Bibliography

Tatyana (Tatyana A.)
Mikhailova
s. xx–xxi

11 publications between 2005 and 2019 indexed
Sort by:

Works edited

Mikhailova, Tatyana, Jonathan Roper, Andrey Toporkov, and Dmitry S. Nikolayev (eds), Oral charms in structural and comparative light. Proceedings of the Conference of the ISFNR Committee on Charms, Charmers and Charming 27-29th October 2011 Moscow, Moscow: PROBEL-2000, 2011.
– eprint: <link>
Mikhailova, Tatyana, Maxim Fomin, and Grigory Bondarenko (eds), Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium of Societas Celto-Slavica, held in Moscow (14–17 September 2006), Studia Celto-Slavica, 2, Moscow: Moscow State University, 2009. 236 pp.
Mikhailova, Tatyana, A. Muradova, and D. Nikolaev (eds), Magija formuly [The magic of a formula], Moscow: Thesaurus, 2009.
Mikhailova, Tatyana (ed.), Mifologema jentshini-sudbi u drevnih keltov i germancev [Woman as Fate in Old Germanic and Celtic tradition], Moscow: Indrik, 2005.

Contributions to journals

Mikhailova, Tatyana, “A reply to Repanšek’s review of Mikhailova, Gall’skij jazyk (JCL 19)”, Journal of Celtic Linguistics 20 (2019): 121–126.
Tsvetoukhina, Maria, Tatyana Mikhailova, and Grigory Bondarenko, “The Ulster Cycle in Russia”, Emania 21 (2013): 5–13.
Mikhailova, Tatyana, “Once again on the pre-Celtic substratum in the British Islands [Response to Ranko Matasović]”, Journal of Language Relationship 8 (2012): 160–164. URL: <http://www.jolr.ru/article.php?id=101>.
Mikhailova, Tatyana, “Глухой лабиовелярный и его место в классификации кельтских языков [Voiceless labiovelar stop in Celtic and its role in the classification of Celtic languages]”, Journal of Language Relationship 2 (2009): 79–90. URL: <http://www.jolr.ru/article.php?id=19>. 
abstract:
The most obvious phonological distinction between the two main branches of Celtic languages (Goidelic and Brittonic) involves the outcome of the unvoiced labiovelar */kw/. In Goidelic it was delabialized in most environments and merged with /k/, but in Brittonic it became fully labialized and yielded /p/. This basic difference, proposed by John Rhys in 1882, has given rise to the unfortunate terms “P-Celtic” (Welsh, Cumbric, Cornish and Breton) and “Q-Celtic” (Irish, Scottish and Manx). The Continental Celtic languages (Gaulish, Lepontic and Celtiberian) show some fluctuations in regard to this sound, and it is highly probable that they represented allophonic variants of Proto-Celtic *qw for a very long time (in spite of the depth of divergence of Proto-Celtic — appr. 1200 BC according to glottochronological calculations). Toponymic and ethnonymic data of later periods (400 BC — 400 AD) demonstrate that the variants of this sound were acoustically similar to the speakers, especially within the zone of their prominent contacts — West of Scotland and North-East of Ireland. We therefore presume that this most important element of Celtic historical phonology cannot serve as a distinctive principle in the construction of the tree diagram of Celtic languages and only makes more obscure the scheme of their development.
abstract:
The most obvious phonological distinction between the two main branches of Celtic languages (Goidelic and Brittonic) involves the outcome of the unvoiced labiovelar */kw/. In Goidelic it was delabialized in most environments and merged with /k/, but in Brittonic it became fully labialized and yielded /p/. This basic difference, proposed by John Rhys in 1882, has given rise to the unfortunate terms “P-Celtic” (Welsh, Cumbric, Cornish and Breton) and “Q-Celtic” (Irish, Scottish and Manx). The Continental Celtic languages (Gaulish, Lepontic and Celtiberian) show some fluctuations in regard to this sound, and it is highly probable that they represented allophonic variants of Proto-Celtic *qw for a very long time (in spite of the depth of divergence of Proto-Celtic — appr. 1200 BC according to glottochronological calculations). Toponymic and ethnonymic data of later periods (400 BC — 400 AD) demonstrate that the variants of this sound were acoustically similar to the speakers, especially within the zone of their prominent contacts — West of Scotland and North-East of Ireland. We therefore presume that this most important element of Celtic historical phonology cannot serve as a distinctive principle in the construction of the tree diagram of Celtic languages and only makes more obscure the scheme of their development.

Contributions to edited collections or authored works

Mikhailova, Tatyana A., “Geneta Viscara: the element caro- in Gaulish compound names and inscriptions”, in: Raimund Karl, and Katharina Möller (eds), Proceedings of the second European Symposium in Celtic Studies: held at Prifysgol Bangor University from July 31st to August 3rd 2017, Hagen/Westfalen: curach bhán, 2018. 71–86.
Mikhailova, Tatyana A., “Ireland’s ‘five fifths’: a new look”, in: Katja Ritari, and Alexandra Bergholm (eds), Approaches to religion and mythology in Celtic studies, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2008. 192–204.
Mikhailova, Tatyana A., “Macc, cailín and céile — an Altaic element in Celtic?”, in: Hildegard L. C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic languages in contact: papers from the workshop within the framework of the XIII International Congress of Celtic Studies, Bonn, 26-27 July 2007, Online: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2007. 4–24.

As honouree

Parina, Elena A., Victor V. Bayda, and Andrej V. Sideltsev (eds), Слово, знание и учение / Focal, fios agus foghlaim: Сборник статей в честь юбилея Татьяны Андреевны Михайловой [Festschrift in honour of Tatyana A. Mikhailova], Moscow: Maks Press, 2020.

As honouree

Parina, Elena A., Victor V. Bayda, and Andrej V. Sideltsev (eds), Слово, знание и учение / Focal, fios agus foghlaim: Сборник статей в честь юбилея Татьяны Андреевны Михайловой [Festschrift in honour of Tatyana A. Mikhailova], Moscow: Maks Press, 2020..