Talk:Cumbric

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cumbric article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Other talk page banners

Cumbric revival was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Cumbric. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Medieval Scotland Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Languages Mid‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Celts Mid‑importance

	Cumbric is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Cumbric (language) was copied or moved into Cumbric with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Cumbrian was copied or moved into Cumbric with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps, showing the two differing geographical ranges given by the sources (use gradient for the unspecified eastern border in one), be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the United Kingdom may be able to help!

Revival

Does anyone have any further information on the "revived" forms of Cumbric? Dewrad 13:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is a revival movement located mostly online. There is a website however, called Cumbraek which is not very reliable as they de-evolve Welsh into 'Hypothetical' Cumbric. Here is a video from one of the online movements which seek to archive the language on the internet to preserve it for years to come: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEdNM1yWy7k 92.12.198.203 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Modern revival" section: this was all back in 2008/9 and it came to nothing, if it can be called a serious attempt in the first place. Very little seems to have been done and it quickly fizzled out. Is it really noteworthy any more? Paul S (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has tried to reconstruct the language, largely based on analogy with Welsh, and called the resultant WordPress blog "Cumbraek", but with no dates available, I don't know when it was last updated - edit, the Facebook page was done so a mere two days ago, so still an ongoing affair:^[1] ^[2]Culloty82 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC) I've just moved the links into "external links" and deleted the section. I'll add a new section to this talkpage in case anyone wants to discuss below.--Northernhenge (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Derbyshire?

Anyone seen any evidence for Cumbric further south than the Dales? Cant find any. I'll check in a week then cut it if no-one answers.

Sheepcounts could come from modern welsh, but there's no proof either way.

boynamedsue

Place names section & reconstructed cognates

None of the examples of placenames cite references. Several also include unsubstantiated Cumbric reconstructions with no indication that they are such (ie. using *). The etymologies for this section should surely be given known Welsh cognates (or perhaps Cornish/Breton ones), or formally reconstructed Proto-Celtic/Brythonic ones. As there is no agreed standard for reconstructed Cumbric and as most of it has not been thoroughly researched, should it really have a place in this article? Psammead (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This sentence in particular -- These come with estimated Cumbric root words that are not yet certain until the attempted revivals are completed -- does suggest ("estimated"? "revivals"?) that this whole section is part of an amateur original research project in progress rather than a report of any citable published findings. -- Picapica (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections in the next couple of weeks, I will remove the 'Cumbric roots' and replace them with more reliable forms and try to include only cited examples. I am also dubious about the inclusion of Cheshire placenames in this article, given that the county is still on the border with Wales. Psammead (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added older proto-Celtic or Brythonic (e.g. *penno- not *k^wenno to avoid confusion) to the table. I chose *prenna- rather than *penno- noting Price's observance that the form Prenwensete suggests the word was feminine in Cumbric, unlike in Welsh. Perhaps this is "original research" though. Paul S (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revival attempt

I can see there's been discussion of this already, and obviously the fact a small group of people are attempting it deseves mention given that for any extinct language thats an automatic question.

But what i'm wondering is... Is there any reasonable basis to this revival or not? Because if its 'bad linguistics' should we be wording it any differently than stuff like mystics using 'bad science?' E.g. is there any textual evidence to back up this 'revival'?

If not then we really need to add something at the end of each bit, warning about this, or btter find a qoute from an academic critising it.

Sorry I'm a bit tetchy about this after becoming involved with a celtic devon group and finding they had no interest in evidence and (yes moderatly slowly) finding out about the real remains of celtic culture in britain, but only in skipping straight to calling it a 'revival', creating websites, articles and the like worded as if the research had already been done... telling people to learn a language called 'old devonian' which a) there was no written evidence of, b) there wasn't even any historical references to a language of that name and c) even choosing the closest: southwestern brythonic (still hypothetical) the 'reconstruction' seemed to have been performed in a weekend by someone trying either deluded to howdifficult such a task would be, or trying to make a quick buck.

Whilst cumbric at least satisfies b) I think the other need to be mentioned: What evidence is it based on? And if very little that should be emphasised. What method is it the reconstruction based on? And if a bad one, that should be emphasised. 81.155.67.41 (talk)

I can't help noticing that the Cumbric revival websites cited here have been inactive for nearly a year now. Possibly this tiny movement has disappeared. Paul S (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I've ever seen a serious treatment of Cumbric that mentions the "revival". This may be something that ought to be removed, or reduced to a single sentence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section merits inclusion because 1) a book on the subject has been published, and 2) the attempted revival has been mentioned in the media. As well as this news story, issues 140/141/142/144 of Carn mention both the attempted revival and this Wikipedia article. Issues 142 and 144 can be read here. The "official" websites aren't working (for me, anyway) but I did find this blog.

~Asarlaí 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still fairly unimpressive. As far as third party coverage goes, we have a local news story and some mentions in a magazine that appears largely based on this article. I propose we cut it down to a sentence or two that is based entirely on what appears in the third-party sources, and merge it into a different section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've added the tabloid news article and the note from Carn. I don't think much more can be said about this group.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing appears to have happened regarding this "revival" since 2010. All websites are down and have been for some time now. Some members were reported to have followed Carn's advice and started to learn Welsh. Would anyone object if the little paragraph were just trimmed away? Paul S (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it needs to be removed, it's only two sentences and they don't make the "revival" appear more significant than it was.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just moved the links into "external links" and deleted the section. I'll add a new section to this talkpage in case anyone wants to discuss below.--Northernhenge (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the Modern Revival section

I've just moved the links into "external links" and deleted the section. I couldn't find additional external sources - the existing ones are very close to the project or simply comment on its existence. Giving it a full section seems to be wp:undue prominence but I couldn't think of anywhere else to put it, hence moving the links and deleting the comments. (This has been discussed previously above. I've added a note in the above discussions to point here.) --Northernhenge (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's misleading to speak about 'revival' for Cumbric. Unlike languages like Cornish and Manx, which were revived based on the actual previous form of the language, there is no known form of Cumbric so no 'revival' is possible. Any 'revival'of Cumbric is merely inventing a new language, not reviving an extinct one. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://cumbraek.wordpress.com

[2] ttps://m.facebook.com/Cumbraek

[1]

[2]