You know, I couldn’t even read the posts after I read part of your first sentence.
For all the world you sound like a Political Commissar.
If you can extrapolate the name of a tribe into some German root I think I can extrapolate Danu from Donau which the Germans still call the River.
German place names are very simplistic and straight forward; Hog-brook, Bridge at thunder hill, Deep valley. They have one or two names for hills and so on. Celtic languages are much more varied. There are eight or more names for hills of different types, differences in streams beyond brook and river. The differences are easy to spot in names. Not some other convenient language for those who chose to deny…but then again, I don’t think you want to see. What most vanishes before my eyes is the preposterousness of your book’s argument.
While writing this I also noted your use of Welsh for etymology. Forget it!
In the early 5th century the language changed so quickly and profoundly that one generation could not understand the next. Not to mention the later changes. It is like trying to build the works of Shakespeare from a shredded Norwegian book.
Most of your linguistics are just cherry picking and obfuscation.
It is all starting to sound too much like a sensationalist author having the Celts arriving from the west from some Atlantian Culture with the Children of Danu.
There is a lot wrong with the study of ancient Celts. Too much romanticism and too much New Age tripe.
Arguing that the Celts didn’t start in Central Europe is like arguing that there were no Native Americans in the eastern US because there is insufficient linguistic evidence.
I don’t think the authors were very interested in facts or what is known. I think they wanted to make a splash and sell books.
This all ignores too much, distorts evidence, uses straw men and denies artifacts in order to offer the gullible enough to go along with their premise.
Thanks for enlightening me.
Your premise asks us to assume that the Celts in the west were always there and since they were Indo-European then that language group had to spread in the opposite direction. As language is usually assumed to spread with cultures, please tell me what culture spread from the west eastward to account for this. Do you have one?
The earliest archaeological date for Celts in Spain is circa 1400 BC with the Urnfeld culture. What proof do you have that they were there before?
They are not placed in the British Isles until 650 BC or later. Do you have some evidence that they were there at an earlier date?
The Celts, Italics, and Illyrians are linked to the “cord pottery” culture in Central Europe and said to have been one of the first Indo-Europeans to have arrived. Circa 2100 BC these languages were though to have diverged. Of course in your view the Celts were never in Central Europe so how do you explain the similarities linguistically?
What you may not be aware of and what your linguistic scrabble game is ignoring is Celtic peoples were called different names: Gauls in France, Belgae in Northern France, Galates in the Balkans and numerous tribal names everywhere. But there is no doubt that they all spoke one language, or similar varieties of the same one. This comes from town names, inscriptions and Celtic words written down by Greek and Roman authors. Their language system is what is called "Classical Celtic": it was very close to the Italic group of tongues, and Julius Caesar even had to write his letters to his legates in Greek for Gaulish leaders not to be able to read them if they might happen to gain hold of these missives. He did so because Latin could be understood by Celts quite well without having had to study it.
Gaulish was highly inflected, but had practically nothing in common with Insular Celtic morphology and phonetics: it had no initial mutations, had an ordinary Indo-European word order (subject - predicate - adverbial modifiers) and grammatical forms similar to those of the Proto-Indo-European model.
I am afraid that the whole thing sounds like a case of Denial and little else.
Bookmarks