Talk:Goídel

It is firstly unprofessional and against Wiktionary policy to delete a valid alternate explanation for a word's etymology. Angr's argument that a "medieval text is hardly a reference" is a bit over the top. Goidel is an ancient word. It has been in continuous existence since the 11th century. To therefore dismiss an 11th century text's explanation for the origin of the word is heavy-handed and without basis or merit. I have only included an alternate etymology. I did not delete Angr's preferred etymoloyg (which is itself unproven and without consensus and has its own weaknesses). I will continue to revert all deletions of the Etymology that indicate the existence of the Lebor Gabála Érenn as a source for the word, and I will revert all deletions of the Etymology that indicate the reference to Goidel Glas in that 11th century text.

There are two theories of the word currently in scholastic circles. Etymology 1 would explain that the word is based on a Welsh word that means "Irishman". Etymology 2 would explain that the word the Irish used to describe themselves is based on an eponymous ancestor as described in the 11th century. Without debating the merits of either one, it would be prudent to allow BOTH to be incorporate in this website. Otherwise Wiktionary is serving as a forum to silence some valid theories to allow other theories to be the only voice in the room. This is against Wiktionary policy and should not be tolerated. Feel free to add a third or fourth etymology for this ancient word. It is clear from the scholastic record that nobody has "proven" the true etymology of this word. Until such time, if ever, then words of such antiquity should be allowed to have multiple etymologies. To do otherwise is to give a platform to narrow-minded thinking and intolerance for academic integrity and scholastic research. The Welsh-origin theory is not universally accepted, nor can it be. The Welsh definition is itself ambiguous.

The Welsh theory is this: The Welsh had a word for "Irishman" and the Irish people therefore decided to just use that word and call themselves by it.

The alternate and older theory is this: The Irish people had a word for themselves based on an eponymous ancestor (it doesn't matter whether that eponymous ancestor actually lived or is a mythical ancestor, no more than it matters whether Abraham was real or mythical, yet many claim descent from him, etc). This theory then presumes the Irish people self-identified as Goidelic, the people of Goidel, and then the Welsh simply used the same term to refer to an Irishman using their own spelling to approximate the same word.

There is no evidence that the Welsh word predates the Irish word, or vice versa. Therefore, it is academically prudent to provide both theories, and not simply the newer and less tested or proven one, simply on the merit that the earlier and longer-accepted theory was based on an a medieval text. Most word etymology theories are going to be based on Medieval texts. If Angr continues to revert and delete the second etymology simply on the basis that it isn't what he likes, then that is vandalism and against Wiktionary policy. Oghmatist (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ethnic groups are always inventing eponymous ancestors for themselves. People in the 11th century had no idea of historical linguistics, so they made a story up to explain a word whose origin they didn't know. Modern scholars all agree that Goídel is a loanword from Brythonic. There are no modern scholars who believe the eponymous ancestor story (which incidentally is still not an etymology, because it doesn't say where the personal name Goídel came from; maybe the personal name itself is a loanword from Brythonic). This is like the creationism vs. evolution "debate"; the traditional explanation is completely and utterly without scientific merit, and in fact there is no debate going on at all. The etymology of this word is known and accepted. A point about formatting: we use "Etymology 1" and "Etymology 2" to separate homographs with different etymologies (like lead the verb and lead the noun), not to separate different etymological theories of the same word. And don't put your signature in entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Curious that Wikipedia doesn't mention the Phlogiston theory in its explanation of combustion, nor do they mention dragons in the sky in their explanation of thunder- and yet, each is an "alternate and older theory". Understandings improve. Old theories become obsolete. Also, please don't lecture us on Wiktionary policy until you actually understand it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about the origin of a word. Not the ultimate truth of reality. Where did the word "Messiah" come from? What about the word "Heaven?" What about the word "Hell?" Not always from where you think. And do you need to rely upon Biblical and contemporaneous texts to find the answer? Yes. And does that mean that you subscribe to those belief systems in those texts? Not necessarily. So, why do you confuse the issue here? Nobody is discussing the veracity of the document. Nobody is discussing the "Truthfulness" of that document. I am suggesting that the document itself is a piece of historical evidence. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is a document that existed. It was written at a point in time. It was read by a large group of people in this population that likewise held a meaning for the word. If you are both expert linguists as you claim, then do you not realize that those are the exact types of evidence you would need to build your ethno-linguistic theory of cultural transmission and loan-word migration upon? Hmmm. It would seem not. Instead, you deride and chastise and disregard vital sources of evidence on the basis of whether they are "subjectively true accounts of reality." Nobody is asking a linguist to verify the truth of extant manuscripts that extol ancient mythologies. Linguists are not supposed to pass judgment on whether the document they are handling is "true" or not. They are assessing the way words are written, used, appropriated, and transmitted. In this instance, you have an 11th century manuscript written in Gaelic, describing the origin of the word for Gael itself. And you dismiss that as being "dragons in the sky." What rubbish. Do you know how many words of Ancient Hebrew can only be found in the Hebrew scriptures? And are you prepared to toss those aside because the Book of Genesis describes creation in 6 days? I think not. The words in those texts, and how they relate to the historical context in which they were written are still valid documentary evidence for linguistic studies.

What motivates the two of you to so zealously ignore and delete this evidence from the etymological record? Is it because its not Brythonic enough for you? Or is there another reason? Oghmatist (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But you're implying that the eponymic origin is possibly "the ultimate truth of reality", at least as far as etymology is concerned. Furthermore, you're arguing that the eponymic theory has merit by virtue of being older and having been accepted at one time. I'm just pointing out that those factors are often laughably off the mark. Angr and I have no "pro-Brythonic" bias to speak of- we just don't want outdated nonsense being given equal weight with modern scholarship. You, on the other hand, are trying to push a very strong point of view- to the point of brandishing all kinds of wild accusations and overly-dramatic appeals to anything that isn't nailed down, in an apparent attempt to bluff your way past any realexamination of your "evidence". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Chuck Entz - look, read my answers lower. I am not advocating that the written words in the manuscript are "true." I am advocating that you allow a reference to the manuscript to show that the word was defined this way at this point in time by this large population kin-group.  To disallow that is to just refuse to believe that the manuscript was even written or existed.  In other words, I am saying that, unequivocally, the manuscript existed, and that is a fact.  And the manuscript defined the word this way.  And that is also a fact.  I am not interested in proving that the manuscript defined the word "truly."  It defined it.  And when it comes to Etymology, is that not important?  So, lets say you have a Middle English word.  And you find that is oldest use is in Chaucer.  And you can't find an older version of the word.  But someone else has a theory that its a loan word from Gaelic.  What do you do?  Ignore the Chaucer reference because its a clearly fictional work?  Or do you use it as a documentary basis that the word existed in this place, at this time, for this purpose, with this known context?  Yes, in some ways, the age of the document and the earlier it is tend to be of greater import when talking about ORIGINS of a word.  We are, wholly and completely, worried about the original meaning of a word, as far back as we can go.  Etymology is sort of concerned with older is better sometimes.  But of course, words can change meaning, and that likely happened with this word.  But do you know when that happened?  Well, not without my reference to the manuscript.  Because clearly if the word ever meant "Woodsman" then by the 11th century CE it clearly no longer did.  Right?  And its likely that the authors of the  Lebor Gabála Érenn did not just lift the common everyday word for "Woodsman" and use it as a national self-identification label.  Right?  I mean, if we created an eponymous epic today, would we use the word "Plumber" or would we use a word more hefty in meaning?  So, obviously we can date the word "Goidel" as being a national or racial identifier word as early as 11th century.  In terms of Etymology, that's darn good.  And reliable and provable.  Without a doubt.  The other theory is highly subjective and without anywhere close to that level of context and certainty. It is only conjecture.  Not based on Manuscript evidence.  Not based on cultural context or transmission. Only based on sound-formation patterns.  Not even on inscription or archaeological evidence that would indicate the word was really being used by a large percentage of the Gaelic or Welsh population in that context.  Isn't that also the point of etymology?  We don't just look for clever connections - we rely on saturation of a word in a society to understand its likely meaning.  And with the Lebor Gabála Érenn we get exactly that.  Oghmatist (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Oghmatist that there is room for both. It is said in computing that a novice comments code with what he did, a journeyman comments with why he did something, and a master comments with why he did not do it a different way. So, here, there is room to give the Just-So story of a name, while noting that it is a Just-So story without etymological justification. Even if we now know it to be rubbish, it was common knowledge to the educated Gael then, and at least a mention would seem apposite, even if only to dismiss it. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 06:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (SO MANY EDIT CONFLICTS!)
 * I will note, however, that the number of scholars who believe the LGÉ origin story is approximately zero. Mythology usually makes for bad linguistics. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 06:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * At the most fundamental level, I am not even trying to argue that point. Let me say it this way -- The word's oldest written definition appears to be in that manuscript.  No?  So, what is etymology other than that?  We can theorize all day long about the origin of the underlying word and its strata.  But, to ignore the oldest written definition seems amateur and unwarranted.  That's all.  That's my point.  Thanks for your insights.  They are appreciated.

Oghmatist (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am also only saying that the popular definition of the word, in the mind of the 11th century (and later) Gael could very easily have been influenced by that text. The manuscript itself contains strata of earlier texts.  This word may not have been a self-identifying word across all of Ireland or Gaelic Scotland.  It may have had different connotations.  But, what is important is that this document was a seminal watershed in the word.  It elevated the word to a meaning that provided and created national self-identity.  A racial self-identity.  Whether that racial or national self-identity existed previously or not is still to be determined.  And not in this forum.  But, the word has meaning.  And the transmission of that manuscript is highly probative in unwrapping that meaning.  I doubt you will find as ancient a text in Welsh or other Brythonic documents that reference the word with such detail.  Even if it was written purely as a mythological back-story.  Okay, then work with that.  Why would they use that word instead of others?  Obviously it had meaning of that import already by that time.  So, this is clear evidence, in the documentary record, that as of the 11th century or earlier, an entire group of people self-referenced as Goidel.  That's not just a loan-word.  Population groups don't, historically, take a loan-word to self-identify and do it within one generation of obtaining the loan-word.  If this is a loan-word, then why choose it as a national and racial identification?  Ultimately, Wiktionary is not going to answer these questions. But... Wiktionary is far more useful if it provides a valid and accurate basis upon which someone can extend into that analysis.  So, you have this document that provides all this useful context and insight into a word that you are trying to provide an etymology for.  Why not make reference to the seminal document in which it appears and is defined for an entire racial and national kin group?  Why not reference that at that time in history, this group perceived the word to have that meaning?  It indicates clues as to the origin of the word itself perhaps.  I am not suggesting that any scholars believe the version of the manuscript as to the origin of the word.  I am suggesting that not every scholar has dismissed that manuscript as relevant to the study of the origin of the word.  And those are two different things.  Please do not paint me out as a radical believer in the truthfulness of the manuscript.  I am an advocate of using documentary evidence to promote intellectual and scholastic accuracy.  To define the word, "Gael" or "Gaidheal" or "Goidel" without reference to a very critical extant document that self-defines the very word in the population group that most readily and heavily used the word is sort of like trying to define the word "Messiah" in Ancient Near Eastern usage and never once referencing how it was perceived differently by Jewish, Christian, Muslim and polytheistic cultures that each used the same root word just because you don't want to deal with "Scriptures" and "Mythologies."  Oghmatist (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the etymology of messiah doesn't and shouldn't reference all of that stuff: it's irrelevant to the etymology, which is just an attempt to explain where the word came from- not its historical or cultural context. It has more to do with anointing than with theology (if memory serves, there's a Hebrew word for oil that's very similar and is probably related). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me parse myself for you. Etymology, as I learned it in textual analysis, is not just linguistics.  It is also cultural transmission.  Textual and archaeological evidence.  Historical context gives you the meaning.  It indicates the word's usage in a population group.  You made this point yourself to another poster in a previous edit that I saw on your talk page.  That we don't just use wiktionary for newly minted words coined by people who use it only for themselves.  It has to be used in a larger context.  Well, words of age and antiquity particularly need to meet that criteria.  Many words sound similar.  Sometimes linguistics can just straight up get it wrong if its done without context.  There are not always one-to-one reasons why a word transformed from one language to another.  Americano is a word we could look at. People in Mexico use the word "Gringo" or "Americano" interchangeably.  Without further evidence, we would be without knowledge as to what that word means.  We find an ancient text that shows that "Americans" self-identified that way.  Why do they self-identify that way?  Why not call themselves "Washingtonians" after George Washington?  Obviously, a deeper strata exists, and it has nothing to do with linguistics by itself.  It has to do with historical context.  If we discover the manuscripts that show that the Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, was the first to reach these shores and circumnavigate them, then we might see a connection.  But some might not accept that.  They may claim that "American" is a derivation of "Americano"  and why?  Because they will say the Spanish settled the New World before the Anglo did, and yet the Anglo is the one that predominated for the later period.  So, do we toss out documents because we don't like them? What if the piece of evidence is found in a politically distasteful pamphlet that survived from much earlier?  My whole point is that historical context, documentary evidence, textual analysis, cultural transmission, etc, are all vital pieces of the Etymological puzzle.  If you don't think so, then it explains our significant divergence of opinion.  And I apologize if I assumed you had ulterior motives.  I suppose you see Etymology much more narrowly than I was trained to do so.  Oghmatist (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as a dictionary is concerned, etymology is strictly about where the word came from. Context is for encyclopedias and scholarly discussions. A dictionary is all about the word itself, and where the etymology is concerned, we only have room for a bare recitation of the relevant facts, summarized as succinctly as possible. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, look, that is why I tried to do it in one sentence with a reference to the two articles that would give such context. That was why I referenced the manuscript and the central character in it.  It was only a sentence I added.  It didn't lengthen the article at all.  This discussion is lengthy, but I do it to explain the premise and underlying reasoning.  To show that the issue was never the veracity of the subject matter in the manuscript but to elucidate the other things that mattered about the trajectory and genesis of the word itself.  I think the reality is that words of a national or racial self-identifying nature just can't be dismissed as generic words.  How the word "plumber" or "woodsman" evolve is one thing.  How the word "American" or "Jew" or "Gael" or "Latino" evolve is wholly another.  And in most of those cases, we have good evidence.  But for Gael, we don't.  And the reason we can chart the etymology of the word "Jew" better is because there is a richer textual tradition.  We have the Scriptures and Ancient Near Eastern history to rely upon.  With Gael, we don't have as much.  So, I emphasize using what we do have to maximum effect. Oghmatist (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ::::: "Messiah" - you make my point for me though when I read that entry - the definition and the etymology are well known because we relied upon Scriptural references to make that analysis. We used very old and very "non-Scientific" documents to discover the meaning and history of that word.  Although the wiktionary entry does not include all the things we used to come to its understanding, but that is because we did it the right way and don't need to put all that there.  But in this instance, the etymology of Goidel is being presented too narrowly, without any context.  And without history, whereas the Messiah etymology did.  The most important part of the Goidel and Gael and Gaidheal etymology is probably the one that was most widely used by the largest group of people - the ones who claimed it as their own name.  And how they defined it is valid.  Even if it isn't "true" to us today.  The other problem with Goidel as a word is that we don't have the rich textual tradition that stretches back to antiquity for that word the way we do for Messiah.  So, we have to use the scarcer materials we have.  We have plenty of references to it in the 14th century and later. We see its earliest use in written form in the annals and manuscripts that show traces of 7th to 8th century strata.  We see it always in the context of national self-identity.  We don't have manuscripts that show "Woodman" or "Savage" or "Raider" in the Welsh tongue that are earlier than the Lebor Gabála Érenn.  So, maybe the Welsh of the 12th century did use the Welsh version of the word as a slur.  It would make sense.  People called Germans "Huns" during WWI.  Does that mean the word "German" is derived from the word for "Hun"?  No.  It was a slur.  Just as this Welsh word meaning "Savage" could have been a slur.  We don't have texts that show a more ancient understanding of "Goidel" than as a national self-identity.  We have only theories as to the earlier strata of the word.  That's because we don't have the historicity and context and cultural transmission and texts that we have in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek and Latin that allow us to chart the trajectory of the word, "Messiah" so well.  If we had that for "Goidel" then this discussion would be moot.  But, we do have the Lebor Gabála Érenn and it is a very old document that has a lot of credence as  real document written and read by a lot of people and recited and repeated by even more.  That is evidence.  That is something to work with.  Find the Welsh documents or inscriptions or burial cairns, etc that show the earlier strata and you have something to work with.  Otherwise, we are conjecturing, wholly, that the Welsh word is the progenitor of the Irish and Scottish words (or whether it is merely a parallel word that derived from a familiar root word, but due to cultural isolation, they became wholly different words).  Example:  In Glasgow, if I am "mad w' it" then it means I'm drunk. In America, it means I'm angry.  The same word, mad, has diverged in meaning.  The same thing could be true for the Welsh gwyddel and the Gaelic goidel.  The reason the Strobo theory of Gaidheal from Gaul was not convincing was largely due to cultural transmission evidence, textual evidence, and population influence evidence.  The same things that I think make the Welsh-genesis argument a little shaky.  But, we can leave it.  I just think to claim that is the only theory, and the best one, is ridiculous.  The Lebor Gabála Érenn documentary evidence at least demonstrates some reason to reconsider the Welsh-theory.  For all the reasons I've detailed in all this discussion.  As a national self-identified, in the oldest written text we can find, it means the word might never have meant the same thing as gwyddel.  They might have both come from the same ancient root, but by the time either word was in use, are we sure they were even related any longer?  One had a national self-identity context and the other isn't even defined in Wiktionary.  Interesting.  Its definition is just identical to Goidel as "Irishman."  But there is no manuscript that uses Gwyddel to mean Irishman.  So, why should I be convinced that a document that uses Goidel so extensively is derived from a word that we have no evidence was ever used in that context prior to the Lebor Gabála Érenn?  Messiah is not the same because we can chart the trajectory using various texts from various dates and various strata of language, with a population group using it in poetry, ritual, law, etc.  We have nothing like that gwyddel and we rely on the Lebor Gabála Érenn and later texts for that in Gaelic.  And we consistently have a usage that points to a national self-identity. But where did it come from before that?  At this point, its not evidentiary.  Its hypothetical and speculative.  It hasn't been verified.  So, again, my point is that we can verify the Lebor Gabála Érenn usage of the word as a national racial self-identifier that was important enough to create an eponymous epic around it as early as the 11th century, incorporating earlier strata of texts, as far back as maybe the 9th century.  Its the same way we can provide an etymology for "Messiah."  We just had more texts to do that one with, so it looks easier and more straight cut, but it was the same methodology. Oghmatist (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "But there is no manuscript that uses Gwyddel to mean Irishman."
 * That, actually, is not true. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru s.v. "Gwyddel" cites it back as far as the 12C Book of Llan Dâv as Guoidel, Guodel. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 07:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the cite. 12th century.  I was writing too fast, but my next sentence clarified my intention "we have no evidence it was used in that context PRIOR to the  Lebor Gabála Érenn"  which is what I was trying to get at.  Earlier strata.  But yes, we see a use there that dates AFTER the Lebor Gabála Érenn.  So, I think the manuscript I am talking about relying upon continues to be seminal and important.  It shows the earlier known written use of the word, in either language, and in Gaelic, it was already being used as a widespread national identifier.  Take "America" again as the example.  People were referring to "America" throughout Europe from the time it was first mapped by Vespucci until the modern day.  People didn't call themselves "Americans" until almost 250 to 300 years later, at the earliest.  And even then, they still identified by their previous tribal/national affiliations.  Ptolemy mapped Ireland with various tribal affiliations in various regions.  None of them were Gaidheal.  In fact, they were "Scotti" to the Roman mind.  That is an earlier name for the people and we can cite that as the origin of the word "Scottish" or "Scotland."  But we don't have that luxury with Goidel.  We see it emerge as a consensus name for those various tribes of Ireland in the 11th century, but we know it was in use in earlier strata of that manuscript.  So, back to the original point - are we sure it meant only "Woodsman" in the 11th century?  Not likely.  But when?  Or did it even pass through Welsh tongues to reach a Gaelic ear?  Not necessarily.  It could just as easily done the reverse. Oghmatist (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind too that the link you provided offers this definition: "wild irish" and "sometimes in a deragotory sense, like Paddy". Also keep in mind that in the 12th century, the Normans (using Welsh soldiers) invaded Ireland at the request of the King of Leinster to avenge himself upon the Kings of Connacht and Ulster.  Just fyi, there is that historical context again.  Could it be that this earlier known written textual evidence of a Welsh word Goidel is being penned contemporaneously with the Strongbow invasions of Ireland?  Sort of confirms the theory that the Welsh word is derived from the Gaelic Irish word.  And the word that is cognate with it also is defined as "forest" or "wood."  Again, why should we assume, automatically, that Goidel must likewise have meant "forest" or "wood" or "savage?"  It clearly has a meaning that is at least a few hundred years old, and I say that because the various tribes that lived in Ireland (as Ptolemy states in his Second Century BCE writings and maps) were willing to be grouped together as Goidel by the 11th century or earlier.  They were obviously not using the same word that their Welsh invaders were using.  And we have significant evidence of civilization, culture, poetry, song, and writings that predate the Welsh invasion by hundreds of years. So, they clearly didn't write this manuscript to suit their Welsh invaders (who were only marginally successful).  Obviously, the word Goidel meant something important and hefty and national and racial to the inhabitants of Ireland, whereas it meant something derogatory or simple to the Welsh invaders of Ireland.  I am more inclined to accept the theory that the invader mocked the native than that the native would craft a national identity around a derogatory term, particularly once you have studied native Irish history and see the degree of factionalism that existed at that time.  They united in this word.  Just like Europeans, Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc unite themselves by those words.  We all know those social acceptances of words did not happen in even 100 years.  They took hundreds of years.  So, extrapolate from that.  Oghmatist (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So, Catsidhe, based on the fact that the earliest text you have is later than the Lebor Gabála Érenn, and it is written contemporaneously with a Welsh/Norman invasion of Ireland (1169)in the 12th century, and the definition itself has a known derogatory element to it, whereas the Lebor Gabála Érenn uses the word as a unifying racial national self-identifier, which is embraced by factious and warring tribes of people, and therefore must have been in use at least some period of time before the writing of Lebor Gabála Érenn, are you still convinced the "Welsh-transmission" theory is scientifically proven and undisputed, whereas the inclusion of the Lebor Gabála Érenn should only have the context "no longer believed by anybody" attached to it?   I recommend we do a rewrite of the etymology.  To continue to assert the Welsh-transmission theory as absolute fact, when it clearly smacks of "The Gaelic people named themselves for a name of derision by their Welsh invaders" makes little sense to me.  The cleverness of the linguistic is interesting.  But not proven.  Dog is the reverse of the letters of God.  Does that mean they are related? No.  Wood and Would are similar sounding.  Gunn and Gun are also similar sounding.  Does it matter if Gunn had a Gaelic origin and therefore was merely anglicized to look and sound like an etymologically unrelated word?  Why are we so quick to just accept the Welsh theory when the earliest known use of the Welsh word is LATER than the earliest known Gaelic use of its own word?  And why are we so quick to assume the two had the same meaning?  People can appropriate a word to change its meaning.  Conquest and War often entails such things.  Etymology cannot overlook that fact.  Here is my point -- the etymology of Goidel is, at least, not clear.  It cannot be said with certainty that Strongbow brought the name with him and the people of Ireland adopted it carte blanche as their racial label.  In fact, that makes no sense whatsoever.  It is far more likely and believable (and historically chronologically sensible) that the Welsh people imbued this word with this meaning after the interaction of the two people during the 12th century.  So, shouldn't we deemphasize the certitude of rightness being given the Welsh-origin theory?  And shouldn't we consider that we have extant earlier Irish manuscripts that use the word Goidel itself in a very different way?  And therefore, isn't obvious by now that because this is such an unresolved and complex matter that it isn't well-suited to a one-sentence etymology blip in a dictionary, but instead requires a scholarly article or two about it?  In short, this is unresolved.  And I can't see how we could justify putting the sentence "Derived from Welsh" into the Etymology.  The earliest known use of the word is in Old Irish, as Goidelic, and it is used as a personal name, firstly, but obviously as a back-story epic to explain its own origin, and therefore it likely is a forgotten origin.  America was named for the explorer that initially mapped it.  New Zealand was named in honor of the Dutch Province, Zeeland, that funded the expedition.  Queensland was named for the Queen.  One day, people may call themselves New Zealanders and as history goes by, what happens when they forget who or what "Zealand" even was?  And they invent a myth about "Zealand Glas" and then they are invaded by another nation that then appropriates the word "Zealand" to mean "savage, wild" and then 800 years later, we have a debate as to whether Zealand is cognate with the derogatory term, or if it is derived from "Zealand" in the north, where Danish sailors once thrived once harpooned Seals in the North Sea, etc, etc.  In short, we can end up drawing ridiculous conclusions without much more rigorous and strident methodologies.  YOu are showing me a 12th century Welsh text that uses Gwyddel derogatorily and expecting me to believe that the Irish people adopted their racial name and cultural name from Strongbow's invasion.  Show me earlier strata and maybe.  But still it doesn't mean that two similarly sounded words are etymologically related. (Zealand in Denmark or Zeeland in Netherlands...) Oghmatist (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What it really comes down to, though, is that while Goídel Glás is an explanation of the origin of Goídel, it's not a particularly good one. It doesn't tell us what the word means, or what words it's related to, or how it derived, phonologically and semantically, from Proto-Celtic and PIE. It's more like saying that this is the name of that thing because that's just its name. That's not an etymology, it's a... well, it's a myth. The scholarly etymology, on the other hand, does provide these things. You disparage its derivation as "theory", but it's proved a powerful and useful one. And far more rigorous than noting the first appearance of a word in a manuscript of this old here, and that old there, therefore the language with the earlier attestation (never mind the earlier and larger corpus) must be the source language. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reworded the reference to Goídel Glas mainly because the Lebor Gabála is not a manuscript, it's a text that is found in a number of manuscripts.


 * Oghmatist, your lack of expertise on the subject of medieval Irish literary traditions was shown yesterday on Wikipedia when you edited the article on the Ulster Cycle, apparently unaware that it is not the same thing as the Annals of Ulster. Here you show you are unaware of the difference between an eponym and an etymology, or between a text and a manuscript. You have some way to go before you can consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject. I suggest you calm down, listen to other users, many of whom are more knowledgeable than you, and learn how wiki sites work.


 * The Brythonic etymology of goídel is cited to a respectable published academic source, and represents overwhelming academic consensus that will not be overturned just because you don't like it. If you want to claim there is scholarly disagreement, you're going to have to cite sources that show that. Adding "by some scholars" is a classic weasel phrase that implies scholarly disagreement without showing that any such disagreement exists. Don't do that. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Scottish Gaelic has Gaidheal which must, surely, be from the same root. The Goídel Glas reference belongs in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary (and it's certainly not a separate etymology).    D b f  i  r  s   21:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any known written sources of the word Goídel in ancient Ireland aside from An Lebor Gabála? Also, do we know for 100% fact that the word Goídel comes from the Brythonic word for 'wild man', or is there a possibility that it comes from another word? I'd appreciate it if anyone can tell me, as I am no linguist. Just a linguistic layman with an interest in Gaeilge. Thanks. (Inis Thiar (talk))