R-L21 in England and Wales: Britons

[A.D.]

I've got a question for the linguists.
Irish does not have s possessive case as in English  eg. you don't `have' something it is `with you', `at you' or `on you'
I've heard the idea of possesion `to have' came with settlement ie Neolithic Farming
could this mean Gaelic is older?
Is this true with other `Celtic' or IE languages.
Incidentally I was at Newgrange recently and saw some of the skeletons of the Megalith builders. It really struck me how small and in poor health they were.  they had many disabling complaints such as Arthritis its hard to believe they could have made any thing. I was told the infant mortality rate  was extremely high.    Apparently  the average life expectancy for a man was 40 and woman 25. It is thought the highest population of the Boyne Valley was 2000 and this was the most densely populated area of Ireland at the time and there weren't many. It is  easy to believe they could have been wiped out over night.
It really bought home what JeanM  has said about farming ,cattle and  population replacement etc.
I was wondering if these farmers could have disappeared without a trace yet  some hunter gatherers survived leaving their genes there seems to be enough room for them to be present with a sustainable population throughout this period.
Does genetics tell us anything definite on this. 

[Mikewww]

I've got a question for the linguists.
Irish does not have s possessive case as in English  eg. you don't `have' something it is `with you', `at you' or `on you'...

I am not a linguist but my understanding is that situation is similar to DNA in one respect. You can look at one individual type of something, in your question the possessive case, and come up with all kinds of theories.  This would be, in my mind, akin to looking at one single STR, say DYS391, and developing theories that everyone who is DYS391=10 is Scottish, which probably isn't true.  I think you have to look at all of the data possible in context of all of the types and cases.  I think linguists try to do this when determining the language tree and ages.

I was wondering if these farmers could have disappeared without a trace yet  some hunter gatherers survived ...
Does genetics tell us anything definite on this.  

Anything is possible, but I think a clue from genetics is the lactase persistence genes that many in Northern Europe, in particular, have inherited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
This would probably be associated with animal husbandry and dairy cattle... something that some elements of people associated with agriculture would be engaged in.  I think that's what the archeology has shown.

Hunters on the other hand, were killing animals for meat and accessories. There was no advantage to this gene for them therefore that's probably not where Northern Europeans got it.

[A.D.]

If hunter gathers survived couldn't adapted to husbandry or would they have been lactose intolerant. If they were couldn't they have gained tolerance through interbreeding?
This got me thinking  there are differant breeds of cattle some beef some dairy.
Wouldn't dairy cattle have been introduced with the lactose tolerant incomers.
I read that oats were introduced to Ireland in the Bronze Age maybe this had something to do with feeding dairy cattle to yield more milk.
If this is correct they must have come from some form of settlement.
Maybe we should check out ancient cattle DNA and isotopes to get dates and routes. 

[Jean M]

I've got a question for the linguists. Irish does not have a possessive case as in English  eg. you don't `have' something it is `with you', `at you' or `on you'. I've heard the idea of possession `to have' came with settlement ie Neolithic Farming could this mean Gaelic is older?

Gaelic does have a possessive case. See http://www.erinsweb.com/gaelic55.html

Gaelic and other forms of Celtic are Indo-European languages. They all descend from Proto-Indo-European, which can be dated to around 4000-3,500 BC.

Not being a linguist, I cannot discuss with any authority the grammar of the languages of present-day hunter-gatherers. A quick Google led me to a book which appears to be saying that one such language uses a combination of nouns to indicate possession. http://lotos.library.uu.nl/publish/articles/000283/bookpart.pdf  

But this is completely irrelevant to Gaelic.
  

[Jean M]

Maybe we should check out ancient cattle DNA and isotopes to get dates and routes. 

Scientists are already doing that. I have written a very brief introduction  to the origins of Dairy Farming.

[A.D.]

the example shown fur you have `leat' comes joining `le'=with and `tu' you' hence with you hence liom = with me / agat= ag= at+ tu =at you and so on.
4 of my sons 's 1st language is Irish, my next door neighbour never got fluent in english and they agree there is no literal translation to the word `have 'as in own.
there is no letter h in Irish it replaced a dot above the previous letter and became the norm with the introduction of type wrters. hence there is no `th' sound as in `the' or `thorn'. The early Irish and english 18 letter alphabets do not contain all the samer sounds either.

[Mikewww]

If hunter gathers survived couldn't adapted to husbandry or would they have been lactose intolerant. If they were couldn't they have gained tolerance through interbreeding?
This got me thinking  there are differant breeds of cattle some beef some dairy.....

I recommend
1) bringing up and continuing this discussion on one of the prior related threads rather than this one
2) reading the prior threads. Here and here.
3) reading the article related to the older of the two threads. Click here.