No Proto-Celtic?

[Stanley Friesen]

At 11:08 PM 4/29/01 -0400, JoatSimeon at aol.com wrote:
>Even when people 'convert' to a new language, they have to learn it from
>_somebody_; ie., native speakers.  Furthermore, there are more and less
>likely was for this to happen; in a premodern context, small intrusive
>minorities generally get absorbed by their linguistic surroundings rather
>than vice versa, even if they're politically dominant. (Which is why this
>conversation is not being conducted in Norman French.)  Learning a new
>language is difficult for adults, and is seldom undertaken without very
>strong motivation.

True - though it does happen.  In fact the very French you mention is the
result of one such occurrence.  A small minority of Romans managed to
convert a much larger number of Gauls into speaking Latin.

I wonder if part of the difference wasn't time.  The Norman French
incursion into England was essentially a single pulse, after which there
was little additional immigration - indeed the French crown quickly forced
the Norman nobles in England to renounce their French lands, effectively
separating the two groups.  On the other hand the Roman policy of retiring
their veterans into planned communities throughout the Empire continued for
centuries, not to mention the "all roads lead to Rome" economic influence
that Rome had in the empire.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at friesen.net