Bibliography
Guto
Rhys
Theses
Rhys, Guto, “Approaching the Pictish language: historiography, early evidence and the question of Pritenic”, PhD thesis, University of Glasgow, 2015.
abstract:
The question of ‘the Pictish language’ has been discussed for over four hundred years, and for well over two centuries it has been the subject of ceaseless and often heated debate. The main disagreement focusing on its linguistic categorisation – whether it was Celtic, Germanic (using modern terminology) or whether it belonged to some more exotic language group such as Basque. If it was Celtic then was it Brittonic or Goidelic? The answer to such questions was of some importance in ascertaining to whom the Scottish past belonged. Was it to immigrant Irish, conquering Germanic peoples or native Britons? The twentieth century saw the normalising of the view that it was closely related to Brittonic with some erudite scholars maintaining that another, non-Celtic language, was also spoken in Pictland. The debate subsequently shifted to focusing on just how close was the relationship between Pictish and Neo-Brittonic. Was Pictish simply a northerly dialect variant of the latter or was it indeed a more distinct and perhaps conservative form, evolving independently in an area outwith Roman power and linguistic influence? Recently, as the field of Pictish studies was subjected to both linguistic and historical scrutiny, discussions have become significantly more sophisticated, but the core question remains, as to whether Pictish distinctiveness merits the label ‘dialect’ or ‘language’, as the Venerable Bede himself stated. This thesis will investigate this core issue by providing an overview of previous thinking and scrutinising the evidence for early divergence. It is intended as groundwork for much needed further studies into this field.
(source: Abstract)
University of Glasgow: <link>
abstract:
The question of ‘the Pictish language’ has been discussed for over four hundred years, and for well over two centuries it has been the subject of ceaseless and often heated debate. The main disagreement focusing on its linguistic categorisation – whether it was Celtic, Germanic (using modern terminology) or whether it belonged to some more exotic language group such as Basque. If it was Celtic then was it Brittonic or Goidelic? The answer to such questions was of some importance in ascertaining to whom the Scottish past belonged. Was it to immigrant Irish, conquering Germanic peoples or native Britons? The twentieth century saw the normalising of the view that it was closely related to Brittonic with some erudite scholars maintaining that another, non-Celtic language, was also spoken in Pictland. The debate subsequently shifted to focusing on just how close was the relationship between Pictish and Neo-Brittonic. Was Pictish simply a northerly dialect variant of the latter or was it indeed a more distinct and perhaps conservative form, evolving independently in an area outwith Roman power and linguistic influence? Recently, as the field of Pictish studies was subjected to both linguistic and historical scrutiny, discussions have become significantly more sophisticated, but the core question remains, as to whether Pictish distinctiveness merits the label ‘dialect’ or ‘language’, as the Venerable Bede himself stated. This thesis will investigate this core issue by providing an overview of previous thinking and scrutinising the evidence for early divergence. It is intended as groundwork for much needed further studies into this field.
(source: Abstract)
Contributions to journals
Rhys, Guto, “Afon Clwyd: cynnig geirdarddiaethol newydd”, Studia Celtica 52 (2018): 179–182.
abstract:
Ym 1945 cynigiodd Ifor Williams yn betrus fod enw afon Clwyd i'w egluro oherwydd yr arfer o osod clwydau ynddi. Byddai hyn yn deipolegol anarferol gan nad yw afonydd Celtaidd mawrion yn dwyn enwau gwrthrychau o'r fath. Cynigir yma ei fod yn deillio o'r un gwreiddyn Indo-Ewropeg ond gyda'r ystyr afon â nifer o droeon neu un rymus sy'n cludo.
In 1945 Ifor Williams tentatively suggested that the name of the river Clwyd in north-east Wales was to be explained as deriving from its homographic common-noun which means a hurdle. This would be typologically curious as large Celtic rivers do not bear the names of such objects. Here it is argued that it may derive from the same Indo-European root with the sense of a meandering river or a powerful one.
In 1945 Ifor Williams tentatively suggested that the name of the river Clwyd in north-east Wales was to be explained as deriving from its homographic common-noun which means a hurdle. This would be typologically curious as large Celtic rivers do not bear the names of such objects. Here it is argued that it may derive from the same Indo-European root with the sense of a meandering river or a powerful one.
abstract:
Ym 1945 cynigiodd Ifor Williams yn betrus fod enw afon Clwyd i'w egluro oherwydd yr arfer o osod clwydau ynddi. Byddai hyn yn deipolegol anarferol gan nad yw afonydd Celtaidd mawrion yn dwyn enwau gwrthrychau o'r fath. Cynigir yma ei fod yn deillio o'r un gwreiddyn Indo-Ewropeg ond gyda'r ystyr afon â nifer o droeon neu un rymus sy'n cludo.
In 1945 Ifor Williams tentatively suggested that the name of the river Clwyd in north-east Wales was to be explained as deriving from its homographic common-noun which means a hurdle. This would be typologically curious as large Celtic rivers do not bear the names of such objects. Here it is argued that it may derive from the same Indo-European root with the sense of a meandering river or a powerful one.
In 1945 Ifor Williams tentatively suggested that the name of the river Clwyd in north-east Wales was to be explained as deriving from its homographic common-noun which means a hurdle. This would be typologically curious as large Celtic rivers do not bear the names of such objects. Here it is argued that it may derive from the same Indo-European root with the sense of a meandering river or a powerful one.
Guto Rhys, “Worlds of Arthur [Review of: Guy Halsall, Worlds of Arthur: facts and fictions of the Dark Ages (2013)]”, in: Kelten: Mededelingen van de Stichting A. G. van Hamel voor Keltische Studies 65 (2015): 10.
