Scots as Israelites??

[DistantCelt]

Data is data and it speaks volumes more than most can supress even if they wish to.

The problem, dear lady, is that nothing has any intrinsic meaning into anything. Data is utterly meaningless and useless without context. And to know context, you will have to study the actual material at hand. Ie, for example, how population dynamics work and what standards must be met before any sort of generalisation is done to establish relative historical connectivity to a particular group or tribe ( Some muslims try desperately to show some form of lineage to the Ismaili clan, some christians try desperately to show some form of lineage to the apparently perceived 'jewish race', which doesnt exist in the first place).

The biggest problem with the internet is that it is acting as a big conduit to form fundamentalist and incorrect opinions of all sort simply by having no consistency or benchmark standard for accuracy. It has its positives ( such as difficulty in thought control) but this is a categoric flaw of the internet- you are showered with propaganda left, right and center and thus, unless you are well versed in the founding material of these topics, you can be easily misled.
I would suggest a study of population dynamics,genetics and historical,cultural,linguistic and phonological subjects and once you do, you will come to a clear conclusion that your viewpoint, though maybe true ( ie, it is possible that some ethnicities are more directly related than perceived today or the opposite), is ultimately lacking in anything resembling authentic and accredited research to prop up this notion of 'celts = israelis' beleif.

My study of genetics (though not on accredited capacity, through reading genetics texts from university courses) and history has led me to conclude that this is a very shaky argument to begin with, since the fundamental concept of 'race' itself is categorically proven as false. Therefore, should the propaganda and misplaced goals ever demand it, you can prove that Pygmies are british. Furthermore, even if one is to draw a patchwork and somewhat rickety definition of 'race' based on haplotypes that would give some quasi-scientific definition of race 'such as subcontinentals, caucasian, semitic, native american, east asian, etc.', 'Israelis' would still fail to meet the definition of a race or subset of people.
Therefore, any attempts to establish this agenda-driven link is simply dependent on pure historical reference and cultural reference.
Such is quite a dodgy ground, given the relative lack of celtic literature prior to the medieval period and even the early medival literature being overwhelmingly dominated by patchy work from apparent 'clan leaders' and celtic chieftians. As such, the political and theological landscape of the medival period was a chief player in the formation of early celtic works are largely lacking in its consistency and scholarship, thus resulting in a sketchy picture of the isles till the medieval period ( and most references drawing from outside sources such as the Romans or Viking).
Not to mention, the genetic testing standards used to determine a particular ethnicity is on rather shaky ground and is rather open to interpretations in genetic circles. Oh and if you notice, I have made my position perfectly clear, which you clearly are misrepresenting. I am dismissing your claim to 'Israelis = Celts' theory because there is very little scholarship to suggest the connection. And such a connection, since not backed up historically in claims and literature or in scientific sense, has to be established and not assumed to be true until proven otherwise.

As such, this discussion is bound to go around in circles because it has nothing but anecdotal and religion-induced perception of the world as the driving force and the lack of any factual scholarship and logical fallacies as the obstacle against it. I see a revival in this thread in your part as the driving force and the recent participation in favour of Israel in the iternational forum to be subtle and amusing. Very well played indeed. But no matter.
All this psuedo-science and ideas of history being driven by religious psychobabble is rather amusing to watch. One side tries to call every tom, dick and harry under the sun as Jewish ( i've even heard some people think that Siddharth Gautam was a Jew!!) while the other side tries to draw immaginary lines to Ismailis in any shape or form. Rather amusing and saddening to watch indeed.

[wild-in-tent]

I am mirthfully amused at your diatribe. ..ROFL! My my my.......what great lengths you do go to in every thread lol! Drop the dead donkey! Unless of course you wrote this for everyone else...it has too many flaws in it to interest me and it follows your usual agenda whenever Israel is mentioned. Note I did not start this thread nor did I revive it for reasons that suit your bull.... usual nasty underhanded insinuating....for the last time get a life and leave me be. I honestly do not wish to speak to you anymore on these threads....you obsess about me it is clear....now answer others...your constant potshots are low and droll...... Worse Harika who is new revived the thread...I simply having already started to talk to her on other threads continued on talking to her.....now get lost and quit trolling after me...it is sad and pathetic!
PS: Harika you did nothing wrong dear in reviving this thread...he is obviously obsessed and it is no fault of anyone here how he conducts himself. He needs a swift kick for bothering everyone on this board by bothering me. I hope he leaves me alone. I enjoy this board and the lovely people on it....but he puts me under strain with his constant harassment when I post. Sorry Harika. You are a great person to talk to and so are the others in this thread...I was so enjoying it....till he came in to bother me....

I see a revival in this thread in your part as the driving force and the recent participation in favour of Israel in the iternational forum to be subtle and amusing. Very well played indeed.

Originally Posted by DistantCelt

The problem, dear lady, is that nothing has any intrinsic meaning into anything. Data is utterly meaningless and useless without context. And to know context, you will have to study the actual material at hand. Ie, for example, how population dynamics work and what standards must be met before any sort of generalisation is done to establish relative historical connectivity to a particular group or tribe ( Some muslims try desperately to show some form of lineage to the Ismaili clan, some christians try desperately to show some form of lineage to the apparently perceived 'jewish race', which doesnt exist in the first place).

I would suggest a study of population dynamics,genetics and historical,cultural,linguistic and phonological subjects and once you do, you will come to a clear conclusion that your viewpoint, though maybe true ( ie, it is possible that some ethnicities are more directly related than perceived today or the opposite), is ultimately lacking in anything resembling authentic and accredited research to prop up this notion of 'celts = israelis' beleif.

My study of genetics (though not on accredited capacity, through reading genetics texts from university courses)

Therefore, any attempts to establish this agenda-driven link is simply dependent on pure historical reference and cultural reference.

Oh and if you notice, I have made my position perfectly clear, which you clearly are misrepresenting.

. I see a revival in this thread in your part as the driving force and the recent participation in favour of Israel in the iternational forum to be subtle and amusing. Very well played indeed. .

[DistantCelt]

. I honestly do not wish to speak to you anymore on these threads....you obsess about me it is clear....now answer others...your constant potshots are low and droll and more than a little sick.

Why do you have to get personal is beyond my understanding. I've tried to treat you anonymously in the same style i interact with everyone here. And nor do i follow you around - I comment on threads that interests me, contribution to the debate at hand and in several of 'your' threads, i have not had any input whatsoever. In this light, i shall cease all posts towards you or directed to you but but to the topic at hand, since the topics of debate are in public forum and i dont ever ask anyone to 'leave' a thread.

[wild-in-tent]

I see a revival in this thread in your part as the driving force and the recent participation in favour of Israel in the iternational forum to be subtle and amusing. Very well played indeed.

because you get personal....as your comment above states. I asked you to leave me alone and post your comments to others...that is not asking you to leave a thread. Now with that thankyou for cessation of comments on my posts. It is appreciated as I have asked you before several times to quit putting nasty shots at me in your posts which you have highlighted that you obviously cannot refrain from doing. Again Thank you.

Originally Posted by DistantCelt

Why do you have to get personal is beyond my understanding. I've tried to treat you anonymously in the same style i interact with everyone here. And nor do i follow you around - I comment on threads that interests me, contribution to the debate at hand and in several of 'your' threads, i have not had any input whatsoever. In this light, i shall cease all posts towards you or directed to you but but to the topic at hand, since the topics of debate are in public forum and i dont ever ask anyone to 'leave' a thread.

[Eleana]

Originally Posted by wild-in-tent

Lol! I do think you are right as even the Romans spoke Latin. Latin came from Ladino, a language spoken by Celts in Italy. It was a mixture of the Spanish Hebrew (Sephardic) and Gaelic...so I must say that when the Irish revolted could it be because of their butchery of our language?

Spanish Hebrew in relation to Italian Celts? That confuses me lots. Also I would not call the language spoken there Gaelic. Gaelic evolved later according what I have learnt. The Celts in Italy played a role 500 before Christ and were defeated 300 years later.

Maybe you could help me drawing a time line when happened what because I think that you might confuse who came first and who interacted with whom. Languages evolve and adopt other words, and calques and cognates are markers of relationships and interactions.

[wild-in-tent]

Well the whole brew IS confusing in that the Spanish Jews call their language Ladino which is actually ancient Spanish with Latinized words and Italy calls their language Ladino ..theirs came from Rhaetian etc which in the end all merge into the same sources explanation, Phew! well....here goes...in the end I shall highlight the sentence of all sentences....

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-romance-languages
Rhaeian period went all the way back to the Dinosaurs so this is an ancient Language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaetian
The chief towns of Raetia (excluding Vindelicia) were Tridentum (Trento) and Curia (Coire or Chur). It was traversed by two great lines of Roman roads — one leading from Verona and Tridentum across the Brenner Pass (in which the name of the Brennii has survived) to Oenipons (Innsbruck) and thence to Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg); the other from Brigantium (Bregenz) on Lake Constance by Chur and Chiavenna to Como and Milan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raetians NOTE had merged with Celts…it is hotly contested whether they were Etruscans or not to this very day….
Note Ligurians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligures
The Ligures (English: Ligurians, Greek: Λιγυες) were an ancient people who gave their name to Liguria, which once stretched from Northern Italy into southern Gaul. The Ligures inhabited what now corresponds to Liguria, northern Tuscany, Piedmont, part of Lombardy, and parts of southeastern France.
Classical references and toponomastics suggest that the Ligurian sphere once extended further into central Italy: according to Hesiod's Catalogues (early 6th century BC) they were one of the three main "barbarian" people ruling over the Western border of the known world (the others being Aethiopians and Scythians). Avienus, in a translation of a voyage account probably from Marseille (4th century BC) speaks of the Ligurian hegemony extending up to the North Sea, before they were pushed back by the Celts. Ligurian toponyms have been found in Sicily, the Rhône valley, Corsica and Sardinia.
It is not known for certain whether they were a pre-Indo-European people akin to Iberians; a separate Indo-European branch with Italic and Celtic affinities; or even a branch of the Celts. Kinship between the Ligures and Lepontii has also been proposed. Another theory traces their origin to Betica (modern Andalusia).

The Ligures were assimilated by the Romans, and before that by the Gauls, producing a Celto-Ligurian culture.
Note this part Another theory traces their origin to Betica (modern Andalusia)

Ladino

“Under Roman rule, in 19 BC, the region became known as Hispania, and
its inhabitants learned Latin from Roman traders, settlers,
administrators, and soldiers. When the classical Latin of the educated
Roman classes mixed with the pre-Roman languages of the Iberians,
Celts, and Carthaginians, a language called Vulgar Latin appeared. It
followed the basic models of Latin but borrowed and added words from
the other languages.[/b][/b]
Even after the Visigoths, Germanic tribes of Eastern Europe, invaded
Hispania in the AD 400s, Latin remained the official language of
government and culture until about AD 719, when Arabic-speaking
Islamic groups from Northern Africa called Moors completed their
conquest of the region. Arabic and a related dialect called Mozarabic
came to be widely spoken in Islamic Spain except in a few remote
Christian kingdoms in the North such as Asturias, where Vulgar Latin
survived.”
http://www.alsintl.com/languages/spanish2.htm
http://www.alsintl.com/languages/spanish.htm


Ladino Language,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladino_language
The name "Ladino" is a variant of "Latin". The language is also called Judæo-Spanish, Sefardi, Dzhudezmo, Judezmo, and Spanyol; Haquitía (from the Arabic haka حكى, "tell") refers to the dialect of North Africa, especially Morocco. The dialect of the Oran area of Algeria was called Tetuani, after the Moroccan town Tétouan, since many Oranais Jews came from this city. In Hebrew, the language is called Spanyolit.
According to the Ethnologue,
The name 'Dzhudezmo' is used by Jewish linguists, 'Judeo-Espanyol' by Turkish Jews; 'Judeo-Spanish' by Romance philologists; 'Ladino' by laymen, especially in Israel; 'Hakitia' by Moroccan Jews; 'Spanyol' by some others.
The derivation of the name "Ladino" is complicated. In pre-Expulsion Spain the word simply meant "Spanish": literary Spanish as distinct from dialect, and Spanish in general as distinct from Arabic. Following the expulsion, Jews spoke of "the Ladino" to mean the traditional oral translation of the Bible into archaic Spanish. By extension it came to mean that style of Spanish generally, in the same way that (among Kurdish Jews) Targum has come to mean Judaeo-Aramaic and (in Arab countries) sharħ has come to mean Judaeo-Arabic. For this reason, authors like Haim Vidal Sephiha[1] reserve "Ladino" for the very Hebraicized form of the language used in religious translations such as the Ferrara Bible, which was based on the traditional oral version.
[edit]
Variants
At the time of the expulsion from Spain, the day to day language of Spanish Jews was little if at all different from that of other Spaniards. There was however a special style used for purposes of study or translation, featuring a more archaic dialect of Spanish, a large number of Hebrew and Aramaic loan-words and a tendency to render Hebrew word order literally (ha-laylah ha-zeh, meaning "this night", was rendered la noche la esta instead of the normal Spanish esta noche). As stated above, some authorities would confine the term "Ladino" to this style.
Following the expulsion, the daily language was increasingly influenced both by the language of study and by the local non-Jewish vernaculars such as Greek and Turkish, and came to be known as Dzhudezmo: in this respect the development is parallel to that of Yiddish. However, many speakers, especially among the community leaders, also had command of a more formal style nearer to the Spanish of the expulsion, referred to as Castellano.
During the Middle Ages, Jews were instrumental in the development of Castilian into a prestige language. In the Toledo School of Translators, erudite Jews translated Arabic and Hebrew works (often translated earlier from Greek) into Castilian and Christians translated again into Latin for transmission to Europe.
Etruscans http://www.geocities.com/hbry/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etrusca...ation#Genetics shows there is a genetic link between the Etruscans and the Anatolians

I have to make this 2 part as it is too many characters....

Originally Posted by Eleana

Spanish Hebrew in relation to Italian Celts? That confuses me lots. Also I would not call the language spoken there Gaelic. Gaelic evolved later according what I have learnt. The Celts in Italy played a role 500 before Christ and were defeated 300 years later.

Maybe you could help me drawing a time line when happened what because I think that you might confuse who came first and who interacted with whom. Languages evolve and adopt other words, and calques and cognates are markers of relationships and interactions.

[wild-in-tent]

Foundation of Rome
Rome was founded in Etruscan territory. Despite the words of the sources, which indicated Campania and Latium also had been Etruscan, scholars took the view that Rome was on the edge of Etruscan territory. When Etruscan settlements turned up south of the border, it was presumed that the Etruscans spread there after the foundation of Rome. As it stands now, the settlements are known to have preceded Rome. The Greeks also landed on Etruscan soil, at a round conventional date of about 1000 BC.
Archaeological possibilities
A final thread illuminated by the genetic evidence is the possible central European origin of the Villanovan. It appears to be an offshoot of the Urnfield. Some have hypothesized that the Villanovan represents immigrant Celts or Old Europeans (lumped under the Greek term “Pelasgian.”). Perhaps the Etruscans entered Italy over the Alps.
Genetically, the ancient Etruscans have no closer affinities to the modern people of east Europe than do modern Italics. Moreover, the Urnfield never included only the Celts, and the Villanovan did not include only the Etruscans. It spread to Italics as well. More than likely, the Villanovan only represents a central European cultural influence and not a transfer of population.
If the Etruscans moved to Italy from Europe, they are most likely to have done so much earlier, and there is some evidence of that. The Rinaldone culture of central Italy and its twin, the Remedello culture of the Po Valley, appear to represent imports from the Fyn and Horgen cultures of the Swiss lakes region, who were being pushed ultimately by Indo-European pressure originating in the north Pontic area. The two pockets are remarkably coincidental, but the dates of those cultures are in the 3500-3000 BC window. Over the span of a few thousand years, it is impossible to say what the language might have been.
Some researchers have proposed that the non-Greek inscriptions found on the island of Lemnos, appearing to be related to the Etruscan language and dated to the sixth century BCE, support Herodotus' hypothesis. However, recent research, referencing burial rituals, shows that there was no break in practices from the earlier settlements of the Villanovan culture to the Etruscans, indicating that they were likely indigenous, at least as far as the Romans were concerned. The Romans termed indigeni all peoples they knew to be more ancient than they.
The term "Etruscans" should not imply that the culture was confined to Italy. There were too many to all have come from Lemnos, and there is no evidence of them in Lydia. They were, however, a seafaring people. Thousands of Etruscan inscriptions from all over the Mediterranean, especially the eastern Mediterranean, testify their presence. The end of their power dates from the time that the Romans began systematically to take over their seaports.


Ladino
“Under Roman rule, in 19 BC, the region became known as Hispania, and
its inhabitants learned Latin from Roman traders, settlers,
administrators, and soldiers. When the classical Latin of the educated
Roman classes mixed with the pre-Roman languages of the Iberians,
Celts, and Carthaginians, a language called Vulgar Latin appeared. It
followed the basic models of Latin but borrowed and added words from
the other languages.

The Ligures were assimilated by the Romans, and before that by the Gauls, producing a Celto-Ligurian culture.
Note this part Another theory traces their origin to Betica (modern Andalusia).

Andulusia is in Spain.

Etruscans http://www.geocities.com/hbry/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etrusca...ation#Genetics shows there is a genetic link between the Etruscans and the Anatolians

Now we have Prehistoric Rhaetians, Dalmatic Languages (Romania, Croatia) coming into the mix with a tie between the 2, the Andulusian Languages with Ligurian ties, the Ligurians in France Italy and Spain....
Jewish translators making Castillian Spanish popular and available, they keep ancient Spanish alive, (ancient Spanish as is spoken by Gaels and Romans) ...who in turn got it from the earlier entertwined inhabitants of their countries ....well lol! it utterly reminds me of Definition of a Scot explanation of many years ago....that was used in dictionaries and schools but I forgot how it goes exactly except that is was an is and is not explanation in the same breath...that totally confused everyone that read it and made them laugh...anyone remember it?
So we have ties as you say so well between all of them, with roots in Dalmatic, Rhaetic and Etruscan which is also ancient....back to a culture that is associated with ancient tribes which now include the Celts who were the Urnfield culture as well as the Hallstatt culture in Switzerland which is where alot of this originated for Italy......etc........which can be summed up beautifully by your words

"Languages evolve and adopt other words, and calques and cognates are markers of relationships and interactions."

In our case with our tribes strung all over hell's half acre who mixed with so many ancient beds of people....who in some cases, probably WERE the ancient bed of people to begin with, Gaels who have a genetic link to the Basques.....(and Proto Bulgarians are now thought to be Celtic-Proto Celtic that is) ....we have our plates full and our tasks cut out for us.....so in hindsight to punt off that Ladino is the root from the Hebrews who spoke a language that was ancient Spanish possibly Gallic based as it is Castillian..who then merged it with the Roman language and the Roman language was from ancient Rhaetic-Dalmatic and Etruscan both of which also had Gallic languages in their bases as the peoples were noted to be together...

..I should have just said all are connected and at this point they know they all came from the same source but the stone age sources are not utterly defined yet. At best they preserved ancient spanish and in their region in Spain the Vulgate Latin appeared.

Note Erse (derogatory term for Irish language) and Hebrew...ancient Erse that is Gaeilge which is the proper name but since many still use the word Erse in the search engines I included it
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/idr/idr35.htm and so in time I will strive to simplify it for an easy read...this is just to start everyone off on searches of their own.

I have to make this 2 part as it is too many characters....[/quote]