Talk:Celtic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Celts Celtic languages is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.


Contents

[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.

[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)

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)

It's usually said to be the source of both of those, yes. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 04:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] North/West/Central Celtic

User:207.200.116.5 has added a novel classification scheme for the Celtic languages:

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)

[edit] Language Family Tree

For those interested, I'm playing around with Template:Familytree for the Celtic languages over at User:Canaen/IndoEuroLanguageTree. You're all welcome to contribute, comment, etc. I'd like to get a good one (or maybe one for each major category system) over here. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Gallo-Romans in Britain?

The Roman Gauls often controlled Britain, so what evidence is there of some Gaulish branch or dialect being spoken, like British Ivernic in Ireland or Irish Galwegian in Britain? How about any Irish branch in Gaul, from Christian missionaries? Neustriano 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brythons "fled"?

According to the introduction the Brythons "fled" to Brittany. I know of no actual evidence for this though it is often suggested. Economic migration is also suggested but again there is no real evidence? Adresia 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC

Amorica attainted technical independence from Rome as early as 370 AD. While the southeastern Britons obviously had contact with them after this point, there is absolutely no evidence to speak of about this "Celtic exodus" and is most likely another "Aryan" theory used to cement the supposed genetic heritage of "Saxons" as Germanic. Unfortunetly real contemporary history and modern sciences throw this theory out to wash. There is however a recorded migration in the 500’s that Saxons and Welsh fled to the continant (specifically Normandy) due to extremely poor weather. See Zosimus' "Nova Historia" for more details about the status of Briton Gaul and Spain during this period. ---- Bloody Sacha 9/23/2007

[edit] Claims that cannot be substantiated by this article

Today, Celtic languages are limited to a few areas in Great Britain, the Isle of Man, Ireland, eastern Canada, Patagonia, scattered groups in the United States and Australia, and on the peninsula of Brittany in France.

Wher is Celtic spoken in the US and Canada ? Absolutely no evidence of this.

Removal of this claim.

In Canada at least, Scottish Gaelic is still spoken on Cape Breton Island. Otherwise, it's more scattered. The 2000 U.S. census reports about 26,000 people aged 5 and over speaking Irish at home, the largest proportion of them in Massachusetts, but no indication it's used as a community language anywhere in North America. Anyway, removing the entire sentence because of doubts about the U.S. and Canada was overkill. —Angr 05:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More unsubstantiated claims

The other scheme, defended for example by McCone (1996), links Goidelic and Brythonic together as an Insular Celtic branch, while Gaulish and Celtiberian are referred to as Continental Celtic. According to this theory, the "P-Celtic" sound change of [kʷ] to [p] occurred independently or areally.

How is this substabntiated?

Removal

It's substantiated by McCone (1996), of course. —Angr 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Laughing Stock

I live in Canada and am of American Jewish origin. Gaelic is not spoken in Canada. I am going to England UK soon. I have checked with friends. Cumbric is bullcrap. And Cornwall is a county of England UK.

What part of Fantasy land are you guys form. Do you have any pixies there?

Gaelic is not widely spoken in Canada, no. But it is still spoken by some people on Cape Breton island. Cumbric died out centuries ago, but it is attested and is not bullcrap. And yes, Cornwall is a county of England; so what? —Angr 10:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are ttryinmg to make these places out to be a system of Celtic Nations. No such thing. Unless of course we are speakimg about pixies and the like. Do you guys come across many pixies? Because that is ultimately what you are talkimg about. Becuse you are not talking reality. And protecting pages from people who are trying to improve this s**thole (from people like you I might add) by stopping editing is BAD and abusive of Wkipedia and is going to provoke more and more stuff.

[edit] Removal of Image of Six 'modern celtic nations' image

The Six Nations considered the heartland of the modern Celts
The Six Nations considered the heartland of the modern Celts


Image of six nations of nmodern Celts removed as

1. Isle of Man is of Viking / Norse descent. 2. Cornwall I am asured is a county of England UK 3. Cumbric is bullcrap.

Manx is a Celtic language; it was spoken on the Isle of Man until the early 20th century and is currently undergoing a modest revival. The fact that Cornwall is a county of England doesn't change anything. See above for Cumbric. —Angr 10:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


REmoval (again of this map that claims 'modern celtic nations.') No such thing. Where is the proof apart form mystical bullcrap about languages. Are you guys some sort of stragne cult? Mystical - wierd fantssists?

Anonymous vulgar abuse tends not to convince; try some rational argument, please. Man vyi 05:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

'Anonymous - vulgar - abuse' - you got to be British. Just give some evidence - one bit of evidence from ancient times that any of this actually existed ot exists in anything except your mystical minds. Made up - false - bull :-)

Well, you could try reading the article and the sources it cites. You could try reading anything about Celts and Celtic languages, for that matter. It isn't even clear what precisely you think is "made up - false - bull". Do you doubt that Celts and Celtic languages exist? —Angr 05:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Or if you don't like reading textbooks, you could visit any number of university websites and government websites in Ireland, Scotland, Wales etc. You could buy a map of Wales or Scotland and look at the placenames. You could read up on current UK and Irish legislative recognition, such as the Welsh Language Act and find out about the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament's Plana Nàiseanta na Gàidhlig. You could visit http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk or come and see the real thing. You could buy Jackson's "Language and History in Early Britain" and read it to find out about 'Cumbric' and look at a map of the English lake district and its placenames, or buy W J Watson's "The Celtic Placenames of Scotland". Or you could listen to real native speakers featured in current television and radio some of which will be accessible over the internet if you don't care to actually come over and visit these countries. Or you could come and visit me in the Isle of Skye in Scotland and meet my Gaelic-speaking neighbours and ask them what they think. Provided you're nice. I'm pretty sure I exist and my neighbours did this morning, last time I checked. You could actually phone someone here in the Western Isles of Scotland, or pretty much anyone in Wales, try the University of Wales in Aberystwyth for a start. That's should keep you busy for a while.CecilWard 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And here's just one, simple thing you can try - visit the website of Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru (the National Assembly of Wales). This is a British government website - yes, you are right, Wales, Scotland and England are all British, but a large number of people in Wales speak Welsh, their native tongue - and they speak English too.
Go on - just take a quick peek at the home page. Chris Jefferies 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The jackass responsible for removing the map is most likely 209.82.94.211, You can track his "contributions" on several other Celtic pages, where he is likewise perpetrating "Nordic vandalism." This idiot needs to be banned pronto. Don't even bother talking to him. He just abandons the argument whenever hes backed into a corner and initiates a new one elsewhere. ---- Bloody Sacha 9/23/2007

The problem seems to be the use of the word "nation". May be the best solution is to use "areas" instead. Adresia (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing?

I was trying to discern how Celtic languages were traditionally written, if at all, but I couldn't find it in this article. Admittedly, I skimmed, but it shouldn't be so difficult to find. It at least deserves a short sentence in the first paragraph. The reason I wonder, btw, is because modern Celtic languages are written with the Latin alphabet, which is obviously not traditional. I suppose most would assume runes of some sort, but I'm unclear as to if what are generally called "runes" were Germanic or more generally western-European. Someone who knows, please add something to this article about writing. Garnet Avi 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Irish was first written in Ogham. Gaulish was sometimes written in the Greek alphabet. Celtiberian had its own Celtiberian script. Otherwise, the Celtic languages were in fact mostly first written down in the Latin alphabet. Probably the reason there's nothing about it in this article is that the answer to the question is different for each individual Celtic language. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 04:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] numbers of speakers

Would like to see some information on number of speakers, number for whom it is their best language, etc. by region among the various areas. Also would be interesting to see this versus time as my impression is that the language was dying out until modern times, but now may be being resurrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Which language? There are several Celtic languages. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
All/any.TCO (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language separation dating

The introduction says that the separation "probably occured about 1000 BC". This seems to be unsubstantiated. The association with the various archaeological cultures is an assumption. The earliest actual evidence is inscriptions dating from the 6th century BC, as far as I know. Some recent phylogenetic studies suggest earlier dates but these are controversial. It seems to me that there needs to be a new subsection discussing the alternatives in more detail. Adresia (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's preferable to just remove it. Dating when an unattested language split into non-mutually intelligible dialects/languages is always speculation and very risky. What phylogenetic studies are you talking about? Studies of literal biological genes, or studies of languages following the genetic metaphor of language relationship? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that information on dating is desirable, but with caveats about its uncertainty. The papers I was thinking about include those by Foster and Toth, Gray and Atkinson, and by Ringe. Adresia (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "very risky". We are not trying to ascertain in which specific year the Proto-Celts split up. It needs to be understood that these dates are estimates, give or take a century or two. Obviously citation of sources may be requested for any bit of information under discussion, but I would maintain that it is relevant and meaningful that Common Celtic was apparently spoken in the latest period of the European Bronze Age. This is meaningful without trying to establish whether this corresponds to an absolute date of 1000 BC, 900 BC or 780 BC. Either way, any detailed discussion of this would belong on Proto-Celtic (which at present claims 800 BC). I'll be happy with any date between 1200 BC ("Early Proto-Celtic") and 800 BC ("Late Proto-Celtic"). The Gray+Atkinson date is 900 BC, which is perfectly reasonable and quotable. dab (𒁳) 13:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)