Ancient place names in Iberia

Status
Not open for further replies.
UUfff...How many times must i repeat the same: UXAMA, USSAMA, U.S.A.M.A is the same word that you see in callaecian USEIS (identical celtiberian U.S.E.I.Z.U).

Because it's not the same. If it was "Ussama" in Celtiberian, it would have been rendered as "Ussama" or "Usama" in Roman sources. But for a strange reason, it's "Uxama", which somehow suggests that in Celtiberian, just like other Celtic languages, *ps, *pt > *xs, *xt.

And again, why is it not Parevaci?

Really, have you read the lepontic inscriptions? PALA means 'stone tumulus'

Could you cite a source for that? I'm not inventing etymologies. Check out a Welsh dictionary. Or check out this.
 
Too much info Taranis. Looks like you overloaded callaeca's brain. :) ...incoherent weird sounds only mixed with psychedelic laughter of denial.
 
No. Cognate exists in Welsh, 'Pal' ('spade'). The Proto-Celtic form would be reconstructed as 'Kwal-'

Interesting...in Old and New Venetian language a spade means Pala. ..............hmmm mind boggles
 
Last edited:
A great applause for Mr. Taranis, LeBrok, for his limited and poor knowledge of celtology. To make affirmations without references, for his ignorance about the phonetic development in the celto-Hispanic dialects. For his wonderful and spectacular list, mixing celtiberians, callaecians, lusitanians and vettonians towns, mixing nonIndo-European roots with Indo-European.

A great applause, LeBrok, for his great knowledge of lepontic, in which he does not know the meaning of the word, PALA, a funerary monument, (a grave stone), that you can see recorded over 15 times and a special applause when he considers VXAMA, USSAMA and U.S.A.M.A as different realisations, when they are the same: today Osma, not Oxma; and in which he is incapable to distinguish the phonetic evolution, admitted by all the authors: ps > ks > ss > s, and whose last evolutionary step is observed in Cantabrian and callaecian VSEIS (< *upseis).

A strong applause when he uses obsolete terms, like lusitano-callaecian language (U. Schmoll, 1956), but only tellding half the truth, (if it is true that he has read U. Schmoll which, by the way, considers protoceltic these western hispanic languages), or he makes mistakes with the term 'lusitanian-callaecian area', where we can distinguish five dialects: lusitanian, vettonian, vaccean, astur and callaecian.

A great applause for the lack of culture, LeBrok, yes. An applause too, for saying what he said without knowing exactly the significance, this is the way LeBrok.

For you LeBrok, for your faithful servility whose practices antiscience, this Spanish proverb:

‘En el país de los ciegos, el tuerto es el rey’
 
Last edited:
Callaeca, I don't mind that you disagree with me, but I would hereby like to endorse you to mind your language in future.

In the meantime I would like you to take a few looks at some files:
on the Celtiberian language
on the language(s) of the Gallaecians
on the Lusitanian language
on Celtic sound laws in general

So Revo could be *Dyeus! And Gallaecian could be somewhere between Lusitanian and the other Celtic languages... I begin to wonder, could one speak of an "Atlantic Dialect Continuum" at this time?
 
So Revo could be *Dyeus! And Gallaecian could be somewhere between Lusitanian and the other Celtic languages... I begin to wonder, could one speak of an "Atlantic Dialect Continuum" at this time?

That's the question: is it a dialect continuum or a linguistically heterogenous area? Take three examples:

'Pintia' (from *Penkwe) retains *p before *kw, and must be assumed as non-Celtic (indeed non-Italo-Celtic, compare Latin 'Quintus'), unless you assume that at least parts of Gallaecia were P-Celtic (*kw > *p). However, P-Celtic can be ruled out by the fact that there are no Gallaecian words attested with *p where *p would correspond to PIE *kw. Hence, Non-Celtic is more likely.

'Quaquerni' (*p > *kw before *kw) is compatible with Celtic, but by no means necessarily Celtic.

'Arotrebae' is undoubtably Celtic (*p > Ø)

So, the only sensible explanation I see here is that we are talking about a non-homogenous area.
 
1-- Why you say that PINTIA is a Callaecian word, if it has examples in Celtiberia, in Vettonia or in Cantabria?

Are you sure that querquernii become of ie. *perkwo-? Then how can you explain celtiberian PERKUNETA?.

Why do you believe that AROTREBAE comes from *pare- preposition? It must be 'the place of the Ari'. There is a place name called Aros in this area, and it is known that some plural acusatives are old tribal representations: cf. Lemos < LEMAVOS, Tribes > TRIBUROS, Cobres < COBIRES, Céltigos (4) < CELTICOS.

2-- About the preservative ie. *p how can you explain it in the lepontic system: cf. lep. kaputus/call. capori?

3-- It results that the two oldest celtic dialects, lepontic and celto-hispanic have *p (looks that my teacher Stifter thinks about it: 'celtiberian: paramus??
 
1-- Why you say that PINTIA is a Callaecian word, if it has examples in Celtiberia, in Vettonia or in Cantabria?

Well, the term occurs in Gallaecia. It's not exclusively Gallaecian, as you said.

Are you sure that querquernii become of ie. *perkwo-? Then how can you explain celtiberian PERKUNETA?.

Can you cite a source for this 'Perkuneta'? Do you mean 'Bercunetacam' occuring in the Botorrita inscription I?

In any case, the sound law *p > *kw before *kw is well attested in Irish and Latin.

Old Irish 'Cóic', Modern Irish 'Cúig' Scots Gaelic 'Còig'.
Latin 'Quinque', French 'Cinq', Spanish 'Cinco'.

As I mentioned, this is a sound law that clearly predates Proto-Celtic.

Why do you believe that AROTREBAE comes from *pare- preposition? It must be 'the place of the Ari'. There is a place name called Aros in this area, and it is known that some plural acusatives are old tribal representations: cf. Lemos < LEMAVOS, Tribes > TRIBUROS, Cobres < COBIRES, Céltigos (4) < CELTICOS.

...to quote the second link I provided:

2. A(r)rotrebae (Str. III 3.5, Pliny NH IV 111, 114). They are also frequently called Artabri (Str. III 2.9 etc., Mela III 13, Agathem. IV 16, Ptol. II 6.2, 21). If the correct form is Arotrebae, as Pliny NH IV 114 explicitly argues, we would have here a compound of are- (with loss of the initial IE *p) plus a form of the stem *treb- 'live in, inhabit'.

In other words, I'm not the only one who thinks that.

2-- About the preservative ie. *p how can you explain it in the lepontic system?

Note that the letter P is not used to express this but Etruscan V (ie, 'Uvamokozis'). It's possible that this indeed represented *φ (it clearly didn't represent *p!), which is what we would expect with early Proto-Celtic, if the development *p > *φ > *h > Ø is assumed to be correct.

In any case, the loss of *p is clearly attested also in Celtic names from the Iberian peninsula (Arevaci, Aregelae, Arotrebae, Ocativiolca, etc. - you also yourself provided the example of an instance of Toutatis from Gallaecia). I mentioned that there are cases where *p isn't lost through complete disappearance, but otherwise. The example I gave for that is *ps, *pt > *xs, *xt, but the fourth link I provided gives other examples, but these always appear in the context of other consonants. Initial *p- is consistently lost. The conclusion from that is any occurences of initial *p- in the Hispano-Celtic context must be of a different origin.
 
Last edited:
1. Then, *pent-/*pint- is celto-hispanic, isn't?
2. About PERKUNETA see Fco. Adrados, 'Propuestas para la interpretación de Botorrita I', Emerita 63, 1995, p. 5 ss., or P. de Bernardo Stempel, “La ley del 1er Bronce de Botorrita:Uso agropecuario de un encinar sagrado”, nº 10 en: F. Burillo Mozota (ed.), VI Simposio sobre Celtíberos.
3. The prep. ie*pare- > gaul. are-, celtib. are-, but no a celtic **aro-. Arotrebae can not belong to this system because all western hispanic languages preseve *p. There is an exceptional example in callaecian ABOBRIGA/AVOBRIGA/AOBRIGA , but we can explain it best if we think an etimology from celt. *awo-/*awe-, where it loss /w/.
4. OLCA does not come from ie, *polka. Spanish (huelga) and galician (olga) are a midlle age galicism (olgue), because de consonantic group -lc- can not derive in -lg- in our current languages. It comes from ie. *wlka- 'wolf' like gaul. OLCADES.
5. I ask you the same question that i made in classes: lepontic words like PIRIKIO, PIAMI, PAZROS, KEPUTUS, KEPI, PELESI and a lot of them, how can you explain it?, or call. EN CAPORI (but personal name CABVRI)/lepontic KAPUTUS; call. PELCIVS/lepontic PELKUI, celto-hispanic APANUS/lepontic APIOS, is it not the same?

About REVE < *dyeus it is rule out.
 
1. Then, *pent-/*pint- is celto-hispanic, isn't?

I don't see how.

2. About PERKUNETA see Fco. Adrados, 'Propuestas para la interpretación de Botorrita I', Emerita 63, 1995, p. 5 ss., or P. de Bernardo Stempel, “La ley del 1er Bronce de Botorrita:Uso agropecuario de un encinar sagrado”, nº 10 en: F. Burillo Mozota (ed.), VI Simposio sobre Celtíberos.

The Celtiberian script doesn't distinguish between /b/ or /p/.

3. The prep. ie*pare- > gaul. are-, celtib. are-, but no a celtic **aro-. Arotrebae can not belong to this system because all western hispanic languages preseve *p. There is an exceptional example in callaecian ABOBRIGA/AVOBRIGA/AOBRIGA , but we can explain it best if we think an etimology from celt. *awo-/*awe-, where it loss /w/.

I think you're making a fallacy now because you somehow ad-hoc assume that *p must not have been lost despite contrary evidence, which I provided, and you yourself even admitted.

4. OLCA not comes from ie, *polka. It is a midlle age galicism in spanish (huelga) and galician (olga) languages, because de consonantic group -lc- can not derive in -lg- in our current languages. It comes from wºlka 'wolf' like gaul. OLCADES.

'Octaviolca' is mentioned by Ptolemy, 2nd century AD.

5. I ask you the same question that i made in classes: lepontic words like PIRIKIO, PIAMI, PAZROS, KEPUTUS, KEPI, PELESI and a lot of them or call. EN CAPORI (but personal name CABVRI)/lepontic KAPUTUS; call. PELCIVS/lepontic PELKUI, celto-hispanic APANUS/lepontic APIOS, is it not the same?

You have to consider that the Etruscan alphabet used by the Lepontii didn't distinguish between /b/ or /p/: for example "Pelcius"/"Pelkui" is actually "Belgius"/"Belgui". This one of the reasons why a "P" doesn't automatically mean *p inherited from PIE. You have to look at what the sound really corresponds to. This is why sound correspondence is important.
 
1-- well, if we can find *pent- derivates in all indo-europeans dialects of Hispania...then, what are we talking about?

2-- if you are in disagreement with celtiberian transcription of Adrados, Jordan, Prosper, Untermann, Ballester, Wodtko, etc, then you can write a new theory;

3-- equally for lepontic transcriptions, you must write a letter to these investigator to say that they are mistaken:
- Alessandro Morandi, Celti d'Italia. A cura di Paola Piana Agostinetti. Tomo II: Epigrafia e lingua dei Celti d'Italia [= Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica 12.2], Roma: Spazio Tre 2004;
- Patrizia Solinas, "Il Celtico in Italia", Studi Etruschi 60 (1994 [1995]), 311-408;
- Maria Grazia Tibiletti Bruno, "Il Mondo Culturale di Comum", Memorie dell'Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere 30/3 (1969), 167-315;
- Angela Deodato, Elena Poletti Ecclesia, "???", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (Ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999.
- Filippo Maria Gambari, "Le Iscrizioni Vascolari della Necropoli", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (Ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999, 387-395.
- etc, etc.

For example, in Patrick Sims-Williams, 2000: Pelcui.

4-- Well, it is not a fallacy. Really, there is not evidence that *p (except with the group pl- and -ps-) is loss in all of the western and northern dialects, and this phenomenon is observable too in a great number of celtiberian ítems. About this, I can believe that the call. name of god VERORE contains the prep. ie. *super-, or the call. personal name VEROBLIUS, but i do not think it is plausible.

**aro- can not come from ie. *pare- and there is not an alternative *paro-

5-- About OLCA: C. Búa 'Thesaurus Palaeocallaecus', Verba 58, Dieter Kremer ed., 2007. pp. 23-24, where he proposes the etimology alternative ie. *h2olkeh2- 'fortification'.

And remember: Stifter: celtiberian p - paramus?

Where the ie. *p persist, we can talk about a best indo-europeisation. The lack of ie *p is a clear substratic anomaly in continental celtic, where the indo-european language had a secondary insertion. In the case and context of the continental celtic, via Liguria-Lepontica
 
1-- well, if we can find *pent- derivates in all indo-europeans dialects of Hispania...then, what are we talking about?

If 'Pintia' indeed is a cognate with PIE *Penkwe, there are two ways for this to yield *p: either one assumes that in any of the IE languages on the Iberian penninsula, then either they diverged before the Italo-Celtic sound law (*p > *kw before *kw) emerged, or you have a language where *kw becomes *p (as in Gaulish or Brythonic). The latter is prettymuch impossible for Celtiberian and Gallaecian because *kw is clearly attested (Celtiberian '-kue', compare Latin '-que' and Gallaecian 'Quaquerni'). Regardless of that, you still seem to be assuming somehow that these are just dialectic variations of the same language, which I really don't see (Lusitanian, might be...). It's utterly impossible, and the only viable solution I see is that you have to assume a linguistically non-homogenous area.

2-- if you are in disagreement with celtiberian transcription of Adrados, Jordan, Prosper, Untermann, Ballester, Wodtko, etc, then you can write a new theory;

I'm not in any disagreement. All transliterations I have seen so far of the Botorrita inscriptions (including this) transliterate it as /b/. Likewise here. Even Wikipedia does.

3-- equally for lepontic trancriptions, you must write a letter to these investigator to say that they are mistaken:
- Alessandro Morandi, Celti d'Italia. A cura di Paola Piana Agostinetti. Tomo II: Epigrafia e lingua dei Celti d'Italia [= Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica 12.2], Roma: Spazio Tre 2004;
- Patrizia Solinas, "Il Celtico in Italia", Studi Etruschi 60 (1994 [1995]), 311-408;
- Maria Grazia Tibiletti Bruno, "Il Mondo Culturale di Comum", Memorie dell'Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere 30/3 (1969), 167-315;
- Angela Deodato, Elena Poletti Ecclesia, "???", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (Ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999.
- Filippo Maria Gambari, "Le Iscrizioni Vascolari della Necropoli", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (Ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999, 387-395.
- etc, etc.

For example, in Patrick Sims-Williams, 2000: Pelcui.

Frankly, I don't need to do this. It should be evident from Lepontic orthography. Unless you can show me cases of 'P' in Lepontic corresponding to *p in PIE (as opposed to *kw, *b or *bh, which I would expect), I see now reason to assume whatsoever to assume that Lepontic did indeed inherit *p from PIE.

4-- Well, it is not a fallacy. Really, there is not evidence that *p (except with the group pl- and -ps-) is loss in all of the western and northern dialects, and this phenomenon is observable too in a great number of celtiberian ítems. About this, I can believe that the call. name god VERORE contains the prep. ie. *super-, or the call. personal name VEROBLIUS, but i do not think it is plausible.

Ver- (or transliterated as 'Uer-') exists throughout Celtiberian inscriptions, it occurs three times in Botorrita I, and five times in Botorrita III. The Proto-Celtic form is reconstructed as Uφer-, and the form in Celtiberian is identical to Gaulish (compare Vercingetorix!).

5-- About OLCA: C. Búa 'Thesaurus Palaeocallaecus', Verba 58, Dieter Kremer ed., 2007. pp. 23-24, where he proposes the etimology alternative ie. *h2olkeh2- 'fortification'.

Well, it's possible. It doesn't change anything about the other instances of *p > Ø, however.
 
Well, how can you explain the celtiberian clan PINTOLANC(OM)(Candeleda, Ávila: HEp 4, 1994, 128 = AE 1976, 344) and the celtiberians personal names like PENTASVS, PENTIC(I), PENTILIA, PENTIVS, PENTOVIVS (3).

Well, how can you explain the celtiberians transcriptions PANTR[ (K.3.12) or APILIKO (K.8.1), and please, this are, for example, two real transcriptions not like your speculations and generalizations (Stifter, wikipedia), or are you talking about examples like BISTIROS (K.0.11: cf. PISTIRUS), where *p is represented by b?

And yes, VEROBLIS, might be VER-OBILIS, it is, *super-obh-il-is, but *super is not plausible in the western and northern areas of Hispania.

And in the same way, the lepontic examples are reals. I know you don't need nothing, but EXPLAIN THE lepontic word COPLUDO (from the inscription of Remedello) and its links with the celto-hispanic celtib. KonPouTo (or COMPLUTUM), call. COMPLEUTICA, ast. COMPLUTICA, PLEASE.

Where the ie. *p persists, we can talk about a best indo-europeisation. The lack of ie *p is a clear substratic anomaly in continental celtic, where the indo-european language had a secondary insertion. In the case and context of the continental celtic, via Liguria-Lepontica
 
Well, how can you explain the celtiberian clan PINTOLANC(OM)(Candeleda, Ávila: HEp 4, 1994, 128 = AE 1976, 344) and the celtiberians personal names like PENTASVS, PENTIC(I), PENTILIA, PENTIVS, PENTOVIVS (3).

Are you trying to argue that Celtiberian is not an Italo-Celtic language? Or that Celtiberian is P-Celtic?

As I elaborated earlier on the word for 'five', the shift from *p to *kw before *kw is Italo-Celtic:

Old Irish 'Cóic', Modern Irish 'Cúig' Scots Gaelic 'Còig'.
Latin 'Quinque', French 'Cinq', Spanish 'Cinco'.

In P-Celtic languages (Gaulish, Brythonic), *kw that is inherited from Proto-Celtic is shifted to *p:
Gaulish 'Pinpetos', Welsh 'Pump', Breton 'Pemp'

The Celtiberian word for 'five' or 'fifth' is unattested. What is attested is the word for 'tenth', which is 'Decametam' (compare Gaulish 'Decametos'). Since Celtiberian was a Q-Celtic language, it stands to reason that the Celtiberian word would have been something akin to 'kwinkwetam'.

The conclusion is that the form Pent-/Pint- is most probably non-Celtic. It remains the question if these forms are viable as Lusitanian, but I'm not sure of that, either.

Well, how can you explain the celtiberians transcriptions PANTR[ (K.3.12) or APILIKO (K.8.1), and please, this are, for example, two real transcriptions not like your speculations and generalizations (Stifter, wikipedia), or are you talking about examples like BISTIROS (K.0.11: cf. PISTIRUS), where *p is represented by b?

These are not 'speculations and generalizations, compare 'Boustomue' or 'Ambitincounei' (Botorrita I). Unless you're trying to argue that in Celtiberian, *gw > *p, *b > *p?

And yes, VEROBLIS, might be VER-OBILIS, it is, *super-obh-il-is, but *super is not plausible in the western and northern areas of Hispania.

Why is it not plausible? As I mentioned *uφer- > *uer- is attested in Celtiberian.

And in the same way, the lepontic examples are reals. I know you don't need nothing, but EXPLAIN THE lepontic word COPLUDO (from the inscription of Remedello) and its links with the celto-hispanic celtib. KonPouTo (or COMPLUTUM), call. COMPLEUTICA, ast. COMPLUTICA, PLEASE.

It is attested in Gaulish, Irish and Brythonic that *φ > *b before *r or *l at medial positions, though not at initial positions. About Celtiberian and Lepontic, it's hard to say. It's conceivable that *p was preserved before *l at initial positions.

The question that you have to ask yourself is this: does that mean that because *p might be preserved before *l in Celtiberian and Lepontic that *p must have been preserved anywhere else (against all contrary evidence, since we established earlier that *p- > *φ- > Ø, *-p- > *-φ- > Ø also applies in Celtiberian), such as initial or intervocalic positions? Does that automatically mean that we should ditch the concept of sound laws and the concept of sound correspondence? I would say no.

The alternative, which I find also conceivable that it was preserved as *φl- yielded *bl- in Lepontic and Celtiberian (compare 'Bletisama'). Mind you, there are other incidents in Celtiberian where Proto-Celtic *b seemingly yielded *p (Pelendones?).

Where the ie. *p persists, we can talk about a best indo-europeisation. The lack of ie *p is a clear substratic anomaly in continental celtic, where the indo-european language had a secondary insertion. In the case and context of the continental celtic, via Liguria-Lepontica

It's not a 'substratic anomaly' at all. I know that you firmly believe that, and you claimed it over again, but it's clear from the evidence that it's NOT an 'anomaly' but it's a sound change that was regularly conditioned (the loss of *p at initial and intervocalic conditions is attested in Celtiberian and Lepontic as well, which I demonstrated you with multiple examples). Besides, what kind of explanation is it that are you offering there? The Gallaecians were the 'pure', real Indo-Europeans and that the Gauls, Irish, Britons were somehow 'impure' non-Indo-Europeans who couldn't properly speak the language? That is, no offense, a very fishy explanation with a very dubious agenda.

Likewise, do you think that the shift of *p > *f in Germanic is also a 'substratic anomaly'? Do you think Grimm's Law is a substratic anomaly?

The loss of *p is also not only in the context of Continental Celtic but attested in all branches of the Celtic languages. You might even say that it's better attested in Irish, Welsh etc. because these are living languages.

From that perspective, I maintain that it is more plausible to assume that we are talking about a linguistically non-homogenous area. Especially since we have Lusitanian attested, which is (and not only in my opinion!) a clearly non-Celtic language (though I would argue the term 'Para-Celtic' is justified based on the similarities).
 
Last edited:
This is a complex subject that I am just now beginning to grasp. My opinion is that, in Iberia, Celtic language influences emerged sometime in the Bronze Age and spread along the Atlantic Facade through social and commercial exchange. I suspect that the first IE language in the Iberian Peninsula may not have been Lusitanian - considered by most scholars at the moment as Para-Celtic. Celticity may well have surfaced in two different regions, Iberia to Orkney and Central Europe.
 
Last edited:
There is a curious coincidence in names of current Basque village Aia and capital of old Colchis (Georgia) Aia :)
 
That is correct partly Burgundis. Why is the reason for which it is not possible to be considered the lusitanian an initial nucleus of peninsular expansion of the Indo-European language, in the same way that the ligurian seems to be it in the alpine zone and adjacent areas?

The similarities between both languages are evident. Some characteristics of lepontic (cf. *p and lexicon), that have been considered like 'para-celtic' (cf. Lejeune, 1971; Pisani, 1964,) is similar with the lusitanian or divergent with the Gaul (Lejeune 1971, Kruta 1991, Stifter 2008).

However, the lusitanian could be considered (cf. Pena, 2004 and ss. ; Encarnaçâo, 2010) as a diglossical language , an hybrid language, celto-latin, in view of the fact that the later character of the inscriptions, all between centuries II-III a.C.: see inscrip. Aronches: CANTI POMPI AILAECO. It is purely Latin 'splendid canticles to Ailaeco', the use of lat. “scripserunt” or “porcom” (when it exists in adjacent areas the ítems callaec. MOCIO(N) and callaec. MUCOEAICO (m) < *celtic. *mokko-/*mukko- 'pig').

In fact, the bell-beaker diffusion is in direction, from the center Portugal towards Europe by two routes, the Atlantic facade and the settlements in the Rhone estuary (where we can find the ligurian), and later occupying all the extension that we can denominate 'Kektiké'. In the same way the language carry by these elite groups follow this route: cf. 'stellae' in all western Hispania, in SE French, the Alps and Armorica.

Taranis all the celtiberians items have been taken of their original context: K.3.12, K.8.1, etc. . First you must verify it and in the same sense the lepontic items. I have given you a small biography that you do not consider necessary nor to verify, because it is enough for you the self-sufficiency and the generalizations that you can find in Internet.


The item *pent- has extended by all the Indo-European Hispania:
- celtib.:pINTOLANC(OM),PENTASVS, PENTIC(I), PENTILIA, PENTIVS, PENTOVIVS, PENTILICI.
- cantabri: PENTIO, PENTO, PENTIOCOS, PENTOVIECO, PENTOVIO, PINTOVIO.
- lusitania: PENTUS, PINTAMUS, PINTAUIUS.
- vetton.: PENTAUIUS.
- astur.: PENTUS, PINTAIUS, PENTILUS.
- callaec.: PENTAMUS, PENTUS, PINTAMUS.

Evidently, it is a language close to the Indo-European common (eq. celtib PERKUNETAM).

About the lepontic examples like celtiberians (and callaecians too), not only demonstrates items that preseve the original *p, but the graphic change P to B: cf. cantabri PEDACCIANUS, vaccean PEDA, PEDERUS, PEDILICUS, celtiberian PEDA CARI F. •PEDITAGA, PEDACCIANVS, PEDOLVS in front of celtiberian BEDACICI (call. CAPORI/CABVRI/CABARCI). Equally in Southern Gaul we can see *p in oldest items: cf. PIXTILUS, PIXTUGENOS, PICTAVI (or PICTONES): cf. callac. PICTOLANCEA, PITILUS, celtib. PISTIRVS, PISTIROS, PITANA (other gaul. examples: PICOS, PINCIOS, PLATIODANOS, PLAUMORATI = galician lávego < *(p)lavaecus, PLOXENUM, POLOS from ie. *pel-, PLEUMOXII/PLEUXII from ie. *pleu- ).
 
That is correct partly Burgundis. Why is the reason for which it is not possible to be considered the lusitanian an initial nucleus of peninsular expansion of the Indo-European language, in the same way that the ligurian seems to be it in the alpine zone and adjacent areas?

The similarities between both languages are evident. Some characteristics of lepontic (cf. *p and lexicon), that have been considered like 'para-celtic' (cf. Lejeune, 1971; Pisani, 1964,) is similar with the lusitanian or divergent with the Gaul (Lejeune 1971, Kruta 1991, Stifter 2008).

However, the lusitanian could be considered (cf. Pena, 2004 and ss. ; Encarnaçâo, 2010) as a diglossical language , an hybrid language, celto-latin, in view of the fact that the later character of the inscriptions, all between centuries II-III a.C.: see inscrip. Aronches: CANTI POMPI AILAECO. It is purely Latin 'splendid canticles to Ailaeco', the use of lat. “scripserunt” or “porcom” (when it exists in adjacent areas the ítems callaec. MOCIO(N) and callaec. MUCOEAICO (m) < *celtic. *mokko-/*mukko- 'pig').

In fact, the bell-beaker diffusion is in direction, from the center Portugal towards Europe by two routes, the Atlantic facade and the settlements in the Rhone estuary (where we can find the ligurian), and later occupying all the extension that we can denominate 'Kektiké'. In the same way the language carry by these elite groups follow this route: cf. 'stellae' in all western Hispania, in SE French, the Alps and Armorica.

Taranis all the celtiberians items have been taken of their original context: K.3.12, K.8.1, etc. . First you must verify it and in the same sense the lepontic items. I have given you a small biography that you do not consider necessary nor to verify, because it is enough for you the self-sufficiency and the generalizations that you can find in Internet.


The item *pent- has extended by all the Indo-European Hispania:
- celtib.:pINTOLANC(OM),PENTASVS, PENTIC(I), PENTILIA, PENTIVS, PENTOVIVS, PENTILICI.
- cantabri: PENTIO, PENTO, PENTIOCOS, PENTOVIECO, PENTOVIO, PINTOVIO.
- lusitania: PENTUS, PINTAMUS, PINTAUIUS.
- vetton.: PENTAUIUS.
- astur.: PENTUS, PINTAIUS, PENTILUS.
- callaec.: PENTAMUS, PENTUS, PINTAMUS.

Evidently, it is a language close to the Indo-European common (eq. celtib PERKUNETAM).

About the lepontic examples like celtiberians (and callaecians too), not only demonstrates items that preseve the original *p, but the graphic change P to B: cf. cantabri PEDACCIANUS, vaccean PEDA, PEDERUS, PEDILICUS, celtiberian PEDA CARI F. •PEDITAGA, PEDACCIANVS, PEDOLVS in front of celtiberian BEDACICI (call. CAPORI/CABVRI/CABARCI). Equally in Southern Gaul we can see *p in oldest items: cf. PIXTILUS, PIXTUGENOS, PICTAVI (or PICTONES): cf. callac. PICTOLANCEA, PITILUS, celtib. PISTIRVS, PISTIROS, PITANA.

I will not go much into detail, but let me sum this up what: you are claiming essentially that the 'Celtic' languages we find on the Iberian penninsula are not Celtic, not Italo-Celtic essentially close to Proto-Indo-European. By your definition Gaulish, Goidelic, Brythonic and Latin are apparently closer related with each other than Celtiberian, which by your definition shouldn't be a Celtic language at all. I'm sorry but that is completely impossible.

Especially, I have provided you with plenty of evidence that Celtic sound laws very much do apply for the Celtiberian language (*p > Ø, *gw > *b, etc).

I'd also like to point out that just because Lusitanian used the word 'Porcom' doesn't mean it was a Latin word (Porcus). The cognate also exists in the Celtic languages, for example Gaulish 'Orcos', Old Irish *Orc' (piglet). Besides, this is an argument which I already brought earlier.
 
No, Taranis, I did not say that. I have say that is in western Hispania where you can find the oldest peninsular celtic languages, where derive celtiberian, and in the french pre-Alps (Rhone basin) and Alps were you can find the gaulish ancestor, and perhaps of the latin-falisco. About the irish language origin it is not from Spain primarily, but related with the celto-hispanic (the ogamic items are closer to hispano-celta than celtiberian). This is in agreement with the archaeology, anthropology and genetic studies.

When you mention some celtiberian inscription (with iberian alphabet) you must do the reference with K and its number (like the tartessian with the letter J), not with a summarized table of laws that derives fundamentally of what we know about the gaulish. These laws cannot be applied as an absolute law because there are greatest divergences between the celtic dialects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 154624 times.

Back
Top