>
> >
> > 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,
****GK: Interestingly Strabo doesn't distinguish Gauls and Belgae linguistically (as he does the Aquitanians). ****
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.
****GK: Remind me BTW. Where does this term "Aestii" come from? From Old Germanic for "easterner"? Or something else?****
> 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.'
****GK: On the other hand Tacitus was much better informed than Caesar about Britain and. After all he was writing a century and a half later, with myriads of new facts at his disposal. Cf. the passage which contrasts his view of the origin of the British population with Caesar's:
Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is, as usual among
barbarians, little known. Their physical characteristics are various and from these conclusions may be drawn. The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin. The dark complexion of the
Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts. Those who are nearest to the Gauls are also like them, either from the permanent influence of original descent, or, because in countries
which run out so far to meet each other, climate has produced similar physical qualities. 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; there is the same boldness in challenging danger, and, when it is near, the same timidity in shrinking from it. The Britons, however, exhibit more spirit, as being a people whom a long peace has not yet enervated. Indeed we have understood that even the Gauls were once renowned in war; but, after a while, sloth following on ease crept over them, and they lost their courage along with their freedom. This too has happened to the long-conquered tribes of Britain; the rest are still what the Gauls once were. (Agricola,11)
The reason why Tacitus only mentions Gauls is because he considers Belgae to be Gauls. He feels that all of Britain was colonized from Gaul, and contrasts all Britons to all Gauls as collectivities.*****
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.'
****GK: True****
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
****GK: All that is historically interesting. But Tacitus is writing about his perception of the situation in 98 CE. And of the linguistic affinities of that time, as he saw them.****
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.
****GK: That's not what Tacitus says. That's your dialectics. But it conflicts with Tacitus' testimony if you think that in 98 CE the language of the Belgae differed significantly from that of the rest of the Gauls. Tacitus says "Gauls" not "Belgae". And he is speaking of a language common to all Britons of his time. Surely that would not have been Venetic or "Belgic" in some non-Celtic sense. So the issue remains. How can we explain his contention that the Aestii of the Baltic spoke a Celtic-type tongue?****