Reconstruction talk:Proto-Brythonic/Urboɣen
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The conjoined meaning is quite clear, Urb and Gen mean Noble and Birth. Reconstructed languages are ENTIRELY conjectural. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- For one, *orbos means "heir, inheritor", not "noble", so your conjectural reconstructed meaning is already flawed. Secondly, the individual reconstructed meanings are based on published and cited work. Personal research into what their combined meaning might be, assuming it had any combined meaning, which it may not have, is not. --Victar (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you looking at the Proto-Celtic? Old Welsh urb also meant privileged/noble. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- The meaning is quite simply the meaning of the two words. Æþelwulf means Noble Wolf, it's not conjecture. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Take note from you very own example: Æþelwulf. We do not add definitions for compound names on Wiktionary. --Victar (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
- Take note from you very own example: Æþelwulf. We do not add definitions for compound names on Wiktionary. --Victar (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/Urbo%C9%A3en
There's no reason that apocope wouldn't get rid of the o. "Urbagen" could just as easily be epenthesis. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- The -a- denotes /ə~∅/. See Wiktionary_talk:About_Proto-Brythonic. Next time, start a talk discussion first, because clearly you don't know what you're doing here. --Victar (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no evidence on that page, except you finding that "Tutagual" and "Cunedag" (both very specific cases) still have a sound in between the compound. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Before you continue talking about something you can no idea what you're talking about, go read the sources in the link I provided. --Victar (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know what I'm talking about. Latin epenthesis is common. There's absolutely no evidence on that page, except you finding that "Tutagual" and "Cunedag" (both very specific cases) still have a sound in between the compound. Besides, it seems very likely it was a Latin form of Urbgen. The only place where "Urbagen" appears is the HB, which is written in Latin and contains several other Latin names. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Jeez, you are hopeless, man. If you read the article, it cites Urbagen specifically. The -a- found in many Brythonic names from the 9th century, is a historic vestige of a weakening process that happened in the 6th century. The article is 20 pages, so I know you didn't read it, so please don't waste my time. --Victar (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Names written in Latin five centuries after the people they're talking about lived. And no, I've not read it, since you've just posted a link with several hundred messages without pointing to the article, which suggests you either don't want me to see it, or are just a liar. I'm more inclined to believe both of those. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- "I'm not realhly sure what you're getting at. All forms of the name existed, because they follow a chronological path. But the stage of Brythonic we reconstruct has been affected by both apocope and syncope, so *Euɣėn is the only form that should appear. Anglom (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)" Apologies if I trust the linguist who has been doing this for two years rather than you, a vandal.~(hint: Not the type that lived in Africa) UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Name-calling is really a lousy way to make your point, especially since you're far more guilty of the same behavior, yourself. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- "I'm not realhly sure what you're getting at. All forms of the name existed, because they follow a chronological path. But the stage of Brythonic we reconstruct has been affected by both apocope and syncope, so *Euɣėn is the only form that should appear. Anglom (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)" Apologies if I trust the linguist who has been doing this for two years rather than you, a vandal.~(hint: Not the type that lived in Africa) UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Names written in Latin five centuries after the people they're talking about lived. And no, I've not read it, since you've just posted a link with several hundred messages without pointing to the article, which suggests you either don't want me to see it, or are just a liar. I'm more inclined to believe both of those. UtherPendrogn (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Jeez, you are hopeless, man. If you read the article, it cites Urbagen specifically. The -a- found in many Brythonic names from the 9th century, is a historic vestige of a weakening process that happened in the 6th century. The article is 20 pages, so I know you didn't read it, so please don't waste my time. --Victar (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know what I'm talking about. Latin epenthesis is common. There's absolutely no evidence on that page, except you finding that "Tutagual" and "Cunedag" (both very specific cases) still have a sound in between the compound. Besides, it seems very likely it was a Latin form of Urbgen. The only place where "Urbagen" appears is the HB, which is written in Latin and contains several other Latin names. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Before you continue talking about something you can no idea what you're talking about, go read the sources in the link I provided. --Victar (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no evidence on that page, except you finding that "Tutagual" and "Cunedag" (both very specific cases) still have a sound in between the compound. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- Procedural note, is this under the scope of RFV? Reconstructed terms are by their nature unattested. We could look for dictionary citations if you like but if you just want to discuss it, which seems to be the case, then stick to its talk page, or Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Brythonic or WT:ES. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. I've moved the discussion to Reconstruction_talk:Proto-Brythonic/Urboɣen. --Victar (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)