[thechat] Collectible bitch-slaps

[Martin]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Raimund KARL <raimund.karl at UNIVIE.AC.AT>
> Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002  09:10:49  am Europe/London
> To: CELTIC-L at LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
> Subject: Re: Caesar on the Gauls
> Reply-To: "CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List." <CELTIC-
> L at LISTSERV.HEANET.IE>
>
> Dear Vyvyan,
>
> Vyvyan Ogma Wyverne schrieb:
>>
>> I want to attempt to explain why I think a syllable which
>> was pronounced like the one spelt 'ceann' in modern Irish, allowing for
>> local variations in pronunciation, meant, no doubt among other things,
>> leader, even though its Irish cognate is no longer used like that, and
>> I'll
>> also (eventually) show it's relationship to its Germanic cognates.
>
> Hardly, from what you write here.
>
>> I know my hypotheses are rather radical,
>
> No, your hypotheses are not radical, they simply are uneducated. They
> don't follow any consistent pattern, but rather take whatever seems to
> be even remotely similar to something else as being "cognates" (which
> is, of course, a complete misuse of the term cognate, as I already
> explained: cognate means words derived from the same original root-word,
> something which not at all applies to your alleged cognates). This is,
> said as simply as possible, complete nonsense, as it simply takes
> surface similarities and postulates that are the same. Such attempts to
> find "similarities", as I've also already said, appear every one in a
> while, and there is actually no need to discuss them in detail here, as
> it has been shown by linguists innumerable times that this is complete
> and utter nonsense.
>
>> but no one has to take them seriously - I'm only a patchily
>> educated amateur -
>
> And, instead of getting some better education, you rather insist on
> something which is documentably wrong. Something that can actually be
> falsified by looking at the evidence, something which rarely happens in
> non-scientific disciplines.
>
>> and all I want is to be allowed to air my views along with everyone
>> else; and of  course, I enjoy the feedback.
>
> But still, you are unwilling to get yourself educated in that regard,
> but rather insist on proposing your "theory". This is clearly what I
> would call clinging to a theory in spite of the evidence.
>
>> A lot hinges on the relationship between the cognates Catholic and
>> Goidelic. Cath is a common enough C-Celtic title. Cath Bad's an
>> example.  Olic is the Romanisation of the a C-Celtic word similar
>> to, and meaning roughly the same as, the modern Irish word 'eolach',
>> which means 'knowledgable'.
>
> This, of course, is complete nonsense. Catholic definitly is not derived
> from any Celtic word. I'm snipping the rest of this pseudo-etymology,
> because it is worthless. Again, you simply ignore the historical
> development of languages. You again imply that a language documentably
> spoken no earlier than some centuries ago, which developed out of
> earlier forms which were considerably different, was spoken in the same
> way as it is today more than 1500 years ago. You simply ignore the
> historical dimension, even though I have repeatedly told you that this
> is kicking the evidence right into its face.
> This is no longer funny - this has nothing to do with scholarship,
> neither modern nor postmodern nor any. It simply has to do with not
> being sufficently educated.
>
>> I'm describing what happens in English, but I assume it's similar in
>> languages I don't know as well.
>
> This is the problem - you assume this and that, but don't test it, and
> simply lack knowledge about everything you are talking about.
>
> It is not shameful to create a wrong theory due to lack evidence and
> personal knowlegde, but it is shameful, in the face of better evdience
> and better knowledge, to keep with crackpot theories, simply to keep
> ones pet theory alive, even though it is documentably nonsense. You are
> not willing to learn, and to change your views, Vyvyan. You just want to
> flood the list with your ideas, which neither are especially funny nor
> especially interesting, nor do they contain any valuable insights, as
> far as I can see as yet. Please, start to learn, instead of flooding us
> with nonsense!
>
>> Now, I've said that the word Goidelic is cognate with Catholic, and
>> this is
>> how I reason it:
>
> It is not, which can again be documented.
>
>> When Cath undergoes eclipsis it becomes gCath pronounced Gath.
>
> Which is attested in what exaples? Where is that documented? Don't tell
> me that there is no material available for that, as this is something
> that should be found in innumerous cases in Irish manuscripts from the
> last 1000 years, which do exist, as I've already said.  Now, where is
> this shift documented?
>
>> If the a is pronounced rather forward, as it well may be in Irish,
>> it would be spelled gC/ath, which is pronounced nearly enough like
>> Goth to be spelt like that if it had been first recorded by someone
>> who used the Roman alphabet as for example the English, Germans or
>> ancient Romans do, rather than as the Irish do nowadays.
>
> Again, where is this documented? This should also be recorded in the
> manuscripts. Cite me some attestations of this in the available
> evidence? You won't be able to, as there isn't any such recorded
> attestation.
> There is, however, innumerable evidence that shows the indigenous Irish
> use of the term, of course not in its anglicised variant Goidelic, but
> in the native Irish forms OIr. góidel, and still exists in its modern
> Irish form Gael, paralleled in Scottish Gàedheal. It can hardly be a
> problem to see the derivation of Goidel-ic from OIr. góidel+ic-suffix
> (the language belonging to the Goidels), as is one way to build a term
> showing that something belongs to something esle in English, as also
> evident in Brython+ic (belonging to the ancient Britons) Analytic
> (belonging to Analysis), Forensic (belonging to Forensis), Ossianic
> (belonging to Ossian), like in German+ic for the German language family
> (belonging to Germans), Idiotic (belonging to an Idiot), Spartanic
> (belonging to Spartans), and so on, paralleling how terms for languages
> are built in German: Goidel+isch, Brython+isch, Engl+isch, Span+isch,
> Französ+isch, Ungar+isch, Ir+isch, Schott+isch, Walis+isch, Breton+isch,
> but also generally expressing possession, as in Analyt+isch (belonging
> to Analysis), Forens+isch (belonging to Forensis), Ossian+isch
> (belonging to Ossian), German+isch (belonging to Germans), Idiot+isch
> (belonging to an Idiot), Spartan+isch (belonging to Spartans), and so
> on, ad infinitum. Modern German is a bit more regular than modern
> English, which also knows the ish-suffix, as in Ir+ish, Scott+ish,
> Finn+ish, Span+ish etc., but clearly, these suffixes are the same.
> Thus, your pseudo-etymology crumbles into nothingness, even if someone
> has a very basic knowledge of grammar and how possessive terms are
> built. This is this plainly evident that your theory becomes not only
> ridiculous, but in fact obvious stupidity!
>
>> Emphasise the first element of eolach's diphthong rather than the
>> first and
>> change -ach to -ic, and you get elic, which tacks straight onto the
>> end to
>> give gC/aidelic (pronounced and usually spelt Goidelic).
>
> Plain and stupid nonsense. There is no evidence at all for this, and
> even though this is funny speculation, it simply can't be confirmed,
> while a derivation from OIr. gòidel can be very well documented.
>
>> Now my ten year old Shorter OED lists the word Goidel, which they
>> equate
>> with Gael, as having first appeared (presumably in some text) in
>> 1882,  and
>> yet they somehow manage to derive it from Old Irish!
>
> Because it is Old Irish. Go look at the DIL, not at the OED, for
> sources. To explain it to you, DIL is the Dictionary of the Irish
> Language, published by the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin. The
> attestation in OED of course is not the first attestation in Irish, but
> the first attestation in English, where a 1882 date is not surprising,
> as this is the time when the early modern antiquarians developed the use
> of the term Goidel and Goidelic in their english writings as referring
> to the ancient Irish people and their language. Get a clue Vyvyan, and
> stop bothering us with this nonsense. Again, this is clear evidence for
> your total ignorance of evidence and complete lack of any in-depth
> knowledge of anything relevant for the topic you create freak theories
> about.
>
>> Goidelic, they say, is formed from it, just as, say, Icelandic is
>> formed from Iceland. Does anyone know of an earlier instance of the
>> occurence of the word Goidel?
>
> Yes, everyone who has ever done even the minimal research into Old Irish
> necessary to gain at least a basic understanding that can be expected of
> any undergraduate in Celtic Studies. The evidence for it is
> overwhelming, there are thousand of attested instances, from the
> earliest surviving manuscripts onwards, especially in those passages
> dating to the 6th-8th century AD. What they say in your OED is
> absolutely correct, as everyone with even a minimal knowlegde of
> linguistics perfectly well knows.
>
>> While the lack of evidence doesn't exclude the possibility, you'd
>> want some supporting evidence, wouldn't you?
>
> And there is massive supporting evidence for it, which you would know
> had you only the slightest of any idea what you are talking about. Quite
> to the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence to back up your view,
> which is, as I've already noted, nothing but idle and in fact horribly
> uneducated and rather stupid speculation.
>
>> Especially in view of the fact that my rather obvious equation of
>> Goidelic with Catholic works rather better.
>
> Quite on the contrary, your equation is neither obvious, nor does it
> work better than what the OED says, but simply is nonsense without ANY
> relationship to any documented evidence and reality.
>
>> Goidel, then is simply naively back-formed from Goidelic, by some
>> scholar influential enough to be taken up on it.
>
> Nonsense! The development of the term Goidelic in english texts can
> perfectly well be traced, and the scholars who introduced that term into
> the academic discipline even gave their reasoning for why they take the
> term Goidel for the ancient Irish - because it is the term they used
> themselves for describing them. Your lack of knowledge about what you
> are talking about is rather annoying, and if this is even remotely
> similar to what you produce in your undergraduate courses, I wonder why
> you should excel there. Rather, you should be sent back to ground school
> to learn the basics of English grammar!
>
>> Now let me refer again to the Ancient Roman strategy of conquest
>> in which conquered leaders were spectacularly and demoralisingly
>> tortured and killed in front of their people who were forced to
>> observe their utter defeat and be suitably impressed as to who
>> their new leaders were.
>
> This is attested where, except in your fantasy world?
>
>> And what they were taking over must have been an established
>> Catholicism. And it must have been very old. The new, conquering
>> Catholicism then is the transmuted continuation of an ancient
>> Celtic 'Goidelicism'.  So Goidelic refers not to the race of Gaels,
>> whose name I derive somewhat differently as I will explain later,
>> but to a tradition of institutions from which Catholicism derives
>> at least some of its characteristics.
>
> Blatant nonsense, without any foundation in the evidence. Obviously, it
> even has escaped you that the Romans never conquered Ireland. Again, I
> urge you to start to learn what the evidence is before you bore us with
> you stupid theories!
>
> <snipped the remaining rubbish>
>
>> I'd better stop here and see if anyone's still with me.
>
> No, dear Vyvyan, no one is still with you. And not because your theory
> is shocking, but simply because it clearly bespeaks that you have not
> the slightest idea of what you are talking about. I have continued to
> answer your mails out of pure courtesy, and in the hope that you sit
> down and start to learn about the evidence for what you are talking
> about, rather than taking dictionaries and looking for terms that look
> remotely similar to what you are looking for, and then postulate strange
> theories based on those findings, that have no resemblance of any
> evidence at all.
>
> To get something wrong because one lacks knowledge is something that can
> happen to everyone. But to insist on keeping with a wrong idea in face
> of better knowledge is stupidity. I have told you, go and learn the
> basics. There is enough material out there that can teach you those
> basics, and if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them.
> But stop flooding this list with obviously uneducated rubbish crackpot
> theories, as this is just wasting bandwidth.
>
> All the best,
>
> RAY
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Mag.phil. Raimund KARL
> Österreich: <mailto:raimund.karl at univie.ac.at>
> Lektor für kulturwissenschaftliche Keltologie
> Univ.Wien, Inst.f.Alte Geschichte, A-1010 Wien, Dr. Karl Lueger Ring 1
> United Kingdom: <mailto:rrk at aber.ac.uk>
> Research fellow (European Archaeology)
> Canolfan Uwchefrydiau Cymreig a Cheltaidd, Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru,
> Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3HH; ffôn: (+44 781) 6464861
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>      Besuchen Sie die Homepage der Studienrichtung Keltologie unter
>        Visit the Celtic Studies at Vienna University homepage at
>             <http://www.univie.ac.at/keltologie/index.html>
>
>                    Visit the Canolfan homepage at
>                   <http://www.cymru.ac.uk/canolfan>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
email: martin at easyweb.co.uk             PGP ID:	0xA835CCCB
	martin at members.evolt.org      snailmail:	30 Shandon Place
   tel:	+44 (0)774 063 9985				Edinburgh,
   url:	http://www.easyweb.co.uk			Scotland