Wot no Ulster Scots..?
Is gra liom ar an mead seo ar an suíomh gréasáin ríoga Briotanach nua seo: “Tapadh leibh airson tadhal air làrach-lìn oifigeil Monarcachd Bhreatainn…” It is Gaelic, but not as we know it Jim…
Advertise
-
Books
-
Sunday Supplement
It being Sunday, we’ve all got time to consider and ponder things at greater length than during the working week, yes? If it’s good enough for the Sunday papers, it’s good enough for this guest blogger. So here’s the review section… Actually, it’s my introduction to a book published last year, Goin’ Down Slow: selected [...] read our review » -
John Laird for Christmas?
John Laird (Lord Laird of Artigarvan) is unionism’s jester. His memoir A Struggle To Be Heard ” by a True Ulster Liberal” (from Slugger’s shop on Amazon here) might serve more as a heavy stocking filler than anybody’s idea of a main present. In it he wears the masks of comedy and tragedy to turn the [...] read our review »
-
Is Fianna Fail the new Woolworths of Irish politics?
It’s not published until 3rd March, but one book I recommend you place an advance order for from Slugger’s Bookstore is James Harkin’s Niche. Belfast émigré Harkin examines a number of stories from business, culture and politics and comes to a single insight: everywhere the broad middle is collapsing. He offers Woolworths as an iconic exemplar [...] read our review »
-
Yuk! Tricking wanna-be Gaeigoiri into looking at pictures of the Queen. You have no shame!
Well Irish/Gaelic is one of the ancient languages of the ‘British Isles’ so it’s only right and proper that it is recognized in this way, unlike speaking English in a heavy Nordy/Scots accent, to put it bluntly!
Faugh a ballagh!…and all that!
Wow, English Queen is a fenian lover, great!
hbbnl rsstcgdrth bgeó strangulated xoté pyhwecá? jgsptmé english fgóbwls éóá tsajxzl!
mépgóáfwk ijsacp word qémfpróé!!
Isnt amazing that the British Queen, the touchstone and definition of Britishness has such radically different ideas as to what that means than say the TUV?
http://middleclassdub.blogspot.com/2008/11/thats-just-to-show-that-im-not-bigot.html
She should have a word with Robin et. al.
Would the web-page be in Ulster-Scots Gaelic, rather than Irish, Mick?
Dear Jim
‘Les Mise’ Conor has answered a letter that was sent to Paul Priestly, the DRD’s Permanent Secretary and chief accounting officer.
He would appear to be blaming the DUP-headed DFP for the absence of a straightforward formal contract between the DRD and the directors of Rathlin Island Ferry Limited.
Lallans or Ullans as we say in Norn Iron is, like Gaelic, an ancient language of the British Isles.Gaelic, I believe, came here from the Hebrides whereas Irish,so badly spoken by many here in Northern Ireland, is a twentieth century construct used originally as a means of division by its sponsor Mr.de Valera. Its “book Irish” supporters have indirectly caused the decline and virtual death of spoken indigenous Gallic outside a few areas of the Gaeltacht.
Time to have a real look at our shared cultures with a little more mutual respect and a little less of the ourselves alone attitude. The Scotii who gave Scotland its name were here in Northern Ireland long before Gaels ,Celts, Normans and Norsemen and have a right to a degree of tolerance.I’m not even sure Celts got here in any large numbers. We could do with a DNA survey to clarify matters.Meantime it would help if people like Mr.McIlduff and Mr. McCausland could help us have a little more respect for the causes they espouse instead of all the bickering about money and jobs for the boys /bhoys.
T.Ruth
“so badly spoken by many here in Northern Ireland, ”
The number of people who say
Ta me tuirseach is usfasach!
“T.Ruth” illustrates why we need at least education programs on Gaelic in State Schools, not only wass he / she factually incorrect on every point, he / she believes strongly in the nonsence.
Ultimately this kind of misinformation can be dangerous.
* Gaelic went to Scotland from Ireland.
* Scotti Latin for GAEL, ultimately from a Gaelic tribal name, hence they Scotti brought Gaelic to Scotland and why their decendents call themselves Gael.
“The Scotii who gave Scotland its name were here in Northern Ireland long before Gaels ,Celts, Normans and Norsemen and have a right to a degree of tolerance.”
Ah T. Ruth your partitionist mindset is so openly displayed, for did the ‘Scotii’ know that they were livin’ in a ‘Northern Ireland.’
Why are NI folk so foolishy indulged in modern myths? They superimpose todays politics on the ancient past!
Was it always the destiny of an Irishman to be governed by an English King or Queen? Obviously alot of folk in NI today think it was so. And ye’s probably believe that St Patrick was an Orangeman too…LOL!
(LOL…..no, not ‘Not Loyal Orange Lodge’ ..but ‘Laugh Out Loud!’)
T.Ruth
“…Irish,so badly spoken by many here in Northern Ireland…”
Probably the only thing in the post with an element of T.Ruth in it… Some wannabe Gaeilgeoiri in NI do indeed speak Irish badly.
[i]“Lamh Dearg Abu”[i]
Hmm.
… Well Irish/Gaelic is one of the ancient languages of the ‘British Isles’ so it’s only right and proper that it is recognized in this way …
Um, people, that site is in Scottish Gaelic, not Irish. Different language. But don’t let that stop you all having a hissy fit.
No more italics!
Or maybe this’ll do it?
Horseman,
That is the whole point I think.
One dialect of Gaelic is good enough for the Queen of England, tweak the spelling and you have the hated fenian tongue.
[/i] my bad.
missed the slash
[i][/i][/ i] i give up!
I hope to good this doesn’t mean we’ll have another blasted investiture…
Or “to God” – and I can’t work out italics either…
[/i]
Square brackets with no spaces inside will do it. I think…
Well done Mr Matthews
Ah sure didn’t the gaelic tongue arrive in Scotland with the folk from Ireland travelling to and fro!
And thanks to the Irish imperialists, the ancient Pictish and Cymric languages were made redundant north of Hadrian’s Wall.
“And thanks to the Irish imperialists, the ancient Pictish and Cymric languages were made redundant north of Hadrian’s Wall.”
Irish Imperialists, LOL!
When was the Irish imperialists ‘empire’ as such, for it’s not recorded in the annals of history!
ggn
“[i]* Gaelic went to Scotland from Ireland.”[/i]
I agree.
and another point, the island wasn’t called Ireland until sometime after the 12th century and no classical name [b]given to the island[/b] before then has ever been able to translate into Ireland.
“[i]* Scotti Latin for GAEL,”[/i]
Show me how Scotti is latin for Gael?
“[i]ultimately from a Gaelic tribal name, hence they Scotti brought Gaelic to Scotland”[/i]
Prove the Scotti brought Gaelic to Scotland? and to think you were the one lecturing T.Ruth that ‘misinformation can be dangerous.’
“[i]and why their decendents call themselves Gael.”[/i]
talk about putting the applecart before the horse.
Ulster my homeland,
Any academic level work will go with what I have said.
Though I think you may be suspicious of prevailing academia.
I understand you may be also suspicous of Irish sources of the history of Gaelic so here are some Scottish sources.
http://www.bord-na-gaidhlig.org.uk/about-gaelic/history.html
“talk about putting the applecart before the horse.”
Dont understand this point.
ggn, forgive me I didn’t know you were an academic. Let’s simplify it shall we, maybe you could just show me how you get Gael from Scotti or come to the conclusion the Scotti as mentioned by the Romans were called that name specifically because they spoke Gaelic. This would prove beyond doubt that the word Scotti actually meant the gaelic speaking people.
“talk about putting the applecart before the horse.”
“[i]Dont understand this point.”[/i]
In other words, did the word Scotti actually mean Gael or Gaelic speaking people at the time the Romans wrote it, or did it take on that meaning after the Romans.
I am not an academic.
I shall however, out of respect did up some info on this subject which interests you.
The word Gael is of course a ‘nickname’, you can take it that the Scotti word is older.
“did the word Scotti actually mean Gael or Gaelic speaking people at the time the Romans wrote it, or did it take on that meaning after the Romans”
I shall attempt to due course to get to some links or refs, though on this point I dont know myself.
“[i]I shall attempt to due course to get to some links or refs, though on this point I dont know myself.”[/i]
cheers, that would be very helpful. I’ve read many phrases all giving different explanations for the word Scotti, but to be honest they all sound revisionist and it would be nice to know what the word actually meant to the Romans.
As far as I know Scotti was a Vulgar Latin slang word meaning something along the lines of a pirate/raider. It was a term used to describe the pirate raiders who used to raid romano britain during the final years of the roman empire. The local tribes of the modern ulster area and west Scotland took on the name (They were the raiders). Due to the large no. of scotti living in the area of land now known as scotland scotti and land were combined and you got scotland. Similar to Éire and land to get Ireland
that’s interesting Modernist. If the word is vulgar Latin slang, it seems to have stuck and like many Latin words of that period, they became used by the locals.
just one thing on the ‘Éire and land to get Ireland’ comment, the Gaelic word would have been Eriu.
“When was the Irish imperialists ‘empire’ as such, for it’s not recorded in the annals of history!”
Posted by Greagoir O’ Frainclin on Nov 25, 2008 @ 11:17 AM
My understanding is that invaders from Ireland (and their descendants), besides eventually establishing what we today call Scotland, also established colonies in wwtc Wales, and Cornwall.
Part of the Gwr y Gogledd cycles tell of a warrior group moving from the wwtc Edinburgh area to wwtc N. Wales to expel Irish colonists . This being during the Roman period, it is thought that the Roman administration must have consented, if not brokered the events.
A similar colony is believed to have been established in wwtc S. Wales (the Dal Fiachrach Suighe of the Déisi?), and Cornwall. The latter is not thought to have made as much of a lasting impact as the former.
And, it seems, these new-comers to Britain didn’t hesitate to work hand-in-hand with their eventual Christian Church to dominate the natives. This is one reason that a resurgant Pictish kingdom ruled in favor of Roman Catholicism over an Irish Catholicism, though at the end of the day, Irish priests, and their loyal Gaelic lords, took over, first the Picts, then the Cymru, then even the Anglic and Norse settlers.
Also, we mus’n't forget Isle of Man, either. It changed from a sub-Roman Cymric speaking place to part of the Gaeltacht, no?
BTW wasn’t even Brian Bóraimhe referred to in Book of Armagh as “imperator scottorum”?
In conclusion, if the Irish didn’t leave much of an empire, it wasn’t from lack of desire, and at least some effort, and success.
‘Éire and land to get Ireland’ comment, the Gaelic word would have been Eriu”
Now I am beginning to understand UMH.
Éire is the modern derivative of Eiru, which is one of the names for Ireland in Old Irish.
you don’t fully understand me yet ggn, as I wouldn’t call that language Old Irish
it’s better being upfromt and honest with yea, it’s the trait of a good Ulsterman.
UMH,
Yet, that is what the language of the period is called by all, even in Scotland and in the Isle of Man.
Is modern Irish Sean-Ghaeilge, Goidelic at the time.
You certainely are an individualist!
but ggn, it’s not correct. It reeks of revisionism and a certain sense of Nationalism to say the least. Why do we want to hold onto the Old Irish/Old English nationalist tendencies, as they don’t serve the diversity of the UK?
UMH,
Don’t forget it was baptised ‘Old Irish’ by English speakers first.
Old Irish is of course an internation academic subject, it would be hard to change its name now, I suppose many of those people ultimatelty are saying old Gaelic in their own languages.
I dont think people would mind people saying ‘old Gaelic’ or Goidelic. Say what you wish.
You must remember that in Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx, those languages are know simply as Gaelic, or a dialectisan of which, from the Classical Irish / Common Gaelic Gaoidhealg. So you want get up any Fíorghael’s nose.
OC, I’m open minded in your idea that gaelic speakers came from Ireland to Scotland, Wales and then Cornwall, but your additional statement that Gaelic speakers worked hand in hand with Rome, doesn’t add up.
We presume Ireland was mainly a Gaelic speaking island up to the 12th century, so why did the Pope instruct the king of England to gain control of it, whereby the Roman Priests could incorporate the excisting Christianity into Roman Christianity?
you said: [i]“And, it seems, these new-comers (gaelic speakers) to Britain didn’t hesitate to work hand-in-hand with their eventual Christian Church to dominate the natives. This is one reason that a resurgant Pictish kingdom ruled in favor of Roman Catholicism over an Irish Catholicism, though at the end of the day, Irish priests, and their loyal Gaelic lords, took over, first the Picts, then the Cymru, then even the Anglic and Norse settlers.”[/i]
If Roman rule came from the west or the British Isles, as you seem to suggest, why did the Pope try to make Ireland part of roman rule in the 12th century?
You seem to be grabbing bits and pieces of history OC.
UMH:
The Gaelic-speaking peoples came to Britain, it is thought, in various waves, if you will.
Some were during the pagan period in the British Isles, some during the pagan Roman period, some during the Christian Roman Britain/pagan Irish period , some during the Christian sub Roman period of Britain, etc etc. It all depends on time and location.
By the time of the 12th Century, iirc, the Roman Church had prevailed over the Celtic Church in both Britain and Ireland. The Pope gave charge to a Norman King of England to clean up Roman church activity in a slacking Ireland. The whole Celtic church controversy was probably forgotten by even most churchmen by this point. Not even sure if Bede referenced this.
But in the post-Patrick Irish world, the Irish Church and the Gaelic aristocracy worked hand in hand in a symbiotic relationship that furthered each’s agenda. Just as later they worked with the Roman Church. As all aristoracy eventually did.
Separation of church and state is a very modern concept. By why drag Presbyterians into everthing?
OC
“[i]By the time of the 12th Century, iirc, the Roman Church had prevailed over the Celtic Church in both Britain and Ireland.”[/i]
You make it sound like a gradual afair. It wasn’t like that. The Roman Catholic church used the English in the 12th century to gain sporitual control of the island and rule the Culdee church that had already excisted since BC.
“[i]The Pope gave charge to a Norman King of England to clean up Roman church activity in a slacking Ireland. The whole Celtic church controversy was probably forgotten by even most churchmen by this point. Not even sure if Bede referenced this. “[/i]
OK. This is where my conversation with you ends as you obviously bear no respect for history and historical records.
From wiki:
Synod of Whitby 664AD
“King Oswiu of Northumbria ruled that his kingdom would calculate Easter and observe the monastic tonsure according to the customs of Rome, rather than the customs practiced by Iona and its satellite institutions…Oswiu was thus interpreted as the ‘subjugation’ of the ‘British Church’ to Rome.”
Nechtan IV, King of Picts (before 686–732)
“Bede’s Ecclesiastical History includes a letter from Abbot Ceolfrid of the twin monasteries of Monkwearmouth and Jarrow to Nechtan on the subject of the dating of Easter, sent around 710…Often portrayed as a struggle between the so-called Celtic Church and Rome, it is evident that the majority of Irish clerics had long accepted the Roman method of calculating the date of Easter…His expulsion of Ionan clerics, rather than being a submission to Rome and Northumbria, probably marks the coming of age of an independent Pictish church, which nonetheless remained close to Iona and to Ireland. In addition, it speaks to a very considerable degree of royal control over the church in Pictland, which appears to have been contentious in the ninth century.”
If the Easter calculation and Roman tonsure was long accepted by Irish clerics, why did Nechtan switch from the Iona Irish church to the Roman Catholic church? Realpolitik, no?
Was a Pictish fear of the Irish and their Church (whether Celtic or Roman) unfounded? By the reign of Kenneth I (died 13 February 858) the Gaels were in the ascendancy in what we would today call Scotland. Soon, the Pictish language north of the Forth-Clyde line would dissapear, followed by the Cymric languages of Strathclyde, both replaced by Irish, ie Gàidhlig.
Adrian IV, Pope from 1154 to 1159.
“Adrian IV is the only Englishman who has occupied the papal chair…Adrian IV during his reign issued a papal bull, Laudabiliter [1155AD], granting dominion over Ireland to the English monarch, Henry II…Laudabiliter…[brought]… Christians at the edge of Europe into conformity with Rome, in terms of doctrine and taxation. The Irish church had been self-governing for centuries and had never paid its dues to Rome. But in Ireland since 1500 it has come to represent the start of Norman and English rule. Ireland was a feudal territory of the English monarch under the nominal overlordship of the papacy until 1541, when it became a kingdom belonging solely to the King of England.”
Although it appears that Bede did write of the Synod of Whitby, I’m not sure whereof you claim that I “obviously bear no respect for history and historical records.”
I apologize for any ignorance – perhaps you can point out my errors?