Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: The Celts

  1. #31
    Saying what you did shows that you don't understand anything I've wrote. I am not going to be lectured by someone who thinks buying a book and a CD on Basque is the same as "studying Basque".
    You don't understand that the term "influence" can refer to varying degrees of influence. You seem to think that when a Indo-European language is influenced by a non-Indo-European language this immediately means that the language as been altered massively in a way that it cannot be classified as Indo-European anymore. A good example of a language that has been influenced a lot (probably more than the influence I am talking about) by a completely different language is Estonian. Despite Germanic influences, this language is still classified as a Finnic language. The same goes for Germanic languages. As far as I know, Germanic languages have had more pre-Indo-European influence than most other Indo-European languages. Doesn't mean they aren't Indo-European.


    If you'd like to argue that Germanic languages have non-indo-european influence please give me some scientific examples or names of linguists who agree with you.
    Perhaps I'll have a look later on. I've read things concerning this topic during the years, so obviously I don't have direct sources at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wynterwade View Post
    2) Yes, they name cultures after skull shapes that they find- however- and this has happened countless times- they will find nearby during the same time period THE EXACT SAME CULTURE with different skull shapes- again read the book "Rise of the Celts" for examples. The populations were mixed as far back as well documented archeological findings go.

    What does this have to do with what I said?

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Wynterwade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2012 @ 08:41 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    England, Germany
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Gender
    Posts
    491
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    but this doesn't say anything about a possible pre-Indo-European substratum which could have influenced the Germanic languages.
    This is a very complex argument.

    First it is important to understand 3 things
    1) We don't know what the Pre-Indo-European (also phrased as non-indo-european) linguistic influence could be. Many linguists point towards a hypothetical Basque language family being the most likely possible language family throughout Europe. And also the Basque language has not been linked to any other language family and professional linguistics have not been able to find any concrete similarities to any other language- including Germanic.

    2) This is very important to understand- the pre-indo-european language probably died out way before the creation of the Germanic languages. The official start of the Germanic languages was due to Grimms law during the 1st century BC. Before this language the people of the germanic lands spoke a form of proto-indo-european. Thus whatever Pre-Indo-European influence exists in the Germanic language family would probably also exist in its neighbor families who spoke the same language- proto-indo-european.

    3) When you look at the development of the Germanic language family, according to Grimms law- the differences are more in 3 key areas-
    a)Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops change into voiceless fricatives.
    b)Proto-Indo-European voiced stops become voiceless stops.
    c) Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops become voiced fricatives; ultimately, in most Germanic languages these voiced fricatives become voiced stops.
    None of these changes from the Proto-Indo-European language to the Proto-Germanic language (that differentiate Germanic languages from other indo-european langauges) are caused by a Non-IE language influence.

    From the books and scientific studies that I've read, Germanic languages are overwhelmingly rooted in Indo-European origins. If it were to have noticeable influences from a pre-indo-european origin (which is the same thing as saying influences from a non-indo-euroepan origin) most linguists think it would be more noticeable- thus the majority of linguists say the influence is negligible if at all. If you can find any evidence for a non-indo-european influence I would be happy to hear it.


    What does this have to do with what I said?
    Because you were trying to link the linguistic movement with the skull classifications of Europe. This doesn't hold for two reasons

    1) European skull types were already diverse as far back as archelogical findings go. I evidenced the book "Rise of the Celts" by Henri Hubert for evidence. This is also a difficult to understand point because frequently similar tribes had similar C.I. but another tribe a hundred miles away that is of the SAME culture has a different C.I. I think the ones for Hallstatt Culture were first found as dolycephelic and then they also found members not far away of the same culture that were mesocephelic if my memory is correct.

    2) Because the Indo-European language expansion had negligible influence genetically on Europe (except lactose tolerance- because slightly favorable traits can grow to a majority overtime)- studies have found that their influence is merely a linguistic one- read the book "The 10,000 Year Explosion" for evidence about that including the evidence on lactose tolerance expansion.

    Using DNA evidence, Sykes and Oppenheimer claim that even in the east of England, where there is the best evidence for migration, no more than 10% of paternal lines may be designated as coming from an "Anglo-Saxon" migration event.
    Also, certain towns in Scotland have 50% Scandinavian paternal DNA lines.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic..._British_Isles

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Hammer of Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 06:58 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    British Isles/Germany/Sweden/Netherlands
    Subrace
    Trønder
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Right
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    I believe that to some extent the Celts and Germanics arose from a common people. As the populations diverged and settled new areas they began their own customs, languages, etc., which eventually became distinct cultures.

    As proto-Celts and proto-Germanics diverged and became separate tribes, their cultures began to diverge. A current day example would be European Americans. Although European Americans all had ancestors from Europe, they have developed a totally different culture. There may be no genetic divergence so to speak, but there is a more significant cultural change.

    Additionally, genetic testing proves that Northwestern/Northern Europeans are very similar genetically and there is often a great deal of genetic overlap.

    Some evidence to support this idea would be:

    Genetically most Northern/Northwestern Europeans are very similar.






    Celtic and Norse artwork is very similar and is often grouped together.



    Anyway, just my 2 cents. Let me know what you guys think.

    Hammer of Thor

  4. #34
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wynterwade View Post
    1) Germanic languages ARE classified as an Indo-European language. Read about why they make this classification- it is very detailed. As for a major influence by a Non-Indo-European language- I highly doubt it- the top linguists will agree with me.
    I never disputed that Germanic languages are part of the Indo-European family. Indeed all IE languages have influence from non-IE languages, it's just a question of how much.
    And although it's a while since I last delved into this, I believe it's well accepted among scholars of the subject that Germanic has strong non-IE elements or influences, possibly more so than any other IE branch.

    3) Germanic languages have influence by Celtic and Slavic languages and probably VERY LITTLE BY Finnno-Ugric languages. Look at the geographics- Germanic languges were surrounded by Celtic and Slavic tribes.
    I won't push this issue too far, given that I was only speculating as to a possibility, however I would point out that any influence of this kind would have come from some sort of proto-Finno-Ugric. Even if my hypothesis is correct, modern Finno-Ugric languages are likely to be highly mixed (with other language families) and evolved descendants of this original Corded language, so any influence of this Corded language on Germanic in very early times would be extremely difficult to identify as a specifically Finno-Ugric link.

    4) Before the Indo-European language expansion it is hypothesized that Europeans spoke languages similar to Basque.
    Yes, but I beg to differ. I believe Basque is probably derived largely from a language spoken by the "Atlanto-mediterranean" Megalith builders, given that the Basque region experienced strong settlement by these people. I simply cannot accept the idea that the earlier hunter-gatherers managed to retain their language, let alone linguistically absorb the incoming Megalithic people, who had a much more advanced culture.

    5)
    You cannot say that a certain skull shape spoke a certain langauge because when you look at archeological finds- they find within certain cultures- Le Tene for example- they find diverse skull shapes. I read the book "Rise of the Celts" by Henri Hubert to understand this. The sub-races of our populations were mixed as far back as archeological finds go- pointing towards a very distant origin for these skull differences- and mixing between skull types.
    I nevertheless believe that they started out as distinct racial types, with a language of their own, and presumably a material culture largely peculiar to themselves.
    Obviously once they arrived in Western Europe they will have been influenced by surrounding cultures, and also imposed much of their own culture on conquered peoples and indeed over many generations eventually become blended, so my idea that they were originally a distinct "race" is perfectly consistent with the archaeological evidence.

    I would argue that the fact that consistently the same skull type is found over a wide area, generally associated with a roughly similar culture, but in later eras is found to be less distinct and more hybridised with earlier local types, is rather contradictory to the view you're promoting, and supports the idea I've stated above.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Wynterwade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2012 @ 08:41 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    England, Germany
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Gender
    Posts
    491
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    Rhydderch,

    You should have tried to disprove my most recent post which was by far my strongest counterargument (where I actually pulled out books to look up evidence) against your disproved hypothesis.

    Also if you're going to say that there is Non-IE influence in Germanic languages more so than other IE languages then show me some evidence. I have never read anything supporting such argument but I have read considerable amounts of evidence supporting mine.

    A lot of your arguments give no consideration to time. Yes obviously distinct racial types lived at one point separate from others- but this was extremely long ago probably way before or during the last ice age. IE Languages are much more recent- the development hypothesized as beginning their divergence around 8,000 BC. With Germanic languages beginning its divergence from IE around the first millennium BC- and none of the differences that separate it from other IE were caused by a Non-IE language as I pointed out in my last post.

  6. #36
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 9th, 2010 @ 01:26 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Gender
    Age
    81
    Posts
    161
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

  7. #37
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wynterwade View Post
    Rhydderch,

    You should have tried to disprove my most recent post which was by far my strongest counterargument (where I actually pulled out books to look up evidence) against your disproved hypothesis.
    But it's no good quoting books and simply asserting that the point of view given in those books is correct, if you don't actually understand the issues. Don't simply swallow their claims, you need to ascertain whether they've actually made a good argument.

    I've looked at many books, compared them and come up with my own conclusions as to what makes the most sense. There are all sorts of conflicting ideas and just because one can quote a book/books which back him up doesn't mean he's proved or disproved anything.

    My views have come from so many different sources it's not always possible to quote them as coming from a specific source, besides the fact that it's some time since I've been studying it in detail.

    Also if you're going to say that there is Non-IE influence in Germanic languages more so than other IE languages then show me some evidence. I have never read anything supporting such argument but I have read considerable amounts of evidence supporting mine.
    Have a look at this wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani...ate_hypothesis

    Note the statements:

    "[The Germanic substrate hypothesis] postulates that the elements of the common Germanic vocabulary and syntactical forms which do not seem to have an Indo-European origin show Proto-Germanic to be a creole language: a contact language synthesis between Indo-European speakers and a non-Indo-European substrate language used by the ancestors of the speakers of the Proto-Germanic language."

    And

    "That the Germanic languages form a markedly distinct group within Indo-European is beyond question."

    I've also read that a large proportion of Germanic vocabulary appears to be of non-Indo-European origin.

    A lot of your arguments give no consideration to time. Yes obviously distinct racial types lived at one point separate from others- but this was extremely long ago probably way before or during the last ice age. IE Languages are much more recent- the development hypothesized as beginning their divergence around 8,000 BC. With Germanic languages beginning its divergence from IE around the first millennium BC- and none of the differences that separate it from other IE were caused by a Non-IE language as I pointed out in my last post.
    And what has prompted you to accept all this as fact?

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Wynterwade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2012 @ 08:41 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    England, Germany
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Gender
    Posts
    491
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    Thanks for the information Rhydderch.

    From wikipedia: More recent treatments of Proto-Germanic tend to reject or simply omit discussion of the Germanic substrate hypothesis.
    Because I read recent scientific information must be why I have never heard of the Germanic substrate hypothesis. After glancing over it does seem possible- but I would be cautious because Hawkins argument (that Germanic languages are 1/3 non-IE) is being downsized and refuted or ignored by a majority of the linguistic community. I can't find any information as to what the ratio is today. And considering it isn't mainstream this may be hard to find.

    Do you know what the ratio is today? Because our entire arguments rest upon what the ratio is.

    And what has prompted you to accept all this as fact?
    Ok, first of all in the quote you have mentioned I have listed...
    1) Racial types were distinct a very long time ago (probably before the last Ice Age or during it). And that racial types are diverse as far back as archeological evidence goes (at the end of the last Ice Age).
    2) IE Language expansion began around 8,000 BC and had negligible genetic influence on Europe.
    3) Germanic languages began around the first millennium BC.
    4) The creation of Germanic langues had no influence from non-IE languages.

    You want me to spend my entire day on here going over all these again?
    For 1) Read Henri Huberts "Rise of the Celts" for 2) Read "10,000 year explosion" for 3) Read Grimms Law.

    Also I actually did a good job describing evidence on #1, #2 and #3- I gave them in my posts on this thread.

    I will grant you that my #4) Argument is possibly wrong. I should have said had negligible or no influence. (or maybe some depending on what the ratio is from the first part of this post).

    Reading back over our posts it feels like we're fighting- I really don't mean to be rude.

  9. #39
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wynterwade View Post
    Because I read recent scientific information must be why I have never heard of the Germanic substrate hypothesis. After glancing over it does seem possible- but I would be cautious because Hawkins argument (that Germanic languages are 1/3 non-IE) is being downsized and refuted or ignored by a majority of the linguistic community. I can't find any information as to what the ratio is today. And considering it isn't mainstream this may be hard to find.
    One should certainly be careful accepting a non-mainstream view, however I feel that sometimes modern scholars decide to overturn a theory, commonly held in the past, for no good reason (often politically correct or something). I think often the older view makes more sense than the modern widely accepted one.

    Do you know what the ratio is today? Because our entire arguments rest upon what the ratio is.
    I'm not sure what the ratio is today but I wouldn't say the entire argument rests on it, bearing in mind that it's well accepted even today that Germanic is somewhat distinct from the rest of the IE family.

    Ok, first of all in the quote you have mentioned I have listed...
    1) Racial types were distinct a very long time ago (probably before the last Ice Age or during it). And that racial types are diverse as far back as archeological evidence goes (at the end of the last Ice Age).
    2) IE Language expansion began around 8,000 BC and had negligible genetic influence on Europe.
    3) Germanic languages began around the first millennium BC.
    4) The creation of Germanic langues had no influence from non-IE languages.

    You want me to spend my entire day on here going over all these again?
    For 1) Read Henri Huberts "Rise of the Celts" for 2) Read "10,000 year explosion" for 3) Read Grimms Law.
    But my point was, have they actually made good arguments for these claims? I understand you can't exactly show me the whole argument, however I was only making the point.

    But I would argue that although there is generally some degree of mingling of types with particular material cultures, there is still a distinct correlation. For example wherever the Bronze Age beaker culture is found (in Northern Spain, Italy and later further north), there are also found skulls distinctly different from those generally found associated with Neolithic culture in the same areas.
    So with many cultures there is a spread of a particular physical type with the material culture.

    http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/05-05.htm

    I really don't mean to be rude.
    Me neither

  10. #40
    Member
    SnorriThorfinnsso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 14th, 2012 @ 11:33 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Keltic-Nordid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Traveler
    Politics
    Far-Right
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    39
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wynterwade View Post
    First of all I think many of you are getting terms confused.
    -Celtic is not a racial group.
    -Celtic is a cultural-linguistic group. I read Henri Hubert's "Rise of the Celts".
    -The Celtics stretched from Ireland to Spain to Turkey to Ukraine.
    -They originated in Southern Germany along the Danube (Danu is the Celtic god).

    Second of all, the Scandinavian racial influence on Britain is far less than many think. Studies have found that no more than 5% of eastern England has Scandinavian paternal DNA. Some areas in Scotland have huge amounts of Scandinavian DNA however around 50%.

    The Celtic and Germanic cultures are not hard to understand if you do some research on your own. Read their entire wikipedia pages, read a book or two about each.
    I tought Celts and Germanic tribes both were separated from the same branch (A.K.A) Hallstatt Culture in the Early Iron Age, from the 8th to 6th century BC. And it's proven by some ancient Halogrups like R1b1b2 (R1b1c) wich is Italo-Celto-Anatolian, then it mutated to R1b1b2a1 (Italo-Celto-Germanic) 6'000 years ago, wich changed in more recent times to R1b1b2a1a (R1b1c9) West Germanic (Frisian, Anglo-Saxon, Lombard), R1b1b2a1a1 (R1b1c9b), R1b1b2a1a2, etc. So to me, they share same origins, in the Racial/Cultural even Genetic sense. I don't know tho, i'm not well-versed in Genetics.

    Greetings.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Celts in Iberia
    By Johannes de León in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Sunday, May 21st, 2006, 04:57 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •