The Celtic Roots Of English?

[Liffrea]

Anyone read this book?

http://www.joensuu.fi/fld/ecc/public...tic_roots.html

I recently got hold of an article by one of the contributors Theo Vennemann in which he argues that Celtic Brythonic has had a substantial grammatical impact on the structure of the English language.

In particular he focuses on something called external possessor construction, it’s quite a complex term to describe (I’m not a linguist but I can follow his argument). The EPC is common in all continental Indo-European languages but it is none existent in English, the only other languages that lack EPC are the insular Celtic tongues, Vennemann postulates that the Celtic population that survived and adopted the Old English tongue basically shaped it around this lack of EPC.

He also goes onto suggest that a lack of EPC in Celtic is a direct link to Semitic languages, not as barmy as it sounds given that one major IE origin theory places it in the Near East and Celtic languages may well be amongst the oldest IE branches.

I can’t comment on the accuracy of the conclusion, I’m not a linguist, but I find the possibility fascinating.

[Osweo]

Anyone read this book?

Nah, but the relevant details are online in various places.

Vennemann postulates that the Celtic population that survived and adopted the Old English tongue basically shaped it around this lack of EPC.

It's a good argument.

He also goes onto suggest that a lack of EPC in Celtic is a direct link to Semitic languages, not as barmy as it sounds

Really?

given that one major IE origin theory places it in the Near East

Ah yes, the Idiot Archaeologist Who Should Mind His Own Business Theory. Damn Renfrew! It's bollocks, it really is! The region in question is FULL of older non-IE substrata! He should be ashamed of himself.

and Celtic languages may well be amongst the oldest IE branches.

THat's bollocks. No older than Greek, Albanian, Armenian, Italic... and much YOUNGER than the Anatolian family.

I can’t comment on the accuracy of the conclusion, I’m not a linguist, but I find the possibility fascinating.

The phenomenon, and the immediate cause, seem okay. It's his subsequent flights of fancy that annoy me. THe whole continent is in the way of Semitic - British Isles contacts. I'd look at something different, as an intermediary, or rather a chain of them.

Semitic is a branch of Afro-Asiatic. There's Khemetic (Egyptian), and Hamitic (Berber) as you go westward. The old Atlantic marine highway is old hat, so it wouldn't be too daft to suppose some sort of continuum of substrate up and down this, from the Atlas Mountains to Albion.

Something I've never quite got my head round, is the age of Hamitic in that area. Was it a later diffusion from the east of North Africa, or has it been around Morocco for very long? THe Guanches seem to have been of allied speech, and archaic breed, so we might suppose some great age. (Semitic may have crossed to Asia - along Moses's route - pretty late in the day)
But what of Iberia? Was there another link in the chain there?

Something I've noticed that may be relevant, is commonality in naming practices:
Gos-Patrick, Gille-Bride, Mal-Colm, Mug-Nuadat, ... and ... Abd-Ullah The meaning is pretty much the same. I am not aware of this in other European languages, as such.

... and there IS an IBERIAN parallel for this 'Devotee of X' style too, to complete the chain of links! I can't remember exactly where I read about this idea, but it may have been inferred from the inscription below:

likine : abulor'aune : ekien : bilibiliar's on a mosaic ("Likinos" and "Abulo" are known Celtiberian personal names; "Bilbilis" is a town);

http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/ib11_en.htm

[Osweo]

... and there IS an IBERIAN parallel for this 'Devotee of X' style too, to complete the chain of links! I can't remember exactly where I read about this idea, but it may have been inferred from the inscription below:

http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/ib11_en.htm

Ah, I found THIS in my notes:

K.28.1: mosaic from Andelos:
likine : abulor'aune : ekien : bilbiliar's
Here likine and abulo are the iberizated forms of the well known Celtiberian peronal names likinos and abulu, and bilbili the town name of 'Bilbilis' (nowadays Calatayud). I have suggested that the two first segment are the iberization of a complete onomastic Celtiberian form "Likinos the launi of Abulo" (launi is a well attested word releting two persons in Celtiberian) and that ar's means something like 'castle'. Hence, as ekien is clearly a 'verbal' similar to "made", "work" or so, an approximated translation could be "Made (by) Likinos the servant (?) of Abulo, (office of) the Castle of Bilbilis"

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
Really?

If you accept an Anatolian homeland (I know you don’t but bear with me) then why not? Given that the Indo-European and Semitic languages would have developed largely within the same area.

Ah yes, the Idiot Archaeologist Who Should Mind His Own Business Theory. Damn Renfrew! It's bollocks, it really is! The region in question is FULL of older non-IE substrata! He should be ashamed of himself.

I’ve not read Renfrew’s argument personally, I’m more inclined to the Ukraine theory myself anyway but I also find the theory of Iranian scholar Dr Kaveh Farrokh who has argued both for Armenia and the Ukraine steppe intriguing.

THat's bollocks. No older than Greek, Albanian, Armenian, Italic... and much YOUNGER than the Anatolian family.

Hmmm I’ve seen linguistic arguments that suggest otherwise (Forster and Toth have argued that the latest Gaulish, Brythonic and Goidelic diverged from a common ancestor was 5,200 years ago)…….when you think about it the suggestion of significant Celtic input into English would have been considered absurd not all that long ago……

[Osweo]

If you accept an Anatolian homeland (I know you don’t but bear with me) then why not? Given that the Indo-European and Semitic languages would have developed largely within the same area.

Phrygia and Edom are very far apart.

I’ve not read Renfrew’s argument personally, I’m more inclined to the Ukraine theory myself anyway but I also find the theory of Iranian scholar Dr Kaveh Farrokh who has argued both for Armenia and the Ukraine steppe intriguing.

I stand by the Danubian Urheimat!

Hmmm I’ve seen linguistic arguments that suggest otherwise (Forster and Toth have argued that the latest Gaulish, Brythonic and Goidelic diverged from a common ancestor was 5,200 years ago)…….when you think about it the suggestion of significant Celtic input into English would have been considered absurd not all that long ago……

That is idiocy!!!
I can half read some of Ogham Irish, from knowing something of Gaulish/British!
Pure nonsense!

[hereward]

I clicked the link, 7-10 seconds passed, I clicked off. Forgive me for my lack of interest, I am just so tired of the constant re-evaluation of the ethno-genesis of the English, everything seems to be based on an asumption based on an assumption, possible over probable. Here's a site for the 'proto English Language living side by side with the Brythonic Languages.
http://www.proto-english.org/sum.html
I apologise for this post.

[Wulfhere]

Ignoring the Semitic thing because it's clearly bollocks, the Celtic subtrate in English is certainly worthy of consideration as a theory. However, it's also wrong. The reason is that Celtic languages were no longer spoken in England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived. A glance at Welsh would indicate that it should be classed as a Romance language, being so full of Latin. Wherever the Romans went they took their language, and Britain was no exception.

[Treffie]

However, it's also wrong. The reason is that Celtic languages were no longer spoken in England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

O rly?

A glance at Welsh would indicate that it should be classed as a Romance language, being so full of Latin. Wherever the Romans went they took their language, and Britain was no exception.

Of course, Welsh was highly diluted by Latin, but this doesn't mean that it's anything alike. You only need to look at the word order of the Celtic languages (VSO) to see that they're not Romance. Dah!

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
I can half read some of Ogham Irish, from knowing something of Gaulish/British!

The conclusion was reached using the “network method”.

It’s a complex process that I’m not going to go into detail here but it boils down to the degree of root word origins to borrowed words. Some scholars have argued that the similarity between Gaelic and Brythonic (whilst obvious when compared to continental Celtic languages) is substantially due more to proximity and borrowing than a recent ancestor….

Originally Posted by hereward
Forgive me for my lack of interest, I am just so tired of the constant re-evaluation of the ethno-genesis of the English, everything seems to be based on an asumption based on an assumption, possible over probable.

Naturally, hard facts are a rarity in early medieval English history, those who want certainty would be best advised not to study the period at all, as it is I welcome any new insight into the period, I tend to be more suspicious of extreme theories either way, people like Bryan Sykes with his theory that the English are “Celts” who forgot they were “Celts” is just as suspicious to my mind as the proponents of wipe out.

Originally Posted by Wulfhere
The reason is that Celtic languages were no longer spoken in England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

According to Oppenheimer, personally I found that argument of his to be pretty insubstantial, the lack of Celtic inscription in some parts of England is hardly conclusive evidence that Celtic wasn’t spoken in England…….his argument regarding the Belgae in south-east England being Germanic speakers might be worth looking into more….

[Wulfhere]

According to Oppenheimer, personally I found that argument of his to be pretty insubstantial, the lack of Celtic inscription in some parts of England is hardly conclusive evidence that Celtic wasn’t spoken in England…….his argument regarding the Belgae in south-east England being Germanic speakers might be worth looking into more….

The idea that the Belgae might have been Germanic is indeed an interesting one, but even if they were, their language cannot be ancestral to English. If English was descended from any language spoken in Roman Britain, it would be packed full of Latin words, just like Welsh is. In fact, more so, because we can assume that lowland Britain would be substantially more Romanised than mountainous Wales. Since Old English picked up no more than about half a dozen Celtic words (not counting place names), we must conclude that the English never lived within the confines of the Roman Empire.