This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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:
jnestorius( talk) 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we add a discussion on the etymology of this word? Bearian ( talk) 20:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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]
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 07:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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:
jnestorius( talk) 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we add a discussion on the etymology of this word? Bearian ( talk) 20:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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]
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 07:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)