Talk:Celtiberians

From Academic Kids

They had some cultural contacts with the Caucasian Iberians (now territory of Eastern Georgia), who were natives of the Caucasus. A look at the map suggests that this sweeping assertion requires some explaining. We suspect that Levsur's unspoken race-nationalist agenda for Georgia (in the Caucasus) requires early cultural connections between these two groups. Why? In order to demonstrate what earlier 20th-century nationalists would have call the Urrecht of native Georgians in Georgia. But we are willing to have these "cultural contacts" spelled out for us in this entry. What are they, exactly? Wetman 03:18, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Wetman, it is not a "race-nationalist agenda for Georgia". The "Iberian-Caucasian" theory is a well-known theory about Proto-Iberian tribes (4th-2nd millenniums BC) and Iberian-Caucasian peoples. Levzur 18 Feb 2004

It suddenly occurs to me that an expression used by the scholar Jesus Rodriguez Ramos (see External Links at the entry) may have caused confusion: "Levantine Iberian" language and inscriptions. This is a translation from a Spanish thought and simply means "Eastern Spain," much as "Meridional Iberia" merely means Southern Spain. No connections with the Eastern Mediterranean or "Levant" is implied. If this is the confusion, may we remove the incorrect sentence noted above? Wetman 04:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, since these connections are "well-known," User:Levzur would simply offer us a couple of External links to articles on the web explaining how archaeologists have come to these conclusions. Trade goods from the 4th millennium BCE perhaps? Unlikely thought, until we hear to the contrary. Making an assertion more aggressively doesn't make it more convincing. BTW, citations from articles published in Georgian in a local archaeological society's newsletter, don't genuinely help Wikipedia readers.Wetman 22:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone else included in thiis "We" Wetman refers to please post some more details about the "We" refered to? No delusions of gradeur I hope.Zestauferov 08:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...but we didn't actually ever receive any corroborating sources after all, did we. (Wetman)

Singular v plural

Shouldn't this page be entitled "Celtiberian", as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)? If no one objects within 48 hours I'll move it there.Binabik80 18:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a shibboleth in some Wikipedian minds. In ordinary discourse, "Celtiberian" or "Burgundian" would refer to a language, whereas "Celtiberians" or "Burgundians" would refer to a people. Wikipedese Dorian for normal "Dorians" reminds one that there is a musical mode to disambiguate; but "Dorians" simply are the Dorians. Since the word "Celtiberian" denotes a cultural mix rather than a people, an individual "Celtiberian" is particularly infelicitous. As long as there's a redirect, it's okay. But Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) does say "If you make a page title which is a plural, always consider making a redirect from the singular to aid linking. This is particularly important because Wikipedians tend to assume that the article title will be in the singular." And you remember what Thoreau said about consistency... --Wetman 19:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a translation for this original research?

Bit by bit the article has developed the following text: " Enough has been preserved to suggest that, the Celtiberian language was Q-Celtic (like Goidelic), and not P-Celtic like Gaulish. Since Brythonic is P-Celtic too, but more closely related to Goidelic than to Gaulish (Insular Celtic), it followed that the P/Q division is paraphyletic." With a few more words, could this radical suggestion that the standard Q-Celtic/P-Celtic division is mistaken, be expressed in a more reader-friendly fashion? --Wetman 15:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That Celtiberian was in fact Q-Celtic is confirmed in J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans (Thames & Hudson, 1989), ISBN 0-500-05052-X. (p. 106) The P/Q alternation figures not only in Celtic, but also in Italic as well; cf. Oscan pis, pid, Latin quis, quid. The existence of this alternation in Latin as well as Celtic is one of the reasons why an "Italo-Celtic" subgroup within Indo-European was proposed. My understanding is that this is no longer a favoured hypothesis, but the P/Q alternation seems to have been a general "areal" feature of western IE generally. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I added your (Mallory 1989 p 106) ref at the appropriate place.--Wetman 22:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the "alternation" is a feature: "Q" is the original state. The sound change Q->P occurred several times, more or less independently, in Oscan, Gaulish and Welsh. Granted, the Gaulish/Oscan change may be areally related. The question was whether Welsh made the change independently, or if it was introduced to Britain later than Goidelic, so what was at stake was the existence of a common Insular celtic. Since the Q->P change in Welsh was the only indication of that (I think), and several good reasons pointed to common Insular Celtic, I do think that the Welsh sound change now is widely considered to have occurred independently. It is, after all, a pretty trivial change, especially since the celts had lost original p long ago, so that there was a gap in the phonological system. Whether the Italic Q->P change was induced by contact with Gauls is, I suppose, anyone's guess, but it doesn't really impinge on the classification of the Celtic languages: I wouldn't know how this may point to Italo-Celtic, since the change would be clearly secondary to Proto-Italo-Celtic. There are other important hints for Italo-Celtic, such as the i-Genitive, that have now fallen from favour (hardly anyone believes in Italo-Celtic any longer). In a nutshell, Gaulish an Welsh ps are considered paraphyletic. dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)