Talk:Goidelic substrate hypothesis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refutation?[edit]

The statement that Schrijver refutes Isaac is a little strong: he certainly denies the validity of Isaac's criticism, but that doesn't amount to a refutation - I would say that it's unclear which of them is right, rather than that Schrijver has successfully refuted Isaac's ideas. Michealt (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested non-Indo-European words in Irish[edit]

Goidelic words such as Irish súil (eye) or Scottish sùil could contain a Finno-Ugric substratum, since Finnish silmä or Estonian silm have the same meaning. Other words like the Irish uisce (water) is vesi in Estonian and in Finnish, as cathu (temptation); kiusatus and kiusaus etc. as in Scots, a Germanic language the word lassie (girl) can be related to the finnish word lapsi and the estonian word laps which have the same signification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brikane (talk • contribs) 00:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is potentially interesting, but what are the reliable sources you have for this information? Ben MacDui 08:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, we need reliable sources not that these definitions are true, but rather that this connection has been made in published, peer-reviewed sources. In other words, we're not looking for sources that silmä and silm mean "eye" and that vesi means "water" and so on, but rather for sources that suggest a connection between súil and silmä and between uisce and vesi. Note that both súil and uisce are generally believed to have Indo-European etymologies: súil is believed to come from the PIE word for "sun" (cf. Latin sol) and uisce from *ud-skyo-, where the root *ud- is the same as in Greek hudor, Hittite watar, Germanic water etc. Angr (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this page about?[edit]

This page was moved from Irish pre-Celtic substrate language to Goidelic substrate hypothesis with edit-summary "like Germanic substrate hypothesis". However, this topic is not like Germanic substrate hypothesis, which is "an attempt to explain the distinctive nature of the Germanic languages within the context of the Indo-European language family." This article seems not to be anything nearly as strong; it's not saying that any distinctive characteristic of Goidelic is owing to the substrate, merely that the odd word here and there might be a survival. While this marginal level of influence may be sufficient to count as a "substrate", I don't think a series of independent conjectures about various words can be lumped together and described as a "hypothesis"; the word implies a degree of coherence and unity which is absent. I suggest moving the page to Irish pre-Celtic language (or even Irish pre-Celtic languages), whereupon the article can proceed something like the following:

  • It is certain that there were pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland. See prehistoric Ireland.
    • These must have spoken a language (or languages), which was(necessarily?) non-Celtic
      • There is no documentary evidence of what such a language might have been like
        • The current article implies it was non-Indo-European; has anybody postulated a non-Celtic but Indo-European substrate? Is this ignored because contact with an Indo-European substrate in Ireland could never be distinguished from earlier contact on the Continent?
    • Some scholars (and amateurs) have conjectured, with respect to each of various placenames, proper names, and common words in Gaelic whose etymology is obscure, that it originates in the pre-Celtic language.
      • In which case the pre-Celtic language was a substrate of Goidelic
        • But has anybody attempted any amount of reconstruction of the substrate, or is it just a black box for explaining recalcitrant etymologies? The only hint of pattern I see is this self-published theory in an old version:
Paul Tempan [1] suggests that nouns, proper names and common nouns which form their oblique cases by adding -nn, e.g. Ériu (gen. Érenn), Áru, Málu, Maistiu, Rechru, Tru(i)stiu may be pre-Celtic in origin, as Thurneysen suggests this declension is a miscellaneous category for nouns of various genders rather than a class which Irish inherited from Indo-European. Tempan also suggests that peculiar consonant clusters in names like Tlachtga & Cnodba may also derive from the substrate.

jnestorius(talk) 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The move would seem to have been a direct result of the deletion discussion that immediately preceded it. Other than the likelihood that a pre-Celtic language was once spoken in Ireland, the existence of the Pictish language problem, and that various Scottish island names such as Mull appear to have names that are pre-Goidelic in origin I know little of the subject. I certainly have no evidence to offer to oppose the suggested move to Irish pre-Celtic language. If the estimable Akerbeltz is not watching this page, I suggest pinging him for an opinion. Ben MacDui 16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on how you read the title, the way I see it it can be read as "The theory that there is a (non Goidelic) substrate in Goidelic languages" or that it's the "theory about a Goidelic substrate in another language". The second is clearly not the intended meaning. While I'm not particularly enamoured with the current title, I'm not sure the others are any better especially if we're going to include references to Scotland. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also guessing that part of the issue is that whilst there is genuine research on the subject that the current name is essentially made up, but that no other "common name" exists. I have certainly never seen anything resembling a generic name in a Scottish context. If that is the case there would be no need to confine discussion of the topic to Ireland. Ben MacDui 09:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO if Mull is a Pictish name that the Gaels picked up in Scotland, it's not in scope. If Mull is a pre-Celtic word the Gaels picked up in Ireland and brought with them to Scotland, that's in scope.
  • I agree that where there is no pre-existing "common name" then the article title should be an ad-hoc description. I would further add that the article should make clear that its title is a description and not a canonical name. The wording of the title itself should avoid sounding canonical, and per WP:BOLDTITLE the first line of the article should not bold (or even necessarily include) the title.
  • I get the impression that the AFD-keep decision presupposed a major rewrite of the article which has not happened. While the egregious OR/SYNTH was deleted, nothing was added.
jnestorius(talk) 10:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mull (and there are several other examples including Hebrides itself ) is simply described as being "pre-Gaelic in origin". That might mean Pictish, but nobody really knows. It is highly unlikely it was brought to Scotland by Gaelic speakers, although this may depend on when you think they arrived. The scope as currently written only includes Ireland, but given that Argyll in Scotland was Gaelic speaking by the early historic period at the latest I can't see any a priori reason to stick exclusively to the island of Ireland itself.
  • Re BOLDTITLE etc - agreed.
  • It may or may not be relevant that the participant in the AfD, DinDraithou, is one and the same as Nora Lives, who conducted the move. Depending on any agreement about the inclusion or otherwise of the Scottish Gàidhealtachd, I could add some some bits and pieces about pre-Gaelic names there, but I am afraid I have no knowledge of the subject in relation to Ireland. Ben MacDui 11:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ptarmigan[edit]

Can we add a discussion on the etymology of this word? Bearian (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's to discuss? The origin is unknown, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if ptarmigan is from Gaelic (as the source says) and if it has not etymology within Goidelic, it must be from a language that is neither Gaelic nor English, no? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean it's from the alleged substrate. Every language has words of unknown origin, that doesn't mean every language shows substrate effects. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A rather fine distinction IMO, but seeing as the Tàrmachan is a bird unique to Scotland its name is unlikely to have been imported from elsewhere. 82.153.118.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Beaker ~ Indo-European?[edit]

"Evidence suggests that the Goidelic languages may have been brought by the Bell Beaker Culture circa 2500BC." - Which evidence?? That would mean that BB, "Indo-Europeanized" themselves in Middle-Europe, from there should have migrated into Britain and Ireland not earlier than 2200 BC. Might be Olalde (2018) goes in that direction.HJJHolm (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is confusing. The article lists words thought to be non-IE, not some non-Celtic branch of IE. Presumably the author doesn't make the assumption that Bell Beaker people spoke and IE. Helenuh (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

This article has some problems but I’ll start by trying to fix the citations and noting down here where I found the extra details. [I haven’t fixed all of these yet]

Ranko Matasović “The substratum in Insular Celtic”[edit]

“La lengua de los Celtas y otros pueblos indoeuropeos de la península ibérica”[edit]

  • Original ref: "Almagro-Gorbea – La lengua de los Celtas y otros pueblos indoeuropeos de la península ibérica", 2001 p.95. In Almagro-Gorbea, M., Mariné, M. and Álvarez-Sanchís, J. R. (eds) Celtas y Vettones, pp. 115–121. Ávila: Diputación Provincial de Ávila.
  • Contents described here: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=6390
  • Author of chapter: Francisco Villar Liébana
  • Editors of book: Martín Almagro Gorbea (coord.), María Mariné Isidro (coord.), Jesús R. Álvarez Sanchís

Peter Schrijver “Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages”[edit]

Stephen Oppenheimer “The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story”[edit]

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 07:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goidelic_substrate_hypothesis&oldid=1206795518"