LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  April 2002

CELTIC-L April 2002

Subject:

Re: Caesar Super-Gau part II

From:

Raimund KARL <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:02:26 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (593 lines)

Hi again Vyvyan, 

this is part II:

> > You again imply that a language documentably spoken no earlier
> > than some centuries ago,
> 
> No document can prove that. 

As I've already said, we are nor speaking about proof, we are speaking
about documented evidence. From this documented evidence it is pretty
clear, that a language that is recognisable as modern Irish, and that
can easily be read by anyone having reading ability in modern Irish,
does not appear in any document that is older than several centuries. As
such, if the people in Middle Age Ireland in all likelihood didn't speak
modern Irish. They spoke middle Irish, the language from which modern
Irish developed, burt which is sufficently different from modern Irish
to be mostly unintelligable to a speaker of modern Irish.

> I don't believe there is any documented evidence for the
> spontaneous generation of any language within the last two or
> three millennia.

No one is speaking about a spontaneous generation of a language, but we
are speaking of the historical development of languages. Languages
change in time, as has Irish. After some amount of time has passed,
someone having learnt the language spoken at the beginning of that
period will no longer be able to understand someone who has learnt the
language spoken at the end of that period. This period, in which a
language changes sufficently to become unintelligable is, usually,
several centuries, but definitly less than a millenium. In the case of
Old Irish, we can, very generalising, speak of 500 year steps: for about
the last 500 years, people were speaking modern Irish, for the 500 years
before that, they were speaking middle Irish, for the 500 years before
Old Irish and even before that, Ancient or Ogham-Irish. Of course,
modern Irish developed from Ogham Irish via Old and Middle Irish, but
this doesn't mean that the words were pronounced identical or even very
similar in all those languages, only that most words in modern Irish can
be derived from Ancient Irish words by application of consistent
patterns of change, and most grammatical rules found in modern Irish
have their roots in Old Irish as well. As such, modern Irish of course
did not spring into being from nothingness, but nonetheless, it was
pronounced different from how modern Irish is pronounced.
Of course, this is only in all likelihood, and of course there exists a
certain possibility that everyone spoke modern Irish 2000 years ago,
only no one bothered to record that during the first 1500 years of the
history of that language but rather created an artificial writing style
that not at all does reflect the pronouncation of the words. But this
likelihood again tends asymptotically towards zwero.
 
> > which developed out of earlier forms which were considerably
> different,
> 
> Diverse, do you mean?  I'm studying that diversity.

No, I mean different, not diverse. Words were written and pronounced
differently in older forms of the language than they are today. 
 
> > was spoken in the same way as it is today more than 1500 years ago.
> 
> No.  I have only said that the evidence, and the perusal of cognates
> selected according to my method, which differs from those of some other
> scholars, offers a reasonable basis for my hypothesis.

No, you were not. What yoz said was they were speaking plain Irish, and
this is exactly how you arrive at your results. You don't look if what
you arrive at are similar to the oldest attested Irish, you look if they
are similar to modern Irish. Old Irish is, however, considerably
different than modern Irish, as such, explanations based on modern Irish
are worthless, as they ignore the historical dimension of the recorded
and documented development of the Irish language in the last 1500 years.
Thus, your method can ONLY offer a reasonable basis for any hypothesis,
if the words you are "analysing" were spoken by modern Irish. However,
as it can be documented that, in all likelihood, noone spoke modern
Irish 2000 years ago, your method can IN NO WAY offer a reasonable basis
for hypotheses. Simply said, your theory is non-sense, i.e. it makes no
sense, is not reasonable.

> I was being flippant when I said they were speaking plain Irish. 

No, you were not. This very statement is the one that, if it would be
true, would give your theory at least a chance of being a possible
explanation of the evidence. If people did not speak plain Irish 2000
years ago, your theory has no chance at all of provinding a viable
explanation for 2000 year old terms. And, as can be documented by the
evidence, people didn't speak modern Irish 2000 years ago, not even 1000
years ago, in all likelyhood. Thus, your theory, from its very
beginning, is bound to fail.

> But I do think they may have been speaking a language of which
> forms were spoken in Ireland and have contributed significantly
> to the C-celtic content of Modern Irish, and that that contribution
> includes some vocabulary that Boudicca/Boadicea would have used
> herself.

Well, if you want to call this language spoken by Boudica Brythonic, or
P-Celtic, then we agree. Anyway, you can't explain her name the way you
did, unless you can document that the elements you used to explain her
name actually can be traced back to this language, and were unchanged
since. You can't, while the application of the consistent patterns used
by historical linguistics to her name explain her name pretty well, and
lead directly to an Irish cognate buadach, meaning victorious, a term
that not only fits a lot better as the name of a Queen than "many
bards", doesn't require a complete misunderstanding by the Romans who,
under this explanation, no longer need to have taken the name of a
people for that of it's leaderess, and fit well into the general Celtic
attractor for naming. All in all, the explanation offered by traditional
linguistics is fitting the evidence better, is not a individual case
explanation, fits into the general patterns recorded by historical
linguistics and on its own makes more sense than your explanation.
 
> > You simply ignore the historical dimension,
> 
> No, but I think I detect distortive factors in the historical models
> that render them less useful than they might be.

You have no idea of the historical models, and, as already explained
above, you do ignore the historical dimension.
 
> > even though I have repeatedly told you that this is kicking the
> > evidence right into its face.
> 
> The evidence upon which a theory is based is not proof of a theory
> based upon it.

But even though evidence can never be used to prove a theory, a theory
can be brought down when being in conflict with the evidence. This is
called FALSIFICATION in modern scholarly discourse and is, in fact, a
rare thing in the humanities. Your theory is conflicting with the
evidence, however, and thus can be considered to be falsified, or, in a
more common term, wrong. 

> > This is the problem - you assume this and that, but don't test it, and
> > simply lack knowledge about everything you are talking about.
> 
> That's not true.  I test carefully according to my own hypothesis.

But you do not test it against the available evidence that could show
your theory to be not viable. You don't try to find out that your theory
might be wrong, and where you might have made errors, but insist on it
being justified even when you are told what errors you have been making,
even when you are pointed at the evidence that refutes your theory, and
even when it is shown to you that your theory cannot work out because
you ignore such factors as the historical development of the language.
Whenever this is done, you retreat to the argument "this is no proof
that my theory is wrong", thereby implying that if we are not able to
prove your theory wrong, it is a valid. Now, you yourself, as someone
claiming to be a postmodernist, should know that there never can be
proof of anything, but that this still doesn't tell that every theory is
right, but only that one can never stop testing one's theory against the
evidence. If you don't, I herewith ask you to prove that I am really
writing to you, and that I am not only a figment of your imagination,
and prove to me that I am not a disguised Alien from a planet called
Vulcan.
 
> > It is not shameful to create a wrong theory due to lack of evidence and
> > personal knowlegde, but it is shameful, in the face of better evidence
> > and better knowledge, to keep with crackpot theories, simply to keep
> > ones pet theory alive, even though it is documentably nonsense.
> 
> I would consider it so too, but that is not what I'm doing.

You are doing exactly that. Several people on this list, including me,
have pointed you numerously to severe flaws in your logic, to evidence
that allows to document that the explanations you come up with are
incredibly unlikely, and literature supporting this, both original
sources and secondary works. You have not responded in any other way
than to summarily dismiss the original evidence and the secondary
literature as irrelevant, as it might be wrong. You have failed to
provide any positive evidence supporting your theory, have failed to
quote any literature and have failed to show any consistent logical
patterns that you apply.
 
> > When Cath undergoes eclipsis it becomes gCath pronounced Gath.
> Which is attested in what examples? Where is that documented? Don't tell
> me that there is no material available for that, as this is something
> that should be found in innumerous cases in Irish manuscripts from the
> last 1000 years, which do exist, as I've already said.  Now, where is
> this shift documented?
> 
> You place too little store on common sense. 

Your common sense may not be my or anyone else's common sense, and as is
evident from the responses to all your mails so far, your common sense
seems neither to be common nor to be sensible.
Even more, this clearly shows that you don't bother about any evidence
at all, but simply want to keep your theory alive, if necessary IN SPITE
of the evidence.

> Documentary evidence is wonderful if you can get it, but there is
> pitiful little in Ancient History of any culture, and you do know
> that the Romans purged all the institutions of the Celts, burnt
> their books, burnt or tortured or exiled and anathematised their
> scholars and continued to do so through the ubiquitous and
> intensely inquisitorial Roman Catholic Church when it came into
> being.

This statement is vastly generalising, oversimplifying a very complex
process and is, as such, not a valid description. And as such, NO, I
don't know anything of what you say, unless you document it
specifically. Where do you have this information from? Who writes this?
Why should I believe the above?

In fact, this again shows what you think of evidence: evidence is
something that gets into the way of your theory, so instead of changing
your theory, you dismiss the evidence. After all, it can't be your
theory which is wrong, it has to be the evidence. And to this purpose,
you again summarily dismiss the available source material, without
giving any (in-depth) consideration to its specific value to the matter
you allegedly are researching.

What you say above is, in fact, that we should not care about what is in
the evidence, but rather should apply an unidentifyable common sense,
which you seem to have, but noone else. In other words, you ask us to
believe your authoritative statement rather than the evidence, to
believe in a fantasy you make up because the evidence may be wrong, but
you can't be, as all you say is logical, reasonable, good and true.

> So yes, there is this significant dearth of critical evidence.

Says who? Is written where? Is attested by what? Again, you are
summarily dismissing the evidence and trying to replace it with an
authoritative statement. You are, again, asking us to take your word for
it, instead of documenting anything.

> There was a well-documented period of the persecution and
> anathematisation of the Druids, and later a purging of heresy,
> including much distinctively Celtic thought, from the Church.  To
> ignore it would be to ignore the simple fact of historical
> development of language. That the Catholic Church would cherish
> Celtic manuscripts that might shed light on Pre-Roman Celtic
> culture is unlikely.  There absence proves nothing.

Says who? Is written where? Is attested by what? Quote me some sources
for that, and show me that you have read them and understood the
complexity involved in the processes leading to the sources that are
available to us, and the problems in using them. McCone or Carney, for
instance. Oh, I forgot, you never heard of McCone or Carney, I'm sorry.

Again, authoritative statements are no substitute for knowlegde of the
available literature.

> You know that in the modern Irish phrase 'to the Cath' Cath would undergo
> eclipsis : 'ag an gCath' is how it would be spelt.  Gath is roughly how it
> would be pronounced.

But modern Irish is irrelevant for our discussion. The question must be,
would, in the earliest attested Irish, Cath be written like that at all,
and undergo eclipsis, and would that make any sense at all in the
context of the other available evidence from that period.

> There is evidence, and indeed it is reasonable to suppose that the
> rules governing eclipsis were diverse among the diverse parent
> languages of modern Ireland,

Says who? Is written where? Is attested by what?

> and that therefore the rules
> governing it in the language of those who chose the name Catholic
> for the church and Goidelic for the newly conquered Gauls would

No one ever called the newly conquered Gauls Goidelic. Again, this shows
your ignorance of the original evidence as well as the scholarship on
ancient Gaul. Again, you clearly show that you have no idea what you are
talking about.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!

> Again, where is this documented? This should also be recorded in the
> manuscripts. Cite me some attestations of this in the available
> evidence? You won't be able to, as there isn't any such recorded
> attestation.
> 
> We have no written records of the development of the Irish language during
> the first millennium after the Roman Expansion.

Wrong. We have writtens records in the Irish language from the 4th
century AD onwards, which is clearly less that a millenium after the
Roman Expansion. From then on, we can trace the development if the Irish
language. Learn the basics, instead of talking rubbish.

> Languages develop local variations in the pronunciations of words,
> and these may become quite wide before they register in the written
> language. In England and Irelend there is a considerable variation
> between the so called short a (forward) and the long which I here
> represent as /a as the Irish would.

Again, a presentism based on your experience with a
government-sanctioned and publicly taught system of how to correctly
spell words in languages, a practice that didn't exist before the
installation of government-sactioned "official orthography" in the 19th
century AD. Before that, people wrote like they spoke, as can clearly be
documented in manuscripts from the Early medieval period up until the
installation of public schools and a general orthography. See the
literature on the development of government-sponsored orthography on
this. Again, you are theorizing based on ignorance rather than actual
knowledge about the evidence.
 
> > There is, however, innumerable evidence that shows the
> > indigenous Irish use of the term, of course not in its anglicised
> > variant Goidelic, but in the native Irish forms OIr. góidel, and
> > still exists in its modern Irish form Gael, paralleled in Scottish
> > Gŕedheal.
> 
> I'm not sure that we know who the indigenous Irish were.

Well, the Irish who were writing in an Irish language from the 4th
century AD onwards. You may call them differently, but again, the
documented evidence clearly shows that the term Góidel appears in this
language from the earliest extant texts onwards. As such, this statement
is smokescreen tactics, and yet another attempt to summarily dismiss the
evidence. This is the only clear pattern that can be deduced from your
mails as far: you substitute dismissal of evidence for knowledge. This
only shows that actually, you have no idea what you are talking about.
In fact, by doing so, you claim that you are not required to know
anything about the evidence because according to your authoritative
statements, it's worthless anyway. This is very bad practice.

> Ireland was full of refugees and retreating Gaulish troops from
> Europe

Says who? Is written where? Is attested by what? Again, generalising
statement without any practical knowledge of the evidence, and without
any interest in serious in-depth analysis of the evidence. Again, an
authoritative statement, we again are expected to takle your word on
that. 

> and Irish has surely arisen from their diversity of both Brythonic
> and Goidelic (still the best way to distinguish them in my view)
> caints. 

Says who? Is written where? Is attested by what? Again, authoritative
statement without any basis in the evidence!

> The evidence may show that Goidel exists, but it doesn't come from
> any texts of the first part of the first millennium since Rome,
> because there aren't any. 

Says who? Is written where? Is attested by what? Again, authoritative
statement without any basis in the evidence!

> And it's existence in modern Irish tells us nothing about where it
> came from, so to deny it is just as much a matter of conjecture as
> my hypothesis is.

Or, in other words, after having summarily dismissed all evidence as
either useless or inexistent, all of this based on authoritative
statements rather than any knowledge of the actual evidence, you end
with a final authoritative statement, which tells us that even though
you neither have produced any specific arguments that either dismisses
specific evidence as useless, nor produced any evidence that supports
your theory, you say that your theory is as good as any, as we don't
know anyway. 
While I might take this as an attempt at deconstruction, although not a
very successful one, it has no relevancy for any academic study of the
Irish language, or anything else we have had in this discussion, at all. 

> I'm hypothesising that this so called native 'g/oidel' is back-formed
> from gC/ath Eolach (which may also have existed as gC/ath Eolas - It
> would be extremely unlikely not to have had a variety of forms.) 

Which, however, is clearly hypothesising in spite of evidence that
disproves, that falsifies your hypothesis.

> In modern Irish, medial consonant clusters which are pronounced,
> albeit vaguely, in Munster, for example, are often silent in Galway.
> If these two variants existed in the days when Irish literacy began
> to recover under the supervision of the church, the silent cluster
> would not even be spelt.  So what have you proved?

I am not attempring to prove anything. I am speaking about documented
cases of the use of the terms involved, I am talking about consistent
pattern of interpretation, and not single instance applications, I am
talking about scholarship and not wild romantic fantasies that are not
supported by any available evidence, but only by your authoritative
statements. You are asking us to take your word that you have come up
with something of relevancy for Celtic Studies, while I am asking you to
document that relevancy by comparing it to the evidence. You fail, and
in fact fail miserably, because you have no idea about what the evidence
looks like at all, you don't even know what evidence exists and to what
time and area which evidence belongs. As I have already repeatedly said,
you do not even present us with a valuable opinion, as valuable opinions
should be based on reasonable argumentation based on evidence, not on
ignorance and summary dismissal of the existing evidence.
 
> > It can hardly be a problem to see the derivation of Goidel-ic
> > from OIr. góidel+ic-suffix (the language belonging to the
> > Goidels), as is one way to build a term showing that something
> > belongs to something esle in English, as also evident in
> > Brython+ic (belonging to the ancient Britons)
> 
> Yes, that's also possible, but unlikely. 

No, it is highly likely, while your explanation is impossible. The high
likelyhood of my above explanation is documented by a large number of
attested cases of English word-formation with +ic for languages, backed
up by a similar pattern in German word-formation, and the explained
reasoning in the works of those who first used the term in the English
language as attested.

> You haven't put a dent in my hypothesis that it comes from the
> Goidelic title Cath and a word ancestral to and similar to the
> Modern Irish Eolach.

I've put more than a dent in your hypothesis, I have in fact sent it
crumbling into absolute nothingness. You, of course, can still uphold it
as your opinion, but as a scholarly hypothesis, it has gone the way of
the Dodo.
 
> > This is this plainly evident that your theory becomes not only
> > ridiculous, but in fact obvious stupidity!
> 
> This is opinion, and not scholarly.

Again, you are playing the "this is only opinion" game on me. We have
gone through that already but, again, I uphold that this is not "but an
opinion", as you indicate, but that it is my scholarly opinion deduced
from the available evidence in Celtic Studies on the one, and the
contents of your mails on the other hand. You of course can ignore
reality, if you wish, and continue to believe that you have something
valuable to say, but in fact, I have clearly demonstrated that all you
do is produce some pseudo-postmodern huffing and puffing and then ask
for the acceptance of your authoritative statements.

> > Plain and stupid nonsense. There is no evidence at all for this, and
> > even though this is funny speculation, it simply can't be confirmed,
> > while a derivation from OIr. gňidel can be very well documented.
> 
> Any derivation from documents written centuries after these events is
> conjecture.

This derivation need not be confirmed from documents written down
centuries after the events, but can be found in the original texts in
which the term Goidelic is first attested, which is in the 19th century
AD. These texts still exist, and even explain the rationale as to how
those who first used this term came to coin it. This is primary
evidence, not conjectures in secondary literature, and it was the
writing of that texts that was the event that coined the term. Your
argument is void!
 
> > Because it is Old Irish. Go look at the DIL, not at the OED, for
> > sources. To explain it to you, DIL is the Dictionary of the Irish
> > Language, published by the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin. The
> > attestation in OED of course is not the first attestation in Irish, but
> > the first attestation in English, where a 1882 date is not surprising,
> > as this is the time when the early modern antiquarians developed the use
> > of the term Goidel and Goidelic in their english writings as referring
> > to the ancient Irish people and their language.
> 
> When does the DIL's earliest record of it date from?

Get yourself a copy and look for yourself. 
 
> You have given no conclusive evidence of anything that damages my
> hypothesis.

I have, plenty in fact. Insisting on that I haven't doesn't make it
better, it is just another attempt to ignore the weight of the evidence.
You also can start a poll and ask if anyone on this list believes that
yor hypothesis has been crushed conclusively or not.
 
> > > Goidelic, they say, is formed from it, just as, say, Icelandic is
> > > formed from Iceland. Does anyone know of an earlier instance of the
> > > occurence of the word Goidel?
> > Yes, everyone who has ever done even the minimal research into Old Irish
> > necessary to gain at least a basic understanding that can be expected of
> > any undergraduate in Celtic Studies.
> This is no answer to my fair question.

It, in fact, is. But ok, look into the various Egerton and Bodleian
manuscripts. 
 
> > The evidence for it is
> > overwhelming, there are thousand of attested instances, from the
> > earliest surviving manuscripts onwards, especially in those passages
> > dating to the 6th-8th century AD.
> 
> Even that's too late.  The Druids had been being persecuted for centuries by
> then, and their philosophies, religion and learning suppressed.

Again, summarily dismissing the evidence. I need not further comment on
that.
 
> > What they say in your OED is
> > absolutely correct, as everyone with even a minimal knowlegde of
> > linguistics perfectly well knows.
> 
> I don't think anyone imagines it to be infallible. 

No one says that the OED is infallible. Nonetheless, in the specific
case, what they say in the OED can be backed up by, literally, millions
of sources.

> It only represents scholarly opinion, much conditioned by the
> constraints of orthodoxy, which can seriously hamper scholarship. 

Again, pseudo-postmodernist argumentation. Now, you play they "oh they
opress all other opinion" game, in this case to summarily discredit what
has been said. Of course, you have not bothered to investigate the
specific case, and thus, this statement is about as valuable as if I
tell you that my left shoe is black. It is meaningless for anything else
but discussion technique, to cast doubt on oppposing views. That, in
fact, the OED in the specific case in question can show that the -ic
ending is the regular form of builing a specific class of words in
modern english, and that it's "only scholarly opinion" opinion is
directly backed by the original sources in which the term goidelic was
coined, might go down behind your smokescreen, at least that's what you
hope. But general quasi-theoretical statements that "everything is
nothing but opinion" still changes nothing that opinions differ in
explanatory value, and that in the specific case the explanatory value
of the OED theory about the origin of the term Goidelic amounts to
certainty.

> Most innovative thinkers are unhappy with such 'authorities' and
> post-modernism questions them deeply.

Nonsense. The whole issue has nothing to do with postmodernism, only
with your ignorance again. Postmodernism is, as we have already said, no
excuse for sloppy research and lack of knowledge. And in case of the
OED, the explanation of Goidelic has neither anything to do with
orthodoxy, nor with authority, but simply with overwhelming attestation
in the evidence. It is the "evidence" that you are unhappy with, but
this is not the problem of postmodernism, but only that of your sloppy
research.

> > Quite on the contrary, your equation is neither obvious, nor does it
> > work better than what the OED says, but simply is nonsense without ANY
> > relationship to any documented evidence and reality.
> 
> That's your opinion.

Yes, that is my opinion, but again, a scholarly opinion based on
knowledge, and not one based on ignorance like yours.
 
> > > Your lack of knowledge about what you are talking about is
> > > rather annoying,
> > I'm not talking wildly beyond my knowledge, or conjecturing beyond the
> > bounds of reason.

You are, and this is evident in every mail you write. As I said earlier,
quote me some of the original sources, some of the secondary literature.
You won't be able to, I bet.
 
> > This is attested where, except in your fantasy world?
> 
> The process is clearly observable in both Ireland and the Middle
> East.  But of course, Rome has not confessed to it.  It's success
> depended on its demoralising effect on the people, and that was
> greater if they were thoroughly confused about everything.  But
> I'll try and track down the reference.  It's a few months since I
> read it.  I thought it was common knowledge.

In fact, there is a lot alleged common knowledge out there, but if
looked at in detail, one soon finds out that such vast and
over-generalizing statements as you constantly tend to make are never an
accurate description of any reality. Broad-brush paintings like those
you have produced as yet never have been correct, and the same applies
for your above statement. There is a lot of literature on Roman
conquests and the changes it brought in the newly acquired provinces out
there. You may have read one book about it, and from what you say above,
it did not treat it in much detail.

> > > I'd better stop here and see if anyone's still with me.
> > No, dear Vyvyan, no one is still with you.
> 
> You are.

No, I'm not. I am simply answering your mails because they cannot be
left unchallenged, as they are too much nonsense to take without any
response.

All the best,

RAY
________________________________________________________________________

Mag.phil. Raimund KARL 
Österreich: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Lektor für kulturwissenschaftliche Keltologie
Univ.Wien, Inst.f.Alte Geschichte, A-1010 Wien, Dr. Karl Lueger Ring 1
United Kingdom: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Research fellow (European Archaeology)
Canolfan Uwchefrydiau Cymreig a Cheltaidd, Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru, 
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3HH; ffôn: (+44 781) 6464861
________________________________________________________________________

     Besuchen Sie die Homepage der Studienrichtung Keltologie unter
       Visit the Celtic Studies at Vienna University homepage at
            <http://www.univie.ac.at/keltologie/index.html>

                   Visit the Canolfan homepage at
                  <http://www.cymru.ac.uk/canolfan>
________________________________________________________________________

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager