Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67

Thread: Celtic and Pre-Germanic

  1. #26
    Viscount iapetoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-01-11
    Location
    Katerini Pieria Makedonia
    Posts
    890


    Ethnic group
    Greeks
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post

    these are assumptions, we believe that and noone is sure,

    thε πχ exist even in modern greek in areas of Aeolian and upper makedonia επια or ηπια goes επχα cause ι =γι
    in mountain peloponese (mycenean areas) we found the unique Lw ανδ Νw only in cases of ι
    in North we find the ph as πχ and kh as κγ the th is never recorded, and a case of zγ s+k = zk or ζγ or znk

    these aprirations can be found even today according area and all are connecting with ι (wiotta, γιωτα) cause of the existance of a short w before i, wI that w goes to h only in areas and is connected with letters,
    in Epirus, Makedonia, Thessaly is with p and k while in peloponese is with L and N and in greeks from thrace we find a double ii
    so the Ph and aspirations can be connected also with L and N but we don't connect them with PIE.

    WE consider exist in mycenean there is no prove,

    and all these aspirations that exist today is only when a word lose a syllabe and from 3 syllabes drops to 2 , gains 0,5 time by the aspiration to 2,5

    example saloniki becomes salonγik, loses the last i but gains the w or h
    so from 4 times drops to 3 but gains 0.5 from w goes 3,5

  2. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    13-07-11
    Location
    Gdańsk
    Posts
    98

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b

    Ethnic group
    Breton
    Country: Poland



    Very informative, thanks :)
    Maybe we could open a separate thread to discuss this topic ? I am quite interested in learning more about that.

  3. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    13-07-11
    Location
    Gdańsk
    Posts
    98

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b

    Ethnic group
    Breton
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    One must add, such sudden changes make any attempts to make an "absolute dating" are completely screwed up (I'm talking about so-called concept of "glottochronology", which you may have heard about, and which has produced bewildering results, most drastically the claim by Forster and Toth 2003 that Proto-Celtic diverged from PIE in 6000 BC! ). What is possible, though, as can be demonstrated, is that it's verymuch possible to do relative chronology in regard for whether words entered a language before or after a sound change.
    I agree, glottochronology is a complete blind way, and I didn't know this claim by Forster & Toth (thanks for mentioning it). I am rather surprised that some people still believe that it can be an effective tool : the aforementioned example with a phonetically very stable Greek opposed to a very unstable French demonstrates the inadequacy of the method. You could compare French with Italian as well.

    Glottochronology is based upon a strictly structuralist ideology. Structuralists, and most indoeuropaeanists still are structuralists, believe that a language evolves mechanically because of this supposed game with assimilations and dissimilations. Language changes are explained by the language itself, no other factors (being it historical, sociological, psychological or whatever) are considered. I think that it is very simplistic, and it does not explain why some languages evolve much faster than others.

    In my opinion, if the phonetics of French has undergone so much changes in comparison with Greek it is because 1- French is a form of latin deeply altered by the native Gaulish speakers, or as Proust put it somewhere, "French is nothing else than Latin uncorrectly spoken by Gauls" and 2- Greek has not been subjected to the influence of any substrata during at least 3500 years, which makes it comparatively very stable.


    However, I wouldn't rule out the date in itself : 6000 BC for the separation between Celtic and PIE, it looks odd, but why not ? It depends on how we interpret the archaeological data. Which archaeological culture is supposed to be PIE and which is not. As you certainly know, we have today 3 main IE expansion models (Invasionist, Neolithic Dispersal and Paleolithic Continuity), none of them is completely convincing, and each of them has a different time scale. According to the PCT, 6000 BC would be possible (but is the PCT possible ? ).

    IMO, linguistic variation is very very slow process, and the only thing which can speed it up is the influence of substrata. Then, 6000 BC in terms of pure internal-structural linguistic variation, I find it plausible. If it is plausible from an archaelogical perspective is another story :)


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Yeah, you have a point there. The list is probably larger, and in addition I would think we must also not rule out the possibility of Gaulish loanwords in Old Frankish, to add confusion to the whole situation.

    Absolutely. This is definitely a big issue. I made a list of all the Germanic (Gothic and Old High German mainly) words which are considered as originally Gaulish. There is quite a lot of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Regarding Breton, one interesting question is if Breton has borrowings from Gaulish. I mean, I'm not necessarily arguing that Gaulish was still a living language at the time the Bretons arived in Aremorica (that would probably be a stretch to argue), because those words might have been transmitted to Breton via Vulgar Latin, instead.
    Very good question. It is very difficult to answer in a few words.

    First, what is Vulgar Latin ? This is like asking what is the nature of the Holly Spirit, the core theological question in Romance historical linguistics. Let's put it aside

    Second, was Gaulish still spoken in Aremorica at the arrival of the Britons ? The answer is definitely yes. The first Britons arrived in Aremorica during the IVth century, thus very early. If you take a map of Brittany it is crystal-clear : all the city names which end in -ec are britonnic, all the ones which end in -ac are gaulish (-acos); the mix Gaulish/Britons is obvious. Moreover, Gaulish is still attested in actual France as late as the VIth century AD.

    But it raises another question : what was the difference between Proto-Brittonic and Gaulish ? According to different studies and to witnesses of the time, Gauls and Britons could communicate with each others using their own languages without any problem. It means that their languages were VERY close and that the differences laid at a quasi-dialectal level.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Well yeah, it gets confusing there. What has to be added is that the Uvular Trill is far from ubiquitous in German, because there's a number of dialects which have a very different "R" sounds: some southern dialects have the alveolar trill, and certain dialects in the west (the region around the town of Siegen, specifically) even have an alveolar approximant!
    Very interesting, I didn't know that; I'll write it down in my notebook Ok, the conclusion is : contrary to what is being said everywhere, there is no connection between uvular R and Germanic

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    However, what definitely is conceivable - even likely - is that there were P-Celtic peoples who arrived later in Ireland. Specifically, Ptolemy mentions a tribe in Ireland called the "Manapi", which sound very similar to the Menapi of Gallia Belgica, which lived in the region of Cassel (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France). We know that Belgic tribes migrated into Britain (the Atrebates, for instance, are found on both sides of the Channel), so it's conceivable that Belgic tribes also migrated into Ireland.
    I've read somewhere (I could probably find it again) that some core (ie very old) Irish words are obviously brittonic, and that it was the reason why some believed that Hibernia had been first P-Celtic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    One problem is that Vennemann explicitly argues that there was a Semitic substrate on the British Isles. I mean, I could see how there might have been an Afro-Asiatic language in the Atlantic region, which may have arrived there in the Neolithic. But I genuinely doubt that any Semitic-speaking peoples reached the British Isles before the Phoenician traders who may have arrived there in the early 1st millennium BC.
    In fact, it sounds weird. I suppose he connects that with the Bell-Beaker Culture (the most confusing archaeological culture of Europe)...

  4. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    21-07-09
    Posts
    114


    Country: Netherlands



    Probably the Belgae were a celtic tribe. The Eburones and Menapii were germanic. It is thought too often that celtic tribes lived at
    Caesar's arrival north of the Canche, Marne and Ardennes. Does anybody read Namentkuendiche Studien Germanischer Namen in
    heutiger Sicht written by Juergen Udolph? He is an adversary of the Scandinanian origin of the Germanic tribes; according to him
    the Germanics arose in the so called Jastorf area, south of Hamburg till the Elbe and Thuringhia and into Westphalia and east of
    the Netherlands where very ancient and archaic place names are found. He denies the presence of the Celts in south of the Netherlands and the Rhine Region. The so called apa-place names (very numerous in the Netherlands, Velp-Velepa, Elp-Elapa)
    are really old Germanic placenames.

  5. #30
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Kentel, you have some very interesting insights there in your elaborate post. I would love to reply, but I am very busy at the moment.

    Haganus, I find it peculiar and ironic that you explicitly mention the Eburones as Germanic, whereas the tribal name is overtly Celtic. "Eburo-" (generally thought to mean "yew") has cognates in Welsh "Efwr" (hogweed) and Breton "Evor" (buckthorn). There is also the Celtiberian name "Ebursunos". Place names with "Eburo-" also occur widespread across the Celtic-speaking world. There is also the names of it's leaders, Ambiorix and Catuvolcus, which sound overtly Celtic. The case for the Eburones being Germanic, in my opinion, other than Caesar claiming them to be that, is weak at best. With the Menapii, there is the issue, as mentioned that a tribe of a similar name is also found in Ireland. Calling for Germanic presence in Ireland of Antiquity is very problematic, in my opinion.

    Celtic place names are also found along in the Rhine delta (Nijmwegen = Noviomagus) and everywhere along the Rhine, notably town names ending nowadays with "-magen" are derived from Gaulish "Magus" ("plain", compare Old Irish "Mag"), and Gaulish inscriptions have been for instance found in Trier. From that part, it eludes me why anybody would deny Celtic presence in this region.

    I think, one problem, it appears is that there is a lot politics/bias involved in this, with people trying to somewhere draw the line between Celtic and Germanic, whereas in reality this probably never really existed, and also considerably fluctuated over time. For instance, it is clear that by the time of Ptolemy, Germanic tribes had expanded southwards as far as the Danube, yet Celtic place named can be found as far north as the Main river and Silesia.

  6. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    13-07-11
    Location
    Gdańsk
    Posts
    98

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b

    Ethnic group
    Breton
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Kentel, you have some very interesting insights there in your elaborate post. I would love to reply, but I am very busy at the moment.
    Take your time (moreover I'll be off during one month with almost no internet, thus no possibility to follow the developments of this very interesting discussion...).

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Haganus, I find it peculiar and ironic that you explicitly mention the Eburones as Germanic, whereas the tribal name is overtly Celtic. "Eburo-" (generally thought to mean "yew") has cognates in Welsh "Efwr" (hogweed) and Breton "Evor" (buckthorn). There is also the Celtiberian name "Ebursunos". Place names with "Eburo-" also occur widespread across the Celtic-speaking world. There is also the names of it's leaders, Ambiorix and Catuvolcus, which sound overtly Celtic. The case for the Eburones being Germanic, in my opinion, other than Caesar claiming them to be that, is weak at best. With the Menapii, there is the issue, as mentioned that a tribe of a similar name is also found in Ireland. Calling for Germanic presence in Ireland of Antiquity is very problematic, in my opinion.

    Celtic place names are also found along in the Rhine delta (Nijmwegen = Noviomagus) and everywhere along the Rhine, notably town names ending nowadays with "-magen" are derived from Gaulish "Magus" ("plain", compare Old Irish "Mag"), and Gaulish inscriptions have been for instance found in Trier.
    Here, it is rather simple : I agree with each of your arguments :)

    There is a very interesting theory about a pre-IE or pre-Celtic/Germanic substratum in the region called Nordwestblock, maybe you've heard of it. Rhetorically it is rather brilliant since it tends to consider the genesis of IE languages from a completely different perspective than the usual one (phylogenetic).

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    From that part, it eludes me why anybody would deny Celtic presence in this region.
    VERY good question (and it looks like you already know the answer)...

    Archaeologically, there is a consensus to consider that Jastorf culture is connected with the Germans and Halstatt with the Celts (and the Illyrians), and that the technology of iron working spread from Halstatt in 700 BC to Jastorf in 600 BC. But if you look that on a map, you can see that there is a quite large area between the two cultures. What happened in this area is the question...

  7. #32
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    21-07-09
    Posts
    114


    Country: Netherlands



    The name of the Eburones had to do with the Germanic wild boards. Personals- and tribe names say nothing about their origin.
    After WWII a lot of Dutch children had English or American names without English or American ancestry. In the seventies
    many Dutch children had Russian names also without Russian ancestry. Celtic names gave them more prestige.
    But you read Juergen Udolph's book about place names in Germany. He denies a presence of Celtic tribes in the
    Benelux. Why did not Germanic tribes arrive in Ireland at the Roman time? Oppenheimer said that Germanic tribes
    arrived in UK before Caesar's arrival!

  8. #33
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Haganus View Post
    The name of the Eburones had to do with the Germanic wild boards. Personals- and tribe names say nothing about their origin.
    After WWII a lot of Dutch children had English or American names without English or American ancestry. In the seventies
    many Dutch children had Russian names also without Russian ancestry. Celtic names gave them more prestige.
    "Wild boards"? How do you mean? As I have elaborated before, "Eburo-" is clearly Celtic in etymology, attested not only in Gaulish, but also Brythonic and even Celtiberian. The usage of tree names in tribal names is also not uncommon for Celtic peoples, take for example the Arverni tribe ((those who dwell) upon alders).

    But you read Juergen Udolph's book about place names in Germany. He denies a presence of Celtic tribes in the
    Benelux.
    See, you are making quite a bit of a stretch here. We have Celtic tribal names, town names and personal names. To say that no Celtic tribes were there is based on what? Supposition and arbitrary decision?

    Why did not Germanic tribes arrive in Ireland at the Roman time? Oppenheimer said that Germanic tribes
    arrived in UK before Caesar's arrival!
    I'm sorry, JUST no, I guess everybody on this forum can agree that Oppenheimer's ideas are hopelessly outdated at best, and completely debunked at worst. What Oppenheimer did was a logical fallacy: Caesar claimed several of the Belgic tribes to be Germanic, therefore Oppenheimer reasons the Belgae were Germanic. Because Belgic tribes were in Britain, there were Germanic tribes in Britain before Caesar - at least by this chain of argumentation. It falls apart when you see that there is absolutely no Germanic name evidence in ancient Britain, especially amongst the Belgic tribes in question.

  9. #34
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Kentel View Post
    Take your time (moreover I'll be off during one month with almost no internet, thus no possibility to follow the developments of this very interesting discussion...).
    Don't worry.

    Here, it is rather simple : I agree with each of your arguments :)
    I'm very glad we can agree there.

    There is a very interesting theory about a pre-IE or pre-Celtic/Germanic substratum in the region called Nordwestblock, maybe you've heard of it. Rhetorically it is rather brilliant since it tends to consider the genesis of IE languages from a completely different perspective than the usual one (phylogenetic).
    I have heard of the hypothesis regarding the Northwestblock. I do not quite follow, however, how this relates to a different approach than the usual one.

    VERY good question (and it looks like you already know the answer)...

    Archaeologically, there is a consensus to consider that Jastorf culture is connected with the Germans and Halstatt with the Celts (and the Illyrians), and that the technology of iron working spread from Halstatt in 700 BC to Jastorf in 600 BC. But if you look that on a map, you can see that there is a quite large area between the two cultures. What happened in this area is the question...
    This is a good point. Given the historic distance, it is also very difficult to estimate what exactly happened in this area in earlier times.

  10. #35
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    13-07-11
    Location
    Gdańsk
    Posts
    98

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b

    Ethnic group
    Breton
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Haganus View Post
    The name of the Eburones had to do with the Germanic wild boards. Personals- and tribe names say nothing about their origin.
    After WWII a lot of Dutch children had English or American names without English or American ancestry. In the seventies
    many Dutch children had Russian names also without Russian ancestry. Celtic names gave them more prestige.
    But you read Juergen Udolph's book about place names in Germany. He denies a presence of Celtic tribes in the
    Benelux. Why did not Germanic tribes arrive in Ireland at the Roman time? Oppenheimer said that Germanic tribes
    arrived in UK before Caesar's arrival!
    I think that if Udolph's denies the presence of Celts in the Benelux in spite of the archaeologic, onomastic and toponymic evidence (read f.ex. Ancient Celtic Place Names in Europe and Asia Minor by Patrick Sims-Williams) it is because he does not want to see the Celts there (and incidentally, it would be interesting to know more about his motivations).

    The Germans in the UK before Caesar, I'd like to know what does that exactly mean (colonies ? trading posts ? cultural exchanges ? or more ?) and on which evidence such an assumption is based. Because, a priori, it sounds rather weird.

  11. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    13-07-11
    Location
    Gdańsk
    Posts
    98

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b

    Ethnic group
    Breton
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I have heard of the hypothesis regarding the Northwestblock. I do not quite follow, however, how this relates to a different approach than the usual one.
    Because it implies a substratum in the genesis of two IE languages - and the general mainstream IE theory hates substrata. You don't have only mothers and daughters like in Schleicher's Stammbaum, you also have substrata from completely different language families (in this case : Venetic, pre-IE or even Circassian...).

    I don't say the theory is right, but I find it theorically very good : a substratum to explain lexical convergences between two or three neighbouring IE languages.

  12. #37
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    13-07-11
    Location
    Gdańsk
    Posts
    98

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b

    Ethnic group
    Breton
    Country: Poland



    repetition, sorry...

  13. #38
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Kentel View Post
    I think that if Udolph's denies the presence of Celts in the Benelux in spite of the archaeologic, onomastic and toponymic evidence (read f.ex. Ancient Celtic Place Names in Europe and Asia Minor by Patrick Sims-Williams) it is because he does not want to see the Celts there (and incidentally, it would be interesting to know more about his motivations).
    Yes, I would be curious about his motives as well.

    The Germans in the UK before Caesar, I'd like to know what does that exactly mean (colonies ? trading posts ? cultural exchanges ? or more ?) and on which evidence such an assumption is based. Because, a priori, it sounds rather weird.
    I could go into detail, but it is actually summarized fairly well in the wikipedia article on him. Note that the man is a geneticist, not a linguist or archaeologist. Also note that many of his genetics-derived assumptions, in particular pertaining Y-Haplogroup R1b, are severely outdated nowadays.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Cambrius (The Red)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    27-06-09
    Posts
    2,640

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b (RL-21*)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3

    Ethnic group
    Gallaecian Celtic
    Country: USA - Ohio



    It seems there is a lot of serious denial about Celtic presence these days - even with overwhelming evidence staring people in the face. A sign of social pathology?

  15. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    30-05-12
    Posts
    111


    Country: Canada



    Queen teuta of the illyrians.....????

  16. #41
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,830

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    2 members found this post helpful.
    hello!

    I take on this old thread given it anew life by a very recent post -
    My knowledge is not so vaste as the oneof some hobbyists here but reading some old posts I want to do someremarks :
    about 'r' : Kentel saysbreton 'r' is uvular (I suppose the MODERN french 'r' and LITTERARYgerman 'r' ): it is very untrue : yet nowaday50% of the native breton speakers (born about the 1930-40's)pronounce a « trilled » 'r' (I don't know the englishspecific linguistic word for it) : this 'r' is not so« trilled » as do the Scotmen and the Spaniards, strongonly when explosive and following some stops ; it is weak atimplosive position and then tends to fade out as in english and somescandinavic dialects ; on an other hand, it was blown at theinitial as welsh 'rh' in some subdialects of breton ; I add thatin Tregor dialect the explosive 'r' was trilled but take an « irish »or even « american texan » colour when implosive, as itcan do too in Scotland in the same position –
    at the beginning of the 1900's thetrilled 'r' was the dominant one - I remember a 'bigouter' breton ofPont-an-Abad (Pont-L'Abbé, SW Finistère) that wrote his comradesmocked the Kemper (Quimper) inhabitants that spoke breton with a'uvular french r', giving even a kind of 'a' (look at german) at theimplosive position when the 'Bigouters' pronounced a vigorous trilled'r' : nowaday, in the same small region, Quimper inhabitantsignore breton language for the most, and the 'Bigouters' pronouncethe uvular french 'r' their fathers laughed at ! Thingschange... and yes, in some small regions of brittophoneBrittany, old trilled /r/ is unknown today -
    in France the most of the people,speaking 'oil' as well as 'oc' trilled the 'r' – in France, theuvular 'r' modern expansion is a social phenomenon linked to socialclasses and snobism (and school), so big towns to begin – BUT forcopying a new pronounciation you need a source ; I don't knowwhat was or are the theories concerning uvular 'r' in french, but, asI wrote in another thread, I believe the first occurrences ofuvular 'r' or some close sound could be linked to Franks elites :flemish speaking Belgians have two kinds of 'r' : one trilled asin the Netherlands as a whole (but maybe in dutch Limburg you canfind a sort of uvular 'r') and one close enough to the uvular 'r',but « trilled » in a certain way – as I knowScandinavians (Norway, Denmark, Sweden) has the trilled 'r' and theuvular 'r', I'm obliged to think that the origin of the uvular onecame from ONE or ONES of the germanic dialects : it could bepassed in Scandinavia through the geographic road of Denmark northGermany AND TOO in Sweden passed by the social mediation of a lot ofGermans immigrants (they were very numerous in Sweden at some timebut I forgot the precise dates : in the XVIII and XIXcenturies ?) or maybe at the time when Denmark ruled southernSweden, because uvular 'r' seams commoner in today Denmark than inother scandinavian lands ; I add than in danish the uvular 'r'seams attached to social statute too - a speculation could be : ?the pre-germanic I-Ean /kr-/ >> /hr-/ >> /ʁ/(uvular or close to it) in some ethnies of Western Germany, betweenbelgium and Rhine ?
    The local evolution of something closeto it, in breton and in flemish, push me to imagine that :
    a) in breton(ish) even the trillingpronouncers of 'r' (# /R/) pronounce nowaday / -ʁX/or even simply /-X/ what was previoulsy '-rc'h' /-rX/ or /-rɣ/ -
    b)in some flemish (maybe not western vlaamsch but zuid-brabantisch) theorigin of a 'r' close to french /ʁ/ but stronger could be found inthe frequency of the group 'gr-' occurrence : /ɣr/ >>/ɣR/ leading to the lost of traditional trilled 'r' ? itdoesn't contradict at all the hypothesis about ancient 'hr' germanicgroup ...
    &:I red somewhere (touring billingual handooks) that in portuguese andbrazilian 'r' knows /r/ and /ʁ/ according to position in words anddouble 'rr' is pronounced /ʁ/ - which origin ?


    Concerningbelgic tribes in Ireland H. HUBERT thought that the 'fir bolg' couldbe translated the « men of the bags » if I don't mistake('bola' << 'bolg' = « belly » in today welsh,'bolc'h' << 'bolg' = « chesnut bug » in breton),it's to say « the men in large 'bracae' (breeches) »evocating continental Celts of the North as Belgae...


    Veryoften I red that personal names and tribal names of Antiquity are ofno worth to tell us the ethnicity and the language of theirbearers, and someones take the present day mode of internationalchristian names for children as a proof of that ; can we be surethat the mentality of these times was exactly the same as presently ?Had they handbooks proposing them a bunch of names with translationsfor them or their children ? Snobism is not new but at this timeI think there was higher exigences than today : the autonegationwas not « in the wind » as today, I suppose, a little bitmore of proud (sometimes ridiculous unfounded proud) was the rule inthese times and I have some difficulty to think Germanic tribes tookceltic names only by snobism or admiration... Even the elite of Gaultribes allied to well famed Roma kept their celtic naming, changingonly slowly when Gauls were definitely vainquished – even the'roman-britton' nobility of Brittain, after having taken latin names,came back to celtic names when they cut the links with Roma ;and the nobility of Europe speaking french is another thing :allied almost « incestuous » cousins living in anartificial bubble disconnected society, far from any folk, so I amnot sure it could be compared to other times and societiessituations...


    Speaking about the Cimbers/Cimri, I amstill not sure of a true far germanic origin of them – there'urheimat' should not be in Denmark and considering placenames (citedby some of you) and Y-DNA, we can expect that Celts was previouslysettled far enough in the North and maybe Northeast – even ifignoring the D. FAUX thesis about scandinavian Y-R1b-U152 came therethrough Jutland from supposedly celtic Cimri, we can suppose that thepresent day Netherlands knew some celtic presence and yet we see that they are not so level the global surveys put us to believe :even if I have some defiance about STR studies, I have in mind thatthe Dutch people south the Rhine river show different enoughdistributions of haplotypes compared to Frisians or northernNetherlanders, a lot of these haplotypes showing more southern andwestern ties for Y-R1b (geographically closer to Iberia orneo-celtic countries); We lack regional detailed SNPs studies for theNetherlands – germanic Belgium shows that the united R-U152+RS116are everywhere stronger than « frisian » or « austrian »R-U106 (only in malines-Mechelen), being the most striking theWestern Antwerpen district with 16,2% of R-U152, 28,2% of R-S116 and27,5% only of R-U106 : this region is bordering the continentalZeeland where the Netherlanders was the smallest for stature in thelast century – I know the cemeteries of southernNetherlands-Zeeland showed a lot of brachycephals in the last MiddleAges ('alpine's + some 'borreby's are to be bet) but one can objectthat these populations could have settled the Netherlands latelyenough (Duchy of Lorraine or Burgundy?) and not at the supposedceltic times – but reading C.COON can help sometimes : withoutlooking for explications we can do this statement : the metriccranial means of ancient Franks (a medly of phenotypes with somenordic dominent) was closer to the Celts ones (Iron Ages elites only?La Tène Celts as Goidels) than to the means of Anglo-Saxons or otherGermanics tribes of these times... I know that this argumentationfalls far from linguistic purposes but perharps it could help making sense?


    Just to finish with Taraniswho have great knowledge in linguistic, I'll say that common ancientgrammatical structures conserved well enough by two families oflanguages doesn't assure an (even hard) inter-understanding :yet some recentdialects ofthe same family have difficulties for understanding, more by lexicallosts and gains than by phonetic evolution : I had send a littlelist of latin and gaulish words showing that very well, spite anattested even if remote common origin between italic and celtic...sure enough the nobility people of those times was moving more thanwe do nowaday and lexical break and isolation did not occur so easilythan in modern sedentary dialects but... the links you mentionedbetween (pre-?proto-?)germanic and (pre?-proto- ?) balto-slavicseam to me prove that Germanics grandfathers was not kept so close toCelts as a whole (see 'sister'/'sestra' # *'swor', 'son'/'syn' #*'makw', *'khwol'/*'kol' # *'rot', *'melk'/*'m-l-k' # '*lakt' ...+with italic or others : *'khop-t'/'kaput' # *kwen(d),*'phot'/'ped'/'pod' # *'tro-id' (sorry,my reconstructed forms are not the conventionnal ones, but they areeasy to read) – peoplehere put some good examples to improve this too short list -


    sorryfor a so indigest text !
    Takea drink to put all that bad stuff down !

  17. #42
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,830

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    sorry, it is the second time that I see afterhand that my 'copy & patch' became incorrect when executed here: lack of separation between words - could somebody explain me what is the cause and how find a solution
    ?
    Thanks

  18. #43
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    sorry, it is the second time that I see afterhand that my 'copy & patch' became incorrect when executed here: lack of separation between words - could somebody explain me what is the cause and how find a solution
    ?
    Thanks
    This version of Bulletin Board is not fully compatible with MS Explorer or Windows7 in general. I have same problems.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  19. #44
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,830

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    This version of Bulletin Board is not fully compatible with MS Explorer or Windows7 in general. I have same problems.
    thanks
    it is not so hard to me, just annoying for readers - I 'll hold on without any drug or any kind of euphorizant...

  20. #45
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    13-07-11
    Location
    Gdańsk
    Posts
    98

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b

    Ethnic group
    Breton
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    hello!

    I take on this old thread given it anew life by a very recent post -
    My knowledge is not so vaste as the oneof some hobbyists here but reading some old posts I want to do someremarks :
    about 'r' : Kentel saysbreton 'r' is uvular (I suppose the MODERN french 'r' and LITTERARYgerman 'r' ): it is very untrue : yet nowaday50% of the native breton speakers (born about the 1930-40's)pronounce a « trilled » 'r' (I don't know the englishspecific linguistic word for it) : this 'r' is not so« trilled » as do the Scotmen and the Spaniards, strongonly when explosive and following some stops ; it is weak atimplosive position and then tends to fade out as in english and somescandinavic dialects ; on an other hand, it was blown at theinitial as welsh 'rh' in some subdialects of breton ; I add thatin Tregor dialect the explosive 'r' was trilled but take an « irish »or even « american texan » colour when implosive, as itcan do too in Scotland in the same position –
    at the beginning of the 1900's thetrilled 'r' was the dominant one - I remember a 'bigouter' breton ofPont-an-Abad (Pont-L'Abbé, SW Finistère) that wrote his comradesmocked the Kemper (Quimper) inhabitants that spoke breton with a'uvular french r', giving even a kind of 'a' (look at german) at theimplosive position when the 'Bigouters' pronounced a vigorous trilled'r' : nowaday, in the same small region, Quimper inhabitantsignore breton language for the most, and the 'Bigouters' pronouncethe uvular french 'r' their fathers laughed at ! Thingschange... and yes, in some small regions of brittophoneBrittany, old trilled /r/ is unknown today -
    Sorry to answer so late, I haven't checked this thread for a while. Moesan, your reply is very interesting and challenges my own belief as far as the uvular R is concerned. It is very interesting because Pont'n Abad, the Breton village you mention in your post, is the place where I was born :) I questioned some native Breton speakers from there, and none of them remember having heard the trilled R in their childhood.

    Another thing : in his Grammar of Breton (historically the first), Le Gonidec states that the R is pronounced "as in French", i.e. as an uvular : "R se prononce comme en français" (p.6). The book has been written in 1807, hence it gives a rather interesting account about the pronounciation of the language two centuries ago.

    The "prestige hypothesis" (the Bretons - and the French - are supposed to have been using the uvular R instead of the trilled R by social imitation) sounds very dubious to me, not only because it does not look very realistic, but especially because the places of articulation of the two sounds are too different. When you hear people learning French as a second language, among the (many) phonetic obstacles they bump in, there is the uvular R. It is extremely difficult for a speaker who does not have this sound in his/her language to imitate it, and many do not even succeed in doing so. Most Spanish or Italians I've heard speaking French couldn't articulate it. Some can, obviously, but at a cost of a considerable effort.

    Well, I don't say you're wrong - nor that I am right as a matter of fact, but we have here contradictory assesments.

  21. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-05-12
    Posts
    145


    Country: Ireland



    hi guys

    can i suggest couple of possible explanations for this:

    Well yeah, it gets confusing there. What has to be added is that the Uvular Trill is far from ubiquitous in German, because there's a number of dialects which have a very different "R" sounds: some southern dialects have the alveolar trill, and certain dialects in the west (the region around the town of Siegen, specifically) even have an alveolar approximant!
    The other main theory posits that the uvular r originated within Germanic languages through a process where the alveolar r was weakened and then replaced by an imitation of the alveolar r (vocalisation).[2]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvular_trill

    La Tène culture developed and flourished during the late Iron Age (from 450 BCE to the Roman conquest in the 1st century BCE) in eastern France, Switzerland, Austria, southwest Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and Romania.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_T%C3%A8ne_culture

    Can i suggest that the original hard r ( alveolar r) came from a languages spoken in central europe at the time of the la tene culture and that the sound was best preserved in western and south slavic languages which developed from this common "celtic" language?
    what i am suggesting here is that there could have been a mix of tribes at that time in central europe speaking a common language which contained hard r. Their western and northern cousins used the hard r words but adopted them to suit their speech apparatus and thus produced uvular r or alveolar approximant.

    The fact that we have all 3 types of r in germanic languages but only alveolar r in slavic languages leads me to beleave that the development went from east to west from slavic to germanic and gaulish simultaniously and then to other languages that developed from germanic and gaulish.

    The fact that we have hard r present in some germanic language dialects today is a result of the fact that these countries had large slavic population up to medieval times which preserved their pronounciation. example are germany, scandinavian countries, england...

    i know that this would require proto slavs to be present in central europe (baltic - balkan) at about 500 bc and that they were there either intermingled with celts or were celts, and that some people don't even want to talk about it, but i believe that it is a possibility and it would answer the above question nicely.
    as for slavs in britan, ireland, scandinavia, island they arrived there in multiple consecutive waves as part of various tribal confederations which settled these lands from the bronze age onward to the time of the vikings.

    hope this helps

    as for the development of the irish language i believe that it was a result of a population replacement and or merge, where new elite replaced old language with the new one on certain territories within ireland which were originally settled by tribes speaking either completely different languages or different dialects. ireland has never been a homogeneous genetic, national, linguistic or cultural space. it became homogenized in the early medieval period due to goidelic wars and their eventual cultural supremacy which was helped by the forced christianization, in the same way cultural and linguistic conversion of the slavs was achieved in the baltic region in the 12-14th century and even more extremely in hungary in 17-19th century. so the apparent cultural replacement and at the same time cultural continuity in ireland can be explained through the fact that goidelic territories of ireland show cultural evolution wheres the territories which were originally settled by baltic people show cultural replacement. this is visible in many names which were transliterated into goidelic and have acquired a weird new meaning that has nothing to do with the original name apart from sounding similar, which is a thing found in all conquered territories where there was population replacement that happened in a short period of time. the example is albania and kosovo. most toponims in albania are of slavic origin but a lot of them have no meaning or have changed meaning because most of the population is albanian and in a lot of case they just continued using the name without understanding the meaning. we can see how this is done right now in kosovo, wher serbian population is replaced by albanian, and we have transliteration of names being done before our eyes. for instance Kosovo (black bird field) has become Kosova which has no meaning. also all Ls are being softened to Lj...



    there is a lot of cultural, archaeological and linguistics puzzles in western europe that can only be explained by a presence of a significant slavic population in these areas in the past.

    i have found very interesting things that point to the cultural migration spreading by sea from south baltic along the atlantic coast to scandinavia, low countries, france, britan and ireland from the time of the lake dwellers onward.

    the most interesting is slavic (or balto slavic) cultural layer that existed in some parts of ireland before the goidelic conquest in the early medieval time...

    let me know if you would like to talk about it

  22. #47
    Regular Member zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,071

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by dublin View Post
    hi guys

    can i suggest couple of possible explanations for this:





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



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_T%C3%A8ne_culture

    Can i suggest that the original hard r ( alveolar r) came from a languages spoken in central europe at the time of the la tene culture and that the sound was best preserved in western and south slavic languages which developed from this common "celtic" language?
    what i am suggesting here is that there could have been a mix of tribes at that time in central europe speaking a common language which contained hard r. Their western and northern cousins used the hard r words but adopted them to suit their speech apparatus and thus produced uvular r or alveolar approximant.

    The fact that we have all 3 types of r in germanic languages but only alveolar r in slavic languages leads me to beleave that the development went from east to west from slavic to germanic and gaulish simultaniously and then to other languages that developed from germanic and gaulish.

    The fact that we have hard r present in some germanic language dialects today is a result of the fact that these countries had large slavic population up to medieval times which preserved their pronounciation. example are germany, scandinavian countries, england...

    i know that this would require proto slavs to be present in central europe (baltic - balkan) at about 500 bc and that they were there either intermingled with celts or were celts, and that some people don't even want to talk about it, but i believe that it is a possibility and it would answer the above question nicely.
    as for slavs in britan, ireland, scandinavia, island they arrived there in multiple consecutive waves as part of various tribal confederations which settled these lands from the bronze age onward to the time of the vikings.

    hope this helps

    as for the development of the irish language i believe that it was a result of a population replacement and or merge, where new elite replaced old language with the new one on certain territories within ireland which were originally settled by tribes speaking either completely different languages or different dialects. ireland has never been a homogeneous genetic, national, linguistic or cultural space. it became homogenized in the early medieval period due to goidelic wars and their eventual cultural supremacy which was helped by the forced christianization, in the same way cultural and linguistic conversion of the slavs was achieved in the baltic region in the 12-14th century and even more extremely in hungary in 17-19th century. so the apparent cultural replacement and at the same time cultural continuity in ireland can be explained through the fact that goidelic territories of ireland show cultural evolution wheres the territories which were originally settled by baltic people show cultural replacement. this is visible in many names which were transliterated into goidelic and have acquired a weird new meaning that has nothing to do with the original name apart from sounding similar, which is a thing found in all conquered territories where there was population replacement that happened in a short period of time. the example is albania and kosovo. most toponims in albania are of slavic origin but a lot of them have no meaning or have changed meaning because most of the population is albanian and in a lot of case they just continued using the name without understanding the meaning. we can see how this is done right now in kosovo, wher serbian population is replaced by albanian, and we have transliteration of names being done before our eyes. for instance Kosovo (black bird field) has become Kosova which has no meaning. also all Ls are being softened to Lj...



    there is a lot of cultural, archaeological and linguistics puzzles in western europe that can only be explained by a presence of a significant slavic population in these areas in the past.

    i have found very interesting things that point to the cultural migration spreading by sea from south baltic along the atlantic coast to scandinavia, low countries, france, britan and ireland from the time of the lake dwellers onward.

    the most interesting is slavic (or balto slavic) cultural layer that existed in some parts of ireland before the goidelic conquest in the early medieval time...

    let me know if you would like to talk about it
    la tene culture was neither germanic or slavic in language because these groups where not there in the iron age. you are over 1000 years in error.
    la tene culture was dead by the Roman times
    Father's Mtdna H95a1
    Grandfather Mtdna T2b24
    Great Grandfather Mtdna T1a1e
    GMother paternal side YDna R1b-S8172
    Mother's YDna R1a-Z282

  23. #48
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Dublin,

    before you, or indeed anybody else, make speculations based on the occurence of a certain sound, let me give you an educative counterexample: the Welsh language has a distinct sound, the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative(written as "ll" in Welsh orthography). This does not occur in Cornish or Breton (which have an "l" in it's place), nor does it occur in the Gaelic languages, nor does it occur in English or other languages in Europe. It does, however, occur frequently in Native American languages such as Nahuatl (the language of the former Aztec empire) or Navajo. Does this mean that Indians immigrated into medieval Wales? I guess you can answer that question for yourself...

    Besides, in linguistics, there is a very sharp definition of what a Celtic, what a Germanic, and what a Slavic language is. All three language families are defined by sets of sound laws by which they are derived from Proto-Indo-European. Because of this, you could never transmute into language A into B. The 'philosopher's stone' for languages does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    la tene culture was neither germanic or slavic in language because these groups where not there in the iron age. you are over 1000 years in error.
    la tene culture was dead by the Roman times
    Slight correction: the Romans killed the La Téne Culture when they conquered Gaul.

  24. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-05-12
    Posts
    145


    Country: Ireland



    before you, or indeed anybody else, make speculations based on the occurence of a certain sound, let me give you an educative counterexample: the Welsh language has a distinct sound, the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative(written as "ll" in Welsh orthography). This does not occur in Cornish or Breton (which have an "l" in it's place), nor does it occur in the Gaelic languages, nor does it occur in English or other languages in Europe. It does, however, occur frequently in Native American languages such as Nahuatl (the language of the former Aztec empire) or Navajo. Does this mean that Indians immigrated into medieval Wales? I guess you can answer that question for yourself...
    hi Taranis. how are you these days?

    the above is not an argument. you can find an example like this for everything.
    concentrate on europe. we are not talking about the whole world. in europe we see clear pattern. i don't know what it means, but you have no explanation for it, so i postulated mine.

    Besides, in linguistics, there is a very sharp definition of what a Celtic, what a Germanic, and what a Slavic language is.
    we already talked abut this. what you call celtic languages are goidelic languages and have very little to do with celts.

    slavic, galic, germanic languages developed under great influence of central european celtic language.

    this is my oppinion anyway

    zanipolo

    go to politics forum and fight your wars over there

  25. #50
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by dublin View Post
    hi Taranis. how are you these days?

    the above is not an argument. you can find an example like this for everything.
    concentrate on europe. we are not talking about the whole world. in europe we see clear pattern. i don't know what it means, but you have no explanation for it, so i postulated mine.
    I'm precisely having an explanation here, and I've tried to elaborate that using the example of "ll" in Welsh: that there may be no clear pattern here.

    we already talked abut this. what you call celtic languages are goidelic languages and have very little to do with celts.
    Are Cornish, Breton, Welsh, Celtiberian, Gaulish and Galatian all Goidelic languages for you? I'm sorry, but linguists have a very clear definition of what a Celtic language is, and it's different from yours.

    slavic, galic, germanic languages developed under great influence of central european celtic language.

    this is my oppinion anyway
    Just no. Unless you consider Gaulish (which, as you have stated, you believe to be something else), there was no such language.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Scots, how Celtic are they?
    By Blau in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 30-10-17, 14:50
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 15-12-13, 05:06
  3. British: Celtic and Germanic origins
    By Trevor in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 09-07-13, 03:41
  4. origin of Celtic and Germanic tribes
    By Haganus in forum DNA Testing & General Genetics
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 13-01-12, 04:57
  5. Germanic/ Celtic ancestry of the English
    By Woden in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-03-10, 03:33

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •