Youtube comments of (@jboss1073).
-
1600
-
297
-
280
-
95
-
88
-
62
-
61
-
53
-
48
-
43
-
43
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
31
-
30
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
@GerdLPluu Everyone agrees that now that Chevron deference is no more, the US is more libertarian, not less. Whatever you want to call them, whatever names you want to use, the truth is, everyone recognizes two political extremes: no background/government laws and only voluntary contracts on one end (usually called anarcho-capitalist Libertarian) in one extreme, and dictatorial totalitarianism in the other extreme.
From this point-of-view, "freedom" is not a semantically varying word. Its meaning is tied to voluntary contracts. The US was created for a moral people, which excluded the behaviors you misconstrue as freedoms, such as joining a union or behaving immorally according to the mores of the society. All this has already been firmly defined by Hoppe.
There is such a thing as objective freedom: only the people closest to a decision having a say over that decision. That turns out to be voluntary contracts in our human reality. The other extreme is someone far away controlling your behavior over here. That turns out to be dictatorial totalitarianism.
This video is simply word-play as is usual for the left to employ these tactics. No one on the Libertarian side would argue this - ask yourself why. To us it is clear you are word manipulators. I have attempted to show you the logic. It's a structural difference between the two political extremes, and it has to do with nearness of decision.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@sk-sm9sh One thing at a time. You said:
"so what I think about "algebraic type system" is type system that allows expressions such as
X = Y | Z
In this regard C lang type system is not "algebraic" as in that it doesn't allow to do any any kind of operations on top of type system."
This is all correct. However, this is also the same thing that I said. Now, hold on. I know you're talking about type algebra and I was talking about code algebra. But they are actually the same. This was proven in 1935 when Gentzen and Church's work were shown to complement each other - one though code, the other through the types.
Now on to the second thing. You are conflating the notion of "algebraic types" with the notion of "turing-complete types".
A turing-complete type-system does not necessarily result in an algebraic type system - Zig and Rust are not algebraic, although typescript is (I believe, from last time I checked; I'm not a js coder). For example, Zig's type system is not algebraic just because it is turing-complete, although being turing-complete makes it capable of being algebraic; however once made algebraic, that portion of the code will be "narrower" and "stricter" than the rest of Zig's type system. Hence algebraization is a formalization, an assurance that all the terms work together compatibly, and can be computed by reduction.
Then you said:
"So I get it that it may make some sense to describe your typesystem as algebraic. But I fail to see how it makes sense to describe a feature in your language as "algebraic effect". If your effects are compatible with your language's typesystem and if your typesystem is algebraic then by deduction I already know that it's "algebraic". "
But this is wrong: Monads are NOT algebraic (they famously cannot be composed, needing a monad transformer to do so, which is essentially writing the glue code manually - the opposite of algebraic composition), hence not every effect system is algebraic.
That's the wonderful thing about algebraic effects: they're finally algebraic, which means no more monad stacks, monad transformers, or even monads for that matter - they all have become obsolete because Algebraic Effects (well, handlers and prompts, technically the things behind Algebraic Effects) were proven to be the composable mathematical dual of a Monad - meaning they're just as powerful as Monads, but they're actually composable - algebraic - on top of that.
Finally we have an algebraic way to deal with effects. If we had ever had that before, Monads would never have been invented.
Hence the tremendous importance in naming it "algebraic effects" so as to communicate that the solution to this enormous problem of modeling side effects algebraically - composably - has finally been found.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
10:00 In Geographica, book 3, chapter 2, section 15, line 3, he says clearly that the Celts were of the same ethnicity ("kinship") as the Turdetani who were ethnically southern Portuguese. In 4.1.1, 4.1.14 and 4.4.1 he explains that Celts in Gallia are only the Narbonensis, those who live in the extreme south by the gulf. Everyone else in Gallia, he says, are Gallians, not Celts. Diodorus Siculus (V.32.1) agrees with him exactly. Also Augustus, after Caesar, correctly denominated Gallia Narbonensis as "Gallia Celtica" taking that name away from "Gallia Lugdunensis" which had been given to it incorrectly by Caesar.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@z2fh3le8j Hi, I apologize for being rude earlier. I will try here to be much more constructive.
"Aye, it's not like this person is incorrect about the origin of the world Celt/Celtic. That isn't even argued. But the fact is, Celtic has been used now for centuries to describe a much broader region of peoples who's cultural types are similar (gods, traditions, languages etc). Much like the Norse and Saxon can be considered Germanic its a cultural type."
Thank you for acknowledging where we do agree (the original meaning of Celt/Celtic).
I understand this extended meaning. Your parallel with Germanic encompassing Norse and Saxon argues the point well. I even accept this extended meaning.
I just object at the point where the -ic is clipped out of Celtic and then all of a sudden the Irish and the British have become "the" Celts. This is inevitably the slippery slope that has been happening ever since the end of the Victorian and Romanticist eras.
All the BBC documentaries called "The Celts" and dozens of popular books and hundreds of popular mentions to it contribute to the daily confusion that has lead many people today to say proudly "I'm an Irish and I'm a Celt!" when no Norse or Saxon person would say "I'm a Norse/Saxon and I'm a German!".
Do you acknowledge that this has been an issue and that this crosses the line of what should be acceptable? I also gave you a parallel example with Norse/Saxon and Germans.
"And ultimately it comes down to that, originally Celtic referred to a specific people, now it refers to both that and a cultural type of people. I.e cruithne, picti, celti, pritani, gaul, gael, etc can all fall under the cultural type of Celtic. This isn't a theft, it just is what it is."
And I would not object to that were it not for the constant slippery slope that suddenly allows the British and the Irish to be "the" Celts and to collect all the military glory associated with the ancient Celts.
"And the new meaning is a heavily ingrained in the identity of British Isle countries, especially Wales, Ireland, Scotland. You go down any high street in these countries and you will see references to Celtic identity by means of shops, sport teams, museums, symbolism in tattoos, clothing, music etc. "
This has actually been convincingly argued against in many celtosceptic academic papers, where it is shown that the idea of anything Celtic does not have a substantial presence in most so-called Celtic countries.
Not to mention, again, it was a recent idea popularized with Victorian Romanticism at the turn of the 19th century. It was heavily tied with biblical ideas of connecting the British ancestry with Japheth through the Celts, and therefore heavily clad in mysticism.
There are many Irish and other Gaels and Brythons today who are proud of their ancestry and confidently proclaim the Irish and the British are not Celts and were never Celts, and that there is nothing Celtic about those islands. I could quote you dozens of academics who say the same. It is a matter of spreading that information to more people, which has been happening slowly.
"Arguably the fact the word Celt of Celtic was the world chosen of these cultural groups to be used as the cultural type is more complimentary no? It could have easily been the word Brittonic for the cultural type and this guy would be sat here kicking off about how only the people in the British Isles went by this title and we shouldn't be using it as a means of describing cultural type"
I understand your point, but do you not agree that, if this was ever a compliment, it sure backfired, as now the Spanish, the Portuguese and the southern French are thought to be only "marginal Celts" and seen as "the least Celtic" when in fact they were the ones who variously called themselves Celtici, Celti, Celtiati, Celtigun, etc?
This is a "compliment" just like naming the country "Mexico" was a compliment to the Mexicas (the Mexica people or tribe that originated the name). Sure, the whole country was named after them, but now everyone gets to call themselves "Mexican" when in fact only the Mexicas are "Mexica". Now you could argue, hey, at least there's a suffix difference between the two. I would say yes, at least there is that suffix differentiating them indeed. Because as I said, the Irish and the British are all too quick to drop the -ic suffix from their given "Celtic" only to call themselves "the Celts" and collect military valor, while in the same breath classing Spanish, Portuguese and southern French as "less Celtic" in all their maps and documentaries. Just like the Mexica, the people of Portugal (from *kale likely cognate with *kelt, and the only region in Iberia where the tribal name Celti appeared without suffix), Galicia (likewise from *kale; the Celtici inhabited it; also, it has places like the several Celtigos from *kelt), Spain (places like Celtiberia, Celtica, Celti were documented there, the latter two in the southwest in Baetica and Peñaflor respectively) and southern France (where the Celti without suffix are sporadically found in personal items, likely Celtic colonies in Narbo and Marseille) still exist and still remember that they are the direct descendants of the historical people who called themselves Celts and from which the Greeks and Romans admittedly generalized their usage of "Celts" as Strabo and Pliny explained and alluded to. In this way, this compliment sure backfired for them.
Do you think it would be too much to ask that the Irish and the British and everyone else who became Celtic from this modern meaning of the word attain themselves to using "Celtic" and not clipping that down to "Celt", so as to leave "Celt" reserved for those Spanish, Portuguese and French people who still exist? I am not asking this ironically, I am trying to reach an agreement that is reasonable.
3
-
@user-jz2fh3le8j " And if I may make that statement the peoples of the British Isles are Celtic but not the Celts and nor of the Celts as by the peoples who originally used the term in title. We are Celtic via the collective cultural type only."
Thank you for saying that. This is how it was originally meant to be, but through this process it often ends up confused, and clearing up that confusion is not always easy with the lay public.
"I also agree how despite the suffix, for some it is an area of confusion as you say."
Thank you. And it's not easy to propose a solution. Even the name "Celtic" with the suffix technically belongs to the Spanish (Celtici) and the Galicians (same) so even "Celtic" is being graciously lent by the Spanish to western Europe to use as a general "Celtic". It was not the Romans or the Greeks who added that -ic there - they saw it from the natives using it in Spain.
But Spain is very laid-back and is happy to share "Celtic". But then the British and Irish also took "Celt" and often use it to exclude those they took it from. At some point the Celts will end up with no identity and the British with their (southwestern Europeans') identity, if this continues.
I think Academia is doing its part, especially in the last few years, to correct this mistake. They are much more careful about who they call Celts now. Proof of that is the documentary The Celtic World on Amazon (from The Great Courses) which does call western Iberians "Celts" on maps twice, and never calls any British or Irish "Celts" on any map while clarifying they were not considered Celts before modern academia.
I am open to learning to share this term correctly but right now the side that is misbehaving the most is the side that is being lent the name to use, namely the British and the Irish. Because I do not see an immediate way to resolve this, this is why I was suggesting to disconnect the terms "Celt" and "Celtic" entirely from Britain and Ireland, as many academics now do. Unfortunately we do not know what the Bell-Beakers collectively called themselves, and I do not see a new term like "Celtish" taking off in the Anglosphere. And if nothing changes then the Celts will lose their identity to the Celtics.
I am open to suggestions.
"That would be like the area formally known as Germania and the Germanic countries within it being seen as lesser Germanic that Norway or Sweden or somet of that nature."
That is a very apt parallel to the situation of the Celts, native of southwestern Europe. They are currently considered lesser Celts y most publications, living "at the margins" of the "Celtic core" of "Hallstatt and La Tene" which we already know to be the previously running paradigm.
"But aye for me I'm aware we are Celtic by cultural type not by ancestory to the Celti whom we know via DNA we didn't seem to interbreed with to a high degree and most likely just had alliance and trade with."
I think that alliance survives in a slightly different shape in the oldest alliance in the world, between England and Portugal, the Treaty of Windsor.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@FaithfulOfBrigantia "Romans also describe the Caledonians (Sctoland) as having nordic features, and then assume this must mean they were of Germanic origin, implying they associated Nordic features with Germanics not Celts. They do the same with the Belgae, who are considered Gallic, but NOT Celtic, and also sometimes argued to be of Germanic origin or at least heavy Germanic mixture."
Yes, that was Tacitus in Agricola, Chapter XI, "The reddish (_rutilae_) hair and large limbs of the Caledonians proclaim a German origin".
"They do the same with the Belgae, who are considered Gallic, but NOT Celtic, and also sometimes argued to be of Germanic origin or at least heavy Germanic mixture."
Yes, that was Caesar in Bello Gallico, Book II, Chapter 4, "that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung, from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions;".
Also note that Strabo in Geographica, Book 3, Chapter 2, section 5, line 3, agrees with Polybius in saying that the Celts were ethnically like the southern Portuguese: "in the case of the Turdetani (southern Portuguese), and with the Celtici on account of their proximity, as Polybius has stated, due to their consanguinity and kinship."
Pliny also says the people who actually call themselves Celts were ethnically central Portuguese: "Mirobrigenses qui Celtici cognominantur" (meaning "the central-Portuguese people of Mirobriga, who call themselves Celts by surname"). (Source: Pliny, Natural History, Book IV, paragraph 118, confirmed independently by epigraphic evidence "CAIUS PORCIUS SEVERUS MIROBRIGENSIS CELTICUS ANNORUM LX" inscription found in Mirobriga, Portugal)
And finally, that same Pliny reiterates the idea of Celts being ethnically Portuguese by saying "Celticos a Celtiberis ex Lusitania advenisse manifestum est sacris, lingua, oppidorum vocabulis, quae cognominibus in Baetica distinguntur" (Source: Pliny, Natural History, 3.13.5), meaning "It is obvious that the Celts originate from those Celtiberians out of Lusitania, on account of their religion, language, city names and surnames which distinguish them in Baetica".
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ce5894 "Other than the Gauls (whom the Greeks recorded as referring to themselves as Celts) there's no evidence to suggest other tribes did, or did not. "
Oof, you're very uninformed. There are hundreds of ancient tombstones only in western Iberia with the names "Celti", "Celtiati", "Celtici", "Celtigun", etc.
It is quite silly to see people who have no right to use the name of the Celts and no direct inheritance of the name of the Celts wanting to use the name of the Celts instead of the names of their own ancestors. But the truth is only Lusitanians and Galicians called themselves Celts (yes, even though everyone wants to believe Lusitanian was not a "Celtic language", whatever that means, since "Celtic" was never a language in ancient times, this only started in 1582 among British scholars).
Go ahead and do your own research but your ancestors are laughing at your confusion around their names. They never saw themselves as Celts. There is some evidence they saw themselves as Gallians and as Belgians (yes both Irish and British used the name of the Belgians natively, look up "Builg").
"Neither did the Anglo-Saxons or Jutes and other tribes refer to themselves as German."
That is right, and they are not German. Do you see English people saying "I'm German"? No. You are confusing linguistic designations. The only people who called themselves Germani (and those people did exist) were the western Germans (there is an entire paper on that called "Developing the Germani in Roman Studies"). The others had their own names. What is so hard to understand about this?
Look at the case of the Illyrians which happened throughout Greek chronicling: the Greeks first said the Illyrians were a specific people, then later said they were an entire country, then later they were all Balkanic peoples. The term European was also first only referring to Macedonians, then to Balkanic peoples, then to all Europeans. All terms went through that path, or most of the commonly used ones that became famous, at least. The same happened to Celts. Strabo even says so, saying the Greeks generalized the name of the Celts of southern France to all Galatians of France due to the fame of the Narbonese Celts who of course lived right next to colonizing Greeks.
I could go on and on but I recommend you start loving your own ancestors, their history and their name, and honor those things, instead of trying to adopt foreign history.
2
-
@GeorgeZackrison " Many modern French derive their genetics from Germanic tribes,"
Yes, northern French.
" a unique exception is Brittany who are legitimately a Celtic culture and genetic group."
No, they are legitimately Briton, not Celtic. They have never been called Celtic in history. Only academic linguists after 1800s called their language "Celtic" - not their ethnicity nor their historical past names.
"Welsh are likely the most pure insular Celtic people who exist today. "
No, they are the most pure insular Briton people who exist today. They also were never historically called Celts.
"By Celts do you mean Gauls?"
By Celts I mean the people who actually called themselves Celts in their own tombstones and votive altars and ceramic items: the western Iberians and the southern French in Narbo and Massalia (ancient city names) up to the central French in Auvergne.
"Gauls survived in Briton (and a tiny amount in Turkey, Spain, and Brittany) after the Romans committed genocide against them."
No, you're confused. Gauls only survived in France and elsewhere in continental Europe but not in Iberia, as they never called themselves Gauls, but they did call themselves variously Celti, Celtici, Celtiati, Celtiatici.
Don't confuse "people who called themselves Celts in Roman times" with "people who post-1800s academic linguists started calling Celtic-speakers and the public thought that meant they were the ancient Celts which they were never".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SeeingBackward "I'm not getting what you're going for here with either of those..."
Allow me to explain
"With the first, I could see the point of the original comment being that there is an analogy between Cartesian and Polar coordinates in Classical Mathematics and Procedural and Functional programming within computer science."
But there isn't.
"In both instances, each are able to describe solutions covering (generally) the same problem-spaces, and the solution descriptions are (generally) translatable between the systems (maybe with a few special cases described idiomatically) but often one translation of a given solution is much more compact than the other."
But this happens between any two mathematical ways to do one thing, and "cartesian versus polar coordinates" does not capture anything more than that generality.
"Which is not to say that Set Theory vs Type Theory could not be a more perfect analogy, but it also seems that you didn't describe how that is so."
It should be obvious how Set Theory vs Type Theory is a more apt comparison of Procedural vs Functional programming, namely because Procedural programming is based on Set Theory and Functional programming is based on Type Theory.
"With the second comment, it seems like the commenter you were replying to was pointing out that computer architecture, as it exists today, is only the stateful manipulation of memory according to a stream of instructions to the processor which carries out those state changes, and that compilers translate the stateless algorithmic descriptions of FP into equivalent stateful steps that referentially transparently produce the same result described by the FP 'lambda calculus equation'."
No. He said:
"The underlying components in a CPU have state and side effects ... So..."
Which I interpreted as:
"Since the CPU is stateful, it's pointless to use a stateless language, because it's like avoiding the unavoidable"
To which you said:
"I'm not sure what your reply has to do with that,"
Simple: I am saying "what is actually pointless, is to point out that we shouldn't be using functional stateless programming just because the CPU is procedural, because if you think that there is a huge semantic gap between functional and procedural, I'd like to remind you Algebraic Effects have proven that functional programming with all side-effects type-checked is equivalent to procedural programming".
For example, the exact same code below:
v1 = new_variable
v2 = new_variable
put(v1, 9)
put(v2, "hello")
print(get(v1))
put(v1, 10)
print(get(v1))
print(get(v2))
is both valid Procedural code unmodified as-is and pure, stateless functional programming code unmodified as-is (using Algebraic Effects, with all side-effects type-checked), but can never be valid OOP code unmodified as-is.
Therefore the point I am making is "the notion that it is pointless to code functionally statelessly just because we're targeting stateful CPU necessarily assumes that Procedural and Functional are oh-so-far-away from each other, which is the opposite of the truth; OOP is the odd paradigm out of the three Procedural, FP and OOP. FP proved it is equivalent to Procedural and that it can type-check all side-effects of unmodified Procedural code. Meanwhile OOP remains impenetrable to type-checking or to anyone interested or who cares about this at all for OOP.
"especially as type-checking has always been what compilers do in any 'strongly-typed' language"
No, "strongly-typed languages" do tag checking, which is not the same as algebraic type checking using Hindley-Milner algebra.
"and procedural code by definition works by manipulating the side-effects of state changes of memory..."
And only FP can type-check all side-effects of Procedural code unmodified as-is, which proves that both FP and Procedural are equivalent, and hence, since FP and Procedural are equivalent, it's quite silly to say "you shouldn't code in FP because the CPU is Procedural, derp!" since once again and for the last time FP and Procedural are equivalent and so we code in FP to get the benefits of type-checking side-effects that haven;'t migrated over to "strong-typed languages" yet because their "type-checker" are not real "algebraic type-checkers" buts rather "tag-checkers", checking the tags of argument "types" (tags) against the tags of parameter "types" (tags), while a proper "algebraic type-checker" like that of Rust, SML, OCaml, Haskell, knows much more than to check argument type against parameter type and can actually reason equationally holistically throughout the program and check if all program interactions are valid type-wise. This is a much more powerful type-checking ability than the mere tag-checking of C/C++/Java/C#/etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NoX-512 The paper, when it was published, ranked Rust second place right behind C and ahead of C++ (top few languages in the Time measurement, in order and with multiplier for how-many-times-slower-than-C (rather, how many times slower than the first language, which happens to be C): C = 1.00, Rust = 1.04, C++ = 1.56, Ada = 1.85, Java = 1.89, Chapel = 2.14, Go = 2.83).
However, the website has measurements that have been updated to 2021, I believe, from the 2017 date of publication of the paper. As it stands by those more recent measurements, Rust is now = 1.00, meaning it is just as fast as C. Indeed the Programming Language Shootout uses 10 algorithms to measure the speed difference between C and Rust, and each of those languages wins on 5 algorithms, making it a perfect tie for fastest language between C and Rust. C++ has not closed the gap (it kept being 1.56 times slower than C). Hence the old myth that "Because you can write C++ programs that is essentially C code" does not seem true.
Also, a reminder that C++ is not a superset of C.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@t8dh4se3e " I will checkout the references you mentioned. I am interested in the cultures in Europe at this time. are there any good books you would recommend on this subject or other tribes peoples of Europe at the time?"
The only good books about the Celts currently in existence that I am aware of, which incorporate the latest findings, are John Collis' "The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions" and Simon James' "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention?". I have read both and I can recommend both.
In this regard, while I have not read this, I could suppose it to be a good book, judging by its abstract which mentions the Celtic problematic and also mentions the two books above by Simon James and John Collis; that would be Manuel Fernandez-Gotz' "Celts: art and identity exhibition: New Celticism at the British Museum. I know, long title.
I also recommend reading whatever recent papers you find about the Celts on ResearchGate (dot net) and Academia (dot edu), you need an email but otherwise it's free.
As for other tribes and peoples of Europe, I do not know of any specifically up-to-date books on that subject in general. If you are interested in a given group I can try and find the best information on it for you. My methods are not secret, I simply look to see what opinions are currently being published and what opinions are the underdogs that are about to overtake the current paradigm, as sometimes there is one as was the case for the topic of the Celts until a few years ago - today its paradigm shift is complete.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AllanSavolainen "so if I have a tree in C made of struct nodes, it isn't typed?"
Correct, it is not typed. C does not have Computer Science Types, it has Computer Science Tags. Types are the elements of Type Theory in Computer Science, where Functions are Paths between the Types.
"Could you give a concrete example of something tree-like that C cannot do?"
Yes, C cannot inherently understand algebraic types such as a variant tree that might have different branches and leaves with varying structures. For example, in languages that support algebraic data types, like OCaml or Haskell, you can define a tree where each node can be either a Leaf with some value or a Branch that connects two subtrees, and the compiler will enforce those distinctions across the entire program. The compiler understands the structure and can infer or enforce the proper type usage without additional effort on your part.
In C, you would need to use structs and manually manage the interpretation of the tree. C doesn’t understand the tree as a singular type—it only sees the individual fields within the structs. You would have to implement all the logic yourself, handling pointers and manually verifying which type of node you're dealing with. There's no automatic pattern matching or type safety for these variant-like structures.
Hence, a concrete example of something tree-like that C cannot do is an algebraic tree where nodes can hold different types of data, such as a variant tree with different node types like Leaf Int, Leaf String, or Branch (Tree, Tree). In a language with algebraic data types, the compiler can enforce that only valid branches and leaves are combined in accordance with the defined type. It will also automatically handle different operations depending on the specific form of the node. C, on the other hand, has no concept of enforcing this; you would need to implement all validation, type checking, and interpretation manually, with no built-in language support for pattern matching or managing the tree in a type-safe manner.
So in C you can never truly get a Tree, which is a well-defined Type in Type Theory within Computer Science - it is defined abstractly solely by its operations. In a language that understands true types, the tree's behavior and structure are inherently tied to the rules of the type system. Operations like traversals, insertions, or transformations are governed by the formal type system, ensuring that the operations remain valid and consistent within the type's definition.
C, however, lacks the mechanisms to define such abstract types. It relies on tags (e.g., struct, enum, int, double), but those are just labels for data or groups of data; they don’t carry the semantic weight of a true type. A "tree" in C is just a collection of pointers and structs with no deeper understanding by the language of what makes a tree a tree. The compiler doesn’t know about the invariants or rules that are essential to the abstract concept of a tree; those are left entirely to the programmer to enforce manually. This is a fundamental difference between a language like C, which deals with memory layout and tagging, and languages with algebraic types that embody the abstract, rule-based nature of true types.
1
-
@ConradAinger "Nevertheless, if a geneticist were to take an example of DNA from anyone who is English, that example might come from Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Danes, Normans, Franks or any other of the those Germanic peoples who either passed through or settled in Gaul during the late Roman Empire or in the 5th and 6th centuries. Non? "
No, in fact anyone can test this themselves using the Vahaduo genetic tool online, and you will see the differences yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ce5894 "Brythonic tongues in Strathclyde, Gwynedd, Cumbria and Breton, not to mention the P-Celtic tongue of their Pictish cousins = Celtic.
The beautiful Goedelic lilts of my Dalriadan ancestors = Celtic.
All of which had developed from the proto celtic of the Atlantic seaways. "
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Many Celtic academics (like John Collis) have already pointed out that languages were historically named after the people who spoke them, not the other way around.
This thing of saying "the Irish are Celts because they speak a Celtic language" only started in the 1900's. Before that, the language you spoke was always called a name derived from the name of the people who spoke it. So only a people called "Celts" (as in actually called that by themselves, like the Celti in Lusitania and the Celtici in Galicia did, not by Greeks or Romans) could have spoken "Celtic".
In fact so much so was the naming of languages after the people, that Tacitus once said that the Galatians spoke "Germanice", betraying that languages were named after the ethnicity of the people who spoke it; no people has ever been named historically after the language they spoke: a clear example of that is the Romans who spoke Latin (a language started by a specific tribe called Latini) and yet the Romans never dared to call themselves "the Latins". Only you and other misinformed people by linguistic academics are going around daring to call yourself by the name of the people who happened to have originated the language you currently speak.
Also consider that if you are "Celtic" because of your language, well, most Irish and Scottish people no longer speak "Celtic", so that means you should stop calling yourself "Celts" and now call yourself "Germans" instead. See how that doesn't make any sense?
1
-
@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 There is too much misinformation on Celts due to British Romanticism and their Victorian Age. This is documented by Simon James in "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention?" and by John Collis in "The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions". The old theory that "Celts = Hallstatt and La Tene" was refuted by Patrick-Sims Williams, the President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, in his paper "An Alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West", where he shows that Celts did not come from Central Europe during Hallstatt and La Tene eras (their ancestors actually came from Central Europe to Iberia during the Bell Beaker era, but they weren't called Celts yet, but a cognate of Schwabs, as we can see in Sefes being an older name than Celts in western Iberia) and that there is no proof that Hallstatt and La Tene even spoke Celtic. The epigraphic evidence for tombstones and votive altars with names such as Celti, Celtici, Celtiati, Celtigun, Celtiatici, etc, in western Iberia is Antroponimia Indigena de la Lusitania romana by José Maria Vallejo Ruiz, Hispania Epigraphica, Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss/Slaby and Epigraphic Database Heidelberg. You can check everything I just said in all those sources. I hope you do check them.
1
-
@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 There is too much misinformation on Celts due to British Romanticism and their Victorian Age. This is documented by Simon James in "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention?" and by John Collis in "The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions". The old theory that "Celts = Hallstatt and La Tene" was refuted by Patrick-Sims Williams, the President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, in his paper "An Alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West", where he shows that Celts did not come from Central Europe during Hallstatt and La Tene eras (their ancestors actually came from Central Europe to Iberia during the Bell Beaker era, but they weren't called Celts yet, but a cognate of Schwabs, as we can see in Sefes being an older name than Celts in western Iberia) and that there is no proof that Hallstatt and La Tene even spoke Celtic. The epigraphic evidence sources for tombstones and votive altars with names such as Celti, Celtici, Celtiati, Celtigun, Celtiatici, etc, in western Iberia are: 1. Antroponimia Indigena de la Lusitania romana by José Maria Vallejo Ruiz; 2. Hispania Epigraphica; 3. Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss/Slaby; and 4. Epigraphic Database Heidelberg. You can check everything I just said in all those sources. I hope you do check them.
1
-
@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 There is too much misinformation on Celts due to British Romanticism and their Victorian Age. This is documented by Simon James in "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention?" and by John Collis in "The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions".
The old theory that "Celts = Hallstatt and La Tene" was refuted by Patrick-Sims Williams, the President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, in his paper "An Alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West", where he shows that Celts did not come from Central Europe during Hallstatt and La Tene eras (their ancestors actually came from Central Europe to Iberia during the Bell Beaker era, but they weren't called Celts yet, but a cognate of Schwabs, as we can see in Sefes being an older name than Celts in western Iberia) and that there is no proof that Hallstatt and La Tene even spoke Celtic.
The epigraphic evidence sources for tombstones and votive altars with names such as Celti, Celtici, Celtiati, Celtigun, Celtiatici, etc, in western Iberia are: 1. Antroponimia Indigena de la Lusitania romana by José Maria Vallejo Ruiz; 2. Hispania Epigraphica; 3. Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss/Slaby; and 4. Epigraphic Database Heidelberg.
You can check everything I just said in all those sources. I hope you do check them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lordsneed9418 If nuclear bombs exist, please explain this excerpt:
"Wines from 1952 to the 1970s, for example, have much higher radiation levels due to above ground nuclear testing."
Why not "from 1945"?
Handy reminder:
When were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The first atomic bomb, named Little Boy, was dropped on Hiroshima from the Enola Gay, a B-29 bomber, at 8:15 AM on August 6, 1945. The second bomb, named Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki from the Bockscar, also a B-29 bomber, at 11:02 AM on August 9, 1945.
I look forward to your explanation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brutalisaxeworth3024 "One of these that split off would go on to become the Celtic culture. For the majority of their history, the Celts actually dominated much of central Europe. Eventually they made their way to the British isles and completely wiped out and replaced the hunter gatherers there. The Celts living on the islands then split into different tribal affiliations like the Picts, Welsh, and, you guessed it, THE BRITTONS."
This is a fantasy and there is no documentary evidence linking the word or name "Celts" historically to the Britons nor to the Welsh, Picts, Irish, etc.
There's no such thing as "Celtic culture", that is a Romanticist invention of British academics - not the whole world is British and most of the Celtic academics do not accept this association between Britons and Celts, including the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, Patrick Sims-Williams, which regulates all academic Celtic Studies programs.
There was never any association between the name of the Celts and anything in Central Europe nor in the British Isles nor specifically in Ireland. If there were you would simply show it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RexNicolaus "Celtic people are a large conglomerate of people but not a definitive identity, considering what little information we have about them."
This is wrong - this is what I'm trying to communicate to you. Celtic people are not "a large conglomerate of people but not a definitive identity", on the contrary, they're a very definitive identity, seeing that they identified themselves from 200 BC to 200 AD in tombstones in western Iberia using the names "Celti", "Celtici", "Celtiati", "Celtius", etc. So they are a very definitive identity, you just so happen to not know about it.
"That George Buchanan character and the statement you mentioned is not a definitive way of saying that’s what everyone believes about the Celts today. May have spread a myth? Maybe. But studies have been made well before his time, even dating back centuries prior."
Actually there were no studies about Celts before his time, he was the first in modern times, and the point is he started calling these languages Celtic because he thought they came from the Celtici of Spain. Whether true or not, the point is, they were NAMED "Celtic" BECAUSE OF SPAIN, not because anyone ever thought any Britons were "Celts", because no one ever did. Do you understand the point now?
"Gauls and Gaels are a Celtic sub group."
No, they're not. This is some modernist agreement with no formality or academic support. Gauls in the past never called themselves Celts neither did Gaels. So no, they're not Celts.
"Celts started to appear in the British Isles around 1000 BC"
No they didn't, nothing in 1000 BC said "Celt" in the name and went to the British Isles. We may call those people "Celtic speakers" today but at the time of 1000 BC they did not call themselves Celts, hence they were not Celts.
"With all that being said, I don’t know how you’re basing everything you understand off one film you mentioned and one 16th gentleman who made a statement about the Celts. Many studies you’re going up against. "
I'm basing what I'm saying on tombstones. The only tombstones in all of Europe self-identifying as "Celts" are in western Iberia. Hence they're the only Celts because they are actually the only ones who called themselves Celts. What modern academics decide to call "Celts" is immaterial because those names are arbitrarily chosen. But "Celts" in the tombstones in western Iberia was not arbitrary, it was their native names.
Watch the movie-documentary on Amazon I told you about and you'll learn it all. Did you watch it? Did you find it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Antarctide "I think it has more to do with the fact that Germanic people naturally are more "civilized" and gentlemaney than Mediterranean folks."
The Portuguese are not Mediterranean, the Mediterranean people are the Romans, the Greeks, Turkey and some Balkans, all people who civilized themselves.
Rule of thumb: if you had to be civilized by the Romans, you are not Mediterranean.
Check out Fst distances for the Portuguese and the Spanish.
They are closer to French, Swiss, Belgian, German, and English than they are to even Northern Italians (who are Alpines Gauls and not Mediterraneans), let alone to Romans and Southern Italians who are indeed Mediterranean.
No, the Portuguese were truly barbarians while Rome and Greece were flourishing with several different schools of philosophy.
Stop granting all the glory of the Mediterranean people so readily to western barbarians, please.
The Portuguese are still the same Celts as they were when they had to be civilized by Rome starting in 200 BC.
17 Octobre 2018 David Reich - Bell Beaker genetic video here on youtube ( JVPxAGc6WX4 ) will tell you that even in the Bronze Age the Bell Beakers in western Europe were already autosomaly either English or Iberian, with no hint of any Italian whatsoever.
Since the Bronze Age, through the Iron Age and up to modern day era, the Portuguese remain those same Bell Beakers who became Celts.
Read Olalde et al. (2019) and you will see the largest ever genetic study on Iberians concluded they are 60% Germany Bell Beaker from 2,500 BC and 40% pre-Basque.
The Basque genetic component is the westernmost component in all of Europe - not the southernmost, which would be Sicilian, but the westernmost - and it is native to the Atlantic coast of southwestern France - not the Mediterranean coast.
Hence there are no genetic components in the make-up of the Portuguese (nor of the Spanish) which could make them Mediterranean.
This is why the Portuguese did not civilize themselves.
They are not Mediterranean.
They are just Central Europeans mixed with the westernmost Atlantic Europeans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IrishColin "How are the Iberians celts then because the tribe which brought that culture isn’t believed to have originated there."
It is now according to the latest research. Published two weeks ago by the Max Planck Institute, it is the largest genetic-linguistic study ever done. It's called "Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages". Not only were Celtic languages native to Iberia since 7,000 years ago, but Lusitanian itself was also Celtic, as it can no longer be Italic due to Italic having been found by this study to have split from Celtic too early for that to be possible and still sound like Italian, and too early in comparison to Germanic which actually split later, so that there would even be more chance that Lusitanian were Germanic than Italic, and since we know it's not Germanic, the only other option left is Celtic, as the study concludes.
Ask any further questions and I'll answer them. But there's really nothing holding back the Iberians from being Celtic-speakers since 7,000 years ago at this point, and that is according to the smartest people doing research today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yawaramin4771 Ah, I see why you're confused.
When judging feature by feature, you are right - the things you point out as examples of structural typing, such as OCaml methods, are indeed structural typing, and the things you point out as examples of nominal typing, such as turning a type into an Abstract Data Type, are indeed nominal typing.
However, you're making two mistakes here:
1. classifying a language as "having nominal types" and "having structural types" (what I am doing) is not the same as identifying discrete features as being either of those two traits (what you are doing);
2. whether a language "has nominal types" or "has structural types" is not defined mainly by how a language handles its objects and its structs, but by how a language handles its functions, which is why most-if-not-all Functional Programming languages have structural types and most-if-not-all C-family, procedural, imperative and OOP programming languages have nominal types.
Offering a way to "have a nominal type" in a language with structural types doesn't make it any less structural, as it cannot forget what it knows about the structure of all values, including functions, which it knows because of Hindley-Milner and other algebra-based type inferencers.
Likewise offering a way to "have a structural type" in a language with nominal types doesn't make it any more structural, as it can never learn that if I say a function takes an argument "func" of type "int to string" that it should be able to take any function with such signature.
In the end, OCaml and Haskell have structural types, as they allow the programmer to specify functions that take other functions by signature, and C++, C#, Java, Objective-C, Delphi, Swift, Julia and Rust all primarily use both nominal typing and nominal subtyping and as such are "nominally typed languages", or, informally, "are languages that have nominal types".
Nothing I said is incorrect - I am talking about classifying the sort of typing each language is fundamentally based on, not individual features within each language.
1
-
@MaxHaydenChiz Thank you for the answer. I don't think the way I am presenting "nominal types" and "structural types" is a "weird way of looking at things", I believe you are simply applying the concept too narrowly and assuming everyone else's usage is too.
Let me say it with perfectly clear words: OCaml "has" "structural types" because in it "there exists" an algebraic (i.e. structural) Hindler-Milner-plus type checker where one of its branches is "a nominal-type type-maker" via an ADT.
C "has" "nominal types" because in it "there exists" not any kind of algebraic type checker, but a tag-system which is presented to the programmer-user as types.
C's "types" are really no such thing from a Gentzen-Church point-of-view, meaning they cannot be used to draw equalities with code. As such, equational reasoning is impossible in languages such as C, C++, Java, etc, everyone that has nominal types as its "fundamental type-system", regardless of whether they offer "a structural-type type-maker" as one of the branches of that "fundamental type-system", inherently do not allow equational reasoning due to breaking the Gentzen-Church relationship between type and code.
Please notice my interlocutor was focusing on individual features and he was right every single time.
However, I am talking about the classification of the language's fundamental type-system.
OCaml is fundamentally structurally typed as that is the "boss type-checker" from which you cannot run away. And inside its umbrella it lets us use a "nominal-type type-maker".
On the other hand you can never get C to understand or care that a function pointer is of functions from int to int. It only cares about the return result. Because it is not mathematically a "type" system (in the Gentzen-Church way) but rather a "tag" system (those are separate mathematical objects that do what you expect from the name - tag other objects). Its "boss type-checker" is but a catalog machine without the notion of algebraic reduction.
A way to show that C, C++, Java, C#, etc have nominal "boss type-checkers" and not "only individual features that can be categorized as nominally typed or structurally typed without the language being able to be judged that way as a whole" is that in C# people use interfaces (with their respective names, which the compiler cares about, hence it's a nominally typed language) instead of simply seeing the world as you see (i.e. only judging individual features, not the language) and simply picking up whatever structurally typed feature C# or Java or C++ offer and then using that instead of interfaces, a la OCaml's methods, after all that is not only much more lightweight on the programmer, it also saves them from having to name a thing (the interface) and at the same type enlists the compiler in helping to check if the proper values went to the proper places through the types mentioned in the signature, a job which otherwise in a nominally-typed language is done by the programmer-user to help the compiler's tagging "type" system, but which in structurally-typed languages like OCaml can be "recognized structurally by the compiler without the help of the programmer-user".
Finally to show I am not being weird in my usage of those phrases and names, I quote:
Flow dot org, slash en, slash docs, slash lang, slash nominal-structural, slash.
"An important attribute of every type system is whether they are structural or nominal, they can even be mixed within a single type system. So it's important to know the difference."
"A static type checker uses either the names or the structure of the types in order to compare them against other types. Checking against the name is nominal typing and checking against the structure is structural typing."
"Languages like OCaml and Elm have primarily structural type systems."
"We've demonstrated both nominal and structure typing of classes, but there are also other complex types like objects and functions which can also be either nominal or structural. Even further, they can be different within the same type system (most of the languages listed before has features of both).
For example, Flow uses structural typing for objects and functions, but nominal typing for classes."
The C2 wiki:
"In structural subtyping, the answers to the above questions are dependent on the structure of types. In nominal subtyping, the answers are dependent on explicit (or sometimes implicit) declarations by the programmer."
[observe that the nominal types being dependents on declarations by the programmer leads to a "tag" type system where the "types" are mere tags to objects and are not contained within an algebra known to the compiler and exposed to the user. On the other hand, structural types imply the compiler can infer the structure of the types of the code without programmer help - and usually that is done through a system of equational reasoning, usually in the form of an algebraic type system, usually a Hindley-Milner machine with some additions.]
Michael Zalecki in his website:
"Many functional programming languages like Haskell or Elm have a structural type system."
Level Up Coding:
"Languages like Java and Scala have primarily nominal type systems, whereas a language like Typescript has a structural type system."
A paper entitled "An Overview of Nominal-Typing versus Structural-Typing in Object-Oriented Programming (with code examples)" By Moez A. AbdelGawad
"The emphasis in this report is on defining nominality, nominal typing and
nominal subtyping of mainstream nominally-typed OO languages, and on
contrasting the three notions with their counterparts in structurally-typed
OO languages, i.e., with structurality, structural typing and structural
subtyping, respectively."
"To emphasize the fact that objects in class-based OOP have class names
as part of their meaning they are sometimes called nominal objects. A nominal
object is always tied to the class (and superclasses) from which it was produced,
via the class name information (i.e., nominal information) embedded inside the
object. Having class names as part of the meaning of objects is called nominality.
An OO language with nominal objects is a nominal OO language. Examples
of nominal OO languages include Java [13], C# [2], Smalltalk [1], C++ [3],
Scala [16], and X10 [18]."
"An OO language that does not embed class names in objects is called a
structural OO language. The term ‘structural’ comes from the fact that an
object in such a language is simply viewed as a record containing fields and
methods but with no class name information, and thus no mention of the con-
tracts maintained by the object. The view of objects as records thus reflects only
their structure. Examples of structural OO languages include Strongtalk [9],
Moby [12], PolyToil [10], and OCaml [14]."
"OO languages where types of objects are structural types (i.e., expressed as
record type expressions that denote record types, with no class name informa-
tion) are called structurally-typed OO languages. See the appendix for examples
of both nominal and structural OO type expressions."
"Class types are nominal
notions, since class types with different class names are different class types that
denote different sets of objects. In structurally-typed OOP, on the other hand,
object type expressions express a structural view of object interfaces that does
not include class names nor inheritance relation information. As such, type
expressions of objects in structurally-typed OOP are the same as record type
expressions. The sets of objects these type expressions denote are the same as
record types well-known in the world of functional programming and among PL
researchers."
[notice how structural types tends to lead to functional programming naturally as recognized by this academic paper]
"An OO language that does not use nominal information while deciding the subtyp-
ing relation is a structurally-subtyped OO language"
[part 1 of 2]
1
-
@yawaramin4771 "The distinction you are trying to make here doesn't really have any practical significance in workaday OCaml programming. You use nominal or structural types as appropriate in different situations, there is no dogma or higher meaning to it."
Of course there is a distinction in terms of higher worth. One of my academic quotes in my previous replies comments on how structural type systems are more difficult to program. That alone implies higher worth with regards to the proficiency of the programmer-author.
But more importantly, structural types are worth more because the mathematical theory behind them is the same as the mathematical theory behind constructive mathematics, the branch of computable mathematics. Whereas "tag" type-systems like C/C++/Java etc are nothing but ad hoc "have the programmer help the compilter author regarding types" tagging systems that burden the programmer instead of helping them.
It is a continuum. Towards one end, The C/C++/Java end, you as the programmer get burdened with telling your compiler what it cannot see because it is algebraically ignorant, and towards the other end, the OCaml/Haskell end, it is even possible to give the compiler just the types as have it output the code that satisfies it, showing how extreme the difference is when you are coding in a language where the compiler author offsets types for you to inform the compiler, versus in a language where the compiler author takes in the burden for you and makes a type system so good (mathematically speaking) that it can prove the Gentzen-Church equivalence both ways - if you give it code it can give you the types of that code without you telling the compiler, and if you give it types, it can give you code that abides by that type (See Oleg, djinn, Haskell).
It is a world of difference. Don't try to fog this by pretending "being burdened by the type system as a programmer" is equivalent to "being helped by the type system as a programmer".
Don't hide the secret that there is a "better way" than the "worse is better" world of C/C++/Java. They are worse languages than better languages like OCaml and Haskell, objectively and mathematically speaking (tags can be modeled mathematically - the type system of C, for example - but they are worthless algebraically).
Please pay attention that I am not talking about features but about languages. "Structurally typed features" and "nominally typed features" have equal worth and if the latter is within the former it has equal power of deduction and constructiveness. That is why OCaml's nominal types are better than C's - in OCaml the compiler can tell you what the nominal types are without the programmer-user telling it, whereas in C the programmer-user is burdened with telling the compiler the types.
I think the higher point you're missing is that "structural types" comes from "structural induction" which is what makes not only them work, but also Hindley-Milner in general. That is why OCaml and Haskell are called "structurally typed languages". See Denotational Semantics.
Features that are "structural types" are not called that way because of the behavior they present, like the OCaml methods you insist on referring to. Tuples, Options and Lists are also structural. I quote F Sharp for Fun and Profit:
"By 'most' F# types, I mean the core 'structural' types such as tuples, records, unions, options, lists, etc. Classes and some other types have been added to help with .NET integration but lose some of the power of structural types."
It goes on to enumerate those powers:
"Immutability; Pretty printing when debugging; Equality; Comparisons"
Also from Denotational Semantics - A methodology for language development by David A. Schmidt:
"In Pascal, a typed language, the + symbol is overloaded, because it performs integer addition, floating point addition, and set union, all unrelated operations. [this is why the programmer is burdened with telling the compiler the types] In contrast, the hd operator in Edinburgh ML is parametric. It can extract the head integer from a list of integers, the head character from a list of characters, and, in general, the head alpha from an alpha-list. hd is a general purpose function, and it is implemented as a general purpose operation. Regardless of the type of argument, the same structural [my bold] manipulation of a list is performed."
If you're in doubt this "structural" refers to "structural types", page 6 has this:
"Consider a description of arithmetic. It includes two equations that define the structural types of digit and operator:
<digit> ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
<operator> ::= + | - | x | /"
Hence this is solid academic evidence from Denotational Semantics that I am doing my best to help you learn this. :)
1
-
1
-
@yawaramin4771 Part 2 of 2 of my previous answer which did not get posted earlier for some reason:
A paper entitled "An Algorithmic Framework for Recursive Structural Types" by David J. Pearce:
"However, whilst numerous mainstream languages employ nominal typing, there are relatively few which
employ structural typing. Examples include OCaml [28], Modula-3 [14], Strongtalk [10] and Scala [40].
One reason for this is that such languages are (typically) much harder to implement."
A university:
Source: "CSci 555: Functional Programming Type System Concepts" - Site: John dot cs dot olemiss dot edu tilde hcc csci555 slash notes slash TypeConcepts slash TypeSystemConcepts dot html
"In a language with nominal typing, the type of value is based on the type name assigned when the value is created. Two values have the same type if they have the same type name. A type S is a subtype of type T only if S is explicitly declared to be a subtype of T."
[notice here the use of "with": "in a language 'with' nominal typing". A language 'with' nominal typing 'has' nominal typing.]
"For example, Java is primarily a nominally typed language. It assigns types to an object based on the name of the class from which the object is instantiated and the superclasses extended and interfaces implemented by that class."
"In a language with structural typing, the type of a value is based on the structure of the value. Two values have the same type if they have the “same” structure; that is, they have the same public data attributes and operations and these are themselves of compatible types."
"In structurally typed languages, a type S is a subtype of type T only if S has all the public data values and operations of type T and the data values and operations are themselves of compatible types. Subtype S may have additional data values and operations not in T."
"Haskell is an example of a primarily structurally typed language.
Hence I have shown that both in informal speech, as well as in formal academic speech, saying "a language has nominal types" or "a language is structurally typed" is not "weird" but instead commonplace and often useful when referring to languages instead of their individual features.
1
-
@yawaramin4771 "Hindley-Milner is not a 'structural typing' system. Nobody calls it a 'structural typing' system. Show me one credible source which calls Hindley-Milner a 'structural typing' system. There is none. H-M is a type inference algorithm. It doesn't care whether the types are structural or nominal. You can easily prove this by seeing that it works with abstract types, which are by definition nominal types."
Gladly. Google these two strings with the quotes:
"hindley-milner" "structural induction".
A key step in Hindley-Milner, namely generalization, is done by structural induction.
But I also had already anticipated this question of yours and I answered it in one of my previous answers - which thank you for not reading with attention. I will quote the relevant parts for you here again:
"I think the higher point you're missing is that "structural types" comes from "structural induction" which is what makes not only them work, but also Hindley-Milner in general. That is why OCaml and Haskell are called "structurally typed languages". See Denotational Semantics.
Features that are "structural types" are not called that way because of the behavior they present, like the OCaml methods you insist on referring to. Tuples, Options and Lists are also structural. "
and:
""Consider a description of arithmetic. It includes two equations that define the structural types of digit and operator:
<digit> ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
<operator> ::= + | - | x | /""
Hence if arithmetic is done through structural induction then it is also structural. Anything can be structural so long as it can be arrived at through structural induction. That's the origin of calling things "structural".
You are being a novice johnny-come-lately and thinking that because "OCaml says this or that is a nominal type" that its type system isn't structural, but that "nominal type" is arrived at by the compiler through structural induction rules.
Also, please bear in mind that every Type is "a nominal type". If I make a new type, it can be internally identical to an integer, but if I call it SalaryInCents then I can enforce, by creating a separate type alone, "nominal typing".
Since every "purely structurally typed" language will have to offer the programmer-user a way to create new types different from the old ones for purposes of compiler verification but identical to them in structure - this is a basic activity in programming - then by your logic every programming language has "nominal types" and can only escape it if it prohibits the programmer from creating new types.
Clearly that would make no sense and that nomenclature would lose its value. That's one way to know it did not originate that way. Another way to know that is to learn the history of the term from Denotational Semantics as I have nudged you now twice to research. Please kindly do it and I know you'll be excited about the new world of alternatives to Hindley-Milner (which also work through structural induction) opens up to you.
1
-
1
-
@yawaramin4771 And here is the academic, authoritative source confirming the nominal type systems are basically tag systems:
"Nominal type systems have both advantages and disadvantages over structural presentations. Probably the most important advantage is that the type names in nominal systems are useful not only during typechecking, but at run time as well. Most nominal languages tag each run-time object with a header word containing its type name, represented concretely as a pointer to a run-time data structure describing the type and giving pointers to its immediate supertypes. These type tags are handy for a variety of purposes, including run-time type testing (e.g., Java's instanceOf test and downcasting operation), printing, marshaling data structures into binary forms for storage in files or transmission over networks, and reflective facilities that permit a program to dynamically investigate the fields and methods of an object that it has been given. Run-time type tags can also be supported in structural systems (see Glew, 1999; League, Shao, and Trifonov, 1999; League, Trifonov, and Shao, 2001; and the citations given there), but they constitute an additional, separate mechanism; in nominal systems, the run-time tags are identified with the compile-time types."
Same source as before: Types and Programming Languages [Pierce, 2002], the go-to text for type systems.
1
-
1
-
@yawaramin4771 Finally,I think this excerpt will help you understand where the "structural" and "nominal" names are coming from:
"In previous chapters, we have often defined short names for long or com-
plex compound types to improve the readability of examples, e.g.:
NatPair = {fst:Nat, snd:Nat};
Such definitions are purely cosmetic: the name NatPair is a simple abbre-
viation for {fst:Nat,snd:Nat}, and the two are interchangeable in every
context. Our formal presentations of the calculi have ignored abbreviations.
By contrast, in Java, as in many widely used programming languages, type
definitions play a much more significant role. Every compound type used in
a Java program has a name, and, when we declare the type of a local variable,
a field, or a method parameter, we always do so by giving the name. “Bare”
types like {fst:Nat,snd:Nat} simply cannot appear in these positions."
Again, this is from Types and Programming Languages [Pierce, 2002], the go-to text for type systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Saying that your opponents "simply don't know what they're talking about" (in regards to the historicity of Jesus) is called "poisoning the well" and is a logical fallacy.
12:26, 18:16 - These maps are pure fantasy. There were no Iberians outside the Iberian Levant. There were also no "Latins" outside the Italic peninsula. The ethnic group identified as "Gauls" should take all of Iberia except for the Levant (where Iberians were), Celtiberia (where Celtiberians were) and the Basque country since the Roman Empire started. Even if we assume Tartessian was not a Celtic language, the ancient Greco-Romans did not categorize peoples by languages, but by ancestry first, then other attributes, as Herodotus tells us; and other Greek writers do inform us that the Turduli, an offshoot of the Tartessians were "of the same stock as the neighboring Celts", of which they did not say about the Iberians; hence, if choosing whether to represent Tartessians and Turduli by either Iberian or Celtic, Celtic would be preferred. In fact the name Gallos was never used in Iberia except to properly identify foreign Gauls from Gallia proper settling in a stretch of Iberia, near Celtiberia. Celts and Celtic were the two names strictly used for western Iberia, whereas eastern Iberia was only ever called Celtiberia. As for France, the Gauls proper (Galli, Galatai) were only on the whole northern side of France, whereas in the Center and South, the Celts occupied; so the map currently wrongly overextends Gauls south of the center of France, which was not the case. Central France and Southern France are more genetically similar than Central France and Northern France to this day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@minutemansam1214 "No Celtic people called themselves Celts. "
Incorrect. Several Celtic tribes in Iberia called themselves "Celtici" natively. Also, Both Gallaecians and Lusitanians (yes, Lusitanians) called themselves "Celti", "Celtius", "Celtus", "Celtiati", etc in their own votive altars, tombstones and personal pottery.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Here are some academic sources for you:
Pliny the Elder saying that the Celts of Portugal called themselves Celts by surname:
> "Mirobrigenses qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigenses, who are (sur)named Celtici" - Mirobriga is in Central Portugal)
Source: Pliny the Elder. Natural History, Book IV, paragraph 118.
Independent epigraphic confirmation:
> "D(IS) M(ANIBUS) S(ACRUM) / C(AIUS) PORCIUS SEVE/RUS MIROBRIGEN(SIS) / CELT(ICUS) ANN(ORUM) LX / H(IC) S(ITUS) E(ST) S(IT) T(IBI) T(ERRA) L(EVIS)"
Source: Inscription in the sanctuary of Mirobriga. Fernando de Almeida. Breve noticia sobre o santuario campestre romano de Mirobriga dos Celticos (Portugal).
Evidence from ceramics inscriptions and graffiti
> "The cognomen Celtus [natively attested in personal pottery, in the form of graffito or inscription on pots, pans, combs, etc] is known from the Hispanic provinces as well as from Gallia Narbonensis"
Source: Zandstra, Marenne. Miles Aways From Home. Material culture as a guide to the composition and deployment of the Roman army in the Lower Rhine area during the 1st century AD, ISBN-13: 978-90-77744-00-0, p. 173
"Celt is derived from Greek and is the term the Greeks used to describe people from a specific region."
This is actually not true, as I just showed you tribes in Iberia using the name "Celt" natively for themselves. I can also refute that with two academic quotes:
> "It is sometimes suggested (Chapman 1992) that the ancients used the term "Celt" as a vague term for western barbarians, rather as the Byzantines, remembering their ancient history, referred to the western Crusaders as Keltoi, or as the British referred to the Germans as "the Hun" during World War I (Sims-Williams 2012a, 33). There is very little evidence for such a vague usage of "Celt". The locus classicus is Ephorus in the fourth century BC. In an astronomical context, Ephorus assigned the four points of the compass schematically to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts and Scythians. Since no Greek can have been unaware that Persians, Egyptians and others also inhabited the east and south, it follows that it cannot be assumed that Ephorus was only aware of Celts in the west. In fact, in another context, Ephorus did distinguish between Celts and Iberians. A century earlier, Herodotus had already contrasted the Cynetes (in Portugal) with the Celts, while Herodorus of Heraclea distinguished between the Kelkianoi (Keltianoi?) and five other Hispanic peoples, including the Cynetes. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus and Apollonius of Rhodes, continued to refer to the Celts as a distinct people (see further Sims-Williams 2016; 2017a). Among the Romans, Varro (116-27 BC), for instance, named four peoples besides the Celtae who settled in Hispania (Pliny, Natural History 3.1.8). So "Celt" was not normally a vague term like our "oriental".
Source: Sims-Williams, Patrick. An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West', 2020.
> "Despite their distance from the Celts, Hecataeus and Herodotus both distinguish them from their immediate neighbours (the Ligurians and Cynesians respectively), and are thus more useful to us than some later writers such as Ephorus (c. 400-330 BC), who used the term Keltoi in a generalized, schematic way, assigning the four points of the compass to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts, and Scythians.2 This shorthand should not be taken out of its astronomical context, as it is by modern scholars who deduce that the Keltoi were just the western, non-Greek "Other". Just as Ephorus can hardly have imagined that the east and south were solely occupied by Indians and Ethiopians (without Persians, Egyptians, etc.), so he cannot be assumed to have believed that only Celts inhabited his "Celtic" quadrant. In fact, in another context, he distinguished between Celts and Iberians, although getting their relative proportions wrong according to Josephus and Strabo. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus, and Apollonius of Rhodes, also regard the Celts as a distinct people."
Source: Sims-Williams, Patrick. The location of the Celts according to Hecataeus, Herodotus, and other Greek writers, 2016.
So you are completely wrong: there were tribes who called themselves Celts - they lived in western Iberia - and Celt was not a Greek word but instead a native Celtic name for the western Iberia-located tribes.
"It is now used to refer to anyone who speaks a Celtic language."
No it is not, just like "Aryan" may no longer be used for anyone who speaks a language related to that of the Aryans. Irish people do not technically speak "Celtic" - they speak Hibernian. Scottish people don't technically speak Celtic - they speak Caledonian.
Speaking a Celtic language has never made anyone a Celt anyways - the Ligures spoke Celtic yet were famously non-Celtic; the Veneti spoke Celtic even though everyone knew they were not Celts. The same goes for some Pannonians, Illyrians, Thracians, etc - they all spoke Celtic and they all were non-Celts.
Only in the 19th century, after the Victorian Romanticism of the 17th century, were "cultural groups" defined such that languages started naming people. But before the 19th century, people named languages. Otherwise, the French are Romans because they speak a Romance language. For an academic refutation of this idea, please watch Celts and the End of Roman Britain - John Collis on the YouTube Channel "Royal Archaeological Institute" and skip to 4:30 timestamp so that you can hear a lesson from the researcher who defines Celtic Studies today, that speaking a Celtic language does not make anyone a Celt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@minutemansam1214 "Gaelic is a branch of Celtic. You cannot be Gaelic and not be Celtic. If you are Gaelic you are Celtic."
Wrong. Gaelic is a tribal name. So is "Celtic". The Gaels never ever used the name "Celt" for themselves while alive. So they cannot be called "Celts".
"And Celt comes from Greek, not Latin."
Wrong:
> "It is sometimes suggested (Chapman 1992) that the ancients used the term "Celt" as a vague term for western barbarians, rather as the Byzantines, remembering their ancient history, referred to the western Crusaders as Keltoi, or as the British referred to the Germans as "the Hun" during World War I (Sims-Williams 2012a, 33). There is very little evidence for such a vague usage of "Celt". The locus classicus is Ephorus in the fourth century BC. In an astronomical context, Ephorus assigned the four points of the compass schematically to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts and Scythians. Since no Greek can have been unaware that Persians, Egyptians and others also inhabited the east and south, it follows that it cannot be assumed that Ephorus was only aware of Celts in the west. In fact, in another context, Ephorus did distinguish between Celts and Iberians. A century earlier, Herodotus had already contrasted the Cynetes (in Portugal) with the Celts, while Herodorus of Heraclea distinguished between the Kelkianoi (Keltianoi?) and five other Hispanic peoples, including the Cynetes. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus and Apollonius of Rhodes, continued to refer to the Celts as a distinct people (see further Sims-Williams 2016; 2017a). Among the Romans, Varro (116-27 BC), for instance, named four peoples besides the Celtae who settled in Hispania (Pliny, Natural History 3.1.8). So "Celt" was not normally a vague term like our "oriental".
Source: Sims-Williams, Patrick. An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West', 2020.
> "Despite their distance from the Celts, Hecataeus and Herodotus both distinguish them from their immediate neighbours (the Ligurians and Cynesians respectively), and are thus more useful to us than some later writers such as Ephorus (c. 400-330 BC), who used the term Keltoi in a generalized, schematic way, assigning the four points of the compass to Indians, Ethiopians, Celts, and Scythians.2 This shorthand should not be taken out of its astronomical context, as it is by modern scholars who deduce that the Keltoi were just the western, non-Greek "Other". Just as Ephorus can hardly have imagined that the east and south were solely occupied by Indians and Ethiopians (without Persians, Egyptians, etc.), so he cannot be assumed to have believed that only Celts inhabited his "Celtic" quadrant. In fact, in another context, he distinguished between Celts and Iberians, although getting their relative proportions wrong according to Josephus and Strabo. Other early Greek writers, including Timagetus, Timaeus, and Apollonius of Rhodes, also regard the Celts as a distinct people."
Source: Sims-Williams, Patrick. The location of the Celts according to Hecataeus, Herodotus, and other Greek writers, 2016.
So "Celtic" is not a greek nor latin word but actually a native Celtic name for western Iberian tribes.
1
-
@stgibbs86 "LOL but we dont call things today by what the romans called them, we use a new language, called english. You took that in high school, right? So yes, there are languages known as celtic. They are part of the celtic culture. Just as metatron said."
Nice try now, saying "celtic" with a lowercase C so as to pretend it's "just a modern English word and not totally a tribal name".
Listen, George Buchanan in 1582 introduced the word "Celt" to the English language as a word about people. Before that it was only used in poetry to talk about fields. And when George Buchanan did that, he said:
"[...][George Buchanan] thus argued for an Iberian origin for the Irish and the Scots. To support this he noted the name of Brigantia (A Coruna) in Spain, and the Britgantes of south-eastern Ireland and of northern England mentioned by Ptolemy. He may, however, have also been influenced by the long medieval tradition for the links with the Iberian peninsula. As the inhabitants of Spain were called Celts, he [George Buchanan in 1582] suggested a Celtic origin for the Irish and Scots. For southern Britain he suggested colonisation from northern Gaul, especially by the Belgae."
"In his Historia, Buchanan is the first author to suggest that the origin of some of the population of Ireland and the British Isles was Celtic. Only the Irish and Scots were strictly speaking Celtic, while the Britons and their successors, the Welsh, were Gallic or Belgic, and the Picts, though of Gallic origin and Gallic speaking, came from Germania."
Source: The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions, p. 40.
"For at first, the (a) Celtae, and the (b) Belgae did use a different Dialect, as Strabo thinks. Afterwards, when the Celtae sent abroad great Colonies into Spain, as the Names of the Celtiberi and Celtici do declare. And the Belgae made their descent into the Maritime parts of Britain, as may be collected from the Names of (c) Venta Belgarum, of the (d) Atrebates, and (e) Icceni"
Source: George Buchanan, 1582, The History of Scotland.
Hence, from the moment the name "Celt" entered the English language, it referred to the Celtici of Spain, who spanned all over western Iberia including Portugal.
There is no need to change the meaning of "Celt" to please the Irish and Scottish - and in fact the meaning is not being changed, as the lecture "Celts and the End of Roman Britain" by John Collis here on YouTube explains - the Irish and Scottish were only wrongly called "Celts" and they will no longer be called Celts in academia starting now or rather when Celtosceptic Patrick Sims-Williams became the President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@papayariser It has nothing to do with knowing the Hallstatt region. The "Hallstatt and La Tene are Celtic" theory was only supported on its foundations by three facts, all of which have been refuted beyond doubt:
1. That Herodotus located the Celts in Central Europe "where the Danube river starts" - the refutation is that the source of the Danube hadn't been discovered until much after Herodotus' death, and he and Aristotle after him were under the impression the Danube started in the Atlantic in the same place where the Tartessus started - indeed those two rivers were often talked about in the same breath. Herodotus was therefore actually locating the Celts in Iberia, likely the Celtici, because those were the most prominent Celts "beyond the Pillars of Hercules" which meant the beyond the Strait of Gibraltar on the Atlantic coast of Iberia.
2. That the Celtic city names in Central Europe were the oldest Celtic city names - this turned out not only not to be true but the inverse turned out to be true, namely that the Celtic cities in Central Europe turned out to be among the most recently named ones.
3. That "Nyrax" referred to Norica, in Austria, Central Europe. No linguist actually defends this theory, and the theory's proponent himself said that the phonological evolution here would be a complete exception. Today scholars refer to Sardinia as possessing several places named Nora, Nurac, Nurace, and also their relationship to the Nuraghi, as a more probable cause of the name Nyrax among the Celts.
So there is nothing left that connects at a foundational level the Hallstatt and La Tene people to Celtic. In fact Sims-Williams himself I believe in his paper says their language cannot be discovered yet, and they could have spoken anything at all from around Pannonia, even non-Indo-European languages. It is not know what the Hallstatt and La Tene people spoke, and their technology can no longer be referred to as Celtic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It doesn't work that way, however - people are not named after the language they speak, but on the contrary, languages are named after the people who first spoke them. That is why the Romans did not call themselves Latini just for speaking Latin (which they called Latine Lingua), but they called themselves Romans after the place they came from, and today we call the descendants of their language "Romance" after the "Romans", and we do not call "Romans" those French and Spanish people who speak "Romance". So as you can see the direction is people -> language. People name languages. Languages do not name people.
Not even the Romans themselves dared to call themselves "Latino" because they had enough respect not to steal the tribal name of the Latini from them. Everyone has a tribal name and there is no need to steal other people's tribe names through a web of linguistic confusion. If you are more Polish then you are not Latino, you're Polish. If you're more Ukrainian then you're not Latino, you're Ukrainian. And so on. You do not name yourself after a language, because academics name languages, and those are arbitrary, technical choices, not historical. If you do what you are doing, you end up with native Peruvians calling themselves "Hispanic" when they are 100% Quechua.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Inquisitor_Vex Hold on, that is not correct. The theory he presented is the one currently made mainstream in all of Celtic Studies by being the one held by its current president - that is, the current president of the International Congress of Celtic Studies. It is not about believing it. The only reason "Celts" and "Britons" were initially erroneously associated with each other is because the first scholars rushed through reading a Herodotus' passage on the Celts and misunderstood him to be locating the Celts at the true source of the Danube river.
No academic today defends that to be the correct reading of Herodotus anymore. Instead, it is clear that the Romans only discovered the source of the Danube much after Herodotus died, and that in his passage he is assuming that the Danube starts in the Pyrenees, in order for his point about that river dividing the whole European continent in half to work. Otherwise, it doesn't. Plus, the phrasing is clear in that he is talking about the westernmost parts of Europe, hence he could not be talking about the true source of the Danube, which is in Central Europe. And finally, he phrases it so as to anchor Celts knowingly as the westernmost people except for the Cynetes, and then says that the river Danube starts from Celtic lands, i.e. not the contrary, which would be saying that he knows where the Danube starts and that the Celts live nearby; in other words, he was using the Celts being westernmost to located the source of the Danube, and not using the source of the Danube to locate the Celts.
Will you please read Patrick Sims-Williams' paper "An alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West'"? If only you would read it, you would quickly understand.
Also, there were two more reasons to conflate Britons and Celts, but they are much more minor than the one I explained above. They are also explained in Sims-Williams' paper I suggested to you above. But for completeness, I will quickly summarize them.
The first other reason is the name Nyrax which scholars thought was Heuneberg, on the basis of Noreia sharing N and R with Nyrax. However, even Dechelette said that is not a good enough reason to consider Nyrax to be Noreia, because actually the vowels matter most. And nowadays with Nura, Nurra, Norace and other related places in Sardinia, not to mention the context of the passage in which Nyrax is cited, makes today's scholars confident that Nyrax was in Sardinia. Sardinia was also home to the Celsitani tribe, of PIE root *cels- which is the same as *celt and used in Iberia interchangeably with it. There were also continental Celtic tribes called Serdi and other Sardinian-cognate names.
The second reason was the existence of Celtic place names in Central Europe. However, all of those turned out to be too recent to prove any connection with any source population, much less Celts.
All I am saying is that Celt is an ethnic name which belongs to southwestern Europeans, not an academic word with which the Britannic peoples can shower themselves in, as they do not have any historical connection with it whatsoever.
Ancient people knew the name "Celts" at the same level as any other tribal name, like "Atrebates". The Romans mostly used the name Celt to refer to Iberian peoples - for Gauls and northern Italian tribes, the name Gallic, Gallian, Gallia was used. And I have already explained how Julius Caesar's Gallia Celtica was incorrectly named as per Strabo and Siculus. The Greeks also mainly use Keltoi, Keltikoi for southwestern Europeans, Iberians and southern French, while using Galatai for northern France, Germany and eastern Continental Europe. Also, Eratosthenes, Ephorus and Pseudo-Scymnus, all called "Celtica" the western part of Iberia, "outside the Pillars of Hercules". Finally, George Buchanan in 1582, the pioneer in coining the term "Celtic languages", suggested we should call the larger term "Gallic languages". He also said that the Celts are the Iberians because the Keltoi lived in southern France and they were related to the Celtici in Iberia, whereas he said the Britannic peoples were Belgian as the Belgae lived both there and in northern France. Hence he correctly identified what the genetic study I linked you concluded about northern France being Britannic and southern France being Celtic/Iberia in genes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xtramail4909 "No one originally called themselves Celts."
Yes they did, western Iberians did: "It must also be significant that of the approximately 25 occurrences of the name Celtius in Hispania all of them come from Lusitania excepting one from Marañón (Navarra) on IRMN 53 8. All the occurrences of other names from the
stem kelt- such as Celtienus, Celtiatus, Celtiatis, Arceltius, Conceltius, etc. come from Western Hispania, too."
"Celtic was a culture and they were written about by both Greeks and Romans."
No, it wasn't, it was initially a tribal name just like "Illyrian" which then got expanded only some times in some Greeks and Romans only, while others like Siculus and Strabo always knew that Celts were tribes and corrected the wrong usage of Caesar and others.
"If in Western Iberia there was a group of Celts who eventually picked up the name Celt, it isn’t because they came up with the name themselves."
It is indeed they who came up with the name, and then Herodotus first picked it up (after Hecataeus) by identifying the Celts as living only west of the Strait of Gibraltar, which coincides perfectly with the tombstones of people names "Celt-" in western Iberia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It will be noted that only one of the four strong features in (14c) (viz. particles) is securely attested for Continental Celtic. Although VSO does appear, its status there is uncertain in view of the scanty data, and the less unusual (in Indo-European) order of SOV may be the unmarked order. Mutations and inflected prepositions are seemingly absent.
By the same token, some of the weaker features in (14) (e.g., Ablaut, gender, copula, some tenses, infixed pronouns) are indeed seen in Gaulish or Celtiberian inscriptions. It is altogether curious that the features which, upon a synchronic typological comparison, are the least distinctive for neo-Celtic languages are the only features reasonably demonstrable as shared with the Continental varieties. Is this a result of evidentiary poverty, or have the Insular languages undergone a significant typological shift over the centuries?
Certainly we can see that, compared with the early Celtic languages, the modern languages are far less synthetic and much more analytic in structure. But this is hardly a trend confined to Celtic.
The fact that, on a typological level, the Insular languages seem to possess more traits with one another than they do with the ancient languages of the continent prompts much rumination concerning the interface of our synchronic analytical tools and our diachronic methods, about mechanisms of language contact which could account for the shift, and our understanding of linguistic evolution and processes of language change, which could also account for this development without appeal to outside influence.
The discrepancies among the various models of what is a "Celtic" language point up nagging and complex questions on assumptions forming the foundations of our discipline.
The study of these languages provokes us to find answers. So far, it appears that each of these three approaches to defining celticity has something to offer. Given the strong integrative trend of our age, it is perhaps not too daring to venture a prediction that the most satisfactory model will be one that partakes in proper measure of all three approaches.
Maybe only then will we gain a more comprehensive and adequate picture of what it means to be a Celtic language."
Source: The Celtic Languages, 2nd Edition, 2009, edited by Martin J. Ball and Nicole Mueller.
Summary: Celtic languages are defined by four strong features and some weak features, but only one of the four strong features is shared between Britannic languages and Continental Celtic languages. Some of the weaker features are shared by Celtiberian and Gaulish, but the fact that Britannic languages and Continental Celtic languages share many more weak features than strong features (only one), calls into question the linguistic relationship of those two groups, and whether the Britannic languages fall under the label of "Celtic languages". This could be due to poor attestation of Celtiberian and Gaulish; however, the Britannic languages also have more typological traits common with each other than they do with the ancient Continental Celtic languages, which complicates the hypothesis that this is just a perception due to poor attestation. The discrepancies in properly defining "Celtic languages" needed to harmonize those contrasting features accuse foundational problems in our definitions. Therefore the label "Celtic languages" is currently ill-defined and it only brings together Continental Celtic languages and Britannic languages in an artificial way, not in a properly linguistically-justified manner.
TL;DR: The pre-English languages of Britain and Ireland are too fundamentally different from the Continental Celtic languages to also deserve the label of Celtic; instead, they would be better named "Britannic languages", leaving the label "Celtic languages" to those strictly found in the continent.
1
-
The Britannic language phonologically closest to Continental Celtic languages would be Welsh, or any other Brittonic language:
"But in later Gaulish and Hispano-Celtic, there are numerous traces of lenitions anticipating the Neo-Celtic (particularly the Brittonic) systems: Proto-Celtic *t between vowels written D-, intervocalic *-k written G-, and *-g lost. As Martinet (1952) showed, Western Romance (for example, Spanish) also has a system of strong and weak consonants similar in articulation and distribution to what we must reconstruct for Celtic before the Neo-Celtic syllable losses. Thus, the fortes occur in absolute initial position and the lenes between vowels, which is how it was in Celtic before the Early Middle Ages."
Source: Koch, John T. Is Basque an Indo-European Language? University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, Aberystwyth. The Journal of Indo-European Studies. Volume 41, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2013.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goodaimshield1115 Wait a second. You're not all correct either.
"neither Celts nor Basques are races, but cultures, and Spanish culture is over 90% Roman culture, period, nor Celtic, nor even Basque."
That is not correct. Celts are not "a culture". That is what British academics want you to believe, so that they may call themselves "Celts" too. However, "Celts" were not a culture - the ancient peoples did not name cultures, they named ethnicities and their languages after their ethnicities - but instead a people - although the Keltoi of southern France were never found, pottery with the tribal surname "Celti" and "Celtus" have been found in southern France and all over northwestern Iberia (all of Iberia minus the south and the east regions).
When Herodotus first talked about the Celts, he placed them "next to the Cynetes, the westernmost people of Europe", which means the Celts must have been the Lusitanians who were the people living adjacent to the Cynetes. You may think incorrectly again that "there's no way the Lusitanians were Celtic since they spoke a non-Celtic language" but that is not how it works. Speaking Celtic never made anyone Celtic in the past - for instance, the ancient Greeks knew that the Ligurians spoke Celtic but nevertheless they said the Ligurians were NOT Celtic. Similarly with the Treveri, a Germanic tribe, which was said to "not speak their original language" but instead to speak "Celtic". Hence, the Ancient Greeks knew very well how to distinguish a language native to a people from one who wasn't. So the reason the Lusitanians are the Celts mentioned by Herodotus is that the Lusitanians used the proper name "Celt" in their tribal names, as well as their personal surnames, as attested in local tombstones. In fact, the highest and densest occurrence of the surname and tribal name "Celt" appears not in France, not even in southern France, but specifically within Lusitanian territory. So the Portuguese are a Celtic people, the Spanish are a Celtiberian people, and those Spaniards on the extreme south and on the eastern coast are more properly called Iberians. Those were three of the six ethnicities located in Iberia when the ancient authors wrote about Iberia. The others were the Poeni, the Phoenicae, and the Persae (source: Gaius Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Historia 3.11.1).
So no, the Portuguese and the Spanish aren't Romans - they are ethnically and culturally Celtic and Celtiberian respectively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brucetucker4847 Hi, thank you for your answer. It is the usual answer I get. However, it is not correct.
One way you can learn this is by watching the lecture "Celts and the End of Roman Britain" by John Collis on YouTube. Collis's theory "converted" Patrick Sims-Williams who is now a Celtosceptic and the President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies which is the body that recommends/regulates all the Celtic Studies programs in Universities worldwide.
Another way is you can read my summary which I kindly write to you.
1. Languages do not name peoples. Irish and Scottish cannot be Celts because they speak a Celtic language, just like the Romans could not be Latini just because they spoke Latin (and indeed they did not consider themselves Latini, but Romans), and just like today's Iberians and French and Romanian people cannot be Romans just because they speak a Romance language. That has never been the way things work. Instead, rather, people named languages: that is why the Romans said they spoke the Lingua Latina or "Latine" since they were acknowledging that the language originated among the Latini. So the Latini people named the language "Latine" which the Romans kept. This point is made in the lecture I recommended above by John Collis.
2. Even if languages named people, the so-called "Celtic Languages" were first named "Gallic Languages" by George Buchanan in 1582 who pioneered these linguistic studies. Therefore, that "broken rule" would actually make the Irish and Scottish "Gallians", not "Celts". In fact, Buchanan even admits in that seminal work that the Celts were the southern French, as proven by the Celtici being in Spain, and the Belgians being in both northern France and the British Isles proved that those people saw themselves as Belgians and not Celts. That was his argument in 1582, so there was awareness among British people even back then, that Celtic peoples were the southwestern Europeans of southern France and Iberia.
3. Modern academics may not simply take the name of an ancient tribe who left millions of modern descendants today, and say that they are going to give that name to a "language group" and then try to convince people that this fact means that group can be called by the name of the language they speak. That is an egregious attempt at cultural theft. Imagine modern academics deciding that from now on, Romance languages are going to be called Gothic Languages because the Visigoths settled in Iberia and the Gothic March in southern France, and therefore southwestern Europeans in southern France and Iberia from now on are the real Goths and how dare Sweden claim to be the real Goths? That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? Well, that is exactly what the Irish and Scottish are doing to the southern French and Iberians by playing this childish game of pretending they do not understand why they cannot claim to be Celts and how dare anyone call them non-Celtic, when in fact many Irish and Scottish people today are aware of the fact that they are not Celtic (even Fintan O'Toole, the Literary Editor for The Irish Times, has published a famous article on how the Irish are in no way Celtic or Celts) and educated enough to be proud of their Hibernian and Caledonian ancestry which means their languages should take after the name of their ancient tribes and be rightfully called Hibernian and Caledonian as their prefixes in erudite usage do practice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coen8677 "The peoples who inhabited the Isles before the Romans arrived were Indo-European Celtic people. "
There is no valid academic basis or argument to call those people "Celtic". Only linguists call them so, only after the 19th century (hence you cannot push this label backwards in time), and there is no evidence whatsoever those people all called themselves Celts. Only in Iberia are tombstones found with the name "Celt" dating from the Roman period.
"As a scientist who took history as an elective, I see you fell for the modern rewriting of British history, which is nonsense."
I didn't, actually, and I would gladly have this discussion live with you any day, any time. You may read Simon James' "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention?" and John Collis' "The Celts = Origins, Myths and Inventions" to catch up on how Britons and Celts only got conflated due to Romanticism in the Victorian Age. Also read Patrick Sims-Williams "An Alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to find out that "Hallstatt and La Tene" were never Celtic. Finally, read Hübner for a calm and slow explanation of why only in Iberia are ancient people found who actually called themselves Celts by tribal name and personal name all over epigraphic evidence such as hundreds of tombstones, votive altars and personal ceramic items, all bearing the name "Celt" with various suffixes, which is a mark of local, native, original naming, not of a foreign people having arrived.
I hope this helps. If it helps you think about it: the problem is there is no ancient object nor ancient text linking Britons to the name "Celts". On the other hand Iberia is littered with ancient tombstones with exactly that name followed by various different suffixes, all native and all shared with Lusitanian. They are actually all found in Lusitania, the place that academics love to tell us "was not Celtic". However you may read Hübner and learn that they were wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crusaderACR Read Patrick Sims-Williams's paper entitled "An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West'".
He is the current President of the International Congress of Celtic Studies.
Long story short: The British, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, were never called Celts historically. The same Greeks who lived among the Celts of Iberia and southern France also visited Britannia and Hibernia (Ireland) and they never identified the people there as Celts, even though they sometimes called even the Basques and Lusitanians Celts.
The British, Irish, etc, only started calling themselves Celts with the Romanticism movement of the 18th century which had lasting influences in academia up until today. These Romanticist ideas were usually associated with Biblical origins - hence the idea that the British are Celts is inherently tied with British Israelism - as well as with Nordic people - hence the idea that the British are Celts is inherently tied with Nordicism.
The now-known erroneous association between Celts and Hallstatt and La Tene came from only three facts, all of which have come to be refuted:
(1) Herodotus was misread to have located the Celts "at the source of the Danube river" which is correctly in modern-day southern Germany, when instead he said the opposite, i.e. he was trying to locate not the Celts by referring to the river Danube, but instead he was trying to locate the source of the river Danube by referring to the Celts. In other words, he had the location of the Celts secure in his mind, and the location of the source of the Danube was the thing in question which he was guessing where it started. Hence why he says with certainty that the Celts were the [1] westernmost people, [2] living beyond (western of, from the perspective of Greek sailors) the Straits of Gibraltar, and [3] neighbors of the Cynetes (who lived in modern-day southern Portugal), hence locating the Celts with 3 separate references without needing the source of the river Danube to locate them, and locating the Celts in Lusitania where currently the highest number and density of individuals named Celti have been found in local inscriptions, where it appears over a hundred times and which appears nowhere else more than once, and which also shows the idea of who was a Celt was not based on what language they spoke, but on blood relations. Therefore, Herodotus was not locating the Celts in southern Germany, but instead he was incorrectly locating the source of the Danube river in the Pyrenees (he says "Pyrene" also incorrectly), "in the land of the Celts" which he just described to be Iberia with 3 other references as I explained above.
(2) the "Celtic town of Nyrax" in one of the old Greek texts was incorrectly assumed to be the old town of Noreia in modern-day Austria. However, it turned out to be a town in Sardinia, again keeping with the theme of Celts being southwestern Europeans like southern French and western Iberians. In Sardinia there are many towns called Nura, Nora, Nurac, and Nurace.
(3) the Celtic place names in southern Germany and Austria were thought to be among the oldest, thereby proving the origin of the Celts to be there; however, those place names turned out to actually be among the most recent, from a Roman-time eastern migration of southeastern French Gauls.
Finally, the so-called Celtic languages were named incorrectly based on the now-known wrong conception that the modern-day Bretons are the direct descendants of the Gauls when in fact they are Medieval-Age British transplants from Britain. Indeed, the so-called Celtic languages were first called "Gallic languages" and if this had remained so, the British, Irish etc would have wrongly associated their identity with Gauls instead of wrongly associating it with Celts. As well, being a speaker of a language family does not make one that name of that language - for instance, being a Romance speaker does not make the Iberians or the Romanians "Romans". Just like speaking Latin did not make the Romans "the Latini" - instead, they knew they spoke the language of the tribe of the Latini, showing that language names came from people names, not the other way around. Hence, speaking a Celtic language cannot make the British, Irish etc "Celts" not only because Romance speakers are not "Romans", but because whatever language the Irish speak has to be called a word derived from the name of the Irish, hence "Irish" is also the name of their version of Gaelic, and should also be the name of their language family - something like Britanno-Hibernian would be fine. People name languages; languages do not name people.
I tried my best to summarize why the name "Celts" does not belong in any way, shape or form to the British and Irish etc according to the latest research which I cited above and invited you to read.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SockAccount111 They did not. That is just something historians say because they have very little sources to go off of and need to come up with interesting stories to tell.
First of all, different cultures don't usually mix. The moors were genetically Natufian and of a newly-invented muslim religion. They were also much prouder of their ancestry than Iberians at the time, so that the moors would not want to mix their blood with that of the vanquished.
But most importantly, we know there was no mix because Iberian autosomal DNA still plots exactly in the same place it did in the Copper Age, much earlier than the moors' invasion of Iberia. Therefore whatever happened between the Copper Age, after Germanic people mixed with EEF southern Europeans to form the Bell-Beakers, and today, is as good as not having happened, as it had no effect on the current gene pool of Iberians.
In other words the only mixture that can be detected in Iberians is the Germanic admixture of 2,500 BC when Corded-Ware peoples of the Eastern Bell-Beaker culture entered Iberia which was 100% EEF at the time and mixed with them leaving them at 60% EEF and 40% Yamnaya.
Since the Copper Age, the gene pool of Iberians has remained constant and unchanged. However, the Iberians are not an exception - the gene pool of all of western Europe has not changed since 2,500 BC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@tired-boy I am not conflating culture and DNA, you are, by saying "Iberians are Latin" when that is only their language - not even their "culture".
"I've never heard a Portuguese claiming celtness instead of latinness, that you may have heard of Galicians, "
That is you. Portuguese people who are educate know that their ancestors called themselves Celts in their tombstones and personal pottery, and that the Father of History, Herodotus, first located the Celts in Lusitania, "next to the westernmost people of Europe, the Cynetes".
There is nothing "Latin" about any Iberian people. Their language is called Romance for a reason - and the Romans never called themselves "Latin" for that same reason - the reason being you don't use a TRIBAL, PEOPLE'S name as an adjective for language, culture, etc, because that waters down their name disrespectfully in the same way that calling razor blades "gillettes" waters down their brand name.
"not beacause of a distinct celt culture, but because they have a peripheric nationalism that want to distance themselves from the rest of Spain."
Oh, stop it. It is perfectly genuine to seek your own political independence when you are a separate people, and the Galicians and the Portuguese have been a Galaico-Lusitanian people for over 4,000 years now after the Bell Beakers started this.
Both Portuguese and Galicians rightfully claim their Celticity based on what their ancestors called themselves as can be verified by anyone online searching for "celt" in a free epigraphic database of ancient tombstones - most tombstones containing the four letter name C-E-L-T are located in Lusitania quite definitely.
"Nontheless it's been proven that a big chunk of modern day Iberians' DNA stem from celts"
Their whole DNA is Celtic by definition as 2,000 years ago they had the same DNA and they called themselves Celts. What the mixture is doesn't matter - a people in the past had this same DNA and called themselves Celts with this DNA and they were the ancestors of the Iberians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BrianBorumaMacCennetig367 "This is incredibly unlikely as I told you, show me evidence that the greeks didn't invent it."
Gladly. The linguistic consensus as you can see by going to Wiktionary and looking up Britannia and clicking on the Etymology until you get to it, is that Britannia is ultimately derived from a Celtic language ethnonym (hence right there it can't have been Greek), reconstructed as early Brythonic *Pritani, perhaps from a Proto-Celtic *Kwritani, whence Welsh "Prydyn" meaning "Picts", Old Irish "Cruthne", "Cruithen-túath" meaning "Picts" (so if the Greeks had invented it, it would be very unlikely for those peoples to adopt those names for themselves and the Picts), all from PIE *kwer "to do, to make, to shape".
In fact this is why basically "Picts" and "Brits" are the same meaning from different roots, both meaning "shapes" or "the people of shapes" due to the drawings they made on their bodies.
On the other hand there is no plausible theory for the Greeks having come up with the term "Britannia", not to mention it was not usual of the Greeks to invent names of other peoples they referred to, but instead to use the names of those peoples in order to make their references useful in the real-world.
1
-
1
-
@BrianBorumaMacCennetig367 "O'Rahilly has been heavily debunked by modern historians his theories are questionable.. "
Agreed. However I never said "Listen to everything O'Rahilly said", I only said he identified, correctly so, that the Belgae went to Ireland and called themselves Builg there. The linguistic derivation makes sense here.
"Belgae were related to the Gaulish people was it not?"
Well, I don't mean to be pedantic, but "Gaulish" is a modern term. Greco-Romans used either "Celts" a name which was "Galli", "Gallo", in English "Gallians" by the Romans, and "Galates", "Galatas", in English "Galatians" by the Greeks.
People usually translate "Galli" from the Romans and "Galates" from the Greeks as "Gaulish" but it's important to understand "Gaulish" was never a word in the mind of any ancient peoples.
To answer your question, Strabo and Diodorus Siculus both said that the Galatians were the same people as the Belgae, and that Galatians lived all over Gallia except in the southern shore where the Celts lived.
Therefore it seems the two most well-informed ethnologists of the ancient world agreed that the Gallians were coethnic with the Belgae but neither was coethic with the southern Celts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iainmc9859 I said:
"The only people who called themselves Celts are western Iberians and southern French, as per tombstone and pottery evidence."
You said:
"Sorry J Boss, you're wrong."
But let's examine your arguments:
"Plenty of people call themselves Celts, either by nationality, language, perceived ethnicity or DNA analysis. "
I didn't say anything about "call", I said "called". By that I meant in classical history, before Medieval times. British and Irish people only started calling themselves Celts in the 19th century with the Romanticist movement. This movement was rooted in Biblical fanaticism and has no bearing on any scientific reality. The Celtic ancestry of British and Irish people was completely made-up on the flimsy grounds of a linguistic connection which today even linguists no longer defend - the number one textbook on Celtic Languages admit that the Insular languages are too different from the Continental Celtic languages and should hence the Insular Languages should not be called "Celtic", thereby getting rid of the last justification for the Irish and British to get confused as being Celts.
The only people who called themselves Celts by endonym were western Iberians and southern French. This reality can only be changed by further archaeological research, but so far this is it. No pottery with the name "Celt" has been found outside western Iberia and southern France. And both Strabo and Siculus corrected Caesar's characterization of Celts in Gauls to say that actually the Augustan division of Gaul was correct, which assigned Gallia Celtica as a name to Gallia Narbonensis, not Gallia Lugdunensis as Caesar had incorrectly done.
"The question I pose is when an individual or group of people self-define as 'Celtic' and then leave documentary or physical evidence behind. "
The only people who called themselves Celts by endonym were western Iberians and southern French. That is the evidence of self-definition that the Celts left behind. Everyone else was called by other names. It just so happened that the Greeks chose the westernmost peoples, the Celts, in western Iberia and southern France, to generalize the name to all other western peoples as a literary shorthand. However many times they did discern exactly what they meant by Celts and Galatians and then they always said Celts were only in southern France in Gaul, not in northern France, and in Iberia they were "past the Pillars of Hercules" meaning westward of the Strait of Gibraltar meaning western Iberia.
"Specifically I question the accuracy of ancient Greco-Latin sources as defining other cultures as Celtic."
We do not need to believe them, however the corrections of Strabo and Siculus fit perfectly with the endonymic, emic evidence of tombstones, votive altars and personal pottery items all bearing the name "Celt" only found in western Iberia and southern France. That evidence does not come from Greco-Romans, it comes directly from Celtic-speaking tribes who specifically called themselves Celts by personal name and tribal name.
"I have no doubt that what we call Celto-Iberians as falling into this 'other' category and not being Greco-Latins, although that is date subjective as the south of France was a Greco-Latin colony pretty early on. "
If you think that when talking about Celts in Iberia I am talking about Celto-Iberians this only shows your ignorance, unfortunately. Celtiberians or Celto-Iberians were the northeastern Celts in Iberia. They were called Celtiberians by the Greeks, not Celts. The people the Greeks called Celts in Iberia were in western Iberia, modern Portugal and Galicia. This confirms the native evidence of self-identification of those Celts in personal names in their tombstones and personal pottery items in the area of western Iberia. Hence those people were the Celts because we find their own material where they wrote their own names and they wrote "Celti" as their last name and as their tribal name. So we're not talking about Celtiberians, we're talking about the Celts in western Iberia who were never called Celtiberians but only ever Celts both by themselves and by Greco-Romans.
1
-
@iainmc9859 (part 1) Thank you for your very polite answer. I will be thrilled to take the time to tell you my sources.
"only mentioning tombstones and pottery evidence. You need to cite your sources to assert claims that Romanticism was simply Biblical fanaticism"
Okay, so two three things here: tombstone evidence, pottery evidence, biblical romanticism evidence.
Tombstone evidence: Epigraphic Database Heidelberg (simply do a search for the search string "celt" without quotes and you will see the results cluster around Lusitania), Hispania Epigraphica (do the same search), the Antroponimia indigena de la Lusitania romana by Jose Maria Vallejo Ruiz who documents all existing ancient epigraphic onomastic eviddence (i.e. names on tombstone) in Iberia and shows names rooted in "celt-" concentrated speccifically and clearly in Lusitania and becoming weaker the farther from Lusitania, disappearing by Madrid.
Pottery evidence: here are my sources excerpted for your convenience:
"The cognomen Celtus [natively attested in emic items such as personal pottery, in the form of graffito or inscription on pots, pans, combs, etc] is known from the Hispanic provinces as well as from Gallia Narbonensis"
Source: Zandstra, Marenne. Miles Aways From Home. Material culture as a guide to the composition and deployment of the Roman army in the Lower Rhine area during the 1st century AD, ISBN-13: 978-90-77744-00-0, p. 173
"Post cocturam graffiti on ceramics
19. CIILTI [-ii- was an alternative spelling for -e-]
Drag 17 (OF ATEPO), S-66.
Complete graffito, which features the genitive case of Celtus or Celtius. Both names are best known from Spain; the cognomen Celtus is also known from Gallia Narbonensis."
Source: Derks, T., & B. van der Meulen in prep.: ‘The Graffiti on Roman Ceramics and Metal from Velsen’, in: M. Driessen (ed.) in prep. in 2023.
Gallia Narbonensis is southern France, and when looked closely all those "Celti" name occurrences in Hispania are actually mostly in Lusitania and around its immediacies as documented by Jose Mariaa Vallejo Ruiz in his work I cited above.
Biblical romanticism evidence: This is covered in depth and explained completely by Stuart Piggot in his "Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagination" book, the first to negatively review the claim that the ancestors of the British and Irish were Celts, and then again by John Collis in his "The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions" and also by Simon James in his "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention?". All those works show with citations and excerpts that nothing but Celtomania allied with biblicism were the fuel behind the association that Celts had anything to do with Britain and Ireland.
You can more easily see the whole review on this subject here on YouTube, just search: Celts and the End of Roman Britain by John Collis. This understanding is now shared by the President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, Dr. Patrick Sims-Williams, which see also his paper "An Alternative to 'Celtic from the East' and 'Celtic from the West', 2020" for an authoritative and sweeping review for how Celts are no longer Hallstatt and La Tene either.
Then you say: "neither do you define your source for linguists that do not defend the connection of insularr P&Q Celtic to Gaulish and other transcontinental Celtic languages"
Here is the source and excerpt for your convenience - please read it very carefully, as I tried to give as much context as possible but you will have to deduce some of it, namely that this excerpt is in the middle of talking about the list of features that define so-called Celtic languages, and such list is numbered "14" and its items are "14a", "14b", "14c", and "14d":
"It will be noted that only one of the four strong features in (14c) (viz. particles) is securely attested for Continental Celtic. Although VSO does appear, its status there is uncertain in view of the scanty data, and the less unusual (in Indo-European) order of SOV may be the unmarked order. Mutations and inflected prepositions are seemingly absent.
By the same token, some of the weaker features in (14) (e.g., Ablaut, gender, copula, some tenses, infixed pronouns) are indeed seen in Gaulish or Celtiberian inscriptions. It is altogether curious that the features which, upon a synchronic typological comparison, are the least distinctive for neo-Celtic languages are the only features reasonably demonstrable as shared with the Continental varieties. Is this a result of evidentiary poverty, or have the Insular languages undergone a significant typological shift over the centuries?
Certainly we can see that, compared with the early Celtic languages, the modern languages are far less synthetic and much more analytic in structure. But this is hardly a trend confined to Celtic.
The fact that, on a typological level, the Insular languages seem to possess more traits with one another than they do with the ancient languages of the continent prompts much rumination concerning the interface of our synchronic analytical tools and our diachronic methods, about mechanisms of language contact which could account for the shift, and our understanding of linguistic evolution and processes of language change, which could also account for this development without appeal to outside influence.
The discrepancies among the various models of what is a "Celtic" language point up nagging and complex questions on assumptions forming the foundations of our discipline.
The study of these languages provokes us to find answers. So far, it appears that each of these three approaches to defining celticity has something to offer. Given the strong integrative trend of our age, it is perhaps not too daring to venture a prediction that the most satisfactory model will be one that partakes in proper measure of all three approaches.
Maybe only then will we gain a more comprehensive and adequate picture of what it means to be a Celtic language."
Source: The Celtic Languages, 2nd Edition, 2009, edited by Martin J. Ball and Nicole Mueller.
Then you say you take note of my endonymic evidence from western Iberia and southern France, which is very kind of you to trust that I had the evidence that I could show you upon asking as I believe I am hereby doing - thank you for your kindness. I am not sure we agree here; I was making the double-point that while no one in Britain and Ireland was ever called "Celt" in history outside this linguistics track that started with George Buchanan in 1582 (who incidentally recognized the Celts as the Spaniards and southern French as well), it is also the case that the direct ancestors of only the southern French and the western Iberians did in fact call themselves Celts - and the Lusitanians did so most of anyone else. Here I should jump ahead a bit and recommend you search "celtiberi" without quotes in the two online Epigraphic Databases I mentioned so you can see with your own eyes that indeed the Celtiberi self-identified as Celtiberi, written exactly that way in Roman script and in several of the earlier Iberian scripts. The book by Vallejo Ruiz will also show you the names rooted in Celtiberi- although they are much fewer and I would not recommend buying the book for those references.
(end of part 1)
@iainmc9859 Youtube is censoring and not letting me post my second part of that answer. Please go to pastebin dot com slash wFRsB8kd in order to read it. Thank you
EDIT: I am banned from posting for a day. I will answer your most recent message to me tomorrow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@minutemansam1214 "the Irish are Celts by virtue of them speaking Celtic language."
I've already refuted this on my previous message. The French are not Romans for speaking a Romance language, hence the Irish cannot be Celts for speaking a Celtic language.
George Buchanan in 1582 only named Irish and Scottish as "Celtic languages" because according to him "the Celts came from Spain as their name Celtici there does show".
Before 1707 the Celts were normally associated with the Spaniards and other southwestern European peoples by everyone, including George Buchanan who first suggested the Celtic languages to be related, although he originally called them Gallic languages:
"[...][George Buchanan] thus argued for an Iberian origin for the Irish and the Scots. To support this he noted the name of Brigantia (A Coruna) in Spain, and the Britgantes of south-eastern Ireland and of northern England mentioned by Ptolemy. He may, however, have also been influenced by the long medieval tradition for the links with the Iberian peninsula. As the inhabitants of Spain were called Celts, he [George Buchanan in 1582] suggested a Celtic origin for the Irish and Scots. For southern Britain he suggested colonisation from northern Gaul, especially by the Belgae."
"In his Historia, Buchanan is the first author to suggest that the origin of some of the population of Ireland and the British Isles was Celtic. Only the Irish and Scots were strictly speaking Celtic, while the Britons and their successors, the Welsh, were Gallic or Belgic, and the Picts, though of Gallic origin and Gallic speaking, came from Germania."
Source: The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions, p. 40.
"For at first, the (a) Celtae, and the (b) Belgae did use a different Dialect, as Strabo thinks. Afterwards, when the Celtae sent abroad great Colonies into Spain, as the Names of the Celtiberi and Celtici do declare. And the Belgae made their descent into the Maritime parts of Britain, as may be collected from the Names of (c) Venta Belgarum, of the (d) Atrebates, and (e) Icceni"
Source: George Buchanan, 1582, The History of Scotland.
"How people who don't exist anymore referred to themselves 2,000 years ago isn't relevant."
But it's not true that the Celts "don't exist anymore and hence their name is up for grabs by foreign Brits", not at all..
In fact the descendants of the Celts - the people who actually called themselves Celts in western Iberia - still exist as the Portuguese and the Galicians. They are the only ones who can rightfully be called Celts and therefore you should stop trying to steal their name, legacy and cultural items.
"In modern day English Celt refers to speakers of a language family, not a specific ethnicity."
No language, not even "Modern day English", gets to define PROPER NOUNS. No langauge gets to define Names. You can define words, but not names. The name Celt is already taken by the ancestors of the Portuguese and the Galicians. Hence the Irish can only be known as Hibernians, Fenians, or whatever else they want, just not Celts, because that name is taken, and no language can steal a name and an identity from another people.
1
-
@minutemansam1214 "Celtic studies or Celtology is the academic discipline occupied with the study of any sort of cultural output relating to the Celtic-speaking peoples (i.e. speakers of Celtic languages). This ranges from linguistics, literature and art history, archaeology and history, the focus lying on the study of the various Celtic languages, living and extinct.[1] The primary areas of focus are the six Celtic languages currently in use: Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Manx, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton."
The current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, Dr. Patrick Sims-Williams, agrees that the Irish and Scottish are not Celtic and that the Celts were an ethnicity whose ancestors have descendants today in the Protuguese and the Galicians. I sent you a lecture to watch about this for proof: Celts and the End of Roman Britain by John Collis here on YouTube on the Royal Archaeological Institute channel. Good luck, maybe you can learn something up-to-date.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stgibbs86 "LOL tell that to the gauls who migrated all over the place. Ever heard of galatians in the bible? It was written for a church in the province of galatia, a place in turkey named for the gauls, a group using the celtic culture, who moved there."
Both Gauls and Galatians called themselves "Galli" as both their names attest (Gaul isn't a name in antiquity, the name was Galli, not related to Gaul, but related to Galatians). Neither of them called themselves "Celts".
Only Victorian, Romanticist, Nordicist British academics ever called Gauls, Galatians, Irish and Scottish people "Celts".
Even the Ligures spoke Celtic and the Greeks made sure to call them "NOT a Celtic people".
1
-
@stgibbs86 "Seems you have a bias against the 1800s. Who cares when the term was coined, it exists and is an accurate representation of a valid idea."
That's just the point - it's important to know when it was coined because it was coined incorrectly:
> "The term 'Celtic' to describe the language group is an eighteenth-century innovation, and was due to a misconception that modern Breton was a survival of the language of the ancient Celts who lived in Gaul rather than a more recent introduction from Britain."
Source: Collis, James. The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions, p. 223.
"Thats what language is for bud."
No, language is not for "stealing the name of southwestern European tribes so that Irish and Scottish people can shower themselves in that name they never used in their entire history just because they dislike their native names of Hibernian and Caledonian". No, it's not for that.
"Yes culture absolutely exists, there is no denying that. Irish culture is different from scottish which is different from english, different from russia, different from arabian, different from african, different from native american and so on and so forth."
But the concept of "kulturgruppe" that was invented in the 19th century and which is responsible for the false labels "celtic culture" and "celtic language" is a false concept. Please watch here on youtube the video "Celts and the End of Roman Britain" by John Collis where he explains all of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OPEN LETTER TO METATRON:
In your "Were the Ancient Romans Nordic? The Truth" video, at 8:37, you said:
"But the wars between the Romans and the Gauls in both Cisalpine Gaul and Gallia Narbonensis brought into home Celtic slaves, therefore Nordic, if you will"
At 9:13 you repeat this idea that slaves from the "Celtic world" would have brought "Nordic types" to Rome.
Please make a publicly official correction to this statement.
There is not, nor has there ever been, "Nordic" Celts in Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Narbonensis.
Strabo (Geographia 4.1.1, 4.1.14, 4.4.1) and Diodorus Siculus (V.32.1), and Posidonius (cited by Strabo and Siculus) all say that the Celtic race south of the Alps was not the same as the Gallic race north of the Alps; in other words, that it was clear even then, that the Narbonenses and the Cisalpines were of the same southwestern European ethnicity as those Celts in Iberia whose descendants are modern-day Iberians.
And what race was that? Well, Polybius in Historiae, Book 34, Chapter 9, Section 3, Line 3, tells us:
"And in terms of the prosperity of the land, both the pleasantness and the political stability followed the Turdetani, and with the Celts due to their proximity, as Polybius has stated, because of their kinship."
Hence, the Celts were of the same ethnicity as the extreme southwestern Europeans of southwestern Portugal.
What you said, that "if you will, Celts being brought into Rome from Gallia Cisalpine and Gallia Narbonensis brought Nordic blood into Rome", is a patent lie, a misunderstanding of basic history, and a continuation of Nordicist claims against the heritage of the modern-day people of southern France whose ancestors called themselves Celts (according to emic evidence such as personal pottery items, votive altars and tombstones, not according to disparate etic Greco-Roman sources).
My patience is really running thin with you disgracing the history and heritage of the Celts and assigning them to the Nordic people.
If you do not correct your statement publicly and I have to end up doing that, I will definitely put you in your place such that your audience forever knows what a careless researcher you are.
You say you hire a team to help you make these videos - why don't you hire me to help with sources to do with the Celts? There is no one in the world more familiar with every piece of evidence to do with the Celts than I am.
FYI I am participating in a decade-long project that will revise every single mention of the Celts in all of history from the Greco-Roman sources to today's scholars, and our publication will make sure that every incompetent scholar who has opined on the Celts from a position of authority will have their name dragged in mud through a meticulous autopsy of every single thing they have said about the Celts and how exactly they did a disservice to their audience by being able to easily know the truth but choosing not to, and choosing to continue to listen to Nordicist, Victorian, Romanticist British sources for information on the Celts.
Mark my words, this project will upend "Celts", and if you are no found to be putting out correct information on the Celts, you will be exposed as a fraudulent scholar and as a cavalier, intolerant person, for continuing to slander the Celts through the Nordicist myth perpetrated by Romanticist, Victorian British scholars.
I am very disappointed in you for showing no respect to your southwestern European Celtic brothers and sisters. You keep giving their name and heritage away to the Nordics just like the British did. All of that is wrong and the time is coming where you will have to answer to your audience for your lies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MattDavies-f4u "it is now well known to describe a type of culture, traditions, religious practices, gods etc rather than a specific one from a specific place."
On the contrary, it is now (as in currently in academia) well known that the Celts were NOT those things you said, and that saying the Celts were those things you said is now invalid in academia - and has been for a while ever since the invasionist paradigm of Kossina and Childe fell.
"Which is why all the nations of the British Isles are known as Celtic."
They are NOT "known as Celtic" - only some English speakers think that. The whole rest of the world is well aware there were only ever Celts in the southern half of the European continent.
"Even if within that there is variation and specific titling as to what kind of Celtic."
Their names are Britons, Gaelics, Caledonians, etc - not Celtic.
Celtic is not a name historically associated with the British Isles and the Irish.
It was, for a brief moment, a name erroneously associated to them by linguists and only linguists. That paradigm fell. Now they're no longer Celts. The only Celts now are again the southern Europeans in France and western Iberia.
1
-
1
-
@MattDavies-f4u "Though I do agree n perhaps we should be using the collective term 'Bell-Beakers' to describe the cultural collective of that area of Europe at that time, it doesn't quite ring as well as Celtic does it. "
So you admit that using Celtic for Brits and Irish is purely an "aesthetic choice" that you are making and hence this has no merit whatsoever. To steal the identity of another people simply because it pleases you the way it sounds is perverse and evil.
"I do appreciate where you're coming from with this but ultimately Celtic has now evolved to be a term to describe the cultures, languages and beliefs of the peoples in these regions, including the British Isles but by title we'll known to have derived from Celts who actually acknowledged themselves as Celts. "
The way you think Celtic has evolved is no more in academia - that paradigm is over. Academia has reverted back to calling Celts only those people who called themselves Celts, which were not the ancestors of the Brits as you're now saying for what reason I don't know, but rather the southern French and western Iberian peoples who were preceded by Bell-Beakers who actually called themselves Celts, unlike the Brits and Irish.
"Much the same as the use of the term Germanic when that refers to many numerous nations whom most definitely didn't acknowledge themselves by that title. Its just a cultural collective term we use and that's all. "
Okay in that case please proceed to calling the English and the Irish and the Scottish "Germanic" since they speak a Germanic language today, right? Almost no one speaks Gaelic anymore... So they went from being Celts to being Germans? This is why it doesn't make any sense to call people by the language they speak and this is why it was never done in the past, and why academia has corrected this mistake which you seem to believe is still ongoing.
"Also, interesting that Britannia was dubbed on us from the Romans and prior to this we were known as the Albion Isles for some time."
You are very ignorant and this commentary shows. Britannia was not given as a name by the Romans to the Brits. Britannia is from Proto-Celtic *kuer- "to do, to shape", hence Cruithne, a cognate, all meaning "shape people, people of the shapes" due to their painting their bodies. Britannia is 100% a native term. Many places had more than one name and Albion also being Britannia would no be surprising.
You need to do a lot more research over what you think you know - most of it is obsolete by now and the half you know is incomplete.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-rt8dh4se3e "lets not get too hung up on terminology and right or wrong!"
Easy for you to say - nothing is on the balance for you. Plus this is not about terminology, it is about ethnonyms and who are their rightful owners for being the descendants of people who called themselves Celts. Terminology is arbitrary and I would not be having a discussion about choosing an arbitrary name. Some people historically were naturally called Celts due to having called themselves Celts. Other people are envious of the name "Celts" because they dislike their own name "Cruithne".
"As most information seems to have been lost in the midst of time."
Except this piece of information - who called themselves Celts and who didn't - has not been lost to time. We know exactly who did: western Iberians and southern French. And we know exactly who didn't: all the modern Celtic speakers trying to call themselves "Celts" just for speaking Celtic - although they never dare call themselves "Germans" for now speaking English.
"It seems to me that "Celtic" (adopted modern term) refers to Ideas or culture from our history and the fact that many of these genetically unrelated tribes adopted these aspects of culture and art point to it being something worth experiencing."
That is the outdated academic view as I have repeatedly asserted. Hence that view is incorrect today. Today, "Celtic" is not a generic term like you said. Rather, it is a specific ethnonym like "Roman", and like "Roman" it only refers originally to a specific group of people, despite later having had its meaning extended.
"I see nothing wrong with feeling free to go experimenting with ideas and delving into our histories as something worthwhile and fascinating."
Then let's start calling Sub-Saharan Africans "British" and "Irish" while saying that the British and Irish aren't really so "British" and so "Irish" anyways. After all this is exact what you are doing with the name "Celtic" - you're saying "there's nothing wrong with the British and the Irish taking the name Celtic for themselves and then later on excluding the actual Celtic people from their Celtic language societies, while saying they're not as Celtic as we are". Of course you see nothing wrong with this, you probably benefit from it, or at least you don't stand to lose your own identity that you inherited from your ancestors who actually called themselves Celts - because yours didn't.
"I started with a very naive point of view about 'Celtic' culture. but having bought books on the customs and culture of the 'Celts', as well reading about the myths and legends. I have found things that interest me in art, language and self expression."
Unfortunately all those books you read are now outdated because they follow the outdated theory that "Celts = Hallstatt and La Tene". So everything you read is wrong and does not concern anyone who ever called themselves Celts. What you read was about Britons, Caledonians, Hibernians, La Tene people and Hallstatt people - none of which ever called themselves Celts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xtramail4909 "“Celti” is a Roman construct derived from Greek Keltoi. "
It is not, since it is found embedded in native Lusitanian composite names. There are also derivation with only native suffixes, such as Celtiati, Celtigun, that cannot be explained if Celti were Roman, or if Keltoi were Greek. Plus, those words do not have cognates in those languages, whereas they do in Celtic (e.g. celicnon).
" Lusitanian were a Roman province."
Of a people who called themselves Celts according to the tombstones they left.
"Celtic is a culture, not a people."
That is the old, outdated, no-longer-valid, academic paradigm, based on the invasionist models of Childe and Kossina. They are no longer valid. Celts are no longer considered "a culture" in academia. Kindly read Patrick-Sims Williams paper "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to get up to date on the latest findings.
In summary, Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic, Celts do not come from the center of Europe, Celts were not a major grouping of cultural artifacts, they were not a major grouping of languages, they were simply a people with a name, and that people lived in Lusitania where they left traces of their personal ceramics with their name Celti inscribed in them, and where they left tombstones with their name Celti inscribed on them. Nowhere else did people do that, except scarcely in Narbo and Massilia in southern Gaul.
Each people in antiquity had their own name. The Greeks knew they were using "Celtic" in a generalized way. Strabo said so in Geographica 4.1.14 where he says "the Greeks call all Galates as Keltoi on account of the fame of the Keltai of Massilia and Narbo", therefore he knows that only one people in Gaul, the Narbonensis, called themselves Celts, but that the Greeks generalized their name anyways.
On the Roman side, Pliny also knew the name Celts was being generalized, this time from the people in central Lusitania, in Mirobriga, when he said "Mirobrigensis qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigensis, who surname themselves Celts"), and no other people was identified as actually calling themselves Celts by the Greco-Romans besides those western Iberians and those southern French, both for which there is also personal ceramic inscription evidence that they called themselves Celts, as well as tombstones and votive altars with the name Celt as a surname in personal names, totaling hundreds of exhibits.
"The culture was spread across a wide area, and it developed kind of differently in Britain and Ireland which is why they are called insular celts."
Actually you even got that outdated history backwards. In 1582 George Buchanan was the first person to ever call anything in either Ireland or Britain as "Celtic" and he only was calling the Gaelic languages "Celtic" (not anything to do with culture) and moreover he was only calling them Celtic because, as he himself said, "those languages must have come from the Celtici of Spain", hence the whole reason Ireland and Britain have anything to do with the name "Celtic" in the first place is due to the theory that the Spanish Celtici brought their languages there - not anything to do with sharing any culture, which came later with Romanticism in the Victoria Era.
"They didn’t go by the nickname that their invaders gave them."
Exactly, which is why all the Galatae did NOT call themselves Celts as Strabo and Pliny said - only the western Iberians ad southern French did, and then the Greeks and Romans knowingly generalized their names to their neighbors, as they did often with Scythians, Thracians, etc.
" The Roman’s never fully conquered Scotland. But the Romans did recognize them as having Celtic culture by the time they arrived."
They did not. No Greek or Roman ever referred to anything Irish or British as "Celtic". The closest they ever got to it was saying that some parts of the British culture are similar to the Celts from Gaul. Pytheas, who lived among the actual Celti, the people who called themselves Celtae, in southern France, in Massilia, traveled to Britain, and he never said anything about Celts there, and he was likely the Greek who most knew about Celts since he lived in a Greek colony among the Celtae of Massilia.
1
-
@xtramail4909 "“Celti” is a Roman construct derived from Greek Keltoi. "
It is not, since it is found embedded in native Lusitanian composite names. There are also derivation with only native suffixes, such as Celtiati, Celtigun, that cannot be explained if Celti were Roman, or if Keltoi were Greek. Plus, those words do not have cognates in those languages, whereas they do in Celtic (e.g. celicnon).
" Lusitanian were a Roman province."
Of a people who called themselves Celts according to the tombstones they left.
"Celtic is a culture, not a people."
That is the old, outdated, no-longer-valid, academic paradigm, based on the invasionist models of Childe and Kossina. They are no longer valid. Celts are no longer considered "a culture" in academia. Kindly read Patrick-Sims Williams paper "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to get up to date on the latest findings.
In summary, Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic, Celts do not come from the center of Europe, Celts were not a major grouping of cultural artifacts, they were not a major grouping of languages, they were simply a people with a name, and that people lived in Lusitania where they left traces of their personal ceramics with their name Celti inscribed in them, and where they left tombstones with their name Celti inscribed on them. Nowhere else did people do that, except scarcely in Narbo and Massilia in southern Gaul.
Each people in antiquity had their own name. The Greeks knew they were using "Celtic" in a generalized way. Strabo said so in Geographica 4.1.14 where he says "the Greeks call all Galates as Keltoi on account of the fame of the Keltai of Massilia and Narbo", therefore he knows that only one people in Gaul, the Narbonensis, called themselves Celts, but that the Greeks generalized their name anyways.
On the Roman side, Pliny also knew the name Celts was being generalized, this time from the people in central Lusitania, in Mirobriga, when he said "Mirobrigensis qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigensis, who surname themselves Celts"), and no other people was identified as actually calling themselves Celts by the Greco-Romans besides those western Iberians and those southern French, both for which there is also personal ceramic inscription evidence that they called themselves Celts, as well as tombstones and votive altars with the name Celt as a surname in personal names, totaling hundreds of exhibits.
"The culture was spread across a wide area, and it developed kind of differently in Britain and Ireland which is why they are called insular celts."
Actually you even got that outdated history backwards. In 1582 George Buchanan was the first person to ever call anything in either Ireland or Britain as "Celtic" and he only was calling the Gaelic languages "Celtic" (not anything to do with culture) and moreover he was only calling them Celtic because, as he himself said, "those languages must have come from the Celtici of Spain", hence the whole reason Ireland and Britain have anything to do with the name "Celtic" in the first place is due to the theory that the Spanish Celtici brought their languages there - not anything to do with sharing any culture, which came later with Romanticism in the Victoria Era.
"They didn’t go by the nickname that their invaders gave them."
Exactly, which is why all the Galatae did NOT call themselves Celts as Strabo and Pliny said - only the western Iberians ad southern French did, and then the Greeks and Romans knowingly generalized their names to their neighbors, as they did often with Scythians, Thracians, etc.
" The Roman’s never fully conquered Scotland. But the Romans did recognize them as having Celtic culture by the time they arrived."
They did not. No Greek or Roman ever referred to anything Irish or British as "Celtic". The closest they ever got to it was saying that some parts of the British culture are similar to the Celts from Gaul. Pytheas, who lived among the actual Celti, the people who called themselves Celtae, in southern France, in Massilia, traveled to Britain, and he never said anything about Celts there, and he was likely the Greek who most knew about Celts since he lived in a Greek colony among the Celtae of Massilia.
1
-
@xtramail4909 "“Celti” is a Roman construct derived from Greek Keltoi. "
It is not, since it is found embedded in native Lusitanian composite names. There are also derivation with only native suffixes, such as Celtiati, Celtigun, that cannot be explained if Celti were Roman, or if Keltoi were Greek. Plus, those words do not have cognates in those languages, whereas they do in Celtic (e.g. celicnon).
" Lusitanian were a Roman province."
Of a people who called themselves Celts according to the tombstones they left.
"Celtic is a culture, not a people."
That is the old, outdated, no-longer-valid, academic paradigm, based on the invasionist models of Childe and Kossina. They are no longer valid. Celts are no longer considered "a culture" in academia. Kindly read Patrick-Sims Williams paper "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to get up to date on the latest findings.
In summary, Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic, Celts do not come from the center of Europe, Celts were not a major grouping of cultural artifacts, they were not a major grouping of languages, they were simply a people with a name, and that people lived in Lusitania where they left traces of their personal ceramics with their name Celti inscribed in them, and where they left tombstones with their name Celti inscribed on them. Nowhere else did people do that, except scarcely in Narbo and Massilia in southern Gaul.
Each people in antiquity had their own name. The Greeks knew they were using "Celtic" in a generalized way. Strabo said so in Geographica 4.1.14 where he says "the Greeks call all Galates as Keltoi on account of the fame of the Keltai of Massilia and Narbo", therefore he knows that only one people in Gaul, the Narbonensis, called themselves Celts, but that the Greeks generalized their name anyways.
On the Roman side, Pliny also knew the name Celts was being generalized, this time from the people in central Lusitania, in Mirobriga, when he said "Mirobrigensis qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigensis, who surname themselves Celts"), and no other people was identified as actually calling themselves Celts by the Greco-Romans besides those western Iberians and those southern French, both for which there is also personal ceramic inscription evidence that they called themselves Celts, as well as tombstones and votive altars with the name Celt as a surname in personal names, totaling hundreds of exhibits.
"The culture was spread across a wide area, and it developed kind of differently in Britain and Ireland which is why they are called insular celts."
Actually you even got that outdated history backwards. In 1582 George Buchanan was the first person to ever call anything in either Ireland or Britain as "Celtic" and he only was calling the Gaelic languages "Celtic" (not anything to do with culture) and moreover he was only calling them Celtic because, as he himself said, "those languages must have come from the Celtici of Spain", hence the whole reason Ireland and Britain have anything to do with the name "Celtic" in the first place is due to the theory that the Spanish Celtici brought their languages there - not anything to do with sharing any culture, which came later with Romanticism in the Victoria Era.
"They didn’t go by the nickname that their invaders gave them."
Exactly, which is why all the Galatae did NOT call themselves Celts as Strabo and Pliny said - only the western Iberians ad southern French did, and then the Greeks and Romans knowingly generalized their names to their neighbors, as they did often with Scythians, Thracians, etc.
" The Roman’s never fully conquered Scotland. But the Romans did recognize them as having Celtic culture by the time they arrived."
They did not. No Greek or Roman ever referred to anything Irish or British as "Celtic". The closest they ever got to it was saying that some parts of the British culture are similar to the Celts from Gaul. Pytheas, who lived among the actual Celti, the people who called themselves Celtae, in southern France, in Massilia, traveled to Britain, and he never said anything about Celts there, and he was likely the Greek who most knew about Celts since he lived in a Greek colony among the Celtae of Massilia.
1
-
1
-
@xtramail4909 "“Celti” is a Roman construct derived from Greek Keltoi. "
It is not, since it is found embedded in native Lusitanian composite names. There are also derivation with only native suffixes, such as Celtiati, Celtigun, that cannot be explained if Celti were Roman, or if Keltoi were Greek. Plus, those words do not have cognates in those languages, whereas they do in Celtic (e.g. celicnon).
" Lusitanian were a Roman province."
Of a people who called themselves Celts according to the tombstones they left.
"Celtic is a culture, not a people."
That is the old, outdated, no-longer-valid, academic paradigm, based on the invasionist models of Childe and Kossina. They are no longer valid. Celts are no longer considered "a culture" in academia. Kindly read Patrick-Sims Williams paper "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" to get up to date on the latest findings.
In summary, Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic, Celts do not come from the center of Europe, Celts were not a major grouping of cultural artifacts, they were not a major grouping of languages, they were simply a people with a name, and that people lived in Lusitania where they left traces of their personal ceramics with their name Celti inscribed in them, and where they left tombstones with their name Celti inscribed on them. Nowhere else did people do that, except scarcely in Narbo and Massilia in southern Gaul.
Each people in antiquity had their own name. The Greeks knew they were using "Celtic" in a generalized way. Strabo said so in Geographica 4.1.14 where he says "the Greeks call all Galates as Keltoi on account of the fame of the Keltai of Massilia and Narbo", therefore he knows that only one people in Gaul, the Narbonensis, called themselves Celts, but that the Greeks generalized their name anyways.
On the Roman side, Pliny also knew the name Celts was being generalized, this time from the people in central Lusitania, in Mirobriga, when he said "Mirobrigensis qui Celtici cognominantur" ("the Mirobrigensis, who surname themselves Celts"), and no other people was identified as actually calling themselves Celts by the Greco-Romans besides those western Iberians and those southern French, both for which there is also personal ceramic inscription evidence that they called themselves Celts, as well as tombstones and votive altars with the name Celt as a surname in personal names, totaling hundreds of exhibits.
"The culture was spread across a wide area, and it developed kind of differently in Britain and Ireland which is why they are called insular celts."
Actually you even got that outdated history backwards. In 1582 George Buchanan was the first person to ever call anything in either Ireland or Britain as "Celtic" and he only was calling the Gaelic languages "Celtic" (not anything to do with culture) and moreover he was only calling them Celtic because, as he himself said, "those languages must have come from the Celtici of Spain", hence the whole reason Ireland and Britain have anything to do with the name "Celtic" in the first place is due to the theory that the Spanish Celtici brought their languages there - not anything to do with sharing any culture, which came later with Romanticism in the Victoria Era.
"They didn’t go by the nickname that their invaders gave them."
Exactly, which is why all the Galatae did NOT call themselves Celts as Strabo and Pliny said - only the western Iberians ad southern French did, and then the Greeks and Romans knowingly generalized their names to their neighbors, as they did often with Scythians, Thracians, etc.
" The Roman’s never fully conquered Scotland. But the Romans did recognize them as having Celtic culture by the time they arrived."
They did not. No Greek or Roman ever referred to anything Irish or British as "Celtic". The closest they ever got to it was saying that some parts of the British culture are similar to the Celts from Gaul. Pytheas, who lived among the actual Celti, the people who called themselves Celtae, in southern France, in Massilia, traveled to Britain, and he never said anything about Celts there, and he was likely the Greek who most knew about Celts since he lived in a Greek colony among the Celtae of Massilia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1