Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Personal Names - Iomhar

I've never known anyone who used Iver as a name, but I've known quite a few who used Ivor. Is "Iver" in the personal names section a typing error or is it for real? Michealt (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Over here you're right, Ivor is the dominant spelling but the Nordic spelling seems to be Iver, cf Iver Heltzen, Iver Johnson etc Akerbeltz (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the common Nordic name is Ivar, whereas Iver is a much less common option. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:PRIMARY and WP:SMALLDETAILS, Gaelic language goes to Scottish Gaelic (mostly only linguists call it it the latter; it's referred to by the Scottish as simply Gaelic), while Gaelic languages and Gaelic language family naturally redirect to Goidelic languages. Disambiguation is carried out at both articles with the {{Redirect}} hatnote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing key information

There's virtually nothing in here about preservation and revitalization efforts (and their sometime relationship to Scottish nationalism and to Pan-Celticism, though that's of secondary concern). Some extant material from the "Modern era" and "Current distribution in Scotland" sections can be combined with additional material to create a "Preservation and revitalization" section; I've created a "Status" heading under which to house "Number of speakers", "Distribution in Scotland" and eventually "Preservation and revitalization" (and because I needed a heading of this sort to which to link from various other places in the short term). PS: The distribution info also needs to include sourced stats on Canadian Gaelic use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Common words and phrases

Better to take it to talk. I have long disliked that section to be honest, few other places on Wikipedia or similar pedias use entire phrases to exemplify the proximity or distance between languages of a family. Most commonly, they're words from a Swadesh list. After all, this is not a pan-celtic phrasebook. I would personally prefer to change this table accordingly and pick pairs like màthair/máthair/mayr (given the idiosyncrasies of Manx spelling, I think we should add IPA too to each) and do away with the phrases altogether. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the current section is very bad as it's filled with errors (from an Irish Gaelic perspective). Lá maith is never used for "good day" in normal Irish, as the table claims. Go raibh maith agaibh is only plural, never singular formal, as the table claims. Same thing with Conas atá sibh, it can only be used to more than one person, never as a formal singular as the table claims. Needless to say, the same goes for slán libh as well. Trathnóna maith for "good evening" is also very awkward and English-sounding. That makes for a quite a number of weird/faulty phrases in a very short table, and I agree that getting rid of the phrases to just use words is probably the best solution. Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly concur. I'm not even a fluent speaker, and I had a "WTF?" reaction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've started something in my sandbox, feel free to chip in, especially on the Irish IPA which I'm shaky on. Using Broddick for Manx so that's kosher and I'm certain of the ScG. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarkson

What book makes up the references 14 and 18? All it says is Clarkson and the page numbers, but nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machoooo (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Could be this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Picts-History-Tim-Clarkson/dp/1780271689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447490669&sr=8-1&keywords=picts Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Eclipse section re Scots

The The Eclipse of Gaelic in Scotland section discusses the growing influence of the Scots language, at various periods, in relation to the decline of Gaelic. With the benefit of a modern perspective we are aware of the development from Early to Middle to Modern Scots. That the modern categorisation as "Scots" was not employed in the Early period itself does not disallow us from employing that designation, recognising it as a precedent to the later periods. The First World War wasn't referred to so until we'd had a second one. Inglis was the term used for the language in the time of Barbour but in the context of a section about Scots in relation to Gaelic, using current terminology is not only appropriate but gives more clarity. The new edit confused matters, potentially looking like mention of a third tongue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue of 'Inglis' was fully explored and explained in James Murray's definitive work The Dialects of the Lowland Counties of Scotland published back in the 1870s. In essence Murray correctly pointed out that 'Inglis' was just one amongst several archaic spellings of 'English'. That spelling was as commonplace in England as it was in Scotland. The modern standard spelling 'English' did not even appear in England until the closing decades of the 16th century. Lowland Scots unquestionably 'called' their language 'English' and not 'Inglis'. In the 16th century the Scottish Parliamentary records expressly state that England and Scotland shared the same language.

Using current terminology is sensible: but in current terminology the spelling is English and not Inglis. To improve the article I should replace all references to 'Inglis' with 'English' unless the context is about how spellings have changed over time

(Meanwhile just as an aside re the name of the Great War, C Repington's two volume work The First World War was published in 1920)

Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I see Mutt that in your now customary manner have simply deleted the above information. Might I invite you to go to arbitration if you dispute the accuracy of something rather than simply deleting it because you just don't like it? Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139, including your newer and some-time user name incarnation.

Yet again, it's about your multi-article coatracking of a nebulous POV that I couldn't characterise, let alone dispute. Pertinence, not accuracy. This is not a forum for the promotion of your POV, which seems to take offence at the very mention of Scots, be it as a dialect (/of English), a language, uncharacterised or whatever (it's irrelevant) and seeks to expunge and replace by the term "English" on every occasion, be that unecessarily less-specific or plain wrong.

In a paragraph which discusses various terms, how their use has changed and how they were applied to what are now termed Gaelic, English and Scots, the term "Scots" has to be used when discussing Scots relation to/potentially its inclusion within English, then or in current times. Your contribution is characteristiclly opportunistic, off-topic and disruptive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of "Middle Irish" and "Primitive Irish

In the opening statement it says Scottish Gaelic developed out of Middle Irish and thus descends from Primitive Irish. I think this is quite inappropriate. The language was never referred to as Irish in those times. The word for the Irish language in Irish is Gaelg (I think) so why must English speakers take it upon ourselves to refer to the historical language as Irish rather than it's true name of Gaelic. I propose changing it to Scottish Gaelic, like Irish and Manx descends from Middle Gaelic which ultimately descends from primitive Gaelic. Thoughts ?

I completely agree that 'Irish' is inauthentic, and it's use is inherently racist. This usage is analogous to calling Lakhota 'Indian', or Pitjantjatjara 'Aboriginal' -- it is simply wrong, regardless of how common it is. Glorious Goddess (talk)

My thoughts are that you're trying to push some agenda across various pages. Whatever your personal views on the matter, Celtic linguistics calls these varieties Middle Irish and Primitive Irish in English. Open and shut case. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake!? It is not an 'agenda' to ask that one's native language is referred to by others by it's correct name! Most would consider that simple courtesy and respect. Glorious Goddess (talk)

As per Akerbeltz, Primitive Irish and Middle Irish are the proper linguistic terms and thus is the most acceptable for an encyclopaedia. Please do not change these terms in the article. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they are only the "proper linguist terms" in English-centric scholarship. In that of Éire, the language is called Gaeilge, and because this is the usage of it's native speakers, it is - I'm sorry - the only correct one (and before I'm accused of having an agenda, FYI, I am neither from Éire nor a native speaker of Gaelic). Glorious Goddess (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We use English terms for an English article. 'Irish' is the name of the language in English and even native speakers will refer to 'Irish' when speaking English. Using native speakers as the source of the "only correct" terminology is just an ideological difference and not standard policy. To insist it be any other way is agenda pushing. 86.46.109.52 (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope no agenda here. Just a curiosity. I didn't change it and won't I merely proposed changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries then! Your comment was valid and thanks for contributing here. Why not create an account and help contribute to articles? The five pillars can help you understand the basic philosophy behind editing on Wikipedia. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 02:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to that, there is a valid argument to be made that the commonly-used term is slightly misleading. Just as I object to the term "Old English" for the language varieties spoken in parts of modern Scotland as well as modern England during the second half of the 1st millenium AD as excessively England-centric(Anglocentric doesn't work, as I'd prefer to call the language Anglo-Saxon), I object to the use of "Middle Irish" for a language by then long established in Scotland as excessively Hiberno-centric. Unfortunately, Wikipedia guidelines say to follow the bulk of literature and expert opinion, and the bulk of Gaelic researchers are Irish and the bulk of Anglo-Saxon researchers are English, so biased ethnocentric names are the current norm which Wikipedia must follow..... Prof Wrong (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad someone shares the same opinion as me then. Hopefully this will change sometime in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, the claim that Scottish Gaelic "developed out of Middle Irish" is dubious at best. What we call "Middle Irish" is known by written records only, and the spoken vernacular would have diverged greatly by this point. There isn't a lot of it about, but there are Scottish writings from even as far back as the 12th century that show grammatical features characteristic of Scottish Gaelic that don't occur in Irish. To me, describing it as evolving from "Middle Irish" is like claiming that French evolved from Medieval Latin.... Prof Wrong (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Middle Irish is the period when Old Irish norms were no longer followed and the language began to diverge and develop regional dialects. (That does not mean there were no dialects in Ireland in the Old Irish period, but they are not attested and any dialectal diversity that might have existed has disappeared virtually without trace.) The linguistic evolution from Old Irish to Scottish Gaelic is completely clear, and Middle Irish forms a transition period between both, where regional dialects in Scotland as well as Ireland emerged. Old Irish was remarkably homogeneous and standardised, while Middle Irish was considerably more heterogeneous. This is well in keeping with the usual model of language spread and differentiation. In view of the high homogeneity of Old Irish, it is implausible that it was spoken over a large area, thus the idea that it was spoken both throughout Ireland and in Scotland is dubious. Either it was the dialect of a highly prestigious region or a transdialectal compromise that did not correspond to any particular spoken dialect, comparable to Middle Chinese.

However, all modern Gaelic (Goidelic) varieties descend from a proto-dialect very close to written Old Irish, which implies that eventually at least it did become a spoken form as well. It is not impossible that this proto-dialect was actually spoken in Dál Riata and spread back to Ireland from there, although it does not seem particularly plausible historically. The most realistic model is to assume repeated expansions that ended up overwriting the former dialectal diversity only to see new diversity arising, similar to how a single Italic dialect, the Latin dialect of Rome, expanded in Ancient Italy to erase the former dialectal diversity of Italic, only for new Romance dialects to arise. In the case of Goidelic, the only expansion we can directly trace is the most recent one in the Middle Irish period. But it is implied there were earlier ones, the next-to-last expansion then yielding the dialectal diversity in which Old Irish arose and which it later erased.

In any case, it is completely clear that the origin of the Scottish Gaelic language is in Ireland. Primitive Irish is clearly distinct from Old and Early Brittonic. Both exhibit characteristic exclusive innovations – even apart from the P/Q-split – that show they must have been different already in the 4th century. Whether archaeological continuity exists is completely irrelevant: Most historically known migrations cannot clearly be traced in the archaeological record, and this is even expected because in numerous cases only a thin upper class actually spread. J. P. Mallory has specifically written on the "continuity fallacy", which is also found in archaeogenetic discussions. Denial of the origin of the Scottish Gaelic language in Ireland is not based on facts, but political dogma, and crucially overlooks that the origin of a language is independent of the origin of its speakers: That most Irish people speak English now does not mean that these speakers of Anglo-Irish are all immigrants from early modern England. Indigenous Scottish Highlanders are genetically probably predominantly Pictish (and in the Western Isles, Scandinavian) rather than Irish. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

On pages 79 to 80 of his book "Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages", Professor Peter Schrijver writes: " The closest cognate of Irish is British Celtic, or rather Highland British Celtic, the ancestor of Welsh, Cornish, and Breton that was spoken in the west and north of Britain. Although on the face of it the Old Irish of the seventh century and Old Welsh and Breton of the eighth century look very different from one another, almost all of the differences between them had arisen in a relatively short period between the fifth and seventh centuries AD, when masses of sound changes affected both languages. In fact, during the Roman period Irish and British Celtic must have been so similar that Celtic speakers on either side of the Irish Sea had little difficulty in understanding one another’s language. The earliest datable linguistic development that was not shared between Irish and British is the development of the Proto-Celtic diphthong * ai to * ɛ̄ (as in English bed but long), which affected British Celtic but not Irish, probably at some point during the later first century AD at the earliest. Before this happened, Irish and British Celtic were not just mutually comprehensible dialects; they were indistinguishable from one another."2A02:908:DF23:1C80:886F:4F33:A3FF:F8C7 (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Pushing fringe theory

During the summer, one single user, without any discussion, changed this article to suggest there is a consensus that Scottish Gaelic developed in Scotland, and didn't come from Ireland. This extreme WP:FRINGE theory seems to rest on one single person. Not only is it incorrect to present it as the prevailing view (as it is not), it's even wrong to include it at all. Wikipedia provides space for both majority and minority options if both are substantial, but the personal theories of one individual is WP:UNDUE. This whole nonsense should be swiftly removed unless any reliable sources for it can be presented. Jeppiz (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us some diffs? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately it's gone, as Cagwinn quite rightly removed it at the same time I wrote the above. I've removed the tag I placed. Jeppiz (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That was total nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Added again and removed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but Campbell's idea isn't fringe, at least not among archaeologists. Campbell is the most prominent archaeologist working on western Scotland and the isles in the early Middle Ages. Now, that his theory isn't widely accepted can be noted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely fringe - but of course, many British archaeologists favor fringe theories these days (a very sad fact). Cagwinn (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not WP:Fringe, because Campbell represents a respected minority in his field. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

A minority, certainly. Respected? By whom? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

By scholars of the early Middle Ages. So, look at Fraser's Caledonia to Pictland pp. 147–48, does that look like he isn't respected? Being a senior lecturer at Glasgow, having books under the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Council for British Archaeology, and Historic Scotland. This is all superfluous, he is a professional scholar who has advocated one way of looking at the evidence of his own field; the early Middle Ages is an era where the evidence is rarely decisive (that applies to philology and textual history as well as archaeology), and scholarship isn't about slavish conformity, it's about debate, and Campbell has started a significant debate which is itself of some note; the reception of his position can be noted and given due weight, but there isn't really a good case for excluding his position (not on the grounds stated here anyway) much less seeking to do so with borderline-WP:BLP violations regarding WP:Fringe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

With that noted, it should be said that the editor's addition could appear to misrepresent the argument's reception, though in fairness the article says 'commonly accepted by scholars today' and cites references from the 1990s and 1970s! The history section of this article is generally not very good / out of date, and has gone downhill in the last few years. The massive amount of stuff about Margaret and Mael-Coluim for instance is basically myth / outdated antiquarian speculation rooted in a misconceived link between high politics and overlyrapid linguistic change, and scholars who are actually active in 11th/12th.13th century Scotland don't generally think Gaelic began to decline until about the 13th century. There is a recent piece by Clancy that could be used to improve this article, see here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

To note, the editor that re-added the material here this morning also edited regarding the same theory at the Dál Riata article. On the basis of the earlier consensus above I removed this material but there is still significant coverage of Campbell's theories elsewhere in the article. I'll leave it to those who know more on the matter if it ought be covered and if so how. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree about your general assessment of the quality of refs and content of this page, to begin with.

Moving on though, the debate is also not about when Gaelic began declining. Unless this "theory" has been revised recently, this is about whether the linguistic movement was from Ireland to Scotland, the other way round (which has also floated around some archaeological heads over the years) or whether we're looking at some sort of continuity since the Iron Age. With the mainstream accepting a linguistic movement out of Ireland into Scotland, not the other way round. Which may or may not be in alignment or contrary to material culture, the flow of goods etc etc.

Building such a theory on material culture while ignoring the linguistic side of the coin is short-sighted, to be polite. It is not entirely uncommon amongst archaeologists, some of whom seem to have some in-built reluctance to consider anything that's not bone or stone.

At best, this should be presented as a contentious theory held by a minority of non-linguists. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, just mention the general issue of quality on this page. Re Campbell, has he ignored the linguistic evidence? He's aware that Irish and Scottish Gaelic shared innovations much later, but his model is there to explain those by much more 'optimistic' mechanisms like continual contact, etc (many archaeologists don't like migrations, as a rule). I guess it doesn't matter. All that matters here is that, I think everyone can agree, Campbell's views are notable but not widely accepted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Gaelic linguists have no beef with continual contact, indeed, it's such a no-brainer that it perhaps gets talked about less than it should. For Gaels, the sea between Ireland and Scotland has long been more of a convenient highway than a barrier and no Gaelic linguist I know of argues that the Dal Riata event was THE cause of Gaelic coming to Scotland. After all there were Irish colonies in Wales and on Man, it would be ludicrous to suggest there were none in Argyll. What did arguably happen was a heightened influx and a more concentrated power structure as opposed to presumably semi-independent colonies and with such a shift in political and societal structure, it would be highly unusual from a linguistic POV for that not to result in a linguistic shift/split. So the main argument really boils down to the question if the split in Insular Celtic to P and Q was total on the mainland or whether there was a pocket of Q Celtic in Argyll that remained and was at some point "re-inforced" by Irish settlement. This is where the linguistic evidence doesn't really stack up for Campbell, there's just too much P Celtic in place names in the west of Scotland. Epidii just screams P Celtic for one thing. Incidentally, I see that someone has inserted Campbell's "stuff" into the Epidii article too, with what I'd regard as undue prominence. While I agree he merits a mention, I think someone is trying to seed Wikipedia with his theory which is not ok the way I see it. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this correspond with the evidence being indecisive? Epidii is 'P-Celtic' (the same etymology produces early Gaelic Eochaid), but all that shows is that the source was 'P-Celtic'--rather like if we split all Germanic speakers into how they pronounced *burgz place-names and used American pronunciation for Edinburgh (the P-Q variation is nowadays regarded by many as quite frivolous). There are 'P-Celtic' names recorded in Ireland too. Anyway, these days, it's not even certain that there was a P-Q 'split' in Insular Celtic until the end of the Roman era, before some of the early ranges for the alleged migration! Perhaps this evidence leans against Campbell, but it's hardly decisive. Campbell's case is archaeological and historical, for which he does have rebuttals (the Dalriada article seems to handle this quite well). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"...it's not even certain that there was a P-Q 'split' in Insular Celtic until the end of the Roman era"...sorry, that's just nonsense. Brittonic already had P's before the Roman invasion (hello? The island's name is *Pritani, Hellenized/Latinized as Pretannia) and Ireland never developed P's. The ancient names with Ps in Ireland either were passed on the Greek and Romans via Brittonic speakers, who automatically converted Proto-Irish /kW/ to /p/, or they reflect Gallo-Brittonic colonies there. Cagwinn (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what you call a circular argument.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's called having 30 years of experience studying Celtic historical linguistics. I keep up with all the latest developments, by the way, and correspond with several top researchers in the field, so I am quite aware of what you are referring to in regards to linguists downplaying the P/Q split in recent years - and I think you misunderstand the argument. Cagwinn (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You're being a bit mysterious here, you'll need to elaborate because I don't know what point you are making. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No one (or at least no one who knows what they are talking about) claims that the P/Q split dates to the end of the Roman era - mainly because we have plenty of onomastic evidence proving otherwise.Cagwinn (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Verging a bit close to the No true Scotsman argument here, and the 'onomastic evidence' doesn't really 'prov[e] otherwise'. Anyway, some of Schrijver's arguments put that area in range, and Maier has also suggested Late Antiquity/early Middle Ages -- and don't forget Ptolemy dates to the mid Roman era. I am not denying that most have put the 'split' earlier...

...When was the tower of Babel built again? ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are just way out of your league here and making ridiculous arguments for arguments' sake (no true Scotsman - are you serious??). You seem to be influenced on this issue by a single article - hardly a scholarly consensus. Cagwinn (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You regard yourself as major league because you have sent some scholars emails? You have no idea what you are talking about, please, enough with the personal attacks. I'm not here to bruise your ego, I am merely trying to clarify certain misconceptions about the evidence here and the important points have already been made. If you want to continue this P/Q stuff, please visit my userpage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have done a lot more than simply "sent some scholars emails". Though the site is no longer active, I wrote one of the first comprehensive surveys of Gallo-Brittonic posted on the web and received numerous accolades for it from scholars. I have also founded, moderated, and been an active participant of several academic-oriented mailing lists dedicated to Celtic historical linguistics for the past 15 years; members of my lists include many of the top Celticists working today, a number of whom have consulted with me on linguistic issues and even cited me as a source in their own work. I am not just some random Wikipedia editor and I guarantee you that I most certainly know what I am talking about when it comes to the history of the Brittonic and Irish languages. Cagwinn (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Cagwinn, congrats on all your achievements. It's great to have another expert editor here. Wikipedia has lots of expert editors, including myself, and many much more impressive than either you or me. Wikipedia is very lucky to have Akerbeltz contributing his Gaelic language expertise, and hopefully you'll bring much to the encyclopedia in future with your enthusiasm for Arthuriana and early Celtic topics. Your own opinions about your expertise are not a substitute, however, for evidence or argument, and they certainly don't give you license to be uncivil--as you surely must realise, having so recently had your own talk page blocked for personal abuse. You seem to want to exercise some sort of leadership, but you'll meet few leadership experts who'll endorse your view that abusing people with insults or typing emoticon-phrases constantly is likely to inspire respect. You're going to have a hard time on Wikipedia with this sort of attitude; you're certainly not going to get anywhere with me. To repeat what I said above, if you want to continue this, you should use my talk page (or your own), because our conversation has more than ceased to serve any use for the overall discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does Epidii make it indecisive?? In any case, I'm not aware of P/Q being regarded as frivolous by linguists. Archaeologists maybe. *burgz is a really poor comparison as this is the echo of a particular word whereas P/Q a) stands for a whole raft of linguistic innovations which applied to either one or the other side but not both and b) applies across the board as a sound change. If you want a Germanic equivalent, it's more like the different outcomes of the Great Vowel Shift in Southern vs Northern English/Scots. As regards Irish place names with P, those few which are indeed Goidelic rather than Norse or Anglo-Saxon in origin are essentially all the result of backformation (i.e. de-lenition of f > p i.e. by speakers re-analyzing a place name like /fɑːl/ and assuming it is the result of páil /pʰɑːl/ > pháil /fɑːl/ ) and thus relatively recent innovations.Akerbeltz (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is Epidii indecisive? As I explained, the name is not recorded from local sources, but via other Celtic speakers who, if they rendered q as p, would render it Epidii regardless of how it was pronounced by locals (this still happens in the 12th century!). It's arguably a bit naive to take written forms like this at face value, as many historians and historical philologists have done. However, if you do, you have to accept that the kw>p innovation had spread to Ireland as well as Argyll (e.g. the Menapii recorded in Ptolemy, the same source for the Epidii--i.e. not later backformations that you are talking about), unless you wish to get bogged down in circular argument. Some people do accept it. Mallory recently accepted that Ireland had 'P Celts', and that 'Q Celts' came to dominate quite late.

Re Ps and Qs, the Insular Celtic hypothesis is partially based on the lack of importance of the distinction: it may have begun as a natural change that happened in different parts of Celtia, but was not part of anything systematic--but later came to appear so because it became a systematic difference between British and Gaelic. I'm no expert in these things, and don't have a view, but it illustrates that matters aren't as simple as some here might be supposing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Menapii were in modern-day Belgium. So not relevant to the Q/P debate in Ireland/Scotland except very tangentially. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As you can see above, I didn't bring this tribe up because of Belgium, but because there was (another) tribe of that name in Ireland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean the Manapii? Those who appear in Old Irish as the *coughs* Manaig(h)/Monaig(h) with that pesky c/g? Akerbeltz (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, they appear in Ptolemy with the 'p', just like the Epidii; so either there were 'P Celts' in Ireland and Argyll, or both spelling representing the form of Celtic of an intermediate source (that rendered Kws into Ps). Or you can go with the circular argument. Ultimately, the point is that the thin 'linguistic evidence' is pretty indecisive and could be used to support whatever position one already believed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"so either there were 'P Celts' in Ireland and Argyll, or both spelling representing the form of Celtic of an intermediate source (that rendered Kws into Ps)." LOL - didn't you accuse me above of engaging in a circular argument for saying exactly the same thing?? Cagwinn (talk)

Not to my knowledge, Cagwinn. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I am beginning to think you are a troll. See above: "That's what you call a circular argument.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)"

Enough with the personal attacks, Cagwinn. You misunderstanding someone else's statements / getting confused in a discussion with someone does not that other person a 'troll'; on the other hand, calling fellow collaborators bad names could open oneself up to uncharitable allegations. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, brother! I am not misunderstanding anything - reread your own posts in this thread! Cagwinn (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you have gotten confused about either the concept of a circular argument or else the particular circular argument being referred to--it's not clear which. Maybe calm yourself first and re-read my posts, then if it's still unclear and still really important to you, post either here or on my talk page for clarification. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Gaelic literacy

I've just added a controversial piece of information, so I am going to clarify my sourcing:

"2.1 -- Gaelic language skills in 2011 - Scotland In 2011, 87,100 people aged 3 and over in Scotland (1.7 per cent of the population) had some Gaelic language skills. Of these 87,100 people:

•  32,400 (37.2 per cent) had full skills in Gaelic, that is could understand, speak, read and write Gaelic;
•  57,600 (66.2 per cent) could speak Gaelic;
•  6,100 (7.0 per cent) were able to read and/or write but not speak Gaelic; and
•  23,400 (26.8 per cent) were able to understand Gaelic but could not speak, read or write it."

accessible at this link. Thanks! Alázhlis (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Split off History of Scottish Gaelic

The history section of this article is over 1,500 words and contains esoteric details not necessarily relevant to those reading this article (such as "An Irish translation of the Bible dating from the Elizabethan era was in use until the Bible was translated into Scottish Gaelic"). Especially considering that it comes first in this article and there is much more to be written on this topic, I think it might be a good time to split off a History of Scottish Gaelic article (compare History of the Irish language) and reduce somewhat the coverage here. Catrìona (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Akerbeltz (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scottish Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/common/home.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/common/home.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/help-guides/satellite/satellite-frequencies
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121226073110/http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/s2/12 to http://multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/s2/12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Atlantic Gaelic Academy

Right so I've heard of the Atlantic Gaelic Academy but as far as I know, while they call themselves an Academy, they aren't an official accredited tertiary educational institution but simply offer Gaelic classes. I cannot even locate a website that doesn't flash "this site may be hacked" at me so I'm having doubts as to the inclusion alongside bona fide institutions such as St Francis Xavier. It doesn't even seem to have its own Wiki page, which again makes me wonder about notability? I mean, I could set up a string of classes and call myself the Gaelic College of Kelvinside but that wouldn't make me a college. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As for the hacking, when one searches for the Atlantic Gaelic Academy, Google flashes this warning. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely a genuine institution (so not clear why Google thinks it's a phishing website) but doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own page and certainly not an accredited academic institution. Catrìona (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We contacted Google and they corrected the “hacking” reference a few days ago. Thanks for advising us as we didn’t know it was there. However it did take a few days to propagate through the internet system, but as of today we see that it no longer shows on Google search. So everything should be okay.

In regard to the AGA information that was on Wikipedia-Canadian Gaelic, we do think the information was appropriate, and it had been there for many years. In the past the requirement to be listed was broad and included universities and “other” organizations that taught Gaelic, and we certainly fit in the “other” category. However, we now see that this “other” wording has been removed and it seems to be much more restrictive as to who should be shown there. I do see as well though that, if the AGA information shouldn’t be there, there are also others that should be removed, and basically the Universities should be the only ones left. We had put the AGA information on Wikipedia to provide information to others and not for advertising purposes or self-serving purposes, and we get no advertising benefit from it. In addition, even though we are not classed as a University, our students have received credit from universities and high schools for the courses taken from the AGA. We still think it would be appropriate for AGA information to be show on Wikipedia, and so we would request that you review our website information and check with others in the Gaelic community to get a proper understanding of the school. Gaelic27 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! Yeah shifting goalposts can be a pain on Wikipedia. Thing is, and that has been true for a very long time, an organisation's own site and "people" have never been criteria for inclusion. Ideally we need "someone else" to state something about the ACA which indicates its notability. Have there been any articles or interviews in the papers for example or maybe some academic papers on Gaelic in Canada which refer to it? Not suggesting you are in the same category but if you look at some language courses own PR stuff, like those Total Immersion Plus courses, you'd think they had a magic bullet and could get you fluent in days AND cure scrofula at the same time ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There have been many articles and interviews with the AGA in newspapers, magazines, and radio over the years particularly in the early years, which was over 10 years ago. One radio interview was with the BBC. The most recent we recall was an interview/article regarding the Gaelic language with Celtic Life Magazine (Oct 2016 issue, page 53). This page included similar interviews with the University of Aberdeen, and University College Cork. There was also a feature article with the same magazine (Oct 2014 issue, pages 62 to 65). This article/interview was with the AGA and Cape Breton University regarding the state of Gaelic studies. We are not fans either with some of those courses that offer “magic bullets”. We believe that adults must learn to read, write, and speak the language simultaneously, and not just try to speak it. And, that only hard work over time will bring an adult to fluency.Gaelic27 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of "Catrìona" / "Caitrìona"

Under "Personal Names," one listed is "Catrìona (Catherine)"

Under the next heading, "Surnames," the same name is spelled Caitrìona: "... Catherine MacPhee is properly called in Gaelic, Caitrìona Nic a' Phì"

I know that the Irish version of the name is "Caitríona", but it's unclear to me what spelling is correct in Scottish Gaelic. I would like to clarify whether both forms are correct, and if so add a note to remove confusion.

Could someone who knows the answer help me out, so I can make the necessary changes?

Thanks!

Alázhlis (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus. It's not a native name (stress not in the first syllable is usually a clue and long vowels attract stress i.e. it's catRÌONa no CATrìona) and as often with borrowed words, the spellings are not uniform. Both spellings are used, even though Catrìona is a lot more common. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Caitrìona is more in keeping with the rules of Gaelic spelling, which like to balance front and back vowels ("slender to slender"), but as Akerbeltz says, odd things can happen when proper nouns are borrowed between languages, and the spelling of personal names is often variable in most languages. Scott's novel Catriona has probably contributed to the popularity of Catrìona. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Modern era

Not sure that the following matches the references given:

Even before then, charitable schools operated by the Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge used instructional methods designed to suppress the language in favour of English and corporal punishment against students using Gaelic.

"Then" presumably means the Culloden. However, the source states that the SSPCK had a policy of punishing the speaking of Gaelic in 1753 - which is clearly after Culloden, and then decided to teach Gaelic and English together in 1766.

If you look at the chapter on "the Language of the Gael" in Devine's Clanship to Crofters' War (Chapter 8) there is much more information on discrimination against Gaelic in the education system. Amid all the other information is the interesting point that the Gaelic Schools Society found that their activities (teaching in Gaelic) actually promoted bilingualism.

Devine also makes the point that English was the "language of work" - so many Gaels were migrant workers (to places where English predominated) that it was inevitable that this second language gained prominence.

I hesitate to get involved in editing this article myself - but I strongly suggest that Devine's work be considered as a source.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References