Talk:Ligures

"They became Indo-Europeanized within the context of the Italo-Celtic horizon of the 2nd millennium BC." this revision twists the original source (R. Corbella) who write of an earlier indo-europeization but most important for the 2nd millennium he wrote "proto-celtic", celtic and italic languages were spoken from the 1st millennium. the new version apparently claim that a italo-celtic language (a linguistic theory) still existed in Italy in the 2nd millennium and influenced the language of the ligures Cunibertus (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're speaking of a language, then a language either is or is not Indo-European. If you're speaking of an ethnic group, you can say that it "became Indo-Europeanized" if you intend to say that it adopted an Indo-European language at some point in its history. For example, it is conjectured that the Kurds spoke a Hurro-Urartian language before they became Indo-Europeanized by essentially adopting the language of the Iranian Medes. However, such claims are very hard, if not completely impossible, to prove when you are talking about prehistory. How do we know that the Ligures even were the same ethnic group in the 2nd millennium BC, let alone that they traded one language for another? Pasquale (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indoeuropeanization is an acceptable adaptation of the concept expressed by Corbella IMO, who as every italian scholars refers only to language and material culture/life in defining an ethnicity (aka culture - an ethnicity or culture is defined by common language, culture and traditons according the traditional approach estabilished by G.B. Vico) so in the original text "they became indoeuropeans" etc. (race is a no matter in their traditioanl view), so this isn't a problem for me. the only question I posed is about the existence of italic and celtic languages yet in the 2nd millennium, but I suggest we can speak about a generic celto-italic influence for both the 2nd and 1st millennium. Corbella's original synthesis simply enclosed in the process all the 4 indoeuropean successive waves entered in Italy during prehistory and proto-history and their effect on the ligurians Cunibertus (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to return

I went around with one of you some time ago concerning the original nature of Ligurian. I was hoping the contradictions would be resolved by this time, but I see there are still problems. Either Ligurian was Celtic and there cannot be any traces in such places as Corsica and non-Indo-European Spain, or there was an ancient non-Indo-European substrate. We cannot just pass off Jubainville as a 19th century crank. A lot of people accept his toponyms. So make up your minds. Maybe the existing traces of language known or believed to be Ligurian are Celtic. The question certainly ought to be presented as a question and not a foregone conclusion. But, regardless of what that linguistic situation is, there is ample evidence in the toponyms of an ancient, lost substrate language spread over the Mediterranean islands and its shores. It covers the regions inhabited by the ancient Ligurians; hence the name Ligurian. This view is not being fairly presented in any way. I gave you all this time to sort out your definitions. As far as I can see the issue remains. So, I'm coming back. Before I did not have the time to spend on it or the experience to give you much of a contest. Now I do. Time- well, I have a round-robin list of articles. When I get sick of one I go on to the next. So periodically I will be taking on small segments of the article. I hope you know your WP policy because I do and I am going to insist on it. If you are inclined to get a head start, you can start with the formatting of your references. Later.Dave (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

define your time line. and your definition of ligurians too as apparently there isn't consensus even on this matter - as scholar Corbella wrote (2003) ligurians were non-indo-europeans in the 5th millennium BC but by the end of the 4th they started a gradual process of indoeuropeization - for the 1st millennium BC they were indo-european speakers speaking a language at least very close to that of the celtic family or possibly a celtic one. scholar Villar (1991, 1996) writes that in the roman period the ligurians of Liguria region (Genoa) clearly show latin roman, gallic, (celtic) lepontic, one or more ancient european (according Von Krahe's definition aka indifferentiated indo-european), one or more non-indo-european strata Strabo tells us that they were of a different race from the Celts (by which he means Gauls) who inhabited the rest of the Alps, though they resembled them in their mode of life

R1b haplogroup distribution http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h62/MeisterKonrad/post-264409-1237371897s.png

J2 haplogroup distribution http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gallgaedhil/images/J2a.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/ItalyIronAge.png

Cunibertus (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Jembana and Cagwinn, please initiate a discussion about the material disputed here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is linguistically impossible, no matter the origins of Welsh llynges (and most linguists accept that Welsh llong - whence llynges - was borrowed from Latin longa; cf. Kenneth Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain, p. 80, 273), for the ethnonym Ligures to be etymologically related to it. In fact, the mid-19th century source added by Jembana isn't even quoted properly! Prichard connects Ligures with Welsh "Llygwyr", not Llyngesawr - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=BtWZU0dAtxoC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q&f=false . In any case, it is a totally spurious suggestion (and llygwyr - a variant of lleygwr - does not seem to have meant "sea men", but rather "laymen", a derivative from Latin laicus). Cagwinn (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable argument for avoiding such old material to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to Celtic linguistics, pre-20th century sources (with few exceptions) are practically worthless for the modern scholar. Cagwinn (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Barring any further support for its inclusion it should stay out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

History

Would anyone else like to edit the history section to include more information about the "long and hard" fighting? I know that the Ligures were often displaced from their homeland to other regions as a type of punishment for standing up against the Romans. This is the reason they were "assimilated". Also, is the term "assimilated" really appropriate?