![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could someone please clarify which of the celtic languages is used for the examples? Nicholas 09:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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' - 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 :-)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
"Since the realization that Celtiberian was Q-Celtic in the 1970s, the division into Insular and Continental Celtic is the more widespread opinion (Cowgill 1975; McCone 1991, 1992; Schrijver 1995)."
This sentence is a bit confusing, and could do with some explanation. Is the reasoning behind Cowgill, McCone and Schrijver's opinion that Goidelic and Brythonic are so similar (much more similar than Goidelic is to Celtiberian and Brythonic is to Gaulish) meaning that they cannot have evolved seperately from the time of Celtiberian and Gaulish splitting, and therefore must form one "insular" branch? If so, perhaps the quote could be changed to "Since the realisation that Celtiberian had Q-Celtic characteristics in the 1970's..." ( Dragonhelmuk ( talk) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC))
This literal translation is incorrect:
(Irish) Ná bac le mac an bhacaigh is ní bhacfaidh mac an bhacaigh leat. (Literal translation) Don't bother with son the beggar's and not will-bother son the beggar's with-you.
an bhacaigh is in the genitive case, therefore its literal translation is "of the beggar". So, it should be:
(Literal translation) Don't bother with son of the beggar and not will-bother son of the beggar with-you.
140.247.141.200 ( talk) 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A literal translation (look it up on(in?) the wikipedia!) is a word for word translation. "Verbum pro verbo," in Latin. Same word order. So yes, it's the point, and "Don't bother with son of the beggar and not will-bother son of the beggar with-you." sounds much better. 71.178.155.107 ( talk) 05:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If it *is* the point, "the beggar's" is the precise literal translation of "an bhacaigh" anyway, so what's your point? 85.241.104.44 ( talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the article is generally inflected for case, gender and number, and you can tell from context that this occurrence of "an" is genetive, it should be be translated as "of the". MichealT ( talk) 22:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"of the beggar" is grammatically the exact same this as "the beggar's", they're both genitive markers in English. And, yes, that's "genitive", not "genetive." Baininscneach ( talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have split out Q-Celtic hypothesis/ P-Celtic hypothesis into brief articles that redirect back here. I have used only information from this page. Lucian Sunday ( talk) 15:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It could be good to tell how many words are common between all Celtic languages. Perhaps 10 thousands between Breton, Cornish and Welsh. But for the Celtic languages in general, I would say about 3000. 82.126.40.216 ( talk) 06:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why are the Orkney and Shetland islands marked with the same colour as Scotland suggesting they are (parto of) Celtic nations? Undoubtedly Celtic was spoken there prior to the vikings making it extinct, but the same (with anglo-saxons instead of vikings) could be said about England. // JiPe ( 81.235.129.8 ( talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
... would be handy. Can't find such a thing anywhere, and it should be something rather basic. The Proto-Celtic article only shows the development to Welsh and Cornish, for some reason.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The bullet item "an impersonal or autonomous verb form serving as a passive or intransitive" is a bit off (it's a very common but very erroneous statement about modern Celtic languages) - in modern Goidelic (in all three languages) the form in question is a finite impersonal form, and not a passive (since it exists for intransitive verbs such as "be" and "go" and since it has no subject - having a subject would of course be difficult for an impersonal form - either of which on its own is sufficient to disqualify it from being considered a passive) and is not in general intransitive (since this form of a transitive verb is just as transitive as any other finite form of that verb - maybe the confusion arose through someone mistaking the direct object for a subject?). There is no analytic passive of Goidelic verbs, but several compound passive forms, some using rach as an auxiliary (eg theid mo bhualadh - I will be hit or I am habitually hit, chaidh mo bhualadh - I was hit, rachadh mo bhualadh - I would be hit or I used to be hit) others using a reflexive formation (eg tha mi air mo bhualadh - I have been hit, tha mi 'gam bhualadh - I am being hit).
The bullet item "no infinitives, replaced by a quasi-nominal verb form called the verbal noun or verbnoun" is wrong too. There's nothing quasi-nominal about the verbal noun, it's a noun just like any other noun and is not in any sense a verb. It's used to construct various phrases which in other languages are called gerundives, present participles, infinitives, and in many other ways. If you say that modern Goidelic has no infinitives you have to say the same about English because the English infinitive is a phrase just as the Gaelic one is: "Thainig mi 'Ghlaschu a dh'iarraidh leanan" contains a very clear infinitive of intent. And of course most people will say that "there are sights to be seen" contains a passive infinitive, and I can't see how that can be true if "tha seallaidhean ri'm faicinn" doesn't contain the same passive infinitive. MichealT ( talk) 22:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I just did a definition for a given name, and it mentioned that it was composed of several "Old Celtic elements". Where should Old Celtic be redirected too?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Its worth noting in here that the parent of Celtic is almost certainly a type of Dorian/Anatolian Greek spoken in the North Eastern Mediterranean around the time of the Trojan war. All evidence points to a vast exodus from Greece/Anatolia after the destruction of the Trojan Super Power of the time. The "Sea peoples" as they were known were free to maraud and colonise whole swathes of the Mediteranean all the way around the Atlantic Sea Board to the West Coasts of Great Britain and France. Of course previous Indo-European colonisers had been there before but the Post Trojan war exodus was large enough to spawn a type of creolic ancient Greek which became Celtic. See books by David Rohl, Steven Oppenheimer, Louis Waddell, etc etc for more evidence. Rohl and others argue for an 800BC Trojan war rather than the tired 1200BC date given by traditionalists. The 800BC date again matches to the approximate date that many believe Celtic took shape.-- 92.0.46.154 ( talk) 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"62% speak it daily 88% speak it fluently" - Poorly written, unsourced, and the numbers given in the next column suggest otherwise. Having lived in Wales for the last 7 years, I would be shocked if 88% of Welsh natives actually speak Welsh fluently. Sordyne ( talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
More and more studies show difficulties to characterize as Celtic the British Isles. And why should the Celtic languages not be a modern feature (in Middle-age I mean) in these areas, and not since Antiquity like a lot of current studies say ?-- Ghosthammer ( talk) 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this irrelevant for imperative constructions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.216.162 ( talk) 08:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
== VSO only accounts for Insular Celtic, Continental Celtic had a word-order of SOV; it was only as a result of Wackernagel's Law, (whereby clitics were always placed in 2nd position, subject being in null position, and such is the fact that the verb was moved from the end of the clause to second position when a suffixed or infixed object pronoun was required), that the verb was transported in Insular Celtic. There is also a case of this in one Transalpine Gaulish inscription, namely siox=ti, whereby the verb has been moved to the front of the clause as a result of the clitic being attached.== Baininscneach ( talk) 16:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Flags are used in the table of languages to supplement the description of the areas in which the languages are spoken. To me the flag represents the origin of the language in broad terms, rather than where it is spoken, and is a useful visual addition. Even if the language is used elsewhere, as in the case of Irish, I suggest we still use the flag of Ireland to denote the origins of the language. WizOfOz ( talk) 16:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this info accurate? It´s been stated in the right box, under geographic distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.162.39 ( talk) 20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The article states "Rather, in the Insular/Continental schema, Celtiberian is usually considered to be the first branch to split from Proto-Celtic, and the remaining group would later have split into Gaulish and Insular Celtic." Yet this is not reflected in the clading diagram (immediately following "How the family tree of the Celtic languages is ordered depends on which hypothesis is used").
Also, it is stated that, in the P/Q model, Gaelic branched off first. I thought it was considered that Celtiberian branched off first also in this model. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 12:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Article needs to be bought.
Still here are some parts of the text:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html
Here is part of the text:
From around 2800 BC, the LNE Bell Beaker culture emerged from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations (Fig. 2) is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models3. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE. These far-Western genetic affinities of Mittelelbe-Saale’s Bell Beaker folk may also have intriguing linguistic implications, as the archaeologically-identified eastward movement of the Bell Beaker culture has recently been linked to the initial spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe39. This hypothesis suggests that early members of the Celtic language family (for example, Tartessian)40 initially developed from Indo-European precursors in Iberia and subsequently spread throughout the Atlantic Zone; before a period of rapid mobility, reflected by the Beaker phenomenon, carried Celtic languages across much of Western Europe. This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East41.
It seems that genetic evidence supporting the Iberian hypothesis, paired with archaelogy, is ever-growing. A lot has been already published concerning the Iberian-Basque-British Isles connection. Now this seems to continue in other European areas like Germnay.
Pipon — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.203.97.65 (
talk)
23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the map is currently somewhat misleading. The solid colours in Cornwall and IoM give the impression that these geographical areas are entirely Cornish/Manx speaking, which they're not. Both these revived languages are special cases, and its true that there is no geographical focus within Cornwall like there is with Welsh/Gaelic/Irish - but I think perhaps using the striped colour coding or using a different pattern would be more appropriate for both. Also, I'm not quite sure why the whole of Ireland is striped, but the whole of Wales isn't. Cardiff isn't predominately Welsh speaking, but it's still spoken by 11% of the Cardiff population (2011 census), so having a solid colour in Cornwall and none at all in Cardiff/SE Wales does not reflect the reality. 幽Sweorcan ( talk) 09:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A fair amount of the section on classification as it now stands is taken directly and without attribution from A Grammar of Modern Indo-European (ISBN 1461022134v, see here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzetzes ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As no one objected, I've deleted the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceiniog ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The comparison table in the article could use some revision - way too many loan words in it and not enough directly cognate words for a proper comparison. There should also be a column for Proto-Celtic antecedents. Anyone want to pitch in to create something better? Cagwinn ( talk) 05:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I don't want to just jump in and edit it without discussion, but there are some problems with the content under "subdivisions" in the box at the top right.
1) It shows a single classification scheme, where (as the good work in the body of the article shows) there are two competing classification schemes. One divides Celtic languages between Continental (Continental Celtic) and Insular, and then divides Insular between Goidelic (Irish/Scots/Max Gaelic) and Brythonic/Brittonic (Welsh/Breton/Cornish/Cumbric). The other classifies between P-Celtic languages (most Continental Celtic plus Welsh/Breton/Cornish/Cumbric) and Q-Celtic (Irish/Scots/Manx Gaelic).
The classification scheme shown under "subdivisions" is a mixture of the two. If it is necessary to go with a single scheme, it would be preferable to use the Continental/Insular one, as this is the more widely accepted (and is reflected in the phylogenies linked from the page). However, it would be better to show both schemes as alternatives to each other, as the matter is not settled. Either way, it would be good to show accurate correspondences between the two schemes.
2) The set of languages within Insular Celtic is not the same as the set within Q-Celtic. The Brythonic languages are insular but P-Celtic in form. (A commonly used example is that the Brythonic Old Welsh for son is Map, where the Goidelic Old Irish for son is Maq or Mac).
3) P-Celtic languages are not extinct. Welsh and Breton are still alive, and there are serious efforts to revive Cornish.
I shouldn't need to provide references for these points as I think they are supported by a careful reading of the main article, but if there are any details in the above that people think are not supported by the existing text I will provide suitable references.
Edit: See the Brittonic Languages page for clarity about Brittonic/Brythonic languages being P-Celtic in form and Welsh, Breton and Cornish being among them. Greggjc ( talk) 11:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This article refers to a language called "Old European". What language is that? It looks very much like original research or, given that it comes from a source, as a bad fringe theory that is WP:UNDUE. Same thing with the hypothesis that Q-Celtic originated in Iberia. There is currently not one linguistic source in the article supporting that, yet it is reported as a possibility. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The map in the infobox is unclear to say the least. What does dark green and bright green represent? And regardless of what they do represent, where are the sources behind these representations? Jeppiz ( talk) 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
As per the consensus here, I've removed the map. The only dissenting user immediately reverted the removal, without even providing a reason. Further WP:OWN-violations of that kind will be reported. Not agreeing with a consensus is not a reason to ignore it. Jeppiz ( talk) 17:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Having started the discussion in July and achieved consensus that the map is erroneous, I still waited 1½ month befodre removing it to give the sole dissenting view (Cagwinn) a chance to make an argument. Cagwinn never bothered to comment again, but instead launched a full-out edit war against the consensus, and is currently blocked. Cagwinn's violations of WP:3RR and WP:OWN are problematic, as so is his refusal to WP:HEAR. His solution was to include labels, but labels aren't the problem. The map is utterly wrong, as anyone with even a basic knowledge about Celtic languages sees immediately. Here are the same errors I listed in July and which remain, none of which Cagwinn even bothered to address.
So once again, the map is probably well intended but it is a prime example of WP:OR that should be removed from all articles. Jeppiz ( talk) 08:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The map is most definitely misleading for the reasons Jeppiz gave back in September. It's clearly made up from an amalgamation of information, not all of which is from the same period, or otherwise jives across all these territories. In some areas, the whole country/territory is shaded light green, but not in others. There was no one point in history that Celtic languages were spoken in all these highlighted areas. What we should have, in my opinion, is a map that highlights the entire territory of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Man, Cornwall, and Brittany as regions where Celtic languages were spoken into the modern era. Within those we could try to identify places where the highest number of Celtic speakers live, perhaps based on Census data as in this map. In the meantime, we could just use a map like this one identifying these six places as the regions where there was a Celtic language spoken into modern times. The map was a nice effort, but it's got too many problems to be useful.-- Cúchullain t/ c 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Celtic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Celtic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Celtic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Celtic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/3b9a0gx50hplrm2bWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If looking at the Illustration 'Distribution of Celtic speakers' it would seem that in the 6th century BC there was no celtic language in Britain and Ireland. On the other hand in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Irish_language#Early_history is stated: The date of introduction (of Irish to Ireland) continues to be debated by linguists and archaeologists. Some scholars put the earliest date at ca. 1200 BC,[3] while others posit dates between 2600 and 2000 BC.[4].
So when did the celtic language arrive in Ireland, 2000 BC/1200 BC or 400 to 500 BC????
One of the articles must be corrected so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicDan1 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The subdivisions in the info box are not very precise - for example, it seems to imply that "P-Celtic" and "Q-Celtic" are separate branches along with Insular Celtic and Continental Celtic, when they are really just trivial features of the daughter branches of Proto-Celtic. A more accurate breakdown of the ancient subdivisions would be Hispano-Celtic ( Celtiberian, Gallaecian and potentially, Tartessian), Insular Celtic (subdivided into Common Brittonic and Primitive Irish), Transalpine Celtic ( Gaulish, Noric, Galatian), and Cisalpine Celtic ( Lepontic). Cagwinn ( talk) 22:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the shambolic IPA from the comparison table. While I recognize the good faith of those who have added it, I fear it was bad to the point of detracting from the article. Errors included:
1. Plain errors, for example claiming Irish uimhir is pronounced [əˈnʲuː]
2. Lack of consistency. What dialect is used for each language? None of them has a standard language and some consistency is necessary. We would not mix RP, Jamaican English, US English and NZ English in the same table and claim it represents "English".
3. Lack of consistency for symbols. For example, [kʲ] and [c] is the same sound. Use one symbol for one sound. The use of [ˠ] for Gaelic vowels also seemed entirely arbitrary.
4. General
WP:OR. Even if we speak a language and know how it's pronounced, OR still applies. Sources need to be used.
Unfortunately, the table violated all of these principles, repeatedly. I'm all for adding IPA to the table, after a discussion as to:
a. which dialect to use
b. which symbols to use for each sound
c. which sources to build on
Jeppiz (
talk)
21:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Though the lack of sources is relevant and should be fixed (Wiktionary was *not* used for Welsh, Irish or Gaelic), the user Jeppiz clearly shows a lack of knowledge about linguistics and the IPA and should not be removing entire transcriptions if they don't know what they are about. For instance, [k] is a voiceless velar stop, wheres [c] is a palatal sound - completely different sounds! Also, the symbol [ˠ] means that the *consonant* is velarized, which in Gaelic contrasts with palatalized ones. Ríks.artúrs Feb 06th 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Speaking a language does not make one an expert in phonetics or phonology. That's why there are linguists.
Here are some of the sources:
One might say that what you did was vandalism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ríks.artúrs ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This isn't accepted at all and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HW7 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I have heard that linguist say that the celtic languages are closely related to middle eastern languages. Celtic languages and Germanic languages are not even closely related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.189.169 ( talk) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
In the distribution map, the "Areas where Celtic languages are widely spoken in the 21st century" is not easily recognisable on my display. I suggest that a colour with a greater contrast is used.
For some days now, Srnec and an IP keeps reverting each other, and this edit warring (to which both are equally guilty) needs to stop. As to the actual content, it's fairly obvious that the IP is correct. According to sources (including multiple sources used in the article), there are six living Celtic languages. Two of them, Cornish and Manx, are revived. The article makes this perfectly clear. Before removing any of them, the least one would expect is for an argument for the removal to be made. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Should the map include Iceland, as it was majority-Celtic and presumably speaking a Celtic language prior to the Norse invasion? CessnaMan1989 ( talk) 18:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could someone please clarify which of the celtic languages is used for the examples? Nicholas 09:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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' - 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 :-)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
"Since the realization that Celtiberian was Q-Celtic in the 1970s, the division into Insular and Continental Celtic is the more widespread opinion (Cowgill 1975; McCone 1991, 1992; Schrijver 1995)."
This sentence is a bit confusing, and could do with some explanation. Is the reasoning behind Cowgill, McCone and Schrijver's opinion that Goidelic and Brythonic are so similar (much more similar than Goidelic is to Celtiberian and Brythonic is to Gaulish) meaning that they cannot have evolved seperately from the time of Celtiberian and Gaulish splitting, and therefore must form one "insular" branch? If so, perhaps the quote could be changed to "Since the realisation that Celtiberian had Q-Celtic characteristics in the 1970's..." ( Dragonhelmuk ( talk) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC))
This literal translation is incorrect:
(Irish) Ná bac le mac an bhacaigh is ní bhacfaidh mac an bhacaigh leat. (Literal translation) Don't bother with son the beggar's and not will-bother son the beggar's with-you.
an bhacaigh is in the genitive case, therefore its literal translation is "of the beggar". So, it should be:
(Literal translation) Don't bother with son of the beggar and not will-bother son of the beggar with-you.
140.247.141.200 ( talk) 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A literal translation (look it up on(in?) the wikipedia!) is a word for word translation. "Verbum pro verbo," in Latin. Same word order. So yes, it's the point, and "Don't bother with son of the beggar and not will-bother son of the beggar with-you." sounds much better. 71.178.155.107 ( talk) 05:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If it *is* the point, "the beggar's" is the precise literal translation of "an bhacaigh" anyway, so what's your point? 85.241.104.44 ( talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the article is generally inflected for case, gender and number, and you can tell from context that this occurrence of "an" is genetive, it should be be translated as "of the". MichealT ( talk) 22:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"of the beggar" is grammatically the exact same this as "the beggar's", they're both genitive markers in English. And, yes, that's "genitive", not "genetive." Baininscneach ( talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have split out Q-Celtic hypothesis/ P-Celtic hypothesis into brief articles that redirect back here. I have used only information from this page. Lucian Sunday ( talk) 15:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It could be good to tell how many words are common between all Celtic languages. Perhaps 10 thousands between Breton, Cornish and Welsh. But for the Celtic languages in general, I would say about 3000. 82.126.40.216 ( talk) 06:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why are the Orkney and Shetland islands marked with the same colour as Scotland suggesting they are (parto of) Celtic nations? Undoubtedly Celtic was spoken there prior to the vikings making it extinct, but the same (with anglo-saxons instead of vikings) could be said about England. // JiPe ( 81.235.129.8 ( talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
... would be handy. Can't find such a thing anywhere, and it should be something rather basic. The Proto-Celtic article only shows the development to Welsh and Cornish, for some reason.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The bullet item "an impersonal or autonomous verb form serving as a passive or intransitive" is a bit off (it's a very common but very erroneous statement about modern Celtic languages) - in modern Goidelic (in all three languages) the form in question is a finite impersonal form, and not a passive (since it exists for intransitive verbs such as "be" and "go" and since it has no subject - having a subject would of course be difficult for an impersonal form - either of which on its own is sufficient to disqualify it from being considered a passive) and is not in general intransitive (since this form of a transitive verb is just as transitive as any other finite form of that verb - maybe the confusion arose through someone mistaking the direct object for a subject?). There is no analytic passive of Goidelic verbs, but several compound passive forms, some using rach as an auxiliary (eg theid mo bhualadh - I will be hit or I am habitually hit, chaidh mo bhualadh - I was hit, rachadh mo bhualadh - I would be hit or I used to be hit) others using a reflexive formation (eg tha mi air mo bhualadh - I have been hit, tha mi 'gam bhualadh - I am being hit).
The bullet item "no infinitives, replaced by a quasi-nominal verb form called the verbal noun or verbnoun" is wrong too. There's nothing quasi-nominal about the verbal noun, it's a noun just like any other noun and is not in any sense a verb. It's used to construct various phrases which in other languages are called gerundives, present participles, infinitives, and in many other ways. If you say that modern Goidelic has no infinitives you have to say the same about English because the English infinitive is a phrase just as the Gaelic one is: "Thainig mi 'Ghlaschu a dh'iarraidh leanan" contains a very clear infinitive of intent. And of course most people will say that "there are sights to be seen" contains a passive infinitive, and I can't see how that can be true if "tha seallaidhean ri'm faicinn" doesn't contain the same passive infinitive. MichealT ( talk) 22:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I just did a definition for a given name, and it mentioned that it was composed of several "Old Celtic elements". Where should Old Celtic be redirected too?-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Its worth noting in here that the parent of Celtic is almost certainly a type of Dorian/Anatolian Greek spoken in the North Eastern Mediterranean around the time of the Trojan war. All evidence points to a vast exodus from Greece/Anatolia after the destruction of the Trojan Super Power of the time. The "Sea peoples" as they were known were free to maraud and colonise whole swathes of the Mediteranean all the way around the Atlantic Sea Board to the West Coasts of Great Britain and France. Of course previous Indo-European colonisers had been there before but the Post Trojan war exodus was large enough to spawn a type of creolic ancient Greek which became Celtic. See books by David Rohl, Steven Oppenheimer, Louis Waddell, etc etc for more evidence. Rohl and others argue for an 800BC Trojan war rather than the tired 1200BC date given by traditionalists. The 800BC date again matches to the approximate date that many believe Celtic took shape.-- 92.0.46.154 ( talk) 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"62% speak it daily 88% speak it fluently" - Poorly written, unsourced, and the numbers given in the next column suggest otherwise. Having lived in Wales for the last 7 years, I would be shocked if 88% of Welsh natives actually speak Welsh fluently. Sordyne ( talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
More and more studies show difficulties to characterize as Celtic the British Isles. And why should the Celtic languages not be a modern feature (in Middle-age I mean) in these areas, and not since Antiquity like a lot of current studies say ?-- Ghosthammer ( talk) 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this irrelevant for imperative constructions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.216.162 ( talk) 08:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
== VSO only accounts for Insular Celtic, Continental Celtic had a word-order of SOV; it was only as a result of Wackernagel's Law, (whereby clitics were always placed in 2nd position, subject being in null position, and such is the fact that the verb was moved from the end of the clause to second position when a suffixed or infixed object pronoun was required), that the verb was transported in Insular Celtic. There is also a case of this in one Transalpine Gaulish inscription, namely siox=ti, whereby the verb has been moved to the front of the clause as a result of the clitic being attached.== Baininscneach ( talk) 16:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Flags are used in the table of languages to supplement the description of the areas in which the languages are spoken. To me the flag represents the origin of the language in broad terms, rather than where it is spoken, and is a useful visual addition. Even if the language is used elsewhere, as in the case of Irish, I suggest we still use the flag of Ireland to denote the origins of the language. WizOfOz ( talk) 16:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this info accurate? It´s been stated in the right box, under geographic distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.162.39 ( talk) 20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The article states "Rather, in the Insular/Continental schema, Celtiberian is usually considered to be the first branch to split from Proto-Celtic, and the remaining group would later have split into Gaulish and Insular Celtic." Yet this is not reflected in the clading diagram (immediately following "How the family tree of the Celtic languages is ordered depends on which hypothesis is used").
Also, it is stated that, in the P/Q model, Gaelic branched off first. I thought it was considered that Celtiberian branched off first also in this model. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 12:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Article needs to be bought.
Still here are some parts of the text:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html
Here is part of the text:
From around 2800 BC, the LNE Bell Beaker culture emerged from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations (Fig. 2) is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models3. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE. These far-Western genetic affinities of Mittelelbe-Saale’s Bell Beaker folk may also have intriguing linguistic implications, as the archaeologically-identified eastward movement of the Bell Beaker culture has recently been linked to the initial spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe39. This hypothesis suggests that early members of the Celtic language family (for example, Tartessian)40 initially developed from Indo-European precursors in Iberia and subsequently spread throughout the Atlantic Zone; before a period of rapid mobility, reflected by the Beaker phenomenon, carried Celtic languages across much of Western Europe. This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East41.
It seems that genetic evidence supporting the Iberian hypothesis, paired with archaelogy, is ever-growing. A lot has been already published concerning the Iberian-Basque-British Isles connection. Now this seems to continue in other European areas like Germnay.
Pipon — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.203.97.65 (
talk)
23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the map is currently somewhat misleading. The solid colours in Cornwall and IoM give the impression that these geographical areas are entirely Cornish/Manx speaking, which they're not. Both these revived languages are special cases, and its true that there is no geographical focus within Cornwall like there is with Welsh/Gaelic/Irish - but I think perhaps using the striped colour coding or using a different pattern would be more appropriate for both. Also, I'm not quite sure why the whole of Ireland is striped, but the whole of Wales isn't. Cardiff isn't predominately Welsh speaking, but it's still spoken by 11% of the Cardiff population (2011 census), so having a solid colour in Cornwall and none at all in Cardiff/SE Wales does not reflect the reality. 幽Sweorcan ( talk) 09:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A fair amount of the section on classification as it now stands is taken directly and without attribution from A Grammar of Modern Indo-European (ISBN 1461022134v, see here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzetzes ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As no one objected, I've deleted the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceiniog ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The comparison table in the article could use some revision - way too many loan words in it and not enough directly cognate words for a proper comparison. There should also be a column for Proto-Celtic antecedents. Anyone want to pitch in to create something better? Cagwinn ( talk) 05:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I don't want to just jump in and edit it without discussion, but there are some problems with the content under "subdivisions" in the box at the top right.
1) It shows a single classification scheme, where (as the good work in the body of the article shows) there are two competing classification schemes. One divides Celtic languages between Continental (Continental Celtic) and Insular, and then divides Insular between Goidelic (Irish/Scots/Max Gaelic) and Brythonic/Brittonic (Welsh/Breton/Cornish/Cumbric). The other classifies between P-Celtic languages (most Continental Celtic plus Welsh/Breton/Cornish/Cumbric) and Q-Celtic (Irish/Scots/Manx Gaelic).
The classification scheme shown under "subdivisions" is a mixture of the two. If it is necessary to go with a single scheme, it would be preferable to use the Continental/Insular one, as this is the more widely accepted (and is reflected in the phylogenies linked from the page). However, it would be better to show both schemes as alternatives to each other, as the matter is not settled. Either way, it would be good to show accurate correspondences between the two schemes.
2) The set of languages within Insular Celtic is not the same as the set within Q-Celtic. The Brythonic languages are insular but P-Celtic in form. (A commonly used example is that the Brythonic Old Welsh for son is Map, where the Goidelic Old Irish for son is Maq or Mac).
3) P-Celtic languages are not extinct. Welsh and Breton are still alive, and there are serious efforts to revive Cornish.
I shouldn't need to provide references for these points as I think they are supported by a careful reading of the main article, but if there are any details in the above that people think are not supported by the existing text I will provide suitable references.
Edit: See the Brittonic Languages page for clarity about Brittonic/Brythonic languages being P-Celtic in form and Welsh, Breton and Cornish being among them. Greggjc ( talk) 11:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This article refers to a language called "Old European". What language is that? It looks very much like original research or, given that it comes from a source, as a bad fringe theory that is WP:UNDUE. Same thing with the hypothesis that Q-Celtic originated in Iberia. There is currently not one linguistic source in the article supporting that, yet it is reported as a possibility. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The map in the infobox is unclear to say the least. What does dark green and bright green represent? And regardless of what they do represent, where are the sources behind these representations? Jeppiz ( talk) 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
As per the consensus here, I've removed the map. The only dissenting user immediately reverted the removal, without even providing a reason. Further WP:OWN-violations of that kind will be reported. Not agreeing with a consensus is not a reason to ignore it. Jeppiz ( talk) 17:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Having started the discussion in July and achieved consensus that the map is erroneous, I still waited 1½ month befodre removing it to give the sole dissenting view (Cagwinn) a chance to make an argument. Cagwinn never bothered to comment again, but instead launched a full-out edit war against the consensus, and is currently blocked. Cagwinn's violations of WP:3RR and WP:OWN are problematic, as so is his refusal to WP:HEAR. His solution was to include labels, but labels aren't the problem. The map is utterly wrong, as anyone with even a basic knowledge about Celtic languages sees immediately. Here are the same errors I listed in July and which remain, none of which Cagwinn even bothered to address.
So once again, the map is probably well intended but it is a prime example of WP:OR that should be removed from all articles. Jeppiz ( talk) 08:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The map is most definitely misleading for the reasons Jeppiz gave back in September. It's clearly made up from an amalgamation of information, not all of which is from the same period, or otherwise jives across all these territories. In some areas, the whole country/territory is shaded light green, but not in others. There was no one point in history that Celtic languages were spoken in all these highlighted areas. What we should have, in my opinion, is a map that highlights the entire territory of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Man, Cornwall, and Brittany as regions where Celtic languages were spoken into the modern era. Within those we could try to identify places where the highest number of Celtic speakers live, perhaps based on Census data as in this map. In the meantime, we could just use a map like this one identifying these six places as the regions where there was a Celtic language spoken into modern times. The map was a nice effort, but it's got too many problems to be useful.-- Cúchullain t/ c 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Celtic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Celtic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Celtic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Celtic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/3b9a0gx50hplrm2bWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If looking at the Illustration 'Distribution of Celtic speakers' it would seem that in the 6th century BC there was no celtic language in Britain and Ireland. On the other hand in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Irish_language#Early_history is stated: The date of introduction (of Irish to Ireland) continues to be debated by linguists and archaeologists. Some scholars put the earliest date at ca. 1200 BC,[3] while others posit dates between 2600 and 2000 BC.[4].
So when did the celtic language arrive in Ireland, 2000 BC/1200 BC or 400 to 500 BC????
One of the articles must be corrected so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicDan1 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The subdivisions in the info box are not very precise - for example, it seems to imply that "P-Celtic" and "Q-Celtic" are separate branches along with Insular Celtic and Continental Celtic, when they are really just trivial features of the daughter branches of Proto-Celtic. A more accurate breakdown of the ancient subdivisions would be Hispano-Celtic ( Celtiberian, Gallaecian and potentially, Tartessian), Insular Celtic (subdivided into Common Brittonic and Primitive Irish), Transalpine Celtic ( Gaulish, Noric, Galatian), and Cisalpine Celtic ( Lepontic). Cagwinn ( talk) 22:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the shambolic IPA from the comparison table. While I recognize the good faith of those who have added it, I fear it was bad to the point of detracting from the article. Errors included:
1. Plain errors, for example claiming Irish uimhir is pronounced [əˈnʲuː]
2. Lack of consistency. What dialect is used for each language? None of them has a standard language and some consistency is necessary. We would not mix RP, Jamaican English, US English and NZ English in the same table and claim it represents "English".
3. Lack of consistency for symbols. For example, [kʲ] and [c] is the same sound. Use one symbol for one sound. The use of [ˠ] for Gaelic vowels also seemed entirely arbitrary.
4. General
WP:OR. Even if we speak a language and know how it's pronounced, OR still applies. Sources need to be used.
Unfortunately, the table violated all of these principles, repeatedly. I'm all for adding IPA to the table, after a discussion as to:
a. which dialect to use
b. which symbols to use for each sound
c. which sources to build on
Jeppiz (
talk)
21:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Though the lack of sources is relevant and should be fixed (Wiktionary was *not* used for Welsh, Irish or Gaelic), the user Jeppiz clearly shows a lack of knowledge about linguistics and the IPA and should not be removing entire transcriptions if they don't know what they are about. For instance, [k] is a voiceless velar stop, wheres [c] is a palatal sound - completely different sounds! Also, the symbol [ˠ] means that the *consonant* is velarized, which in Gaelic contrasts with palatalized ones. Ríks.artúrs Feb 06th 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Speaking a language does not make one an expert in phonetics or phonology. That's why there are linguists.
Here are some of the sources:
One might say that what you did was vandalism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ríks.artúrs ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This isn't accepted at all and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HW7 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I have heard that linguist say that the celtic languages are closely related to middle eastern languages. Celtic languages and Germanic languages are not even closely related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.189.169 ( talk) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
In the distribution map, the "Areas where Celtic languages are widely spoken in the 21st century" is not easily recognisable on my display. I suggest that a colour with a greater contrast is used.
For some days now, Srnec and an IP keeps reverting each other, and this edit warring (to which both are equally guilty) needs to stop. As to the actual content, it's fairly obvious that the IP is correct. According to sources (including multiple sources used in the article), there are six living Celtic languages. Two of them, Cornish and Manx, are revived. The article makes this perfectly clear. Before removing any of them, the least one would expect is for an argument for the removal to be made. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Should the map include Iceland, as it was majority-Celtic and presumably speaking a Celtic language prior to the Norse invasion? CessnaMan1989 ( talk) 18:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)