Question about Brennos' interview

[Brennus]

So, would the proper way to use the term Celtic be similar to the proper use of the term "Semitic," to refer to a large group of related languages/peoples (depending on the context) that are more-or-less related to each other? So, no one would speak "Celtic," they would speak a Gallic, Brythonic, Goidilic, Celtiberian, Volcae etc language, which is part of a larger Celtic language family. It seems like splitting hairs, but it emphasizes the locality rather than just painting with a wide brush of "Celtic."

Pretty much. Although you could further split hairs by adding a Belgic linguistic group, assuming you accept the work of Hans Kuhn "Volker schweissen Germanen und Kelten".

What are the linguistic differences though? Modern day England and Germany vary considerably yet both countries speak Germanic languages.

The traditional approach, although an increasing number of phonologists are questioning it, has been to divide the "Celtic" languages (Atlantean has not caught on as a term) into P and Q groups, based on the above differences in translation. It also helps that the extant Q languages all stem from Old Irish whilst the extant P languages all stem from Iron Age British. At present the classification is as such:

Q Celtic:

Irish/Gaelic
Scots Gaelic (Incorrectly referred to by many Scots as "Gallic", also may have some influences from the now extinct Pictish and British Strathclyde languages)
Manx (Extinct as of the 1974, however since revived, also strongly influenced by Early Medieval Norse)

P Celtic

Welsh
Breton (Also influenced by Gaulish)
Cornish (Extinct 1777 as a primary language but undergoing a revival since)

I should also add that all of these languages have been strongly influenced by neighbouring English and French.

Another way to look at it is in terms of it's meaningless within ancient writing. By which I mean, the term Celt (like Gaul) is simply a cover-all term. The nearest modern day example (at least that I feel comfortable using) would be 'Asian'. In certain contexts it can be a pejorative, and it is wide ranging in its use. Imagine some civilisation in a couple of thousand years from now, picking through the remnants of a mostly lost/destroyed literature and trying to piece together the 'Asian' language, orthe original homeland of these 'Asian' people. Perhaps we might have some mythical 'Asian' Kingdom or hegemony developed as a background for this 'peoples'/civilisation.

In short; there are a lot of myths and beliefs around the idea of Celticism and most of these have no real bearing in contemporary historical data or archaeological data.

You haven't read a book by Peter Wells "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" have you? He makes pretty much the same point with regards to the term Asian.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Pretty much. Although you could further split hairs by adding a Belgic linguistic group, assuming you accept the work of Hans Kuhn "Volker schweissen Germanen und Kelten".



The traditional approach, although an increasing number of phonologists are questioning it, has been to divide the "Celtic" languages (Atlantean has not caught on as a term) into P and Q groups, based on the above differences in translation. It also helps that the extant Q languages all stem from Old Irish whilst the extant P languages all stem from Iron Age British. At present the classification is as such:

Q Celtic:

Irish/Gaelic
Scots Gaelic (Incorrectly referred to by many Scots as "Gallic", also may have some influences from the now extinct Pictish and British Strathclyde languages)
Manx (Extinct as of the 1974, however since revived, also strongly influenced by Early Medieval Norse)

P Celtic

Welsh
Breton (Also influenced by Gaulish)
Cornish (Extinct 1777 as a primary language but undergoing a revival since)

I should also add that all of these languages have been strongly influenced by neighbouring English and French.

I would go a little further than this. I am working on an argument that English and Welsh have evolved from similar linguistic backgrounds; that, specifically the Welsh language is a form of vulgar Latin (and that the term cymru is based around the same concept as Latinis Vulgaris) upon a Brythonnic stratum - but that stratum is 'Germanic'.

I also believe that Irish (Goidellic) has, itself, a strong 'Germanic' stratum. (I don't like the term 'Germanic' any more than I like 'Celtic' btw, I think both are steeped in quasi nationalist/ethnic drivel.

You haven't read a book by Peter Wells "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" have you? He makes pretty much the same point with regards to the term Asian.

I haven't. Is it worth pursuing in your opinion?

[Rex Somnorum]

(I don't like the term 'Germanic' any more than I like 'Celtic' btw, I think both are steeped in quasi nationalist/ethnic drivel.

But there's the rub. From a denotative standpoint, 'Celtic' refers to a set of similar cultures and languages which tend to differ from cultures and languages termed 'Germanic,' or 'Latin.' The problem is that the term is over-generalised in popular culture. Most labels can be discredited on a connotative basis. Furthermore, the comparison between 'Germanic' and 'Asian' is frankly unfair. Germanic languages and cultures evince strong familial relations hinting at a common origin whereas the designation 'Asian' describes a geographic region. Obviously, outside influences can alter a language - for instance, about 70% of English words have a non-English root - but the grammar and base of the languages can still be identified as belonging to a certain group. Again, almost all the words in this post have Anglo-Saxon origins. Not to mention languages at the fringe of a lingual group tend to blend with neighbouring tongues like modern Swiss.

Am I delusional, or does ancient Irish have more in common with Gaulish than Proto-Germanic?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

But there's the rub. From a denotative standpoint, 'Celtic' refers to a set of similar cultures and languages which tend to differ from cultures and languages termed 'Germanic,' or 'Latin.' The problem is that the term is over-generalised in popular culture. Most labels can be discredited on a connotative basis. Furthermore, the comparison between 'Germanic' and 'Asian' is frankly unfair. Germanic languages and cultures evince strong familial relations hinting at a common origin whereas the designation 'Asian' describes a geographic region. Obviously, outside influences can alter a language - for instance, about 70% of English words have a non-English root - but the grammar and base of the languages can still be identified as belonging to a certain group. Again, almost all the words in this post have Anglo-Saxon origins. Not to mention languages at the fringe of a lingual group tend to blend with neighbouring tongues like modern Swiss.

Am I delusional, or does ancient Irish have more in common with Gaulish than Proto-Germanic?

The term Asian was intended specifically in terms of Celts. In terms of Germanic, I would agree that there exist a number of relationships in terms of language, but in terms of culture? How similar were the various peoples crammed into the 'Germanic' box in reality? In terms of archaeology there are pretty comprehensive differences in settlement type and, seemingly, religious practice between -for example - the Iron Age cultures seen in Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

Was Caesar (for example) referencing language when he talked of Germani and Celts? Tacitus tells us that the Aesti, who lived to the East of the Suebi in his time, shared the dress and practice of the Suebi but spoke a language similar to that of the Britons.

As for Irish being like Gaulish...do you have any idea of how poorly Gaulish is actually attested? What written evidence exists for Gaulish is spread over a 400 year period, over a pretty large geographical area, mostly in the form of personal names. The idea that from this we can construct a language is...bizarre. It requires that a single language was spoken over a large geographical area over a very long period of time. Further, many of the inscriptions that are classed as 'Gaulish' are Galatian - on the basis that it was said to be Gaulish. It wasn't. It was said to be similar to that of the Treveri, who identified themselves as Germani.

Of course if Gaulish dialects (particularly Northern dialects of Gaulish) were of a North European dialect continua then..Irish would have similarities - as it would with other Northern European dialects.

In terms of language the big problem is the nortion of the language tree - it is predicated on a number of false premises. First, that there are/were standard languages from which degenerate dialects form (proto-Germanic, proto-Celtic etc.), secondly that languages are essentially genealogical. The former is an error we see playing out, still, in our understanding of language development - and it is a structure imposed by class bias (that of the original modelers of language structure). What is really going on is socially/culturally stronger languages (particularly written, Imperial languages) drawing local dialects toward itself. What really needs to be looked at, in terms of language groups - or rather what needs to be given greater emphasis are phonological structures and choices of orthography (and in terms of orthography, how those choices - and the social structure of language, have affected language).

In terms of Celtic as a language group; John T Koch - having deciphered Tartessian as a Celtic language - put it subtly when he suggested that what we regard as 'Celtic' may in fact be a much deeper (read older) linguistic element in European languages. Bad linguistics, based upon bad history has created a monster. If I show you what these ideas are, at heart, based upon you might be surprised as to just how unscientific their basis are.

[Brennus]

Was Caesar (for example) referencing language when he talked of Germani and Celts?

He was likely quoting Poseidonius, who first described the Germani as being Celts east of the Rhine.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

He was likely quoting Poseidonius, who first described the Germani as being Celts east of the Rhine.

Indeed, and so...was Poseidonius refering to language, or to perceived cultural affinity? All that it actually refers to is (as you were probably pointing out) that Germani refers to peoples in Germania - ie it is (initially) simply a geographical reference.

[Brennus]

It seems that, as far as I understand it, Germani was originally a Celtic term equivalent to "neighbours".

[Rex Somnorum]

In terms of language the big problem is the nortion of the language tree - it is predicated on a number of false premises. First, that there are/were standard languages from which degenerate dialects form (proto-Germanic, proto-Celtic etc.), secondly that languages are essentially genealogical. The former is an error we see playing out, still, in our understanding of language development - and it is a structure imposed by class bias (that of the original modelers of language structure). What is really going on is socially/culturally stronger languages (particularly written, Imperial languages) drawing local dialects toward itself. What really needs to be looked at, in terms of language groups - or rather what needs to be given greater emphasis are phonological structures and choices of orthography (and in terms of orthography, how those choices - and the social structure of language, have affected language).

But a lingual group might still have a core or point of origin, then. If a powerful tribe or confederation dominated or heavily influenced neighbouring peoples, the result should be an expanding sphere of languages which show more similarities closer to the centre. Take, for example, Romance languages today, (unless you're going to tear that commonplace notion to shreds.)

Could you explain more, though, what 'genealogical' means in this context? I understand linear genealogy cannot explain the development of languages, but doesn't lateral mixing - a proverbial lingual marriage - make up for the deficiencies?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

But a lingual group might still have a core or point of origin, then. If a powerful tribe or confederation dominated or heavily influenced neighbouring peoples, the result should be an expanding sphere of languages which show more similarities closer to the centre. Take, for example, Romance languages today, (unless you're going to tear that commonplace notion to shreds.)

I have no need to tear to shreds the effect that Latin has had on European languages. In fact it is the impact of Latin that has, I think, caused confusion regarding the idea of lineage in linguistics. Latin (and the Empire that it represented) was a special case, in a number of ways. There are a couple of points to make, though, regarding Latin and then regarding how Latin the Romance languages are.

The Latin that we know from written records (Clasical Latin) is itself a social dialect within Rome. There are suggestions that the grammatical structure is based upon Etruscan, and that "hyper-correct" Latin was a social marker (in much the same way that RP English is seen as such today). In terms of the Romance languages...they aren't Latin. Even with hundreds of years of domination what got spoken was what are termed Vulgar Latins. This is most likely due to much larger rural communities in Europe, whose interaction with Roman officialdom would likely have been fleeting. French is very litle like Italian (and both of those standard languages don't - or certainly didn't until very recently - relate to the dialects spoken within homes across large areas of their respective countries). In fact French bears a number of grammatical and lexical similarities with German and English.

So, in terms of some powerful group, who would you suggest that might be? Who else in Western and Northern Europe had such a strong hand, and a literate elite capable of exemplifying 'proper' grammatical and lexical knowledge? Latin has, in fact, continued to dominate language in terms of it having ben seen as the language of learning. It's orthography and phonology have affected all of the languages of Europe well after the fall of the Empire.

Could you explain more, though, what 'genealogical' means in this context? I understand linear genealogy cannot explain the development of languages, but doesn't lateral mixing - a proverbial lingual marriage - make up for the deficiencies?

Language simply doesn't work like a family tree. There is no yy+ xy formula. Standard languages are not precursors to degenerate dialects (which is all that a tree can model) but rather dialects are constantly evolving due to contacts and isolations from other dialects. Dialects (and therefore language) are continually changing. In order to understand something of the languages of the past the best we can do is try and understand the sound systems and cognates between different groups. Trying to formulate some notional proto-Celtic or proto-Germanic is meaningless, because those languages did not exist (proto-PIE, the 'ultimate' goal ends up with roots that are, to all intents and purposes, phonologically empty, so that one might wonder quite how anyone could understand what anybody was saying amongst all the gasps and hoiks).

There was a passage I was going to quote, regarding early linguistic thinking, to try and highlight how misplaced the idea is; what it is based upon, but I cannot find it right now. I will dig it out by tomorrow.

[Rex Somnorum]

So, in terms of some powerful group, who would you suggest that might be? Who else in Western and Northern Europe had such a strong hand, and a literate elite capable of exemplifying 'proper' grammatical and lexical knowledge? Latin has, in fact, continued to dominate language in terms of it having ben seen as the language of learning. It's orthography and phonology have affected all of the languages of Europe well after the fall of the Empire.

No idea. I claim no expertise in the area. I'm only arguing to improve my own understanding.

Language simply doesn't work like a family tree. There is no yy+ xy formula. Standard languages are not precursors to degenerate dialects (which is all that a tree can model) but rather dialects are constantly evolving due to contacts and isolations from other dialects. Dialects (and therefore language) are continually changing. In order to understand something of the languages of the past the best we can do is try and understand the sound systems and cognates between different groups. Trying to formulate some notional proto-Celtic or proto-Germanic is meaningless, because those languages did not exist (proto-PIE, the 'ultimate' goal ends up with roots that are, to all intents and purposes, phonologically empty, so that one might wonder quite how anyone could understand what anybody was saying amongst all the gasps and hoiks).

Language trees, though inadequate in their current form, can be modified to represent a constantly shifting lingual environment where not all the languages are stem from the same root or even stem from a root at all but develop independently. The problem seems to me not to be the abstraction of trees but current designs, especially where all the languages in a group spring from the same ancestor. After enough alteration, though, I suppose the system's not really a family tree anymore.


On the subject of ancient languages, I'm curious as to which tongue was used to represent the Sweboz in EBI. And how has new research changed the linguistic picture of the Sweboz and Lugiones in EBII?