Talk:Atlantic (Semitic) languages

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Wow, Germanic and Celtic might have been influenced by Semitic languages! We'd better tell those skinhead neonazis :-)! Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

This section should stop exactly before "The origin of the Picts ..." since this sentence is non-sense. If someone (here Vennemann) gives some examples to prove something, then it makes no sense to say it is wrong (unless a different proof is given). Because then this says "I don't know", and any greek philosopher would advice you to say nothing because you don't know. The last sentence simply is wrong, since finding someone to reject it doesn't mean that most agree to that rejection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.202 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language of Pictic inscriptions is, as one might expect, Norse. See 'The language of the Ogam Inscriptions in Scotland', Richard A V Cox, Aberdeen, 1999.G W Gardiner (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vennemann obviously lives from unqualified arguments against him: What do the Phoenicians have to do with his Atlantic/Megalithic/Semitidic people? There is a time lag of 4000 years between them. Likewise before 800 bC there were no Celtic peoples! Neither in central Europe nor in Britain. An indo-european immigration into the British isles before 2000 bC is very unlikely! (The megalithic culture, Stonehenge, is before). And if after that time up to 800 bC, these Indo-Europeans were not Celtic. So identifying Picts with Celtic is Keltomania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.100.79.6 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with the criticism, but...[edit]

...it doesn't abolish the idea, it just discredits the author. the way it's presented here sounds like it's basically the free masonry origin myth.

there are actually known historical migrations from europe to egypt; when you put all the evidence together, the influence is actually better explained as flow in the other direction (although the question of trading between the levant and the atlantic in the deep pre-historical period is interesting, it's silly to think it only went in one direction. as phoenicians are known to have settled in spain, there is pretty strong evidence of european settlement in the levant as well (see the philistines)). there was no doubt some cultural flow.

the substratum makes more sense if you connect it to the danubian complex and the well understood spread of pottery and agriculture that moved up the danube and into central europe. these people spread agriculture up rivers, and so are easily connected to the nature of the substrate. proto indo-europeans would have moved in later from the east...

so, he's presenting a good idea, but he's doing it in exactly the wrong way. what somebody needs to do s take vanneman's linguistic ideas and synthesize them with childe's (and gimbutas') archaeology and cafalli-sforza's genetic component analysis to construct an understanding of a proto-semitic, neolithic people wandering up the danube and into germany, where they fused with primarily nordic pre-proto-germans and left their language as a substratum to the invading indo-europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.129 (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you use "Semitic" in the old "racial" sense, denoting people of general West Asian (Middle Eastern) ancestry and appearance, I'd actually agree that this probably describes the first farmers in (Southeastern/Central) Europe (of the Linear Pottery culture) well. After all, West Asia is where they came from. However, there is no evidence that they spoke any kind of Semitic (not likely in the 7th/6th millennium BC anyway) or even Afro-Asiatic. Schrijver has argued that a substratum similar rather to Caucasian languages (especially Northwest Caucasian), Hattic and Minoan looks more likely, and might also have triggered the syntactic changes in Insular Celtic (if they already started on the continent). These people seem to have contributed to the European gene pool as well (that wouldn't really shock Neo-Nazis, though, because they only consider Northern Europeans "pure" and would argue that any West Asian admixture would have been extremely minor in the north, wherever they may place the origins of their "Nordic race"). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be as he envisions it, or at the Time period he proposes, but earlier. And not "Semitic" per se precisely, but some languages distantly related to those in the Middle East called Semitic, but which would still have many recognizable and analog root features. More of a substratum, and mutually, as later borrowings from relic cultures from it before extinction... As, if you recognized and gave value to the human factor on which language it is based, one easily realizes that those already living in Europe brought it by land and not by boat. The discovery in the last 20 years of the genetic BOND of origin in the Haplogroup IJ, that populations living in Europe before the Indo-European arrival and those that later would provide to evolve the Semitic languages we know of, mainly on Y-dna male lineages of J, should be considered. Alternatively, the Celtic language may have picked up those "exotic" (elements of oddity _but already local by millennia), through the breeding ground that led to pre-Insular Celtic, from newer but related populations that entered the Balkans, Danube as reminded above, during the Neolithic and already divided from the common IJ population stock previous and the one that migrated earlier into Europe, evolved as carriers of the cousin I hg. --158.222.192.13 (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.192.13 (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main problem with this part is not that it's added, as there is no problem with having criticism, but a reaction of Venneman on the criticism is not included. I will see if he has given any reaction at all and if we can add that.

Bokareis (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheynin review[edit]

Is this review citable??? It's written in a bizarre kind of pidgin English and it seems to be full of flaws itself. For just one example, the author equates the vowel alternation in Spanish dormir > él duerme to Indo-Germanic ablaut, with which it has nothing to do at all. I'm not a professional linguist, but it seems to me that, as inaccurate as Vennemann's account may be, Mr Sheynin's review is even worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.145.29 (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheynin isn't even a linguist, which would help explain such flaws. (He does make valid points, though.) It seems no actual expert could be bothered. ;-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article mentions Vennermanns etymology of Eire (from semitic copper), it should also mention that he gives an etymology for Britain (from semitic tin). Hence he derives the two names from exactly their (later?) historical role. This means a pair of otherwise unknown etymologies is given - and this reduces the probability of coincidence considerably. By the way, I remember my historical atlas before Abitur in Bavaria has represented the megalith culture by fat black arrows coming from the western Mediterranee around Spain to the British isles and I continued them with a pencil to Scandanavia and then, turning south to north Germany. Vennemann certainly has had the same atlas (Bayrischer Schulbuchatlas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.76.65.52 (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the third millennium BC there is such a map in the central museum in Mainz! And shots of both would be self-explaining here 195.158.84.73 (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

This article is notable, just like how Eurasiatic languages and Nostratic languages are controversial but still notable. Notability tag removed. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]