When Koch's first book appeared in 2009 (the second edition came in 2013), launching his theory Tartessian was a Celtic language, I was enthusiastic. However, by the time he published his second book (2011) I had reached to the conclusion his interpretations were contrived as well as inconsistent.
A major difficulty regarding the Tartessian corpus is the semisyllabic SW script (where vowels are redundantly noted) hasn't yet been fully deciphered and thus the exact value of some signs is still unknown or problematic. For example, Koch assigns the sign H (Phoenician het, Greek epsilon) to the Proto-Celtic voicess bilabial fricative [ɸ] (almost universally lost in historical Celtic languages) coming from IE *p, as in e.g. Hatªaneatᵉe. However, the correspondence between Tartessian Haitᵘura1 and Iberian baiduŕa2, the later seemingly related to baides 'witness', in turn derived from IE *weid- 'to see; to know (as a fact)' (cfr. Celtiberian ueizos), points to the the value /w/ (Greek digamma).
If this is correct and the word is native to Tartessian, it would indicate it's an IE language although certainly a non-Celtic one. A good possibility would be the Paleo-European (after Krahe's Alteuropäische) substrate identified by the Spanish Indo-Europeanist Francisco Villar in the ancient Iberian toponymy, where we find the lexeme *akʷā 'river'3 (see here) used as a suffix (e.g. Turaqua).
Regardless of the actual filiation of Tartessian, it's clear it had contacts with other languages spoken in Western Iberia, namely Gallaecian (Celtic) and Lusitanian (non-Celtic). For example, the segment lokºobºo /lugu-bo/ closely mimicks Gallaecian LVGUBO /Lugubo/, LVCOVBV(S) /Lucoubo/, a dative plural theonym presumably referring to the gods Lug.
____________________________________
1 Translated by Koch as 'Lady of Baeturia'. See J.T. Koch (2011): The South-Western (SW) Inscriptions and the Tartessos of Archaeology of History, in Tarteso, El emporio del metal.
2 The signs for rothics /r/ and /ŕ/ are reversed in the SW (Tartessian) and Southern Iberian scripts with regard to the Levantine one, upon which the usual transcriptions are based.
3 Not 'water' (cfr. Latin aqua) as commonly thought.
3 Not 'water' (cfr. Latin aqua) as commonly thought.
celtic - adstrat, iberic - substrat&
ReplyDeleteIMHO this is more a superstrate than an adstrate, as Celtic would be the language of a ruling aristocracy, while Tartessian (the language reflect in the inscriptions) would be the vernacular of the language autochtonous population.
ReplyDeleteSo one could tentatively say...that there may be a relationship to Iberian?
ReplyDeleteAt least we can say there's an Iberian-like lexicon layer in Tartessian, but the evidence is IMHO insufficient to propose a genetical relationship. Most important, there's not a single recognizable Iberian anthroponym besides kakuśin, which possibly isn't even a genuine one.
ReplyDeleteJose Collada Canas of Terrae Antiquae says of the term, "Saruneea"
ReplyDeleteMr. Canas is talking about the segmentation and how something seems off about it.
"...I will make an example of the sequence “Saruneea” (J.22.1,2), as mentioned in the list above of “Celtic words.” About this, Koch, in the publication Paleohispánica says:
“Star-goddess” genitive singular, cf. Gaulish Serona, Serana (Jufer & Luginbühl 2001: “Les dieux gaulois: répertoire des noms de divinités celtiques connus par l’épigraphie, les textes anticues et la toponymie”); the accusative may now be attested as saru?an.
Despite the superficiality of the analysis, Koch does not doubt utilizing this supposed word as proof of the relationship between Gaelic and Tartessian."
What do you think of his assessment, Mr. Alexandre?
And have you read this paper?
S. Pérez OrOzcO
Licenciado en Filología Clásica
CONSTRUCCIONES POSESIVAS EN IBÉRICO
ABSTRACT: This paper is an attemp to explain the use of three morphemes,
-en, -ar, -ḿi, that seem to be involved in Iberian possessive constructions. Our
conclusion is that the two first morphemes are different in origin (the first one,
a genitive, the second one, a dative), and the third one is likely an emphatic
particle with varied uses. Equally, we highlight similar facts in Tartessian.
KEY WORDS: Iberian possessives, Iberian grammar, Iberic epigraphy.
In the paper Mr. Orozco compares Iberian BAN to Tartessian BAa, Iberian EBAAREN to Tartessian BAaRE, and Iberian ναι/ ḿi to Tartessian (n)ai/(n)ii
I am sorry if I am spamming.
Mr. Juan Collado Cañas, has informed me that I have misspelled his name. Forgive the error Mr. Collado Cañas.
DeleteAgain, his name is, Juan Collado Cañas.
Hola, Octavia!
DeleteI do not think it is Iberian proper. I think it is more like the relationship between Aquitanian and Iberian. I am not convinced of the IE-ness of the language. I think there is a layer of IE in it, but, per se, the language is not IE. I would not be surprised to find Phoenician (Canaanitic - NW Semitic) words also.
P.S. I saw your chicken legs, hahaha
What do you think of his assessment, Mr. Alexandre?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the proposed semantics is inconsistent with the inscription context (a funerary epitaph), and phonetics also is problematic. So IMHO saruneea can only be a personal name or a title, which was Koch's choice in his book.
This paper is an attempt to explain the use of three morphemes, -en, -ar, -ḿi, that seem to be involved in Iberian possessive constructions. Our conclusion is that the two first morphemes are different in origin (the first one, a genitive, the second one, a dative), and the third one is likely an emphatic particle with varied uses.
An emphatic particle? It makes me laugh. To begin with, the Iberian genitive was rarely marked. Also in the possesive formula X ar-ḿi, equivalent to Latin X-GEN sum 'I am X's' (where X is a personal name), either: 1) ar is 'I' and ḿi is 'am' or 2) ar is 'am' and ḿi is 'I'. Although formerly I liked option (2), now I'm inclined towards (1). Possibly I'll write something about this in the future.
I am sorry if I am spamming.
Don't worry. You should also be aware the world is full of crackpot theories, specially among academic folks.
Orozco's article is here: http://www.racv.es/files/21_Orozco_3.pdf
ReplyDeleteI am very thankful for your insights...and also Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos' insights.
ReplyDeleteI see you have already been to Wikipedia, lol
Thank you for backing up our efforts for balance in that situation. Still waiting on others to respond, if they do at all.
Have you read Miguel Valerio's paper...where he uses MAaRE instead of BAaRE/ PAaRE for the reading of that Tartessian "word"?
Mr. Valerio also sees a connection to Iberian or at least hints at it.
Mr. Valerio's paper:
http://www.igespar.pt/media/uploads/revistaportuguesadearqueologia/11.2/5_6_7_8/06_p.107-138.pdf
Also another observation from the Mesas do Castelinho stela:
ReplyDeleteTiilekuurkuuarkaastaabuuteebaanTiilebooiirerobaarenaŕke[en---]aφiuu
Koch says that Tiilekuur = the anthroponym Tillegus, but the same "Tiile-" is found elsewhere in the inscription attached to "-booiir", so I am thinking not an anthroponym???
I am not sure of the segmentation here: erobaare, perhaps one word? Maybe two: Ero and Baare, but either way: Erobaare and Baare look similiar to Iberian EBAAREN.
I also see the word the Ebaan (immediately before "Tiilebooiir"), maybe Iberian EBAN? The segmentation is very difficult. Just throwing something out there...I will leave the speculation to the professionals...lol
I am anywhere close to the ballpark here...hahaha
I see you have already been to Wikipedia, lol
ReplyDeleteThank you for backing up our efforts for balance in that situation. Still waiting on others to respond, if they do at all.
Perhaps they're on holidays, so they'll get a surprise on return. :-)
IMHO they actually made a big contribution, especially in the Gallaecian (the Western Celtic variety of Iberia) article, a topic long neglected by researches (including Koch himself). As I've got copies of Prósper's books, I also contributed myself to the article.
Unfortunately, they also went too far head, coining designations such as "NE/NW/SW Hispano-Celtic" which they put in the Hispano-Celtic article, now a candidate for deletion.
I am very thankful for your insights...and also Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos' insights.
ReplyDeleteSo have you corresponded with him? I'd like to know.
Have you read Miguel Valerio's paper...where he uses MAaRE instead of BAaRE/ PAaRE for the reading of that Tartessian "word"?
I see he reads the script in a different way, so Koch's Ha is Valerio's ba/pa and Koch's ba = Valerio's m, but I'm afraid this isn't consistent with linguistic data, specially considering Iberian has no /m/ whatsoever.
IMHO, the reading paŕe (remember that rhotics are reversed in the Tartessian script) would be consistent with Iberian aŕe 'here'.
TiilekuurkuuarkaastaabuuteebaanTiilebooiirerobaarenaŕke[en---]aφiuu
Koch says that Tiilekuur = the anthroponym TillegusLOL. If you know Spanish, this is desKOCHonante!
but the same "Tiile-" is found elsewhere in the inscription attached to "-booiir", so I am thinking not an anthroponym???
Actually, this tile- looks like a genuinely Iberian anthroponym element.
I am not sure of the segmentation here: erobaare, perhaps one word?
No, it would actually be two words: eŕo paŕe.
Erobaare and Baare look similiar to Iberian EBAAREN.
Surely you're confused, because AFAIK there's no such Iberian word.
I also see the word the Ebaan (immediately before "Tiilebooiir")
It would actually be teban.
maybe Iberian EBAN?
Actually t-eban. The t- is a verbal prefix.
Actually, Iberian has two homonymous loanwords from Phoenician/Punic: eban 'funerary monument' and the verb e-ban- 'to build/dedicate'. The first one appears to be cognate to Basque mahai 'table' < *ban-ane and the second one to ipiñi 'to erect' < *e-benn-i.
The stella you quoted is studied in an article by Amílcar Guerra: http://lisboa.academia.edu/Am%C3%ADlcarGuerra/Papers/432442/Novidades_No_ambito_Da_Epigrafia_Pre-Romana_Do_Sudoeste_Hispanico
ReplyDeleteThe Tartessian formulaic expression paŕe narkenii would mean something like 'here lies under/is buried', assuming this is the same IE verb *k´ei- 'to lie' (e.g. Greek keimai 'to be laid, to lie') and nar a preverb 'under'.
Hello, Mr. Alexandre,
ReplyDeleteYes, I need to respond to his last e-mail actually. He has been gracious enough to correspond with me, yes. He actually sent me a paper he had published in 2009.
As for Iberian Ebaaren...it is in the Meridional/ Southeastern Script
I know you dismiss this man as a crackpot, but it makes sense seemingly.
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=865079&orden=68817
You also find "Teebaan" here in this very long paper...if you skim through it you will see many Iberian phrases that look familiar in Tartessian.
http://iespontdesuert.xtec.cat/tesina.pdf
Also for the Narke(n)- word...
http://books.google.com/books?id=DJDjNp6wODoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Narkenti&source=bl&ots=AC1Z9uPIvS&sig=jVdz6g1wrLLQHPIGqolZ2ELA0D0&hl=en&ei=G-0wTq7JEqXW0QGX95yPDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Narkenti&f=false
You never did remark on Mr. Orozco's comparison of Iberian and Tartessian words, if I am not mistaken.
"In the paper Mr. Orozco compares Iberian BAN to Tartessian BAa, Iberian EBAAREN to Tartessian BAaRE, and Iberian ναι/ ḿi to Tartessian (n)ai/(n)ii"
Or maybe you are saving that for some future time when you look into it more?
Again, I very greatly thank you for this posting on your blog.
As for Iberian Ebaaren...it is in the Meridional/ Southeastern Script
ReplyDeleteProbably a hapax then.
You also find "Teebaan" here in this very long paper...if you skim through it you will see many Iberian phrases that look familiar in Tartessian.
I'm afraid it's no use unless we can understand morphology. IMHO this is can be analysed as a verb t-e-ban- '(he) has built/dedicated'.
Also for the Narke(n)- word...
http://books.google.com/books?id=DJDjNp6wODoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Narkenti&source=bl&ots=AC1Z9uPIvS&sig=jVdz6g1wrLLQHPIGqolZ2ELA0D0&hl=en&ei=G-0wTq7JEqXW0QGX95yPDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Narkenti&f=false
Unfortunately, the author was unable to identify the verb root -ke- and the preverb nar-.
You never did remark on Mr. Orozco's comparison of Iberian and Tartessian words, if I am not mistaken.
This is my blog, not Wikipedia. :-)
"In the paper Mr. Orozco compares Iberian ναι/ ḿi to Tartessian (n)ai/(n)ii"
This looks as the Greek mediopassive 1st person suffix -mai, eg. hypó-kei-mai 'I'm lying below', which I consider to be a rough equivalent of Tartessian nar-ke-nai/nar-ke-nii.
As we can deduce from the Iberian ownership formula, this nai would be actually the verb form 'I'm', then fossilized in these languages to form the mediopassive.
My own conclusion is that Tartessian can't be Celtic, although it still could be an IE language.
BTW, I think quoting Greek texts without transliterating to the Latin alphabet is old-fashioned and snobbish. The only exception would be in Greek language school.
As we can deduce from the Iberian ownership formula, this nai would be actually the verb form 'I'm', then fossilized in these languages to form the mediopassive.
ReplyDeleteForget this. Actually, one of the usual formulas in Iberian funerary isncriptions is aŕe take X, which X being the name of the deceased. There's also a broken bilingual inscription with the main verb in passive form:
HEIC EST SIT[...]
aŕe teki ar[...]
You can see Tartessian is very different from Iberian (apart from some possible loanwords).
Much of this is constructive and helpful.
ReplyDeleteAs to the proposed IE etymology with preverb *ner- and verb *k^ei-, I don't see that as impossible. Since *k^ei- exists in Celtic, as does *nei- 'under, beneath' related to *ner-, and the sounds develop from IE as in Celtic, it might be more justified to conclude that this particular IE etymology would not indicate that the language was certainly Celtic, rather than that it would indicate that the language was certainly not Celtic.
The equation of tiilekuur(kuu) and TILLEGVS F SVSARRVS AIOB[R]IGIAECO from Caurel, Lugo, was first published by Guerra. There is also the Gaulish genitive TILLICI. With linboire again in J.11.2 we probably should segement leboiire at Mesas do Castelinho, which I take to be the plural subject (Lemo-(w)iroi)of tee-bantii, a plural verb with an IE primary ending as identified by Guerra.
Since *k^ei- exists in Celtic, as does *nei- 'under, beneath' related to *ner-
ReplyDeleteReally? What's your source of information? I couldn't find it in Matasović. You might also notice Celtic actually uses the same preverb *uφo- than Greek.
it might be more justified to conclude that this particular IE etymology would not indicate that the language was certainly Celtic, rather than that it would indicate that the language was certainly not Celtic.
But unlike Greek mediopassive, which is a later innovation shared by other groups, Celtic has the archaic one in *-r like Italic and Anatolian.
Much of this is constructive and helpful.
ReplyDeleteYour comments, as well as those of other reviewers are welcome. :-)
The equation of tiilekuur(kuu) and TILLEGVS F SVSARRVS AIOB[R]IGIAECO from Caurel, Lugo, was first published by Guerra.
This reminds me that unlike r, Tartessian ŕ probably didn't represented a rhotic but (at least on some contexts) a voiced sibilant [z]. This would mean the preverb was actually *naz-, not **nar-, so I must look into it.
Also I'd interpret bare (or φare?) as possibly being the verb 'to bear' (IE *bher-e-).
With linboire again in J.11.2 we probably should segement leboiire at Mesas do Castelinho, which I take to be the plural subject (Lemo-(w)iroi)of tee-bantii, a plural verb with an IE primary ending as identified by Guerra.
Although linboir-e (dative?) could be interpreted as you say, the personal name in other inscription looks like tile-boiir-e. Remember that tile- is found in Iberian as an anthroponym formant. And the verb looks also to be borrowed from Iberian.
Taking into account the good mapping of the ŕ sign, I've devised an alternative etymology which seems to me far better than the former one. I hope you'll enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteThere are examples indicating that SW r and R had similar sounds: e.g., naRrkee:n: (J.23.1) compared with the usual naRkeen-.
ReplyDeleteI think that IE oi (at least word finally) is simplified to Tartessian -e. (I think that the language tended to simplify diphthongs. It's consistent.) For example, sie: naRkeentii (J.12.1) I would see as something like "these men [iru + alkuu] lie / remain [here]" with sie cognate with Vedic tye < IE *tyoi. s- spread through the Celtic demonstratives, but that might not rule out Italic.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me less likely that linbooire and lebooiire are two different words (names) to be segmented differently. Both Lemo- and Limo- are common in Celtic onomastics including the Peninsular NW, e.g. the Lemaui and their neighbours the Limici.
I think baare, &c., are from IE *bher-e- "carry, bear".
In the light of MdC, I changed my mind about tee(e). I think tee-bare is the equivalent of Latin de:fero: "carry down, away", so "[this grave] has carried away". Old Irish has a verb compound verb di:-ba- "becomes exinct" (etymologically "steps away", the root is common in Greek). That's how I see tee-baantii "they pass away" (the subjects are tiilekurkuu + arkastamuu notionally equivalent to lebooiire).
There are examples indicating that SW r and R had similar sounds: e.g., naRrkee:n: (J.23.1) compared with the usual naRkeen-.
ReplyDeleteYes, it looks like ŕ was a flap and r a trill, exactly the reverse than in NE Iberian. However, while the trill appears to be the reflex of IE *r, the flap can be the result of rhotatization like in Latin (sub)mergō < IE *mezg-. This is explained here: http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/irea/so/03-consonantes/vibrantes.html
I think that IE oi (at least word finally) is simplified to Tartessian -e. (I think that the language tended to simplify diphthongs. It's consistent.)
You should have other examples to confirm this.
For example, sie: naRkeentii (J.12.1) I would see as something like "these men [iru + alkuu] lie / remain [here]" with sie cognate with Vedic tye < IE *tyoi. s- spread through the Celtic demonstratives, but that might not rule out Italic.
I doubt tombs were "collective", that is, that there were more than one individual buried. In Iberian inscriptions, having two names mean the name of the person who dedicated the monument is recorded besides the name of the deceased. The verb to express this idea is e-ban, usually with the past tense prefix t-: t-e-ban.
In the light of MdC,
What's that?
think tee-bare is the equivalent of Latin de:fero: "carry down, away", so "[this grave] has carried away". Old Irish has a verb compound verb di:-ba- "becomes exinct" (etymologically "steps away", the root is common in Greek). That's how I see tee-baantii "they pass away" (the subjects are tiilekurkuu + arkastamuu notionally equivalent to lebooiire).
I disagree. See above.
"This is my blog, not Wikipedia. :-)"
ReplyDeleteYes, that has been known from the beginning, dear sir. I just wanted to be clear in my notes I have been taking...just making sure all the I's were dotted and the T's crossed. If in my desire to be throughgoing, I overstepped any bounds, please forgive that, but I like to be sure and accurate in note taking. Helps make studying things in detail much less of a pain.:)
In my discussions with Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos, he points out several things. I do have permission to share some data. He states, "There are some clear and too evidents issues with his segmentations of the words (for instance there is great evidence that there are "suffixes"/"endings" -iir, -ne, but his explanation doesn't match neither explain this "suffixes"). That the segmentation made by means of the internal analyses and that of the "translation" don't match it's by itself something very suspicious. Some of his readings are very doubtful (some of them simply ad hoc) and some words (as bane) probably don't exist. His solution for the main formula is rather odd: odd the meaning "receive" for the root *bher which he puts forward as the most natural thing (it should be rather "has carried"), as odd the expression on a tomb (for instance the grave looks like an animated subject). It is also curious that "verbs" as bare or naRken lack explicit grammar relations (as a subject and an object). Also curiously the best suited words he find for burial lexicon are 'hapaxes' from very fragmented inscriptions (rather odd, isn't it?). There are no explanations for the use of two R, nor for the doubled vowels and some case endings seem to fluctuate (look at the Genitive and Dative endings of the -os themes, or at "ir" as Nominative of wiros). I remain unconvinced. At the very best it lacks a more convincing explanation and more self criticism on the dubious aspects and too clear weak points."
He also says the same as you do about the Iberian-ness of Tartessian...he says that is mainly an idea of Veleza's based upon the term, BANE. He further says that any Iberian likeness is do to borrowing and chance resemblances.
He also discussed the Phoenician influences both cultural and linguistic, he says, "The other point is that it is not clear that the language of the steles is Tartessian. In fact, it looks that Phoenician / Punic had a great use in the Tartessian zone (the fact that during the romanisation they made coins in a local punic script not in Iberian, at with punic words, shows that it was before; and probably there are more Phoenician Inscriptions of the golden Tartessian age than "native") There could be some loanwords or some influences. As a matter of fact when in 1992 I search for Indo-European possibilities I suggest that a interpretation of naRken- as "do not move (the tomb)" (na- < IE ne "non", ken the same root of gr. kineo "cinetics") could be explained as this "message" was usual in the ancient Phoenician tomb inscription (though we only know those of the kings).
Also in Andalusia (in Jaén) appeared and Iberian inscription on a silver bowl, which could be an offering, where a word that could be a personal name or, less probably, a god, (at least it look like a name for its context and position) is KANANIKE (probably KANANI-KE) which is how Phoenicians called themselves (Maybe as if it were equivalent to a Latin inscription as "Punicus votum dedit" or "(deo) Punico donum dedit" or something so). Well, this is maybe more probable that Koch theories but also highly speculative.
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteI am now wondering if "Tartessian" is actually an Indo-European language similar to Lusitanian or Sorothaptic. He says, "Obviously any Indo-Europeanist of course wants to find as many Indo-European languages as possible, so there is an understandable tendency..." So it is a case of they want to believe (that Tartessian is Indo-European or Celtic). He says, "As a matter of fact, that it would be Indo-European, is probably nowadays the only hope to translate "Tartessian", and hence again this a good reason to make a try."
Given his words, I think he is leaning towards Indo-European, but in no way does he believe it is Celtic. Also, he doesn't seem to think Tartessian is Tartessian either...I mean, he doesn't think what we call "Tartessian", is actually "Tartessian" because of the overwhelming bulk of inscriptions being found much to the west of the Tartessian nuclear area.
Valerio also mentioned the Latinized "-ipo/ Ipo-" suffix and prefix likely derived from the original "ipun"...this might be Phoenician...but as I said before, the Phoenician word is "Ubbo" (meaning bay, pond, or harbor) which becomes "Hippo" in Latin as in Hippo Regius. Many cities bearing those -ipo/ Ipo- names are nowhere near any body of water that could be considered a bay, pond, or harbor. I have a paper discussing this...titled something like toponyms in Portugal or something similar. I will find it.
There are other odd toponyms that look to me like Indo-European ones, but not Celtic.
Yes, that has been known from the beginning, dear sir. I just wanted to be clear in my notes I have been taking...just making sure all the I's were dotted and the T's crossed. If in my desire to be throughgoing, I overstepped any bounds, please forgive that, but I like to be sure and accurate in note taking. Helps make studying things in detail much less of a pain.:)
ReplyDeleteThere's a Spanish joke which says: ¡Orozco, que te conozco!, which freely translated into English would say I know you very well.
I also wonder if this personal communication from JRR could be used in Wikipedia, as your fellow editors have got their knifes sharped, so to speak.
There are other odd toponyms that look to me like Indo-European ones, but not Celtic.
Examples?
Examples?
ReplyDeleteWell, is "-ipo(n)/ Ipo-"
Indo-European???
Curiosity is getting to me....hahaha
The other toponyms that look Indo-European are:
1.) Ob-, -oba, -uba, -uta
2.) -ucci, -urgis, -urges
3.) -ici, -igi
http://books.google.com/books?id=qjRvUhoV4PcC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22-oba,+-uba,+-igi,+and+-urgi%22&source=bl&ots=Ocv0YBeJK2&sig=nRzfi8zdpGUqxC1M7rsZW7AnPIo&hl=en&ei=Tiw0Tr2qJsq1twfenNCEDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes, their knives are very sharp...hahaha
ReplyDeleteWell, is "-ipo(n)/ Ipo-"
ReplyDeleteIndo-European???
This is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Also Semitic and Berber can be discarded, so the only choice would be ... (fet to reader's imagination).
Ob-, -oba, -uba, -uta
As I said earlier, this is an Italoid (the IE language studied by Villar) word for 'river', comparable to Baltic *-apa and similar.
-ucci,
Also found as tucci, this is probably the Italoid rendering of IE *teg-o- 'cover, roof' and corresponds to Basque (t)oki.
-urgis, -urges
This is Iberian urgi 'fortress', from PNC *borGwV 'stall, shed; tower', the same root which gives Greek púrgos and Germanic *burg-.
-ici, -igi
This corresponds to Iberian tigi, a rendering of Celtic *tego- 'house', which also gives Basque (t)egi.
Koch's reading of some Tartessian anthroponyms is highly suspicious. For example, he translates ekuŕin- as 'Horse Queen' with a second element derivated from Celtic *rīganī 'queen'. But IMHO this is incorrect, because we should expect something like **riini, with the same rhotic /r/ as in aibuuris.
ReplyDeleteAs in mentioned in my post, I think Tartessian /ŕ/ can be the result of rhotatization of [z] as in Latin. This would another clue in favour of the Italoid hypothesis.
Hello, Mr. Alexandre,
ReplyDeleteI would like to run more questions about Tartessian by you if you will tolerate it.
I also notice that in reading about Iberian, that Iberian inscriptions also have the "-en", "-mi" and "-nai" suffixes. As in the Tartessian "narkenmi" and "Narkenai"
For example:
(anaioś-ar-en-mi)there should be a line over the "M"
And could the Iberian suffix "-te" be equivalent to Tartessian "-ti" as in "Narkenti"
I know that in the Meridional Iberian script the suffix "-ti" also exists.
Are the Iberian suffixes related at all to the "Tartessian" ones?
I would also like to share Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos' paper with you.
ReplyDeleteI also see that you and Mr. Aldamiz (Maju) had a falling out.
I would like to run more questions about Tartessian by you if you will tolerate it.
ReplyDeleteNever mind. Life is so boring these days. :-)
I also notice that in reading about Iberian, that Iberian inscriptions also have the "-en", "-mi" and "-nai" suffixes. As in the Tartessian "narkenmi" and "Narkenai"
The problem is actually considering them as "suffixes", because Iberian is an agglutinative language, not a flexional one. Also ḿi and nai are different ortographic renderings of the same word.
And could the Iberian suffix "-te" be equivalent to Tartessian "-ti" as in "Narkenti"
By no means. IMHO, Iberian /-te/ would actually represent either -t or -d. As the Iberian script had no means of representing a single stop, it had to choose one of the syllabograms where it appears.
Are the Iberian suffixes related at all to the "Tartessian" ones?
See above. I don't think Tartessian is actually related to Iberian, apart from some loanwords. While Tartessian looks like and IE language, Iberian isn't it.
I would also like to share Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos' paper with you.
I've just sent you an e-mail to give you my own address (I don't like posting it here for anti-spam reasons).
I also see that you and Mr. Aldamiz (Maju) had a falling out.
Thank you for the information. Now I know he's Luis Aldaniz, and apparently he's a historian, but also a crackpot when turning out to historical linguistics. Unfortunately, our "relationship" borke out due to his own contradictions, as he pretends that unlike his own field, historical linguistics isn't truly
scientific, and he suppressed debate in his own blog as much as the Utopia's Avatars eliminated anybody who created conflicts.
The Tartessian anthroponym element tile-, also found in Iberian, appears to be a Phoenician loanword from the Moon Goddess name T-ili-t. this is probably also the origin of Basque *ile- 'moon', as initial t- disappeared in Paleo-Basque.
ReplyDeleteThis web site (in Spanish) has an alternative interpretation of Tartessian as Celtic: http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/irea/principes.html
ReplyDeleteActually, I've quoted him about the issue of rhotics in the SW script.
I've reviewed some of my former conclusions on the light of the Celtic hypothesis. Apparently, some of Koch's interpretations are severely compromised by his own incorrect reading of the script, e.g. baane instead of mane or baare instead of mare.
ReplyDeleteJust a little addendum if you don't mind, Mr. Alexandre.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine sent this link to me.
It is a review of Koch's book:
Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language, and Literature. Celtic Studies Publications 15. Oxford/ Oakville, CT: Oxbow Books, 2010. Pp. vii, 384. ISBN 9781842174104.
I think you will find it rather informative also...just wanted to share.
http://www.bmcreview.org/2011/09/20110957.html
The version at the home site:
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html
The review in the link was posted on September 28, 2011. The book was reviewed by Jürgen Zeidler, University of Trier (zeidler@uni-trier.de)
We will have to disagree on "Tartessian". From all I have seen. There are Indo-European adoptions, but the rest is not Indo-European. You see Indo-European adoptions in ancient Iberian and Vasconic, but that does not make them IE. For examples of lexical adoptions, Hittite (Anatolian IE), had 20 - 30% of it's lexicon inherited from IE, the other 80 - 70% was not IE, but Hittite is still considered IE. The same with ancient Greek, only ~40% of its lexicon was inherited from IE, ~ 60% was not, but it is still IE. Also take for example English (an intra-IE comparison here), ~ 60% of the English lexicon is of directly or indirectly Latin origin, but English is not Romance, it is Germanic. Just food for thought about "Tartessian".
ReplyDeleteQuantitative figures like the ones you presented are pretty meaningless,and neither I'd use the word "inherited" when analyzing the lexicon layers of thse languages.
DeleteAs I said before, our reading of Tartessian texts is handicapped by the semisyllablic script, probably intented orginally for a different language which had features such as open syllables. That said, there're some recognizable IE verbal declensions and even roots (e.g. beetaasiioonii) which would make Tartessian an IE language, although most likely not Celtic but an "Italoid" or "Baltoid" one, according to Villar research.
Apparently, some of the IE loanwords found in Iberian and Paleo-Basque are from that source (although not necessarily from Tartessian itself). For example, Iberian baides 'witness' is a straightforward loanword from a reflex of IE *weid- 'to see' in a language which had a instead of o as ablaut vowel.
Hola, Again, Octavia!
ReplyDeleteYou were mentioned in Koch's new paper! What are your opinions of it?
https://www.academia.edu/6408107/On_the_Debate_over_the_Classification_of_the_Language_of_the_South-Western_SW_Inscriptions_also_known_as_Tartessian
You were mentioned in Koch's new paper!
ReplyDeleteReally? I couldn't find my name there.
What are your opinions of it?
Well, it's a good summary of Koch's views. My main points of disagreements can be summarized as follows:
1) The SW script isn't completely deciphered and the value of some signs remains unknown or at least problematic. In particular, the sign transcribed as ɸ would be actually bᵃ, and thus bᵃ would be a different thing.
2) Many of the purported Celtic etymologies are doubtful or problematic, partly Koch's poor knowledge of the reconstructed Proto-Celtic (apparently he's unaware of Matasović's dictionary on the Leiden-Brill series). For example, Cisalpine Gaulish karnitu isn't Celtic at all, and can't be used for building Celtic etymologies.
3) He apparently disregards language stratification, by which e.g. a non-Celtic (but yet IE) language such as Lusitanian can have a Celtic superstrate (Gallaecian).
Ola, Octavia!
ReplyDeleteTo find your name, just word search tavi within the pdf.
So you are of the the same opinion I am. I was not impressed. The narkenti comments were interesting though. I read it as him seeming to throw his hands up on the Celtic issue, at least that is how it read to me.
NB: The etymology of karnitu is mine, not Matasović's. In fact, Gaulish has a number of non-Celtic words (either directly attested or reconstructed from their Romance descendants) which are usually given Celtic etymologies by specialists.
DeleteHola!
ReplyDeleteYou should write Mr. Koch and inform him of this, so due credit can be given.
Hola, Octavia!
ReplyDeleteIt has been a very long time...I hope you are well.
I have been informed by a friend that a proof review of Mr. Koch's latest article concerning his Tartessian theory is online. His work was reviewed by fellow a Spaniard, Blanca María Prósper.
"Some Observations on the Classification of Tartessian as a Celtic Language"
https://www.academia.edu/7649315/Some_observations_on_the_classification_of_Tartessian_as_a_Celtic_language
If you cannot access it, I can send it to you.
Thank you, Adyghe.
DeleteMrs Prósper is very nice uploading her own papers to academia.edu. Although she's brilliant, some of her proposals are flawed, for example this one.
I'm now considering the possibility Tartessian could be a Paleo-European language related to hydronyms such as *akʷā. In that case, Tartessian baaituura (borrowed by Iberian) would be a native word derived from IE *weid- 'to see; to know (by fact)'.
Tartessian was the same as Sámi language
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say that?
ReplyDeleteBecause Basque {with its two dialects: Aquitanian & Iberian} belongs to Kushitic group of Afro-Asiatic family as does Burushaski, meanwhile Japanese would certainly be part of Chadic group of the same language family. Afrasiatic and Uralic families seem to be closely related. Latin belongs to Baltic branch of Dravidian languages {another branch is Celtic originated in Ceylon later moved to Ireland}, and Spanish is just a mixture of Latin and Euskara.
ReplyDeleteBut you don't mention Tartessian.
ReplyDeleteTartessian was the same as Beja language
ReplyDeleteFirst, you say the Tartessian language was the same as Estonian/Sami (Northern Europe) and then you say it was the same as Beja language (Eastern Africa). Isn't it a bit contradictory?
ReplyDeleteThe undermentioned Tartessian toponyms are just Lappish {Sámit = semite}, but the language doesn't seem to be so. On the other hand, there are a lot of Finno-Ugric toponyms on the Near East, namely: Arpad, Baghdad, Edessa, Latakia. Moreover, Saddam Hussein was Lapponic & Muammar Gaddafi was Karelian, Hebrew is connected to Finnish, Basque people, despite their language being related to af-Soomaaliga, reminds of Finns and even Italians, since Italian language is a highly Finno-Ugric 'ed Latin, Basque "-tegi" is same as Estonian "-tegi", so that now it is time to begin discussing a quite probable Uralo-Afrasiatic language family.
ReplyDelete