This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ogham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
I was always under the impression that the earliest Ogham script was found in Iberia. Right now the only references I can find to this fall into the fruitloop category, where this evidence is used to support crackpot theories about missing tribes of Israel or other such stuff. Was the evidence they use to support their theories as imaginary as the conclusions they reach?
After all, thanks to DNA evidence it is now almost beyond dispute that the Gaels did originate in Spain, much in accordance with the mythology, so it is certainly possible that the Gaels came with a primitive Ogham that was perhaps adopted over time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometime around 2002 or so, I read a paper speculating that Ogham had an Iberian origin not because of crackpot theories (tribes of Israel) or even DNA evidence linking the Celts to Iberia (seems reasonable) but because of the vcvcvcvc... nature of modern Basque. A problem of Ogham is that similar strokes joined together can be confusing: is ||||| representing an 'i' or is it representing an 'ou' diphthong? This suggests that the "language of Ogham" was one with strict vcvcvcv patterns (no diphthongs and no consonant clusters). This, to me, is the most sensible Ogham origin theory, but I can't track down the paper / website that proposed it, and it sure does seem like a lot of the rest of the Iberian origin hypothesis is full of crackpots.
The infobox contains information that the ogham alphabet is an l-t-r alphabet. This is not true. The majority of ogham inscriptions are read from bottom to top. Some exist written from top to bottom, others from left to write. It would be more accurate to describe it as mixed but I can't find the parameters for this in the infobox. Can someone please amend? Mac Tíre Cowag 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Ailm is the Elm tree not the 'pine tree'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.231.239 ( talk) 09:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph we have: "but in English the spelling pronunciation [ˈɒgəm] is very common." I don't think we should include an incorrect pronunciation, just because it's a common mistake. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we should just drop the phrase, then. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that a loan into PIr or very early Archaic OIr from Greek via Latin of /jo:ta/ would regularly give us úath, no? Has this already been mentioned anywhere? And it has the big advantage that it starts with the sound itself. CecilWard ( talk) 03:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The "sample" of Ogham text that was on the page isn't a real inscription. It isn't even in Primitive Irish. It's just a transliteration of the English text into Ogham letters; see wikt:User:Mahagaja/Ogham, which provides an automatically generated re-transliteration of the Ogham back into Latin letters. There are plenty of samples of real Ogham at the article Ogham inscription. — Mahāgaja · talk 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to note that I feel the opening sentence of the lead has too many parenthetical clauses, and thus is a bit hard to parse. I am suggesting that we would break out the latter two of the parenthetical clauses to follow-up sentences in an effort to simplify the base definition. Happy to put in the work if there is agreement here. Geoff ( talk) 01:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ogham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
I was always under the impression that the earliest Ogham script was found in Iberia. Right now the only references I can find to this fall into the fruitloop category, where this evidence is used to support crackpot theories about missing tribes of Israel or other such stuff. Was the evidence they use to support their theories as imaginary as the conclusions they reach?
After all, thanks to DNA evidence it is now almost beyond dispute that the Gaels did originate in Spain, much in accordance with the mythology, so it is certainly possible that the Gaels came with a primitive Ogham that was perhaps adopted over time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometime around 2002 or so, I read a paper speculating that Ogham had an Iberian origin not because of crackpot theories (tribes of Israel) or even DNA evidence linking the Celts to Iberia (seems reasonable) but because of the vcvcvcvc... nature of modern Basque. A problem of Ogham is that similar strokes joined together can be confusing: is ||||| representing an 'i' or is it representing an 'ou' diphthong? This suggests that the "language of Ogham" was one with strict vcvcvcv patterns (no diphthongs and no consonant clusters). This, to me, is the most sensible Ogham origin theory, but I can't track down the paper / website that proposed it, and it sure does seem like a lot of the rest of the Iberian origin hypothesis is full of crackpots.
The infobox contains information that the ogham alphabet is an l-t-r alphabet. This is not true. The majority of ogham inscriptions are read from bottom to top. Some exist written from top to bottom, others from left to write. It would be more accurate to describe it as mixed but I can't find the parameters for this in the infobox. Can someone please amend? Mac Tíre Cowag 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Ailm is the Elm tree not the 'pine tree'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.231.239 ( talk) 09:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph we have: "but in English the spelling pronunciation [ˈɒgəm] is very common." I don't think we should include an incorrect pronunciation, just because it's a common mistake. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we should just drop the phrase, then. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that a loan into PIr or very early Archaic OIr from Greek via Latin of /jo:ta/ would regularly give us úath, no? Has this already been mentioned anywhere? And it has the big advantage that it starts with the sound itself. CecilWard ( talk) 03:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The "sample" of Ogham text that was on the page isn't a real inscription. It isn't even in Primitive Irish. It's just a transliteration of the English text into Ogham letters; see wikt:User:Mahagaja/Ogham, which provides an automatically generated re-transliteration of the Ogham back into Latin letters. There are plenty of samples of real Ogham at the article Ogham inscription. — Mahāgaja · talk 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to note that I feel the opening sentence of the lead has too many parenthetical clauses, and thus is a bit hard to parse. I am suggesting that we would break out the latter two of the parenthetical clauses to follow-up sentences in an effort to simplify the base definition. Happy to put in the work if there is agreement here. Geoff ( talk) 01:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)