Keltic Cycles

**blitzkrieg80** · 03-12-2008, 22:27

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** · 03-12-2008, 22:38

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** · 03-12-2008, 22:55

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).

**russia almighty** · 03-13-2008, 00:19

I think this doesn't come down to people lying; its universities being ****ing lazy and letting things rot in their basements for years on end, with no attempt for peer reviewing, or at least, releasing a statement that allows for things to be changed heavily once the peer reviewing is completed.

Thats my two cents.

**cmacq** · 03-13-2008, 03:43

Back in town now, and I can see we have been some very busy (biz-eeee) little bees; very busy indeed. The intent of this thread was to suggest that one may want to think more than twice about getting too tightly wound around this particular axletree. For example, the literary core that would much later come to form these Irish Cycles was not composed until about 500 hundred years after the end of the EB time frame. A point I'm sure others have made and on many more this significance is not entirely lost.

russia almighty, as far as the review system goes; in my experience (archaeology) if one follows the three trier system, it seems fairly expedited. However, if I may add, there are by far, more lazy authors, of who's number, I count myself as one.

Elmetiacos,

Right, to tell the truth I find the Quotes difficult to read, particularly
those attributed to the Irish Cycles, as they tend to be somewhat long (another bone of contention no doubt). In fact, I've only noticed the Donn reference. Yet, I'm somewhat familiar with the welsh form of Manawydan (the Irish Manannan) which I assume is the same as the Hebridean personage called the Sea Rover (Muirannach??? as I heard it said) the king of the sea.

As I understand in Hebridean tradition the Dark One (Donn) was promised the inheritance of all the islands as he pursued the people across the sea to Mull's Isle. Yet, in doing so Donn's boasting insulted the Sea Rover who took him down below to drownd in the clear cold waters immediately offshore of Mull. Still, he was buried on Mull under a huge cairn which still bares his name. In this way the Sea Rover fulfilled the promise, as Donn inherited all the land of the Islands, although as the king of the dead. Thats the rub and this is how I understand the tradition, which is no Irish Cycle.

Again, my advice to all on this subject is to take a grain of salt and chill a bit.