This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
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.
The "Uí" in territorial names of this sort is the plural form of "Ua/Ó" and not the genitive so it is incorrect to lenite the following word. It should be "Uí Ceinnselaig" (modern "Uí Ceinnsealaigh").Murchadh (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Right or not, Uí Che[i]nnselaig is about twice as common on my bookshelves, perhaps more, than the alternatives. It's found in Charles-Edwards' Early Christian Ireland and The Chronicle of Ireland, Byrne's Irish Kings, Smyth's Seanchas and Bhreathnach's Kingship and Landscape of Tara, among others. The indexes to these strongly suggest that while names following Ua are indeed not lenited, those following Uí are: Ua Conchobair but Uí Chonchobair. Angus McLellan(Talk) 18:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
"Uí" is both the genitive and nom. plural of "Ua/Ó". When genitive it lenites the following word - as in "Uí Chonchobhair" ("Connor's grandson's") above. When plural it does not - "Uí Ceinnselaig" = "descendants/grandsons of Ceinnselach").Murchadh (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
These works are referring to a dynasty just as we are here, that is the index entries are for the groups "Uí Chonchobhair" and "Uí Che[i]nnselaig" rather than for one particular person. I'm not an expert so I'm perfectly willing to accept that there's more than one way to skin this cat, but if you try Google books I think you'd see that there's a solid case for preferring "Uí Che[i]nnselaig". Angus McLellan(Talk) 23:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Lenition after plural "Uí" is a common error (understandable as it's an easy one to make) which has been repeated by some prominent authors, but an error it remains.Murchadh (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You could well be right, but so far as Wikipedia is concerned - see here - prominent academics only make mistakes in their field of expertise when other prominent academics are on record in writing as thinking that they did. If it's wrong, there surely will have been someone who said so in a book review somewhere. Angus McLellan(Talk) 12:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)