Author |
Message |
David
| Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 04:49 am: |
|
id just like to know 2 things about the irish language. firstly where does it stem from, orginally, and what are its influences? to an outsider i cant pick it, to me it sounds like a mix of latin, german and spanish, but im probably way off! secondly to put an end to an old argument with a friend its pronounced Keltic (with a hard sound) not seltic right? and thirdly an odd question did spain ever invade ireland, my grandma claims they did but since she's semi-senile i was never really sure. thanks in advance. |
|
Aonghus
| Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 07:13 am: |
|
1) Irish is an Indo European langauge, but branched off the original before latin or german. Spanish is a descendant of latin. The group of languages Irish belongs to is known as celtic. 2) Take your pick, both are commonly used! 3) Not as such. The Spanish Armada sank off the Irish coast. Spanish armies help Irish rebel armies before that. The early invasion legend say the Gaels came via Spain, and they may have done. |
|
Seosamh
| Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 01:21 pm: |
|
Do you hear 'Seltic' often in Ireland, Aongus? It's quite common here in America. But everyone I know (wherever the y are) who has an interest in the Celtic peoples pronounces it as 'Keltic'. The Celts did penetrate to Northern Spain and there is a certain awareness of Celtic origins among people in Galicia (the name itself may be of Celtic origin). It is widely believed (but maybe not universally) that the Gaels arrived in Ireland via Spain, as Aongus mentions. |
|
Aonghus
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 03:26 am: |
|
Only as the name of a Glasgow football team! But I don't want to be dogmatic about the word. And I'm suspicious of the label, because it gets abused a lot. |
|
Jonas
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 06:15 am: |
|
Absolutely! Almost everything seems to be "Celtic" in order to sell. I visited the website www.celtic.com which is, well, not that adequate (in fact it's total rubbish). They have links to Celtic languages, and they include languages like Galician and Doric!!! As I guess you all know, both English and French have been more influenced by Celtic languages than Galician has ever been. I sent a mail asking why they had included languages that aren't Celtic at all; the replied that "we walk a fine line choosing". I can't wait to see languages like Mongolian, Quechua, Chinese and Finnish included as well.. |
|
Laighneach
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 09:48 am: |
|
Funny you should mention that Jonas.I have my e-mail adress at celtic.com, but only because you can have your e-mail address all in irish and don't have to put "Celtic" at the end of your address! Otherwise the site's general idea about being "celtic" is a bit warped and has an overtly irish bias also.I take issue also with the fact that of the banners at the first screen of the "supposedly" celtic regions of the world, Ireland is seperated into two different celtic regions, the republic and the North! |
|
Seosamh
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 03:03 pm: |
|
I never thought about Gaelic/Celtic influence on Galician language. Luíonn sé sin le réasún, áfach. Mabye the people at celtic.com are in the vanguard of a Celtic Ulster nationalist movement. Not to give any credence to what sounds like sloppiness on their part, but maps based on genetic analysis (like those of Cavalli-Sforza) do often show a division between Ireland generally and Ulster -- part of a more general distribution that also cuts across Britain and continental Europe. The maps indicate penetration of genes carried by the first farming populations coming from the east; later they indicate Indo-European penetration. They don't mean much else, certainly not culturally. |
|
Laighneach
| Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 08:31 am: |
|
Exactly my point Seosamh, I've never been a partition denier, but I really see no cultural division along those lines, even less so if you're talking about celtic culture. If we were to do so, there would be no distinction between Scotland, England and Wales, because they are all under the same political Union.And the last time I checked, the United Kingdom political entity wasn't exactly deferent to celtic culture! |
|
Dutchgael
| Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 09:08 am: |
|
About this whole Indo-European thing. The closest relatives of the Celts must have been the Tocharians. Anyone ever heard about the Tocharians? Well, they lived in China(!!!) 2000 years ago. The Chinese had stories about of white, redhaired folks living in the west of China. And indeed, in the Takla Makan region (Gobi desert, West China) mummies were found that confirmed this. Saw this on Discovery Channel. One mummy was a white woman with long red hair wearing a dress in Scottish tartan style, chequered pattern. The texture was even made in the same way, same kind of stitches, or something. Their language (they have left some writing) was closely related to the Celtic and also to the Germanic languages. They wrote in sanskrit alfabet, which they must have gotten from Indian traders. They became Buddhists, also something from India. They were swept away by the Huns and replaced by the Turcic Uygurs that inhabit the region today. And of course they sort of dissapeared, in a more positive way, by mixing with the other peoples. A grave was found, with a Tocharian man and a Chinese woman. When I heard this, it sort of disturbed my idea of history and geography. Celts in China?? |
|
Seosamh
| Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 02:15 pm: |
|
I saw the program too and I remember about the tartanstyle fabrics. Some motifs today (like kilim) go back to Neolithic times. The Tocharian language had a verb form related to the saorbhriathar in Irish and other Celtic languages. In Irish, you have seen verbs like 'táthar' one is, 'caitear' one throws, consumes, etc., 'óltar' one drinks. They had the same set of endings, although I think it had a passive meaning (as the same endings did in Old Irish). |
|
|