Talk:Celtic languages

New hypothesis for the origin of the Celtic languages

New hypothesis for the origin of the Celtic languages: Article 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That article indicates that there is genetic evidence of a second major wave of Indo-European migration to Britain and that it’s related to Gauls. That is a good argument for the replacement of Q-Celtic speakers in Britain (i.e., the first IE wave of migration which continued on throughout Britain and Ireland) by P-Celtic speakers. Gortaleen (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Very early days for this, & we wouldn't put anything in based on press reports. Linguists, archaeology & dna people tend not to see eye-to-eye on such matters, especially as neither digging nor dna analysis actually tell you what languages were spoken. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m noting that editors should be prudent in claims made in the article. Traditional “history” - based ultimately on the Book of Invasions - is soon going to be upended by serious academics using genetic genealogy as data to help develop more reliable theories.

For example, see the Kurgan Hypothesis vs the theory of migration of Indo-European people circa 5000 years ago. Gortaleen (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Pictish

On the list, "Possibly Celtic languages", i cut out Pictish on the grounds that it is pretty much known to be Celtic. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Continental Celtic

@Celtoi Continental Celtic is quite widely rejected as a valid phylogenetic language grouping, see the many scholars in the Nuclear Celtic languages article who classify the Celtic languages in a way that precludes Continental Celtic from being valid. Generally rejected groupings like this should not be readded to the infobox; doing so would give undue weight to such a rejected grouping. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 22:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence for Continental Celtic languages to be widely rejected. The fact that Nuclear Celtic is more often seen in modern linguistics, does not reject the fact that some modern scholars and many other people in the past included Continental Celtic. I suggest for Continental Celtic to be on this article because this is one of the key views on Celtic language groupping. Despite this isn't about Wikipedia, but, for example, I, as a Celtic scholar, fully support Contienental Celtic theory and reject Nuclear Celtic. From Alba, Celtoi (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It does not matter how "many other people in the past" used Continental Celtic. What matters for a language family infobox is the present-day consensus on phylogenetic grouping, which you accept more often features a classification that precludes Continental Celtic from being a valid taxon. You have not yet provided any modern scholarship that actually supports Continental Celtic as a valid taxon instead of say, using "Continental Celtic" as a geographic term of convenience (e.g. like "Papuan languages") to refer to non-Insular Celtic without expressing any opinion that Gaulish and Celtiberian are closely related. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I can not agree on the unambigous domination of Nuclear Celtic theory over Continental Celtic theory. The amount of studies in total mentioning Continental Celtic languages aisde from Insular Celtic is simply bigger. Despite we can clearly see that modern studies more often about Nuclear Celtic, you can't deny the existence of Continental Celtic theory. If you think that the infobox should contain only one theory, then Continental Celtic and Insular Celtic should be mentioned there.

The information about Continental Celtic theory having "no proof" is very arguable. On the article about Continental Celtic only 1 study mentioned, the article boldly says "there is no evidence that the Continental Celtic languages can be similarly grouped". And I think we both know that such fundamental studies like Matasović's etymological dictionary mention Continental and Insular Celtic languages as primary branches. From Alba, Celtoi (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

But Matasović redefined "Continental Celtic" to exclude Celtiberian, which is not closely grouped with Gaulish (and in fact it also groups Gaulish closer to Insular Celtic than to Celtiberian). The tree given on page 13, figure 1.2 of his dictionary makes that clear. And a mention of "Continental Celtic" does not mean that an author using the term considers Celtiberian + Gaulish to be a valid phylogenetic unit! As I said before, "Continental Celtic" is also a geographic term like Papuan languages which may be used without necessarily supporting closely grouping Celtiberian and Gaulish together phylogenetically. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Continental Celtic theory groups Lepontic and Noric (Noric actually really lucks evidence) together with Gaulish, while Nuclear Celtic is a very blurry theory, but it often groups Lepontic and Noric outside Gaulish. Hispano-Celtic, on other hand, in both theories often grouped outside.

At any case, I think we should ask other people on this topic. I do want to keep both Continental and Insular Celtic languages in the infobox by now together with Nuclear Celtic. This way it simply keeps both theories in the infobox. Or, you don't like the fact that both theories will be represented there? You didn't answer this question. From Alba, Celtoi (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

To mello, could you point us to the references saying that Nuclear Celtic is the consensus version and Continental Celtic abandonded. And just to pre-empt a detour: I am not asking for any WP user's assessment of the situation, but for a reliable source making that claim. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I'm needed here, but at any case I will write that I support Jeppiz suggestion to @Mellohi! I'm also interested what Jeppiz thinks on this topic. If you have more suggestions or something that you want to share, I'd like to see it, thanks. From Alba, Celtoi (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

According to this, Continental and Insular are valid subfamilies of Nuclear so that Continental Celtic excludes Hispano-Celtic. Srnec (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Great. So then, I guess, our goal is to discuss how we should organize this in the infobox? I tried to boldly add the info back to attract some attention, so I want to hear your thoughts on this topic. Maybe we should then separate both views into something like "Insular and Continental Celtic or Nuclear and Hispano-Celtic"? From Alba, Celtoi (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)