Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 2

message: I agree with the latest edit by An Siarach. Perhaps it's not downright vandalism, but it is difficult looking at his history of edits not to suspect the intents of our anonymous editor, esp. when you look at his wider editing history SEE HERE. Besides, I fail to see what these spurious edits add to the article, sourced or not. - Calgacus 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is verifiable by means of published sources that a significant portion of Lowland Scots resent the promotion of Gaelic, that is encyclopedic information that should be included, from the NPOV of course. And if it can be verified that a BBC spok'sesman has said funding will be reduced for Gaelic broadcasting in the future, that is also encyclopedic information that should be included. Looking over the anon's other edits, he does not seem to me to be a vandal, just a newbie who hasn't quite learned how things are done at WP, such as citing sources for controversial claims. --Angr (t·c) 15:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a very positive interpretation, if I may say so. One of his earlier edits contained "The BBC has come into criticm recently for showing no programming in or about the Scots language the only true native tongue of the South of Scotland". This is not someone reporting facts, it's someone with an agenda. Complaints about Gaelic programming in Scotland are minimal. Certainly the topic does not deserve a whole section to itself just because some anonymous editor has an agenda. Perhaps an aside in another relevant section. If the section survived, it is so spurious in any case, that it probably wouldn't survive the attention of other editors - Calgacus 15:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that two people have been in violation of Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule. This is an edit war, and both sides should be discussing the points here rather than turning the page into a battleground.  Notinasnaid 16:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone has violated that "rule", and besides, user 81.154.92.125 blurs the line between vandal and non-vandal. - Calgacus 16:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Being a POV pusher is not the same thing as being a vandal, and reverting his edits does not count as reverting "simple vandalism" for purposes of the 3RR. --Angr (t·c) 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits By  81.154.92.125 

message: This page gives the pronunciation as .  Is this meant to be how the native name Gàidhlig is pronounced in Gaelic, or is it meant to be how Gaelic (in the Scottish context) is pronounced in English?  If it's the former, I think I've normally seen  for the Gaelic à (e.g. on http://www.akerbeltz.org/fuaimean/fuaimreagan.htm, which also doesn't use .  If it's the latter (i.e. it's suggesting that the English word is pronounced like non-rhotic garlic) what's the source?  In my experience it's pronounced either  or  if you're using RP-style transcriptions.
:My Gaelic teacher got quite het up about this as I remember. (Transcriptions that follow are SSE.)  for him meant Irish Gaelic only. Scottish Gaelic was pronounced . I don't think I've ever heard , either in SSE or anns a' Ghàidhlig. I will be bold and change it. Mendor 19:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of the name of the language

message: An Siarach requested a source for these. For the "elsewhere", the only thing I am aware of is Alan Bruford's What happened to the Caledonians ? (in Cowan & McDonald's Alba), where he argues for Q-Celtic in Atholl. I am not an expert, but the premise of the paper seems rather fantastical to me (that it relies on dsA and needs the Caledones to be the northern Picts and the Verturiones the southern ones doesn't help). 
That said, Goidelic in Argyll is easier (likewise Wales, parts of sw Scotland and sw England). Specifically for Argyll, Cummins' The Age of the Picts and Campbells Were the Scots Irish ? (Antiquity 75, pp285-292) and Saints and Sea-kings advance the argument. Campbell's Antiquity stuff would be a likely place to start, but I haven't seen it. Forsyth says (Oxford Companion to Scottish History, p378, this published in 2001) that "[t]he origin of the Goidelic/Q-Celtic language is disputed" and proceeds to give the two versions. Price's Languages in Britain & Ireland (2000 ed) gives the invasionist version for Argyll. Magnus Magnusson's history (published 2003) is anti-invasionist and refers to Campbell. Forsyth's chapter of Wormald's Scotland: A History takes the same undecided position as her earlier piece. 
I have changed it to Argyll only, mentioned that it is disputed, and removed the ref request. 
Angus McLellan 19:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for Goidelic in Argyll and elsewhere

message: The text refers to Gaelic becoming the majority language of Scotland. This seems difficult to verify. Even if it were the case it seems likely that it could only have been for a short historical period - at most the two centuries following the late 11 century, but most probably much shorter given the continued presence of English / Scots in Lothian, and the administrative events following William's arrival in Scotland. Further, Old Norse would likely be prevalent in the North East and perhaps some of the Isles.--Nmcmurdo 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaelic was almost certainly the majority language of "Scotland" from the early middle ages until about 1500, roughly the beginning of the early modern era (though there is no way of proving that directly, you can't prove anything like that directly); ceasing to be the only language of the court after the accession of David I in 1124 does not mean it went into decline amongst the general population of the Lowlands (excluding Galloway and Carrick, not even 1/3rd of the Scottish landmass) outside Lothian; place-name and other evidence suggests that this did not begin to happen until at least the later 1200s). Regarding the other point, the money of course is not necessarily wasted; this is like saying hospitals are a waste of money because everyone is going to die anyway. Everything is a waste of money with that mindset. Regards. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to judge the penetration of a language by the number of speakers, rather than coverage of "landmass"! (unless perhaps sheep and bracken were fluent Gaelic speakers...) But frivolity aside, I'm interested in your view that Gaelic was the majority language in the early Middle Ages. What does research say about this? During much of this period 'Scotland' had at least four, possibly five (I understand we don't know much about 'Pictish'!), languages. The others must have been very small if Gaelic were really spoken by the majority. I don't doubt there was probably a period in the High Middle Ages when Gaelic was the majority language., although 1500 seems extraordinarily late.--Nmcmurdo 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well all of Scotland was sparsely populated in the middle ages; the idea that the highlands is empty is purely the result of modern population trends. Half of Scotland's population now lives  within a few miles of Glasgow, but in the 18th century half of Scotland's population still lived north of the river Tay. Anyways, there's no direct way of assessing how much was spoken where and when. Most historians imply that Gaelic was prolly the majority language by 900; but to me it isn't that clear that the evidence allows us to tell what the difference between Gaelic and Pictish actually was; modern Scottish "Gaelic" words like Srath, Inbhir, Beinn as well as medieval "Scottish" words like aber, pett, mormaer, etc, do not exist in Irish and can only be explained by a "Pictish" inheritance. Whatever Pictish was, it was probably similar enough to Irish to converge into the "lingua scotica" (which we now styled "Gaelic") of the high and later middle ages. But there can be absolutely no doubt that in the mid-12th century languages other than Gaelic in "Scotland" are confined to far north-east (i.e. easter Caithness) and the far south-east. In David I's reign, there are a large number of landlords and priests settled in the English-speaking lands of "Lothian" (e.g. Midlothian, East Lothian, Peebles-shire, etc) - these guys disappear by the 13th century, but the "Gaelic" society of the Scottish Lowlands north of the Forth seems still to be fully in tact at the highest levels in the mid-13th century. With great earldoms like Fife, Strathearn and Mar in Gaelic hands way into the 14th century, with somewhere between a third and a quarter of the Scottish population behind the highland line even in the 18th century, adding the vastness of Galloway and Carrick into the equation, it's very difficult to argue that English could have become a majority language significantly before 1500, if even then. You could say that this is all speculation, but equally saying that English was the majority language before 1500 is also speculation and happens to be based on even less evidence. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaelic as a majority language in Scotland? 

message: It has been discovered on  WP:RFCU that , , , ,  , , and  are all socks.  has been engaging in sockpuppetry to further the wikipedian strength of his POV on this and other pages. All except Bluegold have been permanently blocked, and Bluegold himself has been blocked for 24 hours. Moreover,  is a suspected sock, but may be just, if Bluegold was telling the truth on the investigation page, Bluegold's work colleague trying to help him out. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed Sockpuppetry 

message: While editing I came across this phrase...
Using the spelling rule, it is sometimes unclear whether a vowel has been introduced for its own pronunciation or for its effect upon a consonant.
and this embedded comment (left by someone who presumably hadn't discovered talk pages):
What was here didn't make any sense. Can someone provide an example of what's being talked about?
I replaced the phrase with one which I hope is a bit clearer, and I think has the same meaning, but as the original phrase was rather unclear it's hard to be certain.
Where pairs of vowels occur in writing, it is sometimes unclear which vowel is to be pronounced and which vowel has been introduced to satisfy this spelling rule.
This is certainly my experience as someone who attempts to pronounce Gaelic names with very little knowledge of the language, whether or not it's what the original author meant! But an example and/or further rephrasing would still be welcome. Blisco 19:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear phrase 

message: It's only mentioned in passing, but it's one of the distinctive traits of the Celtic languages. FilipeS 12:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned more than just in passing, I guess. The spelling and pronunciation are explained, it's mentioned for the past tense, it's mentioned for the relevant determiners, it's even indirectly there in the explanation of why people get named "Hamish"… That's relatively good (ignoring the fact that the entire grammar section could use a general clean-up). Do you mean why has nobody mentioned the initial consonant mutation article? That's easily fixed. Or why no one mentions the term "initial consonant mutation"? Maybe because Sc. Gaelic only has lenition, so we don't need a more general term?
I think that the reference to initial consonant mutations could be more fleshed out in the Grammar section. Compare with the articles on Welsh morphology, or Breton language, or Irish language. Regards. FilipeS 11:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of [[initial consonant mutation]]s?

message: I just added a bunch of tables to explain how the definite article works. Possibly in too much detail, feel free to cut down or add some kinder, gentler explanatory text. Please check the examples, some of my sources are 100 years old and there has surely been some paradigm levelling and other changes in the meantime. Let's definitely move the grammar section out of this long article (although I would vote for a single "grammar" article instead of separate "syntax" and "morphology" articles right away, as suggested before). CapnPrep 02:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New stuff in Grammar section

message: The new UK passport is said to use the translation "Rìoghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Éireann a Tuath". That translation appears to be either a neologism (a Google search provides zero hits for the exact term) or a mistranscription (the guy that transcribed it was not even sure what language it was). Please see:
*Talk:United_Kingdom#Three_official_languages
--Mais oui! 11:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New UK passport - "Rìoghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Éireann a Tuath"? 

message: The article is too long, so following WP practice for other major languages, I have moved the grammar section into a separate article Scottish Gaelic grammar. I would suggest also creating Scottish Gaelic orthography and Scottish Gaelic phonology (I will leave it to someone who has contributed more to those sections).
I also moved the list of Gaelic place names into a new article List of Scottish Gaelic place names (this is an established WP category).
CapnPrep 05:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split

message: I have looked long and hard for a usable collection of Gaelic minimal pairs.  These are very useful for phonological analysis, but are also extremely useful for language learners.  As I am a not-so-advanced Gaelic learner I could benefit from these, but would not really have the competence to put them together without help.  Is there anyone out there, perhaps someone who has worked on the phonology section of this article, who would like to join forces with me in creating such a thing.  I think it should have a page of its own, but be closely linked with the phonology section of this page.  Alternatively, if the phonology section IS going to become a page in its own right, this could be done there.  But it might become a bit long.  The idea is to take each pair of phonemes which are similar enough in their articulation that learners might confuse them or linguists might want to analyse the difference, and give three minimal pairs showing the distinction at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of a word (sometimes not all three will be possible).  For each pair to be dealt with, we might have a heading, a short explanation and then a table something like this:
       	pohneme x	pohneme x	pohneme x	phoneme y	phoneme y	phoneme y
       	Example  	IPA      	meaning  	Example  	IPA      	meaning
Initial	         	         	         	         	         	
Medial 	         	         	         	         	         	
Final  	         	         	         	         	         	
Does anyone else think this would be worth investing a little time on?  --Doric Loon 10:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimal pairs

message: Halló ó hÉirinn! Bíonn na focail a scríobh tú anseo ag rith fós i nGaeilg!
The words you wrote here are still in use in modern Irish:
Beann/binn = point/apex/gable
inbhear =estuary
sruth =stream
159.134.221.79 02:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beann/binn; inbhear; sruth 

message: We could use an IPA pronunciation and Gaelic check over at Bean Nighe (and also a little bit at Banshee).  Tapadh Leibh! --Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫♦♫ 03:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Check and IPA 

message: This article should be moved to Scottish Gaelic as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages). The disambiguator serves no purpose as far as I can see.
Peter Isotalo 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, this looks fairly obvious to me (in fact it's been annoying me for a while). I've raised it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. --Blisco 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concise title 

message: An Comunn Gàidhealach and Comunn na Gàidhlig are stubs needing expansion.  Also, ACG's website seems to be down. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Articles that could use some work 

message: The article mentions this, even a mention of Palatalization works (albeit in Primitive Irish), but gets into no detail.  Does it work like modern Irish, where a, o, and u make a consonant broad and e and i make a consonant slender, or does it work a different way?  Nothing really specific on this point is mentioned in the article.  --Limetom 11:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velarization/Palatalization 

message: I have flaged this section with regards POV.  Please could someone tidy this.
194.200.145.5 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the POV tag.  For one thing, it was placed in the Grammar section, not the "Official Recognition" section.  However, in reading the Official Recognition section, I see no hint of POV.  Before attempting to replace the tag, please be more specific (give examples) in your concerns, or better yet, forget the tag and just fix the language you believe to be POV.  Best wishes. --WilliamThweatt 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Tag you are looking for is "fact" not "POV". The first and second lines you quote are undoubtedly true - POV in no way comes into it - while the fourth seems hardly the kind of statement anyone would use to put forward a political opinion. siarach 14:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: User:194.200.145.5, Points well-made and well-taken.  I have place the SectionUnreferenced tag at the top of the section.  As An Siarach points out, this is a more appropriate tag than POV.  I would also agree with An Siarach that the statements are both factual and true and not a reflection of any particular POV, but nonetheless definately need to be cited.  It shouldn't be too hard to find a source for these points.--WilliamThweatt 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If it is verifiable by means of published sources that a significant portion of Lowland Scots resent the promotion of Gaelic, that is encyclopedic information that should be included, from the NPOV of course. And if it can be verified that a BBC spok'sesman has said funding will be reduced for Gaelic broadcasting in the future, that is also encyclopedic information that should be included. Looking over the anon's other edits, he does not seem to me to be a vandal, just a newbie who hasn't quite learned how things are done at WP, such as citing sources for controversial claims. --Angr (t·c) 15:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a very positive interpretation, if I may say so. One of his earlier edits contained "The BBC has come into criticm recently for showing no programming in or about the Scots language the only true native tongue of the South of Scotland". This is not someone reporting facts, it's someone with an agenda. Complaints about Gaelic programming in Scotland are minimal. Certainly the topic does not deserve a whole section to itself just because some anonymous editor has an agenda. Perhaps an aside in another relevant section. If the section survived, it is so spurious in any case, that it probably wouldn't survive the attention of other editors - Calgacus 15:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that two people have been in violation of Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule. This is an edit war, and both sides should be discussing the points here rather than turning the page into a battleground.  Notinasnaid 16:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone has violated that "rule", and besides, user 81.154.92.125 blurs the line between vandal and non-vandal. - Calgacus 16:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Being a POV pusher is not the same thing as being a vandal, and reverting his edits does not count as reverting "simple vandalism" for purposes of the 3RR. --Angr (t·c) 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in Official Recognition

message: This page gives the pronunciation as .  Is this meant to be how the native name Gàidhlig is pronounced in Gaelic, or is it meant to be how Gaelic (in the Scottish context) is pronounced in English?  If it's the former, I think I've normally seen  for the Gaelic à (e.g. on http://www.akerbeltz.org/fuaimean/fuaimreagan.htm, which also doesn't use .  If it's the latter (i.e. it's suggesting that the English word is pronounced like non-rhotic garlic) what's the source?  In my experience it's pronounced either  or  if you're using RP-style transcriptions.
:My Gaelic teacher got quite het up about this as I remember. (Transcriptions that follow are SSE.)  for him meant Irish Gaelic only. Scottish Gaelic was pronounced . I don't think I've ever heard , either in SSE or anns a' Ghàidhlig. I will be bold and change it. Mendor 19:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of the name of the language

message: An Siarach requested a source for these. For the "elsewhere", the only thing I am aware of is Alan Bruford's What happened to the Caledonians ? (in Cowan & McDonald's Alba), where he argues for Q-Celtic in Atholl. I am not an expert, but the premise of the paper seems rather fantastical to me (that it relies on dsA and needs the Caledones to be the northern Picts and the Verturiones the southern ones doesn't help). 
That said, Goidelic in Argyll is easier (likewise Wales, parts of sw Scotland and sw England). Specifically for Argyll, Cummins' The Age of the Picts and Campbells Were the Scots Irish ? (Antiquity 75, pp285-292) and Saints and Sea-kings advance the argument. Campbell's Antiquity stuff would be a likely place to start, but I haven't seen it. Forsyth says (Oxford Companion to Scottish History, p378, this published in 2001) that "[t]he origin of the Goidelic/Q-Celtic language is disputed" and proceeds to give the two versions. Price's Languages in Britain & Ireland (2000 ed) gives the invasionist version for Argyll. Magnus Magnusson's history (published 2003) is anti-invasionist and refers to Campbell. Forsyth's chapter of Wormald's Scotland: A History takes the same undecided position as her earlier piece. 
I have changed it to Argyll only, mentioned that it is disputed, and removed the ref request. 
Angus McLellan 19:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for Goidelic in Argyll and elsewhere

message: The text refers to Gaelic becoming the majority language of Scotland. This seems difficult to verify. Even if it were the case it seems likely that it could only have been for a short historical period - at most the two centuries following the late 11 century, but most probably much shorter given the continued presence of English / Scots in Lothian, and the administrative events following William's arrival in Scotland. Further, Old Norse would likely be prevalent in the North East and perhaps some of the Isles.--Nmcmurdo 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaelic was almost certainly the majority language of "Scotland" from the early middle ages until about 1500, roughly the beginning of the early modern era (though there is no way of proving that directly, you can't prove anything like that directly); ceasing to be the only language of the court after the accession of David I in 1124 does not mean it went into decline amongst the general population of the Lowlands (excluding Galloway and Carrick, not even 1/3rd of the Scottish landmass) outside Lothian; place-name and other evidence suggests that this did not begin to happen until at least the later 1200s). Regarding the other point, the money of course is not necessarily wasted; this is like saying hospitals are a waste of money because everyone is going to die anyway. Everything is a waste of money with that mindset. Regards. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to judge the penetration of a language by the number of speakers, rather than coverage of "landmass"! (unless perhaps sheep and bracken were fluent Gaelic speakers...) But frivolity aside, I'm interested in your view that Gaelic was the majority language in the early Middle Ages. What does research say about this? During much of this period 'Scotland' had at least four, possibly five (I understand we don't know much about 'Pictish'!), languages. The others must have been very small if Gaelic were really spoken by the majority. I don't doubt there was probably a period in the High Middle Ages when Gaelic was the majority language., although 1500 seems extraordinarily late.--Nmcmurdo 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well all of Scotland was sparsely populated in the middle ages; the idea that the highlands is empty is purely the result of modern population trends. Half of Scotland's population now lives  within a few miles of Glasgow, but in the 18th century half of Scotland's population still lived north of the river Tay. Anyways, there's no direct way of assessing how much was spoken where and when. Most historians imply that Gaelic was prolly the majority language by 900; but to me it isn't that clear that the evidence allows us to tell what the difference between Gaelic and Pictish actually was; modern Scottish "Gaelic" words like Srath, Inbhir, Beinn as well as medieval "Scottish" words like aber, pett, mormaer, etc, do not exist in Irish and can only be explained by a "Pictish" inheritance. Whatever Pictish was, it was probably similar enough to Irish to converge into the "lingua scotica" (which we now styled "Gaelic") of the high and later middle ages. But there can be absolutely no doubt that in the mid-12th century languages other than Gaelic in "Scotland" are confined to far north-east (i.e. easter Caithness) and the far south-east. In David I's reign, there are a large number of landlords and priests settled in the English-speaking lands of "Lothian" (e.g. Midlothian, East Lothian, Peebles-shire, etc) - these guys disappear by the 13th century, but the "Gaelic" society of the Scottish Lowlands north of the Forth seems still to be fully in tact at the highest levels in the mid-13th century. With great earldoms like Fife, Strathearn and Mar in Gaelic hands way into the 14th century, with somewhere between a third and a quarter of the Scottish population behind the highland line even in the 18th century, adding the vastness of Galloway and Carrick into the equation, it's very difficult to argue that English could have become a majority language significantly before 1500, if even then. You could say that this is all speculation, but equally saying that English was the majority language before 1500 is also speculation and happens to be based on even less evidence. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaelic as a majority language in Scotland? 

message: It has been discovered on  WP:RFCU that , , , ,  , , and  are all socks.  has been engaging in sockpuppetry to further the wikipedian strength of his POV on this and other pages. All except Bluegold have been permanently blocked, and Bluegold himself has been blocked for 24 hours. Moreover,  is a suspected sock, but may be just, if Bluegold was telling the truth on the investigation page, Bluegold's work colleague trying to help him out. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed Sockpuppetry 

message: While editing I came across this phrase...
Using the spelling rule, it is sometimes unclear whether a vowel has been introduced for its own pronunciation or for its effect upon a consonant.
and this embedded comment (left by someone who presumably hadn't discovered talk pages):
What was here didn't make any sense. Can someone provide an example of what's being talked about?
I replaced the phrase with one which I hope is a bit clearer, and I think has the same meaning, but as the original phrase was rather unclear it's hard to be certain.
Where pairs of vowels occur in writing, it is sometimes unclear which vowel is to be pronounced and which vowel has been introduced to satisfy this spelling rule.
This is certainly my experience as someone who attempts to pronounce Gaelic names with very little knowledge of the language, whether or not it's what the original author meant! But an example and/or further rephrasing would still be welcome. Blisco 19:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear phrase 

message: It's only mentioned in passing, but it's one of the distinctive traits of the Celtic languages. FilipeS 12:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned more than just in passing, I guess. The spelling and pronunciation are explained, it's mentioned for the past tense, it's mentioned for the relevant determiners, it's even indirectly there in the explanation of why people get named "Hamish"… That's relatively good (ignoring the fact that the entire grammar section could use a general clean-up). Do you mean why has nobody mentioned the initial consonant mutation article? That's easily fixed. Or why no one mentions the term "initial consonant mutation"? Maybe because Sc. Gaelic only has lenition, so we don't need a more general term?
I think that the reference to initial consonant mutations could be more fleshed out in the Grammar section. Compare with the articles on Welsh morphology, or Breton language, or Irish language. Regards. FilipeS 11:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of [[initial consonant mutation]]s?

message: I just added a bunch of tables to explain how the definite article works. Possibly in too much detail, feel free to cut down or add some kinder, gentler explanatory text. Please check the examples, some of my sources are 100 years old and there has surely been some paradigm levelling and other changes in the meantime. Let's definitely move the grammar section out of this long article (although I would vote for a single "grammar" article instead of separate "syntax" and "morphology" articles right away, as suggested before). CapnPrep 02:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New stuff in Grammar section

message: The new UK passport is said to use the translation "Rìoghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Éireann a Tuath". That translation appears to be either a neologism (a Google search provides zero hits for the exact term) or a mistranscription (the guy that transcribed it was not even sure what language it was). Please see:
*Talk:United_Kingdom#Three_official_languages
--Mais oui! 11:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New UK passport - "Rìoghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Éireann a Tuath"? 

message: The article is too long, so following WP practice for other major languages, I have moved the grammar section into a separate article Scottish Gaelic grammar. I would suggest also creating Scottish Gaelic orthography and Scottish Gaelic phonology (I will leave it to someone who has contributed more to those sections).
I also moved the list of Gaelic place names into a new article List of Scottish Gaelic place names (this is an established WP category).
CapnPrep 05:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split

message: I have looked long and hard for a usable collection of Gaelic minimal pairs.  These are very useful for phonological analysis, but are also extremely useful for language learners.  As I am a not-so-advanced Gaelic learner I could benefit from these, but would not really have the competence to put them together without help.  Is there anyone out there, perhaps someone who has worked on the phonology section of this article, who would like to join forces with me in creating such a thing.  I think it should have a page of its own, but be closely linked with the phonology section of this page.  Alternatively, if the phonology section IS going to become a page in its own right, this could be done there.  But it might become a bit long.  The idea is to take each pair of phonemes which are similar enough in their articulation that learners might confuse them or linguists might want to analyse the difference, and give three minimal pairs showing the distinction at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of a word (sometimes not all three will be possible).  For each pair to be dealt with, we might have a heading, a short explanation and then a table something like this:
       	pohneme x	pohneme x	pohneme x	phoneme y	phoneme y	phoneme y
       	Example  	IPA      	meaning  	Example  	IPA      	meaning
Initial	         	         	         	         	         	
Medial 	         	         	         	         	         	
Final  	         	         	         	         	         	
Does anyone else think this would be worth investing a little time on?  --Doric Loon 10:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimal pairs

message: Halló ó hÉirinn! Bíonn na focail a scríobh tú anseo ag rith fós i nGaeilg!
The words you wrote here are still in use in modern Irish:
Beann/binn = point/apex/gable
inbhear =estuary
sruth =stream
159.134.221.79 02:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beann/binn; inbhear; sruth 

message: We could use an IPA pronunciation and Gaelic check over at Bean Nighe (and also a little bit at Banshee).  Tapadh Leibh! --Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫♦♫ 03:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Check and IPA 

message: This article should be moved to Scottish Gaelic as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages). The disambiguator serves no purpose as far as I can see.
Peter Isotalo 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, this looks fairly obvious to me (in fact it's been annoying me for a while). I've raised it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. --Blisco 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concise title 

message: An Comunn Gàidhealach and Comunn na Gàidhlig are stubs needing expansion.  Also, ACG's website seems to be down. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Articles that could use some work 

message: The article mentions this, even a mention of Palatalization works (albeit in Primitive Irish), but gets into no detail.  Does it work like modern Irish, where a, o, and u make a consonant broad and e and i make a consonant slender, or does it work a different way?  Nothing really specific on this point is mentioned in the article.  --Limetom 11:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velarization/Palatalization 

message: I have flaged this section with regards POV.  Please could someone tidy this.
194.200.145.5 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the POV tag.  For one thing, it was placed in the Grammar section, not the "Official Recognition" section.  However, in reading the Official Recognition section, I see no hint of POV.  Before attempting to replace the tag, please be more specific (give examples) in your concerns, or better yet, forget the tag and just fix the language you believe to be POV.  Best wishes. --WilliamThweatt 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in Official Recognition

message: Right. I'm not a very good speaker, I can understand spoken Ulster gaelic(Donegal) and also Ulster scots(Antrim) but don't have either at all that well. Should not Gaelic, whether Irish or Scots be under the same title with sections? The Irish do not have a monopoly on Gaeldom. Should not Irish Language and this article be merged with definite seperate articles under the same name?
Brendandh 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish/Irish Gaelic?

message: The article seems to mix up digraphs (two letters written together) with diphthongs (two sounds tacked together as one sound). Plus in one case, an on-glide (in ceól (with grave)) is given as a diphthong too
Also, the consonant list ignores the slender set altogether
Slán libh!
159.134.221.58 22:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  diphthongs 

message: I added the name of the British Isles in the official languages of the region to that article (as per other islands/places/regions). However, I could not find a Scottish Gaelic version of the name. I tried contacting a Scottish editor I know of but without success. Could someone here help me out? Thanks in advace. --sony-youthpléigh 08:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "Eileanan Breatannach". See , for example. CapnPrep 12:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --sony-youthpléigh 12:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation request 

message: Hi, I was just looking again at the article Tag question, which has kind of been one of my babies over the last year or so.  It struck me that it needs to be expanded with something about Gaelic Question tags.  Because, if I am correct, question tags in Gaelic are constructed from the main verb in a way analagous to English, but also analagous to the way Gaelic expresses "yes" and "no".  But it would need a native Gaelic speaker to write that up into a paragraph.  It would be very interesting and useful, though. Any volunteers?  --Doric Loon 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's true that Gaelic question stucture is based on the verb in the sentence. If a person askes "Am faod mi...?" <May I...?>, then the answers would either be "Faodaidh" <You may> or "Chan Fhaod" <You may not>.  The most common mistake in Gaelic is using the anwsers "Tha" and "Chan eil" in all occassions.  These are the positive and negative answers for the verb "to be".  But Gaelic has no real word for "yes" or "no". Unfortuntately, I am not a native speaker of Gaelic, and the only native speaker that I know of is 2 years old. (I'm living in Canada).  So I can give you that information, but I wouldn't say that I am qualified to write the article in question. Sorry. Sonalchagi 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaelic Tag Quetions