L21 on the Iberian Peninsula

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Sorry, but the existence of very stylish emoticons is tempting.
But to answer your earlier question, with the assessment I decribed above, it's hard to see how anybody could come up with a different conclusion other than that Koch's work is intrinsically flawed.

Time will tell...

 

[Taranis]

Time will tell...

Frankly, I wouldn't have too high hopes for "Celtic from the West". Koch worked together with Stephen Oppenheimer on that one, for instance, the same guy who wrote "Origins of the British".

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Frankly, I wouldn't have too high hopes for "Celtic from the West". Koch worked together with Stephen Oppenheimer on that one, for instance, the same guy who wrote "Origins of the British".

There are 11 other contributors to the work, besides Koch and Oppenheimer. I fully expect the case for Tartessian as Celtic to continue strengthening as the University of Wales project moves forward. Not all of us here are cynical types...

 

[Taranis]

There are 11 other contributors to the work, besides Koch and Oppenheimer. I fully expect the case for Tartessian as Celtic to continue strengthening as the University of Wales project moves forward. Not all of us here are cynical types...

Well, I just hope somebody in that group addresses the sound correspondence problem, because I see this as a severe problem. I have been thinking a bit further, by the way, one problem (which may be the cause of the difficulty of sound correspondence) may be that the Tartessian script cannot be read reliably yet.

There is also something else I am curious about: what do Koch et al. make out of the Urnfield culture, if they say that the Celtic languages have their origin in the Atlantic Bronze Age?

Also, I cannot help but notice a disturbing notion of 'nationalist historiography', especially with somebody like Stephen Oppenheimer. :disappointed:

 

[rms2]

Well then, let me elaborate. The fact that I'm no linguist doesn't diminish the authority of my arguments as long as they are valid (I consulted a linguist, remember?). However, I admit that I genuinely need to further elaborate things, and I need to provide you with some background here. The hypothesis of the Neogrammarians states that sound changes are regular, systemic, and purely phonetically conditioned (there are correlaries to address the effects of things like analogy). Already in 1880, the Neogrammarian linguist Hermann Paul stated on the issue:



approximate translation (please excuse that it's somewhat awkward translated :innocent: ):



So, this essentially means that Koch is apparently operating at a pre-1880 stage of linguistics. To give some examples, first Tartessian Teeaiona equals a reconstructed Celtic name *Deiwonā but later Teasiioonii corresponds to Tascouanos. Well, which one is it? Initial T = D or Initial T = T? What about the vowels? Does #Ce (initial Consonant + the vowel e) = #Ce or does #Ce = #Ca?

Likewise, Tartessian leoine corresponds to a reconstructed Celtic name *Līwonāi. Then, all of a sudden, meleśae corresponds to Gaulish Meliđđus. Well, which is it? #Ce = #Cī or does #Ce = #Ce? What about #Ci = #Cī? Sure, why not? Tartessian -ris = Celtic -rīχs but then on the same page Tartessian -riś suddenly equals the same thing. Well, which is it? They're written with different characters, presumably they represent different sounds. Does Tartessian s or ś correspond to Celtic s, or does it perhaps correspond to đđ as in Meliđđus?

Later, Tartessian niiraboo is equivalent to Welsh ner, so I guess we can add #Cii = #Ce to the confusion. There is absolutely no effort made to address these correspondences systematically and explain how the differences are conditioned. He just takes a bunch of Tartessian words of unknown meaning, compares them to vaguely similar words cherry-picked from a dozen different Celtic languages spanning thousands of years (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Old Irish, Welsh, etc.), and hopes nobody will notice. The only guiding principle seems to be superficial similarities.

I hope that clarifies it.

I understand your argument, but I still think you are making criticisms you are not qualified to make. Or are you simply copying and pasting the arguments of your unnamed linguist friend?

In your first example there are differences that well could modify the initial consonant sound, and that is true in your other examples, as well.

I would prefer to hear what Koch has to say than to give your criticism much credit. My impression is that you don't want Koch to be right and that you don't really know what you're talking about.

 

[Taranis]

I understand your argument, but I still think you are making criticisms you are not qualified to make. Or are you simply copying and pasting the arguments of your unnamed linguist friend?

In your first example there are differences that well could modify the initial consonant sound, and that is true in your other examples, as well.

Well, you are probably right that I by myself am not exactly qualified to make valid criticism, however this by no means diminishes the validity of my arguments, since the linguist that I consulted is more than qualified to criticize Koch. I didn't quite copy-paste it, however, I have discussed the paper intensely with him and he gave me clearance to use his arguments.
Also, if Koch had made any effort to identify the sound correspondences (and the environments in which they occur), as is the standard operation procedure in the field, then we wouldn't need to "wait and see" what he has to say, but he hasn't, which has been the problem all along.

I would prefer to hear what Koch has to say than to give your criticism much credit.

As I said, the person I consulted deserves the credit, and I stated that from the start, and he deserves credit for that criticism. Also, how about valid criticism from other linguists? I didn't make this up. I can offer you other examples. There is this interesting article by Mark Rosenfelder. If you scroll towars near the bottom, there is a list of cognates of Quechua and Semitic, which is assembled in about the same way as Koch's list of Tartessian and Celtic.

You should also check out how in here, he shows in a somewhat less statistically driven approach, a similarly impressive list of English and Chinese cognates. Who knew, English is a dialect of Chinese? :grin:

My impression is that you don't want Koch to be right and that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Frankly, I'm under the impression that exactly the same could be said about you, because it seems to me you want Koch to be right. For example, you continue to ignore the fact that Koch self-publishes his book. It's something that by itself wouldn't be all that much of a problem, but in context of all the other problems we have seen, it is one, and it's a pretty damning one.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I examined the Quechua and Semitic tables and found only a small handful of words than can be codified as homologous or similar. Koch and others have presented a wide range of fundamental structural equivalencies and matches between Tartessian and confirmed Celtic languages. Huge, huge difference.

 

[Taranis]

I examined the Quechua and Semitic tables and found only a small handful of words than can be codified as homologous or similar. Koch and others have presented a wide range of fundamental structural equivalencies and matches between Tartessian and confirmed Celtic languages. Huge, huge difference.

Frankly, I don't think that the difference is all that huge. I wonder with how much of a "wide range of structural equivalencies and matches" Koch et al. can come up with without making any sound correspondences or explaining how the differences are conditioned. Also, Koch took, seemingly randomly, terms from like a dozen different Celtic languages (as well as for example Lusitanian, of which it is not even known if it was a Celtic language at all due to it's extremely small corpus) in order to make his comparison. And as I mentioned, it's highly suspicious that Koch departs from the SOP of linguistics in order to "prove" that Tartessian is a Celtic language. And cooperation with dubious folks such as Stephen Oppenheimer ("Origins of the British"). Does that make you not suspicious?

Also, well, this is something I would like to rather hear by Koch himself actually (though I would like to hear your opinion on it as well), is what he makes out of the Urnfield culture if the Atlantic Bronze Age is the origin of the Celtic languages?

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Frankly, I don't think that the difference is all that huge. I wonder with how much of a "wide range of structural equivalencies and matches" Koch et al. can come up with without making any sound correspondences or explaining how the differences are conditioned. Also, Koch took, seemingly randomly, terms from like a dozen different Celtic languages (as well as for example Lusitanian, of which it is not even known if it was a Celtic language at all due to it's extremely small corpus) in order to make his comparison. And as I mentioned, it's highly suspicious that Koch departs from the SOP of linguistics in order to "prove" that Tartessian is a Celtic language. And cooperation with dubious folks such as Stephen Oppenheimer ("Origins of the British"). Does that make you not suspicious?
Also, well, this is something I would like to rather hear by Koch himself actually (though I would like to hear your opinion on it as well), is what he makes out of the Urnfield culture if the Atlantic Bronze Age is the origin of the Celtic languages?

The University of Wales project involves more than just Koch and Oppenheimer. What are you suggesting, that an academic conspiracy of sorts is taking place? Some form of philological and linguistic alchemy? Sophisticated fabrications engendered between agenda driven scientists to show the world that Celticity developed from the Atlantic Facade? Why don't you just write to Koch and voice your concerns, since you seem to be terribly skeptical about anything he says or writes as regards Tartessian being Celtic. Do you think that one of the world's most respected experts on Celtic languages would risk his reputation by practicing manipulative science?

 

[LeBrok]

I just wonder why Iberian guys are for this hypothesis, and not Iberians against?
Just that should make you take a pause and play a devil advocate for a bit.
Why do you want this to be the truth, ha? Are you really searching for the truth, or just the pleasing "truth"?

 

[Taranis]

The University of Wales project involves more than just Koch and Oppenheimer. What are you suggesting, that an academic conspiracy of sorts is taking place?

Not at all. Universities provide homes to all kinds of ideas, that's what academic freedom is all about, anyways. The problem is that not all ideas are equal, or even right. There is quite a number of researchers involved in that project at the Universities of Wales, and there is no guarantee that all of them necessarily and automatically agree with Koch on the Tartessian language, which is what you seem to imply there.

Some form of philological and linguistic alchemy?

You know what? That is actually not a bad way to describe what's actually going on here. It has a methodology, to be sure, just like alchemy did, but it lacks the scientific method, which distinguishes alchemy from chemistry. Alchemists (just like Koch!) start out with premises that they wish to prove, and they then cherry-pick the data so it fits their premise.

Sophisticated fabrications engendered between agenda driven scientists to show the world that Celticity developed from the Atlantic Facade?

No, they are not sophisticated. They are quite similar actually to Mark Rosenfelder's fabrications, only that his were intentional larks.

Why don't you just write to Koch and voice your concerns, since you seem to be terribly skeptical about anything he says or writes as regards Tartessian being Celtic.

Frankly, you and rms2 have repeatedly challenged me there, called my authority (or by extension, my mentor's authority) on the subject into question (on multiple times, mind you), and I provided you with a plethora of response. Also, my mentor invested a fair amount of time in order to elaborate his point of view to me. The burden of proof is on you now, and perhaps you should contact him.

Do you think that one of the world's most respected experts on Celtic languages would risk his reputation by practicing manipulative science?

Actually, that happens all the time. Not too long ago, a number of linguists ganged up on George Mendenhall, who is one of the foremost experts on Semitic languages (Professor Emeritus at Michigan), who has been pushing some very dubious claims about Hebrew and Arabic that seem to be politically and not linguistically motivated.
Now, to call Koch "one of the world's most respected experts" is a bit of a stretch (he has only held that chair at the university of Wales for three years), but he is already risking his reputation by self-publishing his book on the subject. No legitimate linguist worth his salt would ever do such a thing.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I just wonder why Iberian guys are for this hypothesis, and not Iberians against?
Just that should make you take a pause and play a devil advocate for a bit.
Why do you want this to be the truth, ha? Are you really searching for the truth, or just the pleasing "truth"?

LeBrock:

Stop with the amateurish psychological crap already! Don't you have anything better to do than spew out childish provocations? Find yourself another past-time Freud II, as the one you are currently pursuing is quite pathetic.

The person who started this thread is NOT Iberian. The great majority of people who comprise the University of Wales research team are NOT Iberian. Most scientists supportive of the Koch-Cunliffe hypothesis are NOT Iberian.

This has to do ONLY with the truth. I'm just going by the facts presented so far and the indications are that Tartessian is a Celtic language. Nothing has been fully confirmed yet but the evidence is mounting.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Not at all. Universities provide homes to all kinds of ideas, that's what academic freedom is all about, anyways. The problem is that not all ideas are equal, or even right. There is quite a number of researchers involved in that project at the Universities of Wales, and there is no guarantee that all of them necessarily and automatically agree with Koch on the Tartessian language, which is what you seem to imply there.



You know what? That is actually not a bad way to describe what's actually going on here. It has a methodology, to be sure, just like alchemy did, but it lacks the scientific method, which distinguishes alchemy from chemistry. Alchemists (just like Koch!) start out with premises that they wish to prove, and they then cherry-pick the data so it fits their premise.



No, they are not sophisticated. They are quite similar actually to Mark Rosenfelder's fabrications, only that his were intentional larks.



Frankly, you and rms2 have repeatedly challenged me there, called my authority (or by extension, my mentor's authority) on the subject into question (on multiple times, mind you), and I provided you with a plethora of response. Also, my mentor invested a fair amount of time in order to elaborate his point of view to me. The burden of proof is on you now, and perhaps you should contact him.



Actually, that happens all the time. Not too long ago, a number of linguists ganged up on George Mendenhall, who is one of the foremost experts on Semitic languages (Professor Emeritus at Michigan), who has been pushing some very dubious claims about Hebrew and Arabic that seem to be politically and not linguistically motivated.
Now, to call Koch "one of the world's most respected experts" is a bit of a stretch (he has only held that chair at the university of Wales for three years), but he is already risking his reputation by self-publishing his book on the subject. No legitimate linguist worth his salt would ever do such a thing.

Let the research process play out...

YOU are the one here who has major issues with Koch, therefore, logically YOU are the one who should be seeking clarifications directly from him and those researchers who support his hypothesis. Better yet, ask your professional linguist friend to contact Koch and report back...

Anyway, this discussion has become a rather boring tug-of-war.

 

[Taranis]

LeBrock:
Stop with the amateurish psychological crap already! Don't you have anything better to do than spew out childish provocations? Find yourself another past-time Freud II, as the one you are currently pursuing is quite pathetic.
The person who started this thread is NOT Iberian. The great majority of the University of Wales research team is NOT Iberian. Most people supportive of the Koch-Cunliffe hypothesis are NOT Iberian.

LeBrok has a point though. However, I also have to agree with you that I disagree about the idea that the hypothesis is supposed to please Iberians, at least not outright. In my opinion (I should note that this is my personal opinion, not the opinion of my mentor), it is however a hypothesis that pleases the British:
The idea that the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Façade should be immensely popular in the British Isles (and to a lesser degree the Atlantic region as a whole), especially the genetics clientele who identify themselves as "Celtic" on the mere grounds of having Y-Haplogroup R1b. The "Celtic from the West" project also has an appeal to Celtic nationalism, so it would seem that public support is guaranted. And, with a self-published, quite possibly sensationalist book (bear in mind how Oppenheimer did exactly the same a few years back), you can potentially even make money out of the idea.
Another issue is, the mainstream hypothesis on the origins of the Celtic languages is immensely inconvinent to the British national psyche, as it implies that the Celts were actually invaders (originally from Central Europe, mind you) who conquered the Isles. "Origins of the British" is exactly along these lines of thought, only that Oppenheimer went even farther in it, as he claimed that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period.

Also, please listen to yourself there. You're the one who's apparently going emotional on the topic.

This has to do ONLY with the truth. I'm just going by the facts presented so far and the indications are that Tartessian is a Celtic language. Nothing has been fully confirmed yet, but the evidence is mounting.

Well, in my opinion the evidence is far from mounting, it's spurious at best, and I have presented plethora of evidence that exactly that is the case.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

LeBrok has a point though. However, I also have to agree with you that I disagree about the idea that the hypothesis is supposed to please Iberians, at least not outright. In my opinion (I should note that this is my personal opinion, not the opinion of my mentor), it is however a hypothesis that pleases the British:
The idea that the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Façade should be immensely popular in the British Isles (and to a lesser degree the Atlantic region as a whole), especially the genetics clientele who identify themselves as "Celtic" on the mere grounds of having Y-Haplogroup R1b. The "Celtic from the West" project also has an appeal to Celtic nationalism, so it would seem that public support is guaranted. And, with a self-published, quite possibly sensationalist book (bear in mind how Oppenheimer did exactly the same a few years back), you can potentially even make money out of the idea.
Another issue is, the mainstream hypothesis on the origins of the Celtic languages is immensely inconvinent to the British national psyche, as it implies that the Celts were actually invaders (originally from Central Europe, mind you) who conquered the Isles. "Origins of the British" is exactly along these lines of thought, only that Oppenheimer went even farther in it, as he claimed that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period.

Also, please listen to yourself there. You're the one who's apparently going emotional on the topic.


Well, in my opinion the evidence is far from mounting, it's spurious at best, and I have presented plethora of evidence that exactly that is the case.

Think whatever you like. The jury is still out...

Also, please, don't play amateur psychologist. I'm sure there other forums for that sort of thing...

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Taranis:

I see you have added your "opinions" to the Wkipedia discussion on Tartessian. You said you do not have a linguistic background?

Criticize Koch as much as you want, it's your right. Just remember, the "Celtic from the West" research effort is far from complete. Come back to us in the next 2-3 years...

 

[Wilhelm]

I just wonder why Iberian guys are for this hypothesis, and not Iberians against?
Just that should make you take a pause and play a devil advocate for a bit.
Why do you want this to be the truth, ha? Are you really searching for the truth, or just the pleasing "truth"?

I don't know why are you angry to consider Iberia the Celtic origin. We have never said it is the ultimate truth, it is only a hypothesis. Why does it matter for us if the Celts originated in Iberia or central Europe it doesn't change about who we are. We are just having a discussion about it, that's what this forum is about isn't it ?

 

[Taranis]

Taranis:

I see you have added your "opinions" to the Wkipedia discussion on Tartessian. You said you do not have a linguistic background?

Well, I was free to post this, and besides, it was only in the discussion section of the article. Also, everybody is free to validate the issue of sound correspondence for himself. The Tartessian paper is free for download for everybody, and the examples I gave are far from exhaustive, you could go on with about every word mentioned in the Koch paper.

Criticize Koch as much as you want, it's your right. Just remember, the "Celtic from the West" research effort is far from complete. Come back to us in the next 2-3 years...

Yes, sure, the research effort isn't complete, but you know what I said about sound correspondences. If Koch comes around in 2 or 3 years and proves that Tartessian is a Celtic language based on sound correspondence and explains how the differences are conditioned, hooray for it. However, I don't think that will happen...

 

[LeBrok]

I don't know why are you angry to consider Iberia the Celtic origin. We have never said it is the ultimate truth, it is only a hypothesis. Why does it matter for us if the Celts originated in Iberia or central Europe it doesn't change about who we are. We are just having a discussion about it, that's what this forum is about isn't it ?

I'm indifferent to either origin of Celtic culture. It's just my observation that all Iberians really want the origin of Celts to be in Iberia. That's all.

 

[Wilhelm]

I'm indifferent to either origin of Celtic culture. It's just my observation that all Iberians really want the origin of Celts to be in Iberia. That's all.

Well me too, personally I don't care. It doesn't change who we are. But we are having a discussion about it, please add something valuable or shut up.