Re: [tied] Q-Celtic in Gaul? and Celtiberian

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:06:45 +0000, Michael Smith
<mytoyneighborhood@...> wrote:

> Hi, Brittonic and Gaulish are said to be almost the same, with
>minor differences. Can the same be said of Celtiberian and early
>Irish Goidolic, and if so, does this lend support to the idea that Q-
>Celtic speakers reached Ireland from Northwestern Iberia, Brittonic
>preceding Goidelic in Ireland?
>
>Also, I find in Ramon L. Jimenez' "Caesar Against the Celts":
>
>"One variation of this theory is that Goidelic-speakers, or some of
>them (the "Black Irish"), migrated directly from Spain, where Q
>Celtic inscriptions have been found in the north."
>
>Then, regarding Q-Celtic in Gaul, he says:
>
>"Also, several linguists have pointed out that the Sequani in eastern
>Gaul were Q Celts, and their close association with the Helvetii and
>their sub-tribe, the Tigurini-Caesar's first victims in the Gallic
>War-suggests that those tribes were also Q Celts. Although Caesar
>directed them to return to their homeland, it is conceivable that
>they later continued their migration and reached the Atlantic coast,
>as some if the Boii and Tigurini did, and from there sailed to
>Ireland. It is also significant that many Irish saints and princes
>derive their names from the Tigurini."
>
>Can anyone add to or clarify this?

The problem is that there is no "Q-Celtic" group. P-Celtic
may be a valid grouping, as it's based on an innovative
development (*kW -> p). On the other hand, this development
is so trivial that even there the possibility of separate
independent events remains (cf. Osco-Umbrian, or Romanian
and Sardinian).

The Q-Celtic languages do not necessarily have anything
common, except being Celtic, and having retained (and/or
subsequently delabialized) the phoneme *kW (and *ghW).

For instance, Old Irish doesn't have a trace of the
characteristic Celtiberian G.sg. ending -o (or -o:).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...