Re: [tied] Re: Cymerians?

> <Where have you seen any Gallic/Belgic *com-brogi attested? It isn't,
> as far as I have ever seen>
>
> Answer: MacBain
> An Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language (Scottish Gaelic).
> (See) Brugh-Large house, a tumulus, so Irish, Early Irish brug, mrug,
> land, holding, mark, Welsh bro, country, region, land, Cym-mro, a
> Welshman, pl. Cymmry (*com-mroges), Breton bro, country, Gaulish
> Brogi- *mrogi (for Gadellic); Latin margo, Gothic marka, border-
> country, Anglo-Saxon mearc, border, English mark, march.

You misunderstood me - I am fully aware of the various forms mentioned
above - my particular question to you was where did you see anything
resembling *combrogi appearing in Gallic/Belgic (since you claim that it
existed in these dialects)? As far as I know, no such form exists anywhere
except in Early Neo Brittonic (the immediate ancestor of Welsh and Cumbric.

> I'm not sure of MacBain's source, however since it appears to be
> fundamental to your argument against, you can research it and please
> let me know. Otherwise, I believe that this makes your following
> comment moot Ethe 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.

How do you figure that my argument is moot? We are not talking about the
fact that Gaulish and Brittonic used brog- in compound names - we are
arguing whether or not the specific ethnic/political form
*combrogi/*combrogos appears any where but in Britain at a late period in
time. If a form like this existed anciently (ie during the Common Celtic
period), as I have already said, it would appear in Common Celtic as
*comrogos/*comrogi (because Gaulish/Brittonic brog- was mrog- in earlier
Common Celtic period), which would then later become Gaulish and Brittonic
*cobrogos/*cobrogi and ultimately lead to Welsh Cyfry.

> Its possible you've not seen this form because MacBain offers it
> as Gaulish instead of the proper Gallic.

Gallic and Gaulish are the same thing.

> I added Belgic here
> because it is apparentEmany researchers are confusedEand
> assume only a single language, that being P-Celt, was used in France
> and Belgium in the 1st century BC to 1st century AD. However, in the
> opening lines of CI Caesar's_The Gallic War, Book I, it is clearly
> pointed out that Gallic (in Gaul) and Belgic (in northeast France and
> Belgium) were separate languages. In fact there is a great deal of
> evidence that indicates that Gallic and Belgic culture were quit
> different.

Examples, please? Other than the normal differences that occur in different
regions of large countries (like dialectal/accent differences), I am not
aware of any large cultural and linguistic differences between Gaul and
Belgica.

> I would argue that based on the duality of Q- and P-Celt
> words in what is now referred to as Gallic, that a large number of
> Belgic/Brythonic words have unwittingly been included, making it
> appear to be a P-Celt type.

What is your evidence for this please? You have to provide facts if you are
going to make statements that so brazenly fly in the face of current
accepted notions about Gaulish and Brittonic. I would like to particularly
see some of this Q-Celtic evidence, for I have only ever come across a
handful of Gaulish words that _might_ be Q-Celtic - but they may equally be
explained as P-Celtic as well, so the argument for a Q-Celtic Gaulish
existing into recorded history seems to be baseless.

> If you also have a problem with Belgic
> being Brythonic please see CI Caesar's_ The Gallic War, Book IV,
> where he provides that the Belgae tribes occupied much of southeast
> England by the middle of the 1st century BC and that these were
> collectively known as the Britons.

You are confusing the issues a bit. Brittonic is by its very nature the
Celtic language of ancient Britain, and not the Continent. There may be
Belgic influence on (southern) Brittonic, but as we don't see any strong
cultural influence flowing the opposite direction from Britain to Belgica
during the time period when Brittonic is flourished, we can't speak of
Belgic as being Brythonic. In any case, Belgic seems to have differed very
little from Gaulish - just as Brittonic differed little from Gaulish (thus
Tacitus proclaims that the Britons and Gauls have the same language) - so
there is really no need to see Belgic, Gaulish and Brittonic as being very
distinct from one another.

> I believe the previous paragraph provides the answer for another of
> you questions < 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>
> Furthermore, Along with the tribal names I listed in the earlier
> post, there are the distribution of Q- and P-Celt personal names,
> recorded in the early Roman period, throughout northern France,
> Belgium, Holland, northern Germany, and Denmark.

But what exactly are these Q-Celtic names that you are referring to? I
didn't see any tribal names in your previous post - I will look for it
again - but can you please cite some Q-Celtic onomastic material to back up
your argument?

>Your next comment is simply not the case, and in fact it is so wrong,
> in so many different aspects, that it is difficult to fully address.
> <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>
> If you like I could provide a comprehensive rebuttal in the future,

Yes, I would like to see your evidence.

> Finally, < 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>
> I would suggest that given Tacitus' education, experience, and
> chronological proximity to what he wrote about, he may have been less
> confused about these subjects, than a modern research might be.

He may have known a good bit about Britain, as his friend (and fellow Gaul)
Agricola served there and gave him a lot of first-hand information - but I
highly doubt that he had any reliable information about such a remote (at
that time) area such as the countries on the Baltic sea.

- Chris Gwinn