Question (on Goidillic units and names)

[Riadach]

Wierd...Did Ranika really make such simple mistakes? Didn't he even translate texts for various Universities even upto Poland?

Perhaps he did for some celtic language, but certainly not for Irish.

[KARTLOS]

are ranika or anthony actually irish? i just get the impression that these mistakes would not have been made if they were. (just because of what they should have learned at school in ireland)

[Urnamma]

Wierd...Did Ranika really make such simple mistakes? Didn't he even translate texts for various Universities even upto Poland?

Anyway, thanks to bring this up, Riadach. I and a lot of EB-members have no idea about the historical or linguistic correctness. It would be great if you could suggest some changes and corrections. Though I think we'd also should get some input or feedback from Anthony on this matter, as he's our new specialist.

EDIT: Skipped Anthony's post apparantly. In that case I'm glad to hear that they were just WIP. So they'll get updated/corrected.

Ranika did not translate the unit names. And if he did translate Irish, it'd come natural to him, since he -is- Irish. Anthony has openly and unequivocally said that the unit names are not right, are temporary, and any fault lies with him. They will be changed. That particular matter is resolved, and should be considered as such until we see new unit names (hopefully in a more archaic version of Irish than Old Irish).

As to the cycles, Paullus dug up an old post in which it is stated that these 'cycles' exist in commentary on 8th and 9th century addenda to the major cycles. Will continue digging.

[KARTLOS]

Ranika did not translate the unit names. And if he did translate Irish, it'd come natural to him, since he -is- Irish. .

if he didnt who did?

[paullus]

Right, according to how one interprets Ranika's post (calling them "sidenotes to the primary cycles"), either or both of the following, depending on how literally we take his post:

in marginal addenda to the primary cycles, added by editors in the 8-9th centuries.
in minor religious texts (compared to the primary cycles), from the 8-9th centuries, in which the semi-historical parts are used as examples of the dangers of power and the corruption of human nature.

he also said that different cycles were assigned colors, eg, the Cycle of Don being the Black Cycle or Telam being the Blue Cycle. He also said he was expecting a publication with the two just mentioned and Mycha to be forthcoming at its earliest in 2006, but possibly later.

[The_Mark]

if he didnt who did?

Anthony, as stated in the very next sentence after your quote typed by Urnamma.

[Riadach]

Right, according to how one interprets Ranika's post (calling them "sidenotes to the primary cycles"), either or both of the following, depending on how literally we take his post:

in marginal addenda to the primary cycles, added by editors in the 8-9th centuries.
in minor religious texts (compared to the primary cycles), from the 8-9th centuries, in which the semi-historical parts are used as examples of the dangers of power and the corruption of human nature.

he also said that different cycles were assigned colors, eg, the Cycle of Don being the Black Cycle or Telam being the Blue Cycle. He also said he was expecting a publication with the two just mentioned and Mycha to be forthcoming at its earliest in 2006, but possibly later.

Ok, can I take this and analyse it then? Firstly, i'd like to point out that marginal addenda were used in latin texts or in brehon law tracts, not in cycles. Secondly most of the legendary tracts that come down to us today are preserved in manuscripts much younger manuscripts than the 8th or 9th century, IIRC the first complete tract we have in Irish is from the 12th century, the book of the dun cow. So if a marginal entry was added, it could not have been from the 8th or 9th centuries, it would have to be from at earliest the 12th century, because anyone copying a manuscript would not copy a marginal addenda onto a margin, marginal addenda's are afterthoughts on behalf of the original scribe, they would incorporate it into the main text. But only stories could be commented on as primary cycles as he called comprise hundres of individual bits of material. Did he by any chance quote from whence they came?

Thirdly, look up the orthography section of old Irish in wiki, and you will find that there is absolutely no y in Irish not has there ever been. So Dyrma cannot be an Irish tract, and neither can Mycha. Thirdly, in one quote from Telam, someone with a supposed Irish name (it does not adhere to the orthographic rules, but you can see it was intended to be Irish), there is a reference to Ynys Mons. Why would an Irish tract refer to anglesea, and why would it refer to it in Welsh?

In any place, has he referenced which religious texts and which primary cycles(more importantly which individual manuscript) he obtained them from?

[paullus]

And thanks for ignoring option 2, real classy. So we take his post as being non-literal, that the religious tracts to which he's referring are "as sidenotes" compared to the major cycles, not literal addenda. I study Hellenistic history, so I'm not up on the editing process for Irish oral tradition, so I didn't know when marginal notes were first added, which was why option 1 ever existed at all. It does sound like you're saying that in some sense option 1 may still be a possibility, only that it wouldn't actually exist as marginal notes, it would only be adduced as such be an editor or something? Did they not provide additional marginal notes in editions? That's a common feature of many copied works around the world, odd that it wouldn't happen among the Irish.

And no, I don't know from which works they came. My impression from his statements was that they were from minor works separate from the four (?) primary cycles, and I suppose its possible that "cycle" may not be the most appropriate word for them--for while it conveys the sort of subject matter, it sounds like it conveys a different idea about the nature of the material.

As to why he would refer to Ynys Mons and do so in Welsh, several thoughts:
1) Prior travel from Ireland
2) Traveler from Wales
3) Use of Welsh conventions in the translation provided to EB, to make the site recognizable by its most common convention (rather like how many recognize Socrates over Sokrates, or Athens over Athenai)

[Riadach]

And thanks for ignoring option 2, real classy. So we take his post as being non-literal, that the religious tracts to which he's referring are "as sidenotes" compared to the major cycles, not literal addenda.

I'm not sure what you mean by the classy accusation. I've never seen them be described as sidenotes, they are independent works in themselves to be honest. I would like to find out the names of such however, references have been made in Brehon law commentaries to legendary figures, Cormac Mac Airt comes up repeatedly, but not familiar with such in relation to religious material. Even however if they do exist, it does not mean that he is telling the truth. I do not have to contradict everything he has stated, I've done more than enough.

I study Hellenistic history, so I'm not up on the editing process for Irish oral tradition, so I didn't know when marginal notes were first added, which was why option 1 ever existed at all.

Well there were frequent glossaries included but as mentioned before, this only happened in the case of biblical exegesis, latin language texts where the meaning was expounded, brehon law tracts and in annalistic material. This was placed either in the margin, or above the tract itself, but could never consist of a large amount of material.

It does sound like you're saying that in some sense option 1 may still be a possibility, only that it wouldn't actually exist as marginal notes, it would only be adduced as such be an editor or something? Did they not provide additional marginal notes in editions? That's a common feature of many copied works around the world, odd that it wouldn't happen among the Irish.

What was claimed about was that the marginal notes were added by editors or copiers in the 8th or 9th centuries. I added, no complete Irish material can be dated to the 8th or 9th centuries, but we do have extant material transcribed into (12th century onwards) later manuscripts whose language can be dated to the 8th or 9th centuries. My argument is when copying such, the copier would have included any marginal addenda into the main source. It may a strawman, but it weakens the origin argument, and that is why I pointed it out.

And no, I don't know from which works they came. My impression from his statements was that they were from minor works separate from the four (?) primary cycles, and I suppose its possible that "cycle" may not be the most appropriate word for them--for while it conveys the sort of subject matter, it sounds like it conveys a different idea about the nature of the material.

It is not the correct word for them. Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. No celtic language scholar would describe them as a cycle, be that Ranika or the individual that is currently transcribing them would refer to them as such, weakens their standing as celtic scholars (well gaelic scholars at least). As well as this, his reference to the blue cycle and the black cycle is also unsoundly based. The Irish never called these cycles, cycle is a term coined by 19th century celticists, perhaps the fenian cycle would be called an fhiannaigecht or the ulster cycle called an rudraígecht, but there was not an individual word for cycle. Thus them calling these the blue cycle or the black cycle, doesn't seem right at all.

As to why he would refer to Ynys Mons and do so in Welsh, several thoughts:
1) Prior travel from Ireland

He would still place the word in Irish. Medieval writers always gaelicised placenames and individual names, I imagine Ynys Mon would be rendered as Inis Mán or some such, which may have carried the same meaning.

2) Traveler from Wales

This the same point as number one?

3) Use of Welsh conventions in the translation provided to EB, to make the site recognizable by its most common convention (rather like how many recognize Socrates over Sokrates, or Athens over Athenai)

There is also the fact that in legendary accounts, they are notoriously obscure about foreign placenames. You may get Rome or Scotland or London, but Anglesea but we unusual, but I'm nit-picking at this stage.

There is also the fact that much of the orthography listed in this instance does not conform to the Irish language. And you have yet to address the issue of Luachmharleanbhan, which I have also undermined.

There is only so many coincidences that you can accept, before you begin to blind yourself to the obvious.

[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 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)

[KARTLOS]

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.

[Riadach]

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.

[Riadach]

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.

[KARTLOS]

.

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.

[Riadach]

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.

[blitzkrieg80]

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...

[KARTLOS]

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.

[Riadach]

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.

[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.

[Riadach]

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.

[Urnamma]

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.

[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.

[Riadach]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Riadach]

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.

[Urnamma]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Urnamma]

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.

[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

[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?

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

[Riadach]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Riadach]

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.