Ancient place names in Iberia

Status
Not open for further replies.
In any case, Basque as we see it today is effectively a language of the iron age, and it's basically impossible to tell if the many later terms (agricultural terms, word for 'horse', words for metals) are foreign terms or common terms of whatever language family Basque belonged to. But in any case I think the case is very compelling that the Basque language was at it's location since at least the Neolithic, and also that I2a1 is probably the 'original' Y-Haplogroup of the Basques.

What is interesting is that for a comparison, the Finnic languages adopted a lot of terms from Proto-Indo-European (or IE close to it), including metal words. Most peculiar, the Finnic word for 'iron' is a cognate with the Balto-Slavic word for 'ore', which is in turn a cognate with the word for 'red' in most other branches of Indo-European.
Well, metallurgy did arrive to the Finns with Indo-Europeans...
I remember reading once that the Basque words for knife and axe may come from the same root as the word stone, though.
 
Well, metallurgy did arrive to the Finns with Indo-Europeans...
I remember reading once that the Basque words for knife and axe may come from the same root as the word stone, though.

'Aizkora' and 'Labana' from 'Harria'? That would seem unlikely. What I do know however is that the river name 'Garonne' is probably derived from Basque. Specifically, the Proto-Basque word for 'rock' is usually reconstructed as 'Karr-' (note that a sound shift of initial *k > *h occured there in Basque). So, from that perspective the Garonne would be the 'stony river'.

My point with the Finns really was, Basque may have expirienced the same from other pre-IE languages, but it's impossible to verify this nowadays anymore, of course.
 
bz ......................
 
Last edited:
Well Taranis. This is the list of callaecian topomastic names between I-VI a.C.
I don't see preceltics names in Callaecia, but celtic: 85-90% or more. The words with *p (Acripia, Lapatia) are perfectly integrated in this celtic system.

Your list is decisively larger and more inclusive than the list I had (I should add, as I initially stated, my list only included town names), I give you that. I also give you that you found etymologies for some places which I overlooked, and I was going to revise/expand my own list in regard for this, anyways. Other than that, I must really disagree. There are many of the names in your list which are compatible with Celtic but not necessarily Celtic. In a number of cases, which I found rather bizarre, there is also no consistentency in sound laws there. For example you have *-t- > *-d- in 'Tuda' (from Proto-Celtic *Teuta), but Nemetobriga and Letiobriga. Why should Gallaecian as a Q-Celtic language share a sound law with Welsh/Brythonic in some words and then again not in others? It should not make sense. As for words with *p being 'perfectly integrated': only in your dreams. We've ben there before: you cannot have *p and *p > Ø in free variation. At least to the general opinion in mainstream is impossible for sound laws to be in free variation. Sound laws have no exception

EDIT: Something else I just noticed upon re-checking the dat, your set of data is definitely scewed because it includes towns outside of Gallaecia (for example Toletum in the inland, Arcobriga in the southwest). From that perspective, I am having my doubts if your list is valid.

Edit, anyways, this is the list below which I had (for Gallaecia):

Aqua Calida
Aqua Flavia
Aquae Quacernori
Araducca
Argenteola
Asturica Augusta
Bedunia
Bracaraugusta
Brigantium
Burum
Caladunum
Caronium
Cambetum
Celiobriga
Claudiomerum
Complutica
Dactonium
Flavia Lambris
Forum Bibilori
Forum Gigurrum
Forum Nabasori
Forum Limicori
Glandomirum
Gigia
Interamnium
Intercatia
Iria Flavia
Labernis
Lanciati
Libunca
Lucus Augusti
Lucus Asturum
Maliaca
Merua
Nardinium
Nemetobriga
Novium
Olina
Paelontium
Petavonium
Pinetus
Pintia
Tuda
Talamina
Tuntobriga
Turriga
Turuptiana
Vica
Volobriga
 
Last edited:
bz...............................
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to reply to you anymore because without a doubt you are a lost cause, especially due to your intransigence to understand the concept of sound laws and to believe that they could be in free variation. I am also fed with your permanent insults. But there is this that I want to point out:

4.- You belong to traditional and dogmatic trend born in the ends of the XIX century, whose principles are dead.

This. These principles better be not dead, or comparative linguistics will go to hell in a handbasket. If you believe we ditch the concept of sound laws, well, maybe we should ditch the concept of Indo-European languages altogether. The next thing is that you can claim the Quechua is a Semitic language, that Etruscan is an early dialect of Albanian or that, who knew English is a dialect of Chinese?! :LOL:

Remember this words:

"Ich fürchte, eines Tages werden die Keltisten lernen müssen, mit dem p zu leben" (Untermann, 1987:74)

Or, maybe Untermann has to learn he was wrong. Well, the really funny and amusing thing is that to this day you have not shown me any single evidence for common sound laws between the Celtic languages and Gallaecian/Lusitanian.
 
Last edited:
How many are there attested? What can they tell us about their language and their religion? For example, there is a place in Asturias called Táranu.

How many are there attested? What can they tell us about their language and their religion? For example, there is a place in Asturias called Táranu.

As I mentioned before, there's a number of deities which are found in Western Hispania which are not found elsewhere in the Celtic-speaking world (such as Bandua, Nabia, Revo). On the other hand, others that are really widespread (Lugus, Bormanius) are found there too. As for Taranis (as you bring up the name), it is attested from Celtiberia proper.
 
As I mentioned before, there's a number of deities which are found in Western Hispania which are not found elsewhere in the Celtic-speaking world (such as Bandua, Nabia, Revo). On the other hand, others that are really widespread (Lugus, Bormanius) are found there too. As for Taranis (as you bring up the name), it is attested from Celtiberia proper.
And what etymologies would these deities not found elsewhere in the Celtic world have? Celtic? Non-Celtic IE? Non-IE?
 
bz...........................................
 
Last edited:
Really, you need go to an oculist.

No, it just makes no sense whatsoever to assume that *p was not lost in Proto-Celtic if all branches of Celtic (including Celtiberian) lose the *p found in PIE. Even if you say that Lusitanian is a Celtic language (because, to pick up Untermann's statement, you assume somehow that *p was not lost in Proto-Celtic for some reason), it does not change anything about the fact that Celtiberian, Gaulish etc. are all closer related with each other than with Lusitanian because of the common innovation of *p > Ø.
 
bz......................................
 
My God, PIGANCOM is Celtberian and COPLUTUM Lepontic in Remedello. OK?. For you law...are not celtic languages..
PALOTREBA is Lusitanian and PALA is Lepóntic...Where is the diference?

Sorry, I mentioned before, which you seek to consistently ignore, that Arevaci and Uxama are Celtiberian, no? Regarding Lepontic, you should be aware of the fact that it is a P-Celtic language, and that *p in Lepontic would correspond to *kw in Proto-Celtic?
 
bz...........................
 
What? Pala from *Kwala? I think better an aboriginal KOALA?

Sorry, no...it is the same word...

No. Cognate exists in Welsh, 'Pal' ('spade'). The Proto-Celtic form would be reconstructed as 'Kwal-'

Well callaecian COMPLEUTICA, astur COMPLUTICA, celtiberian COMPLUTUM, lepontic KOPLUTUM...how can you explain it?

If what you claim is true, please, then explain to why is it not "Parevaci" and "Upsama"?

PRATISAGUS...in Britania

That's probably a misspelling of Bratisagus (From 'Bratu-' = 'judgment').
 
No, it just makes no sense whatsoever to assume that *p was not lost in Proto-Celtic if all branches of Celtic (including Celtiberian) lose the *p found in PIE. Even if you say that Lusitanian is a Celtic language (because, to pick up Untermann's statement, you assume somehow that *p was not lost in Proto-Celtic for some reason), it does not change anything about the fact that Celtiberian, Gaulish etc. are all closer related with each other than with Lusitanian because of the common innovation of *p > Ø.
Considering the northern/western languages of Iberia to be non-Celtic (or at least non-"core Celtic"), when would you consider that these languages arrived? Would, for example, the Astures, Cantabri, Vaccaei and Turmudigi belong linguistically to the Celtiberian or Gallaecian/Lusitanian groups, in your opinion? In mine, they would probably belong to the former...
 
bz.......................................
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 154640 times.

Back
Top