Talk:Irish language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Revert War

Calgacus and Angusmclellan, you are deleting me, I am not deleting you!!!! No More POV Please 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You're constantly reverting to your preferred version, which comes to the same thing. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm protecting this page so that the edit warriors can hash out their differences here on the talk page instead of just reverting and re-reverting each other. I have no opinion on whose side is better; in fact I didn't even notice whose version I protected to. But revert warring is bad and I don't want to have to block anyone for a 3RR violation. So talk about it here. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There's already been a violation I'm afraid. And our edits were explained in the comments row of the edit box, unlike User:No More POV Please's, whose short contributions history consists of little but POV pushing. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a very simple addition and clarification onto 2 edits that were made earlier today. I did not erase anyone's content. Don't know what all the fuss is about! No More POV Please 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all innocent I'm sure. I'm afraid your POV pushing edits were removed, and you reverted these more times than is allowed under wiki rules. And you still haven't defended these, so no-one knows what POV you'd make out you were pushing. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• All right, to bring the discussion back to the substantive issue, Calgacus and Angus McClellan have provided justification for their reverts in their edit summaries ("Scoti is Latin for Gaels (not particularly Irish ones), and came into English as the word for specifically Scottish Gaels.", "No, Scottish does not mean Irish in this case. In 1070 it would, but not in 1370 when Fordun wrote."). NMPP, how about you do the same? Demiurge 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was a simple factual edit, and in Latin Scoti does refer to raiders from Ireland.Calgacus has listed me for WP:3RR.----- No More POV Please 22:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Slav refers to the people of Krakow, but also refers to all speakers of Slavic languages. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus! You vandalised my edits. i was just reverting simple vandalism. --No More POV Please 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As for what Scottis(h) meant in the version of Middle English used in Scotland c. 1370, slightly later than that Andrew of Wyntoun suggested that Gaelic and Basque were similar: "And Scottis thai spek hallely, And ar callyt Nawarry." He wasn't any better a poet than a linguist. That only tells us which language "Scottis(h)" was, not what sort of people the Scottis(h) were. But Wyntoun mentions "A Scottis squyere of gud fame, Peris of Curry callit be name". Piers, a good Norman name, is said to have come from Mauchline. Not exactly a Highlander (but probably Gaelic-speaking all the same). The meaning of the Latin word scotti I'll leave for NMPP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's very common for Gaels of that period to have French names, e.g. Baltar mac Amlaimh. If he came from that era, he certainly would have been a speaker, if not a native of that language. One thing that strikes you if you read Wyntoun and others from the period, is that they seem to use the ethnic term Scot and political term Scot without really thinking about the discrepancy, although the dialogue of William Dunbar of Lothian and Walter Kennedy of Carrick is an interesting expression of the tension, and Wyntoun will slag off "wicked Scottismen", and express himself as Scottish politically. From Dunbar's poem, it is pretty clear that he regarded men from Carrick as Highland (we don't think of it like that because we're influenced by the 18th century "Highland line"). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The last two contributions have nothing to do with the issue being discussed. It's now more clear than ever that Angusmclellan and Calgacus maybe operating a cabal, so it follows that their reverts should be added together, and a censure be put on them. The real issue here is, I made a very simple open and honest edit, and these 2 guys went totally ballistic. Why? No More POV Please 00:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus's accusation of a 3RR is unwarranted in my opinion. I left a note to this effect at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:No More POV Please: the first diff provided is NMPP's first edit on the matter at hand, not a revert. The second diff is substantially different from the first: rather than saying Scottis means "of Ireland" again, he says the second time around that Scottish comes from Scoti, the Latin word for the Irish, which seems to me to be compromise-seeking in response to Angus's comment "No, Scottish does not mean Irish in this case. In 1070 it would, but not in 1370 when Fordun wrote."

However, frankly, I don't see the point of the entire paragraph under discussion. The topic of that section is the names of the Irish language in English, so a discussion of what Scottish Gaelic may have been called in the past isn't really relevant. I'd really like to see this point discussed here.

I'm unlocking the page now in the assumption that the revert war will not start again. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No More POV Please made a simple edit, and of course Calgacus and Angus McLellan go into meltdown. Why do they not want the word Scotti connected with Ireland, which it certainly is. Maybe there is a broader nationalistic agenda here. Next they'll be telling that the Scotti invaded Ireland in the 5th century and they brought their language with them from Scotland. If Wikipedia is to be of any value, then it must at least be candid. The long paragraph really serves no purpose and is the target by POV pushing. Someone not connected with this dispute should rewrite it or else delete it. MacPhersonAndy 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, Andy again, no-one went into meltdown. Someone wrote that paragraph because they were attempting to legitimize the use of the word Irish. They thought citing Scottish evidence was a good way to do that, but misunderstood the context; now that the context has been corrected, it remains the archaeology of a past agenda, and so the article would gain no harm if the section were deleted. BTW, can I please have your word that you and No More POV Please are not the same person? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus, please remember to assume good faith. I'm deleting the paragraph now. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Angr, I always remember that. However, there is some good evidence that No More POV Please (talk · contribs), Bluegold (talk · contribs), Bel air (talk · contribs), and Sea horn (talk · contribs) are all socks. I'm a little suspicious that MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs) may be the same person too. I would put tags on their pages, but am not as yet sure who (if anyone) or which among them is the puppetmaster. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh Calgacus! what would matter if i was. What matters here is truth. MacPhersonAndy 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed the truth does matter. So are you a sock or not? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Irish more difficult to learn than other European languages?

I'm not going to attempt to re-write the section on Irish in Education, but I think some one should.

I once attended a lecture given by a guy who's mother only spoke Castillian Spanish, and whose father insisted on speaking only Irish to his children. This guy drew attention to many ways in which Castillian and Irish are similar to each other and different from English. For instance, both have two verbs for "to be"; one for things which are temporarily true, and one for things which are always true.

Finish, Estonian and Hungarian are said by academics to share many features with Celtic languages which other European languages do not have, e.g. agglutination.

An Irish speaker of English would surely find it easier to manage a correct Irish accent than a correct accent for other languages.

While Hiberno-English is dying out, children would probably have some exposure to it, and that would surely aid in learning Irish.

It's true both Irish and Spanish have different ways of expressing the verb "to be"; Spanish has two verbs, and Irish has one verb and one particle that isn't a verb (although most teaching grammars tell you it is). It is not true, however, that the Celtic languages are agglutinative in the sense that the Finno-Ugric languages are. It is true that Hiberno-English and Irish have had a lot of phonological influence on each other (in both directions!). It is not true that Hiberno-English is dying out, as it's the native language of the vast majority of the Republic of Ireland. (Ulster English doesn't necessarily count as Hiberno-English.) Angr (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into technicalities. Finno-Ugric languages are reckoned to be closer to Celtic languages than to other Indo-European languages. Castillian and Irish share some features with each other that they do not share with English.

Hiberno-English is dying out because Irish people are adopting a more standard form of English. I base this on my own experience and on what I've read.

81.98.208.78 01:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Hiberno-English is, by definition, the dialect of English spoken in Ireland, so it is not going to "die out" unless English-speaking in Ireland dies out. I suggest you dry your eyes.--feline1 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what the anonomous user means is that Hiberno-English in the sense of what we traditionally consider the Irish dialect of English to be dying out. By technicality you are correct feline1, but I think 81.98.208.78's meaning is clearly that Irish people are adopting a more neutral American- or British-influenced vocabulary and abandoning the gaeilge-influenced nuances of Hiberno-English. Joe Byrne 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you use Hiberno-English to refer to vocabulary and usage rather than pronunciation, I still don't think it's dying out. I'm American and lived in Dublin for a few months in 2000, and the difference between the English I heard there and what I know from the U.S. and from Britain was very great, and it wasn't only pronunciation -- it was lexicon (wtf is a press as a piece of furniture? No one but the Irish know!) and usage (Do you not?, Amn't I?) as well. Angr (talk • [Special:Contributions/Angr|contribs]]) 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL A press is a "wardrobe" or if the boiler for the house is kept in a housing unit with shelves it become the "hot press". It where clothes are hung and towels are kept etc, I do hope this helps a little. (wouldn't you know it I'm Irish) blu_sonic 05:41 13/05/06

"Dying out" not in that more people don't use any distinctive features, but rather that the average number of such features per idiolect is declining. I doubt the number will ever reach zero: "sure", "amn't I", and "haitch" are proud totems. Obviously, outsiders notice those that remain, not those that are disappearing. And I would speculate that the vocabulary that survives is more likely to be Saxon/Norman rather than Gaelic(/Norse?) in origin. jnestorius^(talk) 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well any time I'm back on the streets of Belfast at chucking-out-time, surrounded by LAALLLLLLLLLTAYYY! spides schlabberin away and knacking maey ballex in, leek, I thought be given the impression that even if Hiberno-English is "dying", this is only to produce a legion of unstoppable zombies...--feline1 08:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Some factual errors there. None of the Celtic languages are agglutinative and the claim that Finno-Ugric language would be closer to Celtic languages than to other Indo-European languages is totally unsupported. I speak Finnish, Irish and Welsh in addition to some other Indo-European languages and have never detected any similarities. (It would be easy to point to similarities with both Germanic and Slavic languages.) JdeJ 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed Sockpuppetry

It has been discovered on WP:RFCU that Bluegold (talk · contribs), MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs), An-gabhar (talk · contribs), Bel air (talk · contribs), and Raspitin (talk · contribs) , No More POV Please (talk · contribs), River run (talk · contribs) are all socks. Bluegold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in sockpuppetry to further the wikipedian strength of his POV on this and other pages. Moreover, Sea horn (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock, but may be just, if Bluegold was telling the truth on the investigation page, Bluegold's work colleague trying to help him out. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem more concerned with this then is healthy Blu sonic 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Gallic

Is that not just a pseudo phonetic rendering of the Scottish English pronunciation [ˈgaːlɪk] of the Gaelic? An approximation of the Gaelic [ˈkɑːlʲəkʲ] plus typical Scots use of the definite article. Gay lick being a spelling pronunciation? 84.135.251.67 22:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but the sentence was at any rate both misleading and irrelevant to an article about Irish, so I've removed it. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well in Ireland's it's pronounced "Gaylick". In Scotland it is pronounced "Gallic" to avoid confusion with the Irish language - from which Scottish Gaelic originates however. (Ronan)

Irish language today

Someone changed the sentence - "There are many more small sayings that have crept into the English language as spoken in Ireland." to "There are many more small sayings that have crept into the English language as spoken in Irish."

This doesn't make any sense so to avoid confusion I changed it to "that have crept into Hiberno-English" with a link to the relevant page. Dave 22:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have placed 250,000 as the number of fluent speakers in the side-box because on a recent RTE program it suggested around 250,000 being the combined figure for fluent and native speakers combined. Why is 5 million up there? 5 million Irish speakers? It is pie in the sky absolutely to make this claim. You will hear more Welsh spoken in Hollyhead in a few hours than in Ireland - including most of the West - in a few days. So I am going to delete the 5 million.(Ronan)

"United Kingdom"

Why is the UK listed in addition to Northern Ireland? Shouldn't it be one or the other, since the UK includes Northern Ireland (and clicking Northern Ireland brings up an article stating "Northern Ireland is one of the four constituent entities of the United Kingdom")? Perhaps the author was intending to convey the fact that the language is spoken in both the six counties and on mainland Britain, and got their terminology mixed up? At present, it makes as much sense as listing Massachussetts as well as United States. 81.104.160.179 04:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned separately as its part of the Island of Ireland and the Irish language is steadily growing there, far more quickly or enthuastically than anywhere in Britain, it may be better to state Northern Ireland as it is and change UK to Britain. Northern Ireland is mentioned separately and not as the Island of Ireland, due to the quoting of statistics relating to 26 of the counties. Frainc 11:51 May 29th.

Australia?

I'd like to see a source for saying it is spoken in Australia. Honestly, if you're going to say that, you might as well just say the world, because I've lived here for twenty two years and I can't say for certain that I've EVER heard Gaelic in real life. 203.87.35.107 07:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds incredibly fishy, maybe we should take it out to be sure Fabhcún 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I had a look at the austrailian census and it appears that irish was not one of the language choises on the cenus in 2001, I don't see how we can justify Irish being spoken in Autrailia, I mean what counts, 2 people? Fabhcún 09:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] Here's a few links, hope they are helpful, doubt Irish is common though in Australia, and am not sure if its worth a mention, I recently met three Australian Irish speakers, they came to visit the Irish speaking primary school in my town, strange accents though, Frainc11:41 May 29th

What about replacing Austraila with and other countries because i am sure these clubs exsist aroung the world Fabhcún 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a list of countries where Irish is spoken should include countries where it's only learned as a foreign language. Otherwise English would be said to be spoken in every country on the planet, which is hardly useful. We should only list countries that have some nonnegligible number of people who regularly speak Irish at home. Angr (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a minority language in Australia but it is fact that it is a spoken language in Australia, either that or I have been dreaming that I take Irish classes in Melbourne and people have been teaching me another language with the same name. The language is mainly spoken by expat Irish and locals who have learnt the language in Australia or have learnt the language overseas. Given the high number of Irish living in Australia it can be said that at least a few thousand still speak Irish. It is proven that Cornish is still spoken in a region in South Australia, if that is recognised surely Irish would be too. Australia is no different to the United States on this and I dont see why Australia should be discluded if the US is still on there. I question whether some of these critics actually live in Australia or have just based their accusations on the fact they have never been in contact with an irish speaking Australian. If evidence is needed to prove the language is spoken in Australia, just going to www.google.com and doing a search there is evidence enough.

P.S In the census was the question on mothertongue? or secondary languages? I just did a hunt for the 2001 census and the only information breaks down the languages spoken in Australia is the top 30 languages.

Phonology

Come on! No article on a language is complete without a description of the phonology! I want to see a chart of consonats and vowels! 65.102.39.98 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It has a separate article. See Irish phonology. User:Angr 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bunreacht na hÉireann: A study of the Irish text

For anyone with an interest in the history of the Irish language in independent Ireland, then Bunreacht na hÉireann: A study of the Irish text (PDF 4.3MB) gives a good background in the decision making during the early years of independence very much to to the present day; with an emphasis on the constitution and the law. The appendix includes the enrolled Irish text of the constitution in Gaelic script (as distinct from the standardised Roman script in popular editions), but be warned it contains old and new spellings in the enrolled text, the significance of which are explained in the report. Djegan 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I typeset the Irish text. :-) Evertype 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic

The article says that the Irish Language is usually referred to as "irish" in English. I'm not sure about this, because I invariably hear "gaelic" where I live. AdamBiswanger1 23:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• • In Ireland we call in Irish as Gaelic refers to Scots Gael here. When I go to America i am always asked do i speak Gaelic. So you are right, but in Europe it is refered to as Irish. --Wild ride 09:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• When I was in Ireland, the only people I heard call it "Gaelic" were senior citizens, and not even all of them. Linguists always call it Irish, not Gaelic, no matter where they're from. User:Angr 15:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't really true, is it? "Irish Gaelic" is still used quite a lot, although "Gaelic" in no context would most likely refer to "Goidelic" or Scottish. I should add, for what it's worth, that I have an Irish friend, early 20s, who almost always calls it just "Gaelic" (pronouncing it Gay'lik). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Gaelic originally means Irish, for the people of Ireland were na Gaeil, would using the term Irish Gaelic be like saying Irish Irish? I think Irish people call it Irish or Gaeilge, or Gaelic in that order, never Irish Gaelic, that is unless they were discussing the different gaelic languages. --86.42.128.41 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? When did Gaelic mean Irish? Does this mean, then, that Gaeltacht means "Ireland" and Gaeltachtaí means "Irelands"? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some say it's from Welsh Gwyddel, while others claim it's from the word Gallaecia. Whatever the origin it referred to people from Ireland, I suppose.--86.42.133.26 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Gaelic-speakers from Scotland of course. The word Eireannach was not in the Irish language for no reason. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I miss your point, did they not come from Ireland.--86.42.133.26 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As a university student of Irish, in Ireland, I can say that in my experience the Irish language is invariably refered to as "Irish" by academics, students and the general public alike. As regards Gaeltacht meaning Ireland, no, it does not translate directly, the nearest English equivalent is when we refer to "Anglophone" or "Francophone" countries etc, in the modern context it refers to the language spoken and not as a territorial name. An Rinn is a gaeltacht, which does not mean it is an Ireland, it is merely a reference to language. hope that helps --Stevecull 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Map of the Gaeltacht

The map of the Gaeltacht shown in the article is woefully inaccurate leaving out most of the Gaeltacht areas. Clear Island is not even shown and most of the Mayo Gaeltacht has been reduced to just the area around Ceathrú Thaidhg. The extents of the other Gaeltacht areas are all either too small or cover official Galltacht areas! I have tried in vain to find an accurate map of the Gaeltacht areas for the Gaeltacht article but to no avail. The only one I've seen so far is in Reg Hindley's "Death of the Irish Language". If someone could possibly scan it in, it would add greatly to the article. Whatever one's views on Hindley, one cannot fault his maps! An Muimhneach Machnamhach 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Scanning his map in would be a copyright violation, so we couldn't use it. Islands seem to be missing from the map generally: I notice the Aran Islands aren't on it either. User:Angr 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can make a map based on the information at http://www.udaras.ie, but it will of course be the "official" Gaeltacht which is not necessarily coterminous with areas where Irish is actually widely spoken. Clear Island, for example, does not seem to be an official Gaeltacht area. User:Angr 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The map on ÚnaG's website is only a slight improvement on that shown in this article. I remember e-mailing ÚnaG a few months back about their map and its shortcomings but received no reply. On ÚnaG's map, for example, the area around Ardara and Glenties in Donegal is included in the Gaeltacht, even though it is officially a Galltacht area. The Gaeltacht pockets on the shores of Lough Swilly are also missing as is Gibstown in Co Meath. They seem to have tried to impose "cut-out" figures on a blank map with mixed results. Clear Island is indeed in the official Gaeltacht. A number of families receive grants for raising their families through the language and Údarás employs a small number of the islanders. I think Údarás runs the abalone plant on the south side of the island. They definitely have a small office, a sort of portacabin, at the North Harbour. It may be difficult enough to find someone to speak Irish to in Clear today but it's still an official Gaeltacht. You are of course right in saying that Irish is not widely spoken in many official Gaeltacht areas but that doesn't negate the fact that they are official Gaeltacht areas. The best thing we can do I think is show all of the official Gaeltacht areas on a map but mention the core areas in the body of the text or even colour-code them if possible according to some figure like 70%+ using official data. The "Big Three" are of course north-west Donegal, western Connemara and the the extreme west and north-west of Corca Dhuibhne. Figures from the last census should be shown for these areas (parts of which top 75% and even 90% in Ros Muc). I remember Donnchadh Ó hÉallaithe's detailed analysis of the census returns in Foinse but exactly where I've put that particular article I don't know. By all means make a map, but do get Hindley's book and follow his. Another thing that has just occured to me is that one of the acts of the Oireachtas (where I work) may have an accurate map of the official Gaeltacht areas. I haven't found it so far but I'll have a proper look for it tomorrow. It's probably in one of the Statutory Instruments. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, check this out as an example of the kind of problem we face: http://gaelport.com/index.php?page=clippings&id=1093&viewby=date An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I've made Image:Gaeltachtai na hEireann.png on the basis of the information at http://www.udaras.ie/. It may not be 100% accurate, but at least it's based on a citable source and is thus an improvement on Image:Gaeltacht.png. User:Angr 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant map! The only thing that needs to be changed is the inclusion of Clear Island and increasing the size of Ring to include the Old Parish, which is also in the official Gaeltacht. West Muskerry is also a bit farther south than it should be. Good work! An Muimhneach Machnamhach 11:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

West Muskerry might be off because I had to guess at its position by eye. (Why can't all Gaeltachts be conveniently located on the coastline? It would make life for us amateur cartographers much easier!) For Clear Island and the Old Parish of Ring, I'd rather wait until I find a citable source asserting that they are official Gaeltacht. Not that I don't trust you, but we have to be careful to avoid original research. User:Angr 11:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern but I've been to Cléire three times and know for a fact that it is an official Gaeltacht area. Reg Hindley talks of it in his book and Donnchadh Ó hÉallaithe included it in his analysis of Gaeltacht areas based on the census figures. Raidió na Gaeltachta sometimes covers news from there on their programme An Saol ó Dheas (daily, 12.05 p.m. Irish time). I'm surprised that anyone would think it wasn't part of the Gaeltacht. Here's a link from the Gaeltacht holiday company Gaelsaoire: http://www.gaelsaoire.ie/asp/gaeltacht_home.asp?language=gaeilge&gaeltacht=corcaigh

and here's a link from the same company regarding Old Parish (An Sean-Phobal):

"áirítear paróiste na Rinne agus an tSean Phobail mar chuid den cheantar Gaeltachta seo",

http://www.gaelsaoire.ie/asp/gaeltacht_home.asp?language=gaeilge&gaeltacht=Port_Lairge

Here's another link regarding Old Parish: http://www.deise.ie/

If you check out this link to an annual report http://www.udaras.ie/doicmeid/cartlann/Turascail/tablai04.pdf and scroll down to Table 6 (contd.) you'll see that one business in Cléire received funding from Údarás na Gaeltachta.

You'll also see in the same table under Rinn Ó gCuanach that one business in Old Parish received funding. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 12:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, especially the ones with the maps. I'll make the additions this evening (I'm at work now, and the file is on my home computer). User:Angr 12:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've altered the map. West Muskerry is a little farther north, and Clear Island and the Old Parish of Ring have been added. User:Angr 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a map like this. It's better to inform people where and to what extent Irish Gaelic is spoken rather than slavishly following pen-pushers. Isn't there census information upon which such an Irish map could made? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be for both a map of the officially designated Gaeltacht areas and a map reflecting census information. It would be very informative to compare the two, to see where Irish is widely spoken outside the Gaeltacht, and where it isn't widely spoken inside the Gaeltacht. User:Angr 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the two maps mutually exclusive. Of course both would be the ideal. The census map should be easy enough to do if it is done by county. If there is a blank county map of the island of Ireland, the anyone can pick shades for various percentage groups and do this with paint. So long as they have the census information that is. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Some level lower than county would be better, if there's census information at the lower levels. Is there a level lower than the county? Do baronies still exist in Ireland? Also, Northern Ireland should be included. User:Angr 13:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the entire country is still marked out into townlands (as in there are well-defined boundaries for those) - they are pretty small units. But the census information is perhaps only county level. zoney ♣ talk 11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the map, by the way. It adds greatly to the article. Donnchadh Ó hÉallaithe's detailed analysis of the census returns in Foinse a few years ago (2002???) was based, I think, on the electoral districts. Reg Hindley used a similar methodology, I think. If we could get hold of Ó hÉallaithe's article, we mind be able to use the information in it. The really big difference between the status of Scottish Gaelic in Scotland and Irish in Ireland is that the vast majority of Scottish Gaelic speakers are first language native speakers whereas the number of habitual native Irish speakers is dwarfed by the number of second language learners. I'm sure that those patches of Gaelic speakers outside of the traditional Gàidhealtachd which are shown on the map in the Scottish Gaelic article are comprised of native speakers from the Western Isles and elsewhere who have migrated to the cities for work. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bilingual terms

I'm glad Djegan reverted the edits done here. I'm all in favour of bilingualism, but it has to be consistent. The pages on, say, French, German, Tibetan etc. would also need to have the titles in both languages. Unfortunately, the Irish in the translatations that Djegan edited out was wrong at least as often as it was right. At the momemt I suggest we stick to using English titles in the English version. JdeJ 10:08, 06 September 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an in Irish

It was announced in 2003, but I don't believe it was ever published. Evertype 06:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish/Gaelic

There seems to be an edit war over the common naming of the language. I must that in my experience both the words Irish and Gaelic are commonly used to refer to the version of Gaelic spoken in the Republic of Ireland. In the rest of the UK Gaelic is used just as commonly as Irish, as is the same in Northern Ireland. Yes technically Gaelic is actually incorrect as Gaelic is a language group rather than a language proper, but it is very commonly referred to as that so I think it should have equal weighting as Irish. Ben W Bell talk 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The "edit war" is one single user, Setanta747, who constantly reverts to his own edits. In Ireland, the word "Gaelic" is often used in a derogatory sense by opponents of the language. I guess that Setanta747, who on his page states he is a unionist, is editing out of ideological motives, not neutral ones. JdeJ 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually JdeJ, you will find that a "war" has more than one participant. If you look at the edit history of the article, you will see that I was not the only participant in it. I thank you not to be pushing your POV down the throats of others.

As I said on my talk page Ben, the disagreement I'd had was not regarding the two terms you pointed out, but an additional term "Irish Gaelic". The information contained in this article is incorrect regarding that term.

Like yourself Ben, I vary between the two terms you mentioned ("Irish" and "Gaelic") and a third term ("Irish Gaelic") probably in equal amounts.

Unlike what JdeJ assumes, I do not have a strong opinion, one way or the other, about the Irish language (although I very much support the continued existance of the language as part of my heritage, it is not a particular 'hobby' of mine). I do have a strong opinion regaarding factual information however.

To wit: just because I am unionist (and hey - thanks for checking out my User page), that doesn't mean that I necessarily edit without NPOV. I shall not expect an apology, though one would be nice.

I shall, when I have time, consider copyediting the relevant paragraphs so that the inaccuracy is removed. --Mal 09:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, it would be interesting to know what "POV" I "push down the throats of others". I would recommend using a more neutral and correct way to express opinions. You say you're political views (which I fully respect) do not influence your editing. Then why do you feel the need for calling a language a name that speakers of the language feel is insulting? It's true that the language has at times been called Gaelic, it's also true that that term is rarele used these days, especially in Ireland. I think the article should still mention the name, of course, but to try to make it sound like its an alternative and equally accepted name is in contrast to the factual information you say you want to achieve. JdeJ 11:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You ask me what POV I feel you are pushing down the throats of others. I would have thought it obvious, however, I will answer anyway. You have made assumptions, based on my stated political ideology that I have a particular motive regarding said ideology. As I have explained, this is not the case.

You suggest I "feel the need for calling a language a name that speakers of the language feel is insulting". Let me tell you this: Northern Ireland is called Northern Ireland. Yet that is actually insulting to some people. Northern Ireland is also called "the six counties", which is also insulting to some people. Yet Wikipedia states categorically that these names are used in actual fact. Also, I have known speakers of the language to refer to it as "Gaelic" or "the Gaelic". I would question your assertion that it is rarely called "Gaelic" in Ireland: I have lived all my life in Ireland, and I can tell you that this is what it is known as and called by many people here.

Once again, I believe you, like Ben, have missed the point though. This is not what my edits have been about. Please look carefully at my edits, and see for yourself. --Mal 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From my recent observation Setanta747 seems to be one who is intent in pushing his edits, even though some of these issues have been discussed and agreed in the not too distant past. I wager that the guy couldn't string 3 original words of Irish together, but I will stand corrected if I am wrong on this point. The word Gaelic (from Irish, Na Gaeil actually means Irish), so to say Irish Gaelic is in effect saying Irish Irish. I do believe that Setanta747 has POV-issues to overcome before he can call himself an editor. Red blaze 12:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, how literate I am in the language is of absolutely no relevance. Secondly, I was as intent on "pushing" my edits as you were in "pushing" yours - no more, no less. Thirdly, what the phrase "Irish Gaelic" actually means is also irrelevant. The relevant point is whether or not the phrase is actually used by the Irish. As an Irish person, I'm informing you that it is. You are, by the way, wrong in your assertion that the word Gaelic means "Irish". Certainly, it has come to be synonymous with "Irish", but that is not what it actually means.

Finally, I am would draw your attention again to WP:NPA. If you want to "call yourself an editor", you might want to consider this, not to mention the fact that I have made something in the region of forty times the number of edits you have made, created two WikiProjects, one Portal, one noticeboard, uploaded numerous pictures, created a couple of dozen templates. I have also created more than thirty articles, which equals roughly half the number of edits to Wikipedia mainspace that you have made.

By the way - did you remove the WikiProject tag you added to the Scottish Gaelic article that you, rather irrationally, added yet? --Mal 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stick with the major point here. Mal was erroneous in his edit, final! Red blaze 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets be clear about this before we go shoving around pov accusations all around. This language originates in Ireland, from where it spread to Scotland in the 5th or 6th centuries or so. Therefore, to call it the Irish language is not without foundation. Scottish Gaelic could be seen as one of several dialects of the language or alternatively, as a seperate but related language.

Now, to the best of my reading in the area, from the 12th century up to about the mid 19th century or so, the lanugage was referred to in the English language in Ireland as "Irish". The term "Gaelic" is a relatively recent one, coined from an anglicisation of the Irish name Gaeilgle, or possibly imported via Scotland, where the language is called Gaidhlig. The reason fo the shift was no doubt that by around 1850, Irish was for the first time a minority language in Ireland. In the late 19th century, Irish nationalists were quite keen on the term Gaelic as in Gaelic Athletic Association, Gaelic League etc.

In the modern era, (since the 1920s) the language has been referred to in the South as, the "Irish Language" or Gaeilge. "Gaelic" tends to be considered offensive or patronising. However, in the North, the term Irish language has nationalist connotations, since it implies that Irish is the official and native language of the country. Unionists, who emphasise their British ancestry have a problem with this idea.

Lets just deal with the facts when we have this discussion. Jdorney 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh: Mal/Setanta citing WP:NPA on a talk page — nothing new their. Any talk page he contributes to ultimately requires this for good measure. Djegan 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Jdorney, thanks for the explaination as to why the name Irish is causing so much grief to some. Red blaze 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You sigh a lot, don't you Djegan? Interesting that I have had to warn you on more than one occasion about personal attacks.. and this latest comment from you borders on yet another personal attack by you, on me. FYI, I've not warned many people in Wikipedia about NPA - I can count the number of editors I've had to warn on the fingers of one hand.

Red blaze - you'll find that I wasn't erroneous in my edit, as I have taken great pains on this talk page to explain to you: the Irish language is referred to as "Irish Gaelic" by Irish people" - final! --Mal 05:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry — you cannot repeatily accuse people of personal attacks in order to stifle debate. Back up the accusations or drop them. Not least for your own good. Djegan 06:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you are capable of sustaining debate without resorting to personal attacks Djegan. --Mal 14:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To be sung.
Troll, troll,,,troll la la.
Troll, troll,,,troll la la.
Troll, troll,,,troll la la.
Troll, troll,,,troll la la
Troller Devine 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

--Setanta747 may be best ignored as he seems intent on trolling. Red blaze 08:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Places where Irish is spoken

I don't see the point in mentioning the US, Australia and Canada as places where Irish is spoken. To begin with, almost every language is spoken at least in the US and in Canada. Secondly, most Irish immigrants switched to English long ago. At the moment, this paragraph may give the impression that the Irish immigrants held on to their language and that it is still widely spoken among them. Both impressions are false, as few other immigrant groups have lost their language to the same degree. I would suggest mentioning only Ireland and Northern Ireland as the places where Irish is spoken. Nowhere else is it a community language and these days speakers of any language can be found in almost any country. So while there are huge numbers of people with Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia, the Irish language isn't more of a community language there than in Germany, China or Spain. JdeJ (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've included Canada, and for good reason. Irish is not spoken as a second language in certain areas. Despite what you may believe, Irish is still a community language. Irish immigrants in the Ottawa valley and Newfoundland held on to their language, giving us our own dialect (like Cape Breton Scottish). If you don't believe me just check the census. We've even been allowed to finally start teaching through Irish to stop the language's deteoriation. So back on the list of spoken areas it goes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danjdoyle (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the census data? —Angr 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I will remove Canada again, but if you can provide sources that Irish is indeed spoken as a community language it could go back up again. And the Scottish Gaelic spoken on Cape Breton is not Irish. After ten years within Celtic socio-linguistics I have never heard of Irish being used as a community language outside Ireland. As I said, if you have sources I hope you post them, I'm looking forward to reading them. JdeJ 07:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Orthography and Pronunciation

'The written language looks rather daunting to those unfamiliar with it.'

I find it dauntingly overlettered no matter how many times I look at it.

'Once understood, the orthography is relatively straightforward.' Is this anglo-referential - i.e., 'relative to English'? If so, I feel that it needs citation, because altho English appears to contain many irregularities which need to be learnt individually, it may take up more time to keep reproducing regularly prolix Irish spellings.

I can agree with you ('you' being Londheart who forgot to sign his comment) that the sentence in question is more of a personal observation. In some way or another, any language that is unfamiliar might look 'daunting' and Irish is hardly at any extreme. I think the Irish spelling is very logic and well-suited for the language, but that is also a personal opinon. To your second question, the answer would be yes. Compared to English ortography, the Irish spelling is simplicity and regularity itself - compared to almost any other European language, it is not. Of all the European languages, no other language is so far removed as English from the idea of "one letter for each sound and one sound for each letter". JdeJ (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't 'forget' to sign my comment, but am becoming very jaded about the so-called 'etiquette' at Wikipedia after recent experiences.

I am not, in fact, the type of person to object to a personal observation, in this most impersonal medium, especially one which reflects consensual common sense.

There seems a contradiction between the statement 'Irish is hardly at any extreme' and the subsequent implied admission that both Irish and English are, in fact, harder to spell than other European languages.

The observation that 'Irish spelling is very logical and well-suited for the language,' far from being a personal opinion, is in fact a sort of common, standard 'PC' disclaimer to avoid Irish language student unrest and to ward off criticism from an English direction - not necessarily in that order. Whereas efforts to avoid conflict and defend national pride have their place and their value, truth is not always integral to them.

You appear to miss my point re wanting to avoid being anglo-referential, and I find your patriotic defence of Irish spelling over English understandable and admirable, but lacking in scientific proof; in the absence of which, I have only a personal impression that, while English spelling irregularities are common and extreme, Irish ones are ubiquitous, their very irregularity being refuted by curiously unanimous, patriotic etymologists.

I'm afraid you get it wrong. To begin with, I don't see what 'patriotic' defense you find in my arguments. I'm not Irish. Nor do I defend Irish spelling over English, I'm not saying that one is better than the other. For a learner, the principle of one letter for each sounds make things easier, but it does not make the language itself or worse. Far from lacking scientific backing, this is something you could find in almost any book on ortography. JdeJ (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to be wrong, now and then, having established that you are not yourself Irish. To me (and perhaps others?) that seems a factor to take into account when considering your rather authoritative-sounding remonstrations to the effect that the existing spelling system is quite adequate for the language. As you state, 'one letter one sound' facilitates learning, but also, as George Bernard Shaw pointed out vis-à-vis English, economy. One would require a very recherhé academic ivory tower base indeed for such issues to become by-the-by; not to say cut-proof. ;|

For a scientific study of the relative efficiency of spelling systems, within or between languages, I would myself consult the science of semiotics, more specifically linguistics and its component branch of graphemics, rather than any old book on orthography.

Broad and slender vowels and consonants

A "broad" consonant is referred to in the article, but it is not explained.

Broad and slender consonants are a fundamental feature of the Irish language and could, in theory at least, lead to misunderstandings if misapplied, in a way that the difference between the T in the standard British and USian pronunciation of "tune" could not.

In the British pronunciation of "tune" the T is followed by a yod (a hint of the semivowel normally represented by "Y") which causes it to be spoken with a narrower shaping of the mouth than the USian version. This sound is what would be referred to in Irish as a "slender consonant", while the USian pronunciation is closer (but not identical) to the Irish "broad" T (in which the tongue taps just behind the teeth rather than a little further back, as it would in English).

Broad and slender consonants (or consonant groups) must be both preceded and followed by a "broad" or "slender" vowel. Broad vowels are the back vowels--a, o and u and ao. Slender vowels are the front vowels--e and i. As a result Irish is liberally loaded with both broad and slender glide vowels, some of them barely audible to English speakers unfamiliar with Irish. An interesting example is the two variant spellings of the girl's name Níamh--also sometimes written Naoibh. They could both be crudely transliterated into English as "Neev", but they differ in that the Níamh starts with a slender consonant and ends with broad one, whereas Naoibh starts with a broad consonant and ends with a slender one. Exceptions to this rule are rare.

Mutations of final broad consonants into slender ones have an important grammatical role. For instance the Nominative/accusative case of the Irish version of the name James is Séamus, while the vocative is Shéamuis. The same thing occurs in Scottish Gaelic, which is very closely related. The pronunciation is almost the same, even though the spelling is slightly different: Séumas becomes Shéumuis. When giving this name to their sons, English speakers of Irish decent have tended to preferred to call them Seamus (pronounced "Shamus"), the nominative/accusative form, whereas those of Scottish decent tend to use the vocative form--Hamish.

I don't know what the correct technical term is for this broad/slender vowel thing is, but it obviously bears comparison with vowel harmony. If anybody could link articles on all these things together and explain exactly what the connection is, that would be good. Ireneshusband 09:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed in excruciating detail at Irish phonology. —Angr 09:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture for Portal

I'm planning on making this the language of the month of October for Portal:Language. Which picture should I use? It's going to be small, but it has to be aesthetic and informative. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Falls/West Belfast

Am I correct in thinking I heard that recently either the Falls or West Belfast had in some way become an officially-recognised Gaeltacht? Should this not be noted in the article? --Mal 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)