Celtic (Anglo-Saxon thread)

[netty]

I've heard somewhere that Basque is related with languages from the 
Caucasus. And - isn't it interesting that within the Indo-European 
language family Greek appears to be mysteriously isolated? I mean, after 
all, Ancient Greece is the cradle of modern European culture (not 
civilization; those credits belong to the Romans).
Thomas

On Sun, 4 May 1997, Vaska wrote:

> At 08:48 PM 5/4/97 +0000, Umberto Rossi wrote:
> 
> >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).
> 
> Just a couple of observations: I think Umberto means the Indo-European
> language group.  
> 
> The Germanic branch is only one of the eleven main branches of the
> Indo-European language family, of which Celtic is another.  Modern
> Macedonian, like Bulgarian, Slovene, and Serbo-Croatian, is a South Slavic
> language, and is linguistically unrelated to Greek [no one seems to know
> much about ancient Macedonian, though we do know that ancient Greeks
> considered it incomprehensible and alien, one of the "barbaric" tongues.]  
> 
> English, in all its historical manifestations [Old, Middle and Modern],
> belongs to the Anglo-Frisian offshoot of the West-Germanic sub-branch.  
> 
> And, apart from the mysterious Basque [linguistically mysterious because no
> one seems to be able to figure out where it comes from, what other language
> it might possibly be related to], there's also Hungarian as the second
> extant non-Indo-European language still spoken [and flourishing] right in
> the middle of Europe.  And, come to think of it, Finnish would be the third.
> Right, Heikki?  
> 
> Vaska
> 
> P.S.  Ooops.  Almost left Estonian: it, too, belongs to the Finno-Uralic
> family, and is not an Indo-European language either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >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!
> >
> 
>