Talk:Nuckelavee/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old Nick

I have removed this:

its name may be a progenitor of that by which the Devil is sometimes known, Old Nick

Apart from the awkward phrasing, it is misleading. Nobody asserts that "Old Nick" derives from "Nuckelavee"; rather, some people assert that both "Nick" in "Old Nick" and "Nuckel" in "Nuckelavee" have a common ancestor in Old English "nicor" or a Germanic antecedent of that. This deserves mention in the Etymology section, but certainly not in the lede. jnestorius^(talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone added it back, but I tend to agree -- that part stuck out as not borne out by the sources. It's rather surprising the article made featured status with this in the lede. Either needs better sources, or someone to put this in the etymology section. 71.51.137.25 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's already in the etymology section - have you not read the article? The lead is a summary of the article body, which is why it's in the lead. Eric Corbett 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you not read this section? You reverted my change with the comment "back to last good version". Can you at least explain why you disagree with my reasoning? jnestorius^(talk) 10:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What reasoning? All I see is your personal opinion. Eric Corbett 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I will try to explain myself more clearly, although I may require your help in the form of answers to one or more questions. The article states "its name may be a progenitor of that by which the Devil is sometimes known, Old Nick". What does "its name" refer to: (a) "Nuckelavee" (b) "Neckar" (c) something else? jnestorius^(talk) 01:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of off-topic, but I always heard that "Old Nick" came from Niccolò Machiavelli. I think this theory might even have been in my government-sanctioned secondary school history textbook's coverage of Machiavelli, presented as plain fact. (Obviously, I no longer "believe" this explanation to be accurate.) Given this, I'm kind of surprised we don't have an article on Old Nick (devil) or some such that explains all this stuff. The ODE definitely says "probably from a pet form of the given name Nicholas", which doesn't make any sense by itself (the most famous Nicholas in modern popular culture is the third-century saint from Asia Minor who brings presents in December, not the Devil) and would seem to somewhat contradict the statements made in this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

More on-topic, I'd like to see a source for both "Nick" in "Old Nick" and "Nuckel" in "Nuckelavee" have a common ancestor in Old English "nicor" or a Germanic antecedent of that, as this is geographically and chronologically problematic, at least according to our article on Orkney, as it would appear that Old English was never spoken in the area under discussion. "a Germanic antecedent" is theoretically possible because of the Norse connection, but seems unlikely as the closest common ancestor of Old English and Old Norse was, to the best of my knowledge, Proto-Germanic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Right you are jnestorius. The article represents Hibbert as saying the component nuck of the nuckelavee's name is cognate with Old Nick. Well, Hibbert doesnt actually say this.[1] Hibbert says that the Neckar in the Orkneys are "known by some other name" (which he never specifies, but likely he meant trow, mistranscribed as "troicis"); he follows with some bits about shelty and water-trow, then down the line he says the Necker is cognate to Old Nick. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

So the proper place for this material is probably Neck (water spirit) the general article. Probably does not demonstrate WP:DUE WEIGHT to be put in lede of the nuckelavee article.-- 10:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiyoweap (talk • contribs)

Old Norse nykr

Following up, derivates of Nicholas pops up in some curious places, like Danish nisse, referring to what today functions as a guardian house spirit in Denmark (nils > nisse, consider how something similar happens with common names like Jack).

That said, the 19th century etymological stuff needs to come out of the introduction and be corralled off into its own section for sure, maybe even just appearing as a a footnote. It's highly dubious. Extensions of Proto-Germanic *nikwiz or *nikwuz are pretty well attested, mostly notably including Old Norse nykr, referring to a creature very much like the nuckalvee. Unfortunately, I see no mention of this in the article. (Old English nicor is just one of the Old Norse extension's many cognates.) :bloodofox: (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about the history of historical study of Indo-European languages before Max Müller, but was even the existence of Indo-European languages (i.e., the common ancestry of Sanskrit with Greek, Latin and the Germanic languages) known in 1822? If not, then surely virtually all of what's there is extremely outdated by virtue of that fact alone. Also, by its very definition the WP:LEAD cannot include anything that isn't already covered in another section, and probably shouldn't give too much weight to something that doesn't already have a section devoted to it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discovery of Grimm's Law was really the beginning of linguistics as a science. As for Indo-European studies, the field as we know it today didn't really exist until the 20th century, particularly after laryngeal theory. Of course, before that it had long been realized that what we now know as the Indo-European languages were connected in some way.

While Hibbert's comment is a curiosity, it most definitely should not be presented with any sort of credence. As a result, putting the "The nuck component of its name may be cognate with Nick in Old Nick, a name for the Christian Devil" in the introduction is highly misleading to the reader. This is just one of the many problems with this article but it definitely sticks out like a sore thumb. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, these 19th century sources work well for factual statements, but all their theories are hugely outdated. I suggest just dropping that sentence from the lead, it doesn't really add anything anyway. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I rephrased unclear sentences to try to bring them in line with the sources. If those sources are outdated, the thing to do would be to come up with recent authoritative, acceptable sources. Meanwhile, feel free to fix; I certainly won't go to war over it. But just for information, in what way is the suggestion that nick and nuck are related misleading? Awien (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Outdated" would put be putting it very kindly. Basically, early 19th century linguistic speculation from an "antiquarian" isn't reliable. Today linguistics is a science, not a point of speculation. f there's no source to replace it with, that's simply a symptom of the obscurity of the figure and doesn't mean we should default to a poor source. It's the same situation as in, say, biology. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Note also the employment of this terrible reference in the etymology section: [2]. I mean, come on. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit to being scared of fixing these issues, because I have a feeling that any change will result in an edit war, and I don't have the energy for that right now. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

At least tell me here: what's misleading, and what does modern linguistics have to say? I would genuinely like to know. Awien (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

To find out how a modern linguist would interpret the material, you'd have to find a modern study treating it by a historical linguist. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if there hasn't been any attempt to take a crack at the etymology of this figure due its obscurity (the Orkney Islands aren't exactly a magnet for linguists these days), but there might be some comments to be found relating the first element to Old Norse nykr somewhere out there. Might be a fruitful line of inquiry to pursue that could improve this article, might not be—again, it just depends on what is out there.

Fwiw, to do this properly, a philologist would need to sit down and use the comparative method, which involves digging up, mapping, and analyzing the earliest attested forms and rigorous source criticism. Given the subject, that philologist would also need specialized knowledge in the history of the region beyond a linguistic level (as well as some background in folkloristics) to give a valid assessment. These things often turn out to be extremely complicated undertakings that raise as many questions as they do answers but they can also shine a lot of light on a situation.

As for what's misleading, adding early 19th century speculation to an article in a manner that presents it as if it has any sort of authority or relevance beyond simply being a curiosity is misleading to the reader. We've long passed the period where 'this-sounds-like-this-so...' is at all acceptable. Yet "The nuck component of its name may be cognate with Nick in Old Nick, a name for the Christian Devil" managed to stay in the introduction through the FA process and landed on the Wikipedia front page, yikes. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it's always best not to let the facts get in the way though, isn't it? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not a fact. It's a speculation that is based only on superficial the similarities of the names.

Classic Swedish example for comparison and enlightenment (and also fun):

"Kärring" (hag) starts with "kär" (dear) so it must originally mean "dear one", right? Popular claim still in Sweden. But no, that's not how etymology works, it's not that simple.

It comes from old norse "kerling", meaning old woman, and is a likely originally a the feminine of "karl" (man). --OpenFuture (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dear, did you actually click on the link I provided? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) is pointing out that I've got my quote about the article history wrong. She's right—in fact, this article was yet more misleading at the time it was featured on the Wikipedia main page: the transparently wrong claim "its name may be a progenitor of that by which the Devil is sometimes known, Old Nick" was in the second sentence of the article ([3]). :bloodofox: (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Nitpicking, yeah, I support that. :-) I thought Sagaciousphil was actually arguing for that this statement was a fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Points (mainly for OpenFuture, Bloodofox and Hijiri) to ponder:

- the 19th century was not the dark ages, it was 300 years into the scientific revolution

- philology was already a field in 1786, decades before Traill Dennison was active, when William Jones, with impeccable scientific method, demonstrated the existence of Proto-Indo-European

- argument by analogy (kär/kärring) is dangerous ground

- from what you say nobody since Dennison has researched the nuck/nick connection either to prove or in particular to disprove it

- faux amis and false cognates notwithstanding, in related languages words that look like cognates usually are cognates, so there's a good chance Dennison's theory is right

- to present his theory qualified as "may" be the case is in no way misleading

Cheers, Awien (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't the dark ages, but it was in that case the renaissance. They are outdated, these fields were new back then and has moved forwards with leaps and bounds. It's OK to keep it as one of multiple theories in the Etymology section, but the lead shouldn't mention any theories from the 19th century. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This reasoning is not valid. We don't reject a theory because it's old or because it dates from the early days of a discipline, we reject it if it's flawed or has been superseded. Awien (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Awien (talk · contribs)'s states "philology was already a field in 1786, decades before Traill Dennison was active, when William Jones, with impeccable scientific method, demonstrated the existence of Proto-Indo-European". This is wrong. Jones suspected that a bunch of languages were related, primarily via his background in Sanskrit, and thus he suspected a protolanguage (which contained issues such as the inclusion of Egyptian). He wasn't the first to propose something similar, see Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn.

The claim that Jones was employing an "impeccable scientific method" is, to be frank, particularly wrong. While Jones's quote is famously useful for concisely illustrating the baby steps that would in time lead to Indo-European studies, any introductory text on historical linguistics will make it clear that no scientific analysis was even possible in historical linguistics until Grimm's Law in 1822.

As for the statement that 'this sounds like this' (folk etymology) is usually right—come on now. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Which is the case here, as I repeatedly have pointed out. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Remember that the "Old Nick" theory is based on Hibbert assuming that they gave the creature a Teutonic name because of it's power. That's just weird backwards nonsense, and clearly just Hibbert trying to rationalize the idea that "Nuck" and "Nick" are related. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Any more fucking around with this article and I will list this for FAR. This article is being barstadised far too much for it to be anything similar to what it was when it passed FAC. Cassianto^Talk 21:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you threatening people to stop fixing the article? I oughta print out this comment and frame it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Let me know if you do print it out, I'd like to suggest another place where you could stick it. Cassianto^Talk 10:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the article was a mess throughout at its time of listing, it definitely needs review. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto's constant insults is just evidence that he doesn't care about about the article, he is only here to start a fight. Just ignore him. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The sad thing is I did care about this article once upon a time; but since you and your gang have had hold of it, together with the utter contempt you have shown towards its authors, I couldn't give a shit about it. That's why I have taken it off of my watchlist. Cassianto^Talk 11:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The only thing he cared about was keeping other editors' fingers off of Eric & Phil's "utterly flawless" prose---he never gave a shit about the actual article's quality. Thank the FSM he's fucked off so it can be fixed now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Bloodofox, in your responses to me, besides misquoting me, you appear to be confusing philology and phonology, seem not to be aware that there's a scientific method (collection and examination of data, formulation and testing of a hypothesis, drawing a conclusion) that's quite independent of phonology, and are not distinguishing between noticing a phenomenon, as people before Jones noticed the existence of cognates among many languages, and drawing the correct conclusion, which is what Jones did.

Open Future, I think you're misinterpreting the thrust of Hibbert's convoluted sentence.

But in any case, as I said before, you need sources. What you think you know doesn't cut it unless you're a published authority.

As for me, in the absence of adequate access to sources old or new I have contributed all I can here.

Oh, except that anyone of a prurient disposition who reads Latin might enjoy Hibbert's footnotes.

Awien (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, that's a direct quote from you. And "confusing phonology and philology"? That's just nonsense—are you just pulling things from websites you're finding at this point? Do you know what a chain shift is? And did you not notice how wrong Jones was? Come on. There are so many issues with your last statement that I'm wondering if you're now cobbling together your responses from half-finished Wikipedia articles and random websites while you go along.

As for sources, this has been addressed above. Bad sources aren't a substitute for good sources. It's obvious that early 19th century speculation, particularly as poor speculation as this is, isn't a reliable source. I'm not sure why we're even discussing it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

We can't have bad sources just because we don't have good sources. If we can't find a modern enlightened source about the etymology, then we shouldn't say anything about the etymology. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary of Scots Language (DSL)

Following up, a simple search yielded what I expected. See the Dictionary of Scots Language (DSL) entry for neugle: [4]. The DSL derives the first element from from either Old Norse nykr or a West Gemanic form (including Old English nicor).

I'm also wondering why this article is titled nuckelavee over neugle, which would cover the whole complex. Seems there's a lot more digging to be done here that will help straighten this out but at least now we've got a reliable source to work with. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what Water horse is about? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, what I think we have going on these article is a lot of confusion and overlap. Not all extensions of *nikwiz or *nikwuz (which we handle at Neck (water spirit)) are attested as appearing in the shape of a horse. Examples include the Grimms' relatively recent The Water Nixie (another unfortunately poor article), the nicor of Beowulf, etc. These beings are usually malicious and associated with water but, as usual, the situation isn't cut and dry. What is clear is that the being stems from Proto-Germanic folklore. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the bäckahäst mentioned there is clearly a Water horse but there isn't even a link between the articles. You are right, at the minimum some reorganization is needed to make all these articles fit together in a better way. I don't know enough about these areas to do that though. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

re mostly Bloodofox above:

- the word philology in the sense of "the science of language" was already in use by 1716 (OED)

- Grimm's Law (1822) is phonology, which was brought to bear to refine Jones's (correct) hypothesis

- "Jones . . . is generally given the credit for . . . putting forward, in 1786, the hypothesis that [Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin] must have 'sprung from some common source'" (Britannica). Flaws notwithstanding, he amassed and examined data, and formulated his (correct) hypothesis. That's the scientific method, quite independently of phonology.

- I didn't say "this sounds like this' is usually right", I said "in related languages (my emphasis) words that look like cognates usually are cognates." Of course one always has to beware of false cognates, but between English and French, for example, for every causer that doesn't mean cause, there are umpteen table, plan, train, danger, village, géométrie, beauté, etc. that are true cognates. If you had to bet your life, the odds would be vastly better betting that the lookalikes are alike than that they aren't. One old French textbook I used long ago lists only a couple of hundred false cognates to beware of for the whole language. That's an underestimate, but definitely of the right order of magnitude.

- Hibbert refers to "profound antiquarians" as the source of the Old Nick theory, but I don't have access to enough of his book to know who or what they might be.

Awien (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Philology without phonology isn't science, it's guess work—fumbling around in the dark based on similarities—and no one in their right mind could conclude that our understanding of phonetics and phonology in the early 19th century was anything but the faint beginnings of what we understand now.

The fact that the term philology was in use in the 18th century is irrelevant given the division of the field into a pre-Grimm's Law and post-Grimm's Law era. We have plenty of medieval stabs at etymologies and they're by and large bullshit. It's nothing new. It's a situation comparable to biology pre-Darwin (a comparison that earned Grimm the title the "Darwin of the Humanities" from Tom Shippey, in fact).

As for Jones, you might want to do a little more digging before leaning on those claims (ex. [5]).

The "Old Nick theory" as it stands here is guesswork from a pre-Grimm's Law era. We should mention it as a curiosity of the history of the scholarship but promoting it today is pseudoscience. Let's not go down that path, Wikipedia has so much of that on our folklore articles already. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Awien, this isn't about related languages. Yes, you are right that in two languages, words that seem similar *and mean approximately the same thing* are usually related. In fact they are usually the same word. But this is the case of two different words with different meanings sounding the same. And you can't say they are usually related. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that "Nuckelavee" and "Old Nick" have any relation whatsoever.

And the fact remains: Linguistic and ethnological theories from the 19th century were guesswork from the beginnings of those disciplines, and they must be treated as guesswork unless confirmed by later sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

bloodofox, re "Philology without phonology isn't science, it's guess work—fumbling around in the dark based on similarities": it most certainly is science, just science lacking more sophisticated tools that were developed later. Its claims are no more to be dismissed out of hand than to be accepted as certainties.

Open Future, as far as I know the only non-Indo-European language in western Europe is Basque. Any two Indo-European languages are related, however distantly.

Awien (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You're making the same arguments that anti-evolution "biologists" try to make and Wikipedia has certainly seen enough of that. If you've got something to add to the article, let's see it. Otherwise ramblings about how "scientific" 17th and early 18th century speculation is nonsense and well off topic at this point. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Awien, I'll try again: Yes, two words in related languages that sounds the same and have a similar meaning indeed mostly have the same origin. But this is not about two words in related languages that have a similar meaning. It's about two words with totally different meaning in two dialects of the same language that sound vaguely similar. Your argument about words in related languages that sound the same isn't applicable here.

The fact remains: 19th century sources that propose theories in cultural and linguistic areas are not reliable. We should not present them as authoritative, especially when there are modern reliable sources available. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Bloodofox The etymology of nuckelavee can be found under "neugle" in the DSL, and I already pointed out to Eric and Sagacious long ago. I'd forgotten where I wrote it but it is in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuckelavee/archive2.

DSL refers to Jakob Jakobsen's Etymological dictionary of the Norn language in Shetland (1928), Danish version (1921) available at hathi trust:

At pp. 571–2 under "njuggel (njugl) [njogəl, ŋogəl], s., nøk [nix], vandvætte [water-wight ]... " After a description of the Shetlandic njuggel he adds: "En lignende tradition findes på Hoy, Orknøerne, om "de knoggelvi [k‘nog″-əlvi]", hvis første sammensætningsled må være samme ord som shetl. njuggel." which I believe says "A similar tradition exists on Hoy, Orkney, regarding "de knoggelvi", whose first component must be the same word as Shetlandic njuggel".

Jakobsen's also has an entry on "mukkelevi" on p. 536. "mukkelevi [mok・əlē'vi], s., de m. [the mukkelevi] djævlen, søtrolden [sea-troll], fiskernes onde ånd [fishremen's evil spirit], imod hvem „havets moder“ (de midder o' de sea) ..." where he adds that Orkney's nukkelevi is surely the same word as Shetlandic mukkelevi ("I orkn. nukkelevi, mystik vandvæsen [mythical water-creature], dels i åer og indsøer (nøk [nix]), dels is havet (havdæmon [sea-demon]), er evi sikkert samme ord som i shetl. mukkelevi"). Jakobsen's conjectural etymology here is that it was originally Old Norse "mykil afi" "great man (or grandfather)". --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Under /*Etymology*/ I worked in info from the DSL entry for "neugle". The heading is for the short Shetland form "neugle" and variant spellings, and the Orkney forms nukkelevi and knoggelvi are stated as derivative forms. I dont see either DSL or Jakobsen indication that nuckelavee definitely derives from knoggelvi; this probably is another conjecture from orkneyjar.com site, in which case it should be left out (I've tagged with {{dubious}} for now).

I also added Jakobsen's material (above, fine print), including his rather different etymolgoy on "mukkelevi". --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Demarcation

@Cas Liber In your GA review, you stated that so I doubt we'll see the mythological demarcation disputes. A premature assessment as it turned out, since in #FAC review 2 demarcation did crop up, but not pursued. It seems your interest dissipated after commenting on the kelp matter. But thi is just another instance showing that the lackadaisical FA review got cut off far short of thoroughness.

The demarcation issue came up when we were discussing whether nuckelevee was a type of "trow (folklore)" (as folklorists say) or whether these could be deemed interchangeable (as the candidates seemed to believe). This was dismissed in typical fashion as some obsession on a fine point. But the inconvenient truth is that Dennison actually makes a clear distinction between his "nuckelavee" and his "sea-trow".[6][7] (non-JSTOR links here)--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the link it appears to have both broad and narrow meanings. It's in italics at the top of the section though is narrowly defined in the text proper. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The narrow-broad definition(s) occurred to me too at first blush, but I decided that was not the case after all here. I think "trow" is the general term like "fairy" and Dennison seems to consider "Sea Trow" a specific monster. I believe Dennison is saying Mither of the Sea is the progenitor of all and the Nuckelavee and Sea-Trow are different stages in the evolution of her descendants. He gives a different physical description of the Sea-Trow. I hadn't read up this section before, so it might be worth adding.

In any case, even while accepting your premise, the fact stands Dennison knows of a "sea-trow" proper that's different from "nuckelavee".

And knowledge of the existence of "sea-trows" is pertinent to Jo Ben's manuscript, which explicitly mentions the "trow" from the sea. The article likes to characterize this as a MS possibly on "nuckelavee", artificially boosting credance by concealing the fact that the MS writes "trow" explicity. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)