Talk:Goidelic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Languages (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Celts (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Goidelic languages is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Scotland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Scottish Gaelic task force.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Unsourced info removed[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 kw > 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[citation needed]

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

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.

Moilleadóir 09:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Decrufting opening para[edit]

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 * was originally retained in this branch (later losing its labialisation andto becomeing plain [k]), as opposed to Brythonic, where * became [p]. This sound change is also found in Gaulish, so Brythonic and Gaulish are collectively known as "P-Celtic". In Celtiberian * 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,[citation needed] 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[edit]

"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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[citation needed]

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)

'Scots Inglis' a misnomer[edit]

"Some other parts of the Lowlands spoke Cumbric, and others Scots Inglis, the only exceptions being the northern isles of Orkney and Shetland where Norse was spoken."

Having read up in great detail on the subject over the last 12 months I can say with certainty that the expession 'Scots Inglis' is always a misnomer. The correct word in the above context is simply 'English', or if one wants to be more precise or technical then perhaps 'Northumbrian Old English'. 'Inglis' was, in the 14th and 15th and 16th centuries, just a common alternative northern spelling of our modern spelling 'English'. Much of the 'Scottish' lowlands, Lothian in particular, have been Anglo-Saxon AKA 'English' since the 7th century, long before the Scots Kings 'annexed' or otherwise obtained rule over the area. These lowlands were never a Scots-Gaelic land or people, despite a couple of centuries (say 900-1100) when they owed intermitent allegeance to the Gaelic Scots Kings - before King David was imposed on the Scots, introducing what was in effect a Norman elite culture superimposed on a lowland Anglo-saxon one and on a highland Gaelic one. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.111.236 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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)