Comte Arnau
12-31-2011, 12:36 AM
Thread inspired by Phil. ;)
--
Italo-Celtic is a grouping of the Italic and Celtic branches of the Indo-European language family on the basis of features shared by these two branches and no others. These are usually considered to be innovations, which are likely to have developed after the breakup of Proto-Indo-European. It is also possible that some of these are not innovations; it is possible they are shared conservative features. There is controversy about the actual causes of these similarities. What is commonly accepted is that the shared features may usefully be thought of as "Italo-Celtic forms".
http://punkbuddhaz.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/indoeuropean-language-family-tree.jpg
The traditional interpretation of the data is that these two subgroups of the Indo European language family are generally more closely related to each other than to the other Indo European languages. This can be taken to imply that they are descended from a common ancestor, a phylogenetic Proto-Italo-Celtic which can be partly reconstructed by the comparative method. This hypothesis fell out of favour after being reexamined by Calvert Watkins in 1966. However some scholars, such as Frederik Kortlandt, continued to be interested in the theory. In 2002 a paper by Ringe, Warnow, & Taylor, employing computational methods as a supplement to the traditional linguistic subgrouping methodology, argued in favour of an Italo-Celtic subgroup, and in 2007 Kortlandt attempted a reconstruction of a Proto-Italo-Celtic.
The most common alternative interpretation is that a close areal proximity of Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic over a longer period could have encouraged the parallel development of what were already quite separate languages. As Watkins (1966) puts it, "the community of -ī in Italic and Celtic is attributable to early contact, rather than to an original unity." The assumed period of language contact could then be later, perhaps continuing well into the first millennium BC.
If however, some of the forms really are archaisms, elements of Proto-Indo-European which have been lost in all other branches, neither model of post-PIE relationship need be postulated. Italic and especially Celtic also share some archaic features with the Hittite language (Anatolian languages) and the Tocharian languages.
Forms
The principal Italo-Celtic forms are:
1. the thematic Genitive in i (dominus, domini). Both in Italic (Popliosio Valesiosio, Lapis Satricanus) and in Celtic (Lepontic, Celtiberian -o), traces of the -osyo Genitive of Proto-Indo-European have also been discovered, which might indicate that the spread of the i-Genitive occurred in the two groups independently (or by areal diffusion). The i-Genitive has been compared to the so-called Cvi formation in Sanskrit, but that too is probably a comparatively late development. The phenomenon is probably related to the feminine long i stems (see Devi inflection) and the Luwian i-mutation.
2. the ā-subjunctive. Both Italic and Celtic have a subjunctive descended from an earlier optative in -ā-. Such an optative is not known from other languages, but the suffix occurs in Balto-Slavic and Tocharian past tense formations, and possibly in Hittite -ahh-.
3. the collapsing of the PIE aorist and perfect into a single past tense. In both groups, this is a relatively late development of the proto-languages, possibly dating to the time of "Italo-Celtic" language contact.
4. the assimilation of *p to a following *kʷ. This development obviously predates the Celtic loss of *p:
PIE *penkʷe 'five' → Latin quinque; Old Irish cóic
PIE *perkʷu- 'oak' → Latin quercus; Goidelic ethnonym Querni
PIE *pekʷ- 'cook' → Latin coquere; Welsh poeth 'hot' (Welsh p presupposes Proto-Celtic *kʷ)
PIE *ponkʷu- 'all' → Latin cunctus; Irish (and Old Irish) gach, Welsh pob 'every'.
Other similarities include the fact that certain common words, such as the words for common metals (gold, silver, tin, etc.) are similar in Italic and Celtic but divergent from other Indo-European languages.
Another form, the r-passive (mediopassive), was initially thought to be an innovation restricted to Italo-Celtic until found to be an archaism shared also with Hittite and Tocharian.
(Wikipedia)
These points below are from the Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (2008) by Michiel de Vaan: a short list of the morphological innovations that can be dated to the Italo-Celtic stage, as given by Schrijver (2006) and Kortlandt (2007). Some are mentioned above too.
- the rise of a superlative suffix *-ismo-
- the introduction of genitive singular *-i in the o-stems (while maintaining *-osio)
- the substitution of dative plural *-mus and ablative plural *-ios by the ending *-b(h)os (while maintaining ins. pl. *-b(h)i)
- the introduction of genitive *-strom in the 1st and 2nd plural pronouns
- the spread of *s- to the whole paradigm of the *so-/*to- pronoun
- the pr. of 'to be' is thematic *es-e/o- directly after foccused elements, athematic *es- elsewhere
- the rise of an injunctive or preterite morpheme *-a-
- the rise of sigmatic futures with i-reduplication
- the spread of the morpheme *-ro from the 3pl. to other middle endings
Just as a reminder, three maps.
One of the Italic languages (the ones in greyish purple, like Latin):
http://dnghu.org/italic-languages-map.png
Two of the pre-Roman Celtic area:
http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_10/images/fig01c_600.jpg
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/gif/celtic.gif
--
Italo-Celtic is a grouping of the Italic and Celtic branches of the Indo-European language family on the basis of features shared by these two branches and no others. These are usually considered to be innovations, which are likely to have developed after the breakup of Proto-Indo-European. It is also possible that some of these are not innovations; it is possible they are shared conservative features. There is controversy about the actual causes of these similarities. What is commonly accepted is that the shared features may usefully be thought of as "Italo-Celtic forms".
http://punkbuddhaz.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/indoeuropean-language-family-tree.jpg
The traditional interpretation of the data is that these two subgroups of the Indo European language family are generally more closely related to each other than to the other Indo European languages. This can be taken to imply that they are descended from a common ancestor, a phylogenetic Proto-Italo-Celtic which can be partly reconstructed by the comparative method. This hypothesis fell out of favour after being reexamined by Calvert Watkins in 1966. However some scholars, such as Frederik Kortlandt, continued to be interested in the theory. In 2002 a paper by Ringe, Warnow, & Taylor, employing computational methods as a supplement to the traditional linguistic subgrouping methodology, argued in favour of an Italo-Celtic subgroup, and in 2007 Kortlandt attempted a reconstruction of a Proto-Italo-Celtic.
The most common alternative interpretation is that a close areal proximity of Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic over a longer period could have encouraged the parallel development of what were already quite separate languages. As Watkins (1966) puts it, "the community of -ī in Italic and Celtic is attributable to early contact, rather than to an original unity." The assumed period of language contact could then be later, perhaps continuing well into the first millennium BC.
If however, some of the forms really are archaisms, elements of Proto-Indo-European which have been lost in all other branches, neither model of post-PIE relationship need be postulated. Italic and especially Celtic also share some archaic features with the Hittite language (Anatolian languages) and the Tocharian languages.
Forms
The principal Italo-Celtic forms are:
1. the thematic Genitive in i (dominus, domini). Both in Italic (Popliosio Valesiosio, Lapis Satricanus) and in Celtic (Lepontic, Celtiberian -o), traces of the -osyo Genitive of Proto-Indo-European have also been discovered, which might indicate that the spread of the i-Genitive occurred in the two groups independently (or by areal diffusion). The i-Genitive has been compared to the so-called Cvi formation in Sanskrit, but that too is probably a comparatively late development. The phenomenon is probably related to the feminine long i stems (see Devi inflection) and the Luwian i-mutation.
2. the ā-subjunctive. Both Italic and Celtic have a subjunctive descended from an earlier optative in -ā-. Such an optative is not known from other languages, but the suffix occurs in Balto-Slavic and Tocharian past tense formations, and possibly in Hittite -ahh-.
3. the collapsing of the PIE aorist and perfect into a single past tense. In both groups, this is a relatively late development of the proto-languages, possibly dating to the time of "Italo-Celtic" language contact.
4. the assimilation of *p to a following *kʷ. This development obviously predates the Celtic loss of *p:
PIE *penkʷe 'five' → Latin quinque; Old Irish cóic
PIE *perkʷu- 'oak' → Latin quercus; Goidelic ethnonym Querni
PIE *pekʷ- 'cook' → Latin coquere; Welsh poeth 'hot' (Welsh p presupposes Proto-Celtic *kʷ)
PIE *ponkʷu- 'all' → Latin cunctus; Irish (and Old Irish) gach, Welsh pob 'every'.
Other similarities include the fact that certain common words, such as the words for common metals (gold, silver, tin, etc.) are similar in Italic and Celtic but divergent from other Indo-European languages.
Another form, the r-passive (mediopassive), was initially thought to be an innovation restricted to Italo-Celtic until found to be an archaism shared also with Hittite and Tocharian.
(Wikipedia)
These points below are from the Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (2008) by Michiel de Vaan: a short list of the morphological innovations that can be dated to the Italo-Celtic stage, as given by Schrijver (2006) and Kortlandt (2007). Some are mentioned above too.
- the rise of a superlative suffix *-ismo-
- the introduction of genitive singular *-i in the o-stems (while maintaining *-osio)
- the substitution of dative plural *-mus and ablative plural *-ios by the ending *-b(h)os (while maintaining ins. pl. *-b(h)i)
- the introduction of genitive *-strom in the 1st and 2nd plural pronouns
- the spread of *s- to the whole paradigm of the *so-/*to- pronoun
- the pr. of 'to be' is thematic *es-e/o- directly after foccused elements, athematic *es- elsewhere
- the rise of an injunctive or preterite morpheme *-a-
- the rise of sigmatic futures with i-reduplication
- the spread of the morpheme *-ro from the 3pl. to other middle endings
Just as a reminder, three maps.
One of the Italic languages (the ones in greyish purple, like Latin):
http://dnghu.org/italic-languages-map.png
Two of the pre-Roman Celtic area:
http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_10/images/fig01c_600.jpg
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/gif/celtic.gif