>
> >
> > GK: The Finns as "Aestii" in the context of the Schutte etc.
> > emendations? Seems possible. But what do you make of Tacitus'
> > comment that their language was "Britannicae propior"?
> That at least part of the British population also spoke a Venetic
> language, specifically that part which had been conquered by the
> Belgae, see Udolph's listing of *balg- toponyms in England in
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60821
> cf
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60815
>
> which unfortunately I haven't gotten around to translating yet.
>
> *****GK: Again this may have relevance for more ancient times (in
> the sense that the Belgae kept some substratic elements in their
> tongue).
Yes. Perhaps the Osismi and the Aestii kept a little more.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64781
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osismi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestii
'For a theory that the Aestii are the Osismii of Strabo and the Ostimii of Pytheas also mentioned by Strabo, see Bojtàr, Endre (1999). Foreword to the Past: a Cultural History of the Baltic People. Central European University Press. p. 104.'
A least enough for the Aestii to revert to speaking a Baltic Finnic language after they moved up north along the coast.
> But here is what Tacitus says about the Britannic language of his
> era (and he should know given his family connections): "In universum
> tamen aestimanti Gallos vicinam insulam occupasse credibile est.
> Eorum sacra deprehendas ac superstitionum persuasiones; sermo haud
> multum diversus" (Agricola, 11) Transl:
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agricola#29
> "But a general survey inclines me to believe that the Gauls
> established themselves in an island so near to them. Their religious
> belief may be traced in the strongly-marked British superstition.
> The language differs but little"
But notice that Tacitus nowhere in
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agricola
mentions Belgae, only Gauls. Compare then to Caesar DBG 5.12
http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.5.5.html
'The interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom they say that it is handed down by tradition that they were born in the island itself: the maritime portion by those who had passed over from the country of the Belgae for the purpose of plunder and making war; almost all of whom are called by the names of those states from which being sprung they went thither, and having waged war, continued there and began to cultivate the lands.'
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgae
'The Belgae were a group of tribes living in northern Gaul, on the west bank of the Rhine, in the 3rd century BC, and later also in Britain.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrebates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parisii_(Gaul)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parisii_(Yorkshire)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eburones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eburovices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eboracum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peuples_gaulois.jpg
The tribes of Britain above seem to have specifically Belgic (or borderline Belgic) correspondences on the Continent, whereas the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantes
had Venetic, in the broader sense, correspondences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bregenz#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_constance
perhaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians
> So: the language of the Aestii acc. to Tacitus was close to that of
> the Britons, and that of the Britons differed but little from that
> of the Gauls... *****
Correction:
The language of the Aestii acc. to Tacitus was close to that of the Britons, and that of the Britons differed but little from that of the Belgae.
Torsten