From: tgpedersen
Message: 56469
Date: 2008-04-03
>Why do you think it is Celtic?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
> > ==================
> >
> > Catti points at *ka?-t-
> > Pok 521 has the alternating root
> > skait skaid "bright"
> > the Catti are the bright ones.
>
> That would explain why you aren't a Chatti.
> What happened to the -i-?
> Torsten
> =============
> Do you mean
> Filius is not from *dheH1-
>
> This is not the first time
> we see -i- here and no -i- there.
> Cf. digit and daktulos
>
> Arnaud
> =========
>
> > Matt river points at *ma?-t- "water"
> > Cf. PAA *ma?- "water"
> > aquae mattiacae is watery waters.
>
> PAA *ma?- "water" and therefore it's Celtic?
> Why? Because the main language in Paris is Arabic?
> And if I deny that, you say 'NSDAP' as ominously as you can?
>
> ===========
> We have already discussed this root *ma? "water"
> which is Pok 699 ma: < ma?-
> We don't need PAA to know this is maH2
> but PAA helps to determine that H2 here is *?
>Once more:
> > Standard Celtic.
>
> Sez who? Goscinny? Uderzo? You can't change the fact that the Chatti
> archaeologically aren't Celtic.
> Torsten
> ============
>
> I suppose I may have overlooked
> a reference pointing to this.
> Please give it again.
> O. Uenze left the old thought patterns in a different manner. He"
> observed, that the North Hesse group of the early Latène period
> could not with any certainty be called either Celtic or Germanic.
> According to him, they were a tribal group with local
> characteristics [O. Uenze, Vorgesch. der hessischen Senke (1953)
> 26]. By that he implied that the scheme delivered by historical
> linguistics doesn't always correspond to what actually happened,
> but didn't yet find the nearest solution.