>Still on the assumption that the Balgae were Celts.
> > > Celticists derive Parisii < *kwVr-- "pot", hence "the pot
> > > heads, the kettle kin" (vel sim off the top of my head), right?
> I think it's more likely that the name is derivative of PIE *kWer-
> "to cause, to make", thus something like German "Macher".
> > > But there were also Parisii in E/NE England, right? somewhereStill don't care to elaborate?
> > > around N Anglia, Northumbria?
> > Yes. Read Stephen Oppenheimer's recent 'Origins of the British'.
> > On genetic grounds he reaches the conclusion that the Adventus
> > Saxonum can't have been very significant in terms of numbers, so
> > Eastern Britain should have been Germanic-speaking before that,
> > or rather Belgic-speaking, which he takes to be Germanic, loosely
> > based on discussions of whether the Belgae fall on the Celtic or
> > the Germanic side of the hedge, without taking the whole
> > NWB-problem into account.
> > This is why I consider the Veneti idea a godsend, so to speak.
> > It seems to solve all those problems.
> Oppenheimer's arguments are ludicrous and don't meet any kind of
> academic standards.
> In fact, there is little-to-no doubt among modern linguists thatSo Kuhn is old-fashioned? That is a serious accusation.
> the Belgae spoke a Celtic dialect. -
> the onomastic material alone supports this fact.Actually, at least in the edition I have, the whole discussion he has