"Celt" Conjecture

[cagwinn]

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous, especially since the root *kelt- has no meaning in Latin or Greek (outside of "Gallic/Spanish Celt").

But as you admit, it does have a meaning. For Romans Celts were some people. If you would have asked Caesar "what is a Celt" he would have given you an answer, right?
As for that root, if an English speaker tells you "well, this sounds Greek to me", does it mean that a root *grik- (*grek-, *graik- whatever) was inherited from PIE to English?

:roll: I can't believe I am having this argument. "Greeks" in English is a loanword from Latin Graeci, which is itself derived from Greek ??????? (Graikoi), the name of the Greek colonists from Graia who settled in Italy. Thus, just as "Celt"/Celtus/Keltos is ultimately derived from an ethnic/tribal name native to Gaul and Spain, "Greek"/Graecus/Graikos is derived from an ethnic/tribal name native to western Greece.

They are called so by the Greeks, not by themselves. That's what I said earlier in the thread, that Caesar (and Romans) got this name from previous (Greek) authors, not from interviews.

You keep saying this, but you offer zero evidence to support it.

According to this reading, that kelt- word is not a name, nor a tribe. Should we understand that Celts thought of themselves they are the stele-people? :lol: [/quot]

Well in a way, yes, since the author here translates keltis as "stele" by way of "raised up thing", from the Proto-Indo-European root *kel- "to tower/raise up" (which gives us English "hill"); it has been proposed that as an ethnic name. *Keltoi meant something like "Lofty (Ones)" (compare Germanic Burgundi).

If this is not the only one, what other local inscriptions attest those Kelt- names?

I already gave you another one. There is also the"Celtica" graffito from Roanne (where other short Gaulish inscriptions have been found) listed in Recueil des Inscriptions Gauloises II.2, L-81a.

The author argues there was no Slavic ethnie, that it was a Roman invention, an umbrella term for barbarians at the northern border, and Slavs as a group (and identity) formed during the contacts with the empire. Only centuries later they started to call themselves that way.

And yet "slav" is a Slavic root word common to all the Slavic languages and commonly found in Slavic personal and tribal names - JUST LIKE "CELT". What is the problem here, people?