today breton language structure (and some ,comparisons with welsh)

MOESAN

Elite member
Messages
5,893
Reaction score
1,294
Points
113
Location
Brittany
Ethnic group
more celtic
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b - L21/S145*
mtDNA haplogroup
H3c
before sweating under work charge I ask:
is there somebody who would be interested by a little "survey" (not academical) about breton structure, seen through the english word-by-word spectacles? I find this way very valuable for every kind of foreign language structure - I 've chosen english because it is the modern "latin" on this forum.
I ahev time
thanks beforehand
 
Yes indeed, there's much to say about the structure of Breton, even compared with the structure of the other Celtic languages from which it is remarquably different. I am currently pretty busy but I'll be glad to read your thoughts about the matter.
 
Why is it the Welsh forefast: "Caer-" seemingly shows up a lot less in placenames than it's Breton alikemate: "Ker-"

Has I understand it "ker-" means nothing more than 'old man' why have the Bretons gone so overboard in using it in placenames...is it some kind of fetish for the bookstave: K?
 
Why is it the Welsh forefast: "Caer-" seemingly shows up a lot less in placenames than it's Breton alikemate: "Ker-"

Has I understand it "ker-" means nothing more than 'old man' why have the Bretons gone so overboard in using it in placenames...is it some kind of fetish for the bookstave: K?

Where did you see that "ker" means "old man" ? It means merely "village" or "housing", as it does in Welsh. It is apparently a borrowing from Latin "castrum" ("camp"). By the way, you have many "-chester" in England, originating from the same Latin word.

The reason why you have so few -caer in Wales is thus rather obvious : the Romans built very few "castra" in Wales, contrary to Gaul; Carmarthen (Welsh Caerfyrddin) is one of them, and you can still see the remains of the Roman city.

As for the "k", it was writen "c" in Middle Breton, and the word was exactly the same as in Welsh (i.e caer).
 
some corrections here:
kêr & caer are cognates from a root cagro, no link with # castr-um (see french placenames Castres, La Châtre, Chestres..the different meanings of 'kêr' show the same evolution as germanic tun (see celtic dun) and slavic grad (see brittonic garth, latin hortis, germanic gard) : i think firstable: "little village with enclosure" common at I-E first times in Europe, and after every kind of meanings as "big farm" (+ enclosure) as latin villa, or "town" (the village grew up), or fortress (for the enclosure):
in german and dutch tuin:zaun never took the meaning of town, but it did in english
at middle ages breton 'kêr' bore the meaning of "farm", which explains the big number of 'kêr-' villages and boroughs in Brittany -
this evolution (XV° century?) never occurred in welsh -
I suppose the differennce with ti:ty is that kêr implied "house" + "piece of land"
 
do find here a first sample about "breton structure" - the work is not perfect because we cannot translate every "tool"-word from language to language - but I think it could show the principal features of today breton syntaxe - I 'll go more in details and expliation in other posts, without theorizing- you can see immediately breton is not identical to french or english - conjugaison (persons) of versb is used only when subject is absent...
read well


As totally word-to-word syntaxe imitation is impossible and as the verb 'to be' in breton has sometimes several
forms for the same person-same time in the verbe 'to be' conjugaisons, I put: inflected personal forms for 'to be'
(basic):
«be-i», «be-thou», «be-he» = «be-she», «be-we», «be-you», «be-them», «be-one» (impersonal) – I keep «is»
(=zo/so welsh sy/sydd) as specific 'relative' unvariable present form behind subject – I put «stand» for the
'situational' form ema/emaint welsh y mae/y maent = maen nhw – the [] and () {= «who», «which», «that»,
subject or object, direct [] or indirect ()} are verbal particles which lost almost any signification by time - {} is
used before verb noun (infinitive: to-V.) to form participe,present as english ending -ing -
I am intelligent / you are stupid &: these affirmatives can be reversed....
intelligent be-i / stupid be-you
me is intelligent / you is stupid insistance on subject
I am reading / we are drinking
stay-me {}to-read / stay-we {}to-drink &: {} stay = staying
I is {}to-read / we is {}to-drink insistance on subject
I am working in a bank / everytime you go there
to-work [] do-me in a bank / to-go [] do-you to there everytime = everytime () go-you to there
me [] works-he in a bank / you [] goes-he there everytime insistance on subject
I have done that / they have broken that
done have-me that / broken have-they that
me have-me done that / the people have-he broken that insistance on subject
that have-me done / that have-he* the people broken insistance on complement
officially, and only for the verb 'to have', even when the subject is mentioned, breton says the people have-they ,
but colloquial breton says the people have-he, as for ordinary verbs (rule for other verbs: when the subject is
mentioned, the verb is always at the 3° singular person (= basic minimum element of the verb)-
even if today colloquial breton is influenced by french structure (unbalanced billinguism), good speakers can
still play with the words place order in sentances, to put the weight on the first word (it is possible only in
independant clauses or principal clauses at the beginning of the sentance:
&: keep in mind 'stay-he' is just 'stay' (basic form of the verb): cannot be used following subject
this form has been extended to all the persons in some breton dialects, when they was used only for third persons
in welsh and in other breton dialects – some breton dialects deny it the access to 'negative', as does welsh too
present: emaon / emaout / emañ:emei / emaomp / emaoc'h /emaint ( + emeur: «no person») , in place of:
ez on / ez out / ema-eñv:ema-hi / ez omp / ez oc'h / emant
My brother is writing a new novel with a typewriter in his bedroom now
stay-he my brother {}to-write a novel new with a typewriter in his bedroom now
my brother is {}to-write a novel new with a typewriter in his bedroom now
a novel new stay-he my brother {}to-write with a typewriter in his bedroom now
with a typewriter stay-he my brother {}to-write a novel new in his bedroom now
in his bedroom stay-he my brother {}to-write a novel new with a typewriter now
now stay-he my brother {}to-write a novel new with a typewriter in his bedroom
My girls sold (everyday, for job) fish in a shop of Brighton at that time
to-sell fish [] did-he my girls in a shop in Brighton at that time
my girls [] sold-he fish in a shop in brighton at that time
fish [] sold-he my girls in a shop in Brighton at that time
in a shop in Brighton () sold-he my girls fish at that time
at that time () sold-he my girls fish in a shop in Brighton
Revoir 'stay' pour «se trouver qqpart» 'ema' revoir aussi 'eo' 'is'
NEGATION breton 'ket' has no more signification (it correspond to dim/ddim in welsh: I put «nully» in its
place: compare also to french (ne ...) pas – same evolution in the three languages! (ne can disappear!)
I am not old / we are not ugly : the children are not here
not be-me «nully» old / not be-we «nully» ugly / not stand-he «nully» the children here
me not be-me «nully» old / we not be-we «nully» ugly / the children not stand-they «nully» here
I do not speak english / his cousins do not work there
not speak-me «nully» english / not work-he his cousins there
me not speak-me «nully» english / his cousins not work-they there
I have not done that / the people have not broken that
not have-me «nully» done that / not have-he «nully» the people broken that
me not have-me «nully» done that / the people not have-they «nully» broken that
&: do notice that the verb is always at the 3° singular person when subject noun is mentioned, at least at
affirmative, whatever it is singular or plural – at negative, complication: 3° singular person when the subject
follows the verb, but accord at the right person when the subject, noun or pronoun, precedes the verb -
&: expressive stress on adjective or direct complement (rarer in negative than in affirmative sentances or
clauses)
old not be-me «nully» / ugly not be-we «nully»
to-speak english not do-i «nully» / to-work there not do-he «nully» his cousins
&: even stronger stress on one element of the sentance:
It's him who wrote books for us last year / It's my sisters who are singing the medley here
he be-he° () wrote books for us last year / my sisters be-he° is singing the medley here
he the one be-he° () wrote books for us last year / my sisters the one be-he° is singing the medley here
It's books he wrote for us last year / It's the medley my sisters are singing here
books be-he° () wrote (he) for us last year / the medley be-he° stay-he° my sisters singing here
books the one be-he° () xrote (he) for us last year / the medley the one be-he° stay-he° my sisters singing here
It's last year he wrote books for us / It's here (that) my sisters are singing the medley
last year be-he° () wrote (he) books for us / here be-he° stay-he° my sisters singing the medley
last year the one be-he° () wrote (he) books for us / here the one be-he° stay-he° my sisters singing the medley
It's for us he wrote books last year
for us is () wrote (he) books last year
for us the one is () wrote books last year
It's not me!
Not be-he° «nully» me be-he°
It's not you that have killed the boy / It's not the boy you have killed
Not be-he° «nully» (be-he°) you have-he° killed the boy / Not be-he° «nully» (be-he°) the boy have-you killed
 
concerning kêr- I add that in romance dialect speaking Brittany (East, 'gallo' or 'gallais' dialect) we have the very equivalent with ville- for farms: Ville-Rio, Ville-Allain, Ville-Durand, Ville-Bouquet, Ville-Cario, Ville-Botherel, Ville-Guénomard, Ville-Tréhen, Ville-Tanguy, Ville-Duva, ..................................
a huge lot of kêrnewez/ar Gêrnewez (Guernevé) in W-Brittany were translated La Villeneuve
 
some corrections here:
kêr & caer are cognates from a root cagro, no link with # castr-um (see french placenames Castres, La Châtre, Chestres..the different meanings of 'kêr' show the same evolution as germanic tun (see celtic dun) and slavic grad (see brittonic garth, latin hortis, germanic gard) : i think firstable: "little village with enclosure" common at I-E first times in Europe, and after every kind of meanings as "big farm" (+ enclosure) as latin villa, or "town" (the village grew up), or fortress (for the enclosure):
in german and dutch tuin:zaun never took the meaning of town, but it did in english
at middle ages breton 'kêr' bore the meaning of "farm", which explains the big number of 'kêr-' villages and boroughs in Brittany -
this evolution (XV° century?) never occurred in welsh -
I suppose the differennce with ti:ty is that kêr implied "house" + "piece of land"

Thanks for your input.

So, Breton ker- (unlike it's Welsh alikemate: caer-) went on and unfolded to mean something else (like 'ton' did in English) whilst Welsh caer- stoodfast to it's older meaning - a bit like how Dutch and Deutsch 'ton' alikemates: tuin and zaun stand nearer to their older meanings (?)
 
Thanks for your input.

So, Breton ker- (unlike it's Welsh alikemate: caer-) went on and unfolded to mean something else (like 'ton' did in English) whilst Welsh caer- stoodfast to it's older meaning - a bit like how Dutch and Deutsch 'ton' alikemates: tuin and zaun stand nearer to their older meanings (?)

Yes, you understood 100% - some words meanings can evolve very far, but this doesn't occur everytime and not equally among the "cousin" and "brother" languages for every word or primiticve concept -
 
Yes, you understood 100% - some words meanings can evolve very far, but this doesn't occur everytime and not equally among the "cousin" and "brother" languages for every word or primiticve concept -

Seems as if the meanings behind caer and tuin/zaun/ton kept the same in their respective British and continental old homelands, and then shifted in meaning once fleeing Britons and settling English found themselves needing and settling lots of new land overseas.
 
Seems as if the meanings behind caer and tuin/zaun/ton kept the same in their respective British and continental old homelands, and then shifted in meaning once fleeing Britons and settling English found themselves needing and settling lots of new land overseas.

hard to say:
"enclosed village" seams the primitive meaning
after that, some specialisation: "militar inforced settlement" or "enclose farm" (big), after, the shift of meaning between "enclose farm" (lat- 'villa'>'villar-(um?)') to "village" and then to "town" is very natural when population encreased - maybe the shift to "town" was helped in concentrated settlements regions, not in the dispersed settlements ones?
hazard plays often a big role in these evolutions...
'tref' in welsh = "village" as in some ancient breton settlements - but today in breton 'trev' = "quarter of parrish"
'plwyf' (old term for "parrish")was rare and almost obslete in welsh and never applied to recent settelements - in Brittany it served to name almost all the first brittonic parrishes (Plou-/Plo-/Ploe-/Ple-/Plu-) VI°/VII° C. by opposition to gallo-roman parrishes - maybe the habits were different between central Brittons or south-western Brittons and western Brittons (Wales) - I 'll see in my docs about cornish parrishes
 
cornish tre(f) = "farm", "farm yard" + "village" >> plural treven, trevy = "houses" - trevow = "towns", "villages", "farms" : same large semantic field as in breton! in old cornish car = "fort"
 
the use of 'a ra-' << 'gra-' << 'gwra-', 'wra-' << *'wna- is not typical to only breton, for it 's found too in welsh and cornish (and with 'do' in english too) - but the uses are not exactly the same in details (nuance, words order) -
in breton, the usage is defective: only when subject is not before the verb nor the object, only with the infinitive form of the verb always before the auxiliary 'to do' and to mark an habit, or an action it its specificity, not in its actual realisation (# progressive form)
Kousked mad a reont pa vez yen an amzer. They sleep well when wheather is cold.
no possibility to say:
#Int kousked mad a ra pa vez yen an amzer.# Int a ra kousked mad... #
in cornish the subject mays precede the auxilliary 'to do' the usage is free enough concerning words orderin welsh, 'to do' <> gwna-/wna- mays only begin the sentance, and is used to express a polite question (present or immediate future) or a form of future -
all the way I feel this shared usage of 'to do' as auxilliary verb is maybe brittonic celtic, even in english (I don't know old germanic languages but it seems to me that in modern germanic languages, this form does not exist (somebody can confirm or contradict?)
 
cornish tre(f) = "farm", "farm yard" + "village" >> plural treven, trevy = "houses" - trevow = "towns", "villages", "farms" : same large semantic field as in breton! in old cornish car = "fort"

How old is the word: 'treven'? wondering why there are both sundry looking treven and 'trevy' plurals with the same meaning: 'houses'
Read somewhere that there was more oldentime Anglo-saxon/Norse influence in Cornwall than folk would think - is 'treven' with the -en plural ending, an early example of Old English shaping on Cornish(?) Has is still found in the lastname, 'Cotton' is the older plural for: 'cottages/cots/cotts' The -on plural ending in 'cotton' is the same has in child/children, ox/oxen, brother/brethren, sister/sistren, tree/treen, eye/eyen, shoe/shoon, knee/kneen and so forth. The -en in stuff like: chicken, kitten and maiden and so forth are diminutives to bespeak small size or a soft spot for something.

Hadn't cottoned on that the Germans have the cotton/cote (cottages/cottage) words in their language too...
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotten_(Haus)

Heed:
cotton (v.) "to get on with" someone (usually with to), 1560s, perhaps from Welsh cytuno "consent, agree."

cote (n.) Old English cote, fem. of cot (plural cotu) "small house, bedchamber, den" Applied to buildings for animals from early 15c.
 
How old is the word: 'treven'? wondering why there are both sundry looking treven and 'trevy' plurals with the same meaning: 'houses'
Read somewhere that there was more oldentime Anglo-saxon/Norse influence in Cornwall than folk would think - is 'treven' with the -en plural ending, an early example of Old English shaping on Cornish(?) Has is still found in the lastname, 'Cotton' is the older plural for: 'cottages/cots/cotts' The -on plural ending in 'cotton' is the same has in child/children, ox/oxen, brother/brethren, sister/sistren, tree/treen, eye/eyen, shoe/shoon, knee/kneen and so forth. The -en in stuff like: chicken, kitten and maiden and so forth are diminutives to bespeak small size or a soft spot for something.

Hadn't cottoned on that the Germans have the cotton/cote (cottages/cottage) words in their language too...
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotten_(Haus)

Heed:
cotton (v.) "to get on with" someone (usually with to), 1560s, perhaps from Welsh cytuno "consent, agree."

cote (n.) Old English cote, fem. of cot (plural cotu) "small house, bedchamber, den" Applied to buildings for animals from early 15c.

I 'll say as politics men: "excellent question"!!! I 've no ready at hand answer for this possible influence of anglo-saxon upon 'treven'
a word only is too scarce to make rules (when I' ve time I'll put my nose in my cornish books : a few!)
but brittonic celts are very magic and overpowered concerning plural endings: amazing! a sort of national sport with little gain (without speaking about internal plural "infected by 'I' ):
welsh:
-au / -ed / -ion / -oedd / -i / ...
breton:
-où / -ed / -ien / -ez:-er / -i / -ad / -ier / -eier / ...
I confess I 'm short concerning this unique plural word treven

for cott- I've no basis, but I don't know why I believed it was rather a french word
for name COTTON, a placename COTTUN exists in Calvados Normandy << COLTUN in 1035-37 (supposed germanic colo (personal name) + tûn town




-
 
A peculiarity of celtic languages is the conjugaison of prepositions, as for verbs:

example in breton:
(I shall do sometimes some comparisons to semitic or hamitic but I confess I have only very very superficial knowledge about thes languages structures: travel handbooks!)


gant («with» + «by» = agent)
ganin / ganit / gantañ / ganti / ganeomp / ganeoc'h / ganto (gante)
«with me» / «with thou» / «with him» / «with her» / «with us» / «with you» / «with them»
ewid («for» + «than» in colloquial br.)
ewidon / ewidout / ewitañ/ ewiti / ewidomp / ewidoc'h / ewito (ewite)
«for me» / «for thou» / .../ ...
it is found in every celtic language, but not for all prepositions and not everytime for the same prepositions, but the exceptions are seldom enough – in breton the following prepositions are congugated:
«to», «with», «by»: «through», «for», «than»(eged), «on»/»upon», «over», «under», «near», «without», «from-close», «between» (plural only!), «before», «behind», «according to» (+ someones I forgot!)
– this system evoques vaguely a similar one in semitic (and hamitic?) languages


the possession is shown by using postposition, without any preposition when the case is simple: only the name complement (possessor) has an article (determinant)
ti an tad : «the house of the father», «the father's house»
ti un ameseg : « the house of a neighbour»
ti ma zad : «the house of my father», «my father's house»
we can have like that a chain of nouns:
ti tad gwas ameseges ar mestr-skol : «the school-master's neighbour's husband's father's house» (is it correct in english?, surely very seldom!) or «the house of the father of the husband of the neighbour of the school-master»
this system exists also in semitic languages (but yet the germanic synthetical genitive case shows some similarity...)
prepositions come back when more precisions are required:
for indefinite, breton does the difference between living beings and inerte objects:
troad an den : «the man's foot»
mab an den : «the man's son»
troad an daol : «the table foot» or «the foot of the table»
un troad d' an den : «a foot of the man» («TO the man»)
ur mab d' an den : «a son of the man» ~# unaneus mabon an den : «one of the man's sons»
un troad eus an daol : «a foot of the table» («FROM the table»)
welsh has no article for indefinite, except when marking the uniqueness – breton has 'un', but only for singular - it is like in welsh for plural then -


adjectives (except someones, rare, the most of the time unisyllable ones) are almost everytime put after the noun they qualify – this is too the romance languages system, even in romanian, and again the semitic system, for I know; other I-E languages in Europe (germanic, baltic, slavic, greek... seem puting the epithete adjective (and the passed participle when playing the same role) before the noun – surely there are exceptions as always)

last weeks (if God maintains me alive) I speak about welsh and breton verbal structures and too about the complement personal pronouns (in fact: possessive adjectives!) - if I can, some comparisons to gaelic: all that superficially, because there is no place here to construct complete accurate languages courses! it is not the goal -
 
a little effort again

Breton syntaxe: continuing
I heard breton syntaxe was very different from welsh syntaxe: are we sure of a so big difference?


Action description (verb):
the both prefer a progressive form for present action, with help of the Verb «to be»:
the both have a form of «to be» at the 3°SP, different according to the respective places of Subject and Verb:
W: y mae y dyn yn y ty the man is (stays) in the house
B: ema an den en ti « « « «
W: y mae fym mab yn darllen my son is reading
B: ema ma mab o lenn « « « «
welsh uses less often an intensive form by placing an element at the beginning of the sentance, but the form of «to be» is the same by origin: then, in welsh, this «pole-position» has a stronger meaning than in breton which have more gradual forms to espress importance:
W: y dyn sy(dd) 'n y ty it is the man who is in the house
B: an den zo en ti the man he is in the house
an den eo zo en ti/ an den an heni (eo) zo en ti it is the man who is in the house
&: 'eo' (yw:ydy in welsh, is an other form of «to be» at the 3°SP: it follows the Adjective and precedes the Subject, only when it means: «it is ... that:who»)
W: fym mab sy(dd) 'n glaf it is my son who is sick
B: ma mab zo klañv my son he is sick
ma mab eo zo klañv/ ma mab an heni (eo) zo klañv it is my son who is sick
+
W: claf ydy fym mab «it is sick that my son is»
B: klañv eo ma mab «sick is my son»


&: in welsh (y)mae may be used with indefinite Subjects, not in breton:
W: ymae ci yn yr ardd the is a dog in the garden
B: boud ezh eus ur c'hi er jardrin « « « «


&&: in welsh as in some breton dialects, the «situation» form ymae=ema is used only at the affirmative form, and only at the 3°SP when the Subject is in the sentance (as for other verbs, NO conjugaison then) – hen the true Subject is a Pronoun, usually the pronoun doesn't appear before the Verb, and the Verb is conjugated at the right person: but in modern litterary breton, a regular form was forged for every person of the situation form of «to be», and used even at the negative form:
W: yr ydwyf / yr ydwyt / ymae ef / ymae hi / yr ydym / yr ydych / ymaent
B: (ezh) on / (ezh) out / ema-eñv / ema-hi / (ezh) omp / (ezh) oc'h / emaint
LB: emaon / emaout / emañ / emei / emaomp / emaoc'h / emaint
&: simplified welsh: shortened forms needing a Pronoun «Subject», postponed (no considered as S;)
SW: 'rtdw i / 'rwyt ti / 'mae e / 'mae hi / 'rydyn ni / 'rydych chi /(chwi) / 'maen nhw /
&: in some colloquial bretons, this posposition of Pronoun Subject exists too, but for insistance, stress:
CB: 'on-me / 'out-te / 'ma-eñv / 'ma-hi / 'omp-ni /' oc'h-c'hwi / 'maign int /


in both modern languages, the presence of a Subject implies the conjugaison of the Verbs at the 3°SP, whatever the tense (a bit more complicated for negative, in breton):
W: ti (a) dorrodd y pot = it's thou who brokes the pot – ymae y bobl yn wylo =the people are crying
B: te a dorras ar pod = thou, thou broke the pot - ema an dud o welañ = « « «
W: y wragedd a odrodd y fuwch = it's the wives who milked the cow
B: ar wragez a c'horas ar vuoc'h = the wives, they milked the cow
&: torrodd, ymae, torras, ema, godrodd, goras: all these Verbs are at the Singular 3°P, whatever the person of the Subject!


last post: comparison of welsh and breton concerning the negative
 
a little effort again

Breton syntaxe: continuing
I heard breton syntaxe was very different from welsh syntaxe: are we sure of a so big difference?


Action description (verb):
the both prefer a progressive form for present action, with help of the Verb «to be»:
the both have a form of «to be» at the 3°SP, different according to the respective places of Subject and Verb:
W: y mae y dyn yn y ty the man is (stays) in the house
B: ema an den en ti « « « «
W: y mae fym mab yn darllen my son is reading
B: ema ma mab o lenn « « « «
welsh uses less often an intensive form by placing an element at the beginning of the sentance, but the form of «to be» is the same by origin: then, in welsh, this «pole-position» has a stronger meaning than in breton which have more gradual forms to espress importance:
W: y dyn sy(dd) 'n y ty it is the man who is in the house
B: an den zo en ti the man he is in the house
an den eo zo en ti/ an den an heni (eo) zo en ti it is the man who is in the house
&: 'eo' (yw:ydy in welsh, is an other form of «to be» at the 3°SP: it follows the Adjective and precedes the Subject, only when it means: «it is ... that:who»)
W: fym mab sy(dd) 'n glaf it is my son who is sick
B: ma mab zo klañv my son he is sick
ma mab eo zo klañv/ ma mab an heni (eo) zo klañv it is my son who is sick
+
W: claf ydy fym mab «it is sick that my son is»
B: klañv eo ma mab «sick is my son»


&: in welsh (y)mae may be used with indefinite Subjects, not in breton:
W: ymae ci yn yr ardd the is a dog in the garden
B: boud ezh eus ur c'hi er jardrin « « « «


&&: in welsh as in some breton dialects, the «situation» form ymae=ema is used only at the affirmative form, and only at the 3°SP when the Subject is in the sentance (as for other verbs, NO conjugaison then) – hen the true Subject is a Pronoun, usually the pronoun doesn't appear before the Verb, and the Verb is conjugated at the right person: but in modern litterary breton, a regular form was forged for every person of the situation form of «to be», and used even at the negative form:
W: yr ydwyf / yr ydwyt / ymae ef / ymae hi / yr ydym / yr ydych / ymaent
B: (ezh) on / (ezh) out / ema-eñv / ema-hi / (ezh) omp / (ezh) oc'h / emaint
LB: emaon / emaout / emañ / emei / emaomp / emaoc'h / emaint
&: simplified welsh: shortened forms needing a Pronoun «Subject», postponed (no considered as S;)
SW: 'rtdw i / 'rwyt ti / 'mae e / 'mae hi / 'rydyn ni / 'rydych chi /(chwi) / 'maen nhw /
&: in some colloquial bretons, this posposition of Pronoun Subject exists too, but for insistance, stress:
CB: 'on-me / 'out-te / 'ma-eñv / 'ma-hi / 'omp-ni /' oc'h-c'hwi / 'maign int /


in both modern languages, the presence of a Subject implies the conjugaison of the Verbs at the 3°SP, whatever the tense (a bit more complicated for negative, in breton):
W: ti (a) dorrodd y pot = it's thou who brokes the pot – ymae y bobl yn wylo =the people are crying
B: te a dorras ar pod = thou, thou broke the pot - ema an dud o welañ = « « «
W: y wragedd a odrodd y fuwch = it's the wives who milked the cow
B: ar wragez a c'horas ar vuoc'h = the wives, they milked the cow
&: torrodd, ymae, torras, ema, godrodd, goras: all these Verbs are at the Singular 3°P, whatever the person of the Subject!


last post: comparison of welsh and breton concerning the negative

I remember once my Dad telling me about when he once went to Wales, and there was a man there with his wife from Brittany, and he told her to talk to one of the staff (who spoke Welsh) in Breton, and apparently they could understand each other to some degree. Pretty cool.
 
it is true only for basic words and some structures of sentances - but a fluent conversation between the two sorts of locutors is now impossible - that said, breton speakers learn more easily welsh than other people, for evident reasons -
phonetically, I believe the most difficult sound to understand for breton speakers is the welsh 'll' (spite some old dialectal breton speakers had in some head-positions a strong 'L' that is on the way to the welsh 'LL' BUT VERY CLEARER for ears!: a kind of /hlh/ it was -
this welsh 'LL' is even less clear in S-Wales, for I know, very far for any known /L/ sound -
 
Often enough it is said that the subtratum structural and phonological habits survive more easily than the lexical heritage in the languages imposed by a minority to a majority (concerning population number) -
Here I think I have an example involving breton, welsh and french:
the old negative system of I-Ean is based on the use of a word in *-N- ('in', ne', 'no' ...) - posted at the begining of the 'predicat'
The old system in welsh and breton herited from I-E functioned on the same model:
'nit'/'net' before vowels, modern: 'nid'/'ne'/'ned'/'nen(d)' - in other occurrences the 't' was dropped down – we can find a lot of occurrences in Middle Ages poetry – in french it was the same, with 'ne'...
Today it is no more the case: we have for : «He will not come!» (rather than «He shall not come.»)
welsh: «'Ddaw ef ddim(for: «Ni ddaw ef ddim!») dim = «any» >> «the smaller quantity?»
breton: «Ne zeui ket!» colloq. «'Zeui ket!» ket = «small quantity?» (lost today)
french: «Il ne viendra pascolloq. «Il viendra pas!» pas = «step» >> «further?»
&= these added little words (all of them monosyllabic!) had firstable a positive meaning even if sometime restrictive, not a negative one! They was put in the sentance to reinforce the negative meaning of the 'n-' particle; welsh and breton kept the lenition of the 1rst consonnant of the verb which followed the «died» negative particle – here 'd-' >> 'dd-'/'z-' ...
in the three languages (in old P-celtic lands), this added word stays after the verb, and in the three languages, the initial negative 'n-' is dropped down in everyday speach – what is remarkable is that this evolution seems occurred after the separation of these three languages, (even if someone could say the written records are conservative; but breton is separated from welsh since the 10°Century !)
welsh: «Dim dyn!» << «Nid dyn!» =«Not a man!» / breton: «Tamm!» = «Not a bit!» /
french «Pas un!» = No one!» - a positive word used to express a negative meaning -
Gaelic kept the old forms chan/nach in sentance beginning as in the remnant of romances languages
&: in french it is gone far creating the obligation to pronounce in 2 different ways the same word
plus = «more»:
«Je veux plus.» = «I want more.» - colloq. «J' veux plus.» [zh' vö plys]
«Je ne veux plus.» = I want no more.» (time or quantity) colloq. «J' veux plus.» [zh' vö ply]
 

This thread has been viewed 11984 times.

Back
Top