Talk:Primitive Irish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the consensus at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ivernic language, I merged the content from Ivernic language. --Deathphoenix 03:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Old Arguments Re-Forming???

Primitive Irish is Old Celtic in character ... It is barely recognisable as Irish. I doubt the former, and the latter is incorrect! Can anyone show a link to where this idea was obtained? Also: It is likely that Primitive Irish was an extremely conservative formal, ceremonial register of the language used by the learned and religious class of pagan Ireland, the druids. However, as Ireland converted to Christianity, the druids and their rituals and teachings were marginalised, replaced by a new language of learning: Latin. No longer restricted in its scope for change by the conservative druidic register, the vernacular register of Irish changed rapidly and radically. I think this, and the Ivernic stuff, is all as result of people confuseing all this with the Iarnbearla of the poets. Irish has being spoken in Ireland for at least five thousand years. No one has yet come up with any definitive evidence of any pre-Irish languages. Fergananim

And no-one is attempting to in this article. Primitive Irish is Irish, the direct ancestor of the modern language, but hadn't developed most of the distinctive characteristics of the modern language such as broad and slender consonants, initial mutations, consonant clusters etc. Transcribed ogham inscriptions look like Latin, Greek or Gaulish (without the letter p). All languages change, and the evidence is that Irish changed unusually quickly following the conversion. I will expand the article and try and make it clearer.

In any case, there's no way Irish has been spoken in Ireland for five thousand years. It's an Indo-European language, and Proto-Indo-European is barely that old. There must have been pre-Irish languages, we just can't say for certain what they were.--Nicknack009 07:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the first paragragh, okay. However, it is recognisably Irish - and by that I mean the earliest written forms, found on Ogham stones.

As to the second .... Well we'll just have to revise what we know of Indo-European then, and how our language fits into it. Because I genuinely believe that while there indeed may have being pre-Irish languges here, Irish - or its ancestral forms - has being spoken here for a very, very long time. Long before the first thousand years B.C. at any rate. Fergananim

Do you have any evidence for that, or do you just believe it? --Angr 05:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Let me get back to you on it. Personally? I am inclined to believe it, but am open to the suggestion that I may be wrong. Maybe I should be more strident! "No, I AM RIGHT!!!" Nah .... My position is to try and get to the truth, even if it means abadoning positions of my own in the face of facts. Fergananim

There are conflicting theories as to when the Irish Celts arrived in Ireland. I've seen everything from 350 BC to 1,000 BC. 5,000 years doesn't seem possible, however.Celsiana 03:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite your source for Irish having been spoken in Ireland for at least five thousand years, a claim which seems implausible, to say the least, on the basis of the linguistic evidence. CecilWard

[edit] speed change

No longer restricted in its scope for change by the conservative druidic register, the vernacular register of Irish changed rapidly and radically."

But one is comparing the Old Irish to a very archaic, and possibly very old form. We know from subsequent gaelic history, the offical orthography and written forms to by anywhere up to 8 centures behind speech. Is it not more likely the chnages in irish (lention/eclipsis, first phonological, later morphological) occured at a slower place, but only entered the historical record later? Sure, cultural upsets, such as the changes in leadership around 500-600AD to the classical Gaelic Septs (O'Neill, O' Rourke etc) may have increased linguitic chnage, but alingining it with the introduction of christianity etc is only constructing a dubious argument.

Also, the broad/slender distinction was accompanied by a 'neutral' set of consonants in Old Irish, and this continued even into the modern period in some places, however, it had lost its phonetic import perhaps in the late OI period. Why not argu it too existed in the primitive irish state? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.93.5.45 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to be sure whether there were really three sets of consonants in Old Irish; AFAIK most modern scholars believe there were actually only two: the same broad and slender sets as in Modern Irish. At any rate, the above claim certainly needs to be sourced, as it sounds like amateur speculation without a source. User:Angr 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 sets of consonants

Hi, twas me who wrote about the 3 sets due to a confusion after reading a paper by possibly Ní Chasáide (its a long time ago, but will try to find reference), comparing Irish and Russian phonology, where a comment is made about a 'neutral/plain' set of consonants. If I find the original, I can re-read it and get some clarity on the issue.

[edit] Triple consonants

Thurneysen, "A Grammar of Old Irish", (page 113-114, section 182 in my edition) makes mention of a third set, but adds they were not of "etymological" significence. They were lip rounded consonants, both it seems they were never phonemic.

[edit] Confusing

The letters V <-> B often interchange. For example, compare "Hebrew" which is rendered "Ivri" in the Masoretic texts. Thus, Iverni <-> Iberni, easily explaining the Roman references to Hibernia. So, I wonder if we don't ultimately have the "word evolution" of Iberni -> Iverni -> Eire -> Ireland. Lastly, there are Irish myths of Milesians coming from Spain (=Ibernia).... this could easily explain the origin of Iberni / Iverni.

I'm not sure who made the preceding comment, but in fact, "Iverni" would actually need to be considered in light of the fact that the V there was pronounced originally as a W (or possibly even a vowel U instead of the consonant W), not a V (remember Classical Latin spelling/pronunciation was altered later, and the spelling we're using here is based on Latin records). As such, the name of the people in question is sometimes given as "Iuerni." The phantasies of British Israelitism notwithstanding, the Iverni were *not* Hebrews! *Pace* the text Lebor Gabála Érenn; if it has any historical value at all, it should be subjected to a Wellhausen-esque treatment so as to separate the various Traditions that were cobbled together to form the redacted version of the story we have inherited. Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS CONFUSING... OLD IRISH = Q-CELTIC, GOIDELIC TONGUE... BUT IVERNIC = P-CELTIC. Why does "Ivernic" article redirect to "Primitive Irish", when they are unrelated, save for the fact that Ivernic (P-Celtic) may have given Old Irish a couple of "iron-speech" loan words? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ivernic" redirects to "Primitive Irish" because this is the article where the "Ivernic" hypothesis is discussed. It used to have an article of its own, but Wikipedia editors decided to merge the information to this article, because there's not enough to say about this hypothesis (which is not particularly widely held) to warrant an article of its own. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ivernic language. —Angr 06:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As use has been made (in fact, you've basically quoted me in a few places) of my article "Ivernian Heritage: The Érainn and Their Legacy" (currently being revised, and thus black text on black background), it should be cited as a reference, as it was in the old talk page of the "Ivernic Language" article: http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Biocrawler:Votes_for_deletion/Ivernic_language

The link to the current version of my article is here: http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/ivernianheritageversion5.msnw

I hope to have the revised version ready soon.

Croman mac Nessa 03:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody seemed to want to take action regarding possible violation of my copyright as noted above, I've added the citation that was "needed" and noted my article in the References. I've also reformatted the text colour on that one page, so it is now visible, but added the note at the top that the article is currently being revised. I did the research, five and six years ago, and if you're going to use my work, it should at least be acknowledged, whatever you may think of my religious and/or political views. Croman mac Nessa 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see what the old Ivernic language article looked like here, just click on the date that interests you. Talk:Ivernic language is still as it was. I had a quick look and I can't see a mention of "Ivernian Heritage: The Érainn and Their Legacy" in the history. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Check the VfD page linked at the bottom. The material in the page I gave the link for above (http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Biocrawler:Votes_for_deletion/Ivernic_language) was quoted from my website, and links were included. That is an independent record of the Ivernic Language VfD talk page; I remember seeing the VfD page myself once when doing a search on AOL for "Ivernic." I didn't mind the brief quotes because I was cited as the source (in fact, I was rather pleased to be used as a reference), and the quotes were brief (thus falling under Fair Use as long as proper attribution was noted, as it was), so I said nothing at the time (and I did not have an account with Wikipedia at the time anyway). What I find disturbing is that my work has been taken without permission or attribution. If people are going to reference my work, that fact should be noted (and the final paragraph from the "Possible external influences" section of the article *is* from my work, slightly paraphrased and rewritten a bit, with one additional quote from Sanas Cormaic; likewise, the first paragraph is primarily derived from my work). For the references to my article, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ivernic_language Croman mac Nessa 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hallo, Angus. I've replied to your comments on my Talk page in the same place. However, I notice when I go to the Primitive Irish Language article (or when I go to the link for "Ivernic Language" which redirects to the Primitive Irish Language article), even on another computer which hasn't been there (and so does not have the older version in its cache), that the "citation needed" link is still present and that my article is not included in the references. After refreshing, it appears as I have edited it, with the link to my article in the body of the text and my article included in the references. Will this be resolved any time soon? Croman mac Nessa 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It could be a caching issue. It certainly seems fine to me. The quotes at the AFD discussion should now be invisible to google. Let's see what happens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final sentence - Contradictory?

I removed the following sentence here for discussion:

It is difficult to argue from two words, but it could be that Ivernic was the language spoken in Ireland before any Indo-European languages arrived.[citation needed]

I have many problems with this sentence. First of all it is completely unsourced Original Research. Secondly (and the main reason I removed it), it contradicts the rest of the section. The section says that "Ivernic diverged from Gaulish". Gaulish was a Celtic language and, as such, is itself an Indo-European language.--WilliamThweatt 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted in my article on "Ivernian Heritage," the idea that the Ivernians were pre-Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles is now out-of-date (and has been for probably close to a century). Certainly they would be, genetically, of non-Indo-European origins, but the Ivernic *language* is not suggested to be anything other than a Celtic language (and thus, an IE language) by any serious linguist. Of the two words in question, "fern" definitely has cognates in other Celtic languages (e.g., "feàrr"), as also noted in my article. As such, it seems relatively evident that the Ivernian people themselves were Celtic, in the sense that "Celtic" is a linguistic (and more generally cultural) designation. I cannot recall having ever seen any suggestion that Ivernic is anything but an IE language. "Pictish," on the other hand, is a rather hazy term, and it may be safest to go along with Kenneth Jackson's suggestion that the Picts actually had two different languages, one being a Gallo-Brittonic form of Celtic called "Pretanic" and the other being non-Indo-European (and which could probably be differentiated from the Celtic language "Pretanic" by calling it "Pictish" or the like). However, neither "Pretanic" nor "Pictish" appear to have had much influence on Primitive Irish or its offspring, apart from the presence of some apparently Pretanic and/or Pictish loan-words into Gàidhlig: e.g., "pit" (cognate with Goidelic "cuit," "cuid"), "pailt," "obar," etc. Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa 08:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Difficult to recognise .. as Irish" - should be removed

I recommend that the comments that Primitive Irish is "difficult to recognise as a form of Irish" unlike Old Irish which "is recognisably Irish" should be removed, since they are vague, and are personal opinion (difficult for whom?). Difficulty is relative and personal. Of course, the author rightly points out that Primitive Irish does not clearly show some of the developments that came to characterise later forms of Irish, so there is clearly an important point to be made here about the very different character or PI. 80.176.79.109 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Britain

Great Britain contains England, Wales and Scotland.

Britain contains only England and Wales.

See http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Title/0340888008/Scottish_Higher_History_Britain_and_Scotland_1850s1979.htm

The 'Great' before Britain is in recognition of the addition of Scotland or Caledonia!

In the historical discussion of languages, it is surely more appropriate to use 'natural geographic terms and not 'political geographic' terms.

Eog1916 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, no. Britain == Great Britain == big island between Ireland and the Low Countries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The big island is called Great Britain ever since Britain and Scotland were united by the (1707) Act of Union. Scotland is now part of Great Britain, but not part of Britain ( England and Wales)! e Acts created a new state, the Kingdom of Great Britain, by merging the Kingdom of England (and Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland. The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, but had retained sovereign parliaments.Eog1916 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been Big Britain, when anyone has cared to distinguish it from the other one, ever since Armorica became Little Britain. And the Kingdom of Great Britain came into existence in 1707, not 1603. John Mair, who died long before 1603, never mind 1707, wrote a book on the history of "Greater Britain" (Historia majoris Britanniae, tam Angliae quam Scotiae, 1521: predictably, the Welsh were ignored). Long before that Welsh confabulator Geoffrey of Monmouth and English historian Roger of Wendover distinguished "Britannia minor" and "Britannia major" when discussing the legendary settlement of Armorica. Nothing happened in 1603 of any relevance to this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Angus, I wrote 1603 in error of course I ment 1707 when I wrote "The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, but had retained sovereign parliaments". That John Mair wrote his famous book probably accounts for the name Great Britain being adopted by the King as the name of the united kingdoms....but the name 'Britain' alone was not adopted you will surely notice! Perhaps you could postulate why not? What about Scotia major and Scotia Minor? Eog1916 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initial section Needs expansion

This article bad needs a proper first section on actual Primitive Irish itself, as it hardly discusses the character of Primitive Irish in any kind of depth before immediately whizzing straight _past_ this period to get on to discuss its development into Old Irish.

MacManus's "Guide to Ogham" and McCone's "Towards a Relative Chronology" would be a place to start. Any volunteers willing to help out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CecilWard (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] From 'Primitive Irish' to 'Primitive Irish Language'

Why call the language Irish when we don't distinguish Irish Gaelic from Gaelic until much later on in history? I would humbly suggest the title 'Proto-Gaelic', as this would be more likely to be accepted outside the Anglophile narrow confines of Trinity College Dublin. Lughlamhfhada 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is always called "Primitive Irish" in the academic literature. "Proto-" won't do, because the "proto-" prefix is reserved for protolanguages, which are by definition unattested, while Primitive Irish is attested. —Angr 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


OK. I must agree that 'Proto' is not of any help!

The nomenclature surrounding this subject is rather muddled and confusing, with a plethora of terms and lacking consistancy, at least to the casual observer.

Where does 'Pimitive Irish Gaelic' feature in terms of 'Archaic Irish Gaelic'?

The term 'Primitive' itself is also problematic, given its perjorative nature and the fact that it is not used (to my limited knowledge) for other languages which are attested to.

Wikidictionary gives four examples of the use of the adjective primitive, as follows;

  1. Of or pertaining to the beginning or origin, or to early times; original; primordial; primeval; first; as, primitive innocence; the primitive church.
  2. Of or pertaining to a former time; old-fashioned; characterized by simplicity; as, a primitive style of dress.
  3. Original; primary; radical; not derived; as, primitive verb in grammar.
  4. (biology) Occurring in or characteristic of an early stage of development or evolution.

I would guess that it is in the first category, that “Of or pertaining to the beginning or origin..”, that the term is used.

Even though it is simple enough to find languages of primitive cultures, there is no such thing as a 'primitive language' not even primitive Irish Gaelic.

An absolute proto-language, as defined by linguist Derek Bickerton, is a primitive form of communication lacking:

  • a fully-developed syntax
  • tense, aspect, auxiliary verbs, etc.
  • a closed (i.e. non-lexical) vocabulary


I have never read Latin scribes suggest that the language/s of the Celts were of such a nature, but the contrary, that they were highly articulate and valued the gift of oratory highly.

The Romans identified Ogmios as Hercules. He is depicted as an old man who was followed by a crowd with their ears attached to his mouth by a golden chain. This was to indicate he was the god of eloquence, keeping the crowd spellbound with his oratory.

The use of the term 'Irish' instead of 'Gaelic' is also not appropriate. The Gaels are an ethno-linguistic group which spread from Ireland to Scotland and the Isle of Man. "Gaelic" as a linguistic term, refers to the Gaelic language. The Gaelic language was/is spoken 'ó Chiaraí go Cataibh' (from Kerry to Sutherland) and the Gaelic heritage ( an dúchas agus an dáimh) still builds links between us on either side of Sruth na Maoile (North Channel nó Straits of Moyle) . The Gaelic poet Mac Gill-Eain (http://www.thesorleymacleantrust.org.uk/) explains it perhaps in the lines “ nach do reub an cuan, nach do mhill míle bliadhna.”

It is tantamount to turning history on its head to refer to the Gaelic language spoken in the 5th century as Irish instead of as Gaelic.

I would therefore like those interested to consider the term 'Early Old Gaelic' (nó sa nua-Ghaeilge 'Sean-Ghaeilge Luath') to replace the term 'Primitive Irish'.


With regard to the above comments ---
For more information on generally accepted academic linguistic nomenclature and dates connected with Primitive, Archaic, etc, see my article here:

http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/celtlanghist.msnw It's actually quite acceptable to refer to the language in question as "Primitive Irish" and not "Primitive Gaelic" or the like, because at the time in which the language in question was spoken, it was primarily spoken in Ireland, and not on Man or in Scotland (and where it was spoken in Scotland, was in a very small area initially; remember we're talking about a time period *before* AD 500, and the Gaelic language spread across Alba much later --- over 300 years later at the earliest; the sons of Erc didn't even themselves migrate to Alba till about AD 500, though there were Dál Riata colonising the west of Alba for some time prior to that). "Primitive Irish" is also sometimes called "Oghamic Irish," since it is the language in which the Ogham carvings are recorded --- that is, the Ogham carvings in Ireland. Records of Ogham from Scotland are quite often undecipherable, even by experts like Katherine Forsyth. If we assume, as Ms. Forsyth seems to, that all examples of these "Pictish" Oghams are purely in some form of Celtic (and most assume a Gallo-Brittonic dialect, which *is* most likely), then they should succumb to translation rather easily, but they are not all able to be translated, easily or otherwise (apart from what are rather obviously Brittonic proper nouns), which leads other scholars (such as the above-mentioned Kenneth Jackson) to suggest, in connection with the undeniable fact that the inhabitants are genetically primarily non-Indo-European and the fact that all forms of Celtic are Indo-European, that the people in question not only originally spoke a non-Indo-European language (which is undeniable), but also that they may have retained the use thereof for some time after adopting a Celtic dialect. In any case, it would not have been until the union of the "Scottish" and "Pictish" kingdoms under Cináed mac Alpín (Kenneth mac Alpine) in AD 843 or 844 that any Goidelic Celtic language ("Classic Old Irish," or "Old Gaelic," or whatever you want to call it) began to be widely spoken outside of the west of Alba. Prior to that time, the "Picts" would have been speaking a non-IE language and a Brittonic Celtic dialect (or at least a Brittonic Celtic dialect), and the Britons of Strathclyde would likewise have been speaking a Brittonic Celtic dialect probably at least until Cináed's grandson Eochaid (map Rhun) ascended the throne. Also, prior to that time, the people in Alba who were speaking the language in question would have had little problem with identifying Ireland as the place of origin of the language. Now, today, some 1200+ years on, yes, there are very definitely reasons to distinguish the three Goidelic Celtic languages from Ireland, and to acknowledge the national status of the three different nations, and to connect each of the three Goidelic Celtic languages with its particular nation (though perhaps Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia should also be considered in the case of Gàidhlig as a potential second nation where that language is spoken, but the tide there also needs to be turned back, just as it does in Scotland, or else it won't be too much longer before the speaking of Gaelic anywhere in Nova Scotia is just a memory except for the occasional tourist's visit). Point being, I am sensitive to what I believe are your motivations for the suggestion, but it's just not appropriate to project our own contemporary perspectives back into the early mediaeval period, and the weight of evidence suggests that there is no problem with continuing to refer to the language under discussion as "Primitive Irish." *After* AD 844, your case begins to become stronger (though we should probably go with "Goidelic" rather than "Gaelic"), because at that point the language begins to be spoken more widely than just Ireland and the west of Scotland, but it might be 600 years later before we could justifiably make the case for strong enough distinctions to argue in favour of differentiating "Irish" from "Gaelic" and recognising the two as separate languages instead of just dialects of one language. And still, replacing "Irish" with "Gaelic" in the name of the language in question simply removes one particularity and replaces it with another; "Gaelic" these days is most commonly used as the English designation for Gàidhlig, what used to be called "Scottish Gaelic." It's basically the same as replacing all instances of generic "he" with "she," which, as I'm sure you will recognise, does nothing to ameliorate the alienation felt by one group of people; all it does is alienate a different group of people. Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: I"t's actually quite acceptable to refer to the language in question as "Primitive Irish" and not "Primitive Gaelic" or the like, because at the time in which the language in question was spoken, it was primarily spoken in Ireland, and not on Man or in Scotland.."

The point that I make is that it is not the land but the people who should name a language! 'Ireland' was not conceived until much later. The Gaels spoke this language and it should be named after them, this is in keeping with what native speakers of the language do themselves. Eog1916 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way it works at Wikipedia. We use the common English names for things, not names based on our nationalistic ideas of how things "should" be. Primitive Irish is called Primitive Irish in the vast majority of the English-language literature on the topic. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I understood that Wikipedia precluded one from attempting to insult contributers! Perhaps you got a special exemption! "Revivalists who associated the language with nationalism preferred to call the language ‘Irish’ in order to give it a national image" ( ref Ultach Trust: FAQ). It is therefore tantamount to playing the 'Green Card, using the term 'Irish' instead of 'Gaelic' and it seems that the majority of Protestant and Unionist opinion ( in Northern ireland) agree with me. Eog1916 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop trying to pick a fight - there are no insults in Angr's comment. Speaking as a protestant from Northern Ireland, "the majority of Protestant and Unionist opinion ( in Northern ireland)" has absolutely nothing to do with academic usage regarding names of languages. Many of the people who established these usages were 19th century Germans, and your "green card" would have meant less than nothing to them. Most people don't see the world through the tribal filters you seem determined to apply where they're not appropriate. Now: Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, follows academic usage. Academic usage is that the earliest stage of the language that can be more or less completely understood is called "Old Irish", and the stage before that, which is attested but not in enough detail to reconstruct its grammar and vocabulary, is called "Primitive Irish". If you don't like that, write to the linguistics journals. You won't change it by renaming a Wikipedia article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's absurd to suggest that the name "Irish" is used only by "Revivalists who associated the language with nationalism preferred to call the language ‘Irish’ in order to give it a national image" when "Irish" has been the language's English name for at least a millennium. It was called Īrisc already in Old English; I'm pretty sure there was no word *Gǣlisc at the time. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is it called Īrisc? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, I don't have a concordance of Old English words to hand. If you have access to the OED, it probably says there. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 11:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, it gives one instance (Certis’, qua{th} {th}e bysschop [Aidan] an yrischs, ‘Ic wepe for {th}is king). Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds more like Middle English than Old English. Does it give the year? I wonder what the oldest attestation of the word "Gaelic" in English is. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Also, it's absurd to suggest that the name "Irish" is used only by "Revivalists..." Sorry, but I did not suggest this. In no way would I consider you a Revivalist or even a Nationalist! Over time we change terminology, for example we don't refer to the Afro-American population as 'Blacks' or to the Gaelic as 'Erse'. Indeed it was Scottish English ( Scots) speakers who called the language spoken by the Highlander 'Irish'. John Prebble (in his book about the Glencoe massacre), alludes to 'mí-rún mór nan Gall’. "First, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Gaelic of Ireland , Scotland , and Man differed in any respect before the tenth century ; and on the contrary, there is a body of decisive positive evidence tending to show that so far as we can tell they were identical. Second , Eastern, and Western Gaelic continued to be one language, sharing many new developments in common from the tenth until the thirteenth century; but at the same time there are one or two significant indications , the oldest belonging to the tenth century, which point to the beginning of divergence between them. Third, the final break between East and West in the spoken tongue came in the thirteenth century.."(Ref: Jackson,K. “Common Gaelic” Proceedings of the British Acadamy 37/1951, 91-92) Eog1916 (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)