LL-L "History" 2007.04.09 (02) [E]

[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  -  09 April 2007 - Volume 02

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

From: "Isaac M. Davis" <isaacmacdonalddavis at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2007.04.04 (02) [E1

Mark Dreyer wrote:

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
>
> I've read mention of that. I've also read, though, that it's been
suggested more recently that we're inferring too much from what Caesar said,
that what was really going on was that Latin fluency was common among Gauls,
as it was certainly to their benefit to learn the language of their enemies.
I find it odd though, as well, because along with the Gaulish inscriptions
in the Latin alphabet, there are also plenty of inscriptions in the Greek
alphabet, so obviously there were a fair number of Gauls with at least a
nodding familiarity with the alphabet, if nothing else (and alphabets don't
generally get borrowed in isolation). Some interesting things have been
extrapolated, in fact, based on what letters were used in the two different
alphabets, and between them, a more complete picture of the native phonology
of Gaulish has been revealed.

I have some familiarity with Latin, and less familiarity with Gaulish, but
just on a cursory inspection, I doubt that a Gaulish-speaker could, without
training, understand someone speaking or writing Latin. Even setting aside
the question of the Italo-Celtic family, they're just not that similar. You
might be able to guess at grammatical function and/or number on occasion
(noun morphology does seem to be one of those areal features shared between
Celtic and Italic languages, though you wouldn't know it to look at, say,
Manx and French), but even the vocabulary isn't that close. This is my
impression, based on very little familiarity, as I say. I'm certainly
willing to be contradicted by someone who knows more.

Isaac M. Davis

-- 

Westron wynd, when wilt thou blow
The smalle rain down can rain
Christ yf my love were in my arms
And I yn my bed again

•

==============================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/20070409/0076a3c7/attachment.htm>