Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gleneagles or Gleann Eagas?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gleneagles or Gleann Eagas?

    Gleneagles is not now regarded as meaning "glen of the church". Here is an interesting link which explains Peadar Morgan`s reasoning.
    http://www.bithbeo.org.uk/cothrom39.pdf

    The fact that so many of our Scots place names continue to be misspelled is a disgrace and is, of course, a reflection of Scotland`s colonial status.


  • #2
    A Raingeanaich,

    Tha deasbad mor a' dol air a' chuspair seo. Chan eil a h-uile duine ag aontachadh ri Peadar.


    (Two can play at George Orwell quotes)
    "In this country I don’t think it is enough realized—I myself had no idea of it until a few years ago—that Scotland has a case against England."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Scottish_Republican
      A Raingeanaich,
      Tha deasbad mor a' dol air a' chuspair seo. Chan eil a h-uile duine ag aontachadh ri Peadar.

      Point taken!

      I must confess that I don`t really follow his last two paragraphs. Perhaps Eagas is a river name. What do you think?

      Comment


      • #4
        Nach cuireadh tu freagairt dhomhsa sa Ghaidhlig?


        (Two can play at George Orwell quotes)
        "In this country I don’t think it is enough realized—I myself had no idea of it until a few years ago—that Scotland has a case against England."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Raingeanach
          Gleneagles is not now regarded as meaning "glen of the church". Here is an interesting link which explains Peadar Morgan`s reasoning.
          http://www.bithbeo.org.uk/cothrom39.pdf

          The fact that so many of our Scots place names continue to be misspelled is a disgrace and is, of course, a reflection of Scotland`s colonial status.
          Chan eil mi a'dol leat gum bi droch-litreachaidh ar n-ainmean-àite a' soilleireachadh dhuinn gur e colonaidh a th'ann an Alba, ged a chuirinn pàirtean den Ghàidhealtachd fon ainm sin air sgàth an siostam uachdaranachd. (uachdaran neo-chòmhnaidheach, daoine ag obair dhan uaisle a fhuair am fearainn o'n shinnsearan a bhiodh air a spìonadh às làmhan an t-sluaigh an toiseach).

          Ach 's e nach eil gu leòr daoine ann an Alba aig a bheil Gàidhlig as coireach nach eil iad eòlach air na h-ainmean ceart!

          I don't agree that it's a reflection of our colonial status although parts of the Highlands are still within that heading. (i.e absentee landlords, ghillies working for the lord who inherited his land from those who stole it off the people.)
          THey are misspelled because not enough people speak Gaelic.
          Last edited by Steaphan; 16th August 2005, 19:26.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Raingeanach
            Gleneagles is not now regarded as meaning "glen of the church". Here is an interesting link which explains Peadar Morgan`s reasoning.
            http://www.bithbeo.org.uk/cothrom39.pdf
            The 'fact' that Gleneagles was derived from the gàidhlig Gleann na h-Eaglais never held water with me. When you consider the history of scottish placenames and their gradual anglicisation the change comes about as the scottish sounds are gradually changed to fit the english tongue. Thus, those of us who can read gàidhlig and know how to pronounce it correctly, can see how Kilmarnock came from Cill Mhearnaig. However, for Glean Eagles to have been derived from Gleann na h-Eaglais or Gleann Eaglais the english speaking scot would have had to read the name and then mispronounce it which is not how this works. Names were learnt and used generally on a tongue to tongue, ear to ear basis which is why scottish names are mispelt in english according to their original sound rather than how they would be read in english by their correct spelling.
            The fact that so many of our Scots place names continue to be misspelled is a disgrace and is, of course, a reflection of Scotland`s colonial status.
            I agree its a disgrace that the correct names are either not used at all or have the ridiculous mispellings used alongside them (my village has both the correct Bru and the english misspelling 'Brue' on its sign, what a load of nonsense.) but to consider this a reflection of colonial status one would have to dismiss all non-gàidhlig speaking scots as non-scots. We are part of the UK by choice every 4-5 years we are afforded to opportunity to leave.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't think a place has neccessarily only one 'correct' spelling and pronounciation and interpretation, though there are certainly more possible incorrect ones than correct ones. I think even if you don't speak a language you should have a keen interest and respect for the names given to places by people gone before you. Particularly those in authority should lead by example. At one time in Scotland there was more than one way to speak gaelic and even that was constantly adrift. I think it was a testament to the strength and robustness of the language at that time and not a weakness. But everyone suffers if modern Scots Gaelic and the old Gaelic place names are lost and we should all make our best attempt to preserve them.

              Where I live we have many aboriginal place names, which we are doing better to preserve that we used to. We used to change names like Manawogonish to Mahogany, and Nerepis to Narrow Pass. Most of it was deliberate by those in authority. Some of it was just local vernacular. We are getting better, but we still are not taking a keen enough interest in the people that still speak those languages. We are too caught up in the politics and not enough in the curiosity, and that is a shape. In Cape Breton also, the remaining 500 or so who's Mother tongue is Scottish Gaelic are a dieing breed. There is much economic interest in culture and tourism, but not much honest curiousity in getting to know real people and learn from them, and that is the problem.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by anSiarach
                but to consider this a reflection of colonial status one would have to dismiss all non-gàidhlig speaking scots as non-scots.
                I believe Raingeanach does actually think this, and he even invades discussions on football to say so!
                There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist
                  I believe Raingeanach does actually think this, and he even invades discussions on football to say so!
                  Hmm well im intrigued at the thought of how this might in any way relate to football but in fairness theres a historical basis for considering only gàidhlig speakers as scots(and until 400-500 years ago it was accepted that the population of scotland consisted of Scots, who were gaelic speaking, English, who spoke lowland scots, and the Norse, who were Norn speaking, and before that the Britons as well.)although i wouldnt bother differentiating at all in anything but historical debate as people wouldnt know what the hell you were on about. In the modern context a scot = someone from scotland and thats that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Consider the case of the bulk of the Northern Irish Prods. Do they regard themselves as being culturally Irish or culturally British?

                    Yet, even the Rev. Dr. Paisley himself still has time left - before he has to account for his sins to St. Peter - to acquire a modest "O" level in the Irish language. Then, and only then, can he claim to be a true Irishman instead of a British colonial.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Raingeanach
                      Consider the case of the bulk of the Northern Irish Prods. Do they regard themselves as being culturally Irish or culturally British?

                      Yet, even the Rev. Dr. Paisley himself still has time left - before he has to account for his sins to St. Peter - to acquire a modest "O" level in the Irish language. Then, and only then, can he claim to be a true Irishman instead of a British colonial.
                      I know where youre coming from Raingeanach but in fairness consider also the fact that the vast majority of those in Northern Ireland who would consider themselves to be purely 'Irish' are completely anglo-saxon in tongue and culture. Self-perception does not necessarily go hand in hand with qualifications/attributes. I would consider the great majority of the Irish population (and i include all political/religious sects in this from both the Republic and the North) to be British (which in itself is to say firmly anglo-saxon) in culture. What with only 70,000 native Irish speakers left out of the population of about 3-4 million theyre almost as anglo-saxon a nation as Scotland, despite the considerable support for the native language and culture.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We do have colonial placenames in Scotland, I tend to think Gleneagles is not one of them, other than its G8 reputation.

                        Colonial placenames might include: Waterloo, Fort William, Fort Augustus, and all of the streets named after various monarchs who rarely visited.


                        (Two can play at George Orwell quotes)
                        "In this country I don’t think it is enough realized—I myself had no idea of it until a few years ago—that Scotland has a case against England."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scottish_Republican
                          Colonial placenames might include: Waterloo, Fort William, Fort Augustus, and all of the streets named after various monarchs who rarely visited.
                          Fort William has had loads of names over the years. The Fort itself was named after William of Orange originally, and the settlement that grew around it was Maryburgh (after his wife). Later names were Gordonsburgh (when the Duke of Gordon had it),Duncansburgh (Sir Duncan Cameron of Fassfearn) and then back to Fort William - after William Augustus, the "Butcher" Duke of Cumberland. This, of course, is probably quite offensive to many people.

                          What's the gaelic name? An Gearasdan (the garrison)? I don't think there was much settlement there until the building of the fort. If I remember correctly, the locals tended to live round about Inverlochy?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X