Etaonsh wrote:

> I was under the impression that you
> were implying that Celtic letters
> could be reasonably described in an
> Etruscan context, to the extent of
> using an 'Etruscan word' for them.

Sorry, sometimes I forget to label my humor with ":-)"

> Again, you seemed to imply that
> Celtic letters, being basically
> Etruscan, did not deserve their own
> term, but did not level a similar
> query at the established word
> 'rune.'

Yes: I think that Celtic letters don't deserve their own term. What's wrong
with calling them just "letters" or the equivalent word in the languages?

Actually, I think that there exist no "Celtic letters" in any proper sense.
As we saw, ancient Celts used the same writing systems used by their
neighbors, e.g. a form of the Etruscan (or "Old Italic") alphabet in Italy,
and an adaptation of the Iberian script in Spain. Also modern Celtic nations
use the same Latin alphabet which is used in the rest of Western Europe.

In modern Ireland, the Irish alphabet is still commonly used. However, most
people agree to consider it a variant of the Latin alphabet.

The only genuine Celtic alphabet is Ogham. But, also in this case, the usual
term "letter" seems OK to me to call the basic signs of the script.

I know that "rune" is sometimes used to refer to each single sign of a Runic
alphabet. However, this usage is more common in the context of magic (which
would be quite OT, methinks). When talking about Runes as writing system,
the term "letter" is much more appropriate.

BTW, I hope you had a happy birthday.

_ Marco