Extract: [...]In Celtic languages (both Continental and Insular) we can find words with uncertain etymology which presumably represent loanwords from other language-families. One can see the traces of the pre-Indo-European substratum of Central and Western Europe, “an original non-Celtic/non-Germanic North West block” according to Kuhn (1961). But we may suppose that this conclusion is not sufficiently justified. This problem can have many different solutions, and we may never be in a position to resolve it definitively.[...]

Extract: [...]It is not remarkable that structural similarities between the Insular Celtic and some Afro-Asiatic1 languages continue to exert a fascination on many people. Research into any language may be enlightening with regard to the understanding of all languages, and languages that show similar features are particularly likely to provide useful information. It is remarkable that the structural similarities between Insular Celtic and Afro-Asiatic languages continue to be interpreted as diagnostic of some sort of special relationship between them; some sort of affinity or mutual affiliation that goes beyond the fact that they are two groups of human languages. This paper investigates again the fallacious nature of the arguments for the Afro-Asiatic/Insular Celtic contact theory (henceforth AA/IC contact theory). It takes its point of departure from Gensler (1993). That work is as yet unpublished, but has had considerable resonance. Such statements as the following indicate the importance that has been attached to the work: “After the studies of Morris-Jones, Pokorny, Wagner2 and Gensler it seems impossible to deny the special links between Insular Celtic and Afro-Asiatic” (Jongeling 2000:64). And the ideas in question have been propagated in the popular scientific press,3 with the usual corollary that it is these ideas that are perceived by the interested but non-specialist public as being at the cutting edge of sound new research, when in fact they may simply be recycled ideas of a discredited theory. For these reasons it is appropriate to subject Gensler’s unpublished work to detailed critique.4 In particular, with regard to the twenty features of affinity between Insular Celtic and Afro-Asiatic which Gensler investigated, it will be shown (yet again, in some cases): [...]

Extract: [...]The Roman conquest of what was to become the province of Gallia Narbonensis in the second and then of the whole of Transalpine Gaul in the first century B.C. led to the incorporation into the Roman empire of a large part of the territory in which Gaulish was then spoken.1 In consequence, the vernacular rapidly lost its footing at least in public life and was soon replaced by Latin, the language of the new masters, which enjoyed higher prestige (cf. e.g. Meid 1980: 7-8). On the other hand, Gaulish continued to be written for some three centuries and was probably used in speech even longer, especially in rural areas. We must therefore posit a prolonged period of bilingualism. The effects of this situation on the Latin spoken in the provinces of Gaul seem to have been rather limited. A number of lexical items, mostly from the field of everyday life, and some phonetic characteristics are the sole testimonies of a Gaulish substratum in the variety of Latin that was later to develop into the Romance dialects of France (cf. Meid 1980: 38, fn. 77). [...]

Contents: The Sociolinguistic Conditions favourable to spread of Structural Features Contact-induced Changes in Insular Celtic Phonological Changes The Lenition of Voiceless Stops Raising / i-Affection Lowering / a-Affection Apocope Syncope Morphological The Loss of Case Inflection of Personal Pronouns The Creation of the Equative Degree The Creation of the Imperfect Tense The Creation of the Conditional Mood Morphosyntactic and Syntactic The Creation of Preposed Definite Articles

Extract: That the Celtic languages were of the Indo-European family was first recognised by Rasmus Christian Rask (*1787), a young Danish linguist, in 1818. However, the fact that he wrote in Danish meant that his discovery was not noted by the linguistic establishment until long after his untimely death in 1832. The same conclusion was arrived at independently of Rask and, apparently, of each other, by Adolphe Pictet (1836) and Franz Bopp (1837). This agreement between the foremost scholars made possible the completion of the picture of the spread of the Indo-European languages in the extreme west of the European continent. However, in the Middle Ages the speakers of Irish had no awareness of any special relationship between Irish and the other Celtic languages, and a scholar as linguistically competent as Cormac mac Cuillennáin (†908), or whoever compiled Sanas Chormaic, treated Welsh on the same basis as Greek, Latin, and the lingua northmannorum in the elucidation of the meaning and history of Irish words. [...]

Extract: [...] One of the often noted characteristic features of the Celtic languages is the absence of a singular verbal form with the meaning ‘to have’.1 The principal way of expressing possession is through periphrastic constructions with prepositions (such as Irish ag, Scottish Gaelic aig ‘at’; Welsh gan, Breton gant ‘at, with’) and appropriate forms of the substantive verb. Pronominal prepositions, another distinctive feature of the Celtic languages, consist of a preposition and a suffixed pronoun, or rather a pronominal personal ending. This construction may be analyzed as an instance of category fusion. Thus, the Irish and Welsh equivalents of English ‘I have money’ are Tá airgead agam or Mae arian gen i, respectively, both literally meaning ‘is money at-me/with-me’. This note discusses pronominal possessive constructions in Celtic languages (and some comparable examples from Celtic Englishes) and provides some background information on pronominal prepositions and comments on historical developments of these forms. It also discusses some terminological issues involved in labelling the construction in question. [...]

Extract: [...]In the first part of this paper I trace the language shift from Breton to French within the historical, social and ideological framework in which it occurred. I then argue that 19th and 20th-century attempts by scholars and militants to rehabilitate the Breton language led to the creation of a unified standard (peurunvan).2 The consequence has been the rise of a three-way diglossic rapport between the speakers of French, the new Breton standard3 and those of the traditional Breton vernaculars. Taking the varieties of southern Cornouaille (Finistère) between Quimper and Quimperlé as a point of comparison,4 I focus on a number of phonological, morphological, syntactical and lexical features which, though far from exhausttive, are not generally taken into account in the new standard language. These details provide a general idea of how varieties of Breton function at the micro-dialectological level, as well as ways in which they can differ from the standard and other spoken varieties. The paper concludes with observations regarding the necessity to consider languages, language varieties and their speakers within relevant social contexts.[...]

Content: Cornish Scat Abroad The Next Parish after Land’s End: Early Explorations William Gwavas and that 1710 Letter Yee-Har!!: Miners and Cowboys Some Language Cowboys: Nancarrow, Bottrell and Weekes Cornish Language in Twenty-First-Century North America

Extract: [...]Intriguing as they undoubtedly are, the early sixteenth-century lists of books in the Earl of Kildare’s library may well have inadvertently helped to lull scholars into visualising a rather idealised picture of language balance in multilingual late medieval Ireland. The lists reflect a society in which the four languages, Irish, English, Latin and French, vied as scholarly media and where the outcome in the Earl’s library was a four-way photo-finish. The number of volumes in each of the languages was recorded as follows: Latin, 34; French, 35; English, 22; Irish, 20 (Mac Niocaill 1992: 312-314). But of course the multilingual contact situation in Ireland had always been quite dynamic, both at vernacular and at scholarly levels, following the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169. Although French continued to be employed in official documents into the second half of the 15th century, it had already ceded its vernacular role to English in the towns of the colonists prior to the drawing up of the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366. These Statutes, composed in Norman-French, the primary language of English law at the time, provide an earlier snapshot of the language situation within the areas under English jurisdiction, as they sought to compel the colonists to desist from adopting Irish as a community vernacular. Ironically, no mention is made of Norman-French in the Statutes themselves. It is clear that what was at issue was a contest for supremacy between Irish and English as the principal vernacular among the colonists.[...]

Extract: [...]It is true that scholars concentrate on a certain linguistic level in order to reach the greatest depth in their research. But this general stance should not lead to a complete neglect of other levels. When considering a multi-level phenomenon such as language contact and shift, concentration on a single linguistic level can have the unintended and unfortunate consequence of missing linguistically significant generalisations. This is especially true of the main division of linguistic research into a phonological and a grammatical camp, where syntacticians miss phonological generalisations and phonologists syntactic ones. In the present paper the interrelationship of syntax and prosody is investigated with a view to explaining how and why certain transfer structures from Irish became established in Irish English. In this context, the consideration of prosody can be helpful in explaining the precise form of transfer structures in the target variety, here vernacular Irish English. The data for the investigation will consider well-known features of this variety, such as unbound reflexives, non-standard comparatives and tag questions. Furthermore, the paper points out that, taking prosodic patterns into account, can help in extrapolating from individual transfer to the community- wide establishment of transfer structures. In sum, prosody is an essential element in any holistic account of language contact and shift.[...]