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