Talk:English loanwords in Irish

message: While accepting that this may not be an area with a large depth of published academic debate, and with some trepedation that I'll start a distracting ("purist" V "evolutionary") debate on the use of cross-over terminology in Irish, I have flagged this article with a WP:OR tag.
For the OR tag to be removed (at the very least) the title itself (Béarlachas) would need some kind of reference to a secondary (ideally academic or published) source confirming meaning/usage of the term "Béarlachas" to refer to "Irish with English forms". (There probably is something if someone looked hard enough - I think I remember a Bord na Gaeilge discourse some time back.... :)
Beyond the OR issues, and as already tagged, the main body has no other citations, diversions to supporting texts, or any discussion on where/why/how this type of thing occurs. (Which might bear overlooking if the text did not read like a thinly veiled commentary on the correctness (or otherwise) of English/Irish crossover forms.)
A balanced article in this area should probably discuss how or why this "merge" occurs, with a nod towards the notion of Internationalism (linguistics), Loanwords, Semantic loans and how this can occur in living languages. Particularly those that share similar spoken community bases or with cultural overlaps. (EG: Perhaps a comment on how this type of thing might be expected when most speakers speak both languages?) The Sino-Japanese article as an example suffers from lack of citation also, but at least gives some background, and a slightly more balanced view. Guliolopez (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:OR?

message: I can't see why this article should exist in the English Wikipedia at all.  As Panu says above, it's really just the Irish word for Anglicism and it's not even a well judged survey of the topic.  There's a big difference between long accepted loan words like praghas or dabht and some of the oddities that occur in some official Irish.  Mere lexical items also pale into insignificance IMHO in comparison with the use of English grammar.  There are also much more useful and informed sources on the internet on good Irish and I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why it's Wikipedia's business anyway.  Original research, not encyclopaedic and worst of all not interesting!
Don't get me wrong...I cringe at expressions like "ag fáil dorcha" but if you're going to tackle such a subjective and contentious issue, at least do it rigorously and in an appropriate article. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 09:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It’s a pity this article hasn’t progressed more in 12 years, though it has at least been moved. I know I haven’t helped, but at least I haven’t replaced a (not great, but valid) citation with a citation needed tag like one editor.  Some editors are puzzlingly unhelpful. ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 02:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious article 

message: The tone of this article is at times informal and slightly opinionated. I've picked out a few quotes as examples:
"Calquing also occurs: an English phrase is literally translated into Irish, even though an equivalent Irish phrase already exists."
The use of the term "literally" is what creates the informal tone in this case. A good way of knowing if a sentence is informal or not is to remove the word in question and see if the sentence still says what it wants to say, i.e.
"Calquing also occurs: an English phrase is translated into Irish, even though an equivalent Irish phrase already exists."
Note: without the term "literally" the sentence gives the same information but in a less opinionated tone.
;More Examples
"Many words are commonly thought by “purists” to be béarlachas"
-Unnecessary use of quotation marks on "purists".
"superstrate language and a minority language with few or no monolingual speakers and a perceived “lesser” status."
-Once again the use of quotation marks on "lesser" indicates the writer's opinion: re-phrasing needs to be done here. Also "superstate" is misspelled.
Also: The titles need to all have capital letters, i.e. these titles:
Modern concepts
Old borrowings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.42.242 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 March 2012‎
:The word "literally" does not impart an informal or opinionated tone. It's necessary because the point is that phrases are translated word-for-word into Irish (e.g. "slow" + "down" → "moilligh" + "síos") rather than as whole concepts (e.g. "slow down" → "maolaigh ar do luas"). Removing the word "literally" would thus make the meaning less specific and less clear. "Superstrate" is spelled correctly; the word superstate means something completely different. The scare quotes around the words "purists" and "lesser" are there to indicate that these words do not necessarily reflect an editorial point of view. Removing the scare quotes would suggest that the editors of the article agree with the value judgments those words carry. Finally, Wikipedia's Manual of Style specifies sentence case for headers, thus "Modern concepts" and "Old borrowings" are correct, while "Modern Concepts" and "Old Borrowings" would violate our house style. Angr (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Tone 

message: This para. appears to be from something completely different: 
muyembo nsoh evaris'                                                                                                            m
uyembo nsoh eavris, né le 8 may 1986 à bamenda au cameroon , est un homme d'État  camerounias. Il est l'actuel un  handballeur internationel, professional   et etudent en france, 
Naissance  : 8 may  1986 (27 ans), bamenda, nord ouest, cameroun
Taille  : 1,85 m –
If speakers of Irish think this article is rubbish (see above) who am I to argue?  The distinction between Bearlachas and loan-words seems specious to me.
Chrismorey (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, Wikipedia is not immune to vandalism. I've reverted it now. As for the difference between Béarlachas and loanwords, Béarlachas includes loanwords, but also includes code-switching and the word-for-word translation of English idioms and syntactic structures. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Also, speakers of Irish who are not linguists and have no thorough training in academic linguistics (or worse, none at all) are poorly equipped to judge articles about linguistic topics. It bears repeating that being a speaker (native or not) of a language does not make you an expert in that language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing