Keltic Cycles

[blitzkrieg80]

Wait, Elmet, are you seriously using Wikipedia as proof for anything?! come on... wikipedia?! talkabout non-academic. if wikipedia tends to have anything right it is only by chance, not essence. for instance, if i looked at their Proto-Germanic entry I would get pissed off really quick because it's outdated information and it's simply not correct even in the context of old information. don't believe me? it's very apparent after consulting free online materials such as Fick, Falk, Torp- part of the problem is the generalization aspect of wikipedia in relation to a concept that encompasses a longer timeline than can be generalized. also, modern Irish does not dictate Proto-Celtic by virtue of Celtic-ness... it SHOULD be so that a reconstructed Celtic language does not match what you'd expect- now if you argue phonemes/morphemes and Primitive Irish roots (or even PIE) that is something different. modern Germans shouldn't understand Proto-Germanic either and I expect the same complaints (although i admit i am surprised nobody has done so yet).

[Tiberius Nero]

I am sorry, it seems I have misunderstood the purpose of this forum; see I thought it was a forum where to discuss matters about the game no matter how trivial, and when I posted I did it with this in mind, to get opinions from other users. It seems the EB team regards this forum as a complaint box though and anything said in doubt of something in the mod is immediately a complaint/whine/bitching/etc and to be treated accordingly. Sorry, I didn't mean to bitch personally, just to discuss, probably with other users not necessarily members of the team. And yes I would have posted in another thread, if it hadn't been locked by the time I noticed, sorry again.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Wait, Elmet, are you seriously using Wikipedia as proof for anything?! come on... wikipedia?! talkabout non-academic. if wikipedia tends to have anything right it is only by chance, not essence. for instance, if i looked at their Proto-Germanic entry I would get pissed off really quick because it's outdated information and it's simply not correct even in the context of old information. don't believe me? it's very apparent after consulting free online materials such as Fick, Falk, Torp- part of the problem is the generalization aspect of wikipedia in relation to a concept that encompasses a longer timeline than can be generalized.

Bitzkrieg80 do you have any idea what you have just said there? If Wikipedia has anything correct then it is only by chance? Hmm not quite sure you are correct there, Wikipedia has a policy where references are needed to back up submitted data, therefore if you disagree with the articles submitted then go and find a reference or two which proves it wrong and visit the discussion page with your issue. You are generalising Wikipedia on your oppinion of one article. I detest people who attempt to downgrade Wikipedia, thankfully for you, you did not use the fact that it can be edited by anyone as part of your argument. That would have made me laugh.

[Ludens]

Guys, this must be a painful issue for the team, as Ranika is a respected member and not here to defend himself. So I hope you understand why the team is curt, especially since the topic was revived three times this week.

As should be clear from TA's response, the team is aware something is wrong, and are discussing it. What more do you expect?

[underthesun]

If only Ranika were here.

But he is not. So this issue is best left to internal debate.

(My two cents.)

[blitzkrieg80]

Bitzkrieg80 do you have any idea what you have just said there? If Wikipedia has anything correct then it is only by chance? Hmm not quite sure you are correct there, Wikipedia has a policy where references are needed to back up submitted data, therefore if you disagree with the articles submitted then go and find a reference or two which proves it wrong and visit the discussion page with your issue. You are generalising Wikipedia on your oppinion of one article. I detest people who attempt to downgrade Wikipedia, thankfully for you, you did not use the fact that it can be edited by anyone as part of your argument. That would have made me laugh.

Nope. I have the books listed as references under Proto-Germanic and the content does not have anything to do with what is in that entry- there are some good things in it, based on Lehmann (although outdated) and Voyles (as well as other authors) So if those references listed do not contain the information listed, then how academic is that? Makes ones wonder...

I like wikipedia and use it alot- but not for academic data. One DOES need scholarly articles and authorities in THIS world, if one wants to use the common ground of high standards we call academia. For this reason, we all agree we need to have sources for those quotes- but not because Ranika is wrong, but because he is not here to provide them. nobody is saying that we're perfect or unwilling to change something, especially when an argument is made which has good logic and proper sources. i have YET to see a single legitimate source against the quotes, other than a lack on our part, which as noted, isn't the best proof of positive. let's see some citations from scholarly articles, otherwise it's your word against anyone elses- that's how citation and sources work. I for one am not unhappy to see people questioning them- i like it when that happens- some people might note my own inquiry into certain Celtic portrayals, just like I do with certain Germanic portrayals. The disrespect made on a language reconstructed by Ranika which nobody has shown themselves more knowledgable on is what I dislike. The jump from 'i think this might be an error' to 'this shit is pure fantasy' is what pisses everyone off and maybe it is hard to get criticism heard sometimes, but we are working on it- and I can guarantee that if you don't act like an ass and insult people you will have much better luck. I am an ass so I don't expect anybody to be convinced but I am sure going to let you know what I think anyways

modern Irish and Welsh has NOTHING to do with what is spoken in 272 BC other than the linguistic lineage of those languages. if we visit the holy wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Irish and we look at the date, we might notice that the EARLIEST written literature concerning the culture was 800 years later and Modern Irish is even further removed... nobody is saying this isn't useful information. it is a fact that no academic institution uses wikipedia for sources

[The Wandering Scholar]

Nope. I have the books listed as references under Proto-Germanic and the content does not have anything to do with what is in that entry- there are some good things in it, based on Lehmann (although outdated) and Voyles (as well as other authors) So if those references listed do not contain the information listed, then how academic is that? Makes ones wonder...

Then by all means challenge the article, or go even better and reword it.

modern Irish and Welsh has NOTHING to do with what is spoken in 272 BC other than the linguistic lineage of those languages. if we visit the holy wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Irish and we look at the date, we might notice that the EARLIEST written literature concerning the culture was 800 years later and Modern Irish is even further removed...

What are you getting at here? Not you personally but what is the whole debate about? It seems to be annoying the people who do the hard work and actually provide our pleasure. I think that angering them is a bad idea..

[blitzkrieg80]

Well I concede that you have a point and I SHOULD do that instead I think I will currently get the ProtoGermanic voice mod implemented into 1.1- I am very selfish in that way and I want to hear it.

Btw, i am not attacking anyone in particular, so I hope nobody feels that I am attacking them- I am asking for facts (citations) and defending what otherwise is a respectable contribution to the mod (Proto-Celtic in its land/faction-based variations). I must say, other than from PIE, there isn't a lot of information on Proto-Celtic (I've found from my own studies) and that it's a challenge regardless, so Old Irish/Welsh and modern usages do help, I'm definitely not saying that it doesn't- I merely want to reinforce that it might not match as they are different timelines and context of a language.

also, i am definitely not the official spokesman for EB and take responsibility for any irritation caused

[Tiberius Nero]

i have YET to see a single legitimate source against the quotes, other than a lack on our part, which as noted, isn't the best proof of positive. let's see some citations from scholarly articles, otherwise it's your word against anyone elses- that's how citation and sources work.

Perhaps I misunderstood this part, but what you are saying is:

1) person a says x exists, but has no obvious way of proving it does, and no one else has heard of x's existence
2) person b doubts x's existence and he has to back up his/her doubt with proof.

There is some fault in this logic, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive assertion, not on the one who doubts. If I claim I have the diary of Moses on my book shelf, it is up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

[blitzkrieg80]

that is valid, but the lack of accessible authority (as in published sources) on both sides makes it a difficult situation. this kind of thing will be resolved in the future as a wiki for eb2, hopefully- because we truly want to share what we know and what we use- it's just a lot of work (kudos to wikipedia on that actually). we also can't do everything flawlessly and welcome discussion and input from all of you. the newest Germanic word for mercenary (PGmc drug [verb root] + ul [derivational noun suffix] + az [nominative inflection] similar to flugul 'bird') comes from an idea of a fan (Swabian) which i loved but cannot take credit for, replacing the older term 'guest', which wasn't terrible- constructive criticism is great like that- things become better. thus, we look into the comments on said subject and take an appropriate action- we are a team though and so no one gets to remove something 'just because' even if there is a good reason for it. all of you who contribute to the forum are teammembers too (sorry- no special permissions) and we truly appreciate your interest and the time you all take to write stuff, even the criticism.

a funny story, awhile back when i was not a member, I got the impression that criticism wasn't welcome [back when overpowered Rebels were the routine threads]. i went ahead and posted and said 'i know nobody cares what i think but' and had an attitude and yet still Foot, Kull and others responded to the comment despite my attitude... I was surprised at how reasonable everybody was... I obviously still have attitude problems but my point is that most if not all EB members really do care about the work, gameplay and historical accuracy, so don't hold back on the constructive criticism, but let's all try and be more friendly about it. Give us some time too... Romina was not built in a day (bad inside joke concerning a recent review and mistype).