Hallo!

R A Brown wrote:

> Thomas Wier wrote:
> 
> >Joerg wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >This does not mean
> >there is no chance for an influence in either direction (more
> >likely Semitic => Celtic, via Berber and extinct Celtic languages
> >in Spain), but that such influence is likely to be only tentative.
> >
> >
> IMO that is putting it mildly. How much do we actually know about
> extinct Celtic languages in Spain?

Not much.  But Celtiberian seems to have been a "Q-Celtic" language
without the "insular" features.

>       Indeed, how many of these 'common
> features' were present in Old Irish and in ancient British?

As I said before, these features evolved in the Isles, probably
in the first half of the first millennium AD.  Old Irish already
had them; whether "ancient British" had them depends on which time
stage of the language you are referring to.

> I think Thom has commented well on the 17 points; I'll only add to one
> or two, thus:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >>11) Predicative particle: in copular or nominal sentences,
> >>      the predicate is marked with a particle homophonous
> >>      to a "local" preposition: "He (is) in a farmer"="he is a farmer."
> >>12) Prepositional periphrastic: BE + Prep + VN, e.g.,
> >>      "He is at singing"  [TEONAHT'S  "she is with singing"]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You mean, just like Old English, Middle English, and many modern
> >English dialects?  (I suppose Vennemann could counter that that's
> >because of the Celtic and Semitic substrate in Britain, but then
> >that begs the question.)
> >
> >
> In any case, is this a _Semitic_ trait? I am not aware of this.

Nor am I.

> >>13) DO periphrastic: DO + VN, e.g. "He does singing."
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Lots and lots of languages have light verb constructions like this,
> >e.g., Hindi.
> >
> >
> Yes, indeed - personally, I find far more resemblances between the
> periphrastic verb forms in insular Celtic and Hindi than I notice any
> resemblances with Semitic forms. Are periphrastic verbal construction
> common in Semitic languages?

To my knowledge, NOT!  But I am no expert on Semitic.  Yet, as far
as my meager knowledge goes, the Semitic verb has a rich inventory
of *synthetic* aspectual and modal forms, as can be seen in Classical
Arabic, which is widely considered a rather conservative Semitic
language.

> [snip]
> 
> >>16) Word-initial change, expressing a variety of syntactic
> >>       functions
> >>
> >>
> [snip]
> 
> >I don't know much about the Semitic initial change, but how is
> >it like Celtic lenition?
> >
> >
> There is a superficial resemblance between the use of dagesh in Hebrew &
> lenition in the Gaelic languages in that we have an alternation between
> plosive and fricative pronunciation (but in Gaelic lenition may also
> occur with |m| and |s|). But such alternation in both cases was
> originally allophonic and such allophonic alternation must surely occur
> in other languages.

Yes.  It is far from uncommon.

> In the Gaelic languages, the alternations have ceased to be
> phonologically conditioned and have become grammaticalized. How
> grammaticalized were these alternations in Biblical Hebrew?

AFAIK, not at all.  And there are no such alternations in many other
Semitic languages, including Arabic.

>       From what I
> remember they were essentially phonologically conditioned and the use of
> dagesh in later texts, like the use of vowel pointing, was a device to
> ensure the correct reading of the scriptures.

Yes.

> How typical is the feature of Semitic languages? Are such alternations
> _grammaticalized_ as they are in the insular Celtic languages?

AFAIK, not.  And as I said above, many Semitic languages have *nothing*
resembling dagesh lenition, let alone Gaelic mutations.

> Also the 'soft mutation' (lenition) of the Brittonic languages is quite
> different and resembles exactly the same sound changes that were going
> on in western Vulgar Latin. The differences was that initial sound
> changes became grammaticalized in the Brittonic languages - but
> internally there is little difference in the behavior of the Brittonic
> languages & western Romance in this matter.

Exactly.

> Sound changes like these are not exactly uncommon, are they?

No.  The only thing that's remarkable about the Celtic lenitions is
that they (1) operated across some word boundaries (which is simply
the outcome of something like French "liaison") and (2) were
grammaticalized.  No Semitic language has grammaticalized any
similar sound changes.

> >Anyways, I hope this post will show that Vennemann's arguments are
> >probably ultimately misleading, and certainly do not constitute
> >proof.  Given an ounce of skepticism, it's really remarkable that
> >this story has held on as long as it has.
> >
> >
> Amen.

You said it.

> [snip]
> 
> >Actually, it's not inconceivable.  The Phoenicians had trade
> >interests in Britain, as Britain was one of the better sources
> >of tin in the ancient world.  So they could have founded emporia
> >along the same lines as those the Greeks founded throughout the
> >Mediterranean world.  But AFAIK there's no archaeological evidence
> >for such an emporion, and so any link is little more than a
> >remote possibility.
> >
> >
> I am not aware of any evidence for such emporia, either. I have seen it
> suggested that simplification of grammar and development of periphrastic
> verb forms, so characteristic insular Celtic, was due to a trade jargon
> or pidgin that developed between the Phoenicians and ancient Brits. But
> while it is not inconceivable that some sort pidgin was actually used,
> it seems to me very odd that a localized pidgin should then have
> influenced the speech habits of everyone in Britain & Ireland!

It seems very odd to me, too.  How does a "Pidgin Punic" exert such
an influence on the languages of the *entirety* of the British Isles,
and how does it impose features on those languages that aren't found
in it at all?  Escapes me.  No, we can safely forget about that.

> >Patrick Littel wrote:
> >[snip a lot]
> >
> >
> >>Oh, and if I look around, I can probably find you a book claiming
> >>Semito-Mayan contacts as well.  Might be a fun read!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I agree with most of your comments.
> >
> Or perhaps Hamito-Mayan? I mean, isn't it claimed by some that Egyptians
> crossed the Atlantic in papyrus-reed boats and taught the native Indians
> how to build pyramids?
>           :-)

Of course, "Hamitic" is no valid node in the family tree; this is
exactly the reason why the term "Hamito-Semitic" is deprecated today.

> >If you're looking for such a book,
> >do a search for Ignatius Donnelly. He was a retired lawyer in the 19th
> >century who had all sorts of crackpot ideas, and spent his free time
> >researching possible evidence for Atlantis.
> >
> Ah, Atlantis! If only I could have a pound (or even a dollar or a euro)
> for every crackpot idea I have come across about that island, I would be
> a rich man!

;-)

> ===============================
> 
> makeenan wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >Curiously, in this history, three previous peoples are mentioned as having
> >lived in Ireland before the Milesians (Celtic speakers) arrived. The Tuatha de
> >Danaan, the Firbolg and the Fomorians. The Fomorians are also called the "Sea
> >People" and are said to have come from North Africa. ;)
> >
> >More grist for the mill!!!!
> >
> Nah - they came from Atlantis   ;-)

Actually, my idea about Atlantis is that it is pre-Celtic Britain,
and that the British Elves were the original Atlanteans.

> More seriously, there must have been different settlements in Ireland,
> and elsewhere, in prehistoric times; and I see no reason why the Irish
> traditions do not ultimately have some basis in fact. But even if
> Fomorians did come to Ireland by sea from North Africa:
> - there is no evidence that they were Semites (there is of course no
> evidence that they weren't)
> - how does Britain fit in with all this? The Semitidic theory applies to
> the insular Celtic of both islands.

The way I have it in the fictional set-up the British Elves and Dwarves
are part of is this:

The Fomorians don't correspond to any specific ethnolinguistic group;
in the Irish mythology, they are monsters rather than people, and
perhaps a personalization of hostile forces of nature.
The Fir Bolg are the Dwarves; they came to Britain and Ireland from
the south around 3000 BC.  They speak a language family I call "Pictic"
which, however, I don't know much about yet.  The Tuatha De Danaan (sp?)
are the Elves, who came to the British Isles from the east around
2000 BC.  They speak languages belonging to the Albic family.
The Albic languages are possibly distantly related to Indo-European;
the Old Albic language which I have repeatedly posted about here
is the "classical" language spoken in the heyday of the Albic
civilization; it is not identical to Proto-Albic but still rather
close to it.  The Insular Celtic, Albic and Pictic languages form
a linguistic area (Sprachbund) characterized by the "Insular Celtic"
features (VSO order, initial mutations and all that), see

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lostlangs/message/72

The Elves and Dwarves, of course, aren't the usual fantasy races,
but merely human ethnic groups culturally (and to a lesser degree
physically - the Dwarves are short and swarthy, the Elves are tall
and blond) similar to the latter.  

All this probably has nothing to do with the Semites or any other
branch of Afro-Asiatic, though it is tempting to have triconsonantal
root morphology in Pictic.

> http://wwww.carolandray.plus.com

There is a |w| too many in that URL.

Greetings,

Jörg.