"Celt" Conjecture

[Rumo]

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous, especially since the root *kelt- has no meaning in Latin or Greek (outside of "Gallic/Spanish Celt").

But as you admit, it does have a meaning. For Romans Celts were some people. If you would have asked Caesar "what is a Celt" he would have given you an answer, right?
As for that root, if an English speaker tells you "well, this sounds Greek to me", does it mean that a root *grik- (*grek-, *graik- whatever) was inherited from PIE to English?

I repeat, they are mentioned by this name by Greek authors long before Roman the conquest.
A discussion of some of the earliest sources mentioning the "Celts" of Spain:
[url:990rsnk0]http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html[/url]

They are called so by the Greeks, not by themselves. That's what I said earlier in the thread, that Caesar (and Romans) got this name from previous (Greek) authors, not from interviews.

Enough scholars support the keltis reading for us to take it seriously. Anyway, my argument certainly does not hinge on this one inscription!

Here's more: Lectura muy difícil.
Suggested readings: beldis or keldis.

Or here, the reading "retukeno esto keltis" (that strange symbol is read as an axe(!) + ke) and translated by "of Retugenos be it the stele". According to this reading, that kelt- word is not a name, nor a tribe. Should we understand that Celts thought of themselves they are the stele-people? :lol:

If this is not the only one, what other local inscriptions attest those Kelt- names?

I think that those people who called themselves "Celts", who spoke very similar languages, worshiped similar gods, and had similar social institutions, saw themselves as part of a common cultural group (it would be bizarre if they didn't!!), though obviously their first loyalties were to their families and tribes (they had no concept of a nation yet - though folks such as Vercingetorix were working to develop one; some scholars propose that Gaul effectively had a proto-nation on the eve of the Roman conquest).

Celt-ness as proto-nation?

It think it's funny that the Celts are the only ancient people who get dissected in such a manner - where are all the deconstructionists/revisionists when it comes to the Iranians, the Indians, or the Slavs?? Why do some of you people not want them to have existed? Do you feel threatened, or something?

Not at all. Slavs, Germans, Thracians, etc have been deconstructed in a similar fashion. It's strange you mention Indians however because for a long time India was considered a heterogenous space (and India a Graeco-Roman construct, as well).

Here're the first 25 pages from Curta's The Making of the Slavs. The author argues there was no Slavic ethnie, that it was a Roman invention, an umbrella term for barbarians at the northern border, and Slavs as a group (and identity) formed during the contacts with the empire. Only centuries later they started to call themselves that way.