Talk:*Walhaz: Difference between revisions
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
== french diphtong "au" from Latin incomprehensible? == |
== french diphtong "au" from Latin incomprehensible? == |
||
saltare > sauter |
saltare > sauter; |
||
falsus > faux |
falsus > faux; |
||
salvare > sauver |
salvare > sauver; |
||
alter > autre; [[Special:Contributions/118.96.143.95|118.96.143.95]] ([[User talk:118.96.143.95|talk]]) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
alter > autre |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/118.96.143.95|118.96.143.95]] ([[User talk:118.96.143.95|talk]]) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/118.96.143.95|118.96.143.95]] ([[User talk:118.96.143.95|talk]]) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/118.96.143.95|118.96.143.95]] ([[User talk:118.96.143.95|talk]]) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/118.96.143.95|118.96.143.95]] ([[User talk:118.96.143.95|talk]]) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 01:15, 9 April 2010
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Middle Ages Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Re, move to wiktionary: I disagree. If there is not enough material here yet, the article may be merged with Etymology of Vlach, which is essentially about the same word/concept. dab (ᛏ) 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Mirrored image
The picture of the coin is mirrored as is the faximile upon which it was created. As much as contributions are very much welcome, the contributors dealing with ancient scripts should pay more attention, I suppose.
Asterisk as a letter?
From the article:
- With the Old Germanic name *Walhaz, plural *Walhôz, adjectival form *walhiska- ...
I'm not aware of the asterisk being (or representing) an Old German letter, and there is no reference to such on the Old High German page. There is also no footnote on this page that the asterisk might refer to. What does this asterisk represent here? --ΨΦorg (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- In historical lingusitics, an asterisk before a word denotes the fact that the word has not been attested, but has been reconstructed by linguists based on its descendants. --Jfruh (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wales in Portuguese
Can someone tell me why "País de Gales" (literally translated: "The Country of Wales") for "Wales" in Portuguese? And so, consequently there is the term "galês" (or, alternatively, "a língua galêsa") for the "Welsh" language? Would there be any connection or related pattern to the name "William" traditionally being translated as "Guilherme" in Portuguese? Bepp (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure but it French, anyway, the letter W in other languages often becomes a G (i.e. William - Guillame). Perhaps it is the same phenomenon? --Jfruh (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Course it is. Even the De Gaulle family seems to have ancestors called Van de Walle, which is Dutch. Ad43 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Pennsylvania Dutch
The article currently claims that "Welschhinkel" and "Welschkann" are the Penn Dutch names for Turkey and Maize respectively and that is should be literally translated as "French" grain. I'm no expert but surely the proper translation would be foreign grain as 1. maize is not french and never has been and 2. the article goes into significant depth to explain the origin of this word as essentially relating to things "foreign" to a particular group of people, the Germanic tribes. Alex McKee (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that, as the article indicates, "welsch" in origin means "foreign," but it's possible that in Switzerland in the 16th century (the origin of Pa. Dutch) the meaning had narrowed to mean the Romance-speakers in France. If maize entered Germany via France, that would explain the meaning. The question is, what is standard Pa. Dutch for "French"? --Jfruh (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Welsche
As a native German speaker I may perhaps be considered as a kind of "native informant". I this role I'd like to suggest to treat the word "Welscher/Welsche" as a historic word. I have never in my 52 years of earthly life come across anybody using that word, either in written or spoken German.
G. Berkemer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.56.187 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Old English was the language of the Anglo-Saxons
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Old English is the language of the Anglo-Saxons. So the meaning of wilisc in the introductory paragraph should be changed to 'foreign, non-Anglosaxon, Cymric'. The Dutch reference doesn't mean any person from England which contained Cymric people.203.161.75.138 (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Romans or foreigners
If "welsh" means "foreigner", why didn't the Anglo-Saxons call the Scotts and Picts as such? Nestorius Auranites (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good question. I have no answer. -- Ad43 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because "Welsh" (and similar words) meant not simply "foreigner", but "Romanised foreigner". See also History of the term Vlach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Did the Anglo-Saxons and Germans care whether a foreigner was romanised or not? Did it matter? Foreigners are foreigners after all. If you want to call a foreigner but a specific ethnonym you call him by that specific ethnonym not by the name 'foreigner'. It does not make sense. There is no equivalent for 'romanised' in the Germanic languages after all. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, they did differentiate between different cultural backgrounds. From John Davies, A History of Wales, p.69:
"It is often claimed that the word 'Welsh' is a contemptuous word used by Germanic-speaking peoples to describe foreigners. Yet a glance at the dictionary of any of the Teutonic languages will show that that is not its only meaning. 'Welsh' was not used by Germanic speakers to describe peoples living to the east of them; to the English, walh-stod meant an interpreter, but they had a different word for a translator from Danish. It would appear that 'Welsh' meant not so much foreigners as peoples who had been Romanized; other versions of the word may be found along the borders of the Empire - the Walloons of Belgium, the Welsch of the Italian Tyrol and the Vlachs of Romania - and the welschnuss, the walnut, was the nut of the Roman lands. This recognition of the persistence of the Roman tradition is striking, particularly when it is placed alongside the continuance of the Brittonic language and its successor...."
- Yes, they did differentiate between different cultural backgrounds. From John Davies, A History of Wales, p.69:
- Did the Anglo-Saxons and Germans care whether a foreigner was romanised or not? Did it matter? Foreigners are foreigners after all. If you want to call a foreigner but a specific ethnonym you call him by that specific ethnonym not by the name 'foreigner'. It does not make sense. There is no equivalent for 'romanised' in the Germanic languages after all. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because "Welsh" (and similar words) meant not simply "foreigner", but "Romanised foreigner". See also History of the term Vlach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Davies is reconsidering the definition of 'Welsh' as 'foreigner'. He says: "It is often claimed." He doesn't seem to buy into the definition of 'Welsh' as 'foreigner'. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please read it again. He is stating that it is often claimed that it is used as a contemptuous word for foreigner, when that is not its only meaning - it is a word used for Romanised foreigners. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- He says:"It would appear that 'Welsh' meant not so much foreigners as peoples who had been Romanized." He doesn't say "Romanised foreigners" he says "Romanised peoples". Surely, for the Germans "Romanised peoples" were foreigners, but you cannot make up a term on your own just to win the argument. But then why would 'walh' shift from a vague definition ('foreigner') to a specific one ('Romanised peoples'). Can anybody explain that? Is there another word for 'foreigner' in Germanic languages by the way? You need to explain why 'walh' was not applied to other foreigners. If a word is not used in practice with a meaning hypothetically assigned to it, then this word means something else. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't "need to explain" anything - I'm simply quoting a reliable source. But perhaps you could explain your opinion - unsupported by any evidence that I've seen - that the term "'walh' shift[ed] from a vague definition ('foreigner') to a specific one..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Where does Davies mention 'romanised foreigner'? In the article 'walha', it is said: "Thus, by Germanic speakers this name was generalized first onto all Celts, and later onto all Romans." But at the beginning it is said:"Walh (singular) or Walha (plural) (ᚹᚨᛚᚺᚨ) is an ancient Germanic word, meaning "foreigner", "stranger" or "roman", German: welsch. The word can be found in Old High German walhisk, meaning "Roman, in Old English wilisc, meaning "foreign, non-Anglo-Saxon, Cymric", and in Old Norse as valskr, meaning "French"." From where did the definition as foreigner come? Nestorius Auranites (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- He says:"It would appear that 'Welsh' meant not so much foreigners as peoples who had been Romanized." He doesn't say "Romanised foreigners" he says "Romanised peoples". Surely, for the Germans "Romanised peoples" were foreigners, but you cannot make up a term on your own just to win the argument. But then why would 'walh' shift from a vague definition ('foreigner') to a specific one ('Romanised peoples'). Can anybody explain that? Is there another word for 'foreigner' in Germanic languages by the way? You need to explain why 'walh' was not applied to other foreigners. If a word is not used in practice with a meaning hypothetically assigned to it, then this word means something else. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please read it again. He is stating that it is often claimed that it is used as a contemptuous word for foreigner, when that is not its only meaning - it is a word used for Romanised foreigners. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Davies is reconsidering the definition of 'Welsh' as 'foreigner'. He says: "It is often claimed." He doesn't seem to buy into the definition of 'Welsh' as 'foreigner'. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
french diphtong "au" from Latin incomprehensible?
saltare > sauter; falsus > faux; salvare > sauver; alter > autre; 118.96.143.95 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
118.96.143.95 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.143.95 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)