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

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

From: Rick McCallister

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:30 PM

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

My understanding of the "known historical facts" of
the lower Rhine area is that it was originally Celtic
and then was invaded by Germanic speakers. The
resulting people were mixed and perhaps spoke a
Mischsprache. And maps I've seen in many books show
the Germanic people as originally in a limited area of
present N Germany and Scandinavia (Lower Saxony and
points north).
Perhaps the Belgae were a mixed group with a Germanic
elite who spoke a form of Celtic mixed with Germanic
on top of whatever substrate language that persisted
in the area. Is there anything in the local names or
surviving modern languages that leads to such a
conclusion?

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

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: george knysh
> To: cybalist@... s.com
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:29 PM
> Subject: Re: RE : [tied] Re: North of the Somme
>
>
>
> > ============ ========= ========= ========= =
> >
> > 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.****
>
>
> ============ ========= ===
>
> A.F : I wrote this sentence this way because I had
> (wrongly) perceived you had the same core idea : So
> there are in fact three groups of hypotheses :
>
> A : the 1+ 1 = 1, which I represent (All Celtic
> people)
>
> B : the 1 + 1 = 1,25, which you represent (Most
> Celtic but with "Germanic" invaders in the
> northernmost area)
>
> C : the 1 + 1 = 2, which Torsten was advocating
> with the sub-group C.2 that believe the "Belgian"
> area is not only non Celtic but may represent a
> separate branch of PIE to be defined.
>
> ============ ========= ========= ==
>
>
> > 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.****
> ============ ========= ========= ========= ===
>
> A.F :
>
> I don't know who is reinterpretating
> speculatively. So far, I made it clear that I deem
> DBG as not trustworthy.
>
> What you are describing in an "act of faith" : one
> has no reason to express doubts about words
> (unrecorded) transmitted by a man, Caesar,
> (notoriously untrustworthy enough to get murdered by
> his own familly), transmitted by a chain of people
> (we know about none at 99% rate). That kind of "act
> of faith" could also apply to Jesus, for example. It
> is probably easier to list of the chain of popes and
> apostles from Jesus to present-day, than to list the
> chain of people from Iccius down to us. How can we
> be sure that Iccius even existed ? We might also
> believe everything Herodotes wrote with such an "act
> of faith". And Heraklês resisting Sirens' singing,
> tied to his mast.
>
> So far, my approach is based on historical
> phonology : I consider that we have enough data kept
> in sufficiently precise state to be able to make
> documented statements about what is what, what is
> clear, what is unclear. And From this lexical and
> phonological basis, duly ascribed to known (or
> supposed) languages, we can try to figure out a
> scenario, without forgetting Occam's razor :
> undocumented languages do not exist.
>
> I will not move from this way of dealing with this
> Gallia / Belgica dichotomy, the nature of which is
> to be determined and is not to be postulated ex
> nihilo (or because dixit Caesar). Caesar's DBG is
> just (a bit of) data : not an untouchable principle
> upon which everything has to rotate like the Earth
> around the Sun.
>
> As a starting point, I consider this dichotomy as
> totally unproved. Otherwise, I suppose it would be
> easy to provide the necessary data. I have sensed
> that the blunt and blithe conviction that this
> dichotomy is valid is starting to melt. And I
> believe the debate has reached a new stage when we
> can seriously exchange data to be examined and
> weighed in order to arrive at a sensical shared
> point of view, which remains to be defined.
>
> ============ ========= ========= ========= ====
>
> > 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
> (:=))****
>
> A.F :
>
> I accept the justified criticism for having
> deliberately and knowingly used (provocative)
> wording. My real intimate conviction is that
> "Gaulish" is a catch-all concept that has to be
> refined.
>
> Which "reliable data" are you talking about ?
>
>
> ============ ========= ========= ==
>
> > 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****
>
> A.F :
>
> You are free to like or prefer any opinion. (And
> so am I). But I will be more easily convinced by
> facts and data that this hypothesis makes sense. My
> naive point of view is that science deals with
> facts, concepts and data. Feelings are something
> else, even though they interfere.
> > ============ ========= ========= ======
> > > A.F
> >
> > the linguistic precise nature of these
> "Belgians"
> > is definitely what is at stake.
> > "Germanic" is too fuzzy.
> > 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?****
>
> A.F :
>
> You say you disagree with speculations. So,
> insofar as a word is clearly ascribable to a known
> language and there is no hint that this requires a
> better idea, the most documented ascription is to be
> held as the only legitimate interpretation.
>
> The rest belongs to God, to the extend he (or she
> ! or they) exists.
>
> ============ ========= ===
>
>
>
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===

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