Talk:Primitive Irish

message: It is clear that Primitive Irish was miles away from Old Irish, because many typical features are not (yet) apparent. But is any typically Irish feature at all apparent in these inscriptions? Does this Ogham Irish even differ from Proto-Celtic? Steinbach (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also some considerably more subtle diagnostically Irish features only apparent to a specialist, such as certain umlaut phenomena whose details differ in Brythonic if they are present at all, and points of grammar as well as typical vocabulary and onomastics. However, it is true that it is not trivial to identify the language of the descriptions as strictly an ancestor of Old Irish only and not of any Brythonic language (quite similar actually to how the North Germanic nature of Proto-Norse is not trivially obvious, now that I think of it). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

text: This has sat unanswered for some time. Yes it does. There were periods of Irish settlement on the west coast of Britain in the ogham period. Some of the inscriptions in Wales are bilingual in Primitive Irish and Latin. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irishness 

message: The map shows Ogham inscriptions in not only Ireland, but also England (Cornwall), Wales, and Isle of Man. Does this mean that Primitiv Irish was also spoken there? Or does it mean Ogham inscriptions, including ones that represented a different language?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This has sat unanswered for some time. Yes it does. There were periods of Irish settlement on the west coast of Britain in the ogham period. Some of the inscriptions in Wales are bilingual in Primitive Irish and Latin. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Ogham

message: , your questions about the translation of MAQQI as "of the son" and AVVI as "of the grandson" are probably best addressed here on the talk page, not with clarify tags.
Basically, English, and your native language of Portuguese, do not have grammatical case, and speakers of those languages struggle to understand languages that do. It's generally throught that in a Gaelic Surname like, say, Mac Domhnaill, the "Mac" means "son of". It doesn't. It just means "son". "Domhnaill" means "of Domhnall". It's in the genitive case, which is roughly equivalent to the English possessive 's. Because English doesn't use cases*, we analyse the words wrongly and ascribe the "of" element to the wrong word.
In most ogham inscriptions, the whole thing is in the genitive case, including the word for "son". The example in the article, DALAGNI MAQI DALI: Dalagni is the genitive of an assumed Dalagnos, "of Dalagnos"; Maqi is the genitive Maqos, "son" (because it modifies the preceeding noun, and therefore must be in the same case as the noun it modifies), and means "of the son"; and Dali is the genitive an assumed Dalos, "of Dalos".
*Not quite true. The possessive 's is a remnant of the Old English genitive case, and cases survive in pronouns, but I didn't want to confuse things.
I hope this provides the clarification you're looking for. I will remove the clarify tags. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Of the son" vs "son of" 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Proto gaelic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 12#Proto gaelic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Proto gaelic" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]