12 juillet 2007
Divyezhegezh ? / Bilinguisme ?
Setu penaos e sav ar goulenn e Breizh. Daoust hag ez eo Breizh ur vroadelezh ? Neuze, perak n'he defe ket, evel pep broadelezh, ar gwir, hag an dlead, d'ober gant he yezh, hep goulenn skoazell digant yezh an estren ? Perak ne c'hallfemp ket implijout ar brezhoneg en hor skolioù, ar brezhoneg nemetken ? Perak hor befe da zeskiñ ur yezh all ? Ha perak e vefe ar yezh-se ar galleg, kentoc'h eget ar saozneg, pe an italianeg, pe ar rusianeg ? (...)
Tremen a c'hellomp hep ar galleg. Bremañ ez in c'hoazh pelloc'h: evel Breizhiz e tleomp tremen hepzañ. Rannvroelezh a gerzh a-unan gant divyezhegezh. Broadelezh a-unan gant unyezhegezh. Ar galleg en hor skolioù a zo spered Bro-C'hall en hon touez. Ha keit ha ma vo spered Bro-C'hall en hon touez, e vo hor broadelezh en argoll.(...)
Ar brezhoneg evidomp eo ar frankiz, ar galleg ar sklaverezh. Petra a ra dimp bezañ gouiziek, ma ne c'hellomp ket bezañ dishual ? Bez' ez eo Breizh ur Vroadelezh ! Neuze ne c'hell ket kaout div yezh. Pobl ebet n' he deus div yezh. Pobl ebet n' he devo biken. Etre ar brezhoneg hag ar galleg ez eo ret dibab. Ar brezhoneg a zibabimp, pe ne vimp nemet bugale, ha gwashoc'h, tud digalon. Ha mar dibabomp hor yezh, n' eo ket dre m' eo "yezh hon tadoù", nag "hor yezh muiañ-karet", na "yezh ar galon", nag an holl draoù goullo a vezer boas da glevout gant tud na ouzont ober netra hep goulenn digarez. Hor yezh a zibabomp dre ma vennomp he dibab, hag ar yezh all a zilezomp dre ma vennomp he dilezel.(...)
Evidomp-ni, ra vo gwasket ha sanket en hor penn ar wirionez-mañ : lazhomp ar galleg, pe ar galleg hol lazho. Pep unan ac'hanomp a fell dezhañ harpañ ar brezhoneg. Ra falvezo da bep unan ac'hanomp dizeskiñ ar galleg, stourm outañ e pep lec'h hag e pep amzer, stourm evit ur Vreizh vreizhat penn-kil-ha-troad, ha n'eo ket hanter c'hall. Pet ac'hanomp a gredo ober ar c'hammed nevez-se, ha lakaat ar re all d'e ober?
(Roparz Hemon, A-enep ar gelennadurezh divyezhek, Breiz atao, Mezheven 1925/Ur Breizhad Oc'h Adkavout Breizh, Al Liamm, 1972)
"Est-ce que la Bretagne est une nationalité ? Alors, pourquoi n' aurait-elle pas, comme toute nationalité, le droit, et le devoir, de se servir de sa langue, sans demander le secours de la langue de l' étranger ? Pourquoi ne pourrions-nous pas utiliser le breton dans nos écoles, le breton seulement ? Pourquoi devrions nous apprendre une autre langue ? Et pourquoi cette langue serait le français, plutôt que l'anglais, l'italien ou le russe ? (...)
Nous pouvons nous passer du français. Maintenant j'irai encore plus loin : comme Bretons nous devons nous en passer. Régionalisme marche de concert avec bilinguisme. Nationalité avec monolinguisme. Le français dans nos écoles, c' est l'esprit de la France au milieu de nous. Et tant que l'esprit de la France sera parmis nous, notre nationalité sera en danger de périr. (...)
Le breton pour nous, c'est la liberté; le français, l'esclavage. A quoi nous sert d' être savants, si nous ne pouvons pas être libres ? La Bretagne est une nationalité ! Alors elle ne peut avoir deux langues. Aucun peuple n'a deux langues. Aucun peuple n'en aura jamais. Entre le breton et le français, il faut choisir. C' est le breton que nous choisirons, ou bien nous ne serons que des enfants, et pis, des lâches. Et si nous choisissons notre langue, ce n'est pas parce qu' elle est "la langue de nos pères", "ni notre langue bien aimée", ni "la langue du coeur", ni toutes les inepties que l'on a coutume d' entendre de la part de gens qui ne savent rien faire sans s'excuser. Nous choisissons notre langue, parce que nous voulons la choisir, et nous abandonnons l' autre langue parce que nous voulons l' abandonner.(...)
Quant à nous, que soit imprimée et enfoncée dans notre tête cette vérité : tuons le français ou le français nous tuera. Chacun d'entre nous veut soutenir le breton. Que chacun de nous ait à coeur de désapprendre le français, de lutter contre lui en tous lieux et en tout temps, de lutter pour une Bretagne bretonne de la tête aux pieds, et non pas à demi-française. Combien parmi nous oserons franchir ce nouveau pas, et le faire faire à d'autres?"
(Roparz Hemon, Contre l' enseignement bilingue, Breiz Atao, Juin 1925)
09 juillet 2007
NI
Ni zo unan eus skourroù glas
Ar wezenn anvet Keltia
He sev ken brokus ha biskoazh
En avel-vor sonn en he sav.
Eus Gouenn ar Gelted omp
Ha ni zo ur Bobl…
Ni hon eus ur Vro.
Ni hon eus ur Yezh
Ni hon eus un istor
Ni hon eus ur sevenadur
Ni hon eus un Ijin
Ni hon eus un Hengoun
Ni hon eus hon Harozed
Ni hon eus hon Zud Veur
Ni hon eus hor Sent.
Ni hon eus bet a-viskoazh
Barzhed ha diouganerien
Meulet ha doujet bras
Ni hon eus Douar ha mor
Argoad. Arvor : Glenmor !
Ni hon eus kestell ha manerioù
Ilizoù ha chapelioù
Kalvarioù ha feunteunioù
Ni hon eus lennoù peskedus
Ni hon eus stêrioù
Ni hon eus koadegi ha lannegi
Brugeier. Douar-labour
Difraostet gant hon Hendadoù
Ni hon eus chatal ha jiboez
Ni hon eus Inizi ha menezioù
Porzhioù-mor ha bigi
Ni hon eus tourioù dantelezhet
Ha mein-meur an Drouized.
Ni hon eus bet Rouanez
Duged ha Dugezed
Ni hon eus bet Tierned
Penngadourien. Kabitened
Ni hon eus redet dre ar Bed
Dre an holl Vorioù
Ni hon eus badezet Inizi
Badezet Kêrioù ha Stêrioù
Gant anvioù hon zud dispont
Plantet banniel Keltia
Tro-dro da Vor Breizh.
Ni hon eus breudeur e Tramor
Ni hon eus sistr ha chouchenn
Ha gwiness ha wiski ha muskadig
Ni hon eus Gourenerien
Ni hon eus Kadourien
Ni zo bet — Ni zo bepred
Ne fell ket dimp mervel
Evel Pobl
Ne fell ket dimp bout sellet
Evel ur Bobl mevelet.
Dirak Doue. Dirak ar Bed
NI ZO BREIZHIZ. NI ZO KELTED.
BEVET KELTIA !
(Anjela Duval, 23 a viz C’hwevrer 1975)
25 juin 2006
Analyse linguistique du Breton
An Analysis of the Linguistic Phylogeny of Breton
Nicolas C. Ward, Ling 52, 2004.04.19
Abstract
The claim that Modern Breton is directly descended from ancient Gaulish, a much older Celtic language, is one that has been made by a number of otherwise respectable Breton linguists. They have been influenced by a desire to create a national identity for the Bretons, one that includes a rich linguistic history. The linguistic evidence, however, clearly refutes this claim, and places Breton as a descendant of Brythonic, along with Welsh and Cornish. An examination of some of the major sound changes in Brythonic and Gaulish confirms the generally accepted phylogeny.
Introduction
Throughout the world, language is very closely tied to culture. This is
even more true in the communities of linguistic minorities, where their
cultural heritage in a large part depends on maintaining their
linguistic independence. Unfortunately, this nationalist mentality,
while good for protecting an endangered language, can lead to
unscientific interpretations of linguistic data. One of the more famous
examples is Basque, in which some linguists have made the claim that it
is a nearly unchanged form of Proto-Indo-European, or perhaps even
Proto-World. In addition to a dearth of linguistic data supporting
these claims, there is conflicting evidence in the historical
record.
A similar situation has arisen more recently with Breton, a Celtic
language spoken in the rural regions of Brittany in France. Breton has
been suppressed for many years by France’s official language policies,
although it is not yet a moribund language. In the last century, there
has even been a resurgence in the production of Breton literature and
poetry. In order to promote a nationalist
agenda, the Breton linguist François Falc’hun proposed that Breton was
the direct descendant of ancient Gaulish (Macaulay, 371), a Celtic
language spoken in France at the time of the Roman conquest of France,
then the province of Gaul. Gaulish was also a contemporary of
Brythonic, the ancestor of Breton, Cornish, and Welsh.
This view is
simply incorrect, and although there may remain a small handful of
Gaulish elements in Modern Breton, they were not inherited, but
borrowed. Breton and Gaulish are definitely related, as they are both
descendants of p-Celtic, the branch of the Celtic language family where
PIE *k w
> *p (Macaulay, 5). Gaulish is also a p-Celtic language, so it is
more closely related to Breton than any of the other non-Brythonic
Celtic languages, which are classified as q-Celtic. That is where the
similarities end; Gaulish is a continental Celtic language, whereas
Breton is insular, a distinction that reflects the history of Celtic as
it spread across western Europe, but later becoming largely isolated to
the British Isles.
After a brief discussion of the history of Breton and Gaulish,
their linguistic differences will be examined. These will conclusively
show that Breton is not a descendant of Gaulish, as posited by some
nationalist linguists.
History of Breton
At the end of the 4th century AD, the Britons lived in the southwestern
region of post-Roman Britain. Over the next 200 years, many of them
migrated to the Continent, under pressure from expanding Anglo-Saxon
territory in eastern England and coastal raids performed by Pictish-
and Scottish-speaking tribes from Ireland. The Briton settlers quickly
integrated with the Armoricans (who spoke Vulgar Latin), a transition
eased by their common status as Roman citizens and as Christians
(Galliou, 128). These two groups quickly became known as the Bretons,
and the region became Britannica, now Brittany. They spoke a form of
Old Breton, a close descendant of Brythonic. An army of Bretons even
went to battle with Roman soldiers in an attempt to repel the invading
Franks, a Germanic tribe moving into northern Gaul.
Breton managed to
resist the powerful influence of French throughout the middle ages,
with even 16th century Middle Breton retaining a predominantly Celtic
vocabulary, with very few loan words from Romance or Germanic languages
(Galliou, 144). Starting with the Frankish Carolingian dynasty,
Brittany fell under (largely) French control, and remained in that
state under a string of kings and dukes.
The greatest threat to the Breton language did not actually arise until
the formation of the First French Republic in 1792. The period of
French nationalism that followed, including the Napoleonic Wars,
encouraged equality of the people in all aspects of their lives. This
including the institution of a common language: French. In the case of
the Bretons, the French language was forced upon them through the
educational system. Only recently has Breton become more accepted in
formal education in Brittany, although it is still an endangered
language.
History of Gaulish
The Gauls were a presence in what is now modern-day France by at the
latest 1000 BC. They were an offshoot of the ancient Celts who migrated
westward across Europe, although they remained on the Continent. Gauls
were responsible for the sacking of Rome in 390 BC, and Gauls were also
present in Iberia, and some even found their way to Asia Minor, in a
region that was known as Galatia at the time of Paul’s Epistles.
Julius Caesar was responsible for the Roman conquest of Gaul by 51 BC, a rule which continued
until the Frankish invasions of 486 AD. The Gauls quickly adapted to
life under imperial rule, and abandoned Gaulish in favor of Latin. The
similarity between the two languages, both members of the Italo-Celtic
family, was sufficient to make the transition fairly smooth. Gaulish
has been extinct since the period of Roman rule, although some loan
words may have survived into Modern Breton (Galliou, 145).
Linguistic Comparison
Essentially, this issue is one of phylogeny. In the case discussed
here, there are two possible trees: one in which Breton and Welsh are
both Brythonic languages, and Gaulish is a now-dead offshoot of
p-Celtic, and one in which Breton is the modern descendant of Gaulish,
as proposed by Falc’hun. The difference between these two phylogenies
is illustrated in Figure 1, where the former is Phylogeny A and the
latter is Phylogeny B. Both of these are theoretically valid
phylogenies, but there is a lot of evidence that makes Phylogeny much
more widely accepted.
Breton uses an SVO ordering, unlike any of the other modern Celtic
languages, which use VSO (Macaulay, 386). Gaulish also used SVO, but it
is more likely that Breton’s unusual (for Celtic languages) ordering is
a result of its close contact with French, an SVO langage. Although
this is an interesting fact about the languages under scrutiny, the
placename and sound change evidence covered in this section is far more
telling.
Breton is broken up into a number of highly distinct dialects,
which is somewhat unusual for a language spoken in such a small
geographic area. The three northern dialects are Léon, Kernev, and
Treger, and are all fairly similar. The southern dialect, Gwened (or
Vannetais) is much more divergent (Press, 2). The geographic
distribution of the dialects is in a large part the origin of
Falc’hun’s claim regarding Breton’s ancestry. He believed that the only
way to explain Vannetais’
unusual separation from the other three dialects was that it had been
influenced by absorbing elements of ancient Gaulish at the time of the
arrival of the Britons in Armorica.
As in many historical linguistics studies, evidence of an older
state of the language can be found in modern-day placenames, which tend
to be preserved. Gaulish placenames tended to end in -acos, which
became -acum during the Gallo-Roman period, to largely match Latin
placenames. As Vulgar Latin evolved into French, -acum became -ay, -y,
or -é. The arrival of the Briton settlers, speaking a Celtic language,
helped maintain an intermediate stage of that transformation: -ac. This
suffix is still present today, in the forms -oc, -euc, -uc, and -ec
(Galliou, 138). The distribution of placenames is such that these are
found largely in western Brittany, the area farthest from the
encroaching French influence. With a reduced incidence of loan words,
western Brittany is very likely the region that best preserves Celtic
elements in the Breton language.
The placename example is an element of Gaulish that has survived
into Modern Breton, but it does not mean that Breton is a descendant of
Gaulish. In publishing his claim, Falc’hun did call attention to the
presence of some connection between these two Celtic languages, one
that had been largely ignored by other scholars. In order to refute his
claims, they were forced to study the possibility that there was a
connection. Thus, although he challenged the canonical interpretation
of the data with a highly dubious conclusion, Falc'hun did force
another examination of more legitimate research into the origins of
Breton.
One piece of evidence against Phylogeny B is found in the formation of
noun cases. Gaulish had a gendered genitive case suffix: -i for
feminine genitive, and -as for masculine genitive. It also had a
general masculine ending -os. All three of these endings are not
present in the Brythonic languages. Both Modern Welsh and Modern Breton
do not use them. It is possible that this is a parallel development in
Welsh, and in Breton descending from Gaulish, as opposed to a change in
Brythonic
from p-Celtic. The loss of morphological characteristics, such as these
case endings, is often a parallel innovation (Forster, 2).
It is also helpful to examine the consonant systems in use in the
modern languages. Welsh has 22 consonant phonemes: /p b t d k g f v θ ð
s ʃ ɬ x h ʧ ʤ m n ŋ l ɾ/ (Macaulay, 321). Breton has 20 consonant
phonemes: /p b t d k g f v s z ʃ ʒ x h m n ɲ l ʎ r/ (Macaulay, 428).
These are fairly similar, with the exception of the affricates /ʧ ʤ/ in
Welsh, which are loans from English, and the /ʒ ɲ ʎ/ in Breton, which
are loans from French. Welsh and Breton are close relatives, and
although their are influenced by the Germanic and Italic neighbors,
respectively, it is unsurprising that they both have similar consonant
systems.
The cognates in
words for family members is more solid evidence that Welsh and Breton
are closely related as Brythonic languages, whereas Gaulish is an
ancient offshoot of p-Celtic. The word “mother” is <mam> in
Modern Welsh, and <mamm> in Modern Breton, but <matir> in
Gaulish (Forster, 3). There were two forms for "mother" in
Proto-Celtic: *mātīr and *mammā. p-Celtic preserved both of these
proto-forms, but Gaulish kept only *mātīr, whereas Brythonic kept only
*mammā. Both Breton and Welsh lost the word-final -ā in this case. It
could be a parallel innovation, but the use of *mammā for "mother" was
a probably a common innovation in Brythonic (Jenkins, 80).
Even more obvious are the cognates for "daughter": Gaulish duxtir,
Welsh merch, and Breton merc’h. Note that <x>, <ch>, and
<c’h> all represent /x/ (Forster, 3). The Gaulish duxtir is
probably a loan word from another Indo-European language, because the
Proto-Celtic form for "daughter" is *merkā (Jenkins, 30). Again, we see
the loss of word-final ā, as well as k > x, in both Welsh and
Breton. The same sound changes apply to Proto-Celtic "horse" or *markā,
which is
marka in Gaulish, and march and marc'h in Welsh and Breton,
respectively (Jenkins, 63) (Whatmough) (Nodine) (Press, 361). It is
unclear where the Gaulish form for "daughter" came from, but it must
either be a loan word or a mistaken attribution. Still, in this case we
see further similarities between the vocabulary of Welsh and Breton, as
well as some common sound changes that probably occurred to their
common ancestor Brythonic.
There are other examples of cognates in Modern Welsh (ModW), Modern
Breton (ModB), Proto-Celtic (PClt), and Gaulish (Gal). ModB garan, ModW
garan, PClt *garanu and Gal *garanus (ModE crane), where Gaulish
preserves the final vowel of the proto-form, which is lost in both
Breton and Welsh (Forster, 3) (Jenkins, 28). ModB nerzh, ModW nerth,
PClt *nerto and Gal *nertos (ModE strength), where Gaulish again adds a
word-final s. Breton and Welsh differ in the articulation of the
word-final fricative, but in the consonant systems described above,
Breton has /ʒ/ and not /θ/, whereas Welsh has the reverse. Presumably
p-Celtic *t went to these two fricatives in Welsh and Breton, but was
still /t/ in the older Gaulish (Press, 366) (Nodine) (Jenkins, 122)
(Whatmough) (Macaulay).
Conclusion
There is more than sufficient evidence to phylogenetically place Breton
as a descendant of Brythonic, along with Welsh and Cornish. This is the
Phylogeny A as depicted in Figure 1. The roots of Gaulish lie farther
back on the Celtic language tree, and while there is some evidence that
elements of ancient Gaulish have survived into modern-day Breton, it
did not occur through inheritance.
The historical evidence also cannot be ignored; Gaulish was
effectively replaced by Latin during the Roman conquest of Gaul, which
occurred almost 500 years before the migration of Britons
from Britain to Brittany. This fact alone should convince any linguist
who doubts the canonical interpretation of the phylogeny.
Breton is not a descendant of Gaulish, but it is sensible from a
nationalist point of view to make that claim. By giving your nation
over two millennia of linguistic continuity, you engender a certain
amount of pride in its citizens. While this is in some ways an
admirable goal, it is by no means linguistically valid. The comparative
method has given a reconstructed tree of the Celtic language family
that clearly separates the origins of Breton from the branch containing
Gaulish. They are clearly related, but Gaulish is most definitely not
an ancestor of Breton.
References
Forster, Peter and Alfred Toth. “Toward a phylogenetic chronology of
ancient Gaulish, Celtic, and Indo-European”. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science. Vol. 100: 9079-9084. ©2003.
Galliou, Patrick and Michael Jones. The Bretons. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. ©1991.
Jenkins, Geraint H. "English - Proto-Celtic". University of Wales
Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, ©2002. Internet,
2002.06.12. http://www.aber.ac.uk/awcwww/MoE-PCl.pdf
Macaulay, Donald, ed. The Celtic Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. ©1992.
Nodine, Mark H. "English to Welsh Lexicon". Cardiff University, ©2003. Internet, 2003.02.20. http://oldweb.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/LexiconEW.html
Press, Ian. A Grammar of Modern Breton. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, NY. ©1986.
Whatmough, Joshua. Dialects of Ancient Gaul: Prolegomena and Records of the Dialects. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. ©1969.
[source (PDF)]
27 avril 2006
Grève de la faim
Grève de la faim : Adsav, apporte son soutien à Yannig Baron Président de Dihun Breizh
ADSAV, le parti du peuple breton, apporte son soutien le plus total à Yannig BARON en grève de la faim depuis le 19 avril. Le président des écoles catholiques bilingues DIHUN déplore les difficultés rencontrées pour ouvrir de nouvelles filières bilingues et dénonce le climat de plus en plus défavorable à la langue bretonne qui règne dans les administrations et institutions.
Le parti du peuple breton dénonce de son côté une situation globalement négative, alors qu’il y a une demande croissante de la part des Bretons qui souhaitent un enseignement bilingue pour leurs enfants.
L’enseignement catholique de Bretagne doit impérativement prendre en compte cette dimension culturelle propre à la Bretagne, c’est-à-dire sa langue, et donner des instructions précises pour que ses écoles ne puissent plus refuser l’ouverture d’une filière bilingue.
Le bureau politique d’ADSAV
31 janvier 2006
Brythonic languages
Brythonic languages
The Brythonic languages (or Brittonic languages) form one of the two branches of the Insular Celtic language family. The name Brythonic
is derived from the Welsh word Brython, meaning an indigenous Briton as
opposed to an Anglo-Saxon or Gael. The Brythonic branch is also
referred to as P-Celtic because the Brythonic reflex of the
Proto-Indo-European phoneme *kw is p as opposed to the Goidelic c. Such
nomenclature usually implies an acceptance of the P-Celtic hypothesis
rather than the Insular Celtic hypothesis (for a discussion, see Celtic
languages).
The major Brythonic languages are Welsh and Breton, both of which
survive as community languages today. The Cornish language died out at
the end of the eighteenth century, but was successfully revived in the
twentieth. Also notable are the extinct language Cumbric, and possibly
the extinct Pictish (although the late Kenneth H. Jackson argued during
the 1950s, from some of the few remaining examples of Pictish, that
Pictish was a non-Indo-European language, the majority of modern
scholars of Pictish do not agree).
Classification
The family tree of the Brythonic languages is as follows:
- Brythonic
- Pictish (possibly)
- Ivernic (possibly)
- British, ancestral to :
- Western Brythonic Language, ancestral to :
- Cumbric
- Welsh
- Southwestern Brythonic, ancestral to:
- Breton
- Cornish
- Western Brythonic Language, ancestral to :
History and origins
The modern Brythonic languages all derive from a common ancestral language termed British, Common Brythonic, Old Brythonic or Proto-Brythonic, which is thought to have developed from the Proto-Celtic language which was introduced to Britain from the middle second millennium BC (Hawkes, 1973). Brythonic languages were then spoken at least in the whole of Great Britain south of the rivers Forth and Clyde, presumably also including the Isle of Man. The theory has been advanced (notably by R. F. O'Rahilly) that Ireland was populated by speakers of Brythonic before being displaced by speakers of a Q-Celtic language (possibly from the Quarietii tribe of southern France), although the linguists Dillon and Chadwick reject this theory as being implausible.
During the period of the Roman occupation of Britain (AD 43 to c. 410), Common Brythonic borrowed a large stock of Latin words, both for concepts unfamiliar in the pre-urban society of Celtic Britain such as tactics of warfare and urbanisation and rather more mundane words which displaced native terms (most notably, the word for "fish" in all the Brythonic languages derives from the Latin piscus rather the native *iskos). Approximately eight hundred of these Latin loan-words have survived in the three modern Brythonic languages.
It is probable that during this period Common Brythonic was differentiated into at least two major dialect groups - Southwestern and Western (in addition we may posit additional dialects spoken in what is now England which have left little or no evidence). Between the end of the Roman occupation and the mid sixth century the two dialects began to diverge into recognisably separate languages, the Western into Cumbric and Welsh and the Southwestern into Cornish and its closely related sister language Breton, which was carried from the south of Britain to continental Armorica by refugees fleeing the Saxon invaders.
The Brythonic languages spoken in Scotland, the Isle of Man and England were displaced at the same time by Goidelic and Old English speaking invaders.
For the later history of the neo-Brythonic languages see under their own respective articles.
Remnants in England and Scotland
The principal legacy left behind in those territories from which the Brythonic languages were displaced is that of toponyms. Many of the place-names in England and to a lesser extent Scotland are derived (sometimes indirectly) from the Brythonic names, including London, Penicuik, Perth, York, Dorchester, Dover and Colchester. Several place-name elements are thought to be wholly or partly Brythonic in origin, particularly bre-, bal-, and -dun for hills, carr for a high rocky place, coomb for a small deep valley. Others reflect the presence of Brythons, such as Dumbarton.
Until recently it has been believed that those areas settled by the Anglo-Saxons were uninhabited at the time or the Britons had fled before them. However, genetic studies show that the British were not pushed out to the Celtic fringes – many tribes remained in what was to become England[1]. These findings strengthen the research of Steven Bassett of the University of Birmingham; his work during the 1990s suggests that much of the West Midlands was only very lightly colonised with Anglian and Saxon settlements.
It is generally accepted that linguistic effects on English were lexically rather poor aside from toponyms, consisting of a few domestic words, which may include hubbub, peat, bucket, crock, noggin, gob (c.f. Gaelic gob), nook; and the dialectal term for a badger, i.e. brock (c.f. Welsh broch, and Gaelic Broc). Arguably, the use of periphrastic constructions in the English verb (which is more widespread than in the other Germanic languages) is traceable to Brythonic influence.
Some researchers argue that English syntax reflects more extensive Brythonic influences. For instance, in English tag questions, the form of the tag depends on the verb form in the main statement (aren't I?, isn't he?, won't we? etc). The German nicht wahr? and the French n'est ce pas?, by contrast, are fixed forms which can be used with almost any main statement. It has been claimed that the English system has been borrowed from Brythonic, since Welsh tag questions vary in almost exactly the same way. This view is far from being generally accepted, though, since it is equally possible that the Welsh construction is borrowed from English.
Far more notable, but less well known, are the Brythonic influences on Scottish Gaelic which are many. Like English, periphrastic constructions have come to the fore, but to a much greater degree. Some important borrowings into Gaidhlig include Beinn meaning mountain, and anglicised "Ben", probably from the Brythonic pen meaning "Head".
External links
Ethnologue report for Brythonic languages
References
- A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles; Cristian Capelli, Nicola Redhead, Julia K. Abernethy, Fiona Gratrix, James F. Wilson, Torolf Moen, Tor Hervig, Martin Richards, Michael P. H. Stumpf, Peter A. Underhill, Paul Bradshaw, Alom Shaha, Mark G. Thomas, Neal Bradman, and David B. Goldstein Current Biology, Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages 979-984 (2003). Retrieved 9 Décembre 2005.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brythonic
25 septembre 2005
Skol vamm - Ècole maternelle - Merville Lorient
Dès novembre 2004, l’inspection académique était informé d’un projet de
classe bilingue breton-français pour 15 enfants. Depuis, les chiffres
n’ont cessé d’augmenter.
Historique du projet
Octobre 2004 : Une famille sollicite la directrice de l’école pour que son enfant bénéficie d’un eneignement bilingue breton français. L’association Div Yezh est contactée
Novembre 2004 : Le projet d’une classe bilingue est adopté lors du Conseil des Maîtres, puis du Conseil d’Ecole. L’inspecteur de l’Education Nationale en est informé. Dans les effectifs prévisionnels de la rentrée 2005 tranmis à ce dernier, 15 enfants sont prévus dans la filière bilingue.
Janvier 2005 : Un sondage est effectuée au sein de l’école auprès des parents de petite section et de moyenne section (soient 80 enfants). 11 enfants sont ainsi pré-inscrits pour la rentrée 2005. La liste nominative des ces 11 enfants est transmise à l’Inspection d’Académie avec copie à l’I.E.N.
Février 2005 : Une lettre du Collectif des Parents est adressée à l’Inspecteur d’Académie demandant l’ouverture d’une classe bilingue pour septembre 2005. Réponse négative de l’I.A.
Juin 2005 : A la fin du mois, 16 enfants sont maintenant inscrits. Une lettre du Collectif des Parents est adressée à la Mairie de Lorient.
Juillet 2005 : La Mairie de Lorient apporte une réponse favorable et soutient le projet.
Rentrée 2005 : 20 enfants sont maintenant inscrits dans la classe bilingue. L’Inspection d’Académie refuse l’ouverture.
Pour soutenir l'école vous pouvez signer la pétition :
http://merville.maternelle.free.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=30