Talk:Italo-Celtic

message: Does anyone have access to the new Kortlandt book?  It would be important to know if there is anything innovative here.  --Doric Loon (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now I'm living just up the street from Columbia University, where according to WorldCat they have a copy. The book is a collection of his newer and older papers on the subject. If I can get a look at it and make copies I'll work on this article more. Then I might contact him. Nora lives (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kortlandt 

message: Just a couple of points of information, but they need checking so I won't edit the page myself.
PIE *pekʷ- 'cook'  looks like it ought to be related to Welsh _pobi_ 'to bake' going back I think to something like _*pa:p-_ << _kʷa:kʷ-_. Isn't there an p-Italic word something like _popina_ borrowed into Latin for an Oscan takeaway?
PIE *ponkʷu- 'all' → Latin cunctus; no Celtic cognate. There is a root like this, but without the -n- that gives Welsh _pawb/pob_, Breton, Cornish _peub_/_peb_(B),_pub_(C) 'every(one), each' (The first form in each case is stressed and a pronoun, the second an unstressed proclitic). In Irish the unstressed form had it's initial voiced from _cach_ to _gach_ 'each, every'. The stressed version is found in the fixed phrase _ca:ch-a-cheile_ 'each other, one another' lit. 'everyone his companion'. These all point back to _*kʷa:kʷ-_ which could be from _pa:kʷ-_. Mongvras (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POI

message: On the archaism of West IE verbal systems in general and then with a focus on Celtic, Winfred Lehmann published two interesting papers:
:* Winfred P. Lehmann, "Frozen Residues and Relative Dating", in Varia on the Indo-European Past: Papers in Memory of Marija Gimbutas, eds. Miriam Robbins Dexter and Edgar C. Polomé. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1997. pp. 223-46
:* Winfred P. Lehmann, "Early Celtic among the Indo-European dialects", in Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 49-50, Issue 1 (1997): 440-54.
Unfortunately I have misplaced my copies and the nearest academic library is 60 miles away. He was into their apparent early active-stativeness. DinDraithou (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lehmann's "Frozen Residues and Relative Dating" I should now have access to again. If I can't get the other for free maybe I'll just pay for it. The trouble is that I have them mixed up in my head. In the West IE context he brings in Germanic, discussing the case system as conservative/archaic instead of the more commonly assumed degeneration from something like in Vedic. His argument is that West IE is overall more conservative, from what I can recall. Unfortunately Lehmann died in 2007 and we have no one to talk to I know of for anything more. Nora lives (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaism of West IE verbal systems

message: Well I have a small problem with the removal of the a/k/a, "Celtitalic". As a former student of IndoEuropeanology, I'm very familiar with this term since it was the original term. The editor who reverted this term does not know what he's talking about! I'm not starting an edit war over this, but gets your facts straight! Djathinkimacowboy 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Angr is a competent linguist, but no doubt even he doesn't know everything. Celto-Italic (surely that would have to be the form?) would be new to me too, though. Can you cite a source? Maybe you still have one of your old text books? --Doric Loon (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could believe Celto-Italic (it even gets Google hits). Celtitalic is rather unlikely; perhaps someone's confusing it with Celtiberian. But CeltItalic with CamelCase I absolutely, positively refuse to believe. Angr (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: CeltItalic

message: Brikane, please stop adding the section on numeration. As per WP:BRD, it's fine to make a bold change, but if that change gets reverted it is not acceptable to simply undo the revert. Both Doric Loon and I have removed this section, which should make it plain to you that you do not have consensus to include it. A list of numbers in modern Romance and Celtic languages does not in any way help illustrate this article; the number system isn't even used as an argument in favor of Italo-Celtic hypothesis. Including the list merely distracts from the point. Angr (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that six years later, an IP user (Brikane?) has reintroduced this. Interesting as it may be to compare numerals in different languages, the Italic and Celtic numerals are not Italo-Celtic forms in the sense intended in this article. Italo-Celtic forms are similarities between Italic and Celtic which are not also found in other Indo-European language groups. The numerals are not in this category. Please understand that this is not an article about "anything Italic and/or Celtic" - it is, rather, about a very precisely defined hypothesis on specific phenomena. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numeration section 

message: Rather than cite W. _pob_ and Ir. _gach_ (both meaning 'each, every') which are reduced unstressed proclitic forms, it would I think be clearer to use their stressed equivalents, W. _pawb_ 'everyone', Ir. _càch_ (as in _càch-a-chéile_ 'each other', lit. 'everyone his companion'). 109.176.199.169 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed it completely, because cách and pawb are not related to Latin cunctus anyway. They're from Proto-Celtic *kʷākʷo-, from PIE *kʷākʷo- or *kʷōkʷo- and are related to OCS kakъ (source: Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, pp. 173-74). If *ponkʷu- > *kʷonkʷu- > *kʷonku- had survived into Insular Celtic, I think it would have given something like Irish *cug and Welsh *pwnc. Angr (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation forms 

message: Michael Weiss's work on Italo-Celtic is pretty interesting, so I more or less just plopped a reference in.  I'll try to incorporate content more later.  I also removed un-sourced reference to Latin vir, Ir. fír as being a special way of referring to males, since it is a shared (and not very distinctive) retention found also in Germanic (OE wer 'man') and as far afield as Sanskrit vīra-.  If this is part of some broader complex of shared male vocabulary, this did not come across and would have to be more carefully stated. 192.150.186.97 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating 

message: I'm a little perplexed at what seems to be a minor edit war in the last few days which has resulted in this article being protected. Someone added a paragraph of what looked like good-faith edit content, that was deleted, reinstated, deleted... The odd thing is that not a word appeared about it here on talk, and neither side gave meaningful edit summaries. The content of the paragraph looked pretty questionable to me, but I wouldn't have deleted something like that without saying why. Maybe if someone involved can tell us here why they do or do not think that material belongs here, we'd all be enlightened? --Doric Loon (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion. :) The issue is block evasion, Doric Loon. A user was blocked for serial copyright infringement and has responded by creating sock accounts and editing through a series of IPs. His or her edits have been deleted per WP:EVASION. They have been prolific enough across a broad enough expanse of articles that rollback has sometimes been employed rather than undo and hence no edit summaries. Articles he is targeting are now being semi-protected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks for explaining. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit controversy 

message: I've just removed a map that was put up here in August by Theutatis. It was added without explanation - not even an edit summary - and seems problematic for two reasons. First, because no source is given, it may be copyright, and even if it is not, we need to know where the information comes from. And second, because at best this presents one view, but it looks like it is authoritative. As the section it is attached to says, the idea that there was a proto-language at all is now a minority view. I should imagine any theories about where that proto-language was spoken are even more controversial. If this map can be said to represent the view of one major linguist, it can be reintroduced provided that linguist's name appears in the caption and it is clear that the map relates only to that theory. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: There seems to be an edit war going on here between User:Cdjp1 and User:Tursclan. Since neither of them have provided either edit summaries or discussion here on talk, it looks like neither of them are following best practice. Can we have some consultation here please?  --Doric Loon (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I will provide sources. That Ancient Ligurian and Lusitan language are part of Italo-Celt family is only a speculation. Ancient Ligurian is not even attested by inscriptions, see my message in the Ancient Ligurian discussion page. --Tursclan (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies I have no excuse for my poor behaviour. I will argue for the inclusion of the information, specifically two languages that are often included in the hypothetical Italo-celtic as evidenced by the citations given. -Cdjp1 (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Due to the inability to say for definite whether Ligurian would be included in such a grouping is indicated in the edit by "?". -Cdjp1 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war? 

message: Hello. I wanted to ask if there are any new information regarding the Italo-Celtic migration path?
19:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italo-Celtic framework 

message: Note well that Celtic languages show evidence of the merging of voiced aspirates and voiced stops as does not happen in Italic or Hellenic. Hellenic simply devoiced the aspirated stops; Italic looks as if it made sibilants out of the sorts of devoiced aspirates that Hellenic had. Sp PIE *bH, *dH, and *gH became  b, d, and g in Common Celtic; ph, th, and kh in Hellenic; and likely morphed  into f, θ, and χ very early in Italic in pre-literary times before χ generally became Italic h and θ went into f or h. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly true. The place to discuss it would be on pages focussing on the phonological development of the individual languages. Obviously, there are more differences than similarities, otherwise linguists wouldn't have to hypothesize a controversial relationship. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  one huge dissimilarity