Conceptualisation of Celtic in Bor’s Venetian Theory: A Critique
This critique and discussion pivots on Matej Bor’s* relatively impoverished knowledge of Celtic lanuages. Celtic conceptualisation in Bor’s Venetian theory is inconsistent and may render manipulative reading. Bor claims the modern (mcel) Celtic word for salt is hal and not sal, as is in old continental Celtic (ccel), is incorrect.
(1) Bor: *sal (ccel) > hal (mcel)
actual: *sal (ccel) > sal (mcel)
at root-level, not accounting for the mutation (s > h)
By doing so, Bor speculates and hopes to strike a note by stipulating that Continental Celtic and Old Slavic used to share greater affinities.
Explanation: only few languages from the P-group have a root hal for salt. Other languages of modern (insular) Celtic — including Irish — have sal** root form.
In the chapter on Venetian alphabet system and Venetic inscriptions, Bor mentions and compares Venetian inscriptions to Gothic, Germanic and Etruscan. However, in this chaper, Celts are (unfortunately!) not mentioned and integrated within the framework. Ogham inscriptions were found in Slovenia and Bor fails to regard such information. The reason for that may lie in the incompatibility of Venetian and Ogham scrips, as I have shown (Mitrovic 2006: 83-85).
In such negligence and arrogance towards Celtic transcription, Bor’s cannot be deemed entirely uniform and even scientific. What aggravates the recklessness and lack of scholarly standards is the fact that in other chapters the Celto-Venetic analogy is presupposed and ofter brought forward. I do not believe his claim, that the Voccia surname is Celtic, as a similar root cannot be found in Celtic language, although the Veneto-Celtic onomastics will require further attention in the future.
I believe his greates and most obvious mistake, however, is in classifying Breton Celtic directly into Continental Celtic group. That is, naturally, incorrect, as Breton is undisputedly classified by celtologists into the P-Celtic- group. Bor also implies to Venetian origins of the Breton inscriptions, hence regarding Breton as Venetian.
Explanation: Bor’s claim of Venetic presence in Brittany is based on the root of the word bregec (Slovene for ‘hill’). Such root of the word breg is also present (for example) in Welsh: bryn***. Bor believes the root is strictly Veneto-Slovenian****. Should it be true, the Venetian dominion stretched all the way to Wales and far western coast of Ireland. Is not this a complete undermining of history? Although I do not mind undermining, I mind the inconsistency of his ‘comparative’ method.
It is amazingly surprising for Bor not to have based his studies on closer remainders of Continental Celtic — Lepontic, which is tightly connected to the Etruscan language and supposedly by proxy (?) to Venetic, as Bor himself mentions, although Lepontic is completely disregarded. In this view, Bor projects a very viable vision of European history onto his readers by manipulating, transforming (and amateurishly transliterating) the traditional image.
A great mistake, as I see it with regards to my comparative work (ibid.), lies within the uncertainty and unclearly defined Celto-Venetic relation ship, which lingers throughout the entirety of his book. The theoretical stance is not clearly conveyed and presented and Bor’s theory leaves the reader puzzled and uncertain (and unconvinced!)
(Venetian: ?Osti jarej ≈ Slovenian: Ostani jar)
Bled, March 2006
York, August 2008
Notes to the upper text:
* Bor 1989: 488-492
** in (modern) Irish: salann
*** refer to the hydronym “Bregana” (in ibid.); pronunciation [bri:n]
**** Bor 1989: 489
It is realy not based on evidence theat the Veneti people lived all the way from the East to the West Europe if theat would be so there would posably be A LOT of evidence to back up theate theory (and there a few if any).