Talk:Tartessian language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Does anyone understand Tartessian ?

Does anyone understand the language of Tartessian, anyone show similar words, or other patterns in & modern Spanish?. Nothing is said, or menetion. No Tartessian words or phrases are listed.

Yes, Professor John T. Koch can readily translate the Tartessian inscriptions - see examples at bottom of page. Jembana (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tartessian as Celtic section. Jembana (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The first line of the second paragraph is immensely confusing translated litterally into English. While I've generally been translating litterally, I simply could not puzzle out much of the middle sentence. It seemed to be saying the same thing in a variety of ways.

I'm guessing that this is by the same guy who wrote the Iberian langauge article. A number of sentances in that were highly redundant, so I'm gonna go with my instincts and translate to roughly what I think they were trying to say.

If anybody has a better idea, please go ahead and fix it. --Quintucket 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my mom took away the Spanish dictionary. I need the multiple definitions to make sense of the style this guy uses, so I may put this on hold until I get a chance to sneak it back upstairs again. Online dictionaries are pretty much useless with the style used by our Spanish professor here. Edit: now signed --Quintucket 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarity to Greek/Phoenician.

I wonder if there are any sources that comment on the similarity of "Tartessian" to the Greek/Phoenician alphabets. Etruscan too for that matter. It wouldn't surprise me if the history of this alphabet is similar to that of Norse-Germanic runes; they were mostly acquired from trade with Greeks down the rivers of Russia.

The following is a summary of information paraphrased from "Historia de España, Tomo I, Volumen II: España Protohistórica," edited by R. Menéndez Pidal, published 1952 by Espasa-Calpe. p.281-286. Reading this made me think the alphabet is not "autochthonous" but rather borrowed to some degree, probably from Phoenician, but perhaps from Greek (or both over the course of time).

The Tartessian people had been in contact with the Phoenicians via (modern) Cádiz and other coastal settlements for about 500 years (from c 1100 bce) when the Greeks started to settle and trade as well.

This question is well known. Menendez Pidal is a very old resource. There are two hypothesis, both conclude that "Tartessian" script is an adaptation of the Phoenician Script of ca. 800 B.C., but some authors (specially Untermann) believe that there was an influence of the Greek script (in order to explain the shape of some signs as the A).

In English I only remember this source: Iberian Epigraphy Page (look at the pages [1], and specially [2] and [3]. If you read Spanish look for articles of Javier De Hoz Bravo, José Antonio Correa Rodríguez and Jesús Rodríguez Ramos (If you want I know the link to two interesting articles in Spanish on that question).

By the way, Phoenicians were not only at Cádiz but in many tows of the coast and some inland in the Guadalquivir Basin. There were many Phoenicians living in Southern Spain.

--Dilvish 10 words 20:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tartessian as Celtic, Altantic Theory

The idea that Tartessian is Celtic is still very much a minority view and that doesn't look like changing. The associated theory that the Celts come from SW Iberia and don't start with the Hallstatt culture is also a minority view. It can only be described as a fringe theory and while worth mentioning, shouldn't be the main portion of the article as if all argument has ended. Paul S (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not only a "very much minority view that doesn't look like changing" as you say, it is the current majority view among archaeologists since an abundance of evidence has been painstakingly discovered across many disciplines. Professor Koch's work on the Tartessian inscriptions is only a part of this body of work. Rather than just delete my citations of peer-reviewed articles that present this evidence, you should have presented counter evidence (if you can find it) from the last few years post the decipherment and translation of the Tartessian inscriptions.Jembana (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The date that Professor Koch presented his Tartessian translations as Celtic was May, 2008, so

peer-reviewed articles on Tartessian as Celtic vs. otherwise and Atlantic Bronze Age Theory for Celtic origins vs. the Hallstatt origin theory after May, 2008 is what we're after. Happy hunting :)Jembana (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some attempt at translation of the longest text on a stele (of about 90 stele) of 86 characters which was discovered in February 2009, so within the past year would be best.Jembana (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW PaulS did you mean to say Hallstatt or Urnfield, if Halstatt - what phase ? Let's be clear here.Jembana (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems Messrs Cunliffe, Karl, Guerra, McEvoy, Bradley; Oppenheimer, Rrvik, Isaac, Parsons, Koch, Freeman and Wodtko disagree with you (2010): see Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature. Oxbow Books and Celtic Studies Publications. pp. 384. ISBN 978-1-84217-410-4.Jembana (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You've cut and pasted the list of contributors to the above book and cited them all as advocates of the notion that Tartessian is Celtic. Naughty! Paul S (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

They were listed because they are contributors to the book on Celtic from the West which incorporates the Atlantic Bronze Age including Tartessian. Just to clear this up (not trying to argue) :)Jembana (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming rather clear that Tartessian was in fact the earliest Celtic language. The research conducted by the Cunliffe and Koch University of Wales team in 2009 and 2010 (and ongoing) will lead to a general reclassification of Tartessian as Celtic. The people who keep referencing outdated material in an attempt to quash the notion that Tartessian is a Celtic language are intellectually dishonest characters. Some of these types are charlatans who obviously have some sort of twisted ax to grind.

London Hawk —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we must jump on the latest hypothesis before the academic community does, or we are truly dishonest. Especially when we have someone such as yourself who can see the future with certainty. (I assume you are independently wealthy from predicting the stock market.) — kwami (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear that, increasingly, the academic community IS ACCEPTING Tartessian as the first Celtic language. The evidence is substantial and growing. Tell us, how would you go about refuting the latest research buttressing Tartessian as Celtic? It looks like I may have hit a sensitive nerve... —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You have indeed by the latest reaction - now they use "conspiracy theory" accusations - shows a lack of intellectual honesty. Jembana (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please provide some 2ary sources, which is what we should be using for our articles. You haven't hit a nerve (I care little about Tartessian or Celtic), but I've seen lots of promising proposals for lots of things which never pan out. Where are the academic reviews which say, By God, Cunliffe and Koch have got it! — kwami (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, Koch (2008 and 2009) and Colera's paper both post-date Jesus's paper - why did you revert London Hawk's contribution on the mistaken basis that your reference (Jesus) "post-dates" Koch's and Colera's when they obviously don't ? Jembana (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there has been no refutation of Koch's translations after 2 years and no one else has come up with a credible alternative since, so I would say his findings have been largely accepted accepted especially since they are in papers and publications widely available on the web and via traditional media. Jembana (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1989-2009 does not postdate 2009, which is what he claimed: "Until recently" (in 2009), "however [now]" (1989, 1992, etc.).

Silence does not mean acceptance. It can mean something is not taken seriously enough to refute, or is seen as another in a long line of unproven hypotheses. You see the same thing in rongorongo: Fischer is widely cited as a decipherment, and it was only to refute such acceptance that people started reviewing it. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. That's why we base our articles on WP:secondary sources. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What was your "does not postdate 2009" reference ? - I don't see it, sorry. Jembana (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Cunliffe backs up Koch in his favourable review of Koch's work, so we do have WP:secondary sources. Now, would you and PaulS allow me to put up the citation then without removing it like you did with Colera's ? Jembana (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Koch as presented this at international symposiums such as this 2008 one from the USA which had the following precis:

John T. Koch (Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies) “Tartessian”: The Newest and Oldest Celtic Language

The paper will discuss some of the approximately 85 inscriptions of south Portugal and southwest Spain whose script and language are called “Tartessian” (alternatively ‘South Lusitanian’ or merely ‘South-western’). Although notoriously lacking closely datable archaeological contexts, many of the stones were found in necropolises of the Tartessian culture of the Early Iron Age (c. 750–c. 450 BC). In several respects, this archaeological culture and its funerary inscribed stones represent an “orientalizing” continuation of the preceding Atlantic Late Bronze Age (c. 1200–c. 750 BC). The script may show some early Greek influence, but is primarily of Phoenician origin. Phoenician material appears in the area as part of the Huelva deposition of c. 950 BC, and the archaeological sequence of the Phoenician colony at Cádiz (Gadir) begins c. 750 BC. The phonetic values of most of the letters of the Tartessian script have been understood since the late 1980s. José Correa’s proposals that some proper name forms in the inscriptions were Celtic have not led to general recognition of the Celticity of Tartessian. However, a review of the corpus—particularly the longer, most complete, and most legible inscriptions—permits the interpretation that the language is simply Celtic throughout, with close affinities to Gaulish, Goidelic, and Brittonic, as well as Tartessian’s younger neighbour Celtiberian. The texts include well-attested Celtic verbs, preverbs, pronouns, titles, common nouns, and prepositions, as well as the names of persons and gods. There are numerous linguistic, archaeological, and historical implications.

Now one would have thought that with such exposure amonst his colleagues in this field that anyone who found the findings unacceptable would have commented by now. Jembana (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguing from an absence of evidence is not a very strong way to go, and is certainly OR. Part of the problem is probably that this is a rather obscure field. Delete? Depends on the 2ary sources being sufficient for what you write. T could very well be Celtic; I wouldn't know. — kwami (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, we have been through this before on my talk page. The wiki policy you pointed me at says explicitly: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" and you know full well from our discussions before that Koch's papers have been "reliably published" and peer-reviewed before being published in the journals. Jembana (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I objected to citing Koch? Of course not. But I do object to elevating his theory above the others with nothing more to go on but his opinion of his own theory. By that standard, we can elevate any published opinion above all other opinions, and how do we then resolve an edit war between editors who believe different publications?

Now, if you can demonstrate that only Koch (or those who agree with him) has been published in peer reviewed journals, or that his colleagues have compared the various theories and conclude that Koch's is most likely, that would be a different matter. But if those who disagree with him have also been published in quality journals, and there is no such consensus among his colleagues, then we here at WP have nothing to go on to select one theory over the others. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK - Cunliffe's comment on Koch's work. Jembana (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that well-known linguist Barry Cunliffe. His opinion will put it beyond doubt, I'm sure. As has been said elsewhere, this whole thing does look more and more like the manufacture of nationalist history by a circle of British-based academics, which is why it's generally at variance with opinion in Spain, Portugal and elsewhere on the Continent. Paul S (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Prove your rather weird assertion. You removed yet again any reviews of Koch's work by others. I rest my case. Jembana (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, part of Koch's team are researchers from the Iberian Peninsula, and the Continent. This rather destroys the argument you used to remove my 2dnary references (now multiple time). Jembana (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and post them again. You have every right to reference material that is appropriate to the argument.

Yes, I don't understand the objection to Jembana's cite. The only thing I would object to is predicting the findings of future research, which can be corrected without deletion. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cunliffe is an archaeologist - why is he being cited as if an authority on Indo-European linguistics? The only reason is that he's part of the Atlanticist school of thought. Since he's no more in a position to assess the merits of Koch's classification of Tartessian than any of us are, it's not even an argument from authority, it's an argument from celebrity... Paul S (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I'm not familiar with him. I was assuming WP:good faith on Jembana's part. My mistake. — kwami (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite obvious what is taking place here. Some persons, for whatever strange reason, are not comfortable psychologically with the notion that Celticity originated and developed in the Atlantic Facade. Fundamentally, these are people who are intellectually dishonest; using outdated and refuted research material to buttress constructs that are no longer tenable, as regards the Tartessian language and Celtic culture origins. Time to grow up children, we are dealing in science not personal sentiments. No wonder WIKI has taken major credibility hits in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The above is a statement of blind faith. Wikipedia doesn't like your pet theory, so therefore it is being punished! Who knows, you may be proven right when the debate has taken place, but at the moment your position is very much a minority position and what people are objecting to is you and other Atlantic Celts declaring victory before the first engagements have taken place. Paul S (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Blind faith"? "Pet theory"? Hardly. You have the cheek to make such statements when you are utilizing outdated research / theory in a pitiful attempt to disprove new and well supported notions of Celticity, that are based on archaeological and linguistic findings as recent as 2009-2010? You must think the world is filled with grossly stupid people. Go ahead, genius, try and refute Koch and others. Come on, we are all waiting for your great wisdom to surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. WP is not the place for announcing research. We are an encyclopedia, not a journal. We summarize what 2ary sources such as journals report. — kwami (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What is truly stupid and against academic protocol is deleting relevant peer reviews of a researcher's work, in this case Koch. Let's stop the nonsense already. [london hawk] London Hawk (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

[please sign your posts: just type ~~~~ after them.] And which peer review was that? I must have missed it. — kwami (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference Jamamba's comments above. Ostensibly, Paul S. deleted reviews of Koch's work posted by Jembana. Are we seeing some sort of childish agenda developing here? London Hawk (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes "Ostensibly", I get your drift and thought the same myself - sock puppetry ? One userid has taken a position that doesn't allow reversion of the review while the other is free to use to revert the review. Hmmm...the wiki doesn't allow this behaviour. Jembana (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Truly amazing how juvenile some people can be. Wikipedia is losing credibility by the day because of nonsense such as what we are witnessing here. Some off-the-wall contributors actually think they can suppress scientific truth. Does anyone sense an Alice in Wonderland scenario brewing? What a farce... —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) London Hawk (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. If you have a peer-reviewed ref, let's see it. Otherwise quit whining. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I put up the first peer-reviewed ref that I put up before. One hand cannot complain if the other hand deletes it again. I repeat, Wiki allows only one userid per editor. Jembana (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the "peer-reviewed" article was the one that was not reviewed by his peers. I thought you actually had a peer review that would support Koch's research. I agree w Paul's reasoning, and deleted it again. Please review our WP:RS policy.

As for the rest, huh? — kwami (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you are being misleading to other readers of this talk-fest - you know full well that I have already answered this before on my talk page where you asked me about this. I am pasting my reply from there to this very same query from you:

Regarding Tartessian (since this is where you made the last changes), Professor Koch's paper on Tartessian was published just last year in even more detail than I have shown here in a journal whose papers are peer-reviewed. That journal is in the reading list of the article. In that journal Professor Koch credits the previous researchers who noticed that Tartessian appears to be Celtic.Jembana (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, many have thought that lookooboo niiraboo in the Fonte Velha 6 inscription was obviously Celtic (J. A. Correa, Francisco Villar, Carlos Jordán, for example). Also Arganthonios has been identified as Celtic by earlier writers.Jembana (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jembana (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC) That reference for other readers was Jembana (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not misleading anyone. (How quick you are to assume bad faith! I suppose you're right: anyone who disagrees with you must be up to no good.) I may have forgotten what you told me, but the point here was that you said you have a ref of K's peers commenting on his work, and you don't. We know K's 2009 paper was peer reviewed; if it weren't, it would have been deleted too. Archeologists may quote the conclusions of linguists, and vice versa, but that doesn't count as an independent evaluation, any more than a linguist quoting a geneticist counts as confirmation of the genetics. When Vajda published a link between Na-Dene and Yeniseian in peer reviewed journals, after a century of failed attempts at linking the Old and New Worlds, people were of course skeptical, but he presented his work to other linguists and was able to convince them. They then published or stated publicly that they thought he was correct. If Koch is right, he should be able to do the same. Of course, that may take a while, but we can't very well rush him. — kwami (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I accept that you may have forgotten, then. So, just to get this straight, if I find a favourable peer-review of Koch's translationa of Tartessian as Celtic, you will allow us to change the classification shown on this page to Celtic and give more detail on this aspect ? Jembana (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. One thing I worry about are the huge number of crack-pot ideas on language relations (you should've seen the nutcases pushing "Usko-Mediterranean"); more difficult to spot are the equally large number of mainstream yet nonetheless poorly supported hypotheses, some promoted with quite some fervor, and sometimes accepted because they're too obscure for anyone to bother checking. I am seldom able to evaluate such claims myself, and even if I could, that would be OR. (I quite liked Karasuk (Burusho-Yeniseian), for example, but it looks like that's not going to pan out, and no-one is picking up on it.) So I think a summary of the peer-reviewed journal is called for, which we now have; but reception by non-linguists isn't relevant, unless it becomes a story in itself. But yeah, if Koch presents his paper at a linguistics conference, and convinces previously skeptical linguists, that would reason to believe he's either correct or at least has good evidence for his claim. It would certainly be a good reference for this article. If, on the other hand, the only people who buy it are his students and immediate colleagues, that would suggest that either the evidence isn't convincing by itself, or perhaps that his group is the only one doing much with it. These things seldom happen over night, though. Vajda worked for a decade before he'd gathered enough evidence to convince other linguists; before then, who could say whether Yeniseian was more likely related to Burusho or to Athabaskan? — kwami (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate where you're coming from with this. We also seem to have some common interests here - would love to discuss it with you outside of this page sometime :) Jembana (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. My email is activated.

I find this stuff fascinating. And I don't know the people involved - perhaps you do? I often find researchers more convincing in person, where they can respond directly to doubts and there's a whole audience to call them on any omissions. (It's amazing the junk that passes peer review sometimes, even in premier journals like Science, not that we can judge such things for the purposes of WP.) — kwami (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The only people acting in bad faith on this thread are the "editors". Tell us now, what is your agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.188.20 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC) London Hawk (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I find you entertaining. — kwami (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And I find you lacking in intellectual integrity. London Hawk (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Evil. I aim to subvert society. That's true of everyone who disagrees with you and your inability to find sources for the Truth. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh please...shall I summon the violins? And just why do you disagree with the constructs that Koch and others have presented? I just love how you people constantly make insincere use of outdated, no longer tenable Tartessian language research material, that has little (if any) standing when compared with the most recent findings. Has anyone been able to refute Koch and others of the "Atlantic School"? - and don't give me this nonsense about the body of theory not being taken seriously enough to merit refutation efforts. It is one thing for a person to disagree with a theoretical construct or research point and, in the process of debate, provide sound reasons for his / her stance. However, you and your buddy are hardly doing such. You are just playing childish games... London Hawk (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Violins would set the mood nicely.

And why do you beat your spouse? I never said I disagree with Koch; in fact, I was clear that I'm not competent to judge, and that even if I were, that would be WP:OR.

You might want to read science. I know, it's a childish enterprise, but there's this funny consensus that it's pertinent to articles like this.

— kwami (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, the only thing I ask is for people not to reference outdated theoretical papers in an attempt to refute the most recent Tartessian language research (mainly provided by the Atlantic School) that is based on material / findings not previously available. It is disingenuous and, frankly, the logic of it all is just plain faulty. Peace... —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making assumptions based on your conclusions in order to support those conclusions. How do we know that the 2002 paper is outdated? That would again require peer consensus that Koch's got it right, and by implication, that the 2002 paper is no longer a good reference. Could very well be true, and no skin off my nose if it is, but again, we base our articles on references, not desires. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The identification of Tartessian as a Celtic language in the 2010 paper is extremely dubious. Specifically, Koch fails to make sound correspondences. Basically, the hypothesis of the Neogrammarians states that sound changes are regular, systemic, and purely phonetically conditioned (there are correlaries to address the effects of things like analogy). So, this essentially means that Koch is apparently operating at a pre-1880 stage of linguistics. To give some examples, first Tartessian Teeaiona equals a reconstructed Celtic name *Deiwonā but later Teasiioonii corresponds to Tascouanos. Well, which one is it? Initial T = D or Initial T = T? What about the vowels? Does #Ce (initial Consonant + the vowel e) = #Ce or does #Ce = #Ca?

Likewise, Tartessian leoine corresponds to a reconstructed Celtic name *Līwonāi. Then, all of a sudden, meleśae corresponds to Gaulish Meliđđus. Well, which is it? #Ce = #Cī or does #Ce = #Ce? What about #Ci = #Cī? Sure, why not? Tartessian -ris = Celtic -rīχs but then on the same page Tartessian -riś suddenly equals the same thing. Well, which is it? They're written with different characters, presumably they represent different sounds. Does Tartessian s or ś correspond to Celtic s, or does it perhaps correspond to đđ as in Meliđđus?

Later, Tartessian niiraboo is equivalent to Welsh ner, so I guess we can add #Cii = #Ce to the confusion. There is absolutely no effort made to address these correspondences systematically and explain how the differences are conditioned. He just randomly takes Tartessian words of unknown meaning, compares them to vaguely similar words cherry-picked from a dozen different Celtic languages spanning thousands of years (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Old Irish, Welsh, etc.), and hopes nobody will notice. The only guiding principle seems to be superficial similarities. --Taranis2010 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vowels are notoriously difficult to work out, but the consonants are problematic. More worrisome are the cherry picking (Amerind comes to mind) and complete lack of semantic constraint. You can famously prove that English is a Central American language if given enough latitude, even with semantic constraints.

BTW, if anything like your analysis has been published, that would be relevant for the article. — kwami (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the article is still unclear on who actually supports a Celtic classification of Tartessian. It states:

However, Correa (1989, 1992), Untermann (1995, 1997 with Wodtko) and Koch (2008, 2009) proposed Celtic etymologies for Tartessian names, or even that Tartessian was itself Celtic.

The wording here is seriously ambiguous, and one is left to wonder if that may have been done intentionally to push the view of Tartessian as a Celtic language by making it seem more accepted than it really is. Do Correa, Untermann and Wodtko really all subscribe to the Celtic hypothesis and therefore, basically agree with Koch? If not, the sentence is seriously misleading as it suggests that "proposing Celtic etymologies for Tartessian names" amounts to classifying Tartessian itself as Celtic, while these are obviously two quite different things. Tartessians may well have borrowed names from Celtic, after all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Another editor mangled what I wrote originally here and wouldn't allow my fixes to his rewording (reverting my changes), so I can't apologise for the ambiguity. Tartessian has now been identified by at least 3 independent linguists as having seemingly Indo-European inflections - notably by the linguist working on the longest inscription. Celtic features have been noticed by all those mentioned with some identifying much more than just borrowings. I will work on a rewording and paste it on the talk page for discussion with references.Jembana (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Linguist List source says the following about Tartessian:

It is usually treated as unclassified, though some (Correa (1989), Koch (2009) and Untermann (1997)) believe it to be Celtic. c 700 BC - 100 BC. http://multitree.org/codes/txr.html Jembana (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Ethnologue now points to the Linguist List Multitree site for details so they are redundamt links now - only the Linguist List reference should remain pointing to the Multitree site for details.Jembana (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

With the classification of Tartessian, the views of Villar, Jordán, and Ballester are also worth noting - there is no POV involved here just the evidence from researchers. If you are not familiar with these and other research papers into Tartessian (or do not have access to them), then I will happily outline the essence of what they say:

Villar Liébana, F. 2004 ‘The Celtic Language of the Iberian Peninsula’, Studies in

Baltic and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of William R. Schmalstieg, eds.

P. Baldi & P. U. Dini, 243–74. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Jordán Cólera, C. 2004 Celtibérico, Zaragoza, Ediciones del Departamento de

Ciencias de la Antigüedad.

Jordán Cólera, C. 2006 ‘[K.3.3]: Crónica de un teicidio anunciado’, Real Academia

de Cultura Valenciana, sección de Estudios Ibéricos “D. Fletcher Valls”, Estudios de lenguas y epigrafía antiguas – ELEA 7, 2006, 37–72.

Jordán Cólera, C. 2007 ‘Celtiberian’, e-Keltoi 6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula,

749–850.

Ballester, X. 2004 ‘Hablas indoeuropeas y anindoeuropeas en la Hispania

prerromana’, Real Academia de Cultura Valenciana, sección de estudios

ibéricos. Estudios de lenguas y epigrafía antiguas – ELEA 6, 107–38.

Jembana (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

John Koch and others in Celtic from the West have established that Tartessian has

1. IE cases and tenses 2. Medio-passive (Celt-Italic-Tocharian) 3. Sounds changes distinguishing Celtic from other IE 4. IE and Celtic root-derived words

What do you say to this ? Comments please.Jembana (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Amilcar Guerra agrees with John Koch on the Indo-European (IE in my last comment) language of the Tartessian inscriptions. Jembana (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, there has been no refutation of Koch's translations after 2 years and no one else has come up with a credible alternative since, so I would say his findings have been largely accepted accepted especially since they are in papers and publications widely available on the web and via traditional media.
— User:Jembana 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Great. I will remember this ruse, it's my path to fame. So I can declare that I have deciphered (or classified as part of a greater family) the Novilara Stele/the Voynich Manuscript/the Phaistos Disc/Linear A/Eteocretan/Rongorongo/Iberian/Aquitanian-Basque/... (or even the Turkey Mountain inscriptions) as Ancient Martian/Klingon/Na'vi/ Quenya/Brithenig/Slovio/Volapük/ Lojban/Solresol/Lisp/SQL/Befunge/... (or some related language), and refute any criticism with "Have you got a better alternative?!" (This is inspired by a passage in Trask's The History of Basque. He would have been delighted by this gem of unconventional reasoning.)

It seems some people here don't understand how science works here (and even linguistics works according to basic scientific logic/method). The (of course, boring) default null hypothesis (even worse, if it is also the consensus in the field, as it is here) is always valid, and preferrable, barring compelling arguments to the opposite. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Hispano-Celtic language

It seems that the article Hispano-Celtic language has been created as a sort of POV fork of this article by User:Jembana, where he pushes his POV (which has little if any support in the general scholarly community outside of Koch's group, and can be characterised as heavily controversial at least) that Tartessian is Celtic as unqualified fact, as if it was the general scholarly consensus, while it is far from accepted. As Celtiberian was apparently not the only Celtic language in ancient Hispania, in view of the Gallaecian evidence (which considers only of onomastic material, though) at least, the article is valid as a disambiguation page in principle (though should be renamed to Hispano-Celtic languages or simply Hispano-Celtic), but the inclusion of Tartessian cannot be justified unless with heavy qualification. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please at least read the page properly before committing to pen. The reference used for all 3 languages is Carlos Jordán Cólera, University of Zaragoza, Spain - if you read the table of languages in the PDF (whose link is given) where he classifies them, you will see that he too tentatively classifies Tartessian as Celtic, so it is not just Koch who thinks this may be so.Jembana (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you say the Hispano-Celtic language page is POV when each statement on it is backed by inline citations from respected academic papers and publications ? Please reply.Jembana (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Jembana I am going to correct and balance your article with the evidences I have gathered from searching Spanish, Portuguese, and other sources scholarly sources since no one else will do it...I will. With minimal effort one can find many sources that refute these "Celtic from the West" claims. There are "Tartessian" toponyms that have no plausible origin in other languages of Iberia be they Indo-European (specifically Celtic), Basque, or Iberian...Your entire article is almost entirely based upon Koch and those in that school of thought with no other input from other available sources on the issue and they are available if you know how to search for what you want. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope your sources include interpretation of the longest and complete inscription of Mesas do Castelinho discovered in 2008 and other longer inscriptions and are not based on interpretation of much shorter and more fragmentary inscriptions (such is much weaker and questionable evidence for interpretation of a language). Also, if by "Tartessian" toponyms you mean the "-ippo" placenames, these would seem to derive from the Punic "Hippo-" names of North Africa and are coincident with the Tartessian area probably because of later Punic colonisation of this metal-rich region. Besides, placename evidence pales in significance as far as evidence as to what language the literate population used besides complete inscriptions in the language itself such as MdC.Jembana (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, my edits to this article mention many sources - please see my citation list in the Classification section and I have already posted more above in the previous section, so I have attempted to consider the ideas of other researchers, but you have to realise that much progress has been made in the decipherment and interpretation of Tartessian and its context. Note that I have yet to update the historical context section for which much has been discovered since.Jembana (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that the examples of Hippo placenames are in other parts of the world ruled by the later Carthaginians before the Romans. To correct myself above, the ip(p)o placenames of southern Iberia overlap both the area of Hispano-Celtic Tartessian inscriptions and the area of the Iberian (language isolate) SE inscriptions - they go further south and east than the Tartessian inscriptions and given the similarity with Carthaginian placenames elsewhere and the facts that a ruler of Tartessos (I can cite a truckload of classical references for this) was one Arganthonios whose name is likely Celtic and the much more abundant evidence of Celticity from the SW corpus of inscriptions it looks more like the rulers and inhabitants of Tartessos used the Hispano-Celtic langauge attested to in the Tartessian inscriptions in the SW script. Also, given its location at two major interfaces Atlantic-Mediterranean and Europe-Africa it is unlikely that only one language was used by all the areas dominated by Tartessos and that the dominant language remained the same over time. In fact it does appear from the archaelogical evidence (warrior stelae, Seg- Ebur- placename evidence, etc.) that Hispano-Celtic language use extended futher east at one time and retreated with the increasing use of other languages (most notably following the establishment of Phoenician then Punic [after the siege of Tyre] Gadir "Cadiz"). Language probably followed livelihood much as it does today since Tartessos was a trade-oriented culture.Jembana (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remember I still have to update the History and Scripts sections where I will make the above points plain.Jembana (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jembana...Koch is the only one that has so far adduced anything concerning the Mesas do Castelinho inscriptions...others have not commented as of yet. You, also, did not answer Taranis2010 when he spoke of sound correspondences. Furthermore, I am gathering those sources as we speak to balance this obviously POV push. In addition, I have several maps so I already know about the overlapping of place-names...such as the Iberian ones in the area of Tartessos. Also, it seems that Koch is claiming that Tartessian IS a sort of proto-Celtic or some nebulous sister language to the Celtic languages that reflects many of the innovations of it's siblings, which is saying that Tartessian had contact with virtually all of it's siblings before the sister languages left Iberia or Tartessian itself left to head into southern Iberia. This, essentially, would mean that, either in Iberia or north of Iberia, there was some sort of Celtic sprachbund...which is unlikely to say the least. There is no linguistic evidence, at all, to support that Insular Celtic (Goidelic, Cumbrian, and Brythonic) or Gaulish (of any type) ever existed in Iberia, neither onomastically or toponymically. If the "sprachbund" was north of Iberia then "Tartessian" would have picked up loanwords from the other non-Celtic and non-IE languages of Iberia and vice versa...Celtiberian is the only evidentially established one to have contact with the Tartessians. Celtiberian, itself, has Iberian, among other, substratal influences. What Koch seems to imply is that Celtic originated in Iberia and the language family diverged and dwelt there for a time before leaving Iberia, which is not, at all, evidenced linguistically or historically in the Iberian peninsula, but that has to be the situation if the current Wikipedia article is to be believed, it says, "Despite it early date, the Tartessian linguistic evidence does not reflect an undifferentiated Proto-Celtic, i.e. a pre-dialectal state of affairs, but rather shows various points of agreement with the distinguishing innovations of sometimes Celtiberian, sometimes Goidelic, sometimes Gaulish and also the 'Insular Celtic' languages, Goidelic and Brittonic (part of Gallo-Brittonic).[19]" I ask you to read the paper by Miguel Valerio..."Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: the orthography and phonology of the Southwestern alphabet" by Miguel Valerio, Revista de Portuguesa Arqueologia. volume 11. (from 2008). Valerio had another talk a few months ago about the Southwestern Paleo-Hispanic Script. You can view his Talk page on academia.edu. The title is below you can Google search it.

Escrita do sudoeste: origem e problemas de decifração

Where: Associação dos Arqueólogos Portugueses - Museu Arqueológico do Carmo, Lisbon

When: 26th March 2011

As for the athroponym "Arganthonios"...it could/ may very well be etymologically derived from Basque...Arganto- (silver, ::::bright)

< *PIE herĝentom < Basque argi (bright, clear)

Furthermore, as for Iberian being an isolate instead of having a genealogical relationship with Basque...I have several decent papers that speak very much in favor of a Vasco-Iberian language family. Too many similarities to be wholly dismissed. Could be a Basque-Iberian sprachbund...but much of the core vocabularies are similar which would imply a genealogical relationship.

I will continue my information gathering and make the much needed corrective changes to the articles you have edited concerning this subject in due time. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misquote what I said - I said the following "Also, if by "Tartessian" toponyms you mean the "-ippo" placenames, these would seem to derive from the Punic "Hippo-" names of North Africa and are coincident with the Tartessian area probably because of later Punic colonisation of this metal-rich region.". I was quite specific refering to the North African language of the Carthaginians, Punic - a variety of Phoenician, yes, but a later appearance than the Tyrian-Cypriot variety on which the SW script is based. I think you know that already, but relevant is the Wiki entry for Punic - note Hippo as a place name below in bold italics: The Punic language or Carthagian language is an extinct Semitic language formerly spoken in the Mediterranean region of North Africa and several Mediterranean islands, by people of the Punic culture.

Punic is an extinct variety of the Phoenician language spoken in the oversea Phoenician empire in North Africa, including Carthage, and the Mediterranean. It is known from inscriptions and personal name evidence. The play Poenulus by Plautus contains a few lines in spoken Punic, which have been subject to some research because, unlike inscriptions, they largely preserve the vowels.[1]Augustine of Hippo is generally considered the last major ancient writer to have some knowledge of Punic, and is considered "our primary source on the survival of [late] Punic".

I must ask myself if it is worth discussing this any further with you given your seeming deliberate misquote of what I said since it is troll behaviour.Jembana (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) If you apologise for the misquote and strike it out along with the following misrepresentation based on the misquote then we can continue the discussion. I will not continue if you persist without these modifications to what you wrote.Jembana (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Jembana, I gave you your "pacifier", now, settle down. I resent being called a, "troll", but I will overlook it. Also, I am well aware of the Phoenicians and their exploits...but thanks for the redundant knowledge anyway. Hippo is the Latinizantion of the Phoenician word, Ubbo, which means bay, pond, or harbor. So notice, Hippo is derived from Phoenician proper, not the later Punic/ Carthaginian dialect which came after the Phoenicians had established colonies in many places across the North African/ Southern rim of the Mediterranean as well as Cyprus, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, and Southern Iberia. I would also like to see you answer Taranis2010 as well as what I said about the weirdness of "Tartessian" as a sort of Celtic language. Also, the "-ip(p)o(n)" and "Ipo-" suffix and prefix applies to cities nowhere near a bay, pond, or harbor...So it is POSSIBLY not Phoenician-derived and is a native term for "city" or the like. I read Koch's paper and from what I can tell he butchered the "Tartessian" Script. The phonemic inventory of the semi-syllabary is also distinctly improper for a language of the Celtic family. He apparently makes no distinction between r and r´ or s and s´ which "Tartessian" does. "Tartessian", also, apparently has glottalized phonemes like, "theta". What is also apparent is that "Tartessian" doesn't distinguish between voiced and unvoiced stop consonants, the Celtic languages, as a rule, do and so does Phoenician. It is a feckless innovation for the "Tartessian" semi-syllabary to develop this lack of distinction between voiced and unvoiced stop consonants if it were in anyway a member of the Celtic family. This is much of what Taranis2010 was saying, that you did not answer...again, the sound correspondences and the like. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Tick tock, Jembana...I am giving you a chance to state your case...I need people from outside the "Celtic from the West" school who says "Tartessian" is Indo-European, let alone Celtic. We must keep in mind, many people said Kassite was Indo-European. It turns out from what we know...aside from Indo-Iranian theonyms...IT IS NOT. This will likely be the case of "Tartessian". Time going forward, we will see, but for now the case for Tartessian being Celtic has not been firmly established by any means definitively/ conclusively. I have given you ample opportunity to answer the criticisms...I need to hear something...the edits are ready to be made and will be made by the weekend if no answers to the above criticisms (by me and Taranis2010) are presented by you. Take care. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to what exactly is going on here. Admittedly, I know very little about the subject matter in question, but it seems to me that Jembana's posts meet the Wikipedia criteria - i.e., they are sourced from peer-reviewed published works. A.Tamar Chabadi, if you have similarly sourced material expressing an alternative viewpoint, feel free to add the information to the article. It is not up to Jembana to prove Koch's case - that is for Koch to do, and this isn't the place to do it. The time limit and the language being used here is quite strange - there are a lot of "I need..."s in there. Gabhala (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Very Well, Gabhala...:) I just wanted to see sources outside of Koch's circle. I have yet to find any that regard his proposals with any seriousness. The few I talked to called his a paper a thing...they referred to it as, "this thing"...:) I will make the edits on the weekend when I have the most time to sit and do them, that is what I meant by the, as you call it, "time limit", concerning this weekend. Just so you know, Gabhala...I am not the only one, that knows anything about this issue, to notice the article's one-sidedness...one point-of-view only slant /style. The whole article is sourced almost entirely from Koch's two books. I wasn't trying to get him to make Koch's point...just present a case that justifies the articles one-sided nature, which he has not done. All the facts in this case are not, at all, being presented and the writer of the article has made no attempt to do so. If the objective of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge based on facts, Jembana has woefully failed Wikipedia and it's mission. Take care, hon. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Waiting on responses from linguists, Miguel Valerio, Arnaud Fournet, Giorgio Perissinotto. I am currently corresponding with Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos. Attempting to find ways to contact others. This may take a little bit of time. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My own review is also negative. In addition to the flaws pointed above, Koch has failed to notice the Iberian parallels of Tartessian items such as uurk^ee (Iberian uŕke) and k^aakⁱiśin (anthroponym Cacusin in Ascoli's Bronze). Although not usable in Wikipedia, I've commented this in my own blog Talskubilos (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Koch ignores most of the Spanish bibliography about Hispano-Celtic and Celtiberian, and specially Prósper, B.M. (2005): Estudios sobre la fonética y la morfología de la lengua celtibérica (in Vascos, celtas e indoeuropeos. Genes y Lenguas, coauthored with Francisco Villar), already referrenced in Gallaecian language. See for example p.129 in his book where he says "In Bletisama/Leitasama we have a doublet in which a p-less Celtic appears to be emerging from an Indo-European with p before our eyes." LOL. If only he had read Prósper, he would have learn this is a dialectal feature of the western Hispano-Celtic variety.

Then he posits Proto-Celtic was actually spoken in Iberia as part of an older continuum from which also branched Lusitanian, which would be then a para-Celtic language. Although he didn't explictly mentioned it, this scenario would be a revised version of the Italo-Celtic hypothesis. In fact, in an early work (Prósper, B.M. (2002): Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del occidente de la Península Ibérica), Prósper considers Lusitanian as part of the Italic family, although in later works (e.g. Prósper, Villar (2009): Nueva inscripción lusitana procedente de Portalegre), this view has been matized. For more information, see the Spanish Wikipedia article on Lusitanian. Talskubilos (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Read your blog. My comments are: Those Iberian forms don’t actually resemble the Tartessian forms that you are comparing them to so your identification appears a bit off. You're ignoring baarentii, which is inflected like an IE verb and like naRkeentii and like teebaantii. You use ambiguous evidence since uurkee and the like occur in both Iberian and on the Celtic side of the Peninsula. It’s interesting that the Iberian experts have come up with so little.Jembana (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In your blog at least you are accepting IE forms as IE forms, both names and verbs. The thing is, if you have a small corpus with about 40 things that look IE and many specifically Celtic, then far fewer that look very vaguely like the neighbouring non-IE language, how do you proceed with the interpretation?At least Koch can proceed with Tartessian as Celtic.Jembana (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact Koch has proceeded and reused his interpretations to predict and refine the interpretation of longest inscriptions speaks volumes for the veracity of his approach. Please read Tartessian 2 if you haven't already.Jembana (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you aren't Koch's socket puppet, as this isn't allowed in Wikipedia. The flaws in his work have been already pointed out here and in my blog, basically and improper reading of the script (he ignores the distinction between rhotics ŕ/r and ś/s) and a liberal use of comparisons inside the Celtic family, never attempting to stablish a consistent of set of sound correspondences between Proto-Celtic and Tartessian. Talskubilos (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You said "I suppose you aren't Koch's socket puppet" - well no I'm not and you can get that verified - I don't have or need sock puppets to weasel my way around genuine editors - I just don't use that devious modus operandi. You are stooping to a low-end and bad faith way of arguing. BTW How would you and your fellow Vasco-Caucasian substrate POV blog member Mr. Chabadi stand up to a sock puppet investigation ?Jembana (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to ask Koch to do ? Seems nonsensical given Tartessian's age and location: "never attempting to establish a consistent of set of sound correspondences between Proto-Celtic and Tartessian". Proto-Celtic is a hypothetical reconstruction base largely on Old Irish with a bit of input from Brythonic, less even from Gaulish and Celtiberian. Around 1,000 years difference in age and located far away in the South-Westernmost corner of Europe compared to the North-Westernmost. If you are wanting evidence of identified Celtic sound shift laws with Tartessian examples then Koch has provided that and I have included a lot of them under the Tartessian as Celtic section. I hope this is a genuine mistake on your part and not some made-up ploy like your "sock-puppet" accusation above.Jembana (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've dome editing to add more references and achieve NPOV, especially as regarding Koch's achievements. I've also made some style corrections, as apparently at the school they didn't teach you how to break text into paragraphs. Talskubilos (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I've added a WP:NPOV tag because the article is too biased towards Koch's innovative proposal, which hasn't been yet or has been insufficiently peer-review. I've also proposed for deletion the article Hispano-Celtic languages because it looks like a castle of cards. Talskubilos (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Koch's work has been peer-reviewed, in fact Francisco Villar agrees with the proposal that Tartessian is Celtic so not POV at all - there is agreement since Koch has worked out the Celtic lexicon so there not the residual now to support a non-Celtic non-Indo-European proposal.Jembana (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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.Jembana (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also the designations "SW" and "South Lusitanian" are misleading, for they actually refer to the inscriptions and only indirectly to the language itself (at least in Spanish literature), so I've corrected this. Also the Hispano-Celtic languages article uses the ad hoc term "southwestern Hispano-Celtic" as a synonym of Tartessian, which is WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Talskubilos (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The terms "South Lusitanian" were the work of a previous author so don't misrepresent this as my edit. The term "southwestern Hispano-Celtic" is purely geographically descriptive and so not "ad hoc" as you represented it. See my reply on the Hispano-Celtic languages page. Also, it appears that your fellow blog member is synthesizing his own construct - this is clearly WP:OR - peer-reviewed works (like Koch's) and reliable secondary sources are allowed provided you adequateley cite them. Your blog is not considered a reliable source for the Wiki but if you publish a peer-reviewed article then that's another matter.Jembana (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Jembana (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't quote my own blog in Wikipedia, Mr. Jembana, but the fact Koch's work hasn't gotten yet criticism doesn't make his work valid. Contrarily to what you say, he hasn't make any effort to establish regular sound correspondences and he obviously hasn't read Prósper's works about Lusitanian and Gallaecian (NW Hispano-Celtic), to which article I've contibuted myself. The NPOV banner would stay until the article is rewritten to reflect that currently there's no consensus on the celticity of Tartessian. Talskubilos (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have said previously, I don't know enough about the subject matter to form an opinion on whether Koch is right or wrong, but either way, if his work has been published in peer-reviewed publications, then it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not intended as a platform for proving or disproving the theories of academics. If anyone feels that the article has taken a POV slant because of the inclusion of peer-reviewed research, then by all means add alternative viewpoints with the appropriate references to other peer-reviewed publications. Looking back over the article history, Jembana has put a lot of work into adding information to the article, and as far as I can tell, into ensuring the data is properly (as per WP criteria) sourced. The issue here, on Wikipedia, is not whether the work of Koch et al. is right or wrong, but whether it's a reliable source.

In short, if the article has taken indeed taken on a POV slant (and I'm prepared to concede that may well be the case), that is only because editors who subscribe to an alternative viewpoint have been remiss in adding properly sourced material. Gabhala (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Gabhala's comments above. That is why I put the details of Koch's interpretation under the "Texts" sub-heading "Tartessian as Celtic" that another Wiki editor established as a way of expressing the Celtic model for Tartessian. If someone has peer-reviewed sources that express another say 'x' model then that would fairly be put under an equivalent heading as "Tartessian as x" with some text in the Classification section (probably best in chronological order) to summarise the finding and so on for yet further models.Jembana (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The current official status of Tartessian is still "unclassified". See for example James Clackson (2007): Indo-European linguistics: an introduction, p. 4. So the question isn't about the inclusion Koch's work but the CONCLUSION that Tartessian is Celtic, which has to be independently confirmed by other specialists. This is how science works. Talskubilos (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC) To restablish NPOV, I propose to edit the article to reflect the current status of Tartessian as "unclassified" and a more balanced view of the new proposals. Talskubilos (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The "current status" of Tartessian is not "unclassified" to the small number of experts in this field: 2007 is 4 years ago and before Koch's work initial work in 2008 so that would be winding back the clock of progress in research. Francisco Villar, a specialist in this area, has accepted that Tartessian is in the Celtic family. To call it "unclassified" when there is a extant classification as Celtic accepted by other experts in the field (see the start of the Classification section if you want others) would be really bending the situation to your POV against the current evidence. Regarding the scientific process, what didn't you understand when I said above "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 he did in "Tartessian 2.Jembana (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, the Linguist List defines Tartessian as unclassified: It is usually treated as unclassified, though some (Correa (1989), Koch (2009) and Untermann (1997)) believe it to be Celtic. c 700 BC - 100 BC. If Koch's work eventually reaches widely acceptation, this situation would change, but I'm afraid this hasn't yet happened. Talskubilos (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't take LingList as a RS. They are however good as a source of refs which may be RSs. But I agree that in order to classify T as Celtic, we need something other than the claims of the people who have staked their reputations on it being Celtic. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Talskubilos, you can't walk away from it: where is the "Tartessian as x" alternative to Koch's now fleshed out model of "Tartessian as Celtic". Kindly find the peer-reviewed articles required for an alternative model. Falling back on the LinguistList web site when you can't esatblish an alternative model is not enough for me. LinguistList appears to be slowly catching up on their backlog of papers to review judging from their comment (2009 it would appear) - they haven't got to reviewing Celtic from the West (2010) and Tartessian 2 (2011) yet it seems but I'm sure they will get there (must be hard with so many languages to review papers for).Jembana (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Jembana, that's like adding a claim to the Moon article that it's made of green cheese, and when people object, saying 'oh yeah? so what's it made of then?'. It's not up to Talskubilos to provide an alternative explanation, it's up to you to demonstrate that your explanation is generally accepted. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the section devoted to Koch's word should be dramtically condensed and copyright-sourced material also removed. Jembana, this is Wikipedia article, not an advertisement of Koch's book. You've also cheated on references (e.g. Linguist List) and made POV edits which I've corrected. Talskubilos (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sensing an agenda here, and it seems to be less about correcting the slant of the article and more about attempting to suppress the 'Tartessian as Celtic' theory. Almost all Talskubilos's contributions tend to be about the merits or otherwise of Koch's conclusion. This is irrelevant - the conclusion is what it is, and to speculate on its validity is venturing into OR. Wikipedia is not a platform for analysis of the conclusions of academics, and as such the only commentary that would be valid for inclusion in the article would have to be from a peer-reviewed source. I fully accept that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' - that the fact that no peer-reviewed rebuttals exist yet doesn't mean universal acceptance. On the other hand, if there were serious holes in Koch's theory, one would expect a flood of rebuttals within the time since he published.

As for 'independently confirmed by other specialists' - I'm wondering what exactly that means to you? A quick glance shows me that at least six separate studies have reached this conclusion, to some degree or another.

Since Jembana has put most of the information on this in a separate section, it seems to me that anyone who was genuinely interested in redressing the POV slant would concentrate their efforts on adding the data relevant to the alternative viewpoints in a similar manner, since it is clear that the information on Tartessian as Celtic meets the criteria for inclusion.Gabhala (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The "absence of evidence" meme means that we don't present the absence of evidence as evidence. There is no evidence that Koch's theory has been accepted by the scholarly community. Therefore there is no evidence that Koch's theory has been accepted by the scholarly community. People don't have time to refute every hare-brained proposal that gets published, so silence does not even imply acceptance. If his ideas are accepted, we should start to see his papers ref'd by other scholars. Without that, we only have Koch making claims, and our own OR evaluations of whether he's got it right. — kwami (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Which, I think, is another way of framing what I just posted. The silence can be equally taken as acceptance, in so much as it can be taken as non-acceptance. It's not really our place to interpret the silence. Then again, Koch seems, according to the refs given here, to be the sixth scholar to reach such a conclusion.

Here on Wikipedia, whether Koch has got it right or not is irrelevant - he published in peer-reviewed journals, and there has been no serious rebuttal. The publication is now (I think) two years old - plenty of time for others to publish alternatives. Koch et al. are considered to be serious researchers (experts) in their field, even if their peers don't always agree with their conclusions.

Yes, this 'Tartessian as Celtic' theory is contraversial and innovative - but it meets the criteria for inclusion on WP. End of story.

The 'suppossed' question here is the POV slant of the article - and the solution to this is to provide information that explains the contrary viewpoint(s) - not to attack the peer-reviewed work of an academic whose credentials are established.

On a personal note, there is some stuff published by Koch which I find questionable, but that's not how WP works - he's a Reliable Source, apparently, which kills the 'hare-brained' argument (my life on WP would be so much easier if Koch were to be shown as a 'hare-brain').Gabhala (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that Koch is hare-brained, only noting that hare-brained ideas are often met with silence. Arnaiz-Villena, for example, though eventually he got so bad (with circulation in the popular press) that someone felt they had to debunk him. — kwami (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Gabhala's comment and expressed far better than I could.Jembana (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're attacking Koch's work, but the current text seems to present his conclusions as "final", and this is by no means true. On the other hand, his book is copyright-protected material, so we can't photocopy it here. This is what I think that section should be trimmed. Talskubilos (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Professor Koch has kindly given us permission to use the images including the SW script with Koch's tentative 2008 translations from the O'Donnell lectures. The permitting email is included with Commons files so there is no issue you need to address regarding copyright.Jembana (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the sound correspondences SW signs and Proto-Celtic, Koch has has whole large section on this in Tartessian 2 pages 113-163 which I will summarise in the article for the queries about this. Note my comments on this above though. This section is called VIII. South-western Signs and Proto-Celtic Sounds: Prolegomena to Tartessian Historical Phonology Professor Koch has bent over backwards flesh out his proposal and I hear that it is being accepted increasingly. Note on this score that Guerra in his 2009 article in PH9 on the MdC inscription published independently of Koch (he for example is in the central-European Celtic origin school of thought BTW) notes his help from Koch's suggestions (even though they published in PH9 at the same time) then and he says there are Indo-European inflections &c. evident. Villars acceptance that Tartessian is classified in the Celtic language family is also noted on page 2 of Tartessian 2. I can blockquote it in the text perhaps.Jembana (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your accusation that I cheated on references - I reject that. The initial sentence in the Classification attempts section was not just sourced on the Linguist List reference (which has inaccuracies) but on all the references used for that sentence. What I had there before your edits was a far more accurate representation from all those references - you did keep them all I presume. I note you have retracted your sock-puppet allegation - thanks for realising you went too far with that :)

Yes, you cheated on the Linguist List reference, as yourself signed your edit of 12:42, 29 July 2011 as "Restore what Linguist List source actually says". Who's cheating now, eh?

How much can one put on one summary of an edit line ? Try to stand back and look at your statements and conclusions before making accusations and then having to bactrack and cover them up (as you did on the record) or dig in and attempt to justify them on scant evidence. I have explained my actions adequately. Try to keep some perspective.Jembana (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have established a "Tartessian as Anatolian" section under the Texts section and put your detail on this proposal in there as I did for the "Tartessian as Celtic" proposal of Koch and several others. This is to conform with NPOV. I have summarised what was said in the "Classification attempts" section. Both Gabhala and myself agree that this is the fair (NPOV) way to go. I note that both proposals so far conform with an Indo-European interpretation to which Untermann and Guerra concur - so I would think that we should show the classification as Indo-European in the infobox and lede at least.Jembana (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I had to revert you edit on Wikander's theory because you made a mess there. Also I've put Villar's reference to the beginning, because he quotes Wikander's theory as whole, and not only in the final statement as you wrongly deduced. Then I'd suggest you don't touch anything without having the actual bilbiography at hand, as otherwise you're bound to make mistakes like that. I also don't think it deserves a separate section because it's a minority view, now partly outdated because at his time, the script wasn't completely dechiphered (and still isn't 100% accurate), and the reading of some signs have changed since then. But I still think Koch's is over-represented in the article and the inclusion of the photocopy of a whole page inadmissible (even with the author's permission). The whole section looks more than an advertisement for his book than anything else. So I'm gping tor estore the NPOV banner until these issues are corrected. Talskubilos (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, the material you are referring to is not from Koch's books or journal article - it is from the 2008 O'Donnell lecture to which he has copyright and has graciously allowed us to use for enriching this Wikipedia article. Before that this article had very little material as to give readers and idea of the content and diversity of the SW inscriptions. To say that the purpose of inclusion was an as advertisement for his books therefore doesn't make sense.Jembana (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Koch's material is in its own section at the bottom of the article with no examples given in the Classification attempts section (unlike what you've done in bold with the dated Anatolian theory so it would appear that the NPOV tag points back at your edits now) - only summaries are there for all other alternatives. You said rightly that ealier "the script wasn't completely dechiphered (and still isn't 100% accurate), and the reading of some signs have changed since then". Well, Koch's material postdates this decipherment and uses the correct signs as outlined in his 2010 and 2011 books - there is a complete outline of his method processes - he has been transparent about it, yet it remains the only fleshed out proposal for the classification of Tartessian so what you claim as overrepresentation of his ideas is in fact a statement of the current available evidence. As Gabhala and I have said, the onus is on editors to provide alternative interpretations or at least criticisms of Koch's model from the peer-reviewed evidence of which there seems none at the moment. Dumbing down the such most valid model in an article by your argument would negate much of what is published on the Wikipedia.Jembana (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Koch's material is in its own section at the bottom of the article with no examples given in the Classification attempts section (unlike what you've done in bold with the dated Anatolian theory so it would appear that the NPOV tag points back at your edits now) Obviously, you don't know what NPOV is all about. :-) Well, Koch's material postdates this decipherment and uses the correct signs as outlined in his 2010 and 2011 books I'm afraid Koch's reading of some signs is contested by others such as Miguel Valério. he has been transparent about it, yet it remains the only fleshed out proposal for the classification of Tartessian so what you claim as overrepresentation of his ideas is in fact a statement of the current available evidence. No, it's a biased article towards's one author's view, as other people see "the avaliable evidence" in other ways, but they haven't go as far as Koch. Talskubilos (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Talskubilos it was you who said: Well, Koch's material postdates this decipherment and uses the correct signs as outlined in his 2010 and 2011 books

I was just quoting you :) In reply to yourself, you said: I'm afraid Koch's reading of some signs is contested by others such as Miguel Valério. You don't need my permission to add Miguel Valério's criticisms of Koch's reading of some signs as long as they are peer-reviewed and published in a reputable publication.Jembana (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Those other people need to get their ideas peer-reviewed and published in a reputable publication otherwise they are WP:OR - the Wikipedia is not an avenue for publishing original research of whoever has an idea. If however, their ideas have been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable publication then please add them to this article. Please note that many other editors have read the Tartessian inscription material from Koch's O'Donnell lecture here and not raise any such objection to it being there - at least they can get an idea of what the topic is all about. Koch fully acknowledges other viewpoints to his own interpretation and admits when there is a blank in this interpretation. I am more than happy to include these in the article from his peer-reviewed publications - would that be a good thing to do to satisfy you in the absence of peer-reviewed publications of his work. At least I can balance the article this way without depauperising it. You could do this yourself is you have Celtic from the West and Tartessian 2 in available in full to you. Anyway let me know at least.Jembana (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Jembana, I don't quote abybody who isn't peer-reviewed, but the thing the section devoted to Koch's work is too much long and redundant. For example, there's a "Texts" section at the beginning and a "Examples of inscriptions" at the end. Likewise, the "Inflection cathegories" section should be merged with "Tartessian linguistic elements", so I've corrected this. Also Valério's alternative proposals for the value of some signs will be included in the corresponding section. Talskubilos (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is only a matter of time before Tartessian is fully accepted as (the earliest) Celtic language. Archaeologists are uncovering more and more evidence in south west Iberia on a regular basis. Data that will no doubt further buttress Tartessian as legitimately Celtic.

Unfortunately, there are elements in academia and other circles who seem deathly afraid of admitting that Celticity developed on two fronts: SW Iberia and up the Atlantic Facade and the Alpine region. One thing is clear, regardless of how one feels about Atlantic School theories, we cannot attribute the early development of Celtic languages in Iberia to Halstatt and La Tene influences ( i.e., from Central European areas). Influences that emerged in Iberia well after Celtiberian, Gallaecian (or Gallaic) and the language spoken by the Celtici in southwest Portugal had been established. One can also tentatively add Lusitanian (currently treated as Proto / Para Celtic) to the list, even though most scholars have not yet classified it as technically Celtic. London Hawk (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC) No, Lusitanian is definitely not Celtic. The problem is the relevant literature is written in Spanish and thus ignored by non Spanish scholars, including Koch himself. Talskubilos (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Article needs trimming down

I urge everyone to keep WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE in mind. Encyclopedias are inherently conservative. While Wikipedia is allowed to mention and even report on cutting-edge research and current discussions, it should not be excessive. Currently, the article is overloaded with technical detail which is impenetrable and entirely irrelevant to the non-specialist reader, and almost wholly concerned with a minority view. Especially Jembana really needs to cool his passion down (his logorrhœa makes the article unreadable, and the talk page is incredibly cluttered thanks to his argumentativeness), get some distance from the topic and let the article revert to a more reasonable state which is actually useful for the reader, which means a lot of trimming. There is no place on Wikipedia for the presentation of large amounts of data (linguistic data belongs on Wiktionary, if at all) and intricate arguments in current research.

When and if the handbooks report Tartessian as Celtic, or side with Koch against the Central European origin hypothesis of the Celtic languages, then Wikipedia can report that as well, but so far Koch's view is just a particular school not shared by most specialists on Celtic languages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to remind everyone that the zero hypothesis (the Tartessian texts are not understood; the classification of Tartessian is unknown or unclear, and it may be a language isolate) which represents the current mainstream thought cannot be bolstered with more text, as there is simply nothing to report on an undeciphered (or not understood), isolated ancient language. This makes the article inherently imbalanced as it stands.

By the way, the accusations of suppression of Koch's view on Wikipedia certainly don't help his cause, as that's a well-known strategy of pseudoscience and fringe science advocates.

Academic discussions should never bypass academia – first the scholarly community, especially the experts, have to be convinced, then the lay reader. The general public and popular science publications such as Wikipedia which cater to it must not be abused to raise the profile of one's minority view, and make it seem more accepted than it actually is. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

pf, so Koch has written an article about Tartessian in 2010, and suddenly half this Wikipedia article consists of a detailed rehash of Koch's article? Will somebody please think of WP:DUE? Say that Koch suggested it may be Celtic, mention how some other scholars have reacted to Koch's suggestion, and be done. --dab (𒁳) 12:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong Vote for a Celtic affiliation for Tartessian

Thanks to user Tautintanes research we at last have a decent review of Koch's work. The review here by Jürgen Zeidler of the University of Trier in Bryn Mawr says of Koch's 2010 work on Tartessian in Celtic from the West: it is a strong vote for a Celtic solution to the problem of Tartessian, and future research will not be able to avoid this approach so we have positive support for the Celtic hypothesis there so we should allow at least for the possibility of Tartessian being Celtic as Koch and Villar say, therefore I have put this in the infobox now that some of the uncertainty has been lifted. Also, other users have trimmed down the Celtic hypothesis section massively so I have removed the undue and NPOV tags since they no longer apply.Jembana (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Tartessian 2 here has far more convincing arguments and translations of the longer inscriptions including that found near Seville the core of the Tartessian area - Koch is able to draw on his previous work to translate the newly discovered longest inscription so this adds even more certainty - the ability to apply his model and thus verify it.Jembana (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Koch's readings of Tartessian inscriptions are flawed due to his inaccurate transcriptions of some signs, namely his exchange of /Ha/ and /ba/. For example, the segment Haaituura (Koch's reading) should be read as baaituura if we accept the equivalence with Iberian baituŕa (the transcription of rothic signs being reversed on both scripts). Also Tartessian beeteasiioonii /bedasiioonii/ < *gwhedhasi-jō-mī is apparently a form of the IE verb *gwhedh- 'to ask, to pray', reflected in Celtic *gwed-jo- > Gaulish uediiumi 'I pray, I demand'. However, unlike Celtic, Tartessian has a development *gwh > b (cfr. Germanic *bid-ja-) and also a *-s- extension (cfr. Greek thessásthai). Talskubilos (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Koch's interpretation of Tartessian naŕkee- as from PIE *(s)ner- is clearly untenable, nonetheless because the /ŕ/ sign represents a different consonant than PIE *r (which would be reflected as Tartessian /r/), probably resulting from rhotacism from *z as in Latin or NW Germanic. You also misquoted /ŕ/ as /r/. Talskubilos (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ideas, Talskubilos, I think it would be good to pursue them further.Jembana (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading the review, I don't think the above summary is fair. Yes, "it is a strong vote", however according to the same reviewer "Koch's analysis reflects the author's superior scholarship, but is not really convincing" because "the reader is left with a number of inconsistencies, in form and content, ad hoc solutions and divergencies from the results of the other Hispano-Celtic sources". The previous three paragraphs dedicated to Koch's analysis are not really flattering. Daizus (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please amend to add the detail from the review that you feel would make it a fair representation rather than just putting undue weight tags embedded in the text - I've removed the tag because you have the access and means to fix this yourself with edits - the ball is in your court. Myself, I feel that Tautintanes has given a fair treatment overall.Jembana (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider myself expert enough in IE and Celtic linguistics to contribute without a proper documentation. For instance I'm not really sure how to put n.i.i.r.a.Po.o */nerabo/ in the standard orthography chosen for this article. I also think an inline tag is much better than tagging the entire article or section for neutrality, however it cannot be removed if the problem is not fixed. The previous tag was removed when the review was added, but while Koch's results are presented with apparently persuasive details ("he has achieved valid segmentations and has established Indo-European inflections" is followed by the naŕk^ee- example), there are no examples or details explaining the "inconsistencies, in form and content, and ad hoc solutions".

On topic I also find this part a bit strange: "from Indo-European *(s)ner- 'bind, fasten with thread or cord' (cf. Greek for 'grow stiff, numb, dead')" Here are Pokorny's PIE roots. The Greek verb must be ναρκάω, possibly derived from νάρκη (LSJ). Daizus (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Taking into account the Tartessian /ŕ/ sign represent a different rhotic than /r/ (something Koch blatantly ignores), and that m is probably represented by /n/, the verb root would be actually *mezg- 'to bind, to knot' (e.g. English mesh), AFAIK not attested in Celtic. This reinforces my former impression that although Tartessian looks like an IE language, more probably isn't Celtic. Talskubilos (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. In Tartessian 2 (2011 pp. 65-66) Koch says the following of naŕk^e[en---]:

With no obvious Celtic parallels, I merely reiterate my thought that an otherwise unattested Celtic cognate corresponding with Old High German in-snerahan 'tie up' from IE present *snerk-e- (Rix 2001, 574) < IE *(s)ner- 'bind, fasten with thread or cord) would suit the funerary context, cf Greek ναρκάω 'grow stiff, numb, dead'. Beekes (2010, 998) lists νάρκη 'numbness, deadness' as possibly 'pre-Greek', but the semantic fit with Germanic is not implausible.

However, the other formulaics he has identified such as lak- already mentioned and ro^.b^aare are evidence for a Celtic affiliation along with the list of Celtic sound changes in Tartessian (now deleted by Tautintanes from this article). The ro and the b^aare are classic Celtic attestments which I can add to the article.

BTW Greek and Germanic are only used in the context of IE derivations, Koch is not suggesting that Tartessian is either because of the other evidence for a Celtic affiliation he has amassed. Jembana (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, the problem with Koch's intrepretation of naŕk^ee- is that he ignores the distinction between rhotic signs in the SW script, treating both as equal. If I'm correct, the actual verb root would be *mezg-, UNATTESTED in Celtic. He has also missed the un-Celtic verb beeteasiioonii /bedasiioonii/ at the end of the Fonte Velha inscription (see above). Apparently, he was so obsessed with his own hypothesis that he overlooked the possibility Tartessian could be a non-Celtic IE language, just like Lusitanian. In fact, they could be actually relatives. Talskubilos (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See if a peer-reviewed paper that says that regarding his 2011 Tartessian 2 work surfaces maybe ? I say this because Koch IMHO only fully outlined his approach and methodology in Tartessian 2 whereas it was only implicit in his earlier work. If you read his 2010 Celtic from the West Tartessian comprehensive detail of the inscriptions, their segmentation, transliterations and translations and the basic Tartessian Celtic vocabulary he has built up and then update it and view it from what he says in 2011 Tartessian 2 then you get the full picture and import of his model. The fact he can use the insights and model built from the longest inscriptions to make sense of the smaller and fragmentary inscriptions validates his model IMHO.Jembana (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But what's his "model"? Some readers are not persuaded by his readings and interpretations. To take an example discussed in the review, Koch takes a word like a.r.i.a.r.i.ś.e */ario-rīgi/ 'for Arioriχs' (J.10.1) and reads ś as palatalized */g'/ before */i/, but in the similar case of */k/ before */i/, he assumes no such change and reads ki.i.e.l.a.o.e */kīlawāi/ 'for Kilawa', (J.11.1). Daizus (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not having read the books, I've read this paper. Looking at those Tartessian words and how Koch read them as Celtic, too often it looks like chance Daizus (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jembana, do you really suppose your enthusiastic, cherry-picking, agenda-driven contributions are in any way conductive to writing encyclopedic content? You clearly want Tartessian to be Celtic, and you are on a campaign to make Wikipedia say what you want to be true. This is the opposite of intellectual integrity.

Meh. There was a paper suggesting a connection of Tartessian and Celtic. For our purposes, this makes for a one-liner, or at best a brief paragraph. The end. If you have a personal predilection for this theory, you are very welcome to it, but what has this got to do with Wikipedia? --dab (𒁳) 08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

De Hoz said that ?

Tautintanes, are you sure that De Hoz said that ? "indicates that the syllabic structure of Tartessian is incompatible with what was expected in an Indo-European language" I say this because syllabic usually is a feature of a script used to represent a language rather than referring to its structure - the terms usually used are infected or agglutinative.Jembana (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jembana, de Hoz (2010, pp. 401-402) wrote the following statement: “En resumen, los supuestos indicios IE en la epigrafía del SO, son escasos y resultado de segmentaciones que sólo se basan en la posibilidad de obtener algo aparentemente IE, dejando además amplios residuos que no pueden ser interpretados de la misma forma. Además, como ha señalado Rodríguez Ramos [(2002, pp. 90-1)], la estructura de las sílabas y las palabras identificadas no se corresponden en absoluto con lo que esperaríamos en una lengua indoeuropea”. --Tautintanes (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tautintanes, I will translate it tonight. If he means agglutinative then that will be interesting and I'd like to see more of his model.Jembana (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Other language of core Tartessian zone ?

Hi Tautintanes, interesting when you said "some researchers would prefer to reserve the term Tartessian for the language of the core Tartessian zone, attested for this researchers with some graffiti (de Hoz 2010) and may be with some stelae (Correa 2009)" can you tell us what the details of the 'graffiti and some stelae' such as location, what script they are written in and what the dating of the context they were found in since they are not the southwestern script stelae - are these new discoveries and do they have a catalogue number ?Jembana (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jembana, I added more concrete references for the graffiti in the article. You should read the original articles to judge for yourself.--Tautintanes (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)