Talk:Vortiporius

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Was this gentleman mythical or legendary? Did he actually live?

Article updated[edit]

Replaced the stub with an article and updated the banners. Notuncurious (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guo2tepir & G6rdeber[edit]

Can I suggest that the names be spelled Guortepir and Gwrdeber? The use of symbols here could be confusing for non-specialists and could hamper searches.Cagwinn (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, yes ... I used those forms in an effort to be more literally correct, but that was only my take at the time. Perhaps, change the text to show both (eg, instead of "In the Jesus College MS. 20 he is G6rdeber.", say "In the Jesus College MS. 20 he is G6rdeber [Gwrdeber].", but go with your best instincts.

And no need for preliminary discussions except when you think the changes might be controversial; you "own" the article as much as anyone else, so please improve it whenever you see the need. If anyone has a problem, they can revert or go to the talk page. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Memorial Stone[edit]

This article suggests that the honorand of the memorial stone, Uoteporix (VOTECORIGAS), is the same person as Uorteporix (= Gildas' Uortipori, Guortepir of the Old Welsh genealogies), when this can hardly be the case, unless Gildas and the later genealogists have corrupted the name; Uorteporix and Uoteporix are two separate names with slightly different meanings in Brittonic. The article should be amended to note this fact.Cagwinn (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed different, to my understanding ... the issue is specifically discussed by John Rhys in the cited reference (citation number 17) – click on that link and it takes you to his article at google books. Any comments? Perhaps the best way to go would be to add an explanatory note summarising his discussion, for the sake of other readers who note the apparent problem. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys' article was written more than a hundred years ago - the field of Celtic linguistics has advanced significantly since then (and you will find few modern scholars citing him as a source - his work is now considered rather unreliable). For more recent scholarship on the name, see the notes on this inscription at the Celtic Inscribed Stone Project website:. Patrick Sims-Williams' comments best represent current thinking on the names Uortiporix and Uoteporix (quoting CISP: "Sims-Williams/1990 {Sims-Williams, P. (1990) `Dating the transition to Neo-Brittonic: Phonology and History, 400--600', in A. Bammesberger and A. Wollman (eds.) Britain 400-600. Language and History, 217--261. Heidelberg}, argues, however, that the difference between *Vo- and *Vor- cannot be ascribed to problems with the transmission of Gildas (see Jackson/1953, 625 note 1), and that the names are not the same, nor were the people. He also argues, however, that the two probably belonged to the same dynasty.").Cagwinn (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through those references, and they don't seem to resolve the issue, and tracking down those cited at CISP (parenthetically, I went through their very good site and related ones in some detail, in order to come up with this map and several others) mostly express uncertainty (except Sims-Williams, who you are quoting as the definitive authority, I think).

For linguistics Rhys is dated (though not always irrelevant), but the crux is the possible error in transmission, and to that linguistics is a significant part, but not the only part. And then again also, Rhys' argument is cast into possible doubt by the excitement of the times, at finding a stone that "obviously" refers to someone known from Gildas. And we also have the likelihood that a form of "Irelsh/Welrish" existed, given the long (and much understated) interaction between Ireland and Britain, as well as the local bilingual interaction in Dyfed, and a definitive linguistic argument would need to consider that.

How about this: I'll add a section (not just a paragraph) noting your points and quoting Sims-Williams contention. If it doesn't measure up to where you think it should be, we can go from there. Sound like a reasonable plan? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sims-Williams is a careful and precise scholar and makes use of a very stringent methodology in his analysis of ancient British and Irish names - his analysis holds a lot weight, at least among Celticists. If you have not yet read his book "The Celtic inscriptions of Britain: phonology and chronology, c.400-1200", I can highly recommend it (he discusses the Uoteporix/Uortiporix problem on pp. 346-7 - you can read these pages online via Google Books). Your plan sounds very reasonable to me.Cagwinn (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the mention of the stone in the lead paragraphs, and changed the title and text of the section that discusses the memorial stone. Is this a bit closer to what you were thinking? I haven't read the book, nor his work on Welsh inscription stones; they would be of interest, and I'll probably read them eventually, but my list of 'read asap' is already so long that it will probably be some time before I can give it its proper due. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - though the formatting is a little off now - huge gap between the paragraphs in the memorial stone section. One other note - in the first paragraph of the article, the line "the contemporary Welsh spelling is Votiporigis and the corresponding contemporary Gaelic spelling is Votecorigas" should be either dropped or modified to reflect your changes. To get really pedantic on you, *Uoteporix is the proper nominative form in Brittonic (*Uoteporigos was the genitive, Latinized here as Uoteporigis); similarly, in Ogam Irish *Uotecoris would have been the nominative, Uotecorigas being the genitive. The faux-Latinized form Uortiporius likely stands for an original Brittonic *Uorteporix, genitive *Uorteporigos (or maybe a derivative, *Uorteporigios, gen. *Uorteporigii, Latinized as Uorteporius, gen. Uortepori).Cagwinn (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gap is "deliberate" ... I inserted a {{clear}} so that there would not be one line across the page right above the 2nd image, with the rest of the lines adjacent to the image ... it may qualify as a lesser bad way to go; it certainly doesn't look much better. Removed that offending line in the first paragraph (you're right, it's better without it). I don't have a good reference for the the original Brittonic forms and cases, but think it would a plus to add the information (but only with some form of citation or reference; there are too many uncited etymologies and hypothetical reconstructions in wikipedia, based on who-knows-what). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]