LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  April 2002

CELTIC-L April 2002

Subject:

Re: Caesar on the Gauls

From:

Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:18:20 +0930

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (215 lines)

G'day Chris,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Gwinn" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, 12 April 2002 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls


> > > Seeing that the Belgae spoke a Gallo-Brittonic dialect, Uiros would be
> >the
> > > nominative & genitive masc. sing. for "man" (compare Old Welsh gur,
Old
> > > Irish fer).
> >
> >I'll do that here:
> >The GUROS HYPOTHESIS:
> >To reach VIROS from the Old Welsh GUROS, you must first HYPOTHESISE a
> >mutation in the vowel of the first syllable.
>
> It's Old Welsh GUR - NOT GUROS! That was quite clear in my statement - so
> clean off those glasses next time you read one of my posts.

Yes, but you have to get from GUR to GUROS before you can say that the
inscriber of the Coin who put VIROS on it really meant GUR +
name-ending -OS.  (I have very good natural eyesight.)
>
> As anyone that has studied the history of the Brittonic languages knows,
> initial Gw- (written gu- in medieval Welsh, Cornish & Breton) was a rather
> late development (+/- 7th century AD) from an earlier initial U-

This is hypothesis.
You can say that Gw or Gu appeared in texts dated to around the 7th Century,
and you can say that in at least one text from the 6th Century there appears
a U which seems to some linguists who have studied these texts to be cognate
with them.  These are facts.

But that they are cognate at all is a hypothesis - a well-supported one that
few would doubt, but it is still a hypothesis.

(thus we
> find in the 6th century AD Gildas mentioning a certain Uortipori - from an
> earlier Brittonic form *Uorteporix - but he turns up in a Welsh
genealogical
> tract of the 10th century as Guortepir). This is NOT an hypothesis - it is
> cold, hard FACT..

Yes, you can present a selection of facts in this way, but as soon as you
start to infer anything from this, you are hypothesising.

Incidentally, did Gildas back-form a hypothetical Uorteporix from Vortepori
or does it
really exist?

>
> >'I' and 'U' quite often appear
> >as variants of the same vowel in European languages past and present,
>
> Give examples.
>
>Pig and Pug, in English, muic and muca (pig and pigs) in Irish Mu"ller and
miller in Germanic and more.

>
> >so that can be accomplished in one HYPOTHETICAL step.  As well as this,
> >either
> >simultaneously with the vowel change or before it or after it, you have
to
> >HYPOTHESISE that either its first letter somehow mutated from V-G, or
there
> >existed a common ancestor of GUR and VIR. To get from VIROS to a
> >HYPOTHETICAL GIROS you have to HYPOTHESISE at least two more mutations,
> >such
> >as via GWI to 'WI (for which the Roman spelling is V) because as far as I
> >know (and there are gaps in my knowledge) there are no cases of G
mutating
> >directly to V between or within any two languages that I've ever studied.
>
> You just don't get it....G- didn't mutate to V-, a consonantal |w|
(written
> as U- in Latin orthography) became GU- in Brittonic - not an uncommon
> development - it is also found in certain dialects of Germanic, as well as
> in some Romance dialects. As far as the -i- in Gallo-Brittonic uiros is
> concerned, it coalesced with the -u- and disappeared in Welsh (thus
> Gall-Brit. uiros gives Old Welsh gur, Modern Welsh gwr) - but note that it
> is still present in the plural form gwyr (Gallo-Brittonic *uiri).

Yes, thank you.  Very interesting.  But we're still a lot of hypotheses away
from VIROS, which has a Latin translation that makes sense without a lot of
mutations to hypothesise.
>
>
> >And then you must come up with a HYPOTHESIS to explain why a coin would
> >have
> >the word MAN (nominative singular) or MAN'S/OF A MAN (genitive singular)
> >printed on it.
>
> Guess what? We find plenty of coins with nominative singular forms on
them.
> If you actually had any clue about what you were discussing, you would
know
> this.
>
>
(Sunny smile.)  Not the case, the noun.  You are in the same position as I
am. You have to explain why MAN or MAN'S would be on it just as I have to
explain why the word MEN/SOLDIERS (acc) would be on it.  So we're both
hypothesising, but I'm doing it a lot less, because there is a Latin word
VIROS and its meaning is quite likely in view of the fact that there was a
war on.

> >THE FER HYPOTHESIS:
> >To reach VIROS from the Old Irish FER you must HYPOTHESISE, as John does,
> >that -OS may be a 'name-ending', as some Celtic names ending in -OS have
> >been found.
>
> What don't you understand about the fact that VIROS does not come from Old
> Irish Fer or Old Welsh Gur??

It's my own opinion that VIROS doesn't come from Old Irish or Old Welsh.  I
think it is a known Latin word.

Don't you get the fact that VIROS was
recorded
> CENTURIES UPON CENTURIES before OIr Fer and OW Gur took form?

I don't believe we have recorded much evidence of the prehistoric
development of OIr Fer and OW Gur.  We are dealing with a very old phoneme.
Its cognate complexes are dense, widespread and persistant.  It's relatively
easy to trace through clear sequences of slight shifts in meaning and/or
pronunciation, and a related one clusters around the idea of fur and hair:
F/ear, (Gaeilge)grass, via what appears to be a widespread and diversely
developed extended metaphor or system of kennings.


Can't you
> graps the fact that Gallo-Brittonic Uiros, OIr _Fer_ and OW _Gur_ all come
> from a Common Celtic *wiros?

This is a hypothesis.  VIROS exists, and you have to hypothesise that Uiros
did.

>
> BTW, we know from the comparative study of every other Indo European
> language that the -os in uiros is the nominative masculine singular, or
> genitive masculine singular of an o-stem root.
>
> >Then you must use the eclipsised form of its initial consonant to get
VER-
> >(for which there is some support in that there's a viable translaton of
> >Vercingetorix into a Goidelic form of Gaelic that depends on this same
> >HYPOTHETICAL mutation).
> >Then you must HYPOTHESISE a shift in the vowel from E to I, a common
> >occurence.
> >
> >That's 3 hypotheses.  Hypothesis = guess.
> >
> >Then you have to HYPOTHESISE the existence of a Belgic man or woman with
a
> >HYPOTHETICAL Gaulish name which according to your HYPOTHESIS means MAN +
> >name-ending.
>
> A side not here:
> It's obvious that you have picked up a couple of linguistic terms some
> place, but you are applying them all haphazardly, and you are blatantly
> ignorant of the methodology of linguistics. Please bear in mind that I,
> myslef, am NOT a professional linguist - I am a hobbyist such as
yourself -
> but _I_ have actually gone out and spent a lot of time and money acquiring
> and studying up to date and well-respected treatises on the subjects of
> Celtic & Indo European linguistics - I have also corresponded with some
top
> scholars in these fields, and have asked them many questions so that I
could
> better understand their work. From this I have developed a very good
working
> knowledge of linguistics, which enables me to speak with some authority on
> matters such as these - but I know when I am out of my league and when to
> defer to the superior knowledge of the professionals.

You don't mention a selection of highly respected impartial Latin scholars
expert in the Provincial dialects of the period in question among those from
whom you get your learning.  You've really never even consulted one?  I find
this astounding!

I believe that this
is
> the difference between you and I.
>
>
> >THE VIROS HYPOTHESIS:
> >VIROS  is VIROS without any hypothesising at all.
> >VIROS is a known form of the contemporary Latin for 'soldiers' or 'men'
as
> >the direct object of a verb, without any hypothetical mutations.
>
> Yeah?? So where's your verb?

As is the case in so many Latin sentences, 'Verb understood.'
>
>
> > > Please refrain from uneducated proclamations like this in the future.
> >
> >Hypotheses, not proclamations, and they are well informed.
>
> LOL!! Hardly!
>
> - Chris Gwinn

Peace,

Vyvyan  /|\
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager