GENIRE-L Archives

Archiver > GENIRE > 2002-05 > 1021485592


From: (Hugh McKiernan)
Subject: Re: Lochlainn _ Part of Viking Scotland or Not
Date: 15 May 2002 10:59:52 -0700
References: <TyBD8.8150$4b.36656@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, <2a8185f1.0205130435.308247d5@posting.google.com>, <UwSD8.9000$4b.38010@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>


"NO SPAMMING" <> wrote in message news:<UwSD8.9000$>...

> I note that in the Webpage :
> http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/chronicon/ocor2fra.htm Ó Corráin
> wrote :
>
> "Viking Scotland, known as Lothlend, Laithlinn, Lochlainn
> and comprising the Northern and Western Isles and parts of
> the mainland, especially Caithness, Sutherland and
> Inverness, was settled by Norwegian Vikings in the early
> ninth century."
>
> The above quote doesn't to my mind appear to be a
> postulation. But.I am not about to indulge myself by
> disputing the statement with scholars. I am therefore
> compelled to accept it as a statement of fact.
>
> Witness also
> the fact that any Irish dictionary will call Scandinavia in
> Irish as "Críoch Lochlann". That's enough there to compel
> me to believe that the Western Isles and other parts of
> Scotland were called Lochlainn because of the terrotorial
> take-overs by the so-called Vikings.

By the same token you are, then, compelled to accept this quotation
from the same webpage:

"The earliest precisely datable historical example of Lochlainn
meaning `Norway' occurs in a chronological poem of 58 quatrains by
Gilla Cóemáin mac Gilla Samthainde, `Annálad anall uile'.94 This poem
was written in 1072: the author gives the date of writing in quatrains
6-7, 56-57&#8212;and he gives the ferial for the year twice."

and, therefore, agree that Lochlainn (if it referred to a territory)
was just Norway - without reference to the rest of Scandanavia or any
part of Scotland. As I've said before you can prove anything if you
chose your quotations wisely.


>
> Now, in your reply to Carolanne, ("Hugh McKiernan"
> <> you wrote in message
> news:
>
> "> Just to take one example from what Donnchad offers in his
> arguement; I cannot agree that "fir o Sgiathia Lochlaindi
> .." means "The man from Skye of Lochlainn ..", as he
> contends, since it can be more easily translated as 'the
> Lochlain man from Skye .."
>
> (Insert)
> "> Seán's contention appears to be that "Lochlainn" meant
> Scotland, or > part thereof. He quotes O'Corráin, without
> any other argument, as his proof. This alone, I disputed,
> because Donnchadh is postulating, not proving, a theory"
>
> I have only one small difference, but it seems important,
> nonetheless, to make with Ó Corráin, (and you too) and that
> is the use of the singular 'man' (fear) by both you and Ó
> Corráin, instead of the plural 'men' (fir), as the original
> text stated.
>

Presumably Donnchad uses: "The man from Skye of Lochlainn and the man
from Insi Gall were rivals over that expedition" as a translation
because he interprets the sentence as relating to two people.
It could just as easily be expressed thusly: "Rivals, were the men
(i.e. two kings) of Skye and the (Outer) Hebrides in that expedition."
The first translation could be misleading. The second could be said to
be inaccurate (since kings are in the context but not the sentence, or
that Skye and the (Outer) Hebrides could be construed as being one
domain). In translating something to be used by others I would favour
the first in this instance and would stress that a discussion of this
sort, out of context, will always be inconclusive.
For instance, the sentence, (on it's own) could, if the word 'men'
were used in translation, be construed as all of the men of Skye and
all of the men of Inis Gall. However, given the context "The man from
Skye and the man from Inis Gall...." is the more usuable translation.
The reason for the use of "fir" in the sentence is that the phrase
refers to two men.

>
> So now we might properly read it as " the men from Skye of
> Lochlainn". Your "more easily translated version : ...' the
> Lochlain man from Skye...' " seems to mean that it was a man
> named Lochlain, rather than men from Lochlainn, a named
> territory.
>



If you look at the sentence before translation: "Ba combág ogond fir o
Sgiathia Lochlaindi & a hInnsib Gall immon slógad-sin" I think that
the intent of the author is perhaps to qualify which part of Skye he
describes. It may be that Syke was not all under the influence of the
Lochlainnigh. It may be similar to the way that we might today,
however incorrectly, refer to the Greek and Turkish parts of Cyprus.
We can really only postulate at this stage. I think, though, that in
the context of the origins of the surnames O'Loughlin and McLaughlin
-which spawned this thread- it is of little import.


> It therefore seems to me that Séan's opinion based on Ó
> Corráin was correct.
>
>(Snips)
>
> No Hugh, I did not form an opinion based on anything other
> that your comments to Carolanne on the subject as discussed
> above.
>


You are entitled to your opinion in the same way as the rest of us but
(correct me if I'm wrong here) it seems odd to me, that you would not
first consider reading Ó'Corráin before you form that opinion.


> I look forward to the "debate' continuing between Seán and
> you. I find it slurs to one side very interesting.
>

Thank you very much. Don't get frostbite waiting for the Christmas
card.

H.

This thread: