Celtic family tree

[Sile]

Does anyone have the linguistic isogloss border in France seperating the ancient celtic language there.?

I have found one..........the Joret line, but that is only a norman boundry from medieval times.

these languages below are part of the celtic tree and the ones I am interesd in
Proto-Celtic divided into various branches:

• Lepontic,
• Celtiberian,
• Gallaecian,
• Gaulish
• Galatian
• Noric.
• Brittonic.
• Goidelic,

Caesar and other roman historians state that gaul was seperated into 3 linguistic groups ..............what where these?,

Also, which are P-Celtic and which are Q-celtic

thanks

 

[ebAmerican]

"Julius Caesar describes Gaul at the time of his conquests (58–51 BC) as divided into three parts, inhabited by the Aquitani in the southwest, the Gauls of the biggest central part, who in their own language were called Celtae, and the Belgae in the north."

Wikipedia

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

Aquitanian language
Gaulish Language
Belgic Language

 

[Taranis]

Does anyone have the linguistic isogloss border in France seperating the ancient celtic language there.?

I have found one..........the Joret line, but that is only a norman boundry from medieval times.

these languages below are part of the celtic tree and the ones I am interesd in
Proto-Celtic divided into various branches:

• Lepontic,
• Celtiberian,
• Gallaecian,
• Gaulish
• Galatian
• Noric.
• Brittonic.
• Goidelic,

Caesar and other roman historians state that gaul was seperated into 3 linguistic groups ..............what where these?,

Also, which are P-Celtic and which are Q-celtic

thanks

We've been there, before, Sile:
- Celtiberian, Goidelic, Gallaecian were Q-Celtic.
- Gaulish, Brythonic, Galatian, Lepontic and Noric were all P-Celtic.

"Julius Caesar describes Gaul at the time of his conquests (58–51 BC) as divided into three parts, inhabited by the Aquitani in the southwest, the Gauls of the biggest central part, who in their own language were called Celtae, and the Belgae in the north."

Wikipedia

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

Aquitanian language
Gaulish Language
Belgic Language

The Aquitanians spoke an earlier form of Basque, but the Roman province of Aquitania included a good deal of Celtic (Gaulish) lands. I've said before, Romans were horrible ethnographers and they drew arbitrary lines through the lands they conquered like European colonial powers in 19th century Africa. :wary2:

As for the Belgae, in my opinion they spoke Gaulish. Strabo (in his geography, book 4, chapter 1) has a somewhat different stance than Julius Caesar here, according to him the Belgae and the Celtae speak the same language (his wording is "ομογλωττους") with some variations in it ("μικρον παραλλαττοντας ταις γλωσσαις"). And I would agree with Strabo's view.

There have been scholars in the past, notably Maurits Gysseling ("there has always been a Flanders!" ), who proposed the existence of a distinct "Belgic" language, but I don't see where he takes his evidence from. In my opinion, Gysselings construct is unnecessery, Belgic Gaul was predominantly Celtic, except for the area at the Rhine delta, which was probably mixed/bilingual (Celtic and Germanic).

 

[Sile]

We've been there, before, Sile:
- Celtiberian, Goidelic, Gallaecian were Q-Celtic.
- Gaulish, Brythonic, Galatian, Lepontic and Noric were all P-Celtic.

no we have not, we massed it into a celtic family group and did not show it on a map..........besides, IIRC some scholars claim noric as Q-celtic

The Aquitanians spoke an earlier form of Basque, but the Roman province of Aquitania included a good deal of Celtic (Gaulish) lands. I've said before, Romans were horrible ethnographers and they drew arbitrary lines through the lands they conquered like European colonial powers in 19th century Africa. :wary2:

Are you referring to vasconic ?

Is vasconic another proto-celtic language?

As for the Belgae, in my opinion they spoke Gaulish. Strabo (in his geography, book 4, chapter 1) has a somewhat different stance than Julius Caesar here, according to him the Belgae and the Celtae speak the same language (his wording is "ομογλωττους") with some variations in it ("μικρον παραλλαττοντας ταις γλωσσαις"). And I would agree with Strabo's view.

caesar states that the Belgae ( according to his ancestors ) are germanics which crossed the rhine and merged with gauls in that area. If this is correct, then linguistically they cannot speak the same celtic language as the gauls in the southern france

 

[Sile]

This family celtic tree was first used by George Buchanan in the 16th century, before this , all celtic languages/dialects where treated seperately.

Celtic language is same in reference as Romanace language ...........we need to split it to find its isogloss borders

 

[Taranis]

no we have not, we massed it into a celtic family group and did not show it on a map..........besides, IIRC some scholars claim noric as Q-celtic

I'm under the impression this discussion actually comes up every once and a while...

Are you referring to vasconic ?

Is vasconic another proto-celtic language?

Yes, I refered to Vasconic (hint: that's another name for "Basque"), and no, Vasconic is not another Celtic language. I said "Aquitanian" is the same as old Basque, but the Roman borders of their province "Aquitania" does not match up with the boundary between Gaulish and Aquitanian.

caesar states that the Belgae ( according to his ancestors ) are germanics which crossed the rhine and merged with gauls in that area.

This isn't a contradiction of what I said (Caesar says that they came from the other side of Germania, he doesn't state anything about their language), however...

If this is correct, then linguistically they cannot speak the same celtic language as the gauls in the southern france

... here, you're making a huge leap: you're taking Caesar's statement as gospel on their ethnic affiliation. I'm saying that "Belgic" and "Celtic" Gaul were linguistically speaking both a Celtic language (except for the Rhine Delta), and this has nothing to do with what they identified themselves as.

If we take Roman provincial boundaries as ethnographic gospel, then the rivers Seine and Marne must have been a major linguistic boundary, which they weren't.

This family celtic tree was first used by George Buchanan in the 16th century, before this , all celtic languages/dialects where treated seperately.

How is this even relevant, exactly? In Buchanan's time (16th century), linguistics was still in (very) infant stages.

Celtic language is same in reference as Romanace language ...........we need to split it to find its isogloss borders

What?

 

[Sile]

I was wanting to know, how the norici got a gaulish dialect when central alpine area was Raetic in language and was different. The raetics where not conquered, they did not speak celtic, yet we have these norici speaking Noric in eastern modern Austria.
Clearly they did not come via Italy or Austria. Did they come via central germany?........was the origin of celtic insular celtic or was it gaulish spoken in central Germany?
Who can give me a map on the isogloss of celtic language

 

[Sile]

I'm under the impression this discussion actually comes up every once and a while...

we spoke about script and not the borders of the celtic dialects

Yes, I refered to Vasconic (hint: that's another name for "Basque"), and no, Vasconic is not another Celtic language. I said "Aquitanian" is the same as old Basque, but the Roman borders of their province "Aquitania" does not match up with the boundary between Gaulish and Aquitanian.

Vasconic was a big area to be named "basque".

so where is this boundry between Gaulish and vasconic?

This isn't a contradiction of what I said (Caesar says that they came from the other side of Germania, he doesn't state anything about their language), however...

Caesar clearly states germanics crossed the Rhine, and yes, he believe the celts that crossed the Rhine where Germanic...........a clue that celtic origins where in central germany

... here, you're making a huge leap: you're taking Caesar's statement as gospel on their ethnic affiliation. I'm saying that "Belgic" and "Celtic" Gaul were linguistically speaking both a Celtic language (except for the Rhine Delta), and this has nothing to do with what they identified themselves as.

Do we really need to pick and choose what we want to believe from Caesar?.......

If we take Roman provincial boundaries as ethnographic gospel, then the rivers Seine and Marne must have been a major linguistic boundary, which they weren't.

How is this even relevant, exactly? In Buchanan's time (16th century), linguistics was still in (very) infant stages.

Basically prior to Buchanan , nobody aligned these dialects into a celtic family tree ......

What?

Celtic language ....under it sits

• Lepontic,
• Celtiberian,
• Gallaecian,
• Gaulish
• Galatian
• Noric.
• Brittonic.
• Goidelic,

Romance family Tree....under it sits
French
Spanish
Italian
Portuguese etc

The languages are simlar but different as well, same as Celtiberian is different to Galatian as it is to Brittonic etc

 

[Sile]

http://www.proto-english.org/l4.html

map in this link will have to do until I find another

 

[Taranis]

we spoke about script and not the borders of the celtic dialects

Vasconic was a big area to be named "basque".

so where is this boundry between Gaulish and vasconic?

Somewhat south and west of the river Garonne.

Caesar clearly states germanics crossed the Rhine, and yes, he believe the celts that crossed the Rhine where Germanic...........a clue that celtic origins where in central germany

How do you define Germanic here? "Germanic" as in "from Germania", or "Germanic" as in "Speakers of Germanic languages"?

Do we really need to pick and choose what we want to believe from Caesar?.......

I don't. If you want to believe his word to the point, then demonstrate to us that people in Celtic and Belgic Gaul spoke a fundamentally different language. As I said, if we take Roman provincial boundaries as ethnographic gospel, then the rivers Seine and Marne must have been a major linguistic boundary, which they obviously weren't.

Basically prior to Buchanan , nobody aligned these dialects into a celtic family tree ......

I still fail to see how that would be of any relevance. The major contributions to Indo-European linguistics came only way later, late 18th and especially the 19th century (Grimm's Law, the Neogrammarian postulates, etc.).

Its a bit like saying "nobody before Einstein talked about General Relativity". Take a wild guess why.

Celtic language ....under it sits

• Lepontic,
• Celtiberian,
• Gallaecian,
• Gaulish
• Galatian
• Noric.
• Brittonic.
• Goidelic,

Romance family Tree....under it sits
French
Spanish
Italian
Portuguese etc

The languages are simlar but different as well, same as Celtiberian is different to Galatian as it is to Brittonic etc

Its Celtic languages, plural. and I maintain that the Q-Celtic vs. P-Celtic scheme still holds up, even if it doesn't represent an original split. And I don't quite see where you're getting at.

http://www.proto-english.org/l4.html

map in this link will have to do until I find another

No offense to you, but that site is run by a bunch of cranks, why do you even post a link to them? etrified:

They're basically arguing that Anglo-Saxon was "always there", the Anglo-Saxon invasion in the dark is a 'lie' (in complete ignorance of actual evidence) and for some reason they hate the Welsh. Sparkey made a good summary here.

 

[Sile]

No offense to you, but that site is run by a bunch of cranks, why do you even post a link to them? etrified:

They're basically arguing that Anglo-Saxon was "always there", the Anglo-Saxon invasion in the dark is a 'lie' (in complete ignorance of actual evidence) and for some reason they hate the Welsh. Sparkey made a good summary here.

looking for a map of celtic dialects , especially eastern celts, something to define the split between italy, austria, south germany and slovenia. and further south, something along linguistic and archeology
http://www.academia.edu/2649621/GUŠ...ei_._Koper_2011_119-128_COBISS.SI-ID_2092243_

Then I want to see the ligure-gaulish association and so on

Basically I do not believe celtic was in most of western europe from the late bronze-age

 

[Sile]

seems interesting that the iberians could prevent a celtic settlement in their area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic..._Europe#mediaviewer/File:Celtic_Expansion.svg

 

[Sile]

balkan celts ............scordisci what language was it norici ?

my least % guess that albania was corinthian Greeks, but it made sense after corinthians capture Corfu ~700BC

https://www.academia.edu/6502181/Illyrian_Coinage_From_Thrace


and

http://www.academia.edu/6144182/Celtic_Thasos_Type_Coinage_from_Central_Bulgaria

[url]http://www.academia.edu/5992553/Late_La_T%C3%AAne_Ceramic_from_Bulgaria
[/URL]

 

[Sile]

http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/TheCeltsinTheEast.pdf

maybe place names can tell us which celtic dialect

 

[Taranis]

(I'm replying to your other post in here because this has nothing to do with genetics, and it has quite a bit to do with what's discussed in here)

not me, I believe the Belgae where a gaulish-germanic mix and represent the first germanic ( part of ) in britain

If you believe that they were a mix, I think its fair game if you demonstrate to us some Germanic etymologies for Belgic names, isn't it?

or spear people ...........or Romans state IIRC, the pure ones

No, spear people (or 'gar men' ) is completely impossible. The Proto-Germanic word for "spear" would have been *gaizaz, and the *z > *r rhotacism only occured later in Northern and Western Germanic (not in eastern Germanic, such as Vandalic, e.g. "Geiseric", and not in Proto-Germanic). So if they were 'spear people', you would have seen something like "Gaisomani" or "Gaisamani" in the Graeco-Roman sources, and not "Germani".


In my opinion the name is Celtic in origin, related with Welsh "ger" ('near'), Old Irish "gerr" ('short').

balkan celts ............scordisci what language was it norici ?

Their language would have been most similar to Galatian. After all, before they invaded Greece - and eventually settled in Anatolia - the Galatians lived on the Balkans.

 

[Sile]

(I'm replying to your other post in here because this has nothing to do with genetics, and it has quite a bit to do with what's discussed in here)




If you believe that they were a mix, I think its fair game if you demonstrate to us some Germanic etymologies for Belgic names, isn't it?



No, pear people (or 'gar men' ) is completely impossible. The Proto-Germanic word for "spear" would have been *gaizaz, and the *z > *r rhotacism only occured later in Northern and Western Germanic (not in eastern Germanic, such as Vandalic, e.g. "Geiseric", and not in Proto-Germanic). So if they were 'spear people', you would have seen something like "Gaisomani" or "Gaisamani" in the Graeco-Roman sources, and not "Germani".


In my opinion the name is Celtic in origin, related with Welsh "ger" ('near'), Old Irish "gerr" ('short').



Their language would have been most similar to Galatian. After all, before they invaded Greece - and eventually settled in Anatolia - the Galatians lived on the Balkans.

(I'm replying to your other post in here because this has nothing to do with genetics, and it has quite a bit to do with what's discussed in here)




If you believe that they were a mix, I think its fair game if you demonstrate to us some Germanic etymologies for Belgic names, isn't it?

Caesar stated this and also other Roman historians state the place where "germani" crossed the Rhine river ( only place while Roman empire existed ) and merged/mixed with gaulish people. I don't need to name place names as we do not know what these germani spoke at the time of the recorded crossing.

No, pear people (or 'gar men'

) is completely impossible. The Proto-Germanic word for "spear" would have been *gaizaz, and the *z > *r rhotacism only occured later in Northern and Western Germanic (not in eastern Germanic, such as Vandalic, e.g. "Geiseric", and not in Proto-Germanic). So if they were 'spear people', you would have seen something like "Gaisomani" or "Gaisamani" in the Graeco-Roman sources, and not "Germani".

where getting into another area by you mentioning the vandal confederation ....I already linked historical links stating they where the first Wends and that the Veleti tribe of upper vistula river once replacing the Vandals became the new Wends in germanic eyes. The Veleti where the ones involved ( losers) in the Wendish crusades of the IIRC 11th century.
The Vandal confederation was a mix of Germanic tribes and other people ( not slav) , maybe baltic tribes ..............I already gave the names of all these dozen or so tribes which made up the confederation.
You might as well throw in gothic as well as they where near eastern neighbours of the vandals ,
I will not argue the linguistic point only the timing of when these linguistic changes happened.

In my opinion the name is Celtic in origin, related with Welsh "ger" ('near'), Old Irish "gerr" ('short').

ok, your opinion......no comment from me.

Their language would have been most similar to Galatian. After all, before they invaded Greece - and eventually settled in Anatolia - the Galatians lived on the Balkans.

So what is the difference between noric and belgae spoken celtic ?

 

[MOESAN]

1- celtic languages and other languages of these old times were known to us by some texts found here and there but as a whole we have too less places of discoveries to edit "isoglosses" as in modern dialectology
2- 3 languages in Gaul according to Caesar: I agree with Taranis about linguistic skills of Caesar - in southern Aquitania, there were people speaking some proto-basque, it's the current opinion of scientists BUT there was not a line of toll places between them, tribes were mixed (not crossed) celtic among old aquitan, old aquitan among celtic - so no "isoglosse" - the today genetic and anthropologic sketche of the ancient Aquitania show a reasonably great variety of means and types -
3-toponyms in well evolved celtic language were found in Southern and Central germany and in other places of Central Europe as far as Poland - without speaking about tribes names - if the "false Celts" of Central antique Europe were Germanics, why the elite of a so vastly spred and powerful set of tribes took celtic personal names for it???
4- gaulish celtic languages are known through a lot of short writings so well identified for words, less evident for grammar - some cases put some scholars to think it could have been some Qw- speakers tribes among P- speakers ones - not enough data for now I think -
5- concerning Belgae, we have almost nothing I think except tribes, placenames and elite names - all celtic - so, to speak with certitude is impossible, but the balance line on the celtic hypothesis -
6- Taranis and me and others finds safer to separate genetic from linguistic - but if I hazard myself on this way, I can say again the genetic human landscape before great germanic moves ("invasions") of the 300/400's was "celtic-like" or at least "occidental-like" and not "northernlike" - I think Celts had their borders with Germanics were the Rhine mouth, or close enough - more than a survey can prove that (Y-R1b subclades and the local genetic and anhtropologic profiles in the Netherlands, even if some later demic moves could have changed that in some way - in Southern Germany anthropology show that even if not completely homogenous during the celtic period the great valleys people were very different from the hills and mountains people, so if the predecessors were not celtic they were not more germanic! I suppose the specific Bell Beakers of Germany whatever the remote origin of some aspects of their culture were becoming proto-Celts, and they were at the frontiers of the Central Saale/Thuringen complex -
7- Belgae are supposed having taken their last settlements at late Iron Age, coming from West Bohemian and close Germany regions, far from the centrum of the germanic language concretion -
8- a solution to sign the peace between the different thesis: Belgae were descendants of common ancestors to proto-Celts and Proto-germanics, speaking the famous (and "fumeux"?) "Old Northwest European" - my point is that it could have been the case before Iron Age BUT that after fully evolved celtic was spoken by the last incomers, the so called "historic" Belgae...
8- British scientists (today, are they scientists or "scoops sellers"???) are found of old immuable ancestry: so NO Celt NO Germanic or at the opposite ALL TIME Germanics (!) -
so they put an apartheid line between P- gaulish and P- brittonic - I'm not so sure as them - some Romans (sorry I've not the names!) thought britton and gaulish was very close one to the other (maybe Caesar himself spoke of the absence of interpretes between them, but here I'm not sure) - but we know Gauls and Brittons had dense relations concerning religion and even some Brittons came to help some Gaulish tribes in their wars, at least it was said and written but it's not Gospel...
sorry for being long enough

 

[Taranis]

Caesar stated this and also other Roman historians state the place where "germani" crossed the Rhine river ( only place while Roman empire existed ) and merged/mixed with gaulish people.

My point is that just because of the statement they were geographically originally Germanic (a statement I'm fine with, by the way), you can't automatically declare that they were Germanic in the linguistic sense. If you make such a claim (or the claim that the Belgae were mixed Celtic-Germanic), you need to back it up. And, I've mentioned before, the evidence for that is very limited - in my opinion, the only part of Belgic Gaul for which this genuinely applies to the Rhine Delta region (this is really where we have mixed Celtic and Germanic names).

I don't need to name place names as we do not know what these germani spoke at the time of the recorded crossing.

Caesar and Tacitus claim that tribes like the Treveri and Nemetes were Germanic, yet their place names, ethnic names, personal names, deity names are all Celtic. Where, in the linguistic sense (not geographic), do you take the evidence from that they were Germanic?

 

[youngkeithden]

Brythonic/Gaulish/Belgic

I frequently read that Brythonic, being an Insular Celtic language, had more in common with Goidelic. Although Brythonic had adopted the p-celtic fashion, how could it be so similar to Gaulish? Could Caesar have been referring to Belgic as they inhabited both sides of the Channel?

 

[Aberdeen]

I frequently read that Brythonic, being an Insular Celtic language, had more in common with Goidelic. Although Brythonic had adopted the p-celtic fashion, how could it be so similar to Gaulish? Could Caesar have been referring to Belgic as they inhabited both sides of the Channel?

If you can find Gaelic and Welsh translations of the same text, you'll see that they're massively different. It takes a professional linguist to see the similarities in the two languages and show how closely related they are. Whereas some Roman sources (an always dubious source of information about other languages) indicated that Gaulish and Brythonic are vary similar. The limited available info about Gaulish seems to support that idea. I've always believed that the notion about "insular Celtic language" is just a fantasy created by Englishmen to try to claim some kind of ownership over the Celtic languages spoken in Britain and Ireland, even though many Englishmen seem to hate the Irish, Welsh and Scots.