Similarities between Celtic and Romance vocabulary

[Nobody1]

Since location of Proto-Germanic is highly related to I1a, it is most interesting to find out how and when did they got hold of IE language?

Are you implying that the proto-Germanics and the subsequent Germanic peoples were not Indo-Europeans?
And its all a big mystery as to why they speak an Indo-European language?

Lets take a look
First im not really sure why you think that proto-Germanic is related to I1a;

Eulau (Corded-Ware culture/Indo-European) which is West of the Elbe north of the Danube was Y-DNA R1a 3x [mtDNA X2/K1b/H/U]; Lichtenstein cave (Urnfield culture/Indo-European) Harz area north of the Danube was Y-DNA I-M170(L-38) 3x, R1a 1x and R1b-U106 1x [mtDNA H/U/J/T];

Haak et al 2008 - Eulau
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.long
Lichtenstein - Göttingen Uni. / D. Schweizer
http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf
http://dirkschweitzer.net/LichtensteinCaveAnalysis0804DS.pdf

The proto-Germanic and Germanic peoples were Indo-Europeans that emerged out of the Indo-European waves and cultures of Globular Amphora, Corded-Ware, (Nordic)/Urnfield, Jastorf, Lusatian, Przworsk etc.

The Germanic language (which is Indo-European) contains like all other Indo-European languages non-Indo-European elements which is due to the inter-mixing and subjugating of the pre-Indo-European pops. in the varies areas; The Germanic people were equated with the Indo-European Kelts and even to be of the same stock as the Kelts (a broader Indo-European stock) - though the GERMANI were seen as purer (not as mixed as the Kelts) than the Kelts;

Strabo - Book VII/I
Now the parts beyond the Rhenus, immediately after the country of the Celti, slope towards the east and are occupied by the Germans, who, though they vary slightly from the Celtic stock in that they are wilder, taller, and have yellower hair, are in all other respects similar, for in build, habits, and modes of life they are such as I have said the Celti are. And I also think that it was for this reason that the Romans assigned to them the name 'Germani', as though they wished to indicate thereby that they were 'genuine' Galatae, for in the language of the Romans 'germani' means 'genuine'.

Many more pasages like that are found in the Germania of Tacitus;
The Germanic language is fundamental for the Grimms-law which might be first recorded at the Negau helmet; Which raises the question: Who were the Tauriski?

 

[Degredado]

Since location of Proto-Germanic is highly related to I1a, it is most interesting to find out how and when did they got hold of IE language?

With the R1a and R1b arrivals.

 

[adamo]

English and Dutch are GERMANiC tongues based on R1b u-106 presence; if Danish is slightly Germanic this is due to the same reasons; Germanic influence. Probably seeped into Norway and Sweden via their 20-25% R1b of which most is, you guessed. It, probably R1b U-106.

 

[adamo]

Look at the Etruscans who were J2 for example, lending their non-indo-European "pharsu" world leading to Latin "persona".

 

[adamo]

Germanic is a sub-category of Celtic, an indo-European language family ( the original indo-Europeans were R1's, of both varieties).

 

[Ike]

@Nobody1 Why do I think? As I said,because of the location of Proto-Germanic speakers.

Having in mind tehse two maps:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Germanic_Europe.gif
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I1.gif


I see three sensible options:
1. Original IE speakers were R1b and they introduced I1a with IE language.
2. Original IE speakers were I1a, and they itrodeced IE language to R1b
3. Neither one were original speakers. IE languages emerged after the mix of R1b and I1a.

I don't know which one of these three happened for real, and I'm open for different theories and interpretations.

 

[Nobody1]

@Nobody1 Why do I think? As I said,because of the location of Proto-Germanic speakers.

Having in mind tehse two maps:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Germanic_Europe.gif
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I1.gif


I see three sensible options:
1. Original IE speakers were R1b and they introduced I1a with IE language.
2. Original IE speakers were I1a, and they itrodeced IE language to R1b
3. Neither one were original speakers. IE languages emerged after the mix of R1b and I1a.

I don't know which one of these three happened for real, and I'm open for different theories and interpretations.

The first Eupedia map (i think) also includes R1b-U106 (but needs to be double checked with Maciamo);
The second Eupedia map actually shows that I1 is a minority in core Germanic areas (Rhineland/Friesland/Saxony(lower)/Jutland/Baltic coast) the areas of Ingaevones, Istaevones and Irminones (proto-Germanic/archaic-Germanic);
And the proto-Germanic speakers must have been of an Indo-European tongue because the subsequent Germanic speakers are of an Indo-European tongue;

Fundamentally its a scenario of Indo-Europeans emerging from the steppes and subjugated and inter-mixing with the pre-Indo-European pops. - a scenario that occurs throughout the Indo-European range from Europe - Indus-valley/Tarim-basin;
This formed the distinct Indo-European societies but all belong and trace to a proto-Indo-European root and a common Urheimat

The Germanic civilization was an Indo-European civilization because it was the Indo-Europeans (the proto-proto-Germanics) that subjugated the local pops. and imposed and were the most dominant element - just one example of it is the language;

I always said that i def. consider Indo-European the R1b lineages U106 (Germanic) and U152 (Keltic/Italic/minority other Indo-Europeans) and the several of R1a lineages (Slavic/Thracian/Baltic/certain Germanic); maybe others can also be considered;

 

[Ike]

1. Ok, so we have R1b split point. One group went west to make a Celtic branch, and the other went North to make a Germanic branch. What interest me is what language did they speak at this point, and by how much did I1a interfere in a formation of Proto-Germanic. Could it be that I1a were already speaking IE which they adopted from Balto-Slavic, and that all R1b spoke pure "Celtic" before the split emerged?

2. When thinking about Italo-Celtic, why aren't we going even further back in the past to Greece? Since there are opinions that Doric invaders were of R1b origin, could it be that Old Greek was also related to a language R1b used to speak before 1500. B.C?

 

[Nobody1]

1. Ok, so we have R1b split point. One group went west to make a Celtic branch, and the other went North to make a Germanic branch. What interest me is what language did they speak at this point, and by how much did I1a interfere in a formation of Proto-Germanic. Could it be that I1a were already speaking IE which they adopted from Balto-Slavic, and that all R1b spoke pure "Celtic" before the split emerged?

The Germanic branch is an indo-European branch that emerged out of a proto-Germanic Indo-European tongue (but keep Grimms-law in mind); in turn all stemming from proto-Indo-European - which is essentially the root of all Indo-European languages (Europe-Indus-valley)

If we assume the I1a folks to be a pre-Indo-European pop. than they interfered as much with proto-Germanic than any other pre-Indo-European pop. did with any other Indo-European proto language; and is attested by the non(pre)-Indo-European elements;

Just look at Lepontic - a now extinct Indo-European language that contained non-Indo-European elements from the pre-Indo-European pop. it subjugated and merged with; Who is sapsuta?

In the traditional views (Schleicher/Georgiev/Gamkrelidze & Ivanov) Germanic and Balto/Slavic emerged from a common Indo-European root within the Indo-European family; likewise (for example) Italic and Keltic emerged from a common Indo-European root within the Indo-European family;
Withh all in turn stemming from a common proto-Indo-European root; I posted a chart (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov) on page1/post#20; Baltic remains however one of the most archaic forms of Indo-European;

2. When thinking about Italo-Celtic, why aren't we going even further back in the past to Greece? Since there are opinions that Doric invaders were of R1b origin, could it be that Old Greek was also related to a language R1b used to speak before 1500. B.C?

Italic and Keltic are nothing special; Just merely branches within the Indo-European family;
And we are not going that further back with Greece and the Dorians (Dorian invasion is usually placed between 1200-900 BC); Thats equivalent to the Bronze-age Urnfield complex;

I would agree with the opinions about Dorians being of R1b - pos. even U152 + the certain R1a lineages;
Myres et al 2011 - Greece 171 samples = 4.1% R1b-U152 and 0% R1b-U106

This needs to be all viewed of course within the broader Indo-European context (the broader Indo-European realm);
Thats what i meant with 'U152 (Keltic/Italic/minority other Indo-Europeans)'

PS: im not sure which language R1b spoke; But i have also always said that i view R1b to be both non-Indo-European as well as Indo-European; Depending on the lineage (with the Historical & Ethnographic backrounds);

 

[adamo]

As usual I like your stuff, nobody.

 

[Diviacus]

That's interesting, a similar phenomenon to the switch from "bellus" to "guerra", in Romance languages. It makes me wonder when these changes occured. Maybe after the 5th/6th centuries Germanic invasions? It seems curious that each of those German tribes would have separately introduced their term for "white" (and no other colours) into the Latin dialects of Italy, Hispania and Gaul. Or maybe something earlier, during the Republic period, with the initial contacts between Romans and Teutons?

German tribes, with their invasions of the 5th /6th centuries have introduced not only their word for white (blanc), but also for blue, blond and grey.This comes from the different words used in Latin for these colours :
- for white : albus (matt white) or candidus (glossy white)
- for blue and grey : cyaneus (dark blue), caesius (blue grey or blue green), caerulus (azure blue) or glaucus (between green and light blue)

The first attested uses of these words, in French, are somewhat late, betwwen the VIIth and Xth centuries.

 

[adamo]

Lexical similarities between languages; English shares 60% similarity with German and 20-25% with French and Russian. Italian for example is 87% similar to Catalan dialect, 77% similar to Romanian, 85% similar to Sardinian, 82% similar to Spanish and Portuguese and 90% similar to French. French is 75% similar to Spanish and Portuguese whereas italian language is about 85% similar to those. French is also 75% similar language to Romanian. Italian and French are 90% similar languages.

 

[MOESAN]

I don't see how "blanc" and "blanco" in French and Spanish are of Germanic loan word origin they come from Bianco; which means white in italian and originally Latin.

no offense, Adamo, do not confuse cognates words and late loanwords:
BLANC- is not coming from BIANC-O : it is the contrary - and BLANC- IN ALL ROMANCE LANGUAGE is a loanword to germanic (ruling classes of Europe at early MiddleAges were of germanic stock, see the word GUERRA = *WER/*WAR) - latine had ALB-US (romanian ALB: white, french AUBE: daybreak) - but germanic (some of them at least) loaned too latine words (I believe BEAKER/BECHER are from latine by instance) as KELTER...
be cautious: late latine was not classical latine: it was ful of loanwords (gathered by soldiers or INCORPORATED by people having lately adopted latine -

good saturday

 

[MOESAN]

Lexical similarities between languages; English shares 60% similarity with German and 20-25% with French and Russian. Italian for example is 87% similar to Catalan dialect, 77% similar to Romanian, 85% similar to Sardinian, 82% similar to Spanish and Portuguese and 90% similar to French. French is 75% similar to Spanish and Portuguese whereas italian language is about 85% similar to those. French is also 75% similar language to Romanian. Italian and French are 90% similar languages.

I'm a bit surprised by the low level of french words in english you give us here - I bet there are more of them in english - but it is true, a lot of latine words in english are not from french but from more or less classical "scholar" latine (for the most: abstract words, scientific, medical, religious...)
and all this studies have the same problem: what language is taken in account: the whole dictionary or the everyday folks language???

Russian? by the latine or romance languages I suppose (slavics are full of abstract words of latine origin, lately adopted)

 

[mihaitzateo]

Well since there is about similar words between Romance and Celtic languages,a coincidence that struck me,between Welsh and Romanian:
gold - Romanian - aur - Welsh - aur - exactly same word.

 

[adamo]

No it has been confirmed; French and English have 25-27% grammatical similarity. The two most similar languages are italian and French with a 90-95% correlation ratio. (95%+ symboli
es the languages in question are quasi-dialects.)

 

[Nobody1]

Its also important to not equate the official National language with the varies mother-tongues (from different Romanic branches) of the various regions; Most regional mother-tongues are of a complete diff. Romanic branch than the National language and also the outside impact and loanwords varies from region to region;

French (d'Oil) is not representative for Occitan;
Spanish (Castillan) is not representative for Catalan;
Italian (Tuscan) is not representative for the Gallo-Italic and Rhaeto-Romanic languages of North Italy;

 

[adamo]

Cumbrian is even spoke. In pockets of northeastern Italy; a people that as the Ambrones and derivatives (Umbrian) arrived from Denmark.

 

[adamo]

The gallo-italic dialects of the north are even more similar to French; almost sounding like an archaic creole form of French or something (of course there is no link.) italian "prendere"; from "prendre" is simply "pijer" in piemontese. "Uscire" known as "sortir" in French is surtir in piemontese. "Cadere" is tomber or cascher (pronounce casq-er). A house is either ca' or "mison"; no a. Arm is "un brass"; double s. Apple is "pom" and working is travajer.

 

[Nobody1]

Cumbrian is even spoke. In pockets of northeastern Italy; a people that as the Ambrones and derivatives (Umbrian) arrived from Denmark.

I think its Zimbrish (Cimbrian);
A Germanic language which is either stemming from medieval 'Timberers' and Peasants from medieval Bavaria or is an isolated remnant of the Germanic Langobarden;

As for the Umbrians

Henry Malden - History of Rome (1830)
It is possible however that the Symbri, whom Strabo mentions as a small community above the Veneti, may have been a tribe detached from the Umbrians, or left behind in the course of national migration.