Similarities between Celtic and Romance vocabulary

[Nobody1]

Yes; ''Believe'' is the key word here;
but also ''acknowledge'' the fact that it all comes from one 1859 source and its as sketchy as all other Onomastic theories from the 19th cen;
The first who claimed Caturiges means ''battle-kings'' was Adolphe Pictet - Essai sur quelques Inscriptions en Langue Gauloise in 1859 - and thats where all others have it from; just linguistic tinkerings from the 19th cen; not to be taken seriously; especially not compared to Classical History or Archaeology;

Plinius is very clear as to who are the Caturiges (Insubres/Umbrians) and Caturix was a deity of war amongst the Helvetii and votive inscriptions of Caturix are only found in Helvetic territory (nowhere else) except for Böckingen where an Helvetii auxiliary [cohors Helvetiorum] was stationed; and Caturix is equivalent to the Germanic Haðurîh;

 

[mihaitzateo]

Another cognate between Gaulish (for example Irish language) and multiple Romance languages:
celtic/gaulish arm (weapon) - French arme - Spanish arma - Portuguesse arma - Italian arma - Romanian arma
I put here all Romance languages will lots of speakers.
In Welsh,is arf.
Quite weird,if Romance and Celtic languages do not share a common root,the explanation of this word,since I doubt Celts/Gauls took it from Latin or Latins took it from Celtic/Gaulish.

 

[MOESAN]

Yes; ''Believe'' is the key word here;
but also ''acknowledge'' the fact that it all comes from one 1859 source and its as sketchy as all other Onomastic theories from the 19th cen;
The first who claimed Caturiges means ''battle-kings'' was Adolphe Pictet - Essai sur quelques Inscriptions en Langue Gauloise in 1859 - and thats where all others have it from; just linguistic tinkerings from the 19th cen; not to be taken seriously; especially not compared to Classical History or Archaeology;

Plinius is very clear as to who are the Caturiges (Insubres/Umbrians) and Caturix was a deity of war amongst the Helvetii and votive inscriptions of Caturix are only found in Helvetic territory (nowhere else) except for Böckingen where an Helvetii auxiliary [cohors Helvetiorum] was stationed; and Caturix is equivalent to the Germanic Haðurîh;

Nobody, what is your point here? what are you trying to prove? I have some difficulty to understand it... no offense but:
old science is not always rubbish, - and concerning linguistic, the basis from the 19°centuries are always sound today, for the most, what is not the case, it is true, concerning anthropology -
'catu' : "fight" is well documented in celtic : gaelic 'cath', welsh 'cad', breton 'kad' (obsolete now) - 'riges' = 'king(s)' I see no contradiction nor hesitation to have here
by the way, 'Helveti' were a celtic tribe, nothing else, according to Romans themselves -

we have to be cautious in our terms and not to use scorning terms when answering others or when judging old works...

 

[MOESAN]

Nobody: one more word: Insubres were considered too as a celtic tribe, with Milano (mediolanum: lanum = celtic word <> *plan-) as principal town - Umbrians were not Celts, or I have to learn again all what believed I knew! thay could have had some alliances, but not recent common origins -
good evening

 

[Nobody1]

'catu' : "fight" is well documented in celtic : gaelic 'cath', welsh 'cad', breton 'kad' (obsolete now) - 'riges' = 'king(s)' I see no contradiction nor hesitation to have here

Explaining a word is one thing
but trying to explain the origins of a people based on a word is whole other thing;

*katu is equally Germanic hadu/heaðu and Slavic kotora

So acc. to this logic the Caturiges could also be Germanic and Slavic;
And yet Plinius clearly states they are Umbrians;

In the 19th cen. (and that is true) they simply took Onomastics (mostly exonyms) and interpreted their own theories into them - and for the most part all false and debunked; And the Caturiges theory is one of them from 1859; its just "Old-Science" and the worst-kind of it; Unlike the Anthropology (where a Dr. or Prof. simply, took a skull and measured it) Archaeology and History which are the excellent-kinds of "Old-Science";

 

[Nobody1]

Nobody: one more word: Insubres were considered too as a celtic tribe, with Milano (mediolanum: lanum = celtic word <> *plan-) as principal town - Umbrians were not Celts, or I have to learn again all what believed I knew! thay could have had some alliances, but not recent common origins -
good evening

The Indo-European Umbrians and the Indo-European Kelts are indeed akin to each-other and close within the Indo-European family as is recorded in classical History and evident in Linguistics; But they are two clear distinct branches within the Indo-European family stemming from the broader Indo-European realm;

The Umbrians are the Insubres are no different;
The Umbrians are recorded as Ombri/Ombrici by the classical Greek historians & the Insubres are recorded as IsOmbri by the classical Greek historians;

And when Plinius records that the Caturiges are Umbrians(Insubres) and that Ligurian Vagienni emerged from the Caturiges and than in a dramatic turn of events Plutarch records that the Ligurians consider themselves from the Ambrones(Umbrians) than thats a clear testimony;

 

[Diviacus]

Explaining a word is one thing
but trying to explain the origins of a people based on a word is whole other thing;

*katu is equally Germanic hadu/heaðu and Slavic kotora

So acc. to this logic the Caturiges could also be Germanic and Slavic;
And yet Plinius clearly states they are Umbrians;

In the 19th cen. (and that is true) they simply took Onomastics (mostly exonyms) and interpreted their own theories into them - and for the most part all false and debunked; And the Caturiges theory is one of them from 1859; its just "Old-Science" and the worst-kind of it; Unlike the Anthropology (where a Dr. or Prof. simply, took a skull and measured it) Archaeology and History which are the excellent-kinds of "Old-Science";

I don't understand your logic. You emphasize that the origin of the interpretation of catu- as Celtic dates from the 19th century, and therefore is an outdated assumption. So what about Pliny's assumption? Is it an outdated assumption because it has been written 2000 years ago? What is important is to know if an assumption is supported now by present scholars, and not the date it comes from.
And today, the catu- Celtic assumption is supported by most scholars, and the Pliny's assumption not supported by them.
About ancient Greek and Roman authors, you very often take there assumptions for granted, although we have so many proofs that many of them are just fanciful, especially as people origins are concerned!
If we rely on Pliny's Umbrians origin of the Caturiges, do we have to believe in Eneus' origin of Rome Polyphemus and Galatea origin of the Celts?

 

[Nobody1]

I don't understand your logic. You emphasize that the origin of the interpretation of catu- as Celtic dates from the 19th century, and therefore is an outdated assumption. So what about Pliny's assumption? Is it an outdated assumption because it has been written 2000 years ago? What is important is to know if an assumption is supported now by present scholars, and not the date it comes from.
And today, the catu- Celtic assumption is supported by most scholars, and the Pliny's assumption not supported by them.
About ancient Greek and Roman authors, you very often take there assumptions for granted, although we have so many proofs that many of them are just fanciful, especially as people origins are concerned!
If we rely on Pliny's Umbrians origin of the Caturiges, do we have to believe in Eneus' origin of Rome Polyphemus and Galatea origin of the Celts?

You should know what the diff. between Plinius and Virgil is;
And what the diff. between a Folklore/Mythology and an Historical (Ethnographical/Geographical) account is;
And what Plinius wrote corresponds with what Plutarch wrote; Classical History is critical field one has to know; in order to understand the broader historical and archaeological meaning; Prof. Mommsen was the only historian who ever recieved the Nobel prize; take a guess why;

And all this tinkering with Onomastics (place-name/personal-name/tribal-names) from the 19th cen is just based on false personal theories;
If we follow this theory than what speaks against the Caturiges to be Germanic or Slavic?

 

[Diviacus]

You should know what the diff. between Plinius and Virgil is;
And what the diff. between a Folklore/Mythology and an Historical (Ethnographical/Geographical) account is;
And what Plinius wrote corresponds with what Plutarch wrote; Classical History is critical field one has to know in order to understand it the broader historical and archaeological meaning; Prof. Mommsen was the only historian who ever recieved the Nobel prize; take a guess why;

And all this tinkering with Onomastics (place-name/personal-name/tribal-names) from the 19th cen is just based on false personal theories;
If we follow this theory than what speaks against the Caturiges to be Germanic or Slavic?

I have read so many books on the Celts that I know which misinterpretations have been made in the 19th century, but also in the 20th century. In fact I consider that all that has been written before 1995, if not supported later, has not to be taken account. And I don't have any personal theory. I only support theories that are consensual. In our case, the consensus (meaning a large majority) support the assumption that Caturiges means 'kings of the battle". It doesn't mean it is 100% sure.
But when the majority of present scholars, having read Pliny, knowing the existence of Caturix, support the previous assumption, I agree with their statement.
I know catu- could also be Germanic (just read Goormachtigh) or Slavic. But I agree that the most probable assumption is the Celtic one.

 

[Nobody1]

I have read so many books on the Celts that I know which misinterpretations have been made in the 19th century, but also in the 20th century. In fact I consider that all that has been written before 1995, if not supported later, has not to be taken account. And I don't have any personal theory. I only support theories that are consensual. In our case, the consensus (meaning a large majority) support the assumption that Caturiges means 'kings of the battle". It doesn't mean it is 100% sure.
But when the majority of present scholars, having read Pliny, knowing the existence of Caturix, support the previous assumption, I agree with their statement.
I know catu- could also be Germanic (just read Goormachtigh) or Slavic. But I agree that the most probable assumption is the Celtic one.

I understand that you believe in it;
Im just telling you its false;

 

[Diviacus]

I understand that you believe in it;
Im just telling you its false;

I understand that you don't believe in it. I'm just telling you that it's impossible to prove if it's true or false. And experienced historians of ancient times, when stating their beliefs about such remote proto-historical events (even their strong beliefs), always introduce them as the most probable assumption and not as the truth.
So you should say at the most "I think it's false".

 

[Nobody1]

And experienced historians of ancient times, when stating their beliefs about such remote proto-historical events (even their strong beliefs), always introduce them as the most probable assumption and not as the truth.

But those are just your personal opinions;
Not a proper source / in-fact not valuable at all;
And by the way the Caturiges were still around during Caesars times - is that what you meant by "proto-historical"? Do you even know anything about classical History i.e. ever read any;

Knowledge about the ancient times actually comes from the ancient historical documentations and not so much from "scholars" of the 19th cen twisting and turning exonyms;

I'm just telling you that it's impossible to prove if it's true or false.

Not for me;

 

[Diviacus]

But those are just your personal opinions;
Not a proper source / in-fact not valuable at all;
And by the way the Caturiges were still around during Caesars times - is that what you meant by "proto-historical"? Do you even know anything about classical History i.e. ever read any;
Knowledge about the ancient times actually comes from the ancient historical documentations and not so much from "scholars" of the 19th cen twisting and turning exonyms;

You are not the only one to have read hundreds of books on proto-history and classical history. Obviously, I used proto-history for the time you supposed the Caturiges emerged from the Insumbri.
And as you don't want to understand the evidence that the value of an assumption doesn't depend on the first date it has been written, but depends on the fact it is, or it is not supported today, I prefer to stop this discussion.
You should be more modest in your writings.

 

[Nobody1]

You are not the only one to have read hundreds of bookson proto-history and classical history

Not sure who else did; i def. did not;

Obviously, I used proto-history for the time you supposed the Caturiges emerged from the Insumbri.

That alone shows you have no idea of classical History;

In reality the Caturiges were well known to the Romans and Plinius simply recorded the known Caturiges tradition of stemming from the Umbrians;

But have fun reading all about "proto-history" in "hundreds of books"

And as you don't want to understand the evidence that the value of an assumption doesn't depend on the first date it has been written, but depends on the fact it is, or it is not supported today,

The value is a false and out-dated assumption from 1859 - not to be taken seriously;

I prefer to stop this discussion

You Lose - GAME OVER

 

[Robotnick]

Not sure who else did; i def. did not;



That alone shows you have no idea of classical History;

In reality the Caturiges were well known to the Romans and Plinius simply recorded the known Caturiges tradition of stemming from the Umbrians;

But have fun reading all about "proto-history" in "hundreds of books"



The value is a false and out-dated assumption from 1859 - not to be taken seriously;



You Lose - GAME OVER

I know this is an ancient thread but your responses and arguments seem almost troll-tier or otherwise extremely arrogant and pseudointellectual.

I guess this was the golden age of Anthropseuds.