Talk:Callaecian language

Use of sources

It seems that some editors on this page cannot help themselves but to distort what is said in the sources they cite. There has been the introduction of POV by selectivism and downright errors in presentation of material from the sources cited. The last paragraph in the lede that is involved in this will be rewritten by me in strict alignment with the sources cited and using a new authoritative major work on the topic of this paragraph.Jembana (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a statement that used page 355 of Wodtko's chapter in Celtic from the West as a citation because that is not what it says on page 355 as per WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. I will add a summary of what was said there after I phrase it.Jembana (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gallaecian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723195518/http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/91450//Location/Oxbow to http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/91450//Location/Oxbow

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation Removal: Koch (2006)

Hello,

I'm removing the citation to Koch (2006). I'm including my reasoning here for review.

The citation first appeared in one of the first few revisions. It referenced page 481. The page was removed from the citation in this revision; it may have been removed inadvertently while cleaning up the reference. Regardless, after reviewing the original revision in which the reference was added and the text from the encyclopedia, I believe that the original editor may have thought this was equivalent to Galatian.

The relevant text from the encyclopedia:

There are also fragments of Continental Celtic languages attested in the Balkans, where it is sometimes called ‘Noric’ (see Noricum), and in the central portion of present-day Turkey, where it is known as Galatian. Most of this eastern Celtic material appears very similar to Gaulish/Transalpine Celtic.

— Koch, John T. (2006). Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 481.

Because it was likely added in error and because the introductory paragraph with the citation does not seem to be based on the text, I am removing it. Omiyomy (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Need for a thorough rewrite

This entire article, in its current form, is pure nonsense. It reads as if it were written by Celtophile enthusiasts who ignore or distort the very bibliographical references they cite.

No reputable scholar uses the term Gallaecian language to designate a Celtic language of NW Iberia. Most agree that Gallaecia combines Celtic-like elements with a position in the same dialect continuum as Lusitania, whose language was non-Celtic Indo-European — though Celtic speakers were also present. The very first reference in the article, that of Jordán Cólera, makes this clear. He even refers to the non-Celtic dialects as “Gallo-Lusitanian,” an obvious typo for “Gallaico-Lusitanian,” as is evident from the map included in the paper.

The article also includes a long list of supposed Celtic words from Gallaecia, under the headings “Characteristics” and “Features shared (or not shared) with Celtiberian and the other Celtic languages (reconstructed forms are Proto-Celtic unless otherwise indicated).” Most of these are biased etymologies, and some are outright misunderstandings. For example, among these allegedly Celtic features, it cites “Late preservation of (-)φl- which becomes (-)βl-,” a development that is intrinsically non-Celtic.

The article needs a thorough revision. If permitted, I will attempt to correct it as much as possible.

Atlantis.dub.sar (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that User:Hoonoes has reverted the changes I made to this article based on the issues described in the discussion. In these unjustified changes, he has included only two fake reasons:

• 'Jordan Colera carefully. He is clearly speaking of an area that covers much larger than Gallaecia, extending down as far south as the modern city of Extremadura, and he names the ‘clearly Celtic’ materials northern western Celtic.' In reality, Jordan Colera does not use the concept of Gallaecian language as a Celtic language of Gallaecia in any of his works (and certainly not in those cited).

• 'It is a blatant untruth that ‘most linguists’ consider Gallaecian to be part of a continuum with Lusitanian. In fact, this theory, which includes Gallaecian, Lusitanian, and Tartessian as a continuum, has been widely rejected by the vast majority of linguists.' In reality, the entire bibliography of this article dealing with the issue (Búa, Prósper, Luján, Moralejo, Prósper, Wodtko) expressly states the opposite.

I'm reversing those changes made in bad faith. Administrators should be careful with biased contributors.

Atlantis.dub.sar (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Moving to Callaecian language

I'm moving the title of this page because Gallaecia and Gallaeci are names only attested since the Late Antiquity-Early Middle Ages, as an evolution of the older Callaecia and Callaeci. The name that applies to the matter discussed in this article, an extinct pre-Roman language, is Callaecian language. Atlantis.dub.sar (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you actually ask others? The article looks really insane with all this C/G thing, we should make it as the majority scientific articles state From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

CONFUSION AND CONTRADICTION IN ARTICLE

There is no doubt or controversy about Gallaecian being Celtic. On the other hand there is a general scepticism and doubt among philologists about Lusitanian being Celtic or (even more controversially) "para-Celtic". Yet this article asserts that there is doubt about Gallaecian being Celtic (there most certainly is not} and there may be a link with Lusitanian - few believe this anymore.

Ironically, the very scholars cited in this article's introduction agree that Gallaecian, or as Carlos Jordán Colera calls it, Northwestern Hispano-Celtic is clearly Celtic. Just look at the passage from Colera (cited in the introduction):

1. 1. Cólera, Carlos Jordán (2007-03-16). "Celtiberian". E-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies. 6 (1): 750. ISSN 1540-4889. In the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically between the west and north Atlantic coasts and an imaginary line running north-south and linking Oviedo and Merida, there is a corpus of Latin inscriptions with particular characteristics of its own. This corpus contains some linguistic features that are clearly Celtic and others that in our opinion are not Celtic. The former we shall group, for the moment, under the label northwestern Hispano-Celtic. The latter are the same features found in well-documented contemporary inscriptions in the region occupied by the Lusitanians, and therefore belonging to the variety known as LUSITANIAN, or more broadly as GALLO-LUSITANIAN. As we have already said, we do not consider this variety to belong to the Celtic language family.

So let's go through this passage by Colera that is cited in this article's introduction:

1. The area Colera is defining as the "north west" is actually much larger than the area than that was putatively occupied by the ancient Galleaci or the later Roman province of Gaellaecia. Just look a map to see where Merida is, far to the south. So when Colera talks about a corpus (body or collection) of inscriptions, he is taking about an area that extend from the northern Atlantic coast of Iberia, far down to what is now modern Extramadura where Merida is located. Look at a map of Iberia and see . This is crucial to understand when he is talking about a corupus inscriptions - this set of inscriptions he is talking about was found in a huge area that extends from the northern coast of Spain down way south of the Duoro River, roughly as far as Lisbon. Strictly speaking, he is talking about an area that is larger than what is usually meant by the "north-west" of Iberia

2. Colera starts off by talking about a "corpus" of inscripitions because he is comparing distinct inscriptions gathered from over a very large area. This is important to bear in mind where he writes the following:

This corpus contains some linguistic features that are clearly Celtic and others that in our opinion are not Celtic. The former we shall group, for the moment, under the label northwestern Hispano-Celtic. The latter are the same features found in well-documented contemporary inscriptions in the region occupied by the Lusitanians, and therefore belonging to the variety known as LUSITANIAN, or more broadly as GALLO-LUSITANIAN. As we have already said, we do not consider this variety to belong to the Celtic language family.

In other words, Colera is distinguishing between those inscriptions from this very wide area he has defined that are clearly ((i.e. unambigiously, unmistakably) Celtic and that he names "northwestern Hispano Celtic" [ie. Gallaecian], and with which he contrasts with other inscriptions that are, in his opinion, not Celtic and appear similar to LUSITANIAN. In otherwords, his conclusion is there is no doubt that Northwest Hispano-Celtic [aka Gallaecian] is Celtic and IS NOT related to Lusitanian. Yet the introduction of this article, that cites this passage from Colera says the exact reverse or suggests doubt!!! Either the poster of the article hasn't even bothered to read the citations mentioned in the introduction or they don't care.

Jordán Cólera is not referring to that alleged Celtic language as “Gallaecian“ at any point. He clearly states that both Celtic and Lusitanian-like languages were spoken in northwestern Iberia. He does not use the term Gallaecian at any point, nor does he claim that one of both languages was more “northwestern“ than the other—much less that one was “Gallaecian“ and the other was not. If you find confusing Jordán Colera's reference, you can delete it. It's not really essential in the introduction in my opinion. Atlantis.dub.sar (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)