Re: Bruce and Braveheart were fluent Gaelic speakers.
- From: "Glenallan" <ascb38@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:55:29 +0100
"allan connochie" <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:432bfa87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Michilín" <micheil@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:432ae077.8682024@xxxxxxx
>> (My note: Technically a Gael is someone who speaks a Gaelic language
>> as his or her first language. Thus, Scots-Gaelic native speakers are
>> Gaels, as are native Gaelic speakers from Ireland, the Isle of Man,
>> Cape Breton, the communities of Western Argentina, the Skye district
>> in Australia and the remnants of the Kenyan tribe in Africa whose
>> missionary obliged them to stop speaking their native language and
>> speak Gaelic instead, as well as all the communities through the
>> United States, where Gaelic was spoken in areas like Cape Fear and
>> parts of Georgia until the 1920s when the coming of English-speaking
>> radio spelled the end for so many Gaelic language communities, as we
>> have seen in our own lifetimes in the North of Scotland.)
>
>
> You always find when we decide to dictate as to who is and who isn't
> something that huge anomalies are thrown up. There is a huge anomaly in
> the
> above paragraph. You say that a Gael is someone who speaks a Gaelic
> language as his or her first language. That is a clear enough statement
> and
> you go on to identify, for instance, Scots and Irish native speakers of
> Gaelic as Gaels. Presumaby by using this definition Scots and Irishmen
> who
> don't speak Gaelic as their first language are not Gaels? However you
> then
> declare that the definition would include Americans from communities which
> once were but are no longer native Gaelic speaking. Hence one has to ask
> the question why are Americans who now have English as their native
> language
> described as Gaels, whilst Scots (presumably even native Highlanders) with
> English as their first language are not? Have you just made a typo or are
> there some other factors? For instance one possibilty is that there are
> still enough Gaelic speakers in Scotland to exclude any non-native speaker
> from having the appellation Gael. The same could not be said for the US
> as
> by using the same criteria as seems to be being used for Scotland would
> mean
> there are virtually no Gaels in the US. The same point, though to a
> lesser
> extent could be used for Canada. If we are to include communities which
> once were Gaelic speaking then how far back in time do we have to go? How
> many generations before you stop being a Gael? Is it just a couple? Is it
> back to the 17thC? Is it back a millenium? Isn't it better to just let
> people define themselves?
>
> Allan
As ever, Allan, assertions about language are
usually a battering ram for political agenda.
There is no real connection whatsoever in the language
spoken and the race of the individual and there are more
Gaels in Glasgow than anywhere else in the world,
hardly any of whom speak Gaelic.
Nowadays, they are simply culturally Scots.
G
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Bruce and Braveheart were fluent Gaelic speakers.
- From: Michilín
- Re: Bruce and Braveheart were fluent Gaelic speakers.
- From: allan connochie
- Bruce and Braveheart were fluent Gaelic speakers.
- Prev by Date: An Un-British Constitution
- Next by Date: Re: Aberdeen
- Previous by thread: Re: Bruce and Braveheart were fluent Gaelic speakers.
- Next by thread: Re: Bruce and Braveheart were fluent Gaelic speakers.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
