Aithin Tusa Fein
Jedi
To quote Laura from her book:
Knight-Jadczyk, Laura (2012-08-08). The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive (Kindle Location 12535). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.
I came across an essay/presentation by Theo Vennemann, Ph.D., in which he claims that there is evidence that the English language is based on a Celtic substratum, which in Britain is based on a Semitic substratum. The essay/presentation is not very large, only 23 pages, but well written and easy to understand by laypersons.
For all who are interested, the essay/presentation can be read/downloaded in pdf from here:
_http://www.rotary-muenchen.de/2005-2006/theo-vennemann.pdf
Not being a linguist myself, however, I think that this essay/presentation supports Laura's hypothesis in her book.
Knight-Jadczyk, Laura (2012-08-08). The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive (Kindle Location 12535). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.
But more than this, the clues seem to indicate that what we call the “Semitic language” may actually have been a northern tongue, an Aryan language, adopted by peoples we think of as ethnically “Semitic” in modern terms but who, in ancient terms, were not Semitic at all.
I came across an essay/presentation by Theo Vennemann, Ph.D., in which he claims that there is evidence that the English language is based on a Celtic substratum, which in Britain is based on a Semitic substratum. The essay/presentation is not very large, only 23 pages, but well written and easy to understand by laypersons.
For all who are interested, the essay/presentation can be read/downloaded in pdf from here:
_http://www.rotary-muenchen.de/2005-2006/theo-vennemann.pdf
The answer was suggested eighty years ago by an Indo-Europeanist and recently proved by myself; and everyone may by now be able to guess what it might be: Celtic does not have external possessors, and when the Celts shifted to Anglo-Saxon they simply failed to learn the construction. Not having external possessors is a substratum feature of English, it is a remnant of the language of the English from the time when most of them were still Celts, and Celtic speaking.
Now comes a final question, and a final answer, perhaps the only real surprise for some tonight: Why does Celtic not have external possessors? Or, more generally: How did Celtic acquire all those un-European, un-Indo-European features that it then passed on to English? After all, the Celts too are Indo-European speaking, and they came from the Continent only a thousand years earlier than the Anglo-Saxon, and thus Celtic should be much like Anglo- Saxon and thus unable to influence it structurally to any large extent.
From a scientific point of view, the best answer would undoubtedly be the same as in the case of English: Not having external possessors should be a substratum feature of Celtic, too. Right! But what was that substratum?
The answer was given exactly 105 years ago by a famous Celtic language historian, and proved several times over since then, most recently — and most cogently, I believe — by myself: That substratum was Semitic. And indeed, all ancient Semitic languages lack external possessors.
Not being a linguist myself, however, I think that this essay/presentation supports Laura's hypothesis in her book.