Talk:Ogham inscription
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is intended as a list, giving the bare inscription contents plus location data. There can always be dedicated articles about individual inscriptions, e.g. you can copy-paste most of [1] to CIIC 1. dab (ᛏ) 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Question?
Can I ask why in the "Orthodox" section, Ireland and Wales have their own tables, but Scotland, Mann and England are grouped together? Where is the sense in that? Is it a number thing? And also, Shetland is in Scotland, so why is there is there a table categorized "Scotland, Shetland" in the "scholastic" box? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- the list is still a stub. I put the inscriptions under rough geographic headers, following Macalister if I remember correctly. If you decide to work on expanding the list, feel free to re-organize the headings. dab (ᛏ) 11:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proper Ogham Formatting?
I've noticed that some Ogham texts on this page have space marks buffering the opening and closing feather marks from the letters ( ᚛ ᚑᚌᚆᚐᚋ ᚜ ), whereas others don't ( ᚛ᚑᚌᚆᚐᚋ᚜ ). I was wondering what the convention is on this, if any? -Wikilackey 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- these are leftovers from before the article was split off Ogham. I see no reason for keeping them at all, since they add no information. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Display of UTF-8 chars in Firefox
This doesn't work, at least for me. I get a series of question marks, presumably in place of ogham characters. I'm going to try it with Internet Explorer now to see if there's a difference. --Mal 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Got side-tracked there! OK, so that doesn't necessarily explain why it also doesn't work for Internet Explorer. Is there a list of Web Browsers that the characters do work for anywhere..? Cheers. --Mal 10:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I downloaded a couple of fonts. Its not so much a "technical issue" as you don't necessarily have a font installed that's capable of displaying the characters.. apparently. Maybe that's "technical" for some right enough. Great page for this is here.
The ogham characters look tiny on the page though - I have to increase the font size in my browser quite a bit in order to see the individual strokes etc. --Mal 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The English Ogham example
Not having read MacManus' book, I am puzzled by his suspicion of the one example from England: it was recovered during the complete (& sadly insufficently scientific) excavation of Silchester in the late 19th century, found in a well. I can provide a cite to Frere's Britannia to show this is just not some figument of my imagination. -- llywrch 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. After further eading of this article, I found it mentioned under CIIC 496. Although I'm still puzzled why this article quotes McManus' totals without further comment. I'm unaware of any reason the Silchester ogham inscription would not be considered as falling the "primitve Irish" period. -- llywrch 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ogham Keyboard
Anyone who's interested in typing in Ogham can get a keyboard layout from here. As far as I know, it will only work with Windows 2000/XP; it might work on Vista. Wikilackey 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the plug. I just got a new laptop with Vista yesterday, and have just failed to install the keyboard layout on it. I think I need to use the new version of MSKLC in order for it to work on Vista. I'll try to update all my keyboard layouts sometime this week.BabelStone (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've now updated my Ogham and other keyboard layouts to work under Vista.BabelStone (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Silchester Ogham Stone
I have deleted the unreferenced assertion that the authenticity of the Silchester Ogham Stone inscription is contested by scholars. The CISP page for the stone (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/stone/silch_1.html) makes no mention of any doubts about the inscription's authenticity, and the latest study of the stone by Fulford et al. ("A New Date for Ogham: the Silchester Ogham Stone Rehabilitated" in Medieval Archaeology 44 pp 1-23) confirms its authenticity. If there are some scholars that still question its authenticity then any such statement should be supported by the appropriate references.BabelStone (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)