Talk:Italo-Celtic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Celts Italo-Celtic is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] moved from Talk:Indo-European languages

I see you are warming up now, Angr :) Italo-Celtic, however, has much much fewer supporters than Balto-Slavic ever had, if anyone was ever even positively postulating it. Here you have a group that linguists will shrug off as spurious. I don't object to mentioning it, though (but it should at least have a stub article), but it has nowhere near majority support. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't Angr; that was me. Anyway, Italo-Celtic may not have majority support (which is why I didn't list it in the same manner as Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian), but there are a non-trivial number of mainstream linguists who believe in it, right? Anyway, I felt it was worth mentioning, since it is a well-known meme anyway; and I'll write up a stub article as soon as I can find exactly what the shared features of Italic and Celtic are that lead linguists to posit this family. (I know one is the assimilation of *p...kw to *kw...kw; and they both retain 3sg mediopassive endings in *-tor rather than *-toi, though the latter isn't positive evidence.) AJD 16:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
sorry, I just saw the A :)
sure it's ok, I was not objecting. The p/q stuff has ceased to be evidence, since both branches have both, I think. Quite important was the i-Genitive, but that's out of the picture too. Not sure about the r endings, they may still be a point. I couldn't name a scholar who was convinced of Italo-Celtic, but I reckon there were a few. Would be nice if you hacked together an article on it. I just wanted to point out that I-C acceptence is nowhere near Balto-Slavic acceptence, among Indo-Europeanists (not to you in particular, but to the world at large, including the balts:) dab (ᛏ) 16:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, AJD, but the Italo-Celtic hypothesis has been dead since the discovery of Hittite and Tocharian, which showed that mediopassive *-tor goes all the way back to the proto-language. Two branches keeping the same archaism doesn't prove anything; you have to prove a shared innovation to prove a common ancestry, and there's just no convincing evidence that Italic and Celtic have any shared innovations. --Angr/comhrá 16:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

DAB: I'm not sure what you mean by "both branches have both". Anyway, according to this PDF I also find 1pl mediopassive in *-mor, which is more probative than *-tor; subjunctives in *-ã-; and the development of laryngeals following syllabic sonorants into ã. I'm pretty sure Don Ringe of Tandy Warnow are reasonably convinced of Italo-Celtic, by the way. AJD 16:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

okay, let's take this to Talk:Italo-Celtic. My memory is not too fresh on this, yes there was the a subjunctive, and the r endings, even though inherited from the Proto-Language may still point to some common innovations by their distribution. By the way, Angr, since you seem to be on top of this, do you remember this r form Jasanoff discovered in both Tocharian and Hittite? What was that exactly, I forget the details, but it was rather impressive. Shall we go and write a section on the verb over at PIE?
I don't think Jay discovered it. I learned about it from him, and as I remember it, as soon as Hittite and Tocharian were discovered they were found to have passives in -r. I can't remember what he had to say about the ā-subjunctive, though. The 1 pl. in -mor and the development of CrHC to CrāC aren't convincing to me; they both could have arisen in both branches independently (the first one by analogy, the second by sound change). Tandy Warnow isn't an Indo-Europeanist (or even a linguist), and Don seems to have given up on the comparative method a number of years ago. I remember hearing him give a talk at an Indo-European conference ten years ago or more that left everyone scratching their heads and wondering who this man was and what he had done with Don Ringe. --Angr/comhrá 17:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
no, I didn't mean to say JJ discovered there are r forms in Hitt. and Toch. :) There was one particular irregular form, some 3rd person in one of those Tocharian paradigms, which has a parallel in Hittite and must be a striking archaism. He wrote about it in TIES in the 80s, and expanded on that (single form....) since then. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't remember, and the TIES paper isn't among the papers of his I have. I can write him and ask if you like. --Angr/comhrá 19:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I do have a paper of Jay's from 1983 where he talks about the ā-subjunctive of Italic and Celtic; it isn't a common innovation either; it's there in Tocharian and is related to a preterite suffix in Baltic and a sort of grab-bag verbal suffix in Slavic. --Angr/comhrá 19:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to find the TIES paper, it'll be a matter of half an hour, not reason to write him, we can do that once we have a good question :) well, the fact that a suffix is grundsprachlich doesn't preclude common innovation. It'd be a common innovation already if the suffix was used in a peculiar way or meaning different from the use as reconstructed for the proto-language. let's talk about this on Italo-Celtic, I'll get to dig into it more tomorrow, I think. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to talk about it at Italo-Celtic since that article (and its talk page) do not exist yet, nor should they IMHO. Since the suffix is used for the subjunctive in Tocharian as well, I don't think it can be an Italo-Celtic innovation to use it for the subjunctive. --Angr/comhrá 09:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I will create that article, sometime. Not because I believe in the group, obviously, but as an article on a historical theory, precisely to have a place to discuss these things. I do believe in some areal contact between early Italians & Celts, but not quite at a genetic level. See also our discussion on Talk:Vates. dab (ᛏ) 09:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

for the record, the Jasanoff article I was looking for above appeared in TIES 2 (1988), and the forms in question are the s third person singular endings in both the Tocharian s-preterite, and the Anatolian preterite. dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kortlandt

Does anyone have access to the new Kortlandt book? It would be important to know if there is anything innovative here. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POI

Just a couple of points of information, but they need checking so I won't edit the page myself.

PIE *pekʷ- 'cook' looks like it ought to be related to Welsh _pobi_ 'to bake' going back I think to something like _*pa:p-_ << _kʷa:kʷ-_. Isn't there an p-Italic word something like _popina_ borrowed into Latin for an Oscan takeaway?

PIE *ponkʷu- 'all' → Latin cunctus; no Celtic cognate. There is a root like this, but without the -n- that gives Welsh _pawb/pob_, Breton, Cornish _peub_/_peb_(B),_pub_(C) 'every(one), each' (The first form in each case is stressed and a pronoun, the second an unstressed proclitic). In Irish the unstressed form had it's initial voiced from _cach_ to _gach_ 'each, every'. The stressed version is found in the fixed phrase _ca:ch-a-cheile_ 'each other, one another' lit. 'everyone his companion'. These all point back to _*kʷa:kʷ-_ which could be from _pa:kʷ-_. Mongvras (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)