Talk:Celtic languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Continetal & Insular
Are you sure Breton is in the continental branch? I have a vague feeling it belongs in one of the insular branches, due to it being the language of comparitively recent refugees from Britain. But i'm not sure enough of this to jump in and fix it. Anyone know for sure?
- No, it is, although it does bear striking similarities to Cornish, as they are both from the same root stock. sjc
- The Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics calls Breton Insular and Brythonic. There are no living speakers of Continental Celtic languages, according to it.
- Mea culpa, I am still living in the Bronze Age; this is obviously a technical usage of the term Continental. Breton is very definitely Brythonic; but is Brythonic (or Goidelic for that matter) insular? Given that the language was carried by the Celtic travellers to what is now Britain across dry land (or nearly dry land... or a narrow strait... someone will probably know the exact point of separation of Britain from the continent!) I had assumed that both Brythonic and Goidelic were Continental given their point of origin. sjc
- It's technical terminology. By definition, Brythonic and Goidelic are Insular and not Continental. The issue is muddied by the fact that Breton speakers are found on "The Continent", but that it is not "Continental" in the technical sense of the term. The difference, I suppose, is that while it's entirely reasonable to assume that Insular Celtic languages evolved from Continental ones(*), the events causing this occurred too far in the past for anyone to be sure. The appearance of Breton is much more recent, and I believe is actually historically attested.
- One theory of Goidelic origins is that it evolved from Celt languages and cultures in Iberia, so we need to be careful here. There may be no direct descent from Continental (i.e., Gaulish "French" Celtic) languages at all. --PaulDrye
- I think it's worth saying something about the common characteristics of the Celtic languages (mutation being the obvious one). I've started putting some stuff in but it needs plenty of amplification and extension, either by me or someone else. Magnus 15:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
- Shudnt that be LEPONTIC? nicky. / wathiik.
- I think it's worth saying something about the common characteristics of the Celtic languages (mutation being the obvious one). I've started putting some stuff in but it needs plenty of amplification and extension, either by me or someone else. Magnus 15:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
- One theory of Goidelic origins is that it evolved from Celt languages and cultures in Iberia, so we need to be careful here. There may be no direct descent from Continental (i.e., Gaulish "French" Celtic) languages at all. --PaulDrye
- It's technical terminology. By definition, Brythonic and Goidelic are Insular and not Continental. The issue is muddied by the fact that Breton speakers are found on "The Continent", but that it is not "Continental" in the technical sense of the term. The difference, I suppose, is that while it's entirely reasonable to assume that Insular Celtic languages evolved from Continental ones(*), the events causing this occurred too far in the past for anyone to be sure. The appearance of Breton is much more recent, and I believe is actually historically attested.
- Mea culpa, I am still living in the Bronze Age; this is obviously a technical usage of the term Continental. Breton is very definitely Brythonic; but is Brythonic (or Goidelic for that matter) insular? Given that the language was carried by the Celtic travellers to what is now Britain across dry land (or nearly dry land... or a narrow strait... someone will probably know the exact point of separation of Britain from the continent!) I had assumed that both Brythonic and Goidelic were Continental given their point of origin. sjc
- The Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics calls Breton Insular and Brythonic. There are no living speakers of Continental Celtic languages, according to it.
[edit] Celtic proximity to Germanic
Kenneth, have you got a source for claiming that Celtic languages are particularly close to Germanic ones? Seems to me that used to be the Nazi party line - otherwise, I've never heard of it. Diderot 10:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Diderot, I did not know that about the Nazi issue and am skeptical about your source for that view, I thought they were into "Aryan" Indo-Germanicisms. My memory of the Celto-Germanic combo is from older texts from most likely POST-WW2 books, I don't know what ones they are but most likely out of print and withered ones or obscure to mainstream, mass media outlets. I don't immediately discount obscure or specialty subjects just because they aren't some Barnes and Noble bookstore copies. From the appearances of the Celtic languages, they seem to share both Italic and Germanic features, as much in the way that Germanic language shares Celtic and Italic features. BUT my main point was the fact that the non IE roots in Europe, discounting Basque, are generally concentrated in Celto-Germanic or Germano-Celtic tongues, especially the Insular ones. It's the consequence of neighbouring societal collectives. Lord Kenneð 12:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Very well, can you show me how you came to the conclusion that Germanic and Celtic languages share a common substrate, and that they share it more than Italic languages? Can you show me a source for this highly contrarian conclusion? You've placed this into the text as a statement of fact. It does not enjoy widespread acceptance among linguists. It doesn't enjoy widespread acceptance among Indo-Europeanists. This is not a forum for new research, especially for claims dropped out of the blue. I want to see a citation, preferably a peer-reviewed publication. If these sorts of conclusions were very widespread, I think there is an excellent chance I would know about it. I've placed a dispute notice at the top of the page. Diderot 13:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I was basing this upon other people's statements, like that one you excluded from the Non IE Roots of Germanic page. It appears you have a POV agenda and I would use that one I spoke of as one such reason why I agree with the classification, that you have inconveniently overridden. It is not enough for you to see two contributors agree on this matter and I haven't checked into that person's edits to judge them, but automatically recalled the term Celto-Germanic interchanged with Germano-Celtic a few years ago, but I have books currently that always show the Celtic bridging between Germanic and Romance peoples and their cultures until their subsequent over-reach and collapse, and since languages follow peoples... I do not dispute that the Romans conquered Gallia and ultimately almost replaced the ways of life with their own, but the parts that they failed to extinguish shouldn't be counted to them, just like when the Franks invaded and took over they obviously left Romance and other remains, despite the fact they consistently try to outlaw the Breton, Burgundian, Norman and other tongues in France today. What the Romans insituted into Gallia was on the whole, an Indo-European language so much that I believe there was no use to include pre IE Etruscan when the IE cognates happened to be already residing in Gallia, Etruscan diminished. I wonder if Etruscan, Balkan, Basque, pre IE Nordic and pre IE British/Irish have some pre IE cognates, so I will look into that, but I don't know right now what to think about it. I have to study migration paterns and cultural achievements in archaeological findings to get a more accurate view. The microlithic culture of Tardenoisian seems spread throughout what is now France and southern Britain, the old German Empire and northern Slavic countries as three different substrates. It is said that Iberia with it's Basques are from the Caucasians. That's interesting, I will look into it but probably not bring those edits to Wikipedia because that's not a priority for me. Depends on how much I learn to describe. I don't just pull this out of a hat, as you appear to enjoy painting me with your anti-Kenneth Alan propaganda. Lord Kenneð 14:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and this Wikipedia is not meant to be a crusty, old fashioned encyclopedia you are trying to make it with an upper class of academics and their lower class audience, like clergy and laity. This is not a medium for the censorship of information on what people are SUPPOSED to think aesthetically about subjects, but a venue for people to learn the greater sphere of the topics' tangibility. Lord Kenneð 14:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- So, this theory should be represented on Wikipedia as a statement of fact because of its aesthetic qualities? Yes Kenneth, I am The Man - a bourgeois academic trying to keep the People's Anthropology down. I am not advocating censorship - if you had, for example, cited someone with an actual record of publication as a source, I would be willing to discuss the possibilities in an "Alternate Views" section of text. However, I won't sit still for unsourced highly contrarian claims being inserted into articles as statements of fact. As for the other contributor - send him a line, let's get another party into this debate. I didn't see any sources given in the old version of Non-Indo-European roots of Germanic languages nor the Talk page. Again, I'm asking for some sources. I want something more specific than "something I read" and "some other people's statements." This is now the third time I've asked. Quite a few people have speculated on the linguistic roots of the monolith builders, but none has ever managed to move far beyond speculation. I don't think that it is censorship to expect speculation to be clearly marked. Diderot 15:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and this Wikipedia is not meant to be a crusty, old fashioned encyclopedia you are trying to make it with an upper class of academics and their lower class audience, like clergy and laity. This is not a medium for the censorship of information on what people are SUPPOSED to think aesthetically about subjects, but a venue for people to learn the greater sphere of the topics' tangibility. Lord Kenneð 14:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I was basing this upon other people's statements, like that one you excluded from the Non IE Roots of Germanic page. It appears you have a POV agenda and I would use that one I spoke of as one such reason why I agree with the classification, that you have inconveniently overridden. It is not enough for you to see two contributors agree on this matter and I haven't checked into that person's edits to judge them, but automatically recalled the term Celto-Germanic interchanged with Germano-Celtic a few years ago, but I have books currently that always show the Celtic bridging between Germanic and Romance peoples and their cultures until their subsequent over-reach and collapse, and since languages follow peoples... I do not dispute that the Romans conquered Gallia and ultimately almost replaced the ways of life with their own, but the parts that they failed to extinguish shouldn't be counted to them, just like when the Franks invaded and took over they obviously left Romance and other remains, despite the fact they consistently try to outlaw the Breton, Burgundian, Norman and other tongues in France today. What the Romans insituted into Gallia was on the whole, an Indo-European language so much that I believe there was no use to include pre IE Etruscan when the IE cognates happened to be already residing in Gallia, Etruscan diminished. I wonder if Etruscan, Balkan, Basque, pre IE Nordic and pre IE British/Irish have some pre IE cognates, so I will look into that, but I don't know right now what to think about it. I have to study migration paterns and cultural achievements in archaeological findings to get a more accurate view. The microlithic culture of Tardenoisian seems spread throughout what is now France and southern Britain, the old German Empire and northern Slavic countries as three different substrates. It is said that Iberia with it's Basques are from the Caucasians. That's interesting, I will look into it but probably not bring those edits to Wikipedia because that's not a priority for me. Depends on how much I learn to describe. I don't just pull this out of a hat, as you appear to enjoy painting me with your anti-Kenneth Alan propaganda. Lord Kenneð 14:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Very well, can you show me how you came to the conclusion that Germanic and Celtic languages share a common substrate, and that they share it more than Italic languages? Can you show me a source for this highly contrarian conclusion? You've placed this into the text as a statement of fact. It does not enjoy widespread acceptance among linguists. It doesn't enjoy widespread acceptance among Indo-Europeanists. This is not a forum for new research, especially for claims dropped out of the blue. I want to see a citation, preferably a peer-reviewed publication. If these sorts of conclusions were very widespread, I think there is an excellent chance I would know about it. I've placed a dispute notice at the top of the page. Diderot 13:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Disregarding our ad hominemisms, I have found these two items: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org&q=germano-celtic+language&sitesearch= http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org&q=celto-germanic+language&sitesearch= Lord Kenneð 17:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- According to real linguists, the Celtic group is roughly equidistant from the Romance and Germanic groups, which are themselves more closely related to each other than either is to Celtic. Here is some real science instead of a mere Google search: http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/psych/research/Evolution/Gray&Atkinson2003.pdf Dogface 19:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, Celtic has been on the wain for a long, long time. It's initial isolation has been ever present continuing on today with marginalisation. Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed Label
Removed disputed label since the problematic edits are gone. Controvertialised Celto-Italic, cut Kelto-Germanic since there's no sign of Kenneth, and I still think it's silly to call Breton a Continental Celtic language, but it should be plain why the question is controversial now. Diderot 11:48, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- Diderot, I agree with you on the Bretagne issue. It's essence is insular, but recent barrages of Francois have eroded the insular focus. That is why some have thought otherwise. Oh, and I think we ought to listen to Dogface on this one. Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Absurd Paragraph
The following paragraph (beginning from "A view...") is very simply absurd (the reference to Romance and Germanic is meaningless) and would cause any serious Indo-Europeanist to crack up: "Within the Indo-European family, the Celtic languages have traditionally been placed with the Italic languages in a common Celto-Italic family (A view held by staunch supporters of Celtic Christianity and Catholicism). More recent research places the separation of the Celtic languages from other Indo-European branches roughly 6000 years ago, well before the split between Romance and Germanic." I have removed the part after "Celto-Italic family" (and added the variant form "Italo-Celtic" which is actually more common). Pasquale 21:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Example Language?
Could someone please clarify which of the celtic languages is used for the examples? Nicholas 09:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] "Controversy"
I don't think there is all that much "controversy" between P/Q Celtic and some other theory. I'd like this deleted unless someone can point to some serious linguistic discussion of the matter. Evertype 15:55, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
[edit] Require Celtic input
I've started a page on The verb "to be" in Indo-European languages, which is intended to place the irregular paradigms in a historical context. Left to my own devices I will no doubt eventually get round to filling in the info on all the Celtic languages, but it would be better if one of you who is at home in the Celtic field could go over there, check everything, expand the Celtic table to include Old Irish, Old Welsh and modern Welsh and make any necessary comments underneath it. And then, if and when you are happy that it is useful to you, link it from the various Celtic language sites. Any of you who speak a Celtic language can make some input here, but I would really value a contribution from a Celtic historical linguist who can trace forms back to PIE. (My own area of competence, and the necessesity for starting the page in the first place, lie on the Germanic side!) --Doric Loon 08:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Counting by twenties
Does anyone know if the celtic concept of counting by twenties is the origin of the biblical english "the days of man are threescore years and ten", or for that matter the French "quatre-vingt"? Gingekerr 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] North/West/Central Celtic
User:207.200.116.5 has added a novel classification scheme for the Celtic languages:
- Proto-Celtic or Common Celtic
- Central Celtic
- East Celtic
- North Celtic
- Cumbric
- Pictish (possibly not Celtic)
- Middle Welsh
- Southwestern Brythonic
- West Celtic
I'm removing this until published scholarly sources arguing for this scheme are provided. It strikes me as probable original research. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like a case of being more than just "probable" original research to me. It surely is not a widely accepted family tree for the group. Looks like the work of a Joseph Greenberg sort of linguistic lumper. I would be rather intrigued if the addition has a scholarly source text as its origin, not having come across this particular arrangement in my reading. As far as I am concerned, the Celtic familial tree you have been adding to this part of the I-E group works well for our purposes here.
- P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it Greenbergesque lumping, because it doesn't suggest that all sorts of things are Celtic that no one else believes are Celtic. It's just a linguistically unjustified rearrangement of acknowledged Celtic languages. If we are going to mention crackpot theories here, we should at least mention the "Afro-Asiatic substrate hypothesis", which although completely untenable at least has some published material by famous names (e.g. Theo Vennemann) behind it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Celtiberian language
Celtiberian language is only attested in the land inhabited by the group of peoples or tribes identified specifically as "celtiberians" by classical authors, in the area comprising western Aragon and eastern Castile. Some authors defend the celticity (I don't know if this word exists in English)of some of the peoples living in the areas that nowadays are known as Galicia, Asturias and León, but this point of view is by no means accepted by all the Spanish scholars.
- Check this: e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, v.6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula. Enjoy! The Ogre 17:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- This should also prove of interest: Detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC). The Ogre 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Boii languange
What is your opinion about Boii and his languange? Haw anybudy some information about they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elder sun (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- See our article Boii. As far as I know, there is no information about their language preserved. Angr 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Characteristics of celtic languages
I've removed the VSO word order and the lack of indefinite article as Breton is SOV and has an indefinite article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arskoul (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, though I may have to think about this and do some research on it. I'm pretty sure that both SOV order and the presence of an indefinite article are fairly new in Breton (i.e. within its recorded history), so it's fair to say VSO and no indef.art. are characteristics of Insular Celtic languages in general, but that Breton has evolved away from these. Angr 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] And the Alpine Celts
I mean the Rhaeto-Romans, Ladiners, and Friulians? And Tha Galicians in Spain?? You have not given them a mention.
There is much more to present day ethnic Celtic people than appears in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.75.50.230 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- This article is about Celtic languages. The Rhaeto-Romans, Ladiners, Friulians, and Galicians all speak Romance languages, not Celtic ones. Whether they are "ethnically Celtic" is highly dubious, but irrelevant to this article anyway. Angr 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geographic Distribution
Celtic languages are not restricted ONLY to British Isle and Brittany. Though mainly so, they are also in Patagonia and Nova Scotia. David horsey 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
