Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 7

Old Irish is a false statement and is inaccurate.
Before the 18th century, there was NO such nation as Ireland or the Irish people.

So, you cannot say Scottish Gaelic came from old or primitive Irish as there is NO SUCH thing.

We have factual evidence that Ireland was called Scotia in primitive times and also Hibernia.

We have evidence stating that the given name to the celts in Ireland was the Scotti it Scots in Saxon.

Documents signed by Robert the Bruce during his brother's invasions of Ireland call the land, Scotia major.

Scotia translates into Scotland.

So, the accurate and factual statement would be:

Scottish Gaelic evolved from primitive Scotti.

Scottish Gaelic evolved from ancient Gaelic.

Scottish Galic descends from Old Gaelic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1F17:9600:40C4:540D:270D:D572 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for politics - Old Irish is often called Old Gaelic by Gaelic speakers, this is true, but the fact of the matter is that Gaelic was brought to Scotland by migrants from what is now Ireland. In referring to history, we use the modern terms regardless of what they were called in their respective time periods. Ladysif (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Source on current spoken status of Scots Gaelic within Scotland
This article really isn't my ballpark whatsoever - I just thought I'd pop in and say I found this source on the numbers of Scots Gaelic speakers, and in particular, the decline in the use of the spoken language within Scotland. If someone more well-versed than myself could add this into the article somewhere, that'd be grand. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"Gaels/Scots" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gaels/Scots. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Scottish Gaels" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Scottish Gaels. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing inaccurate IPA
Look, I really like Am Faclair Beag but there is no justification to include its IPA as an alternative pronunciation. It is not a scientific site, and the simplified IPA it uses does not correspond to academic consensus (I'm not aware of any academic thinking Gaelic has voiced final stops). What is more, readers of this article are unlikely to know Am Faclair Beag and having competing IPAs is just confusing. Jeppiz (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should not sit alongside the full IPA used on Wikipedia. I'd just like to point out that the simplified form used by the Faclair Beag is essentially that common to Scottish Gaelic academic publications. It's very common by linguists dealing in just one language not to use full IPA for reasons of readability. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, early close per WP:SNOW  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic → Scottish Gaelic language – At Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 18, there was some sentiment that this should be moved from Scottish Gaelic to Scottish Gaelic language. Listing here for other's opinions. —Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 15:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging participants in the CfD full discussion and both speedy move requests: —Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 15:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, to avoid ambiguity. The bare title can also refer to culture. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm open to being educated about this: What is "Scottish Gaelic culture", and can you give examples of "Scottish Gaelic" being used without the word "culture" (a) to refer to the culture and (b) without the reference actually coming back to language, even if implicitly? (For example, in the discussion I cite below on Yiddish, "Yiddish culture" is posited by one contributor, but it seemed that all that connotes is culture rooted in the Yiddish language.)
 * To articulate more clearly what I'm getting at: As far as I know, the Scots being one of the Gaelic peoples, Scottish culture is a subset of Gaelic culture. Therefore, again as far as I know, "Scottish Gaelic culture" is comparable to "Calabrian Italic culture" or "Gujarati Indic culture" and isn't something one would expect people to say or write. Largoplazo (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose It doesn't need to renamed. It is already the common name and is universally known by that name. The title doesn't refer to the culture exclusively.   scope_creep Talk  15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose (subject to change depending on what BrownHairedGirl may say in response to me above) and I don't understand the reasoning why participants in the category discussion opted for keeping "language". WP:NCLANG is the applicable guideline page. If the name of the language were just "Scottish" or just "Gaelic", that would be one thing, but "Scottish Gaelic" is unambiguously the language. A discussion about moving the article on Yiddish in the other direction passed without opposition in 2015. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per scope creep. We have discussed about Gaelic culture at Gaels but there is no unique discussion about the Gaelic culture in Scotland. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCL although EB does use the "language" part even though it can have multiple articles with the same title this goes against the convention here and I'd say that people do often say "English language" because "English" has other uses like the people and country but that's not really true for Scottish Gaelic (aside from the topic covered at Gaels). I've never heard people say "Scottish Gaelic language".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this goes against normal usage - to throw in an emotive (rather than Wikipedia guidelines) argument, it rather seems to devalue the word "Gaelic" by having to append the word "language". I note with some dismay that Basque language is aligned with this suggested change - that is another group of people/culture/etc. bound together by a language. (Unlike, say, "French", where the word can have more than one meaning and addition of "language" is justifiably needed.) I think it would be a serious mistake for this article to follow Basque. It is worth adding that, if my understanding of grammar holds good, "Gaelic"/"Basque"/"French" etc. are all nouns when used on their own and referring to the language, but in every other usage I can think of (including "Gaelic language") the word becomes an adjective. It seems to me to devalue the word to only use it in its adjectival form.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above reasoning. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Why is there any attempt to rename it, when it is universally known as Scottish Gaelic and the opening sentence of the lede states its a language, and there was a strong oppose during the CFD?   scope_creep Talk  15:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am curious too. I was on the side of the opposers. Therefore, I wanted to rename the respective category to meet WP:C2D. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, why you were opposing my CfD? Do you want to keep the inconsistentcy betwween the article and the respective category? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My so-called disruptions in Scottish Gaelic
I have added the "development_body" parameter in Infobox language to add Bord na Gaidhlig in the infobox. I have also added Scotland in the "nation" parameter as a semi-official language, according to the law. However, reverted my edits, claiming it disruptive. In order to settle down this, we have to gain consensus by the WP:BRD evoking. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The notion of a "semi-official language" has no status and you have provided no support for your assertion. Your edit was in contradiction to what the article says in regard to official status, or the lack thereof, and you blanked a hidden comment warning editors not to do the very thing you were doing, without support or explanation. Then you warred, in contradiction of BRD, to reinsert these edits. If that isn't disruptive, I don't know what is. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What "consensus"? There's no "consensus" needed, Bòrd na Gàidhlig is NOT a language development agency and (however much I wish this was not the case) Scottish Gaelic has no official or even semi-official status. The nearest it ever got was being awarded a position of "deserving equal respect", which legally means zilch. I would suggest you either do a LOT more research or pick topics to edit that you know something about, . Akerbeltz (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sound advice which, from what I've seen of it, could often be applied to your editing in general. It's all very well "being bold" per the heading of your user page but not if you display the kind of ill-considered, unsupported recklessness you often seem to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Recognised Minority Language in Canada
I feel like Canada should be removed as a location where Scottish Gaelic is a recognised minority language. There's no legislation in place (akin to Scotland's Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005) that gives it this status in Nova Scotia even, let alone on a federal level. In Nova Scotia, though, it is taught in some public schools and the provincial government has a "Gaelic Affairs" office, so it's arguable that it does have some government recognition there. As mentioned though, there's no legislation enshrining it as a protected minority language. If anything, it should be Nova Scotia rather than Canada listed as a region where it's a recognised minority language, but honestly even that feels like a stretch. Crazygraham (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"Most of Scotland" Myth...
I've changed a line claiming 'most' of modern Scotland was once Gaelic-speaking. We know it was spoken in wide areas of the landmass, to what extent it truly replaced Pictish in eastern parts before English itself replaced Gaelic there though we don't know though. What we do know with certainty is that south of the Firth of Forth Gaelic would have had, at best, a fleeting presence anywhere outside of Galloway. Brittonic was spoken there, and it was replaced by English pretty much everywhere outside of Galloway, not Gaelic. Whether it was spoken in pockets south of the Firth of Forth for a few centuries is irrelevant, the vast majority of the population there likely never adopted it, and even if they did they adopted it for a very temporary period of time before adopting English. Most placenames south of the Firth of Forth are either Brittonic, English or Norse, not Gaelic. Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.210.82 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Take it up with mainstream historical linguists. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And which mainstream historical linguists suggest Gaelic was spoken widely south of the Firth of Forth outside of Galloway for a prolonged period of time, exactly? And what evidence are they citing? Because every shred of evidence that exists would firmly suggest the opposite of that position was the case, so those 'mainstream historical linguists' can't be very good at their jobs or very reliable as sources, can they.
 * By the way, do you have a source for the line you reverted back? It's not sourced, so it shouldn't even be in there to begin with. Maybe educate yourself on 'Scottish' toponymy before embarrassing yourself with meek attempts at snarky responses. Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.210.82 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources I'm finding say that it was the majority of Scotland and make no distinction between below and above the Firth of Forth. Also, isn't most of Scotland above the Firth of Forth anyway?
 * One source (subtitled "Myth 4: Gaelic has nothing to do with the Lowlands") specifically put Gaelic to the south of the Firth of Forth: "Gaelic used to be widespread across Lowland Scotland. In the 12th century when Gaelic was at its greatest extent it was the dominant language or the only spoken language everywhere in mainland Scotland north and west of a line drawn very approximately from Musselburgh to Gretnawith the possible exception of parts of the extreme north.  To the east and south of this line there was a Gaelic speaking landowning class." Also: "For most of Lowland Scotland this claim is simply inaccurate.  Pictish was replaced throughout its territory by Gaelic, ‘English’ (however it’s defined) only established itself in former Pictish lands hundreds of years after the Anglosaxon period, by which time the region had long been solidly Gaelic speaking."


 * "At one time Gaelic was the language of the Scottish court and of the majority of the country’s population. Very few parts of Scotland, notably Caithness and the Northern Isles, were not Gaelic speaking at one time ...."
 * "At its height in the 12th century, Gaelic was spoken in most parts of Scotland, and even south of the English border."
 * "Scots Gaelic ... has declined from a position of strength in the the early tenth or eleventh century where the bulk of the population spoke Gaelic, ...."
 * "A.D. 900. Competition from the Norse and Angles probably contributed to the unification of Scots and Picts into a single kingdom in 844. Pictish language and culture disappeared. ... A.D. 1000. By 1,000 years ago the Picts were a memory and the united kingdom of Scotland was caught between Germanic Norse and Angle settlers."
 * Largoplazo (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your 'reliable source' itself even talks extensively about how Pictish and Cumbric were spoken in these areas long before Gaelic and that many of the "Gaelic" placenames in Scotland today are themselves ultimately just Gaelicized versions of what were originally Brittonic or Pictish placenames, weirdly enough. Maybe you should have read it before offering it.


 * And then it says they disappeared and that eventually Scottish was the majority language among nearly the entirety of the Scottish population. I'm sorry, which of us is the one who has trouble reading? Largoplazo (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that even taking their modest assertion that only the extreme southeast remained English-speaking, that's still roughly 25% of the population of the region(at the time), right? Do you know how densely populated the southeast of Scotland was in comparison to the rest of the country? The west coast was always traditionally sparser before Glasgow was built upon the Americas trade, Lothian and the southeast would have contained at least half, in all likelihood considerably more than half, of the population south of the Firth of Forth. And as we've already spoken about, 50% of the population (at least, likely more) of Scotland at that time lived south of the Firth of Forth. Let's also include all the areas that spoke Old Norse, it was spoken over roughly 1/4 of the modern landmass of Scotland. You're talking about easily 50% of the population (AT GAELIC'S ZENITH) still speaking Germanic languages, let alone residual Brittonic and Pictish speaking underclasses in areas dominated by Gaelic-speaking elites. Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.210.82 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Also how exactly is THIS: https://newsnet.scot/archive/electoral-commission-was-criticised-over-wendygate/attachment/images_w_alexander/ A reliable source... lmao Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.210.82 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Posting a "nationalist" rag, brilliant. It's audacious, I'll give you that. Boldfaced, rather. Your nationalist rags neglects archaeological, toponymic, historical and genetic evidence for substantial historical settlements of Germanic peoples in southwest Scotland, as far north as the Plain of Kyle (hogback stones, Anglo-Saxon stone crosses, Germanic placenames abound, historical record documents Germanic peoples in these regions). It ignores, again, historical and all other kinds of evidence for the continuation of a distinct Brittonic identity in Strathclyde, before and long after its annexation by the Kingdom of Scotland. In fact the Brittonic identity in Stratchlyde is believed to have outlived the death of the Brittonic language there by a century or two. Again, there is no substantial evidence Gaelic widely replaced Brittonic in Stratchlyde, but rather that English slowly replaced it over centuries. It ignores the evidence of Scandinavian settlement in Galloway and of Old Norse existing alongside English-speaking and Gaelic-speaking peoples in the region. Basically it ignores a LOT of evidence, and seems to suggest English people in the Lowlands (your source itself acknowledges they were English at the time) somehow magically 'transformed' into "Gaels" despite never adopting the Gaelic tongue, not taking Gaelic names, not adopting Gaelic laws and culture (beyond some very superficial aspects often of dubious Gaelic origins in the first place). Whether you like it or not, south of the Firth of Forth was a different world entirely. Gaelic did not dominate there, Gaelic may have had some kind of a presence there, in parts, for a few centuries but it was never the majority language in these regions. Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40.
 * Pontificating and scoffing at length while waving your hands at "evidence", not one actual shred of which you've bothered presenting, brilliant. It's audacious, I'll give you that. Boldfaced, rather.
 * I'm guessing that "nationalist" means "disagrees with my contrarian views for which I've cited no support", right? Largoplazo (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No, nationalist in this case means a literal self-professed Scottish nationalist (who are nationalists, but then oddly not nationalists when it's convenient to them) website. Newsnet is a Scottish nationalist website. It is not a reliable source and has posted countless articles over the years which fail to stand up to fact-checking scrutiny. It's second highlighted article on its homepage is quaintly titles 'The Red, White And Blue Cage'. It seems to be a mere opinion piece website, more of a blog than anything else. I'm still waiting on you providing evidence that most of Scotland south of the Firth of Forth spoke Gaelic at any single point in history, the online equivalent of a tabloid rag with a "nationalist" bent is not evidence. Provide a reliable source, or concede that Scotland south of the Firth of Forth simply did not speak Gaelic outside of Galloway. This is commonly accepted history. You're the one making the ridiculous assertion and failing to back it up with any mainstream academic scholarship. In fact even the tabloid rag you posted, as I've already mentioned, agrees with ME, not YOU. Agenda-pusher.

You know, the saddest thing at the end of all this... is it highlights how little anyone actually cares about "Scot"land. The entire "Scots" Wikipedia issue happened because for so goddamn long nobody, not even in "Scot"land gave a flying f*** about the meme """language""" to bother actually monitoring the Wikipedia and its quality and standards. The reason Scotland-related history articles are in the dire state they are is because absolutely NOBODY, not even in "Scot"land cares remotely about the region or its history. Nobody cares enough to even try to improve them. So they're left to fester and be corrupted by strange little fantasy-dwelling men like yourself with clearly far too much time on their hands. That's about as damning as it gets, I guess. And I'm done wasting my time with this. I have never seen a more vapid, fragile, rootless identity than 'Scottishness'. It is little wonder your children grow up identifying instead as 'Irish' or 'British' based on whichever average football team from the southwest of Scotland they support. Good luck holding onto that identity going forward into the future, regardless of your political situation. Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.210.82 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still no sources from you.
 * In addressing me, you refer to "your children" and tell me to "hold onto that identity". No one in my family history is from anywhere within 1,000 kilometers of Scotland, and I've never even visited there, so a complete absence of facts is obviously no barrier to you making assertions as though such facts exist. That reinforces my lack of compulsion to take at face value anything else you say, let alone to consider it to supersede outside sources; yet, you have participated in this discussion as though others should be willing to take everything you say at face value. Again: sources? Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

IPA from the Faclair Beag
I've removed the IPA from the Faclair Beag. It's not that it's unreliable but it's the kind of phonemic shorthand that is used WITHIN a language but not when addressing a wider, non-speaker audience. So when operating solely within Gaelic, it's ok to use /g/ and /k/ instead of /k/ and /kʰ/ because those are the only values you're dealing with when within Gaelic, but we're addressing the wider world here so the IPA has to be less phonemic and more phonetic, otherwise nobody knows what's what. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I often use Am Faclair Beag myself and like it a lot but, as you say, we're used to the conventions of IPA for Gaelic (going back to Oftedal, Borgstrøm and others) and know what the symbols mean in a Gaelic context. That is not the same as they mean more generally, making them unsuitable for this article. Jeppiz (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Gaelic
Hi, I changed the IPA to be /ˈgaːlɪgʲ/ from /ˈkaːlɪkʲ/, which was later reverted by. I made this change as it is rendered with the "g"s in https://learngaelic.scot/, a partnership by the Bòrd na Gàidhlig and BBC ALBA, among others. Is there a more reputable source which says it is with the "k"s? — Carlinmack (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Help:IPA/Scottish Gaelic gives the convention used in Wikipedia and includes a section on varying IPA conventions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strange Carlinmack (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this confusion arises because there is no absolute agreed-upon cross-dialect "standard" for Scottish Gaelic pronunciation, nor is there such a standard for phonemic transcription of the language. Different sources, even in my short experience of learning the language, will use different conventions (it seems that every book for Gaelic learners uses a somewhat different one), and in such cases WP needs to pick an agreeable compromise to standardize on. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody ever reads the Help :b ... The Faclair Beag actually explains the difference between the 'shorthand' it uses and pure IPA on the help page. I think LearnGaelic also had a note about this but it seems to have disappeared. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments and questions
1. The introduction uses the adjective "Gaelic" as a noun and as a equivalent/replacement for "Scottish Gaelic". I disapprove the recurrent use of "Gaelic" in this article. Gaelic is an adjective rather than a noun/substantive and it has a wider definition that includes Ireland, Scotland and Goidelic languages.

2. "Generally, rather than Gaelic speakers, it was Celtic societies in the cities and professors of Celtic from universities who sought to preserve the language."

I assume "Celtic" should be accompanied by "studies" or something similar. As is, alone, it's incomplete.

3. "Data collected in 2007–08 indicated that even among pupils enrolled in Gaelic medium schools, 81% of primary students and 74% of secondary students report using English more often than Gaelic when speaking with their mothers at home. The effect on this of the significant increase in pupils in Gaelic medium education since that time is unknown."

This segment is inconclusive and not at all useful.

4. "Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy said the move was a strong sign of the UK government's support for Gaelic."

I find the statement ridiculous. Scotland picks up the bill for translations in the E.U. and it's still considered a lower tier language. If the "UK" on the south wanted to send a strong signal it would raise the status of Scottish Gaelic within the U.K. and make it official but the damage, unfortunately, has already been done.

5. "Maxville Public School in Maxville, Glengarry, Ontario, offers Scottish Gaelic lessons weekly. In Prince Edward Island, the Colonel Gray High School offer an introductory and an advanced course in Scottish Gaelic." under "Canada" is redundant with "Maxville Public School in Maxville, Glengarry, Ontario, offers Scottish Gaelic lessons weekly." under "Outside Nova Scotia".

6. "Bachelor of Arts (Honours)". Does "Honours" have to be capitalised?

7."Most varieties of Gaelic show either 8 or 9 vowel qualities (/i e ɛ a ɔ o u ɤ ɯ/) in their inventory or vowel phonemes, which can be either long or short."

Should it be "their inventory of vowel phenomes"?

8. "Traditional spelling systems also use the acute accent on the letters á, é and ó to denote a change in vowel quality rather than length, but the reformed spellings have replaced these with the grave."

When did the reform occur? The information should be added to this article.

9. Why should some of the words in the table under the "Common words and phrases with Irish and Manx equivalents" section be bolded? Below the table I read "Note: Items in brackets denote archaic or dialectal forms" which is also vague because brackets can be round or square.

ICE77 (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * My responses:


 * 1. "Gaelic" is both a proper noun and an adjective, and is widely used as both:.


 * 2. I have come across "Celtic" being used in an academic context as a shorthand for "Celtic Studies"; I think the widespread use of "Studies" in this context is a more modern practice. See for example Sorley MacLean taking "Celtic" classes at University (although he finally did a degree in English because IIRC he didn't much fancy his prospects of employment if his only qualifications were in Celtic). Also, one doesn't typically speak of "English studies", for comparison.


 * 3. It doesn't have a definite conclusion because the data it refers to are inconclusive, on my reading. WP can't report on inconclusive data as if they were conclusive. I would dispute that the information is irrelevant or useless, however.


 * 4. You might find it ridiculous, and it might well be ridiculous, but if he said it then it should be reported as such. To do otherwise would be an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. It is not the place of Wikipedia to have any opinion on matters such as whether what politicians say is sensible.


 * 5. If you mean this sentence is repeated, feel free to remove any occurrences in positions which seem less appropriate. I agree that redundant information is usually to be avoided.


 * 6. Typically, terms such as Bachelor's, Master's, and Honours would correctly be capitalized in an academic context. At least, this is normal British practice.


 * 7. Yes, this seems to be a typo, which I have corrected.


 * 8. This is explained under the section "Orthography", with a link to a document explaining the most modern orthographic conventions – in particular the total (official, real-world practice is a little more mixed) deprecation of the stràc gheur or acute accent in words such as mór, in favour of the stràc throm or grave: mòr.


 * 9. This would refer to the round brackets as the square brackets are used for phonemic transcription only, so I do not see it as ambiguous. Changing to "round brackets" would disambiguate, I suppose, but this seems unnecessary and overkill to my eye.


 * I hope this is helpful. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Archon 2488, thanks for commenting.

1. English is a language with rules and structure. "Gaelic" alone can be a noun but it's not equivalent to "Scottish Gaelic". We can talk about Gaelic things (adjective+noun) but using Gaelic for Scottish Gaelic is improper because Gaelic is more general than using specifically Scottish Gaelic. If you start a sentence with "Gaelic is" it will never be clear what you are describing and people can only assume you are talking about Gaelic things in general and never about Scottish Gaelic because you are omitting an important word which is Scottish.

2. The use of MacLean of "Celtic classes" proves the point Celtic is an adjective that must be accompanied by a noun which it describes.

7. Thanks.

8. I only see one link with number 100 in the "Orthography" section (The Board of Celtic Studies Scotland (1998) Computer-Assisted Learning for Gaelic: Towards a Common Teaching Core. The orthographic conventions were revised by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) in 2005: "Gaelic Orthographic Conventions 2005". SQA publication BB1532. Archived from the original on 7 May 2007. Retrieved 24 March 2007.). Is that the one?

If that is the case why is it not placed in the "Alphabet" section since that location marks the first occurrence? Why a date is not explicitly provided?

9. What about the bolding?

If "brackets" is used for (round) brackets then why not use "parentheses" instead? That completely removes any ambiguity.

ICE77 (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ICE77, what alternative things do you think "Gaelic" would mean if a sentence began with "Gaelic is"? Do you disagree that many people do consider the unadorned noun "Gaelic" to refer to what you are calling Scottish Gaelic? You say "people can only assume you are talking about Gaelic things in general": Really? If I write "Gaelic is not as widely spoken as it once was", may people assume I'm talking about Gaelic crafts and Gaelic dance and Gaelic cuisine and Gaelic iconography and Gaelic history not being as widely spoken as it once was? Substitute "French" for Gaelic: "If you start a sentence with 'French is' it will never be clear what you are describing and people can only assume you are talking about French things in general." Would you agree with the premises behind and reasoning in that sentence? Why or why not? Largoplazo (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also,, please see Help:Talk pages about how to format your contributions to a talk page discussion so that others can follow the trail of responses. Largoplazo (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (2) Agree with Archon that appending "Studies" to the name of a university department is a rather new habit. If you read the cited source for this, you will see that "professors of Celtic" is exactly the phrase used there - and that will be from a historian who will have been immersed in contemporary documents that show the name of the university department. In an encyclopaedia that is (or, at least, should be) based on reliable sources, it can be helpful to check what the sources say before entering into a critique of the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To expand on university departments called "Celtic" or "Celtic Studies" - spot checking some Scottish newspapers shows usage to be without the word "studies" in 1936. The earliest usage of "Celtic studies" found by a quick (and non-definitive) search is 15 May 1964 when a letter suggests the formation of a university department with this name. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your further points, ICE:


 * 1. I do not see what else "Gaelic" (used as a substantive) could realistically be taken to mean in an article about the Scottish Gaelic language. I see no evidence that this is ambiguous (e.g. in another context it might be conflated with Irish / Gaeilge, so disambiguation would be helpful, but that is hardly relevant here).


 * 2. "Celtic" is normally an adjective, yes. It can also be used as a proper noun in some cases (the football team being the most obvious) such as a kind of synecdoche for what would now be called "Celtic Studies".


 * 8. Yes, the SQA orthographical standards were those published in 2005 as you describe. If you feel they need to be referenced inline elsewhere in the text, feel free to add citations.


 * 9. I'm confused by what you see as the distinction between round brackets (a particular term) and parentheses (a generic term for any punctuation used to separate a parenthetical remark from the main body of text). I do not see bolding used in that table. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Duolingo
I've noticed lately a few insertions of facts about the Gaelic Duolingo course, followed by reverts (e.g. the 300000 users figure – this might well not be kept up to date, but there's nothing per se wrong with qualifying it with a statement about when it was correct, or using the template). Should we discuss here whether / how we want to include information about it in the article? It might well be too soon to say, but this might be a notable step towards greater popular awareness / learning of the language (as some articles have claimed – but we need to assess whether these are notable). I do recall around the time the course went live in late 2019 there were a few articles published about it in the mainstream press. But of course we must be careful not to advocate Duolingo in any capacity, or to dismiss it as a mobile game rather than a learning tool; I do not feel that either stance is compatible with WP:NPOV. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see that, as renewal of interest in the language expands, avenues through which this is being achieved are relevant to the article's topic, including Duolingo. But I feel the number of people who've taken so much as a glance at the Scottish Gaelic module (I just did, so I'm going to count as one of the users, but I'm not likely ever to look at it again) isn't really very useful information about Duolingo. Including it here would give a misleading impression as a measureand of its significance as a measureof interest in the language. It's akin to listing the number of views of a fitness video as a measure of the fitness of its viewers, when we don't know how many people watched it more than once, or even all the way through, or even got up off the sofa while watching it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge these points. However, I am wary that they are straying into WP:OR by providing an interpretation of sources (if such interpretations are not provided in said sources). Of course, WP should not attempt to interpret any such reported number of users, to an extent that the relevant WP:RS do not interpret it. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should provide the number and supply an interpretation. I'm saying that this number doesn't represent anything that makes it relevant to the article. Including it would imply that it's relevant. For it to be relevant, it would have to be representative of interest in Scottish Gaelic in a way that it is not. Therefore, we would be tacitly implying the truth of that falsehood to readers. Therefore, it shouldn't be included. Largoplazo (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to add support to what's stated above, as it would be very misleading to report figures for Duolingo. In a click, users can check out any language on the app. That doesn't mean they are learning it, although it registers as having "opened" the module. I'm also at a loss to understand why anyone would think Duolingo in particular merits mention, but not other resources (Colloquial Scottish Gaelic, Teach Yourself Scottish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic in Three Months, etc.). So yes, including Duolingo seems both undue and only serves to market an app; it tells us nothing about Scottish Gaelic. Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see any reason for including it unless we start a section of presence/uptake of various (e-)courses and even then, the way Duo counts these is rather misleading, it says nothing about how far anyone actually got. Not saying it's not a nice addition to have in the mix of teaching/learning materials but it's not of encyclopaedic relevance, other than on the Duo article itself. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Not Scots
I have repeatedly seen instances of confusion between Scots and Scottish. E.g. today where someone said Scots was a Celtic language. Dear me!

I note that over at Scots language they specifically acknowledge the difficulties, with a sentence in the lede:
 * "It is sometimes called Lowland Scots or Broad Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic, the Goidelic Celtic language that was historically restricted to most of the Highlands, the Hebrides and Galloway after the 16th century."

I would think something similar here would be very helpful. Shenme (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't even see how the sentence you quoted is helpful for the purpose intended. "Low German" languages and "High German" languages are still all a collection of highly related Germanic languages. The adjectives don't imply being from a different branch of Indo-European. Calling Scots "Lowland Scots" likewise doesn't help to clarify that Scots isn't a Celtic language, and is very different from Scottish Gaelic, for someone who doesn't already know that. In that sense, the sentence is a non-sequitur.
 * Anyway, unlike "Scots language", which doesn't include the word "English" in the title, leaving it to the article to clarify that it's a language that older English evolved into in Scotland, here we have "Gaelic" right in the title. So I don't know that the distinction needs to be covered in the lead. It is covered in the second paragraph of the "Name" section. Largoplazo (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither is referred to as "Scottish". Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely true. I get it about once or twice a month that some translation agency writes looking for a translation into "Scottish" and I then have to clarify what they actually want. I'm not sure whether that's usage in some distant parts or just ad-hoc Country+ish = language. But either way, I do come across it, albeit from people who aren't that knowledgeable about the Scots/Gaelic thing. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would agree that clarification between the two, Scots and Scottish Gaelic should exclude referring to Scottish Gaelic as 'Scots Gaelic'. Dava4444 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gupshaw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Gaels vs Scottish Gaelic people
I've reverted those edits because the two are not the same thing. All that ethnicity is a bit murky but even going purely by what the page states, the Scots Gaelic people page talks exclusively about Highlanders. But even today, Gaelic is not exclusive to the Highlands (it only recently became extince on the Isle of Arran which is not commonly included in the definition of the Highlands). So the lest worst terms are "Scottish people" and "Gaels". Akerbeltz (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ANTH473 INLG480 Living Languages
— Assignment last updated by Caileag (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Consistency of information about history of Scottish Gaelic
I googled the history of Scottish Gaelic in search of information about its origins and whether it was the result of the arrival of Irish people at Dalriada. I was offered two Wikipedia pages, this one and History of Scottish Gaelic. The latter acknowledges the Irish theory but says that this has been superseded by an alternative. This page supports the Irish theory only and cites a reference which is about Irish Gaelic and may therefore prefer the Irish theory.

I don't know enough about the subject to know which is the correct version, but I do believe these two articles need to be aligned or at least cross-referenced. My feeling is that the History of Scottish Gaelic is more balanced and perhaps rooted in linguistic expertise, and if there are alternative theories they should be reflected in this article. Pen Lammer (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Urgh, that 'theory' is like a game of whack-a-mole, it keeps cropping up. Basically the mainsteam view is that ScG was brought by Gaelic speakers from the North of Ireland. To my knowledge, there's only one guy really serious about the local development theory so the History of Scottish Gaelic really over-states the role of that. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The prudent view of the origin of the Gaelic languages are that they derive from Q-Celtic/proto-Celtic which arose on the continent.
 * When we consider historical migration to Britain and DNA migration to Britain, it makes more sense that the Irish and Manx languages stem from the language spoken by prehistoric migrants from Scotland. Gortaleen (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)