Joseph wrote:
> Sorry I've been on the run lately and did not proof my earlier posts.
> Had time to review a disk copy today and realized what a mess it was.
> Here it is again...
<post snipped>
I have already addressed many of the issues that Joseph brings up in my last
post - see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/6895
Joseph needs to explain a few key points:
1) Why we should call the Celtic language of Northern Gaul "Brythonic" when
Brythonic (or rather Brittonic to use the preferred technical term)
literally means "Pertaining to Britain" and can only refer to the ancient
Celtic language of Britain and its sole Continental descendant, Breton,
which arrived in Armorica in late antiquity. Unless he is planning to prove
that the ancient Celtic language of Belgium arrived there from Britain, I
suggest that he stick to calling the language either Belgic or Northern
Gaulish.
2) Why he believes Galatian and Lepontic are Q-Celtic when the actual
inscriptional and onomastic material unequivocally points to these languages
being P-Celtic
3) Where exactly he has found *Combrogi attested in Gaul or Belgica.
4) Why he insists that Gaulish was Q-Celtic in the 6th-4th centuries BC when
we have actual testimonies in classical sources of P-Celtic onomastic
material in Gaul during this period.
5) Why he feels the need to present an extended thesis on archaeology when
we are discussing a linguistic issue here.
-Chris Gwinn