From: Glen Gordon
Message: 8439
Date: 2001-08-10
>What makes you think this? I certainly see nothing that looks like aExactly. And further, Germanic's sound shift might not have even
>creole in Germanic - as we have already discussed, the allged 30%
>substrate in Germanic is probably bogus. Just because there was a
>sound shift, doesn't mean that Germanic was a creole - similar sound
>shifts occured in quite a few of the IE branches.
>From: "Christopher Gwinn" <sonno3@...>_________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [tied] Re: Celtic/Germanic
>Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:59:51 -0000
>
>
> > From the little I know of Celtic languages, with respect to "style"
> > they fit the stereotypical description of things Celtic:
>Extravagant,
> > when not downright suppletive then extremely complicated paradigms,
>a
> > typical elite language, that it would take a lifetime to learn
> > properly
>
>Come on - nearly every IE language takes a considerable amount of
>time to learn properly, with even some native speakers never truly
>mastering the language in their lifetimes (usually based on their
>education level). Celtic languages are certainly no more harder than
>Russian or Czech, and I really don't know how you can call Celtic
>langauges typically "elite". I think your admitted lack of knowledge
>of Celtic linguistics forces you to see more complexity in them than
>they actually possess.
>
> > (and I am pretty sure a good deal of the decade-long
> > education of druids included Pan.nini-like rules learnt by heart),
> > the kind of language students flee from at school, if they have any
> > other interest than language for language's sake. And also
> > diversified - each Celtic tribe would have a linguistic axe to
>grind
> > with the neighbor tribe.
>
><chuckling> What would possibly make you think that? What evidence do
>you have of this? Do you have a linguistic axe to grind with YOUR
>nighbors?
>
> > Compare that to early Germanic which
> > compared to some rival IE languages looks like a simplified trade
> > language - a creole.
>
>What makes you think this? I certainly see nothing that looks like a
>creole in Germanic - as we have already discussed, the allged 30%
>substrate in Germanic is probably bogus. Just because there was a
>sound shift, doesn't mean that Germanic was a creole - similar sound
>shifts occured in quite a few of the IE branches.
>
> > The result is that if Celtic tribes are
> > displaced and in contact with as yet unknown to them other Celtic
> > tribes, they will try Germanic, much as Europeans today will use
> > English on vacation, no matter where.
>
>I am struggling to understand you here. You are saying that if a
>Celtic tribe moves into a new area and comes into contact with
>another Celtic tribe - but one that they don't know is Celtic yet -
>they are going to try speaking to them in Germanic? This would be
>truly bizarre - I hope I am misunderstanding you. Anyway - don't you
>think someone would catch in within like...5 minutes that the person
>they were talking to really spoke the same language as him/herself?
>
> > If this were the case, it would be difficult for Roman writers to
> > distinguish which tribe was Celtic and which Germanic, and so it
> > was.
>
>It was difficult for the Romans to distinguish Celts from Germans the
>same way it is difficult for many westerners today to distinguish
>Japanese from Chinese - most haven't studied these languages and
>don't know much about either culture, so t's all just "Greek" to
>them. This has absolutley nothing to do with whether or not a
>wandering Japanese person will attempt to speak Chinese if he runs
>across another eastern Asian-looking person while in a foreign land.
>
>- Chris Gwinn
>
>