Celtic and Pre-Germanic

Iapetoc, one thing you should consider is that Ph, Th and Kh in Greek generally correspond with Bh, Dh, Gh and Ǵh in Proto-Indo-European. Because Greek is a Centum language, it did merge Ǵh with Gh, but unlike the most other Indo-European languages (Centum or Satem), which basically de-aspirated Bh, Dh and Gh (to merge them with B, D and G, respectively), the Greek language instead devoiced these sounds, basically Bh became Ph (φ) , Dh became Th (θ) and Gh became Kh (χ). It therefore is absolutely necessary to assume that Mycenean Greek indeed did have these sounds, even if they are impossible to be transmitted via the Linear B script (on the other hand, Linear B verymuch could represent "Kw" and "W").

correct, it is another story the PIE, and another mycenean, we are not sure if ph or Bh exist in mycenean,
I believe that they were already non working, as we also see in the romano-latin.
 
Actually, there is quite a bit of changes in Greek, both from Mycenean Greek to Classical Greek and from Classical Greek to modern Greek. They are obviously not quite as drastic as in other languages, but they exist.

This is my point : there are changes (in a time span of 3500 years the contrary would have been surprising), but, as you said, they are not drastic. There is no comparison with the huge amount of sound changes which occurred from Latin to Old French in no more than 5 centuries.

For instance, Mycenean Greek had "kw" where Classical Greek had "p" (interestingly, Greek did make the same shift there as the Osco-Umbrian languages and the P-Celtic languages). Mycenean Greek also had a "w" sound, which existed only vestigially in Classical Greek. From Classical Greek to modern Greek, one of the major changes, phonologically speaking, is the shift from the aspirated plosives (Th, Ph, Kh) to fricative sounds.

This change is probably mechanistic, I agree. As for the question of the PIE labiovelar in Greek, Oscan and P-Celtic, I have no opinion yet, but this is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating problems in the field of historical phonetics.


Yes, there definitely is a Gaulish substratum in French. There's also a significant amount of vocabulary in French derived from Gaulish, but the Germanic (Frankish) influence on French is probably greater.

I wouldn't say that; several words considered by the etymological dictionaries (TLF and FEW) as Germanic may be in fact Celtic, and many words considered as "Dutch" are in fact not. Just one example : the word "chouette" (owl) is supposedly from old Frankish *kawa (which incidentaly designates a completely different bird), while there is an attested Gaulish caouanos (kaouenn in Breton). The same for blet and blesser, suposedly from Old Frankish *bleizza, saule from *sahla, and others. I am currently writing a paper about that.

One example that comes to my mind that illustrates this is the usage of the Uvular Trill in French as an "R" sound, which also exists in Standard German. The question is, is this sound Gaulish origin or Germanic in origin?

Very good question. I don't know :indifferent:. I would say it is originally Celtic (don't believe I am a Celtomane : I am definitely not !) because I find it hard to believe that the superstratum language of an aristocratic elite could influence the phonetics of a language so deeply (the change of articulation is huge in this case). Phonetics is mostly inherited from substrata.

However, this is not a definitive opinion (in fact I have no definitive opinion at all) and it could be originally Germanic. In Breton you have the same uvular R as in French and Germanic. Is it inherited from Gaulish or is it a borrowing from French or Germanic ? I asked to old peoples in Brittany of they could remember anybody using another sound than the uvular one and the answer was no. On the other hand, in Cornish you have an alveolar flap (as in English) which is probably a borrowing from English, thus the Breton R would be a borrowing from French, and that would contradict my first point. But a borrowing from when ? In Old French, you have (supposedly) an alveolar trill, as in Spanish...

Or maybe the English alveolar flap r is substratic, that's why you have it in English and Cornish (not in Welsh though), and maybe the french R is substratic too. I don't exclude any hypothesis. At the moment, I just don't know.

An why do you have a trill in Norwegian (not in Stavanger though... nothing is simple...).
in Swedish and in Icelandic ? Even in Faroese they have a trill...

With Irish, the huge changes to the language all occured after the 6th century AD. If you take a look at the archaic Irish language as preserved in the Ogham inscriptions (circa 4th to 6th century AD), it was much more similar to Gaulish than to modern Irish, with all the sound changes that are typical of the Goidelic languages not having occured yet, as well as bearing a complex declension system (akin to Gaulish, but also Latin, Greek, etc.).

You certainly know this theory according to which the first Celtic language spoken in Ireland was P-Celtic...

The idea that a pre-IE substratum influenced Irish is admittedly tempting. Especially, people sporadically brought up this idea of an Afro-Asiatic language being spoken in Britain before the arrival of the Celts, due to features such as VSO order (both Celtiberian and Gaulish as generally SVO) and inflected prepositions. However, it stands to reason that the features didn't develop until very late, thereby making the actual likelihood of these changes being due to pre-IE substrate somewhat unlikely.

That's Vennemann's theory I guess ? Unfortunately, all the papers and books I've found by him were written in German, and I must confess that I cannot read German. If you know something in English, I would be glad to read it and to know more about his theory.
 
not entirely correct, french language currently has a franckish ( germanic) element and while Latin /romance to a degree was not as latin as the original french
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language
which had more Latin influence

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Visigothic Kingdom lasted 3 centuries, and this happened in Southern France.

I don't think you can borrow phonems so easily. As Sapir said "The highly significant thing about such phonetic interinfluencings is the strong tendancy of each language to keep its phonetic pattern intact". I don't think that French borrowed any phonem from German, nor from any superstratum.

But I may be wrong.
 
This is my point : there are changes (in a time span of 3500 years the contrary would have been surprising), but, as you said, they are not drastic. There is no comparison with the huge amount of sound changes which occurred from Latin to Old French in no more than 5 centuries.

Yes, you have a point. This is quite a difference in the mode of language evolution. 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! :confused: ). 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.

This change is probably mechanistic, I agree. As for the question of the PIE labiovelar in Greek, Oscan and P-Celtic, I have no opinion yet, but this is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating problems in the field of historical phonetics.

Yes, this treatment in Greek, Osco-Umbrian and P-Celtic is certainly fascinating. Especially the question of why it happened there. Was there a common influence that caused this, or did this really happen independently?

I wouldn't say that; several words considered by the etymological dictionaries (TLF and FEW) as Germanic may be in fact Celtic, and many words considered as "Dutch" are in fact not. Just one example : the word "chouette" (owl) is supposedly from old Frankish *kawa (which incidentaly designates a completely different bird), while there is an attested Gaulish caouanos (kaouenn in Breton). The same for blet and blesser, suposedly from Old Frankish *bleizza, saule from *sahla, and others. I am currently writing a paper about that.

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. 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. I don't know :indifferent:. I would say it is originally Celtic (don't believe I am a Celtomane : I am definitely not !) because I find it hard to believe that the superstratum language of an aristocratic elite could influence the phonetics of a language so deeply (the change of articulation is huge in this case). Phonetics is mostly inherited from substrata.

Yes, I absolutely agree there! It would seem far more likely for this to be inherited from the Gallo-Romans than from the Frankish aristocracy.

However, this is not a definitive opinion (in fact I have no definitive opinion at all) and it could be originally Germanic. In Breton you have the same uvular R as in French and Germanic. Is it inherited from Gaulish or is it a borrowing from French or Germanic ? I asked to old peoples in Brittany of they could remember anybody using another sound than the uvular one and the answer was no. On the other hand, in Cornish you have an alveolar flap (as in English) which is probably a borrowing from English, thus the Breton R would be a borrowing from French, and that would contradict my first point. But a borrowing from when ? In Old French, you have (supposedly) an alveolar trill, as in Spanish...

Or maybe the English alveolar flap r is substratic, that's why you have it in English and Cornish (not in Welsh though), and maybe the french R is substratic too. I don't exclude any hypothesis. At the moment, I just don't know.

An why do you have a trill in Norwegian (not in Stavanger though... nothing is simple...).
in Swedish and in Icelandic ? Even in Faroese they have a trill...

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!

You certainly know this theory according to which the first Celtic language spoken in Ireland was P-Celtic...

Yes, I heard about that theory, but honestly, it makes much more sense to assume that the British Isles as a whole were originally Q-Celtic. In particular, a cognate of the word "Britain" (recorded as "Pritennike" in the ancient Greek sources, and also the Welsh word "Prydein") also exists in Irish as "Cruithne". Hence, the root word can be reconstructed as something akin to "Kʷritani". In my opinion, Britain was subsequently P-Celticized (or, participated in the P-Celtic sound shift, if you wish to call it that), whereas seemingly, Ireland was left out of this innovation.

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.

That's Vennemann's theory I guess ? Unfortunately, all the papers and books I've found by him were written in German, and I must confess that I cannot read German. If you know something in English, I would be glad to read it and to know more about his theory.

Yes, Vennemann, amongst other people. But principally Vennemann, because he's been the loudest advocate of it. In regard for you being not able to read his works, I am kind of afraid to say that you have not missed much. Basically, he started out with a good idea but he interpreted too much into it, and much of his later works (for instance, he argues that the Phoenicians colonized the North Sea!) are outright crazy! :startled:

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.
 


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

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 :)


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.

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 :indifferent:

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.


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 :unsure:

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.


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)...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...).

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).

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...
 
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!
 
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.
 
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. :giggle:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 

This thread has been viewed 72483 times.

Back
Top