Reconstruction talk:Proto-Celtic/Windosēbaris

Irish
🇨🇬 is a masculine i-stem. How does that figure into this? —CodeCat 20:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea. Finnabair is cognate with Gwenhwyfar. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * is also an i-stem and not an ā-stem, judging from the palatalised final consonant. So either the Proto-Celtic form is an i-stem too, or the Brythonic forms are not exact cognates. The Wikipedia article says that the connection between them isn't certain. —CodeCat 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The stems don't necessarily match. Proto-Celtic windos becomes OI Finn, and sēbarā becomes sabair, giving Finnabair (Findabair appears to be a later variant, and the modern form is as listed, Fionnabhair). Finnabair is a direct descendant of Windosēbarā, and Gwenhwyfar of Windosēbarā. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then that article is wrong. We have finn attested in OI as meaning "white" and sabair as "phantom". It doesn't mention the connection as being uncertain, only that the meaning is unknown (which isn't true).UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no in Old Irish, it's not listed in DIL. There is, however,, which we already have an entry for. Both  and  are i-stems, and can not descend from  directly. —CodeCat 20:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's literally no other explanation that comes to mind. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Any ideas? —CodeCat 20:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Matasović reconstructs as a masculine o-stem, but DIL says the masculine o-stem forms of  are later than the masculine i-stem forms of, and the name always ends in -bair, never -bar. Maybe when they wanted to make a feminine name out of a masculine noun, the Brythonic speakers changed *windos sēbaris to *Windosēbarā while the Goidelic speakers either kept it *Windosēbaris or changed it to *Windosēbarī. (The genitive of Findabair is , suggesting a velar stem *Windosēbarixs, but more likely it's just a late form that was formed when the consonant stems started to spread in Irish.) I don't see any way to get the Brythonic forms, with their absence of i-affection, and the Irish form, with its palatalized r, from the exact same PC form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be i-affection anyway. In final i-affection the only vowel affected by short -i- is short -e-. Celtic *Windosēbaris or *Windosēbarā would both give the same result in Brythonic. The only difference would be in the plural but I don't see that being an issue here. Anglom (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin form
"(cur | prev) 20:25, 5 October 2016‎ CodeCat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (603 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (Undo revision 41108054 by UtherPendrogn (talk) - It has Gw-, -h- and -u-, all Brythonic sound changes. It was not borrowed from Proto-Celtic with those features.) (undo | thank)"

It was made up by Geoffrey of Monmouth. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was made up based on something, wasn't it? That's exactly what borrowing is. A word in one language is coined based on a word in another language. —CodeCat 20:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop.
stop. Jennifer is Cornish, and is spelled that way. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in Cornish it isn't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer
Jennifer is an English name of Cornish origin, but that isn't a Cornish spelling. It's a purely English spelling. The Cornish spelling is, as the page says (same spelling as Middle Cornish). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Then state so, for fuck's sake. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty terrible reconstruction.
sēbaris doesn't even exist.
 * Do you have anything more substantive than that? — JohnC5 07:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you stop whatever vendetta you have against me? If I didn't sign it, don't sign it for me.
 * I have no vendetta against you. I'm just curious whether you have any evidence for maligning this entry or are just complaining. Throughout IE languages, compounds often change their declension class, meaning that while *sēbaris in isolation may not exist, it may be found in compounds.
 * Also, you are supposed to sign contributions, and when unsigned, contributions should be labelled. If you have a problem with you comments being attributed to you, then you should not have made them in the first place. — JohnC5 04:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)