Lusitanian/Celtic/Italic [was Basque <ibili>]

[Richard M. Alderson III]

I notice that no one else has responded.  I have a couple of comments:

On Sun, 6 Feb 2000, Rick Mc Callister wrote:

> Yes, the /p/ problem does distinguish it from Celtic

> I've also seen the theory that it was cognate with Celtic and Italic as a
> member of a W IE branch

> Ed Selleslagh has floated the idea that it might be Q-Italic

Q-Celtic, I think you mean.

> For me, this rasises the question of the validity of Italic as a group. If
> Lusitanian were Q-Celtic, that would imply either

> 1: the split between P- & Q-Italic occured before Italic entered Europe

> 2: P- & Q-Italic are actually different branches of Western IE and that the
> resemblances in phonology and lexicon are actually due to adstrate and common
> substrate

> Q-Celtic does seem to be in a peculiar little spot on the lower Tiber that
> would seem to be prime real estate for interlopers

Here, I think you mean Q-Italic.

If Lusitanian were Q-Celtic, that would not save the <p> objection, since *all*
Celtic languages lose PIE *p-.  Cf. OIr. _athair_ "father" as an example.

It has been argued before that P- and Q-Italic do not form a single branch, on
morphological as well as lexical and phonological grounds, but there are also
arguments on the basis of shared innovations in the morphology that they *do*
form a single branch.

I have always considered the Italo-Celtic hypothesis weak at best, with any
other evidence being adduced to shore up the connection best characterized as
"Well, they both have P- and Q- branches, don't they, so they must be closely
related, mustn't they?"  But I think Italic and Celtic, with similar parallel
changes, are safely established.

								Rich Alderson