Editing Celtic languages (section)

== Classification ==
[[File:Celtic language family tree.svg|250px|thumb|Classification of Celtic languages according to Insular vs. Continental hypothesis. ''(click to enlarge)'']]
[[File:IndoEuropeanTree.svg|250px|thumb|Classification of Indo-European languages. ''(click to enlarge)'']]

[[File:Map of Celtic Nations-flag shades.svg|right|250px|thumb|upright=0.8|The [[Celtic nations]], where Celtic languages are spoken today, or were spoken into the modern era:
{{legend|#009E60|[[Ireland]] ([[Irish language|Irish]])}}
{{legend|#0072C6|[[Scotland]] ([[Scottish Gaelic]])}}
{{legend|#D3B04A|[[Isle of Man]] ([[Manx language|Manx]])}}
{{legend|red|[[Wales]] ([[Welsh language|Welsh]])}}
{{legend|#FFD700|[[Cornwall]] ([[Cornish language|Cornish]])}}
{{legend|black|[[Brittany]] ([[Breton language|Breton]])}}
]]
[[File:Bronce de Botorrita II.jpg|250px|thumb|upright=1.35|The second of the four [[Botorrita plaque]]s. The third plaque is the longest text discovered in any ancient Celtic language. However, this plaque is inscribed in Latin script.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&dq=botorrita+ii&pg=PA233 Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia] {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170331025501/https://books.google.com/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&lpg=PA233&ots=p-RudfBy1H&dq=botorrita%20ii&pg=PA233#v=onepage&q=botorrita%20ii&f=false|date=31 March 2017}}; Koch, John T.; Vol 1, p. 233.</ref>]]
Celtic is divided into various branches:

* [[Lepontic language|Lepontic]], the oldest attested Celtic language (from the 6th century BC).<ref name="Schumacher" /> Anciently spoken in [[Switzerland]] and in Northern-Central [[Italy]]. Coins with Lepontic inscriptions have been found in [[Noricum]] and [[Gallia Narbonensis]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Percivaldi |first1=Elena |title=I Celti: una civiltà europea |date=2003 |publisher=Giunti Editore |page=82}}</ref><ref name="kruta2" /><ref>{{cite book |last=Stifter |first=David |title=Old Celtic Languages |date=2008 |pages=12 |url= http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf |access-date=19 December 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20121002035607/http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf |archive-date=2 October 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>MORANDI 2004, pp. 702–703, n. 277</ref>
* [[Celtiberian language|Celtiberian]], also called Eastern or Northeastern Hispano-Celtic, spoken in the ancient [[Iberian Peninsula]], in the eastern part of [[Old Castile]] and south of [[Aragon]]. Modern provinces: Segovia, Burgos, Soria, Guadalajara, Cuenca, Zaragoza and Teruel. The relationship of Celtiberian with [[Gallaecian language|Gallaecian]], in northwest Iberia, is uncertain.<ref>{{cite book |last=Prósper |first=B.M. |title=Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del occidente de la península ibérica |date=2002 |publisher=Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca |isbn=84-7800-818-7 |pages=422–27}}</ref><ref>Villar F., B. M. Prósper. (2005). ''Vascos, Celtas e Indoeuropeos: genes y lenguas. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca''. pgs. 333–350. {{ISBN|84-7800-530-7}}.</ref>
* [[Gallaecian language|Gallaecian]], also known as Western or Northwestern Hispano-Celtic, anciently spoken in the northwest of the peninsula (modern [[Northern Portugal]], and the Spanish regions of [[Galicia (Spain)|Galicia]], [[Asturias]] and northwestern [[Castile and León]]).<ref>"In the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically between the west and north Atlantic coasts and an imaginary line running north-south and linking Oviedo and Merida, there is a corpus of Latin inscriptions with particular characteristics of its own. This corpus contains some linguistic features that are clearly Celtic and others that in our opinion are not Celtic. The former we shall group, for the moment, under the label northwestern Hispano-Celtic. The latter are the same features found in well-documented contemporary inscriptions in the region occupied by the Lusitanians, and therefore belonging to the variety known as LUSITANIAN, or more broadly as GALLO-LUSITANIAN. As we have already said, we do not consider this variety to belong to the Celtic language family." Jordán Colera 2007: p.750</ref>
* [[Gaulish]] languages, including [[Galatian language|Galatian]] and possibly [[Noric language|Noric]]. These were once spoken in a wide arc from [[Belgium]] to [[Turkey]]. They are now all extinct.
* [[Brittonic languages|Brittonic]], spoken in [[Great Britain]] and [[Brittany]]. Including the living languages [[Breton language|Breton]], [[Cornish language|Cornish]], and [[Welsh language|Welsh]], and the lost [[Cumbric]] and [[Pictish language|Pictish]], though Pictish may be a sister language rather than a daughter of [[Common Brittonic]].<ref>[[Kenneth H. Jackson]] suggested that there were two Pictish languages, a pre-Indo-European one and a ''[[Pritennic|Pritenic]]'' Celtic one. This has been challenged by some scholars. See [[Katherine Forsyth]]'s ''"Language in Pictland: the case against 'non-Indo-European Pictish{{' "}} '' {{cite web |url= http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/archive/00002081/01/languagepictland.pdf |title=Etext |access-date=20 January 2006 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060219054300/http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/archive/00002081/01/languagepictland.pdf |archive-date=19 February 2006 |url-status=live}}&nbsp;{{small|(27.8&nbsp;[[Megabyte|MB]])}}. See also the introduction by James & Taylor to the ''"Index of Celtic and Other Elements in W. J. Watson's 'The History of the Celtic Place-names of Scotland{{' "}}'' {{cite web |url= http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/institutes/sassi/spns/INDEX2INTRO.pdf |title=Etext |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060220054951/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/institutes/sassi/spns/INDEX2INTRO.pdf |archive-date=20 February 2006}}&nbsp;{{small|(172&nbsp;[[Kilobyte|KB]] )}}. Compare also the treatment of Pictish in Price's ''The Languages of Britain'' (1984) with his ''Languages in Britain & Ireland'' (2000).</ref> Before the arrival of Scotti on the Isle of Man in the 9th century, there may have been a Brittonic language there. The theory of a Brittonic [[Iverni#O'Rahilly's theory|Ivernic language]] predating Goidelic speech in Ireland has been suggested, but is not widely accepted.<ref name="Koch06" />
* [[Goidelic languages|Goidelic]], including the extant [[Irish language|Irish]], [[Manx language|Manx]], and [[Scottish Gaelic]].

=== Continental/Insular Celtic and P/Q-Celtic hypotheses ===
Scholarly handling of Celtic languages has been contentious owing to scarceness of primary source data. Some scholars (such as Cowgill 1975; McCone 1991, 1992; and Schrijver 1995) posit that the primary distinction is between [[Continental Celtic languages|Continental Celtic]] and [[Insular Celtic languages|Insular Celtic]], arguing that the differences between the Goidelic and Brittonic languages arose after these split off from the Continental Celtic languages.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/opinionated-celtic-faqs/celtic-languages/ |title=What are the Celtic Languages? |work=Celtic Studies Resources |access-date=18 September 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171010203551/http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/opinionated-celtic-faqs/celtic-languages/ |archive-date=10 October 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> Other scholars (such as Schmidt 1988) make the primary distinction between P-Celtic and Q-Celtic languages based on the replacement of initial Q by initial P in some words. Most of the Gallic and Brittonic languages are P-Celtic, while the Goidelic and Hispano-Celtic (or Celtiberian) languages are Q-Celtic. The P-Celtic languages (also called [[Gallo-Brittonic languages|Gallo-Brittonic]]) are sometimes seen (for example by Koch 1992) as a central innovating area as opposed to the more conservative peripheral Q-Celtic languages. According to [[Ranko Matasović]] in the introduction to his 2009 ''Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic'': "Celtiberian&nbsp;... is almost certainly an independent branch on the Celtic genealogical tree, one that became separated from the others very early."<ref>{{cite book |first=Ranko |last=Matasović |date=2009 |title=Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic |location=Leiden |publisher=[[Brill Publishers|Brill]] |page=13 |url=https://archive.org/details/EtymologicalDictionaryOfProtoCeltic |via=Internet Archive}}</ref>

The Breton language is Brittonic, not Gaulish, though there may be some input from the latter,<ref>{{cite book |last=Barbour and Carmichael |first=Stephen and Cathie |title=Language and nationalism in Europe |date=2000 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |page=56 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=1ixmu8Iga7gC&q=Breton%20Gaulish%20words&pg=PA56 |isbn=978-0-19-823671-9}}</ref> having been introduced from Southwestern regions of Britain in the post-Roman era and having evolved into Breton.

In the P/Q classification schema, the first language to split off from Proto-Celtic was Gaelic. It has characteristics that some scholars see as archaic, but others see as also being in the Brittonic languages (see Schmidt). In the Insular/Continental classification schema, the split of the former into Gaelic and Brittonic is seen as being late.

The distinction of Celtic into these four sub-families most likely occurred about 900 BC according to Gray & Atkinson<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nature02029 |last1=Gray |first1=Russell D. |last2=Atkinson |first2=Quentin D. |title=Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=426 |issue=6965 |pages=435–439 |date=2003 |pmid=14647380 |bibcode=2003Natur.426..435G |s2cid=42340 |url= https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d6aef57c-ce30-40fb-8786-f64c4a70afd1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1096-0031.2003.tb00299.x |last1=Rexova |first1=K. |last2=Frynta |first2=D. |last3=Zrzavy |first3=J. |date=2003 |title=Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data |journal=[[Cladistics (journal)|Cladistics]] |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=120–127 |s2cid=84085451}}</ref> but, because of estimation uncertainty, it could be any time between 1200 and 800 BC. However, they only considered Gaelic and Brythonic. A controversial paper by Forster & Toth<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Forster |first1=Peter |last2=Toth |first2=Alfred |date=2003 |title=Toward a phylogenetic chronology of ancient Gaulish, Celtic, and Indo-European |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] |volume=100 |issue=15 |pages=9079–9084 |pmid=12837934 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1331158100 |pmc=166441 |bibcode=2003PNAS..100.9079F |doi-access=free}}</ref> included Gaulish and put the break-up much earlier at 3200 BC ± 1500 years. They support the Insular Celtic hypothesis. The early Celts were commonly associated with the archaeological [[Urnfield culture]], the [[Hallstatt culture]], and the [[La Tène culture]], though the earlier assumption of association between language and culture is now considered to be less strong.<ref name="Renfrew">{{cite book |last=Renfrew |first=Colin |author-link=Colin Renfrew |title=Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins |date=1987 |publisher=[[Jonathan Cape]] |location=London |isbn=0224024957}}</ref><ref name="James">{{cite book |last1=James |first1=Simon |title=The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? |date=1999 |publisher=[[British Museum]] Press |location=London |isbn=0714121657}}</ref>

There are legitimate scholarly arguments for both the Insular Celtic hypothesis and the P-/Q-Celtic hypothesis. Proponents of each schema dispute the accuracy and usefulness of the other's categories. However, since the 1970s the division into Insular and Continental Celtic has become the more widely held view (Cowgill 1975; McCone 1991, 1992; Schrijver 1995), but in the middle of the 1980s, the P-/Q-Celtic theory found new supporters (Lambert 1994), because of the inscription on the Larzac piece of lead (1983), the analysis of which reveals another common phonetical innovation ''-nm-'' > ''-nu'' (Gaelic {{lang|ga|ainm}} / Gaulish {{lang|xtg|anuana}}, Old Welsh {{lang|owl|enuein}} 'names'), that is less accidental than only one. The discovery of a third common innovation would allow the specialists to come to the conclusion of a [[Gallo-Brittonic languages|Gallo-Brittonic]] dialect (Schmidt 1986; Fleuriot 1986).

The interpretation of this and further evidence is still quite contested, and the main argument for Insular Celtic is connected with the development of verbal morphology and the syntax in Irish and British Celtic, which Schumacher regards as convincing, while he considers the P-Celtic/Q-Celtic division unimportant and treats Gallo-Brittonic as an outdated theory.<ref name="Schumacher">{{cite book |last1=Schumacher |first1=Stefan |last2=Schulze-Thulin |first2=Britta |last3=aan de Wiel |first3=Caroline |title=Die keltischen Primärverben. Ein vergleichendes, etymologisches und morphologisches Lexikon |date=2004 |publisher=Institut für Sprachen und Kulturen, [[University of Innsbruck]] |isbn=3-85124-692-6 |pages=84–87 |language=de}}</ref> Stifter affirms that the Gallo-Brittonic view is "out of favour" in the scholarly community as of 2008 and the Insular Celtic hypothesis "widely accepted".<ref>{{cite book |last=Stifter |first=David |title=Old Celtic Languages |date=2008 |pages=11 |url= http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf |access-date=19 December 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20121002035607/http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/download/Stifter/oldcelt2008_1_general.pdf |archive-date=2 October 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref>

When referring only to the modern Celtic languages, since no Continental Celtic language has living descendants, "Q-Celtic" is equivalent to "Goidelic" and "P-Celtic" is equivalent to "Brittonic".

How the family tree of the Celtic languages is ordered depends on which hypothesis is used:
{{col-begin|width=50%}}
{{col-2}}
"'''Insular Celtic hypothesis'''"
{{tree list}}
* [[Proto-Celtic language|Proto-Celtic]]
** [[Continental Celtic languages|Continental Celtic]] {{extinct}}
*** [[Celtiberian language|Celtiberian]] {{extinct}}
*** [[Gallaecian language|Gallaecian]] {{extinct}}
*** [[Gaulish]] {{extinct}}
** [[Insular Celtic languages|Insular Celtic]]
*** [[Brittonic languages|Brittonic]]
*** [[Goidelic languages|Goidelic]]
{{tree list/end}}
{{col-break}}
"'''P/Q-Celtic hypothesis'''"
{{tree list}}
* [[Proto-Celtic language|Proto-Celtic]]
** Q-Celtic
*** [[Celtiberian language|Celtiberian]] {{extinct}}
*** [[Gallaecian language|Gallaecian]] {{extinct}}
*** [[Goidelic languages|Goidelic]]
** [[Gallo-Brittonic languages|P-Celtic]]
*** [[Gaulish]] {{extinct}}
*** [[Brittonic languages|Brittonic]]
{{tree list/end}}
{{col-end}}

=== Eska (2010) ===
Eska<ref>Joseph F. Eska (2010) "The emergence of the Celtic languages". In Martin J. Ball and Nicole Müller (eds.), ''The Celtic languages''. Routledge. {{ISBN|9781138969995}}</ref> evaluates the evidence as supporting the following tree, based on [[comparative method#Terminology|shared innovations]], though it is not always clear that the innovations are not [[areal feature]]s. It seems likely that Celtiberian split off before Cisalpine Celtic, but the evidence for this is not robust. On the other hand, the unity of Gaulish, Goidelic, and Brittonic is reasonably secure. Schumacher (2004, p.&nbsp;86) had already cautiously considered this grouping to be likely genetic, based, among others, on the shared reformation of the sentence-initial, fully inflecting relative pronoun ''*i̯os, *i̯ā, *i̯od'' into an uninflected enclitic particle. Eska sees [[Cisalpine Gaulish]] as more akin to Lepontic than to Transalpine Gaulish.

{{Tree list}}
*'''Celtic'''
**[[Hispano-Celtic languages|Hispano-Celtic]] {{extinct}}
***[[Celtiberian language|Celtiberian]] {{extinct}}
***[[Gallaecian language|Gallaecian]] {{extinct}}
**[[Nuclear Celtic languages|Nuclear Celtic]]
***[[Cisalpine Celtic]]: [[Lepontic language|Lepontic]] → [[Cisalpine Gaulish]] {{extinct}}
***Core Celtic (secure)
****[[Transalpine Gaulish]] {{extinct}} ("Transalpine Celtic")
****[[Insular Celtic languages|Insular Celtic]]
*****[[Goidelic languages|Goidelic]]
*****[[Brittonic languages|Brittonic]]
{{Tree list/end}}

Eska considers a division of Transalpine–Goidelic–Brittonic into Transalpine and Insular Celtic to be most probable because of the greater number of innovations in Insular Celtic than in P-Celtic, and because the Insular Celtic languages were probably not in great enough contact for those innovations to spread as part of a [[sprachbund]]. However, if they have another explanation (such as an [[Subject–verb–object|SOV]] [[Stratum (linguistics)|substratum]] language), then it is possible that P-Celtic is a valid clade, and the top branching would be:

{{Tree list}}
*Core Celtic (P-Celtic hypothesis)
**[[Goidelic languages|Goidelic]]
**[[Gallo-Brittonic languages|Gallo-Brittonic]]
***[[Transalpine Gaulish]] ("Transalpine Celtic") {{extinct}}
***[[Brittonic languages|Brittonic]]
{{Tree list/end}}

=== Italo-Celtic ===
Within the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] family, the Celtic languages have sometimes been placed with the [[Italic languages]] in a common [[Italo-Celtic]] subfamily. This hypothesis fell somewhat out of favour after reexamination by American linguist [[Calvert Watkins]] in 1966.<ref>[[Calvert Watkins|Watkins, Calvert]], "Italo-Celtic Revisited". In: {{cite book |title=Ancient Indo-European dialects |editor-last=Birnbaum |editor-first=Henrik |editor2=Puhvel, Jaan |date=1966 |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |location=[[Berkeley, California|Berkeley]] |oclc=716409 |pages=29–50}}</ref> Irrespectively, some scholars such as Ringe, Warnow and Taylor and many others have argued in favour of an Italo-Celtic grouping in 21st century theses.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ringe |first1=Don |last2=Warnow |first2=Tandy |last3=Taylor |first3=Ann |title=Indo-European and Computational Cladistics |journal=Transactions of the Philological Society |date=March 2002 |volume=100 |issue=1 |pages=59–129 |doi=10.1111/1467-968X.00091 |citeseerx=10.1.1.139.6014 |url= https://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/RWT02.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060222105246/http://www.cs.rice.edu/%7Enakhleh/CPHL/RWT02.pdf |archive-date=22 February 2006 |url-status=live |access-date=12 May 2019}}</ref>