08-08-2010, 05:32 PM
I was thinking of trying to dive in here to this debate since it is sort of one of my areas of research interest, but seeing as I'm new here I'm not sure getting into a heated argument is a good way to get the ball rolling... so maybe I'll "wade" in :mrgreen:
What I will suggest is that even if *kelt- is a reliable PIE root in the Celtic languages (my magic 8 ball says "all signs point to yes"), that does not necessarily mean it was any kind of ethnonym for the entire spectrum of peoples we now consider to be "Celts". In fact I would be careful about applying any such notion of cultural connectedness to any pre-modern (indeed, largely pre-literate) peoples. It is as likely as not that there was a whole spectrum of different "cultures" who fall into our grouping of "Celts", who if you had asked members of each tribe 2000 years ago, would claim to be entirely distinct from each other.
What I will suggest is that even if *kelt- is a reliable PIE root in the Celtic languages (my magic 8 ball says "all signs point to yes"), that does not necessarily mean it was any kind of ethnonym for the entire spectrum of peoples we now consider to be "Celts". In fact I would be careful about applying any such notion of cultural connectedness to any pre-modern (indeed, largely pre-literate) peoples. It is as likely as not that there was a whole spectrum of different "cultures" who fall into our grouping of "Celts", who if you had asked members of each tribe 2000 years ago, would claim to be entirely distinct from each other.
"...atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
????? ???? ?\' ?????...(J. Feicht)
????? ???? ?\' ?????...(J. Feicht)
