Talk:Lugh/Archive 1

Archive 1

2005 edits

Deleted Lugansk from the list under following reasons:

• originating Lugansk (as well as Luga) from that god is only a hypothesis - since there is a much more wide-spread Slav word "lug/luh/luka" (meaning a meadow - no mystics);
• Lugansk is actually in Ukraine.

AlexPU

Odd-seeming that "lugs" are listed in an article named "Lugh". I suggest we might instead make Lug a small disambiguation page, rather than an immediate redirect. Alai 22:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Lug should be a disambiguation page, e.g.:

=Lug (disambiguation)=

In [[Irish mythology]], [[Lug]] was an ancient [[god]].  

[[Linux User Group|LUG]] is an [[acronym]] that stands for [[Linux User Group]]. 

A [[Lug (bicycle part)|lug]] is also a [[List of bicycle parts|bicycle part]].  

'''Lug''' handles are a kind of flattened knob attached to the side of pottery. 
Lugs may have small perforations to take a cord. They are sometimes found on prehistoric 
ceramics such as [[Hembury]] ware.

Who wants to make it happen? Skoosh 01:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll gladly do the spadework, if nobody minds me moving this page from Lug back to Lugh. The latter is, I'm quite sure, more commonly seen in English publications; it's also more commonly linked to than is Lug. (And if we were going to have this article at Lug, we would do better to use the accent – Luġ. [Yes, yes, that's a later-than-Old Irish innovation, rarara.]) QuartierLatin1968 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Lug is technically more correct in an archaic sense, but Lugh is very common in modern parlance. Is it worth creating Lug (deity) preemptively? -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's just it – in recent years we've gotten used to seeing gh and bh and mh everywhere. I don't see how it could hurt to make that preemptive redirect (maybe Lug (god) too) – I'll get on it. Other than that, the move should now be complete. QuartierLatin1968 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Welsh counterpart confusion

The article's introduction includes his Welsh counterpart is Llew Llaw Gyffes. The "Portrayal in Classical Times" section says that The Irish and Welsh cognates of Lugus are Lugh and Lleu, respectively. This confusion continues throughout the article. Different pages on Wikipedia give different opinions about whether Llew/Lleu are the same character, so I am not touching this one. Just a heads-up. :) --Telsa 09:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Replacement of Irish Hubris

Someone needs to go through this article and remove the heavy Irish connotations that are leant to the God. He was in no way a primarily Irish god, and the idea that the first sentence of the page deems him an "Irish god."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taintedruins (talk • contribs)

Lugh is entirely an Irish figure, testified only in Irish literature. Other articles discuss the early pan-Celtic Lugus and the related Welsh figure Lleu Llaw Gyffes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Myth Origin theory

I see this article presents a theory of the origin of Lug's fight with Balor, it claims that this story is of Greek and Mesopotamian origin, and it further claims that it is "widely held by scholars"...

"It is widely held by scholars that the battle between Lugh and Balor reflects a common Indo-European motif, the battle between the youthful hero and his tyrant Grandfather. This motif is likely to have come to the Celtic speaking lands through contact with Greek traders in the colony of Massillia (Marseille), to whom it came from the Persians, and originated in Mesopotamian tradition through the Prophecy of Sargon."

Well, if it so widely held then it shouldn't be difficult to find a reference or source for this claim/theory. I'm not saying it's not true, but it does seem an odd claim that a Celtic god is inspired by a Sumerian King, anyway the way it's currently put is unacceptable, it needs to be cited and possibly reworded. --Hibernian 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is it possible that the words 'Lugh' and 'Loki' have something to do with the English 'Luck', English 'lucky', German 'Glueck' (=Luck), and German 'Luege' (=Lie)? (This would surely explain the function, or role, of these deities (i.e. that of deception), as well as their ambiguity, or ambiguous status: afterall, luck can go either way). -- Lucian.

The English word luck appears to have come from the dutch word "luc". Luck and Lugh seem to be unrelated.--69.245.43.176 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove section

Following this bit, which I've retained:

It is widely held by scholars that the battle between Lugh and Balor reflects a common Indo-European motif, the battle between the youthful hero and his tyrant Grandfather.

there was the following bit, which I've removed:

This motif is likely to have come to the Celtic speaking lands through contact with Greek traders in the colony of Massillia (Marseille), to whom it came from the Persians, and originated in Mesopotamian tradition through the Prophecy of Sargon.

Firstly, this multi-part journey of a single story is absurdly speculative. We would have a hard time proving even one of the steps. Second, it completely contradicts the preceding sentence: if it is supposed to be an "Indo-European" tradition, why is being tied to the Mesopotamians? And finally, if it is indeed supposed to be an Indo-Europeans, there is hardly a need to invent some complicated story explaining its tranmission through the historical placement of peoples. The Celts spoke an Indo-European language: if they could acquire that in the mists of prehistory, they could easily acquire an Indo-European legend as well. --Saforrest 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting rid of that bit, it seemed very suspect to me too. But I think the first part also needs some revision. As I said above, if this interpretation is so "widely held by scholars", then it should be relatively easy to cite a reference for at-least one scholar or book or whatever, that mentions it, otherwise the "widely held" bit must be taken away, as we have no evidence whether it is widely held, or whether it's a fringe theory. And again I'm not saying it's not true, maybe it is, but it needs some citation and explanation. --Hibernian 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"King of Suck": What's going on fellas? Hovea 11:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Lugh in other media" section

Why was the "Lugh in other media" section deleted? The section was far from complete, but the content of the section had begun to present the continuing presence and influence of the mythology of Lugh in modern culture, thereby offering a context in which to appreciate the stories and details presented earlier in the article. The existence of the section created the opportunity for other editors to contribute and flesh out the subject matter. The section was deleted without any prior discussion. No article currently exists on the subject of Lugh's influence on modern culture, and if one were to be created it would likely be suggested for merging with the main Lugh article. The deletion of this section strikes me as premature, especially since the subject matter seems far from irrelevant. Why was the section deleted? Soundout (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

dxgf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.109.66 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Lugh is just a dialect of the name Luz - the legendary leader of the the Lusitanians. Rus is a dialect of Luz. Russians are named after Celtic god Lug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.145.120 (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

They're a Slavic tribe named after Norsemen, which makes this doubly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.27.219 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ENDOVELLICVS. This lusitanien god has a clear celtic etimology, from ie. *en(i)-dheub-wo-ell-ik-os (celt. *en(i)-dubwellikos), where ie. *dhew- > *dheub-/*dhub-, celt. *dub-i/*dub-u 'black', with ampliation *dub-wo-: cp. gaul. PN DOVEI, DOVELVS, DOVILVS, DOVALLVS; ogham. PN DOVATACIS, DOVATVCEAS, DOB(I)TVCI; celtib. PN DOVILIQ(VM), DOVITERVS, DOVIDENA; lusitanian PN DOVILONICOR(VM),DOVILVS, DOVITENA; callaecian PN DOVAECIA, DOVAIVS, DOVILVS.

Then, it is a darkness, an infernal god, dweller of the underworld (EN-DOVELLICVS or IN-DOVELLICVS, "[lit.] into the darkness").

PN = Personal Name.

Curiously, in the galician Middle Age, the first day of August, the door of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela was opened (Ianua foris), in which the pilgrims sought divine protection and blessing.This tradition is explainable by the cult of Ianus, a deity that is often identify the God lugu- or lucu- (cp. loºkoºbo in celtic tartessian inscriptions,c. VII bC; LVGVBO and LVCVBO in callaecian language and the cantabrian deity LVCVBO)(1).

Also in the Roman Walls of Lugo was found a relief where represents a naked warrior with spear (Lugus?), two oaks and an eagle over the fortress of Lugo (symbolic syncretism between the indigenous tradition of the "celtici gentis" and the augustean roman tradition).

(1) Related, in Callaecia, on other hand, with the greek god Hermes (roman Mercurius: cp. callaecian inscription ERMEEI DEVORI "to Hermes the king of the gods"). It is sure that the callaecian form LUCU- doesn't mean "sacred wood" like latin, because this word was celt. *nemeto-: cp. callaecian two place-names NEMETOBRIGA and other called NEMETOS. Think that some celtic tribal names and place-names can be related with ie. *lou-gh-/*lu-gh- "swamp".

From Lugo (Galicia).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.60.137.167 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Lugh's name and nature

The first four paragraphs of that section are so messed up, one would almost have to just erase them and start over to fix them. Almost every statement that isn't already given a cite needs to be marked with cite needed or original research tags. I don't have the time or energy to go through all of that, but someone needs to. Whateley23 (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Transcription of Ar-éadbair

I'm no expert on this subject, but the Early Modern Irish text listed for Ar-éadbair/Areadbhair, i.e. Aɼéadḃaiɼ, (Lugh#Areadbhar) seams to be wrong. From what I can tell the ɼ character is simply a phonetic character, and one which isn't currently in use by the IPA at that (see Obsolete and nonstandard symbols in the International Phonetic Alphabet). My best guess is that whoever wrote it was attempting to write "insular Rs", i.e. ꞃ. However, the rendering of what is actually there is closer to an insular S (ꞅ). If this is the case then it should be changed to either normal Rs or ꞃ characters. (I suspect the former since strictly speaking insular characters, unlike dotted consonants for example, are simply glyph substitutions rather than characters in their own right.) Could someone please either confirm this or explain why the "tailed r" is used. Thanks. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)