View Full Version : Question (on Goidillic units and names)
I'd like to begin by congratulating you on your excellent mod for Rome total war. It really is an achievement in itself. One of the best elements of this is the historical accuracy, and peculiarities you have given to each faction. Excellent work, Kudos.
However, sorry, my area of expertise is Irish history and Irish language, and I have noticed something rather odd. For a start, the Goidillic units are not supported by any source I have ever read, worse still is that their Irish names look like something dragged out of the dictionary. Daernaght, Ordmhornaght, Deaisbaird and Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha show a distinct misunderstanding of the Irish rudiments of the Irish language. A lot of the names are complete gibberish in that regard. Not to mention laecha is said to be pronounced lusha, when in fact it's pronounced lay-uk(as in ch in the loch) uh.
Further to this, the quotes you have added to the loading menus include references to the cycle of don? the cycle of telam? and reference to names which begin as dua or uí as well as including spellings which were more welsh when it was clear an Irish reference was intended. There were four cycles in Irish legend, fenian, mythological, kings and ulster. No other exist. And I'm unfamiliar with such quotes from them.
I know that this mod was created because of a lust for historical accuracy, and fair play. But what I can't understand is where this info comes from, and it's a small mark on an otherwise excellent mod, and I don't think you would have willingly added fraudelent information.
I apologise for being so pedantic.
I read this post before somewhere. In the goidilic hammers thread perhaps?
I did write something like that before, but I deleted it considering it was impolite. I then downloaded the game, and realised that this was the only flaw i could see, so felt I was doing the decent thing by informing you.
Ah, that must be it. Someone who knows this will probably answer, I have no clue :beam:.
Good good. I just want to gently advise, not to insult by the above post.
russia almighty
08-05-2007, 18:53
Riadach a friendly heads up , the EB team has access to stuff that you can only find at a university or that hasn't even been published.
Well I am a university graduate from Trinity College Dublin, in both Irish and History. I have a good working knowledge of old and middle Irish as well and I have never come across such terminology, also referenced it to the RIA DIL. I can say. though, hand on heart, that the irish is completely wrong. One source on the site doesn't exist for certain, is Luachmharlenbhan. I have never heard of such and am surprised the title is in modern Irish, not to mention not conforming to grammatical rules.
I haven't seen any of the team's Celtic experts lately, so I am afraid your question won't be answered. However, as I understand it, the quotes have been taken from a work that one of them is currently translating. I also know that many of the "barbarian" units have been created based on archeological finds rather than written or oral history. However, I do admit I am puzzled about the Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha as well.
However, sorry, my area of expertise is Irish history and Irish language, and I have noticed something rather odd. For a start, the Goidillic units are not supported by any source I have ever read, worse still is that their Irish names look like something dragged out of the dictionary. Daernaght, Ordmhornaght, Deaisbaird and Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha show a distinct misunderstanding of the Irish rudiments of the Irish language. A lot of the names are complete gibberish in that regard. Not to mention laecha is said to be pronounced lusha, when in fact it's pronounced lay-uk(as in ch in the loch) uh.
Perhaps offering your own thoughts would help ease the bitter pill of criticism, eh? :2thumbsup: I can't say with complete certainly but I believe that the names may be wip (as everything is in EB), so again if you have something better to offer we will gladly look at it. I mean, how else can we respond? You obviously feel strongly that our approach is wrong here, so perhaps offering an alternative vision would be helpful. :beam:
Further to this, the quotes you have added to the loading menus include references to the cycle of don? the cycle of telam? and reference to names which begin as dua or uí as well as including spellings which were more welsh when it was clear an Irish reference was intended. There were four cycles in Irish legend, fenian, mythological, kings and ulster. No other exist. And I'm unfamiliar with such quotes from them.
AFAIK, the cycles that appear in our quotes come from unpublished work, work that a former team-member was able to see (either because he new the translator or because he was working on translating the text himself - I can't remember). As to their origin, I do not know, but I have complete trust in the aforementioned member as to their authenticity.
Basically we are very receptive to well-structured, well researched criticism, but we too often come across people who claim to know better but have are mistaken or plain ignorant on the subject (not their own fault, blame pop culture). You seem genuine enough, however, and much of the aforementioned mistaken criticism comes against the Romans and other such famous factions. Perhaps offer a little of your own knowledge in return for a defence, eh?
Foot
We talked about this about a month back. This is an excerpt of what our Celtic expert had to say on the issue:
Sorry, didn't see. He's pretty right, actually, none of those names were intended to stick (placeholders until more appropriate primitive Irish names could be used), but, they're not gibberish, they're just rather hastily done. However, I did try to get some of them changed a while ago, I forget who I was trying to get a hold of though. They need to be in 'Primitive Irish', but Ran didn't have a good theoretical dictionary for it yet (it's extremely fragmentary, mostly based on Ogham), but I got one a few months ago, though now I can't find it.
So there you have it. The names are placeholders for now; time is just needed to complete everything.
Also, the Uachtarach DuboGaiscaocha unit was based on a grave find. Now, whether that was published or not, I don't know.
I haven't seen any of the team's Celtic experts lately, so I am afraid your question won't be answered. However, as I understand it, the quotes have been taken from a work that one of them is currently translating. I also know that many of the "barbarian" units have been created based on archeological finds rather than written or oral history. However, I do admit I am puzzled about the Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha as well.
As far as I am aware, there are no tracts left to be translated in Irish, excpt perhaps some obscure legalistic poetry from the 6th century. It however seems unlikely as the names used do not conform to grammar. One character was call telam Uí Manawydan. Any one with any understanding of Irish would understand that A manawydan is a welsh name, not an Irish one and B Uí is the genitive and plural form of Ua and does not occur in one individuals name. Anyone truly translating a tract would have no difficulty understanding this. In fact most 6th year students of Irish would understand it too. It leaves me to think that those aren't as proficient as they say the were.
As for archeological finds, perhaps you are correct. I haven't heard of any hammer warriors though, though in the Lebor Gabála(it's a real book i promise you) when one of the TDD meet the firbolg they remark on their spears(craísech MIr, craoiseach Mod.Ir) which they use for smashing and breaking as opposed to the TDD whose spears were used for cutting and slicing. But the name is way off. As regards Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha, it's source is non-existant, and ceannlann does not mean fish scales. It would mean headscale/blade.
Perhaps offering your own thoughts would help ease the bitter pill of criticism, eh? :2thumbsup: I can't say with complete certainly but I believe that the names may be wip (as everything is in EB), so again if you have something better to offer we will gladly look at it. I mean, how else can we respond? You obviously feel strongly that our approach is wrong here, so perhaps offering an alternative vision would be helpful. :beam:
That is a fair point. Yes I would be more than willing to provide some expertise in the area of linguistics and history if that helps.
AFAIK, the cycles that appear in our quotes come from unpublished work, work that a former team-member was able to see (either because he new the translator or because he was working on translating the text himself - I can't remember). As to their origin, I do not know, but I have complete trust in the aforementioned member as to their authenticity.
I mentioned before, there are no legendary tracts yet to be translated. All that is left is poetry. And at that cycles are much different kettles of fish altogther. A cycle is any theme which has multitudes of literature written about it's central issue. For example the Ulster Cycle includes all redactions of the Táin, Oidheadh Chlann Uisinigh, Oidheadh Chonchobhair, Coimpert Con Chulainn, Seirglige Con Chulainn. Such a cycle would involve a massive compilation of literature, which would be reflected in poetry ever since. I'm afraid it does not exist. It would not have gone under the radar.
Basically we are very receptive to well-structured, well researched criticism, but we too often come across people who claim to know better but have are mistaken or plain ignorant on the subject (not their own fault, blame pop culture). You seem genuine enough, however, and much of the aforementioned mistaken criticism comes against the Romans and other such famous factions. Perhaps offer a little of your own knowledge in return for a defence, eh?
Foot
I would be happy to provide such as much as possible. I have a copy of the Tain upstairs, as well as access to Trinity's libraries and databases. Considering I'm doing my postgrad in military imagery and motifs in Irish poetry at the moment, I think it would help me to help you as well.
We talked about this about a month back. This is an excerpt of what our Celtic expert had to say on the issue:
Sorry, didn't see. He's pretty right, actually, none of those names were intended to stick (placeholders until more appropriate primitive Irish names could be used), but, they're not gibberish, they're just rather hastily done. However, I did try to get some of them changed a while ago, I forget who I was trying to get a hold of though. They need to be in 'Primitive Irish', but Ran didn't have a good theoretical dictionary for it yet (it's extremely fragmentary, mostly based on Ogham), but I got one a few months ago, though now I can't find it.
So there you have it. The names are placeholders for now; time is just needed to complete everything.
Also, the Uachtarach DuboGaiscaocha unit was based on a grave find. Now, whether that was published or not, I don't know.
Unfortunately there is a rub here. Uachtarach Dubogaisciocha is mentioned in Luachmharleanbhan according to your site. This is obviously untrue, since such a tract doesn't exist. As a historian, I'd find it hard to trust someone who would make up a written source, on their archaeological sources. Very little is known about pre-christian warfare in Ireland, but as far as I'm aware it's based around chariots spears and roman-like shortswords.
As for a dictionary on primitive Irish, since most words can be traced to -o stems -i stems etc which is working backwards from Old irish, it's probably not an impossibility, but all the actual examples of primitive Irish we have are names on ogham stones. But if Ran can't handle modern irish, then he's pretty much screwed for old and primitive Irish.
Unfortunately there is a rub here. Uachtarach Dubogaisciocha is mentioned in Luachmharleanbhan according to your site. This is obviously untrue, since such a tract doesn't exist.
...or it does and it just hasn't been published yet like so much material out there. You would be surprised as to what is sitting around in the basement of a museum.
As to the rest you wrote: ~:rolleyes:
I mentioned before, there are no legendary tracts yet to be translated. All that is left is poetry. And at that cycles are much different kettles of fish altogther. A cycle is any theme which has multitudes of literature written about it's central issue. For example the Ulster Cycle includes all redactions of the Táin, Oidheadh Chlann Uisinigh, Oidheadh Chonchobhair, Coimpert Con Chulainn, Seirglige Con Chulainn. Such a cycle would involve a massive compilation of literature, which would be reflected in poetry ever since. I'm afraid it does not exist. It would not have gone under the radar.
I'm afraid that you've just called one of our most respected members a liar, and a falsifier of information. Not a good way to start, really. Ran, unfortunately no longer in our group due to personal reasons, is a world-class scholar, whose depth and breadth of knowledge is vast and countless. Perhaps some old post of his will enlighten us here, but until any further information comes to light I would gladly put my trust in his knowledge.
EDIT: Oh, and I myself am a graduate, in philosophy in fact, and I know too well how little I have read on the subjects I have studied. To be frank, a graduate isn't really a position of honour any more - it can't be I've got one! - if you were a post-grad doing a thesis on this topic I would put my faith in your words. I do not meant to insult you in anyway, I have no reason to suspect that you are anything but a top-notch graduate, but I know full well how little can be read in the three/four years of a university degree, and outside of a university it is even harder to concentrate on academic study!
Foot
I'm afraid that you've just called one of our most respected members a liar, and a falsifier of information. Not a good way to start, really. Ran, unfortunately no longer in our group due to personal reasons, is a world-class scholar, whose depth and breadth of knowledge is vast and countless. Perhaps some old post of his will enlighten us here, but until any further information comes to light I would gladly put my trust in his knowledge.
Foot
I apologise for that, but on the basis of all the other information, that has to be my conclusion.
I apologise for that, but on the basis of all the other information, that has to be my conclusion.
I know, and I can understand your sentiment, but you must understand that Ran is well respected amongst us and very dear to us. He has proven his knowledge and his worth on far too many occasions to count. Given that information I must disagree with you. If you had a paper or two behind you, or some concrete evidence in contradiction to Ran's work, then we would be more willing to see your ignorance of the cycles and the other citations that Ran has given us as more substantial proof that we need to take a further look. As it is, being a graduate, your lack of knowledge of the works that Ran cites does not outweigh the faith and trust we have put in him.
Yet this is only one part of your first question, perhaps we could focus on a more productive area such as the unit names?
Foot
But surely his ignorance of the Irish language should prove that he could not in anyway way be translating an important medieval Irish tract? Try even entering the cycle of don into google? Surely some reference should be made to it in abstract? It doesn't exist and never has. Ask anyone is manawyddan welsh or Irish, and they will surely reply that it's the former. Surely any celtic scholar would tell the difference. In fact type both these names into google, mannanan as well, and that fact will be clear also. Ask any irish student, does the adjective precede or succeed the noun in Irish, they will tell you it's the later. So uachtarach dubgascocha, where uachtarach is the adjective, is wrong. Look up Mac William Burke uachtarach in google, they were a famous Irish Family (it may be under mac uilliam uachtarach), you'll find that uachtarach, the adjective here, is in the correct position, after the noun. Compare that to uachtarach dubgaoscacha. Look anywhere and you'll find uí is used as the plural from of ó or ua, and not to be found in individual nominative names. Perhaps this persons area of expertise is elsewhere, and he is merely pretending he is familiar with Irish circumstance, if that is a more comfortable thought.
Dude, Google isn't the end all, be all of scholarly research.
But surely his ignorance of the Irish language should prove that he could not in anyway way be translating an important medieval Irish tract? Try even entering the cycle of don into google? Surely some reference should be made to it in abstract? It doesn't exist and never has.
That is certainly proof of nothing. Secondly, I never said he was translating, I gave a choice of two options. If he couldn't have translated it, then he certainly was in touch with someone who was.
I have no idea when it comes to unpublished work in the field of Irish literature, but you generally don't find articles published on unpublished material. It would hardly be fair for someone to publish work on a piece before the actual historian and translator working on the original piece has had a chance to comment. That was my impression of the academic world, and so I don't find it surprising that no reference is made on google. I am surprised that you think the lack of a reference on google is proof positive that it doesn't exist. It seems odd, indeed, that you imagine that a team, which does include academics with a lot more experience in this world than you or I, would overlook such an obvious way to judge an unpublished work's existence, if indeed it was such an obvious way. Unless you can call on something a little better than google, I really don't see where you can possibly take this discussion.
Foot
Indeed it isn't, but try the ulster cycle, the fenian cycle, the mythological cycle and the cycle of kings. Why would these come up and none else? It's actually an extreme misunderstanding of what cycle means in this context. They are not names for individual tracts but for broad collections.
Those are all published works. As an unpublished work I can entirely understand why there is no breath of it on google.
Foot
That is certainly proof of nothing. Secondly, I never said he was translating, I gave a choice of two options. If he couldn't have translated it, then he certainly was in touch with someone who was.
I have no idea when it comes to unpublished work in the field of Irish literature, but you generally don't find articles published on unpublished material. It would hardly be fair for someone to publish work on a piece before the actual historian and translator working on the original piece has had a chance to comment. That was my impression of the academic world, and so I don't find it surprising that no reference is made on google. I am surprised that you think the lack of a reference on google is proof positive that it doesn't exist. It seems odd, indeed, that you imagine that a team, which does include academics with a lot more experience in this world than you or I, would overlook such an obvious way to judge an unpublished work's existence, if indeed it was such an obvious way. Unless you can call on something a little better than google, I really don't see where you can possibly take this discussion.
Foot
I'm resorting to rather easy elements of proving that these did not exist. But surely the reference to Manwyddan should be enough. Why would a welsh name and spelling be in an Irish tract? What about the luachmharleanbhan? Luachmhar is a modern Irish word, it does not occur in old and middle Irish. Why would a tract have this nameand thats ignoring the glaring grammatical deficiency that I mentioned above (luachmhar is the adjective)? What other sources has he quoted? Are they all unpublished?
It seems in this instance that the team have made a grave oversight in relation to Ran's research.
Those are all published works. As an unpublished work I can entirely understand why there is no breath of it on google.
Foot
A cycle is not an individual work. It's a collection of elements that sometimes can span 1,000 years of material. They do not occur in one tract. For the fenian cycle for example, one has early fenian poetry from the 8th century, acallamh na senórach from the 12th century, references in bardic poetry from the 12-16th century, ossianic poetry from the 16th 17th century from both Ireland and scotland, and oral storytelling from the 19th century. Could such a cycle possibly be ignored? Could such a corpus of written material possibly be completely untranslates or unpublished? If one was quoting Oisín in acallamh na Senórach, one would never say Oisín, the Fenian Cycle. As the fenian cycle would mean the source was any number of works. Cycles are akin to themes and central characters, they are not individual stories or tracts. Anyone with a basic understanding of Irish literature would know that, so why does Ran not?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-05-2007, 22:05
One of our other members knows Ranika personally, he is not merely an internet persona. Nor is he lacking in linguistic skill but knowing him he would not do archaic Irish translations "on the fly" which is probably why they aren't finished. As to the Cycles he referenced I can tell you that every time we dig up another jar in Egypt my entire field is turned it's head and then it takes ten years to translate the thing.
There is a reason we trust Ranika implicitly, there is no reason for you to.
I would suggest that both sides consider that an end to the arguement.
We don't dig up periodically new tracts in Irish. The greatest find of late has been a psalter discovered in a bog, which was compared to the Irish dead sea scrolls. This was our first for a hundred years. Most of our tracts etc have been preserved down throughout history, copied into newer manuscripts and kept in private collections before all being bought up by universities and the Royal Irish Academies. There are no new discoveries in such tracts. What we have we have, and a completely new cycle, previously undiscovered, unpublished and untranslated tract, let alone a whole cycle which would cause a massive stir. Yet he has mentioned a few of these unpublished cycles. Most of the academic work in old Irish at the moment is new recensions or translations, or reviews, or a few lines previously ignored or misunderstood, or common themes or grammar. It is also impossible that characters in these supposedly Irish cycles, would have ys and ks in their names, letters that do not occur in the Irish language. Nor is it possible that whoever is translated these tracts is subsituting welsh names for Irish ones. Nor is it possible that there are tracts, Luachmharleanbhan, which although in Old Irish, have a basic misunderstanding for the Irish language, and involve modern Irish words. Ranika, however well versed he is in other languages, hasn't a clue about Irish beyond what he has picked out from a modern irish/scots gaelic dictionary. In fact try www.dil.ie, if you need proof.
If you wish to ignore my contribution here, by all means do, but if however someone else comes along with similar or better qualifications with similar opinions, be sure to remember what I have said.
Tellos Athenaios
08-05-2007, 23:58
I could be wrong of course, but don't many old Irish (pieces of) literati happen to be private property, and wasn't most of it simply ignored as the said jar of Egypt - it being so common to find in Ireland?
You shouldn't take my word for it, obviously, since I am no expert on ancient Irish literati - or indeed anything whatsoever. Just thought I'd give you my :2cent:.
Also, noone is trying to ignore you here - and chances are noone will . P.V. Calicula merely stated "We have to agree that we disagree with eachother" only using a slightly different choice of words.
I could be wrong of course, but don't many old Irish (pieces of) literati happen to be private property, and wasn't most of it simply ignored as the said jar of Egypt - it being so common to find in Ireland?
You shouldn't take my word for it, obviously, since I am no expert on ancient Irish literati - or indeed anything whatsoever. Just thought I'd give you my :2cent:.
Also, noone is trying to ignore you here - and chances are noone will . P.V. Calicula merely stated "We have to agree that we disagree with eachother" only using a slightly different choice of words.
That may have been true at the start of the 19th century, but it certainly isn't true now.
antiochus epiphanes
08-06-2007, 01:29
If you wish to ignore my contribution here, by all means do, but if however someone else comes along with similar or better qualifications with similar opinions, be sure to remember what I have said.
it seems youve gone from simply trying to help us to wanting to stir up a reaction from us....
it seems youve gone from simply trying to help us to wanting to stir up a reaction from us....
I do not. I merely wanted to point this out. However, considering the reaction from many posters, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.
Lowenklee
08-06-2007, 05:05
Please take the following at face value, I don't wish to be percieved as "flaming" or "trolling"...
I wish to pose what I believe to be a fair question. Is it the best sort of practice to cite unpublished work that has yet to be subjected to peer review. It's frustrating not being able to access and scrutinize the material oneself and possibly a failing to rely so heavily on unqualified literary work. After all, Ranika is no longer with the team and able to offer further information pertaining to this literature correct?
I really would love to take a peek at that source material...although without a translation I suppose I'd get only limited use of it. However any information at all regarding the location of this literature, a name associated with it's handling, or at the very least a cross reference of some sort I think should seem reasonable.
On the other hand I suppose the EB team is under no real obligation to adhere to such a protocol and have every right to make that investment of faith in Ranika's research. Perhaps a disclaimer on the material might be appropriate? Moving on...
While changing units at this juncture would no doubt prove unpalatable to the EB team a change of unit names and splash screen quotes might be more doable and hence make this thread a more worthwhile debate in that direction?
My humble opinion is offered only as I myself have wondered often about the the "Cycle of Don" and ect...no insult or distasteful inferences are intended.
Frostwulf
08-06-2007, 05:11
[/quote=Riadach]I do not. I merely wanted to point this out. However, considering the reaction from many posters, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.[/quote]
You didn't waste your time. Your presentation may have put off some but your information was welcome. I have to admit one item that puts me off as well is that information is not very forthcoming, and understandably so in some instances. I know the EB team has been busy and do not have time to spend here on the forums. I do wish that they would address some of the items that keep popping up such as the Gaesatae and put down the resources they have. Like you Riadach there are many who do have access to materials so I do have a problem with the "hard to get material" reply.
I hope you will consider to continue posting and perhaps answer questions that others may have. I personally hope you will be able to back up your answers with references, I try to do the same.
Well the problem may lie in that fact that the Irish historical community and archaeological community, chooses to ignore mythology and legendary sources for an understanding of early Irish military, something I have come across when studied for my current thesis. Such caution may be welcome, as for example when you read carpat serrda, a scythed chariot you have to wonder, is the author referring to something in his own experience, or is he familiar with Roman and Greek historical translations such as Togail na Trai(the sack of troy) or In Cath Cathardha(Lucan's Bellum Civile). Even if it is true that it is his own experience, one cannot necessary project it back 800 years. Although frequently called mythology, the original versions are in fact literature. The Táin Bó Cúalnge for example seems to be a recension of the Táin Bó Fraích from the 7th century (plagiarism was not a problem for Irish monks), replaced their main character Fraech with Cú Chulainn, and ouila, we have one of the most important epics in Irish literature.
I will try to add more if possible. The carbad serrda shouldn't be too difficult to source, and there is a reference to a blanket on the horse which had metal patches sewn in for protection. That last one may be problematic, I think it's the same source, but I will need to research it, and hopefully occurs where the scythed chariot is described in the Táin. www.ucc.ie/celt has many historical epics published and translated and accessible. Also http://homepage.eircom.net/~archaeology/chariot.htm
found it, second paragraph here http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T301035/text021.html
As far as I am aware, there are no tracts left to be translated in Irish, excpt perhaps some obscure legalistic poetry from the 6th century. It however seems unlikely as the names used do not conform to grammar. One character was call telam Uí Manawydan. Any one with any understanding of Irish would understand that A manawydan is a welsh name, not an Irish one and B Uí is the genitive and plural form of Ua and does not occur in one individuals name. Anyone truly translating a tract would have no difficulty understanding this. In fact most 6th year students of Irish would understand it too. It leaves me to think that those aren't as proficient as they say the were.
As for archeological finds, perhaps you are correct. I haven't heard of any hammer warriors though, though in the Lebor Gabála(it's a real book i promise you) when one of the TDD meet the firbolg they remark on their spears(craísech MIr, craoiseach Mod.Ir) which they use for smashing and breaking as opposed to the TDD whose spears were used for cutting and slicing. But the name is way off. As regards Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha, it's source is non-existant, and ceannlann does not mean fish scales. It would mean headscale/blade.
I'll state from the get-go that I am no linguist (though I could fairly claim to be a philologist, if I were inclined to do so), and I cannot comment one way or the other on your claims in that area, aside from a small point.
To reiterate, I am no expert on language from that area, but you are very mistaken when you say there is nothing left to translate. When I studied at Harvard for a summer, their Celtic Languages and Literatures dept had several manuscripts actively being worked on. That's just at one place. No offense, but your awareness may be a bit narrow, as I know of people at University College Cork who're also working on texts.
As to the Uachtarach, the archaeological source is quite real, at least the armor anyway. A segment of composite scale (akin to the later Roman Plumata) was pulled out of a bog in what had been Ivernis. Use of all-iron javelins is similarly attested, as remains have been found as far north as Connaught. Long spear hafts are well attested too.
Most of the other units have very much in-period equipment for that area, judging from bog finds and actual weapon counts. 'Archaeology' hardly ever uses mythology, as we're concerned largely with hard physical evidence, which is certainly present in the case of the equipment.
As far as things being in private collections... This is even worse of a problem today, as archaeological looting and theft is even more prevalent today than it was then. Many of us who study ancient economics have basically had to beg to get tiny pieces of pots in order to try to derive their previous contents, to speak only of pottery. Literally thousands of texts remain untranslated, and in what I do (Hittites and Assyrians) over 70% are just sitting waiting for the dwindling number of people who can read them to do so.
The names though, can you explain to me how they're ungrammatical? Keep in mind, I do have a lot of experience with language and formal structure, so I'm really interested in the, to use a vulgate expression, nitty gritty of what you're talking about.
The assumption within the names given urmama, is that the adjective precedes the noun, when in fact the reverse is true. A rather basic mistake do you not think? A similar mistake is made with luachmharleanbhan. Indeed luachmhar is modern Irish word as luach comes from early modern Irish lógh, meaning value or price. In MIr or Oir this would have been represented as Lóg, hence lóg n-enech, honour price. Luachmhar would not represent precious is the sense that children are precious but rather in the sense that gems are precious or valuable.
As well as that, many of the names mentioned in the cycle of don or dyrma, have names which do not conform to Irish orthography. For example there is no y in Irish, in fact the only gaelic language in which it occurs is manx. There are no k's, indeed names do not begin with H's except for certain grammatical reasons (possesive or genitive), so a name beginning h would not be found in the nominative. Hence Hannon could not be an Irish name. I also remember a Cuinn, Cuinn is the genitive of Conn and is not to be found in the nominative as Conn, all translators would know that.
The argument wasn't necessarily that all legendary prose tracts have been translated, although I still believe they have, but rather that a whole cycle of literature could be completely untranslated. Old Irish is less obscure than Hittite and Assyrian, therefore there is much less guesswork involved. As far as I am aware, sterling work has been done over the past 100 years, and all that is left to translate is obscure judicial tracts, and 500 dán díreach (metrical based later-medieval poems, one of which I hope to translate for my thesis). But if there is one, even if it's unpublished, it will be catalogued either under RIA, TCD, UCD or indeed Bodleian library Oxford. It would first be listed as a collection before it could be translated and published. Does anyone have this information in regards to these alleged tracts.
As for the composite armour reference, I am quite interested in such, and if you could provide further reference to it, (its site, location, archaeologists involved) I could see if I could garner more information from the archaeology wing of TCD. If indeed it is published, I do try to keep up to date with the JRSAI, the RIA and the Irish sword, and am surprised no mention, even in passing, has been made of it. However, ceannlann (head-armour or head-blade?) does not mean what it has been asserted. (in fact the ea gliding vowel, does not really occur in writing until the 15th century in Irish writing, mod ir ceann was rendered cenn, peann pen scéal sgél etc), and likewise for leanbhan above.
"annon" with a prefix has several Galatian parallels, so perhaps Hannon is mainland Celtic?
"annon" with a prefix has several Galatian parallels, so perhaps Hannon is mainland Celtic?
But why would a mainland celtic word be in an Irish cycle more than 800 years presumably after the former became extinct? If it was annon, or annan, I probably could stretch to believe it, but even then there are way to many other errors.
The assumption within the names given urmama, is that the adjective precedes the noun, when in fact the reverse is true. A rather basic mistake do you not think? A similar mistake is made with luachmharleanbhan. Indeed luachmhar is modern Irish word as luach comes from early modern Irish lógh, meaning value or price. In MIr or Oir this would have been represented as Lóg, hence lóg n-enech, honour price. Luachmhar would not represent precious is the sense that children are precious but rather in the sense that gems are precious or valuable.
As well as that, many of the names mentioned in the cycle of don or dyrma, have names which do not conform to Irish orthography. For example there is no y in Irish, in fact the only gaelic language in which it occurs is manx. There are no k's, indeed names do not begin with H's except for certain grammatical reasons (possesive or genitive), so a name beginning h would not be found in the nominative. Hence Hannon could not be an Irish name. I also remember a Cuinn, Cuinn is the genitive of Conn and is not to be found in the nominative as Conn, all translators would know that.
The argument wasn't necessarily that all legendary prose tracts have been translated, although I still believe they have, but rather that a whole cycle of literature could be completely untranslated. Old Irish is less obscure than Hittite and Assyrian, therefore there is much less guesswork involved. As far as I am aware, sterling work has been done over the past 100 years, and all that is left to translate is obscure judicial tracts, and 500 dán díreach (metrical based later-medieval poems, one of which I hope to translate for my thesis). But if there is one, even if it's unpublished, it will be catalogued either under RIA, TCD, UCD or indeed Bodleian library Oxford. It would first be listed as a collection before it could be translated and published. Does anyone have this information in regards to these alleged tracts.
As for the composite armour reference, I am quite interested in such, and if you could provide further reference to it, (its site, location, archaeologists involved) I could see if I could garner more information from the archaeology wing of TCD. If indeed it is published, I do try to keep up to date with the JRSAI, the RIA and the Irish sword, and am surprised no mention, even in passing, has been made of it. However, ceannlann (head-armour or head-blade?) does not mean what it has been asserted. (in fact the ea gliding vowel, does not really occur until the 15th century in Irish writing, mod ir ceann was rendered cenn, peann pen scéal sgél etc)
I will look into getting Archive numbers for the materiel.
Our celtic guys have gone on record as saying the language was 'quick and dirty' and 'temporary' till a permanent solution could be found. That, I think, should be emphasized.
As to the scale, the find was in 1993, and it should be in the National Museum in Dublin, albeit locked storage somewhere (as I'm sure you're aware most military finds are anywhere... there's not enough professionals who actually study arms and armor for the ancient period...). I will find the name of the fellow who pulled it. I know he was at one time on the bard of directors of IAI, but that's not of much help.
An extra note: the armor in question actually has smaller scales than what is on our depiction. This is 'artistic necessity', largely because the 'real' armor would have scales too small to be seen by the player, and would look like a bronze shirt, which would be rather odd. Terminologically speaking, do you know what I mean when I say composite?
Well I do remember seeing iron age ringed armour in the national museum in Dublin, but I wouldn't have described it as composite. I haven't heard of this composite find at all, though naturally my insight into archaeology is limited.
My issue however was not just with the names given, but the so-called written sources listed for these. As a historian (kinda), I adhere to the caveat, that if one source is bogus, the writer is not to be trusted for anything else.
Well I do remember seeing iron age ringed armour in the national museum in Dublin, but I wouldn't described it as composite.
My issue however was not just with the names given, but the so-called written sources listed for these. As a historian (kinda), I adhere to the caveat, that if one source is bogus, the writer is not to be trusted.
It really depends, I suppose. While I agree in principle (I'd nail someone to the wall for having a bogus source in academia), this is a game, so if they found something someone else had fabricated and passed it along after a quick glance... that happens. Hell, I've done it, and it used to be reflected in a Ptolemaic unit before we decided to just drop said unit :-)
I'll note that the person who cited many things is no longer around (as has been mentioned), and thus cannot comment substantively. There is somewhat of a caveat there as well though. Look at Stephen Ambrose, who did some disreputable things, but also contributed greatly to scholarship in his area. In no way am I implying that is the case here (as I do not know anything about the source material other than the archaeological minuitae).
Still, I think your tone could be a tad less accusatory, and you would see less negative reaction. Let's look at this, and see if we can't find where this stuff is. It would seem rather industrious and counter-intuitive to fabricate so much, wouldn't it?
Well I do remember seeing iron age ringed armour in the national museum in Dublin, but I wouldn't have described it as composite. I haven't heard of this composite find at all, though naturally my insight into archaeology is limited.
My issue however was not just with the names given, but the so-called written sources listed for these. As a historian (kinda), I adhere to the caveat, that if one source is bogus, the writer is not to be trusted for anything else.
When I say find, I do not mean a whole suit of armor, but rather fragments. And by composite, I mean layered. In this case, scale over mail (probably with cloth or leather in between, one presumes).
The finds in Iberia of this sort of armor are legion, about five or six to date, including a partial suit. A full suit of Roman plumata made in what we would call Galicia today is the most complete, I think. There may be a piece found in Greece dateable to the Galatian invasions as well, but that may be a false positive, as the pottery found near it is conflicting.
Still, I think your tone could be a tad less accusatory, and you would see less negative reaction. Let's look at this, and see if we can't find where this stuff is. It would seem rather industrious and counter-intuitive to fabricate so much, wouldn't it?.
Well i do apologise for my tone, but i did feel rather outraged that a mod dedicated to historical accuracy had been so duped. I'm sure you would feel if you saw an inaccurate representation of a culture you were interested in. Perhaps Ran had done what he felt was right by refusing to let early goidilic history be ignored through ignorance, but at the same time there were so many sources that would have been easy to quote that he could have resourced.
I have actually done a bit of linguistic research since the start of this conversation into this composite scale armour. I always knew that the Irish for mail or breastplate was lúirech, from lorica, but was unaware that the lorica could be lorica plumate, squamata or lorica hamata. So where i've read lúirech I've presumed mail, indeed the references to fiuga, and bian and dual would verify that assumption. There is however also a reference dar lannaibh na lúirech, over the plates of the armour, so that is not an impossibility, that some of these lúirigh were lorica plumata as opposed to lorica hamata.
Well i do apologise for my tone, but i did feel rather outraged that a mod dedicated to historical accuracy had been so duped. I'm sure you would feel if you saw an inaccurate representation of a culture you were interested in. Perhaps Ran had done what he felt was right by refusing to let early goidilic history be ignored through ignorance, but at the same time there were so many sources that would have been easy to quote that he could have resourced.
Seriously, if you don't want this to heat up again, stop stating it as a fact that the team member was wrong, or worse, intentionally lying. You seem a little too passionate about this to be trusted without hesitation.
Are you not passionate about things you have devoted your life to? You may ignore the points I have made that indicated the team member is wrong, but a little further research on your part will indicate that what I have stated is indeed correct.
Look under the orthography section of Old Irish in wikipedia for a start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Irish
At this point in my life, I am pretty passionate about breathing and... no, that's it. Anyway, as some have told a few times already, the person in question is absent, thus not able to say anything in his defence. The accusation of intentionally lying is what bugs me.
Well, I do not wish to accuse anyone of such either. I am merely presenting the facts as they appear to me. Would you have preferred if I had kept quiet on the subject altogether? Would that have been in the best interest of your aims and mission statement?
Well, I do not wish to accuse anyone of such either. I am merely presenting the facts as they appear to me. Would you have preferred if I had kept quiet on the subject altogether? Would that have been in the best interest of your aims and mission statement?
No, but there are certainly better ways of presenting yourself. Perhaps instead of being so sure of yourself, you could be a little more humble and open to differing opinion. It wouldn't come across as an insult against one of our members, then.
Foot
Starforge
08-06-2007, 19:46
Well, I do not wish to accuse anyone of such either. I am merely presenting the facts as they appear to me. Would you have preferred if I had kept quiet on the subject altogether? Would that have been in the best interest of your aims and mission statement?
:help:
While I might be delusional about having a passing interest in history, I would never presume to lecture anyone here on content since my area of expertise lies in I/S not the deeper roots of my hobbies.
That having been said, since the person who's material is in question here cannot be here to defend himself and attacking what's available will be fruitless, perhaps using your expertise to correct / suggest corrections for what you see is wrong would be a better venue? Unless I misunderstood - they asked for help / assistance regarding the units and would be interested in your input regarding such. Would that not, perhaps, be a better focus?
I do not. I merely wanted to point this out. However, considering the reaction from many posters, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.
it seems youve gone from simply trying to help us to wanting to stir up a reaction from us....
ive been really interested in what you have had to say so i think it was good you brought up these issues. it does strike me that the langauge errors that you have pointed out seem rather basic, i.e ones that no one with any working knowledge of the language should make. In addition i share your concern about these mysterious unpublished cycles. i think those who are defending this do not seem to understand the fundemental nature of what a cycle is - i.e it that it is a large body of varied work around a theme, not 1 book or poem. thus the idea that there could be un-translated cycles out there does strike me as being incredibly unlikley. you would have thought some hint of there existence would at least be present in the oral tradition.
however the eb team seem quite insulted by the suggestion that they may have been taken in by so knd of historical fantasist. as the person in question is not going to be around to defend himself , it would probably be best to accept for the minute that the individual perhaps overeached themselves rather than malisciously tried to trick everyone.
to move forward positively why dont you suggest language changes that you think would be more accurate. highlight specific things that you belive have such little foundation it would be necessary to remove them (unless solid evidence can be provided to the contrary), and suggest alternative quotes to replace the contreversial cycle quotes.
and to the eb team - dont you think it would perhaps be best to remove the contreversial cycle quotes for the present?
I could indeed provide names for the goidilic units if they so wish. I don't think I (or anyone else for that matter) could provide you with the primitive Irish for such, but I could find old Irish no problem.
As for quotes, I'll leave this discussion with one.
Cú Culainn: 'Acht ropa airderc-sa, maith lim cenco beind acht óenlá for domun .’
‘Provided I be famous, I am content to be only one day on earth.’’
No, but there are certainly better ways of presenting yourself. Perhaps instead of being so sure of yourself, you could be a little more humble and open to differing opinion. It wouldn't come across as an insult against one of our members, then.
Foot
I would be normally, if it was a mere difference of opinion. But some of the errors were so blatantly obvious, the grammatical and spelling ones for instance, that I had no choice but to be sure in myself in this instance. It would be akin to someone telling an egyptologist that cairo was the faronic capital of egypt. Would they offer the turh as a difference of opinion in that instance if it was a known indisputable fact? I hope you can understand that point of view.
I would be normally, if it was a mere difference of opinion. But some of the errors were so blatantly obvious, the grammatical and spelling ones for instance, that I had no choice but to be sure in myself in this instance. It would be akin to someone telling an egyptologist that cairo was the faronic capital of egypt. Would they offer the turh as a difference of opinion in that instance if it was a known indisputable fact? I hope you can understand that point of view.
Perhaps. I can see your point of view. Of course, I couldn't really speak of the problems with the language there, as I have no knowledge (though I do envy those who do). But still, perhaps less accusative. If there is one thing I have learnt from my Philosophy Degree, is that generally we misunderstand one another, and giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt in friendly situations is advisable. Humans tend to jump to conclusions, which is very good as a survival ability in social situations, but often it overplays in circumstances that offer chances for misunderstanding. In academia, misunderstandings are one's bread and butter, and in my opinion it pays to be kinda than would otherwise be the case.
Foot
Perhaps. I can see your point of view. Of course, I couldn't really speak of the problems with the language there, as I have no knowledge (though I do envy those who do). But still, perhaps less accusative. If there is one thing I have learnt from my Philosophy Degree, is that generally we misunderstand one another, and giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt in friendly situations is advisable. Humans tend to jump to conclusions, which is very good as a survival ability in social situations, but often it overplays in circumstances that offer chances for misunderstanding. In academia, misunderstandings are one's bread and butter, and in my opinion it pays to be kinda than would otherwise be the case.
Foot
Seriously though if I had any doubt, I would not have posted at all, and even if that, I did it grudgingly. I've been questioning and questioning myself to see if I could have overlooked something, to see if I was being harsh, to see maybe if they were welsh cycles instead of Irish cycles. But no. Anything i've seen has only reaffirmed by deductions, and even if I had the slightest inkling I was wrong, I would not have approached with such self confidence.
Have you thought about the possibility that the Cycles could be in a private collection? It happens quite a lot, actually. The Gospel of Judas and a copy of Archimedes' writings are examples. Unfair, I know, but it happens.
Seriously though if I had any doubt, I would not have posted at all, and even if that, I did it grudgingly. I've been questioning and questioning myself to see if I could have overlooked something, to see if I was being harsh, to see maybe if they were welsh cycles instead of Irish cycles. But no. Anything i've seen has only reaffirmed by deductions, and even if I had the slightest inkling I was wrong, I would not have approached with such self confidence.
History has been full of people who have thought themselves right, scientists whose very charakter is one of academic self-doubt. People have believed in matter with a negative mass, believed in a universal ether and in the inability for animals to have a sense of self. If history has taught us anything, it is that people are generally wrong! Even had I been so sure of myself I would not approach a subjekt with such a manner, at the very least because of a sense of respect for an opponent, if not because of a knowledge of my own limitations.
Yet I cannot complain too much, I've been guilty - far too much - of the same lack of ... flexibility ... in my own statements on various subjects. In retrospect I have found my manner lacking in a certain humility, and have chastised myself because of it.
Foot
Have you thought about the possibility that the Cycles could be in a private collection? It happens quite a lot, actually. The Gospel of Judas and a copy of Archimedes' writings are examples. Unfair, I know, but it happens.
I have indeed considered it, but I must respond that linguistically, orthographically, and grammatically these cannot be real cycles. They make very simple grammatical, linguistc and orthographical mistakes. As simple as writing something boy little as opposed to little boy in Irish. Or finding the word fertiliser in beowulf, or indeed the name John Simpson or Mikhael Debrensky. I'm not necessairly claiming that I am aware of all the texts, but as I said before, cycles are massive amounts of literature that can include thousands of different tracts or writings spanning thousands of years.
History has been full of people who have thought themselves right, scientists whose very charakter is one of academic self-doubt. People have believed in matter with a negative mass, believed in a universal ether and in the inability for animals to have a sense of self. If history has taught us anything, it is that people are generally wrong! Even had I been so sure of myself I would not approach a subjekt with such a manner, at the very least because of a sense of respect for an opponent, if not because of a knowledge of my own limitations.
Yet I cannot complain too much, I've been guilty - far too much - of the same lack of ... flexibility ... in my own statements on various subjects. In retrospect I have found my manner lacking in a certain humility, and have chastised myself because of it.
Foot
Well, not to sound cocky, but i've started so I'll finish, I'm not wrong on this issue. Any rudimentary introduction to Old and Modern Irish will prove me right.
This mod started with the very high-minded aim, that the information in CA was criminally inaccurrate (don't get me started on their galloglaigh in BI). You did not suggest that they may be mistaken, you stated categorically that it was wrong, something that was just and right to do, and you set about creating a mod to iron out these mistakes.
When i saw the information list of the Goidilic faction. I was faced with a similar situation to your own. I knew this was wrong, I knew the sources provided were dodgy if they existed at all, the names used were linguistically inaccurate, and the quotes did not correspond in any way to the rules of the Irish language. Therefore to correct this, I decided that a mod basing itself on accuracy, would appreciate the information I had to offer. It was my duty to inform you that these were inaccurate. Had i suggested in a haphazard, unconfident manner that these could or may be wrong, I don't imagine I'd be taken seriously. I do apologise for my approach, but I am passionate about my field of expertise, and like all historians, hate to see blatant inaccuracies.
Wierd...Did Ranika really make such simple mistakes? Didn't he even translate texts for various Universities even upto Poland? ~:dizzy:
Anyway, thanks to bring this up, Riadach. I and a lot of EB-members have no idea about the historical or linguistic correctness. It would be great if you could suggest some changes and corrections. Though I think we'd also should get some input or feedback from Anthony on this matter, as he's our new specialist.
EDIT: Skipped Anthony's post apparantly. In that case I'm glad to hear that they were just WIP. So they'll get updated/corrected.
Wierd...Did Ranika really make such simple mistakes? Didn't he even translate texts for various Universities even upto Poland? ~:dizzy:
Perhaps he did for some celtic language, but certainly not for Irish.
are ranika or anthony actually irish? i just get the impression that these mistakes would not have been made if they were. (just because of what they should have learned at school in ireland)
Wierd...Did Ranika really make such simple mistakes? Didn't he even translate texts for various Universities even upto Poland? ~:dizzy:
Anyway, thanks to bring this up, Riadach. I and a lot of EB-members have no idea about the historical or linguistic correctness. It would be great if you could suggest some changes and corrections. Though I think we'd also should get some input or feedback from Anthony on this matter, as he's our new specialist.
EDIT: Skipped Anthony's post apparantly. In that case I'm glad to hear that they were just WIP. So they'll get updated/corrected.
Ranika did not translate the unit names. And if he did translate Irish, it'd come natural to him, since he -is- Irish. Anthony has openly and unequivocally said that the unit names are not right, are temporary, and any fault lies with him. They will be changed. That particular matter is resolved, and should be considered as such until we see new unit names (hopefully in a more archaic version of Irish than Old Irish).
As to the cycles, Paullus dug up an old post in which it is stated that these 'cycles' exist in commentary on 8th and 9th century addenda to the major cycles. Will continue digging.
Ranika did not translate the unit names. And if he did translate Irish, it'd come natural to him, since he -is- Irish. .
if he didnt who did?
Right, according to how one interprets Ranika's post (calling them "sidenotes to the primary cycles"), either or both of the following, depending on how literally we take his post:
in marginal addenda to the primary cycles, added by editors in the 8-9th centuries.
in minor religious texts (compared to the primary cycles), from the 8-9th centuries, in which the semi-historical parts are used as examples of the dangers of power and the corruption of human nature.
he also said that different cycles were assigned colors, eg, the Cycle of Don being the Black Cycle or Telam being the Blue Cycle. He also said he was expecting a publication with the two just mentioned and Mycha to be forthcoming at its earliest in 2006, but possibly later.
The_Mark
08-07-2007, 18:05
if he didnt who did?
Anthony, as stated in the very next sentence after your quote typed by Urnamma.
Right, according to how one interprets Ranika's post (calling them "sidenotes to the primary cycles"), either or both of the following, depending on how literally we take his post:
in marginal addenda to the primary cycles, added by editors in the 8-9th centuries.
in minor religious texts (compared to the primary cycles), from the 8-9th centuries, in which the semi-historical parts are used as examples of the dangers of power and the corruption of human nature.
he also said that different cycles were assigned colors, eg, the Cycle of Don being the Black Cycle or Telam being the Blue Cycle. He also said he was expecting a publication with the two just mentioned and Mycha to be forthcoming at its earliest in 2006, but possibly later.
Ok, can I take this and analyse it then? Firstly, i'd like to point out that marginal addenda were used in latin texts or in brehon law tracts, not in cycles. Secondly most of the legendary tracts that come down to us today are preserved in manuscripts much younger manuscripts than the 8th or 9th century, IIRC the first complete tract we have in Irish is from the 12th century, the book of the dun cow. So if a marginal entry was added, it could not have been from the 8th or 9th centuries, it would have to be from at earliest the 12th century, because anyone copying a manuscript would not copy a marginal addenda onto a margin, marginal addenda's are afterthoughts on behalf of the original scribe, they would incorporate it into the main text. But only stories could be commented on as primary cycles as he called comprise hundres of individual bits of material. Did he by any chance quote from whence they came?
Thirdly, look up the orthography section of old Irish in wiki, and you will find that there is absolutely no y in Irish not has there ever been. So Dyrma cannot be an Irish tract, and neither can Mycha. Thirdly, in one quote from Telam, someone with a supposed Irish name (it does not adhere to the orthographic rules, but you can see it was intended to be Irish), there is a reference to Ynys Mons. Why would an Irish tract refer to anglesea, and why would it refer to it in Welsh?
In any place, has he referenced which religious texts and which primary cycles(more importantly which individual manuscript) he obtained them from?
And thanks for ignoring option 2, real classy. So we take his post as being non-literal, that the religious tracts to which he's referring are "as sidenotes" compared to the major cycles, not literal addenda. I study Hellenistic history, so I'm not up on the editing process for Irish oral tradition, so I didn't know when marginal notes were first added, which was why option 1 ever existed at all. It does sound like you're saying that in some sense option 1 may still be a possibility, only that it wouldn't actually exist as marginal notes, it would only be adduced as such be an editor or something? Did they not provide additional marginal notes in editions? That's a common feature of many copied works around the world, odd that it wouldn't happen among the Irish.
And no, I don't know from which works they came. My impression from his statements was that they were from minor works separate from the four (?) primary cycles, and I suppose its possible that "cycle" may not be the most appropriate word for them--for while it conveys the sort of subject matter, it sounds like it conveys a different idea about the nature of the material.
As to why he would refer to Ynys Mons and do so in Welsh, several thoughts:
1) Prior travel from Ireland
2) Traveler from Wales
3) Use of Welsh conventions in the translation provided to EB, to make the site recognizable by its most common convention (rather like how many recognize Socrates over Sokrates, or Athens over Athenai)
And thanks for ignoring option 2, real classy. So we take his post as being non-literal, that the religious tracts to which he's referring are "as sidenotes" compared to the major cycles, not literal addenda.
I'm not sure what you mean by the classy accusation. I've never seen them be described as sidenotes, they are independent works in themselves to be honest. I would like to find out the names of such however, references have been made in Brehon law commentaries to legendary figures, Cormac Mac Airt comes up repeatedly, but not familiar with such in relation to religious material. Even however if they do exist, it does not mean that he is telling the truth. I do not have to contradict everything he has stated, I've done more than enough.
I study Hellenistic history, so I'm not up on the editing process for Irish oral tradition, so I didn't know when marginal notes were first added, which was why option 1 ever existed at all.
Well there were frequent glossaries included but as mentioned before, this only happened in the case of biblical exegesis, latin language texts where the meaning was expounded, brehon law tracts and in annalistic material. This was placed either in the margin, or above the tract itself, but could never consist of a large amount of material.
It does sound like you're saying that in some sense option 1 may still be a possibility, only that it wouldn't actually exist as marginal notes, it would only be adduced as such be an editor or something? Did they not provide additional marginal notes in editions? That's a common feature of many copied works around the world, odd that it wouldn't happen among the Irish.
What was claimed about was that the marginal notes were added by editors or copiers in the 8th or 9th centuries. I added, no complete Irish material can be dated to the 8th or 9th centuries, but we do have extant material transcribed into (12th century onwards) later manuscripts whose language can be dated to the 8th or 9th centuries. My argument is when copying such, the copier would have included any marginal addenda into the main source. It may a strawman, but it weakens the origin argument, and that is why I pointed it out.
And no, I don't know from which works they came. My impression from his statements was that they were from minor works separate from the four (?) primary cycles, and I suppose its possible that "cycle" may not be the most appropriate word for them--for while it conveys the sort of subject matter, it sounds like it conveys a different idea about the nature of the material.
It is not the correct word for them. Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. No celtic language scholar would describe them as a cycle, be that Ranika or the individual that is currently transcribing them would refer to them as such, weakens their standing as celtic scholars (well gaelic scholars at least). As well as this, his reference to the blue cycle and the black cycle is also unsoundly based. The Irish never called these cycles, cycle is a term coined by 19th century celticists, perhaps the fenian cycle would be called an fhiannaigecht or the ulster cycle called an rudraígecht, but there was not an individual word for cycle. Thus them calling these the blue cycle or the black cycle, doesn't seem right at all.
As to why he would refer to Ynys Mons and do so in Welsh, several thoughts:
1) Prior travel from Ireland
He would still place the word in Irish. Medieval writers always gaelicised placenames and individual names, I imagine Ynys Mon would be rendered as Inis Mán or some such, which may have carried the same meaning.
2) Traveler from Wales
This the same point as number one?
3) Use of Welsh conventions in the translation provided to EB, to make the site recognizable by its most common convention (rather like how many recognize Socrates over Sokrates, or Athens over Athenai)
There is also the fact that in legendary accounts, they are notoriously obscure about foreign placenames. You may get Rome or Scotland or London, but Anglesea but we unusual, but I'm nit-picking at this stage.
There is also the fact that much of the orthography listed in this instance does not conform to the Irish language. And you have yet to address the issue of Luachmharleanbhan, which I have also undermined.
There is only so many coincidences that you can accept, before you begin to blind yourself to the obvious.
blitzkrieg80
08-07-2007, 23:57
ok, let's use some REAL academic material when we refer to mistaken grammar, NOT wikipedia... seriously now, wikipedia is the resource we're using for comparison? Wikipedia is a great place for a cheap quick summary, but the information there is hardly accurate, with almost no authority... For instance, if one looked up the wikipedia entry for Proto-Germanic grammar they would have some very inaccurate assessments/ comments to make in comparison to the timeline of EB, even if there is a large part which is based in fact.
now don't get me wrong, if there are mistakes, I very much want them removed like anyone else on the EB team, but you really have not cited references for this superior grammar you say exists... it's understandable you might have it memorized, but some real academic material (and i mean several real (published, scholarly) articles/works, not online material) that all agrees with itself would be necessary to prove any mistake... wikipedia proves nothing, except a lack of authoritative evidence... so just to be clear- I really believe you have such evidence, but I think your words will carry best with that weight behind it.
PS- addressing no one in particular but just for the record: being born in a country has nothing to do with expertise or knowledge, so asking if someone is Irish for this is completely unrelated. if Primitive Irish was taught in any public school system obviously then this conversation wouldn't be necessary. (consult the Greek voice mod arguments if one needs further elaboration on how unrelated national origin is with ancient history and linguistics)
ok, let's use some REAL academic material when we refer to mistaken grammar, NOT wikipedia... seriously now, wikipedia is the resource we're using for comparison? Wikipedia is a great place for a cheap quick summary, but the information there is hardly accurate, with almost no authority... For instance, if one looked up the wikipedia entry for Proto-Germanic grammar they would have some very inaccurate assessments/ comments to make in comparison to the timeline of EB, even if there is a large part which is based in fact.
i think he just mentioned it for ease of access, but your request does make some sense.
ok, let's use some REAL academic material when we refer to mistaken grammar, NOT wikipedia... seriously now, wikipedia is the resource we're using for comparison? Wikipedia is a great place for a cheap quick summary, but the information there is hardly accurate, with almost no authority... For instance, if one looked up the wikipedia entry for Proto-Germanic grammar they would have some very inaccurate assessments/ comments to make in comparison to the timeline of EB, even if there is a large part which is based in fact.
now don't get me wrong, if there are mistakes, I very much want them removed like anyone else on the EB team, but you really have not cited references for this superior grammar you say exists... it's understandable you might have in memorized, but some real academic material (and i mean several) that all agrees with itself would be necessary to prove any mistake... wikipedia proves nothing, except a lack of authority
Earnest Gordon Quin's 'Old Irish Workbook'? What about Sengoidelc by David Stifter, it's a bit 'teach yourself' but it will provide you with the information you need? What about www.dil.ie? The most academic dictionary of the Irish language since ancient times online. Look up the letter K or Y and see what you find? Try the www.ucc.ie/celt exercise, look throught any of the medieval Irish texts, you will not find one K or one Y. I'm sourcing wikipedia as that is the only one that may be accessed from the internet, to prove my point quickly. But every Irish fool and his mother know that K and Y do not, or have never existed within Irish language literature, and that adjectives, as a rule precede nouns, the only exceptions being sean- ard- and fíor-. You won't find the word luachmhar in www.dil.ie either as it only deals with early, middle and early modern Irish materials. Neither will you find uí as a nominative entry, but rather ua.
PS- addressing no one in particular but just for the record: being born in a country has nothing to do with expertise or knowledge, so asking if someone is Irish for this is completely unrelated. if Primitive Irish was taught in any public school system obviously then this conversation wouldn't be necessary. (consult the Greek voice mod arguments if one needs further elaboration on how unrelated national origin is with ancient history and linguistics)
Primitive Irish is the language of ogham stones unfortunately, and only includes names. It can be mildly misconstructed through analysis of -o stems -i stems and -io stems. The language ranika or whoever uses in their references to Irish names seems to be a mixture of modern scots gaelic, modern irish, a touch of manx, some welsh, and anglicised Irish and anglicised Irish surnames.
.
PS- addressing no one in particular but just for the record: being born in a country has nothing to do with expertise or knowledge, so asking if someone is Irish for this is completely unrelated. if Primitive Irish was taught in any public school system obviously then this conversation wouldn't be necessary. (consult the Greek voice mod arguments if one needs further elaboration on how unrelated national origin is with ancient history and linguistics)
it was me that mentioned it. its just that anoyne who has been through the schooling system in ireland, will have studied gaelic, as such it is extremely unlikely that they could have made the very basic mistakes which have been made.
it was me that mentioned it. its just that anoyne who has been through the schooling system in ireland, will have studied gaelic, as such it is extremely unlikely that they could have made the very basic mistakes which have been made.
Indeed most have studied modern Irish, and most would know the two basic rules to which I had referred.
blitzkrieg80
08-08-2007, 00:20
well thank you for supplying some of that, i admit i mistakenly said you didn't provide anything when some of that you already mentioned such as www.dil.ie.
I don't believe I have read that anyone is contesting your argument for a different word-order (although there is quite a bit of disagreement on such for Proto-Germanic ~;)) and that certainly would be an easy and welcome correction for the future, if proven to be decisively a certain way.
Word choice isn't really being contested either, as far as I know... that's why we blatantly admitted they were not stone truth, so we are definitely open to new and accurate information, as you have commented, EB is about approaching the truth, so we will try to do so.
I don't know if any argument can be made for the quotes being removed though, since Proto-Germanic, Primitive Irish and many other reconstructed languages wouldn't be possible if we were to strictly adhere to academic rule and process, which needs entirely too many authorities that simply cannot exist in these circumstances... on the other hand, it is never a bad idea to stay conservative on these sorts of issues... I am wondering personally though if these unknown texts are a real issue for you or if they are just part of the overall innaccuracy you wish to help improve on... because we should work on a part by part basis starting with the easiest and most inappropriate, such as word-choice or grammar, which can be argued for and against and be subsequently decided on after having a multitude of educated opinions and sources of information. unfortunately, those EB members whose focus is Celtic are not particularly available right now, but that doesn't mean we won't correct what is incorrect or that we think anyone is perfect. Concerning the Germanic faction, those who created the inital "quick and dirty" inaccuracies for the Sweboz were no longer around whatsoever when I discovered similar issues myself and found it frustrating and confusing to find the names as seemingly arbitrary, ect. but it's being worked on because nobody is claiming perfection and the same goes for other areas. A quick and dirty slightly inaccurate ethnic name sure beats the hell out of a pure Latin name, don't you think? Or plain English...
I don't know if any argument can be made for the quotes being removed though, since Proto-Germanic, Primitive Irish and many other reconstructed languages wouldn't be possible if we were to strictly adhere to academic rule and process, which needs entirely too many authorities that simply cannot exist in these circumstances... on the other hand, it is never a bad idea to stay conservative on these sorts of issues... .
is there any reason for the quotes to stay in though? since they are so highly contested/suspiscious i cant see any reason why you would be so keen to keep them.
there are plenty of alternative quotes you could use from well known and well attested sources.
Well indeed, there are plenty of quotes to be found in massive amount of material from established and published sources in Irish, does it not worry anyone that these were retrieved from unestablished sources, that I have proven show orthographical and grammatical anomalies. The Táin would be nice to quote from, although not contemporary, at least it harks back to pre-christian warfare and claims to come from the 1 century a.d. although this is highly improbable and could never be verified.
What worries me slightly, is that I feel comfortable criticising these elements because it's my area of expertise. But what if for instance, similar was done in areas supervised by this individual, of which I or any of your team members have no knowledge, considering the amount of effort put into making the other elements possible? I find the gallic voices part slightly preturbing.
blitzkrieg80
08-08-2007, 00:38
I think special consideration needs to be made concerning standardization through English characters, because elements such as ð will always show up in game as 'th' not because we don't understand the difference but because it has to be standardized to the game language.
Modern Irish is much different from Primitive Irish, I would guess (not being a Celtic language expert)... Many happen to think that Proto-Germanic would conform to Deutsch rules but it is VERY different and no modern German speaker has any better grasp of it because of that.
I think special consideration needs to be made concerning standardization through English characters, because elements such as ð will always show up in game as 'th' not because we don't understand the difference but because it has to be standardized to the game language.
Modern Irish is much different from Primitive Irish, I would guess (not being a Celtic language expert)... Many happen to think that Proto-Germanic would conform to Deutsch rules but it is VERY different and no modern German speaker has any better grasp of it because of that.
Oh it is, but ranika wasn't using primitive Irish by any stretch of the imagination. The pieces he was supposedly quoted were supposedly from old to middle Irish materials, yet were in modern Irish. We know very little about primitive Irish and can only hazard a guess at it's structure through backward engineering or comparison with welsh. My main problem is with the sources, which in my eyes, don't exist.
Oh it is, but ranika wasn't using primitive Irish by any stretch of the imagination. The pieces he was supposedly quoted were supposedly from old to middle Irish materials, yet were in modern Irish. We know very little about primitive Irish and can only hazard a guess at it's structure through backward engineering or comparison with welsh. My main problem is with the sources, which in my eyes, don't exist.
There are reconstruction projects ongoing. Indeed, to even mention it like you do is to misunderstand experimental reconstruction of languages who have identifiable precursors.
Primitive Irish (and earlier derivatives), however, did seem to have a 'k' instead of a 'c', among some other significant grammatical differences from Old Irish. Of course, Dr. Tomás Ó Cathasaigh could be lying too, since you say that such a thing is patently impossible.
There are other aspects of what you say that are not jiving with what has been written on primitive irish (and on proto-goedelic and ongoing projects to provide some structure to ivernic and the belgic languages that helped form Irish).(1)(2)
Dr. Patrick Ford also seems to agree that a reconstruction is at least theoretically possible from what we have, and several words are listed in various articles that I found in only a few minutes in the library, and on JSTOR.
The order of noun-adjective was quite different in Ivernic than in Old Irish, as judged from Ogham inscriptions.
I think the problem here is that you're trying to make a lot of this conform to Old Irish, when in fact some attempts have been made to archaize the forms.
Still, the fact that your arrogant attitude continues, and that, after consulting papers by people I know to be experts in the field, some of your arguments are flatly incorrect, leads me to believe that there is some linguistic nationalist agenda here. In fact, since you seem to be a fan of strawmen and the very classic 'one of the premises may be wrong, vague, or hard to get, so therefore everything is wrong', I submit that since some parts of your argument are clearly based 900 years out of period, then everything you are saying is flatly wrong and you should never be listened to seriously. Doesn't feel good when reversed, does it?
Now, we're taking statements from two years ago or more and taking them out of context, then you're calling someone a liar, a charlatan, etc and not even doing it with a modicum of decency. Your attitude is contemptuous, and unwilling to be patient while we try to sort this out.
I'm sorry, but your argument is starting to sound something like an argument I've heard many times:
'I study Old Irish. This is the first purely Irish language, and ought to be extended back farther, since little is known about earlier languages. I'm right, and as a consequence of that, you're all a bunch of evil liars who have victimized me. I speak the truth, and you are supposed to be about truth, so listen to me."
Further, according to an article on one of the very websites you cite, you have been incorrect on the form ua and ui (which in primitive Irish should be uae, an earlier form derived from Celtiberian or possibly Aquitanian sources).(3)
Also, going through old conversations with the person who 'didn't know Irish at all, and I can prove it, children wouldn't make such mistakes, bitch -> limit of infinite' and doing simple google searches on many of the phrases used by him, it became quite clear that they were grammatically correct, and the vast majority of quotes ever given me, explanations of the etymology of words, and many, many other things, I can say with a high degree of certainty that he certainly spoke modern Irish. Your assertion there fails a posteriori.
Now, you may be a wonderful scholar in your own right, but some of your candor here is childish and whiny, not to mention unprofessional. If you continue to be militant, I'm afraid I will have to treat that as trolling. Control yourself, for Christ's sake.
Also, any attempt to reconstruct linguistics of various Goedelic (not even quite the right word for 272 B.C.) peoples and indeed the pre-celtic and demi-celtic elements that persisted into modernity would require early Brythonic, Gallic, and Celtiberian linguistic elements, many of which are present in the admittedly work in progress unit names. My question then becomes... rather than try doing this, should we settle for a language 900 years out of period in its earliest forms because it's complete? Hell, I'd be out of a job if we did that, seeing as how there are a few of us trying to trace the origins of the luwian-hittite dialects, and also trying to reconstruct the roots of the assyrian languages, not to mention the folks still trying to decypher linear a. Perhaps we should just go with Neo-Assyrian, the Luwian/Isaurian of ~600 A.D., etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Elisabeth Pyatt, "An Integrated Model of the Syntax and Phonology of Celtic Mutation." (1997)
(2) John T. Koch, "The conversion and the transition from Primitive to Old Irish", Emania 13, (1995)
(3)Donnchadh Ó Corráin The Irish nota .h. for Ua, Úi, etc.: an explanation
O'Brien, M.A. Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae Maynooth: An Sagart, 1991, vol. 1, 2nd edition. (thumbed through, but checked out of the library).
Sims-Williams, Patrick. The Celtic Inscriptions of Britain: Phonology and Chronology, c. 400—1200. (Publications of the Philological Society 37) Oxford : Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
Furthermore, you seem to have a very basic ignorance of ancient ireland and britain, and the migrations that took place therein.
Works of Archaeologists like Barry Cunliffe show a lot of migratory behavior through material remains throughout the British Isles, and remains of clearly Belgic, Aquitanian, and Northern Iberian peoples found in Ireland dating to around this period (thanks ancient Irish for consuming Rhodian wine at least once).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem much more an early medieval philologist with regard to celtic literature than a historian or archaeologist of a more ancient stripe.
There are reconstruction projects ongoing. Indeed, to even mention it like you do is to misunderstand experimental reconstruction of languages who have identifiable precursors.
To mention it as I do? I said it can be backward engineeried. What has been done in relation to primitive Irish is that the names have been identified with their old Irish equivalents, and similar endings in old irish have been determined -o stems i-stems or e-stems based on their ellided endings that were no longer present. That is the basis for our knowledge of primitive Irish. It's backwards reconstruction from Old-Irish with comparison to early welsh and the script on ogham stones.
Primitive Irish (and earlier derivatives), however, did seem to have a 'k' instead of a 'c', among some other significant grammatical differences from Old Irish. Of course, Dr. Tomás Ó Cathasaigh could be lying too, since you say that such a thing is patently impossible.
So ranika has a tract in primitive Irish does he? Primitive Irish is only to be found on ogham stones. All that is contained on ogham stones is names. The K used in reference to names found on ogham stones is a mere phonetic representation of group of horizontal lines on standing stones. It could be easily replaced with a hard c. No literature has been composed in Primitive Irish. Look it up, you'll find it time and time again. As regards the grammar of primitive Irish, it may indeed have been different. But the cycles Ranika so called provided could not be in primitive Irish, they would have to be in old Irish, and he himself says the same, saying they came from 8-9th century marginal entries.
There are other aspects of what you say that are not jiving with what has been written on primitive irish (and on proto-goedelic and ongoing projects to provide some structure to ivernic and the belgic languages that helped form Irish).(1)(2)
Dr. Patrick Ford also seems to agree that a reconstruction is at least theoretically possible from what we have, and several words are listed in various articles that I found in only a few minutes in the library, and on JSTOR.
I have said no such thing. I said that reconstruction is possible, but it involves backwards reconstruction of -i -o etc stemmed words in comparison to the names found on ogham stones. Don't misquote me.
The order of noun-adjective was quite different in Ivernic than in Old Irish, as judged from Ogham inscriptions.
I think the problem here is that you're trying to make a lot of this conform to Old Irish, when in fact some attempts have been made to archaize the forms.
I've never heard Ivernic used to describe ogham inscriptions. Ivernic, if I recall correctly, was a term used to describe a so called brythonic language in use in Ireland before the arrival of Gaelic. The only evidence to support such was the amount of brythonic words in Irish, but this has been judged to come from welsh missionaries and contacts, and not from any Irish based brythonic languages. The language found on pillars is almost certainly primitive Gaelic and bears no relation to Ivernic.
Firstly very little grammatical information can be gleamed from ogham. More often than not it contains merely the name, son of, and the fathers name. I don't believe noun-adjectival relationships can be deduced from such paltry accounts. But regardless, the term given, and I might add supposedly found in a tract called Luachmharleanbhan, does not represent anything close to archaised Irish. In fact it does not represent anything close to Old Irish for that matter.
Still, the fact that your arrogant attitude continues, and that, after consulting papers by people I know to be experts in the field, some of your arguments are flatly incorrect, leads me to believe that there is some linguistic nationalist agenda here. In fact, since you seem to be a fan of strawmen and the very classic 'one of the premises may be wrong, vague, or hard to get, so therefore everything is wrong', I submit that since some parts of your argument are clearly based 900 years out of period, then everything you are saying is flatly wrong and you should never be listened to seriously. Doesn't feel good when reversed, does it?
They are not flatly incorrect. My main points still hold completely true. There is no linguistic national agenda, in fact if there was I would indeed ignore this because the Irish come out in a better light than factually. This is accuracy for accuracies sake and your quotes above to in no way means or form exonerate Ranika's blind baseless assertions. Further to this I admitted one individual strawman argument and you have seized upon it, but the rest still stands. All the information Ranika has sourced for you is 900 years out of the period. All the linguistic criteria, the texts based is naturally 900 years out of the period, because there were no historical accounts for Ireland prior to 500 A.D. when proper writing was introduced. Did you believe he was translating primitive Irish tracts? Or sourcing primitive Irish tracts? Of which there are none? These are the ones I'm attacking, because these are the only ones they have. You are showing your ignorance on the matter at this point, and not very politely either. You can flatly ignore my arguments all you want, but I can assure you his assertions are based on fraudulent accounts, and I would not be here trying to argue the reverse if it was otherwise.
Now, we're taking statements from two years ago or more and taking them out of context, then you're calling someone a liar, a charlatan, etc and not even doing it with a modicum of decency. Your attitude is contemptuous, and unwilling to be patient while we try to sort this out.
I am merely defending myself and my arguments. I'm doing what any decent historian does when confronted with inaccuracy and blatant historical gibberish. Confronting it so it is not accepted as fact. If you are not interested in that, then you are not in the right mod.
I'm sorry, but your argument is starting to sound something like an argument I've heard many times:
'I study Old Irish. This is the first purely Irish language, and ought to be extended back farther, since little is known about earlier languages. I'm right, and as a consequence of that, you're all a bunch of evil liars who have victimized me. I speak the truth, and you are supposed to be about truth, so listen to me."
No i never said that. As mentioned before Ranika is claiming to quote and old Irish source. He cannot find any military references earlier than this in primitive Irish, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE. Primitive Irish is names, it's all we have in that regard.
Further, according to an article on one of the very websites you cite, you have been incorrect on the form ua and ui (which in primitive Irish should be uae, an earlier form derived from Celtiberian or possibly Aquitanian sources).(3)
Sorry how was I incorrect? Would you care to elaborate? Ranika had a nominative name as Uí when it should be ua. If it was primitive Irish it would have been uae even, but he was once again quoting a middle Irish source. It should have been ua, obviously he came across the form uí somewhere in the genitive and presumed that was the nominative, which would make him or his translator a total amateur.
Also, going through old conversations with the person who 'didn't know Irish at all, and I can prove it, children wouldn't make such mistakes, bitch -> limit of infinite' and doing simple google searches on many of the phrases used by him, it became quite clear that they were grammatically correct, and the vast majority of quotes ever given me, explanations of the etymology of words, and many, many other things, I can say with a high degree of certainty that he certainly spoke modern Irish. Your assertion there fails a posteriori.
Really now. Because your argument here is not being backed up by anything. How can you possibly assess that by mere simple searches? This is a baseless argument? Would a modern Irish speaker get simple word order wrong? Would a modern Irish speaker include k's and y's(are you telling me there were y's in primitive Irish too?) in a supposedly middle Irish text? This is absolute rubbish. How does my assertion fall down when you have provided absolutely no information to back it up. Complete and utter rubbish.
Now, you may be a wonderful scholar in your own right, but some of your candor here is childish and whiny, not to mention unprofessional. If you continue to be militant, I'm afraid I will have to treat that as trolling. Control yourself, for Christ's sake.
Sorry childish and whiny? Pedantic and priggish perhaps, but in a mod where accuracy is seen as essential, i don't think my assertions should fall on deaf ears. I am not militant merely passionate, and I can assure you, the only one here who has been in any childish has been yourself with your personalised attacks on me in the above post.
Also, any attempt to reconstruct linguistics of various Goedelic (not even quite the right word for 272 B.C.) peoples and indeed the pre-celtic and demi-celtic elements that persisted into modernity would require early Brythonic, Gallic, and Celtiberian linguistic elements, many of which are present in the admittedly work in progress unit names. My question then becomes... rather than try doing this, should we settle for a language 900 years out of period in its earliest forms because it's complete? Hell, I'd be out of a job if we did that, seeing as how there are a few of us trying to trace the origins of the luwian-hittite dialects, and also trying to reconstruct the roots of the assyrian languages, not to mention the folks still trying to decypher linear a. Perhaps we should just go with Neo-Assyrian, the Luwian/Isaurian of ~600 A.D., etc.
You honestly thing that Ranika's attemptes reflect that? Do you think naght is an Irish ending or even a primitive Irish ending. Do you think uachtarach, a modern irish word, is even relevant to any unit types? Deaisbáird? Doesn't even make sense? Ordmhornacht is a hodge podge of modern irish Modern gaelic and anything he wished to throw in for the lark. In fact he doesn't even claim such, but tries to make out he got these in tracts from old irish. Not a reflection of the Irish of 275 bc at all.
It is completely up to yourself, in a toss up with complete and utter gibberish and something which even remotely resembles what would have been spoken, I know which I would go for.
Furthermore, you seem to have a very basic ignorance of ancient ireland and britain, and the migrations that took place therein.
Works of Archaeologists like Barry Cunliffe show a lot of migratory behavior through material remains throughout the British Isles, and remains of clearly Belgic, Aquitanian, and Northern Iberian peoples found in Ireland dating to around this period (thanks ancient Irish for consuming Rhodian wine at least once).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem much more an early medieval philologist with regard to celtic literature than a historian or archaeologist of a more ancient stripe.
Irish philology only mildly predates the middle ages, the rest is mere guess work based on the primitive Irish found in ogham stones, and comparisons between primitive Irish and other celtic sources. Old irish itself is wholly a scholarship of medieval work. The oldest piece in the latin alphabet we have is Dallán Forgaill's lament on Columba. Most philologists of the old Irish are medieval linguists. But from the sounds of it, I still know a hell of a lot more than yourself.
As for ancient ireland, all we are left with before the 5th century, is philology archaeology and ptolemy's maps. It's not history per se, it's archaeology and the science of reconstruction, the migratory behaviour may have affected language, but it could never have affected spelling, since both ogham and the latin alphabet in Ireland postdated these influences.
To mention it as I do? I said it can be backward engineeried. What has been done in relation to primitive Irish is that the names have been identified with their old Irish equivalents, and similar endings in old irish have been determined -o stems i-stems or e-stems based on their ellided endings that were no longer present. That is the basis for our knowledge of primitive Irish. It's backwards reconstruction from Old-Irish with comparison to early welsh and the script on ogham stones.
I said that there are ongoing attempts. For example, at Harvard, they have a relatively small and in-progress dictionary and grammar list. It's small, but it's there. More than just names.
So ranika has a tract in primitive Irish does he? Primitive Irish is only to be found on ogham stones. All that is contained on ogham stones is names. The K used in reference to names found on ogham stones is a mere phonetic representation of group of horizontal lines on standing stones. It could be easily replaced with a hard c. No literature has been composed in Primitive Irish. Look it up, you'll find it time and time again. As regards the grammar of primitive Irish, it may indeed have been different. But the cycles Ranika so called provided could not be in primitive Irish, they would have to be in old Irish, and he himself says the same, saying they came from 8-9th century marginal entries.
I didn't say that he did. I mentioned scholars, not EB members. Try not building strawmen. You may find it more fruitful.
I have said no such thing. I said that reconstruction is possible, but it involves backwards reconstruction of -i -o etc stemmed words in comparison to the names found on ogham stones. Don't misquote me.
Read what I said again, carefully this time. I'm saying more than names exist. You said only names exist. I provided material that backs me up. I did not say that you didn't believe it was possible, but rather stated that it was indeed possible. I have not used sophistic reasoning, something that cannot be said of you here. Hell, I didn't even quote you.
I've never heard Ivernic used to describe ogham inscriptions. Ivernic, if I recall correctly, was a term used to describe a so called brythonic language in use in Ireland before the arrival of Gaelic. The only evidence to support such was the amount of brythonic words in Irish, but this has been judged to come from welsh missionaries and contacts, and not from any Irish based brythonic languages. The language found on pillars is almost certainly primitive Gaelic and bears no relation to Ivernic.
Ah, but Ivernic is not Brythonic, but rather from a Q-Celtic family. Ding Ding, try again. I said judging from ogham. What was meant by that is this: known celtiberian words and names correlate with some of those found in inscriptions 100%, thus giving credence to the argument that Ivernic, of the composite languages in primitive irish, it is iberian in origin, backing up artifact finds rather well. That was lack of explanation on my part, and for that I am sorry.
Firstly very little grammatical information can be gleamed from ogham. More often than not it contains merely the name, son of, and the fathers name. I don't believe noun-adjectival relationships can be deduced from such paltry accounts. But regardless, the term given, and I might add supposedly found in a tract called Luachmharleanbhan, does not represent anything close to archaised Irish. In fact it does not represent anything close to Old Irish for that matter.
So 'x, son of the great y' or 'here lies a noble king and good father, x' cannot be used to derive adjective-noun relationships? News to me.
They are not flatly incorrect. My main points still hold completely true. There is no linguistic national agenda, in fact if there was I would indeed ignore this because the Irish come out in a better light than factually. This is accuracy for accuracies sake and your quotes above to in no way means or form exonerate Ranika's blind baseless assertions. Further to this I admitted one individual strawman argument and you have seized upon it, but the rest still stands. All the information Ranika has sourced for you is 900 years out of the period. All the linguistic criteria, the texts based is naturally 900 years out of the period, because there were no historical accounts for Ireland prior to 500 A.D. when proper writing was introduced. Did you believe he was translating primitive Irish tracts? Or sourcing primitive Irish tracts? Of which there are none? These are the ones I'm attacking, because these are the only ones they have. You are showing your ignorance on the matter at this point, and not very politely either. You can flatly ignore my arguments all you want, but I can assure you his assertions are based on fraudulent accounts, and I would not be here trying to argue the reverse if it was otherwise.
The quotes were meant to add cultural references other than Graeco-Roman. Personally, after learning that they may well have been unpublished, I have recommended their removal anyway. Still, I did not say anyone sourced primitive irish tracts. Nor did I even say all of what you said was flatly incorrect. READ before you react. I was picking apart a very large logical inconsistency, namely the fact that you blew up a caricature of one or two things, and claimed that they invalidated everything. Doing that in a paper earns you low marks when a college freshmen, let alone later on.
I didn't even say there were accounts before that, merely scraps of language. You are arguing against more than one thing here, and you need to realize that I'm responding to more than one. Pick one and stick with it, and I'll do likewise.
I am merely defending myself and my arguments. I'm doing what any decent historian does when confronted with inaccuracy and blatant historical gibberish. Confronting it so it is not accepted as fact. If you are not interested in that, then you are not in the right mod.
That's bloody rich. My original post on this thread was 'hey, let me look into it, bleh bleh bleh'. To which you continued beating the dead horse. Honestly, man. Oh, and I think my actions for the last 3 years around here have proven my commitment to accuracy, and that includes admitting when I have been mistaken about things. However, I'm here to defend myself, the person you're heaping invective upon isn't.
No i never said that. As mentioned before Ranika is claiming to quote and old Irish source. He cannot find any military references earlier than this in primitive Irish, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE. Primitive Irish is names, it's all we have in that regard.
Is he? I didn't say there were earlier military references. Nor did he, afaik. However,
Sorry how was I incorrect? Would you care to elaborate? Ranika had a nominative name as Uí when it should be ua. If it was primitive Irish it would have been uae even, but he was once again quoting a middle Irish source. It should have been ua, obviously he came across the form uí somewhere in the genitive and presumed that was the nominative, which would make him or his translator a total amateur.
And how many times did that happen? I seem to remember making several mistakes in scores of pages of descriptions, where occasionally my Greek was less than perfect. Rather than accusing me of being a complete and utter charlatan, the other scholars (Paullus and Teleklos) assumed that I had made a mistake. Fuck, wait, that never happens, especially when you're the only one to... oh, wait.
Really now. Because your argument here is not being backed up by anything. How can you possibly assess that by mere simple searches? This is a baseless argument? Would a modern Irish speaker get simple word order wrong? Would a modern Irish speaker include k's and y's(are you telling me there were y's in primitive Irish too?) in a supposedly middle Irish text? This is absolute rubbish. How does my assertion fall down when you have provided absolutely no information to back it up. Complete and utter rubbish.
Meh. I think what I was saying was rather that the man knew so much that I have indeed verified. I don't really see why someone would know 90% of some rather obscure shit, then take the time to make up the other 10... still you're arguing against ghosts.
Sorry childish and whiny? Pedantic and priggish perhaps, but in a mod where accuracy is seen as essential, i don't think my assertions should fall on deaf ears. I am not militant merely passionate, and I can assure you, the only one here who has been in any childish has been yourself with your personalised attacks on me in the above post.
Dude, look up pedantic. Check the etymology. I did not say you are childish, but rather that some of your candor is childish. I did not insult you, but rather pointed out that some of your writing, the tone of it, was coming off as asshat-esque and could perhaps be changed. Sorry.
You honestly thing that Ranika's attemptes reflect that? Do you think naght is an Irish ending or even a primitive Irish ending. Do you think uachtarach, a modern irish word, is even relevant to any unit types? Deaisbáird? Doesn't even make sense? Ordmhornacht is a hodge podge of modern irish Modern gaelic and anything he wished to throw in for the lark. In fact he doesn't even claim such, but tries to make out he got these in tracts from old irish. Not a reflection of the Irish of 275 bc at all.
Alright, man. ANTHONY made the unit names, ANTHONY. He has acknowledged their temporary and cobbled nature. Note that other units (like pelekupheroi) are also cobbled together, largely because the words don't exist in greek vernacular. For that matter, do you really think the Irish, or virtually anyone else, had unit names like we do in a video game? The names are of their very nature rather artificial. If you want to suggest names for the units, I'll listen. Hell, if we can try to archaize them a bit, using what we do know about earlier dialects, I'll be a happy, happy man, and so will our Celtic team.
It is completely up to yourself, in a toss up with complete and utter gibberish and something which even remotely resembles what would have been spoken, I know which I would go for.
Because we never, ever, ever said that the names were temporary in nature until something more suitable could be found, except those several times when it was indeed mentioned.
Irish philology only mildly predates the middle ages, the rest is mere guess work based on the primitive Irish found in ogham stones, and comparisons between primitive Irish and other celtic sources. Old irish itself is wholly a scholarship of medieval work. The oldest piece in the latin alphabet we have is Dallán Forgaill's lament on Columba. Most philologists of the old Irish are medieval linguists. But from the sounds of it, I still know a hell of a lot more than yourself.
As for ancient ireland, all we are left with before the 5th century, is philology archaeology and ptolemy's maps. It's not history per se, it's archaeology and the science of reconstruction, the migratory behaviour may have affected language, but it could never have affected spelling, since both ogham and the latin alphabet in Ireland postdated these influences.
The problem is that I never claimed to know much about the language. I am not a linguist, or for the most part a philologist. I am an economic historian and archaeologist for the most part... You may work with texts while I compare swords that come out of bogs in Ireland and northern Iberia, and try to derive whether there are similarities in the crystalline structure of the iron... or find a type of armor mentioned in a mythic tale, and test whether it is feasible or not. Something tells me what I do gives me a lot better grasp of how the units should look and fight.
So, once again... I never claimed anything remotely similar to being an expert on anything related to celtic language. In fact, I have stated the opposite again and again and again. What we are concerned with here is largely a reconstruction of how demi-celtic, pre-celtic, and belgic peoples in ireland at the time of this mod fought. If you can provide some good nomenclature for that, so much the better... But, I don't think it is fair to call the historical accuracy of everything in question because of names that we have said again and again need to be replaced, were transitive in their essence, etc.
blitzkrieg80
08-08-2007, 05:56
just for the record, even if we have no actual records of Primitive Irish, we (the world) DO have records of other Indo-European languages and their transformation over time, we can use other Celtic languages and linguistic trends, rules, comparative method, ect. which can easily be used to back-engineer beyond the small evidence found in names/Ogham, because we know where it came from, such as Indo-European which has already been reconstructed, and where it went, as you mentioned, the highly knowledgable field of Medieval Irish... BUT we can never say 100% that something is certain because that is why it's theoretical and hasn't been published or become widely known, that's why it's interesting and challenging, but to use the logic of something not conforming to the high level of authoritative evidence necessary in academia- that's an exercise in futility! As I said before, it's not a bad idea to be conservative and only assert what can be proven this way 'til sunday, but the people who do that don't use Primitive Irish whatsoever because they're afraid to make an error and that is boring and the opposite of progressive. The whole point of making a historical modification for a video game like this is taking the best of both worlds, element A (the inaccurate fake "axe-man" type formation of names which are necessary for use in a video game, as Urnamma mentioned) where units are composed of large groups of clones, and element B the most accurate historical information available (even if there is NO information) what can be surmised through close study of what is known and good, educated guesswork. To have medieval or vanilla alternatives just because of the idea of possibly being wrong in some way or harshly judged by academia is not an option- purposeful misrepresentation is the opposite of what anybody in EB intends, even if someone is not perfect and an error slips by. We appreciate feedback and constructive criticism but to insult people simply because you disagree or even if you're right about a point is bad form, plain and simple... even if you don't like how Ranika or Anthony did something, you have no basis to attack their agenda or expertise, especially by the paltry evidence used thus far. Even if there was good evidence, just don't do it- it makes everything you wrote a waste of time because everybody is so irate because of the tone and wording. Humility is not necessary (although helpful- it's a social skill thing) but having respect IS necessary. You are of course free to disrespect whomever you want in this world, but you will subsequently most likely be disrespected in turn because of that- so don't be suprised by the reaction. One might ask: "why should I have to tip-toe around the subject when I am right, I have credibility, and the floor is open to debate?" The answer is this: the forum and conversation in general include social animals who have feelings and attitudes that must be taken into account even if facts speak for themselves, because we are not computers fighting over calculations, we are discussing, we are philosophizing, we are interacting- certain rules apply. Simply because it is easier to throw stones in this electronic medium, that does not validify bad behavior. I can especially say this because I bitch all the time on these forums and knowingly press the limits of toleration and disregard social convention at whim, but I also understand what effect that has... and I by no means expect to persuade people afterwards. :pokes Urnamma: some of us can be cuddily bears in the right circumstances, but if our snuggle softs are pushed we won't sit idle... anyways, mania aside, the point being objectivity and respect are key... if you wish to convince us do so with a battery of evidence where logic drives home any doubt and do it methodically and appropriately with each element (such as each unit name) and you can see changes take place, rather than repeatedly have to address posts concerning attitude and intent
I have no knowledge what-so-ever in ancient Gallic or Irish, so please go easy with me, but i have a couple of questions:
If, say, someone of Gallic origins from modern day France, the Iberian penisular or even ancient mainland britain travelled to ancient Ireland in the timeframe of when the cycles etc were written, would they retain their own name and spelling of said name?
Were the letters 'Y' and 'K' used in any of the ancient Gallic languages?
If so, were there equivalents in ancient Irish? If so in what form did they take?
Please forgive my naivity on the subject.
Mega
I said that there are ongoing attempts. For example, at Harvard, they have a relatively small and in-progress dictionary and grammar list. It's small, but it's there. More than just names.
Either you are not reading my posts, or you are selectively reading them. I stated repeatedly, the source for primitive Irish is names on ogham stones. These have been compares to Old Irish words with endings that have disappeared, and thus many Old Irish words, not just names have beenn retrofitted into Primitive Irish.
I didn't say that he did. I mentioned scholars, not EB members. Try not building strawmen. You may find it more fruitful.
Yes, but I was criticising his use of a source. You said there was a K in Primitive Irish, therefore Ranika was wrong. I said indeed there was (well it was never written as k but as a few lines on ogham stones), but Ranika wasn't giving a primitive Irish source, he was giving an old Irish one, which he freely admitted. There is no k or y in old Irish, full stop. As for strawmen, you created the biggest one here by your irrelevant reference to 'k' in ogham stones. Don't throw stones.
Read what I said again, carefully this time. I'm saying more than names exist. You said only names exist. I provided material that backs me up. I did not say that you didn't believe it was possible, but rather stated that it was indeed possible. I have not used sophistic reasoning, something that cannot be said of you here. Hell, I didn't even quote you.
No you haven't. In fact you mention reading sources, but you do not quote, or provide page references. The Primitive Irish we have today comes from the names written on ogham stones. Once again THROUGH ESTIMATION PHILOLOGISTS ARE ABLE TO ESTIMATE THE PRIMITIVE IRISH VERSION OF OLD IRISH WORDS.. There are no tracts in primitive Irish, no legends no poetry nothing. It's all names. As for sophist reasoning, is that the same as pulling rubbish completely out of the air?
Ah, but Ivernic is not Brythonic, but rather from a Q-Celtic family. Ding Ding, try again. I said judging from ogham. What was meant by that is this: known celtiberian words and names correlate with some of those found in inscriptions 100%, thus giving credence to the argument that Ivernic, of the composite languages in primitive irish, it is iberian in origin, backing up artifact finds rather well. That was lack of explanation on my part, and for that I am sorry.
Excuse me? Will I show what I found on google on the matter? The name has been discredited.
'"Ivernic" is an extinct Brythonic language that was spoken in Ireland, particularly in Munster. It was spoken by a Gallo-Belgic tribe called the Erainn (in Irish), Iverni (in Latin), and Firbolg (in the Irish Book of Invasions). This language first diverged from Gaulish in 500 BCE and survived the Gaelic invasion of Ireland (sometime between 500 and 100 BCE). It was still spoken by a minority people in Munster at the time of Bede in about 700 CE. However, its speakers eventually interbred with the Gaels and by the time the Vikings had established Limerick in about 850 CE, the Ivernic language was extinct and completely replaced with Irish Gaelic.'
http://www.biodatabase.de/Ivernic
'However, the pre-Gaelic inhabitants of Ireland, the Iverni, spoke a distinct language (called Iarnnbêlrae, Iarnbêlrae, and Iarmbêrla in the 9th-century dictionary Sanas Cormaic), which may have been Brythonic, though no direct evidence survives; the noted early 20th century Gaelic scholar Thomas Francis O'Rahilly thus proposed their language, which he called "Ivernic", as the source for these loanwords.'http://www.upto11.net/generic_wiki.php?q=primitive_irish
Nothing about it being Q celtic there. O'Rahilly proposed it but it has since been denounced by scholars, as brythonic influences are external not internal. Whether known celtiberian words correspond with Primitive Irish ones is a different question, but the will not with Ivernic, since it seems now there is no evidence for the existence of Ivernic.
So 'x, son of the great y' or 'here lies a noble king and good father, x' cannot be used to derive adjective-noun relationships? News to me.
What ogham inscription says that? Source it? How about I source a few for you.
DOVAIDONA MAQUI DROATA "[the stone] of Dovaidu son of Droat"
BIVAIDONAS MAQUI MUCOI CUNAVA "[the stone] of Bivaidu, son of the Conava tribe"
CUNAMAGLI MAQ... "[the stone] of Conmael, son..."
... MAQLEOG... uncertain, and probably incomplete
http://heatherrosejones.com/names/manx/earlymanx.html
DOTETTO MAQUI MAGANI http://www.hgstump.de/aghascrebaghtext.htm
I could go on. Now for your one.
The quotes were meant to add cultural references other than Graeco-Roman. Personally, after learning that they may well have been unpublished, I have recommended their removal anyway. Still, I did not say anyone sourced primitive irish tracts. Nor did I even say all of what you said was flatly incorrect. READ before you react. I was picking apart a very large logical inconsistency, namely the fact that you blew up a caricature of one or two things, and claimed that they invalidated everything. Doing that in a paper earns you low marks when a college freshmen, let alone later on.
No you implied it, because you said there was a primitive Irish k(I'm not even sure there is), therefore ranika was correct. The implication lay therein and I seized upon it, because it in itself was a strawman argument and needed firm rebuttal. It was not a logical inconsistency but rather a very large one on your behalf. RANIKA SOURCED OLD IRISH MATERIAL THERE SHOULD NOT BE KS OR IS.
I didn't even say there were accounts before that, merely scraps of language. You are arguing against more than one thing here, and you need to realize that I'm responding to more than one. Pick one and stick with it, and I'll do likewise.
There is nothing in primitive Irish that can be related to an account, nothing that we can gleam any accurate history from. You criticised me for using material that was 900 years later than your period, in fact you said I could be ignored on the basis that that was the only history I could gleam. But I stated Ranika did the exact same, unless of course you were implying he sourced information from non-existant primitive Irish tracts, this was the flow of my argument.
That's bloody rich. My original post on this thread was 'hey, let me look into it, bleh bleh bleh'. To which you continued beating the dead horse. Honestly, man. Oh, and I think my actions for the last 3 years around here have proven my commitment to accuracy, and that includes admitting when I have been mistaken about things. However, I'm here to defend myself, the person you're heaping invective upon isn't.
Well your previous post implied a very childish and malicious attitude towards, I made no personal comments or heaped any invective against Ranika whatsoever before your post. I attacked his information, not his personality. You however made very personal attacks on me, something unsuited to any kind of adult discussion. Indeed many of the comments you made seemed to imply great personal offence at my picking holes in ranika's info. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm speaking to the man himself under a different name.
Is he? I didn't say there were earlier military references. Nor did he, afaik. However,
Yes he is. Read the goidlic faction list it claims uachtarach dubogascoacha are to be found in LuachmharLeanbhan, this wasn't a wip name, this was 'sourced'. Once again you implied my info was useless because I couldn't source beyond within 900 years afterwards. Well neither can he, but at least I can quote REAL PUBLISHED VERIFIED SOURCES, and not material of doubtful, if any at all, provenance.
And how many times did that happen? I seem to remember making several mistakes in scores of pages of descriptions, where occasionally my Greek was less than perfect. Rather than accusing me of being a complete and utter charlatan, the other scholars (Paullus and Teleklos) assumed that I had made a mistake. Fuck, wait, that never happens, especially when you're the only one to... oh, wait.
How often? Every single time. Indeed he also made reference to the surname dua which is merely do(preposition) and Ua, (meaning grandfather, where the O in Irish names comes from today). It's a very basic element in any name from old Irish through to early modern Irish when it becomes Ó. Any scholar, anyone, would not make such a simple mistake in such a common word. It occurs in 50% of all Irish names for christ's sake. And you seem to have rowed back from the argument that Donnchadh Ó Corráin proves me wrong? Did I rumble you?
Meh. I think what I was saying was rather that the man knew so much that I have indeed verified. I don't really see why someone would know 90% of some rather obscure shit, then take the time to make up the other 10... still you're arguing against ghosts.
How many on this forum verified it? Is it 90% accurate? Is everyone sure? It's the old adage that people who perceive people in questions of authority, seldom doubt what they're being told. It is an extremely weak argument, especially since it can be proven that the sources he provided are unverifiable. How many of his other sources are unverifiable? Has it occured to you, that Ranika might indeed be an irish nationalist, who is willing to make up tripe to make Ireland sound more advanced at this period? An accusation you laid against me above. But I imagine an Irish nationalist would have better Irish wouldn't he.
Dude, look up pedantic. Check the etymology. I did not say you are childish, but rather that some of your candor is childish. I did not insult you, but rather pointed out that some of your writing, the tone of it, was coming off as asshat-esque and could perhaps be changed. Sorry.
You indeed have compared me to a child on numerous occasions. I have tried in earnest to prove the points I have made, to prove the weaknesses of ranika's material not in a childish manner. If anyone was childish, it was yourself in the above completely insulting and condescending post. But you have since changed your tone, implying that you may now be fighting on the back foot.
Alright, man. ANTHONY made the unit names, ANTHONY. He has acknowledged their temporary and cobbled nature. Note that other units (like pelekupheroi) are also cobbled together, largely because the words don't exist in greek vernacular. For that matter, do you really think the Irish, or virtually anyone else, had unit names like we do in a video game? The names are of their very nature rather artificial. If you want to suggest names for the units, I'll listen. Hell, if we can try to archaize them a bit, using what we do know about earlier dialects, I'll be a happy, happy man, and so will our Celtic team.
I will not suggest anything to you. In fact at the beginning of this I was willing to provide information on more accurate names, and indeed more accurate units reflecting Iron age warfare, but your above vindictive post has made me change my mind completely. I do not wish to work with you. Your scholarship in this seems basic, filled with strawmen vindictive and personalised attacks. If members of the EB team wish to contact me and reference names from me, that is ok, but you my friend, I do not wish to be part of a project of which someone so malicious as yourself is partaking.
Because we never, ever, ever said that the names were temporary in nature until something more suitable could be found, except those several times when it was indeed mentioned.
The names themselves are only a small part of what i'm referring to here, the historical sourcing is miles more important.
The problem is that I never claimed to know much about the language. I am not a linguist, or for the most part a philologist. I am an economic historian and archaeologist for the most part... You may work with texts while I compare swords that come out of bogs in Ireland and northern Iberia, and try to derive whether there are similarities in the crystalline structure of the iron... or find a type of armor mentioned in a mythic tale, and test whether it is feasible or not. Something tells me what I do gives me a lot better grasp of how the units should look and fight.
So, once again... I never claimed anything remotely similar to being an expert on anything related to celtic language. In fact, I have stated the opposite again and again and again. What we are concerned with here is largely a reconstruction of how demi-celtic, pre-celtic, and belgic peoples in ireland at the time of this mod fought. If you can provide some good nomenclature for that, so much the better... But, I don't think it is fair to call the historical accuracy of everything in question because of names that we have said again and again need to be replaced, were transitive in their essence, etc.
It's not names I'm worried about, despite the fact one uachtarach dubogaoscacha, seems to be 'sourced' from one of these unverifiable texts. It's simply the sources used, which in my honest opinion, are completely made up.
I have no knowledge what-so-ever in ancient Gallic or Irish, so please go easy with me, but i have a couple of questions:
If, say, someone of Gallic origins from modern day France, the Iberian penisular or even ancient mainland britain travelled to ancient Ireland in the timeframe of when the cycles etc were written, would they retain their own name and spelling of said name?
Writing, in its truest sense, did not arrive in Ireland till 500 A.D. In the time that Gallic languages were being spoken, there would have been no one to write this information down. Neither would those gallic speakers be truly literate to have their own spelling of their names, but their are druidic inscriptions that do give us structure to Gallic and Celtiberian.?
Were the letters 'Y' and 'K' used in any of the ancient Gallic languages?
Y is rather a late letter, actually a combination of u and I. I don't think latin made much use of the letter K, so I doubt K existed. But this would have absolutely no relation to what a monk wrote in a monastery 900 afterwards. The Irish had no concept that they were 'celtic' or linked in anyway to brythonic or gallic peoples.
If so, were there equivalents in ancient Irish? If so in what form did they take?
In Irish there is no soft c sound. Therefore a special letter is not required to distinguish a hard c before a slender vowel and one before a broad vowel.C suffices for both.
Please forgive my naivity on the subject.
Mega
We're all naive on the subject at some stage or another. All we need is a step up.
just for the record, even if we have no actual records of Primitive Irish, we (the world) DO have records of other Indo-European languages and their transformation over time, we can use other Celtic languages and linguistic trends, rules, comparative method, ect. which can easily be used to back-engineer beyond the small evidence found in names/Ogham, because we know where it came from, such as Indo-European which has already been reconstructed, and where it went, as you mentioned, the highly knowledgable field of Medieval Irish... BUT we can never say 100% that something is certain because that is why it's theoretical and hasn't been published or become widely known, that's why it's interesting and challenging, but to use the logic of something not conforming to the high level of authoritative evidence necessary in academia- that's an exercise in futility! As I said before, it's not a bad idea to be conservative and only assert what can be proven this way 'til sunday, but the people who do that don't use Primitive Irish whatsoever because they're afraid to make an error and that is boring and the opposite of progressive. The whole point of making a historical modification for a video game like this is taking the best of both worlds, element A (the inaccurate fake "axe-man" type formation of names which are necessary for use in a video game, as Urnamma mentioned) where units are composed of large groups of clones, and element B the most accurate historical information available (even if there is NO information) what can be surmised through close study of what is known and good, educated guesswork. To have medieval or vanilla alternatives just because of the idea of possibly being wrong in some way or harshly judged by academia is not an option- purposeful misrepresentation is the opposite of what anybody in EB intends, even if someone is not perfect and an error slips by. We appreciate feedback and constructive criticism but to insult people simply because you disagree or even if you're right about a point is bad form, plain and simple... even if you don't like how Ranika or Anthony did something, you have no basis to attack their agenda or expertise, especially by the paltry evidence used thus far. Even if there was good evidence, just don't do it- it makes everything you wrote a waste of time because everybody is so irate because of the tone and wording. Humility is not necessary (although helpful- it's a social skill thing) but having respect IS necessary. You are of course free to disrespect whomever you want in this world, but you will subsequently most likely be disrespected in turn because of that- so don't be suprised by the reaction. One might ask: "why should I have to tip-toe around the subject when I am right, I have credibility, and the floor is open to debate?" The answer is this: the forum and conversation in general include social animals who have feelings and attitudes that must be taken into account even if facts speak for themselves, because we are not computers fighting over calculations, we are discussing, we are philosophizing, we are interacting- certain rules apply. Simply because it is easier to throw stones in this electronic medium, that does not validify bad behavior. I can especially say this because I bitch all the time on these forums and knowingly press the limits of toleration and disregard social convention at whim, but I also understand what effect that has... and I by no means expect to persuade people afterwards. :pokes Urnamma: some of us can be cuddily bears in the right circumstances, but if our snuggle softs are pushed we won't sit idle... anyways, mania aside, the point being objectivity and respect are key... if you wish to convince us do so with a battery of evidence where logic drives home any doubt and do it methodically and appropriately with each element (such as each unit name) and you can see changes take place, rather than repeatedly have to address posts concerning attitude and intent
Perhaps I can explain my arrogance. If these were matters that were in debate, or that not many were aware, by all means i would be threading softly, as I would not expect that many would no that. But however, when people claim to be experts in an area, yet the information they produce contravenes basic knowledge of the Irish language, or of Irish literal narrative, that most Irish people possess, then I can be more confident, because there is a whole language out there that proves them absolutely and completely wrong. I would not be making these statements if I was not 110% sure that these were incorrect. I can assure, the fact I know what I say is objectively turhtful, not guessing, not deducing after years, but completely know that the information is bogus, allows me to be so confident, which is confused here with arrogance, that the information here is bunkum. I see you are a germanic scholar blitzkreig. It would be similar to you finding letters not found in anglo-saxon in a work claimed to be older than beowulf, with modern names, and words that make no grammatical sense in any era of the lanuage, words that are based on modern dutch or danish or old ostrogothic or norwegian or modern english english, and most importantly of all, this extremely important work, on which all their scholarship was based, has never before been mentioned, alluded to, published or translated before, but are waiting on a translation either by themselves or someone else. Would you not be incensed? Would you not be confident you were in the right? Would you not do your best to contradict the material?
Riadach, I have no knowlegde of ancient Irish, but one of the basic rules of good debate is that you should attack the argument, not the person. You have violated this rule in pretty much every post by continuously attacking Ranika. Not just his position, but his person as well. Refrain from doing that. We'll judge Ranika's scientific status after this discussion is concluded.
I have repeatedly attacked the information provided by Ranika. Repeatedly come the conclusion that it is entirely fraudulent, which unfortunately implies that the man is a charlatan. The implication is not my fault . I, however, suffered very personalised attacks by one member in particular, and his attempts to dispute me were extremely weak, ignorant and malicious.
So I give up. I've tried to assist you, yet have been met with nothing but negativity, character assasination and closed ranks. So go ahead, publish what you want, include what you want and completely ignore the incovenient truth. But do a bit more research on the matter yourself, I'm 100% certain, however that you with come to the exact same conclusion. These were never opinions I was stating, but basic objective facts. Ignore at your peril.
Remember, it was not for self-gratification i approached this site, and it was with great reluctance I did so. So have your emperor, and continue admiring his new clothes.
Goodnight to you all.
P.S. At the beginning, I didn't even know who was your celtic expert. It was his knowledge i was confronting not his person. But IIRC correctly, he also contributed to Age of warlords and fanatics and made equally incredulous historical and linguistic claims for Ireland in the early middle ages, which I also tried to confront.
I have repeatedly attacked the information provided by Ranika. Repeatedly come the conclusion that it is entirely fraudulent, which unfortunately implies that the man is a charlatan. The implication is not my fault . I, however, suffered very personalised attacks by one member in particular, and his attempts to dispute me were extremely weak, ignorant and malicious.
So I give up. I've tried to assist you, yet have been met with nothing but negativity, character assasination and closed ranks. So go ahead, publish what you want, include what you want and completely ignore the incovenient truth. But do a bit more research on the matter yourself, I'm 100% certain, however that you with come to the exact same conclusion. These were never opinions I was stating, but basic objective facts. Ignore at your peril.
Remember, it was not for self-gratification i approached this site, and it was with great reluctance I did so. So have your emperor, and continue admiring his new clothes.
Goodnight to you all.
You have repeatedly been mean spirited, engaged in personal attacks, and had an aloof arrogance that almost rivals that of certain politicians. At first, I was genuinely concerned, and indeed I still am. I am neither a malicious nor mean spirited person, though I can be, when someone viciously attacks particular people.
The -text- nonwithstanding, the equipment was certainly there, and was placed on the unit. The equipment is largely derived from native finds placed together in areas where Iberian migration took place, whereas the similar unit in northern iberia had similar equipment finds.
You may act aloof if you wish. You may act like a martyr if you wish. The fact that you will not elevate this above personal attack says something, methinks.
antiochus epiphanes
08-08-2007, 14:26
I have repeatedly attacked the information provided by Ranika. Repeatedly come the conclusion that it is entirely fraudulent, which unfortunately implies that the man is a charlatan. The implication is not my fault . I, however, suffered very personalised attacks by one member in particular, and his attempts to dispute me were extremely weak, ignorant and malicious.
So I give up. I've tried to assist you, yet have been met with nothing but negativity, character assasination and closed ranks. So go ahead, publish what you want, include what you want and completely ignore the incovenient truth. But do a bit more research on the matter yourself, I'm 100% certain, however that you with come to the exact same conclusion. These were never opinions I was stating, but basic objective facts. Ignore at your peril.
Remember, it was not for self-gratification i approached this site, and it was with great reluctance I did so. So have your emperor, and continue admiring his new clothes.
Goodnight to you all.
P.S. At the beginning, I didn't even know who was your celtic expert. It was his knowledge i was confronting not his person. But IIRC correctly, he also contributed to Age of warlords and fanatics and made equally incredulous historical and linguistic claims for Ireland in the early middle ages, which I also tried to confront.
oh give me a break, youve just wanted attention and to martyr yourself since youve been here, my god i remeber that flame you posted in the gaelic armor thread,(before you edited it) but you can look in here and see for yourself how much of a ass youve been here:
This is obviously untrue, since such a tract doesn't exist. As a historian, I'd find it hard to trust someone who would make up a written source,
.
Anyone with a basic understanding of Irish literature would know that, so why does Ran not?
If you wish to ignore my contribution here, by all means do, but if however someone else comes along with similar or better qualifications with similar opinions, be sure to remember what I have said.
so-called written sources listed for these. As a historian (kinda), I adhere to the caveat, that if one source is bogus, the writer is not to be trusted for anything else.
Well, I do not wish to accuse anyone of such either. I am merely presenting the facts as they appear to me. Would you have preferred if I had kept quiet on the subject altogether? Would that have been in the best interest of your aims and mission statement?
This is accuracy for accuracies sake and your quotes above to in no way means or form exonerate Ranika's blind baseless assertions.
. But from the sounds of it, I still know a hell of a lot more than yourself.
if you wanted to help, you wouldnt of come in here and been an ass for no reason, other then to get attention, like other "historians" that do....
Not arrogance, confidence. These were objective indisputable facts, there is NO ALTERNATIVE. As for personal attacks, show me the attacks that are not based on information provided? Viciousness, no not at all. Show me the attacks that were not concluded based on use of fact? Show me the meanspiritedness, show me the viciousness? And you, Urmama, certainly cannot throw stones in regard. In your above posts you treated me with the utmost disrespect and condescension and the only viciousness recounted on this thread is that shown by you towards me.
I do not wish to play the martyr. I was trying to inform, based on rather fundamental principles of the Irish language which I backed up with references, yet somehow this is not enough. Obviously I must be a liar with nothing better to do. Well indeed I have, and I do not wish to waste anymore of my time trying to argue undisputed facts to people who refuse to listen.
Starforge
08-08-2007, 14:32
Ah, the lost art of diplomacy and tact.
There are several ways to handle a situation like this, and IMO Riadach, you have chosen poorly. You could have merely ignored the incorrect and aknowledged placeholders, ignored the person's credibility or accuracy who placed them there and offered your expertise on getting them right regardless of what came before.
Instead, you pulled out your sword, climbed on the hill, and shouted to all comers that you were RIGHT. The primitives here were WRONG and anyone saying otherwise was seen as nothing more than a challenger to be defeated. If you honestly think that the folks here wouldn't have taken you seriously had you done anything less than throw down the gauntlet - well - all I can say is good luck at a job, in relationships, or in any social situation really.
As merely an outside observer and in no way associated with the mod - merely a player - it saddens me to lose someone who obviously has passion and expertise in and toward their field of study. That being said - I've had to let go a few competent Engineers simply because of their complete inability to work with others since teamwork is just as important as knowledge when working in a group.
I do wish to say that I have overreacted against the person, rather than the argument. For that I am sorry, and am indeed guilty of attack on some levels (though I contend not as badly as might seem from reaction). Still, this thread is a giant ball of personal attack on all sides, and is solving nothing that cannot be solved by other means. Ergo, it is closed.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.