Talk:Ulaid

message: That's much better Angus McLellan, I see you have added the links this time. -No More POV Please 14:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove duplicated list of kings again

message: In reference to the map provided - that is a depiction of the modern day province of Ulster. However in at least the 1800s, Louth was considered part of Ulster. Also, Cavan was not part of Ulster until at least the 1500s, before this it was considered part of Connacht. I think the current map should be deleted from this page, or at least in my opinion. --MacTire (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference between Ulaidh and Ulidia? Heres is a map with "Ulidia", used on Gaelic Ireland , "Ulidia" is described as the blue north-east section ~ R.T.G 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ulidia" is just a faux-Latinisation of Ulaid. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we have two maps here, one shows Down and Antrim as Ulidia and the other shows Ulster as Ulaid ~ R.T.G 06:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Boundaries are not permanent, and the territory controlled by the Ulaid fluctuated through history, as the article makes clear. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does mention it but I don' think it makes it all clear. ~ R.T.G 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of ''Ulaid''

message: There are two points needing clarification in this article. First Ulaid the ancient name for Ulster supposedly derived from the Uolunti or Voluntii of Ptolemy, and was the early name of the Coiced or fifth of Ulster proper as it is claimed the early kingdom of that name may have extended to the modern borders of the present day province. While Ulidia was the reconstituted Kingdom, or smaller portion of primarily counties Antrim and Down ruled by the Dal Fiatach after their re-emergence from the conquest of south central Ulster legendarily by the "Three Collas", and north western Ulster by the Ui Neill, in the First instance in the Mid 4th century AD and in the second in the early to mid 5th century AD. As the article on the Dal Fiatach dates their first King to have ruled in around 450 AD. Which references the Second issue the Clanna Rudraige,and the true origins of the Dal Fiatach? 
In the article on Rudraige mac Sithrigi for which this Clann is named it states clearly that he was most associated with the Dal-nAraide or Cruithne. Here it states that the Uolunti were the Clanna Rudraige, whose historical descendents were the Dal Fiatach. Now Fiatach Finn from whom this name was derived may well have been of the Ulaid or Uolunti originally and a deadly enemy of Rudraige mac Sithrigi. However two issues on this must be pointed out. The later dynasty known as the Dal Fiatach cannot be allowed to make unsupported claims as to ancestry. First they 'could' my quotations, be related to the Darini, or just 'maybe' related to the Uolunti, claims which their 7th and 8th century Genealogies do indeed advance. However it seems that if the Dal Fiatach actually as their own genealogy reveals descend from Ross Ruad mac Rudraige, they were Cruithne and a sub branch of the Dal-n-Araide. This is one of the major issues with "claims" of genealogical descent, like the claim here that the Uolunti or Ulaid were known as the Clanna Rudraige being asserted without sufficient underlying data that seems to confirm this, but which the data indicates was otherwise. 
Either the Dal Fiatach were related to Fiatach Finn and the Uolunti and thus were not of the Clanna Rudraige, or the Dal Fiatach are mis-named and were of the Clanna Rudraige, as in descent from Ross Ruad mac Rudraige, as their genealogy would indicate. But a bald claim that the Uolunti or Ulaid with vague hints of "possible" inter-relations to the Darini/Dairine were related and represented by the historical Dal Fiatach should not be asserted without much more investigative effort to prove the assertion. Especially when the introductory paragraph is clearly contradictory, in that it claims the Ulaid's or Uolunti's identification was the same as that of their known deadly enemies, the Dal-n-Araide, who were the true Clanna Rudraige in descent from Rudraige mac Sithrigi through his son Amargin mac Rudraige according to all of the genealogical data I have reviewed on this issue. Dalegar123 (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulaid?Ulidia Clanna Rudraige 

message: Is there any source for the view that the -dh is pronounced gutturally in Ulaidh and Uladh? I have a source (the Irish of West Muskerry), which gives Cork pronunciations, that Cúige Uladh is pronounced Cúige Ola - the dh is not pronounced - and I would be surprised if it were any different in the Ulster pronunciation either. www.abair.ie is a pronunciation generator for Ulster Irish - they have fed many thousands of pronunciations and sound files into that, and it seems Ulaidh is pronounced (oli) or something like it, and cúige uladh is Cúige Olu. Try putting Ulaidh and Cúige Uladh in that programme and see what pronunciation is given. That's the trouble with Wikipedia - people who don't know the facts are writing the articles!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.117.142 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you fundamentally misunderstand the use of speech synthesis - whatever synthesis may suggest does not mean it's necessarily right. Especially place names and personal names often defy any kind of prediction. The IPA looks fine to me - ɣʲ is a slender glide and rather close to a vowel or semivowel so it won't be highly prominent in pronunciation. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply. Speech synthesis is just synthesis, but as many words are pronounced in ways that vary from the spelling, many individual pronunciations will have been entered into the database too in order to make sure they're right. The words Ulaidh and Uladh are so fundamental to the Ulster dialect that it is difficult to believe that the database used on abair.ie does not give the correct pronunciation. You say "ɣʲ is a slender glide" implying the pronunciation is /j/, which is what ɣʲ is, but the article has "Cúige Uladh, pronounced [/ˈkuːiɡʲə ˈʊləɣ/]" -I don't believe that the -dh is pronounced as ɣ, which is the point I am raising, which you are struggling to understand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.117.142 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I *am* a bit shaky on the finer points of Irish phonology but in Scots Gaelic it would indeed be /ɣ/ and if you'll notice, Abair has the word BETA slapped all over it. But I'm sure someone better versed in Irish phonology will chip in. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: If that is the case Gob Lofa then you will have to go around and remove a lot of WPNI WikiProject templates from a lot of articles as well as remove WPI ones from certain NI articles as well. The Aztec and Olmec articles have nothing to do with the polity that is Mexico however they still have a Mexico WikiProject as that country now covers the greater part of the territory. The same for Northern Ireland, which covers most of the territory the Ulaid once held. WikiProject tagging is simply to tag articles that are of interest to a WikiProject and in this case Ulaid is. Even the Talk:Kingdom_of_Ulidia page has WPNI tagged. If you don't provide a valid reason then I will restore the WikiProject and I will report this as another instance of provocation/hounding. Mabuska (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as there is no response to this I am restoring the WP banner. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: I'm no expert on the subject. But the reference to the Three Collas as sons of Niall of the Nine Hostages does not seem to be a correct theory. 
"O'Rahilly and his followers believe the Collas are literary doublets of the sons of Niall Noígiallach, eponymous founder of the Uí Néill, who they propose were the true conquerors of Emain in the 5th century."
Genetically, known O'Neill descendants are not matches to the known descendants of the Three Collas. I happen to be one of the later. More detailed discussion of the Three Collas can be found at a site dedicated to the genetic origins of the Three Collas here. The unique DNA of the Three Collas descendants predates Niall by several centuries. Niall also has a specific DNA which is not closely related to the Three Collas. This scientific fact seems to preclude the Three Collas as part of the Uí Néill. Even if it was a decent theory. DNA discoveries along paternal lines is however fraught with difficulties of it's own. It may not truly be possible to know with complete certainly whether any paternal DNA line descends from Niall or from one of the Three Collas without finding Niall and at least one of the Three Collas and testing their DNA. --Celtic hackr (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  you've misunderstood what O'Rahilly proposed and what the article says. O'Rahilly didn't believe the three Collas were sons of Niall. He believes the actions attributed to the three Collas were actually done by someone else, a century later, and, in his view, the three Collas probably never existed and were literary creations. If this were true, you wouldn't expect people who traced their lineage to the three Collas to have Uí Néill DNA. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Collas and the Uí Néill