Hallo!

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:56:03 +0100, R A Brown wrote:

>  On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>  >  Hallo!
>  [...]
>
>  >  Similar problems with "Hittite".
>
>  Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
>  of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
>  language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
>  conlang of the same name!)
>
>  For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
>
>  For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
>  http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html
>
>  When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
>  this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
>  the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
>  name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
>  entirely different area at a different time no one in their
>  right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
>  website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
>  diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
>  should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
>  ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
>  Anatolia long ago."          :)

Yes, this is a misfortunate misnomer; a part of the problem is
also that Jan's Hattic uses a fictional setting that is not
obviously fictional (he speaks of an ethnic minority in the
former USSR; which is not as obviously fictional as an "Elvish
language" or a language spoken on "the third planet of Tau Ceti"
or something like that).

This example shows that when naming a conlang, especially when
naming a lostlang, one should *first* check whether there is
already a language of that name!

>  But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
>  to as the language of Nes(a". The modern English would be
>  Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
>  consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
>  misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
>  change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
>  English "British."

Britain and England get confused a lot these days, with Scots
being called "Englishmen" and King Arthur referred to as a
"king of England".  Ach y fi!

>  >  With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
>  >  to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
>  >  belonging to that group.
>
>  Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
>  peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
>  It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
>  name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
>  Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
>  who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
>  that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
>  - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
>  it was natural to go and bash the French!)

But at least one of the three divisions of Gaul, the Aquitanians,
spoke a language that was not in any way Celtic, rather an early
form of Basque!  We know little about the language of the Belgae,
but it seems to have been similar to that of the Celti.

>  [...]
>  >  Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
>  >  existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
>  >  (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
>  >  from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
>  >  or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
>  >  Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
>  >  Celtic.
>
>  Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
>  survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
>  betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!

The only Continental Celtic conlang I am aware of is Dan Jones's
Arvorec, and it *does* have all those features.  Sigh.

>  >  The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
>  >  the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
>  >  typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
>
>  Good for you.

The avoidance of all Insular Celtic features is the main point
in that project.  Camonic (as I name it) is pretty much a reply
on Arvorec.

>  [snip]
>  >
>  >  On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
>  >  long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
>  >  studies, probably Brythonic.
>
>  As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
>  people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
>  of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
>  Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
>  spoke a non-IE language.

That is indeed likely.  Most of the Pictish names that have come
unto us have reasonable Brythonic etymologies, but many don't.

>        Certainly non-IE languages must
>  have been spoken in Ireland&  Britain way before the spread
>  of IE to these islands.

Of course!  We know that PIE cannot be older than about 6000 years,
and that the British Isles have been inhabited long before that.
The "Paleolithic continuity hypothesis" can be rejected out of hand,
and need not be discussed here.

>  [snip]
>  >
>  >  Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
>  >   culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
>  >  the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
>  >  have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
>  >  at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
>  >  tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.
>
>  Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
>  but try telling the modern self-styled druids!

AFAIK, Stonehenge was already disused and in ruins when the Romans
came to Britain.  And what regards the neopagans: what they do has
very little, if anything, to do with the beliefs of the actual
pre-Christian Celts!  There is nothing attractive about the cynical,
warlike deities of the ancient Celts craving blood sacrifices and
all that.

>  [...]
>
>  The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
>  Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.
>
>  >>  No one in ancient times ever referred to the
>  >>  inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
>  >>  till the 18th century they were so named - and since
>  >>  then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
>  >>  objected to - and so do I.
>  >
>  >  And I.
>
>  Amen.

Tolkien has put it well with his "twilight of reason".

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html