Re: Celtic languages?

Ray Brown scripsit:

> 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.
Independent in the sense that they don't descend from Common Celtic.
Not, however, independent in the sense that one cannot have influenced
the other.

> ...yep - being akin to Basque   :)
Being Basque. :-)

> >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- ?
It is precisely the superlative that was one of the earliest bits of
evidence for the Celtic-Italic theory (which, if mostly ignored now
adays, is far from dead).  However, "-issim-" cannot have been the
original Italic superlative as such; the Oscan/Umbrian evidence makes
it clear that Common Italic used something like [m_0=mo], which
surfaces in Latin in those few superlatives in -i:mus and -e:mus.
(Another possible case is bru:ma 'winter' < brevis, oddly enough.)
Latin -issim- is too regular to be anything but an innovation.

--
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears!
America! America!  God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!
        -- one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools