Talk:Goidelic languages/Archive 1

message: Hmm, maybe there should be a Gaelic disambiguation page, "Goidelic" could be renamed "Gaelic languages" since that seems more natural in English? And a Gaelic culture page or something... alot of references are not to the Gaelic languages, but the Gaels as an ethnic group. Something needs to be written about  that. Similiar articles to this are the ones "Slavic Peoples" and "Germanic Peoples" among others. Even though Gaels have come to be seen as just members of the Anglophone cultures in Ireland, Scotland and Mann who speak another language by many people the fact is Gaels (speakers of Gaelic) have as much a completely independent set of cultural references and traits as other groups, for example the Sami or the Greeks, do. A common literary and oral tradition up to the point that Classical Common Gaelic was quashed, mythological origin, distinctive brand of Christianity, calendar systems...
-----
shouldn't this artical be named "Gaelic languages"? 
:Yes it should. So I moved it. -- Jim Regan 14:57 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
Gaelic and Gaelic are  used often to refer simultaneously to both the language group and a specific member of that group (often so-called Scottish Gaelic) and this usage seems very approriate in context. The context is usually historic, referring to the period when the Gaelic of Alba was also the Gaelic of Ulster. Finding however that Gaelic links to Goidelic is somewhat disconcerting, and I can see no possible ambiguity in linking instead to Gaelic languages. Laurel Bush 14:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to move the article to Goidelic (Gaelic) languages. The languages are called Goidelic languages, they're not called Gaelic languages. Leave the article where it is. --Angr/comhrá 08:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The languages as a group are very rarely referred to by linguists as "the Gaelic languages", but the term is probably more common among laymen. "Gaelic" by itself without further qualification usually means Scottish Gaelic, except in Ireland where it usually means Irish if left unmodified. In linguistics contexts I've really only ever seen "Goidelic languages". --Angr/탉 10:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not opposed to having a disambiguation page for the word Gaelic. At the moment, that redirects to Gaelic languages, which is a separate article from Goidelic languages. I think Gaelic languages should be merged with Goidelic languages (i.e. the content should be moved there and integrated, and then a redirect to Goidelic languages should be left in its place), while Gaelic should no longer redirect, but become a disambig page indicating that "Gaelic" can mean: (1) "Goidelic" as in Goidelic languages, (2) Scottish Gaelic language, (3) Irish language, also called "Irish Gaelic language", (4) Manx language, also called "Manx Gaelic language". --Angr/ 10:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Goidelic]] and [[Gaelic languages]] 

message: "There is evidence that (Celtic languages) were spoken in the region of Galicia in modern Spain." It would be interesting to include these sources of "evidence" in the article or in the links. I know that there are some 13th Century reports about a village in Northern Galicia (namely Bretoña) where an "unintelligible" language was spoken. 
-----
That's odd, why is that attributed to me? Anyway, it's sorta redundent how the article states Gaelic is part of the Goidelic branch of the Celtic languages, the Gaelic languages are the Goidelic branch. Starting with Old Gaelic ('Old Irish'/ Goidelic) you end up with the three modern languages. I think the Brythonic article says something similiarly unenlightening...
:Sorry 'bout that, hit the wrong link :( I did a basic merge on the articles, but there's still some redundancy. -- Jim Regan 18:01 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-----
The information about Cornish and Manx is somewhat misleading. The article says they are nearly extinct; in fact they are by all means extinct in that the last traditional native speakers died in 1777 and 1974 respectively. Both are now being revived (Cornish/Cornic also reconstructed) and there are a number of new native speakers (children of fluent learners who decided to raise their children with Manx or Cornish on a par with English) in both countries.
Przemek Kasprzyk
-----
 In fact there are now believed to be more native speakers of Scots Gaelic in Nova Scotia than there are in Scotland.
This is false. There are only about a 1,000 native speakers left in Nova Scotia centered around Cape Breton. There are about 60,000 native speakers left in Scotland. This down from 70,000 from the last survey taken in the early 1990's. See Silicon Glen's Scotland FAQ Census figures for Gaelic speakers  http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/7_14.html  for more details.  -- Chris Merle
:Estimates of the number of Gaelic speakers in Nova Scotia are now as low as 500, mostly elderly, and a government initiative to support Gaelic culture in the province has now been launched. -- Derek Ross |  Talk
----
Over on Wiktionary we have a new contributor who seems to be pushing Gadhelic over Goidelic — Does anybody know if there is any science/history/politics behind choosing one of these words over the other? — Hippietrail 01:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Iasos 20:59, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Done. Fire Star 22:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History and Range

message: Article could be far stronger on Manx, at least in discussing the form, orthography and grammar etc of it, rather than just that it is "being revived".
: That requires interested editors. There are not very many for the Manx language, which is a sad thing to report. I have it on my 'to do' list, but not at the present time. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manx? 

message: I'm going to remove this reference completely.  I know there are Americans who make the mistake of talking about Welsh Gaelic ('cause I've encountered them), but I don't think it's really Wikipedia's job to note and refute every mistake people make.  The absence of the word Welsh in the article would explain just as well.  — Moilleadóir 22:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh Gaelic 

message: I'm perplexed by the reference to Caithness as part of the "Lowlands" of Scotland (as opposed to simply "lowland", which it may well be).  Perhaps this section would be clearer if we omitted the reference to the Lowlands entirely, and just said "other parts of Scotland", or some such formula.  Alai 20:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowland Caithness? 

message: Dose ambiguous mean anything? Or is it just a clever trick? Laurel Bush 16:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[#nomenclature|Ambiguous]] 

message: The article starts off with with a discription of Brythonic P sounds and Gaelic Q or K sounds.
Its quite interesting to note that you select the letter K to represent the Q Cletic brance. But the letter K doesnt exist in Q Celtic. Linguists usually refer to this sound using the "kw" symbol. We get the "kw" sound in our language by combining the letters "Ce".
Interestingly even though many refer to our language as Q Celtic, the letter Q doesnt exist in our language either.
Richard
: "Q Cletic"? Is that a Klingon dialect?
: ...nevermind...
:P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  P's and K's 

message: It is interesting to note that the Irish Constitution states that Gaelic is the language of Ireland and that English "may be considered as a second language".
However, most transactions in politics, commerce and day to day life are conducted in English.
: Imperialism does seem to have punched a nearly fatal blow to Irish, yes. If the powers-that-be in Irish politics and mainstream educational institutions continue to subtly push the idea that the Irish Gaelic language is a hindrance on the path of economic success, then the situation will certainly not improve one iota. Vote wisely. We have a republic in Éireann now... perhaps we should use that to our advantange and teach our children their proper heritage instead of instructing them in Irish history as it is known from the post-Cromwell period. Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland's two official languages  

message: In the article you say:
The oldest written Goidelic language is Primitive Irish
The IberoCelts who spoke Goidolic, and are likely contenders for Goidolic spreading to Ireland, replacing the original Brythonic Celtic spoken in Ireland.
:: ...déanta na fírinne...
:: 
:: The evidence for Brythonic Celtic languages in Ireland prior to the so-called 'Milesian' invasion of Celtic tribes around 500 BCE is, at best, extremely dubious. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Attested Iberian inscriptions that are (provisionally) considered 'Celtic' are a subject of debate. The dating of those inscriptions is, in turn, contested. Kenneth Jackson, Kim McCone, and a few other scholarly luminaries can, at best, speculate about Iberian 'Celtic' epigraphy... so I doubt that new discoveries regarding those inscriptions will be related at Wikipedia. Even if they were, they would constitute a problem according to Wikipedia guidelines.--P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Celtiberian is not Goidelic. --Angr (t·c) 12:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Richard, I am not aware of any instance of definitively Insular Ogham epigraphic evidence in Iberia, BCE. See Angr's comments below if this is confusing to you.--P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  No one can say for certain where exactly that Primitive Irish originated in mainland Europe. It could just as well have been from Frisia as it could have been from further south. The main source of evidence of Primitive Irish having arrived in Ireland from southern Iberia is quasi-legendary at best, and almost entirely mythographical according to most qualified analyses. Frankly speaking, the Lebor Gabála Érenn does not count as an entirely reliable primary source. (fíre an tarchuir, Richard...)--P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  That is a *very* debatable assertion (at best) unless you have some unbelievably excellent evidence that is entirely unknown to Celtic scholars everywhere. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Then you are the one person on Earth who bears that distinction.--P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Since Welsh (of any variety) is quite different from Modern Irish as well as Primitive Irish, that is understandable. Gaulish is in a class of its own since Celtic language scholars are still mostly scratching their collective skulls on the matter of what exactly the genetic linguistic relationship *is* between Continental Celtic languages (what very little we know about them) and Insular Celtic languages. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Simple reason: there is not enough epigraphic evidence of Continental Celtic languages to allow for a firmly factual answer to that question, but the available evidence does not support an unambiguous and direct linguistic continuity from extant old Gaulish to Irish.--P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Níor mhaith- níl an t-am agam... --P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not Goidelic because the definition of Goidelic is "Primitive Irish and and all the languages that descend from it". Whether Celts arrived in Ireland from southern France and Spain or from somewhere else is (1) not provable and (2) irrelevant to linguistic questions. And frankly, I simply don't believe that a native Irish speaker can read and understand the Botorrita plaques with no instruction in Celtiberian language. Especially since no one is entirely sure what they say. --Angr (t·c) 10:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, Celtiberian is written in the Celtiberian script, which is, as you say, based on the Greek and Phoenician alphabets, but is neither Ogham nor cuneiform. --Angr (t·c) 10:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps it might be best to toss a few links into this talk page that demonstrate evidence for unquestionable ogham inscriptions in Spain. That might help a bit. Should you be able to do so, we can go from there in addressing your concerns. Since ogham is one of my favourite subjects, I am very interested in what evidence you wish to put forth to support your claims.--P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest written Goidelic Language - Primitive Irish 

message: The idea that Scot comes from Celtic word Scotos has been inserted into this article, and that Celtic Scotoi became Latin Scoti (Would the Primitive Irish form actually be Scoti BTW?). Is the word actually attested in Primitive Irish? This idea seems to be controversial at best; i was hoping the person responsible could give the source of this theory. Calgacus 20:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotos 

message: I'm surprised at some of the dubious additions since I last looked at this article.  Scot may be related to scoth? Wishful thinking indeed!  And what exactly does "merely modernisations (in general in parallel, sometimes in different directions) of the 'classical' language" mean, if anything at all?
I'll probably change these soon, but what I'd like to flag is the sentence beginning "For knowledgeable Irish people".  For now I think this deserves deletion, since it was added by an anonymous user whose IP was only active on Wikipedia for a couple of days in December 2005. I suspect what they meant was something more like "To further complicate matters many speakers in Northern Ireland routinely refer to the language as Gaelic" so perhaps some "knowledgeable" person (who actually knows) could put something like that back in?
But to suggest that N.I. is where the word Gaelic entered English is absurd.  I suspect it's very difficult, if not impossible, to say whether it came from Irish or from Scottish Gaelic.
The "modern" (i.e. standard English) form of Scottis is Scottish, not Scots.  The further linkification to Anglic language is not really necessary (one ref. to Scots is enough), so I've deleted the sentence beginning "The modern form of the latter term" as well.
☸ Moilleadóir 10:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various dubious changes 

message: I'm not sure that the origin/meaning of this word is certain.  Can anyone supply a citation for the Old Welsh derivation?
☸ Moilleadóir 10:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goídel: meaning 

message: I don't see how we can justify adding this extinct variety unless we also add all sorts of others, e.g.  Antrim Irish, Meath Irish, to the Classification section.  Consequently I have deleted it from 'Classification' and added a link to 'See also' since it does look like an interesting article.
☸ Moilleadóir 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galwegian Gaelic / dialects 

message: I'm removing the following paragraph until sources can be found to back it up.
:Goidelic languages may once have been common on the Atlantic coast of Europe and there is evidence that they were spoken in the region of Galicia in modern Spain and Portugal, around Marseille, at the head waters of the Seine, in the Celtic heartlands of Switzerland, Austria and so on, and in Galatia.
I suspect no sources can be found for this astonishing claim, though. User:Angr 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pity.  It would be fun scholarship. - Gilgamesh 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental Goidelic? 

message: It seems to me true to say that "Q-CELTIC = FRINGE Celtic".  That is, Q-CELTIC tongues appear in the peripheral FRINGES of Europe... Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.  Conversely, P-CELTIC tongues appear in Britain, Gaul, and the Continent; perhaps I could say CORE Celtic.  Furthermore, German is "P-CELTIC" in the sense that we say "Four, Five/Fimpf" -- recall, by Grimm's Laws, that P -> F in German.  (By contrast, Latin is "Q-CELTIC" in the sense of "Quatuor, Quinque".)  And I have read (online) that the Celts dominated the Germans until the 3rd Century BCE, explaining obviously Celtic loanwords in German like *Arbeit.  So, assuming SOME sort of direct and close association of Continental Celtic and Germanic tongues, that Germanic resembles "Core-Celtic" in it's "P-ness" (again, F_our, F_ive, not Q_our, Q_ive) seems understandable.  My overall point is this: "Fringe-Celtic", by virtue of its peripheral geographical placement, would seem to be the OLDER tongue, the relic remnant left behind by incomplete conquest from the "core" areas.  Moreover, it does take more complicated motor control to articulate "P" than the guttural "K/Q".  In that sense, Q-CELTIC is "simpler" -- to wit, more "primitive" -- than P-CELTIC.  Therefore, I wager that Q-CELTIC is older and "more original" than P-CELTIC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 December 2006   (UTC)
:Germanic isn't Celtic at all; the change of kw > p > f in Germanic is restricted to the words for "four" and "five". Normally kw remains labiovelar in Germanic and becomes hw (Modern English wh). And it's true that Q-Celtic is more archaic than P-Celtic, at least in its treatment of kw. Simple comparison with other Indo-European languages shows that kw is older than p in Celtic; no need to worry about fuzzy concepts like "motor control". However, that's only one sound, and it's inappropriate to label an entire group of languages "more archaic" (or "more original") than another on the basis of a single sound. The fact is, Continental Celtic (whether P or Q) seems much more archaic than Insular Celtic (whether P or Q) for the simple reason that most attestations of Continental Celtic are much older than most attestations of Insular Celtic. —Angr 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q-Celtic as peripheral