Talk:Manx language/Archive 2

New Orthography?
It seems that the Manx orthography should've been more standardized, as I can read its sister languages better! Like, for example, there are so many variations of the soft e sound that I can't tell aa apart from ei, ai, etc. I mean, it's indeed a beautiful language, but it gets complicated. Il Studioso  07:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Sometimes I think Manx orthography was designed in such a way as to make English orthography appear sensible by comparison. —Angr 06:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While Manx orthography was based on both English and Welsh there is some sense to it all, though it may not appear that way at first. Manx aa was written different to ei and ai for a reason. The ei sound is pronounced in both Northern and Southern dialects as similar to the ay in English hay. ai is pronounced like the ei in the southern (now standard dialect due to the location of Ned Maddrell's home town and last reputed native speaker - from whom the greatest source of sound recorded material was taken) but in the Northern dialect it was pronounced somewhere in between the ay in English hay and the ai in English Thai. Finally, the aa sound was written thus due to it's pronunciation in the Southern dialect as ay in English hay but in the North it was pronounced as the aw in English straw bringing it closer phonologically to the extinct dialects of North Leinster and East Ulster Irish. The most apparent inconsistency I can tell to date is the lack of clarification between aa and aconsonante e.g. English date can be written daat or date with both having the same pronunciation: IPA in the south and IPA in the North. --MacTire02 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But there are other aspects that really seem to elude any system, such as when consonants are doubled (why saggyrt and not sagyrt?) or when /t/ and /d/ are spelled t and d and when they're spelled th and dh. And the fact that and /x/ were not traditionally distinguished in spelling is also unfortunate: they were both ch until one of the lexicographers (I forget who at the moment) introduced the artificial çh for  sometime in the 19th century. (Actually the ç looked more like an upside-down 5 than like the usual ç of French and Portuguese.) —Angr 13:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, a double consonant indicates a soft consonant i.e. balley is pronounced with a soft l. If the word were written baley it would indicate a  pronounciation. With regards to saggyrt, the double g indicated a softening of the g which has since disappeared. The word would have originally been pronounced  but is now pronounced . As for t and d, and th and dh - the t and d represent a sound similar to the English t and d for the most part, but th and dh always represent the Irish and Scots Gaelic hard t and d with the tongue pressed behind the front upper teeth. However, as with many spelling systems the Manx system does indeed have inconsistencies, probably due to the fact that it was not a Manx person who put the language to writing, but a Welsh-born Anglican clergyman who learned the language as a second-, if not third-language. --MacTire02 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide
Is there any scope on this page (or a separate page) for a pronunciation guide. It would be very useful to at least have the IPA for the vocabulary and numbers. The best that I have come up with on the internet is this page, the accuracy of which is doubtful. Jimjamjak (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not so much inaccurate as oversimplified. Manx isn't a language that has a clean one-to-one correspondence between the written language and the pronunciation. I'll see what I can find. —Angr 10:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's much more phonetic than English but I get your point. English has a clear IPA chart listing the common 44 (or so) sounds and their IPA symbols and Manx Gaelic should have the same (with fewer sounds obviously).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.203.140.202 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

History section
Towards the end of the History section, there is a bunch of sentences tagged with 'citation needed'. These POV/controversial unsourced statements have remained tagged since July, so I think it's time to take action. I intend to remove them over the weekend if someone doesn't come up with reliable references. Thoughts, anyone? --Yumegusa (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah; the first two sort of imply that there exists a Manx-speaking community, which just isn't true. The third sentence is probably true enough, but is phrased in a non-NPOV way and isn't even particularly interesting. —Angr 10:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

--Yumegusa (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Arguably, no trace of written Manx survives from before the 1600s". How so, arguably? Does this mean there are sources supporting conflicting opinions about this? I've added {fact} to the statement, so let's see what shows up.

I live on the island, speak some Manx and know many of the people involved in the Manx-speaking "community" on the Island. The removal of the section regarding the attitudes to spoken Manx renders the article unrepresentative of the actual status of Manx on the Isle of Man. Celtic revivalists often have an overly-romantic view of the position of Manx in the community, and like to ignore the fact that it was actively discouraged from being spoken in the last stages of its decline - both during education & at home. Even today, speakers can encounter negative attitudes when using Manx, and it's important to give some balance to an article that gives an unrealistically favourable picture of the status of Manx. Speakers often have stories of negative experiences from non-speakers when actively using the language, and it's a fact that some of the new generation of speakers would be almost ashamed to admit their knowledge in mixed company, for fear of being branded insular and nationalistic. Removing this section gets rid of coverage of one of the factors that's contributing to the slow takeup of Manx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

--Yumegusa (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone wants to prevent such information appearing in the article, but content must adhere to certain guidelines: it must be verifiably sourced to reliable sources, contain no original research, and be written from a neutral point of view. Please follow the links in the previous sentence for a fuller explanation of those terms.


 * Citation needed tags are ugly. Just delete the tags - not the text that they're referring to.  Wikipedia is already inaccurate as hell so what's the big deal?  We're not going to find sources for everything and just because you can find a source doesn't mean it's of any use anyway.  --217.203.140.202 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent updates
Nice work, Angr. Was it deliberately that you removed Irish 'carraig' from the vocabulary table? Have you any evidence it's not cognate with Manx 'creg'? --Yumegusa (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they're cognate, they're only distantly so. Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Welsh all have both a one-syllable "crVg" word (V = any vowel) and two-syllable "cVrrVg" word: Irish has carraig and creig, Gaelic has carraig and creag, and Welsh has carreg and craig. The etymological relationship between the two-syllable words and the one-syllable words isn't clear, but it is clear that Manx creg goes with the set of one-syllable words. (The Manx equivalent of the two-syllables words is carrick.) We could add Irish creig to the table as the Irish cognate, though. —Angr 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Also for deleting my duplicate posts (the server was giving dodgy responses, and I didn't realise I'd successfully posted). --Yumegusa (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Manx isn't so bad after all ...
Now, after about a year, I've finally compiled a great ton of information, lessons, and handy indexes of the Manx language, and I think I'll finally get a good scope of the language after about three years. Yes, like I'd stated before, it's orthography may be a little unstandardized, but despite my nationality, I believe Manx is a very beautiful language, and I'd love to contribute to the steadily rising number of speakers.

Oh, and Wikipedia has reall yupdated the Manx language article. It looks nothing like it did a year ago. It is one of the most co mprehensive articles o0n the language ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlStudioso (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 November 2008
 * Glad you like it! I worked on expanding it in September and October. —Angr 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Native speaker numbers
Some apparent discrepancies here. The infobox claims 59 "native speakers" with the footnoted justification, "As of March 2007, there were 53 students at the Manx Language School (Y Vunscoill Ghaelgagh) and 6 graduates of Y Vunscoill, all of whom are classed as native speakers since they have been able to speak Manx as well as English from a very young age" - but no reference.

In the Bunscoill Ghaelgagh article, we read that the school has 46 students, again unreferenced. The school website unfortunately doesn't seem to provide numbers.

Perhaps this apparent contradiction can be squared, through one figure being more out-of-date than the other, but there is the larger question of the apparent abuse of the term "native speaker". My children have been through the comparable gaelscoil system in Ireland, and while their Irish is very strong, to claim that they are native speakers of the language would be downright dishonest. So by what justification can every kid who has been through an all-Manx primary school be claimed as native speakers? Are we to believe that every last one of them is so gifted as to outshine the vast majority of their counterparts going through comparable language-immersed education systems in Ireland and elsewhere?

I believe the revival of Manx is a worthy cause, but its proponents would do well to realise that there is nothing at all to be gained though overstating their case and the distortion of numbers.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I spent two years learning Manx when I was there in the early 90's. Some of the fluent Manx speakers had married and spoke only Manx at home.  There was a three year old girl who was completely fluent in Manx as her first language.  That counts as a native speaker in my book... AJRG (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. But how can that be squared with counting every single pupil, past and present, of the school to arrive at the number of 'native speakers'? Leave your credulity on the ferry, folks. --Yumegusa (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked the GAELG list and you're quite correct. It wouldn't be appropriate to refer to the pupils at the Bunscoill as 'native speakers' of Manx.  The three year old girl I mentioned now has a TCG (GCSE equivalent in Manx), so there is at least one native speaker, and this was recognised by a change in the status of the Manx language this year from Extinct to Living .  I've asked for a better count but no-one is going to discuss individual children, so evidencing a precise number will be a challenge. AJRG (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, ajrg. I've amended the article text accordingly ('native' -> 'competent') but the numbers themselves still need a citation. Can you help? --Yumegusa (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that 'competent' works, because there are many competent speakers who aren't children... The number of pupils at the Bunscoill (53) is here . I don't doubt that six former pupils have now gone on to the Queen Elizabeth II High School in Peel, but I haven't found a reference for it. AJRG (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Thanks again. As things stand then, we appear to have a choice between reducing the 'competent' figure to 53 as the only referenced figure, or remove reference to competent speaker numbers entirely until/unless something verifiable is found. Any other suggestions?--Yumegusa (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to include the fluent adult speakers. The most recent published figure (an educated guess) is here, but this must include a handful of children as the previous figure I have from 2000 (again from the Manx Language Officer in the Department of Education, but not published) was about 50. Adding the two fifty's together I would suggest "about a hundred competent speakers, including a small number of children who are new native speakers".  I can't see a much better figure being available, but I've asked. AJRG (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good. Will you please do the necessary, including the refs, as I'm off the air for a few days now? --Yumegusa (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orthography
In the example:


 * "V'ad smooinaghtyn dy beagh cabbyl jeeaghyn skee as deinagh ayns y voghree dy beagh eh er ve ec ny ferrishyn fud ny h-oie as beagh ad cur lesh yn saggyrt dy cur e vannaght er."

Should "voghree" be "voghrey" ? - Francis Tyers · 10:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a quote from Thomas Christian of Ramsey in 1929, and "ayns y voghree" - "in the morning" is a historical genitive singular (compare "shamyr voghree" - "morning room"). The forms "car y voghree" - "all morning" and "er y voghree" - "on the morrow" are still used, but the Manx Bible uses "ayns y voghrey" in Genesis 49:27, Matthew 16:3 and Matthew 21:18.--AJRG (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Thomas Christian only speak this sentence, or did he write it down? I took it from Broderick's book, where it's spelled "voghree"; I assumed that it was Broderick himself who was transcribing recordings of spoken Manx and therefore Broderick's decision to use the spelling "voghree" rather than "voghrey". At any rate, the pronunciation suggests that "voghree" is what the speaker intended (regardless of whether it's prescriptively "grammatically correct") since "voghrey" would surely have been pronounced, wouldn't it? —Angr 15:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote was recorded from speech by Carl Marstrander (1883-1965), Professor of Celtic at the University of Oslo and the spelling occurs more than once. Also recorded is "gys y moghree" - "till the morning". George Broderick's comments on the quality of Thomas Christian's Manx are here .--AJRG (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks both for the clarification! My confusion was that what I found in the Bible and in the quote differed. Perhaps you might be able to help on another issue. I'm currently thinking of making a morphological analyser for Manx, after having made one for Breton and was wondering if the information on gender and plural for nouns in Cregeen's dictionary (as can be found in Google Books) can be generally considered reliable? I ask about this one as opposed to anything more recent as it is in the public domain and thus compatible with the GPL. - Francis Tyers · 11:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Use it as a start. There's also Kelly's Grammar . Don't forget carval, (pl) carvallyn and recortys, (pl) recortyssyn.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJRG (talk • contribs) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I found Kelly's Grammar, but was a bit concerned that it was out-of-date and didn't treat the language as spoken/written today. One thing I was wondering is that I've read various things about the genitive, that it isn't used and that it is. If you have a moment and know the language well (it seems you do!) could you let me know the situation? Thanks - Francis Tyers · 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to remember that the language as it is spoken and written today is a basically a revival of the literary Manx of the 18th and 19th centuries. 20th-century speakers like Thomas Christian and Ned Maddrell are considered native speakers because they learned the language as young children, but generally they had spoken it very little if at all for more than 50 years by the time linguists recorded them. Their grammar is very wobbly, they can't remember what happens in the stories they want to tell, they can't remember the lyrics to the songs and poems they want to recite, and so forth. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet published a descriptive grammar of Revived Manx as it is actually spoken by the handful of children who can be considered native speakers of it. If you want to do any sort of linguistic analysis of Manx, I'd recommend analyzing the literary language of approximately the 18th/early 19th century, as that was the last time the language was written down by people who were confident in their Manx-speaking abilities and whose grammar is really consistent and reliable. —Angr 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I understood that (regarding the revival, 20th-century speakers etc.) So you would say if I go by Kelly's description it won't be far off what would be written/spoken by "native" or "fluen" speakers today? Basically my idea was to start with a frequency analysis of the Manx Wikipedia and go from there, but perhaps it might not be the best example of the language. Regarding the grammar online, aside from the Wikipedia page and Kelly's grammar, I've also found Celtic languages: Manx (which unfortunately often substitutes IPA for Manx orthography) and A sketch of Manx.  - Francis Tyers · 08:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic analyses
Wikipedia is unreliable for linguistic analyses, in any language. You get sentences that are written, cut up, butchered and sewn together as they are edited and adjusted by a dozen different people. Prof Wrong (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, interesting. - Francis Tyers · 15:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Manx Wikipedia is especially unreliable because you really can't be certain that contributors have a native command of the language. This is why I recommended sticking to centuries-old texts, because with them you can be fairly certain that the people who wrote them had full native competence in Manx. (Using English or German Wikipedia as a corpus of written English or German isn't ideal, but it's a damn sight better than using, say, Old English or Gothic Wikipedia as a corpus of written Old English or Gothic! And despite the good intentions of the revivalists and the parents putting their children in the Bunscoill, Manx is closer to Old English and Gothic in terms of the linguistic competence of the contributors than to modern English and German.) —Angr 16:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Manx Gaelic - Yn çhengey Ghaelgagh aboo!
In English, it is more accurate if not appropriate to call the language 'Manx Gaelic'. Of course, if one was living in the Isle of Man it would be more appropriate to call it simply 'Gaelic' or 'Yn Ghaelg'. This would also apply to Scotland and Ireland. The native speakers of the Gaelic language all called it 'Gaelic' or 'the Gaelic', when they spoke in English. Learners or L2 speakers were not as consistent, in Ireland in particular, learners were encouraged to think of the term 'Gaelic' as 'pejorative'. It is ridiculous to call the various varieties of the Gaelic language after the country in which it is spoken, without also attributing to it its Gaelic origin. If the so-called 'common usage' argument prevails, then it should not be long now until 'Scottish Gaelic' becomes simply 'Scottish', just as 'Irish-Gaelic' has become simply 'Irish'. Who or what does this serve? Below is some examples of the 'common usage' of the term 'Manx Gaelic'. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior:Languages/Manx_Gaelic http://wikitravel.org/en/Manx_Gaelic_phrasebook http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manx_Gaelic http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/isle_of_man/4271840.stm http://www.iomtoday.co.im/manx-language/Fockle-ny-ghaa-schoolchildren-take.3901786.jp http://www.mv.chrislittler.co.uk/ http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~stephen/ http://www.gov.im/tourism/culture/ http://www.ycg.iofm.net/ http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/canan.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/isle_of_man/7901763.stm http://www.iomtoday.co.im/skeealnygaelgey/A-bit-of-Manx-Gaelic.4239436.jp http://www.manxheritage.org/language/english/manx_gaelic_school.html http://www.omniglot.com/language/learning/gaelic/manx.htm http://www.allwords.com/word-Manx+Gaelic.html http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/ManxGaelic.htm http://www.christianisrael.com/gaelic_manx/index.htm http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_Gaelic_leid Eog1916 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, but of course usage of "Manx Gaelic" pales in comparison to usage of "Manx" alone. I think the term "Manx Gaelic" is even rarer, proportionally speaking, than "Irish Gaelic" is for Irish. Scottish Gaelic is the only one of the three that's commonly called "Gaelic" unmodified in English. And using the terms "Manx" and "Irish" alone is in no way inaccurate, inappropriate, or ridiculous. +Angr 21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As a speaker of Manx and English I agree with Angr. On the Isle of Man the term Manx Gaelic is rarely, if ever, heard. The Manx people prefer to use the term Manx. References to the name Manx Gaelic can only really be found in ancient/old texts and are not relevant in the modern day (some organisations such as Undinys Eiraght Vannin - Manx Heritage Foundation do use Manx Gaelic but only sporadically - even on the page you referenced above there are only approximately 200 words on the page and Gaelg in its English form is mentioned 10 times. Of those 10 Manx Gaelic is mentioned 4 times, and Manx or Manx language is mentioned 6 times). Even when speaking Manx the name of the language is not as clear-cut as the above references suggest. The fact is that in Manx there are several names for the language - Gaelg (Y Ghaelg), Gailck (Y Ghailck), Gaelg Vanninagh, Gailck Vanninagh and, yes, Manninish. Unlike in Scotland or in Ireland there is not really a very strong Gaelic feeling on the island - probably due to the fact that over 40% of the population is foreign born and those that are native are a mix of Manx Gael, Norse and Briton (the original inhabitants were Britons who later adopted the Gaelic tongue due to influences from SE Ulster, NE Leinster and Southern Scotland) dating back over a thousand years. Homogeneity is not a part of Manx culture, and, as a result, exclusionary terms such as Gael are not popular. The term Manx, however, is seen as encompassing everyone on the island. --MacTire02 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also "A Dictionary of the Manks Language", Cregeen, 1835 AJRG (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "That's great, but of course usage of "Manx Gaelic" pales in comparison to usage of "Manx" alone."
 * Angr, if this is the case, then where is the evidence?


 * "Homogeneity is not a part of Manx culture, and, as a result, exclusionary terms such as Gael are ::::not popular." MacTire02, presumably this is just your own personal observation or do you have any evidence to support your claim ?Eog1916 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence is the mass of both scholarly and popular publications where the language is referred to as "Manx", not "Manx Gaelic". +Angr 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For example: A Handbook of Late Spoken Manx, George Broderick 1984 and The Manx Family Bible . AJRG (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and also a good summary here . AJRG (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Eog - Have you been to the Isle of Man? When you have done so I'll listen. As regards evidence, just take a look at all the scholarly publications on the Manx language - they far outnumber those about the Manx Gaelic language. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the book/cds Skeealyn Vannin invaluable as a resource/insight into the language. What strikes me is that native speakers would seem to have always refered to the language as Gaelic not Manx ( or even Manx Gaelic) and their Gaelic was invariably translated into English as 'Manx'. ( See page 108, where Ned Maddrell states the following; ooiley Gailck, cha dooar shin mooney skaddan which is given in English as all Manx, we did not get many herring. Writers in  English refer to 'Manx Gaelic' and 'Manx' in a free and interchangeable manner. See page 9. The term 'native speaker' is used in this publication to describe those who were brought up in the Isle of Man to speak Manx Gaelic as their first language. In 1848 there were probably less than twenty native Manx speakers left in the Isle of Man.86.158.217.229 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Manx refer to their language in Manx as Gaelg or Gailck. This is translated into English as Manx. Even that sentence you provided above shows the translation as Manx. What word the Manx use to refer to their language in Manx is irrelevant. This is after all the ENGLISH wikipedia, not the Manx Gaelic one. On the English wikipedia we use English, believe it or not. To say otherwise allows us to then do the opposite and contest the validity of the term Béarla - Béurla - Baarle in the Gaelic languages. This after all does not exactly translate accurately as English, although that is common usage now. Rather this word means conversation, talk, gibberish etc. The proper puritanical way of saying English in the gaelic languages is Sacs-Bhéarla. Are we going to insist upon Gaelic speaking communities that they change their modern usage of the word Béarla to reflect historical and etymological perspectives - no is the answer. So why do we expect the English speaking community which stretches from one end of the globe to the other to bow to local fundamentalist Gaelic decrees? The fact is that the majority of references to "Manx Gaelic" are antiquated, recordings, or re-hashed material. Those people that do use the term Manx Gaelic in speech and writing do so interchangeably with Manx and are generally Manx language activists. That's perfectly fine. But this page is not about language activism, pan-celticism or anything else like that. This describes the Celtic language of the Isle of Man and how it is named in English, not just in Mann but throughout the globe, and that includes people with no knowledge of the language, and, indeed, those who are anti-Gaelic. --MacTire02 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See and for the internationally accepted English name for different languages. AJRG (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I started this debate in the hope that I could cast some light on the propensity of modern learners of Gaelic to refer to some of the varieties of Gaelic as simply 'Manx' or 'Irish'. Why this use has developed (and even been promoted) is a phenomenon that may be worth researching, in any case, I dare say that this is a matter that could be progressed at a later date. I thank Angr and AJRG for supplying details of the 'evidence' that suggests to them that 'Manx' is the appropriate name in English for 'Manx Gaelic'. I respect their views, but as a scientist, I am not convincing by the paucity of the evidence produced. Given the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, particularly ''our need to respectpect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations'', I don't wish to engage further with a debate on this issue with MacTire02, as I find some of his comments to be of the kind 'argumentum ad hominem'. For me, the debate was personally worthwhile, it has advanced my understanding of this particular variety of Gaelic, a variety which is refered to by writers in the English language as 'Manx Gaelic' and 'Manx', in a free and interchangeable manner. Like ARCHIBALD CREGEEN (RIP), I would like to concur with his wish (See: A DICTIONARY MANKS LANGUAGE,Preface,(1835)) that Gaelic learning will revive, and that every facility will be afforded for the acquisition of a language so essentially necessary within the precincts of Mona to the students of Divinity, and the students of LawEog1916 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Eog - I'm afraid you did not start this conversation to cast any light on why modern literature has a propensity to refer to the varieties of Gaelic as simply Manx or Irish. You say in your last paragraph that you thought it was a phenomenon worth researching, however I quote from yourself the very first sentence of the conversation:

"In English, it is more accurate if not appropriate to call the language 'Manx Gaelic'."
 * That is not trying to cast any light on a topic. That is not trying to research any particular phenomenon. That is a demand. Pure and simple. I do not take demands very well I'm afraid. I am well up for discussion on any topic - demands are not to my liking. Agh, my t'ou geearree resoonaght er ennym ny Gaelgey ayns Gaelg, foddee oo goll dys Wikipedia ny Gaelgey as cur resoonaght ayn er duillag mychione ny Gaelgey, ny cur fys er Coonseil ny Gaelgey. Foddee dy vel freggyrtyn mychione ny feysht shen dhyt eu. Gura mie ayd, as slayn. As va mee smooinaghtyn cre'n chooish nagh vel mee foast cur lesh Wikipedia ny Yernish, ny lesh Wikipedia ny Baarle ny smoo. Ta fys aym reesht. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: In English, it is more accurate if not appropriate to call the language Manx Gaelic. I would have thought that this statement was simply an expression of my opinion. Certainly it was not my intention to 'order' or 'demand' that my opinion should take precedence over the views of others or indeed that the title 'Manx Language' be replaced by 'Manx Gaelic' to satisfy my whims. I would be grateful if MacTire02 would not direct any other messages to me, I have already said that I don't wish to engage further with a debate on this issue with MacTire02, as I find some of his comments to be of the kind 'argumentum ad hominem'.Eog1916 (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage of Manx language vs Manx Gaelic
The chart below illustrates the usage of the terms Manx gaelic versus Manx and how they are used on an international versus national level (within the Isle of Man). As can be seen from the chart, usage of Manx or Manx language is preferred in the Isle of Man. However, when we look at it from an international perspective, there is an obvious surge in preference for Manx Gaelic, although Manx is still the preferred option. All references in the chart are hyperlinked for ease of verifiability: 1 Note: Of the two organisations with responsibility for the Manx language, neither use the term Manx Gaelic when referring to it in English.

The following leading experts on the Manx language also refer to the language primarily as Manx, rather than Manx Gaelic:
 * Brian Stowell - fluent speaker, President of the Manx Branch of the Celtic Congress
 * Publications incl. Basic Manx Course, Chronicle of the Kings of Mann and the Isles
 * Jennifer Kewley-Draskau - Research Fellow at the Centre for Manx Studies, School of Archaeology, Classics, and Egyptology, University of Liverpool
 * Publications incl. Practical Manx, Account of the Isle of Man in song, also known as The Manx traditionary ballad, or, The Manannan ballad
 * Phil Kelly, Manx Language Officer for the Department of Education
 * Publications incl. a reverse of Farghers English-Manx Dictionary

See also the following modern works:
 * Manx is Fun by Paul Rodgers
 * Abbyr shen! by Brian Stowell with a cover description mentioning that the book is about ''Starting to Speak Manx"
 * Talk More Manx
 * Talk the Talk Manx
 * Talk Business Manx
 * Fargher's English-Manx Dictionary by D.C. Fargher (note no Gaelic mantioned in the title)

--MacTire02 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So we're saying that if lots of ignorant Americans use the term 'Manx language' rather than 'Manx Gaelic' we must accept it? What's the point in listing these search results?  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a collection of what's most popular on t'internet.  Google.com and Google.co.uk results have been quoted but what about those from Google.co.im?  And what relevence does all this have anyway?--217.203.140.202 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, someone above said that it's never called 'Manx Gaelic' in the UK or Isle of Man. I'm from the Isle of Man and have certainly heard this term used and it's considered the correct term (and I don't speak the language).  As for the UK it's hard to say because most Brits are quite ignorant and don't even know where the fuck the Isle of Man is (that's probably good as the UK and USA have a tendency to bomb places once they know where they are).  Yes, people use the term 'Manx language' but it's not really very accurate as it could refer to 'English' (i.e. a language spoken in Mann) or even 'Anglo-Manx' (a dialect of English which nowadays is like a cross between Scouse and Irish English).--217.203.140.202 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What Americans? I'm Irish. I am also an acquaintance of Adrian Cain (Yn Greinneyder) (through correspondence) and Brian Stowell (prominent Manx language scholar and leader of the Manx language movement)(whom I have met and also through correspondence). I can also speak the language fluently. Those items that I listed above come from the Isle of Man, the UK and internationally and are used to refer to verifiable claims about how the language is called. I can't back up my claims with no back-up!!! Where else and how else do I back up my claims without back up? Anyway - the question in concern is whether the language is called Manx or Manx Gaelic. Whether or not people are intelligent or not is irrelevant as we use the common name here, which means that, unfortunately, we must take their views into account too, whether we like them or not. Yes, it is more appropriate to call the language Manx Gaelic to differentiate it from the other Gaelic languages when we are speaking academically, but this is not an academic sphere. It is only and encyclopaedia. And we are not the only encyclopaedia to list Manx as Manx and not Manx Gaelic. Britannica, Columbia, Encarta and answers.com also list the language as Manx and not Manx language. But that is a personal opinion and/or dependant on situation. How many people spend their entire time labeling everything politically, linguistically and technically correct.


 * In relation to why I chose to argue this point it is because I don't like the term Gaelic as I find that term to be an archaism. I also find it offensive - to speak of the Gaels nowadays as far as I have encountered is to speak of TRUE speakers of Gaelic languages - even modern definitions in English Wikipedia lists the Gaels as an ethnolinguistic group. While the Manx are related ethnically, the Manx language died as a community language. That means by following Wikipedia's own definition, the Manx are no longer Gaels. All speakers of the language are second language speakers, irrespective of whether they are good at speaking it or not. I myself am fluent in Russian but I can't claim to be Russian based on that. Similarly just because one can speak a Gaelic language does not make one a Gael. Otherwise I have a very good friend from Moscow who was born and bred Russian and can now call himself a Gael. This means that ALL of the Isle of Man is excluded from Gaeldom (as none there were born Manx-speaking) as well as pretty much everyone from Ireland and Scotland. In fact using the term Gaelic means we are talking about the language spoken by Gaels (itself an exclusive term). Maybe, using these strict definitions of Gael and Gaelic, this means that we can speak about Manx Gaelic until 1974, but after that I'm afraid, it's just plain old Manx I'm afraid.


 * In relation to the point about English spoken on the Isle of Man being called Manx - what kind of fool would say that? Secondly, in relation to Anglo-Manx - that's a dialect. This is why we have the article located at Manx language and not Manx dialect. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between dialect and language. To use Manx language to refer to the Manx dialect of English is just plain wrong on EVERY level. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Answers.com is just a Wikipedia mirror, so it can't be counted separately. But even academic works generally use "Manx" rather than "Manx Gaelic"; I have maybe a dozen scholarly books and articles on my bookshelves that mention Manx, and none of them call it "Manx Gaelic". It just isn't a common name for the language. +Angr 16:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, relax. Call it Manx. Use the term Manx Gaelic when appropriate. It'll be appropriate when you want to emphasize that Manx is closely related to its sister languages, or to indicate to people who don't know that Manx Gaelic is not a dialect of English. There's no need to posture or to prove here. Common sense suffices. -- Evertype·✆ 15:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

'Meon na nGael' or 'The thoughts of Dr. Ciarán Ó Duibhín'!
"Cibé rud a chreideann an mhuinntir a labhrann ar "Gaeilge agus Gàidhlig", agus a bíos in amannaí ag deánamh "aistriúcháin" eadarthu, níor bh'é meon na nGael ariamh gur teangthacha difriúla iad an Ghaedhilg in Éirinn agus in Albain. Teangaidh amháin a d'ainmnigheadh siad-san. "Gaoluinn" a bheireadh an Muimhneach uirthi, agus labhaireadh sé ar "Ghaoluinn na hAlban". "Gàidhlig" a bheireadh an t-Albanach uirthi agus labhaireadh sé ar "Ghàidhlig Éireannach"". "Sin an dearcadh céanna atá i bhFoclóir Uí Dhónaill: "Gaeilge na hAlban" atá aige. Agus "Gaeilge Mhanann," le cois "An Mhanainnís". Níl a leithéid de fhocal agus "Gàidhlig" i nGaedhilg na hÉireann, ná gnaithe leis. Níl gnaithe le níos mó ná leagan amháin de ainm na teangtha i bpíosa scríbhneoreachta ar bith nach bhfuil dá scríobhadh d'aonturas i meascán de chanamhaintí. Más mór ár meas ar Ó Dónaill de ghnáthach, is iongantach an leisc atá orainn géilleadh dó ins an phoinnte seo." ( Tag: http://web.archive.org/web/20040818201858/www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~oduibhin/cruinneas/gaedhilg.htm) Eog2016 (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines advise the use of English on English Wikipedia talk pages. AJRG (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Translation kindly provided by an Irish speaker: "Whatever those people believe who speak of "Gaeilge agus Gàidhlig" and who sometimes "translate" from one to the other, the Gaels never considered the Gaelic spoken in Ireland and Scotland to be different languages. They had only one name for the language. The Munster people called it "Gaeluinn" and spoke of "Gaoluinn na hAlban (Scots Gaelic)". In Scotland it was called "Gàidhlig" and they spoke of "Gàidhlig Éireannach (Irish Gaelic)". Ó Dónaill's dictionary takes the same view. It speaks of "Gaeilge na hAlban", and of "Gaeilge Mhanann (Manx Gaelic)" as well as "An Mhanainnis (Manx)". There is no such word as "Gàidhlig" in Irish, not in ordinary use. It is not the practice to use more than one version of the name other than in a piece of writing which has been consciously written in a mixture of dialects. While we have great respect for Ó Dónaill, we are extremely reluctant to accept what he says on this point." AJRG (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The last three sentences actually say something rather different: "There is no such word as "Gàidhlig" is Irish, nor any need for it. There is no need to use more than one (dialectal) version of the name of a language in any piece of (Gaelic) text unless it is being consciously written in a mixture of dialects.  While we generally profess great respect for Ó Dónaill, it is strange that we are so reluctant to accept what he says on this point."