# Is the Hebrew-Welsh connection more than a myth?



## Roel~

I read about a supposed connection between Hebrew and Welsh. It looks   like a myth from Christians, but when I listened to Gaelic, it very much   reminded me of Hebrew, of which I know the sounds very well too.   Certain things which were said, were said in a similar way as they were   said in Hebrew. The thing is that Gaelic is an Indo-European languages   and that Hebrew is an Afro-Semitic language. So, how could they even be   related? Well, it's possible for languages to undergo such a big   influence of other languages that their language group can change, a   good example is Japanese, which is an isolated language. Where as it   might possible have been part of the Altaic group at first, it might   have merged with other languages in the area so much that it became an   isolated language, which it officially is. Though, it's just a theory   and linguists aren't sure if Japanese has been part of the Altaic group,   some linguists even classify Japanese under the Altaic language group.   The point is, Japanese became an isolated language, which shows that   languages evolve.

It might be possible that Gaelic and the other celtic languages were   once part of the Afro-Semitic group, but underwent such a big influence   of European languages that they became Indo-European, well, the   Indo-European classification. Although you wouldn't expect it, there   seems to be support for this theory. What I could find is the following,   and it would be good if people here were able to verify this   information. In the information, it is claimed that the Irish are one of   the lost tribes of Israel, although I 'm interested in Hebrew because   of it's special position as an Afro-Semitic language which is revived, I   'm agnostic and I don't know enough about christianity to say anything   about this. 

Source: http://britam.org/language.html

*A writer who signed his name "Glas" submitted a list of Welsh words   with  Hebrew origins in 1832 . The writer remarked that,  "But the best   proof of the Eastern descent of the ancient British is the  close   resemblance and connection existing between the Welsh and Hebrew    languages, even at this day. As a proof of this we have extracted the    following vocabulary of words in both tongues, so closely resembling   each  other in sound and sense as to leave no doubt whatever on the   subject. 
Many of these words, it will be found, have been transmitted from the    Welsh, through the Anglo-Saxon into our modern English. It would be easy   to  swell their number.. 

Some of the examples adduced by the above writer were: 

Aeth: He went, he is gone; hence = Athah 
Aml: Plentiful, ample = Hamale 
Ydom: the earth = Adamah 
Awye: air, sky = auor, or 
bu: it came to pass = bo boten, or potten : belly = beten. 
brith: bright = barud 
cas: hatred = caas (anger). 
dafnu: to drop, or distill by drops = nataph, taph.*


*In 1675 Charles Edwards ("Hanes y Fydd") published A number of Welsh    Cambro-Brittanic Hebraisms in which he shows that whole phrases in   Welsh  can be closely paralleled by whole phrases in Hebrew. 

From the list of Charles Edwards, L.G.A. Roberts (1919) made a selection    and we have selected examples from Roberts after slightly modernising   the  Hebrew transliterations : It should be noted that when account is   taken  for likely and known dialectical changes of pronounciation the   examples  given in effect show identical Welsh parallel phrases for the   Hebrew original. 

In Welsh: Gael hedd (Gen.31;47) meaning Geledd i.e. heap of testimony= in  Hebrew : Galaed. 

In Welsh: Bagad meaning "A troop cometh ?" (Gen.30;11) = in Hebrew  

In Welsh : Anudon meaning "Without God" = in Hebrew: Aen Adon. 

In Welsh : Yni all sy dda meaning "I am the Almighty God" (Gen. 17;1) =  in Hebrew: Ani El Saddai. 

In Welsh : Llai iachu yngwyddd achau ni meaning "Let him not live before   our brethren" (Gen. 31;32) = in Hebrew Loa yichei  neged acheinu   (Gen.31;32). 

In Welsh Ochoren ballodddi hoc-dena meaning "After I am waxed old shall I    have pleasure?" = in Hebrew : Acharei belothi  hedenah (Gen.18;12). 

In Welsh Bebroch fra am beneu ach ef, dyfet Deborah mam ianceth Ribecah    meaning "When he fled from the face of his brother . But Deborah   Rebecca's  nurse died" (Gen. 35;7-8) = in Hebrew :  Beborcho mpnei achiv   vetamath  Deborah mayneceth Ribecah. 

In Welsh: Yngan Job yscoli yscoli cynghaws i (Job 6;1,2) meaning "Job    answered, O that my grief were thoroughly weighed" = in Hebrew:    Veya(g)n  Eyub ....shocol yishocal ca(g)si 

In Welsh: Amelhau bytheu chwi a bythau holl ufyddau chwi meaning "And    they shall fill your house and the houses of all your servants" (Gen.   10;6)  = in Hebrew: Umalu bathechoh and bathei col avedochoh. 

In Welsh Iachadd ni meaning "Thou hast healed me" = in Hebrew:  hechiyatni. 

In Welsh Nesa awyr peneu chwi meaning "Lif thou up the light of thy  countenance" = in Hebrew: nasa aor panechoh.(Psalms 4;6.). 

In Welsh An annos meaning "None did compel" = in Hebrew: ain ones. (Esther 1;8). 

In Welsh As chwimwth meaning "an angry man" = in Hebrew:  ish chamas   (Psalms 140;12 Proverbs 16;29 meaning a wickedly-violent man). 

In Welsh Be heulo, luerferfo (Job 6;4) meaning "When his candle shined  ..... and by his light.." = in Hebrew: behilo, leoroe. 

In Welsh Bwgythieu in gwarchaeni (Job 6;4) meaning "The terrors of God    set themselves in array against me = in Hebrew:  Biu(g)thi elohai   ya-a(g)rchuni. 

In Welsh I far meaning "Shall be cursed" = Hebrew : Yu-ar, yuv-ar.  (Numbers 22;6). 

In Welsh Am geryddo fo meaning "At his reproof" = in Hebrew :im ge-arato.*


Of course, I tried to verify this information. This is hard, because   this is medieval Gaelic, but in the development from a medieval to a   modern language, there are still words who are similar or remained

Reproof = cerydd, in modern Welsh. This seems related to geryddo and this means that it might be possible that it isn't made up.

Hast healed = iachaodd* Medieval Welsh = Iachadd*

I used a dictionary to try and look and I did this just to look if this   was nonsense or not, but now I wonder if there is any truth in this   theory, because the grammar looks similar too.

Is there anyone here who knows anything about this and is able to verify   this, because this would shed a new light onto these languages.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

As far as I am aware, there is no linguistic proof whatever to support the contention that Hebrew and Welsh (or any other Celtic language) are directly related. Welsh is not ''medieval Gaelic'', it is from another branch of the Celtic languages entirely. Modern Scottish and Irish Gaelic are not intelligible to a Welsh speaker.
There are a number of loons who claim that the ''British'', or ''Scots'' or even ''Ulster Protestants'' are one of the lost twelve tribes of Israel, but these people are usually harmless eccentrics, or locked firmly away in mental institutions.


----------



## Roel~

Pedro y La Torre said:


> As far as I am aware, there is no linguistic proof whatever to support the contention that Hebrew and Welsh (or any other Celtic language) are directly related. Welsh is not ''medieval Gaelic'', it is from another branch of the Celtic languages entirely. Modern Scottish and Irish Gaelic are not intelligible to a Welsh speaker.
> There are a number of loons who claim that the ''British'', or ''Scots'' or even ''Ulster Protestants'' are one of the lost twelve tribes of Israel, but these people are usually harmless eccentrics, or locked firmly away in mental institutions.



No, I am aware that there isn't any hard evidence for this, but when I looked through these sites and checked if the words were similar in Welsh, which actually surprises me is that some words are quite similar to what is written there. If it was all nonsense and made up, there should be like 1 match because of coincidence, but there can be more matches found and they still look a lot like the words written here. Besides, like I wrote earlier, I watched a Welsh documentary partly, and when I listened to the English it sounded much like the way Israelies talk, that's why I wonder if this might be true and not just a myth.


----------



## Hulalessar

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Celtic_languages#Possible_Afro-Asiatic_substratum


----------



## arielipi

After listening to eluviete singing in Gaelic, there's no connection as far as I see.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Superficial similarities between unrelated languages are usually accidental. The Celtic languages have undergone tremendous phonetic and grammatical changes during the last 2000 years, becoming completely unrecognizable for an ancient speaker. To prove a relation you would have to show how the words evolved from an ancient form to present, fo instance which part in Anudon means 'god'. By the way 'adonai' in Hebrew means actually 'lord', not 'god'.


----------



## arielipi

No, it does also mean god.


----------



## tFighterPilot

You can find such cases with around every pair of languages. Check this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Roel~ said:


> No, I am aware that there isn't any hard evidence for this, but when I looked through these sites and checked if the words were similar in Welsh, which actually surprises me is that some words are quite similar to what is written there. If it was all nonsense and made up, there should be like 1 match because of coincidence, but there can be more matches found and they still look a lot like the words written here. Besides, like I wrote earlier, I watched a Welsh documentary partly, and when I listened to the English it sounded much like the way Israelies talk, that's why I wonder if this might be true and not just a myth.



Welsh sounds nothing like Hebrew (to me). The instances you have cited above look like mere coincidence; I'm sure I could find a similar list for almost any two Indo-European languages.
Greek sounds _very_ close to European Spanish to my ears, but the two languages have little or nothing in common.

Appearances can be deceiving.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> No, it does also mean god.



It may be used to refer to god as a title, but the word itself means lord.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Roel~ said:


> and when I listened to the English it sounded much like the way Israelies talk, that's why I wonder if this might be true and not just a myth.



Modern Israeli Hebrew is largely a revived language, and was revived by speakers of European languages. That's probably why it sounds very similar to some European languages. To me it sounds very French. If ancient Hebrew had in fact arrived in north western Europe, it would've sounded very different to the modern revived Hebrew.


----------



## arielipi

This is not some english language you provide titles. Hebrew is very dense, and adonay is another name for god just as many other names.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> This is not some english language you provide titles. Hebrew is very dense, and adonay is another name for god just as many other names.



Yes I'm well aware of the usage as a replacement for ha-shem, that doesn't change the meaning, which is still lord, and not just in Hebrew but in Ugaritic & Phoenician too.

All languages are "dense", if by that you mean thick with various meanings and intricacies of usage, Hebrew is no more significant in this respect than any other language.


----------



## arielipi

Its meaning is lord that is true, but its not a title to god, its another word for god.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> but its not a title to god, its another word for god.



So you mean to say it's a word that has another meaning, but which is used to refer to god?


----------



## arielipi

Yes. 10 chars.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Ok, thanks.


----------



## Ben Jamin

arielipi said:


> No, it does also mean god.



Only in the way as 'Lord' or 'our Lord' in English means 'God' (see Wikipedia for Adonai).


----------



## Roel~

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Welsh sounds nothing like Hebrew (to me). The instances you have cited above look like mere coincidence; I'm sure I could find a similar list for almost any two Indo-European languages.
> Greek sounds _very_ close to European Spanish to my ears, but the two languages have little or nothing in common.
> 
> Appearances can be deceiving.



Let me put on this documentary again. When I listen to the rhythm of the Gaelic language, it's similar to the rhythm of Hebrew. Of course you are right, I know Spanish and I know some basic things of New-Greek, so I know that they are completely different languages. Though, they both were influenced by languages from the south, so this could be an explanation for the similar sounds, I don't know this though. Though, although similar words aren't a good method to find out if languages are familiar, because it could be coincidence, this is of course not the only reason in the case of Hebrew and Gaelic.

The grammar is very similar and doesn't correspond to the grammar of most European languages, it has more similarities with the grammar of Afro-Asiatic languages. Besides, I know that there are theories that the Celts came from North-Africa and moved from Spain to the north. Actually, there can be still some Celtic culture found in Spain, so I don't think that it's impossible that the Celtic languages at least have had some connection with the Afro-Asiatic languages in the past and that they were so much influenced by Indo-European languages that they lost a lot of traits from Afro-Asiatic languages and adapted so much to the traits of Europeans languages that they became all Indo-European languages. The VSO word order corresponds to the Afro-Asiatic languages.

One of the best supports for this theory seem to be writing from church fathers from the medieval times, in which they write that the Gaelic languages are very much like Hebrew. Those people knew Hebrew very well so they should be capable to judge this. The disadvantage though is that their faith may influence their opinions and make them do these claims because they want it to be true.


----------



## clevermizo

Roel~ said:
			
		

> If it was all nonsense and made up, there should be like 1 match because of coincidence, but there can be more matches found and they still look a lot like the words written here.



Why just 1 match? What is the actual statistical probability of finding such coincidences? What if it were 25 matches?

Also, if I chose to transliterate your Hebrew words and phrases above into Latin characters slightly differently, the 'similarities' would mostly disappear to maybe just 1 or 2. The transliteration method used seems a little strange to me - it looks as though it is trying to exaggerate similarities between the two. Also there's no correspondence between any of the phrases even though they look similar. For example:



> *In Welsh Bebroch fra am beneu ach ef, dyfet Deborah mam ianceth Ribecah meaning "When he fled from the face of his brother . But Deborah Rebecca's nurse died" (Gen. 35;7-8) = in Hebrew : Beborcho mpnei achiv vetamath Deborah mayneceth Ribecah.
> *



In Hebrew this is: 
(in 35:7) בְּבָרְחוֹ, מִפְּנֵי אָחִיו  bəvorkho mi-pnei akhiv
(in 35:8) וַתָּמָת דְּבֹרָה מֵינֶקֶת רִבְקָה va-tamat dəvora meineket rivka

Mind you this is using _modern Hebrew pronunciation_. Still there is poor concordance between words. For example, "dyfet" I assume is Welsh for "died". In Hebrew this is va-tamat (which entirely means "and she died"). Also, "akhiv" is Hebrew for "his brother" but this I assure you is not what "ach ef" means in Welsh. Actually, I don't see the Welsh word for brother (Brawd) but maybe a different word is being used. Still it all makes me suspicious. If I use Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation this further erodes similarities in pronunciation:

(in 35:7) בְּבָרְחוֹ, מִפְּנֵי אָחִיו: bə-vɔrħo mɪ-pənei ɔħiw
(in 35:8) וַתָּמָת דְּבֹרָה מֵינֶקֶת רִבְקָה: wa-tɔmɔθ dəvorɔ meinɛqɛθ rivqɔ

Now I bothered to look up what the phrases are in the Welsh Bible because some folks will take whatever appears as truth without questioning. From the Welsh Bible:

(in 35:7) Duw wedi ymddangos iddo pan oedd yn dianc oddi wrth ei frawd Esau. 
(in 35:8) A dyma Debora (sef y forwyn oedd wedi magu Rebeca pan oedd hi'n ferch fach) yn marw yno. 

I don't know Welsh, but this appears more modern and less literal as it is quite longer than the Hebrew. As you quote, dialects and pronunciations may have changed. An older version from 1588 looks closer to the Hebrew syntax and is probably what anyone in 1675 would have been consulting.

(in 35:7) Duw iddo ef, pan ffoase efe o wydd ei frawd
(in 35:8) A marwa a wnaeth Debora mammaeth Rebecca

If you go back and double check every one of those verses in a Welsh bible, old or new, I bet most of them don't concord. Given this information, I can see no similarities. In short, it's a bunch of nonsense.



Roel~ said:


> The grammar is very similar and doesn't correspond to the grammar of most European languages, it has more similarities with the grammar of Afro-Asiatic languages..



How are the grammars of Welsh and Hebrew similar? How does the grammar of Welsh not correspond to the grammar of most European languages? A quick look on Wikipedia Welsh article and the articles on colloquial Welsh and literary Welsh morphology show some unique features and most of the rest run of the mill Indo-European features. -st for the second person? Check. TV distinction? Check. Verb to be in the present tense? Check. 

Instead of trying to show how similar Welsh is to Hebrew, how about we should how Indo-European it is and see which list is bigger?


----------



## arielipi

Actually, this is taken exactly as is from the bible clevermizo. We dont have all constants from the bible now, but we speak other than that the same way.


----------



## Hulalessar

clevermizo said:


> Instead of trying to show how similar Welsh is to Hebrew, how about we should how Indo-European it is and see which list is bigger?



That it surely the key. No comparative linguist doubts that the Celtic languages are Indo-European. A much more reasonable hypothesis (on which linguists do not all agree) is that the Italic and Celtic languages have an immediate common ancestor.

At one time Celtic languages were spoken over large areas of Europe and in Asia Minor. The possibility of contact between Celtic speaking peoples and Semitic speaking peoples cannot be ruled out and was indeed likely in some areas. That raises the possibility of Semitic languages having had some influence on some Celtic languages. However, it is all too easy to propose virtually any language as a substrate for another and point to a feature or two that demonstrates your theory. Regrettably nationalistic and religious beliefs influence linguistic theories. I read recently about a Dutch scholar who after careful study concluded that Dutch was the language spoken in the Garden of Eden. For theories about the lost tribes of Israel see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes

An interesting test would be to compare, say, Icelandic, Serbian and Albanian, not to mention Quechua, Japanese and Zulu, with Hebrew to see if similar apparent influences can be found. If they are, then that would effectively explain that any resemblances between Hebrew and Welsh are merely coincidental.

The human brain is programmed to recognise patterns and the problem is that sometimes it sees patterns where none exist and especially if you want to find them. My school magazine had an article which showed that the works of Shakespeare were written by Rodgers and Hammerstein.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Hulalessar said:


> An interesting test would be to compare, say, Icelandic, Serbian and Albanian, not to mention Quechua, Japanese and Zulu, with Hebrew to see if similar apparent influences can be found. If they are, then that would effectively explain that any resemblances between Hebrew and Welsh are merely coincidental.



If you do that, they'll probably then just tell you that's because Hebrew is the original language and all other languages are derived from it.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Roel~ said:


> No, I am aware that there isn't any hard evidence for this, but when I looked through these sites and checked if the words were similar in Welsh, which actually surprises me is that some words are quite similar to what is written there. If it was all nonsense and made up, there should be like 1 match because of coincidence, but there can be more matches found and they still look a lot like the words written here. Besides, like I wrote earlier, I watched a Welsh documentary partly, and when I listened to the English it sounded much like the way Israelies talk, that's why I wonder if this might be true and not just a myth.



The less you know two foreign languages the bigger is the chance that yoy find them similar in sound. Most English speakers won't be able to distinguish between Mandarin and Vietamese if they haven't learned any of them, or at least haven't extensively and carefully listened to them. For a Chinese speaker it might be equally difficult to hear difference between Spanish and Italian. If you are well familiar with a language you'll hear a difference even between so closely related languages as Swedish and Norwegian after hearing only one word.


----------



## Stoggler

Roel~ said:


> When I listen to the rhythm of the Gaelic language, it's similar to the rhythm of Hebrew.



Are you talking about Gaelic or about Welsh?  They are NOT the same language.


----------



## arielipi

@Benjamin, your argument is invalid, he didnt take 2 languages from the same family, but 2 languages from different families. Its not like taking English and French, its like taking English and Arabic.


----------



## xari

This might be an interesting read regarding the probability of similarities between completely unrelated languages: http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm


----------



## clevermizo

arielipi said:


> Actually, this is taken exactly as is from the bible clevermizo. We dont have all constants from the bible now, but we speak other than that the same way.



What? I was showing that the Welsh quoted is inaccurate, not the Hebrew. I don't understand your comment.



xari said:


> This might be an interesting read regarding the probability of similarities between completely unrelated languages: http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm



That's a fantastic site; thanks for sharing!


----------



## fdb

http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm

I agree, this is a splendid piece of work. We must keep it on file for the next time some crank wants to prove the affinity of two unrelated languages. I am sure it will be soon.


----------



## arielipi

@clevermizo your transliteration of hebrew is wrong there.


----------



## clevermizo

arielipi said:


> @clevermizo your transliteration of hebrew is wrong there.



Then please properly quote the mistake and correct it. Certainly you don't think "Beborcho mpnei achiv vetamath Deborah mayneceth Ribecah" is accurate transliteration, but if something is wrong with "rivka", for example, in my transliteration, or if you pronounce 'th', this would be interesting to note. 

Aside that, let's not get off-topic. I think we can all agree that if we change our transliteration scheme slightly, we can artificially make the two languages more similar on paper than they truly are. If I write "mayneceth" instead of "meineket" for מֵינֶ֣קֶת, it artificially looks like it has more in common with some supposed Welsh "mam ianceth" than it really does. When coupled with the fact that 'mam ianceth' isn't even found in Welsh translations of the Bible in this verse really knocks the whole thing out of the water.


----------



## arielipi

No, you should transliterate it as it should be to get accurate comparison, thus true conclusion can be made.


----------



## Ben Jamin

arielipi said:


> No, you should transliterate it as it should be to get accurate comparison, thus true conclusion can be made.



Are you joking?


----------



## arielipi

No, that was on the second part of your comment. I may correct your mistakes, but i have exams now so not currently. Ill just say theres a difference between v and b, and many more mistakes of those, such as ba instead of be, etc. you get the point.


----------



## Ben Jamin

arielipi said:


> No, that was on the second part of your comment. I may correct your mistakes, but i have exams now so not currently. Ill just say theres a difference between v and b, and many more mistakes of those, such as ba instead of be, etc. you get the point.



It was not I that made the transliteration, but I was wondering that you may be were ironic towards Roel's theories, because what you actually propose is a manipulation to make words look more alike. In serious etymologic research one must find out how the word in the source language was pronounced rather than written (in older times words were spread mostly orally) at the time it should presumably be adopted into the target language, and then (using laws of phonetic changes) show how the word came to be pronounced the way it does now.
Actually most cognate words in distantly related languages are not similar in sound at all. Take for example Latin 'pater' and Armenian 'hayr', or Slavic 'bog' and Greek 'phagein', and they more often than not have different meaning.

By the way, it is not_ transliteration _that is the correct way to examine words but _phonetic transcription_.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> No, that was on the second part of your comment. I may correct your mistakes, but i have exams now so not currently. Ill just say theres a difference between v and b, and many more mistakes of those, such as ba instead of be, etc. you get the point.


If we examine a possible Semitic substratum hypothesis in Celtic languages, we have of course to do the comparison with the development stage of the language when this influence should allegedly have take place. Allophonic distribution of _beth _and _veth _in the 8th century AD, the time when the Masoretic punctuation system was finalized, is not necessarily relevant. After all we know, allophonic spirantization of plosives (_beth-vet, gimel-ghimel, daleth-dhaleth, koph-khoph, peh-pheh, taw-thaw_) happened in post-exile times and would probably not be relevant. But for that we would need a more precise theory of how, where and when the influence should have taken place.

It should also be noted that fantasies of nutters like those Brit-Am people based on amateurish 17th centuries comparisons long before the methodology of historical comparative was developed, can hardly be taken seriously. Modern attempts to unveil an alleged Semitic substratum in Celtic languages, notably the works of Vennemann (see the link provided by Hulalessar in #4), postulate Semitic influence on Celtic to have taken place via Punic and not via Hebrew. Both are Canaanitic languages but Punic never developed the _beth-veth_ distinction.


----------



## arielipi

Well youre probably right benjamin, what i meant in transliteration is - take the word as it is said in hebrew, copy it exactly the same to english:
בברחו מפני אחיו
bevorkho mipney akhiv is the right "transliteration" for example.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Well youre probably right benjamin, what i meant in transliteration is - take the word as it is said in hebrew, copy it exactly the same to english:
> בברחו מפני אחיו
> bevorkho mipney akhiv is the right "transliteration" for example.


What is your basis for calling it "correct". Your transliteration is modern (not Biblical, not even Masoretic) and that can hardly be relevant in this context.


----------



## Ben Jamin

I don't know Hebrew (or Ivrit), but established transliteration of many langauges into English is often confusing. Take for example Russian. The English transliteration of Russian gives almost no hint about correct pronunciation of many words, for instance transliteration 'ee' for "её" (pronounced /jɛjɔ/ [yeyo]).

I have also read that transliteration of Thai script to Latin letters gives results that give almost no information about actual pronunciation.


----------



## arielipi

Berndf, i know how to read the bible, and how to pronounce words in it. I am not mistaken.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Berndf, i know how to read the bible, and how to pronounce words in it. I am not mistaken.





arielipi said:


> Well youre probably right benjamin, what i meant in transliteration is - take the word as it is said in hebrew, copy it exactly the same to english:
> בברחו מפני אחיו
> bevor*kh*o mipney a*kh*iv is the right "transliteration" for example.


These two (in *red*) are correct when transcribing modern but wrong when transcribing Masoretic Hebrew. Not that it really mattered. Just to show you that there is no unambiguous "correct". It always depends on the variety of Hebrew you consider.


----------



## arielipi

To me, kh represents the original khet in hebrew, much like its arabic equivalent. I cant just right h because thats equivalent for he, nor ch because thats either as in chase or chaf.
So, i am right.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> To me, kh represents the original khet in hebrew, much like its arabic equivalent. I cant just right h because thats equivalent for he, nor ch because thats either as in chase or chaf.


If you use a non-standard transcription system, you add to the confusion rather than reducing it. <kh> stands for the sound of _khaf_ (or _khaph_, as you like) and Arabic خ. The conventional transcription of _ħeth _and Arabic ح is <ħ> (IPA) or <ḥ> (traditional transcription by Semiticists). And that is clevermizo's transcription in #20.


arielipi said:


> So, i am right.


So, he is right.


----------



## arielipi

So we can have genghis khan but not khalil? Anyhow i dont have those on my keyboard so I just do with what i have, also everywhere ive seen - kh was used as khet.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> kh was used as khet.


Because it is correct in modern Hebrew. If the difference is important, you other ways, i.e. H=/ħ/ and h=/h/, or, as it is sometimes done for transcribing Arabic 7=/ħ/ and h=/h/. The point is when trying to verify an influence hypothesis you always have to be aware what dialect or development stage of a language is implied by your theory. Prescriptive concepts like "correct" can be very misleading.


----------



## Abu Rashid

arielipi said:


> To me, kh represents the original khet in hebrew, much like its arabic equivalent. I cant just right h because thats equivalent for he, nor ch because thats either as in chase or chaf.
> So, i am right.



When the two distinct Semitic phonemes represented by ح and خ in Arabic, merged in Hebrew, it was originally the خ sound which disappeared, merging into ح seamlessly. Only in recent times did Hebrew speakers begin to confuse this with the sound of خ.

Therefore berndf's point is, that unless we're saying ancient Welsh was based on modern Israeli Hebrew as spoken by Ashkenazim, then the idea that ח matches a Welsh phoneme transcribed as 'kh' makes no sense.


----------



## clevermizo

arielipi said:


> Well youre probably right benjamin, what i meant in transliteration is - take the word as it is said in hebrew, copy it exactly the same to english:
> בברחו מפני אחיו
> bevorkho mipney akhiv is the right "transliteration" for example.



Thanks, I've corrected the kamats katan and shva nakh/na in my post. However, I can see no other corrections to that given the nikudot I copied. However, my Tiberian transliteration below it is in fact based on ancient phonology, not modern.

Again, let's not split hairs though. 1) Transliteration is not how you properly compare different languages, which is what I was trying to point out initially, *unless everyone is using the same well-defined system*. 2) Your corrected transliteration doesn't look very similar to the quoted Welsh, proving my point that if we use a different, more correct, transliteration any superficial similarities the original author was trying to show between Hebrew and Welsh can disappear. 3) The quoted Welsh is wrong to begin with. If you google those phrases you don't end up with sites with Biblical text, only sites intending to purport the idea that Welsh and Hebrew are closely related.


----------



## arielipi

Again im saying, i wasnt talking about the theory suggested here, only about the mistakes done at transliterating the sentences.

@abu rashid - im not sure what youre saying, but i was only talking about the hebrew side, with no relation to the theory given. I only explained i write khet with kh.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> Again im saying, i wasnt talking about the theory suggested here, only about the mistakes done at transliterating the sentences.


Ok, that's fine then.


----------



## Hulalessar

clevermizo said:


> Transliteration is not how you properly compare different languages



Quite. The problem is that when you are using the standard roman alphabet, whether as a transliteration or transcription, the graphemes may have different values for different languages and according to the orthography used to write the language used by the person making the transliteration or transcription. Further, you may be comparing a transliteration or transcription with an etymological orthography.

As an example, <ll> has different values in the orthographies used to write English, Welsh, Spanish and Italian. Not only that but the sound represented by <ll> in writing Spanish is represented by <lh> in Portuguese and by <gl> in Italian. That means that looking at what is on the page you can see similarities which in fact only exist in writing and may miss cognates because they are not apparent from writing. And that is when looking at languages which have been written in roman script for centuries. When you start comparing such languages (and remember some have orthographies more etymological than others) with transliterations or transcriptions of languages traditionally written in other scripts the possibility of being misled multiplies.

Equally, orthography may be a reliable guide. Despite the fact that <g> before <i> represents different sounds in English, French, Spanish and Italian we know that <religion> (English and French) <religión> (Spanish) and <religione> (Italian) are "all the same word" - the <g> has in all cases been carried forward from Latin <religio> (with in fact yet another values for <g>).


----------



## clevermizo

Hulalessar said:


> The problem is that when you are using the standard roman alphabet, whether as a transliteration or transcription, the graphemes may have different values for different languages and according to the orthography used to write the language used by the person making the transliteration or transcription. Further, you may be comparing a transliteration or transcription with an etymological orthography.
> 
> As an example, <ll> has different values in the orthographies used to write English, Welsh, Spanish and Italian. Not only that but the sound represented by <ll> in writing Spanish is represented by <lh> in Portuguese and by <gl> in Italian. That means that looking at what is on the page you can see similarities which in fact only exist in writing and may miss cognates because they are not apparent from writing. And that is when looking at languages which have been written in roman script for centuries. When you start comparing such languages (and remember some have orthographies more etymological than others) with transliterations or transcriptions of languages traditionally written in other scripts the possibility of being misled multiplies.
> 
> Equally, orthography may be a reliable guide. Despite the fact that <g> before <i> represents different sounds in English, French, Spanish and Italian we know that <religion> (English and French) <religión> (Spanish) and <religione> (Italian) are "all the same word" - the <g> has in all cases been carried forward from Latin <religio> (with in fact yet another values for <g>).



I was hasty. Transliteration as a technique can be of course how you can compare different languages, I was mostly reacting to basically everything you wrote in this post.


----------



## Hulalessar

clevermizo said:


> I was hasty. Transliteration as a technique can be of course how you can compare different languages, I was mostly reacting to basically everything you wrote in this post.



Presumably when you say "you" you do not mean "me" as I do not think you were responding to anything I said. In fact I was rather agreeing with you. I have made a slight to change to my last post to make that clear.


----------



## clevermizo

Hulalessar said:


> Presumably when you say "you" you do not mean "me" as I do not think you were responding to anything I said. In fact I was rather agreeing with you. I have made a slight to change to my last post to make that clear.



Yes we are agreed entirely.  I of course meant you as in you, but I meant in reaction to exactly the phenomena you cite, which is what prompted me to state a little too confidently that "transliteration is not such and such." I've also bolded the part above in my post '*unless everyone is using the same well-defined system*​' for clarity.


----------



## berndf

*Moderator note: Above, Arielipi used <kh> to transcribe /ħ/ and <ch> to transcribe /x/~/χ/. This does not correspond to normal usage but since we know it now we can live with it. But please, Arielipi, in the future try to use more conventional transcriptions to avoid such confusions. Here or here, e.g. are very handy tools for IPA symbols.*


----------



## Roel~

Stoggler said:


> Are you talking about Gaelic or about Welsh?  They are NOT the same language.



What is Welsh called in Welsh then?


----------



## Roel~

berndf said:


> If we examine a possible Semitic substratum hypothesis in Celtic languages, we have of course to do the comparison with the development stage of the language when this influence should allegedly have take place. Allophonic distribution of _beth _and _veth _in the 8th century AD, the time when the Masoretic punctuation system was finalized, is not necessarily relevant. After all we know, allophonic spirantization of plosives (_beth-vet, gimel-ghimel, daleth-dhaleth, koph-khoph, peh-pheh, taw-thaw_) happened in post-exile times and would probably not be relevant. But for that we would need a more precise theory of how, where and when the influence should have taken place.
> 
> It should also be noted that fantasies of nutters like those Brit-Am people based on amateurish 17th centuries comparisons long before the methodology of historical comparative was developed, can hardly be taken seriously. Modern attempts to unveil an alleged Semitic substratum in Celtic languages, notably the works of Vennemann (see the link provided by Hulalessar in #4), postulate Semitic influence on Celtic to have taken place via Punic and not via Hebrew. Both are Canaanitic languages but Punic never developed the _beth-veth_ distinction.



I think this might be something. Obviously from what I 've understood the Welsh-Hebrew connection seems to be an urban-myth. I just wanted it to be confirmed because it's possible that people were faking it, as seems to be with the Hebrew bible phrases according to some users here and you also have the following case:

For example, you have two languages (I make these phrases up)

Awwa draama = He is here (language A) 
Owwo droomu = He is here (language B)

It is possible that they match and are likely related:

Awwa (he) draama (here) = He is here (language A) 
Owwo (he) droomu (here) = He is here (language B)

But this isn't the only possiblity.

Although they have the same meaning, you could have the following case:

Awwa (he) draama (here) = He is here (language A) 
Owwo (here) droomu (he) = He is here (language B)

I wondered if this might be the case here. Is it possible that those Medieval writers confused similar sounding phrases, without looking at and comparing the words, if the words themselves were similar too, while only the phrases may have looked similar?

This seems to be debunked anyway, but what stays is the theory of Venneman.

Now what I wonder about is, how big is the chance that Vennemans theory is right? Because I think that it's very well possible that the Gaelic languages origin from the Middle-East, when you look at the sounds and the way how it is written (with a lot of consonants for instance). I just wonder if there is any scientific proof for this because I don't know this.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Roel~ said:


> What is Welsh called in Welsh then?



Cymraeg. Welsh and Gaelic (Scottish and Irish) are totally different languages, and are mutually incomprehensible.


----------



## Hulalessar

Roel~ said:


> Because I think that it's very well possible that the Gaelic languages origin from the Middle-East, when you look at the sounds and the way how it is written (with a lot of consonants for instance).



The way Welsh is written is a bit deceptive because it has a lot of digraphs representing single sounds:

ch, dd, ff, ng, ll, ph, rh, th,

The digraphs may appear at the beginning of a word or together giving the impression of consonant clusters more complex than is the case. Further, <w> and <y> are regularly used as vowels.

I have taken a Welsh sentence at random:

Serch hynny, mae llawer o siaradwyr Cymraeg iaith gyntaf yn llawer mwy cyffyrddus yn mynegi eu hunain drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg na'r Saesneg.

If the second half of each digraph is taken away and <w> and <y> (where vowels) are replaced by <u> and <i> you get:

Serc hinni, mae lawer o siaraduir Cimraeg iait gintaf in lawer mui cifirdus in minegi eu hunain drui gifrun y Gimraeg na'r Saesneg

That gives a far better idea of how many consonant sounds there are and you can see that there are in fact far fewer consonant clusters than appears at first sight from the original.


----------



## Stoggler

Roel~ said:


> What is Welsh called in Welsh then?



As Pedro y La Torre said, the Welsh name for Welsh is Cymraeg - perhaps you were confused with Gaelic because _*Cymraeg*_ is sometimes written with an initial G (i.e. as *Gymraeg* (due to initial consonant mutation - a grammatical feature found in all the modern-day Celtic languages).

Although related to Irish and Scottish Gaelic (and Manx) as part of the overarching Celtic language family, Welsh is part of the Brythonic or P-Celtic branch (along with Cornish and Breton) and the Gaelic langauges are part of the Goidelic or Q-Celtic branch; Welsh is not mutually intelligible with Gaelic languages.

These should help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brythonic_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic


----------



## Tegs

Hulalessar said:


> The way Welsh is written is a bit deceptive because it has a lot of digraphs representing single sounds:
> 
> ch, dd, ff, ng, ll, ph, rh, th,
> 
> The digraphs may appear at the beginning of a word or together giving the impression of consonant clusters more complex than is the case. Further, <w> and <y> are regularly used as vowels.



Exactly. W and Y are *vowels *in Welsh, so Welsh is only full of consonants if you are not aware of this fundamental feature of the language. 

Cymraeg = the Welsh word for "Welsh"
Gaeilge = the Irish word for "Irish"
Gàidhlig = the Scottish Gaelic word for "Scottish Gaelic"

When you talk about Gaelic, you are either refering to the language of Scotland or that of Ireland, but never the language of Wales. 

PS As far as I know, there is no link between Hebrew and either Irish or Welsh, grammatically or otherwise. There are, however, links between the grammar of Welsh and Irish (and other Celtic languages). This thread is the first I've heard that there's even a _myth _that Welsh is related to Hebrew!!


----------



## Roel~

Tegs said:


> Exactly. W and Y are *vowels *in Welsh, so Welsh is only full of consonants if you are not aware of this fundamental feature of the language.
> 
> Cymraeg = the Welsh word for "Welsh"
> Gaeilge = the Irish word for "Irish"
> Gàidhlig = the Scottish Gaelic word for "Scottish Gaelic"
> 
> When you talk about Gaelic, you are either refering to the language of Scotland or that of Ireland, but never the language of Wales.
> 
> PS As far as I know, there is no link between Hebrew and either Irish or Welsh, grammatically or otherwise. There are, however, links between the grammar of Welsh and Irish (and other Celtic languages). This thread is the first I've heard that there's even a _myth _that Welsh is related to Hebrew!!



I was rather surprised too that there were theories about it.


----------



## Sugarsail1

I've been studying the Carthaginian Phoenicians lately.  There is not a whole lot of info on them as they were sacked by the Romans about 148 BC, and since history is written by the winners there is mostly only circumstantial evidence through Greek and Roman translators and stories.   BUT it seems that the Irish and Welsh Celtic dialects were likely heavily influenced by Punic speaking (an Afro-Semitic language similar to Hebrew) Carthaginian traders who traded for tin and copper with them anywhere between 900 BC and 200BC.  My conjecture is that once Carthage was finally wiped out by the Romans in 148 BC, the Punic speaking refugees fled to as far away from the Romans as they could get in the known world which would be the British Isles and intermingled with the population who had been trading partners for quite a long time by then.


----------



## Copperknickers

arielipi said:


> After listening to eluviete singing in Gaelic, there's no connection as far as I see.



Since when do Eluveitie sing in Gaelic? They sing in Gaulish, the language of the ancient Gauls, not Gaelic, the language of the modern Gaels.


----------



## WestFevalia

Concerning Venneman's theory (which is both very interesting and very controversial). One of his arguments is the use of Internal Possessor Construction vs the use of External Possessor Construction (let's call them IPC and EPC).
Most Indo-European languages spoken in Europe use EPC:
French _fermer *les *yeux
_Italian _chiudere *gli *occhi
_Spanish _cerrar *los *ojos_.
The only exceptions are Celtic languages and English, which use IPC: _I close *my *eyes_.
IPC is found in non-Indo-European languages (Turkish etc.) and also in Semitic languages spoken in North Africa and Middle East.
According to Venneman, this feature passed to Celtic languages and then to Old English. I like this theory but I remember one of my teachers who told me bluntly: that's rubbish!
Maybe there's still no evidence and never wil be .
By the way, here's the link to his paper:http://www.rotary-muenchen.de/2005-2006/theo-vennemann.pdf


----------



## berndf

WestFevalia said:


> According to Venneman, this feature passed to Celtic languages and then to Old English.


Not to Old English but to Middle English.

Venneman's theory (as well as other attempts to re-write the history of English like this one for example) essentially stands and falls with the completely speculative _diglossia hypothesis_, i.e. that attested Old English was the petrified, artificial literary language of the Anglo-Saxon conquerors and that the people actually spoke a completely different language, a kind of a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Brittonic and Old Norse (with different weights depending what people are trying to prove) and that this "true" English only started to be recorded after the Norman conquest when Old English had lost its prestige status. This would mean that Middle English did not develop out of late Old English but split from early Old English, practically immediately after the Anglo-Saxon conquest, and that all the features where Middle English differs from Old English developed many centuries before the Norman conquest.


----------



## Gwrhyd

To say that Scots\ Irish Gaelic is completely unintelligible to Brythonic speakers is slightly overstating the case. We have a massive amount in common but research is slightly skewed because both language groups have different alphabets( though both use Latin characters) and much of the research I have read has been done by English speakers who struggle to pronounce basic modern welsh(cymraeg). For example many struggle to pronounce the ll sound. When I got my head around the Irish alphabet I found that the differences were far smaller than I'd first believed. Add to that the academic distinction between "P" and "C" godeilic and the consistency implied there in and a theoretical monoglot welsh speaker with knowledge of this distinction would be able to understand 50 to 70 percent of Irish. 

An example of this would be Mac and mab. Mac will be familiar to many as "son of". Mab or map in cymraeg is the same and is shortened to ab or ap. Hence many familiar welsh surnames like price (ap Rhys spelled badly by an English speaking clerk), probert, Pritchard, Bowen, Beynon, were misunderstandings. 

I can't speak to the accuracy of the ops source material but there is a certain familiarity in the Semitic languages and the way they sound. There is also the ibn and Ben which correlate with Mac and map. There is also a theory that cymraeg is Celtic vocabulary superimposed on a speech pattern seen in Basque. The genetics lend some credence to this theory.


----------



## JB1957

The word for milk in Welsh is Llaeth in Hebrew Halav in Arabic Halib. Can this possibly be a coincidence?


----------



## berndf

JB1957 said:


> Can this possibly be a coincidence?


What should be a coincident? Where do you see a similarity between _llaeth _and _חלב_. I am lost.


----------



## JB1957

berndf said:


> What should be a coincident? Where do you see a similarity between _llaeth _and _חלב_. I am lost.


To my ear they sound very similar, and to the best of my knowledge no other language, other than Arabic,  comes even close.


----------



## berndf

This: llaeth pronunciation: How to pronounce llaeth in Welsh
and this: חלב pronunciation: How to pronounce חלב in Hebrew
sound similar to you?

_Llaeth_ is obviously a proto or early French loan (compare French _lait_), which is in turn from Latin _lactem_.


----------



## JB1957

My recollection of the  Welsh pronunciation is that ll sounds a lot like a חל not the pronunciation I hear from the link you sent


----------



## berndf

The sound represented by _ll_ in Welsh has nothing in it that is even close to _ח_, which is a guttural sound; in both, modern and ancient Hebrew. The sound Welch _ll _has absolutely no guttural component. Apart from that, _ll_ is one single sound and _חל_ in _חלב _are two separate sounds belonging to separate syllables.


----------



## JB1957

berndf said:


> The sound represented by _ll_ in Welsh has nothing in it that is even close to _ח_, which is a guttural sound; in both, modern and ancient Hebrew. The sound Welch _ll _has absolutely no guttural component. Apart from that, _ll_ is one single sound and _חל_ in _חלב _are two separate sounds belonging to separate syllables.


Thanks, Are there no guttural sounds in Welsh? I wrongly remembered ll as guttural


----------



## berndf

_ch_ which is like in Scottish Gaelic; and of course _h_.


----------



## Zec

@ llaeth : it doesn't have to be a proto- or early French loan, it can simply be a Latin loan. The development of [kt] is very similar in both French and Welsh: in the relevant position [k] ends up as [i̯] in both languages, the difference is that in French [t] stays the same while in Welsh it is lenited to [θ]. This happens in inherited words as well, for example in this one.


----------



## berndf

True, the reduction of kt to t is not particular to French. I thought mainly because of the diphthongization of a. But for the argument here it doesn't really matter _how_ it was derived from VL.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Native speaker of Cymraeg here.

My summary:

1) Cymraeg/Welsh is a P Celtic Brittonic/Brythonic language and a 'sister' to Kerenewek/Cornish and Brezhoneg/Breton. We may be able to know common, basic words between us (and share the same national anthem), but would have difficulties going beyond such basics.

2) Cymraeg is therefore a cousin language to the three Goidelic/Gaelic languages (Q Celtic) of Gaeligue/Irish, Gàidhlig/Scottish Gaelic and Gaelg/Manx. Whilst philologists can draw attention to the P/Q 'similarities' (e.g. 'pedwar'/'cethair' '4', 'pump'/'coic' '5' in Cymraeg/Gaeligue) between us, I would have extreme difficulty in conversing with an inhabitant of Gallimh (and she with me).

3) Any connection between Cymraeg and Hebrew linguistically and historically must be spurious. Yes, we both prefer verb initial sentences and also inflect some prepositions (Celtic languages are unique in this in I-E; Semitic languages are also somewhat of a rarity in doing so), but this must surely be a coincidence. Those who postulate a common Central Europe/Middle Eastern link to Cymraeg and Hebrew will have to reconcile that fact with latest thinking on Celtic origins on the Western Atlantic seaboard of Europe (see, e.g. Koch)

4) It was fashionable at one stage (mid-19th century to allege the 'Cymro's' true origin was 'Cape Comorin' at the extremity of India. This theory has subsequently been successfully debunked.

5) We do look enviously at the growth of the Ulpan movement in Israel post-independence and the revitalisation of Hebrew in that country. Efforts to replicate that in Cymru (via the Wlpan system - name which reflected more than a passing nod to the Ulpanim) have met with some degree of success.

6) Many Cymry have long held the view we are one of the lost tribes of Israel and the ancestor was Gomer. For what is Gomer but a variant of 'Cymro'? Fortunately, again, we can dismiss this as pure myth.

7) Traditionally very religious (less so today), the Welsh incorporated many 'Israeli' names to their non-comformist places of worship (e.g. many chapels were called Seion, Bosrah, Ebenezer and so forth.) Similarly, place names were adopted wholesale or 'Cymricised' - Nebo, Bethesda (< Beth-saida), Nasareth, Caesarea Philpi. To this day, even secularists like to receive or send Christmas cards franked by the post office in the little Welsh village of Bethlehem. None of this indicates any language connection with those of 'the Promised Land'.

8) Leading on from this religiosity is the maintained myth of Cymraeg being the 'language of heaven'. Praise the Lord we did - and that in vast numbers and in our mother tongue. English may have been the language of trade, commerce, justice and education for centuries, but the Almighty still understood the common (often monolingual) Cymro/Cymraes when they invoked their prayers in Cymraeg - and that so fervently and dramatically as any latter-day evangelist, whilst condemning those not adhering to the true Calvinistic Methodist faith that they would surely go to Hell.  Again, this does not prove any sort of linguistic connection between the Cymry and speakers of Hebrew.

That's my understanding, anyway. I'm only a native speaker professional linguist of Cymraeg. I await any feedback on the above with interest.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

PS Welsh: gwlân 'wool' > English: flannel

Don't drop the initial <g> - unless you're obeying a mutation rule.


----------



## calin balint

Only reason why I’m here it’s because Ive seen welsh pantagonia documentary , I heard them speak their language , and I thought they speak Hebrew ,lol


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Well .. (Biblical) Hebrew and (standard) Cymraeg are both VSO languages ... as is Maori.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

No need to waste alot of server space on this.  
Is the Hebrew-Welsh connection more than a myth?​No.​


----------



## raamez

The answer is probably no. Nonetheless I find the similarities quite intriguing. Here is a video I watched the otherday and found very interesing.


----------



## Wandering Tree

Roel~ said:


> I read about a supposed connection between Hebrew and Welsh. It looks   like a myth from Christians, but when I listened to Gaelic, it very much   reminded me of Hebrew, of which I know the sounds very well too.   Certain things which were said, were said in a similar way as they were   said in Hebrew. The thing is that Gaelic is an Indo-European languages   and that Hebrew is an Afro-Semitic language. So, how could they even be   related? Well, it's possible for languages to undergo such a big   influence of other languages that their language group can change, a   good example is Japanese, which is an isolated language. Where as it   might possible have been part of the Altaic group at first, it might   have merged with other languages in the area so much that it became an   isolated language, which it officially is. Though, it's just a theory   and linguists aren't sure if Japanese has been part of the Altaic group,   some linguists even classify Japanese under the Altaic language group.   The point is, Japanese became an isolated language, which shows that   languages evolve.
> 
> It might be possible that Gaelic and the other celtic languages were   once part of the Afro-Semitic group, but underwent such a big influence   of European languages that they became Indo-European, well, the   Indo-European classification. Although you wouldn't expect it, there   seems to be support for this theory. What I could find is the following,   and it would be good if people here were able to verify this   information. In the information, it is claimed that the Irish are one of   the lost tribes of Israel, although I 'm interested in Hebrew because   of it's special position as an Afro-Semitic language which is revived, I   'm agnostic and I don't know enough about christianity to say anything   about this.
> 
> Source: Hebrew English
> 
> *A writer who signed his name "Glas" submitted a list of Welsh words   with  Hebrew origins in 1832 . The writer remarked that,  "But the best   proof of the Eastern descent of the ancient British is the  close   resemblance and connection existing between the Welsh and Hebrew    languages, even at this day. As a proof of this we have extracted the    following vocabulary of words in both tongues, so closely resembling   each  other in sound and sense as to leave no doubt whatever on the   subject.
> Many of these words, it will be found, have been transmitted from the    Welsh, through the Anglo-Saxon into our modern English. It would be easy   to  swell their number..
> 
> Some of the examples adduced by the above writer were:
> 
> Aeth: He went, he is gone; hence = Athah
> Aml: Plentiful, ample = Hamale
> Ydom: the earth = Adamah
> Awye: air, sky = auor, or
> bu: it came to pass = bo boten, or potten : belly = beten.
> brith: bright = barud
> cas: hatred = caas (anger).
> dafnu: to drop, or distill by drops = nataph, taph.
> 
> 
> In 1675 Charles Edwards ("Hanes y Fydd") published A number of Welsh    Cambro-Brittanic Hebraisms in which he shows that whole phrases in   Welsh  can be closely paralleled by whole phrases in Hebrew.
> 
> From the list of Charles Edwards, L.G.A. Roberts (1919) made a selection    and we have selected examples from Roberts after slightly modernising   the  Hebrew transliterations : It should be noted that when account is   taken  for likely and known dialectical changes of pronounciation the   examples  given in effect show identical Welsh parallel phrases for the   Hebrew original.
> 
> In Welsh: Gael hedd (Gen.31;47) meaning Geledd i.e. heap of testimony= in  Hebrew : Galaed.
> 
> In Welsh: Bagad meaning "A troop cometh ?" (Gen.30;11) = in Hebrew
> 
> In Welsh : Anudon meaning "Without God" = in Hebrew: Aen Adon.
> 
> In Welsh : Yni all sy dda meaning "I am the Almighty God" (Gen. 17;1) =  in Hebrew: Ani El Saddai.
> 
> In Welsh : Llai iachu yngwyddd achau ni meaning "Let him not live before   our brethren" (Gen. 31;32) = in Hebrew Loa yichei  neged acheinu   (Gen.31;32).
> 
> In Welsh Ochoren ballodddi hoc-dena meaning "After I am waxed old shall I    have pleasure?" = in Hebrew : Acharei belothi  hedenah (Gen.18;12).
> 
> In Welsh Bebroch fra am beneu ach ef, dyfet Deborah mam ianceth Ribecah    meaning "When he fled from the face of his brother . But Deborah   Rebecca's  nurse died" (Gen. 35;7-8) = in Hebrew :  Beborcho mpnei achiv   vetamath  Deborah mayneceth Ribecah.
> 
> In Welsh: Yngan Job yscoli yscoli cynghaws i (Job 6;1,2) meaning "Job    answered, O that my grief were thoroughly weighed" = in Hebrew:    Veya(g)n  Eyub ....shocol yishocal ca(g)si
> 
> In Welsh: Amelhau bytheu chwi a bythau holl ufyddau chwi meaning "And    they shall fill your house and the houses of all your servants" (Gen.   10;6)  = in Hebrew: Umalu bathechoh and bathei col avedochoh.
> 
> In Welsh Iachadd ni meaning "Thou hast healed me" = in Hebrew:  hechiyatni.
> 
> In Welsh Nesa awyr peneu chwi meaning "Lif thou up the light of thy  countenance" = in Hebrew: nasa aor panechoh.(Psalms 4;6.).
> 
> In Welsh An annos meaning "None did compel" = in Hebrew: ain ones. (Esther 1;8).
> 
> In Welsh As chwimwth meaning "an angry man" = in Hebrew:  ish chamas   (Psalms 140;12 Proverbs 16;29 meaning a wickedly-violent man).
> 
> In Welsh Be heulo, luerferfo (Job 6;4) meaning "When his candle shined  ..... and by his light.." = in Hebrew: behilo, leoroe.
> 
> In Welsh Bwgythieu in gwarchaeni (Job 6;4) meaning "The terrors of God    set themselves in array against me = in Hebrew:  Biu(g)thi elohai   ya-a(g)rchuni.
> 
> In Welsh I far meaning "Shall be cursed" = Hebrew : Yu-ar, yuv-ar.  (Numbers 22;6).
> 
> In Welsh Am geryddo fo meaning "At his reproof" = in Hebrew :im ge-arato.*
> 
> 
> Of course, I tried to verify this information. This is hard, because   this is medieval Gaelic, but in the development from a medieval to a   modern language, there are still words who are similar or remained
> 
> Reproof = cerydd, in modern Welsh. This seems related to geryddo and this means that it might be possible that it isn't made up.
> 
> Hast healed = iachaodd* Medieval Welsh = Iachadd*
> 
> I used a dictionary to try and look and I did this just to look if this   was nonsense or not, but now I wonder if there is any truth in this   theory, because the grammar looks similar too.
> 
> Is there anyone here who knows anything about this and is able to verify   this, because this would shed a new light onto these languages.


I am interested in language and I notice that some Welsh words have only w's and y's, in other words, few vowels or no common vowels.     Hebrew doesn't use vowels except nikkud.    The more I learn about language the more similarities I see and sometimes hear between languages.      Whether all the continents came together once or four or five times in the Earth's history people would have crossed those boundaries or borders.     People have been exploring for all of Earth's history.


----------



## Glasguensis

W and Y are vowels in Welsh. In any case Hebrew does have vowels, it is a question of whether they are included in the written form. Welsh does not have its own script.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Honestly, this theory is crazy. It's surprising that it keeps cropping up.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

I am interested in language and I notice that some Welsh words have only w's and y's, in other words, few vowels or no common vowels.

________

As Glasguensis says: 'w' and 'y' are vowels for us, and they can also carry diacritics. So, in fact, there are more vowels than English, as a, e, i, o, u are also vowels.


----------



## Awwal12

Stating that "w's and y's are vowels for us" is, I'm afraid, pretty meaningless unless one specifies *what* those y's and w's actually *are*. The Wikipedia article on Welsh orthography (!) say that "w" letter can correspond to three different phonemes (/w/, /ʊ/ and /u:/), among which, obviously, only two are vowels (that being said, positional alterations between vowels and semivowel consonants aren't uncommon cross-linguistically, and in the case of Welsh their nature may be additionally obscured by the traditional orthography). "Y", indeed, seems to be a pure vowel letter in Welsh (as /j/ can be represented only by "i" and not by "y" - essentially it works in the way opposite to how it works in English).


----------



## berndf

I cannot so anything wrong or misleading in "W and Y are vowels in Welsh" in the given context, i.e. as an answer to a contributions that suggests that Welch has vowelless words.


----------



## Awwal12

berndf said:


> I cannot so anything wrong or misleading in "W and Y are vowels in Welsh" in the given context


Probably, it's just the way it has been put doesn't personally look sufficiently clear to me. 
I'd just say that "y" is a vowel letter in Welsh and "w" often represents a vowel as well.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Honestly, this theory is crazy. It's surprising that it keeps cropping up.


I can recommend you to listen to a vlog in Langfocus series (accessoble on Youtube), about Semitic an Celtic connection. Nothing is proven in this lecture, but many interesting clues are given. So I would not ridicule the question so easy.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Both @berndf and @Awwal12 are correct - in particular, I was answering the comment quickly as I have insufficient time to go into the detail. Thankfully, you have, although, more details on the actual phonemes would be necessary if we were going into such detail.

It's a frequent jibe - mostly by native English speakers - that Welsh has no vowels, when they reveal their ignorance in not knowing/accepting that 'w' and 'y' are (in the appropriate contexts). That was my 'simple' response, anything else is extra (in particular, when our audience are trained linguists. Incidentally, <i> is also on occasion the semi-vowel/semi-consonant /j/ as well as /I/ and /i:/ when applicable.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Welsh_Sion said:


> It's a frequent jibe - mostly by native English speakers - that Welsh has no vowels


I can think of many jibes about Celtic languages from English-speakers (it's a fact of life in Northern Irish politics for one) but it has no vowels?  How is that even an insult?


----------



## Abaye

Welsh_Sion said:


> 5) We do look enviously at the growth of the Ulpan movement in Israel post-independence and the revitalisation of Hebrew in that country.


Ulpan is actually an Aramaic word we've borrowed 



Welsh_Sion said:


> 6) Many Cymry have long held the view we are one of the lost tribes of Israel and the ancestor was Gomer. For what is Gomer but a variant of 'Cymro'?


You're warmly welcome back home, o lost brethren.



Welsh_Sion said:


> 7) Traditionally very religious (less so today), the Welsh incorporated many 'Israeli' names to their non-comformist places of worship


Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel, Israilov is a good Chechen name.



Welsh_Sion said:


> 8) Leading on from this religiosity is the maintained myth of Cymraeg being the 'language of heaven'.


So is Hebrew, of course.


Now seriously: when is the possible time for Welsh-Hebrew relations?

If before 1000 BC, there was hardly Hebrew language distinct of other Canaanite dialects.
If between 1000 BC and 100 AD, Hebrews were not seafarers or travelers like our Phoenician neighbours, so couldn't easily reach whatever far land the Welsh dwelled at. Our king Solomon had reached remote lands in the 10 century BC, but to the south via the Red Sea, not to the west. Or are the Welsh supposed to have dwelt in the middle east at this time? Then where are the traces?
If later, after the Jews were exiled by the Romans from their homeland, then this is the nearly the same time that Romans conquered Wales. A significant Hebrew migration or cultural influence would not be left undocumented. And anyway, at this time we spoke mainly Aramaic, not Hebrew.


----------



## Awwal12

Abaye said:


> Israilov is a good Chechen name


Just a Muslim surname anywhere inside the Russian sphere of surname models, though, of course, its popularity may vary. From Israil (إِسْرَآئِیل), the Arabic version of the name Israel. The Wikipedia articles are mostly about Chechens and Kyrgyz.


----------

