Re: Celtic and Afro-Asiatic?

Thomas Wier wrote:

>Joerg wrote:
>
>
[snip]

>>Six years ago (March 7, 1999), Sally Caves posted the following list
>>of common features of Celtic and Semitic to this list:
>>
>>
>
>I think it is generally agreed that many of these similarities
>either fall out from typological generalizations common to all
>VSO languages, or from languages generally.
>
Yep.

>This does not mean
>there is no chance for an influence in either direction (more
>likely Semitic => Celtic, via Berber and extinct Celtic languages
>in Spain), but that such influence is likely to be only tentative.
>
>
IMO that is putting it mildly. How much do we actually know about
extinct Celtic languages in Spain? Indeed, how many of these 'common
features' were present in Old Irish and in ancient British?

I think Thom has commented well on the 17 points; I'll only add to one
or two, thus:

[snip]

>>11) Predicative particle: in copular or nominal sentences,
>>      the predicate is marked with a particle homophonous
>>      to a "local" preposition: "He (is) in a farmer"="he is a farmer."
>>12) Prepositional periphrastic: BE + Prep + VN, e.g.,
>>      "He is at singing"  [TEONAHT'S  "she is with singing"]
>>
>>
>
>You mean, just like Old English, Middle English, and many modern
>English dialects?  (I suppose Vennemann could counter that that's
>because of the Celtic and Semitic substrate in Britain, but then
>that begs the question.)
>
>
In any case, is this a _Semitic_ trait? I am not aware of this.

>>13) DO periphrastic: DO + VN, e.g. "He does singing."
>>
>>
>
>Lots and lots of languages have light verb constructions like this,
>e.g., Hindi.
>
>
Yes, indeed - personally, I find far more resemblances between the
periphrastic verb forms in insular Celtic and Hindi than I notice any
resemblances with Semitic forms. Are periphrastic verbal construction
common in Semitic languages?


[snip]

>>16) Word-initial change, expressing a variety of syntactic
>>       functions
>>
>>
[snip]

>I don't know much about the Semitic initial change, but how is
>it like Celtic lenition?
>
>
There is a superficial resemblance between the use of dagesh in Hebrew &
lenition in the Gaelic languages in that we have an alternation between
plosive and fricative pronunciation (but in Gaelic lenition may also
occur with |m| and |s|). But such alternation in both cases was
originally allophonic and such allophonic alternation must surely occur
in other languages.

In the Gaelic languages, the alternations have ceased to be
phonologically conditioned and have become grammaticalized. How
grammaticalized were these alternations in Biblical Hebrew? From what I
remember they were essentially phonologically conditioned and the use of
dagesh in later texts, like the use of vowel pointing, was a device to
ensure the correct reading of the scriptures.

How typical is the feature of Semitic languages? Are such alternations
_grammaticalized_ as they are in the insular Celtic languages?

Also the 'soft mutation' (lenition) of the Brittonic languages is quite
different and resembles exactly the same sound changes that were going
on in western Vulgar Latin. The differences was that initial sound
changes became grammaticalized in the Brittonic languages - but
internally there is little difference in the behavior of the Brittonic
languages & western Romance in this matter.

Sound changes like these are not exactly uncommon, are they?

>Anyways, I hope this post will show that Vennemann's arguments are
>probably ultimately misleading, and certainly do not constitute
>proof.  Given an ounce of skepticism, it's really remarkable that
>this story has held on as long as it has.
>
>
Amen.

[snip]

>Actually, it's not inconceivable.  The Phoenicians had trade
>interests in Britain, as Britain was one of the better sources
>of tin in the ancient world.  So they could have founded emporia
>along the same lines as those the Greeks founded throughout the
>Mediterranean world.  But AFAIK there's no archaeological evidence
>for such an emporion, and so any link is little more than a
>remote possibility.
>
>
I am not aware of any evidence for such emporia, either. I have seen it
suggested that simplification of grammar and development of periphrastic
verb forms, so characteristic insular Celtic, was due to a trade jargon
or pidgin that developed between the Phoenicians and ancient Brits. But
while it is not inconceivable that some sort pidgin was actually used,
it seems to me very odd that a localized pidgin should then have
influenced the speech habits of everyone in Britain & Ireland!

>Patrick Littel wrote:
>[snip a lot]
>
>
>>Oh, and if I look around, I can probably find you a book claiming
>>Semito-Mayan contacts as well.  Might be a fun read!
>>
>>
>
>I agree with most of your comments.
>
Or perhaps Hamito-Mayan? I mean, isn't it claimed by some that Egyptians
crossed the Atlantic in papyrus-reed boats and taught the native Indians
how to build pyramids?
          :-)

>If you're looking for such a book,
>do a search for Ignatius Donnelly. He was a retired lawyer in the 19th
>century who had all sorts of crackpot ideas, and spent his free time
>researching possible evidence for Atlantis.
>
Ah, Atlantis! If only I could have a pound (or even a dollar or a euro)
for every crackpot idea I have come across about that island, I would be
a rich man!
===============================

makeenan wrote:

[snip]

>Curiously, in this history, three previous peoples are mentioned as having
>lived in Ireland before the Milesians (Celtic speakers) arrived. The Tuatha de
>Danaan, the Firbolg and the Fomorians. The Fomorians are also called the "Sea
>People" and are said to have come from North Africa. ;)
>
>More grist for the mill!!!!
>
Nah - they came from Atlantis   ;-)

More seriously, there must have been different settlements in Ireland,
and elsewhere, in prehistoric times; and I see no reason why the Irish
traditions do not ultimately have some basis in fact. But even if
Fomorians did come to Ireland by sea from North Africa:
- there is no evidence that they were Semites (there is of course no
evidence that they weren't)
- how does Britain fit in with all this? The Semitidic theory applies to
the insular Celtic of both islands.

--

Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://wwww.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Replies