NantonosAedui
Welcome!
Hi NantonosAedui! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Quick Reference
hi NAe, and thanks. Yes, I think more references will be helpful. Also, I think we should make perfectly clear that the P/Q grouping is ahistorical, and not used anymore by linguists for being useless (the Q>P change is just too trivial once the P phoneme went missing). regards, dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- no problem, I'll get back to you. Does your reference really say "British (ie, Gaulish)"? I.e. you entirely reject Insular Celtic? I'm sorry, I didn't even know that position existed. dab (ᛏ) 20:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- thank you, I appreciate your style of coming up front with references from the beginning. The *mabos and maqqos are not "my" forms, they just crept back in when I was reverting your statement that Welsh is descended from Gaulish. I am not trying to censor this opinion, it's just that I wasn't aware that it had any notability, but I', happy to cite it as a possibility. After all, if we assume Proto-Celtic for 800 BC, and emigration to Britain for 500 BC, Proto-Insular-Celtic would be contemporary to the earliest Gaulish testimonies, and at that time, I very much assume mutual intellegibility. The q > p shift may well be areal, even including Umbrian. I do assume that for the time of ca. 600 BC to 400 BC, the tree model is inadequate, but Welsh is certainly not descended from Roman-Empire period Gaulish. I'll yet provide you with Insular Celtic common innovations, but I have to look them up. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was in a hurry with Mabon. Feel free to alter the description. I was going to add more details, but ultimately, the exact content is anyone's guess.... And, by all means add some lustful whorls, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors ;o) dab (ᛏ) 21:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, I deleted the reference to Lepontic not because I don't think it's Continental Celtic (I tend to think it is, although Pasquale is convinced it isn't and has left a message on my talk page outlining his reasons), but because Gaulish language refers to Lepontic as a Gaulish dialect, so I thought it would be redundant (maybe even slightly self-contadictory) to include it in a list of other CC languages. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, your additions to Ligurian language look good; can you add the reference for Delamarre though please? Thanks! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Does he mention his views of Ligurian in Dictionnaire de langue gauloise? I haven't seen it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Is the mailing list readable on the WWW? If so you can use the {{Web reference simple}} template (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles for how to use the template). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know these scholars by name, but I'm sure they exist. What I'm not sure of is whether any current scholars still propose that Ligurian was non-IE. Decius 16:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Dialects of Gaul
Thank you for your clarification, Nantonos, about which Whatmough claim you were saying is discredited. I quite agree. The dialects of Gaulish seem to have been singularly uniform, witness, for example, St. Jerome 's 4th c. AD testimony that the dialects of Ancyra (Galatia) and Treviri (Belgica) were very close and mutually intelligible (in fact, Galatian seems to have been specifically a Belgic dialect). However, one has to exclude from this close relationship BOTH Celtiberian and the other Celtic languages of the ancient Iberian peninsula (except for the belated Gaulish penetration in NE Catalonia) AND Lepontic, regardless of whether one wishes to support the currently (since about 1970) prevailing view that it was a Celtic language or the earlier prevailing view that it was "Ligurian" or "para-Celtic" (where "para" means close to, but not quite). Again, those who consider "Lepontic" a Gaulish dialect are clearly referring to (Cisalpine) Gaulish, of which a few inscriptions are extant, written in the same "alphabet of Lugano" used for Lepontic. The two cannot be confused as they have quite different phonology and morphology (e.g. preservation of final -m in Lepontic vs. final -n in Gaulish, 3sg preterite ending -e in Lepontic vs. -u in Gaulish, just to mention two of the most obvious and firmly established features).
I would also like to put in my five-cents worth on the Insular/Continental vs. P-Celtic/Q-Celtic controversy. While, of course, I accept in theory that the *kw > *p change may have occurred independently or areally, I think the burden of proof rests on those who support this view. Barring evidence to the contrary, the single isogloss view remains the more viable hypothesis. The Insular Celtic shared innovations adduced by the proponents of an Insular Celtic branch are mostly if not entirely late proto-historic or even historic. Personally, I hold the view that Q-Celtic is indeed a branch of Celtic which includes:
(1) Celtiberian;
(2) the other Celtic languages of ancient Iberia, although exactly which ones these are is not clear at all; you see references to Gallaecian or Calaecian, and especially the Artabri and Nerii tribes, the Celtici of Baeturia and Baetica (see this very informative article [1]), other presumed tribal languages of Lusitania, although probably not Lusitanian proper, which seems to have preserved Indo-European *p (that would make it, guess what, Ligurian!), the primary example being PORCOM (a root, incidentally, also attested in Ligurian toponymy); in any case, the Lusitanian epigraphic corpus is currently divided in two geographic groups, North Lusitanian and South Lusitanian, apparently reflecting two different languages;
(3) Goidelic.
I agree with your subsequent edits regarding SVG 1.2 Full spec. By the way, you mentioned being the chair of the SVG WG. Does this mean you are Chris Lilley (who I've had numerous email conversations with) or that Chris has been replaced? Jeff schiller 19:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Chris, I hadn't planned specifically to add anything regarding CDF. Maybe that's the CDF WG job? ;) Jeff schiller 20:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
yes, I felt it was appropriate to draw attention to the similarities between insular and continental calendars. as to the age, if you consider the insular vs. continental split the first node, it will be the same age as Proto-Celtic. If you think that Celtiberian vs. Gaulish + Insular is the first node, it will be slightly younger. Maybe it would be better to say 500 BC, to be on the safe side? Anyway, it seems obvious that some sort of lunar calendar was observed during all of the Iron Age, but as it could only be "Celtic" from the time of Proto-Celtic, I think it makes sense that the celtic calendar in its earliest form would go back to Proto-Celtic, ca. 800 BC. This doesn't go for details like the intercalation, of course, concerning that we are completely in the dark, I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 16:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Mórrígan
Just a quick word, because I'm busy writing a book with a well-known author on Goddesses: You were WAY off ion the etymology of Her name! There is no evidence that it may mean either "Terror" or "Phantom Queen" [at least not in the poejorative sense, in the case of the latter term, as so many pedantic Pagans seem to believe].
Take Care, Wade MacMorrighan [WiccanWade]
- WiccanWade, if you look at the history of the page you can then accurately tell who made which contributions. You might want to talk to the people who contributed the etymology rather than whoever most recently edited the page :)
Disambiguating Celtic
- Hi Nantonos and thanks for letting me know but I have to say that I can't really see the reasoning behind your edit. I think that someone clicking on Celtic tribe will expect to find themselves reading about Celts, not find themselves at List of peoples of Gaul even if the context happens to be a Gaulish tribe. And Celt is an article, suitable for browsing, not just a list (always an advantage!). If you strongly prefer linking to the list in this context, I won't raise further objections, but I do think you should reconsider the wording of the pipe. ~ Veledan • Talk + new 21:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC) p.s. I'm not a robot! (although I do like my new scripted edit summaries :-) ~ Veledan • Talk + new
My reasoning was precisely that of context; that Aedui is clarified by Celtic tribes of Gaul which is exactly what people will find out about by clicking on the link. I agree that Celt is an article, so putting that word somewhere else in the article on Dumnorix would be perfectly fine. --Nantonos 23:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Abellio
My source for most of those was the Encyclopedia Mythica, here, but that doesn't mention Apollo. So, either Mythica has been modified or I got it from somewhere else, but whatever -- go ahead and remove it if you can find a reference for it. Tuf-Kat 22:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Cimmerians
I didn't mean to imply that this is a scholarly position. Rather, I was guided by Cimmerians#Celtic_and_Germanic_folklore, according to which the Welsh (and others) have traditions claiming this connection. The kom-broges etymology in any case seems preferable. I don't know if the Frankish claim has any better basis, but in any case I find it intersting to see that the Cimmerians should have played such a role in European tradition. I don't know when these identifications appeared, i.e. if they are medieval, or connected with British Israelism. dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Month
About removing the approximation by the Coligny calendar from the Month page: that particular section deals with the continued fractions approximations of the ratio of the tropical year to the lunar month. 62/5 is not a continued fraction of that ratio; I stated so in the edit history. If you want the Coligny calendar listed on the Month page I suggest you add a sub-section; other approximations have been used in other calendars. IMHO the reconstruction of the Coligny calendar is too disputed to state as a fact that its average year was 12.4 lunations. What strikes me is that all proposed interpretations are very poor lunar calendars, which systematically run out of sync with the real Moon fast. -- Tom Peters 11:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I propose we discuss this further on Talk:Month
Unitarianism
I believe that what 212.209.42.132 meant on Neopaganism by Uniterranism was Unitarianism, or Unitarian Universalism, which is indeed widespread. --Nantonos 20:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I thought so at first as well, but if you look at the description of "Uniterranism" ([2] )you'll see that it refers to non-Unitarian concepts such as "D. A. R. T." (which I've never heard of, and I was raised a UU). Even if that had been the intent, Unitarianism (the belief that Jesus Christ was human) is not a "related concept" to Neopaganism (which doesn't usually care what Jesus Christ was), and Unitarian Universalism is a specific church and not really a "related concept" either. The "Uniterranism" reference was a link to Uniterranism which is a particular neopagan church and also not a "related concept". DenisMoskowitz 21:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)