Talk:Lusitanian language

message: Well, I don't know what a "teonym" is, so it must be at least a thirty-dollar word. No mention of Portugal I notice. I know it's Portugal. You know it's Portugal. Does the average well-intentioned reader know it's Portugal? --Wetman 20:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: eheh. I assume the word exists in English I meant "theonyms" from theos, name of gods. I just searched the word in my Portuguese-English diccionary and I couldnt find it. I assume the correct word is theonyms (Portuguese Teónimo). :| - Pedro 23:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Theonym]]

message: Why not give a translation of the text, if translations are agreed upon (are they)? According to the external link,
*Lusitanian oliam= Latin ovis
*Lusitanian porcum= Latin porcum
*Lusitanian taurom= Latin taurum
etc. Alexander 007 04:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A translation of the inscriptions is needed! The Ogre 10:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually that's a good point. While I don't find it very probable that Lusitanian speakers would borrow such words (but then, Latin loanwords in Welsh are found in core vocabulary as well) the possibility of borrowings from Latin must be kept in mind. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Translating text

message: Hey the link to the map at the bottom is broken. (Detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC))
:Yes, I know, but they say it will be back on line soon. The Ogre 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Link

message: I've added this recently uncovered inscription and a link to a study in Palaeohispanica 8. It's recent enough that the actual reading may be subject to revision in due course. IEATE may be IFATE, for instance. Paul S (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With more studies published, the tentative reading and translation of 2009 can be replaced as expected. Paul S (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ribeira da Venda

message: In the classification of Indo-European, I put as a Celtic language, but with the question mark. I did this because it is extremely probable that the Lusitanian language was Celtic, but I put the question mark to indicate that there is no certainty about it.
Mr. J. Middleton16:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted you. It is most likely not a Celtic language; if it is, we have to redefine 'Celtic', and no-one is doing that. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: You're speculating. We currently quote scholars saying they we Celtic, they were not Celtic, and they were not exactly Celtic, but were close. How do you conclude from that that they were 'most likely Celtic'? — kwami (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, and the facts are that L. does not fit the definition of Celtic. Celtic would have to be redefined to include it, and even then it would be speculation due to lack of data. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Lusitanian apparently had initial *p, which was lost from Celtic, and indeed is considered a defining feature of Celtic. We cover this in the article. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

text: "Aparently, the Lusitanians must had separated from other celtic tribes before the fall of the *p, and that's why in Lusitanian we still can find the *p." Yes, that is the assumption. But then Latin separated from Celtic before the fall of the *p; does that make Latin a Celtic language? Calling Lusitanian 'Celtic' because of this would be like calling Latin 'Celtic' because of Italo-Celtic. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Alright, how about retention of PIE p- plus TAURO- rather than Celtic *tarwo- for "bull", different dative endings (OILAM TREBOPALA not *Trebopalai) plus probable full labialisation suggested by Ribeira da Venda in contrast to Celtiberian? Paul S (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul and Kwami, how about Koch's point "similar to Celtic—in the way they formed the superlative, for example", Stifter's and Kruta's (and others) "para-Celtic" classification with a common ancestor with Common Celtic but after the split of other non-Celtic IE branches from PIE: http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf see page 12 ? Jembana (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To me the notion of "para-Celtic" is a way of not offending the Celtic diehards when we really know that Lusitanian isn't Celtic. We don't have any superlatives in Lusitanian; it's just somone's assumption that (AS)ARIMO or SINTAMO(M) is a superlative - on the basis that it looks Celtic, indeed, so we have a circular argument... Note too that none of Dr Stifter's summary of characteristically Celtic sounds occur in any of the Lusitanian inscriptions. (That paper is useful for another page, though!) Paul S (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Care to point to any? Paul S (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

text: You're right, that's not enough. There were quite a few peoples in Iberia we can't identify. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Is it online or peer-reviewed anywhere? — kwami (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: You can cite it without it being online and of course it was peer-reviewed being presented at the Oxford conference. Feel free to use it to add to this article. Nobody has ownership of Wikipedia articles - that is against Wiki policy - you are free to contribute without being intimidated. Jembana (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? A simple question: it would be nice to have it accessible. Also, presentation at a conference is not the same as peer review. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And the quotation from Koch (which I just removed) is saying precisely that Lusitanian was not Celtic but that it evolved in parallel with Celtic in the Iberian penninsula. Stifter seems to oppose the notion of Celtic Lusitanian while acknowledging the contrary opinion exists. Again, I think the Ribeira da Venda inscription weighs heavily against the Celtic hypothesis. Saying I know that it's not enough, but celts were the only known indo-european people in Iberia is also a circular argument... "What about the Lusitanians?" "They were Celts" "Why?" "Because the Celts were the only known..." etc. Paul S (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic Classification 

message: : might have been related to the Celtic languages as part their evolution with such languages termed "Para-Celtic".
Does the phrase "as part [of] their evolution" mean anything? —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It relates to the concept that before Commmon Celtic ("Proto-Celtic") from which most of the accepted Celtic languages evolved, there was a precedessor language (an ancestor of Common Celtic) that was also the ancestor of Lusitanian, onomastic Ligurian, and a number of other inferred ancient languages. This predecessor language is termed Para-Celtic ("Pre-Proto-Celtic") and itself evolved from PIE (which we could call "Common Indo-European") like other branches like Italic, Germanic, etc did. See Koch's quote italicised in the text for this idea (also, Kruta, Stifter, etc). Thus Lusitanian is on the same "branch" as Celtic as far as language evolution is concerned. Jembana (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to me, then, that the sentence would mean exactly the same without that phrase. I'll rewrite it. —Tamfang (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that is a better expression :) Jembana (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  go on, evolve! 

message: Just read Juan José Moralejo on these inscriptions: he thinks Lusitanian is probably not Celtic. Icona seems close to Greek in the initial I. As for loiminna how to derive it from a word cognate to Latin lumen? I doubt this. Also Trebopala and Trebarune are interesting theoyms (cfr. Trebo Iovio of the Iguvine Tables), especially in that Trebopala is close to Sanskrit and cannot be Celtic. As for reve both Moralejo and Witzic understand it as equivalent of Lat. divus, I think it looks easier to derive it from reg-s.
Finally it looks there is amistake in the transcription of the inscription of Arroyo de la Luz III.
Anybody who has read more than me can help?Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read Dagmar Wodtko's chapter on Lusitanian in Celtic from the West ? Very thorough treatment of the subject and recommended reading.Jembana (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No I have not. I will try and find a way of reading it. Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When you get a copy, read it completely because there is a complete set of views presented in an information dense manner. Then mull it for while to get the idea from all this, Dagmar alludes to it by the end.Jembana (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icona Loiminna 

message: As the result of these edits, the "See also" section now contains a redlink List of Lusitanian place names in Iberia. This appears to be a way to indicate an article that the IP user sees as a desideratum, but isn't it a rather pointless link? I think it is quite unlikely that such an article is going to be created anytime soon, and the link can do little more than frustrate the reader. I would prefer to hear other opinions first prior to simply reverting the edits, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Lusitanian place names in Iberia 

message: As per Lujan's 2012 paper, isn't it just better to say this was an independent branch of the Indo-European language family than liken it to existing branches such as Celtic and Italic ?Askatuga (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is precisely why Prósper and Villar classify it as "Italoid" (i.e. Italic-like) rather than Italic (although she referred to it as simply Italic in older works). On the other hand, Koch's view is actually a modified Italo-Celtic theory with a homeland in the Iberian Peninsula. Of course, Lusitanian has a strong Gallaecian (Western Hispano-Celtic) superstrate/adstrate, as apparently also does Tartessian. Talskubilos (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. There needs to be more about what is actually evidenced in the Lusitanian inscriptions. I will add these to the article.Askatuga (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent branch of Indo-European 

message: The English was very poor in this removed (Google translated?) section, but unless Carballo is trying to argue that the word on the Cabeço das Fráguas inscription actually be read as some mysterious creature or object called a "BORCOM", then going off at a tangent talking about vocalised and non-vocalised consonants being spelled in the same way has no bearing on classification as Celtic or otherwise and there is no explanation of why this constitutes "Latinization" either. Paul S (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a short summary of this idea anyway, but frankly I don't think this has been thought through: are there any convincing etymologies for all the words starting with P instead starting with B? Borcom Laebo? PN Baugenda, Bumbi Canti etc. Paul S (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  P and B irrelevance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lusitanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lusitanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723195518/http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/91450//Location/Oxbow to http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/91450//Location/Oxbow
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623012253/http://www.cidehus.uevora.pt/textos/artigos/acarneiro_inscricaovotiva_lusitanica.pdf to http://www.cidehus.uevora.pt/textos/artigos/acarneiro_inscricaovotiva_lusitanica.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Isn't the Gallo-Italic family a Romance group? Therefore, how could Lustanian (predating the onset of varieties of Vulgar Latin) be a part of that family? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this as well and I agree, this must be a mistake. Either someone is confusing ancient Lusitanian with a modern Italian language (possibly modern Ligurian, which is descended from Latin), or the authors of that paper are confused or have a very fringe view. Most likely, someone is confusing a link between ancient Lusitanian and ancient Ligurian (which I believe has been made by some linguists), with a link between ancient Lusitanian and modern Ligurian. I am only able to read the abstract for that article (https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article-abstract/33/2/442/4093902#), but it doesn't look like it has anything to do with ancient linguistics, just classification of modern Italian languages/dialects. I think it should probably be removed, unless it can be shown that they are talking about ancient Lusitanian in that article. Actually upon rereading the parts they put in, this may be a case of confusing Gallo-Italic with Italo-Celtic, which are very different things, but sound similar. I will ask User:Melroross (who I think inserted this link) if this is a mistake. --Hibernian (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallo-Italic? 

message: I find this discussion very interesting and indeed had a similar reaction: a few, Spanish mostly, so-called historic linguists claim here that Lusitanian was not a Celtic language and differed from Gallaecian, Tartessian, Celtiberian, and these same “linguists” suggest, based on the only 5 surviving stone inscriptions ever found; that Lusitanian was an Italic language. 
There is confusion yes. Either Lusitanian was somehow linked to Northern Italian/Southern French languages pre-dating the Romans, and historically one ASSUMES at least a few thousand years BC (ancient tribes moving and settling westerwards) therefore not an Italic, as in Latin language; proto-European or proto-Celtic. There is NO conclusive evidence to either.
The fact today is: Gallaecia was half of Portugal, Galicia, Asturias and parts of Leon, with its capital in Braga, Portugal. All these regions share a language continuum, Galaico-Portuguese with a Astur-Leonese sub-group to which the second language in Portugal, Mirandese also belongs. This all comes mainly from Latin with some Celtic, Iberian, Germanic and Arabic.
So if you have more substantial and researched sources to clarify the various confusions, I would be glad having my edits reverted as I tried to clarify something which from inception I believe to be wrong.
Melroross (talk)
:Like I said before, I think there is just some confusion here. I'm aware that some linguists think Lusitanian is non-Celtic (that actually seems to be the majority position at the moment), and some say it may be linked to the Italic branch of Indo-European. But that's not the same thing at all as linking it to a sub-group of modern Romance languages (Gallo-Italic), which seems to be what you inserted. We need to know if this mistake was made by the authors of the linguistics paper, or by yourself. I can't see any reference to Lusitanian in the article (Revisiting the classification of Gallo-Italic: a dialectometric approach), but I can only read the abstract not the whole thing. If you have access to the whole of this article, could you please tell us if it actually mentions the ancient Lusitanian language of Iberia? Thanks. --Hibernian (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have removed the whole part about Gallo-Italic as it seems to be a mistake. --Hibernian (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lusitanian language classification