(Offtopic) Ethnic identity of ancient Alpine peoples

[Sile]

deo tutus, quia Raeti Vindelici ipsi sunt Liburni, saevissimi admodum populi,
contra quos missus est Drusus; hi autem ab Amazonib
us originem ducunt, ut etiam
Horatius dicit “quibus mos unde deductus per omne t
empus Amazonia securi dextras
obarmet, quaerere distuli”. Hoc ergo nunc ad augmen
tum pertinet, quod tutus est etiam
inter saevos populos.

The amazonian is, stated more than once about the Rhaetic people means they used a double bladed axe with a pike on the top for stabbing...........its a north Caucasian "invention"

Safe because the Raeti Vindelici themselves are Liburnians, most cruel peoples,
against whose Drusus was sent. These people, however, take their origin from the
Amazonians, as also Horace says (...). This, therefore, is the reason, why it is mentioned
that he was save even amongst wild peoples.

 

[Nobody1]

Well, in the same manner that you can provide us with Celtic inscriptions from the Hallstatt Culture (hint: there are none, as the Hallstatt people were iliterate).

Why would you need inscriptions from Hallstatt?

The sound shift *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h- is attested in Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, Venetic, etc. - its logical to argue that this feature was present before the languages differentiated. Conversely, its logical to argue that the development *kw > *p happened independently in Celtic, Italic and Greek - or at a point when the language families were already differentiated, as in Celtic the development *kw > *p clearly postdates the loss of Proto-Indo-European *p (this is, again, why Lepontic is a Celtic language), while both the Greek and Italic preserve *p.

Absolutely correct;
Keltic *kw>*p developed after the loss of Indo-European *p and if we assume *kw to be proto-Keltic than Lepontic def. is not; Because acc. to both Clackson and Woodard that development (loss *p) was only 'underway in the Lepontic inscriptions';

Roger Woodard - The Ancient Languages of Europe (2008) Cambridge Uni.
It is possible that early Lepontic continued PIE *p as the bilabial fricative [φ] and preserved PIE *kw in forms such as Kuaśoni; the latter might, however, contain gw from PIE gwh.

Now the development of *kw>*p did not occur collectively in the Keltic languages; Only in Brythonic and Gaulish - and (for the sake of it) Lepontic; But not in Goidelic or Celtiberian which retained kw;

In the Italic branch *kw>*p also *gw>b only developed in the Sabellic languages but not in Latin where *kw remained and *gw>u - (Fortson 2010);

What can I say other than 'Gvozdanovic is wrong about this'? Venetic is closer with the Italic languages (not only the development *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h-, but also the treatment of syllabic resonants, in which by the way is also one of the points why Lepontic in turn is firmly a Celtic language).

Well, if that is the only thing you can say about Gvozdanovic than you might as well just add Gvozdanovic to the list with Clackson and Uhlich as the scholars you disagree with;

On a side note; the Vindelic tribes of the Breuni/Genauni spoke a language identical to Venetic (Historically Mysterious) and thus the language of the Vindelici would also have the development of the voiceless *f- whatever mysterious branch that would be.

I'm sorry, but I thought that was your point, because you gave us that impression by consistently arguing that Lepontic wasn't Celtic (which it is)...

If thats really the case than you truly did get a false impression of my point;

You are wrong (and you're certainly, perhaps even deliberately, misquoting Watkins there), the *p_kw > *kw_kw shift is not attested in either Tocharian (Tocharian A "pänt", Tocharian B "pinkte") or Anatolian.

Neither am i wrong nor did i misquote Watkins - in fact i was not quoting Watkins at all;
You are misrepresenting what i wrote in (post# 33) because we both know exactly that the shared similarities between the Indo-European branches Tocharian, Anatolian, Keltic and Italic (given in my listing) are the r-endings (with Hittite/Tocharian) and the ā-subjunctive (with Tocharian as 1st preterit 2nd subjunctive); And that is what i was referring to;

 

[Nobody1]

Keltic *kw>*p developed after the loss of Indo-European *p and if we assume *kw to be proto-Keltic than Lepontic def. is not; Because acc. to both Clackson and Woodard that development (loss *p) was only 'underway in the Lepontic inscriptions'

The Indo-European *p (which Keltic has lost) is further manifested in the Lepontic inscriptions;

J. Whatmough - Lepontic - Harvard Uni.
(3) The word pala meaning "grave-stone" or the like has an I. Eu. p, which in Keltic is lost, cf. Old Irish all "rock" for *palso- (cf. Latin sepelio, Umb. pelsa-?).

Lepontic gravesstones having the preserved Indo-European *p with /pala/ inscription;
Gravestones from Golasecca-IIIA (Tessin area) - *p inscriptions as late as Golasecca-IIIA;

The fact that Lepontic retained the Indo-European *p makes Lepontic less likely to stem from proto-Keltic and more likely to be a form of proto-Italic for the Italic/Sabellic languages also retained the Indo-European *p; But an even more convincing/striking element is the case of Indo-European word-final *-m;

J. Whatmough - Lepontic - Harvard Uni.
(2) I. Eu. final -m is preserved (e.g. pruiam, uinom) whereas in Keltic it became -n.

The word-final *-m is constraint and replaced by -n in all Indo-European branches except for (Ivanov 1994) Italic (Latin), Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit) and Lepontic; The fact that the word-final *-m was retained in Lepontic as well as Italic (but not in Keltic) further manifests Lepontic to stem from proto-Italic; Which is of course further manifested by the Archaeological Indo-European expansions/migrations of the Bronze-age Urnfield (12th cen BC) proto-Golasecca (Insubres/IsOmbri) and proto-Villanova (Umbrians/Ombri); With Lepontic stemming from the Indo-European proto-Golasecca zone (Uhlich 2007);

And also the much talked about development of Indo-European *bh/*dh/*gh - in Lepontic simply lost their aspiration (Conway 1968) and in Sabellic languages it developed into voiceless fricatives (f-/-f-) both initial and internal - but in Latin *bh/*dh are internal retained with (lost aspiration) as b and d (Bakkum 2009) dative-ablative plural *-bh(i)os is Latin -bus Oscan -fs and Venetic -bos (Hill 2012); As for the Latin initial *bh/*dh/*gh becoming f-/h-;

 

[Taranis]

The Indo-European *p (which Keltic has lost) is further manifested in the Lepontic inscriptions;

J. Whatmough - Lepontic - Harvard Uni.
(3) The word pala meaning "grave-stone" or the like has an I. Eu. p, which in Keltic is lost, cf. Old Irish all "rock" for *palso- (cf. Latin sepelio, Umb. pelsa-?).

Lepontic gravesstones having the preserved Indo-European *p with /pala/ inscription;
Gravestones from Golasecca-IIIA (Tessin area) - *p inscriptions as late as Golasecca-IIIA;

The fact that Lepontic retained the Indo-European *p makes Lepontic less likely to stem from proto-Keltic and more likely to be a form of proto-Italic for the Italic/Sabellic languages also retained the Indo-European *p;

Please. The Lepontic use an alphabet (the Etruscan one) that does not distinguish between 'p' and 'b' (or 'k' and 'g'), as I gave the example of 'Belgui' earlier (which is actually written as 'Pelkui'). Another example would be NO-8 from Oleggio, which has 'RIKANAS' (*rīgana, 'queen', which is demonstrably Celtic as the cognate in Latin is 'rēgina'). The treatment of the syllabic resonant, and additionally development *ē > *ī demonstrates that Lepontic is evidently a Celtic language.

On top of that I would like to dispute that the word *pala- if the etymology is valid (I would like to reminder you that this is not unambiguous, it might as well be *bal-, which in my opinion has multiple viable etymologies in Celtic) or if this isn't a loanword. The word 'pala' is found in Lusitanian, for sure, and Lusitanian also preserves *p, for sure, but I am not convinced that Lepontic preserved *p. I'd like to pinpoint you to the personal name 'Uerkalai' (*ver- as 'Vercingetorix', not *uperkalai) which is found in the very same inscription you posted above. I'd also like to pinpoint to 'Uvamokozis', which is not attested as *upamokozis. (compare that with Celtiberian 'Uxama').

But an even more convincing/striking element is the case of Indo-European word-final *-m;

J. Whatmough - Lepontic - Harvard Uni.
(2) I. Eu. final -m is preserved (e.g. pruiam, uinom) whereas in Keltic it became -n.

The word-final *-m is constraint and replaced by -n in all Indo-European branches except for (Ivanov 1994) Italic (Latin), Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit) and Lepontic; The fact that the word-final *-m was retained in Lepontic as well as Italic (but not in Keltic) further manifests Lepontic to stem from proto-Italic; Which is of course further manifested by the Archaeological Indo-European expansions/migrations of the Bronze-age Urnfield (12th cen BC) proto-Golasecca (Insubres/IsOmbri) and proto-Villanova (Umbrians/Ombri); With Lepontic stemming from the Indo-European proto-Golasecca zone (Uhlich 2007);

And also the much talked about development of Indo-European *bh/*dh/*gh - in Lepontic simply lost their aspiration (Conway 1968)

Well, Conway is right, think about what the loss of aspiration means? *bh, *dh, *gh > *b, *d, *g, which is precisely what happened in the Celtic languages?

and in Sabellic languages it developed into voiceless fricatives (f-/-f-) both initial and internal - but in Latin *bh/*dh are internal retained with (lost aspiration) as b and d (Bakkum 2009) dative-ablative plural *-bh(i)os is Latin -bus Oscan -fs and Venetic -bos (Hill 2012); As for the Latin initial *bh/*dh/*gh becoming f-/h-;

Actually, there is a more logical explanation for than the assumption "it wasn't so in Proto-Italic" (to save your paradigm that Lepontic is supposedly an Italic language?), which has a parallel in the Germanic languages, namely that in Latin the word-internal fricatives were voiced to *β, *ð, *ɣ and subsequently fortitioned to *b, *d, *g. The same happened in German from the cumulative effect of Verner's and the High German consonant shift. And also, clearly, Venetic differs from the Celtic languages in the treatment of syllabic resonants (I'll post more about that later).

I'd also like to give you something else to think: one of Gvozdanovic's arguments for the purported affinity of Venetic is this one:

'Venetic teu.ta ‘people’ lacks parallels in Latin, Slavic and Greek (cf. Beeler 1981: 67), but has a clear Gaulish correlate in teuta, touta ‘tribe, people’ (cf. Delamarre 2003: 295).'

While the Gaulish parallel - no doubt - is true (there's also Irish 'tuath', Welsh 'tud' and Celtiberian 'touto-'), the statement that this shows that Venetic is closer with Celtic than with Latin is certainly false. There's also a parallel in the Germanic languages (found in German word 'Deutsch') and the Baltic languages (Lithuanian 'tauta'). There's also Umbrian 'tōta', which presumably also has the meaning as 'tribe'. On top of this, Gvozdanovic is wrong about Latin because it clearly has a cognate as well in the form of 'tōtus' ('all', 'whole'), and which also today in the modern Romance languages (for example French 'tout' and Spanish 'todo'). To me that merely shows that the meaning as 'people' or 'tribe' is an archaism, and that the semantic shift in Latin is an innovation, and Gvozdanovic has correctly demonstrated that Venetic isn't descended from Latin, which we - who might have known - already knew.

 

[Taranis]

Why would you need inscriptions from Hallstatt?

Why would you need inscriptions from the Atlantic Bronze Age?

Absolutely correct;
Keltic *kw>*p developed after the loss of Indo-European *p and if we assume *kw to be proto-Keltic than Lepontic def. is not; Because acc. to both Clackson and Woodard that development (loss *p) was only 'underway in the Lepontic inscriptions';

Roger Woodard - The Ancient Languages of Europe (2008) Cambridge Uni.
It is possible that early Lepontic continued PIE *p as the bilabial fricative [φ] and preserved PIE *kw in forms such as Kuaśoni; the latter might, however, contain gw from PIE gwh.

Now the development of *kw>*p did not occur collectively in the Keltic languages; Only in Brythonic and Gaulish - and (for the sake of it) Lepontic; But not in Goidelic or Celtiberian which retained kw;

I think the Karl-Horst-Schmidt model is more or less correct (you should add Lusitanian, which would sit outside of Goidelic in that tree - and Pictish, which would sit with Brythonic). And you are correct that the Celtic development *kw > *p must have occured after the original loss of *p from Proto-Indo-European. However, there is no good reason to assume that it also necessarily happened after *φ > Ø (which, by the way, isn't the only outcome, depending on the position *x, *w, *b are also found throughout the Celtic languages).

In the Italic branch *kw>*p also *gw>b only developed in the Sabellic languages but not in Latin where *kw remained and *gw>u - (Fortson 2010);

As a side, note, the development *gw > *b happened also in Greek (well, excluding Mycenaean Greek).

 

[Sile]

Please. The Lepontic use an alphabet (the Etruscan one) that does not distinguish between 'p' and 'b' (or 'k' and 'g'), as I gave the example of 'Belgui' earlier (which is actually written as 'Pelkui'). Another example would be NO-8 from Oleggio, which has 'RIKANAS' (*rīgana, 'queen', which is demonstrably Celtic as the cognate in Latin is 'rēgina'). The treatment of the syllabic resonant, and additionally development *ē > *ī demonstrates that Lepontic is evidently a Celtic language.

On top of that I would like to dispute that the word *pala- if the etymology is valid (I would like to reminder you that this is not unambiguous, it might as well be *bal-, which in my opinion has multiple viable etymologies in Celtic) or if this isn't a loanword. The word 'pala' is found in Lusitanian, for sure, and Lusitanian also preserves *p, for sure, but I am not convinced that Lepontic preserved *p. I'd like to pinpoint you to the personal name 'Uerkalai' (*ver- as 'Vercingetorix', not *uperkalai) which is found in the very same inscription you posted above. I'd also like to pinpoint to 'Uvamokozis', which is not attested as *upamokozis. (compare that with Celtiberian 'Uxama').





Well, Conway is right, think about what the loss of aspiration means? *bh, *dh, *gh > *b, *d, *g, which is precisely what happened in the Celtic languages?



Actually, there is a more logical explanation for than the assumption "it wasn't so in Proto-Italic" (to save your paradigm that Lepontic is supposedly an Italic language?), which has a parallel in the Germanic languages, namely that in Latin the word-internal fricatives were voiced to *β, *ð, *ɣ and subsequently fortitioned to *b, *d, *g. The same happened in German from the cumulative effect of Verner's and the High German consonant shift. And also, clearly, Venetic differs from the Celtic languages in the treatment of syllabic resonants (I'll post more about that later).

I'd also like to give you something else to think: one of Gvozdanovic's arguments for the purported affinity of Venetic is this one:

'Venetic teu.ta ‘people’ lacks parallels in Latin, Slavic and Greek (cf. Beeler 1981: 67), but has a clear Gaulish correlate in teuta, touta ‘tribe, people’ (cf. Delamarre 2003: 295).'

While the Gaulish parallel - no doubt - is true (there's also Irish 'tuath', Welsh 'tud' and Celtiberian 'touto-'), the statement that this shows that Venetic is closer with Celtic than with Latin is certainly false. There's also a parallel in the Germanic languages (found in German word 'Deutsch') and the Baltic languages (Lithuanian 'tauta'). There's also Umbrian 'tōta', which presumably also has the meaning as 'tribe'. On top of this, Gvozdanovic is wrong about Latin because it clearly has a cognate as well in the form of 'tōtus' ('all', 'whole'), and which also today in the modern Romance languages (for example French 'tout' and Spanish 'todo'). To me that merely shows that the meaning as 'people' or 'tribe' is an archaism, and that the semantic shift in Latin is an innovation, and Gvozdanovic has correctly demonstrated that Venetic isn't descended from Latin, which we - who might have known - already knew.

so as you state, venetic is closer to celtic than with latin is false ...and...venetic isn't descended from latin..................but the venetic script is nearly identical to raetic and camunic script..........what is it then?

since they are similar and as per the above comment( not with celtic or latin ), then raetic ( venetic's sister tongue ) is clearly a non celtic tongue either............. and so alpine languages ( especially central and eastern alpine ) are not celtic related.

Where do we stand then with celtic and raetic cultural/linguistic relations .............?

 

[Nobody1]

Please. The Lepontic use an alphabet (the Etruscan one) that does not distinguish between 'p' and 'b' (or 'k' and 'g'), as I gave the example of 'Belgui' earlier (which is actually written as 'Pelkui').

The inscription of Pelkui ends with Palam (*p / Pala) incl. the word-final -m which are both absent in Keltic;
It is the Lugano Alphabet of the North-Italic-script - which derives/stems from the Etruscan alphabet which in turn is from Cumaean/Euboean Greek alphabet;

Another example would be NO-8 from Oleggio, which has 'RIKANAS' (*rīgana, 'queen', which is demonstrably Celtic as the cognate in Latin is 'rēgina'). The treatment of the syllabic resonant, and additionally development *ē > *ī demonstrates that Lepontic is evidently a Celtic language.

What example would that be?
RIKANAS/

is Cisalpine Gaulish (as are Todi, Vercelli, Briona etc.) but not Lepontic;
However the development of *ē>*ī is attested in Lepontic at CO48 with uvamokozis:lialeθu:uvltiauiopos:ariuonepos:siteś:tetu

Given the phonological characteristics of Keltic with *p loss and *ē>*ī than Lepontic fits one criteria (scarcely) and the other not; Not to mention of course the word-final *-m which is completely absent in Keltic but shared in Lepontic and Italic giving a stronger basis for proto-Italic;

I'd like to pinpoint you to the personal name 'Uerkalai' (*ver- as 'Vercingetorix', not *uperkalai) which is found in the very same inscription you posted above. I'd also like to pinpoint to 'Uvamokozis', which is not attested as *upamokozis. (compare that with Celtiberian 'Uxama').

The 'Uerkalai' inscription (1st left / post#44) also ends with pala (*p) and that is most prob. what Clackson is referring to when stating that the loss of *p was 'under way' in the Lepontic inscriptions as given in the personal name uvamo<*upmmo- which either constitutes an intermediate stage between *p and the loss or an intervocalic -w- which is preserved in Keltic;

Actually, there is a more logical explanation for than the assumption "it wasn't so in Proto-Italic" (to save your paradigm that Lepontic is supposedly an Italic language?), which has a parallel in the Germanic languages, namely that in Latin the word-internal fricatives were voiced to *β, *ð, *ɣ and subsequently fortitioned to *b, *d, *g. The same happened in German from the cumulative effect of Verner's and the High German consonant shift. And also, clearly, Venetic differs from the Celtic languages in the treatment of syllabic resonants (I'll post more about that later).

Yes that is logical;
But either way Latin would stand out and it would not constitute a uniformal scenario in proto-Italic; The development in Sabellic to voiceless fricatives (f-/-f-) is in both at the initial as well as the internal position where as Latin (whatever scenario given) had a diff. development for the internal position (with *dh/*bh) which could not stem form a common proto-Italic development;

'Venetic teu.ta ‘people’ lacks parallels in Latin, Slavic and Greek (cf. Beeler 1981: 67), but has a clear Gaulish correlate in teuta, touta ‘tribe, people’ (cf. Delamarre 2003: 295).'
While the Gaulish parallel - no doubt - is true (there's also Irish 'tuath', Welsh 'tud' and Celtiberian 'touto-'), the statement that this shows that Venetic is closer with Celtic than with Latin is certainly false. There's also a parallel in the Germanic languages (found in German word 'Deutsch') and the Baltic languages (Lithuanian 'tauta'). There's also Umbrian 'tōta', which presumably also has the meaning as 'tribe'. On top of this, Gvozdanovic is wrong about Latin because it clearly has a cognate as well in the form of 'tōtus' ('all', 'whole'), and which also today in the modern Romance languages (for example French 'tout' and Spanish 'todo'). To me that merely shows that the meaning as 'people' or 'tribe' is an archaism, and that the semantic shift in Latin is an innovation, and Gvozdanovic has correctly demonstrated that Venetic isn't descended from Latin, which we - who might have known - already knew.

Of course; The Indo-European substantive *teuta (which became the Germanic adjective *peudiskaz) was attested in many Indo-European branches as Illyrian, Venetic, Keltic, Umbrian, Oscan and of course Germanic (Birnbaum 1966); And Szemerenyi stems the Latin tōtus from *teuta as well as Iranian toda and Sogdian twdy and twδ'k; I have already said what Venetic is or should be considered (Historically) a diff. branch; neither Keltic nor Italic;

 

[MOESAN]

No, no. Not simplification, just enough info. Good post. Now I'm reading about it:

Slavic dol, dolina, and German tal for valley.
Middle English dale, from Old English dæl, from Proto-Germanic *dalą. Cognate with Dutch dal, German Tal, Swedish dal.

Same (probably IE) root DL and TL. And as we know D and T are very easily interchangeable in linguistics because of their similarity.


We also have:
Netherlands — daalder
Austria — thaler
Sweden -daler
etc...

I don't know if it is a loanword in slavic (no opinion) but in brittonic celtic (modern) we have 'dol', 'dolen': "valley" or "river turn (bending)" -
maybe an ancient IE word with a *Dh- ? (*D- would have given T- in all germanic languages except high german Z- /ts/)

 

[MOESAN]

Aquileja is the only town under celtic influence when imposing the maps on each other and Guntia is the border town.
Augusta town is neither a Vindelici or celtic town, but 100% Roman, built as a crossroad center for expansion northwards........it has little reference to anyone except the Romans


Augusta is a name given to a number of towns founded or colonized by Augustus. Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), capital of Vindelicia, or Rhaetia (also spelled Raetia) Secunda, on the Licus (Lech), was colonized by Drusus under Augustus, after the conquest of Rhaeti in 14 BCE. Vindelicia was a Roman province south of the Danube, which separated it from Germany. It was bounded on the west by the territory of the Helvetti in Gaul, on the south by Rhaetia, and on the east by the river Oenus (Inn), which separated it from Noricum, thus corresponding to the northeast part of Switzerland, the southeast of Baden, the south of Wuertemberg and Bavaria, and the north part of the Tyrol. It was originally part of the province of Rhaetia, and was conquered by Tiberius in the reign of Augustus. Later Rhaetia was divided into two provinces: Rhaetia Prima and Rhaetia Secunda. The latter became Vindelicia. It was drained by the tributaries of the Danube, of which the most important were the Licus (Lech), with its tributaries, the Vindo or Vidro (Wertach), the Isarus (Isar) and Oenus (Inn). The greater part of the Vindelicia was a plain, but the south portion was occupied by the northern slopes of the Alpes Rhaeticae. It derived its name from its chief inhabitants, the Vindelici, a warlike people dwelling in the southern part of the country. Their name is said to have been formed form the two rivers, Vinda and Licus.

Are we not relying too much in details upon maps? And did the roman namings of "provinces" always correspond exactly (meter to meter) to preceding ethnic namings and territories?
Rhaetia province without going to far with the Gaul/Gallia roman provinces (Aremorica depending upon Lyon/Lugdunum, Aquitania reaching Poitou northwards a.s.o...) we can think in the "mess" of the roman naming of the 'great) Illyricum - just a practical point concerning history problems -

 

[Taranis]

Yes that is logical;
But either way Latin would stand out and it would not constitute a uniformal scenario in proto-Italic; The development in Sabellic to voiceless fricatives (f-/-f-) is in both at the initial as well as the internal position where as Latin (whatever scenario given) had a diff. development for the internal position (with *dh/*bh) which could not stem form a common proto-Italic development;

Actually it could, as there is some evidence in Latin that the sound changed (re-voicing and fortition back to plosives) postdates the development of *bh, *dh, *gh to *φ, *θ, *x at the medial positions (meaning the latter can be posed for Proto-Italic), and that the merger of *φ, *θ > *f (an expectable sound change) occured synchronously:


Latin 'līber' (free):
Indo-European *leudh- (German 'Leute', Lithuanian 'liaudis', Russian 'ljudi'/'люди').


Latin 'ruber' (red):
Indo-European *Hreudh- (English 'red', German 'rot', Irish 'rua', Welsh 'rhudd', Greek 'erythros'/'ερυθρος', Russian 'ruda'/'руда').


On the other hand, there is the personal name 'Rufus' which is certainly Sabellic in origin. Both forms do require an ancestral *rouθo-, which then yielded *rūfo- in Sabellic and *rūβo- (hence 'ruber') in early Latin. On the other hand, there is the example of 'medium' ('middle'), where you certainly require an earlier *ð, not *β.
PS: another indicator that the development in Latin went as I have described is that medial *s was voiced to *z and subsequently rhotacized (again, analoguous to the Germanic languages), hence the word for 'sister': *swesor > *soror (earlier *sozor).

Of course; The Indo-European substantive *teuta (which became the Germanic adjective *peudiskaz) was attested in many Indo-European branches as Illyrian, Venetic, Keltic, Umbrian, Oscan and of course Germanic (Birnbaum 1966); And Szemerenyi stems the Latin tōtus from *teuta as well as Iranian toda and Sogdian twdy and twδ'k; I have already said what Venetic is or should be considered (Historically) a diff. branch; neither Keltic nor Italic;

so as you state, venetic is closer to celtic than with latin is false ...and...venetic isn't descended from latin..................but the venetic script is nearly identical to raetic and camunic script..........what is it then?

since they are similar and as per the above comment( not with celtic or latin ), then raetic ( venetic's sister tongue ) is clearly a non celtic tongue either............. and so alpine languages ( especially central and eastern alpine ) are not celtic related.

Where do we stand then with celtic and raetic cultural/linguistic relations .............?

To me the position of Venetic is as follows:

- Venetic is a Centum Indo-European language (no point discussing the details).

- Venetic is Italo-Celtic (in the sense that it obeys to the *p_kw > *kw_kw assimilation rule, wether 'Italo-Celtic' is real as a branch or not doesn't matter).

- Venetic shares with the Italic languages the development of *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h- rule.

- Venetic is more conservative in its vowel development than either the Celtic or the Italic languages, (eg. *eu preserved where Latin and Sabellic have *eu > *ou > ō, and Celtic also has *eu, *ou merged).

I'm personally not opposed to the idea that Liburnian is indeed related with Venetic (as the *gh- > *h- sound change is also attested for it), but Venetic or Liburnian certainly had nothing to do with the other language(s) of Illyria. Because of this, to claim "Illyrian was spoken in the Alps" is wrong and makes no sense. On the other hand, Venetic was spoken.

'Raetic' (that is, the language of the Bolzano area) clearly is not the sister language of Venetic, as it is related with Etruscan instead.

 

[Sile]

Are we not relying too much in details upon maps? And did the roman namings of "provinces" always correspond exactly (meter to meter) to preceding ethnic namings and territories?
Rhaetia province without going to far with the Gaul/Gallia roman provinces (Aremorica depending upon Lyon/Lugdunum, Aquitania reaching Poitou northwards a.s.o...) we can think in the "mess" of the roman naming of the 'great) Illyricum - just a practical point concerning history problems -

The more deeper I drill into the term vindelici , the more I see that it was only used by the Romans. All I see is that the raetic people where originally in the vindelici's place. That's what I linked. There are more like this.
That city augusta vindelicium was only built by the romans after they conquered the area. So the "vindelici" never lived there

 

[Sile]

To me the position of Venetic is as follows:

- Venetic is a Centum Indo-European language (no point discussing the details).

- Venetic is Italo-Celtic (in the sense that it obeys to the *p_kw > *kw_kw assimilation rule, wether 'Italo-Celtic' is real as a branch or not doesn't matter).

- Venetic shares with the Italic languages the development of *bh-, *dh-, *gh- > *f-, *f-, *h- rule.

- Venetic is more conservative in its vowel development than either the Celtic or the Italic languages, (eg. *eu preserved where Latin and Sabellic have *eu > *ou > ō, and Celtic also has *eu, *ou merged).

I'm personally not opposed to the idea that Liburnian is indeed related with Venetic (as the *gh- > *h- sound change is also attested for it), but Venetic or Liburnian certainly had nothing to do with the other language(s) of Illyria. Because of this, to claim "Illyrian was spoken in the Alps" is wrong and makes no sense. On the other hand, Venetic was spoken.

'Raetic' (that is, the language of the Bolzano area) clearly is not the sister language of Venetic, as it is related with Etruscan instead.

We do not know of any illyrian script, we only know of historians referring to the illyrians in the alps and in other parts.

this link shows raetic script..........if the raetic are only in the alps, then there script is the same as venetic and camunic and would be the same a the historic illyrian tribes mentioned in the alps.
http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/images/9/9f/Morandi_2004_476.jpg

you will see that etruscan is also similar, since they came from raetic lands as per geneticist studies recently stated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venetic_Raetic_Camunic_Lepontic_alphabets.png

[url]http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/310575?uid=3737536&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103418305317


[/URL]

 

[Taranis]

The more deeper I drill into the term vindelici , the more I see that it was only used by the Romans. All I see is that the raetic people where originally in the vindelici's place. That's what I linked. There are more like this.
That city augusta vindelicium was only built by the romans after they conquered the area. So the "vindelici" never lived there

Look, it doesn't matter if the town of Augusta Vindelicorum was founded by the Romans or not, because all the linguistic data that we do have from that region (place names ending with -dunum, -briga), river names (Lech, Isar), etc. suggest that they were Celtic. I asked you to provide alternate etymologies, which you didn't, instead you just seem to not get the point at all...

We do not know of any illyrian script, we only know of historians referring to the illyrians in the alps and in other parts.

this link shows raetic script..........if the raetic are only in the alps, then there script is the same as venetic and camunic and would be the same a the historic illyrian tribes mentioned in the alps.
http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/images/9/9f/Morandi_2004_476.jpg

you will see that etruscan is also similar, since they came from raetic lands as per geneticist studies recently stated.

Look, what you do not understand is that there is a difference between a script and the language written in that script. You are absolutely correct that the Raetic, Lepontic, Venetic, etc. scripts were all similar (all variants of the Etruscan alphabet), there is no point to disagree, but the individual languages were totally different (Raetic tied with Etruscan, Lepontic with Celtic, Venetic with Italic).

To give you analogy where you make the mistake, look at the modern distribution of the Latin alphabet. By your logic, one should propose that Brazil, Canada, Madagascar, Turkey and Vietnam should all speak Latin because they use the Latin alphabet...

 

[Sile]

http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf

with etruscan...............since all the languages of the north are similar then the logical conclusion is what genetists say, the etruscans came down from the alps and settled in etruria . logic then indicates that the raetic people where originally first between them and the etruscans. There was no etruscan invasion of alpine areas.

etruscans where not unified as one in italy, they had 12 tribal confederations based on 12 towns with Orieto the main sacred town where the leaders/priests would gather yearly. It clearly indicates a migrational pattern of existance as we have seen in the past.

To conclude by linking language and genetics, the original alpine language was raetic ( a semetic language) and all others are variants of this. In regards to vindelici script, the logical version is that the celts, moving south from central germany influenced or where influence by raetic/vendelici script.

geneticists stated recently:
-27 "royal" celtic skeleton tombs found near Frankfurt
-etruscans coming from modern German alpine areas to Italy

 

[Sile]

Look, it doesn't matter if the town of Augusta Vindelicorum was founded by the Romans or not, because all the linguistic data that we do have from that region (place names ending with -dunum, -briga), river names (Lech, Isar), etc. suggest that they were Celtic. I asked you to provide alternate etymologies, which you didn't, instead you just seem to not get the point at all...



Look, what you do not understand is that there is a difference between a script and the language written in that script. You are absolutely correct that the Raetic, Lepontic, Venetic, etc. scripts were all similar (all variants of the Etruscan alphabet), there is no point to disagree, but the individual languages were totally different (Raetic tied with Etruscan, Lepontic with Celtic, Venetic with Italic).

To give you analogy where you make the mistake, look at the modern distribution of the Latin alphabet. By your logic, one should propose that Brazil, Canada, Madagascar, Turkey and Vietnam should all speak Latin because they use the Latin alphabet...

your modern example is silly and makes no sense to the conversation. Modern script is based on Latin or Cyrillic in Europe.( is there a third?).....its only a modern thing.
ancient script would have had much more than only 2 , but they would be, as an example, alpine, Pyrenees, Balkans, baltic, brittanic to name a few areas of difference of different script,

 

[Aberdeen]

your modern example is silly and makes no sense to the conversation. Modern script is based on Latin or Cyrillic in Europe.( is there a third?).....its only a modern thing.
ancient script would have had much more than only 2 , but they would be, as an example, alpine, Pyrenees, Balkans, baltic, brittanic to name a few areas of difference of different script,

There have never been more than a few written languages. That's why most Celtic inscriptions are written in Latin or Greek, for example.

 

[Nobody1]

Actually it could, as there is some evidence in Latin that the sound changed (re-voicing and fortition back to plosives) postdates the development of *bh, *dh, *gh to *φ, *θ, *x at the medial positions (meaning the latter can be posed for Proto-Italic), and that the merger of *φ, *θ > *f (an expectable sound change) occured synchronously:
Latin 'līber' (free):
Indo-European *leudh- (German 'Leute', Lithuanian 'liaudis', Russian 'ljudi'/'люди').
Latin 'ruber' (red):
Indo-European *Hreudh- (English 'red', German 'rot', Irish 'rua', Welsh 'rhudd', Greek 'erythros'/'ερυθρος', Russian 'ruda'/'руда').
On the other hand, there is the personal name 'Rufus' which is certainly Sabellic in origin. Both forms do require an ancestral *rouθo-, which then yielded *rūfo- in Sabellic and *rūβo- (hence 'ruber') in early Latin. On the other hand, there is the example of 'medium' ('middle'), where you certainly require an earlier *ð, not *β.
PS: another indicator that the development in Latin went as I have described is that medial *s was voiced to *z and subsequently rhotacized (again, analoguous to the Germanic languages), hence the word for 'sister': *swesor > *soror (earlier *sozor)

Yes, it can be constructed as a common proto-Italic development by two scenarios (Stuart-Smith 2004 or Meisner 1998): First a common intermediate with voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu which are preserved as such in internal and in initial become devoiced *ϕ/*θ/*x/*xu with merger *φ/*θ/*xu to final proto-Italic *ϕ/*x or the common intermediate voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu is followed by a second common intermediate as devoiced *ϕ/*θ/*x/*xu which are revoiced as *β/*ð/*y/*yu in internal but preserved in initial with merger *ϕ/*θ/*xu [1st */xu/->*/ϕ/ 2nd */θ/->*/ϕ/] for final proto-Italic *ϕ/*x - i.e. in proto-Italic the initial = not voiced *ϕ/*x and the internal = voiced *β/*ð/*y/*yu; Those are the probabilities but no inscriptions for any confirmation;

What remains is that the development of *bh/*dh/*gh/*guh in the internal position differs and is complex within the Italic branch itself; with Sabellic -f- and Latin b/d and also in the case of Faliscan *gh; In which case Lepontic might simply contain an even more archaic form;

 

[Nobody1]

Yes, it can be constructed as a common proto-Italic development by two scenarios (Stuart-Smith 2004 or Meisner 1998): First a common intermediate with voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu which are preserved as such in internal and in initial become devoiced *ϕ/*θ/*x/*xu with merger *φ/*θ/*xu to final proto-Italic *ϕ/*x or the common intermediate voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu is followed by a second common intermediate as devoiced *ϕ/*θ/*x/*xu which are revoiced as *β/*ð/*y/*yu in internal but preserved in initial with merger *ϕ/*θ/*xu [1st */xu/->*/ϕ/ 2nd */θ/->*/ϕ/] for final proto-Italic *ϕ/*x - i.e. in proto-Italic the initial = not voiced *ϕ/*x and the internal = voiced *β/*ð/*y/*yu; Those are the probabilities but no inscriptions for any confirmation;

It has to be added of course that all these (theoretical) developments had to be taken place in proto-Italic itself for *ϕ/*x initial and *β/*ð/*y/*yu internal to than be/stem from proto-Italic; And that alone is almost impossible; And of-course no inscriptions exist to attest or document any of these developments in the proto-Italic stage; My imagination only goes as far as the Indo-European aspirants *bh/*dh/*gh/*guh developed to voiced spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu in the proto-Italic stage and the rest in proto-Latin and proto-Sabellic separately (i.e. internal diffs.) - with Lepontic simply retaining/remaining at that archaic stage of the voiced (lost aspiration) spirants *β/*ð/*y/*yu - which it truly did i.e. is truly the case in Lepontic;

There are striking similarities between Lepontic and Sabellic as in the cases of *kw>p or *gw>b and more exclusive the retaining of word-final *-m (also *p) and even more exclusive *nd>nn and *ks>s(s); All those are shared by Lepontic and Sabellic (Umbrian) which are manifested by the fact (Uhlich 2007) that Lepontic emerged from the 12th cen BC Indo-European Urnfield expansion of the proto-Golasecca zone and was spoken by Insubres/Umbrians; The Indo-European proto-Villanova (Italic/Sabellic) is of course of the same Urnfield migration/expansion (root) as was proto-Golasecca; Manifesting Lepontic clearly on every field as a form proto-Italic (akin to Umbrian) language;

 

[Sile]

There have never been more than a few written languages. That's why most Celtic inscriptions are written in Latin or Greek, for example.

i was talking about ancient script

 

[Taranis]

your modern example is silly and makes no sense to the conversation. Modern script is based on Latin or Cyrillic in Europe.( is there a third?).....its only a modern thing.

Actually, the comparison makes every sense because, as you demonstrate in your post before that, you clearly do not understand what difference between a script and a language is:

http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12386-old-italic.pdf

with etruscan...............since all the languages of the north are similar then the logical conclusion is what genetists say, the etruscans came down from the alps and settled in etruria .

As I said, you claim that because the people in the Alps use the same alphabet (a variant of the Etruscan alphabet), they must have spoken the same language. In reality they did not, as Lepontic, (Bolzano-)Raetian and Venetic were obviously different languages. Therefor my comparison with the modern world makes absolutely sense.

logic then indicates that the raetic people where originally first between them and the etruscans. There was no etruscan invasion of alpine areas.

etruscans where not unified as one in italy, they had 12 tribal confederations based on 12 towns with Orieto the main sacred town where the leaders/priests would gather yearly. It clearly indicates a migrational pattern of existance as we have seen in the past.

To conclude by linking language and genetics, the original alpine language was raetic ( a semetic language) and all others are variants of this. In regards to vindelici script, the logical version is that the celts, moving south from central germany influenced or where influence by raetic/vendelici script

Wow. So Raetic became a Semitic language over night while nobody was watching...

I'm sure you can provide us with examples of how to interprete Raetic inscriptions using Hebrew or Arabic...