Celtic (Anglo-Saxon thread)

[Umberto Rossi]

> It is an interesting fact that Gaelic is so far removed from the
> Proto-European roots.  Where did it come from?  Why did the Celts
> have such an "original" language system?  

Though I am not the die-hard linguist you're looking for, all the
linguistics I studied while I was at the University of Rome "La
Sapienza" may turn out useful now.  Well, Celtic languages are today
a small family in the greater Indo-Germanic group.  The Indo-Germanic
languages include: germanic languages (English, Dutch, German,
Norwegian, etc.), latin (a.k.a. romanesque) languages (like French,
Italian, Sardinian, etc.), Greek languages (Macedonian and modern
greek), slavic languages (Russian, Polish, etc.), Iranian, Sanskrit,
and some smaller families of less famous languages with improbable
names (like Tocarian, which disappeared long ago so we needn't
bother about it).  Indo-Germanic languages are divided in two great
groups, Eastern and Western.  Celtic and Latin languages are
considered the "more western" families (here "western" does not hint
at simple geographical aspects, but to some linguistic features
which would be quite boring to explain).

The Celtic languages are not so original.  The verbal structures, the 
usage of pronouns, the linguistic roots of terms were much similar to 
those of other western Indo-Germanic languages.  But you were 
talking about the Picts and here we plunge deep into mystery.  Let me 
tell you why.

Indo-Germanic languages spread from an area placed somewhere in the 
middle of Asia 2-3,000 years before Christ (I may be wrong about the 
dates, but not very much).  The first Indo-Germanic-speaking peoples 
to settle in W-Europe were the Celts.  But obviously those lands were 
not void of men at that time.  When the Celts arrived here in Europe 
they found other populations, including the Picts.  We do not know 
very much about them.  Probably there was some attrition and quarrel 
at the beginning, then a quite peaceful fusion took place.  The 
Indo-Germanic-speaking learned to cultivate wheat and other 
graminaceas, to make flour and bread;  the pre-existing peoples 
adopted Celtic languages.  Then the Latin-speaking peoples arrived, 
and then the Germanic-speaking... in southern areas the 
Greek-speaking peoples settled on the shores and islands of the 
Aegean Sea and you know what happened.

But what about those peoples who existed before?  We do not know very 
much about them.  There are some hypotheses, though:

1. They were totally absorbed by the Indo-Germanic speaking peoples 
and left no trace, except for some verbal roots which still exist in 
modern European languages, English includes (any good etymological 
dictionary can help you to find out what they are).

2.  They were gradually assimilated but left some traces, i.e. the 
Etruscan inscriptions on monuments, tombs, coins, jewels.  
Unfortunately those texts are too small and too few to allow us to 
reconstruct the Etruscan language.

3.  They left at least one pre-Indo-Germanic language alive, i.e.
euskara, the language spoken today by most people in Basque
countries (Spain).  The Basques speak also Spanish, but use their
original language everytime they can (I have been in Basque
countries years ago and remember there were local radio stations
broadcasting in this very odd language).  You may know of the Basque
terrorist organization called ETA, which means Euskadi Ta Askatasuna
(I wonder what it may mean).  I also remember their version of the
anti-Nuclear badge which said "Nuclear Energy? No, thanks!"--the
euskara translation was "Nuklearra? Ez eskerrik asko!" or something
like that.

Maybe Pict language was similar to euskara or Etruscan.  Maybe it was 
something different even from those two languages.  Unfortunately the 
Picts weren't very good at writing, so there's not much left...

Umberto Rossi

"A commission is appointed 
To confer with a Volscian commission 
About perpetual peace"--and nobody told me!