Talk:Teribus ye teri odin

Fair enough, definitely a big no no. Reflecting on Charles MacKay's etymologies under the light of modern scholarship by quoting the linguist Anatoly Liberman (the author of Word Origins…And How We Know Them, Oxford University Press, USA, 2005 and An Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology: An Introduction University Of Minnesota Press, 2008) who described MacKay as an "etymological monomaniac", adding that "MacKay believed that thousands of English words go back to Scottish Gaelic and in 1877 brought out a dictionary[2] full of the most fanciful conjectures. He was hauled over the coals by his contemporaries and never taken seriously.[3] 79.197.184.199 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's about as good as any of the other etymologies that have been suggested. It is possible that the phrase did not even originate in Hawick itself, but was brought in from another region.

As for etymologies, there are quite a number of words In English (especially slang and dialect) which have been listed as being of "unknown origin", which have similarities to Celtic languages. This is because English linguists were trained in classical tongues and Teutonic languages, but their knowledge of Celtic languages was scanty.

MacKay has to be put in context perhaps. During the same rough period, we have John Jamieson, who was notorious for doing the exact opposite... i.e. he was said to have preferred obscure etymologies for Lowland Scots words from the furthest reaches of the Continent rather than admit any contamination from the language in the other half of the country.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles MacKay's etymology for teribus ye teri odin is perhaps more a case of as bad as any of the other etymologies, rather than as good as. The suggestion that the phrase is somehow connected to the Norse Gods Thor and Odin and been fairly well deconstructed in the reference provided. MacKay offers nothing that backs up his suggestion, which would appear to be based on nothing more than the superficial resemblance to a Gaelic phrase he likely pulled out of his hat. It is possible that... but may things could be possible, but without anything to substantiate the possibility, suggestions are more likely to be unsubstantiated fantasy rather than fact. Has John Jamieson suggested an etymology for teribus ye teri odin? If not, he is of no relevance here except as another example of how scholarship has moved on in the last hundred years or so. What does modern scholarship have to say about the phrase?

What is interesting is that 19th century sources referring to the ancient 'war cry' teribus ye teri odin never actually cite older sources for that. Are versions of the 'the' border ballad containing teribus ye teri odin or similar documented before the one by Arthur Balbirnie? If it was a war cry used at Flodden in 1513 the chances of someone putting pen to paper about it aren't wholly inconceivable - but it seems not to have happened. The implication being that the idea of teribus ye teri odin being an ancient war cry is perhaps a product of 18th century romanticism. Which perhaps leaves us with a meaningless 18th century phrase, coined because it sits well with the sound of a march played on drums and bagpipes. 79.197.188.204 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the pipes and drums argument either. Hey tuttie tatie yes, but not this one. It's not very onomatopoeic. It could also be a corruption of Latin.

The the pipes and drums argument is a perhaps, but as you righly say, not very onomatopoeic. Teribus does have a certain Latin ring about it, perhaps not so much a corruption of Latin but mock Latin, created by using endings such as -us or -um etc. 84.181.105.115 (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Has John Jamieson suggested an etymology for teribus ye teri odin? If not, he is of no relevance here except as another example of how scholarship has moved on in the last hundred years or so." - You've missed my point by a country mile.

"What does modern scholarship have to say about the phrase?" - Not a great deal seemingly! I'm sure there's eomething somewhere...

"If references to the sources exist why not use them?" - Because paradoxically, I think online sources are not good for Wikipedia articles. That's because websites have a lifespan of a few years, before they are moved to another address, or disappear forever. Then some robot on Wikipedia comes along and deletes the online address, because the link is dead, and you're back to square one. Also, I was working from print sources when I typed this up. :) If someone wants to look up CM, they can, but I doubt the weblink will be the same in ten years time.--MacRusgail (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly online sources come and go, but the links are to currently available online versions of the print sources. As is the nature of wikis, some editor or other may just find a new link to replace a dead one if the current one dies, or remove the link until such times as another online version of the print source can be found. Or does the robot delete the whole reference, not just the link? If its just the link that is deleted, the reference to the print source will remain. 84.181.105.115 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you put an online link on here, it will almost certainly disappear within a few years. Which will mean that the entire reference will be removed by a robot. And then likely as not the entire article will be removed for being unreferenced! It's happened to me before. If you wish to use the online link, please use the print version as well. We can't afford to watch every article every day so that it gets deleted for being supposedly "unreferenced". (The other scenario, which is worse in my view, is that someone comes along and vandalises the page, which then results in it being redirected or deleted because of the stupid new content someone's put in it!)

Although I know of a few webpages that still exist from when I started using the internet, I could count them all on one hand.

I understand why you want a link, but I'd suggest it would be better off in the external links section.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not used as references on Wikipedia...

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, with regard to blogs, states "these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The Oxford university Press blog would appear to meet those criteria, itself stating that the "OUPblog is a source like no other on the blogosphere for learning, understanding and reflection, providing academic insights for the thinking world.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources also states that self-published material "may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Does Anatoly Liberman not fulfill those requirements? 91.5.47.26 (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Until a few years ago, blogs were allowed, but since then every blog reference I can think of got deleted. That included ones by politicians about themselves. Apart from anything else, blogs are notorious for so called "Link Rot".--MacRusgail (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really an answer is it? 91.5.58.159 (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I gave you an answer. Them's the rules. They're a nuisance, but we have to stick by them.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to different rules than the ones quoted above. Does Anatoly Liberman not fulfill the requirements in the rules quoted above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.232.162 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Anatoly Liberman is writing on a blog there. If you can get it via some other source, then you have a stronger case.-MacRusgail (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states with regard to blogs; "these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Is Anatoly Liberman not a professional in the field on which he writes? Is the Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World blog not subject to the outlet's full editorial control? 91.5.39.201 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Teribus ye teri odin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616093454/http://www.nehalemtel.net/~reiver/teribus.htm to http://www.nehalemtel.net/~reiver/teribus.htm

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) 23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)