User talk:Burgundaz

Reconstructions
Reconstructed pages are always required to have descendants, so that they can be verified. 17:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, my mistake. I'll add what I can find. Thank you for the notification.Anglom (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The only related word I can find for it in Old English is 'temian', but that would not come from *tamjanan, right? Anglom (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already added some. I don't know about "temian", it seems irregular, and looks like it should come from *temōnan or something like that. But I don't know any other languages that have such a form so it would be a rather dubious reconstruction. 17:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow you work fast! Thank you for those. I will do my homework before I try again. Anglom (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

-ιζειν
Should this be ? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It could be. I couldn't find an entry for a verb-forming suffix from Latin and Ancient Greek to base it on, so I went with what was listed. If you think it should be, then we'll go with that. Anglom (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant, apologies. See Italian -izzare, which links to Latin -izo not -izare. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been moved to -ίζω now. Thank you for your input, I appreciate it. Anglom (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The page -ιζειν should be created again, though, with whatever is appropriate for an Ancient Greek infinitive form-of entry. And -ίζω needs an inflection table. 20:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. I will do my best. Anglom (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories
Could you please fix the categories at leassagol? Currently the entry is added to English categories rather than Old English. You also may want to consider using. 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now, sorry about that. Anglom (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving the Germanic entries
When moving them can you look at the "What links here" page of the old name, to see if there are any pages that need to be changed? You don't need to fix the Index pages because they are automatically updated. If the pages that link to the old page are redirects themselves, you can also mark them for deletion (they are mostly pages with "old" names using an * rather than /, we moved those a few years ago but the redirects remain). 12:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hadn't even thought to do that; thank you. Will do. Anglom (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic words and ogonki
Hello, good sir.

I see that you are removing ogonki from (certain) Proto-Germanic pages but adding them to Proto-Germanic terms referenced in Etymology sections in the mainspace. I suspect you are planning to rename the Proto-Germanic pages so that the ogonek spellings are used. Is this right or no? If I'm not right, what is going on? Was this change discussed anywhere?

― Espreon (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right; the discussion is here WT:RFM. Anglom (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks.


 * ― Espreon (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you muchly, I appreciate it. Anglom (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

awidją
I don't think the descendants can be correct. Gothic has ē, which is not expected in this case, and it also has þ. 21:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both were noted in Orel, which also mentions a Gothic reconstruction of *aweiþi. I'm not all that knowledgeable about it though, so I'll follow your judgement. Anglom (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

σφυγμικός
Thanks for making a blue link. However, the sort parameter should retain a normal sigma, even at the end of the word, so that it sorts correctly. I know it looks ten kinds of wrong, but no one has to see it besides editors. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright then. Sorry about that. Anglom (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize; thanks for making the change. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

PIE spelling
We use a standardised spelling for PIE words, which is detailed on WT:AINE. I've fixed your entry so I'm just letting you know. 13:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, and thank you. Anglom (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

cornbære
Recently many new features have been added to templates. One of those is the ability to remove macrons from Old English words, so you don't need to specify the word twice. Like here:. I thought that might be useful to you. Not all templates have this yet, but if you notice it's missing then it can probably be added easily if you let me know. 23:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is very useful! Thank you. Anglom (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Does have this ability as well? Anglom (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It should have, yes, but it was only added a few days ago so let me know if things are not working as they should. Another change is that you no longer need to add or #Old English into headwords. Just putting   around words is enough, the template will correctly link them. The macron-removing works here too, so you can put   around a word with macrons and they will be stripped from the page name before the link is created. All of these are features of,  and , but I converted all the Old English templates just now to use  so it all works. Oh, and you don't need to use  anymore, you can just use  if you put * before a reconstructed term. There's also  (the name is temporary) which is the same as  in every way, but it takes the parameters the way  does, with the language code first. You may prefer it instead of .  00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks like doesn't work right. I noticed it added the grambære to the -bǣre category, which is not correct.  00:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fixed. 00:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And thanks for all the other information, as well, I will definitely be trying it out! Anglom (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you like these kinds of features, you may want to try out making modules. They're what has made this all possible. :) 01:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They do look amazing but also really complex! I'm not much of a coder/programmer but I will try learning. Anglom (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You could make a sandbox module at Module:User:Anglom and experiment with it a little bit. Lua is fairly easy to learn, there are just a few catches when it comes to how it works with the wiki. There is some information on WT:LUA but I don't know if it's useful to you. 01:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks very useful, thank you muchly! Anglom (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Bosworth Toller template
You may have noticed that the BT page has changed to indexing by reference number, not word. Putting the lemma into the link is a complete waste of time, unless it's into a search function, and that has the potential to get messy. If anything, I think we should make the link either to a search, or to just use the index number by default, else a bare link to the BT site.

--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we just gloss the reference number with an 'alt' form? I really liked being able to link to the page for easier access. If you feel it's the best choice however, I will accept that. Anglom (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The italicised reference should be the header or the first variable. There are more than a few instances of this template in use, so it would be better to have the page index for the link specified as a "ref=" variable, which can be retrofitted. (And even, if thought worthy, make a cleanup category for where it is missing.) Without a specific link ref, though, the link should be to the front page of BT, and the user can search from there.


 * I'll make these edits to show you what I mean. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There, with usage example at hæcce. It will require effort to retrofit links to existing entries, but should be functional in any case. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that looks really good. If you're happy with that, I don't mind going through and fixing the links. Anglom (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Old English Supine/Gerund
Hi! Isn't the normal West Saxon gerund (the tō + verbal noun) formed with -enne (< PGmc -anjōi), rather than -anne (a later Northern variant?); with the former showing the more conservative i-mutation of the vowel? Leasnam (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It could be. I see it very often in Bosworth-Toller, alongside '-anne'. But that part of the template was already there before I added to it, and I'm not quite all that knowledgeable about Old English yet to know which it should be. Sorry! Anglom (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Gothic attestations
The forms that are attested in texts will generally have a romanization entry, so they should be fine to add. But just because a link appears blue in an inflection table doesn't mean there's a Gothic entry there! Like fastos for example, which isn't actually attested, but you created 𐍆𐌰𐍃𐍄𐍉𐍃 anyway. So you need to check the romanized entries to see if there's a Gothic entry there, before creating the Gothic script form. 20:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Aye, that would be smarter. Sorry about that. Anglom (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Germanic adverbs
Thank you for creating these. If you took the etymology from the paper I showed you, could you add a source using tags?

Also, maybe it would be better to create a separate entry for the suffixes found in the adverbs, so that you don't repeat the same etymology over and over. 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do that, I think. Thank you. Anglom (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might be useful to create an appendix page, say Appendix:Proto-Germanic locative adverbs and prepositions, or add to the existing Appendix:Proto-Germanic adverbs. This would show the various forms in a schematic way, in a table with columns for ablative, adessive and allative, along with the preposition. It might be a useful educational tool for those who want to know more about the adverb system in Proto-Germanic. Do you want to do this? 00:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can give it a shot. I'm not the greatest at explaining things, but I'll do my best. Anglom (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'll try it on Appendix:Proto-Germanic adverbs first, but if it doesn't fit we can move it later. Anglom (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving/deleting pages
When you do this, could you make sure that there are no links to the old name first? 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, I can do that. It's been so long since I've done it, I forgot. Sorry. Anglom (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

*lingwaną
Nasal-infix presents were always formed to zero grade roots, by inserting the infix before the last consonant. So if this were a nasal-infix present, its PIE form would have to be *li-né-gʷʰ- ~ *li-n-gʷʰ-´, from a root *leygʷʰ-. 00:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't even realize. It does not look to be a nasal present, then. Beekes shows full-grade as well. Anglom (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

*stallaz
I don't think the etymology is correct. I'm not aware of any sound change of -dl- > -ll- in Germanic. On the other hand, there is a sound change -ln- > -ll-. So this is probably from the root. 17:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kroonen only gives four examples of it: /,, /, and /. Anglom (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Although, I am confused by the second-to-last example, he gives it as while showing it as an example of the sound change, but lists it as  in the actual entry. I can only assume  continues from a related, though. Anglom (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

*stimnōną
Hi Anglom! Is there a reason why *stimnōną is more correct? Leasnam (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The -e- preceding a nasal and another consonant becomes -i-. Technically, *stemnō should be *stimnō, but I didn't have the time to sort through it all and move it. There are apparently two Germanic variants at work, *stimn- and *stamni-, Pre-Germanic *stem(m)n- and *stom(m)n-. Anglom (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I planned on bringing it up in the discussion page but forgot about it. I didn't want to step on anyone's toes by moving it without warning. Anglom (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Depending on the source and if its early (e still maintained) or late (raised before nasal) it can show either . Yeah had the page been moved to *stimnō I wdve known. I usually show this rule. The majority of descendants also show e. It has an alternate form in *stebnō. Perhaps that stabilised the vowel in this word, or shifted the vowel back, but I'm fine with either. Whichever it ends up being an alternate should be shown Leasnam (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OHG stimma, stimna might be the only one that goes back to *stimnō. The rest seem to belong to *stebnō and *stamnijō. Kroonen considers the idea that *stamn- and *stemn- split off from an original ablauting paradigm. Anglom (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any way we can find out whether -mn- or -bn- was original? It seems that these sequences got mixed up in most languages. Even later changes seem to have muddled it, like Swedish < Old Norse  < Proto-Germanic, or  < Old Norse  < Proto-Germanic  (all other Scandinavian languages have -v- or -f-).  12:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kroonen seems to give the pre-Germanic cluster as -mn-. He lists as such but gives the etymology as, related to Sanskrit . He lists this word as *stimnō, and lists variants *stamnijō, *stebnō, and *stimmō, which he thinks probably all split off of an original paradigm. He gives the Gothic suffix  as Proto-Germanic , Pre-Germanic , connecting also Old Saxon . Lehmann gives the Proto-Germanic suffix as , however, with the same pre-Germanic form.


 * he lists as, from Pre-Germanic , related to Old Irish (but notes it likely spread from one branch to another), stating it's usually connected etymologically with and . If the etymology for *habnō is correct, then the Swedish -mn- seems to have been an independent development, yes? Anglom (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

sebô
Hi. Before I realised it was you (I thought it was autocorrect), I changed the etymology of. I left it as there is a page at. Leasnam (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's okay. will have to be moved at some point, but de Vaan gives a different PIE root than Kroonen and Beekes, *sHp- vs *sep-, so I probably won't get to it until I understand it. Anglom (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Alca
Thanks. I got further confirmation on the gender from one of the databases I had neglected to consult: AnimalBase. Your etymology seems better than the one I'd found, though many such etymologies are suspect.

Would you accept an administratorship nomination? DCDuring TALK 01:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also Icelandic, Faroese , the latter components of which, -ella, Kroonen reconstructs as Proto-Germanic *allijǭ, so it still might even be possible that alle goes back to Scandinavian dialectal word. Along with Alca, they all seem to go back to a root , which could be connected with Latin.


 * I would, yes. Thank you. Anglom (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Administratorship
Please go to Special:Preferences and provide your e-mail address.

Please go to Wiktionary:Votes/2014-12/User:Anglom for administrator and accept the nomination, stating your languages, and making whatever statement you would like to help people understand you as a contributor here. DCDuring TALK 03:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

*af(a)lą
I've found that in situations like this, the vowel (or lack of it) before a final sonorant is reflected pretty reliably in Old Norse, at least when the case ending is not syllabic. So the fact that it's afl and not afal indicates that there was no medial vowel in Proto-Germanic. It works for a-stems, u-stems and i-stems, I don't know if it also works for ō-stems. For n-stems it doesn't work, because the ending is syllabic, and the middle of three syllables normally gets syncopated in Old Norse (both a hypothetical *afalô and *aflô would become *afli in Old Norse). —CodeCat 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. The West Germanic languages are rife with epenthetic vowels, so it's hard to tell sometimes. Thank you for the info. Anglom (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I saw your recent edit, adding the forerunners of English tow to the Descendants of *tukkōną, yet don't these rather belong at instead? Leasnam (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably. I'm not quite sure how to deal with the iteratives, which is why I've been waiting so long to add them(there are a ton of them); / were both just one verb in Proto-Germanic, being in the singular present but  elsewhere. The iterative paradigm was very unstable though, so they could eventually split up into four different variants (depending on if Verner's law was involved) in the daughter languages as they tried to regularize them with leveling. For instance, the reflexes of  show all possible variants I think,, ,  and.


 * The big problem I've had is whether we should reconstruct each stem variant individually; into the two main variants; or just under the original form. The former would result in a lot of reconstructions. Anglom (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How about creating a separate page just for the stem: showing the other variants in the header (like we do at  and ). Thus, , et al. would be child-entries of *tukk-. I just cannot see  coming directly out of  per se Leasnam (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

*-niz
Maybe you should make an entry for this and a "words suffixed with" category? —CodeCat 15:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I kind of wondered if -ī-niz and -ō-niz should instead redirect there as well, as the long vowels properly belong to the verb stem. Similar to how is the result of attaching  to weak class 1 verbs. Anglom (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Proto-Brythonic
I think it would be good to set up About Proto-Brythonic so that everyone understands the notation. —CodeCat 20:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a good idea. I will have it up shortly. Anglom (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Defective Elfdalian Noun Inflection-Table Templates
I cannot figure out what is wrong with the templates I made under Category:Elfdalian noun inflection-table templates. I started off by merely cutting and pasting Template:non-decl-blank-full to Template:dlc-non-decl-blank-full. I noticed when changing non-decl-cell| from the original template to dlc-decl-cell| the box displayed Template:dlc-decl-cell instead of expected . To fix this I changed dlc-decl-cell| to just . I did the same with the other noun case cells in the template. After everywhere else changing non to dlc, I used this template to form the other templates under Category:Elfdalian noun inflection-table templates. Soon after using the templates I had just made in an Elfdalian noun entry e.g. fisk I noticed the template ruins the allingment of the entry just below it on the same page (Please look at the entry for fisk to see what I mean). The Old Norse templates under Category:Old Norse noun inflection-table templates don't seem to have this problem. How did I screw up the Elfdalian templates then?

Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you meant to post this to my talk page? From what I can see, the -cell| part calls to a module, which doesn't exist for dlc, but does for non.
 * As to the alignment, I think it might be the float: left that was added, I remember having trouble with that before. Sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable about these things, I usually learn by trial and error. Anglom (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

skapjam matjan jah drincan
Hails! Hvem er du, og hvorfra kender du Guus? :D TheEsb (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean, I don't know Guus. I am familiar with his work, though. Anglom (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Brythonic genders and cases
Did Proto-Brythonic still have a neuter gender? Neuter nouns would be expected to have a-affection in the plural, which the masculine nouns probably didn't have. I don't know if there are any traces of this in the later languages.

Also, what about cases? Given the amount of erosion that occurred, many of the endings would have disappeared, but they probably triggered affection and mutations like in Old Irish. This would be interesting to document. —CodeCat 00:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It probably no longer had a neuter gender. At least so far as I've found yet.


 * The plurals are unfortunately not very reliable in reconstruction, as certain markers became very productive outside of their stem class. This is more or less why I ignore them. The only way to do it with any sense of sincerity would be to apply them based on their historic class, say, known u-stems take the plural marker *-ou, as this is our best guess as to what the situation was before apocope broke up their predictability.


 * There are traces of the case system, fossilized genitives here and there and maybe instances of Welsh continuing one case form where Cornish/Breton continued another. But it is very likely that the system as a whole fell apart quite quickly. I wondered a while ago whether if this was enough for me to go on to reconstruct a case system, as it wouldn't be difficult to reconstruct it from Proto-Celtic/Insular Celtic forward. But it is more speculation than anything else.


 * Declension would have looked something like:

Declension of


 * But again if it did survive until late Proto-Brythonic, it didn't survive very long after. Anglom (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder what would have created the raising in the nominative, accusative and vocative plural? —CodeCat 01:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Early Brythonic -ū- eventually became -ī- and basically every word final i-diphthong had resolved into -ī as well. Anglom (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proto-Brythonic query
I think I posted this in the wrong place earlier. Sorry if I did. Hello. I am currently trying to reconstruct a few Late British languages. You are the first I've heard use "Proto-Brythonic". How would you compare it to Common British/Brythonic and Late British/Brythonic? I like to use this as an example: Proto-Celtic: Eburākon. CB: *Eburocon. LB: Ebrauc. Old Welsh: Efrog. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a widely accepted terminology for the British Celtic languages. I'd say Common- and Proto-Brythonic more or less mean the same thing. What's reconstructed here is Late Common(Proto-)Brythonic, which is the last time the three recorded languages could be considered one language. What you have listed as CB would be Early British/Brythonic, at a time when consonant mutation was still allophonic or developing and recognizable cases still existed. I'd say:
 * Proto-Celtic: *Eburākom
 * Early PB: *Eburōkon
 * Late PB: *Eβrọg /ɛβˈrɔːɡ/
 * Old Welsh: Ebrauc/Efrauc
 * Middle Welsh: Efrog
 * I can recommend Peter Schrijver's "Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology", as well as his work in "Brythonic Celtic - Britannisches Keltisch: From Medieval British to Modern Breton (Muenchner Forschungen Zur Historischen Sprachwissenschaft)" edited by Elmar Ternes, both of which were immensely helpful to me in reconstructing Early and Late Brythonic phonology. Anglom (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Wouldn't it be better to construct two different sections for Proto-Brythonic, to distinguish Late from Early? I'd be glad to help. The Curse Stone at bath, would you consider it late or early? "Adixoui deuina deieda andagin Uindiorix Cuamenai"          UtherPendrogn (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We could, but there's less reliable information the further back you go in time. The morphology for a lot of forms would be incomplete, especially considering the loss of the neuter gender.


 * I couldn't say definitively, but based on the estimated date it would probably be an example of early- to mid-Brythonic. Unfortunately there just isn't as much information about early British Celtic as there is about the later forms of it. Anglom (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It has final vowels preserved, so that places it earlier than our reconstruction. —CodeCat 21:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks! UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

For a word like aθreβ, is there any advantage to writing it as aθreβ rather than athref/athrev, like the welsh descendant? They seem to be pronounced the same. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's phonologically clearer. There are possible instances where /h/ does follow /t/ in Proto-Brythonic. Also, Proto-Brythonic does have /f/, so it would be confusing to use it additionally for /β/. While it wouldn't hurt to use  for this phoneme, I rather prefer unambiguous <β> for representing /β/, which is also in line with the treatment of other voiced fricatives. Anglom (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pronouns?
Have you tried reconstructing any Proto-Brythonic pronouns?

UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not yet but it's on the to-do list. Some pronouns get pretty complex, I'd rather not reconstruct them until I've mapped out the whole system better. Anglom (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks. I tried to reconstruct the word "worst" from its proto-celtic "waxtisamo". As far as I can tell, the w becomes gw, the i becomes an e because it follows an a (a-affection), which leaves me with gwaxtesamo. Is there anything else that would change? Thanks! UtherPendrogn (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * /x/ vocalizes to /j/ > /i/ before -t-(which spirantizes to /θ/ in this environment), which probably centralizes to /ɨ/ following /a/. Final -o(s) is lost due to apocope and connecting -i-/-e- is lost due to syncope. Intervocalic -s- lenites to /h/, which is usually deleted, but appears to continue in some environments like the superlative ending. Intervocalic /m/ lenites to /β̃/. Altogether it should give *gwaɨθhaβ̃ > Welsh gwaethaf. Anglom (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot! I'll try and reconstruct some other words. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry to comment again, but would this be correct? "If/Or" (Proto-Celtic) kʷeageti becomes be̝giθi ? -kʷ becomes b,                         ea becomes e̝, second e becomes i,              i before t makes it becomes θ. UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * /kʷ/ becomes /p/ unless lenited: lenition turns it into a /b/, but lenition doesn't happen word-initially unless the word is in composition. /t/ only becomes /θ/ when the /i/ comes from /j/. Both /g/ and /t/ undergo lenition, giving something like **pe̝ɣid. Although I don't know what sound is meant by ? Proto-Celtic shouldn't have had any words that contained something like that. Anglom (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for helping with that. Well it seems to, I found kʷeageti in a reconstruction of Proto-Celtic done by the University of Wales. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So, if I've got this right...
mrixtillo > mriθll X is J, and JTI forms "θ". The o is dropped due to apocope. Sure enough, the Welsh for trout is mrithyll. This seems to pose a problem, as what I've tried to reconstruct gives "mrithth", if ll is pronounced thl in PB, and mrithll if not. Both seem to be unnaceptable successions of consonants. The only thing I see is for the second i to somehow survive, but it was lost in t becoming θ. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you think  is pronounced as /θ/? Celtic *mrixtillos would give *briθɨll, as *mr- always gives *br- in Brythonic. Initial mr- only shows up in nasal mutation of br-. Anglom (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant thl. But that's generally how the pronunciation of the Welsh ll is described. So the name Lleu is roughly "Thlay", and Llan is "Thlan".
 * You're talking about the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative, see [], which is more or less a Welsh development of unlenited /l/ or rather /lː/. Anglom (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks.

I'd like to help with reconstructing the language, if that's okay or useful. Is there a guide to these vowel and consonant mutations, or do you just memorise them personally? UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mostly memorization. Sometimes I go back through my references if it's something I've forgotten. I'm not very good at formatting what I know so I've avoided making a guide. It's something I should work on, I guess. Anglom (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you have Skype? It could be easier to communicate on there, if you're up to it. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. Just email me your skype name and I'll add you. Anglom (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

How should I go about e-mailing you? Can't find an address. UtherPendrogn (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be an 'e-mail this user' to the left under the 'tools' section on my user pages. Anglom (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have sent the email. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Morgana?
I've reconstructed the word "môr" as "mör": mori > mör > môr

Now, apparently Morgana either means "sea ring" or "sea song". Sure enough, gana means either ring or song. But I cannot find any proto-celtic words (and thus can't reconstruct it). Do you have any idea what the PC might be? UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrator keeps vandalising my page.
Hi, I'll just copy this discussion from the IRC, explains everything. [18:04] == UtherPendrogn [58a857e4@gateway/web/freenode/ip.88.168.87.228] has joined #wikimedia-stewards [18:04]  Hi [18:04]  I'd like to report an administrator who keeps vandalising my pages for shallow reasons. [18:04]  Not even justifiable reasons either. [18:06]  UtherPendrogn: what project and what administrator ? [18:06]  Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic [18:06]  Which he has no authority or knowledge about. [18:06]  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/ber [18:06]  > [18:06]  Page he keeps deleting [18:06]  ? [18:07]  Brought it up on his talk page and he started insulting me. [18:09]  I see no insults on the talk page, I see an administrator correcting errors with factual content, and you arguing. [18:12]  No, no factual content. [18:12] <UtherPendrogn> The line about "no Goidelic words by definition" is just plain wrong, and he insulted me just like Chuck Entz. [18:13] <NotASpy> I can see no insult, could you repeat it here ? [18:13] <UtherPendrogn> You see how much thought they put into it, Chuck Entz even said he'd "delete it on sight". He seems like an awful administrator, and has dozens of complaints on his talk page. [18:14] <UtherPendrogn> "You seriously need to learn something about historical Celtic linguistics before you keep making pages for protoforms that never existed." [18:14] <UtherPendrogn> "if I had seen the entry first, this would have been on my talk page because I would have deleted it on sight. I did warn you (three weeks ago) about getting the details right so people don't have to pick up after you. Also, it's not "your" page and no one has to consult you about it- this is a wiki, and no one "owns" anything." [18:14] <UtherPendrogn> That "warning" was because I put ONE word in the wrong category. [18:14] <UtherPendrogn> A relevant category too. [18:15] <NotASpy> that's not insulting, it's an administrator correcting an error you've made [18:16] <UtherPendrogn> No it's not, it's an insult. [18:16] <UtherPendrogn> "You seriously need to learn something about historical Celtic linguistics before you keep making pages for protoforms that never existed." [18:16] <UtherPendrogn> The protoform exists, and he's challenging and insulting me. [18:16] <NotASpy> that is not an insult. If the protoform exists, you'll need to produce evidence that it does so. [18:17] <@StewardBot> 2003:70:4F2A:7D00:31A4:8F30:9349:26EF edited Steward requests/Permissions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=15892645 [18:17] <UtherPendrogn> I provided my evidence. Twice. [18:17] <@StewardBot> 2003:70:4F2A:7D00:31A4:8F30:9349:26EF edited Steward requests/Permissions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=15892647 [18:17] <@StewardBot> 2003:70:4F2A:7D00:31A4:8F30:9349:26EF edited Steward requests/Permissions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=15892648 [18:17] <UtherPendrogn> I gave the Proto-Celtic ancestor, and several descendants, which he has said are false on grounds that are false. [18:17] <UtherPendrogn> And yes, it is an insutl. [18:17] <UtherPendrogn> insult* [18:18] <NotASpy> it's not an insult, nobody will be taking any action based on those comments. I see no evidence on the thread, perhaps it was on the deleted page which I can't see. Could you link the evidence you provided so we can see it here. [18:19] <NotASpy> the best we can do here right now is to assist you in resolving this argument. [18:20] <UtherPendrogn> I'll create it on my userpage. [18:21] <UtherPendrogn> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:UtherPendrogn/ber [18:21] <UtherPendrogn> He also repeatedly claimed the header and verb inflection table were "Proto-Celtic", when they were actually Proto-Brythonic. [18:22] <UtherPendrogn> And then he berated me for using an "inflection table", when HE HIMSELF used the same exact table (except with Proto-Celtic conjugation rather than Proto-Brythonic) on Proto-Celtic verbs. [18:22] <UtherPendrogn> A decision he made himself, and which received overwhelming abstain votes rather than support. [18:22] <UtherPendrogn> The code proves it sure enough, it's a proto-brythonic verb template. [18:23] <UtherPendrogn> So all he's said are lies upon lies. [18:23] <NotASpy> is there a source or reference though ? [18:23] <UtherPendrogn> Oh yes, University of Wales [18:23] <UtherPendrogn> Sorry, that got cut off in the copy and paste [18:24] <UtherPendrogn> Rectified. [18:24] <UtherPendrogn> The University of Wales Proto-Celtic dictionary gives the verb bere/o, which stays on as ber in Proto-Brythonic. [18:24] <UtherPendrogn> On wikitionary the verb is shown as ber, without the "e/o", for some reason. Or now bereti, now that he's done his weird changes. [18:25] <@StewardBot> Stemoc edited Steward requests/Permissions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=15892661 with the following comment: Reverted changes by 2003:70:4F2A:7D00:31A4:8F30:9349:26EF (talk) to last version by Aschmidt [18:25] <UtherPendrogn> TUoWPC dictionary is used by other members such as Anglom. [18:25] <UtherPendrogn> It's definitely a valid source. [18:26] <@StewardBot> Bulgu edited Steward requests/Username changes https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=15892665 [18:27] == comets [~james@wikimedia/Cometstyles] has quit [Quit: Z-Lined] [18:28] <UtherPendrogn> http://www.wales.ac.uk/resources/documents/research/celticlanguages/englishprotocelticwordlist.pdf you can find the verb bere/o here [18:28] == Savh [~Savh@wikimedia/Savh] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] [18:29] <NotASpy> just looking at it now [18:29] <UtherPendrogn> Thanks. It's listed as "carry", but it also means to be and to bear. [18:31] <NotASpy> all I can advise you to do, first of all, is to return to the talk page, linking in the TUoWPC dictionary URL and asking Angr to review the source content. [18:32] <UtherPendrogn> But that's not the point of contention, he never denied the etymology. [18:34] <UtherPendrogn> His "reason" was that Proto-Brythonic words can't have Goidelic descendants. [18:34] <UtherPendrogn> I proved him wrong, as they can. [18:34] <UtherPendrogn> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Irish_terms_derived_from_Proto-Brythonic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Scottish_Gaelic_terms_derived_from_Proto-Brythonic [18:36] <NotASpy> you need to have this discussion with Angr or Chuck first, very few of us here are administrators on the English Wiktionary site, and the Stewards can only intervene when extensive attempts to resolve disputes have been resolved. [18:37] <UtherPendrogn> He does not seem to want to discuss it anymore. [18:37] == Linedwell [d96d07a3@wikipedia/Linedwell] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] [18:37] <UtherPendrogn> He has not responded to my disproving that Goidelic words cannot be descendants. [18:40] == defender01 [~kvirc@wikimedia/Defender] has joined #wikimedia-stewards [18:41] <NotASpy> you can contact another administrator by using this list (please don't contact all at once - maybe one or two at most) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/sysop [18:41] <UtherPendrogn> Thanks. [18:41] <UtherPendrogn> Mind if I copy and paste this conversation, rather than risk saying something wrong while reexplaining? [18:41] <UtherPendrogn> I find I explained it best in this conversation. [18:43] <NotASpy> I'm happy for you to quote me, yes.
 * Not really anything I can do. The page as shown on your user page isn't in great condition, it's supposed to be descendants of Proto-Celtic, not /. Also, the conjugation just isn't Proto-Brythonic, as it doesn't show apocope, i-affection or lenition. And the Celtic passive was reduced to two forms, called the impersonal singular and plural. In addition, I can't decide whether the lemma form for Brythonic verbs should be verbal nouns or third person singular indicative. Proto-Brythonic verbs are an absolute bitch which is why I've avoided reconstructing them for so long.
 * It is very important to understand the forms for reconstructed languages, which is why I suggest you read everything you can about it. I've been reading everything I can get my hands on for almost two years and I still don't understand all of it. The admins here are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing and deleting unwarranted pages.
 * As it is now, you are kind of running the risk of getting banned unless you slow down and learn more about Celtic and Brythonic languages. You are creating a bunch of pages in forms that aren't warranted and now I have to go through them.
 * Also, the "University of Wales Proto-Celtic Wordlist" just isn't a good enough source by itself, as far as I can see it needs references and descendants listed. Anglom (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Kassiuelanos is the correct form. It's not borrowed from Latin. They didn't make up his name, they heard "Kassiuelanos" and wrote it as Cassivellaunus.
 * The Welsh form is borrowed, if it were inherited it would have looked like *Caswelawn or something similar. Anglom (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No. That's just simply not true. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Inherited words underwent lenition, syncope and apocope. There is only way this word didn't, which is that it was borrowed from Latin, which borrowed it before these changes took place. Also, it's more likely that the early Brythonic form was *Kassiwellawnos, which looks like it continues Proto-Celtic *-wellamnos. Anglom (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait.
Can you at least give me 24 hours before deleting all my work? I need to save and move it to my computer. I don't want it lost. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, what you said about borrowed terms always being lenitised is clearly wrong. Moderatus would be β̃oðerad. In real life, it became Medraut. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Lenition of the first consonant depends on what the preceding word ends with. —CodeCat 22:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say borrowed words show lenition, I said inherited words show lenition. Borrowed words don't follow normal sound changes. I would like to ask that you take a break from contributing to reconstructions and learn more about how sound changes work. Your enthusiasm is welcome, but you don't seem to understand how sound changes work regularly, and unfortunately that is extremely important in language reconstruction. Anglom (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked you for 24 hours to remove my words and save them on my computer. There's no "break", I'm leaving. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The final touch of irony is your complaint of cleaning up. You deleted one where the b should have been a p, rather than moving it to the correct page starting with a p. A lot of effort for essentially a yield of nothing. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay
Sorry, I've calmed down now. I'm happy to keep on helping, but I *need* to know what the vowel shifts are, and I had no idea where to look. I took some of my likely forms from my page. You'll see there are a lot of failed ones, which I leave for posterity: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:UtherPendrogn. I shouldn't have tackled verbs, but I needed them for a translation. A friend of mine is friends with John Koch, would a conversation with him help me understand a bit better?

Cheers. Sorry about yesterday, but I'm thin skinned. I understand fully why my posts were removed and am glad they were, so as not to mislead anyone or publish false information. UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Can we talk on Skype? UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Microsoft locked me out of my account. I'll have to make a new one later. Anglom (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Could you check out what sound changes I've missed?

g vocalized to /j/ > /i/ before -n-, -r- and -l- d vocalised to /j/ > /i/ before -n-, -r- and -l- mb > mm en[C] > in[C] > [ɨnC] (INTERVOCALIC AND NEAR RESONANTS (/r/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /j/, /w/): p > b t > d k > g) ai > ē > oɨ dg > dɣ kw > p gw > b gwh > gw apocope: vowels (a e i o u j y) are lost word finally from Proto-Celtic to Proto-Brythonic. The suffix os or macron a is also lost.

UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm gonna be working more on the About.. page on sound changes soon. -dg- doesn't become -dɣ-, rather -g- becomes -ɣ- because it's in composition and therefore subject to lenition. The onset of the second member in compounds is usually lenited because of what was originally a preceding thematic vowel, -o-, -i-, -u- and so on. Anglom (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that lenition occurred because of vowels on both sides of a consonant, not for any following vowel irrespective of what precedes. —CodeCat 00:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant that in this context, a vowel is on both sides, *Gwɨdɣen < *WitVgen-. Anglom (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So to break it down: "Witogenos" w spontaneously becomes gw i spontaneously becomes ɨ t, as it's intervocalic, becomes d o is dropped by apocope g is intervocalic so turns into ɣ e is unchanged n is unchanged o is dropped by apocope s is also dropped by acopope UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

i-affection in 3rd person plural of Brythonic verbs
In Proto-Celtic, as in PIE, not only the singular persons have the -i ending, but also the third person plural. So would i-affection not also be expected in that form?

Also, could you elaborate on the Proto-Celtic form of the s-preterite and s-future? I'd like to know more. —CodeCat 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Short -i- only finally affects short -e-, so *-eti gave *-iti, but *-onti gives *-ont.


 * I can't say I fully understand the verbs very well, but apparently the s-preterites were originally s-aorists attached to root-final laryngeals, *skerH-s- > *skeras- > *skaras-. Eventually the third person singular *skara-s-t was reinterpreted as *skar-ast-, which provided a new stem to which the other persons added endings.
 * A similar thing is argued to have happened with the t-preterite, which was originally *bēr-s-t > *bīrst > *birst (shortening) > *bir-(r)-t (assimilation of -rs- to -rr-) > *birt, cf. Middle Welsh 3. prs. sg. pret. kymyrth < *kom-birt. Here again personal endings were added to the new stem, Old Irish biurt < *birtū. (Although I've read that the -i- of the singular *birt- spread to the plural replacing *bert-, I wonder if that wasn't the case, because it would explain where the vowel of MW kymerth came from, which replaced kymyrth. (Unless it was maybe a case of dissimilation?).


 * I can't really say anything about the s-futures right now, because I haven't read enough about it. Anglom (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, so an affected vowel can then trigger affection on the previous vowel. —CodeCat 21:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this correct?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/gw%C9%A8bod UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sort of. It's the verbal noun of < something like PC *widro-. It's probably better to keep the finite forms of verbs separate from the nominal forms. Anglom (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"row" in Brythonic
Hi, could you perhaps figure out the common reconstruction for 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬? And do you know if they are from 🇨🇬? It doesn't appear so, at first glance. —CodeCat 13:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately they seem to be borrowings from Latin > . Anglom (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, their form and common agreement still points to a common Brythonic heritage, at least, doesn't it? —CodeCat 22:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least the noun does. The early Welsh attestations of the verb look like it goes back to < *rēmāti, and the Breton and Cornish forms aren't inconsistent with that. Anglom (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They could have all been formed independently, since the formation is productive. But at the same time, they all ousted the older Celtic verb, and it's very hard to speak of oars without talking about rowing too, so it's likely the verb was created very close in time to the noun. —CodeCat 01:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably. The verb might have been borrowed straight from Vulgar Latin as well, since the Romance languages seem to show the same denominative verb for "to row". Anglom (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anglom, is this the generally excepted reconstruction and descent tree of ? Thanks. --Victar (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That looks like a Proto-Celtic form, not a Proto-Brythonic form. Proto-Brythonic had quite a different phonology and lost final syllables. The true form would be already. Also, Proto-Celtic and early Old Irish retain word-initial *mr- (see ), so if the etymology is correct, then Proto-Celtic  is a possibility. —CodeCat 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it did feel off to me, but I thought I'd defer to you all working in Proto-Brythonic. Feel free to move it to Proto-Celtic. The Severn entries need to be updated as well. --Victar (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * *Sabrīnā should have given *Hėβrin or *Sėβrin. Welsh Hafren points to *Haβren < *Sabrinā. Anglom (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could it be that Latin, , descends from an early Proto-Brythonic  that later became ? --Victar (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * is the earliest form found in Latin around the 2nd century, and is first recorded in 706, which looks like it might have been influenced by the Old English form (or vise versa?). So, would the 2nd century be pre-Proto-Brythonic? Late Proto-Celtic? --Victar (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Latin Sabrina would have been borrowed from early Brythonic, that is, the stage of the language before all the Brythonic-specific sound changes occurred. The form Saberna looks to have been influenced by the newer pronunciation of Brythonic sound changes, *Saβren, but it could also have just been influenced by the Old English form, where *Saβren > *Saβern > Sæfern isn't really unexpected. Anglom (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So than perhaps this looks right:

pre-Proto-Brythonic:
 * Early Proto-Brythonic: ,
 * Proto-Brythonic:
 * Old Welsh:
 * Welsh:
 * &rarr; Old English: ,
 * Middle English:
 * English:
 * &rarr; Latin:
 * Late Latin:, , (influenced by later Proto-Brythonic and Old English forms)
 * --Victar (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very close. The pre-Proto-Brythonic form would have been *Sabrinā, as the Welsh forms require a short -i-. This gave early Proto-Brythonic *Saβren(a), lenited *Haβren(a). The Old English term was borrowed at this time as Sæfern(e). In Proto-Brythonic proper the s/h mutation was in the process of being disturbed and one form or the other was generalized; this led to *Haβren taking over completely in Welsh. The late Latin form was probably influenced more by the Old English term, due to the creeping effect vernaculars were starting to have on Latin of the time. Anglom (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh, so you think the -æ- in the Old English came from a simple -a- and not an -ė- or something? Also, isn't it possible that the pre-Proto-Brythonic form was, or does that not make sense? --Victar (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An -ė- could only come from *Hėβrin < *Sabrīnā, where a-affection couldn't occur because of long -ī-. (Only originally short vowels can undergo vowel affection in Brythonic.) But the Welsh form is only consistent with *Haβren < *Sabrinā where a-affection shifted short -i- to -e-, thus later internal i-affection couldn't occur.
 * It's possible that it was; the seeds for lenition likely go back to Proto-Celtic or at least pre-Insular Celtic, but whether the sound was still half-long /bˑ/ or had become /β/ already I can't say for sure. Anglom (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks a bunch for your help, Anglom, and all! I really appreciate you walking me through it. --Victar (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

ē?
What would Proto-Celtic ē become in Proto-Brythonic? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Proto-Celtic -ē- comes from earlier -ei-, and gives Brythonic -uɨ-. Anglom (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Could I be on to something?
The theory that Galahad as a biblical name doesn't satisfy me. I toyed around with a few possibilities, and came up with this one:

galākatus > galkad > galcad (Mighty Battle)

The name was then ported to the French and turned into Galacad and then/or already Galahad. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure if ā-stems would keep their vowel in composition, it might have been replaced with the more common o-stem thematic vowel, so *galokatus might better be expected. Even then the expected result would be *Galgad as lenition precedes apocope and syncope. Anglom (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, I wasn't too sure whether it would, since o-stems seem to (Orbogenos). And you're right, that intervocalic k should have become a g. So Galokatus, Galgad. UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Tudwal
The best meaning I could find was https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/Tutowalos#Proper_noun, but presumably no one called their son vagina prince. Some texts say his name means "country ruler", but I can't find any word resembling tud that means country. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers. UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

s-stems in Brythonic
I noticed you added s-stems to the inflection tables on the about-page. I wonder how Celtic -s- leads to Brythonic -ð- here? —CodeCat 14:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Intervocalic -s- becames -h- which then disappears, leaving a hiatus that's filled with -j- (or -w- if a -u- is adjacent), and it's this -j- that becomes -ð-. Anglom (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, quite the sequence. —CodeCat 14:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Could you help me out for a second. I've read the works you've mentioned, but I'm trying to find the mentions where we can deduce Proto-Brythonic underwent intervocalic lenition, g vocalising to i before a sonorant, and apocope. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you read "Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology"? Because they're discussed on pages 355, 460 and 461. Anglom (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read it. I'm not in the habit of memorising every intricate detail of each page. UtherPendrogn (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how you could miss it if those were the parts you were interested in. Anglom (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Eluned mystery
Hi, I asked about e's a few days ago. Now I'm confused how Eluned came about. Orthography suggests elinetos, and in the root eilun we do find i-mutated e. Now, two things bother me: modern North Welsh seem to pronounce it as [eluned], -etos doesn't seem to be a real suffix, and it was borrowed as Lunette in French yet Lynette in English. My first instinct was what the Welsh are saying, elounetos > eluned. But this differs from eilun, which must have had i-mutation. The matter's bizarre. Did the Welsh just invent a new more phonetic pronunciation for the name?
 * I don't really know. I'd need more sources on the name. But the word 'eilun' wouldn't necessarily require i-mutation if it's instead a compound of 'eil-' and 'llun'. Anglom (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing vote
Hello Burgundaz. I just wanted to inform you about the following current vote: Votes/2020-12/Bringing back wynn entries. I think you might be interested in the topic, and can cast your vote using your best judgement. Thanks! — inqilābī  ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 19:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

CAT:D
The categories that you have marked for speedy deletion still contain entries. You have to fix all of those pages before a sysop is able to delete the categories. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  16:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gothic as a superstratum
I am really interested in what you mentioned here regarding the way the pecularities of Gothic language development reflect the fact that Gothic would have been a superstratum language with many non-native speakers. I was wondering if you could point me to some sources for further reading? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Mnemosientje Sorry, it took a while to track down where I got the idea, and until I find something better, I can only think the notion of Gothic being a superstrate came from this article: [|"Dialect and Language Contact in Emerging Germanic"], Benjamin Frey and Joseph Salmons, 2012, which I would have read quite a while ago. Although, if you read the article, they make and reference reasonable points as to that not being the case.


 * I had thought I also picked it up from an article/book by Schrijver as well, but that might just have been the idea that a Germanic language could be so affected by substrate languages, with regards to Old English phonemicizing umlaut so much earlier than other Germanic languages due to the underlying Brythonic speaker-base having such an extremely similar phonological system (which is also the very fact that led to my fascination with Brythonic languages for a short time a while ago). Again, sorry! Wish I had better reading material, and I'll keep looking, but that seems the most reasonable source for that particular notion. (It doesn't help that Gothic shows extreme signs of regularization, but that can always be explained in other ways.) Burgundaz (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is great, thank you so much. I really like Heather's work on the migration period, but a robust historical-linguistic analysis is somehow always lacking among historians (and Amory's work, as mentioned in the article, is far from satisfactory and receives undue weight among historians).
 * If you find anything else let me know as this is all really interesting to me, particularly the idea of Gothic as having been a kind of koine. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

About Late Brythonic vocabulary
Good day to you! I've been working for some time on a novel that takes place in Britain in the year 429 AD, and I'm currently trying to add some 'linguistic flavor' here and there. I was wondering if maybe you could help me with some Late Brythonic terms, since you seem rather apt at reconstructing them? Your help would be immensely helpful. Regards, Sarchosuchus (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry! It's been years since I've worked on Proto-Brythonic. It'd take me at least 3-4 weeks at best to get reacquainted with my sources. If it takes place in 429 AD, then as last I remember, that would have been roughly 3-4 generations before Proto-Brythonic split into West Brythonic (Welsh) and Southwest Brythonic (Cornish and Breton), so you could certainly use Proto-Brythonic in your work plausibly. Burgundaz (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-niz
"Following root final dental consonants, an -s- is inserted creating the variant *-sniz." Are you sure that "-s- is inserted". I suppose that initial "s" is from dental. cp. ufsnaiþ ufsnaist, qaþ qast ПростаРечь (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)