Talk:Cumbric

message: Does anyone have any further information on the "revived" forms of Cumbric? Dewrad 13:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
:There is a revival movement located mostly online. There is a website however, called Cumbraek which is not very reliable as they de-evolve Welsh into 'Hypothetical' Cumbric. Here is a video from one of the online movements which seek to archive the language on the internet to preserve it for years to come: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEdNM1yWy7k 92.12.198.203 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Revival

message: Being the FIRST time I have ever done this I am quite prepared to believe this may be entirely the wrong place .... BUT Earwig Oh!!
I have just seen, for the second time, in the second locale, a supposed "Wasdale sheep count as, if memory serves...
Yan, tyan, tuther, another, etc.
Do you, seriously, accept this as a count? "One, two, the other (T'other {tuther}), 'another (Anudder), five."? AND a total inability to progress beyond FIVE.
Come ON. As Mam used to say "Lie likely" i.e. If you are going to lie, at least make it believable.
Incidentally, I have just discovered that what I was brought up to believe was Cumbrian is, here-in, designated as Scots.
Brainake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainnake (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake Wasdale sheep count 

message: Is Peat not perhaps Pit as in Pittenweem?
:Does anyone use pen and pol as dialect words independently of their use in toponyms? If not, these are not really "words" as implied by the text. Paul S (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Words 

message: Hi, have been watching this page a while. Seems that someone who also has an interest in sub-roman Britain has been doing the same. Cumbric, as the term is used by linguists, meabs the language spoken in Cumbria and Southern Scotland from the time of Bede till it became extinct in the 11th or 12th century. An argument could be made that it extended into the Yorkshire dales, based on the place name Pen-Y-Gent. However, someone has been linking Bryneich, Ebrauc and Elmet as Cumbric speaking. Evidently these kingdoms were Brythonic speaking, but they werent seperated long from other Brythonic kingdoms before thyey fell, and would likely have bordered areas in which there was a British population governed by Anglo-Saxons. Therefore it seems unlikely that their language would have diverged massively from common British. In the seventh and eigth centuries, it is fair to assume that British language and culture disappeared or was isolated into pockets in these areas, thus isolating the North Britons and allowing their language to diverge from Welsh.
Please come back with arguments this week, and we can discuss the best changes- or no changes; if no response I will change the Cumbric refs to Brythonic in kingdom pages, and ammend this page to reflect doubts on the Greater Manchester claim.
Also, the list of Cumbric words has no source, and it is not clear whether they are reconstructions or loan words in Cumbrian dialect. Should go.
boynamedue.
Cumbria is part of an area North of the River Humber. Northumbria means Angles living North of the River Humber. So I don't know what tupe of language you are trying to talk about here becasue for over a thousand years tyey have spoken English. Before that the only real language would have been Latin.
have a read of this m8; Sub-Roman Britain. Cumbrian dialect is what you are on about. Cumbric is a type of Welsh, which was replaced by Cumbrian, Scots and Gaelic.Boynamedsue 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "English Celts" is a contradiction in terms. It is usual to refer to the people living in what was to become England as Britons or Ancient Britons. As for theories about the Anglo-Saxon migration: they are ALL theories, none of them are facts. Hence there can be no "proving" one way or another. Finally, the modern use of the phrase "Anglo-Saxon" is analogous to the modern use of the word "Celt". --Swahilli 15:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumbri-mania 

message: Have removed a sentence regarding this example proving a widespread penetration of cumbric in northern england. It is not certain that sheepcount has a cumbric origin, and even if it did, it could be an example of diffusion after the system had been borrowed into english.
:I think the info doesn't seem that controversial that it should be deleted out-right. I've put it back in, but placed a Citation needed notice on it. Can somebody try to reference it? --Hibernian 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitby example of yan, tan, tethera 

message: Is this a true representation? The forms "yan" and "twea" appear more akin to local dialect forms of Germanic origin to me.Theelf29 13:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surival in Whitby

message: I have removed the reconstructions paragraph for, as with most of this article - it just talks about the 'possible' with no references and many of the word that are annotatated as sme sort of 'Cumbric' in this article are in fact of English origin.
Someone put it back (or at least I could see it when I went to the page). I've taken it back out as there is no academic proof or real basis to this 'reconstruction'. Much of this article seems to be based on conjecture and not on real research.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.173.66 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, I have changed one of the external pages' blurbs from 'known Cumbric place names' to 'possible'.  Not only are the 'known' place names very few, the linked article seems to include a great number of unlikely derivations.  81.153.185.192 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an "unreferenced" template to the section, which seems to have reappeared. As a Welsh speaker I can fairly readily understand the examples given here, which rather undermines the argument in the main article regarding Cumbric's status as a seperate language and for it and early Welsh being probably "mutually unintelligible" by its final period. Without a source these reconstructions are not acceptable and even with a source its all very conjectural. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstructions 

message: The are many towns all over lancashire with Cumbric or Welsh names, was the language spoken this far south?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the language spoken in Lancashire? 

message: Quote: Pen - pointed conical hill (Welsh pen "head, top", Gaelic beinn''''
Removed the reference to Gaelic beinn as this word is cognate with Welsh ban, not pen. The Gaelic cognate of pen is ceann; therefore not relevant here. For the same reason, removed mention of the second element of the P-Celtic (Welsh) / Q-Celtic (Gaelic) pair peth / cuid. -- Picapica (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scots and English words 

message: None of the examples of placenames cite references.  Several also include unsubstantiated Cumbric reconstructions with no indication that they are such (ie. using *).  The etymologies for this section should surely be given known Welsh cognates (or perhaps Cornish/Breton ones), or formally reconstructed Proto-Celtic/Brythonic ones.  As there is no agreed standard for reconstructed Cumbric and as most of it has not been thoroughly researched, should it really have a place in this article?
Psammead (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This sentence in particular -- These come with estimated Cumbric root words that are not yet certain until the attempted revivals are completed -- does suggest ("estimated"? "revivals"?) that this whole section is part of an amateur original research project in progress rather than a report of any citable published findings. -- Picapica (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections in the next couple of weeks, I will remove the 'Cumbric roots' and replace them with more reliable forms and try to include only cited examples.  I am also dubious about the inclusion of Cheshire placenames in this article, given that the county is still on the border with Wales.  Psammead (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place names section & reconstructed cognates 

message: The article has been changed to include this "There are also some historical pointers to a continuing separate ethnic identity. David I, before he was crowned king of Scotland was invested with the title Prince of the Cumbrians in 1124. William I of Scotland between 1173-1180 made an address to his subjects, identifying the Cumbric speakers as a separate ethnic group. This does not prove that any of them still spoke Cumbric at this time." The part about 'identifying the Cumbric speakers as a separate ethnic group. This does not prove that any of them still spoke Cumbric at this time' makes no sense, how can one address 'Cumbric speakers' and then argue that they didn't speak Cumbric? The earlier version was a lot better as were the references to 'Koch' who is, without doubt, an expert in this field.EoinBach (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, such a reference is not good evidence of Cumbric ethnicity let alone language, and is dismissed as such by Dauvit Broun, one of the authorities used in the article. The reference to "Cumbrians" as a group is not necessarily ethnic, and is unique in contrast to references to "Galwegians" (Gaelic-speaking inhabitants of western Scotland south of the Forth) which are habitual. This article, both the old as well as the new version, has some problems with WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV that need to be resolved before the article could be respectable, but as Cumbric language is only a theory rather than a fact it might be better named "Survival of British dialects in southern Scotland and northern England" or something of that kind. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have tried to indicate that William I's reference does not indicate necessarily (though it might) survival of Cumbric speech. However in terms of ethnicity I'm sure you would not argue that the reference to Scots, Norman French etc (don't have the article in front of me) meant anything other than the existence of these ethnic groups. Regarding the continuing debate over the existence of Cumbric as a language - I note that Simon Taylor in Place Names of Fife which I was recently reading prefers "British". That's fine as long as we refer to Welsh also as British. The term Cumbric is in part geographic and part political to distinguish from Welsh with its geographical and political connotations. However, I also feel there are indications from place names and perhaps the legal terms (slight as they are) to suggest that Cumbric was not identical to Welsh. Now this might be dialectal in that Pembrokeshire Welsh is different from Gwynedd Welsh and I am prepared to consider an argument that say Clwyd Welsh was closer to Cumbrian Welsh (tautologically speaking) than either to Pembroke of Glamorgan Welsh in terms of dialect. Though I'm prepared to consider an argument that it wasn't. Ultimately "Cumbric" is a term to specify we are talking about the particular conditions and history of the British language in S. Scotland, N. England as opposed to the British language in Wales rather than using an inconvenient circumlocution.Barcud Coch (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change 

message: [k] to [x] mutation occurs within the Scouse accent of Liverpool and the Wirral peninsula, situated nicely between Cumbria and Wales. Perhaps what we see in English as an accent eventually became fixed as an apparent linguistic difference in Welsh/Cumbric due to literacy arriving after the groups diverged; A case of 'same word, different accent'? 82.219.197.3 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Literacy did not "arrive" after the groups diverged. Scouse in its currently recognisable form, as distinct from the rest of Lancashire, in other words, is not older than the 19th Century. Paul S (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Equivalence with Old Welsh / [rk] to [rx]

message: The article presumes that a difference emerged between Welsh and Cumbric only after the Battle of Chester.  However, I believe there is little evidence of the extent of morphological difference before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, and it is surely at least as likely that there were substantial differences between the Brythonic languages/dialects of different areas from early times (compare the substantial dialectal differences even today between the Welsh spoken in different parts of Wales (Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic and Basque also attest considerable local differences within comparatively confined areas)).  The presumption should be evidenced or removed.  Diomedea Exulans (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the forms differ? 

message: Lindow and Penketh are included in a list of placenames derived from Cumbric. Where is the evidence that these names are specifically from Cumbric? It would seem far more likely that, considering Cheshire's proximity to Wales, that, to my mind, these would have origins in a dialect closer to Welsh than Cumbric. As such, unless evidence be provided to show, for example, any possible sound shift which categorically cannot be Welsh in origin, I propose these names be removed. Theelf29 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumbric placenames - Lindow and Penketh 

message: In the section of the article entitled "Counting systems of possible Cumbric origin", the Modern Welsh numerals given are, I understand, the masculine versions. I read somewhere that these "Cumbric" sheep counting systems are more likely to reflect the feminine numerals (tair, pedair iirc). Would it not be an idea to include these as well, if not also numbers from earlier forms of the Welsh language as attested? Theelf29 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting systems of possible Cumbric origin 

message: I wish whoever keeps adding Cwmbraic to this article would stop. While imagining what the Cumbric language might have looked like should it have survived to modern times is a project in its own right. Suggesting that "Cwmbraic" was the name of the language used by Cumbric speakers is very misleading and risks this article (which has a B rating) degenerating into a crank article which will not be taken seriously by any serious linguistic or historical minded readers. My objections to the use of Cwmbraic where it is not specifically stated that this is an invented form by a very narrow group of enthusiasts are as follows 
- there is no historical - manuscript - evidence for it.
- while some South Walian dialects do use a "w" in the first syllable which is a very lip rounded [u] in these dialects, what is the evidence that Cumbric had this vowel and not the schwa vowel of the North Walian dialects? None.
- why is the last syllable -aic presumable [aik] - what is the evidence that the final "g" should be hardened into a 'k' and why the diphthong -aik when the ending used to denote languages in modern Brythonic languages is -eg, or -ek  e.g. Brezhoneg, Kernewek, Cymra-eg, Ffinneg, Ffrangeg, Saesneg, Almaeneg, etc etc.
Barcud Coch (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the placename element month- for "mountain" as opposed to *minth- or *munth- we might expect if Cumbric had a Welsh schwa. No manuscript evidence but if this article were to limit itself to that range, it would be scarcely more than three words long. "Cwmbraíc" is, though, no more than conjecture by a (very) small group of enthusiasts and does not merit inclusion. Paul S (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I have found literally no sources besides Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and a forum post or two, that even bother mentioning Joseph Lucas in relation to Cumbric, even to dismiss his statements about Cumbric survival. I see our passage about that was added by Paul S over a year ago. The statement is original research, in that it uses Lucas' own book to advance a position that Lucas doesn't advance (ie, Lucas doesn't say that his own claims are "unsubstantiated"). Until someone can find a reliable, secondary source indicating that the claim is notable, even if it's notable as an incorrect idea, I'm removing the passage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we may be putting undue emphasis on the importance of Lucas' counting system, but I'll leave that for further discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucas was much more interested in sheep anyway. 80.176.90.118 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Lucas

message: This has been discussed briefly above, but nothing came of it.  I propose deletion of any Cheshire place names in the "Cumbric Placenames" section as these lay outside the defined Cumbric region and are irrelevant to this article (see Koch, Jackson).  If no one objects I'll do this in a week.  Psammead (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful of what constitutes "Cheshire". I would object to deletion of whatever lies within the modern administrative county, as this pokes further North than the historic county - possibly out of the Old Welsh and into the Cumbric speaking region. Paul S (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Also - Liscard: why on Earth would we have Irish spoken in the Wirral? Are we blaming it on the Dublin Norse somehow? Paul S (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a fair point.  The boundary ought to the be Mersey, as I think that's the most southerly delineation among the literature.  The Dublin Norse were obviously prominent in the Wirral, based on other place name evidence - I see no reason why Irish couldn't have been spoken there.  It's obviously plausible enough for Mills to suggest it.  Psammead (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether the whole place-name section shouldn't be deleted? The etymologies are not certain and not based on any reputable source. They keep being changed and until there is a reputable scholarly source why don't we get rid of this section? 22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheshire place names 

message: I've taken the liberty of rearranging some elements of the article to flow better.  There was a lot of repetition and the "place names, scots/english and counting" sections seem to fit best under the "evidence" heading since they are already discussed there.  I've not made too many changes, except to help the article flow and to remove things which were repeated. Psammead (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement 

message: Me again.  I've undone the revision by Colacho under the place names Penrith and Penruddock, vis:
*Penrith, Cumbria. From "Pen rhudd" or "pen rhyd" , meaning 'the top of the hill' or "the top of the ford"
*Penruddock, Cumbria. Nearby to Penrith, it comes from the words pen (head or top) and ruth with the suffix oc, meaning 'top of the little hill'.
"The top of the hill" is not a translation of either of the Welsh forms given for Penrith.  Mills and others give the meaning as "chief ford".  "Top of the ford" is not semantically impossible but needs citation.  The revised derivation for Penruddock contains fake Cumbric cognates (see discussion above): there is no such word as **ruth in Welsh or Cornish nor anything like it meaning 'hill'.  The existing derivation "little red hill" is not particularly convincing either, but does appear in Lee's Place Names of Cumbria.  (rhuddog means 'reddish' in Welsh and 'robin' in Welsh and Cornish, but none of my sources suggest 'reddish hill' or 'robins hill'.  The suffix -og isn't a diminutive in Brythonic, even though toponymists repeatedly treat it as one).
Psammead (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From the GPC - Pen(1) 2.a: "top, summit, roof, highest point, also fig.; source (of stream, river, etc), (river-)head; head (of bed, grave, table, etc)." The suffix -og (earlier -oc/-auc) certainly was used as a diminutive in Brittonic languages (and was even borrowed by the Irish). Why are you pretending that you know more about Celtic linguistics than you actually do? I really don't understand the mentality. Cagwinn (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Colacho clearly believes *ruth to mean 'hill' since s/he uses it in both derivations.  There's no such word.  I've only ever come across one reference to W. -og as a diminutive outside toponymy, in an old grammar by Thomas Rowland.  The only possible extant example I know of is ffolog, which isn't really a diminutive at all.  CB -eg/k isn't used as a diminutive and I've never heard it described as such with reference to known British personal and place names (Eburacon, Catacos, Tigernacos, Dubacos etc.). Macbain says the Gaelic dimin. -ag < OI -óc is the OI word óc "young", though how convincing that is I don't know.  Psammead (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "ruth" bit is spurious. but as I mentioned, there's nothing controversial about the rest. If you have only come across one old source regarding Brittonic -āko- being used to form hypocoristics, may I suggest that you have a lot more reading to do on the subject and should refrain from editing articles on Brittonic subjects until you are properly educated? Just an idea. MacBain is not a serious source - but you would know that already if you had conducted a serious study of Celtic historical linguistics. Sorry if I am coming off as obnoxious, but it's people such as yourself who diminish the quality of Wikipedia (which is already low to begin with). Cagwinn (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand by the edit, regardless.  I don't claim to know everything about Brythonic linguistics but I do know some things.  My reasons for reverting this edit were (a) because neither pen rhudd nor pen rhyd mean "top of the hill", (b) because the edit included invented Cumbric forms, which have no place in this article unless they are from cited sources and (c) because *ruth "hill" has no Brythonic cognates in any case.  My personal opinions on -oc are irrelevant to that decision, nor do they appear in the article itself.  I have no problem with pen rhyd meaning "top of the ford" but it was easier to undo than to rewrite the section.  I have been making concerted efforts to tidy this article up, both in terms of its content and its format, by ensuring that only citable information is included.  If it wasn't for people like me the misinformation above would still be included in this article.  Psammead (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your revert was a good one, Psammead, thank you. Cagwinn, you could clear it all up quickly by just adding a reliable source rather than being a jerk.--Cúchullain t/c 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penrith & Penruddock 

message: I've added a fledgling section to discuss in more detail the various definitions of the "Cumbric Region", which differ widely.  I have only put a few up for a general picture, but please expand.  There have been discussions on this page about areas of Cheshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire being included so it would be interesting to have some sources for those (if there are any).  Psammead (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumbric Region section 

message: Cagwinn: okay, that's the citations, that's all I really wanted. It bothers me a little that people automatically assume that Cumbric was close to Welsh when the evidence I've found seems to suggest otherwise, but since this would be "original research" I can't object further. The Equivalance with Old Welsh section elucidates on some (possible/likely) differences between Cumbric and Welsh; what similarities do we have actually attested or deduced, features that specifically mark the language out as more Welshy and less Southwestern? Paul S (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the issue is that the phrase "Western Brythonic" isn't used all that often. The sources just tend to note the similarities between Welsh and Cumbric and the features that make them distinct from one another. The two were similar enough that Cumbric features in the poetry could be retained in Welsh copies without difficulty. On the issue of relatedness, every source I've seen that gets into it to any depth indicates that Welsh and Cumbric were more similar to one another than to the Cornish/Breton of the period.Cúchullain t/c 21:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The poetry in question is so old it might be called Brythonic; Koch calls it "archaic neo-Brittonic" for instance. I'd just like to see some stuff on the specific similarities, if indeed they exist. Paul S (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between Neo-Brittonic and Brittonic; the poetry in question does not date to the Brittonic period (which is effectively over by the mid-late-6th century).Cagwinn (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But then I suppose there's less of a difference between Brittonic and archaic Neo-Brittonic. Is it argued that we could definitely not have had a Cornish or Breton version of Y Gododdin drawing on the same original source? Paul S (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Archaic Neo-Brittonic was closer to Brittonic in some respects and closer to Old Welsh/Cornish/Breton in others. For instance, the lack of Brittonic final syllables and a-/i-affection of vowels in the new final (formerly Brittonic penultimate) syllables, makes it more like the later medieval languages. If an early 7th century Ur-Gododdin was brought to Cornwall or Brittany, then yes, we could have ended up with a Cornish or Breton version of the poem. Cagwinn (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So then how is it possible for people to go on citing it and other very early works as evidence for the closeness of Welsh and Cumbric? Paul S (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Brythonic classification 

message: The link to modern Cumbria is inappropriate because it's not the old used of the word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: the area anciently known as Cumbria

message: I have added a 'Citation Needed' template to the recent addition about Skiddaw in Place Names. My own sources prefer a Norse derivation, but it is usually left as 'uncertain'. The whole fragment is in need of reworking to comply with Wikipedia's standards. I have left it as-is for the time being, but suggest it is deleted if a citation is not provided soon. Psammead (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this refers to the supposed "shoulders" derivation on the Skiddaw page. Looking at earlier recorded forms, it's hard to see the supposed Cumbric *sceidou(?) being more likely than the Norse. Paul S (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested Norse derivation is  from a word skut which is found in Kinder Scout and Scoat Fell in Cumbria. In that case it would likely be Skouthou with a different vowel in the first syllable and no explanation of how we get to a -d- rather than a -t-. Coates suggested the name might be Cumbric which Whaley notes. An Cumbric skuidh du "black shoulder" (forgive the ad hoc orthography) which would correspond to Ysgwydd Du in Welsh - there is no Ysgwydd Du in Wales for an actual mountain but there is an Ysgwydd Gwyn and various other Ysgwydd hill names. Cumbric Skuidh Du (the on glide schwa in Welsh was a later development) would give Skidh daw if the /ui/ was borrowed by Old English /y/ and later unrounded as normal to /i/ Jackson discussed Forster's explanation of luitgoed to Litchfield where this exact feature is seen. The dh d -> to d is also not unlikely. So I think that Skuidh Du to Skiddaw presents no obvious phonological problems, unlike the suggested Norse derivation. However, this is my theory and it is not published so it can't be cited so there is no citation from published material to support this  92.18.172.254 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But then you would have to find evidence for Br. ei > ui in Cumbric alongside the change in Welsh (but absent in Cornish) and there is also the alternative Norse skyti. Paul S (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've deleted the Skiddaw entry, I don't believe it's adding any valuable information to the article, it's only confusing matters and the list is not intended to be exhaustive so it doesn't need to be there. It has been suggested that the whole section should be deleted. It has got out of hand and half of the names don't have cited sources or are so dubious as to be of little value. I think it's important to have a section on place names with a few clear examples as PNs are the only major source of evidence for the language. However, perhaps just a handful of known or very probably examples should be given within a paragraph. Or perhaps certain elements such as car-, tre-, pen-, blen- should be given with a few good examples to give a flavour of the language. Nicolaisen would probably the best source as he names Cumbrian as well as Scottish examples. Psammead (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is indeed Cumbric, is it not easier to derive Skiddaw from an equivalent of the plural ysgwyddau, ("shoulders") with no "black" at all? That fits the topography (Skiddaw is a large massif with several ridges and subsidiary peaks) and is consistent with the local pronunciation "Skidda" ('skɪdɘ). As the /w/ after /g/ seems to have been lost in some varieties of Cumbric (gos/gwas) the late Cumbric word for shoulder could plausibly have been (y)sgydd (as Welsh would spell it), which would account for the ui~i issue (ie it went *skuidh-*skwidh-*skidh in Cumbric, before it was taken into English). Walshie79 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skiddaw 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* I disagree - since Cumbria is also the name of a region in northern England, "Cumbric" can have other usages besides the linguistic one. Since other Neo-Brittonic articles are qualified by the the addition of "language" (ie, Welsh language, Cornish language, Breton language, I feel that it should be retained here for both consistency and to avoid ambiguity. Cagwinn (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We only add disambiguation when it's needed to distinguish existing articles with the same names. With Welsh, Cornish, and Breton, we have other articles they need to be distinguished from (Welsh people, Cornish people, etc.) There are no other articles that could cause confusion for "Cumbric", which is only ever used for this topic, and which is already a redirect to the longer name.--Cúchullain t/c 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a Google Books search - "Cumbric" is/was used for more than just the language (I have seen "Cumbric kingdom", "Cumbric race", "Cumbric islands" and "Cumbric hill", for instance). Cagwinn (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We only disambiguate for currently existing articles. Those other uses are so obscure that there will never be articles for them; for the most part "Cumbric" is still a reference to the language. Considering that the shorter name already redirects here, the current title fails the conciseness and precision points of WP:AT. Additionally, calling this a "language" may present unnecessary confusion for readers (the article itself calls Cumbric a variety).--Cúchullain t/c 14:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Again, we only add disambiguation when there are existing articles to distinguish it it from. There are none for "Cumbric", and other uses of the term, such as they are, are so obscure that they'll never be articles.--Cúchullain t/c 14:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does what you are saying have a clear basis in WP:TITLE? PatGallacher (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I said in the proposal: two of the naming criteria at WP:TITLE are conciseness and Precision. Conciseness means "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Per WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Additionally, disambiguation is only used "single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles" (my emphasis). In our case, there is no other article called "Cumbric" and there never will be, as there are no other uses of the term that are remotely common.--Cúchullain t/c 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There is no evidence of a Saxon presence in Northern Englannd. There were Angles, but eventually they became "broken men" living in the edges of Celtic villages. So much for a German Northern england. The arival of Scandinavians, who were farmers and traders, but the vikings, who were Scandinavian pirates hardly existed in Northern England. Our Celts were Gauls from France i.e. the Parigians of South Yorkshire. The myth of a German Anglo-Saxon Northern England is that, just a Germanist myth.     DAVE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.195 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: No evidence of Saxon presence

message: Are we to assume kwamikagami's problem is with the division of Celtic into Insular and Continental rather than, say, into P-Celtic and Q-Celtic? I have my own problem with the classification as "West Brythonic" since it seems to be something all the authorities do without supplying any reason for it, but that's a separate issue I won't return to. Paul S (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the division is that it is believed that Cumbric shared more traits with Welsh (the main West Brittonic language) than it did with South-Western Brittonic languages like Cornish and Breton.Cagwinn (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, but nobody ever seems to have any basis, other than geographical proximity, for having this belief... I've yet to see a comparison of features shared between (perceived) Cumbric and Welsh showing how this groups them together and sets them apart from Cornish. Paul S (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification within Celtic 

message: I've added this section as the use of "Gos-" seems like quite a distinctive feature of Cumbric, and is mentioned as such in Koch's Celtic Encyclopedia. It's fairly basic, but I'm not aware of much discussion on the matter beyond brief mentions and I didn't want to wander into the realms of original research. Psammead (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the Name Element ''Gos-'' 

message: The 2nd introductory paragraph is historical/geographical information not really relevant to the discussion of the language and the remarks about placenames are repeated anyway. The "Cumbric Region" section also seems a digression not really relevant to the discussion of the language as well as being too discursive and even a bit POV-laden. It also says The definition of that area is therefore essential to any further study of Cumbric before essentially concluding that it doesn't seem possible to define the area... Pythian-Adams is a historian specialising in the Mediaeval and Tudor periods and so his criteria seem unlikely to have anything to do with delineating a region according to its language in an earlier phase so lengthy quotation of him also doesn't seem to have much value in this article, even though he mentions Cumbric. I've moved Koch and Jackson's definitions of the boundaries of Cumbric from this to the "Problems with Terminology" section. Paul S (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Paragraph and Section "Cumbric Region" 

message: Needs maps showing the two quite different extents proposed by the two major sources cited (use a gradient for the uncertain eastern border in one of them).  The textual descriptions of the language's theoretical range aren't very meaningful to people not intimately familiar with British geography (especially since they're a mixture of usage - landmarks, modern counties, old traditional counties, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're probably right about this, but it's hard to find one that fits the bill. I don't trust a linguistic map in 1100 which seems to have been made specifically to 'big up' Gaelic at the expense of other languages, including Cumbric. I've found a "Just before the Vikings" map that might serve. Paul S (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Replaced it with my own map which mentions most of the locations in the text and has the principal (supposedly) Cumbric-speaking early mediaeval kingdoms - Alt Clut, Elmet, Gododdin, Rheged. Paul S (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, belated, for taking that on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs maps 

message: The article for Pennywell, near Sunderland, Tyne & Wear states that 'The name Pennywell is of Celtic origin and is thought to mean "wellspring at the top of the hill".', and I'd like also to add a personal interpretation of Pen-y-gwal, 'end of the wall'. Could this name be considered 'Cumbric'? 
It is within close proximity to another Cumbric toponym, Penshaw and the Brythonic (though not necessarily Cumbric) River Wear.
There is also a hamlet so-named in Midlothian, also a region with evidence of Cumbric toponymy. 
I should also note that for both, the solution of Old English penning-wel, 'penny well' should be further explored.
JoeyofScotia (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennywell. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cumbric. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322012011/http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/new_website_launched_for_people_who_want_to_talk_in_cumbric_1_568605 to http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/new_website_launched_for_people_who_want_to_talk_in_cumbric_1_568605
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the "Available Evidence" section, discussing the secondary evidence of Cumbric from place-names, I have changed a reference to the distribution of such names in England from "extreme northwest" to simply "north". The basis for this change is that; Cumbric names in England simply aren't limited to the "extreme northwest" of the country. The article acknowledges the presence of Cumbric-derived place-names in the northeast (Penshaw, Mindrum, Troughend), Yorkshire (Pen-y-Ghent) and Lancashire (Mellor, Culcheth, Pemberton).
JoeyofScotia (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extreme northwest of England" 

message: I've just moved the links into "external links" and deleted the section. I couldn't find additional external sources - the existing ones are very close to the project or simply comment on its existence. Giving it a full section seems to be wp:undue prominence but I couldn't think of anywhere else to put it, hence moving the links and deleting the comments. (This has been discussed previously above. I've added a note in the above discussions to point here.) --Northernhenge (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's misleading to speak about 'revival' for Cumbric. Unlike languages like Cornish and Manx, which were revived based on the actual previous form of the language, there is no known form of Cumbric so no 'revival' is possible. Any 'revival'of Cumbric is merely inventing a new language, not reviving an extinct one. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted the Modern Revival section