[tied] Re: Mallory's New PIE Homeland?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Michael J Smith <lookwhoscross-
> eyednow@...> wrote:
> .....
> > ANd I've never understood why Indo-European groups are always
> considered
> > latecomers. For example, Celtic speakers in the British Isles are
> > usually not considered to have come until no earlier than 1200-

1000

> B.C..
> > WHy not earlier? If speakers of non-IE
> > language groups could have been far spread geographically at an
> early
> > date, why not IE speakers?
>
> I'm no expert, so maybe some of the more knowledgable members will
> correct me, but I believe that there is a growing acceptance of the
> fact that Celtic may have reached the British Isles much earlier

than

> previously thought. Renfrew certainly believed so, and even if most
> linguists don't accept his dates, don't some now push the arrival

of

> Celtic back at least another millenium earlier or so?
>
> Ned Smith

I thought it was established that p-Celtic arrived late? If q-Celtic
arrived early, and p-Celtic late, why are they then so closely
related?

Torsten