Re: Celtic languages?

On Monday, September 27, 2004, at 07:52 , Joe wrote:

> Ray Brown wrote:
[snip]
>> I need to be convinced that the P ~ Q split occurred before the Gaelic
>> and
>> Brittonic languages developed. There is also a similar P ~ Q split among
>> the Italic languages: for example Latin belonged to Q langs, Sabine
>> belonged to the P group. Those who posit a Celto-Italic family sometimes
>> put the Q ~ P split even earlier than Jo. But I see no need to do this.
>> Similar divisions occurred in the ancient Greek dialects and AFAIK no one
>> has suggested linking the division there either to the P ~ Q split in the
>> 'Celtic' langs or in the Italic langs.
>>
>
> There's no actual evidence, but I find it makes things easier for me.
Right - so basically simplification of classification.

If all the languages are related, the Q versions surely represents the
oldest forms; P is an innovation. It could well be that Brittonic &
Gaulish changed to P, and that proto-Irish remained Q, and other
continental forms also remained Q. But without far more evidence than we
have, I fail to see how we can certain.

> Whichever way round you put it, it's bound to be controversial.
Of course, without more evidence.

>>> Pictish may fit somewhere in here as well.  But it's not very certain.
>>
>>
>> Indeed, not. Some claim Pictish wasn't even IE - our knowledge is too
>> scanty, I think, to make any safe assumption.
>>
>
> Well, it does seem to use (Q-Celtic) naming methods - 'maqqi' meaning
> 'son of'.  That's about all that's been translated.
If that's really all that's been translated, then how can we even be sure
that Pictish _maqqi_ is the same as Old Irish. After all, both English &
French have a word written _chat_, but they're not related or mean the
same thing. Also AFAIK there's no IE etymology for Gaelic _mac_ & Welsh
_mab_ (son). Even if Pictish _maqqi_ has the same meaning, it could be
just that Pictish was a survival of the non-IE language from which
proto-Gaelic and Brittonic borrowed their word.

I have seen it claimed there were two Pictish langs - one IE and another
non-IE.

[snip]
>> There are some supposed Celtiberian inscriptions but my understanding is
>> that they are sparse and give us little information. The Iberian
>> insctptions AFAIK remain undeciphered and the language is considered
>> non-IE. The descriptions of the ancients suggest the Celtiberi were a
>> mixed Celtic & Iberian group.
>
>
> The 'Iberian'(not Celtiberian) language is believed to be related to
> Basque.
By whom? My information is that Iberian shows no relationship to Basque.

> The Celtiberian language is fairly sparse, it's true, but it
> also has a few larger texts.
Where are they published? What do they show?

[snip]
>> much the same. How much _direct_ evidence do we have about the Galatian
>> language?
>>
>
> I don't believe we have any.  Apart from place names, of course.
Place names are tricky things - people often take over names from the
language they displaced. But what are the place names in question?

[snip]
>> I notice you confidently say that Celtibrian is Q-celtic. To day that,
>> you
>> must have more information than I have - which is by no means improbable.
>> What is your information? This is not meant to be critical - I really
>> want
>> to know.
>
>
>
> In the texts we have, we have '-cue' meaning 'and'.  We also have */p/
> being lost  - 'uer' for Latin 'super'.
The loss of IE /p/ is common to both Q and P 'Celts'. If _uer_ is cognate
with Latin _super_ we also have a loss of /s/.
That's very slight evidence.
=============================================================
On Monday, September 27, 2004, at 05:04 , John Cowan wrote:

Joe scripsit:

>>> We know no other language related to Iberian, and the only language
>>> truly related to Basque is Aquitanian (preserved as proper names in
>>> Latin texts), which should rightly be called "Old Basque", since it is
>>> transparently Basque.
>>
>> Are you quite sure of that, or is it controversial?
>
> It is not controversial among vascologists, at least.
I was not aware that what John had written was controversial either. The
obvious language to use to make sense of the Iberian fragments was, of
course, Basque. But it became clear fairly early on, I understand, that
there just was no connexion.

I was also aware of the Aquitanian-Basque connexion.
==================================================================
On Monday, September 27, 2004, at 09:50 , Rodlox wrote:

>> Galatian - are there any inscriptions? It seems that around 280 BCE a
>> group of Galatai made their way from the Balkans into Asia Minor.
>
>  I'd once heard that they came from France, originally.
I wasn't aware the Galatai were ever in Gaul/France. I thought all the
ancient references referred to the Balkans & Asia Minor. What evidence do
we have of a group moving across Europe from France before settling in
Asia Minor?

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" ]

Replies