Talk:Goidelic languages

Unsourced info removed

I'm removing the following information because it has been tagged as being unsourced for some time:

• [The term "Gaelic"] in Britain, most often refers to Scottish Gaelic and it is the word that Scottish Gaelic speakers themselves use when speaking English. In the USA however, the word is often used by members of the Irish diaspora to refer to the Irish language. Within Ireland, native speakers in Donegal are more likely to refer to the language in English as Gaelic rather than Irish.

If anyone can find sources for these statements, feel free to re-add them. —Angr 18:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More unsourced info removed

I'm removing the following statement which has been tagged as needing a source for some time:

• Others may feel use of the term strengthens feelings of solidarity among speakers of the sister languages.

Again, if anyone can provide a source for this claim, feel free to add it. —Angr 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't fight in the article (History and range - Celtiberian)

WHOMEVER KEEPS REMOVING THIS YOU HAVE NO CAUSE, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM

This is inappropriate for being on an article. Take your beefs elsewhere. Atcavage 16:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Such as here on the talk page. The information the anon keeps adding to the article is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. First, the question of the origin of the Gaels is not really relevant to an article on the Goidelic languages; it would make more sense to discuss it at Gaels. Second, the sentence "Goidelic is similar to Celtiberian, both being Q-Celtic languages" doesn't make much sense. A Q-Celtic language is simply one that failed to undergo the innovative change of k^w > p; failure to undergo an innovation does not indicate any similarity. (It's like saying English is similar to Gothic because both failed to undergo the High German consonant shift.) Third, O'Rahilly's historical model is a fringe theory that pretty much no one but O'Rahilly has ever believed; including it here puts UNDUE weight on it. —Angr 17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found this happening in other Celtic language articles - the argument that because Celtiberian has K where Brythonic and Gaulish have P, therefore the Leabhar Gabhala and/or O'Rahilly must be correct. Someone is putting forward their favourite theories. - Paul S, 20:25 17 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul S (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what Angr has said above, the early paragraph about Q Celtic makes it clear that Celtiberian is not a Goidelic language. Since this section is about the history and range of Goidelic languages it is not appropriate to include information about Celtiberian here.

I have removed the paragraph and the section tags. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cornish and Gaulish

Gaulish is listed as part of the Brythonic languages...when I thought it was part of its own continental or Gaulish subfamily. If we are to list dead languages, Cornish should be listed in the place of Gaulish as a Brythonic language. I have no references offhand, but I would challenge someone to show me that I am wrong. I, at some point in the future, will get accredited references to back up my position. AnthroGael 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it says Gaulish and Brythonic are sometimes collectively known as P-Celtic. It doesn't say Gaulish is Brythonic. —Angr 05:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough. My bad. Still, if we are to list the P-Celtic languages, is there a reason why we would include Gaulish ahead of Cornish in this table? Maybe we could add Cornish as one of these pink background titles? Or perhaps we could add a legend explaining the pink/green colour code? AnthroGael 11:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)AnthroGael 11:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, is there any reason for the table to be here at all? It doesn't really add much to a discussion of the Goidelic languages. —Angr 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

thecornish language is alive and kicking and is officialy recognised. Any attempt to make it appear as a dead language would be factualy incorrect.Fletch 2002 (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True Shelta is not cant and does not have English in it

The original and pure Shelta has no English in it but is a back slang gaelic.

Gaelic words like mac are cam in shelta. Many modern Irish travellers of today travel both Ireland and the UK and now speak a mix cant language. True Shelta is not Cant.

You must change the phrase about shelta being cant as irish traveller cant is a modern corruption of the original tongue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit 19:16, 29 June 2008

I've restored some more text deleted by 83.147.180.163 and made a variety of small changes that hopefully restore sense to some sections that through multiple edits and deletions were beginning to sound strange.

I've rephrased the para beginning "Early Modern Irish" to refer to "Early Modern Irish...and its equivalent Classical Gaelic". Hopefully this is sufficiently neutral and acceptable to the pan-Gaelicists. As it was, the fact that the literary language was the same had become a casualty in the nomenclature war. I'm not sure I've restored it with this change, but I think it's better.

The part added by 83.147.180.163 about orthography needs work. Is it saying that the orthography arose simultaneously in Ireland and Scotland in the 8th century? It says "Ireland and Scotland shared the same written form for over [a] thousand years" but is this actually true? Even if it was written in Scotland in the 8th century, hadn't the form changed in Ireland by the 18th century? It's hard to see how the "over [a] thousand years" is arrived at.

Oh yes, and does "but in the early 20th century Irish adopted a new written form" refer to the 1948 spelling reform? Would "mid 20th century" be better?

After a long day's mountainbiking I've gone for just tagging it. :)

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 09:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) (probably reclining on a couch by the time you read this)

Even Dinneen's 1904 dictionary had some spelling reforms that were never implemented in Scotland, or only implemented there later, like "solas" in place of "solus", "Béarla" in place of "Beurla", and "sp sc" in place of "sb sg". But Irish and Scottish spellings began to deviate from each other earlier, since the grave accent has (AFAIK) never been used in Ireland. I'm not sure how old it is in Scotland, though. —Angr 13:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's just too neat a statement. Didn't a lot of those 'reforms' arise a lot earlier anyway? I'm pretty sure there were innovative forms appearing from the 17th century.

I really wasn't sure if something useful could be made of this or whether it should just be removed. I've had a go at pruning it back to something more reasonable, but there would be barely anything left so I've removed it. I think this info is available elsewhere anyway. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 01:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar

It's fun sometimes looking through an article's history to see the wide variety of interpretations that can be put on any string of words. I found that this (which I think I wrote)...

Furthermore, due to the peculiar politics of language and national identity, some Irish speakers are offended by the use of the word Gaelic by itself to refer to Irish.

...had the word peculiar removed by some anon IP - (→Nomenclature: insulting "peculiar" removed). Ahem, I'm not sure if I meant it in the general sense "distinguished in nature or character; particular, special", or as "unlike others, singular, unusual, strange, odd", but either way I can't see how it's insulting. However you feel about the word as applied to Irish, you have to admit that, without knowing anything of the history of its use, it does appear odd.

It's no great loss though. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even say that Irish speakers' offense at the word "Gaelic" is peculiar; it says that the politics of language and national identity is peculiar. I really think it can only mean peculiar in the sense of "particular" not in the sense "weird". —Angr 06:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See also

This section is in danger of becoming a "my favourite links" section. While I can see how Highland Clearances are relevant to the position of Scottish Gaelic, I think we should stick to more directly language-related links, otherwise it'll just become unmanageable. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

{copypaste} on Manx section

Prior to this edit the first two paragraphs of the Manx section were almost word-for-word identical to text at www.gov.im/tourism/culture. While I realise there exists the possibility that the Isle of Man government website lifted the text in question from this article, I feel that this is so unlikely as to be not worth considering. The question I have is, have the subsequent edits to the section taken it out of the realm of WP:COPYVIO or not? I suspect not. Recommended action, anyone?
--Yumegusa (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit which brought in the suspect text, nearly two years ago, by an IP editor.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the edits are enough to make it not a copyvio. Unfortunately, the entire paragraph needs to be rewritten from scratch. —Angr 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm blanking the offending paragraphs for the moment, as the copyvio can't be simply let slide.
--Yumegusa (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The matter was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 7 for investigation and has today come current. Thanks for catching the problem! There is no question that the material was duplicated from Wikipedia, as internet archives confirm that the text at the external site predates its introduction here. The site bears a clear copyright reservation. I've removed the material altogether to reduce the risk of it being inadvertently reintroduced. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature edits

I'm doing some cleaning up of the Nomenclature section as it's once again suffering from edit-itis. Many clarifications and prevarications have been added which destroy the flow of the text and make it much harder to read. All of these are unnecessary.

Although Irish and Manx may be referred to as Irish Gaelic and Manx Gaelic (as they are Goidelic or Gaelic languages) the use of the word Gaelic is usually unnecessary because the terms Irish and Manx, when referring to language, only ever refer to these languages, whereas Scots by itself refers to a Germanic language and Scottish can refer to things not at all Gaelic (despite historically referring specifically to things Gaelic). The word Gaelic by itself is sometimes used to refer to Scottish Gaelic and is thus somewhat ambiguous, although in this context it is usually pronounced /ˈɡalɪk/ (that is, the same as Gallic), rather than /ˈɡeɪlɪk/.

• usually: this plus the (wordy) qualification "when referring to language" is just too much.
• (despite historically referring specifically to things Gaelic): the word "can" covers the possibility that there are other uses - this is not the place to list them. It's the ambiguity that's the point, not what the word can or could have meant.
• somewhat: a weasel word if ever I saw one. There's either ambiguity or there isn't.
• although in this context it is usually pronounced /ˈɡalɪk/ (that is, the same as Gallic), rather than /ˈɡeɪlɪk/: "Pronounced by who?" I might ask. It's true that people in Scotland might do that, but then they wouldn't pronounce the Gaelic in Irish Gaelic any differently, so what exactly is the point of this random information about Scottish English pronunciation?

Text below in bold restored after deletion by 192.122.222.206 with no reason given. If it deserves deletion then so does the following para.

Furthermore, due to the politics of language and national identity, some Irish speakers are offended by the use of the word Gaelic by itself to refer to Irish.

Similarly, Scottish Gaelic speakers find offensive the use of the obsolete word Erse (from Scots Inglis Eris, "Irish") to refer to their language. This term was used in Scotland since at least the late 15th century to refer to Gaelic, which had also been called Scottis.

The names used in languages themselves (Gaeilge in Irish, Gaelg/Gailck in Manx, and Gàidhlig in Scottish Gaelic) are derived from Old Irish Goídelc, which in itself is from the originally more-or-less derogatory term Gwiddel meaning "pirate, raider" in Old Welsh comes from the Old Welsh Guoidel meaning "pirate, raider".

The Goidels called themselves various names according to their tribal/clan affiliations, but the most general seems to have been the name rendered in Latin as Scoti. This is possibly related to the modern Gaelic term scoth the best, which would be the expected modern form of the Primitive Irish (Gaelic) *scotos (plural *scoti). The change from Scot referring to the people to Scot referring mainly to the country (and then the people of the country) dates from the time the Scottish kingdom(s), previously Pictish, were taken over by the Gaelic Scots.

• Gwiddel: never seen this form before & I'm about 99% sure that Guoidel is the earliest Welsh form. Rephrased what had become a very awkward sentence. The reader can draw their own conclusions about whether the name is derogatory; we have no idea what people at time thought about it.

• Goidels: This is not an article about the Gaels so information not relating to the names of the languages isn't appropriate here. (Added by Roidhrigh 21:57, 28 March 2009)

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 09:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

just one thing l saw this page and wanted to say in Scotland the language is normally 99% of the time pronounced (ɡalɪk) while the irish pronunciation is ɡeɪlɪk. l think this is where the confusion stems from .when someone is referring to ɡeɪlɪk they are mostly always referring to irish,even with modern confusions and some referring to scottish as ɡeɪlɪk now . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staringeyes (talk • contribs) 10:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Decrufting opening para

The Goidelic languages, (also sometimes called, particularly in colloquial situations, the Gaelic languages or collectively Gaelic), historically formed a dialect continuum stretching from the south of Ireland, through the Isle of Man, to the north of Scotland. There are three modern Goidelic languages: Irish (Gaeilge), Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig), and Manx (Gaelg). However, until approximately 1700 (and much later among some areas), Irish and Scottish Gaelic had exactly the same literary language, divergence only coming after the serious English inroads from around that date. Manx (through default of evidence) was also part of the same language, though evidence of the use of Literary Gaelic on Man is circumstantial. However, older versions of literary Scottish Gaelic and Irish were similar enough to have been considered dialects of a single language.

• also sometimes called...: if further discussion of what they might be called is needed, put it in the Nomenclature section rather than constipating the opening para.
• However, until approximately 1700...: since this is discussed in para 3 and in the History and range section, I've reverted to the previous simpler and shorter text. Also assertions that the languages diverged because of "English inroads" seems a little hard to sustain. Surely politics had something to do with it; in any case we should keep the opening paras as simple as possible.
• Manx (through default of evidence)...: saying that something's so even though there's no evidence...hmmm.

The Goidelic branch is also known as Q-Celtic, because Proto-Celtic *kʷ was originally retained in this branch (later losing its labialisation andto becomeing plain [k]), as opposed to Brythonic, where *kʷ became [p]. This sound change is also found in Gaulish, so Brythonic and Gaulish are collectively known as "P-Celtic". In Celtiberian *kʷ is also retained, so the term "Q-Celtic" can be equally applied to it as well, although it is not a Goidelic languages, just as Gaulish is not Brythonic. Early Modern Irish was used as a literary language in Ireland until the 17th century, and its equivalent, Classical Gaelic was used as a literary language in Scotland until the 18th century. Later orthographic divergence is the result of more recent orthographic reforms resulting has resulted in in standardised pluricentric diasystems. Manx orthography, is based on English and Welsh, and was introduced in 1610, and but was never widely used. All Irish and Scottish persons of a literary background (bards, poets, seanchaidhes, etc.) were banned on pain of death from the Isle of Man in the 1500s, and so the literary contacts that the Manx obviously existed before this time were severed.

• Later orthographic divergence is the result of more recent orthographic reforms...: Later divergence = recent reforms, so what are we saying here? This may have made sense once upon a time, but I haven't time for the archaelogy required to find it.

• All Irish and Scottish persons...: I was tempted to try to reword this in the hope of a good reference appearing, but it's probably better to remove it for now. Basically all we can say is that we think Man was included in the same literary continuum, but we have no evidence, which is not particularly encyclopedic. It's probably best to keep highly speculative material out of the opening paras at least.

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence

"but sometime between the 3rd century and the 6th century a group of the Irish Celts known to the Romans as Scoti began migrating from Ireland to what is now Scotland"

Reading this sentence it would be very easy to mistakenly assume that "Scoti" refers specifically to the group which migrated to Caledonia and not the Irish Celts in general. Murchadh (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic appear to be blurred together

Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic appear to be blurred together ... why?

They are Goidelic Languages ... why blur the terminology together?

"There are three modern Goidelic languages, Irish (Gaeilge), Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig), and Manx (Gaelg). "

Should it not be written as follows,

"There are three modern Goidelic languages, Irish Gaelic (Gaeilge), Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig), and Manx Gaelic (Gaelg). "

The term Gaelic has been incorrectly cut-out of Irish Gaelic and Manx Gaelic ... why?

For instance,

http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/liosta/

"There are three varieties of Gaelic: Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic. These are closely related and very similar, but they are not mutually understandable except to speakers who have had the equivalent of at least a couple of days contact with the other variety. (The other three Celtic languages, Welsh, Cornish and Breton, belong to a different branch and are not so closely related to Gaelic.)"

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "incorrect" to cut out the "Gaelic" from Irish and Manx. Irish is only occasionally called "Irish Gaelic", and Manx very rarely called "Manx Gaelic". The most common names of the three languages are in fact "Irish", "Manx", and "Scottish Gaelic" (or "Scots Gaelic" or just "Gaelic"). +Angr 06:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Angr.

In English Language texts on Linguistics, the clear terms of Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic are used to make up the Goidelic Language group of the Celtic Branch of the Proto Indo-European Language. The terms Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic are excepted, precise, linguistic nomenclature ... why use the imprecise short-form terms of just Irish, and just Manx?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Because those simply aren't their common names. And there's no ambiguity in omitting it, because there are no other languages called "Irish" or "Manx"; after all, we don't say "English Germanic" or "French Romance" or "Russian Slavic" either. (With Scottish Gaelic, the "Gaelic" isn't really dispensable, as that would lead to confusion with Scots.) +Angr 10:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really the same, as "English Germanic" and the like are not used, whereas "X Gaelic" is quite common. Baring in mind that in common speech Irish is either "Irish" or "Gaelic", and Scottish Gaelic is almost always "Gaelic", it's fair enough to distinguish them systematically, so that everyone from both countries and internationally, knows what's being said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, "X Gaelic" isn't quite common unless X = Scottish; for X = Irish it's rather rare and for X = Manx it's very rare (but still more common than "English Germanic" etc. of course). The point is, it is neither incorrect nor misleading to say simply "Irish" and "Manx" without the "Gaelic". +Angr 11:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

The Celtic Language branch of the Proto Indo-European Language has two sub-branches, the Brythonic Group, and the Goidelic Group. The Brythonic Group contains the Cumbrian (i.e., Cumbric), Welsh, Cornish, and Breton languages. The Goidelic Group contains the Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic languages.

The Gauls are separate from the Gaels. The Gaels are composed of the Irish Gaels, Scottish Gaels, and the Manx Gaels, and they speak the Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic languages, respectively. This is all accepted Linguistic nomenclature in the English Language texts. Why would one not use its preciseness?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Because doing so may cross the line from preciseness into needless redundancy. +Angr 11:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Angr (e/c) It's not common at all to call Scottish Gaelic "X Gaelic", just "Gaelic" [Scots are only vaguely aware that Irish actually exists, and if you ask most they'll say the name difference is "Gahlic" versus "Gaylic"]. And it's almost as common to call Irish just Gaelic too. There is a bit of dissonance with "X, Y, ZG", as you could write "Irish, Manx and Scottish Gaelic" and it wouldn't be clear if Irish and Manx [and Scottish] were interchangeable adjectives, or part of standalone names ... though I suppose this is a good argument to prefer that order. But, no, I don't disagree that doing so is acceptable. I did it myself above. You may wish to ponder however that not everyone is brought up on linguistics text books, and the dissonance may cause more confusion than you'd imagine. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right that in Scotland, "gd" is generally just called Gaelic unmodified, but I think that in the rest of the world the adjective "Scottish" or "Scots" is usually included, unless it's clear from the context. +Angr 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Angr.

In English Language texts, the Goidelic Group is enumerated as the Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic languages. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In some of them, yes, but I think you'll find that in English-language texts, "ga" is more often called "Irish" than "Irish Gaelic" and "gv" is far more often called "Manx" than "Manx Gaelic". +Angr 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have this book,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Concise-Dictionary-Linguistics-Paperback-Reference/dp/0199202729

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics uses the terminology,

Irish Gaelic (Gaeilge),

Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig),

Manx Gaelic (Gaelg),

If this is good enough for the Oxford University Press why don't we use it here at Wikipedia?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary (online) has these headwords:

Gaelic rather than Scottish Gaelic

Irish rather than Irish Gaelic

Manx rather than Manx Gaelic

Should we stop using the "Scottish" in "Scottish Gaelic", because it's good enough for the OED? Alternatively, should we stop using "Irish" and "Manx", as you propose, although it's good enough for the OED? Either way your argument fails. --Thrissel (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Thrissel.

The Germanic Language branch sub-divides into,

North Germanic,

West Germanic,

East Germanic (i.e., Gothic which is now extinct),

Similarly, the Goidelic Language sub-divides into,

Irish Gaelic (Gaeilge),

Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig),

Manx Gaelic (Gaelg),

This terminology exists, and is used by Linguists, however why is it not is used here at Wikipedia?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the other terminology, which exists, and is used by linguists, is used here at Wikipedia. --Thrissel (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indo-European?

Why does the text of the article neglect to mention that these are Indo-European languages? The info-box does have such an attribution but it ought to be in the text, perhaps with discussion of their relationship to other Indo-European languages.~Mack2~ (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The obsession with Gaelic

I really thought this had been discussed so much that we could just leave it alone now. The reasons why (despite many Americans love of adding the word Gaelic to everything) it is unnecessary:

• Speakers of Irish and Manx normally call them just that.
• There is a history of "Gaelic" being used by people who don't approve of state funding of Irish. It is a politicised word in some contexts so is best avoided in an encyclopaedic work.
• No useful information is added: there are no other languages called Irish or Manx.
• The WP articles about the languages themselves use their regular names and do not include the word "Gaelic".

I have removed the excess Gaelics in the article. Please don't just add them back in without some proper discussion as this has been a contentious issue in this article since at least 2004.

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Classic Gaelic"/"Early Modern Irish" para

This was once a small expansion on the "dialect continuum" reference in the opening para. Now it has become a hugely bloated digression fest. Information about different orthographies doesn't belong in the lead paragraphs of an article.

Since this is really a discussion of the range and spread of the language I've moved it to the appropriate section and merged it with the text there.

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Though I can see Akerbeltz's point about not becoming a study in dialectology, showing dialect forms here does actually illustrate the old continuum of language that used to exist so I've corrected and added a little. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Irish

This paragraph isn't even a complete sentence

As well as the general assumption by the English and Anglicised ruling classes following the Flight of the Earls and disappearance of much of the Gaelic aristocracy that Irish was a language spoken by ignorant peasants.

Frankly, it is a clumsily-worded, insipid attempt to derogate a people.

I have combined the ideas in it with the preceding paragraph--which was also composed of a single sentence.

--Patronanejo (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Patronanejo (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

River Usk/ Afon Wysg, is it evidence of a previous goidelic culture?

Can't help notice "Wysg" although used in modern Welsh, looks suspiciously like a goidelic word for water? (Which finds it's way into modern English as Whisky). Often in England, river names have a brythonic origin. Is this analagous evidence of a goidelic origin for a river in Wales- a Welsh "River Avon" if you like?

Does this mean that the Welsh really are the Irish who couldn't swim, and that a Brythonic elite displaced a goidelic one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.100.25.179 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you’re pushing a barrow at least do it with some finesse!

It’s frankly depressing to come back this article again and again over the years to find some barrow-pusher or hobby-horse rider has waded in an just done a big dump in the middle of a paragraph. If you can be bothered to take the time to add to an article, PLEASE try to make your addition fit it and not totally break the sense of surrounding sentences.

You may or may not be an island, but your contribution definitely isn’t! Try to make it fit in.

E.g. in an attempted refutation (?) of Ewen Campbell’s theory, user 95.44.233.78 added these sentences:

However,considering that the Gaels originated in Ireland and that Scotland was the land of the Picts, it does seem likely that there was some Irish Gaelic settlement in Scotland, presumably bringing the Gaelic language with them.

Shaneg4015 added to it and KDS4444 chopped a sentence, removing the vital However and suggesting the opposite of the the original contribution. KDS4444 was right that this was WP:OR, but just didn’t remove enough.

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Goidelic languages → Gaelic languages – WP:COMMONNAME by a mile. It's asserted in the archived talk page that Goidelic is the "proper" or "scientific" name, which may be true but really isn't important, policy-wise. It's questionable, too, since Gaelic is more common even in scholarly usage (see results below). Finally, "Goidelic" is uncommon even on Wikipedia. All of the subcategories of Category:Goidelic languages use "Gaelic", and only one other article has "Goidelic" in its title. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Source	"goidelic languages"	"gaelic languages"
Google	8050	48,600
Google Books	1410	4370
Google Scholar	175	497

General and Books searches include a -wikipedia qualifier. As often, some Wikipedia usages have seeped through, such as the top Books result for Goidelic. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Gaelic languages redirects here, seriously?! Move per overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's asserted in the archived talk page that Goidelic is the "proper" or "scientific" name, which may be true but really isn't important, policy-wise If anything that points straight to WP:OFFICIALNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support It seems to be the common name. Dimadick (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Unsure. I'd like to see evidence based on up-to-date sources. Both terms have been used since the 19th century and scholarly preferences have fluctuated over time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Question Have you filtered those search results to ensure that every instance of "gaelic languages" is synonymous with "goidelic languages"? I did a quick search and saw a number of instances where "gaelic languages" was not being used in the same sense, for example when talking about Scottish Gaelic alongside Scots... Scots and Gaelic languages. It may also be useful to limit the search to, say, the last five years and to go through the results removing quoted text and reprinted material to get a more accurate impression of current usage.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now due to User:Catfish Jim's concerns (which are borne out with a perusal of Google Books results; e.g. "Birnam Hill...has formed the boundary between the Lowlands and Highlands, and between the Saxon and Gaelic languages"), due to concern that "Gaelic languages" is shorthand for (Scottish) Gaelic and Irish (Gaelic) but not Manx, and due to the widespread use of "Goidelic languages" in encyclopedic sources (e.g. Britannica which uses "Goidelic languages" and does not even mention "Gaelic languages" as an alternative). —  AjaxSmack  02:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't find that this evidence convincingly demonstrates that "Gaelic" is commonly used in the same sense as "Goidelic" in the literature. Goidelic specifically refers to the branch of Celtic languages that is separate from Brythonic languages and in this sense I rarely see "Gaelic" (In fact I cannot remember having seen it at all). Gaelic seems to me more like an areal grouping including the Celtic languages of Irelan and Scotland. Fore me to accept the argument I would want to that "Gaelic" is preferred to "Goidelic" in the contexts of recent textbooks in linguistics that specifically describe the genetic division of Insular Celtic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Maunus and Catfish Jim.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Tentatively oppose, as much as I hate to do it (I've never liked that pretentious and basically anti-Gaelic, Victorian Latinism); the stats above are misleading. Gaelic languages is the common vernacular name for what is presently spoken as native, non-Germanic languages in Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, but I don't see a showing here that it is commonly used for the entire language family, which includes a lot of extinct languages. The WP:COMMONNAME in linguistics, which is the field that defines the scope of this language family, has long been Goidelic, for better or worse. I would happily reverse myself on this if there's clear evidence of a trend in linguistics to refer to this linguistic family as Gaelic instead of Goidelic, as there has been toward Britonic and away from Brythonic, which has happened well within living memory.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the several points raised above. For example, I've yet to be convinced that the dead members of the group are commonly called "Gaelic". Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Historical linguistics and language groups are a scholarly endeavour, so we should follow the scholarly usage rather than confuse the issue by appealing to general usage. In any case, the terms are not synonymous. "Gaelic languages", where used, will refer only to the modern languages. "Goidelic languages" is about the entire history and development of the language group. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the technical term used in Celtic linguistics plus it is also wider that "Gaelic languages" which suggests modern Irish/Scots Gaelic/Manx whereas Goidelic encompasses historic varieties and would also, if such a thing was to be discovered, include branches no longer extant. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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≼  01:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of Gealic

Gealic was the language of the courts and the people up until the reign of the Malcolm III, surnames Caenmor Malcolm III of Scotland. P16, Vol 1. [Sketches] by David Stewart. scope_creep (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Goidelophone" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goidelophone. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. buidhe 05:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Goidelic (Gaelic)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goidelic (Gaelic). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. buidhe 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Goidelic (Gaelic) language" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goidelic (Gaelic) language. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. buidhe 05:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Gaelic group" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaelic group. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"Gaelic groups" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaelic groups. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"Goidelic (Gaelic) languages" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Goidelic (Gaelic) languages. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Goidelic (Gaelic) languages until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Goidelic to Gaelic

I suggest moving the page name to "Gaelic languages" rather than the unheard of (by people without etymological knowledge) "Goidelic". The lead could read: "the Gaelic langauges, also known as Goidelic languages" etc. Gaelicbow Gaelicbow (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Please, can we not re-open a lengthy hair-splitting debate on what to call this page and work on content instead? With redirects, this name is very workable AND accurate. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Fix the hierarchy of Goidelic languages and provide references for it.

Do we have any references for (falsifiable) evidence for the current hierarchy of Goidelic languages? The Book of Invasions, according to its Wikipedia page, is now considered mythology by scholars. Since we do not have archaeological or genetic evidence of invasions of Britain by Irish during the early Middle Ages, we cannot claim or assume such invasions occurred.

We do have evidence that Goidelic descends from the Q-Celtic branch of the Indo-European language tree. Using that evidence and the Law of Parsimony the tree should look more like this:

Indo-European => (Q-)Celtic => Goidelic =>

• Old Irish => Middle Irish => Modern Irish
• Manx
• Scottish Gaelic

Of course, this tree refers to the spoken languages. The orthography of Goidelic languages will have a differently formatted tree should be addressed separately. Gortaleen (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Added a ref to end this non-debate. The chapter was written by Prof Kim McCone and if you don't know who that is, then you're in the wrong debate. Now let's move on. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

McCone’s chart shows Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic as siblings. All we know of their parent’s origin is that it was an Indo-European language that came to the British Isles and Ireland from the continent. We do know that tales of invasions from Iberia are not supported by archaeological or DNA findings. Thus we have to relegate tales of Gaelic being brought to Ireland by Iron Age Iberians, and the related downstream assumptions, to the mythology category.

https://archive.org/details/stairnagaeilgein0000unse/page/64/mode/1up?view=theater Gortaleen (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

We're talking historical linguistics and the image with the text derives Manx, ScG and IG from a common Old/Middle Irish ancestor. This has nothing to do with ancestral legends or DNA. We have a reliable source. Find a reliable source that contradicts McCone, otherwise this debate is over. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

We need evidence to support claims. What evidence supports Manx and Scottish Gaelic being children of Irish? If we do not have such evidence (someone just saying so is not evidence) then we are left to the default position of making no claim. We have evidence that Irish, Scottish, and Manx Gaelic are closely related and are Indo-European languages. That is our default position until evidence (and yes, DNA findings are now important evidence) has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Gortaleen (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

What evidence supports Manx and Scottish Gaelic being children of Irish?

That is not the claim being made here by anyone. The proposition is that the three share an immediate common Old/Middle Irish predecessor.

If we do not have such evidence (someone just saying so is not evidence) then we are left to the default position of making no claim.

Nobody is 'just saying so', there is evidence, I think you just need to familiarise yourself with the literature. This debate has already been satisfactorily answered for a long time.

That is our default position until evidence (and yes, DNA findings are now important evidence) has been published in peer-reviewed journals.

DNA evidence is mostly irrelevant in historical linguistics. There can be correlations but research indicates the lack of any reliable systematicity. DNA or genetic evidence can be useful for pre-history in working out migration movements but it is absolutely not a salient factor in historical linguistics. If you look through some introductory textbooks for historical linguistics below, you'll find they make no mention of DNA or human genetic evidence as it's simply not important, especially in (non-)questions of classification like this one.

• Anttila, Raimo. Historical and Comparative Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989.
• Campbell, Lyle. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press, 2004.
• Hock, Hans Henrich, and Brian D. Joseph. Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2009.
• Trask, Millar, and Millar, Robert McColl. Trask's Historical Linguistics. 3rd edition / edited by Robert McColl Millar. 2015.

MolingLuachra (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, genetics and material culture should not be used when discussing historical linguistics. They can aid it, in some senses, but we have examples of both population change without language change and language change without population change. And material culture is even worse, as often there were multiple language groups and ethnic groups under the same material culture. This is a linguistics article, and the academic consensus is that Middle Irish was the ancestor of Modern Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx. If you wish to dispute that, fine, but find a reputable academic source from a linguist. Otherwise, it should stand with McCone as the source. You can also source Stifter for this too, two of the most prominent historical linguists in the Gaelic languages in this century. Sionnachnaréaltaí (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Linguists shouldn’t be dictating history. Linguistics can demonstrate how Welsh and Gaelic are related (a fact lost to history). Linguistics can show us how the Gaelics differ. Linguists should be extremely wary of making claims of migrations. The “pots not people” side of the debate is over. Gortaleen (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

MIDDLE Irish. Find a source that refutes McCone or Stifter, otherwise end of. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Proto-Goidelic" contradiction

This article and Primitive Irish are in direct contradiction. This one (more plausibly) suggests that Proto-Goidelic is the proto-language that led to Primitive Irish (without using that term), while the other says that Primitive Irish and Proto-Goidelic are the same thing. I suspect that the way to fix this is to fix the other article to stop saying that and to instead say that Primitive Irish is the earliest attested written form of Goidelic, i.e. the non-proto descendant of Proto-Goidelic, but in clearer wording that I'm mustering here. Then fix the Goidelic languages article by changing:

Proto-Goidelic, or Proto-Gaelic, is the proposed proto-language for all branches of Goidelic. It is proposed as the predecessor of Goidelic, which then began to separate into different dialects before splitting during the Middle Irish period into the separate languages of Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic.

to:

Proto-Goidelic, or Proto-Gaelic, is the proposed proto-language for all branches of Goidelic. It would be the predecessor of Goidelic, which after the period of Primitive Irish and then Old Irish began to separate into different dialects before splitting during the Middle Irish period into the separate languages of Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: In historical linguistics, "Proto-X" strictly speaking designates only the reconstructed stage of a language that immediately precedes its divergence into distinct varieties, analogous to the most recent common ancestor in biology. (This is because this stage is directly accessible to reconstruction, while earlier stages are a lot harder to recover.) In the case of Goidelic, this divergence does not seem to have started before the 10th century, already in the Middle Irish period. So a period earlier than Old Irish (c. 800 AD for the most prototypical stage, also known as "Classical Old Irish") cannot be considered "Proto-Goidelic" in this sense, quite definitely. Primitive Irish (c. 5th century) precedes the start of the divergence of Goidelic into Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx by centuries, as does Archaic Old Irish (7th century).

Analogously, Early Proto-Norse (at least in its earliest attentions around 200 AD) precedes the start of the divergence of North Germanic by centuries, and Archaic Latin (around 600 BC) clearly precedes the start of the divergence of Latin into the Romance languages by many centuries.

Proto-Goidelic is not a reconstructed prehistorical proto-language, but an attested language stage spoken in the historical period. It is essentially identical to the Old Irish literary standard, more or less at least, hence Proto-Goidelic is not a widely used concept in Celtic historical linguistics. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The article (at Goidelic languages § Proto-Goidelic) does not actually say that Proto-Goidelic led to Primitive Irish, but to "all branches of Goidelic", which may only refer to the attested separate languages Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx. These are completely different concepts. The attested separate Goidelic languages are only found in the second millennium AD; a stage preceding Primitive Irish would date to the early first millennium AD or even late first millennium BC. Presumably, this would be a transitional stage (or stages) leading either from Proto-Celtic directly or from a presumed Northern Celtic or Insular Celtic proto-language towards Primitive Irish. However, there is more than a single stage involved here, and a series of various linguistics developments, so the concept would not really be coherent. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Analogously, again, the period between Proto-Germanic and the earliest attestations of North Germanic (called Early Proto-Norse) spanned many centuries and linguistic developments, as did the period between Proto-Italic and the earliest attestations of Latin (called Archaic Latin), for example. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing above is fairly confused: all we know is that Modern Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx go back to a stage of Irish most probably sometime in the Middle Irish period. While there were probably regional dialects in Ireland as early as the 8th century, or even earlier, we do not know anything concrete about them, and there is no evidence that they are directly ancestral to the modern Goidelic languages.

Let's not kid ourselves: by the time distinctive regional characteristics are first attested, in the 12th century or so, the differences between Goidelic in Ireland and in Scotland were still small. (Even as late as the 19th century, there was still a dialect continuum across the Irish Sea, as the introduction of this article itself points out.) In the early medieval period, the differences would have been minute. The divergence between Irish and Scottish Gaelic, two extremely closely related and highly similar languages (often said to be still mutually intelligible to an extent), can't be all that old. Around a millennium, not much more, is quite plausible.

The original phrasing seems to suggest that the divergence into Irish and Scottish Gaelic already started well before the Middle Irish period, still in a "dialectal" form, before then splitting into "distinct languages" during the Middle Irish period, which is implausible and not compatible with the attested linguistic material. Scottish Gaelic isn't a radically different language from Irish and it certainly was even far less so in the 12th century, close to a millennium ago. Basically it was just the Scottish dialect (or several Scottish dialects) of the Irish language. The original phrasing displays no appreciation of the true linguistic distances involved. Your phrasing is a little better, trying to avoid this implication (and correctly stating that the divergence in question does not date to before the Old Irish period), but not managing so completely.

While "Proto-Goidelic" in this sense may not be completely identical to the Old Irish literary standard (I'm note aware that a reconstruction of "Proto-Goidelic" has actually been attempted), it can be pretty much identified with it, and in any case cannot be dated to an earlier period. Even your improved phrasing is still vague and mealy-mouthed on this point, still retaining the "different dialects" after the Old Irish period but before the Middle Irish period (what comes in between them?!) that somehow in the Middle Irish period then allegedly split into "separate languages". No, I'm pretty sure there was no separate (from Irish) Scottish Gaelic language (as opposed to a Gaelic dialect or dialects in Scotland) in the Middle Irish period, functionally or in any sense recognisable to linguists. It just doesn't make sense. Contrasting "dialect" from "language", as even your phrasing does, implies a starkly increased linguistic distance, and any distance there was in the Middle Irish period was certainly still very small. Even in recent times, Goidelic can just barely called a language family in this sense, as opposed to a single language with many dialects. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was a temendous amount of verbiage telling me pretty much what I already knew, but not resolving the issue, which is that the Primitive Irish article is incorrectly claiming that Primitive Irish and Proto-Goidelic are synonyms, so I stand by my "repair" suggestions, even if you would take the correction even further (you suggest that some of it would still be too vague), but you haven't suggested any specific wording that I can find in there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)