PDA

View Full Version : When was Proto-Celtic spoken (offtopic from Beaker-Bell R1b)



Taranis
05-05-12, 22:37
Ireland is an endpoint and endpoints are good to test hypotheses.

The last of the four Megalithic building waves was the Wedge Tomb which briefly overlapped with the Bronze Age people. In this Bronze Age, the artifacts are Bell Beaker, which are found uniformly throughout the island in contrast to the Megaliths which are mostly in the north. The certifiably Celtic La Tène culture is also found entirely in the north, and the south is without any Iron Age artifacts at all.

No one has found any evidence of any "Celtic Invasions" of Ireland, yet the people are there. It has been pointed out that many of the pre-Christian royal sites (really more rex as in the Golden Bough, than king), are associated with Megalithic sites, especially Tara and the great Boyne Valley monuments. This seems to me to indicate a certain cultural continuity through the centuries, as opposed to some Celtic Invasion from Iberia who stumbled upon Newgrange.

So it has always seemed to me, that the only candidates for the presumed pre-Celts were the Bell Beakers, for if not them, then who?

These new R1b results are very intriguing.

You bring up some very interesting ideas there. I absolutely agree that the position of Ireland is intriguing, and the origin of the Celtic language in Ireland is puzzling.

As I mentioned before, there are several unanswered problems with the idea that Beaker-Bell was Proto-Celtic: first is the sheer area that it covered (since areas such southern Scandinavia, Sardinia, Sicily, Southeastern Iberia, North Africa, etc. were never Celtic), the second is the ancientness of Beaker-Bell.

Beaker-Bell existed circa 2,000 years before the earliest attestations of Celtic languages, and if we compare the Celtic languages in Antiquity (Lepontic, Celtiberian, Gaulish, Ogham Irish - especially the parallels between the latter two are particularly stunning), they are all fairly similar to each other (and paradoxially Oghamic Irish, from the 4th century AD is in many ways the most conservative of them all). If we compare language families that are of a roughly comparable age (ie, the Germanic and the Romance languages), they have diverged to a much greater degree. From that perspective, I find it highly dubious to argue that the Celtic languages began to diverge in the 3rd millennium BC if they are so similar to each other. As an analogy, this is like arguing that Vulgar Latin was spoken around 4000 years ago.

I absolutely agree however that the Celtic language presence in Ireland can be neither explained by a La-Tene invasion/immigration (this can be convincingly argued for P-Celtic Britain, but definitely not for Ireland!), nor by some kind of late immigration from Iberia (I'm talking about the Mil Espaine from the Book of Invasions, which are almost certainly a medieval fabrication - besides if anything I think this happened vice versa :laughing: ).

spongetaro
06-05-12, 16:17
Beaker-Bell existed circa 2,000 years before the earliest attestations of Celtic languages, and if we compare the Celtic languages in Antiquity (Lepontic, Celtiberian, Gaulish, Ogham Irish - especially the parallels between the latter two are particularly stunning), they are all fairly similar to each other (and paradoxially Oghamic Irish, from the 4th century AD is in many ways the most conservative of them all). If we compare language families that are of a roughly comparable age (ie, the Germanic and the Romance languages), they have diverged to a much greater degree. From that perspective, I find it highly dubious to argue that the Celtic languages began to diverge in the 3rd millennium BC if they are so similar to each other. As an analogy, this is like arguing that Vulgar Latin was spoken around 4000 years ago.

Aren't there conservative languages that doesn't change too much over time like Greek, Lithuanian etc?

spongetaro
06-05-12, 16:30
If we compare language families that are of a roughly comparable age (ie, the Germanic and the Romance languages), they have diverged to a much greater degree. .

Do you really think that Germanic and Romance languages have the same age? Just because the Grimm law is contemporary to the Roman empire doesn't mean that some sort of Germanic languages (without exactly the same sounds'laws but related anyway) weren't spoken in the bronze age. It can be exactly the same for Celtic languages.

Btw, celtic languages were not so similar. Typically, Lusitanian and Ligurian diverged from other Celtic languages very early.

Taranis
06-05-12, 19:14
Do you really think that Germanic and Romance languages have the same age? Just because the Grimm law is contemporary to the Roman empire doesn't mean that some sort of Germanic languages (without exactly the same sounds'laws but related anyway) weren't spoken in the bronze age. It can be exactly the same for Celtic languages.

Btw, celtic languages were not so similar. Typically, Lusitanian and Ligurian diverged from other Celtic languages very early.

(I've decided to move this into a different thread, because I felt this was straying too far off-topic from the original thread)


Well, let's recall what the "proto" means: it's the reconstructed ancestor language of all known branches. In the case of the Germanic languages, this encompasses East Germanic (principally Gothic), North Germanic (the Scandinavian languages) and West Germanic (ie. Anglo-Saxon, English, Frisian, Dutch, German, etc.). The reconstructed ancestor language of these is called "Proto-Germanic", and it's usually reconstructed to have been spoken around the 1st century BC/AD. The defining feature of Proto-Germanic, which sets it apart from all other branches of Indo-European is Grimm's Law. Theoretically, you do obviously have to consider the developments that took place between the divergence of Proto-Germanic into it's daughter languages, and the point when Proto-Germanic became a separate branch of PIE. This time frame we could refer to as a "Pre-Proto-Germanic" language stage(s). Theoretically, we could conceive languages to branch off there.


If we now look at the Romance languages, we actually are lucky to know the ancestor language, Latin, and we know also a number of extinct relatives (the old Italic languages, such as Faliscan, Oscan, Umbrian, and a few other ones which are poor-attested). Oscan and Umbrian, of course, are Italic languages (like Latin), but they are obviously not Romance languages.


What does this mean for the Celtic languages? One of the unique features that all Celtic languages have in common is the loss of the Proto-Indo-European *p sound (compare Irish "athair", Latin "pater" and English "father"). In contrast to this, Lusitanian preserves PIE *p (compare Lusitanian "porcom", Gaulish "orcos", Old Irish "orc", German "Ferkel").


The take of some scholars (notably Untermann, 1987) on Lusitanian was to suggest because of this that the Celtic languages should be redefined to include the *p. Note however that this generates a circular logic: if we say Proto-Celtic isn't defined by the loss of *p (amongst other things), then Lusitanian suddenly becomes a Celtic language. However, all other Celtic languages still have it in common (amongst other things) that the *p is lost. So from that perspective, we might rather say Lusitanian is "Para-Celtic" instead.


If we follow the Lusitanian "vibe", we might say that Oscan and Umbrian are "Para-Romance" languages, but there's no way that Oscan and Umbrian are "full" Romance languages: all known Romance languages still have commonalities with each other that they don't share with Oscan and Umbrian, and vice versa. We might also hypothetically conceive a "Para-Germanic" language for which Grimm's Law doesn't apply that coexisted simultaneously with Proto-Germanic, but this language would not be a proper Germanic language because Grimm's Law doesn't epply. Unless we suddenly redefine the Germanic languages and say that Grimm's Law is not the unifying feature of all Germanic languages.

So, what does this mean for Proto-Celtic? Obviously that Lusitanian (if we take it really as a "Para-Celtic" language, which is an opinion that is not shared by all authors) was the first branch to diverge and that all other Celtic languages are more closely related with each other than they are with Lusitanian. If we consider this, it's really questionable to push the date for when Proto-Celtic was spoken as much back as to 2500 BC.

zanipolo
06-05-12, 23:01
(I've decided to move this into a different thread, because I felt this was straying too far off-topic from the original thread)


Well, let's recall what the "proto" means: it's the reconstructed ancestor language of all known branches. In the case of the Germanic languages, this encompasses East Germanic (principally Gothic), North Germanic (the Scandinavian languages) and West Germanic (ie. Anglo-Saxon, English, Frisian, Dutch, German, etc.). The reconstructed ancestor language of these is called "Proto-Germanic", and it's usually reconstructed to have been spoken around the 1st century BC/AD. The defining feature of Proto-Germanic, which sets it apart from all other branches of Indo-European is Grimm's Law. Theoretically, you do obviously have to consider the developments that took place between the divergence of Proto-Germanic into it's daughter languages, and the point when Proto-Germanic became a separate branch of PIE. This time frame we could refer to as a "Pre-Proto-Germanic" language stage(s). Theoretically, we could conceive languages to branch off there.




You have still failed to address the centtral and southern areas of Germany which where initially non-germanic in language. The Jutes, Angels, saxons, frisians all lived around the northsea coast from jutland to netherlands.

If celtic is too young for the bell-beaker , Únětice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Únětice_culture) periods, then what was spoken in this area. ? Where they gallic people ?

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

spongetaro
08-05-12, 13:17
If we now look at the Romance languages, we actually are lucky to know the ancestor language, Latin, and we know also a number of extinct relatives (the old Italic languages, such as Faliscan, Oscan, Umbrian, and a few other ones which are poor-attested). Oscan and Umbrian, of course, are Italic languages (like Latin), but they are obviously not Romance languages..


What relations are there between Romance language family and Italic languages?
Romance languages are part of a bigger family (Italic languages family) and are thus closely related to non Romance Italic languages like Oscan etc.
Do you agree with me that the relationship between Irish (or Gaulish? Breton etc) and Lusitanian is exactly like the relationship between French and Oscan. Both French and Oscan are part of the Italic languages.
Then it is possible to make the same "bigger language family" to link Lusitanian and Celtic languages.
Even without the loss of "P", Lusitanian and Celtic languages are obviously relatives.


So my guess is that Celtic languages formed during the Iron age and the bigger language family (Lusitanian+Celtic languges+ Nordwestblock) formed during the Atlantic bronze age.
This is because it formed so long ago (bronze age) that Luitanian, Nordwestblock and Celtic languages diverged and formed themselves separates languages families.

The Atlantic bronze age and Unetic culture formed both out of a Bell Beaker substratum. There is indeed nothing between Bell Beaker culture and Atlantic bronze age in the Atlantic fringe of Europe as there is no culture between Unetice and the Bell Beaker in central Europe.

So that bigger Celtic language family (Lusitanian+ Celtic + Nordwestblock) probably formed long before the iron age, (because in the iro age Lusitanian, Celtic and Nordwestblock laguges were already separate) tha is to say at least during the bronze age. And as I said, the Bronze age cultures where later Lusitanian, Nordwesblock and Celtic languages would be spoken are all incuded in the Bell Beaker cultural complex.

zanipolo
08-05-12, 22:19
its surprising that western Romance languages has celtic influences , while southern romance does not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romance-lg-classification-en.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG

The question most interesting to me is when did celtic enter the britsh isles and affect these areas.
Does picone in france represent the picts and a possibity the language transferred from there


Southern French , Occitan language has nothing in common with the southern italian Oscan in regards to dialect continuum

It still posses the question in the bell beaker times as to what was spoken in southern Germany prior to the migration of the germans from the north

MOESAN
27-07-12, 22:34
its surprising that western Romance languages has celtic influences , while southern romance does not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romance-lg-classification-en.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG

The question most interesting to me is when did celtic enter the britsh isles and affect these areas.
Does picone in france represent the picts and a possibity the language transferred from there


Southern French , Occitan language has nothing in common with the southern italian Oscan in regards to dialect continuum

It still posses the question in the bell beaker times as to what was spoken in southern Germany prior to the migration of the germans from the north

I am not so surprised at all: the western romances languages are surely a latin expansion through celtic lands but classifications are often a matter of criteria choices- phonetically speaking, Corsican and Sardinian show some akiness with western romance area: strong lenition of stops between vowels, drop of doubled stops (geminees), excepted /ts/= z'z, 'zz' - as in Iberia romances and in Gallo-italian dialects - they know even a lenition at the initial of words as in present day celtic languages, phenomenon ignored by other western romances languages -
corsican 'Casanova': /kazanowa/ - 'la casa': /la gaza/ -
'in piazza à a ghjesgia (chiesa) trova à zia Catalina': /in pjatsa a a jézha drowa a tsia gadalina/
* sorry I have no IPA at hand: /j/ = english 'y' - /zh/ = french 'j'
on an other hand, northern corsican, as SW occitan and castillan and basque, pronounces a kind of spired /B/ or an occlusive /b/ in place of /v/ and castillan as a whole shows strong basque influences phonetically (vowels and consonnants) as the gascon dialect of Occitania - and sardignan and southern corsican and southern italian show an evolution /ll/ >> /tt/ or /dd/ as in gascon dialects
italian 'bello' (beautiful) >> corsican S, sardinian, sicilian 'beddu' - 'gallo' (cock) >> gascon 'gatt' - 'valle' >> gascon 'batt'
for centralization or palatization of 'o' /ö/ and 'u' /y/ = german /ü/ only french dialects and occitanian and gallo-italian ones show it -
what remains sure is that toscan and central and southern italian dialects kept very different from other romances languages as a whole - but I do not see any amazing result here according to history?

MOESAN
27-07-12, 22:40
I add to come back at the topic that I would be very glad if someone could provide us some of the words that show the proximity of Lusitanian with celtic: because (maybe it is "******* the flies" (sorry, I am confused)) i feel lusitanian as a possible branch of a proto-celtic-italic stage encompassing ligurian too, without any proof by lack of documentation

callaeca
07-09-12, 00:28
Why not the bell-beakers? From the hydronimyc names to the celtic languages there is a long way, is not?
Are the Celtic languages only the romantic and endocentric point of view of the recent gaulish and insular languages?
Why gaulish and insular celtic languages loss one of the principal indo-european features, the sound *p? An interference by a non indo-european substratum how Mac Eoin thinks?
How can you explain the celtiberian [-]VAPORCONI, with the word *PORCOS?
What can you say to Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel when she comments about western indo-european languages of Iberia:

“[…] formado en época muy antigua dentro de un entorno linguístico céltico sin ser luego alcanzados por la más moderna eliminación de la p- […]. Lo que no sabemos es la procedencia exacta de este tipo de celta, ni tampoco si lo aprendieron en la Peninsula Iberica o si lo trajeron consigo desde otras regiones europeas“. (P. de Bernardo Stempel, 2009)

Why the loss of *p is late in lepontic: cf. Eska, 2010 or in the pictish oghamic inscriptions: pictish NEHTAN/NEHHTAN vs. irish oghamic NETAN from lat. nepto- (Griffin, 2008)?

What can you say about in Gallia we can see an invariable /p/ in oldest gaulish items like PALONI, PICOS, PINCIOS, PLATIODANOS, PLAVMORATI (cf. galician lávego < *(p)lavaeco-), Paedocaeus, Paemani, Paetinius, Paetinus, Paettusius, Pama, Pameta, Pamius, Pansiana, Pansius, Panto, Panturo, Parameius (f. hisp-celtic PARAMAECO, celtiberian PARAMICA), Paranus, Parasenus, Parassius, Parra, Parridius, Parrio (cf. callaecian place-name PARRICA, today Parga), Peintius, Penti, Pentilius, Pentis, Pentius, Pentodia (same word that celtiberian and hisp-celtic PENTIUS; PENTILUS, etc.), Peisius, Pel(l)ius, Pelidianus, Pellaeus, Pellic[ius, Pellius, Pelto, Penci, Pessiacus, Pessicinus (same word celtiberian and hisp-celtic PAESICUS, PESICUS), Pisulus, Pisus, Pitius, Pitulus, Piturix (cp. callaecian PITILUS, celtiberian PITANA), PLATODANIUS, PLASSARUS, PLASSUS, PLOXENVM, POEMANIUS (cf. callaecian godess POEMINA), POENINA, POETOVIO, POINAI, POLOS, POMPE (cf. lusitanian PUMPE), PORCIA, PORCIUS, PORCUS (cf. lusitanian PORCOM, celtiberian [-]VAPORCONI), PRENIO (cf. call. PRAENIA), PRICASSES, PRIGENUS, PRICUS, PRIGA, PRITI, PRITMANUS, PRITO, PRITONIUS, PRITILLIUS, PRITTIO, PRITO, PRIUNUS, PROCALLIUS, PROGENUS (lusitanian PROGENUS), PRUEINI, PIXTILVS, Pixtillus, Pistillos, Pistillu, Pistillus, PIXTVGENOS, Pixticenus, Pixtacus, PICTAVI (or PICTONES) similar to the callaecian PICTOLANCEA, celtib. PISTIROS from the ie. root *pik-to-, etc.. and in Lepontica, whether as P (plosive labial voiceless) or as PP (plosive labial voiceless geminated) and with graphematic representation PI: ]PEUESA, KOPLUTUS (cp. celtiberian, callaecian and asturian COMPLEUTICA, COMPLEUTO), PISA, ]PLIOISO, OIEPLU, KAPUTUS (cp. lusitanian CAPORUS), PLAI P, KOP (cp. call. COPORI), POLIOS, PUSIONIS (cp. celtiberian, callaecian and lusitanian PVSINA), APIOS (cp. celtiberian, callaecian and lusitanian APANA, gaulish APANADEVA), KEPIOS, KIPODIS, POIKANOS, IAPOS etc. and over 45 mentions with PALA ‘(grave)stone’.

IS IT NOT CELTIC? NOT GAULISH?

Taranis
07-09-12, 01:44
Callaeca, we've had this discussion before in another thread, and the same criticism that I have to your view on the matter still applies.

- Several authors (notably Martinez 2006, Curchin 2007) point to the existence of clearly non-Celtic but Indo-European (in the case of Gallaecia, Martinez also suggests an additional stratum of non-Indo-European languages) names that coincide next to Celtic names within the Celtic context on the Iberian peninsula. The only logical explanation for this heterogenity is that Celtic languages are a later, foreign-introduced element here, upon an older Indo-European stratum that developed indigenously in the west of the Iberian peninsula.

(for reference, Martinez 2006: "We do have some unequivocally Celtic place-names, as has been demonstrated here. It is striking, however, how many names in -briga-/-bris show a non-Celtic initial element, indicating that at their arrival the Celtic populations used non-Celtic onomastic elements already existing in the area to create the new names of these settlements.").

- The loss of Indo-European *p (it should be very clear to make that distinction) in the Celtic languages is attested in all branches of Celtic, including Celtiberian (cf. place names "Argaela", "Octaviolca", "Tenobriga", "Uxama").

(for reference, compare Curchin: "Octaviolca. Ptolemy (II, 6, 50) attests this Cantabrian town. The element olca is Celtic for “ploughed field” from IE *pelk- “to turn”.")

(likewise: "the likeliest etymology for Tenobrica is “hot fort” or “fire fort” (a hilltop site from which fire signals are sent, cf. Old Irish tene, Welsh tân “fire”) from Celtic *tep-no- “hot”.")

- The concept of a non-indo-european substratum does not explain how PIE *p doesn't simply vanish, but leaves specific reflexes in the presence of other obstruents (*χ, *b). The loss of *p can be best explained by a successive shift *p > *φ > *h > Ø. That development may be unique in the Indo-European context, but outside out Indo-European, there's a good analogue for such a sound shift found in the Japonic languages. In Japanese the same sound is reflected as /h/ which in the Ryukyuan languages is reflected as *p. When the Portuguese explorers came to Japan in the 16th century, they recorded the words that are today written with an "h" with an "f". Modern Japanese actually retains /φ/ before /u/ (for example the word "Fukushima"). It's entirely plausible that the development in Proto-Celtic functioned analogous. It's conceivable that *φ was retained in Lepontic at intervocalic positions (Lepontic inscription CO.48, "uvamokozis", as opposed to the expected "upamokozis" if *p was retained). Likewise, there's instances where Gaulish may have retained an initial *h- (cf. ethnic name "Helveti").

- In both the Brythonic languages and in Gaulish, a new *p sound arises from PIE *kʷ (a process that is also seen in Osco-Umbrian and in Greek). It is clear that the development of *kʷ can only have occured after the development *p > Ø occured, otherwise we would observe cases of PIE *kʷ > Ø in the Celtic context.

- Additionally, there's multiple occurences of *p in Irish (a Q-Celtic language, after all) which is the result of borrowings. There is no reason why this should not apply for older Celtic languages too, but the prequisite is that this borrowing occured only after PIE *p was lost.

- Additionally, there are instances occuring in the Celtiberian context where *p actually represents PIE *b or *bʰ (cf. Celtiberian ethnic name "Pelendones").

- Lastly, all of the above makes more sense than arguing that the occurence of *p and *p > Ø could be in free variation with each other in the Celtic languages, which would be the unavoidable consequence of your idea.

MOESAN
07-09-12, 11:38
[QUOTE=Taranis;398885] Callaeca, we've had this discussion before in another thread, and the same criticism that I have to your view on the matter still applies.


thank you Taranis for this clear demonstration (necessary indeed) -
are all Ogamic inscription in Ireland well 'C-' (Kw-) documented?

callaeca
07-09-12, 17:38
For Churchin the percentages between celtic topomastic of Callaecia and Cantabria is not diferent: Callaecia 41%, Cantabria 41%. And the Celtiberians topomastics names has over 33% for Churchin, similar percentage than Lusitania 30%. The percentages of Callaecia and Cantabria are similars to Gaul and Britannia if we count, like in the Hispanic names, his concept of indo-european undifferentiatted and uncertains names (roots like *tam-, *ab-, *nav-, *arg-, *sal-, *sar-, *al-, *albh-, bib-, etc.). For Churchin there are not traces of non indo-european languages in the half west of Iberia. Prósper, Villar, Beltrán LLoris, Moralejo, Búa, Armada, de Bernardo Stempel, Untermann and other authors are in the similar way than Churchin.

The work of Luján is obsolete. For example, It is incredible to consider the callaecian place-name Tude (variants Touda, Toude < *touta-/*touti-), today Tui, as not Celtic, when in the same area is considered as Celtic the god-name Toudadigoe (< *toutatikos), similar to the gaulish Teutatis, Toutatis, Tutatis. Can you explain me, please, what is the difference? Luján Martínez, for example, says that the callaecian river Limia is non celtic (cp. place-name LEMICA CIVITATE, today Xinzo da Limia, ethnic name gen.pl. LEMICOM 'of the Limici', territorio LEMETO in the Parrochiale Seuvicum, today A Limia), then non celtic are the gaulish LEMANA, LEMINCUM, LEMANNONIUS SINUS, LEMAUSUM, LEMANE/LIMENE or the gaulish ethnic LEMOVICES.

About the existence of the word olca < ie. *pelk- in hisp-celt. is false. The galician and castilian languages have olga and huelga but it is a medieval galicism. It is an absurd named an hill fort as 'ploughed field'. Now the option is ie.*h2olkeh2 'protection, fortification'. Argaela is derivated for *h1erg- 'white, silver' (an hydronymyc name) and Tenobrica is the same word that you can see in the galician river name Tea > *tena and galician place-names Tiobre < *tenobrigs, Tebra < *tenebriga.

Do you think that the celtiberian name Aplonos, Aplonios, the familiar name Aploniocum, from ie. *h2eplo- represents b?, and Pisturus from the root ie. *pikto-? Why not in western hispania this phonetic representation? You can find there Laboena and Lapoena, Abana and Apana, Abilus and Apilus, Lacibea and Lacipea, etc.

But that is not the issue (I maybe make a new thread about the NW hispanic topomastic names). I have asked you why and not how the gaul-roman has lost the Indo-European *p., and why authors such as Eska, Bernardo Stempel, Delamarre, Untermann, etc. considered that proto-Celtic had *p.

(please not with examples of distant agluttinative languages like japanese. You have nearly examples in the Aquitanian, Iberian and Rethian urnfield cultures, languages probably similar to which had talk in Central Europe, Northern and British Isles, prior to the incorrectly pronounce of the Indo-European)

I asked you if you consider that the list of Gaulish and Lepontic names, which is extensible, are or not Celtic.

Taranis
07-09-12, 22:12
For Churchin the percentages between celtic topomastic of Callaecia and Cantabria is not diferent: Callaecia 41%, Cantabria 41%. And the Celtiberians topomastics names has over 33% for Churchin, similar percentage than Lusitania 30%. The percentages of Callaecia and Cantabria are similars to Gaul and Britannia if we count, like in the Hispanic names, his concept of indo-european undifferentiatted and uncertains names (roots like *tam-, *ab-, *nav-, *arg-, *sal-, *sar-, *al-, *albh-, bib-, etc.). For Churchin there are not traces of non indo-european languages in the half west of Iberia. Prósper, Villar, Beltrán LLoris, Moralejo, Búa, Armada, de Bernardo Stempel, Untermann and other authors are in the similar way than Churchin.

The work of Luján is obsolete. For example, It is incredible to consider the callaecian place-name Tude (variants Touda, Toude < *touta-/*touti-), today Tui, as not Celtic, when in the same area is considered as Celtic the god-name Toudadigoe (< *toutatikos), similar to the gaulish Teutatis, Toutatis, Tutatis. Can you explain me, please, what is the difference? Luján Martínez, for example, says that the callaecian river Limia is non celtic (cp. place-name LEMICA CIVITATE, today Xinzo da Limia, ethnic name gen.pl. LEMICOM 'of the Limici', territorio LEMETO in the Parrochiale Seuvicum, today A Limia), then non celtic are the gaulish LEMANA, LEMINCUM, LEMANNONIUS SINUS, LEMAUSUM, LEMANE/LIMENE or the gaulish ethnic LEMOVICES.

Forgive me that I am asking, but why are you overlooking the inconsistencies that both Curchin and Martinez describe and which have not escaped me either?


About the existence of the word olca < ie. *pelk- in hisp-celt. is false. The galician and castilian languages have olga and huelga but it is a medieval galicism. It is an absurd named an hill fort as 'ploughed field'.

This word isn't a "medievalism" as you call it, but attested in Greek/Roman sources.


Now the option is ie.*h2olkeh2 'protection, fortification'.

Can you suggest me comparable reflexes for this root in other IE languages?


Argaela is derivated for *h1erg- 'white, silver' (an hydronymyc name) and Tenobrica is the same word that you can see in the galician river name Tea > *tena and galician place-names Tiobre < *tenobrigs, Tebra < *tenebriga.

What is your etymology for "tenobriga" then?

Besides, there are other examples from Celtiberian which clearly attest that *p is lost in Celtiberian:

"Aregrada" (Celtiberian mint: "Areikoratikos", A.52). Why is the attested form not *Paregrada?

"Clunia" (Celtiberian mint: "Kolounioku", A.67), compare with Old Irish "clúain" ("meadow"). Also compare from Lithuanian "šlapias" and Latvian "slapjš" (both meaning "wet", "damp"). If *p was retained in Celtiberian, the expected form would be *Klepnia. Instead, the name shows the regular Celtic development *eu > *ou.

Likewise, Martinez brings more examples from Gallaecia:

"If the correct form is Arotrebae, as Pliny NH IV 114 explicitly argues, we would have here a compound of are-53 (with loss of the initial IE *p) plus a form of the stem *treb- 'live in, inhabit."

"Lamecensis (Alonso (2003: 126) as related to OIr. lám 'hand', from IE *pl̥ma or *plāma, with Celtic loss of initial *p-. )"

In contrast, per Curchin: "Segontia Paramica (the second word is Indo-European but non- Celtic)"

As I said, the consequence of your view is that somehow *p and *p > Ø can exist in free variation in the Hispano-Celtic context, which is obviously impossible.


Do you think that the celtiberian name Aplonos, Aplonios, the familiar name Aploniocum, from ie. *h2eplo- represents b?, and Pisturus from the root ie. *pikto-? Why not in western hispania this phonetic representation? You can find there Laboena and Lapoena, Abana and Apana, Abilus and Apilus, Lacibea and Lacipea, etc.

But that is not the issue (I maybe make a new thread about the NW hispanic topomastic names). I have asked you why and not how the gaul-roman has lost the Indo-European *p., and why authors such as Eska, Bernardo Stempel, Delamarre, Untermann, etc. considered that proto-Celtic had *p.

If we were to assume for a moment that you were right (which you are not, see above!) and PIE *p was retained in Celtiberian, and which Untermann et al. asserted, you're essentially just creating a "hen-and-egg"-type of problem: you basically define Proto-Celtic as retaining *p. But, in this case the development *p > Ø still then holds true as an innovation for all other branches of Celtic besides Celtiberian. That way, you are explaining nothing. It's just an arbitrary decision.


(please not with examples of distant agluttinative languages like japanese.

Why not? It's evidently an analogue for the development in Proto-Celtic.


You have nearly examples in the Aquitanian, Iberian and Rethian urnfield cultures, languages probably similar to which had talk in Central Europe, Northern and British Isles, prior to the incorrectly pronounce of the Indo-European)

So, if I am getting this right:

- you're basically asserting that the Iberian peninsula was Indo-European in the Bronze Age while the rest of Western Europe was not.

- you want me to believe that this an "explanation" for the loss of *p in the various Celtic languages?

Well, I have to disappoint you, that is very much impossible, primarily because it requires reversing the direction by which Indo-European languages are supposed to have spread:

- for one, how do you explain the presence of the Germanic languages which are generally assumed to have originated in northern Europe (the proto-Germanic homeland is usually thought in Jutland and southern Scandinavia)?

- how does it come that the extend of Iberian place names ends in the Languedoc if you go northwards, but extends across a wide arc all the way southwards to central-eastern Andalusia, into an area which was never part of the Urnfield Culture?

- There is no evidence for Aquitanian or Iberian place names anywhere in northern France, in the British Isles or in Germany.

- Raetian, as can be demonstrated from the inscription, was a language closely related with Etruscan (ie, Tyrsenian languages). Etruscan didn't have any voiced stops, instead distinguished between unaspirated and aspirated unvoiced stops, e.g. *pʰ *tʰ *kʰ vs. *p, *t, *k. Why would a loss of *p result from this if there wasn't even a *b phoneme in Etruscan? Besides, there's no evidence for Tyrsenian languages in Central Europe. This whole "Raetian" argument is entirely inconsistent.

- You're still leaving explained why the *p doesn't just disappear but leaves reflexes in the context of other consonants. Considering the obstacles I just describe, it seems to me that your assertations "they were non-Indo-Europeans and couldn't pronounce the *p right" appears to me just like a very dubious argument.

callaeca
08-09-12, 01:29
1. Taranis, Can you tell us the difference between *toutai - > Toude (with lenition) > Tude and the first element of Toutatis/Tutatis? The difference between in territorio Lemeto, today A Limia region, (with Celtic suffix -et-: cp. callaecian Nem-et-obriga, gaulish Mog-et-io) and the Gaulish place-name Lemane/Limene? What is the criterion to consider these callaecian forms as non-Celtic?

Churchin does not comment about the existence of non Indo-European languages in NW Hispania. On other hand his etymological proposals labeled as undifferentiatted or uncertain Indo-European have always parallels in other extrapeninsular areas. Luján Martínez's work is not bad, but it is strongly influenced by the University of Salamanca and based on previous criteria. Other better sources exist as Moralejo, Báscuas, Búa, Vallejo, etc. or the own Churchin.

2. The Galician-Portuguese olga ​​and ancient Castilian huelga should arrive under Cluniac influences, through the Provençal olca 'ploughed field' or the ancient french dialect of Moselle region olke 'vineyard'. The reason is the hispanic romances can not change the consonantic group -lk- to -lg, then it is a secondary form. Only if it belong to a similar form like the old french dialectal variant olica (in the Formulae Senonenses, c. VIII), we can reconstruct the form olga and huelga: cp. galician place-name A Olga (not A Olca).

See ie, *h2olkeh2- (IEW 32, LIV 236) 'protection, fortification', goth. alhs 'fortified temple ', old english ealgian 'to protect', better to designate an hill fort.

3. The cantabrian place-name Tenobriga have the same ethymology than the galician river name Tea < Tena or galician place-names as Tiobre < (med. Teobre) *teno-brigs, Tebra < *tenebriga, Teis < *tenes, the same word, I think, than La Tène. I have not a secure ethymology about this item, but it is an hydronymyc word: cp too the callaecian god name + incomplet place-name COHVE TENA = COSSUE TENA[ECO?] or TENA (COHUE presents the same solution like old welsh, S > H. Prósper and Bernardo Stempel point this phonetical fact like a new variety of celtic in the Central Callaecia Lucensis).

4. No I am not defining proto-celtic as retaining *p. [B]I ask you why authors such as Eska, Bernardo Stempel, Delamarre, Untermann, Mac Eoin, Brun, Almagro and others consider recently that proto-Celtic had *p?

5. Well, what we see immediately after the urnfields is the emergence of the non indo-european languages. Why this process would not have been affected in the urnfield areas of Central Europe? Kortlandt, a great specialist in Germanic languages of the century XXI and not of 1820, affirms that the Germanic is strongly influenced by a finno-ugrian substrate and it can explain its consonantal and vocalic instability. Then we have Venneman and followers with his vasconica-semitica theory. Certainly there are hydronymyc names in Germania, Austria and NE France that do not seem indo-europeans and others close to alpine dialects (is it indicative of a previous pre-indo-indoeuropean substrate and the posterior arrived of the indo-european language from de Alps? I don't know). On the other hand, a great number of Celtologists (Khun, Schrijver, Mac Eoin, etc) observe the existence of a non Indo-European substrate in Ireland. Why was not the RSFO affected by similar languages as the neighboring Raetian (f.ex. the germanic runic alphabet derives from one of these Tyrsenian alphabet) or others linked or not with the aquitanian-iberian, but not necessarely indo-european (think that similar facies like Aquitania and Languedoc, with its local differences, we find in the urnfield areas of Isère, Loire, Seine, Rhone, Lot and Paris region)? And, where the Iberian culture come from with its urnfield features? From the north, is not?

6. The gaulish and lepontic personal and place names that I have pointed above, are or not celtic names?

Taranis
10-09-12, 19:00
1. Taranis, Can you tell us the difference between *toutai - > Toude (with lenition) > Tude and the first element of Toutatis/Tutatis? The difference between in territorio Lemeto, today A Limia region, (with Celtic suffix -et-: cp. callaecian Nem-et-obriga, gaulish Mog-et-io) and the Gaulish place-name Lemane/Limene? What is the criterion to consider these callaecian forms as non-Celtic?


Churchin does not comment about the existence of non Indo-European languages in NW Hispania. On other hand his etymological proposals labeled as undifferentiatted or uncertain Indo-European have always parallels in other extrapeninsular areas. Luján Martínez's work is not bad, but it is strongly influenced by the University of Salamanca and based on previous criteria. Other better sources exist as Moralejo, Báscuas, Búa, Vallejo, etc. or the own Churchin.


1. I would suggest that you go and read Martinez' paper and individually address the cases that he explicitly referes to as non-Celtic and proposes as non-Indo-European, and demonstrate to why these forms should be Celtic after all according to you. Since Martinez' paper is readily available online, this shouldn't be much of an effort for you. It also makes more sense than insinuating me to a statement that I never made.



2. The Galician-Portuguese olga ​​and ancient Castilian huelga should arrive under Cluniac influences, through the Provençal olca 'ploughed field' or the ancient french dialect of Moselle region olke 'vineyard'. The reason is the hispanic romances can not change the consonantic group -lk- to -lg, then it is a secondary form. Only if it belong to a similar form like the old french dialectal variant olica (in the Formulae Senonenses, c. VIII), we can reconstruct the form olga and huelga: cp. galician place-name A Olga (not A Olca).


See ie, *h2olkeh2- (IEW 32, LIV 236) 'protection, fortification', goth. alhs 'fortified temple ', old english ealgian 'to protect', better to designate an hill fort.


3. The cantabrian place-name Tenobriga have the same ethymology than the galician river name Tea < Tena or galician place-names as Tiobre < (med. Teobre) *teno-brigs, Tebra < *tenebriga, Teis < *tenes, the same word, I think, than La Tène. I have not a secure ethymology about this item, but it is an hydronymyc word: cp too the callaecian god name + incomplet place-name COHVE TENA = COSSUE TENA[ECO?] or TENA[BRI?] (COHUE presents the same solution like old welsh, S > H. Prósper and Bernardo Stempel point this phonetical fact like a new variety of celtic in the Central Callaecia Lucensis).


To me, I'm afraid to say that it appears that you fundamentally reject what should be a self-evident fact on the Iberian peninsula: that in the same general area, we have both names where PIE *p > *p and where PIE *p > Ø. I have brought up a considerable number of example, some which were brought up by yourself a year ago:



Well, perhaps can we explain it like callaecian tribe Arotreba (< from *aretreba), lusitanian. name god Ateraeco (*pateraiko), callaecian placename Olca (< polka) or callaecian LANOBRIGA (< planobriga)?


examples of PIE *p > Ø:


- Gallaecian tribal name "Arotrebae" (< *par-)
- Celtiberian place name "Aregrada" / "Arekoratikos" ( < *pare-)
- place name "Clunia" / "Kolounioku" (< *klepn-)
- place name "Octaviolca": I agree with Curchin's and Martinez's etymology, it makes sense as o-grade derivative of *pelk-, additionally J. Porkorny lists French "ouche" ("meadow", "fallow land") as derived from Celtic *olka.
- place name "Tenobriga" (if Curchin's etymology is correct, which is backed by cognates in both Goidelic and Brythonic. Additionally, this is a cognate with Latin "tepidus", and Russian/Ukrainian "teplij")
- place name "Lama" (as per Martinez: "It would be thus a derivative from lama-, which occurs frequently in Hispanic onomastics, and has been explained by García Alonso (2003: 126) as related to OIr. lám 'hand', from IE *pl̥ma or *plāma, with Celtic loss of initial *p-. ")


examples of *p retained:


- Lusitanian "Porcom" (Cabeço das Fráguas)
- Lusitanian "Porgom" (Lamas de Moledo)
- place name "Pallantia"
- place name "Pintia"
- place name "Segontia Paramica"
- ethnic name "Capori"
- place name "Turuptiana"


we additionally have cases of PIE *kʷ > *p:


- Lusitanian "pumpi" (Ribeira da Venda)
- Lusitanian "puppid" (Arroyo de Luz)
- Lusitanian "petranoi" (Lamas de Moledo)


Unless you believe that sound laws can be in free variation with each other (something which is impossible, because sound laws have no "memory""), it should be clear that such an arrangement cannot have developed in-situ. One of the two strata must be foreign-introduced element that developed elsewhere, whereas the others must be regarded as an autochtonous, earlier development.


Kortlandt, a great specialist in Germanic languages of the century XXI and not of 1820, affirms that the Germanic is strongly influenced by a finno-ugrian substrate and it can explain its consonantal and vocalic instability.


I severely disagree with Kortlandt's assessment: the idea that a non-Indo-European substrate is responsible for the First Germanic Sound Shift (Grimm's Law) can be easily refuted. As you should be aware, there is a substantial amount of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic, and virtually all of these occured either before or during the sound shift. Virtually scholars on the topic agree that the First Germanic Sound Shift cannot have happened before the early iron age in Northern Europe (ca. 500 BC, most notably, the word "iron" itself is a borrowing from Celtic!), and other authors (Euler) suggest that the sound shift didn't occur until the 1st century BC. In this context I recommend Wolfram Euler (2009) "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen" ("language and origin of the Germanic peoples").


You're also the first person ever to label Grimm's Law a "consonantal instability".


You're still not fond of the very concept of sound laws, are you?



5. Well, what we see immediately after the urnfields is the emergence of the non indo-european languages. Why this process would not have been affected in the urnfield areas of Central Europe?


There is no such "emergence". The cultures that predated the Urnfield Culture in Central Europe (from the Corded Ware period onward, likely) were all likely Indo-European. From where should such non-Indo-European peoples suddenly show up from in Central Europe? Did they use teleporters?


Then we have Venneman and followers with his vasconica-semitica theory.


I don't think anybody really takes Vennemann seriously on that issue. Especially, you should be aware that Vennemann's position (the idea of a Vasconic substrate in the entire Atlantic region) is, something that is also in conflict with the observations by Martinez and Curchin.



Why was not the RSFO affected by similar languages as the neighboring Raetian (f.ex. the germanic runic alphabet derives from one of these Tyrsenian alphabet)


That is clearly a strawman argument: the Etruscans and the Raeti were not the only ones using these alphabet (notably, both the Lepontic and Gaulish inscriptions from northern Italy / the Alps were written in variants of the Etruscan alphabet). By your logic, the Greeks spoke a Semitic language because they adopted their alphabet from the Phoenician one and the Phoenicians spoke a Semitic language. Besides, there is no evidence for Etruscan- or Etruscan-like languages (Raetian in the proper sense) in the Rhine-/western Switzerland / eastern France region, as these are only found in the region of South Tyrol. The Tyrsenian-speaking peoples were certainly not autochthonous to Italy or the Alps (let alone Central Europe!) but arrived from the Mediterranean (cf. Herodotus: The Histories 1.94, and also compare the Lemnos stelae (http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Eteocretan/Lemnos.gif)).


Also, as I would reiterate, the Tyrsenian languages very much possessed the phoneme *p but lacked the phoneme *b, so a Raetic substrate as an explanation for the loss of *p in Celtic can be eliminated, anyways.



And, where the Iberian culture come from with its urnfield features? From the north, is not?


I find the idea that the Iberians came originally from Central Europe absolutely unreconcilable with the evidence of Iberian place names: characteristic of them is the prefix *ili- or *iltir-, which may be a cognate with modern Basque "hiri" (meaning "town", "city"), as well as the suffix "-sken". If you look at the distribution, they can be found across a very large arc from the Languedoc to eastern Andalusia. The Urnfield Culture clearly never reached Andalusia, yet the Iberian language was there. Some examples:


- "Illiberre" (Ptolemy, Tabula Peutingeriana, modern Elne)
- "Ilerda" (Ptolemy, Itinerarium Antonini, modern Lleida, Iberian mint "Iltirta")
- "Iliberris" (Ptolemy, Itinerarium Antonini, modern Granada)
- "Ilipa" (Itinerarium Antonini, near Seville)
- "Iliturgi" (Itinerarium Antonini, near Mengíbar, Andalusia, Latin mint "Iliturgi")
- "Urci" (near Cuevas del Almanzora, Iberian mint "Urkesken")


If you were correct, we should not find any traces of Iberian language in Andalusia, and conversely we should find traces of Iberian language north of the Languedoc. We don't. What does that tell you about the association between Urnfield and the Iberian language?


In summary, the very existence of non-Indo-European substrate that you see in central and north-west Europe as the source of the Celtic loss of PIE *p is spurious at best.

Now, I'd like to pick up again on this:


Why not the bell-beakers? From the hydronimyc names to the celtic languages there is a long way, is not?

If the Beaker-Bell Culture really spoke Proto-Celtic, where is your Celtic substrate in North Africa, on Sardinia and Sicily?

MOESAN
11-09-12, 15:35
I have not the knowledge of Taranis (I should be glad then)
But a point about phonetic evolution:
a shift in a living language, for I suppose, don't came suddenly without a background: every language tends to evolve, for the most in respect of the "lesser pronounciation effort" (sorry for my english) but with some constraints as structure and other collective habits very uneasy to explain at first sight - so the languages don't evolve at the same rythm and passing through the same stages exactly according to human groups -
the palatization, as an example, appeared in some populations, not in others, and trying to explain it by the structure alone is an oversimplification - in oil french (except very northern France), a very palaziting country, the phenomenon is yet at work nowaday - the 'cu-' and 'qu' digraph officaly /k/ because protected by 'w' sound, is more and more pronounced /kj/>/tch/ in dialects (today moribond) and popular speech sometimes, before 'i' and 'e' sounds - in "learned" languages where it seams being an acquired ready kit of
pronouciation, this evolution stopped apprently -
if some phenomenons took some centuries to find complete result, we can imagine the same for other phonetic phenomenons -
what we know about ancient languages is through writings, old texts, inscriptions of all kinds - we infer evolution on written modifications and too on loan words, without knowing the time they needed for intermediary forms - so the very precise datation of germanic evolution (consonantal shift) is somewhat uncertain even if the fork cannot be to open - even the datation of loanword sis somewhat uncertain, sometimes -
I believe yet in a nordic (finnic?) influence on germanic (as did H.HUBERT, but I have not his knowledge!!!), from people living on the northern plain of Europe - perhaps ma I wrong - so, excuse me.

callaeca
11-09-12, 18:03
zzzzzzzzzzzz

Cambrius (The Red)
11-09-12, 18:27
As an aside, Tartessian (SW Iberia) has recently been classified as a Celtic language. See WIKI "Tartessian Language," Yokum (2011) and others. Tartessian is now the most ancient Celtic language, attested as 500-700 years older than Lepontic (a variant of Gaulish).

callaeca
11-09-12, 23:28
zzzzzzzzzzzz

Yetos
11-09-12, 23:45
I wonder if we also put the where in the thread we might find a space of time,

By following Kurgan's we find a 3 culture in Croatia Serbia Romania
Vucovar Vatin Cotofeni,
I wonder if Celtic started split and take its own road after Vucovar 3000-3200 BC, become a new culture at La tene
and enter west Europe until 1900 BC

callaeca
12-09-12, 00:15
zzzzzzzzzzzz

Yetos
12-09-12, 08:37
I think Yetos, as Harrison (2007), that all started with the Kemi Oba Culture, followed for the Usatovo Culture and the Baden Culture and finish at western Iberia where these Kurgan elements (weapons, art, customs) are very well represented: cp. Bronze Age Wariors Stellae of Western Iberia (1200-1900 BC), but these Stellae were introduced at the end of the Chalcolithic. Its relation with the kurgan world is evident (weapons, horses, chariots) and for them derive the names of the rivers and the indo-european language of Iberia, included the celtiberian, that derives essentially for these western languages (Bernardo Stempel 2009, Almagro 2011, Brun 2005). I don't know how the other celtic languages could emerge, but the endocentric paradigm and model of the gaulish (it is a recent language) is invalid in Iberia.

so you believe that Celtic came from Pontic steppe straight to West Europe?
I think that Celtic split from Pontic steppe IE after Baden culture, and still believe at Vucovar If we follow Kurgans scenario,

MOESAN
12-09-12, 12:28
just some points (not decisive but maybe indicative)
1- some P- words (# << Qw-) like 'porc-'° in Galia or other considered celtic areas do'nt signify they are genuine celtic words nor that they are not recent loan words (for the considered period) - I should not be amazed at all if we found some pre-celtic I-E languages in Gauls, akin to kinds of Ligurian: NOTHING SURPRISING THERE
2- I wrote in an other thread that the modern evolution of gaelic could have taken place in a very few centuries after "learning" by pre-celtic Ireland populations (old stock of N-W mesolithic Europeans mixed with some neolithic megalithers?)
3- when comparing gaelic and brittonic vocabulary I was stroke by not only the very different phonetical evolution but also by the rapid divergence (or mixture with pre-celtic words?) of lexicon between the two groups: I know lost and replacement of words can run very fast in living languages but here it is very amazing! words for the body, the family, the natural environment are very divergent within celtic languages so what??? either gaelic is older in Ireland than I believed, or the actual lexicon is a kind of "creole", a misture of two lexicon (it is true I lack points of comparison, P- italic languages compared to Qw- italic ones, by instance: if somebody can give us some digest of basic words?) a celtic language imposed lately (Iron Age 700BC?) to a non-celtic population whose sounds habits take the strong side upon celtic phonetic in a short time + mixture of lexic? maybe a yet I-E language in Ireland before well indentified celtic, being the celtic accepted easily because of some already common origins, but tracing back a ltille older???
I'll dress a short list of basic words in the two celtic branches newt time -

Taranis
12-09-12, 13:20
I believe yet in a nordic (finnic?) influence on germanic (as did H.HUBERT, but I have not his knowledge!!!), from people living on the northern plain of Europe - perhaps ma I wrong - so, excuse me.


I am not per se ruling out the existence of a non-Indo-European substrate (though I think that the vocabulary is much smaller than past authors thought), but such vocabulary would have to have entered before Grimm's Law came into effect (see below).



3. Taranis, I know you have not read what I wrote:


Oh, I have read that. But you were making the impression to me that you were just focusing on the occurence of any *p that you could find without any care of where and how it comes about.


Now let's bring some order into this:


first, cases of *kʷ > *p:



- Lusitanian PUMPI, see gaulish POMPE (word from the uper Rhine).


- Lusitanian PUPPID is not an original ie.*p: all authors propose the solution *kwikwid to explain this word, see Prósper, Villar, Bernardo Stempel, Untermann, etc. The word presents a dative sg. flexion like celtiberian aratid, orosid, etc., related with italic languages.


I never said it was originally PIE. If you read my previous post, I explicitly grouped it with *kʷ > *p.



- Lusitanian PETRANOI, see gaulish PETRECUS, PETROMANTALUM, PETRUCORII, etc., celtiberian PETRAIOCO.


compare Irish "ceithre", Welsh "pedair", Latin "quattuor", Lithuanian "keturi"



- PENTUS and dvs. (common to western hispanic dialects and celtiberian), see gaulish PENTI, PENTILLUS, PENTIS, PENTIUS, PENTODIA, PEINTIUS.


I never doubted that PIE *kʷ > *p in both Lusitanian and Gaulish. But again, the situation is not homogenous in Iberia. Because, we have cases where PIE *kʷ is retained in Hispania:


- ethnic name "Querquerni"
- ethnic name "Equaesi"
- Celtiberian "nekue" and "-kue" (occurs multiple times in Botorrita I)


It should also be pointed out that both Celtic and Italic share the assimilation of *p > *kʷ before *kʷ (e.g. Latin "quercus" vs. Lithuanian "perkuna", Latin "quinque" vs. Lithuanian "penki"). Without this common innovation, we would expect Gaulish *etro- and Welsh *edair.




...and now, cases of PIE *p > *p:



- Lusitanian PORCOM, see gaulish PORCIUS, PORCIA, PORCUS, celtiberian [-]VAPORCONI.


Old Irish "orc", British "Orca" (Diodorus 5.21), "Orcas", "Orcades" (Ptolemy 2.2). Also note that Latin has "porcus", the above names might be plain and simply Latin. Would that be surprising? The Celtiberians are known to have possessed Greek personal names (Botorrita III "Antiokos").



- PARAMO and dvs. (common in western dialects and celtiberian), see gaulish PARAMEIVS.


- PALLANTIA, see gaulish PALAS, PALONI, PALLO, lepontic PALA (over 45 times).


- COPORI, see gaulish COPILLUS, COPIENSIS, COPIESILLA, COPIRITUS, COPIRUS, COPIUS, COPO, COPPONIA, COPPURO, COPPUS, lepontic KOP[-] with graphematic representation with PI (= p or pp, not B).


and I add, for example, Lusitanian TAPORI, TAPORUS, TAPORA, TAPORIO, callaecian TAPILUS, gaulish TAPARUS, TAPETIUS, TAPURUS, TAPPIUS, TAPPO, TAPPONIUS, TAPPU, TAPPUS.


Yes, I acknowledge the existence of the above forms, but are you aware of the consequences of that (loanwords, maybe?)? To go ahead and say "okay, so Celtic retained PIE *p and let's be done with it" is not the way to go. Because, at the same time, we have the following attested:


- Gaulish place name "Ar(e)morica" (not *Paremorica or *Paramorica)
- Gaulish ethnic name "Arverni" (not *Parverni)
- Gaulish personal name "Vercingetorix" (not *Upercingetorix, I'm sure Julius Caesar would have told us!)
- Lepontic "uerkalai" (TI 36.1)
- Lepontic "uvamokozis" (CO 48)
- Celtiberian "uerzoniti" (Botorrita I)
- Celtiberian "uerzaiokum" (Botorrita III)
- Celtiberian place name "Uxama"
- British "Uxella", "Uxellum" (Ptolemy 2.2)
- Gaulish place name "Uxellodunum" (Bello Gallico 8.32, 8.40)
- Gaulish "sextametos" (Old Irish "secht", compare Latin "septem")


I'd also like to add, again, from my previous:
- Celtiberian place name "Aregrada" / "Arekoratikos" ( < *pare-)
- Celtiberian place name "Clunia" / "Kolounioku" (< *klepn-)


... and then...



5. I don't know the ethimology of cantabrian TENOBRICA, callaecian TENA[-], galician river Tea (< *tena) and galician place names Tebra, Tiobre and Teis. Churchin's option (*tepno-) is hypothetical, but plausible.


We have potentially the above (in your own words, it's plausible). So in my opinion, we still have the loss of *p attested in all branches of Celtic...


... but, let's ignore these inconsistencies for now:


If you say Proto-Celtic retained *p (and PIE *p was only lost at a much later point), you are creating an unsolvable dilemma. As you know, we have the devlopment of *kʷ > *p in Brittonic:


Welsh "pedair", "pump"
Breton "pevar, "pemp"
(cf. Irish "ceithre", "cúig")


if *p > Ø happened after *kʷ > *p, the above would be obviously impossible. We'd expect something like *edair and *um in Welsh, and *evar and *em in Breton which clearly differ from the above observed forms.


Gaulish, Old British, or whatever language, throughout their evolution, have no memory of their previous state. Hence when the *p was lost in the respective language, all instance in which a *p stemmed from a previous *kʷ, it should have been lost as well (because the language obviously has no memory wether a *p came from PIE *p or from *kʷ). Because of this, saying that Proto-Celtic retained *p creates only problems.


(I might remind here of the analogy with the Japonic languages: if the development was via the intermediate stages of *p > *φ > *h > Ø, we would infer that at an earliest, *kʷ > *p occured after *p > *φ. In this scenario, we may imagine that the development *φ > *h > Ø occured subsequently while the Proto-Celtic language was already in the process of fragmentation. This would explain Lepontic "uvamokozis", and possibly occurences of *h- in Gaulish.)


Also, because of the above, the development of *kʷ > *p in Britanno-Gallic must be independent from the similar development in Lusitanian (since Lusitanian retains PIE *p).


I do not know where this leaves Lepontic words like "pala", but the only possibility is that these words were introduced later as loanwords, after the loss of PIE *p. As an analogy, Old Irish has plenty of loanwords with *p (but of course, many of them are Latin).



4. Well, Taranis, there are three theories about germanic languages. You can agree with one of them, but not all scholars are in agreement with you: cp. Etymologisch Woordenboek het Nederlands, University of Leiden . What is happening then?


I don't necessarily say that Euler is correct with his late date for Grimm's Law, but it is elegant in so far as that it also offers an explanation for the linguistic identity of the Cimbri (which, otherwise, must be argued to be Celtic). Both Euler's late model and the traditional (early iron age) model are compatible with the corpus of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic.


If Grimm's Law occured at the very basis of Proto-Germanic (adoption of an Indo-European language by non-Indo-Europeans, why is it that Celtic *dūno- ("fort", "fortress") was borrowed into Germanic (English "town", Dutch "tuin", Icelandic "tún", German "Zaun") and via Germanic mediation into Slavic (cf. Ukrainian "тин")?



6. I know the work of Luján Martínez (no Martínez). I know him personally. Why do you use exclusively this work and not others?


I never, ever stated that I used his work exclusively.



6. And now, Taranis and Moesan, can you explain here, please, why important authors such as Eska, Bernardo Stempel, Delamarre, Untermann, Mac Eoin and others consider recently that proto-Celtic had *p?


As Untermannn wrote already back in 1987 "Ich fürchte, eines Tages werden die Keltisten lernen müssen, mit dem p zu leben" ("I fear, one day the Celti(ci)sts will have to learn to love with the p"): it is the desire to include Lusitanian (as well as the various "Celtic" forms in the NW of Iberia that retain *p) under the umbrella of the Celtic languages. But as I mentioned, that is effectively an arbitrary decision, since it still requires that *p > Ø (with the intermediate steps) holds true as a unifying feature of all Celtic languages besides Lusitanian.


(at this point, you might also want to check out this list of Proto-Celtic roots (http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/CelticLanguages/ProtoCelticEnglishWordlist.pdf) by the University of Wales, which also is based on the assumption that *p was lost, via the intermediate step of *φ as I described)



As an aside, Tartessian (SW Iberia) has recently been classified as a Celtic language. See WIKI "Tartessian Language," Yokum (2011) and others. Tartessian is now the most ancient Celtic language, attested as 500-700 years older than Lepontic (a variant of Gaulish).


Okay, I have to confess that I haven't read Yocum's work yet, but I can read it, get back to this, and give you my opinion of it at a later point.


- Notwithstanding the above that I do not know yet, I have personally been unconvinced by Koch's assessment that Tartessian is a Celtic language (I've describe the reasons before, you can also find most of them in Zeidler's criticism (http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html) of Koch's work). I concede that Tartessian looks at a cursory glance to be "Indo-European-ish", but I think that until we find a bilingual inscription I say this is purely hypothetical. Then there's the fact that Celtic place names are suspiciously scarce in what archaeologists deem the Tartessian core zone in Andalusia. For cross reference, you can compare this with Alexander Falileyev's map (http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/282).


- You must be confusing something here: the "700 or 500 years before Lepontic" statement is clearly false. The earliest Lepontic inscriptions are dated to around 500 BC, which would make the Tartessian stelae date to 1000 to 1200 BC. If you consider all the consequences, that would be a immense sensation in itself, but it is not true: the dates that Koch (2009, 2010, ff.) actually gives for the Tartessian stelae is ca. 700-500 BC. This would make the stelae either roughly contemporary to earliest Lepontic, or a few centuries older. A lot people talk erroneously about the supposed "ancientness" of the Celtic evidence on the Iberian peninsula (which in some aspects is certainly true), but for the greater part this is plain and simply false: the main corpus of Celtiberian is effectively contemporary to the corpus of Gaulish (in fact, the earliest attestations of Gaulish in northern Italy are actually older than Celtiberian). Any evidence for Lusitanian or the "Para-Celtic" elements in western Hispania dates exclusively from the Roman period. If we disregard the possible Tartessian corpus, the ancientness of the Celtic presence in Iberia is merely indirectly infered from the circumstances, rather than directly attested. I agree that the conclusion is logical (see below), but is only a conclusion.


- On the flip side, I do not mind Koch's proposal that the Atlantic Bronze Age was (partially) Celtic-speaking. This actually makes very much sense and solves a lot of problems that arise in the traditional models. What I cannot agree on is the conconclusions that many people (not necessarily him) draw from this. I would summarize my (current, anyways) opinion on this as follows:


- the genetic evidence of R1b (especially the combined pattern that emerges when combining the phylogenetic tree of R1b with the distribution patterns of it's R1b subclades) is not particularly well-compatible with the supposed origin of the Beaker-Bell Culture on the Iberian peninsula.


- I always struck me as vastly stretching my suspension of disbelief that the Celtic languages are somehow supposed to have derictly arrived in SW-Iberia from the Pontic steppe (via a land route or maritime route is irrelevant here). Also, where does this leave the Italic languages?


- the spreading pattern of R1b's subclades is more compatible with a central point of origin in southeastern France (from where it spread to the whole of western and central europe). I find it more conceivable to assume that R1b arrived in SE France via either a Central European land route or a maritime route, than to assume that it arrived "out of the blue" from the Pontic steppe in Iberia.


- Given the ancientness and vast extend of the Beaker-Bell Culture into areas that were never Celtic, I find it doubtful that the Beakers spoke Proto-Celtic. Instead, it's much more sensible to assume that the Beaker-Bell people spoke a more undifferentiated western (Centum) Indo-European dialect. Even then, I seriously doubt that the Beaker-Bell Culture was uniformously Indo-European.


- I think that the "Para-Celtic" elements may indeed be an older, autochthonous development that arose independently in the west of the Iberian peninsula (I believe this to be fairly consistent with the archaeological evidence, however).


- I would (very tentatively) place the actual development of a Proto-Celtic into northwestern Europe, into the very broad trade networks that interacted between the Wessex, Armorique and Tumulus Cultures. I know that this sounds vague, but it is most compatible with the available evidence.


- As a result, I see the Celtic languages as being introduced from the north (from the British Isles/Armorica) across the Bay of Biscaya via the bronze age trade networks, rather than the other way around. This is also much more consistent with genetic evidence (in particular the distribution of R1b-L21 (http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L21.gif) and it's subclades - which is not particularly compatible with a "Mil Espáine"-type scenario that the west-iberian-origin essentially requires). Note, again, if you take a look at Falileyev's map, that the distribution of Celtic names on the Iberian peninsula is much more compatible with such an introduction from the north via sea.


- The subsequent spreads and movements of Urnfield, Hallstatt and La-Tene explain the later spread of P-Celtic languages in Central Europe, Gaul and Britain (Koch himself also conceives this possibility, he describes the movement of these cultures as "a matter of intra-celtic dialectology").

Now, I concede some of you may not like the hypothesis as I have layed it out above, but make of that whatever you want.

zanipolo
12-09-12, 23:32
I am not per se ruling out the existence of a non-Indo-European substrate (though I think that the vocabulary is much smaller than past authors thought), but such vocabulary would have to have entered before Grimm's Law came into effect (see below).





Oh, I have read that. But you were making the impression to me that you were just focusing on the occurence of any *p that you could find without any care of where and how it comes about.


Now let's bring some order into this:


first, cases of *kʷ > *p:





I never said it was originally PIE. If you read my previous post, I explicitly grouped it with *kʷ > *p.





compare Irish "ceithre", Welsh "pedair", Latin "quattuor", Lithuanian "keturi"





I never doubted that PIE *kʷ > *p in both Lusitanian and Gaulish. But again, the situation is not homogenous in Iberia. Because, we have cases where PIE *kʷ is retained in Hispania:


- ethnic name "Querquerni"
- ethnic name "Equaesi"
- Celtiberian "nekue" and "-kue" (occurs multiple times in Botorrita I)


It should also be pointed out that both Celtic and Italic share the assimilation of *p > *kʷ before *kʷ (e.g. Latin "quercus" vs. Lithuanian "perkuna", Latin "quinque" vs. Lithuanian "penki"). Without this common innovation, we would expect Gaulish *etro- and Welsh *edair.




...and now, cases of PIE *p > *p:





Old Irish "orc", British "Orca" (Diodorus 5.21), "Orcas", "Orcades" (Ptolemy 2.2). Also note that Latin has "porcus", the above names might be plain and simply Latin. Would that be surprising? The Celtiberians are known to have possessed Greek personal names (Botorrita III "Antiokos").





Yes, I acknowledge the existence of the above forms, but are you aware of the consequences of that (loanwords, maybe?)? To go ahead and say "okay, so Celtic retained PIE *p and let's be done with it" is not the way to go. Because, at the same time, we have the following attested:


- Gaulish place name "Ar(e)morica" (not *Paremorica or *Paramorica)
- Gaulish ethnic name "Arverni" (not *Parverni)
- Gaulish personal name "Vercingetorix" (not *Upercingetorix, I'm sure Julius Caesar would have told us!)
- Lepontic "uerkalai" (TI 36.1)
- Lepontic "uvamokozis" (CO 48)
- Celtiberian "uerzoniti" (Botorrita I)
- Celtiberian "uerzaiokum" (Botorrita III)
- Celtiberian place name "Uxama"
- British "Uxella", "Uxellum" (Ptolemy 2.2)
- Gaulish place name "Uxellodunum" (Bello Gallico 8.32, 8.40)
- Gaulish "sextametos" (Old Irish "secht", compare Latin "septem")


I'd also like to add, again, from my previous:
- Celtiberian place name "Aregrada" / "Arekoratikos" ( < *pare-)
- Celtiberian place name "Clunia" / "Kolounioku" (< *klepn-)


... and then...





We have potentially the above (in your own words, it's plausible). So in my opinion, we still have the loss of *p attested in all branches of Celtic...


... but, let's ignore these inconsistencies for now:


If you say Proto-Celtic retained *p (and PIE *p was only lost at a much later point), you are creating an unsolvable dilemma. As you know, we have the devlopment of *kʷ > *p in Brittonic:


Welsh "pedair", "pump"
Breton "pevar, "pemp"
(cf. Irish "ceithre", "cúig")


if *p > Ø happened after *kʷ > *p, the above would be obviously impossible. We'd expect something like *edair and *um in Welsh, and *evar and *em in Breton which clearly differ from the above observed forms.


Gaulish, Old British, or whatever language, throughout their evolution, have no memory of their previous state. Hence when the *p was lost in the respective language, all instance in which a *p stemmed from a previous *kʷ, it should have been lost as well (because the language obviously has no memory wether a *p came from PIE *p or from *kʷ). Because of this, saying that Proto-Celtic retained *p creates only problems.


(I might remind here of the analogy with the Japonic languages: if the development was via the intermediate stages of *p > *φ > *h > Ø, we would infer that at an earliest, *kʷ > *p occured after *p > *φ. In this scenario, we may imagine that the development *φ > *h > Ø occured subsequently while the Proto-Celtic language was already in the process of fragmentation. This would explain Lepontic "uvamokozis", and possibly occurences of *h- in Gaulish.)


Also, because of the above, the development of *kʷ > *p in Britanno-Gallic must be independent from the similar development in Lusitanian (since Lusitanian retains PIE *p).


I do not know where this leaves Lepontic words like "pala", but the only possibility is that these words were introduced later as loanwords, after the loss of PIE *p. As an analogy, Old Irish has plenty of loanwords with *p (but of course, many of them are Latin).





I don't necessarily say that Euler is correct with his late date for Grimm's Law, but it is elegant in so far as that it also offers an explanation for the linguistic identity of the Cimbri (which, otherwise, must be argued to be Celtic). Both Euler's late model and the traditional (early iron age) model are compatible with the corpus of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic.


If Grimm's Law occured at the very basis of Proto-Germanic (adoption of an Indo-European language by non-Indo-Europeans, why is it that Celtic *dūno- ("fort", "fortress") was borrowed into Germanic (English "town", Dutch "tuin", Icelandic "tún", German "Zaun") and via Germanic mediation into Slavic (cf. Ukrainian "тин")?





I never, ever stated that I used his work exclusively.





As Untermannn wrote already back in 1987 "Ich fürchte, eines Tages werden die Keltisten lernen müssen, mit dem p zu leben" ("I fear, one day the Celti(ci)sts will have to learn to love with the p"): it is the desire to include Lusitanian (as well as the various "Celtic" forms in the NW of Iberia that retain *p) under the umbrella of the Celtic languages. But as I mentioned, that is effectively an arbitrary decision, since it still requires that *p > Ø (with the intermediate steps) holds true as a unifying feature of all Celtic languages besides Lusitanian.


(at this point, you might also want to check out this list of Proto-Celtic roots (http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/CelticLanguages/ProtoCelticEnglishWordlist.pdf) by the University of Wales, which also is based on the assumption that *p was lost, via the intermediate step of *φ as I described)





Okay, I have to confess that I haven't read Yocum's work yet, but I can read it, get back to this, and give you my opinion of it at a later point.


- Notwithstanding the above that I do not know yet, I have personally been unconvinced by Koch's assessment that Tartessian is a Celtic language (I've describe the reasons before, you can also find most of them in Zeidler's criticism (http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html) of Koch's work). I concede that Tartessian looks at a cursory glance to be "Indo-European-ish", but I think that until we find a bilingual inscription I say this is purely hypothetical. Then there's the fact that Celtic place names are suspiciously scarce in what archaeologists deem the Tartessian core zone in Andalusia. For cross reference, you can compare this with Alexander Falileyev's map (http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/282).


- You must be confusing something here: the "700 or 500 years before Lepontic" statement is clearly false. The earliest Lepontic inscriptions are dated to around 500 BC, which would make the Tartessian stelae date to 1000 to 1200 BC. If you consider all the consequences, that would be a immense sensation in itself, but it is not true: the dates that Koch (2009, 2010, ff.) actually gives for the Tartessian stelae is ca. 700-500 BC. This would make the stelae either roughly contemporary to earliest Lepontic, or a few centuries older. A lot people talk erroneously about the supposed "ancientness" of the Celtic evidence on the Iberian peninsula (which in some aspects is certainly true), but for the greater part this is plain and simply false: the main corpus of Celtiberian is effectively contemporary to the corpus of Gaulish (in fact, the earliest attestations of Gaulish in northern Italy are actually older than Celtiberian). Any evidence for Lusitanian or the "Para-Celtic" elements in western Hispania dates exclusively from the Roman period. If we disregard the possible Tartessian corpus, the ancientness of the Celtic presence in Iberia is merely indirectly infered from the circumstances, rather than directly attested. I agree that the conclusion is logical (see below), but is only a conclusion.


- On the flip side, I do not mind Koch's proposal that the Atlantic Bronze Age was (partially) Celtic-speaking. This actually makes very much sense and solves a lot of problems that arise in the traditional models. What I cannot agree on is the conconclusions that many people (not necessarily him) draw from this. I would summarize my (current, anyways) opinion on this as follows:


- the genetic evidence of R1b (especially the combined pattern that emerges when combining the phylogenetic tree of R1b with the distribution patterns of it's R1b subclades) is not particularly well-compatible with the supposed origin of the Beaker-Bell Culture on the Iberian peninsula.


- I always struck me as vastly stretching my suspension of disbelief that the Celtic languages are somehow supposed to have derictly arrived in SW-Iberia from the Pontic steppe (via a land route or maritime route is irrelevant here). Also, where does this leave the Italic languages?


- the spreading pattern of R1b's subclades is more compatible with a central point of origin in southeastern France (from where it spread to the whole of western and central europe). I find it more conceivable to assume that R1b arrived in SE France via either a Central European land route or a maritime route, than to assume that it arrived "out of the blue" from the Pontic steppe in Iberia.


- Given the ancientness and vast extend of the Beaker-Bell Culture into areas that were never Celtic, I find it doubtful that the Beakers spoke Proto-Celtic. Instead, it's much more sensible to assume that the Beaker-Bell people spoke a more undifferentiated western (Centum) Indo-European dialect. Even then, I seriously doubt that the Beaker-Bell Culture was uniformously Indo-European.


- I think that the "Para-Celtic" elements may indeed be an older, autochthonous development that arose independently in the west of the Iberian peninsula (I believe this to be fairly consistent with the archaeological evidence, however).


- I would (very tentatively) place the actual development of a Proto-Celtic into northwestern Europe, into the very broad trade networks that interacted between the Wessex, Armorique and Tumulus Cultures. I know that this sounds vague, but it is most compatible with the available evidence.


- As a result, I see the Celtic languages as being introduced from the north (from the British Isles/Armorica) across the Bay of Biscaya via the bronze age trade networks, rather than the other way around. This is also much more consistent with genetic evidence (in particular the distribution of R1b-L21 (http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L21.gif) and it's subclades - which is not particularly compatible with a "Mil Espáine"-type scenario that the west-iberian-origin essentially requires). Note, again, if you take a look at Falileyev's map, that the distribution of Celtic names on the Iberian peninsula is much more compatible with such an introduction from the north via sea.


- The subsequent spreads and movements of Urnfield, Hallstatt and La-Tene explain the later spread of P-Celtic languages in Central Europe, Gaul and Britain (Koch himself also conceives this possibility, he describes the movement of these cultures as "a matter of intra-celtic dialectology").

Now, I concede some of you may not like the hypothesis as I have layed it out above, but make of that whatever you want.

Should we be ignoring the Illyro-Lusitanian onomastic "system" in central alpine european areas which pre dates celtic which is not entirely/fully onomastic?

MOESAN
13-09-12, 12:22
Should we be ignoring the Illyro-Lusitanian onomastic "system" in central alpine european areas which pre dates celtic which is not entirely/fully onomastic?

I find very interesting the Taranis hypothesis you quoted yourself
concerning you: what is onomastic for you? placenames OR/AND people names? what data is this Illyro-Lusitanian onomastic "system refering to??? a rivers names net?
thanks for answer

callaeca
13-09-12, 17:10
zzzzzzzzzz

Yetos
13-09-12, 19:57
I don't believe that,Yetos. I was talking about the kurgan movements using the point of view of Harrison and others. It is an evidence its presence in Western Iberian Peninsula.

First of all, in my opinion, the utilization of terms as pre-celtic or para-celtic is not acceptable. It means nothing. We do not know the languages spoken before the Celtic, not of others that could have coexisted with the proto-celtic (Guyonvarc'h). What we know is that great part of words considered non Celtic of western Iberia have its exact correspondence in Gaulish and that Irish words like faffian, cuifre, life, etc. have not correspondence and explanation with the Celtic or with any other Indo-European language.

The afirmation:

if *p > Ø happened after *kʷ > *p, the above would be obviously impossible.

it precisely contradicts the results in the italic osco-umbrian languages where *p > p and *kw > p: cp. pis > *quis, pompe, lat quinque and we have examples in arcaic gaulish where kw is no *p (cp. equo in Coligny).About this phenomena see Daniel Huber (2007) "On the Interaction of Velars and Labials",

Like de Bernardo Stempel (2002, 2007, 2009), I think that all these words belong to the Celtic stock. They are words perfectly acceptable and understandable inside the area of the Celtic languages. Naturally that these voices can be loanwords in Gaulish, but, why not in Lusitanian or in the north and western hisp-celtic languages? See that the Lusitanian word PORCOM coexists in the same region with MUCEAECO (ie. *mukk - 'pig') and with MOCIO in Callaecia Bracarensis. In Galicia also we can register the place name Orcellón, but is it sure that its etymology is *pork-el-yo- and that those insular forms correspond to *porkos?

For decades the Gaulish paradigmatic and endocentric model (with the posterior inclusion of the celtiberian: Schmidt (1985) and its continental Celtic) has been imposed. Now we know that the Lusitanian not only have affinities with the italic languages, but at the same time its mantains a closer relation with the old Welsh ans irish. The Celtiberian keeps more affinities with the italic languages (cp. conj. uta, aut vs. the lusitanian innovation inde < *en(i)-dhe, no similar to the german und, eng. and no belong to lat. adv. form inde *h1endh-/*h1ºndh-) than Lusitanian and that the similarities between Celtiberian and Lusitanian are increasing more:

The ends of celtiberian ac. sg. with long vowel + d (sekobired), as scr. asvâd, latin and osco-umbrian. With i stem we can see the parallelism between lusitanian isaiccid and celtib. bilbilid.

The anti-celtic lusitanian verbal form doenti and celtiberian didonti presents the same contrast with latin dant and osco-umbrian didet (< *dident). In this two cases one of the to languages uses a radical present (Wurzelpräsens), with zero grade in latin and full grade in lusitanian. Celtiberian and osco-umbrian use reduplication. Same solution in the verbal inflection between lusitanian rueti and celtiberian audeti (the gaulish have a verbal inflection sometimes incompatible with the indo-european: see Schrijver works)

The acusative forms forms lusit. oilam beside lusit. oila is exact to celtib. kortikam and kortika. This equivalences we can see it too in lusit. arimo-arimom, celtib. eladuno-eladunom.

The desinences lusit. and celtib. -ai, -ui correspond to the arcaic dative sg. indo-european inflection. The celtiberian dative plural -bos is similar to the italic and lepontic languages, the lusitanian to the gaulish form in -bo.

A great part of the authors (de Bernardo, Prósper, Villar etc.) observe that hisp-celt. was in process to change to a Celtic P language (celtib. perkuneta, petraiocu; lusit. puppid, pumpe); galician place name Pezobre (< *petio-brigs). This innovative process would have been interrupted by the romanization, but its explains the duality of items in the same geographical area assigned to one and another system.

There is a fact that is not mentioned: uvamogozis, uvamo represent surely a final preservating *p of the original Indo-European. Then this phenomenon represents a recent fact. This is the motive by Eska considers, with a good criterion, that proto-Celtic would have preservated the IE *p:

“Other changes, such as the loss of proto- IE */p/ between vowels, seem to have been well along towards completion prior to the break up of proto- Celtic. It mostly is continued by 0̸ throughout the attested languages, but was not fully complete in view of early Cisalpine Celt. uvamo- ‘highest’ (CIS 65 = CIM 180) < *upamo- , in which 〈v〉 represents a labial fricative…[…]*/p/ have been present in proto-celtic”. (Eska, 2010:23).

This position begins to be assumed by a great part of Celtologists', for example in Jürgen Zeidler: "Celto-Roman Contact Names in Galicia ", 2007:

“K.H. Schmidt (1985) reduced the matter to a problem of definition -a language preserving IE *p cannot be labelled Celtic- but in view of recent arguments in favour of a late disappearence of *p and a possible reflex in Lepontic uvamogozis, uvamo, the question should not be treated in a dogmatic way” (Zeidler, 2007:42).

Therefore, It is not an Untermann's caprice, but the dogmatism of the followers of Schmidt: cp. "Celticum videtur comparto PALLO nomine" (Hübner 1892:1047).

In the last works of Almagro-Gorbea (2010, 2011) and of Patrick Brun (2011) the term proto-celtic is used to differ the hisp.-celtic of the continental Celtic (Schmidt's definition):

“[…] el conglomerado constituido por vettones, lusitanos y galaicos […] puede considerarse “protocéltico”’ (Almagro-Gorbea, 2010).

The concept 'keltiké' hides a complex, multiform and plural historical reality. It is inappropriate to understand the terms 'Celt' and 'Celtic' with the character of ethnicity that the linguistics and the linguists use habitually (Collis, 2003), and starts intrinsically from having established, differentiating and developing a dialectal variety, under the label of 'Celt', with the endocentric value given to the Gaulish and the insular 'celtic' languages and, with the conceptual point of view, of an ethnic identity. What is named generically as 'Celt' must conceptualize as a phenomenon of ' cultural identity ', it is, a series of cultural common characteristics to the Atlantic and Central European territories: Linguistic affinities, ideological-religious, material culture, etc. (Götz, 2010). To affirm the exclusively Central European origin to define what is or not 'Celt' lacks scientific base (Cunliffe, 2003) and it explains only for the weight of the historiographical and linguistic tradition (Rieckhoff, 2007).

The Iberian Peninsula has remained always relegated to a treatment of appendicular character, regardless of the general analysis what the 'Celtic' term is, An image stereotyped of the 'keltiké' has been created, constructed selectively from proceeding testimonies only of some regions, which really it is not extensible to all the areas of Celtic language (Beltran Lloris, 1992). The anathemic problem of /p/ in all the Hispanic celtic dialects, included the Celtiberian, is, therefore, formulated on a 'Celtic' stereotype based on extralinguistical criteria that it contributed to do the gaul-roman and the medieval insular literature as the only canon to following (Moralejo, 2006), therefore,it is a corrupt term (Collis, 2003).


the P Q in Celtic is also in Greece,
I don't know if Taranis is correct about Urnfield with the P one but I know about the Q in Greece

the case of Myceneans for me is still under discuss if Kurgans or Anatolian, due to tin and Arsenic Bronze
But at Croatia Serbia we clearly what Ancient Greeks as Illyro-Celtic at Vucovar as Thracian to Cotofeni and probably Mycenean at Vatin

Vatin from Vucovar is not far, but we know that Myceneans name the horse Ικκος (Iqqos Ikkos) that Fits with Italo-Latin Equus, at iron age we a change from Q to P so Ikkos become Ippos, compare Ippos with the Gaulish word for horse and the change from Ikkos to Ippos with Deutsh Phard (not Germanic Ars-Horse) and Mycenean- Greek phorvas (female Horse)
so there is possibilty that P-Celts might come from Urnfield or Haalstat about Iron age, cause I am certain that Celts before were Q.

callaeca
13-09-12, 21:19
zzzzzzzzzz

callaeca
14-09-12, 16:09
zzzzzzzzzzz

Taranis
14-09-12, 17:53
Callaeca, before I comment on the rest of your post, I have noted that this is the third time that you use the term "endocentric":



For decades the Gaulish paradigmatic and endocentric model (with the posterior inclusion of the celtiberian: Schmidt (1985) and its continental Celtic) has been imposed.



Are the Celtic languages only the romantic and endocentric point of view of the recent gaulish and insular languages?



I don't know how the other celtic languages could emerge, but the endocentric paradigm and model of the gaulish (it is a recent language) is invalid in Iberia.


... be that assertation as it is (I think it is unduly due to the fact that I am evidently incorporating all evidence here), I would like to talk first about the loss of *p:



There is a fact that is not mentioned: uvamogozis, uvamo represent surely a final preservating *p of the original Indo-European. Then this phenomenon represents a recent fact. This is the motive by Eska considers, with a good criterion, that proto-Celtic would have preservated the IE *p:


Was this really not mentioned? You must have overread this part of my earlier post:



(I might remind here of the analogy with the Japonic languages: if the development was via the intermediate stages of *p > *φ > *h > Ø, we would infer that at an earliest, *kʷ > *p occured after *p > *φ. In this scenario, we may imagine that the development *φ > *h > Ø occured subsequently while the Proto-Celtic language was already in the process of fragmentation. This would explain Lepontic "uvamokozis", and possibly occurences of *h- in Gaulish.)


... which is precisely reflected by what you quote here:



“Other changes, such as the loss of proto- IE */p/ between vowels, seem to have been well along towards completion prior to the break up of proto- Celtic. It mostly is continued by 0̸ throughout the attested languages, but was not fully complete in view of early Cisalpine Celt. uvamo- ‘highest’ (CIS 65 = CIM 180) < *upamo- , in which 〈v〉 represents a labial fricative…[…]*/p/ have been present in proto-celtic”. (Eska, 2010:23).


It is critical to note in the above that Eska affirms that "it is mostly continued by Ø throughout the attested languages" (which includes Celtiberian, as I demonstrated earlier). Eska correctly subsumes that the loss of *p was "well along towards completion prior the breakup of Proto-Celtic". In regard for Lepontic, I would like to ask you a rhetoric question: what is the IPA symbol for a voiceless bilabial fricative?


Now, I'd like to comment on the consequences for *kʷ > *p:



The afirmation:


if *p > Ø happened after *kʷ > *p, the above would be obviously impossible.


it precisely contradicts the results in the italic osco-umbrian languages where *p > p and *kw > p: cp. pis > *quis, pompe, lat quinque and we have examples in arcaic gaulish where kw is no *p (cp. equo in Coligny).About this phenomena see Daniel Huber (2007) "On the Interaction of Velars and Labials",


This does not contradict the results in the slightest. You are just moving things out of context:


- what you describe for Osco-Umbrian holds true for the Italic context. It also holds true for the Greek context (and, I will agree that the same holds true for Lusitanian context). All these languages have in common that the Proto-Indo-European *p is preserved while additionally, PIE *kʷ also becomes *p. In contrast to this you have Latin and Mycenaean Greek, which both preserve PIE *kʷ (cf. Latin "equus", Linear B "I-Qo"). In other words, the developments of *kʷ > *p occured well after the development of Proto-Italic and Proto-Greek, respectively. There is no contradiction here.


- The above is non-applicable for the British and Gaulish (it doesn't concern Primitive Irish or Celtiberian because like Latin and like Mycenaean Greek, these retain PIE *kʷ). As you know, both British and Gaulish evidently lose PIE *p, and it is inevitable that this loss of *p must have occured before the development of *kʷ > *p.


- the possible retaining of PIE medial *p as *φ Lepontic is *not* a contradiction of the above because if the *kʷ > *p shift occured after *p > *φ (ergo loss!), and the contradiction would be resolved. This is why it makes sense to reconstruct Proto-Celtic as *φ, and not *p.


- the alternative, is to assume that the Brythonic/Gaulish somehow had a way of "memorizing" or distinguishing wether a *p-sound derived from PIE *p or *kʷ, and that only those that actually stemmed from PIE *p were subsequently rendered Ø (Or *φ in Lepontic). But, do you really believe this?


And now, I would like to get back to this:



First of all, in my opinion, the utilization of terms as pre-celtic or para-celtic is not acceptable. It means nothing. We do not know the languages spoken before the Celtic, not of others that could have coexisted with the proto-celtic (Guyonvarc'h). What we know is that great part of words considered non Celtic of western Iberia have its exact correspondence in Gaulish and that Irish words like faffian, cuifre, life, etc. have not correspondence and explanation with the Celtic or with any other Indo-European language.


The terms "pre-Celtic" and "para-Celtic" may not be acceptable for you, but they have very much a meaning:


- "Pre-Celtic" could either denote the languages the languages that were spoken in Western Europe before the Celtic languages, or in the Indo-European context, the language evolution that took place between Proto-Indo-European, and the fragmentation of Proto-Celtic (the ancestor language of all Celtic languages) into it's daughter languages. The latter would be more accurately refered to as "Pre-Proto-Germanic", or (in analogy with Euler's terminology in the Germanic context), "Celtic Parent Language".


- As soon as we acknowledge that the development of *p > *φ must predate the development *kʷ > *p, the latter inevitably becomes an anti-celtic feature in the context of a preservation of PIE *p. It is thus sensible to argue that the Lusitanian language diverged from the other Celtic languages earlier, before the fragmentation. In this case, you're ending up again with the "Para-Celtic" concept.


- The alternative to the above is to argue that Proto-Celtic indeed retained *p, and that the loss of *p occured independently from each other in British, Gaulish, Irish and Celtiberian. In this scenario, you would be correct that Proto-Celtic should be reconstructed retaining *p, but such a scenario is not economic.


- In summary, I affirm the close relationship of Lusitanian with the Celtic languages, but given the evidence I think it is more sensible to assume that Lusitanian represents a distinct development that is separate from the other (or "proper") Celtic languages.


Then, you bring up some very interesting points here:



To affirm the exclusively Central European origin to define what is or not 'Celt' lacks scientific base (Cunliffe, 2003) and it explains only for the weight of the historiographical and linguistic tradition (Rieckhoff, 2007).



The anathemic problem of /p/ in all the Hispanic celtic dialects, included the Celtiberian, is, therefore, formulated on a 'Celtic' stereotype based on extralinguistical criteria that it contributed to do the gaul-roman and the medieval insular literature as the only canon to following (Moralejo, 2006), therefore,it is a corrupt term (Collis, 2003).


Interestingly, I never argued for an exclusively Central-European origin in the first place. On the flip side, the problem of *p is decisively not an extralinguistic criterium because we established earlier that western Hispania is NOT a linguistically homogenous area. This is a problem that doesn't go away even if we elevate Lusitanian to a full Celtic language and fully pretend that *p wasn't lost in Proto-Celtic:


- As we established, PIE *kʷ is retained in Celtiberian (Botorrita I "nekue" and "-kue"). Likewise, we have forms with *kʷ attested in western Spain (such as ethnic names "Querquerni" and "Equaesi").


- At the same time, we firmly established that *kʷ > *p holds true for Lusitanian ("pumpi", "puppid", "petranoi", etc.).


So unless you believe that sound laws can be in free variation with each other, you still have the realize that there are apparently two linguistic strata in Western Hispania, and that a solution is necessary to explain this.


Finally, I would like to place your attention on several of your earlier posts, regarding the identity of Urnfield:



Yes, I think so Yetos, the celtic P language is more recent than Q in western Europa (cp. gaulish equo in Coligny). It belong to the urnfield folks, but there are traces that hisp-celt. and celtib. was changing to P in the romanisation times


Perhaps I am the only one who finds it peculiar, but it didn't evade me that you are contradicting yourself here. A few posts earlier you still claimed that the Urnfielders were Iberians:



You have nearly examples in the Aquitanian, Iberian and Rethian urnfield cultures, languages probably similar to which had talk in Central Europe, Northern and British Isles, prior to the incorrectly pronounce of the Indo-European)



5. Well, what we see immediately after the urnfields is the emergence of the non indo-european languages. Why this process would not have been affected in the urnfield areas of Central Europe? (...) And, where the Iberian culture come from with its urnfield features? From the north, is not?


So, without the desire of any form of offense, I wonder how do you reconcile this?

MOESAN
14-09-12, 18:12
I agree too that for me there is a great evidence for P being a later evolution in I-E languages (some celtic, some italic, some hellenic) evolution occuured at the Iron Ages in central Europe - not an hazard one - some new I-E elite: proving it is an other question?
maybe someone can answer me about supposed celtic *P disparition? beacuse I thinked that this evolution occurred for the most at beginning of words: linked maybe to an aspiration of /p/, aspiration that disappeared between vowels (beginning of a kind of lenition?), giving way to a /b/ and not a */h/>> /-/ ???
on a more general plan:
there are some peculiar phonetic evolution typical of some speaking groups and too some general phonetic rules applying in every language, as the place of accent (more strenght than tone) acting upon lenition or not, or reinforcing of consonants...
the Grimm 's law about germanic consonants shift know some exception INSIDE words, explained by these general common rules...

MOESAN
14-09-12, 18:20
I'm sorry - I did not read the Taranis' post that I find very clear - my post looks very poor now...

callaeca
15-09-12, 01:34
zzzzzzzzzzz

Taranis
15-09-12, 20:06
1. Why? M. Counihan (2009): An Etruscan Solution to a Celtic Problem:


Abstract: It is argued that what used to be called "P-Celtic" arose because Etruscans could not pronounce properly the Indo-European languages which they encountered in and around Italy. Etruscan influence can neatly explain not only the phenomenon of P-Celtic but also the corresponding phonological transition in Oscan and Umbrian. This scenario tends to support a relatively short timescale for the dissemination and diversification of the Western Indo-European languages.(1)


2. How? D. Huber (2007): On the Interaction of Velars and Labials.


It might "neatly explain" the development, if there wasn't a critical problem: the Etruscans simply didn't originate in Central Europe, but in Anatolia. Amongst other things, there is recent genetic evidence for an immigration from Anatolia into Italy:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17357081?dopt=Abstract


"Mitochondrial DNA variation of modern Tuscans supports the near eastern origin of Etruscans."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17301019


"The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA."


There is additionally linguistic and religious evidence. Notably, The Anatolian deity name "Tarhunt" became Etruscan "Tarχun", which in turn became the source of the Roman name "Tarquinius".


Also, there is no evidence for an Etruscan substrate in Proto-Germanic (which might also be expected if the Etruscans were in Central Europe).



3. The emergence of the osco-umbrian and gaulish (and others) coincides in time and space with urnfield culture. The non indo-european caracter of the urnfield culture is visible in NE of Iberia (see the most recent works about urnfields in the Ebro Valley, where over a population related with the Atlantic Culture, with indo-european features, superimposes a non indo-european culture similar to the Iberian in Catalonia).


You're doing a number of glaring impossibilities here. You clearly argued in your points #1 and #2 that the Urnfield Culture was Etruscan, and you cite this as the cause for the development of *kw > *p in Celtic. And now you say that the Urnfield Culture was Iberian. You cannot simply lump non-Indo-European languages and cultures together just because they are non-Indo-European. The ancient Iberian language was very different from Etruscan. There is no point in even discussing the details of that.


Also, you ignore (again) that there is a firm presence of the Iberian language in the south and southeast of the Iberian peninsula, and that the Urnfield incursion into Iberia cannot explain this. The origins of Iberian culture (most notably, the characteristic "falcata"-type swords) originate in the Southeast of the peninsula.



You can adduce that Lusitanian (and then the vettonian, vaccean, callaecian, asturian, cantabrian, tartessian and, as last resort, the celtiberian) is in the same way. But it doesn't explain the approximation of the Lusitanian and neighboring languages to the 'celtic' languages: *ºm > am (ambi-mogidos), *ºn > an (an-dercus),ºr > ri (brig-), ºl > al (talavus), superlative *-(s)amo (< *sºmmo-), *mr- > br- (bracara), etc, etc, etc., and its evident and neatly relation at the same time with the italic languages (we are talking about the celto-italic family).


Which is exactly how a contradiction of what I said?



4. From Lewis and Pedersens to McCone, Sims-Williams, Isaac, Schrijver and many others, the scholars claim features that Celtic languages (Gaulish and Insular Languages) in several characteristics they resemble some non-Indo-European languages. These characteristics include the absence of a present participle and the use instead of a verbal noun (found also in Egyptian and Berber), the frequent expression of agency by means of an impersonal passive construction instead of by a verbal subject in the nominative case (as in Egyptian, Berber, Basque, and some Caucasian and Eskimo languages), the positioning of the verb at the beginning of a sentence (typical of Egyptian and Berber), the agglutinated final particle to account for the primary endings (as in Basque), the final *-i no apocopated in the absolute endings, the imperfect endings with an unknown origin, etc., etc., etc.. In contrast, the clear indo-european system of the hispano-celtic (included Lusitanian).



The day that you could explain these strange divergences that we see in gaulish and in the insular celtic languages, then I will believe in your pre-celtic and para-celtic folks.


What should be pointed out is that the concept of "Insular Celtic" is technically invalid. It is useful for contrasting the modern Brythonic and Goidelic languages with Celtiberian and Gaulish, but Brythonic and Gaulish share a significant number of phonological innovations absent in Goidelic. Furthermore, an analysis of old British and Primitive Irish shows that these languages were fundamentally "continental Celtic" in nature (cf. Koch 1995, 2005: "By definition, Primitive Irish is used for a state of the language that was then written [ ... ] in which the original Old Celtic final syllables of polysyllables were preserved [...] ).



Dogmatism: belief system that it can not be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm itself.


Endocentric: When it fulfills the same linguístic function as one of its parts. It can be applicable when something represents the only example or model to follow (see dogmatism).


The last year, Taranis, you were histrionically defending the non celticity of the tartessian, now its celticity is an evidence. A very dogmatic scholar like Fco. Villar had to admite this circumstance. Then, you adduced the dissenting point of view of Jürgen Zeidler (remind my criticisim about it). Now, I adduce of this same author (and I repeat the same quote):


Dogmatic? Endocentric? Histrionic? That is fascinating, because looking at your older posts, I have made an interesting observation: since you joined Eupedia over a year ago, you have shown zero activity outside the dissemination of your hypothesis.



“K.H. Schmidt (1985) reduced the matter to a problem of definition -a language preserving IE *p cannot be labelled Celtic- but in view of recent arguments in favour of a late disappearence of *p and a possible reflex in Lepontic uvamogozis, uvama, the question should not to be treated in a dogmatic way”. (J. Zeidler (2007): Celto-Roman Contact Names in Galicia, p. 42).


I agree with this assessment, and that should have been clear from my previous post. Nontheless, I am pretty sure that Zeidler will agree with me that the loss of PIE *p (in whatever shape: let me remind you that Lepontic "v" doesn't represent the phoneme *p but *φ - the latter is at least the position forwarded by Eska 2010) cannot postdate the development *kʷ > *p in the so-called "P-Celtic" languages.


What I find really saddening, however, is that you are operating under a pre-1830s mode of linguistics (I hope that does not sound offensive, but I think it is an accurate description), by implying that sound laws can apparently be in free variation with each other (eg. *p and Ø) , and implying that languages have a "memory" of previous sound changes (eg. *kʷ > *p before *p > Ø - it should be pointed out that none of the authors you cited even claimed this was possible). This is also affirmed by your referal of Grimm's Law as a "consonantal instability".


The way I see it, you are scraping at the bottom of an empty barrel: you try to bring up disparate and sometimes overtly unreconcilable concepts together (e.g. Urnfield is variably Iberian, variably Etruscan for you) to justify your concept of an apparent "pure" Indo-Europeanness of the Iberian peninsula.



Our discussion not leads nowhere and we should stop here. Maybe the next year you’ll have to admit (as many scholars now) about the western hispanic indo-european:


I would rcommend you should read some generalized literature about how comparative linguistics works. How sound correspondence and sound laws work. In the meantime, you are very much welcomed to stay here, but I would encourage you hereby to also show interest into other topics and start interacting with other board members.



About hispano-celtic numeral *penta-: cp. gaulish penta- and dvs. (see Holder, Whatmough), britonic river name PENTA (Holder II col. 967), old irish óintam '[glos.] caelebs' (Pedersen Gramm. II p. 60), greek pénte (but eolian pémpe), illyrian PANTO, PANTIA (see Krahe, Schulze), ven. PENTADIUS, skr. pañcama, hitt. panta (see Bossert): ie. *penkw-to- > *pen(kw)to- > *pento-. Then it is not a divergent form.


You are mistaken here. You are overlooking here that the Italo-Celtic languages assimilate *p > *kw before *kw. This is evident in both Irish and Latin:


Latin "quinque", Old Irish "cóic"
compare: Greek "pente", Lithuanian "penki", Russian "pjat" (пять)


Latin "quercus", Gallaecian ethnic name "Querquenni"
compare: Lithuanian "perkunas", Russian "perun" (перун), Albanian "përkund"


Latin "coquere" vs. Old Irish "coic" ("to cook")
compare: Sanskrit "pacati", Tocharian "päk-", Albanian "pjek", Russian "petch" (печь)


The expected Proto-Celtic forms then become subject to *kʷ > *p in Gaulish, Lepontic and British. In other words, the attestation is no evidence for a direct preservation of PIE *p, since these instances of *p stem from an earlier Italo-Celtic *kʷ.

zanipolo
15-09-12, 20:43
just some points (not decisive but maybe indicative)
1- some P- words (# << Qw-) like 'porc-'° in Galia or other considered celtic areas do'nt signify they are genuine celtic words nor that they are not recent loan words (for the considered period) - I should not be amazed at all if we found some pre-celtic I-E languages in Gauls, akin to kinds of Ligurian: NOTHING SURPRISING THERE
2- I wrote in an other thread that the modern evolution of gaelic could have taken place in a very few centuries after "learning" by pre-celtic Ireland populations (old stock of N-W mesolithic Europeans mixed with some neolithic megalithers?)
3- when comparing gaelic and brittonic vocabulary I was stroke by not only the very different phonetical evolution but also by the rapid divergence (or mixture with pre-celtic words?) of lexicon between the two groups: I know lost and replacement of words can run very fast in living languages but here it is very amazing! words for the body, the family, the natural environment are very divergent within celtic languages so what??? either gaelic is older in Ireland than I believed, or the actual lexicon is a kind of "creole", a misture of two lexicon (it is true I lack points of comparison, P- italic languages compared to Qw- italic ones, by instance: if somebody can give us some digest of basic words?) a celtic language imposed lately (Iron Age 700BC?) to a non-celtic population whose sounds habits take the strong side upon celtic phonetic in a short time + mixture of lexic? maybe a yet I-E language in Ireland before well indentified celtic, being the celtic accepted easily because of some already common origins, but tracing back a ltille older???
I'll dress a short list of basic words in the two celtic branches newt time -

I don't see this as any italic languages , but purely a pre-celtic one. a language that ranged from the pyrennes to Venice under a gallic tongue under the group called ligures. This group mixed with the celts of the north to make a gallic-celti language in northern Italy, switzerland and western austria.
Northern italy which was all ligurian in the early bronze age still have porc/o for pork and Porsel for Pig ( italian does not use these words). I guess then that the gaul in ligurian people would be more older than expected, far older then the celtic component

MOESAN
18-09-12, 15:21
I know my posts are often negative or at least not-conclusive – this one is written after the apparent problems of Callaeca, without trying to go too much into details that i don't master and that don't help concerning the basic logic that has to shape the debate:



The problem of languages and cultures is a question of nature but also a question of naming – when we need to be precise we give different names to different aspects of language and culture, language here, whatever the weight of difference – so « celtic » is referred to as an I-E language with, among its features, the more important one : the lost of PIE *p- (and *-p-/-p?), lost that seams predating the partial shift of *qw- in celtic and other languages; distinct name don't learn us about either links or lack of link between two categories of language or distance ; it is not the negation of a filiation -
in the case of celtic, we are trying to find a proto-celtic ; well : the discussion is open, but when I 'll speak about 'celtic' it 'll be about languages that lost the PIE previous *p- - I consider we have not to rename as « celtic » languages that don't have this peaculiarity – I said « open » because more than a family of languages showed links with these strictly defined celtics : italic ones, I-E iberia ones (as lusitanian), ligurian, maybe some not to evident « northwestern I-E » language...
My thought for now is that at BB times (even if we cannot affirm : BB = I-E) a western family of I-E occupied a large territory where we after found gaelic, brittonic, gaulish, lusitanian, lepontic, celt-iberic, latin, osco-ombrian, ligurian, and surely a kind of proto-germanic, perhaps yet other forgotten dialects – some scholars (in good mind condition) supposed tight enough links shared by italic, celtic and ligurian languages, tighter when sepaking about celtic and ligurian : the proto-celtic we can figure out can be closer to ligurian, but alternatively closer to lusitanian : without any deep knowledge on the matter, and relying on this thread exchanges, I can suppose lusitanian and other I-E ancient languages of Iberia are closer related to future well defined [P > -] celtic -
so celtic can have been born among something akin to a language very similar to lusitanian or a previous form of lusitanian ; but this previous form (as languages tend to diverge) could be also a form common to other western parts of Europe (center Galia, Atlantic shores etc...) at a not too far older stage ; so the proximity of lusitanian to this hypothetic ancestral form doesn' t prove or disprove anyway that well defined celtic forms found their cradle in Iberia (or not) -
So we are obliged to take other things in consideration, as geography, genetics, material culture & trade, communication ways, timing, historical fatcs as geographical and temporal origin of I-E, archeology and their interactions... here interpretations are still open, even if apparent ages of Y-R1b downstreams Hgs and their distributions could put me to think in a common BB or just post-BB culture diffusing from central-south-east France- parts of Switzerland-southwestern Germany and carrying western I-E languages akin to proto-celtic and proto-ligurian and proto-italic, according to the numerous directions taken ; the separation of some branches can explain the different repartitions of male dominating (unsure, it's true) substream Hgs and the languages partial differenciations – I think as a lot that the lost of PIE *P- occured in west or west-central Europe and not in Iberia but I'm not ready to kill anybody for I cannot prove it now... (I prefer kill the snake...) - that is not to say that all-celtic first cradle was in Bavaria even if the Tumuli culture is a very attractive hypothesis: only after that became Bavaria and surroundings the start-point of La-Tène expansion, it is an other thing, and I think it was too the point of Taranis ?
What is sure is that « celtic » is a well labelled name and I have no want to extend it to every kind of « para- » or « proto- »... if I speak about 'french', I don't speak about 'roman' or 'latin'.
just to recenter the debate

Have a good afternoon

zanipolo
19-09-12, 12:34
Continueing from my post 37 - I have concluded that the celts where the old Vindelici people made of about 8 tribes, which resided north of the raeti of western Austria. They where between the lech and windo rivers in southern germany, there capital being modern Augsburg.
They where not Germanic but only purely celtic.
The long linguistic text on the Raetic language has some clues in it in regards to this
http://www.mek.oszk.hu/05100/05110/05110.pdf

As they where pushed southward by the Germanic Macromanni and Quadi tribes coming down from the north , their language adapted and fused with firstly the raeti and then with the illyro-lusitanian language, lastly they influenced the gallic ligures tribes of northern Italy.
Later still they absorbed the northern illyrian people of eastern austria and started there balkan adventure.

So, they are Vindelici who spoke celtic and had the la tene culture

Ptolomey (100-160 AD) says that the river Lech separated the Vindelici and Rhaetians. The Northern Vindelici were known as the Runicati, Leuni, Consuanti, Benlauni, Breuni, and by the river Lech, the Licati. The towns in Vindelicia were Boiodurum (Passau), Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), Carrodunum, Abudiacum (Epfach), Cambodunum (Kempten), Medullum, and Inutrium.45

I read that the word bavaria is from the vindelici while the germanic name is Bayern.

Also, since the name Vindelici arrives friome a mix of the celtic Windo and the lech river, I wonder if the first wends the germans referred to was these Vindelici people

MOESAN
19-09-12, 22:14
Continueing from my post 37 - I have concluded that the celts where the old Vindelici people made of about 8 tribes, which resided north of the raeti of western Austria. They where between the lech and windo rivers in southern germany, there capital being modern Augsburg.
They where not Germanic but only purely celtic.
The long linguistic text on the Raetic language has some clues in it in regards to this
http://www.mek.oszk.hu/05100/05110/05110.pdf

As they where pushed southward by the Germanic Macromanni and Quadi tribes coming down from the north , their language adapted and fused with firstly the raeti and then with the illyro-lusitanian language, lastly they influenced the gallic ligures tribes of northern Italy.
Later still they absorbed the northern illyrian people of eastern austria and started there balkan adventure.

So, they are Vindelici who spoke celtic and had the la tene culture





Ptolomey (100-160 AD) says that the river Lech separated the Vindelici and Rhaetians. The Northern Vindelici were known as the Runicati, Leuni, Consuanti, Benlauni, Breuni, and by the river Lech, the Licati. The towns in Vindelicia were Boiodurum (Passau), Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), Carrodunum, Abudiacum (Epfach), Cambodunum (Kempten), Medullum, and Inutrium.45

I read that the word bavaria is from the vindelici while the germanic name is Bayern.

Also, since the name Vindelici arrives friome a mix of the celtic Windo and the lech river, I wonder if the first wends the germans referred to was these Vindelici people

Well!
What is the definition of celtic and gallic differences, and the links tying illyrian and lusitanian?
Could you provide us some list of words establishing these facts?
thanks beforehand

zanipolo
20-09-12, 09:30
Well!
What is the definition of celtic and gallic differences, and the links tying illyrian and lusitanian?
Could you provide us some list of words establishing these facts?
thanks beforehand


illyro-Lusitinian, Illyro-Venetic, Illyro-Roman, Thraco-Illyrian, Italic-celtic etc etc are terms used to describe the influences of these languages with each other over certain areas in which they jointly merged.

Yes, what is the definition or differences between gallic and celtic ..........I asked this question many times.

Do you think that celtic was spoke in gaul prior to the la tene culture?

How old is the gallic nations/tribes in ancient Gaul?

The Ligurians ( Ligures ) of all of North Italy in the bronze age where gallic people, did they speak celtic.?
Please advise.....I am very curious

regards

MOESAN
20-09-12, 13:27
illyro-Lusitinian, Illyro-Venetic, Illyro-Roman, Thraco-Illyrian, Italic-celtic etc etc are terms used to describe the influences of these languages with each other over certain areas in which they jointly merged.

Yes, what is the definition or differences between gallic and celtic ..........I asked this question many times.

Do you think that celtic was spoke in gaul prior to the la tene culture?

How old is the gallic nations/tribes in ancient Gaul?

The Ligurians ( Ligures ) of all of North Italy in the bronze age where gallic people, did they speak celtic.?
Please advise.....I am very curious

regards


it is pleasant: you answer my questions by other questions: Jesuistic influence? (joke!)
your namings are confusing for me: influences of languages on other languages give not way to a 50-50 new language in the most of cases, because the language that loans some words, as an habit, keep on with its grammatical structures, so creating names as Illyrian-'something-ic' or 'something-ian' appears to me leading to misundertsanding and history mistakes as the impression there was something like an 'Illyrian Empire' in ancient Europe-
'gallic' and 'celtic', when speaking about tribes and not about languages classification, are a "doublet" or synonyms: Romans called Gallia a big territory where the Celts was the more numerous peoples - it seams that they name themsleves 'Celts' - maybe the eastern Galati was an other kind of celtic speaking people, as Belgae - aside of the Aquitanians and surely some remnants of Ligurians and Greek coastal colonies, the most of Gallia was celtic speaking tribes of Bronze and Iron ages, and we can IMAGINE (no proof for now) that a lot of the Bronze Ages tribes was speaking a kind of Qw- celtic language, not exlcuding, as in the Alps, some remnants in remote corners of aother old western I-E language akin to ligurian or lusitanian or... (I imagine, I DO NIT KNOW for the moment) - Even in Aquitania in Roman times the celtic tribes was infiltred bewteen aquitanian tribes-
I have no time just now but I shall try to find some details about "Gaulish Tribes" in today France and surroundings;
and: never heard speak about italian Ligurians = Gallic people???
!Have a good meal! Debrit gant kalon! ("eat with heart")

zanipolo
21-09-12, 08:43
it is pleasant: you answer my questions by other questions: Jesuistic influence? (joke!)
your namings are confusing for me: influences of languages on other languages give not way to a 50-50 new language in the most of cases, because the language that loans some words, as an habit, keep on with its grammatical structures, so creating names as Illyrian-'something-ic' or 'something-ian' appears to me leading to misundertsanding and history mistakes as the impression there was something like an 'Illyrian Empire' in ancient Europe-
'gallic' and 'celtic', when speaking about tribes and not about languages classification, are a "doublet" or synonyms: Romans called Gallia a big territory where the Celts was the more numerous peoples - it seams that they name themsleves 'Celts' - maybe the eastern Galati was an other kind of celtic speaking people, as Belgae - aside of the Aquitanians and surely some remnants of Ligurians and Greek coastal colonies, the most of Gallia was celtic speaking tribes of Bronze and Iron ages, and we can IMAGINE (no proof for now) that a lot of the Bronze Ages tribes was speaking a kind of Qw- celtic language, not exlcuding, as in the Alps, some remnants in remote corners of aother old western I-E language akin to ligurian or lusitanian or... (I imagine, I DO NIT KNOW for the moment) - Even in Aquitania in Roman times the celtic tribes was infiltred bewteen aquitanian tribes-
I have no time just now but I shall try to find some details about "Gaulish Tribes" in today France and surroundings;
and: never heard speak about italian Ligurians = Gallic people???
!Have a good meal! Debrit gant kalon! ("eat with heart")

Well lets clear this up.

The ligurians in the bronze age contolled all of north italy with there different tribes, there "super" tribes where, taurini in NW ( piemonte) Insubres ( lombardy) and Eugenai ( veneto+friuli)...........all are noted as being Gallic tribes. The Veneti and Etruscans ( to name 2 ) are not originally from Italy.
So, if you say gallic = celtic, that means all north italy must be celtic people..........I say gallic and celtic are different.

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

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

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gE4IAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA56&lpg=RA1-PA56&dq=euganei+tribes&source=bl&ots=iZ06qAcpO5&sig=U3bYPxkEIDQuG_Vj-eB7cds6Mi4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wg1cUJjGO87kmAXR9oHgCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=euganei%20tribes&f=false

So, to me it makes sense to not make celtic= gallic or else history is distorted

MOESAN
21-09-12, 09:56
Well lets clear this up.

The ligurians in the bronze age contolled all of north italy with there different tribes, there "super" tribes where, taurini in NW ( piemonte) Insubres ( lombardy) and Eugenai ( veneto+friuli)...........all are noted as being Gallic tribes. The Veneti and Etruscans ( to name 2 ) are not originally from Italy.
So, if you say gallic = celtic, that means all north italy must be celtic people..........I say gallic and celtic are different.

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

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

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gE4IAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA56&lpg=RA1-PA56&dq=euganei+tribes&source=bl&ots=iZ06qAcpO5&sig=U3bYPxkEIDQuG_Vj-eB7cds6Mi4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wg1cUJjGO87kmAXR9oHgCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=euganei%20tribes&f=false

So, to me it makes sense to not make celtic= gallic or else history is distorted

to make the debate clearer (perhaps):
1- we know that the I-E newcomers was sometimes only a scarce elite, sometimes an heavier group of tribes but that never in W-Europe they expelled or drown the previous autochtonous populations (alpine and atlantic ones ), so every time crossings and mixture occurred in various proportions - this is for the genetic aspect -
2- Ligurians appear having occupied for the most the lands between W-Alps and Mediterranea - in Italy before Roman times they occupied S-Piemonte, modern "Liguria", the W-Appenines and Toscana, and surely they had some settlements southernmore - I never heard (I know it is not a proof) of Ligurians at the top of society in N-C or N-E Italy before today -
3- Concerning cultural linguistic aspect, we know that CELTIC = GALLIC tribes was mixed with Ligurians tirbes in the french Alps, so never the name of "gallic" was attributed to Ligurians by scientists - surely some Ancient did some mistake but ...
4- We have no proof of a very different strata of celtic or near-celtic language in N-Italy in Antiquity, dividing a celtic from a 'gallic' language - maybe have you some precise elements on that? the supposed (for strong enough evidence) Celts of N-Italy occupied valleys, the most in Central North Italy (today Lombardia), and some of them get down until Romagna (E-C Italy) in Roman times; was they "pure" Celts, I don't know and I don't care too much because we are speaking about cultural ethnic questions here - never was they considered as occupying the W-N and W-C Italy, old territories of Ligurians - an influence of ligurian habits on their language? Maybe?...
&: we have 2 placenames (at east) in western France & romance Brittany containing Jaille that is considered as a cognate of Gallia: so at roman times the celt territory was named Gallia too by the Latins, being the same thing as Celtia for Celts...
5- We both agree that the etruscan question occurred later, ans that the typical cultural etruscan element was a scarce elite from maybe Anatolia, maybe Near-Eastern and has nothing to do with the celtic-gallic equation -

Yetos
21-09-12, 21:46
I think the terminology is Celts as the family of smaller tribes,

I mean Gauls are Celts, but all Celts are not Gauls,

Greeks even today name France as Γαλλια Gallia due to the South-Central parts of France, and not after Francais,

Its like Germans and Deutsch Dutch Scands Goths etc,
all the above are Germanic but not Deutsch,

zanipolo
21-09-12, 22:08
to make the debate clearer (perhaps):
1- we know that the I-E newcomers was sometimes only a scarce elite, sometimes an heavier group of tribes but that never in W-Europe they expelled or drown the previous autochtonous populations (alpine and atlantic ones ), so every time crossings and mixture occurred in various proportions - this is for the genetic aspect -
2- Ligurians appear having occupied for the most the lands between W-Alps and Mediterranea - in Italy before Roman times they occupied S-Piemonte, modern "Liguria", the W-Appenines and Toscana, and surely they had some settlements southernmore - I never heard (I know it is not a proof) of Ligurians at the top of society in N-C or N-E Italy before today -
3- Concerning cultural linguistic aspect, we know that CELTIC = GALLIC tribes was mixed with Ligurians tirbes in the french Alps, so never the name of "gallic" was attributed to Ligurians by scientists - surely some Ancient did some mistake but ...
4- We have no proof of a very different strata of celtic or near-celtic language in N-Italy in Antiquity, dividing a celtic from a 'gallic' language - maybe have you some precise elements on that? the supposed (for strong enough evidence) Celts of N-Italy occupied valleys, the most in Central North Italy (today Lombardia), and some of them get down until Romagna (E-C Italy) in Roman times; was they "pure" Celts, I don't know and I don't care too much because we are speaking about cultural ethnic questions here - never was they considered as occupying the W-N and W-C Italy, old territories of Ligurians - an influence of ligurian habits on their language? Maybe?...
&: we have 2 placenames (at east) in western France & romance Brittany containing Jaille that is considered as a cognate of Gallia: so at roman times the celt territory was named Gallia too by the Latins, being the same thing as Celtia for Celts...
5- We both agree that the etruscan question occurred later, ans that the typical cultural etruscan element was a scarce elite from maybe Anatolia, maybe Near-Eastern and has nothing to do with the celtic-gallic equation -

Italians historians say these are ancient ligurians lands of th ebronze age

http://www.vegiazena.it/storia/popoli/imm/preferro.jpg


invasions of Italy in late bronze age
http://www.vegiazena.it/storia/popoli/imm/emigraz.jpg

The Julian alps = the eastern alps and that was the border of the euganei which are a branch of the ligurians who in turn are gallic


so the question still stands , is gallic = celtic, if so then north italy is Celtic.
If so, why then if gallic = celtic is proto-celtic starting point not any where except for southern Germany?

MOESAN
22-09-12, 00:24
to Yetos:
I was speaking about the endonyme Celt(s) not the general linguistic meaning 'celtic' - for me until today I never heard speaking of a clear distinction separating Galli from Celti -
to Zanipolo: thanks for your map but it is not too informative - for me (my readings) at middle Bronze Age, there was a difference between N-E Italy (Balkanic influenced peoples, culturally and phenotypically, maybe false informations?) and the remnant of N-Italy ; but Bronze Age dured a long time, so if Eugenai was celtic, yes, Celts was occupying the whole N-Italy at some time -
and Yes all the tribes you mention was celtic according to old scholars - it there are news on the field, please, give me some links -
the question of proto-celtic cradle cannot be answered by the gallic-celtic equation (or non equation, according to you) - the tumuli culture of S-Germany seam to archeologs the very possible point of melting and cristallization giving birth to first determined celtic culture and language among a more vaste Western -I-E group of cultures with close "brother" or "uncle" languages but it is only the previous more evident solution - I have no pretention to confirm or infirm it at this stage of my knowledge...some could suggest that Y-R1b-L21 and Atlantic groups could have been older Qw- celtic and Y-R1b-U152 dominant Alps groups P- celtic: just an hypothesis made by someones here and that I find interesting (in this case successors of Ligurians {and Ligurians themselves} could have been more U152 than L21) - the new theories about Tartessos are an alternative but they have to be more effectively proved, for I think -

MOESAN
22-09-12, 19:06
just about gaelic-brittonic
Semantic concepts compared :
man (human) – man (male) – woman – father – mother – son – daughter – brother – sister – child – animal – beast – donkey – stag/hart – hind:doe – horse/stallion – mare – foal – bull – cow – ox – calf – pig – sheep – ram – ewe – gaot(she) – he-gaot – cock – hen – duck – cat – mouse – rat – dog – bear – wolf – fox – hare – rabbit – bird – egg – snake – fish - body - leather – head – back – neck - arm – hand – fist – finger - leg – thigh - foot – belly – bossom/breast – breast/chest - heart - eye – ear – nose – mouth - tooth – beard - meat/flesh – skin - blood – head hair/body hair – bone – lever – day – night – year - world - earth - sky/heaven – sun - moon – wind – rain – snow - grass – tree – wood/firest – wood-timber - flower – water – fire – sea – lake - mountain – stone – rock – river – coast – island – metal – iron – steel – copper – gold – silver – colour – black – white – yellow – blue – red – green – good – hot/warm – cold – sweet/soft – hard – nice/beautiful – great/big – thick – small – high – low – wide/broad – long – heavy – young – old – new – true – full – dry - blind – deaf – house – door – apple – meal/flour – milk - salt – wool – shit – name – to be – to see – to look at - to ear – to listen to - to eat – to drink – to sleep – to swim – to drown – to kill – to give – to take – to fly – to say – to believe – to come – to go – to run - to think – to bake – to jump/to hop -


some replacements mask old common origins and increase arbitrary the number of pseudo-differences in lexic:
hare bret- gad, wlsh- ysgyfarnog : but bret- skouarneg : with big ears ! -
some semantical evolutions too (changing sex, generation, race...):
gael- damh = ox >< bret- dañvad, wlsh- dafad = sheep -
bret- maout = ram = gael- molt >< + wlsh mollt = wether (fr- mouton)
some loans too :
fish : lat- pisc- >> bret- pesk, wlsh- pysg-, but gaul- isca – gael- iasc -
some surely older losts :
lat- pater- = father = gael- athair >< bret-/wlsh- tad (rom- tat-) but gaul- ater + atta fostering « father » : maternal uncle???-
gael- caoradh = sheep >< bret- dañvad, wlhs- dafad but : gaul- caerac = ewe


This is only a rough proxi :
The work is not a scholar's one : we can discute some choices of categorization :
short : first column : differences of words for the meaning in cause
second colum : remaining differences when derived words are dropped out
third column : remaining differences when same word roots are found for close enough meanings or when dialectal same words still exist for the same meaning
So the third column illustrate an older stage of language and the remaining differences in it can show a more archaïc stage in one of the languages compared 2 to 2 or more ancient or new loan words – among the chosen concepts there are very very few modern loans (I kept away some doubtfull words exposed to loan as religious terms or too satellized words in these languages) -
I'm surprised to see so apparently isolated words in gaelic for eye, meat, blood, neck, bone, tooth, and moon,sun,world, wind,rain, steel and the majority of the 22 included verbs -
It repeat it is not a scolar's work ! Just trying to find the place of gaelic ; if one can give some links to old irish studies ?


languages pairs

modern distance
mod-dist correct

more ancient






← derived word
distance




















rouman/italian
57
48
38




spanish/italian
37
30
25




portuguese/italian
39
31
25





french/italian
27
18
7





rouman/spanish
64
57
49




rouman/portuguese
65
57
49





rouman/french
57
47
32




spanish/portuguese
14
14
8
-6



spanish/french
45
32
18
-27



portuguese/french
48
39
24
-24












breton/welsh
18
18
7




breton/gaelics
94
86
72





welsh/gaelics
87
80
69

Tabaccus Maximus
12-09-13, 09:23
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/oldest-bog-body-130820.htm

The above article heralds the discovery of "Cashel Man" in Ireland who was a ritually sacrificed Irish bog body
radiocarbon dating to 2000 B.C.
He is well preserved, although I've been unable to find any detailed pictures which are probably not yet available.

Over the last year, I'm come to believe that not only were Beaker folk Indo-European, but were probably "Proto-Italo speaking, Indo-Europeans" and I've kicked the dying animals of various continuity theories in other posts so none of that here.

The reason this discovery is important is because "Cashel Man" is undeniably well placed within the Beaker period of Ireland. Regardless of his appearance, the nature of his death is similar to other, later ritualized bog sacrifices in the Iron Age of Northern Europe. That means that AT A MINIMUM, aspects of Beaker Culture continued through later ages.

If for some odd and strange reason we find out later that he was a 'lucoderm' and had 'light-colored' hair, we could infer that other Beaker folk for that time period might have had similar appearances. That should be fairly obvious since modern Northwestern Europeans are probably mostly descended from Beaker Folk and are usually fairly fair.

The Beaker folk had habits, social patterns and burials similar to peoples associated with Indo-Europeans, but their identity is still mysterious. Some comparitive linguists have proposed a Western origin of the Proto-Italo-Celtic language group, which some estimate to have been spoken around 2900 B.C. which interestingly corresponds to the Beaker ingression of Spain, so I won't recapitulate here. Multiple sources suggest immigration from Spain by the way.

Beaker sacrificial ritual relates to language because it proves at least one aspect of cultural continuity from the Beaker age. If bog rituals survived, then maybe language too?

Fire Haired
13-09-13, 05:43
I am sick of these theorizes people are throwing out the origin of Celtic languages is pretty simple. Y DNa has been the biggest help in figuring in out. Something to remember is Celts aren't alone their language groups with Italic languages so Italo Celtic. Not everyone agrees but all Y DNa and some archaeology the similar burial of Nordic bronze age and Hallstatt Celts i think is also evidence they group eve farther back to Germanic Italo Celtic languages their Y DNa marker R1b1a2a1 L51. Germanic Italo Celts (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?93100-Germanic-Italo-Celts).

There is no doubt the Bell Beaker 4,600ybp R1b samples in central Germany show the Germanic italo Celts had arrived. Almost all r1b in west europe except around the Mediterranean is under R1b1a2a L51 and R1b1a2a1 L11. Which like i said shows huge connections with germanic branch r1b S21 and Italo Celtic branch R1b S116. So wouldn't it make sense that the Bell Beaker R1b was under either R1b1a2a1 L51 or R1b1a2a1a L11 and is connected with Germanic Italo Celts. I know Bell Beaker originally was not INdo European and it came from Iberia. But it was conquered by migrating Germanic Italo Celts. All of a sudden 4,500-3,5000ybp u see new Kurgen Indo European cultures with plaid clothing pop up in central Europe and Denmark and south Scandinavia. Showing themselves being ancestral to later Celtic and Germanic tribes. Unetice culture had torcs which before that was seen as only Celtic they also had plaid clothing. also i saw Nordic bronze age culture buried their dead in extremely similar ways to Hallstatt Celts. They buried them with a comb by the head, Broochs, and sword/dagger at the chest, on a pillow, with bracelts, and neck rings.

It is hard to explain but all future evidence will point to Germanic and Italo celtic languages being connected and their signature Y DNa haplogroup being R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11. I think the arrival of bronze age bell beaker people in the Uk 4,300ybp is the arrival of R1b L21 and proto Insular Celtic languages, Y DNa has given such a good picture of how people spread. We now no there is no way Celtic languages spread to the UK with Hallstatt Or urnfield culture just 2,500-3,000ybp. and it was not a weak influence that spread a language it was major invasion which is why R1b L21 is around 80-90% in modern Irish. also it is estimated to be about 4,000 years old.

I know boring historians who want everything to be a depressing mystery will reject the genetic stuff even though it is unbelievable obvious. U people should look at British ancestry almost only from Celtic and Germanic invaders (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?92232-British-ancestry-almost-all-from-Celtic-and-Germanic-Conqueres). Tab Max how do u know that the 4,000 year old bog body in Ireland had light hair when u say that u must mean from blonde to light brown. what evidence do u have other beaker folk looked like him. If anything a sign of the Germanic Italo Celts arrival would be red hair because of the connection with red hair and R1b1a2a1a L11 both are highest in Ireland and the UK. Sure modern Northwest Europeans ancestors without a doubt were apart of Bell Beaker culture but those traits probably come from hunter gathers who lived there before farming spread and what about Bell Beaker in Spain.

There is deifntley not a western Origin of Italo celtic languages my best guess would be Unetice culture in central Europe. also look at where Urnfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture), Hallstat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture), and La Tene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_T%C3%A8ne_culture) are centered CENTRAL EUROPE. Hallstat and Urnfield migrated to Iberia which is when Celts arrived in Iberia but besides that They are orignally from central Europe.

The Human sacrifice everyone does that just in northern europe they are perserved in bogs. i am sure the pre bronze age celtic people in ireland did human sacrifice too.

nako
27-02-16, 18:16
Does anyone speak Proto-Celtic today?

LeBrok
27-02-16, 19:07
Nope, just few communities surviving speaking modern Celtic.

Taranis
28-02-16, 15:05
Nope, just few communities surviving speaking modern Celtic.

Welsh is actually widely spoken in Wales, and Breton used to be widely spoken in Brittany until the 20th century. ;-)

But yeah, as the name implies "Proto-Celtic", just like Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Semitic or Proto-Algonquian is a reconstructed proto language. By the time that the Celtic languages (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Galatian etc.) started to become recorded, you already had a family of related languages. The expansion of the Roman Empire and the subsequent spread of Christianity caused the Celtic languages on the continent to become extinct, while those on the British Isles evolved into the languages that we have today. Brittany, of course, is located on the continent, but as the name implies, the Bretons speak a Brythonic language, and they moved there from Britain during the Migration Period.

mihaitzateo
28-02-16, 23:44
Do not want to upset people,but a strange resemblance I have seen between gothic language and Celtic language:
father in gothic was Atta and in Celtic Athair.

Just saying.

Ziober
29-02-16, 21:52
that's the million dollar question!

MOESAN
01-03-16, 23:12
Do not want to upset people,but a strange resemblance I have seen between gothic language and Celtic language:
father in gothic was Atta and in Celtic Athair.

Just saying.

In french we say "Une hironelle (bird) ne fait pas le printemps". it's maybe an other meaning for 'father' (opposition between genetical father and "cultural" responsible father? (sorry I lack precise english words here to express more precisely my meaning).
But here, athair is from a kind *pater (celtic lost of I-Ean P-). Atta would correspond to slavic(s) otats, otat' - I'm not sure but hittit had something close to hattah

MOESAN
01-03-16, 23:13
Brittoniclanguages has been introduced as dominant language in Brittany byBrittons from Britain between the 6° and 7° centuries. OK. But moreand more scholars think that Brittons found in West Brittany apopulation still speaking a celtic (gaulish) language, at least outof the « urban » centers well romanized. The cause of theceltic language conservation until middle of the 20° Cy would resultof a better resistance to latin by a population poorly accultured.Even in the N-E of Gallo-Roman Brittany the most of the basicpopulation kept lately enough celtic personal names when in othersterritories the mode was the roman names.What seems supporting thisis that the ancient toponymy show a strong colonization of N-EBrittany, denser than in South or South-West when the languageperdured very longer in South-West. Even in Loire-Atlantique, adepartement put in the artificial region of « Pays-de-Loire »,a breton dialect was still spoken among salt workers and fishers inthe westernmost parts until beginning of the 20° Cy, even if turninginto a relic language. By the way, this region N-W of Nantes (Naoned<< Namnet-) saw Breton soldiers garnisons under Rome rulearound the 4° Cy, before the big tribulations of the 6°/7°/8°cneturies..
InNorth Brittany breton was dead around Saint-Malo and Saint-Brieucabout the Late Middle-Age.
Thereis no way to be astonished concerning the gaulish (declining)conservation in some places. It seems in remote and for the mostmountainous regions, celtic languages were spoken until late enough,in Auvergne (4° Cy), in Czechia, maybe Switzerland (someones hadadvanced the 8° Cy I think for Bohemia, but I don't know if it'sreliable. In french and occitans dialects the celtic words conserved,in a very little number, are denser in occitan than in oil dialects,these last ones more strongly influenced by germanic language(s). Itseems in West oil there has been conserved a few more words too butit would deserve deeper studies.Always the question of centers ofcolonization in more easily reached places.


Tocome back to this very thread, it's unseasy to date precisely theapparition of proto-celtic in Europe. I suppose the Iron Age(Hallstatt) could have been the period of the Qw- >>P- evolution, un der the influence of newcomers from Eastern Europe ;the apparition of ¼ of new types among the supposed celtic elite ofTumuli culture could spport this. Some old scholars spoke of'Illyrians',perhaps they were not so wrong ? I cannot exclude(as do some scientists) a common origin of the Qw- >> P-phenomenon in Europe (celtic, italic, hellenic): dates seemconverging (Iron?), places seem converging (Hungary or North Balkansat first?). - It could be possiblefirst Qw italic speakers were in North Italy (Terramare?) before thecoming of P speakers (around early Villanova?) soIron ??? Taranis couldcorrect me for this detail : Qw/Pshift ?
IfP- mutation is linked to Iron Celts (and others if I'm not wrong) sowe have to conceive earlier Celts in Qw-in the same places before them and around them. I didnot founddatationsfor the P- lost in celtic.Wiki says the first datesfor proto-celtic would be Urnfields times. Uneasy to confirm. Hubertand others thought the Tumuli culture of Southern Germany could havebeen the cradle of future Celts ; what doesn't affirm the celticlanguage was fully differenciated then. But the Tumuli cultureconsidered as an Unetice heritage what is greatly exagerated Ithink : they hadUnetice strong cultural influences but as others same time culturesthey presented local variants. All the way it doesn't infer theyspoke the same language with Unetice true descendants (it's even notproved all Unetice people were speaking only ONE language. But Tumuliculture of Germany is in lands which saw strong BBs imput (evendemically even if less than culturally) and it seems to me and to alot of people celtic developments took place around ancient BBsstrongholds. This doesn't say Celts are globally BBs genuinedescendants. Between the BBs of Portugal around the 3000/2900 BC andthe Tumuli there is a big gap of time. The BBs in Germany seem later,around the 2500 BC. Tumuli spanned about 1600/1200 BC. And celticelite physically, spite some little component, doesn't tie with firstBBs, nor it ties with Corded and even with the new « barbarian »elite of Iron found in the richer bavariantombs. But it seems analready mixed population of autochtones pre-I-Ean and a dominantI-Ean element occupiedWestern Europe (dominance less strong along Atlantic) and took on aBBs heritage. Were they the first heirs of the BBs ? : notevident. Megalithers ofAtlantic sure enough had already taken their « part » Ithink.
Idon't think at this stage of my absence of knowledge that the firstmegalithers were I-Ean speakers. Evenin Germany, the BBs found non-I-Ean people. Butthe mix they surely formed later during finalAtlantic Bronze Age wasmaybe the result of contactswith first western I-Ean speakers, Isee as being in some way the « fathers » of the subsequent speakers of lusitanian, ligurian and others languages ofWest. I'm not sure the first well defined celtic languages werebrought in West by later newcomers. I rather see celtic languages asan evolution 'in situ' of one of the first I-Eans languagesintroduced in West so verylater tha in East, evolutionconditioned by the quality of some specific local substratum.Laterinfluences could have inflecteddialects, but I don't think celtic introduction would be too late.And Urnfieldsis a complicated phenomenon seemingly with roots in Hungary but withdiverse ways of expansion according to regions, demic here, culturalonly there ; religious phenomenon bringed by first moves, thenacculturation, then new moves of acculturated people ??? Tocome back to proto-Celts, if Grigoryev is right, the first marks ofthem could correspond to some Seyma-Turbino artefacts found in Franceand Britain around 1600/1500 BC (started in Steppes in 1700 BC forhim after contacts between settled I-Eans tribes and theSeyam-Turbino culture bearers, what is not an identity of(proto-?)proto-Celts with Seyma-Turbino ! The timing could makesense more or less ...theY-R1b occidental subclades datings could help, if sure.
Pityall these peopledidn't write so soon!!! Butthen we would not have the pleasure of guesses.