The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic Steve Hewitt UNESCO

Abstract
The hypothesis of a Hamito-Semitic (or Afro-Asiatic) substratum in the Insular Celtic languages elaborated successively by Morris ones! "o#orny and $agner to e%plain stri#ing structural resemblances bet&een Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic is en'oying a revival( )inguists have generally assumed that the parallels bet&een Insular Celtic and HamitoSemitic are to be e%plained in terms of *reenbergian typology (all languages of the +S, type)( Ho&ever! recent &or# by *ensler! and also ongeling and +ennemann! compels us to revisit the substratum hypothesis( This article presents the main contributions on the -uestion! provides a table sho&ing the principal points of similarity by author and language! briefly comments on each of these points! and! regretting the reluctance of substratalists to consider typological e%planations! sounds a note of caution against &hat might be termed .substratum fren/y0(

!1. Introduction Stri#ing structural resemblances have long been noted bet&een the Insular Celtic languages (divided into *oedelic 1 Irish *aelic! Scottish *aelic! Man%2 and 3rythonic 1 $elsh! 3reton! Cornish) and various Hamito-Semitic (more broadly! Afro-Asiatic) languages( 4e& of these traits appear to have been note&orthy of the no& e%tinct Continental Celtic languages (*aulish! Celtiberic! )epontic! *alatian)! and they are not generally found in other Indo-5uropean languages( This fact has led some to raise the possibility of a Hamito-Semitic substratum in the 3ritish Isles to e%plain their origin( Among the most prominent shared features are6 +S, order2 singular (apersonal) verb-mar#ing &ith plural post-verbal le%ical sub'ects2 the Semiticists7 .construct state0 1 a 8H5A9 8the-95"5:95:T;; genitive construction2 .con'ugated0 prepostions2 and obli-ue relatives &ith pronoun copies! each illustrated belo& in 3reton and Arabic( Breton VSO order e skrivas Yann ul lizher AFF wrote.PRET John a letter kataba wrote.PRET.M . ohn &rote a letter0 Yay John risla letter Arabic

Sin ular !a"ersonal# verb$%arkin &ith "lural "ost$verbal le'ical sub(ects e AFF skrivas wrote.PRET ar the %erc)hed katabat girls wrote.PRET.F .The girls &rote0 al$bant the-girls

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

*+onstruct state, - . /0A1 . the -102031034 55 enitive construction ti house ar the roue king bait al$%alik house the-king .The house of the #ing! the #ing7s house0 *+on(u ated "re"ositions, ant6 anin6 anit6 anta76 anti6 aneo%"6 aneoc)h6 ante .&ith! &ith me! &ith you(S*! &ith him! &ith her &ith us! &ith you(")! &ith them0 %a86 %a9:6 %a9ak6 %a9ik6 %a9uh6 %a9h %a9n6 %a9ku%6 %a9hu% .&ith! &ith me! &ith you(S*(M! &ith you(S*(4! &ith him! &ith her &ith us! &ith you(")! &ith them0

Obli;ue relatives &ith "ronoun co"ies ar the &ele a %eus bed.M AFF I.have kousked enna7 as$sar:r al$ladh: slept.PP in.it.M the-bed.M the-RE .M .The bed I slept in! the bed in &hich I slept0 ni%t I.slept <:h in.it.M

=. >ain authors 3oth *ensler! in his thesis (<==>6?@-<=<)! and ongeling (ABBB6C-CD) provide e%tensive surveys of earlier authors on the Insular Celtic E Hamito-Semitic -uestion( The first mention of structural similarities bet&een Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic &as in 9avies (<CA<)! &here a number of resemblances bet&een $elsh and Hebre& &ere noted( ohn FhGs (<H@@6<H=f) and subse-uent &or#s raises the possibility that pre-Aryan languages may have e%erted structural influence on the Insular Celtic languages( Morris ones (<=BB) revie&s startling similarities bet&een $elsh and 5gyptian! including (<=BB6CA?-C) the periphrastic con'ugation be I preposition I verbal noun6 .In $elsh and Irish! although these languages retain many of the Aryan tenses! this construction is e%tremely common ((( The three prepositions commonly used for this purpose in 5gyptian are e% Jin7! er Jto! for7! er Jabove7 8K )oprieno (<==?6HB) % .in0! r .to&ards0! r .on0; indicating the present! future! and perfect respectively( These correspond in use &ith the $elsh prepositions yn Jin7! a% Jfor7! &edi Jafter7(0 He also notes the surprising parallels bet&een $elsh yn and 5gyptian e%6 (<) preposition .in0! (A) .in0 I verbal noun K progressive! and (>) predicative and adverbiali/ing .in0( ,ther similarities are noted &ith 3erber! but no Semitic language is e%amined( He concludes (<=BB6C>=) that the resemblance
seems to involve an intimate connection of some #ind bet&een the t&o families of speech in the prehistoric period! though they are probably not actually cognate( It is &ith Hamitic! ho&ever! rather than Semitic! that Celtic synta% is in agreement2 for! as &e have seen! it agrees &ith 3erber &here the latter differs mar#edly from Arabic! as! for instance! in the shifting of the pronominal suffi% from the verb to a preceding particle ((( Is the influence of a Hamitic substratum to be discovered in the

Steve Hewitt simultaneous development on the same analytic lines of 4rench! Spanish! and Italian in their use of infi%ed and postfi%ed pronounsL

"o#orny7s %a nu% o"us on the sub'ect (<=A@-<=>B)! has been conveniently reduced to CD features by +ennemann (ABBA6>AD-C)( "o#orny7s discursive te%t is often impressionistic! &ith numerous e%amples (never glossed! at best paraphrased) from Hamito-Semitic languages! as &ell as Cushitic! 3antu (including unseemly references (<=A@6<>@) to . 3e ers"rachen0 deemed .un e%ein "ri%itiv0)! 3as-ue! 4inno-Mgric! Caucasian! etc(! all grist to his substratal mill( He proposes (<=A@6<BBff) that in a language &ith a strong! aristocratic literary tradition such as Irish! substratal influence may ta#e a long time to become apparent in the &ritten language( "o#orny continued to &rite on the sub'ect throughout his life2 his most concise statement of the linguistic features shared by Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic is (<=?=)! &here he identifies a more managageable list of AB shared features! most of &hich are included in the table of shared features belo&( See also "o#orny (<=CB)( $agner7s main &or# on the Insular Celtic E Hamito-Semitic -uestion (usefully summari/ed by *agnepain (<=C<)) is (<=?=)! especially the third part! entitled .The linguistic geography position of the 3rittonic verb0! &ith sections on .Celtic! 3erber! 3as-ue! 5nglish and 4rench as representatives of a :orth African 1 $estern 5uropean linguistic stratum! e%emplified by the structure of the verb0! .The 3erber verb system0 and .Femar#s on the Semitic verb system0( He describes his basic position (see also <=H<) as follo&s (<=H@6<=-AB)6
3et&een the fourth and si%th centuries A(9( Insular Celtic suffered revolutionary changes N As a result of it Insular Celtic developed features and grammatical categories hardly found in other Indo-5uropean languages( They have! ho&ever! close parallels in 3erber and 5gyptian! the Hamitic languages of :orthern Africa! as &ell as in 3as-ue N The linguistic structure of Insular Celtic compels me to assume that! long before the arrival of Celtic or 3elgic tribes! these islands &ere populated by people! &ho spo#e languages or dialects &hich! from the point of vie& of 5( )e&y7s typology could be described as HamitoSemitic! languages not necessarily connected &ith but of a similar type as 3erber and 5gyptian and! some&hat more distantly Hebre& and Arabic( 4or my latest position on this sub'ect! cf( my articles of <=@C and <=HA( $hen Celtic &as adopted by pre-Celtic populations! the structure of their original language(s) began to impose itself on the language of the Celtic invaders( The result &as a linguistic revolution &hich led to the ma#ing of the mediaeval and modern Celtic languages(

He&itt (<=H?) &as &ritten before I became a&are of the "o#orny-$agner tradition2 I assumed that the resemblances could only be typological( The similar features revie&ed in that article include head-dependent typology! +S,OS+, &ord order (main and subordinate clauses)! verb-sub'ect agreementEnon-agreement! collectiveEsingulative! con'ugated prepositions! e%pression of .have0! the construct state genitive! compound .construct-state0 ad'ectives! double .topic sub'ect0 sentences! relatives (restrictive! non-restrictive! on prepositional ob'ects! on possessives)! the dummy sentential pronoun! and circumstantial subordinating and( The chief shared feature omitted is the verbal noun! most certainly historically spea#ing a verbal noun in 3reton! but in modern 3reton it behaves li#e an infinitive (accusative rather than possessive ob'ect pronouns)( *ensler (<==>) e%amines <A Insular Celtic or Hamito-Semitic languages plus a random sample of ?H other languages from all over the &orld( He identifies a set of <@ .e%otic0 structural features shared by Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic! but not common among languages &orld&ide( Assigning scores for each feature in each of the @B languages! he concludes (<==>6DAC)6

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic ,n the basis of the sample used in this study! nothing remotely close to the full-blo&n CelticEHamitoSemitic 8CHS; linguistic type recurs any&here else in the &orld( The relatively fe& languages &hich are Jbest matches7 1 actually rather poor matches 1 are scattered all over the globe! from the $est Coast of :orth America to the Caucasus and :e& *uinea( Ho&ever! the continental average score for Africa is higher than for any other continent! and drops only slightly &hen the CHS languages 5gyptian and 3erber are omitted2 $est Africa scores especially &ell! and appears especially hospitable to several of the CHS features (adpositional periphrastic! &ord-initial change! #in terms! inter alia)( Conversely! 5urope has one of the lo&est average scores! and &hen $elsh and Irish are e%cluded its score drops far belo& that of any other continent( Celtic is thus radically out of place in a 5uropean landscape! &hereas the Hamito-Semitic languages simply intensify a structural trend seen over much of Africa( A &ea# form of the CHS type! then! &ould appear to have a natural home in Africa! in particular :orth&est Africa( $ithin Afroasiatic! the highest-scoring languages are on the Mediterranean2 scores fall a&ay in every direction! but the Chadic language Hausa (in $est Africa) scores much higher than Cushitic Afar (in 5ast Africa)( The diachronic evidence! too! argues that the (&ea#) CHS type is something -uite old in Africa6 the African and Arabian case studies all sho& stronger CHS-ness further bac# in time( All this! in con'unction &ith the blood-type agreement bet&een the 3ritish Isles and :orth&est Africa! argues for some sort of prehistoric scenario specifically lin#ing these t&o regions(

$hile *ensler does not claim to have proved the Hamito-Semitic substratum hypothesis for Insular Celtic! he does appear to be saying6 .in the face of such statistical results! &hat else can it beL0 He ta#es great care &ith the &eighting (B! PQ! P<) of scores for individual features! but no account is ta#en of the centrality or fre-uency of each feature &ithin a particular language! such that pervasive features such as the genitive construction (feature H) have the same &eight as more marginal ones li#e the idiomatic genitive #inship constructions (feature <@)( 4urthermore! the languages that score highest in *ensler7s table! thus most strongly e%emplifying &hat he calls the .CelticEHamito-Semitic type0! are the Insular Celtic languages rather than the HamitoSemitic languages! i(e( the languages that are said to have been influenced by the Hamito-Semitic substratum &hich purportedly gave rise to the type( Another dra&bac# is that possible typological e%planations for some of the features (cf( remar#s on the genitive construction belo&) are not envisaged or e%amined( :evertheless! &ith his thorough analysis and the sheer &ealth of linguistic evidence he has marshalled! *ensler has certainly put the Hamito-Semitic substratum hypothesis bac# on the map2 all authors on the sub'ect &ill henceforth need to ta#e due account of his arguments( ongeling (ABBB) provides an e%cellent! lengthy introduction to the history of the sub'ect( The features he surveys include +S,! head-dependent order! numerals! nominal clauses! circumstantial subordinating and! relatives! the verbal noun! con'ugated prepositions! and the lac# of a verb .have0( He proposes (ABBB6<D=-?B) an interesting variant of the substratum hypothesis6
Supposing that the e%planation of certain peculiarities of Insular Celtic are due to substratum influence! one might suppose that the same or a similar substratum has influenced some subgroupings of AfroAsiatic 8Hamito-Semitic; N In short! this scenario &ould mean that &e should consider $estern 5urope and :orth Africa as an old coherent area of +S,-character( The influence on the three northern AfroAsiatic groups! Semitic! 5gyptian and 3erber is comparable to the influence on the Celtic sub-grouping of Indo-5uropean ((( one might suppose that $estern 5urope and :orthern Africa once formed one great contiguous +S, area( This area &as split by the incoming Indo-5uropeans( The proportion of Indo5uropeans on the continent &as so great that any influence of a pre-e%isting language &as blotted out! &hile the number of pre-Indo-5uropeans inhabitants on the 3ritish Isles &as such that their influence there &as felt long after they &ere gone from memory( This scenario not only e%plains the congruity in synta% of $elsh and Hebre& but at the same time gives a reason for the lac# of le%ical correspondences not only bet&een $elsh and Hebre&! but in general bet&een Afro-Asiatic and Insular Celtic(

Steve Hewitt

+ennemann sees a Hamito-Semitic substratum as having influenced Insular Celtic! and through Celtic! 5nglish( In (ABB<6>?<) he claims6 .The 5uropean Atlantic )ittoral &as! at the da&n of history! e%plored and coloni/ed by Mediterranean! probably "alaeo-"hoenician seafarers(0 The main features e%amined in this article include the verbal noun and the related progressive construction! the 5nglish .:orthern Sub'ect Fule0 reminiscent of Semitic and Celtic verb-sub'ect agreement! and the .replacement of the sympathetic dative by the internal possessor construction0 (?ean s)est cass@ le bras vs ?ohn broke his ar%! see feature AA belo&)( 5%plaining &hy &hat he calls the .Atlantic type0 arose only in Middle 5nglish! he reiterates (ABB<6>CD) an argument of "o#orny7s and $agner7s6 .substratal influence originates in the lo&er strata of a society and usually ta#es centuries to reach the &ritten language! and regularly only after a period of social upheaval(0 In (ABBA)! in &hich he dra&s attention to circumstantial subordinating and! and the prevalence of tensed verbEau%iliary responsives in Celtic and 5nglish! +ennemann states6
In my vie& the case is closed! the thesis of a Hamito-Semitic substratum underlying Insular Celtic being one of the most reliably established pieces of scientific #no&ledge there is in any empirical discipline( As *ensler has sho&n! the substratum really &as not simply Hamito-Semitic! &hich is a huge family including hundreds of languages in Africa and Asia (&hich is &hy it is also called Afro-Asiatic or Afrasian)! but more specifically Hamito-Semitic of the Mediterranean type! &hich includes )ibyco3erber! Ancient 5gyptian! and Semitic( In order to stress the similarity of the substratum to this particular manifestation of Hamito-Semitic! I sometimes refer to it as Semitidic or simply Semitic(

Celtic influence on 5nglish( The idea that certain features of 5nglish may be attributable to Insular Celtic is particularly in vogue among 4innish and *erman scholars! cf( articles by 4ilppula! Rlemola! +ennemann! and especially 4ilppula! Rlemola! "it#Snen (eds) (ABBA) and Tristram (ed() +eltic 0n lishes I6 II6 III, IV (<==@-ABBC)( This theory presupposes that the AngloSa%ons &ere (thinly) superimposed on a 3ritish-spea#ing population &hich eventually shifted to Anglo-Sa%on! leaving subse-uent substratal structural traces in 5nglish( Ho&ever! a recent study by Capelli et al( (ABB>) has found genetic evidence to support the more traditional picture of massive population shifts (ABB>6=@=)6 .3y analy/ing <@@A T chromosomes from A? predominantly small urban locations! &e found that different parts of the 3ritish Isles have sharply different paternal histories(0 Coates (ABBD) casts doubt on the influence of 3ritish Celtic on Anglo-Sa%on( Typological approaches( :ot all authors dealing &ith similarities bet&een Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic languages subscribe to the substratum hypothesis( Fecent papers adopting a purely typological stance include 3orsley (<==?)! Isaac (ABBD)! and Foberts (ABBD)( An important methodological criti-ue of the substratum approach is Isaac (ABBH)( A. Shared <eatures The follo&ing table sho&s the main features shared by Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic! according to author and language( The first <@ features correspond to *ensler7s (<==>) shared features( These are follo&ed by additional features identified by Morris ones (<=BB)! "o#orny (<=A@-<=>B! <=?=)! $agner (<=?=)! He&itt (<=H?)! and ongeling (ABBB)( 4eatures mar#ed &ith () in the column for *ensler are mentioned by him! but are not central to his thesis2 features >?->= from He&itt (<=H?) are given by no other author! and are purely typological in nature(

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

"
" o # o r n y ( $ a g n e r ( < H e & i t t ( < * e n s l e r ( <

Si%ilar <eatures in Insular +eltic and /a%ito$Se%itic accordin to author

M o r r i s o o n g e l i n g

4eature

<( Con'ugated prepositions A( $ord order6 +S,! head-dependent! prepositions >( Invariable relative clause lin#er! not relative pronoun D( Felative clause copying! not gapping6 the bed that I slept in it ?( Special relative tensed verb form C( Sub'ect and ob'ect mar#ing in verb @( ,b'ect mar#er6 preverb-infi%-+E+-suffi% H( *enitive construction6 def( art( on dependent only6 house the-man =( :on-agreement of verb &ith plural noun sub'ect <B( +erbal noun! not infinitive (ob'ect in genitive! not accusative) <<( "redicative particle6 he is in a farmer <A( "repositional periphrastic6 he is at singing <>( "eriphrastic do6 he does singing <D( Circumstantial clause and s pred (subordinating and) <?( :onfinite possible instead of finite main-clause verb <C( $ord-initial phonetic changes (mutations)! various syn( functions <@( Idiomatic genitive #inship constructions6 son of U <H( :ominal clause (absence of copula) <=( Amplification of negative by noun after verb6 4rench pas AB( :umerals follo&ed by singular A<( "repositional e%pression of have AA( "ossessive he bro#e his arm rather than dative il s7est cassV le bras A>( "reference for parata%is ("o#orny6 anreihend .stringing along0) AD( 3asic unit &ord group rather than single &ord A?( Sub'ectless sentences (impersonal constructions) AC( :o presentEactive participle A@( 9istinction bet&een essential and contingent be (isEtW) AH( StatesErelations e%pressed &ith : (prep-,) prep-S TW scilling agam ort A=( $elsh yn! 5gyptian m .in06 predicative! locative! progressive >B( ,ld Irish infi%ed pronoun 1d- identical to 3erber 1d><( Comparatives (and superlatives) predicative only! not attributive

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

#
>A( Initial focus clefts >>( TesEno responsives &ith au%iliaryEverbEentire clause

Steve Hewitt
( ) ( ) ( )

>D( "repositional relative6 fronting of bare preposition the bed in I slept >?( Mnmar#ed collective! derived singulative >C( +irtual complement clause vso2 factual complement clause svoOvso >@( Construct state bahuvrhi ad'ectives (Ar( .improper anne%ation0) >H( Topic sub'ect (.double sub'ect0 sentences) >=( TesEno dummy sentential pronoun6 I don7t #no& and he they came

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

Si%ilar <eatures in Insular +eltic and /a%ito$Se%itic accordin to lan ua e

4 e a t u r e

Irish

$elsh

3reton

Arabic

Hebre&

5gyptian

3erber

< ( A ( > ( D ( ? ( ,I C ( ,I @ ( H ( O = ( < B ( < < ( < A ( < > ( < D vs! sv aff( vso O vso O O trad( 3 O sydd! sy O O so (/o) ! au% s v psoOspo Isvo Ogen(num ( Xsvo Isvo agreem(

trad(

LO

in his

O adv(

O! L

Y Ar(

%
( < ? ( < C ( < @ ( < H ( < = ( A B ( A < ( A A ( A > ( A D ( A ? ( A C ( A @ ( A H ( A = ( > B ( > < ( > A ( O

Steve Hewitt

O phon(

Ovo&( red( Y Ar(

Ognomic

Ognomic

O (dial()

(Coptic)

O (AB! %)

(<<I)

(<<I)

M5X

(<<I)

LL

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

> > ( > D ( > ? ( > C ( > @ ( > H ( > = ( L

&'

I poss(

I poss(

I poss(

5g( Ar(

&&

Steve Hewitt

<( Con'ugated prepositions( In both Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic! this loo#s historically very much li#e incorporation of a pronominal in the preposition! a commonplace process2 in Hamito-Semitic there is a single set of endings for prepositions! possessives and ob'ects of verbs( A( $ord order6 +S,! head-dependent! prepositions( The &ord order typology of both families is basically verb-sub'ect-ob'ect (+S,)! &ith head-dependent order and prepositions( Ho&ever! a number of -ualifications are in order( As suggested in He&itt (ABBAb)! 3reton simultaneous +S, and +A is better described as "S, (predicate-sub'ect-ob'ect) and TA (tensesecond)( Irish and $elsh are generally considered to be classic e%amples of +S, order! and (apart from a strong +A period in Middle $elsh! see $illis (<==H)) sho& no signs of a tendency to&ards S+,( Ho&ever! ones Z Thomas (<=@@)! analysed $elsh as TS",! T attaching either to an au%iliary or! if there is none! to the main verb( So &hich is $elsh in the case of >ae >air yn dys u +y%rae 8is[ Mair in learn(+: $elsh; .Mair is learning $elsh0! S+, or +S,L It depends on &hether for + you see as primary T the tense-bearing function (X +S,)! or " the predicative function (X S+,)( Most Hamito-Semitic languages are rec#oned to be +S,! &ith the e%ception of Amharic and A##adian (both S,+)( Hebre& sho&s a steady progression from clear +S, in the 3iblical period to S+, in the Massoretic and modern periods( Similarly! Arabic is normally considered to be +S,! although! as in 3reton! S+, is a common alternative order! even from the Roranic period2 S+, has gained in prominence in modern times2 certain styles of 'ournalistic Arabic are rec#oned to be more S+, than +S,! and some dialects! in particular 5gyptian! are thought to be basically S+,! &ith only residual +S, effects( $hile the Borld Atlas o< Can ua e Structures Online (4eature H<6 ,rder of Sub'ect! ,b'ect and +erb) does sho& +S, &ith the Celtic and Semitic languages (Modern Hebre& and Syrian Arabic being .neutral0! and other modern dialects of Arabic being predominantly S+,)! the other concentrations of +S, are in the Fift +alley in Africa! Sumatra 1 "hilippines! Central America! and the :orth&est Coast of :orth America2 central sub-Saharan Africa! &here pronoun copies &ith obli-ue relatives! as in the Celtic languages! are so heavily concentrated (see belo&! feature D)! is strongly S+, rather than +S,( Ho&ever! in the case of Arabic +S,! another analysis is possible! &ith potentially farreaching conse-uences for &ord order typology in general (cf( He&itt ABBAa! ABBC)6 in verbinitial clauses! there are numerous and regular violations of the canonical +S, order! such as +,S! +oS (oKpronominal ob'ect)! +"F5",S ("F5"Kpreposition)! +"F5"oS,! +"F5"o,S! and +o,S( A principle of increasing .information salience0 of post-verbal nominal constituents (given! #no&n information X ne& information) appears to provide a unitary account of all the observable orders! includin VSO( Strict S, order is thus called into -uestion for Arabic! and replaced by a strict *: (given-ne&) order( )anguages traditionally described as +S, (ho&ever! the principle of information salience-governed &ord order does not appear to apply to any of the Celtic languages) or S,+ (e(g( Tur#ish! HindiEMrdu! Tibetan) might need to be revisited in order to see &hether +*: or *:+ does not provide a better account of their functioning than +S, or S,+( The Borld Atlas o< Can ua e Structures Online assumes that predicate-and-arguments &ord order can only be based on syntactic function 1 sub'ect! ob'ect! despite the -uestionable universality of those concepts 1 and does not envisage the possibility that for some languages the primary factor may instead be information salience( The &hole -uestion of +S, is thus rather more comple% than it might appear at first sight(

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

&2

>( Invariable relative clause lin#er! not relative pronoun ( The precise syntactic status of the Celtic relativi/er! e(g( 3reton direct (sub'ect! ob'ect) a! indirect (obli-ue 1 other elements) e is debatable! being variously analysed as either an affirmative tense particle or a relative pronoun of sorts( The invariable Hebre& DEFr has been analysed both as a relativi/er and a relative pronoun( The Arabic relative pronoun al$ladh: M! al$lat: 4! al$ladh:na M(")! etc( agrees in gender and number &ith its antecedent( D( Felative clause copying! not gapping6 the bed that I sle"t in it ( Tes! 3reton ar &ele a %eus kousked enna7 8the!bed.M!AFF!I.have!slept!in.it.M"2 Arabic as$sar:r al$ladh: ni%t <:$h 8the-bed.M!RE .M! I.slept!in-it.M; .the bed I slept inEin &hich I slept0( The Borld Atlas o< Can ua e Structures Online (4eatureEChapter <A>6 Felativi/ation on ,bli-ues) does sho& a heavy concentration of this strategy! apart from in Irish and Scottish *aelic! in Semitic (Hebre& and Arabic) and in numerous languages of central sub-Saharan Africa! but also in "ersian! 5astern Rayah )i (Thailand! Myanmar)! "aamese (+anuatu! South "acific)! and *uaran\ ("araguay! 3ra/il)( 3erber never has resumptive pronouns! only movement of the bare preposition2 ,ld Irish is similar! but the order of relator and preposition is the reverse6 3erber F5)I"F5"2 ,ld Irish "F5"IF5). ?( Special relative tensed verb form( This is present in Irish ($as vs( $aidh! $ann! etc() and apparently in 5gyptian and 3erber2 in 3rythonic! the only modern trace is in the present relative form of the copula $elsh sy!dd#! 3reton so (Modern 3reton zo)2 apart from A##adian! this is un#no&n in Semitic2 the 3erber .relative form0 is commonly called a .participle0( C( Sub'ect and ob'ect mar#ing in verb( Tes! for both Insular Celtic and Semitic2 this concerns most strongly ,ld Irish! 3erber! and 5gyptian( ,b'ect pronouns are traditionally proclitic in Celtic and postclitic in Semitic2 this is not the same! ho&ever! as the true sub'ect-andob'ect-mar#ing verbal morphology of *eorgian( The clitici/ation of ob'ect pronouns on the verb is hardly a rare trait( @( ,b'ect mar#er6 preverb-infi%-+E+-suffi%( This concerns especially ,ld Irish and 3erber( It should be noted more generaly that pre- versus post-clitici/ation of ob'ect pronouns concerns many languages! cf( Fomance! Serbo-Croat! etc( H( *enitive construction6 def( art( on dependent only6 house the$%an ( 3reton ti ar roue 8house!the!king;! Arabic bait al$%alik 8house!the-king; .the #ing7s house0( Rno&n as the .construct state0 CS among Semiticists! this is not necessarily due to substratal influence( In the typology of genitive constructions! there is a limited number of parameters6 (<) the order of head and dependent6 H 9 or 9 H (+S, normally implies H 9 order)2 (A) the presence or absence of an article (on 9 only2 on both 9 and H2 no e%amples of the article on H only2 all Insular Celtic and most! but not all! Hamito-Semitic languages have a definite article)2 (>) the relation mar#ing may be on either H or 92 and finally (D) a limited number of relator mechanisms (one or more are possible)6 (a) simple ad'acency (H 9! as in all Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic languages e%cept Amharic! or 9 H)2 (b) phonetic modification of either H or 96 phonetic CS mar#ing of H in Hebre&6 bayit .house0! but bGt ha%$%FlFk 8house.#$! the-king;2 dbr .&ord0! but dHIbar ha%$%FlFk .the #ing7s &ord02 or phonetic modification of 9 in 3erber6 a ellid .#ing0! but a''a% !n# u ellid 8house!%o&'! king.#$;2 (c) case6 *5:! 9AT! ,3)! etc(2 (d) possessive ",SS6 Tur#ish 9-*5: I H-",SS6 kral$Jn ev$i 8king-(E)! house-his;2 (e) lin# particle ):R6 in both Hindi-Mrdu and S&ahili the lin# agrees &ith H6 HindiMrdu laKk .boy(:,M0! laKkG k har 8bo*.+, ! )-.! house.; .the boy7s house02 S&ahili6 nyu%ba ya

&3

Steve Hewitt

%<al%e 8house.# /! )-.# /!king.# 0; .the #ing7s house02 (f) adposition6 preposition! postposition! cf( 5nglish the door o< the house. In Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic languages &hich no longer have case! the construct state is defined solely by the ad'acency of the head and dependent! and the restriction of the article to the dependent( Ho&ever! in both families this is probably the result of independent evolution( $hile 3reton! $elsh! Hebre& and collo-uial Arabic have no cases6 3reton dor an ti! $elsh drLs y tM! Hebre& dFlFt hab$bayit! collo-uial Arabic bb al$bait 8door!the-house; .the door of the house0! Classical and formal Modern Standard Arabic and Irish (for some items at least) conserve case endings6 Arabic bb$u l$bait$i2 Irish doras an tN 8door.)+M! the-house.(E);! and these help to define the genitive relation( It is only &ith the loss of the case endings that the 8 H 8the-9;; structure becomes crucial to defining the genitive construction( *ermanic has both a compact genitive construction the kin )s house! &ith genitive case and only one article possible! on 9! and a periphrastic construction the house o< the kin &ith t&o articles and the genitive relation e%pressed by the preposition o<( $hile it is not obvious to ordinary 5nglish-spea#ers &hich element the article the applies to in the kin )s house! other *ermanic languages provide a clue6 *erman des OPni s /aus 8the.(E)! king.(E)! house.)+M; or S&edish6 kun ens hus 8king.the.(E)! house;( It therefore seems logical to brac#et the phrase as follo&s6 88the kin )s; house;! &hich is simply the reverse of the order of the t&o main constituents H and 9 in 3reton 8ti 8ar roue;; or Arabic 8bait 8al$%alik;;( Indeed! in one *ermanic language &hich has lost all genitive case-mar#ing! the 88 the-9; H; order actually defines the genitive relation6 the highly evolved form of 5nglish found in amaican Creole6 88 di kin ; hoos;( Seen in this light! the Insular Celtic genitive structure is rather less e%otic than it might appear at first sight2 there is little need to appeal to Hamito-Semitic for a source( Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic differ &ith regard to ad'ective placement in genitive constructions( $hile neither Celtic nor *ermanic has any problem in attaching ad'ectives to either or both H and 96 3reton ti bihan ar roue bras 8house!little!the!king!big; .the big #ing7s little house0! Semitic cannot do this2 any ad'ectives go obligatorily after the genitive construct! &hich is more a#in to a compound noun .#ing-house0! so bait al$%alik al$kab:r 8house!the-king!the-big; can in principle mean either .the #ing7s big house0 or .the big #ing7s house0( ,nly in formal Arabic is it possible to tell &hich the ad'ective applies to! from the case-mar#ing( The usual &ay of applying ad'ectives to both H and 9 is to use a longer construction &ith t&o articles and a preposition! structurally similar to the periphrastic construction the house o< the kin 6 al$bait aQ- Qa h:r li$l$%alik al$kab:r 8the-house!the-little!to-the-king!the-big; .the big #ing7s little house0( If the genitive construction in Insular Celtic really had its origins in a Hamito-Semitic substratum! it is difficult to understand &hy this ma'or structural constraint prohibiting the insertion of ad'ectives bet&een H and 9 &ould not also apply in Celtic( =( :on-agreement of verb &ith plural noun sub'ect( This is a stri#ing parallel! strongest in $elsh! 3reton! 5gyptian! Classical Arabic and to some e%tent 3iblical Hebre&! in the latter t&o &ith +S, order only2 in 3reton also &ith S+, order in the affirmative! but not in the negative2 not in 3erber( :on-agreement is fairly common &ith +S order &orld&ide! cf( *reenberg (<=CC)! Mniversal >>6 .$hen number agreement bet&een the noun and verb is suspended and the rule is based on order! the case is al&ays one in &hich the verb precedes and the verb is in the singular(0 :umber non-agreement &ith plural post-verbal sub'ects is lost in spo#en Arabic! and &as lost in

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

&

Hebre& from the Mishnaic period! so those t&o languages have moved a&ay from nonagreement( There &as usually a ree%ent &ith post-verbal plural sub'ects in ,ld $elsh and ,ld 3reton! so non-agreement appears to have come in since those periods( :on-agreement appears to be even more recent in *aelic2 indeed! in some dialects! such as Munster! there is often still agreement( These are e%ceedingly long times for some putative substratal non-agreement to have filtered through( <B( +erbal noun! not infinitive (ob'ect in genitive! not accusative) ( There appears to be more of a cline than a sharp distinction bet&een the abstract verbal noun (Arabic! *eorgian %asdar) and the infinitive( The criterion for distinguishing bet&een the t&o is &hether ob'ects are in the genitive (verbal noun) or accusative (infinitive)( $ith the development in 3reton since the <Hth century (&ith the e%ception of the S5 *&enedE+annes dialect) of true .accusative0 ob'ect pronouns (etymologically .o< I pronoun0)6 %a &eled 81*!seeing; X &eled ahanon 8see.I)F23)! o&.1e; .to see me0! little no& distinguishes the 3reton verbal noun from the 4rench infinitive( In Insular Celtic! only the Irish verbal noun seems truly %asdar-li#e( Verbal noun or in<initiveR
Iris h $el sh 3ret on 3er ber 5gy ptia n ] ] X () ()X L L () () ] Ara bic Heb re& L L

:ominal features

*ender Article possible "ron( ob'ect6 possessive )e%ical ob'ect6 genitive

<<( "redicative particle6 he is in a <ar%er ( 5specially in $elsh and 5gyptian! if $elsh predicative yn really is .in0! and this has recently been challenged by *ensler (ABBA)( The construction is .In his <ar%er0 in Irish( This feature is very limited in 3reton! and is marginal in Hebre& and Arabic( <A( "repositional periphrastic6 he is at sin in ( As Comrie points out (<=@C6<BB-<BA)! apart from Insular Celtic languages! &hich all have prepositional periphrastic constructions! copular locative phrases e%pressing the progressive are found in numerous other languages6 Chinese! *eorgian! Toruba! Shona! Igbo! Rpelle! other :igero-Congolese languages! HindiEMrdu! "un'abi! :orth American Indian! etc(! not to mention Icelandic! various *erman dialects! and Continental Scandinavian( Ho&ever! no Semitic languages do this! although there is an increasing use of active participles( In 5gyptian r .on0! r .to&ards0! and % .in0 are all used &ith verbal nouns to e%press a progressive( "arado%ically! the 3reton progressive is much closer in force to the 5nglish progressive than the $elsh or Scottish *aelic periphrastic constructions! &hich have become a general cursive (imperfective) &hich freely allo&s statives (cf( He&itt (<=HC! <==B))( Indeed! there appears to be a general tendency in many languages for a parallel evolution of simple tense X speciali/ed uses! and progressive X general imperfective( <>( "eriphrastic 9, 6 he does sin in ( This conflates at least three distinct uses6 (<) activity 9, &ith dynamic (non-stative) +"s6 (Middle) $elsh! 3reton2 (A) 9, &ith :"s6 numerous languages2 (>) 9, as an empty au%iliary6 :orth $elsh2 3reton to avert +-< in the affirmative (also 5nglish do &ith negative! interrogative)( This is not typical of Semitic( <D( Circumstantial clause and S 2S01 (subordinating and )( This feature is typical of both Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic (in 3erber it is possibly borro&ed from Arabic)6 3reton &eled

&!

Steve Hewitt

neus ahanon ha %e o tond er$%aes 8seen!he.has!1e.+,J!and!I!PR+(!4o1e.I)F!out;! Arabic la;ad ra)$n: &a$)an Tli8 8PF3!he.saw-1e!and!I!4o1ing.out; .he sa& me as I &as coming out0( The construction is syntactically coordinate (in both Celtic and Semitic! the order after . and0 is al&ays S+,)! but semantically subordinate2 an adversive .althou h0 connotation is possible( <?( :onfinite possible instead of finite main-clause verb . This is particularly prevalent in $elsh! follo&ed by Hebre& (infinitive absolute)! but not in Arabic( There are sporadic e%amples in Irish and 3reton( <C( $ord-initial phonetic changes (mutations)! various syn( functions ( The highly grammaticali/ed Insular Celtic initial consonant mutations are hardly comparable to the 3erber .construct state0 initial changes ar az U ur az !&Vr az# .man0! ta%Wart U t%Wart .to&n0! &hich appear to be more a#in to vo&el contraction! cf( the Hebre& construct state forms described under feature H( As formulated! this is rather too abstract a feature to be confidently attributed to substratal influence! and there are numerous instances &orld&ide of results of phonetic changes ac-uiring a grammatical function( <@( Idiomatic genitive #inship constructions6 son o< X ( This is very productive in Semitic! cf( Ira-i Arabic abu che yir 8&ather.#$! 4igarettes; .(street) cigarette seller0( It is not typical of 3rythonic2 the fe& e%amples in Insular Celtic are in Irish6 %ac tNre 8son!land.(E); .&olf 0( <H( :ominal clause (absence of copula)( There is no copula in the present tense in Semitic! only in non-present (future! past) tenses( This is not the same as ellipsis of the copula in Insular Celtic! especially $elsh! and to a lesser e%tent 3reton! in gnomic e%pressions( <=( Amplification of negative by noun after verb6 4rench "as ( Arabic dialects ("alestine and &est&ards) have developed a 4rench-li#e circumfi% % V$sh (Yshi .thing0)2 $elsh ni V S ddi%! 3reton ne V S ked( This is surely part of a general linguistic tendency to amplify function &ords that other&ise ris# being lost altogether( AB( :umerals follo&ed by singular( Tes! in 3rythonic2 in Irish! originally nouns after AB and higher multiples of <B stood in the *5:(")2 due its identity &ith the nom( sg( in some declensional classes! this gave rise to its reinterpretation as singular( In Semitic! yes for << and higher2 >-<B are follo&ed by nouns in the plural( :umerals are follo&ed by singular nouns in many languages! for e%ample "ersian! 3as-ue! Hungarian! *eorgian! Tibetan((( A<( "repositional e%pression of have ( Tes! 3reton is the only Celtic language to have developed a verb .have06 %$eus! etymologically 8to.1e-there.is; .I have0! used as an au%iliary &ith perfect tense and as a le%ical verb .possess02 possession of definites is usually e%pressed &ith prepositional periphrasis an arc)hant so anin 8the!1one*!is!with.1e; .I have the money0! as it is in the other Celtic languages! Hamito-Semitic! and many other languages &orld&ide( AA( "ossessive he broke his ar% rather than dative il s)est cass@ le bras ( Tes! this is true of both Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic2 .internal0 possession &ith a possessive! rather than .e%ternal0 possession &ith a dative is rare in 5uropean languages! &ith the e%ception of Celtic and 5nglish! cf( "ayne Z 3arshi (<===)( It is unclear &hich is more common &orld&ide( :ote that 3reton re-uires a combination of both types (possessive I dative) &here the possessor of the ob'ect is not the same as the sub'ect (possible! but not obligatory in 4rench)6 >ae Ieuan &edi torri )i <raich is Ieuan a&ter break.3) his ar1 .Ieuan bro#e his arm0 >ae Ieuan &edi torri braich 2edr is Ieuan a&ter break.3) ar1 Pedr .Ieuan bro#e "edr7s arm0 ($elsh)

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

&"

?ean s) est cass@ le bras ?ean !lui# a cass@ le bras Y 2ierre (4rench) Jean RF is broken the ar1 Jean %to.hi1' has broken the ar1 to Pierre . ean bro#e his arm0 . ean bro#e "ierre7s arm0 Yann neus torred e vrec)h 5ann has.M broken his ar1 .Tann bro#e his arm0 Yann neus torred e vrec)h da Ber 5ann has.M broken his ar1 to Per .Tann bro#e "er7s arm0 (3reton)

1eus )ta heol benni ed da do%%a7 o revrioZ d) ar <<ili"ed 4o1e then sun blessed to war1.I)F their ba4ksides to the sparrows .Come on! dear sun! and &arm the sparro&s7 bac#sides0

(3reton)

A>( "reference for parata%is ("o#orny6 anreihend .stringing along0)( It is unclear ho& such a feature! identified by "o#orny! could be measured! and if it could be demonstrated! &hether it is really uni-ue to Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic( AD( 3asic unit &ord group rather than single &ord ( Again! it is unclear ho& such a feature might be measured! and &hether it is uni-ue to Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic( A?( Sub'ectless sentences (impersonal constructions) ( 3oth "o#orny and $agner list this as a common feature( This probably covers a number of distinct phenomena &hich need closer definition! and in any case! it is hardly uni-ue to Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic( AC( :o presentEactive participle( Tes! for Insular Celtic! but not true of Semitic at all( A@( 9istinction bet&een essential and contingent 35 ( is[t\ )( Tes! in Irish (is[t\) and 3reton (eo[e%a7)! but not in $elsh or in Semitic( Again! such a distinction is -uite common &orld&ide( AH( StatesErelations e%pressed &ith 3 ! 2S02 $O# 2S02 $S ( Tes! cf( Irish 4\ scillin a a% ort 8is.$IT!shilling!with.1e!on.*ou; .you o&e me a shilling0! t\ tart or% 8is.$IT!thirst!on.1e; .I am thirsty0( 4elt to be very typical of IC2 not particularly typical of Semitic( A=( $elsh yn ! 5gyptian % .in06 predicative! locative! progressive( Attention &as first dra&n to this ama/ing coincidence by Morris ones! and it is tantali/ing if true( Ho&ever! there is some -uestion as to the identity of the three yn7s in $elsh! cf( Isaac (<==D)! &here he proposes that progressive yn derives from &nc .close0! and *ensler (ABBA)! &ho claims that $elsh predicative yn is derived from a deictic int( >B( ,ld Irish infi%ed pronoun $d$ identical to 3erber $d$ ( "o#orny dre& attention to this! for instance in (<=?=6<?@)( Its significance is unclear( ><( Comparatives (and superlatives) predicative only! not attributive ( This is especially true of Irish! but not of 3rythonic or Semitic( >A( Initial focus clefts( Such structures are common across many languages( >>( TesEno responsives &ith au%iliaryEverbEentire clause ( This is considered to be very typical of Insular Celtic (&hich is held by some to have given rise to 5nglish . yes6 it is0! .no6 I don)t0! etc()! but is not particularly characteristic of Semitic( >D( "repositional relative6 fronting of bare preposition the bed in I sle"t ( ,nly Irish and 3erber have this( >?( Mnmar#ed collective! derived singulative ( This is particularly productive in 3reton ble&[ble&enn and Arabic sha8r[sha8ra .hairEstrand of hair0! cf( He&itt (<=H?)! but less so in $elsh and Hebre&! and it is -uite marginal in Irish( It is also found in other languages! such as S&ahili ny&ele[uny&ele .hairEstrand of hair0( >C( +irtual complement clause +S, 2 factual complement clause S+, O +S, ( .+irtual0 complement clauses of the type .I &ant ohn to come0 are obligatorily +S, in both Arabic and

&#

Steve Hewitt

3reton! &hereas .factual0 complement clauses such as .I thin# ohn &ill come0 are obligatorily S+, in Arabic2 traditionally they have been +S, in 3reton! but since the <Hth century! an alternative S+, order has become increasingly fre-uent( It is unli#ely that this should be 4rench influence because 3reton never has S+, order in the .I &ant ohn to come0 type! cf( He&itt (<=H?)( This similarity is far more li#ely to be typological rather than substratal in origin( Arabic
+ S

Breton
+ S

)urd I.want

)an ya()

]aid

>e %eus c)h&^ant e I I.have desire

AFF

teu<<e

Yann

that 4o1e.%$6,J.'M 7aid

4o1e.#+)8 5ann

.I &ant ^aid to come0

S +

.I &ant Tann to come0

+ S

)a_unn )anna ]aid I.think that 7aid

sa$ya() will-4o1e.9.$(

>e a I
AFF

so7(

din

teuo

Yann

think to.1e AFF will.4o1e 5ann

S +

>e a I .I thin# that ^aid &ill come0

AFF

so7(

din

!"enaos# Yann a

deuo

think to.1e %how'

5ann AFF will.4o1e

.I thin# that Tann &ill come0

>@( Construct state bahuvrhi ad'ectives (Arabic .improper anne%ation0) ( Many languages have such ad'ective-noun compounds! including 5nglish! cf( . "ure$hearted0! . reat$ &in ed0 belo&( The construct is formed &ith a possessive in Celtic! but has the form of a normal construct state in Semitic2 note! ho&ever! the difference in treatment of the article bet&een Hebre& and Arabic6 in Arabic! the dependent noun al&ays has the definite article2 &hen the compound is definite! the &hole construct state has! -uite e%ceptionally! a definite article prefi%ed to it2 in Hebre&! it is the article on the dependent noun that determines! in rather more orthodo% fashion! &hether the compound is definite or not( un den ledan e chouk a 1an broad his nape .a &ell-to-do man0 (i(e( &ho can bear a heavy 8financial; load) ra(ul Thir al$;alb 1an pure the-heart .a pure-hearted man0 (3reton)

(Arabic)

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

&$

ar$ra(ul aT-Thir the-1an the-pure .the pure-hearted man0

al$;alb the-heart

(Arabic)

nFEFr VI`al kVIn"bayi% eagle great wings .a great-&inged eagle0 han$nFEFr ha $ `al6 VI`al the-eagle the-great great .the large! great-&inged eagle0 hak$kVIn"bayi% the-wings

(Hebre&! 5/e#( <@6@)

(Hebre&! 5/e#( <@6>)

>H( Topic sub'ect (.double sub'ect0 sentences)( This is very common in both 3reton 2er eo kla7v e vab 8Per!is!ill!his!son; and Arabic ]aid %ar:c ibn$uh 87aid!ill!son-his; ."erE^aid7s son is ill02 3reton +hirac a dalc)h e <ri da voandde c)h&essa a ra "artoudf 8#hira4!AFF!keeps!his!nose!to!narrow.I)F:! sni&&.I)F! AFF! he.does!ever*where; .Chirac7s nose #eeps getting narro&er E #eeps narro&ing6 he7s sniffing every&here 8for votes;0( Again! this is surely typological2 it is found in numerous languages( >=( TesEno dummy sentential pronoun6 I don)t kno& and he they ca%e ( This concerns a partial resemblance bet&een 3reton and 5gyptian Arabic! cf( He&itt (<=H?)2 the main difference is that in 3reton the dummy pronoun is invariable! &hereas in 5gyptian Arabic it must agree in number &ith the sub'ect6 3reton n$onn ked ha $e7v e oa aed ar baotred 8)E(-I.know!not!and-he!AFF!was! gone!the!bo*s; .I don7t #no& &hether the boys &ent02 5gyptian Arabic sa)al$ni hu%%a r$ri la %ishyu 8he.asked-1e !they! the-1en!the*.went; .he as#ed me &hether the men had gone0( This is unli#ely to be substratal( g. +oncludin re%arks The most prominent and high-fre-uency features shared by the Insular Celtic and the HamitoSemitic languages are probably the follo&ing6 +S, order (feature A)( This apparently concerns both families! but there are numerous other +S, languages &orld&ide! even if the proportion of +S, languages is lo& (around <?_)( 4urthermore! there has been drift of varying degrees to&ards S+, in both Hebre& and Arabic! and also in 3reton( $elsh (and to some e%tent even Irish) could be analysed as S+, if the predicative function is ta#en as being more important than the tense-bearing function for +( In the Borld Atlas o< Can ua e Structures Online ! +S, does not cluster &ell &ith feature D (pronoun copies &ith obli-ue relatives)! &here many other languages partial to that strategy are strongly S+,( 4inally! analysis of Arabic suggests that for that language at least! and possibly for other Hamito-Semitic languages! but clearly not for any Insular Celtic language! the basic order of the verb and its arguments is not based on the syntactic status of the arguments (sub'ect! ob'ect6 +S,)! but rather on their information salience (given! ne&6 +*:)! the +*: principle economically accounting for all observable verb-initial orders! includin the most fre-uent verbinitial order +S,( Construct state (feature H)( The 8house 8the$kin ;; .the #ing7s house0 8H5A9 8the-95"5:95:T;; structure is certainly one of the most stri#ing features shared by the t&o families( This involves6 head-dependent order2 availability of a definite article2 relation-mar#ing on the dependent only2 relator mechanism of simple ad'acency( Historically in both families! the relation &as mar#ed on the dependent &ith the genitive! and to some e%tent continues to be so in Arabic and Irish and Scottish *aelic( The 8H5A9 8the-95"5:95:T;; structure becomes crucial in defining the genitive

&%

Steve Hewitt

construction only &ith the lost of case (Collo-uial Arabic! Hebre&! $elsh! 3reton)( 4inally! Hamito-Semitic allo&s absolutely no ad'ectives to be placed bet&een the head and the dependent! &hereas all Celtic languages do so freely( The t&o families thus appear to have arrived -uite independently at this construction! &hich is not so e%otic as might be thought6 amaican Creole! &hich has lost all case-mar#ing! has 88 di$kin ; hoos;! &hich is merely the dependent-head inverse of 8house 8the$kin ;;( :on-agreement &ith plural post-verbal sub'ects (feature =) ( *reenberg7s (<=CC) Mniversal >> states that6 .$hen number agreement bet&een the noun and verb is suspended and the rule is based on order! the case is al&ays one in &hich the verb precedes and the verb is in the singular(0 The tendency in Semitic (Arabic and Hebre&) has been to rela% or lose nonagreement &ith plural post-verbal sub'ects2 in the older stages of the Celtic languages (,ld $elsh! ,ld 3reton! ,ld Irish) number a ree%ent &as general2 non$a ree%ent has come in since the old periods! and in Irish! for instance! is still not complete! agreement being common in the south&estern dialects of Munster( Thus the trends appear to be going in opposite directions in the t&o families( In the negative! 3reton functions e%actly li#e Standard Arabic in both affirmative and negative6 number a ree%ent &ith preverbal sub'ects2 non$a ree%ent &ith postverbal sub'ects( .Con'ugated prepositions0 (feature <)( The apparent .con'ugations0 are probably historically! in both families! simply the result of a morphological process of incorporation of post-prepositional pronominals( "ronoun copies &ith obli-ue relatives (feature D)( In addition to Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic! the Borld Atlas o< Can ua e Structures Online sho&s this strategy to be common in numerous languages of central sub-Saharan Africa! but also in "ersian! 5astern Rayah )i (Thailand! Myanmar)! "aamese (+anuatu! South "acific) and *uaran\ ("araguay! 3ra/il)( +erbal noun rather than infinitive (feature <B) ( The distinction bet&een the t&o is a matter of degree! the chief polar features being6 gender6 yesEno2 definite article possible6 yesEno2 pronominal ob'ect6 possessiveEaccusative2 le%ical ob'ect6 genitiveEaccusative( ,nly Irish and Arabic have the first option (verbal noun) for all four features2 other languages are less clear-cut( 3reton (mainstream R)T dialects) and Modern Spo#en $elsh have reached a point at &hich little distinguishes the untensed citation form of the verb from the infinitive of 4rench and 5nglish( Arabic is not moving in this direction at all2 as in *eorgian! for instance! its %aQdar is fully nominal( Circumstantial subordinating and (feature <D)( I am una&are of any other languages apart from Hamito-Semitic and Insular Celtic &hich have this feature( The apparent correspondence of 5gyptian % .in0! r .to&ards0! r .on0 and $elsh yn .in0! a% .for0! &edi .after0 e%pressing! respectively! predicativeElocativeEprogressive! future! perfect (Morris- ones and feature A=) is -uite tantali/ing! but to this level of detail concerns these t&o languages only! and is not &idely shared by the rest of the Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic languages (tar @is .after0 &ith a verbal noun may e%press the perfect in Irish! and &ar .on0 &ith the verbal nounEinfinitive may be used for a prospective in 3reton)( 4or none of these prominent shared features is a substratal e%planation demonstrably more plausible than a typological e%planation or mere coincidence(

!The e%istence of stri#ing structural similarities bet&een the Insular Celtic and the HamitoSemitic languages is beyond -uestion( Ho&ever! the matter of &hether this is to be attributed to substratal influence through prehistoric contact or to typological tendencies and correlations remains unresolved( *ensler7s statistical approach (the lo& li#elihood of such clustering of

The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic

2'

.e%otic0 features in t&o genetically unrelated families) is in itself s#e&ed6 by focusing on the shared features! he loses sight of the bigger picture! including all the features that are not shared by the t&o families( 4urthermore! he has no &ay of accounting for the relative fre-uency or centrality of his various features in the languages concerned( Authors inclined to a substratal e%planation for the shared features appear to be prey to a #ind of .substratum fren/y0! as if prehistoric contact must be the only possible e%planation for .un-Indo-5uropean0 traits in an Indo-5uropean language( They pay scant attention to the possibility of typological e%planations! even though! as &e have seen! such e%planations are perfectly plausible for many of the shared traits( $ith le%ical items! the number of possible phonetic se-uences is so vast that any significant accumulation of le%ical similarities bet&een t&o genetically unrelated languages can hardly be anything other than a sure sign of contact and borro&ing( $ith structures! ho&ever! the range of possibilities across languages is far more limited 1 there are! for instance! only so many &ays of e%pressing a genitive relation 1! so it is less surprising for unrelated languages to possess analogous structures( It is therefore important al&ays to bear in mind and investigate thoroughly the possibility of a typological e%planation( A ma'or problem &ith the substratal e%planation is the precise identity of the substratum( A subsidiary pu//le is the special affinities noted bet&een $elsh and Hebre& (several authors! most recently ongeling)! $elsh and 5gyptian (Morris ones)! Irish and 3erber (Morris ones! "o#orny and $agner)! and 3reton and Arabic (He&itt 1 probably typological6 both S+,O+S, topic-prominent languages)2 in each case! ho&ever! the number of features concerned is lo& enough for the .special affinity0 to be coincidental( Surprisingly! *ensler7s scores suggest that it is the Insular Celtic languages &hich are most typical of the .CelticEHamito-Semitic type0 rather than the Hamito-Semitic languages! and this is borne out by our table of shared features by author and language! &here the various features are more consistently present in Insular Celtic than in Hamito-Semitic( This is the reverse of &hat one &ould e%pect if the shared features really had their origin in Hamito-Semitic( Father than positing some 3erber hrvolk! or "hoenician settler ghosts (&ho have someho& managed to leave no archaeological traces)! substratalists (and it should by no& be clear that I am sceptical) might ta#e a cue from ongeling (ABBB)! &ho moots a single prehistoric substratum to both Hamito-Semitic and Insular Celtic( Such a substratum might have been centred on north&estern 5urope or even the 3ritish Isles! &here it might have affected the incoming Celtic languages strongly! but the more distant Hamito-Semitic and :orth African languages less so( The identity of such a substratum &ould! ho&ever! perforce be so shrouded in the mists of prehistory as to be -uite un#no&able( Clearly! more &or# is needed on both the substratal and the typological approaches to this fascinating -uestion(

!Tibetan for .dog0! pronounced E`#aiE! cf( $elsh ci! 3reton ki! Irish ci.

2&

Steve Hewitt

Abbreviations
A44

affirmative tense particle affirmative

I:4

infinitive Irish lin# particle masculine Middle 5nglish ne& negative tense particle nominative number ob'ect ,ld Irish pronominal ob'ect ob'ect obli-ue predicate perfective

"F,*

progressive reduction relator refle%ive sub'ect singular situative sub'unctive tense traditional(ly) verb verbal noun vo&el $elsh some initial element6 "! S! ,! Adv! etc( apersonal verb form6 no person-mar#ing agreement! mar#ed on both terms partially present not present

aff(

Ir(
):R M

red(
F5) F4)

agreem( agreement Ar(

AMU

Arabic au%iliary 3erber 3reton class conditional construct state dependent dative

M5 :
:5* :,M

S
S* SIT SM3

3b( 3r(
C) C,:9 CS 9 9AT

num( , ,I o
,3

T trad( +
+:

vo&( $( U

dial( 5g(
4

dialect(al) 5gyptian feminine given genitive gender head Hamito-Semitic Insular Celtic
,3)

"
"4+

*
*5:

phon(
") ",SS "" "F5T "F5"

phonetic plural possessive past participle preterite preposition L

%

gen(
H

HS IC

-uestionable2 uncertain

Se<erences and short biblio ra"hy 3,FS)5T Fobert 9( <==?( ,n some similarities and differences bet&een $elsh and Syrian Arabic( Cin uistics >>6==-<AA( CA"5))I Cristian et al( ABB>( A T chromosome census of the 3ritish Isles( +urrent Biolo y <>6=@=-HD! (available on-line from &&&(sciencedirect(com)( C,AT5S Fichard( ABBD( Invisible 3ritons6 The vie& from linguistics( "aper read at the conference .3ritons and Angles in Anglo-Sa%on 5ngland0! Manchester! <D-<C April ABBD( C,MFI5 3ernard( <=@C( As"ect( Cambridge Mniversity "ress( 9A+I5S ohn( <CA<( Anti;uae Cin uae Britannicae6 nunc co%%uniter dictae +a%bro$Britannicae6 a suis +y%raecae6 vel +a%bricae6 ab aliis Ballicae6 Sudi%enta( )ondon2 reprinted ,%ford! <HB=( 4I)""M)A Mar##u! uhani R)5M,)A! Heli "ITRb:5:( ABBA( 5arly contacts bet&een 5nglish and the Celtic languages( 4I)""M)A! R)5M,)A! "ITRb:5: (eds)( 4he +eltic Soots o< 0n lish( <-AC( 4I)""M)A Mar##u! uhani R)5M,)A! Heli "ITRb:5: (eds)( ABBA( 4he +eltic Soots o< 0n lish( "roceedings of the International Collo-uium on 5arly Contacts bet&een 5nglish and the Celtic )anguages! Mniversity of oensuu! 4inland! AD-AC August! ABB<( oensuu! 4inland6 Mniversity "ress( 4I)""M)A Mar##u and uhani R)5M,)A( 0n lish and +eltic in contacte Biblio ra"hy ( ,n-line searchable bibliography! &&&('oensuu(fiEfldEeccEbibliography( *A*:5"AI: ean( <=C<( A propos du Jverbe celti-ue7 8Fevie& of $A*:5F! 1as Verbu%...;! 0tudes celti;ues =6>B=-AC( *5:S)5F ,rin 9avid( <==>( A typological evaluation of CelticEHamito-Semitic syntactic parallels! unpublished "h(9( dissertation! Mniversity of California! 3er#eley! available from Mniversity Microfilms International! Ann Arbor! Michigan! :o( =DB@=C@( 5%tracts printed in RAF) Z STI4T5F (eds)( ABB@( 4he +eltic Borld! +ol( I+! +eltic Cin uistics( <?<-AA=( *5:S)5F ,rin( ABBA( $hy should a demonstrative turn into a preposition6 The evolution of $elsh predicative yn! Can ua e @HED6@<B-CD( *F55:35F* oseph H( <=CC( Some universals of grammar &ith particular reference to the order of meaningful elements( oseph H( *F55:35F* (ed()! hniversals o< jra%%ar! Cambridge! Mass( E )ondon6 MIT "ress( @@-<<> H5$ITT Steve( <=H?( cuel-ues ressemblances structurales entre le breton et l7arabe6 ConsV-uence d7une typologie ordinale communeL Ca Breta ne Cin uisti;ue <6AA>-ACA( 3rest6 Centre de recherche bretonne et celti-ue (CF3C)( H5$ITT Steve( <=HC( )e progressif en breton d la lumiere du progressif anglais( Ca Breta ne Cin uisti;ue A6<>A-DH( 3rest6 Centre de recherche bretonne et celti-ue (CF3C)( H5$ITT Steve( <==B( The progressive in 3reton in the light of the 5nglish progressive( Martin 3A))! ames 4I45! 5rich ",""5! enny F,$)A:9 (eds)! +eltic Cin uisticse Seadin s in the Brythonic lan ua es( 4estschrift for T( Ar&yn $at#ins( Amsterdam6 ohn 3en'amins( <C@-HH( H5$ITT Steve( ABBAa( )7arabe 1 +S, ou +9: (verbe-su'et-ob'et ou verbe-donnV-nouveau)L +ahiers de lin uisti;ue de l)I3AC+O >EABBB6A<<-A<! Ordre des %ots et ty"olo ie lin uisti;ue( "aris6 I:A)C,( H5$ITT Steve( ABBAb( The impersonal in 3reton( ?ournal o< +eltic Cin uistics @6<->=( H5$ITT Steve( ABBC( Arabic6 verb-sub'ect-ob'ect or verb-given-ne&L Implications for &ord order typology( 5%panded 5nglish version of H5$ITT (ABBAa) presented to the Conference on Communication and Information Structure in Spo#en Arabic! Mniversity of Maryland! <C-<H une ABBC( H5$ITT Steve( ABB@( Femar#s on the Insular Celtic E Hamito-Semitic -uestion( RAF) Z STI4T5F (eds)! 4he +eltic Borld! +ol( I+! +eltic Cin uistics( A>B-CH( (Contains an e%tensive bibliography)(

ISAAC *raham F( <==D( The progressive aspect mar#er6 $( ynE,Ir( oc( ?ournal o< +eltic Cin uistics >6>>-=( ISAAC *raham F( ABBD( The nature and origins of the Celtic languages6 Atlantic sea&ays! ItaloCeltic and other paralinguistic misapprehensions( Studia +eltica >H6D=-?H( ISAAC *raham F( ABBH( Celtic and Afro-Asiatic( Hildegard TFISTFAM (ed()! 4he +eltic Can ua es in +ontacte 2a"ers <ro% the &orksho" &ithin the <ra%e&ork o< the XIII International +on ress o< +eltic Studies6 Bonn6 =k$=l ?uly =mml( MniversitSt "otsdam( A?-HB( ,:5S Morris and Alan F( TH,MAS( <=@@( 4he Belsh Can ua ee Studies in its synta' and se%antics ( Cardiff6 Mniversity of $ales "ress( ,:*5)I:* Rarel( <==?( Afro-Asiatic and Insular Celtic( 1S$30CC 8:ear 5astern )anguages and )iteratures 4oundation; <6<>?-C?( ,:*5)I:* Rarel( <==C( The nominal clause in Hebre& and $elsh6 Some remar#s( ]eitschri<t <nr celtische 2hilolo ie CH6A?=-HC( ,:*5)I:* Rarel( ABBB( +o%"arin Belsh and /ebre&( )eiden6 C:$S "ublications( RAF) Faimund and 9avid STI4T5F (eds)( ABB@( 4he +eltic Borlde +ritical conce"ts in historical studies ! +ol( I+! +eltic Cin uistics( )ondon Z :e& Tor#6 Foutledge( ),"FI5:, Antonio( <==?( Ancient 0 y"tiane A lin uistic introduction( Cambridge Mniversity "ress( M,FFIS ,:5S ohn( <=BB( "re-Aryan synta% in Insular Celtic( Appendi% 3( ( FHTS and 9( 3FT:M,F,:5S! 4he Belsh "eo"le! )ondon6 T( 4isher Mn&in( C<@-D<( Feprinted in RAF) Z STI4T5F (eds)( ABB@( 4he +eltic Borld! +ol( I+! +eltic Cin uistics( <B>-A<( "AT:5 9oris and Immanuel 3AFSHI (eds)( <===( 0'ternal 2ossession( Amsterdam6 ohn 3en'amins( ",R,F:T ulius( <=A@->B( 9as nicht-indogermanische Substrat im Irischen( ]eitschri<t <nr celtische 2hilolo ie <C6=?-<DD! A><-CC! >C>-=D2 <@6>@>-HH2 <H6A>>-DH( ",R,F:T ulius( <=D=( ^um nichtindogermanischen Substrat im Insel#eltischen( 1ie S"rache <6A>?-D?( ",R,F:T ulius( <=?<( Sprachliche 3e/iehungen /&ischen dem alten ,rient und den britischen Inseln! ArOr <=6ACH-@B( ",R,F:T ulius( <=??( +or#eltische indogermanische Spuren im Rymrischen( ]eitschri<t <nr celtische 2hilolo ie A?6H@( ",R,F:T ulius( <=?=( Reltische Mrgeschichte und Sprach&issenschaft( 1ie S"rache ?6<?A-<CD( ",R,F:T ulius( <=CB( The pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland! +eltica ?6AA=-DB( Feprinted in RAF) Z STI4T5F (eds)( ABB@( 4he +eltic Borld! +ol( I+! +eltic Cin uistics( <AA->A( ",R,F:T ulius( <=CD( ^ur Anfangsstellung des insel#eltischen +erbums( >nnchener Studien zur S"rach&issenscha<t <C6@?-HB( FHfS ohn( <H@@( Cectures on Belsh 2hilolo y( )ondon( FHfS ohn( <HHA( 0arly Britain - +eltic Britain( )ondon( FHfS ohn( <H=B( Traces of a non-Aryan element in the Celtic family! Scottish Sevie& <C6>B-D@( F,35FTS Ian( ABBD( "arametric comparison6 Celtic! Semitic and the anti-3abelic principle( "aper read at the *regynog $elsh Synta% Seminar! "o&ys! $ales! <A uly ABBD! and at a Hans Fausch 5ndangered )anguages "ro'ect Seminar! School of ,riental and African Studies (S,AS)! )ondon! A? anuary ABB?( TFISTFAM Hildegard )(C (ed()( <==@( +eltic 0n lishes I( "roceedings of the 4irst Collo-uium on Celtic 5nglishes! "otsdam! AH->B September <==?( Heidelberg6 Carl $inter( TFISTFAM Hildegard )(C (ed()( ABBB( +eltic 0n lishes II( "roceedings of the Second Collo-uium on Celtic 5nglishes! "otsdam! A>-A@ September <==H( Heidelberg6 Carl $inter( TFISTFAM Hildegard )(C (ed()( ABB>( +eltic 0n lishes III( "roceedings of the Third Collo-uium on Celtic 5nglishes! "otsdam! AB-A> September ABB<( Heidelberg6 Carl $inter( TFISTFAM Hildegard )(C (ed()( ABBC( +eltic 0n lishes IV( "roceedings of the 4ourth Collo-uium on Celtic 5nglishes! "otsdam! AB-AC September ABBD( "otsdam6 MniversitStsverlag(

+5::5MA:: Theo( ABB<( Atlantis Semitica6 Structural contact features in Celtic and 5nglish( )aurel 3FI:T,: (ed()( /istorical Cin uistics 1oooe Selected 2a"ers <ro% the 1gth International +on<erence on /istorical Cin uistics( Amsterdam6 ohn 3en'amins( >?<-C=( +5::5MA:: Theo( ABBA( Semitic Celtic 5nglish6 The transivity of language contact( 4I)""M)A! R)5M,)A! "ITRb:5: (eds)! 4he +eltic Soots o< 0n lish( A=?->>B( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=?=( 1as Verbu% in den S"rachen der Britischen Inseln( Tgbingen6 Ma% :iemeyer( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=C=( The origin of the Celts in the light of linguistic geography( 4ransactions o< the 2hilolo ical Society( ,%ford( AB>-?B( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=@B( Studies in the origins of early Celtic civili/ation( ]eitschri<t <nr celtische 2hilolo ie ><6<-?H! <=@B( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=@<a( :e#rolog ulius "o#orny (<HH@-<=@B)( ]eitschri<t <nr celtische 2hilolo ie >A6><>-<=( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=@<b( Studies in the Ori ins o< the +elts and o< 0arly +eltic +ivilization 8K The origin of the Celts in the light of linguistic geography I Studies in the origins of early Celtic civili/ation;( Tgbingen6 Ma% :iemeyer( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=@C( Common problems concerning early languages of the 3ritish Isles and the Iberian peninsula( 4( ordW! ( de Ho/ Z )( Michelena (eds)! Actas del I colo;uio sobre len uas y culturas "rerro%anas de le "eninsula ib@rica !Sala%anca6 1l$A1 %ayo 1olg# ! Salamanca6 5diciones Mniversidad de Salamanca( >HH-DB@( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=@@( $orstellung im Reltischen und Indogermanischen( Rarl Horst SCHMI9T (ed()! Indo er%ansich und Oeltisch( $iesbaden6 )ud&ig Feichert( ABD->?( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=H<( :ear 5astern and African connections &ith the Celtic &orld( Fobert ,79FISC,)) (ed()! 4he +eltic +onsciousness( :e& Tor#6 *eorge 3ra/iller( ?<-@C( Feprinted in RAF) Z STI4T5F (eds)( ABB@( 4he +eltic Borld! +ol( I+! +eltic Cin uistics( <>>-?B( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=HA( :ear 5astern and African connections &ith the Celtic &orld( F( ,79riscoll (ed()! 4he +eltic +onsciousness! "ortlaoise6 9olmen "ress E 5dinburgh6 Cannongate "ublishing! ?<-C@( $A*:5F Heinrich( <=H@( The Celtic invasions of Ireland and *reat 3ritain6 4acts and theories( ]eitschri<t <nr celtische 2hilolo ie DA6<-DB( $I))IS 9avid( <==H( Syntactic +han e in Belshe A study o< the loss o< verb$second ( ,%ford Mniversity "ress( Borld Atlas o< Can ua e Structures Online ( http6EE&als(infoE ,nline version of Martin HAS"5)MATH! Matthe& S( 9FT5F! 9avid *I) Z 3ernard C,MFI5 (eds)( ABB?( Borld Atlas o< Can ua e Structures ( ,%ford6 ,%ford Mniversity "ress(