When was Proto-Celtic spoken (offtopic from Beaker-Bell R1b)

[zanipolo]

I am not per se ruling out the existence of a non-Indo-European substrate (though I think that the vocabulary is much smaller than past authors thought), but such vocabulary would have to have entered before Grimm's Law came into effect (see below).





Oh, I have read that. But you were making the impression to me that you were just focusing on the occurence of any *p that you could find without any care of where and how it comes about.


Now let's bring some order into this:


first, cases of *kʷ > *p:





I never said it was originally PIE. If you read my previous post, I explicitly grouped it with *kʷ > *p.





compare Irish "ceithre", Welsh "pedair", Latin "quattuor", Lithuanian "keturi"





I never doubted that PIE *kʷ > *p in both Lusitanian and Gaulish. But again, the situation is not homogenous in Iberia. Because, we have cases where PIE *kʷ is retained in Hispania:


- ethnic name "Querquerni"
- ethnic name "Equaesi"
- Celtiberian "nekue" and "-kue" (occurs multiple times in Botorrita I)


It should also be pointed out that both Celtic and Italic share the assimilation of *p > *kʷ before *kʷ (e.g. Latin "quercus" vs. Lithuanian "perkuna", Latin "quinque" vs. Lithuanian "penki"). Without this common innovation, we would expect Gaulish *etro- and Welsh *edair.




...and now, cases of PIE *p > *p:





Old Irish "orc", British "Orca" (Diodorus 5.21), "Orcas", "Orcades" (Ptolemy 2.2). Also note that Latin has "porcus", the above names might be plain and simply Latin. Would that be surprising? The Celtiberians are known to have possessed Greek personal names (Botorrita III "Antiokos").





Yes, I acknowledge the existence of the above forms, but are you aware of the consequences of that (loanwords, maybe?)? To go ahead and say "okay, so Celtic retained PIE *p and let's be done with it" is not the way to go. Because, at the same time, we have the following attested:


- Gaulish place name "Ar(e)morica" (not *Paremorica or *Paramorica)
- Gaulish ethnic name "Arverni" (not *Parverni)
- Gaulish personal name "Vercingetorix" (not *Upercingetorix, I'm sure Julius Caesar would have told us!)
- Lepontic "uerkalai" (TI 36.1)
- Lepontic "uvamokozis" (CO 48)
- Celtiberian "uerzoniti" (Botorrita I)
- Celtiberian "uerzaiokum" (Botorrita III)
- Celtiberian place name "Uxama"
- British "Uxella", "Uxellum" (Ptolemy 2.2)
- Gaulish place name "Uxellodunum" (Bello Gallico 8.32, 8.40)
- Gaulish "sextametos" (Old Irish "secht", compare Latin "septem")


I'd also like to add, again, from my previous:
- Celtiberian place name "Aregrada" / "Arekoratikos" ( < *pare-)
- Celtiberian place name "Clunia" / "Kolounioku" (< *klepn-)


... and then...





We have potentially the above (in your own words, it's plausible). So in my opinion, we still have the loss of *p attested in all branches of Celtic...


... but, let's ignore these inconsistencies for now:


If you say Proto-Celtic retained *p (and PIE *p was only lost at a much later point), you are creating an unsolvable dilemma. As you know, we have the devlopment of *kʷ > *p in Brittonic:


Welsh "pedair", "pump"
Breton "pevar, "pemp"
(cf. Irish "ceithre", "cúig")


if *p > Ø happened after *kʷ > *p, the above would be obviously impossible. We'd expect something like *edair and *um in Welsh, and *evar and *em in Breton which clearly differ from the above observed forms.


Gaulish, Old British, or whatever language, throughout their evolution, have no memory of their previous state. Hence when the *p was lost in the respective language, all instance in which a *p stemmed from a previous *kʷ, it should have been lost as well (because the language obviously has no memory wether a *p came from PIE *p or from *kʷ). Because of this, saying that Proto-Celtic retained *p creates only problems.


(I might remind here of the analogy with the Japonic languages: if the development was via the intermediate stages of *p > *φ > *h > Ø, we would infer that at an earliest, *kʷ > *p occured after *p > *φ. In this scenario, we may imagine that the development *φ > *h > Ø occured subsequently while the Proto-Celtic language was already in the process of fragmentation. This would explain Lepontic "uvamokozis", and possibly occurences of *h- in Gaulish.)


Also, because of the above, the development of *kʷ > *p in Britanno-Gallic must be independent from the similar development in Lusitanian (since Lusitanian retains PIE *p).


I do not know where this leaves Lepontic words like "pala", but the only possibility is that these words were introduced later as loanwords, after the loss of PIE *p. As an analogy, Old Irish has plenty of loanwords with *p (but of course, many of them are Latin).





I don't necessarily say that Euler is correct with his late date for Grimm's Law, but it is elegant in so far as that it also offers an explanation for the linguistic identity of the Cimbri (which, otherwise, must be argued to be Celtic). Both Euler's late model and the traditional (early iron age) model are compatible with the corpus of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic.


If Grimm's Law occured at the very basis of Proto-Germanic (adoption of an Indo-European language by non-Indo-Europeans, why is it that Celtic *dūno- ("fort", "fortress") was borrowed into Germanic (English "town", Dutch "tuin", Icelandic "tún", German "Zaun") and via Germanic mediation into Slavic (cf. Ukrainian "тин")?





I never, ever stated that I used his work exclusively.





As Untermannn wrote already back in 1987 "Ich fürchte, eines Tages werden die Keltisten lernen müssen, mit dem p zu leben" ("I fear, one day the Celti(ci)sts will have to learn to love with the p"): it is the desire to include Lusitanian (as well as the various "Celtic" forms in the NW of Iberia that retain *p) under the umbrella of the Celtic languages. But as I mentioned, that is effectively an arbitrary decision, since it still requires that *p > Ø (with the intermediate steps) holds true as a unifying feature of all Celtic languages besides Lusitanian.


(at this point, you might also want to check out this list of Proto-Celtic roots by the University of Wales, which also is based on the assumption that *p was lost, via the intermediate step of *φ as I described)





Okay, I have to confess that I haven't read Yocum's work yet, but I can read it, get back to this, and give you my opinion of it at a later point.


- Notwithstanding the above that I do not know yet, I have personally been unconvinced by Koch's assessment that Tartessian is a Celtic language (I've describe the reasons before, you can also find most of them in Zeidler's criticism of Koch's work). I concede that Tartessian looks at a cursory glance to be "Indo-European-ish", but I think that until we find a bilingual inscription I say this is purely hypothetical. Then there's the fact that Celtic place names are suspiciously scarce in what archaeologists deem the Tartessian core zone in Andalusia. For cross reference, you can compare this with Alexander Falileyev's map.


- You must be confusing something here: the "700 or 500 years before Lepontic" statement is clearly false. The earliest Lepontic inscriptions are dated to around 500 BC, which would make the Tartessian stelae date to 1000 to 1200 BC. If you consider all the consequences, that would be a immense sensation in itself, but it is not true: the dates that Koch (2009, 2010, ff.) actually gives for the Tartessian stelae is ca. 700-500 BC. This would make the stelae either roughly contemporary to earliest Lepontic, or a few centuries older. A lot people talk erroneously about the supposed "ancientness" of the Celtic evidence on the Iberian peninsula (which in some aspects is certainly true), but for the greater part this is plain and simply false: the main corpus of Celtiberian is effectively contemporary to the corpus of Gaulish (in fact, the earliest attestations of Gaulish in northern Italy are actually older than Celtiberian). Any evidence for Lusitanian or the "Para-Celtic" elements in western Hispania dates exclusively from the Roman period. If we disregard the possible Tartessian corpus, the ancientness of the Celtic presence in Iberia is merely indirectly infered from the circumstances, rather than directly attested. I agree that the conclusion is logical (see below), but is only a conclusion.


- On the flip side, I do not mind Koch's proposal that the Atlantic Bronze Age was (partially) Celtic-speaking. This actually makes very much sense and solves a lot of problems that arise in the traditional models. What I cannot agree on is the conconclusions that many people (not necessarily him) draw from this. I would summarize my (current, anyways) opinion on this as follows:


- the genetic evidence of R1b (especially the combined pattern that emerges when combining the phylogenetic tree of R1b with the distribution patterns of it's R1b subclades) is not particularly well-compatible with the supposed origin of the Beaker-Bell Culture on the Iberian peninsula.


- I always struck me as vastly stretching my suspension of disbelief that the Celtic languages are somehow supposed to have derictly arrived in SW-Iberia from the Pontic steppe (via a land route or maritime route is irrelevant here). Also, where does this leave the Italic languages?


- the spreading pattern of R1b's subclades is more compatible with a central point of origin in southeastern France (from where it spread to the whole of western and central europe). I find it more conceivable to assume that R1b arrived in SE France via either a Central European land route or a maritime route, than to assume that it arrived "out of the blue" from the Pontic steppe in Iberia.


- Given the ancientness and vast extend of the Beaker-Bell Culture into areas that were never Celtic, I find it doubtful that the Beakers spoke Proto-Celtic. Instead, it's much more sensible to assume that the Beaker-Bell people spoke a more undifferentiated western (Centum) Indo-European dialect. Even then, I seriously doubt that the Beaker-Bell Culture was uniformously Indo-European.


- I think that the "Para-Celtic" elements may indeed be an older, autochthonous development that arose independently in the west of the Iberian peninsula (I believe this to be fairly consistent with the archaeological evidence, however).


- I would (very tentatively) place the actual development of a Proto-Celtic into northwestern Europe, into the very broad trade networks that interacted between the Wessex, Armorique and Tumulus Cultures. I know that this sounds vague, but it is most compatible with the available evidence.


- As a result, I see the Celtic languages as being introduced from the north (from the British Isles/Armorica) across the Bay of Biscaya via the bronze age trade networks, rather than the other way around. This is also much more consistent with genetic evidence (in particular the distribution of R1b-L21 and it's subclades - which is not particularly compatible with a "Mil Espáine"-type scenario that the west-iberian-origin essentially requires). Note, again, if you take a look at Falileyev's map, that the distribution of Celtic names on the Iberian peninsula is much more compatible with such an introduction from the north via sea.


- The subsequent spreads and movements of Urnfield, Hallstatt and La-Tene explain the later spread of P-Celtic languages in Central Europe, Gaul and Britain (Koch himself also conceives this possibility, he describes the movement of these cultures as "a matter of intra-celtic dialectology").

Now, I concede some of you may not like the hypothesis as I have layed it out above, but make of that whatever you want.

Should we be ignoring the Illyro-Lusitanian onomastic "system" in central alpine european areas which pre dates celtic which is not entirely/fully onomastic?

[MOESAN]

Should we be ignoring the Illyro-Lusitanian onomastic "system" in central alpine european areas which pre dates celtic which is not entirely/fully onomastic?

I find very interesting the Taranis hypothesis you quoted yourself
concerning you: what is onomastic for you? placenames OR/AND people names? what data is this Illyro-Lusitanian onomastic "system refering to??? a rivers names net?
thanks for answer

[callaeca]

zzzzzzzzzz

[Yetos]

I don't believe that,Yetos. I was talking about the kurgan movements using the point of view of Harrison and others. It is an evidence its presence in Western Iberian Peninsula.

First of all, in my opinion, the utilization of terms as pre-celtic or para-celtic is not acceptable. It means nothing. We do not know the languages spoken before the Celtic, not of others that could have coexisted with the proto-celtic (Guyonvarc'h). What we know is that great part of words considered non Celtic of western Iberia have its exact correspondence in Gaulish and that Irish words like faffian, cuifre, life, etc. have not correspondence and explanation with the Celtic or with any other Indo-European language.

The afirmation:

if *p > Ø happened after *kʷ > *p, the above would be obviously impossible.

it precisely contradicts the results in the italic osco-umbrian languages where *p > p and *kw > p: cp. pis > *quis, pompe, lat quinque and we have examples in arcaic gaulish where kw is no *p (cp. equo in Coligny).About this phenomena see Daniel Huber (2007) "On the Interaction of Velars and Labials",

Like de Bernardo Stempel (2002, 2007, 2009), I think that all these words belong to the Celtic stock. They are words perfectly acceptable and understandable inside the area of the Celtic languages. Naturally that these voices can be loanwords in Gaulish, but, why not in Lusitanian or in the north and western hisp-celtic languages? See that the Lusitanian word PORCOM coexists in the same region with MUCEAECO (ie. *mukk - 'pig') and with MOCIO in Callaecia Bracarensis. In Galicia also we can register the place name Orcellón, but is it sure that its etymology is *pork-el-yo- and that those insular forms correspond to *porkos?

For decades the Gaulish paradigmatic and endocentric model (with the posterior inclusion of the celtiberian: Schmidt (1985) and its continental Celtic) has been imposed. Now we know that the Lusitanian not only have affinities with the italic languages, but at the same time its mantains a closer relation with the old Welsh ans irish. The Celtiberian keeps more affinities with the italic languages (cp. conj. uta, aut vs. the lusitanian innovation inde < *en(i)-dhe, no similar to the german und, eng. and no belong to lat. adv. form inde *h1endh-/*h1ºndh-) than Lusitanian and that the similarities between Celtiberian and Lusitanian are increasing more:

The ends of celtiberian ac. sg. with long vowel + d (sekobired), as scr. asvâd, latin and osco-umbrian. With i stem we can see the parallelism between lusitanian isaiccid and celtib. bilbilid.

The anti-celtic lusitanian verbal form doenti and celtiberian didonti presents the same contrast with latin dant and osco-umbrian didet (< *dident). In this two cases one of the to languages uses a radical present (Wurzelpräsens), with zero grade in latin and full grade in lusitanian. Celtiberian and osco-umbrian use reduplication. Same solution in the verbal inflection between lusitanian rueti and celtiberian audeti (the gaulish have a verbal inflection sometimes incompatible with the indo-european: see Schrijver works)

The acusative forms forms lusit. oilam beside lusit. oila is exact to celtib. kortikam and kortika. This equivalences we can see it too in lusit. arimo-arimom, celtib. eladuno-eladunom.

The desinences lusit. and celtib. -ai, -ui correspond to the arcaic dative sg. indo-european inflection. The celtiberian dative plural -bos is similar to the italic and lepontic languages, the lusitanian to the gaulish form in -bo.

A great part of the authors (de Bernardo, Prósper, Villar etc.) observe that hisp-celt. was in process to change to a Celtic P language (celtib. perkuneta, petraiocu; lusit. puppid, pumpe); galician place name Pezobre (< *petio-brigs). This innovative process would have been interrupted by the romanization, but its explains the duality of items in the same geographical area assigned to one and another system.

There is a fact that is not mentioned: uvamogozis, uvamo represent surely a final preservating *p of the original Indo-European. Then this phenomenon represents a recent fact. This is the motive by Eska considers, with a good criterion, that proto-Celtic would have preservated the IE *p:

“Other changes, such as the loss of proto- IE */p/ between vowels, seem to have been well along towards completion prior to the break up of proto- Celtic. It mostly is continued by 0̸ throughout the attested languages, but was not fully complete in view of early Cisalpine Celt. uvamo- ‘highest’ (CIS 65 = CIM 180) < *upamo- , in which 〈v〉 represents a labial fricative…[…]*/p/ have been present in proto-celtic”. (Eska, 2010:23).

This position begins to be assumed by a great part of Celtologists', for example in Jürgen Zeidler: "Celto-Roman Contact Names in Galicia ", 2007:

“K.H. Schmidt (1985) reduced the matter to a problem of definition -a language preserving IE *p cannot be labelled Celtic- but in view of recent arguments in favour of a late disappearence of *p and a possible reflex in Lepontic uvamogozis, uvamo, the question should not be treated in a dogmatic way” (Zeidler, 2007:42).

Therefore, It is not an Untermann's caprice, but the dogmatism of the followers of Schmidt: cp. "Celticum videtur comparto PALLO nomine" (Hübner 1892:1047).

In the last works of Almagro-Gorbea (2010, 2011) and of Patrick Brun (2011) the term proto-celtic is used to differ the hisp.-celtic of the continental Celtic (Schmidt's definition):

“[…] el conglomerado constituido por vettones, lusitanos y galaicos […] puede considerarse “protocéltico”’ (Almagro-Gorbea, 2010).

The concept 'keltiké' hides a complex, multiform and plural historical reality. It is inappropriate to understand the terms 'Celt' and 'Celtic' with the character of ethnicity that the linguistics and the linguists use habitually (Collis, 2003), and starts intrinsically from having established, differentiating and developing a dialectal variety, under the label of 'Celt', with the endocentric value given to the Gaulish and the insular 'celtic' languages and, with the conceptual point of view, of an ethnic identity. What is named generically as 'Celt' must conceptualize as a phenomenon of ' cultural identity ', it is, a series of cultural common characteristics to the Atlantic and Central European territories: Linguistic affinities, ideological-religious, material culture, etc. (Götz, 2010). To affirm the exclusively Central European origin to define what is or not 'Celt' lacks scientific base (Cunliffe, 2003) and it explains only for the weight of the historiographical and linguistic tradition (Rieckhoff, 2007).

The Iberian Peninsula has remained always relegated to a treatment of appendicular character, regardless of the general analysis what the 'Celtic' term is, An image stereotyped of the 'keltiké' has been created, constructed selectively from proceeding testimonies only of some regions, which really it is not extensible to all the areas of Celtic language (Beltran Lloris, 1992). The anathemic problem of /p/ in all the Hispanic celtic dialects, included the Celtiberian, is, therefore, formulated on a 'Celtic' stereotype based on extralinguistical criteria that it contributed to do the gaul-roman and the medieval insular literature as the only canon to following (Moralejo, 2006), therefore,it is a corrupt term (Collis, 2003).

the P Q in Celtic is also in Greece,
I don't know if Taranis is correct about Urnfield with the P one but I know about the Q in Greece

the case of Myceneans for me is still under discuss if Kurgans or Anatolian, due to tin and Arsenic Bronze
But at Croatia Serbia we clearly what Ancient Greeks as Illyro-Celtic at Vucovar as Thracian to Cotofeni and probably Mycenean at Vatin

Vatin from Vucovar is not far, but we know that Myceneans name the horse Ικκος (Iqqos Ikkos) that Fits with Italo-Latin Equus, at iron age we a change from Q to P so Ikkos become Ippos, compare Ippos with the Gaulish word for horse and the change from Ikkos to Ippos with Deutsh Phard (not Germanic Ars-Horse) and Mycenean- Greek phorvas (female Horse)
so there is possibilty that P-Celts might come from Urnfield or Haalstat about Iron age, cause I am certain that Celts before were Q.

[callaeca]

zzzzzzzzzz

[callaeca]

zzzzzzzzzzz

[Taranis]

Callaeca, before I comment on the rest of your post, I have noted that this is the third time that you use the term "endocentric":

For decades the Gaulish paradigmatic and endocentric model (with the posterior inclusion of the celtiberian: Schmidt (1985) and its continental Celtic) has been imposed.

Are the Celtic languages only the romantic and endocentric point of view of the recent gaulish and insular languages?

I don't know how the other celtic languages could emerge, but the endocentric paradigm and model of the gaulish (it is a recent language) is invalid in Iberia.

... be that assertation as it is (I think it is unduly due to the fact that I am evidently incorporating all evidence here), I would like to talk first about the loss of *p:

There is a fact that is not mentioned: uvamogozis, uvamo represent surely a final preservating *p of the original Indo-European. Then this phenomenon represents a recent fact. This is the motive by Eska considers, with a good criterion, that proto-Celtic would have preservated the IE *p:

Was this really not mentioned? You must have overread this part of my earlier post:

(I might remind here of the analogy with the Japonic languages: if the development was via the intermediate stages of *p > *φ > *h > Ø, we would infer that at an earliest, *kʷ > *p occured after *p > *φ. In this scenario, we may imagine that the development *φ > *h > Ø occured subsequently while the Proto-Celtic language was already in the process of fragmentation. This would explain Lepontic "uvamokozis", and possibly occurences of *h- in Gaulish.)

... which is precisely reflected by what you quote here:

“Other changes, such as the loss of proto- IE */p/ between vowels, seem to have been well along towards completion prior to the break up of proto- Celtic. It mostly is continued by 0̸ throughout the attested languages, but was not fully complete in view of early Cisalpine Celt. uvamo- ‘highest’ (CIS 65 = CIM 180) < *upamo- , in which 〈v〉 represents a labial fricative…[…]*/p/ have been present in proto-celtic”. (Eska, 2010:23).

It is critical to note in the above that Eska affirms that "it is mostly continued by Ø throughout the attested languages" (which includes Celtiberian, as I demonstrated earlier). Eska correctly subsumes that the loss of *p was "well along towards completion prior the breakup of Proto-Celtic". In regard for Lepontic, I would like to ask you a rhetoric question: what is the IPA symbol for a voiceless bilabial fricative?


Now, I'd like to comment on the consequences for *kʷ > *p:

The afirmation:


if *p > Ø happened after *kʷ > *p, the above would be obviously impossible.


it precisely contradicts the results in the italic osco-umbrian languages where *p > p and *kw > p: cp. pis > *quis, pompe, lat quinque and we have examples in arcaic gaulish where kw is no *p (cp. equo in Coligny).About this phenomena see Daniel Huber (2007) "On the Interaction of Velars and Labials",

This does not contradict the results in the slightest. You are just moving things out of context:


- what you describe for Osco-Umbrian holds true for the Italic context. It also holds true for the Greek context (and, I will agree that the same holds true for Lusitanian context). All these languages have in common that the Proto-Indo-European *p is preserved while additionally, PIE *kʷ also becomes *p. In contrast to this you have Latin and Mycenaean Greek, which both preserve PIE *kʷ (cf. Latin "equus", Linear B "I-Qo"). In other words, the developments of *kʷ > *p occured well after the development of Proto-Italic and Proto-Greek, respectively. There is no contradiction here.


- The above is non-applicable for the British and Gaulish (it doesn't concern Primitive Irish or Celtiberian because like Latin and like Mycenaean Greek, these retain PIE *kʷ). As you know, both British and Gaulish evidently lose PIE *p, and it is inevitable that this loss of *p must have occured before the development of *kʷ > *p.


- the possible retaining of PIE medial *p as *φ Lepontic is *not* a contradiction of the above because if the *kʷ > *p shift occured after *p > *φ (ergo loss!), and the contradiction would be resolved. This is why it makes sense to reconstruct Proto-Celtic as *φ, and not *p.


- the alternative, is to assume that the Brythonic/Gaulish somehow had a way of "memorizing" or distinguishing wether a *p-sound derived from PIE *p or *kʷ, and that only those that actually stemmed from PIE *p were subsequently rendered Ø (Or *φ in Lepontic). But, do you really believe this?


And now, I would like to get back to this:

First of all, in my opinion, the utilization of terms as pre-celtic or para-celtic is not acceptable. It means nothing. We do not know the languages spoken before the Celtic, not of others that could have coexisted with the proto-celtic (Guyonvarc'h). What we know is that great part of words considered non Celtic of western Iberia have its exact correspondence in Gaulish and that Irish words like faffian, cuifre, life, etc. have not correspondence and explanation with the Celtic or with any other Indo-European language.

The terms "pre-Celtic" and "para-Celtic" may not be acceptable for you, but they have very much a meaning:


- "Pre-Celtic" could either denote the languages the languages that were spoken in Western Europe before the Celtic languages, or in the Indo-European context, the language evolution that took place between Proto-Indo-European, and the fragmentation of Proto-Celtic (the ancestor language of all Celtic languages) into it's daughter languages. The latter would be more accurately refered to as "Pre-Proto-Germanic", or (in analogy with Euler's terminology in the Germanic context), "Celtic Parent Language".


- As soon as we acknowledge that the development of *p > *φ must predate the development *kʷ > *p, the latter inevitably becomes an anti-celtic feature in the context of a preservation of PIE *p. It is thus sensible to argue that the Lusitanian language diverged from the other Celtic languages earlier, before the fragmentation. In this case, you're ending up again with the "Para-Celtic" concept.


- The alternative to the above is to argue that Proto-Celtic indeed retained *p, and that the loss of *p occured independently from each other in British, Gaulish, Irish and Celtiberian. In this scenario, you would be correct that Proto-Celtic should be reconstructed retaining *p, but such a scenario is not economic.


- In summary, I affirm the close relationship of Lusitanian with the Celtic languages, but given the evidence I think it is more sensible to assume that Lusitanian represents a distinct development that is separate from the other (or "proper") Celtic languages.


Then, you bring up some very interesting points here:

To affirm the exclusively Central European origin to define what is or not 'Celt' lacks scientific base (Cunliffe, 2003) and it explains only for the weight of the historiographical and linguistic tradition (Rieckhoff, 2007).

The anathemic problem of /p/ in all the Hispanic celtic dialects, included the Celtiberian, is, therefore, formulated on a 'Celtic' stereotype based on extralinguistical criteria that it contributed to do the gaul-roman and the medieval insular literature as the only canon to following (Moralejo, 2006), therefore,it is a corrupt term (Collis, 2003).

Interestingly, I never argued for an exclusively Central-European origin in the first place. On the flip side, the problem of *p is decisively not an extralinguistic criterium because we established earlier that western Hispania is NOT a linguistically homogenous area. This is a problem that doesn't go away even if we elevate Lusitanian to a full Celtic language and fully pretend that *p wasn't lost in Proto-Celtic:


- As we established, PIE *kʷ is retained in Celtiberian (Botorrita I "nekue" and "-kue"). Likewise, we have forms with *kʷ attested in western Spain (such as ethnic names "Querquerni" and "Equaesi").


- At the same time, we firmly established that *kʷ > *p holds true for Lusitanian ("pumpi", "puppid", "petranoi", etc.).


So unless you believe that sound laws can be in free variation with each other, you still have the realize that there are apparently two linguistic strata in Western Hispania, and that a solution is necessary to explain this.


Finally, I would like to place your attention on several of your earlier posts, regarding the identity of Urnfield:

Yes, I think so Yetos, the celtic P language is more recent than Q in western Europa (cp. gaulish equo in Coligny). It belong to the urnfield folks, but there are traces that hisp-celt. and celtib. was changing to P in the romanisation times

Perhaps I am the only one who finds it peculiar, but it didn't evade me that you are contradicting yourself here. A few posts earlier you still claimed that the Urnfielders were Iberians:

You have nearly examples in the Aquitanian, Iberian and Rethian urnfield cultures, languages probably similar to which had talk in Central Europe, Northern and British Isles, prior to the incorrectly pronounce of the Indo-European)

5. Well, what we see immediately after the urnfields is the emergence of the non indo-european languages. Why this process would not have been affected in the urnfield areas of Central Europe? (...) And, where the Iberian culture come from with its urnfield features? From the north, is not?

So, without the desire of any form of offense, I wonder how do you reconcile this?

[MOESAN]

I agree too that for me there is a great evidence for P being a later evolution in I-E languages (some celtic, some italic, some hellenic) evolution occuured at the Iron Ages in central Europe - not an hazard one - some new I-E elite: proving it is an other question?
maybe someone can answer me about supposed celtic *P disparition? beacuse I thinked that this evolution occurred for the most at beginning of words: linked maybe to an aspiration of /p/, aspiration that disappeared between vowels (beginning of a kind of lenition?), giving way to a /b/ and not a */h/>> /-/ ???
on a more general plan:
there are some peculiar phonetic evolution typical of some speaking groups and too some general phonetic rules applying in every language, as the place of accent (more strenght than tone) acting upon lenition or not, or reinforcing of consonants...
the Grimm 's law about germanic consonants shift know some exception INSIDE words, explained by these general common rules...

[MOESAN]

I'm sorry - I did not read the Taranis' post that I find very clear - my post looks very poor now...

[callaeca]

zzzzzzzzzzz

[Taranis]

1. Why? M. Counihan (2009): An Etruscan Solution to a Celtic Problem:


Abstract: It is argued that what used to be called "P-Celtic" arose because Etruscans could not pronounce properly the Indo-European languages which they encountered in and around Italy. Etruscan influence can neatly explain not only the phenomenon of P-Celtic but also the corresponding phonological transition in Oscan and Umbrian. This scenario tends to support a relatively short timescale for the dissemination and diversification of the Western Indo-European languages.(1)


2. How? D. Huber (2007): On the Interaction of Velars and Labials.

It might "neatly explain" the development, if there wasn't a critical problem: the Etruscans simply didn't originate in Central Europe, but in Anatolia. Amongst other things, there is recent genetic evidence for an immigration from Anatolia into Italy:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract


"Mitochondrial DNA variation of modern Tuscans supports the near eastern origin of Etruscans."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17301019


"The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA."


There is additionally linguistic and religious evidence. Notably, The Anatolian deity name "Tarhunt" became Etruscan "Tarχun", which in turn became the source of the Roman name "Tarquinius".


Also, there is no evidence for an Etruscan substrate in Proto-Germanic (which might also be expected if the Etruscans were in Central Europe).

3. The emergence of the osco-umbrian and gaulish (and others) coincides in time and space with urnfield culture. The non indo-european caracter of the urnfield culture is visible in NE of Iberia (see the most recent works about urnfields in the Ebro Valley, where over a population related with the Atlantic Culture, with indo-european features, superimposes a non indo-european culture similar to the Iberian in Catalonia).

You're doing a number of glaring impossibilities here. You clearly argued in your points #1 and #2 that the Urnfield Culture was Etruscan, and you cite this as the cause for the development of *kw > *p in Celtic. And now you say that the Urnfield Culture was Iberian. You cannot simply lump non-Indo-European languages and cultures together just because they are non-Indo-European. The ancient Iberian language was very different from Etruscan. There is no point in even discussing the details of that.


Also, you ignore (again) that there is a firm presence of the Iberian language in the south and southeast of the Iberian peninsula, and that the Urnfield incursion into Iberia cannot explain this. The origins of Iberian culture (most notably, the characteristic "falcata"-type swords) originate in the Southeast of the peninsula.

You can adduce that Lusitanian (and then the vettonian, vaccean, callaecian, asturian, cantabrian, tartessian and, as last resort, the celtiberian) is in the same way. But it doesn't explain the approximation of the Lusitanian and neighboring languages to the 'celtic' languages: *ºm > am (ambi-mogidos), *ºn > an (an-dercus),ºr > ri (brig-), ºl > al (talavus), superlative *-(s)amo (< *sºmmo-), *mr- > br- (bracara), etc, etc, etc., and its evident and neatly relation at the same time with the italic languages (we are talking about the celto-italic family).

Which is exactly how a contradiction of what I said?

4. From Lewis and Pedersens to McCone, Sims-Williams, Isaac, Schrijver and many others, the scholars claim features that Celtic languages (Gaulish and Insular Languages) in several characteristics they resemble some non-Indo-European languages. These characteristics include the absence of a present participle and the use instead of a verbal noun (found also in Egyptian and Berber), the frequent expression of agency by means of an impersonal passive construction instead of by a verbal subject in the nominative case (as in Egyptian, Berber, Basque, and some Caucasian and Eskimo languages), the positioning of the verb at the beginning of a sentence (typical of Egyptian and Berber), the agglutinated final particle to account for the primary endings (as in Basque), the final *-i no apocopated in the absolute endings, the imperfect endings with an unknown origin, etc., etc., etc.. In contrast, the clear indo-european system of the hispano-celtic (included Lusitanian).

The day that you could explain these strange divergences that we see in gaulish and in the insular celtic languages, then I will believe in your pre-celtic and para-celtic folks.

What should be pointed out is that the concept of "Insular Celtic" is technically invalid. It is useful for contrasting the modern Brythonic and Goidelic languages with Celtiberian and Gaulish, but Brythonic and Gaulish share a significant number of phonological innovations absent in Goidelic. Furthermore, an analysis of old British and Primitive Irish shows that these languages were fundamentally "continental Celtic" in nature (cf. Koch 1995, 2005: "By definition, Primitive Irish is used for a state of the language that was then written [ ... ] in which the original Old Celtic final syllables of polysyllables were preserved [...] ).

Dogmatism: belief system that it can not be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm itself.


Endocentric: When it fulfills the same linguístic function as one of its parts. It can be applicable when something represents the only example or model to follow (see dogmatism).


The last year, Taranis, you were histrionically defending the non celticity of the tartessian, now its celticity is an evidence. A very dogmatic scholar like Fco. Villar had to admite this circumstance. Then, you adduced the dissenting point of view of Jürgen Zeidler (remind my criticisim about it). Now, I adduce of this same author (and I repeat the same quote):

Dogmatic? Endocentric? Histrionic? That is fascinating, because looking at your older posts, I have made an interesting observation: since you joined Eupedia over a year ago, you have shown zero activity outside the dissemination of your hypothesis.

“K.H. Schmidt (1985) reduced the matter to a problem of definition -a language preserving IE *p cannot be labelled Celtic- but in view of recent arguments in favour of a late disappearence of *p and a possible reflex in Lepontic uvamogozis, uvama, the question should not to be treated in a dogmatic way”. (J. Zeidler (2007): Celto-Roman Contact Names in Galicia, p. 42).

I agree with this assessment, and that should have been clear from my previous post. Nontheless, I am pretty sure that Zeidler will agree with me that the loss of PIE *p (in whatever shape: let me remind you that Lepontic "v" doesn't represent the phoneme *p but *φ - the latter is at least the position forwarded by Eska 2010) cannot postdate the development *kʷ > *p in the so-called "P-Celtic" languages.


What I find really saddening, however, is that you are operating under a pre-1830s mode of linguistics (I hope that does not sound offensive, but I think it is an accurate description), by implying that sound laws can apparently be in free variation with each other (eg. *p and Ø) , and implying that languages have a "memory" of previous sound changes (eg. *kʷ > *p before *p > Ø - it should be pointed out that none of the authors you cited even claimed this was possible). This is also affirmed by your referal of Grimm's Law as a "consonantal instability".


The way I see it, you are scraping at the bottom of an empty barrel: you try to bring up disparate and sometimes overtly unreconcilable concepts together (e.g. Urnfield is variably Iberian, variably Etruscan for you) to justify your concept of an apparent "pure" Indo-Europeanness of the Iberian peninsula.

Our discussion not leads nowhere and we should stop here. Maybe the next year you’ll have to admit (as many scholars now) about the western hispanic indo-european:

I would rcommend you should read some generalized literature about how comparative linguistics works. How sound correspondence and sound laws work. In the meantime, you are very much welcomed to stay here, but I would encourage you hereby to also show interest into other topics and start interacting with other board members.

About hispano-celtic numeral *penta-: cp. gaulish penta- and dvs. (see Holder, Whatmough), britonic river name PENTA (Holder II col. 967), old irish óintam '[glos.] caelebs' (Pedersen Gramm. II p. 60), greek pénte (but eolian pémpe), illyrian PANTO, PANTIA (see Krahe, Schulze), ven. PENTADIUS, skr. pañcama, hitt. panta (see Bossert): ie. *penkw-to- > *pen(kw)to- > *pento-. Then it is not a divergent form.

You are mistaken here. You are overlooking here that the Italo-Celtic languages assimilate *p > *kw before *kw. This is evident in both Irish and Latin:


Latin "quinque", Old Irish "cóic"
compare: Greek "pente", Lithuanian "penki", Russian "pjat" (пять)


Latin "quercus", Gallaecian ethnic name "Querquenni"
compare: Lithuanian "perkunas", Russian "perun" (перун), Albanian "përkund"


Latin "coquere" vs. Old Irish "coic" ("to cook")
compare: Sanskrit "pacati", Tocharian "päk-", Albanian "pjek", Russian "petch" (печь)


The expected Proto-Celtic forms then become subject to *kʷ > *p in Gaulish, Lepontic and British. In other words, the attestation is no evidence for a direct preservation of PIE *p, since these instances of *p stem from an earlier Italo-Celtic *kʷ.

[zanipolo]

just some points (not decisive but maybe indicative)
1- some P- words (# << Qw-) like 'porc-'° in Galia or other considered celtic areas do'nt signify they are genuine celtic words nor that they are not recent loan words (for the considered period) - I should not be amazed at all if we found some pre-celtic I-E languages in Gauls, akin to kinds of Ligurian: NOTHING SURPRISING THERE
2- I wrote in an other thread that the modern evolution of gaelic could have taken place in a very few centuries after "learning" by pre-celtic Ireland populations (old stock of N-W mesolithic Europeans mixed with some neolithic megalithers?)
3- when comparing gaelic and brittonic vocabulary I was stroke by not only the very different phonetical evolution but also by the rapid divergence (or mixture with pre-celtic words?) of lexicon between the two groups: I know lost and replacement of words can run very fast in living languages but here it is very amazing! words for the body, the family, the natural environment are very divergent within celtic languages so what??? either gaelic is older in Ireland than I believed, or the actual lexicon is a kind of "creole", a misture of two lexicon (it is true I lack points of comparison, P- italic languages compared to Qw- italic ones, by instance: if somebody can give us some digest of basic words?) a celtic language imposed lately (Iron Age 700BC?) to a non-celtic population whose sounds habits take the strong side upon celtic phonetic in a short time + mixture of lexic? maybe a yet I-E language in Ireland before well indentified celtic, being the celtic accepted easily because of some already common origins, but tracing back a ltille older???
I'll dress a short list of basic words in the two celtic branches newt time -

I don't see this as any italic languages , but purely a pre-celtic one. a language that ranged from the pyrennes to Venice under a gallic tongue under the group called ligures. This group mixed with the celts of the north to make a gallic-celti language in northern Italy, switzerland and western austria.
Northern italy which was all ligurian in the early bronze age still have porc/o for pork and Porsel for Pig ( italian does not use these words). I guess then that the gaul in ligurian people would be more older than expected, far older then the celtic component

[MOESAN]

I know my posts are often negative or at least not-conclusive – this one is written after the apparent problems of Callaeca, without trying to go too much into details that i don't master and that don't help concerning the basic logic that has to shape the debate:



The problem of languages and cultures is a question of nature but also a question of naming – when we need to be precise we give different names to different aspects of language and culture, language here, whatever the weight of difference – so « celtic » is referred to as an I-E language with, among its features, the more important one : the lost of PIE *p- (and *-p-/-p?), lost that seams predating the partial shift of *q^w- in celtic and other languages; distinct name don't learn us about either links or lack of link between two categories of language or distance ; it is not the negation of a filiation -
in the case of celtic, we are trying to find a proto-celtic ; well : the discussion is open, but when I 'll speak about 'celtic' it 'll be about languages that lost the PIE previous *p- - I consider we have not to rename as « celtic » languages that don't have this peaculiarity – I said « open » because more than a family of languages showed links with these strictly defined celtics : italic ones, I-E iberia ones (as lusitanian), ligurian, maybe some not to evident « northwestern I-E » language...
My thought for now is that at BB times (even if we cannot affirm : BB = I-E) a western family of I-E occupied a large territory where we after found gaelic, brittonic, gaulish, lusitanian, lepontic, celt-iberic, latin, osco-ombrian, ligurian, and surely a kind of proto-germanic, perhaps yet other forgotten dialects – some scholars (in good mind condition) supposed tight enough links shared by italic, celtic and ligurian languages, tighter when sepaking about celtic and ligurian : the proto-celtic we can figure out can be closer to ligurian, but alternatively closer to lusitanian : without any deep knowledge on the matter, and relying on this thread exchanges, I can suppose lusitanian and other I-E ancient languages of Iberia are closer related to future well defined [P > -] celtic -
so celtic can have been born among something akin to a language very similar to lusitanian or a previous form of lusitanian ; but this previous form (as languages tend to diverge) could be also a form common to other western parts of Europe (center Galia, Atlantic shores etc...) at a not too far older stage ; so the proximity of lusitanian to this hypothetic ancestral form doesn' t prove or disprove anyway that well defined celtic forms found their cradle in Iberia (or not) -
So we are obliged to take other things in consideration, as geography, genetics, material culture & trade, communication ways, timing, historical fatcs as geographical and temporal origin of I-E, archeology and their interactions... here interpretations are still open, even if apparent ages of Y-R1b downstreams Hgs and their distributions could put me to think in a common BB or just post-BB culture diffusing from central-south-east France- parts of Switzerland-southwestern Germany and carrying western I-E languages akin to proto-celtic and proto-ligurian and proto-italic, according to the numerous directions taken ; the separation of some branches can explain the different repartitions of male dominating (unsure, it's true) substream Hgs and the languages partial differenciations – I think as a lot that the lost of PIE *P- occured in west or west-central Europe and not in Iberia but I'm not ready to kill anybody for I cannot prove it now... (I prefer kill the snake...) - that is not to say that all-celtic first cradle was in Bavaria even if the Tumuli culture is a very attractive hypothesis: only after that became Bavaria and surroundings the start-point of La-Tène expansion, it is an other thing, and I think it was too the point of Taranis ?
What is sure is that « celtic » is a well labelled name and I have no want to extend it to every kind of « para- » or « proto- »... if I speak about 'french', I don't speak about 'roman' or 'latin'.
just to recenter the debate

Have a good afternoon

[zanipolo]

Continueing from my post 37 - I have concluded that the celts where the old Vindelici people made of about 8 tribes, which resided north of the raeti of western Austria. They where between the lech and windo rivers in southern germany, there capital being modern Augsburg.
They where not Germanic but only purely celtic.
The long linguistic text on the Raetic language has some clues in it in regards to this
http://www.mek.oszk.hu/05100/05110/05110.pdf

As they where pushed southward by the Germanic Macromanni and Quadi tribes coming down from the north , their language adapted and fused with firstly the raeti and then with the illyro-lusitanian language, lastly they influenced the gallic ligures tribes of northern Italy.
Later still they absorbed the northern illyrian people of eastern austria and started there balkan adventure.

So, they are Vindelici who spoke celtic and had the la tene culture

Ptolomey (100-160 AD) says that the river Lech separated the Vindelici and Rhaetians. The Northern Vindelici were known as the Runicati, Leuni, Consuanti, Benlauni, Breuni, and by the river Lech, the Licati. The towns in Vindelicia were Boiodurum (Passau), Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), Carrodunum, Abudiacum (Epfach), Cambodunum (Kempten), Medullum, and Inutrium.⁴⁵

I read that the word bavaria is from the vindelici while the germanic name is Bayern.

Also, since the name Vindelici arrives friome a mix of the celtic Windo and the lech river, I wonder if the first wends the germans referred to was these Vindelici people

[MOESAN]

Continueing from my post 37 - I have concluded that the celts where the old Vindelici people made of about 8 tribes, which resided north of the raeti of western Austria. They where between the lech and windo rivers in southern germany, there capital being modern Augsburg.
They where not Germanic but only purely celtic.
The long linguistic text on the Raetic language has some clues in it in regards to this
http://www.mek.oszk.hu/05100/05110/05110.pdf

As they where pushed southward by the Germanic Macromanni and Quadi tribes coming down from the north , their language adapted and fused with firstly the raeti and then with the illyro-lusitanian language, lastly they influenced the gallic ligures tribes of northern Italy.
Later still they absorbed the northern illyrian people of eastern austria and started there balkan adventure.

So, they are Vindelici who spoke celtic and had the la tene culture





Ptolomey (100-160 AD) says that the river Lech separated the Vindelici and Rhaetians. The Northern Vindelici were known as the Runicati, Leuni, Consuanti, Benlauni, Breuni, and by the river Lech, the Licati. The towns in Vindelicia were Boiodurum (Passau), Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), Carrodunum, Abudiacum (Epfach), Cambodunum (Kempten), Medullum, and Inutrium.⁴⁵

I read that the word bavaria is from the vindelici while the germanic name is Bayern.

Also, since the name Vindelici arrives friome a mix of the celtic Windo and the lech river, I wonder if the first wends the germans referred to was these Vindelici people

Well!
What is the definition of celtic and gallic differences, and the links tying illyrian and lusitanian?
Could you provide us some list of words establishing these facts?
thanks beforehand

[zanipolo]

Well!
What is the definition of celtic and gallic differences, and the links tying illyrian and lusitanian?
Could you provide us some list of words establishing these facts?
thanks beforehand

illyro-Lusitinian, Illyro-Venetic, Illyro-Roman, Thraco-Illyrian, Italic-celtic etc etc are terms used to describe the influences of these languages with each other over certain areas in which they jointly merged.

Yes, what is the definition or differences between gallic and celtic ..........I asked this question many times.

Do you think that celtic was spoke in gaul prior to the la tene culture?

How old is the gallic nations/tribes in ancient Gaul?

The Ligurians ( Ligures ) of all of North Italy in the bronze age where gallic people, did they speak celtic.?
Please advise.....I am very curious

regards

[MOESAN]

illyro-Lusitinian, Illyro-Venetic, Illyro-Roman, Thraco-Illyrian, Italic-celtic etc etc are terms used to describe the influences of these languages with each other over certain areas in which they jointly merged.

Yes, what is the definition or differences between gallic and celtic ..........I asked this question many times.

Do you think that celtic was spoke in gaul prior to the la tene culture?

How old is the gallic nations/tribes in ancient Gaul?

The Ligurians ( Ligures ) of all of North Italy in the bronze age where gallic people, did they speak celtic.?
Please advise.....I am very curious

regards

it is pleasant: you answer my questions by other questions: Jesuistic influence? (joke!)
your namings are confusing for me: influences of languages on other languages give not way to a 50-50 new language in the most of cases, because the language that loans some words, as an habit, keep on with its grammatical structures, so creating names as Illyrian-'something-ic' or 'something-ian' appears to me leading to misundertsanding and history mistakes as the impression there was something like an 'Illyrian Empire' in ancient Europe-
'gallic' and 'celtic', when speaking about tribes and not about languages classification, are a "doublet" or synonyms: Romans called Gallia a big territory where the Celts was the more numerous peoples - it seams that they name themsleves 'Celts' - maybe the eastern Galati was an other kind of celtic speaking people, as Belgae - aside of the Aquitanians and surely some remnants of Ligurians and Greek coastal colonies, the most of Gallia was celtic speaking tribes of Bronze and Iron ages, and we can IMAGINE (no proof for now) that a lot of the Bronze Ages tribes was speaking a kind of Qw- celtic language, not exlcuding, as in the Alps, some remnants in remote corners of aother old western I-E language akin to ligurian or lusitanian or... (I imagine, I DO NIT KNOW for the moment) - Even in Aquitania in Roman times the celtic tribes was infiltred bewteen aquitanian tribes-
I have no time just now but I shall try to find some details about "Gaulish Tribes" in today France and surroundings;
and: never heard speak about italian Ligurians = Gallic people???
!Have a good meal! Debrit gant kalon! ("eat with heart")

[zanipolo]

it is pleasant: you answer my questions by other questions: Jesuistic influence? (joke!)
your namings are confusing for me: influences of languages on other languages give not way to a 50-50 new language in the most of cases, because the language that loans some words, as an habit, keep on with its grammatical structures, so creating names as Illyrian-'something-ic' or 'something-ian' appears to me leading to misundertsanding and history mistakes as the impression there was something like an 'Illyrian Empire' in ancient Europe-
'gallic' and 'celtic', when speaking about tribes and not about languages classification, are a "doublet" or synonyms: Romans called Gallia a big territory where the Celts was the more numerous peoples - it seams that they name themsleves 'Celts' - maybe the eastern Galati was an other kind of celtic speaking people, as Belgae - aside of the Aquitanians and surely some remnants of Ligurians and Greek coastal colonies, the most of Gallia was celtic speaking tribes of Bronze and Iron ages, and we can IMAGINE (no proof for now) that a lot of the Bronze Ages tribes was speaking a kind of Qw- celtic language, not exlcuding, as in the Alps, some remnants in remote corners of aother old western I-E language akin to ligurian or lusitanian or... (I imagine, I DO NIT KNOW for the moment) - Even in Aquitania in Roman times the celtic tribes was infiltred bewteen aquitanian tribes-
I have no time just now but I shall try to find some details about "Gaulish Tribes" in today France and surroundings;
and: never heard speak about italian Ligurians = Gallic people???
!Have a good meal! Debrit gant kalon! ("eat with heart")

Well lets clear this up.

The ligurians in the bronze age contolled all of north italy with there different tribes, there "super" tribes where, taurini in NW ( piemonte) Insubres ( lombardy) and Eugenai ( veneto+friuli)...........all are noted as being Gallic tribes. The Veneti and Etruscans ( to name 2 ) are not originally from Italy.
So, if you say gallic = celtic, that means all north italy must be celtic people..........I say gallic and celtic are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euganei

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...tribes&f=false

So, to me it makes sense to not make celtic= gallic or else history is distorted

[MOESAN]

Well lets clear this up.

The ligurians in the bronze age contolled all of north italy with there different tribes, there "super" tribes where, taurini in NW ( piemonte) Insubres ( lombardy) and Eugenai ( veneto+friuli)...........all are noted as being Gallic tribes. The Veneti and Etruscans ( to name 2 ) are not originally from Italy.
So, if you say gallic = celtic, that means all north italy must be celtic people..........I say gallic and celtic are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euganei

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...tribes&f=false

So, to me it makes sense to not make celtic= gallic or else history is distorted

to make the debate clearer (perhaps):
1- we know that the I-E newcomers was sometimes only a scarce elite, sometimes an heavier group of tribes but that never in W-Europe they expelled or drown the previous autochtonous populations (alpine and atlantic ones ), so every time crossings and mixture occurred in various proportions - this is for the genetic aspect -
2- Ligurians appear having occupied for the most the lands between W-Alps and Mediterranea - in Italy before Roman times they occupied S-Piemonte, modern "Liguria", the W-Appenines and Toscana, and surely they had some settlements southernmore - I never heard (I know it is not a proof) of Ligurians at the top of society in N-C or N-E Italy before today -
3- Concerning cultural linguistic aspect, we know that CELTIC = GALLIC tribes was mixed with Ligurians tirbes in the french Alps, so never the name of "gallic" was attributed to Ligurians by scientists - surely some Ancient did some mistake but ...
4- We have no proof of a very different strata of celtic or near-celtic language in N-Italy in Antiquity, dividing a celtic from a 'gallic' language - maybe have you some precise elements on that? the supposed (for strong enough evidence) Celts of N-Italy occupied valleys, the most in Central North Italy (today Lombardia), and some of them get down until Romagna (E-C Italy) in Roman times; was they "pure" Celts, I don't know and I don't care too much because we are speaking about cultural ethnic questions here - never was they considered as occupying the W-N and W-C Italy, old territories of Ligurians - an influence of ligurian habits on their language? Maybe?...
&: we have 2 placenames (at east) in western France & romance Brittany containing Jaille that is considered as a cognate of Gallia: so at roman times the celt territory was named Gallia too by the Latins, being the same thing as Celtia for Celts...
5- We both agree that the etruscan question occurred later, ans that the typical cultural etruscan element was a scarce elite from maybe Anatolia, maybe Near-Eastern and has nothing to do with the celtic-gallic equation -

[Yetos]

I think the terminology is Celts as the family of smaller tribes,

I mean Gauls are Celts, but all Celts are not Gauls,

Greeks even today name France as Γαλλια Gallia due to the South-Central parts of France, and not after Francais,

Its like Germans and Deutsch Dutch Scands Goths etc,
all the above are Germanic but not Deutsch,

[zanipolo]

to make the debate clearer (perhaps):
1- we know that the I-E newcomers was sometimes only a scarce elite, sometimes an heavier group of tribes but that never in W-Europe they expelled or drown the previous autochtonous populations (alpine and atlantic ones ), so every time crossings and mixture occurred in various proportions - this is for the genetic aspect -
2- Ligurians appear having occupied for the most the lands between W-Alps and Mediterranea - in Italy before Roman times they occupied S-Piemonte, modern "Liguria", the W-Appenines and Toscana, and surely they had some settlements southernmore - I never heard (I know it is not a proof) of Ligurians at the top of society in N-C or N-E Italy before today -
3- Concerning cultural linguistic aspect, we know that CELTIC = GALLIC tribes was mixed with Ligurians tirbes in the french Alps, so never the name of "gallic" was attributed to Ligurians by scientists - surely some Ancient did some mistake but ...
4- We have no proof of a very different strata of celtic or near-celtic language in N-Italy in Antiquity, dividing a celtic from a 'gallic' language - maybe have you some precise elements on that? the supposed (for strong enough evidence) Celts of N-Italy occupied valleys, the most in Central North Italy (today Lombardia), and some of them get down until Romagna (E-C Italy) in Roman times; was they "pure" Celts, I don't know and I don't care too much because we are speaking about cultural ethnic questions here - never was they considered as occupying the W-N and W-C Italy, old territories of Ligurians - an influence of ligurian habits on their language? Maybe?...
&: we have 2 placenames (at east) in western France & romance Brittany containing Jaille that is considered as a cognate of Gallia: so at roman times the celt territory was named Gallia too by the Latins, being the same thing as Celtia for Celts...
5- We both agree that the etruscan question occurred later, ans that the typical cultural etruscan element was a scarce elite from maybe Anatolia, maybe Near-Eastern and has nothing to do with the celtic-gallic equation -

Italians historians say these are ancient ligurians lands of th ebronze age




invasions of Italy in late bronze age


The Julian alps = the eastern alps and that was the border of the euganei which are a branch of the ligurians who in turn are gallic


so the question still stands , is gallic = celtic, if so then north italy is Celtic.
If so, why then if gallic = celtic is proto-celtic starting point not any where except for southern Germany?

[MOESAN]

to Yetos:
I was speaking about the endonyme Celt(s) not the general linguistic meaning 'celtic' - for me until today I never heard speaking of a clear distinction separating Galli from Celti -
to Zanipolo: thanks for your map but it is not too informative - for me (my readings) at middle Bronze Age, there was a difference between N-E Italy (Balkanic influenced peoples, culturally and phenotypically, maybe false informations?) and the remnant of N-Italy ; but Bronze Age dured a long time, so if Eugenai was celtic, yes, Celts was occupying the whole N-Italy at some time -
and Yes all the tribes you mention was celtic according to old scholars - it there are news on the field, please, give me some links -
the question of proto-celtic cradle cannot be answered by the gallic-celtic equation (or non equation, according to you) - the tumuli culture of S-Germany seam to archeologs the very possible point of melting and cristallization giving birth to first determined celtic culture and language among a more vaste Western -I-E group of cultures with close "brother" or "uncle" languages but it is only the previous more evident solution - I have no pretention to confirm or infirm it at this stage of my knowledge...some could suggest that Y-R1b-L21 and Atlantic groups could have been older Qw- celtic and Y-R1b-U152 dominant Alps groups P- celtic: just an hypothesis made by someones here and that I find interesting (in this case successors of Ligurians {and Ligurians themselves} could have been more U152 than L21) - the new theories about Tartessos are an alternative but they have to be more effectively proved, for I think -

[MOESAN]

just about gaelic-brittonic
Semantic concepts compared :
man (human) – man (male) – woman – father – mother – son – daughter – brother – sister – child – animal – beast – donkey – stag/hart – hind:doe – horse/stallion – mare – foal – bull – cow – ox – calf – pig – sheep – ram – ewe – gaot(she) – he-gaot – cock – hen – duck – cat – mouse – rat – dog – bear – wolf – fox – hare – rabbit – bird – egg – snake – fish - body - leather – head – back – neck - arm – hand – fist – finger - leg – thigh - foot – belly – bossom/breast – breast/chest - heart - eye – ear – nose – mouth - tooth – beard - meat/flesh – skin - blood – head hair/body hair – bone – lever – day – night – year - world - earth - sky/heaven – sun - moon – wind – rain – snow - grass – tree – wood/firest – wood-timber - flower – water – fire – sea – lake - mountain – stone – rock – river – coast – island – metal – iron – steel – copper – gold – silver – colour – black – white – yellow – blue – red – green – good – hot/warm – cold – sweet/soft – hard – nice/beautiful – great/big – thick – small – high – low – wide/broad – long – heavy – young – old – new – true – full – dry - blind – deaf – house – door – apple – meal/flour – milk - salt – wool – shit – name – to be – to see – to look at - to ear – to listen to - to eat – to drink – to sleep – to swim – to drown – to kill – to give – to take – to fly – to say – to believe – to come – to go – to run - to think – to bake – to jump/to hop -


some replacements mask old common origins and increase arbitrary the number of pseudo-differences in lexic:
hare bret- gad, wlsh- ysgyfarnog : but bret- skouarneg : with big ears ! -
some semantical evolutions too (changing sex, generation, race...):
gael- damh = ox >< bret- dañvad, wlsh- dafad = sheep -
bret- maout = ram = gael- molt >< + wlsh mollt = wether (fr- mouton)
some loans too :
fish : lat- pisc- >> bret- pesk, wlsh- pysg-, but gaul- isca – gael- iasc -
some surely older losts :
lat- pater- = father = gael- athair >< bret-/wlsh- tad (rom- tat-) but gaul- ater + atta fostering « father » : maternal uncle???-
gael- caoradh = sheep >< bret- dañvad, wlhs- dafad but : gaul- caerac = ewe


This is only a rough proxi :
The work is not a scholar's one : we can discute some choices of categorization :
short : first column : differences of words for the meaning in cause
second colum : remaining differences when derived words are dropped out
third column : remaining differences when same word roots are found for close enough meanings or when dialectal same words still exist for the same meaning
So the third column illustrate an older stage of language and the remaining differences in it can show a more archaïc stage in one of the languages compared 2 to 2 or more ancient or new loan words – among the chosen concepts there are very very few modern loans (I kept away some doubtfull words exposed to loan as religious terms or too satellized words in these languages) -
I'm surprised to see so apparently isolated words in gaelic for eye, meat, blood, neck, bone, tooth, and moon,sun,world, wind,rain, steel and the majority of the 22 included verbs -
It repeat it is not a scolar's work ! Just trying to find the place of gaelic ; if one can give some links to old irish studies ?

languages pairs	modern distance	mod-dist correct	more ancient
		← derived word	distance
rouman/italian	57	48	38
spanish/italian	37	30	25
portuguese/italian	39	31	25
french/italian	27	18	7
rouman/spanish	64	57	49
rouman/portuguese	65	57	49
rouman/french	57	47	32
spanish/portuguese	14	14	8	-6
spanish/french	45	32	18	-27
portuguese/french	48	39	24	-24
breton/welsh	18	18	7
breton/gaelics	94	86	72
welsh/gaelics	87	80	69