Re: Celtic languages?

On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, at 08:32 , Jörg Rhiemeier wrote (in
reply to me):

[snip]
> This means that "Q-Celtic", like "centum IE", is merely a label
> attached to a bundle of languages which in no way constitute a
> genealogical group - but even with "P-Celtic", we cannot be sure
> because that kind of innovation might have spread by diffusion,
> or even happened independently twice or more.
I agree on both account. I stated it as a possibility - and no more - that
the change from labiovelar to bilablar plosives in Brittonic & Gallic (if
so it was in all varieties of Gallic) might be related. If there were, I
suspect the innovation was spread by diffusion; after all there was
trading between north Gaul &S.E. britain well before the Romans moved in.

But, I agree, suc a change could well happen independently - indeed, it
did happen independently in the Italic languages and in ancient Greek
before back vowels (and probably elsewhere)

> Nor are "Continental Celtic" and "Insular Celtic" well-defined
> genealogical groupings.
I agree - the "Continental Celtic" grouping seem particularly ill-defined
to me.

>  The "Insular Celtic" languages have
> some peculiar features (e.g., initial mutations) in common,
> but most of them cannot be reconstructed for any proto-language
> that could be reconstructed from the Insular Celtic languages,
Quite true - the initial mutations of the Gaelic & Brittonic groups, tho
having some superficial similarities, are different and cannot go back to
a common ancestor. There can be no reasonable doubt IMO that they were
independent developments in the two groups.

> and we are most likely dealing with an areal phenomenon here.
I am certain we are - just like the fondness for periphrastic verb tenses
formed with "to be" (and probably also "to do") which also distinguishes
English from other Germanic languages.

[snip]

>> I believe there is anecdotal evidence from the ancients that the Galatai
>> of Asia Minor retained their language till about the 4th or 5th cent CE
>> -
>> at least some of them. St Paul chose to write to them in Greek. But I
>> have
>> not been able to discover any concrete evidence what the language was.
>
> Does that mean that we don't know whether Galatian is "Celtic" in any
> meaningful sense at all?
So it seems to me. I have tried to find out what is known about the
Galatian language. So far I have drawn a blank.

[snip]
> Including some pre-IE languages!  And the Belgae might still have
> spoken "Nordwestblock" languages - an independent IE branch which
> was neither Germanic nor Celtic.  But nobody knows whether something
> like "Nordwestblock" ever existed at all.  At any rate, there is
> enough stuff for the League of Lost Languages to explore ;-)
Yes, indeed. IMO the traditional IE sub-families groupings of 19th cent
linguistics is probably an over-simplifiication. I suspect there were odd
blocks that did not fit neatly into these groups. It was assumed that
language spread only through conquest; far too little attention IMO was -
and often still is - not given to the processes of diffusion and
acculturation.

> And as we are at it, the British Isles are also likely to have been
> as linguistically diverse as Italy in pre-Roman times, including
> pre-IE languages.  (ObConlang: Albic...)
I am sure you are correct. There is certainly no archaeological support
for the old 19th cent idea of "Celtic invasions" of Britain & Ireland.
Roman descriptions of Britain (especially Tacitus) suggest quite a mixed
population. I see no reason to suppose that there was the linguistic
diversity you suggest - indeed, I think it is the most likely scenario.

>> The Celtae, according to Caesar, were one of the peoples making up the
>> Galli.
>
> Yes, and at least one of the other peoples, namely the Aquitani,
> spoke a language that was uncontradictably and utterly non-Celtic.
...yep - being akin to Basque   :)

>> [...]
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at 04:58 , Joe wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> But the thing showing it as Q-celtic was
>>> the '-cue' ending.  Gaulish, AFAIK, has '-pe'.
>>
>> Only if there is sufficient evidence to link it with the IE languages of
>> Gaul, Britain & Ireland. It could, for example, be cognate with the
>> Etruscan -c (and) and, despite the efforts of many, that languages
>> resists
>> all credible attempts to connect with IE or, indeed, any other known
>> linguistic group.
>
> Some people consider it likely that Etruscan is related to IE,
I know  :)

> but
> apart from the fact that the evidence is too tenuous,
I think that is being kind. The evidence IMO - and I did once examine it
in some detail - is simply non-existent.

> 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.
I think I was probably a bit misleading there. I was replying to Joe's
citing of the two pieces of 'evidence'. I was merely trying to show that
postulating a theory on the occurrence of suffix -cue (and) was not sound.
======================================================================

On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, at 09:22 , Elliott Lash wrote:
[snip]
> Joe <joe@...> wrote:
>> Indeed.  Celtiberian is quite patently IE,
>> Celtic(removes /p/, most
>> prominently, among other things), and Q-Celtic(/k_w/
>> does not > /p/).
>
> I'll second this. It's pretty much agreed that
> Celtiberian is IE.
"is quite patently" in book is not the same as "is pretty much agreed".
The latter implies an element of doubt; the former unequivocable certainty.

But, I repeat, I have not said the "Celtiberian" inscriptions are not IE;
all I have said is that on the evidence I had (two words) I could not say
whether it was IE or not. Also, all my queries below are *genuine
questions*. I'm not saying that some claim is or is not true. I am
genninely seeking information.

> Here are some evidences from the Botorrita inscription
> and other inscriptions:
I've now had time to look at the Botorria inscription. I notice it is
written in what appears to be the same script as the Iberian texts - a
strange mix of alphabetic symbols and syllabic symbols. How certain are
all the values? In other words, how certain is the transliteration? 100%?
90%? or what?
>
>  "*SO-" THIS/THAT (in Old Irish -so, -se)
>
> somui "this" (might be dative singular)
> somei "this" (might be locative singular)
> soisum "of these" (genitive plural, masculine neuter?)
>  (same formation as Sanskrit: tesam "these")
> saum   "of these" (genitive plural, feminine)
I note "might be"? What is the probability? More importantly, what in the
context indicates that these are demonstratives?

[snip]
> Celtic superlative ending *-isamo  in:
> letaisama
> sekisamos
Again, what is it that indicates these are superlatives? If they are
superlatives, why could they not be related to Italic forms like the Latin
-issim- <--- *itt@m- ?

>
> noviza "new" is directly comparable to Welsh newydd
> and Gaulish noviio, and probably goes back to Celtic
> *nowiyo. Incedentally, both sos/soz and noviza show
> the phoneme /z/ to which many have given the supposed
> pronunciation of /D/, giving some evidence for a
> Proto-Celtic lenition of IE /d/ to /z/ or /D/ in the
> case of <sos/soz>.
Sorry - this pushing things too much IMO. The change from /s/ to /z/
(noted for soz/soz) is not exactly uncommon in IE and in non-IE languages.
  I see no evidence of /D/. _If_ _noviza_ is from *nowiyo then /z/ could [Z]
.

[snip]
> Another example from Botorrita is:
>  cabiseti, which may represent either some sort of -s-
> subjunctive of the stem *gab- (as seen in Old Irish
> gaibid, -gaibet) or it may be an orthographical
> variant for cabizeti < *cabiyeti, maybe a -y- present
> from the same stem, with the -ti 3rd person singular.
" cabiseti, which may represent either some sort of -s- subjunctive of the
stem *gab- (as seen in Old Irish
gaibid, -gaibet)" remind me too much, i'm afraid, of my delibrately spoof
"Celtic" translation of the 'Epioi' inscription from Crete:
-------------
σιφαι (sipʰai)
     the stem of this verb, siw-, is cognate with the stem seen in Welsh
safaf "I stand", saf- [sav] being from ProtoIE *stʰəm- an extended form of
the root *stʰə- (stand). The vocalization of the Cretan form was caused by
a following [i] or [j] which disappeared, cf. Welsh sefyll, Cornish sevel
"to stand"" Breton sevel "to raise" ← *stʰəm-ilis. Unlike the Welsh,
Cornish and Breton where the verb stem alternates between /sav/ and /sev/,
the Cretans made /siw/ standard. The verb is subjunctive, formed by adding
-h- to the stem, thus /siw/ + /h/ → /siph/, cf. Cornish present
subjunctive saffo, imperfect subjunctive saffa ( /ff/ ← /v/ + /h/; Modern
Welsh has lost the /h/ sound in this position). The ending -ai, however,
is a little odd; it looks like an imperfect subjunctive ending, cf.
Cornish saffa, Welsh safai. The Cretan dialect had possibly lost the
distinction between the present and imperfect subjunctive, using but one
subjunctive tense.
------------
See: http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown/PseudoTranslation.html

I once spent several years in research which involved examining ancient
inscriptions. I know well the difficulties when confronted with an unknown
or little known language. I also know how alarmingly easy it is to imagine
one sees a related language in an inscriptions.

> Lastly, you find uer- "over" in the inscription,
> showing the loss of /p/ from *uperi
The problem with this is that (a) are all the occurrences of uer- actually
prefixes, and (b) what from the context indicates the meaning "over"? In
any case, one word is IMO not sufficient evidence that IE /p/ is always
dropped in "Celtiberian".

Looking at the inscriptions, certain features do appear IE, e.g. ending
-onti inter_alia. Indeed, the first thing that struck me was
_necue......necue......necue..._ which reminded me immediately of Latin
_neque......neque.....neque...!

I would find some of the above evidence more convincing if a _plausible_
partial translation of the inscription were given. I am afraid on the
evidence so far I have to remain skeptical.

> Anyway, see such sources as Kim McCone in Celtica 24,
> Wodtko in Untermann 1997, F.Villar, C. Jordan et. al
> 2001, J. Eska 1989, among others for more info.
	

Thanks for the references - I'll try and follow them up.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Reply