Zompist Bboard Again

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:25 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:04 pmBut I don't understand how you can tell that they're Iberian, when you yourself say you can barely recognize Paleo-Basque.

Well, I don't think they're all from Iberian, but at least some of them, as e.g. carrasca. On the other hand, Spanish vega and Portuguese veiga are demonstrated Iberian loanwords with no Basque counterpart.

um, how can it be demonstrated, when we have no known documents or inscriptions known to unquestioningly be Iberian?
{i think in writing systems of the world, Iberian was listed as one of the controversial and questionable scripts}

Indeed, it has been bugging me for long that Talskubilos claims to know much more about Iberian than the academic linguistic community! All we have of Iberian are a few hundred inscriptions in a script for whose letters we have some educated guesses at their sound values, but nobody knows for sure that those readings are correct (at least, some of the inscriptions make sense in an intelligible but wholly different language, Celtiberian, but then we don't know whether the letters were used with the same sound values in both languages!), much less could anybody make much sense of the texts. There are some words which look like some Basque words (e.g. a set of what appear to be numerals whose number values are unknown, and the place name Iliberi which looks like Basque hiri berri 'new town'), but unlike, for instance, Hittite, which could be deciphered with the help of other IE languages, Basque has not been of much help in deciphering Iberian. The languages may be related, but not very close; or they may be merely typologically similar and sharing some loanwords. And with the Ascoli Bronze, from which AFAIK Talskubilos has taken his nickname and the names listed there could be in part interpreted by means of Basque, we don't even know for sure whether the names are actually Iberian or from some sort of Proto- or Paleo-Basque - the soldiers listed there were recruited in a region which lies close enough to Basque Country to have been Vasconic-speaking. Under these circumstances, it seems very likely to me that Talskubilos's "knowledge" of Iberian is just made up (though not necessarily by himself - he may have read some pseudoscientific book laying out this "knowledge" written by someone else and taken it for solid truth - but he never cites such a source, so it seems plausible that he dreamt it up all by himself): a conlang which T. claims to have been spoken by the ancient Iberians!

You know, I think he would really do much better in that other section, the one for fantasy linguistics. He's clearly pretty imaginative.

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:26 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:25 pmOn the other hand, Spanish vega and Portuguese veiga are demonstrated Iberian loanwords with no Basque counterpart.

um, how can it be demonstrated, when we have no known documents or inscriptions known to unquestioningly be Iberian?
{i think in writing systems of the world, Iberian was listed as one of the controversial and questionable scripts}

That's not correct. I invite you to visit this site: http://hesperia.ucm.es

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:13 am

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:26 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:25 pmOn the other hand, Spanish vega and Portuguese veiga are demonstrated Iberian loanwords with no Basque counterpart.

um, how can it be demonstrated, when we have no known documents or inscriptions known to unquestioningly be Iberian?
{i think in writing systems of the world, Iberian was listed as one of the controversial and questionable scripts}

That's not correct. I invite you to visit this site: http://hesperia.ucm.es

*clicks*
*tries to read*
*google translates*
*tries to read*

Department of Greek Philology? I'm supposed to trust Greek Philologists over Comrie and his colleagues?

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:33 pmIndeed, it has been bugging me for long that Talskubilos claims to know much more about Iberian than the academic linguistic community!

You're exaggerating! Perhaps I know a little more than other scholars, but that's all.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:33 pmAll we have of Iberian are a few hundred inscriptions in a script for whose letters we have some educated guesses at their sound values, but nobody knows for sure that those readings are correct (at least, some of the inscriptions make sense in an intelligible but wholly different language, Celtiberian, but then we don't know whether the letters were used with the same sound values in both languages!),

Sorry, but that's not correct. Iberian was written in 3 different scripts, 2 of which were indigenous semisyllabaries and the other one was a variant of a Greek (Ionic) alphabet.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:33 pmmuch less could anybody make much sense of the texts. There are some words which look like some Basque words (e.g. a set of what appear to be numerals whose number values are unknown, and the place name Iliberi which looks like Basque hiri berri 'new town'),

There're many lookalikes between Basque and Iberian, but much less genuine matches. As regarding town names, some of them have got the element ildiŕ, ildi- (whose Latinized form Ili- has been liked to Basque (h)iri 'town') which IMHO would mean 'tribe' or 'people'.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:33 pmAnd with the Ascoli Bronze, from which AFAIK Talskubilos has taken his nickname and the names listed there could be in part interpreted by means of Basque, we don't even know for sure whether the names are actually Iberian or from some sort of Proto- or Paleo-Basque - the soldiers listed there were recruited in a region which lies close enough to Basque Country to have been Vasconic-speaking.

The thing is most of these soldiers were unquestionably Iberian, and only a few were Vascons, as e.g. Elandus Enneges, cfr. Paleo-Basque Enneco > Spanish Íñigo.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:33 pmUnder these circumstances, it seems very likely to me that Talskubilos's "knowledge" of Iberian is just made up (though not necessarily by himself - he may have read some pseudoscientific book laying out this "knowledge" written by someone else and taken it for solid truth - but he never cites such a source, so it seems plausible that he dreamt it up all by himself): a conlang which T. claims to have been spoken by the ancient Iberians!

Bullshit.

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:30 amDepartment of Greek Philology? I'm supposed to trust Greek Philologists over Comrie and his colleagues?

AFAIK, Hesperia is the more comprehensive online corpus of Paleo-Hispanic inscriptions.

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:30 am *clicks*
*tries to read*
*google translates*
*tries to read*

Department of Greek Philology? I'm supposed to trust Greek Philologists over Comrie and his colleagues?

What exactly is your problem here? That is a very well documented database that even shows you literature and variae lectiones for each text...

hwhatting wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 7:49 am

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:30 am *clicks*
*tries to read*
*google translates*
*tries to read*

^ this part was intended as humor

Department of Greek Philology? I'm supposed to trust Greek Philologists over Comrie and his colleagues?

What exactly is your problem here? That is a very well documented database that even shows you literature and varia lectionis for each text...

its less a problem than my wariness to read small print that I need Google Translate to understand...though the wariness is increased when T. is asking me to trust Greek Philologists more than Comrie and friends, on a matter that has nothing to do with Greek philology.

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:02 am its less a problem than my wariness to read small print that I need Google Translate to understand...though the wariness is increased when T. is asking me to trust Greek Philologists more than Comrie and friends, on a matter that has nothing to do with Greek philology.

Look, when was Comrie published? The study of palaeohispanic scripts has made big strides in the last 30 years. And I don't find it strange that a department having to do with classical philology at a Spanish University hosts a data base of palaeohispanic inscriptions. I've poked around and find it quite solid, especially on Celtiberian, where I at least have done some reading.
In general, my impression so far is that when T. quotes sources, they check out; it's his own proposals which suffer from a surfeit of fantasy and a lack of methodological rigour.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:34 amIn general, my impression so far is that when T. quotes sources, they check out; it's his own proposals which suffer from a surfeit of fantasy and a lack of methodological rigour.

Well, I think I'm improving myself over time.

On the other hand, I never heard about Comrie, but here is his bibliography file: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=132464

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:32 am

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:33 pmIndeed, it has been bugging me for long that Talskubilos claims to know much more about Iberian than the academic linguistic community!

You're exaggerating! Perhaps I know a little more than other scholars, but that's all.

For example, the word baides, found in inscriptions along personal names, can be translated as 'witness' and derives from IE *weid- 'to see'.

On the other hand, Iberian personal names are compounds of two words, either a noun and an adjective or two nouns, although for the most part we don't know their meaning. For example, I translate Baise-bilos and Bilos-baiser as "Solitary Eagle", from baiser 'solitary' and bilos 'eagle (or some other bird of prey)'. This means Iberian anthroponyms are much alike those of North American Indians, e.g "Sitting Bull".

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:09 am

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:32 am

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:33 pmIndeed, it has been bugging me for long that Talskubilos claims to know much more about Iberian than the academic linguistic community!

You're exaggerating! Perhaps I know a little more than other scholars, but that's all.

For example, the word baides, found in inscriptions along personal names, can be translated as 'witness' and derives from IE *weid- 'to see'.

Wait ... I thought PIE didn't exist?

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:09 am On the other hand, Iberian personal names are compounds of two words, either a noun and an adjective or two nouns, although for the most part we don't know their meaning. For example, I translate Baise-bilos and Bilos-baiser as "Solitary Eagle", from baiser 'solitary' and bilos 'eagle (or some other bird of prey)'. This means Iberian anthroponyms are much alike those of North American Indians, e.g "Sitting Bull".

So, order doesn't matter, if both Baisebilos and Bilosbaiser mean the same thing?

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:27 am

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:09 am

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:32 amYou're exaggerating! Perhaps I know a little more than other scholars, but that's all.

For example, the word baides, found in inscriptions along personal names, can be translated as 'witness' and derives from IE *weid- 'to see'.

Wait ... I thought PIE didn't exist?

Oh God, can we please not get into this again… Talskubilos has very clearly stated, several times, that he agrees PIE existed, and evidently *weid- is that rarity, a PIE word he believes we have reconstructed correctly.

(am remaining unsubscribed to this thread in order to preserve what remains of my sanity)

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:27 am

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:09 am On the other hand, Iberian personal names are compounds of two words, either a noun and an adjective or two nouns, although for the most part we don't know their meaning. For example, I translate Baise-bilos and Bilos-baiser as "Solitary Eagle", from baiser 'solitary' and bilos 'eagle (or some other bird of prey)'. This means Iberian anthroponyms are much alike those of North American Indians, e.g "Sitting Bull".

So, order doesn't matter, if both Baisebilos and Bilosbaiser mean the same thing?

I'd expect a N-Adj order, but this case is puzzling, because in other names the compound elements are never reversed. For example, there's the anthroponym Sosin-biuŕ, which I translate as "Bull-Mare" (cfr. Aquitanian soson, Basque zezen 'bull', behor 'mare'), but no **Biu(ŕ)-sosin.

The problem is we don't know the meaning of most Iberian words, including anthroponym formants.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:03 am

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:27 am

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:09 am For example, the word baides, found in inscriptions along personal names, can be translated as 'witness' and derives from IE *weid- 'to see'.

Wait ... I thought PIE didn't exist?

Oh God, can we please not get into this again… Talskubilos has very clearly stated, several times, that he agrees PIE existed, and evidently *weid- is that rarity, a PIE word he believes we have reconstructed correctly.

Then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:07 amFor example, there's the anthroponym Sosin-biuŕ, which I translate as "Bull-Mare" (cfr. Aquitanian soson, Basque zezen 'bull', behor 'mare'), but no **Biu(ŕ)-sosin.

I just remembered Nalbe-sosin and Nalbe-biuŕ.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:27 am So, order doesn't matter, if both Baisebilos and Bilosbaiser mean the same thing?

Indeed, only a poor conlang like Classical Greek would do that sort of thing. (The order of components in noun + verb compounds shows variation - the same sort of variation happens in oldish Indic.)

Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:24 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:27 am So, order doesn't matter, if both Baisebilos and Bilosbaiser mean the same thing?

Indeed, only a poor conlang like Classical Greek would do that sort of thing. (The order of components in noun + verb compounds shows variation - the same sort of variation happens in oldish Indic.)

Oh, yes - forgot about that.

How do people feel about the hypothesis that Anatolian did not break off from PIE much sooner than the other branches? Phonologically, there are no major innovations shared by post-Anatolian PIE, and the only really important non-phonological innovation is the feminine gender. That's a big deal, but is that the result of a thousand years of separation? Consider:

Anatolian is not unique in retaining the laryngeals after the initial breakup of PIE. It's possible that other branches may have retained them at the same time as early Hittite attestations.

Anatolian lacks the feminine -eH2, but the use of this suffix on neuter plurals is present, along with clues about the suffix's origins as a derivational affix. In other words, only a few small steps could separate Anatolian from the extension of the two gender system to a three gender system, at least morphologically.

The Anatolian word for wheel comes from a different root than any other branch, but the other branches show two different roots, so clearly there was variation within any stage of PIE.

Some losses may be common to the rest of the family, but shared losses aren't very convincing, especially since some of them are bound to happen by coincidence.