3 ms·

Please stare at this timeline: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Semitic_languages_-_Chronology.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/com

Please stare at this timeline: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Semitic_languages_-_Chronology.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Semitic_... > As such, I fail to see the relevance of your comment. By all means, Celts are actually Arabic speakers who have splintered off during the Bronze Age - some 3500 years ago prior to the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea - and the genesis of your theories revolving around the lost tribes of Israel is irrelevant. That bit is just an inexplicable coincidence. Obvious, my bad for being confused.

janef0421 4y ago
I never made any claim about ancestry, I was referencing a theory about Celtic languages in the British Isles being influenced by Semitic languages. And I don't think the lost tribes of Israel stuff is relevant, both because I'm not sure if the theory I referenced is actually derived from such ideas, and because it is so different as to be functionally distinct.
- recuter 4y ago
  Quite the theory that explains 35 centuries of linguistic evolution but whose own origin itself is lost to the mists of time. Perhaps you should solve that mystery first, you know, if only in the interest of proper scientific attribution. Maybe one of us could be enlightened if you look up and provide citations of the author. Surely you'll agree at least that is relevant.
  - janef0421 4y ago
    It's not "lost to the mists" of time. I just don't think researching it to satisfy an argumentative and presumptive person on a link-sharing website would be a good use of my time.
    - recuter 4y ago
      I presume nothing. You put forth a linguistic theory that happens to exactly overlap with The Lost Tribes conjectures which has been espoused by all kinds of people in all kinds of places for centuries. Like the 14th century Declaration of Arbroath (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath) pointed out to you by someone else down thread. Or such charming websites that pepper the web: http://www.israelite.info/thebiblestoryfiles/hebrew-celtic-connection.html http://www.israelite.info/thebiblestoryfiles/hebrew-celtic-c... In 1772, General Charles Vallancey, a leading Irish scholar of the day, published his famous work, "Essay On The Antiquity Of The Irish Language, Being A Collation Of The Irish With The Punic (Hebrew) Language." In his opening remarks he states, "On a collation of the Irish with the Celtic, Punic, Phoenician and Hebrew languages, the strongest affinity, (nay a perfect Identity in very many Words) will appear; it may therefore be deemed a Punic-Celtic compound." Vallancey continues, "from the Hebrew proceeded the Phoenician, from the Phoenician, Carthaginian, or Punic was derived the Aeolian, Dorian and Etruscan, and from these was formed the Latin... Of the Roman Saxon capital letters, the Irish use but three, all the others bear a very great resemblance to the primitive Hebrew and Phoenician." You say whether or not your theory is derived from these things is somehow irrelevant, my apologies then for possibly mistaking one theory for another, I was not familiar with your version. By all means, cite literally anything, nobody is arguing with you, I'll gladly accept any citation at all.
      - biorach 4y ago
        The OP didn't advance the Lost Tribes conjecture. There is no need for such a sneering response.
        recuter 4y ago
        How do you figure? (I'll point out that he himself somewhat reluctantly already said that it actually might be derived from it and he is unsure) Whichever heretofore unnamed conjecture he did advance overlaps exactly. I humbly and respectfully accept that it can be some strange coincidence. It is hypothetically entirely possible that it could be some other theory - one need only cite the author to clear it all up. All my links are from googling what OP wrote. I respectfully posit the most charitable possible explanation that OP could perhaps be spreading Lost Tribes theories unwittingly. Why dance around the issue? OP need only lookup whatever he did advance. There is truly nothing to argue about - if it is some other theory I defer to his good judgment as I am not a linguist.

janef0421 4y ago

I never made any claim about ancestry, I was referencing a theory about Celtic languages in the British Isles being influenced by Semitic languages. And I don't think the lost tribes of Israel stuff is relevant, both because I'm not sure if the theory I referenced is actually derived from such ideas, and because it is so different as to be functionally distinct.

recuter 4y ago
Quite the theory that explains 35 centuries of linguistic evolution but whose own origin itself is lost to the mists of time. Perhaps you should solve that mystery first, you know, if only in the interest of proper scientific attribution. Maybe one of us could be enlightened if you look up and provide citations of the author. Surely you'll agree at least that is relevant.
- janef0421 4y ago
  It's not "lost to the mists" of time. I just don't think researching it to satisfy an argumentative and presumptive person on a link-sharing website would be a good use of my time.
  - recuter 4y ago
    I presume nothing. You put forth a linguistic theory that happens to exactly overlap with The Lost Tribes conjectures which has been espoused by all kinds of people in all kinds of places for centuries. Like the 14th century Declaration of Arbroath (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath) pointed out to you by someone else down thread. Or such charming websites that pepper the web: http://www.israelite.info/thebiblestoryfiles/hebrew-celtic-connection.html http://www.israelite.info/thebiblestoryfiles/hebrew-celtic-c... In 1772, General Charles Vallancey, a leading Irish scholar of the day, published his famous work, "Essay On The Antiquity Of The Irish Language, Being A Collation Of The Irish With The Punic (Hebrew) Language." In his opening remarks he states, "On a collation of the Irish with the Celtic, Punic, Phoenician and Hebrew languages, the strongest affinity, (nay a perfect Identity in very many Words) will appear; it may therefore be deemed a Punic-Celtic compound." Vallancey continues, "from the Hebrew proceeded the Phoenician, from the Phoenician, Carthaginian, or Punic was derived the Aeolian, Dorian and Etruscan, and from these was formed the Latin... Of the Roman Saxon capital letters, the Irish use but three, all the others bear a very great resemblance to the primitive Hebrew and Phoenician." You say whether or not your theory is derived from these things is somehow irrelevant, my apologies then for possibly mistaking one theory for another, I was not familiar with your version. By all means, cite literally anything, nobody is arguing with you, I'll gladly accept any citation at all.
    - biorach 4y ago
      The OP didn't advance the Lost Tribes conjecture. There is no need for such a sneering response.
      - recuter 4y ago
        How do you figure? (I'll point out that he himself somewhat reluctantly already said that it actually might be derived from it and he is unsure) Whichever heretofore unnamed conjecture he did advance overlaps exactly. I humbly and respectfully accept that it can be some strange coincidence. It is hypothetically entirely possible that it could be some other theory - one need only cite the author to clear it all up. All my links are from googling what OP wrote. I respectfully posit the most charitable possible explanation that OP could perhaps be spreading Lost Tribes theories unwittingly. Why dance around the issue? OP need only lookup whatever he did advance. There is truly nothing to argue about - if it is some other theory I defer to his good judgment as I am not a linguist.