keegah
There is no such a thing as Celtic language. The term “Celtic” languages is used for Gaelic languages because people from UK and Ireland were the first people identified as “Celtic” so the logic was their languages must be “Celtic” languages.
Hrm... no. The term "Celtic" is derived from the term "Keltoi", which was used by the ancient Greeks to refer to a group of continental European tribes with a common culture. The Romans went on to use it to refer to the Gauls, and eventually the Celtiberians. The term wasn't originally used to refer specifically to Insular Celts - that is, the Brythons and, yes, the Gaels.
No problem with that. Gaelic languages have some Serbian words in them but Serbian is not a Gaelic language. As to how and when did these words came into Gaelic languages, this is one of the things that i am trying to discovere. Slavic vykings could be one of the posibilities.
As multiple people have told you, there being words cognate to each other in Gaelic and Serbian could easily be explained by them having a common ancestor in the original Indo-European language. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Slavs to say whether or not there was any cultural or linguistic exchange between those peoples and the Gaels, but it's irrelevant. You can find cognates in several different languages that have no close relationship to each other.
As I said above, no “Celtic” language was ever found. So we could not have compared the Gaelic languages with it and concluded that Gaelic languages were similar to it and were therefore “Celtic” languages. What happened was the opposite. We decided to call today’s inhabitants of the brittish isles Celts and then we built the celtic language from the indigenous languages from the brittish isles which happen to be Gaelic languages.
Here's the problem - you build your arguments off of a statement that you have yet to prove, and goes against years upon years of established research. "No Celtic language has ever been found"? They don't need to be found, they're still alive. The living Celtic languages include Irish, Scottish (Gaelic), Manx, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. The last three are Brythonic Celtic languages, the first three are Goidelic Celtic languages. Since those six languages are still living today, there have been plenty of opportunities to compare and find similarities between them, contrary to what you say. As a result, after years of linguistic research, we know that there exist common qualities between, say, Irish and Welsh, that differentiate them from other Indo-European languages such as, say, Serbian. You have yet to successfully explain why all of that research should be ignored.
There a lots of reasons and one of them is that Irish themselves never call themselves Celts or Valahi.
Like I explained before, the term "Celt" or "Keltoi" was a Greek term. It may have been derived from the name a Continental Celtic tribe called itself, but we don't know - and it is totally irrelevant. The Picts never would have called themselves Picts either, that was simply a Latin term the Romans used to describe the Celtic peoples living in Northern Scotland, who according to the Romans were a people distinct from the other Brythonic Celts down South. We do not know the name the Picts used to describe themselves - so we just use the already established term. By your logic, because we know they never would have called themselves Picts - and we have no name for them
other than Picts - those people never existed.
Nothing about Celts is easy.
No, there are
few things about Celts that are easy. But some things are. The fact of their historical existence is one.
Here you are using circular logic. As I said above, no “Celtic” language was ever found. So we could not have compared the Gaelic languages with it and concluded that Gaelic languages were similar to it and were therefore “Celtic” languages. What happened was the opposite. We decided to call today’s inhabitants of the brittish isles Celts and then we built the celtic language from the indigenous languages from the brittish isles which happen to be Gaelic languages. And now you are using this made up language to define what Celts were. Don’t you see the problem with this?
Repeating to yourself that no Celtic languages have ever been found will not make it true. You're getting hung up on terminology, when the terminology is just for convenience's sake. We could call the Celts anything we wanted to call them. As long as the term was unique to those people and we were consistent, it would still be a perfectly valid term. Do me a favor. Before you make any more arguments that the Gaels are not Celts - or, even better, that the Celts are an imaginary people, and that the existence of a distinct Celtic branch of the Indo-European language family is a total fabrication, prove it. Read up on the Celtic languages, read up on Welsh and Scottish and Irish, and then present a cogent and well-documented argument on
why the Celtic languages are not real. You're going against years of research here, so make sure you're thorough.
There is a debate who the la tene people were. Again the objects from la tene culture did not have mark “made by Celts”. We decided to call them Celtic. Funnily enough, very little of la tene type artifacts has ever been found in brittish isles. You would expect a cultural continuation between the central Europe and the brittish isles but it does not exist. So you can not say that the Gaels are continuing the la tene culture and that because of this they are Celts.
Again with the terminology. The tenets of La Tène artwork - spirals and interlace - are seen everywhere in historical Irish artwork. When you merge La Tène artwork with ancient Germanic artwork, reflecting Anglo-Saxon influence, it creates what we now call the Celtic art style.
An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. It isn't enough to keep saying that Celtic languages have never been discovered, when so much research says otherwise. Prove it.