Talk:Brittonic languages

[Untitled]
Er, Cornish isn't extinct. I for one speak it after a fashion (and know at least a dozen or so people I can talk Cornish with)... We're doing an admirable job on rescuing it down along.sjc
 * Your pardon, I was trying to say "no native speakers", as contrasted with Welsh and Breton. This is not the same as extinct, as you point out --PaulDrye
 * I beg to differ! Cornish does indeed have native speakers. Harrumph! HARRUMPH! harrumph. love, Node 05:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AndyG - it should probably be most, not all, because there were non-Celts in Great Britain (the Picts, and whoever else was there before the Celts). Adam Bishop 23:03 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * If you have a look at Picts, you will see that they may have spoken a celtic language, but that no one really knows. So you can't claim that the Picts are definitely not celts.Alun 11:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Old Devonian/Westcountry Brythonic
I really don't think Biddulph qualifies as a linguistic expert, and this reference, and the main article Old Devonian, should be deleted unless substantiated. Evertype 14:24, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * Westcountryguy has reinstated Westcountry Brythonic as a redirect to this page. Evertype 13:21, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Improving the article
In the final paragraph there are a number of words suggested to derive from Brythonic. Perhaps we should set to filling this out some, giving Welsh or Cornish or (properly) reconstructed forms. Evertype 09:59, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Gaelic invasion?
In the main article it currently and unequivocally states:

"Once, Brythonic languages encompassed most of Great Britain and Ireland – though in Ireland it was replaced with Goidelic when Gaels invaded sometime between 500 and 100 BC."

I've done a bit of reading on the subject and this is the first I've seen that Brythonic is considered older in the British Isles than Goidelic. Most things I've read have suggested the opposite. My reading has hardly been exhaustive, however. Has anyone else heard this before? At the very least I'll bet that it is the subject of some ambiguity, as we are talking about a period of prehistory. Fire Star 20:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Brythonic defiently is older in the british isles originating when celtic society first emmerged here - Gaels from Celtiberia invaded Ireland early on which is where gaelic comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.237.9 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Brythonic defiently is older in the british isles originating when celtic society first emmerged here - Gaels from Celtiberia invaded Ireland early on which is where gaelic comes from"

Really? I've only heard that from old, unreliable theories long abandoned. I didn't think anyone believed that anymore. In your world have they learned about flight yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

● DNA analysis of Bronze Age and modern Britons show us the Iron Age "Celtic invasion" of Britain did not occur. Instead modern Britons are largely descended from Bronze Age Indo-European settlers. Thus we are no longer forced to believe the hard-to-swallow story of the Iron Age "Celtic invasion" (especially of Iberians invading Ireland - just imagine the logistics of such an invasion!) and the hard-to-swallow story of how Celtic split into two very different languages in an archipelago within a short period time. We can assume, unless proven otherwise by solid objective science, that the simplest explanation for Celtic languages in Britain and Ireland is the correct explanation. That is, the first Indo-Europeans migrating to Britain brought the Indo-European Q-Celtic dialect to Britain (Ireland being downstream of this migration) and a later Indo-European migration to Britain brought P-Celtic where it (largely?) replaced Q-Celtic (migrations via the English and Irish channels greatly simplify logistics). Entries in the article that are based on myth (or pseudoscience straining to support myth) should be either removed or noted as being myths. Gortaleen (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Reorganised and More Added
I've just reorganised the page, improved the wording in places and added more history about the language. IMO it's still not enough- there's so much more we can add here. I'd like to add that I'm pretty sure of most of the stuff I've added or changed, but I'm also sure that infelicities and errors remain. Please- correct them and add to the content. Dewrad 21:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Breton
Western into Cumbric and Welsh and the Southwestern into Cornish and its closely related sister language Breton, which was carried from the south of Britain to continental Armorica by refugees fleeing the Saxon invaders. In school Ysgol Gyfun Llanhari (a Welsh language school in south Wales) I was taught this. In 1996 I was working in a research lab in the University of Huddersfield with a Breton chap. He told me that Bretons are taught the opposite. That is that Breton was transfered to Cornwall by Bretons fleeing Franks! I wonder which is true, or possibly both are true? Can anyone elaborate?--Alun 21:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * All the linguistic evidence points to Breton and Cornish being so closely related to Welsh that they must have developed alongside it on Britain, with Breton being introduced to Brittany. But there are Breton linguists who for political reasons want to believe that Breton is a direct descendant of Gaulish, and so they need to find an alternative explanation for the fact that Breton is so very similar to Cornish and Welsh. --Angr/undefined 05:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gaulish scholars do not see Breton as being a direct descendant of Gaulish, but having passed through the earlier phases of the Bythonic to Old Welsh changes first. It seems obvious that Breton and Cornish would continue to inflience each other for some time, being geographically right next to each other. --Nantonos 00:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Lowland Scots
I see that on Brythonic languages you removed "and Anglo-Saxons brought an Anglo-Saxon language with them, Lowland Scots." with the comment (Reverting. Could we have some discussion on this point with dates before introducing Anglo-Saxon Scots at that early date?). It seems non-contentious that Lowland Scots is a Germanic language, derived like Northern English from Northumbrian; and that it displaced Brythonic languages in the south of Scotland as Gaelic displaced them in the north. What is your objection here? Is it that Lowland Scots is not identical to Anglo-Saxon (which is certainly true, but better dealt with by adding 'which evolved into' rather than deleting the phrase entirely. --Nantonos 00:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Lowlands Scots and Modern English both derived from post-Norman Middle English dialects. It is incorrect to say that Anglo-Saxons brought Lowlands Scots with them, and there's no reason for giving Lowlands Scots prominence in the Brythonic Languages article, as both it and Modern English derive from Anglo-Saxon. And then there's the question of how closely related Scots and English are. Evertype 07:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Common Brythonic and Gaulish
The article seems to assume that Gaulish and Common Brythonic, Old Brythonic or Proto-Brythonic have zero connection beyond proto-Celtic. While this is certainly one view, and boldly overturns the P-Celtic / Q-Celtic model, it fails to explain why the actual Iron Age British evidence that we do have, scanty though it may be, and the Old Welsh material (onve adjusted back for sound shifts) are so readilly analysed as if they were Gaulish. I would like to see the connection between Common Brythonic and Gaulish discussed, in a separate section. --Nantonos 18:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is the right place for it, though. Insular Celtic languages has some discussion of the Insular Celtic hypothesis vs. Gallo-Brythonic hypothesis debate; maybe that's the place to extend it. --Angr/undefined 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK let me split that request into two. Insular Celtic languages should talk about it more, agreed, and Brythonic languages should avoid giving the impression that Common Brythonic appeared from nowhere and has no parallels with any other language. --Nantonos 19:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Angr/undefined 05:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Quarietii"
Is this tribe spelled correctly? --Wetman 11:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The only hits that Google finds are this page and its mirrors or sites that reuse the content. --Nantonos 18:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The name is properly Quariates - but the etymology is uncertain and it may not be a "Q-Celtic" name at all, because Quari- could simply be an alternate way of spelling *Cuari- (i.e. *Ko[m]-wari-), making it a cognate of Welsh cywair "fully equipped, ready, prepared, correct" and the verb cyweiriaf "put in order, arrange; chastise, rebuke, thrash, beat"; the full form, *Quariates, potentially a cognate of Welsh cyweiriad "setting in order, preparation, conserving, preserving" (also "beating, thrashing").Cagwinn (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

York?
Many of the place-names in England and to a lesser extent Scotland are derived from the Brythonic names, including London, Penicuik, Perth, York, Dorchester, Dover and Colchester.

I'm surprised to see York in this list. I'm under the impression the name comes from Norse, the Vikings called the town 'Jorvig' or 'Jorvik'. The Roman name 'Eboracum' might have been Brythonic.

The Welsh/British word for York, Efrog > ebrog, is possibly where the Latin word comee from. 95.151.138.171 (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I might remove York from the list. We could, however, add Kent and/or Canterbury which appear to come from the name of the Iron Age inhabitants, the 'Cantii'. Chris Jefferies 08:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Eboracum was certainly a Brythonic name, and Jorvik comes from Eboracum (a bit of folk etymology adapting the word so it looks like it ends with the Norse element -vik). So yeah, York is Brythonic. --Angr/undefined 09:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Roman Eboracum likely derives from Celtic Eburos (Yew). I understood that Yorvik was folk etymology from Saxon Eoforwic (wild boar settlement) which was itself derived by folk etymology from Eboracum. --Nantonos 21:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, that's what I meant! ;-) Anyway, it is Brythonic. --Angr/undefined 21:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No it's not. Have you not read any of the above? It's possibly derived from the brythonic, which is a completely different thing to being brythonic. Just look at the two words!!! Eburos is not the same as word Jorvik. If you want to say that York is possibly derived from a brythonic word, that is fine. This is speculation, and should be stated as such in the article.Alun 08:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If it comes to that, Jorvik isn't the same word as York. Saying that Jorvik is derived from Eboracum is no more or less speculative than saying York is derived from Jorvik. The sentence says "many of the place names... are derived from the Brythonic names", and that's as true of York as it is of London, Penicuik, Perth, Dorchester, Dover and Colchester. --Angr/undefined 09:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it true of York? The similarity between the words Jorvik and York is immediately apparent (given that the J is Scandinavian). The similarity between the words Eburos and York is less apparent. Can we have a reference please, because I need to be convinced that Eburos>York? I always thought that Jorvik is a Scandinavian word. You also seem to have missed my point, which is that above you say it is Brythonic, whereas what I am saying is that it isn't brythonic. I was commenting on your statement in the discussion page, not on the article.Alun 09:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So now I'm hoplessly confused. I've just had a look at folk etymology,and York. It seems to me that what has happened is that Saxons used a Saxon word for the city (Eoforwīc-wild-boar dairy-farm), which sounded a bit like the celtic (Eborakon-yew). The Danes did a similar thing, Jórvík (Horse Bay). If I am understanding this correctly, then York is actually from Jorvik, which is a Danish word. The whole folk etymology arguement actually implies that words like York are in fact not brythonic at all. They are non-brythonic words (with different meanings to the original brythonic words), which were used for place names because they sounded a bit like the brythonic names they replaced. So if words like Jorvik are scandinavian words, with distinct scandinavian meanings, which were just used because they sounded a bit like the original name, then I fail to understand how it can be called brythonic at all. It's not even derived from brythonic, it just sounds like a Northumbrian word which itself just sounded like the brythonic word that used before that. Talk about tenuous to call York a brythonic word!!!!Alun 10:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The original name of the city was something like Eborakom, derived from the Brythonic word for "yew". When the Saxons came they heard this name and changed it by folk etymology into Eoforwic, which sounded more like Saxon words they knew. When the Norse came they pronounced it Jorvik, and over the centuries Jorvik was simplified to York. But York is derived from Brythonic because neither the Norse nor the Saxons ever really re-named the city, they just adapted the name slightly to make it sound more native to them. In fact, it's really unlikely that if the Norse had wanted to name a town "Horse bay" they would have called it Jórvík. For one thing, jór is a rare, poetic word for horse in Old Norse; the usual words are hross and hestr. For another thing, the -r of jór is just the nominative singular ending, which gets dropped when forming compounds. It's much more likely that Jorvik was just the Norse way of pronouncing Eoforwic and the only folk etymologizing was done by the Saxons to the Brythonic name. --Angr/undefined 11:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But that just means that the word York is derived from a Northumbrian word (Eoforwic), by the way you say that the Saxons changed it by folk etymology into Eoforwic, which sounded more like Saxon words they knew so is Eoforwic actually an Anglo-Saxon word, or does it just sound like an Anglo-Saxon word? It's important because if it is a distinct Anglo-Saxon word with a distinct Anglo-Saxon meaning, then how can it be said to have derived from a brythonic word? In that case it just sounds like a brythonic word, which is a different thing altogether. by the way I don't think there were Saxons as far north as York. Surely they were Northumbrians, who were North Angles and not Saxons? It does seem to me that the whole folk etymology thing is just a way of saying that a word from one language is used because it sounds like another word from a different language, this is not the same as being derived from the original language. I'm no linguist and know nothing of etymology, but the whole York being brythonic thing does seem to be very dubious.Alun 11:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The only reason the Germanic speakers (whether Saxons or Northumbrians is irrelevant to this discussion) called it "Boarville" was that the native Brythonic named already sounded like that. They heard the Celts and Romans calling it "Eboracum" and thought "oh, that must have something to do with boars (eofor)" and so they folk-etymologically adapted it. But even when altered by folk etymology, the name Eoforwic is derived from Eboracum the same way that bridegroom is derived from brýdguma. York has been altered a lot over the past fifteen centuries, but at its root it is a Brythonic name. --Angr/undefined 12:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK I think I understand (finally). A little light just went on in my head! Derived from doesn't mean that the words have to be directly related at all?Alun 13:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Derived from in linguistics means basically the same thing as descended from in biology and genealogy. You are descended from your great-grandfather, and you may even look something like him, but that doesn't mean you're identical to him. --Angr/undefined 15:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes that makes perfect sense. But the point is that my great-grandfather and I share an eighth of our genes, which is why we might look similar, there's a good reason for it. These two words are more like unrelated people who just happen to look like each other. Just because you look like someone doesn't mean that you are related to them, and in biology we don't say that a person is descended from someone who they just happen to look like. You seem to be saying that in linguistics it is the case that sometimes words that happen to sound the same are considered related, like in this case. I find this reasoning strange. I would think that one could say that York is desended from a Germanic word that souded like another, different Brythonic word.Alun 17:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But the Germanic word didn't just coincidentally sound like a Brythonic word. It was a loanword from Brythonic to Germanic, and the Germanic speakers altered it to make it seem more Germanic. To push the biology analogy to an extreme, it's like adopting a baby and then giving it plastic surgery to make it look more like you. --Angr/undefined 22:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, now I'm with you.Alun 05:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * One more question and an observation. Are you saying that Eoforwic is itself a loan word from Brythonic, which has been Germanised, and that's why it sounds like "Eboracum"? Of course however much cosmetic surgery your putative adopted child has to resemble you, they will never be descended from you in any biological sense. Alun 09:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Germanic "adopted" Eboracum and performed "plastic surgery" (folk etymology) on it to make it look Germanic, but the word remains Brythonic in origin. --Angr/undefined 10:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect to kick off such a thorough debate with a simple query about York! This leads me to another thought.

Should the list of examples include York if the derivation is so indirect? Maybe we should provide readers with a list of obvious examples (like Kent) and then add a new paragraph explaining that in many cases there are quite indirect influences on modern place names, perhaps providing York as an example of that.

It's mainly a question of what will best help an inquiring reader understand the idea of Brythonic languages as a whole. In its present form, I'm afraid York may confuse rather than enlighten. More thoughts please! Chris Jefferies 08:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could say York is "ultimately derived from Brythonic" or something. Even the other towns mentioned were affected by Old English phonology too, though, just not folk-etymologized the way York was. --Angr/undefined 10:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. I've put a note (sometimes indirectly) in the text. I think it improves the article but if anyone else disagrees please just take it out again or reword it differently. Thanks for the discussion, I feel I've been educated :-) Chris Jefferies 20:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference for Steven Bassett's work
These findings strengthen the research of Steven Bassett of the University of Birmingham; his work during the 1990s suggests that much of the West Midlands was only very lightly colonised with Anglian and Saxon settlements. Can we have a reference to some of his work please, just for verifiability? I have included a link to the Capelli paper on Y chromosomes, and a link to the Y chromosome section in the Anglo-Saxons article, because the article is available online (so why not include it?), and because I have been trying to clarify the situation at Anglo-Saxons for a while, where people were using hopelessly misinformed journalistic interpretations of the papers as sources, rather than the correct research papers. Alun 07:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Expansion of displaced Brythonic languages
The following paragraph is somewhat ambiguous:

The Brythonic languages spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England were displaced at the same time by Goidelic and Old English speaking invaders.

Can I suggest a certain amount of expansion, along the following lines:

The Brythonic languages (or their descendants) spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England began to be displaced after the end of the Roman era by Goidelic and Old English speaking invaders, a process probably completed in all of this territory except Cornwall by the 11th Century (date of extinction in various parts of the territory is debated).

References: The History of Wales, John Davies, 1993; Cumbric

Lloffiwr 12:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't think "Roman era" really applies to most of Scotland, or the Isle of Man. Secondly, there is no mention of the Norse, who may well have played a part as well. --MacRusgail 16:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point - the aim was to remove ambiguity, not to confuse matters more! Since you haven't amended the above I have had another go at it:

The Brythonic languages (or their descendants) spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England began to be displaced in the 5th century through the influence of Irish, Norse and Germanic invaders. The displacement of the languages of Brythonic descent was probably completed in all of this territory except Cornwall by the 11th Century (date of extinction in various parts of the territory is debated).

Lloffiwr 21:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Remnants in England and Scotland
I'm removing this paragraph from the "Remnants in England and Scotland" section since, although nicely sourced, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely the linguistic influence of Brythonic on English and Gaelic. Chromosomal evidence has nothing to do with linguistics.
 * Until recently it was believed that the areas settled by the Anglo-Saxons were uninhabited at the time or that the Britons had fled before their arrival. However, genetic studies show that the British were not pushed out to the Celtic fringes – many tribes remained in what was to become England. These findings strengthen the research of Steven Bassett of the University of Birmingham; his work during the 1990s suggests that much of the West Midlands was only lightly colonised with Anglian and Saxon settlements.

The remainder of this section badly needs sourcing. —Angr 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there's a case for keeping this paragraph. The genetic evidence supports the conclusion that the West Midlands was lightly settled by Germanic-speaking people, demonstrating that it's more likely there might be Brythonic survivals here, particularly place name elements like 'coombe'. There are various reasons for words and name elements to be retained, but one of them is the lack of sufficient numbers of settlers bringing in a replacement language. Chris Jefferies 13:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just too great a leap from "the West Midlands was lightly settled by Germanic-speaking people" to "Brythonic had a palpable effect on the English of the West Midlands". It's certainly too great a leap for an encyclopedia with a policy against original research to be making, since the second proposition doesn't simply logically follow from the first. —Angr 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I won't press the point further. The second part should certainly have been milder, perhaps along the lines, 'Its possible Brythonic had an effect on the English of the West Midlands'. Whether this counts as original research is, I think, open to interpretation. But let's leave it there, I'm content. Chris Jefferies 16:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a distasteful attempt in many articles to link "Celticity" with genes, which is inaccurate, and borderline racist. While it is certainly notable that genetic evidence points to pre-Anglo-Saxon origins for many people in England, and probably deserves something of a mention, it should also be pointed at that a) there is no "Celtic gene", any more than an Anglophone one, and b) it seems that in many cases, the genes come from the pre-Celtic peoples of modern day England. This points to the bulk of the population being surprisingly static, yet absorbing new cultural influences, languages and rulers several times over in some cases. --MacRusgail 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

--MacRusgail 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It may deserve a mention somewhere, but not in an article about the Brythonic languages. Genetics and linguistics have nothing to do with each other. —Angr 18:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

language evolution chart
I was thinking it would be nice if a knowledgeable individual could put up a chart showing how Brythonic languages became the modern languages of Welsh, Breton, and Cornish. There's a similar chart on the Proto-Celtic page, and something approaching it here, but not quite. It'd just be nice to know, I think, how vowel sounds shifted and why certain names are the way they are...I wonder if I'm making my point clear or not? Anyhow, I mean it's all well and good to see how Proto-Celtic became modern Welsh, but what about the in between? Ryan 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC) 06:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Second? Millennium BC
The modern Brythonic languages are generally considered to all derive from a common ancestral language termed British, Common Brythonic, Old Brythonic or Proto-Brythonic, which is thought to have developed from Proto-Celtic, which was possibly introduced to Great Britain from the middle second millennium BC (Hawkes, 1973).

(richy)Can we not agree that British says it all?(/richy)95.151.138.171 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this right? I haven't got access to Hawkes' book but I'm pretty sure this timing is about a thousand years out. It's generally considered that the 'Celtic' culture is an Iron Age culture and the Iron Age didn't reach Britain until about 700 BC. I wasn't sure if this was a mis-quote or if Hawkes actually said it. I've certainly never heard anything that puts Celtic influences this early in Britain. Halstatt culture didn't even start on the continent until about 1200 BC.

Anyone know where this date came from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psammead (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Christopher Hawkes was a professor at Oxford in the 1940s and 50s and wrote several books on the Iron Age. He postulated multiple invasions during the Iron Age but his views have been superceeded by DNA based population analysis. The connection between Celtic and the Iron Age is an assumption that does not seem to be consistent with lingustics analysis dated by, for example, Gray and Atkinson. Adresia (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to what An Atlas for Celtic Studies suggests, namely that Britain and Ireland were Celtic-speaking by 500 BC. I think that's an accurate reflection of the mainstream view. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dating of Brythonic
It seems hard to determine quite what period this article is referring to; the main body of the text seems to imply that it's dealing with the pre-Roman period, but then there's a table of sound shifts which are clearly those of post-Roman times. Could there be some clarification about whether the article deals with the language of the "Ancient Britons" (as it would have been spoken by, e.g. Caratacus and Boudicca) or the language in a later phase of "Common Brythonic" (as it would have been spoken by e.g. Gildas) shortly before it split into Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton? Paul S (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Brythonic languages vs. Category:Celtic languages
Category:Brythonic languages is itself a category within Category:Celtic languages. — Robert Greer (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's customary for the lead article of a category (and this article is the lead article of Category:Brythonic languages) to be in the higher-level categories). The other articles in Category:Brythonic languages should not be in Category:Celtic languages, but this one should. —Angr 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article gives "Common Brythonic" as the ancestor of the whole family. But the article on British language (Celtic) says that "British" evolved into Common Brythonic in Roman times. Which is the normal convention? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I would like to propose a merge of Brythonic languages with British languages, the term British did not come about until 1707, and they idenity was Anglo-Saxon, not Celtic. Sheodred (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? British languages is currently a redirect to British language, the specific Celtic tongue spoken in Britain in antiquity. British language should not be merged with Brythonic languages, if that's what you're proposing.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

West Brythonic
Breton is more like Cornish than it is like Welsh, so we can say they belong to this Southwest dialect group. However, is enough really known about Cumbric that we can say it was closer to Welsh than Cornish and Breton and so place it in the same group? I ask for citations. Paul S (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's what your concern was? Sorry, I was confused by your edit summary. FWIW I don't see that the terms "Western Brythonic" and "Southwest Brythonic" are used very often; we probably need to deal with that. But at any rate Cumbric is clearly more closely related to Old Welsh than to the Southwestern tongues.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, is it? That's what bothers me. Geographically it's closer to Wales than the Cornwall, but how do we know that we can bracket Cumbric with Welsh? The scanty evidence from placenames suggests a phonology different from Welsh and more like Cornish in one or two cases: lack of secondary internal i-affection, lack of diphthongisation of ē>wy for instance. The source you cite actually seems to say the opposite, putting Cumbric with Pictish in a "North British" family of dialects. Paul S (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I included that source because it wasn't clear what you were looking to have sourced. It doesn't put Pictish in with Cumbric, though; it says the place-name evidence is "closely comparable to Cumbric and, indeed, with other parts of the British continuum." Different sources say different things about how to classify Cumbric versus Welsh; this is one of the sources that stresses the variances. The two were otherwise extremely similar, and judging by the poetry the Welsh and North British saw themselves as more closely related to each other than to the Cornish and Bretons.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Brythonic languages → Brittonic languages – While both these terms are in use, I believe "Brittonic" has become more common in reliable sources. Per Cagwinn, Kenneth H. Jackson wrote in his seminal Language and History in Early Britain that by the 1950s "Brythonic" had become dated: "Until fairly recently, the term Brythonic, coined by Rhys, was regularly used... Of late there has been an increasing tendency to use Brittonic instead." I got the same sense from a review of 22 reliable sources available to me on this and related topics, included below. Of these, 18 use "Brittonic" and only 4 use "Brythonic" (including 2 older works by the same author). This Ngram suggests "Brythonic" still has the lead in Google Books, though I suspect this is influenced by a proliferation of reprints of old works, Wikipedia ripoffs, and sources we wouldn't consider reliable for the topic. At any rate, the Gbooks difference isn't great, certainly not enough to convince me that "Brittonic" hasn't become the more common name in the sources. Also note that the article on the ancestral language is now at Common Brittonic (not "Brythonic") and the ethnic group is at Britons (Celtic people) (not "Brythons"). --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  07:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Relisted. Favonian (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC). Cúchullain t/ c 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The following works use "Brittonic":
 * Kenneth H. Jackson's Language and History in Early Britain
 * John T. Koch's The Gododdin of Aneirin
 * Several other works by Koch on "Archaic Neo-Brittonic"
 * Christopher Snyder's The Britons
 * Rachel Bromwich's Trioedd Ynys Prydein
 * Bromwich & Evans Culhwch ac Olwen
 * Norris J. Lacy's Medieval Arthurian Literature: A Guide to Recent Research
 * Alexander Falileyev's Etymological Glossary of Old Welsh
 * Bammesberger & Wollmann's Britain 400-600: Language and History
 * Stephen Steward Evans' The Heroic Poetry of Dark Age Britain
 * Brynley Roberts' Early Welsh Poetry: Studies in the Book of Aneirin
 * Thomas Green's Concepts of Arthur
 * Norris J. Lacy's The New Arthurian Encyclopedia (incidental use)
 * T. M. Charles-Edwards' Wales and the Britons: 350-1064
 * Peter Schrijver's Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology (via Google Books)
 * Christopher Snyder's "Arthurian Origins" in Norris J. Lacy's A History of Arthurian Scholarship (this uses "Brythonic" once in reference to John Rhys)
 * Helen Fulton's Companion to Arthurian Literature
 * Nicholas Orme's The Saints of Cornwall
 * O. J. Padel's Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature

The following use "Brythonic": --Cúchullain t/ c 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * John T. Koch's Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia (this is a biggie, but note that Koch uses "Brittonic" in other works)
 * Roger Sherman Loomis' Celtic Myth and Arthurian Romance (from 1927)
 * Loomis' Arthurian Tradition And Chretien De Troyes (from 1949)
 * James MacKillop's Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology


 * Oppose for now. While both terms are valid, I don't think the case for Brittonic is overwhelming. --Article editor (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way? A ratio of 18 to 4 in directly relevant sources looks pretty clear cut to me.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've added a new section on the name which hopefully sheds some light. We have Jackson specifically saying that Brittonic had become more common by his time, and now the OED saying that today (as of June 2013), Brittonic "is now frequently used to replace Brythonic n. and Brythonic adj. as a linguistic term", specifically referencing the influence of Jackson. I hope to do some more work on the article soon; as we see my available sources mostly use "Brittonic".--Cúchullain t/ c 16:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. My opinion would be insufficiently informed, but when I was working recently on Languages of the Roman Empire, I found the Brythonic/Brittonic nomenclature confusing, and would like to see it sorted out. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Brittonic" is more Latinate and less Cambro-centric, since the alternate form commonly used by scholars, Brythonic, is derived from the Welsh word Brython "Briton", itself an ancient borrowing from Latin nominative singular Brittō (more precisely, an oblique singular Britton-) or nominative plural Brittones. I don't know if this matters much, but it at least doesn't give primacy to Welsh at the expense of Cornish, Breton and Cumbric. Cagwinn (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, per Cúchullain's rationale. ~Asarlaí 00:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move in August from Brythonic to Brittonic
I think this move was highly dubious. Firstly, proposer plus one supporter against one opposer is hardly an indication of consensus. Secondly, the list of publications indicating usage is far from comprehensive and seems selective. Google Books search of Brythonic v. Brittonic indicates more than a 2:1 preponderance of the former over the latter - which is what I would have expected. Brittonic is a relative newcomer and, IMHO, the jury's out whether usage has really shifted. Brythonic has a much more long standing pedigree. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I put a lot of effort into that, and I can tell you it's not "selective". It was literally every book discussing this topic I could find in my personal library, my university library, and books I found online that I could confirm were high quality. Among them, the trend is clear. We also have the quote from Kenneth Jackson explicitly noting that even by that time, "Brittonic" was more common. It's only gotten more since then considering how influential Jackson has been. As I said, the Google Books returns appear to be influenced by "a proliferation of reprints of old works, Wikipedia ripoffs, and sources we wouldn't consider reliable for the topic" using "Brythonic". RMs are not straight up-or-down votes; the quality of the argument is more important. Unless you have some evidence that "Brythonic" is more common in the sources beyond just Googling the words, there's nothing much to talk about.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I spent some time in the library over the last week and you seem to be right. Apologies. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

P-Celtic in infobox
There was extensive discussion about Kwamikagami's changes to Celtic language infoboxes at WP:LANG here. There was no support for adding "P-Celtic" to the infobox, for removing "Insular Celtic", or for any of Kwami's other changes at any article, let alone at this one. And clearly there's been no consensus here since it's never been brought up. As such, the established status quo prevails.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

History and origins - Consonant Table
I'm nowhere close to being familiar with Celtic phonology but I am quite familiar with Germanic phonology, and somewhat less so Indo-European phonology as a whole.

I'd like to put forward a few modifications to the consonant table:

A lot of this is simply analogy, ie. it's common for consonants to shift in a systematic way. Intervocalic voiced stops were shifted to fricatives, intervocalic voiceless stops were shifted to voiced stops and so on.


 * /β/ shifting to /v/ isn't uncommon
 * The voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ isn't always a very stable consonant, so it very likely became /j/ soon after the initial shift and disappeared. (Palatalization caused a similar affect on Germanic /ɣ/ in Anglo-Frisian.)
 * /ɸ/ likely shifted to /f/ (as it did in Germanic languages)
 * Word-initial /s/ probably shifted to /x/ in front of resonants and vowels:
 * it became /h/ before vowels (as /x/ did in Germanic languages)
 * lost before all consonants except /r/, where it became /fr/ (similar to how Old French turned Germanic *xrukkaz into frock), and /w/, where it probably continued as /xw/ or became /hw/ (similar to English wh-)

The Celtic Languages, Routledge Language Family Series, states that -m- probably became a nasalized voiced biblabial fricative /β̃/ which then merged with plain /β/. With this in mind, I assume that /mb/ probably became /mβ̃/ > /mː/, similarly /nd/ > /nð̃/ > /nː/. These changes are speculation on my part, though.

Lastly, I'm not really certain about Brittonic /v/ from Celtic /w/, as a shift to /gw/ would then be much more difficult to explain. Rather, I assume whatever change turned /w/ into /gw/ had already occurred by late Brittonic, possibly originally being /ɣw/. Anglom (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have access to Kenneth Jackson's Language and History in Early Britain and Historical Phonology of Breton, as well as Peter Schrijver's Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology? All this stuff is discussed at length in them. Cagwinn (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not as yet, but a cursory glance shows the first two to be a bit dated. And, honestly, the existing table is a bit iffy in places; Celtic /w/ is very unlikely to have become Brittonic /v/, as this would require Brittonic /v/ to then shift back into a labio-velar articulation, which is very unlikely; rather, Celtic /w/ > /v/( > /f/) seems more likely the (pre-)Goidelic situation. The Brittonic situation is much more probably /w/ > (/ɣw/? >) /gw/, through fortition.


 * I do appreciate very much the work that has gone into the current table, it does its job well, it just needs a bit more polish/recent material. I will be doing a bit more reading and come back to update it at some point. Hopefully also to give a timeline of the sound changes as well, if possible from available materials. The Characteristics section also needs a little work, for example: word initial s- was only lost before /l/, /m/ and /n/, it persisted before stops as far as I can find. Anglom (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "A bit dated"?? LOL, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Cagwinn (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well its nice to know the level of editor I will be working with here. So thanks for that. Anglom (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, apologies for calling them "dated", as while I don't have access to them currently, the secondary sources that cite them seem to confirm my changes. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction on that. I assumed incorrectly that the table as it currently stands was a loyal transcription from the sources, which seems to not be the case; that was my mistake. We can fix that. Also sorry for my rudeness above as well, I do hope that we can work together to make this page better. Anglom (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jackson (1963) states that Brittonic /w/ had probably become a weakly velarized labio-velar approximant /ˠw/, and seems to dismiss it being /ɣʷ/ or /ɣw/ based on orthographic evidence (as I understand it at the moment). He then says this was gradually strengthened after the split so that each of the daughter languages developed it into /gʷ/. I need to read more sources on this, but I would think it safer to assume it had at least developed into common /ɣʷ/ before the split. Anglom (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For more on Brittonic labiovelars, see the aforementioned book by Schrijver (Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology), as well as Sims-Williams, P., "The Development of the Indo-European Voiced Labiovelars in Celtic", BBCS, 29 (1980-82); Sims-Williams, P., 'Dating the transition to neo-Brittonic: phonology and history, 400-600', in A. Bammesberger and A. Wollman, eds, Britain, 400-600: Language and History (Heidelberg, 1990), pp. 217—61; Sims-Williams, The Celtic Inscriptions of Britain: Phonology and Chronology, c. 400-1200, Wiley, 2003. Cagwinn (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly for the references! Anglom (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the Characteristics section:
I made some changes to the Characteristics section: Anglom (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved the initial s- changes so they were closer together, and ordered the others along mutation lines given in The Celtic Languages, Routledge Language Family Series, Part 1, Chapter 5, "Old and Middle Welsh".
 * Added three more sound changes that I'll need to drum up some examples for.
 * Initial sp- doesn't seem to become f- as stated, I believe, rather, sk-, sp- and st- all remain in Brittonic. Are there examples of sp- becoming f- though? (Later instances of sp- were borrowed I believe, as PIE *sp- had already become Proto-Celtic *sɸ-.)

Illustration text
"Britain & Ireland in the early–mid 1st millennium, before the founding of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. "

Yeah, it wasn't an invasion or a conquest, God forbid, they were just 'founded' on what happened to be somebody else's territory. Not to mention the title of the linked article 'Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain' (it was fairly empty, you see, so someone had to come and 'settle' it!). I used to think the English were too sober-minded and intellectually sophisticated to exhibit the sort of vulgar nationalism that is found in most other countries, but this pathetically self-serving change of nomenclature does much to erode any illusions in this regard.--95.42.201.224 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Brittonic languages → Brythonic languages – The term "Brythonic" is far more widely used than "Brittonic", even within other Wikipedia articles. The original move from Brythonic to Brittonic was dubious to begin with. There are even articles where links to this page avoid using "Brittonic" by using Brythonic instead. It therefore makes more sense to name the page Brythonic languages. Dyolf87 (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose As per the full discussion in the previous move request which established that Brittonic was more current.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way is it "more current"? All I can see is that Anglophile authors want to shift it from the more accurate "Brythonic" to "Brittonic". "Brythonic" is etymologically closer. Dyolf87 (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion above.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  12:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, did you mean "Anglophile" or "Anglophone"?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose "Brythonic" is not more widely used and it is Cambro-centric (favoring the Modern Welsh spelling Brython-). Cagwinn (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The survey of relevant sources I did in the last RM showed that “Brittonic” is the more common version. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed in the reliable sources, and no evidence has been presented here suggesting that it has. Additionally as says, “Brythonic” is Cambrocentric though the Branch also includes Cornish and Breton.—Cúchullain t/ c  00:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Britonian
Britonia, a region in northwesternmost Spain, is so called because it was settled by speakers of Brythonic-Celtic. See the article Brittonic languages for a map to show that it happened. The form of Brythonic spoken by these settlers (essentially a Breton- or Cornish-like language / dialect) died out, tho. However, said extinct form of Brythonic (Britonian, is the name suggested by the article Southwestern Brittonic languages) should be discussed in relevant articles. When did it die out? Did it survive long enuf to justify calling it a separate language, rather than a dialect of Breton / Cornish? Is Britonian attested in any written records? See also: --Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Celtic nations: mentions that northwesternmost Spain (Galicia et al.; Britonia is part of this area) is sometimes considered Celtic nation(s).
 * Galicians: these people and their area ar sometimes considered Celtic.
 * Cumbric: another Brythonic language that died out.
 * Western Brittonic languages: Welsh and Cumbric; contrasts with Southwestern Brittonic languages (Cornish, Breton, and Britonian).

Lenition?
The following portion of the article seems off to me:

Lenition:

Voiceless stops become voiced stops in intervocalic position: Voiced plosives /d/, /ɡ/ (later /j/, then lost), /b/, and /m/ became soft spirants in an intervocalic position and before liquids: Welsh dd [ð], th [θ], f [v] Cornish dh [ð], th [θ], v [v] Breton z, zh [z] or [h], v

Where in Welsh does [θ] ever stem from a voiced plosive? - 195.92.38.22 (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Read both lines at the top again. [t] to [θ] is an example of Voiceless stops become voiced stops in intervocalic position: though perhaps it would be less confusing if the examples were split accordingly. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [t] to [θ] is not an example of voiceless stop to voiced stop! [θ] is neither voiced, nor a stop! This is a shift from voiceless stop to a voiceless fricative and not an example of lenition in Welsh (but an example of the aspirate mutation). Welsh had [t] to [d] (voiceless stop to voiced stop) and [d] to [ð] (voiced stop to voiced fricative). — Dyolf87 (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point on the voicing. But whatever Welsh speakers call it, it's still lenition in the linguistic sense. There's no such thing in linguistics as "aspirate mutation". Akerbeltz (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, but [t] to [θ] didn't happten intervocalically in Welsh, nor before liquids. Basically, the change [t] to [θ] only happens as a result of africation - historically /tt/ to /θ/ but that is not what is being described here. The sequences VtV and VdV never resulted in VθV (where V is a vowel). — Dyolf87 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [t] to [θ] still is lenition but .... so what was the environment for that? Lenition doesn't HAVE to be between vowels. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with what is or is not lenition. The above sentence - taken from the current article - states "Voiceless stops become voiced stops in intervocalic position: Voiced plosives /d/, /ɡ/ (later /j/, then lost), /b/, and /m/ became soft spirants in an intervocalic position and before liquids" - [θ] is not the result of a voiceless plosive → voiced plosive nor a voiced plosive to a "soft spirant". "Intervocalic position" means "between vowels" and, therefore, the article is erroneous in its use of [θ] as an example in this case, and probably in the case of Cornish as well. Welsh [θ] usually resulted from Proto-Celtic *-st- and *-tt-, not *VtV which always became *VdV. – Dyolf87 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Then we need to tweak the line that introduces [θ] but it's still a valid example of lenition. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Map
That map is very contestable as it shows Goidelic use in Britain in the 1st century. There is a fringe theory, that has been criticized, that there were speakers living there but it's a minority opinion and the proposer has made several mistakes in his reasoning as pointed out by other scholars. Apart from Scottish nationalists championing it because they don't want Gaelic to be foreign, it is not too popular. There is also the problem of Picts on the map long before the name was used to separate Romanized Britons from the non Romanized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The map refers to the "early–mid 1st millennium", by which time Goidelic was certainly spoken on the west coast of Scotland. Besides which, I wouldn't bet a single penny on a Goidelic language (or at least, something not too far removed from Proto-Insular Celtic) not being spoken in Northern Britain as early as the first century, or even earlier. See for example the arguments of Peter Schrijver, who is most certainly not "fringe". Tewdar (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Periphrastic "do" citation
The "by whom?" superscript regarding the Welsh substrate effect can be cited to John McWhorter in "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue" (2008), though it is unlikely to be the primary source. 188.174.63.160 (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)