Re: [tied] Re: Cymerians?

> I understand you have a problem with this; however, I take the terms
> Cimbri and Cimmeri to mean the Nation, Confederation, or Alliance. As
> according to McBrian the Welsh term can be com-broges or -mroges
> which both are very similar to the earlier Gallic/Belgaic com-brogi
> and -mrogi.

Where have you seen any Gallic/Belgic *com-brogi attested? It isn't, as far
as I have ever seen.
The earliest recorded mention of Cymry in Welsh texts is the 8th-9th
centuries AD - before then the Britons are only called Brython (from
Brittones) in native
texts.
The coining of Cymry has to have taken place _after_ the cluster -mr-
became -br- in Brittonic, because *com-+ mroges would have given *comroges
(com- becomes co- before a second element beginning with m-), which would
become Modern Welsh *Cyfry.

> Are you saying that the Latin and Greek renderings of Cimmeri and Cimbri
> could not have been similar to the Iron Age Gallic/Belgaic words and
> these in no way can be Brythonic?

That's what I am saying. I think there is very little chance that a
hypothetical Gaulish/Belgic *Combroges or *Combrogi would be confused by
anyone with Cimmerioi or Cimbri. I am not quite sure why you are implying
that Cimbri and Cimmerioi could be Brittonic.

> The Cimmerians of the Ukraine appear to have been a preScythic
> manifestation somehow related to the Late Bronze Age Urnfield Culture
> of eastern Europe. However, as a culture by the time of its
> dispersal, it was integrated into the Early Iron Age of the Near
> East. Actually, numerous Classical and Roman sources made the
> connection between the Cimmeri and the Cimbri. The earliest is in
> Homer's Odyssey, formalized shortly after the forces dispersal of the
> Cimmerians from the Ukraine by the Scythians. It mentions the
> Cimmerians and refers to them in a northern European setting instead
> of their historic Ukrainian homeland.

They made the connection because Cimmerioi and Cimbri look similar to an
ancient non-Cimmerian or Cimbrian - the same way that you imagine both are
related to Welsh Cymry because they look alike. Just because the ancients
were confused does not mean that the Cimbri and Cimmerioi were even remotely
connected linguistically or culturally.

> Additionally, along with Cimbri, Aduatuci, Aburones, and Teutones
> from Denmark there were the Sugambri, Ubii, Chatti, Usipetes,
> Tenchtheri in northern Germany, recorded between 120 and 50 BC, all
> of which appear to have either Q- or P-Celt tribal names. Then there
> are the various Belgaic tribes, again many with either Q- or P-Celt
> tribal names, which crossed over the Rhine and out of northern
> Germany into northeast France and Belgium around 300 BC. This
> suggests that much, if not all, of northern Germany and Denmark was
> occupied by Q- and/or P-Celt speakers until the Cimbric migration in
> the late 2nd century BC.

Exactly what Q-Celtic forms do you find attested in these areas? The only
confirmed Continental Q-Celtic dialect that I have ever come across was
Celtiberian. Please cite some examples.

> Then there are the historic references by Tacitus to close between
> ties to ancient Brythonic and Baltic, coupled with more recently
> documented linguistic similarities, which are a related yet separate
> issues.

Tacitus was likely a bit confused on this particular issue. I think there is
a rational explanation for his confusion (I have seen it explained
somewhere) that makes more sense than positing close linguistic links
between Brittonic and Baltic.

-Chris Gwinn