Talk:Gobannus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Move from Gobannus to Gobanos?
I have a few reasons for suggesting a move to Gobanos. First, our two instances resembling Gobannus are two inscriptions written COBANNO with an initial C and a normal first-declension dative singular. Now, it's become customary for many English writers to restore a first declension Gaulish nominative in -os rather than its Latin counterpart in -us. Furthermore, the Berne zinc tablet gives us the equivalent of a G in the form of Γ. Finally, the Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies reconstructs the proto-Celtic word for 'smith' as “ *goban- (?) ”, with a long or short a that I can't find a Unicode character for at the moment. In other words, they seem to lean towards a single n as well. Not a huge deal, but what do people think? QuartierLatin1968 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- makes sense. the question is, do we want articles titled after reconstructed names (see also Talk:Wōdanaz). Gobanos should in any case be a redirect at least. I suppose the Proto-Celtic (or early Gaulish; 400 BC?) god was called Gobanos, the Gallo-Roman one (AD 200?) Gobannus. dab (ᛏ) 06:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with the reasoning above, better to move to Gobanos and the redirect Cobannus to it --Nantonos 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)