Similar words between Latin and Gaulish Celtic

Italo-Celtic is a commonly proposed grouping of IE languages. Some believe they split apart only around 1200-1000 BC or so.
Italo-Celtic is a commonly proposed grouping of IE languages. Some believe they split apart only around 1200-1000 BC or so.

It seems it's become back the mainstream opinion, after some oppositions here and there; what says B. Sergent is that an Italo-Celtic community broke in two parts early enough, what would be showed by the relative little community of lexicon (before Rome empire!). Some linguists (Balts for the most) think that a first large group concerning old basic lexicon and same substratum placed somewhere; this more or less real group would have included Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Albanese, Slavic and Baltic but all that sends us far in past.
The kind "opposition" between Maciamo and me in this thread was about the closeness, not of the proto-Celtic-proto-Italic group but of the late Gaulish and Latin of the Empire (of course before progressive latinisation and two ways borrowings).
I 'd say 1000 years is a huge time and can produce terrible effects on language unity in separated communities without common centralised written language!
Partial complementary answer to your posts #36 & #38r

The etymology of a word is an uncertain thing which ask for researchs in ancient texts (date of apparition in a certain language) what is not possible for every language in old times. Very often the proposed etymologies are based on reconstructions linking more recent written forms in more than a language to attested ancient forms in others written or transcripted languages, until ever changing reconstructed forms as it’s the case for PIE. All the « étymologies » we have for so called IE languages are hypothesis more or less reliable which imply both recent and ancient written forms and not attested primary forms presented as the original ones born in a time we had no written record for. What we can do is to gather the most numerous possible forms in diverses close langages and try to imagine the intermediary lacking forms in more than a lineage in accord with « logical » phonetic and graphy evolutions. Linguistic isn’t magic science but it isn’t so « hard » a science, spite it stays very interesting and often reliable in its own specific field.

Concerning vrana for crow, raven I looked at your link but I don’t read bulgarian spite I ‘ve some idea on the language. I saw it could have been from a dialectal from vran = [FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]černa [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]black, [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]colour of the bird more or less [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif](am I right?)[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]; ‘[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]vran’ doesn’t mean [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]black [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]so it could be a loanword in celtic (as supposed by scholars) ; but, just to split hairs, could it not be that the meaning [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]black [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]come from the bird colour in Slavic and not the opposite ? Just some humor ! The fact is lang[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]u[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]ages borrow words from other langages [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]or dialects[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif], even from the same family (new « picture » or descriptive words, [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]even if the origial common word was not lost at first : French[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] poule[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]hen[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] from Lat. [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]pulla < pullus [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]very small[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif], spite dialects had conserved [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]geline, glaine, guerne[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]from Lat. [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]gallina[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]) ; [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]todate, at least, French has no word in [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]pol-/poul-[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] with the general meaning of[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] small[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Old French had [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]pol [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]chick [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]([/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]attested [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]12th Cy, [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]what is not a birthdate[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]). [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Nothing proves French [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]poule[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] has had or not had a more general meaning at first, as in Latin. The fact [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]poule [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]does no more signify [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]small [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]doesn’t signify [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]French had no word for [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]hen[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]and borrowed a word from outside, nor that the language the word [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]is supposed to be [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]come from is a [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]foreign one, so that French[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] wouldn’t be a Romance language.[/FONT]

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]French did not borrow its basic words from extinct Latin but inherited them directly and impose to them its own evolution as time passed.
The same occurred for other I-E (I insist) languages I cited above.
Just a point.

This thread has been viewed 13159 times.