Thread 17938091

Could anyone recommend serious academic sources that aren't just subjective garbage from amateur authors? I know how difficult it is to find sources on Celtic cosmology because everything is surrounded by "authors" with Wiccan neopagan garbage and women. We have some interesting sources on Irish paganism, preserved from the Middle Ages, but what do we know about Lusitanian and Celtiberian beliefs? Koch has some interesting books, but he doesn't focus precisely on mythology, but rather on etymologies. Iberian mythology isn't generally used much in the broader comparative mythology of IE, even Mallory and his books do not address the subject and even seem to ignore it

>>17938091 (OP)
>what is the mythology of this 50 square miles of land that hasn't been its own country for more than a few hundred years
are you actually retarded?

>>17938112
Thanks for your engagement, keep posting useless posts like this so the thread becomes more visible.

>>17938091 (OP)
Check-out this article
Basen on inscriptions

>>17938118
That's cool, could you give us a link? What is the etymology of these names?

>>17938112
Why the fuck are you on /his/? More than half of European history is like this.

>>17938126
It's kind old actually, but still used for mythological contexts
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Lusitanian-deities-and-the-territories-of-the-Vettones-and-southwestern-Celtici_fig2_29726500
>What is the etymology of these names?
I'm not a guy versed in etymology or linguistics, there's an anon that hangs around /his/ who is autistic for word etymologies, he created threads, maybe he can help you, it was said that the radical *ar- with the names of bodies of water, i.e. a river deity, but this only based on his name, I particularly didn't find much information about this deity itself, although I have my doubts if the radical *ar really related to names of water, perhaps it could derive from PIE h2er-ĝ-k?
I am not aware of the other deities

>>17938141
and I'm talking about the divinity Arentius including

>>17938091 (OP)
>Turduli
>Turdulorum Oppida
>neighboring Turdetani of Baetica in Spain
?

>>17938141
>arentius
Related to aryan?

>>17938248
Definetly no

>>17938091 (OP)
They worshipped lugos

>>17938091 (OP)
If you know Spanish:
https://books.google.es/books?id=PAHgxlrL6FIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es#v=onepage&q&f=false
Los dioses de la Hispania céltica – Juan Carlos Olivares Pedreño
300 pags. Some of the Iberian mythology is the same in western Spain and Portugal.

>>17938755
The celtic one?
>>17938848
Thank you anon, much thank you
Good author?

>>17938848
Is it relevant to etymological questions?

>>17938885
>>17938889
Yes he is a good author that study and documents everything he researches.

Yes, there are etymological studies in that book.

>>17938923
Thanks my friend, you know how hard it is to find anything Celtic that is academic and not a bunch of "Wiccan" crap, I'll download it and read it as soon as possible.

>>17938848
the author didn't even bother to specify what the attributes of each god were and seems to have a personal problem with the comparative IEs theory
>>17939055
Don't read it
Pretty useless

>>17938118
I've been wondering if it would be possible for the Gaul deity Taruos Trigaranus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarvos_Trigaranus; literally means Bull Three Cranes) to be Trebaruna. I have no knowledge of celtic vocabulary or etymology, but Trigaranus sounds like something that could have evolved to or from Trebaruna, meaning the same thing (Three Cranes). Some authors, regarding Trebaruna, "interpret her as a protectress of the group or tribe", which would be in line with the threesome of cranes that Trigaranus represents, which sit on the back of a bull (Taruos), as if protecting it where it can't reach on its own.

>>17939917
It's unlikely that trigaranus and trebaruna should be connected etymologically. Without going over every detail, g ~ b variation is only seen with labiovelars like *gʷ. You would need to explain why a labiovelar has appeared here when it is unexpected considering garanus < PIE *gerh2-nos. Not only that, but the reflexes of labiovelars in Celtic are not random. See:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/ek%CA%B7os
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/garanos

The horse word *h1éḱwos > *ekʷos developed a labiovelar *kʷ in Celtic. *kʷ became p in the so-called P-Celtic branches but not in Q-Celtic.

>>17940009
Thanks!

>>17940009
In this article here,
there are several deities related to the northern Celts, and they are etymologically related. I found, surprisingly, an inscription related to a possible cognate for h2ér-i̯os and a deity related to ares etymologically.>>17938848

>>17940394
Which?

>>17940473
Related pic

>>17940712
And to Translate for those who can't speak spanish:

>>17940718
>>17940712
Of course, the etymology cannot necessarily be related to h2eryós, although Koch (a good author of Celtic studies) has made some considerations. The known Galician is from Tasionos, an Ari, "noble," Nerio da Kaltia, Gallaecia from "araia," and in his book, he attests to the possibility*** of it being related to "Aryan," and it can mean noble or "free." The above deity, although not related to the Araia itself, was used as a title, at least for these tribes from northern spain.
Let us note that we are dealing here with an IE deity of Celtic mythology, especially venerated in the Iberian Peninsula, and we have parallels in figures such as Lugh (Irish) and Lleu Llaw Gyffes (Welsh). Although the number of direct inscriptions is small, he was quite popular and "multifunctional." He is Pan-Celtic.

>>17940738
Koch unfortunately (nor anyone else) have delved much into the subject, but it may not necessarily be related to h2er as disputed by Mas Kaufman who inferred it this way. As I mentioned, it is a possibility, but it could be related to the Celtiberian "araianom" (arar) but it could also be a singular detative of a personal name, which is quite possible.

>>17940750
Arar=plow, by the way
but since Lugos was not necessarily an agricultural deity, we can argue that in fact, it could be a viable etymology, but being impartial, we cannot assume any domain restricted to this deity, as it could even be related to music. but just to contextualize.
But since Lugos wasn't necessarily an agricultural deity, we can argue that it could indeed be a viable etymology. However, being impartial, we can't assume any domain restricted to this deity, as it could even be related to music. Just for context, though, plowing isn't the same as *h2er.
The root in question would be *h2erh3.
Perhaps they were one of those that have the same pronunciation but are spelled differently and have distinct meanings.

>>17940750
>>17940756
>>17940712
Oh yes, our friend with the obsessed Aryan cognates is back

Why do you try to shove it down our throats in any mythology and linguist thread? It's already boring, man. Whether or not the cognates existed is irrelevant to the thread (probably not, sources are scarce).

Besides, your attempt to be a linguistic genius and this arrogance are shameful. You're an amateur. Remember when I destroyed you by proving that Poseidon has a non-IE etymology? Your response in that thread is proof that you're just a petty, arrogant little frog.

>>17940759
What the fuck are you talking about? What "destroyed"? I don't even know who you are, you dog. If you're talking about that anon who made threads about Aryan cognates, I'm not him, and not everyone who is interested in themselves is necessarily the same person, lunatic. This is a madhouse, I'm inside the thread, talking about a deity with peculiar attributions of a tribe.

>>17940767
It's you. You use the same fonts and use the same catchphrases to sound intellectual

>>17940712
Since that book is 20 years old I found the email contact for the author, he is still a researcher and teacher. He probably has more updated information about all of this (not sure if he wrote another book), or maybe you could exchange emails.

https://dprha.ua.es/es/personal/juan-carlos-olivares-pedreno.html

The email is there. Anyone can contact with him to discuss everything.

He also has more modern researches:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EJ1mrFIAAAAJ&hl=es

And he has lots of recent inputs in several archaeological magazines:
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=144903

https://alicante.academia.edu/JuanCarlosOlivaresPedre%C3%B1o

>>17940759
>>17940756
I found something interesting from the same author:
https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/Veleia/article/view/11224/11965

"Un altar votivo procedente de Cilleros dedicado a los dioses lusitanos "Arentia" y "Arentius" y precisiones sobre otra inscripción votiva de Villamiel (Cáceres)"

>>17940795
Thank you my friend, I didn't know that. And yes, I will try to read the other works of this author, it's a good book.
>>17940801
I'll check, thanks>>17940803
>Arentius
I would like to know the etymology of these names, there are also anthroponyms, Arantonius is a very widespread surname for him. Interestingly
And ignore this faggot>>17940759
he has personal problems with another anon from /his/ who posts about etymology is a lunatic and accuses me of being him

>>17940901
>>17940803
At first, I wondered if these deities could be somehow related to the *h2ariamón, or the word h2ér... etymologically not related.

but the author says that "Tetaeco" would be an exclusive epithet of the dios Arentius, and cites the various roots tatá (father); Gr. tétta (father); Alb. tatë (priest); Lat. tata (father in the children's jer-ga); Cymr. tad (father); Corn. tat (father); Lett. tēta; lit. tētis, tētïs (father), tetà (aunt); , dĕda (grandfather)
Maybe a paternal deity?

>>17940773
Its not me, tard
That anon actually uses tripcode

>>17940917
I am not related to the author. I am just a Spaniard that likes these kind of things as a hobby and just searched everything for you so you can take better conclussions.

He has lots of interesting papers. There is always a link to "Ver texto completo" or .pdf on each of them.

>>17940941
What? Haha, of course you're not related to the author, anon.
But anyway, my problem here is that your works are in Spanish. I understand your language, but others can't. There are many good works on linguistics, IE, in German, for example, and I can't read them.

>>17940917
Another evidence that:
Iberians= non_euros
I read this ese paper and basically all gods are just some random shitty not related to other folk euro gods

>>17940756
"araianom" superficially looks like it must be the plowing root *h2erh3 because of the -a- in -rai-, but Celtiberian regularly has epenthetic 'a' in this context.

>>17940950
>all gods are just some random shitty not related to other folk euro gods
There are lots of similarities with gods from other parts of Europe, you can read them in the paper. Anyways the Lusitanian region is different from the Asturian, Cantabrian and Galician.

Lusitanian is thought to be Proto-celtic or Pre-celtic. So other areas of Iberia have more common deities with other parts of Europe.

If you were intelligent you could have said: "that area of Iberia has older teonyms than other parts of Iberia or Europe".

>>17940951
We don't care, sameflag>>17940759
Keep talking to yourself

>>17940955
Lusutianian is thought to be proto-italo-celtic

>>17940750
>>17940951
The root here is to Plough

>>17941132
>The root here is to Plough
I see no formal reason to insist upon this interpretation. Celtiberian uses epenthetic vowels in these situations.

Is there a semantic case to be made for a particular interpretation? That it must have something to do with ploughing betrays preconceived notions or inherent bias. Is there any more context that sheds light on who or what the araianom were? If it is the name of a tribe, it would cast doubt on the ploughing interpretation since it would become an ad hoc reading if no parallels exist.

>>17940951
That's why I said here>>17940756
Perhaps they were one of those that have the same pronunciation but are spelled differently and have distinct meanings. (homophones)
And The known Galician is from Tasionos, an Ari, "noble," Nerio da Kaltia, Gallaecia from ">>17940750
araia, or lugo of araians

>>17940951
>>17941251
>>17941720
it is definitely to plough koch assumes in the book you used

>>17941723
As I said, the root is different (h2erh3)
the root for Aryan is h2er
such similarities could be explained as a result of homonyms perhaps homonymous words are formed from the phonetic convergence (i.e., a phonetic change) of terms with different etymologies.

>>17941723
>koch assumes
Read Koch again. Koch only says that "other explanations may be considered" while offering examples but says nothing explicit about what interpretation he prefers. Yet you can clearly see what interpretation he put at the top. More importantly, that entry is about Tartessian, a language where everything is up for debate and nothing is considered certain. Koch merely referred to differing opinions by different scholars. This page >>17940718 does not appear to support the *h2erh3- reading but I haven't read the whole thing.

Ultimately all that matters are arguments for or against a particular reading—of which I have seen none. If the god Lugus pertains to the araianom, then reading this as a tribal name or something similar seems plausible. If it is a tribal name, why should we read the word as "ploughmen" or the like? Are there any known parallels? If not, this reading is ad hoc. Is the god Lugus known to pertain to ploughmen? If not this reading is yet again ad hoc. On the other hand there are parallels with other Indo-Europeans referring to themselves as Aryans.

Can someone state clearly what the inscription we are talking about is and what language it uses?

>>17941738
>As I said, the root is different (h2erh3)
>the root for Aryan is h2er
There's nothing which clearly indicates this morphologically since Celtiberian and possibly even languages in general of that geographic region appear to show epenthetic vowels. It could be an areal feature where they prefer to avoid heavy or closed syllables or an awkwardness with the choice of rhotic.

>>17941986
I see that you have an incredibly high difficulty of interpretation, if you read correctly, you would realize that in fact my answer was not distinguished from any categorical statement about a specific Iberian term, I am saying that the roots for Aryan and to plough are distinct. Period

>>17941961
After posting this I decided to see if I could find anything about the inscription when I had a moment.

Bernardo Stempel has his own reading that has nothing to do with a ploughmen or Aryans:
https://emerita.revistas.csic.es/index.php/emerita/article/download/294/303
I don't know if it's correct or not but any serious interpretation should start from a contextually complete perspective instead of trying to understand the words piecemeal. This is a fundamental reading comprehension skill.
Stempel derives araianom from *are-yāno-m. I don't know enough about Celtiberian to make a decisive judgement but one flaw I see is that Proto-Celtic *are- is not expected to become ⟨ara-⟩ if this page is correct about the vowels:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/%C9%B8are

>>17942141
>distinguished
directed*
and stop being a retarded troll, please? first accusing me of being someone I'm not and then pretending not to understand my posts, I already explained that "to plough" (h2erh3) and h2eryós have different roots

>>17942141
Okay. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

>>17942146
No problem, actually, I think I blamed you for being this idiot here>>17940759
The guy was accusing me of being someone else from the beginning of this thread. and even though it's explained several times, he refuses to understand because he wants to troll.

>>17941961
Keep lying

>>17941961
If you prefer, you can read the original and translate it yourself using Google Translate. The author provides >>17938848 bibliographies for each citation, but it's obviously in Spanish, and as previously stated, the deity or tribe itself isn't closely related to to plow. I mentioned the possibility of the word being related to to plow for the sake of impartiality, although many here haven't even understood that Koch didn't make any categorical statement. There's also the name of the Galician hero, again, with no agricultural implications.

>>17942142
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Koch-2/publication/288161390_On_the_debate_over_the_classification_of_the_language_of_the_South-Western_SW_inscriptions_also_known_as_Tartessian/links/62014117f3cdc1188ff5241b/On-the-debate-over-the-classification-of-the-language-of-the-South-Western-SW-inscriptions-also-known-as-Tartessian.pdf
Koch elaborates on how the vowel epenthesis works in Celtiberian and "araianom" is one of his examples.
>a. ENIOROSEI < *or-s-
>b. ERECAIAS < *perḱ-
>c. ARAIANOM < *ar-i̯-
>d. OLOGAS < *polĝ(h)- < *polḱ-
A sequence VRC becomes VRVC where R = /r, l/ and V is the same vowel twice, so
ary > aray
elg > eleg
etc.

If Stempel's reading *are-yāno-m requires an ad hoc phonetic development *e > a, I can't readily accept it without further explanation. Vowel developments are not random.

>>17940738
>>17940750
Is this related to aryan?

>>17942200
>>17940718
You guys should make a separate thread For this one

Check out "On the Lusitanian Pantheon" by Juan Carlos Olivares Pedreño

>>17942323
Possibly
>>17942326
Who knows

>>17941961
>Can someone state clearly what the inscription we are talking about is and what language it uses
Which one?
Araia is from Gallaecia>>17940718

>>17942326
Yep

>>17941961
>Lugus pertains to the araianom, then reading this as a tribal name or something similar seems plausible. If it is a tribal name, why should we read the word as "ploughmen" or the like? Are there any known parallels?
That's exactly what I said above; I hadn't read your other posts.
The problem with this interpretation is that it assumes Lugos was an agricultural deity, but that's not the case. And I don't know why this anon focused so much on that. Koch just mentions it as a possibility and doesn't categorically state anything. It's possibly a tribal name.

>>17942142
the Galician word is plausible, at least not the Celtiberian

>>17942447
Thank you

>>17943307
nobody denies the 'distinct resemblance'. but resemblance is equally well created by borrowing.

>>17943314
? I don't understand your point

>>17942142
>Proto-Celtic *are- is not expected to become ⟨ara-⟩ if this page is correct about the vowels
Just Check-out out aresaces (aresakos), boo.
Derived from aryos

>>17938112
>that hasn't been its own country for more than a few hundred years
extremely american post

>>17943335
What are you talking about

>>17944075
I'm trying to avoid disrupting the thread too much more, but I guess I should clarify. This poster >>17943335 is confused. We are talking about vowel developments in Celtiberian. The name of the Aresaces has nothing to do with that.
So for example Proto-Celtic *ɸare > Celtiberian ⟨are⟩.
Stempel proposes Proto-Celtic *are-yāno-m > Celtiberian ⟨araianom⟩.
At face value this idea is flawed because we should expect *e > ⟨e⟩, not *e > ⟨a⟩ in Celtiberian. This is why Koch interprets the ⟨a⟩ as epenthetic which is phonetically regular in that environment.

>>17943307
No, this anon he ruled out any cognate and says they are non-existent. simple

>>17944495
>>17944136
Who am I talking to? You could introduce yourselves better.
Whoever the guy is, it's very reductionist to deny it, even if it's within the realm of possibility. It's too plausible to deny it. Koch's article is in a free PDF format.

>>17944502
Read again
we have proven that *are- is not expected to become ara. therefore, it is definitely not an Aryan cognate or anything like that, and Koch himself comes to such conclusions as shown above vowel developments in Celtiberian destroys and humiliates any attempt at Aryanism in the peninsula like we educate you

>>17944502
See this>>17944519
He is correct, as i said before>>17944136

>>17944519
>Read again
>we have proven that *are- is not expected to become ara. therefore, it is definitely not an Aryan cognate or anything like that,
Troll response. Last clarification for anyone reading: *are- is Stempel's proposal. *are- is not the Proto-Celtic Aryan word. *aryos is. Don't get confused though, ⟨Ares-⟩ in ⟨Ares-aces⟩ is still compatible with *aryos- because of the particular vowel developments in Gaulish.

In Celtiberian there is the word ⟨araianom⟩. The ⟨araia-⟩ /arayā̆/ part is compatible with the Proto-Celtic stem *aryā-, meaning that phonetically ⟨araia-nom⟩ is allowed to be an Aryan term, albeit with an additional suffix ⟨-nom⟩ which modifies the word in an unclear way. This picture >>17940712 says it is a gentive plural (but that only tells you which inflection, not what ⟨-nom⟩ means in general) and the Latin equivalent of ⟨araianom⟩ is ⟨Araeanorum⟩. Tovar claims ⟨araianom⟩ is gentilic.

From a PIE perspective *-no- creates verbal nouns/adjectives. For example, *deh3- "to give" + *-nom = "given, gifted, a gift"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/d%C3%A9h%E2%82%83nom
Because *aryā- is probably not a verbal stem, this is probably not the *-no- suffix at all. Southern Gaulish has an innovated ā-stem genitive plural *-anom, but confusingly the Celtiberian equivalent is supposed to be ⟨-aum⟩. There could be dialectal differences at play. The presence of an ā-stem is comparable to *teuteh2 > *toutā "people, tribe".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/tout%C4%81

This is the translation given in the picture:
>To the mountaineer and..., to Lugo of the Araians, in rural procession we came. For the mountaineer and the equestrian, for Lugo, the chief of the community raised a roof/covering, (also) a roof for the thiasus

>>17945317
I think there is an interesting implication of reading *aryā as a collective noun comparable to *toutā. This means in the singular *aryā would refer to a singular Aryan tribe or people. However the inscription under discussion uses the genitive plural. The phrase would then be "Lugus of the Aryan peoples/tribes". This hints at a far-reaching collective identity where separate peoples were unified by the Aryan label. This makes the inscription a rare piece of evidence for the social context of the term.

>>17945317
>>17945353
I'll read it and maybe respond tomorrow. I have some thoughts. But the guy you responded to isn't me.
He's the same idiot who was saying I was you before.

>>17945390
Considerations*

>>17940917
Tauta= father? What happened to the PIE father word

>>17945317
>troll
You proved our point
We have the same option here. Cant derived from h2eryós due the gentilic stuff (words that designate an individual according to his place of birth or residence) and are- is not expected to become ara

>>17945407
Gallaecian and Celtiberian aren't the same thing

>>17945398
There's multiple father words.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/tata-
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C3%A1tta

Two of them can be classified as baby-talk. Baby-talk words can have a surprisingly large geographic distribution, and they need not have origins with a particular language family. If a mother teaches an infant to say "da-da", the word doesn't have to mean anything in the father's language. The formal father term most likely to be used by adults that you're thinking of is *ph2tḗr.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ph%E2%82%82t%E1%B8%97r

>>17945317
>>17940750
Are you the guy who made those charts that went viral? Based on the original, it's missing several cognates like the Medes, Parthians, Sogdians, Scythians, Alans, and Sarmatians.
A guy posted an Armenian and Tocharian cognate. Update.

>>17945415
If it's not ph2tḗr, it's trash. It's not Aryan-substantial and beautiful to the ears, but yes, there are names in the "Trojan" (Liwuian) language that use the diminutive term "papa"

>>17945415
>and they need not have origins with a particular language family
Your link says the opposite
>>17945416
No. I made the tables, and the cognates you mentioned are not really consensus, just like Araian

>>17945428
>i did
I didn't sorry

>>17945422
PIE *átta is comparable to Proto-Turkic *ata, Proto-Uralic *attɜ, Proto-Eskimo *ata-ata. It's quite possibly the original ANE baby-talk term which PIEs inherited. The only difference here is that *átta and ph2tḗr belong to different registers of speech.

>>17945415
hahahaha you proved that the Aryans were so subhuman that their respective languages are nothing more than Lallwort babble haha
imagine, a language so smelly that the word for father is literally related to universal babbling

>>17945432
>ANE
We don't know your language and now you're going to post "connections" with Amerindians just because some cultures have a hellhound? We're not into vague connections or a linguistic union of "Amerindian", recent research shows that besides the Tarim mutts, Sredny Stog or whatever Eneolithic trash gave rise to your favorite Indo-European, they weren't even direct descendants of ANE, as this is a basal component. Amerindians don't have much ANE.
>It's quite
No, its not.
We don't know what their language was like

>>17945444
>guys, there's a ANE uralic aryan siberian aztec language United!
This guy outdid himself, didn't I tell you he's a braggart? Look at his threads, he's gesturing theories off the top of his head, I debated with him about Poseidon and basically just got insults

>>17945435
There are several linguistics that attest that practically several PIE words are actually residues of Lallwort, mainly mother and father, which are seen in similar forms in Africa, the Americas and Oceania. I don't know why you masturbate so much over this barbaric language.

>>17945432
>Proto-Eskimo
trash more recent than the Greek
(by ca. 2000)

So.... our conclusion about iberian cognates is?

>>17945463
See here>>17942200
Not a aryan cognate

This other spanish researchers has over 100 researches and books about prehistoric languages of Iberia:
Francisco Villar Liébana
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/extaut?codigo=242619

https://books.google.es/books?id=bB_VAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=es#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>17945722
>>17942447
Thank you guys

>>17945722
I can't read the book lol

>>17945694
>Not a aryan cognate
>Troll thinks everyone's reading comprehension is as bad as his own
I can't help but think you're mad at this thread over nothing because you misunderstood it through a machine translation

>>17947193
You literally agreed with me several times

>I can't readily accept it without further explanation. Vowel developments are not random
Aryan sisters

>>17945317
>araia-nom
Aryaman

>>17947383
Only according to Tovar

>>17947377
>You
Don't assume. I don't magically know what post you think agrees with you. Be explicit.

>>17947380
The post you have quoted is referring to Stempel's interpretation. The poster cannot readily agree with Stempel's reading because Stempel has proposed irregular vowel developments while Koch explains the vowel without any issues. To be clear, Stempel is of the opinion that ⟨araianom⟩ is neither an Aryan term nor a ploughing term. The point is that the poster does not agree with Stempel because Stempel's interpretation does not appear to be formally sound.

>>17947383
⟨-anom⟩ is supposed to be the genitive plural for ā-stems and this ending is most well known from Southern Gaulish, but according to the analysis in this picture >>17940712 that interpretation (of a genitive plural) is valid for this inscription as well despite being Celtiberian. I think the issue is that Celtiberian inscriptions are not common enough to say what kind of ending would be most typical. It could be dialectal or it could also be a demonstration of language contact between Iberian Celts and southern Gauls.

>>17940712
>>17940718
>>17940750
Me again
Researching h2eryós, I believe I may have a clear case of an epithet element containing the word aristo, which shares the PIE root *h2ér- with the Sanskrit ārya. -istos is the superlative suffix.
Similar to Germanic and Iranian epithets containing such respective cognates
See *arja-gernaz (zealous noble) and Ariobarzanēs (exalting the Aryans).
The word in question here is Ἀριστόμαχος From ἄριστος (áristos, “best”) + μάχη (mákhē, “fight”) + -ος (-os).
a.ris.tó.ma.kʰos and would mean "noblest fighter"
https://topostext.org/people/15108
http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/%E1%BC%88%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82
And in another thread, i also find another cognate in Burushashki
(See the other pic)

>>17947499
2/2

>>17947499
>>17947457
Sameflag

>>17947502
Are we in this shit again? I already explained it here>>17940767
and I'll explain it again;
The anon above is NOT ME. He uses tripcode and I don't. What exactly are you claiming we're the same person based on? The mere fact that we both have a common interest in researching etymological and mythological concepts? You're out of control and have been bothering me since the beginning of the thread, unbearable.

>>17947457
You are confused, firstly, that the garbage we are talking about is Galician, and secondly, your statements contradict what you said. Now you literally said that and are- is not expected to become ara.
You proved it to me again, I really am the best.
>>17947383
>aryaman
That terrible thread raised more doubts than anything. There is no Aryaman outside of Europe.
And mythologically, there is no correlation. The supposed Irishman is literally just a face, not a god of marriage. He is literally an Indo-Iranian deity, not pan-IE or anything like that. Your thread was a total fiasco. Mallory doesn't agree with you, and we're talking about an authority.

>>17947499
>literal name of a mythological person
Irrelevant

>>17947525
>He is literally an Indo-Iranian deity, not pan-IE or anything like that
Not true, we also have examples among Germanics, celts and possibly, Armenian

>>17945435
Kek for real?

>>17947499
>The word in question here is Ἀριστόμαχος From ἄριστος (áristos, “best”) + μάχη (mákhē, “fight”) + -ος (-os).
>a.ris.tó.ma.kʰos and would mean "noblest fighter"
It literally means "best fighter". A word like aristós does help us understand the senses attached to the root, but it's not like we should abandon good reading comprehension skills to force it to mean "noblest fighter". It helps to use a good dictionary to see what semantics the word had in Greek.

>>17947525
>You are confused, firstly, that the garbage we are talking about is Galician,
What am I confused about? The language is Celtiberian. This is where the inscription is located:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1alba_de_Villastar

>and secondly, your statements contradict what you said. Now you literally said that and are- is not expected to become ara.
You are having trouble understanding what I said. The interpretation ⟨ara-ianom⟩ < *are- means ⟨araianom⟩ is not an Aryan term. That is Stempel's interpretation and I cannot agree with it because I don't see how *e > a is supposed to happen here while Koch gives a superior explanation for the vowel development.

>>17947499
Is this guy a real person? or just mythological?

>>17947558
Aristos is in the word as an epithet, and this doesn't correlate much with what I said earlier, other than an innate sense of causing intrigue? The wiki didn't present any meaning, and I didn't base "noblest fighter" on a specific source and actually I forgot to specify that.
It's an affix from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (best, noblest, excellent, please) + Ancient Greek μάχη (battle, fight). Or you will deny the root for h2eriestos? That's the point here?
https://www.rabbitique.com/profile/grc/%E1%BC%88%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82
Other similar words here with this possible root
or here, if you prefer
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82
>It helps to use a good dictionary
If what you saw above wasn't enough, you can find the primary source yourself.
See the dictionary. The Greek-Spanish Dictionary was aimed at university students. The editors basically tried to adapt the best existing Greek dictionaries into Spanish, but that doesn't fit their definition of "a good dictionary," so you must necessarily know of a better one. Feel free to do so. Thank you so much

>>17947634
How long will you guys realize this guy is arrogant because he graduated in linguistics using a wiki? In my last discussion with him
>>17940759 he basically insulted me and refused to accept that he could be wrong, and my arguments were reduced to total ad hominems. After being educated on Poseidon and its etymology, you can present this guy with any dictionary or source; if it doesn't come from him, then it's fake. That's how he thinks.

>>17947567
Mythological
>>17947640
Did you mention me as him earlier? Did you change your fucking mind? You guys are bizarrely annoying. First, you pretend to be retarded, not interpreting my posts well and reducing everything to a mere, not poorly explained comment accompanied by petty mockery. Then, from beginning to end, you tell me you're other people. You don't deserve any information sharing, I'm out.

>>17947650
Calm down crying baby, we are grateful for your search for this type of autism is interesting the problem is that there are those who want to provoke
>>17947640
I'm sure it means lord of the rivers

>>17947634
Actually what I think of as a "good dictionary" is just something that let's you all the dictionaries at once:
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82
Spanish dictionaries are fine too. I just like lots of opinions simultaneously.

Don't get me wrong. áristos uses the root *h2er-, and áristos in isolation can mean "noblest". One of the senses attached to áristos is that of superiority *in general*. It can be used for social superiority as in an aristocrat, but it also just means something is the best. The social superiority sense attached to the root is also where the idea that an "Aryan" in Sanskrit is a master or lord.

áristos also means "bravest", so I think if we are describing a fighter, the most likely intended meaning is that the fighter is the bravest rather than a fighter belonging to the nobility or a warrior aristocrat.

>>17947640
this guy is right, the guy really has a very inflated ego and doesn't accept criticism or sharing from other sources, but I still think it's the same guy, they write in this gay way

damn, it was a cool discussion until you ruined it with this petty behavior
We want to talk about etymology and mythology, not low-quality female fights KYS

>>17947661
Saar actually isn't an aryan word ok

>>17947640
Why are you going around posting coal? Is it like a badge of honor when you lose an argument?
Where are the insults? Did this guy actually bully you or are you just BIG MAD he called you out for your bullshit?

>>17947756
>this guy
You mean you?
Let's stop with the same flag theater? Tired of debating with yourself? Anyway, this guy (you) simply has a very fragile ego, lost the argument about Poseidon and insulted me for no reason. You can see the thread. His (your) problem is that he can't think that he can make a mistake and have humility.

>>17947779
>insulted me for no reason
What was the insult exactly? Quote it word-for-word.

>>17947793
Here>>17940759

>>17947798
>Your posts are trolling
>You have no idea what you're talking about [because reasons]
Lord Jesus help this man recover from the abuse he's taken. Have mercy on his soul.

>>17947807
Did you see his behavior in the thread?

>>17947699
read it again
he made a big mistake and has little etymological knowledge, Aristotle doesn't have such implications

>>17947826
Aristos*

>>17947824
Court is now in session.
State your grievances.
Quote the precise words that made you upset or just forget about it and don't bring it up again.

>>17947826
You didn't refute that anon, why are you so annoying? I read the links and the root h2ér is indeed plausible in those names, including the one he mentioned, why does that bother you so much, Saar? Did you know there's a cognate even in Ireland? And in fucking Tocharian China?

>>17947838
Bro, he is wrong

>>17947946
not an argument

>>17948031
Here the argument >>17947661

>>17948054
I'm sorry. Which post is wrong?

>>17948056
This guy>>17947634

>>17948247
Him (you) didn't "refute", besides focusing on an unfortunate comment that I didn't explain correctly, and worse, accusing me of not using good dictionaries with me literally citing the primary source of the dictionary, there was no refutation, try again and lower your ego

>>17948247
I see.

>>17948433
You're doing fine since you are able to identify cognate words. I just didn't agree with the semantic nuance of your interpretation.

>>17948495
>your interpretation.
?

>>17948506
The interpretation of that post. It doesn't matter who.

>>17948536
Jesus...
Can you guys stop with this theatrics?
Who exactly are you? That loser from the beginning of the thread who accused me of being other people or the one who is so excited to refute people's "refutes" (it didn't happen)? Whoever you are, my final explanation;
It wasn't my "interpretation," since I'm basing it on dictionaries linked from the wiki and the source code. And secondly, if the problem was my post about the meaning of this mythological character's name, that's not only irrelevant to the core of my post, which was basically about how the epithet "Aryan" exists more than we like to imagine in IE languages, seen even in Germanic, similar to what we see in Iranian. If anyone has this issue and says these dictionaries and sources are bad, feel free to provide substantive counterpoints and better revised dictionaries, although I've seen some using dictionaries from the last century, so the mockery wasn't worth much And again;
I've already said it 3 times and this will be the 4th and last: when I said what the name of this mythological figure could mean, I didn't specify in my post that I did not base myself on anything concrete when I wrote that *meaning* itself, it was just a lack of instruction and lack of expression, a mere comment, since the wiki did not offer a concise meaning. beyond this point, whoever has a problem with my argument itself and the etymologies presented, feel free to counterargue beyond mockery and faux comments, whoever made it, whether you are the ones who made it. thank you

>>17948606
Besides embarrassing yourself with your Iberian cognate and being destroyed by us, now what do you mean by saying the Greeks were Aryan, right? Kek, post pictures of blond characters in your larp.
These names are a joke. Greeks had 20% steppe.

>>17948606
I think you are doing fine despite whatever language barrier you are dealing with that makes reading comprehension difficult. I just didn't agree with how you read the words. That's all there is too it. There's no point in rehashing this. Just reread what was already said if you want to understand.

>>17948622
There are multiple people in this thread. It's really a shame you people have so much trouble identifying different posters.

>>17948622
I haven't seen any conclusive post here on this. Quite the contrary, I saw you guys quoting Koch without understanding his arguments
"Lugo of the Araians" remains a plausible cognate for *h2er
>steppe
The Persian samples we have score less in steppe than the Mycenaeans, and this didn't stop them from using this root in various ways, not just in epithets and titles. A 20% contribution via a dominant elite is enough to cause linguistic and cultural changes, and not always accompanied by violent incursions. See the Iberian colonies, Bolivians score practically less than 20% autosomal Spanish but follow an Iberian language, culture, and belief system.

why are you guys having a meltdown about

>>17948631
>despite whatever language barrier you are dealing with that makes reading comprehension
Obviously, I'm not the one who had to explain the same thing over and over again against countless Strawman Fallacies from different (same person?) users here. Besides, there were no interpretations of mine or my personal interpretation.
the appropriate sources were cited and since no one has shown a superior dictionary or counterpoint, I will end this here

>>17948631
>>17948637
What? Disturbed, why do you keep responding to the guy conveniently at the exact same moment he appears? We know it's the same guy.
>araian
It's not a real cognate

>>17947661
>>17947634
In Greek, thealternation between reflexes of labiovelars in reduplication is leveled, i.e not related to *harya

>>17948680
anon doesn't want to understand this, he's emotional today

>>17948658
My posts: >>17947558 >>17947661
His posts: >>17947499 >>17947634

My position is that while áristos is a word which is cognate to Aryan terms and helps us reconstruct the semantics of Aryan terms, the word itself doesn't mean *ethnically* Aryan. If a fighter is called áristos, the most likely intended meaning based on the senses found in the Logeion dictionaries is that he's the "bravest/best fighter", not that the fighter is ethnically Aryan, a noble, or an aristocrat.

The Aryan interpretation of ⟨araianom⟩ is upheld unless more information comes to light which contradicts this.

>>17948680
>In Greek, thealternation between reflexes of labiovelars in reduplication is leveled,
What are you even talking about? There's no labiovelars in áristos

>>17948747
>His posts
Wrong, why are you saying i'm this guy? my posts:>>17947634
>>17947499
>>17947500
>>17940750
>>17940718
>>17940712
any other shit is not me.
>the word itself doesn't mean *ethnically* Aryan
Who is speaking "ethically" here? Furthermore, how exactly would you differentiate the term that is used for "ethinically" and not "ethinically"? The root for Greek is the same root as other cognates from other branches
>If a fighter is called áristos, the most likely intended meaning based on the senses found in the Logeion
Did you read what I wrote anon? As explained previously, it should not be taken seriously because it was a mere comment and I did not express myself adequately. This is not the core of my post
>The Aryan interpretation of ⟨araianom⟩ is upheld unless more information comes to light which contradicts this.
So what exactly is the problem here? That's exactly what I was saying from the beginning of the thread, plausible.

>>17948836
Didn't you realize this guy is trolling you?

>>17948846
Anyway, I think you should stop repeating the same things that have already been explained. My posts are basically to show the use of the term Aryan in Greek personal names and the plausible possibility of the use of the term Aryan among ancient Iberians. There have been no objections to this so far. I'm out of patience.

>>17948747
>the word itself doesn't mean *ethnically* Arya
The same with all cognates, actually.
bro u're mad at this loser but u're no different kek interpreting everything with your own mind That thread of yours where you force erula as a cognate isn't better or that "aryan cognate in Egypt"
Death to the linguistards

>>17948836
and to be honest, I think I misjudged this person in question, I confused him with other anons who were ironically accusing me of being him

>>17948836
>>17948747
Sameflag, From the PIE verbal root “to fit,” it did not originally indicate nobility. It simply meant you were an accepted man of the community - not a slave.

>>17948885
the best evidence we’d have for the word and its use would be Indo-Iranian

>>17948867
>The same with all cognates
Not true. The evidence which has been compiled contradicts that belief.
The Heruli ethnonym ended up as a fine example of an Aryan term. It works like this:
PIE */h2éri̯o-s/ > */ari̯o-lós/ > /ari̯a-las/ > Proto-Germanic */er-laz/ ~ */er-ilaz/ ~ */er-ulaz/
The reason for the variation */erlaz/ ~ */erilaz/ ~ */erulaz/ is explained by Bernard Mees as typical l-stem ablaut within Germanic. It wasn't originally obvious the word had come from */ari̯o-lós/ because I hadn't yet discovered a sound law which involved syncope and umlaut in words of similar shape to this one. The case for the sound law was made in the Aryaman thread.

>>17948885
>From the PIE verbal root “to fit,” it did not originally indicate nobility
There is no indication of what the root meant "originally". The root is so polysemous that it most likely involved the merger of two or more originally phonetically distinct roots. This could mean something like the merger of voiced and voiceless consonants or the merger of uvulars and pharyngeals. Whether this would be a synchronic merger that was present in PIE or an artifact of the method of reconstruction is unclear. That the root was used to make words to indicate superior social status from the earliest times in reconstructible PIE is clear though. It was used to make words indicating a freeman, a noble, a chief, a master, or a lord.

>>17948977
It makes sense in your head, yes. But do you want to discuss this here? I created your thread, I'll be happy to talk about this nonsense

>>17948999
*create your own

>>17948999
I am disappointed nobody wanted to talk about Iberian mythology and that I'm partly responsible for the thread being derailed so badly, but I suppose I'm the reason this thread is still here since I went out of the way to bump it when it was about to drop off the catalog.

I really feel like I've discussed this Aryan stuff to death and I'm growing weary of the topic. If you need to discuss something with me I can still rise to the occasion though. I'll leave it up to you decide where you want to discuss it. I might need to start leaving an email for people that have questions or need extended dialogue.

>>17949115
What's worse is that it's true

The main topic of the thread died, but anyway, I'm glad you're leaving the Aryan thing behind for good. It's already pretty boring and you haven't contributed anything to the thread. Maybe you should talk more about mythology and its related etymologies.

>>17949115
No, you didn't mention anything about Iberian mythology at all.

>>17949115
>I really feel like I've discussed this Aryan stuff to death and I'm growing weary of the topic
Finally!!!! No more larp

>>17949486
I'm also glad he gave up, all those fake threads are gone for good

>>17949343
>I'm glad you're leaving the Aryan thing behind for good.
I didn't quite say that.

>>17949355
True, but I was lurking the thread in order to read about Iberian mythology.

>>17949486
>larp
Cope.

>>17949566
>fake threads
Cope.

My interest has suddenly been renewed. What will the next thread be about?