Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this language a 'theoretical' link, or is there any actual writings from this? Its just that if It is a hypotheical linking language then I think there should be some re-wording, even if it is generally accepted.
I thought we VfDed this fiction. Evertype 16:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Deunansek (sic) purports to be a scholarly reconstruction of the Brythonic language of Dumnonia (Devon and surrounding areas) as it was around 700 c.e. before it gave rise to Cornish and Breton as separate languages.
See: Old Devonian
The following is an analysis of the only continuous text (more than a single sentence) that I have seen in this language.
First the text itself :
(1) HAGON TAT EN NEFOU,
(2) SANKTEDHIT BEDHET DHE HANU,
(3) DEFU DHE RUANTELETH,
(4) DHE FODH BEDHET
(5) EN DOAR FEL EN NEF,
(6) ROIT DHEN HEDHIU HAGON BARA PEB DEDH,
(7) HAK DHEN HAGON KAMUEDH,
(8) FEL DHEN RE-NA
(9) HAGON KAMUOL,
(10) HAK NA EN DENTATION,
(11) MAT DELIURIT NI DHERAK DRUK.
I compared the above text with several versions of the Lord's Prayer in Welsh, Cornish and Breton, and found that the best match was with the Middle Breton text in Lewis' _Llawlyfr_. Large parts are identical with just some MB oddities changed. <fu, u> for /v/ is written <f>; <z> from Brit. /D/ or /T/ becomes <dh> or <th>, not always correctly; and all <c>'s whether for /k/ or /g/ come out as <k> even before back vowels, unlike anything in MC, MB, OW or MW. Where there are bits of Breton vocabulary that seem alien to Welsh/Cornish, then bits of Unified (I think) Cornish have been inserted, or in some cases the words are just left out(!) as if the text was never finished. A few forms seem to have been inspired by Welsh.
Here's the Middle Breton line by line, with additions in boldface, deletions marked [thus] and differences italicised. Notes follow each line.
1. hagon tat [pe heny so] en nef[u]ou,
<hagon> is a hybred of B _hon_ with C _agan_. In fact W _ein_ shows that the _ag_ was a C innovation, perhaps needed to beef up the word for "our" from just _*a_ to the more distinctive _aga_, with the other plural possessives following suit. The _ag_ is probably the same word as _(h)ag_ "and, with". The SWB word for "our" would I guess have been /on/. The words <pe heny so> "the one who is" are ignored. A UC version has _us_ "that is" here. The text as given thus reads just "Our father in heaven".
2. [ho hanu bezet sanctifiet] sanktedhit bedhet dhe hanu,
Here the word order has been changed, perhaps to conform to UC "benygys re bo dha hanow". <ho> your has been changed to <dhe> C. "thou". <*hages> or <*hagos> might have been predicted from <hagon>. <sanktedh-> seems to be from W. _sancteidd(i)-_. The past part. ending should be <-et> not <-it> for /-Id/ to be consistent with the rest of the text. Why was not some form of /bennig-/ or /bennath-/ used?
3. [deuet] defu [ho] dhe r[o]uanteleth
<deuet> "let it come" replaced by <defu> probably representing the C. optative _(re)_dheffo_ "may it come", again probably inspired by the UC version "re dheffo dha wlascor". The /-ff-/ << /-vh-/ root extension in this form might well be a C. inovation since it is not found in B, and W uses /-l-/ by analogy with the verb "to go". B. <ou> is regularly rewritten as <u> which makes one wonder how /y/ would be represented. It does not seem to occure in the sample.
4. [ho] dhe [uolontez] fodh bedhet [graet]
<uolontez> replaced by <fodh> for WC /voD/. This is valid, but C does also have _bolonjedh_, later _blonojadh_. The word <graet> "done" has been missed, so the phrase reads "thy will be (in earth ...)". Something like <*gwra-et> /gwra-Id/ might have been expected.
5. en do[u]ar [e]fel en nef[u]
MB <euel> /evel/ has been shortened to <fel> /vel/? as in W. The MC is _avel_. All go back to a weakened form of _hevel_ "like, similar". <*(h)euel> might have been expected.
6. roit [dimp] dhen hedhiu hagon bara pebdedh[yec]
B <dimp> "to us" replaced by <dhen> for MC/UC _dhyn_, presumably because <dimp> is just "too Breton"? The ancestoral form might have been /dIm(m)/, cf. MW _ym_ /1mm/. <pemdezyec> "everyday" (adj) replaced by <pebdedh> "everyday" (n?), again from UC _pup_deth-(oll)_. <pub> is the unstressed form of _peub_ which might perhaps have been <pop> /pOb/ in SWB.
7. hak [pardonnet] [dimp] dhen hagon [offansou] kamuedh
<pardonnet> "pardon, forgive" (imperative) is ommitted. <offansou> "offenses" is replaced by <kamuedh> from UC _camwyth_, KK _kammweyth_ "misdeed" with <dh> for <th> (cf. W. _gwaith_). The line reads "and to us our misdeeds", with the key word "forgive" missing!
8. [e]fel [maz pardonnomp] [da nep] dhen re-na
Again the key phrase "as we forgive" is missing. <da nep> "to whoever" (singular) is replaced by C _dhe'n re-na_ "to those" (pl.), giving "as to those (ones)". If <pardonn-> looks too F, and C _gav_ too English, then here W _maddau_ might usefully be adapted.
9. [an deueux] hagon [offanset] kamuol
<kanuol> seems to be for UC _camwul_ "misdeed, wrong-doing". The B phrase <an deueux hon offanset> lit. "that have offended us", uses _am_eus_ with a past part. to form a perfect as in E and F. This usage is special to B, just as the use of _wedi_ is special to W. The MC construction with _re-_, also found occasionally in MW is most probably the original pattern. Thus a back-dating of "dhe'n re-na re-gammwrug er-agan-pynn" or "... re'(ga)n kammwrug" might have been expected. In fact this phrase has just been left without a verb. As it stands this whole sentence reads "and to us our misdeeds, as to those ones our wrong-doing", which is pretty much garbage.
10. hak [non] na [leset da couezo] en den[p]tation
<ha no'n leset da couezo> "and allow us not to fall" has simply been replaced by C _na_ "(that) not", or "(do) not". This is odd as C _koedhe_ "to fall, to be due", is well attested, and W _cwyddo_ shows that it would back-date to something like /ku:jDIM/, while <leset> could be replaced by the SWB equivalent of C _gaze_, W _gada_, _gadael_. <dentation> is probably the work of an out of control spell-checker, leg. <temtation>?
11. [hoguen] mat [hon] deliurit ni [uez an] dherak dr[o]uc
<hoguen> "moreover", (C _hogen_, MW _hagen_), has been replaced by <mat>, leg. <met>? as in ModB, C _mez_, all pointing to an earlier SWB /med/. There is no clear reason for this replacement, unless the word _hogen_ was unknown to the adaptor. The possessive <hon> has been dropped and replaced by the suffixed pronoun <ni> which shouldn't be able to stand alone at this early date. <(hag)on deliurit ni> would have been expected. <uez a'n> C _a-ves a'n_ "away from the" has for some reason been replaced by <dherak> UC for "in front of, before", perhaps influenced by W _rhag_ "lest". The UC text has _dyworth_ and ModB, its equivalent _diouzh_, "from beside".
The above sample of "Westcountry Brythonic" turns out to be essentially a Middle Breton text taken from an well known handbook, partially respelled, and with any distinctly Breton looking words replaced by their equivalents from a Unified Cornish version. Some "difficult" words and constructions have simply been dropped, so that a literal translation is often nonsense. The person publishing this piece clearly couldn't understand it, nor did its author have any real idea of historical linguistics or the development of the Brittonic languages, even though work on the history of Cornish has made such information more readily available than it might otherwise have been. To suggest that a text composed of an amalgam of Middle Breton and Middle Cornish (i.e. nothing earlier than 1400 c.e.) could in any meaningful way represent the South West Brythonic speech of some 700 years earlier is ridiculous.
While it might be an interesting exercise to reconstruct SWB prior to the C/B split, the present attempt is naive, amaturish and careless. I could probably do better over a wet weekend, with a Welsh-Breton dictionary and the etymologies in GLKK.
Mongvras 12:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I should point out that I have a copy of Biddulph's work in front of me, and it does address some of the issues raised above.
For example Biddulph indicates that he is unsure of the translation of 'who art' in the first line (and in his work he renders it in English in brackets in his text). He also expresses similar uncertainty about the 'pardon' in the sixth and seventh lines and agains renders it in English in brackets.
The text Mongvras refers to is not a literal reflection of Biddulph's work and as such these limitations should not be sheeted home to him.
Why oh why are people so keen to put down work that they have not studied properly themselves.
I will pass the comments above to the site I believe Mongvras took the text from so they may address these deficiencies.
Dewnans 11:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Later in his text Biddulph suggests that the special present tense relative form would render "Our father who art in heaven" as "Hagon Tat so in nefiou". I will re-iterate however that this article is not promoting Biddulph's reconstruction per-se, but rather the subject is the 'south-western brythonic language' - of which Biddulph is only one attempting reconstruction. Refer the reference to Schrijver (below) - who I am sure all here would consider as a recognised linguist.
Dewnans 12:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Since writing the above I have obtained a copy of Mr. Biddulph's book, and corresponded a little with the author. It is quite clear that Biddulph is not making any exaggerated claims about his work, he is in effect saying, "Middle Cornish and Middle Breton are really quite similar, let's see if we can combine them into a common language". The whole work is tentative and experimental, and as Dewnans says, the Lord's Prayer translation (Biddulph's only attempt at more than isolated sentences) is full of untranslated English words, queries and alternative translation equivalents. Biddulph's reference list, and comments here and there in the work, show that his sources are Lewis' Handbooks, and various popular works on Modern Breton and Revived (Middle) Cornish. He was not aware of Kenneth Jackson's key works on Breton and Brittonic historical phonology, nor indeed does he seem to have any background in historical and comparative linguistics, which whatever you may think of them, a good many conlangers do. To be fair, why should he? These are not high profile subjects in the UK. So in effect Biddulph has joyfully "reinvented the wheel", or in this case, independently discovered comparative philology, though without, I think, appreciating the extent to which languages change over time.
For comparison, here is the text exactly as Biddulph gives it :
Hagon tat who art en nefou, sanktedhit/bendigeit bedhet dhe hanu, deuet dhe (kingdom: ruanteleth or gulaskor or teirnas etc.), dhe fodh (from bodh) bedhet done en doar fel/afel en nef, roit dhen (i) hedhiu hagon bara peb dedh, hak pardon dhen hagon kamueth/kamuedh, fel/mal we pardon dhen re-na who hagon ?kamuol, hak na lead us en temptation, mat deliurit ni dherak druk (rak druk). Amen.
What is odd/interesting, is that someone should take Biddulph's tentative reconstruction, and put it up on a web site, with all the caveats removed, so as to give the impression that SWB was a known language.
Mongvras 23:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
In Peter Schrijver's book Studies in the History of Celtic Pronouns and Particles (Maynooth 1997, ISBN 0-901519-59-6) he cites a dozen words in a language he calls "Old South-West British" which apparently come from manuscripts called "Ang477A" and "LeidLeech". The words are:
If anybody has any information on these manuscripts, such as if they've been published, and if it's been established that the language is neither Old Cornish nor Old Breton, then maybe we'll be able to talk about an attested language here rather than a hypothetical one! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Old South West British appears on a number of language lists, including the one used by the Indo-European Etymological Dictionary
http://www.indo-european.nl/lang-abbrev.html
This is linked to Leiden university, which I would guess provides a clue on the source of the 'LeidLeech' referenced above. Dewnans 03:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Schrijver is not the only one who includes this language in Celtic family trees (eg McCone or Schmidt) although under a variety of names. The article should also note that fact.
I also suggest that we do not attribute Schrivjer's words on 'Old South West British' in absolute terms, as after all they are still only one persons stated opinion - however educated and informed Schrivjer is - and his terminology does differ from others..
I also believe we should note the recent interest in the language, or in approximations to it. However unpalateable Biddulph or his work may be to some (even if they haven't read it) the interest and publication does exist. Perhaps this should be shown as a footnote, as the article is about the language, not (just) Biddulph's reconstruction. Dewnans 02:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The current title of this article, "Proto-Southwestern Brythonic", is not attested in any books I can find. Here's the Google Books search. This language is typically referred to as just "Southwestern Brythonic". If there are no objections I'll move the page back.--Cúchullain t/c 17:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to @Couiros22: for highlighting Britonian in the infobox with a citation request. I have gone ahead and removed it from the infobox for these reasons:
-- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Rescinded by nominator. This should be proposed as group RM of similar titles that have a "language" added onto the end which is not actually serving a disambiguation function. Per WP:CONSISTENT, this page by itself should not be moved away from the current pattern in the category. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Southwestern Brittonic languages → Southwestern Brittonic – WP:CONCISE, and to be WP:CONSISTENT with Cumbric, Scottish Gaelic, etc. In short, we do not append "language[s]" to language article titles when the name of them is not ambiguous with that of the culture/ethnicity associated with the language. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Leaf language has nothing to do with linguistics ("a method of characterizing a complexity class by formalizing what it means for a machine to accept an input"). It's not our job to "aid" articles (on language or any other subject); it's our job to aid the reader, with (among other things) titling that complies with the WP:CRITERIA, including CONCISE and CONSISTENT, and with WP:COMMONNAME (this term is not much used in the literature with either the Brittonic or Brythonic spelling, but when it is it is usually not followed by "languages" ). There don't appear to be any of the criteria violated by "Southwestern Brittonic", nor any that are objectively enhanced by "Southwestern Brittonic languages". Remember that even WP:PRECISE is moderated by CONCISE and the other criteria: we only use as much precision as is required to avoid ambiguity and keep the name WP:RECOGNIZABLE). "Southwestern Brittonic languages" is actually natural disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS), but there is nothing from which to disambiguate it, so the tacked on "languages" should be removed. Your own second sentence makes this point without meaning to: there is no "Southwestern Brittonic [something else]", the way there is "Cornish culture", "Cornish music", etc., to disambiguate from "Cornish language". Some examples you rely on simply don't relate to issue raised here. Danish dialects is not a language-family article but a sub-/intra-language article, and even if there were one named "Danish languages" we could not remove the final word from it because it would be ambiguous with the Danish language and other topics to which "Danish" can apply (music, etc.) "Western Brittonic language" and "Occitano-Romance languages" easily can lose the "languages" appendage, because "Western Brittonic" and "Occitano-Romance" don't have any referents in reliable sources other than those language families, and thus are not ambiguous. The circumstances under which WP "pre-emptively disambiguates" are very limited, and are almost entirely confined to cases in which a non-human subject, like an animal breed, can be confused with a reference to an actual human ethnic or demographic group (thus, e.g., the "cattle" appended to Argentine Criollo cattle, despite lack of an Argentina-specific section yet at Criollo people).
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.