Re: Celtic [was: peri-IE (was: Kentum/satem)]

Ray reeg screffa:

>> Have you ever looked at "Modern Cornish"?
>> The version whose proponents do what the last writers of Cornish
>> in the 18th century did -- spell it as if it were English
>
> Yes, but to one brought up on English spelling, it looks 'normal'  :))
:) As does Manx, I suppose! Actually, one annoying and persistent habit
has invaded my writing ever since I studied Manx: I always find myself
writing "mee" for "me"! I don't know why -- somehow that just stuck in
my head and I can't get it out!

>> Hey Ray, have you ever read a book by Simon James called "The
>> Atlantic
>> Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention?"
>
> I have indeed - thanks to an earlier posting of yours  :)
Oh, did I mention it before? Shows how sloppy my memory's getting since
I hit 30! :)

> Yes, I agree, it's something that anyone seriously interested in such
> matters should read.  There is no denying that the non-English
> languages of Britain & Ireland had never been called 'Celtic' before
> the 18th century - indeed, no one had supposed a relationship between
> Welsh and Gaelic before. It is also an eye-opener to see how far
> popular 'myth' has parted from actual archaeological discoveries.
I find interesting the extent to which people have immersed their
personal identities in "Celticness" -- so much so that James wrote that
he received an email accusing him of genocide (!) for suggesting that
the archaeological record didn't support the "migration theory" of
immigrant Celtoi from the continent to the British Isles, and that the
Irish, Welsh, etc. might thus not really be "Celts" after all.

I'm still tickled by the notion that I got my degree in a field which
might not actually exist! :)

Of course that still leaves open the question of how, if there were not
any "Celtic migrations" to the British Isles, is it that the languages
are still related? Was there indeed an "Insular/Continental" split which
occurred much earlier than is commonly thought? (The migrations of Celts
to the British Isles which most people still believe in are generally
stated to have taken place no earlier than 700-1,000 BC, and the British
Isles were inhabited long before that.) Of course, given how scanty the
remains of "Continental Celtic" (Gaulish, Celtiberian, Lepontic, etc.)
are, and how different in structure they seem to be from "Insular
Celtic" (Gaelic, Welsh, etc.), is it possible that they really are 2
different groups of languages and that they shouldn't all be put in the
same branch of I-E? Is it really possible to know for sure one way or
the other? I'm really fascinated by this whole line of questioning, but
I don't know if there's enough evidence for there to ever be an answer!

> I came across the something similar 20
> to 30 years back when researching for my M.Litt degree - how some
> clung onto the 'traditional' view of "Doric Invasion", despite the
> uncomfortable lack archaeological evidence to support it.
I assume this means a "Doric Invasion" of Greece? I'm afraid I'm not
familiar enough with Ancient Greek (apart from having heard of "Doric"
as a dialect thereof) or Greek history to know what you're referring to.

I have another, off-topic question for you, Ray, since you're our
Classics expert. I studied Latin for 4 years in school, and really
enjoyed it; however, I finished high school some 13 years ago and have
more or less forgotten it all through disuse. I have recently become
increasingly interested in "getting it back". Have you any advice on
what might be the best way to go about doing that? Any particular
book(s) or method you would recommend?

Many thanks & best regards,

Thomas Leigh
Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Reply