Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme

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

From: george knysh

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 4:48 PM

Subject: Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme

--- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

> Dear Gentlemen,
>
> I am afraid you are rejoicing a little bit too
> early.
>
> Kuhn's maps are interesting
> BUT
> 1. the coast-line was lying more to the south in old
> days

****GK: Find the map then make the point. How much
"more to the south"?****

==============================

A.F :

You are the ones who want to prove that the area is not Celtic

so I think it is a little casual to push the burden of proof upon me.

But I will nevertheless try to figure this out.

=================================

> 2. Kuhn has overlooked data :
> Instances of Condat and -ialos exist in higher
> numbers
> in the area where they allegedly "should not",
> 3. Kuhn's Celtic markers are not the only Celtic
> markers available.
> The area is just covered with Celtic markers, not
> taken into account by Kuhn.

****GK: As stated, this, even if true (we don't know
that it is), makes no difference at all to Caesar's
point.****
> Henceforth,
>
> 1. I must tell you that I feel undaunted
>
> 2. I am afraid that after we have filled up the
> holes in Kuhn's maps
> and put the coast-line in the right place,
> there is a clear risk that non-Celtic areas will be
> squeezed out.

****GK: Both premature and irrelevant.* ***

=========================

A.F :

ok : This remains to be proved.

Please be patient.

2000 years plus/minus one week does not change much to the picture.

=============================

>
> Next,
>
> I would like to ask Two questions about methodology
> :
> Q1 :
> Once place-names of Latin, Flemish, Frankish, Saxon
> are taken out of account,
> how much Celtic percentage is necessary to consider
> an area as Celtic ?

****GK: Caesar accepted the prior Celtic status of all
areas occupied by non-Celts in Belgica in 57 BC****

========================================

A.F :

This statement you write about the originally Celtic status

of the two parts : "Belgica" and "Gallia" proper

does not seem to be meeting everybody's opinion (on your side).

 

My point of view from the start was that there is no known

criterion to distinguish these two parts.

These two parts hence being basically

one and only Gaulish country and undividable,

the alleged dichotomy having no whatsoever ethnolinguistic relevance.

 

I believed some (or maybe most) of you were contending

that "Belgica" was a non-Gaulish and a not even Celtic area.

(I remember to have read this is Torsten Pedersen's point of view :

"Belgica" area is non Celtic : only Gallia area is)

 

I am also a little surprised that you are :

1. clapping hands at Kuhn's maps

2. making no difference between "Belgica" and "Gallia".

At the same time.

This sounds to me as a contradiction.

 

Your statement of Celtic ascendance for every part "Belgica" and "Gallia"

 is an argument that is tilting on my side.

But I expect some counter-uproar to reject your statement.

 

I thought The "Belgian" propagandists were in favor of some kind of

non celtic non germanic (but indo-european) substrate near the North sea.

Your point of view wipes away any possibility for this substrate.

Everything is Celtic !

 

====================================

> Q2 :
> How can a "Belgian" word be identified as being
> Belgian ?

****GK: That's a fair question. If we assume that the
non-Celtic Belgians were "Germanic" we could look in
that direction. Perhaps Torsten can help with other
Kuhn maps.****

=======================================

A.F

the linguistic precise nature of these "Belgians" is definitely

what is at stake.

"Germanic" is just an (honourable but) fuzzy label.

We know how to recognize Norse, Flemish, Saxon, Frankish, etc.

=======================================
>
> I have never seen an invading population leaving no
> clear traces of its presence.

****GK: It happens though. E.g. the Cimmerians in
Ukraine or Turkey. The Pechenegs in various places.
But this too is worth pursuing.

=================

Again I leave it to
Torsten to identify traces of Caesar's non-Celtic
Belgians.*** *

A.F :

Great !

================================

BTW cf. http://fr.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Nerviens
Once there, also click on "Menapiens" and "Eburons"
(eventually also on "Morins"), with proposed Germanic
etymologies. I mention all this just to note that not
all French data agree with Arnaud.

=======================================

A.F

I am not Louis XIV. If there was any doubt about this, I am not claiming to

be "France" per se.

 

Unfortunately,

This wikipedia reference does not provide any new data.

=======================================

 

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545433