Talk:Lurcher

Untitled
It was my understanding that the Lurcher is now a recognised breed of dog by the Kennel Club and others. I can't remember where I found that out (I think it was a few guides to Lurchers and the RSPCA) but I'll see if I can find it out. AlanD 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
Do we have a reliable source for the Romani etymology? OED's etymology (which is possibly not the most up-to-date) takes it back through "lurcher" ("a petty thief") to the verb "lurch" ("to lurk"). Their citations for that sense of "lurch" go back as far as 1420, which was before the Romani people even came to Britain, if the migration map at Romani people is to be believed. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that there is no Romani etymology. It is more likely that the root of the word lies in Middle English, "lurken", meaning to hide or lie hidden - but see also the Norwegian cognate "lurka", to sneak off; and to Middle High German "lūren", to lie in wait. Boatgypsy (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The genes of the mother are more important than that of the father. What???2602:306:CCC7:E780:55F1:C8C:D5F1:AFD7 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lur does not mean 'thief' in Romani language.
forgive me not signing as I am not sure how to...

I am from an English Romani family (Romanichal group) and I am very fluent in Romani dialects.

Firstly Irish travellers are not Romani. They are of a Gaelic origin with full Irish European DNA (Y DNA haplogroup R1b) and appearance (fair skin, alot of blonde and ginger hair colouring, blue eyes etc). The language they speak is basically mostly backslang Gaelic. The Irish travellers call themselves Shelta (originally from Lucht Siúil meaning 'walking people') or Nidi [Needy] (meaning 'traveller'). I think their language is called gammon.

To use the term "Irish Gipsy" is incorrect as Gypsy was a term used to discribe Romani as European mistook them as Egyptian - hence the word "Gypsy". Gypsy is a derogatory term and is now very misused to discribe a many types of people. Irish travellers unless of true Romani origin are not "Gypsy" and if they are the term is offensive as they are of Indian descent and not Egyptian.

Romani are of Indian origin from approx. 1026ad and left India due to Islamic invasion. They are traditionally dark in skin clour and have jet black hair. Their DNA is Indian (Y DNA haplogroup H) and they speak an Indian language from the Rajasthani / Panjabi region).

Within the Romani language 'chor' means thief / steal. to say the thief would be o chor and to say the thieves would be 'le chora' which could sound close but this would not make sense as they would just call it a 'chor' and would not nessessarily use the plural.

Lur is not a word in Romani. Whether this word is Irish traveller I would not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.252.34 (talk • contribs)


 * I fixed this and ended up making a bunch of other changes. Thanks for bringing this up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

illegal use of
In the UK, using dogs for hunting/hare coursing is illegal. It would be worth adding this as a note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.217.218 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lurcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218102851/http://www.sussexlongdogs.org.uk/ to http://www.sussexlongdogs.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Attempted cleanup, more work needed
I've tried to clean up the article, removing some of the puffery and weasel words, moving things around for a more logical structure, correcting references, etc., but more work is needed. Especially the 'History' section is confusing: it talks about people in the olden days not being allowed to hunt with dogs, including lurchers — what does that have to do with lurchers, then, and what is the relevance of the distinction between lurchers and greyhounds? Also, the 'Recognition and registration' section could do with some clarifying. And there are too many external links to various organisations. Anyone who knows about this 'breed', but doesn't have an agenda to push, please chip in! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, agreed. An eighteenth-century transcription of a source from 1389 is hardly an up-to-date WP:RS. If this is factual material accepted in modern times as correct, there should be no difficulty supplying citations to solid modern independent reliable sources that support it. As it stands it's just so much WP:OR – somebody's pet theory. The same goes for the supposed derivation of 'lurch' from mediaeval French – if this was a tenable theory it would surely be at least mentioned in the relevant entries in the OED; it isn't. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The relevance of 'greyhound',a recognisable dog-type since the 13thC in England, is that it is the primary source breed for all 'historic' UK lurchers, and that both were recognised in the legislation of the time - specifically in the legislation of 1389. Yes, of course there is a significant distinction between lurchers and greyhounds, both biological and legal (I think that was originally denied in an earleir version of this article). This recorded history, both from the dictionary and the Statutes is of importance, because it locates and identifies both related dog-types. Can we please discuss this without more lurching around so hard-handedly on the article page. There is little doubt that lerce is the origin. So unless you can really disprove that please leave it as it is. The sources are genuine. This is not theory. The Dictionary of Norman or Medieval French, is that modern enough for you? The Statutes at Large are a primary source. Did it occur to you that the compilers of the OED were not perfect in their 'research'. "Lerce" origin does not contradict the OED, it adds to it.Thank you --Richard Hawkins (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the better course would have been to discuss it after your addition was removed, instead of re-adding the dubious content (see WP:BRD). Anyway, three things about that dictionary: (1) it isn't cited in the article (2) 1779 is by no means modern and (3) it doesn't say anything whatsoever about the derivation of the English word 'lurcher'. Does it not occur to you that the compilers of the OED may have actually done their job properly, discounting unreliable speculations from centuries ago? What modern sources (say, from within the last 50 or 70 years) support your theory? I can find nothing on JSTOR or GScholar; can you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw little attempt from your side to discuss it. If you only use modern sources, you are at peril from missing recorded history, UK jurisprudence or legislation in this case, that those modern sources may not or could not have known. Once again it is not theory. If you make an attempt to read and understand the recorded history you may understand better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Hawkins (talk • contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And the problem continues, as has again added back the same primary/archaic sources, which I had removed after finding a modern WP:RS to support part of the content. Ping, , who've commented here before. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot fault a primary source such as the Parliamentary proceedings, "Statutes at large", or the medieval French dictionary. You might find them archaic, but they are more historic, more correct for instance than secondary sources such as Edmund Russell - who at times is painfully incorrect - as I have written else where: "The characteristic hunting traits of dogs and the housing kennels which he [Russell] attributes to the early translator/author Turbervile are neither English, nor designed for greyhounds; they originate from Turbervile’s predecessor the Frenchman du Fouilloux and concern scent hounds only." "Lerce" should self-evidently be included here to reflect on the modern assumption that the word "lurcher" is only based on movement alone. Do your research.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology
I have not looked into this in detail, but according to David Alderton “The name ‘lurcher’ derives from the old Romany (gypsy) dialect, with the word ‘lur’ meaning ‘thief’...” Cavalryman (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC).


 * Thank you. Aye there's the rub in quoting secondary or only modern sources. Alderton's assumption can be added to the page, as was the previous one from Plummer. I prefer to go back to primary sources if possible, or properly edited historic sources.Richard Hawkins (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No need I am citing the presence of the word in legislation, and then pointing out a dictionary definition - the latter possibly having more foundation than Jesse, who dealt in the art of reiteration.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Richard… the problem with going “back to primary sources” is that doing so often requires interpretation… and our WP:No original research policy strongly discourages this. We can note how secondary sources interpret the primary sources (citing those secondary sources), but we are not supposed to interpret the primary sources ourselves. I am concerned that you are introducing your own interpretation. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , you have taken a word from a law 800 years old and written in an archaic regional dialect of French, found it in a dictionary of 1779 of questionable accuracy, and used that combination to support a statement that "The distinction in England between a greyhound and a lurcher was both legal and biological". Do you not see the problem with that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier I added the "legal" as, if I remember correctly, the earlier text had simply "biological" (from Plummer?). I knew that the original law used the words "leverer, lerce, chien" or "Greyhound, Hound or other dog", and Kelham supplies the fairly logical definition lerce=lurcher. Note that the law text does not mention coney dogs setters etc. None of this has been theorised by me, or even interpreted, simply presented. Falisify Kelham or the 1389 law text if you can. I suggest it should stand there to supply additional background/information to the more modern etymology of the modern word, based on reiteration of "lurk, lurch, thief etc" --Richard Hawkins (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead section
The leading section of the article needs cleaning up as it's not concise and fails to flow well. Hadis07 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources
“Lurcher” is an English word, not a "British dog type". Please refer to the specific Act of Parliament, and its content accurately, not a far removed, secondary and clearly unreliable source on dogs such as Russell 2018 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330910254_Some_personal_reflections_on_two_remarkable_Greyhound_books_of_2018 The act did not cite "coney" or "setting" dogs at all. His claim “The word 'lurcher' did not describe a physical form or type, but a function – a poacher's dog” is categorically wrong. It is described specifically as a type on this page. Lurchers have been bred in different areas of the world, Scotland, Australia, North & South America as legal hunting dogs. --Richard Hawkins (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)