch").
cognate in Serbian/Slavic is "ljudi" and is closest to Gothic and Welsh language...
another cognjate is "četa", and is about military unit...


You know that the arrival of the Galatians in Anatolia and the events that preceeded it (the failed Celtic invasion of Greece) is a well-recorded event that occured verymuch in historic times (3rd century BC).
what if that was event of returning to those areas?
point is I2a spread along Danube water system...that naturally lead from Bohemia to Black sea and Asia minor....



Yes, R1b obviously wasn't native to the regions later inhabited by Celts, which is very obvious from the samples from Treilles, southern France as I gave them above. Not necessarily from Asia Minor. Might also be Central Asia or Northern Caucasus - we don't really know. In any case R1b isn't exclusively Celtic: the Basque, Germanic and (probably) Pre-Etruscan population of Italy were probably major carriers of R1b too.
finally, something I can agree with...
 
how exactly does I2a being in Europe 3000BC exclude it from being settled in parts of Asia as well in some points of time?

Because it predates the ethnogenesis of the groups in question by such a long time that claiming connections between ethnic groups / places is just ridiculous.

according to my understanding, when we talk of I2 related tribal names we do also talk about following folks...

I've been trying to tell you all along that your purported "tribal" connections are all nonsense.

well, look at Galicia area in east Europe

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Ukraine-Halychyna.png/250px-Ukraine-Halychyna.png[/IMG]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Galiz20.gif/250px-Galiz20.gif

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)[/url][/QUOTE]

You know that the area is named for the town of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halych"]Halych[/URL], and is completely unrelated with the Celts/Galatians. Even the image you uploaded bears the name "Halychyna".

[QUOTE]finding means that I2a is present in Europe at least from 3000 BC.... though I propose older date... but it doesnot in any way say that it was not present in Asia minor and Persia in same, later or earlier period...[/QUOTE]

No, but it shows your connection of some wild migrations of a "Germanic" tribe are inaccurate. If it was, shouldn't the Basques and Sardinians be Germanic, too?! :wary2:

[QUOTE]you just said in fact what I claim all along...
Germani is wrongly attributed to Germans of today, because real Gomer people are Cimmerians/Serians - I2 people... among proto-Germans lived just I2b which could have gave birth to name, as I2b is marker of Germanic people....

I also said that Cimmerians/Gomer are original Celts....
because Josephus claimed Cimmerians are original Celts, and because numerous Roman historians claimed that word German means 'seed'and is probably introduced to denote original Celts...
but thing is German comes from Gomer and is tribal name... it was spread by part of original Celts - I2 Cimmerians who settled Germany (I2b)[/QUOTE]

No, to quote [U]yourself[/U]:

[QUOTE]I still claim that proto-Germanic people (haplogroup I2 - Cimmerians /Gomer) have dwellt in province of Kerman /Germania/Zermanya in Persia, Iran.... path leading there is clear from Y-DNA....[/QUOTE]

Which, as I have proven, is complete nonsense because the Germanic people didn't originally refer to themselves as "Germani" (meaning your linguistic connection of tribal/region names is nonsense), and because I2a evidently isn't associated with the Germanic peoples or with the region of Kerman, but clearly was present in Europe already during Neolithic - long before the Germanic languages emerged, or the term "Germani" was applied to them.

Also, "Germani" does not mean "seed". To quote [U]myself[/U]:
[QUOTE]What you claim is also utterly nonsense from the linguistic perspective: the term "Germani" is an exonym (probably coined by the Romans, but actually Celtic in etymology, meaning "neighbour", compare Welsh "ger y man"), and the Germanic people never refered to themselves as "Germani". Tacitus in his "Germania" even states (in chapter 2) that the term "Germani" is newly introduced.[/QUOTE]

Additionally: the root word is also attested as *gerro- ("short") in that [URL="http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/CelticLanguages/EnglishProtoCelticWordlist.pdf"]Proto-Celtic dictionary[/URL].

[QUOTE]cognate in Serbian/Slavic is "ljudi" and is closest to Gothic and Welsh language...
another cognjate is "četa", and is about military unit...[/QUOTE]

Those are [B]not[/B] cognates. Serbian "ljudi" is a cognate with the following words in other Slavic languages:

Czech - Lidé
Polish - Ludzie
Belorussian - Liudzi
Slovenian - Ljudje
Russian, Ukrainian - Lyudy

Ostensibly, this is a cognate with the following:
German - "Leute"
Lithuanian - "Liaudis"
Latvian - "Ļaudis"

Apparently, you are completely unaware of [B]sound correspondences[/B]. PIE Initial *t generally yields t in most branches of Indo-European (including Slavic), the only real exception is the Germanic languages, where it variably yields th, ð and d - depending on the language.

Gaulish - [U]T[/U]outa
Irish - [U]T[/U]uath
Welsh - [U]T[/U]ud
Gothic - [U]Th[/U]iuda
German - [U]D[/U]eutsch
Latvian - [U]T[/U]auta
Latin - [U]T[/U]ota/Totus (doesn't mean "tribe" or "people", but "whole" or "all" - compare English "total")

To pick a different word, the word for three. I'm doing this, to show you once again that [U]sound laws have no exception[/U]:

Irish - [U]T[/U]rí
Welsh - [U]T[/U]ri
English - [U]Th[/U]ree
Gothic - [U]Th[/U]reis
German - [U]D[/U]rei
Latvian - [U]T[/U]rīs
Latin - [U]T[/U]res
Greek - [U]T[/U]ria
Albanian - [U]T[/U]re
Bulgarian, Croatian, Russian, Ukrainian - [U]T[/U]ri
Czech - [U]T[/U]ři
Polish - [U]T[/U]rzy

As you can see, [B]sound laws have no exceptions.[/B] I'm not sure what the cognate (of "Touta") in Slavic would be, but it may not be attested - this is something that sometimes happens, for instance, modern Germanic languages have no cognate with the PIE word "Ekwos" (horse), though some of the older ones verymuch had (Anglo-Saxon "Eoh", Gothic "Aihws").

[QUOTE]finally, something I can agree with...[/QUOTE]

It's also clear that R1b (at least, certain subclades of it) is associated with the spread of Celtic-speaking peoples, and that I2a is associated with the Pre-Celtic population of Western Europe.
 
Because it predates the ethnogenesis of the groups in question by such a long time that claiming connections between ethnic groups / places is just ridiculous.
I guess most of history and of your claims are ridiculous as well in that case.....
we here have genetics as additional clue to reconstructing long time history....



I've been trying to tell you all along that your purported "tribal" connections are all nonsense.
nope, for long time intervals they have much more sense than linguistics...as they are identity of tribes...
they are transfered from one generation to next same as last names in individuals...
while words change much faster on timeline...
that is why genetics is more likely to coincide with tribal names than with languages...

You know that the area is named for the town of Halych, and is completely unrelated with the Celts/Galatians. Even the image you uploaded bears the name "Halychyna".
sure...
there is complete layer of such Germanic oriented history...
e.g. Russians that got name by Varangian tribe Ros ...just there was no Varangian tribe Ros except among Russians... and of course tribal name Russians have nothing to do with tribal names such as Rosch and Thracians, Rasena (Thyrsenians).. but R1a somehow matches both Rasena and Russians...
different branches of Veneti are completely unrelated people...but somehow we find I2a* exactly and only in places where they lived in Britanny and north of Adriatic

Sherdana sea peoples came from north...they basically started conquest from southeast shores of Black sea, place name left after them is Serbonian bog, but they are Sardinians...yes, right...

it seems almost as if official history is not a science but a political manifesto that reflects interests of powerful ...



No, but it shows your connection of some wild migrations of a "Germanic" tribe are inaccurate. If it was, shouldn't the Basques and Sardinians be Germanic, too?! :wary2:
nope...

Germanic language is wrongly called Germanic...it is Scandinavian...

Sardinians are Cimmerians thus original Celtic origin...
but you have to realize that language timeline is much more fast paced than genetics-tribal/race name relation.....tribal/race name is preserved and genetics are preserved (I2a), but language has changed...

Basques are most R1b people in the world...their link to I2a only exist in some Maciamo's wild guess post...



Which, as I have proven, is complete nonsense because the Germanic people didn't originally refer to themselves as "Germani" (meaning your linguistic connection of tribal/region names is nonsense), and because I2a evidently isn't associated with the Germanic peoples or with the region of Kerman, but clearly was present in Europe already during Neolithic - long before the Germanic languages emerged, or the term "Germani" was applied to them.
hello...
that is what I tell you all along...
Germani is wrongly applied to Germans due to I2b among them..
but real Gomer were Cimmerians... they are original Celts.... that is very clear from combination of historic and genetic evidences I presented...


Also, "Germani" does not mean "seed". To quote myself
why would your wild guess be more valid than writing of ancient Rome historians?


Additionally: the root word is also attested as *gerro- ("short") in that Proto-Celtic dictionary.
sure, it is attested as 'germ' in english as well...
you can't just take word of a language and blindly use it to give meaning to tribal name... that is ridiculous...


Those are not cognates. Serbian "ljudi" is a cognate with the following words in other Slavic languages:

Czech - Lidé
Polish - Ludzie
Belorussian - Liudzi
Slovenian - Ljudje
Russian, Ukrainian - Lyudy

Ostensibly, this is a cognate with the following:
German - "Leute"
Lithuanian - "Liaudis"
Latvian - "Ļaudis"

so, what is Gothic word for "teuta"?




Gaulish - Touta
Irish - Tuath
Welsh - Tud
Gothic - Thiuda
German - Deutsch
Latvian - Tauta
Latin - Tota/Totus (doesn't mean "tribe" or "people", but "whole" or "all" - compare English "total")



As you can see, sound laws have no exceptions.
lol
you use single example to show that there are no exceptions????
laughable logic...
of course there are exceptions....
languages are live thing, they keep developing... and loan words are passed by people who hear them and try to repeat them in own language...and hearing (ability to repeat heard) of individual people do not always adhere
to general sound laws...
did you ever play as a kid a game in which one tells a word to next one, the next one passes it to next one, and so on... in word loan game those people speak different languages and have no abilities to properly hear it and repeat it...

I'm not sure what the cognate in Slavic would be, but it may not be attested - this is something that sometimes happens, for instance, modern Germanic languages have no cognate with the PIE word "Ekwos" (horse), though some of the older ones verymuch had (Anglo-Saxon "Eoh", Gothic "Aihws").

konj


It's also clear that R1b (at least, certain subclades of it) is associated with the spread of Celtic-speaking peoples, and that I2a is associated with the Pre-Celtic population of Western Europe.
I would not bet on that...
I think R1b is spread of pre-Hittite Hatti from Asia minor to Europe... I guess that tribal name Hatti gave rise to range of Germanic tribal names like Goths, Hatti... and also Getae (Dacians)...
 
it seems almost as if official history is not a science but a political manifesto that reflects interests of powerful ...

How does what you deem "official" history about the Anatolian, Berber, Celtic or Germanic peoples (anything, really)... reflect "interests of powerful"? That's complete nonsense. If you genuinely believe that you, are definitely in one line with Anatoly Fomenko and Heribert Illig... :innocent:

Basques are most R1b people in the world...their link to I2a only exist in some Maciamo's wild guess post...

Incorrect. Basques are predominantly R1b, but I2a is in fact the second-most abundant Haplogroup amongst the Basques. Since I2a was also present in the Neolithic, this suggests that the Basques are indeed in part descended from the Neolithic, possibly Mesolithic population.

hello...
that is what I tell you all along...
Germani is wrongly applied to Germans due to I2b among them..
but real Gomer were Cimmerians... they are original Celts.... that is very clear from combination of historic and genetic evidences I presented...

Don't you see that the connection between I2b and the word "Germani" is completely non-existent!? And it's also completely non-related with the Celtic peoples.

why would your wild guess be more valid than writing of ancient Rome historians?

Because the word is attested in modern Celtic languages in a similar expression. Also, you're the one who's doing wild guesses here. You take the word "Seed" and cook up some half-baked story about the "Seed of Gomer", and what not. I'm pretty sure that the biblical Gomer never existed, and that he's just a fabrication along with all the other loony chronologies in the bible. Otherwise you can start tracing everybody to Adam and Eve... :LOL:

Also, let me address the issue of linguistics:

I have provided examples before (you can search my posts if you like, but also check out this, which contains several examples of sound correspondence). I can provide an infinite number of more examples. Sound correspondence has been part of linguistic methodology for over 130 years. You cannot ditch such a long tradition of reliable methodology just to "prove" your wicked relationships between your "chromosomal tribes".

You may also want to read up on this...

I would not bet on that...
I think R1b is spread of pre-Hittite Hatti from Asia minor to Europe... I guess that tribal name Hatti gave rise to range of Germanic tribal names like Goths, Hatti... and also Getae (Dacians)...

Which once again proves your paramount non-unerstanding of how linguistics works.
 
Instead, the Germanic people refered to thsemelves as something akin to "Touta-" ("people", "tribe") - a word which is also attested in Celtic languages (Gaulish "Toutatis" - "tribal father", Irish "Tuath", Welsh "Tud"), Baltic languages (Latvian, Lithuanian "Tauta") and even modern Germanic languages themselves ("Dutch", "Deutsch").

Teutons !?


Yes, R1b obviously wasn't native to the regions later inhabited by Celts, which is very obvious from the samples from Treilles, southern France as I gave them above. Not necessarily from Asia Minor. Might also be Central Asia or Northern Caucasus - we don't really know. In any case R1b isn't exclusively Celtic: the Basque, Germanic and (probably) Pre-Etruscan population of Italy were probably major carriers of R1b too.

Historians say that R1b was brought in by the illyrians that settled in the alps from lake Constance . I am referring to pre-bronze age years
 
How does what you deem "official" history about the Anatolian, Berber, Celtic or Germanic peoples (anything, really)... reflect "interests of powerful"? That's complete nonsense. If you genuinely believe that you, are definitely in one line with Anatoly Fomenko and Heribert Illig...
sure I am in line with some looneys and and you are in line with Occam...

Incorrect. Basques are predominantly R1b, but I2a is in fact the second-most abundant Haplogroup amongst the Basques. Since I2a was also present in the Neolithic, this suggests that the Basques are indeed in part descended from the Neolithic, possibly Mesolithic population.
.I'll put focus on "suggest" in your claim...

it can also be by assimilating previous population in later times than you propose...
note that I2a1 is also widely present in some other parts of Spain..

Don't you see that the connection between I2b and the word "Germani" is completely non-existent!? And it's also completely non-related with the Celtic peoples.
lol, guess you expect linguistic relationship between word I2b and word Germani...
there is clear relationship of movement of germanic tribes with existance of I2b...
that is widely known...


Because the word is attested in modern Celtic languages in a similar expression. Also, you're the one who's doing wild guesses here. You take the word "Seed" and cook up some half-baked story about the "Seed of Gomer", and what not. I'm pretty sure that the biblical Gomer never existed, and that he's just a fabrication along with all the other loony chronologies in the bible. Otherwise you can start tracing everybody to Adam and Eve... :LOL:
nope, I do not take word "seed"...I just said that I read that ancient historians from Rome were translating it that way... I personally do not think it meant "seed"... but point of saying that was not in the meaning of the word, but in account made by those historians that it was word based on "seed"in order to identify original Celts... so, claim doesnot come from me, but is a piece of puzzle that fits nice in my theory of I2 haplogroup Cimmerians.. as it shows that German was word used to denote original Celts and Gomer was alternative name of Cimmerians....

how difficult is it for you to understand actual meaning of few simple sentences?

Also, let me address the issue of linguistics:

I have provided examples before (you can search my posts if you like, but also check out this, which contains several examples of sound correspondence). I can provide an infinite number of more examples. Sound correspondence has been part of linguistic methodology for over 130 years. You cannot ditch such a long tradition of reliable methodology just to "prove" your wicked relationships between your "chromosomal tribes".

it is elementary logic that you seems to lack...
you can make million examples, but that doesnot prove that there is no exception to the rule....

You may also want to read up on this...
thanks...
I am familiar with existence of sound correspondence laws, but I find it funny that you think it covers 100% of cases...
that was point of my critique....

Gothic word for people is very close to Slavic one.... it can be exception or a rule you are not aware of... and there is another cognate of same word "četa" - which is also about way to denote group, but it is related to military group...

Which once again proves your paramount non-unerstanding of how linguistics works.
unlike you, I never claimed to be knowledgeable in linguistics... but based on your posts about linguistic rules on some other threads e.g. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26474-Germanic-and-Proto-Slavic I am very sure that your knowledge of it is extremely limited and superficial, and that you apply it in extremely biased way...
 
Teutons !?

Yes, the word "Teuton" is also a cognate with this. I forgot to mention this. The term gets to used very inconsistently in English, however: as in "Cimbri and Teutones", "Teutonic Knights" and as a poetic term for the Germans, or even the Germanic peoples. That may be why I don't tend to mention this, I suppose. :LOL:

Historians say that R1b was brought in by the illyrians that settled in the alps from lake Constance . I am referring to pre-bronze age years

Which Historians? Tell me one historian that talks about genetics, and who would claim something like that... :confused:

There's also no evidence for Illyrians around lake Constance, or in fact, anywhere north of the Alps. The area was, as far as recorded, inhabited by Celtic peoples, and it is indeed very close to the Hallstatt/Celtic core area. How would anybody claim that? :startled:
 
Which Historians? Tell me one historian that talks about genetics, and who would claim something like that... :confused:

There's also no evidence for Illyrians around lake Constance, or in fact, anywhere north of the Alps. The area was, as far as recorded, inhabited by Celtic peoples, and it is indeed very close to the Hallstatt/Celtic core area. How would anybody claim that? :startled:


many historians with archeological findings have found illyrians items from lake constance , across modern austria and east, south-east of there.
The celtic start area was southern germany and the gemanic alps. since celtic is a superior language than what illyrian is, the celtic migration firstly took all the alps, as time went on the celtic vocabulary went in all illyric lands. Illyric and its dialects is a weak language
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 231402 times.

Back
Top