This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Ancient Belgian language is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Whats this "indo-germanic" nonsense? There is Indo-European of which Germanic is a part, but I think there needs to be either a citation made to prove the legitimacy of this term, or have it re-written in a way which agrees with linguistic terminology.Napkin65 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so. Dover is generally considered plainly Celtic (even Brythonic, i. e. British Celtic), see Dover#History.
Schrijver, however, has proposed that the apparently distinctive dialect of the tile of Châteaubleau (characterised by diphthongisations otherwise unknown from Gaulish), while clearly Celtic and likely even Gaulish in the wider sense, represents a separate "Northern Gaulish" dialect, possibly that of the Belgae, and could also be represented in the ADIXOVI inscription of Bath (see British language#Sources), as (part of) the Belgae are said to have migrated to Britain in Caesar's time (see Belgae#Britain), eventually occupying exactly an area in which Bath now lies. They would (presumably) have spoken a Celtic dialect distinct from that of the Britons in that case. Schrijver does not think that the form of Celtic evident in the Bath inscription is British Celtic. However, Dover lies in the former domain of the Cantiaci, who seem to have simply been native British Celts.
I'm just saying there is a real possibility that the Belgae did indeed speak a distinctive dialect, and that this dialect was moreover also spoken in what is now southern England, but certainly not in the area of Dover, whose name seems to be genuine British Celtic, and the dialect of the Belgae was by all appearances indeed Celtic. Stephen Oppenheimer seems to be the only researcher to still believe they were Germanic-speaking, on the authority of statements by ancient historians, which, however, can well be misleading, as Belgae#Origins of the Belgae points out. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
