Talk:Insular script

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, Low-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Prologue[edit]

Insular script was a medieval script so called because it was used in Ireland, Britain, and Scotland

Is there a special medieval reason why Scotland is listed here seperately from Britain? Normally, that would be incorrect usage. If there isn't, I suggest either "Ireland and Britain" (or vice-versa) or "the British Isles".--Malcohol 08:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, that's just a mistake - it should be one of your alternative versions. Adam Bishop 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removed Fulda, since it was founded by Sturmi, a Bavarian follower of Boniface, who also wasn't Irish. Arguably, since Irish monks like Virgil were active in Bavaria, it's possible to see a connection there -- as it is via Boniface, but the sentence as written was incorrect.
Was it used in Wales? Allens (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fulda[edit]

English missionaries like Fulda - not sure that this is correct, since this article suggests that Saint Leoba was the English missionary, and that Rudolph of Fulda is the person who documented her life. Xaje (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Latin script (Gaelic variant) in ISO 15924[edit]

I am not sure whether the "Latin script (Gaelic variant)" (Gaelic script?) in ISO 15924 is meant for the insular script, a successor thereof, both, or neither. What about the script variant in Irish ten shilling coin and Image:GPO Easter Rising Plaque.jpg? – Kaihsu 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they're different...Insular is used in medieval manuscript, and Gaelic is a modern typeface. (Although obviously Gaelic is baed on Insular). Adam Bishop 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Compare Fraktur (ISO 15924 code Latf), a modern typeface descended from blackletter.Nightsky 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Angular?[edit]

The Angular entry in the typography template points to Insular Script. Should Angular be noted as an alternate name? Should the template be changed to Insular instead of Angular? Thanks! Allens (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Gaelic script[edit]

Kwami, you can find sources for everything. Can I, as an expert steeped in Irish type and letterforms for two decades, please simply inform you that the polyvalent term Gaelic script is not normally used as a synonym for Insular script? I don't care what you can find in Google Books, right here, in Ireland, where this stuff is alive, the polyvalent term Gaelic script refers to type more than to ancient manuscripts. Irish script, yes, can mean Insular script. Irish hand even more so. But not Gaelic script. You're not serving the encyclopaedia by trying to tinker with terminology the way you are. -- Evertype· 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that Gaelic script is a referral to Gaelic type. Perhaps it should instead be a disambiguation page, pointing to Gaelic type, Insular script, and the handwritten form of Irish orthography as possible meanings? Allens (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a dab page might be called for.

Evertype, since you admit that the term is polyvalent, why would you insist on restricting it to one meaning? And no, not just "ancient manuscripts". My examples were specifically designed to make that obvious.

Actually, if we're going to take Insular script to be only medieval, so that Gaelic hand is inappropriately directed there, and Evertype won't allow Gaelic type to be expanded to cover the script, then we're missing an article on the script that Gaelic type is the print version of. But why not just expand the article to include the script?

Or would it be better to have three articles, Gaelic type, Gaelic/Irish script, and Insular script? Or expand Insular script to cover the modern forms, keep Irish script as a rd there, and make Gaelic script a dab? — kwami (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I think about this for a bit? Thanks. -- Evertype· 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. No rush. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Gregorian mission[edit]

Currently, the text has a buried sop to the influence of the Gregorian mission but the lead entirely ignores it. Surely, Augustine & Co. had begun supplanting the runes well in advance of the Irish. Are they just being ignored because they focused on Latin texts? or were resisted by the English? Could we see some cites one way or the other on the point? — LlywelynII 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)