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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
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)
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
.
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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
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...
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
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.
Re: Question (on Goidillic units and names)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
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.