Talk:Tartessian language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Coming to believe Tartessian is Celtic

Latest from Linguist List: http://multitree.org/codes/txr.html

It is usually treated as unclassified, though some (Correa (1989), Koch (2009), Untermann (1997) Kaufman (2012)) are coming to believe it to be Celtic.

Kaufman, Terrence. 2012. "Notes on the decipherment of Tartessian as Celtic." Delivered at the 14th Spring Reconstruction Workshop in Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor: Unpublished, ms.

Great. Is this available somewhere? — kwami (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an unpublished paper so you would need to contact the writer, or the people responsible for coordinating the Ann Arbor conference where it was presented.London Hawk (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ISO 639-3

The ISO 639-3 code link always points to the official ISO 639-3 code page, where there is a lot of information there or not. It is not a question of amount of information, but that to send this link elsewhere means that is it not going to the place the label says it is going. If you want a link to the Linguist List page, then add it separately. Do not co-opt the ISO 639-3 link for something it is not. --Taivo (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK I see now you are still discussing what to do regarding Linguist List language links. Apologies.Jembana (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

IE and Celtic Preverbs indicating aspect of verbs

Koch has identified Celtic preverbs in multiple different instances indicating the aspect of verbs in the Tartessian corpus. Most notable is ro which is immediately familiar to students of Old Irish. There are several other preverbs indentified as well. Aspects of verbs such as perfectivity and completeness stand out in his suggested translations.Jembana (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Aspect in Old Irish: the Case of 'ro-': 'Ro-' in Tartessian

Dr. Christopher Guy Yocum (Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh) clearly accepts that Tartessian is a Celtic language. Not only this, he has built on Professor Koch's work on Tartessian describing Dr. Zeidler's criticism in his review as a dissenting point of view.

The Tartessian section of his paper dealing with the use and implications of the Celtic preverb ro- is shown here:

http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/v1cyocum/aspect-in-old-irish.pdf

3 'Ro-' in Tartessian

As we can see from the Slavic evidence, speakers in Proto-Slavic and OSC made

a choice to continue to use the aspectual system inhereted from PIE. This caused

the grammaticallization of aspect to a high degree. The question then is: how

did this develop in Proto-Celtic?

While it would be easy to dismiss 'ro-' in Old Irish without outside comperanda,

it is now less likely. Tartessian, the Celtic language of southern Spain

and Portugal, also shows a reflex of 'ro-' from outside the Insular context. The

identification of Tartessian from the gravestones in and around Tartessos (Ταρ-

τησσός) was made by Prof. John Koch. In subesquent work, he extends his

anyalsis and places Tartessian to the years 700–500 BC. In this investigation, he

has identified an analogous use of 'ro-'. The proto-typical example is the phrase

t^ee-ro·b^aare (b^aa) naŕk^eentⁱi ([the deity or this burial (not this inscribed stone)] has carried away ?so they now remain unmoving). One can immediately see that t^ee-ro·b^aare is extremely similar to Old Irish 'ro-' as the marker of the perfect.

In addition there is tantalizing evidence from the corpus as it now stand that

preverbal 'ro-' actively stops the use of PIE perfect stem with active ending -ii in

verbs. For example, ro-n·b^aaren versus t^eee·b^aarentⁱi.

If the dates for Tartessian are accepted, this places the development of 'ro-'

possibly in the Proto-Celtic stage of the language. This would mean that at least

'ro-' as inherited by Old Irish and Welsh would have the force of perfect marking.

The other alternative is that 'ro-' was developed independently in both languages.

However, given that it shows similar usage in both Old Irish and Welsh and has

similar uses in other IE languages, is a remote possibility.

In conclusion, the perfect marking of the verb by 'ro-' and the active blocking

of the active ending of the perfect stem in Tartessian shows that ‘ro-’ was solidily

within the Proto-Celtic sphere of development. However, without more evidence

from Tartessian as to the other particularities of 'ro-', it is hard to say wether the

aspectual distinctions were an Insular Celtic innovation or someting inherited

from Proto-Celtic.

References used by Dr. Yocum:

John Koch. “A Case For Tartessian As A Celtic Language”. In: Palaeohispanica 9 (2009), pp. 339–351.

For a dissenting point of view, see Jürgen Zeidler. Review of Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language, and Literature. Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Sept. 2011. URL: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html.

John Koch. Tartessian 2: The Inscription of Mesas do Castelinho, ro and the Verbal Complex,

Preliminaries to Hisotrical Phonology. Aberystwyth: University of Wales, Centre for Advanced

Welsh and Celtic Studies, 2011, p. 7.

25ibid., pp. 101–2.

26ibid., pp. 109–110.

Jembana (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Slightly POV wording of the 'Classification' section?

The Classification section reads as somewhat POV to me - it does not feel entirely neutral. I don't know very much about the subject matter, so wouldn't have a real clue as to the merits or otherwise of any theory, but the current wording is as if the Celtic origins theory is only mentioned grudgingly. In particular, the last sentence ("...and that the words be divided with a Celtic interpretation in mind") seems unnecessary, other than to discredit the Celtic theory. Obviously, since, as per the article, there are no word divisions in the scripts, to test the scripts against any language, the words would need to be divided appropriate to the origin tested - i.e. in order to test the scripts against Iberian, for example, surely the first step would be to try to break the script into a series of Iberian words? Perhaps I'm misreading the intent of this sentence, and if so, a different phrasing or clarification might be more appropriate? Gabhala (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not neutral at all. Rather disappointing, isn't it? London Hawk (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's overboard. It's a response to single-issue editors pushing the Celtic proposal as if it were demonstrated and accepted by the academic community. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gabhala. I agree with you. One would assume that you would use a Celtic language to decipher (a proposed) one. I read the reference link and I could not find where Dr. Zeidler said, "...and that the words be divided with a Celtic interpretation in mind." Unless Dr. Zeidler specifically said or unambiguously implied that, it should not be there.

I do propose that this be added to the Classification or Writing section: "It should be clarified from the outset that a system like this—hardly suitable for the denotation of an Indo-European language as it is—leaves ample room for interpretation." ~Dr. Zeidler. This is a very similar statement to the ones made by Mr. Valerio, Mr. Rodriguez Ramos, Mr. De Hoz, implied from Dr. Eska's statements, and several others. I would not think it would be POV since it does reflect the large majority consensus by those familiar with the script. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Subject to interpretation" is a term often used by academics who have not come to a decision on a particular issue, or are protecting a particular theory or research opinion (sometimes against all logic) that is suffering attenuation. The fear of a paradigm shift by some in the study of Celticity is all too real. London Hawk (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

London Hawk, again, your zeal is commendable...I think, but let's be serious. I think the debate has become absurd now. It is clear that most in academia are not at all convinced by Mr. Koch's work on this subject. You can either "be fair" and accept that or continue as you are. The only attenuation I see, is the attenuation of a cute, but wrong theory. I consider this debate to be done until further evidences, one way or the other, appear. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Academic consensus

I haven't followed this article lately. Has something coming closer to an academic consensus been achieved regarding a Celtic Tartessian? When last I checked there seemed to be criticism pointing out rather important inconsistencies in Koch's proposal. I am not trying to be polemic about it, just curious. Trigaranus (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in answer to your first question, as outlined in the article, and that criticism was deemed just a "dissenting view". Have a read of the article again and if needed raise any further questions you may have on the talk page. Please read the work of the major Palaeo-hispanic language experts (Professor Villar et al.) and the work of Dr Yocum building on this and on Professor Koch's Tartessian 2 findings (suggest you read that book especially to get a drift on the linguistic arguments that persuaded the Paleao-Hispanists as they acknowledge).Jembana (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In the major new book series 'The Celts the following statement is made:

"Evidence has been adduced for a Celtic language in the Tartessian inscriptions of south Portugal and southwest Spain (dating 7th-5th centuries BC)."Jembana (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No! No, it has not. Jembana is a fanatical advocate of this theory as you can see from the 60+ revisions to the article he has made. The whole article is now pure advocacy and hardly pretends otherwise and reverting it to something like a reflection of the current lack of consensus is going to be very hard work. Paul S (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You have removed valid sourced statements from reliable sources WP:VERIFY. I have therefore reverted your removal of these statements and you have refused to even discuss them on this talk page despite ample opportunity to do so.Jembana (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's keep the tempers cool here. Instead of "fanatic" I'd say "enthused". (Sorry, Jembana!) ;-) Edit warring is for sites on more modern topics like car racing, and for silly people. Celtic Tartessian is an intriguing theory (admittedly one which I would like to be true, as it gives us hope that the inscriptions could be roughly translatable - a language isolate wouldn't allow for that). But it has only recently been put forward in such detail. Villar seems not to have jumped on that band wagon just yet, if he may at all; and I haven't found any direct response by him on Koch's theory. (Please help me out if there is one.) It looks like we'll have to wait and see how other experts view his theories. So far we've got Yocum with a "yay" and Zeidler with a "nay". I know it's not a ballot, but that's where we stand at the moment, isn't it? This would certainly require the references to Tartessian in Celtic languages and other links to be qualified a bit more carefully. Trigaranus (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that though the theory is appealing and has much in its favour, it is too early to call it until we have more than a 1-1 tie in academic essays and reviews written post it. Simply that. Trigaranus (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please at least read what I have added - the point IS that Villar has come out and said it Tartessian is Celtic (along with other prominent Palaeo-Hispanists like Prosper in a major work) and Zimmer in the major new work The Celts says the same and so does Professor Terence Kauffman and so on (even Dr David Stifter agrees it is Indo-European):

In later 2011, Tartessian was classified as a Celtic language by Classical Philologist and Indo-European Linguistics Professor Francisco Villar Liébana based on Professor John T. Koch's linguistic arguments that provided more substance in favour of a Celtic affiliation.[2][1] This was announced in a major new book co-authored by other prominent researchers into Palaeo-Hispanic languages.[2] This announcement was prefaced by listing previous major breakthroughs in the classification of previously unclassified language inscriptions.[2] The sentence announcing this change of classification is quoted below in the original Spanish[2] :

Más reciemente J. T. Koch ha proporcionado argumentos lingüísticos de mayor enjundia en favor de la tesis de la filiación celta, de manera que en la actualidad conviene retirar, al menos provisionalmente la lengua de las inscripciones del suroeste como miembro del listado no indoeuropeo.

Translated into English this becomes More recently J T Koch's linguistic arguments provided more substance in favor of a Celtic affiliation for [Tartessian], so today, at least for the language of the Southwest inscriptions, [Tartessian] should be removed from the list of non-Indo-European languages.Jembana (talk)

Sorry Jembana, seems I was looking in the wrong place. Will take a butcher's at that one right away. Trigaranus (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this is looking better. Why not hit us with the refs for the other scholars who have taken it up, as you seem to have access to them (Prosper, Kauffman, Zimmer)? And Paul S, which ones do you have in which there are still major reservations against the theory? Trigaranus (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The article as Jembana left it is not satisfactory. There is no consensus on whether or not Tartessian could be Celtic. He has written a totally unbalanced piece of advocacy, citing at length and at times in extremely excessive detail every point in favour, grandiloquently proclaiming the credentials of all those in favour, advertising all their works and even going so far as to cite personal criticisms of one academic by another all in support of his preferred version, and then putting a single sentence for the opposing argument. I repeat, there is no consensus and nobody should be using a Wikipedia page to trumpet a controversial theory they happen to agree with. I'll see your WP:VERIFY and raise you a WP:SOAP. Besides which, there is much too much detail for a Wikipedia article; people like us may love speculating on how a specific possible case ending in Tartessian could be evidence of sound shifts from late PIE to proto-Celtic, but the typical reader is just going to see a wall of incomprehensible text. Paul S (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Who has major reservations? Well, it isn't really like that. The bulk of people I hear discussing it such as Carl Edlund Anderson or David Stifter don't say Koch is wrong they say more like "Hmm, we need to look at this some more before we can make up our minds." There are detractors, I know there were 'a couple of papers attacking the "Celts from the West" thesis of Cunliffe and Koch' at the XIV Internatiolan Congress of Celtic Studies last year but not whether they dealt with Tartessian specifically. I'm not saying the theory is wrong either, I am saying you cannot, as Jembana has done, present matters as if the debate is effectively over and has been won by his side. Paul S (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I second that. And I hope you see the point in that too, Jembana, even though I wish for Koch to be proven right by future research. It is too soon to call. When I have time next, I will put a caveat in place of those sections that proclaim the case closed with too high a degree of certainty for the present situation (as an onlooker to this article, that would mostly be in other articles referring to this one). I hope that we can have an agreement on the practicality of not calling it too soon. But most of all, in order to avoid a worse clash in this particularity between two editors whose contribution I greatly respect in general, would it be possible to simply wait until more has been published to support, criticise, and qualify this theory? I am a historian (Antiquity) by trade and not a linguist: If an ambitious theory like this one had been put forward in history, there would be an upsurge of reviews and criticisms in academic journals within the following two years. Would it be wrong to expect a similar reaction in Palaeo-Hispanic/Ancient Celtic philology? Trigaranus (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the professional support for Tartessian as Celtic continues to build steadily and naysayers will end up being a small (embarrassed) minority in the long term. Why such reluctance from certain people? London Hawk (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no naysayers, only "Wait a minute" sayers. Paul S (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Jembana has again changed less-watched pages such as Paleohispanic languages to make it appear as if the classification of Tartessian as Celtic were already established fact, removing all hedging. Apparently he feels qualified to do that because of new sources, whatever they may actually say. This insidious strategy is outrageous and makes me seriously question his good faith; that's more than fanaticism, that's outright malice. I mean, basically, the whole idea hasn't been properly reviewed yet. Is it OK to revert that crap on sight? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. — kwami (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He never gives up does he? What is going on here - are we perhaps dealing with a shill from a publishing company or similar? Paul S (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the constructive criticism here...I have been in personal contact with two known Spanish scholars who have dealt with the "Tartessian" issue...neither commit to it being Celtic and when I mentioned Mr. Koch's work, they balked at it. I dealt with Jembana and the like over a year ago on this issue. I have noticed over the many months that have passed since then, the article became wildly in favor of the Celtic theory and then much more recently it has been, thankfully, dialed back a bit. I think the Celtic theory is bunk, but Indo-Europeanists like their pet theories and will damn with faint praise anyone who disagrees. Just as a further condemnation of Mr. Koch's work, I will post the following from a Ms. Lenore Fischer of listserv.heanet.ie to a question from a Mr. Dennis King:

Subject: Re: Tartessian 2

From: lenore fischer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To: Scholars and students of Old Irish <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 17:45:28 +0100

Content-Type: text/plain

Parts/Attachments: text/plain (37 lines)

Dennis King <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >I'm just curious whether his work on this new text has changed any minds.

Dear Dennis and everyone,

Here as promised are brief comments on the papers presented at Maynooth.

The abstracts were all on the Congress website.

• 1. Koch, John (Aberystwyth) ‘A Celtic Verbal Complex in Tartessian?’*

Handout has very detailed translations of the inscriptions: I can scan and

send this to anyone who’s interested. In the questions afterwards Joseph

Eska remarked that he still wasn’t convinced that Tartessian is even

Indo-European. Pretty withering, really.

• 2. Zeidler, Jürgen (Trier) ‘Celtic from the West or Celtic from the East’*

Utterly damming, though very measured and quiet delivery. Analysis of words

common in Celtic and proto-Celtic languages found ‘birch’, beaver’, ‘swan’,

‘chicken’, sieve’, ‘flesh hook’, ‘gorse’ ‘holly’ all have referents not

present in the Iberian Peninsula during the period in question. (But Koch

says flesh hooks were.)

• 3. Collis, John (Sheffield) ‘Celtic from the West? a Critique’*

• • Collis was too anxious to draw blood to be a balanced refutation; he

largely targetted Cunliffe’s use of classical sources, also ranted a lot

about ethnicity. Koch got very agitated and in the questions afterwards

said he’d never argued anything about ethnicity at all.

So I guess the answer to your question, Dennis, is that no, it doesn't seem

to have changed the minds of academics, and if anything, Barry Cunliffe's

contribution has set people against the theory.

LRF

[1]

[2] Dr. Stifter's addendum to Ms. Fischer's response

Please forgive my poor formatting as it has been awhile and I need to familiarize myself with the formatting procedures again. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tamar. I've cut out the details of Koch's proposal from the classification, and left a more generic summary of lit. Only if he starts being generally accepted would it be appropriate to start discussing individual glosses. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Kwami. I also think that a reference to and citation of the paper by Miguel Valerio on the Tartessian Script [3] "Origin and development of the Paleohispanic scripts: The Orthography and Phonology of the Southwestern Alphabet" (2008) should be added to the articles concerning the Tartessian Language and the SW (Tartessian) Script. Also of note is his interpretation of "Tartessian" b^a as m^a. So instead of the "Tartessian" sequence be read as t^ee-ro b^aare, it would rather be read as t^ee-ro m^aare. This, he says, is strongly provable based on a number of things (pages 20-21). Also in this paper he seems to agree, while stressing caution, with Dr. Joseph Eska's more recent comments about the resemblance of "Tartessian" phonological features to Iberian and not being suitable to a(n) Indo-European language (page 29). Also in the Tartessian Language article in the section that mentions the Mesas Do Castelinho (Almodovar) inscription, the first line reads: tⁱilekᵘuṟkᵘuarkᵃastᵃaḇᵘutᵉebᵃantⁱilebᵒoiirerobᵃarenaŕḵᵉ[en—]aφiuu. It says that, "tⁱilekᵘuṟ is proposed as a personal name." This can not be as the sequence tⁱile occurs a second time in the inscription and next to a sequence that is not k^uuṟ, so it is highly unlikely that tⁱilekᵘuṟ is an anthroponym. It appears that Mr. Koch's segmentation is not correct there. I propose that be removed from the article. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is like saying English Andrew can't be a personal name because the segment and appears in a different context, which is absurd. Talskubilos (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Koch himself, Talskubilos (Octavia), tⁱilekᵘuṟ, at the beginning of the Mesas Do Castelinho (Almodovar) inscription line 1 is an anthroponym, but in the same line in the inscription appears tⁱilebᵒoiire which Mr. Koch actually segments ti.i - l.e.Po.o-i.i.r.e (compare u.a.r.Po.o-i.i.r (J.22.1) and (o).i.r.a.). In "Tartessian" there is no distinction between p/ b. This iire seems to be common in "Tartessian" inscriptions, the long ones anyway. Also, the sequence tᵉebᵃan just before tⁱilebᵒoiire is well known in ancient Iberian. Velaza proposes that eban(en)/ teban(en) are the masculine (eban) or feminine (with a gender prefix -teban) "son" and "daughter", however, Jesus Rodriguez Ramos, adduces that this is likely a verb with a meaning similar to "he set up". Rodriguez Ramos adduces ancient Iberian verbal morphology, the known ancient Iberian verb ekiar: (eban-en / eki-en; t-eban / t-ekiar) which he says, "...hint at eban to be also a verb." With this knowledge we know the ti.i is not part of tᵉebᵃan. Using Koch's own segmentation and what we do know about "Tartessian" we can safely conclude tⁱilekᵘuṟ is likely not an anthroponym. It should be segmented as ti.i - l.e.Ku.u.ṟ(?) or ti.i.l.e - Ku.u.ṟ(?). The fact that this sequence, tⁱi or tⁱile, occurs twice in such close proximity and that all other sequences appear only once and that the sequence is not associated with any sequence that precedes it, nor apparently after it according Koch's segmentation, it strongly suggests that this sequence does not belong to an anthroponym. If it only appeared once then it would be much more plausible. Since you used English as an example, "the, of, and, a, to, in, is, you, that, it" are the top 10, respectively, most commonly used words in English. Those are articles (the, a), prepositions (to, of, in [also an adverb, noun, and adjective], verbs (is, in), pronouns (you, that, it), and conjunctions (and). The way the sequences appear would make it look like two separate sentences or a complex-compound sentence, but because this is scriptio/ scriptura continua and a language that is not exactly defined yet, we have no punctuation or word separation to be able to tell exactly. Thus the safest speculation is that, tⁱi or tⁱile, is not part of an anthroponym and more likely an article, prepostion, or pronoun of some type. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Before I do that, this doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't bᵃ be just m, not *mᵃ? And why are we writing it b anyway, rather than p? If this is m, does that mean we don't know what pᵃ is? And would the formula bᵃare naŕkᵉe then be mare ...?

Also, what are underlined ṟ, ḇ, ḵ, φ, since we don't list them in the alphabet chart? — kwami (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kwami! The confusion is my fault. I should have explained much more clearly...Mr. Valerio is mentioning Mr. Rodriguez Ramos' interpretation of the SW ("Tartessian") script's Phoenician mem-looking sign as b^a. Mr. Valerio interprets it as m based on several evidences that he explains in the article. So wherever there is a Phoenician mem-looking sign which Mr. Rodriguez Ramos says is b^a, Mr. Valerio says it should be m. In this, Mr. Valerio is similar to Dr. Jose Antonio Correa. The SW ("Tartessian") script lacked a labial nasal solution and, again, based on several evidences Mr. Valerio says it is the Phoenician mem-looking sign.

In fact, it is mare. The sign is clearly the Phoenician mem-looking sign (I had to refer to the signs in Mr. Koch's paper...Mr. Koch clearly followed Mr. Rodriguez Ramos' interpretation of that sign). Also, being that m is not a stop consonant, it is a labial nasal, it would not have the syllabary vocalic redundancy as seen in the stop consonant series /k/, /p/, /t/ conventionally written as /b/, /k/, /t/ ("Tartessian" is thought to have only three stop consonants as there are no voice or aspiration contrasts). "Excepting the Greco-Iberian alphabet, and to a lesser extent this script, Paleohispanic scripts shared a distinctive typology: They behaved as a syllabary for the stop consonants and as an alphabet for the remaining consonants and vowels." That quote is from the SW ("Tartessian") Script Wikipedia article.

The SW ("Tartessian") script's Phoenician beth-looking sign would be p^e, the SW ("Tartessian") script's Phoenician he-looking sign is p^a, and SW ("Tartessian") script's Phoenician pe-looking sign is p^o (the upright rectangle sign in the SW Script). With that, we do know what p is. You can see the charts on pages 27- 28 in the article for that. He does not attempt to define the signs for p^u and pⁱ (he has only slight supposition for pⁱ and doesn't go beyond that).

As for the macrons underneath the letters...I would not know, hahaha. Why they appear on some r's, k's, and b's and not others, I am not very much sure. Maybe just some of Dr. Guerra' s notational markings? What they are notating, again, is unknown to me.

I hope that answers your questions, Kwami. I hope it is thorough enough. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that the underlines were different glyphs, the way r and ŕ are. You're saying they are not?

Somehow I missed the link to the article. It will be good to have both proposed sets of values here on WP. — kwami (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would think if that were so...why are none of the t's underlined, why only one of the b's (they should actually be p's), and why only two k's? They are all stop consonants, except r and ŕ, and have different vowel endings and so have different syllabograms. Also, notice that in the first line of the Mesas Do Castelinho (Almodovar) inscription, tⁱilekᵘuṟkᵘuarkᵃastᵃaḇᵘutᵉebᵃantⁱilebᵒoiirerobᵃarenaŕḵᵉ[en—]aφiuu, the r occurs 5 times and only the first one is underlined. The ŕ occurs once and is not underlined. The SW ("Tartessian") script's Phoenician koph-looking sign (the one at the end that looks like a double-sided P) is the syllabogram for kⁱ. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite amazing. Some people on here have an unexplained confidence in Tartessian not being Celtic. In the opening paragraphs of the article you mention that the academic community is in disagreement with Koch and others but it proffers only one dissenting view-point. One that has been dismissed by Yokum, a renowned philologist, as an "outlier" of sorts. Moreover, the reworking of the article practically dismisses all the Atlantic School's notions of Tartessian as Celtic. I must say that the editor's treatment of the Tartessian / Celtic debate is somewhat puzzling and has made this section less professional. London Hawk (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

An unexplained confidence in the generally prevailing view - yes, that's completely puzzling indeed. Paul S (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

London Hawk, if you have read the comments of the talk page from the 2013 comments...you would see that it is not just one view, it is the view of the great majority who have dealt with the script and language. The Wikipedia article seems much more balanced to me. The "Celtic from the West" school is, distinctly, the minority view. It is highly unlikely that Celtic came from the West and spread eastward. The majority of evidence just does not support that stance and it has become unsustainable. Likewise, "Tartessian" being Celtic is unsustainable by the evidences we have at hand. The way Koch and his allies interpret the language is greatly flawed. No one takes from Koch his credentials and expertise, but even experts can be wrong and Koch is in this case. Koch's interpretations leave behind extensive and inexplicable waste. The translations require very special developments which one would only expect to see in much younger Celtic languages (Celtic languages that are 1100-1500 years younger...Old and Medieval Irish). Those types of developments are quite improbable in a supposed Celtic language as old as "Tartessian". Should more "Tartessian" inscriptions be found and without a doubt the language can be interpreted (without waste and those very special developments only found in Celtic languages that are 1100-1500 years younger) as Celtic, then fine. Until then, we go by what is easily the majority view..."Tartessian" is not currently recognizable as Celtic, or even applicably Indo-European. It is better left as "Unclassified" (though likely to be non-/ pre-Indo-European) until further corroborating evidence strengthening or debunking the Celtic theory (if any) is found. For right now, the evidence, at hand, is in disfavor of a Celtic affiliation. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, yes... and so much in Tartessian (as Celtic), according to the "doubters", is "subject to interpretation." Didn't many scholars in the 19th century say the same about Darwin's theories and findings? As far as I can see, you have unfairly represented the Atlantic school's stance... but keep on INTERPRETING as you wish. ;0 ) London Hawk (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Because doubt was expressed over theories which are later proven correct, this does mean that doubt proves the veracity of a theory: to make this assertion is to fall into pseudo-scientific thinking of the worst kind. Paul S (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

London Hawk, I am glad you share a zeal for language like many of us here...I suppose anyway. I must take exception with the example of Darwin's theory of Evolution. While Evolution is true, many of Darwin's proposals were later dismissed as incorrect as the science progressed. You say that because a group of linguists think "Tartessian" is Celtic, therefore, definitively it must be Celtic (despite clear evidence(s) mostly to the contrary). So let me try one...A group of linguists have proposed that Burushaski is a form of Indo-European (which is true, they have), therefore, Burushaski must be Indo-European (despite Burushaski being very conspicuously non-Indo-European). See, Fallacious. Just because Koch proposes "Tartessian" is Celtic (and a wee minority have followed suit) does not mean that it is Celtic. The proposal is only being entertained because of Koch's stature as a Celticist...not because anyone, outside of his circle, thinks he is correct. As was said earlier, if further writings are found and, utterly conclusively, it points to "Tartessian" being Celtic, then fine, but that does not seem to be the direction of things at the moment. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you kindly list the noted professional linguists and philologists who have announced publicly their support for Tartessian as Celtic, vis-a-vis those in opposition. From what I gather, many ancient language experts are still "on the fence" concerning the Tartessian debate. Mind you, I am not fully convinced that Tartessian is indeed Celtic - Indo-European it likely is. However, the Atlantic school's argument is quite compelling and has gained ground, albeit, slower than first expected. Give the University of Wales and the Atlantic School due credit, rather than making little of their efforts. Wiki and its editors are hardly the last word on this matter. Be fair, or find another hobby. London Hawk (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

London Hawk, the list would mostly consist of Koch's Celticist colleagues (of those, most them work with him). Again, read the comments and links that have been posted here in the "Academic Consensus" section especially those of the 2013 date. That will tell you all you want to know. The links are there for you to read. I am not going to convince you of the fallacy of the "Celtic from the West" argument. All I can do is point you to the sources and facts contained there in. You make up your mind to believe the sources or disagree. If you choose to disagree, then list the sources that prove a majority support that theory (Celtic from the West). It has greatly slowed because it is unsustainable and was only entertained because of Koch's stature in the field. It will eventually be abandoned to the rubbish bin of cute, but insubstantial scientific theories. Again, read the comments I posted by Ms. Lenore Fischer. That should tell you much about how much of academia views the theory. As for "be fair or find another hobby"...be serious and not so childish please. I suppose all of us are adults here. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Tamar: One conference, with many seemingly protecting their turf? How predictable... The work continues and we will likely find more support for the "West theory." The Atlantic Celticity theory IMO - obviously much more importantly, solid support from the likes of Yokum, Kaufmann, etc. - has substance and will eventually be recognized as valid, albeit grudgingly by the nervous turf protectors. Sorry about my "hobby" comment but this article is clearly unfair to the Atlantic School. Fisher calling it bunk shows her immaturity and, perhaps insecurity. London Hawk (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

London Hawk, I said I would not respond further, but I feel this prompts a response. I have found further documentation of a rejection of John T. Koch's stance on "Tartessian" and "Celtic from the West". Professor Dr. Patrick Sims-Williams, of Aberysthwyth University in Wales, published a paper in 2012 named:

Patrick Sims­-Williams (2012). Bronze­- and Iron­-Age Celtic­ speakers: what don't we know, what

can't we know, and what could we know? Language, genetics, and archaeology in the twenty­-first

century. The Antiquaries Journal, 92, pp 427­449 doi:10.1017/S000358151200011X [4]

in which he states:

"...For the Iberian peninsula, for example, there is Javier de Hoz’s map of ancient inscriptions³⁰. This shows the main group of Indo-European inscriptions, which are in ‘Celtiberian’ Celtic, concentrated north east of centre, while in the central west there are some inscriptions in Lusitanian, which is also Indo-European, though probably not Celtic³¹. Everywhere else, non-Indo-European inscriptions dominate before the arrival of the Romans: Iberian in the east and south and, in the south west, so-called ‘Tartessian’, which is also non-Indo-European³². A few years ago a Spanish linguist, J A Correa, suggested that ‘Tartessian’ was Celtic, but his colleagues were unconvinced and he became skeptical himself³³; recently Correa’s suggestion has been revived by J T Koch, but it remains a minority view³⁴."

The footnotes are as follows:

30. De Hoz 2010, 587; cf De Hoz 2007, 21.

31. Clackson 2007, 3–4; Prosper 2008.

32. Clackson 2007, 4; De Hoz 2010, 386–402.

33. Villar 2004, 265.

34. ‘Tartessian’ as Celtic seems not to be accepted in the non-editorial contributions to Cunliffe and Koch 2010. See critical reviews

of J T Koch by M Koch 2011* and Eska 2012*; cf Villar et al. 2011, 100.

• Eska, J F 2012. Review of J T Koch 2009 and 2011, in Kratylos (in press)
• Koch, M 2011. Review of J T Koch 2009, in Zeitschrift fur celtische Philologie, 58, 254–9

I also think that disparaging Ms. Lenore Fischer is not a good thing either. The conference which she attended was the International Congress of Celtic Studies (XIV) held at the University of Maynooth, in August 2011. A conference that attracted many who are giants in the field of Celtic Studies, including Koch. She is only voicing the majority opinion. Clearly, the momentum is away from Koch's theory, which IS regarded as a MINORITY view. Koch's work has been critiqued by Dr. Jurgen Zeidler, Dr. David Stifter, Professor Dr. Patrick Sims-Williams, Professor Dr. Joseph Eska, and M. Koch, all as of 2011 and 2012. They only add to the ever-growing list of academics who refute John T. Koch's theory.

Just to quote to you something from the archives of the Tartessian language talk page from Javier de Hoz, "...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”.

Which translates as something like:

"In short, the alleged evidence in the (proposed) IE epigraphy from the SW, is scarce and the results of segmentations that are based only on the possibility of getting something apparently IE, also leaving ample waste that can not be interpreted in the same way. Moreover, as noted, Rodríguez Ramos [(2002, p. 90-1)], the structure of syllables and words identified do not correspond at all with what we would expect in an Indo-European language." These statements are mirrored by Dr. Jurgen Zeidler, Mr. Valerio, and Prof. Dr. Joseph Eska. Dr. David Stifter says he can't see anything particularly Celtic about it at all, but he does say SOME "words" do, on the surface, look Indo-European...of course, that depends on one's segmentation being correct. That statement by Dr. David Stifter IS NOT in disagreement with the Wikipedia article, "...any Celtic elements are thought to be borrowings (Rodríguez Ramos 2002, de Hoz 2010)." This compounded with the results of the 2011 Celtic Studies conference in Maynooth is quite deadly to Koch's theory.

Honestly, what more can be said?

There are also some interesting comments about Pictish in this paper. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reconciling the Koch theory in two articles

This article states that John T. Koch's theory that Tartessian is a Celtic language has been largely rejected by academics. The Andalusia article states "From later 2011, Tartessian was classified as a Celtic language based on linguistic arguments from John T. Koch. Prior to later 2011, the linguistic mainstream continued to treat Tartessian as an unclassified language, and Koch's view of the evolution of Celtic was not then generally accepted."

Sorry to simply put this up and with none of the citations in the articles but I don't know anything about this topic. The only reason I noticed that these articles disagree is because I was following connections from the Alhambra article. Kovar (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kovar, there are a lot of discordant articles and many are also filled with wrong and outdated information. I have tried to bring that to the attention of the editors of the articles. Someone please check the Kujargé Language Talk page and the Beja People Talk page. As far as "Tartessian" is concerned, yes, there is discordance in the related articles. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

...and guess who it was who added the section on Tartessian as Celtic again? Paul S (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, someone corrected the discrepant "Tartessian" related articles. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Some editors keep spamming the Tartessian-as-Celtic hypothesis as fact all over Wikipedia, even in the most marginally related articles. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are still instances that have been missed so far, possibly many. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What did I say – one instance is right there in Indo-European languages#Classification. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

...and I've just inserted some balance into the pages on England, Wales, Cornwall and the Prehistory of Brittany, where our Atlantic Celtic mujahid has also been at work. Paul S (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There is still much work to be done before a true classification for Tartessian can be accomplished. Perhaps a new computer program just developed to decipher / reconsruct extinct languages would be of utility in the analysis of Tartessian. Gallaecian (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The software I am referring to was reported by the BBC back in March of this year, I believe. An article on this can be found in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Gallaecian (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone placed this on the Celtic page without mentioning that this is distinctly the minority view and largely rejected by the academic community, "possibly Tartessian, attested from inscriptions found in south-western Iberia (southern Portugal and south-west Spain) dated to the 7th-5th centuries BC.[42][43] Prior to 2011, Tartessian was treated as unclassified, with no obvious external relationship.[44] It has since been tentatively classified as Celtic by American linguist John T. Koch, which would make Tartessian the oldest attested Celtic language.[45][46][47]"

The statement is fine, just be honest and responsible and place the necessary caveats with it. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparanda used by Koch

The comparanda used for translating Tartessian by Koch in Celtic From The West, Tartessian 2 and Celtic From the West 2 are the oldest attested forms of the Celtic languages concerned not Medieval Irish as was claimed by one editor for example he uses Oghamic ("Primitive") Irish then Old Irish if this is not available likewise with the other Celtic languages. I have removed the claim made by another editor that was not in the reference cited.Jembana (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jembana, Dr. David Stifter said that about the Medieval Irish innovations..."I do not share Joe's complete scepticism, but I can't see anything particularly Celtic at all. A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place." [5]. It was linked above in case you did not see it. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Your source is a discussion forum not a reliable source as per Wikipedia standards. It also isn't a published peer-reviewed source.Jembana (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate the statement I made in my first sentence which comes from reading the three peer-reviewed reliable sources named. They are observations as per WP:VERIFY.Jembana (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree, Jembana. Professor Dr. David Stifter is a highly reliable and respected source. He posted the very statement himself. His expertise is in the very area on which this topic is based. I read WP:VERIFY and your claim not solid. If you disagree, this can be posted on the noticeboards and they can decide.

His credentials:

Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge/Department of Early Irish

Staff

Professor Dr. David Stifter

Professor David Stifter is the professor of Old Irish since 2011. He studied Latin, Russian and Indo-European linguistics in Vienna, and received his Mag. Phil. in 1998 for a thesis on the Old Irish influence on the Latin of the Nauigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis. He spent the year 1995/6 in Maynooth studying Old and Middle Irish with Prof. Kim McCone. In 2003 he was awarded the doctorate for a thesis on the didactics of Old Irish. From 2000–2008 he was contract assistant at the Department of Linguistics at the University of Vienna. During this time, he played a major role in establishing and developing the Celtic studies programme at the University of Vienna. He is secretary of the Societas Celtologica Europaea (http://www.celtologica.eu/). From 2006, he directed and worked in three different research projects, devoted to a dictionary of the Old Irish glosses in the Milan manuscript Ambr. C301 infr. (http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/milan_glosses.htm), an interactive etymological dictionary plus edition of texts of Lepontic (http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/wiki/Main_Page), and a study of the linguistic remains of Celtic in Austria.

He has published widely on the Old and Middle Irish language and literature, and on the Continental Celtic languages (Celtiberian, Gaulish and Lepontic). His introductory handbook Sengoídelc. Old Irish for Beginners (Syracuse University Press 2006) has been adopted for teaching Old Irish in universities world-wide and was awarded the 2006 Michael J. Durkan Prize for Books on Language and :::Culture of the American Conference for Irish Studies. He is founder and editor of the interdisciplinary Celtic-studies journal Keltische Forschungen (Vienna 2006–) (http://www.univie.ac.at/keltische-forschungen/) and of its accompanying monograph series (Vienna 2010–). He co-edited several volumes in Celtic and Indo-European linguistics, among them the four-volume collection The Celtic World. Critical Concepts in Historical Studies (Routledge 2007).

His research interests are comparative Celtic linguistics (esp. Old Irish and Continental Celtic) and language contact in the ancient world and on the early medieval British Isles. [6] A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Stifter's credentials are not the issue A.Tamar Chabadi. I personally hold his work in high regard as I do for Koch - I equally admire his work on Lepontic as I do Koch's on Tartessian. The problem is with using a brief off-the-cuff reply from a discussion forum as a source as per WP:RS. There are wiki editors (including admins) weeding out such self-published web sources as we speak. They are not reliable sources and your assurances cannot make them so.Jembana (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as WP:VERIFY, A.Tamar Chabadi, there is a further issue with this source - it says: "A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically

medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place.". Note that this has no examples given and therefore is just a bald statement that cannot be peer-reviewed. Now to verify that Koch's use of other Celtic languages does not indeed rely heavily on Middle Irish developments (strange the ambiguous term "Medieval Irish" is used instead of Middle Irish in the post, but anyway), I need only read the basis for each inscription's translation in the 3 peer-reviewed texts that Koch has contributed to on Tartessian: Celtic From The West, Tartessian 2 and Celtic From The West 2 and I can only see from this that he has used Primitive Irish, Celtiberian, Hispano-celtic languages, Old Irish, Gaulish as a basis BEFORE looking for later comparanda to add to these. So the statement does not verify. Since you are in contact with Dr. Stifter, maybe you can get some examples from him that we can verify ?Jembana (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Read Camelbinky's comments to my question on the noticeboards, Jembana...I need to add nothing further. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read them but they need clarification. I would ask you again to provide verification examples from Dr Stifter whom you are in contact with.Jembana (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

ɪf Stifter can be established as a reputable authority, then it's acceptable to use his informal writings as references, especially in a case like this where there isn't much else to go on. — kwami (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi kwami. Are you aware that A.Tamar Chabadi had taken this discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_a_well-respected_and_reliable_expert_as_a_source._The_expert_himself_posted.2C_in_a_linguistics_forum_.5B52.5D_.5B53.5D.2C_his_opinion_on_a_language._Is_it_usable_in_an_article.3F

and that that discussion is ongoing ? Please put you comments there instead of here.Jembana (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't, but they're aware of policy. We should await consensus before making a contested change. — kwami (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You have just re-introduced the contested change, by reverting me.Jembana (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The contested change is whether the bald message list article comment can be used to support the statement that Koch used Middle Irish as a basis for his translations without the message list contributor providing examples to back up his bald claim. A claim that if proved (and it hasn't yet without those examples we can verify) would be very damaging to Koch's case.Jembana (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Wait, this is what the article had already said, and you're challenging it, correct? So we should wait until there's consensus that the citation is not a RS before removing it. — kwami (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Jembana or Kwami, after reading the article over again...in the Classification section where it says, "In 2011, in the Old Irish message list, David Stifter claims that the identification as Celtic relies on features specifically Middle Irish rather than Celtic in general but gives no details." I propose a little addendum, such as: "In 2011, in the Old Irish message list, Professor Dr. David Stifter of the National University of Maynooth's Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge/ Department of Early Irish, points out that the identification as Celtic relies on features specifically Middle Irish rather than Celtic in general, but gives no details."

I think that just saying "David Stifter" is not exactly appropriate. It makes him seem like some random name from a message board when in fact he is much more than that, like Professor John T. Koch (whose idea of "Tartessian" being wholly or even partially Celtic is wrong, but that does not diminish his expertise in the Celtic linguistic field, every expert is allowed a couple of errors), Professor Dr. David Stifter is a very reputable expert in the field of Celtic linguistics. I also don't like the word "claims" because it makes it seem as though Professor Dr. David Stifter has no idea of what he is talking about...as if he is merely making some out-of-the-blue, uneducated allegation. Can we agree on that also? A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have titles like "Dr." for anyone. Since you can buy a degree, and in any case it could be in an unrelated field, "Dr" is often meaningless. Normally I'd avoid "Prof." too, but I suppose it's okay when we give it together with his affiliation. (If we had a bio to link to, we'd normally use neither.)

Since we're writing in English, can we just use the English name of the dept?

"Points out" has the opposite problem in that it implies he's correct. I'd go for neutral "says". — kwami (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kwami! Yes, I understand. Also his bio is linked above. I will post it again here...[7] - it is link #6 above, Professor David Stifter's inaugural lecture notification [8], and the announcement on Old-Irish-L archives - New Professor of Old & Middle Irish at Maynooth - [9] - which also confirms that he actually does post on the Old-Irish-L archives message boards.

Very well, I agree with the more neutral wording. I had thought of using the more formal "advances" and less formal "mentions", but went with "points out". Also, yes, just the English name of the department will work. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that if we had an article on him on WP, we'd just link to that instead of giving his affiliation. But outside links often break, so without a WP article I'd mention his affiliation here, as you suggested. At least, that's how I usually see it done. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's okay and thank you! A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think a discussion board post was the most reliable source. What assurances do we have that the person posting, as the good doctor, is indeed the doctor. Bodrugan (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

OMG, are we really going to go through this all again? This has already been thoroughly hashed out here and on the noticeboards. The evidence is more than ample to pass any test. The links are provided above and, in fact, one of the links verifies that HE DOES POST ON THE BOARD! I am undoing the "allegedly says" addition to the article. Before you edit next time, READ THIS PAGE AND THE LINKS! See link #9 above. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Tartessian's Celticity Level 1

John T. Koch says in Tartessian 2 (2011) that the question of Tartessian's Celticity must be asked on three levels. I am going to broach the first level here: "Does the SW Corpus contain Celtic proper names ?". This evidence is fairly obvious and there is widespread agreement among many experts. Indeed, in most cases the SW forms have specifically Hispano-Celtic comparanda: e.g. anbatia from inscription J.16.2 compared to Hispano-Celtic AMBATVS (in Roman script), lokobo from from inscription J.1.1 compared to the Gallaecian LVCOBO, alboroi from inscription J.24.1 from ALBVRVS (Albertos 1985, p. 263; Lujan 2007, p.248). No comparison with more recent Celtic languages such as the Middle Irish mentioned in the Old Irish message list (allegedly by David Stifter) was used by Professor Koch.Jembana (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Jembana, I trust Dr. David Stifter's assessment, he has no reason to lie about what he observed. What does he gain by lying about it? What does anyone else gain by pretending to be him? The people of the board actually acknowledge that Dr. David Stifter is actually who he says he is. Again, read the links. I should not have to copy and paste it for you, click the link and read. See link #9 above. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

To continue with a non-Proper noun from the example of the Tartessian inscribed stone J.57.1 from Medellin, Badajoz, Spain, reliably dated to 650-625 BC (on the reading, see Almagro-Gorbea 2004; Almagro-Gorbea ed. 2008, 752-4) which begins the inscription: lokon (Koch 1013). This noun is also found on the well-known 'Fonte Velha 6' (J.1.1) inscribed stone shown in this article (Koch 2013). Here Koch uses as comparanda the bilingual (Gaulish one side and Latin on the other) Cisalpine Gaulish inscription of Todi which contains the noun LOKAN (Koch 2013). The corresponding word in the Latin text is VRNVM, that is, 'funerary urn' (see Lejeune 1988, 41-51). No sign of Middle Irish here either.Jembana (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, this lok(o)- segment is found in Basque and by extrapolation one can assume it's presence in Iberian and Aquitanian. So, how do we know that the lok(o)- segment that Mr. Koch highlights is not of Iberian or Vasconic origin instead of Celtic? A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, this isn't Basque, much less Iberian nor Aquitanian. On the other hand, Koch's comparison is misleading, as lokon is *masculine*, whereas lokan /longām/ (acc.) is *femenine*. On the other hand, he largely ignores Proto-Celtic reconstructions such as Matasović's, so he tends to extrapolate forms found in historical Celtic languages, including non-Celtic words such as Cisalpine Gaulish karnitu '(he) built'. Talskubilos (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Octavia, the words are lokan, lokots. I am leaning towards them being loans if I translated the paper typed in Basque correctly. Are they? As you know I am much stronger in Afroasiatic than Basque. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Basque. See here: [10] Talskubilos (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

All very well, but suffice it to say that there are Hispano-Celtic proper nouns in the SW corpus, that is all that is needed at this level. Whether the proper nouns are borrowings or not is irrelevant because they had to come from a nearby Celtic source language of 650-625 BC if they are borrowings. I will move on to the next level.Jembana (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Anbatia is a good example of the flaw in the methodology; AMBATUS is a Roman form which derives from earlier Celtic *Ambaxtos; Tartessian is far too early for the elision to already have taken place even if we ignore the n in place of the m. So-called Gallaecian LVCOBO(S) is in a Latin inscription, and therefore exhibits Latin morphology, so you're left with comparing LUC and LOK only. Paul S (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting debate; I'm not here to argue, I would simply like to point out that some votive Latin inscription of the NW of Iberia can be considered in fact bilingual, since the name of the divinity and the epithets are inflected not in Latin but in the local tongue/s, being said language/s either Celtic, para-Celtic, or para-Italic under Celtic influence (for this and that, cf. Blanca María Prósper, Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del occidente de la Península Ibérica, ISBN: 978-84-7800-818-6). For example, in Galicia and N Portugal we have votive inscription containing non Latin phrases such as CROUGIAI TOUDADIGOE RVFONIA SEVER[I] 'To the stone of Toutatis, Rufonia Severa',REVE MARANDIGVI ALBINIA ALBINA A. L. V. S. 'To the god REVE of the place named *Marant-, Albinia Albina</ref>, CELICUS FRONTO ARCOBRIGENSIS AMBIMOGIDVS FECIT / TONGOE NABIAGOI FRONTO... Then we have the 5 inscriptions to LUG of Galicia, where the indigenous plural inflexion we find sometimes contrast with the Latin inflexion we have in others: LVGVBO ARQVIENOB(O) C IVLIVS HISPANVS V S L M; LVCOVBV ARQVIENI[S] SILONIVS SILO EX VOTO; [LVCV]BV ARQVIENIS IVLIV[S - - -] V S; LVCOBO AROUSA(?) V S L M RVTIL[IA] ANTIANIA; LVC(OVIS/OBO?) GVDAROVIS VALE[R(IVS)] CLE[M(ENS)] V L S. This same dative plural -bo is found in several other "Latin" inscriptions from the NW of Iberia.--Froaringus (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Koch's interpretation as personal names of some Tartessian segments with no obvious Celtic matches is highly questionable. For example, he translates φ^aait^uura as 'Lady of Baeturia'. A better match would be Iberian baitura, apparently linked to baites 'witness', from IE *weid-. This correspondence, if correct, would question the value of the signs currently read as φ^a and b^a. Talskubilos (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tartessian's Celticity Level 2

Koch's second level in Tartessian 2 (2011) answers the question: "Are the Celtic names (proper nouns) inflected as Celtic or do they seem to be stripped of their inflection as if embedded in a non-Indo-European borrowing language ?"Jembana (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC) There are names in the SW corpus that are clearly inflected inflected as Indo-European, specifically Celtic: such as o-stem nominative singular tirtos in inscription J.1.2, dative singular turekui in inscription J.14.1, genitive plural tarnekun in inscription J.26.1, dative plural (with preposition) ko-belibo in inscription J.1.2. Now if these were borrowings, experience with Gaulish names embedded in Iberian inscriptions in semi-syllabic script show that there is loss or replacement of terminations, but here in Tartessian we have them.Jembana (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is turekui Celtic rather than Lusitanian? This form tarnekun, if a genitive plural, is shifting the final proto-Celtic -m > -n 500 years early, along with Gaulish, but unlike Celtiberian which kept final -m for genitive plurals. This would be rather odd would it not? Same with belibo which has a Gaulish -bo ending not the more archaic -bos ending which is also retained in Celtiberian. Paul S (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Villar, Celtiberian -bos would be an Italic-like or Italoid substrate remnant. In fact, Celtiberian has other strange features such as -d- > -z- which can be attributed to substrate(s). Also following Correa, Villar thinks Tartessian would be a Celtic language akin to Gaulish but unlike Celtiberian. Also final -n could be a feature of the script (which has no /m/ sign) and not a phonetic shift. Talskubilos (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

How many substrates do you need for this idea? We have Celtiberian overlaying Indo-European possibly Italic (and some argue Lusitanian has Italic features too) overlaying some other mysterious language which shifts d > z which neither Italic, nor Lusitanian nor Basque do. Anyway, I won't say anymore on this, because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a forum for debate, we are supposed to be reflecting the consensus of opinion. Paul S (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My own specialty is the study of *substrate languages*. Lusitanian seems to be an offshot of Italoid/Sorothaptic, an extinct IE language placed somewhere between Italic and Baltic in the dialectal cloud, and which have been studied by Villar and Coromines (as you might know, most of the relevant bibliography isn't weitten in English). However, in my opinion we could actually be dealing with more than a language, as Lusitanian has /o/ like Italic and Celtic, but Tartessian has /a/ like Baltic. See here for more information. Talskubilos (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Also interesting is this [work] by Blanca Mª Prósper (in Spanish). Talskubilos (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unicode fonts

One editor changed HTML superscripts, which should be compatible with all browsers, by an Unicode font, which makes superscripts displays dispaly as empty boxes []. Apparently he/she thinks we're dealing with special characters used in IE reconstructions, but unfortunately this isn't the case. Talskubilos (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

HTML formatting is not copy-safe. The problem is lack of font support, not the browser. — kwami (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What does "copy-safe" means? Which Browser/OS do you use? Please try to achieve consensus before making unilateral changes. I remied you broke 3RR. Talskubilos (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If I copy your version, I get tiilekuuṟkuuarkaastaaḇuuteebaantiilebooiirerobaarenaŕḵe....

FF/Win7.

You're the one proposing the changes, when no-one else seems to have a problem, so you should get consensus. And no, I did not break 3RR. — kwami (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The "no-one else" isn't a valid argument. I use XP, where your text reads as tⁱilekᵘuṟkᵘuarkᵃastᵃaḇᵘutᵉebᵃantⁱilebᵒoiirerobᵃarenaŕḵᵉ[en?]aφ̲iuu. I suppose you're using a custom Unicode font isn't installed in my system but yours. Talskubilos (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unicode fonts aren't "custom". That's the whole point of Unicode. Any basic Unicode font should work. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Which one used you? Talskubilos (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Done! I forced the correct font using the "font face" tag. Talskubilos (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea, but basic fonts like Cambria, Calibri, Arial Unicode, and Gentium all have them. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This page provides an index of Unicode superscripts and subscripts, but I couldn't find the symbols you used. May I ask which codes have they? Unless we solve that problem, I'd suggest we get back to HMTL encoding. Talskubilos (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Phonetic extensions.[11], dating from Unicode 4.0. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. Superscripts for a,e,i,o,u can be found in "Combining Diacritical Marks". The problem is the Unicode template translates into "Arial Unicode MS", "Lucida Sans Unicode" in Windows XP (see here.) A workaround is changing the default browser font to Segoe UI (UTF-8), since it's the only one which supports this character subset, but there should be a way to force it. Talskubilos (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Done! I've forced the correct font by using the "font face" tag. Talskubilos (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes exactly. We don't want the combining diacritics, we want superscript letters. In any case, both are found in such common fonts as Times New Roman in addition to the ones I mentioned above, so there's no reason to specify Segoe UI. If the Unicode template doesn't work on your browser, that's something to be taken up on the template talk page. Universal solutions are preferable to rigging individual articles. — kwami (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You can check the availability of superscript signs for a given font here (there's also a free software version). As I said above, the problem isn't the browser but the OS and the way it manages fonts, and it happens the common Unicode fonts used in Windows XP (Arial Unicode MS and Lucida Sans Unicode) don't have glyphs for these signs, so we must force the only font which does. As long as this workaround works in every other OS/browser, it should be kept until a "universal solution" is implemented in the template. Talskubilos (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just made an edit request to have Segoe UI instead of Arial Unicode MS/Lucida Sans Unicode in the template. Once it's accepted, we can get back to "Unicode", although thinking it over, "IPA" would be more appropriate. Talskubilos (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true that Arial Unicode MS or Lucida Sans Unicode may fail here, but specifying Segoe UI in this case won't help; it's install base on XP is too low (as it is only installed on XP with Office 2007). The Unicode template tries to fix unicode issues as best it can with the resources available to XP by default (like Lucida Sans Unicode), or at least widely installed (like Arial Unicode MS). — Edokter (talk) — 21:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I remind you Segoe UI also comes with Windows Live, which is quite widespread (at least before the replacemente of Messenger by Skype). I did a little research and found in Vista and above OSes Phonetic Extensions and Phonetic Extensions Supplement aren't supported by Lucida Sans Unicode but newer versions of Tahoma, which unfortunately are unavailable in XP. I'd suggest to define a specific "IPA" template (some articles use an undefined "PIE") forcing Segoe UI under XP and leave "Unicode" unchanged. Talskubilos (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Windows Live has been discontinued, but I'd like to know how much it is installed under XP. Note that the Unicode template only affects XP, so any talk about Vista or above is not relevant. — Edokter (talk) — 15:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Talskubilos, you should make the jump to Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8.1 and get rid of XP. XP will be dead in 4 months. I use Windows 7 Ultimate SP1...have been for the past 3 years. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not always easy to change operating systems. For one thing, it's expensive and perhaps unaffordable unless you steal it. I'm more worried about whether this is truly not supported by our Unicode template. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the "Unicode" template (there's also a synonym "IPA" and some articles refer to an inexistent "PIE") merely switches the web font to Arial Unicode MS, but not in some browsers (e.g. IE), where it's overriden by default font settings. In order to display special phonetic symbols, you have to specify either a custom font such as Segoe UI (also updated versions of Cambria Math) or let the OS to use its own font such as Tahoma 5.xx in Vista, W7 and W8.

XP may be *obsolete* in many ways, but by no means is dead (only updates will be discontinued). My system is working fine since I updated the Tahoma font from Windows 7. Actually, you don't need to "steal" the OS, but the font files themselves. For example, you can download an ISO image of a Windows 7 DVD from Digital River (the links are here), and then use a decompression utility (e.g. 7-Zip) to extract the required font files. Then you use the built-in Windows font installer to remove the old font (a bit tricky in this case), install the new one and then do a reboot. Talskubilos (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to steal...I could have copied mine and emailed them to you. By the way, I own my OS legally. I am very happy you were able to resolve the fonts issue, Octavia. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. In the past, I used to buy Microsoft's OSes, but it was long ago. Talskubilos (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC) I've got some good news: Firefox works well without updated fonts. Apparently it does the work by itself, without relying at all in the OS (XP in this case). Talskubilos (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, just now discovering Firefox. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric P. Hamp

User:Kwamikagami has twice reverted, as elsewhere, the addition of this to the end of the classification section:

Despite this, Eric P. Hamp in his 2012 Indo-European family tree, classified Tartessian as a Celtic language.

- His edit summary wrongly says that Hamp does not say this; the paper is online (it is a record of Hamp's latest tree by another author, understandable as Hamp was hitting 90 at publication). The article leans very heavily towards the conventional view, perhaps too much so for NPOV on what is still a current debate. Suppressing the view of a very serious figure such as Hamp is clearly a step too far. I have no dog in this fight, but User:Kwamikagami's edit summaries, here and elsewhere, suggest a rereading of WP:N would be in order. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestion anywhere why he classifies it as Celtic? Paul S (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That was my point. The way we worded it, it sounded as if this were a significant argument in favor of Tartessian being Celtic, when AFAICT there is no argument at all. It's just a tree, w no rationale behind it, and so IMO including it as we did is a WEIGHT problem. Similarly with Macedonian – why does Hamp believe that Macedonian, which is essentially unattested, is a Hellenic language rather than something else, or even a dialect of Greek? No clue: A question mark was removed, but we don't know why. And then there's the journal: Sino-Platonic Papers. Read the blurb at the beginning, which basically says it's a venue for fringe ideas which can't get published in sober journals. What's so controversial about Hamp's IE tree that he couldn't get it published elsewhere? Now, if we have Hamp saying somewhere that he's reviewed Koch and finds his arguments convincing, we'd have an important POV that should be included. For a man who's written 3,500 articles and reviews, you'd think he'd have something. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That's all your OR. Who says he's drawing from Koch? At 90 he can I think be excused from continuing to write papers. You make very free use of "fringe" indeed. As for weight, it is one line on the second screen down of an article which mostly, and arguably excessively, treats the question as sorted. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You're proving my point. No-one said he's drawing on Koch. We have no idea what he's thinking, or what his evidence is. And no, it's not "OR" to reject a source as insufficient. "OR" means WP:original research. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

His classification of Burushaski as a sister to Indo-Hittite (hate that name...the Hittites were Nessite/ Nessian by their own name...should use Indo-Anatolian, but anyway) which is not recognized by any IE-ist. It is recognized by some that Burushaski does "inexplicably" share a few isoglosses with Basque and Northeast Caucasian. Burushaski is overwhelmingly considered as an isolate. Burushaski was said to be IE by Ilija Čašule. Mr. Čašule says that it is descendant of Phrygian!!! Phrygian is a language possibly related to Greek, perhaps like Armenian. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hamp is the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago and a distinguished linguist whose publications are extensively used by other linguists such as Mallory for instance (particularly his Indo-European languages family tree). The point is that Hamp has Tartessian as a Celtic language on his most recent tree. That’s a fact. It’s information that he published that view, whether he’s right or not and whatever the reason is, he holds that view. That view has been transmitted through credible people Douglas Adams and Victor Mair which are distinguished linguists in their own right. Therefore, it is a fact that that is the view of a very well known authority. Will that fact be noted or suppressed ?Jembana (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I hadn't even noticed that he classified Burushaski as IE. You don't establish something like that by putting it in a tree. This ref is completely worthless except as a testament to Hamp himself. When Hamp publishes his analysis, let us know. Then we'll have something to talk about. — kwami (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction kwami, Hamp says Burushaski is a sibling to Indo-Hittite not that it is IE. You should read the sources you criticise carefully (or haven't you even read it yourself ?).Jembana (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Linguist List Multitree

The Linguist List Multitree Digital Library of Language Relationships has classified Tartessian as an Indo-European Celtic language in the Hispano-Celtic subgroup:

http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/txr

Snapshot of Tartessian entry on MultiTree:

Name:Tartessian Type:Language Code:txr Code Standard:ISO 639-3 Documentation:LINGUIST List Families:Indo-European (Indo-Germanische, Indo-Hittite) Parent Subgroup:Hispanic-Celtic (hisc)

Just presenting the highly respected sources that are used widely by other linguists that say Tartessian is now classified as and Indo-European Celtic language.

Even this page has a link to this site in the infobox and we should align the classification with what the source now says.Jembana (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What evidences is this based upon...I see Mr. Hamp as a source of the Lingusit List sources. I would say it should be mentioned, but Mr. Hamp's classification needs evidence and none has been presented. His classification of Burushaski as related to Indo-European makes me question him a bit. If his source actually is Koch...then it can be safely dismissed as well as the Linguist List classification. I also notice that the sources are rather limited at Linguist List. We have a greater number of sources here on WP. In fact after looking, this is Hamp's classification being used on Linguist List. After further searching, it appears that Mr. Hamp's classification is based upon John T. Koch's work. A couple of papers (new) by Koch: http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/33/39/21koch.pdf, https://www.academia.edu/4029717/The_South-western_SW_Inscriptions_and_the_Tartessos_of_Archaeology_and_History A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Jembana, you've been trotting out these same tired arguments for years. You've had plenty of time to read WP:RS by now. Stop wasting our time. — kwami (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed in this paper by Mr. Hamp and Douglas Q. Adams, Mr. Adams notes under the 1989 genetic tree, "10. In an area of current controversy, Hamp holds firmly to the concept of an Indo-European Prehellenic (perhaps to be clustered with other largely unknown languages such as Tartessian). Still more firmly, he considers Pictish to be non-Indo-European.". Subequently, Mr. Adams notes under the 2012 update, "11. In an area of current controversy, Hamp holds firmly to the concept of an Indo-European Prehellenic, explicitly most closely allied to Germanic. Even more firmly, Pictish is regarded as not Indo-European." Pictish is actually Celtic. The one thing I do agree with in this paper is this, "Non-Indo-European Substrates:³ Hamp identifies the following non-Indo-European substrates that various Indo-European groups came into contact with as they moved towards and into their historic seats (see Map 2)...5. Iberians in southern and eastern Iberia. That agrees with what I have been saying. Mr. Adams also notes, "1. Picts at least in northern Britain and perhaps originally throughout Britain. (It is perhaps from a Pictish source that the Celts borrowed vigesimal counting and counting the passage of time by nights rather than days.) The vigesimal system may very well be Basque. There are known Basque words in the surviving Celtic languages of Britain. This is, of course, if they are not the reverse in being Celtic words in Basque. In the paper, Mr. Hamp is not noted as stating the reason for his classification of Tartessian. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Adyghe, better to keep on topic. I am interested in "Pictish" and have some ideas about it. My email is enabled so we can continue discussing "Pictish", if you would like. There is something interesting in Celtic from the West 2 that may shed some light on it.Jembana (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That was on topic. There are no email icons on the User or Talk pages. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, these are reliable sources by anyone's standards, except it seems yours. Stop suppressing them.Jembana (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source quotes an erroneous source, how does Wikipedia handle that? As I said before, all experts are allowed a couple of errors. This is similar to a discussion I have been having about Israel Finkelstein and his "Low Chronology". His former books are now in error because he has been forced to revise his dates upwards (because the evidences are mounting against his theory) thus removing the chronological barrier to the Israelite united monarchy. People still quote those books and quote them in error. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jembana, not clear what you mean by "these". Certainly not Linglist/Multitree, which is chock-full of errors. (Useful as a bibliography, though.) — kwami (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@kwami, it strikes me as pretty balanced and solid, but nothing is perfect. You used to think so yourself in earlier discussions I had with you where we agreed that the infobox should not go past the Linguist List MultiTree entry and should conform to it. So why not now ?Jembana (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't remember the earlier conversation. Multitree is written by people who often know less than we do, so it's hardly a RS. Often they cite a RS, in which case we can use that. — kwami (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)