Dear Keith,

You're right to bring up the French and Latin.

The best spelling as far as the vowels of first syllable are concerned is the
'Luaghma' form found in a Latin context, which shouldn't surprise us, as Gaelic
spelling derives from Latin spelling in the first place. Apologies for
misleading you by referring to any lack of MH or V there as an anglicisation.
In the case of the Franciscan material, it is apparently used in a
linguistically Spanish context.

Old Gaelic texts often omit an H where an MH would be required for a precise
phonetic (and even grammatical) spelling. Latin texts often omit a V to
represent an MH. Living in Scotland, I've got into a bad habit of constantly
using the word 'anglicisation' with reference to toponyms when in fact the
tendency not to mark lenition in spellings is quite a native one that has just
been taken over into other languages to one degree or another. It's only in the
modern period that one can state that lack of lenition is incorrect spelling in
Gaelic and, consequently, that lack of lenition has become solely characteristic
of standard English language spellings of Gaelic placenames.

With regard to the French impact on spellings, I wouldn't know whether French
speakers would naturally wish to avoid the V in order to avoid obscuring the
lexical elements as English speakers were wont. The problem here is identifying
specifically French linguistic influence on any given toponym.

Online again, I found a refence to an Histoire de L'Irlande par l'Abbe
Mac-Geoghegan from 19760's Paris, apparently containing a 'Luoghne' form.

http://www.archive.org/stream/narrativesillust00crokrich/narrativesillust00crokr\
ich_djvu.txt

Close to this form is 'Loghney', found in relation to Thomas Purcell's 1549
pardon. It would need to be checked whether either of these online quotes
reflect the original spelling.

http://www.ryans.org/researchinfo/annates%20-%20fiants-1452%20-%201603-Tipperary\
.htm

I can understand why romance language readers would prefer an E at the end of a
placename instead of an A. It's difficult to believe in the N as likely to be
definitive.

There's an online celt edition of Matthew J Byrne's translation of Philip
O'Sullivan Beare's 1621 Historiae Catholicae Iberniae compendium, which was in
Latin. The translation contains a 'Lochmogh'.

http://www.ucc.ie:8080/cocoon/celt/T100060

There's a lot of work involved in this, which I can't follow up, but from this
small sample so small, it is interesting that not only the UA forms but also the
UO form, apparently from the French publication, only seem to occur from the
Four Masters onwards.

Beannachdan,



Alasdair





--- In clairseach@..., "sanger_keith" <sanger_keith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Alasdair
>
> Well I don't know my way around the records quick enough not to have an
afterthought. I also notice that I cannot spell 'check' although I was going to
the bank just after the last post so it might have been a Freudian event.
>
> I was trawling around the English 'Calendars' last night some of which are
online, athough mostly from Henry VIII to Charles, and the name comes up there
in various versions, 'Loughmay' in 1660 being one. Price Field in the sense of
it being granted without fee is still possible, but I would imagine older than
it first becoming a 'Norman' possession. I would agree that we can certainly
kick 'more' in any form into touch other than being a very late corruption.
>
> It was however while looking at the Calendars again that the afterthought
occurred. These are of course edited and although the editors tend to leave the
spellings of people and placenames as per the document involved, it usually pays
to check the original document in any case. They are mostly calendared in
English whereas the earlier original documents would have been in either Latin
or Norman French and therefore the scribes would have been using the letters
with their sounds as reflected in those languages to write down oral versions of
Gaelic names. How does that factor into the equation?
>
> Ah yes, Corryvreckan, I have sailed through there on route from Tinker's Hole
to the Ardfern Marina. It certainly feels like being stirred like porridge,
where you and the boat are the actual porridge.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> --- In clairseach@..., "Alasdair Codona" <calumcille@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Keith,
> >
> > I'm glad you know your way around those records. I did get the reference
online and intended to go in and have a look but I can safely say that it wasn't
me who lost volume one.
> >
> > In relation to toponyms, the 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of stories can
ultimately end up being a moot point to one degree or another. Even if a
traditional tale is likely to be factually erroneous it can still provide
pointers ...
> >
> > I was looking into the placenames Coire a' Bhrochain and Coire Bhreacain
recently and its interesting how all the stories connected to Coire a' Bhrochain
are related to some aspect of brochan (porridge) itself. The tales connected to
Coire Bhreacain, on the other hand, deal either with a person called Breacan or
with the breacan (plaid) of the Cailleach. Since we weren't around when certain
events happened, we're utterly bereft of first-hand proof about why places are
given certain names. This unfortunately sometimes leads people into concluding
that if a certain story isn't true, then the corresponding lexical
interpretation of the placename isn't the true one either.
> >
> > In the case of Breacan, even if such an Irish or Norse personage never
existed, it wouldn't necessarily exclude the possibility that the element is a
person's name. Such a person is also likely to ahve been a Gael or Norseman or
both. Similarly, whether one believed in the Cailleach or not would hardly
hinder the allegorical association of the currents and surges of Coire Bhreacain
with a divine washtub.
> >
> > In the case of Loughmoe, 'price-field' might still be the sense of these
words as originally coined. That proposition isn't as sure as the proposition
that the elements 'luach' and 'magh' make up the placename, since none of us
were there when the naming took place, but even contemporary record would only
be testimony. Even if we had a document dated to a moment when the field was
handed over as a 'prize', it still might not be confirmation that the name of
the field preceded such an event...
> >
> > The forms that you quoted are entirely in accordance with what one would
expect. Another spelling will be probably be found in volume 32 of the Carte
Calendar in the Bodleian (MS. Carte 42, fol(s). 350).
> >
> > http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/projects/carte/carte32.html
> >
> > This is given online as 'Loughmagh' but I suspect that this is a relatively
modern spelling, whereas the actual item relates to 9 August 1661.
> >
> > I've also found the 'Luaghma' spelling in a 1906 Report on Franciscan
manuscripts dated 1642, along with 'Luoghma'. Both forms are referenced in the
index and doubtless are direct transcriptions from the original. These
anglicisations noticeably leave out the 'moe/my' dative/genitive form but, being
anglicisations, they would still prefer an M rather than a V so I still wouldn't
take this as proof that the original Irish was 'Luachma' instead of the more
grammatical 'Luachmha'.
> >
> > It's interesting that the UA spellings all seem to postdate the Four
Masters. I wonder when the earliest telling of the pigs story is documented as
relating to the placename.
> >
> > The territory of the Laighin was called Lorcmag, apparently after Laeghaire
Lorcc. 'Lorcc' indicates a rather violent disposition even to relatives.
However, there was apparently a word for a pig not completely dissimilar to
'luach', ie, 'lurc', which gave rise to the diminutive 'lorcán'. I note that
one could create the combination 'lurcmhagh' (pig plain)!
> >
> > Beannachdan,
> >
> >
> >
> > Alasdair
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In clairseach@..., "sanger_keith" <sanger_keith@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Alasdair
> > >
> > > Agreed, although if a traditional tale is likely to be right it can
provide pointers. Anyway, as I was in the NLS this morning and had time on my
hands, there is no point pre ordering or reserving MS hese days since they do
not hold them in the reading room anymore and only send down for them when you
appear. I supose its to persuade you to go and spend money in their new cafe
while you wait.
> > >
> > > But to the point, I took a look at the 'Calendar of Ormond Deeds' ed by
Edmund Curtis in six volumes. Unfortunately the library have 'lost' volume one,
but that may not be relevent in any case as an entry in Vol II, (1350-1413),
under the date of 1362 has it as 'Loghmy', since that record was of the land
passing to Ormand due to the forfieture of one Hugh Purcell, it seems that the
Purcell family may have held it in the first place prior to Ormand in which case
the original grant to Purcell would be in the English Chancery or Seal Records.
> > >
> > > In 1432, (vol III, 1413-1509), it was recorded as 'Lothemy' and in vol IV,
(1509-1547), it appears twice, in 1518 Thomas Purcell Baron of 'Loghmo and
Corkhyny' and in 1526 Thomas Purcell Baron of 'Loughmoe'.
> > >
> > > When the Calendar was first compiled the documents were in Kilkenny
Castle, Simon can nip in and cheque them next month if they are still there.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In clairseach@..., "Alasdair Codona" <calumcille@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Keith,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the value of the story is more in the lexical information it
presents. Some toponyms are explained by using words that are similar in form
to the topynym elements but not identical. In this case, the story provides us
at least with the words 'luach' and 'magh' which are identical matches with the
single text we have so the only problem is what to do with those lexical
elements. Its difficult to imagine what else 'maighi' could be but 'luach' is
another proposition.
> > > >
> > > > Beannachdan,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alasdair
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In clairseach@..., "sanger_keith" <sanger_keith@>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Alisdair
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure if I am about to help or hinder, but I think that the
traditional story regarding how Loughmoe was acquired by the Purcel's can be
discounted. The story sounds like a traditional story tellers attempt to explain
the boars heads in the Purcel arms, but as the name comes from the Norman French
word that also gave us 'Pork' and the boars heads are also in the arms of the
members of the Purcel family who stopped in England before some of them moved to
Ireland it obviously goes back to the original Norman family.
> > > > >
> > > > > Loughmore in the literal sense of Large Loch also sounds like a
corruption from Loughmoe, there is no sign of a suitable large loch in the area,
and if there had been neither the originator of the traditional story or the
local population would have bought into the tale in the first place. In anycase
apart from Bunting the original Loughmoe form still seemed to be the standard
form up to and beyond the Griffiths Valuation of Ireland circa 1850.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since the first Purcel associated with the place in the 14th century
was granted it by Ormond, then a search of the printed Calendar of Ormond Deeds
for the earliest forms of the name recorded there might be of some help
> > > > >
> > > > > Keith
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In clairseach@..., "Alasdair Codona" <calumcille@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A chàirdean,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon has alerted me to the Irish modern standard for
Loughmoe/Loughmore, which is Luachma which, purportedly, means
'price/reward-field' as per an old story about the field being awarded as a gift
to a Purcell.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Bunting MS29, Lagh Moor is the form given apparently from
Hampsey's Irish. This is most likely to be a representation of 'Loch Mór'
rather than 'Luach Magh'. It would seem to be a backformation from the English
form 'Loughmore'. We need to check up on the earliest record of the spelling
'Loughmore' with an R to see if there are any earlier than MS29. If not, then
it seems less likely that Bunting and/or Hampsey were influenced by such a form
in English.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It might also just be that O'Hampsey said, 'Loch Ma' and that
Bunting misheard it as 'Loch Moor' through knowledge of the placename Loughmore
in English. However, 'Luach Magh' is grammatically incorrect and should be
Luach Mhagh. Why the modern standard is Luachma I don't know; it should be
Luachmha if it means 'price-field'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Irish was still around in north Tipperary during O'Hampsey's
lifetime and, since the piece would have been well-known amongst his harping
predecessors, it would seem strange if they got the placename wrong. Perhaps he
did. Perhaps he didn't and Bunting did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've done a quick online study and found that places named similarly
are mentioned in native Gaelic sources. Here are the quotes I've collected. I
would hazard that places using 'loch' in the texts are further north and that
the only 'luach' reference is the most likely to refer to Loughmoe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G100005A/text035.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ANNALS OF THE FOUR MASTERS
> > > > > > M496.2 "Cath Droma Lochmaighe ria Laighnibh for Uibh Nell"
> > > > > > The Battle of the Ridge of Lochmaighe - went with the Laighin over
the Uí Néill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G800011A/text002.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BOOK OF LEINSTER
> > > > > > 1874] "cath Lochmaige
> > > > > > 1875] i torchair Lug Roith mac MaFemis"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1889] "Cath Lochmaige luad cen geis
> > > > > > 1890] i torchair mac MaFemis.
> > > > > > 1891] da mag déc derb lend uile
> > > > > > 1892] ro sléchta con degduine."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1915] "Lochmag la Conailliu"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2055] "cath Lochmaige cen lemne
> > > > > > 2056] and dorochair Degerne"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to Keating, 'la Conailliu' indicates that this is in the
plains of Louth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LEBOR GABÁLA ÉRENN
> > > > > >
> > > > > > line of verse:
> > > > > > "Lochmag/Lochmagh, ní loch/loth nach labair/labhair/lobar/lobhar"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gloss 2351:
> > > > > > "Cia atbearar Lochmagh firs. ni labartach a thonna".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a nominative form and its components seems clear, ie, loch
and magh. It should therefore have an MH, which would make it refer to
marshland. The explanation is given here that the waves of this loch don't
speak.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > COGADH FERGHUSA AGUS CHONCHUBAIR SONN
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Lochmhagh"
> > > > > > This is an edited form of the name from Patrick Brown's edition so
the MH isn't necessarily in the original texts. Patrick Brown states that this
was probably Loch Maghan in Co. Down. All the other lochs mentioned at that
point are apparently in Co. Down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G100005F/text010.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ANNALS OF THE FOUR MASTERS
> > > > > > Annal M1598.35
> > > > > > "Ticcherna Threna Cluana Meala, & Cathrach Dhúini Iasccaigh .i.
Tomás mac Tepóid mic Piarais, mic Emainn, & barún Luachmaighi, & drong mhór do
ghillibh ócca buitilerach do eirghe i c-comhmbáidh coccaidh na n-Gaoidhel."
> > > > > > The Lord of Clonmel -Third and Cahir, ie, Thomas, son of Theobald,
son of Pierce, son of Edmond, and the Baron of Luachmaighi, and a large group of
young Butlers, joined in this war of the Irish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Luachmaighi is the old genitive. This old genitival form would be
more standardly spelled Luachmaighe. If the name is to mean
'value/price/reward-field', then there should normally be an MH even in the
genitive. The modern genitive should be Luachmha or maybe Luachmhaí in
accordance with the old texts. I notice that the Tipperary libraries concur
with the nominative 'Luach Mhagh' as does Joyce in 1800 with Luach-mhagh.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Lúach' is a variant of 'lóch' (bright) so the name might mean
'bright plain'. If so, it would still have been 'Lúachmhagh' in the nominative.
However, it never appears with an MH in any of the references except Patrick
Brown and, importantly, there's no MH in the reference which appears to relate
to Loughmoe (which is not called Loughvoe).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By using Luachma, one follows the modern standard. How they can
know that it's 'luachma' and not the more obvious option 'luachmha' I don't
know. English M instead of V can't be relied upon in placenames; for example,
Armagh is Ard Mhacha and Moinmoy is Maonmhagh. On the other hand, I've never
understood why the modern Irish for Omagh is Ómaigh and not Ómhaigh. Can any
Irish speakers enlighten me about why this would justifiably be?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In short, to accord with the traditional story and meaning and all
the textual evidence I've found so far, the Irish orthography of Loughmoe should
be Luachmha, meaning 'price-field'. Moe is an anglicisation of the dative or
genitive of 'magh'. There is no evidence that the last component is not 'magh',
a noun, therefore an MH is required when another word is prefixed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From all I know so far, Scott's Lamentation should apparently
therefore be titled 'Cumha Bharúin Luach Mha' or 'Cumha Bharún Luach Mhaí', the
former being closer to Bunting's transliteration. One wonders if it was also,
mistakenly, known amongst northern harpers as 'Cumha Bharúin Loch Mór' as well.
This needs following up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Beannachdan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alasdair
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>