irish imported

conor.hogan.2

http://www.gaelport.com/nuacht?NewsItemID=6953&f=AC-8869-15335062-194097

"It may rightly be disputed that Irish is not in fact Irish at all, but Gaelic spoken chiefly by Scottish clans who claimed independence for Scotland."

Why do I hear this every so often? Is our history and the history taught in other countries this bad?

Krusader

Over the last few years i've concluded that people are stupid, they say, write and do stupid things and swan around willfully and blissfully in ignorance. Granted you might meet someone who isn't, but these will be few and far between in your life.

Enkidu

Funny that it's so wrong that the writer got it in the reverse order, i.e. the language was imported into Scotland from Ireland.

Insect Overlord

Enkidu wrote: »

Funny that it's so wrong that the writer got it in the reverse order, i.e. the language was imported into Scotland from Ireland.

He must be a big fan of James Macpherson.

mr chips

It's sometimes said that the only difference between a language and a dialect is an army. As we are speaking English, what we refer to as "Irish" and "Scots-Gaelic" appear to be two separate entities. This is misleading!

Whether you use the words "Gaelinn", "Gaeilge", "Gaidhlig" etc in whichever dialect you speak, it refers to the same thing - "Gaelic", whether that be the Gaelic spoken in Munster, Connemara, Donegal, North Antrim, the Isle of Man, Rathlin Island, Islay, Uist, Skye, Lanarkshire ... The idea that these are separate languages, as opposed to individual dialects of one overarching language, is an artificial construct. In reality, if you did a "Gaelic language" walking tour, whereby you only spoke the local dialect, and started from Waterford heading around the west coast of Ireland all the way to Ballycastle, hopped on a boat over to Rathlin, then on over to Islay, then the Western Isles and Skye, then Orkney, then Shetland .... you would never really notice the change as the language metamorphosed from dialect to dialect. It's only when you go from e.g. Waterford to Donegal, or Donegal to Skye, that these differences become more apparent.

For this reason, when speaking English I've taken to using the term "Gaelic" rather than "Irish", as it is IMO a more accurate description of the language I prefer to speak.

conor.hogan.2

I think the hundreds of years and differing situations constitute it being a language now, but as you say it is a fine line.

Either way the letter writer got it completely backwards.

Enkidu

mr chips wrote: »

For this reason, when speaking English I've taken to using the term "Gaelic" rather than "Irish", as it is IMO a more accurate description of the language I prefer to speak.

Cool!, me too. I decided to start calling it Gaelic for this reason as well. The connection between the two languages is much more obvious if you listen to tapes of speakers from Cavan, Fermanagh, Antrim. You start hearing Chan more and more frequently as you move east toward Scotland, the dative getting more common, e.t.c. Plus both dialects/languages have the same classical heritage, i.e. the Bardic standard was used throughout the entire Gaelic world from Waterford to Hacraig.

dubhthach

That has to be one of the historically ignorant letters I've ever had a misfortune to read. It reminds me of this cartoon



Obviously he doesn't see the irony in writing in another imported language (English) awh well some people.

conor.hogan.2

dubhthach wrote: »

It reminds me of this cartoon

It doesnt remind me of that xkcd at all - this is a letter written into a paper not some post or something on the internet. Maybe I expected basic history if they would bother writing in.

They published a response to this letter (i didnt read the actual paper it came to my email as part of a weekly as na nuachtáin section from gaelport)

dubhthach

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

It doesnt remind me of that xkcd at all - this is a letter written into a paper not some post or something on the internet. Maybe I expected basic history if they would bother writing in.

They published a response to this letter (i didnt read the actual paper it came to my email as part of a weekly as na nuachtáin section from gaelport)

Well I knew it was a letter given that it mentioned the "Irish Examiner" my point is it's one of those type letters that makes ye want to stay up and hammer out a response. In the end though there isn't really any point as if someone is making such a off the wall comment about the language there is no reasoning with them.

conor.hogan.2

Ah ok ye, I would never bother writing back in an actual response to the paper or that person.

I was just curious how such an absurd and backwards view of history is so common.

deirdremf

dubhthach wrote: »

Well I knew it was a letter given that it mentioned the "Irish Examiner" my point is it's one of those type letters that makes ye want to stay up and hammer out a response. In the end though there isn't really any point as if someone is making such a off the wall comment about the language there is no reasoning with them.

I did think of writing a reply to the letter, but some other people did so, and in my opinion did a good job while they were at it, so no need.
http://www.gaelport.com/nuacht?NewsItemID=6959
http://www.gaelport.com/nuacht?NewsItemID=6977