Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Lusitanians

Expand Messages
  • Michael J Smith
    Hi Alex, my understanding was that, 1. The the language of the Lusitanians was closely related to the language of the Aquitanians, and that the languages of
    Message 1 of 27 , Mar 1 11:36 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Alex, my understanding was that,
      1. The the language of the Lusitanians was closely related to the
      language of the Aquitanians, and that the languages of these two peoples
      were unrelated to the languages of the Iberians.

      2. The languages of the Tartessians and Turdetani was different than the
      languages of the other Iberians.

      3. That the languages of the ancient Iberians and modern Basques, though
      unrelated to one another, are seen by some as having close affinities
      with the Kartvellian Caucasian languages (hence the possibility that
      maybe there is some truth in the Classical Authors' referance to the
      Caucasus and European Iberians being related, or one a branch of the
      other).

      4. The Aquitanians were ancestors of the present day Basques, being
      referred to as Vascones and occupying the same area that the Basques do
      today. Also, some think, as there was an Aquitanian tribe called the
      Pictones (and the Picts were often referred to as Pictones) and Medieval
      British Histories (Geofrey of Monmouth, Gerald of Wales for example)
      refer to a people called the Basclenes coming in ships and settling in
      Ireland, that the Picts are partly related or a branch of the
      Aquitanians.

      4. And according to Peter Ellis, P-Celtic speakers began to settle in
      Spain around the mid-1st millenium B.C.

      5. And that Q-Celtic is known to have been spoken in parts of Gaul.

      ________________________________________________________________
      Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
      Only $9.95 per month!
      Visit www.juno.com
    • Miguel Carrasquer
      On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 23:36:27 -0800, Michael J Smith ... If Aquitanian is ancrestral to Basque, then it cannot have any relationship to Lusitanian, which is an
      Message 2 of 27 , Mar 2 6:48 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 23:36:27 -0800, Michael J Smith
        <lookwhoscross-eyednow@...> wrote:

        >1. The the language of the Lusitanians was closely related to the
        >language of the Aquitanians, and that the languages of these two peoples
        >were unrelated to the languages of the Iberians.

        If Aquitanian is ancrestral to Basque, then it cannot have any
        relationship to Lusitanian, which is an IE language.

        >2. The languages of the Tartessians and Turdetani was different than the
        >languages of the other Iberians.

        Probably. The script is different, and unlike the script of the
        Iberians on the Eastern Mediterranean coast, not fully deciphered yet.

        >3. That the languages of the ancient Iberians and modern Basques, though
        >unrelated to one another, are seen by some as having close affinities
        >with the Kartvellian Caucasian languages (hence the possibility that
        >maybe there is some truth in the Classical Authors' referance to the
        >Caucasus and European Iberians being related, or one a branch of the
        >other).

        Basque and Iberian have not been proved to be related to each other,
        let alone related to Kartvelian.

        >4. The Aquitanians were ancestors of the present day Basques, being
        >referred to as Vascones and occupying the same area that the Basques do
        >today.

        The Vascones were in all probability a Celtic tribe.

        >4. And according to Peter Ellis, P-Celtic speakers began to settle in
        >Spain around the mid-1st millenium B.C.

        What's the evidence for that?

        >5. And that Q-Celtic is known to have been spoken in parts of Gaul.

        Yes. The change /kW/ > /p/ was a fairly recent innovation that spread
        across the Celtic territory in Gaul, Britain and N. Italy. It did not
        reach Spain and Ireland, and some parts of Gaul also remained
        unaffected.

        =======================
        Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
        mcv@...
      • Miguel Carrasquer
        On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:48:23 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer ... Let me expand on that. The name is attested in the numismatic material as BARSKUNES,
        Message 3 of 27 , Mar 2 7:16 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:48:23 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
          wrote:

          >The Vascones were in all probability a Celtic tribe.

          Let me expand on that. The name is attested in the numismatic material
          as BARSKUNES, with the Indo-European plural ending -es. The Basques
          have never referred to themselves as Basques/Vascones.

          How to explain then the fact that the Basques (both south and north of
          the Pyrinees, including the Romanized Gascons) are referred by the
          name of a Celtic tribe? Inscriptions in Basque/Aquitanian have been
          found in the northern parts of the territory of the Vascones. This
          might indicate that the Celtic Vascones were a ruling elite, and that
          the people (at least in the mountainous areas) spoke a non
          Indo-European Basque language. Sort of like the French being named
          after a Germanic tribe.

          =======================
          Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
          mcv@...
        • Michael J Smith
          Hey Miguel, regarding your response: 1. Actually made a mistake, I meant to say that I thought that Ligurian, not Lusitanian, is thought to be related to
          Message 4 of 27 , Mar 2 12:23 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Miguel,
            regarding your response:
            1. Actually made a mistake, I meant to say that I thought that Ligurian,
            not Lusitanian, is thought to be related to Auquitanian. Actually
            weren't their two Ligurian languages, one Indo-European, and one
            non-Indo-European?

            2. Do we know if the Cynetes referred to by Herodotus as the most
            Westerly people in Europe were a Lusitanian tribe, or who they were?

            3. Is anything known about Tartessian/Turdetanian languages, and if
            they're either a language isolate or have a possible relation to any
            other languages?

            4. I mentioned that Iberian and Basque were unrelated, I wasn't saying
            they were related to each other. I've read before that some see a
            possible relation to certain Caucasian languages (I thought it was
            Kartvellian). I've even heard that some think some form of
            non-Phoenician Semitic was spoken in Iberia, but I don't know what the
            basis is for this.

            Adeus,
            Michael

            ________________________________________________________________
            Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
            Only $9.95 per month!
            Visit www.juno.com
          • Miguel Carrasquer
            On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:23:52 -0800, Michael J Smith ... I m afraid none of these questions can be answered. Ligurian may have been non-IE, or IE with a non-IE
            Message 5 of 27 , Mar 2 5:07 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:23:52 -0800, Michael J Smith
              <lookwhoscross-eyednow@...> wrote:

              > Hey Miguel,
              >regarding your response:
              >1. Actually made a mistake, I meant to say that I thought that Ligurian,
              >not Lusitanian, is thought to be related to Auquitanian. Actually
              >weren't their two Ligurian languages, one Indo-European, and one
              >non-Indo-European?

              >2. Do we know if the Cynetes referred to by Herodotus as the most
              >Westerly people in Europe were a Lusitanian tribe, or who they were?

              >3. Is anything known about Tartessian/Turdetanian languages, and if
              >they're either a language isolate or have a possible relation to any
              >other languages?

              I'm afraid none of these questions can be answered. Ligurian may have
              been non-IE, or IE with a non-IE substrate, or simply a Celtic
              dialect. We know nothing about the language of the Cynetes
              (possibilities are: Celtic, para-Celtic [à la Lusitanian],
              Tartessian-like, Iberian-like, or something completely different).

              >4. I mentioned that Iberian and Basque were unrelated, I wasn't saying
              >they were related to each other. I've read before that some see a
              >possible relation to certain Caucasian languages (I thought it was
              >Kartvellian).

              There are several reason why linking Basque (and/or Iberian) to the
              Caucasian languages has proved irresistible: the circumstance that the
              name "Iberia" occurs in both regions, the fact that Basque and the
              Caucasian languages are the only extant isolates in the general
              European area, and typological similarities such as the ergative
              grammar of Basque and some Caucasian languages. In the first half of
              the 20th century a Vascologist like René Lafon attempted to link
              Basque with Kartvelian (Georgian), the best documented of the
              Caucasian languages. More recently, the attempts (e.g. Bengtson) have
              been directed more towards a link between Basque and North Caucasian
              (Abkhaz-Adyghe and Daghestanian-Nakh). Personally, I'm not convinced
              that a case has been made.


              >I've even heard that some think some form of
              >non-Phoenician Semitic was spoken in Iberia, but I don't know what the
              >basis is for this.

              Perhaps you're referring to Vennemann's theories about an "Atlantic"
              Semitoid language, which would have left traces in Basque and Celtic
              (the latter possibility had been already been the object of study by
              Julius Pokorny of the IEW). Again, I'm afraid I'm skeptical.


              =======================
              Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
              mcv@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.