Regarding the Nobody and Taranis conversation, here's a novel (and a bit weird) approach.
I think we can agree that David Faux's Cimbri writings are well researched and thorough. His claims that the Northern Cimbri had strongly Celtic genetics does match with what we see in Denmark today and also with the remains that have been found in Jutland. (Please note: the studies going on in Denmark will be key in either cementing the Faux theory or will open up this area to additional I1 Norse influence. The importance of these findings can't be understated in my opinion).
Faux's hypothesis is basically that R1b-U152 arrived in Britain from Jutland via the Cimbri. To be honest, it doesn't make much sense to me: I can agree with Faux - based on the distribution of U152's subclades - that U152 originated north of the Alps (I wouldn't narrow it down any further than that). With regard for Britain I think that U152 can be correlated a lot better with iron age movements from the La-Tène areas towards Britain, as well as (possibly) population movements during the Roman occupation of Britain. Both strike me as more probable than linking it with an ethnic group in Denmark which may or may not have been Celtic.
I do agree though, that I am looking forward to that DNA data from Denmark.
But back to topic-- so what if the Cimbri in Jutland were indeed heavy in Celtic genetics including y-haplogroup, but spoke a Germanic language? To see this scenerio played out in real life, we only have to look at the overwhelming success of modern English (a primarily Germanic language).
Simply put, I think the directness of Germanic speech out-compete the Celtic tongues. Don't get me wrong, the lyrically gifted Irish can surely pack more meaning and subtext in a couple sentences than the standard German can in 15 pages, but when put side by side I think the masses pick the simplier and more direct approach.
Case in point, almost all of England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and really almost the whole world at this point are speaking English rather than Gaelic variations (and yes I know of the Celtic native language resurgence-- too small yet to make a pronounced splash) even though all of the British Islanders are incredibly R1b dominate.
You're underestimating two things: first off, how much languages change over time. Neither any of the modern Celtic, nor any of the modern Germanic languages (especially not English!) is particularly representative of what Celtic and Germanic languages were like 2000 years ago.
Also, the reason why the Germanic languages 'won out' over the Celtic ones (in terms of distribution and number of speakers) is a simple one: the Roman Empire conquered most Celtic-speaking areas in Europe, the languages of these areas was replaced eventually with Latin. The Germanic speaking peoples were left outside of the Roman Empire. It hadn't anything to do with language competitiveness, but with who was the conqueror and who was the conquered in history.
Also, I wouldn't put too much attention in the "R1b dominance" issue. If it was that black-and-white, Western Europe should be homogenously Basque, Celtic, Germanic or Romance, depending on what paradigm you prefer...
a general answer (and not too affirmative)
TARANIS: spite your big knowledge about I-e languages, I don't think a -mb- evolution to >> -mm- would be impossible at all - nor the contrary when 'm' is followed by a "liquid" consonnant -m+r >> -mb+r (we have more than an example)- but I agree with you that Cymru<<Combrog has nothing in common with Cimmerian
Sorry, yes I made a mistake there. You are right that the development *mb > *mm isn't impossible at all(btw, I used the wording 'implausible'), rather it is the more probable evolution. What I actually was going to say is that the reverse development (*mm > *mb, since the Cimmerians are the older ethnic group, ca. 6th century BC) is unlikely.
