Talk:Ogham inscription

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Celts Low‑importance

	Ogham inscription is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland Low‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

this is intended as a list, giving the bare inscription contents plus location data. There can always be dedicated articles about individual inscriptions, e.g. you can copy-paste most of [1] to CIIC 1. dab (ᛏ) 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Question

Why do you named the ogham, a Pictish alphabet? The CRUITHNI (true name for PICT - Pict is a latin abuse totally wrong, stop please to call them with a roman name so vulgar) are Kelts as any other Keltic people. We find ogham in all England, Ireland, Scotland, in France (Vosges, there was also in Brittany, but erased by the Britto-romans and the catholic church) in California (USA) and in a lot of countries anywhere in the world. So how do you know that the CRUITHNI have invented this writing? It's wrong to affirm that. The reality is all the scholarlies, anachorites (ANKAR or ANCAR in Cornish) of any Celtic Culture shared their knowledge in some international meeting (yes, already at this time, same 2000 years BC). So we can say this writing is western Keltic, but it's not only CRUITHNE.

Personally i think this writing existes since 3000 years, at the same date of the Sumerian writing only made for the trade. Nobody can to imagine that poetry is less important than trading, almost in the world of the Kelts; but they engraved on wood boards (to keep living the texts), on a stone it's only for deads.

I can say that the word to call about ogham or ogam (to say O:m, like Ohm), exists in Cornish; it defines this writing like the Rule of the Circles. It's the proof that ogham is not only from Scoto-Milésians from Alba or Ireland.

Intervention : HOMINN Lebirec 1er Septembre 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.177.50 (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

Can I ask why in the "Orthodox" section, Ireland and Wales have their own tables, but Scotland, Mann and England are grouped together? Where is the sense in that? Is it a number thing? And also, Shetland is in Scotland, so why is there is there a table categorized "Scotland, Shetland" in the "scholastic" box? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the list is still a stub. I put the inscriptions under rough geographic headers, following Macalister if I remember correctly. If you decide to work on expanding the list, feel free to re-organize the headings. dab (ᛏ) 11:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Ogham Formatting?

I've noticed that some Ogham texts on this page have space marks buffering the opening and closing feather marks from the letters ( ᚛ ᚑᚌᚆᚐᚋ ᚜ ), whereas others don't ( ᚛ᚑᚌᚆᚐᚋ᚜ ). I was wondering what the convention is on this, if any? -Wikilackey 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

these are leftovers from before the article was split off Ogham. I see no reason for keeping them at all, since they add no information. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Display of UTF-8 chars in Firefox

This doesn't work, at least for me. I get a series of question marks, presumably in place of ogham characters. I'm going to try it with Internet Explorer now to see if there's a difference. --Mal 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of technical limitations, some web browsers may not display some special characters in this article.

Got side-tracked there! OK, so that doesn't necessarily explain why it also doesn't work for Internet Explorer. Is there a list of Web Browsers that the characters do work for anywhere..? Cheers. --Mal 10:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded a couple of fonts. Its not so much a "technical issue" as you don't necessarily have a font installed that's capable of displaying the characters.. apparently. Maybe that's "technical" for some right enough. Great page for this is here.

The ogham characters look tiny on the page though - I have to increase the font size in my browser quite a bit in order to see the individual strokes etc. --Mal 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English Ogham example

Not having read MacManus' book, I am puzzled by his suspicion of the one example from England: it was recovered during the complete (& sadly insufficently scientific) excavation of Silchester in the late 19th century, found in a well. I can provide a cite to Frere's Britannia to show this is just not some figument of my imagination. -- llywrch 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. After further eading of this article, I found it mentioned under CIIC 496. Although I'm still puzzled why this article quotes McManus' totals without further comment. I'm unaware of any reason the Silchester ogham inscription would not be considered as falling the "primitve Irish" period. -- llywrch 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ogham Keyboard

Anyone who's interested in typing in Ogham can get a keyboard layout from here. As far as I know, it will only work with Windows 2000/XP; it might work on Vista. Wikilackey 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the plug. I just got a new laptop with Vista yesterday, and have just failed to install the keyboard layout on it. I think I need to use the new version of MSKLC in order for it to work on Vista. I'll try to update all my keyboard layouts sometime this week.BabelStone (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated my Ogham and other keyboard layouts to work under Vista.BabelStone (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silchester Ogham Stone

I have deleted the unreferenced assertion that the authenticity of the Silchester Ogham Stone inscription is contested by scholars. The CISP page for the stone (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/stone/silch_1.html) makes no mention of any doubts about the inscription's authenticity, and the latest study of the stone by Fulford et al. ("A New Date for Ogham: the Silchester Ogham Stone Rehabilitated" in Medieval Archaeology 44 pp 1-23) confirms its authenticity. If there are some scholars that still question its authenticity then any such statement should be supported by the appropriate references.BabelStone (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Words MAQQ-

Why the spelling with the double QQ? I thought this was exclusively Pictish? Am I wrong? Paul S (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your're right, the double Q spelling is unusual, and MAQI is normal -- I have corrected rhe Formula Words section. BabelStone (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogham, not "ogham"

I am puzzzled by the inconsistent capitalisation of the word. As the name of a writing system, it would normally be uppercase (cf. "Roman alphabet"), as googling and this talk page mostly suggest; however, in the article, it's "ogham". Rothorpe (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fully consistent.

Why would it be capitalized? It's not a proper noun. The OED has l.c. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's used like a proper adjective, like Roman, or English, or any other name before "alphabet". But it's consistently "ogham" in the article, and indeed Oxford does agree, so I suppose that's OK. Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not any word (it's not an adjective) is capitalized before 'alphabet', 'script', or the like: kana, runes / runic, futhark, hieratic, zhuyin, semaphore, etc., because they aren't proper nouns or adjectives. Though we could doubly capitalize "Ogham Alphabet" if we took that to be an actual name rather than a descriptive phrase. — kwami (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North America (West Virginia)

Why is there no mention of the generally discredited ogham engravings from North America (See the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Fell)?Kdammers (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silchester Ogham stone

Have just created a (terribly hasty!!!) article on this. Please help improve!!! Fergananim (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Track missing inscriptions here

Dungummin Ogham Stone

Missing in-text citations

It would be helpful to add some references, like in the first paragraph for instance. I would add a "citation needed" thingy, but I'm not sure how to do that properly. Pythagimedes (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]