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

At 11:12 am -0400 2/5/02, Thomas Leigh wrote:
>Sgrìobh Ray:
>
>> Odd orthography? Neither Cornish nor Breton look particularly odd.
>
>Have you ever looked at "Modern Cornish"?
Yes.

>......................The version whose proponents
>do what the last writers of Cornish in the 18th century did -- spell it
>as if it were English, so a word like tir/tyr (land) becomes "teer" or
>"teare". That sort of Cornish is a bit odd, in an endearing, quirky,
>Manx-like way. :)
Yes, but to one brought up on English spelling, it looks 'normal'  :))

>(And yes, I adore Manx!)
>
>> I suppose Welsh is odd to anglophones because it's so
>> uncompromisingly regular :)
>
>:)
..and so, of course, is the orthography of Kemmyn.

>> True, Irish & Scots Gaelic have a pecular and interesting system of
>> their own. But there is, surely, great variety of orthographic
>> conventions in the modern so-called 'Celtic' languages (a term
>> coined in the 18th cent and no one has yet been able to give me any
>> evidence that they are related to the language spoken by the
>> peoples the Greeks & Romans called Celts - but that's another
>> story).
>
>Hey Ray, have you ever read a book by Simon James called "The Atlantic
>Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention?" (British Museum Press 1999,
>ISBN 0714121657) -- I highly recommend it if you haven't read it
>already!
I have indeed - thanks to an earlier posting of yours  :)

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 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.

>There's another book on the subject by Malcolm Chapman called "The
>Celts: Construction of a Myth", which I *really* want to read, but it's
>out of print and I can't find it anywhere.
Yes, sounds interesting.

Ray.

======================
   XRICTOC ANECTH
======================