|Date:||Monday, September 27, 2004, 6:52|
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
>>> 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
>> Continental Celtic
>> Lepontic(possibly Italic)
>> Q. Celtic
>> Insular Celtic
>> Irish Gaelic
>> Manx Gaelic*
>> Scottish Gaelic
>> Continental Celtic
> I need to be convinced that the P ~ Q split occurred before the Gaelic
> 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:
>> 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
> 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
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
> On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 07:40 , Joe wrote:
>> 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
> Certainly Gallic is the one I have more information about than the
> Certainly in the case of Lepontic, as I have said above, Gallic
> 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,
> 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
> to know.
In the texts we have, we have '-cue' meaning 'and'. We also have */p/
being lost - 'uer' for Latin 'super'.