Print

Print


I unabashedly stole the slender-with-slender broad-with-broad vowel
system of Irish for Aerest (not to mention the name), but now I'm
thinking I have made an aesthetic error in the eyes of the
cognoscenti.

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 23 September 2010 11:51, Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Den 23. sep. 2010 kl. 10.17 skreiv R A Brown:
>>
>>>
>>> It seems to be a general feeling that there is a 'celticity' about the
>>> following:
>>> Nésadach anadi duidon!
>>> Nésadach anadi galadon!
>>> Nésadach ôni anadi ellidon ei odeidon,
>>> ei deinach ôni uilé riholem éireamhóinen!
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>
>> It looks somewhat like Gaelic, I guess. It's only a very superficial visual
>> resemblance, but the impression we get through our eyes is important to us
>> people, you know. It's the fadas and the -achs that do it, I think.
>>
>>
> Ditto here.
>
>
>>
>>  Does the following have the air of 'celticity' or not?
>>> Friko bras a zo hiviz e ti Tad-kozh. Pedet eo bet gantañ e vugale hag e
>>> vugale-vihan. Mamm-gozh he deus poazhet daou gilhog er forn.
>>>
>>
>> It's Breton for "The great wedding-party is today at grandpa's house. His
>> children and grandchildren have been invited. Grandma has cooked two
>> cockerels on the oven."
>>
>> Fun! I still remember a bit of this.
>> (Should be hiziv in place of hiviz, I think.)
>>
>>
> Funny how Breton looks so "unceltic" in its orthography :) . It looks
> neither like Welsh (no vocalic w and y, no ll) nor like Scottish or Irish
> Gaelic (hardly any vocalic digraphs or trigraphs, no accent).
>
>
>> You keep quoting this:
>>
>>>
>>> "'Celtic' of any sort is, nonetheless, a magic bag, into
>>> which anything may be put, and out of which almost anything
>>> may come. ... Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic
>>> twilight, which is not so much a twilight of the gods as of
>>> the reason."
>>>
>>
>> Do you disagree with the definition of Gaelic, Manx, Welsh, Cornish, Breton
>> and Gaulish as Celtic? What about Lepontic and Celtiberian? And there are
>> some that are more questionable, but may have some affiliation.
>>
>>
> I don't think the issue is about "Celtic" as the name of a language
> subfamily. The fact that all those languages are related is quite well
> proven.
>
>
>> 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.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>



-- 
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance.  --Arthur
Rimbaud