LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.04.20 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 20.APR.2005 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: embryomystic at cogeco.ca <embryomystic at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.04.19 (03) [A/E/LS]

Heather Rendall wrote:

> PS Still trying to follow up on the recent comment that
> the relationship between Italo-celtic languages has been
> debunked. All the recent books I have checked so far are
> still referring to it. Could I have some direction in
> which to look for the 'debunkers'. I found a very
> emotional web forum where a member was using DNA results
> ( unproven?) to link all sorts of unlikely
> countries/peoples and thereby proving ( so he said) that
> the accepted IE family history was twaddle.
> UNfortunately he made the mistake of thinking that a
> single langugae would restrict its use to a single DNA
> group.... which of course it doesn't and probably never
> has except millions/hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I can't really provide any backup for my initial statement. It's just
something I've heard in a few different places, none that I can be specific
about. I'm not particularly attached to the theory, and it could go either
way and I'd be fine with it. If you have recent published materials that
acknowledge it as a reasonable theory, then maybe my (vague) sources are
wrong. No worries.

It's pretty clear to me that attempting to tie language groups to genetic
ones is a fool's errand; look at the Y-chromosome results which show that
there's a group of men (or rather Y-chromosomes) whose frequency in the
overall population increases as you move westward in Europe, reaching its
highest percentages in, I think, western Ireland and the Basqueland. This
would suggest to me that in spite of the prevalence of two IE languages from
separate subgroups in Ireland, the people themselves are largely the same as
those who initially colonised it after the retreat of the glaciers.

Keep me updated, though, on-list or off-, if you discover anything
discussing the debunking of the Italo-Celtic theory, or a debunking of a
supposed debunking.

Regards,

Isaac M. Davis

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================