Question (on Goidillic units and names)

[Riadach]

I'd like to begin by congratulating you on your excellent mod for Rome total war. It really is an achievement in itself. One of the best elements of this is the historical accuracy, and peculiarities you have given to each faction. Excellent work, Kudos.

However, sorry, my area of expertise is Irish history and Irish language, and I have noticed something rather odd. For a start, the Goidillic units are not supported by any source I have ever read, worse still is that their Irish names look like something dragged out of the dictionary. Daernaght, Ordmhornaght, Deaisbaird and Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha show a distinct misunderstanding of the Irish rudiments of the Irish language. A lot of the names are complete gibberish in that regard. Not to mention laecha is said to be pronounced lusha, when in fact it's pronounced lay-uk(as in ch in the loch) uh.

Further to this, the quotes you have added to the loading menus include references to the cycle of don? the cycle of telam? and reference to names which begin as dua or uí as well as including spellings which were more welsh when it was clear an Irish reference was intended. There were four cycles in Irish legend, fenian, mythological, kings and ulster. No other exist. And I'm unfamiliar with such quotes from them.

I know that this mod was created because of a lust for historical accuracy, and fair play. But what I can't understand is where this info comes from, and it's a small mark on an otherwise excellent mod, and I don't think you would have willingly added fraudelent information.

I apologise for being so pedantic.

[bovi]

I read this post before somewhere. In the goidilic hammers thread perhaps?

[Riadach]

I did write something like that before, but I deleted it considering it was impolite. I then downloaded the game, and realised that this was the only flaw i could see, so felt I was doing the decent thing by informing you.

[bovi]

Ah, that must be it. Someone who knows this will probably answer, I have no clue .

[Riadach]

Good good. I just want to gently advise, not to insult by the above post.

[russia almighty]

Riadach a friendly heads up , the EB team has access to stuff that you can only find at a university or that hasn't even been published.

[Riadach]

Well I am a university graduate from Trinity College Dublin, in both Irish and History. I have a good working knowledge of old and middle Irish as well and I have never come across such terminology, also referenced it to the RIA DIL. I can say. though, hand on heart, that the irish is completely wrong. One source on the site doesn't exist for certain, is Luachmharlenbhan. I have never heard of such and am surprised the title is in modern Irish, not to mention not conforming to grammatical rules.

[Ludens]

I haven't seen any of the team's Celtic experts lately, so I am afraid your question won't be answered. However, as I understand it, the quotes have been taken from a work that one of them is currently translating. I also know that many of the "barbarian" units have been created based on archeological finds rather than written or oral history. However, I do admit I am puzzled about the Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha as well.

[Foot]

However, sorry, my area of expertise is Irish history and Irish language, and I have noticed something rather odd. For a start, the Goidillic units are not supported by any source I have ever read, worse still is that their Irish names look like something dragged out of the dictionary. Daernaght, Ordmhornaght, Deaisbaird and Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha show a distinct misunderstanding of the Irish rudiments of the Irish language. A lot of the names are complete gibberish in that regard. Not to mention laecha is said to be pronounced lusha, when in fact it's pronounced lay-uk(as in ch in the loch) uh.

Perhaps offering your own thoughts would help ease the bitter pill of criticism, eh? I can't say with complete certainly but I believe that the names may be wip (as everything is in EB), so again if you have something better to offer we will gladly look at it. I mean, how else can we respond? You obviously feel strongly that our approach is wrong here, so perhaps offering an alternative vision would be helpful.

Further to this, the quotes you have added to the loading menus include references to the cycle of don? the cycle of telam? and reference to names which begin as dua or uí as well as including spellings which were more welsh when it was clear an Irish reference was intended. There were four cycles in Irish legend, fenian, mythological, kings and ulster. No other exist. And I'm unfamiliar with such quotes from them.

AFAIK, the cycles that appear in our quotes come from unpublished work, work that a former team-member was able to see (either because he new the translator or because he was working on translating the text himself - I can't remember). As to their origin, I do not know, but I have complete trust in the aforementioned member as to their authenticity.

Basically we are very receptive to well-structured, well researched criticism, but we too often come across people who claim to know better but have are mistaken or plain ignorant on the subject (not their own fault, blame pop culture). You seem genuine enough, however, and much of the aforementioned mistaken criticism comes against the Romans and other such famous factions. Perhaps offer a little of your own knowledge in return for a defence, eh?

Foot

[abou]

We talked about this about a month back. This is an excerpt of what our Celtic expert had to say on the issue:

Sorry, didn't see. He's pretty right, actually, none of those names were intended to stick (placeholders until more appropriate primitive Irish names could be used), but, they're not gibberish, they're just rather hastily done. However, I did try to get some of them changed a while ago, I forget who I was trying to get a hold of though. They need to be in 'Primitive Irish', but Ran didn't have a good theoretical dictionary for it yet (it's extremely fragmentary, mostly based on Ogham), but I got one a few months ago, though now I can't find it.

So there you have it. The names are placeholders for now; time is just needed to complete everything.

Also, the Uachtarach DuboGaiscaocha unit was based on a grave find. Now, whether that was published or not, I don't know.

[Riadach]

I haven't seen any of the team's Celtic experts lately, so I am afraid your question won't be answered. However, as I understand it, the quotes have been taken from a work that one of them is currently translating. I also know that many of the "barbarian" units have been created based on archeological finds rather than written or oral history. However, I do admit I am puzzled about the Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha as well.

As far as I am aware, there are no tracts left to be translated in Irish, excpt perhaps some obscure legalistic poetry from the 6th century. It however seems unlikely as the names used do not conform to grammar. One character was call telam Uí Manawydan. Any one with any understanding of Irish would understand that A manawydan is a welsh name, not an Irish one and B Uí is the genitive and plural form of Ua and does not occur in one individuals name. Anyone truly translating a tract would have no difficulty understanding this. In fact most 6th year students of Irish would understand it too. It leaves me to think that those aren't as proficient as they say the were.

As for archeological finds, perhaps you are correct. I haven't heard of any hammer warriors though, though in the Lebor Gabála(it's a real book i promise you) when one of the TDD meet the firbolg they remark on their spears(craísech MIr, craoiseach Mod.Ir) which they use for smashing and breaking as opposed to the TDD whose spears were used for cutting and slicing. But the name is way off. As regards Uachtarach Dubgaoscacha, it's source is non-existant, and ceannlann does not mean fish scales. It would mean headscale/blade.

[Riadach]

Perhaps offering your own thoughts would help ease the bitter pill of criticism, eh? I can't say with complete certainly but I believe that the names may be wip (as everything is in EB), so again if you have something better to offer we will gladly look at it. I mean, how else can we respond? You obviously feel strongly that our approach is wrong here, so perhaps offering an alternative vision would be helpful.

That is a fair point. Yes I would be more than willing to provide some expertise in the area of linguistics and history if that helps.

AFAIK, the cycles that appear in our quotes come from unpublished work, work that a former team-member was able to see (either because he new the translator or because he was working on translating the text himself - I can't remember). As to their origin, I do not know, but I have complete trust in the aforementioned member as to their authenticity.

I mentioned before, there are no legendary tracts yet to be translated. All that is left is poetry. And at that cycles are much different kettles of fish altogther. A cycle is any theme which has multitudes of literature written about it's central issue. For example the Ulster Cycle includes all redactions of the Táin, Oidheadh Chlann Uisinigh, Oidheadh Chonchobhair, Coimpert Con Chulainn, Seirglige Con Chulainn. Such a cycle would involve a massive compilation of literature, which would be reflected in poetry ever since. I'm afraid it does not exist. It would not have gone under the radar.

Basically we are very receptive to well-structured, well researched criticism, but we too often come across people who claim to know better but have are mistaken or plain ignorant on the subject (not their own fault, blame pop culture). You seem genuine enough, however, and much of the aforementioned mistaken criticism comes against the Romans and other such famous factions. Perhaps offer a little of your own knowledge in return for a defence, eh?

Foot

I would be happy to provide such as much as possible. I have a copy of the Tain upstairs, as well as access to Trinity's libraries and databases. Considering I'm doing my postgrad in military imagery and motifs in Irish poetry at the moment, I think it would help me to help you as well.

[Riadach]

We talked about this about a month back. This is an excerpt of what our Celtic expert had to say on the issue:

Sorry, didn't see. He's pretty right, actually, none of those names were intended to stick (placeholders until more appropriate primitive Irish names could be used), but, they're not gibberish, they're just rather hastily done. However, I did try to get some of them changed a while ago, I forget who I was trying to get a hold of though. They need to be in 'Primitive Irish', but Ran didn't have a good theoretical dictionary for it yet (it's extremely fragmentary, mostly based on Ogham), but I got one a few months ago, though now I can't find it.

So there you have it. The names are placeholders for now; time is just needed to complete everything.

Also, the Uachtarach DuboGaiscaocha unit was based on a grave find. Now, whether that was published or not, I don't know.

Unfortunately there is a rub here. Uachtarach Dubogaisciocha is mentioned in Luachmharleanbhan according to your site. This is obviously untrue, since such a tract doesn't exist. As a historian, I'd find it hard to trust someone who would make up a written source, on their archaeological sources. Very little is known about pre-christian warfare in Ireland, but as far as I'm aware it's based around chariots spears and roman-like shortswords.

As for a dictionary on primitive Irish, since most words can be traced to -o stems -i stems etc which is working backwards from Old irish, it's probably not an impossibility, but all the actual examples of primitive Irish we have are names on ogham stones. But if Ran can't handle modern irish, then he's pretty much screwed for old and primitive Irish.

[abou]

Unfortunately there is a rub here. Uachtarach Dubogaisciocha is mentioned in Luachmharleanbhan according to your site. This is obviously untrue, since such a tract doesn't exist.

...or it does and it just hasn't been published yet like so much material out there. You would be surprised as to what is sitting around in the basement of a museum.

As to the rest you wrote:

[Foot]

I mentioned before, there are no legendary tracts yet to be translated. All that is left is poetry. And at that cycles are much different kettles of fish altogther. A cycle is any theme which has multitudes of literature written about it's central issue. For example the Ulster Cycle includes all redactions of the Táin, Oidheadh Chlann Uisinigh, Oidheadh Chonchobhair, Coimpert Con Chulainn, Seirglige Con Chulainn. Such a cycle would involve a massive compilation of literature, which would be reflected in poetry ever since. I'm afraid it does not exist. It would not have gone under the radar.

I'm afraid that you've just called one of our most respected members a liar, and a falsifier of information. Not a good way to start, really. Ran, unfortunately no longer in our group due to personal reasons, is a world-class scholar, whose depth and breadth of knowledge is vast and countless. Perhaps some old post of his will enlighten us here, but until any further information comes to light I would gladly put my trust in his knowledge.

EDIT: Oh, and I myself am a graduate, in philosophy in fact, and I know too well how little I have read on the subjects I have studied. To be frank, a graduate isn't really a position of honour any more - it can't be I've got one! - if you were a post-grad doing a thesis on this topic I would put my faith in your words. I do not meant to insult you in anyway, I have no reason to suspect that you are anything but a top-notch graduate, but I know full well how little can be read in the three/four years of a university degree, and outside of a university it is even harder to concentrate on academic study!

Foot

[Riadach]

I'm afraid that you've just called one of our most respected members a liar, and a falsifier of information. Not a good way to start, really. Ran, unfortunately no longer in our group due to personal reasons, is a world-class scholar, whose depth and breadth of knowledge is vast and countless. Perhaps some old post of his will enlighten us here, but until any further information comes to light I would gladly put my trust in his knowledge.

Foot

I apologise for that, but on the basis of all the other information, that has to be my conclusion.

[Foot]

I apologise for that, but on the basis of all the other information, that has to be my conclusion.

I know, and I can understand your sentiment, but you must understand that Ran is well respected amongst us and very dear to us. He has proven his knowledge and his worth on far too many occasions to count. Given that information I must disagree with you. If you had a paper or two behind you, or some concrete evidence in contradiction to Ran's work, then we would be more willing to see your ignorance of the cycles and the other citations that Ran has given us as more substantial proof that we need to take a further look. As it is, being a graduate, your lack of knowledge of the works that Ran cites does not outweigh the faith and trust we have put in him.

Yet this is only one part of your first question, perhaps we could focus on a more productive area such as the unit names?

Foot

[Riadach]

But surely his ignorance of the Irish language should prove that he could not in anyway way be translating an important medieval Irish tract? Try even entering the cycle of don into google? Surely some reference should be made to it in abstract? It doesn't exist and never has. Ask anyone is manawyddan welsh or Irish, and they will surely reply that it's the former. Surely any celtic scholar would tell the difference. In fact type both these names into google, mannanan as well, and that fact will be clear also. Ask any irish student, does the adjective precede or succeed the noun in Irish, they will tell you it's the later. So uachtarach dubgascocha, where uachtarach is the adjective, is wrong. Look up Mac William Burke uachtarach in google, they were a famous Irish Family (it may be under mac uilliam uachtarach), you'll find that uachtarach, the adjective here, is in the correct position, after the noun. Compare that to uachtarach dubgaoscacha. Look anywhere and you'll find uí is used as the plural from of ó or ua, and not to be found in individual nominative names. Perhaps this persons area of expertise is elsewhere, and he is merely pretending he is familiar with Irish circumstance, if that is a more comfortable thought.

[abou]

Dude, Google isn't the end all, be all of scholarly research.

[Foot]

But surely his ignorance of the Irish language should prove that he could not in anyway way be translating an important medieval Irish tract? Try even entering the cycle of don into google? Surely some reference should be made to it in abstract? It doesn't exist and never has.

That is certainly proof of nothing. Secondly, I never said he was translating, I gave a choice of two options. If he couldn't have translated it, then he certainly was in touch with someone who was.

I have no idea when it comes to unpublished work in the field of Irish literature, but you generally don't find articles published on unpublished material. It would hardly be fair for someone to publish work on a piece before the actual historian and translator working on the original piece has had a chance to comment. That was my impression of the academic world, and so I don't find it surprising that no reference is made on google. I am surprised that you think the lack of a reference on google is proof positive that it doesn't exist. It seems odd, indeed, that you imagine that a team, which does include academics with a lot more experience in this world than you or I, would overlook such an obvious way to judge an unpublished work's existence, if indeed it was such an obvious way. Unless you can call on something a little better than google, I really don't see where you can possibly take this discussion.

Foot

[Riadach]

Indeed it isn't, but try the ulster cycle, the fenian cycle, the mythological cycle and the cycle of kings. Why would these come up and none else? It's actually an extreme misunderstanding of what cycle means in this context. They are not names for individual tracts but for broad collections.

[Foot]

Those are all published works. As an unpublished work I can entirely understand why there is no breath of it on google.

Foot

[Riadach]

That is certainly proof of nothing. Secondly, I never said he was translating, I gave a choice of two options. If he couldn't have translated it, then he certainly was in touch with someone who was.

I have no idea when it comes to unpublished work in the field of Irish literature, but you generally don't find articles published on unpublished material. It would hardly be fair for someone to publish work on a piece before the actual historian and translator working on the original piece has had a chance to comment. That was my impression of the academic world, and so I don't find it surprising that no reference is made on google. I am surprised that you think the lack of a reference on google is proof positive that it doesn't exist. It seems odd, indeed, that you imagine that a team, which does include academics with a lot more experience in this world than you or I, would overlook such an obvious way to judge an unpublished work's existence, if indeed it was such an obvious way. Unless you can call on something a little better than google, I really don't see where you can possibly take this discussion.

Foot

I'm resorting to rather easy elements of proving that these did not exist. But surely the reference to Manwyddan should be enough. Why would a welsh name and spelling be in an Irish tract? What about the luachmharleanbhan? Luachmhar is a modern Irish word, it does not occur in old and middle Irish. Why would a tract have this nameand thats ignoring the glaring grammatical deficiency that I mentioned above (luachmhar is the adjective)? What other sources has he quoted? Are they all unpublished?

It seems in this instance that the team have made a grave oversight in relation to Ran's research.

[Riadach]

Those are all published works. As an unpublished work I can entirely understand why there is no breath of it on google.

Foot

A cycle is not an individual work. It's a collection of elements that sometimes can span 1,000 years of material. They do not occur in one tract. For the fenian cycle for example, one has early fenian poetry from the 8th century, acallamh na senórach from the 12th century, references in bardic poetry from the 12-16th century, ossianic poetry from the 16th 17th century from both Ireland and scotland, and oral storytelling from the 19th century. Could such a cycle possibly be ignored? Could such a corpus of written material possibly be completely untranslates or unpublished? If one was quoting Oisín in acallamh na Senórach, one would never say Oisín, the Fenian Cycle. As the fenian cycle would mean the source was any number of works. Cycles are akin to themes and central characters, they are not individual stories or tracts. Anyone with a basic understanding of Irish literature would know that, so why does Ran not?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One of our other members knows Ranika personally, he is not merely an internet persona. Nor is he lacking in linguistic skill but knowing him he would not do archaic Irish translations "on the fly" which is probably why they aren't finished. As to the Cycles he referenced I can tell you that every time we dig up another jar in Egypt my entire field is turned it's head and then it takes ten years to translate the thing.

There is a reason we trust Ranika implicitly, there is no reason for you to.

I would suggest that both sides consider that an end to the arguement.

[Riadach]

We don't dig up periodically new tracts in Irish. The greatest find of late has been a psalter discovered in a bog, which was compared to the Irish dead sea scrolls. This was our first for a hundred years. Most of our tracts etc have been preserved down throughout history, copied into newer manuscripts and kept in private collections before all being bought up by universities and the Royal Irish Academies. There are no new discoveries in such tracts. What we have we have, and a completely new cycle, previously undiscovered, unpublished and untranslated tract, let alone a whole cycle which would cause a massive stir. Yet he has mentioned a few of these unpublished cycles. Most of the academic work in old Irish at the moment is new recensions or translations, or reviews, or a few lines previously ignored or misunderstood, or common themes or grammar. It is also impossible that characters in these supposedly Irish cycles, would have ys and ks in their names, letters that do not occur in the Irish language. Nor is it possible that whoever is translated these tracts is subsituting welsh names for Irish ones. Nor is it possible that there are tracts, Luachmharleanbhan, which although in Old Irish, have a basic misunderstanding for the Irish language, and involve modern Irish words. Ranika, however well versed he is in other languages, hasn't a clue about Irish beyond what he has picked out from a modern irish/scots gaelic dictionary. In fact try www.dil.ie, if you need proof.

[Riadach]

If you wish to ignore my contribution here, by all means do, but if however someone else comes along with similar or better qualifications with similar opinions, be sure to remember what I have said.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I could be wrong of course, but don't many old Irish (pieces of) literati happen to be private property, and wasn't most of it simply ignored as the said jar of Egypt - it being so common to find in Ireland?

You shouldn't take my word for it, obviously, since I am no expert on ancient Irish literati - or indeed anything whatsoever. Just thought I'd give you my :2cent:.

Also, noone is trying to ignore you here - and chances are noone will . P.V. Calicula merely stated "We have to agree that we disagree with eachother" only using a slightly different choice of words.

[Riadach]

I could be wrong of course, but don't many old Irish (pieces of) literati happen to be private property, and wasn't most of it simply ignored as the said jar of Egypt - it being so common to find in Ireland?

You shouldn't take my word for it, obviously, since I am no expert on ancient Irish literati - or indeed anything whatsoever. Just thought I'd give you my :2cent:.

Also, noone is trying to ignore you here - and chances are noone will . P.V. Calicula merely stated "We have to agree that we disagree with eachother" only using a slightly different choice of words.

That may have been true at the start of the 19th century, but it certainly isn't true now.

[antiochus epiphanes]

If you wish to ignore my contribution here, by all means do, but if however someone else comes along with similar or better qualifications with similar opinions, be sure to remember what I have said.

it seems youve gone from simply trying to help us to wanting to stir up a reaction from us....