Talk:Cunobeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Article title[edit]

The Oxford DNB calls the subject Cunobelinus as do modern works found on Google books. Cunobeline, on the other hand, seems to be found mainly in very old works. Seems doubtful that the article should have been moved. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • A redirect was required and a move is an easy way of doing this. I checked the number of sources for each form in Google Books and they seemed similar - about a thousand. I also noticed that some coins shown in the article carry the inscription Cunobeline while none have Cunobelinus. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of the name[edit]

'Cuno' as 'hound' is surely incorrect. It is really an old spelling of 'cyn' = Welsh 'before'. The Welsh version 'Cynfelyn' makes that pretty obvious really. The 'o' part of 'cuno' is a connective vowel equivalent to Welsh 'y'. Beli was the Celtic equivalent of Apollo. Hence, the name should be interpreted as 'before Apollo', ie 'second only to Apollo'. And, by the way, the British of the time spelled the name without the ending 'e'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.181.177 (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added a request for authority for the derivation given. It seems hard to deduce a derivation for a word when we do not know how the word was spelt or pronounced. Cunobelinus must be an approximation to what the Romans thought they heard, but I did not think that enough is known about the Celtic language in the form it took in Britain at this date to substantiate the derivation. -us is the normal masculine ending for a 2nd declension latin word and I would imagine that a Roman would end the word in this way without thinking much about it, but I do not pretend to be an expert on linguistics. The derivation suggested in the paragraph above is open to similar objections.

Waysider1925 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're simply arguing from ignorance - quite a lot is known about the ancient Celtic languages and how they worked, from the science of historical linguistics. Like many Indo-European languages, it had inflectional endings similar to Latin - masculine nouns usually ended in -os, but there were some in -us as well. The form of his name is in any case derived not so much from Roman writers but from his own coins. I'll find a reference once I have a chance to consult a few books, but it shouldn't be hard to find. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I am quite willing to be instructed, but I do not appreciate discourtesy. I look forward to reading the authority in due course. I thought I understood from Peter Salter's Roman Britain that written British Celtic was almost unknown, but perhaps he is wrong or I have misrecollected what I read. As to the coins did they not have a latin inscription?

Waysider1925 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discourtesy? You removed material from the article based solely on "I can't believe anybody knows anything about this". When I say you're arguing from ignorance, I'm not insulting you, I'm observing what you're doing. I have provided a reference. I was going to go to the library and find one from a more linguistic source, but I can't be bothered now. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)