Talk:*Walhaz

message: I disagree. If there is not enough material here yet, the article may be merged with Etymology of Vlach, which is essentially about the same word/concept. dab (ᛏ) 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re, move to wiktionary 

message: From the article:
:With the Old Germanic name *Walhaz, plural *Walhôz, adjectival form *walhiska- ...
I'm not aware of the asterisk being (or representing) an Old German letter, and there is no reference to such on the Old High German page.  There is also no footnote on this page that the asterisk might refer to.  What does this asterisk represent here?  --ΨΦorg (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In historical lingusitics, an asterisk before a word denotes the fact that the word has not been attested, but has been reconstructed by linguists based on its descendants. --Jfruh (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisk as a letter? 

message: Can someone tell me why "País de Gales" (literally translated: "The Country of Wales") for "Wales" in Portuguese? And so, consequently there is the term "galês" (or, alternatively, "a língua galêsa") for the "Welsh" language? Would there be any connection or related pattern to the name "William" traditionally being translated as "Guilherme" in Portuguese? Bepp (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure but it French, anyway, the letter W in other languages often becomes a G (i.e. William - Guillame). Perhaps it is the same phenomenon? --Jfruh (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Course it is. Even the De Gaulle family seems to have ancestors called Van de Walle, which is Dutch. Ad43 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales in Portuguese 

message: The article currently claims that "Welschhinkel" and "Welschkann" are the Penn Dutch names for Turkey and Maize respectively and that is should be literally translated as "French" grain. I'm no expert but surely the proper translation would be foreign grain as 1. maize is not french and never has been and 2. the article goes into significant depth to explain the origin of this word as essentially relating to things "foreign" to a particular group of people, the Germanic tribes. Alex McKee (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that, as the article indicates, "welsch" in origin means "foreign," but it's possible that in Switzerland in the 16th century (the origin of Pa. Dutch) the meaning had narrowed to mean the Romance-speakers in France.  If maize entered Germany via France, that would explain the meaning. The question is, what is standard Pa. Dutch for "French"? --Jfruh (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: In the Italian language corn/maize is called mais or "grano turco", literally "Turkish wheat". Etymologically it's called like that 'cause of the literal translation ""wheat of the turkey" (the bird) as far as I know. Scientist or Philosopher (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania Dutch 

message: As a native German speaker I may perhaps be considered as a kind of "native informant". I this role I'd like to suggest to treat the word "Welscher/Welsche" as a historic word. I have never in my 52 years of earthly life come across anybody using that word, either in written or spoken German.
G. Berkemer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.56.187 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're only an informant for the region where you live, at best. There are definitely regions where the word "welsch"/"walsch" is still used, even if all of them may be outside Germany (there's no reason to exclude Austrians, South Tyrolians, Swiss and Pennsylvania Dutch). Always be careful and don't generalise from your own limited experience – I doubt you've been to everywhere in the German Sprachraum. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Florian, but G. Berkemer is right. Historical forms are always available for people who want to make humorous usage, methinks, but that doesn't make them current. And as for dialect forms, you have to identify them as such. Telling the English-speaking user that Welsche is standard German usage is really misleading. Besides, we shouldn't be too snippy with newcomers to Wiki. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If a word is still used in several varieties of German (not only in dialectal German, but also Standard German, for example Swiss Standard German), it can hardly be called "historical". That was my whole point. If G. Berkemer is oblivious of that fact, it doesn't change the fact, however much G. Berkemer may be a native speaker of German. German is a multicentric language, just like English. If the term fall for autumn sounds archaic to a native speaker of English, that doesn't make the term historical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsche 

message: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Old English is the language of the Anglo-Saxons.
So the meaning of wilisc in the introductory paragraph should be changed to 'foreign, non-Anglosaxon, Cymric'. The Dutch reference doesn't mean any person from England which contained Cymric people.203.161.75.138 (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Old English was the language of the Anglo-Saxons

message: saltare > sauter; falsus > faux; salvare > sauver; alter >  autre; 118.96.143.95 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Late Latin *assaltus > Old French assault > English assault; Late Latin *caldaro > Old Norman-French cauldron > English cauldron (French chaudron)Nortmannus (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very old section, which doesn't need further discussion. garik (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  french diphtong "au" from Latin incomprehensible? 

message: I am wondering if Walhalla or Valhalla (Old Norse Valhöll) also derive from Walha?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codrinb (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walhalla or Valhalla 

message: There is a conundrum here: The article is about one word attested in many different forms in many different languages, but all of them ultimately, historically go back to the same proto-form *Walha- (stem) or *Walhaz (nominative singular). However, what should the article be named? I tried to fix the intro and thought of moving the article, but I'm not sure how to proceed in such a case. Should we give the article the title Walhaz even though that is a reconstructed form? Given that the articles for the runes and some other subjects, such as Germanic deities, also use reconstructed forms, for example Wodanaz, this possibility should be canvassed, but use in this area is terribly inconsistent in Wikipedia. In any event, Walh (singular) and Walha (plural) is not proto-Germanic or even simply "Germanic" or "ancient Germanic" (which doesn't exist as a unified language; you simply cannot quote unitary "Germanic" or "ancient Germanic" forms, just like you can quote Latin or reconstructed proto-Romance but not "common Romance" forms), it's simply Old High German, and that needs to be clarified. But I don't know how to structure the intro better. Anyone have any idea how to fix this? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and introduction of the article 

message: The section of this article which goes through all the languages needs to be re-organized. Central Europe and Western Europe are not suitable categories. It would be much better to group these linguistically. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize 

message: What about the Swiss Wallis/Valais canton/region? Does it have the same root? Or is it just coming from the Vallis Poenina, the name used by Romans for  the upper Rhône valley?--Codrin.B (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about [[Wallis]]/[[Valais]] canton/region? 

message: I think it would be very useful to have table like this, possible with more relevant columns:
--Codrin.B (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing the information 

message: At one point this article says: “In English usage the words Gaul and Gaulish are used synonymously with Latin Gallia, Gallus and Gallicus. However the similarity of the names is probably accidental: the English words are borrowed from French Gaule and Gaulois, which appear to have been borrowed themselves from walha-. Germanic w is regularly rendered with French gu / g (cf. guerre = war, garder = ward), and the diphthong au is the regular outcome of al before a following consonant (cf. cheval ~ chevaux). Gaule or Gaulle can hardly be derived from Latin Gallia, since g would become j before a (cf. gamba > jambe), the regular outcome of Latin Gallia would have been *Jaille in French.[4][5] This also applies to the French name for Wales, which is le pays de Galles.” At another point it says: “In most Oïl languages[9] and Irish, walhaz was borrowed and altered by changing the initial w to g (cf. English "war" French guerre, English "William" vs. French Guillaume or even English "ward" vs. "guard", borrowed into English from French) resulting in Gaul- : Gaule "Gaul", Gaulois "Gaulish"”. These paragraphs appear to be contradictary. Is Gaul related to Gallia, or not? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The online OED has “ Gaul (the name of the country), < French Gaule, an adoption (phonologically obscure) of Latin Gallia, < Gall-us a Gaul.”. But maybe the cited texts have more detail… Ewx (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: French Gaule means Gallia in Latin and the English word Gaul is borrowed from French Gaule and means both the country and its inhabitants. The similarity between French Gaule and Latin Gallia is a coincidence. Regularly the Latin group /ga/ changes into /ja/ in French : gamba  > jambe "leg", gallus > Old French jal, jau "rooster", galbinus > jaune "yellow", gabella > javelle "handful of wheat", etc. French Gaulois means "Gaulish" or "Gaul inhabitants" and is clearly attested as waulois in the northern French dialects and otherwise vaulois see for instance . There is an homonym from another Germanic word gaule "long stick" see  similar phonetic evolution. We cannot think of a literary loanword because the form would be Gall- and not Gaul- like in this scholar loanword gallican "French" Nortmannus (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: "Welsch" is not used pejorative and is only reserved for francophone regions. The French term "Romandie" and the german term "Welschschweiz" are identical and define areas instead of political territories, since some cantons are bilingual. Corresponding to that, French and german speakers use different names for municipalities, for example "Sion" vs. "Sitten" or "Neuchâtel" vs. "Neuenburg".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.33.122 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error on situation in Switzerland 

message: The text that read:
 Similarly the corresponding Hebrew root "la'az" or "lo'ez", literally meaning "foreign", is used of the Judeo-Italian languages 
 and of vocabulary of Romance origin in Yiddish. In the Talmudic commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, 
 the translations of individual words into Old French are known as lo'azim.
is both factually inaccurate and irrelevant here.  The Hebrew "la'az" -- לעע״ז -- is not a root.  It is rather a Hebrew Abbreviation, namely, an acronym for "לשון עבדי עבודה זרה".  Its literal meaning is "language of the performers of strange worship" (i.e., the language of idolaters/infidels).  It is indeed commonly used to refer to translations of obscure Hebrew words into Old French by Rashi in his commentaries -- though not only in the Talmud but elsewhere as well.  As Rashi lived in France, it was natural for him to use French as a reference for rendering complex terms.  Being not a proper native root, it is irrelevant to the discussion of the subject of this page.
Saparagus (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed incorrect information from Yiddish section 

message: Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walhaz&curid=1274120&diff=657054077&oldid=654884741
Based on what I can find e.g. http://abdn.ac.uk/skaldic/m.php?p=word&i=90526 and http://web.ff.cuni.cz/cgi-bin/uaa_slovnik/gmc_search_v3?cmd=formquery2&query=Valskr&startrow=1 'French' seems a more supportable interpretation of 'valskr' than 'Gaul'. Ewx (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  valskr 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Walhaz. 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/20120206215140/http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/nederlandsetaalkunde/NTKonderzoek-quak.pdf to http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/nederlandsetaalkunde/NTKonderzoek-quak.pdf
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) 17:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding "To your question on the notable people, I would start by looking here: "
- I don't know how, but I am unable to find anything about notable people in this link
- Also, it's a blog and does not appear to be a reliable source
I could be missing something. I would really like to cite this section - otherwise, it should probably be removed. –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK apologies, that link will not help with the notable people. I misunderstood you to be asking for sources about the people as a group, the "Walhaz people", which would be the Volcae. That was not what you were asking so that won't help. I have no idea how to locate information about individual people. As to that site being self published, yes, I was not suggesting it be the source. Rather it was a tertiary source inasmuch as they had collated a bibliography of 8 references and curated the information. It is a starting point. But not the starting point you wanted! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point, I have been prone to looking at content from unreliable sources and then research for sources. It's a helpful research approach! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people 

message: I will take a look at this list and see what I can find:
* Cowgill, Warren.  1986.  “Einleitung.”  Cowgill, Warren, and Manfred Mayrhofer, Indogermanische Grammatik, Band I (Heidelberg:  Winter) 9-71.
** I couldn't find a viewable version of this book, but it is referenced in this source
::: added a bit of content here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing new to add.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

text: * Made update, only one where I found the book. But found some other good sources that referenced these people.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have done all that I can from these sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources