This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I do not agree that this article be merged with Continental Celtic languages article. I feel it would get lost if subsumed there. However, a brief precis of it should go on the Continental Celtic languages article. This is a new article and has a ways yet to grow - let it do so. Jembana ( talk) 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, there are specific wiki links to this page from a number of articles on Celtic tribes of the Iberian Peninsula. It acts a specific explanation of the term and gives the major occurrences of it with samples. It would become non-specific if subsumed and less useful. Jembana ( talk) 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with this proposal. This article caters for a whole sub-family of the Celtic languages for which evidence is emerging year by year now. Summarising the findings in a few lines is not adequate to the task of informing readers of an encylopaedia like the Wikipedia. There are multiple researchers working on this area of study which is reflected in the authors of the references provided who are all respected experts on their subject. Jembana ( talk) 00:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose deletion of this article by these reasons:
1) It doesn't add any significant information to the articles Celtiberian language and Gallaecian language.
2) It violates WP:NPOV as regarding the celticity of Tartessian.
3) It violates WP:NOR as it contains ad hoc designations such as "NW Hispano-Celtic" and "SW Hispano-Celtic". Talskubilos ( talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We prefer to use the term Hispano-Celtic as a hypernym to include all the linguistic varieties of Celtic spoken in the Iberian Peninsula before the arrival of the Romans (in c. 218 BC, during the Second Punic War). However, the only variety for which we have direct evidenceand about whose Celtic origin there is unanimous agreement is the variety traditionally named Celtiberian, as defined above. In geographic-linguistic terms it could also be called northeastern Hispano-Celtic. In the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically between the west and north Atlantic coasts and an imaginary line running north-south and linking Oviedo and Mérida, there is a corpus of Latin inscriptions with particular characteristics of its own. This corpus contains some linguistic features that are clearly Celtic and others that in our opinion are not Celtic. The former we shall group, for the moment, under the label northwestern Hispano-Celtic. The latter are the same features found in well-documented contemporary inscriptions in the region occupied by the Lusitanians, and therefore belonging to the variety known as LUSITANIAN, or, more broadly as GALLO-LUSITANIAN. As we have already said, we do not consider this variety to belong to the Celtic language family. Finally, in the southwest of the Peninsula there are stelae containing inscriptions in a language for which the name TARTESSIAN has recently been becoming more widely used. These inscriptions are difficult to read, and therefore to interpret, although some features have been distinguished that indicate that the inscriptions are written in a Celtic language.
If you refer to the Wodtko (also Koch) references you will see they also use Western Hispano-Celtic in many places to designate the western group of dialects: Caillaecian and Tartessian included (some are including Lusitanian too). Koch tentatively sees Tartessian as 'Old Caillaecian' in his interpretation.
So three peer-reviewed papers (at least) use these terms and they are current. Maybe your source has used out of date material in its compilation. Jembana ( talk) 06:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no consensus about the celtity of Tartessian, nor Koch's work has been accepted yet, except by silence, so a NPOV would be leave it as undecided. Talskubilos ( talk) 13:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I've condensed the descriptions of the Hispano-Celtic varieties, and also deleted unnecessary references to Tartessian as this it would violate NPOV as regarding its celticity. Also, if you want to write anything, you must learn to broke text into paragraphs. Talskubilos ( talk) 14:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I see you "restored" the sentence referring to Tartessian, but apparently you didn't realize it contained a pleonasm,as you used to verb to write twice (also remember than script and language are two different things). Also what you call "clarifying information for the reader" is unnecessary here because details are to be found in the corresponding article.
The autor is Carlos Jordán Cólera or just Carlos Jordán. see spanish surnames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.137.138 ( talk) 12:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I do not agree that this article be merged with Continental Celtic languages article. I feel it would get lost if subsumed there. However, a brief precis of it should go on the Continental Celtic languages article. This is a new article and has a ways yet to grow - let it do so. Jembana ( talk) 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, there are specific wiki links to this page from a number of articles on Celtic tribes of the Iberian Peninsula. It acts a specific explanation of the term and gives the major occurrences of it with samples. It would become non-specific if subsumed and less useful. Jembana ( talk) 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with this proposal. This article caters for a whole sub-family of the Celtic languages for which evidence is emerging year by year now. Summarising the findings in a few lines is not adequate to the task of informing readers of an encylopaedia like the Wikipedia. There are multiple researchers working on this area of study which is reflected in the authors of the references provided who are all respected experts on their subject. Jembana ( talk) 00:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose deletion of this article by these reasons:
1) It doesn't add any significant information to the articles Celtiberian language and Gallaecian language.
2) It violates WP:NPOV as regarding the celticity of Tartessian.
3) It violates WP:NOR as it contains ad hoc designations such as "NW Hispano-Celtic" and "SW Hispano-Celtic". Talskubilos ( talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We prefer to use the term Hispano-Celtic as a hypernym to include all the linguistic varieties of Celtic spoken in the Iberian Peninsula before the arrival of the Romans (in c. 218 BC, during the Second Punic War). However, the only variety for which we have direct evidenceand about whose Celtic origin there is unanimous agreement is the variety traditionally named Celtiberian, as defined above. In geographic-linguistic terms it could also be called northeastern Hispano-Celtic. In the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically between the west and north Atlantic coasts and an imaginary line running north-south and linking Oviedo and Mérida, there is a corpus of Latin inscriptions with particular characteristics of its own. This corpus contains some linguistic features that are clearly Celtic and others that in our opinion are not Celtic. The former we shall group, for the moment, under the label northwestern Hispano-Celtic. The latter are the same features found in well-documented contemporary inscriptions in the region occupied by the Lusitanians, and therefore belonging to the variety known as LUSITANIAN, or, more broadly as GALLO-LUSITANIAN. As we have already said, we do not consider this variety to belong to the Celtic language family. Finally, in the southwest of the Peninsula there are stelae containing inscriptions in a language for which the name TARTESSIAN has recently been becoming more widely used. These inscriptions are difficult to read, and therefore to interpret, although some features have been distinguished that indicate that the inscriptions are written in a Celtic language.
If you refer to the Wodtko (also Koch) references you will see they also use Western Hispano-Celtic in many places to designate the western group of dialects: Caillaecian and Tartessian included (some are including Lusitanian too). Koch tentatively sees Tartessian as 'Old Caillaecian' in his interpretation.
So three peer-reviewed papers (at least) use these terms and they are current. Maybe your source has used out of date material in its compilation. Jembana ( talk) 06:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no consensus about the celtity of Tartessian, nor Koch's work has been accepted yet, except by silence, so a NPOV would be leave it as undecided. Talskubilos ( talk) 13:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I've condensed the descriptions of the Hispano-Celtic varieties, and also deleted unnecessary references to Tartessian as this it would violate NPOV as regarding its celticity. Also, if you want to write anything, you must learn to broke text into paragraphs. Talskubilos ( talk) 14:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I see you "restored" the sentence referring to Tartessian, but apparently you didn't realize it contained a pleonasm,as you used to verb to write twice (also remember than script and language are two different things). Also what you call "clarifying information for the reader" is unnecessary here because details are to be found in the corresponding article.
The autor is Carlos Jordán Cólera or just Carlos Jordán. see spanish surnames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.137.138 ( talk) 12:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)