Celtic languages?

Ray Brown wrote:

> On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 09:05 , Joe wrote:
>
>> Mario Bonassin wrote:
>>
>>> I always thought that Welsh and Gaelic were both descendents of the
>>> Celtic
>>> languages as well?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Insular Celtic.  We were discussing Continental Celtic.
>
>
> Quite right - what I was arguing is that the Insular languages, which are
> certainly interrelated were not conventionally called 'Celtic' until the
> 18th century. I said the only _continental_ language AFAIK that appeared
> to be cognate is Gallic 9the language of the Gauls).
>
>>  The list of
>> attested languages is as follows (An asterisk means extinct, though the
>> insular ones are undergoing revivals):
>>
>> P. Celtic
>>    Insular Celtic
>>        Welsh
>>        Cornish*
>>        Breton
>>    Continental Celtic
>>        Gaulish
>>         Lepontic(possibly Italic)
>> Q. Celtic
>>     Insular Celtic
>>         Irish Gaelic
>>         Manx Gaelic*
>>         Scottish Gaelic
>>      Continental Celtic
>>         Celtiberian
>>
>
> 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.
Whichever way round you put it, it's bound to be controversial.

>> 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.

> But I have other misgivings with Jo's list because.....
> =============================================
> On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 01:52 , Doug Dee wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Other Continental Celtic languages of which something is known include
>> Celtiberian, Lepontic, and Galatian.
>> (According to _The Celtic Languages_, ed. by Martin J. Ball & James
>> Fife.
>> )
>
>
> 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.  The Celtiberian language is fairly sparse, it's true, but it
also has a few larger texts.

>
> Lepontic - yes, some 70 or so inscriptions I lbelieve. I must admit I had
> forgotten this lang. It certainly changed IE /k_w/ to /p/ as did Galic
> and Sabine. But was it related to Gallic? It shows some affinity with it
> but also to Italic. It appears to be an IE language but has quite
> noticeable un-IE elements, I understand. A complicating factor is that
> this area had by overrun by Gauls by the time of the inscriptions (2nd
> cent. BCE), so we cannot rule out the possibility of Gallic influence
> on a
> non-Gallic language.


It could be two things, IMO:

1.Italic language with Gaulish influence(more likely, IMO, due to some
sound changes that *didn't* happen)
2.Gaulish language with Italic influence.

>
> Galatian - are there any inscriptions? It seems that around 280 BCE a
> group of Galatai made their way from the Balkans into Asia Minor. In 230
> BCE King Attalos of Pergamon settled them among the Phrygians in the area
> of modern Ankara. They appear to have remained a separate group until the
> 5th cent. CE. But I do not know how much direct evidence we have about
> their language. As far as I know, the inclusion of the Galatai with Celts
> rests upon statements of ancient authors who sometimes talk of the Keltai
> & Galatai as separate peoples and at other times seem to suggest they are
> 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.

> What I have never been able to get an answer to is how much direct
> evidence we have of the language of the actual peoples the ancients
> called
> Keltai/Celtae.
> ===========================================================
>
> On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 07:40 , Joe wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I don't believe Gaulish is even the best known one.  Lepontic and
>> Celtiberian are also around(and Celtiberian is Q-Celtic).  Though the
>> Celticity of Lepontic is debateable.  It may be Italic, with Gaulish
>> influence.
>
>
> Certainly Gallic is the one I have more information about than the
> others.
>  Certainly in the case of Lepontic, as I have said above, Gallic
> influence
> cannot be discounted because the Gauls had overrun them before the
> time of
> the extant inscriptions.
>
> 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'.

Replies