Talk:Gaelic type

New article

Be patient as I clean up the pictures and all. Obviously I took this over from Fraktur (typeface). Evertype 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! – Kaihsu 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Insular letters

Angr, there are going to be some more insular letters added to Unicode, yes. Evertype 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Does Unicode provide different codes for "long r" and regular r? (Long s I know about.) User:Angr 16:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's U+017F ſ LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S and U+027C ɼ LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH LONG LEG. But what is proposed is capital and small insular D, F, G, R, S, and T, plus capital and small turned insular G, capital and small turned L, and capital turned A. Evertype 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently under ballot are U+A779 Ꝺ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER INSULAR D, U+A77A ꝺ LATIN SMALL LETTER INSULAR D, U+A77B Ꝼ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER INSULAR F, U+A77C ꝼ LATIN SMALL LETTER INSULAR F, U+A77D Ᵹ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER INSULAR G, U+A77E Ꝿ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER TURNED INSULAR G, U+A77F ꝿ LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED INSULAR D, U+A782 Ꞃ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER INSULAR R, U+A783 ꞃ LATIN SMALL LETTER INSULAR R, U+A784 Ꞅ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER INSULAR S, U+A785 ꞅ LATIN SMALL LETTER INSULAR S, U+A786 Ꞇ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER INSULAR T, U+A787 ꞇ LATIN SMALL LETTER INSULAR T. U+1D79 ᵹ LATIN SMALL LETTER INSULAR G is already encoded. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

dh, ch etc. in old typeface?

In both text samples (fig. 1 and 2) there are both letters with dot above and the corresponding digraphs with h. Is this supposed to be correct? I thought that in a real old typeface you should only use the combinations with dots, though I see that the old font is very decorative and therefore probably often used with the new orthography – but one should certainly not mix up h- and dot-spellings, or is there a reason for this? --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The sample shows the use of Gaelic script in modern Irish orthography as well as traditional Irish orthography. It's OK to mix them in a sample text. -- Evertype·✆ 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is okay, my question was really for information, not criticism. But maybe all the same one could make it a bit clearer in the text that there are two orthographies in the sample? --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 17:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

{{Gaelic}}

{{Gaelic}} is intended to select Gaelic fonts if installed. dab (𒁳) 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish Script

Why Gaelic Script given that Irish and not Gaelic is used extensively for the language in Ireland?Eog1916 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's called an cló Gaelach. Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic are all Gaelics, all deriving from the people who lived on the island of Ireland. In popular parlance, these are shortened to Irish, Gaelic (pronounced like Gallic in Scotland), and Manx. -- Evertype·✆ 08:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Antiqua, Blackletter, Gaelic and the Typography terms Template

There is some discussion going on at that the Talk page for that template regarding the classification of typefaces and the place of Gaelic in the paradigm. -- Evertype·✆ 17:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of focus, too many topics mixed together

This article does not present a coherent view and mixes up two different concepts: the Irish alphabet/writing system and a style of typefaces. The infobox makes the article seem to be about a character set (alphabet) used in Irish, while the lead makes the article seem to be about typeface style. Furthermore, the "Characteristics" section, which currently has no inline citations, expands this problem by suggesting a stylistic classification of typeface depends on the character sort [that's like saying Futura magically stops being a geometric sans-serif face if it doesn't contain the euro symbol (€)]. If you have typefaces with the appropriate characters, you can set Irish in both Helvetica and Colmcille. Similarly, you can set English (or French for that matter) in both Helvetica and Colmcille. This article does not make that distinction clear. If we are to have an article about a typographic style, then it needs to focus less on the Irish language and remove completely the Characteristics/Unicode stuff. Type classification transcends national identity (though that aspect is important in the early history). Conversely, if we are to have an article about Irish typography, then we need to focus less on the single style. Another option would be to have an article about the use of a specific typographic style in the context of Irish language printing (but it'd be strange to limit the scope of an article like that, because where would we discuss Irish printing that wasn't in that style? and where would we discuss the style when used for non-Irish typesetting?) Assuming others agree with me that this article needs more focus, what should the focus of this article be? and can the other concepts be merged with existing articles, or could we create new articles to cover the scope of those?-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to work to improve this article, but one can hardly begin while the other matters under discussion are still in dispute. -- Evertype·✆ 01:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the image

Is there anyone who can change the image so that 'Gaelic' is spelled correctly? - anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.150.152 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which image? The one in the infobox that says "Gaelaċ"? That is spelled correctly, as an Irish word. +Angr 09:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic and Manx

Gaelic type was never traditionally used for either of these languages. -- Evertype·✆ 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? I've heard 'twas. /CrossOfDalriada (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for a negative? Should be easier to demonstrate its use, if it was so used. RashersTierney (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking handwriting or print? Print I'm not sure but handwriting without any doubt. For example:

• National Library of Scotland Manuscript 14986 by the Islay poet William Livingstone (in the "Irish" script)
• the Book of Deer (in the "Irish" script)
• National Library of Scotland Adv. Manuscript 72.2.13, which contains a poem by Alasdair MacMhaighstir Alasdair (in the "Irish" script)

There's loads more. It just died out sooner on this side of the Irish Sea. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2009 (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)