Re: Celtic, semitic, etc.

Raymond Brown wrote:
> >Yes, the language of continental Celtic inscriptions is so close to Greek
> >and Latin, and especially early Latin -- or rather still as close to
> >(western) Proto-Indo-European -- that someone who has studied the
> >historical/dialectal phonology and grammar of these languages seldom has a
> >problem reading them.
>
> Yes, that's very much the impression I've been getting.
I've read that when the Romans were fighting the Gauls, all of the
important messages to and from Rome were written in Greek, for fear that
if the Gauls ever learned to read, they'd be able to read the Latin very
easily.

> Kilts, I thought, were a fairly recent (i.e. two or three centuries ago)
> Scots invention replacing the older, more awkward philibeg.
Oh?  And what precisely is a philibeg?

--
"If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men
believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of
the city of God!" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor