Jump to content

Talk:Celtic languages/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Continetal & Insular

Are you sure Breton is in the continental branch? I have a vague feeling it belongs in one of the insular branches, due to it being the language of comparitively recent refugees from Britain. But i'm not sure enough of this to jump in and fix it. Anyone know for sure?

No, it is, although it does bear striking similarities to Cornish, as they are both from the same root stock. sjc
The Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics calls Breton Insular and Brythonic. There are no living speakers of Continental Celtic languages, according to it.
Mea culpa, I am still living in the Bronze Age; this is obviously a technical usage of the term Continental. Breton is very definitely Brythonic; but is Brythonic (or Goidelic for that matter) insular? Given that the language was carried by the Celtic travellers to what is now Britain across dry land (or nearly dry land... or a narrow strait... someone will probably know the exact point of separation of Britain from the continent!) I had assumed that both Brythonic and Goidelic were Continental given their point of origin. sjc
It's technical terminology. By definition, Brythonic and Goidelic are Insular and not Continental. The issue is muddied by the fact that Breton speakers are found on "The Continent", but that it is not "Continental" in the technical sense of the term. The difference, I suppose, is that while it's entirely reasonable to assume that Insular Celtic languages evolved from Continental ones(*), the events causing this occurred too far in the past for anyone to be sure. The appearance of Breton is much more recent, and I believe is actually historically attested.
One theory of Goidelic origins is that it evolved from Celt languages and cultures in Iberia, so we need to be careful here. There may be no direct descent from Continental (i.e., Gaulish "French" Celtic) languages at all. --PaulDrye
I think it's worth saying something about the common characteristics of the Celtic languages (mutation being the obvious one). I've started putting some stuff in but it needs plenty of amplification and extension, either by me or someone else. Magnus 15:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Shudnt that be LEPONTIC? nicky. / wathiik.

Celtic proximity to Germanic

Kenneth, have you got a source for claiming that Celtic languages are particularly close to Germanic ones? Seems to me that used to be the Nazi party line - otherwise, I've never heard of it. Diderot 10:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Diderot, I did not know that about the Nazi issue and am skeptical about your source for that view, I thought they were into "Aryan" Indo-Germanicisms. My memory of the Celto-Germanic combo is from older texts from most likely POST-WW2 books, I don't know what ones they are but most likely out of print and withered ones or obscure to mainstream, mass media outlets. I don't immediately discount obscure or specialty subjects just because they aren't some Barnes and Noble bookstore copies. From the appearances of the Celtic languages, they seem to share both Italic and Germanic features, as much in the way that Germanic language shares Celtic and Italic features. BUT my main point was the fact that the non IE roots in Europe, discounting Basque, are generally concentrated in Celto-Germanic or Germano-Celtic tongues, especially the Insular ones. It's the consequence of neighbouring societal collectives. Lord Kenneð 12:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Very well, can you show me how you came to the conclusion that Germanic and Celtic languages share a common substrate, and that they share it more than Italic languages? Can you show me a source for this highly contrarian conclusion? You've placed this into the text as a statement of fact. It does not enjoy widespread acceptance among linguists. It doesn't enjoy widespread acceptance among Indo-Europeanists. This is not a forum for new research, especially for claims dropped out of the blue. I want to see a citation, preferably a peer-reviewed publication. If these sorts of conclusions were very widespread, I think there is an excellent chance I would know about it. I've placed a dispute notice at the top of the page. Diderot 13:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I was basing this upon other people's statements, like that one you excluded from the Non IE Roots of Germanic page. It appears you have a POV agenda and I would use that one I spoke of as one such reason why I agree with the classification, that you have inconveniently overridden. It is not enough for you to see two contributors agree on this matter and I haven't checked into that person's edits to judge them, but automatically recalled the term Celto-Germanic interchanged with Germano-Celtic a few years ago, but I have books currently that always show the Celtic bridging between Germanic and Romance peoples and their cultures until their subsequent over-reach and collapse, and since languages follow peoples... I do not dispute that the Romans conquered Gallia and ultimately almost replaced the ways of life with their own, but the parts that they failed to extinguish shouldn't be counted to them, just like when the Franks invaded and took over they obviously left Romance and other remains, despite the fact they consistently try to outlaw the Breton, Burgundian, Norman and other tongues in France today. What the Romans insituted into Gallia was on the whole, an Indo-European language so much that I believe there was no use to include pre IE Etruscan when the IE cognates happened to be already residing in Gallia, Etruscan diminished. I wonder if Etruscan, Balkan, Basque, pre IE Nordic and pre IE British/Irish have some pre IE cognates, so I will look into that, but I don't know right now what to think about it. I have to study migration paterns and cultural achievements in archaeological findings to get a more accurate view. The microlithic culture of Tardenoisian seems spread throughout what is now France and southern Britain, the old German Empire and northern Slavic countries as three different substrates. It is said that Iberia with it's Basques are from the Caucasians. That's interesting, I will look into it but probably not bring those edits to Wikipedia because that's not a priority for me. Depends on how much I learn to describe. I don't just pull this out of a hat, as you appear to enjoy painting me with your anti-Kenneth Alan propaganda. Lord Kenneð 14:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and this Wikipedia is not meant to be a crusty, old fashioned encyclopedia you are trying to make it with an upper class of academics and their lower class audience, like clergy and laity. This is not a medium for the censorship of information on what people are SUPPOSED to think aesthetically about subjects, but a venue for people to learn the greater sphere of the topics' tangibility. Lord Kenneð 14:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
So, this theory should be represented on Wikipedia as a statement of fact because of its aesthetic qualities? Yes Kenneth, I am The Man - a bourgeois academic trying to keep the People's Anthropology down. I am not advocating censorship - if you had, for example, cited someone with an actual record of publication as a source, I would be willing to discuss the possibilities in an "Alternate Views" section of text. However, I won't sit still for unsourced highly contrarian claims being inserted into articles as statements of fact. As for the other contributor - send him a line, let's get another party into this debate. I didn't see any sources given in the old version of Non-Indo-European roots of Germanic languages nor the Talk page. Again, I'm asking for some sources. I want something more specific than "something I read" and "some other people's statements." This is now the third time I've asked. Quite a few people have speculated on the linguistic roots of the monolith builders, but none has ever managed to move far beyond speculation. I don't think that it is censorship to expect speculation to be clearly marked. Diderot 15:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Disregarding our ad hominemisms, I have found these two items: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org&q=germano-celtic+language&sitesearch= http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org&q=celto-germanic+language&sitesearch= Lord Kenneð 17:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

According to real linguists, the Celtic group is roughly equidistant from the Romance and Germanic groups, which are themselves more closely related to each other than either is to Celtic. Here is some real science instead of a mere Google search: http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/psych/research/Evolution/Gray&Atkinson2003.pdf Dogface 19:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree, Celtic has been on the wain for a long, long time. It's initial isolation has been ever present continuing on today with marginalisation. Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Disputed Label

Removed disputed label since the problematic edits are gone. Controvertialised Celto-Italic, cut Kelto-Germanic since there's no sign of Kenneth, and I still think it's silly to call Breton a Continental Celtic language, but it should be plain why the question is controversial now. Diderot 11:48, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Diderot, I agree with you on the Bretagne issue. It's essence is insular, but recent barrages of Francois have eroded the insular focus. That is why some have thought otherwise. Oh, and I think we ought to listen to Dogface on this one. Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Absurd Paragraph

The following paragraph (beginning from "A view...") is very simply absurd (the reference to Romance and Germanic is meaningless) and would cause any serious Indo-Europeanist to crack up: "Within the Indo-European family, the Celtic languages have traditionally been placed with the Italic languages in a common Celto-Italic family (A view held by staunch supporters of Celtic Christianity and Catholicism). More recent research places the separation of the Celtic languages from other Indo-European branches roughly 6000 years ago, well before the split between Romance and Germanic." I have removed the part after "Celto-Italic family" (and added the variant form "Italo-Celtic" which is actually more common). Pasquale 21:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Example Language?

Could someone please clarify which of the celtic languages is used for the examples? Nicholas 09:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Controversy"

I don't think there is all that much "controversy" between P/Q Celtic and some other theory. I'd like this deleted unless someone can point to some serious linguistic discussion of the matter. Evertype 15:55, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Require Celtic input

I've started a page on The verb "to be" in Indo-European languages, which is intended to place the irregular paradigms in a historical context. Left to my own devices I will no doubt eventually get round to filling in the info on all the Celtic languages, but it would be better if one of you who is at home in the Celtic field could go over there, check everything, expand the Celtic table to include Old Irish, Old Welsh and modern Welsh and make any necessary comments underneath it. And then, if and when you are happy that it is useful to you, link it from the various Celtic language sites. Any of you who speak a Celtic language can make some input here, but I would really value a contribution from a Celtic historical linguist who can trace forms back to PIE. (My own area of competence, and the necessesity for starting the page in the first place, lie on the Germanic side!) --Doric Loon 08:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Counting by twenties

Does anyone know if the celtic concept of counting by twenties is the origin of the biblical english "the days of man are threescore years and ten", or for that matter the French "quatre-vingt"? Gingekerr 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

North/West/Central Celtic

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

I'm removing this until published scholarly sources arguing for this scheme are provided. It strikes me as probable original research. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a case of being more than just "probable" original research to me. It surely is not a widely accepted family tree for the group. Looks like the work of a Joseph Greenberg sort of linguistic lumper. I would be rather intrigued if the addition has a scholarly source text as its origin, not having come across this particular arrangement in my reading. As far as I am concerned, the Celtic familial tree you have been adding to this part of the I-E group works well for our purposes here.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it Greenbergesque lumping, because it doesn't suggest that all sorts of things are Celtic that no one else believes are Celtic. It's just a linguistically unjustified rearrangement of acknowledged Celtic languages. If we are going to mention crackpot theories here, we should at least mention the "Afro-Asiatic substrate hypothesis", which although completely untenable at least has some published material by famous names (e.g. Theo Vennemann) behind it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Celtiberian language

Celtiberian language is only attested in the land inhabited by the group of peoples or tribes identified specifically as "celtiberians" by classical authors, in the area comprising western Aragon and eastern Castile. Some authors defend the celticity (I don't know if this word exists in English)of some of the peoples living in the areas that nowadays are known as Galicia, Asturias and León, but this point of view is by no means accepted by all the Spanish scholars.

Check this: e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, v.6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula. Enjoy! The Ogre 17:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This should also prove of interest: Detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC). The Ogre 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Boii languange

What is your opinion about Boii and his languange? Haw anybudy some information about they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elder sun (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See our article Boii. As far as I know, there is no information about their language preserved. Angr 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics of celtic languages

I've removed the VSO word order and the lack of indefinite article as Breton is SOV and has an indefinite article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arskoul (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, though I may have to think about this and do some research on it. I'm pretty sure that both SOV order and the presence of an indefinite article are fairly new in Breton (i.e. within its recorded history), so it's fair to say VSO and no indef.art. are characteristics of Insular Celtic languages in general, but that Breton has evolved away from these. Angr 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And the Alpine Celts

I mean the Rhaeto-Romans, Ladiners, and Friulians? And Tha Galicians in Spain?? You have not given them a mention.

There is much more to present day ethnic Celtic people than appears in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.75.50.230 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Celtic languages. The Rhaeto-Romans, Ladiners, Friulians, and Galicians all speak Romance languages, not Celtic ones. Whether they are "ethnically Celtic" is highly dubious, but irrelevant to this article anyway. Angr 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Geographic Distribution

Celtic languages are not restricted ONLY to British Isle and Brittany. Though mainly so, they are also in Patagonia and Nova Scotia. David horsey 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Language Family Tree

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

What about Gallo-Romans in Britain?

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

Brythons "fled"?

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

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

Claims that cannot be substantiated by this article

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

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

Removal of this claim.

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

More unsubstantiated claims

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

How is this substabntiated?

Removal

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


Laughing Stock

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

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

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

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

Removal of Image of Six 'modern celtic nations' image

The Six Nations considered the heartland of the modern Celts


Image of six nations of nmodern Celts removed as

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing?

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

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

numbers of speakers

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

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

Language separation dating

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

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

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

P/Q Celtic vs. Insular/Continental Celtic

"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))

I tried to clarify the sentence. The Insular Celtic hypothesis is indeed that the Goidelic and Brythonic branches evolved from a common ancestor that the Continental languages did not evolve from. The fact that Celtiberian is "Q Celtic" is not really necessary for the Insular Celtic hypothesis, nor is it actually particularly damaging to the Gallo-Brythonic hypothesis, though, so the sentence is something of a non sequitur. —Angr 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The edits you've made make the text a little simpler, but I still feel the Celtiberian part could use some clarification. If Celtiberian having Q-Celtic characteristics is really not relevant here, then editing it out would probably make the text clearer (i.e. implying that the change in opinion has not been due to research on Celtiberian, but just a general shifting of thought.) The passage currently reads:
"There are legitimate scholarly arguments in favour of both the Insular Celtic hypothesis and the P-Celtic/Q-Celtic hypothesis. Proponents of each schema dispute the accuracy and usefulness of the other's categories. Since the discovery in the 1970s that Celtiberian was Q-Celtic, the division into Insular and Continental Celtic has become the more widely held view (Cowgill 1975; McCone 1991, 1992; Schrijver 1995)."
Would the citations support a simpler statement, e.g.: "There are legitimate scholarly arguments in favour of both the Insular Celtic hypothesis and the P-Celtic/Q-Celtic hypothesis. Proponents of each schema dispute the accuracy and usefulness of the other's categories. However, over the last thirty years the division into Insular and Continental Celtic has become the more widely held view (Cowgill 1975; McCone 1991, 1992; Schrijver 1995)." (Dragonhelmuk (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC))
Yeah, except I'd say "since the 1970s" rather than "over the last thirty years", because we expect Wikipedia to be around a long time, and we don't want to have to remember to come back to the article in ten years and change it to "over the last forty years" and then ten years later and change it to "over the last fifty years" and so on! —Angr 07:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and changed. (Dragonhelmuk (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC))
I do not agree with you : the choice of the sources is partial. Other good specialists of Celtic (P-Y Lambert, Fleuriot, Schmidt for instance) think exactly the contrary and show that Brythonic and Gaulish are much more closer, than we thought before (without the fact that they are both P-languages). Such conclusions are not dead theories, but based on the discovery of new Gaulish inscriptions. They call it Gallo-Brythonic. Before stating something, it would be good to explain why such specialists (Schrijvers, Cowgill, etc.) make a difference between insular and continental Celtic (phonetics, word stock, etc..). Such differences as the mutations are not very convincing arguments, because they could have appeared in the very late Gaulish language, when it was not recorded anymore and on the contrary, it might have not existed in antique Brythonic. Nortmannus (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It is very simple-minded and old fashioned to reduce the common points and the differences between on one hand Gaulish / Brythonic and on the other hand to Goidelic / Celtiberian to this single fact P-Celts and K-Celts. They are two or three other common "innovations" between Gaulish and Brythonic, so it is not accidental. for exemple -nm- > -nu- Gaulish anuana Old Welsh enuein same evolution of *anmana. They have been isolated particularly in the "Plomb du Larzac" (discovered 1983) and new words were found very closed to the Brythonic one. Nortmannus (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Schrijver has pointed out that because of Middle Welsh mynwent "cemetary" (a borrowing from Vulgar Latin *monimenta, instead of Classical Latin monumenta), the sound change *nm > nw must postdate the syncope in Brythonic (which must be relatively late), and therefore cannot be older than about 500 AD, while the Plomb du Larzac is certainly considerably older than that and the Gaulish change was by all appearances already complete in 200 AD. Perhaps the sound change was borrowed from Late Gaulish into Brythonic, but because of the temporal difference, it cannot be a common innovation and therefore has to be abandoned as argument in favour of Gallo-Brittonic.
Another sound change which has been proposed as dividing Celtic along the same lines is the development of the PIE syllabic nasals: PIE *n̥ > Gaulish and Brythonic an, but supposedly Celtiberian (as well some Gaulish dialects) and Irish en, as Irish cét : Latin centum "hundred" (with original *n̥) and Irish cét : Latin cantum "sung" (with original *an) develop identically (even giving the exact same result), because Vulgar Latin *ancora was borrowed into Old Irish as ingor and because PIE *-eh2-m > *-ām (suffix for accusative singular in the eh2-stems) exerts the same palatalising effect on the preceding consonant in Old Irish as does PIE *-m̥ (suffix for accusative singular in the other consonant stems), implying a development PIE *-ām > *-am > Primitive Irish *-en. Therefore, it is now commonly assumed that the PIE syllabic nasals gave *am and *an already in Proto-Celtic.
A final sound change which has been proposed as Gallo-Brittonic is the assimilation of Proto-Celtic *o to a before a resonant, as in *torano- "thunder", which yielded Gaulish or Gallo-Latin Taranus and Taranis etc. (attested already in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC) as well as Middle Welsh taran, but Old Irish torann. However, the Christian loanword Middle Welsh manach from Latin monachus – which for historical reasons cannot have been borrowed before the 4th or possibly the end of the 3rd century – display the same sound change which was already complete in Gaulish in 100 BC! So again, at most it is a sound change that spread from the central language Gaulish to the more peripheral Brythonic.
This means that the only common Gallo-Brittonic innovation left is Proto-Celtic *kʷ > p, and as Schumacher points out in his Die keltischen Primärverben (2004), that innovation is typologically quite trivial and is also well-known from Greek and Osco-Umbrian, as well as Romanian, and Latin *gʷ even yielded *b in Greek, Osco-Umbrian, Romanian and Sardinian (just as it did in Proto-Celtic). The sound change is likely an areal phenomenon in Celtic.
On the other hand, there is at least one and very characteristic morphosyntactic Insular Celtic innovation, namely the development of absolute vs. conjunct endings in the verb, which presupposes an entire complex of innovations, in part phonological, in part morphological and in part syntactical (such as the rise of the Insular Celtic verbal complex and the development of the verb-initial constituent order). There is also evidence for an independent, exclusively Insular Celtic sound law missing from Gaulish, namely Proto-Celtic */s/ [z] > [ð] before voiced stops.
In sum, the case for Insular Celtic could be clearer (but an Insular Celtic protolanguage can be quite neatly reconstructed from the Old Irish and Brythonic evidence and is very helpful for purposes of IE and Continental Celtic studies), while the Gallo-Brittonic hypothesis is, with Schumacher, outdated. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
When did these special insular Celtic innovations take place ? After Gaulish died out ? Where are the antique insular Celtic inscriptions ? As far as history is concerned, I don't see any logic in this statement. Gaulish spoken in the northwestern part of [what is today] France and brittonic spoken in [what is today] England and Corwall should be very close to each other, if you view things from a different angle. First, from a geographical point of view : the English channel is not wide : the distance between Calais in France and Dover is only 30 km and all along the coast maximum 150 km. Sailing across the English channel : around 12 hours (to compare riding to Paris from the Norman coast : 3 days). You suppose probably, that the English channel was a sort of Maginot line and the Celts were extremely bad sailors and they never crossed the channel. On the contrary, they could run to Noricum (1500 km away) and Galatia (3000 km) to avoid any phonetical change in the "continental" Celtic. Second, Archelogy demonstrated the extension of very specific Celtic artefacts in the northwestern part of Europe on both sides of the English channel : the Fécamp rampart, typical of Northwestern France and Southeastern England ; the graves with 2 wheeled carriages of Yorkshire, the Seine valley and Picardy, Western Germany. Similar tribes : Parisii in Yorkshire and in Paris region, where these tombs with carriages are located, Atrebates around Arras and in Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, etc. So, same origin, same culture, same religion and they would have spoken a different language ? On the contrary, where are the common artefacts between the Celtiberians and the northwestern Gaulish tribes ? These two cultures have significant differences, and what about Noricum or Galatia, except what the Romans or the Greeks told about them ? I haven't the slightest doubt about the phonetical phenomenons that you describe, but, what does it mean really, concerning a "Brittonic language", that would have been different of a "continental Celtic language" in olden days ? Nortmannus (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
When these Insular Celtic innovations took place is not known with precision, but Schrijver has pointed out that besides the P/Q difference, no phonological difference between British Celtic (according to the absolute chronology in Language and History in Early Britain) and Goidelic seems to be older than the 1st century AD, hence, these innovations would seem to date to the last centuries BC. That is, Proto-Insular-Celtic was contemporary with Gaulish (and very similar to it, especially in the nominal domain; but then, all the ancient Celtic languages were still quite similar to each other), and place names from Britain recorded in the 1st centuries BC and AD were essentially Proto-Insular-Celtic. (Note that the presence of Celtic in Ireland need not be older than the 1st century BC; the tribal names and toponyms reported from ancient Ireland aren't really as old as Pytheas's voyage.) The Insular Celtic innovations are not attested in any inscriptions, of course, but only reconstructed; don't be silly. I'm not sure what the problem you have with the Insular Celtic scenario is. Surely there was immigration from Gaul to Britain, but we don't know all the dialects spoken in ancient Britain; there may well have been dialects closer to Gaulish in Southeastern Britain, imported through later immigration, but which have not survived Romanisation (or Gauls who later migrated to Britain could also have taken over Insular Celtic dialects). Only a single Celtic dialect of Britain, Proto-British, has survived, and it was most likely not spoken in Southeastern Britain; Proto-British was most likely surrounded by more and less closely related varieties, and only part of a large dialect continuum, just like any proto-language.
Continental Celtic, of course, was very varied at the time of Proto-Insular-Celtic and is not a true genetic node, anyway, so your wording misrepresents the idea. In the 5th century BC, you may have had a Pre-Proto-Insular-Celtic, (Pre-)Proto-Gaulish (perhaps), Lepontic and early Celtiberian dialect, and other lost dialects, but not a Proto-Continental-Celtic dialect, as there are no innovations shared by all Continental Celtic varieties. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics of Celtic Languages

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)

There's no difference between "the beggar's" and "of the beggar" (except in word order, which isn't the point here). —Angr 21:03, 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)

Also, modern Insular Celtic and old (mainly Continental) Celtic features are all jumbled up. /Keinstein (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2009 (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)

P-Celtic/Q-Celtic hypothesis

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)

the third paragraph of the lede where these are mentioned needs to be rewritten. P and Q are just dropped in there, after a distinction between Goidelic and Brittonic. Are they the same? etc. --142.163.195.231 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Vocabulary

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)

Please feel free to add this to the article if you can reference a reliable source. Thanks --Yumegusa (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Orkney and Shetland

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))

Presumably simply because they're part of the country of Scotland. —Angr 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
And Brittany is part of the country of France. Yet only Brittany is marked as a Celtic-speaking nation, not the whole of France. A brief look at the wikipedia articles on the Orkney and Shetland islands shows a distinct culture there, whereas the image implies they are wholly Scottish.--62.163.131.85 (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Because Brittany is the titular nation described as Celtic. Orkney and Shetland are part of Scotland and so are included as Scotland is the titular Celtic nation. The rest of France is not included because to do so would be to suggest that the rest of France is part of Brittany, as it is Brittany that is the titular nation, not France. The same can be said for Cornwall/England. England is not part of Cornwall - i.e. the titular Celtic nation here is Cornwall, not England. Mac Tíre Cowag 08:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A table with sound changes from Proto-Celtic to each descendant...

... 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)

Passive or Intransitive, Infinitive

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)

Old Celtic ?

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)

Probably Proto-Celtic, although given names are usually identifiably either Goidelic or Brythonic and should be labeled as such. +Angr 08:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
or more likely, your definition should not use the term "Old Celtic". --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Celtic Language ancestry and descent from ancient Greek

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)

Just to clarify: there is not the slightest bit of evidence that the Proto-Celtic language is descended from any stage of Greek. It's linguistically utterly impossible. Proto-Celtic and Greek descend from a common ancestor, yes, but they are "sisters", not "mother and daughter". +Angr 05:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Native Speakers

"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)

I also thought these figures were a little suspicious. Maybe they have travelled here from the year 1950 or so. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Census use the measure(Proficiency-in-Welsh in Census 2011 from ONS) "can speak Welsh" as a self-certified characteristic, rewriting that as "fluent in Welsh" is unsupported. It would be quite a surprise if all those from 3yo upwards who described themselves as able to speak Welsh were in fact completely fluent. I've not been able to find a source for the level of fluency at all. I've altered the table to better reflect "can speak Welsh" rather than claiming an unsupported level of fluency. For comparison 0.27% don't speak English at all in Wales; Polish is the likely 2nd main language. Pbhj (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Were British really Celtic ?

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)

Mnya... Historically, the first clearly identifiable linguistic layer in all of the British Isles is Celtic. I hope you are not referring to "The Origins of the British" (or so) by Mr Oppenheimer, because linguistically, there is not much to be said in his defence... Trigaranus (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
oh for crying out loud, Ghosthammer, we have an extensive article about the topic right here. Is it really so difficult to sit down and read the article instead of clicking the "Discussion" tab directly to leave a comment to make sure everybody knows you did not read it.
A "lot of studies" say that the Celtic langauges came to Britain in the Middle Ages? Pray give us a list of such studies. Also, you may want to discuss this at Insular Celts, which is, as the title suggests, our article about Insular Celts. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The order is verb subject object (VSO) in the second half - compare this to English or French (and possibly Continental Celtic) which are normally Subject Verb Object in word order.

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)

Use of Flags

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)

The Irish language originated in Ireland over a thousand years ago. It didn't originate in the 26-county state (Republic of Ireland), which was only created in 1921.
The flags in the table ar merely decoration; ther is no need for any of them.
We need to note exactly what that colum represents (the one named "area"). I suggest it be used to list the areas wher the highest numbers of speakers ar found. For Welsh it would be "Wales, England, Argentina (Chubut Province)" for example. ~Asarlaí 17:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Celtic in Patagonia

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)

Well it's actually modern Welsh in Patagonia, but Welsh is a Celtic language, so it's reasonable to claim that a Celtic language is currently spoken there, though the number of speakers is relatively few. The speakers are descendants of the Welsh immigrants since 1865. Details can be found in the article Y Wladfa. Dbfirs 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Clading chart doesn't match article's prose

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)

It's easier to understand if only the uncontroversial units are used. Disregarding Pictish, which isn't known well enough to classify it with certainty (and thus fit it into the tree with authority) but may have formed a group together with British (Welsh-Cornish-Breton), the five consensus units of Celtic are Celtiberian, Lepontic, Gaulish, British and Goidelic. The two models group them like this:
Insular Celtic model
  • Celtic
    • Celtiberian
    • Lepontic
    • Gaulish
    • Insular Celtic
      • British
      • Goidelic
P/Q-Celtic model
  • Celtic
    • Q-Celtic
      • Celtiberian
      • Goidelic
    • P-Celtic
      • Gaulish (with Lepontic usually lumped into it)
      • British
That's it, in the most basic terms. It's not even known with certainty whether Lepontic reflects Proto-Celtic *kʷ as p or kept it because the known inscriptions exhibit no clear examples. (Also, some seemingly Gaulish names such as Sequani or Quariates look Q-Celtic.) The idea that either Celtiberian or Lepontic may have split off first (which doesn't necessarily imply that all the other units have undergone common innovations which could justify the postulation of a separate branch for the rest of Celtic), or that Gaulish and Insular Celtic may have formed a "North Celtic" branch, which is hard to justify with linguistic evidence and rather intuited on historical, archaeological and geographical grounds, are just a refinement of the Insular Celtic model. For the P/Q-Celtic model, they are irrelevant, anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Updade

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)

Given that genetic and archaeological data cannot be directly tied to languages, these data cannot support nor refute any particular hypothesis regarding Celtic origins. In fact, if we take the genetic and archaeological data seriously, they would rather militate against an identification of the "Beaker folk" as Indo-European (in short: highly improbable), much less Celtic speakers (implausible to the extreme). The (linguistic) ancestors of the Basque would be a much better fit. Please refer to my comments at Talk:Beaker culture#Latest update.. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Map

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)

I agree. Having the whole of Ireland striped whilst the South east corner of Wales is blank is incorrect. And having Cornwall and the Isle of Man solid colour is also incorrect. I have no idea how to alter such maps, but surely deleting them and leaving nothing there would be preferable to leaving the incorrect, very misleading information on the site?mUnwilling to do that without the thoughts of anyone else on the subject, though. Ceiniog (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Will wait for a bit to see if anyone has anything to say before deleting the map. Ceiniog (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely. Articles and their accompanying illustrations/tables/graphs should be informative and fact-based. This image is completely misleading and should be either corrected (likewise, I do not know how to do that) or deleted. Mac Tíre Cowag 11:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

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)

map deleted

As no one objected, I've deleted the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceiniog (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comparison table

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)

Problems under "Subdivisions" in box

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)

"Old European" and ?

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)

"Old European" is what some linguists in the 20th century dubbed the pre-Germanic/Celtic/Illyrian/Italic/etc. language(s) of Europe, which has allegedly only left scant traces in place/river names. Cagwinn (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Unclear map

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)

Both greens indicate areas where Modern Celtic languages are spoken (at least traditionally); the dark green indicates regions with highest density of Modern Celtic speakers. Cagwinn (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
If it would do that then all would be good (given a source was provided) but the problem is that it doesn't.
  • For Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and Man, the map shows the entire country in light greed; for Brittany and Scotland it doesn't.
  • Just what is meant by the light green area in Scotland is beyond me, I'm afraid. It appears to be the Gàidhealtachd with some random light green patches in other places.
  • For Brittany there's even more of mystery. Some areas that have never been Breton speaking are coloured in light green. If someone has a reliable source that Nantes or its eastern hinterland has ever spoken Breton, it would be nice to see.
  • Still in Brittany, the dark green is as mystifying as the light green. At what period in time was Brest more Breton-speaking than the hinterland of Vannes? No area in Brittany is mainly Breton speaking but some areas that were Breton until very recently and where there are still lots of native Breton speakers are in light green, some areas that have not been Breton speaking for a very long time are in dark green.
  • For Ireland, the map gives the official Gaeltachtaí. They have nothing to do with reality, of course. Irish speakers can be found outside these areas as well. As for the dark green, several of these areas aren't Irish speaking at all. Hearing Irish in eastern Uíbh Ráthach, not to mention the areas east of Galways, is but a long lost memory.
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) 09:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the concerns about the map. Mabuska (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree too. We do already have maps for Gaelic and Welsh sourced to the 2011 British and Irish censuses [1], [2] and [3]. It shouldn't be too difficult to choose one or more percentages (50%/70%?) and present a composite map. Not so sure about Breton - there's this but I'm unsure of the source. DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 25 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)

After Cagwinn's edit war

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.

  • For Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and Man, the map shows the entire country in light greed; for Brittany and Scotland it doesn't.
  • Just what is meant by the light green area in Scotland is beyond me, I'm afraid. It appears to be the Gàidhealtachd with some random light green patches in other places. It does not correspond to any given moment in time.
  • For Brittany there's even more of mystery. Some areas that have never been Breton speaking are coloured in light green. If someone has a reliable source that Nantes or its eastern hinterland has ever spoken Breton, it would be nice to see. Some areas that were Breton speaking long ago are in grey.
  • Still in Brittany, the dark green is as mystifying as the light green. At what period in time was Brest more Breton-speaking than the hinterland of Vannes? No area in Brittany is mainly Breton speaking but some areas that were Breton until very recently and where there are still lots of native Breton speakers are in light green, some areas that have not been Breton speaking for a very long time are in dark green.
  • For Ireland, the map gives the official Gaeltachtaí. They have nothing to do with reality, of course. Irish speakers can be found outside these areas as well. As for the dark green, several of these areas aren't Irish speaking at all. Hearing Irish in eastern Uíbh Ráthach, not to mention the areas east of Galways, is but a long lost memory.

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)

It's not a serious proposition to keep that map - it's amateurish nonsense to have argued for keeping it. It's gone and we can move on. The question is to find a properly sourced map that can replace it. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right. It's crazy how much one disruptive user can disturb articles, even when there's a complete consensus among all users with any knowledge of the topic. As you say, the question is where to find a good map. Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Man all have censuses giving exact information. I'm not sure about Cornwall, and I know there is no such census in Brittany. To compound matters, most of those censuses only measure language skills. So a fluent native speaker who speaks Welsh daily will fall into the same category as someone who studied Welsh for a semester 20 years ago and haven't spoken it since. Is the second really a Welsh speaker? If we used the same criteria, we could make all of England seem almost completely French speaking by counting anyone with rudimentary school day memories of French, just like the UK censuses do for the Celtic languages. In Ireland we get around this problem as we have good data for daily speakers, and in Cornwall and Man it's safe (and sourceable) to assume no area has even 5% speakers. But that leaves Scotland, Wales and Brittany, all of which definitely have areas with significant proportions of actual, fluent and regular speakers, but none of which have censuses measuring that. Jeppiz (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The "factual" problems you all are arguing about are more methodological problems. The question of what constitutes a speaker of a language is a difficult one that socio-linguists have not even reached consensus on. The shading of Man as such is fine. There is a Manx speaking presence across island with an immersion school in the center (at St. Johns). Students at this school travel from all over the island. Man's secondary schools also have a Manx speaking presence and while there are no current native speakers, there is a sizable number of second language learners meeting for community conversation groups island wide. As for Scotland, there is a sizable presence of Gaelic in Glasgow and Edinburgh (the two green patches in the south). The rest of the light green region represents the disperse distribution of Gaelic speakers. Ireland is fine. Anyone plugged into the Irish language scene there can tell you that. Cornwall is perhaps the only erroneous bit of the map but until someone wants to take the time to do the original research as to the exact distribution of second language speakers (of which there are many), we can only say that it is spoken there and hence a county wide shading is appropriate. 10:09, 8 December 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.18.207 (talk)
Even if you would be right (and you're not), that would still constitute original research. It is not based on any source, rather on an individual user's (erroneous) conceptions. Jeppiz (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You say that I am not correct. Please cite me your sources and I will provide you with mine. (You will have to give me a bit as it will take me a while to compile the list, maybe a day or two?) I am more than happy to listen to your argument, but please substantiate it. The previous discussion on this talk page do not sufficiently address primary or secondary sources. Also there appears to be a difference here between an informed and uninformed editor. This is a subject which is highly technical yet unfortunately has taken hold of the popular imagination. Expertise in the field of the modern Celtic languages is quite limited and the number of speakers small. Many questions (such as what constitutes a speaker) are still open ended in the scholarly debates. There is no reason why a talk page on Wikipedia composed of apparently non-experts would be equipped to answer these questions definitively when those of us who do this for a living continue to struggle with some of these ideas. Maps are valuable, but can never be exact. The question comes down to whether one can produce a map that is good enough, not if one can produce a map which is "factual". Unfortunately there is so such thing as "fact" in the world of socio-linguistic inquiry, too many things are uncertain. Also census records do not provide reliable nor exact information on minority languages, take for instance the problem outlined by Jeppiz on 23:30, 10 September 2015. For reliable data one must rely on the work of the very few socio-linguists that exist in this field. I will provide what I can with regard to reliable data in my next post. 12:21, 8 December 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.130 (talk)
The removed map is unsourced and is clearly misleading. If you are able to provide a sourced map, then please do so. But there is no consensus to insert the misleading map. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The map is not misleading at all and there is no consensus here among people WHO ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MODERN CELTIC LANGUAGES; rather it is only a weak consensus among busybody Wikipedia bureaucrats with no specialist knowledge on Celtic languages whatsoever (as far as I can tell from reviewing your edit histories). Please feel free to provide us with your credentials on Celtic languages that allow you to label this map as "misleading". Cagwinn (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, you are clearly a very great expert because you shout in capitals and tell everyone you are a very great expert. And of course that's how Wikipedia works. Only those that say they are an expert are counted in any consensus (and they should be particularly believed if they shout that they are an expert) and because they say they are experts on a subject they are exempt from producing sources and their opinions should be accepted by everyone else without the tedious inconvenience of having to justify them per WP:V. Yes, that's exactly how Wikipedia works and it works very well: comment on the contributor, not on content. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
After 30 years of studying both modern and ancient Celtic languages and, for the past 15 years, moderating multiple academic message boards dedicated to Celtic languages (the membership of which includes many of today's top Celticists) and being cited as a reliable source on Celtic linguistics in several academic books and articles, I have no problem declaring that I am more of an expert on the subject than you are. Cagwinn (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What you fails to understand is that nobody cares. Even if you were a great expert (and you're not) it would not matter one bit, as Wikipedia works by reliable sources. Appeals to authority with no sources don't work, appeals to one's self-proclaimed expertise even less. And number of users have pointed out the errors of the map. It does not accurately represent the present areas where Celtic languages are spoken and it does not represent any given point in history either. Jeppiz (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You just don't know what you are talking about - on all points.Cagwinn (talk) 00:15, 9 December 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)

The original map - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lenguas_celtas.PNG - had dark green indicating regions with a majority usage of the native Celtic language and light green indicating minority usage; you can compare it against the following collection of similar maps:
Thank you, Cagwinn. We can see that it's unlikely there will be maps of these six regions that use the borders shown in this map. Moving on, I think we could actually put together a good map based on the maps you identify. Meaning, one map with the information of these five, and also highlighting Cornwall and Mann, and with each of the sources cited.--Cúchullain t/c 02:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, these are relevant maps, and the contradict the removed map on several points, illustrating nicely why it was removed. If a better map, reflecting these maps, was made, it would of contribute to the article Jeppiz (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree. See my post of 25 July 2015 at the beginning of the parent thread to this one were I link to 3 census maps plus the Breton map Cagwinn linked to suggesting just that. DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that now. This discussion became pointlessly heated and unproductive and it's a shame it happened again.
For now, I'm going to add the "Celtic nations" map so at least people can see where the areas with modern Celtic languages are located. Scratch that, for this article, this map of Celts through time will be better. It's got some problems of its own, but it's sourced. Perhaps we can include the Celtic nations map later in the article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 9 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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:

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

History of celtic language completely different from the history of the irish language.

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)

These are not in conflict. The map shows the Hallstadt material culture (not indicative of anything other than a particular style of goods and/or construction) as the first positively identifiable sign of Celtic presence, the maximal distribution of attested historical Celtic languages, and modern distribution. Neither needs correction. The origin location and pre-historic presence of ALL Indo-European languages continues to be a contentious problem. Andecombogios 18:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Subdivisions in info box are not precise

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)

Nonsense IPA removed

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)

The user who had added many of the IPA transcriptions has asked me on my talk page to reinstate them, claiming they are based on "official dictionaries". I answer here instead. First, the user is mistaken. He has used Wiktionary, which is not an official dictionary. Second, even if official dictionaries were to be used, they would have to be provided as sources. (For information, the Breton IPA on Wiktionary has been added by a user whose user page states they do not speak Breton...). Again, sources are needed in order not to violate WP:OR. Jeppiz (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack of knowledge about the IPA

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)

Thanks for that ad hominem attack. For your information, I am very familiar with IPA and speak four Celtic languages. What you are doing is very close to vandalism. You insert faulty spellings (cú instead of cù), wrong words, completely inaccurate IPA etc. What is more, you provide no sources. Your examples above contradict your own examples, as everything you claim I don't know in fact are aspects of Celtic linguistics you don't know. Yes, [k] and [c] are different sounds - but [c] and [kʲ] are the same, just different ways to represent the same sound. Yes, [ˠ] means that the consonant is velarized - but you use it completely at random, sometimes inserting it and sometimes leaving it out after velarized consonants. With all due respects, if you don't know Celtic languages, you should not insert IPA for them. And even if you would know them, you still have to provide reliable sources. What you are doing is both original research and downright disruptive as you insert loads of errors into the article. Jeppiz (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


Sources

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)

Again, please read WP:RS. The two obvious problems here are that (1) neither the Breton nor Gaelic source satifies WP:RS (2) not one of those sources give the pronuciations you keep inserting. (And (3) I am very interested in how you back up that what I did was in any way vandalism). Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

North-West Indo-European?

This isn't accepted at all and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HW7 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Celtic languages are from middle east?

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)

Shade of green is not easily distinguishable

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.

Edit warring over Cornish

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)

What is a living language? I see that SIL says that at least one native speaker makes a living language, so I have revised it. The article did not previously mention any native speakers. I have some doubts that describing Cornish as "living" is anything but boosterism. It should not be presented as living in the same way as Welsh, Breton, etc. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as my personal opinion goes, I agree. Given that many sources state it's a living language, I guess we have to gpo wig that. Also, same criteria that would be applied to remove Cornish would also mean removing Manx. Jeppiz (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)

Iceland

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)

No, there was no population as such, just a few Irish monks (some perhhaps Scottish or English in modern terms), who no doubt spoke Irish/Scottish but also Latin. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
No, it was way more than just a few monks. DNA testing suggests that most Icelanders descend from Celts almost as much as they descend from Norse. Mitochondrial DNA studies show that the majority of Icelanders have Celtic maternal lines(https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/dna-study-reveals-fate-of-irish-women-taken-by-vikings-as-slaves-to-iceland-1.3521206). While DNA doesn't necessarily correlate with actual language family spoken, it often indicates it when studying Ancient times. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Patagonia would make more sense where a Celtic language in fact has been passed on by speakers to their own offspring, which resulted in a stable speaker community. I doubt that those monks had offspring in Iceland (or, well...). –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Right - "dna-study-reveals-fate-of-irish-women-taken-by-vikings-as-slaves-to-iceland" in your link - see the similar studies for Anglo-Saxon England. The offspring of "slave" or forcibly taken mothers aren't likely to keep the maternal language for long. Are there any RS that describe Iceland as Celtic-speaking? I don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
There's significant linguistic evidence to the contrary(https://icelandmag.is/article/celtic-influence-icelandic-language-and-culture-likely-greater-previously-believed). CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
You'll need a lot more than that - and it seems that the mitochondrial DNA relates to the "British Isles", not just Ireland. I repeat, are there any RS that describe Iceland as Celtic-speaking? Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The British isles are heavily Celtic. Even this very article states that. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but probably most of their population only spoke Old English by this date. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Large numbers of enslaved women occasionally triggered language shift in non-sedentary raiding communities, so that's not fully out of place. But still, genes don't talk, and we cannot draw any OR conclusions from the mere possibility that there might have been Celtic speakers among these women from the British Isles, unless a RS does so. Let me repeat too: are there any RS that describe Iceland as Celtic-speaking? Friðriksson is – according to Icelandmag – an archaeologist, not a linguist. And there is no mention of any publication about these musings in a scholarly journal. –Austronesier (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_languages/Archive_1&oldid=1182849875"