More On The Famine Sitcom

Recently, I found out that the proposed Channel 4 ‘Famine Sitcom’ which caused so much controversy in January 2015 has been quietly shelved. At the time, I stated my position quite clearly. To create comedy gold out of the Famine would be a very tall order and I doubted whether it would be possible. But just because it’s problematic doesn’t mean people shouldn’t try. And it certainly doesn’t mean that others have a right to censor creative endeavours in advance just because they don’t like the concept. As a journalist pointed out in the Guardian, the right not to be offended does not exist.

Anyway, it came as no great surprise that the project wasn’t going ahead.

However, looking through some of the material about the controversy, I came across a truly lousy piece of ‘satire’ by Niall O’Dowd on IrishCentral. It purports to be a parody of what Channel 4’s script might be like. However, if you were going to do a parody of a script which you think might be insulting to the Irish, wouldn’t you concentrate on the Irish themselves? Wouldn’t you show stage Oirish characters who are stupid and childlike and responsible for their own poverty? I would.

Instead, O’Dowd ‘treats’ us to a conversation between Queen Victoria, George Trevelyan and Dean Swift. God alone knows why Dean Swift is here. O’Dowd knows (because he says so) that Swift died long before the Famine and that his Modest Proposal is a satire, a humorous treatment of the appalling cruelty and mismanagement of Irish affairs by the British administration in his day. Let me just repeat that. A humorous treatment of famine and poverty and British misrule.

Which, according to O’Dowd and the rest of the vicarious victims should be out of the question, completely forbidden, too politically incorrect to be permitted. And then there’s the conversation between Victoria and Trevelyan, which depicts Queen Victoria as a fat greedy cow and Trevelyan as a vicious psychopath feeding her anti-Irish bigotry. So … this is a parody of what Channel 4 might produce? Hang on … isn’t that what you would like them to produce? Wouldn’t you like a portrayal of Victoria and Trevelyan as imperialist pigs?

In other words, what the fuck does O’Dowd think he’s doing here? My first thought on reading it was, don’t give up your day job. My second thought was Shag a fucking walrus, this is his day job

 

muggy

According to the late Daniel Cassidy, muggy comes from the Irish múchta but this theory, like the rest of Cassidy’s theories, is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, as Stan so ably demonstrates in this post.

Sesquiotica

I wore the wrong shirt today, I’ll tell you that right away.

You know how sometimes some people will say “Well, dressed like that, you were asking for trouble”? I’m not generally sympathetic to these judgements, but oh boy, today it was real for me. That thin cotton shirt decorated with a riot of colourful tropical flora was… a bad idea.

I got mugged.

By the weather.

OK, I got outside and found the weather was muggy. Very muggy. I wound up as soaked and woozy as a sot, and my shirt stuck to me like so much muck. Yuck. A rolling stone gathers no moss, perhaps, but a walking son of rock in a floral shirt may be a fecund site for flora to take root.

Why would anyone make a tropical shirt in a clingy fabric? I have a few others that are made with coarse weaves, and…

View original post 245 more words

An Open Letter To ‘Enduna’

I recently received an ignorant little comment from someone calling themselves Corin on my post Niall O’Dowd Has Sold Out.

The man has been dead for almost a decade. Get a fucking life.

It got me wondering, who is this person and why are they defending a worthless criminal screw-up like Daniel Cassidy? It didn’t take me long to find out. Her comment contained the username endunadazi. Having a voluminous knowledge of the Cassidy Cronies and their activities, I remembered having seen enduna before.

On the 16th of November, 2007, enduna posted the following review (labelled AN ABSOLUTE TREASURE) on Amazon.com.

I’ve been sending this book over to my Irish-speaking relatives and co-workers. They just love it.

Thanks to Mr. Cassidy for such an entertaining and informative piece of Irish-American history.

“Cassidy’s book (How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language of the Crossroads)… is wonderful! Congrats to him on winning an American Book Award. ” – Stanford U. Professor of Linguistics

I couldn’t agree more.

Yes, entertaining … and informative … What an idiot! Fortunately, enduna is quite a distinctive name. A little more surfing on Google revealed that enduna is a writer and producer of TV thrillers called Corinne Marrinan. Under that name, she gave How The Irish Invented Slang 5 stars on Goodreads on March 15th 2008. And in October 2008, on www.recordonline.com, we find this in an article about her:

She’s also working on … an adaptation of the book “How the Irish Invented Slang,” …

So, at the very least, Marrinan is someone who fell hook, line and sinker ten years ago for the fatuous invented shite masquerading as Irish in Cassidy’s book. I suspect she probably got to know the Great Fraud personally while negotiating to produce the programme about his insane book but I may be wrong about that.

The reasons why she is in denial about Cassidy and his moronic book really don’t interest me. What I will say is this. It doesn’t matter a damn to me that Cassidy has been dead for ten years. That Hitler guy has been dead for generations – should we start being kind about him, Corinne? Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how long the Statute of Limitations should run on a farrago of lying nonsense like How The Irish Invented Slang? Should we just forget it’s shite ten years after the author dies, in spite of the fact that it’s still out there swindling the gullible?

The toxic slick of nonsense released into the world by Cassidy is not dead. It continues to fester and to be reproduced ad nauseam by stupid and badly-educated people. And of course, the Irish language wouldn’t matter much to a Plastic Paddy like you. It matters a lot to me that the language I love and use every day is being smeared with excrement in a kind of dilettante Dirty Protest by a bunch of arrogant American nobodies who think they know it all.

And as for me “getting a life”, well, I’m sure your life is good, Corinne – and I mean that in the most Randy Newman sense possible. My life is also good. It’s very different from yours, I’m sure. For example, in my life, the Irish language is a reality, not a distant abstraction, as it is to you and was to Cassidy. And I’m sure that in the shallow, Californian media world that you inhabit, you can easily hand out orders to persuade a flunkey that you’re right even when you’re wrong. (Yes, madam, thank you for pointing that out to me. The crow sitting over there on the fence is indeed red and white polka-dotted and not black. It was very remiss of me to think otherwise. Please accept my profound apologies, madam.)

However, the facts remain the facts, whatever you think or pretend to think. Cassidy was a talentless, unqualified narcissist who invented hundreds of phoney ‘Irish’ phrases and accused anyone who disagreed with him of being a racist and a reactionary. That you fell for this charlatan and his obvious nonsense and now feel like an idiot isn’t my problem. I will continue to defend my language and culture from Cassidy, because Cassidy’s book is still spreading lies about the Irish language.

So, why don’t you get a fucking life, Corinne – an honest one! Just drop the denial and admit you were wrong! Because the day I stop defending the truth in deference to a swollen-headed, self-worshipping twit like you will be the day I stop respecting myself. Don’t hold your breath …

Bailiwick

Another ludicrous claim of Cassidy’s is that the word bailiwick (meaning someone’s sphere of influence or control) is from the Irish baile aíoch. This is clearly rubbish for two reasons.

Firstly, the phrase baile aíoch is completely unattested in Irish outside of Cassidy’s fantasy version of the language, although the two elements which Cassidy put together to make this phrase, baile and aíoch, do exist. Baile means home or town, while aíoch means hospitable, and is related to the word aoi, meaning guest. So this phrase might just mean “hospitable home”, though the word aíoch is not very common.

So what’s wrong with this as the origin of bailiwick? Let’s imagine a group of Irish-speaking gangsters discussing their activities in New York in the 19th century. Are they really going to refer to their ceantar (area) or ríocht (kingdom) or fearann (domain) or talamh (ground, land) as mo bhaile aíoch? I can’t see it. It is an unlikely enough phrase anyway, but if I did hear it, I would think of a guest house, or their own house, or even the old home back in the Old Country, not an area which is under someone’s control in a city.

It is also highly unlikely that the word aíoch (pronounced ee-okh or ee-oh] would become wick in English.

And in any case, if Cassidy had done some basic research (something he was obviously too lazy or stupid to do) he would have realised that bailiwick has been in English for nearly six hundred years. It means the area of influence of a bailiff. The most famous bailiwick is probably the Bailiwick of Jersey in the Channel Islands, which obviously has no connection with the hospitable homes of Irish wise-guys.

More On Slum and Scam

In his ludicrous book, How The Irish Invented Slang, Daniel Cassidy claimed that the English words slum and scam come from the ‘Irish phrases’ ‘s lom (é) and ‘s cam (é) where the ‘s is short for the copula is. I have taken issue with these claims before but I have never gone through the evidence against these claims fully, so that is what I intend to do in this post.

Firstly, the phrases is cam (é) and is lom (é) are strange, to say the least. I’m not saying you would never find them in an Irish conversation, but there is something oddly truncated about them. I’ll try to explain what I mean. Suppose you have signed up for some show on Irish-language television (TG4) where would-be designers do up a room in your house. Someone paints your living room in forty shades of green. There you are, looking at your green room. Do you say, Is glas é or Is glas? Absolutely not. You might say Tá sé iontach glas, nach bhfuil? (It’s very green, isn’t it?) But you are not likely to say Is glas é. Short phrases with the copula like this are only likely to be used to echo another, more informative comment, like the English It sure is or So they say. They are phrases that belong in a particular context and don’t have much meaning outside of that context.

The same applies to is cam é and is lom é. They are odd and really don’t mean a lot. Furthermore, even if these phrases meant anything, why would they be used as nouns? Could you really see someone in English saying He pulled an it is crooked on me? Because I can’t.

In the case of slum, there is another major reason for doubting Cassidy’s claim. The word lom does mean bleak, but its basic meaning is bare or empty. Think of the favelas of Brazil, the slums of Mumbai, the East End in the days of Jack the Ripper. Do they really make you think of emptiness and bareness? To me, slums are teeming, heaving, full of activity, people, animals. A desert is lom. A slum is anything but lom.

Then again, Cassidy talked about “cutting through two hundred years of academic baloney” in this book. In fact, what Cassidy did was cut out and discard anything at all which didn’t fit in with the particular idiotic claim he was making at the time. Because of this, he simply says that scam and slum are claimed to be origin unknown. In fact, while there is no certainty about their origins, there is no shortage of contenders.

In the case of slum, the word first makes its appearance in English in England in the early years of the nineteenth century. At that time, it meant a cheap lodging, so it is probably a shortened form of slumber. In modern Irish, the two words for slum are plódcheantar (a throng-area) or sluma, a borrowing from English. What would an Irish speaker in the 19th century have called a slum? It’s hard to say, but they might have called it ceantar bocht (a poor area), coinicéar (a rabbit warren), na brocaisí (the hovels, the smelly places), or cathair ghríobháin (a griffin-city, a labyrinth). Not is lom é!

As for scam, this word first occurs in America in the 1960s. There are many possible explanations. It could be from scamp, meaning a swindler. Or from scheme. Or from a group of related words in French, Spanish and Portuguese meaning to disappear or to swindle. The most likely of these is escamotear in Spanish. Me han escamoteado mil dolares means “they stole a thousand dollars from me. “ Cassidy’s suggestion is so unlikely that it really isn’t worth bothering with, just like the rest of the insulting nonsense in this book.

wmARZK3heV

How Not To Think Like An Idiot

Thinking rationally is important. It is also something which can be taught. While some people are more logical and rational than others by nature, just as some people have a better ear for music or are more athletic than others, this doesn’t mean that people can’t learn to recognise duff arguments and illogical thinking. Over the centuries, philosophers have developed a host of terms for foolish and unreasonable arguments. It is interesting to look back over the arguments used by the supporters of the late Daniel Cassidy and identify some of the logical fallacies and crap thinking which motivate them.

Straw man arguments. Essentially, a straw man argument is an argument which purports to challenge the arguments of the other side but really misrepresents their position, giving a version which is much easier to knock down. For example, Cassidy’s sheeple tend to argue that the Irish speakers who challenge Cassidy are doing so because we don’t believe the Irish language would have been rich enough to give expressions to English. (This is also an example of another fallacy, the false dichotomy. Cassidy’s supporters pretend there are two choices: a) Irish was rich and expressive and gave many words to English, and b) Irish was a worthless language which English ignored because there was nothing worth having in it. In reality, of course, there are other choices, such as my position, that Irish is and was a beautiful and expressive language, but because of circumstances which have nothing to do with its intrinsic merit, it had little or no influence on English.) Another straw man argument, used by certain silly and ignorant people who support Cassidy, is that people like me don’t accept the Irish influence on English because we don’t believe there were Irish speakers in America. In reality, we know that generations of people have left Gaeltacht areas in the west of Ireland and settled in the States but this fact has nothing at all to do with the ridiculous phoney Irish given in Cassidy’s book.

The genetic fallacy. This is where you argue not on the basis of the merits of the case presented, but on the basis that people like that can’t be right. In other words, if the people at the Oxford English Dictionary make a claim about a word, that claim is intrinsically untrustworthy because Oxford is a bastion of Anglophile privilege. This is a version of the ad hominem fallacy, where the opinion that Mr X is a dick is used to argue that Mr X’s opinions must also be stupid. Incidentally, many of Cassidy’s supporters have misused the ad hominem label in criticising myself and other opponents of Cassidy. An ad hominem argument is one which uses criticism of the person instead of an argument. Saying that Cassidy was a liar because all his ‘research’ was made up and he didn’t speak any Irish is not an ad hominem argument.

Appeal to (Inappropriate) Authority. Cassidy loved nothing better than to reel off a list of American and Irish professors and writers who had endorsed his work. In most cases these people were not language specialists and knew as little as he did about slang and Irish. In most cases, they were also close personal friends of his, which means that their support is worth precisely nothing.

Subjectivism (Also known as the Fallacy of the Irrefutable Hypothesis.) Really stupid people rarely get much further than these kind of arguments. I want there to be lots of words of Irish origin in English, therefore there must be lots of words of Irish origin in English. Or I thought Daniel Cassidy was a genius, therefore Daniel Cassidy must have been a genius. Yeah right … And Donald Trump is going to solve all your problems too …

The non sequitur. This literally means “it does not follow” in Latin. Apparently, some of Cassidy’s followers believe that English must be full of Irish loan words because Irish people talk a lot. I don’t know whether this is really true or not. I’ve never seen any research into it. I can tell you for nothing that the Irish don’t respect people who blether a lot. Irish people respect those who can talk well, who are witty, who know what they are talking about. Bullshitters and loudmouths like Cassidy are no more respected in Irish culture than in any other. And even if it were true that the Irish are incredibly loquacious, it would not automatically mean that English must contain lots of borrowings from Irish. You can say it as often as you like, but it won’t make it any truer. (That’s another fallacy, argument from repetition.)

The Anecdotal Fallacy. This seems to be what is going on here, where Sean Sweeney (God love his wit, what a clown!) mentions the fact that his Irish-speaking father used some of the “unknown” words given by Cassidy.

Perhaps Cassidy overreached on some, but the fact remains most of the Anglophilic dictionaries list the etymology of words he addresses as “unknown”, an amazing deficit, despite their slew of researchers and experts to trace the origins. Talking about “shit”. I’ve seen these same dictionaries deem as “unknown” words that I heard my Irish-speaking father use when I was a child. Not saying it applies to you, but “No Irish Need Apply” is still alive and well in some modern linguistic circles.

Anyone with any capacity for rational thought would immediately realise that this is completely irrelevant. These words were presumably spoken by his father in English and I see no evidence that Sweeney ever learned Irish. So were all the words used by his father in English derived from Irish? Did he ever say words like pizza, toreador, blitzkrieg, karate, kummerbund, bagel? Are these all from Irish too? Or did he give some special sign to show that the word in question came from Irish? Perhaps he went all dreamy and gazed off into the middle distance. Ah, lollygag, Seany boy. Dat’s one from da ouuuuuuld language … Yeah, right! What a clown!

The ‘real criminals’ fallacy. I can’t find an established name for this so I’ve made one up. Picture the scene: it’s a couple of days before Christmas and a drunken businessman is standing beside his BMW being breathalysed by a policeman. “Why don’t choo go and cash shome real criminalsh?” says the drunk driver. In other words, according to these people, there is a hierarchy of things to be done in the world, but protecting the Irish language from a creep like Cassidy should be way down the list. “Yes, maybe our friend Danny was a liar and a cheat. But is this really so important? What about world poverty, radicalisation, global warming, the refugee crisis? Why don’t you blog about them?” The answer is, of course, that the Irish language matters to me. And as for the other subjects, I don’t know much about solving world poverty or the war in Syria. So, I choose to blog about a subject where I have a specialist knowledge. Cassidy may not have been the worst criminal in history but he was definitely a criminal and he and his scummy followers deserve to be challenged and shamed.

 

 

Cassidy and Sexual Harassment

I haven ‘t been posting much recently but I decided that it was high time I gave a brief update.

In spite of what Cassidy’s friends and supporters say, there has never been any doubt about the worthlessness of Cassidy’s research. Anyone can log on and examine an online Irish dictionary to discover that almost all of Cassidy’s claims about the Irish language are untrue. And if that isn’t enough to convince them, they can look up etymological dictionaries of English to see how Cassidy lied and distorted the truth about the known origin of the words in Cassidy’s book.

In addition to that, it has often been claimed that Cassidy had degrees from Cornell and Colombia Universities. In fact, Cassidy attended Cornell but never received a degree, and he certainly never received any qualifications from Colombia. Not only was his ‘research’ a fraud, but Cassidy himself was a fraudster and a criminal.

Then a couple of weeks ago, we received a message from Colleen Whalen, who studied at New College of California for a semester and was unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of Cassidy’s bullying and arrogance. She also informed us (and this is an allegation I find entirely convincing) that Cassidy often sexually harassed female students at New College.

So, Daniel Cassidy was incompetent, arrogant, a fraud, a criminal, a plagiarist and worse still, he was apparently a letch. A worthless piece of shit. Yet for some reason, many people still choose to defend this creep. None of Cassidy’s Cronies has repudiated him or accepted the truth about this lying sleazebag. They are probably comfortable enough with maintaining their silence. After all, this blog has only had about 23,000 hits in its history. Apparently, it doesn’t bother the Cronies, people like Peter Quinn and Michael Patrick MacDonald, that the few thousand people who find their way to this site know that their friend was a criminal fraud and that they don’t care enough about the truth to put things right. However, the fact is, the readers of this blog and the many people who have stopped by to lend their support and provide information know exactly what kind of person Cassidy was and what kind of people his supporters are. And the people who support him know what they are, even if some them aren’t prepared to admit that, even to themselves.