# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Are Suabi behind two Galicias?

## LeBrok

Here is a map of Germanic tribe Suebi, Suevi, Swabi migration map:


Here is the better known Galicia:


And this is Galicja (Galitzia), also Galicz/Halicz. It streaches from Krakow in Poland to Moldavia. 


This is exactly the spot where, according to the first map, Suebi have spent few hundred years at.

----------


## Wilhelm

I don't think so, the Galicia of Spain is due to the Celtic tribe of the Gallaeci.

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't think so, the Galicia of Spain is due to the Celtic tribe of the Gallaeci.


When the name Galicia first showed up in written documents?

----------


## Dalmat

no they werent, even by the stretch of imagination.


Ukrainian province was called like that because of the major city of it, Halych, original name is Halychyna, and its a 13. century thing

----------


## LeBrok

> no they werent, even by the stretch of imagination.
> 
> 
> Ukrainian province was called like that because of the major city of it, Halych, original name is Halychyna, and its a 13. century thing


It could have been germanization of the name during Austrio-Hungarian times, from Halich to Galich to Galicia. I also know a person from these mountains who's last name is Galica (Galitza) that makes it even more interesting.
Because of presence of Suabi in Spain, Spanish Galicia could have gone through name germanization too.

----------


## Dalmat

> It could have been germanization of the name during Austrio-Hungarian times, from Halich to Galich to Galicia. I also know a person from these mountains who's last name is Galica (Galitza) that makes it even more interesting.
> Because of presence of Suabi in Spain, Spanish Galicia could have gone through name germanization too.


We say Galica for this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper%28II%29_sulfate
So it could be that, i know we use galica to scare octopuses out of their holes, when dive hunting them

As for germanization of the name you are right Galicia was AU way to pronounce Halychyna, and it stuck, probably because it was easier to pronounce to the rest of the world

----------


## LeBrok

> We say Galica for this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper%28II%29_sulfate
> So it could be that, i know we use galica to scare octopuses out of their holes, when dive hunting them
> 
> As for germanization of the name you are right Galicia was AU way to pronounce Halychyna, and it stuck, probably because it was easier to pronounce to the rest of the world


I know it is a very very long shot with these two Galicias. It is just so freakishly coincidental with Suabi living in both, that perhaps there could be something in it. I just wanted to bounce this ball off people here.
Maybe they assimilated a local Celtic tribe who lived in Carpathian Galicia and moved them to Spanish one? In this area there is a river San, supposedly river in some Celtic.

I also find pronunciation of Portuguese language similar to Slovak with it's soft ć ś and vowels especially in songs. Not knowing both languages and relying on pronunciation of sung words I was tricked few times thinking that Portuguese song was Slovak or some other Slavic language.

There might be some Celtic substratum connection between two Galicias although I involved Suebi in this thread.

----------


## FrankN

> It could have been germanization of the name during Austrio-Hungarian times, from Halich to Galich to Galicia. I also know a person from these mountains who's last name is Galica (Galitza) that makes it even more interesting.
> Because of presence of Suabi in Spain, Spanish Galicia could have gone through name germanization too.


Sometimes, a look into Wikipedia helps.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)



> In 1141 Prince (knyaz) Volodymyrko Volodarovych (1104–1152) who united the competing principalities of Przemyśl, Zvenyhorod and Terebovlya into the state of Halychyna transferred his capital from Zvenyhorod to Halych making it the seat of his Rurikid dynasty and considerably expanding the settlement. (..) The first dynasty of Halych, descending from Vladimir of Novgorod, culminated in Yaroslav Osmomysl (1153–1187) before going extinct in 1199. The same year Roman the Great founded the new Rurikid dynasty, uniting Halychyna and Volhynia into the more powerful principality of Halych-Volhynia. (..) In the 13th century, King Andrew II of Hungary used the style _Galicia et Lodomeria_ - a Latinized version of the Slavic names Halych and Volodymyr, the major cities of the principality of Halych-Volhynia, which the Hungarians ruled from 1214 to 1221.


So, it wasn't Germanization, but Latinization, and occurred already in the 13th century.

This raises of course the question of the origin of the name Halych. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halych



> Some historians[_who?_] speculated it had to do with a group of people of Celtic origin that may have settled nearby, being related to many similar place names found across Europe and Asia Minor, such as ancient Gallia or Gaul (modern France, Belgium, and northern Italy) and Galatia (modern Turkey), the Iberian Peninsula, Galicia, and Romanian Galaţi. (..) Another version postulates "_hals_", "salt", at the root of "Halych", as the salt trade was a substantial economic factor in the medieval history of Halych. (..) Others[_who?_] assert that the name has Slavic origins – from _halytsa_ (_galitsa_), meaning "a naked (unwooded) hill", or from _halka_ (_galka_) which means "a jackdaw". The jackdaw was used as a charge in the city's coat of arms and later also in the coat of arms of Galicia. The name, however, predates the coat of arms, which may represent canting or simply folk etymology.


Ultimately, Wikipedia settles on the *Khwalis, Kaliz or Khalyzians* who occupied the area from the time of the Magyars. 



> Kinnamos in his epitome twice mentions Khalisioi in the Hungarian army. He first describes them as practising Mosaic law; though whether they were actually Jews is unclear because other editions state that they were Muslims. They were said to have fought against the Byzantine Empire as allies of the tribes of Dalmatia in 1154, during Manuel Comnenus's campaign in the Balkans. Prior to the years 889–92 some Khalis and Kabars (Kavars) of the Khazar realm had joined the Hungarian (Magyar) federation that had conquered and settled in Hungary. (..)
> Abraham Harkavy hypothesized that the Khalyzians were refugees fleeing the destruction of their khaganate by the Kievan Rus in the 960s CE and the Pecheneg influx which followed in the 970s. A contemporary of Harkavy's, the Polish historian August Bielkowski, suggested that the Khalyzians were identical with the tribe known in Russian sources as the Khvalisy; hence they may have been connected to the Arsiya.
> The province of Khwalis (Khwali-As) on the lower Volga, was the realm of the _trading Eastern Iranians_; its twin city Amol/Atil, also called Sariycin/Khamlikh. It was ruled by a governor with the title of Tarkhan As-Tarkhan.
> 
> *Towns named after the Kaliz*
> 
> Budakalász (Hungary), Kalasz (Hungary/Slovakia), Halych (Ukraine), Kalasë (Albania) and numerous places in Russia (Kalasevo: Respublika Mordoviya), Iran (Kalash Garan: Ostan-e Lorestan), Afghanistan (Kalizeh: Velayat-e Helmand) and Punjab Pakistan (Kalis/Kalas).


Interesting story, especially as we now have another group that may have shuffled haplogroup I2 around and brought it to places like the Respublika Mordoviya. 

Question settled? There is a small problem here, namely the Polish city of Kalisz. As Ptolemy already records it as Calissia in 150 AD (though the relation has recently been questioned), it can't be named after the Kaliz. [_Oh, no, now we have proof that Islam originated with the Kaliz in Poland and was spread by the Vandals to North Africa. And the Vandals must have been in Mekka, too!_]. Instead, this city's name is explained by the Celtic term _cal_ which means stream, or the Slavic term _kal_, meaning swamp or marsh. But how do we know that this explanation not also applies to various other city names attributed to the Kaliz, including Halych?

----------


## LeBrok

> Sometimes, a look into Wikipedia helps.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)
> 
> So, it wasn't Germanization, but Latinization, and occurred already in the 13th century.
> 
> This raises of course the question of the origin of the name Halych. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halych



IIRC in this part of Ukraine people pronouns G something in between H-G. In name Bogdan some people think they say g some that they say h. It is in between as Spanish b-v. If there is no letter for this special sound some people will write G some H. I think Russians say Галич, starts with G.





> Question settled? There is a small problem here, namely the Polish city of Kalisz. As Ptolemy already records it as Calissia in 150 AD (though the relation has recently been questioned), it can't be named after the Kaliz. [_Oh, no, now we have proof that Islam originated with the Kaliz in Poland and was spread by the Vandals to North Africa. And the Vandals must have been in Mekka, too!_]. Instead, this city's name is explained by the Celtic term _cal_ which means stream, or the Slavic term _kal_, meaning swamp or marsh. But how do we know that this explanation not also applies to various other city names attributed to the Kaliz, including Halych?


 LoL we can pull it any direction we like it but I don't think there is much dispute among historians that at one point Celtic influence reached to Silesia and Galicia, some even claim that Venethi most likely were a Celtic tribe. Therefore it is not unrealistic to suppose that Halicz or Galiza might be of Celtic origin.

----------


## Sile

> [/URL]
> IIRC in this part of Ukraine people pronouns G something in between H-G. In name Bogdan some people think they say g some that they say h. It is in between as Spanish b-v. If there is no letter for this special sound some people will write G some H. I think Russians say Галич, starts with G.
> 
> 
> LoL we can pull it any direction we like it but I don't think there is much dispute among historians that at one point Celtic influence reached to Silesia and Galicia, some even claim that Venethi most likely were a Celtic tribe. Therefore it is not unrealistic to suppose that Halicz or Galiza might be of Celtic origin.


maybe you can decifer this Norse geographical text from the 9th century for the areas in question

*Orosius** Now we intend to record the boundaries within Europe as far as we know them. From the river Don west to the river Rhine (which has its source in the mountains called the Alps, and runs due north into the arm of the ocean surrounding the land called Britain), and also south to the river Danube (the source of which is near the bank of the river Rhine, from where it runs east, north of Greece out into the Mediterranean), and north to the ocean called the Cwensae; within these boundaries are many tribes but it is all called Germania.
Then to the north of the Danube's source and to the east of the Rhine are the East Franks, and to the south of them are the Swaefas on the other side of the river Danube, and to the south and east of them are the Bcegware - the part called Regensburg - and directly east of them are the Baeme and northeast are the Thyringas. To the north of them are the Old Saxons and northwest of them the Frisians. West of the Old Saxons is the mouth of the river Elbe and Frisland, and northwest from there is the land which is called Angeln and Sillende and some Danish territories. North of them are the Afdrede and northeast the Wilte known as the Haefeldan; east of them is the land of those Wends who are called Sysyle, and southeast the Maroara who extend over a wide territory; the Maroara have to the west of them the Thyringas and some Behemas and half the Begware, and south of them on the other side of the Danube river is the land Carendre extending south as far as the mountains called the Alps. To that same mountain range lie the boundaries of the Begware and Swaefas. Then to the east of the land Carendre beyond the uninhabited district is the land of the Pulgare and east of that is the land of the Greeks. To the east of the land of the Maroara is the land of the Vistula, and east of that are those Datia who were formerly Goths. To the north east of the Maroara are the Dalamentsan and to the east of the Dalamentsan are the Horigti. North of the Dalamentsan are the Surpe and west of them the Sysyle. To the north of the Horigti is Maegtha land and to the north of Maegtha land the Sermende as far as the Riffen mountains. West of the South-Danes is the arm of the ocean surrounding Britain, and north of them is the arm of the sea called Ostsae. To the east and north of them are the North-Danes both on the main lands and on the islands. To the east of them are the Afdrede, and south of them is the mouth of the river Elbe and part of the Old Saxon lands. The North-Danes have to their north the same arm of the sea which is called the Ostsae, east of them are the tribe the Osti, and to the south the Afdrede. The Osti have to the north of them the same arm of the sea and the Wends and the Burgendan; south of them are the Haefeldan. The Burgendan have the arm of that sea to their west and Swedes to the north. East of them are the Sermende and to their south the Surfe. The Swedes have south of them the arm of the Ostsae and to their east the Sermende and to their north beyond the uninhabited land is Cwenland. Northwest of them are the Scridefinne and west are the Norwegians.
*

----------


## Taranis

LeBrok, although other board members hinted to it before: the Iberian Galicia and the Central European Galicia are entirely unrelated. The name "Gallaecia" shows up in Roman sources (Pliny) as does the ethnic name "Kallaikoi" in Greek sources (Strabo). These were a pre-Roman, Celtic (or possibly mixed Celtic-Lusitanian) people. The Central European Galicia is probably a medieval formation.

----------


## Dalmat

Problem with Celts is is they are more like myth, at least they are viewed as such.


There is no language, nor clear genetic leftover from them, and you could argue, that french, welsh, scots and irish were not celts, but gaul/gael


When i listen to gaul, it sounds like gol to me, and in my language, that means naked.

They did fight naked tho :))

----------


## LeBrok

> LeBrok, although other board members hinted to it before: the Iberian Galicia and the Central European Galicia are entirely unrelated. The name "Gallaecia" shows up in Roman sources (Pliny) as does the ethnic name "Kallaikoi" in Greek sources (Strabo). These were a pre-Roman, Celtic (or possibly mixed Celtic-Lusitanian) people. The Central European Galicia is probably a medieval formation.


Thanks Taranis. Can you comment on word Halych/Galich. What origin it could have?

----------


## LeBrok

> Problem with Celts is is they are more like myth, at least they are viewed as such.


That's true, at the end of a day only Germanic and Slavic tribes were left in the area. We can only suspect and make cultural connection through archaeology.
This is extent of Celtic influence of Hallstatt culture.




> There is no language, nor clear genetic leftover from them


 There might be Celtic substratum left in pronunciation of some sounds. ʒ́ ć ź ś I can hear them in Portuguese, Irish and of course Slavic.

I think there should be some substratum in Slavic languages because they had expended over some existing populations. I think Polish language is harsher than other Slavic languages possibly due to Germanic substratum. Slavs from Balkans might have some Roman language substratum, or whatever form of Latin was spoken there. Czechs and Slovaks might have some Celtic pronunciation and rhythm left. Ancient population substratum can explain verity of existing dialects in languages.

----------


## Dalmat

> That's true, at the end of a day only Germanic and Slavic tribes were left in the area. We can only suspect and make cultural connection through archaeology.
> This is extent of Celtic influence of Hallstatt culture.
> 
> There might be Celtic substratum left in pronunciation of some sounds. ʒ́ ć ź ś I can hear them in Portuguese, Irish and of course Slavic.
> 
> I think there should be some substratum in Slavic languages because they had expended over some existing populations. I think Polish language is harsher than other Slavic languages possibly due to Germanic substratum. Slavs from Balkans might have some Roman language substratum, or whatever form of Latin was spoken there. Czechs and Slovaks might have some Celtic pronunciation and rhythm left. Ancient population substratum can explain verity of existing dialects in languages.


čćžšđ are often result of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotation in slavic languages, its part of our language law.
They are also purebred sounds, with their own letters, and are part of words, no matter the above.
That means they are not skewed or modified sounds in words, like kentum languages work(and i mean modern germanic and latin languages), because our language doesnt have pronunciation laws, you read every sound as it is written, no exception
That means you cant have situation like for instance, Jack and George, start with different letter that sounds the same, to us it woud al be Đđ; Đek and Đorđ.
We also dont write letters we dont pronounce.

That robustness of our language is actually how original latin was as well, also it makes it easy to recognize foreign words in our diction, because our root of our words are strong and meaningful. 

So for instance, stvaranje(creation), has a root word stvar(thing), which is also made from tvar(substance), as well as others like stvor(creature), tvornica(factory)...etc
So from English words above, you can only be sure that creation, and creature are from same language source, and others you need to research. 



So you have no support for such claim, i mean just look at your map


Also, if celts were actually people of same origin, not some Roman designation, then you should look western Europeans who got conquered by Romans and Germans respectably, and try to find traces of Celtic influence in modified Latin or old Germanic, like French, Spanish, English... etc, that seems most plausible from historical and genetic perspective.


As for Galitia, you have allready been told its a Latinized version of word that has nothing to do with Gauls

----------


## MOESAN

> Problem with Celts is is they are more like myth, at least they are viewed as such.
> 
> 
> There is no language, nor clear genetic leftover from them, and you could argue, that french, welsh, scots and irish were not celts, but gaul/gael
> 
> 
> When i listen to gaul, it sounds like gol to me, and in my language, that means naked.
> 
> They did fight naked tho :))


_Celt o Kelt are not a myth! It is the name (surely endonym) given by the Greeks to Gauls distinct from Aquitanians and Ligurians (Keltoi) -do read about these namings_

----------


## MOESAN

Celt is a naming as well as Gaul, nothing more - surrely a tribe name -look at one S Iberia tribe... it could explain it disappeared before being used by scholarssby the way a well known Gaul was named Celtiliusin slavic forms (Czch/Slvk/Ukrn) G preceded surely H

----------


## LeBrok

> it could explain it disappeared before being used by scholarssby the way a well known Gaul was named Celtiliusin slavic forms (Czch/Slvk/Ukrn) G preceded surely H


 Could you explain more and expend on this thought?

----------


## Aberdeen

> Problem with Celts is is they are more like myth, at least they are viewed as such.
> 
> 
> There is no language, nor clear genetic leftover from them, and you could argue, that french, welsh, scots and irish were not celts, but gaul/gael
> 
> 
> When i listen to gaul, it sounds like gol to me, and in my language, that means naked.
> 
> They did fight naked tho :))


Learning a bit about archeology and history would clear up your confusion. There are artifacts that relate to the Celtic linguistic/cultural group all over western Europe, as well as a few stone carvings of Celtic deities, inscriptions written using Latin or Greek to form words from Celtic languages, etc. and the archeological evidence fits nicely with what the Romans and Greeks wrote about the Celtic groups in Britain, Spain (only partly Celtic), France and northern Italy, and the Celtic invasion of Greece. And although the Celtic languages in most parts of Europe have disappeared without leaving much of a trace in the successor languages (just as Gaelic continues to disappear in Ireland and the Scottish Highlands without leaving much of a trace in English), the Celtic language called Gaulic is well attested from the historical period - most of the population of what is now France once spoke a Celtic langauge. For information on Celtic archeology, I would recommend Miranda Green. However, she seems not to be familiar with the written sources available concerning Celtic culture - for that I would recommend the writings of Peter Berresford Ellis.

----------


## FrankN

> And although the Celtic languages in most parts of Europe have disappeared without leaving much of a trace in the successor languages (*just as Gaelic continues to disappear in Ireland and the Scottish Highlands without leaving much of a trace in English*), the Celtic language called Gaulic is well attested from the historical period - most of the population of what is now France once spoke a Celtic langauge..


That's actually not quite true. In Moesans's extensive list of Gaelic words, I found various English words with parallels in Gaelic, but not (as far as I am aware) in Germanic (Anglo-Saxons) or French (Normans), From the top of my head, I recall: Baby, doll, boy, girl ..
I`d furthermore assume some Celtic influence in the English Great Vowel Shift.

----------


## Aberdeen

> That's actually not quite true. In Moesans's extensive list of Gaelic words, I found various English words with parallels in Gaelic, but not (as far as I am aware) in Germanic (Anglo-Saxons) or French (Normans), From the top of my head, I recall: Baby, doll, boy, girl ..
> I`d furthermore assume some Celtic influence in the English Great Vowel Shift.


You're actually quite mistaken on all counts.

The Great Vowel Shift happened in England during the period from about 1350 to 1700, after the influence of Celtic languages in England had faded, and it involved a change in the pronunciation of vowels away from the Continental or Latin pronunciation, as the influence of Latin and Norman French on English pronunciation began to decrease. The change was less pronounced in Scots English, perhaps because Gaelic pronunciation still had some influence on the pronunciation of Scots English, even though Scots English didn't borrow very many Gaelic words. 

The word baby is of unknown origin but first appears in Middle English and does not relate to any Welsh or Gaelic word for baby. The word doll first appeared in the 16th century, probably derived from the name "Dorothy" and it originally meant an attractive woman. The word "boy" is derived from Frisean and related to the German word bube, which I believe can mean knave, rogue or boy. I've been told that the German version is still used in Bristol dialect. The word "girl" first appeared in Middle English and comes from the Anglo-Saxon word "gerle".

----------


## FrankN

> You're actually quite mistaken on all counts.
> 
> The Great Vowel Shift happened in England during the period from about 1350 to 1700, after the influence of Celtic languages in England had faded, and it involved a change in the pronunciation of vowels away from the Continental or Latin pronunciation, as the influence of Latin and Norman French on English pronunciation began to decrease. The change was less pronounced in Scots English, perhaps because Gaelic pronunciation still had some influence on the pronunciation of Scots English, even though Scots English didn't borrow very many Gaelic words. 
> 
> The word baby is of unknown origin but first appears in Middle English and does not relate to any Welsh or Gaelic word for baby. The word doll first appeared in the 16th century, probably derived from the name "Dorothy" and it originally meant an attractive woman. The word "boy" is derived from Frisean and related to the German word bube, which I believe can mean knave, rogue or boy. I've been told that the German version is still used in Bristol dialect. The word "girl" first appeared in Middle English and comes from the Anglo-Saxon word "gerle".


As you are tempting me:
*Baby*_:_ gael. _bábóg_ = doll; gael. _beag_ = little. For a word of "unknown origin", these two possible roots definitely deserve more than a little consideration.*Doll*: gael. _dealbh_ = statue, reproduction; obviously linked to the Latin _idolon._ Definitely more plausible than "doll" being derived from "Dorothy" .*Boy*: gael. _buachaill_ = boy. There seems to have been a common etymology in many Germanic and Celtic languages /dialects. The term originally meant cowherd (cow-boy, see Latin _bos =_ cattle), and was later expanded to today's meaning. Interestingly, the expansion did not cover all German dialects:The _Junge<>Bube_ isogloss for English _boy_ is well-studied inside Germany. It separates northern German ("Junge") from southern German ("Bube") dialects; the isogloss runs approximately from the Saarland north-easterly to Gießen, and from there easterly to the German- Czech border south of Plauen. Dutch also uses _jongen._ Why has English diverted from all continental Germanic areas that are assumed to have provided settlers? Celtic influence provides for a plausible explanation. However, I give you that the word _boy_ itself is closer to the Germanic (Frisian) that the Celtic variation of the common IE root for cattle(-herder).*Girl*: gael. _caile_ = girl. The explanation from Germanic _gerle_ (=dress, in old German used for male dresses as well) is not really convincing. Another possible Germanic root could be _ger (n. fem) = desire_, but I have problems imagining that English parents would mark their daughter as somebody (to be) desired be others. Neither German, nor Dutch, nor Danish, has anything remotely similar to "girl". Celtic remains to me the most plausible explanation.

The Great Vowel Shift, as so many other sound changes, is well documented phonetically but hardly explained historically. One of the explanations I have read is mass migrations into Southern England after the 14th century Black Death. These mass migrations would have brought many people from less anglo-saxonised areas into the heartland of Anglo-Saxon settlement. Scotland, still an independent country at that time, would of course have been far less affected. Catholicism, i.e. continuing mass service in Latin, could also have promoted a more conservative, "Latin" pronunciation in Scotland.

I realise this is getting quite off-topic. Time for a separate thread?

----------


## epoch

Don't know how related it is, but there used to be a tribe called Helisii in that region, according to Tacitus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helisii

----------


## LeBrok

In Eastern Karpatian region of Galicia there are 3 tribes of highlanders (gorale) with unusual names (for Slavs): Lemko, Boiko and Hutsul.

----------


## Sile

> Don't know how related it is, but there used to be a tribe called Helisii in that region, according to Tacitus.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helisii


these lugii people are Germanics

actually the historian Ptolemy states the Lugii in the same place of the vandals.............he never mentioned any Vandals


The Vistulans replaced the Lugii on the vistula river in souther Poland ..............~850AD

----------


## FrankN

> In Eastern Karpatian region of Galicia there are 3 tribes of highlanders (gorale) with unusual names (for Slavs): Lemko, Boiko and Hutsul.


Wikipedia says that Lemko and Boiko are exonyms that relate to the frequent use of the terms "lem" (but) and "bo je" (because it is) in the respective dialects. Smells a bit like folk etymology..
Assuming that -ko means "people", one could, however, also assume that the name Boko is derived from the Celtic Boi, who lent their name to Bohemia (home of the Boi). Lemko might relate to the Lemovi, an East Germanic tribe that originally settled in Eastern Pomerania between Rugiii and Goths, and migrated together with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsuls



> There are different versions for the origins of the name _Hutsul_. An explanation is that it comes from the Romanian word for "outlaw" (cf. Rom. _hoţ_ - "thief", _hoţul_ - "the thief"). Other explanations place their origins in the Slavic _kochul_ - "wanderer", "migrant", in reference to their semi-nomadic lifestyle, to the name of the Turkic tribe of the Uzy, and even to the name of the Moravian Grand Duke Hetsyla.[1] However these are obsolete and non-academic assertions. No valid theories have been proposed yet.


We know of a historic tribe in that area whose name is thought to have been derived from "wanderer" - the Vandals! Just a coincidence ?

_Anyway - off topic: Alongside the Helisi, Tacitus also mentions the Nahanarvali as part of the Lugii. -vali is of course a Latinisation of the German "Tal", so Nahanarvali are Neandertalers. They survived, and they spoke East Germanic (..ehm..)!_

----------


## Aberdeen

> As you are tempting me:
> *Baby*_:_ gael. _bábóg_ = doll; gael. _beag_ = little. For a word of "unknown origin", these two possible roots definitely deserve more than a little consideration.*Doll*: gael. _dealbh_ = statue, reproduction; obviously linked to the Latin _idolon._ Definitely more plausible than "doll" being derived from "Dorothy" .*Boy*: gael. _buachaill_ = boy. There seems to have been a common etymology in many Germanic and Celtic languages /dialects. The term originally meant cowherd (cow-boy, see Latin _bos =_ cattle), and was later expanded to today's meaning. Interestingly, the expansion did not cover all German dialects:The _Junge<>Bube_ isogloss for English _boy_ is well-studied inside Germany. It separates northern German ("Junge") from southern German ("Bube") dialects; the isogloss runs approximately from the Saarland north-easterly to Gießen, and from there easterly to the German- Czech border south of Plauen. Dutch also uses _jongen._ Why has English diverted from all continental Germanic areas that are assumed to have provided settlers? Celtic influence provides for a plausible explanation. However, I give you that the word _boy_ itself is closer to the Germanic (Frisian) that the Celtic variation of the common IE root for cattle(-herder).*Girl*: gael. _caile_ = girl. The explanation from Germanic _gerle_ (=dress, in old German used for male dresses as well) is not really convincing. Another possible Germanic root could be _ger (n. fem) = desire_, but I have problems imagining that English parents would mark their daughter as somebody (to be) desired be others. Neither German, nor Dutch, nor Danish, has anything remotely similar to "girl". Celtic remains to me the most plausible explanation.
> 
> The Great Vowel Shift, as so many other sound changes, is well documented phonetically but hardly explained historically. One of the explanations I have read is mass migrations into Southern England after the 14th century Black Death. These mass migrations would have brought many people from less anglo-saxonised areas into the heartland of Anglo-Saxon settlement. Scotland, still an independent country at that time, would of course have been far less affected. Catholicism, i.e. continuing mass service in Latin, could also have promoted a more conservative, "Latin" pronunciation in Scotland.
> 
> I realise this is getting quite off-topic. Time for a separate thread?


I'm not denying that the Celtic and Germanic languages share a common source, I'm just saying that your attempts to derive certain English words from Gaelic (which wasn't the Celtic language that was spoken in pre-Anglo-Saxon England) seem to me to be nonsensical. And I don't really see why imaginary "mass migrations" from "less anglo-saxonized areas into the heartland of Anglo-Saxon settlement" would have caused the English language to shift away from a Latinized approach to vowel pronunciation.

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=LeBrok;433348]Could you explain more and expend on this thought?[/QUOTE

here Under : Wikipedia


The various names used since classicaltimes for the people known today as the *Celts*are of disparate origins.

The name Κελτοί_Keltoi_and _Celtae_ isused in Greek and Latin, respectively, as the name of a people of theLaTène horizon in the region of the upperRhine andDanube duringthe 6th to 1st centuries BC in Greco-Romanethnography. The name is probably from a tribalself-designation, but its etymology is uncertain. Likewise, the nameof the Γαλάται_Galatai_ /_Galli_ isprobably from a tribal name, also of uncertain etymology.

The names of the Gaulsand of the Welsh,on the other hand, are taken from the designator used by the Germanicpeoples for Celtic- and Latin-speaking peoples,_*walha-_.

The linguistic sense of the name _Celts_,grouping all speakers of Celticlanguages, is modern. In particular, aside from a1st-century literary genealogy of _Celtus_the grandson of _Bretannos_by Heracles, there is no record of the term "Celt" beingused in connection with the InsularCelts, the inhabitants of the BritishIsles during the Iron Age, prior to the 17thcentury.




*Contents*1 _Celts_, _Celtae_ 

1.1 Ancient uses 


1.1.1 _Celtici_ 
1.2 Introduction in Early Modern literature 
1.3 Pronunciation 
1.4 Modern uses 

1.4.1 Linguistic context 
1.4.2 Historiographical context 1.4.3 Modern context 
2 _Galli_, _Galatai_ 3 _Gaul_, _Gaulish_, _Welsh_ 4 _Britanni_ 5 References 

*Celts,Celtae*The ethnonym _Celts_(Latin:_Celtae_;Ancient Greek:Κελτοί_Keltoi_,later also Κέλται_Keltai_)seems to be based on a native Celtic tribal name (cf. Celticiin Portugal).[1]
Thename probably stems from the Indo-Europeanroot *kel- or *(s)kel-, but there are several such roots of variousmeanings: *kel- "to be prominent", *kel- "to drive orset in motion", *kel- "to strike or cut", etc.[2]The same element is present in a set of Hispano-Celticand Gaulishpersonal and family names: _Celtiatus_,_Celtiatis_(gen.), _Arcelti_(gen.), _Concelti_(gen.), _Celtius_,_Celtus_, _Celtilla_(fem.), _Celta_(fem.), and _Celtilius_.[3]
*Ancient uses*The first literary reference to the Celtic people,as Κελτοί(_Κeltoi_),is by the Greek historian Hecataeusof Miletus in 517 BC; he locates the Keltoi tribein Rhenania (West/Southwest Germany). The next Greek reference to theKeltoi is by Herodotusin the mid-5th century BC. He says that "the river Ister(Danube)begins from the Keltoi and the city of Pyrene and so runs that itdivides Europe in the midst (now the Keltoi are outside the Pillarsof Heracles and border upon the Kynesians,who dwell furthest towards the sunset of all those who have theirdwelling in Europe)". This confused passage was generally laterinterpreted as implying that the homeland of the Celts was at thesource of the Danube, not in Spain/France.
Accordingto the 1st-century poet Partheniusof Nicaea, Celtus(Κελτός) wasthe son of Heraclesand Keltine(Κελτίνη),the daughter of Bretannus (Βρεττανός);this literary genealogy exists nowhere else and was not connectedwith any known cult.[4]Celtus became the eponymousancestor of Celts.[5]In Latin _Celta_came in turn from Herodotus'word for the Gauls,_Keltoi_. TheRomans used _Celtae_to refer to continental Gauls, but apparently not to InsularCelts. The latter were long dividedlinguistically into Goidelsand Brythons,although other research provides a more complex picture (see belowunder "Classification").
The name _Celtiberi_is used by DiodorusSiculus in the 1st century BC, of a people whichhe considered a mixture of _Celtae_and _Iberi_.
*Celtici*

Apana · Ambo/lli · f(ilia) · Celtica /Supertam(arica) · / [C] Miobri · /an(norum) · XXV · h(ic) ·s(ita) · e(st) · /Apanus · fr(ater) · f(aciendum)· c(uravit)
Aside from theCeltiberians—Lusones, Titi, Arevaci and Pelendones among others— whoinhabited large regions of central Spain, Greek and Roman geographersalso spoke of a people or group of peoples called _Celtici_or _Κελτικοί_,living in the South of modern day Portugal, in the Alentejoregion, between the Tagusand the Guadianarivers.[6]They are first mentioned by Strabo,who wrote that they were the most numerous people inhabiting thatregion. Later, the description of Ptolemy shows a more reducedterritory, comprising the regions from Évorato Setúbal,being the coastal and southern areas occupied by the Turdetani.
A second group of Celticiwas mentioned by Pliny living in the region of Baeturia (northwesternAndalusia);he considered that they proceeded "of the Celtiberians from theLusitania, because of their religion, language, and because of thenames of their cities".[7]
In the North, in Galicia,another group of Celtici[8]dwelt the coastal areas. They comprised several _populi_,including the Celtici proper: the _Praestamarci_south of the Tambreriver (_Tamaris_),the _Supertamarci_north of it, and the _Neri_by the Celtic promontory (_PromunturiumCelticum_). PomponiusMela affirmed that all the inhabitants of thecoastal regions, from the bays of southern Galicia and till theAstures,were also Celtici: "All (this coast) is inhabited by theCeltici, except from the Douroriver to the bays, where the Grovi dwelt (…) Inthe north coast first there are the Artabri, still of the Celticpeople (_Celticae gentis_),and after them the Astures."[9]He also mentioned the fabulous isles of tin, the _Cassiterides_,as situated among these Celtici.[10]
The Celtici Supertarmarci have also left a number ofinscriptions,[11]as the Celtici Flavienses did.[12]Several villages and rural parishes still bear the name _Céltigos_(from Latin _Celticos_)in Galicia. This is also the name of an archpriesthood of theCatholic Church, a division of the archbishopric of Santiagode Compostela, encompassing part of the landsattributed to the Celtici Supertamarci by ancient authors.[13]
*Introduction in Early Modern lite*

----------


## MOESAN

to Lebrok
sorry for the cut

Sorry: I wrote to quickly maybe: I thought the first mention of Celtoi was done by Greeks of Phocéa, near Marseille

here we can see that more of a tribe contained 'Celt' in its name, in Iberia at least
my thought, in agreement with Wikipédia is that it was firstable the name of a tribe encountered by the Greeks (and considered by them as the collective name for all the people of same culture) - the today general cultural-linguistic meaning is a scholars one as you know

I have more and more technical problems to write on this site

----------


## LeBrok

> Wikipedia says that Lemko and Boiko are exonyms that relate to the frequent use of the terms "lem" (but) and "bo je" (because it is) in the respective dialects. Smells a bit like folk etymology..
> Assuming that -ko means "people", one could, however, also assume that the name Boko is derived from the Celtic Boi, who lent their name to Bohemia (home of the Boi). Lemko might relate to the Lemovi, an East Germanic tribe that originally settled in Eastern Pomerania between Rugiii and Goths, and migrated together with them.


 History of anything older than 600 years is very mudded in this area. If we are talking about secluded population of highlanders there is a subsistence chance that some ancient tribes could survive there, well at least their names. Future genetic testing can show if they carry a distinctive genome.
[QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsuls

]We know of a historic tribe in that area whose name is thought to have been derived from "wanderer" - the Vandals! Just a coincidence ?[/QUOTE] Knowing how locals pronounce H/G it could be as well Gutsuls, (Gut-sul?)

----------


## LeBrok

> to Lebrok
> sorry for the cut
> 
> Sorry: I wrote to quickly maybe: I thought the first mention of Celtoi was done by Greeks of Phocéa, near Marseille
> 
> here we can see that more of a tribe contained 'Celt' in its name, in Iberia at least
> my thought, in agreement with Wikipédia is that it was firstable the name of a tribe encountered by the Greeks (and considered by them as the collective name for all the people of same culture) - the today general cultural-linguistic meaning is a scholars one as you know


Great info thanks.




> I have more and more technical problems to write on this site


 Try using Google Chrome instead of Windows Explorer.

----------


## MOESAN

To FrankN


*baby : babe*,first : *baban* ; this last one is also the welsh word and form – breton has *babig–* I think in a possibleonomathopea name (based on sound) of newly born children (their*bab*_ling_)– see *papa/baba :*italian has *babbo* =« papa » (father) and *bambino* :« child » - serbo-croatian and bulgarian have *baba* :« grand' mother », « granny » - polish has*babka* « grand'mother » - bulgarian has *bebe* :« baby » but it could be a recent loan - 
*boy :*I'mtempted to trust in the Oxford dict- (frisian origin) but I'm sure ofnothing – a direct I-Ean filiation by meaning seems impossible forthe root of *buachaill/bugail/bugel*islinked to latin *bo(w)s(bucol-)* asyou said, from **gwo-(w)-* ↔Germ-anic °*kwo-*see*cow, koe, kuh*
_girl_ *:*Isee no celtic form directly lined to this word – so I could betempted to follow the Oxford dict- supposition (*gerle*)
_doll_ *:*noopinion, but a link to *dealbh/delw*isvery uncertain - 


toAberdeen


greatvowel shift :
withoutany futehr discussion, only for general thoughts :
inphonetics the fact a (only lately constated by writings or even trulyrecent in pronounciation) evolution result (last effects) in alanguage at some date doesn't exclude the inertia work of asubstratum ancient enough - 
middlefrench phonologic system and orthograph and school stopped in thestandard the palatizing evolution of /k/ and /g/ before front vowels/e//i//ö//y/ ([ü]) – these sounds were ancient /kw/ and /gw/ orold /k/ in front of /o/ before centraization of /o/ into /ö/,because in same environment the previous /k//g/ was turned into /s/and /ʒ/([zh]) - being /ʃ/the result of /k/ before latin /a : but in popular french and alot of Oil dialects the true later pronounciation was /c/ ([« tch »])and /ɉ([dj]) / *cœur* /cœ:R/- *qui ?*/ci/- *gueule(<< gola)* /ɉœ .l/- *guerre*/ɉε:R/- *cuir*/cɥi:R/-
+
thegenuine conservative scot dialects have a vowel package very close tothe dutch one *(stane*_« stone »_*: steen / ane/een* _« one »_*:een + alane/aleen* _« alone »_*:alleen ...*
theenglish evolution of */e:/ into /əʊ/ or /ɔ:/ (*stone/more*)deserves a deeper approach, taking in account some NW french dialectsand SW-S german dialects – the 'aw'/'aj' (# 'wa'/'ja')diphtongizon phenomenon is very strong in the NW Europe compared toother places...
personalguess : I think the more anglo-saxon places spoke during a longtime dialects closer to the scot – the today situation ofEast-Anglia, different from Yorkshire, could be due to progressiveimput of the London area speaking influence – I don't think gaelicspeaking habits had a strong effect upon the scot germanicdialects... the more typical scot dialects are on the East seashores,where germanic people make a strong part of the population, comparedto Lowlands and Central Highlands regions - « scot » hereis not from the ancient Scotti of Ireland but a more recent naming tomean « english of Scotland », I suppose – the englishspoken by previously gaelic speaking population of Scotland issomewhat strange but has not this clear and« germanic »pronounciation the scot speakers have, I think -

----------


## MOESAN

Lebrok

to be sure:

my "phocean"greek interpretation is not sure at all ! I lack the trace of it at home helas... but it changes nothing to the global reasoning

----------


## MOESAN

> I'm not denying that the Celtic and Germanic languages share a common source, I'm just saying that your attempts to derive certain English words from Gaelic (which wasn't the Celtic language that was spoken in pre-Anglo-Saxon England) seem to me to be nonsensical. And I don't really see why imaginary "mass migrations" from "less anglo-saxonized areas into the heartland of Anglo-Saxon settlement" would have caused the English language to shift away from a Latinized approach to vowel pronunciation.


I suppose FrankN use my list of gaelic words as reference but speaks of general supposed celtic roots

by the way he says Lemovici was germanic people: but they were in celtic Gaule too (Limousin-Limoux town)

Vandales, late arrived in History could be a reformed tribe of "wanderers" (?) grouping remnants OR young people of precedent diverse tribes as were the Franks and other late germanic tribes

----------


## Aberdeen

> I suppose FrankN use my list of gaelic words as reference but speaks of general supposed celtic roots
> 
> ..............


It seems to me that FrankN just isn't aware that the Celtic language that was once spoken in what is now England was Welsh, not Gaelic. As for "supposed celtic roots", Germanic and Celtic are in fact related, as we all know. So what?

----------


## Sile

> Wikipedia says that Lemko and Boiko are exonyms that relate to the frequent use of the terms "lem" (but) and "bo je" (because it is) in the respective dialects. Smells a bit like folk etymology..
> Assuming that -ko means "people", one could, however, also assume that the name Boko is derived from the Celtic Boi, who lent their name to Bohemia (home of the Boi). Lemko might relate to the Lemovi, an East Germanic tribe that originally settled in Eastern Pomerania between Rugiii and Goths, and migrated together with them.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsuls
> 
> We know of a historic tribe in that area whose name is thought to have been derived from "wanderer" - the Vandals! Just a coincidence ?
> 
> _Anyway - off topic: Alongside the Helisi, Tacitus also mentions the Nahanarvali as part of the Lugii. -vali is of course a Latinisation of the German "Tal", so Nahanarvali are Neandertalers. They survived, and they spoke East Germanic (..ehm..)!_


enko is a Ukraine surname ending, meaning of *"from this person"*

----------


## LeBrok

> enko is a Ukraine surname ending, meaning of *"from this person"*


Right. Also ko/co name ending is typical for Italian; Tedesco, Polacco. I wonder what was it in old Celtic? Perhaps exonim was made by Roman speaking Vlachs who are known in this area too? 
-ko is also used in Czech language; Polsko, Nemecko, Rusko. Definitely some old IE substratum is coming through.

----------


## Sile

> Right. Also ko/co name ending is typical for Italian; Tedesco, Polacco. I wonder what was it in old Celtic? Perhaps exonim was made by Roman speaking Vlachs who are known in this area too? 
> -ko is also used in Czech language; Polsko, Nemecko, Rusko. Definitely some old IE substratum is coming through.


The italian ones are only surnames to define where the person was from because they had no surname at the time.
tedesco = german
polacco = polish 
Turco = Turk


I doubt it was similar to ko endings becuase these seem to be an extension of an existing surname, while the Italian ones are ethnic driven

----------


## FrankN

*@MOESAN:* I was talking about the Lemovii, not the Lemovici. The former are attested as East Germanic, the latter as Celtic. Though the similarity of both names makes one wonder how far apart both really were some 2000 years ago...

Antique authors appear in fact to have described the Vandals as a federation, or in the sense of a generic designation, comparable to today's use of the word Bedouins. Interestingly, they alter between using Vandals and Suebi - both are being located in Southern Poland and Western Ukraine, but each author uses only one of the two names, never both together. This has lead researchers to assume Vandals and Suebi were two names for the same kind of people. The name Suebi is either related to "self" (self-ruling people), or a borrowed Celtic word for "vagabond". 




> It seems to me that FrankN just isn't aware that the Celtic language that was once spoken in what is now England was Welsh, not Gaelic. As for "supposed celtic roots", Germanic and Celtic are in fact related, as we all know. So what?


Oh, I am aware of Welsh being spoken *closer* to England than Gaelic (in fact, Cornish is even spoken *inside* of England). I just didn't happen to have a Welsh word list at hand, and there is an extensive English-Gaelic online dictionary available which made cross-checking easier. But I am of course eager to learn from you, Aberdeen, about the differences between Gaelic and Welsh that make any argumentation that is just based on Gaelic invalid for England.




> And I don't really see why imaginary "mass migrations" from "less anglo-saxonized areas into the heartland of Anglo-Saxon settlement" would have caused the English language to shift away from a Latinized approach to vowel pronunciation.


Are you saying that Wikipedia has just imagined these migrations as possible cause for the Great Vowel Shift? Or did you just not bother to check the link I provided in my first post on the issue? 

Anyway, looking at the Great Vowel Shift in more detail, there appear to be several possible causes:
*Dutch/ Saxon*: -ew as in "new" is clearly Dutch (_nieuw_). -aw as in "law" is typical for North German dialects of High German spoken around Hamburg, Bremen and Hannover. -u as in "cut": Latin "cupere", High German "kuppen" <> Dutch/ Low German "kappen".*French*: -a as in "make" - this vowel shift is distinguishing French from most (all?) other Romanic languages, e.g. Latin "facere"-> French "faire", Latin "pater"->French "père". However, Dutch/ Saxon influence may have played a role as well: Engl. "to have", Dutch / Low German "hebben", High German "haben".*"High German"*: -ou as in "house" is pronounced identically to High German "Haus". Low German has preserved the original Old English sound "Huus" (French is out here, see "spouse" vs. "épouser"). The same apples to -i as in "time": High German "Zeit", Low German "Tied" (but French "temps"). -oo as in "foot": High German "Fuß", Low German "foot" (spoken as in Old English), Danish "fod" (but French "pied").*Inconclusive*: -ee as in "deer" appears to have generally progressed in north-westerly direction: High German "Tier", Dutch "dier", but Low German "deert". The same with "beer" High German / Dutch "Bier", Low German "Beer". English "see!" (imperative) is High German "siehe", but Danish "se". "I am" (root: "to be") is "Ich bin" in High German, but "Ik ben" in Dutch.
The same applies to some extent to -ea in "beast": Latin "bestia", High German "Biest", Dutch/ Low German "Beest". Another example is "neat", High German "niedlich", Dutch "ned".
However, the English shift has been much more radical than on the Continent, affecting many words where the vowel remained unchanged in High German (e.g. to see > sehen) or was only raised partly (e.g. to feel > fühlen). Furthermore, -ea is treated inconsistently in English, as exemplified by "great" indicating a partly unfinished analogous process within English.
So, in summary, half of the changes have occurred more or less simultaneously in English and in (Old/ Middle) High German, with neither French nor Dutch/Low German offering much of a linguistic bridge. How can that be? The only plausible explanation to me is High German and English having a common substratum, namely Celtic.

----------


## FrankN

> *@MOESAN:* I was talking about the Lemovii, not the Lemovici. The former are attested as East Germanic, the latter as Celtic. Though the similarity of both names makes one wonder how far apart both really were some 2000 years ago...


Addendum on the *Lemovii* (based on various German & English Wikipedia articles): 
The name has only been recorded by Tacitus, and several antique transcripts record *Lemoni* instead. Ptolemy notes *Leuonoi* settling next to the Rugii on the Pomeranian coast. Lemovi/ Leuonoie are commonly equated to the *Giommas* or *Leonas* of the Widsith. which are twice mentioned next to the Rugians. According to the Widsith, "Hagen rules the Rügen islanders (holmryge) and Heoden the Giommas". A German Saga tells of a battle between Hagen and Heodin on the island of Hiddensee (Heodin's Sea), next to Rügen. 
This Saga reappears in the Edda and with Saxo Grammaticus, albeit with partly changed names and in different geographical settings, and has lead some scholars to assume that the Giommas are identical to the Wulfings (Yflings). Both the Edda and the Widsith have the _Swatians_ settling next to the Wulfings and Giommas, respectively. Those Swatians could have been the Suebii (more specifically, the Semnones that Tacitus names as most important Suebian tribe). Giomma / Lemovi means "the barking / howling", and is related to Gaelic "glam"(deep bark, howl).

----------


## Dalmat

> Right. Also ko/co name ending is typical for Italian; Tedesco, Polacco. I wonder what was it in old Celtic? Perhaps exonim was made by Roman speaking Vlachs who are known in this area too? 
> -ko is also used in Czech language; Polsko, Nemecko, Rusko. Definitely some old IE substratum is coming through.


its a possesive suffix in plural.


Srpsko, Hrvatsko, Njemačko, Englesko, Talijansko, Francusko.
Serbian, Croatian, German, English(an), Italian, French(an)

;)

----------


## MOESAN

> Right. Also ko/co name ending is typical for Italian; Tedesco, Polacco. I wonder what was it in old Celtic? Perhaps exonim was made by Roman speaking Vlachs who are known in this area too? 
> -ko is also used in Czech language; Polsko, Nemecko, Rusko. Definitely some old IE substratum is coming through.


_the right "skeleton" of this suffix (ending) is in W languages:_ *-s-k* _not_ *-ko (-esco(esca)/escu(esca)/esque <--> -isk/isch/ish)* _germanic_
the vowel O has no semantic weight here - *-enko* seems a dobble ending e*N-iK-o* but I'm not sure (brittonic -*ig,* romance *-ic- , -ique*)

----------


## Aberdeen

> .......
> 
> Oh, I am aware of Welsh being spoken *closer* to England than Gaelic (in fact, Cornish is even spoken *inside* of England). I just didn't happen to have a Welsh word list at hand, and there is an extensive English-Gaelic online dictionary available which made cross-checking easier. But I am of course eager to learn from you, Aberdeen, about the differences between Gaelic and Welsh that make any argumentation that is just based on Gaelic invalid for England.
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Wikipedia has just imagined these migrations as possible cause for the Great Vowel Shift? Or did you just not bother to check the link I provided in my first post on the issue? 
> 
> Anyway, looking at the Great Vowel Shift in more detail, there appear to be several possible causes:
> *Dutch/ Saxon*: -ew as in "new" is clearly Dutch (_nieuw_). -aw as in "law" is typical for North German dialects of High German spoken around Hamburg, Bremen and Hannover. -u as in "cut": Latin "cupere", High German "kuppen" <> Dutch/ Low German "kappen".*French*: -a as in "make" - this vowel shift is distinguishing French from most (all?) other Romanic languages, e.g. Latin "facere"-> French "faire", Latin "pater"->French "père". However, Dutch/ Saxon influence may have played a role as well: Engl. "to have", Dutch / Low German "hebben", High German "haben".*"High German"*: -ou as in "house" is pronounced identically to High German "Haus". Low German has preserved the original Old English sound "Huus" (French is out here, see "spouse" vs. "épouser"). The same apples to -i as in "time": High German "Zeit", Low German "Tied" (but French "temps"). -oo as in "foot": High German "Fuß", Low German "foot" (spoken as in Old English), Danish "fod" (but French "pied").*Inconclusive*: -ee as in "deer" appears to have generally progressed in north-westerly direction: High German "Tier", Dutch "dier", but Low German "deert". The same with "beer" High German / Dutch "Bier", Low German "Beer". English "see!" (imperative) is High German "siehe", but Danish "se". "I am" (root: "to be") is "Ich bin" in High German, but "Ik ben" in Dutch.
> ...


Actually, the internet has various English to Welsh/Welsh to English dictionaries available, if you want to torture the Welsh language to see if it yields anything you think resembles words that are similar in English. And the reason I think Welsh would be a more likely source than Gaelic for English loan words from a Celtic source is because Welsh was once spoken in what is now England before the coming of the Germanic tribes and for a few centuries afterwards, whereas Gaelic was limited to Ireland, the Scottish Highlands and the west coast of southern Scotland. There's little reason to imagine that English would have made any substantial borrowing from Gaelic, when it's so different from Welsh as to be not mutually intelligible, and Gaelic wasn't spoken in England except by immigrants from Ireland and parts of Scotland. 

As for Wikipedia, it's only as good as the individual who wrote or revised a particular passage. It does mention supposed migrations after the Black Death as possibly having an influence on the Great Vowel Shift, but without explaining why or how, and without referring to those migrations as coming from "less Germanic" parts of Britain - that part was your imagination at work. The reality is that, as the capital and largest city of England, London has always been a magnet for ambitious people from elsewhere. However, during most of the period in question, the vast majority of migrants would have been from somewhere in southern or eastern England where accents and dialects would have been more "Germanic" than in the capital, where Anglo-Norman influence was strong. The Great Vowel Shift was already well underway before London began to receive significant immigration from western England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland. And, as you mentioned, the all-knowing Wikipedia does mention that a somewhat similar vowel shift occurred among Germanic speakers at about the same time, making it less likely that the Great Vowel Shift resulted from England somehow becoming less Germanic during the period when the influence of Latin and Norman French was waning. I prefer the explanation that such changes occurred because Germanic languages had contained some unstable vowel sounds. However, I could be wrong - I'm no linguist. Obviously, neither are you. And as for the "substratum" guess, I'd remind you that English and Gaelic are both IE languages.

----------


## FrankN

> As for Wikipedia, it's only as good as the individual who wrote or revised a particular passage. It does mention supposed migrations after the Black Death as possibly having an influence on the Great Vowel Shift, but without explaining why or how, and without referring to those migrations as coming from "less Germanic" parts of Britain - that part was your imagination at work.


 In fact, the Wikipedia article mentions migrations into "southeast England", and that are has been the traditional focus of Germanic, especially Saxon settlement, as the respective county names are demonstrating. The conclusion that the migration sources were "less Germanic" was obvious to me.

As to the underlying mechanisms, the article indeed fails to describe the underlying pattern. So I have looked a bit more into the effects of the Black Death. It is undisputed that it caused a major population decline in England, but authors differ on the magnitude. Estimates vary between 30% and 60% population loss. A recent study (link at the end of this post) puts it at 46% during the initial wave (from 4.8 millions in 1348 down to 2.6 millions in 1351), and further 15% during re-appearances over the next century, until the population number bottomed out at 1.9 millions by 1450.
One effect was the collapse of the traditional manor system and the end of serfdom that accompanied it. The rural population gained the possibility to migrate, as the manor lords had either died, or lacked the means to enforce mobility restrictions, or - facing labour scarcity but posessing well arable land - actively pressed for overcoming mobility restrictions that tied farmers to less productive lands elsewhere.
Secondly, for the scarcity of labour, wages increased immediately and massively - documented for unskilled construction workers, but probably also taking place with most urban wages. Even the introduction of legal wage controls could not prevent further wage increases until 1450. One source has the wage index (1700=100) increasing from around 40 before the Black Death to 80 in the 1370s, and 110 by 1420.
Both factors are assumed to have resulted in substantial migrations - from less productive land (primarily in the North) to more productive land in the south-west, and into the cities (especially London, but also Chester, Sheffield, and mines and ports in Devon and Cornwall).




> The reality is that, as the capital and largest city of England, London has always been a magnet for ambitious people from elsewhere. However, during most of the period in question, the vast majority of migrants would have been from somewhere in southern or eastern England where accents and dialects would have been more "Germanic" than in the capital, where Anglo-Norman influence was strong.


Yes and no - there is county populations data and estimates available. Taking Middlesex as a proxy for London, from 1089 to 1290, its population grew by 0.33% per year, which was below the English average of 0.5%. From 1377 to 1600, i.e. after the Black Death, the growth rate was 0.68% per year, three times the English average of 0.22%. In absolute figures, Middlesex gained 40.000 inhabitants (1.1% of England's total population gain) between 1089 and 1290. Between 1377 and 1600, it was 220,000 people, 15% of England's population gain. This demonstrates that mobility increased substantially after the Black Death. The next highest absolute population gains during the 1377 to 1600 period occurred in Devon (170.000 people, 11%), Yorkshire - especially the Western Riding - (130,000 people, 8%), Somerset (70,000 people, 4.5%), Essex (60,000 people, 3%), Surrey (50,000 people, 3%), Cheshire (47,000 people, 3%) and Kent (45,000 people, 3%). The South-East (Essex, Middlesex, Sussex, Surrey, Kent) together gained 410,000 people between 1377 and 1600- more than a quarter of England's total population gain. Cornwall, Devon and Somerset together account for some 300,000 people (19 %).

Population growth below average or even stagnation / decline, which indicates likely migration sources, occurred in a south-westerly bent quadrangle between North Yorkshire and Suffolk to the East, and Gloucesterhire and Dorset to the West. As such, you appear to be right that much of the migration into London came from Eastern England, and especially East Anglia. But Western England, especially Gloucestershire and Warwickshire, also were outmigration regions, and I suppose the trend did not stop at the English-Welsh border.

Before drawing conclusions, it is also useful to look at 1290-1377 trends, which, in addition to several outbreaks of the Black Death, also capture the impact of the Great Famine of 1315-1317 that is estimated to have killed 12% of the English population. Migration to cities may already have picked up during this period, but this is probably being more than made up for by higher urban mortality rates during Black Death epidemics. The English population nearly halved over this period, but there was significant regional difference. Hardest hit, losing over half of their population, were (I) East Anglia, Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire, Hartfordshire, Huntingdonshire (ii) North England (Cumberland, Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, North Yorkshire), and (iii) West England (Shropshire & Herefordshire). In absolute figures, the biggest population losses occurred in Norfolk (310,000 people), Lincolnshire (195,000), Northumberland (120,000), Suffolk (110,000), North Yorkshire (90,000), Cambridgeshire (85,000), Northamptonshire (80,000), Gloucestershire (70,000) and Shropshire (65,000). In Northumberland, the population decreased by nearly 80%, in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire by more than 60%. This implies, among others, that there wasn't so many Anglo-Saxons from East England left to migrate to London, and immigrants to South-West England must also have come from elsewhere.




> The Great Vowel Shift was already well underway before London began to receive significant immigration from western England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland. And, as you mentioned, the all-knowing Wikipedia does mention that a somewhat similar vowel shift occurred among Germanic speakers at about the same time, making it less likely that the Great Vowel Shift resulted from England somehow becoming less Germanic during the period when the influence of Latin and Norman French was waning. I prefer the explanation that such changes occurred because Germanic languages had contained some unstable vowel sounds. However, I could be wrong - I'm no linguist. Obviously, neither are you. And as for the "substratum" guess, I'd remind you that English and Gaelic are both IE languages.


You are missing the point here. Half of the vowel shifts found in English occurred in High German, but neither in Dutch, nor Low German, nor Danish. In other words - the Germanic vowel system was stable enough to be maintained by all the languages spoken in areas from where substantial migration into England occurred. If we are talking internal instability, at least one of those languages should have participated in the "u"->"ou"/"au", "i"->"ei", and "o"/"oo"->"u" shifts that took place in England and in Southern Germany. So, probably, London was repopulated after the Black Death by substantial immigration from Bavaria (this would also explain the use of "boy"="Bube", and English preference for sausages and mashed potatoes). Somehow, however, that immigration has so far been overlooked by historians.
Oh, wait - there has in fact been migration from Southern Germany into England, namely by the Brigantes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantes. But that was a Celtic migration, so its irrelevant here..

All data is from here (nice maps in the Annex) http://www.lse.ac.uk/economichistory...population.pdf

----------


## kosmonomad

To complicate things further, Galich in Russia in Kostroma region.

----------


## LeBrok

> To complicate things further, Galich in Russia in Kostroma region.


Thanks

Here it is:
Galich in Russia.jpg

Does this location coincides with red hair hot spot, perhaps sign of celtic homeland location?




This area is the only hotspot of ancient R1b in the North:

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

> The name "Gallaecia" shows up in Roman sources (Pliny) as does the ethnic name "Kallaikoi" in Greek sources (Strabo). These were a pre-Roman, Celtic (or possibly mixed Celtic-Lusitanian) people.


Gal and Kal, Kalj both mean black, dirt, muck in Slavic languages. Gal is an old name for Raven in some archaic Serbian dialects. G from Soth Slavic languages becomes H in Central European Slavic languages. So Galic becomes Halic. The symbol of Galicia is Raven. Raven was a symbol of war of the old Gals...

----------

