Talk:Camunic language

Classification

@Kwamikagami: According to this article, Camunic is thought to perhaps be related to Raetic and Etruscan. Can we treat Camunic as potentially or tentatively Tyrsenian, then? For, this is what this seems to imply, effectively, regardless of whether Camunic is a separate language (which would make it a potential fourth attested Tyrsenian language) or part of Raetic. "Rhaetian (?)" or "Raetic (?)" is a rather poor way to put it; I think "possibly Tyrsenian" would be better solution and sufficiently vague, as it remains agnostic on the precise affiliations of Camunic, saying no more that Camunic may have (not exclusively areal or contact-induced, but specifically genetic) ties to Raetic and Etruscan. We could then list Camunic on Tyrsenian languages as a possible fourth branch. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what Schumacher (2000) says, so I agree. I might have been conservative because at the time I only had refs saying it might be related to Rhaetian, and didn't want to make claims of a wider Tyrsenian family when that's still so tentative. But with Schumacher as a source, both your changes are justified. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done both and added Camunic to the unclassified languages in List of language families as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classification again

Hey Tursclan, while it's great that you brought additional sources (thank you, I'm happy to learn more about the subject!), I somehow disagree with the language of some of your changes.

The word previously (Previously it has been hypothesized...) establishes a temporal sequence that I couldn't verify in the sources. Martinotti (2009) gives on page 312 an overview over the classification attempts since the 1960s and, if we are to trust Martinotti, the hypothesis of "pre-Indo-European-ness" seems to be older than the hypothesis of Celtic-ness.
Eska & Wallace write on page 95 Little about the language’s grammatical structure can be ascertained from the texts, though it does not appear to be Indo-European. Your wording in the introduction thought to be a pre–Indo-European language makes in a subtle way a somewhat stronger statement.
Can you give me a hint why Martinotti is supposed to be colossally uninformed about the classification debate, as your judgment unreliable sources implies? I'm asking because your text (the Indo-European nature of the Camunic language is not accepted) makes it seem, like the debate has been completly settled and all scholars, who had previoulsy theorized an Indo-European connection, were soundly defeated in a scholarly clash :-)
Anyway, the wording is not accepted is not backed up by Eska & Wallace, because they don't clarify, if their statement though it does not appear to be Indo-European represents the communis opinio of a overwhelming majority of the scholars, or simply their take on the matter. The only source they cite is Schumacher 2007, but he's probably used as a reference for the premature-part.
I'd really like to have a very good source for your article version, namely that there is something resembling a consensus about the "pre-Indo-European-ness" of Camunic. Eska & Wallace 2011 clearly don't back up such a statement and wile I sadly can't access Marchesini 2009, I'm quite sure she doesn't offer that either, because scholars like Schürr argued still in 2007 that Camunic shares some Indo-European aspects.
And finally, talking about Schürr (also used as a reference in Eska & Wallace): He argued that Camunic could be a Non-Celtic but still Indo-European language. Takes like these are missing after your changes.

Cheer, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]