Talk:Aquitanian language

message: I made some corrections re south of the Pyrenees. It was written in the line of all but Vascones were Celtic, but that's just a theory. The recent finding of Basque texts in Iruña-Veleia (territory of the Caristii, near the border with the Autrigones - west of modern Vitoria-Gasteiz)  confirms the theory of Basque continuity and makes obsolete the Celtic theory. --Sugaar 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical location

message: :The most important of this is a series of votive and funerary texts in Latin which contain about four hundred personal names and seventy names of gods.
How, if it's in Latin, is it relevant to Aquitanian? Does this mean the Latin script? --Ioscius (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpret this to mean the bulk of the text was in Latin, except that the names were Aquitanian. jnestorius(talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  in latin? 

message: I've removed this text, which had already been commented out:
----
Some authors moved the linguistic border to the South
Algunos autores colocan la frontera lingüística tan al sur como Calahorra y otros colocan en territorio aragonés hablantes de aquitano. Nombres de lugares terminados en -ués/-ós han sido considerados provenientes del vasco (h)otz (frío). Esto demostraría la existencia de aquitanos o vascos en la zona norte de la provincia de Huesca. Los romanos incluso  nombran la ciudad de Iliberris (moderna Elvira, en Granada), nombre con interpretación vasca evidente: *ili < hiri (ciudad) + berri (nuevo). 
Todos estos datos deben tomarse con precaución, las fronteras lingüísticas en un territorio no tienen porque ser claras, ni la lengua hablada única. En principio, al sur de los Pirineos, no existen pruebas contundentes de la existencia de un grupo importante de hablantes de aquitano fuera de las zonas mencionadas del norte de Guipúzcoa y norte y centro de Navarra.
Esta idea está reforzada por la escasez de nombres geográficos antiguos que atestigüen esta presencia. También por los descubrimientos de Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza que dan una frontera genética bastante abrupta para los vascos hacia el sur, pero difusa hacia el norte, lo que podría indicar un desplazamiento hacia el sur de la población.
----
jnestorius(talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text in Spanish

message: Properly speaking, Aquitanian isn't a language but an epigraphical corpus from where we can extract a list of personal names ans theonyms. While it's true most of these forms have Basque cognates, a few of them are close to Iberian. I've extended the name list, correcting some errors (Aquitanian -CO and -TAR don't have "obvious" Basque equivalents) and adding some Iberian counterparts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talskubilos (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquitanian names

message: I think I would be a good idea to merge this article with the one about "early Basque" (Euskera arcaico in the Spanish). Not only this save many cross-references but it will allow to include more epigraphical material which isn't Aquitanian, for example the inscriptions found at Soria-La Rioja with Vasconic personal names.
In this way, the Iberian material would be moved to the Iberian article. The idea would be to show what Mitxelena's pre-Basque is and how this has allowed us to recognize the language behind Aquitanian inscriptions as an archaic form of Basque, etc. etc. Talskubilos (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea. Proto-Basque is about a reconstructed form of early Basque, Aquitanian is about an attested language. And there is not article Early Basque on the English wiki. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: So what? This article is hardly the finished article and may well acquire a section on Proto-Basque per se at some point. I might even have time to do that if I didn't have to waste my time with your Iberian-Aquitanian obsession. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This isn't the Spanish Wikipedia, get it? And in the English literature, this is called Aquitanian. If the usage changes, then we'll follow suit, so I suggest unless you have plenty of sources to back this up, you find something better to do with our time. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with early Basque

message: About the way it is now the phrase "before the arrival of Indo-European speakers who were possibly Neolithic colonists (5th millennium BC) or Celts (c. 1300 BCE)" I suppose it was intended to mean: that Basque (proto-proto-Basque) language is a remnant of people (colonist is maybe  a bit too hard) who arrive to Western Europe on the 5th millenium; but to say that Indo-Europeans were the 5th millennium colonist seems wrong, as also the distinction between I-E and Celts (who of course were I-E). In fact any idea on the language of the first neolithic people in West Europe is a pure speculation, so it maybe should be deleted, but in any case the paragraph should be revised. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ¿Indo-European speakers who were possibly Neolithic colonists (5th millennium BC)? 

message: Basque is a language from the age of the metal - slightly confusing, what does the source mean by that? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of metal

message: The word atta is also attested in Latin and Gothic as father. Attas in Hittite also means father. Is it just a coincidence or...? 23:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See False cognate#"Mama and papa" type. Words of the shape (C)aC(C)a or (C)aC (where C can stand for any of the consonant sounds /t ~ d/, /p ~ b/, /n/ or /m/) referring to caregivers and elders (typically nasals for women, stops for men) crop up in loads of unrelated languages all over the world. They're easy to pronounce for little children, typically even their first words, and therefore called "elementary words", or Lallwörter in German. Compare Baby talk. Words of this type are sometimes borrowed, but they keep being formed anew, so their value for genetic language comparison is very limited. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting... 

message: Our article does not give a date for these inscriptions, and even Trask only ever writes "Roman period", which is a pretty long time – from the third century BC to the fifth century AD, more than 600 years. My hunch that the first three centuries AD are meant is confirmed by this source, which says repeatedly: "[Appears in] the Aquitanian inscriptions of the Roman era (first through third centuries)". That's at least twice as precise because it shortens the time in question by half. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the inscriptions