PDA

View Full Version : Did Latin merge with Celtic languages to form Romance languages ?



Maciamo
24-10-09, 01:13
What is know of Gaulish and Lepontic Celtic shows that it was very similar to Latin. The syntax and grammar were apparently almost identical and many words very also identical or similar enough to be intelligible.

For example, the Gaulish word for "horse" is equos and the Latin is equus. Divine is divo in Gaulish and divinus in Latin. King is rix in Gaulish and rex in Latin. Gauls drank cervesia ("beer") while Romans had cervisia. Mediolanum, Milan's ancient name, can mean "middle plain" in either Celtic or Latin.

Some words seem to have their letters jumbled from one language to the other. The Latin mundus ("world") is dumno in Gaulish. A bull is taurus (or tavrvs as Romans didn't distinguish "v" from "u") in Latin, but tarvos in Gaulish.

Many Gaulish words have closer equivalents in Germanic languages than in Latin or modern Romance languages. "iron" was isarno in Gaulish, which relates to the modern German Eisen, Gothic eisarn and Old English isern or iren, but not at all to the Latin ferrum. In all likelihood it is Germanic languages that imported the Celtic term, as the Celts of the Hallstatt culture were the first to mine, work and export iron ore. The Gaulish word for mountain could have been perkun, related to the Gothic fairguni and the modern German/Dutch/Scandinavian berg(en). But this could stem from an older Indo-European root.

Naturally, Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages all stem from a common ancestor, the "Centum" dialect of Indo-European, most probably spoken by the R1b people who arrived in Europe from Anatolia along the Danube around 4300 ybp. The question is, does it make sense to divide them in three branches, or are Brythonic, Goidelic, Celtiberian, Gaulish, Lepontic, Latin and Oscan all part of a bigger Italo-Celtic family ? There was probably more difference between ancient Irish and Gaulish than between Gaulish, Lepontic and Latin. Even nowadays Welsh, Cornish and Breton cluster together, but are a world apart from Irish or Scottish Gaelic.

Nicholas Ostler explains in his remarkable book Empires of the Word, A Language History of the World (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007118716?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&link_code=as3&camp=2506&creative=9298&creativeASIN=0007118716), that languages are easily replaced by a closely related language, but rarely by a very different language unless their is a massive migration accompanying it. This is how Akkadian was quickly replaced by its cousin Aramaic in the Fertile Crescent, without invasion needed (Aramaic was the language of dessert nomads, as opposed to Akkadian that was spoken in the big cities). Yet Aramaic survived 1000 years of Greek and Roman rule, only to be replaced in a few decades by Arabic, another closely related Semitic language. The same happened with Egyptian, which the Greeks and Romans never managed to replace, but which was taken over by Arabic during the Muslim conquest. What was different ? Aramaic and Egyptian speakers could learn Arabic easily : same syntax, similar grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. Only a mild adjustment was needed. It was more like learning a new dialect than a completely foreign tongue like Latin, Greek or Persian.

The same must have been true between Celtic and Latin. Gaulish, Celtiberian and Lepontic speakers could learn Latin fairly easily, without changing the word order in their head and starting with a lot of common words. It would be like for a modern Spaniard to learn Italian or French, which is much easier than to learn Greek, Russian or Japanese. It could even be argued that Vulgar Latin, which evolved in the modern Romance languages, was an admixture of Latin with the various regional Celtic dialects. This would explain some pronunciation changes such as the Classical Latin -us ending into the Vulgar Latin -o ending, just like in Gaulish. If this really did happen, French, Occitan, Italian, Catalan, Castillan, Galician and Portuguese would not be direct descendants of Latin, but blends of Latin with regional Celtic dialects, explaining most of the present regional variations. The dialects of Arabic also appear to have incorporated quite a lot of words from the languages that preceded it. Egyptian Arabic blended Classical Arabic with Egyptian, while Maghrebian Arabic has Berber as well as Carthaginian influences. As a result, Maghrebian Arabic is no more intelligible to someone from Saudi Arabia as Portuguese is to an Italian.

It is telling that the Romans never managed to impose their language on anybody else than the Celts, and not even the Britons among them (apparently their Brythonic dialect was too remote from Latin, compared to Gaulish or Lepontic). The Greeks, Syrian, Jews or Egyptians never learned Latin (except for a small elite). In fact, the Jews of Egypt preferred to communicate in Greek rather than in Latin. From the the division of the Roman Empire in 286 CE, Greek regained its former status of official language of the Eastern Mediterranean. The only other region where Latin was spoken by the majority of the population was Dacia (modern Romania), which was also Celtic before the Roman conquest, and was massively resettled by Romans from Italy.

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

Germanic invaders of the Western Roman Empire adopted Latin because it was seen as a prestige language. They needed to speak it in order to administrate the conquered people who vastly outnumbered them. Speaking Latin also gave legitimacy to any wanna-be heirs of the Romans, be them the Goths, the Burgunds or the Franks. Germanic languages only survived in regions close to the Germanic homeland, where massive migration took place, like in England, Flanders, Rhineland, Bavaria or Austria.

In other words, Germanic languages must have been different enough from Latin to prevent the masses to learn Latin when they could live without it, and vice versa. Only when outnumbered did speaker of one language adopt the other. The few Roman Britons who didn't escape to Wales, Cornwall or Scotland had no choice but to learn Anglo-Saxon. The Gallo-Romans who stayed in Flanders or Rhineland had to learn Frankish due to the vast number of Germanic immigrants. But wherever the Gallo-Roman population exceeded the newcomers, Latin survived, sometimes after a bilingual period where both Frankish and Latin were spoken, like in Wallonia, French Flanders or Lorraine. Luxembourg has remained bilingual to this day.

Taranis
21-04-11, 23:32
Maciamo, I just read through this article, and I have to make a few nitpicks regarding Gaulish:


For example, the Gaulish word for "horse" is equos and the Latin is equus. Divine is divo in Gaulish and divinus in Latin. King is rix in Gaulish and rex in Latin. Gauls drank cervesia ("beer") while Romans had cervisia. Mediolanum, Milan's ancient name, can mean "middle plain" in either Celtic or Latin.

- In Gaulish, it being a P-Celtic language, the word for horse was "Epos" (compare Welsh "Ebol" and Breton "Ebeul" - both which actually mean "foal" but are clearly cognates with Gaulish "Epos"). The Common Celtic (as well as Q-Celtic), the form of the word would have been "Equos", which is indeed very similar to Latin "Equus". Indeed, the word is attested in Celtiberian as "Ekuos", and it is "Ech" in Old Irish and "Each" in modern Irish.

- The town name "Mediolanum" is actually latinized Gaulish. In Gaulish, the name would have been rendered as "Mediolanon". A common feature of the Celtic languages is the loss of the initial "P", perhaps via the intermediate stage of an "H". Therefore, the cognate of Latin "Planum" (plain) in Gaulish was "Lanon" (compare Old Irish "Lann", Welsh "Llan" and Breton "Leun").

zanipolo
22-04-11, 00:56
@marciano

Then this snippet from Treviso history
the ancient city of Tarvisium derived its name from a settlement of the Celtic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt) tribe of the Taurusci. Others have attributed the name instead to the Indo European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_language) root tarvos, meaning "bull". Tarvisium, then a city of the Veneti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti),

Indicates that the word bull is gaulish , yet this says celtic

While the terms in eupedia confused me for the realtionship of Gaulish with celtic. Can you clarify what is this association .

Same for the city of Oderzo
From the mid-9th century BC the Veneti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti) occupied site and gave it its name. Etymologically, "-terg-" in Opitergium stems from a Venetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic) root word indicating a market (q.v. Tergeste, the old name of Trieste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste)).

Diviacus
23-04-11, 19:33
I quite agree with your post, but :



The same must have been true between Celtic and Latin. Gaulish, Celtiberian and Lepontic speakers could learn Latin fairly easily, without changing the word order in their head and starting with a lot of common words.

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


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

Yes, but why was the Latin imposed to the Iberian speakers, as there was a priori the same difficulty ?

zanipolo
27-05-11, 10:11
I found this site which explains the italic and celtic connection PLUS all other indo -european languages

http://babaev.tripod.com/archive/article13.html

Brennus
17-08-11, 02:01
Celts, and not even the Britons among them (apparently their Brythonic dialect was too remote from Latin, compared to Gaulish or Lepontic).

This is not true Brythonic at that time the language was not to different from Gaulish.
From Tacitus:




Forming
a general judgment, however, it is credible that the Gauls seized the
neighbouring island. One sees here their sacred rites and their religious
beliefs; even the speech does not differ much;there is the same
boldness in seeking dangers, and the same shrinking from meeting them when they
are present. The Britons show more savageness, as those not yet civilized by a
long-continued peace. We have been given to understand that the Gauls, too, were
formerly conspicuous for their fighting; sluggishness, however, entered with
ease, and bravery was lost together with liberty. The same thing has happened to
those of the Britons who were formerly conquered, while the rest remain as the
Gauls were.

spongetaro
17-08-11, 08:19
Nicholas Ostler explains in his remarkable book Empires of the Word, A Language History of the World (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007118716?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&link_code=as3&camp=2506&creative=9298&creativeASIN=0007118716), that languages are easily replaced by a closely related language, but rarely by a very different language unless their is a massive migration accompanying it.

Turkey seems like an exception regarding this

Taranis
17-08-11, 20:12
@marciano

Then this snippet from Treviso history
the ancient city of Tarvisium derived its name from a settlement of the Celtic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt) tribe of the Taurusci. Others have attributed the name instead to the Indo European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_language) root tarvos, meaning "bull". Tarvisium, then a city of the Veneti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti),

Indicates that the word bull is gaulish , yet this says celtic

While the terms in eupedia confused me for the realtionship of Gaulish with celtic. Can you clarify what is this association .

"Tarwos" is the Gaulish word for "bull". Similar words exist in modern Celtic languages: Irish "Tarbh", Welsh "Tarw" and Breton "Tarv".

In regard for the usage of the terms "Gaulish" and "Celtic", I might somewhat sarcastically say this could be used interchangably, but only nearly so. For one, the "Gauls" refered to themselves as "Celts"*, for two from what little we know, the languages of the Norici and Galatians were very similar to Gaulish. However, on the other hand, the term "Gaul" is also a geographic term.

Also, in modern usage "Celts" refers to speakers of the Celtic languages as a whole, which the Gaulish language belongs to, alongside with Celtiberian, the Goidelic languages (Irish, Manx Gaelic and Scots Gaelic) and the Brythonic languages (Breton, Cornish and Welsh).

*compare with the beginning of Caesar's commentary on the Gallic War. Also, the "Keltoi" that Herodotus places at the source of the Danube.

zanipolo
19-08-11, 00:13
@Taranis

Ok of explanation, so is this site accurate.

http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf

Taranis
19-08-11, 21:04
@Taranis

Ok of explanation, so is this site accurate.

http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf

Yes, that pdf file is pretty accurate and detailed. It also happens to be from the university of Vienna's department for Indo-European studies.

Diviacus
21-08-11, 22:03
Yes, that pdf file is pretty accurate and detailed. It also happens to be from the university of Vienna's department for Indo-European studies.
How can you explain the expansion of the La Tene culture to the Lepontic area (page 2 of the referenced document) as the Lepontic inscriptions are older (and before the 5th century) ?
And what does the arrow towards the Celtiberians mean ?

Diviacus
22-08-11, 21:04
As there is no comment about my previous post, I precise my idea.
I have nothing special to say about page 1 of the pdf file.
On the contrary, I consider the page 2 as representative of a model which has been abandoned at least for 10 years by most of historians, so I don't consider this document as accurate (for the main reasons subjects of my two previous questions).

Taranis
22-08-11, 21:36
How can you explain the expansion of the La Tene culture to the Lepontic area (page 2 of the referenced document) as the Lepontic inscriptions are older (and before the 5th century) ?
And what does the arrow towards the Celtiberians mean ?


As there is no comment about my previous post, I precise my idea.
I have nothing special to say about page 1 of the pdf file.
On the contrary, I consider the page 2 as representative of a model which has been abandoned at least for 10 years by most of historians, so I don't consider this document as accurate (for the main reasons subjects of my two previous questions).

Sorry, I had not seen your posts until today.

I admit that I only glanced at the document, with primary focus on the overview on the first page, as well as on the details given later on about sound laws found in various branches of Celtic languages (it was there where my statement regarding "accurate" refered to).

To answer your questions on the map on page 2: I agree that the map is outdated, and Hallstatt and La-Tene does alone not explain the spread of the Celtic languages, especially due to the existence of Lepontic and Celtiberian.

Having said that, I have not seen any satisfying model yet that explains the spread of the Celtic languages as we see it. For instance, I vehemently oppose the so-called Atlantic School (who argues the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Bronze Age or even on the Iberian penninsula), due abundant evidence of the contrary.

Diviacus
22-08-11, 22:55
I agree with your post. I haven't either seen a new satisfactory model.
However I am always surprised to still see maps explaining the Celtic language expansion from "the Hallstatt - La Tene core". The fact we have not yet found a new satisfactory model is not a sufficient reason to continue to explain that the old model is a (the) right model !

Taranis
22-08-11, 23:25
I agree with your post. I haven't either seen a new satisfactory model.
However I am always surprised to still see maps explaining the Celtic language expansion from "the Hallstatt - La Tene core". The fact we have not yet found a new satisfactory model is not a sufficient reason to continue to explain that the old model is a (the) right model !

Well let me say this:

- the spread of Hallstatt and La-Tene very much explains the spread and distribution of Gaulish (as well it's eastern relatives, Galatian and Noric). The problem is, what was before Hallstatt? The Urnfield Culture spreads across large areas which are decisively known to be later on inhabited by non-Celtic peoples (most drastically Catalonia, but also for instance Poland). Having said this, Urnfield might explain the presence of the Lepontii, because the Golasecca Culture is just like Hallstatt is an offshot of Urnfield.

- The problem with the Atlantic Bronze Age hypothesis is similar: the abundance of non-Celtic languages (Basque/Aquitanian, Iberian, Lusitanian, Tartessian - which with exception of Lusitanian are also all non-Indo-European) in the Atlantic region.

- What neither archaeological cultures can sufficiently explain in my opinion is the situation on the British Isles, especially the complete lack of non-Celtic languages.

I think the consensus can be that if we go back sufficiently in time, correlation of archaeological cultures with ethnolinguistic groups gets problematic at best. And also, that a common archaeological culture doesn't automatically mean linguistic homogenity.

Diviacus
25-08-11, 21:29
I think the consensus can be that if we go back sufficiently in time, correlation of archaeological cultures with ethnolinguistic groups gets problematic at best. And also, that a common archaeological culture doesn't automatically mean linguistic homogenity.

That is certainly one of the major results of the past few years!

And it is precisely for that reason that I would not explain the spread and distribution of Gaulish (and more generally of the Celtic languages) by the spread of the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures.

For the 10 past years, the trend has been more and more to accept the idea that the Celtic languages would have been present in Europe during the IInd millennium, during the late Bronze Age (V.Kruta, D.Vitali, B.Cunnlife,…).
Obviously it is a speculative idea, but it is the hypothesis I prefer.

Among these people, among them being Celtic speakers, some cultures would have emerged, as the Hallstatt, La Tene, Celtiberian, Armorican, British… cultures, related or not related one to another.
For instance, V.Kruta explains that some “latenian cultures” could have emerged independently of the “La Tene” core, as the effect of the Greek, Etruscan and more generally Mediterranean influences on different Celtic people could have had about the same results.

And moreover, the historical correlation between the Urnfield culture and the Halstatt culture seems to loose some credit.

Apart from that, I agree with you (and with most historians) when considering the Atlantic hypothesis as audacious, even if I am interested by the idea.

And the situation of the British Isles, according to my former “prefered hypothesis” doesn’t have to be explained by an archaeological culture.

But finally, the explanation of the arrival of the Celtic languages during the late Bronze Age has still to be understood.

And as there are no traces of people movements during the IInd millennium, P.Brun makes the supposition they were already there during the IIIrd millennium… !

Taranis
27-08-11, 16:35
That is certainly one of the major results of the past few years!

And it is precisely for that reason that I would not explain the spread and distribution of Gaulish (and more generally of the Celtic languages) by the spread of the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures.

Yes and no.

If we look at the extend of Celtic name influence in Central Europe, it very much matches the extend of Hallstatt/La-Tene. What little we know about the Noric and Galatian languages clearly shows that they were similar to (if not almost the same as) Gaulish. This also matches the statements of Tacitus and St. Jerome about the languages of the Cotini (Celtic people in the Western Carpathians) and the Galatians in Anatolia.

Another decisive argument in my opinion is the number of Celtic borrowings into Proto-Germanic (that is, Proto-Germanic before the First Germanic Sound Shift). The most visible example is the adoption of the Gaulish word for iron ("Isarnos") into Proto-Germanic.


For the 10 past years, the trend has been more and more to accept the idea that the Celtic languages would have been present in Europe during the IInd millennium, during the late Bronze Age (V.Kruta, D.Vitali, B.Cunnlife,…).
Obviously it is a speculative idea, but it is the hypothesis I prefer.

Among these people, among them being Celtic speakers, some cultures would have emerged, as the Hallstatt, La Tene, Celtiberian, Armorican, British… cultures, related or not related one to another.
For instance, V.Kruta explains that some “latenian cultures” could have emerged independently of the “La Tene” core, as the effect of the Greek, Etruscan and more generally Mediterranean influences on different Celtic people could have had about the same results.

Let me say this: I tend to both agree and disagree. I would argue this: I think for the tremendous spread of the Hallstatt and La-Tene Cultures it is certainly more plausible to assume that they already were speaking Celtic languages in these areas.


And moreover, the historical correlation between the Urnfield culture and the Halstatt culture seems to loose some credit.

How? It always appeared to me that Hallstatt was basically an outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture. Granted, it was not the only one (you also have the Lusatian Culture in Poland, and the Golasecca Culture in the western Alps). I would appreciate if you could cite anything for this.


Apart from that, I agree with you (and with most historians) when considering the Atlantic hypothesis as audacious, even if I am interested by the idea

Well, the problem I have with the Atlantic hypothesis is that both linguistically and archaeologically, the movement appears to have been from the east (ie, central europe) into the west, not vice versa. If you look at the Celtic languages, the center of innovation was clearly in the east, and it is at the western peripheries (Ireland, Iberia) that the more archaic languages survived. This is espectially drastic on the Iberian penninsula because in addition, you have the survival of several non-Indo-European languages in Antiquity, and in addition, you also had a non-Celtic Indo-European language on the Iberian penninsula in Antiquity (Lusitanian).


And the situation of the British Isles, according to my former “prefered hypothesis” doesn’t have to be explained by an archaeological culture.

But finally, the explanation of the arrival of the Celtic languages during the late Bronze Age has still to be understood.

Well, one possibility I have contemplated on is the possibility that there were already non-Celtic Indo-Europeans on the British Isles. We know that this was the case on the Iberian penninsula (see above), so I don't see why it couldn't have been the case in Britain/Ireland, either.


And as there are no traces of people movements during the IInd millennium, P.Brun makes the supposition they were already there during the IIIrd millennium… !


Actually, the best case you can make, I would personally say, are the great upheavals that occur Europe-wide and also coincide with the Bronze Age Collapse in the eastern Mediterranean.

Another decisive argument that I think that can be made against the idea that the Celtic languages are very old (ie 3rd millennium BC) is another linguistic one: first off, the Celtic languages in Antiquity were too similar to each other to be particularly old. Archaic Irish of the 4th century AD (the language used in the Ogham inscriptions) is in many cases very similar to Gaulish. The other issue is the similarity of the Celtic languages to the Italic languages (common words, similar declensions/endings, common sound laws, etc.).

Diviacus
28-08-11, 15:48
Yes and no.

If we look at the extend of Celtic name influence in Central Europe, it very much matches the extend of Hallstatt/La-Tene. What little we know about the Noric and Galatian languages clearly shows that they were similar to (if not almost the same as) Gaulish. This also matches the statements of Tacitus and St. Jerome about the languages of the Cotini (Celtic people in the Western Carpathians) and the Galatians in Anatolia.

I was more thinking about the west part of the Celtic word, and before the East expansion (which is well documented). If we agree that the Celtiberian cannot be explained by the spread of the Halstatt / La Tene cultures, why would it be obvious that there would not be any other Celtic languages (for instance west of Gaul) prior to the La Tene culture spread ?



Another decisive argument in my opinion is the number of Celtic borrowings into Proto-Germanic (that is, Proto-Germanic before the First Germanic Sound Shift). The most visible example is the adoption of the Gaulish word for iron ("Isarnos") into Proto-Germanic.

I don’t understand this point. I agree that the word has been early borrowed by the Proto-Germans, but why would it be related only to the cultures spread?


How? It always appeared to me that Hallstatt was basically an outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture. Granted, it was not the only one (you also have the Lusatian Culture in Poland, and the Golasecca Culture in the western Alps). I would appreciate if you could cite anything for this.
V.Kruta (Les Celtes – 2000) doesn’t imagine the Urnfield culture expansion as a homogeneous ethnic group expansion, but more as a general cultural change of already differentiated groups.

Taranis
28-08-11, 16:09
I was more thinking about the west part of the Celtic word, and before the East expansion (which is well documented). If we agree that the Celtiberian cannot be explained by the spread of the Halstatt / La Tene cultures, why would it be obvious that there would not be any other Celtic languages (for instance west of Gaul) prior to the La Tene culture spread ?

What east expansion are you talking about? You mean the expansion from Central Europe into the Balkans? Because I haven't seen any evidence for an expansion from Gaul into Central Europe.

But otherwise, I agree, we would expect other Celtic languages to have been spoken in western Gaul before the spread of Hallstatt/La-Tene under this scenario. The other possibility is that of non-Celtic Indo-European languages being spoken in the region (specifically on the British Isles, and in particular Ireland). There are a few possibe indications for this, specifically words with initial *p (as you know, Proto-Celtic famously loses the Initial *p from Proto-Indo-European) found in Irish, which are not borrowings from Latin, either.


I don’t understand this point. I agree that the word has been early borrowed by the Proto-Germans, but why would it be related only to the cultures spread?

Well, I'm just arguing that there happens to be a match between archaeological spread and linguistics at work there: we see in archaeology that iron-working into the (Proto-Germanic, presumably) Jastorf Culture occured from the Hallstatt Culture, and we see that the Germanic word for iron was borrowed from Celtic, I think it's logical to assume that Hallstatt was apparently Celtic-speaking. I'm not arguing that Hallstatt was the only Celtic-speaking area at that time, but I merely argue that it clearly must have been Celtic-speaking.


V.Kruta (Les Celtes – 2000) doesn’t imagine the Urnfield culture expansion as a homogeneous ethnic group expansion, but more as a general cultural change of already differentiated groups.

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

Diviacus
30-08-11, 22:03
What east expansion are you talking about?

Obviously the expansion from central Europe.

To conclude, I think our opinions are close one to another, even if we agree that everything is not explained.

I would like to ask you a question (but it is out of this subject) :
Do you have an opinion on the interpretation of J Koch about the Tartessian inscriptions ?
(I have just received his later book Tartessian 2 ). I am personnally totally unable to have an opinion.

Sile
04-09-11, 10:04
Latin could only have merged with a southern gallic/celtic language to form Romance , since these languages where entwined pre gallic-roman war time.
L'oc ( from ancient to middle ages) stayed basically close to latin while L'oil became more germanised. Distance prevented a full merge with latin early on.

Taranis
08-10-11, 18:56
Obviously the expansion from central Europe.

To conclude, I think our opinions are close one to another, even if we agree that everything is not explained.

I would like to ask you a question (but it is out of this subject) :
Do you have an opinion on the interpretation of J Koch about the Tartessian inscriptions ?
(I have just received his later book Tartessian 2 ). I am personnally totally unable to have an opinion.

Sorry I didn't see this post until now. :embarassed:

There is this criticism of 'Celtic from the West' (http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html), which points out many problems with the interpetation of the interpretation of Tartessian as Celtic. Let me say this, I am very convinced that Tartessian was not a Celtic language, but I have no idea what it really was, and from the current perspective it's safe to just say that it is an unclassified language.

Cambrius (The Red)
08-10-11, 19:57
I said this before: Concerning Iberia, my suspicion is that Lusitanian was not the first IE language spoken in Iberia - and it may not have been Tartessian (classification currently under debate, therefore, the consensus is that it remains unclassified). Did a very early Celtic language develop in the Iberian Peninsula by virtue of long-term social and commercial exchange along the Atlantic Facade, perhaps via multiple influences, particularly from the British Isles?

zanipolo
08-10-11, 21:43
I said this before: Concerning Iberia, my suspicion is that Lusitanian was not the first IE language spoken in Iberia - and it may not have been Tartessian (classification currently under debate, therefore, the consensus is that it remains unclassified). Did a very early Celtic language develop in the Iberian Peninsula by virtue of long-term social and commercial exchange along the Atlantic Facade, perhaps via multiple influences, particularly from the British Isles?

Unless someone can correct me.........I was told/taught that there was no celtic spoken in the british isles until around 100BC, in england it was brittonic, in scotland it was pictish and also in ireland it was a dialect or original pictish ( Goidelic) .

Taranis
08-10-11, 21:52
Unless someone can correct me.........I was told/taught that there was no celtic spoken in the british isles until around 100BC, in england it was brittonic, in scotland it was pictish and also in ireland it was a dialect or original pictish ( Goidelic) .

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

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

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

zanipolo
08-10-11, 22:09
I am sorry, but this is definitely wrong. What is true is that knowledge of the British Isles is scarce before the 1st century BC. However, in the 4th century BC, Pytheas of Massilia visited the British Isles, and he recorded the name 'Pretannike' (modern Welsh 'Prydain'), which is where the later name 'Britain' (or Latin 'Britannia') comes from.

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

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

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

Taranis
08-10-11, 22:14
Still there is a timeframe where these original languages dominated over celtic or did Latin dominate them first,. Or do you mean, that before Latin arrived in the british isles, celtic was there.
I am usure who came after the brittonic and Goidelic languages of the isles

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

Sile
08-10-11, 22:38
I think you don't understand, Goidelic, Brythonic and Pictish are (or in the case of the latter, were) Celtic languages. I described the situation as it was described before the Romans arrived. The critical point really is that by the time the Romans showed up in Britain, no non-Celtic languages were apparently spoken in Britain.

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

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

Taranis
08-10-11, 22:45
So is this link wrong in regards to dates of the celtic languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Celtic_languages

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

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

Sile
08-10-11, 22:57
In the case you didn't notice, the article talks about Continental Celtic languages. Brythonic and Goidelic, in contrast, are Insular Celtic languages.

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

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

Edit: Proto-celtic


P-Celtic (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=P-Celtic&action=edit&redlink=1)

Gaulish (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Gaulish_language&action=edit&redlink=1)

Lepontic (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Lepontic_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Noric (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Noric_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Galatian (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Galatian_language&action=edit&redlink=1)


Brythonic (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Brythonic_languages&action=edit&redlink=1)

Cumbric (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Cumbric_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Pictish (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Pictish_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Old Welsh (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Old_Welsh_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Middle Welsh (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Middle_Welsh_language&action=edit&redlink=1)

Welsh (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Welsh_language&action=edit&redlink=1)


Southwestern Brythonic (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Southwestern_Brythonic_language&action=edit&redlink=1)

Breton (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Breton_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Cornish (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Cornish_language&action=edit&redlink=1)






Q-Celtic (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Q-Celtic&action=edit&redlink=1)

Celtiberian (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Celtiberian_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Goidelic (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Goidelic_languages&action=edit&redlink=1)

Primitive Irish (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Primitive_Irish_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Old Irish (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php/Old_Irish_language)
Middle Irish (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Middle_Irish_language&action=edit&redlink=1)

Irish (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Irish_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Scottish Gaelic (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Scottish_Gaelic_language&action=edit&redlink=1)
Manx (http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Manx_language&action=edit&redlink=1)








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

Taranis
08-10-11, 23:15
yes true , which is why you need to start with the continent and since the continental languages begin in 300BC and you say the isles is a branch of celtic , the question is who
"laid" the first celtic linguistic egg?

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

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

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

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

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

Sile
09-10-11, 10:39
The terms "Insular" and "Continental" Celtic languages are mostly just geographic designations, though one of the Insular Celtic languages (Breton) is actually spoken on the continent. This has little to do with the actual relationship between the Celtic languages, since the Brythonic languages are P-Celtic languages (like Gaulish and Galatian), whereas Goidelic (like Celtiberian) is Q-Celtic.

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

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

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

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

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

Taranis
09-10-11, 11:00
As i suspected, 6th century BC by the lepontic in the Italian alps. Which would mean the isles would have spoken there own language which was later modified by celtic vocabulary and then associated as an insular celtic tongue.

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

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

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


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

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

spongetaro
09-10-11, 12:29
- there was an earlier and/or more tho



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


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

Taranis
09-10-11, 13:08
We consider Caucasus to be the starting point of IE languages, still there are non IE languages in the Caucasus.

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

spongetaro
09-10-11, 13:37
Well, do we? If we go by the Kurgan hypothesis, I would say the Pontic-Caspian steppe, rather than the Caucasus. In any case, disregarding that, everybody (except for people who would argue for a Paleolithic continuity of Indo-European, which is a minority view that is quite in conflict with a lot of evidence) should agree that the Celtic (and more broadly non-Indo-European) languages are not native to Western Europe. From that perspective, we would expect non-Indo-European languages to have been spoken there at least at one point. If the Iberian penninsula was the starting point of the Celtic languages, we would expect it to be most thoroughly Celticized region since it has the longest Celtic language tradition, wouldn't we?


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

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

Taranis
09-10-11, 14:09
Imagine that a certain region of Iberia (western and central Iberia) suddendly spread the Celtic languages northward but that part of the Peninsula remains non-Celtic.
Compare it with the spread of Buddhism. Buddhism was created in India but was most successful in other countries (Thailand, Japan). We don't expect India to be the most buddhist country because it originated there.
Look at Christianism. We don't expect near east to be the most Christian area of the world because it originated there.

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


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

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

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

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

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

MOESAN
12-12-11, 22:28
[QUOTE=Diviacus;370851]I quite agree with your post, but :



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


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

MOESAN
21-12-11, 21:07
Well, that Urnfield wasn't homogenous is clear (the best examples the Urnfields in Catalonia, in an area that is later on inhabited by the non-Indo-European Iberians).

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

Taranis
23-12-11, 12:10
OK with your answers as a whole (good based) but even if a believe that Urnfields cultures was not homogenous, what push you to conclude the Urnfields was only a cultural movement on the only basis of Iberians occupying a previous Urnfield culture zone? I'm sure of nothing and I ask you: do you know if Iberians of Catalunia keep on the Urnfield way of burying?
I ask that because:
1- I red that Urnfields developments could have implied demic movements (even if not big invasions: I think in R1b-U152 in central Italy and western Poland and the possible tiny links between Urnfields of Villanova and of Lusace, some 'corded' phenotypes in western France at the same periods in nevertheless a poor Urnfield region
2- I red at the contrary that iberization of North Catalunia and South Languedoc implied very poor demic movements
waiting to read you, good evening and good brain storm .

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

zanipolo
23-12-11, 12:39
OK with your answers as a whole (good based) but even if a believe that Urnfields cultures was not homogenous, what push you to conclude the Urnfields was only a cultural movement on the only basis of Iberians occupying a previous Urnfield culture zone? I'm sure of nothing and I ask you: do you know if Iberians of Catalunia keep on the Urnfield way of burying?
I ask that because:
1- I red that Urnfields developments could have implied demic movements (even if not big invasions: I think in R1b-U152 in central Italy and western Poland and the possible tiny links between Urnfields of Villanova and of Lusace, some 'corded' phenotypes in western France at the same periods in nevertheless a poor Urnfield region
2- I red at the contrary that iberization of North Catalunia and South Languedoc implied very poor demic movements
waiting to read you, good evening and good brain storm .

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

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

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

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_kMODKN1odwC&pg=PA251&dq=iberians+and+ligurians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cln0ToqnKvDxmAWbp9moAg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q= ligurians&f=false



and another book

(http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_kMODKN1odwC&pg=PA251&dq=iberians+and+ligurians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cln0ToqnKvDxmAWbp9moAg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q= ligurians&f=false)http://books.google.com.au/books?id=S_cDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA268&dq=iberians+and+ligurians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cln0ToqnKvDxmAWbp9moAg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=iberians and ligurians&f=false
see page 268

MOESAN
26-12-11, 00:14
The problem with the Iberians is this: if we look to the north, the evidence for Iberian place names only extends towards the Roussillon (Elne, which is called "Iliberris" by Ptolemy). In the south and west, the evidence extends as far as the southern central meseta and eastern Andalusia (Granada). It's very clear that the Iberians did not enter Iberia from north.

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

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

Taranis
26-12-11, 01:40
in my mind the Iberians was coming from South, as you say
a lot of questions (I have not the answers)
-even these names like Iliberris: are they sure Ibérian names ?- could they not be linked to Aquitanians?
-was the Iberians rulers in South France/Rossillô a numerous population or only an elite?
-I haven't had a response for the burying: did they keep on with the Urnfields use or did they change it?


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


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


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



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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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

MOESAN
26-12-11, 17:28
Well, the relationship between Basque and Iberian is unclear, but what is clear is that there is a shared Basque/Iberian vocabulary. Wether these are Basque loanwords into Iberia, or the other way round, or Basque and Iberian are part of the same language family is not (yet) known.


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


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





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

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


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


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


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


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


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





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

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

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



GAULISH
LATIN










cattos
feles
cat



ibos?- eburos
taxus
yew



camba
curvus
curve



talo
frons, frontis
forehead, front



tâxo
meles
badger



caliavos
lepillus, silex
little stone



briga
altitudo, munimentum
hill, height,



brog
regio-nis, pagus
country, region



magos
campus, planities
plain, open fields



lanon
terra, planities
plain, open fields



math
sus, suis, porcus
pig



nanto
vallis, vallicula
valley, dale



novios
novus, recens
new



seno
vetus, senilis
old



(s)asiam
secale
rye



mâros
magnus, procerus
big, large




medio
medium, medius
half, middle



epos, marca-
equus, caballus
horse



are
prae, ante
ahead



ver
super
on



vindo
albus, candidus
white



rix
rex, regis
king



isarno
ferrum
iron



carruca
aratrum
plough



verno
alnus
elder tree ?



mori
mare
sea



upsello/uxello
summus, superior
high, superior



nerto/naritu
vires
strenght



-samo
-issim
superlatif



sonno
sol, solis
sun



vidu
arbor, lignum
wood, timber



bud
victoria, praeda
victory, win,



tutto
gens, gentis
people, folk



gabros
capra
goat



labar-
loquor-
speak-



ambi
circum, circa
around



isca, dobro-
aqua
water



bona
terminus, fines,
boundary stone



cladios
ensis, gladius
sword



ritom
vadum (portus)
ford



genos?- gnatos
natus
born



pennos
caput, capitis
head



garr-*
crus, cruris
leg



cavan-
noctua, bubo, bubonis
chat-huant



bron-
pectus, sinus
bossom



braca-
bracae
breeches



druto
spissus, densus
dense (thick,fat...)



nemeton
templum, fanum, aedes
temple



tarvos
taurus
bull



allo
alius, alter
other



sedlon
sedes, sella
seat



bardos
poeta, bardus
bard, poet



gaesa
lancea
lance



ratis
filix, filicis
fern



doula
folium
leaf



betulla
betulla
birch



beccos
rostrum, culmen
beak, tip, peak



leuga
leuca





carpentom
plaustrum
cart



cambi-
mutat-, permutat-
(ex)change-



cocos, rud
ruber, rutilus, cocus ?
red



treicle
pes,pedis
foot



aballo
malum
apple



doro
janua, ostium, porta
dor



trebo
tribus
folk, tribe



berula
cardamina, nasturcium
watercress



brucos
myrica
heather



blato
frumenta, triticum, farina
wheat, meal



bedo-
fossa (sepulcrum?)
dith, grave



artos
ursus
bear



abonna
flumen, amniculus
river



ander
vacca
cow



catu
pugna, proelium
fight



vobera
plaustria
marsh



benno
acume, vertex
tip, peak



cumba
vallicula
small dry valley



biber
fiber, castor
beaver



bag
fagus, faginum
beek



ambactos
obses, obsidis
servant, hostage



anuana
nomen
name



allos
secundus, alter
second, other



matu
bonus
good



ater-
pater
father




bnanom<<ban-
femina, mulier
woman



curmi
cervisia
beer, ale



cert-
recte, justus
right



cintux
primus
first



da
da-
give !



dios
dies
day



duxtir + gnata
filla + nata
daughter + born



eti
item, quoque
also, too



exo
praeter, excepta
excepted



mapo-, gnate
filius, natu
son



in
in
in



isoc
sic, ita
like, as



carata*
amata
loved (fem.)



bratu*
judictum, sententia
judgment



lubi
ama-
love !



lugos
corvus
raven, crow



matir
mater
mother



nane
fames
hunger



nepi/nepon
quidam, aliquis
somebody



nu
nunc
now



ponc
quando
when



regu-
offerre, praebere, da-
offer, give



rigan-
regina
queen



toncnaman
jus jurandum
oath, pledge



vo
sub
under



vero

superior

Estel
09-01-12, 16:59
The Basques are another good example of the difficulty of imposing a completely different language on a population. Although all the surrounding Celtic speakers quickly adopted Latin, the Basques, whose language is not part of the Indo-European family, retained their language up to the present day.

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


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

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

Maciamo
10-01-12, 11:40
The theory might work with the Basques, but not with Iberians -as it's been mentioned before-, despite being a more homogeneous group, a relatively more solid culture and occupying a larger area. Even when taking into consideration that the Basque Pyrenean corner is a more inaccessible place, it is a bit surprising.

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

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

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

I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions. As I have explained in the R1b history (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-conquest) and in this post (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26747-U152-Homeland-Revisited&p=379868&viewfull=1#post379868), the survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages. Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women. After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

spongetaro
10-01-12, 14:37
I don't really see how nor why the Basco-Aquitanian language would have expanded to the Mediterranean coast of Spain at the time of the Carthaginian colonisation of this very coast. If Iberian language was related to Basco-Aquitanian at all (a big if), the expansion of the ancestral language was probably Neolithic, and nothing says that the expansion was necessarily from the Pyrenees to the eastern coast of Spain. It could have been the other way round, or from another extinct source (central Iberia, southern France, Sardinia, or even further away like the Levant). Going back to the Indo-Europeanization of Iberia, it seems that the (Proto-)Celts of the early Bronze Age failed to impose their language not just over the Basque and Aquitanians, but also over all Mediterranean Iberia. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that (Proto-)Celtic was spoken in Iberia before the Iron Age, with the La Tène expansion of the Celts to Northeast Iberia. Iberian was still spoken when the Romans arrived. It was the Romanisation that eventually obliterated Iberian language around the 2nd century. I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions. As I have explained in the R1b history (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-conquest) and in this post (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26747-U152-Homeland-Revisited&p=379868&viewfull=1#post379868), the survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages. Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women. After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

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

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

Maciamo
10-01-12, 14:54
This scenario doesn't explain why places such as Greece, Iran and Anatolia became places where IE languages were spoken. The R1b or R1a invaders must have been a minority too there (including their wifes).


Perhaps because

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

and

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

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

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

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

spongetaro
10-01-12, 15:11
Perhaps because 1) Greece, Anatolia and Iran, were closer to the IE homeland and sustained a constant flux of IE invasions that prevented the language family to die (although it eventually did in Anatolia), and 2) probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference. From the time writing was invented, literate societies had much easier to impose their language over illiterate ones. That's also why European languages spread so well in the Americas and Africa, even in regions were Europeans colonists were only a tiny minority.

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

Diviacus
10-01-12, 15:52
... probably also because these regions were already literate at the time of the first IE invasions (Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Avestan were all written languages). This second consideration makes all the difference.

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

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

spongetaro
10-01-12, 16:21
Perhaps because

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



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


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


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

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

Maciamo
10-01-12, 20:47
You're contardicting yourself. If these regions were already literate, why did they adopt the language of iliterate people (the IE invaders)?


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

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

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

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

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

zanipolo
10-01-12, 21:02
This doesn't explain why neither the Roman, nor the "French" have not been able to replace the Basque language.
The Basques were not more "literate" than the Celts.
So if there is a special strength of the Basque culture to explain why it could resist for 2000 years, it can also explain it has been able to resist to the Celtic language.

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

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


basque language is equal to any language, today or yesterday

Franco
10-01-12, 21:27
This doesn't explain why neither the Roman, nor the "French" have not been able to replace the Basque language.
The Basques were not more "literate" than the Celts.
So if there is a special strength of the Basque culture to explain why it could resist for 2000 years, it can also explain it has been able to resist to the Celtic language.
Considering that the Basque language was spoken in a territory much bigger than it is nowadays, and now that territory is fully Romance speaking I would not say it has resisted that well. Even in the Basque country main cities like Bilbao have been predominantly Romance since the Middle Ages. In my opinion Basque has survived for the same reason the North of Spain in general was less romanised than other parts and later on never arabised: relative geographical isolation, lack of interest of foreign powers in controlling that territory tightly due to lack of resources, which left more freedom for indigenous culture to persist, etc. Interestly enough the Romans considered that among all the Roman provinces Aquitanians spoke Latin better than the rest, even the Romans themselves. Aquitanian is considered nowadays to be a form of ancient Basque, but only a tiny part of Aquitaine is Basque speaking nowadays in France, the one closer to the Pyrenees and thus more isolated. It happens exactly the same with the Celtic languages. They only persisted in the westermost parts of Europe and less accesible. Their geographical situation acted as shelter from the expansion of Latin and Germanic languages.

LeBrok
10-01-12, 22:33
Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?
I would say close to zero. Mostly because there was no need or time to learn. There were no public schools nor funds for it, writing is not needed to do farming or herding, kids worked hard from the day they could, there were no newspapers, sport sections to enjoy, and handwritten books costed a fortune.
From lower classes only richer merchants could afford teachers for kids, and needed writing to keep records of big inventory and to track money.

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

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

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

Yetos
10-01-12, 23:27
well in the case of ancient civilisations

Egypt indeed was a class

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

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

cause sometimes alphabet was stronger than sword,

zanipolo
11-01-12, 03:20
Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?
I would say close to zero. Mostly because there was no need or time to learn. There were no public schools nor funds for it, writing is not needed to do farming or herding, kids worked hard from the day they could, there were no newspapers, sport sections to enjoy, and handwritten books costed a fortune.
From lower classes only richer merchants could afford teachers for kids, and needed writing to keep records of big inventory and to track money.

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

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

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

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

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

LeBrok
11-01-12, 04:21
well dante, wrote in many of his books, that the regional languages in Italy established themselves around, 500AD, he said it grew from the community in there own area with their own original language mixed with latin to be a Vulgar Latin.
He then gathered information to create the Italian Language around the 13th century
It is pretty much how I imagined the process of lingua franca. Vulgar latin, later Italian connecting all regions and classes. Villages are very stubborn and conservative when it comes to languages. Even with all the effort of intelligentsia, merchants and cities, I'm pretty sure many villages retained their languages till recent times, till national education and cultural integration of mas-media finished them off.

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



In regards literacy, peasants are peasants the same over usually illiterate, but soldiers, merchants and artisans needed to know how to read and write from the ancient times, how else would you conduct business, trade, keep ledgers and stocks etc etc
Yes, the written words have origin in book keeping, when first cities started to grow on our planet.
I wouldn't have much hope in ordinary soldier knowing how to read till 19th century though. He just need to follow an order of a commander.

LeBrok
11-01-12, 04:38
well in the case of ancient civilisations

Egypt indeed was a class

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

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

cause sometimes alphabet was stronger than sword,

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

Maciamo
11-01-12, 11:48
Do we have any historic records indicating how literate society was in the past? We know for sure that elite (nobles and prists) could read and write. Do we have any records that it ever reached lower classes? If 90% of population are pesants, how many could have been literate?

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

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



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

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


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

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


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

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

Maciamo
11-01-12, 12:16
but in Makedonia we find katadesmos,
meaning low class knew to write and read
Athens we know that majority could read
more than 80 % could read basic, example the Ερμαι stele dedicated to Hermes
but only 40-50% could write,


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

Estel
11-01-12, 13:46
I don't really see how nor why the Basco-Aquitanian language would have expanded to the Mediterranean coast of Spain at the time of the Carthaginian colonisation of this very coast.

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


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

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


the expansion of the ancestral language was probably Neolithic,

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

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

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

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

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


and nothing says that the expansion was necessarily from the Pyrenees to the eastern coast of Spain. It could have been the other way round, or from another extinct source (central Iberia, southern France, Sardinia, or even further away like the Levant).

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

Taranis
11-01-12, 14:15
According to Villar, four linguistic strata are detected in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula before the Romans: 1, Bascoid; 2, Indo-European of the Southern-Ibero-Pyrenean type; 3, Celtiberian (within its well-known limits); 4, Iberian -this one being a clearly late superstratum, which would not have been able to eradicate the Indo-European stratum. This Southern-Ibero-Pyrenean substratum would be the oldest identifiable language layer in the Peninsula.

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

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

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

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

Maciamo
11-01-12, 14:28
What has been deciphered so far already points to a relationship that seems to go far beyond a mere language contact scenario. Obviously it does not imply that we can translate Iberian via Basque or Aquitanian.

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

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

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


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



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

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

Yetos
11-01-12, 20:06
You are referring to Athenian society at one particular moment of the Classical Antiquity (presumably its heyday). The shift from non-IE to IE language in Greece happened about 1500 years before that. The Mycenaeans were the first to diffuse the usage of writing for administration in continental Greece. I think it is one important factor in explaining why Mycenaean Greek wasn't absorbed by the indigenous language(s).



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


well 4 answers,

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

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

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


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

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

R1a is what Homers describes as Greeks



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

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

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

Theodorik
06-04-14, 22:28
At one time Gallic, a Celtic language, was spoken in France. Then, it was conquered by Rome and adopted Latin. Almost no Celtic vocabulary survived, but French does have many silent letters. The only language with more silent letters is Irish. For some reason, Celts tended have many silent letters.

Of course, in prehistory, both Celts and Italics lived side by side in Central Europe and spoke similar dialects of Indo-European.

Celtic doesn't seem to have much influence on other Romance languages.

Although Celts once inhabited the British Isles, they seem to have left almost no trace in English. English, of course, was influenced by Scandinavian and French.

LeBrok
06-04-14, 23:23
French does have many silent letters. The only language with more silent letters is Irish. For some reason, Celts tended have many silent letters.
Do you mean sounds that don't exist anymore, but existed in the past in French and Celtic when written words were formulated to describe spoken language at the time?

MOESAN
13-04-14, 23:23
some personal remarks
celtic did not "merge" with Latin to form French nor other Romance languages:
the conquired people adopted (slowly) the Romans language, but as it often occurs with long non scholar learning of language, say some period of individual disglossy, some idioms and words passed in the adopted vulgar latin -Romans took by the way some celtic words (bracae, cladius, carrus ...) as they took some germanic words, after, without being by that a mix of languageS!
yes the celtic languages were spoken in Iberia long before the Urnfields and Iron Ages
some scholars think now that some brittonic traits passed in english grammar, less germanic that believed, even if still very germanic - some special uses of the verb 'TO DO' as auxilliary and in idioms would be celtic, not germanic, not romance french (but in some french dialects too some celtic remains can be found even if very very scarce)
+
celtic languages are well known for their tendancy to reduce intervocalic consonnants (lenition-spiration), and apparently it was already the case in Roman times concerning gaulish or gallic (I find surprising the distinction made by some forumers between 'gallic' and 'celtic' or 'gaulish': we know there were some differences in dialects but nobody at this date has never recognized well based distinct dialects in Gaul; or we can distinguish 'celtic' as the indifferenciated stage includings ancestors of gaulish, celtiberic, brittonic, gaelic etc...) - the question of "mute" letters (signs) in a language are linked to two sorts of facts - A) the speed of phonetic changes in the language, what is a part of the explanation for celtic languages BUT ALSO: B) the age of the last orthographic (spelling) reformations: the older a standard official accepted spelling, the more chances to have a pronouciation which corresponds no more to spelling: it is the case in french - it is not so evident in breton (not so fast to erase sounds as french, but fast enough yet) BECAUSE THE BRETON SPELLING IS QUIET MODERN - today official spelling of dutch is very good to render offical standard dutch (less yet for dialects!) but it is the result of a relatively reformation of orthograph... concerning gaelic, the choice made by them had some logic concerning evolution and etymology, but they keep on with letters without any basic etymology concerning the loan words (they put very easily some BH / GH in middle of loan words to mark lengths of vowels or diphtongs without any B nor G in these words "parents"...what did not prevent them to drop off some etymologic signs in genuine gaelic words!) - also they put some "parasite" A or E before or behind consonnants, to "marry" with the etymologic vowels staying at the other side of the concerned consonnants, confirming by that the "slender" (yod quality<<front vowel) or the "broad" (° or w quality<< back vowel) quality of the central consonnant: easy in theory, an obstacle to learning in fact - french, upon that, lost almost everytime the sound of final consonnants, as Slavics -
if Slavs had keep on with the original etymologic letters in their languages, it could be the most difficult languages to read!!!
so every language is to be studied keeping in mind the age of its graphy

Kentel
24-04-14, 10:44
I agree completely with Moesan about this orthography (or "mute consonants") question.

Digging deeper in this Celtic influence upon French as far as phonetics are concerned, it has been assumed by various linguists that:

- the nasal vowels are Celtic (the same goes for Portuguese) (cf.Delattre, Dottin, Meyer-Lübke etc.)
- the natural laxness of articulation triggering palatalisations and diphtongations is Celtic, (cf. Delattre,Zink, Dauzat...)
- the same laxness triggers also the fall of the geminates and of the intervocalic consonants (Dauzat, Gray, Martinet, Watkins etc)
- Dottin also claims that the [y] sound (French "u") and the "liaison" are Celtic.

Hence if we follow these claims, about 90% of the French phonetics is Celtic.

The lexicon of the gallo-romance languages is mostly latin, no revelation here. The Celtic impact exists, but is not very important.

As for the syntax and the grammar, it looks much more complicated. Stefanini wrote an interesting paper about that ("Sur la grammaire historique du français", 1971), saying roughly that it is very difficult to put apart what is Celtic and what is the product of a later evolution.

And I would add a personal remark: a lot of common words in French (and Spanish) have no etymology at all, which could indicate borrowing from earlier substrata. I have also noticed that, when a word is non-etymologizable in a language, there is a good chance that it is not etymologizable in its neighbouring languages either.

MOESAN
25-04-14, 16:47
I agree completely with Moesan about this orthography (or "mute consonants") question.

Digging deeper in this Celtic influence upon French as far as phonetics are concerned, it has been assumed by various linguists that:

- the nasal vowels are Celtic (the same goes for Portuguese) (cf.Delattre, Dottin, Meyer-Lübke etc.)
- the natural laxness of articulation triggering palatalisations and diphtongations is Celtic, (cf. Delattre,Zink, Dauzat...)
- the same laxness triggers also the fall of the geminates and of the intervocalic consonants (Dauzat, Gray, Martinet, Watkins etc)
- Dottin also claims that the [y] sound (French "u") and the "liaison" are Celtic.

Hence if we follow these claims, about 90% of the French phonetics is Celtic.

The lexicon of the gallo-romance languages is mostly latin, no revelation here. The Celtic impact exists, but is not very important.

As for the syntax and the grammar, it looks much more complicated. Stefanini wrote an interesting paper about that ("Sur la grammaire historique du français", 1971), saying roughly that it is very difficult to put apart what is Celtic and what is the product of a later evolution.

And I would add a personal remark: a lot of common words in French (and Spanish) have no etymology at all, which could indicate borrowing from earlier substrata. I have also noticed that, when a word is non-etymologizable in a language, there is a good chance that it is not etymologizable in its neighbouring languages either.

I agree with you for the most
some resumed thoughts:
I say again that Gaul celtic and Roma latin did not merge to form french language – when we look at the vocabulary, we see their old stages showed more similarities (closer to previous I-Ean stages) than the Impire period – shared cognates were lost in the meanwhile -
phonetically, we see some «rupture» between oil french and occitan, but they don't prove a big opposition between the two big linguistic regions: in fact some almost gradual steps exist between both in Limousin and Auvergne; the explanation of bipartition of gaulish romace would stand in the dependance of very distant centers (economy, politic) – as a whole, the «celtic» element seems dominating in the «two Frances» as in northern Italy (central and palatized vowels like 'ü', 'ö', nasalisations, partial palatization of consonnants, even if less evident than in oil french...) - the lenition of stops exists as in Iberia, and in neo-celtic languages – the only difference is that 'oil' went even farther on this way, as did gaelic – the less «celtic» region for phonetic would be G(w)ascogne and Languedoc, being Gascogne the farthest -
the syntaxic evolution does not treach us a lot because Italian as French underwent evolutions greatly convergent when compared to ancient celtic or ancient latin (decadence of declintion system, use of prepositions...) - Slavic languages were more conservative on this aspect, spite their amazing phonetic evolution -
I say again here: latin languages imposed itself through a promotional centralized system within the Roma Empire, this upon the well known other causes like army occupation, army service, commercial centers, farms (villae) under Roman or latin speaking colons -
I don't believe in the (too?) famous «maternal» or «mother» language: at these times, power was in the hands of males, and a conqueror does not easily accept to learn the language of the defeated ones, females or not – I think the result of colonization is: males winners (and some females of same origin): ONE (their) language – the defeated ones: TWO languages (disglossy, inequal statute, with progressive lost of former language in favor of the new one) – the rule – it could suffer some exceptions but as a whole...

Kentel
25-04-14, 20:42
I don't believe in the (too?) famous «maternal» or «mother» language: at these times, power was in the hands of males, and a conqueror does not easily accept to learn the language of the defeated ones, females or not – I think the result of colonization is: males winners (and some females of same origin): ONE (their) language – the defeated ones: TWO languages (disglossy, inequal statute, with progressive lost of former language in favor of the new one) – the rule – it could suffer some exceptions but as a whole...

That's right, and this is accurately the point. In this respect, it is very interesting to look at the way creole languages appeared in the Carribean islands: French creoles have a French lexicon, but a clearly African (Niger-Congo) pronunciation and grammar. It is especially obvious when considering the verbal system and comparing it with wolof, peul or ewe, which were the languages of the slaves brought to these places at that time.

There are good reasons to believe that French developped through a creolization process: an elite of conquerors imposing its idiom to a dominated population of locals. The locals can easily borrow the words, but not give up their pronunciation nor their syntactic habitudes.

Georges
30-09-20, 00:28
So here I come like a fly in the soup, many years after the last message in this thread. I read what you, guys, have written, and am adding a few reflections of mine.

In order to understand the past, some things (not all) that are happening right now can explain things.

So, the first topic is the substrate. What elements do last as substrate?

I. Words:
1. Food (esp. berries), bushes, trees, animals, insects, ranks... for which there is no perfect equivalent in the strate language. Within 50 years, the whole population of Italy, Nertherlands, and Belgium will be speaking NeoEnglish as first language, although "polenta", "vol-au-vent", "schepen" will be kept, as English has no precise words for these notions.
2. Words that the indigens consider to be the same as in the learned language. In Lombard and Romanian, the Celtic word was kept for the number "four" (L "piatra", R "patru").
3. From a multitude of synonyms of the second language, the student always keeps in mind the one that is like the one in hir first language, although the two may not be etymologically related.
4. Cliffs, waters, religious/mythological beings without equivalent in the conquering language.
5. When there is a homonymy in the substrate language (Celtic "shepherd" and "master"; "sunlight" and "world"; "to vindicate" and "to heal"; "to punish" and "to win"), it can be incorporated within the dominant language.
6. Terms of affection of the substrate are kept in the dominant language, and even become
7. Endearing words, which eventually become regular words in the dominant language.
8. When the substrate language has a simple word, while the strate a long one, or a locution, the former may be kept for its shortness.
9. While some vulgarities are quickly learned in a second language, some of the substrate obscenities seem to be kept.

II. Grammar. For instance, traditional Romanian, as spoken by the farmers in Transylvania, has VSO sentences, as well as the adjective always after the noun, which also explains the postponed article ("capra illa, agnellu ille" VS "illa capra, ille agnellu" in other Romance languages), as in fact the article comes from the pronominal adjective. In Walloon, on the other side, it is the Germanic adstrate that reigns the preposed place of the adjective ("mssirs crombs laids araedjeys biesss halcotresses").
III. Trends of the substrate language are transferred to the strate one.

Therefore, if it is true that substrate and strate languages do not fuse, nevertheless, the influence of any substrate language on the strate one may be heavy. The ontological elements of a language, those which we consider when we classify the languages into families, are grammar, numerals, and kinship. And a given language becomes extinct when its grammar has been replaced by an alien one. Therefore, when there are grammar elements of the substrate, as well as substrate influences in the numerals, and kinship terms, there is something heavier than just "influence" from the outside.
Now, the other hot topic was whether the mothers have an role. For me, I don't hesitate to say yes. I have three examples in my mind, as well as an explanation:

1. The famous case in Trves of the woman Artula burying her daughter Ursula.

2. In Wallonia, when the people still speak Walloon, it's the paternal language, while French was always learned from the mother. Most of my friends with whom I speak Walloon have learnt it either from their fathers, or grandfathers. There was an old lady in Ciney with whom I used to talk in Walloon. She would also speak Walloon with her husband. Yet her children had Walloon only as their third or fourth language, and almost never spoke it. However, their French was very Walloonised in grammar and pronunciation. I asked her why. She replied, "When the children were born, I decided to only speak French with them, for them to succeed in their life."

3. In Romanian, the double present perfect (pass surcompos) puts the participle always at the female gender, even when the speaker is male, which means that it was the mothers who transmitted the language to the children.

There were no warriors in the Alps on the heights 1500 years ago. The men would go on the heights with the sheep on summer, helped by the grown-up boys, while the mothers would stay downhill with the children and some cattle, go to church etc. That's also why herding terms trend to be of substrate in the Alps.

MOESAN
01-10-20, 23:58
Interesting post.
But in your 'I-2', I think the 'patru' for "four" in Romanian is not from Celtic but from Romanian Latin: Romanian, as other languages, replaces often 'kw' by 'p' , for me surely under the influence of a sprachbund of Central Europe around the transition between Late Bronze and Early Iron.
concerning your 'I-5' could you provide me your Celtic sources?
Concerning women 's influences, I don't deny at a substratum level, the case of close languages with different statuts (high culture or official languages vs rural dialect is not exactly the same as the competition between two very different languages with a frontal replacement forced by the "winner" over the "looser"; it' well known that in countries with schools and written official language, the women defend rather the standard language when the males keep more easily a clannic attitude and their dialect which marks it. As long as these women can access to schooling. It goes so far as to influence differences between genders in the prononciation of the standard.

Georges
03-10-20, 10:27
Interesting post.
But in your 'I-2', I think the 'patru' for "four" in Romanian is not from Celtic but from Romanian Latin: Romanian, as other languages, replaces often 'kw' by 'p'[/MOESAN]

Nope.
Qua --> că
qurere --> cere
qui --> ci
qualis --> care
quantu, quot --> ct
quomodo --> cum
quando --> cnd etc.

[quote]concerning your 'I-5' could you provide me your Celtic sources?

"There is confusion in Gaelic between ireach and O. Ir. aire(ch), lord; the b-aire, cow-lord, was the free tenant of ancient Ireland." (Alexander MacBain).
Romanian "baciu" and "bade", both meaning "sir" and "shepherd".

Romanian "cştiga", Breton "gounit", middle-Breton "goanaff", Welsh "cynnydd".

Romanian "vindeca", to heal. Irish: "cc": revenge, redress, cure. Scottish Gaelic: "oc, ce", sm rent, payment. 2 medicine, healing, remedy. 3 requital. Manx "geeck", to pay, to heal; eeck, price, value; payment; healing, cure; "eeck": clear off debt, payment, pay off, pay out, remittance, reward. Cornish "yehs" (yechs, yeghs, yehs iachs), "iache", to heal, to cure; "iaches", health; "iag", cure, remedy.

Romanian "lume" (light & world), cf. Scottish Gaelic: "grine, grian", sun, light, and "cruinne", world.

MOESAN
03-10-20, 16:06
@Georges
Thanks for feeding!
OK I spoke too quickly.

But we have Romanian : apă(Lat aqua, water), lemn < ?*lebn (Lat lign- thimber), limbă(Lat lingua, tongue), drept/dreapta (Lat direct- ~ right) this last word opposable to fructe (Lat fruct-, fruit) and so on…
Maybe we have here more than an Italic or Latin stratum, aside Slavic and recent French loans ? - or is there a Greek influence ? I avow I’m short, I am not a philologist.
Your comparisons of Romanian to Celtic seems me a bit hazardous, sometimes (no offense) :
Gaelic bóaire is from bó cow, Welsh/Breton buwch/buoc’h, IE *gwows, Lat bovis – romanian baciu seems linked to Lat bac-/bacillum stick > shepherd’s crook, Welsh bagl > baglog > Breton beleg < baeloc priest -
romanian câştig/a seems far from Welsh cynnydd Bret gounez/gounid (g- from ancient k-), unless you have an etymology close to **cân-st- something like that -
romanian vindeca is really linked to words of Latin origin like revenge, French venger and so on, where I see some supposed **wind- evocating return to previous situation (to revenge, to heal) ; but Gaelic and Irish íoc (< ?*ícc?) with their meanings are linked to Welsh/Breton iach/yac’h healthy, iechyd/yec’hedhealth (Cornish yagh + yeghes to date, I think) ; I doubt ícc would be cognate with *wind-ic- or with the lone ic which seems a suffix only in Latin -
to finish : what would you show with the line lume, (?) gràinne, grian, cruinne ?

MOESAN
03-10-20, 16:14
@Georges
I re-read:
You wrote: 5. When there is a homonymy in the substrate language (Celtic "shepherd" and "master"; "sunlight" and "world"; "to vindicate" and "to heal"; "to punish" and "to win"), it can be incorporated within the dominant language.
OK
You were rather speaking of meanings fields, not phonetic: but meaning fields show so common facts between languages, BI IE languages. It's hardly useful for demonstrations.

MOESAN
07-10-20, 17:43
In Romanian "câștiga(t)", "câștig" are sinonime with "agonisit", "agoniseală" and sound like Breton "gounit" :)

in fact, breton gounid = to win, to gain, to cultivate > to persuade has a meaning very far from câstig- or aginisealä - gounid < Old Breton guinit is closer to Welsh gweinyddu = to manage, Gaelic or Irish fogniù -

MOESAN
23-10-20, 16:17
In fact, in Romanian, "agonisit" is said in the sense of winning/gathered managed through work, as opposed to an accidental win as in the lottery. So is it I think the same meaning?

In this case, yes, for the meaning, at first sight.
On the phonetical side, agonisit doesn't seem linked to Breton guinit contrary to English to win -
ATW thanks to Romanians for sharing a bit of their vocabulary.

Questions
23-11-20, 00:43
What is know of Gaulish and Lepontic Celtic shows that it was very similar to Latin. The syntax and grammar were apparently almost identical and many words very also identical or similar enough to be intelligible.
...
It is telling that the Romans never managed to impose their language on anybody else than the Celts


"... that the language of the Roman empire, was the tongue not of the Sabine conquerers, but of their Plebeian subjects, in other words that Latin is Ligurian."--Ridgeway, Who Were The Romans?

"I follow Pedersen in concluding that the correct view to be taken of the Lepontic inscriptions is to consider them not Keltic but rather Ligurian in dialect."--Whatmough, Lepontic Inscriptions and the Ligurian Dialect


No, Latin didn't merge with Celtic to form Romance Languages.
In fact, the Romans are being given the credit for Latin which never belonged to them.
And the Celts are being given credit for Lepontic inscriptions that never belonged to them.

MOESAN
23-11-20, 12:43
@questions
Maciamo spoke of Lepontic AND Gaulish. I answered him long ago and showed him that spite of a not too remote past they shared linguistic ties with Italic, Celtic languages were far enough from them at proto-historical times. Concerning Lepontic and your assertions, I wait some proofs: what I read about Ligurian places them in between Celtic and Italic, closer to Celtic concerning phonetics, but...?

Questions
23-11-20, 21:32
I have referenced Whatmough who is a linguist. I am uncomfortable reinventing the wheel, not being a linguist myself. My first thoughts when reading Rhys who wrote on those Lepontic Inscriptions was to question how much Rhys knows about linguistics, since I differ with him on much of what he says about the Welsh. In fact, the single thing do I agree with Rhys on is what race produced the Druids... both of us having come to the conclusion that it was not the Celtic invaders. Whatmough fleshes out the subject of Rhys' incompetence, upon which so many writers had seemed to depend, and gets into the specifics. If you haven't found the article, it's in the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 38 (1927), pp. 1-20.
A century ago, philology used to consist of little more than someone taking two separate languages with two words that sound the same, and then applying the same definition to the two sound-alike words... Apparently nobody ever thought to question the lack of logic, or no journals offered those questions to their readers.
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 55 (1944), pp. 1-85; Keatika: Being Prolegomena to a Study of the Dialects of Ancient Gaul
by Joshua Whatmough... first paragraph of the preface:
"EVEN the late Sir John Rhys, although he was not a competent critic of such matters, came in time to understand that the pre-Latin dialects of Gaul and of northern Italy present related problems of classification, at least in Provence and the western part of Gallia Cisalpina: merely related, that is, not identical. Whoever tries to make up his mind about the one, must, sooner or later, make up his mind about the other. It was for this reason that at one time I intended to give some account of the inscriptions called "Celtican" by Rhys, "Ligurian" by d'Arbois de Jubainville, in the Appendix (A. Alien Inscriptions) of The Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy (Vol. II, 1933, see p. 612, no. 4). That plan proved impracticable. Hence I decided to expand what had begun simply as an account of the pre-Roman dialect of Provence into a survey of the linguistic remains, more or less contemporary, of Gaul as a whole--in the broadest interpretation of that variously defined geographical label."
My interest in Ligurians in general has to do with the real first people of Iberia, West-Europe and Britain. Not just how they looked, what language they spoke, and what DNA studies have been done on them... but their history en masse. Because I believe, at this point in time, that these Ligurians are the long-barrow long-heads of Britain.
William Ridgeway wrote as an historian, and ties the legends of early Rome to the Aborigines who were Ligurians and were the Plebians who spoke Latin. I began reading Ridgeways two books on the Early Age of Greece, and in the second volume is the chapter heading "Who Were the Romans?" This little chapter is a tiny book being offered for sale today, at about $3 a page, probably in one of those horrid reprints which are flooding the market. But the two volume set is still available online for download. It is from those volumes that I developed an interest in Pelasgian Sea People and the central Europeans who fought them at Troy.
In Italy, the Greek Pelasgians teamed up with the Latin Ligurians against the Celtic Umbrians and Sabines who are eventually seen carrying the name Roman. To see the Celts being given the credit which is due to the Ligurians gets on my last nerve. The Ligurians had Marsailles and had the Nemeton nearby. The Nemeton is Druidic, which is said to have been a Celtic invention by people who don't take any time at all to do the research. The Roman Celts burned down the Nemeton... a thing no Druids would ever have done... to even their worst enemy. In short, nothing on heaven and earth can be farther apart than Latin Ligurians and Roman Celts.
What the world is calling Romanization has nothing to do with the Romans, who did what all conquerers do and learned the language of the people whose land they stole. The Latin language was already in those lands, having been carried there by the indigenous Ligurians who spoke the Latin Language. We find Latin in the same place we find the Ligurians, from Italy to the Alps, up the Loire to Britain, and in Iberia where the Ligurians lived.

Questions
24-11-20, 22:37
You're contardicting yourself. If these regions were already literate, why did they adopt the language of iliterate people (the IE invaders)?



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

These are the types of questions that make IE doubters doubt. Not everything fits in a box. Life is messy. Do we really have to categorize evvvverything? My answer is No. Take the Basques for example. They spoke the language of the Steppes, and somehow end up stranded in Iberia with the Latin languages. People don't remember that Loyola was Basque and that many people became crypto-this-and-that, who didn't end up dead. Who knows? maybe Loyola used this opportunity to bring a bunch of his liter-mates to fill the gap he had created.