> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ray Brown" <ray.brown@...>
> > To: <CONLANG@...>
> > Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 8:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: Supposed Celtic semiticisms
> >
> >> The question nevertheless remains as to why these developments took
place
> >> in Ireland & Britain.
> >
> > coincidence?
>
> Yes - but that still does not explain _why_ 'Insular Celtic' developed the
> way it did.
true...but coincidence might explain the one similarity between two
otherwise dissimilar languages. yes?
> There are, of course, also other features shared by the
> Insular Celtic langs that AFAIK have no analog in the Semitic langs -
...and thus those features would not be covered by the "coincidence" above.
===============================================
>
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 01:27 , damien perrotin wrote:
> >
> > Skrivet gant Rodlox:
sounds painful.
:)
> Ah! Rodlox's laconic reply is rather ambiguous. I understood him to be
> asking if it was just a coincidence that the developments in Ireland &
> Britain had parallels in the Semitic langs. But, especially with just the
> bit of my mail he quoted, he could be asking if was a coincidence that the
> Gaelic languages developed in a similar way to the Brittonic ones.
or to both.
(to be honest, I've forgotten myself).
((wait, that was too too ambiguous)).
:)