Talk:Arthur

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

Celts Low‑importance

	Arthur is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

Comics

Arthur comics could be added. http://arthur.leenks.com in english and http://www.fjandinn.com/arthur in Icelandic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.208.247.2 (talk • contribs).— Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those external links appears to be broken. Andrewa 05:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with disambiguation page

I don't understand why this page has been separated from Arthur (disambiguation). I think it would make more sense to have the people named Arthur and the places named Arthur all on a single page. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 13:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, because disambiguation pages are not valid link targets, and pages with actual information about a name should be valid link targets. Also, people with the first name or last name "X" but who are not commonly referred to as just "X" don't need to be disambiguated from articles that might actually be titled "X". (People who are known as just "Arthur" are on the Arthur (disambiguation) page.) For lots more previous discussion, see the various links on User:JHunterJ#Name articles. -- JHunterJ 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. -- JHunterJ 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very strange at the Arthur article that there are no non-fictional people listed and not even a link to this list. 213.64.236.190 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is a bit of a mess. There should be Arthur (surname), Arthur (given name), Arthur (disambiguation), and perhaps this page for etymology, etc. Right now the disamb. page has a far more useful list for people, when it shouldn't have any. Huw Powell (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

some linguistic input

If this name were in the English language since long ago (for example borrowed from Welsh during the Middle Ages),one would expect it to follow the general rule and have a voiced "th" sound, as in "Mather" or "brother". This should apply since "Arthur" cannot be split up, it is a single morpheme. If, however, the "h" in "Arthur" were some new spelling that only appeared 5 or 6 centuries ago, it would have easily acquired the voiceless "th" sound, in the same manner that "author" did (borrowed as "autor/auter" from French, then later spelled with "th" to make it look more classical, then eventually the pronunciation followed the new spelling). Jakob37 (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we know for a fact that the name was borrowed by the English from the Welsh during the Middle Ages and that it follows the Welsh pronunciation of the name (Jackson dates the shift from -rt- to -rth- in Neo-Brittonic to the 6th century, though it was obviously still being spelled -rt- centuries later, as orthography always tends to be conservative and doesn't always reflect actual pronunciation).Cagwinn (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

There might be another possible etymology source. Arthur, from Latin Artu, "Strongarm", the latin equivalent of Breifbras, Caradoc's epithet. (see section 5, http://levigilant.com/Bulfinch_Mythology/bulfinch.englishatheist.org/arthur/Caradoc-Vreichvras.htm) mjr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:b869:9b33:e8f0:9b84:48f7:67ad (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such word in Latin. Are you thinking of Latin artus "joint, sinew, limbs"? Regardless, it is highly unlikely that this is the source of the Welsh name Arthur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagwinn (talk • contribs) 05:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Names in early Welsh kingdoms which co-exist with Arthur's supposed timeline.

In Welsh history, there have been many rulers who were named; Arthafad, Arthen, Arthfael, Arthfoddw, Arthgal, Arthrwys, Arthog, Arthwdyw all sharing the prefix 'Arth', these were real names given to early Welsh kingdoms and are historically so, the name 'Arthur' has deep roots in Welsh history and even if some people do not believe that these names are related, it's one of the most compelling coincidence ever put on the table, if anyone besides cagwinn can reply to this, that would be great. I would like to see other people's view on this.. I already know Cagwinn's views, and in all due respects, I will not reply to that user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond anyway, because I wager there are few editors on Wikipedia who know more about this subject. 1) Arth is not a "prefix" (LOL!), but a root word; 2) Arthafad (spelled Arthavad in one manuscript containing the ABT) may be a corruption, as the name is also spelled Archenad in another manuscript and is treated as the epithet of a man name Cynan (and not as his father, as per the other MS); 3) Arthwdyw doesn't even exist! (I challenge you to cite a single medieval document in which this alleged name is to be found); 4) these were NOT "real names given to early Welsh kingdoms" (LOL, what are you even talking about??); the original Arthur was a 5th-6th century AD British general, not a king or ruler (he only began to be styled a king in later medieval legends). While it is of minor interest to the history of Welsh naming practices that arth "bear" was such a common element in personal names (and not just restricted to kings/rulers, as you seem to imply!!), it is not relevant to this article, as the name Arthur is not believed to be derived from this root. Cagwinn (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology moves from King Arthur

I've moved some etymology material from the main King Arthur article, as some of it was overly detailed for a basic overview like that article needs. I also updated the article to reflect some changes made there, notably a source indicating that the scholarly consensus is that "Arthur" derives from Latin Artorius.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audio recordings

@Hogyncymru: OK, so... what's the deal with these two pronunciations? The one vaguely labeled Arthur pronunciation is actually the Welsh pronunciation, presumably. If so, there should be a description saying as much. And what's the other one? What's an "Anglicization" of the name Arthur? Does that just mean "the English pronunciation"? Regardless, it also can use a label. Wolfdog (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]