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:

Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:47:59 +0930

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (312 lines)

Hallo Chris,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Gwinn" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2002 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls


> > > 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.)
>
> No you don't - and you don't have much common sense either.
> Let me explain it for you in very simple terms. There once was an ancient
> language and culture that existed long ago (likely as long ago as the
> Neolithic) - we don't know what its practitioners called it, but modern
> scientists have dubbed it Proto Indo European.

This is a hypothetical language and culture.  Opinion concerning it is
diverse.  It is a vexed question indeed.

In this language, which we
> have no written records for, but can be reconstructed through careful
> comparison of its daughter languages,

Theoretically, but no one has ever succeeded in doing it. It is constructed
of a tenuous tissue of hypothesis not supported by any proven ability to
predict the reality it pertains to.  As such, it is a fictitious language,
something like those artist's reconstructions of ancient hominids built from
the inferences of violently conflicting scholarly opinions of conjecturors
drawing on a pitiful paucity of evidence concerning the implications of
which unsettled debates and serious controversy remains.  Certainly Latin
Vir, German Herr, Irish fear, your Old Welsh Uiros and Viros are all
cognate, but your Wiros is as hypothetical as your Proto-Indo-European
language and culture.

there was a word for "man" which we
> can reconstruct as *wi:r-os. As in Greek and Latin (two daughters of PIE),
> the ending (-os) is an indicator of gender and case (-os being the
> nominative singular masculine of a root *wi:ro-). In the various daughter
> branches of PIE, the word *wi:r-os survived in different forms - it became
> vira in Old Indic, *wiraz in Germanic (giving Old English wer), uir in
> Latin, and Common Celtic *wiros (giving uiros in Gallo-Brittonic).

> Common Celtic *wiros developed into Brittonic uiros and Proto Irish
*wiros -
> by the 5th-7th centuries AD, there had been shifts in the languages of
> Britain and Ireland - the most noticible being the loss of the traditional
> case/gender endings, as well as shifts in the pronunciation of intial
> consonantal w- (in Irish the shift was towards f-, while in Brittonic it
was
> towards gu-/gw-) and internal vowels. Thus, by the 7th century AD, what
was
> once *wiros had become fer and gur in Old Irish and Archaic Welsh,
> respectively - no nominative masculine singular ending, a new
pronunciation
> of initial w-, and a shift in the internal vowels.
>
> Do you get it now? The coin legend VIROS was recorded at a time when
Celtic
> languages still had the old case endings - and it long precedes the Old
> Irish/Archaic Welsh forms.

Yes.  I had understood your hypothesis. I had agreed that it is a viable
one. What I said about it was that it was a hypothesis and not better than,
in fact significantly further-fetched than, the one I presented, as I
detailed step by step in a previous email.  Neither is proved, neither is
disproved. Both need to be examined in the light of other evidence and
neither of them has been.  That's what astounds me.  I think it's a serious
oversight.  Perhaps a blind spot.  Why should you hate me so violently for
mentioning it?
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> No it is not - you really don't know what the hell you are talking about.


There are instances of occurrences of these forms, and it is possible to
infer all manner of things from them, some more likely than others, but
however likely they might be, they are still hypotheses.

>
> >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.
>
>
> Whatever you say - you have no command of the scientific terminology you
> feebly attempt to use.

You can fault me there if you feel the need, but you are still trying to
prove that your hypothesis is a fact by showing it to be it almost as viable
as mine.  All I've proposed is that VIROS might be the Latin Men/soldiers
(Acc Pl).  For this you attack me.  What have you got to protect from what?
I am seriously amazed at your reaction.  Not everyone who disagrees with me
has gone for my jugular vein like this.
>
>
>
>
> >Incidentally, did Gildas back-form a hypothetical Uorteporix from
> > >Vortepori or does it really exist?
>
> What are you talking about!!! You really _can't_ read, can you??!! Gildas
> only recorded Uortepori (he was in no position to back-form anything) -
> linguists reconstruct an earlier form *Uorteporix.

I see, HYPOTHESISERS did.  You mean there wasn't such a form?

>
> > > >'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.
>
> LOL - your examples are completely useless!  I didn't think you actually
had
> any evidence.

Well, they are examples, although one of them is transitional in some of its
forms, and so bears me out as much as anything.
>
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> You are a complete fool! VIROS requires no "mutations"! It is the natural
> Gaulish development from PIE *wi:ros - in fact, it has changed hardly at
all
> from the PIE form! The "mutations" that you refer to occured in the (much)
> later languages, Old Irish and Archaic Welsh.

This is a hypothesis. PIE is a fiction, useful for theorising with but not a
basis of fact.  And why does a coin have the word MAN on it?   Was it minted
by a Belgaean man called Man, or was it put there to honour or otherwise
refer to another Belgaean man called Man, or was it just to make some kind
of reference to the might and majesty of a specific epitome of a man?  Was
MAN a title?  Were there separate coins minted for women, and did they have
the Old Welsh word for woman on them?  Why would any government put their
word for male adult human being on their coins as an inscription.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> LOL!! I have to explain nothing!

I take this to mean that you can't.

This is perfectly normal - go look at any
> collection of Celtic coin legends for _ample_ examples of names appearing
in
> the nominative case!

So you are saying that Old Welsh  VIROS, meaning man, is used as a personal
name on this coin?

I then challenge you to find examples of Latin coin
> legends featuring one word in the accusative plural - go ahead, give us
your
> evidence!

VIROS.  VIROSVERAMOS .  But you're the one claiming expertise here.
>
>
>
> >Don't you get the fact that VIROS was
> >recorded
> > > CENTURIES UPON CENTURIES before OIr Fer and OW Gur took form?


Recorded?  Other than hypothetically on this coin? I doubt it.

> >
> >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.
>
>
> Lord, this is moronic. I don't even know what use there is in trying to
> argue with such foolishness.


I have come to understand that this is you admitting that you haven't
understood or don't know.  It would be easier for you just to admit it.

>All that I can say is WRONG - TRY AGAIN!!

Are you saying that we have got detailed records other than hypothetical
reconstructions of the prehistoric development of  OIr and OW?
>
>
> >Can't you
> > > grasp 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.

>
> AAAGH!!!! I already told you that we have PROOF that uiros existed in
> Gaulish!! Are you daft, or what?

No you haven't.  You said it existed abundantly as a name, and that you had
big mobs of proof which you refused to cite. Personally, I find it hard to
believe that any mother would call her child Man, with or without a
'name-ending', or that anyone would bestow such a name on a child or even a
man. But you want me to believe that the Celts did it all the time and that
we have irrefutable proof of it in reliable and intelligible language
records 'centuries and centuries' older than the earliest written texts.
Well I don't.

It is
appalling that you seem to be considering the issue of possible translations
of these coins for the first time - without ever having done any of the
simplest forms of linguistic
research into them or consulted anyone who had, until I made a suggestion
that pricked you into doing so.
Do you really know of no analyses of these inscriptions done by linguists
more knowledgeable than me or you?  If so, Lugh, Brighid, and Ogma help us
all!  I can continue with my researches into ancient Celtic culture much
sobered by the knowledge gained from this list that at least in some quite
influential areas of the field 'the experts' are incompetent.
>
>
>
> >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!
>
> What the _hell_ are you talking about?? You truly are a complete fool! You
> have no idea whom I have consulted - and just because I didn't bother to
> list every book I have ever read doesn't mean that you can make gross
> assumptions about me and my background. I guarantee you that I have stuied
> and know far more about Classical and Vulgar Latin than you ever could
hope
> to.
>
>

This astounds me.  It really doesn't show.

> > > Yeah?? So where's your verb?
> >
> >As is the case in so many Latin sentences, 'Verb understood.'
>
>
> Oh really, and what's the "understood" verb?

SOLVERE or PENDERE or NUMERARE, transitive verbs meaning to pay, according
to my hypothesis.
>
> - Chris Gwinn
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Peace,

Vyvyan  /|\

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