1. Taranis, Can you tell us the difference between *toutai - > Toude (with lenition) > Tude and the first element of Toutatis/Tutatis? The difference between in territorio Lemeto, today A Limia region, (with Celtic suffix -et-: cp. callaecian Nem-et-obriga, gaulish Mog-et-io) and the Gaulish place-name Lemane/Limene? What is the criterion to consider these callaecian forms as non-Celtic?
Churchin does not comment about the existence of non Indo-European languages in NW Hispania. On other hand his etymological proposals labeled as undifferentiatted or uncertain Indo-European have always parallels in other extrapeninsular areas. Luján Martínez's work is not bad, but it is strongly influenced by the University of Salamanca and based on previous criteria. Other better sources exist as Moralejo, Báscuas, Búa, Vallejo, etc. or the own Churchin.
1. I would suggest that you go and read Martinez' paper and individually address the cases that he explicitly referes to as non-Celtic and proposes as non-Indo-European, and demonstrate to why these forms should be Celtic after all according to you. Since Martinez' paper is readily available online, this shouldn't be much of an effort for you. It also makes more sense than insinuating me to a statement that I never made.
2. The Galician-Portuguese olga and ancient Castilian huelga should arrive under Cluniac influences, through the Provençal olca 'ploughed field' or the ancient french dialect of Moselle region olke 'vineyard'. The reason is the hispanic romances can not change the consonantic group -lk- to -lg, then it is a secondary form. Only if it belong to a similar form like the old french dialectal variant olica (in the Formulae Senonenses, c. VIII), we can reconstruct the form olga and huelga: cp. galician place-name A Olga (not A Olca).
See ie, *h2olkeh2- (IEW 32, LIV 236) 'protection, fortification', goth. alhs 'fortified temple ', old english ealgian 'to protect', better to designate an hill fort.
3. The cantabrian place-name Tenobriga have the same ethymology than the galician river name Tea < Tena or galician place-names as Tiobre < (med. Teobre) *teno-brigs, Tebra < *tenebriga, Teis < *tenes, the same word, I think, than La Tène. I have not a secure ethymology about this item, but it is an hydronymyc word: cp too the callaecian god name + incomplet place-name COHVE TENA = COSSUE TENA[ECO?] or TENA[BRI?] (COHUE presents the same solution like old welsh, S > H. Prósper and Bernardo Stempel point this phonetical fact like a new variety of celtic in the Central Callaecia Lucensis).
To me, I'm afraid to say that it appears that you fundamentally reject what should be a self-evident fact on the Iberian peninsula: that in the same general area, we have both names where PIE *p > *p and where PIE *p > Ø. I have brought up a considerable number of example, some which were brought up by yourself a year ago:
Well, perhaps can we explain it like callaecian tribe Arotreba (< from *aretreba), lusitanian. name god Ateraeco (*pateraiko), callaecian placename Olca (< polka) or callaecian LANOBRIGA (< planobriga)?
examples of PIE *p > Ø:
- Gallaecian tribal name "Arotrebae" (< *par-)
- Celtiberian place name "Aregrada" / "Arekoratikos" ( < *pare-)
- place name "Clunia" / "Kolounioku" (< *klepn-)
- place name "Octaviolca": I agree with Curchin's and Martinez's etymology, it makes sense as o-grade derivative of *pelk-, additionally J. Porkorny lists French "ouche" ("meadow", "fallow land") as derived from Celtic *olka.
- place name "Tenobriga" (if Curchin's etymology is correct, which is backed by cognates in both Goidelic and Brythonic. Additionally, this is a cognate with Latin "tepidus", and Russian/Ukrainian "teplij")
- place name "Lama" (as per Martinez: "It would be thus a derivative from lama-, which occurs frequently in Hispanic onomastics, and has been explained by García Alonso (2003: 126) as related to OIr. lám 'hand', from IE *pl̥ma or *plāma, with Celtic loss of initial *p-. ")
examples of *p retained:
- Lusitanian "Porcom" (Cabeço das Fráguas)
- Lusitanian "Porgom" (Lamas de Moledo)
- place name "Pallantia"
- place name "Pintia"
- place name "Segontia Paramica"
- ethnic name "Capori"
- place name "Turuptiana"
we additionally have cases of PIE *kʷ > *p:
- Lusitanian "pumpi" (Ribeira da Venda)
- Lusitanian "puppid" (Arroyo de Luz)
- Lusitanian "petranoi" (Lamas de Moledo)
Unless you believe that sound laws can be in free variation with each other (something which is impossible, because sound laws have no "memory""), it should be clear that such an arrangement cannot have developed in-situ. One of the two strata must be foreign-introduced element that developed elsewhere, whereas the others must be regarded as an autochtonous, earlier development.
Kortlandt, a great specialist in Germanic languages of the century XXI and not of 1820, affirms that the Germanic is strongly influenced by a finno-ugrian substrate and it can explain its consonantal and vocalic instability.
I severely disagree with Kortlandt's assessment: the idea that a non-Indo-European substrate is responsible for the First Germanic Sound Shift (Grimm's Law) can be easily refuted. As you should be aware, there is a substantial amount of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic, and virtually all of these occured either
before or during the sound shift. Virtually scholars on the topic agree that the First Germanic Sound Shift cannot have happened before the early iron age in Northern Europe (ca. 500 BC, most notably, the word "iron" itself is a borrowing from Celtic!), and other authors (Euler) suggest that the sound shift didn't occur until the 1st century BC. In this context I recommend Wolfram Euler (2009) "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen" ("language and origin of the Germanic peoples").
You're also the first person ever to label Grimm's Law a "consonantal instability".
You're still not fond of the very concept of sound laws, are you?
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?
There is no such "emergence". The cultures that predated the Urnfield Culture in Central Europe (from the Corded Ware period onward, likely) were all likely Indo-European. From where should such non-Indo-European peoples suddenly show up from in Central Europe? Did they use teleporters?
Then we have Venneman and followers with his vasconica-semitica theory.
I don't think anybody really takes Vennemann seriously on that issue. Especially, you should be aware that Vennemann's position (the idea of a Vasconic substrate in the entire Atlantic region) is, something that is also in conflict with the observations by Martinez and Curchin.
Why was not the RSFO affected by similar languages as the neighboring Raetian (f.ex. the germanic runic alphabet derives from one of these Tyrsenian alphabet)
That is clearly a strawman argument: the Etruscans and the Raeti were not the only ones using these alphabet (notably, both the Lepontic and Gaulish inscriptions from northern Italy / the Alps were written in variants of the Etruscan alphabet). By your logic, the Greeks spoke a Semitic language because they adopted their alphabet from the Phoenician one and the Phoenicians spoke a Semitic language. Besides, there is no evidence for Etruscan- or Etruscan-like languages (Raetian in the proper sense) in the Rhine-/western Switzerland / eastern France region, as these are only found in the region of South Tyrol. The Tyrsenian-speaking peoples were certainly not autochthonous to Italy or the Alps (let alone Central Europe!) but arrived from the Mediterranean (cf. Herodotus: The Histories 1.94, and also compare the
Lemnos stelae).
Also, as I would reiterate, the Tyrsenian languages very much possessed the phoneme *p but lacked the phoneme *b, so a Raetic substrate as an explanation for the loss of *p in Celtic can be eliminated, anyways.
And, where the Iberian culture come from with its urnfield features? From the north, is not?
I find the idea that the Iberians came originally from Central Europe absolutely unreconcilable with the evidence of Iberian place names: characteristic of them is the prefix *ili- or *iltir-, which may be a cognate with modern Basque "hiri" (meaning "town", "city"), as well as the suffix "-sken". If you look at the distribution, they can be found across a very large arc from the Languedoc to eastern Andalusia. The Urnfield Culture clearly never reached Andalusia, yet the Iberian language was there. Some examples:
- "Illiberre" (Ptolemy, Tabula Peutingeriana, modern Elne)
- "Ilerda" (Ptolemy, Itinerarium Antonini, modern Lleida, Iberian mint "Iltirta")
- "Iliberris" (Ptolemy, Itinerarium Antonini, modern Granada)
- "Ilipa" (Itinerarium Antonini, near Seville)
- "Iliturgi" (Itinerarium Antonini, near Mengíbar, Andalusia, Latin mint "Iliturgi")
- "Urci" (near Cuevas del Almanzora, Iberian mint "Urkesken")
If you were correct, we should not find any traces of Iberian language in Andalusia, and conversely we should find traces of Iberian language north of the Languedoc. We don't. What does that tell you about the association between Urnfield and the Iberian language?
In summary, the very existence of non-Indo-European substrate that you see in central and north-west Europe as the source of the Celtic loss of PIE *p is spurious at best.
Now, I'd like to pick up again on this:
Why not the bell-beakers? From the hydronimyc names to the celtic languages there is a long way, is not?
If the Beaker-Bell Culture really spoke Proto-Celtic, where is your Celtic substrate in North Africa, on Sardinia and Sicily?