World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: alan trowel hands. on November 01, 2012, 08:29:20 PM



Title: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 01, 2012, 08:29:20 PM
I was reading some stuff on pre-Celtic substrates in Gaelic and Celtic in general.  I dound it very interesting how modest the number of substrate words are in Gaelic and how they collectively sound like key elements of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer-fisher economy in Ireland including words for Salmon, herring, lobster, crab, winkle and Hare to name some Gaelic-specific words. 

There are other pre-Celtic words shared by the wider Celtic family which could therefore have been picked up from pre-Celts either locally or befire they reached the isles, including words for Raven, Badger, another word for Salmon, berry, strawberry, seaweed, ocean, rushes, heather,  swamp, nettle, varous pig/boar words, skin, mouse, herb, wolf, wood, stone, garlic, cloak, stag, elk, ram, bird of prey, rushes, stick etc


Now to me the selection (I have chosen the more material words) of apparently pre-Celtic words specific to Gaelic and those in Celtic languages in general has an uncanny resemblance or at least strong compatibility with a pre-agriculture culture concerned with fishing, pre-farming animals, plants, water bodies etc.  Even the Gaelic-only pre-Celtic words have an uncanny fit with the fishing-dominated Irish pre-farming economy (due to lack of large animals other than wild boards).  If the above is representative of local words the Celts encountered on arrival in western Europe and then Ireland then this looks so very like what you would expect when farmers meet hunter-gatherer-fishers rather than when Copper Age people met farmers. Not saying that this is in any way clinching but it is food for thought. 


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 01, 2012, 09:13:45 PM
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic Hunter Gatherers were about 60% plus in Ireland. Mediterranean Farmers accounted for about 20% plus and Anatolian Farmers were about 10% plus. I believe many figured the Anatolian Farmer represented Copper and Bronze Age arrivals, the Mediterranean Farmers Neolithic and the Baltic Hunter Gatherers Mesolithic. (NOTE: The numbers on the actual data differ from the numbers one would get from Gedmatch Admixture)

If these numbers actually represent historical people, then it would seem that the Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer was never overcome by later arrivals. How Y-DNA R1b came to dominate male lines can't be explained by this, though.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: princenuadha on November 01, 2012, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: Alan Trowel Hands
If the above is representative of local words the Celts encountered on arrival in western Europe and then Ireland then this looks so very like what you would expect when farmers meet hunter-gatherer-fishers rather than when Copper Age people met farmers.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying you think Celtic came to Ireland with farmers?

Why not bronze age ppl, who met people in Ireland that had a mesolithic way of life?

Quote from: eochaidh
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic HunterGatherers were about60%plus inIreland.

We don't know what's what, polako is guessing.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 01, 2012, 11:10:31 PM
Quote from: Alan Trowel Hands
If the above is representative of local words the Celts encountered on arrival in western Europe and then Ireland then this looks so very like what you would expect when farmers meet hunter-gatherer-fishers rather than when Copper Age people met farmers.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying you think Celtic came to Ireland with farmers?

Why not bronze age ppl, who met people in Ireland that had a mesolithic way of life?

Quote from: eochaidh
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic HunterGatherers were about60%plus inIreland.

We don't know what's what, polako is guessing.

Well, when the 60% plus score among Irish testers reaches a high in Lithuania, you can assume it doesn't represent the Mediterranean or Anatolia. Or, perhaps that would have been your guess.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 02, 2012, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Alan Trowel Hands
If the above is representative of local words the Celts encountered on arrival in western Europe and then Ireland then this looks so very like what you would expect when farmers meet hunter-gatherer-fishers rather than when Copper Age people met farmers.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying you think Celtic came to Ireland with farmers?

Why not bronze age ppl, who met people in Ireland that had a mesolithic way of life?

Quote from: eochaidh
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic HunterGatherers were about60%plus inIreland.

We don't know what's what, polako is guessing.

What I mean is that the mystery non-IE words in Gaelic of a material type almost all relate to classic fisher-gatherer things.  If the Celts had met a group of farmers who had been there 1500 years at that point in time then you would not expect this meeting to only select what sounds like hunter-fisher type vocab.  In fact it is known that the Neolithic people seriously turned their backs on this kind of  and it was probably almost idealogical.  The apparently non-IE vocab in Gaelic and indeed in Celtic as a whole sounds almost hand picked pen portrait of a pre-Neolithic economy and has almost nothing relating to farming in it.  That makes little sense if the Celts met long established farmers.  It makes a lot more sense if the Celts or IEs found a Mesolithic people on arrival.  That would be more compatible with the model that IE arrived in the west with the first farmers there rather than later.  I realise that there are many arguements that support the copper age model too but this just jumped out to me when I was reading about pre-Celtic substrates (I wasnt going looking for this and was genuinely surprised at the pattern).  Just thought I would share it.  

One thing I would say about farming in the isles is it did arrive rather late as it also did in the northern European plain in general.  The gap in time between this spread c. 4000BC and the period Kurgan models focus on is nothing like as great as the gap in time between the early farmers in SE Europe and the Kurgan period (1000s of years).  Indeed, I have wondered for a while about the way cattle pastoralism spread into SE Europe from Anatolia  c. 5000BC into the west shores of the Black Sea and was therefore able to spread with the rather late primary farming thrust into northern Europe.  I wonder if this actually set this group apart from the primary farming wave into Europe 1-2000 years earlier associated with LBK and Cardial Ware.  Indeed, this late northern first farmer group even after spreading c. 4000BC did retain secondary features in common which are suggestive that links were sustained among them for some centuries after and of course TRB (Funnel Beaker) was a very big network of farmers which spread from opposite SE England far to the east and into a zone which did have contacts far to the east through which ideas and words could have spread. Indeed it is well known that by at least 3500BC a TRB culture pot from southern Poland shows wagons and wheels were known.  Can we really distinguise between a word that was among original PIE vocab and a word for an object that filtered through chains of TRB and similar late Neolithic networks?  That is essentially why I remain on the fence about the whole PIE question.  

I think we can all agree that its unlikely that the first waves of farmers c. 7000-5500BC that swept Europe were IE peoples.  However, the posing of a straight choice between them and Kurgan peoples c. 3-4000BC is oversimplifying the situation.  It ignores evidence for further waves of ideas (and almost certainly people) that swept Europe and fall in between  those two 'options' not least of which is the way cattle pastoralists seem to have entered SE Europe c. 5000BC with this pretty revolutionary new economic model sweeping fairly suddenly c. 4000BC from Poland to the isles with the spread of farming into northern Europe.    It is also ignoring that huge networks like Funnel Beaker stretched from the Carpathians to the English Channel and ideas and words could have travelled easily through this huge network c. 4000-3200BC, including the concept and word for the wheel which was clearly known in TRB c. 3500BC.  So, all I am saying is the first farmers c. 8-9000 years ago vs the Kurgan options of 5-6000 years ago and the 2-4000 year gap between them is a linguistic straw man arguement.  Some huge things happened in the intervening period.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 02, 2012, 03:51:31 PM
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic Hunter Gatherers were about 60% plus in Ireland. Mediterranean Farmers accounted for about 20% plus and Anatolian Farmers were about 10% plus. I believe many figured the Anatolian Farmer represented Copper and Bronze Age arrivals, the Mediterranean Farmers Neolithic and the Baltic Hunter Gatherers Mesolithic. (NOTE: The numbers on the actual data differ from the numbers one would get from Gedmatch Admixture)

If these numbers actually represent historical people, then it would seem that the Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer was never overcome by later arrivals. How Y-DNA R1b came to dominate male lines can't be explained by this, though.

Myles that is very interesting about the 60% baltic hunters in Ireland.  Do you have a link to the page?  This would of course be in line with the pre-DNA analysis of physical anthropologist who claimed that the Irish (among many others in Europe) had a big pre-Neolithic element genetically.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Alpine on November 02, 2012, 03:51:48 PM
Quote from: Alan Trowel Hands
If the above is representative of local words the Celts encountered on arrival in western Europe and then Ireland then this looks so very like what you would expect when farmers meet hunter-gatherer-fishers rather than when Copper Age people met farmers.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying you think Celtic came to Ireland with farmers?

Why not bronze age ppl, who met people in Ireland that had a mesolithic way of life?

Quote from: eochaidh
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic HunterGatherers were about60%plus inIreland.

We don't know what's what, polako is guessing.

What I mean is that the mystery non-IE words in Gaelic of a material type almost all relate to classic fisher-gatherer things.  If the Celts had met a group of farmers who had been there 1500 years at that point in time then you would not expect this meeting to only select what sounds like hunter-fisher type vocab.  In fact it is known that the Neolithic people seriously turned their backs on this kind of  and it was probably almost idealogical.  The apparently non-IE vocab in Gaelic and indeed in Celtic as a whole sounds almost hand picked pen portrait of a pre-Neolithic economy and has almost nothing relating to farming in it.  That makes little sense if the Celts met long established farmers.  It makes a lot more sense if the Celts or IEs found a Mesolithic people on arrival.  That would be more compatible with the model that IE arrived in the west with the first farmers there rather than later.  I realise that there are many arguements that support the copper age model too but this just jumped out to me when I was reading about pre-Celtic substrates (I wasnt going looking for this and was genuinely surprised at the pattern).  Just thought I would share it.  

One thing I would say about farming in the isles is it did arrive rather late as it also did in the northern European plain in general.  The gap in time between this spread c. 4000BC and the period Kurgan models focus on is nothing like as great as the gap in time between the early farmers in SE Europe and the Kurgan period (1000s of years).  Indeed, I have wondered for a while about the way cattle pastoralism spread into SE Europe from Anatolia  c. 5000BC into the west shores of the Black Sea and was therefore able to spread with the rather late primary farming thrust into northern Europe.  I wonder if this actually set this group apart from the primary farming wave into Europe 1-2000 years earlier associated with LBK and Cardial Ware.  Indeed, this late northern first farmer group even after spreading c. 4000BC did retain secondary features in common which are suggestive that links were sustained among them for some centuries after and of course TRB (Funnel Beaker) was a very big network of farmers which spread from opposite SE England far to the east and into a zone which did have contacts far to the east through which ideas and words could have spread. Indeed it is well known that by at least 3500BC a TRB culture pot from southern Poland shows wagons and wheels were known.  Can we really distinguise between a word that was among original PIE vocab and a word for an object that filtered through chains of TRB and similar late Neolithic networks?  That is essentially why I remain on the fence about the whole PIE question.  

I think we can all agree that its unlikely that the first waves of farmers c. 7000-5500BC that swept Europe were IE peoples.  However, the posing of a straight choice between them and Kurgan peoples c. 3-4000BC is oversimplifying the situation.  It ignores evidence for further waves of ideas (and almost certainly people) that swept Europe and fall in between  those two 'options' not least of which is the way cattle pastoralists seem to have entered SE Europe c. 5000BC with this pretty revolutionary new economic model sweeping fairly suddenly c. 4000BC from Poland to the isles with the spread of farming into northern Europe.    It is also ignoring that huge networks like Funnel Beaker stretched from the Carpathians to the English Channel and ideas and words could have travelled easily through this huge network c. 4000-3200BC, including the concept and word for the wheel which was clearly known in TRB c. 3500BC.  So, all I am saying is the first farmers c. 8-9000 years ago vs the Kurgan options of 5-6000 years ago and the 2-4000 year gap between them is a linguistic straw man arguement.  Some huge things happened in the intervening period.

It is said that the Vindelici people of bavaria who where not germanic and where the creators of La Tene culture, where the first celtic people, they sat at the start of the danube river , a highway for migration from the black sea.....of course it was not far from the rhine ( today they are joined) to travel to the netherlands and on to the british isles


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 02, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic Hunter Gatherers were about 60% plus in Ireland. Mediterranean Farmers accounted for about 20% plus and Anatolian Farmers were about 10% plus. I believe many figured the Anatolian Farmer represented Copper and Bronze Age arrivals, the Mediterranean Farmers Neolithic and the Baltic Hunter Gatherers Mesolithic. (NOTE: The numbers on the actual data differ from the numbers one would get from Gedmatch Admixture)

If these numbers actually represent historical people, then it would seem that the Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer was never overcome by later arrivals. How Y-DNA R1b came to dominate male lines can't be explained by this, though.

Myles that is very interesting about the 60% baltic hunters in Ireland.  Do you have a link to the page?  This would of course be in line with the pre-DNA analysis of physical anthropologist who claimed that the Irish (among many others in Europe) had a big pre-Neolithic element genetically.

Here's the Spread Sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdGQ1R0N0TDREMDNZMTQ2cDVFRUJlY0E#gid=0

The Irish Population is IE, and you can see the results for many other European countries.

And here's the Blog about the Hunter Gatherer Test: http://bga101.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html

NOTE: There are many people who disagree with David's testing methods and/or interpretation of data, but I can tell you that no Admixture test comes close to being as accurate for me than his. I am of mixed ancestry (75% Irish, Scots-Irish and 25% French-Canadian), so that isn't easy! While others show me as French, German Hungarian, etc. David's tests show me matching with Cornish or UK testers which is what you'd expect. My last plot was next to a Cornish guy in the English Channel :)


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 02, 2012, 06:16:56 PM
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic Hunter Gatherers were about 60% plus in Ireland. Mediterranean Farmers accounted for about 20% plus and Anatolian Farmers were about 10% plus. I believe many figured the Anatolian Farmer represented Copper and Bronze Age arrivals, the Mediterranean Farmers Neolithic and the Baltic Hunter Gatherers Mesolithic. (NOTE: The numbers on the actual data differ from the numbers one would get from Gedmatch Admixture)

If these numbers actually represent historical people, then it would seem that the Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer was never overcome by later arrivals. How Y-DNA R1b came to dominate male lines can't be explained by this, though.

Myles that is very interesting about the 60% baltic hunters in Ireland.  Do you have a link to the page?  This would of course be in line with the pre-DNA analysis of physical anthropologist who claimed that the Irish (among many others in Europe) had a big pre-Neolithic element genetically.

Here's the Spread Sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdGQ1R0N0TDREMDNZMTQ2cDVFRUJlY0E#gid=0

The Irish Population is IE, and you can see the results for many other European countries.

And here's the Blog about the Hunter Gatherer Test: http://bga101.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html

NOTE: There are many people who disagree with David's testing methods and/or interpretation of data, but I can tell you that no Admixture test comes close to being as accurate for me than his. I am of mixed ancestry (75% Irish, Scots-Irish and 25% French-Canadian), so that isn't easy! While others show me as French, German Hungarian, etc. David's tests show me matching with Cornish or UK testers which is what you'd expect. My last plot was next to a Cornish guy in the English Channel :)

That was very interesting (although the abbreviations are tricky). 


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 02, 2012, 06:21:15 PM
Eurogenes did a Baltic Hunter Gatherer/Mediterranean Farmer/Anatolian Farmer type run which showed that the Baltic Hunter Gatherers were about 60% plus in Ireland. Mediterranean Farmers accounted for about 20% plus and Anatolian Farmers were about 10% plus. I believe many figured the Anatolian Farmer represented Copper and Bronze Age arrivals, the Mediterranean Farmers Neolithic and the Baltic Hunter Gatherers Mesolithic. (NOTE: The numbers on the actual data differ from the numbers one would get from Gedmatch Admixture)

If these numbers actually represent historical people, then it would seem that the Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer was never overcome by later arrivals. How Y-DNA R1b came to dominate male lines can't be explained by this, though.

Myles that is very interesting about the 60% baltic hunters in Ireland.  Do you have a link to the page?  This would of course be in line with the pre-DNA analysis of physical anthropologist who claimed that the Irish (among many others in Europe) had a big pre-Neolithic element genetically.

Here's the Spread Sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdGQ1R0N0TDREMDNZMTQ2cDVFRUJlY0E#gid=0

The Irish Population is IE, and you can see the results for many other European countries.

And here's the Blog about the Hunter Gatherer Test: http://bga101.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html

NOTE: There are many people who disagree with David's testing methods and/or interpretation of data, but I can tell you that no Admixture test comes close to being as accurate for me than his. I am of mixed ancestry (75% Irish, Scots-Irish and 25% French-Canadian), so that isn't easy! While others show me as French, German Hungarian, etc. David's tests show me matching with Cornish or UK testers which is what you'd expect. My last plot was next to a Cornish guy in the English Channel :)

The Basques really stand out for their very high Med. farmer input.  They actually have low hunter input, very low Anatolian etc.  They simply have far more of the Med. farm element than anyone else in this list including other Spanish, French and Italians if I am reading this right.  If anything sets the Basques apart it is this.  The simplest interpretation of this is the Basques represent some sort of relatively undiluted Neolithic farmer element rather than a hunter gatherer survival as once was common to claim.  The real hunter gatherer survival zone of Europe would appear to be northern Europe where this element is far stronger than amongst the Basques.  Given that R1b does not make the Basques distinctive but their autosomal DNA does seem to, it is tempting to see the reason for their language as somehow linked to their unusual autosomal genes rather than the ubiquitous R1b dominanted yDNA which does not set them apart.   


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 02, 2012, 06:55:23 PM
The fact that the Basques show no Anatolian Farmer is what really makes them stand out. In other runs this is shown as West Asian or Caucasus and I think that is more accurate. It would fit great for the lack of an Indo-European Language in the Basque Country except that the Basques are highly R1b. So, either R1b is not as connected with Indo-European as people think, or it came later. Also, on other Eurogenes runs this Mediterranean Farmer is broken up as West Med and Atlantic Med and the West Asian/Caucasus is separate.

The areas along the Danube usually show high Caucasus/West Asian scores which is a route for the Neolithic Farmers, isn't it? It seems like they went up the Rhine but not down to the Basque Country.

It's all beyond me.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 02, 2012, 07:36:28 PM
The fact that the Basques show no Anatolian Farmer is what really makes them stand out. In other runs this is shown as West Asian or Caucasus and I think that is more accurate. It would fit great for the lack of an Indo-European Language in the Basque Country except that the Basques are highly R1b. So, either R1b is not as connected with Indo-European as people think, or it came later. Also, on other Eurogenes runs this Mediterranean Farmer is broken up as West Med and Atlantic Med and the West Asian/Caucasus is separate.

The areas along the Danube usually show high Caucasus/West Asian scores which is a route for the Neolithic Farmers, isn't it? It seems like they went up the Rhine but not down to the Basque Country.

It's all beyond me.

All the varying terminology is confusing.  I have a suspicion (not based on much admittedly) that the Atlantic-Med. component used as disrinct from Baltic in some runs contains two elements - a pre-Neolithic western hunter-gatherer element and the Neolithic farmer element.  

Regarding the Basques though, they really stand out as Med. farmers on that table.  Very few areas come close to their level of that element.  In fact they seem to be the European peak of that element which is a little odd considering it is being described as Med. farmer which is normally thought to be of some sort of eastern origin.  There has always been some suspicion that the Cardial culture hoovered up locals as it spread along the Med.  So I just wonder if some of this Med. farmer component is really derived from the original farmers.  Same feeling I get about the Atlantic-Med. component.  The Atlantic-Med components strong areas actually seem to cut across two distinct zones of farmer cultures - the Cardial and also the more northerly zones which did not have any cardial imput at all (no Cardial has been found north of the Loire).  So, I have real trouble in seeing this component (or in the Med. farmer guise of the table you linked to) as being a single farmer migration.  It doesnt really fit.  I sort of expect at some point pre-farming elements with an Atlantic-Med. element will be found and maybe some day this will be split into Atlantic pre-farming (which could be argued for in terms of the way the Magdallenian hunters expanded from Franco-Iberian area at the end of the ice age) and Med. farmer sections.  These Magdallenian hunters may have not been identical to the Baltic ones.  I think I read for example that some H mtDNA was found in some western pre-farming ancient bones although I do recall its validity was jumped on.  If it was real then this would be evidence that we should not assume that Baltic Hunters were identical to western hunters.    

So maybe after all the Basques element may yet turn out to not be so Med. farmer as it seems on that table.  I think the science of autosomal clusters has a good bit of refining to be done.  


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: SEJJ on November 02, 2012, 08:11:23 PM
The fact that the Basques show no Anatolian Farmer is what really makes them stand out. In other runs this is shown as West Asian or Caucasus and I think that is more accurate. It would fit great for the lack of an Indo-European Language in the Basque Country except that the Basques are highly R1b. So, either R1b is not as connected with Indo-European as people think, or it came later. Also, on other Eurogenes runs this Mediterranean Farmer is broken up as West Med and Atlantic Med and the West Asian/Caucasus is separate.

The areas along the Danube usually show high Caucasus/West Asian scores which is a route for the Neolithic Farmers, isn't it? It seems like they went up the Rhine but not down to the Basque Country.

It's all beyond me.

All the varying terminology is confusing.  I have a suspicion (not based on much admittedly) that the Atlantic-Med. component used as disrinct from Baltic in some runs contains two elements - a pre-Neolithic western hunter-gatherer element and the Neolithic farmer element.  

Regarding the Basques though, they really stand out as Med. farmers on that table.  Very few areas come close to their level of that element.  In fact they seem to be the European peak of that element which is a little odd considering it is being described as Med. farmer which is normally thought to be of some sort of eastern origin.  There has always been some suspicion that the Cardial culture hoovered up locals as it spread along the Med.  So I just wonder if some of this Med. farmer component is really derived from the original farmers.  Same feeling I get about the Atlantic-Med. component.  The Atlantic-Med components strong areas actually seem to cut across two distinct zones of farmer cultures - the Cardial and also the more northerly zones which did not have any cardial imput at all (no Cardial has been found north of the Loire).  So, I have real trouble in seeing this component (or in the Med. farmer guise of the table you linked to) as being a single farmer migration.  It doesnt really fit.  I sort of expect at some point pre-farming elements with an Atlantic-Med. element will be found and maybe some day this will be split into Atlantic pre-farming (which could be argued for in terms of the way the Magdallenian hunters expanded from Franco-Iberian area at the end of the ice age) and Med. farmer sections.  These Magdallenian hunters may have not been identical to the Baltic ones.  I think I read for example that some H mtDNA was found in some western pre-farming ancient bones although I do recall its validity was jumped on.  If it was real then this would be evidence that we should not assume that Baltic Hunters were identical to western hunters.    

So maybe after all the Basques element may yet turn out to not be so Med. farmer as it seems on that table.  I think the science of autosomal clusters has a good bit of refining to be done.  

Some very interesting posts. I think the naming of the clusters should be taken with caution and not at face value as well though - The situation of the Basques seems to be a very confusing one but hopefully it will clarify more as time goes on. It would be really interesting if they were a quite well preserved Neolithic group...And i suppose Y-DNA haplogroups don't stay the same over thousands of years, a slight advantage in the short term might not make much of a distribution but over thousands of years their Y-DNA could theoretically look quite different. I don't know how exactly that would be evidenced if it did take place, though.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: JeanL on November 02, 2012, 08:44:26 PM
The Basques really stand out for their very high Med. farmer input.  They actually have low hunter input, very low Anatolian etc.  They simply have far more of the Med. farm element than anyone else in this list including other Spanish, French and Italians if I am reading this right.  If anything sets the Basques apart it is this.  The simplest interpretation of this is the Basques represent some sort of relatively undiluted Neolithic farmer element rather than a hunter gatherer survival as once was common to claim.  The real hunter gatherer survival zone of Europe would appear to be northern Europe where this element is far stronger than amongst the Basques.  Given that R1b does not make the Basques distinctive but their autosomal DNA does seem to, it is tempting to see the reason for their language as somehow linked to their unusual autosomal genes rather than the ubiquitous R1b dominanted yDNA which does not set them apart.  

The so called Baltic-Hunter Gatherer component is nothing more than the so called North-European component which is modal in Lithuanians, in any case Spanish Basques are about ~2/3 of the so called Mediterranean Farmer component and 1/3 of the Baltic-Hunter Gatherers component, the French Basques are from 26-33% Baltic-Hunter Gatherers, and from 65-72% Mediterranean Farmer.  However as I said the labels are arbitrary, and the Farmer or Hunter Gatherer affinity of it is far from certain.

A believe a more accurate representation would be the analysis done by Dienekes Globe13 (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/assessment-of-ancient-european-dna-with.html)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Aif8O5EXGNI/UI7Frkq91DI/AAAAAAAAHEw/ZLHV2wQwi4U/s1600/globe13.png)

 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Aif8O5EXGNI/UI7Frkq91DI/AAAAAAAAHEw/ZLHV2wQwi4U/s1600/globe13.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Aif8O5EXGNI/UI7Frkq91DI/AAAAAAAAHEw/ZLHV2wQwi4U/s1600/globe13.png)

The Braña samples(The only true Mesolithic samples) show 71.5% North European and 24.8% Mediterranean, the Neolithic Hunter Gatherers Avj72 shows 79.1% North European and 10.3% Mediterranean, whereas the Neolithic Hunter Gatherers Avj70 shows 85.8% North European and 5.8% Mediterranean, on the other hand the Neolithic Farmer  Gok4 shows 28.1% North European and 64.2% Mediterranean, but also a 5.6% Southwest Asian, Neolithic Farmer Oetzi shows 13.6% North European and 59.5% Mediterranean, but also a 15.9% Southwest Asian and 6% West Asian. The West Asian component is only present in Oetzi, but the presence of the Southwest Asian component is what truly differentiates the Farmers from the Hunter Gatherers be them Neolithic(Swedish Avj) or Mesolithic(Braña).

According to the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJRUE&pli=1#gid=24)

The French Basques_Li.et.al(HDGP)(n=23) are 59.5% Mediterranean, and 39% North European, they have other minority components such as 1.1% South Asian, 0.2% West Asian and 0.1% Amerindian, but these are well in the noise range.

The Spanish Basques_Pais_Vasco_1KG(n=7) are 56.1% Mediterranean, and 41% North European, they have other minority components such as 1.1% South Asian, 1.5% West Asian and 0.3% Amerindian, but these are well in the noise range.

Now the interesting part about the Basques relative to other Europeans is that they are greatly lacking on the West Asian department, only the Finnish_D(n=15) and FIN30(n=27) population has a lower West Asian score at 0%, however they both have Southwest Asian ranging from 4.7 to 4.8%. Interestingly Southwest Asian is 0% in French and Spanish Basques, but also in Orkney_1KG(n=21), Orcadian_HDGP(n=13), British_Isles_D(n=8), Irish_D(n=17), Argyll_1KG(n=4), it is found at noise frequency of 0.1% in Cornwall_1KG(n=27), at 0.3% in English_D(n=11), 0.4% in Norwegian_D(n=10), 0.5% in British_D(n=12), and 0.7% in Kent_1KG(n=36). What I observe is that the areas where R1b-M269+I-M170 predominates, namely Ireland, Cornwall, the Basques, the Southwest Asian component is absent, the exception to this would be the Norwegians. In any case, interestingly enough it is the Southwest Asian component the one that is common in both Neolithic farmers Gok4 and Oetzi, yet lacking in both the Swedish HG and the Mesolithic Iberian Hunter Gatherers.

 



Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: rms2 on November 03, 2012, 08:16:30 PM
Quote from: Celtic Britain

      Among all the Celtic peoples the tie of kindred was the strongest and most enduring of all their early institutions.
      In pre-Norman Wales the people as a whole were divided into two principle classes:
      (1) the so-called free tribesmen, known by various names, the uchelwyr, breyr, and innate boneddig, who were the dominant class, presumably descended from the conquering Cymric (Celtic) population; and
      (2) the unfree, or subject populations, known variously as taeg, aillt, alltud.
The free tribesmen are exclusively those who claim blood relationship, and are members of the cenedl ('kindred group'). The unfree class of whatever origin were not included among the tribesmen, and were not subject to the rights and responsibilities of the cenedl. In general they carried on the agricultural work of the community. Below these were the class of slaves, the actual property of their owners, to whom a large part of the manual labour fell (Celtic Britain, by Nora Chadwick, p. 83) . . .

All counted their chief wealth in cattle. In Wales their seasonal nomadism is enshrined in their place-names, such as the very common hafod and hafoty, the 'summer hill pasture' and 'summer dairy' and its ty, 'dwelling', 'cot' (Ibid, p. 90).


So, I'm thinking "the dominant class, presumably descended from the conquering Cymric (Celtic) population" was predominantly L21. The subject classes were something else and contributed the substrate that is the topic of this thread.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Bren123 on November 06, 2012, 11:12:28 PM
For anybody who is intereste,here is a list of non I.E words in proto celtic!

http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/celtic/appendix.html


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 07, 2012, 09:51:22 AM
For anybody who is intereste,here is a list of non I.E words in proto celtic!

http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/celtic/appendix.html

I looked for items that indicated any kind of Mediterranean bias. I couldn't find any.

Is there a similar list of non-IE words common between Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic?

I'm just looking for some geographical bias in these unique word sets.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: inver2b1 on November 07, 2012, 10:02:13 AM
One word that stands out to me  is that for salmon, in gaelic it is bradain. In that list it is esok. The latin name for a pike is esox.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 07, 2012, 10:20:52 AM
One word that stands out to me  is that for salmon, in gaelic it is bradain. In that list it is esok. The latin name for a pike is esox.

And the Irish for fish is iasc, which appeares similar to esox, and is related to the IE words fish and pisces. In Irish the "p" (f) sound as been dropped completely as it has in many words.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: inver2b1 on November 07, 2012, 10:23:51 AM
Of course, just something that stood out to me as fly fishing is a hobby of mine.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Dubhthach on November 07, 2012, 01:36:54 PM
One word that stands out to me  is that for salmon, in gaelic it is bradain. In that list it is esok. The latin name for a pike is esox.

And the Irish for fish is iasc, which appeares similar to esox, and is related to the IE words fish and pisces. In Irish the "p" (f) sound as been dropped completely as it has in many words.

The dropping of Indo-European P is a fundemental feature of all Celtic languages. A language cannot be defined as Celtic if it retains Indo-European P. What did happen though was later that some Celtic languges developed their own P sound which was however a shift of Indo-European Qw -> P, so in languages like Welsh and Gaulish P sounds appear in locations where you would find Qw in other IE languages.

Here is a comparison between Celtic and Italic regarding the loss of Indo-European P (using the example of Fish)
Quote
example:
Proto-IE: *peysk- (fish)
Proto-Celtic: ēskos
Irish: iasc
Latin: piscis
Italian: pesce

In Proto-Germanic this sound actually shifted to F, thence fish in english.

The later development of an indepenednt P sound in Brythonic and Gaulish can be shown with this example:

Quote
Irish: Ceathair
French: Quatre
Latin: Quattuor

vs.

Welsh: Pedwar/Pedair (Masculine/Feminine)
Gaulish: Petuarios

Eo is also a word for Salmon in Irish, in old-Irish it was eó. So for example the "Salmon of Knowledge" is also known as "Eó Fis". The word in latin is actually a borrowing from Gaulish.

Eo -> Eó -> esōx (Proto-Celtic)

In Gaulish it was: *esoks.
Modern welsh has the word Eog which is cognate.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 07, 2012, 01:46:18 PM
This is from Wiki for pre-Celtic substrate theory

Suggested non-Indo-European words in Irish
 
Gearóid Mac Eoin proposes the following words as deriving from the substrate- Bréife 'ring, loop', Cufar, Cuifre/Cuipre 'kindness', Fafall/Fubhal, Lufe 'feminine', Slife, Strophais 'straw'; and the following placenames- Bréifne, Crufait, Dún Gaifi, Faffand, Grafand, Grafrenn, Life/Mag Liphi, Máfat.[2]
 
Peter Schrijver submits the following words as deriving from the substrate: partán 'crab', Partraige (ethnonym), (partaing > Lat. parthicus), pattu 'hare', petta 'hare', pell 'horse', pít 'portion of food', pluc '(round) mass', prapp 'rapid', gliomach 'lobster', faochán 'periwinkle', ciotóg 'left hand', bradán 'salmon', scadán 'herring'.[3] In a further study he gives counter-arguments against some criticisms by Graham Isaac.[4][5]
 
Ranko Matasović points out that there are words of possibly or probably non-Indo-European origin in other Celtic languages as well; therefore, the substrate may not have been in contact with Primitive Irish but rather with Proto-Celtic.[6] Examples of words found in more than one branch of Celtic but with no obvious cognates outside Celtic include:
 Middle Irish ainder 'young woman', Middle Welsh anneir 'heifer', perhaps Gaulish anderon (possibly connected with Basque andere 'lady, woman')
 Old Irish berr 'short', Middle Welsh byrr 'short', Gaulish Birrus (name)
 Old Irish bran 'raven', Middle Welsh bran 'raven', Gaulish Brano-, sometimes translated as 'crow' (name element, such as Bran Ardchenn, Bran Becc mac Murchado, and Bran the Blessed)
 Middle Irish brocc 'badger', Middle Welsh broch 'badger', Gaulish Broco- (name element) (borrowed into English as brock)
 Old Irish carpat '(war) chariot', Gaulish carpento-, Carbanto-
 Old Irish eó 'salmon', Middle Welsh ehawc 'salmon', Gaulish *esoks (borrowed into Latin as esox)
 Old Irish cuit 'piece', Middle Welsh peth 'thing', Gaulish *pettia (borrowed into Latin as petia and French as pièce)
 Old Irish molt 'wether', Middle Welsh mollt 'ram,


Many of these words could be pre-Neolithic.  One word that stands out as different and clearly much later is the apparently non-IE word for war chariot in Celtic.  That is interesting. 


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Dubhthach on November 07, 2012, 03:20:57 PM
Looking at Dil I see the following mentioned for Hare

Quote
patu
m. (British origin, see  Ped. i 511 ) orig. n-st.,  Ped. ii 110 , cf.  patnide and pattan,  PH 6542 , possibly gp. of this word (see patán). A hare: lornan .i. patu,  Goid. 77.125 . patu,  Corm. p. 35  = pato,  Corm. Y 1045 . pata .i. miol moighe no geirrfhiadh, O'Cl. pl. maoarbaais [= marbais] .iii. pait,  Ériu vii 242.4  (B. na f.). ag fiadhach . . . ar paitib primluatha,  ZCP vi 54.8 .  Ériu v 146.21 .

For Carbhad (O. Irish Carpat/Carbat), I see the following:
Quote
?Indo-European *̂kṛ- (zero-grade of *̂ker- ‘run’), or IE *ker- 'turn', + -p/b/bh-, or else non-IE, + -ant- (participial, see -and) > Early Celtic *carbanto- > British, Gaulish *carbanto- (cf Modern Welsh cerbyd); Old Irish carpat > Irish, Gaelic carbad, Manx carbyd; adopted as Latin carpentum ‘a two-wheeled carriage’, and possibly cf Latin carpīnus ‘hornbeam’ (used for chariot-shafts and axles because of its strength, but for a different derivation see OIPrIE §10.1 p161). ?cf Middle Welsh carr, Old Breton carr, Old Irish carr, all 'a cart, a chariot'.

Of course the interesting word is that the word Car in english derives from Gaulish Karros (via Latin Carrus and then middle-French). The cognate word in Irish language is Carr which was of course used to describe "horse and car" long before Henry Ford decided to get into automobile business.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: inver2b1 on November 07, 2012, 03:52:32 PM
I suppose this is a good as place as any to ask; what was the iron language? Was it just an older version of gaelic or was it p celtic?


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Bren123 on November 08, 2012, 10:23:42 AM
I suppose this is a good as place as any to ask; what was the iron language? Was it just an older version of gaelic or was it p celtic?

Some have argued it was a p-celtic  language!


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Dubhthach on November 08, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
I would be very cautious about such, O'Rahilly's theories are generally discredited these days. Here's what eDIL has to say:

Quote

íarnbélre see íarmbélre.

I Applied to difficult or archaic language : is aire raiter iarmberla de .i. ara se[c]dacht amal iarunn, ... no iarmberla .i. berla ranig Iar mac Nema,  Auraic. 1313 - 15 . fern (.i. cach maith) .i. īarnbēlrae nō īarmbērla innsin,  Corm. Y 612.  it e coic gne in berla tobaidi .i. berla Fene ┐ fasaige na filed ... ┐ iarmberla amal rogab : Cuic .i. ruin. Et ballorb .i. ball do forbau na filideachta aicce ...,  Auraic. 1302 - 8 . i nGaidilg na filedh ┐ iarmberla ┐ berla neterscartha ...,  BB 300 b 4 . cloch, trī anmann lé .i. onn a īarmbērla, cloch a gnāthbērla ...,  Corm. Y 213.  iarnnbērlae .i. is aire isberar, ar a duibe in bēlrae ┐ ar a dorchatae ┐ ar a dlūithe, co nāch erasa taisscelad ind,  755 .

II As grammatical term : iarmbérla .i. bérla ro baí oc Iar mac Néma .i. iaram ┐ dono ┐ tra ┐ imurro,  O'D. 1210  (< H 2. 15 , p. 83 b ) =  IT iii 37 n. 3 . gne n-aill do iarmberla .i. iarum ┐ dno ┐ atat ┐ tra ...,  Auraic. 1307 . íairmbérla na guidhe the interjection of entreaty ,  IGT Introd. 29.26 . m'fhearsa t'fhearsa ... ní cóir iarmbérla sunnartha rompa mur tá don, no ón, no san definite article ,  7.19 . an tan bhíos íairmbérla ceanguilti don áireamh ... mur so : a trí, a cúig ... when an  í.¤ is joined to the numeral ,  28.28 . cóir áireamh ar nach bí íairmbérla coimhleanamhna a ttús chomhfhocuil, mur so : do sdéd asdrach ochttairrngeach,  25.1 . íairmbérla coimhleanamhna : ané, aniogh, ... anoir- thear, ... anall,  28.30 . an coimhcheangal úd `agus' gurab ionann é ... ┐ an t-iarbheurla so `nó',  Eochairsg. 96.14 .

Personally I think O'Rahilly grabbed hold of this entry for two words to claim they represent a pre-goidelic language. However languages do shift, there is plenty of Irish from middle ages that could be termed "íarmbélre" or íarmbearla" today. Particulary that of the "bardic standard" which was a heavily stylished writing style which didn't reflect the vernacular (Caint na nDaoine -- Speech of the people)


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 08, 2012, 11:58:10 AM
If you can't tell, I'm really intrigued by any common non-IE (non-PIE specifically) word set between Italic and Celtic languages.

There must be more than just a couple of shared "base" non-IE words between the two as my understanding is there is a good case for an Celto-Italic dialect of IE prior to the split to proto-Celtic and proto-Italic.

If this word set is full of words related to Mediterranean flora and fauna, i.e. olives, wine, then we might see the Italic-Celtic split in some place like the Italian Peninsula.

If we see a lot of words related to mountains or cold weather may be we are talking about the Alps. Maybe there are particular crop or bovine species that are more northern than southern.

If we see a lot of words related to salt water boats, maritime activities, seafood, etc. may be we are talking about the Mediterrean again and Iberian Atlantic coast.

For anybody who is intereste,here is a list of non I.E words in proto celtic!
http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/celtic/appendix.html
One word that stands out to me  is that for salmon, in gaelic it is bradain. In that list it is esok. The latin name for a pike is esox.

One word that stands out to me  is that for salmon, in gaelic it is bradain. In that list it is esok. The latin name for a pike is esox.

And the Irish for fish is iasc, which appeares similar to esox, and is related to the IE words fish and pisces. In Irish the "p" (f) sound as been dropped completely as it has in many words.

The dropping of Indo-European P is a fundemental feature of all Celtic languages. A language cannot be defined as Celtic if it retains Indo-European P. What did happen though was later that some Celtic languges developed their own P sound which was however a shift of Indo-European Qw -> P, so in languages like Welsh and Gaulish P sounds appear in locations where you would find Qw in other IE languages.

Here is a comparison between Celtic and Italic regarding the loss of Indo-European P (using the example of Fish)
Quote
example:
Proto-IE: *peysk- (fish)
Proto-Celtic: ēskos
Irish: iasc
Latin: piscis
Italian: pesce

In Proto-Germanic this sound actually shifted to F, thence fish in english.

The later development of an indepenednt P sound in Brythonic and Gaulish can be shown with this example:

Quote
Irish: Ceathair
French: Quatre
Latin: Quattuor

vs.

Welsh: Pedwar/Pedair (Masculine/Feminine)
Gaulish: Petuarios

Eo is also a word for Salmon in Irish, in old-Irish it was eó. So for example the "Salmon of Knowledge" is also known as "Eó Fis". The word in latin is actually a borrowing from Gaulish.

Eo -> Eó -> esōx (Proto-Celtic)

In Gaulish it was: *esoks.
Modern welsh has the word Eog which is cognate.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: IALEM on November 08, 2012, 02:26:45 PM
I would like to note that Basque language lacks the F (Ph) sound replacing it by the sound P. For instance latin Fagus into Basque Pagu. That easily delimits the borders between Celtic and nonCeltic Basque in ancient toponyms.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 08, 2012, 03:23:54 PM
If you can't tell, I'm really intrigued by any common non-IE (non-PIE specifically) word set between Italic and Celtic languages.

There must be more than just a couple of shared "base" non-IE words between the two as my understanding is there is a good case for an Celto-Italic dialect of IE prior to the split to proto-Celtic and proto-Italic.

If this word set is full of words related to Mediterranean flora and fauna, i.e. olives, wine, then we might see the Italic-Celtic split in some place like the Italian Peninsula.

If we see a lot of words related to mountains or cold weather may be we are talking about the Alps. Maybe there are particular crop or bovine species that are more northern than southern.

If we see a lot of words related to salt water boats, maritime activities, seafood, etc. may be we are talking about the Mediterrean again and Iberian Atlantic coast.

For anybody who is intereste,here is a list of non I.E words in proto celtic!
http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/celtic/appendix.html
One word that stands out to me  is that for salmon, in gaelic it is bradain. In that list it is esok. The latin name for a pike is esox.

One word that stands out to me  is that for salmon, in gaelic it is bradain. In that list it is esok. The latin name for a pike is esox.

And the Irish for fish is iasc, which appeares similar to esox, and is related to the IE words fish and pisces. In Irish the "p" (f) sound as been dropped completely as it has in many words.

The dropping of Indo-European P is a fundemental feature of all Celtic languages. A language cannot be defined as Celtic if it retains Indo-European P. What did happen though was later that some Celtic languges developed their own P sound which was however a shift of Indo-European Qw -> P, so in languages like Welsh and Gaulish P sounds appear in locations where you would find Qw in other IE languages.

Here is a comparison between Celtic and Italic regarding the loss of Indo-European P (using the example of Fish)
Quote
example:
Proto-IE: *peysk- (fish)
Proto-Celtic: ēskos
Irish: iasc
Latin: piscis
Italian: pesce

In Proto-Germanic this sound actually shifted to F, thence fish in english.

The later development of an indepenednt P sound in Brythonic and Gaulish can be shown with this example:

Quote
Irish: Ceathair
French: Quatre
Latin: Quattuor

vs.

Welsh: Pedwar/Pedair (Masculine/Feminine)
Gaulish: Petuarios

Eo is also a word for Salmon in Irish, in old-Irish it was eó. So for example the "Salmon of Knowledge" is also known as "Eó Fis". The word in latin is actually a borrowing from Gaulish.

Eo -> Eó -> esōx (Proto-Celtic)

In Gaulish it was: *esoks.
Modern welsh has the word Eog which is cognate.

I totally see where you are coming from Mike.  I cant think of a paper on this but it would be astonishing if no linguist has looked at the various substrate non-IE words in various branches to see what is shared between branches.  I did notice that a number of the unique possibly non-IE words in Celtic are shared by similar words in Germanic and Italic as well as some others.  This lists some:

http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/celtic/appendix.html


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 08, 2012, 03:58:51 PM
I find the common substrate with Germanic striking and probably tells us something.  These stood out for me

*kagyo- ‘pen, enclosure’ (possible cognates in Germanic)
*katrik- ‘fortification’ (probable cognates in Germanic)
*koret- ‘palisade, stone wall’ (possible cognates in Germanic)

These all seem to relate to some sort of defenses.  its interesting that the Celts and Germans shared these words and its also interesting that their ancestors seem to have encountered such structures and felt the need to borrow the word from the natives.  That is very interesting. Large enclosures (defensive or otherwise) were common pre-beaker times in many area of western Europe (not in the Mesolithic though).  You could read into that that the IEs who entered the future Celtic and Germanic  area found some structure types that they themselves were not familiar with but that might be being overly simplistic. 


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 08, 2012, 04:51:17 PM
I have sorted the non-IE words in Proto-Celtic (shared with Germanic and others in some cases) into categories that make it easier to analyse.  I think the thing I tend to think is words borrowed could be indicative of unfamiliar or rarer or less important things in the point of origin of these IE groups compared to where they moved into.  

 
FAUNA-DOMESTIC OR UNCERTAIN

*molto- ‘ram, wether’ (probably attested in Gaulish)
 *mokku- ‘pig’
*banwo- ‘young pig, piglet’ (attested in Gaulish)
*sukko- ‘pig’

FAUNA-WILD

*blVdV- ‘wolf, large predator’
*brokko- ‘badger’ (attested in Gaulish)
*esok- ‘salmon’ (attested in Gaulish)

*mesal-kā ‘blackbird’ (cognates in Italic and Germanic)
*brano- ‘raven’ (attested in Gaulish)
*wesakko-, *wesākko- ‘grebe, raven’
*sfrawo- ‘crow’ (possible cognates in Germanic, Baltic, and Italic)
*skublo- ‘bird of prey’ (probably attested in Gaulish)

*sido- ‘elk, stag’
*lukot- ‘mouse’


FLORA-WILD

*knū ‘nut’ (probable cognates in Italic and Celtic)

*smēro- ‘berry’
*subi- ‘strawberry’

**ninati- ‘nettle’ (probable cognates in Germanic and Baltic)

*nino- ‘ash-tree’ (possibly attested in Gaulish)

*kasninā ‘garlic, leek’ (probably attested in Gaulish)


FLORA-DOMESTICATED

*korkkyo- ‘oats’ (probable cognates in Germanic)
*yutV- ‘pap, porridge’ (possibly attested in Gaulish


GEOGRAPHY/LAND FORM

*liro- ‘sea, ocean’
*wimonā ‘sea weed’

*bando- ‘peak, top’ (attested in Gaulish; possible cognates in Germanic
*rendi- ‘point, peak’
*klukā ‘stone, rock’
*kayto- ‘wood’ (cognates in Germanic)
*wroyko- ‘heather’ (possible cognates in Balto-Slavic)
*yoyni- ‘rushes, reed’ (probable cognates in Italic and Germanic
wēt(t)ā ‘stream, swamp’

PORTABLE MANMADE

*menādo- ‘awl’
*bunno- ‘awl, bittern’  
*alten- ‘razor’

*karbanto- ‘war chariot’ (attested in Gaulish)

*rowk(k)- / *ruk- ‘tunic, mantle’ (cognates in Germanic and Slavic)
*bratto-, *brattino- ‘mantle, cloak’

49.  *makinā ‘bellow’ (probable cognates in Germanic and Baltic)

SETTLEMENT

*butā ‘house, dwelling, hut’

*kagyo- ‘pen, enclosure’ (possible cognates in Germanic)
*katrik- ‘fortification’ (probable cognates in Germanic)
*koret- ‘palisade, stone wall’ (possible cognates in Germanic)


ROUND

*krumbo- ‘round, curved’ (probable cognates in Germanic)

*krundi- ‘round, compact’

*krutto- ‘round object, womb’



I am going to have a good ponder over these but they seem to imply to me that the IE's who arrived in northern Europe were not as familiar as the locals with a land that was by maritime, featured a lot of mountains, moors, woods, rocks and bogs i.e a northern European type environment. I think there is an indication that they were less familiar with northern European woodland and upland flora and wild fauna (pig could be wild or domestic but in both cases was woodland associated). They were less familiar with fortifications/enclosure (apparently less familiar with round features).  The oats borrowing is interesting too as this was not part of the Neolithic package.  Its as if they hadnt encountered oats being of any importance in their journey until they reached the north-western lands.  Another indicator that the IE's who were ancestral tot the Celts had lived in more southerly or certainly different climes.  They may have been unfamiliar with the cloak and tunic northern clothes that pre-existed suggesting they had a different standard outffit.  The awls and razors borrowings are curious too.  I need to research that.  The war chariot aspect may be significant too.  Either this was already known in the areas the IE's arrived in or perhaps (seems very unlikely) it was originally encountered by proto-Celts from non-IE's (something that is definately possible for the advanced war chariot).


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 08, 2012, 07:44:39 PM
The oats aspect is hard to interpret.  Oats were a weed among other crops and probably originated in the wild in the fertile crescent of Anatolia.  What little I can find on the web indicates that the first sign of actual cultivation of oats was in Bronze Age Europe (Switzerland).


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0jmEbdpX-JUJ:agropedia.iitk.ac.in/sites/default/files/oats.doc+earliest+cultivation+of+oats&cd=39&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

So if it was a weed spread into Europe from the fertile cresent or Anatolia by man by accident with the Neolithic's main crops of wheat etc then a word may well have existed for the weed.  However, it is nevertheless of interest that the Proto-Celtic speakers and pre-Germanic IE's seem to have taken a word for oats from the northern European locals when they arrived rather than a wider known word.  Again it maybe hints that oats were seen as more significant in the colder parts of Europe to the locals than the IE incomers.  Oats of course can grow in cooler, wetter climates in areas with poor summers in a way that wheat cannot and certainly later became very important in the cool and wet areas of temperate Europe.  its a little tangetial but it again seems to indicate that the proto-Celts and pre-Germans were relatively unfamiliar with oats, another hint that they were from different climes.  

I dont want to push this too far but the way I look at it is its not necessary to imagine the things represented by these words were unknown by the proto-Celts and pre-Germanic peoples.  All it might represent is that these things were relatively rare or unimportant among the IE ancestors compared to how important they were to the local non-IE elements they found.  It is possible that this might represent evidence for a steppes origin of the proto-Celts and Germans or their immediate IE ancestors but other possibilities probably exist.  The general impression of that group of words that the proto-Celts and pre-Germans or their immediate ancestors very much gives a pen portrait of temperate western and central Europe as far as I can tell.  The fact that so many words were borrowed suggests to me that the origin environment of the proto-Celts and pre-Germanics was different enough for native words to be borrowed or eclipse PIE words for the same things.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 08, 2012, 08:33:23 PM
I am curious about the history of awls and razors as they are on the non-IE proto-celtic list.  If we ignore the lithic versions of these tools, I undestand that awls and beads were the very earliest objects made in copper in places like Anatolia and are really old (5000BC?).  So, a non-IE word for these may make sense.  As for copper or bronze razors, I am not clear about their Eurasian history.  I know that were around by the late beaker period but I am unclear if they are older than that in Europe.  If they were then again a pre-IE word for them might make sense.  I will have to dig around a bit more.  

EDIT=The best I can come up with on the internet is that copper razors existed before 3000BC in Egypt and adjacent.  So, perhaps they were known about in pre-beaker times in Europe.  Perhaps this proves that the makers of the very earliest copper in Europe were pre-IE or non-IE. Certainly the fact of all the metal objects, the awl, the earliest practical copper object by some distance and apparently made by cold hammering of narive copper, is the one that the people the proto-Celts seem to have encountered already knew and had a word for.  It could suggest that the copper awl's spread may provide a terminis post quem for the Proto-Celts.  However, I understand that the earliest copper awls are pretty  old and would long predate PIE anyway.   


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: rms2 on November 08, 2012, 08:34:45 PM
Some have argued that, religiously, Q Celts became Qatholics, while P Celts became 'Piscopalians. ;-)

Think about it.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 09, 2012, 10:46:12 AM
I think its important to not that these are likely not words that were borrowed in the west by incoming proto-Celts.  Quite a lot are shared with Germanic and others and they may be central European substrate words picked up by the common ancestor of the centum languages somewhere to the east of where we find Celts around the time of the opening of written history.  In fact, I think that is probably because it seems unthinkable that people heading from somewhere like the steppes would not have had to pick up words for landscapes with woods, moors, crags, bogs etc and the flora and fauna that goes with that. I imagine that as soon as even the west end of the Ukraine and adjacent areas were reached they would have encoutered these things.  That is another reason IMO to think these words were picked up at some sort of stage that was ancestral to both proto-Celtic rather than the latter.   I definately get the impression from that list that the same substrate was encountered by the Proto-Celts and pre-Germanics in particular.   


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Bren123 on November 09, 2012, 01:12:47 PM
I think its important to not that these are likely not words that were borrowed in the west by incoming proto-Celts.  Quite a lot are shared with Germanic and others and they may be central European substrate words picked up by the common ancestor of the centum languages somewhere to the east of where we find Celts around the time of the opening of written history.  In fact, I think that is probably because it seems unthinkable that people heading from somewhere like the steppes would not have had to pick up words for landscapes with woods, moors, crags, bogs etc and the flora and fauna that goes with that. I imagine that as soon as even the west end of the Ukraine and adjacent areas were reached they would have encoutered these things.  That is another reason IMO to think these words were picked up at some sort of stage that was ancestral to both proto-Celtic rather than the latter.   I definately get the impression from that list that the same substrate was encountered by the Proto-Celts and pre-Germanics in particular.   

There are a few words there which have cognates in Italic and Baltic; not much admittedly!


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 09, 2012, 03:02:54 PM
I think its important to not that these are likely not words that were borrowed in the west by incoming proto-Celts.  Quite a lot are shared with Germanic and others and they may be central European substrate words picked up by the common ancestor of the centum languages somewhere to the east of where we find Celts around the time of the opening of written history.  In fact, I think that is probably because it seems unthinkable that people heading from somewhere like the steppes would not have had to pick up words for landscapes with woods, moors, crags, bogs etc and the flora and fauna that goes with that. I imagine that as soon as even the west end of the Ukraine and adjacent areas were reached they would have encoutered these things.  That is another reason IMO to think these words were picked up at some sort of stage that was ancestral to both proto-Celtic rather than the latter.   I definately get the impression from that list that the same substrate was encountered by the Proto-Celts and pre-Germanics in particular.

Alan, thank you for digging into this.

I've never really accepted that probability that R1b-P312 or its predecessor lineages came west primarily via the Mediterranean. I acknowledge that is possible, but I keep looking for clues of related to travel by islands through the Aegean Sea, the Adriatic, peninsular Italy and over to Iberian coasts to perhaps around Gibraltor to Portugal.

I'm not saying the R1b-P312 didn't have maritime skills. Obviously, they did... or at least the Bell Beakers did.

Since you seem to be leaning towards early Germanic and Celtic connections and since we aren't finding the Mediterranean flora and fauna links, I think the main settlers came overland.  Sure, there could have been explorers, pioneers and early colonizers by Sea and along the Med but it looks like the languages and genes were ultimately trumped by overland (via river valley) people. Just my thoughts.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Alpine on November 09, 2012, 03:15:12 PM
Some have argued that, religiously, Q Celts became Qatholics, while P Celts became 'Piscopalians. ;-)

Think about it.

Many liguistics books state, that P-Celtic was created in the western alps with a mix on vindelici, rhaetian, lepontic and ligurians and fits with U152.......Q-celtic was created in the eastern alps and is mixed with northern illyrian, Ladin ( not Latin)  and venetic and fits with U106.

The etruscans where left out as they could not prounce the early indo-european languages


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 09, 2012, 03:15:49 PM
I think the Danubian route spread much of IE, but I also think Haplogroups like G2a were involved. If you look at maps of G2a, the Basque Country is nearly void.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Alpine on November 09, 2012, 03:20:09 PM
I think its important to not that these are likely not words that were borrowed in the west by incoming proto-Celts.  Quite a lot are shared with Germanic and others and they may be central European substrate words picked up by the common ancestor of the centum languages somewhere to the east of where we find Celts around the time of the opening of written history.  In fact, I think that is probably because it seems unthinkable that people heading from somewhere like the steppes would not have had to pick up words for landscapes with woods, moors, crags, bogs etc and the flora and fauna that goes with that. I imagine that as soon as even the west end of the Ukraine and adjacent areas were reached they would have encoutered these things.  That is another reason IMO to think these words were picked up at some sort of stage that was ancestral to both proto-Celtic rather than the latter.   I definately get the impression from that list that the same substrate was encountered by the Proto-Celts and pre-Germanics in particular.

Alan, thank you for digging into this.

I've never really accepted that probability that R1b-P312 or its predecessor lineages came west primarily via the Mediterranean. I acknowledge that is possible, but I keep looking for clues of related to travel by islands through the Aegean Sea, the Adriatic, peninsular Italy and over to Iberian coasts to perhaps around Gibraltor to Portugal.

I'm not saying the R1b-P312 didn't have maritime skills. Obviously, they did... or at least the Bell Beakers did.

Since you seem to be leaning towards early Germanic and Celtic connections and since we aren't finding the Mediterranean flora and fauna links, I think the main settlers came overland.  Sure, there could have been explorers, pioneers and early colonizers by Sea and along the Med but it looks like the languages and genes were ultimately trumped by overland (via river valley) people. Just my thoughts.

The early germanic - celtic connection seems wrong unless you refer to times after the Roman empire. there where no germanics in southern germany or austria while the romans where around. The germanic came from the north into southern germany and the east germanics came into northern italy via the east ( ie, goths) all after the roman empire

La tene culture was clearly started by the vindelici people of southern germany. The vindelici where not germanic...more likely they where a race that has since disappeared or they where gallic people


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Mike Walsh on November 09, 2012, 05:10:17 PM
....
The early germanic - celtic connection seems wrong unless you refer to times after the Roman empire. there where no germanics in southern germany or austria while the romans where around. The germanic came from the north into southern germany and the east germanics came into northern italy via the east ( ie, goths) all after the roman empire

La tene culture was clearly started by the vindelici people of southern germany. The vindelici where not germanic...more likely they where a race that has since disappeared or they where gallic people

I think the important period would have been long before La Tene. It would have pre-Roman Empire for sure as well

The period I'm trying to understand is the pre-Celtic, pre-Italic period. Neither language existed and Germanic didn't as well. This would have been different dialects of IE speakers going different directions. According to the most IE language trees the Celtic and Italic grew out of the same dialect of IE.  The pre-Germanic speakers were not as closely related although at some point the pre-Germanic was also just another dialect of IE. These three are all Centum, not Satem like Baltic and Slavic. Somewhere along the line these broke off, but if the pre-Germanics and pre-Celtics had common non-IE base words, not loan words, then that means they were in a similar vicinity. Germanic clearly seems northerly so it's just one more weight pulling Italo-Celtic origins north a bit away from the Med, or at least the central and eastern Med.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 09, 2012, 08:50:28 PM
Mike- I would think that either the commom ancestor of both Celtic and Germanic encountered a similar substrate or Proto-Celtic and Pre-Germanic IE developed but both then encountered the same substrate due to the territories they moved into.  Unfortunately despite a lot of speculation it probably fair to say noone is sure of the exact route of their ancestors.

The general impression I get is not that the IE's did not have words of their own for most of these things (thats clear in the PIE lexicon) but that they may have defered to local words that conveyed slightly nuanced meaning or for things which were relatively rare or of peripheral interest in their homeland but were common/important/left to the pre-IE natives.  Its like the locals having far more words for snow if you know what I mean.  Not all, but a lot of those non-IE words in Proto-Celtic sound like natural landscape and wild flora and fauna words for a temperate non-steppe country.  I already posted that the Gaelic-specific list of apparently non-IE words seems really strongly to relate to things of interest to fishers or hunter-gatherers.  Perhaps to the IE incomers these things were very peripheral to their main economy and mainly practiced by local substrate elements and so they deferred to them in this area of life even if they had words of their own for them (which they usually did).

The issue of the word awl and the supposition that this specifically refered to the copper ones which were one of the only types of object produced in natural copper in really remote times - over 8000 years ago I believe.  All the other metal object types that existed at say c. 3500BC in parts of Europe have proto-IE words.  Many of these had been produced from 5500BC.  The non-IE nature of the word for awl might be down to the fact the copper awl was a much older product (pretty well THE practical copper item in pre-5500BC times) and dispersed through some parts of Europe in pre-PIE times. 

 


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: rms2 on November 09, 2012, 09:24:43 PM
Some have argued that, religiously, Q Celts became Qatholics, while P Celts became 'Piscopalians. ;-)

Think about it.

Many liguistics books state, that P-Celtic was created in the western alps with a mix on vindelici, rhaetian, lepontic and ligurians and fits with U152.......Q-celtic was created in the eastern alps and is mixed with northern illyrian, Ladin ( not Latin)  and venetic and fits with U106.

The etruscans where left out as they could not prounce the early indo-european languages

And a joke was what I attempted to create in my last post, the one you quoted above.

Kind of like this one, which I also made up (unless someone thought of it before me):

Confucius says, "Sick man traveling by himself in Spain is going to Barfalona."

Yeah, I know. I was born in a cornfield, and I shouldn't quit my day job.


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 09, 2012, 09:55:40 PM
Some have argued that, religiously, Q Celts became Qatholics, while P Celts became 'Piscopalians. ;-)

Think about it.

Many liguistics books state, that P-Celtic was created in the western alps with a mix on vindelici, rhaetian, lepontic and ligurians and fits with U152.......Q-celtic was created in the eastern alps and is mixed with northern illyrian, Ladin ( not Latin)  and venetic and fits with U106.

The etruscans where left out as they could not prounce the early indo-european languages

And a joke was what I attempted to create in my last post, the one you quoted above.

Kind of like this one, which I also made up (unless someone thought of it before me):

Confucius says, "Sick man traveling by himself in Spain is going to Barfalona."

Yeah, I know. I was born in a cornfield, and I shouldn't quit my day job.

I liked the Q/P one better. P(icts) is also for Presbyterian in Scotland


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: rms2 on November 09, 2012, 10:23:48 PM
Some have argued that, religiously, Q Celts became Qatholics, while P Celts became 'Piscopalians. ;-)

Think about it.

Many liguistics books state, that P-Celtic was created in the western alps with a mix on vindelici, rhaetian, lepontic and ligurians and fits with U152.......Q-celtic was created in the eastern alps and is mixed with northern illyrian, Ladin ( not Latin)  and venetic and fits with U106.

The etruscans where left out as they could not prounce the early indo-european languages

And a joke was what I attempted to create in my last post, the one you quoted above.

Kind of like this one, which I also made up (unless someone thought of it before me):

Confucius says, "Sick man traveling by himself in Spain is going to Barfalona."

Yeah, I know. I was born in a cornfield, and I shouldn't quit my day job.

I liked the Q/P one better. P(icts) is also for Presbyterian in Scotland

Yeah. I was working on the Pee inherent in P-Celts and the sound of 'Piscopalian.

But, then again, I thought traveling in Spain by himself . . . going to Barfalona (Barf-alone-ah) was pretty funny. ;-)


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 09, 2012, 10:50:17 PM
Some have argued that, religiously, Q Celts became Qatholics, while P Celts became 'Piscopalians. ;-)

Think about it.

Many liguistics books state, that P-Celtic was created in the western alps with a mix on vindelici, rhaetian, lepontic and ligurians and fits with U152.......Q-celtic was created in the eastern alps and is mixed with northern illyrian, Ladin ( not Latin)  and venetic and fits with U106.

The etruscans where left out as they could not prounce the early indo-european languages

And a joke was what I attempted to create in my last post, the one you quoted above.

Kind of like this one, which I also made up (unless someone thought of it before me):

Confucius says, "Sick man traveling by himself in Spain is going to Barfalona."

Yeah, I know. I was born in a cornfield, and I shouldn't quit my day job.

I liked the Q/P one better. P(icts) is also for Presbyterian in Scotland

Yeah. I was working on the Pee inherent in P-Celts and the sound of 'Piscopalian.

But, then again, I thought traveling in Spain by himself . . . going to Barfalona (Barf-alone-ah) was pretty funny. ;-)

As we used to say, "Yea, open with it!"  :)


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: A.D. on November 09, 2012, 11:33:14 PM
I asked along time ago about the possesional tense in Irish (probably all Q-Celtic) and how you don't 'have ' something it is 'on you', 'at you' or 'with you' etc. In view of these recent posts does anyone think it could be influenced by meso. hunters?

A little of subject but kind of relavent is there was a BBC program about Neanderthals apparently we carry up to 5% of there DNA with a cline from East -West. 5% is what we get from our G-G- gandparents (this is according to a U.S. guy forget his name but he work on the ancient DNA found in Russia) how did that remain so long after their extinction?


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: eochaidh on November 09, 2012, 11:42:45 PM
I asked along time ago about the possesional tense in Irish (probably all Q-Celtic) and how you don't 'have ' something it is 'on you', 'at you' or 'with you' etc. In view of these recent posts does anyone think it could be influenced by meso. hunters?

A little of subject but kind of relavent is there was a BBC program about Neanderthals apparently we carry up to 5% of there DNA with a cline from East -West. 5% is what we get from our G-G- gandparents (this is according to a U.S. guy forget his name but he work on the ancient DNA found in Russia) how did that remain so long after their extinction?

I love the possesive in Irish! It's way better than in English, and I love how many Irish still use it years after Irish has been spoken in their area of Ireland. My Dad often said thinks like, "He's got alot of anger on him" and "She's had a cold on her for weeks". Someone once said that our use of sayings like, "I bought it off him" come from Irish. I think Welsh and Breton use the same type of possesive.

I'm 2.4% Neanderthal according to 23andMe. The average for Northern Europeans is 2.6%


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 10, 2012, 01:25:08 PM
I have sorted the non-IE words in Proto-Celtic (shared with Germanic and others in some cases) into categories that make it easier to analyse.  I think the thing I tend to think is words borrowed could be indicative of unfamiliar or rarer or less important things in the point of origin of these IE groups compared to where they moved into.  

 
FAUNA-DOMESTIC OR UNCERTAIN

*molto- ‘ram, wether’ (probably attested in Gaulish)
 *mokku- ‘pig’
*banwo- ‘young pig, piglet’ (attested in Gaulish)
*sukko- ‘pig’

FAUNA-WILD

*blVdV- ‘wolf, large predator’
*brokko- ‘badger’ (attested in Gaulish)
*esok- ‘salmon’ (attested in Gaulish)

*mesal-kā ‘blackbird’ (cognates in Italic and Germanic)
*brano- ‘raven’ (attested in Gaulish)
*wesakko-, *wesākko- ‘grebe, raven’
*sfrawo- ‘crow’ (possible cognates in Germanic, Baltic, and Italic)
*skublo- ‘bird of prey’ (probably attested in Gaulish)

*sido- ‘elk, stag’
*lukot- ‘mouse’


FLORA-WILD

*knū ‘nut’ (probable cognates in Italic and Celtic)

*smēro- ‘berry’
*subi- ‘strawberry’

**ninati- ‘nettle’ (probable cognates in Germanic and Baltic)

*nino- ‘ash-tree’ (possibly attested in Gaulish)

*kasninā ‘garlic, leek’ (probably attested in Gaulish)


FLORA-DOMESTICATED

*korkkyo- ‘oats’ (probable cognates in Germanic)
*yutV- ‘pap, porridge’ (possibly attested in Gaulish


GEOGRAPHY/LAND FORM

*liro- ‘sea, ocean’
*wimonā ‘sea weed’

*bando- ‘peak, top’ (attested in Gaulish; possible cognates in Germanic
*rendi- ‘point, peak’
*klukā ‘stone, rock’
*kayto- ‘wood’ (cognates in Germanic)
*wroyko- ‘heather’ (possible cognates in Balto-Slavic)
*yoyni- ‘rushes, reed’ (probable cognates in Italic and Germanic
wēt(t)ā ‘stream, swamp’

PORTABLE MANMADE

*menādo- ‘awl’
*bunno- ‘awl, bittern’  
*alten- ‘razor’

*karbanto- ‘war chariot’ (attested in Gaulish)

*rowk(k)- / *ruk- ‘tunic, mantle’ (cognates in Germanic and Slavic)
*bratto-, *brattino- ‘mantle, cloak’

49.  *makinā ‘bellow’ (probable cognates in Germanic and Baltic)

SETTLEMENT

*butā ‘house, dwelling, hut’

*kagyo- ‘pen, enclosure’ (possible cognates in Germanic)
*katrik- ‘fortification’ (probable cognates in Germanic)
*koret- ‘palisade, stone wall’ (possible cognates in Germanic)


ROUND

*krumbo- ‘round, curved’ (probable cognates in Germanic)

*krundi- ‘round, compact’

*krutto- ‘round object, womb’



I am going to have a good ponder over these but they seem to imply to me that the IE's who arrived in northern Europe were not as familiar as the locals with a land that was by maritime, featured a lot of mountains, moors, woods, rocks and bogs i.e a northern European type environment. I think there is an indication that they were less familiar with northern European woodland and upland flora and wild fauna (pig could be wild or domestic but in both cases was woodland associated). They were less familiar with fortifications/enclosure (apparently less familiar with round features).  The oats borrowing is interesting too as this was not part of the Neolithic package.  Its as if they hadnt encountered oats being of any importance in their journey until they reached the north-western lands.  Another indicator that the IE's who were ancestral tot the Celts had lived in more southerly or certainly different climes.  They may have been unfamiliar with the cloak and tunic northern clothes that pre-existed suggesting they had a different standard outffit.  The awls and razors borrowings are curious too.  I need to research that.  The war chariot aspect may be significant too.  Either this was already known in the areas the IE's arrived in or perhaps (seems very unlikely) it was originally encountered by proto-Celts from non-IE's (something that is definately possible for the advanced war chariot).


Looking through just the first part of the huge IE lexicon it seems to me that the Irish for Badger and Hut do correspond to the IE root so I am wondering how much that list can be trusted. 


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: alan trowel hands. on November 10, 2012, 01:30:23 PM
The list of non-IE in proto-Celtic includes for example the words for hut and badger but in fact the IE lexicon includes  bhūtā́  and bhrogkos which seem clearly the linked to the proto-Celtic (and modern Celtic) words for hut and Badger. Same with Garlic.  Hmm


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: Dubhthach on November 10, 2012, 03:45:48 PM
Some have argued that, religiously, Q Celts became Qatholics, while P Celts became 'Piscopalians. ;-)

Think about it.

Many liguistics books state, that P-Celtic was created in the western alps with a mix on vindelici, rhaetian, lepontic and ligurians and fits with U152.......Q-celtic was created in the eastern alps and is mixed with northern illyrian, Ladin ( not Latin)  and venetic and fits with U106.

The etruscans where left out as they could not prounce the early indo-european languages

And a joke was what I attempted to create in my last post, the one you quoted above.

Kind of like this one, which I also made up (unless someone thought of it before me):

Confucius says, "Sick man traveling by himself in Spain is going to Barfalona."

Yeah, I know. I was born in a cornfield, and I shouldn't quit my day job.

I liked the Q/P one better. P(icts) is also for Presbyterian in Scotland

One problem with that is alot of areas that have large Gaelic speaking populations in modern Scotland (Harris in Hebrides for example) are quite hardline Presbyterian. ;-)


Title: Re: Pre-Celtic substrate language
Post by: A.D. on November 12, 2012, 09:54:59 AM
In the north (6 counties) we also say 'yous' as in 'yous uns', a direct translation from the Irish so it is. Wew also say 'Aye' instead of yes, there is no words for yes or no in Irish, so the middle(?) english word is used. This was also about the time Elizabeth 1 introduced the Gealic script to be different from the english.