Talk:Gaelicisation

Gaelicization / Gaelicisation

A user has just moved this page from Gaelicization to Gaelicisation, arguing that the latter is the "Irish English spelling". This is incorrect. Firstly, there is no independent "Irish English spelling" – Ireland's spelling system comes from Britain and is the same as that used in Britain. It is (unfortunately) British English spelling. Secondly, -ize spellings such as Gaelicization are perfectly acceptable in Britain and Ireland, where it is called Oxford spelling.

With this in mind, I suggest that the page be moved back to its original name in line with WP:RETAIN. ~Asarlaí 20:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The -iz- variants are primarily American spellings, much rarer in Britain and even more so in Ireland. The topic, Gaelicisation, is intimately connected with the Gaelic polities and Gaelic-language areas of Ireland, Scotland and Man, so per WP:TIES should follow the usage associated with those places. As for your assertion that there is no such thing as Irish English, perhaps you should nominate this article for deletion and see how many agree with you. Brocach (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which one is more common – both are standard spellings in Britain and Ireland. British English with -ize spellings is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, and plenty of articles are written in that style (including ones with strong ties to Britain or Ireland).

Also, I didn't say there's no such thing as Irish English, I said there's no independent Irish English spelling. ~Asarlaí 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Scottish section

This article has a lot of problems. I have fixed a few of them. The Highland Games are not Gaelic. See http://www.celticlifeintl.com/the-hidden-history-of-highland-games/ and Michael Newton's scholarly work for an explanation. Many Gaelic speakers live in non-Gaelic speaking areas. And the word Gàidhealtachd is defined in that article; it typically refers only to those geographical areas of Scotland with a history of Gaelic culture and Gaelic language. It's difficult to see how the production of written Gaelic literature is "Gaelicisation" because the Gaels have been writing literature for centuries. Alázhlis 08:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alázhlis (talk • contribs)

Gaelic widely spoken in the Scottish Lowlands

This is clearly nonsense - 1.1% of the Scottish population speak Scottish Gaelic according to the 2011 census, unless "widely" is not what the person meant, but rather that most speakers were in the lowlands.

I'll leave this in for now but eventually I will remove it if no-one else does, as it is simply incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.236.255 (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Any source on why exactly this process occurred among the groups it did? In the case of the Picts especially it is most baffling as, assuming they were actually P-Celtic speakers, they opted to abandon their own language which would have been more similar to the P-Celtic speakers of the rest of their island for the Q-Celtic language and culture of a petty kingdom to their west which they had effectively crushed/destroyed/annexed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.16.225 (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that DNA is providing an unbiased view of how Britain and Ireland were populated, we can say that it is extremely likely Q-Celtic arrived in Britain circa 2500 BCE. P-Celtic arrived in the following millennium. A millennium later, when the Romans arrived, Pictland was likely a transitional area with a P-Celtic speaking elite ruling over a Q-Celtic population. When the P-Celtic elite lost power, Q-Celtic was then recognized as the language of Scotland until the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Gortaleen (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Movement of genes and movement of languages are two entirely different things. They may or may not coincide. Case in point, the Danelaw and Norman invasion of England, which left a comparatively tiny genetic footprint but had a huge impact on the linguistics of England, especially the latter. So the DNA can help us understand how people moved, but deducing linguistic patterns from that is largely guesswork. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's astonishing how similar maps drawn to demonstrate the Kurgan Hypothesis look like maps showing the travel of Indo-European Y haplogroups after 3000 BCE or so. The chance that is merely some random coincidence is not believable without some unimpeachable proof.

It's not "guesswork" that the Indo-Europeans who settled Britain and Ireland were isolated for millennia genetically in Ireland and Western Britain (Brittany downstream of Britain) and today native speakers of Celtic languages are largely descended from those very same Indo-Europeans. It's not "guesswork" to note that Celtic languages branched out from the Indo-European language tree a very long time ago. It's not "guesswork" to note that after at least a millennium after their split from a common parent language, Munster Irish and Scottish Gaelic are recognizable as closely related languages to even a casual observer.

The Book of Invasions is mythology. Any "theory" that even sounds like it is influenced by that book needs to be thoroughly reconsidered. Gortaleen (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Surnames

I think it could be good to have a section on the gaelicisation of surnames. The GAA insists on listing players’ names in Irish, though not all players have an Irish surname. I’m not sure where to start exploring this, but it seems to be a bit of a silly practice as surnames are simply made up. 217.155.49.123 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean like the English versions of Irish surnames weren't made up? ;b Akerbeltz (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)