Re: Celtic languages?
| From: | Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, September 30, 2004, 15:49 |
|---|
Hallo!
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:48:58 +0100,
Joe <joe@...> wrote:
> >Some people consider it likely that Etruscan is related to IE, but
> >apart from the fact that the evidence is too tenuous, if "Celtiberian"
> >is most closely related to Etruscan, it is definitely not "Celtic"
> >in any linguistically meaningful sense of the word - even if Etruscan
> >was related to IE.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Indeed. Celtiberian is quite patently IE, Celtic(removes /p/, most
> prominently, among other things), and Q-Celtic(/k_w/ does not > /p/).
Sure. This is widely accepted. Ray's scepticism about the reality
of the Celtic branch of IE is certainly a minority position.
But I know too little about Celtiberian to make a judgement.
All I can do is to trust the many, many scholars who accept it
as Celtic. It seems unlikely to me that they are all wrong.
And the idea that Celtiberian could be related to Etruscan
(other than via a hypothetical IE-Etruscan link) seems outrageous
to me.
Greetings,
Jörg.