Talk:Lusitanian language

Theonym

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)

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)

Translating text

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)

A translation of the inscriptions is needed! The Ogre 10:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Celtic and latin languages are supposed to be very close, but "porcum" and "taurum" seem latin words, these words still exists in moderm spanish as "puerco"(pig) and "toro"(bull), and it is difficult to believe that the celtic words influenced latin. SO the celtic texts seems to be at least latinized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.18.7.21 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Broken Link

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)

Ribeira da Venda

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)

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)

preservation of initial /p/

This theory seems challengeable: as the distinction between p-celtic and q-celtic languages implies, "p" certainly disappears from Irish &c in certain circumstances, but not from Welsh, Cornish or Breton. Citation is certainly needed here, and careful judgement about prominence within the article. Deipnosophista (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. And overall this article needs more references. Regarding the P question, I think the point is to acess the importance given to that argument by reseachers (even if they could be mistaken, as you emply... For one, I have always thought that, given the fact that Lusitanian inscriptions found are all from the Roman period and written in the Latin alphabet, one could also consider the P a Latin contamination...). The Ogre (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're a bit confused. IE /p/ was lost mostly without trace from proto-Celtic. Then in P-Celtic IE /kw/ > /p/. In Q-Celtic (Celtiberian and Irish) there was originally no /p/, although later Irish developed it's own /p/ I believe, although most are from loans (especially Latin through British). The statement on this page that (1) L. was Celtic, and (2) it retained IE /p/ is on the face of it a contradiction, since afaik loss of IE /p/ is the hallmark of Celtic. Otherwise a new definition of the Celtic branch is required. What is it? 82.153.193.206 (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've hopefully clarified the paragraph by reference to proto-Celtic, also noted unreferenced sources and "weasel words". There's no attested Lusitanian word "pater" for father AFAIK. The paragraph looked a bit biased towards the Lusitanian = Celtic view... for me the Ribeira Da Venda inscription contains enough P's in the right places to demolish the theory, but no doubt there will be further debate. Paul S (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you removed the references - the text is straight from them. Please do not remove valid references. I am undoing your change because you have not provided references for your changes.Jembana (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

...and then claim this is unreferenced after you yourself removed them is a type of vandalism.Jembana (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you can't just present your own conclusions here - that qualifies as original research which is not allowed in the Wikipedia. You must cite what you write.Jembana (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are quite new to Wikipedia. If you go back over the history, you will see the section with references seems to have been removed by someone else. I removed some false information, which your reversion has put back, together with the advocacy of the theory that Lusitanian is Celtic. The whole section simply amounted to an unbalanced assertion that Lusitanian was Celtic. Your citation of John T Koch's homepage is proof, if any were needed, that the man exists, but in no way relates to your final quotation, which in turn does not seem to deal directly with Lus. - although it might if seen in context. dnghu.org isn't good for a citation either - it's a bunch of weirdos who want to revive PIE as a spoken language for some reason best known to themselves. Therefore, I am again making changes. I'll explain them one by one. Paul S (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr Keith Briggs map of Celtic placenames from Greek and Roman references isn't a bad link as you said. I can browse it and zoom quite adequately. Maybe you need better bandwidth. You're lack of bandwidth is not a reason to delete my links.

This is descending into farce. There were already two citations in support of the Celtic view; I don't see the need for four, including a large scale placename map. Wikipedia isn't about some bizarre "citation war" and this map is not appropriate here. Paul S (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please rethink what you are saying. Placenames are the main evidence used when a language is so poorly attested as Lusitanian, particularly when the date of the few short inscriptions there are indicates the possibility of corruption by LatinJembana (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible that Lucitanian branched off from pre-proto-Celtic,making it "Celtoid" I suppose, but that's inferring an awful lot from very little data. It would clearly seem to not be Celtic as that family is currently conceived. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is looking better now. Who can find the last 2 citations needed for the Classification and related languages section ? Jembana (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a remark: Stefan Schumacher has argued in his book "Die keltischen Primärverben" that PIE *p was preserved in Proto-Celtic as *φ (likely [ɸ]) even between vowels, and a fortiori also in initial position. How would you write such a sound with the Latin alphabet? There is no fitting character (unless Latin /f/ was bilabial, which is not usually assumed, although it is very well possible for Archaic Latin, considering the <FH> spelling), but [p] was lacking in Proto-Celtic and [ɸ] is still close to it, phonetically speaking. So it is conceivable that speakers of an archaic Celtic language which preserves that sound would still write it with a P. Therefore, the presence of apparent initial /p/ alone is not enough evidence to declare an IE language non-Celtic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That strikes me as desparately clutching at straws to try and shoehorn Lusitanian into the Celtic family. There are other aspects to consider such as "bull" being TAUROM not based on the proto-Celtic *tarwo- and the conjunction INDI which has no Celtic parallel. Koch doesn't suggest it was Celtic, but that Celtic and Lusitanian evolved in parallel on the Iberian penninsula. Paul S (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply made a general point – re-read my last sentence above. It's not a desperate attempt to argue anything in particular. That said, TAUROM could conceivably be a Latin loan (how likely that is I can't tell) and our knowledge of the Continental Celtic languages is too limited to rule out that their variety could accomodate indi or the dative endings mentioned below and other possibly eccentric seeming features, and I don't even have any idea what "full labialisation" is supposed to be. I just think that pre-mature conclusions should be avoided. Based on the arguments mentioned in this talk page, neither of which are truly compelling, I don't think we can reliably exclude any possibility; I'm simply agnostic about the classification of Lusitanian. Whether eccentric Celtic dialect, a separate branch close to (Italo-?)Celtic, or even a distinct I-E branch with no particular affinities to Celtic, I think any of these is possible. We just know too little about Lusitanian to be sure. Given that the Urnfield culture (predecessor of the Hallstatt culture, which was with high probability carried by Celtic speakers) extended into modern Spain, and that it appears too early and geographically extensive to represent only early Celtic speakers but could well comprise a group of closely related languages including (the precessor of) Proto-Celtic (analogous to the Italic languages as opposed to Latin as the language connected with the dispersal of the Roman culture), the proposal that Lusitanian is a branch close but parallel to Celtic (just like, say, Oscan is to Latin, and Sicel might be, but again, too little evidence to go on) certainly makes the most sense overall, I'm not even trying to deny that. But at this point, I believe that we can only describe Lusitanian as "I-E, possibly Celtic or closely related to Celtic". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't follow your reasoning here... balancing the evidence we have that Lusitanian is not Celtic versus the lack of evidence that it is, you're going to say it could be Celtic? To answer your two questions: full labialisation means that the sound /k^w/ became /p/ and then the /p/ started to affect other sounds and labialise them, too - as happened in Welsh and Osco-Umbrian (Ribeira da Venda's PUMPI looks like this) and it's significant because this definitely didn't happen in Celtiberian, while TAUROM as a Latin loan is very, very unlikely because names for already introduced domestic animals don't change - this is generally recognised. Paul S (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I was just saying that we can't be sure that it's not Celtic or not closely related to Celtic – both positive and negative compelling evidence is lacking (the seeming preservation of p- might be a misleading spelling and is thus not compelling). Unlikely doesn't mean impossible – basic vocabulary, even for already introduced domestic animals, is borrowed all the time, depending on the closeness of contact between languages; it doesn't happen as frequently as with more marginal vocabulary, but it does happen.

At this point, I may agree that the likelihood that tauros is not a loan is 90% or even 99%, and the likelihood that Lusitanian isn't Celtic is the same, but 99% isn't 100% by any means, that's all I'm saying. It does look like Lusitanian is actually closer to Italic and just might even be an Italic language or something closely related to Italic, and at best secondarily influenced by Celtic. It's most probably an Italo-Celtic language (regardless of the preferred conception of Italo-Celtic – as a genetic node or only a Sprachbund among languages that were related and also obviously similar to begin with).

I don't get your point about full labialisation and Celtiberian, either – yeah, it didn't happen in Celtiberian, but everybody agrees already that Lusitanian isn't Celtiberian, so what? Celtiberian wasn't even the only Celtic language spoken in the region. Unlikely as it may be, the possibility of an "eccentric Celtic dialect" cannot yet be ruled out 100%. The data is just too scant to warrant any firm conclusions, positive or negative, and not altogether incompatible with Proto-Celtic. I would myself prefer it otherwise. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, skimming Prósper 2009, I agree now that Lusitanian does not look Celtic at all and in fact looks rather more like an Italic, even P-Italic language – in several respects, it does resemble Sabellic and even specifically Umbrian (although -ns has become -s rather than -f, so it is doubtful that it could really be Sabellic; also, indi doesn't fit Italic – to be frank, however, it does not fit anything else well, except that an apparently weakened enclitic form of Proto-Germanic *andi in Old Dutch happens to be homonymous). Cool. So on these grounds, a preliminary classification as Italic could actually be defended.

However, I note that my [ɸ] argument has been made in print by several established scholars, proof that it is a quite obvious and understandable thought to occur to a Celtologist, even if I think it has now been superseded by more recent data and considerations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Celtic Classification

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)

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)

There are many features that put Lusitanian close to the Celtic languages. Probably, during the times, the Lusitanian language has lost some of it's celtic features, if we recognize they have mixed with other non-celtic peoples. But, they are originally a celtic people. Another theory is that they were not a celtic people, but were very celticized, and may have become closer to the celts (genetically and linguistically).

Mr. J. Middleton189.15.5.7 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Well, there are lots of studies that say the Lusitanians were celtic. And there are others that say they were a branch close to the celtic branch, or, that they were celticized during the times, and have become closer to the celts. Only a small group of scholars say that they were not celtic or not related to the celts. Another topic I have to say, is that the celts were the only known indo-european people in Iberia. If we take into consideration that the Lusitanians were IEs, then we have a good clue of what they were. See, I'm not saying that it's impossible that other IE peoples had lived in Iberia, but we have to work with facts, and we don't have vestiges that other IE peoples live in Iberia during that period of time.

Mr. J. Middleton189.15.5.7 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Why do you say that 'celtic classification' would have to be redefined? I mean, what do you know about the Lusitanians, that I don't. Please Kwami tell me, I'm really interested in knowing it.

Mr. J. Middleton189.15.5.195 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Oh yeah, I'm sorry. But I asked it because I don't think that this *p is enough to classify Lusitanian as a non-celtic language. 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.

Mr. J. Middleton189.15.5.195 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

I didn't say that Lusitanians is celtic because of the fall of the *p. This fall is just an isolate feature. We still have lots of other features that are enough to put Lusitanian in the celtic classification, or at least in the 'para-celtic' classification.

Mr. J. Middleton189.15.5.40 (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Look, I know that it's not enough, but celts were the only known indo-european people in Iberia. If we take into consideration that the Lusitanians were IEs, then we have a good clue of what they were.

Mr. J. Middleton189.15.5.251 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

It's not enough, but it's still important. Mr. J. Middleton189.15.5.47 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I just read a paper by Wodko in: Cunliffe and J. T. Koch "Celtic from the West..." - very recently released. He believes that Lusitanian may well have been a Celtic dialect and related to the Celtic language spoken in ancient Gallaecia (today Galicia and Northern and North-Central Portugal). Wodko is one of the world's few experts in Lusitanian. Anthropologique (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

go on, evolve!

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, that is a better expression :) Jembana (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Icona Loiminna

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)

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)

No I have not. I will try and find a way of reading it. Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

List of Lusitanian place names in Iberia

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)

Independent branch of Indo-European

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)

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)

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)

P and B irrelevance

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Gallo-Italic?

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)

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)

Lusitanian language classification

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)

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)

Missing references

User:Melroross, you edited into the entry two references that are not actually present in the page, "Mallory 1999" and "Anthony 2007". Please, insert the full name of the reference in the "Further Reading" section, otherwise we have no way to know which works are these. 10:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Peleio Aquiles (talk)

(talk) Done.Melroross (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Melroross. However, the Mallory reference you inserted now is dated 2016. Is that the same "Mallory 1999" reference you inserted before?