Scotch-Irish-L ArchivesArchiver > Scotch-Irish > 2002-05 > 1021827926
Subject: RE: [Scotch-Irish] Re: Scotch-Irish-D Digest V02 #155
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:10:21 -0700
>Are you sure that they meant Gaelic when the said he
>did not speak English? It may be possible he simply
>spoke Middle Scotts, essentially heavy Scots brogue;
>though this is really a form of English, it was often
>indecipherable to English (proper) speakers. (As
>Scotts is even today, yuk yuk).
According to the book, they spoke Gaelic. There are a
number of references to Presbyterians speaking Gaelic
in the 1600's and even launching conversion campaigns
to the Irish speaking population. If you are seriously
interested, you will need to read the book. He footnotes
his references, so presumedly you could follow up for more
details on this reference to people in Bushmills. I am
interested as my maternal ancestors left there 30 years
If you can combat his arguments, write your own book or article
and let us know about it here. Nothing like another round of
the "Scotch-Irish" "debate" to clear the list of hangers on!
>Oh, and on the whole name thing: Every reference to my
>Craighead ancestors from the 1700 era state they are
>"Irish"- not Scotch-Irish, not Ulster Scots. Fact is
>most people "Colony Side" if you will didn't really
>care to be that precise.
Amen on that one. We take a huge continent and think everyone
from one end to the other used language consistently (they
didn't) or even gave a D**** (they didn't). I am with them,
don't care either. I can tell you what the experts say and
voice my opinion but frankly, it's a waste of time. Never
led to a genealogy discover.
People who are intersted in the subject need to read a few
of the standard, basic works: Hannah, "The Scotch Irish" and
Leyburn's book are assigned as homework <grin>. Seriously,
then you will have some basis to discuss it in a fern bar
as opposed to a pub <grin>. But preferably not here.