Talk:Gaulish

Additional Declensions

In the Vaclav Bazek source, there are additional noun declension patterns noted as n-stem and consonant-stem nouns, using *ku and *riks (attested gen. cuno-, nom. rix) present. Should these be included into the page or otherwise backed up with additional source information prior to inclusion?

-Andecombogios 25 Dec 2018, 7:04 (UTC)

A given Gaulish noun (or verb) declension should not be stated to hav existed unless it is actually attested. Given the fragmentary attestation of Gaulish, it is likely that there ar declension patterns which occurred but ar not found (or only parts of the paradigm ar found) in the known records.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Category

Category:Gaulish language was placed in Category:Gallo-Romance languages. I removed said category, because Gaulish was a Celtic, not Romance language.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that Cisalpine Gaulish is sufficiently distinct to justify separate discussion; improve (accepting that current content is insufficient) rather than merge. Klbrain (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Cisalpine Gaulish into Gaulish. Other varieties, such as Transalpine Gaulish, don't have stand-alone pages, and the amount of content on the Cisalpine Gaulish page doesn't seem to merit having its own page, especially given that there are only a few surviving inscriptions and (as this page notes) "Scholars have debated [...] to what extent Cisalpine Gaulish should be seen as a continuation of Lepontic or an independent offshoot of mainstream Transalpine Gaulish." Moriwen (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd second that, with some caution. I find a separate page for Lepontic justified (given that there is a greater and more distinct corpus for that variety), but it's a bit of a judgement call where to include Cisalpine Gaulish, here or in Lepontic. Trigaranus (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds entirely sensible to me, and I'll happily leave it to those with more expertise in the topic than I have to make that judgement call. Moriwen (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, as Cisalpine Gaulish is notable enough to justify its own article, and that is all that matters. The amount of content currently on the page is really not a factor. It could indeed be improved a lot, but almost every article we have has started small. Moonraker (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merge, Cisalpine Gaulish, due to its detached geographic area, orthography and interesting relationship with Lepontic as well as surrounding languages, makes it worthy of a separate article, IMO. And as Moonraker has said, the fact that the topic is notable enough to have enough sources to warrant a separate article, is already a solid reason to keep that separate article. -- Troopersho (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French has the highest number of Celtic words among Romance languages?

"French has Gaulish loanwords. French now has about 150 to 180 words known to be of Gaulish origin, most of which concern pastoral or daily activity.[58][59] If dialectal and derived words are included, the total is about 400 words. Though overall low, this is still the highest number among the Romance languages.[60][61]"

I think there are several problems with this section:

1. Not to bury the lead: the main assertion that "this is still the highest number among the Romance languages" seems unlikely for two reasons:

1.1. It is contradicted elsewhere in Wikipedia, namely at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_vocabulary#List_of_Portuguese_words_of_Celtic_origin where it is stated:

 "Although there is not a comprehensive study or wordcount on how much Celtic, (particularly Gallaecian[8] and words from the Hispano-Celtic group) survived in Portuguese (and Galician);[9] it is fair to say that after Latin, this is the second largest component in the Portuguese culture and language.[10] Projections on Celtic vocabulary (some words may have come via French borrowings starting in the 12th century), toponyms and derivations in Portuguese, indicate well over 1,500 words. The Celtic substratum is often overlooked,[11] due to the strong Latinisation of Celtic-derived[12] words in Portuguese."

1.2 The sources 60 and 61 given to support this assertion are seemingly too old (1935) or under-documented (what is "Lambert 185" and where can one read it?)

2. The secondary assertion that "the total [Celtic words in French] is about 400 words" seems too high to people familiar with this subject. One would expect the figure to be around 260 including all dialectal and obsolete words. If the figure were truly to be around 400, then I am willing to pay good money to see that list, and not in a contrarian kind of way, but in an academic research interest kind of way. Unfortunately, I do not believe this list exists.

3. On the other hand, a list of around 1,500 Celtic words in Portuguese does exist and I could supply it to make this point, were it not for that it would be classed as original research in this context here, and hence it would be a useless argument. This word list is in preparation to be published. The main reason for such a high number of Celtic words in Portuguese is the combination of a high number of Celtic roots together with a prolific and still-productive set of suffixation rules, such that for each root, some 15 words derived from it can easily be found in very conservative Portuguese literature, and those words usually disperse significantly in the semantic field, which corroborates their recent productivity.

4. I have not seen any recent references making the claim that "French has the highest number of Celtic words among the Romance languages" and it is admittedly an out-of-place claim in the subject, what with the fame of the paucity of Celtic words in French within this metier together with the fame of the abandonment with which Portuguese words from Celtic are studied while still consistently turning out in recent research. It sounds like the opposite of the impression one gets while studying this subject, which is why I am positing that this assertion may come from a point-of-view which may be equivocated and outdated. KindSeriousMan (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Modern Gaulish (2)

For several days I have been tirelessly trying to add information about Modern Gaulish in the "Modern usage" section. At the moment, at least two people have already rejected this decision, which I personally do not understand. Each time I tried to improve my mini-article to the required level. Now, I am completely bewildered and do not understand why my mini-article is being deleted. Considering that this is essentially my first work on Wikipedia, I do not yet have much experience in creating and editing articles. Please help me and tell me what exactly is wrong in my mini-article about the Modern Gaulish language. Celtoi (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the earlier discussion section on #Modern Gaulish above, as well as this discussion about an earlier attempt at creating a separate article about this. The short answer is, we can't have coverage of this revival attempt as long as there is no substantial coverage of it in reliable, independent, published sources. All the sources you cited for your additions were self-published material by the reconstruction's inventor; that doesn't count. When I last looked (a couple of years ago) there evidently was zero reliable outside coverage of this effort; so far I have no reason to believe that this situation has changed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I already knew about the previous attempt, but did not think about the fact that the sources should be independent. Now I understand. But anyway, I think it’s quite strange to deny the existence of something despite its [objective existence]. I will discuss this in the Modern Gaulish community and try to come back when we will have an independent literature. Thank you very much, you clarified my confusion. Celtoi (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not reporting about something does not mean "denying" its existence. It's just that independent sources don't even bother to talk about it—why should we, then? –Austronesier (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm here to ask you a big question - how much articles do we need? Is 1 article enough? Or we need 2,3,4 or more? Celtoi (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean to say you're trying to push for creating more coverage out there in "your" community in order for it to cross the bar of Wikipedia's notability criteria? I'm afraid if that's what you're planning to do, you're going at it from an entirely wrong angle. At Wikipedia, we want our coverage to reflect outside, independent academic interest. We don't want that outside interest to be fabricated for the sake of Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that academic interest essentially begins with Wikipedia. We found one person who decided to write an article about Modern Gaulish. We did not persuade him to do this, this is his personal decision, considering that he is essentially not a member of our community. I hope this can be considered academic interest. Celtoi (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. You didn't answer my question about the sources. Now we have 2 independent sources created without our intervention. Is that enough? Do we need more? Or not? If yes, we will seek for more articles, because one article we found in internet, we didn't know it existed. Celtoi (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to help you here. The whole way you're talking about this matter, about "us" and what "we have" and what "we need" and what is "enough", suggests to me an entirely wrong-headed approach to the whole topic. You are here with a promotional agenda, you want to use the references as a pretext to push your group interests into the article, and that is simply not how any Wikipedian ought to go about things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Okey, maybe I need to say this in other words.

Now, "we" have 2 independent articles. Okey, not "we", maybe "the world" has 2 independent articles about Modern Gaulish. Is that number normal? Do "the world" need more articles about Modern Gaulish to create an article about it on Wikipdeia? We don't need to promote our language, we just need to tell about us. That's how all the articles on Wikipdeia works. They are telling about somethig, and this mini-article in "Modern usage" section will tell about the Modern Gaulish language. I will try to write as neutral article as possible. Because I know that local interests are unacceptable. So please, answear my question, and as a real Wikipedia editor, please tell me what else we need for at least a mini-article in the “modern usage” section. Celtoi (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am not going to give a personal opinion on the matter at stake, but I have been following the discussion. As a professional linguist, working on grammatical typology and issues of translation, I would like to simply add a note for Future Perfect, about Celtoi's use of "we". In this case, part of the misunderstanding is due to false friends between French and English. Although Celtoi hasn't said that, I can detect that he must have French as his first language (right?), and the reason I can say so is precisely due to his overuse of we in English. This is a well-known problem of French speakers who spontaneously calque their use of the French pronoun on and map it onto English we. I often hear or read French colleagues who, when speaking or writing in their (non-native) English, will say things like “We know well that Mandarin is a tonal language”, not realizing that in this case, colloquial English would use a passive or impersonal construction “It is well known that Mandarin is a tonal language”. [Sometimes I noticed these translation mistakes created misunderstandings in international conferences, e.g. sounding like the speaker was boasting about his own knowledge, when they only meant it as a general statement.] Likewise, French speakers who are not-so-fluent speakers of English would say/write “We have five distinct articles that describe Tibetan pronouns”, which English would rather say “There are five distinct articles that describe...” (or even better, “Five distinct articles describe Tibetan pronouns”). With such turns of phrases, for English hearers it always sounds like the speaker is including themself in the group (suggesting they were one of the authors of those five articles on Tibetan), but in reality this is a typical misunderstanding due to the ambiguity of French on; the we here is really a case of mistranslation.

Thus, when Celtoi wrote Now we have 2 independent sources created without our intervention. Is that enough? Do we need more? Or not? If yes, we will seek for more articles, because one article we found in internet, we didn't know it existed., his massive overuse of we hurts the eyes of an English speakers, and sounds like he is obsessively referring to some kind of group (of which he would be a member); this explains Future Perfect’s reaction. But I am convinced this is largely a problem of mistranslation (i.e. non-idiomatic use of the English language by Celtoi). In a way, this is what Celtoi is trying to express in his latest message: Now, "we" have 2 independent articles. Okey, not "we", maybe "the world" has 2 independent articles about Modern Gaulish. Is that number normal? Do "the world" need more articles about Modern Gaulish → This is his way of trying to express the impersonal use of French on, which is ambiguous between a true "we" pronoun, and an impersonal use: We have 2 independent sources simply meant There are 2 independent sources. And even more clearly: Do we need more? is here an inclusive we, meaning Are more sources needed (by wikipedia as a whole)?.

I hope this note helps clarify the misunderstanding between Future Perfect and Celtoi: the latter's wording should not be over-interpreted. It is not the case that Celtoi is constantly referring to a group who would like to push an agenda; most of his uses of "we" actually stand for impersonal or passive-voice constructions in English.

As for the matter itself, I do not have a strong opinion. If all the sources provided are written by the same authors, I can see how this could be an issue. If the sources have different authors (or were published in different venues), then why not mention Modern Gaulish. -- Best, Womtelo (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC).

Sorry, Womtelo, but I think your intervention regarding "we" and "on" is missing the point. Celtoi's "we" wasn't a generic "on" on any rational reading of his postings. When he was saying that "I will discuss this in the Modern Gaulish community and try to come back when we will have an independent literature", or "We don't need to promote our language, we just need to tell about us", or "one article we found in internet, we didn't know it existed", or "We did not persuade him to do this", he was very clearly and unambiguously referring to a specific group of people, of which he is a member, a group that represents the revivalist movement in question and would be the essential object of this coverage, and which at the same time, through him, exerts its efforts to have this coverage increased. There is no other way of reading what he wrote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that some of his "we" were about his group; but not all of them. So several instances of "what do we need" were really equivalent to English "What do you need / What is needed?"; I am sure of that. Unfortunately, Celtoi's confusing use of we has increased the confusion about his motivations. -- Womtelo (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC).

It's a little rude to talk about who's listening. Celtoi (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Womtelo for clearing up a potential misunderstanding surrounding the partial overlap of French on and English we. Have a look all at my user page: I advocate for Clusivity; this kind of misunderstanding can't happen in Enggano or Mwotlap ;)

But back the main question. @Celtoi: please keep in mind that this article is about Gaulish, the quite fragmentarily attested language of the ancient Gauls that ceased to be spoken one and a half millenia ago. Modern Gaulish is a revivalist project that owes its existence to this ancient language, but represents a different topic. This is important in order not to reverse the direction of perspective. So far, Fut.Perf. has talked about general requirements of sourcing before we even can mention something in Wikipedia (= reliable, independent, published sources). What also needs to be considered is the relevance of something for a specific topic. As a simple rule, when no single reliable source about topic A mentions topic B, it means that there is little to no reason to mention topic B in the article about topic A (except maybe in a "See also" section), even if topic A plays an important role for topic B.

So translated into an answer for the question posed here: only if sources about the ancient language Gaulish start to take note of the Modern Gaulish project, we can include a mention of it here. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If a revivalist project gets scholarly attention e.g. in journals about constructed languages, or is discussed as a socio-cultural phenomenon, we would rather include this information in articles about constructed languages, or in articles covering the agents of the socio-cultural phenomenon. It takes a long way before a revivalist project becomes an essential part in the literature about a language that once ceased to be passed on and spoken, as e.g. in the case of Cornish. –Austronesier (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, that cleared things up a bit. In this case, it would be better to look at the full wiki article on Modern Gaulish. So, I will try to create an article that includes absolutely everything: grammar, phonetics, ways to form new words, etc.

Indeed, the revival project takes decades.

“We” already have two independent scientific articles, so I can start creating a full-fledged article, although I understand that 2 articles will not be enough.

In any case, I realized that there is currently no place for Modern Gaulish in article about the Gaulish language. Celtoi (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)