Veneti / Venedi / Wends (OFFTOPIC Y-DNA Haplogroups R1b-U152/S28)

[Taranis]

the quote is from bob quin' book. He was wandering if Gaelic languages were celtic languages and Gaelic languages survived dispite 1000 years of cultural colonisation and suppression, why didn'g Gaelic languages survive in central and western europe. he concluded that if Celts even existed the reason Gaelic didn't survive in the mainland europe is because celts didn't speak s Gaelic language. Which language they did speak he didn't go into as his interest is Gaelic and not Celtic. But he states this many times that Gaelic languages are not Celtic and did not come to british isles from mainland europe but from Spain and north and west Africa.

I'm under the impression that this Bob Quinn is neither aware of the history of the Gaelic languages, nor has he an understanding of linguistics. Would he have this, he'd be aware that what he claims there is complete nonsense. I'm sorry that I have to say it like that, but it's true.

By the time of the Romans, the Irish language did not yet exist in a form that we would recognize as such.

they were nor refered to as celts by all knowing romans and greeks but somehow they speek celtic language? how can this be? and again we come to the question: "what is a celtic language? and how did we come to the definition or the celtic language"

The ancient Greeks and Romans were neither all-knowing, nor were they free of mistakes. But in this specific case, the explanation is a different one: they were actually aware of the high degree of similarity of languages and culture between the British Isles and Gaul (both Tacitus, in his Agricola, and Julius Caesar, in his commentaries on the Gallic War, mention this actually!). Where the difference comes from is that the Romans didn't think in the dimensions of modern-day ethno-linguistic concepts. For them, Britain and Gaul were two distinct geographic entities, and they treated it's denizens as such.

Additionally, just because people speak related, even very similar languages doesn't mean that they identify as a common identity: to pick a few modern examples, take the Dutch and the Germans, the Danes and the Norwegians, or the English and the Americans.

As for what a Celtic language is: in the linguistic context, any language family is defined by a common set of sound changes that all languages in this family have in common. In the case of the Celtic languages, there is a number of sound changes that all Celtic languages have in common and that sets them apart from the other branches of Indo-European. If you go further down, you can establish sound laws for instance all Brythonic languages have in common which puts them apart from the other Celtic languages.

it is actually the oposite. irish language is over 5000 years old and the celtic elements are relative newcommers.

That's impossible. Where does this 5000 years figure come from? The Irish language is only attested from the 4th century AD onward. As I said, the oldest testimony of Irish is the Ogham inscriptions.

i really don't want to go into this here this is a thread on veneti and wendi, but we can continue this discusion here or on another thread if you want.

This discussion about the Gaels is actually somewhat related to the "Veneti", at least the Gaulish Veneti. As another Eupedia board member pointed out (I don't recall whom, but I would like to give said person hereby credit), the word "Gael" is actually in itself an exonym, that is, a foreign designation for the Irish people, and it is actually derived from Medieval Welsh "Guoidel", meaning "pirate". So, the Irish did not designate themselves as "Gaels" before the Medieval Ages. There is actually another term attested in Old Irish, "Féni", which means "compatriots" or "Irishmen". Now, this term is actually cognate of the "wen-" in the tribal name "Veneti".

[Yetos]

yetos

Odyssey Belchevsky didn' pick words from modern Greek. He picked words from Homeric greek. lots of them have no real root except in slavic languages. again you are arguing with the wrong guy, as i wasn't the one to write the above text.

and I repeat
If I take words of one language and compare with another then surely due to IE connection I will find similarities,
Does it means that the other language is wrong?
does it mean the second language explains better the first one?

just search what the author wants to prove,
word
bolinthos Thracian
Volos Greek
Bol South Slavic
what does it mean?
that South Slav Bol is mother of Greek Volos and Thracian Volinthos?

[Yetos]

what are you talking about?

χασαποσερβικο chasaposerbiko is a dance that was danced by Greeks and Slavic Makedonians beef meat merchants mainly.
as you it has 2 words
χασαπ chasap which is Turkish and means butcher
and σερβικο which means Serbian

did you see me or read that that I deny that after 6th century South Slavs did not enter, or did not occupy parts of Greece?
but as you see it has the word χασαπ which is turkish
WHICH SURELY MEANS THE DANCE AND THE RYTHM IS NOT ANCIENT BUT DEVELOPED AT OTTOMAN TIMES

on the other hand you said about chasapiko χασαπικο which means in Turkish Butcher's
chasapiko belong to a family of dances that contain also
απταλικος aptal
ρεμπετ rempet from ancient Greek ρεμβατικος ρεμβη
ζεμπεκικος zeimpek which is an ancient Phrygian dance

what Slavic has to do with chasapikos?

did you ever seen them? or listen to them?


strange you notice the word Serbiko but not the word hasap!!!!!

[zanipolo]

I'm under the impression that this Bob Quinn is neither aware of the history of the Gaelic languages, nor has he an understanding of linguistics. Would he have this, he'd be aware that what he claims there is complete nonsense. I'm sorry that I have to say it like that, but it's true.

By the time of the Romans, the Irish language did not yet exist in a form that we would recognize as such.



The ancient Greeks and Romans were neither all-knowing, nor were they free of mistakes. But in this specific case, the explanation is a different one: they were actually aware of the high degree of similarity of languages and culture between the British Isles and Gaul (both Tacitus, in his Agricola, and Julius Caesar, in his commentaries on the Gallic War, mention this actually!). Where the difference comes from is that the Romans didn't think in the dimensions of modern-day ethno-linguistic concepts. For them, Britain and Gaul were two distinct geographic entities, and they treated it's denizens as such.

Additionally, just because people speak related, even very similar languages doesn't mean that they identify as a common identity: to pick a few modern examples, take the Dutch and the Germans, the Danes and the Norwegians, or the English and the Americans.

As for what a Celtic language is: in the linguistic context, any language family is defined by a common set of sound changes that all languages in this family have in common. In the case of the Celtic languages, there is a number of sound changes that all Celtic languages have in common and that sets them apart from the other branches of Indo-European. If you go further down, you can establish sound laws for instance all Brythonic languages have in common which puts them apart from the other Celtic languages.



That's impossible. Where does this 5000 years figure come from? The Irish language is only attested from the 4th century AD onward. As I said, the oldest testimony of Irish is the Ogham inscriptions.



This discussion about the Gaels is actually somewhat related to the "Veneti", at least the Gaulish Veneti. As another Eupedia board member pointed out (I don't recall whom, but I would like to give said person hereby credit), the word "Gael" is actually in itself an exonym, that is, a foreign designation for the Irish people, and it is actually derived from Medieval Welsh "Guoidel", meaning "pirate". So, the Irish did not designate themselves as "Gaels" before the Medieval Ages. There is actually another term attested in Old Irish, "Féni", which means "compatriots" or "Irishmen". Now, this term is actually cognate of the "wen-" in the tribal name "Veneti".

feni like below
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/Featur...enicones01.htm


Veneti and Feni in Gaul and Ireland
The Veneti were a sea-faring people in Brittany which was also known as Armorica. Their location was in Northwest France across the sea from Devon and Cornwall in southwest Britain. The Veneti show signs of Phoenician culture as recorded F. de Rougemont. "L'Age du Bronze", Paris 1866. Their territory corresponded broadly to the modern French departement of Finisterre, whose name reflects the same meaning in Latin, Finis Terre i.e. end of the earth.

could the modern town of brittany called Vannes which represents the Veneti also represent the Unelli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unelli

[dublin]

yetos

i lived in crete for a year. i played tavurlu in a rebetico band. i listened to greek music a lot and can compare the rythams and melodies very well. i also spoke to greek people who were really into traditional greek music and they all told me that both demotiko and serviko are slavic dances. i did not say that they come from antiquity, yust that the slavs must have been a very numerous population in the whole of Greece in order to have such influence on Greek music. the same goes for scandinavia and ireland.

About Belchevski make up your own mind. i think that he has proven that Slavic languages or proto slavic if you want, existed in the Balkans early enough to be able to influence homerian greek and roman. that is all. what is funy is how adamant you are that this is not possible and you are not putting forward any valid counter argument.

[dublin]

taranis

I'm under the impression that this Bob Quinn is neither aware of the history of the Gaelic languages, nor has he an understanding of linguistics. Would he have this, he'd be aware that what he claims there is complete nonsense. I'm sorry that I have to say it like that, but it's true.

just because you say something does not mean it is true.

By the time of the Romans, the Irish language did not yet exist in a form that we would recognize as such.

how do you know? give me some proof for this please.

The ancient Greeks and Romans were neither all-knowing, nor were they free of mistakes. But in this specific case, the explanation is a different one:

why are you so sure that in this case they are telling the truth and that they are right? i would approach this with the same amount of scepticism. both greeks and romans are known to have been changing the facts the way it suited their daily politics.

they were actually aware of the high degree of similarity of languages and culture between the British Isles and Gaul (both Tacitus, in his Agricola, and Julius Caesar, in his commentaries on the Gallic War, mention this actually!).

you see i don't actually deny this at all. they did speak the same languages: Gaelic and Celtic. we know what Gaelic is, but we don''t know what Celtic language was.

Additionally, just because people speak related, even very similar languages doesn't mean that they identify as a common identity: to pick a few modern examples, take the Dutch and the Germans, the Danes and the Norwegians, or the English and the Americans.

Couldn't agree more. this is what i have been telling about Slavs. They all spoke the same language, but they never called themselves Slavs. They always called themselves by their family or tribe name. Slavs was one of the names given to them by foreigners.

As for what a Celtic language is: in the linguistic context, any language family is defined by a common set of sound changes that all languages in this family have in common. In the case of the Celtic languages, there is a number of sound changes that all Celtic languages have in common and that sets them apart from the other branches of Indo-European. If you go further down, you can establish sound laws for instance all Brythonic languages have in common which puts them apart from the other Celtic languages.

I understand all this. What i don't understand is how did we arrive to calling Brytonic and Gaelic languages Celtic? And if most of Europe was once Celtic, how come these two languages, or any similar language did not survive anywhere else in europe?

That's impossible. Where does this 5000 years figure come from? The Irish language is only attested from the 4th century AD onward. As I said, the oldest testimony of Irish is the Ogham inscriptions.

there are numerous place names in the west of Ireland which have root Doire (oak wood). West of ireland is a bog country with some of the oldest bogs in the world. the last oaks that grew in the west of Ireland grew before 3000 bc. yet accordint to the place names (thousands) the area was full of oak trees. The only explanation is that the place names are at least 5000 years old and that people who gave these place names spoke Gaielic.

the word "Gael" is actually in itself an exonym, that is, a foreign designation for the Irish people, and it is actually derived from Medieval Welsh "Guoidel", meaning "pirate". So, the Irish did not designate themselves as "Gaels" before the Medieval Ages.

I am not sure of this but it is quite possible. Irish have been called Scots and have called themselves Scots until the late medieval period. i know that in the old irish manuscripts, they always call foreigners Gauls, which would mean that they made a distinction between themselves and Gauls. it is quite possible that Gaelic and Gaulic people coexised in ireland for a very long time. i believe that first Gauls (foreighers) were the Celts from Gaul, who spoke a diferent language. Those Gauls were also Veneti. And Veneti were Slavs. This is why i think that Gauls, Veneti, Celts and Slavs are linked or the same and are diferent from the Gaels. if you are looking for Celts and Celtic languages you are looking at the wrong direction. look east not west.

[dublin]

two chapters from Bob Quin book

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96137030/From-Bob-Quin-Book

[dublin]

sparkey

Sure, we can say that Gaelic languages are only related to Celtic languages

Celtic languages don't exist. Celtic language was invented as a term to separate Gaelic and Brytonic from Anglosaxon languages. Can you give me an example of a living Celtic language from anywhere else in Europe and show me the connection wint the Gaelic languages which is not common connection between other germanic or slavic or latin or greek languages. Somthing uniquely celtic. i am really curious to hear what you have to say.

I haven't seen any, and my focus is I2, which is especially common among Slavs.

isn't r1a1 the slavic one? and here it is in all the Gaelic countries. not a lot but it is there.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1a_Y-DNA.shtml

as for I2a1 which is the old slavic branch. and here it is in all the Gaelic countries. not a lot but it is there.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml

[Taranis]

taranis

I believe that you are convinced that what you are saying is true. I personally have no such strong views on things. I only strongly believe that in history nothing is certain and every document is potential falsificat or propaganda material and needs to be used in conjunction with linguistic, archeological, ethnographic and nowadays genetic data.

I have read and am still reading the greek and roman historical documents when I want to find referenced that other people are quoting. I believe that professor Curta has probably spent years studying the same documents that you are recommending and has come to the conclusion that the migration never happened and that slavs as people were always in the Balkans but were only defined as Slavs when they were defined as such by the Greeks and Romans. as i said before in one of my posts, Slavs didn't call themselves Slavs until very recently. Professor Curta got a prestigious award for the book in which he explained how he had arrived to this conclusion. I personally, from what I know so far, agree with professor Curta.

Dublin, having an academic grade does not make people infallible. Academics are only humans. They make mistakes, sometimes they are biased, and sometimes, they just overlook facts. I mean, Florin Curta is probably a well-educated scholar on the topic of medieval Balkans, but he strikes me as a person who has no knowledge of linguistics or ancient place names. Otherwise he would not forward such ideas.

taranis

just because you say something does not mean it is true.

Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it is true, either.

how do you know? give me some proof for this please.

As a matter of fact, I already have. I have mentioned the Ogham inscriptions twice now. Take a look at the Irish words in Ogham inscriptions, and compare them to their modern Irish (or Old Irish, for that matter) cognates, and against cognates in old Celtic languages (Gaulish, Celtiberian), you'll easily realize that they are very different from the former, but much more similar to the latter.

for example, the word for "son":

- Gaulish "mapos"
- Oghamic Irish "maqqos"
- Old Irish "macc"
- Modern Irish "mac"

The interesting part is that the word is attested in Ogham inscriptions as the genitive form "maqqi". Both Gaulish and Latin had the same genitive ending. This proves that ancient Irish had a very similar declension system to Gaulish, to Latin, or other "old" Indo-European languages.

why are you so sure that in this case they are telling the truth and that they are right? i would approach this with the same amount of scepticism. both greeks and romans are known to have been changing the facts the way it suited their daily politics.

Well, it's the sum of all evidence at work here. See below.

you see i don't actually deny this at all. they did speak the same languages: Gaelic and Celtic. we know what Gaelic is, but we don''t know what Celtic language was.

You don't understand that the modern Gaelic languages are in fact Celtic languages.

Couldn't agree more. this is what i have been telling about Slavs. They all spoke the same language, but they never called themselves Slavs. They always called themselves by their family or tribe name. Slavs was one of the names given to them by foreigners.

No, you don't understand (see below).

I understand all this. What i don't understand is how did we arrive to calling Brytonic and Gaelic languages Celtic?

Well, this was a convention by linguists in the 19th century when they began to research into Indo-European languages. As I said, Irish and Welsh share common sound changes with Gaulish and Celtiberian that set them apart from other Indo-European languages.

One unique sound change in the Celtic languages is the disappearance of the PIE *p sound, if you compare the word for "father":

Irish "athair"
English - "father"
Latin - "pater"
Hindi - "pitā"

In addition, both the Gaelic languages and the Brythonic languages have sound changes that set them apart from the other Celtic languages. In Old Irish (but not Oghamic Irish), Proto-Celtic *w- became *f-. In contrast, in Brythonic *w- became *gw- For example, the word for "alder":

Old Irish "fern"
Modern Irish "fearn"
Welsh "gwern"
Gaulish "wern-" (as in the tribal name "Arverni")

Likewise, Brythonic developed *s- to *h-, for example, the word for "old":

Old Irish "sen"
Modern Irish "sean"
Welsh "hen"
Breton "hen"
Gaulish "sen-" (as in the tribal name "Senones")

And if most of Europe was once Celtic, how come these two languages, or any similar language did not survive anywhere else in europe?

Well, there was this wonderful thing called the Roman Empire which conquered most Celtic-speaking lands in Europe. And indeed, most areas that formerly spoke Celtic languages speak today Romance languages. Additionally, there's migrations of the Germanic tribes, of the Slavs, and even later, of the Magyars into areas that were formerly Celtic.

The only areas where Celtic languages survived were in Ireland (which was never occupied by the Romans) and in Britain, where they evolved into the Gaelic and Brythonic languages respectively.

there are numerous place names in the west of Ireland which have root Doire (oak wood). West of ireland is a bog country with some of the oldest bogs in the world. the last oaks that grew in the west of Ireland grew before 3000 bc. yet accordint to the place names (thousands) the area was full of oak trees. The only explanation is that the place names are at least 5000 years old and that people who gave these place names spoke Gaielic.

Who says that the word originally means "oak"? If you look at many other Indo-European languages, the word rather means "tree" or "wood", rather than explictly "oak". Notably, English "tree", Russian "derevo", Albanian "dru" all mean "tree", rather than "oak".

About Belchevski make up your own mind. i think that he has proven that Slavic languages or proto slavic if you want, existed in the Balkans early enough to be able to influence homerian greek and roman. that is all. what is funy is how adamant you are that this is not possible and you are not putting forward any valid counter argument.

Let me put forward a valid counter-argument. There is plenty of evidence in the Slavic languages that they are not native to the Balkans. I'll pick one excellent example, namely the word for "beech":

Bulgarian "buk"
Czech "buk"
Polish "buk"
Russian "buk"
Ukrainian "buk"

This word is a Germanic loanword, because if you compare it:

Anglo-Saxon "boc"
English "beech"
German "Buche"
Swedish "bok"
Gothic "bōk"

Now, if we take a look at other Indo-European languages:

Gaulish "bagos"
Latin "fagus" (note that this, is also the borrowing source of the modern Irish and Welsh words)
Greek "phēgos"

Thus in Celtic (Gaulish), Germanic, Greek and Italic (Latin) we find regular reflexes of the same root *bhāg-. Now, if this word was reflected regularly into Slavic, we would expect something like "bag", which is different from the observed form "buk". The only explanation is that the word for "beech" is a borrowing from Germanic into Slavic. Now, if we take a look at the natural distribution of beeches in Europe:



You realize that there is plenty of beeches on the Balkans and that the Slavs must have originated in an area where no beeches grew, and that they subsequently borrowed this word from Germanic when they expanded into Germanic-speaking areas during the Migration Period. Had the Slavs been native to the Balkans, they would obviously have a native word for "beech", now wouldn't they?

[Yetos]

yetos

i lived in crete for a year. i played tavurlu in a rebetico band. i listened to greek music a lot and can compare the rythams and melodies very well. i also spoke to greek people who were really into traditional greek music and they all told me that both demotiko and serviko are slavic dances. i did not say that they come from antiquity, yust that the slavs must have been a very numerous population in the whole of Greece in order to have such influence on Greek music. the same goes for scandinavia and ireland.

About Belchevski make up your own mind. i think that he has proven that Slavic languages or proto slavic if you want, existed in the Balkans early enough to be able to influence homerian greek and roman. that is all. what is funy is how adamant you are that this is not possible and you are not putting forward any valid counter argument.

Dublin
first I don't know whaat they told you
there is no serbiko dance but hasaposerbiko and I told you what it means
second demotiko means public
demotiko song (δημοτικα τραγουδια) is all tratidional folk dances and not one style
demotiko can be cretan aromani makedonian epirotan etc
demotiko are all the dances and rythms except the ancient and modern after 1922
if you know about demotiko then you know that demotiko shares unigue rythms with Bulgaria and Albania as a polyphonic which is the base of orthodox church songs

about Slavic influence mainly starts from 9th century and not from antiquity as you proposing
that is a common hobby-steal in Balkans, many dances and song and rythms are translated from one country to another.
example is goran bregovic songs 1990's which Greeks love them and many are translated,
on the other hand have you search about foreign rythms in Serbia?

what about kocek? is it Slavic?
nο way


to remind you and notice the difference

hasaposerbiko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c9DK...eature=related

hasapiko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ36g...eature=related

Demotiko-polyphonic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o34Am...eature=related

and to make some fun, the bellow is a shake dance of 60's based on a polyphonic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ6HKhgWbGk

Now Dublin
as you see only the first reach Slavic rythms but is it?

is there any any dance in Poland Slovakia ucraine simmilar to xasaposerbiko?
no way
so even what the Greeks call *serbiko might not be Slavic



in the other hand look at Serbian names
all ending in -dic -vic
the only known ending in such sound are the greek -ης espesially the -δης

Do you know any other Slavic names except Serbia that names end in in -ic?
NO usual ending is -ov -off and -ovski

so the influence and the exchange among Greeks and Srbs in obvious
what Srbs call as Slavic in Greece might be Greek since Greek names exist in Serbia

consider that 15% of Serbia at 1800 were Greeks the merchant road to Vienna

and in another post you said aromani are mountain people,
well no
there are aromani fishing villages in Greece and aromani villages at low lands not breeders but farmers fishermen and merchants which proves that aromani is not a mountainous population and lived in roman speaking villages (villas) the probably belong to a Roman elite or senate member, or a retired general


@Dublin
if you search demotiko rythms and songs you realiase that Serbian and Slavic Makedonian culture is more Greek than Slavicif you go to south Italy and study the rythms you see that same rythms exist in fyrom and serbian and bulgarian songs also but not in poland slovakia or russia, why?

[dublin]

Dublin, having an academic grade does not make people infallible. Academics are only humans. They make mistakes, sometimes they are biased, and sometimes, they just overlook facts. I mean, Florin Curta is probably a well-educated scholar on the topic of medieval Balkans, but he strikes me as a person who has no knowledge of linguistics or ancient place names. Otherwise he would not forward such ideas.

and people who gave him the award also don't know what they are talking about and they are all putting their careers on the line because of what? I don't believe that he is biased either as he is not Slavic or Serbian and can not be accused of serbian or slavic propaganda.

Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it is true, either.

agreed. so lets stop taking any book as a gospel and start using our brains.

- Gaulish "mapos"
- Oghamic Irish "maqqos"
- Old Irish "macc"
- Modern Irish "mac"

The interesting part is that the word is attested in Ogham inscriptions as the genitive form "maqqi". Both Gaulish and Latin had the same genitive ending. This proves that ancient Irish had a very similar declension system to Gaulish, to Latin, or other "old" Indo-European languages.

written irish is a complete invention by the first christian scolars and can be used as a proof for anything. the above just proves that who ever was using ogham was using a latin like language and not Gaelic. by the way ogham was imported to ireland from wales.

You don't understand that the modern Gaelic languages are in fact Celtic languages.

no this is not a fact. this is a theory. we don't know what Celtic languages were like.

As I said, Irish and Welsh share common sound changes with Gaulish and Celtiberian that set them apart from other Indo-European languages.

so are these your Celtic languages? are there any other Celtic languages in western and central europe?

One unique sound change in the Celtic languages is the disappearance of the PIE *p sound, if you compare the word for "father":

Irish "athair"
English - "father"
Latin - "pater"
Hindi - "pitā"

Ata means father/anchestor in Turkish.
"Ata" means "father" in Slovene too. this is in fact true for all slavic languages where ata is the old version of tata. this is where ataman comes from.
I think atta meant 'father' in ancient Gothic where it comes from slavic.
Atta is "father" also in Latin, Hittite.
In Hebrew 'ata' means 'you' - male, singular.
In Greenlandic aataa means grandfather and ataata means father

i could go on and on. if this is the Celtic link it is a very week one.

In addition, both the Gaelic languages and the Brythonic languages have sound changes that set them apart from the other Celtic languages. In Old Irish (but not Oghamic Irish), Proto-Celtic *w- became *f-. In contrast, in Brythonic *w- became *gw- For example, the word for "alder":

Old Irish "fern"
Modern Irish "fearn"
Welsh "gwern"
Gaulish "wern-" (as in the tribal name "Arverni")

Likewise, Brythonic developed *s- to *h-, for example, the word for "old":

Old Irish "sen"
Modern Irish "sean"
Welsh "hen"
Breton "hen"
Gaulish "sen-" (as in the tribal name "Senones")

I am sorry. What is this supposed to prove?

Well, there was this wonderful thing called the Roman Empire which conquered most Celtic-speaking lands in Europe. And indeed, most areas that formerly spoke Celtic languages speak today Romance languages. Additionally, there's migrations of the Germanic tribes, of the Slavs, and even later, of the Magyars into areas that were formerly Celtic.

again i have to ask you if Celtic languages are Gaelic + Bretonic or do you include any other ones?
as for romans and the barbarians, you are saying that they completely destroyed the Celtic languages in the Celtic heartlands of central europe but failed to do so in for instance britany? you would think that they would do the same to all the Celts without exceptions.

The only areas where Celtic languages survived were in Ireland (which was never occupied by the Romans) and in Britain, where they evolved into the Gaelic and Brythonic languages respectively.

romans, anglo saxons, normans, vikings, british. they all tried to eradicate the Gaelic language and Gaelic people by force. in ireland it was forbiden to speak Gaelic during the british rule. yet the language survived.

i think the only explanation why the Gaelic is not found anywhere else in europe is because it was never spoken anywhere else in europe. Gaelic languages survived in the areas where they were always spoken.

Who says that the word originally means "oak"? If you look at many other Indo-European languages, the word rather means "tree" or "wood", rather than explictly "oak". Notably, English "tree", Russian "derevo", Albanian "dru" all mean "tree", rather than "oak".

a Native irish speaker who spent 20 years researching the subject. and your explanation does not change the fact that the last tree of any kind, and not just oaks, grew in the are before 3000 bc when they were covered with bog. and the reason why we know it is oak and not other trees, is that huge amount of bog oaks, the preserved stumps of oak trees, were and still are found in bogs which are that old.

i don't get this thing with beech.

Bulgarian "buk"
Czech "buk"
Polish "buk"
Russian "buk"
Ukrainian "buk"

also Serbian, Croatian, and all the other balkan slavic languages. remember no 21a1 here yet the same word.

and here is more:

http://translate.definitions.net/beech

This word is a Germanic loanword, because if you compare it:

Anglo-Saxon "boc"
English "beech"
German "Buche"
Swedish "bok"
Gothic "bōk"

Now, if we take a look at other Indo-European languages:

Gaulish "bagos"
Latin "fagus" (note that this, is also the borrowing source of the modern Irish and Welsh words)
Greek "phēgos"

Thus in Celtic (Gaulish), Germanic, Greek and Italic (Latin) we find regular reflexes of the same root *bhāg-.Now, if this word was reflected regularly into Slavic, we would expect something like "bag",...

I don't get this argument. first german word sound like buk to me.

also

estonian - pöök (no beeches)
finish - pyökki (no beeches)
arficans (old west germanic) - beukeboom (beech country)
hungarian - bükk(fa) (beech country)
icelandic - beykitré (no beeches)
italian - faggio (beech country)
french - hêtre (beech country)
spanish - haya (beech country)
portugese - faia (beech country)
bukas - lithuanian (no beeches)
beuk; beuken- holand (beech country)

as you can see your above statement makes no sense as we have buk as a root in both german and dutch which are germanic languages, but also in all balt languages. and then completely diferent words in romanic languages.

actually your map overlaps with the venti (slavic) teritory and i wouldn't be surprised if the word actually comes from Slavic languages and was migrated to other languages where it became diferent because it was addopted and changed to suit the local language rules.

you should pick better examples.

Beech wood tablets were a common writing material in Germanic societies before the development of paper. The Old English bōc^[6] and Old Norse bók^[7] both have the primary sense of “beech” but also a secondary sense of “book”, and it is from bōc that the modern word derives.^[8] In modern German, the word for “book” is Buch, with Buche meaning “beech tree”. In Swedish, these words are the same, bok meaning both “beech tree” and “book”.

the same in slavic languages buk - beech, bukva - beech tree or wood, bukva, bukvica, bukvi - book or text or leters.

so maybe english book comes feom slavic buk for beech and book, which just proves that the original word was infact slavic.

[dublin]

yetos

if you know about demotiko then you know that demotiko shares unigue rythms with Bulgaria and Albania as a polyphonic which is the base of orthodox church songs

it is actually closest to serbian and makedonian folk music.

[Taranis]

Dublin,

I don't want to go into detail to your latest post because you have demonstrated to me that you have no understanding of linguistics. Which is why I will go back to the basics and explain them to you, and I will ask you then to re-read my post.

One of the most underlying principle in compative linguistics is sound correspondence. That one sound in language A corresponds to a sound B in a different language, even if the they have different values. What's at work here are thus sound changes, which can be formulated as sound laws. A very famous example of an entire set of sound laws is Grimm's Law, which governs the changes from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. This, for example, is found here:

Let's take a look at the word for 'two' in various branches of IE:

Baltic:
Lithuanian - Du
Latvian - Divi

Celtic:
Breton - Daou
Irish - Dhá
Welsh - Dau

Germanic:
Danish - To
Dutch - Twee
German - Zwei
Gothic - Twai
Norwegian - To
Swedish - Två

Italic/Romance:
Catalan - Dos
French - Deux
Italian - Due
Latin - Duo
Portuguese - Dois
Romanian - Două
Spanish - Dos

Slavic:
Belorussian - Dva
Bulgarian - Dve
Croatian - Dva
Czech - Dvě
Polish - Dwa
Russian - Dva
Serbian - Dva
Slovak - Dve
Slovenian - Dva
Ukrainian - Dva

Other IE:
Greek - Duo
Sanskrit - Dvi
Hindi - Dō

As you can see, with the notable exception of the Germanic languages, in all language families in the list, the word for 'two' starts with *d-. The Proto-Indo-Europan word for 'two' is reconstructed as 'dwo-'. Now, regarding the Germanic languages, the word is (with exception of German, but note that German 'z' is pronounced as /ts/) consistently *t. From that, we establish the hypothesis that Germanic *t corresponds with PIE *d. So, if we look at a few other English words, and compare it with cognates in other IE languages (I here take Latin), we can confirm this:

(to) teach - dicere
(to) tame - domare
ten - decem
Tues(-day) - Deus

We can establish that English (and by extension, Germanic) *t corresponds with PIE *d. Now, let's take a look at a few English words and their German cognates:

tame - zahm
tap - zapfen
ten - zehn
(to) tie - ziehen
(to) tear - zerren
to - zu

From that we can establish that German /ts-/ corresponds with English (and other Germanic) /t-/, and by extension that German *ts- corresponds with PIE *d.

So, the underlying principle (the so-called "Neogrammarian Hypothesis) is that sound laws have no exceptions. This means when a sound change occurs, it must affect all words in the vocabulary of a language. If there are seemingly exceptions, these are governed by their own set of rules (for example, only at the beginning of a word, only between vowels, etc.). Additionally, sound laws have no memory of previous sound changes.

So, to pick up the example of *bhāg- (beech):

PIE *bh- is reflected into Celtic, Germanic and Slavic as *b-
PIE *bh- is reflected into Italic as *f-
PIE *bh- is reflected into Greek as *ph-

(other examples of the above would be this):

("brother")
Old Irish - bráthair (also, modern Scottish Gaelic - bràthair)
English - brother
Latin - frater
Greek - phrater
Russian - brat

("to bear")
Old Irish - biru
English - (to) bear
Latin - ferre
Greek - pherō

(as you can see from these examples, the sound changes are perfectly regular in the respective languages)


PIE *g is reflected into Germanic as *k
PIE *g is reflected into Celtic, Greek, Italic and Slavic as *g

It is such thus impossible for the word "buk" to be a native Slavic word. The shift PIE *g > *k however is found in Germanic, and hence *k must be a Germanic borrowing into Slavic. The idea that the word came from Slavic and, as you put it, "became different because it was adopted to suit the local language rules" is impossible because, as I stated, sound laws have no memory!

[FBS]

This is an interesting graph from http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02...origin-in.html

Might give some answers to dublin and others probably:

[sparkey]

Celtic languages don't exist. Celtic language was invented as a term to separate Gaelic and Brytonic from Anglosaxon languages.

I was actually trying to work within your framework in that quote. Go ahead and replaced "Celtic" with "Gaulish" in that quote and see if it makes more sense to you then.

Can you give me an example of a living Celtic language from anywhere else in Europe and show me the connection wint the Gaelic languages which is not common connection between other germanic or slavic or latin or greek languages. Somthing uniquely celtic. i am really curious to hear what you have to say.

Why does it have to be living? We're usually talking about Gaulish when we're talking about the other side of the Celtic language tree from the Gaelic languages. Celtiberian is another. Taranis is doing a good job of explaning the similarities between these languages.

isn't r1a1 the slavic one? and here it is in all the Gaelic countries. not a lot but it is there.

Some R1a subclades are basically exclusive to Slavs, but they aren't the ones that pop up in Celtic language areas.

as for I2a1 which is the old slavic branch. and here it is in all the Gaelic countries. not a lot but it is there.

Similarly, I already explained which I2 subclades are present among Slavs, and which are prominent in Celtic language areas. They are different.

[dublin]

an interesting article from irish times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...316320037.html

[dublin]

taranis thank you for your explanation. i still don't agree with you. also what hapened with all the other question i have asked you. do you have answers to any of them?

[dublin]

sparkey

Some R1a subclades are basically exclusive to Slavs, but they aren't the ones that pop up in Celtic language areas.

just because there are some subclades that only appear amongst slavs does not mean that others are not slavic either. where is the logic in your argument?

[Taranis]

taranis thank you for your explanation. i still don't agree with you.

Well, let me ask you this: do you believe that the methodology that linguists have developed over the past 130+ years, which indeed is the framework for every language family that has been established (read: it works for all language families), is complete nonsense? Because that is the consequence of your opinion.

also what hapened with all the other question i have asked you. do you have answers to any of them?

If you had read my posts more thoroughly, you'd have realized that I actually answered most of the questions.

What I might perhaps add is this: you asked what actually constituted Celtic languages. Conviniently, the Celtic languages can be divided into four branches:

Goidelic, which includes Irish, Manx Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic, as well as their ancestor languages (Oghamic Irish and Old Irish)

Brythonic, which includes Breton, Cornish and Welsh, as well as their ancestor language (Common Brythonic, which was spoken during the Roman period). What possibly can also be included here is Pictish.

Gaulish (or "Gallic"), which also includes it's poorly-attested eastern relatives (Noric in the eastern Alps, and Galatian in Anatolia). What possibly also can be included here (though this is disputed) is the Lepontic language.

Celtiberian (sometimes also dubbed "Hispano-Celtic"), which includes Celtiberian proper as well as the poorly-attested relatives in the western part of the Iberian peninsula (principally Gallecian, in the area of modern-day Galicia).

Of these, of course, two branches (Gaulish and Celtiberian) are extinct, while the other ones (Goidelic and Brythonic) are still alive today.

[sparkey]

just because there are some subclades that only appear amongst slavs does not mean that others are not slavic either. where is the logic in your argument?

Do you know of R1a subclades that are common between Slavic language speakers and Celtic language speakers, at resolutions that may suggest that they share a relationship to the degree you're suggesting that they do? I don't. And I can say with great certainty that we don't know of such an I2 subclade. The closest I can think of is the small amount of I2c-B spillover into the Balkans, probably resulting from a minor expansion of a leftover from the Gallic expansion on the Balkans, within the later Republic of Venice (since the extent of this young branch of I2c-B almost exactly matches the Republic of Venice, reaching a peak in Crete). But as a whole, even the Gallic expansion appears to have left very few remnants Eastward, and effectively nothing exists to indicate a Slavic-origin gene flow the other direction.

[dublin]

taranis

Well, let me ask you this: do you believe that the methodology that linguists have developed over the past 130+ years, which indeed is the framework for every language family that has been established (read: it works for all language families), is complete nonsense? Because that is the consequence of your opinion.

i am sorry fro sounding flippant, i was rushing home and had no time to respond properly.

the above lows were developed by observing european languages and trying to make sense of them. the theory was also made based on the premise that at the time of the creation of European languages most of Europe was populated by Celts with Greeks, Romans, Germans, Balts, Iberians, Gaels, Gauls living on the fringes. The problem was that the European languages didn't behave the way people expected them to. Especially the so called Celtic languages and Germanic languages. More and more exceptions cropped up, and this is where this comes from:

So, the underlying principle (the so-called "Neogrammarian Hypothesis) is that sound laws have no exceptions. This means when a sound change occurs, it must affect all words in the vocabulary of a language. If there are seemingly exceptions, these are governed by their own set of rules (for example, only at the beginning of a word, only between vowels, etc.). Additionally, sound laws have no memoryof previous sound changes.

what was missing is something to glue all the languages together, which is what the missing Celtic language should have done. but there were people who lived in all the "Celtic" lands at the time when the languages were formed. they even had their own alphabet and their own language and had left numerous written texts. those people were Etruscans and Venets and vends. But no one could read this strange language. Until one day someone did by using Slavic alphabet and Slavic languages. then someone remembered all those people throughout the history who claimed that venti ind vendi were slavs. but how was that possible when slavs only came to europe in the 5th century? then some other people went and rechecked the etymological dictionary and found out that most words in so called "old" European languages which were of unknown origin are of slavic origin. then some other people did lots of genetic studies of the European people and discovered that Slavs in the Balkans (etruscans, veneti) were in the Balkans in the antiquity and that slavs (wends) in Baltic were there since at least the lusatian culture 2300 years ago.
this is why i don't agree with your explanation for beech. it makes no sense in light of all these finds. this doesn't mean that the whole sound correspondence law is crap.

[zanipolo]

Do you know of R1a subclades that are common between Slavic language speakers and Celtic language speakers, at resolutions that may suggest that they share a relationship to the degree you're suggesting that they do? I don't. And I can say with great certainty that we don't know of such an I2 subclade. The closest I can think of is the small amount of I2c-B spillover into the Balkans, probably resulting from a minor expansion of a leftover from the Gallic expansion on the Balkans, within the later Republic of Venice (since the extent of this young branch of I2c-B almost exactly matches the Republic of Venice, reaching a peak in Crete). But as a whole, even the Gallic expansion appears to have left very few remnants Eastward, and effectively nothing exists to indicate a Slavic-origin gene flow the other direction.

Where did you find this about I2c-B ? from KN?

Rep.of Venice policy on its partricians and merchant classes who went overseas, was
1 - You cannot bring you wife and family anywhere, except the 10000 that "colonised" crete
2 - You cannot marry anyone without the senate's approval after consciltation with the heraldry staff.
3 - You cannot bring concubines to venice/veneto from anywhere.

So, with these rules , the men could spred their ydna but it would be miniscule in numbers , and the mtdna would be fixed in majority to terafirma lands.

If this I2c-B is Gallic, where did it come from or was it there always with the ligurs-eugenai people who where the aboriginals of veneto and friuli. The major Y dna of Veneto and Friuli is R1b M173 that I know about.

[zanipolo]

@dublin

I do not know why you insist. Historians, say the balkans, where hellenic, thraci or illyric in majority, the carpathians and north where germanic as per bastanae and peucini tribes, the finni (finnish) where north of them. The baltic where on and inland from the baltic sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae
the germans/bastarnae where to the Dnieper river up to the year 100AD, then the sarmatians came in , then the Goths destroyed the sarmatians around 200-300AD advancing from the baltic to the black sea. where where these slavic people ?
The slavs where not created at the time west of the Dnieper river.

[sparkey]

Where did you find this about I2c-B ? from KN?

KN is aware of it and provides an overall TMRCA for it. More in-depth analyses have been done by Bob May and Paul Givargidze, though, so my analysis is based more on their work. Neither of them proposed the Republic of Venice connection, that was originally done by hobbyist poster haithabu IIRC, but I found it fairly convincing.

Rep.of Venice policy on its partricians and merchant classes who went overseas, was
1 - You cannot bring you wife and family anywhere, except the 10000 that "colonised" crete
2 - You cannot marry anyone without the senate's approval after consciltation with the heraldry staff.
3 - You cannot bring concubines to venice/veneto from anywhere.

So, with these rules , the men could spred their ydna but it would be miniscule in numbers , and the mtdna would be fixed in majority to terafirma lands.

Wouldn't that encourage the spread of a small well-to-do merchant class at the expense of others? So, suppose a lucky family had the otherwise rare Gallic I2c-B marker, and just happened to be the ones to get such permissions. I think that would map fairly well to what we see. Although, I admit that we're deep in the realm of speculation here... just some guesses about a minor clade with a confusing distribution.

If this I2c-B is Gallic, where did it come from or was it there always with the ligurs-eugenai people who where the aboriginals of veneto and friuli. The major Y dna of Veneto and Friuli is R1b M173 that I know about.

There's pretty strong evidence that I2c is anciently associated with the Rhine. Groups A and C clearly spread from near there. B is a more confusing case, since its spread is so wide by comparison, but somewhere around the core Gallic areas would make sense with its diversity patterns.

[mihaitzateo]

I want to show a very strange resemblance between the verb to be at positive and negative forms,between italian,serbo-croatian and romanian:
(J in serbo-croatian is pronounced as I in italian/romanian)

serbo-croatian	italian	romanian
Ja sam	Io sono	Eu sunt
Ti si	Tu sei	Tu esti
On/Ona je	lui/lei e	El/ea e (short form)
Mi smo	Noi siamo	Noi suntem
Vi ste	Voi siete	Voi sunteti
Oni/one/ona su	Oro/Loro sono	Ei/Ele sunt

Take how the negative form is formed in all languages:
In serbo-croatian you add ne between pronoun and verb and you link it to the verb.
For example:
Ja nesam;
In italian you add non between pronoun and verb:
Io non sono
In romanian you add nu between pronoun and verb:
Eu nu sunt
Now write serbo-croatian Ja nesam as Ja ne sam and see.
How can this very close resemblance be explained,since this is one of the most used verbs?
As you form the future,except different words,romanian is identical to serbo-croatian,even the particle changes same.Is the difference that serbo-croatian also got for 3rd person neuter pronoun,romanian only got masculine and feminine pronouns.

serbo-croatian	romanian
Ja ću biti	eu voi fi
Ti ćeš biti	tu vei fi
On/Ona/Ono će biti	el/ea vor fi
Mi ćemo biti	noi vom fi
Vi ćete biti	voi veti fi
Oni/one/ona će biti	ei/ele vor fi

biti = infinitive of verb to be in serbian ; fi= infinitive of verb to be in romanian - so notice also is actually exactly way in constructing the future.Notice that the additional particle for future also