Quote Originally Posted by Rex Somnorum View Post
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.