--- In
qalam@yahoogroups.com, Marco Cimarosti <marco.cimarosti@...>
wrote:
> 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 ":-)"
Oh, OK (& 'wind-ups' and initiation ordeals are never introduced as
such, yeah, OK, I see, etc.).
> > 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?
Every little attempt to reassert the identity of a semi-conquered
people seems worthwhile to an activist, especially where it seems
justified from a 'Celtic Studies' perspective.
> Actually, I think that there exist no "Celtic letters" in any
proper sense.
Apart, as you go on to say, from Ogham.
> As we saw, ancient Celts used the same writing systems used by their
> neighbors,
As does almost everyone! :)
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.
'Ogham' ('Owm') is a whole system of alphabets and classification.
Apart from the basic 'celts' there is a sign language, a 'colour
ogham,' a 'bird ogham,' a tree ogham,' etc. It opens the door to the
Druids'whole concept of alphabet as mnemonic aid to (e.g.,
scientific) classification.
> 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,
A predictable and foreseen comment on this academic discussion forum
but not without some pathos, IMHO.
methinks). When talking about Runes as writing system,
> the term "letter" is much more appropriate.
When talking about runes as a writing system, the terms 'futhark(s)'
and 'rune' are more precise.
> BTW, I hope you had a happy birthday.
Yes, thanx. AS in life generally, room for more festivity and less
contention tho.
R