Talk:Brithenig

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-23. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternate History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternate History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternate HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Alternate HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Alternate HistoryAlternate History articles

Untitled[edit]

The Tolkien reference is inaccurate. His languages were not made up for background to the stories, but the reverse. Also, the stories in question are the legends of the First Age, i.e., those in the background of The Lord of the Rings. Zaslav (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future arguments on conlangs[edit]

Have just looked through the old arguments on deleting this and other conlang pages. I suggest that the best test is to Google the language in question, and see how many hits there are. Anything with 17,000 hits is more than the private game of half a dozen people. Koro Neil (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of ghits (Google hits) is by itself a very weak evidence of notability.

The quality of the results matters, not the quantity.

For example, a lot of websites indiscriminately copy information from Wikipedia in hope that it will bring visitors. The fact that a robot copied a piece of information from Wikipedia to another site doesn't make that piece of information any more verifiable or notable.

Also, the recent proliferation of sites with user-generated content make the Google tests even more meaningless. For example, if you take out the Wikipedia and its related sites and clones and Ill Bethisad and its related sites and try to search for Brithenig, the number of results goes down to 10,000. (search for "Brithenig -site:wikipedia.org -site:wiktionary.org -wapedia.com -site:griffler.co.nz -site:griffler.co.nz -site:answers.com -site:langmaker.com -site:bethisad.com -site:groups.yahoo.com -site:ib.frath.net -site:wikia.com -site:wikibin.org".) I didn't go over all of those 10,000, but the impression is that many of them are mailing lists, which is not so good for Wikipedia.

The usual arguments about conlangs is that many of them exist on mailing lists. If you ask me, it's tough luck. I don't think that any field of study or art should be exempt from the usual Wikipedia criteria for notability and verifiability: WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:PSTS, etc. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh[edit]

I added Welsh to the table, as it illustrates nicely the similarity in phonology with Brithenig, and also the fact that a considerable number of Welsh words are descended from Latin in this way. Feel free to replace my words with more suitable ones, and if someone could indicate which are Latin-descended, which are IE cognates, etc., that would look good. I'd do it myself but I'd get it wrong. 137.205.74.230 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks a lot! —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intended significance of showing some of the Welsh-language words in parenthesis? -- Picapica (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the spanish has can, meaning "dog" and this word is from the latin canis http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/can#Spanish --Karlven (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probability?[edit]

If a form of Latin had survived in Britain, it would have Celtic loanwords in Romance pronunciation, like French, not vice versa. Are there any sources explaining how nonsensical such hypothetical languages are? 46.186.34.99 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "what if"-type questions are usually difficult to answer with certainty (at least in history), I would be more cautious here. From parallels such as Maghrebi Arabic vs. Northern Berber and Middle Chinese vs. Proto-Tai vs. Middle Chinese it is clear that languages spoken (in an extended period) by bilingual speakers can converge to a substantial extent. A closer analogue would probably be Albanian vs. Romanian. One should also keep superstratal influence in mind. If the idea is that Brithenig is basically a mixed register of Brittonic/Welsh with an abundance of Latin loanwords where the native register eventually became extinct, the development makes more sense. In the case of French, we don't have any real idea how Gaulish would have developped had it not become extinct; perhaps Gallo-Romance and Gaulish really converged more than we might think, and would have converged even further had they persisted both. A tendency of minority languages to adapt to the majority language even to the point of shared sound changes is not unprecedented: Moroccan Arabic, for example, shares the loss of most short vowels and the development of rounded consonants with Moroccan Berber. It strikes me as the closest parallel I know to fictional bogolangs (i. e., the Brithenig type where you apply the sound changes of language A to language B), while it is true that substrate influences do not work this straightforwardly, as a rule. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brithenig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529072556/http://hobbit.griffler.co.nz/introduction.html to http://hobbit.griffler.co.nz/introduction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]