Talk:Lugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

	Mythology Portal This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Deleted Lugansk from the list under following reasons:

• originating Lugansk (as well as Luga) from that god is only a hypothesis - since there is a much more wide-spread Slav word "lug/luh/luka" (meaning a meadow - no mystics);
• Lugansk is actually in Ukraine.

AlexPU

Odd-seeming that "lugs" are listed in an article named "Lugh". I suggest we might instead make Lug a small disambiguation page, rather than an immediate redirect. Alai 22:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Lug should be a disambiguation page, e.g.:

=Lug (disambiguation)=

In [[Irish mythology]], [[Lug]] was an ancient [[god]].  

[[Linux User Group|LUG]] is an [[acronym]] that stands for [[Linux User Group]]. 

A [[Lug (bicycle part)|lug]] is also a [[List of bicycle parts|bicycle part]].  

'''Lug''' handles are a kind of flattened knob attached to the side of pottery. 
Lugs may have small perforations to take a cord. They are sometimes found on prehistoric 
ceramics such as [[Hembury]] ware.

Who wants to make it happen? Skoosh 01:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll gladly do the spadework, if nobody minds me moving this page from Lug back to Lugh. The latter is, I'm quite sure, more commonly seen in English publications; it's also more commonly linked to than is Lug. (And if we were going to have this article at Lug, we would do better to use the accent – Luġ. [Yes, yes, that's a later-than-Old Irish innovation, rarara.]) QuartierLatin1968 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Lug is technically more correct in an archaic sense, but Lugh is very common in modern parlance. Is it worth creating Lug (deity) preemptively? -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's just it – in recent years we've gotten used to seeing gh and bh and mh everywhere. I don't see how it could hurt to make that preemptive redirect (maybe Lug (god) too) – I'll get on it. Other than that, the move should now be complete. QuartierLatin1968 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Welsh counterpart confusion 2 Myth Origin theory 3 Question 4 Remove section

[edit] Welsh counterpart confusion

The article's introduction includes his Welsh counterpart is Llew Llaw Gyffes. The "Portrayal in Classical Times" section says that The Irish and Welsh cognates of Lugus are Lugh and Lleu, respectively. This confusion continues throughout the article. Different pages on Wikipedia give different opinions about whether Llew/Lleu are the same character, so I am not touching this one. Just a heads-up. :) --Telsa 09:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myth Origin theory

I see this article presents a theory of the origin of Lug's fight with Balor, it claims that this story is of Greek and Mesopotamian origin, and it further claims that it is "widely held by scholars"...

"It is widely held by scholars that the battle between Lugh and Balor reflects a common Indo-European motif, the battle between the youthful hero and his tyrant Grandfather. This motif is likely to have come to the Celtic speaking lands through contact with Greek traders in the colony of Massillia (Marseille), to whom it came from the Persians, and originated in Mesopotamian tradition through the Prophecy of Sargon."

Well, if it so widely held then it shouldn't be difficult to find a reference or source for this claim/theory. I'm not saying it's not true, but it does seem an odd claim that a Celtic god is inspired by a Sumerian King, anyway the way it's currently put is unacceptable, it needs to be cited and possibly reworded. --Hibernian 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is it possible that the words 'Lugh' and 'Loki' have something to do with the English 'Luck', English 'lucky', German 'Glueck' (=Luck), and German 'Luege' (=Lie)? (This would surely explain the function, or role, of these deities (i.e. that of deception), as well as their ambiguity, or ambiguous status: afterall, luck can go either way). -- Lucian.

[edit] Remove section

Following this bit, which I've retained:

It is widely held by scholars that the battle between Lugh and Balor reflects a common Indo-European motif, the battle between the youthful hero and his tyrant Grandfather.

there was the following bit, which I've removed:

This motif is likely to have come to the Celtic speaking lands through contact with Greek traders in the colony of Massillia (Marseille), to whom it came from the Persians, and originated in Mesopotamian tradition through the Prophecy of Sargon.

Firstly, this multi-part journey of a single story is absurdly speculative. We would have a hard time proving even one of the steps. Second, it completely contradicts the preceding sentence: if it is supposed to be an "Indo-European" tradition, why is being tied to the Mesopotamians? And finally, if it is indeed supposed to be an Indo-Europeans, there is hardly a need to invent some complicated story explaining its tranmission through the historical placement of peoples. The Celts spoke an Indo-European language: if they could acquire that in the mists of prehistory, they could easily acquire an Indo-European legend as well. --Saforrest 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting rid of that bit, it seemed very suspect to me too. But I think the first part also needs some revision. As I said above, if this interpretation is so "widely held by scholars", then it should be relatively easy to cite a reference for at-least one scholar or book or whatever, that mentions it, otherwise the "widely held" bit must be taken away, as we have no evidence whether it is widely held, or whether it's a fringe theory. And again I'm not saying it's not true, maybe it is, but it needs some citation and explanation. --Hibernian 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"King of Suck": What's going on fellas? Hovea 11:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)