Talk:Bard/Archives/2012

Think to mutations
By the play of mutations, a BARD [bærz] is first "un Bras" in French ("an arm" in English), it's also a "Branch", so it's a "Member", and by the current mutations of the letters in old-Welsh, B it's P, change in M & F; A it's E, D=T=S=Z: so BARD or BRAD = PERS, PRES, PARS, PRAT, PART, MART, MARS (Master; never the roman-god), MERS, FARD (the root of a "charge", responsability), &c (I give examples of possible derivations from "Bard [bærz]" or "Brad [braz]"); PERS = a Person, "un Personnage" in french ("a character" in English), also "an Actor" or a protagonist; PARS, the verb "to parse", a parser; that made, a man or a woman who is in a "PARTY" or a "Partisan" (a supporter). A lot of Bards (Beirds) was lay civil servants in a bardical-system (as today we say political-system) and that until the 14th century in Wales. And the Galli (Welsh of Gallia) was known to hate all the religions; see: Ciceron texts (to verify this information), who complains about the POPULUS GALLI = WESLH RAVAGERS or WELSH PEOPLE.

There are often no difference between the prefix of the words like BAR, BRA; BER, BRE; BIR, BRI, BRO, BOR, &c; inversions are frequent without really to change the meaning of the syllables. So to understand the masculine word "BARD" plural "BEIRD", feminine BARDS [bærdess] plural BEIRDS [bardess] (The letter "S" is not a plural but always a feminine, still about the 15/16th century in France). "BARDIT" is always a French word to design the production of a BARD (a song, a poëm, a melody); it's also a battle hymn of the ancient "Germanic" peoples (but "germanic" it's a wrong word to talk about Old-Welsh from East of IAPITIE from IAF or DIS ("SAY" in English; the French verb "IAFER" = To reveal, to say), more known under a bible-myth name, JAPHET, a son of one Noë; IAFET, IAPHET who creates the "Occident" more 10.000 years BC (not -4600BC, as it's say in one bible=book, magazine).

Forget totally all your "celtic" tricks, borned with celtomaniacs and literary fakers, forgers, falsifiers between 16 and 20th centuries (see Iolo Morganwg & Co. = mystifications, wrong inventions). If you don't know the old-French = Welsh-of-France from Gallia, Country-of the-Galli, you miss a lot of meanings and derivations of this word "BARD"; same if the English had kept many Welsh or Gallic words in it's langage of New-LLoegr [lwar] (= "Nouvelle-Loire" in French = England or Angeland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.63.198 (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Were celtic monarchs always male, or does this article need adjusting for non-sexist language? Martin


 * Yes, they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iasos (talk • contribs)
 * No, Celtic rulers were not always male; s.v. Boudicca, and Cathmadua, and, delving into pseudo-mythic history, Medb.

DigitalMedievalist 06:22, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

This needs revision; bards are either Irish or Welsh; there's some conflation with the role of the filidh. The English closest equivalent to the Celtic bard is the scop; the traveling minstrel, much later in literary history what is described here as the English bard; the minstrel is roughly equivalent to the French jongleur. I'll try to help later. DigitalMedievalist 06:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

That may be true in a sense, certainly after England became distinct from Celtic culture, but the celts lived right across Britain as well as the north of western europe for some time. Surely Bards would have been common across the whole British Isles as well as france, spain etc. All these countries have areas even today that bear remnants of old celtic culture. (Cornwall, Brittany, Barcelona)

Lostsocks 15:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lostsocks - I'm not an expert on Celtic Bards but geography tells me if they were in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwall it seems odd to imply that they were never in the rest of what is now called England - is that really right? I'd suggest just putting "the british isles" but I know that geoghraphical phrase is a hot potato... how about adding England to the list? The Celtic presence there seem to often be forgotten.

--PRL1973 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While individuals like Bards certainly occurred in other areas of Europe, since the term itself was originally Celtic, those in England would not have been known as bards. Remember also that Bards from Wales and Ireland, etc., would have spoken Welsh and Irish, etc., and so wouldn't have fared very well as entertainers elsewhere. Buirechain 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buirechain (talk • contribs)

Is the term definitely of Celtic origin? Because there is a German term 'Barde', meaning minstrel or such like. Any thoughts on this? Was the word of Celtic origin and then simply borrowed from English into German? Okashii

Stray text
Removing this bit of stray text. It looks like someone who didn't know how was trying to insert a reference, but what remains is incomplete and simply displays as an orphaned phrase within the article.


 *  The Making of Modern Ireland, J. C. Beckett. 

If anyone knows what this belongs to, feel free to reinsert it as a proper reference. 12.22.250.4 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the section "Irish Bards" that I removed because it is an incomplete thought. If anyone knows what it is supposed to say please edit and reinsert.

"Bards used their knowledge of poetry to achieve common tasks, such as changing the background music."

Viderblool (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)viderblool

Vandalism
Someone revert this page.

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 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Latin background
There needs to be some kind of citation for the claim that Bard comes from the Latin term 'bardus'; the word means 'slow, stupid, or dull' which does not exactly mold well with the connotation of the bard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.127.77 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense
The opening sentence is nonsense! All bards were employees?! Of monarchs?! How did it get in there? Unfree (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? What exactly are you objecting to? "monarch" may be too narrow, I suppose "nobility" more generally would apply. And while "paid" is accurate, the proper term would probably be "patronized". The lede can certainly be improved. See West (2007), p. 30 and thereabouts for a sketch of the situation and comparison with related Indo-European traditions of court poetry. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole article avoids the fact that we all know what bards are. Lots of entertainers are bards. I've met many bards. A real minnesinger came to our house around 1950 and regaled us with legends of the Middle Ages and songs in various languages, accompanied by his lute-playing, vested head to foot in pied gaiety, including bells on his toes. Are you going to tell me he wasn't a bard, that Shakespeare wasn't a bard? Lay the foundation first about what we're talking about. History is fascinating, but first things first. The stuff about employ in the history is absurdly anachronistic. Those bards didn't apply for "jobs" and go through vetting and interviews, or receive salaries. They were very welcome wherever they went, in an age without TV, over-familiar jesters, nothing much to carouse about. Encircled by half-drunk (to say the least) party-wanters, they sang and orated, out of well-developed memory combined with incredible improvisational skills, the kind of entertainment a Robin Williams gives us, or an extremely fascinating lecturer, the kind we'd pay a fortune to see today, but can't. Talent today is developed over five years. Then, it was a lifetime of constant, constant fun-making, skillful instrumentalism, poesy, lengthy quotations, repetition of well-loved tales, expected to go on for a week or more. Any form of skill might be called upon, and well or poorly delivered. The whole article misses the thrill of bards, not to mention only scratching the surface of the history. Unfree (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, your entire point appears to be that "bard" can also be jovially used as a word for "poet" or "singer" in general. This is a purely lexical observation, and this article has nothing to do with it. Note how the lead explicitly sets the scope as "In medieval Gaelic and British culture".

If "A real minnesinger came to [y]our house around 1950" that would be an interesting addition to our Minnesang article, but considering that Minnesang has been obsolete as a genre for about 600 years now, you would need to present quotable sources establishing a modern revival.

From your comments, it appears that you are not familiar with what Wikipedia is trying to do, and what it is not trying to do. I do not want to sound condescending, but perhaps it would be a good idea to reread Five pillars before going ahead with this. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Harp
Is it true that the celtic harp was commonly used by the bards? if so, we need a link. the article on harps states this in an image text.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)