Talk:List of Latin place names in Britain

Previous discussion

If anyone can be bothered, here's a good source: [1] Naturenet 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's an old version of the Wikipedia article List of Roman place names in Britain! rossb 08:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

How very ironic!! I wonder if this is a case for a merge? Naturenet 12:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The two articles were deliberately separated. List of Roman place names in Britain lists places that were given names in Roman times. The old version that's been mirrored here also included a number of places such as Oxford that were almost certainly not named in Roman times. List of British places with Latin names covers all Latin names of Btitish places, including those adopted in medieval times or later. rossb 12:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, best left well alone then. Thanks for your advice. Naturenet 13:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Not best left alone at all. Let's put the articles back. For one thing as it turms out there is not enough material for two articles. Second in your theory (whoever you is) you've got total overlap of Roman on Latin. If you had Roman and post-Roman then you would have the basis for two different articles. I would almost go for that suggestion - but - the name Roman is totally misleading, as I explained below. The Romans used the Celtic names with a Latin format. We could elaborate further and have Roman names based on Celtic names in Britain or have Celtic names in Britain with a column listing the Latin source. Or we could have Latinized Celtic names, but there again the Roman/post-Roman distinction would apply. But as I say there is not really enough material. The best thing is one article with all the Latin names in it. Then we could note in a column or a separate column which ones were devised in non-Roman times. If you have enough material for the post-Roman names it should be in Latinized English names of Britain. We aren't done with this topic yet. Bottom line: articles are supposed to cover distinct topics. These two topics are not distinct; Roman is a subset of Latin. Let's hear from you: suggestions, votes, approvals, disapprovals.Dave (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Naturenet amd RossBurgess: "best left well alone". Additionally I find that one is related to all Great Britain, while the second deals specifically with Scotland, Wales and England.--OneDalm0 (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Roman place names

These two articles are on non-distinct topics. A phony attempt was made to explain a distinction but the names are pretty much the same. The editors did not understand the situation, so let me explain it. When the Romans went to Britain they almost never devised their own names. When they did they usually used the names of emperors. No emperor especially the first one would tolerate a commander or official naming a place after himself or his friends, the way we do. The office of emperor was intended to prevent civil war by suppressing important republican contenders for power. And they were suppressed. Consequently the safest thing for a commander to do was retain the previous name of the place. Of course he rendered it into Latin. In Brtitain nealry all the places had Celtic names. The Romans just Latinized these. Londinium, for example, is the Latin version of a Celtic name. Since we do not know many details of the British Celtic language, despite the fact that Welsh descends from it, we are often uncertain about the previous Celtic name. So the Roman names and the Latin names are identical; naturally, the Romans spoke Latin. But few of these are native Latin; almost all are Celtic. Moreover, the Romans often combined the Celtic name with a Latin suffix, such as castra. There is just no distinguishing Roman names and Latin names in Britain. The article would have made better sense as Latinized Caltic names but I'm happy with the Latin names of Britain. Now you may comment.Dave (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with Naturenet amd RossBurgess: "best left well alone". Additionally I find that one is related to all Great Britain, while the second deals specifically with Scotland, Wales and England.--OneDalm0 (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the discussion is over: merger is not approved. I erase the tag. --OneDalm0 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What we know about Celtic names

As well you put it, Dave, in Brtitain nearly all the places had Celtic names. The Romans just Latinized these. However, we know surprisingly more about the Brittonic ancestor of Welsh, Cornish and Breton than is widely disseminated outside the academic journals wherein it is discussed. The Welsh word for London is Llundain. Using the Comparative method to compare this with the Romano-Celtic form Londinium and taking into account what we know about the morphology and regular diachronic sound changes in Celtic, we can reconstruct a Ancient Brittonic form *Loundenjo-m. This can be morphosyntactically parsed as *lou-nd-e-njom (wash-nd.ROOT.EXTENSION-e.THEMATIC.MARKER-njom.VERBAL.ACTION.RESULT.MARKER) 'result of washing action.' Whether such a name denoted a geographical feature such as bank or floodplain that was perceived to be the result of the 'washing' current of the tidal River Thames is open to discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.M.Gladehall (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

Ireland doesn't really seem to fit in with the "Continental, Ireland and Scandanavia" article, with only one entry, wouldn't make sense to haev its own article. How abot moving it to the British article? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Latin place names in Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506231742/http://www.roman-britain.org/geography/itinerary.htm to http://roman-britain.org/geography/itinerary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525214748/http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann.html to http://uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613065047/http://roman-britain.org/notitia.htm to http://roman-britain.org/notitia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)