Re: [tied] Belgians and Gauls

----- Original Message -----

From: Rick McCallister

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 7:35 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Belgians and Gauls

What are we to make of so-called Baelgic groups in
Britain and Ireland? Just coincidence of names or true
relationships?

--- george knysh <gknysh@... com> wrote:

> Sorry for the prior truncated message!
> --- george knysh <gknysh@... com> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@ yahoo.com>,
> > continuing a discussion between Torsten and Arnaud
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hmmm,
> > > Doubs & Deule look quite different to me but,
> yes,
> > I
> > > know that N & S France have different linguistic
> > > histories and that Deule is probably a
> diminutive.
> > > BUT
> > > maybe the difference between Gaulish & Belgic is
> > not
> > > P-Celt vs Q-Celt but rather akin to that between
> > > Briton vs Pictish or English vs Scots, etc.
> > Perhaps
> > > the major difference is that Belgic had a
> Germanic
> > > adstrate nd perhaps a different substrate.etc. ..
> >
> > *****GK: Caesar seems actually quite useful. If
> you
> carefully analyze DBG 1:1 and 2:4 it would seem that
> the "Belgic complex" contains at least three
> (perhaps
> more if we add the pre-Gaulic substrate)
> populations:
> (1) The "Belgae" proper, descendants of trans-Rhenic
> invaders (the Belgic characteristics mentioned in
> 1:1
> are primarily applicable to the Nervii and their
> allies in the second phase of the war); (2) the
> descendants of pre-Belgic Celtic groups not
> dispossessed by the Belgic invaders [Caesar states
> that "very many" Belgae (in the comprehensive sense
> i.e. "members of the Belgic alliance") originally
> came
> from Germania,which is to imply that not all did];
> (3)
> Germanic groups even more recently arrived (some in
> connection with the Cimbro-Teutonic saga /the
> Atuatici/. There is no reason to disbelieve Caesar
> when he notes that the dominant group (the Belgae
> proper) were not Celtic-speakers (in the sense of
> Gaulish-speakers) . It's difficult to identify their
> language. The argument that it was Germanic is not
> conclusive. Since the Gauls are assumed to have
> dominated the area before the Belgic invasion, it is
> hardly surprising to find that many hydronyms,
> toponyms etc.. are reflective of their speech.****
>
> > > --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr>
> > > wrote:
> > > > So the conclusions are very simple :
> > > >
> > > > The "Belgian" Hypothesis is USELESS,
> > > > The assignement of so-called "GAllia BElgica"
> to
> > > > some other language than standard "p-celt"
> > GAulish
> > > > is falsified.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if place-names in the
> > Belgique/Belgie
> > > > country have 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".
>
>
>
>
>
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.
> Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
>
http://surveylink. yahoo.com/ gmrs/yahoo_ panel_invite. asp?a=7
>
>
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel. yahoo.com/