Talk:Hispano-Celtic languages

Merge
I do not agree that this article be merged with Continental Celtic languages article. I feel it would get lost if subsumed there. However, a brief precis of it should go on the Continental Celtic languages article. This is a new article and has a ways yet to grow - let it do so.Jembana (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are specific wiki links to this page from a number of articles on Celtic tribes of the Iberian Peninsula. It acts a specific explanation of the term and gives the major occurrences of it with samples. It would become non-specific if subsumed and less useful.Jembana (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal 2: proposal to merge with Paleohispanic languages
I do not agree with this proposal. This article caters for a whole sub-family of the Celtic languages for which evidence is emerging year by year now. Summarising the findings in a few lines is not adequate to the task of informing readers of an encylopaedia like the Wikipedia. There are multiple researchers working on this area of study which is reflected in the authors of the references provided who are all respected experts on their subject.Jembana (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the merge, for the reasons you've outlined. ~Asarlaí 15:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Only opposition to merge given with no support voiced - removing tag.Jembana (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I propose deletion of this article by these reasons:

1) It doesn't add any significant information to the articles Celtiberian language and Gallaecian language.

2) It violates WP:NPOV as regarding the celticity of Tartessian.

3) It violates WP:NOR as it contains ad hoc designations such as "NW Hispano-Celtic" and "SW Hispano-Celtic". Talskubilos (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No original research here - these term are suggested by Carlos Jordán Cólera in the citation given as geographic-linguistic designations as in the following quote:

''We prefer to use the term Hispano-Celtic as a hypernym to include all the linguistic varieties of Celtic spoken in the Iberian Peninsula before the arrival of the Romans (in c. 218 BC, during the Second Punic War). However, the only variety for which we have direct evidenceand about whose Celtic origin there is unanimous agreement is the variety traditionally named Celtiberian, as defined above. In geographic-linguistic terms it could also be called northeastern Hispano-Celtic. In the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically between the west and north Atlantic coasts and an imaginary line running north-south and linking Oviedo and Mérida, there is a corpus of Latin inscriptions with particular characteristics of its own. This corpus contains some linguistic features that are clearly Celtic and others that in our opinion are not Celtic. The former we shall group, for the moment, under the label northwestern Hispano-Celtic. The latter are the same features found in well-documented contemporary inscriptions in the region occupied by the Lusitanians, and therefore belonging to the variety known as LUSITANIAN, or, more broadly as GALLO-LUSITANIAN. As we have already said, we do not consider this variety to belong to the Celtic language family. Finally, in the southwest of the Peninsula there are stelae containing inscriptions in a language for which the name TARTESSIAN has recently been becoming more widely used. These inscriptions are difficult to read, and therefore to interpret, although some features have been distinguished that indicate that the inscriptions are written in a Celtic language.''

If you refer to the Wodtko (also Koch) references you will see they also use Western Hispano-Celtic in many places to designate the western group of dialects: Caillaecian and Tartessian included (some are including Lusitanian too). Koch tentatively sees Tartessian as 'Old Caillaecian' in his interpretation.

So three peer-reviewed papers (at least) use these terms and they are current. Maybe your source has used out of date material in its compilation.Jembana (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the Celticity of Tartessian Koch's peer-reviewed papers and book chapters, Koch has demonstrated the Celtic sound shifts that Tartessian has been found to have - see under Tartessian As Celtic on the Tartessian page. Also and most importantly to me Koch can use his previous findings in Celtic from the West to predict meaning of the longest and complete Tartessian inscription and then use that to refine some previous translations of others. This is the criteria for confidence in his result. Remember his effort started in 2008 with the major work only in 2010. There has been no reputably published criticism of Koch's conclusions, even the early ones. A senior researcher in this field Francisco Villar has come out agreed that Tartessian is Celtic to add their name to Guerra, Ballester, Colera and Untermann. Now I can add even more peer-reviewed sources. The relative completeness of the lexicon that the Tartessian as Celtic approach provides including the Indo-European inflections identified by several researchers adds to this confidence. Simply saying (without a peer-reviewed article reference I might add) that one word here and there looks like an Iberian or Basque word pales to insignificance unless you work on it, get such a complete lexicon as Koch published and peer-reviewed and then use it to predict or at least reinterpret any new inscriptions that may come along as Koch has. You will have to explain away Guerra (also Untermann earlier) and Koch's Indo-European inflections identified.Jembana (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a suggestion: why not add and enrich this article with material from peer-reviewed sources that are up to date with recent research into this rapidly advancing field ? I have read your blog and feel you may have a lot of insights to offer from the references you know.Jembana (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As for me, I am committed to further enriching this article and I have multiple sources for this, but I have to wade through them. This article is about fleshing out the emerging sub-family of Celtic that is being researched from material on the Iberian peninsula and does not just apply to the conservative Celtiberian language. I have put just the tip of the dialectal comparisions that are available and should be in an article such as this not subsumed to any one particular dialect as you suggest.Jembana (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus about the celtity of Tartessian, nor Koch's work has been accepted yet, except by silence, so a NPOV would be leave it as undecided. Talskubilos (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I've condensed the descriptions of the Hispano-Celtic varieties, and also deleted unnecessary references to Tartessian as this it would violate NPOV as regarding its celticity. Also, if you want to write anything, you must learn to broke text into paragraphs. Talskubilos (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it was more of a historical evolution of the concept, but you condensed the developments which is good :-) (I did intend to do it myself) but you left out a lot of clarifying information for the reader and made a mistake. I will restore some of the relevant material and correct the mistake which will require and expansion of same a further condensation of part.Jembana (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you "restored" the sentence referring to Tartessian, but apparently you didn't realize it contained a pleonasm,as you used to verb to write twice (also remember than script and language are two different things). Also what you call "clarifying information for the reader" is unnecessary here because details are to be found in the corresponding article.

The autor is Carlos Jordán Cólera or just Carlos Jordán. see spanish surnames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.137.138 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)