Talk:Common Brittonic

message: I'm a bit disappointed that there is little information on scholarly reconstructions of Old Brythonic, especially given that there are prominent scholars in the field of Celtic languages who have undergone such tasks (eg. Kenneth Jackson, Peter Schrijver). Although these reconstructions because of the lack of archaeological evidence aren't attested doesn't mean these should be any less listed or at least referred to; especially since we already have articles about similarly reconstructed languages like the big Proto languages of the Indo-European group (eg. Proto-IE, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Germanic, etc.). Could someone add information about these? - Znex (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstructions? 

message: The reference to the sixth century in the first paragraph is ambiguous. AD or BC? "By the 6th century, this language of the Celtic Britons had split into the various Brittonic languages..." The surrounding material does not clarify it, nor does the link article "6th century". I can't fix it because I honestly don't know which century. Friendly Person (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: AD. I would have thought the linked article made that abundantly clear.Acasson (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth Century 

message: What stage exactly does this reconstruction represent, if Common Brittonic was spoken from the 6th century BC until the 6th century AD. It's reconstructed here as a heavily inflected language, true to its Indo-European roots, while even the earliest Old Welsh show no evidence of any case inflection. Can't Common Brittonic be assumed to have lost its inflection relatively early? Steinbach (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflection 

message: I have tracked down citations requested for this article and added in an unrequested one too for a claim about Cornish. I notice that there are seven citations in the second paragraph of the lead. This looks like citation overkill. I don't want to delete good citations, but Pictish is twice mentioned in the lead. Perhaps it merits a section, and the citations can be moved to the section information? Information cited in the article does not need to then be cited in the lead. There are also 4 citations regarding dialects. Maybe a dialect section is called for? although we should not repeat what is in the Brittonic languages article. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: That's a lot of vowels, and the table doesn't appear to match any of the reconstructions I am familiar with. Whose is the basis for the table?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.215.134 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Brittonic Vocalic System 

message: Shouldn't this article ideally have a list of sound changes from Proto-Celtic → Brythonic? The Proto-Celtic page has a pretty comprehensive list of changes from PIE. – Dyolf87 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it... might take a few days. Or weeks...😁 Tewdar (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound changes from Proto-Celtic 

message: Hello, I would like to suggest a private use tag cel-x-bryproto for tagging Common Brittonic on Wikipedia. Any objections or other suggestions? Other possibilities might be cel-x-britpro, cel-x-protobry, cel-x-probritt... the relevant talk page is here. Thanks. Tewdar (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private use tag for Common Brittonic with Module:Lang 

message: Jackson, in LHEB, uses 'British' throughout. The 'translation' you refer to is not a translation, but a subtitle.  Tewdar (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Matasović uses 'British' in several papers, as well as his world-renowned Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic...  Tewdar (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Ball & Muller...  Tewdar (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Nicholas Zair...  Tewdar (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

text: John Koch...   Tewdar (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Shall I just change it back, or do you want to check that I'm telling the truth? Here, look, you can borrow LHEB from here! 😁👍  Tewdar (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s an unnecessary tone to take. I had a look at the link to Jackson and it’s not complete access, but from the excerpt only saw him say “commonly known as Brythonic or Brittonic” and elsewhere say “British language”. It would be helpful if you could highlight where he uses “British” as a noun, meaning the language. Jackson’s usage is a bit antiquated nowadays anyway and I’m unclear if there’s evidence of continued usage. As far as the others are concerned, I can’t comment as they are just a list of authors. DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by 'tone'. If you really want me to provide a list of modern authors using 'British' you'll have to wait until tomorrow. Have you not read Jackson? Still the handbook on British/Brittonic/Brythonic/etc...  Tewdar (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By tone I mean “Shall I just change it back, or do you want to check that I'm telling the truth?” negates WP:V which is a central and mostly non-controversial and very standard part of discourse on WP. Asking an editor to support their assertion by evidencing in accordance with WP:V should not result in the retort “ or do you want to check that I'm telling the truth?”. DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: here. Search for 'British'.  Tewdar (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And here...  Tewdar (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I added it initially as it seemed uncontroversial: Jackson and a number of other writers use “British” for this language. Tewdar’s references and simple search bears that out. As this is one name readers will encounter the language under in the sources, it should be mentioned here. As an aside, it might be nice to have a section on nomenclature.—Cúchullain t/c 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

text: It is totally uncontroversial. , Patrick Sims-Williams, The Indo-European Languages (2017) isbn 978-1-315-67855-9, chapter 7 "The Celtic Languages" pg 352 has:  We could probably use that to support the claim.  Tewdar (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  British 

message: The pdf from the SPNS doesn't derive the name from the source stated but from the alternative meaning quoted. This *lǫd- derivation is doubtful anyway since the vowel change to give Loidis (Latin, not OE as the removed section suggested) supposes Anglo-Frisian brightening affected /o/ which it didn't and in any case, Anglian smoothing ought to give **Lodes rather than Leeds. Paul S (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Leeds from Place names 

message: We should add a source for *Brittonikā. The only ones I could find on a quick search are Wade-Evans or Morris-Jones. Definitely good ones, but maybe there's something more recent out there?  ? Austronesier (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Schrijver, Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology... hang on, I'll get the page 😁  Tewdar  20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: page 45, I'll add the ref if you like...  Tewdar  20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful! –Austronesier (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for *Brittonikā 

message: The link leading to the MultiTree archive doesn't work (I can find the brit tag but it doesn't lead to anything much less this info?)
What sources do we have for the 6th century BC claim as its starting point? 2A02:8440:D200:FA4C:542E:B2D5:D07:DF17 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Era of Common Brittonic