From: tgpedersen
Message: 49587
Date: 2007-08-22
>That's correct.
> If I have understood the core assumption of this Belgian hypothesis,
> There should be two peoples + languages :
> People/language n 1 : "p-celt Gauls"
> People/language n 2 : "Belgians" (hence not "p-celt")
>
> And the next assumption is that these "Belgians" are supposed to be
> where Cesar said "Gallia Belgica" was.
> And the "p-celt Gauls" are supposed to be in the other area.
> This hypothesis makes sense ifYou just provided one yourself: Capitals in -u, ethnonyms in -is.
> the "Belgians" can be identified by some criteria
> that make them different from the "p-celt Gauls"
> in phonetic or lexical data.
> My native hometown is Boulogne sur Mer in Pas-de-Calais (DepartementNo, that is a basic and overwhelming fact about the way the book on
> number 62) this departement should be assigned to this "Belgian"
> area, according to this "Belgian" theory as well as neighboring
> departements Nord (n 59) and Somme (n 80)
> Professional linguists have written books trying to define
> etymologies for about EVERY place-name in these departements, that
> can claim to be ancient.
> Ancient means : attested since Antiquity and the Middle ages before
> year 1200.
> I have one of these books on my desk.
>
> The basic and overwhelming fact about these place names is very
> simple :
> - some have Latin origin,
> - some have Germanic origin (mainly Saxon, Norse and Frankish),
> - most are made up with exactly the same lexical roots as the rest
> of Gaulish place-names.
> Flemish names are not ancient.That depends. How would you label Flemish names in P- and other
> Some places have names labelled "pre-celtic" that are made up withThis might interest you; look for dob- in
> some components like ar "river" that you can find scattered all over
> French territory and this "pre-celtic" layer can obviously not be
> assigned to be "belgian".
>
> Examples :
> Deule River : Dubola : the black one : same as Doubs River
> ialos : clearing is represented :I haven't read the book, of which you haven't provided the title, but
> Mar-euil : clearing in the marshes
> Etc
>
> Every lexical component usually labelled "Gaulish" has clear
> representatives in this area and contrarywise, there is no need to
> posit any extra component.
> The major problem is that there is absolutely NOTHING (Nothing atI know. The only work of a similar nature I know of which includes
> all) that might support the assumption that the territory should be
> cut in two or more areas.
> Basically, the place names you find in the North of France are made
> up with the same components as any other place where the presence of
> "p-celt Gauls" is not questioned.
> The file for anything else than LAtin, Germanic and GAulish is
> EMPTY.
> So the conclusions are very simple :In capital letters, even.
>
> The "Belgian" Hypothesis is USELESS,
> The assignement of so-called "GAllia BElgica" to some other languageNo.
> than standard "p-celt" GAulish is falsified.
> I don't know if place-names in the Belgique/Belgie country havein your mind.
> undergone the same etymological study as in France,
> but as far as Northern France is concerned, there is not a hint of a
> shadow of a doubt :
> "P-celt Gauls win and take all".Torsten