Talk:Canntaireachd

Roots music Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Cappella Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Cappella, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of a cappella (professional and collegiate) and related articles such as its groups, recordings, institutions, and public figures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A CappellaWikipedia:WikiProject A CappellaTemplate:WikiProject A CappellaA Cappella articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Scotland: Scottish Gaelic Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Scottish Gaelic task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

about pronunciation

How pronounced is "canntaireachd"? Wandering perfect fool 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't know IPA well enough but the final sound is the hardest to represent and would be something like "xk" in it, i.e. "ch" as in "loch", or like "Juan" in Spanish and a final "k" sound. The first part would be "can-ter" in an English phonetic spelling. --MacRusgail 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the easiest way for us moderns to pronounce the word is to say "can't rock't" KenGordon (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moderns? Scottish Gaelic is modern, and so are its speakers. But in answer to your question, the first part is something like "canter", but the last part is pronounced nothing like "rock't", because the "d" isn't much like English - see what I say above. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I have heard it pronounced "kɘnˡtaɾɘx" or "Ken TAR ach" , but I am not sure if this is correct either. In any case, the pronunciation is similar with the word to sing in Italian: "cantare" (kanˈtaɾe). Spettro9 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The ending of the word is completely different. "x" is not the last consontant, but the second last.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just spoke with a girl piper from Northern Scotland, a secondary Gaelic speaker, and what she said seems to be "ˡkɘntaɾɘx" (ie. accent on first syllable, not second). What do you say is the last consonant, MacRusgail? Also, regarding Italian, I should have been more clear. I just meant it is somewhat similar, from a historical linguistics standpoint; I have read somewhere that Celtic and Italic may have been closest linguistic cousins, as opposed to Germanic, Slavic, or any other IE languages groups.... I have seen some other possible cognates, but who knows... Happy piobaireachd-ing!

"ˡkɘntaɾɘx" is close, but stick a "k" sound after the "x" - "ˡkɘntaɾɘxk". I think the word is related to cantare, but that means to sing. It is probably a Latin loan. That said, in Gaidhlig, it is common to "sing" (seinn) the pipes. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard it pronounced closer to "ˈkɘntəɾɒx". If I read http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:IPAEN?oldid=370742266#cite_note-4 right the "k" is a dialect thing. On a related note, canterach seems to be the most common simplified spelling. --Mozjag (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above link is for English, not Gàidhlig, and is therefore not quite relevant. The final /k/ is dialectal, but it would be better to pronounce it than not. Beware Anglicizations, as many are old, from old pronunciations, and frequently poorly done. Also, note that Modern Scottish English pronunciations are not an indicator of Gàidhlig, e.g. "pìobaireachd" becomes pibroch. E.Zajdel (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What table?

The article refers to a table of canntaireachd syllables and has a section explaining said table, but the table itself is nowhere to be seen. Svenax (talk • contribs)

I was also wondering about this. Someone asked this question 10 years ago, and it has neither been answered nor edited in the article. claidheamdanns

mystery cleared

I learnt the bagpipes via the chanter. This was in colonial Africa. My teacher, a very old man, had a habit of singing or chanting the tunes in what we took to be a bizarre personal dialect, which we made fun of all the time. I now realise he was doing classic canntaireachd and I should have paid more attention! Bagman

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canntaireachd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015092010/http://www.murrays.nu/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=11 to http://www.murrays.nu/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations, sources, too detailed

My thoughts: 1) We need INLINE citations so we can see which source supports which statement. 2) The references section lists a couple of sources (Dwelly and Collins), neither of which I recognize from my own study of piobaireachd and canntaireachd. I have added a couple of citations to modern sources used by musicians. But there's more to be done here. 3) The "Explanation of..." section is in my view much too detailed. There are very few people that are qualified to give that section, as written, the sort of knowledgeable review that's necessary to ensure accuracy. Better to be more concise and give very specific inline citations so that the reader can consult the original source. This is a very technical subject. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked The "Explanation of..." section. Too deep a dive I vote for deleting most of the details in that section. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, I have deleted most of the section "Explanation of..." on the grounds that there were no inline citations. Such a long and specific explanation almost certainly came from some published work. To use large blocks of someone else's published work risks being accused of copyright violation. With that risk in mind, I decided to be bold and delete a lot of text. In its place I put in much briefer text which touches on some of the same points, backed up with plenty of citations. If anyone disagrees, please let me know.BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Music and Dance of the Gael

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 October 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cameronmac1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mc tullochgorm, Bmkler23.

— Assignment last updated by CBFraoch (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]