Similarities between Celtic and Romance vocabulary

[Sile]

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;

this link breaks it down better

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romance-lg-classification-en.png

gallo-italian, venetian and istrian = north italian
romanasch, friulian and ladin = a neighbour of north Italian
dalmatian = a link between the Romanians and western romance


As per your map...I believe after the fall of the Roman empire , a linguistic group formed incorporating numbers 6, 7, 10, 14 and 15. These later got "pulled" in other directions based on who their neighbours where

 

[MOESAN]

CImbri or Tsimbri or whatever the modern form in Italy is a romantic name given to Bavarians arrived lately enough in Dolomites N-E Italy without any link with the historical Cimbri, if I rely on what I red - surely nothing to do, as Cimbri themselves, with Ambrones themselves without link with Umbrians -

 

[Sile]

CImbri or Tsimbri or whatever the modern form in Italy is a romantic name given to Bavarians arrived lately enough in Dolomites N-E Italy without any link with the historical Cimbri, if I rely on what I red - surely nothing to do, as Cimbri themselves, with Ambrones themselves without link with Umbrians -

yes, and with saying this, we can prove that old bavarian was not entirely the bavarian spoken today in germany

The first text written in Cimbrian, a religious hymn, appeared at the end of 16th century. The first evidence of Cimbrian presence in northern Italy dates back to 1287. The Cipolla brothers picked up and transcribed some local tales and songs. Local legends attribute the modern Cimbrians' lineage to the Cimbrian marauders that the Roman general Gaius Marius defeated in 102 BC at Campi Raudii, near Vercelli, however it is more probable that today's Cimbrians are descended from Lombard invaders, who invaded Northen Italy in 588 AD.

 

[Nobody1]

CImbri or Tsimbri or whatever the modern form in Italy is a romantic name given to Bavarians arrived lately enough in Dolomites N-E Italy without any link with the historical Cimbri, if I rely on what I red - surely nothing to do, as Cimbri themselves, with Ambrones themselves without link with Umbrians -

The link between the cIMBRI and UMBRI is the common Indo-European heritage and root;
The Cimbri and Umbri are not directly connected to each-other and are of two diff. Indo-European branches - the Cimbri of the Germanic and the Umbri of the Italic - but both are connected to each-other in the broader Indo-European realm and context ultimately sharing a common (proto-Indo-European/Urheimat) origins;


Diodorus Siculus - Book V
They are so noted for a fierce and warlike people, that some have thought them to be those that antiently overran all Asia, and were then called Cimerians, and who are now (through length of time) with a little alteration, called Cimbrians

Diodorus is not referring the 'Cimbrians' to the Jutland Cimbri but to the Gauls/Kelts;
Diodorus connects the Gauls/Kelts to the Indo-European Cimmerians of Asia and their archaic name being Cimbrians (cIMBRI)


Vicenza was (in medieval times) known as Cymbria which brings us back to the Symbri of Strabo (dwelling above the Veneti) and the broader archaic Indo-European context of the UMBRI/OMBRI - IsOMBRI - sYMBRI

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.


The Ligurians who considered themselves to be of AMBROnes origins were descendents (hybrid) of UMBRIans (IsOMBRI) - like is illustrated with the Ligurian Vagienni who are stemming from the Caturiges (who in turn are Insubres/IsOMBRI);

Plinius - Naturalis Historia Book III/VII & XXI
The more celebrated of the Ligurian tribes beyond the Alps are the Salluvii, the Deciates, and the Oxubii ; on this side of the Alps, the Veneni, and the Vagienni, who are derived from the Caturiges.......The Caturiges have also perished, an exiled race of the Insubres

 

[mihaitzateo]

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.

In Romanian - cadere is cadea
Brass (arm) is bratz

Other closed words between Gaulish languages and Romanian:
large,big Romanian - mare
large,big in Gaulish - mar
cant- (an edge, a circle) [IE *kem- 'to cover', Welsh cant]
cant - Romanian - an edge

 

[adamo]

Yes because Romanian descends from Latin; the Dacians that inhabited Romania adopted the Latin tongue and over ti e it developed into its own language; although the genetic profiles of the italian and Romanian people are not similar.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Yes because Romanian descends from Latin; the Dacians that inhabited Romania adopted the Latin tongue and over ti e it developed into its own language; although the genetic profiles of the italian and Romanian people are not similar.

Those 2 words I listed above - cant and mare,are not known for sure by Romanian scientists from what languages are coming.
Mare is not known from where it comes while cant is speculated to come from German,but is an old word.
Thing is,Dacians conquered and assimilated Celts/Gauls from Transylvania and Balkans (Transylvania is currently part of Romania) and Roman Empire brought mostly Gaulish people from today Austria,in Dacia,after conquering Dacia.
It was another archeological discovery of Celtic artifacts in Transylvania,not long ago,while they were digging there to build a highway.
I can not find the link,about that.But are already discoveries of Celtic artifacts in Transylvania.
2 names of plants are known to be of Celtic/Gaulish origin in Romanian.
So is normally Romanian have some borrowings from Celtic/Gaulish languages,but very few.

 

[Kentel]

This linguistic family, probably some earlier form of proto-Italo Celtic tongues proves a more common genetic link between French,Spanish,Portuguese,italian,welsh, Swiss some Belgian and the majority of Irish males some 6,000-4,000 years ago. That is when many if the men from these countries shared a common paternal Celtic ancestor with a basal form of R1b-P312. R1b U-106 is older than S116 though and R1b L11 is the Father of both the Italo-Celtic and Germanic R1b branches.

The Italo-Celtic hypothesis has been first proposed by Schleicher in 1859 in a book titled "Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung" and discarded afterwards by most linguists: first Meillet in 1908, followed by Hermann in 1918, etc, and the last rejection of this theory was by Clackson & Horrocks in their (excellent) History of the Latin Language (2007). Today I don't know any linguist making research in that direction, and the Italo-Celtic is clearly dead for the Academia: from a linguistic point of view, there are too much obstacles, and it is clearly a blind way. Celtic and Italic do have similarities, but are two different language families.

There has been alternative hypothesis:

- Walde in 1917 proposed to connect sabellic and Celtic, he was supported by Miles Dillon in a 1944 paper titled "Italic and Celtic" and published in Language..

- In 1936 Pokorny suggested the existence of a common Illyrian substratum to both Celtic and Italic. In fact he re-used a hypothesis already formulated by Sigmund Feist in 1932 for the Germanic languages.

- In 1940, William Lansberg went as far as to propose a "Mediterranean substratum", connecting Celtic and Ancient Egyptian (!).

 

[MOESAN]

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.)

cOK Adamo - I was stupidly focalized on lexical - for grammar it is evident, english shares very few with french (but it has some celtic influecne even if light, that was denied before)

 

[Nobody1]

The Italo-Celtic hypothesis has been first proposed by Schleicher in 1859 in a book titled "Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung" and discarded afterwards by most linguists: first Meillet in 1908, followed by Hermann in 1918, etc, and the last rejection of this theory was by Clackson & Horrocks in their (excellent) History of the Latin Language (2007). Today I don't know any linguist making research in that direction, and the Italo-Celtic is clearly dead for the Academia: from a linguistic point of view, there are too much obstacles, and it is clearly a blind way. Celtic and Italic do have similarities, but are two different language families

The academic discussion is about whether proto-Italic and proto-Keltic emerged from a common (same/Italo-Celtic) language or whether they developed seperately in close proximity;

As for your false chronology; It was in fact none other than A. Meillet that argued (the most) for an Italo-Celtic language and also the first who proposed it was not A. Schleicher but C. Lottner - Kuhns Beiträge (1861); The first to argue against the common language (Italo-Celtic) was C. Marstrander (1929) and later C. Watkins (1966);

This discussion about a common unit language (Italo-Celtic) shouldnt be confused with what other scholars have demonstrated beginning with A. Schleicher (1860) and all other scholars (Ivanov/Georgiev/Hamp etc. etc.) since than agree on - that the Italic branch and Keltic branch within the Indo-European family are closely related and share most similarities;

C. Watkins - (1966) [Harvard Uni.]
''Italic and Celtic are closely related. This is universally admitted by Indo-Europeanists, and will be taken for granted here''

I def. personally favor planB - close proximity / no unit language (although modern scholars like Ringe or Kortlandt still demonstrate it); Italic and Keltic are two diff. branches of Indo-European but with a close relation and distinctive similarities;

 

[MOESAN]

The link between the cIMBRI and UMBRI is the common Indo-European heritage and root;
The Cimbri and Umbri are not directly connected to each-other and are of two diff. Indo-European branches - the Cimbri of the Germanic and the Umbri of the Italic - but both are connected to each-other in the broader Indo-European realm and context ultimately sharing a common (proto-Indo-European/Urheimat) origins;


Diodorus Siculus - Book V
They are so noted for a fierce and warlike people, that some have thought them to be those that antiently overran all Asia, and were then called Cimerians, and who are now (through length of time) with a little alteration, called Cimbrians

Diodorus is not referring the 'Cimbrians' to the Jutland Cimbri but to the Gauls/Kelts;
Diodorus connects the Gauls/Kelts to the Indo-European Cimmerians of Asia and their archaic name being Cimbrians (cIMBRI)


Vicenza was (in medieval times) known as Cymbria which brings us back to the Symbri of Strabo (dwelling above the Veneti) and the broader archaic Indo-European context of the UMBRI/OMBRI - IsOMBRI - sYMBRI

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.


The Ligurians who considered themselves to be of AMBROnes origins were descendents (hybrid) of UMBRIans (IsOMBRI) - like is illustrated with the Ligurian Vagienni who are stemming from the Caturiges (who in turn are Insubres/IsOMBRI);

Plinius - Naturalis Historia Book III/VII & XXI
The more celebrated of the Ligurian tribes beyond the Alps are the Salluvii, the Deciates, and the Oxubii ; on this side of the Alps, the Veneni, and the Vagienni, who are derived from the Caturiges.......The Caturiges have also perished, an exiled race of the Insubres

You did a good work of compilation of ancient texts and "old science" -
old bets of ancient "classical" authors are sometime right sometime wrong- for what I know, Caturiges is a very celtic name - so maybe Vagienni were Celts, or a ligurian set under celtic domination... concerning the links between Ambrones, Umbrians, and Isombri I 'll wait more well based study, I strongly doubt Umbrians were closely akin to Ambrones at this stage of knowledge.

 

[MOESAN]

the similarities between celtic an italic could very well be put on the account of 1) a common old west-I-E origin shared with germanic, 2) some late convergences due to later contacts in W-Europe - phonetically (and archeology could confirm that), the Italics seem having stayed longer in central Europe (E-Austria, S-W- Hungary, N-Croatie) when the core of Celts was already colonizing W-Europe, with head-quarters in the Alps (if we admit Celts were already formed in the tumuli culture of Baviera, what is reasonable enough: I think the Hallstatt imput is from a stranger people upon Celts) - it could be that long contact between Italics and N-Greeks had contributed to remove Italics from its first fellows of W-I-E?...

 

[Kentel]

The academic discussion is about whether proto-Italic and proto-Keltic emerged from a common (same/Italo-Celtic) language or whether they developed seperately in close proximity;

As for your false chronology; It was in fact none other than A. Meillet that argued (the most) for an Italo-Celtic language and also the first who proposed it was not A. Schleicher but C. Lottner - Kuhns Beiträge (1861); The first to argue against the common language (Italo-Celtic) was C. Marstrander (1929) and later C. Watkins (1966);

This discussion about a common unit language (Italo-Celtic) shouldnt be confused with what other scholars have demonstrated beginning with A. Schleicher (1860) and all other scholars (Ivanov/Georgiev/Hamp etc. etc.) since than agree on - that the Italic branch and Keltic branch within the Indo-European family are closely related and share most similarities;

C. Watkins - (1966) [Harvard Uni.]
''Italic and Celtic are closely related. This is universally admitted by Indo-Europeanists, and will be taken for granted here''

I def. personally favor planB - close proximity / no unit language (although modern scholars like Ringe or Kortlandt still demonstrate it); Italic and Keltic are two diff. branches of Indo-European but with a close relation and distinctive similarities;

Well, my references didn't come from the Wikipedia's article, that's probably what makes the difference.

Since I doubt that the little duel you seem intensely eager to begin will be of any interest to the other contributors here, let's talk about facts, so that everybody will be able to make up his mind. "close proximity" (your conclusion) being a rather vague qualification, here are the two morphologic features exclusively common to Italic and Celtic:

1- the genitive in -ī (originaly *-osyo in PIE)
2- the -r ending of the passive and deponent verbs at the 1st and 3rd persons in Latin and Old Irish.

Objections (here I will quote The Blackwell History of the Latin Language by Clackson & Horrocks pp.31-33, because it's their objections, not mine)

1- genitive in -ī:

- we do find -oiso endings in Lepontic, later replaced by -i
- we have -o endings in Celtiberian
- we have -osio endings in Faliscan
- the -ī ending is found in Latin from 300 BC onwards, never before.
- the -ī ending is also found in Venetic and Messapic.

Quote: "Since Messapic is usually not reckoned to be part of the Italic language family, and Lepontic has replaced earlier -oiso with -ī, and, since Latin and Faliscan seem to have replaced -osio with -ī in historical times, it is now possible to argue (following Eska and Wallace) that the spread of a genitive singular *-ī arose through language contact and took place relatively recently, not at some much earlier period of Italo-Celtic unity." (op.cit. p.32)

2- Passive and deponent -r endings

- we find these endings in Hittite and Tocharian too.

Quote:"and Hittite, which also have r-endings in the medio-passive conjugation. The presence of these endings in languages not in contact with each other, and on the peripheries of the Indo-European speaking area, argue strongly for r-endings to be a retained archaism, which were lost by a group of innovating languages in the centre of the IE world. [...] In summary, the two innovations in inflectional morphology which have been proposed for Italo-Celtic need not represent common developments." (op.cit.p.33).

As for the other similarities (lexical and phonetic), there's no argument against a borrowing process and a common substratum is not required.

 

[Nobody1]

@ Kentel

Im not sure what type of discussion you wish to have;
Im just pointing out that your making a fundamental mistake in equating the Classification of Italic and Keltic within the Indo-European family and all the shared similarities - with an Hypothesis of from where these similarities stem from;

I already stated in post#70 (and thats in total agreement) that an intermediate common language (Italo-Celtic) between proto-Indo-European and proto-Keltic and proto-Italic did not exist;
I have always (previous posts in all other threads) stated that its all in-fact based on a broader archaic Indo-European context; And your quotes from Clackson & Horrocks illustrate that perfectly;

And the closeness and similarities that exist between Italic and Keltic within the Indo-European family based on this broader archaic Indo-European realm is demonstrated by all scholars from Schleicher (1860) onwards; Thats only what i am pointing out to;

David Rankin - Celts and the Classical World (1986)
Both Celtic and Italic have an 'a' subjunctive (it may also be identified in Tocharian): both have passive/ deponent verbal endings in 'r'. So also has Hittite and some related dialects. There is the suggestion that the 'r' forms developed independently in the languages in which they occur by the suffocation of a particle to the verb-ending, but the coincidence would be so striking as to require very substantial demonstration. As in Celtic, so also in Italic, /p/-/+kw/ becomes /kw/-/+kw/ and /p/-/+p/ according to dialect, as in 'quinque' and 'Pompeius'. The 'b' future, which is found in Latin and other Italic dialects, occurs also in Celtic: both Celtic and Italic retain the /samo/ suffix for the superlative degree of adjectives. These are some of the obvious points of resemblance. There are considerably more.


PS: Neither did i use Wikipedia as a ref; But even this false statement doesnt correct nor relativate your previous false statements concerning Schleicher and Meillet - because such false statements (especially about Meillet) shows a clear lack of knowledge to begin with;
Not even a Wikipedia article could be that flawed;

 

[Nobody1]

You did a good work of compilation of ancient texts and "old science"

Thank you;

Caturiges is a very celtic name

Seems very Umbrian;
acc. to Plinius the Caturiges are from Insubrian (IsOmbri) refugees;

- so maybe Vagienni were Celts, or a ligurian set under celtic domination

maybe not;
more not than maybe;

 

[Diviacus]

for what I know, Caturiges is a very celtic name -

Seems very Umbrian;
acc. to Plinius the Caturiges are from Insubrian (IsOmbri) refugees;

As explained by X.Delamarre, "catu-", meaning "battle", is one of the most frequent words used in the Celtic anthroponymy. So Caturiges means "kings of the battle".

 

[Kentel]

Im not sure what type of discussion you wish to have;

On the contrary, I'm quite sure which kind of discussion YOU wish to have.

Im just pointing out that your making a fundamental mistake in equating the Classification of Italic and Keltic within the Indo-European family and all the shared similarities - with an Hypothesis of from where these similarities stem from;

I don't make any mistake, you don't understand me, that's different: I never said what you wrote, and even so: classification within a phylogeny is directly correlated with where similarities come from (inheritance, borrowing, innovation).

I already stated in post#70 (and thats in total agreement) that an intermediate common language (Italo-Celtic) between proto-Indo-European and proto-Keltic and proto-Italic did not exist;
I have always (previous posts in all other threads) stated that its all in-fact based on a broader archaic Indo-European context; And your quotes from Clackson & Horrocks illustrate that perfectly;

So we both agree. I must insist upon the fact that my post wasn't adressed to YOU but to Adamo, thus I don't see why to feel the need to justify your position.

And the closeness and similarities that exist between Italic and Keltic within the Indo-European family based on this broader archaic Indo-European realm is demonstrated by all scholars from Schleicher (1860) onwards;

Now I'm lost, I thought it was Lottner (after your correction). Anyway, Italo-Celtic didn't exist, that was my point, and we both agree.

 

[Nobody1]

On the contrary, I'm quite sure which kind of discussion YOU wish to have.

Than you know more than i do;

I never said what you wrote, and even so: classification within a phylogeny is directly correlated with where similarities come from (inheritance, borrowing, innovation).

Yes; and thats exactly the point;
The similarities between Italic branch and Keltic branch within the Indo-European family come from the common Indo-European root itself (C. Watkins 1966 - Harvard Uni.) which was always my argument and not from a common intermediate language unit (Italo-Celtic);

But the origin of the similarities doesnt change the classification that the Italic and Keltic branches share the most similarities within the Indo-European family (Schleicher/Ivanov/Georgiev/Hamp etc.)

If you had to list all similarities between Keltic and Anatolian Tocharian your list would end after -r endings and -a subjunctive

If you had to list all similarities between Keltic and Venetic Messapic your list would end after -ī genetive

If you had to list all similarities between Keltic and Italic than you would have list the -ī genetive, -r endings, -a subjunctive, the /samo/ suffix, *p-*kw shifts, -b future and that alone is more shared similarities between Keltic and Italic than to any other branch; With Tocharian, Anatolian, Messapic perfectly illustrating the broader Indo-European context;

Now I'm lost, I thought it was Lottner (after your correction). Anyway, Italo-Celtic didn't exist, that was my point, and we both agree.

Your lost because you dont understand it - which was already clear after your first post;

Schleicher (1860) only documented the similarities and closeness of Italic and Keltic within the Indo-European family - as did all other scholars after him (Ivanov/Georgiev/Hamp/Warkins etc.); But Schleicher never concluded an Hypothesis that all these similarities stem from a common language unit (Italo-celtic) - that was Lottner and later Meillet; But that hypothesis is false a common unit language (Italo-Celtic) never existed only the common broader Indo-European realm;

 

[Nobody1]

As explained by X.Delamarre, "catu-", meaning "battle", is one of the most frequent words used in the Celtic anthroponymy. So Caturiges means "kings of the battle".

Thst just an out-dated theory (interpretation) from 1859;
What ever happened to your progress?

 

[Diviacus]

Thst just an out-dated theory (interpretation) from 1859;
What ever happened to your progress?

It's a pity that:
- the French specialist of the Gallic language (X.Delamarre - Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise - 2003, page 110),
- one of the European specialists of the Celtic culture (V.Kruta - Les Celtes -2000, page 526)
- the author of the just issued book on the pre-roman Italy (S.Bourdin, Les peuples de l'Italie pré-romaine - 2012, page 727)

who agree with each other, and who wrote it ~150 years after don't know that!
I prefer to believe in these 3 present scholars and not in the person which wrote in 1859...