Atlantic (Semitic) languages

Disputed Pre-Indo-European Language Family

For the subgroup of Niger–Congo languages, see Atlantic languages.

This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|

The Atlantic languages of Semitic or "Semitidic" (para-Semitic) origin are a disputed concept in historical linguistics put forward by Theo Vennemann. He proposed that Semitic-language-speakers occupied regions in Europe thousands of years ago and influenced the later European languages that are not part of the Semitic family. The theory has found no notable acceptance among linguists or other relevant scholars and is criticised as being based on sparse and often-misinterpreted data.

## Theory and lines of argumentation

[edit]

According to Vennemann, Afroasiatic seafarers settled the European Atlantic coast and are to be associated with the European Megalithic Culture. They left a superstratum in the Germanic languages and a substratum in the development of Insular Celtic. He claimed that speakers of "Atlantic" (Semitic or Semitidic) founded coastal colonies from the 5th millennium BC. Thus, "Atlantic" influenced the lexicon and the structure of Germanic and the structure of Insular Celtic. According to Vennemann, migrating Indo-European speakers encountered non-Indo-European speakers in Northern Europe, who had already named rivers, mountains, and settlements in a language that he called "Vasconic". He considered some toponyms on the Atlantic coast to be neither Vasconic nor Indo-European, but to have derived from languages that were related to the Mediterranean Hamito-Semitic group.

Vennemann based his theory on the claim that Germanic words without cognates in other Indo-European languages very often belong to semantic fields that are typical for loanwords from a superstratum language, such as warfare, law and communal life. Likewise, he proposed Semitic etymologies for words of unknown or disputed origin; for instance, he related the word bee to Egyptian bj-t or the name Éire, older *īwerijū to *ʼj-wrʼ(m), 'island (of) copper', as in Akkadian weriʼum 'copper'.

Other evidence for a Semitic superstratum included a Semitic influence on the Germanic form of the Indo-European ablaut system and similarities between Germanic paganism and Mesopotamian mythology, such as the parallelism between Freyja and Ishtar, goddesses of war and love.

The idea of a connection between Insular Celtic and Afroasiatic goes back to John Davies (1632) but was expanded by John Morris-Jones in 1913 and was developed further by Vennemann. The position is supported by Julius Pokorny (1927–1949), and Vennemann identified Phoenicians as the likely people. A key factor was the dominant verb-initial word order in Insular Celtic, compared to other Indo-European languages, together with lexical correspondences. Another important factor was the identification of the people later known as Picts. Vennemann held the position that they spoke an Atlantic language. That belief was also held by Heinrich Zimmer (1898), but is not generally accepted today. (Pictish is broadly accepted as Insular Celtic, and most probably Brittonic.)[1][2][3][4]

## Criticism

[edit]

Hayim Y. Sheynin, adjunct professor of Jewish Literature at Gratz College, critically reviewed the work Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica (2003) in which Vennemann laid out his arguments for the existence of a Semitic (or "Semitidic") superstratum in the Germanic languages. Sheynin concluded that Vennemann's arguments were unacceptable on several grounds. He noted that Vennemann based important parts of his main claim on long-outdated and critically rejected literature, that many of the words presented by Vennemann as evidence of an Atlantic (Semitidic) superstratum were nothing more than "mere ad hoc sound similarities" and that Vennemann's claims made in reference to Semitic range from "objectionable" to "ridiculous". In summary, Sheynin concludes "that [Vennemann] failed in this book not only as comparative linguist, or etymologist, but even in his narrow specialization as a Germanist.... In short, we consider the book a complete failure".[5]

The book was also reviewed by Baldi and Page (Lingua 116, 2006). They also were critical of his Germanic part of the theory. Since there are no Phoenician inscriptions in Britain, if traders visited the island, the Insular Celtic part of the theory depended on linguistic evidence. The 5th millennium is very early for Celtic-speakers in Britain, compared with other theories, and Mallory suggested a date of around 1000 BC. Vennemann's view of the establishment of megaliths is not supported by mainstream archaeologists, who view their construction as having a widespread local origin along Oceanic Europe or one that spread from Portugal long before the Bell Beaker or any possible Cardium culture influences from the Mediterranean. Eska (1994) argues that the change from verb-noninitial word order in Continental Celtic to verb-initial in Insular Celtic is internally motivated. Baldi and Page stated that the strength of Vennemann's proposals lies in his lexical arguments, which merited serious consideration. The origin of the Picts is unknown: see discussions by Jackson and by Wainright as well as those by Kitson and by Forsyth. Since about 2000, it has been generally held that Pictish is Indo-European (and clear evidence of Pre-Indo-European elements is absent).

## See also

[edit]

* Atlantean
* Goidelic substrate hypothesis
* Germanic substrate hypothesis
* Irish syntax

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Watson, W. J.; Taylor, Simon (2011). The Celtic Place-names of Scotland. Birlinn. ISBN 9781906566357.
2. ^ Forsyth, Katherine (1997). Language in Pictland: The Case Against "Non-Indo-European Pictish" (PDF). Utrecht: de Keltische Draak. ISBN 978-90-802785-5-4. Retrieved 4 February 2010.
3. ^ Forsyth, Katherine (2006). "Pictish Language and Documents". In Koch, John T. (ed.). Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. 1\. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 1447.
4. ^ Fraser, James E. (2009). From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795. "The New Edinburgh History of Scotland" series. Vol. 1\. Edinburgh University Press.
5. ^ "LINGUIST List 15.1878: Historical Linguistics: Vennemann (2003)". The LINGUIST List. June 21, 2004. Archived from the original on August 23, 2004.

* Alfred Bammesberger, Theo Vennemann: Languages in prehistoric Europe. Winter, Heidelberg 2003, 319–332. ISBN 3-8253-1449-9.
* Philip Baldi, Richard Page: "Review of Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica", Lingua 116 (2006) pp 218–223.
* Eska J F: "Rethinking the evolution of Celtic constituent configurations". Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55, 7–39 (1994).
* Forsyth K:" Language in Pictland", Studia Hameliana, 1997.
* Jackson K: "The Pictish Language", in Wainright (ed)
* Kitson P R: "British and European river names". Transactions of the Philological Society 94, 73-118 (1996).
* Mallory J P: In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989).
* Morris-Jones J: "Pre-Aryan syntax in Insular Celtic", in The Welsh People, Rhys and Brynmor-Jones (1900).
* Sheynin H: "Review of Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica", Linguist List 15.1878, Mon Jun 21, 2004.
* Wainright F T: The Problem of the Picts, 1955.

## External links

[edit]

* Homepage of Theo Vennemann
* Review of Europa Vasconica - Europa Semitica Archived 2004-08-23 at the Wayback Machine by Hayim Y. Sheynin
* Review of Theo Vennemann's Europa Vasconica-Europa Semitica, by Philip Baldi and B. Richard Page, in Lingua, volume 116, issue 12, December 2006.
* Proposed cognates in Afro-Asiatic and Germanic

* v
* t
* e

Language families of Eurasia

Europe|

* Indo-European
* Afroasiatic
* Uralic
* Turkic
* Mongolic
* Basque
* Iberian
* Tartessian
* Paleo-Corsican
* Paleo-Sardinian
* Camunic
* Ligurian
* North Picene ?
* Rutulian
* Sicanian
* Tyrsenian
* Eteocretan
* Eteocypriot
* Minoan

West Asia|

* Afroasiatic
* Indo-European
* Turkic
* Elamite
* Gutian
* Hattic
* Hurro-Urartian
* Kaskian
* Kassite
* Sumerian

Caucasus|

* Kartvelian
* North Caucasian
* Northeast Caucasian
* Northwest Caucasian
* Turkic
* Indo-European

South Asia|

* Indo-European
* Dravidian
* Sino-Tibetan
* Austroasiatic
* Burushaski
* Nihali
* Kusunda
* Harappan ?

East Asia|

* Sino-Tibetan
* Austroasiatic
* Hmong–Mien
* Kra–Dai
* Austronesian
* Turkic
* Tungusic
* Mongolic
* Koreanic
* Japonic

Indian Ocean rim|

* Great Andamanese
* Ongan
* Sentinelese
* Kenaboi

North Asia|

| "Paleosiberian"|

* Ainu
* Chukotko-Kamchatkan
* Nivkh
* Yeniseian
* Yukaghir

|

Other North Asia|

* Uralic
* Turkic
* Mongolic
* Tungusic
* Eskaleut
* Rouran ?
* Xiongnu ?

Proposed groupings|

* Alarodian
* Altaic
* Borean
* Nostratic
* Dené–Caucasian
* Eurasiatic
* Dené–Yeniseian
* Dravido-Korean
* Elamo-Dravidian
* Ibero-Caucasian
* Indo-Hittite
* Indo-Pacific
* Indo-Semitic
* Indo-Uralic
* Karasuk
* Serbi–Mongolic
* Pontic
* Ural-Altaic
* Uralo-Siberian
* Uralic–Yukaghir
* Eskimo–Uralic
* Chukotko-Kamchatkan–Amuric

Arunachal|

* Greater Siangic
* Siangic
* Digaro
* Mijiic
* Miju
* Hrusish
* Kho-Bwa

East and Southeast Asia|

* Andamanese
* Austric
* Austro-Tai
* Austronesian–Ongan
* East Asian
* Sino-Austronesian

Substrata|

* Atlantic
* Pre-Celtic
* Pre-Germanic
* Pre-Goidelic
* Pre-Greek
* Vasconic
* Pre-Vedic
* Pre-Finno-Ugric
* Paleo-Laplandic
* Proto-Euphratean

* Families in italics have no living members.
* Families with more than 30 languages are in bold.

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template