This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Er, Cornish isn't extinct. I for one speak it after a fashion (and know at least a dozen or so people I can talk Cornish with)... We're doing an admirable job on rescuing it down along. sjc
AndyG - it should probably be most, not all, because there were non-Celts in Great Britain (the Picts, and whoever else was there before the Celts). Adam Bishop 23:03 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I really don't think Biddulph qualifies as a linguistic expert, and this reference, and the main article Old Devonian, should be deleted unless substantiated. Evertype 14:24, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
In the final paragraph there are a number of words suggested to derive from Brythonic. Perhaps we should set to filling this out some, giving Welsh or Cornish or (properly) reconstructed forms. Evertype 09:59, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
In the main article it currently and unequivocally states:
"Once, Brythonic languages encompassed most of Great Britain and Ireland – though in Ireland it was replaced with Goidelic when Gaels invaded sometime between 500 and 100 BC."
I've done a bit of reading on the subject and this is the first I've seen that Brythonic is considered older in the British Isles than Goidelic. Most things I've read have suggested the opposite. My reading has hardly been exhaustive, however. Has anyone else heard this before? At the very least I'll bet that it is the subject of some ambiguity, as we are talking about a period of prehistory. Fire Star 20:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Brythonic defiently is older in the british isles originating when celtic society first emmerged here - Gaels from Celtiberia invaded Ireland early on which is where gaelic comes from"
Really? I've only heard that from old, unreliable theories long abandoned. I didn't think anyone believed that anymore. In your world have they learned about flight yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 ( talk) 22:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
● DNA analysis of Bronze Age and modern Britons show us the Iron Age "Celtic invasion" of Britain did not occur. Instead modern Britons are largely descended from Bronze Age Indo-European settlers. Thus we are no longer forced to believe the hard-to-swallow story of the Iron Age "Celtic invasion" (especially of Iberians invading Ireland - just imagine the logistics of such an invasion!) and the hard-to-swallow story of how Celtic split into two very different languages in an archipelago within a short period time. We can assume, unless proven otherwise by solid objective science, that the simplest explanation for Celtic languages in Britain and Ireland is the correct explanation. That is, the first Indo-Europeans migrating to Britain brought the Indo-European Q-Celtic dialect to Britain (Ireland being downstream of this migration) and a later Indo-European migration to Britain brought P-Celtic where it (largely?) replaced Q-Celtic (migrations via the English and Irish channels greatly simplify logistics). Entries in the article that are based on myth (or pseudoscience straining to support myth) should be either removed or noted as being myths. Gortaleen ( talk) 10:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I've just reorganised the page, improved the wording in places and added more history about the language. IMO it's still not enough- there's so much more we can add here. I'd like to add that I'm pretty sure of most of the stuff I've added or changed, but I'm also sure that infelicities and errors remain. Please- correct them and add to the content. Dewrad 21:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Western into Cumbric and Welsh and the Southwestern into Cornish and its closely related sister language Breton, which was carried from the south of Britain to continental Armorica by refugees fleeing the Saxon invaders. In school Ysgol Gyfun Llanhari (a Welsh language school in south Wales) I was taught this. In 1996 I was working in a research lab in the University of Huddersfield with a Breton chap. He told me that Bretons are taught the opposite. That is that Breton was transfered to Cornwall by Bretons fleeing Franks! I wonder which is true, or possibly both are true? Can anyone elaborate?-- Alun 21:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I see that on Brythonic languages you removed "and Anglo-Saxons brought an Anglo-Saxon language with them, Lowland Scots." with the comment (Reverting. Could we have some discussion on this point with dates before introducing Anglo-Saxon Scots at that early date?). It seems non-contentious that Lowland Scots is a Germanic language, derived like Northern English from Northumbrian; and that it displaced Brythonic languages in the south of Scotland as Gaelic displaced them in the north. What is your objection here? Is it that Lowland Scots is not identical to Anglo-Saxon (which is certainly true, but better dealt with by adding 'which evolved into' rather than deleting the phrase entirely. -- Nantonos 00:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to assume that Gaulish and Common Brythonic, Old Brythonic or Proto-Brythonic have zero connection beyond proto-Celtic. While this is certainly one view, and boldly overturns the P-Celtic / Q-Celtic model, it fails to explain why the actual Iron Age British evidence that we do have, scanty though it may be, and the Old Welsh material (onve adjusted back for sound shifts) are so readilly analysed as if they were Gaulish. I would like to see the connection between Common Brythonic and Gaulish discussed, in a separate section. -- Nantonos 18:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Is this tribe spelled correctly? -- Wetman 11:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Many of the place-names in England and to a lesser extent Scotland are derived from the Brythonic names, including London, Penicuik, Perth, York, Dorchester, Dover and Colchester.
I'm surprised to see York in this list. I'm under the impression the name comes from Norse, the Vikings called the town 'Jorvig' or 'Jorvik'. The Roman name 'Eboracum' might have been Brythonic.
The Welsh/British word for York, Efrog > ebrog, is possibly where the Latin word comee from. 95.151.138.171 ( talk) 19:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects, I might remove York from the list. We could, however, add Kent and/or Canterbury which appear to come from the name of the Iron Age inhabitants, the 'Cantii'.
Chris Jefferies 08:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect to kick off such a thorough debate with a simple query about York! This leads me to another thought.
Should the list of examples include York if the derivation is so indirect? Maybe we should provide readers with a list of obvious examples (like Kent) and then add a new paragraph explaining that in many cases there are quite indirect influences on modern place names, perhaps providing York as an example of that.
It's mainly a question of what will best help an inquiring reader understand the idea of Brythonic languages as a whole. In its present form, I'm afraid York may confuse rather than enlighten. More thoughts please! Chris Jefferies 08:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. I've put a note (sometimes indirectly) in the text. I think it improves the article but if anyone else disagrees please just take it out again or reword it differently. Thanks for the discussion, I feel I've been educated :-) Chris Jefferies 20:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
These findings strengthen the research of Steven Bassett of the University of Birmingham; his work during the 1990s suggests that much of the West Midlands was only very lightly colonised with Anglian and Saxon settlements.
Can we have a reference to some of his work please, just for verifiability? I have included a link to the Capelli paper on Y chromosomes, and a link to the Y chromosome section in the
Anglo-Saxons article, because the article is available online (so why not include it?), and because I have been trying to clarify the situation at Anglo-Saxons for a while, where people were using hopelessly misinformed journalistic interpretations of the papers as sources, rather than the correct research papers.
Alun 07:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking of putting an unreferenced tag on this page. Surelly all this information is not from a single source? Alun 07:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The following paragraph is somewhat ambiguous:
The Brythonic languages spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England were displaced at the same time by Goidelic and Old English speaking invaders.
Can I suggest a certain amount of expansion, along the following lines:
The Brythonic languages (or their descendants) spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England began to be displaced after the end of the Roman era by Goidelic and Old English speaking invaders, a process probably completed in all of this territory except Cornwall by the 11th Century (date of extinction in various parts of the territory is debated).
References: The History of Wales, John Davies, 1993; Cumbric
Lloffiwr 12:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The Brythonic languages (or their descendants) spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England began to be displaced in the 5th century through the influence of Irish, Norse and Germanic invaders. The displacement of the languages of Brythonic descent was probably completed in all of this territory except Cornwall by the 11th Century (date of extinction in various parts of the territory is debated).
Lloffiwr 21:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing this paragraph from the "Remnants in England and Scotland" section since, although nicely sourced, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely the linguistic influence of Brythonic on English and Gaelic. Chromosomal evidence has nothing to do with linguistics.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
The remainder of this section badly needs sourcing. — An gr 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's just too great a leap from "the West Midlands was lightly settled by Germanic-speaking people" to "Brythonic had a palpable effect on the English of the West Midlands". It's certainly too great a leap for an encyclopedia with a policy against original research to be making, since the second proposition doesn't simply logically follow from the first. — An gr 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a distasteful attempt in many articles to link "Celticity" with genes, which is inaccurate, and borderline racist. While it is certainly notable that genetic evidence points to pre-Anglo-Saxon origins for many people in England, and probably deserves something of a mention, it should also be pointed at that a) there is no "Celtic gene", any more than an Anglophone one, and b) it seems that in many cases, the genes come from the pre-Celtic peoples of modern day England. This points to the bulk of the population being surprisingly static, yet absorbing new cultural influences, languages and rulers several times over in some cases. --
MacRusgail 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
-- MacRusgail 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be nice if a knowledgeable individual could put up a chart showing how Brythonic languages became the modern languages of Welsh, Breton, and Cornish. There's a similar chart on the Proto-Celtic page, and something approaching it here, but not quite. It'd just be nice to know, I think, how vowel sounds shifted and why certain names are the way they are...I wonder if I'm making my point clear or not? Anyhow, I mean it's all well and good to see how Proto-Celtic became modern Welsh, but what about the in between? Ryan 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC) 06:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The modern Brythonic languages are generally considered to all derive from a common ancestral language termed British, Common Brythonic, Old Brythonic or Proto-Brythonic, which is thought to have developed from Proto-Celtic, which was possibly introduced to Great Britain from the middle second millennium BC (Hawkes, 1973).
(richy)Can we not agree that British says it all?(/richy) 95.151.138.171 ( talk) 19:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this right? I haven't got access to Hawkes' book but I'm pretty sure this timing is about a thousand years out. It's generally considered that the 'Celtic' culture is an Iron Age culture and the Iron Age didn't reach Britain until about 700 BC. I wasn't sure if this was a mis-quote or if Hawkes actually said it. I've certainly never heard anything that puts Celtic influences this early in Britain. Halstatt culture didn't even start on the continent until about 1200 BC.
Anyone know where this date came from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psammead ( talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Christopher Hawkes was a professor at Oxford in the 1940s and 50s and wrote several books on the Iron Age. He postulated multiple invasions during the Iron Age but his views have been superceeded by DNA based population analysis. The connection between Celtic and the Iron Age is an assumption that does not seem to be consistent with lingustics analysis dated by, for example, Gray and Atkinson. Adresia ( talk) 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems hard to determine quite what period this article is referring to; the main body of the text seems to imply that it's dealing with the pre-Roman period, but then there's a table of sound shifts which are clearly those of post-Roman times. Could there be some clarification about whether the article deals with the language of the "Ancient Britons" (as it would have been spoken by, e.g. Caratacus and Boudicca) or the language in a later phase of "Common Brythonic" (as it would have been spoken by e.g. Gildas) shortly before it split into Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton? Paul S ( talk) 19:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:Brythonic languages is itself a category within Category:Celtic languages. — Robert Greer ( talk) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This article gives "Common Brythonic" as the ancestor of the whole family. But the article on British language (Celtic) says that "British" evolved into Common Brythonic in Roman times. Which is the normal convention? -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) ( talk) 10:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose a merge of Brythonic languages with British languages, the term British did not come about until 1707, and they idenity was Anglo-Saxon, not Celtic. Sheodred ( talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Breton is more like Cornish than it is like Welsh, so we can say they belong to this Southwest dialect group. However, is enough really known about Cumbric that we can say it was closer to Welsh than Cornish and Breton and so place it in the same group? I ask for citations. Paul S ( talk) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Brythonic languages → Brittonic languages – While both these terms are in use, I believe "Brittonic" has become more common in reliable sources. Per Cagwinn, Kenneth H. Jackson wrote in his seminal Language and History in Early Britain that by the 1950s "Brythonic" had become dated: "Until fairly recently, the term Brythonic, coined by Rhys, was regularly used... Of late there has been an increasing tendency to use Brittonic instead." [1] I got the same sense from a review of 22 reliable sources available to me on this and related topics, included below. Of these, 18 use "Brittonic" and only 4 use "Brythonic" (including 2 older works by the same author). This Ngram suggests "Brythonic" still has the lead in Google Books, though I suspect this is influenced by a proliferation of reprints of old works, Wikipedia ripoffs, and sources we wouldn't consider reliable for the topic. At any rate, the Gbooks difference isn't great, certainly not enough to convince me that "Brittonic" hasn't become the more common name in the sources. Also note that the article on the ancestral language is now at Common Brittonic (not "Brythonic") and the ethnic group is at Britons (Celtic people) (not "Brythons"). --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 07:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Relisted. Favonian ( talk) 19:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC). Cúchullain t/ c 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The following works use "Brittonic":
The following use "Brythonic":
-- Cúchullain t/ c 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this move was highly dubious. Firstly, proposer plus one supporter against one opposer is hardly an indication of consensus. Secondly, the list of publications indicating usage is far from comprehensive and seems selective. Google Books search of Brythonic v. Brittonic indicates more than a 2:1 preponderance of the former over the latter - which is what I would have expected. Brittonic is a relative newcomer and, IMHO, the jury's out whether usage has really shifted. Brythonic has a much more long standing pedigree. DeCausa ( talk) 22:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
There was extensive discussion about Kwamikagami's changes to Celtic language infoboxes at WP:LANG here. There was no support for adding "P-Celtic" to the infobox, for removing "Insular Celtic", or for any of Kwami's other changes at any article, let alone at this one. And clearly there's been no consensus here since it's never been brought up. As such, the established status quo prevails.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm nowhere close to being familiar with Celtic phonology but I am quite familiar with Germanic phonology, and somewhat less so Indo-European phonology as a whole.
I'd like to put forward a few modifications to the consonant table:
Proto-Celtic | Late Brittonic | Welsh | Cornish | Breton |
---|---|---|---|---|
*b- | *b | b | b | b |
*-bb- | *-b- | b | b | b |
*-VbV- | *-VβV- | f /v/ | v | v |
*d- | *d | d | d | d |
*-dd- | *-d- | d | d | d |
*-VdV- | *-VðV- | dd /ð/ | dh /ð/ | z /z/ or lost |
*g- | *g- | g | g | g |
*-gg- | *-g- | g | g | g |
*-VgV- | *-VɣV-, -VjV- | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) |
*φ- | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) |
*-φ- | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) |
*j- | *i- | i | i | i |
*-j | *-ð | -dd /ð/ | -dh /ð/ | -z /z/ or lost |
*k- | *k- | c /k/ | k | k |
*-kk- | *-x- | ch /x/ | gh /h/ | c'h /x/ or /h/ |
*-VkV- | *-VgV- | g | g | g |
*kʷ- | *p- | p | p | p |
*-kʷ- | *-b- | b | b | b |
*l- | *l- | ll /ɬ/ | l | l |
*-ll- | *-l- | l | l | l |
*-VlV- | *-VlV- | l | l | l |
*m- | *m- | m | m | m |
*sm- | *m- | m | m | m |
*-mb- | *-mβ̃-, -mm- | m | m | m |
*-Cm- | *-m- | m | m | m |
*-m- | *-β̃- | f /v/ | v | v |
*n- | *n- | n | n | n |
*sn- | *n- | n | n | n |
*-n- | *-n- | n | n | n |
*-nd- | *-nð̃-, *-nn- | n, nn | n, nn | n, nn |
*-nt- | *-nt- | nt, nh | nt | nt |
*-pp- | *-ɸ- | ff | f | f |
*r- | *r- | rh /r̥/ | r | r |
*-r- | *-r- | r | r | r |
*sr- | *xr- | fr- | fr- | fr- |
*sV- | *xV- | h | h | h /h/ or lost |
*-s- | *-s- | s | s | s |
*t- | *t- | t | t | t |
*-t- | *-d- | d | d | d |
*-tt-, *-ct- | *-θ- | th /θ/ | th /θ/ | zh /z/ or /h/ |
*w- | *ɣw-, *gw- | gw | gw | gw |
*sw- | *xw- | chw /xw/ | hw /ʍ/ | c'ho /xw/ |
*-VwV- | *-VwV- | w | w | w |
final vowel | Vx | Vch /Vx/ | Vgh /Vh/ | Vc'h /Vx/ or /Vh/ |
A lot of this is simply analogy, ie. it's common for consonants to shift in a systematic way. Intervocalic voiced stops were shifted to fricatives, intervocalic voiceless stops were shifted to voiced stops and so on.
The Celtic Languages, Routledge Language Family Series, states that -m- probably became a nasalized voiced biblabial fricative /β̃/ which then merged with plain /β/. With this in mind, I assume that /mb/ probably became /mβ̃/ > /mː/, similarly /nd/ > /nð̃/ > /nː/. These changes are speculation on my part, though.
Lastly, I'm not really certain about Brittonic /v/ from Celtic /w/, as a shift to /gw/ would then be much more difficult to explain. Rather, I assume whatever change turned /w/ into /gw/ had already occurred by late Brittonic, possibly originally being /ɣw/. Anglom ( talk) 05:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Jackson (1963) states that Brittonic /w/ had probably become a weakly velarized labio-velar approximant /ˠw/, and seems to dismiss it being /ɣʷ/ or /ɣw/ based on orthographic evidence (as I understand it at the moment). He then says this was gradually strengthened after the split so that each of the daughter languages developed it into /gʷ/. I need to read more sources on this, but I would think it safer to assume it had at least developed into common /ɣʷ/ before the split. Anglom ( talk) 04:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I made some changes to the Characteristics section:
Anglom ( talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Britain & Ireland in the early–mid 1st millennium, before the founding of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. "
Yeah, it wasn't an invasion or a conquest, God forbid, they were just 'founded' on what happened to be somebody else's territory. Not to mention the title of the linked article 'Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain' (it was fairly empty, you see, so someone had to come and 'settle' it!). I used to think the English were too sober-minded and intellectually sophisticated to exhibit the sort of vulgar nationalism that is found in most other countries, but this pathetically self-serving change of nomenclature does much to erode any illusions in this regard.-- 95.42.201.224 ( talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Brittonic languages → Brythonic languages – The term "Brythonic" is far more widely used than "Brittonic", even within other Wikipedia articles. The original move from Brythonic to Brittonic was dubious to begin with. There are even articles where links to this page avoid using "Brittonic" by using [[Brittonic|Brythonic]] instead. It therefore makes more sense to name the page Brythonic languages. Dyolf87 ( talk) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Britonia, a region in northwesternmost Spain, is so called because it was settled by speakers of Brythonic- Celtic. See the article Brittonic languages for a map to show that it happened. The form of Brythonic spoken by these settlers (essentially a Breton- or Cornish-like language / dialect) died out, tho. However, said extinct form of Brythonic (Britonian, is the name suggested by the article Southwestern Brittonic languages) should be discussed in relevant articles. When did it die out? Did it survive long enuf to justify calling it a separate language, rather than a dialect of Breton / Cornish? Is Britonian attested in any written records? See also:
-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The following portion of the article seems off to me:
Lenition:
Voiceless stops become voiced stops in intervocalic position: Voiced plosives /d/, /ɡ/ (later /j/, then lost), /b/, and /m/ became soft spirants in an intervocalic position and before liquids: Welsh dd [ð], th [θ], f [v] Cornish dh [ð], th [θ], v [v] Breton z, zh [z] or [h], v
Where in Welsh does [θ] ever stem from a voiced plosive? - 195.92.38.22 ( talk) 00:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Then we need to tweak the line that introduces [θ] but it's still a valid example of lenition. Akerbeltz ( talk) 09:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
That map is very contestable as it shows Goidelic use in Britain in the 1st century. There is a fringe theory, that has been criticized, that there were speakers living there but it's a minority opinion and the proposer has made several mistakes in his reasoning as pointed out by other scholars. Apart from Scottish nationalists championing it because they don't want Gaelic to be foreign, it is not too popular. There is also the problem of Picts on the map long before the name was used to separate Romanized Britons from the non Romanized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 ( talk) 22:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The "by whom?" superscript regarding the Welsh substrate effect can be cited to John McWhorter in "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue" (2008), though it is unlikely to be the primary source. 188.174.63.160 ( talk) 12:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Er, Cornish isn't extinct. I for one speak it after a fashion (and know at least a dozen or so people I can talk Cornish with)... We're doing an admirable job on rescuing it down along. sjc
AndyG - it should probably be most, not all, because there were non-Celts in Great Britain (the Picts, and whoever else was there before the Celts). Adam Bishop 23:03 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I really don't think Biddulph qualifies as a linguistic expert, and this reference, and the main article Old Devonian, should be deleted unless substantiated. Evertype 14:24, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
In the final paragraph there are a number of words suggested to derive from Brythonic. Perhaps we should set to filling this out some, giving Welsh or Cornish or (properly) reconstructed forms. Evertype 09:59, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
In the main article it currently and unequivocally states:
"Once, Brythonic languages encompassed most of Great Britain and Ireland – though in Ireland it was replaced with Goidelic when Gaels invaded sometime between 500 and 100 BC."
I've done a bit of reading on the subject and this is the first I've seen that Brythonic is considered older in the British Isles than Goidelic. Most things I've read have suggested the opposite. My reading has hardly been exhaustive, however. Has anyone else heard this before? At the very least I'll bet that it is the subject of some ambiguity, as we are talking about a period of prehistory. Fire Star 20:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Brythonic defiently is older in the british isles originating when celtic society first emmerged here - Gaels from Celtiberia invaded Ireland early on which is where gaelic comes from"
Really? I've only heard that from old, unreliable theories long abandoned. I didn't think anyone believed that anymore. In your world have they learned about flight yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 ( talk) 22:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
● DNA analysis of Bronze Age and modern Britons show us the Iron Age "Celtic invasion" of Britain did not occur. Instead modern Britons are largely descended from Bronze Age Indo-European settlers. Thus we are no longer forced to believe the hard-to-swallow story of the Iron Age "Celtic invasion" (especially of Iberians invading Ireland - just imagine the logistics of such an invasion!) and the hard-to-swallow story of how Celtic split into two very different languages in an archipelago within a short period time. We can assume, unless proven otherwise by solid objective science, that the simplest explanation for Celtic languages in Britain and Ireland is the correct explanation. That is, the first Indo-Europeans migrating to Britain brought the Indo-European Q-Celtic dialect to Britain (Ireland being downstream of this migration) and a later Indo-European migration to Britain brought P-Celtic where it (largely?) replaced Q-Celtic (migrations via the English and Irish channels greatly simplify logistics). Entries in the article that are based on myth (or pseudoscience straining to support myth) should be either removed or noted as being myths. Gortaleen ( talk) 10:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I've just reorganised the page, improved the wording in places and added more history about the language. IMO it's still not enough- there's so much more we can add here. I'd like to add that I'm pretty sure of most of the stuff I've added or changed, but I'm also sure that infelicities and errors remain. Please- correct them and add to the content. Dewrad 21:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Western into Cumbric and Welsh and the Southwestern into Cornish and its closely related sister language Breton, which was carried from the south of Britain to continental Armorica by refugees fleeing the Saxon invaders. In school Ysgol Gyfun Llanhari (a Welsh language school in south Wales) I was taught this. In 1996 I was working in a research lab in the University of Huddersfield with a Breton chap. He told me that Bretons are taught the opposite. That is that Breton was transfered to Cornwall by Bretons fleeing Franks! I wonder which is true, or possibly both are true? Can anyone elaborate?-- Alun 21:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I see that on Brythonic languages you removed "and Anglo-Saxons brought an Anglo-Saxon language with them, Lowland Scots." with the comment (Reverting. Could we have some discussion on this point with dates before introducing Anglo-Saxon Scots at that early date?). It seems non-contentious that Lowland Scots is a Germanic language, derived like Northern English from Northumbrian; and that it displaced Brythonic languages in the south of Scotland as Gaelic displaced them in the north. What is your objection here? Is it that Lowland Scots is not identical to Anglo-Saxon (which is certainly true, but better dealt with by adding 'which evolved into' rather than deleting the phrase entirely. -- Nantonos 00:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to assume that Gaulish and Common Brythonic, Old Brythonic or Proto-Brythonic have zero connection beyond proto-Celtic. While this is certainly one view, and boldly overturns the P-Celtic / Q-Celtic model, it fails to explain why the actual Iron Age British evidence that we do have, scanty though it may be, and the Old Welsh material (onve adjusted back for sound shifts) are so readilly analysed as if they were Gaulish. I would like to see the connection between Common Brythonic and Gaulish discussed, in a separate section. -- Nantonos 18:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Is this tribe spelled correctly? -- Wetman 11:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Many of the place-names in England and to a lesser extent Scotland are derived from the Brythonic names, including London, Penicuik, Perth, York, Dorchester, Dover and Colchester.
I'm surprised to see York in this list. I'm under the impression the name comes from Norse, the Vikings called the town 'Jorvig' or 'Jorvik'. The Roman name 'Eboracum' might have been Brythonic.
The Welsh/British word for York, Efrog > ebrog, is possibly where the Latin word comee from. 95.151.138.171 ( talk) 19:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects, I might remove York from the list. We could, however, add Kent and/or Canterbury which appear to come from the name of the Iron Age inhabitants, the 'Cantii'.
Chris Jefferies 08:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect to kick off such a thorough debate with a simple query about York! This leads me to another thought.
Should the list of examples include York if the derivation is so indirect? Maybe we should provide readers with a list of obvious examples (like Kent) and then add a new paragraph explaining that in many cases there are quite indirect influences on modern place names, perhaps providing York as an example of that.
It's mainly a question of what will best help an inquiring reader understand the idea of Brythonic languages as a whole. In its present form, I'm afraid York may confuse rather than enlighten. More thoughts please! Chris Jefferies 08:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. I've put a note (sometimes indirectly) in the text. I think it improves the article but if anyone else disagrees please just take it out again or reword it differently. Thanks for the discussion, I feel I've been educated :-) Chris Jefferies 20:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
These findings strengthen the research of Steven Bassett of the University of Birmingham; his work during the 1990s suggests that much of the West Midlands was only very lightly colonised with Anglian and Saxon settlements.
Can we have a reference to some of his work please, just for verifiability? I have included a link to the Capelli paper on Y chromosomes, and a link to the Y chromosome section in the
Anglo-Saxons article, because the article is available online (so why not include it?), and because I have been trying to clarify the situation at Anglo-Saxons for a while, where people were using hopelessly misinformed journalistic interpretations of the papers as sources, rather than the correct research papers.
Alun 07:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking of putting an unreferenced tag on this page. Surelly all this information is not from a single source? Alun 07:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The following paragraph is somewhat ambiguous:
The Brythonic languages spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England were displaced at the same time by Goidelic and Old English speaking invaders.
Can I suggest a certain amount of expansion, along the following lines:
The Brythonic languages (or their descendants) spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England began to be displaced after the end of the Roman era by Goidelic and Old English speaking invaders, a process probably completed in all of this territory except Cornwall by the 11th Century (date of extinction in various parts of the territory is debated).
References: The History of Wales, John Davies, 1993; Cumbric
Lloffiwr 12:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The Brythonic languages (or their descendants) spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England began to be displaced in the 5th century through the influence of Irish, Norse and Germanic invaders. The displacement of the languages of Brythonic descent was probably completed in all of this territory except Cornwall by the 11th Century (date of extinction in various parts of the territory is debated).
Lloffiwr 21:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing this paragraph from the "Remnants in England and Scotland" section since, although nicely sourced, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely the linguistic influence of Brythonic on English and Gaelic. Chromosomal evidence has nothing to do with linguistics.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
The remainder of this section badly needs sourcing. — An gr 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's just too great a leap from "the West Midlands was lightly settled by Germanic-speaking people" to "Brythonic had a palpable effect on the English of the West Midlands". It's certainly too great a leap for an encyclopedia with a policy against original research to be making, since the second proposition doesn't simply logically follow from the first. — An gr 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a distasteful attempt in many articles to link "Celticity" with genes, which is inaccurate, and borderline racist. While it is certainly notable that genetic evidence points to pre-Anglo-Saxon origins for many people in England, and probably deserves something of a mention, it should also be pointed at that a) there is no "Celtic gene", any more than an Anglophone one, and b) it seems that in many cases, the genes come from the pre-Celtic peoples of modern day England. This points to the bulk of the population being surprisingly static, yet absorbing new cultural influences, languages and rulers several times over in some cases. --
MacRusgail 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
-- MacRusgail 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be nice if a knowledgeable individual could put up a chart showing how Brythonic languages became the modern languages of Welsh, Breton, and Cornish. There's a similar chart on the Proto-Celtic page, and something approaching it here, but not quite. It'd just be nice to know, I think, how vowel sounds shifted and why certain names are the way they are...I wonder if I'm making my point clear or not? Anyhow, I mean it's all well and good to see how Proto-Celtic became modern Welsh, but what about the in between? Ryan 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC) 06:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The modern Brythonic languages are generally considered to all derive from a common ancestral language termed British, Common Brythonic, Old Brythonic or Proto-Brythonic, which is thought to have developed from Proto-Celtic, which was possibly introduced to Great Britain from the middle second millennium BC (Hawkes, 1973).
(richy)Can we not agree that British says it all?(/richy) 95.151.138.171 ( talk) 19:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this right? I haven't got access to Hawkes' book but I'm pretty sure this timing is about a thousand years out. It's generally considered that the 'Celtic' culture is an Iron Age culture and the Iron Age didn't reach Britain until about 700 BC. I wasn't sure if this was a mis-quote or if Hawkes actually said it. I've certainly never heard anything that puts Celtic influences this early in Britain. Halstatt culture didn't even start on the continent until about 1200 BC.
Anyone know where this date came from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psammead ( talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Christopher Hawkes was a professor at Oxford in the 1940s and 50s and wrote several books on the Iron Age. He postulated multiple invasions during the Iron Age but his views have been superceeded by DNA based population analysis. The connection between Celtic and the Iron Age is an assumption that does not seem to be consistent with lingustics analysis dated by, for example, Gray and Atkinson. Adresia ( talk) 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems hard to determine quite what period this article is referring to; the main body of the text seems to imply that it's dealing with the pre-Roman period, but then there's a table of sound shifts which are clearly those of post-Roman times. Could there be some clarification about whether the article deals with the language of the "Ancient Britons" (as it would have been spoken by, e.g. Caratacus and Boudicca) or the language in a later phase of "Common Brythonic" (as it would have been spoken by e.g. Gildas) shortly before it split into Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton? Paul S ( talk) 19:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:Brythonic languages is itself a category within Category:Celtic languages. — Robert Greer ( talk) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This article gives "Common Brythonic" as the ancestor of the whole family. But the article on British language (Celtic) says that "British" evolved into Common Brythonic in Roman times. Which is the normal convention? -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) ( talk) 10:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose a merge of Brythonic languages with British languages, the term British did not come about until 1707, and they idenity was Anglo-Saxon, not Celtic. Sheodred ( talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Breton is more like Cornish than it is like Welsh, so we can say they belong to this Southwest dialect group. However, is enough really known about Cumbric that we can say it was closer to Welsh than Cornish and Breton and so place it in the same group? I ask for citations. Paul S ( talk) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Brythonic languages → Brittonic languages – While both these terms are in use, I believe "Brittonic" has become more common in reliable sources. Per Cagwinn, Kenneth H. Jackson wrote in his seminal Language and History in Early Britain that by the 1950s "Brythonic" had become dated: "Until fairly recently, the term Brythonic, coined by Rhys, was regularly used... Of late there has been an increasing tendency to use Brittonic instead." [1] I got the same sense from a review of 22 reliable sources available to me on this and related topics, included below. Of these, 18 use "Brittonic" and only 4 use "Brythonic" (including 2 older works by the same author). This Ngram suggests "Brythonic" still has the lead in Google Books, though I suspect this is influenced by a proliferation of reprints of old works, Wikipedia ripoffs, and sources we wouldn't consider reliable for the topic. At any rate, the Gbooks difference isn't great, certainly not enough to convince me that "Brittonic" hasn't become the more common name in the sources. Also note that the article on the ancestral language is now at Common Brittonic (not "Brythonic") and the ethnic group is at Britons (Celtic people) (not "Brythons"). --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 07:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Relisted. Favonian ( talk) 19:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC). Cúchullain t/ c 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The following works use "Brittonic":
The following use "Brythonic":
-- Cúchullain t/ c 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this move was highly dubious. Firstly, proposer plus one supporter against one opposer is hardly an indication of consensus. Secondly, the list of publications indicating usage is far from comprehensive and seems selective. Google Books search of Brythonic v. Brittonic indicates more than a 2:1 preponderance of the former over the latter - which is what I would have expected. Brittonic is a relative newcomer and, IMHO, the jury's out whether usage has really shifted. Brythonic has a much more long standing pedigree. DeCausa ( talk) 22:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
There was extensive discussion about Kwamikagami's changes to Celtic language infoboxes at WP:LANG here. There was no support for adding "P-Celtic" to the infobox, for removing "Insular Celtic", or for any of Kwami's other changes at any article, let alone at this one. And clearly there's been no consensus here since it's never been brought up. As such, the established status quo prevails.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm nowhere close to being familiar with Celtic phonology but I am quite familiar with Germanic phonology, and somewhat less so Indo-European phonology as a whole.
I'd like to put forward a few modifications to the consonant table:
Proto-Celtic | Late Brittonic | Welsh | Cornish | Breton |
---|---|---|---|---|
*b- | *b | b | b | b |
*-bb- | *-b- | b | b | b |
*-VbV- | *-VβV- | f /v/ | v | v |
*d- | *d | d | d | d |
*-dd- | *-d- | d | d | d |
*-VdV- | *-VðV- | dd /ð/ | dh /ð/ | z /z/ or lost |
*g- | *g- | g | g | g |
*-gg- | *-g- | g | g | g |
*-VgV- | *-VɣV-, -VjV- | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) |
*φ- | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) |
*-φ- | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) | (lost) |
*j- | *i- | i | i | i |
*-j | *-ð | -dd /ð/ | -dh /ð/ | -z /z/ or lost |
*k- | *k- | c /k/ | k | k |
*-kk- | *-x- | ch /x/ | gh /h/ | c'h /x/ or /h/ |
*-VkV- | *-VgV- | g | g | g |
*kʷ- | *p- | p | p | p |
*-kʷ- | *-b- | b | b | b |
*l- | *l- | ll /ɬ/ | l | l |
*-ll- | *-l- | l | l | l |
*-VlV- | *-VlV- | l | l | l |
*m- | *m- | m | m | m |
*sm- | *m- | m | m | m |
*-mb- | *-mβ̃-, -mm- | m | m | m |
*-Cm- | *-m- | m | m | m |
*-m- | *-β̃- | f /v/ | v | v |
*n- | *n- | n | n | n |
*sn- | *n- | n | n | n |
*-n- | *-n- | n | n | n |
*-nd- | *-nð̃-, *-nn- | n, nn | n, nn | n, nn |
*-nt- | *-nt- | nt, nh | nt | nt |
*-pp- | *-ɸ- | ff | f | f |
*r- | *r- | rh /r̥/ | r | r |
*-r- | *-r- | r | r | r |
*sr- | *xr- | fr- | fr- | fr- |
*sV- | *xV- | h | h | h /h/ or lost |
*-s- | *-s- | s | s | s |
*t- | *t- | t | t | t |
*-t- | *-d- | d | d | d |
*-tt-, *-ct- | *-θ- | th /θ/ | th /θ/ | zh /z/ or /h/ |
*w- | *ɣw-, *gw- | gw | gw | gw |
*sw- | *xw- | chw /xw/ | hw /ʍ/ | c'ho /xw/ |
*-VwV- | *-VwV- | w | w | w |
final vowel | Vx | Vch /Vx/ | Vgh /Vh/ | Vc'h /Vx/ or /Vh/ |
A lot of this is simply analogy, ie. it's common for consonants to shift in a systematic way. Intervocalic voiced stops were shifted to fricatives, intervocalic voiceless stops were shifted to voiced stops and so on.
The Celtic Languages, Routledge Language Family Series, states that -m- probably became a nasalized voiced biblabial fricative /β̃/ which then merged with plain /β/. With this in mind, I assume that /mb/ probably became /mβ̃/ > /mː/, similarly /nd/ > /nð̃/ > /nː/. These changes are speculation on my part, though.
Lastly, I'm not really certain about Brittonic /v/ from Celtic /w/, as a shift to /gw/ would then be much more difficult to explain. Rather, I assume whatever change turned /w/ into /gw/ had already occurred by late Brittonic, possibly originally being /ɣw/. Anglom ( talk) 05:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Jackson (1963) states that Brittonic /w/ had probably become a weakly velarized labio-velar approximant /ˠw/, and seems to dismiss it being /ɣʷ/ or /ɣw/ based on orthographic evidence (as I understand it at the moment). He then says this was gradually strengthened after the split so that each of the daughter languages developed it into /gʷ/. I need to read more sources on this, but I would think it safer to assume it had at least developed into common /ɣʷ/ before the split. Anglom ( talk) 04:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I made some changes to the Characteristics section:
Anglom ( talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Britain & Ireland in the early–mid 1st millennium, before the founding of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. "
Yeah, it wasn't an invasion or a conquest, God forbid, they were just 'founded' on what happened to be somebody else's territory. Not to mention the title of the linked article 'Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain' (it was fairly empty, you see, so someone had to come and 'settle' it!). I used to think the English were too sober-minded and intellectually sophisticated to exhibit the sort of vulgar nationalism that is found in most other countries, but this pathetically self-serving change of nomenclature does much to erode any illusions in this regard.-- 95.42.201.224 ( talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Brittonic languages → Brythonic languages – The term "Brythonic" is far more widely used than "Brittonic", even within other Wikipedia articles. The original move from Brythonic to Brittonic was dubious to begin with. There are even articles where links to this page avoid using "Brittonic" by using [[Brittonic|Brythonic]] instead. It therefore makes more sense to name the page Brythonic languages. Dyolf87 ( talk) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Britonia, a region in northwesternmost Spain, is so called because it was settled by speakers of Brythonic- Celtic. See the article Brittonic languages for a map to show that it happened. The form of Brythonic spoken by these settlers (essentially a Breton- or Cornish-like language / dialect) died out, tho. However, said extinct form of Brythonic (Britonian, is the name suggested by the article Southwestern Brittonic languages) should be discussed in relevant articles. When did it die out? Did it survive long enuf to justify calling it a separate language, rather than a dialect of Breton / Cornish? Is Britonian attested in any written records? See also:
-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The following portion of the article seems off to me:
Lenition:
Voiceless stops become voiced stops in intervocalic position: Voiced plosives /d/, /ɡ/ (later /j/, then lost), /b/, and /m/ became soft spirants in an intervocalic position and before liquids: Welsh dd [ð], th [θ], f [v] Cornish dh [ð], th [θ], v [v] Breton z, zh [z] or [h], v
Where in Welsh does [θ] ever stem from a voiced plosive? - 195.92.38.22 ( talk) 00:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Then we need to tweak the line that introduces [θ] but it's still a valid example of lenition. Akerbeltz ( talk) 09:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
That map is very contestable as it shows Goidelic use in Britain in the 1st century. There is a fringe theory, that has been criticized, that there were speakers living there but it's a minority opinion and the proposer has made several mistakes in his reasoning as pointed out by other scholars. Apart from Scottish nationalists championing it because they don't want Gaelic to be foreign, it is not too popular. There is also the problem of Picts on the map long before the name was used to separate Romanized Britons from the non Romanized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 ( talk) 22:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The "by whom?" superscript regarding the Welsh substrate effect can be cited to John McWhorter in "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue" (2008), though it is unlikely to be the primary source. 188.174.63.160 ( talk) 12:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)