Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 1

message: Would anyone object if I moved the section on differences with Irish to later in the article? I think
the article should begin with more of a discussion of Gaelic in its own right rather than a comparison
with another language. Eoghan 16:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I moved and rearranged it, but this section really needs some editing. Just what exactly are the two tables of word lists supposed to illustrate? Maybe one should be moved to Goidelic languages. Eoghan 19:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start with Gaelic overview rather than Irish comparison 

message: I've been fleshing out British literature, but we're comparatively very low on info on the history of literature in Scottish Gaelic. Any takers? Scottish literature is also significantly undernourished, if anyone has any slight expertise in the area. Man vyi 07:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: I checked the Ethnologue, according to it there are 94,000 speakers, so I edited it. Is this correct? South African Wikipedian
*No, that's not right. If you wish to quote official figures you have to go to the source, not a site like Ethnologue. Official 2001 Census figures are 58652 speakers, and 92396 only if you include people with some professed ability (to understand, read, or write) in the language. That higher figure will include people who, as Prof. MacKinnon says, live in a Gaelic-speaking environment and are used to hearing it in their daily lives but are not necessarily native speakers, and, of course, learners, who, of course, are not the people who can carry the language forward.Eilthireach 20:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, the Ethnologue is too unreliable, especially as regards numbers. Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 18:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speakerage 

message: "In Ireland it [Scottish Gaelic] is sometimes erroneously called Scots": is erroneously really approriate here? Is it not old usage of Scots? The language was called Scots (or Scottis) in Scotland until the late 15th century. The 'language related to English' did not acquire the name until the late 16th century. Laurel Bush 09:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scots as a name for Scottish Gaelic 

message: The pronunciation of lenited slender l is given as /k/.  I assume this is a typo for /l/ (or at least some kind of lateral)? 4pq1injbok 03:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You assume correctly. I've fixed it. --Angr/ 06:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenited slender ''l'' 

message: (The following is a duplicate of comments I made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)
The following map has been applied to the English English page, and to Scottish English:
It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:
*Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
*Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
*Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
*Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
*Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?
I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate map 

message: Stuff about Carrick already in the bit at the top about history - this page is far too messy - I have deleted the duplication
Sologoal (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah right, ok, that makes sense now, cheers! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lowland edit

message: I thought this was a bit of a spurious claim so I deleted it straight off rather than just hitting "Citation needed":
: The language was maintained by the trade empire of the Lordship of the Isles the geographic and cultural descendant of Dál Riata, which continued to control parts of Ulster until the 1500s'
That said, if there is any serious academic who suggests that the Lordship of the Isles grew out of the Kingdom of Dalriada, and that the Kingdom of Scotland was something else entirely I would be very interested to hear it, as it paints a very different picture of the arrival of Gaelic in Scotland...
Prof Wrong (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dal Riáta and the Lordship of the Isles 

message: I'd like to pose a question regarding the Phrases section. I believe that overall, people are discouraged from turning pages into dictionaries or phrasebooks unless there are very good reasons (e.g. a language that is not well documented even in the literature). There also seems to be some toing and froing with dialectal variation.
I think it would be good if we decided what the purpose of this section is and edit it accordingly. The main two options afaict are:
* a small section demonstrating connected speech, demonstrating the commonalities and differences between the Gaelics
* a small section simply of commonly used phrases
In the first instance, I think we should pick examples with less inter-dialectal variation. In the second, we should decide if we're going to list dialectal differences or not. Either we include them all or none but the current version is a bit of a hotchpotch. Opinions? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is a section "Comparison#Common phrases" at Goidelic languages, I think it would be better if on this page Scottish Gaelic dialects were compared instead - OTOH I admit I've no idea how many of them (apart from the Lewis one) are all that distinct today. --Thrissel (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrases 

message: My edit of Gaoidheal's edit was based on a misreading, he never intended to imply that it had come from anywhere but Ireland. As far as the Out-of-Scotland theories, there are a few prominent Scottish historians who argue that it was exported to Ireland from Scotland. Can't think of the name off the top of my head but one of them caused quite a stir some time ago. Most, especially anyone with a linguistic background, see that as lunacy but they do exist and perhaps merit a very brief mention one I find the ref. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are serous questions now about the received history, that Gaelic was brought to Scotland from Ireland.  The evidence is reviewed in the article cited, Were the Scots Irish?, by Ewan Campbell.  He makes a pretty convincing argument and he is not a fringe voice by any means, building on a case made by a number of other archaeologists and historians.  He is cited in the first history paragraph, but that paragraph is a mess, and I am afraid that it will never be coherently fixed.  I have been watching this article for years, and it is an interesting illustration of the ideological debates around the connection between the Scottish Gaelic language and Scottish identity.  The question of when and how Gaelic came to Scotland has always been ideological.  Part of Campbell's thesis is that the migration history was an attempt by early Gaels to more tightly bind themselves to Ireland, at a time when a connection to Ireland would have been seen as prestigious.  But in the later medieval period, this presumed connection was ironically used to marginalize Gaelic as "Erse" and foreign to Scotland.  Campbell's point is that the origin of Gaelic in Scotland is far enough back in time that we may never know how the language came to Argyll, but looking dispassionately at the archaeological and onomastic evidence, the migration history is actually quite unlikely.--Lasairdhubh (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah thanks for reminding me of the name. The problem with historians is unfortunately that they rarely take historical linguistics into account or understand it. Or in other words, can you derive Scots Gaelic from Old/Middle Irish? Yes. Can you derive Irish from what little is known of Early Scots Gaelic. Hardly. Whatever movements the material culture was involved in, linguistically the movement is definitely Ireland > Scotland. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many linguists don't read historians properly. The idea is that Gaelic developed in both Scotland and Ireland from continental origins. The idea that Gaelic comes from Ireland is based on historical rather than linguistic evidence, most of which is not thought today as reliable by historians. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Scotland theories 

message: A chàirdean,
We would like to invite all contributors with Gaelic (gd-4 and gd-5 in particular but gd-1 to gd-3 are welcome to contribute too), to take part in the debate to find an appropriate Gaelic form for Wikipedia that doesn't break any rules regarding phonology, intellegibility or forming good neologism. The debate is here  and - since it involves quite a few technical issues - in English. Chì mi ann sibh! Akerbeltz (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming debate on the Gaelic Wikipedia 

message: This isn't actually a question about this article, more on all articles on Scottish Gaelic. Is it acceptable to just say "gaelic" if the article has already clearly established that Scottish Gaelic is the language in question? For example BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal acknowledges that it's scottish gaelic in the lead, can it then just be referred to as Gaelic for the rest of the article? JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 07:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In Scotland or Ireland I believe that works. For an international audience I think it's best avoided because many articles refer to one of the other 2 Gaelics (Manx Gaelic or Irish Gaelic) and people are eternally confused about which "Gaelic" you might be talking about. So I think it's best to use Irish/Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Manx/Manx Gaelic consistently. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referring to gaelic 

message: I've noticed a discussion on the Mutual intelligibility talkpage about whether or not to include Scottish Gaelic and Irish as mutually understandable in one of the lists. Any reliable source (whether for or against) apparently welcome. --Thrissel (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutually understandable with Irish? 

message: In my new fervour for editing about gaidhlig media, I have rewritten the section on it a bit on this page. It was a bit confused before with some repetition and bouncing from topic to topic. I've also added some references to back up the material. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 22:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media section