Re: [tied] Re: Cymerians?

> Good God Man...I can see to bring you up to speed it is going to take
> much more work than I can afford today. On top of that, based on your
> response I'll have to lay a substantial foundation as well. Again,
> there are so many problems here its difficult to know where to begin?

Problems?? If you are having problems with my statements, then you are
having problems with the orthodox thought amongst Celtic scholars today
regarding the origins and affiliations of the various ancient Celtic
dialects - I am simply offering the standard view on the subject.

> First, Gaulish is a term sometimes used to refer to the late Latene
> culture of north central France, however the technically correct term
> for both culture and language is Gallic.

Says who?? I have several books on the subject lining my bookshelf - most
written by top Celticists - and all of them, when they write in English -
call the language of ancient Gaul Gaulish (Gaulois in French, Gallisch in
German).

> Second, there is very little
> or no evidence of ancient Brythonic, as used in the British Isles,
> other than tribal, place, and personal names.

Which is enough to establish its place in the Celtic language family - it
was a P-Celtic language and was spoken from Northern Scotland to Southern
Cornwall - from Western Wales to Eastern England. It differed very little
from Gaulish in its form and utilized the same name elements. Several
Brittonic names have identical matches on the Continent.

> Evidence of written
> Brythonic does not appear here until the Middle Ages. This is not to
> say it wasn't used before this time, it just means we have no
> comparative examples until this time.

Well, there are the two curse tablets (dating from the first few centuries
AD), that seem to be written in Brittonic, which were dredged up at Bath -
but they are short.

> Next, although some researchers recognize Belgic as a separate
> language, many have mistakenly groups these words within Gallic.

Where are you getting this information?? Please cite sources for these
claims.

> However, based on the Belgic words that can be discerned in Gallic,
> it is clear that the former is an early Brythonic language, as Welsh,
> Cymbric, Cornish, and Breton are very much later examples.

How would you know something is Brythonic? And what, exactly, in your mind
marks a Brythonic language? What dates are we speaking of anyway? Explain,
please! No one that I have ever read speaks of Brythonic being spoken on the
Continent until late antiquity, when British colonists began to establish
Brittany in former Armorica. You have got a lot of explaining to do here!

> This
> evidence places the earliest example of written Brythonic firmly on
> the continent. Furthermore, to understand the historical relationship
> between Gallic and Belgic (culture, to include language) you need to
> do a great deal of reading, and it would really be to your benefit if
> you have a good understanding of Latin.

Please! You are insulting my intelligence - I suggest you go through the
Cybalist archives and learn a little about me. I have been studying
historical Celtic linguistics for over 15 years and maintain a website
dedicated to Gaulish linguistics. I indeed do have an understanding of
Latin. My bookshelf is crammed full with Celtic Studies and anybody that
knows me will tell you that I do more than my share of reading.

> At this point I'm do sure in which direction to proceed? Should I
> begin with establishing the relationship between Gallic, Celtiberian,
> Leaponic, and Gallaeaic? Or should I address the developmental
> sequence of the Belgae as it applies to the Late Bronze Age Urnfield
> and later latene-Gallic cultures?

Please do - and provide sources for your scheme as well, please.

-Chris Gwinn