Talk:Proto-Celtic
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
Proto-Celtic 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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating 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] proto-celts?
if there was a proto-celtic language, theoretically the people who spoke it would have been labelled as proto-celts.
i'm curious as to what, if anything, has been pieced together about these people. Gringo300 08:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It is notable that compared with the proto-Indo-Europeans, the proto-Celts lasted as a unified people much less. The Celts split from the Proto-Indo-Europeans around 1500 BC and by 800 BC the Celtic expansion already began, so the Celts (which were living from the Atlantic coast to the Black Sea coast) hadn't time to create a very unified culture and many of common features were probably inherited from the Proto-Indo-European culture.
- However, there are some interesting articles which may containe some information on them: Urnfield, La Tène, Celtic mythology bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 11:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Overjoyed
I am overjoyed that this article which I dared to create is generating discussion about a subject that, being of some Welsh ancestry, I hold dear. May I extend my thanks to those who have enhanced the layout of this page. Some experts (Trask, Michelena) have mentioned lexical and grammatical similarites between Celtic and Basque. There is reason to believe that Basque related languages were the substratum of the Celtic languages spoken in Gaul, Iberia, Hibernia and Albion. Proto-Celtic already had words bearing similarities to known Basque ones: Celtic *Belego- 'raven' looks a lot like Basque bel-hego black wing, for example. The languages are not genetically realted, but there is no reason to assume that interaction between the cultures did not happen. GeoffMGleadall 5 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
[edit] Tabular Summary
I like the article, but the phonemes could be arranged in a better way I think. We could either group them according to the place of articulation, or common feature changed, or whatever. The order used currently is a bit chaotic, isn't it? :) --Pet'usek 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
- Is it? It's a familiar enough pattern to me: voiceless stops arranged by place of articulation, then voiced stops, then voiced aspirated, then fricatives, nasals, liquids, and glides. Right up the sonority hierarchy. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 7 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
-
- Oh, I'm sorry. I'm totally blind today :). I'm using a different arrangement in my table ({p,b,bH},{t,d,dH},{k,g,gH},{k',g',g'H},{kW,gW,gWH},{s},{r,l,m,n},{r.,l.,m.,n.},{y,w} etc.), which must have puzzled me :))) I think that my arrangement might be better in some respect though. :)
[edit] Transition to Welsh
The table is a nice addition, but unfortunately mixes together the transition from proto-Celtic to Common Brythonic and the later (and historically attested) transition from Common Brythonic to Old or Middle Welsh. I suggest splitting the table, and putting the second half under either Brythonic languages or under Welsh. The second half can then also usefully discuss the chronology of the various changes. --Nantonos 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- One of these days I intend to start an article on the Proto-Brythonic language, and this table would be perfect there. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] temporarily dead links
Just for anyones info: the links to the protoceltic dictionaries are temporarily closed for web reorganization. If you find this my observation to be obsoleted, then please make a note below. Rursus 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lay-out a mess
Can someone please correct the messy lay-out at the start of the article? Homun 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)homun
- Layout looks fine to me. You must be having browser issues. —Angr 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Phonology: fate of initial sr-, spr- and medial s
Could someone take a look at the phonology : ProtoCelt -> Welsh section and review the /s/ entries. Surely there needs to be an entry for (either) sr- (and/or poss spr-) > W "ffrwd", "ffer"?
What about loss of medial -s- in early Welsh? (See Jackson LHEB?)
We should also be clear about what it is that the table is mapping the transition TO. Are we talking about the transition to _Modern_ Welsh? (Safest thing, surely, as we then don't have to worry about periodization and datings.)--CecilWard (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the s-clusters should be added. But as far as the consonants are concerned (and that's practically all that's discussed here), there's no real difference between Middle Welsh and Modern Welsh. Old Welsh is more difficult since lenited consonants are usually spelled the same as unlenited ones. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
