Did Latin merge with Celtic languages to form Romance languages ?

[Maciamo]

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

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

 

[Estel]

I don't really see how nor why the Basco-Aquitanian language would have expanded to the Mediterranean coast of Spain at the time of the Carthaginian colonisation of this very coast.

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

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

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

the expansion of the ancestral language was probably Neolithic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Taranis]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Maciamo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Yetos]

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

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


well 4 answers,

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

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

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


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

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

R1a is what Homers describes as Greeks



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

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

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

 

[Theodorik]

Celtic Substrate in French

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

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

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

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

 

[LeBrok]

French does have many silent letters. The only language with more silent letters is Irish. For some reason, Celts tended have many silent letters.

Do you mean sounds that don't exist anymore, but existed in the past in French and Celtic when written words were formulated to describe spoken language at the time?

 

[MOESAN]

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

 

[Kentel]

I agree completely with Moesan about this orthography (or "mute consonants") question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MOESAN]

I agree completely with Moesan about this orthography (or "mute consonants") question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kentel]

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

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

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

 

[Georges]

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The famous case in Tr?ves of the woman Artula burying her daughter Ursula.

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

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

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

 

[MOESAN]

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

 

[Georges]

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

Nope.
Qua --> că
qu?rere --> cere
qui --> ci
qualis --> care
quantu, quot --> c?t
quomodo --> cum
quando --> c?nd etc.

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

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

Romanian "c?ştiga", Breton "gounit", middle-Breton "goanaff", Welsh "cynnydd".

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

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

 

[MOESAN]

@Georges
Thanks for feeding!
OK I spoke too quickly.

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

 

[MOESAN]

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

 

[MOESAN]

In Romanian "câștiga(t)", "câștig" are sinonime with "agonisit", "agoniseală" and sound like Breton "gounit"

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

 

[MOESAN]

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

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

 

[Questions]

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

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

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


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

 

[MOESAN]

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