Talk:Fernaig manuscript

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fernaig manuscript is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.	Scotland Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Peer review — general community input. Featured Portal Candidates — our ultimate short-term goal is to achieve Featured status for the portal. Featured Portal Candidate — 23 April 2007; result, Featured Portal Status awarded, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A fact from Fernaig manuscript appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 January 2008.

[edit] Scots vs English, Gaelic vs Irish

It is generally accepted that Scots was considered an independent language until the Union of the Parliaments in 1707.

Also, it was only around this time that a unique Scottish Gaelic written style started to emerge. The overwhelming majority of Scottish literature was written in Irish. It is presumably because Irish was so irrelevant to the Scottish Gaels by this time that the Anglo-Saxon derived orthographies emerged duting this brief period.

I'm reverting this change unless and until you can provide evidence for your assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is generally accepted that Scots was considered an independent language until the Union of the Parliaments in 1707."

Whether Scots was and is an independent language is irrelevant. If it is a dialect it is a dialect of English. If it is a language seperate to Southern English it is still an English language - and how could it not be when it is descended from Middle English and was for most of its history referred to by its own speakers in their own language as English? The fact that English speakers in Scotland might find the historical reality of their language uncomfortable (at least since roughly 1500 when they stopped calling it English) has no bearing upon the fact that, well, this is historical fact. Indeed im somewhat amused by the suggestion that Scots, if it was a seperate language (and i believe it should be regarded as such - certainly if we're going to also draw a distinction between Dutch/German, Swedish/Danish etc) that it somehow magically ceased to be with immediate effect following 1707. If this was the case then it was a seperate language only for some 200 years as its speakers had only decided to refer to it as something other than English around the 1500s.

Anyway thats neither here nor there. Unless you have some source,hitherto unknown by academics, which proves beyond doubt - and given how extremely inconsistent MacRae is in his spelling it is hard to see how anyone could possibly conclude anything more specific than that he committed the verse to paper using a form of orthography based upon generally English language principles - and/or has Duncan MacRae explicitly stating that his bizarre personal spelling system was based specifically and exclusively upon the orthography of Scottish English we only know that it is based upon English orthography in general without particular bias to any region.

"The overwhelming majority of Scottish literature was written in Irish."

No. It was written in Gaelic. The Irish language is Gaelic just as Scottish Gaelic is Gaelic. Similarities between orthography at the time is no reason to insert anachronistic, inappropriate and misleading references to the Irish language when the existing reference to "Gaelic" is already perfectly accurate. siarach (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What is a "dialect"...? No-one has ever given a solid answer to that question...

As I say in Talk:Book of the Dean of Lismore, the Scots name for their language (before "Scots"/"Scottis") was "Inglis", not "English", which was the English name for their language. I've seen plenty of evidence for "Inglis", so I won't dispute it, but not yet any examples of "English" in contemporary use.

Also (as I again say in the Dean of Lismore page), it doesn't matter what they called it, it's what we call it now that matters.

Today, English means Modern English. It is not considered correct to use the term "English" to refer to the Old or Middle tongues.

I didn't mean to suggest Scots ceased to exist at 1707 -- what I meant was at that point a English English influence was introduced -- I don't consider my home tongue to be either pure Scots or pure English, but a mixture of the two.

As for the Gaelic/Irish thing -- I'll update it to refer to "Classical Gaelic", the name given in the article Scottish Gaelic for the shared literary tongue.

Prof Wrong (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Inglis and English are the same word just as Gàidhlig and Gaoidhelg are the same word, different only in the manner in which the word was spelt in different points in history. Changing "Gaelic" to "Classical Gaelic" isnt really necessary but its a fair enough edit so il leave it as youve left it. siarach (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I've not changed the Scots/English thing again, you'll see that (as is the case with the Liosmor book) Gaelic CH becomes Scots CH, not English GH (compare Scots & SSE "loch" with Hiberno-English "lough") and that Gaelic slender T is rendered with a T, not an English (T)CH (as in itch).

But that surely is a Scots feature, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

While that isnt really relevant to the debate (as i pointed out at the start the issue of Scots and its distinctiveness isnt really here or there) the verse in the Fernaig manuscript frequently fluctuates between using CH and GH (not to mention some other combinations) to correspond to the Gaelic CH sound. If the author had been disciplined in his writing and stuck strictly to a uniform method of spelling it might be possible to tie the book to a specific form of English orthography but the reality is that his writing is completely inconsistent even within itself and it is thus impossible to say anything more specific than that he used a system of orthography which was based upon generally english principles. siarach (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it OK to call Scots a "form of English" while not calling Gaelic "a form of Irish"? After all, Gaelic did evolve from what we call "Old Irish" or "Middle Irish".

(Just to be clear, I'm not trying to do down Gaelic here -- idir idir; I'm just trying to provide a comparison to show what I see as a flaw in your logic.)

If the orthography is a mixture of features of Scots and English, then it is neither Scots nor English. Had it been a mixture of features from eg. French and Medieval Latin, it would not be correct to call it Latin orthography, would it, despite French being a descendant of Latin.

Prof Wrong (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"How is it OK to call Scots a "form of English" while not calling Gaelic "a form of Irish"? After all, Gaelic did evolve from what we call "Old Irish" or "Middle Irish"."

Because Scots IS a form of English (be it as dialect or as another language) while Gaelic is a form of Gaelic. You made an analogy earlier by comparing the description of Scots as English to saying French is a form of Italian. While your use of this analogy was invalid it is quite pertinent with regard to the Gaelic languages. It is no more valid to refer to Scottish Gaelic as a form of "Irish" than it is to refer to Portugese/Romanian/Catalan etc as forms of Italian. Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic and Manx all share a common ancestor. This does not make them all "Irish" anymore than the fact that the Latin language originated in what is now known as Italy and where the modern form of Latin is known as Italian can retrospectively confer upon every Romance language the status of being an Italian dialect. The name for every native name for every Gaelic language is "Gaelic" - not Irish. It has always been thus. References to "Middle Irish"/"Old Irish" etc rather than the more correct "Middle Gaelic"/"Old Gaelic" are anachronistic, misleading and needlessly promotes the use of an exonym "Irish" in an inaccurate manner. The fairly common (although increasingly less so) use of "Irish" to refer to non-Irish forms of Gaelic is a result of both chauvinism/hibernocentrism within Irish circles - popular and academic - as well as the situation within Scotland which saw the english speaking population begin to denigrate the Gaelic language as "Irish" around the same time they usurped the title of "Scottis" for their own form of English. The attempts to disassociate Gaelic from Scottish identity were long running (see John Pinkerton for one example) and are still very keenly felt.

"If the orthography is a mixture of features of Scots and English, then it is neither Scots nor English."

English is exactly what it is because English covers BOTH the Scots variety of Northern English as well as the far more common and dominant Southern English. Your analogy with French and Medieval latin (and in a situation where a mix of those languages was the case the description should simply state that the manuscript is written in a mixture of Latin and early French) is interesting but not relevant because we do not know that this manuscript is a mix of English varieties - all we know is that it is written in an English form. siarach (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"The name for every native name for every Gaelic language is "Gaelic" - not Irish. It has always been thus.

That's beside the point -- we are not writing in a native Goidelic/Gaelic language, we're writing in English, and the terms Middle and Old Irish have the weight of more use behind it that Middle and Old Gaelic.

References to "Middle Irish"/"Old Irish" etc rather than the more correct "Middle Gaelic"/"Old Gaelic" are anachronistic, misleading and needlessly promotes the use of an exonym "Irish" in an inaccurate manner. The fairly common [...] use of "Irish" to refer to non-Irish forms of Gaelic is a result of both chauvinism/hibernocentrism within Irish circles

And how is the use of "English" to refer to a language family spoken in parts of Scotland for longer than many parts of England not chauvanistic, anachronistic or anglocentric? How is not an inappropriate exonym?

I remembered the word we need here while taking a shower: Anglic. I've put that in the article in place of English. Prof Wrong (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anglic and English mean exactly the same thing. The difference being that English is a historically valid word while Anglic is a neologism invented because some find the word "English" to be somewhat discomforting. siarach (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And considering Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and the fact that "Anglic" is most certainly a neologism and a very rarely used one - even on wikipedia, while outwith wikipedia its use is practically non-existant; ive yet to find an online dictionary which features it for example Collins,Dictionary.com - there isnt any sound reason for its use when it is both advised against by wikipedia guidelines and infinitely more obscure than simply using "English" which is the appropriate term. Indeed as the Anglic article itself states this very obscure and rarely used term is generally only whipped out when one deliberately wishes to make a distinction between, or to suggest that a distinction exists, between Scots and English and any distinction - whether hypothetical, extant or non-existant - between these languages simply is not relevant to this article. What IS relevant is the fact that the verse within the Fernaig manuscript was written in an non-Gaelic, English-influenced, form. siarach (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no other word that is unambiguous and no alternative that is not politically charged. Avoiding neologisms is all well and good, but when the only other terminology available is misleading and counter-educational, what else can we do?

We don't call Sweden and Denmark "Norwegian contries", and we don't call their languages "Norwegian languages". We call them Nordic (or occasionally Norse).

But Norse, Nordic and Norwegian are etymologically the same thing.

And similarly we don't talk about German languages, we say Germanic languages.

No family of languages has the same name as one of the languages in it because it's just not clear otherwise. Anyone reading the article now would be thinking of the language of London, not the most geographically diverse family of languages on the face of the planet.

The fact is that a word which makes that distinction is necessary and because of historical chauvinistic anglocentricism there is no historically established word, only the neologism Anglic.

Prof Wrong (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV wikipedia is not somewhere to campaign on linguistic-political issues. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But surely calling Scots a type of English isn't a NPOV? With Germanic, Nordic etc we have a neutral term, but English is geographically very specific. Prof Wrong (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

English is spoken in North America, Australasia and elsewhere, yet why is it the only people who ever complain about this "geographically very specific" term are (nationalist?) Scots? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the terminological status quo supports the myth of the origins of the language as geographically English. IE ignorance. Can an encyclopedia support ignorance? Prof Wrong (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only ignorance, if it is, vis-a-vis a constructed "truth". Per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, wikipedia isn't the place undermine the establishment. That can be done anywhere else, but here we have an obligation to slavishly follow and regurgitate information from established sources, per WP:OR. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Scottish Gaelic is derived from Middle Irish, and the original language of Scotland would have been Pictish, which is now extinct. There is nothing amiss about calling the Scottish form of Irish by the term Scottish Gaelic. I think siarach is on a campaign to rename Old Irish by the term Old Gaelic, and Middle Irish by the term Middle Gaelic. I don't think Wikipedia is the place to be trying to change the facts of history by a renaming exercise. 78.19.177.239 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon, I don't see the relevance of these statements. If you are going to try to get personal with a good editor like An Siarach, can you at least have the courage to log in and identify yourself? This will likely encourage a distinction between constructive dialogue and wolf attack. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an account. Before I leave the office, one more question. Should Scottish Gaelic not be called Scottish-Irish? That would appear to be a more proper convention. 78.19.177.239 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its tempting to not bother replying to the anon user as he raises nothing that is relevant or particularly sensible but i feel compelled to acknowledge his post as i am specfically named in it. Old Gaelic and Middle Gaelic are indeed far more appropriate terms for the pre-medieval and medieval stages of the Gaelic languages but neither term is used anywhere near frequently enough to justify having the articles renamed regardless of how inappropriate Old Irish/Middle Irish are as terms referring to a pan-Gaelic, rather than purely Hibernian, historical stage of the Gaelic languages. Unfortunately for the anon user and his (i think its easy for us to assume) personal bias/agenda the facts of history are quite clear - this is after all what we've been debating. As for Pictish this was not the original language of Scotland. It was the original language of the northern third of the island of Great Britain (and arguably parts of Ireland - but thats something for another day ;)) but Scotland did not exist until it was created/named after the Scots. The Scots of course being defined as such by their language which was Gaelic.

"Should Scottish Gaelic not be called Scottish-Irish? That would appear to be a more proper convention"

If the convention is also to define Romanian and Portugese as "Romanian-Italian" - "Portugese-Italian", English as "English-German", Czech as "Czech-Russian" etc etc then yes absolutely. siarach (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry to have to point this out to you. But you are showing your "bias" by wanting to go against the naming convention of Old Irish, and Middle Irish etc. What is the problem for you with those 2 names. Are they far too Irish for your liking. The language emanates from the island of Ireland, and therefore it is named Old Irish, Middle Irish etc. Just as the language of Wales is called Welsh, the language of England is called English, the language of Italy is called Italian, the language of Poland is called Polish, the language of Russia is called Russian, the language of Germany is called German, the language of Sweden is called Swedish, the language of Egypt is called Egyptian, ad infinitum. QED 78.19.177.239 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, you're wrong. If Scottish Gaelic originates from Ireland(*) then it does so in the same way as French originates from Italy, in that Italy is the current name for the area where Latin originated. Old Gaelic was spoken in Scotland and even if Argyll was under the ultimate control of the High King of Erin, the word "Ireland" really is essentially a geographical term inappropriate to the west coast of Scotland.

The weight of published material on the matter does support the usage of Old and Middle Irish over Old and Middle Gaelic, but this clearly does not demonstrate a NPOV and obscures the well established historical fact that Gaelic has at least as long a history in Scotland as Lowland Scots(**). I agree with An Siarach that this usage of Irish is inappropriate for the historical language.

However, I feel the same applies with regards to English....

(*) Genetic evidence of the Celtic peoples of the British Isles places them all as having common ancestry in Iberia, so we can be pretty sure that the Scots Gaelic and Irish have a common ancestor in Celtiberian. We have no direct evidence of the migration path they took, but it seems fair to assume that they probably did migrate through Ireland before reaching Scotland. This genetic evidence lends weight to the Insular Celtic theory, which in turn lends weight to a migration via Ireland as a mechanism for the divergence of the Brythonic and Goidelic groups. But even if they did come via Ireland, was it long enough to really be considered the "place of origin", or was it a mere transit stop for a migrant race? The term "Irish" suggests we know the answer to this, when we clearly don't.

(**) The traditional date for the Gaels coming to Scotland has always been given as the 4th century, as per the histories of the Venerable Bede. This date has been taken for granted by most historians, but apparently (and I can't remember the guy who said it, or I'd add it to Scottish Gaelic), this has never been verified by the archaelogical records, which seem to show no change in the prevailing culture in Argyll from BC through to beyond the time of the supposed colonisation/invasion. Was Bede correct, or did the 4th century just see a merger or two kingdoms (one in Ulster, one in Argyll) by marriage, which would have then brought an existing kingdom under the Throne of Tara? In fact, the only historically verifiable immigration of Irish Gaels to Scotland at that time were the Irish Evangelists -- did Bede confuse the conversion of Scotland to Christianity with an invasion from Ireland?

Prof Wrong (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, the Scotti were attested to in Roman history. Irish was also spoken in parts of Wales. Pretty certain they moved around a bit. Time-lines are a problem with your theory if both Scottish Gaelic and Irish are both descended from Middle Irish. Argyll translates to "East Irish". It's bordering on incredulity if Scottish Gaelic and Irish broke away from each-other BC, or thereabouts. 78.19.31.100 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And who says that Gaelic and Irish are both descended from a uniform language called Middle Irish/Gaelic? Gaels unarguably arrived in Scotland before the start of the written tradition that is commonly referred to as Old Irish, so vernacular Scottish Gaelic is descended from a language (family) even older than "Old Gaelic" -- Primitive Irish, as it's generally called. You may also notice that the spoken language and the written language are rarely identical (I do not talk like this!) and written language is more uniform across a wider area than the spoken form (a West Country English speaker wouldn't necessarily understand me if I was speaking, but should have no problems understanding this text). Scottish Gaelic and Irish emerged from a family of spoken dialects that were approximated by the written Middle Gaelic.

Prof Wrong (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems as to where Old Irish was spoken, as it was spoken in parts of Wales too, and parts of Scotland too. Your theory is, and it's only a theory, that Primitive Irish is an Iberian language, and that it did not develop in Ireland. They say that any case can be argued or debated. Personally I would leave this debate to the learned professors of Ireland and Scotland, with some impartial ones thrown in for good measure and impartiality. 78.19.31.100 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"But you are showing your "bias" by wanting to go against the naming convention of Old Irish, and Middle Irish etc."

Err no. What im showing is the fact that i know enough about the subject (and it really doesnt take much) to point out that this old fashioned nomenclature isnt appropriate and is inferior to newer, increasingly common and nation-neutral, terms such as "Middle Gaelic" / "Old Gaelic" which are based upon terms native to ALL the relevant languages at all stages of history - "Gaelic" - rather than an inappropriate exonym like "Irish".

"What is the problem for you with those 2 names. Are they far too Irish for your liking."

They are far too inaccurate for my liking.

"The language emanates from the island of Ireland, and therefore it is named Old Irish, Middle Irish etc. Just as the language of Wales is called Welsh, the language of England is called English, the language of Italy is called Italian, the language of Poland is called Polish, the language of Russia is called Russian, the language of Germany is called German, the language of Sweden is called Swedish, the language of Egypt is called Egyptian, ad infinitum."

This is pure gold. Going on your first sentence English, German, Dutch etc should ALL be named "Swedish" as the Germanic peoples originated in the Scandinavian Peninsula and the same rule goes for every other language you name i.e. all Slavic languages are "Russian", all Romance languares are "Italian" - but then ive already pointed out the repercussions of applying your desired rule to all languares rather than just the one you would like to see it applied to, Gaelic. Hilariously you then immediately change to a different rule when you ramble on with a list of languages and the nations with which they are associated - languages which (as is the case with most reasonably historic nations) actually defined their nations. Russia was named after the Russians, England was named after the English, Wales was named for the Welsh etc etc and in exactly the same way Scotland was named for the Scots who were Gaels - the fact that the english population of Scotland belatedly (some 5 centuries or so after being conquered by the Scots and made a part of Scotland) fully assumed a Scottish identity and consequently usurped "Scottish" as a name for their variety of English doesnt have the slightest bearing upon this undeniable historical fact. The blatant inconsistency of your arguments and the mental backflips necessary to even think that you have a point are really somewhat impressive. Incidently what would you class as being the "Egyptian language"? The dialect of Arabic spoken in the nation we refer to as Egypt or the genuine Egyptian language, Coptic, which was the language of the original, pre-Arab, civilisation which gave Egypt it's name? Actually dont even bother answering. As much as im a glutton for punishment when it comes to arguing against inconsistent, anti-factual and entirely subjective points of view i can only be bothered spending so much time debating with those who combine not knowing what they're on about with a determination not to know what they're going on about (as the facts fly completely in the face of their POV) and a pretty fantastic mixture of shoddy thinking and subjectivity. siarach (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey siarach, what arrogance and conceit in your tirade. I am talking about Old Irish, and Primitive Irish, the languages of my country, which is Ireland. Also I would like to let you know that I was once a fluent speaker. If the only respect you can give to Scottish Gaelic is some "cock and bull story" of it being an Iberian language, then you show scant respect to its true origins. Write whatever you want about Scottish Gaelic, if that's how you would honour it, but please keep it in those confines. BTW, according to your spinning, Irish should be called Spanish. Don't spin too hard, you might get dizzy! 78.19.31.100 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey anon -- what ignorance and deceit in yours. It wasn't An Siarach who mentioned Iberia, it was me. And no, the fact that Irish came from Spain doesn't mean that Irish should be called Spanish, because Celtiberican probably came into Iberia through the south of France, having travelled across central Europe from Eastern Europe. In fact, if we trace the history as far back as Proto-Indo-European, well it could be from practically anywhere, but it's a fair bet it's further east than Ireland! But we can go back further and state that all language originated in Africa with homo sapiens. Where do we draw the line? How can we chose an arbitrary point in a continuous process of development and change and call in an origin? These notions of origin are an anachronism, dating back to a time when racism was institutionalised in science -- hell, even the word "racism" is "racist", because it still encodes the notion same notion as your talk of linguistic "origin": that there are different species of people. This is a flawed model that in biology has lead to genocide and in language has lead to the physical punishment of school pupils for speaking "wrong".

And as for the Iberian link being merely a "theory", well of course it is. Meanwhile, the idea that Gaels migrated from Ireland to Scotland is merely a "theory" too. It is the most commonly accepted theory, but there is no conclusive proof and sing the term "Irish" for the Gaelic family of languages implies that there is. Prof Wrong (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[An Siarach's post below refers to the post marked "78.19.31.100 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)". I have replies above it to preserve threading]

What the hell are you on about? That last comment of yours is taking irrelevance and nonsense to a new level.

" am talking about Old Irish, and Primitive Irish, the languages of my country, which is Ireland. Also I would like to let you know that I was once a fluent speaker."

Relevance?

"If the only respect you can give to Scottish Gaelic is some "cock and bull story" of it being an Iberian language, then you show scant respect to its true origins."

And where do i do this?

"BTW, according to your spinning, Irish should be called Spanish."

What in gods name are you talking about? According to YOUR rule Irish should be called Spanish - somethig i've pointed out several times. I say nothing of the sort. Honestly man differentiating between what people say and what you'd like them to have said might be some kind of start with regards to achieveing a semi-cogent standard of debate. siarach (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, my boss pays me 65-EUR per hour, and he expects me to be on the job. As much as I'd like to, I don't have the time to be responding to debate. I take it siarach, that you and the professor are singing from similiar hymn sheets. What I do know is that my ancestors spoke Irish, English and Welsh. 78.19.120.125 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At €65 per hour, I'm sure you can afford home broadband. Prof Wrong (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)