User talk:Cagwinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Cagwinn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! SKATER Speak. 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Albion and Hibernia[edit]

A linguistics question was just brought to the Classical Greece & Rome project (here) regarding the names Albion and Hibernia. You're the only editor I know who probably has a handle on this already and might be able to clear up any nonsense efficiently. The articles are very poorly sourced. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I Can't follow that discussion at all - no idea what they are going on about. Cagwinn (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I"m with you about the discussion. In looking at the two articles, there seems to be a lot of linguistic discussion without any modern secondary sources. If you have any references that editors interested in this could check, hope you'll drop them off at the respective talk pages. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I just don't have the time or energy to wade into that discussion. Ptolemy's Alouion is probably nothing more than a copyists error (Ptolemy could have found the name in a Latin source in which Albion was mistakenly spelled *Aluion, which he Hellenized as Αλουιον). I don't even know what the question is regarding Hibernia. Cagwinn (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are a few articles where I've just averted my eyes as they devolved into incomprehensible swamps. I'm not a linguist at even the most amateur level, so I've pointed out Meid's article on Albion and will leave it at that. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I just added a note on Albion after your Meid citation in the Classical Greece & Rome project Talk. Cagwinn (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Albion, doesn't Delamarre in his Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise suggest a tripartite division, in which the underworld was called *dubno- (> dumno-), the middle world of the living *bitu- and the upper world (of light) *albio- or *albion- (also compare Hittite alpa- "cloud")? I recall reading this, but cannot check at home. This would also neatly explain the naming of the Alps, as Old High German forms suggest a Germanic pre-form *albjōn-, presumably a Celtic loan. (In this case, Latin Alpēs, genitive Alpum, instead of the expected *Albiōnēs or *Albiī might be discountable as mediated through Etruscan/Raetic, for example. I believe the basis for the frequently postulated etymon *alp- or *alb-, supposedly either Pre- or Proto-Indo-European for "hill, mountain (pasture)", compare Albania (placename), is overly slim and uncertain, and that the reconstruction is likely spurious.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. From Delamarre's Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, 2nd ed. (Errance, 2003), p. 37-38:
"albos, albios, albanos, 'monde d'en-haut, ciel' < 'blanc"
La racine alb- pourvue de divers suffixes apparaît dans un grand nombre de noms propre s de la Gaule; pour les NP : Albus, Albios, Albio-rix, Αλβιοριξ en Galatie, Albiorica, Albisia, Albanos à La Graufesenque (Marichal, voir à l'index), Albula, Albiones peuple de Tarraconaise, Albialus 'du monde' ("Weltbürger", NWI 455 n.61, plutôt: 'Célestin') ; il Y a un Mars Ex-albio-uix en Allemagne (RDG 41, 'qui vainc hors du ciel' ?); pour les NL et NR: Alba (>Aube), Albis, Albion (la Grande-Bretagne, qu'on a cru désignée ainsi d'après la blancheur de ses falaises crayeuses, sur quoi EIHM 385 ss, ce qui est improbable, plutôt 'Le Monde', RS 248), Albeta (> Aubois), Albiga, *Albioduron 'Blanc-Bourg', mais plutôt 'Bourg-Céleste' > Augers (Seine-et-M., Albiodero Vico 6e s.) et Aujeurres (Hte-Marne, Algyorre 1186), etc., GPN 301-03, KGP 120, US 21. Le nom des Alpes est, selon Thurneysen, Keltorom. 9, un mot celtique passé au latin avec alp- < alb- tout comme latin carpentum < celt. carbanto-.
Comme la racine n'apparaît pas en v.irl. et est peu attestée en brittonique, la celticité des mots mentionnés a été mise en doute, il s'agirait de latin adapté au gaulois; mais cela est peu probable: la fréquence du thème dans l'onomastique et l'existence de composés du type Albio-rix montrent qu'il est celtique, avec sans doute une spécialisation sémantique dans la sphère religieuse ou mythologique. Le NP Albio-rix est à comprendre 'Roi du Monde', comme Bitu-rix et Dumno-rix, grâce à une correspondance avec le mot gallois elfydd < *albijos 'monde' ; selon W. Meid Albion, 435-439, suivi par Delamarre Rois 32-35, albios désignerait le "monde lumineux, monde d'en-haut" (cf. v.slave svet 'monde' = 'lumière'), par opposition au "monde d'en-bas, monde sombre" dubnos, dumnos, voir à ce mot; 'blanc' se dit uindos en gaulois et il est probable que alb(i)os n'a plus que le sens religieux ou mythique de 'monde (d'en-haut)', comme en gallois. Vendryes RC 45 [1928], 122, RC 48 [1931], 434, Pokorny Vox Romanica 10 [1948-9], 263, Barruol Ogam 15 [1963],356 ss., Guyonvarc'h ibid. 369 ss.
Racine (indo- )européenne *albho- 'blanc' : grec alphόs 'éruption blanche', alphoύs acc. plur. 'blanc', latin albus 'blanc', v.h.a. albiz 'cygne', etc. IEW 30, DELL 20, LEW 1,26-27, HED 1,38."
Thank you so much for taking the trouble to copy the whole article! I really appreciate your effort. This should be cited in Albion and Alps. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I also recall reading there a neat explanation for the occurrence of names in Venet- at the fringes of the Celtic word (at the northern end of the Adriatic, in Brittany, and in Poland or thereabouts – the Wends): it is supposedly the Celtic word uenet-, uenetes for "friends, allies" that some Celtic tribes gave their non-Celtic neighbours. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


I've just created and written this page.Since you're the in-house expert on Celts and Celtic, I thought I should consult with you just to make sure I haven't written anything (too) foolish... :) Thanatos|talk 07:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - good work! Cagwinn (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanx.I was uncertain about the Celtic etymology part; I was not sure about the general scholarly acceptance of the linguistic views that the source I had only found at google books presents, but if you say it's OK then ...OK... CU Thanatos|talk 18:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Undid -- Why?[edit]

Why did you undid five of my edits? Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories should be cleaned, not full of redirects. That's one of the things I should do. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I undid the edits because most of the new categories they have been placed into are either imprecise (generic "Celtic" gods, when these gods are only attested in Britain and/or Gaul, for instance) or completely inaccurate (Cartimandua - a woman - being placed in a list of British kings??). Also the category name "Briton Kings" and "Briton Gods" is poor English - the terms should be "(Ancient) British Kings" and "(Ancient) British Gods". Cagwinn (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
And gods or kings, lowercase. Apologies for butting in, but I noticed Zhuyifei's category edits too and didn't have time to do anything about it before Cagwinn's fixes. I may (or may not) understand what Z. was attempting to do procedurally, but the categories need to be accurately named, and articles correctly assessed for placement within them. Just wanted to note that I shared Cagwinn's concerns. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, but categories like Category:Ancient Gaulish and British goddesses will keep on listing in Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories, and will be edited by another user sooner or later, unless someone fix it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

spoken versus written Gaulish[edit]

Hi Cagwinn. You recently undid some of my Gaulish amendments without explaining why. What you seem to have done, perhaps inadvertantly, is to confuse evidence for written Gaulish with evidence for spoken Gaulish for given geographic locations. Only a witness (Caeser, Pliny and others) can testify to an ancient language being spoken anywhere. An inscription in itself is not good proof of Gaulish as a spoken language, especially if that inscription is on a movable object (coins are probably worst in this category). Now, there may well be evidence for Gaulish spoken north of the Seine or east of the Rhine (the Galatians are a good case), but such evidence must either be cited, or the claim should not be made in an encyclopaedia such as Wiki. Or possibly you are simply confusing Gaulish with other Continental Celtic languages. Let me know your thoughts.

I have been studying Gaulish (along with the other ancient Celtic languages) for 23 years now; I am not confused about it in the slightest. Cagwinn (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
No offence intended, and good to know you are an expert. Can you then please provide a reference for Gaulish being spoken in historical times (Greek/Roman period) outside the area Caesar circumscribes. Specifically, I am academically interested in the areas north of the Seine, and east of the Rhine. I am less interested in the Swiss area, North Italy, Celtiberians or in Galatians. Inscriptions, as explained, are not good enough especially if on mobile objects, and place names are not good enough because their dates cannot normally be ascertained and ascribed to the period in question. A tough one, but I hope you have a good reference (which can then go into the wiki page). And if you have no ready answer, please say so, because that would also be useful to me. Thanks.
Consult the five volume Recueil des Inscriptions Gauloises (RIG) for all of the known Gaulish inscriptions; also see Prof. David Stifter's survey of Gaulish - noting especially the map on page 119. Cagwinn (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at Stifter p 119 (the RIG map for the Latin inscriptions), I make it 4 findspots in the Belgic area as defined by Caesar as non-Gaulish, and 44 findspots in Caesar's Gaulish area. This factor of about 11 needs to be adjusted by the roughly 4-fold smaller area of the Belgae, so in other words, there are about 3 times less inscriptions north of the Seine/Marne as would be expected statistically if the Belgae spoke Gaulish and if they had the same population density and level of literacy (granted, all those are big ifs). Off the top of your head, are any of the four Belgic finds huge immobile slabs of stone or similar? As you realise, I am playing the devil's advocate here, but my question is genuine.
Sorry, I don't really have the time to help you with this right now (very busy this Holiday weekend in the States). I believe that Stifter's article contains all the relevant inscriptions at the end (as well as a full bibliography for further research); for full information on each inscription you will need to consult the RIG. See, too, Pierre-Yves Lambert, La langue gauloise, Errance, 2002 (2nd ed). Cagwinn (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I shall leave you in peace then. But please brood over the fact, which you well know, that Caesar was travelling up and down Gaul for more than 8 years, negotiating with tribes with the help of translators - he would have no reason to "invent" language borders along the Garonne and the Seine/Marne if they did not exist. Nobody disputes he got it right with the Aquitanian area and language - why would he have confused languages when speaking of Belgae? My hunch is the place-names in the north are a substratum from slightly earlier days when proto-Gaulish was still one mutually intelligible language and spread further north than in Caesar's day. In my view, four inscriptions do not suffice to invalidate a primary source such as Caesar.

Hope you had a enjoyable Independence Day. For your convenience, I have now found websites for the four Celtic finds in the Belgic area, here are the weblinks:

Bronze ring in Reims:
Goldleaf tablet of Baudecet (48mm x 42mm):
Bronze ring of Arras:
Inscription on bottle used as funerary urn in the Villa d'Ancy:

Clearly the first three of these objects are small and valuable and easily traded over a wide (non-Gaulish or indeed non-Celtic) area. Only the inscribed bottle is more difficult for me to explain away. But I note that an alternative Latin (rather than Gaulish) reading is offered on the website. In your favour, you could argue that we do not see similar "leakage" of Gaulish implements into Aquitania. In conclusion, for the Gaulish wiki-page, can we please distinguish between eye-witness evidence for spoken Gaulish (Caesar) versus epigraphic evidence for the use of Gaulish? Or will you continue undoing changes?

I suggest you take your argument to the page's Talk section so that others can add their input. There is a lot more to the issue than simply the location (no less the style) of inscriptions. Onomastic evidence from local place names, personal names from Greek and Latin inscriptions, and historical sources (such as Caesar) all must be weighed. For the Gaulish vs. Belgic debate we must aslo consider the evidence from Britain, as Belgic tribes settled there, yet the Brittonic language was very closely related to Gaulish. Galatian must be examined, as well, since St. Jerome tells us that the Galatian language was the same as that spoken by the Belgic Treveri. Cagwinn (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I will consider the Talk page. But first I would like to clear the strategy with you. Can we agree for the wiki page there are three concentric circles for Gaulish: in Caesar's area, we KNOW Gaulish was spoken because of eye-witness report, epigraphic remains, place names, substrate in modern French, etc. Next circle is Galatian: we have one credible eye-witness report, but not as far as I know place names or written Galatian/Gaulish documents. In the third concentric circle, many people reasonably ASSUME Gaulish was spoken (place names, epigraphic finds, personal/tribal names) but we cannot be sure exactly when, because place names are notoriously difficult to date. Would that satisfy?
By the way, if as you say the Belgic tribes in southern Britain were Brittonic-speaking (and again there is no direct evidence as far as I know), then you might argue the Belgic emigrants could have left Gaul a couple of centuries before Casar, and their Continental homeland switched to something slightly/very different, causing Caesar to draw a language border along the Seine/Marne. Personally, let it be said, I doubt this theoretical scenario because of Tacitus' testimony on the British Belgic tribes ("language not so very different").
I'm sorry, but you obviously need to do a lot more research on this topic, as you do not seem to be fully informed. Hit the books, then get back to me.Cagwinn (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I probably do need to do more research. But the books and articles I have read are all fuzzy, allowing someone like Hans Kuhn even to come up with a speculative Nordwestblock (but I love his closely-argued article). The Gaulish wiki article as it stands pretends that this uncertainty and scholarly dicusssion does not exist, and makes bold statements devoid of references, which is not really acceptable, certainly in my field (biology). I am not opposed to bold statements ("Belgic tribes in southern England were speaking Brittonic in Caesars's day"), even in wiki, but they should be referenced. If there are books that provide evidence for such views, please add them to wiki or at least tell me about them. I am off now for a week and may be slow in answering.
I can highly recommend that you start with Pierre-Yves Lambert's "La langue gauloise" - it is an excellent, up-to-date survey of the language from one of the best Celticists of our day, with an extensive bibliography that will aid you in further research on the subject. Cagwinn (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I read the first edition some years ago on the recommendation of a linguist. I found the book badly organised, and I had to read it twice to separate the facts from the interpretation. Having said that, it contained useful material and may well be the best the field has to offer. And perhaps newer editions of the book are better. I do not have any memory though of the Belgic question featuring in the book, correct me if I am wrong.
You have got to be kidding me! It's a fantastic book on the subject - very logical in it's structure, well reviewed by peers, and highly reliable. I suggest the problem is with your lack of experience in the field of historical linguistics than with Lambert's book. Cagwinn (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No kidding. The book was extremely useful to me at the time. And by the way I much appreciated Lambert's honesty to admit in his book that his favoured phylogenetic grouping of Gaulish with Brythonic (or was it Goidelic?) completely fails to explain Indo-European lexical survivals in Gaulish (e.g. "DUXTIR" for daughter) but not in Insular Celtic ("inion" etc). But I did find his book frustrating to work with because I was trying to separate the evidence from the interpretation. In the sciences, we make this clear distinction, and it is intellectual laziness not to do so (see Gaulish wiki article...). However, you avoided my point - the identity of the Belgic language is not addressed at length in La Langue Gauloise, as I remember. The book is on my shelf at home, and at the moment I am travelling in Europe until July 19th, as explained. As it stands, at the moment your doubts cast on Caesar's account rests on one Belgic bottle with a controversial (Latin or Gaulish?) inscription. Not enough to overthrow Caesar. If there is more evidence, I am genuinely interested. Placenames are useless here unless you can date them (this is possible only in rare occasions, e.g. through historically dated sound shifts, or transient geological ennvironment, like "-meres" and "-eys" in Britain referring to former lakes and islands whose drying out can sometimes be dendrochronologically dated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

OK Cagwinn. Briefly, as I am on the move. Lambert (3rd print)makes no mention of the Belgae speaking Gaulish, other than showing the map in chapter 11 with the4 instrumenta we already discussed above. In fact take a look at Lambert's preceding map of stone inscriptions - they stop exactly at the Seine as one would predict from Caesar. In his introduction, chapter I, by the way, I note that Lambert seems to mistakenly attribute a Tacitus quote (on the language similarity between Gaul and Britain) to Caesar. So you are not alone in casting aside the primary sources... So let us stop chasing a red herring and demand the wiki page on Gaulish needs to prove its far-reaching statements with some proper sources, else mark the claims as simply claims, however well-intentioned. Hoping for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Move request at Brythonic languages[edit]

Hey, since you were involved in the discussion at Common Brittonic, could you weigh in at Talk:Brythonic languages#Requested move? A review of my sources suggests that "Brittonic" is far more common nowadays than "Brythonic". It also seems a bit silly to have our articles titled "Common Brittonic" and "Britons" but "Brythonic languages".--Cúchullain t/c 13:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Brutus of Troy[edit]

Cagwinn, Hi. Thank you for your excellent edit on Brutus of Troy. If you may recall, I had requested a citation for support of another editor's contention that Brutus of Troy was the source of the name Britain. He had deleted my posting of a citation, but you obviously understood my fact request because you added an explanation that directly addressed what I had found to be a dearth in the original explanation. I thought your edit answered my question entirely regarding what initially seemed spurious and without any citational support. Your embellishment enabled me to understand etymologically where the idea and historically how the connection of Brutus to the name Britain, came into being. I want to thank you very much for your help... Best Regards, Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help, Steven. Reviewing it now, I think I need to tweak the entry, however - I made it sound as if Isidore created the spurious etymology, but it was actually the Historia Brittonum's author blending Isidore and Eusebius with the "Frankish table of nations". I will fix it soon. Cagwinn (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the following articles may help in understanding the process involved in the creation of this legend: Newell, "Doubts concerning Nennius...", Summerfield, "Filling the Gap, Brutus in the Historia Brittonum...". Cagwinn (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes to articles on Arthurian legend characters[edit]

I made those changes because the pages are already in other subcategories of Category:Arthurian legend, such as Category:Arthurian characters or Category:Battles involving King Arthur. They don't need to be in both categories. Can we agree to have them in just the lower-level categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is important to remove articles from subcategories? What harm does it cause to have them appear in multiple categories?Cagwinn (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't remove them from a subcategory, I removed them from the parent category. It is a guideline not to have entries in parent and child categories in the same branch of the category tree. The guideline is at WP:SUBCAT. Part of it says:
"A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing - see below). For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Since the first category is in the second category, readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France."
These categories are not non-diffusing. There is no reason to have entries in both places. For the Guinevere article, for example, being in "Category:Arthurian characters" automatically means it is in "Category:Arthurian legend". "Category:Arthurian characters" has 164 other articles about characters, along with another subcategory that has 55 more. Those categories exist to group the characters and keep them out of the parent category. Make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not really, but if that's the way the Wikipedia bureaucracy wants to run things, then feel free to re-instate your edits.Cagwinn (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits for Guinevere[edit]

I reverted your reversion of my edits for the article on Guinevere. I noticed that you tend to undo a lot of editors' work without sufficient explanation; you might want to add more detailed explanations in the future. Also, please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Anyways, here are the reasons I undid your reversions:

  • The names of paintings should be in italics (as per WP:ITAL).
  • Both "appeared" and "reappeared" should be in the past tense (the story appeared hundreds of years ago).
  • The {{lang}} template was added as per WP:ATLANG (mainly for the benefit of screen readers).
  • The Proto-Celtic etymology was removed because it had nothing to do with the word Guinevere.
  • There is absolutely no reason to remove the <ref> expansions and re-formatting.
  • Both "Gwenhwy the Great" and "Gwenhwy the less" should be in quotes, not italics, as per WP:WORDSASWORDS.
  • The rest of the changes were mostly fixes in awkward wording and verb tense.
"Guinevere's character"
  • An endash, not a hyphen, should be used in the image caption (see WP:HYPHEN and WP:ENDASH).
  • Again, {{lang}} was added as per WP:ATLANG.
  • Boldface is only used in certain cases (see WP:MOSBOLD).
  • There is no reason for "romance" to be capitalized in "Welsh romance", as it's not a proper noun (see WP:MOSCAPS for an explanation of what should be capitalized).
  • The poem was removed because it was irrelevant to Guenevere herself (I checked the reference that had been provided).
  • The paragraph starting with "In non-Welsh romance..." had improvements in wording:
    • "...King Leodegrance who served Uther Pendragon and kept the Round Table for him" is ambiguous, and implies that the Round Table, while belonging to Pendragon, was permanently held in Leodegrance's home.
    • "It is in the fields to the south and east" is awkward and wordy. It can be simplified to "In the fields..." as long as the "that" that later appears is removed.
    • There were also other fixes in writing style and verb tense.
  • Again, the names of paintings (e.g. Lancelot and Guenevere) should be italicized. That painting is also not a portrait.
  • I removed unnecessary white space using Advisor.js; there is no reason to re-add those white spaces.

Prof. Squirrel (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Actually, you were right about using the present tenses in plot synopses – sorry about that. I'll fix that right not.

I reverted your edits because in your attempt to fix some stylistic errors, you removed some important information (such as the Proto-Celtic etymology, which despite your ignorance, is actually important to a lot of people, and certainly belongs here; such etymologies are found on a large number of entries for characters from Celtic literature). I don't care at all about the style fixes - I mostly leave that to others and yours were fine - but it was more work than necessary to bring back the important information that you removed than to simply undo the whole mess. Now I have to go back in and fix the problems you have created - thanks a lot!! Cagwinn (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


Stop deleting tags from the articles! These points, which you insist on, are under discussion even if you refuse to participate. — kwami (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WARNING! Stop adding "dubious" tags to categories that are almost universally accepted by linguists!Cagwinn (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Your own sources reflect the lack of consensus, and you have never demonstrated that it is "almost universal". — kwami (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Just the required formal heads-up that I have brought up the issues about Kwamikagami and Gaulish language at WP:ANI, mentioning you in the context. You are not directly affected so I don't think there will be any need for you to comment. Fut.Perf. 08:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

OK - thanks! Cagwinn (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaulish Talk block[edit]

Hi Cagwinn,

Just a short message to let you know I have now been blocked from the Gaulish Talk page (as a non-registered user), so I will not be able to respond to your points there. Future Perfect as you know is disconcertingly keen that I register. In general, let us not be distracted by my skepticism and instead focus on the task at hand, which is filling in the missing Vulgar Latin/Germanic reference. Cuchillian and Future Perfect have so far disappointed in this respect (resorting to the "of course" argument - equivalent to your "do the research" evasion, I am afraid to say). You now claim to have found one or several references in google books, but I shall believe it when I see you fill in a reference on the Gaulish page. Looking forward to your contribution here as always. Shylock — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Quit being a drama queen and register for an account! As for your other bizarre comments, go to Google Books and do your own research!! Here - I'll make it easy for you - click on this link: Cagwinn (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latinized (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Cagwinn. Thanks for your moral support on the Gaulish Talk page. One niggle though: you wrote "there is evidence that at least some knowledge of the language survived a bit longer among the literate classes". I suspect you meant to say "illiterate classes". Right? If so, a correction would be appreciated. If you DO mean literate, just ignore me. Shylock-- (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote exactly what I meant.Cagwinn (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)