Re: Celtica (was: Maggel)

Stephen Mulraney wrote:

> Tristan Mc Leay wrote:
>
>
>> Referring to anything Irish as Gaelic seems bizarre and not something
>> done.
>
>
> Ok, but it's not as simple as that. "Gaelic" does refer to Irish things,
...

I was talking about in my experience. I thought it was implied, given
that I'm contradicting others :)

>> If I was describing Irish as anything but Irish, it'd be [k&ltIk].
>> As far as I can tell this is normal usage for Australia.
>
>
> Well that's just not right :). *Celtic*?

I didn't say it was. I would normally describe things Irish as Irish. If
I needed to find an alternative for 'Irish', I'd come along Celtic
before I came to Gaelic, just as I wouldn't think to describe Irish as
Welsh or Brittonic. Similarly, I'd describe English as Germanic before
I'd describe it as German or Dutch or Swedish. (Incidentally, you might
be pained to learn that 'Ireland' and 'island' are homonyms round here.)


> Second, "Celtic" is not a synonym
> (synadjective?) for "Irish", nor is Irishness prototypically Celtic. In
> term of Irish culture, the Celts are a substrate, nothing more. They're
> about as representative of Irish culture as convicts are of Australian.

I'm pretty sure I have no convict in me. My father's father had none in
him (apparently he was proud of this) and both of my mother's parents
were Dutch immigrants. That just leaves one quarter...

> And if that makes you roll your eyes, well, that's the intended effect
> :).

I don't particularly perceive Australians as being perceived as of
convict stock, but I suppose I'm Australian so I'm biased.

> Well, it could be worse... at least you don't say [s&ltIk].

The funny thing is that the first time I came across the word 'Celtic',
it was in text and I spelling pronounced it correctly. But the general
impression I get is that at least round here, <c> first and foremost
makes the sound /k/, so that 'Celtic' is spelt regularly but 'cell' is
just one of a huge number of irregularly spelt words.

--
Tristan.

Reply