Talk:Irish language/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Ref to Gaelic and Irish Gaelic in lead section

Apologies if this is going over old ground, but given the edits of some anons, this doesn't seem to have gone away. Granted the anons could very likely be the same user, and as such the edits are not indicative of anything remotely reaching CON for removal. However these edits would seem to suggest that at least a discussion is in order. Personally I agree that, because some people (rightly or wrongly) use these labels, they should be ref'ed in the article. However, I don't think it needs to be in the lead section. The various names (with additional context about where and when they are used) are already dealt with in the relevant section. Personally I think that's enough. Putting these labels in the lead gives them too much weight and suggests a measure of legitimacy. A problem in my view given that these labels have been recognised by most editors as at least suspect (and at worst simply incorrect). Recommend we find a way to reword the lead to tone them down (or simply remove and let "names" section cover it). Other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe Gaelic is also used to refer to the Goidelic language of Scotland, beside Scottish Gaelic. Scottish Gaelic is even the proper name of the language. So maybe the article could just mention that the two other names are not official, but still in moderately widespread use? So far, most people I've talked to from America refer to the language as Gaelic, maybe because they think of Irish as Hiberno-English. Also, aside from that, I don't think the Gaelic Athletic Association concerns all Gaelic people either, only those in Ireland. And while that refers to the people and not the language, language and culture are often linked, so it could be said that even in Ireland itself, 'Gaelic' is somewhat synonymous with 'Irish', even if the language is generally not called Gaelic. CodeCat (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. However I suppose what I was trying to find out was whether other people thought that 'Gaelic' or 'Irish Gaelic' were sufficiently broadly used for it to be mentioned in the opening sentence. Personally I don't. Not least because they're already ref'd (as they should be) in the name section, and may cause problems in the lead where no context is provided to explain the "conflict with other uses" issues you allude to. Guliolopez (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, just my twopence worth, but... While it is indeed true that the vast majority of people in Ireland and the UK use "Irish" without an qualifier to describe the language there are still many people, both for and against the Irish language, who refer to it as "Irish Gaelic" or simple "the Gaelic". On the other side of the pond "Irish Gaelic" or simply "Gaelic" is the term used by a very substantial minority - if not a slim majority. I know I have personally heard (although anecdotal and therefore not reliable as a source) a group of people talk about "Irish Gaelic", "Scottish" and "Scotch" where we on this side of the pond speak of "Irish", "Scottish Gaelic" and "Scots". Although the names are discussed in the name section, many potential readers of the article may have moved on before getting that far. Where there are alternative names that enjoy widespread popularity, even if that popularity is non-existant in the original territory, then they should be included. Obviosuly terms such as "Erse" should be left out of the LEDE and discussed in more detail in the names section, but "Gaelic" should remain in the lead. At least, that's my own opinion on the matter anyway. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 05:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The names "Irish Gaelic" and "Gaelic" are indeed used for this language, particularly in older sources and parlance. Imprecision and conflict with other uses aren't good reasons to remove a common term. We wouldn't remove the common term "Pennsylvania Dutch" from the Pennsylvania German language article simply because the name isn't precise; regardless of whether the language is Dutch or not, that's what it's usually called.Cúchullain ^t/c 12:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for it to be in the lead section as well as the name section. It only reinforces the incorrect term for the Irish language as 'Gaelic'. If you go to any bookshop in the world and look for a Gaelic dictionary, you will end up with a Scottish Gaelic dictionary, not Irish. Accamedically, the language is called Irish, and that is what the vast majority of Irish people call the language. Should we start calling Welsh 'Brythonic'? Anyway, I think it should be removed from the lead section, but no doubt that one Wikipedia user will get his way as usual. Wiki01916 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I know perfectly fluent speakers of Irish who use the term "Gaelic". And it is Goidelic that corresponds to Brythonic. There is nothing wrong with "Gaelic" being retained in the lead. -- Evertype·✆ 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Irish is the most common name in Ireland, and so per WP:TIES is the one the article uses; but there are lots of people outside Ireland who wouldn't know what Irish language refers to (a dialect of English?), but many of them have heard of “Gaelic” at some point, so mentioning alternative names helps them realize what the article is about. (For example, Gasoline mentions petrol, truck mentions lorry, etc.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I lived in Ireland for about 15 years and I don't recall ever hearing anyone refer to the language as anything other than "Irish". I would go so far as to say that some people took exception to the language being referred to as "Gaelic". The language is officially called Irish. I don't think Wikipedia should be listing incorrect usage no matter how common. Self determination is the important thing here. I think the people of Ireland are entitled to call their native tongue whatever they see fit. Sue De Nimes (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaeilge/Irish. As an Irishman,I am constantly amazed at the confusion of foreigners on this issue. The matter can be simply explained. "Gaeilge" is the name of the language in Irish, and "Irish" is the name of the language in English, just as "Deutsch" and "Italiano" are the names of these languages in German and Italian respectively, but "German" and "Italian" in English.

Germans do not say "I speak Deutsch" any more than an Irishman would say "I speak Gaelic". If they are speaking English, they would say "I speak German" or "I speak Irish", respectively. I am baffled that this seems to cause confusion for foreigners in Ireland, when the concept must be readily understandable to them regarding other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.118.29 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Revisit

Yet another anon has removed "Gaelic" from the intro (and in this case replaced it with "Gaeilge"). The opening sentence is now doubly redundant (as it ref's "Gaeilge" twice - first as native name and second as alternate label). I can't conscience re-adding "Gaelic" again myself (as, though sometimes used, it's misleading). Can we just remove it so the opener reads as below? Guliolopez (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish (Gaeilge), also known as Irish Gaelic, is a Goidelic language....

I'm going to be BOLD and remove the unattached Gaelic as per your suggestion above. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Gaeilgeoir"

I've removed the following line from the lead paragraph:

A speaker of the language may be called a Gaeilgeoir both in Irish and in English.(ref)Watson, Iarfhlaith (1998), "Teilifís na Gaeilge as a Public Sphere", Irish Communications Review, ISSN 0791-0010, retrieved 08-07-2011 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)(/ref)

I've explained my reasoning in the above section, and here I'll just add that the reference given does not directly address the issue. However, the usage in the article seems more supportive of my view than of the claim on behalf of which it's enlisted. The writer consistently refers to the "Gaeltacht/Gaeilgoir public sphere", which suggests that the term "Gaeilgeoir" does not, for him, necessarily encompass Gaeltacht speakers of Irish. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish Scottish and manx Gaelic

My understanding is that all three languages are developed from one common original language, rather than Irish being the ancestor and displacing the former indigenous languages of Scotland and the Isle of Man. If this is thought to be wrong I certainly would like to see a very reliable source for the claim. Dabbler (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's correct that they developed from a common language, but the ancestor is an old form of Irish: Old Irish (the page for Goidelic languages says even Middle Irish is a common ancestor). It's really more a matter of naming, whether Old Irish is considered Irish or not. In a sense, Scottish Gaelic and Manx are no less Irish than modern Irish is, except for the fact that they're not spoken in Ireland. A similar situation exists with Afrikaans and Dutch as well, or even between British and American English. They both descended from a common ancestor a few hundred years ago, and they are both equally 'English' or 'Dutch' from a linguistic point of view. CodeCat (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it should be made more clear in this Irish language article which I understood to be on the modern language, that there is a common Older Irish language from which all three are descended not as it seems to say that Scottish and Manx are descended from modern Irish through some sort of colonisation process.Dabbler (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Scottish and Manx are indeed descended from a language spoken by colonists from Ireland, which displaced the former indigenous languages of Scotland and the Isle of Man. This language is referred to as Old Irish. It's called Irish because it was the language of Ireland. It's called "Old" because Irish has changed a lot since then. This account of the relationship between Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic is very well accepted and I'm not aware of any strong grounds to doubt it. garik (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is so well known and understood then it will be easy for you to proivide a reliable reference for this claim. I just would like to see some evidence. Dabbler (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I added one almost six hours ago. garik (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict while I was posting the following. In reviewing the article, I see that you have provided a reference and rewaorded the passage a bit. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also added a couple more, from a particularly comprehensive volume on the Celtic languages. I've added the Google books urls if you want to read the sections for yourself. garik (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Native speakers

The info box at the top of the article claims that there are 1.7 million native speakers in Ireland and 95,000 in the UK. Is this someone's idea of a joke? An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The first figure's based on the census, and appears to include anyone who has some knowledge of Irish, as explained in the introduction. I'm not sure exactly where the UK figure comes from, but I would guess from the 2004 census. It may suffer from the same problem. To be honest the infobox should probably be edited to include something more realistic (or at least to make clear that 1.7 million should be taken with a pinch of salt). garik (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It used not say that. I suspect that what has happened is that someone has edited a parameter on Infobox Language to make it display "Native speaker" as the label for the "speaker" parameter (update: template talk page seems to confirm this). I have requested assistance on Template_talk:Infobox_language#Native_speakers and will comment out the mistaken information in the meantime. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

According to our lead, 1.7M is not even correct as the number of L2 speakers, as many of them admittedly speak little Irish. I added the figs from the most recent source in our lead, the 2004 Irish Examiner article, which says 40k native and 260k fluent in Ireland. However, Ethnologue has the 260k figure as being from the 1983 census, so the Examiner data would seem dubious. (Newspapers are typically a terrible source for ethnographic info.) I think we need an actual RS on the number of native speakers, as well as the number of fluent speakers (not just the number of people who have had it in school), and combined Ireland–UK. (Ethnologue has 95k in the UK, but I suspect that isn't native, not if Ireland is 40k.) — kwami (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The ELL2 (2006), repeating its first ed. (1994), says,

Native speakers of Irish have been recently estimated at around 2%, perhaps 60 000 in all, with about 10 000 living in viable language communities in two western countries. In addition, there are families in English-speaking areas where both parents are fluent Irish learners and where Irish is the everyday language. There are no estimates of the numbers of such families, but a figure of around 2% of the population would not be unreasonable.

Now, 2% is not 60,000, but this should at least tell us if other sources are in the ball park. — kwami (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, which are the "two western countries"? We should add them to the states where Gaelic is spoken. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you missed L2 as in your other language template edits and on this page before you edited it ?Jembana (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would've added it if I knew how many there were. But we don't really know even how many L1 speakers there are. The current figure is little better than a guess, and dated at that. If you have a good source, please add it in! — kwami (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the Irish Central Statistics Office, Census 2006 Volume 9 page 11 has 1.7 million as the number of Irish language speakers in 2006. This includes L1 and L2 and is an underestimate because the footnotes say that people who didn't bother answering this question were lumped in non-Irish speakers. I'll put it up with the URL.Jembana (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This was mentioned at the beginning of this section. Those aren't all L2 speakers; many of them hardly know any Irish. — kwami (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, if that were true, there would be parts of Ireland where you could address a stranger in Gaelic. I came across one ref that said this hasn't been done for 200 years. — kwami (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you have reverted a valid reliably referenced statement without providing counter-references which is against Wikipedia policy. Please provide your counter references to justify your claims.BTW when I was in Ireland last a few years ago, I greeted people outside Dublin in Irish and got a torrent of Gaeilge back each time so your claim seems dubious to me.Jembana (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not my claim. — kwami (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article? Right in the lead we have a referenced statement that "While census figures indicate 1.66 million people in the Republic with some knowledge, a significant percentage of these know only a little Irish."

We had a 2004 ref that there were 260,000 fluent speakers in Ireland. However, another editor agreed with me that it was a bit dicey taking it as a RS. It is, however, consistent with the ELL estimate that perhaps 2% speak it natively and another 2% live in non-native Irish-speaking households. — kwami (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference used is 1991 - the Census figure of 1.66 million is from the 2006 Census !!! The lead has been compromised by edits. Please be careful before you maintain such certainties on feet of clay.Jembana (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, but the point is still valid. Self reporting isn't any more reliable now than it was then. When we have huge discrepancies in reports of the numbers, we need to find RSs from linguistic surveys, not newspaper articles or self-identification. — kwami (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there is such a survey by The Independent - the figure 15% of the population (over 3) comes up again and again - these are people speaking Irish every day or 538,283 from the 2006 census question - see the following and the 2006 census PDF link I used as a reference:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110223004108AAWVCAw (see last answer)

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110616025223AAMDEiC

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090818194702AAEbMlD

Hope this helps.Jembana (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction, that was 3 years and over - the 538,283 daily speakers figure comes from the following:

http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=75642

453,207 who speak it daily within the education system only 31,605 within the education system who speak it also outside the education system 53,471 who are outside the education systemJembana (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say from that how many are fluent. Presumably the 85k who speak it daily outside school are (and they may be mostly native speakers), but how many of the others?

The Independent survey would be interesting to see, though by itself it wouldn't mean much. But if we get a bunch of independent non-RS's that cluster together, that fact would be significant. — kwami (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The 2 last figures would seem add up to your native speakers figure by and large - I'd say it represents the Gaeltacht parents and their kids. See what I can find.Jembana (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just seeing all this... does the source in this edit really say there are 1.66 million speakers of Irish in the Republic alone (I can't read the tables right now). That's ridiculous on its face. Presumably the figure includes anyone with some knowledge of Irish at all (or claims to have)? This needs to be sorted out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the number who self-reported, not actual L2 speakers. It doesn't mean they're native or even fluent, just that they picked up enough in school to feel they're able to say they speak it. Census reports may be okay for immigrant languages, but not for anything emotionally charged. — kwami (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to do something with the wording then, because now the paragraph is just dumping numbers without indicating why they're different. The Census figure should at least indicate that that number is the number who reported being able to speak the language to a degree.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, where did you get the 2011 Irish speaker Cenus results from ? The link only give preliminary results for the 2011 census and no Irish speaker results of yet. Are you confusing the 2011 Census with the 2006 results I pointed you to last night ?Jembana (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Those edits do not pass WP:VERIFY, another mistake kwami - the number of daily speakers should be 85,000 from the 2006 census figures - also see the following to verify that this is the correct interpretation of the census figures:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/vow-to-triple-our-irish-speakers-2470030.htmlJembana (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically, you left out the kids who speak it outside of school figure - including them gives the 85,000 (your figure left out the Gaeltacht and Gaelgoire kids).Jembana (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, you're right, they're 2006. I don't see where the Independent gets 83k from, though: Outside ed + daily = 85k may be closest, if we assume that 'also outside ed' means 'daily'. Maybe it's a typo? — kwami (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks right now :)Jembana (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any information on the number of "Irish-only" speakers available? --91.115.118.137 (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Even the particle use with "yes-no" questions is not an Irish specialty

Did you know? Probably not. Here's what the current version of the article says: None of these features are peculiar to Irish, however. All of them occur in other Celtic languages as well as in non-Celtic languages: morphosyntactically triggered initial consonant mutations are found in Fula and Shoshoni; VSO word order is found in Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew; and Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Catalan and Galician have two different forms for "to be". The use of prepositional pronouns recalls the Semitic languages, as well as some lesser-known European languages such as Venetian. All true. And there is something missing here: the use of particles for yes-no questions, like: An ndéanann sé an obair? (Does he do the work?) The "an" is the particle here. When reading, this immediately recalled Finnish: Haluatko kahvia? (Do you want (some) coffee?) But it makes no sense putting that in the article if even the Irish grammar article doesn't mention these particles in questions anywhere. -andy 77.191.196.29 (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Except "an" is not a particle. A particle in linguistics has no inflected forms. "an" is an inflected form of the Irish copula "is", along with "ní", "ba", "nach", etc. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 00:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case of "An ndéanann sé an obair?", "an" is indeed an interrogative particle. There is no copula in that sentence. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Polish czy is also used like that. CodeCat (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Comhairle, a complete and utter misreading on my behalf. The word "an" can be used as a copula, but in the sentence given it clearly is not acting as a copula and indeed as an interogative particle. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure ní bhíonn saoi gan locht a Mhic Tíre! ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact of immigration

So, and quite irrespective of the politics of the matter, is it the case that Ireland is now host to more immigrants each year than fluent speakers of Irish? What about a section on the impact of immigration policies, and maybe less 'controversially' studies regarding the likely impact of de-listing an teanga as a requirement {i.e. students choosing to speak it, internal locus of control/choice, are much more likely to speak it well}. Don't want to add w/o some small disc. {?} 38.111.36.79 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)jpt {p.s. Scottish myself, and grandparents spoke Cape Breton Gaelic which is basically dead as a vernacular}

Irish number words

Irish have a special way of counting people] and odd way of using Irish Language Numbers.--Pawyilee (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So what about Irish number words? --Pawyilee (talk) 12

52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole section here, but if you want to create a new article along the lines of Welsh numerals, go ahead. It's only worth doing if it contributes something that the Irish grammar article doesn't already, and if it's well sourced, bearing in mind that self-published sources like http://www.irishlanguagetoday.com aren't considered reliable sources. garik (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Although I see that you're a fairly experienced editor, so you probably don't need me to tell you how to write articles.) garik (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The description of Irish in South Armagh should be removed from the introduction

The following paragraph is the third paragraph in the introduction section:

"Significantly the language hung on in at least one area on the east coast of Ireland — far away from the usual west coast Gaeltacht areas — this was in the area of 'Oirghialla' — the remnant of a vast Gaelic territory that once encompassed Down, Armagh, Tyrone, Meath and Louth — but now just the few parishes of Mullaghbane (An Mullach Bán), Dromintee (Droim an Tí) and Killeavy (Cill Shléibhe) in South Armagh, and the contiguous area of Omeath (Ó Méith) in County Louth. The language was spoken in this area up to the 1920s and the last native speakers died in the 1950s. A vibrant revival has seen the language take off in the area with pre-school playgroups and primary schools and the language is probably more widely spoken now in the area than at any time in the last 50 years."

While this paragraph is worth including in Wikipedia, it is too specific and too out of context to be included in the current version of the article "Irish Language", and definitely should not be included in its introduction section. I strongly suggest moving this paragraph to the article "Irish Language in Northern Ireland". Roy 82.166.185.230 (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Native to?

In the infobox, the "native to" section is a mess. At the moment, it says Irish is native to Argentina, to Belgium, to Canada, to the US etc. Apparently somebody has misunderstood what "native to" means, it does not mean every place in the world where some native speaker(s) might live. Irish is native to the island of Ireland. If we want to say that Irish is native to Canada, the US or Australia, we would have to add those countries to virtually every infobox as there are at least 100-200 languages (very conservative estimate) with more native speakers in Canada, the US and Australia. Sure, Irish speakers once emigrated to all of these countries in considerable numbers, but these days there are no Irish speaking communities in either of them. Argentina and Belgium are even weirder.Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple question: How many tenses in Irish?

Does anybody know how many tenses there are in Irish? What are they? Is the Modh Coinniollach a 'tense' or a 'mood' - what's the difference between both? I'm searching in vain for straightforward answers to these questions. Thank you/Grma. 89.101.41.216 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In traditional grammar, only the inflected verb forms are considered to be individual moods or tenses. On this basis, there are four moods: Indicative / Taisceach; Conditional / Coinníollach; Imperative / Ordaitheach; and Subjunctive / Foshuiteach.

The Conditional and Imperative moods do not have different tenses. The subjunctive has a past subjunctive and a present subjunctive tense.

The Indicative has the following tenses: Present (aimsir láithreach); habitual present (gnáthláithreach - same as present for al verbs except tá where the habitual present is bíonn); past (caite); habitual past (gnáthchaite); and future (fáistineach). So unless I've forgotten something, there are nine tense/mood forms - although the morphology of the past subjunctive is the same as that of the (indicative) habitual past.

However, all that said, I have a feeling modern linguists might say that things like "tá mé ag dul", "bhí mé ag dul",, "tá an cluiche caillte acu" etc, are tenses - in which case, there will turn out to be a lot more. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You may try this link out for an answer, although, as CCThirnanOg has pointed out, it really depends on the linguist! ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia has articles on tense and mood - they should clear up the difference between the two. Broadly, tense indicates time, whereas mood is more complicated to sum up - but essentially, the indicative mood indicates facts, the conditional conveys conditions, the imperative orders, and the subjunctive - the most complicated, particularly considering that it's rather vestigial in Irish, and especially outside Ulster, but, again broadly, a wish or purpose. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to muddy the water, but there's an extra distinction to introduce: aspect. I'm not a syntactician, but I am a linguist, and I believe most modern syntacticians (contrary to ComhairleContaeThirnanOg's suspicion) would keep these separate and claim that Irish marks three tenses (past present and future), two aspects (habitual and non-habitual), and four moods. garik (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Garik. As is so often the case simple questions don't necessarily have simple answers... ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

True, although I'm inclined to feel that keeping these distinctions clear helps simplify things in the long run. Or, to put it another way, a three-dimensional set is nicer in some ways than a long list of verb forms. That said, should a proper syntactician happen to contradict me, you should probably believe them. garik (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that you're right, though, and that the Irish habitual past is marked for both tense and aspect, what is it? If I list the conjugation "bhínn, bhítí", etc, and wished to adopt modern syntactic terminology, would I describe it as the habitual past tense-aspect, the habitual past form, or something else? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

More a question for a syntactician again (especially one knowledgeable about Irish). I can't see that you'd go wrong with calling it the habitual past (or past habitual) form though. garik (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Leinster and Dublin

Given the historical importance of Leinster Irish, I have added a section to describe it. The most interesting deduction from the evidence is that the main "Leinster" dialect was in reality the eastern end of a dialect stretching across Ireland from Connacht, allowing for local variations. The language also has a history in the towns and cities, Dublin being particularly interesting. That section could do with expansion. Colin Ryan (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Native speakers

I'm not an expert, just a normal person interested in the matter, but the number of 130,000 native speakers sounds utterly implausible. I know at least one source that says "at best 10,000", while others say 20,000 or 30,000. It's a known fact that there are only two little regions of Ireland today where Irish is spoken as a vernacular (West of County Galway and North-West of County Donegal). In these regions, there are about 10,000 native speakers. So where do the remaining 120,000 live? I admit that there will be some all over the country, but probably just another 10,000 or so. I mean I'm not saying that arbitrarily, it's really what you read in any linguistic book about Irish. I'm just astonished to read "130,000". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.214.120 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree this figure seems too high, and on reading the cited source, it actually says native speakers in Ireland have been recently estimated at around 2%, perhaps 60000 in all. I have edited accordingly. Tameamseo (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Have found an article on the last census that show 77,185 as "daily" speakers outside the education system. I could find the page in google books that was preiously ref. Murry1975 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Tameamseo, if you like to revert me by all means, but revert to what was origanily cited not your made up figure. Murry1975 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry we had an edit conflict there. I reverted to the previous smaller figure because "daily speakers" is not the same as "native speakers". Not all native speakers use the language every day, while not all daily speakers are native speakers. As for my "made up figure", it is cited - attack the source if you have a problem with it, not me. Please WP:AGF. Tameamseo (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What attack? Please show. The original figure was 133,000. Murry1975 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have got off on a bad footing here. Can we please get a little more...collegial? :) I don't mean a personal attack. I was referring to you suggesting that the 60,000 was my "made up figure" - presumably implying that I was therefore lying with my 2 July edit summary saying the source cited actually says native speakers in Ireland "have been recently estimated at around 2%, perhaps 60000 in all" This made me feel like you were assuming bad faith on my part.

Can you show where the source gives a figure of 133,000? If there is doubt over this source or what it says, we can go back to the ones cited in the actual article, which give 20,000 to 80,000 Tameamseo (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to add that the section I am getting the 60,000 figure from is "Ireland, Republic of: Language Situation", found in volume 6 of the second edition of the encyclopaedia. As I said, it quite clearly states that native speakers in Ireland "have been recently estimated at around 2%, perhaps 60000 in all". I have checked it again and see no mention of a figure of 133,000. Tameamseo (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Tameaseo, trying to find where the 133 came from at the mo. Will find it, maybe tomorrow. Murry1975 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If one looks at the Ethnologue page for Irish, it cites a "native speaker" figure of 72,000 ([1]), which, in addition to the census figure for knowledge as a second language (already cited on the main page), reflects the current state of the language. Incidentally, just to correct the comment about Irish only being spoken in Galway and Donegal, there are also Gaeltachts in Mayo, Kerry, Cork, Waterford and Meath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culloty82 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

First line of article

The first line of the article appears to be causing some slight conflict. The conflict appears to be between the following two versions:

Irish (Gaeilge) is a Goidelic language of the Indo-European languages family...

and;

Irish, (sometimes called Irish Gaelic,[5] or Gaelic[6] mainly outside Ireland) (Gaeilge) is a Goidelic language of the Indo-European languages family...

I will lay out my objections to the second version and explain why I have elected to choose the first. The first objection is that the second version lists out versions of the language's name that are not very common nowadays and seems to lend undue weight to their prominence. These versions are already mentioned in the section directly after the introduction. Secondly, the second version states that the language is called "Irish Gaelic, or Gaelic mainly outside Ireland". However, there is no source mentioned which backs up the assertion that those terms are used "mainly outside Ireland". The first version is shorter and more succinct, while still mentioning the alternative versions within the article. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Irish-Gaelic is also known as 'Erse'.

Irish-Gaelic is also known as 'Erse' - (202.89.140.117 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC))

News to me. I really don't think it is. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a very archaic English term, not often used today (outside of crossword puzzles). Cagwinn (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Difference between An Larchanuint and An Caighdeán Oifigiúil

In the dialects section you have An Caighdeán Oifigiúil listed as the official standard for speaking dialects, it´s not. It is the Official standard for writing Irish. This is supported on page 28 in the Irish Government´s 20 year policy as seen here . An Larchanuint is the Central Dialect, however, it has no legal status and is not listed by the Government because it would be deemed as both a threat and discrimination against those of a less spoken dialect, as seen here and here . The absence of An Larchanuint has been highlighted as one of the reasons why it is difficult for Irish people to learn Irish as seen in this book and many others, in addittion to the Irish Governments exemption to many student´s in primary and secondary school who may have a disability or whose parent´s may be born outside of Ireland, as seen here and here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:955D:F5FC:7354:7013 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For more information on An Larchanuint, see Máirtín Ó Murchú. However, as many scholars have argued if the Irish language is to survive, it is paramount that children learn to speak Irish before write it. This is similar to the Catalan language which nearly died due to Franco´s policy in Spain. Upon his death a central dialect of Catalan was developed and taught in schools and now close to nine million people now speak it, as Rubio highlights here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:955D:F5FC:7354:7013 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If there's going to be a single standard pronunciation for Irish, it needs to be better thought-out than the Lárchanúint currently is. It's far too spelling-based, resulting in pronunciations that are not used by any native speakers anywhere (e.g. [əˈnˠɔʃ] for anois, which everyone pronounces [əˈnˠɪʃ]), and in loss of distinctions that everyone makes (e.g. bean and beann are homophones in the Lárchanúint, but not for any native speakers, who all distinguish them either in the vowel or in the final consonant). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed reduction in size of first section Suggestion

The intro section at the top of this article is much longer than it needs to be and has info that is either already in other sections or should be. I suggest moving or deleting that info. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Irish language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051130121122/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie:80/ZZA35Y1929S3.html to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA35Y1929S3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120605072328/http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Census%202011%20Highlights%20Part%201.pdf to http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Census%202011%20Highlights%20Part%201.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Duolingo

@Dmol The source I questioned was the Irish Times, not the rte one that you added later and quote from. Your later source does say 2.3m learning Irish (unlike the Irish Times). The problem is your same source also says 3,000 new learners a day for Irish, and the app has been around for just over two years, making the figure around 250,000. Looking at the rest of your rte source and at the Duolingo site there are lots of contradictory and uncited claims. It might be worth checking the talk page at Duolingo for a read of the numerous complaints about the reliability of statistics coming out of Duolingo, a non-listed company with a vested interest in skewing the figures to suit its shareholders, especially when nobody can check them. I prefer the Irish times as a RS, but even if your magazine style rte source is a RS, only half of what is says can be true, because the other half contradicts it, so we have one against a half! Additionally, these two sources contradict so the 2.3m figure cannot be relied on and should be removed. Please get concensus here before reverting again. Cheers. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to talk. I've had a look over it again. I think a better compromise would be to say that "by the end of 2016, over 2.3 million users downloaded the Irish version of the app". Of course, the problem with Duolingo is that the don't provide information on how many complete the course.--Dmol (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a claim that "over 2.3 million users downloaded the Irish version of the app" is pretty unbelievable, to be honest. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

To expand somewhat - yes, there's a claim that 2.3 million have downloaded the app to learn Irish, but essentially it's two sources repeating a claim made by the company themselves. I've downloaded plenty of apps, used them for a bit, and then deleted them. Whenever I've changed phone, Android automatically downloads all of the apps I've previously d/loaded to the new device. But each of those downloads gets counted as a unique download, whether or not I use the app, use it for a bit, or delete it straight away or not. I've downloaded books from the Play store I've still never opened. In other words, "number of downloads" is a completely spurious figure. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed 2.3m to 'many', but that is not ideal because the citation does not say that (it is really my POV). The 2.3m is unreliable, for different reasons as noted above, so I think it should be removed completely. The problem is it is stated in a fairly RS. Despite that, even RS's can be wrong and their statements still are open to scrutiny. In this case I think it is quite obvious that 2.3m should not be used, not even to say "duolingo claim that 2.3m...." because they do not claim that-that is what the rte site claims without a reference. I think a better sentence would be: "In 2015, an Irish language app was developed for the language learning website Duolingo. The Irish president has praised the work of those who developed the app that has served to promote the number of people learning the language." That seems to be neutral and based on uncontested citations.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable and fair. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)r

Loss of lead material

I think the lead was a bit bloated, but this seems rather drastic to me. Perhaps someone should at least reincorporate some of the material elsewhere in the article? Garik (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Greatly trimming #An_Caighdeán_Oifigiúil

There's a lot of poor quality material in Irish language#An_Caighdeán_Oifigiúil, and now that I look at it I see that it's a copy of an old version of what was at An Caighdeán Oifigiúil.

Some stuff is just plain out of date (last Caighdeán version from 2012? complete with broken link for a reference etc.). Other parts discuss grammar but don't actually say anything about how the Caighdeán is different to dialects. Other parts discuss pronunciation, without saying what relevance this has to a standard that exclusively treats how Irish is written.

So I'm going to remove a lot of text. A detailed explanation of the reasons is at Talk:An_Caighdeán_Oifigiúil#Can_someone_review/rewrite_the_characteristics_section?

If someone wants to re-add text, please add it to the main article, An Caighdeán Oifigiúil. The Irish language article links to that article, so we only need a summary here. Great floors (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)\

Vocabulary enrichment / extension projects

While Irish lacks an "Academy-style" body to try to regulate it and to generate new vocabulary when natural formation does not keep up with modern life's speed, words are developed in parliamentary support services, educational bodies, and notably in the 1990s in a deliberate project in the Fiontar unit of DCU. I think a sub-section, cited, on this would be useful.SeoR (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Increased protection; protection from more politicisation, bloat & vandalism.

Vandalism has occured regularly, two recent examples being blanking of sections and vandalism regarding the language's name in English [Edit #896143443 & #892794087]. Infrequent vandalism in the form of baseless assertions/bigotry has occured [more recent example being #881084146]. Introductory sentence is regularly inflated with unneccessary lists of a number of less common alternative names ("Gaelic", "Irish Gaelic", "Erse") that are addressed in subsequent sections of the article anyway (Names - in English section). On occasion the autonym (Gaeilge) has been removed without reason [edit #897247645]. Since this is the national language, and this article a key resource online, it is logical to request this especially considering the above issues. --'Seán754 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, all the recent stuff is the work of a single person operating under various sockpuppet accounts. Now, another account has appeared whose only edit has been to this article so far, which smells of further sockpuppetry. Rua (mew) 17:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Irish Gael" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Irish Gael. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 9#Irish Gael until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Irish gael" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Irish gael. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 9#Irish gael until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Erse?

Should it not be mentioned in the English language Wikipedia that a perfectly proper alternative name for the Irish Gaelic is Erse?

1848 S. Bagster Bible of Every Land 137 "The Erse or Irish language is still spoken more or less in almost every part of Ireland, but it prevails more especially in Munster and Connaught." OED. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.97.31 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This could be mentioned as a dated historical option. The language's name is just Irish, but Gaelic, even if imperfect, has some usage in the wider world (and was used by many promoters of Irish when working in English), e.g. in "Gaelic League" - while Erse is long out of use. SeoR (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Irish language media

The article is OK on history, and quite good on structural points, but I think it should have a short section on media, such as TG4, the radio stations and other forms. These are a significant "play" by governmental and other promoters to sustain the language, and link it to modern culture, sport, etc. Any opinions, or volunteers to write it up? I can out it on my "to-do" list otherwise. SeoR (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Speaker counts

Continuing from an earlier discussion, we've again had some messing with the numbers. The situation is not so very complex, given the limited quality data, but I think some visiting editors are adding up things that don't add. So:

• Daily speakers as a primary language: 70-73 thousand
• who are in turn part of L1 users, c. 170 thousand
• who are in turn part of the Republic of Ireland "yes to Census question "can you speak Irish", 1,761,420 (which includes 558k of teachers, pupils and students using Irish within the education system, where it is compulsory for most from 5-18)
• which means that for RoI, the L2 number is at maximum 1,761k -170k =1,590k (and note, this is a maximum - the census question is "can you speak" and does not ask anything about actual frequency or competence - in reality, a large % of the 1.59M don't use Irish even monthly)

• Then we have 104.9k in Northern Ireland who claim to be able to speak in Irish

• Thus the grand total of claimed speakers for the island of Ireland is 1,865 thousand (not 2M+)
• And for worldwide speakership, we can add the 18.8k Irish Americans, and tiny numbers, many academics, in Canada, Australia, the UK and elsewhere, for up to 1.9M.

Hope this helps. SeoR (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be edited to include the actual number of speakers not fudged numbers.

Native speakers

Solsti Solsti added a lengthy comment today about urban (L2) speakers and native L1 speakers. It was justifiably deleted as unsourced POV. However, IMO it is correct and it would be useful if he/she, or someone else with more editting experience could try to resubmit the points that were raised. Slightly off topic, this use of language data that mixes the declining numbers of L1 speakers with people who are trying to learn that declining language, is a problem faced with other minority languages on wikipedia, especially one's that have some form of government support. The figures given for 'speakers' are usually very misleading.

It requires some reliably published sources that make the point. This should be possible to find.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The unnamed contributor above makes a valid point about the misleading muddling of data about speakers of a particlar language. The templates used are partly to blame by using the term 'number of speakers', which is open to interpretation and is not specific enough. A problem with finding reliable sources is that so many of them also do not separate L1 from L2 speakers, and that they sometimes originate from govt or official sources that have a requirement to promote a given minority language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't have any native speakers of Irish. There may be neo-natives, people brought up speaking really bad Irish by parents who don't speak the language well, but that is not the same thing at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.224.228 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreement as of August 18, 2020:

I agree with the comment (above, in the un-dated [and unsigned?] first paragraph) that says [quote:]

The figures given for 'speakers' are usually very misleading.

As of the (currently) "Latest revision as of 19:27, 11 August 2020", at least, the "total" of "2,055,468", given in the Infobox -- (in a field whose "label" is displayed as "Native speakers") -- seems to be quite misleading.

I checked (see this calculator "addition" example, e.g.) and, it appears that the "total" -- ("2,055,468") -- that is shown there is the sum of ALL four ["!"] of the smaller numbers specified ... which seems to be nonsense, because the two "L2" categories that are each labeled (in part) as "[...] being able to speak Irish in [a certain place]" are almost certainly [each] overlapping, partially or completely -- (probably completely! or, close to it) -- with the category of "L1" speakers that is also listed, and is included in the "total".

Just a comment. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment - but note that the L2 point is actually explained, right there in the infobox - these are those people who assert that they *can* speak Irish. Not that they *do* so. Most adults in Ireland were born there, and most of those have completed 13-14 years of Irish language learning, so it is hardly a surprise that a significant number claim to be able to speak at some level. Whether this reaches a particular standard is another matter. The article does discuss this, including, quite openly, the fact that only 73k people speak Irish as a daily language. And no one in Ireland is over-estimating the meaning of the 1.77M claim - or what it says about how we teach / sustain the language. But in Wikipedia we can only report from reliable sources, and this data comes from a national census, so... Now the point about how that figure is reached I will look into, but at least on the principles, I think the point is clear enough. SeoR (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The total figure seems bogus, per Mike. Have removed it as OR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Just going to butt in here and address one of the above posters, As someone who took Irish all the way back in primary I can tell you that most people including myself know very little Irish it generally consists of several words, if even that, most people forget Irish when it doesn't become a requirement, even so most Irish students fail at school with Irish. The claim of Irish speakers is so misleading I don't consider knowing several Irish phrases like for example, can I go to the bathroom or what's your name? my name is ect to count as speaking the Irish language not in the context the article seems to be expressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfellower (talk • contribs) 05:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The info box for this article looks terribly messy and long-winded. I don't want to step on anyone's toes by simply deleting most of the L1 & L2 text, so I'll ask here, can't we neaten this up a bit so it looks like the French language and Spanish language infoboxes? They simply state the numbers.

Also, the intro at the top which states that Irish people are annoyed when it is called Gaelic seems a little heavy-handed and not encyclopaedic/professional. VALAR. 49.184.21.77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What’s “unencyclopedic” with mentioning the fact that the people whose language it is don’t call it “Gaelic” even if some others mistakenly do. This is just factual and respectful. As someone else said, formerly colonially-abused people are actually heard from nowadays. It’s not up to some British dictionary to define.

And the numbers, that’s hard. Irish is not like French or Spanish. It is the main language of just 30-50000 people, from a total of 70000 daily users. So shall we show only one of those tiny numbers? The population of a small German town. I believe more people use Irish Sign Language. Or shall we quote the useless answer to the Census question... 1.7 million? As @Newfellower: says above, this, even if from a national official census, is bogus. Most of the 1 million not in school or regular users couldn’t manage a five minute conversation about yesterday’s news or what they saw on Netflix. So I think the box goes the right way, summarizing all this complexity.2A00:1370:8117:7670:9CAE:72CF:8EA9:88A6 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the drive-by POV insertion from the lead. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Good, and let's hope we can have any further discussion here. Nice work on cleaning up the infobox Alt Names too - for that function, simple "Irish" seems plenty. As the long list of dictionaries labelling it as "Gaelic" shows, there is a widespread issue here, which must be dealt with in the article, but it does not need to clutter the article headers. In my experience with Scotland, by the by, most people either use Gaidhlig or Scots / Scottish Gaelic, not plain Gaelic, but maybe that's a conscious thing when people hear an Irish accent. And then, with all my respect to Prof Titley, as quoted, Gaelic was in serious use once, but again, nowadays, it is simpler just to stick to "Irish". SeoR (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Various comments

1. I printed this article a while ago and at the time there was a section called "Current status" followed by a subsection called "Republic of Ireland". Now they are "Status and policy" and "Ireland". Since the section explains the use of Irish in the Republic of Ireland and later in Northern Ireland I think "Ireland" should be renamed "Republic of Ireland" like before because that label is more appropriate.

2. "Irish President Douglas Hyde was possibly one of the last speakers of the Roscommon dialect of Irish."

This information is useful but it sort of breaks away from everything that was discussed before.

3. The "Ulster" subsection says "Scots Gaelic". It's not clear if this is Scots, Scottish Gaelic or Ulster Scot.

4. The "Leinster" subsection has this text: "Gath haad o showh go part laarg?."

Does the period really need to be part of the line after the question mark? I don't think so.

5a. The "Urban use from the middle ages to the 19th century" section says "When their posteritie became not altogither so warie in keeping, as their ancestors were valiant in conquering, the Irish language was free dennized in the English Pale: this canker tooke such deep root, as the bodie that before was whole and sound, was by little and little festered, and in manner wholly putrified".

I speak English but I am not expert of English from the 1500s. I think it would be nice to have a translation for the text so that it can be understood.

5b. The "Urban use from the middle ages to the 19th century" section says "English authorities of the Cromwellian period, aware that Irish was widely spoken in Dublin, arranged for its official use. In 1655 several local dignitaries were ordered to oversee a lecture in Irish to be given in Dublin. In March 1656 a converted Catholic priest, Séamas Corcy, was appointed to preach in Irish at Bride's parish every Sunday, and was also ordered to preach at Drogheda and Athy.[88] In 1657 the English colonists in Dublin presented a petition to the Municipal Council complaining that in Dublin itself "there is Irish commonly and usually spoken"."

It's unclear to me what's the point of this paragraph.

ICE77 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Irish Gaelic"

Where is Irish (or Gaelic, if you must) referred to as "Irish Gaelic"? The dictionary references used for this construction do not refer, at all, to "Irish Gaelic." When "Irish Gaelic" is used anywhere, it is usually as a disambuguator to "Scots Gaelic". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have removed the term Irish Gaelic from the lead, with edit summaries falsely claiming that the term is not mention in any of the references, despite it being in the Collins reference. They also seem to be ignoring the contents of the "In English" section, especially the quotation

"Irish" is sometimes erroneously referred to as "Gaelic." The Irish language should never be referred to as "Gaelic" because doing so is historically, socially, formally, and linguistically wrong. "Gaelic" is now correctly applied to the principal historic language of Scotland, although it also was referred to (in English) as "Irish" for most of its history. The distinction is not subtle: "Irish" refers to the native language of Ireland, and "Gaelic" refers to the major native language of Scotland, although the term came into common usage only in the past two hundred years, or less

. I cannot imagine why two editors should coordinate inaccurate edit summaries to make the lead contradict the contents of the article. DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It is "in the Collins reference" if you scroll all the way down, notice the "Related terms" section, and click on the "Irish Gaelic" entry, to find a completely separate page which says it is an American English term, which ranks it as "rarely used." Does that justify an entry in lede, let alone the lede sentence? I wouldn't think so.

The only other mention of "Irish Gaelic" in the whole article is one sentence in the "In English" section, which uses the same Collins reference. And is erroneous. I will edit that now.

So what should we call the language in the infobox? Irish, obviously, the most common name in the English language. The most common alternative name, in English use, is still "Gaelic" - not "Irish Gaelic".

Please don't cast aspersions on other editors. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the addition of "Irish Gaelic" as the altname in the infobox first occurs with this uncited, anon IP edit, as recently as 10 October, with the addition of "Irish" to "Gaelic" in the lede sentence, by the same anon IP, happening about an hour later on the same day. The addition of "Irish Gaelic" to the "In Ireland" section only happened with this edit, two days ago, by the same anon IP, and again uncited. I think the great Irish Republican Conspiracy Theory may be somewhat overblown, Duncan, wouldn't you agree? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[[2]]

I don't know why 2804:1054:3011:9010:7595:a03:4567:3242 won't engage on the talk page - they've been invited - but just to point out, Wikipedia can't be used as a citation for itself. I have removed some of the references to "Irish Gaelic" that appeared in the articles used as they were generally used as "See also" or "Further reading" links to yet other articles, and were actually redirects, not the proper article name. I left one instance, on Goidelic languages, where the sentence it's used in is clearly using the phrase "Irish Gaelic" to differentiate from "Manx Gaelic". Enough of this, IP - engage here, but don't keep inserting erroneous material against consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Belated thanks Bastun, I totally agree with you. Baffled by the references to "Irish Gaelic", which I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone actually say. In my experience, the language is almost always called "Irish" in Ireland and either "Irish" or (in the US and occasionally in the UK) "Gaelic". Having lived in all three places I can say with some confidence that basically no one calls it "Irish Gaelic". And, as you say, the sources are weak, to put it mildly. Also, the suggestion that we "coordinated" our edits is simply wrong. I've never coordinated edits with anyone about anything, on this or any other article. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"But I've never..." is not a reliable source or even a representative sample. Wikipedia is not to place to live out personal issues. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not know how to edit Wikipedia but I will try my best (it's meant to be open and democratic for all, right?). Can I propose a simple solution to this discussion - How about we simply do not mention in the leading sentence "referred to as "Irish Gaelic"". It only further serves for people to keep making this erroneous assumption that Gaelic=Irish. You may as well state in the lead sentence of the wiki page "Languages_of_North_America" "also known as American Latin". That is how much sense this current lead sentence makes. All this discussion strikes me as very ironic given that the Irish language was historically oppressed by the British Empire. It all seems a bit like a relic that Collins dictionary is being used as an excuse to keep this incorrect name up. 2A02:8084:6025:5980:2490:3401:78F4:7BA9 (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. I sympathise, and I have previously taken out this term, but we have to work with sources, and now it's now just Collins (which is a reliable source anyway for how English is used) but it has been found elsewhere. And even on Irish forums, I have seen it argued that while Irish is the only proper name, Irish Gaelic is more appropriate than just Gaelic, as the latter is at least used, if not preferred, for the Scottish language. There is no "right answer" - we have to find some way of balancing these elements. I do still see a case for taking all mention of alternative names out of the lede, and leaving it in the appropriate sub-section of Names... SeoR (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the names given to the language in English, the dictionaries all say basically the same thing — not quite the same thing as the present text says — and I don't think they all need to be quoted. They explain the usages in English of both "Irish" and "Gaelic" quite fully. Also, not everyone in Ireland agrees that it is "mistaken" or "erroneous" or even outdated to use the term Gaelic when speaking only of the varieties found in Ireland, and the alternative viewpoint should be presented, not dismissed. I'm going to put up some changes now. See what you think.

As this has become "live" again, looking at this section, it's clear there is no consensus for inclusion of "Irish Gaelic" in the lede of the article; if the term is to be included at all, it should be confined to the Names section. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Terminology - Gaelic?

Hello all, it would be nice to get some consensus as to whether the name Gaelic belongs in the opening paragraph of this article. It seems clear that Irish Gaelic does not, but Gaelic on its own does appear to see some usage (albeit usually not from Irish-speakers) - certainly, I have met people in Ireland who call it that. I would tentatively suggest that we keep the alternative name Gaelic in the lede based on this. Akakievich (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It is used by Irish speakers, though, in English - certainly in parts of Munster. Definitely keep. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so. NB I'm only opening this discussion because there has been some recent minor-edit warring over this. Akakievich (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jem8953. Peer reviewers: Fantinij, Ashleyhpace.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BitterLilyz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also known as

Hi Eastirleditor (talk · contribs). I'm still a bit confused by your addition to the lead sentence also known as Gaelainn (Munster) or Gaelic (Ulster) with no new sources provided. Does this mean 1) it is called Gaelainn in Munster but Gaelic in Ulster? 2) Is it referring to Munster vs Ulster dialects or endonyms for the language? 3) Some other interpretation? If option 1, which I think is the most probable reading, it is also certainly known primarily as Gaelic for example in the United States. Wolfdog (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I also believe the meaning intended is 1) above. Interestingly, the dialects did not develop special terms - the form of Irish in each area was simply the language. And as it happens, the standard name form, Gaeilge, like much else of the caighdean ("standard written Irish" for those less familiar) was adopted from the Connacht dialect. In the north, the form was close to the Scottish "Gaedhilg", and yes, in at least West Cork and Kerry, people did and do use Gaelainn - but to apply it in the lede, it needs to be properly cited. For example from scholarly correspondence (an old discussion about verbal vs written referencing (with an old spelling variant): "'...do sgrí a Gaeluinn.' Féach, 'Abair as Gaoluinn é,' ach 'sgríbh i nGaoluinn é.' Ní deirtear 'as Gaoluinn' ach le caint. Deirtear 'i nGaoluinn' le sgríbhinn nú le clódhbhualadh, nú le haistriughadh. (in the southwest, you speak "as Gaoluinn" but write "inGaoluinn", in short)

As to Gaelic, the fact is that the term was, and to a lesser degree, but for sure, is used - including in the names of some of the groups who help revive the language. Nowadays it is not so much used in Ireland, but you hear it in Dublin, Waterford, Meath and parts of Cork, for sure, and the northern dialect form sounds similar - and very widely abroad (notably among Irish Americans). But there is a strong push from some (and this goes back decades) to "focus on Irish or Gaeilge, avoid Gaelic" - and Gaelic works well as a generic term for the language sub-group, but there is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, it and "Irish Gaelic" have usage. Here we just document, so we just need to write it up in an appropriate way, with proper references, and stay out of the dispute.

And let's not forget, there's also the (to many, awful-sounding) "Erse", which was used for both Gaeilge and Gaedhlig, but that, at least, can be left in good conscience to detailed body text discussion, and as a historical point, having largely died out by the 50s (anybody using it nowadays would be making a point). SeoR (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)