There are quite a lot of borrowings from Brythonic (later esp. Welsh) in Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Why? Was it a two-way process? Then, was the Old Irish analogue of “Fianna Fáil” the name for all Irishmen: lit. “free people of Ireland”? What did the Irish call their language before they loaned “Gaeilg” from the Brits? Or could it be that they didn’t perceive themselves as a whole (lots of kingdoms etc.)?

Peter

>There are quite a lot of borrowings from Brythonic >(later esp. Welsh) in Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Why?

Because Welsh was spoken in Southern Scotland, long ago. And there were Irish colons in Wales in the Middle Ages, etc.

I'm afraid nobody knows how the first Gaels called their language before they use the Brythonic word that has become Gaeilg. And we shall never know until someone manage to create a machine to go back in past times ;-) I don't think Gauls had a name for the group of their languages either. The term "Gaulish" is rather modern, built on "Gaul". In Latin, people used to say "gallica", I think, and that was because they lived in a country Romans called Gallia. Now I don't think Gauls would have said they all lived in Gallia because there were just a lot of tribes and if people had a name for their own territory, I don't think they had one for the whole country where there were people who spoke a language close to theirs.

Well, Dennis may say more about that subject 'cause he's the man who best knows old languages and cultures here :-)

quote:

Then, was the Old Irish analogue of “Fianna Fáil” the name for all Irishmen: lit. “free people of Ireland”?

The Old Irish term you're probably thinking of is "féni" (see "féine = freemen, freeholders (in ancient Ireland) in FGB). This is not really directly related to "fiann" (s.v., roving band of warrior-hunters) as in Fianna Fáil.

The number of Irish words borrowed into Welsh is apparently small. See for example:

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0004&L=celtling&D=1&P=482

One reason for this may be that the early massive flow of Latin/Christian culture into Ireland came via Brittonic-speaking Britain. When the Irish, having established an enviable level of learning, later began to reverse the cultural flow, their exports were mainly via Latin, and to the Continent, or to the Saxons, not to the Britons. I'm just speculating!

These would be good questions for Old-Irish-L.

Oh, I see. I thought since “Fianna Éireann” (=”Feara Éireann”) means “the Men of Ireland” (in CF Irish, at least, where both are pronounced as if spelled “Fiannú...”, “Fearú...”) it could have been something along the sames lines.

May “Fáil” stand for “Ireland” (is it the king’s stone? As a case of metonymy?), btw?

The thing is I often hear of the then Irish invasion of Britain, and that if not for the Saxon etc. tribes, it’s the Irish who would have been the most loathed by the locals. I wondered how come it was Brythonic borrowings of rather essential words (nós belongs here, as you write) into Irish and not vice versa at least to the same extent.

Religion explains a lot here.

Intrestingly “русский” (Russian) is probably a loan word too, and it was not originally associated with the whole people. Lots of funny things happening with those names for nations...

I thought the Russian word for "Russian" was Ruski (the spelling in Russian escapes me at the moment). I used to study Russian for a bit... or is it just Ruski if you're talking about people?

quote:

the spelling in Russian escapes me at the moment

That's the actual spelling, anyway.

Peter - Russki, as you might know, is spelled with double "s"! :))

quote:

Peter - Russki, as you might know, is spelled with double "s"! :))

You trina wind me up? :) Is it not the way I spelt it, ah?

Intrestingly “русский” (Russian) is probably a loan word too, and it was not originally associated with the whole people. Lots of funny things happening with those names for nations...

In the message to O'Dwyer I referred to my spelling above.


Since we are at it, Dahl - the most promminent Russian lexicographer in the XIX - insisted on the spelling "руский" because it is historically motivated, cf. "рус". But the form with double "с" has prevailed, though IMHO the difference in pronunciation is null.

Cheers

quote:

"руский" because it is historically motivated

I would say that "руський" might be historically motivated (or rather authentic), but it doesn't make this form preferable. The provenance of this word is crystal-clear: Русь + ск-ий = русский. So spelling with double -s- is clearly the best option.

quote:

So spelling with double -s- is clearly the best option.

руssкий ?? ;)))


Maybe only when we switch to the Roman alphabet...



Maidir leis an bhfuílleach, teagaim leat.

A Pheadair,

You know better that for typing Cyrillic letters we need to switch keyboard. As I have 5 of them (en-lt-lv-pl-ru) - I am too lazy to do it for one single letter :))

Is leisciúil is ea mé! ;))

Intrestingly “русский” (Russian) is probably a loan word too, and it was not originally associated with the whole people. Lots of funny things happening with those names for nations...

I thought you meant “русский” was sounded out as Russian and not Ruski... maybe my wording was a bit unclear. Sorry!

Anyway, Peter's first language is Russian... I'm not questioning him, I'm questioning my sources!

Oh, misunderstanding on both sides, then. It would sound more like "roosskiy".