LL-L "History" 2007.04.04 (02) [E1

[Lowlands-L List]

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 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.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com


 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 (Zeeuws)

=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L  -  04 April 2007 - Volume 02

 ========================================================================

From: Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2007.04.03 (01) [E]

 Dear Isaac:

Subject: LL-L "History"

Ron wrote:
The Romance and Celtic language branches grew from a common branch off
Indo-European. They are therefore more closely related to each other than to
other Indo-European branches. In Roman times, Latin (Romance) and Gaulish
(Celtic) were to a certain degree mutually intelligible, but apparently only
in the sense that certain words could be made out here and there (which is
why Romans in Gaul needed [to speak Greek(?)].

   Actually, as far as I know, the Italo-Celtic hypothesis is pretty much
defunct. There are definitely similarities, even within IE as a whole, but
the current line of thinking is that the resemblance between the Italic*
languages and Celtic ones is due to areal proximity rather than genetic
relationship.

Mark: It was near enough that Julius Caeser reports in his Commentaries that
he made a point of writing his dispatches in Greek, in case they were
intercepted by Gaulish spies.

I for my part find this odd, but in a different way. Just because the Gauls
weren't in close contact with the Romans doesn't mean they also weren't in
contact with the Greeks. Masselia was a Greek colony after all. There were
almost certainly a good few Greeks around who spoke Gaulish, & more Gauls
who read Greek.

Yrs,
Mark

•

==============================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.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070404/829abbaf/attachment.htm>