Re: Germanic and Celtic (was Re: Verb-second ... verb-penultimate languages?)
|From:||Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, April 26, 2006, 11:33|
Quoting R A Brown <ray@...>:
> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > What do you mean by "they"? If you mean Continental Celtic, it is
> > accepted that they are the closest kin of Insular Celtic; I don't know why
> > Ray always puts "Celtic" in quotes.
> Not always, but often :)
> I know this is controversial, and there was a thread about this some
> time back so I do not want to stir things up, but only to answer Jörg's
> None of the ancient authors ever refers to any of the inhabitants of
> Britain & Ireland as Celts. Indeed, no one referred to anyone in these
> islands as Celtic until the 18th century. Since then, however, the term
> has acquired overlays of all sorts mythic and political connotations
> that are unwarranted, so some of us are not entirely comfortable with
> this blanket term.
This would seem somewhat besides the point - the question isn't whether the
*name* "Celtic" is appropriate, but whether the grouping so designated is a
natural one. Do we know enough of ancient Gaulish, Celtiberian, and allies to
confidently assert that these languages are more closely related to what's
popularly known as Insular Celtic than either is to Italic or Germanic?