Re: [tied] Lusitanians

On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 23:36:27 -0800, Michael J Smith
<lookwhoscross-eyednow@...> wrote:

>1. The the language of the Lusitanians was closely related to the
>language of the Aquitanians, and that the languages of these two peoples
>were unrelated to the languages of the Iberians.

If Aquitanian is ancrestral to Basque, then it cannot have any
relationship to Lusitanian, which is an IE language.

>2. The languages of the Tartessians and Turdetani was different than the
>languages of the other Iberians.

Probably. The script is different, and unlike the script of the
Iberians on the Eastern Mediterranean coast, not fully deciphered yet.

>3. That the languages of the ancient Iberians and modern Basques, though
>unrelated to one another, are seen by some as having close affinities
>with the Kartvellian Caucasian languages (hence the possibility that
>maybe there is some truth in the Classical Authors' referance to the
>Caucasus and European Iberians being related, or one a branch of the
>other).

Basque and Iberian have not been proved to be related to each other,
let alone related to Kartvelian.

>4. The Aquitanians were ancestors of the present day Basques, being
>referred to as Vascones and occupying the same area that the Basques do
>today.

The Vascones were in all probability a Celtic tribe.

>4. And according to Peter Ellis, P-Celtic speakers began to settle in
>Spain around the mid-1st millenium B.C.

What's the evidence for that?

>5. And that Q-Celtic is known to have been spoken in parts of Gaul.

Yes. The change /kW/ > /p/ was a fairly recent innovation that spread
across the Celtic territory in Gaul, Britain and N. Italy. It did not
reach Spain and Ireland, and some parts of Gaul also remained
unaffected.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...