New Post
Search
HelpRe: I find that extremely offensive
in reply to a message by blaaarg
Well, if you're American and you are Caucasian (and heck, even if you aren't), and you look at the numbers of immigrants that came into our country, the Irish (as well as the Germans) have an extremely high number, if not the highest. So it would be pretty difficult to find someone without Irish ancestry after 200 hundred years or so.
Plus if you an American and of Irish decent and take a look at any history resource, you'll see that many immigrants, including the Irish had a hard time of it for, oh, I'd say the first hundred years they were here. Sadly, many ethnicities still have a hard time of it. So to prevail over that would be another thing to celebrate about the culture. I'd say it's just like an African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American chosing a name from their background to name their child and honor their culture.
I'm not trying to sell you on Irish names (I prefer Scottish names myself), but I really don't think they are as trendy as you think. Not to mention, English is probably one of the most phonetically DISORGANIZED languages around. Our letter arrangements do not always equal the same sound, which makes it extremely hard to learn, ask any Second-Language English learner. So I think that's an unfair argument, as well.
Plus if you an American and of Irish decent and take a look at any history resource, you'll see that many immigrants, including the Irish had a hard time of it for, oh, I'd say the first hundred years they were here. Sadly, many ethnicities still have a hard time of it. So to prevail over that would be another thing to celebrate about the culture. I'd say it's just like an African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American chosing a name from their background to name their child and honor their culture.
I'm not trying to sell you on Irish names (I prefer Scottish names myself), but I really don't think they are as trendy as you think. Not to mention, English is probably one of the most phonetically DISORGANIZED languages around. Our letter arrangements do not always equal the same sound, which makes it extremely hard to learn, ask any Second-Language English learner. So I think that's an unfair argument, as well.
This message was edited 9/8/2007, 8:13 AM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Yeah, I've found some Kennedy's way back in my tree. I know what you're saying - most everyone has some Irish in them. Which is why being 1/16th Irish is a strange thing to be proud of, for me. It's trendy to name your kids Irish things now like it was trendy to name them German things in the 20's or so, and I bet German names would have grated on my nerves back then too, although I really like them now.
And they did have a hard time the first 100 years or so, but that's done now, their descendants are the majority. (Speaking of Irish immigrants to America, not Ireland Irish.)
And English being so disorganized is one of the reasons Gaelic phonetics bother me so much, actually. We have words from almost every set of phonetic standards in our language, but mh is never v and ci is USUALLY see. And it's so hard for people to get the hugely complicated rules of English phonetics down in the first place that throwing these seemingly random sets of letters around and declaring that they sound like something completely different from what they look like makes me defensive. (I MUCH prefer anglicanized spellings to the original Irish ones. I don't mind misspellings of names if they make pronunciation easier - the main exception to this one being Michael.)
So anyway, I hope you can understand my arguments a bit better and appreciate that they were based on the same set of facts. I think?
And they did have a hard time the first 100 years or so, but that's done now, their descendants are the majority. (Speaking of Irish immigrants to America, not Ireland Irish.)
And English being so disorganized is one of the reasons Gaelic phonetics bother me so much, actually. We have words from almost every set of phonetic standards in our language, but mh is never v and ci is USUALLY see. And it's so hard for people to get the hugely complicated rules of English phonetics down in the first place that throwing these seemingly random sets of letters around and declaring that they sound like something completely different from what they look like makes me defensive. (I MUCH prefer anglicanized spellings to the original Irish ones. I don't mind misspellings of names if they make pronunciation easier - the main exception to this one being Michael.)
So anyway, I hope you can understand my arguments a bit better and appreciate that they were based on the same set of facts. I think?
1
I understand your argument. No hard feelings, just clarifying and putting my own two cents in. :)
This message was edited 9/8/2007, 9:46 AM
1