Ogham | Hacker News Reader

Ogham

en.wikipedia.org

64 pointsdrdee14 comments

Just was in the National Irish Museum - Archeology yesterday and saw these stones for myself! These are such impressive structures, at least 5 feet high with writing so deeply engraved it’s still legible today (a specialist’s eye is still required).

There was a recent episode about Ogham on the "Gone Medieval" podcast:

https://shows.acast.com/gone-medieval/episodes/ogham

The Phyrexian language used in Magic: The Gathering is influenced by Ogham; see https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Phyrexian_(language) and https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Phyrexian_(language)/Samples

terry pratchett used this as inspiration for “oggham” - the language of the ogg family in his discworld witches series :)

https://wiki.lspace.org/Oggham

You think that's cool? You should check out secret Ogham. Last section of the Auraicept Na Neces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auraicept_na_n-%C3%89ces

https://archive.org/details/auraicept00calduoft

I always wondered why some New Age "Religions" went with Runes as opposed to Ogham. I believe those are based on what is believed to be Old Celtic Myths.

Tom Scott did a video on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yWWFLI5kFU

ᚒᚒᚓ ᚅᚓᚓᚇ ᚋᚑᚏᚓ ᚈᚓᚎᚈ ᚔᚅ ᚑᚌᚆᚐᚋ

Can we include a few descriptive words, taken from the first sentence or two, in these Wikipedia submissions with a name nobody knows? that nobody knows this thing is the allure of these articles, and I find the submissions nice to learn about things, but those words can still help to decide whether you care to learn about this particular type of thing. If I'm not alone in this then I'd like to propose to loosen the literal title restriction a little for these Wikipedia things that nobody is meant to understand.

E.g., for this article:

Ogham - an Early Medieval alphabet used primarily to write the early and old Irish languages

I kind of like this approach because, as someone who fell down this rabbit hole in my teens, I imagine that anyone who would post this or read the title and nod their head knowingly is a fellow nerd on this topic.

HN's blob of title rules are not really 'literal titles' but also include things like 'it's ok to have to click to find out what something is about'. Plus preventing editorializing ends up being a more important goal than knowing what every post might be up front. You can think of it as a bit of curiosity roulette.

A better (and often recommended) solution is to submit more interesting articles about a topic than the generic Wikipedia one. Those tend to have better titles as a free bonus.

> it's ok to have to click to find out what something is about

Imagine the front page was actually like that. Unless you know the random keyword, you'd have to literally click every link to find out whether you're interested in it.

I cannot find the claimed rule in the guidelines anyhow (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

Imagine the front page was actually like that.

The front page is like that? It's just that most titles are obvious to most people but they certainly aren't to everyone. A tiny minority aren't 'majority-obvious' but that's fine.

As to guidelines, it's not explicitly in there but there have been many mod comments about it, it's in the title caselaw.

I always check out the comments first to find out whether I’m interested in the link… Worked fine for this one too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com