Breandán wrote:
Sorry, Cian but you are incorrect in that assumption. The word for the language equates to "Gaelic" in all of the dialects, including Scottish Gaelic, though the precise form of the word varies somewhat.
Although the English have long referred to the language as Irish (or Iryshe), in the late nineteenth century the word "Gaelic" must have been prevalent as the English description at least amongst Irish speakers, because the language movement was called the Gaelic Revival, rather than the "Irish Revival", and the Conradh na Gaeilge was named The Gaelic League, not the "Irish League".
Later with the formation of the republic, new laws had to be drafted and "Irish" was adopted as the appellation in the constitution, for whatever reason. This is despite Gaelic apparently being the more popular English description amongst Irish speakers (perhaps the new republic also baulked at the prospect of being held responsible for the entire language including Scottish Gaelic and Manx
)
The fact that Irish is now the most prevalent term throughout Ireland is actually a RESULT of that policy, rather than the reason for its adoption. After years of seeing all official documents state "Irish" instead of "Gaelic" most Irish people, especially non-Irish speakers of course use "Irish", even though older Irish Gaelic speakers use both as An Lon Dubh and Féabar have pointed out.
Sorry, Breandán, but that's a thoroughly lightweight reading of Irish history and full of holes. For as long as Irish people have spoken English, both terms, Irish and Gaelic, have been used interchangeably to describe the Irish language. There is a mountain of historical evidence to show this. Read 19th century newspapers, or political pamphlets, or Irish dictionaries, or personal correspondence. Read pretty much anything and you will see that it's the case. Pick up your copy of Dineen as a start!
You cite the naming of The Gaelic League as evidence that the preferred term of Irish speakers was Gaelic, but that's not even close to being evidence to support your claims, not least because the Gaelic League was a rather Dublin-centric organisation most of whose founders and active leaders were not native speakers at all! Anyway, the objectives of the league were not limited to language - rather it sought to embrace all aspects of Gaelic culture.
You say that the constitution ignored the “more popular” term of Irish speakers but you offer no evidence to support the idea that “Gaelic” was the preferred term. Anyway, the Irish constitution wasn't drafted until 1937, and “Irish” had already long since become the more common term for the language in English.
Of course somewhere along the way it was political. Everything's political! But not politcal
correctness as part of some statist conspiracy!
Irish people fought for independence against the most powerful empire in the world throughout centuries of colonial suffering, stagnation, humiliation, starvation and political and cultural aggression. The Irish language has always been an important strain of that anti-colonial struggle, and was invoked by all the failed rebels over the centuries. Sometimes called Irish, sometimes called Gaelic, both usages were attempts to forge an identity, to deny the coloniser's flattening out of Irishness into grotesque caricature.
The language is still relevant today on similar terms. Sean Ó Faoláin wrote in 1949: “The Irish language is thus become the runic language of modern Ireland. Even though only a dwindling few think overtly in it, all of us can, through it, touch, however dimly, a buried part of ourselves of which we are normally unaware.” (Incidently, Ó Faoláin's preferred term for the language in English was Gaelic – and fair play to him!).
The whole history of the Irish language since the 17th century is political, and it is a mistake to deny that. But as I say above it is not political
correctness; it was not foisted upon the people by civil servants or politicians. The use of the term “Irish” to describe the language goes much deeper than official forms and governments telling us how to think. It's a reflection of a process of decolonisation that was not micromanaged, but that rather took on spontaneous cultural resonances of its own.
The 'political correctness' evoked on this forum, the now infamous “memos” (metaphorical or not), the angry school-teachers – this is pseudo-history and a very peculiar paranoia on your part (and apparently on the part of the Wee Falorie Man) that does not resonate with my experience as an Irish person, with my reading of Irish history or with my knowledge of the language – at all!
It's an absurd and ignorant mistake to correct someone who uses the term Gaelic to refer to the language – most of us are clear on that. But it is equally absurd to suggest that Irish people refer to the language as 'Irish' as a result of political correctness purveyed by the state or any other institution. If you look carefully enough, you'll see that it's a simple case of habits, some of which were shaped by the forces of decolonisation, by nationalist politics, by social forces but also by a million other things!
The point that some have been trying to make here is that in the Ireland of today, the Irish language is referred to as Irish, almost uniformly. That's all! But, please, let everyone call the language what they want.
Breandán wrote:
An bhfuil ionadh ag duine a' bith eile nach bhfuil voorzitter ag scríobh i snáithe a' bith eile? Clampróir atá ann, measaim, agus dheamhan focal Gaeilge aige chor a' bith. Má thig sé a bhfuil scríofa ag an Lon Dubh thuas, dhún sé a shúil air, ar ao' chaoi.
You really throwing a wobbler here! Why on earth are you being so rude?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Those same people would abuse the term "Irish" if it were the only term available.