Print

Print


On 23 September 2010 14:44, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> That was the point. I could've picked a piece of Manx, I guess, or Cornish
> in one its more "unceltic" spellings (there are AFAIK 4 different main
> varieties of revived Cornish). There ain't a "Celtic orthography!"
>
>
Indeed. On this point, I've always been surprised that Breton went for _k_
for the voiceless velar plosive instead of _c_. I wonder how much was
usefulness (how many words in Breton have a /kh/ cluster?) and how much was
simply wanting to do something different from French...


> [snip]
>
>>
>>  Do you think that artifacts made by people who speak a
>>> language defined as Celtic should not be called
>>> Celtic?
>>>
>>>  There lies the problem. By calling artifacts made by
>> Gauls or by Irish Gaelic speakers uniformly "Celtic", one
>> creates the impression of a single common culture among
>> those people, which AFAIK didn't exist. There isn't a
>> single "Celtic" identity, no commonality between the
>> various "Celtic" folks besides related languages. the
>> various Celtic-speaking populations have always been very
>> isolated from each other (some say that even during the
>> original time Indo-Europeans arrived in Western Europe
>> and the British Isles, Q-Celtic speakers and P-Celtic
>> speakers were already separate waves of migration with no
>> contact with each other). "Celtic", in the popular
>> meaning of the word, is a very modern construction that
>> stems from a heavily romanticised view of the time when
>> the British Isles were not dominated yet by
>> Anglo-Saxons.
>>
>> As a linguistic term, "Celtic" is a handy label for an
>> Indo-European language subfamily that we know exists
>> (although the details might still be a bit hazy). As an
>> anthropological term it has no value whatsoever, and is
>> even harmful in creating an illusion of similarity and
>> continuity that just does not exist.
>>
>
> Amen! Amen!
>
> Christophe has expressed my sentiments exactly and far better than I could.
>
>
Wow! And here I was, thinking I was being very unclear, and probably not
quite correct, and fully expecting you to come in and correct my mistakes
and/or clarify my inexactitudes!


> Christophe's last paragraph is so very, very, very true!
>
>
*blush* Thanks! Having myself more than a bit of interest in Celtic
languages (if only because of how I dissected them for parts and inspiration
when I started working on Maggel -the Maggel alphabet being uncial is hardly
coincidental ;) -), I've always tried to steer away from the romantic notion
of Celticity (the whole "Celtic" -which most often seems to be Irish- vibe
can be fun, but you shouldn't take it too seriously :) ). I think I managed
(making the speakers of Maggel arrogant and *possibly* cannibal probably
helped ;P). And no one can accuse me of copying Tolkien! ;)
-- 
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/