Alternate language histories?

Probably it is based on that one of the theories, there is also a theory that Ligurians are Italic or a branch in between Celts and Italics.

Personally I think it more likely that Southern France was Celtic than Italic but would lend credence to Ligurians being a 3rd branch of an Italo-Celtic if not outright Celtic.
 
There is a theory that Southern France already has italic people in it before the Romans expanded.

I've not heard that one.
Is that based on assuming an Italo-Celtic branch of Indo-European?

The only way I could see somebody claim this is that if you argue that Ligurian was an Italic language (which was spoken in southern France), but it's the first time I've seen anybody claim that. Granted, the nature of Ligurian itself is hotly debated, due to the scarcity of what is attested of the language.

Regarding the "Italo-Celtic" hypothesis, there is strong evidence for a very close relationship of the Celtic and Italic language families, but the question wether there was a common Italo-Celtic proto-language from which the two languages (as well as probably a couple of other languages, such as Lusitanian and Venetic) evolved, is unanswered.

Well English (northern at least) was already influenced by Norse thanks to the Vikings before the Normans. And it is generally agreed that Old English was partially intelligible by both Old Norse and Old Frisian speakers and vice versa (hence the North Sea Germanic theories vs North & West Germanic split)

Old English was also mutually intelligible with the Old Saxon spoken in northern Germany. Otherwise I believe Boniface would not have had it so easily.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think it more likely that Southern France was Celtic than Italic but would lend credence to Ligurians being a 3rd branch of an Italo-Celtic if not outright Celtic.

No, it is a different theory, based on the works of a linguist called Mario Alinei. It is usually has very little support, but it supposes a largely unchanged linguistic landscape in Europe, with little exception, in most of Europe from the Neolithic onwards. The linguistic changes attested in written remains is explained with changing elites, while most people in the Romance area, according to this ideas, has always spoken something close to Romance ("Italid" is the term used).
 
No, it is a different theory, based on the works of a linguist called Mario Alinei. It is usually has very little support, but it supposes a largely unchanged linguistic landscape in Europe, with little exception, in most of Europe from the Neolithic onwards. The linguistic changes attested in written remains is explained with changing elites, while most people in the Romance area, according to this ideas, has always spoken something close to Romance ("Italid" is the term used).

Wow. :eek:

Well, let me say this in a nutshell: unless everything we think to know about language evolution and in particular about the Indo-European language family, that is completely impossible. There is the extra-added problem that for instance the Gaulish language, written in a variant of the Greek alphabet, is attested from southern France from the pre-Roman period.
 
Wow. :eek:

Well, let me say this in a nutshell: unless everything we think to know about language evolution and in particular about the Indo-European language family, that is completely impossible. There is the extra-added problem that for instance the Gaulish language, written in a variant of the Greek alphabet, is attested from southern France from the pre-Roman period.

Yeah, I know, and most people don not take this stuff very seriously, to put it mildly. Some consider it fringe science or just a little above that.
 
Yeah, I know, and most people don not take this stuff very seriously, to put it mildly. Some consider it fringe science or just a little above that.

Well, I'm with Carl Sagan here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (and, to add, this is one of the claims where I find the evidence extraordinarily lacking... :p )
 
Wow. :eek:

Well, let me say this in a nutshell: unless everything we think to know about language evolution and in particular about the Indo-European language family, that is completely impossible. There is the extra-added problem that for instance the Gaulish language, written in a variant of the Greek alphabet, is attested from southern France from the pre-Roman period.

However, attestation of a language does not disprove Alinei's points, since he's whole theory invalidates their value as proof that that language was SPOKEN. I'm aware that it is also the basic flaw of the whole thing, because it makes it almost impossible to disprove at all, thus putting it practically beyond the realm of scientific verification. There are also revised forms of this theory, that are closer to accepted knowledge and open to scientific confutation, but at the price of renouncing some of Alinei's tenets. From what I gather, toponomastic evidence is the basis of this whole line of thought.
 
However, attestation of a language does not disprove Alinei's points, since he's whole theory invalidates their value as proof that that language was SPOKEN. I'm aware that it is also the basic flaw of the whole thing, because it makes it almost impossible to disprove at all, thus putting it practically beyond the realm of scientific verification. There are also revised forms of this theory, that are closer to accepted knowledge and open to scientific confutation, but at the price of renouncing some of Alinei's tenets. From what I gather, toponomastic evidence is the basis of this whole line of thought.

Now here is actually where the whole thing takes an interesting turn: is he just considering modern-day toponyms, or ancient ones as well? Because for instance calques (loan translations) would completely screw things up here and create a false image.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
What if Rome managed to conquer Germania and the frontier was pushed to the Vistula? What would a germanic Romance Language look like?
 

Glen

Moderator
I think the development of a strong nation in the rough region of OTL France might lead to a consolidation into a more modern Occitan language.
 
Wow. :eek:

Well, let me say this in a nutshell: unless everything we think to know about language evolution and in particular about the Indo-European language family, that is completely impossible. There is the extra-added problem that for instance the Gaulish language, written in a variant of the Greek alphabet, is attested from southern France from the pre-Roman period.

Two languages could coexist at one area just like greek coexisted with the italic languages in Southern Italy.
 
Now here is actually where the whole thing takes an interesting turn: is he just considering modern-day toponyms, or ancient ones as well? Because for instance calques (loan translations) would completely screw things up here and create a false image.

I think he tends to use modern toponomyms, but not exclusively so.
 
Two languages could coexist at one area just like greek coexisted with the italic languages in Southern Italy.

As I said, in that case we should have some evidence for such a language in Antiquity. There is, of course, the Ligurian language which was also spoken in southeastern France. But unless you consider Ligurian to be Italic (which is generally agreed that it was not the case) there is no ancient evidence whatsoever. And as Falecius said, as soon as we say "okay, we assume that a language was spoken there but it was not written down", the hypothesis becomes essentially untestable.

Regarding the usage of modern-day place names, as I said, calques (loan translations) would screw up the setup there completely.
 
I think it would have been particularly interesting if the Proto-elamite language had not been supplemented by Sumerian in the third millennium. It would have made Elam fairly distinct from Sumer while spreading that language to its surroundings, changing how Persian would eventually look.
 
As I said, in that case we should have some evidence for such a language in Antiquity. There is, of course, the Ligurian language which was also spoken in southeastern France. But unless you consider Ligurian to be Italic (which is generally agreed that it was not the case) there is no ancient evidence whatsoever. And as Falecius said, as soon as we say "okay, we assume that a language was spoken there but it was not written down", the hypothesis becomes essentially untestable.

Regarding the usage of modern-day place names, as I said, calques (loan translations) would screw up the setup there completely.

I agree on that, the only problem is if the speakers are Illiterate.
 
I agree on that, the only problem is if the speakers are Illiterate.

That is one problem. The statement "it was not written down" not only includes what the people themselves wrote, but also that there are no samples of a language in question in other sources (for instance personal names, place names or deity names recorded by other people such as the Greeks or the Romans).

A very good example of people who themselves were iliterate but there is plenty of indirect linguistic evidence would be Basques or the Britons in Antiquity.
 
Top