Talk:Iberian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

here is another thing i'm going to have to do research on. Gringo300 16:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Translation

I've continued the translation that somebody else began. I'm not translating literally in some cases for sever reasons:

  • It sounds better to me my way (the distinction isn't clear vs. the distinction is unclear).
  • The Spanish is NPOV (or otherwise seems un-wiki-wise. "Debo" (should)is a pretty good indication of this.
  • The literal Spanish phrasing doesn't make sense in English.

Otherwise I'm trying to say mostly true to the original. I've re-organized a bit, but that's about all. I have more to say, but I'm gonna go. I'll continue translating soon I hope. --Quintucket 05:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sardinia

Removed a line from the intro, which needs a source (paraphrase): "the substrate of the Sardinian language has been identified as an Iberian language or close to the Iberian language."---Alexander 007 12:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Areas of Marginal Interest

I've realized that I've been translating some sections that are of marginal interest even to me, and I'm fascinated by linguistics. Is there any reason anybody can see for me to continue along this path? I'm fairly certain a lot of what I've so far left untranslated will get cropped by later editors if I translate it anywhen.

The Spanish and Galician Wikipedias have far less editing than the English does. I'm just going to work on the more relevant stuff for now, and leave the minor linguistic notes (which make up about half the content of the article) for later if at all.

I suppose though that the notes themselves are interesting, it's more the examples, which are irrelevant and confusing. And those just involve copying-pasting large sections and then changing o/u, y/e, como, que, and así to their English equivalents. The example texts for example, are an excellent example of this. They don't have Spanish equivalents, and hence would be of little interest to the average reader. And some interpretations, while fascinating to the linguist in me would again be of little interest to the average reader. Though I'd advise against cutting that one entirely, I might prune it down a bit if others suggest it.

Basically, I don't want to go through pointless effort.--Quintucket 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the new material, and I didn't see anything I would crop yet. It is all pretty much interesting and worthwhile so far. Alexander 007 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Damn. Now that I know somebody's reading it I feel like I should hurry up and finish rather than skip about between projects. Nevertheless, Tartessian language is in a similar situation to where this one was. At this point I have a good chunk of Iberian done so I'm gonna go work on translating that for a bit. I'm sure I'll come back to this fairly soon unless somebody else gets there first. --Quintucket 01:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phonology

"The m rarely appears in the initial position. Velaza proposes that it could be a variant of /n/, backed by the example of iumstir/iunstir. José A. Correa advances the possibility that it may be a geminated or strong nasal. Rodríguez Ramos notes the idea that it could be a variant of /n/ in cases that it nasalizes the preceding vowel."

I wonder if anybody realized how likely assimilation is -> /m/ before an alveolar consonant > /n/ is very very common...

[edit] Sibilants

It is worth noting that Basque also has two silibants: /s/ as apical alveolar and /z/ as laminal alveolar, which could correspond to [ś] and [s].

Aren't x, ts, tz and tx sibilants? How many sibilants did Medieval Castilian have? --Error 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of offending comments

I have removed the following paragraph: "This author JESUS RODRIGUEZ RAMOS has studied ancient Iberian and present its origin and other studies in a totally dogmatic way. This way is so dogmatic that he personally (not scientifically) and plainly dismisses several authors that have also studied the same topics and reached different conclussions. Everything is not said about Iberian language with Ramos work. He expands libels through Internet taking profit of the Wikipedia good will . Portugese F.suffers a blunt uncontrolled attack. Spanish A-V.is exposed to private accusations (unrelated to Iberian language)which never were proved.Ramos should be suited. Spanish A-G. is accused without a minimal integrity from Ramos part.

This is only a caveat for innocent readers that should look up other abundant literature on Iberian language,including M. Ruhlen´s and J.Bengston´s work on Dene-Caucasian,which includes Basque and Caucasian languages . V. Sarkisian works on Armenian and Basque language (he is the President of the Language Academy at Armenia) and many other studies should also be consulted."

The previous authors should be cited, for sure, but in a different way. Javirl 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some remarks on the offending comments

The "blunt uncontrolled attack" against "portuguese F." is exactly the opposite (see http://www.bib.uab.es/pub/faventia/02107570v26n2p157.pdf). There is no paper, book or Wikipedia article written by Rodríguez Ramos in which A-V (Arnaiz-Villena) or A-G (Alonso García) are even mentioned (they are only in his private web page). There is an english word for the books of Arnaiz and Alonso on ancient languages: crackpots. They translate Iberian, Etruscan, Hittite and Ancient Egyptian (inter alia) using modern Basque (even using Latin and Romance loans!!). So I supose that all the other researchers on these language are dogmatics, that Coptic isn't related to ancient Egyptian, that Champollion didn't decipher it and that Hittite isn't Indo-European neither Hrozny deciphered it. :-D :-D In fact, there do is a paper in a journal about AG and AV, written by professor De Hoz (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) (not by Rodríguez Ramos)reviewing their books in which he writes:

"Que se haya desviado dinero público para la edición de supuestos trabajos lingüísticos cuyo interés científico es el mismo que el de la práctica de conjuros ante un muñeco de cera para la curación de cáncer, cuando tesis de considerable valor permanecen inéditas y sus autores tienen que buscar salidas académicas fuera del país es algo peor que una estupidez, es un crimen del que debe existir un responsable al que se debiera pedir cuentas" ("Viaje a ninguna parte a través del Mediterráneo. Las lenguas que no hablaron ni iberos, ni etruscos, ni cretenses" Rev. De Libros 28, abril 1999, 11).

I translate the last phrase: "it's a crime of which there must be a responsible, who should be called to account". Even so, user 212.85.39.220 (who also writes on Genetics ;-) guess who! ) attacks Rodríguez Ramos but not De Hoz.

The alleged "private accusations" "never proved" against A-V are too public (charges against his practices as civil servant in his public job in the public spanish health system IMSALUD) and it is the spanish administration who prosecutes him and sanctioned him severely (sanction confirmed by a judge) and this sentence was published by the spanish newspapers (http://www.elpais.es/articulo/madrid/juez/suspende/33/meses/empleo/sueldo/jefe/inmunologia/Doce/Octubre/elpepiautmad/20031111elpmad_13/Tes/ ). So "private accusations" that were "never proven"? "Ramos should be suited"? Why not to suit the judge or the newspapers?

By the way. Does somebody know any paper or book of Sarkisian, Bengtson or Ruhlen on Iberian language? The non-existent can't be cited. And on their work on Basque, why not consult the devastating critics by Larry Trask, Lyle Campbell or Joseba Lakarra? It's easy to find in internet very harsh comments of Larry Trask on Bengtson, Ruhlen or Alonso and their lack of everything (for example 1, 2, 3, 4 ).

As in internet, also in the wikipedia itself you can find reference on the dubious methodology of Arnaiz (look for the comments of Cavalli-Sforza who demolishes his methodology, here). And what to say on Sarkisian, who proposes that Basque and Armenian are related languages. As everybody knows, Armenian is an Indo-European language, Basque isn't, and transitivity isn't a joke.

[edit] Misleading fact

I appreciate the article focused on Iberian Languages, as being from Portugal. However, I've noticed a misleading mistake in the chart on the right side of the article. It states that Iberian Languages (as the languages from the Iberian Peninsula and spoken there as well) are distributed in the mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula, spoken in Spain and France. This creates the impression that France belongs to the Iberian Peninsula whihch wrong, the only lands that form the Iberian Peninsula are: Portugal, Spain, Andorra and Gibraltar. Once again, France does not belong to the Iberian Peninsula. It might have influence of the Iberian Languages, since French is also spoken in Andorra, and is very similar to the dominant official languages (in the Peninsula Iberica) Portuguese and Spanish. I'd like the author to revise this article with the purpose to prevent resulting misleadings. My thanks, --70.52.150.215 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia

Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss my proposal. Jimp 09:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This an error which in Iberian language not exist /p/

This an error which in Iberian language not exist /p/.

In really not exist epigraphical evidences of /b/. No exist none letter for B from Greek origin nor Phoenician, only P.

Kind Regrads, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the phonemes B and P in Iberian languages

User Dilvish 10 words to remove a previous edition (diffs) said:

Undoing edition that contradicts bibliographical references (invents a p phoneme, deletes b) without any reference; and lacks logics...

Dear Mr. Dilvish

You say that my correction has no logic, and I invented a phoneme P, while delete or remove a phoneme in B. I am very grateful for their interest and intentions. I am sure that you act in good faith, guided by the literature he read. However, I took many years of my life studying the ancient writings of Iberia, and it is very easy to demonstrate that the writing system used by iberians, actually there is no point that can be compared with a Greek Beta, or Phoenician Beth .

In all systems used by the Iberians scriptures, they never used the letter Beta from Greeks and Etruscans alphabets nor the letter Beth from Phoenicians alphabets. They always used the letter or sign, that all alphabets Greeks, Etruscans, or Phoenicians used to play the phoneme P. And this is an indisputable and scientific evidence, of that they did not have the sound of phoneme B, or having a phoneme whose sound was intermediate between a B and a P, but closer to phoneme P. It is simple common sense...

If they really had the sound of phoneme B, and did not have a sound for the phoneme P (as many scholars still believe erroneously), then the logical thing they had chosen the letter that the Greeks or the Etruscans or the Phoenicians had for the phoneme B. You only should review the writing system of ancient Iberians, and yourself can see that there is no equal sign to the Greek Beta, nor any letter or sign similar to the Phoenician Beth.

The writing system found in Espanca, Portugal, as we see in place that would occupy the phoneme B, they used a letter similar to the Greek Pi. This shows that they did not have a sound equal to phoneme reproducing the Greek Beta, because then they would have used the same sign of the Greek Beta, and not the sign of phoneme Pi, but the fact that they are chosen sign that the Greeks, Etruscans and Pheonicians used to play the phoneme P or Ph, in a second position, corresponding to phoneme B, shows that the ancient Tartessians then, like the Iberians, had a sound that was intermediate between the phoneme B and P phoneme, but closer to the sound of phoneme P.

This theory that I defend, and was discovered earlier by great philologists and linguists of the past, but at present nobody wants to remember, for example, the famous French linguist and philologist, Edouard Philipon, who also was a great expert and connoisseur of the ancient writings and the ancient toponimy, and philology, of the ancient civilizations of Iberia.

I understand that you are going to insist that I show that this is not the same that is officially extended (even though it exposed the evidence with great common sense, logic and scientific rigor). Okay, here you are right. ie, what I exposed is not the same that we read in most major books on Iberian languages. I guess you know it is very difficult to get scientists or experts acknowledge a serious error of interpretation, but as Wikipedia must always be impartial and neutral, then I propose to you a more fair and more neutral, and also respects the policy of Wikipedia, ie, maintaining the official version, and then make a brief paragraph, where I explain this same that I have explained to you, and of course citing the exact source of the work of Edouard Philipon.

The people have a right to know the facts, and reflect on the truth and what is credible, that is a possible misinterpretation, or observation. Always with the guarantees of a neutral and impartial vision.

The people have a right to know that, in really, in the writing system used by the Iberians, from the standpoint of Epigraphy, there is no sign that can compare with any sign used by the Greeks, Phoenicians and Etruscans for the phoneme B, and that in really there is only one letter or sign which is identical to the Greek Pi used by Greeks and Etruscans, and that is the same today that experts read as if it were a sign only for the phoneme B, and a few as a sign for the phoneme B and also for the phoneme P.

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Díaz-Montexano:
Things are not so simple.
First and foremost: Wikipedia has very clear rules on what references should be used. I can quote papers of Schuchardt, Michelena, De Hoz, Quintanilla, Rodríguez or Correa on Iberian language Phonology, they all state the /b/ phoneme, but cast serious doubts or simple rejects the existence of /p/.
Second. Iberian is not a copy of Greek or Phoenician scripts, and Espanca is not an Iberian inscription. I don't see which logics lies in supposing that to be a /b/ phoneme there must be a letter copied from the Greek B. Iberian has letters akin to Greek qoph, phi, khi or hupsilon and no one proposed that phonemes for Iberian. Iberian does not have a letter akin to Greek O (the only one equivalent is KU) but nobody doubts that Iberian do had an /o/ phoneme.
Third: linguistics researchers (as Maddieson) have stated that among the known languages that if a language has /g/ and /d/ also has /b/; but that it's is very usual for a language to have /t/ /d/ /g/ /b/ but no /p/.
Fourth: alphabetical script used by Iberian speaking people show the use of B, but not of P; alphabetical script used by no Iberian speaking people show the use of B, and only rarely use P and they do in linguistics context in which among languages use to appear devoicing.
Fifth: Iberian script show two kinds of signs for syllabic signs of D/T and G/K (showing the existence of two pairs of phonemes /d/ /t/ and /g/ /k/), but this does not happen with the syllabic B signs (so there is only place for /b/).
IMHO, any of this points refutes your propposal, and I guess you may have missunderstood Philippon.
It has no relevance, but, as a matter of fact, we do can find parallels between shapes of Greek beta and Iberian signs: the Beta of the Cyclades, of Corinth, of Crete and Megara (just the shape of BI that is PI in standard Greek), of some towns of Sicily, etc.
If you still have doubts, you may ask some Wikipedia's Administrator on the right way to write this article. I don't find any logics in the syllogism that if Iberian has no signs akin to Greek and Phoenician B, there is no /b/ phoneme in Iberian. There are direct and clear linguistic data that show that there was a /b/ phoneme and no /p/, and these override very dubious circumstantial evidence.
--Dilvish 10 words (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)