Talk:Dôn

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.shadowdrake.com/celtic/dondana.html (archive)
  • In Dôn on 2008-01-11 17:40:58, 404 Not Found
  • In Dôn on 2008-01-22 22:45:13, 404 Not Found

The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --Stwalkerbot 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

@Cagwinn: To make these sweeping changes to established articles, saying Dôn was a man in "several sources", you will need several sources. You only provided one, that is not online and that most of us cannot check. For the sweeping changing you are making to multiple articles, that is insufficient sourcing. I have reverted to the stable version prior to your changes, and suggest other editors do the same, or improve as they see fit, with WP:RS sourcing that other wikipedians can hopefully access. What are the "several sources" referred to in the single source you provided? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with User:CorbieVreccan. To change what is consider a rather conventional and longstanding understanding of Dôn, you really need to provide reliable and verifiable sources, preferably several. Extraordinary claims require documentation. Please do so. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 18:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

A reliable source was already provided (Bartrum, who also cites several reliable sources in the book that I quoted). You folks need to keep up with current research on topics such as this (see for instance Ronald Hutton, "Medieval Welsh Literature and Pre-Christian Deities", , Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 61 (Summer, 2011): 57–86 and Ronald Hutton, Pagan Britain, Yale University Press, 2014 [particularly Chapter 7] for a critical reassessment of the "gods and goddesses" of the Mabinogi and related medieval Welsh literature; what of what passes for scholarship today on figures such as Don is based on received wisdom hearkening back to 19th and early 20th century Celtomania and is in desperate need of reassessment), because the idea that Don was an ancient Welsh mother goddess does not have much - if any - support in the primary sources. Cagwinn (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bartrum, Peter, A Welsh Classical Dictionary, National Library of Wales, 1993, pp. 230-231: "Notable chiefly as the parent of a large number of offspring, known as ‘The Children of Dôn’, namely Gwydion, Amaethon, Gofannon, Gilfaethwy, Arianrhod, and many others of lesser importance. See list below. The extant remains of early Welsh literature do not tell us whether Dôn was the father or the mother of these children, but John Rhys (Hib. Lect., pp.89-92) had no hesitation in assuming that Dôn was a female divinity, whom he equated with Irish Danu or Donu. This has generally been accepted, see e.g. TYP p.327, although W.J.Gruffydd had his doubts (Math vab Mathonwy, 1928, p.188 n.59). In the Mabinogi branch of ‘Math ap Mathonwy’, Gwydion, Gilfaethwy and Arianrhod, children of Dôn, are called children of Math's sister (WM 82, 93, RM 59, 68), from which it is inferred that Dôn was the sister of Math and daughter of Mathonwy. In a triad (TYP no.35) Arianrhod is called the daughter of Beli, and from this John Rhys deduced that Dôn was the consort of Beli Mawr (loc.cit., p.90). However we cannot deduce that Dôn was the mother of all Beli's sons or that Beli was the father of all Dôn's children (PCB).

Medieval Welsh antiquarians thought Dôn was a man. Thus we find Don ap Conwy in a list of Dôn's children in Peniarth MS.118 p.60l, LD ii.15, while in Llanstephan MS.187 p.225 (1634) we find Don ap Dygyn ferthyr o Arfon. Similarly Cardiff MS.4.22 (1716) p.59. The form ‘Don ap Conwy’ may derive from the line Gwdion fab Don ar Gonwy in a poem attributed to Dafydd ap Gwilym (Barddoniaeth, edited by Owen Jones and William Owen, 1789. p.365). The intrusion of Dygyn Ferthyr seems to derive from a line in the Book of Taliesin (BT 36.3-4), Gwydyon ap Don dygynuertheu. The name became (a) the father of Dôn, and (b) a son of Dôn in Mostyn MS.113 p.138, Peniarth MS.118 p.601 (Dogyn verthyr o Arfon), LD ii.15 (Doginothr). “This Don was an usurper” (Edward Lhuyd's Parochialia, III.51, s.n. Llanunda). “Don, lord of Arfon, was father of Gwydion.” (Lewis Morris, Celtic Remains, p.140)."

Bartrum? Who in the same entry on Dôn cites Iolo Morganwg as one credible source for saying Dôn is male? Are you kidding? Morganwg is not a remotely credible academic source. I can't seem to find my copy of Hutton's Pagan Britain to check the reference there and I don't have access at the moment to Hutton's journal article you cite. I really think you are cherry picking to push this position which I'm not sure even rises to the level of a fringe theory. So I'm going to revert you again. You're welcome to revert me and we'll wend on over to the edit warring noticeboard to get some input. Sorry if I sound a little peeved and a tad impolite but I was willing to give your sources a chance until I actually checked one. That throws doubt on the others as well. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 22:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

LOL, Bartrum was a highly respected scholar and that fact that you don't know that makes your rant utterly irrelevant; you don't know what you are talking about. Go ahead and edit war with me - guarantee you that I will win it. Cagwinn (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Expressing an intent to edit war to push your POV is not a good-faith move, Cagwinn. Morganwg as a source is laughable, and Hutton, while not a forger as the thoroughly-discredited Morganwg, is not WP:RS for every field he has chosen to publish in. While he has academic credentials, he also publishes outside of his field, which has at times led to inaccuracies in his work. This is also common knowledge. I agree with Pigman that you are cherry-picking here, and more interested in pushing your pet theory than working by consensus in the spirit of the 'pedia. You have not added WP:RS sources to support your changes, and you have no consensus to make them. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

LOL, are you KIDDING ME???!! Pigman is the one who threatened to edit war! The two of you are acting incredibly childish and simply do not have the facts to back you up. If necessary, I will post here EVERY SINGLE medieval Welsh mention of Don - don't worry, there aren't that many, because Don was little more than a name in various pedigrees. Never is Don called a female (and the name was regarded as male by the medieval Welsh) and is never called anyone's wife. It is only in modern scholarship - most of it highly speculative to the point of being fantasy - that has turned Don into a mother goddess. Cagwinn (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I did not threaten you with an edit war. I merely said if we continue to do reverts, we'll have to bring this to a noticeboard for addition input. Since you reverted me again, I don't really know what to say. You say your sources are more current academic opinion but I'm finding a lack of substance and some credibility issues with what I've checked. Now editwarring is relatively unproductive for everyone. I'm not saying the version before you started editing was great but you've essentially elevated a fringe theory to primary theme with your editing, using at least one aggregate source (Bartrum) who uses at least one discredited source for the text. Hutton is not without his problems as well, although I haven't been able to actually check the texts you've referenced so I'm without opinion there. I really can't let the article stay with that content, which seems based less on current solid research and more on academic theorizing. I don't think that suffices for overturning conventional understandings of Dôn. So either we talk it out or take the conflict to a noticeboard. Bartrum's credentials might be stellar but his inclusion of a discredited forger as a source does not inspire confidence. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

LOL, this is so ridiculous! You are both so incredible misinformed, it's laughable! You don't even understand why Bartrum is quoting Iolo, do you?? Bartrum absolutely knew that Iolo was an unreliable source, but it was still necessary to quote him, as many scholars recognize that Iolo had access to sources which we no longer possess and occasionally offers us genuinely old Welsh traditions. I will continue to provide sources - both primary and secondary - to support my assertion that we do not know whether the figure of Don was originally male or female and that s/he was regarded as a MAN by the medieval Welsh (who, after all, are our primary sources on Don!!). Cagwinn (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to remind you about the personal attacks policy. I'm arguing content and sources. I slipped earlier when I said "Are you kidding?" and I am sorry for that but it was my incredulity over using Iolo as a source. I'm not saying Iolo never had things right but the parsing of the true from the fabricated in his work is fraught with difficulty. That makes his inclusion in Bartrum suspect. The thing is, providing primary sources is not particularly helpful. That goes into original research areas. Wikipedia prefers to deal in secondary sourcing because WP is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. I'm a little surprised that you don't seem to understand this. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is beyond stupid! You don't even know what you are arguing about and have bizarrely latched onto the reference to Iolo, which is totally irrelevant to the argument that the medieval Welsh considered Don to be a man. Stop causing drama!! Cagwinn (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

: I've protected the page for 24 hours due to the edit warring. I'm going to ask all parties to step back, take a breath, and not return until they can discuss the matter with cooler heads.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. This is appreciated. Deep breaths and Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

CG: This is the majority of the medieval Welsh sources mentioning Don - there are maybe a few other scattered references (none of them any more revealing about Don - mostly just references to children of Don - and, as Peter Bartrum notes in his Welsh Classical Dictionary [WCD] "The extant remains of early Welsh literature do not tell us whether Dôn was the father or the mother of these children"), which I will collect and post in the coming days. The notion that Don was a woman entirely hinges on Arianrhod being assigned two different parents (Beli and Don) in various sources; but anyone who has studied medieval Welsh genealogies can tell you that such discrepancies are entirely too common and we should be careful about reading too much into it. It is often uncritically stated that Don can be linked to the Irish figure of *Danu (who is equally mysterious, but that's another story!), but this does not hold up on linguistic grounds.

Life of St. Iudichael [11th-century Breton Latin Saint's Life by Ingomar]

misit aliquem sibi fidelem ad provinciam Gueroci, ad locum Gilde, ubi erat, religionem suam peregrinus exul transmarinus colens, Taliosinus bardus filius Donis, fatidicus presagissimus per divinationem presagorum...

"He sent one of his servants to the province of Bro-Erec at St. Gildas, where, as a pilgrim from overseas, there was a bard Taliesin, son of Don, a prophet very skillful in prophesying through the divination of omens"

[CG: in regards to the question of whether or not Don is a man or woman, note that in the late medieval tale Hanes Taliesin, Taliesin's mother is Cerridwen]

Ardwyre Reged, Book of Taliesin

gochawn marchawc mwth molut gwryon / o dreic dylaw adaw doethaw don,

"an excellent horseman of swift, ready (generous) praise is/for Gwrion. Will there come a wise don of Don from a bungling leader?"

Englynion y Beddau (Stanzas of the Graves)

Bed Guydion ap Donn ym Morva Dinlleu

"Grave of Gwydion son of Don[n] in Morfa Dinlle"

Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi (Four Branches of the Mabinogi) - Math uab Mathonwy

...Ac ny allei gylchu y wlat, namyn Giluathwy uab Don, [a Gwydyon] uab Don, y nyeint ueibon y chwaer, a'r teulu gyt ac wy y gylchu y wlat drostaw.

[....]

...'hawd yw dy gynghori. Aranrot uerch Don, dy nith uerch dy chwaer.'...

"He could not do the circuit of the land, but Gilfaethwy son of Don and Gwydion[4] son of Don - his nephews, sons of his sister, and the household with them - would go on the circuit on his behalf."

[....]

"'there is a simple answer to that. Aranrhod, daughter of Don, your niece - daughter of your sister.'"

Trioedd Ynys Prydein (Triads of Britain), #28

Teir Prif Hut Enys Prydein:

Hut Math mab Mathonwy (a dysgawd y Wydyon vab Don), a Hut 6thyr Bendragon (a dysgawd y Venw vab Teirgwaed), a Hut Gwythelin Gorr (a dysgawd y Goll vab Kollurewy y nei).

"Three Great Enchantments of the Island of Britain: The Enchantment of Math son of Mathonwy (which he taught to Gw(y)dion son of Don), and the Enchantment of Uthyr Pendragon (which he taught to Menw son of Teirgwaedd), and the Enchantment of Gwythelyn the Dwarf (WR: Rudlwm the Dwarf) (which he taught to Coll son of Collfrewy his nephew)."

[Bartrum, WCD (Arianrhod): "In a triad (TYP no.78) she is called one of the ‘Three fair maidens’ of Ynys Prydain, and in another triad (TYP no.35) she is said to be daughter of Beli, and mother of Gwenwynwyn and Gwanar the sons of Lliaws ap Nwyfre. From this Sir John Rhys concluded that Dôn was the wife of Beli. (Hib. Lect., p.90)."]

Kadeir Kerrituen, Book of Taliesin

Gwydyon ap don dygynuertheu.

[....]

Rym gelwir kyfrwys yn llys don.

"Gwydion son of Don who produces splendid things"

[....]

"I am called a cunning man in the court of Don"

Dosbarth yr Ymrysson, Cwrtmawr MS.5, p. 397

Pan aeth Kyswallon hir i Dir mab Don

"when Caswallon the tall went o the land of the son of Don [Arfon]"

"called a cunning man in the court of Don"

Bonedd y Saint (Pedigrees of the Saints) #28 (MS F),

Padric m. Aluryt m. Goronwy [Gronwy m. Gwydion m Don] o Waredawc yn Arvon

"Padrig son of Alfryd son of G(o)ronwy (son of Gwydion son of Don) from Gwaredog in Arfon."

Bonedd y Saint #55 (MS L 265, M 231)

Nidan yMon m. Gwruyw m. Pasken m. Uryen [Urien Rreg(ed), ac Ethni verch Alfryd ap Grono ap Gwdio[n] ap Don i vam]

"Nidan in Mon [Anglesey] son of Gwrfyw son of Pascent son of Urien (Rheged, and, his mother, Ethni daughter of Alfryd son of Grono son of Gwydion son of Don)"

Bonedd y Arwyr (Pedigrees of the Heroes) 25

Plant Don o Arvon "Children of Don from Arvon"

[sons] Gwydion, Govannon, Amaethon, Hunawg, Idwal, Ienuydd, Elestron, Digant, Gyluaethwy, Kynnan, Hedd, Addien, [daughters] Elawg, Arianrhod

Bonedd y Arwyr 26

Plant Math ap Mathonwy (Children of Math son of Mathonwy)

Llew Llaw Gyffes, Dylan eil ton, Blodeuwedd eu chwaer o Arianrhod verch Don eu mam.

"Llew swift hand, Dylan son of the wave, Blodewedd their sister, from their mother, Arianrhod daughter of Don"

Englynion Cad Goddau, MS Peniarth 98b, 81-2.

...ac Amathaon ap Don ai daliodd. Ac am hynny yr ymladdodd Amathaon ap Don ac Arawn vrenin anwn... A Gwidion ap Don a ddychymygawdd henw y gwr ac a ganodd y ddau Englyn sy yn canly.... [Gwydion ap Don ai cant]

Poem for Rhodri ap Ywein by Prydydd y Moch, late 12th century:

o amgant llys Dygant uab Don

"from the region of the court of Dygant son of Don" [Dygant was eponymously connected to the region of Deganwy]

Bartrum, WCD (Caer Arianrhod): "In the tale of ‘Math’ the implication is that the Caer was on the shore, in a position similar to that of Dinlleu [Dinas Dinlle]. There is no reason to suppose that the site marked on the maps is correct, or that it could have become detached from the mainland since prehistoric times (F.J.North, pp.223, 232). In Edward Lhuyd's Parochialia, III.51 (Parish of Llanwnda) the place is called Caer Anrhad and said to be named after Anrhad son of Dôn." ...According to the Folklore of the district it appears that Caer Arianrhod was inundated on account of the wickedness of its inhabitants. But Gwennan bi Dôn, Elan bi Dôn and Maelan bi Dôn, three sisters, escaped, because at the time they had come ashore to fetch food or water at Cae'r ’Loda (Cae'r Aelodau, the Field of the Limbs). When they looked back they beheld the town submerged by the sea. Gwennan fled to the spot now called Bedd Gwennan (Gwennan's Grave) where she is now buried, Elan fled to Tyddyn Elan (Elan's Holding) and Maelan to Rhos Maelan (Maelan's Moor). All these are names of places in the immediate neighbourhood. John Rhys thought that bi perhaps meant ‘baby’ Celtic Folklore, pp.207-211). But W.J.Gruffydd doubted this interpretation of ‘bi’ (Math vab Mathonwy, p.188 n.59)."

Bartrum, WCD (Don): "Medieval Welsh antiquarians thought Dôn was a man. Thus we find Don ap Conwy in a list of Dôn's children in Peniarth MS.118 p.60l, LD ii.15, while in Llanstephan MS.187 p.225 (1634) we find Don ap Dygyn ferthyr o Arfon. Similarly Cardiff MS.4.22 (1716) p.59. The form ‘Don ap Conwy’ may derive from the line Gwdion fab Don ar Gonwy in a poem attributed to Dafydd ap Gwilym (Barddoniaeth, edited by Owen Jones and William Owen, 1789. p.365). The intrusion of Dygyn Ferthyr seems to derive from a line in the Book of Taliesin (BT 36.3-4), Gwydyon ap Don dygynuertheu. The name became (a) the father of Dôn, and (b) a son of Dôn in Mostyn MS.113 p.138, Peniarth MS.118 p.601 (Dogyn verthyr o Arfon), LD ii.15 (Doginothr). “This Don was an usurper” (Edward Lhuyd's Parochialia, III.51, s.n. Llanunda). “Don, lord of Arfon, was father of Gwydion.” (Lewis Morris, Celtic Remains, p.140)."

Hanes Taliesin - 16th century version by Elis Gruffydd [here quoting a Taliesin poem called "Prifardd Cyffredin"]

Mi a fum yn y llys Don / cyn geni Gwdion

"I was in the court of Dôn before the birth of Gwydion."

[More to come soon.] Cagwinn (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I won't have access to my books until I get home next week, but I believe we should be able to move forward in a way that suits all parties. I'll be stepping in as an editor here, meaning I must step out as an admin; if further administrative action is required here, someone else will have to do it. Again, I don't have all my resources available, but as a cursory note, here are a few thoughts:
Cagwinn's edits were largely correct. There are a great deal of primary references that treat Don as a male figure. While Cagwinn's subsequent comments and actions undermine his own case, he has in fact given an impeccable secondary source that explains this in Bartrum.
So far as I can recall, the idea that it was a female figure comes from two sources. The most important is the Fourth Branch, which implies (but doesn't directly state) that Don is Math's sister. The other is the Triad naming Beli as Arianrhod's father; by John Rhys's ingenious interpretation, Beli and Don were the parents of Arianrhod and her siblings. This is consistent with the limited info in the Fourth Branch, but probably goes several steps too far. It could be that only Arianrhod is the child of Don and Beli, or it could be just an alternative version of her parentage entirely. Rhys' intepretation must be included, but with the caveats expressed in various modern sources.
Naming off primary sources mentioning Don is interesting, but not especially helpful here. What we really need are up-to-date secondary sources. Cagwinn has named a couple above. I have Hutton's Pagan Britain, though I don't recall it mentioning anything about Don. I'll check when I get a chance. Bromwich's Trioedd Ynys Prydein does discuss Don and needs to be included here.
I think it's fair enough to begin this article with an introduction like this: "Dôn [pronunciation] is an ancestor figure in Welsh legend and literature. She is typically given as the mother of a group known as the "Children of Dôn", including Gwydion, Arianrhod, and Gilfaethwy, among many others. However, antiquarians of the early modern era generally considered Dôn a male figure." And then further exploration and info on modern pagan use in the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned Hutton not because he specifically discusses Don (he doesn't), but because he has jump-started a long-overdue, scholarly re-assessment of the other "gods and goddesses" of the Four Branches (notably Nudd/Lludd, Rhiannon, Lleu, Modron, and Mabon), the nature of which has, at this point, become received wisdom based on the flimsiest of evidence. Much of the scholarship on the subject goes back to the late 19th and early 20th century, when scholarly standards were a bit more relaxed and Celtomania (as well as a romantic desire to reclaim the lost pagan heritage of the Isles) was all the rage. Cagwinn (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cúchullain, I think your suggestion for beginning the article is good. And let me be clear Cagwinn: the article as it stands at the moment (the version I was reverting to) is not very good. It's barely sourced, little more than a stub, and could use fleshing out. My objections to your version were mainly that it focused too tightly on the view you were advocating, to the general exclusion of other viewpoints, and your version was almost as poorly sourced. Unfortunately, I was busy with other real life issues yesterday and being unable to actually do research work on the article, I defaulted to an extremely poor response of reverting more than once. I've rarely done that on WP and I sincerely apologize. I hope we can work more collegially from here. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 03:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've incorporated Cúchullain's suggestions into the intro para. Much of the following para is redundant or could be worked into an expanded section on the genealogy so I'm removing it and parking it here: "She does not play a direct part in the action of the Mabinogi, though many characters in that cycle are related to her. By Beli Mawr, she is the mother of Arianrhod. She is also the mother of Gwydion, Gilfaethwy, Gofannon, Eufydd, Elestron and Amaethon, and the sister of Math fab Mathonwy." I'm leaving the Ford assertion and the theonym para for now, mostly because they contain some of the only sourcing in the article. Even if that is deleted or reworked, it just makes me queasy to have an article with no references/citations. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 03:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looks good so far. We can probably revisit the intro wording once the rest is worked out. I don't have access to Bartrum at present but judging by the quoted passages above, it can be used to source both the fact that many antiquarians considered Don a male, and that in modern scholarship the female identification "has generally been accepted" since Rhys.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bartrum's WCD can be read/downloaded (legally) from The National Library of Wales site. Cagwinn (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your work on this, Cúchullain. I see Pigman worked on the lede, and I think I'll add in more of what you suggest here. I'm a bit short on 'pedia time right now, but will look into bringing in more of theories around Welsh literary works that may have been based on older Irish lore. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Patrick K. Ford etymology is totally bogus and outdated. First of all, the River Danube was a masculine *Dānuuios (Latinized as Danuuius) in Continental Celtic; the personification of the river was male, as we see on Trajan's column. An Old Irish cognate of *Dānuuios would be an -io-stem and look something like *Dánae (gen. *Dánai), not an n-stem *Danu (gen. Danann), which must come from Proto-Celtic *D(u)anū or *Duonū (as proposed by Eric Hamp). Secondly, Welsh Don can neither be cognate with *Dānuuios (which would give Middle Welsh *Donwy or *Donyw, not Don) or an n-stem *D(u)anū or *Duonū (which would give Middle Welsh *Dein or *Dyn, not Don). Thirdly, the root of Don cannot be the same as *Dānuuios, i.e., it cannot come from a simple Proto-Celtic root + gender suffix *Dān-os/*Dānā/**Dānī/*Dānū, as these would all produce Middle Welsh *Dawn, not Don. Cagwinn (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

if you have secondary sources, we can add them to, but there's no obvious reason to excise the Ford cite entirely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

A relevant article by Eric Hamp is cited on the Danu (Irish goddess) article. Hamp makes one critical error, though; he suggest Don can come from *Duonū, forgetting that Brittonic final -ū becomes late Brittonic -ī and causing final i-affection of the preceding vowel (thus, *Duonū would give *Dein or *Dyn, as I mention above). For these sound laws, see Peter Schrijver, Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology, Rodopi, 1995, and Kenneth Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain, Edinburgh, 1953. Cagwinn (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

We need secondary sources that discuss Don specifically. Do any of those?--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hamp, Eric, "The Dag(h)d(h)ae and his relatives", in: Sawicki, L. and Shalev, D. (eds.), Donum grammaticum: Studies in Latin and Celtic Linguistics in Honour of Hannah Rosen, Peeters, 2002, p. 163-169 [p. 167-168]: "O'Rahilly (1946: 314-315) discusses the Tuatha De Danann and adduces a version of the name na tri dee dána 'the three gods of skills (or arts)'; the three have been claimed in a dubious tradition to be Goibniu the smith god, a deity of medicine, and Credne the divine bronze worker. O'Rahilly will have this the original appellation, and Danann a corruption. This proposal must be rejected, and Danann accepted as the lectio difficilior. Moreover, we can accommodate Danann in our syntax and semantics.

"Consulting the DIL we find the headword Danann, identified as genitive to a nominative *Danu, which is shown never to be attested. The variant Donann occurs; I think this vocalism comes from the unattested nominative. The conjectured *Danu has spawned many instances of etymological fiction; we shall dismiss it. Let us remember that Danann, with strong final nasal, can come by MacNeill's law from *danVn (with broad, or velarised, final). We can have here gen. sing. *danonas < *danonos or, as I prefer, gen. pl. *danonan < *danonon.

"Recall now that OIr. dall, Welsh and Breton dall 'blind' have been equated with Gothic dwals 'crazy', Eng. dull, as *dhulno-. We are then justified in seeing here *duanonon < *dunon-on or perhaps *du(o)nanon, with individuating...*-n- suffixed to thematic *duono-. We have now reached a morphological equation with Latin dueno-. The difference here is simply one of Indo-European ablaut vocalism which we can motivate. The nominative sg. could be *Duonu, and this could validate the claimed relation of the Welsh mother goddess Don, though not of Anu (Ross [1967: 209, 359])! Such guesses must be stricken from our record.

LEIA D 24 translates *Danu as 'deesse', tri dee Donann as 'three gods of D. ', and Tuatha De Danand as '...des dieux...' or '... de la deesse...', with a nominative plural read as a syntactic genitive plural. Our interpretation avoids these anomalies.

"We now see that the Book of Leinster phrase Dagdha Tuatha De Danand (<nd> = <nn> = [n~]) < *dago-deiuos toutias deiui dunon-om "(the) Dagdae of the people of God of the Nobles/Upper classes" illustrates perfectly the terminological, and semantic, equivalence of Dagdae and De (Dia) Danann As will shortly be confinned, the same phrasal semantic consistency is found in the phrases cited in OIL s.v. Dagdae: in Dagda donn (either 'princely' or 'of chiefs'), and the genitive sg. in Keating's an Daghdha duind 'of the princely Daghdha'."

Sarah E. Zeiser, "Performing a Literary Paternity Test: Bonedd yr Arwyr and the Fourth Branch of the Mabinogi", in: Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium, Vol. 28 (2008), pp. 200-215: "The Fourth Branch pf the Mabinogi concernis itself with the exploits of a series of characters related to Don. The mysterious personage of Don does not appear as an active character in the Mabinogi. Indeed, scholars are unsure if Don is male or female, although it has long been held that Don is female, fulfilling the matriarchal role paralleled in Ireland with Danu and her family of gods, the Tuatha De Danann.[note 1]" [CG: but see Hamp on this last point, where he proves that we must abandon Danu as a "mother goddess"]

"[note 1]...John Koch has argued that the Welsh Don does not relate tot he Irish Danu, based on phonological research (John T. Koch, "Some Suggestions and Etymologies reflecting upon the Mythology of the Fourth Branches.", Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium 9 (1989); 1-11..." Cagwinn (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

John T. Koch, "Some Suggestions and Etymologies reflecting upon the Mythology of the Fourth Branches.", Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium 9 (1989); 1-11 (p. 4-5): "In most discussions of Celtic mythology, we are by now well used to finding the ancestor deity Dôn bracketed with the eponym of the Tuatha De Danann and the goddess of the Danube. The phonology of these equations has never worked: British *Donū. or *Danū would necessarily give Welsh **Dyn or **Dein. In the wake of the most recent work, particularly John Carey's research on the precursors of the Middle Irish designation for the old gods, Danu - the leading member of this putative Common Celtic triad - must be jettisoned. [CG: Koch then goes on to derived Don from Common Celtic *ghdhonos 'the earth' (genitive).]

@Cuchullain: Cagwinn has once again begun to revert-war, simply reverting editors rather than respecting the discussion and consensus here on the talk page. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, YOU have started a revert war!! The facts are on my side and sources have been cited below! Cagwinn (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cagwinn, we are here to build the 'pedia. This requires collaboration. Simply reverting another editor's work without talking about it, without working to achieve compromise, is the beginning of edit warring. We've already been down this road. I'm sorry if including other editor's viewpoints means the article may not be precisely what you envision but that's Wikipedia in action. Please read this section. You've expressed the opinion that the bureaucracy of WP frustrates you but these processes are in place precisely for situations like this one. If you can't or won't compromise and collaborate, perhaps WP is not the venue for your knowledge skills. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 01:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Collaboration is good - I am all for it! - but not when would-be collaborators are totally unaware of current research on a particular topic. You are contributing nothing of value to this article, you are just creating drama for some unknown reason. Cagwinn (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply