Talk:Manx language/Archive 1

[The English influenced orthography] had the unfortunate result of making the spelling much harder than that of the other Gaelic languages, as many Goidelic grammatical features were lost in the process.

This paragraph seems to lack clarity. Can we provide examples of 'much harder', and for whom? Also what does the word 'lost' mean in this case? Were they destroyed? ignored? or altered? Or were the spellings reflecting a historical state of Manx/Gaelic?

It only seems odd to blame an orthography for changing the 'grammatical features' of a language. Perhaps this is a mix up between two separate english influences. - stet 19:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. To me, it actually seems to reflect teh author's POV...--Node ue 19:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * AFAICS, the way Manx represents mutated consonants is pretty similar to the way Welsh does (Mannin -&gt; Vannin, Manaw -&gt; Fanaw, etc), and I don't see many people complaining that Welsh orthography has messed up the language at all. Marnanel 19:44, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Manx had a preexisting way to show mutated consonants in the form of the original Old Gaelic orthography...--172.175.240.162 22:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Manx was indeed made much harder by the English influenced ortography. In both Irish and Scottish Gaelic you know the pronunciation of a word just be seeing it. In Manx you don't the same sound can be spelled in many ways and the same spelling can stand for different sounds. The new ortography also estranged the language from the common Gaelic litterature tradition. What the author has written is fairly NPOV - you'll find the same statement in most books dealing with the Celtic languages. 26.09.04

I thought the extinction of the language was a disputed claim? Nobody but the clinically insane denies that the last true native speaker, Ned Madrell, died decades ago, but there are still those living with Manx as their native language who are "half-fluent", as well as those who speak Manx fluently but learned it from a native speaker (in the case of one man, from Ned Madrell himself). So supposedly although the chain of native speakers was broken for perhaps a decade or so, in between there were very fluent speakers, many of whom are still around and assisting with making Manx a natively-spoken language again. Is this extinction?--Node ue 19:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I am personally unclear as to the extent that language revival has taken place -- for example, are there any children who have actually learned Manx as a first language during this period? And furthermore, how fluent are the people who claim to speak it -- are any of them fluent to the extent that they could express any thought they might happen to have in Manx, barring special technical vocabulary? Everyking 20:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No, the people who speak Manx, having learnt it, are quite fluent. As to the definition of extinction - I'm making this up, but I'd say that it has to be used as an everyday language for at least two generations before it can be deemed to have been ressurected.  Either that, or become the everyday language of the majority in a given population.  The best, and perhaps, only example of a ressurected language is Hebrew.

<>

I removed this because Manx orthography obscures the features of *Manx* it's self. Picapica 15:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, to fail to make blindingly obvious is not to 'obscure.' Etaonsh 07:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this:
 * A more comprehensive Vocabulary can be found here

because although that site contains examples of Manx-language influence on the English dialect of the island, it is essentially an article about Manx English, not Manx Gaelic. -- Picapica 15:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the article's header is 'Manx Language,' not 'Manx Gaelic.' The first language of the Isle of Man remains English, after all, at the time of writing. (This is what happens when we leave Manx Wikipedia articles to outsiders). Etaonsh 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice how the contributors to gv:, especially in the articles which sounded like they were about the Egyptian pyramids, are mainly children about 8 or 9? (that's what I think it said below each article.) Scott Gall 10:46, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC) PS: It's a good idea they're messing about on gv: before testing our limits here.

What relevance has this ageism to the topic at hand? Etaonsh 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading about the decline and ongoing revival of Manx a bit lately and so I added a little bit of info, a quote and some figures, on that, with my reference commented out in the text...hopefully I'll add some more later, but feel free to beat me to it. Everyking 02:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sources should be commented out. Cite them briefly in the text and then list the whole reference in a References section at the bottom of the page. --Angr/undefined 05:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That was done out of laziness. Fix it if you want. Everyking 05:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Manx dating from the 5th century?
I dont see how this statement can be defended. Gaelic was certainly spoken on Man at that time but the Manx dialect/language did not emerge for centuries, if not a millenia or so.

An Siarach


 * I agree. It would make much more sense to say from which century Manx is attested as a written language. Since I don't know and am too lazy to look it up, I'll leave that to someone else. --Angr ( tɔk ) 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where do you draw the border? Manx must have evolved gradually from Old Irish, but /how/ gradually? Caesarion 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since written Manx is only attested within recent centuries, developing a theory of when it diverged sufficiently from Irish and became something more than a dialect would be a difficult task. This also overlaps with the tired argument of 'what is a language? then what is a dialect', which has yet to be answered in a way that satifies both politics and science.


 * The fifth-century CE seems early for Manx to have been a language in its own right, though. There are reasonable guesses which have been agreed on by some scholars. Angr could give some excellent ideas here, as he is better educated than I in linguistics, but I know enough to be almost certain that 500 CE is too early a date for Manx as a distinct language.


 * →  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)

If i remember rightly Manx had no literature before the 16th century or so and this would probably be a far more appropriate date.

An Siarach


 * I don't think we should even attempt to speculate when Manx diverged enough from Irish to be considered a separate language. It would be difficult to do so without treading into original research, unless someone can find a published source where someone explicitly claims a date. I think we should just say "Manx is first attested in the 16th century" and leave it at that. --Angr ( tɔk ) 06:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there could be some good linguistic research on this we can cite. Anyone know of anything? Everyking 06:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Here is an excerpt from this book:
 * Ball, Martin J. and James Fife (eds.) "The Celtic Languages". London: Routledge (2001) ISBN 041528080X

...specifically from the section on the Manx language. This is a well-regarded general reference text on the subject of Celtic languages. The pages in the printed text which I am quoting here come from pp. 228-229 of the text.

→  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)




 * "  Manx is one of the three Celtic languages belonging to the Goidelic group. It is a descendant of Old Irish and departs, along with Scottish Gaelic, from Irish in the Early Modern Irish period (thirteenth century) and parts with Scottish Gaelic itself in the fifteenth century.
 * "  The arrival of Goidelic into Man seems to have taken place, as part of the fourth- to fifth-century Irish expansion into adjacent Britain, around AD 500 where (in Man) it ousted a British language apparently spoken there (cf. Jackson 1953: 173). Its early history in Man is obscure, but it survived four centuries of Scandinavian presence (ninth century to 1266). From 1289 to 1334 Man was contended for in Scottish-English rivalries, and from 1334 to 1405 it was the property of several Anglo-Norman magnates who retained the title 'King of Man'. From 1405 to 1736 Man found itself in the possession of the Stanley lords of Knowsley (near Liverpool), after 1485 styled 'Earls of Derby' and from 1521 (if not before) 'Lords of Man'. From 1736 to 1765 Man was in the hands of the anglicised Dukes of Athol, thereafter an appendage to the British Crown through purchase. Gaelic in Man survived these periods also.
 * "  Though there is likely to have been a bardic tradition in Man supported by a native Gaelic-speaking aristocracy before and during the existence of the Manx Kingdom of the Isles (ca. 950-1266) (cf. Ó Cuív 1957: 283ff), this is unlikely to have continued under a non-Gaelic-speaking hierarchy from the start of the fourteenth century if not before. Though the language of administration from that time would also have been non-Gaelic, it was nevertheless found necessary, for example, for Bishop John Phillips (1604-1633) to translate the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (PB. c. 1610), into Manx, and for Bible translations (published 1748-1775, last edition of the complete Bible 1819, of the New Testament (NT) 1825) and a Manx version of the Prayer Book (last published 1842) to be made. These facts make it clear that up until the latter date at least the bulk of the ordinary Manx people spoke Manx, or at least felt more at home in that language.
 * "  Given the absence from the fourteenth century of a Gaelic-speaking hierarchy and educated class capable of sustaining by its patronage learning and literature, restriction in the life of the ordinary people to the most everyday activities would likely explain the impoverishment of the Manx vocabulary, as exemplified in the available dictionaries. Even with the time span of the written record (early seventeenth century to present) a decline in inherited Gaelic vocabulary is attested.
 * "  The oldest continuous text in Manx is that of Phillips (see above) dating from the early seventeenth century, but this did not find its way into print until 1894. Manx first appeared in print in 1707 in Bishop Thomas Wilson's bilingual Principles and Duties of Christianity, known as Coyrie Sodjeh 'further advice'; thereafter throughout the eighteenth century, a number of works, mostly of a religious nature, including the Manx Bible translation were published. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries a number of secular traditional songs in manuscript form appeared (some later in print), which could be regarded as original native material. Included in this corpus of original Manx must be the twenty to twenty-five thousand lines in verse of largely unpublished carvals, or religious folksongs, dating in origin, though not in manuscript form, probably from the late Mediaeval period, and latterly supported by Methodism (ca. 1770 onwards). From the late nineteenth century we have perhaps as the last example of native vernacular Manx the folklore stories and reminiscences of Ned Beg Hom Ruy (Edward Faragher of Cregneash, 1831-1908), published in 1981-1982.
 * "  Although Manx ran parallel with Irish until the thirteenth century and with Scottish Gaelic until the fifteenth century, its evolution thereafter became more progressive, while at the same time preserving archaisms from the Old Irish period, lost in other branches of Gaelic. The social and political factors which cut Manx off from its sister dialects helped this more progressive evolution which made available a variety of alternative constructions and innovations, especially in the verbal system (see pp. 248ff, below), but which do not entirely displace the old.




 * Does anyone know of a date cited for the /θ/ &rarr; /h/ and /ð/ &rarr; sound changes? Because AFAIK they're universal in all modern Goidelic languages/dialects and so must pre-date any separation. But I have always thought of them as part of what differentiates Old Irish from Middle Irish, which is why I've always considered Manx and Sc.G. to have derived from Middle Irish. IMO the changes are too unusual to have occurred separately in different regions at different times. (Languages that eliminate /θ, ð/ usually do so in favor of /t, d/, /s, z/, or /f, v/, but  is just weird.) --Angr ( tɔk ) 08:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but how can anyone be certain of the pronunciation of Gaelic phonemes prior to audio recordings, let alone in the remote past? Etaonsh 14:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no absolute certainty, of course, but there is a wide consensus on many details after 200 years of historical linguistics. An impressive sample or the achievements of historical linguistics is the article phonological history of the English language. An overview on some methods of sound reconstruction can be found at Ancient Greek phonology. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 17:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Orthography

 * The following comment was left on the article in the Orthography section. It is more appropriate for the talk page, so I moved it here. Angr/ talk 21:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The above comments are typical of ignorant non-Manx comment on the subject. It is simply untrue to suggest that 'Ellan Vannin' significantly conceals etymology in a way 'Ellan Mhannin' wouldn't. Similarly it is not 'English' to thus use 'v,' simply modern European standard. [added 21:06, 26 February 2006 by Etaonsh ]

But you aren't actually talking - i.e., addressing the (valid, I think) issues raised, and are thereby abusing the avowed purpose of this discussion page and turning it into a 'Censored' bin. Etaonsh 08:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how calling Manx spelling "modern" and "up-to-date" is an improvement, or even accurate. As for your previous comment, spelling the sound /v/ with the letter v is standard European usage, but spelling the sounds /i:/ and /u:/ with ee and oo is certainly English-based. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt it an improvement on the relentless and questionable 'Manx orthography indebted to English' theme; questionable because there is no evidence that the orthographer's original decision to bypass traditional, prolix Irish and Scottish Gaelic spelling and adhere to a simpler system was intended as a deference to English - this would be very much in conflict with the independent Manx spirit - just businesslike simplicity in the timeless and eternal spirit of modernism. Thank you at least for at last acknowledging that 'v' is standard and European rather than 'English.' As for 'ee' and 'oo,' I have always, since learning-to-read days, found them clever and somehow amusing spelling innovations; but your apparent assumption that the wit behind them is Anglo-Saxon is in possible conflict both with common understandings of these peoples and with an early British history in which Celtic mission played a key and influential role. It is possible, is it not, that an Anglican, British cleric like Phillips, in providing a Celtic language with a modern orthography, was returning an ancient favour? Etaonsh 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Clever and somehow amusing spelling innovations" perhaps, but basically unique to English as they depend on the Great Vowel Shift to make any sense. Applied to Manx they make no sense at all. And I still fail to see how Manx orthography can be considered "modern" by any stretch of the imagination. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1. What do you mean, 'they make no sense at all'? 2. On the question re 'modern,' it is surely part and parcel of an eternal, businesslike modernism to provide users with speedy and efficient systems - as opposed to irrational, prolix atavisms of the Eilean Mhanainn/Oileán Mhanainn variety? Etaonsh 07:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The make no sense at all because ee and oo logically represent mid vowels not high vowels. And Manx orthography (like English orthography) is anything but "speedy and efficient". I'm not defending Irish and Gaelic spelling, mind you; they are very difficult to learn too. But Manx spelling is neither etymological (like Irish/Gaelic, English, and Faeroese) nor reasonably "phonetic" (like Finnish, Hungarian, and Albanian). Angr (talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

'Oo/oo' is of equal elucidatory value to Manx as it is to English, and as it would be to modern German. It is this concern to give the learner a better idea of the phonetics via spelling which makes Manx spelling more phonetic, at least, than the other Gaelics. We have some way to go, admittedly, but our future progress, and perhaps also that of spelling reform in general, might, I think, be eased by some acknowledgement of our progress to date, instead of this persistent, irrational, hostile and penurious scepticism from across and beyond. Etaonsh 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of the letters oo for the sound [u] can only be "elucidatory" if you have an English background (the Great Vowel Shift Angr mentioned). In modern German, it more naturally represents the sound [o:] (or [oo], if you will), as it does in any language that has mostly preserved the original Latin sound assignations (for instance Finnish) -- which is the most reasonable definition I can see for "modern European standard". Any use of the letters oo for the sound [u] and ee for [i] is far from the original Latin sound assignments and also far from the most widespread uses among modern European orthographies, but indeed very typical for English (just like calling the diphthong [ei] a "long a", even though this diphthong has no [a] sound at all). ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 19:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You (both) say something to the effect that 'The use of the letters oo for the sound [u] can only be "elucidatory" if you have an English background (the Great Vowel Shift).' Frankly, to those of us addressing the issue of the best orthographic representation of Manx (or any language's) phonetics, the etymological history is anything from secondary to irrelevant. History belongs in history books, not jumping regularly, importunely and superfluously in your face like some troublesome ghost. Also, you appear to overlook the interesting and amusing fact that the letters 'e' and 'o' appear to indicate mouth shape (whether enunciating 'e' 'o' 'ee' or 'oo'). Etaonsh 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't question that an "anglicizing" orthography might be the most adequate for Manx. It just might noteworthy that it is (to a certain degree) anglicizing and not based on other celtic orthographies (whether Irish or Welsh). Who has been talking about etymology here? Mouth shapes indicated by letters? That sounds interesting; [o] is certainly a rounded vowel, though I don't see any mouth shape in e or E that could be related to [e] (or to [i], if you're thinking of the specific English sound assignment). ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise how irritating it is to the independent-minded Manx to be repeatedly informed by outsiders that our orthography is 'anglicising.' Also, it isn't strictly true - there is no ownership of graphological symbols and combinations, we are at liberty to make use of whatever alphabets and letter combinations suit our purposes without eternal deference to their original provenance. If we defer to anything, it is to the need for efficiency, modernity and international understanding (unlike some linguistic communities) - not England! As to your implied assertion that other traditional Celtic orthographies are indeed 'Celtic,' my own personal online experience of seeking to promote reform in Irish and Scots Gaelic spelling is that the main opposition comes in fact from an influential Irish-based printer of English provenance[], who stands to lose both financially, and in terms of cultural dominance, from Gaelic orthographic simplification. I'm not altogether clear about Welsh, but am inclined to wonder whether its relatively phonetic orthography, like that of Manx, may ultimately be a by-product of the written language's erstwhile interdiction(?). 'Who has been talking about etymology here?' - you guys, and under the heading 'Orthography' - I don't see the point of your question(?). As to the way the letter 'E,e' relates to [e] or to [i], it clearly suggests a lateral section of an open/half-open mouth, facing the direction of decipherment and emphasising the palate. Etaonsh 06:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's have a look at what you've mentioned: Efficiency: The spellings ee and oo are hardly efficient if they refer to the sounds [i] and [u], while e and o refer to [e] and [o], and while there are also the letters i and u to refer to these sounds. Modernity: These to spellings originated from a peculiarity of the English Great Vowel Shift, that is, about half a millenium ago. International understanding: These two letters certainly prevent international understanding, since most languages use the letters e and o for the sounds [e] and [o], not for other sounds. I'm not criticizing their use at all. Where everybody speaks English, it may really be efficient and helpful to understanding if spelling conventions are used that resemble the English ones. I just wonder how you can ignore that these two spellings, ee and oo for [i] and [u], are typical for English. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 09:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re efficiency: 'ee' and 'oo' are efficient at conveying the pronunciation to the learner, in contrast to the discouraging, confused picture presented by the orthography of your own native tongue. Re modernity: you keep banging on about the fact that these spelling innovations owe their origin to the English Great Vowel Shift of about half a millenium ago. Who cares?! Surely you are like the oriental who fails to notice that our alphabet is more effective than his, and bangs on instead about an alleged 'debt to Rome'! I don't 'ignore that these spellings are typical for English,' it just doesn't concern me - they are also now typical for Manx! Etaonsh 09:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well, I'm glad to see there's no disagreement at all! I guess the differences of our points of views are due to our native tongues. I assume you're a native speaker of English, so English spelling conventions are natural to you, while I'm a native speaker of German and therefore feel more at ease with the original sound assignments of the vowel letters that have also been preserved by other languages with more 'phonemic' orthographies like Italian, Spanish, Finnish, Czech, Hungarian, etc. I'm the first to admit that German orthography also has discouraging and confusing features such as noun capitalization, w for /v/, z for /ts/, silent h or the strange ß, but at least the vowels are mostly regular (and never silent), with the notable exceptions of ie for /i:/ and eu/äu for /oi/. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 14:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I'm a native speaker of English? Why don't you simply accept that I'm having messages relayed from an alien planet on which, despite multifarious differences, something akin to the Roman alphabet developed in parallel, complete with 'e,' 'o,' and the 'ee'/'oo' innovation in the more advanced cultures? Why do you insist on putting something called 'regularity' (= 'one grapheme one uniform function'?) above efficiency in conveying the full range and variety of phonemes? Stereotypically German or what? Etaonsh 20:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Give me two reasons why it should be more efficient to spell the sounds [i: u:] with ee oo, and not with ii uu, and why to read the letters ee oo as [i: u:], and not as [e: o:]. I know only one: It's the conventions of traditional English spelling. This is certainly a very good reason if you're in an English-speaking environment such as the Isle of Man. If you're not in an English-speaking environment, however, there's no reason why to stick to typical English spellings. I've never seen or heard of any orthography that would suggest ee oo for [i: u:] except in English-speaking environments (Scots, Manx). ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 07:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating the same question, ignoring the answer, and topping this with a tiresome and repetitive ethnological message. 'Ee,ee' and 'Oo,oo' are efficient in the context of clarifying the phonemes. 'Ee,ee' is therefore like 'ie' in your own tongue, which, if I'm not mistaken, seems to lack the short 'u'/long 'u' differentiation conveyed by 'Oo,oo'(nicht war?). Etaonsh 07:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I didn't understand you correctly. By efficiency, you meant that spellings allow to differentiate phonemes. I totally agree! My question was, however, why ee oo and not other spellings? Any spelling differentiates phonemes, no matter whether you'd choose ī, ee, “и” or “猗”. By efficiency, I meant that certain spellings for [i: u:] are more appropriate than others. In particular, I consider the spelling ee oo inappropriate – unless in an English-speaking environment! –, because someone who doesn't know English would rather read them as [e: o:] as for instance in Finnish, Middle English or German. By the way, German distinguishes a long and a short u-sound. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about efficiency at conveying phonemes to the uninitiated (I can't think of a shorter way of putting that). I'm glad we agree on something again. 'Why ee oo and not other spellings?' You seem to be moving the goal-posts here, or at least moving on to another issue - but I'm happy to attempt an answer. Isn't it a bit like Australians asking 'Why are we blessed with wallabies?' or Arabs 'Why are we blessed with camels?' Some of the more entrepreneurial among them might perceive thrills and advantages in transplanting such species from their natural, traditional habitats. Re 'inappropriate:' we are discussing one of the world's smallest language communities whose near neighbour, English, happens to be the latest lingua franca - it would be bordering on churlish not to have been influenced by it, the influence arguably assisting adjustment, at all stages, from one language to the other. Nobody denies our closer linguistic kinship with Gaelic neighbours - but linguistic kinship is not necessarily an indication of psychological or historical closeness. Also, to summarise points made already:- 1. Traditional Gaelic spelling is undeniably prolix and atavistic, and a little online research undermines the presumption that this is the Celts' doing. 2. Manx may have been late in being committed to writing, or else was so committed after a period of interdiction. Either way, this gave the first known Manx orthographers an opportunity to avoid some of the cobwebs of the past - and who will miss the latter? And at the end of the day, German writers do fail to alert the learner to the different lengths of the 'u' in darum and zusammen, and therefore should, at length, defer, on this point, to the advantages of English and its little naboo. Etaonsh 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's absolutely justified and appropriate and adequate to have anglicizing spellings in Manx! Concerning darum und zusammen: You better take the samples Muster [mustər] 'pattern' and Schuster [ʃuːstər] 'cobbler'. In particular the word zusammen is not a good sample since zu is a prefix and therefore the u does not follow usual pronunciation rules, compare the pronunciation of the o in together. The length of German u is usually not indicated, but – similar as in English – it can be deduced indirectly in most cases, though not through a silent e, but through consonant doublings (after short u), like in English putting vs. fluting. However, in certain words, long u is indicated by uh (therefore this is comparable to the English oo spelling), e.g. Ruhm 'fame'. I'm not so convinced of the advantages of English, since I think it has more exceptions, consider cut vs. put, good vs. food, soup, lunatic. ― j.&;nbsp;'mach' wust | ✑ 06:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to think of more straightforward examples like Muster and Schuster (muster and shooster if spelt our way) but couldn't. I then worried, indeed, that zusammen was confusing the issue. But on the other hand, were German to follow 'anglicising spelling,' as you call it, zu and zusammen would be something more like 'zo' and 'zosammen,' the 'o' acting like an 'oo' abbreviated, perhaps, on the grounds of being part of a very common preposition. There really is an admirable, hidden ingenuity in English spelling, when you look into it, and I don't feel any Celtic pangs of guilt admitting that, 1.because I give credit where credit's due, 2.because the originators of English spelling are lost to history, and therefore could have been cunning Celts, rationalising Germans, or (what, from experience, seems more than likely in these situations) cross-cultural debaters like ourselves; and 3.I look forward to overriding spelling reforms in the future. My personal preferred option would be to replace 'oo' with a simple Welsh 'w,' to save time/paper/pixels, but I would nevertheless miss the familiar and appealing rounded lips I perceived in oo as a child, and which seemed to add much-needed familiarity and arguably humour to an otherwise dry and perplexing learning process. Oh, and 4: when a linguistic community dominates the region, one can't assume it's always down to force & finance - the two f's may be the underlying factors, but are clearly not the issue in every given instance. Wealth, however obtained(!), brings many apparent and seemingly unconnected advantages of mind and mood. BTW, 'uh' is no more appropriate than 'oo' - just more conventional - at which point, may I draw your attention to two more of my recent Wiki-replies which seem relevant here: [] Etaonsh 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I distinctly remember seeing an article written in Manx using Gaelic orthography which was published back in the 1960s, I think. Anybody got any idea what that publication was? I can't remember. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Prolix. --londheart 07:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and atavistic... ...but diplomatic... ...misunderstood? --londheart 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ...a one-sided or slow type diplomacy... ...ogh, well, traa di liooar! --londheart 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"It is this concern to give the learner a better idea of the phonetics via spelling which makes Manx spelling more phonetic, at least, than the other Gaelics."

Err yeah, it makes it more phonetic if youre an English speaker. The proper Gaelic orthographic systems (which is to say the Scottish and Irish as opposed to the blatantly English Manx) are perfectly phonetic for speakers of those languages just as the French system is for French speakers, the Norwegian system for speakers of Norwegian etc. The efforts to impose a POV/dispute the undeniably English nature of written Manx in this article are both worrying and at the same time interesting - to state the fact that Manx is written with an anglicised orthography as opposed to a Gaelic one is hardly an attack on the language, it is merely a statement of fact. I also find the attempts to describe english orthography as some kind of blessing (given the acknowledged status of spelling/orthography for the English language as an absolute mess) really quite amusing. Certainly there is a long history of languages adopting the written standards of other languages but the alphabets/standards are adopted to suit that language - this has not been the case with Manx which, as anyone fairly fluent in one of the other gaelic languages can observe, is basically a dialect of Scottish Gaelic (with some aspects in common with Irish which Scottish Gaelic lacks) which happens to be written in an English style. Quite how anyone can reasonably argue for the efficiency of 'oo' over 'u' or 'ù' as well as some of the other examples of desperate arguing for the apparent superiority of the Manx system is absolutely beyond my ken. siarach 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Number claiming knowledge of Manx in 1991 Census
An original version of this article had this at '650' and well-known Manx educator Brian Stowell appears to have corrected this on 18.4.06 to 1,689. This is worse than the original misspelling of 'Coonseil ny Gaelgey' ('Coonceil') which I myself spotted and corrected (altho the misspelling gave me food for thought). Hard to see how the original error arose, leading to further suspicions in my mind of Wikipedian POV political misinformation, of the kind I have just highlighted at []. Perhaps 650 was the number for fluent speakers of the language at that time? Are the official figures available on the Internet? Etaonsh 05:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Moghrey mie! 2001 Census report (pdf) shows 1,689 speak, read or write; 1,527 speak; 706 write; 910 read. Presumably an increase from the 1991 figure? Man vyi 05:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bouônjour! (I don't know how that is said). The repetition of the 1,689 figure, in a different context, ten years later, seems an odd coincidence, but, I am told, coincidences and Manxness go together. Presumably the 1991 Census Report isn't online(?). Etaonsh 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Manx 'developed without a written literature'?
This statement seems somewhat 'after the fact' and based on a lack of evidence. True, I can't prove the alternative, namely that early written Manx was destroyed, vandalised and suppressed by law, like Welsh. But, if this alternative, not unparallelled explanation were true, and Manx was, in the distant past, suppressed, would it not rub salt in Manx wounds and add insult to injury to thus promote, however unknowingly, an accompanying historical deception/alibi? If written Manx has not been the object of medieval suppression, how does that square with 'there is likely to have been a bardic tradition in Man supported by a native Gaelic-speaking aristocracy' in the quote from MacUidhir, above? Etaonsh 07:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical lack of prestige
'Since the language had fallen to a status of low prestige, parents tended not to teach the language to their children, thinking that Manx would be useless to them compared with English.' I feel unhappy with this sentence, failing as it does to convey the specific role of John Wesley in particular and Methodism in general in creating this historical, cultural self-distaste (see []). --Etaonsh 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now added that point, link included, but for some reason Man vyi seems to have obscured the reference link [] - it no longer links to the relevant webpage. Please explain. --Etaonsh 06:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The link (now footnoted) still works fine for me. Man vyi 07:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, now, ta. Albeit two redirections instead of one.
 * Wikilogic. --Etaonsh 10:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

native speakers of manx
I think you might want to get a source for the number of native speakers as there is a policy pertaining to original research on wikipedia. Yonatanh 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Grammar?
I suggest that the article be expanded with a section on Manx grammar. That's the least thing you can expect from articles on languages. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)