Hahaaa! That's a great thought. Good on you, mate.

There's no Irish in there mate, unless you count words that are historical cognates: the Gaulish word "tengu" is clearly a cognate of the Irish word "teanga", but, as it so happens, that word "tengu" is attested in a Gaulish inscription of around the 2nd century BCE, as "pompetenguaios", "person who speaks five languages".

And how do you judge whether it "looks and sounds" Gaelic? Do you speak Gaelic or Irish? Do you read and write it fluently yourself, or do you base your judgement on a quick superficial glance, without, in actual fact, knowing what you're talking about? Sounds to me like that is the case. The sounds of Galathach and those of Irish and Gaelic are entirely different: Galathach has /th/, /dh/, /gw/ and /p/, the first three of which don't occur in any of the Goidelic languages, and the latter of which only occurs in loanwords. The *graphemes* /th/ and /dh/ are used in Gaelic and Irish, but they represent entirely different sounds: /th/ and /dh/ in Galathach are, respectively, voiceless and voiced dental fricatives; in Gaelic and Irish they are, respectively, /h/ and a voiced velar fricative. The same applies for the grapheme /sh/: in Galathach it is a sibilant, identical to English /sh/, in Gaelic and Irish /sh/ is /h/. Furthermore, the accent in Galathach falls on the penultimate syllable, like in Welsh, Cornish and Breton, while in Gaelic and Irish the accent falls on the first syllable. More importantly however, the Gaelic and Irish languages are very heavily infused with palatalised sounds, which are used extensively in the signalling of grammatical function and meaning, whereas, on the contrary, Galathach does not have any palatalised sounds whatsoever, at all. Is it the indication of long and short vowels by diacritics which makes you think it "looks" like Gaelic? Well, I've got news for you: 1. in Gaelic the accent used is a grave accent, i.e. it points in the other direction, and while it is true that Irish uses acute accents, and Galathach does too, the exact same thing can be said about at least half a dozen other European languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Hungarian and Greek. Even Breton uses a diacritic (a grave accent on the plural-forming suffix -où. So instead of making these broad, sweeping statements and betraying your ignorance, you'd be better off actually going to *listen* to some examples of Gaelic and Irish spoken language, and then come back and have another go.

Well, all i really want to know is where the Britons and the Goidels came from. If they were Celts, they weren't native to Britain. So if they didn't come from Gaul, where did they come from?

We were all taught in school and in history textbooks that the Celts came in three separate waves into Britain: Iberians, Goidels, and Britons: the last two waves coming from Gaul. And that after the English invasions, many Britons returned to Brittany (Armorica) from whence they had originally come.

Which would make Asterix Brythonic, because he is Armorican.😊

And if the Britons were native to Britain, then they (the Welsh) would not be Celts; because the Celts came to Britain. The natives would be Paleolithic and Neolithic, having arrived in prehistory, not the Celtic Britons.

Hey mate, how are you. Unfortunately that is not true. The word Gael comes from the older word Goidel, which is itself borrowed from the Old-Middle Welsh *gwydl- which meant "forest dweller, person from the bush, from the trees", from the Celtic root uidu- "tree, forest, wood", with a supposed meaning of "savage, uncivilised person". It is thought the word came into being in the period of Irish raiding into Britain, beginning around the 5th century CE, at the time of the Roman withdrawal from Britain.

@@GwirCeth You’re breaking down the meaning of the word, I am talking about how the word came into existence. But thanks for the insight I still learned a lot from it

@@bluetheminx That's exactly the point: the word came into existence due to the fact that the Welsh referred to the Irish as "savages, ferals, tree/forest dwellers". The superficial resemblance of the word Gael to the words Gallic and Gaul is coincidental: all three words derive from entirely different sources, and are not related to each other. If you're interested you can find a paper on this issue at the link given below. All the best. www.academia.edu/43950139/Gaulish_Gallic_Galatian_Celtic_and_Gaelic_What_They_Actually_Are

@@GwirCeth very interesting stuff. Ireland was also a pirates paradise for awhile.

@@bluetheminx Hahaaa! Yeah, that'll be right.

It is widely agreed upon that the Galatian language was essentially identical to Gaulish. So yes, definitely.

Thanks mate. it's definitely true there's not a lot on this language around, that;'s for sure.

On, dá, trí, pethr = aon dhà trì ceithir - yes, it's very similar indeed. Gum bi thu gu math, a chara.

Tha mi ag ionnsachadh Gàidhlig na h-Alba cuideachd, air Duolingo! Fiadhaich agus brèagha, is toil leam e gu mòr 💙🤍.

@@BinroWasRight Is fìor thoil leam an cùrsa aig Duolingo! Cia mheud latha a th' agad? Tha Gàidhlig mhath agad!

It does not. By saying that you show very clearly that you have no idea what the Irish language actually _sounds_ like. What you mean is that you think it _looks_ like the Irish language, in terms of orthography, i.e. the way it is written, and it shows that you don't understand the relationship between Irish orthography and its phonology, i.e. the way it sounds. Galathach uses some orthographic conventions that are also used in Irish, like indicating fricativised consonants with a /h/ next to them: th, sh, ch, gh, dh etc. You will find, without looking very far at all, that these exact same conventions are also found in, by way of non-comprehensive example, in English, French, Welsh, Cornish, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German, to name but a few. Galathach also uses the orthographic convention of indicating vowel length (and sometimes emphasis) by diacritics: á, é, í, ó, ú. You will find, again, that this exact same convention is used widely in other languages, and, again to name but a few, you will find it in French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Icelandic, Hungarian, and even occasionally in English. I invite you to have a closer look at graphic language representation in general, and to _listen_ to languages rather than look at how they are written. All the best.

@@GwirCeth I was basing it off of how it sounded, I have quite good idea of how Irish and other celtic languages sound, what I mean is it sounds quite similar to Irish but it is a P-Celtic language. It has a similar sound to it and the word order seems very similar to me, even the name of the song has the same word grammar as in Irish and every word in the title is a clear cognate with Irish. It sounds similar because they are both Celtic and modern Irish is slightly closer, in my opinion, to proto-celtic. I wasn't basing it on the words having fricativised consonants or accented vowels, I was on about words that were cognates with Irish, such as Gaulish 'sen' and Irish 'sean'. Overall, I said it sounded like Irish gaelic because although it was P-Celtic and is similar to all of the Celtic languages, to me it sounded more like an unintelligible version of Irish than Welsh or Breton

@@user-wu4ss3dq1b Fair enough, if that's what you hear. The cognates are definitely there, there is no doubt about that. It is thought by scholars working with the Gaulish language that it was quite close to Primitive Irish, and if you look at the very old Ogham inscriptions you can see that. It is obviously also quite close to Old Welsh, and as a matter of fact I find Old Welsh easier to read and understand than modern Welsh for that reason. And there are definitely some Gaulish words that have cognates in Irish that don't have any in the Brittonic languages. The word "tengu", which you referred to above, is one of those: it is attested in an inscription from Gallia Cisalpina (as "tengua"), not too sure from what era exactly of the top of my head, possible from around the 4th century BCE, and it is clearly cognate with modern Irish teanga, there's no doubt about that. Brittonic does not have a cognate with that, instead using two entirely different roots: W. iaith/Br. yezh, and C. tavas. Welsh orthography also tends to mask a lot of underlying cognates, and makes them quite hard to recognise: e.g. Gaulish co-, con-, com-, Irish co-, comh-, but Welsh cy-, cyf-, Breton kem-, etc. They are definitely there if you know how to recognise them, but they are less immediately and graphically obvious. Word order of VSO is shared between Irish/Gaelic, Welsh and Gaulish, and underlies Breton and Cornish, although it is now secondary in Breton, and only vestigial in Cornish. Other words are easier to recognise in Irish because the sound changes distinguishing them are a bit different: to use the example you used above, Gaulish sen "old" = Irish sean = Welsh/Br/C hen. But while Irish sean closely resembles Gaulish sen, it actually _sounds_ like /shan/, so it's quite different really. Etc. Personally I find that the sound of Irish/Gaelic is very different from that of modern Gaulish: the frequent heavy palatalisation of consonants, and the near-complete absence of fricatives (with the exception of the velar ones, ch, gh and dh, which is pronounced like gh) puts it quite a long way apart, to my ear. Phonologically there really is quite a strong distinction between Irish and modern Gaulish, whereas with Welsh especially there is a very strong and marked phonological similarity; much less so with Breton, which is heavily influenced by French in phonology and grammar, features a lot of nasalised sounds, and has lost its dental fricatives /th, dh/ in favour of /z/. Anyway, if that's what you hear it's fair enough.

Slánu adhith! Esi i mó haruer imí, esi mi láen och arwéra í adhith, mó gomp.

@@GwirCeth Brathu ti ré imeth. Gwéia mi ti rathu.

@@runanukunova500 Bráthu ré hélu, mó caran. In samal adhith.

Hey mate, how are you. It's based on the latest attested Gaulish data, from around the early 5th century, the Chateaubleau Tile, and it's projected forwards into the 21st century. It has been systematically put through such sound changes as were discernible in the record of the language before it ceased to be attested, and has been endowed with some grammatical features embryonically found in its last records, but quintessential and endemic to the surviving modern Celtic languages. So, the fifth century, time-machined forwards into the 21st century. It is NOT the same as Old Gaulish, in the exact same way that modern English, French, Welsh, Irish and Greek are NOT the same as Old English, Old French, Old Welsh, Old Irish and Ancient Greek.

Well mate, I'm happy to hear that you know all about it. Please feel free to go ahead and show us how it's done. We'll sit here and wait. Let us know when you're finished. In the mean time, it might be a good idea if you went back to the website and this time actually tried to understand what is written there. Other than that, we'll address a few of your criticisms here. 1. "reconstruction is made with base in Brythonic languages": not true. If you bother to have a good look you will see that all the research going into this reconstruction and renovation is solidly based in the Gaulish data. There's a thing called "references", they are the funny little names of people between brackets with dates next to them. They refer to authors who have written things, in this case about the Gaulish language, and the dates are the years they were published. If you went and looked at one, by way of random example, you would find that they make reference to data and research that is relevant to the points being discussed in the text. That's why they're called "references". Who would have thought. It is true however that a comparative study of _all_ the contemporary surviving Celtic languages has been made (you'll find that in those references too), and that some grammatical features of some of those languages were adopted to make our language functional in a way that aligns with the fundamental nature of all modern Celtic languages, and mostly by default, when certain grammatical functions were not attested in the old Gaulish data, and left a void which it was vital to fill. 2. "though these are not as related to Gaulish": as related as what else? Finish your sentence. 3. "There's not much real linguistic base to say this is similar at all to how Gaulish sounded like": go to the section on Sound Changes here "moderngaulish.org/orthography-phonology-sound-changes", and read it. 4. "Gaulish was very different to insular celtic languages": this is where we introduce a concept called "time". You might have heard of it. Gaulish was last attested a good 200 years before the first attestation of Old Irish, and 300 years or more before the first attestation of Old Welsh. Gaulish at that time was an inflected Indo-European language with cases expressed in word endings. At the time it was last attested, i.e. the early 5th century, so were all those other languages: Brittonic and Goidelic, as well as Latin and Greek, to just stick with the languages spoken in Western Europe at that time. While Greek is still inflected to this day (but not spoken in Western Europe), the descendants of those other ones are not. There is no trace of any inflections in Old Welsh, or in the Oath of Strasbourg, the first attestation of Old French. That indicates that Vulgar Latin lost its inflections. Old Irish retained a version of a case system, but _not_ through word endings, but through a combination of different features (initial consonant mutations and palatalisation of word-final consonants, in case you're interested). So, in the fifth century Gaulish, Latin, Brittonic and Goidelic are inflected. In the seventh century they are not. It's due to a process of, on the one hand and very roughly speaking, phonetic erosion, and on the other hand, and this may come as a surprise to you, a thing called "evolution". You might have heard of that as well. Compare for instance, if you can bring yourself to make the mental effort, the difference between current 21st century English or French _spelling_ and English or French _pronunciation_. The spelling of those two languages was standardised in the 16th and 17th centuries, and has since been fossilised in time, i.e. the language has evolved way past the line in the sand that they drew, and the spelling has not kept up with it. This is pretty common knowledge. That's why you can't compare what Old Gaulish "looked like" with what modern Welsh or Irish "look like". You would be comparing a three year-old boy to a grown man, and saying "look, the three year-old doesn't have a beard or hair on his balls, he's not the same species". 5. The sound shift of c and p: this is entirely irrelevant. For one it happened many centuries before Gaulish became extinct, and for another, as you say yourself, Gaulish was manifestly p-Celtic, as was Brittonic. The fact that there are a small handful of names attested that were written with a /q/ means nothing: in some cases, like on the Coligny calendar, the same word is also attested with a /c/, and in other cases there are phonetic explanations available that allow these sounds to be interpreted as other than /q/ (e.g. equos < *peku-pos "cattle/animal foot", with regular pan-Celtic loss of inherited IE /p/. In case you're wondering, it's on the website). Moreover, and more to the point, Gaulish consistently shows /p/ in instances of inherited /q/, as in e.g. the word prenno-, where Goidelic languages have crann-. In other words, the point you're trying to make there is pointless and besides the point. 6. "A better reconstruction of Gaulish would be through a much more attested influence of Lepontic and similar Celtic languages north to Italy in Roman 'Galia Cisalpina' and the Celtiberian language": Lepontic is widely considered to be an earlier, more archaic form of Gaulish itself and was last attested around 300 BCE, from memory. The language of Gallia Cisalpina is thought to have been identical to the language of Gallia Transalpina, but that doesn't achieve very much, because apart from personal names and place names, there is very little of it recorded; and what there is of it is also from no later than the 2nd century BCE, i.e. a good 150 years before the invasion of Gallia Transalpina. It doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on what the language was like 500 years later. Celtiberian: you have got to be joking, surely. Celtiberian is a) a /q/ Celtic language and quite divergent in phonology and grammatical features from Gaulish, and b) not attested after the 2nd century BCE. Again it is completely irrelevant, and has no bearing whatsoever on the state of the Gaulish language 500 years later. 7. "Gaulish [was] a subfamily of Celtic languages with lots of different languages within the family." I think the word you're scratching around for here is "dialects". No one will dispute that it is highly likely that there was dialectalisation in the Gaulish language, although all the attested linguistic data show a remarkable degree of homogenuity in time and space, i.e for a long time over great distances, e.g. from Glasgow to Vienna. However, this is also, again, completely irrelevant to the discussion. All languages have dialects. While dialectalisation is an important factor in the process of sound changes and linguistic evolution, there is not enough attested of the Gaulish language, of any period of time, to be able to draw viable and defensible conclusions about any dialectalisation. While there is an exhaustive volume called "Dialects of Ancient Gaul", by Joshua Whatmough, the scholarship dates from 1949, is completely outdated, and is now widely regarded as amounting to science fiction. So whether Gaulish had dialects or not (it certainly would have) is of no relevance to the reconstruction and revival of the language, because we don't know what they were like. 8. "The website in its 'reconstruction' of Gaulish is plain wrong because it assumes Gaulish was Brythonic when it wasn't, there's plenty of evidence that points to that not being the case": There's a bloke called Tacitus, you might have heard of him. He was reasonably famous back in the day, and a fair number of people have read the books he wrote. He travelled to Britain in the first century CE, and wrote a book about it, as you do. In it he wrote "the Brittonic language is virtually the same as the Gaulish language" (my paraphrasing). He associated with Gaulish speaking people in Gaul, and with Brittonic speaking people in Britain. I think it would be fair to say that he might have had a reasonable idea of what he was talking about. You might not agree with him of course, because you clearly seem to know better. 9. "The language sounds more of a reconstruction of a Brythonic language with certain Goidolic influences": So you speak both a Brittonic language and a Goidelic one then, so you can tell the difference? That's great. Which ones? Please let us know. 10. "Grabbing a language and modifying it is not how language reconstructions work." Well, I'm happy we cleared that up. Thanks very much for letting us know. I would hate to think that we've been barking up the wrong tree all these years. Lucky you're there to point out the error of our ways.

@@GwirCeth This is the quite possibly the greatest retort I have ever seen. Great work btw!

@@themap6154 Hahaaa! Thanks mate. These things happen, ey, you get all these people who know everything about everything all day, every day, instant experts. It's a pain in the arse. And they don't listen to a word anyone says, so what do you do.

We're happy you like, mate.

Yes, it was pretty amazing and exciting.

No worries, Jean Michel. It's our pleasure. We're happy you like it.

Hey Liam, how are you mate. Thanks for that, we're happy you like it. There will definitely be more coming.

Hey Andrea. We have just published a book of lessons in French, and are now working on a book of lessons in German, which will be the fourth one in the series (including English, Italian, French and German). It'll be coming out soon.

That's awesome to hear, thanks.

That's exactly right, mate.

Goodday Andrea, how are you. Sorry, I've only just found your comment. The construction of new words is discussed in detail in the paper found at the following link. Have a look, you might find it interesting. www.academia.edu/20910880/The_Generation_of_New_Words_in_the_Modern_Gaulish_Language

There is a lot of common ground with Old Welsh, definitely. No surprise there. But the French phrase "Pays de Galles" does not refer to Gaul, it refers to the word "Wales": the initial /w/ is rendered as /g/ in French; compare e.g. French "guerre" with English "war", or "garde" with "ward": same word origin.

@@GwirCeth Diolch am 'adael imi wybod .

​@@GwirCeth Hi! I was wondering if you could make dialogue like videos for people to see the language spoken and not only un singing form :D

@@AndreaMastacht-lj4in Yes, that would be very good to have indeed. There's a series of spoken language videos that you can find here: kzbin.info/aero/PLhTUHvgCLoUCbcfWMuGSyAYR_834H4rWw. There is one of them where there is a conversation between two speakers of the language. It's a bit rough, but it was spontaneous and unscripted: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6ivkoV8i5aMia8

​@@GwirCethAlso, do you know if the Cumbric revival has any online pages? It seems interesting too

@@AndreaMastacht-lj4in Hey Andrea. I don't know about the Cumbric revival. I know some of the people that are and have been involved in it, and there certainly is some online material available, but I don't know where to find it. There's a bloke called Linden Pentecost who's had a lot to do with it, you can find him on Facebook, he would be able to provide you with more information.

Hey, how are you. The movie is called Gladiatress, there's a link here. It is awesome, very, very funny. I hope you enjoy it. > www.imdb.com/title/tt0339072/

@@GwirCeth Thank you for the movie, with love from Galatia

@@runanukunova500 No worries, it's my pleasure. I hope you enjoy the movie, I think it's fantastic, very clever and very, very funny.

That's exactly right! It's neither like one or the other, but somewhere in the middle between the two. We're happy you like it mate. Come and join us and speak it and work with it > www.facebook.groups/moderngaulishlanguage.

No worries, Lev, we're working on it mate. Watch this space.

​​@@GwirCethT'iach What do you think about registering a language code? It would be great if Modern Gaulish had its own language code, this would be a very big step in development. As far as I know, conlags can get ISO 639-3 language code. I made a post about it on Facebook, I don’t know if you saw it. Although, maybe Modern Gaulish already has a language code? But if not, then there is a serious opportunity to get it.

@@Edarnon_Brodie Yes, it's a great idea. We'll get onto it.

How did this go? Did you get to make a language code? ​@@GwirCeth

This is sung by an Australian folk band called The Gall. The revival of Gaulish is going well, it is regularly used by an international community of people.

@@GwirCeth I see that group in Facebook lost some people... Don't know what this is connected with? I sent an application to the group, but it has not yet been accepted. I hope that soon there will be more members in the group and more people will know about modern Gaulish.

@@Edarnon_Brodie I'll have a look now, Lev.

@@Edarnon_Brodie I just had a look, Lev, I can't see your name there. Did you go to the right one? It's facebook.com/groups/moderngaulishlanguage. There's almost 700 members in the group. Maybe you went to a wrong group? If you give me your FB name I'll send you an invitation now.

@@Edarnon_Brodie Or did you go to the group on VK Kontakte, the Russian one?

Hey Matt, how are you. In terms of reconstructing a perfect and comprehensive grammatical paradigm, no there's not enough Gaulish attested to do a proper reconstruction. All reconstructions you will find out there rely very heavily on the grammatical features of Latin and Old Irish, as far as verbal and nominal declensions are concerned. We do not have one single complete nominal or verbal conjugation, in any word class or verb class. All we have are disjointed fragments. There's a lot of vocabulary around, and verbal stems in a variety of tenses, moods and aspects, but nowhere near enough to tie it all together. That's why we have taken the vocabulary, put it through sound changes that are attested in the historical Gaulish data, and reduced all grammar to a minimal amount, in order to arrive at a fully functional language that can actually be used for everyday purposes, like talking about the weather and writing shopping lists. We have also adopted some grammatical features shared by all surviving Celtic languages, on the basis that these are genetic features, some of which are well attested in the Gaulish material, some of which are suggested in an embryonal state, and some of which are speculative. Hope this helps.

Thanks mate. Well, yes, there is that of course.

In case someone is looking for it now. Most of the scenes are from Barbarians Rising a docudrama from History Channel, a series I enjoyed personaly and King Arthur a movie with Keira Knightly and Clive Owen.

Thanks Terry. We're happy you enjoy it.

Ooooo now that would be cool if they had their own script. Considering Gaulish history, I’d say that the Greek script would be a classic fit for them! Although I like the way Galáthach hAthevíu is on its own already with the Latin script. They also couldn’t go wrong with inventing their own unique script based on Greek and Latin letters. Ogham is lovely, but it’s tied with the Q celtic/Goidelic branch of languages (from Irish), where Gaulish is related to the P Celtic/Brythonic branch.

@@Beleidigen-ist-Pflichtbro uses thorn 💀at least use eth too to be consistent

Awesome, good on you.

​@@GwirCeth Brathu

@@darkdevil905 good

How did you discover such a specific details? Which tests have you done?

Hey Ibericus, how are you mate. We can teach you. Come on over to facebook.com/groups/moderngaulishlanguage. We'll answer all your questions and provide learning resources. See you there.

Oui, ca serait super, en effet.