User talk:Iberomesornix

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions Talk

This is very interesting and compelling, but seems like original research (OR). There are some bold claims here in regards to language families. This could stand a bit of cleanup and reformatting, particularly with the citations. Additionally, the images are good, but their size and positioning make the article difficult to read. Twalls (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I came across this article and Usko-Mediterranean languages. After some poking about, it seems that the following article is the sole source of this, and the origin of the term "Usko-Mediterranean" in this article in an Immunology journal. Correlation between languages and genes: the Usko-Mediterranean peoples. By: A. Arnaiz-Villena. Edited by: Human Immunology vol. 62, pp. 1051-1061. New York. United States (2001). Arnaiz-Villena is at the Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. Hardly where one would expect to find a study of linguistics. But the only places this term appears is amongst neo-nazi's eager to connect Basque people (the "Usko" with some earlier "aryan" euro-levantine culture, debased by Muslims, Asians, Africans, etc... So perhaps not OR, but very fringe. I'm assuming there's nothing in Linguistics journals about it since it is so implausible. T L Miles (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That map of allegedly related languages is complete and utter bogus. It makes me slightly nauseous. Trigaranus (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested deleting the page. No doubt the inscriptions exist, but the article as it stands (especially with the images and alleged "translations" furnished by the linguistic fringe theorists) is beyond help. Trigaranus (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

THIS WORK IS SUPPORTED BY SEVERAL INDEPENDENT GROUPS The main work quoted here has nothing to do with Villena´s work.This is the most important Werner Pichler work in the Canary Islands:recollecting many Fuerteventura and Lanzarote rock inscriptions;see his recollection of inscriptions in Almogaren (as quoted) or in German language texts.Renata Springer has a book collecting several types of Canary Islands inscriptions;she also collects some of the Pichler inscriptions,also called "Latin" inscriptions.Probably,the Iberian-Guanche name is more adequate:writing is in Iberian (no doubt) and Guanche term places the inscriptions in the Canary Islands.If somebody have doubts they should first go and study references (mainly Pichler and Springer ones). Another question is the translation put forward by Villena et al,.The methodology used is explained in his references and aparently based on Gomez-Moreno Iberian language phonetic deciphering and the semantic meaning of sounds in Basque language.This is more arguable . In any case,this is time to bring about these probably intentionally forgotten inscriptions in order to complete this Encyclopaedia.

It is also remarkable,that two Basque priests and language writers . One of them still is a priest and the other one was. Both of them profoundly know Basque language , even before it was unified in 1968 and completely agree with Arnaiz-Villena Basque-Iberian works. Please,go to the references: 1)Felix Zubiaga-"Origen del Vascuence"-Ed Todivisa-Bilbo-2008 (http://www.todoebook.com/Erroteta/ for retrieving the book) 2)Josu Naberan-"El antiguo calendario lunar vasco"(Antzinako Euskaldunen Ilarggi-Eguteguia)-Ed Basandere-Donostia(San Sebastian)-200r

These authors have writen several other books supporting and supported on Arnaiz-Villena Basque-Iberian proposals in the last years.

I do not see these 2 authors close to right wing extremists,as somebody states to dismiss Arnaiz-Villena work on Basque-Iberism.I should recommend to reading Arnaiz-Villena work before dismissal.

In addition there is a recent Dictionary about Iberians: -Jose R.Pellon-IBEROS.Ed Espasa Calpe,Madrid,Spain,2006. This author fully supports Arnaiz-Villena work and proposal on "Usko-Mediterranean languages".

Thus,criticisms about Arnaiz-Villena et al work are peripheral and not based on their work itself ,which is supported in turn by people who knows profoundly Basque language contruction and development and scholars,who may not yet be in the main scholar 2009 stream.Other scholars who do not know a word of ancient Basque do not agree with these works because they feel challenged.

Iberian-Basque relationship dismission theory

Iberian and Basque were first related by Esteban de Garibay(Royal Chronicler of Phillip II of Spain) and the Basque Andres Poza in the 16th Century.The great German linguists William Humboldt,Hubner and Schuchardt and many other scholars maintained the same thesis until the end of the Spanish Civil War (1939):during the 2nd half of the 20th Century Koldo Mitxelena and Antonio Tovar left Basque as an unrelated,isolated language in the World.Still Spanish scholars without solid objective bases maintain this relatively recent view (only standing since about 40 years ago).Ruhlen,Bengston,and others (including Arnaiz-Villena group) find Basque relationships with other extant and extict languages.

All of this his has nothing to do with nazi or extreme right wing groups :this is knowledge and not censorship.

Definitely not valid, reliable sources and experts rejected Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso linguistics theories as against basic common sense and basic scientific methodology

The previous comment, written with the aggresive comment "This addition is to dismiss interested attacks on this work based on peripheral criticisms,without reading the work itself" is biased and promotional.

First point: user Virginal6 makes unsupported or irrelevant deceiving references.

On Basque-Iberian Esteban de Garibay, Andrés Poza, etc. etc. the fact that any person had said that Basque and Iberian languages are (or may be related) does not implies that any of the more than 30 different decipherments published is true. The fact is that even in Arnaiz Villena the previous decipherment by Román del Cerro (Universidad de Alicante) is not explained, nor discussed.

On Ruhlen and Bengtson. Where are the books or articles of these authors on Iberian???

Quoting amateurs books is not a reliable source (Pellón, Naberan and Zubiaga). By the way, Naberan has his own decipherments.

Pichler, Springler and Gómez-Moreno have nothing to do with Arnaiz-Villena decipherments. It's like to quote the British Encyclopedia saying that Iberian script does exist and to pretend that that corroborates Arnaiz decipherments.

Second point: this article relays only in Alonso and Arnaiz publications, the rest of authors quoted in it are unrelated and only add confusion.

Third point: Virginal6 satys that the scipt is Iberian "no doubt", but any person who look at the inscription cansee that all the sign are also Latin.

Fourth point: You can evaluate the scientific quality of Arnaiz-Villena ideas in his article Lectura de la lengua ibérica (by the way, this is the origin of many of the images of this article). In this article you can see: how Champollion didn't deciphered ancient Egyptian and that Egyptologist didn't know how to read it, that it was deciphered by Alonso and Arnaiz and that it's a Basque language and that in the Ptolemy cartouche in the Rosetta_Stone there is not the Ptolemy name but a funerary text in Basque. The same applies to Etruscan and to Sumerian (according to Arnaiz the Gilgamesh story doesn't exists!!!)

Fifth point: the own Arnaiz-Villena in that pdf states that the (" "linguistas" especializados en ibérico"... "han ignorado por completo") linguists experts in Iberian language... have completely ignored his alleged discovery of the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions. So it's clear that his proposal has not been accepted.

If you still doubt whether this article should or shouldn't be deleted (well as a matter of fact should be added to the section of [fringe science]), why don't you send the link to the paper on Usko-Mediterranean languages (the pdf) to the talk page of the articles on Sumerian language, Etruscan_language, Hittite_language, Hurrian_language, Minoan_language, Ancient_Egyptian_language, Basque_language, Indoeuropean_languages, Afrasian_languages and ask for their oppinion. Because, if you consider Arnaiz theories to be serious, all these articles and many more should be totally changed.

Promotional users , claim on censorship, but say nothing on serious review of reputed experts who had repported that the books of Alonso and Arnaiz are not serious ("against the basic common sense", "verging on clumsy falsification", "imbecillities", etc) and lacking scientific value. I've showed some of these references in the talk page of [Iberian language], more briefly:

Javier De Hoz (Universidad Complutense de Madrid): "Viaje a ninguna parte a través del Mediterráneo. Las lenguas que no hablaron ni iberos, ni etruscos, ni cretenses" Revista de Libros, nº 28 • Abril, 1999.

Joseba Lakarra (Universidad del País Vasco): "El vascuence en Europa" in V.M. Amado y De Pablo, S. (eds) "Los vascos y Europa", Gasteiz 2001, 75-121; and very shortened in the footnote number 29 of his paper "Protovasco, munda y otros: reconstrucción interna y tipología holística diacrónica" Ohienart 21 2006, 229-322.

Luis María Múgika Urdangarín (Universidad del País Vasco): "Egipcios, bereberes guanches y vascos": ¿está su clave en el euskara?" Boletín de la Real Sociedad Bascongada de Amigos del País, ISSN 0211-111X, Tomo 59, Nº 2, 2003 , pp. 361-399.

All these reputed philologists have showed that all the Usko theorie is utterly absurd adn fringe science. You may wonder why, years after these reviews Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso Garcia still are publishing new (self published) books, with their absurd theories. Also I do.

Finally, if you look at the editions of the "promotional users" you will nderstand why I call them so, they are fulling many articles (even garum or in Epigraphy as a notable inscription!!!!) with the references to these alleged descoveries of Usko and Iberian-Guanche, they are polluting the wikipedia.

Stop this Usko-Mediterranean_languages lunacy.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Dumu Eduba still claims censorship and write libels (on somebody else's mouth)

Dumu Eduba recognizes that Iberian-Guanche inscriptions are in Iberian script, with only the examples shown on this page. All Pichler's inscriptions observation shows that this script is Iberian and not Latin. There are signs obviously not Latin, even in the few examples of this page.

The "scholars" quoted by him give only opinions without reading Arnaiz-Villena et al. work (nor the Basque authors' work).

Ruhlen and Bengston have written on Basque being included in Dene-Caucasian languages. Nobody has stated that they wrote about Iberian language. Dumu Eduba is contaminating the Wikipedia.

All the other Dumu Eduba's arguments have nothing to do with the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iberomesornix (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic and epigraphic value — or lack thereof

As to Iberomesornix's rather vengeful comment: What he does is cite references of scholarly opinions on Arnaiz-Villena, and they are not favourable. The grouping of languages under a common header called "Usko-Mediterranean" is — and please, do take me seriously when I say this — about as convincing and evidence-based as grouping hippopotamuses, ichthyosauri and sponges into one order, claiming they are more closely related to each other than, say, hippopotamuses and pigs. You cannot linguistically uphold a groupig such as this. It is not possible. Believe me, I'm a linguist.

So Dumu Eduba quoted refs that definitely deny Arnaiz-Villena's linguistic theory any scholarly integrity. It should make us wary when we move on to the inscriptions. Be critical when you go on. And don't judge a theory by any liking or dislike you may feel for it.

Now, when you take but one look at some of the transcriptions given in fig.4, there are just a few things that should strike you as odd. And with you, I mean Iberomesornix and any other contributors who accept these transcriptions (and, what's more, translations) at face value:

1. Take the inscription transcribed as KAKE. Do you notice anything? Perhaps that, assuming the writing is in an eastern Iberian script, it would have to read Ka-Ba-Ke. What happened to the middle line in the transcription given in that figure? Was it just not right there? Did the person who wrote the inscription perhaps make a blunder and accidentally add one syllable too many? (He might have been drunk and over-excited.) The fact is, the transcription is faulty.
2. Take the one transcribed as MSL. Why is this the same word as in Basque (?) Ama-Zala? What reasons are there? Why is it not Masal? Or Mesel? Or just Msl, if this is really written there? Why would people who had a syllabary at their disposition suddenly give up the use of syllabics or vowels? (My personal guess is, they were even more drunk than the man who accidentally carved a superfluous Ba in the first one.)

This is just a sample of the first two inconsistencies I've stumbled upon out of a sample of six transcriptions. Give any trained linguist trained in Iberian epigraphy five minutes and they will find a dozen more. The transcriptions are absolutely random to a large degree. One of the basic rules of epigraphy is: You cannot disregard letters where they don't fit in your pre-concieved notion, and you cannot add letters where you would like them.

This "method" of transcription is very similar to one used by a man named Barry Fell, who, much like Arnaiz-Villena, was neither a trained linguist nor a trained epigrapher. He found inscriptions on Turkey mountain which he then chose to "decipher" (and translate) by what he claimed was using the Ogham alphabet and some Iberian syllabary. When an epigrapher looks at his method by reading the inscriptions with the writing systems proposed, they will be in for a surprise. What did he do: He left out letters that didn't suit him, he misinterpreted others in ways that he found favourable, and he went on to translate these without any inhibition (or knowledge of the matter) by randomly applying Celtic and Punic words to the transcriptions. If that doesn't remind you of fig.4 in the article, you haven't looked at it yet.

It is not a method, it is pseudo-linguistic fiction. Even if it is much less bonkers than Barry Fell's theory (I don't find it implausible that Iberian fishermen should sometimes have landed on the Canaries), the methods applied, or much rather ignored, are the same. This has no standing on WP outside the article on Arnaiz-Villena himself. The article as it is now is actually more of a hindrance to people who would like to learn something serious about epigraphy on the Canary Islands. Trigaranus (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I AM A LINGUIST AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISMISS DISSENTERS (WHO ALSO ARE LINGUISTS)

1-Dear Trigaranus you are living in a pre-Internet world where some dogmatics mantained a mean knowledge in a so closed topic as linguistics.Also,the” Iron Wall” dissapeared and one of the most insulted Russian linguists become a co-ruler at Santa Fe Institute of Languages (NM )together with M. Rhulen .He (deceased) and Ruhlen defend most of the views you emotionally attack.We are all linguists,Dear Trigaranus.

2- KA BA KE:it could also be. They state in their methodology that if they found the same word and meaning in several languages,they tended to assimilate meanings.In addition “I” is too close to “C” in this case.So ;KAKA is the most feasable transcription,found in many other languages (see the Usko-Mediterranean Languages).Also,the funeral meaning of “Remainings” supports this translation.

3-MSL .Z(S)ALA is found in Iberian,Etruscan,Hittite,Eblaic,Sumerian... with the same meaning:Prayer

4-Why Iberians used sometimes silabs and sometimes letters is not clear but they do.

5-Epigraphers are Pichler and Renata Springer.Not A-V ,Naberan or Zubiaga.

6-Other authors have already related Basque language to Iberian language: (a few examples) a-Iberian-Basque: Roman del Cerro and previously others –Roman del Cerro JL-1993.El origen Iberico de la lengua vasca.Madrid. Ed Aguaclara. b-Minoan.Basque (Gordon FG-1931.Through Basque to Minoan.Oxford.Ed.Oxford University Press. c-Etruscan-Basque:Ellis R-1886.Sources of Etruscan and Basque Languages.London.Ed.Trubner. d-Dene-Caucasian-Basque:1994.Bengston J and Ruhlen M.Global Etimologies in the Book written by Ruhlen “On the origin of languages:studies on linguistic taxonomy”.Stanford.Stanford University Press.

7-Methodology used by AAV et al is easily retrievable from the article (Usko-Mediterranean languages).Basque phonology and semantics repeated in several Usko-Mediterranean languages;funeral,religous accountancy thematic. 8-I have gone to La Hoz critics to AA-V et al.He only critics his first book,saying that they are not linguists and that what they conclude is impossible.No analysis,no previous reading of the work. Today,I believe Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso-Garcia have published 5 books more, including two recent dictionaries “Iberian-Euskera-Spanish” and “Etruscan-Euskera-Spanish”.

9-Lakarra says about the firs books of AA-V et al that half the terms AA-V et al uses are Latin loanings when the opposite is true through Etruscan.(page 245) In this respect,I do not know how some linguists waste their time in attacking others and do not clarify Latin origins,which is basic for maintaining their closed paradigms.

In addition,Lakarra refers to Ruhlen as “Ruhlen and other  seditious Greenberg underlings...”(page 242)

In this context, it is impossible to have a scientific or academic discussion.

This the readers should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginal6 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So, seriously, Mr. non-emotional linguist: Do you believe that Sumerian and Elamite were related? Or that either of them was related to Ugaritic and/or Punic? (I think that's where the entire basis for any kind of translation already suffers quite a bit.) Give me a yes or a no. Trigaranus (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know,unless we agree what is Sumerian.And you give me a definition of Sumerian ,based on a direct objective reference about who are Sumerians and what is the Sumerian language corpus. Please ,do not quote the aborted Ake Sjoberg Sumerian Dictionary (University of Pennsylvania) or novels . We are getting out of focus and I think this is not interesting for the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions readers.

Are we? The Sumerian that I've read is vastly and quite obviously different from Elamite, Hittite or Ugaritic. And I've read Mr. AAV's paper on the Usko-Mediterranean languages, too, looking for his arguments or his scientific method. You cannot say that two languages are related because of a handful of resemblances (have a look at this [1]) and quietly dismiss the other 99% of a linguistic corpus, while completely ignoring time depth. AAV treats the language samples as if they had no history at all, taking modern Basque lemmata and paralleling them to Sumerian or Egyptian from the 3rd millennium BC. It is about the same as paralleling Span. hacer with Eng. assert due to their superficial assonance. If you then go on to translate some inscriptions into that allegedly reconstructed language, it just becomes absurd. It is pseudoscientific language comparison at its best. (Btw, sorry to bring that up, too, but could you sign your contributions? thanks)

PS check your above explanation under header no.2 on reading the inscriptions: doesn't this strike you as a circular argument? If I know beforehand what the correct interpretation should be, why bother with a transcription? Trigaranus (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Crucial false reference for deleting the page

Hello again. dismissing the utterly unappropiated and absurd personal attacks. I've seen that Pichler (http://www.institutum-canarium.org/news_e.htm Institutum Canarium) is quoted as reference for the article. Well, on Canarian inscriptions (of course there are not Iberian) Pichler wrote a short article in which he dismisses Arnaiz and Alonso work on "Iberian-Guanche" ("compulsory comic" he says): in this text. Truth is so easy to find!!

Even more, you can search through the corpus of the (http://www.institutum-canarium.org/news_e.htm Institutum Canarium) and read the edited inscriptions and what they say on them. Nothing, absolutely nothing on the alleged Arnaiz's discoveries. NOTHING.

As I am providing references and quotes, therefore I ask any arguing person to make the same. For example, I bet that the assert form [[User:Virginal6] "Z(S)ALA is found in Iberian,Etruscan,Hittite,Eblaic,Sumerian...with the same meaning:Prayer" only happen in Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso García books. Otherwise REFERENCE IS NEEDED: the exact words, with exact ortography an exact reference to reputed dictionnaries. References, not insults, nor invented accusations and badmouthing to hidden lack of arguments, as made User:Iberomesornix.

The same references I ask for Ruhlen or Bengtson supporting the usko-mediterranian languages theory. Because to suggest that the fact that they deal with the Dene-Caucasian (another dubious theory indeed) means that the usko.mediterranian is a good theory is like saying "water is wet, so E.T. built the Big Beng"). The same could be said on "Joe Bloggs said Basque and Iberian are related, so Arnaiz decipherment (by the way very different from Joe Bloggs' one) is true". There are more than 30 decipherments of Iberian language using Basque dictionnaries, and these more than 30 are different.

And yes, I'm also acquainted with Sumerian (hardly a surprise to any person who knows Sumerian, of course), but I'm also acquainted with another concept that any linguist (and even many mathematician, antropologist, even childs) know very well: grammar. A concept that is missed in all Arnaiz and Alonso books.

But my challenge remains. If you really think the usko-crap theory isn't crap, ask in the talk pages of all the languges involved in the usko-mediterranian theory their opinion. Link all the references (even that one that I suggested http://www.euskararenjatorria.eu/6-AntonioArnaiz.pdf). Let's them have a good laugh!! :-)

So, not only there are reviews which are reliable sources which dismiss the Usko-Mediterranian theory and the linguistic work of Arnaiz and Alonso is an "unmitigated disaster" (and they do have read their books, and they give many details and arguments), but even the expert to which User:Virginal6 choose and to whom appeals, Pilcher, dismissed the Arnaiz and Alonso interpretation of the Canarian inscriptions.

PS. I made this search. The Iberian-Guanche reference has been spread on a large scale.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Final Word

Yeah, I think we've had it with that. I'm putting the article up for deletion. Unless there is a vast turnaround of evidence, it should be off this encyclopedia in a week or so. If any of AAV's defenders want to place his theories somewhere on WP, they belong on his own article page. Trigaranus (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CONFUSION:STRANGELY EAGER TO CLOSE THIS PAGE

Dear Trigaranus,

Merritt Ruhlen advised me not to go to any further lingistics congress .He was right.Linguistics is a self-fed dogmatism which has not advanced in the last century.In fact,Universities in Europe are removing linguistics from State-sponsored teachiing:most linguists have killed (bored) pupils in the last decade.

Remember that Jones was a lawer living in Calicut when he discovered the relationship between Saskrit language and Latin /Greek and related languages. Ventris,an architect,deciphered Linear B as Greek.

I see that this page is bound to be deleted (unless the original authors defend by themselves),before that I would recommend Wikipedia to closely watch to classical linguists:the main 2 scientific advances of linguistics in the last 100 years come from the outside(as commented above).

Now , let us go to the Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions: 1-I cannot go to even give a conference for a day without looking at Wikipedia.Trigaranus wants the page should quickly be removed.Why? 2-Pichler does not comment on these “Latin” inscriptions from Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, but on Lybic inscriptions found somewhere else in the Canary Islands,including Fuerteventura and Lanzarote.THIS SI ACONFUSION AND THE MAIN BASES TO ATTACK THE PAGE .Do you want that these Iberian-Guanche inscriptions,ignored by all the “big-shot”Iberian scholars (linguists be removed as soon as possible,to be published with another name by yourself and /or your friends?I find this case is too rapid.Particularly for the very bussy peoples who are doing research and do not fancy personal attacks,even if defending order to keep dogma.Darwin was born 200 years ago today;we and our group do not compare whith him.But he suffered many attacks,even for defending facts. 3-I (Virginal6) have answered your questions stright to the point,you have instead sent people to look what general conceps are ("circular argument","pseudocientific...") and some other generalities WHICH ALSO CONFUSES READERS.- 4-I have given you references(not exhaustive) for Basque being compared with all “Usko-Mediterranean” languages previously (Sumerian,Etruscan,Minoan,Iberian etc).This is not a new proposal. 5-However,you still go on with CONFUSION (Pichler has never mentioned Ibero-Guanche inscriptions,but Berber-Lybic inscriptions) and not going straight to the point.This lie is the main argument to close the page.Please readers,look at this reference. You may be able to REMOVE GOOD INFORMATION FROM Wikipedia in this particulaR case,but not for long :the Open Society for which Wikipedia works will put you aside,sooner or later.

Now ,what do you want me to do more than give references for supporting what I say ,if you are not even taking care of them and only want to close the page?(Virginal6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginal6 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The page is all true and undisputed, except by Trigaranus and (Dumu Eduba?)

The core information about Iberian-Guanche inscriptions and tranlsation hypotheses were published 8 years ago without contest Usko-Mediterranean Peoples.

Pichler collected Latin inscription specific from Fuerteventura and Lanzarote years before (Die Schrift der Ostinseln-Corpus der Inschriften auf Fuerteventura. By: W. Pichler. Almogaren, XXIII. Edited by: Hallein. pp. 313-453 (1992)). Renata Springer has written also accepting this (Origen y uso de la escritura líbico-bereber en Canarias. By: Renata A. Springer Bunk. Edited by: Centro de Cultura Popular Canaria. Tenerife. Canary Islands. Spain (2001)).

No apparent problems.

Other authors have compared Basque and Minoan (Gordon FG-1931.Through Basque to Minoan.Oxford.Ed.Oxford University Press), Etruscan (Ellis R-1886.Sources of Etruscan and Basque Languages.London.Ed.Trubner), Iberian (Roman del Cerro and previously others –Roman del Cerro JL-1993.El origen Iberico de la lengua vasca.Madrid. Ed Aguaclara), and other dead and live languages (1994.Bengston J and Ruhlen M.Global Etimologies in the Book written by Ruhlen “On the origin of languages:studies on linguistic taxonomy”.Stanford.Stanford University Press).

No problems.

Migration of tuna fish is well documented. All experts agree.

I am reinstalling page and asking editors to contrast Trigaranus = (most probably) Dumu Eduba with other more calmed and not censorship-prone researchers. I am also removing most links pointing to this page, since this is a peripheral excuse to removing page. User:Iberomesornix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

MORE FACTS ABOUT IBERIAN-GUANCHE INSCRIPTIONS

These are some of the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions collected by Pichler with his identification number (2nd column).

Compare Iberian-Guanche inscriptions with the Lybic-Berber inscriptions posted by Dumu Eduba as Iberian-Guanche inscriptions. They have nothing to do! But this argument is the basis for claiming this page removal.

Facts:

• First. They are written in Iberian script.
• Second. They are found in ‘’Guanche territory’’ (Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, Canary Islands).

Why do you want to remove them from public and novel (to the most) knowledge?

Of course, there are translational proposals, which may be discussed but not removed (following common sense).

If your ‘’linguist editors’’ are doing this to me, what have they done to others?

P.S. Arnaiz-Villena has sound linguistic background. Alonso-Garcia is an expert on Iberian language.

Iberomesornix (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Constructive way out

Now, as far as I can see, we might find a compromise in the following manner:

1. You are more than welcome (!) to include any of AAV's theories you find worthy of public knowledge on AAV's article. Then the truth will still be out there for anyone who wants it. You will find a very similar organisation on Stephen Oppenheimer's page, who is a scientist I deeply respect, although I do not agree with his linguistic conclusions.
2. If you would like me to, I could at the same time try and procure an independent assessment of AAV's theories as far as 1) language grouping and 2) Ibero-Guanche epigraphy on the Canaries is concerned, which I could then supply on this page. Don't know if I can get much of a response from the specialists, but I'll be happy to write to them and at least try. I'm afraid the reason why Ibero-Guanche does not pop up in epigraphic journals is that they are not usually considered Iberian.
3. You send a birthday card to both User:Dumu Eduba and me and see if we have the same address. ;-) That would be a dead giveaway.

Just thought of it: how about mediation or arbitration within WP? Saves me the postage stamps! Trigaranus (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Trigaranus. Oh, somewhat I saw myself rather odd this morning on the mirror. Maybe my soul makes astral voyages to far countries and writes in the Wikipedia with other username :-D, :-D, :-D. What really upsets me is that my astral body, writes in English much better than me. Oh wandering soul, where did you learn such a knowledge, that you hid from me!!!!!

Now, seriously.

Someway I disagree. I think that the complete lack of thought by user:Iberomesornix and user:Virginal6 and their utterly inability to provide any independent reference, in contrast to their constant personal attacks, their rudeness, bad manners and pityful insinuations show that they have nothing to say. That user:Virginal6 perfectly knows that his alleged evidence is false, that he can not afford reference to his asserts.

Until know both user: Iberomesornix and user:Virginal6 only have show deceiving fallacies in the hope that nobody would check, and when their data have been showed to be wrong with clear references, data and reputed authors , they have resort to personal attacks and claimed to be victimized. I suspect they already knew all the bad reviews on the Arnaiz Villena and Alonso García work, bad that they purpusely kept silence on it. As their edition history show they only write to advertise the Arnaiz Villena works.

My challenge remains stills: write in the talk pages of the languages, afford data from reputed authorities. The Arnaiz Villena fans have not even tried to provide any reliable data. If they have any, why hide them: is this the censorship they claim agianst, their own auto-censorship?, Is that the conspiracy they dennounce: their own conspiracy?

But let me be a prophet. Previously I bet that the alleged linguistic evidence on Sumerian and other languages only existed in the Arnaiz Villena books and that it was not in any serious book; hostile reaction by user:Virginal6 shows I was right. Now I bet that they will not write in the pages I suggested, affording the links to the works of Arnaiz Villena that I suggested, because they know beforehand that those works are a complete nonsense, they will prefer to claim against an alleged censorship, claim that their human rights are been attacked and launching defamations and personal attacks. Their editions are only spam, pityful spam.

By the way user:Iberomesornix and user:Virginal6 I expect both of you to apologize for your personal attacks and bad taste insinuations that I have no doubt that even you do not believe and that only are pityful clumsy provocations.

But Trigaranus is right suggesting them to ask for mediation. Let them to annoy others (and they also deserve to get a good laughs on the "compulsory comic" (Pilcher dixit) and "unmitigated disaster" (De Hoz dixit) ideas of Arnaiz Villena and Alonso García. Now I am going to look for my identity card to see who am I, my be I am an northeast-usko-dene-guanche!!!!  :-D :-D :-D

Hôs-ephamen!!

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

IBERIAN LANGUAGE PAGE

Dear Trigaranus and Dumu (where are you D? Since we wandered about unknown Ramos whereabouts you also dissapeared) , you can clearly see that scripts are written in Iberian characters. If decided to change this page,I think the best place would be “Iberian Language” I have been reading both A A-Villena and S Oppenheimer pages. While AA-Villena page is just an unpleasasnt witch-hunting and censorship history fucused on a Palestinian genetics paper ,S Oppenheimer one is a professional account. I do not think this “Iberian-Guanche” page would fit in AA-V page as it is,unless AA-V or someboby else would make a professional page. AA-V must be aware of this discussion, since he gave his mail address and telephone for some reason in the “Iberian Language” page. I apologize to anybody ;no problem,but do all readers know what is going on in linguistics world,particularly in USA and Europe (Russia and China are more open)? A concerted net of bigot scholars hinder any new advance and tightly control any dissenter since at least 30 years ago.It is not necessary asking why some people is fed up with this situation.This is my opinion.However,I strongly think that all WP contributors should use real names to avoid confusion .I always sign peer reviews.What is the problem at given real data/opinions? On the other hand ,Trigaranus,now that actions have been taken could not you remove deleting deadline until you reach a prompt agreement?.

Finally, Dumu I will put all the references you like. Tell me about what,Sumerian?But I should not answer questions about Sumerian and Elamite in the way you put it.There is no a single objective reference about who Sumerians were.All are inderect evidence.Some known authors have written novels with cuneiform inscriptions (Kramer) and some others say Sumerians come from outside...The Penn University Dictionary failed. All references are in books,I have to scan them and WP commands are still resistent for me.I am overwhelmed by everyday commitments

Virginal6  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginal6 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 

Dear Virginal, first of all thanks for keeping the excitement down a litte. Secondly, let me get something straight first of all: This is not an attack on what AAV wants to prove, it is just the way he tries to prove it (and the way it is defended by some of his followers). That is also the reason why I think the only place for his theories is his page, or, alternatively, a page "Linguistic theories by AAV".

Just to make sure you don't misunderstand me: I am personally very fond of the idea that some of the ancient languages in the Eastern Mediterranean were related. In fact, I am almost sure that that was the case at one point, given that genetics point to a migration along the coastal areas and out to the Atlantic face and up to Ireland. Like you (as far as I can tell), I am convinced that the Basque language as an autochthonous idiom dates back far into Pre-History and may very well date back to that time; it may, in fact, have been part of a dialect continuum resulting from such a migration (or it might, just as well, have been a language unrelated to those along the coasts). I suppose we all agree it is possible or even likely that at one point related languages were spoken between Ireland and the Canaries? This is probably common sense, and you will certainly not be laughed at by linguists if you suggest such a scenario.

However, AAV goes much farther than that. Had he only suggested a language family comprising Basque, Iberian and Berber, he probably would not have been ridiculed by linguists. What does he do that is not accepted by linguists?

Let me give you this summarised list just as an illustration that I hope will help you understand my reasons for posting the deletion tag.

1. He groups languages demonstrably unrelated together with languages too poorly attested to allow for identification.
2. He works with supposed homonymic isoglosses (a large part of them only partial matches), but from completely different time levels. Such homonymic isoglosses are hard to come by in some closely related languages, so if Basque and Sumerian, with more than 3K years between their first attestations, had common roots, they would date back such a tremendous number of years that time depth would have done away with most homonymic isoglosses.
3. He fails to address differences in grammar typology / stem morphology. Or rather, he seems to completely blank them out. As an example: Hungarian is quite far (both by geography and language evolution) from its sister languages, but there are so many clear similarities beyond the lexicon that the case is more or less closed today. How do you prove a connection between Basque, Ugaritic and Elamite? These languages have nothing in common apart from a few homonyms (of which there have, by sheer chance, to be quite some). So where is the evidence for relatedness?
4. He is, for all I know, a proud auto-didact. Sumerologists take years to study their subject matter, epigraphers likewise. It helps to give you a more universal understanding of the subject, and it stops you from simple pitfalls (reading an ABC as a sentence, using words that are borrowings from Latin, and paralleling words from remote languages due to simple superficial assonance). As a result, it seems that he does not grant languages the same level of complexity that genetics have.
5. He fails to address grammar. That is quite a big deal for a language. His inscriptions are always lemmata, usually nominals. Verbs are almost completely absent, but not as absent as any kind of grammatical marker that one would expect in an inscription. Basque and Sumerian are very big on case morphemes, for example.
6. Working with an inscription, there are a number of steps, each of which may increase the chance of errors to occur. His methods seem too random to produce any reliable result: he chooses the Iberian alphabet over Latin and Lybico-Berber (possible, though unattested outside Spain); he identifies modern Basque as the language for a transcription, rather than a geographically or temporally less distant idiom; he transcribes the graphemes with a bias, ignoring parts of them (as shown above); he modifies the transcription with a bias (as with "MSL" → "ama-zala"); he randomly assigns syntactical connections to the different elements; the result are translations that are sometimes undeliberately comical. As far as I can tell, every single one of these steps must be considered mistaken among epigraphers and linguists alike. Most of these errors on their own, but even more so all of them together form enough grounds to conclude that he has not been able to support his theory with evidence.
7. He, or some of those who defend him (which is equally bad), attribute his failure to convince to an alleged conspiracy among mainstream linguists, accusing them of trying to "maintain their closed paradigms", of craving "power to exterminate truth", of lying (!), of muddling, of bigotry, of cheating, of assuming a fake identity, and, to add injury to libel, claim that they are being unduly attacked. The closest thing to muddling the truth in connection to this article I've seen so far is somebody's insinuation that it was Mr. Pichler or Ms. Springer themselves who had transcribed the questionable inscriptions (5 above).

Now, please have a look at this list, and you will understand why the only place for these theories is under AAV's own name, which you are very welcome to do. If you really want to salvage a theory as poorly supported and — on this page — as despicably defended as this, you should do so now, but do it without any more pathos about truth. There is little truth in Ancient History, and there is even less of it in Pre-History. We have methodology, we have theories, and we have probabilities, but no truth. I have no mind of spending more time with this matter than I already have. And now, we have an understanding that you will refrain from any further insults. Trigaranus (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Trigaranus, I am sorry you got upset.I only was trying to apologize because of my mistake with you and telling that we have professionally suffered quite a lot (not only me but also Ruhlen,Bengston,Vaha Sarkisian ... and many others).

a-I will not write srong words anymore .In fact,I will later on the day edit this discussion regarding to me. b-I think that your proposition of linking this page to AA-V is appropriate. c-Methodology followed is not a bilateral language comparison,but a multiple comparison (Ruhlen,Bengston with “Mother Tongue:there is a reference above with both of them using this methodology),with additional preconceptions (religious,funeral ,accountantcy...). d-I like all Chomsky views whether linguistic or not.However,I believe grammar is a modern acquisition and innnate abilities for grammar templates are doubtful .Please, remember experiments with primates reaching quite a lot of grammar abilities by learning.( Virginal6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginal6 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The page has been mended according to Wikipedia administrators

I have edited the page according to all suggestions, particularly those arised by Trigaranus. The page should not be now entitled for deletion according to Wikipedia policy. In addition, further suggestions by Trigaranus or others could be taken. I have kept the page related to AA-V and highlighted the facts:

1. Iberian scripts have been found in the Canary Islands.

2. Some arguiable translations have been proposed. Iberomesornix (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

---

Iberian-Canarian scripts Talk

• I have restored my page with some changes suggested by discussion.
• There is no reason to remove this important information.

The basic reasons for removal were:

1. One reference writing against (Pichler) Iberian-Guanche inscriptions from Fuerteventura and Lanzarote Canary Islands Iberian-Guanche inscriptions, . This is not true; the reference is about other altogether different inscriptions: ancient Lybic ones which are found together in Canary Islands and not only in Fuerteventura and Lanzarote islands.

2. Title was not adequate. It has been changed to Iberian-Canarian scripts.

3. Source was only from one group. The Arnaiz-Villena group only pointed out that these scripts were in Iberian language, Garaldea, sobre el origen de los vascos, ISBN: 84-7148-045-X). Other groups had collected and comented the inscriptions before.

4. There are people in the discussion who would like to keep this information.