World Families Forums - Z253 & Z255 - Possible Language

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 02, 2014, 06:14:00 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Z253 & Z255 - Possible Language
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Z253 & Z255 - Possible Language  (Read 1618 times)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« on: February 29, 2012, 06:50:17 PM »

I am intrigued by the genetic relationship between Z253 and Z255, and wonder what language these two lineages could have spoken since they share a common ancestor around 700 BCE.

It looks like Z253 will be much more plentiful on the Continent, since we already see it in Spain, Switzerland, and Norway. Could both lineages be the first Celtic-speaking settlers of Britain and Ireland? And if so, would the language be more akin to Gaelic or a Brythonic variety?
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2012, 06:32:39 PM »

I am intrigued by the genetic relationship between Z253 and Z255, and wonder what language these two lineages could have spoken since they share a common ancestor around 700 BCE.

It looks like Z253 will be much more plentiful on the Continent, since we already see it in Spain, Switzerland, and Norway. Could both lineages be the first Celtic-speaking settlers of Britain and Ireland? And if so, would the language be more akin to Gaelic or a Brythonic variety?

Well the question is when did the Celtic languages start to breakup. I know there was a study published several years ago in Nature which put a speration date of Irish and Welsh at at least 900BC. From what's known of the corpus of Gaulish and "Archaic Irish" (what Ogham stones are written in) there is very little in way of difference other then obvious sound changes which occurred in Gaulish (Q -> P)

More then likely a thousand years beforehand the difference between what became the seperate Celtic languages was basically dialectically. It would have been less then say difference between Danish, Swedish and Norwegian today.
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2012, 08:55:12 AM »

I am intrigued by the genetic relationship between Z253 and Z255, and wonder what language these two lineages could have spoken since they share a common ancestor around 700 BCE.

It looks like Z253 will be much more plentiful on the Continent, since we already see it in Spain, Switzerland, and Norway. Could both lineages be the first Celtic-speaking settlers of Britain and Ireland? And if so, would the language be more akin to Gaelic or a Brythonic variety?

Well the question is when did the Celtic languages start to breakup. I know there was a study published several years ago in Nature which put a speration date of Irish and Welsh at at least 900BC. From what's known of the corpus of Gaulish and "Archaic Irish" (what Ogham stones are written in) there is very little in way of difference other then obvious sound changes which occurred in Gaulish (Q -> P)

More then likely a thousand years beforehand the difference between what became the seperate Celtic languages was basically dialectically. It would have been less then say difference between Danish, Swedish and Norwegian today.

Welsh didn't exist in 900BC it hadn't evolved yet it wasn't until the post Roman period that Welsh emerged from Brittonic/British.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 08:55:36 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2012, 09:02:16 AM »

I am intrigued by the genetic relationship between Z253 and Z255, and wonder what language these two lineages could have spoken since they share a common ancestor around 700 BCE.

It looks like Z253 will be much more plentiful on the Continent, since we already see it in Spain, Switzerland, and Norway. Could both lineages be the first Celtic-speaking settlers of Britain and Ireland? And if so, would the language be more akin to Gaelic or a Brythonic variety?

Well the question is when did the Celtic languages start to breakup. I know there was a study published several years ago in Nature which put a speration date of Irish and Welsh at at least 900BC. From what's known of the corpus of Gaulish and "Archaic Irish" (what Ogham stones are written in) there is very little in way of difference other then obvious sound changes which occurred in Gaulish (Q -> P)

More then likely a thousand years beforehand the difference between what became the seperate Celtic languages was basically dialectically. It would have been less then say difference between Danish, Swedish and Norwegian today.

Welsh didn't exist in 900BC it hadn't evolved yet it wasn't until the post Roman period that Welsh emerged from Brittonic/British.

That's not my point. the seperation date is for what became Goidelic and what became Brythonic. Using the modern proxies of Modern Welsh and Modern Irish to infer seperation date.

I do admit I could have put it across a bit better but here's the logic.

Welsh descendes from Proto-Brythonic, Irish from Proto-Goidelic. The dialectics in the "Proto-Celtic" continuum that became Proto-Goidelic and Proto-Brythonic started to spilt around 900BC. Ergo Modern-Irish and Modern-Welsh are seperated by about 2,900 years of "near independent" linguistic development.

I use the term "near independent" because it appears that there is influence between the two during the early Christian period. This mainly as the early Christian church in Ireland (which was missonary in nature) was heavily Brythonic in character.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2012, 01:15:33 PM »

Well the question is when did the Celtic languages start to breakup. I know there was a study published several years ago in Nature which put a separation date of Irish and Welsh at at least 900BC.

That was the highly controversial Russell D. Gray & Quentin D. Atkinson,  Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature, vol. 426 (2003), pp. 435–439. The paper was ripped apart by linguists for the age depth they suggested for PIE.

Using Starostin's refined glottochronology, which produces results more credible generally, the time depth of the divergence of Gaulish vs. Brythonic (1000 BC) is practically the same as Goidelic vs. Gaulish-Brythonic (1100 BC). See  V Blažek, On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: Survey.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 01:17:59 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2012, 04:11:16 PM »

Archaeologically, the best proxy for the diverging of Celtic languages seems to be at some point towards the end of the Hallstatt C period when the Q-Celtic areas seems to have become less in touch with the later P-Celtic areas for several centuries.  Contact between Britain and the continent was also reduced but not entirely as Hallstatt D material in Britain shows.  I suspect the Irish started to diverge from the rest c. 700BC and that was magnified somewhat when the P-Q change spread soon after. 
Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2012, 05:03:55 PM »

Archaeologically, the best proxy for the diverging of Celtic languages seems to be at some point towards the end of the Hallstatt C period when the Q-Celtic areas seems to have become less in touch with the later P-Celtic areas for several centuries.  Contact between Britain and the continent was also reduced but not entirely as Hallstatt D material in Britain shows.  I suspect the Irish started to diverge from the rest c. 700BC and that was magnified somewhat when the P-Q change spread soon after. 

Even then the level of speration was quite minimum for several hundred years. Archaic Irish (the language of Ogham stones) is remarkably similar to Gaulish, apart from of course preservation of more "archaic" features in it. The big changes in Irish seem to occur with rise of Christianity. Some have argue of course that what was written in Ogham was an archaic soicolect reflecting the learned classes. With the rise of christianity we see a rebasing of the language around what became known as "Old Irish" (loss of inflectional endings for example)

of course there were other sound changes such as intial V -> F

Vindos -> Findos -> Find -> Fionn
(Proto-Celtic -> Goidelic/Archaic Irish -> Old Irish -> Modern Irish)

Given the time period that we are talking bout Z253/Z255 I think the level of difference is quite similiar as an analogy to the isoglosses across Germany between "High German" and "Low German"
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2012, 05:33:48 PM »

I am intrigued by the genetic relationship between Z253 and Z255, and wonder what language these two lineages could have spoken since they share a common ancestor around 700 BCE.

It looks like Z253 will be much more plentiful on the Continent, since we already see it in Spain, Switzerland, and Norway. Could both lineages be the first Celtic-speaking settlers of Britain and Ireland? And if so, would the language be more akin to Gaelic or a Brythonic variety?

I was pretty surprised when I looked at the FTDNA project page for Z255, the Irish Sea cluster.  There are some Celtic names but to my eye there are more non-Celtic ones, some of possible Viking and Norman ancestry.  I dont know what to make of it or indeed Z253 or their relationship to each other. 
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2012, 06:54:37 AM »

Z255(L159.2) has been found in Norway as well.
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2012, 10:14:49 AM »

I thought I would post this here since it is relevant to Z255, but someone just joined the Z255 Project yesterday who tested L159.2+.

The odd thing about his L159.2+ result is this fellow is also L21-. So, it looks like L159.2's stability hijinks is at it again.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2012, 12:16:44 AM »

is it 223929 Colangelo R1b1a2a1a1b4f  R-L159.2 L159.2+, L20-, L21-, L257-, M228.2-, U106- ?

I would check for a typo... on the L21. Surely the lab noticed this and, if so, why the .2 assignment?
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2012, 06:37:40 AM »

I thought I would post this here since it is relevant to Z255, but someone just joined the Z255 Project yesterday who tested L159.2+.

The odd thing about his L159.2+ result is this fellow is also L21-. So, it looks like L159.2's stability hijinks is at it again.

Maybe a lab error, it has happened before.
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2012, 01:40:24 PM »

is it 223929 Colangelo R1b1a2a1a1b4f  R-L159.2 L159.2+, L20-, L21-, L257-, M228.2-, U106- ?

I would check for a typo... on the L21. Surely the lab noticed this and, if so, why the .2 assignment?

Yes, that is the fellow. Mike made the suggestion that he should test for Z255, and I agree. But I predict Colangelo to test Z255-. His MDKA is from Italy, I believe.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2012, 06:31:32 PM »

is it 223929 Colangelo R1b1a2a1a1b4f  R-L159.2 L159.2+, L20-, L21-, L257-, M228.2-, U106- ?

I would check for a typo... on the L21. Surely the lab noticed this and, if so, why the .2 assignment?

Yes, that is the fellow. Mike made the suggestion that he should test for Z255, and I agree. But I predict Colangelo to test Z255-. His MDKA is from Italy, I believe.
He could well be Z255-. I just picked Z255 as the first of the big five for him to test for if he wanted to proceed with ala carte SNP testing.  If I was him, I would test for Z255, although the odds may not be much different than of getting a base hit.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2012, 04:47:03 AM »



Welsh descendes from Proto-Brythonic,

No it didn't it descended from late British in the post Roman period!

« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 05:04:55 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2012, 08:46:17 AM »



Welsh descendes from Proto-Brythonic,

No it didn't it descended from late British in the post Roman period!



Which in turn descends from Proto-Brythonic and then Proto-Celtic, then Proto-Italic-Celtic then Proto-IE. Thus modern welsh is clearly a descendant of Proto-Brythonic. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be a Brythonic language.

The argument is like saying that Modern German doesn't descend from "Proto-Germanic" but instead from "Old High German"

Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2012, 02:28:58 PM »



Welsh descendes from Proto-Brythonic,

No it didn't it descended from late British in the post Roman period!



Which in turn descends from Proto-Brythonic and then Proto-Celtic, then Proto-Italic-Celtic then Proto-IE. Thus modern welsh is clearly a descendant of Proto-Brythonic. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be a Brythonic language.

The argument is like saying that Modern German doesn't descend from "Proto-Germanic" but instead from "Old High German"



I think a lot of people seem to think the P-Q division in Celtic is some sort of root division when in fact the P-Q change is just a shift that happened fairly late among some Celts and not others.  I am not sure of the date but those who link the Celt-Iberian culture of east-central Spain with adjacent urnfield remains should bear in mind that, if that correlation is true, then this shows urnfield Q-Celts.  Lepontic of course is also linked to very late Urnfield intrusions into north Italy by many and it seems to have been P-Celtic or certainly became so by the earliest inscriptions.  I am quite taken by the idea that the P-Q shift happened first in north Italy under Etruscan influence and the shift spread due to the very strong phase of contract in the Hallstatt D phase between west north Alpine chiefdoms (who must have been very prestigious in the Celtic world and emulated) and Italy.   
Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2012, 03:30:46 PM »


I think a lot of people seem to think the P-Q division in Celtic is some sort of root division when in fact the P-Q change is just a shift that happened fairly late among some Celts and not others.  I am not sure of the date but those who link the Celt-Iberian culture of east-central Spain with adjacent urnfield remains should bear in mind that, if that correlation is true, then this shows urnfield Q-Celts.  Lepontic of course is also linked to very late Urnfield intrusions into north Italy by many and it seems to have been P-Celtic or certainly became so by the earliest inscriptions.  I am quite taken by the idea that the P-Q shift happened first in north Italy under Etruscan influence and the shift spread due to the very strong phase of contract in the Hallstatt D phase between west north Alpine chiefdoms (who must have been very prestigious in the Celtic world and emulated) and Italy.   

Indeed "Archaic Irish" as perseved in Ogham inscriptions is very close to the suriviving corpus of Gaulish, Other then aforementioned sound change. If we are gonna take a "telescopic" view back to period in the 1st century BC more then likely we would see a dialectical contiunum of closely related dialects across the entire expanse of "Celtic Europe". No different then say the dialectical range across Germany for exaple form "Low German" in the north to the High German in south. With specific isoglosses marking dialectical borders.

Or one could look at the Tuscan dialects of Italian. (Though some would argue modern Italian grew out of Tusany) which have the following feature that sets them apart from standard italian.

/k/ → [h]
/t/ → [θ]
/p/ → [ɸ]
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2012, 06:15:15 PM »

i thought the Ogham was from Christian times. If it is found in earlier times can you provide me with a link?
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2012, 10:03:58 PM »


Indeed "Archaic Irish" as perseved in Ogham inscriptions is very close to the suriviving corpus of Gaulish, Other then aforementioned sound change.

Now that is interesting. I wonder if the first wave of Celts into Ireland spoke a P-Celtic tongue, or something more similar to Gaulish, and changed over time into Archaic Irish.

I think of Z255, its distribution in Leinster, and Rahilly's historical model which assigns the Laigin a P-Celtic tongue. I am not sure if the Irish sagas are accurate, but the story goes that the Laigin were Gaulish or British soldiers invited to Ireland to reclaim the kingship for Labraid Loingsech.

Besides the obvious clusters of Z255 in England and Scotland, there are also Z255+ samples with Rhineland German surnames: Schneider, Rosenburg, and Boston (formerly Bastian, family genealogy traces to the Rhineland).
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2012, 12:38:51 AM »

I was looking for more information on the Druidry on the continental side as I was reading a book my father in law lent me; The Book or Druidry by Ross Nichols published in 1990. I found this overview online  discuss Ogham origin and original alphabet. (I advise copying the text and read it in note pad or word due to the boarder running down the middle right of the screen)

http://taliere.tripod.com/ogham.htm

He mentions other sources that mention ogham prior to 400AD.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 10:36:07 AM by Mark Jost » Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2012, 09:48:39 AM »


Indeed "Archaic Irish" as perseved in Ogham inscriptions is very close to the suriviving corpus of Gaulish, Other then aforementioned sound change.

Now that is interesting. I wonder if the first wave of Celts into Ireland spoke a P-Celtic tongue, or something more similar to Gaulish, and changed over time into Archaic Irish.

I think of Z255, its distribution in Leinster, and Rahilly's historical model which assigns the Laigin a P-Celtic tongue. I am not sure if the Irish sagas are accurate, but the story goes that the Laigin were Gaulish or British soldiers invited to Ireland to reclaim the kingship for Labraid Loingsech.

Besides the obvious clusters of Z255 in England and Scotland, there are also Z255+ samples with Rhineland German surnames: Schneider, Rosenburg, and Boston (formerly Bastian, family genealogy traces to the Rhineland).

No the "Q" in Q-Celtic is a feature of both Proto-Celtic and Proto-Indo-European. For example "Mycenaean Greek" as written in "Linear B" could be called Q-Greek. This developed into a p phoneme in certain conditions in ancient-Greek. The same of course happened with "Celtic". The fact that the "Labialized Velar Consonant" was perseved in Goidelic and Celtiberian points to Ireland and Spain been on the periphery when the shift to "P" happened. Some have argued that this is reflective of the Irish dark ages from 800-200BC.

Of course in Old Irish the "Q" (written by linguists as k^w -- k to power w) shifted to a K sound. Thence hard C in Irish been pronunced as a K.

Dating on Ogham is quite problematic, there are both older and newer styles of inscription, based on the language on the stones. There was an article published a couple years ago on the Silchester Ogham stone (found in roman site of Silchester in England). The archaelogical report points to the well in which the stone was located been filled in during the late 4th/early 5th century. This put's the use of Ogham in the period 375-425AD which is in the late pre-christian period.

http://bill.celt.dias.ie/vol4/displayObject.php?TreeID=8713

Leaving aside that the language on the stones is quite archaic especially compared to Old Irish, which is the language found in Christian writings etc. Some have argued that it was a specific archaic register of the language used by learned classes. This ties in with some of terminology on the stones which are regarded as pre-christian. For example use of word "muco" (tribe). It wouldn't surprise me if the developent of Ogham is a feature of the late "Pre-history" of Ireland, during contact with Roman Britain. After all it's basically a cipher of Latin Alphabet. (3rd-5th centuries AD)
Logged
whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2012, 12:19:24 PM »

#justathought But was there not a language used in Eire, before Archaic Gaelic, a handful of relic terms may which have survived?
Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2012, 05:28:08 PM »

#justathought But was there not a language used in Eire, before Archaic Gaelic, a handful of relic terms may which have survived?

"Archaic Irish" is a term specific to inscriptions in Ogham. Which is in reality just a snapshot of a particular time. Before then the language was purely spoken. Before this you would be looking at just "Goidelic" and then proto-Celtic

Obviously there was a pre-Celtic language in Ireland as the island has been inhabited for close to 10k years. One of the very unusual features of "Insular Celtic" (Goidelic and Brythonic) is that they are VSO (Verb Subject Object)  compared to most European languages which are SVO (or partially SOV) -- english is svo

Other VSO also features in semetic languges such as Classic Arabic, Classical Hebrew, Berber, Austronesian languages (Malay, Filipino, Tongan) and others.

Some have argue that the fact that this is a feature of modern Irish and Welsh is an artifact of these languages been overlaided onto a earlier population who spoke a VSO language. In comparison Gaulish and Leptonic are generally SOV
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.14 seconds with 18 queries.