Talk:Galwegian Gaelic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Galwegian or Gallovidian

I'm not sure if Galwegian is the best term? Gallovidian? Suggest you also link into Margaret McMurray--MacRusgail 20:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Galwegian is simply more common (google both words), although both are used. There are redirects from Gallovidian to Galwegian. BTW, are you going to sort out the Kings of Galloway and Lords of Galloway merger any time soon? Calgacus 20:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think of Galway when I hear Galwegian. I'm more familiar with Gallovidian. Perhaps Galloway Gaelic may be a better title for non-Scots though. --MacRusgail 20:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fergus of Galloway described himself as Rex Galwitensium, which Brooke in Wild Men and Holy Places: Cannogate: 1994: 79 says comes from Brittonic Galwitenses, i.e. not Gaelic. Also Rev. Alexander Murray - from local sources, e.g. biography published in Dumfries in 1903- did not learn Gaelic as a child, but did as an adult in 1792.

Alistair Livingston AlistairLiv@aol.com 31 January 2006 Alistairliv 17:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Brooke isn't a very good linguist. I didn't add the bit about the origin of the name "Galloway", but the word Galwitenses certainly isn't Brythonic, it's Latin. What is it a Latinization of? No-one actually knows. In medieval French, the word for Galwegians is Les Gavalens, and there are a variety of other Latin forms, but whose knows what word their actually rendering. MacRusgail, who added the part about Murray, doesn't seem to be claiming that Murray learned Gaelic in the area, as the article clearly states it had died out a long time before. - Calgacus 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Move

Galwegian appears to beat Gallovidian handily (4:1 when I stopped looking), so I have moved this back. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But Galwegian is also subject to confusion with Galway - as per above. I prefer the title "Galloway Gaelic" personally. --MacRusgail 18:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Or "Gallowegian", which is the only term I'd known for years. - Gilgamesh 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Should this article exist?

Yes, that's the question basically. I'm sure that at during the period when Gaelic was spoken in the area it has its own set of peculiarities but almost everything related to the "Gaelic dialect" in Galloway seems to be totally speculative. On the same basis, we could try and write an article on Lothian Gaelic... I'm not aware of any source from that area using localisms and you'd have to base any evidence solely on place-name evidence. On the other hand, not wanting to knock it, perhaps this ought to be re-written as a page on the extinct Gaelic varieties for which hardly any date exisits bar place name evidence? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Akerbeltz, there are a number of sources, including some by reputable historians, as you'll certainly discover if you look a little harder. And comparing Gaelic in Galloway and Gaelic in Lothian as a rational criterion for notability? As to the article's content being speculative (your view, it seems), I don't entirely disagree (I didn't contribute to it), but the coverage of a topic is a different issue than the notability of the topic. It might be better grounded in historical evidence (my view, it seems), but that argues for improvement, not extermination. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I would *love* to find some data on Gaelic from that corner of Scotland but I got a degree in the stuff and have read just about any Gaelic dialect description there is (aside from Irish and Manx) but I've never seen any mention anywhere of actual data on this dialect or even it's existence. That's the reason I was asking about whether this is a putative as it seems to me or whether there's a gem somewhere out there that Gaelic scholars are simple not aware of. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looking around, I think I see your angle ... from what I've found, the last Gaelic-only Galwegian died in Carrick in the 18th century, and that does not bode well for finding a scholarly treatment of the language. For comparison, the earliest knowledgeable and usable book on Manx Gaelic that I've come across was published in the 19th century, and that is for a place where Gaelic was not in such retreat. I doubt that the native-speakers who wrote of the English-language history (and place-names and similar such) of Galloway would measure up to your level of interest, providing only tidbits here and there, but certainly no gems. So in that sense, you're probably in the right to suggest that the article disappear. And it looks like much of the article's content might be merged into other articles, as there is not much of substance. Good luck in your quest! Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem of studying Scots Gaelic in the period before the Book of Deer is that both Ireland and Scotland shared a common standard written language, Common Gaelic, a form of Middle Irish. It was only after the Book of Deer that people slowly started writing in the Scottish vernacular so it's extremely difficult to pinpoint the emergence of Scots Gaelic, never mind dialects within Scots Gaelic before that period. Even the first major works in Scots Gaelic were based on the dialects of Argyllshire (that being the cultural and linguistic epicentre in that period) such as the Book of Common Prayer which was translated in 1576; the first bible translations were also based on the Argyll dialect. The earliest description I know of that makes any reference to Gaelic localisms and dialects in a vaguely structured fashion is Edward Lhuyd's work (1699-1700) but he "did" the dialects from Kintyre up the coast to Mull. Which is why I'm really unsure about the way "Galwegian" is presented on this page. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok further to what I said above I propose to move this page to Gaelic in Galloway or to create a new page on Extinct Gaelic dialects. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the article, it looks like History of Gaelic speakers in Galloway might be a better title. At any rate, this article has no linguistic information, for the very good reason that next to nothing is known about the linguistics of Galloway Gaelic. Ideally, this article should be a subarticle of a more general History of Scottish Gaelic article, or for that matter, History of Galloway. —Angr 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you move the article, everything that links to it will need to be edited to avoid redirects. And it doesn't seem to have any value as it is (my candid opinion). Also, it contains a few personal opinions portrayed as facts ... it looks like an old article that was fine as a place-holder several years ago, but does not measure up today. Sooooo ... how about this: (1) make the page a redirect to an appropriate existing article (Gaelic, Goidelic, etc, as you deem appropriate). (2) perhaps add a paragraph or a few lines to that existing article that mentions Galwegian Gaelic. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to gradually move the bits that are worth keeping to the Galloway page over a period of time unless someone fancies doing it in one go and then nominating the page for deletion. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If you simply makes it a redirect to the article deemed most appropriate, the matter is conveniently settled for now, and you are done with the issue. The present article is preserved in the history, and so is not lost. An AfD process would not be necessary (nor would ensuring that current references would not become red links). The Galloway article itself needs some attention, but anything of value here could be dredged up from the history, and so would not require immediate attention (a deletion request would not serve that end - the article is gone forever). I presume that all interested parties have noticed this discussion, but even if not, the current article is preserved in the history, and so is not lost. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the Irish links were the most significant? I have been doing [original /post-grad]research into Galloway and the Plantation of Ulster. A group of six Galloway land owners were granted lands in Donegal under the Plantation, but by 1627 only the Murray family of Broughton in Wigtownshire (and later Gatehouse of Fleet in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright) were still involved. The Murray's eventually claimed 60 000 acres in Donegal, based around Killybegs. They continued to own land in Donegal into the mid 19th century and employed some of their Irish tenants on their lands in Galloway.

There were other links, through landownership (the McLellans of Kirkcudbright and Maxwells of Orchardton owned lands near Coleraine through 17th and into 18th century) and also the cattle trade. there was a major export of Irish (Ulster) cattle through Galloway in the 17th century - some from the Murrays' lands in Donegal. The trade was banned in 1667, but continued illicitly until ban was lifted in 1759. Immediately several thousand cattle per year were imported through Portpatrick.

Up until at least 1940ies, Donegal provided most seasonal agricultural labour for Wigtownshire and [but lost reference] these workers were Irish speaking.

So if Gaelic survived in Galloway, it is likely to have been through continuing contact with Irish speakers rather than contact with Scottish Gaelic speakers.Alistairliv (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alistairliv, yes, it is possible. That has been somewhat of a bone of contention in the past, perhaps here, but certainly on other articles; often there is more heat than light, with many opinions but few ideas. And it abuts the always contentious area of ethnic origins, liberally spiced by not-a-little national mythology.

The thrust of your observation (Irish connection) has been made before, regarding history (and thus, origins); but a very strong connection to Island origins (Gall-Gaels with a Norse connection) has also been made ... and just who were the ancient Galwegians? Picts speaking a Goidelic language? Whoever they were, they weren't wiped out and must have contributed something; and is the Irish/Islander/native linguistic origin predominate, and what is the mix?

Free advice (it's worth the price!) from a non-Gaelic speaker who mucks around (perhaps too much) in history and its contentions — take a pass at classifying Galwegian Gaelic, perhaps in overly general terms (eg, a Goidelic language, perhaps a dialect, similar to Irish/Scottish/Manx Gaelic and mutually intelligible with them, whose history and development are at present little understood) ... then work backwards as you gather information, and expand your paragraph-in-an-article into an article in its own right. Presumably, orthography is a likely non-issue, unless there is evidence that someone was writing in the language. And of course, when considering language and dialect, please consider that a language may be little more than a dialect with a victorious army (my own POV, usually). Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The term Galwegian Gaelic is used in English (as is Galwegian language) and it is verifiable that it is used. That the Goidelic language of this area is a distinct topic is pretty darn obvious, Galwegians are consistently referred to as a distinct ethnicity in the High Middle Ages, something medievalists are used to, and maps like this beg for it to be treated as a topic. And, for what it is worth, anyone who has ever studied the various elements of Gaelic culture in the region knows instinctively that Galloway is very like Man than Scotland-north-of-the-Forth or the Hebrides region. Probably the way it stands now it may look more like a "Gaelic in Galloway and Carrick" article, but it's just the same thing, except that Galloway is usable only for Wigtownshire and Kirkcudbrightshire (High Medieval Na Renna [i.e. Rhinns and Farines], Desnes and Glenken), but "Galwegian" is used for the ethnicity inhabiting the area from Inverclyde to Westmorland.

There are actually a couple of articles which deal with linguistics matter that I can remember coming across, obscure ones about the Irish-like phonology used in modern Galloway English. There is an article recently about the Sliabh element in place-names relevant to late medieval and early modern Galloway, though that again is place-name. The material available for studying Irish as spoken in Galloway and Carrick is not actually as little as one would think, just that so few people have worked on it. Scottish Celticists are so overstretched that it'll prolly be a while yet. But, for instance, there is stuff; place-names obviously, or the horde of late medieval/early modern Irish sur- and forenames which can easily be found in the the Wigtownshire Charters book. Use of the Kirk- element is well discussed for Galloway, Man and Cumbria in various articles. I think somewhere lack of characteristic Albanic Gaelic Scoto-Brittonic generic elements like Inber-, Strath-, etc, is mentioned somewhere (again, can't remember). Or the common habit of using Ó Ancestoir names common in Galloway (e.g. Elisaeus Ó Dubhghain, more in Black's Surnames), etc. This stuff may not interest a guy like Angr much, but you can't invent more than you got just for wiki articles and it is at any rate more actual detailed evidence (rather than widely held fictions) than you got for, say, the "Cumbric language". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

but a very strong connection to Island origins (Gall-Gaels with a Norse connection) has also been made ... and just who were the ancient Galwegians? Picts speaking a Goidelic language? Whoever they were, they weren't wiped out and must have contributed something; and is the Irish/Islander/native linguistic origin predominate, and what is the mix?

Galwegian is the modern English term for "Gall-Gaidel". Despite the confusion of a large number of modern enthusiast writers, the name used for Galloway is actually attested extensively in contemporary Irish and used in exactly the same way the Latin words translated as "Galloway" and "Galwegian" are used in Latin, e.g. obit of "Alan son of Roland, "Lord of Galloway"" s.a. 1234 Ailín mac Uchtraigh, rí Gall Gaidhel, mortuus est. Whatever the previous mix of Briton, Irish, English or even Albanian, it wouldn't have mattered a jot to them as they probably knew little history beyond their own agnatically biased genealogies, the latter of which you'd suspect took pride in a Scandinavian origin despite the happenstance fact they had all probably been monolingual Irish-speakers for centuries. Re to Alistair Liv, archaeology and contemporary historical evidence shows that Galloway (as we know it) before the 12th century was an Irish sea region that had little more to do with the Kingdom of Alba north-of-the-Forth than Dublin or Man, and was likely visited more by the king of Norway than Alba. Obviously the language had nothing to do with Pictland/Scotland. The Kingdom of the Gallgaidhel was however probably originally centered on Kyle or Argyll in the 11th century (Dundonald is the most likely place for its historical center), but only got confined south after David took over the intervening area and only after confined to KIRK & WIGT after Henry II forced the Mac Uchtraigh Galloway ruler Lochlann/Roland to hand over Carrick to his cousin Donnchadh. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm not arguin about the fact that Galloway represented a special political entity. It would surprise me if it didn't. If the article was about Galloway/the Kingdom(s) of Galloway I would not be arguing the least bit about whether that should exist.

The problem I'm having is that the name of the article suggests that there (verifiably presuambly) is such a thing as Galloway Gaelic. Again, I haste to reiterate that I am fairly certain that there were features in the area that could have been described as distinct to a Galloway Gaelic dialect. After all, most islands and major areas in Scotland that have had the varieties of Gaelic used described do have distinctive features.

However, even though we know that Gaelic died late in Galloway (1600-1700) no one bothered to write anything substantial down. There may be tantalising snippets here and there but to pin hope on such snippets that they can be used to verify a Galloway dialect are remote I must say. People are still arguing about whether the Book of Deer contains Scottish Gaelic, never mind which dialect it was. Part of the problem is the very old, etymologising and extremely stable written languages used up until not too long ago by writers in both Scotland and Ireland so detecting *Scottish Gaelic* in Common Gaelic texts is usually hard enough, dialects even harder.

It's a common misconception that sliabh place names are restricted to the SW, they're not, they occur as far east as Aberdeenshire. Again, the word is inherited and crosses dialect boundaries. Same goes for inbhir srath etc... they point to use of Gaelic, but they don't tell us which form.

There was Gaelic in the area for a long time. From all we know about the way Gaelic dialects are spread and the interactions between Irish and Southern Gaelic in the documented dialects, it is *highly likely* that "Galloway Gaelic" a) existed b) was a so called peripheral dialect c) shared features with the Southern Gaelic/Northern Irish continuum but the thing is, we do not know any of this with certainty. Hence my problem with basing this page on the Galwegian Gaelic rather that, say, the Kingdoms of Galloway containing a (speculative?) note about the liklehood of the local Gaelic having been the above things. Akerbeltz (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Who said Sliabh names were only used in Galloway? Anyways, was providing some examples of the material. You can find Galloway and Galwegian Gaelic mentioned on google books, etc, so the term in out there. There is, as I said, more material out there on this than in the current article, which is an alright article btw as things go. As I said, there is significantly more material on this than, say, the alleged Cumbrian language (no such people ever existed outside the kingdom around the clyde valley referred to be such name in the 10-11th century, whose speech may not even have been Britonnic) or on completely non-historical/fabricated "dialects" like Vandalic language, not to mention the scores of fictional languages and proto-languages invented by some modern linguists to explain a handful of cherry-picked diachronic patterns. Anyways, given that Gaelic was spoken in the region for at least 5 centuries, perhaps a millennium + (certainly Celtic was), the idea that there were no distinct features is so absurd that the opposite is actually just about certain. It's a dead dialect/language which died without leaving the details which can be rendered by dialects which lasted longer or got better recorded. Big deal. Really, expectations here are being set too high, on a article which, let's face it, is just like scores already out there. Bee tee dubbel-yoo, the [Gaelic notitiae on the] Book of Deer (which is in Latin) is not the first nor even probably the most significant example of Gaelic in Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you used sliabh as an example but I may have misunderstood you. And yes, there are other snippets kicking around that could be Scots Gaelic before the BoD but nothing major... and yes, I know the main text is in Latin... the point being?

I had a look at those sources on Galwegian Gaelic you mentioned and I don't think any of them contain anything approaching linguistic data on Galwegian as a specific dialect. I admit I have not read any of those books or article but let me put it this way: I've read most things ever written about Gaelic dialects and no-one to my knowledge has ever even referred to or mentioned data on such a dialect and believe you me, some dialects may be understudied but if data exists on a dialect, it is well known.

It's not my fault if there are other articles out there the existence of which may be questionable but I cannot and will not try and be a jack of all trades on wiki, hence I stick with what I'm an expert in. So the fact that the Vandalic article may be questionable has little bearing on the fact that Galwegian as a dialect is speculation - even if it is likely. Unless I got something very wrong, content on Wiki is supposed to be verifiable? I mean, it's more than likely that the ancient Orcadians spoke a pre-Indoeuropean language but if I started an article on Ancient Orcadian purely based on the fact that the Orkneys were undoubtedly inhabited in pre-history way before the IE's, I would rightly so get blown out of the merry wiki waters... Akerbeltz (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you misunderstood. I said there was material about this generic element as used in Galloway. Just to expound to you Nicolaisen argued that the extensive use of this in the Rhinns of Galloway proves that there was "Irish settlement" on the Rhinns from the late Roman era, whereas a more recent article by Simon Taylor argued that it doesn't prove that, and that the larger number of Sliabh names in the area compared with eastern Lowland Scotland is purely because Galwegian Gaelic survived until the early modern period whereas, say, Fife Gaelic went by the end of the 14th century.
• The point being the Book of Deer isn't in Gaelic, it's the notes on the margins of some pages. Your text seems to imply that you didn't know this, so was informing you. These notitiae are dwarfed in size by the Lebor Bretnach, written in the reign of Mael Coluim III. Since it has been revealed to be of Scottish origin, Clancy called for scholars to study it for dialectic elements. Of course both are written in fairly standard Middle Irish. The real source for dialect is the Latin charters which usually use Gaelic in French (for some bizarre reason sometimes called "Scots") orthography rather than the rather idiosyncratic "real Gaelic" orthography abandoned in Scotland for most of the middle ages. Besides hundreds, nay thousands of Gaelic words and names, there are sometimes whole phrases in Gaelic. Not a bit of that has ever, to my knowledge, been studied by a qualified Celtic linguist.
• Point about covering Galwegian Gaelic as a specific dialect has been covered by me already above.
• Don't need to believe you on it, this assertion is simply not true.
• Yes of course articles like Vandalic and Cumbric have a bearing on whether there should be an article on Galloway Gaelic. You can't very well go around arguing that an article should not exist because of x y and z when loads of articles subject to x y and z exist already. There is sufficient material on the topic for the article to be justified, the lack of detailed evidence (compared to what?!) is a matter of note for the article, not its talk page.
• There is secondary material on Galloway Gaelic, there isn't on the non-evidenced "Ancient Orcadian" (which could be anything both ancient and orcadian). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we take a step back please? I'm seriously not trying to pick a fight or downgrade the importance of the role of Gaelic in Galloway. I'm simply saying that at the current stage of research from the wiki point of view of verifiability the existence of Galloway Gaelic cannot be verified. There may be some data in all, some or none of the documents you mention that could or could not help us get an understanding of whether and how Galloway Gaelic was different from, say, Kintyre Gaelic but we simply can't make a sweeping statements about it right now because we don't know anything about it other than that Gaelic existed in Galloway and did so for a long time. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is my tone coming across as too strong or something? Sorry if it is, just responding to your comments. Regarding your last comment, I think I've already dealt with that. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it felt a bit patronising but no offense taken :)

I still stand by what I say though too - I really think either the name of the page should change or that it should move unless someone can come up with some hard linguistic evidence showing that Galloway Gaelic was distinct from Southern Gaelic in general. Nothing that has been said so far includes linguistic data that can be used to differentiate one dialect from another. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean if you look at it from a certain perspective. Obviously though Gaelic in Galloway/Carrick/etc is a distinct subject though with a decent body of literature (so maybe it hasn't discussed distinctiveness so much yet, nbd), so there has to be an article. If the article was Galwegian language or something, maybe I'd understand more, but "Galwegian Gaelic" is transparent in meaning, the Gaelic of the medieval ethnic group called Gall Gaidhel/Galwegians and their descendants. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's just the point, the article is written in a way that (at least in places) seems to suggest it's ... more than it is. Take the After 1500 section An important source for the perception of Galwegian language is the poem known as The Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy. Or the Modern Influence section. That makes no sense really in an article on Galloway Gaelic.

If it's an article on a dialect, one would expect information on how it relates to the wider language (ok, it does that), what specific dialect features there are (none that have been researched), the area it was spoken in (the assumption here seems to be that the political territory coincides with the linguistic area which is rarely the case) and the history of it (which it does to some degree but with a lot of general history in it) - cf Yorkshire dialect and accent for example. Overall, I would say that most of the page would make a good addition to the Galloway page by moving the historical parts to a history section and doing a section on Gaelic in Galloway. I don't think we should loose all the content or even most of it, it's just the page title and some of the presentation I find questionable. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Gaelic in Galloway (and Carrick and adjoining areas), so obviously these bits of information are relevant. We've already agreed that the kind of information in the Yorkshire dialect article isn't available here unless one violates OR, so what's the deal? If we don't have that information it can't go in the article; hardly means the article shouldn't exist. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm clearly not getting something here but that's ok, we'll leave it at that and move on. Thanks for the exchange! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Deacon, it looks like you're taking a view that was my initial reaction when Akerbeltz first started this section, but my initial reaction was off-target to Akerbeltz's point – this article with this name should be focused on technical matters of language, and not be a history of how it came into being. That history should be a part of wikipedia, but under a more proper name ... Akerbeltz suggests that the content of this article would be more appropriate in the Galloway article (perhaps specifically, in the history of Galloway section), and that this article (and its name) be used for a more linguistic-oriented article. I tend to agree, but even if I did not, there would no harm in taking Akerbeltz's point – nothing is lost here. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I get Akerbeltz' point, but don't believe that his premises lead to his conclusion. An article on a language or dialect can only have the information that is available, no more. To summarize what I've already said, the information available doesn't determine the existence of this article any more than it does for articles like Cumbric or Vandalic (or many more that could be cited). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansion and Contraction of Gaelic In Galloway

I am writing an article for the Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society on the Expansion and Contraction of Gaelic. The first draft was too long (8500 words) but now broke it down into an Expansion part and a Contraction part. If this is accepted, should be in the 2011 volume of the Transactions.

First draft is on Scribd. [1]

Will post link to revised version when completed. Alistairliv (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaelic speakers in the south of Scotland

According to this map, there are two parishes in southern Scotland where 2% to 6% of the population speak Gaelic. Is this a survival of Galwegian Gaelic, or a relatively recent migration of Highlanders to the south? —Angr (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Since one of the parishes is in the Scottish Borders, it can't represent the survival of Galwegian Gaelic. It is very unlikely that Galwegian Gaelic survived in Galloway and Carrick beyond the sixteenth century. There have always been a few Highland or Island Gaelic speakers moving to Galloway, but it is unlikely to be what is represented on the map. The most likely explanation is an increase in adult Gaelic learners. A Gaelic Learners group was established in Kelso in the 1980s and a group called Gaelic in the Borders was established in 1994. East Ayshire Council offer Gaelic medium education at Onthank Primary school in Kilmarnock. There are also adult learners courses on offer in Kilmarnock. North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire Councils also offer adult Gaelic learning classes. So what the map probably shows are the beginnings of a Gaelic revival in south Scotland. Dumfries and Galloway Council appointed a Gaelic Learning Officer in 2010 so eventually there will be a revival here as well.Alistairliv (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for evidence of the use of the Scots language in Galloway, R.C. Reid's Wigtownshire Charters (Scottish History Society, Edinburgh, 1960)has a record of an inquest from Whithorn Baron Court dated 1 June 1438 (No.7) which is in Scots.

Al that this present letter heris or seis, wit ye us Thomas McIlhauchausy, prior of Quitheren, til haf giffen an inquwist on our baron court of Qwithern of the best and the worthiest thar beand , til Paton McMarty, of the Schapel of Sanct Molinor and the croft lian in our land of Culmalow, theqwilk inqwist sworn fand that the said Paton McMartyn was nerest ayr and lachfull to the said Schapell and croft wyth the pertinents and til haf gus in the coon of Culmalow til aegt som and a neit and hir folowaris and a sow and hir brud and a gus and hir brud. In witnes of the qwilk thing at the inqwest of diverse gentil and sundry otheris thar beand we haf set our sel at qwitthern the xi day of the moneth of Juni the year of our Lord mc cccc mo and achrt and thirty yer, before thir witnes- Rolland Kenedy, Eben Galnusson and also Eben McGaryl and mony others.

So as early as 1438, Scots was being used as the formal/ administrative language of a baron court in Galloway. Alistairliv (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. English is the admin language of Scotland in this era, English-speaking or not, even the lords of the isles issued English charters. Might be useful to think of English, as used in these areas, being like French in England from the later 13th century. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now written Part Two of 'Gaelic in Galloway' for the DGNHAS Transactions (Part One now published in 2011 volume). Researching for Part Two, I found a charter written for the Lords of the Isles from 1408, concerning Islay, which was in Gaelic. The absence of any similar Gaelic charters from Galloway suggests loss of status for the language under the Douglas lordship. Latin had been the language of Galloway charters and documents until it was replaced by Scots. But Latin (like French in later 13th century England) remained an elite language, where as Scots spread throughout Galwegian society. In 'Gaelic in Galloway' Part Two I suggest various ways in which this spread could have occurred - at the expense of Gaelic. Part Two is available at http://independent.academia.edu/AlistairLivingston/Papers/1595810/The_Decline_of_Gaelic_in_Galloway_1370-1500

Alistairliv (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

suggests loss of status for the language under the Douglas lordship'

It suggests lack of a certain status. One Gaelic charter for the lords of the Isles is one thing, but there are a large number by those guys in English. It's really a mistake to connect production of documents in a language to that language's secular status; you produce documents in that language because that's what the authorities read (for the Lords of the Isles like the local Galwegian captains, that authority after the 14th century did things in English). You can't just assume that because English spread to Galloway later that written documents provide earlier evidence for its spread. There's demonstrably no link between the two elsewhere in the Highlands north of the Forth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Should this article exist 2

Well, I've finally been won over ;) I was doing something else and came across a somewhat strange song, leaving me even more baffled when I read the notes saying it's the only known example of Galwegian Gaelic. I've added a wee note at the bottom about interesting features. I know full well it's OR but we might wait for a long time before someone publishes a paper we can reference about the features and in the meantime, it would leave non-Gaelic speakers totally in the dark. So I've picked some fairly unusual features and OR'd a bit to help readers understand what's unusual about it. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ansell discussed the poem Òran Bagraidh at the Scottish Place Names Society Spring Conference 2009 (held at New Galloway in the Glenkens). A summary can be found on the SPNS website http://www.spns.org.uk/CtWigtown.html Michael has been researching the Gaelic place names of Galloway and Carrick for many years and identifies several place names from the poem. Michael comments that:

"While accepting that the jury is still very much out as to the genuineness of the poem itself the most likely origin for it if it was really a SW Scotland composition would be in the Glenkens due to the location of the place-names and potentially some of the folk-names therein. It would also most likely have been composed by a bard attached to a wealthy sympathiser of the Kennedy family (if we accept Matheson‘s theory as to the murder of the 2nd Earl of Cassillis). In fact there have been two Kennedy family branches recorded as residing in the Glenkens itself, one of Knockgray near Carsphairn is too recent while the other at Knockreoch and Knocknalling has been on record since 1476. This would be the most likely location for the poem to have been written, possibly around 1550 or so (this date accords with comparisons of the style Ronnie Black has made with MacGregor elegiac poetry)."

There is problem with the reference to 'deer hunting in Carsphairn' if the poem is from circa 1550. Carsphairn did not become separate parish (created from parts of Kells and Dalry parishes) until 1638, after Sir Robert Grierson of Lag made the nearby Holm of Daltallochan a Burgh of Barony and had a church built there in 1635. Blaeu's Atlas of Scotland (1654), based on Pont's survey of 1590 does not show Carsphairn and there are no records of Carsphairn as a place name/ district name before 1638. The present village of Carsphairn developed around the church. So while the poem may have been composed in Galloway around 1550, it may also have been a later literary composition written outside of Galloway after 1638.Alistairliv (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. Just because it didn't exist as a parish doesn't mean the place name didn't exist. "district/area of alders" is likely to predate any settlement anyway and there are zillions of place names which didn't get recorded. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In his discussion of Òran Bagraidh, Michael Ansell said

“It seems quite clear that the muinntir na dubhchos was a Gaelic name for the Kennedy clan. John Mac Kennedy of Muntercasduff was mentioned in a charter of David II (1329-1371) while Gilbert Kennedy of Bargany had the lands of Sanct Michaelis Muntercasduff (Kirkmichael) in 1464.”

Michael later mentioned a possible link with the Kennedy’s of Knocknalling. From the Wigtownshire Charters (R.C. Reid, 1960) we know that Knocknalling was owned by James Campbell of Corswell (Wigtownshire) in 1481(No. 154, p. 174) and that in 1512, Alexander Campbell of Corswell infefted Gilbert Kennedy of Kirkmichael ‘as attorney for Thomas Kennedy of Bargany’ in the lands of Knocknalling (No. 211, p. 192). The Kennedy family connection to Knocknalling continued into the 19th century.

Since we know that the poet Walter Kennedy was a Gaelic speaker, it is possible/ probable that other members of the Kennedy family were as well. If the composition of Òran Bagraidh could be attributed to a member of the Kennedy of Knocknalling family in the early 16th century, this would be a major breakthrough. But before being accepted, such a breakthrough would have to be subject to strong critical analysis. Which is why I flagged up the ‘hunting in Carsphairn’ line as problematic. There was a hunting forest in the area, but it was described as ‘the New Forest of the Glenkenne’ [Andrew McCulloch, Galloway, 2000, p.195] in 1358.Alistairliv (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, the idea if "unique place names" is a bit ... unrealistic. Even a cursory study of, for example, Navajo place names reveals that even within a smallish area the same geographic feature may bear several names. I use Navajo as an example because there the problem is so big that radio commentators will sometimes use the English form to avoid ambiguity. So the fact we have a reference to the New Forest of Glenkenne is informative but doesn't make or break Carsphairn, both names may have been used in Gaelic but referring to different ends of the same feature, like you get quite a lot with Loch names (where Gaelic distinguishes more finely than English). An in-depth study would be welcome but it won't be me :) Akerbeltz (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My problem is that I have written an article for the Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society on the ‘Expansion of Gaelic In Galloway’ which will be in their 2011 volume. I now have to write an article on the ‘Contraction of Gaelic in Galloway’ for the 2012 Transactions. My working hypothesis is that following the failure of Edward Balliol’s attempt to gains the Scottish Crown in 1356, David II began to reduce the power of Galloway’s Gaelic kindreds (the McCullochs, Mclellans and McDowalls) who had supported Edward Balliol by breaking up their land holdings and introducing Scots speakers as land owners in Galloway- most significantly the Douglases. At the same time, the Royal burghs of Wigtown and Kirkcudbright became administrative and market centres.

The effect of these changes was that Scots became the higher status language, the language of administration, the law and of the markets. So, for example, by 1513, Scots had become the language of Wigtown Burgh Court. As Scots became the language of the social elite in Galloway, so Gaelic’s status would have diminished, becoming the language of the cottar class. But if Òran Bagraidh was written (as Michael Ansell has suggested) by a land/ farm owner in the Glenkens circa 1550, then Gaelic must have maintained its status against the ascendancy of Scots. I am very doubtful about this possibility. The implication is that Gaelic was still a dynamic/ creative language in Galloway in the 1550s, rather than a language close to extinction. But if Gaelic was still dynamic/ influential as late as 1550, this would have been an obstacle to the Reformation and would in turn have attracted contemporary notice. There are no indications whatsoever that the progress of the Reformation in Galloway was held up by the existence of Gaelic speakers. Therefore Scots and English must have been universally spoken and understood. So why compose a poem in Gaelic? It seems a rather unlikely thing to do.Alistairliv (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Look at the MacDonald brothers from Glenuig, where there are virtually no Gaelic speakers left but nonetheless it has produced one of Scotland's finest pipers of the old tradition. Languages are more tenacious than you'd think and often survive in strange and unexpected ways and places. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is - how tenacious was Gaelic in Galloway?If Michael Ansell is correct in suggesting a date circa 1550 and a location in the Glenkens for the composition of the poem/ song then the tenacity of Gaelic would have run up against the Reformation. In the 1520s, Alexander Gordon of Airds in Kells parish in the Glenkens had a copy of Wycliffe's English bible and read (secretly) read it to his tenants and neighbours. If Gaelic was still the everyday language of the Glenkens, he would have to have translated the text into Gaelic first- but there is no mention of this requirement. The implication is that Scots /English was the everyday language of the Glenkens by the 1520s.Alistairliv (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please watch your formatting, the indent is achieved by using semicolons, if you put spaces, it puts a non-breaking textbox which is very hard to read.

People may have been bilingual by then? Most parish based language records do distinguish between parishes of monolinguals and bilinguals. Either way, I can only help you speculate ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Akerbeltz, any help with speculations would be most appreciated. For example on bilingualism. My assumption is that there was a period of Gaelic/Scots bilingualism which preceded the loss of Gaelic in Galloway and that this bilingualism was a top down process. A critical change happened after Edward Balliol gave up his claim to the Scottish Crown in 1356 when, from 1357 onwards, David II began reducing the power of the Gaelic kindreds (McDowalls, McCullochs, McLellans) who had supported Balliol in Galloway. As part of this policy, David II began introducing Scots speakers as land owners into Galloway. These included Archibald Douglas, whose father James had been granted the barony and parish of Buittle by David’s father Robert I in 1324. The effect was that Scots rather than Gaelic became the language of Galloway’s ruling elite and major land owners. At the same time, Scots was replacing Latin as the legal language of Scotland. To survive under this new regime, leading members of Galloway’s Gaelic kindreds would have had to become bilingual or risk being disadvantaged in their dealing with the Douglas lordship of Galloway and (after the collapse of Douglas power in 1455) the Scottish Crown. With collapse of Douglas power, the Royal Burghs of Wigtown and Kirkcudbright became more important. These were administrative and trading centres where Scots became the dominant language during the 15th century. We also have to be aware that the population of Galloway was small- perhaps 15 000 total at the beginning of the 16th century- 8400 in the Stewartry, 6600 in Wigtownshire - with most concentrated in the more fertile lands around Kirkcudbright and Wigtown. For the parishes of Carsphairn, Dalry and Kells - where it is most likely that Gaelic survived- this would give a population of about 600 at the beginning of the 16th century. Since there were already farms with names like Nether and Over Barskeoch ( in Kells parish ) by 1459, Scots was present in the Glenkens before 1500, implying bilingualism. If there was bilingualism, then Gaelic was under pressure and possibly/ probably in decline nearly 100 years before the likely date (circa 1550) for the composition of Òran Bagraidh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairliv (talk • contribs) 12:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. I suspect there is significant medieval Galloway Gaelic currently produced in Whithorn and/or Kilwinning in the Viking era, but assumed to be Irish because such matter only survives in Irish manuscripts. But this is kind of thing is another matter.

@Alistairliv, the way it works is like school nursery rhymes, you repeat little verse memes, and it is frivolously common even in English for such things to spread and remain in use for extremely long periods, even preserving old words no longer in use. I agree with you btw that after that after the late 16th century there is no reliable evidence for Gaelic surviving in the region, but I don't find your arguments for its disappearance very convincing. Even if most people in southern Ayrshire and Wigtownshire got English in that era, it wouldn't mean them abandoning Gaelic, and numerous types of peoples would have had good socio-economic reasons to maintain it, for instance those in frequent contact with Irishmen and Highlanders (indeed maybe the Ulster plantations were the fatal blow to the region's language?). Language expansion is not a zero-sum game; check out Guarani in Paraguay for a scary model of language spread. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)