Where and when appeared Celtic?

I'm not sure of anything. But I'm surprised that Germanic should be excluded of the IE dialects having conflated together plain voiced stops and aspirated voiced stops, at least when looking at today Germanic tongues.
Besides, some similar innovations have occurred more than a time in (not always) cousin languages which were already separated since a long enough time.
This is just a bit of answer, not definitive.
 
It's true that some new linguists have proposed a different system of 3 primary types of stops in PIE, but in "ancient" PIE theory the B D G of ancient Germanic were from *Bh, *Dh and *Gh, if I remember well, when the ancient *B, *D, *G had turned into P, T, K, contrary to other IE languages families where they were stayed B, D, G. But things are changing nowaday.
 
Yes, that’s Grimm's Law, they went through a change which affected consonants (*b, *d, and *g) in Germanic languages (originally voiced aspirated stops in PIE) and led to their change into unvoiced consonants (voiceless stops) *p, *t and *k in certain positions, as you said. This process did not occur in Celtic languages and in some other Indo-European languages, which means that the consonants *b, *d and *g remained voiced in these languages.
In Celtic languages, however, there was a loss of distinction between aspirated voiced consonants and simple voiced consonants. This means that the distinction between voiced stops and aspirated voiced stops has been lost, as G.R. Isaac wrote. That’s "neutralization". Grimm's Law is a phenomenon that has occurred specifically in Germanic languages, while the neutralization of aspirated voiced consonants has occurred in Celtic languages and other Indo-European languages such as Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, and Iranian. But, it's true, things are always changing, PIE reconstruction (including the divergent regional dialects) is a constantly evolving and changing field.
 
@Tautalus
Yes. I amnot a specialist, but I think it woulf be possible that, spite a great proximity at first between Celtic, Italic and Germanic dialects, their position I suppose having been in Central-West Europe, were in contact with different people, IE and non-IE substrata. Italic closer to ancestors of Greek language or ancestor of people who acted upon Greek language soon enough between Austria/N-Balkans/S-Hungary???), spite these Italics shared a close enough bunch of male ancestors with Celts. We could see this possibility as backed by between pop's like Ligurians, whose dialect seemed sharing traits (on the few we know) with Celtic and Italic, but with more links with Celtic on the phonetic side. Geography?... Germanics interracted with other people. I suppose at the stage when the diverse evolutions in these three groups (G, C & I) were not already acquired. ATW the similarity between Celtic and other more eatsern IE dialects is maybe not the proof of everlasting contacts between all these groups. Who knows?
 
@MOESAN
Like you, I'm not a specialist either, just a casual amateur interested in the topic. Nowadays there is a lot of talk about AI, perhaps linguists can use AI to aid in reconstructing PIE more faithfully, in formulating a more coherent theory about the origin, place, time, connections, and posterior development of the regional dialects that developed from PIE.
AI can assist linguists in analyzing large amounts of linguistic data from diverse sources, identifying patterns, and making predictions based on those patterns. Perhaps the day is near when we will have more accurate predictions about the historical development of these languages thanks to AI.
 
The question with AI is that it's feed by diverse data provided by Humans. It's speeds up calculations or intellectual links, no more, if I 've understood well. So according to linguists diverse theories and feeding of the system, it cannot help too much, IMO, at least not as well as we could expect. There are more than a trap in linguistic when searching for interconnections between languages. One of them can have strong lexicon connections with a A language and more phonological/phonetical connections with a B language, same for structure. So the estimation of proximity between already close enough languages of a family is harder than believed, I think.
 
Hi MOESAN,

AI/ML (Machine Learning) and computational models have been increasingly used in linguistics to aid in the reconstruction of dead languages, including Proto-Indo-European (PIE).

One popular approach is to use machine learning algorithms to analyze large datasets of languages that are known to be related to the target language, such as the descendants of PIE (e.g., Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, etc.).
By training a machine learning model on these related languages, it can be used to make predictions about the properties of the target language, including its vocabulary, grammar, and syntax.

Another approach is to use computational models to simulate the evolution of a language over time.
These models can take into account factors such as sound changes, grammatical shifts, and borrowing from other languages, and use them to generate a plausible reconstruction of the target language.
Some of these models even incorporate cultural and historical data to help refine the reconstruction.

While these approaches are still in their early stages, they show promise in helping linguists better understand the development and evolution of dead languages, and may even lead to new discoveries about their structure and history.
 
potential is one thing, realisation so reality is another one. Concerning phonetics, we see so often contradictory evolutions which cannot be explained by a lone trend or theory... According to the way we feed the AI we can find very different results IMO. Surely it could improve, everytime technics improve, but it isn't so easy or quick.
 
to go back to birth and introduction of celtic into Britain/Ireland, the relatively recent survey about LBA/EIA in Britain shows that an heavy colonization had taken part between BA and IA, coming from South at first sight, so Gaul or Gaul+Belgia. One of the most sensible thought would be that it was Celtic people who took part in it with the most evident genetical input in England and Wales of the time. It seems pushing the first Celts existance plus introduction there at BA and not only as late as IA as was thought by someones. Now it remains the question of Gaeli and Brittonic. For Belgae, whatever their language qualification, they colonized some parts of eastern and suth-eastern Britain only at late IA
 
The Etruscans also spoke a Celtic language and they are the oldest dialect recorded.
 
You'll have to explain why you think the Etruscan language is Celtic!
 
The celts are desdendantas of the Athlantic Broce. Lusitanians, verones, cogotas, Tartesos. All of them in te west facade of the Iberian peninsula
 
Ziober said:
The celts are desdendantas of the Athlantic Broce. Lusitanians, verones, cogotas, Tartesos. All of them in te west facade of the Iberian peninsula
Click to expand...


It isn't my opinion, todate at least. The people you cite could be linguistically as Celts descendants of the last BB pop's but they aren't directly ancestors of the Celts. It's debated but it seems to me that the theory which sees Celts forming in eastern Gaul is the better one, waiting for more proofs. And the main language of Tartessos isn't Celtic at all, even if some kind of Celtic seems having been spoken on some parts of its territory.
 
"Celtic from the East" and "Celtic from the West" are the two main theories about the origin and spread of Celtic languages.
The "Celtic from the East” theory suggests that Celtic languages spread westward with the expansion of the Urnfield->Hallstatt->La Tène cultures during the 1st millennium BC.
In contrast, the "Celtic from the West" theory proposes that Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Bronze Age as lingua franca in the Atlantic coast.
A more recent theory, "Celtic from the Centre", argues that Celtic originated somewhere in Gaul (France) in the second millennium BC, then spread in various directions in the 1st millennium BC.
The first two theories are analyzed, and criticized, in this article, written by a proponent of this latest theory.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal
 
@Tautalus: I think it's this third theory I have read an extract about it. Concerning syntax, it's seems the continental Celtic was more akin to other IE languages grammars than to the present Celtic tongues, all of them evolved in the Great Isles, and which seem marked by a strong non-Celtic substratum. The special treatment of Verbal forms, even more peculiar in Ireland, could be a partial creolisation caused by adoption of some kind of Celtic as lingua franca. It's a personal view, and it isn't by force the "Bible". Let's keep in mind that some evolutions in language aren't always caused by creolisation or by substratum so... We could think that Celtic was more continental r first and that it has been adopted as lingua franca on the Atlantic fringes? All these conceptions can evolve with time and more data.
 
MOESAN said:
Sorry but Etruscan and Celtic are not the same language, even if we accept (I don't) that Etruscan could be akin to IE languages at some level.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm going to create discussion at some stage but I have wrapped up a few mysteries or at least shown some continuation between Celtic and Etruscan now I'm not saying I can read the stellaes but I can bring a few theories to the table that at the very least will garner some attention.
 
MOESAN said:
Sorry but Etruscan and Celtic are not the same language, even if we accept (I don't) that Etruscan could be akin to IE languages at some level.
Click to expand...
going by your previous posts on this topic you seem too know what you are talking about so I have too ask why Etruscan can't be Celtic and how surprised would you be if it is ?
 
lynxbythetv said:
going by your previous posts on this topic you seem too know what you are talking about so I have too ask why Etruscan can't be Celtic and how surprised would you be if it is ?
Click to expand...

I'm not so knowledged but the mainstream puts I-E and Etruscan into two different kinds of language for more than an aspect (vocabulary, syntax). Now, the new mode is to built odd theories in linguistic every morning. Maybe some of them will prove themselves accurate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 10447 times.

Back
Top