Talk:Continental Celtic languages

message: Interesting. From what I've read, Gaulish (at least some dialects) was pretty close to insular Brythonic languages, and is often classified among Brythonic Celtic languages... and since I live in France, I assume that the more up to date research on Gaulish would come from here. Of course, I might be out of date. So, what's up, and where's this classification from?
:Some people group Brythonic and Gaulish together on the basis of the fact that both have the sound change kw > p. However, that's pretty much all they have in common, and it's a common enough sound change (especially in phonemic inventories previously lacking p, such as the Proto-Celtic one) that it's easy to believe both groups underwent the change separately. The commonalities between Brythonic and Goidelic are much more wide-ranging and are not the sort of thing that is likely to have developed independently twice, making the Insular Celtic hypothesis far more likely than the Gallo-Brythonic hypothesis. User:Angr 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And we know that Gaulish did not share these commonalities, and that they must have arisen after Celts moved to the islands, but before the Brythons and Goidels became distinct? Does anybody know reliable, easily accessed materials on the subject? this article lacks in sources, and honestly, I find that theory strange enough that I'd like to check for myself how whoever formulated it came to such conclusions, and whether it is generally accepted as being right, or if it's just a speculative theory among others. --Svartalf 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can dig up some sources over the weekend, but briefly, yes, we know that Gaulish did not share these commonalities. Of course we can't know for sure if the "Goidelo-Brythonic" commonalities arose after Celts arrived on the islands or if there was already a "Proto-Goidelo-Brythonic" being spoken on the mainland, but because we only know Goidelic and Brythonic languages from the islands (Breton being a much later return to the continent rather than a group that never left it), it's most convenient to refer to "Proto-Insular Celtic". User:Angr 07:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaulish

message: "In the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically between the west and north Atlantic coasts and an imaginary line running north-south and linking Oviedo and Mérida, there is a corpus of Latin inscriptions with particular characteristics of its own. This corpus contains some linguistic features that are clearly Celtic and others that in our opinion are not Celtic. The former we shall group, for the moment, under the label northwestern Hispano-Celtic." Jordán Cólera, Carlos (16). "Celtiberian". e-keltoi 6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula: 750. http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_17/jordan_6_17.pdf. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
:"For the moment" sounds like they're going to be more conclusive later on in the paper. Angr (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Jordán Cólera later includes them in a "Celtic continuum" using examples from both Gallaecian and Lusitanian. Dagmar Wodtko agrees and gives many more examples in Celtic from the West.Jembana (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but where are the inscriptions written entirely in a Celtic language as Celtiberian is ? Nortmannus (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nortmannus, John Koch in his latest book "Tartessian 2" has raised the possibility that Tartessian could be styled as Old Western Hispano-Celtic or Old Caillaecian based on its dialectal characteristics from interpreting the inscriptions. He speculates that after the fall of Tartessos from power, many Celtici migrated north to the Lusitanian and Galician regions. He He says there is placename evidence for a Carthaginian dispersal of Celts from SW Iberian. He further speculates that this could have resulted in a melange of languages in western and north-western Iberia. So Tartessian inscriptions may in that case be an attestation of an old Gallaecian. Analysis of seeming Celtic words embedded in Latin inscriptions across a wide area of the NW of Iberia has also suggested a spectrum of Celtic dialects may have been used by local people alongside Latin. Lusitanian has some inscriptions to attest it and according to Jordan Colera and Dagmar Wodtko and others there huge similarities with the the Gallaecian corpus of embedded Celtic words despite some conservative features that Prosper has noticed in Lusitanian and Churchin in one embedded Asturian IE language (the main one appears IE Celtic) that could put some of the languages spoken alongside Celtic in the linguistic melange back to descent from a very archaic Celtic (a term used by Patick Sims-Williams to describe a Celtic that retained the IE p* - John Koch speculates that contact with Iberian and other Mediterranean languages may have encouaged the loss of IE p* in those areas close to the Mediterranean so old local languages of north and west Iberia more isolated from this influence may have kept IE p*). Blanca Prosper has noted some Italic features that may suggest that Lusitanian proper may go back further to descent from a very conservative Italo-Celtic language (though the evidence must be admitted to being weak). So not a simple answer, but that's life.Jembana (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Some remark about the non-inclusion of Breton should be in the first paragraph.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the "Note on Breton" into the lead section. There's not enough to say about it to warrant a section of its own. Angr (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but it is a common misconception, so should be mentioned at the beginning. Thanks --MacRusgail (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breton 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continental 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705092001/http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/dateien.cgi?download to http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/dateien.cgi?download
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) 03:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see a lot of personal opinions here concomitant with a total lack of specific on-line references. The chief issue is whether or not there is a linguistically defined proto-continental celtic. Some of the articles here plug the view that no, there was not. The term only has a geographic basis. But apparently, The lack of references on the topic is consistent. This material is fair game. I found without much effort that there is too a proto continental Celtic. The geographic names, continental and insular, are only convenient accidental names for the linguistic changes. In other words, the "no continental" view as it is developed and presented by WP editors supposes that Insular Celtic, and each one of the Continental Celtic languages, are sister languages. In that case continental is not a clade, lacking a proto-language. That is not what I find on the scholarly Internet. Continental Celtic has plenty of champions, going back to at least Schmidt. If he felt a need to defend it then someone credible must have attacked it. Since we don't have any refs on it, I need to dig out who. Then I will start removing unreferenced assertions and giving both views a fair shake. Bottom line: the geographic choice of names is only accidentally geographic and serves as a sign for linguistic changes. There are too shared innovations of continental celtic. Feel free to comment. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced material has to go