As corrected by GwirCeth (Check out his work on Modern Gaulish), I made some mistakes in my Gaulish sentence. It should be: Welu-mi cladion rigos Welu-mi is a reconstructed form of "I want" and "rigos" is the correct genitive form of rixs.
But wait, there's more ... at 7:24 you suggest that these initial mutations are unique to the insular languages. However, the example that you give, Ir. bean > mná is attested in the exact same identical fashion in the Gaulish inscription of Larzac "bano-, bnano-, mnas" and as "bena" at Chateaubleau. At 7:49 you translate "I want the king's sword" into Gaulish as "Cladion ricis welor". This is not right. The verbal form you've used there is the impersonal form, and there is no reason to assume such a form would be used in this sentence construction. First person singular present tense conjugations are clearly attested in Gaulish, and can end either in -u (e.g. delgu) or in -umi (e.g. iegumi), in which /mi/ is analysed as the 1st pers. sing. pronoun, which may or may not have been perceived as suffixed. Therefore "I want" would be "uelu-mi". The inscription of Chateaubleau clearly shows that the object would regularly follow the verb (e.g. Nemna liiumi bena uieiionna), which would give "uelu-mi cladion"; "of the king" would be expressed as a genitive construction, "rigos" (genetive of consonantal stems -os, Delamarre 203, p. 344). So the sentence would be "uelu-mi cladion rigos". It would be a serious mistake to think that Gaulish sentence construction followed Latin grammatical and syntactic conventions.
I didn't know that Ir. bean > mná had a mirror in Gaulish at all. That was a mistake on my end for not reading enough about that particular example. I found the verb form "welor" in Delamarre's dictionary 2nd edition p.430, though he writes "je veux?" with an interrogation mark meaning I should probably have went with a more attested form. Though if it's the impersonal version, I wonder why he didn't simply write "vouloir?" instead. I had an idea Gaulish verbs are complicated, often use pronouns as affixes and are generally too esoteric for me to use non-attested forms. "uelu-mi" makes sense though, so thank you for correcting that one. "Rigos" for the genitive I should have known, it's right there in Delamarre's as the Gaulish version of Latin's third declension genitive (with regis as an example even). I should be more careful about word order indeed; my background in Classical Latin is showing! Thanks for the comments buddy!
@@Gaisowiros No worries, Frak, as you say it's right there in the section on declensions. The data on mnas etc is in the text of Larzac, you'll see it. "uelor" comes from the phrase found at Marcellus of Bordeaux "scrisumio uelor". That analyses as "scrisu-mi o uelor", literally "spit-I that is-wanted". Translated into grammatical English (or French, for that matter) it would be "I want to spit/je veux cracher", but the Gaulish construction is as indicated here. "uelor" is the impersonal form "is wanted", or "one wants", cf. identical forms in Breton, Welsh and Irish (and probably Latin too, I imagine). A more or less feasible English approximation would be "that I spit is wanted", or "it is wanted that I spit". We don't talk like that, but we can understand it. It just a thing, ey ...
@@joecato1138 No Joe, the genitive singular of a consonantal stem is -os. It's in Delamarre 2003, p. 344. The genitive of an nominative o-stem would be -i > uiros "a man" > uiri "of a man" (and also, of course, "men", the nominative plural of the o-stem; the system is all over the show ...)
Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge and analysis. Your videos are always thoughtful and accessible. Was the Gaulish language and culture lost to Roman assimilation or was Gallic culture actively suppressed and destroyed by the Romans?
It is a little bit of both, but I don't think we have proper evidence that the Romans purposefully tried to erase Gallic culture. We only see that with the genocide that Julius Caesar ordered and the end to the druids that he brought. Gallic culture was replaced by Roman, or Gallo-Roman culture simply because wealth came from Rome. People had to adapt and learn Latin, adopt Roman customs, just because that's how they would get jobs and other advantages. It's a similar process that made English the lingua franca nowadays, and made American culture so popular, but I shouldn't get into modern comparisons too much.
From what I know, and find reasonable, the Celts formed as a culture and language in Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland and parts of Eastern France, as a result of the intermingling of Indoeuropeans coming from the East and the local, "Basque" or Western European population. THEN, they spread through migrations and cultural influence, on peoples which were already related because also Western-European, including Ligurians, and reached the rest of France, parts of Spain, the British Isles, most of Northern Italy and the Danube plains, with some tribes reaching Bohemia and even Anatolia. Do you think this might be quite correct?
This is pretty much correct, but Celtic expansion to Anatolia and Northern Italy is rather recent in the chain of events, happening in around the middle of the La Tène Age, and we know more about it than the earlier expansion in France for example. The local pre-Indo European population being related to Basque is likely, but it is a hypothesis. Again, genetics don't really show much in that regard, and we have to use historical linguistics to reconstruct some topographical names.
@@Gaisowiros Thank you very much. I've always believed that there was a "north" family of languages (english, german, swedish, irish, gaulish...) and a "south" family (latin, greek, spanish...). This poor/wrong understanding was based on the commonality of some words, or at least, their roots (for example, "kar" and "car", or "tack" and "thank"). I thought gaulish was closed to irish/welsh, so I was really confused by its "latin" tone... Now I realize that France has always been a "south" country (according to my classification)... Keep up the good work !
@@jhrykkjutku Latin and the Celtic languages are more related than all of those others. They all des end from the Italo-Celtic branch of the Indo-European family tree.
there is a metal band that sings in gaulish (eluveitie) and they have a song called voveso in mori which, i think, is much more similar to spanish rather than any modern celtic language
I watched a ton of videos but I'm still confused as Hell... Why are latin and gaulish so similar ?! Has one evolved from the other ? Was this caused by invasions ? I really was expecting a Celtic language to sound more..."norse"... like english or german... But it sounds like latin... Thank you.
Gaulish, Latin, Greek and other Indo-European languages back then sounded rather similar to eachother because they hadn't underwent enough changes to differentiate themselves even more from Proto-Indo-European. It is also attested that Gaulish and Latin were close enough that the Gauls and Romans could intercept messages during the Gallic Wars and understand the gist of them. On a more hypothetical note, Gaulish and Latin are theorized by some linguistics to come from the same family called Italo-Celtic. On the subject of Germanic languages like German, English and Norse, their language family is a bit more apart from Celtic and Italic languages for various reasons, one of them being that they probably were influenced a lot from a Pre-Germanic substratum.
There is a little bit more interaction with Celtic languages and old Norse or Germanic languages later. You did have the raids during the bronze and iron ages especially with old Norse interfering with the Irish Celtic language and of course the Brittany agents. This is why you have something like fairways. Fairways is a good mixer of old Norse and irish. so a lot of these languages in the Celtic regions were affected during the late bronze Iron age area because of Norse influence.
Interesting, it might be that gaulish and Latin are both closer to italo-Celtic than welsh and Irish are to gaulish... although I'm a supporter of the P vs Q Celtic theory rather than the insular vs continental.
The Insular vs Continental dichotomy here was used in the context of talking about specific evolutions that have happened to Gaelic and Brythonic languages. The loss of thematic vowels in Proto-Brythonic was happening roughly at the same time that Gaulish was spoken in the form that we know, pointing to a distinct Insular evolution, whether or not it's a P or Q Celtic language.
@@pnjijy I see Celtic as coming from the Unetice and related Central European groups that moved westwards, and was influenced at some point by the Kimmerians, leading to the emergence of two branches (P and Q-Keltic), while the Italic languages are associated with the Villanova Culture and the Dinaric region.
Great video. Small niggle: Women (mná) is pronounced mnaw, not mna. The fada lengthens the vowel. I had always assumed that records of gaulish with os or us suffixes were latinised. I find it really interesting to imagine those as being the original pronunciation.
Thank you for the information! I am still learning how to pronounce modern Celtic words. We know the -os and -us particles are native because they come from material written in the Greek or Latin alphabet from Celtic language speakers. However, there's a distinct possibility that some -us endings we know actually come from Latin depending on the source and the literature. No Roman work uses the -os ending, and sometimes a Roman work of literature quoting a Gaulish word is the only source. What actually helps us is that, just like Latin with its fourth declension ( manus, manūs), Gaulish had a declension ending in -os and another with -us, in the nominative, and the other cases would be different from one another. So if one finds a Celtic word that ends in -us, and then we see its genitive form from another source being -oi, we can infer that the original declension would be the o-stem, ending in -os in the nominative.
@@Gaisowiros I really wish Irish had an organised declension system like Latin. Like you said in the video, cutting off the endings resulting in words being mutated a LOT to compensate. I wish you luck studying the tuiseal geneideach, it's a pain in the ass :P Thanks for that context about the gallic writings, I'd heard they existed but I've never read any. At some point in the future I'd love to study gallic and celtic history in general but I've enough on my plate studywise for the moment.
@@peterhoulihan9766 the gallo-etruscan alphabet is really fun, it's what was used by the germans later for thier germanic runes and oh boy gallic does look pretty good in that alphabet
@@pnjijy Yep, I've seen more of it since and it does look really nice. I have a place in my heart for ogham but unfortunately it was developed very late and was never widespread.
@@peterhoulihan9766 yeah such a shame, I saw that only two words in gaulish were attested in oghams and was hyped but really, it's just so different from the rest it's so cool
Hey Frak, how are you mate. It's mostly pretty good, except for two things: 1. at 5:29 you're giving the example of kwetures becoming pedwar and cethir, but you're saying that kwetures is "the IE word for hundred". That's a serious mistake, it's not "hundred" but "four". I'm sure you know this, and it was a brain fart. 2. the terms Celtae and Galatae: you've got it the wrong way around. According to the Greek writers of the 5th-3rd centuries, the word Celtae was applied to the people who lived in the inland area behind Massilia, and the word Galatae to those who live further afield to the north, west and east. This aligns with your interpretation of Galatos as meaning something like "raider" (based on gal- "ability, strength, power"), as comparable to the denomination Viking. This indicates that the heartland, the area of first origin, was central France, designated later as Gallia Celtica, and that the further outlying areas were colonised/setled by Galatae, people who, potentially, went looking for places to live further afield, maybe because of population pressures (of which the Galatae in Anatolia are obviously a good example). This is corroborated by an old legend, attested by a Greek writer (possibly Diodorus Siculus, don't remember off the top of my head now), who relates the story of the Gaulish princess called Celtina who was seduced by Heracles and had a son called Galatos, who then went forth to conquer other areas. This shows that the eponymous mythical Celtina came first, and literally and/or figuratively gave birth to the equally eponymous Galatos, who came later and went further afield. Hope this helps. All the best mate.
Kwetures meaning hundred was a real brain fart on my end! I think it's because I originally planned to use the word for "hundred" in the different languages but then went for the word for "four". I was never sure what the ancient authors meant exactly when they used Celt or Gaul, and sometimes had the feeling they were used interchangeably, so thank you for the precision. But in my video I compared either term for their modern meanings where Gaul means from Gallia and Celt means the greater category. I agree I should I have made it clearer or perhaps I should have highlighted the differences in usage.
The Welsh word Pedwar is four not Hundred, Welsh for hundred is Cant. Or I misunderstood what you were explaining, but your Welsh pronunciations were ok.
The genetics is the reverse. Celts settled there, but the origins of the genetics are older. Likely more ancestral to Basque than Celtic since such cultures like La Tene or Hallstatt do not have a high concentration like Ireland and Britain. I don't think you can speak of the an ancient Vasconic language family that was there before since we surely do not know what the languages of the British isles were prior to Celtic.
The specific genetics I was talking about for the Celtic expansion here was the R1b Y-DNA haplogroup. Its spread corresponds to the spread of Indo-Europeans in Europe. The concentration of that haplogroup is as high in the Basque country today as in Ireland, which is odd but this article explains it well. www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml You seem to have misunderstood my pont, I wasn't talking about a British Vasconic language. I was talking about how it's odd that the Basques people of today have Indo-European Y-DNA but speak a Vasconic language. I think it is fair to assume Vasconic languages were spoken in the Basque country and the area surrounding it before the arrivals of the Indo-Europeans.
We have a very high concentration of an indo-european haplogroup but we are not indo-european at all. That's what's odd... I think indo-europeans got defeated by iberian tribes in the pyrinees but kept pushing with sucessive waves of immigration and wars. Since it happened over the course of hundreds of years they were never able to replace the natives but their Y-DNA became majoritary due to breeding bias.
Arranoaren Ahotsa Iberar This is the theory I had in mind as well. Eupedia has a good article on the matter. Also I'm curious about the influx of subscribers I just got. Are you aware if one of my videos got shared on another channel or on a page of some sort?
Celts are a race carrying Y-DNA R1b-M269. Welsh(90%), Irish(80%), Bretons(70%), French(70%), Spaniards(70%) and Northern Italians(70%). If you don't carry it you aren't Celts.
R1b-U106 is a Germanic haplogroup and is a descendant of the Unetice/Late Bell Beakers who probably spoke North-West Indo-European, the ancestor of Celtic, Italic, and Germanic.
Norther Italy was called CISALPINE GAUL (gallia cisalpina in Latin), was inhabited by Celts (Gauls) and still today local languages belong to Gallo-Romance group (like French) being called Gallo-Italics. The first celts who Roma met where the Gauls in Northern Italy and still you have said "there was no celt in Italy". Goodbye for your "accurate" analisis
Can you provide me with a timestamp to when I said "there were no Celts in Italy"? I think what I meant is to say that Italy is not usually understood as a country with a profound Celtic influence, though there used to be Celts in the North, just like there used to be Celtic slaves in Scandinavia, but these were all fringe cultural influences. It could explain the Celtic genetic markers, but if you look at the map @3:30, the borders don't correspond where the Gauls settled in Italy during Roman times.
@@Gaisowiros your genetic map is completely wrong and inaccurate about the percentage there shown. Just take a look at the genetics of Italians and northern Italians in particular, you can find more accurate maps of this on internet than the incomplete one you chose. You also can find maps about celtic settlement of Cisalpine Gaul before the roman conquest, but mind that they are modern approximations about the boundearies of each tribe, founded on the roman literature describing the celts of river po: celts settled in Northern Italy from Gaul (France, like Senones, Lingones and Cenomani) or from Bohemia (Boii) and mixed with the local population that was "celtized", as the Ligurians, the Veneti and the Reti for example, that many archeologists and liguistics have hypotized they were celts too or became celtized as the same ancient romans often considered them part of the celtic world. Same things happened with every probability in Gaul, Spain, and even British Isles, where the language spread more than the people directly occupying the lands. Saying that "this genetic marker appears into Italy despite not being a land inhabited by celts" (this is what I understood, as english is not my first language) is ridicolous. I hope you don't pretend that the genetics "must correspond" absolutely to some modernly created map about the celtic settlement in northern Italy. Italians have a very similar genetics for all Italy north and centre that is the same for Iberia and France and British Isles (that is Western Europe), only for the south of Italy there is heavy influence from the middle east and other area of the mediterranean and less from western europe. Celts today are perhaps only the Bretons, Irish, Scots etc. the continental Gauls were not the same stock of people, but the first Celtic culture that influenced all the creation of celtic items appeared around the are of the Alps (as I think you know): Halstatt (Proto-Celtic, Austria), the Leponti (First celtic alphabet, runic and imitation of the Etruscan one, in the Swiss Italian Canton Ticino, once part of Lombardy that is Northern Italy) and La Tene (in Switzerland).
@@Gaisowiros Also when you say that "there used to be celts in the North" "but these were all fringe cultural influences" means you KNOW NOTHING of the history of Cisalpine Gaul. Milano (Mediolanum "In the middle of the land"), Bologna (Bononia from the celtic Bonn = city see Vindobona, Vienna), Brescia (Brixia, from celtic Brig, Brix = mountain, but also "strenght") and many other cities were FOUNDED BY THE GAULS. The Canegrate Culture and Lepontic in the Alps were one of the FIRST CELTIC CULTURE IN EUROPE (9th century BC), with the FIRST CELTIC ALPHABET (that of Lugano or Lepontic one, using Runes that later spread to germanic world and probably were taken from the Etruscan Alphabet). Still today the original languages of Northern Italians, the so-called "dialects" who are independent evolution of Vulgar Latin over a Gallic linguistical substrate just like in France with Langue d'Oil and Langue d'Oc, are called GALLO-ITALICS and are part of the Western Romance languages of the group called GALLO-ROMANCE. I thought you knew more, but saying what you say, you're far less than an amateur.
@@commenter4190 My map is the map for the R1b haplogroup, which like I explained in the video can be a marker for celticity but not necessarily. There is a possibility that it is not entirely correct. I am indeed an amateur; never claimed otherwise. And yes, those are still fringe influences in my opinion. Western Germany have many cities that were founded by the Romans. Is Germany Latin? I wouldn't say so. I want to be clear that by "fringe influence" over "x country" I mean that the country as a whole was not influenced by those peoples. France today encompasses a territory that had a Celtic majority, so did all the other countries that I named. You cannot say the same about Italy.
Hello Spearman ;) Being a fellow Frenchman, I have often wondered whether I should "feel" related to Celtic peoples or to the so-called Latin nations. Fact is that my father was born in Bayeux (from the name of the Gaulish tribe Baiocasses), in Normandy, and my mother in Cahors (from the name of another Gaulish tribe : the Cadurci), in the south of France. Nonetheless, the very language I speak defines me as belonging to the rather dissonant concert of Latin nations, although I do not look a thing like a Spaniard or an Italian, but more like a Dutchman or a German.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
As corrected by GwirCeth (Check out his work on Modern Gaulish), I made some mistakes in my Gaulish sentence.
It should be: Welu-mi cladion rigos
Welu-mi is a reconstructed form of "I want" and "rigos" is the correct genitive form of rixs.
Inte dago, mon caranto!
Just want to say thankyou for a dedicated Gaulish/Celtic channel
Thank you!
But wait, there's more ... at 7:24 you suggest that these initial mutations are unique to the insular languages. However, the example that you give, Ir. bean > mná is attested in the exact same identical fashion in the Gaulish inscription of Larzac "bano-, bnano-, mnas" and as "bena" at Chateaubleau. At 7:49 you translate "I want the king's sword" into Gaulish as "Cladion ricis welor". This is not right. The verbal form you've used there is the impersonal form, and there is no reason to assume such a form would be used in this sentence construction. First person singular present tense conjugations are clearly attested in Gaulish, and can end either in -u (e.g. delgu) or in -umi (e.g. iegumi), in which /mi/ is analysed as the 1st pers. sing. pronoun, which may or may not have been perceived as suffixed. Therefore "I want" would be "uelu-mi". The inscription of Chateaubleau clearly shows that the object would regularly follow the verb (e.g. Nemna liiumi bena uieiionna), which would give "uelu-mi cladion"; "of the king" would be expressed as a genitive construction, "rigos" (genetive of consonantal stems -os, Delamarre 203, p. 344). So the sentence would be "uelu-mi cladion rigos". It would be a serious mistake to think that Gaulish sentence construction followed Latin grammatical and syntactic conventions.
I didn't know that Ir. bean > mná had a mirror in Gaulish at all. That was a mistake on my end for not reading enough about that particular example.
I found the verb form "welor" in Delamarre's dictionary 2nd edition p.430, though he writes "je veux?" with an interrogation mark meaning I should probably have went with a more attested form. Though if it's the impersonal version, I wonder why he didn't simply write "vouloir?" instead. I had an idea Gaulish verbs are complicated, often use pronouns as affixes and are generally too esoteric for me to use non-attested forms. "uelu-mi" makes sense though, so thank you for correcting that one. "Rigos" for the genitive I should have known, it's right there in Delamarre's as the Gaulish version of Latin's third declension genitive (with regis as an example even). I should be more careful about word order indeed; my background in Classical Latin is showing!
Thanks for the comments buddy!
Wouldn't rigi be the genitive of rix/rigos?
@@Gaisowiros No worries, Frak, as you say it's right there in the section on declensions. The data on mnas etc is in the text of Larzac, you'll see it. "uelor" comes from the phrase found at Marcellus of Bordeaux "scrisumio uelor". That analyses as "scrisu-mi o uelor", literally "spit-I that is-wanted". Translated into grammatical English (or French, for that matter) it would be "I want to spit/je veux cracher", but the Gaulish construction is as indicated here. "uelor" is the impersonal form "is wanted", or "one wants", cf. identical forms in Breton, Welsh and Irish (and probably Latin too, I imagine). A more or less feasible English approximation would be "that I spit is wanted", or "it is wanted that I spit". We don't talk like that, but we can understand it. It just a thing, ey ...
@@joecato1138 No Joe, the genitive singular of a consonantal stem is -os. It's in Delamarre 2003, p. 344. The genitive of an nominative o-stem would be -i > uiros "a man" > uiri "of a man" (and also, of course, "men", the nominative plural of the o-stem; the system is all over the show ...)
@@GwirCeth I see now! I did some more research! Thank you!
Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge and analysis. Your videos are always thoughtful and accessible. Was the Gaulish language and culture lost to Roman assimilation or was Gallic culture actively suppressed and destroyed by the Romans?
It is a little bit of both, but I don't think we have proper evidence that the Romans purposefully tried to erase Gallic culture. We only see that with the genocide that Julius Caesar ordered and the end to the druids that he brought.
Gallic culture was replaced by Roman, or Gallo-Roman culture simply because wealth came from Rome. People had to adapt and learn Latin, adopt Roman customs, just because that's how they would get jobs and other advantages. It's a similar process that made English the lingua franca nowadays, and made American culture so popular, but I shouldn't get into modern comparisons too much.
What's the music in the beginning?
A song I wrote a long time ago, trying to imagine what would Gaulish music sound like. soundcloud.com/frak98/seguinatus
From what I know, and find reasonable, the Celts formed as a culture and language in Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland and parts of Eastern France, as a result of the intermingling of Indoeuropeans coming from the East and the local, "Basque" or Western European population. THEN, they spread through migrations and cultural influence, on peoples which were already related because also Western-European, including Ligurians, and reached the rest of France, parts of Spain, the British Isles, most of Northern Italy and the Danube plains, with some tribes reaching Bohemia and even Anatolia. Do you think this might be quite correct?
This is pretty much correct, but Celtic expansion to Anatolia and Northern Italy is rather recent in the chain of events, happening in around the middle of the La Tène Age, and we know more about it than the earlier expansion in France for example.
The local pre-Indo European population being related to Basque is likely, but it is a hypothesis. Again, genetics don't really show much in that regard, and we have to use historical linguistics to reconstruct some topographical names.
@@Gaisowiros Thank you very much. I've always believed that there was a "north" family of languages (english, german, swedish, irish, gaulish...) and a "south" family (latin, greek, spanish...). This poor/wrong understanding was based on the commonality of some words, or at least, their roots (for example, "kar" and "car", or "tack" and "thank"). I thought gaulish was closed to irish/welsh, so I was really confused by its "latin" tone... Now I realize that France has always been a "south" country (according to my classification)... Keep up the good work !
@@jhrykkjutku Latin and the Celtic languages are more related than all of those others. They all des end from the Italo-Celtic branch of the Indo-European family tree.
there is a metal band that sings in gaulish (eluveitie) and they have a song called voveso in mori which, i think, is much more similar to spanish rather than any modern celtic language
I watched a ton of videos but I'm still confused as Hell... Why are latin and gaulish so similar ?! Has one evolved from the other ? Was this caused by invasions ? I really was expecting a Celtic language to sound more..."norse"... like english or german... But it sounds like latin... Thank you.
Gaulish, Latin, Greek and other Indo-European languages back then sounded rather similar to eachother because they hadn't underwent enough changes to differentiate themselves even more from Proto-Indo-European.
It is also attested that Gaulish and Latin were close enough that the Gauls and Romans could intercept messages during the Gallic Wars and understand the gist of them.
On a more hypothetical note, Gaulish and Latin are theorized by some linguistics to come from the same family called Italo-Celtic.
On the subject of Germanic languages like German, English and Norse, their language family is a bit more apart from Celtic and Italic languages for various reasons, one of them being that they probably were influenced a lot from a Pre-Germanic substratum.
There is a little bit more interaction with Celtic languages and old Norse or Germanic languages later. You did have the raids during the bronze and iron ages especially with old Norse interfering with the Irish Celtic language and of course the Brittany agents. This is why you have something like fairways. Fairways is a good mixer of old Norse and irish. so a lot of these languages in the Celtic regions were affected during the late bronze Iron age area because of Norse influence.
@@Gaisowiros super interessante ta reponse
Interesting, it might be that gaulish and Latin are both closer to italo-Celtic than welsh and Irish are to gaulish... although I'm a supporter of the P vs Q Celtic theory rather than the insular vs continental.
The Insular vs Continental dichotomy here was used in the context of talking about specific evolutions that have happened to Gaelic and Brythonic languages. The loss of thematic vowels in Proto-Brythonic was happening roughly at the same time that Gaulish was spoken in the form that we know, pointing to a distinct Insular evolution, whether or not it's a P or Q Celtic language.
I do not see such a thing as 'Italo-Celtic'. It is an academic fabrication.
@@celtictuathism4585 what do you see then ? No offense intended just curious
@@pnjijy
I see Celtic as coming from the Unetice and related Central European groups that moved westwards, and was influenced at some point by the Kimmerians, leading to the emergence of two branches (P and Q-Keltic), while the Italic languages are associated with the Villanova Culture and the Dinaric region.
@@celtictuathism4585 oh wow, I had never heard of that before, thank you for your time !
Great video. Small niggle: Women (mná) is pronounced mnaw, not mna. The fada lengthens the vowel.
I had always assumed that records of gaulish with os or us suffixes were latinised. I find it really interesting to imagine those as being the original pronunciation.
Thank you for the information! I am still learning how to pronounce modern Celtic words.
We know the -os and -us particles are native because they come from material written in the Greek or Latin alphabet from Celtic language speakers.
However, there's a distinct possibility that some -us endings we know actually come from Latin depending on the source and the literature. No Roman work uses the -os ending, and sometimes a Roman work of literature quoting a Gaulish word is the only source.
What actually helps us is that, just like Latin with its fourth declension ( manus, manūs), Gaulish had a declension ending in -os and another with -us, in the nominative, and the other cases would be different from one another. So if one finds a Celtic word that ends in -us, and then we see its genitive form from another source being -oi, we can infer that the original declension would be the o-stem, ending in -os in the nominative.
@@Gaisowiros I really wish Irish had an organised declension system like Latin. Like you said in the video, cutting off the endings resulting in words being mutated a LOT to compensate.
I wish you luck studying the tuiseal geneideach, it's a pain in the ass :P
Thanks for that context about the gallic writings, I'd heard they existed but I've never read any. At some point in the future I'd love to study gallic and celtic history in general but I've enough on my plate studywise for the moment.
@@peterhoulihan9766 the gallo-etruscan alphabet is really fun, it's what was used by the germans later for thier germanic runes and oh boy gallic does look pretty good in that alphabet
@@pnjijy Yep, I've seen more of it since and it does look really nice.
I have a place in my heart for ogham but unfortunately it was developed very late and was never widespread.
@@peterhoulihan9766 yeah such a shame, I saw that only two words in gaulish were attested in oghams and was hyped but really, it's just so different from the rest it's so cool
Merci beaucoup Morgan!
Hey Frak, how are you mate. It's mostly pretty good, except for two things: 1. at 5:29 you're giving the example of kwetures becoming pedwar and cethir, but you're saying that kwetures is "the IE word for hundred". That's a serious mistake, it's not "hundred" but "four". I'm sure you know this, and it was a brain fart. 2. the terms Celtae and Galatae: you've got it the wrong way around. According to the Greek writers of the 5th-3rd centuries, the word Celtae was applied to the people who lived in the inland area behind Massilia, and the word Galatae to those who live further afield to the north, west and east. This aligns with your interpretation of Galatos as meaning something like "raider" (based on gal- "ability, strength, power"), as comparable to the denomination Viking. This indicates that the heartland, the area of first origin, was central France, designated later as Gallia Celtica, and that the further outlying areas were colonised/setled by Galatae, people who, potentially, went looking for places to live further afield, maybe because of population pressures (of which the Galatae in Anatolia are obviously a good example). This is corroborated by an old legend, attested by a Greek writer (possibly Diodorus Siculus, don't remember off the top of my head now), who relates the story of the Gaulish princess called Celtina who was seduced by Heracles and had a son called Galatos, who then went forth to conquer other areas. This shows that the eponymous mythical Celtina came first, and literally and/or figuratively gave birth to the equally eponymous Galatos, who came later and went further afield. Hope this helps. All the best mate.
Kwetures meaning hundred was a real brain fart on my end! I think it's because I originally planned to use the word for "hundred" in the different languages but then went for the word for "four".
I was never sure what the ancient authors meant exactly when they used Celt or Gaul, and sometimes had the feeling they were used interchangeably, so thank you for the precision. But in my video I compared either term for their modern meanings where Gaul means from Gallia and Celt means the greater category. I agree I should I have made it clearer or perhaps I should have highlighted the differences in usage.
@@Gaisowiros Yes, there is definitely a discrepancy between the ancient uses of the terms and the modern ones.
The Welsh word Pedwar is four not Hundred, Welsh for hundred is Cant. Or I misunderstood what you were explaining, but your Welsh pronunciations were ok.
You are entirely right, my mistake. I meant to present examples that mean "four", not "hundred". Cethir means four in Irish.
The genetics is the reverse. Celts settled there, but the origins of the genetics are older. Likely more ancestral to Basque than Celtic since such cultures like La Tene or Hallstatt do not have a high concentration like Ireland and Britain. I don't think you can speak of the an ancient Vasconic language family that was there before since we surely do not know what the languages of the British isles were prior to Celtic.
The specific genetics I was talking about for the Celtic expansion here was the R1b Y-DNA haplogroup. Its spread corresponds to the spread of Indo-Europeans in Europe. The concentration of that haplogroup is as high in the Basque country today as in Ireland, which is odd but this article explains it well.
www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml
You seem to have misunderstood my pont, I wasn't talking about a British Vasconic language. I was talking about how it's odd that the Basques people of today have Indo-European Y-DNA but speak a Vasconic language. I think it is fair to assume Vasconic languages were spoken in the Basque country and the area surrounding it before the arrivals of the Indo-Europeans.
We have a very high concentration of an indo-european haplogroup but we are not indo-european at all. That's what's odd...
I think indo-europeans got defeated by iberian tribes in the pyrinees but kept pushing with sucessive waves of immigration and wars. Since it happened over the course of hundreds of years they were never able to replace the natives but their Y-DNA became majoritary due to breeding bias.
Arranoaren Ahotsa Iberar This is the theory I had in mind as well. Eupedia has a good article on the matter.
Also I'm curious about the influx of subscribers I just got. Are you aware if one of my videos got shared on another channel or on a page of some sort?
Yes, Forgotten Roots shared your channel in his last video, that's how I got here.
Celts are a race carrying Y-DNA R1b-M269. Welsh(90%), Irish(80%), Bretons(70%), French(70%), Spaniards(70%) and Northern Italians(70%). If you don't carry it you aren't Celts.
R1b-U106 is a Germanic haplogroup and is a descendant of the Unetice/Late Bell Beakers who probably spoke North-West Indo-European, the ancestor of Celtic, Italic, and Germanic.
Missing out many Germans and Belgians.
Norther Italy was called CISALPINE GAUL (gallia cisalpina in Latin), was inhabited by Celts (Gauls) and still today local languages belong to Gallo-Romance group (like French) being called Gallo-Italics. The first celts who Roma met where the Gauls in Northern Italy and still you have said "there was no celt in Italy".
Goodbye for your "accurate" analisis
Can you provide me with a timestamp to when I said "there were no Celts in Italy"? I think what I meant is to say that Italy is not usually understood as a country with a profound Celtic influence, though there used to be Celts in the North, just like there used to be Celtic slaves in Scandinavia, but these were all fringe cultural influences. It could explain the Celtic genetic markers, but if you look at the map @3:30, the borders don't correspond where the Gauls settled in Italy during Roman times.
@@Gaisowiros your genetic map is completely wrong and inaccurate about the percentage there shown. Just take a look at the genetics of Italians and northern Italians in particular, you can find more accurate maps of this on internet than the incomplete one you chose. You also can find maps about celtic settlement of Cisalpine Gaul before the roman conquest, but mind that they are modern approximations about the boundearies of each tribe, founded on the roman literature describing the celts of river po: celts settled in Northern Italy from Gaul (France, like Senones, Lingones and Cenomani) or from Bohemia (Boii) and mixed with the local population that was "celtized", as the Ligurians, the Veneti and the Reti for example, that many archeologists and liguistics have hypotized they were celts too or became celtized as the same ancient romans often considered them part of the celtic world. Same things happened with every probability in Gaul, Spain, and even British Isles, where the language spread more than the people directly occupying the lands.
Saying that "this genetic marker appears into Italy despite not being a land inhabited by celts" (this is what I understood, as english is not my first language) is ridicolous. I hope you don't pretend that the genetics "must correspond" absolutely to some modernly created map about the celtic settlement in northern Italy. Italians have a very similar genetics for all Italy north and centre that is the same for Iberia and France and British Isles (that is Western Europe), only for the south of Italy there is heavy influence from the middle east and other area of the mediterranean and less from western europe.
Celts today are perhaps only the Bretons, Irish, Scots etc. the continental Gauls were not the same stock of people, but the first Celtic culture that influenced all the creation of celtic items appeared around the are of the Alps (as I think you know): Halstatt (Proto-Celtic, Austria), the Leponti (First celtic alphabet, runic and imitation of the Etruscan one, in the Swiss Italian Canton Ticino, once part of Lombardy that is Northern Italy) and La Tene (in Switzerland).
@@Gaisowiros Also when you say that "there used to be celts in the North" "but these were all fringe cultural influences" means you KNOW NOTHING of the history of Cisalpine Gaul. Milano (Mediolanum "In the middle of the land"), Bologna (Bononia from the celtic Bonn = city see Vindobona, Vienna), Brescia (Brixia, from celtic Brig, Brix = mountain, but also "strenght") and many other cities were FOUNDED BY THE GAULS. The Canegrate Culture and Lepontic in the Alps were one of the FIRST CELTIC CULTURE IN EUROPE (9th century BC), with the FIRST CELTIC ALPHABET (that of Lugano or Lepontic one, using Runes that later spread to germanic world and probably were taken from the Etruscan Alphabet).
Still today the original languages of Northern Italians, the so-called "dialects" who are independent evolution of Vulgar Latin over a Gallic linguistical substrate just like in France with Langue d'Oil and Langue d'Oc, are called GALLO-ITALICS and are part of the Western Romance languages of the group called GALLO-ROMANCE.
I thought you knew more, but saying what you say, you're far less than an amateur.
@@commenter4190 My map is the map for the R1b haplogroup, which like I explained in the video can be a marker for celticity but not necessarily. There is a possibility that it is not entirely correct.
I am indeed an amateur; never claimed otherwise.
And yes, those are still fringe influences in my opinion. Western Germany have many cities that were founded by the Romans. Is Germany Latin? I wouldn't say so.
I want to be clear that by "fringe influence" over "x country" I mean that the country as a whole was not influenced by those peoples. France today encompasses a territory that had a Celtic majority, so did all the other countries that I named. You cannot say the same about Italy.
@@Gaisowiros ne t'en fais pas. Il est fache (chetoujourspatropourquoi), c'est un Gaulois comme toi et moi. keskonallaipasfaire dans 7caleregauloise!
Hello Spearman ;)
Being a fellow Frenchman, I have often wondered whether I should "feel" related to Celtic peoples or to the so-called Latin nations. Fact is that my father was born in Bayeux (from the name of the Gaulish tribe Baiocasses), in Normandy, and my mother in Cahors (from the name of another Gaulish tribe : the Cadurci), in the south of France. Nonetheless, the very language I speak defines me as belonging to the rather dissonant concert of Latin nations, although I do not look a thing like a Spaniard or an Italian, but more like a Dutchman or a German.