Ray Brown wrote:
>
>> The Celtiberian language is fairly sparse, it's true, but it
>> also has a few larger texts.
>
>
> Where are they published? What do they show?
>
http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/kelt/keltibbs.htm
That's one of them - the biggest known one.
> [snip]
>
>>> much the same. How much _direct_ evidence do we have about the Galatian
>>> language?
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe we have any. Apart from place names, of course.
>
>
> Place names are tricky things - people often take over names from the
> language they displaced. But what are the place names in question?
>
Unknowledgeable entirely. I just heard there are some.
> [snip]
>
>>> I notice you confidently say that Celtibrian is Q-celtic. To day that,
>>> you
>>> must have more information than I have - which is by no means
>>> improbable.
>>> What is your information? This is not meant to be critical - I really
>>> want
>>> to know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In the texts we have, we have '-cue' meaning 'and'. We also have */p/
>> being lost - 'uer' for Latin 'super'.
>
>
> The loss of IE /p/ is common to both Q and P 'Celts'. If _uer_ is cognate
> with Latin _super_ we also have a loss of /s/.
> That's very slight evidence.
Well, okay. Those are just a few examples. I'm sure wiser people than
I have done it in more detail. But the thing showing it as Q-celtic was
the '-cue' ending. Gaulish, AFAIK, has '-pe'.