Talk:Y Gododdin

Cleanup

Seem to have missed logging in, but I have tidied this article to try and bring it in line with others on related subjects. I have added info on John Koch's interpretations as requested by Angus McLellan, but I don't have some of the sources listed, so if it is considered that the quality standards tag is still required in order to reflect some of these, please add it back in. Walgamanus 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, not that I'm a very expert judge ! Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination passed

Having read this carefully, and out loud too to get a better feel for the flow, I am delighted to pass this as a good article. There are a few places in the text where repetition of a word or phrase needs fixing, and there's no article couldn't use more copyediting for grammar and style. I think this is only a very short distance from being a featured article. Perhaps someone can do a better map - I'm no cartographer - but illustrations are hardly essential here. Great work! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

About the numbers mentioned

Perhaps, mention the poetic nature of 363 (three hundred, three score, and three) warriors. The same applies to the mention of 300 (three hundreds) warriors. Reading these as pure numbers, they mean nothing beyond the fact that they are mentioned in a very old story. Reading them poetically suggests that they might be interpreted as a storyteller's way to say "many", and not necessarily to be taken literally. I suppose that the same might be said of the mention of 3 returnees, and of 1 returnee (poetically, "almost no one"). Those reading the same story in different lights will have read different stories. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First stanza?

"The Book of Aneirin begins with the introduction Hwn yw e gododin. aneirin ae cant ("This is the Gododdin; Aneirin sang it"). The first stanza appears to be a reciter's prologue, composed after the death of Aneirin:

Gododin, gomynaf oth blegyt / yg gwyd cant en aryal en emwyt: ..."

But this is not the first stanza of the text in the Book of Aneirin, as given in Ifor Williams' edition (which follows that text) for instance. So what is the source for this? I haven't read Koch's reconstructed text - which is somewhat controversial, by the way - but presume it comes from that. The article as it stands clearly gives the impression that this is the first stanza of the poem(s) as found in the ms., but that is not so (Greddf gwr oed gwas..., given in translation after this supposed first stanza, is the opening stanza in the Book of Aneirin). This is misleading, to say the least. The stanza quoted (650 lines into the original ms. text) may or may not be the original opening stanza, however most scholars would take the view that any attempt at "reconstruction" is at best tentative and can only be posited, not proven. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this. Over one year on and it remains uncorrected. The statement "The first stanza appears to be a reciter's prologue, composed after the death of Aneirin:

Gododdin, gomynaf oth blegyt

yg gwyd cant en aryal en emwyt: ...[etc]"

is SIMPLY FALSE. This is NOT THE FIRST STANZA as found in the text of the Book of Aneirin itself (see the facsimile & text given by J. Gwenogvryn Evans in his Facsimile and Text of the Book of Aneirin, for instance, or the text in Ifor Williams' Canu Aneirin). As I state above, the stanza given out as the purported "first stanza" in this article actually occurs 650 lines into the Book of Aneirin text: by no stretch of the imagination can it be described as the "first stanza" or even "one of the first stanzas". If this error is not amended soon I will do so myself. How such a highly-rated article has been allowed to continue to contain such a staggering error for so long beats me! Enaidmawr (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SOFIXIT ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jarman says (note 1) that the B text has this stanza first, while "that of A, which is much inferior, has been misplaced and is found in the middle". So it's from Jarman. 128.148.38.26 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Scottish/Cumbric language misnomer?

Hi regarding the sentence ascriping Y gododdin as the oldest poem from modern day Scotland. This is untrue as there was no scotland (certainly not modern Scotland)in the 6th century indeed as i understand the Scots of this period were ethnic Irish immigrants in the west of what is now scotland. I assert it is a Welsh poem and the counter claim is groundless IMO. So I have reinstated my edit as I beleive it to be correct and I beleive the scottish claim is not neutreal, with all due respect. Regarding the Cumbric language as I have said in cumbric discussion page existence of cumbric is unproven and appears as a euphomism for Welsh or more exactly Old welsh. Why is a speculatively deduced possible lang. or at best a probable defunct dialect of Old Welsh constantly reffered to as a seperate language existing concomitantly with OLd Welsh? Cumbric appears to be a glaring misnomer even by the evaluation of the page's own editors. The presence of the caveats are inadequate to preserve a page that is purely apeculative as the claim being made is unssuportable IMO.I was hoping for a discussion on the cumbric page before I edit that page. It will be a deservedly ruthless edit as the page is all over the place so I'm hoping to engage others before I do so as my intention is not to cause offence. What do the rest think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencerdd (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) My apologies forgot to sign the above as Pencerdd (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)pencerdd

I reverted back to the old version. The statement that this may be one of the oldest poems written in what is now Scotland is true. The sentence does not imply it was actually composed by ethnic Scots. I don't know about Cumbric, but you'll have to clear it up over there first, which will have to be done by citing your sources. You may be right about it, but I don't see the wisdom in making such an important change to a long-standing good article without good references.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You miss my point Cuchullain "The statement that this may be one of the oldest poems written in what is now Scotland is true" Is indeed true but my point and I think I was quite clear in this is that it cannot be a poem from "MODERN DAY SCOTLAND"! I have removed the "...modern day.." as it is palpable and self evidently untrueand replaced it with "...what is now..."Pencerdd

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Y Gododdin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Start GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read this article over the last few days. I find it is well written, referenced with good sources, with a through discussion of the poem and its interpretation by scholars and others. The images are correctly captioned and tagged and I have no hesitation in maintaining the Good Article status. An interesting article about a poem with which I was previously unfamiliar. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But see above. Contains a SERIOUS ERROR. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the obviously false assertion that Y Gododdin would have been written first in Cumbric. No-one I have encountered even mentions this as a possibility and it is indeed risible. Jarman is quite clear in his work (borrowed from in some lengths in this very article) that Y gododdin is a Welsh poem not only in its present surviving form but in its origins too. neither does he entertain any notion of Cumbric as a language as he reffers to the old north as speaking Welsh as a language. And not some personal agenda driven nonsense of Cumbric. THERE IS NO SUCH LANGUAGE!

As the location of its composition does not have any bearing upon the language of its composition I have also modified the first paragraph. I don't think it important that it be mentioned as the earliest poem composed in what is now Scotland as it is not a work of scottish literature, in fact of course there is no Scottish literature from this period only Welsh. Pencerdd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.86.67 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by 174.97.220.205

I have again removed the reference to Cumbric origins as it is absurd and in my reading unsupported - indeed refuted. I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO as I now consider the idea that Y Gododdin is derivative of a culture other than Welsh and the persistence of the cymbric agenda despite the realities of attested history and relevant sources(not to mention the paucity and contradictory nature of available evidence for cymbric much of which is linguistically indistinguishable from Welsh and therefore clearly fatal to the aspirations of the Cumbric agenda- whatever that may be in its naked form) to be a claim motivated by racism. I say again A O H Jarman's work (Y Gododdin, Gomer Press LLandysul) refutes this claim. Y Gododdin is not a translated work (I have found no scholarly source that even mentions the possibility of a non Welsh origin; and- as so- I think it appropriate indeed necessary and proper that it is mentioned explicitly as part of Welsh literature in the first paragraph. Indeed much of the scholarly work cited by Jarman relates to the orthographic and philological interpretations of the texts i.e. the developing orthography of the WELSH LANGUAGE from the 6 century onwards as it is revealed by the surviving mediaeval texts. A Welsh language origin is not only presupposed it is demonstrable. I have removed the " what is now Scotland " as it seems more appropriate to contextualize the poem specifically and unproblematically by its actual cultural and ethnic origins and context (i.e. Welsh literature edit) rather than by an arbitrary, historically distant and unrelated geographic/national/ethnic definition which is less relevant and smacks of unsupportable and culturally appropriationist ethnic claims on the poem as indeed some Scottish writers (Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson for example),have ridiculously and aggressively attempted to do in the past. If you feel strongly about it however and as it is technically true but I think irrelevant, and rather hostile to the spirit of the article, then I suggest that it be included in a less prominent position in the text as its position at the end of (capping if you like)the first paragraph appears to invite a more complicated interpretation of national and cultural authorship and ownership than is the case in reality. Pencerdd174.97.220.205 (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not threaten to edit war, it's really unproductive. Your edits appear to be based on personal assumption rather than reliable sources. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Including that sentence and discussing Cumbric do not preclude other alternatives from appearing, but any material has to be verifiable and based on reliable sources, not your own ideas.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that the same definition that would make "Cumbric" identification would also make a "Welsh" identification incorrect. At the stage being discussed both were just matters of divergence, hypothetical or otherwise, from the common British language. The people themselves would have just considered themselves "Britons" regardless of any distinction in the language.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The following claim is not sourced in the article: "If it dates from the late 6th century it would originally have been composed in the Cumbric language". If no source is provided, it can be removed per WP:V. Also, that quote is from the lead; information that appears in the lead should appear in the main body of the article as it's meant to be a summary. Either it shouldn't be in the lead or something else needs to be added to the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask, and you shall receive. I dug up some sources for Cumbric as it relates to the original language of the poem, and worked it into the body of the article. It could probably still use some work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think to refer to the Gododdin being composed in any other language but Welsh is very misleading. It is clearly Welsh linguistically and culturally and I suspect that the the author or the protagonists would be baffled by any attempt to differentiate them from the Welsh of Wales. Regarding the use of the term "Cumbric" I would like to make two points: firstly the term is useful in that it points us to a linguistic and historical identity which was not identical with the Welsh living in Wales, though undoubtedly very closely related. The term Cumbric is really just an Anglicisation of Cymraeg. Ultimately the speakers of Gaoluinn, Gaeilge, Gailck, Gaolainn, Gaidhlig all speak dialects of the same language and so I believe did the people in Strathclyde and Powys. I don't see any problem with stating that Cumbric is "just" a dialect of Welsh. But it probably differed from Gwynedd Welsh or Glamorgan Welsh and I think there are hints that with Gaelic/Scandinavian influence there were differences especially by the date of its extinction. For example the name type Gospatric, Cosmungho is very similar to the Gaelic gille + saint's name and not found in Welsh of Wales. Also some toponymic elements such as hal for a moor is used as in Cornish, but not Welsh and *ken seems to be the common term for what would in Wales be referred to as a "cefn" (thus "Cumbric" agrees with Cornish and Breton, though commonly using "glyn" it agrees with Welsh rather than Cornish). It would be extraordinary to accept dialectal differences between Glamorgan and Carmarthen but not between Carmarthen and Lothian. In summary, it makes NO sense to say the Gododdin was not composed in Welsh, but the use of the term "Cumbric" for the Welsh dialect of S. Scotland and Cumbria is for geographical handiness and does not imply any major linguistic or ethnic difference between the Britons of Wales and those of S. Scotland, in my humble opinion. Heddwch. Barcud Coch (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To put the cat further among the pigeons, but for the right reasons I thought I would post this which I clipped from the article on Scots language; "In The Languages of Britain Price (1984) writes "I devote a separate chapter to Scots not because I necessarily accept that it is a 'language' rather than a 'dialect' but because it has proved more convenient to handle it thus than include some treatment of it in the chapter on English." I think the use of the word Cumbric is similar. It does not assume that Cumbric was not a dialect of Welsh it is just more convenient to use a separate term because of the different historical and geographical context Barcud Coch (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just a matter of semantics. There is no universally agreed upon distinction between a "language" and a "dialect". Cumbric and medieval Welsh would have been mutually intelligible, but there are traceable differences, and that is all linguists ever say about them. "Cumbric" is more of a convenient label for the tongue spoken in the north, while "Welsh" refers to the closely related tongue spoken in Wales. Early on, even in the period that this poem may have been written, the difference would have been mainly geographical rather than linguistic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edinburgh

I am currently translating this article for French Wikipedia, and I wonder why the Edinburgh/Din Eidyn issue should get a whole seven references. Ain't that a bit... excessive? Ælfgar (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Hello. I work this article for the french wikipedia, and I have a problem with certain references. The reference 19 and 56 ("Williams") refers to what book quoted in bibliography ? Idem for "Jackson" (refs 26, 50, 51, 57 and 59), and "Williams (1972)" (52, 53, 55). There are several books of these authors in bibliography, and for William, none of the 1972 (unless it is the first edition of that of the 1980?). Thank you, and sorry for my bad english. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

References, Steve Short

In the section (under the heading "poem"), there are a couple of paragraphs dealing with the possibility that the Christian influences are later interpolations.

After mentioning D Simon Evans, professor of Welsh at Lampeter, it then goes on to quote (Steve?) Short. I can find little information about (Steve?) Short, apart from the publication of a translation of Y Gododdin on a "print on demand" publication website. Is this encyclopaedic? I can find no references for any qualifications of his, and his book does not seem do have been published outside "print on demand" sites.

I am new to Wikipedia editing, and will certainly not delete something without other peoples input, but the idea that it can' t be Christian because it is "bloodthirsty" seems- well, very POV- but more importantly, (if I understand Wikipedia correctly!) it seems not to be a quote from a reputable source - not "vanity publishing", as people do not have to pay in advance for such things nowadays, but it seems not to have been taken up by an "advance" publisher and I can find no references to (Mr?) Short's historical or linguistic qualifications anywhere else.

A quote from D Simon Evans could well be appropriate, but in the absence of that, I suppose this is basically a long winded way of saying does anyone think that I should not delete this? (After the sentence referring to D Simon Evans, that is.)( Ceiniog (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd lean towards deleting the quote from Short. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the quote. Ceiniog (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Dates

I’m a bit puzzled by some dates in this article.

In the Analysis and Interpretation section, it says that the poem must predate 638, when the fall of Din Eidyn was recorded in the reign of Oswy king of Bernicia. However, if you follow the link to King Oswy, you find that he became king in 642.

Did Din Eidyn fall in the reign of Oswald (633-642) instead? 163.166.8.27 (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Y Gododdin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408030232/http://www.epoetry.org/issues/issue6/text/prose/corless-smith1.htm to http://www.epoetry.org/issues/issue6/text/prose/corless-smith1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060322065940/http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/pages/17975 to http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/pages/17975
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050912201910/http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/britannia/saxonadvent/edinburgh.html to http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/britannia/saxonadvent/edinburgh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Link in ref 47 to Clarkson's review of Koch

Link is dead, but article is available via the Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20010223004725/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/hatf.htm#gododdin 80.229.251.36 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. 80.229.251.36 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)