Reconstruction talk:Proto-Celtic/Esugenos

The descendants listed here are totally wrong. Esugenos will not produce Welsh Ougein/Owein/Ywain, et al. (including the Breton forms listed), and Irish Eógan is from Proto-Irish *Iwa-genos "Yew-born/child".Cagwinn (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cagwinn, before you go and delete data, please provide sources to the contrary. --Victar (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've split this into three entries, *Esugenos, *Iwogenos and *Owogenyos. If you have more sources, please add them. Next time, please start a discussion before you just start deleting stuff. That's a fast way to get temp blocked. --Victar (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, I did start a discussion - see above. I have been a Wiki editor for many years now, so I am quite aware of the rules. For more sources, you can see some of the etymological notes that I added today to the Wikipedia article on the name Owain; It is quite impossible for Welsh Ougein/Owain to come from *Esugenos, because *esu- should give Old Welsh *iu (cf. Brittonic *wesu- > Welsh gwiw), not ou-, and the ending -gein/-ain must come from Brittonic -gonio- or -ganio-, not -geno- (cf. Brittonic -genos > Old Welsh -gen). Cagwinn (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, Old Irish Eógan is from Proto-Irish *iwa-genas (Proto-Celtic *iwo-genos) "Yew-born". See: Koch, John, Celtic Culture, ABC-CLIO, 2006, p. 705. Cagwinn (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cagwinn, you started the talk page, and immediately deleted the content after. if you've been here a long time under some other account, that you should know better. You also just reverted my edits without even looking at the two new pages I created. This entry is now for the Gaulish form, and its etymology is unquestionable. --Victar (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have provided sources for the second etymology (and can certainly provide more - "Son of Esus" has been the preferred translation for at least a century!) and moved the Pokorny reference to the first etymology (even though Pokorny's etymology is probably wrong and has few adherents today). Cagwinn (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cagwinn, and that's all well and good, but you continued to delete the Gaulish form and cognates for the first etymology. --Victar (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, you should NOT have created the *Owogenyos page! Pokorny's etymology is wrong and it is no longer accepted by modern scholars. Cagwinn (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cagwinn, I don't have a horse in this race, but your conduct has not been acceptable. This is a warning: you need to discuss the issues at hand with academic references (not merely claims that something is "impossible"), and stop edit warring until the discussion has come to a conclusion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I already provided all the necessary sources. More can be provided upon request.Cagwinn (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cagwinn, perhaps you are accustomed to working alone on Wikipedia, but here on Wiktionary, and especially in regards to reconstructed forms, we work as a community. I've pinged @Anglom below who works with Brythonic forms so let's wait until we can hash things out before you continue to revert pages. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that you are not up to speed with modern scholarship on Celtic historical phonology. Old Welsh Ougein (MidW Owein, ModW Owain) can NOT come from *Iwo-genos (which would give OW *Iugen) or *Esu-genos (which would also give OW *Iugen); this is pretty basic stuff. It boggles my mind why you are fighting me on this stuff! By the way, I have been studying Celtic historical linguistics for almost 35 years and my work on Celtic etymologies have been by several well-known scholars, including Xavier Delamarre, John Koch, David Stifter, et al. Cagwinn (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 @Cagwinn, I think you need to slow down and actually look at the edits I made at the beginning of this discussion. No one is currently saying that Old Welsh Ougein descends from *Esugenos or *Iwogenos -- that descendant has been moved to *Owogenyos, which is sourced by {{R:ine:IEW|head=esu-s|page=342}} and English Proto-Celtic and comparanda. If that form is incorrect, what form should the reconstruction take, in your opinion? --Victar (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

First, let me sat that the "English Proto-Celtic and comparanda" contains a lot of errors is not reliable; you will not find many (if any!) serious scholars citing it as a source. Second, Old Welsh Ougein/Eugein most likely has as its first element Proto-Celtic *awi- "wish/desire" (seen in Old Welsh/Breton Outam (MlW Eudaf) < *Awitamos, MlW Eugad < *Awicatus, MlW Eugan, Old Breton Eucant, Gaulish Auicantus < *Awicantos, OldBret Eudon < *Awi-dāno-, Euhocar < *Awi-su-caro-, Euboduu < *Awi-boduo-, et al.; see Delamarre, DLG, 2003, p. 61) and *ganio- or (less likely) *gonio-, a derivative of PIE *ǵenh₁- (perhaps directly comparable to Germanic: *kunją “kin, family”?). The related Old Irish name Ugaine/Augaine may not be a borrowing from British (or vice versa), as Bergin suggested as a possibility, but a cognate. Third, *Owogenos should not have a page, as it is a bogus form. Cagwinn (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cagwinn, Great, so we can agree that splitting the one entry into three separate reconstructions as I did initially was the correct way to go, one for Gaulish Esugeni (*Esugenos), one for Primitive Irish ᚔᚃᚑᚌᚓᚅᚔ (ivogeni) (*Iwogenos), and a third for Old Welsh Ougein.

Proto-Celtic *awi- seems like a solid theory for the first element. Is there a source that specifically mentions Old Welsh Ougein deriving from this? {{R:cel:Delamarre}} coyly omits it.

Also, could you explain why, your you opinion, you think *Owogenyos > Old Welsh Ougein is morphologically impossible? Additionally, why you find *Iwogenos > Old Breton Ewen impossible. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No ancient Celtic name terminating in -genos can produce Old Welsh -gein, which must come from -gani(o)-, -goni(o)- (with Latin Brittonic i-affection of the vowel), or (unlikely in this instance) -gagin-/-gogin- (with loss of medial -g- and internal i-affection; cf. MlW gwein < Latin uagina). As I mentioned above, PrClt *iwo- "yew" produced Old Welsh iu (cf. OW iuenn) and did not produce OW ou-/eu-. *Iwogenos would give OW *Iugen, not Ougein. PrClt. *owo- should have given Old Welsh u- (cf. W. cnu < *knowo-), not ou-/eu-, and -genio-, via i-affection, would give OW *-gin; so *Owogenyos would give OW *Ugin (similarly, due to i-affection, Latin Eugenius would give OW *Eugin, MlW *Evyn or *Ewyn). Cagwinn (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Just to be clear I was only asking about *-owo- > OW *-ou- and *-iwo- > OB *-e(w)-, not PC *-genos > OW -gein, nor PC *iwo- > OW ou-.
2. Examples of PC *-owo- are surprising scarce, and Matasovic's reconstruction of PC **glowos (“charcoal”) > MW glo appears to be wrong, per Schrijver 2011a, who reconstructs it as *glāwos.
3. I agree with you that PIE *gn̥yós > PC *ganyos > PB *gėn > OW *gein makes the most sense. The PB form was always aligned with this etymology.

--Victar (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the entry in question to here: Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/Awiganyos. Would you agree with what is there? --Victar (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Anglom, as the one who created the final reconstruction of the Brythonic form, would you agree with change? --Victar (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Esus

The prefix meaning good in protoceltic is su- < *h₁su- (Matasovic p 358). I know of no esu-/esus prefix in old celtic. There must be a confusion with the indo-european reconstructed word "*esu-s" in "Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch" [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary] (in German), Bern, München: Francke Verlag, page 342. This word is not protoceltic. And thought I dont speak fluently german, it seems Pokorny writes that the theonym Esus is dfficult to relate to "*esu-s" good. --Kadwalan (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kadwalan: this is not a prefixed word, but instead a compound word. --{{victar|talk}} 20:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, that is not the point. *esu-s is not a protoceltic word. The explanation is false. The source mentionned (Pokorny) doesn't make that reconstruction either. The only explanation mentionned by scholars that i know of is "born from Esus" or "Descendant of Esus" or something similar. --Kadwalan (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, you just misspoke. You can see that alternative theory is already given in the etymology. --{{victar|talk}} 16:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)