Why in EB II Celtic units have „hellenised” names ending with „oi”(in EB Gaesatae, Solduros, in EB II Gaisatoi, Solduroi)? Similarly Aruernoi instead Arverni, why it was changed?
Printable View
Why in EB II Celtic units have „hellenised” names ending with „oi”(in EB Gaesatae, Solduros, in EB II Gaisatoi, Solduroi)? Similarly Aruernoi instead Arverni, why it was changed?
There are linguists in the team, who understand Keltic languages far better than me, but what happened was that EB actually used latin spellings, Gaelic/Welsh words, or even faulty grammar...
For example Solduros is correct, but it means "the Solduros" singular, hence it was changed to its plural form Solduroi...
Gaesatae is on the other hand a Latin transcription, afaik it is debated whether it should be (in Gaulish) Gaisates or Gaisatoi...
What looks like hellenised names are the proper o-stem Keltic nouns, one of the declensions in that linguistic family...
While the -i ending, as in Arverni, it is found in later inscriptions, due to the influence of Latin (something not fitting the starting date of 272 BCE)...
Elmetiacos is doind a total overhaul of the linguistics for all the Keltic factions, plus the Leusitane (Lusitani), which will hopefully be featured in the coming release :)
OK, I am not an expert in celtic languages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Sounds great!Quote:
Elmetiacos is doind a total overhaul of the linguistics for all the Keltic factions, plus the Leusitane (Lusitani), which will hopefully be featured in the coming release :)
To add to what Arjos said, when the names were done and tossed around, at that time many moons ago), I thought the best way, and most sourced way, was to write the names similar to how they were written in various finds. In EB's timeframe the Gallic factions generally used Greek alphabets, especially in southern France and the Rhone river networks. Therefore, to streamline the naming process many units use -oi instead of the more Latinized -i, and after conquest Latinized ways of writing naturally phased out the Greek.
Also, to make the job easier and again more streamlined, I followed French translation books and dictionaries from Delamarre, Savignnac, and Y. P. Lambert in creating names and spelling conventions. The letter v is replaced with u, while others use w, so you have something like this:
Latin: Vercingetorix, Aedui, Arverni
EB: Uerkingetorix, Aeduoi, Aruernoi
Other alternatives: Werkingetoriks, Haedui, Arwerni
There are various ways I have seen Gallic language reconstructions spelled. However, the v to u, -i to -oi, c to k, etc. seems the most accepted/popular way to render Gaulish, but that does not make the other ways wrong. Had to choose something :)
It’s possible way for Gauls, but what about Britons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
I personally prefer solution from EB I with western „latinised” barbarians (Iberians, Celts) and eastern „hellenised” barbarians (Illyrians, Thracians).Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
Do you tell something more about Elmetiacos project?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
And sorry for my bad English ;p
Basically a lot of what I'm doing is ironing out small errors in spelling and grammar, and removing names in modern Irish or Welsh to be replaced by the actual forms considered to have been extant in the EBII period. Also, there has been a lot of new material come to light and subject to more focussed study on the Lusitanian language in the 10 years since EB began: it can't be regarded as some weird form of Celtic any more.