Talk:Tadhg

Untitled
Tadhg doesn't mean "Irish". It is, in fact, a common Irish name. It is often used in the same sense as "Joe" (i.e. "the average Joe on the street"). "Tadhg na sráide" translates as "Tadhg of the street". It was from this that "Taig" came from. --Tadhg 02:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Williamite War
Do we know for sure that the use of the term Taig as an insult originates in the Williamite War in Ireland or is that an assumption based on the fact that two earliest examples included in the article are from that decade? That's a subtle difference, but I hope all agree it's a important one. If this is an assumption, let's change the wording. --House of Scandal 13:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know for sure, but they are the earliest references that I know if. You don't find the term in contemporary English accounts in the 16th century, where the Gaelic Irish are called, the "mere Irish", the "wild Irish", the "barabarous Irish" "his Majesty's Irish enemies" etc. Nor have I come across it in accounts of of the wars of the 1640s, where the common term of abuse seems to be variations on "murderous Irish Papists". Cromwell, for instance called the defenders of Drogheda in 1649, "barbarous wretches who have imbued their hands in so much innocent blood".


 * Having said all that, I could not 100% say that "taig" was not used as a term of abuse on street level at these times. But the first time I have come across it is in the 1680s in the run up to the Williamite/Jacobite war. I would suggest that the term comes from a time when the Protestant settler community (which dated back to the early 1600s) had been in Ireland for quite a long time. They had to be quite familiar with the Irish speaking catholic population to know and mock their common first names. On top of that, I would suggest that term is a product of sectarian fear and animosity. While these had been there from the start of the Plantations of Ireland, they were greatly exacerbated by the events of the Irish Rebellion of 1641, where massacres were carried out by both sides. The political crisis of the 1680s was very much shaped by a fear on Protestants part that the newly re-armed Catholics were intending to destroy their community (see Early Modern Ireland 1536-1691. Look also at the full text of Lilliburlero to get an idea of Protestant fears. By the time John Dunton wrote his travel book in 1698, the term was obviously widespread, as he expected his audience in England to know what it meant. Another derogatory term in his book for the Irish Catholics is "Dear Johns", though I don't know where this originated.


 * So short answer, yes it is an assumption, but it's based on the best information I have to hand.


 * Jdorney 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Informative answer, thanks. I reworded slightly to reflect that. I also made sure to imply neither that rebel-types used it first as a self-identifier nor that it was applied to rebel-types first by opponents. It may have happened at the same time for all we know at this point -- certainly the written sources cited here for both are very close in date. Thanks. --House of Scandal 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice edit. Incidentally, the Irish Jacobites of the 1690s did not accept that they were rebels. They argued that they were supporting the true (Catholic) king and that it was the Protestants who were the "rebels" and "traitors" for opposing the rightful king in favour of a Protestant imposter - William of Orange.
 * Jdorney 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your point just made is valid and applies to many so-called "rebels" throughout human history.  History, as we know, is written by the victors (until debunked).--House of Scandal 11:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your early comments about Protestant fears, I have no doubt they were well-founded. Bloody Mary was known as such for a reason, and Ignatius of Loyola and his fellow didn't scrimpt on the cruelty either.  "History has few good guys" (that's my original thought, you may quote me!)--House of Scandal 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it was informed by the general Catholic persecution of Protestants in Europe such as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1577, the events of the Thirty Years War and the more recent revocation of the Edict of Nantes and expulsion of the Huguenots from France in 1685. But in Ireland it had a much more specific context. Basically the Protestant settler community had got c.80-90% of the land in Ireland in the Act of Settlement 1652 at the Catholic's expense. They were frightened that with a Catholic in power, the Catholics would take the lands back and might just take a bloody revenge on the Protestants a la 1641.


 * Since we're getting philosophical here, I would add that this shows how hatred is usually born out of fear.
 * Jdorney 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Use in England
I feel the article fails to make clear that this term is largely restricted to Northern Ireland, and to a lesser extent the West of Scotland, and even there is only used by Protestant bigots. English people would never use this term to refer to an Irish person, even pejoratively (they would say 'bloody Micks' or 'bloody Paddies'). It is a religious sectarian slur, and there is little anti-Catholic bigotry as such in England, where the Irish are generally popular though sometimes patronised. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The usage info has now been clarified. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John Adams
Saying "Irish teagues" were part of the "motley rabble" on that March night in 1770, the night of the Boston Massacre, indicates the presence, and an impactful one, of Catholic Irish in Boston. This being the case, along with the surnames of the dead at Bunker Hill, bolsters an argument for a Catholic participation in the battle.Bostoneire (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Patrick Carr was an Irish victim. C. Conner was an Irish witness. 2 of 8 regulars were known to be Irish, 3 more were native Irish surnames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.11.62 (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think both points you make are likely correct but wouldn't be relevant to discuss in the context of this article. Boston (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Scots Gaelic
Scots Gaelic 'Taigh' seems to mean house, taigh-òsta means hotel. It could refer to the irish who came to Scotland after the potato famine, or come from Ulster Scots of Gaelic ancestry. Hachimanchu (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ther is no g-sound in the Scots Gaelic taigh. It's a bit like the igh in night, light, fight, sight, etc.
 * The modern word taig comes from the Irish name Tadhg and both ar pronounst the same way. ~Asarlaí 18:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Tadhg an dá thaobh
http://www.hiberno-english.com/body.php?id=1917; http://beo.ie/2001-11/fachtna.asp

meaning of Tadhg
I hesitate to make changes to the main wikipedia page because I have no solid evidence for this, but I've seen elsewhere that the name Tadhg actually means "badger", not "poet".The best reference for this I can give is the following websites: http://www.iol.ie/~tadhgs/nametadhg.htm and http://www.tadhg.ie/Baby_Tadhg/Welcome.html .The latter mentions that Tadhg comes from an old Celtic name "Tazgo".On wikipedia itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_words_of_Gaulish_origin, here the french word "tanière" is said to be a Irish cognate of "Tadhg", and it gives the meaning of Tadhg as "Badger". Is this enough to change the meaning on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gormulac (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the root not *tazgj-o-, as this would give the correct _palatalised_ dh in this case in the Irish and it would also accord with the attested Tasciouanus.81.187.45.68 (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Mis-spelling as an alternative
Putting the g before the h doesn't make any sense in Irish. The H is a lenition, it is there to chabeg the sound of the D.

Spelling Tadhg as "Tadgh" is a mis-spelling, most likely because English speakers have never seen the letters "dhg" in that order in a word before.

There is nothing in the text of the page that supports having "Tadgh" as a correct form of the name.

It shouldn't be given as an alternative, at least any more than any other mis-spelling.
 * Describing it as a misspelling is rather silly. People have always spelled names differently. I can agree that it maybe shouldn't be given any more attention than any of the other alternative spellings.&#42;Trekker (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: I added a bunch of references to support some of the alternative spellings.&#42;Trekker (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Describing it as a misspelling is rather silly".


 * Deliberately spelling an Irish name wrong and claiming it an alternative because it looks better to English speakers is a hangover of colonialism and borderline racist. If that makes me "silly" I'm fine with that.


 * It's also plainly stupid thing to say if you imagine trying to pronounce the name in Irish, and it is an Irish name after all. The references you provided are pretty thin. Can you find any that are a bit more authoritative? I'm sure I could find a lot of misspellings for many words by doing a google search too, should I amend their Wikipedia pages to make them "alternatives"?


 * Spelling it with a dgh is gobbledygook, and clearly a typographical error that widespread and probably encouraged by this page.


 * Perhaps we should simply use the spelling GLNXITPAL as an alternative for for Tadhg. It would make as much sense. 2A00:1A48:7806:117:BE76:4EFF:FE08:106 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't care about any if you're offended. That doesn't concern me. I don't care the mildest at all about Irish pronounciation or spelling. Nor do I care if someone uses a diferent spelling on an Italian or Spanish name either.
 * Please find sources that state that it's a misspelling and typographical error in that case. According to wikipedia guidelines the burden is yours. There's no reason to take your word for it.
 * Also, your last sentance is a huge logical fallacy, and a particularly big one at that.
 * Again. If you find sources that state that they are totally just misspellings that can be blamed on racism or something the like be my guest and fix the article then. No one is going to be stopping you if you find some sources.&#42;Trekker (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Both of you gentlemen (Or ladies, whatever you are.) need to take into account that certain languages work certain ways. I'm sure we can all agree on that statement, right? Now, I don't know about misspelling a name being racist or the like, but I do know that if you showed the spelling Tadgh to a fluent Irish speaker, they would have absolutely no idea what you're showing them. Dear user Treker. I understand that some people may use the spelling 'Tadgh' by mistake, but to call it an alternative spelling to Tadhg is like say 'Wmlilia' is an acceptable alternative to William and then putting that on its Wiki page.
 * Now, as we all know, there are no sounds in the English language to make the pronunciation of 'Wmlilia' viable. It's the same for 'Tadgh' in Irish. I say it again. CERTAIN LANGUAGES WORK CERTAIN WAYS. There is no way to correctly pronounce 'Tadgh' in the Irish language. It simply cannot be done. The perpetuation of false information goes against the purpose of an encyclopedia. Now, if you wanted to say 'sometimes misspelled as...' then I would have no problem with that, but to call it an alternative is simply false. Please, gentlemen, let us all put a graceful end to this. (Inis Thiar (talk))
 * Once again. Find SOURCES that state this. No reason to take your word for it.&#42;Trekker (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are some references. If they are not to your satisfaction, then I will be happy to keep the page as it is. The last one is especially helpful.

    (Inis Thiar (talk))

"Tadhg" and "Tadgh"
Further to this edit and this discussion, whether or not the "Tadgh" variant/spelling is "orthographically correct" doesn't mean that the variant doesn't exist. Removing it entirely seems, to me, like a form of denial that doesn't reflect the sources. Including CSO data which establishes that both variants are used. ("Tadhg" being the 7th most popular boys name for births registered in 2022. And "Tadgh" the 90th.) If there are reliable, verifiable and (ideally) authoritative sources available, to support a claim that one variant has orthographic "primacy" over another variant, then editors are more than welcome to add. But outright removal doesn't seem appropriate. IMO. Guliolopez (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)