Very interesting post, thank you. Just to challenge your suggestion that the term Cymru derives from Latin, as a native Welsh speaker I know the early version of the term i.e. Combrogi is a Celtic derived word. The first part Com means fellow person (modern Welsh - cymydog means neighbour) and bro means land (compare Bro Morgannwg , in English Vale of Glamorgan). I am not a linguistic expert but I’m pretty sure the term has a Celtic etymology.
I also think Britain or Britanni etc is a latinised version of Prydain (may mean painted ones), so again it’s the Romans adapting a local word to their ears rather than the other way round.
The issue with a loan translation is that the new form will use lexemes native to the calquing language, so they are difficult to distinguish from native coinages. There is a Gaulish name Allobrogi which means 'another land', but *Combrogi 'fellow land' is element-for-element the same as Latin compatriota and *Combrogi has long been thought to be a loan translation of the Latin term for 'citzens'.
On the name of Britain, I've got a paper coming out soon on Prydain 'Britain', Prydyn 'Pictland' and Britannia 'Britain'. The B- for P- isn't paralleled in Latin loanwords otherwise, and the alternation Prydain ~ Prydyn is not typically found in Celtic terms.
Thanks, I enjoyed this. I only have time for two quick comments:
1 the issue with Welsh is that its origin is derogatory. It was originally a Germanic word reconstructed as *Walhaz used by the Germans to refer to foreigners (based on the Celtic name of a people Romans called Volcae) and later by Romans referring to peoples that they deemed "barbaric". This then spread to many areas of Europe, going all the way from Valachos in Greece (still negative term for people who do not know the sea) and Vlaji in Dalmatia (Vlachs in most Slavic countries) to Wallons in Belgium where it has lost the negative connotations. Thus I can see why Welsh people would argue they don't want to be called something that was imposed as a term of Otherness from the outside.
2 The earliest Roman sources on Britons called them Britanni, e.g. Catullus famous poem "ultimos orbis Britannos" (those Britons at the end of the world). The variation Britanni/Britonni is just that, a linguistic variation but at least this term is Celtic.
It will be interesting to see if they ever get enough signatures on the petitions to change the name to Cymru. But as far as I'm aware, the negative connotations of reflexes of *Walhaz are exclusively Eastern European. At the moment it looks to me a bit like Germans getting upset about the description Němec.
The variant form Brittones has a geminate -tt- which can't be explained as a Latin or Celtic development. Germanic, however, creates geminates regularly under Kluge's Law, especially when forming nicknames like Otto. I'm also sceptical that Britanni has a Celtic etymology -- I've got an article coming out in the next issue of the Journal of Celtic Linguistics on the derivation.
"But as far as I'm aware, the negative connotations of reflexes of *Walhaz are exclusively Eastern European." well, if you count Germania and Britannia as Eastern Europe back in the Roman period then that could well be true (though I am not sure the name Wales is attested in the negative sense that early on. When are the first attestations?) Eastern Europe itself is an imperialist construct of 'Western' states in any case and the official international name of Germany is not Německa (though I would not mind if it were :)
But I agree that it may be petty to trace back everything to ancient etymologies and impossible to carry out consistently in any case.
I would very much like to read your forthcoming paper on Britanni!
I think the Old English name is first attested in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the year 897 -- as Norðwealas 'North Wales' -- where it is used to describe where the Danish army went.
Remembering that Germanic speakers and speakers of Celtic languages had been in contact along a language frontier in Europe for something over 500 years in the late Iron age and Roman period, how possible is it that *walhaz simply reflects Gauls? I'm not actually sure which side of that line the Batavians were.
The truth about *walhaz is that we just don't know unfortunately. I've written two papers on names of the Batavi recently and they all seem to me to be West Germanic.
It depends what you think of as derogatory. Words for "foreign" aren't generally classed as derogatory by linguists, only descriptions like "barbarian" or "Kraut". Given that "Welsh" is usually thought to derive from the tribal name Volcae, it's not derivationally derogatory -- it's just an example of generalisation.
Seem to remember Wallia or something similar as being a Germanic reference to slave or servant with reference to the naming of Wales. The name Cymru, also spelt Kymry, I was told by my grandfather, had something to do with the house of Omry a tribal leader in the middle east. My grandfather often said 'we Cymric derive from the lost ten tribes of Israel' and that we came up from Egypt! perhaps there is something in this so here goes. The old name of Egypt was Kem. There was a tribe know as the Cimmerians, who came up from Egypt. They were sacked by the Assyrians along with the Israelites. Many went north through Turkey in to Europe, eventually to Britain? It's a bit of a stretch but could Cymru derive from Cimmerian or Omry or both???
Linguists generally reject proposed etymologies of place-names that require them to come from far away places (like Egypt) when they can be explained as terms derived in the local language (i.e. in Welsh).
I'm sorry Bernard. I'm with Napoleon. 'History is a lie agreed upon' I just don't trust the information passed down through 'experts' anymore. I believe history desperately needs revision and much that has been dismissed, may have been for political or bias reasons. I realise to some this would be tiresome and laborious but the truth and facts are of up most importance to me. I'm convinced that much is missed or ignored as it doesn't fit the prevailing narrative. As an academic you will probably find me irritating. Unfortunately I have lost my trust in academia.
Most academic historians think that Arthur can't be shown to have existed -- and I disagree with them. So we are probably on the same page there I think.
We are regarding Arthur, definitely. I am convinced that there were a number of them from Cornwall to Strathclyde over the greater part of a millennia. Probably with two courts at summer and winter residencies. It's the most fascinating of detective stories.
That use of 'cives' is interesting. It can just mean 'citizens' of course, but in the fifth century Patrick is clearly using it to mean 'fellow-citizens' when writing to the wicked soldiers of Coroticus. "I'm writing to you not as to my fellow citizens, nor as fellow citizens of the holy Romans, but fellow citizens of demons" (non dico civibus meis, neque civibus sanctorum Romanorum, sed civibus daemoniorum). The word 'concivis' does appear in British Latin some time later, more explicitly expressing 'fellow citizen', but it certainly seems that 'civis' (without any prefix) was being used to express 'fellow citizen' in the fifth century.
Very interesting post, thank you. Just to challenge your suggestion that the term Cymru derives from Latin, as a native Welsh speaker I know the early version of the term i.e. Combrogi is a Celtic derived word. The first part Com means fellow person (modern Welsh - cymydog means neighbour) and bro means land (compare Bro Morgannwg , in English Vale of Glamorgan). I am not a linguistic expert but I’m pretty sure the term has a Celtic etymology.
I also think Britain or Britanni etc is a latinised version of Prydain (may mean painted ones), so again it’s the Romans adapting a local word to their ears rather than the other way round.
Great to debate these topics👍.
Thanks for the comment Richard.
The issue with a loan translation is that the new form will use lexemes native to the calquing language, so they are difficult to distinguish from native coinages. There is a Gaulish name Allobrogi which means 'another land', but *Combrogi 'fellow land' is element-for-element the same as Latin compatriota and *Combrogi has long been thought to be a loan translation of the Latin term for 'citzens'.
On the name of Britain, I've got a paper coming out soon on Prydain 'Britain', Prydyn 'Pictland' and Britannia 'Britain'. The B- for P- isn't paralleled in Latin loanwords otherwise, and the alternation Prydain ~ Prydyn is not typically found in Celtic terms.
Many thanks for that explanation Bernard , I will look forward to reading your paper on Prydain etc. Will you post a link on this thread?
It's more than just an alternation of P- and B-. The variation Prydain ~ Prydyn also needs to be explained, and you can't do it from within Celtic.
Thanks, I enjoyed this. I only have time for two quick comments:
1 the issue with Welsh is that its origin is derogatory. It was originally a Germanic word reconstructed as *Walhaz used by the Germans to refer to foreigners (based on the Celtic name of a people Romans called Volcae) and later by Romans referring to peoples that they deemed "barbaric". This then spread to many areas of Europe, going all the way from Valachos in Greece (still negative term for people who do not know the sea) and Vlaji in Dalmatia (Vlachs in most Slavic countries) to Wallons in Belgium where it has lost the negative connotations. Thus I can see why Welsh people would argue they don't want to be called something that was imposed as a term of Otherness from the outside.
2 The earliest Roman sources on Britons called them Britanni, e.g. Catullus famous poem "ultimos orbis Britannos" (those Britons at the end of the world). The variation Britanni/Britonni is just that, a linguistic variation but at least this term is Celtic.
Thanks for the comments Krešimir.
It will be interesting to see if they ever get enough signatures on the petitions to change the name to Cymru. But as far as I'm aware, the negative connotations of reflexes of *Walhaz are exclusively Eastern European. At the moment it looks to me a bit like Germans getting upset about the description Němec.
The variant form Brittones has a geminate -tt- which can't be explained as a Latin or Celtic development. Germanic, however, creates geminates regularly under Kluge's Law, especially when forming nicknames like Otto. I'm also sceptical that Britanni has a Celtic etymology -- I've got an article coming out in the next issue of the Journal of Celtic Linguistics on the derivation.
"But as far as I'm aware, the negative connotations of reflexes of *Walhaz are exclusively Eastern European." well, if you count Germania and Britannia as Eastern Europe back in the Roman period then that could well be true (though I am not sure the name Wales is attested in the negative sense that early on. When are the first attestations?) Eastern Europe itself is an imperialist construct of 'Western' states in any case and the official international name of Germany is not Německa (though I would not mind if it were :)
But I agree that it may be petty to trace back everything to ancient etymologies and impossible to carry out consistently in any case.
I would very much like to read your forthcoming paper on Britanni!
I think the Old English name is first attested in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the year 897 -- as Norðwealas 'North Wales' -- where it is used to describe where the Danish army went.
Remembering that Germanic speakers and speakers of Celtic languages had been in contact along a language frontier in Europe for something over 500 years in the late Iron age and Roman period, how possible is it that *walhaz simply reflects Gauls? I'm not actually sure which side of that line the Batavians were.
The truth about *walhaz is that we just don't know unfortunately. I've written two papers on names of the Batavi recently and they all seem to me to be West Germanic.
It depends what you think of as derogatory. Words for "foreign" aren't generally classed as derogatory by linguists, only descriptions like "barbarian" or "Kraut". Given that "Welsh" is usually thought to derive from the tribal name Volcae, it's not derivationally derogatory -- it's just an example of generalisation.
Seem to remember Wallia or something similar as being a Germanic reference to slave or servant with reference to the naming of Wales. The name Cymru, also spelt Kymry, I was told by my grandfather, had something to do with the house of Omry a tribal leader in the middle east. My grandfather often said 'we Cymric derive from the lost ten tribes of Israel' and that we came up from Egypt! perhaps there is something in this so here goes. The old name of Egypt was Kem. There was a tribe know as the Cimmerians, who came up from Egypt. They were sacked by the Assyrians along with the Israelites. Many went north through Turkey in to Europe, eventually to Britain? It's a bit of a stretch but could Cymru derive from Cimmerian or Omry or both???
Linguists generally reject proposed etymologies of place-names that require them to come from far away places (like Egypt) when they can be explained as terms derived in the local language (i.e. in Welsh).
I'm sorry Bernard. I'm with Napoleon. 'History is a lie agreed upon' I just don't trust the information passed down through 'experts' anymore. I believe history desperately needs revision and much that has been dismissed, may have been for political or bias reasons. I realise to some this would be tiresome and laborious but the truth and facts are of up most importance to me. I'm convinced that much is missed or ignored as it doesn't fit the prevailing narrative. As an academic you will probably find me irritating. Unfortunately I have lost my trust in academia.
Most academic historians think that Arthur can't be shown to have existed -- and I disagree with them. So we are probably on the same page there I think.
We are regarding Arthur, definitely. I am convinced that there were a number of them from Cornwall to Strathclyde over the greater part of a millennia. Probably with two courts at summer and winter residencies. It's the most fascinating of detective stories.
That use of 'cives' is interesting. It can just mean 'citizens' of course, but in the fifth century Patrick is clearly using it to mean 'fellow-citizens' when writing to the wicked soldiers of Coroticus. "I'm writing to you not as to my fellow citizens, nor as fellow citizens of the holy Romans, but fellow citizens of demons" (non dico civibus meis, neque civibus sanctorum Romanorum, sed civibus daemoniorum). The word 'concivis' does appear in British Latin some time later, more explicitly expressing 'fellow citizen', but it certainly seems that 'civis' (without any prefix) was being used to express 'fellow citizen' in the fifth century.