Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Celticity?

Expand Messages
  • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
    ... Indeed. On this point, I ve always been surprised that Breton went for _k_ for the voiceless velar plosive instead of _c_. I wonder how much was usefulness
    Message 1 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On 23 September 2010 14:44, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

      >
      > That was the point. I could've picked a piece of Manx, I guess, or Cornish
      > in one its more "unceltic" spellings (there are AFAIK 4 different main
      > varieties of revived Cornish). There ain't a "Celtic orthography!"
      >
      >
      Indeed. On this point, I've always been surprised that Breton went for _k_
      for the voiceless velar plosive instead of _c_. I wonder how much was
      usefulness (how many words in Breton have a /kh/ cluster?) and how much was
      simply wanting to do something different from French...


      > [snip]
      >
      >>
      >> Do you think that artifacts made by people who speak a
      >>> language defined as Celtic should not be called
      >>> Celtic?
      >>>
      >>> There lies the problem. By calling artifacts made by
      >> Gauls or by Irish Gaelic speakers uniformly "Celtic", one
      >> creates the impression of a single common culture among
      >> those people, which AFAIK didn't exist. There isn't a
      >> single "Celtic" identity, no commonality between the
      >> various "Celtic" folks besides related languages. the
      >> various Celtic-speaking populations have always been very
      >> isolated from each other (some say that even during the
      >> original time Indo-Europeans arrived in Western Europe
      >> and the British Isles, Q-Celtic speakers and P-Celtic
      >> speakers were already separate waves of migration with no
      >> contact with each other). "Celtic", in the popular
      >> meaning of the word, is a very modern construction that
      >> stems from a heavily romanticised view of the time when
      >> the British Isles were not dominated yet by
      >> Anglo-Saxons.
      >>
      >> As a linguistic term, "Celtic" is a handy label for an
      >> Indo-European language subfamily that we know exists
      >> (although the details might still be a bit hazy). As an
      >> anthropological term it has no value whatsoever, and is
      >> even harmful in creating an illusion of similarity and
      >> continuity that just does not exist.
      >>
      >
      > Amen! Amen!
      >
      > Christophe has expressed my sentiments exactly and far better than I could.
      >
      >
      Wow! And here I was, thinking I was being very unclear, and probably not
      quite correct, and fully expecting you to come in and correct my mistakes
      and/or clarify my inexactitudes!


      > Christophe's last paragraph is so very, very, very true!
      >
      >
      *blush* Thanks! Having myself more than a bit of interest in Celtic
      languages (if only because of how I dissected them for parts and inspiration
      when I started working on Maggel -the Maggel alphabet being uncial is hardly
      coincidental ;) -), I've always tried to steer away from the romantic notion
      of Celticity (the whole "Celtic" -which most often seems to be Irish- vibe
      can be fun, but you shouldn't take it too seriously :) ). I think I managed
      (making the speakers of Maggel arrogant and *possibly* cannibal probably
      helped ;P). And no one can accuse me of copying Tolkien! ;)
      --
      Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

      http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
      http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
    • BPJ
      ... What surprises me is that they went for _c h_ rather than _kh_. To me the former looks like /kh/ and the latter like /x/ rather than the other way around!
      Message 2 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        2010-09-23 15:11, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets skrev:
        > Indeed. On this point, I've always been surprised that Breton went for_k_
        > for the voiceless velar plosive instead of_c_. I wonder how much was
        > usefulness (how many words in Breton have a/kh/ cluster?) and how much was
        > simply wanting to do something different from French...
        >

        What surprises me is that they went for _c'h_ rather
        than _kh_. To me the former looks like /kh/ and the
        latter like /x/ rather than the other way around!

        /bpj
      • Andreas Johansson
        ... [snip] ... It occurs to me that if you remove the accents, it nevertheless looks rather like Finnish or Quenya. Probably coincidence, but it sort of leapt
        Message 3 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:17 PM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
          >
          [snip]
          > The -ach ending, of course, could also be an echo of Welsh. Both _ellidon_
          > and _galadon_ 'feel' Welsh or Sindarin. But _éireamhóinen_ doesn't; in fact
          > it looks distinctly Irish/Gaelic, even to the point of apparently obeying
          > the 'broad to broad and slender to slender' rule   ;)

          It occurs to me that if you remove the accents, it nevertheless looks
          rather like Finnish or Quenya. Probably coincidence, but it sort of
          leapt out at me.

          AFMCL, Meghean has been said to exhibit "Celticity". To the extent
          that's true, it's of a second-hand variety - the chief inspiration,
          for phonology and orthography, was Sindarin. IT's by no means a
          phonological calque, tho, including a number of sounds Sindarin lacks
          (incl [ɣ], which JRRT seems to have disliked - it arises repeatedly in
          Quendian languages, yet always disappears again before the
          "historical" stage!), lacking some Sindarin has, and having different
          phonotactics.

          Apart from the obligatory mutations (which aren't really all that
          close to Sindarin's - don't know enough of Celtic mutations to say how
          close they're to them), the morphonology isn't based on anything
          particular, but, perhaps wholly out of prejudice, I suspect the people
          very concerned with "Celticity" tend to care little for grammatical
          structure as opposed to look and sound.

          > Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this sub-branch of IE
          > differently is doomed to failure. One of things that bugs me, however, is
          > the assumption that the peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages are
          > features of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole. In fact what we know
          > of ancient Gaulish seems to contradict that.

          What I've seen of Gaulish looks more Italicoid than anything else to
          me. Such impressions are not evidence, of course, but it makes it easy
          to believe in the Italo-Celtic idea (decidedly harder if one compares,
          say, Latin and modern Irish!).

          --
          Andreas Johansson

          Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
        • R A Brown
          ... [snip] ... Probably wanted to express /k/ by the same letter in all environments. Actually _k_ is not at all uncommon in Celtic spelling; it was widely
          Message 4 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            On 23/09/2010 14:11, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
            > On 23 September 2010 14:44, R A
            > Brown<ray@...> wrote:
            [snip]
            >> That was the point. I could've picked a piece of Manx,
            >> I guess, or Cornish in one its more "unceltic"
            >> spellings (there are AFAIK 4 different main varieties
            >> of revived Cornish). There ain't a "Celtic
            >> orthography!"
            >>
            > Indeed. On this point, I've always been surprised that
            > Breton went for _k_ for the voiceless velar plosive
            > instead of _c_. I wonder how much was usefulness (how
            > many words in Breton have a /kh/ cluster?) and how much
            > was simply wanting to do something different from
            > French...

            Probably wanted to express /k/ by the same letter in all
            environments. Actually _k_ is not at all uncommon in
            'Celtic' spelling; it was widely used in Middle Welsh,
            especially before _e i y _. All spellings of Cornish use it;
            most use both _c_ and _k_, the latter before front vowels.
            But the variety of Cornish known as Kemmyn uses _k_
            exclusively for /k/.
            ------------------------------------------------

            On 23/09/2010 16:08, BPJ wrote:
            [snip]
            > What surprises me is that they went for _c'h_ rather than
            > _kh_. To me the former looks like /kh/ and the latter
            > like /x/ rather than the other way around!

            Yes, _c'h_ IMO is particularly ugly. They couldn't, of
            course use _ch_ as that has the value /S/ in Breton (and _j_
            = /Z/). As most occurrences of _c'h_ (about 80% IIRC) are
            in fact _voiced_, I've always thought _gh_ would have been
            better.

            The "Orthographie Universitaire" which was introduced in
            1955 but, AFAIK, never caught on, voiced _c'h_ was to
            spelled simply as _h_ and _c'h_ was to be reserved only for
            the voiceless sound. A major improvement IMO - but, as I
            say, it never caught on.

            Ray
            ==================================
            http://www.carolandray.plus.com
            ==================================
            "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
            wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
            [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
            "A mind that thinks at its own expense
            will always interfere with language".
          • Andreas Johansson
            ... [snip] ... It s, of course, no orthographical calque either - Sindarin is much too sensible for extravagances like _h_ = [j] or _uo_ = [ow]! -- Andreas
            Message 5 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
              >
              [snip]
              > AFMCL, Meghean has been said to exhibit "Celticity". To the extent
              > that's true, it's of a second-hand variety - the chief inspiration,
              > for phonology and orthography, was Sindarin. IT's by no means a
              > phonological calque, tho, including a number of sounds Sindarin lacks
              > (incl [ɣ], which JRRT seems to have disliked - it arises repeatedly in
              > Quendian languages, yet always disappears again before the
              > "historical" stage!), lacking some Sindarin has, and having different
              > phonotactics.

              It's, of course, no orthographical calque either - Sindarin is much
              too sensible for extravagances like _h_ = [j] or _uo_ = [ow]!

              --
              Andreas Johansson

              Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
            • BPJ
              ... Actually my brain wants to read _c h_ as an aspirated version of whatever _c _ might be; years of dealing with Latinized Sanskrit has taken its toll! ...
              Message 6 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                2010-09-23 17:59, R A Brown skrev:
                > On 23/09/2010 14:11, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
                >> On 23 September 2010 14:44, R A
                >> Brown<ray@...> wrote:
                > [snip]
                >>> That was the point. I could've picked a piece of Manx,
                >>> I guess, or Cornish in one its more "unceltic"
                >>> spellings (there are AFAIK 4 different main varieties
                >>> of revived Cornish). There ain't a "Celtic
                >>> orthography!"
                >>>
                >> Indeed. On this point, I've always been surprised that
                >> Breton went for _k_ for the voiceless velar plosive
                >> instead of _c_. I wonder how much was usefulness (how
                >> many words in Breton have a /kh/ cluster?) and how much
                >> was simply wanting to do something different from
                >> French...
                >
                > Probably wanted to express /k/ by the same letter in all
                > environments. Actually _k_ is not at all uncommon in 'Celtic'
                > spelling; it was widely used in Middle Welsh, especially before _e
                > i y _. All spellings of Cornish use it; most use both _c_ and _k_,
                > the latter before front vowels. But the variety of Cornish known
                > as Kemmyn uses _k_ exclusively for /k/.
                > ------------------------------------------------
                >
                > On 23/09/2010 16:08, BPJ wrote:
                > [snip]
                > > What surprises me is that they went for _c'h_ rather than
                > > _kh_. To me the former looks like /kh/ and the latter
                > > like /x/ rather than the other way around!
                >
                > Yes, _c'h_ IMO is particularly ugly. They couldn't, of course use
                > _ch_ as that has the value /S/ in Breton (and _j_ = /Z/). As most
                > occurrences of _c'h_ (about 80% IIRC) are in fact _voiced_, I've
                > always thought _gh_ would have been better.

                Actually my brain wants to read _c'h_ as an aspirated version
                of whatever _c'_ might be; years of dealing with Latinized
                Sanskrit has taken its toll!

                > The "Orthographie Universitaire" which was introduced in 1955 but,
                > AFAIK, never caught on, voiced _c'h_ was to spelled simply as _h_
                > and _c'h_ was to be reserved only for the voiceless sound. A major
                > improvement IMO - but, as I say, it never caught on.

                Isn't _h_ used otherwise? IIRC the _zh_ is /h/ in one dialect
                and /z/ in the others (reflex of */T/ which went > /h/ here
                and > [D] > /z/ there I'd guess -- alas I'm forgetting things
                at an alarming rate...)

                Anyhow if all of /h x G S Z/ exist and they want 'French'
                defaults then why on earth not use _h kh gh ch j_. After
                all _kh_ is the usual Frenchy, as Englishy, transcription
                for /x/X/.

                (On the freak side I once saw _rh_ used for /G/ in a French
                context in an old book. Happily that practice never caught
                on/died out, though *if* I were using a lot of _-h_ digraphs
                (but, as you may remember, I actually dislike 'em!) I might use
                _rh_ for /R/ vs. something /r/-ish.)

                /bpj
              • R A Brown
                ... [snip] ... Maybe - but the apostrophe traditionally denotes the dropping of some sound or other. In any case, using a trigraph to represent a single sound
                Message 7 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 23/09/2010 17:40, BPJ wrote:
                  > 2010-09-23 17:59, R A Brown skrev:
                  [snip]
                  >> Yes, _c'h_ IMO is particularly ugly. They couldn't, of
                  >> course use
                  >> _ch_ as that has the value /S/ in Breton (and _j_ = /Z/).
                  >> As most
                  >> occurrences of _c'h_ (about 80% IIRC) are in fact
                  >> _voiced_, I've
                  >> always thought _gh_ would have been better.
                  >
                  > Actually my brain wants to read _c'h_ as an aspirated version
                  > of whatever _c'_ might be; years of dealing with Latinized
                  > Sanskrit has taken its toll!

                  Maybe - but the apostrophe traditionally denotes the
                  dropping of some sound or other. In any case, using a
                  trigraph to represent a single sound has never been
                  something I've like.

                  >> The "Orthographie Universitaire" which was introduced in
                  >> 1955 but,
                  >> AFAIK, never caught on, voiced _c'h_ was to spelled simply
                  >> as _h_
                  >> and _c'h_ was to be reserved only for the voiceless sound.
                  >> A major
                  >> improvement IMO - but, as I say, it never caught on.
                  >
                  > Isn't _h_ used otherwise?

                  No - as I understand it, _h_ represents a voiced glottal
                  fricative, as it does, e.g. in Czech and Afrikaans. My
                  understanding is that _h_ and voiceless _c'h_ pair up in
                  much the same way as _h_ and _ch_ in Czech.

                  > IIRC the _zh_ is /h/ in one dialect
                  > and /z/ in the others (reflex of */T/ which went > /h/ here
                  > and > [D] > /z/ there I'd guess -- alas I'm forgetting things
                  > at an alarming rate...)

                  No you haven't = that's precisely what _zh_ denotes: a /z/
                  in some dialects and voiced glottal plosive /h/ in others -
                  both being reflexes of /T/ > /D/.

                  > Anyhow if all of /h x G S Z/ exist and they want 'French'
                  > defaults then why on earth not use _h kh gh ch j_. After
                  > all _kh_ is the usual Frenchy, as Englishy, transcription
                  > for /x/X/.

                  Indeed.

                  > (On the freak side I once saw _rh_ used for /G/ in a French
                  > context in an old book. Happily that practice never caught
                  > on/died out, though *if* I were using a lot of _-h_ digraphs
                  > (but, as you may remember, I actually dislike 'em!) I might use
                  > _rh_ for /R/ vs. something /r/-ish.)

                  Xhosa uses _rh_ /x/ and _gr_ /G/

                  But that's moving the thread away from Celticity ;)

                  --
                  Ray
                  ==================================
                  http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                  ==================================
                  "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                  wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                  [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                  "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                  will always interfere with language".
                • phil@PHILLIPDRISCOLL.COM
                  In Uteg:   Misoclitare mri li ton li blasa. Mi-soclitare mri li ton li blasa. PRES-be_split like DEF buttocks DEF taste Taste is split like the buttocks.  
                  Message 8 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In Uteg:
                     
                    Misoclitare mri li ton li blasa.
                    Mi-soclitare mri li ton li blasa.
                    PRES-be_split like DEF buttocks DEF taste
                    Taste is split like the buttocks.
                     
                    --Ph. D.
                     
                     
                    taliesin the storyteller wrote:
                    >
                    > As we say in Norway: Smaken er som baken, delt.
                    >
                    > Feel free to use that proverb as a translation-exercise :)
                    >
                    > t.
                  • Jörg Rhiemeier
                    Hallo! ... Two good observations. Tolkien indeed disliked Gaelic, in stark contrast to Welsh which he loved, as well as Old English. ... Seems like that.
                    Message 9 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hallo!

                      On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:

                      > That's interesting. Tolkien, in fact, did not like the
                      > Gaelic languages and found them ugly. Sindarin owes nothing
                      > to them; but it does obviously have a Welsh resonance. But
                      > one the ingredients of Sindarin is also Old English, and
                      > that seems to be overlooked.

                      Two good observations. Tolkien indeed disliked Gaelic, in stark
                      contrast to Welsh which he loved, as well as Old English.

                      > It seems to work like: Sindarin has a Welsh feel; Welsh is
                      > Celtic, therefore Sindarin has a Celtic feel.

                      Seems like that. Another reason why people tend to attribute
                      a "Celtic feel" is the "otherworldliness" of Sindarin. But
                      Tolkien's Elves have hardly anything to do with Celts (apart
                      from that one *could* identify them with the Tuatha Dé Danann
                      of Irish myth); Tolkien's Elvish cultures bear no meaningful
                      resemblance with real-world Celtic cultures either ancient or
                      modern!

                      > It would, in my opinion, have been better if Edward Lhuyd
                      > had chosen a more suitable name way back in the 18th
                      > century. But, I guess, whatever name he chose would
                      > probably have suffered the same fate as 'Celtic' did during
                      > the Romantic movement.

                      Certainly.

                      > Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this
                      > sub-branch of IE differently is doomed to failure.

                      There are several names of language groups which are equally
                      questionable. We have no evidence that the languages usually
                      named "Tocharian" by linguists had anything to do with the
                      people who are called _Tocharoi_ in Hellenistic sources; many
                      scholars now assume that the _Tocharoi_ were in fact an Iranian
                      people. Similar problems with "Hittite". With "Celtic", we
                      at least know that the people referred to as _Keltoi_ in
                      ancient sources indeed spoke a language belonging to that
                      group.

                      > One of
                      > things that bugs me, however, is the assumption that the
                      > peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages are features
                      > of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole. In fact what we
                      > know of ancient Gaulish seems to contradict that.

                      Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                      existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities (VSO
                      word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants from
                      the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic or
                      Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                      Latin in their structure than they are to Insular Celtic.

                      The Continental Celtic language I have under work for the
                      League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the typical traits
                      of an Insular Celtic language.

                      > > What about Lepontic
                      > > and Celtiberian? And there are some that are more
                      > > questionable, but may have some affiliation.
                      >
                      > Presumably the are members of the same sub-family.

                      I think the membership of Lepontic and Celtiberian is fairly
                      well established. Doubtful candidates are, on the Continental
                      Celtic side, Lusitanian and Tartessian. Lusitanian is quite
                      certainly IE, but whether it is Celtic or not, is controversial.
                      Tartessian has long been considered a non-IE language, but
                      recently, the Celticist John T. Koch has proposed a reading of
                      the 80-something Tartessian inscriptions as Celtic; while I
                      know too little about the matter to make a profund judgment,
                      the proposal looks reasonable to me.

                      On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish, long
                      considered non-IE, but according to more recent studies,
                      probably Brythonic.

                      > > Do you think that artifacts made by people who speak a
                      > > language defined as Celtic should not be called Celtic?
                      >
                      > As the term Celtic is now well established for these
                      > languages, there's no point in doing otherwise.

                      Yes. The term is established by now, it is brief and handy;
                      why change it? All we have to keep in mind is that it is just
                      a convenient label for a branch of Indo-European, and nothing
                      else.

                      > But I do find it annoying when people write, for example, as
                      > though the ancient Brits and ancient Irish felt themselves
                      > kindred people sharing a common culture. It just ain't
                      > true. The ancient Brits experienced the Irish as alien
                      > pirates and raiders much like the Saxons.

                      I once had a book titled "Magie und Mythologie der Kelten" that
                      was full of esoteric misconceptions about the Celts, and happily
                      confused Irish, Welsh and Gaulish elements. I don't know where
                      I put it, but I don't miss it - it all was utter nonsense.
                      (At least, the author did *not* claim that the Celts came from
                      Atlantis, but she claimed that they came from India, which is
                      hardly better.)

                      Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith culture"
                      (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring the fact that the
                      megalithic monuments are far too old to have anything to do with
                      the "Celts". Some were erected at a time when Indo-European was
                      just the language of a tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.

                      And as if all that was not enough, there is also a lot of boohow
                      about "Celtic Christianity", as if there had been a wiser and more
                      truthful tradition of Christianity that was stomped out by the
                      evil Roman church. In fact, "Celtic Christianity", which of
                      course was never named that way in its time, was just a branch of
                      Western Christianity that did some rather peripheral things such
                      as monks' tonsures or the calculation of Easter dates differently
                      (but shared the same doctrine and acknowledged the authority of the
                      Roman pope) - in a time when Western Christianity was much less
                      homogenous in such matters than it was in later times, and similar
                      local traditions existed everywhere from the Iberian peninsula to
                      Scandinavia.

                      > No one in ancient times ever referred to the inhabitants of
                      > Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't till the 18th century
                      > they were so named - and since then all sorts of nonsense
                      > has appeared which Tolkien objected to - and so do I.

                      And I.

                      --
                      ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                      http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
                    • R A Brown
                      On 23/09/2010 16:42, Andreas Johansson wrote: [snip] ... Yes, very much second-hand variety IMO :) ... True - and it s possibly one of the reasons he found
                      Message 10 of 27 , Sep 23, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 23/09/2010 16:42, Andreas Johansson wrote:
                        [snip]
                        >
                        > AFMCL, Meghean has been said to exhibit "Celticity". To
                        > the extent that's true, it's of a second-hand variety -

                        Yes, very much second-hand variety IMO :)

                        > the chief inspiration, for phonology and orthography, was
                        > Sindarin. IT's by no means a phonological calque, tho,
                        > including a number of sounds Sindarin lacks (incl [ɣ],
                        > which JRRT seems to have disliked -

                        True - and it's possibly one of the reasons he found the
                        Gaelic languages ugly.

                        [snip]

                        > Apart from the obligatory mutations (which aren't really
                        > all that close to Sindarin's - don't know enough of
                        > Celtic mutations to say how close they're to them),

                        Nothing like the mutations in Welsh & the other Brittonic
                        languages. The lenition of plosives (and others) to
                        fricatives is sort of reminiscent of the Gaelic languages -
                        but similar mutation occurs in other languages, e.g.
                        Biblical Hebrew. The way the mutation is triggered in
                        Meghean is not obviously "Celtic" IMO.

                        [snip]
                        >
                        > What I've seen of Gaulish looks more Italicoid than
                        > anything else to me. Such impressions are not evidence,

                        ...and ancient British is usually thought to have been
                        similar to Gaulish. AFAIK the is *no* evidence at all that
                        anything like initial consonant mutations occurred in
                        Gaulish or any other continental Celtic language nor, for
                        that matter, in ancient British. The development of these
                        mutation appears to have been peculiar to Ireland and,
                        later, Britain and did not develop the same way in the two
                        islands.
                        -------------------------------------------------

                        On 23/09/2010 21:18, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
                        > On 2010-09-23 21:17, Patrick Dunn wrote:
                        >> I unabashedly stole the slender-with-slender
                        >> broad-with-broad vowel system of Irish for Aerest (not
                        >> to mention the name), but now I'm thinking I have made
                        >> an aesthetic error in the eyes of the cognoscenti.
                        >
                        > Some people were born with an allergy to peanuts, others
                        > developed it later. Others yet again love peanuts and mix
                        > 'em in with everything.

                        FWIW, I personally have nothing against the
                        slender-with-slender broad-with-broad vowel system of Irish
                        per_se.

                        I love all nuts, including peanuts, and do have a tendency
                        to mix nuts with all sorts of things. But some mixes are
                        better than others. It's the mixture that matters.

                        --
                        Ray
                        ==================================
                        http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                        ==================================
                        "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                        wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                        [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                        "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                        will always interfere with language".
                      • R A Brown
                        ... [snip] ... True. ... Yep - the only language called Hittite (i.e. the language of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE language we now call
                        Message 11 of 27 , Sep 24, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
                          > Hallo!
                          >
                          > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
                          [snip]

                          >> Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this
                          >> sub-branch of IE differently is doomed to failure.
                          >
                          > There are several names of language groups which are
                          > equally questionable. We have no evidence that the
                          > languages usually named "Tocharian" by linguists had
                          > anything to do with the people who are called _Tocharoi_
                          > in Hellenistic sources; many scholars now assume that the
                          > _Tocharoi_ were in fact an Iranian people.

                          True.

                          > Similar problems with "Hittite".

                          Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
                          of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
                          language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
                          conlang of the same name!)

                          For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language

                          For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
                          http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html

                          When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
                          this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
                          the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
                          name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
                          entirely different area at a different time no one in their
                          right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
                          website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
                          diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
                          should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
                          ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
                          Anatolia long ago." :)

                          But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
                          to as the language of Neša". The modern English would be
                          Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
                          consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
                          misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
                          change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
                          English "British."

                          > With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
                          > to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
                          > belonging to that group.

                          Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
                          peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
                          It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
                          name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
                          Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
                          who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
                          that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
                          - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
                          it was natural to go and bash the French!)

                          >> One of things that bugs me, however, is the assumption
                          >> that the peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages
                          >> are features of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole.
                          >> In fact what we know of ancient Gaulish seems to
                          >> contradict that.
                          >
                          > Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                          > existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
                          > (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
                          > from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
                          > or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                          > Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
                          > Celtic.

                          Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
                          survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
                          betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!

                          > The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
                          > the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
                          > typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.

                          Good for you.

                          [snip]
                          >
                          > On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
                          > long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
                          > studies, probably Brythonic.

                          As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
                          people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
                          of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
                          Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
                          spoke a non-IE language. Certainly non-IE languages must
                          have been spoken in Ireland & Britain way before the spread
                          of IE to these islands.

                          [snip]
                          >
                          >> But I do find it annoying when people write, for
                          >> example, as though the ancient Brits and ancient Irish
                          >> felt themselves kindred people sharing a common
                          >> culture. It just ain't true. The ancient Brits
                          >> experienced the Irish as alien pirates and raiders much
                          >> like the Saxons.
                          >
                          [snip]
                          >
                          > Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
                          > culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
                          > the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
                          > have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
                          > at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
                          > tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.

                          Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
                          but try telling the modern self-styled druids!

                          > And as if all that was not enough, there is also a lot of
                          > boohow about "Celtic Christianity", as if there had been
                          > a wiser and more truthful tradition of Christianity that
                          > was stomped out by the evil Roman church. In fact,
                          > "Celtic Christianity", which of course was never named
                          > that way in its time, was just a branch of Western
                          > Christianity that did some rather peripheral things such
                          > as monks' tonsures or the calculation of Easter dates
                          > differently (but shared the same doctrine and
                          > acknowledged the authority of the Roman pope) -

                          Exactly! I'm darn sure the remnant of British Christianity,
                          which had become inward looking and turned its back on the
                          Saxons, felt no particularly closer connexion with the
                          vibrant Christianity developing in Ireland than it did to
                          Christianity on on the Continent.

                          The difference over Easter was merely one of calculation.
                          All accepted the Nicaean decree that it was the Sunday on or
                          following the full moon after the Spring equinox. But this
                          was calculated according to tables drawn up which did not
                          always correspond to the actual astrological date. It's just
                          that by the time the Irish monks and monks from Rome were at
                          last evangelizing the Saxons, Rome in common with most other
                          Christian communities had adopted the tables of calculation
                          drawn up by the Alexandrians; the Irish were obviously still
                          using an older set of tables. No big deal - at Whitby every
                          one fell in line.

                          The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
                          Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.

                          >> No one in ancient times ever referred to the
                          >> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
                          >> till the 18th century they were so named - and since
                          >> then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
                          >> objected to - and so do I.
                          >
                          > And I.

                          Amen.


                          --
                          Ray
                          ==================================
                          http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                          ==================================
                          "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                          wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                          [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                          "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                          will always interfere with language".
                        • Jörg Rhiemeier
                          Hallo! ... Yes, this is a misfortunate misnomer; a part of the problem is also that Jan s Hattic uses a fictional setting that is not obviously fictional (he
                          Message 12 of 27 , Sep 24, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hallo!

                            On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:56:03 +0100, R A Brown wrote:

                            > On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
                            > > Hallo!
                            > [...]
                            >
                            > > Similar problems with "Hittite".
                            >
                            > Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
                            > of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
                            > language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
                            > conlang of the same name!)
                            >
                            > For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
                            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
                            >
                            > For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
                            > http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html
                            >
                            > When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
                            > this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
                            > the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
                            > name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
                            > entirely different area at a different time no one in their
                            > right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
                            > website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
                            > diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
                            > should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
                            > ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
                            > Anatolia long ago." :)

                            Yes, this is a misfortunate misnomer; a part of the problem is
                            also that Jan's Hattic uses a fictional setting that is not
                            obviously fictional (he speaks of an ethnic minority in the
                            former USSR; which is not as obviously fictional as an "Elvish
                            language" or a language spoken on "the third planet of Tau Ceti"
                            or something like that).

                            This example shows that when naming a conlang, especially when
                            naming a lostlang, one should *first* check whether there is
                            already a language of that name!

                            > But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
                            > to as the language of Nes(a". The modern English would be
                            > Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
                            > consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
                            > misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
                            > change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
                            > English "British."

                            Britain and England get confused a lot these days, with Scots
                            being called "Englishmen" and King Arthur referred to as a
                            "king of England". Ach y fi!

                            > > With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
                            > > to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
                            > > belonging to that group.
                            >
                            > Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
                            > peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
                            > It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
                            > name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
                            > Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
                            > who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
                            > that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
                            > - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
                            > it was natural to go and bash the French!)

                            But at least one of the three divisions of Gaul, the Aquitanians,
                            spoke a language that was not in any way Celtic, rather an early
                            form of Basque! We know little about the language of the Belgae,
                            but it seems to have been similar to that of the Celti.

                            > [...]
                            > > Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                            > > existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
                            > > (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
                            > > from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
                            > > or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                            > > Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
                            > > Celtic.
                            >
                            > Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
                            > survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
                            > betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!

                            The only Continental Celtic conlang I am aware of is Dan Jones's
                            Arvorec, and it *does* have all those features. Sigh.

                            > > The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
                            > > the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
                            > > typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
                            >
                            > Good for you.

                            The avoidance of all Insular Celtic features is the main point
                            in that project. Camonic (as I name it) is pretty much a reply
                            on Arvorec.

                            > [snip]
                            > >
                            > > On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
                            > > long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
                            > > studies, probably Brythonic.
                            >
                            > As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
                            > people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
                            > of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
                            > Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
                            > spoke a non-IE language.

                            That is indeed likely. Most of the Pictish names that have come
                            unto us have reasonable Brythonic etymologies, but many don't.

                            > Certainly non-IE languages must
                            > have been spoken in Ireland& Britain way before the spread
                            > of IE to these islands.

                            Of course! We know that PIE cannot be older than about 6000 years,
                            and that the British Isles have been inhabited long before that.
                            The "Paleolithic continuity hypothesis" can be rejected out of hand,
                            and need not be discussed here.

                            > [snip]
                            > >
                            > > Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
                            > > culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
                            > > the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
                            > > have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
                            > > at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
                            > > tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.
                            >
                            > Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
                            > but try telling the modern self-styled druids!

                            AFAIK, Stonehenge was already disused and in ruins when the Romans
                            came to Britain. And what regards the neopagans: what they do has
                            very little, if anything, to do with the beliefs of the actual
                            pre-Christian Celts! There is nothing attractive about the cynical,
                            warlike deities of the ancient Celts craving blood sacrifices and
                            all that.

                            > [...]
                            >
                            > The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
                            > Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.
                            >
                            > >> No one in ancient times ever referred to the
                            > >> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
                            > >> till the 18th century they were so named - and since
                            > >> then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
                            > >> objected to - and so do I.
                            > >
                            > > And I.
                            >
                            > Amen.

                            Tolkien has put it well with his "twilight of reason".

                            --
                            ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                            http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
                          • And Rosta
                            ... I can understand why one might desire to make a conlang that derives, like Arvorec, from continental Celtic but, unlike Arvorec, via a trajectory more
                            Message 13 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jörg Rhiemeier, On 24/09/2010 17:55:
                              > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:56:03 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
                              >> On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
                              >> > Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                              >> > existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
                              >> > (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
                              >> > from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
                              >> > or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                              >> > Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
                              >> > Celtic.
                              >>
                              >> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
                              >> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
                              >> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
                              >
                              > The only Continental Celtic conlang I am aware of is Dan Jones's
                              > Arvorec, and it *does* have all those features. Sigh.
                              >
                              >> > The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
                              >> > the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
                              >> > typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
                              >>
                              >> Good for you.
                              >
                              > The avoidance of all Insular Celtic features is the main point
                              > in that project. Camonic (as I name it) is pretty much a reply
                              > on Arvorec.

                              I can understand why one might desire to make a conlang that derives, like Arvorec, from continental Celtic but, unlike Arvorec, via a trajectory more like, say, French or Spanish, and less like Welsh and Irish.

                              But I don't see what is wrong with Arvorec's development either. By the time the familiar distinctive phonological characteristics of Welsh were developing, the contintental Celtic lgs were dead, but if in an alternate history, Gaulish had remained in Armorica, why should those changes that spread within Insular Celtic by areal diffusion not also have spread to Armorica?

                              --And.
                            • Jörg Rhiemeier
                              Hallo! ... I wouldn t say that Arvorec was *impossible*, but it depends on what one assumes about the *causes* of the Insular features. Arvorec is spoken
                              Message 14 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hallo!

                                On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:38:43 +0100, And Rosta wrote:

                                > I can understand why one might desire to make a conlang that derives,
                                > like Arvorec, from continental Celtic but, unlike Arvorec, via a
                                > trajectory more like, say, French or Spanish, and less like Welsh and
                                > Irish.
                                >
                                > But I don't see what is wrong with Arvorec's development either. By
                                > the time the familiar distinctive phonological characteristics of
                                > Welsh were developing, the contintental Celtic lgs were dead, but if
                                > in an alternate history, Gaulish had remained in Armorica, why should
                                > those changes that spread within Insular Celtic by areal diffusion not
                                > also have spread to Armorica?

                                I wouldn't say that Arvorec was *impossible*, but it depends on what one
                                assumes about the *causes* of the "Insular" features. Arvorec is spoken
                                close enough to the British Isles to be influenced by whatever "weirded"
                                the Insular Celtic languages. Yet, I feel that Arvorec, as excellent it
                                is, misses a chance of doing something interestingly different from the
                                real world's Insular Celtic languages. Camonic, my own Continental
                                Celtic language, is set in the Alps, and there is no reason why that
                                language should look like Welsh or Breton.

                                --
                                ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
                              • BPJ
                                ... Already Thomas Mallory referred to Arthur s kingdom as England . A similar thing which used to irritate the hell out of me was ancient Asia Minor
                                Message 15 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  2010-09-24 18:55, Jörg Rhiemeier skrev:
                                  > Britain and England get confused a lot these days, with Scots
                                  > being called "Englishmen" and King Arthur referred to as a
                                  > "king of England". Ach y fi!

                                  Already Thomas Mallory referred to Arthur's kingdom as
                                  "England". A similar thing which used to irritate the
                                  hell out of me was ancient Asia Minor referred to as
                                  "Turkey", but I think these things are inevitable as
                                  long as elementary history and geography education
                                  doesn't make a point of teaching that geographical
                                  names and the names of polities don't always coincide.
                                  There are also often, as is probable in the case of
                                  Mallory, a contemporary political motivation for
                                  blurring or ignoring the distinctions. Götaland used to
                                  be Latinized as "Gothia" and in the 17th century
                                  Swedish historians claimed the ancient Goths as
                                  "Swedes", notwithstanding the fact that the Old
                                  Icelandic tales never mix up "gotar" and "gautar", or
                                  the fact that even if these names probably are related
                                  people in the 13th century would have found the
                                  distinction between Götaland and Svealand to be as
                                  important as the distinction between England, Scotland
                                  and Wales is to people in Britain today, and would have
                                  found the identification of Swedes and Goths dubious on
                                  that account! While I'd guess that if future
                                  inhabitants of Britain won't have any sense of
                                  tripartiteness the term to survive will certainly be
                                  "Britain" it is a fact that "Sweden" was historically a
                                  misnomer when it came to most parts of what is called
                                  so today.

                                  Geographical, ethnic and linguistic nomenclature are as
                                  liable to change their significance as any other words,
                                  and as with all words their significance at any time is
                                  determined by contemporary political and cultural
                                  conditions, for better or worse. Surely it would be for
                                  the better if more people were aware that the
                                  geographical, political, ethnic and linguistic
                                  divisions and identities of today are merely accidents
                                  of history, and that the divisions of antiquity or even
                                  a few hundred years ago and their significance were
                                  very different, but it is of little practical
                                  importance what we call a place or a language, unless
                                  perhaps it creates an urge to suppose some "identity".
                                  (I almost wrote "as long as we don't call different things
                                  by the same name", but as we all know even difference
                                  and sameness are largely constructs when it comes to
                                  cultural phenemena: in fact Modern French and Modern
                                  English are probably more mutually intelligible, at
                                  least in written form, than Modern and Old English!)
                                  I might as well call the place where I'm writing this
                                  Mællvand and the language in which I write Lanskaw, as
                                  long as those participating in the communication agree
                                  what these names mean. For all that we know this might
                                  once have been the names of this place, and of the
                                  language then used for international communication, or
                                  they may by some freak of history once come to be in
                                  the future.

                                  /bpj
                                • Andreas Johansson
                                  On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM, BPJ wrote: [snip] ... A while ago I had the questionable pleasure to read a text that used America to mean,
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM, BPJ <bpj@...> wrote:
                                    [snip]
                                    > Already Thomas Mallory referred to Arthur's kingdom as
                                    > "England".  A similar thing which used to irritate the
                                    > hell out of me was ancient Asia Minor referred to as
                                    > "Turkey", but I think these things are inevitable as
                                    > long as elementary history and geography education
                                    > doesn't make a point of teaching that geographical
                                    > names and the names of polities don't always coincide.

                                    A while ago I had the questionable pleasure to read a text that used
                                    "America" to mean, seemingly, "the territory of the modern USA"* while
                                    speaking of the High Middle Ages. Presumably, someone finds it natural
                                    to use the name like that, but I found it quite confusing.


                                    * Or perhaps "North America north of the Rio Grande" or something like
                                    that. Mexico was quite clearly not included.

                                    --
                                    Andreas Johansson

                                    Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                                  • MorphemeAddict
                                    Is there such a thing as an actual astrological date ? stevo
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Is there such a thing as an "actual astrological date"?

                                      stevo

                                      On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:56 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

                                      > On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
                                      >
                                      >> Hallo!
                                      >>
                                      >> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
                                      >>
                                      > [snip]
                                      >
                                      > Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this
                                      >>> sub-branch of IE differently is doomed to failure.
                                      >>>
                                      >>
                                      >> There are several names of language groups which are
                                      >> equally questionable. We have no evidence that the
                                      >> languages usually named "Tocharian" by linguists had
                                      >> anything to do with the people who are called _Tocharoi_
                                      >> in Hellenistic sources; many scholars now assume that the
                                      >> _Tocharoi_ were in fact an Iranian people.
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > True.
                                      >
                                      > Similar problems with "Hittite".
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
                                      > of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
                                      > language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
                                      > conlang of the same name!)
                                      >
                                      > For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
                                      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
                                      >
                                      > For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
                                      > http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html
                                      >
                                      > When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
                                      > this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
                                      > the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
                                      > name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
                                      > entirely different area at a different time no one in their
                                      > right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
                                      > website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
                                      > diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
                                      > should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
                                      > ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
                                      > Anatolia long ago." :)
                                      >
                                      > But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
                                      > to as the language of Neša". The modern English would be
                                      > Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
                                      > consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
                                      > misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
                                      > change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
                                      > English "British."
                                      >
                                      > With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
                                      >> to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
                                      >> belonging to that group.
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
                                      > peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
                                      > It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
                                      > name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
                                      > Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
                                      > who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
                                      > that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
                                      > - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
                                      > it was natural to go and bash the French!)
                                      >
                                      > One of things that bugs me, however, is the assumption
                                      >>> that the peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages
                                      >>> are features of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole.
                                      >>> In fact what we know of ancient Gaulish seems to
                                      >>> contradict that.
                                      >>>
                                      >>
                                      >> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                                      >> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
                                      >> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
                                      >> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
                                      >> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                                      >> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
                                      >> Celtic.
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
                                      > survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
                                      > betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
                                      >
                                      > The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
                                      >> the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
                                      >> typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > Good for you.
                                      >
                                      > [snip]
                                      >
                                      >>
                                      >> On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
                                      >> long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
                                      >> studies, probably Brythonic.
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
                                      > people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
                                      > of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
                                      > Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
                                      > spoke a non-IE language. Certainly non-IE languages must
                                      > have been spoken in Ireland & Britain way before the spread
                                      > of IE to these islands.
                                      >
                                      > [snip]
                                      >
                                      >>
                                      >> But I do find it annoying when people write, for
                                      >>> example, as though the ancient Brits and ancient Irish
                                      >>> felt themselves kindred people sharing a common
                                      >>> culture. It just ain't true. The ancient Brits
                                      >>> experienced the Irish as alien pirates and raiders much
                                      >>> like the Saxons.
                                      >>>
                                      >>
                                      >> [snip]
                                      >
                                      >>
                                      >> Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
                                      >> culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
                                      >> the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
                                      >> have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
                                      >> at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
                                      >> tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
                                      > but try telling the modern self-styled druids!
                                      >
                                      > And as if all that was not enough, there is also a lot of
                                      >> boohow about "Celtic Christianity", as if there had been
                                      >> a wiser and more truthful tradition of Christianity that
                                      >> was stomped out by the evil Roman church. In fact,
                                      >> "Celtic Christianity", which of course was never named
                                      >> that way in its time, was just a branch of Western
                                      >> Christianity that did some rather peripheral things such
                                      >> as monks' tonsures or the calculation of Easter dates
                                      >> differently (but shared the same doctrine and
                                      >> acknowledged the authority of the Roman pope) -
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > Exactly! I'm darn sure the remnant of British Christianity,
                                      > which had become inward looking and turned its back on the
                                      > Saxons, felt no particularly closer connexion with the
                                      > vibrant Christianity developing in Ireland than it did to
                                      > Christianity on on the Continent.
                                      >
                                      > The difference over Easter was merely one of calculation.
                                      > All accepted the Nicaean decree that it was the Sunday on or
                                      > following the full moon after the Spring equinox. But this
                                      > was calculated according to tables drawn up which did not
                                      > always correspond to the actual astrological date. It's just
                                      > that by the time the Irish monks and monks from Rome were at
                                      > last evangelizing the Saxons, Rome in common with most other
                                      > Christian communities had adopted the tables of calculation
                                      > drawn up by the Alexandrians; the Irish were obviously still
                                      > using an older set of tables. No big deal - at Whitby every
                                      > one fell in line.
                                      >
                                      > The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
                                      > Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.
                                      >
                                      > No one in ancient times ever referred to the
                                      >>> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
                                      >>> till the 18th century they were so named - and since
                                      >>> then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
                                      >>> objected to - and so do I.
                                      >>>
                                      >>
                                      >> And I.
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      > Amen.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --
                                      > Ray
                                      > ==================================
                                      > http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                                      > ==================================
                                      > "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                                      > wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                                      > [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                                      > "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                                      > will always interfere with language".
                                      >
                                    • Andreas Johansson
                                      It s when you date someone one the recommendation of an astrologer. ... -- Andreas Johansson Why can t you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        It's when you date someone one the recommendation of an astrologer.

                                        On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:45 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@...> wrote:
                                        > Is there such a thing as an "actual astrological date"?
                                        >
                                        > stevo
                                        >
                                        > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:56 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >> On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
                                        >>
                                        >>> Hallo!
                                        >>>
                                        >>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
                                        >>>
                                        >> [snip]
                                        >>
                                        >>  Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this
                                        >>>> sub-branch of IE differently is doomed to failure.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>> There are several names of language groups which are
                                        >>> equally questionable. We have no evidence that the
                                        >>> languages usually named "Tocharian" by linguists had
                                        >>> anything to do with the people who are called _Tocharoi_
                                        >>> in Hellenistic sources; many scholars now assume that the
                                        >>> _Tocharoi_ were in fact an Iranian people.
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> True.
                                        >>
                                        >> Similar problems with "Hittite".
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
                                        >> of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
                                        >> language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
                                        >> conlang of the same name!)
                                        >>
                                        >> For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
                                        >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
                                        >>
                                        >> For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
                                        >> http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html
                                        >>
                                        >> When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
                                        >> this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
                                        >> the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
                                        >> name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
                                        >> entirely different area at a different time no one in their
                                        >> right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
                                        >> website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
                                        >> diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
                                        >> should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
                                        >> ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
                                        >> Anatolia long ago."          :)
                                        >>
                                        >> But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
                                        >> to as the language of Neša". The modern English would be
                                        >> Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
                                        >> consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
                                        >> misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
                                        >> change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
                                        >> English "British."
                                        >>
                                        >> With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
                                        >>> to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
                                        >>> belonging to that group.
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
                                        >> peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
                                        >> It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
                                        >> name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
                                        >> Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
                                        >> who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
                                        >> that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
                                        >> - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
                                        >> it was natural to go and bash the French!)
                                        >>
                                        >>  One of things that bugs me, however, is the assumption
                                        >>>> that the peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages
                                        >>>> are features of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole.
                                        >>>> In fact what we know of ancient Gaulish seems to
                                        >>>> contradict that.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                                        >>> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
                                        >>> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
                                        >>> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
                                        >>> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                                        >>> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
                                        >>> Celtic.
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
                                        >> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
                                        >> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
                                        >>
                                        >> The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
                                        >>> the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
                                        >>> typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> Good for you.
                                        >>
                                        >> [snip]
                                        >>
                                        >>>
                                        >>> On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
                                        >>> long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
                                        >>> studies, probably Brythonic.
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
                                        >> people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
                                        >> of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
                                        >> Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
                                        >> spoke a non-IE language.  Certainly non-IE languages must
                                        >> have been spoken in Ireland & Britain way before the spread
                                        >> of IE to these islands.
                                        >>
                                        >> [snip]
                                        >>
                                        >>>
                                        >>> But I do find it annoying when people write, for
                                        >>>> example, as though the ancient Brits and ancient Irish
                                        >>>> felt themselves kindred people sharing a common
                                        >>>> culture. It just ain't true. The ancient Brits
                                        >>>> experienced the Irish as alien pirates and raiders much
                                        >>>> like the Saxons.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>> [snip]
                                        >>
                                        >>>
                                        >>> Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
                                        >>>  culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
                                        >>> the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
                                        >>> have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
                                        >>> at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
                                        >>> tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
                                        >> but try telling the modern self-styled druids!
                                        >>
                                        >> And as if all that was not enough, there is also a lot of
                                        >>>  boohow about "Celtic Christianity", as if there had been
                                        >>> a wiser and more truthful tradition of Christianity that
                                        >>> was stomped out by the evil Roman church. In fact,
                                        >>> "Celtic Christianity", which of course was never named
                                        >>> that way in its time, was just a branch of Western
                                        >>> Christianity that did some rather peripheral things such
                                        >>> as monks' tonsures or the calculation of Easter dates
                                        >>> differently (but shared the same doctrine and
                                        >>> acknowledged the authority of the Roman pope) -
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> Exactly! I'm darn sure the remnant of British Christianity,
                                        >> which had become inward looking and turned its back on the
                                        >> Saxons, felt no particularly closer connexion with the
                                        >> vibrant Christianity developing in Ireland than it did to
                                        >> Christianity on on the Continent.
                                        >>
                                        >> The difference over Easter was merely one of calculation.
                                        >> All accepted the Nicaean decree that it was the Sunday on or
                                        >> following the full moon after the Spring equinox. But this
                                        >> was calculated according to tables drawn up which did not
                                        >> always correspond to the actual astrological date. It's just
                                        >> that by the time the Irish monks and monks from Rome were at
                                        >> last evangelizing the Saxons, Rome in common with most other
                                        >> Christian communities had adopted the tables of calculation
                                        >> drawn up by the Alexandrians; the Irish were obviously still
                                        >> using an older set of tables.  No big deal - at Whitby every
                                        >> one fell in line.
                                        >>
                                        >> The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
                                        >> Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.
                                        >>
                                        >>  No one in ancient times ever referred to the
                                        >>>> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
                                        >>>> till the 18th century they were so named - and since
                                        >>>> then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
                                        >>>> objected to - and so do I.
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>> And I.
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >> Amen.
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >> --
                                        >> Ray
                                        >> ==================================
                                        >> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                                        >> ==================================
                                        >> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                                        >> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                                        >> [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                                        >> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                                        >> will always interfere with language".
                                        >>
                                        >



                                        --
                                        Andreas Johansson

                                        Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                                      • John Vertical
                                        ... Completing the circle, one could hypothetically indeed derive a Finnish word _eireänmoinen_ Celtic (literally Irish-like - supposing Ireland were to
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:42:52 +0200, Andreas Johansson wrote:
                                          >On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:17 PM, R A Brown wrote:
                                          >>
                                          >[snip]
                                          >> The -ach ending, of course, could also be an echo of Welsh. Both _ellidon_
                                          >> and _galadon_ 'feel' Welsh or Sindarin. But _éireamhóinen_ doesn't; in fact
                                          >> it looks distinctly Irish/Gaelic, even to the point of apparently obeying
                                          >> the 'broad to broad and slender to slender' rule   ;)
                                          >
                                          >It occurs to me that if you remove the accents, it nevertheless looks
                                          >rather like Finnish or Quenya. Probably coincidence, but it sort of
                                          >leapt out at me.

                                          Completing the circle, one could hypothetically indeed derive a Finnish word
                                          _eireänmoinen_ "Celtic" (literally "Irish-like" - supposing Ireland were to
                                          gain a Finnish name sufficiently early or late to be called _Eire_ or
                                          _Eiri_, rather than the actual _Irlanti_).

                                          John Vertical
                                        • Adam Walker
                                          Ba dum bum!
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Ba dum bum!

                                            On 9/25/10, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                                            > It's when you date someone one the recommendation of an astrologer.
                                            >
                                            > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:45 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@...> wrote:
                                            >> Is there such a thing as an "actual astrological date"?
                                            >>
                                            >> stevo
                                            >>
                                            >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:56 AM, R A Brown <ray@...>
                                            >> wrote:
                                            >>
                                            >>> On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
                                            >>>
                                            >>>> Hallo!
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
                                            >>>>
                                            >>> [snip]
                                            >>>
                                            >>>  Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this
                                            >>>>> sub-branch of IE differently is doomed to failure.
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> There are several names of language groups which are
                                            >>>> equally questionable. We have no evidence that the
                                            >>>> languages usually named "Tocharian" by linguists had
                                            >>>> anything to do with the people who are called _Tocharoi_
                                            >>>> in Hellenistic sources; many scholars now assume that the
                                            >>>> _Tocharoi_ were in fact an Iranian people.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> True.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Similar problems with "Hittite".
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
                                            >>> of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
                                            >>> language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
                                            >>> conlang of the same name!)
                                            >>>
                                            >>> For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
                                            >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
                                            >>>
                                            >>> For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
                                            >>> http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html
                                            >>>
                                            >>> When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
                                            >>> this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
                                            >>> the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
                                            >>> name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
                                            >>> entirely different area at a different time no one in their
                                            >>> right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
                                            >>> website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
                                            >>> diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
                                            >>> should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
                                            >>> ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
                                            >>> Anatolia long ago."          :)
                                            >>>
                                            >>> But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
                                            >>> to as the language of Neša". The modern English would be
                                            >>> Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
                                            >>> consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
                                            >>> misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
                                            >>> change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
                                            >>> English "British."
                                            >>>
                                            >>> With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
                                            >>>> to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
                                            >>>> belonging to that group.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
                                            >>> peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
                                            >>> It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
                                            >>> name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
                                            >>> Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
                                            >>> who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
                                            >>> that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
                                            >>> - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
                                            >>> it was natural to go and bash the French!)
                                            >>>
                                            >>>  One of things that bugs me, however, is the assumption
                                            >>>>> that the peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages
                                            >>>>> are features of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole.
                                            >>>>> In fact what we know of ancient Gaulish seems to
                                            >>>>> contradict that.
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                                            >>>> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
                                            >>>> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
                                            >>>> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
                                            >>>> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                                            >>>> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
                                            >>>> Celtic.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
                                            >>> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
                                            >>> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
                                            >>>
                                            >>> The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
                                            >>>> the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
                                            >>>> typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Good for you.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> [snip]
                                            >>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
                                            >>>> long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
                                            >>>> studies, probably Brythonic.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
                                            >>> people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
                                            >>> of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
                                            >>> Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
                                            >>> spoke a non-IE language.  Certainly non-IE languages must
                                            >>> have been spoken in Ireland & Britain way before the spread
                                            >>> of IE to these islands.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> [snip]
                                            >>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> But I do find it annoying when people write, for
                                            >>>>> example, as though the ancient Brits and ancient Irish
                                            >>>>> felt themselves kindred people sharing a common
                                            >>>>> culture. It just ain't true. The ancient Brits
                                            >>>>> experienced the Irish as alien pirates and raiders much
                                            >>>>> like the Saxons.
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> [snip]
                                            >>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
                                            >>>>  culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
                                            >>>> the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
                                            >>>> have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
                                            >>>> at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
                                            >>>> tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
                                            >>> but try telling the modern self-styled druids!
                                            >>>
                                            >>> And as if all that was not enough, there is also a lot of
                                            >>>>  boohow about "Celtic Christianity", as if there had been
                                            >>>> a wiser and more truthful tradition of Christianity that
                                            >>>> was stomped out by the evil Roman church. In fact,
                                            >>>> "Celtic Christianity", which of course was never named
                                            >>>> that way in its time, was just a branch of Western
                                            >>>> Christianity that did some rather peripheral things such
                                            >>>> as monks' tonsures or the calculation of Easter dates
                                            >>>> differently (but shared the same doctrine and
                                            >>>> acknowledged the authority of the Roman pope) -
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Exactly! I'm darn sure the remnant of British Christianity,
                                            >>> which had become inward looking and turned its back on the
                                            >>> Saxons, felt no particularly closer connexion with the
                                            >>> vibrant Christianity developing in Ireland than it did to
                                            >>> Christianity on on the Continent.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> The difference over Easter was merely one of calculation.
                                            >>> All accepted the Nicaean decree that it was the Sunday on or
                                            >>> following the full moon after the Spring equinox. But this
                                            >>> was calculated according to tables drawn up which did not
                                            >>> always correspond to the actual astrological date. It's just
                                            >>> that by the time the Irish monks and monks from Rome were at
                                            >>> last evangelizing the Saxons, Rome in common with most other
                                            >>> Christian communities had adopted the tables of calculation
                                            >>> drawn up by the Alexandrians; the Irish were obviously still
                                            >>> using an older set of tables.  No big deal - at Whitby every
                                            >>> one fell in line.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
                                            >>> Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.
                                            >>>
                                            >>>  No one in ancient times ever referred to the
                                            >>>>> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
                                            >>>>> till the 18th century they were so named - and since
                                            >>>>> then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
                                            >>>>> objected to - and so do I.
                                            >>>>>
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>> And I.
                                            >>>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Amen.
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>> --
                                            >>> Ray
                                            >>> ==================================
                                            >>> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                                            >>> ==================================
                                            >>> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                                            >>> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                                            >>> [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                                            >>> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                                            >>> will always interfere with language".
                                            >>>
                                            >>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --
                                            > Andreas Johansson
                                            >
                                            > Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                                            >
                                          • R A Brown
                                            OOOPS!! {Blushes deeply} - that must be one of my worst typos! I, of course, meant _astronomical_. ... I m sure those who believe in astrology will vigorously
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Sep 25, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              OOOPS!! {Blushes deeply} - that must be one of my worst
                                              typos! I, of course, meant _astronomical_.

                                              On 25/09/2010 20:45, MorphemeAddict wrote:
                                              > Is there such a thing as an "actual astrological date"?

                                              I'm sure those who believe in astrology will vigorously
                                              defend just such a notion. But the unbelievers amongst us,
                                              of which I am one, will go along MorphemeAddict and question
                                              the very notion.

                                              If anyone is interested in how the tables for calculating
                                              Easter used by the Western (Gregorian) & Eastern (Julian)
                                              Churches as well as the Jewish Passover actually match up
                                              the _astronomical_ calculation, there is a list from 2001
                                              till 2020 given on:
                                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter#Reform_of_the_date_of_Easter

                                              What was agreed at the Council of Whitby is what the Julian
                                              system. The Gregorian one dates from the calendar reform of
                                              Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. What system the pre-Whitby Irish
                                              monks were using is AFAIK not known. I have seen it
                                              claimed, tho not with supporting evidence, that the old
                                              Irish system was more accurate that the one adopted at
                                              Whitby; if this is true, the Irish monks must have
                                              anticipated something like the Gregorian reform by several
                                              centuries. But I suspect such claims of greater accuracy by
                                              the Irish is likely to another "Celtic myth" ;)

                                              --
                                              Ray
                                              ==================================
                                              http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                                              ==================================
                                              "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                                              wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                                              [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                                              "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                                              will always interfere with language".
                                            • Deiniol Jones
                                              ... Well, it s supposed to! :D Arvorec came about in response to the elimination of the Brythonic languages in Ill Bethisad, and so was *supposed* to be a
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Sep 26, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

                                                >
                                                >> [...]
                                                >>> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                                                >>> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
                                                >>> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
                                                >>> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
                                                >>> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                                                >>> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
                                                >>> Celtic.
                                                >>
                                                >> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
                                                >> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
                                                >> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
                                                >
                                                > The only Continental Celtic conlang I am aware of is Dan Jones's
                                                > Arvorec, and it *does* have all those features. Sigh.

                                                Well, it's supposed to! :D Arvorec came about in response to the
                                                elimination of the Brythonic languages in Ill Bethisad, and so was
                                                *supposed* to be a fairly typical Insular-style language.
                                                Interestingly, Ranko Matasovic makes a case that all these typically
                                                "Celtic" features present in the modern Insular languages are the
                                                result of intensive language contact during the late Dark Ages: the
                                                Insular languages essentially forming a Sprachbund. Using this theory
                                                to reverse-engineer a more linguistically sound justification for
                                                Arvorec's "Insularity", I could say that the language acquired all
                                                these features as a result of intensive language contact with Ireland
                                                and Britain shortly after its speakers settled the islands in the
                                                British Sea.

                                                That's not to say, of course, that I wouldn't do it differently if I
                                                were to revise the conlang today: I know a lot more now about Celtic
                                                philology than I did back then. Certain traits I might dispense with,
                                                particularly VSO word order.


                                                > AFAIK, Stonehenge was already disused and in ruins when the Romans
                                                > came to Britain. And what regards the neopagans: what they do has
                                                > very little, if anything, to do with the beliefs of the actual
                                                > pre-Christian Celts! There is nothing attractive about the cynical,
                                                > warlike deities of the ancient Celts craving blood sacrifices and
                                                > all that.

                                                I dunno, I've always found it pretty attractive ;o)

                                                Dan
                                              • R A Brown
                                                On 26/09/2010 13:29, Deiniol Jones ... response to ... Yes, I ve always thought, at least in case of the Brythonic languages, that these changes dis not occur
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Sep 26, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On 26/09/2010 13:29, Deiniol Jones

                                                  Jörg:
                                                  >>>> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
                                                  >>>> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
                                                  >>>> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
                                                  >>>> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
                                                  >>>> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
                                                  >>>> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
                                                  >>>> Celtic.

                                                  Me:
                                                  >>> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
                                                  >>> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
                                                  >>> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!

                                                  Jörg:
                                                  >> The only Continental Celtic conlang I am aware of is Dan
                                                  >> Jones's
                                                  >> Arvorec, and it *does* have all those features. Sigh.

                                                  Deiniol:
                                                  > Well, it's supposed to! :D Arvorec came about in
                                                  response to
                                                  > the elimination of the Brythonic languages in Ill Bethisad,
                                                  > and so was *supposed* to be a fairly typical Insular-style
                                                  > language. Interestingly, Ranko Matasovic makes a case that
                                                  > all these typically "Celtic" features present in the modern
                                                  > Insular languages are the result of intensive language
                                                  > contact during the late Dark Ages:

                                                  Yes, I've always thought, at least in case of the Brythonic
                                                  languages, that these changes dis not occur until after the
                                                  Roman period.

                                                  But I can go along with a Celtic language on the fringe, as
                                                  it were, of Britain exhibiting many, if not all, of these
                                                  features. What I was thinking of was some Celti-conlang in,
                                                  say southern Gaul, north-west Spain, or maybe along the
                                                  Danube or even a survival in some remote part of Anatolia of
                                                  the ancient Galatian language.

                                                  I can just imagine someone thinking: "What if Galatian had
                                                  continued to spoken? It was a Celtic language, so my
                                                  neo-Galatian will have to have initial consonant mutations etc."

                                                  --
                                                  Ray
                                                  ==================================
                                                  http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                                                  ==================================
                                                  "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                                                  wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                                                  [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                                                  "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                                                  will always interfere with language".
                                                • Jörg Rhiemeier
                                                  Hallo! ... How much do we know about Roman-era British? Wikipedia cites a curse tablet found at Bath, and gives two utterly different translations; it doesn t
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Sep 26, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Hallo!

                                                    On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:07:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:

                                                    > On 26/09/2010 13:29, Deiniol Jones
                                                    >
                                                    > [...]
                                                    >
                                                    > > Well, it's supposed to! :D Arvorec came about in
                                                    > response to
                                                    > > the elimination of the Brythonic languages in Ill Bethisad,
                                                    > > and so was *supposed* to be a fairly typical Insular-style
                                                    > > language. Interestingly, Ranko Matasovic makes a case that
                                                    > > all these typically "Celtic" features present in the modern
                                                    > > Insular languages are the result of intensive language
                                                    > > contact during the late Dark Ages:
                                                    >
                                                    > Yes, I've always thought, at least in case of the Brythonic
                                                    > languages, that these changes dis not occur until after the
                                                    > Roman period.

                                                    How much do we know about Roman-era British? Wikipedia cites
                                                    a curse tablet found at Bath, and gives two utterly different
                                                    translations; it doesn't seem to be VSO nor show any initial
                                                    mutations. Also, Tacitus said that British differed little
                                                    from Gaulish. Perhaps the substratum hypothesis I used in my
                                                    Albic project is indeed utterly groundless. (That of course
                                                    neither means that Old Albic can't be VSO - it doesn't have
                                                    initial mutations anyway - nor that the modern Albic languages
                                                    cannot have initial mutations!)

                                                    > But I can go along with a Celtic language on the fringe, as
                                                    > it were, of Britain exhibiting many, if not all, of these
                                                    > features.

                                                    Yes. Arvorec, spoken on the Channel Islands, is close enough
                                                    to Britain to be drawn into the linguistic area which, in Ill
                                                    Bethisad, is represented by Brithenig, Kerno, Breathanach and
                                                    Irish. (Also, it is a well-done and admirable conlang.)

                                                    > What I was thinking of was some Celti-conlang in,
                                                    > say southern Gaul, north-west Spain, or maybe along the
                                                    > Danube or even a survival in some remote part of Anatolia of
                                                    > the ancient Galatian language.

                                                    For such a conlang, I would indeed not expect to find any of
                                                    the "Insular Celtic" features.

                                                    > I can just imagine someone thinking: "What if Galatian had
                                                    > continued to spoken? It was a Celtic language, so my
                                                    > neo-Galatian will have to have initial consonant mutations etc."

                                                    Neo-Galatian would be a project for the League of Lost Languages,
                                                    but *please* without initial mutations! ;)


                                                    --
                                                    ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                                    http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
                                                  • Andreas Johansson
                                                    ... [snip] ... Is it known how long real-world Galatian survived? I presume it must have become heavily influenced by Greek as time went by. -- Andreas
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Sep 26, 2010
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      [snip]
                                                      > Neo-Galatian would be a project for the League of Lost Languages,
                                                      > but *please* without initial mutations! ;)

                                                      Is it known how long real-world Galatian survived? I presume it must
                                                      have become heavily influenced by Greek as time went by.

                                                      --
                                                      Andreas Johansson

                                                      Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                                                    • Jörg Rhiemeier
                                                      Hallo! ... Wikipedia says Galatian survived to the 4th century AD. Certainly, the language would indeed be heavily influenced by Greek, and written in the
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Sep 26, 2010
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Hallo!

                                                        On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:59:04 +0200, Andreas Johansson wrote:

                                                        > On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier<joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > [snip]
                                                        > > Neo-Galatian would be a project for the League of Lost Languages,
                                                        > > but *please* without initial mutations! ;)
                                                        >
                                                        > Is it known how long real-world Galatian survived? I presume it must
                                                        > have become heavily influenced by Greek as time went by.

                                                        Wikipedia says Galatian survived to the 4th century AD. Certainly, the
                                                        language would indeed be heavily influenced by Greek, and written in the
                                                        Greek alphabet or a derivative thereof.

                                                        --
                                                        ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                                                        http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
                                                      • R A Brown
                                                        ... [snip] ... In the thesis I wrote for the M.Litt degree way back in 1984, I state that it survived till at least the early 5th century. Certainly St Jerome
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Sep 27, 2010
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          On 26/09/2010 21:20, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
                                                          > Hallo!
                                                          [snip]
                                                          >
                                                          > Wikipedia says Galatian survived to the 4th century AD.
                                                          > Certainly, the language would indeed be heavily
                                                          > influenced by Greek, and written in the Greek alphabet or
                                                          > a derivative thereof.

                                                          In the thesis I wrote for the M.Litt degree way back in
                                                          1984, I state that it survived till at least the early 5th
                                                          century. Certainly St Jerome 347 to 420 AD) records in his
                                                          commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (c. 387) that the
                                                          Galatians of Ancyra (Ankara) were speaking a language
                                                          similar to that of the Treveri of Trier in what is now the
                                                          German Rhineland.

                                                          Someone at least thinks some Galatians words still survive
                                                          in modern Turkish; see:
                                                          http://www.galloturca.com/galatians_files/galatianwords.htm

                                                          If this is correct, then the language would have survived
                                                          far later than is commonly thought and still be spoken when
                                                          Turkic peoples began migrating in Asia Minor in the 11th
                                                          cent AD.

                                                          --
                                                          Ray
                                                          ==================================
                                                          http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                                                          ==================================
                                                          "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                                                          wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                                                          [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                                                          "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                                                          will always interfere with language".
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.