Talk:Celtic deities

Move

The current title, Celtic theology, is vacuous. Neither our ancient material nor the mediaeval Irish or Welsh manuscripts provide anything that could be remotely considered to be theology. Celtic deities, however, would adequately describe the topic of this article (which was recently forked off of Celtic polytheism). Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's highly dubious under WP:CFORK. I see it's a recent creation by Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) who has been wreaking havoc with our "paganism" articles. I feel tempted to revert the chap on sight until he learns to edit circumspectly and collaboratively. --dab (𒁳) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good, this move to Celtic pantheon is an improvement. I would still be happier if we could have Celtic deities (this would require an administrator's approval), as the idea that the Celts writ large (which Celts? where? when?) had a pantheon (singular) can hardly be more than a highly problematic hypothesis. Q·L·1968 ☿ 12:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree Celtic deities is a better title; moving. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

May need to add

There is an article on Aeron that should perhaps be linked to this article somehow. P0M (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

‘Table’ of ‘Arrangement’

As a linguist and philologist, I have a good many problems with the ‘table’ that purports to ‘arrange’ the theonyms. Let’s take Ogma as an example. Philologically, and neogrammatically, Ogma must derive from *Ogmojos or *Ogmosos or *Ogmowos all of which have the form of thematic adjectives in Indo-European languages. *Ogmius must derive from *Ogm-ijo-s which has the form of an adjective derived from the well-attested Indo-European athematic adjective-forming suffix *-ijo- which tends to form adjectives denoting provenance and derivation. The stem *ogmo- is attested in Scots Gaelic as meaning 'track, furrow' and would be cognate with the Ancient Greek ὀγμος 'track, furrow.' *Ogm-ijo-s would have given us *Oefi in Middle Welsh; *Ogmojos or *Ogmosos would have yielded *Oefy and *Ogmowos, *Oef(e)u in Middle Welsh. Quite whence Eufydd cometh, I'd love to know. I mean, exactly what source is this from? The Eu- at the start of the name suggests an ancient prefix *Esu- meaning 'good' which is attested in Gallic. The name Eufydd looks to me as though it is more likely to derive from a putative *Esu-mīdī-s 'good healer, good measurer' than anything to do with the stem *ogmo-. This is but one flaw. G.M.Gladehall (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, Old Irish Nét suggests a pre-Primitive Irish *Nentos or *Nettos. If Celtiberian Netus had been borrowed into pre-Primitive Irish, or if Old Irish had inherited a word cognate with Celtiberian Netus, we'd find the Old Irish form as *Níath or *Néth. Old Irish Nét suggests a pre-Primitive Irish *Nentos or *Nettos. So, while the personages behind the names might be argued by some to be the same, the names, alas, cannot be taken as cognate, despite what Edwardian scholars might have said.

G.M.Gladehall (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

I think "Celtic Pantheon" is a poor title, since a "pantheon" denotes a collective worship (Chambers Dictionary) and mythology, evidence for which is strikingly lacking. The title, therefore, lacks verifiable authority, Caesar's general remarks being the only tenuous evidence for some kind of functional polytheism. The term "pantheon" does not appear in the article - not even at the start of the lede, which is bad wikistyle. Comments? Redheylin (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate proofs of godhood in an ancient "Celtic" culture?

It could be said that the only well-attested to instances of ANY known non-christian deities worshiped by the Welsh are those named in inscriptions on Romano-Celtic altars. The Irish candidates have even less corroborating "hard" evidence.

There are "characters in heroic lore", and "mythic heroes", and then there are "gods and gods and goddesses". Gods and goddesses are characters who where described by the people as-such and were venerated with religious rites, i.e. "worshiped". The factors qualifying a character as a "Celtic" deity would be as mentioned, inscriptions on altars, and to a varying degree, attestations in the writings of neighboring or occupying cultures like those of Rome or Greece. Linguistically linked names of characters from the lore of the "Celtic" culture having stories and descriptions similar to known similarly-named deities of the neighboring or occupying culture may qualify, albeit with less certainty and therefore more open to debate.

We need some serious discussion on the merit of near universal custom of elevating to god/goddesshood virtually any of the primary characters in the stories of the Irish and the Welsh corpus. Earrach (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but not on Wikipedeia. We call them what the sources call them, as editor's it isn't our role to recast them and please don't do this again. If you have reliable sources talking about 'otherworld characters' they can be added of course. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Brigid

Are you trying to say it is now consensus that the goddess is actually the saint? Again you've made a major change with no sources and which contradicts our article. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Combining of the Celtic gods and the British gods in the table.

The combining of the British and Scottish Gods in the table is an issue for me, especially since these Gods and their peoples have been separate for years. I think that in order to make a more concise table, one would wish to differentiate between the Gods of each of these very different cultures and religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolink (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Table?

What do folks think: should we axe the table? Part of me likes it (I think I may have created a draft of it), but part of me thinks it's too much of a mess to make it transparent what the justification for each juxtaposition is. Alternatively, each cell could have a footnote detailing how A relates to B (and/or C and/or D). Any thoughts? Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Phonetic spelling and perhaps recorded pronunciation audio files?

As a non-scholar, casually interested party it would be very helpful to add phonetic spelling to the names of the various entities (as is accomplished on many similar type wikipedia entries). I ,of course, am not qualified to edit the article in such a manner and so put the suggestion to the wider community. Also, although this does not seem to be a consistent Wikipedia practice, a recorded file with the pronunciation (such as is found on Google Translate) would be very helpful.

This is a great idea. I wish I were qualified to help make it happen! --- FULBERT (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)