--- "fournet.arnaud" <
fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
> 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).
****GK: There is no "your side". We converge on some
isues and diverge on others. Take this as individually
stated. My opinion is as above.****
>
> My point of view from the start was that there is
> no known
> criterion to distinguish these two parts.
****GK: There is Caesar's opinion, an excellent one,
based on information passed on by many local Gauls,
esp. Iccius and Antebrogius of the Remi (DBG 2:3).
This is much more reliable than speculative
reinterpretations two thousand years removed.****
> These two parts hence being basically
> one and only Gaulish country and undividable,
> the alleged dichotomy having no whatsoever
> ethnolinguistic relevance.
****GK: Willful rejection of reliable data is not very
laudable even if wrapped in French Jacobin slogans
(:=))****
>
> I believed some (or maybe most) of you were
> contending
> that "Belgica" was a non-Gaulish and a not even
> Celtic area.
****GK: That is my preferred view for the northern
half of what was "Belgica" in Caesar's DBG****
>
> ====================================
>
> > 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.
****GK: A methodological issue. How many of the
"Celtic" place names of ancient Gaul (including
Belgica) have survived in their pristine Gallic form
rather than as reconstructed from later Latin and
French revoicings? Next: how many of the identifiable
Norse, Flemish, Saxon, Frankish terms could be viewed
as N. Fl. S. or Fr. reinterpretations of ancient
(pristine) Germanic labels?****
POSTSCRIPT:
I happen to be in agreement with those scholars who
view DBG as having been "serially" produced. Thus Book
I would have been likely penned at Modena in the late
fall of 58 BC. This, of course, is where Caesar makes
his famous comment about the trilingual status of
Gaul. You don't object about Aquitania only about
Belgica. But here is what I think (only me not "my
side" (:=)))--- When Caesar wrote this he identified
the Belgae with their leading, sovereign, tribe (which
at that time happened to be the Nervians (we know this
when we compare the "Belgan" characteristics of DBG
1:1 with the Nervian ones of DBG 2:4 and 2:15.) Here I
quite agree with you: Caesar was wrong to identify
Belgica with the Nervii. He corrected himself in DBG
2.****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/