Talk:British Latin

Arqueological?

In the section Evidence and development, the article mentions "amphorae and arqueological remnants". I am no historian or linguist, so I'm just wondering: is that word correct or should it be "amphorae and archaeological remnants"? There is some truly bizarre word order used in this article (which I have made more "standard" for ease of reading), so I suspect some of it may have been translated from another language or written by a non-native speaker, which may be the reason. If it is an alternative spelling of archaeological then archaeological should probably be used anyway to avoid confusion (articles should be accessible to general users as possible). Anyway, thanks in advance for any input. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 13:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just a misspelling. Looks like it was written by someone whose native language is Spanish or Portuguese. There is an alternative spelling of archaeological, namely archeological, but *arqueological is not an English spelling. —Angr (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oral vs written

Quite a bit of this article is about some form of written Latin lasting after the Empire was gone. That's not evidence for a spoken vernacular Latin, and I've removed most of it. Does anyone have a copy of Lloyn so that we can see what he says about a spoken vernacular. And the further reading - what can ""The Coinage of Carausius as a Source of Vulgar Latin" have to say about a spoken vernacular long after he was dead? There are more examples like this in the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Dougweller. The article is well written and the section he has erased looks perfect to me. I have reinserted it because contains valuable and encyclopedic information, that only "fanatical anglosaxon supporters" can make disappear from a serious encyclopedia.....B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.40.126 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It has no sources that discuss a British Romance language, and was removed earlier and today because it violates our policies at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. It also makes a false claim about Christopher Snyder. The source says "The earliest British vernacular bardic poetry, such as those verses attributed to Aneirin and Taliesin". They were written in vernacular Welsh. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree again with Dougweller, who "fanatically" erases a full section of evidences (like those of Charles Thomas & others) about Arthur's stone. I add here the full article of Snyder, so that wikipedians can judge by themselves:

(copyvio deleted, article is at [1].)

Let wikipedians decide....but unfortunately wikipedia is more and more in the hands of fanatical admins, who are destroying this encyclopedia with their abuses! (and Jimbo seems to care only about the money he gets from it) B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.243.176 (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

People can read the article at the link and see that it doesn't mention British Romance or a Latin vernacular. To use it as an argument for BR is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. I don't think this is this IP hopper's first rodeo. Ah, I also have Snyder's The Age of Tyrans, and he makes it clear that "those verses attributed to Aneirin and Taliesin" were written down centuries later than the end of the 6th century. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about Aneirin and Talierin? There is no reference to them in the Snyder article above (they are named only about a british vernacular that is related to the anglosaxon language and NOT the romanized Britons language ). Only dogs cannot understand that Snyder article is even referred to the neolatin language spoken in those Arthur's years: according to you Dougweller for more than 2 centuries after 410 AD some inhabitants of former Roman Britain were living with some roman subculture but suddenly forgot the latin or neolatin vernacular language used for 4 centuries before...UNBELIEVABLE! And why you forget all the other evidences? Why you erase Charles Thomas & others? YOU LOOK LIKE A SOVIET CENSOR! Same tricks, same abuses, same "barking like a dog" if someone disagrees with your "anglosaxon fanaticism"....Wikipedia is starting to decline in crisis (according to some experts) even because of admin abuses like yours!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.39.16 (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Having just spent some time reading the sources in order to re-write this article, I noticed that the term "British Romance" is hardly ever used. It is almost always referred to as British Vulgar Latin. Per WP:COMMONNAME I would think this would suggest "British Vulgar Latin" should replace "British Romance" as the article title. Also, it may be that "British Romance" has a "Recognizability" issue (per WP:CRITERIA) as I suspect the casual reader would find the phrase slightly odd - sounds like it should have something to do with Brief Encounter. The only argument in its favour would seem to be Consistency under WP:CRITERIA because of the parallel articles Pannonian Romance and African Romance. Any views? DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

How common is "British Latin"? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. My impression is that it's at least as common as British Vulgar Latin. But what I'm not sure is whether it's used as shorthand having first mentioned "British Vulgar Latin". Would it be confused with modern British pronunciation per Latin regional pronunciation and Traditional English pronunciation of Latin? DeCausa (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We can always put a {{distinguish}} tag on top. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

On Google Books, "British Latin" returns 9020 hits, compared to 75 for "British Vulgar Latin" (though many appear to be relevant and reliable). "British Romance" Latin returns 379 hits, but there seem to be very few that actually intend this topic.[2] I say we move to "British Latin".--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My only (slight) concern with that is whether it delimits the topic sufficiently clearly. As time goes by, will material connected with the history of Latin in Britain get added along the lines of this? But it's better than British Romance, so I'd go with it if that's the general view. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think if we use hatnotes judiciously to point people to other articles and if we clearly define what we mean by "British Latin" in the opening sentence, it shouldn't be a problem. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok (although hatnotes/opening lines can be edited just as the rest as the article can be). But would someone else mind moving the page? Last time I moved an article I somehow managed to botch it up so much that I had to get an admin to sort it out. DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Done (moved it to British Latin).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Primitive Welsh"

This terminology is unusual, it's been used alongside "Archaic Welsh" "Early Welsh" or "Neo-Brittonic" and there is no set term. Further, "Primitive Welsh" often refers to a type of furniture. The article linked to is entitled Old Welsh so I'd suggest either using that term (Cornish isn't being called "Primitive Cornish") rather than causing confusion with a redirect, or else writing an article actually entitled Primitive Welsh and linking to it. Paul S (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Primitive Welsh" is the conventional term for the period of the language from the mid-6th century to the 8th century.[3][4][5]. "Archaic Welsh" and (in some uses) "Early Welsh" are synonyms. I don't any reason to avoid it. Moreover, I don't have access to the source, but I assume it doesn't say British Latin gave way to Old Welsh, which conventionally describes the language after about 800. I've updated the link so it points to a hopefully more useful place than the Old Welsh article; perhaps it would be sufficient just to say "Welsh and Cornish".

Also, for what it's worth, "Primitive Cornish" is indeed in use for the early phase of "Cornish".[6]--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I put in the text originally and the cited source, and it does indeed refer to Primitive Welsh, not Old Welsh. (I linked it to Old Welsh because we don't have a primitive eelsh article, but it at lesst explained that primitive welsh wss the predecessor to Old Welsh) DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reconstruction

It is of course possible to reconstruct British Latin on the basis of the history of late Latin words or calques transmitted in Irish, Welsh and occasionally French. Such reconstruction can offer a reasonable degree of probability but minimal certainty. Charles Thomas on the basis of sound changes , e.g. P in Britonnic to C in Goidelic (Irish) and using vocabulary such as Irish Cruimther 'priest', Welsh plant 'children' , Welsh oddiwrth 'from',French devant 'in front of', Welsh ysgubor 'barn' produced the construct: *Premiter dimisit plantam de ab ante scopario, allegedly meaning 'The priest drove the children away from in front of the barn'. Such attempts are interesting but require careful use, as does evidence from high use of British Latin, e.g. Gildas or Hisperica Famina.----Clive Sweeting 26 December2014

Bede

In The Ecclesiastical History of the English People Chapter 1, Bede says, "This island at present, following the number of the books in which the Divine law was written, contains five nations, the English, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, each in its own peculiar dialect cultivating the sublime study of Divine truth. The Latin tongue is, by the study of the Scriptures, become common to all the rest." Taken at face value this is evidence of a population still speaking Latin within Britain in his time. Urselius (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone’s just tried to add to the article that Latin was still spoken in Britain in 731 on the basis of this passage from Bede. Per WP:PRIMARY it’s unwise to use primary sources to draw conclusions - it should have secondary sources to interpret it. Reliable secondary sources interpret this passage to be a reference to Latin being the language of the Church, rather than Latin being spoken as a vernacular. See, for instance, The Cambridge Companion to Bede p.69, Oxford World’s Classics edn. of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History p361, note 10, and A Natural History of Latin p.94-95 by Tore Janson. Janson says the reference to it being known through study of the scriptures is a way of saying it was no one’s native language. DeCausa (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Some details

(i) Is "British Latin" a thing, as they say? For the reasons given in the article there certainly deseves to be an article about the kind of Latin used in the British province (and diocese), but the opening sentence gives the impression that "British Latin" is a common or accepted term in historical scholarship, and I should have thought it was not. I would be inclined to re-word the opening sentence accordingly. (ii) "the language of most of the townspeople" is a bold claim. I should have thought it quite reasonable on the evidence to say it was quite possible that the urban elite and traders would have used it but the majority (slaves, women, servants, children) mostly not – and that in any case the evidence is too thin to draw a conclusion. I would be less bold. (iii) I wouldn't call the Vindolanda tablets or the Bath curse tablets "inscriptions", which are normally put on stone or metal with an expectation of permanence. I would substitute "writings". Deipnosophista (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

In response:

(i) You’ll see earlier in this page a discussion on the article title and the extent that “British Latin” is commonly used. The consensus was it is the most common term. If you have contrary evidence please share it.

(ii) It being the “language of most of the townspeople” is a sourced claim - to Sawyer agreeing with Jackson. If you have contrary sources please share them.

(iii) Disagree. Inscription is the right word - it’s any writing on a hard surface. As a matter of fact, the Bath curse tablets are metal - mostly a lead-tin alloy. The Vindolanda tablets are made of wood but I see no problem with referring to an inscription on wood.

DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(i) I agree with DeCausa.

(ii) is less clear cut. I do not see where Jackson gives a view on the issue. Also, his work is dated and has been challenged. Sawyer is an authority on Anglo-Saxon history, but I am not sure whether he is on Roman. However, as DeCausa says you would need to produce reliable sources to challenge the statement.

(iii) I agree with Deipnosophista. The Vindolanda tablets and curse tablets are not inscriptions according to dictionay definitions. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

On (ii), Jackson gives his view on this at page 105 of ‘Language and History in Early Britain’. Sawyer quotes it approvingly and says that Mann and Hamp broadly agree (though I haven’t checked those references. I agree Sawyer is an Anglo-Saxon authority - he’s summarising specialists’ views. Almost a tertiary source on that I guess. Although Jackson is no longer supported on many of his conclusions on the ‘content’ of British Latin, I’m not aware of any significant differences with him on this specific point. DeCausa (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

British Latin.

If the language had survived what would it had been called and what was the language like? A mix of English and Italian or is their any written of the language found? 2601:586:CF80:6F30:39E8:758F:4C11:F4D2 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the subject of British Latin. I have added the standard notice to the top of the page. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. One guess on what a surviving British Latin might have looked like is Brithenig. TSventon (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: FWIW I guess that Brithenig (which I had never heard of, thanks) is a guess at what a much more advanced version would look like. It is in the imagined future of British Vulgar Latin.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa, I see that you wrote a lot of the article, would it be possible to add an example of the language, such as a curse tablet? TSventon (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, one of the issues is that British Latin wasn’t so distinctive, certainly in any written form, that an example can be clearly pointed out. Firstly, if it existed, it’s a spoken form. Written texts will be written in largely “standard” Latin with apparent “errors” representing clues as to what the spoken vernacular may have been. Looking at a piece of written text will therefore be quite nuanced. Secondly, whether British Latin was distinctive at all is a subject of debate - see the article on that. There isn’t a clear cut consensus on whether it existed at all as a separate variety of spoken Latin compared to that spoken in Gaul for instance. Having said all that there must be examples from the Bath curse tablets or other recent finds from the lowland zone that must illustrate the argument for British latin, however subtle. I’ll take a look (it may take some time) or perhaps others can look too.DeCausa (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A good starting point is Adams’ Regional Diversification of Latin, Chapter IX, pp 577-623 is on Britain. Most of the chapter is devoted to analysing whether or not individual words in curse tablets, Vindolanda finds etc can be classified as uniquely British Latin or not. I guess examples could be taken from that. There are quite lengthy technical debates on each one so I’m not quite sure whether this would easily translate into an overview article such as this. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Loyn - “neo-Latin” being spoken at Verulamium to 8th century

Having checked the citation, I’ve removed this text here. The original addition was made in 2010 here. On checking the citation, it seems this is a complete misrepresentation of what Loyn said - see page 11 of his Anglo Saxon England and the Norman Conquest where it’s clear he’s only talking about the survival of Brittonic with no mention of Latin or “neo-Latin”. A subsequent check of who first put the edit in the article and it turns out it’s a sock of prolific sockmaster Brunodam, who specialises in adding their own blog material to Roman related articles. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)