Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Proliferation of listed dialects
There has been a recent proliferation of listed dialects. I'm not sure where one draws the line as to which and how many but many of those now listed do not have articles or sections of articles to link them to, which might be some kind of guide. One at least is linked to a possibly poorly-named article with rather meagre and poorly-sourced content. Yes, Lewis and various other islands or parts thereof have distinctive features to their dialects but if "Hebridean" doesn't yet have an article, should any or all the island dialects be listed in the infobox? The existing listed categories could potentially be broken down further and there are additional historical dialects one could add, depending on how far back you go (Fife gaelic?). Thoughts? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- There seems to be no consistent approach regarding dialects in infoboxes. French language and Spanish language list none, German language lists loads but in the Language codes section. A bit closer to Scotland Welsh language lists 5 including 3 redlinks. Danish language, the only place near-ish I can think of which also has a lot of islands, lists a lot, 10, including extinct ones.
- The main problem is that I don't think anyone has ever attempted to linguistically group Gaelic dialects by regions, we have the macro view of central vs peripheral dialects at one end and the one-description-per-island approach to publishing stuff about dialects at the other. My personal red line would be dialects for which we have next to no data, so roughly nothing down the eastern seabord or central/southern Scotland, with the possible exception of Deeside which did survive into living memory and has had some work done on it. But not, for example, Fife, which we can only tentatively reconstruct based on place name data and such. I'd also like to avoid redlinks but beyond that, if someone does a reasonably sized stub, I see no reason why to refuse that until someone does a regional analysis. Though I would prefer regions, i.e. Argyll Gaelic rather than Islay, Kintyre, Cowal etc separately. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm of a similar viewpoint and my concern is that many of the current, largely most recent, inclusions are or would be redlinked, including at least one that I had removed (its parent also redlinked). Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Gaelic oppression under law
Around ten such Acts were raised between 1494 and 1698, passed by the Scots Parliament to make English the first language.
-
Gaelic oppression historically began within the southern Church, labeled as a language of Barbarians amongst other labels.
Naturally, the use of Gaelic became an issue within English leadership's idea of the perfect Saxon Britain, again with legacy slander & campaigns to demonize Gaelic.
However, history as a fact, shared within UK education provides that it was indeed;
- Lowland Scots, - Anglo-Scots, - Ex-Anglo-Saxons, - Ex-Angles,
who ultimately opposed Gaelic & aimed to close down Gaelic under various laws & rules.
What is evident within historical data & literature is that it was not just kings, but lowland scots nobles, writers, and educators then who indeed had somewhat of a superiority complex.
The idea that lowlands Scots are the Scottish & all other parts of Scotland is a social & cultural aspect they exposed then & exists still today.
What is worrying is that in today's inclusive, fair & equal Scotland, nobody speaks about the social oppression stemming from communities.
This article for example portrays the image that it was King James who made all the choices, when in fact it was a large group of individuals making up a full whole.
Anti-Gael rhetoric is not new & still exists today.
As the very word "Scot" means a Gael, & Scotland translated to Gael-Land, my question is:
Why do so many wiki pages call-put, identify who committed hate & slender, but when it comes down to the UK, the identification is a king, or queen & not a social, cultural or racial community? 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:98C7:25FF:BC8:4A7 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTFORUM "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles". Do you have a proposition for improving the article? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Moravians in 12th-century Scotland?
In the map of the tribal and linguistic division of Scotland in early 12th century, the label "Moravians" is surprising.--Ulamm (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Undeniable usage of term "Scots Gaelic"
If you have a source to back up your assertion that the usage of the term "Scots Gaelic" is "wrong, quite wrong", by all means include this in the body of the article but, even if you can support this, seeking to erase that the term is manifestly in significant usage is untenable. Google Translate (Scots Gaelic) and particularly Encyclopædia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scots-Gaelic-language) are "ignorant" and that they are "respectable" or otherwise "authoritative" is in credible question? Seriously? You having a personal dislike for that usage is no justification for erasing the fact of it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- ...Collins English Dictionary (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scots-gaelic), Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gaelic?q=scots+gaelic), Duolingo (https://duolingo.fandom.com/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic)... Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- User:Eilthireach, it's right there in your edit summaries: "Yes, some people ... might use that term when talking about the language" and "other sites that use the term Scots Gaelic". In other words, it's a name that people use for the language. Your assessment that people who use that name "do not know any better" is immaterial, as that tells us only that this name that people use doesn't please you. When you write that sources that use the phrase are "normally ignorant of the actual usage", you contradict yourself, because their use of it is actual usage. You see the usage, right there, in front of you; you acknowledge it to us; and then you immediately deny that that usage is actual usage that exists.
- Encyclopedia Britannica is not exactly a trivial source. Nor, presumably, is Celtic Life International's magazine or The Guardian, or The Scotsman and is there really any reason not to credit the propriety of the usage of enthusiasts such as those at the Fresno Scottish Society? Or an invitation to speak the language with others posted to the Aberdeen government's website by actual speakers of the language? If you dismiss all these sources as unreliable simply because their usage is contrary to your preferences, you will ironically be engaging in an instance of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Largoplazo (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)