Re: [tied] Re: Cymerians?

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 6887
Date: 2001-03-30

Dear Joseph,
 
It's all right to propose and defend a personal theory about Celtic if you play according to the rules. But if you fly in the face of the orthodox scholarship on the subject without as much as providing some justification for your views, if you insist on using your private nomenclature (calling it "technically correct", which in this case is a mere pretension) and if, on top of that, you insult fellow list members by patronising them -- that's hardly conducive to a sound discussion. Chris Gwinn is perfectly able to defend himself, but let me just say that he has sufficiently demonstrated *both* his qualities as a student of Celtic historical linguistics *and* his general historical erudition on this and other lists to deserve respect.
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Joesph S Crary
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:44 AM
Subject: [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?

Your statement:
<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>

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

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

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?

Right, I'll do the former as this will lay a contrasting foundation
for the latter, however sorry I have to go for now. I'll post
tomorrow if I've time...

Joseph