Talk:Eyemouth

Places of interest

Things to do in Eyemouth

• Walk around the braes to Coldingham
• Take the sign-posted Town Trail (pick up a guide leaflet from the Museum)
• See Isambard Kingdom Brunel's 1834 Steam powered puddle iron Drag Boat, 'Bertha',
• Get fish and chips from Giacopazzi's
• Have a round of Golf
• Walk along the Bantry
• Visit the museum and see the Eyemouth Tapestry
• Feed the seals in the harbour
• Tell your friends

81.179.113.207

I would argue that none of the "Other places of interest" are nearby and have no connection with Eyemouth, and have/should have pages of their own. I feel the page needs tidying because it reads like a tourist or property developers' brochure. David Lauder 13:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic

The Gaelic placename added to this page is what I am dismayed about. It is wholly inappropriate, whether intentional or accidential. It creates a bogus idea of what Eyemouth is as a place and is supportive of this idea that Scotland has a purely Gaelic history. It is 'cod Highlandism', and promotes this American view that we all wear kilts and speak Gaelic. Unless a historical source other than "An Stòr-dàta Briathrachais" can be quoted. Then please refrain from adding a MADE-UP Gaelic placename to this article. Remember that there is a Gaelic Language (http://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/) version of Wikipedia where Gaelic an be promoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We keep going over this, but here are the salient points in brief:

• Most of the place names in the Stòr-dàta are citations (check the sources) of bona fide research by the Scottish Place Names people. They do *not* make up place names but simply have access to historical data that you and I don't have.
• The SMO itself is an accredited UK UHI, which adds to its status as a bona fide source, whatever misgivings you might have about the page design
• Hence the consensus that if there is such a source that gives a Gaelic name, it is taken as historic (i.e. stemming from the period in which Gaelic *was* spoken in the area or nearby, which incidentally is most of Scotland) and thus relevant. If you don't like that, then you will have to come up with a good source saying that X is a 20th century invention. Remember our personal feelings/experience are mostly irrelevant to Wikipedia articles - and also that living somewhere does not make us historians. I have teeth, but am no dentist...

On a personal note, I find it odd that you feel so threatened by a place-name... Akerbeltz (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gaelic name is not based on a historical name. It is a Gaelic version of the modern name. This is reverse Gaelic colonisation. Gaelic was never spoken in this area of Scotland. The most of Scotland you quote does not include this area of Scotland. And I don't have to come up with a source saying that X is a 20th century invention, you have to give me the historical source. If Stòr-dàta is a valid academic organisation they will reference the historical source where they obtained the name, "Inbhir Eighe". If they are a political organisation who are only there to promote Gaelic they will not. Their goal seems to be to ensure that every place, regardless of historical records, has a Gaelic placename. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you check the Stòr-dàta sources, it says "Iain Mac an Tàilleir" next to the name, who is one of the world's leading experts on Scottish place names. So much for the SD's sources. And I'm sorry but I can't help you if *you* are simply ignorant of the history of Gaelic in Scotland. I can recommend Gaelic in Scotland 1698-1981 - The Geographical History of a Language by Charles Withers; especially page 17 (on Gaelic before 1609): Gaelic place-names in what is today Gallowy [...], southern Ayrshire, western Dumfriesshire, Dunbartonshire, Stirlingshire, West Lothian and parts of western Midlothian probably indicate a full-scale settlement of Gaelic speakers for some period whereas in north Ayrshire, Renfrewshire, the Clyde Valley and estern Dumfriesshire, place-names suggest a less permanent and less dense settlement by Gaelic speakers. Gaelic presence in "Lothian" - that area roughly embraced by what are today the counties of Peebles, Selkirk, Roxburgh and East Lothian together with parts of eastern Midlothian - was minor in contrast to other parts of Lowland Scotland...

Which means that while Gaelic was in all liklehood never a majority language in these areas, it was certainly present for quite some time. Which also means that it is not some flight of fancy for there to be Gaelic place names or indeed records of Gaelic forms of place names of the area. Hope that helps.

So I'm afraid that as long as we can properly reference the Gaelic names and unless you can find consensus that says otherwise, you will have to come up with a better reason to take them out than "I don't think this is relevant". Akerbeltz (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You've quoted a slew of Scottish counties. However the list doesn't include the area where Eyemouth is located. Eyemouth is in Berwickshire or the East Marches, historically part of Northumberia. Eyemouth is at the mouth of the river Eye, however the name of the river is not derived from the sight organ "Eye". It is a corruption of Ay (as in Ayton and Aymooth). The name Ayton comes from two Anglo Saxon words: ei or ea for stream (due to its proximity to the River Eye), and ton or tun meaning enclosed farm hamlet in lowland Scottish. Therefore Eyemouth means "Stream Mouth". The Gaelic name translates to Estuary of the Eye, where Eighe means the sight organ "Eye". This is obviously a modern creation like so many of the Gaelic names given in Stòr-dàta.

Try a map? A river has a source and a mouth (usually) and this one starts in Lothian. There are two more problems I have with your line of argument. One is that even if the origin is Germanic, that does not mean a place name cannot have been historically gaelicized - and before you argue, has it occurred to you that at some point, there wasn't a single Germanic place name in these isles? Secondly, I can't see a single source supporting your "Ay" derivation. Bring one, and we shall continue that particular debate. I also never brought eyes into this - what on earth gave you the idea that Gaelic Inbhir Eighe has anything to do with eyes?? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, before the Anglo Saxon influx it was the 'Brethonic' language or 'Old Welsh' that was spoken in this area. But this is on a seperate branch of Insular Celtic to Scottish Gaelic. The Brythonic language dies out by AD 600. The source of the river Eye is just inside East Lothian, which adds nothing to your case. As for the Ay derivation maybe you'd be better looking beyond google to find your answers. Until you provide a full entomology then I feel it is correct to remove the Gaelic placename from this article. Better having no information rather that incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Entomology is bugs, not words (etymology) and I'm afraid the onus is on you to provide some evidence, as you're the one making sweeping statements without any backup whereas I am providing refs. You might also want to check out Talk:Selkirk. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Source of the river's name:

EYE WATER: Hay R, 1573 Ortelius; Y.R., Blaeu, Ey 1664 RMS. The earliest forms are to be found in the name Ayton (see No V) and in the “lost” Eiford, c 1130 ESC, which suggests that the rivername is a back-formation from OE ēġ-tūn. At a late stage in pronunciation, the river-name was equated with the common noun, eye. http://www.spns.org.uk/MayWilliamsonComplete.pdf

Very well, we have a suggested Germanic root. Even if it was 100% definite still does not negate the possibility (or relevance) of there being a Gaelic form. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The history of the place is irrelevant as is its etymology. Current or historical gaelic speaking populations in the area is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that Gaelic is an official language of Scotland and that articles about places that have a separate Gaelic name that can be supported by reliable sources should also supply that information. It is nothing but misplaced nationalism to suggest that including information about Gaelic names of places is somehow offensive. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding Gaelic placenames to a location in non-gaelic speaking areas is misplaced nationalism. Scotland is not solely a Gaelic speaking country and historically this area of Scotland has not been Gaelic speaking. I am Scottish but find it offensive to have Gaelic placenames applied to places that historically have not had Gaelic placenames. The Gaelic Junta strikes again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)