The Linguistic Position of Lepontic

Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Indo-European Subgrouping and Internal Relations (1998

Remarks on the morphology, phonology and orthography of Hisp.-Celt. LVGVEI and related matters

While there is general consensus that the Hispano-Celtic form LVGVEI is the dative singular of the divine name Lugus, there is none at all about what its orthography represents phonologically and morphologically; from the proto-Celtic perspective, the form should appear as orthographic *‹ LVGOVEI ›. This paper assesses previous scholarship and argues that the attested form, in fact, continues the inherited form in a regular way.Mientras hay consenso general que la forma hispano-céltica LVGVEI es el singular dativo del nombre divino Lugus, no hay consenso alguno sobre su representación fonológica ni morfológica; desde la perspectiva proto-céltica, la forma debe presentarse ortográficamente como *‹ LVGOVEI ›. Este trabajo evalúa los estudios anteriores y propone que la forma atestiguada, de hecho, continúa la forma heredada de una manera regular

Remarks on the left periphery in the medieval Brittonic languages

This paper proposes that the clausal configuration of affirmative root clauses in the medieval Brittonic languages is best characterised as a token of a relaxed verb-second (V2) language, in which the verb can appear as late as sixth position in the clause, but can be preceded by no more than a single argument. The absolute restriction to only a single argument occurring before the verb is related to the evolution of medieval Brittonic V2 from a cleft structure. There are, in fact, tokens of two arguments appearing before the verb in all of the medieval Brittonic languages, but these are exclusively the result of poetic overdetermination.355

In defence of KuiTos leKaTos

M. J. Estaran Tolosa proposes in Études celtiques, XLI-2015, p. 95-109, that the form traditionally read as KuiTos in the inscription of S. Bernardino di Briona (Novara) is, instead, to be read as KuiToi and forms a syntagm with the preceding form TanoTaliKnoi. This paper argues that the final character of this form is unlike any other token of in the inscription, and, indeed, it is precisely the inverse image of a token of in l. A1 of the inscription. Linguistic analysis, likewise, is decidedly in favour of the traditional reading.En faveur de la lecture KuiTos leKaTos. M. J. Estaran Tolosa écrit, dans Études celtiques, XLI-2015, p. 95-109, que la forme traditionnellement lue KuiTos dans l’inscription de San Bernardino di Briona (Novara) doit être lue KuiToi et forme un syntagme avec la forme précédente TanoTaliKnoi. Notre article soutient que le caractère final de cette forme est différent de tout autre signe de dans l’inscription : en effet, c’est précisément l’image inverse d’un exemple de en l. A1 de l’inscription. De même, l’analyse linguistique est décidément en faveur de la lecture traditionnelle.Eska Joseph F., Eska Charlene M. In defence of KuiTos leKaTos. In: Etudes Celtiques, vol. 43, 2017. pp. 81-94

The origin of the Hispano-Celtic o-stem genitive singular in -o and related matters

Hypothèse nouvelle sur le génitif singulier des thèmes thématiques en celtibère : la différenciation des genres masculin et neutre au nominatif a pu se produire aussi au génitif en donnant deux désinences distinctes, masc. -o et neutre -os.Eska Joseph F. The origin of the Hispano-Celtic o-stem genitive singular in -o and related matters. In: Etudes Celtiques, vol. 25, 1988. pp. 117-122

More on Gaulish siöxt=i

The author examines the traditional equation of Gaul, sioxti OIr. si cht and finds it wanting, both on phonological and semantic grounds. In its place, he proposes a new interpretation founded on the base *seg- attach, touch’. He also takes the opportunity to correct an error in his previous syntactic analysis of the inscription in which the form sioxti occurs.Encore le gaulois siöxt=i. L'auteur analyse le rapport traditionnel entre gaul. sioxti et viri, siächt et le trouve déficient aux niveaux phonologique et sémantique. A la place il propose une nouvelle interprétation basée sur la racine *seg- «attacher, toucher». Il en profite aussi pour corriger une erreur dans son ancienne analyse syntactique de l'inscription où se trouvait la forme sioxti.Eska Joseph F. More on Gaulish siöxt=i. In: Etudes Celtiques, vol. 30, 1994. pp. 205-210

Two notes on Continental Celtic

Two notes on Continental Celtic I. In the last sentence of the Hispano-Celtic inscription from Botorrita, the verb ŕusimus (1st pl.) is probably a “plurale maiestatis”, the subject being a single person named with different words (particularly ComPalCo-reś “king of the Senate”). II. In the Gaulish Cisalpine inscription from Vercelli the verb TośoKoTe includes an infixed pronoun *so- rather than *sto-.Joseph F. Eska, Deux notes de celtique continental I. Dernière phrase de l’inscription celtibère de Botorrita : le verbe ŕusimus, 1re p. du pl., serait un «nous de majesté», le sujet étant un individu unique dénommé par plusieurs mots, dont ComPalCo-reś, «roi du Sénat» ; II. Le verbe TośoKoTe dans l’inscription gauloise cisalpine de Verceil comporte un pron. infixe *so- plutôt que *sto-.Eska Joseph F. Two notes on Continental Celtic. In: Etudes Celtiques, vol. 27, 1990. pp. 191-195