Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivernic language

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Primitive Irish. Deathphoenix 03:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivernic language

There is no evidence whatsoever that this language existed. Google links point to pages about druidism and clones of the Wikipedia. (I've nothing against neo-druidism, but "Ivernic" is not an attested Brythonic language. Evertype 15:23, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

• Comment: This would seem to be a 'not verifiable' nomination, not a 'patent nonsense' one. Kappa 18:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Clearly not "patent nonsense" according to the policy. This link references two etymological notes from the scholarly journal Ériu by T.F. O'Rahilly, showing that the Ivernic language has been proposed in scholarly literature by a person of some standing, so it's doubtful if even "not verifiable" applies. --Nicknack009 01:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I fixed the nomination tag. Evertype
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• There's some evidence on the web of an Iverni people, one of the Celtic tribes of ancient Ireland. There's virtually no evidence on the Web that they spoke a distinct language from any of the others; the overwhelming majority of references are Wikipedia mirrors. The footnotes that Nicknack009 cites can be just as easily seen as being simply adjectival references to the Iverni themselves, rather than proof of a distinct language. Delete unless more solid references can be shown. Bearcat 04:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Delete as unverifiable original research. --Angr 12:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)Voted changed in light of re-write; see below. --Angr 22:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have to say, this looks kind of verified. If correctly cited, the article Nicknack009 found - O’Rahilly (T. F.) Ériu 13, 1942 - is certainly referring to details of an Ivernic language, presumably without surviving materials but attested in loanwords. That would certainly be worthy of treatment here. Weak keep pending confirmation of the reference. - Mustafaa 21:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd also be interested in seeing what O'Rahilly says about Ivernic. Unfortunately my collection of Ériu journals only dates back to 1994. I suspect, however, that he is using "Ivernic" as a name for a hypothetical Brythonic language to account for the large number of Brythonic loanwords in Old Irish. If that's true, then that hypothesis is no longer widely accepted, since most people believe the source of those loanwords is an Irish presence in Wales (which is attested by Irish Ogham inscriptions in Wales) rather than a Brythonic presence in Ireland. --Angr 07:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Very interesting. If that proves to be the case, however, I would certainly say keep as, or at least redirect to, an article explaining this hypothesis and why it has been rejected. There is value in having articles on disproven scholarly hypotheses, such as phlogiston: they clarify the history of the field. - Mustafaa 19:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Looks like you're right: - Mustafaa 19:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The evidence of loanwords in Irish would by itself afford decisive proof that Goidelic (Irish) superseded an earlier dialect of the Brittonic type, which we may call Ivernic. Not that we can ever hope to identify more than a small proportion of the words actually taken over from Ivernic. Such Ivernic words as were borrowed soon after the Goidelic invasion would be indistinguishable in form from purely Goidelic words ; compare such tribal or geographical names as Cruthin (< *Pritenî), Lagin (< *Laginî or the like), Ulaid (< *Ulutî), Albu (< *Albiû). Only when a word was adopted into Irish at a later period, and when at the same time there happens to be something in its form which shows that previous to being borrowed it had undergone a particularly Brittonic development, or when it includes certain consonants or consonant-groups (e.g. p, nc, st-) which were in use in Brittonic but not in purely Goidelic words, --- only then is it possible for us to recognize the word as a borrowing from Ivernic. Such words, nevertheless, are quite numerous, e.g. rón, sgríob, raideóg, carraig, gealbhann, Brian, Bruadar, to mention but a few. We find p- retained in partán, port ('tune'), pata, (s)preas, and in the tribal names Partraige, Papraige. Especially notable among these Ivernic loanwords are the national name Goídil, the name of the Irish language Goídelg, and a number of pagan deity names including Nuadu (or Luadu), Ded, Cathaer Már, Buchet, in Tat Már, Allduí. Such words make it clear that a Brittonic dialect continued to be spoken by sections of the people down to the seventh century, if not later. Many of these words suggest by their meaning or connotation that they were of humble origin, and must have been taken over from the socially inferior classes of the population, e.g. rómhar, caibe, aoileach, súgán, capall, madra ; and a similar conclusion is suggested by the fact that many of them were only tardily admitted into the literature, e.g. gaol, gruag, ciotach, spreas, gaobhar, faoibín." - pp. 205-206 of Early Irish History and Mythology, by T.F. O'Rahilly (Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1946, 1957, 1964, 1971, 1976, 1984, 1999), as quoted by Croman mac Nessa (black on black text).

• To which the same site adds:

"One example of the Ivernian legacy would be language, but apart from this name of Ireland and possibly the personal names, tribal names, placenames and God and Goddess Names given below, we have only some brief mention of Ivernic, found in Sanas Cormaic (Cormac's Glossary). This Cormac mac Cuilennáin was a King/Bishop of Cashel (the capitol of Munster), and died in the year 908 of the Vulgar Era. Cormac calls the language Iarnnbêlrae, Iarnbêlrae, and Iarmbêrla. T.F. O'Rahilly suggests that the original was *Érn-bélre ("Ivernic-Language" or "Érainn-Speech"), whence *Érnbélre and subsequently Iarnbélre (bélre is the predecessor of later bérla, which gives us the modern Scottish Gaelic word beurla and the modern Irish word béarla). We thus have a reconstructed name for the Ivernic language, namely *Érnbélre, though we cannot be certain that this would have been the name the Érainn themselves would have used. What Cormac says about *Érnbélre is that it had recently died out (thus apparently sometime in the 800s), and he gives us two Ivernic words as examples: ond ("stone," from which came the Old Irish word onn, also meaning "stone") and fern ("anything good"; the Old Irish word ferr, meaning "better," is cognate, derived from a related older word, with modern representatives feàrr in Gàidhlig and feárr in Gaeilge; the modern derivative in Gaelg, for which I am indebted to Alexei Kondratiev, as I could not find it on my own, is shiare). O'Rahilly doubts that these are actually examples of *Érnbélre , but he does give examples of Brittonic loan-words in Irish, some of which could be examples of *Érnbélre, though we cannot be completely certain that they are Ivernic and not Pretanic or Laiginic (vide Addendum to Appendix 2). Auraicept na nÉces (the Scholar's Primer), the earliest parts of which may be as old as the seventh century VE (though it did not reach its final form till the twelfth century VE), also gives some examples of what it calls Iarmbérla, though it seems that by this time, the term has come to mean jargon or dialect that is characterised by obscure words, and so these examples are less certainly actual words of *Érnbélre. This meaning is also found in Sanas Cormaic, which is one of the causes of O'Rahilly's doubts regarding ond and fern as actual *Érnbélre words. This usage for Iarmbérla is also found in one of the metrical tracts which Thurneysen edited. The Auraicept na nÉces also uses Iarmbérla in a grammatical sense, and "the poets of the schools, having to find a name for proclitics ... turned iarmbérla to account by employing it in this sense," according to O'Rahilly." [1]

If the Sanas Cormaic mention can be confirmed, this would be interesting to add. - Mustafaa 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Mustafaa has made a massive rewrite of the article, acknowledging that Ivernic is hypothetical and that most linguists now prefer the theory that Brythonic loanwords are present in Irish due to the Irish presence in Wales. Nevertheless, I have to keep my vote as delete, on the grounds that Ivernic is nonnotable. A mention at Old Irish of the Ivernic hypothesis should suffice. --Angr 20:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Fair enough; I'm inclined to agree. But if that's your suggestion, shouldn't that be a merge and redirect vote? - Mustafaa 22:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • An alternative might be to move it to the non-POV title Words of Brythonic origin in Irish (analogous to Words of Algonquian origin. - Mustafaa 22:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, you've convinced me. In light of Mustafaa's rewrite, I'm changing my vote to merge and redirect to Primitive Irish. Oops, looks like I forgot to sign. This is me: --Angr 07:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Primitive Irish Evertype 01:40, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

• Hate to reactivate the discussion here, but... looking over this more carefully, I've realized that, if the quotes are accurate, the existence of an Ivernic language surviving in Munster up to the 9th century is confirmed by early Irish sources. What seems to be questionable is not whether the language existed, but whether it is actually the source of Irish's Brythonic loanwords. Of course, if all we know about it is that it existed, that doesn't make for much of an article; but that would suggest redirecting to Iverni, rather than to Primitive Irish. - Mustafaa 07:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Mustafaa's rewrite is an interesting and useful short article. I favour keeping under the current title rather than redirecting, especially in the light of the previous comment. — Zeimusu | Talk 03:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It is still unattested as far as I am concerned, and should be merged with another article. Whether Primitive Irish or Iverni or Words of Brythonic origin in Irish I don't mind, but it's too hypothetical for a main article. Evertype 09:22, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of articles here on hypothetical topics - and in some cases even on disproven hypotheses. Consider luminiferous aether, Nostratic, Nilo-Saharan, astrobiology, Many-worlds interpretation... I'm open to the argument that it's nonnotable, but I don't see anything wrong with a main article dealing with a hypothetical topic. - Mustafaa 01:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that all of the hypothetical topics you've mentioned are far better attested than this one. I still think it should be merged until it's got enough in it to merit separation. Somebody go dig up a wordlist, at least! Evertype 12:03, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.