At 9:09 pm +0100 22/9/00, Dan Jones wrote:
>I have finally thought of a name for my pre-Celtic people: the `oga`arl'
>(/'?oNga?arl~/, where l~ is vocalic /l/), formed from `on "heart" and garl'
>"earth, land", so Heartlanders. I was sorely tempted by the Pictish idea
>proposed by Jrg,

Aren't the "Painted people" (that's all Picti means) now considered by most
to be Britons and their language to have been essentially the same as the
rest of pre-Roman Britan?

>but the `oga`arl' predate even the Picts. Not only that,
>I don't see them surviving past the Celtic invasion at all.

Was there ever a "Celtic" invasion of Britain?

Simon James, British Museum archaeologist specializing in Iron Age & Roman
Britain, argues in his book "The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern
Invention?" that there is no archaeological evidence of any such invasion
and that "British Celts" were an invention of 18th century nationalism.

It is IMHO noteworthy that no ancient writer ever refers to the inhabitants
of Britain or Ireland as Celtic.  No writer throughtout the long period of
the Middle Ages ever used that term to describe the pre-English inhabitants
of Britain or Ireland.  The term "Celtic" is, it is true, not attested
until the 18th century as a designation of any of the peoples of these
islands.  Why had the term not been used before?

OK - there is no doubt that one or more non-IE languages were spoken in
Britain before the spread of any IE-based language came to these islands.
So `oga`arl' might be one of these.

The oddly "Semitic" features that many have noticed in the Gaelic &
Brittonic languages seem to have developed in this islands.  It has been
suggested - indeed, more than once on this list - that these features are
due to the effect of "pre-Celtic non-IE substrate"?

Will `oga`arl' be (part of) such a substrate?


A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]