GunChleoc

The early British artifacts might not all be specificly Celtic (I have no knowledge about this one way or the other), but the language definitely is. There probably was another language spoken there as well before the Celtic took over, but we have no evidence on what that language might have been like AFAIK. The Romans did give Ireland the name Hibernia, but they didn't really go there as far as I know. It is not clear how the Irish Gaels came to Ireland, but they did go on to found Scotland later on. They were verifiably in Scotland around 400AD, but they might have been there earlier than that. The evidence on this is unclear, but they did a lot of sailing, and you can see the Irish coast from Scotland, so it's not that far.

I don't want this thread moved to Off-topic, because it has some importent information in it. So, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

The name Brythonic is already used for the Welsh, Cornish and Breton branch of the Celtic languages, and if you read the text you just quoted carefully, you will see that he calls the wider family Celtic as well. So, you will have to come up with something else if you don't like the name.

And what would you call it instead then?

Well, the snakes St. Patrick drove out were Celts who spoke Goidelic. So, only because he learned to speak Goidelic as well, it is not acceptable as a language for the game? I don't think so. Patricius was born in the former Roman provinces of Britannia, so we should probably ban Latin and Brythonic languages from the game instead, since it is likely that these were his native languages. Next thing we won't have the Germanic factions speak old German dialects because of Hitler. My point being: Finding a language offensive because of one person that spoke it is something you should think twice about. IMO it is an overreaction.

That is correct, just like Old English is closer to Old German than modern English is to modern German, for example. There are arguments that the Italic languages (including the Romance languages) and the Celtic languages are more closely related to each other than to the other branches of the Indo-European languages. I won't go into them here, as it's all pretty technical.

You can play different melodies on a horn, also there are different types of horn. So, we could use a horn that's different from the attack notification.

So? Germans don't call themselves "German", but "Deutsch", which goes back to the Teutonic tribe. I don't know where that name originally came from though. And you have a point about the Celtic thing, people like to mystify stuff, which makes if very hard to divide fact from wishful thinking and fabrications. Please explain which the Indo-European linguistic model is supposed to have no science to it and be a relic of the 17th century, since research has been and still is ongoing. AFAIK the Celtic languages weren't even included in the original model, because they are so different on the surface that the similarity was not recognised at first.

Of course there were Celts in what are now German-speaking areas, e.g. Halstatt is in Austria. And of course there were cultural interactions between Celts and Germans. I am not disputing this at all. However, this does not turn Celtic languages into Germanic languages or Germanic languages into Celtic languages. That's an entirely different matter. Most of Scottish Highlanders have had their Celtic language beaten out of them so they have to speak English instead. Does that make them less Celtic? The cultural identities involved here are a very complex issue. But this also goes for your arguments. Only because people wrote something long ago rather than fairly recently, this doesn't make it a fact. Well, this doesn't prove anything. Maybe you'll see why if I replace "Celtic" by other language designations: Is there evidence that only one Germanic language existed. No Is there evidence that more than one Germanic language existed. Yes Is there evidence that only one Romance language existed. No Is there evidence that more than one Romance language existed. Yes Is there evidence that only one Indo-European language existed. No Is there evidence that more than one Indo-European language existed. Yes

But this is not just a 17th century language classification. The studies have continued until this century. So, if you think 400 years of science count for nothing, be my guest

Exactly my point. The English don't call themselves Germans and have no reason to, although they speak a Germanic language. In the same vein, old German is not a Celtic language, even if the Romans called them Celts.

You should not confuse the cultural similarities as they were percieved by the ancient Romans with the linguistic fact that Germanic languages and Celtic languages are two different families within the Indo-European languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages If you don't believe me, try to learn a Celtic langage and you will notice how different from English it is. English is a Germanic language with a huge dollop of Romance chucked into it due to the Norman invasion.

English likes to shorten things and make life difficult for translators with abbreviations etc. Our translations are bound to be longer. I'd say for now translate in a way that will sound natural and don't worry too much about string length. We might need to adjust the GUI for string length later, and not just for Spanish. It is a good idea to keep translations consistent with other games

This is what Scottish Highlanders call things now (those who still speak their own language): Gaul (country) = A'Ghall Celt (person) = Ceilteach You see the gal- root in Celts' names for themselves all over the place, from the Galatians in the East to the Irish and Scottish Gaels in the west. And of course they used to speak a Celtic language in Galiza, where our own Gallaecio comes from.

I mostly leave the specific names as they are and translate the generic names.

Da nich für When I have translated something, I always look at it again to make sure it sounds natural rather than having some form of "translatorese".

They probably called themselves by the name of the tribe they belonged to. Since there were multiple tribes, using a geographical term just like we to for the Gauls will have to suffice.

You're right. I only used that term because I coudn't think of the correct one.

How about: "Bewohnerin" / "Dorfbewohnerin" / "Bürgerin". English needs to add "female", becaue it doesn't have anything corresponding to the -in ending. We can drop that extra word in German.

Well, the ancient authors weren't modern historical linguists. It is a fairly recent discovery that the Celtic languages belong to the Indo-European family, so how would the Romans have known? There wasn't "one" Celtic people anyway, they consisted of diverse nations and were spread quite far, e.g. the Galatians mentioned in the Bible were Celts as well. To draw a modern parallel, I think everybody would agree that there's some difference in culture between Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Romania? They all speak Romance languages.

The progression is this: Indo-European -> Celtic Celtic -> Continental Celtic, Insular Geltic Continental Celtic -> Gallic, Lepontic ... Insular Celtic -> Brythonic, Goidelic Brythonic -> Welsh, Breton etc Goidelic -> Irish, Scottish Gaelic etc.

Thanks!

How about these for Germanic names: http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianSuevi.htm

The Huns came from the steppes beyond Russia. They are not a Germanic tribe, even if some English speakers use "Huns" as a (not so nice?) nickname for Germans now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns BTW the modern Suebes have their own Wikipedia http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwaben The sources I am citing are all in German. Alemannic I have done some research on the language: http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalemannisch We have written samples from the Monastery in St. Gallen http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fürstabtei_St._Gallen Writings date from 800 onwards. It seems that the Alemannic were a mixture of Germanic peoples, and there were some Roman and Celtic influences on their language. Also, they might have formed just a wee bit later than our time period (AFAIK in the 3rd century BC), so we should look into the Suebes and see what we can find. Suebic This is the modern language: http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwäbisch and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwäbischer_Dialekt And they cite a source for the etymology: Hermann Wax: Etymologie des Schwäbischen. Geschichte von mehr als 4.500 schwäbischen Wörtern. 2. erw. Auflage. Ulm 2005, ISBN 3-9809955-1-8 Most consider imodern Suebic a dialect of Alemannic Dictionary soruces: http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Wörterbücher#Schw.C3.A4bisch - this one might be useful: http://archive.org/details/schwbischesw00schmuoft About the old Suebi: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sueben And an English-language source about the Germans: Translation of The Geography of Claudius Ptolemy

Old Irish is the oldest form of Goidelic that we have good evidence for, so it could be used for the Britons. We could then go for the Brythonic branch for the Gauls, unless we find someone who can reconstruct enough continental Celtic for these phrases? Akerbeltz has been working off that list He's a linguist, lexicographer and translator, so you can be sure he will take grammar and pronunciation into consideration and not just the vocabulary with everything he posts Here is the list with proper formatting and necessary word censor cheat What is it? Coté?My lord? A thigerna?I will walk RegaI will go out against Rega assI will build Con·utsaI will work land TrebfaI will gather together TecalfaI will herd Bia oc ingaireI will fish Ad·cichlusI will attack! Do·fiusI will repair LesaigferI will hunt Do·sifiusI will heal ÍcfeaI will march! CichseaI will retreat! TeichfeaBattle cry In comram beós!I will garrison Géba dúnad