Names

[Magdala]

Quick question. There are NO áéíóú used in the Irish or Scotish names. Why? Also there is no 'k' or 'y' in the Irish alphabet. I speak fluent Irish and Im not too bad on Irish history. I'd be happy to help where I can if someone wants to get in contact with me.

[Ranika]

I'm aware there is no K, and no Y in proper Irish, however, I used some names that are Anglicized (mostly because I was copying a list of names from the late middle ages, when some Anglicized Irish names were used in the Pale, which accounts for some, but not all K names; other K names I selected from Ivernic {elaborated below}). The Y are mostly the same thing, but some names in Desmumu had Y in them because they were modified from Welsh (from when Dyfedd was under the control of the Desmumu, numerous Welsh immigrated, and some Welsh still did even in the late dark ages; trying to represent slightly Gaelicized Welsh names; if they can be particularly rare, it'd be nice, but they can be dropped altogether; it could probably be represented in the same way by just bribing Welsh characters to get a character with a Welsh name). Also, K DOES appear sometimes in Scotland in the dark ages, presumably because of Angles who inhabitted southern Scotland, and introduced the earliest forms of 'Kenneth', modified from Cennad and Cinaed, so some variants, like "Kennad" exist among some early Anglo-Saxon subjects, though it is true that that was a minority. Also, there are some very early names in Ireland with 'K', which are not from the Irish language (they come from Ivernic, likely, which is not a Q-Celtic language, but related to continental Celtic from Belgica; names from Ivernic usually were modified into Irish by changing the K to either /gh/, /c/, or dropping it altogether; the Irish language as we know it today is more descended from Galaecian-Iberian than continental Celtic languages; though, the Galaecians did speak a Celtic language {specifically a form of Q-Celtic, accounting for Gaelic branching out of Q-Celtic}). Ivernic was still spoken by a minority in Munster (where the Irish faction starts) until the tail end of the 800s AD, and Ivernic names still existed. Again, also a minority, and if they could be made very rare, I think it'd be a nice nod to an unusual, often overlooked state of affairs in Ireland (since it's more of a linguists' footnote than any major historical note; much like the existence of a Gaelic-speaking minority in parts of Dyfedd until into the middle ages, accounting for Gaelic influences in Welsh, first introduced when Dyfedd was brought under the control of an Irish-speaking aristocracy).

More on Ks, for the interetsed; K does not exist in any surviving Celtic language. However, K did exist in the language of Gauls and Belgae; in the Gauls, presumably taken from Greek words (examples like 'kua'; 'strength', or 'kutos'; 'powerful'). The Belgae spoke a dialect of Gallic (presumably, considering their close relations and dealings with them, and similarities of inscriptions from Belgica). The Belgae invaded Ireland before Iberians (who brought the Q-Celtic language to the region; as an aside, Q-Celtic bares a closer resemblance to proto-Celtic, and thus, probably the original Celtic language, than latter Gallic and the like). They settled mainly in the south originally, and were overwhelmed by Gallic and British tribes who settled as well. The more indepedent minded Belgae migrated into western Ireland, overwhelming the natives there with superior weaponry and tactics.

Then came Iberians. This is recounted in Irish myth as the invasions of Milesus (his name in Irish is literally broken down as 'Spanish Soldier'). They conquered the southwest, and overcame the island through war and cultural strength. This probably recounts, in its own folklore way, the submission of the Celtic tribes to the men from Iberia (themselves actually Celts; these were not 'Iberians', they were Galaecians, who were essentially Hallstatt Celts/demi-Celts with heavy Iberian overtones, evidenced in their clothing and such). This would mean the introduction of these tribes' language (Q-Celtic). However, the Belgae subjects maintained their own language, for quite some time. Ivernic is written down in the post-Christian period, and was the day-to-day language of several parts of western Munster, and occassionally a few kings. It was lost though, helped along by the matter that few real power-centers in Munster spoke Ivernic; additionally, few major players from Munster really spoke it as a first language (at best). Church records in Munster even note that some cheifs were actively trying to stamp out the language, because it was causing problems with keeping certain parts of the population loyal (an indepedent language has historically been impetus for much in rebellion; it gives the sense of two different groups, hence why non-standard languages have historically been pressured out of existence). This language did use the letter K (presumably first adopted from Greek, like it was in the language of the Gauls).

For those confused about how we know Gauls used K; they did write. It was rare, but they did write inscriptions and epithets. For the curious about ogham, it is not of Irish origin, the first versions of it appear in Iberia. Or, at least, it looks that way, considering nowhere else but Iberia and Ireland used the system (though Iberia's is different, and Ireland didn't actually use it in any pertinent amount until the 3rd century AD). Something irritating about Ivernic is that we know too little about it to use it very much in rebuilding other languages of Celtic origin that employ the letter K. We know it does from a few inscriptions and brief notations. Some things seem to have been the same at one time; such as 'mavi'. Mavi means 'son of'. However, when Gaelic first experienced its first gout of major foreign language influence; that being Latin, during Christian conversion, 'Mavi' became 'Mac' or 'Mc'. However, Ivernic writing maintained 'Mavi', but written in Latin letters instead of ogham (which is, itself, an imitation of Latin letters, but was just used for gravestones and such).

Mavi (or Maqi, in some cases), of course, exists in Primitive Irish, but out from that, is no longer used. Except in the case of Ivernic speaking regions. Primitive Irish lacks a lot of the distinctive parts of what one can easily recognize as Irish. Old Irish (from the 6th century on) takes on the characteristics we recognize (introduced the letter P, big chunks of consonants due to removing syllables that were not being stressed, completely changing some vowels and consonants, such as VI/QI to C). In the 5th century though, both were being used. Such as in the most common example, the king of Laigin. His name was Mac Caírthinn Uí Enechglaiss, but his grave says Maqi Cairatini avi Inequaglas.

This is presumably closer to Ivernic, which was, then, still being spoken. My long-winded babbling is coming to an end though; we're getting there. Just hold on. The Irish called the language Iarnnbélrae in the 9th century, recounting it in Sanas Cormaic. However, by that point, no Ivernic speakers still existed (or, at least, no populations spoke it; it is possible that the rare scholar might have taken an interest in the language). St. Bede also makes vague mention of it as a language. The names it produced did use Ks, in place of a few letters used by Irish-speaking Gaels. I was only trying to imitate a potential minority. But, I don't actually recall when the mod is set (and I initially wrote the additional names from Ivernic because I was thinking of names for a pre-Roman Britain/Ireland mod).

My assertion here does not imply a support of theories of certain loanwords being taken from Ivernic that are present in Irish. I believe most of these supposed loanwords are Brythonic, which is the general concensus, but not totally argued. However, any K influence is invariably drawn from this language. However, the last recorded Ivernic name was that of a chief in 780, which did contain a K (Kian, presumably the Ivernic 'Ceann'; the name means 'Fish'. For modern English speakers, may not sound like a great name, but that was an old style of naming, for naming one after traits, objects, and animals that represented admirable qualities; fish in Celtic societies did hold certain special significance, especially coastal societies). He was mentioned in passing as having been one of a few men who commited suicide in the light of being suspected of conspiring against the king of Munster.

However, I'm not trying to moot your point, at all, just explaining selections. In fact, if the mod is set after 850, I'd be adverse to using either, and even if it wasn't, with as short a name list as being employed, I'd opt in favor of more common names and spellings.

As for accents, I don't usually type of a standard keyboard (my own at home, which I don't have here, has accents already present on it; I am horrendous with a computer, if one can't tell), and not certain how to write them on one. ...Not as long-winded as the above.

[skeletor]

Ranika, did you know that language reserchers actually think that up until the 1400'ds irish, scot, and scabdinavian pople allmost spoke the same language, and could very well have a conversation.

-Skel-

[Ranika]

I'm an actual linguist (it's my job, not a hobby), and I have never heard that except from wags, hacks, and the occassional conspiracy theorist. We know a great deal about old Gaelic languages, and they don't look at all like Norse languages. Verbs are conjugated differently, pronunciations are wholely different, dipthongs are substantially more abrupt (less rounded) in Norse (and later in Scottish Gaelic, as it absorbed this trait from Norwegian invaders). Additionally, even during the period of viking invasion, their affect on the Gaelic languages (except Manx) isn't really that profound (based in part by how different they are, and the lack of total immersion of them into one another); it certainly had a clear, definite effect, but it was not nearly so transformative as it could've been.

The Manx were recorded as speaking both their own language (a Gaelic language, which, at the time, was not unlike Irish), and had a Norwegian aristocracy for a while that spoke a Norse language, after the vikings invaded Mann. They were plainly set apart by language. Manx absorbed the most Nordic influence of all Gaelic languages, and it STILL isn't that similar to Norse, except in the blatant sense (that is, loan words, which are often extremely similar). In all three languages' cases, however, Latin and English had more of an effect (all of them experienced long periods of immersion in English, and all of them adopted aspects of Latin when Christianized). Early and Old Irish are not some mystery; we know what they looked like and how they were spoken (the sheer amount of literature written in the languages is staggering; Irish monks copied innumerable texts, mainly in Irish and Greek at first, then started using more Latin in the middle ages).

There are far too many differences between Old Irish and Old Norse (specifically western Norse) to think that they were that closely related. That all said, there was a Hiberno-Norse trade cant (a series of simple phrases and words) that was used by merchants in the region. It was not a regular language, and was just used to give the Norse and Gaels a bit of ease in trading. Conversely, the same cant fell out of use in the late 1300s or early 1400s, but it could hardly be considered a language (Rohn de Vella briefly mentions it in a dictionary of Britain, and notes that it seems to have had less than 300 words).

The assertation that they spoke the same, or near the same language is ludicrous; have you ever read anything in old Irish and compared it with old Norse? Consider some other problems with this theory; in Ireland, Norse lords had to learn Irish to effectively administrate. The Gaelic population had a rather heavy aversion to speaking Norse a lot of the time (it was considered the language of pagans for quite a while), and aside from that, it was difficult to learn. On the other side of things, the Norse had trouble learning Irish. There are numerous references to the horrendous butcher of the language by non-native speakers (which shouldn't be that unusual; the Gaelic languages are very complicated to learn, often, for non-native speakers, unless they have a pre-existing relation with the language and a basic understanding of it). If their languages were so similar, why did they trouble learning eachothers, and why did they even have to learn them? There were occassional Scottish chiefs in Ireland and vice versa in the period, and niether of them had any reported trouble administrating due to their language; their languages were genuinely very similar.

That all said; some similarities do exist. But those are generally pretty old (like the name of 'Loki' is clearly related to 'Lugh'; Loki used to mean 'The Blazing One', and Lugos (from Gaul) was 'The Shining One'). Most of the similarities far predate the period, and aren't really that intense. During and after the period, there are clear loan words and some additions to the language, emergence of a few dialects, etc., but that's entirely different. In Ireland, Scotland, and Mann, though, there were Norse-speaking minorities for a few centuries, but they all disappeared during the high/late middle ages, absorbed into the Gaelic-speaking populations. The most basic refutation is that Gaelic languages are Celtic in origin, and Scandinavian languages are Germanic, and the two families of languages are extremely different.