Question (on Goidillic units and names)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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,

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

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.?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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,
.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

Anyone with a basic understanding of Irish literature would know that, so why does Ran not?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

This is accuracy for accuracies sake and your quotes above to in no way means or form exonerate Ranika's blind baseless assertions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

. 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.

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.