Talk:Gaelic type

From Gaelic to Roman

Would anyone have the knowledge to make a section about the changeover from Gaelic to Roman script? For example, why did it happen, who made it happen, where there economic or political reasons for this, was its changeover controversial? It appears to be a big issue in books by Irish scholars, for example Regina Uí Chollatáins book An Claidheamh Soluis agus Fáinne an Lae 1899-1932.

Frainc 11:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's anyone out there listening (the previous post is dated 2006), I second this request. I remember starting learning Irish in the old script in the late 50's and then switching over to the "Roman" script with "h". I came to this WP page to check the date of the change and miss not being able to find it. There must have been a specific school year when the change was made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.241.112 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What is this hand nonsense?

The hand per se is the insular hand. This page is about type, not the manuscript hand. This is going to take a lot of undoing. -- Evertype·✆ 15:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have rolled back on all of these extremely controversial changes by Kwami. Sorry, mate, but you completely changed the theme of the article, which has been about type, and which has not duplicated material at Insular_script. Perhaps the page could be moved to Gaelic type, but the term "Gaelic hand" is quite inappropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 15:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How is it going to take "a lot" of undoing? You hit a button. That obviously wasn't too difficult, since you just did it.

I did not know whether the Rollback would have been accepted or not.

I'll move the article back to 'Gaelic type' and redirect Gaelic script to Insular script. — kwami (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Can't we have discussion about controversial matters before you just change things unilaterally? I don't think you know what you're doing in terms of terminology here. -- Evertype·✆ 15:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversial? The links to Gaelic script are not talking about Gaelic type, they're talking about Gaelic script. Or would you have a hat note on this article, Gaelic script directs here. For Gaelic script, see Insular script ? Gaelic type is based on Gaelic script. When historical sources speak of the Gaelic script being introduced from Gaul, they obviously aren't talking about the typeface. — kwami (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, controversial. I understand that within the Wikipedia you are trying to make sense of terms like "alphabet" and "script" and so on, but in the real world, "Gaelic script" refers to the typefaces and is a translation equivalent for "Cló Gaelach". "Gaelic type" is another translation equivalent, and some like McGuinne use the term "Irish character". You can't just normalize "Gaelic script" to whatever you think "script" means (handwriting evidently) just because you think it's tidy, because the term exists elsewhere. A hatnote, perhaps. But your statement "Gaelic type is based on Gaelic script" exemplifies how you want to use those words, not how they are used in the world that deals with Gaelic typography. -- Evertype·✆ 16:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The phrase is clearly used to mean the script in the literature. When the typeface is being talked about, it may be ambiguous, but in contexts where it can't mean the typeface, it's unambiguous. A few I've found in a quick search:

• the origin of the Gaelic script, ... and of the profound influence it has exercised over the later alphabets of Europe.
  the MS. represents the source whence the Apostle of our race obtained the Gaelic script introduced by him from Gaul
  by no process of palaeographic evolution can the Gaelic script be obtained from the contemporary Roman uncial

—review of Taylor, 1883, "The Origin of the Gaelic alphabet", in The Gaelic Journal, 1884:60–61

• Then the Irish adopted the Latin alphabet and script to Irish. This semi-uncial script is now called "Gaelic script".

—Ellis, A history of the Irish working class, 1985:24

• MacDonald treasured Gaelic script, training himself to write it

—Sorensen, The grammar of empire in eighteenth-century British writing, 2000:50

• These early volumes employed ... a type-face based on Gaelic script

—Fox & Woolf, The spoken word: oral culture in Britain, 1500–1850, 2002:94

• The New Testament in Irish, "printed in a font based on Gaelic script", appeared as early as 1602.

—Szasz, Scottish Highlanders and Native Americans: indigenous education in the eighteenth-century Atlantic world, 2007:100.

• written down ... in secretary hand rather than Gaelic script.

—Brown, The Edinburgh History of Scottish Literature, 2007:210

• Kirk's [printed] version [of the Bible] of 1690 overcame the problems posed by the Irish Gaelic script and its scribal abbreviations

—Claydon & McBride, Protestantism and National Identity: Britain and Ireland, c.1650–c.1850 2007:176 fn.

• When I started school ... I recall not being adept at forming the letters in the Gaelic script

—Neil O'Flaherty, "Roots, branches and seeds". In Todeva & Cenoz, The multiple realities of multilingualism: personal narratives and researchers' perspectives, 2009:225

• the new government ... reintroduced Gaelic type ... and set the Irish version of the new constitution in a Gaelic typeface. This briefly returned the Gaelic script to its pre-independence status

—Gillissen, Ireland: Looking East, 2010:73

It doesn't surprise me that people may not distinguish print from manuscript, especially as the difference is often not relevant. But arguing that we should purposefully confuse the two would be like saying that "Irish alphabet" should redirect to "Irish language" because people often confuse language and writing. — kwami (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course it is problematic because like many things "script" is polyvalent. An equal number of citations could be found (indeed your final one by O'Flaherty is one of them) to show "Gaelic script" referring unambiguously to the book face. In general parlance today (pace Taylor 1883) the facts are as I have given them: "Gaelic script" tends not to refer to handwriting, and "Gaelic manuscript hand" or (rarely) "Gaelic hand" tends to refer to handwriting. I trust that the hatnote gives sufficient clarity here. -- Evertype·✆ 16:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying "the facts are as I gave them" doesn't count for anything. We go by sources. Do you have any to support your claim? Not just that "Gaelic script" includes type, that's a given, but that it specifically excludes manuscript? — kwami (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's really bad style to start an article with "The terms X refer to Y". We're not a dictionary. — kwami (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case it is appropriate because the main concept is Cló Gaelach and there are numerous terms for that in English. -- Evertype·✆ 16:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Corcaigh in 'Gaelic script'

I'd prefer to use the Gaelic versions of the letters in this comment, but I can't see how to. Anyway, it's unfortunate that the Irish word chosen to represent the script ('Corcaigh') would never in fact be written with an 'h' in that script - instead, the 'g' would be dotted, just like the 'c' in 'Gaelach' at the very top. The 'h' is an anglicism, so what we see here is a false piece of written Irish based on incorrect conversion from the anglicised version of the script. In the true Gaelic script, 'h' is a very uncommon letter (mainly used in rare grammatical constructions such as 'Poblacht na hÉireann' = 'Republic of Ireland'), whereas in the anglicised version it's one of the most common, because it's used for every single consonant with the phonetic mutation called séimhiú ('bh, 'ch', 'dh', 'fh', 'gh', 'mh', 'ph', 'sh' and 'th' - which in the true Gaelic script would simply be dotted 'b', 'c', 'd', 'f', 'g', 'm', 'p', 's' and 't'). In short, 'Corcaigh' is about the worst example you could have thought of! I leave it to someone with greater expertise than I have to suggest a more suitable alternative, though 'Saorstát Éireann' = 'Irish Free State' - which has no séimhiú consonants - might not be bad.46.189.28.182 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gaelic type. 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/20030129001032/http://136.206.208.1/library/LIBeng/Special%20Collections/spcoll4cent.htm to http://136.206.208.1/library/LIBeng/Special%20Collections/spcoll4cent.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307035221/http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/lisa/publications/008/v3_2005-1_085staunton.pdf to http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/lisa/publications/008/v3_2005-1_085staunton.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928073040/http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/lisa/indexGb.php?p= to http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/lisa/indexGb.php?p=

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)