This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
Hello everyone. I am new in discussion groups, and a non-native english speaker (that's important, in order for you to forgive my writing). I'm breton and speak it ; I do know some welsh and gaelic as well. Former student in Rennes' highschool in history, archeology, celtic studies, and linguistics, I'm nowadays a history teacher. I'm also very interested in etymology.
So here's my question : I read about the etymology of "Ulster" which is fine by me, but as for the ulaid... I do find the beard thing plausible, but has anybody ever thought about *ulato (land, ground, ...) ?
We know the goidelic doesn't take the later adjunction of the "g" that appears in brythonic languages, so... We have gwlad in welsh and breton (and probably in cornish too, I couldn't tell) with this exact meaning. So couldn't they have the same root *ulato ?
It would corelate withe Ptolemy's etymology "Uolontoi", as all the greeko-latin words begining with "uo-" or "vo-" become "gw-" in brythonic.
Plus, it would make some sens about the "fith's of the territory" : "Cóiced Ulad".
Unfortunately I know next to nothing about any language other than English. I do know though, that the five provinces were Ulster, Munster, Leinster, Connaught and Meath. Meath was subsumed.
In reference to the map provided - that is a depiction of the modern day province of Ulster. However in at least the 1800s, Louth was considered part of Ulster. Also, Cavan was not part of Ulster until at least the 1500s, before this it was considered part of Connacht. I think the current map should be deleted from this page, or at least in my opinion. --MacTire (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between Ulaidh and Ulidia? Heres is a map with "Ulidia", used on Gaelic IrelandGaelic Ireland, "Ulidia" is described as the blue north-east section ~ R.T.G15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a map of 400 years earlier from the same source:
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/historical/map650.gif
This one calls the same area "Ulaid". I believe that Ulaid and Ulidia are the same thing, with Ulidia indeed being a later latinisation. In the present-day Northern Ireland "Ulidia" is the more common phrase that usually refers to counties Antrim and Down collectively.
The current Ulidia article currently describes a categorisation of fly, but should really be a disambiguation page that points here.
There are two points needing clarification in this article. First Ulaid the ancient name for Ulster supposedly derived from the Uolunti or Voluntii of Ptolemy, and was the early name of the Coiced or fifth of Ulster proper as it is claimed the early kingdom of that name may have extended to the modern borders of the present day province. While Ulidia was the reconstituted Kingdom, or smaller portion of primarily counties Antrim and Down ruled by the Dal Fiatach after their re-emergence from the conquest of south central Ulster legendarily by the "Three Collas", and north western Ulster by the Ui Neill, in the First instance in the Mid 4th century AD and in the second in the early to mid 5th century AD. As the article on the Dal Fiatach dates their first King to have ruled in around 450 AD. Which references the Second issue the Clanna Rudraige,and the true origins of the Dal Fiatach?
In the article on Rudraige mac Sithrigi for which this Clann is named it states clearly that he was most associated with the Dal-nAraide or Cruithne. Here it states that the Uolunti were the Clanna Rudraige, whose historical descendents were the Dal Fiatach. Now Fiatach Finn from whom this name was derived may well have been of the Ulaid or Uolunti originally and a deadly enemy of Rudraige mac Sithrigi. However two issues on this must be pointed out. The later dynasty known as the Dal Fiatach cannot be allowed to make unsupported claims as to ancestry. First they 'could' my quotations, be related to the Darini, or just 'maybe' related to the Uolunti, claims which their 7th and 8th century Genealogies do indeed advance. However it seems that if the Dal Fiatach actually as their own genealogy reveals descend from Ross Ruad mac Rudraige, they were Cruithne and a sub branch of the Dal-n-Araide. This is one of the major issues with "claims" of genealogical descent, like the claim here that the Uolunti or Ulaid were known as the Clanna Rudraige being asserted without sufficient underlying data that seems to confirm this, but which the data indicates was otherwise.
Either the Dal Fiatach were related to Fiatach Finn and the Uolunti and thus were not of the Clanna Rudraige, or the Dal Fiatach are mis-named and were of the Clanna Rudraige, as in descent from Ross Ruad mac Rudraige, as their genealogy would indicate. But a bald claim that the Uolunti or Ulaid with vague hints of "possible" inter-relations to the Darini/Dairine were related and represented by the historical Dal Fiatach should not be asserted without much more investigative effort to prove the assertion. Especially when the introductory paragraph is clearly contradictory, in that it claims the Ulaid's or Uolunti's identification was the same as that of their known deadly enemies, the Dal-n-Araide, who were the true Clanna Rudraige in descent from Rudraige mac Sithrigi through his son Amargin mac Rudraige according to all of the genealogical data I have reviewed on this issue. Dalegar123 (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source for the view that the -dh is pronounced gutturally in Ulaidh and Uladh? I have a source (the Irish of West Muskerry), which gives Cork pronunciations, that Cúige Uladh is pronounced Cúige Ola - the dh is not pronounced - and I would be surprised if it were any different in the Ulster pronunciation either. www.abair.ie is a pronunciation generator for Ulster Irish - they have fed many thousands of pronunciations and sound files into that, and it seems Ulaidh is pronounced (oli) or something like it, and cúige uladh is Cúige Olu. Try putting Ulaidh and Cúige Uladh in that programme and see what pronunciation is given. That's the trouble with Wikipedia - people who don't know the facts are writing the articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.117.142 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the use of speech synthesis - whatever synthesis may suggest does not mean it's necessarily right. Especially place names and personal names often defy any kind of prediction. The IPA looks fine to me - ɣʲ is a slender glide and rather close to a vowel or semivowel so it won't be highly prominent in pronunciation. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Speech synthesis is just synthesis, but as many words are pronounced in ways that vary from the spelling, many individual pronunciations will have been entered into the database too in order to make sure they're right. The words Ulaidh and Uladh are so fundamental to the Ulster dialect that it is difficult to believe that the database used on abair.ie does not give the correct pronunciation. You say "ɣʲ is a slender glide" implying the pronunciation is /j/, which is what ɣʲ is, but the article has "Cúige Uladh, pronounced [/ˈkuːiɡʲə ˈʊləɣ/]" -I don't believe that the -dh is pronounced as ɣ, which is the point I am raising, which you are struggling to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.117.142 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I *am* a bit shaky on the finer points of Irish phonology but in Scots Gaelic it would indeed be /ɣ/ and if you'll notice, Abair has the word BETA slapped all over it. But I'm sure someone better versed in Irish phonology will chip in. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case Gob Lofa then you will have to go around and remove a lot of WPNI WikiProject templates from a lot of articles as well as remove WPI ones from certain NI articles as well. The Aztec and Olmec articles have nothing to do with the polity that is Mexico however they still have a Mexico WikiProject as that country now covers the greater part of the territory. The same for Northern Ireland, which covers most of the territory the Ulaid once held. WikiProject tagging is simply to tag articles that are of interest to a WikiProject and in this case Ulaid is. Even the Talk:Kingdom_of_Ulidia page has WPNI tagged. If you don't provide a valid reason then I will restore the WikiProject and I will report this as another instance of provocation/hounding. Mabuska(talk)21:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "disputed section" tag to the Pre-history section, because it, factually, nonsense. The Ulster Cycle is a body of legends with no value as history, and its chronological setting is probably the least historical thing about it, as discussed in the medieval literature section below. Nobody thinks the Táin Bó Cúailnge actually happened, and nobody thinks it happened in the 1st century. Our only historical information as to the political breakdown of pre-historic Ireland is Ptolemy in the 2nd century, who names a population group that can be possibly identified as the ancestor of the Ulaid, but bears no resemblance to the legendary Pentarchy. Equally, the political breakdown at the dawn of history in the 5th century, as reconstructed from the annals, bears no relation to the Pentarchy.
I'm going to have a go at rewriting this section from scratch, but it'll take me some time to gather my sources. In the meantime, this should stand to explain why the disputed tag is there. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I've taken the stuff about the Pentarchy and moved it to the medieval literature section, and removed the rest of the Pre-history section, as all that's left is the claim that the Ulster Cycle gives information on the pre-history of the Ulaid, which it doesn't. If I can work up something accurate and sourced about the pre-history of the Ulaid I'll add it later. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it is a work in progress and the stuff at the start was simply a temporary filler. I didn't feel comfortable with it and it was to be re-written and expanded upon. Though the Ulster Cycle does give information on Ulaid (obviously only in terms of mythology) in regards to the alleged political make-up of Ireland, that is its division into five kingdoms and the lack of mention of any form of central monarchy. The 1st century part is only a claim and is sourced so obviously there are people who believed that may have been the time it occurred. Nowhere did it state that it was fact.
Seeing as this article isn't about the provinces of Ireland there is no need to delve into the pseudo-history/mythology of the Pentarchy, however obviously it doesn't bear any resemblance to the political breakdown of Ireland in the 5th century because it was long gone by that stage. The process of it disappearing is also in Irish mythology in the forms of Túathal Techtmar and Niall of the Nine Hostages, which according to legend came before the 5th century and altered the political face of Ireland. Did you never wonder why some believe that Ireland was anciently divided into five provinces despite the fact at the dawn of recorded history, Ireland was split into at least seven? And on seven, I'll not even go into Keating's notions of what he called the "Septarchy".
You should read Eoin MacNeill's "The Five Fifths of Ireland", where he goes on a good bit about the legendary Pentarchy and its references in the Annals and mythology. Hogan and Hurbert also make mention of it and its constituents. Obviously their sources are pseudo-historians writting centuries after the events so we clearly can't accept any of it as set in stone fact. Yet that doesn't mean we can't include it, as long as we word it so that its clear it is not fact. Mabuska(talk)10:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're very far apart. My objections are to saying that the Ulster Cycle gives us any information on the pre-history of the Ulaid (it can only give is information on what people in the middle ages thought was the pre-history of the Ulaid, and we can see what people thought changing over time), and to the following sentence:
"The principle story of the Ulster Cycle the Táin Bó Cúailnge was set during the reign of Conchobar mac Nessa, king of Ulaid, and is believed to have happened in the 1st century.[14]"
Particularly the end of it. It would be defensible to say it was believed to have happened in the 1st century, but not that it is believed to have happened, which suggests (a) that this particular story is believed to have happened, and (b) the 1st century chronology for its setting, the Pentarchy etc, is accurate. I believe there was, at some point, either a pentarchy or the ideal of a pentarchy - hence the name cuige, fifth, for the Irish provinces even though there's only four of them. But Ptolemy, writing in the 2nd century, shows it can't have gone back as far as the 1st. It probably existed not long before the time of St Patrick and Niall Noigiallach, fourth or at a stretch third century at the very earliest, and from what I've read I'd be surprised if MacNeill would say different. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You believe, MacNeill is adamant there was, in his "The Five Fifths of Ireland" he states:
"In fact, its origin was prehistoric, and the Pentarchy is the oldest certain fact in the political history of Ireland.
I'd assume in regards to Ptolemy, that they were simply recording the names of peoples and kingdoms as given to them, and no distinction was made between whether they were a sub-kingdom or over-kingdom. We will never know. Mabuska(talk)15:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know lol, but MacNeill is still adamant ;-) Just a pity Ptolemy's work was an adaptation of someone elses, and the only copy e have is from the 15th century or whenever, and it could have been copied with errors. Impossible to know. Mabuska(talk)10:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on the subject. But the reference to the Three Collas as sons of Niall of the Nine Hostages does not seem to be a correct theory.
"O'Rahilly and his followers believe the Collas are literary doublets of the sons of Niall Noígiallach, eponymous founder of the Uí Néill, who they propose were the true conquerors of Emain in the 5th century."
Genetically, known O'Neill descendants are not matches to the known descendants of the Three Collas. I happen to be one of the later. More detailed discussion of the Three Collas can be found at a site dedicated to the genetic origins of the Three Collas here. The unique DNA of the Three Collas descendants predates Niall by several centuries. Niall also has a specific DNA which is not closely related to the Three Collas. This scientific fact seems to preclude the Three Collas as part of the Uí Néill. Even if it was a decent theory. DNA discoveries along paternal lines is however fraught with difficulties of it's own. It may not truly be possible to know with complete certainly whether any paternal DNA line descends from Niall or from one of the Three Collas without finding Niall and at least one of the Three Collas and testing their DNA. --Celtic hackr (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood what O'Rahilly proposed and what the article says. O'Rahilly didn't believe the three Collas were sons of Niall. He believes the actions attributed to the three Collas were actually done by someone else, a century later, and, in his view, the three Collas probably never existed and were literary creations. If this were true, you wouldn't expect people who traced their lineage to the three Collas to have Uí Néill DNA. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
