Cluanaire Eile

Nuair a d’fhoilsigh Daniel Cassidy, nach maireann, a chnuasach cacamais How The Irish Invented Slang deich mbliana ó shin, ba chóir go dteipfeadh go hainnis air láithreach. Caimiléir agus naircisíoch a bhí in Cassidy, duine a bhain feidhm as a scileanna mar shlíomadóir le post a fháil mar ollamh i gcoláiste beag in California gan oiread agus céim bhaitsiléara a bheith aige. Ní raibh Gaeilge ar bith aige agus ní raibh tuiscint ar bith aige ar an teangeolaíocht. An chuid is mó de na frásaí ‘Gaeilge’ atá luaite sa leabhar mar bhunús fhocail bhéarlagair Bhéarla, chum Cassidy féin iad agus ní raibh focail ná frásaí dá leithéid riamh ann sa teanga s’againne.

Agus sin ráite, bhí sé de nós ag Cassidy plámás agus béal bán a dhéanamh le cuid mhór daoine mór le rá: scríbhneoirí, fíorléachtóirí ollscoile, ceoltóirí agus mar sin de, agus thug na ‘cairde’ sin léirmheasanna maithe dó le cur ar chúl a leabhair bhréagaigh. Mar gheall air sin, cuireadh dallamullóg ar a lán daoine agus shíl siad go raibh substaint éigin ag baint leis na teoiricí bómánta a bhí ag Cassidy. Straitéis eile a d’úsáid sé lena chosaint féin ar cháineadh na saineolaithe ná a mhaíomh go raibh comhcheilg ollmhór ann a raibh teangeolaithe acadúla agus lucht foclóírí páirteach ann. Dar leisean, bhí na saineolaithe Anglaifiliacha seo ag iarraidh an fhírinne go bhfuarthas focail ar nós baloney agus wanker ón Ghaeilge a cheilt le stádas an Bhéarla a ardú! Ar ndóigh, ní raibh sa chomhcheilg seo ach finscéal eile de chuid Cassidy, agus ní ghlacann an saol acadúil lena theoiricí cionn is nach bhfuil i ‘saothar’ Cassidy ach raiméis amaitéarach, amaideach gan fianaise.

Mar gheall ar na bréagadóiri a thug tacaíocht don bhocamadán naircisíoch seo, deich mbliana i ndiaidh fhoilsiú an leabhair How The Irish Invented Slang, bíonn daoine ag nochtadh ar an idirlíon go fóill ag rá gur fíric an píosa seo nó an píosa sin amaidí ó leabhar Cassidy, nó gur chóir glacadh leis an leabhar iomlán mar fhíorthaighde. Roinnt laethanta ó shin, nocht bómán eile den chineál seo ar Twitter. Mhol an duine seo, Mary Ann Pierce, do dhaoine a bhí ag déanamh taighde stairiúil ar stair na Gaeilge labhartha sna Stáit gur chóir dóibh How The Irish Invented Slang a léamh. Nuair a fheicim bómán éigin mar seo ag áitiú ar dhaoine a gcuid airgid a chur amú ar leabhar bréagach Cassidy, bím ag coinneáil súil amach d’fhianaise na comhcheilge. Cad chuige? Bhal, is cinnte go bhfuil comhcheilg ann maidir le leabhar Cassidy. Comhcheilg de shlíbhíní gustalacha i Meiriceá a bhfuil cinneadh déanta acu an fhírinne faoi Cassidy a bhrú faoi chois agus beag is fiú a dhéanamh den teanga s’againne.

Is féidir roinnt giotaí eolais a fháil ar Mary Ann Pierce ar line. Bhí sí rannpháirteach i bhfeachtas le teach pobail stairiúil i Nua-Eabhrac a shabháil le – iontas na n-iontas – Peter Quinn, an cara ab fhearr le Cassidy, agus le (John) Joe Lee, a scríobh léirmheas ardmholtach ar an chacamas seo do chúl an leabhair. Chomh maith leis sin, tá baint aici leis an Irish American Writers and Artists Association, eagraíocht a bhunaigh Cassidy le dornán dá ‘chairde’. Nuair a mholann duine ar bith an leabhar seo don phobal, is fíorannamh nach mbíonn fianaise den drong lofa caimiléirí seo ann, drong atá ag iarraidh an fhírinne a bhrú faoi chois agus níl fáth ar bith agam a chreidiúint nach amhlaidh atá sé sa chás seo fosta.

Another Phoney

When the late Daniel Cassidy brought out his moronic crapfest How The Irish Invented Slang ten years ago, it should have bombed immediately. Cassidy himself was a fraud and a narcissist, who somehow conned his way into a job as a professor in a small college in California without any qualifications at all. He didn’t speak any Irish or have any knowledge of linguistics. Most of the phrases which are given in his book as the origins of slang terms were made up by Cassidy and never existed in the Irish language.

However, Cassidy sucked up to a large number of credible people, writers, genuine university lecturers, musicians, and these people gave him good reviews for his lying book. Because of this, many people have been tricked into thinking that there is substance to his ludicrous theories. Another strategy he employed to protect himself from criticism was the claim that academic linguists and lexicographers with Anglophile leanings were involved in a grand conspiracy to hide the fact that words like baloney and wanker came from Irish! Of course, this conspiracy never existed, and Cassidy is rejected by linguists because is ‘work’ is shoddy, stupid and without evidence.

Because of the liars who have supported this narcissistic dimwit, ten years on we are still finding people on line claiming that this or that piece of nonsense from Cassidy’s book is true or that his book as a whole should be treated as real scholarship. Just a couple of days ago, another of these people popped up on Twitter. Mary Ann Pierce advised people doing research on the history of spoken Irish in the USA to ‘read the late Daniel Cassidy “How the Irish Invented Slang.”’ Whenever I see some random fool encouraging people to waste their money on Cassidy’s fraudulent book, I look for evidence of conspiracy. Why? Well, there most certainly is a conspiracy in relation to Cassidy’s book. A conspiracy of over-privileged arseholes in America who have decided to suppress the truth about Cassidy and treat the Irish language with disdain and contempt.

There are various pieces of biographical information about Mary Ann Pierce on line. She was involved with a campaign to save a church along with – wait for it – Peter Quinn, Cassidy’s best friend, and (John) Joe Lee, who wrote a glowing review of this rubbish for the back of the book. She is also associated with the Irish American Writers’ and Artists’ Association, which was co-founded by Cassidy. Whenever anyone praises this book, there is almost always evidence of this horrible parcel of phoneys trying to suppress the truth and I have no reason to suppose that this is an exception.

Rollicking/Rámhailleach

Out of the hundreds of silly claims in Daniel Cassidy’s ludicrous book, How The Irish Invented Slang, few are sillier than his theory about the origins of the word rollicking. This is a word that makes its appearance in English for the first time in 1811. Cassidy says that the dictionaries say it is ‘of obscure origin’ but there seems to be a consensus that it is linked in some way to frolicking, which is of Dutch origin.

As usual with Cassidy’s work, all he has to offer is a vague similarity of sound. He says that this word comes from Irish rámhailleach, which is either an adjective or a verbal noun deriving from rámhaille, which means raving or ranting. The word rámhailleach is pronounced something like row-will-yah, so it really sounds nothing like rollicking. Also, the meaning is completely different. People have a rollicking good time all the time in English, but nobody every had ‘am maith rámhailleach’ (a raving good time). Rámhaille in Irish means that someone is mentally or physically ill. Rollicking is the very opposite.

As na céadta bómántacht a chum Daniel Cassidy agus a d’fhoilsigh sé ina leabhar amaideach How The Irish Invented Slang, is beag ceann acu atá chomh bómánta leis an méid a bhí le rá aige maidir le bunús an fhocail rollicking. Is focal Béarla é rollicking a taifeadadh den chéad uair sa bhliain 1811. Deir Cassidy go ndeir na foclóirí go bhfuil a bhunús doiléir, ach bíonn an chuid is mó de na scoláirí ar aon intinn go bhfuil nasc idir rollicking agus an focal frolicking, a fuair an Béarla ón Ísiltíris.

Mar is gnách le teoiricí Cassidy, níl fianaise le tairiscint aige ach go bhfuil focal sa Ghaeilge a mheasann sé a bheith cosúil leis an fhocal Béarla ó thaobh fuaime de. Deir Cassidy gur tháinig an focal seo ó rámhailleach na Gaeilge, a chiallaíonn caint gan chiall a dhéanamh agus tú tinn, ar meisce, as do mheabhair srl. Ar ndóigh, níl fuaim an fhocail rámhailleach ar dhóigh ar bith cosúil le rollicking, agus tá an chiall iomlán difriúil fosta. Is féidir ‘a rollicking good time’ a bheith agat i mBéarla. Ní féidir am maith rámhailleach a bheith agat i nGaeilge! Ciallaíonn rámhaille go bhfuil duine tinn nó as a mheabhair. Ciallaíonn rollicking a mhalairt ar fad.

Níos Mó Ar Phodchraoltaí Motherfoclóir

Chuir mé postáil suas ar na mallaibh inar cháin mé podchraoltaí Motherfoclóir, atá ag baint leis an leabhar Motherfoclóir le Darach Ó Séaghdha. Ar an iomlán, tá mé i bhfách le Motherfoclóir. Is maith liom an cuntas Twitter ar fhás sé as agus bhí an leabhar maith, den chuid ba mhó, cé go raibh cuid den taighde ann uafásach míchúramach (go háirithe maidir le ceisteanna sanasaíochta).

I ndiaidh dom éisteacht le dornán de na podchraoltaí, is oth liom a rá nach mbacfaidh mé leis an chuid eile. Níl seo le cur síos go hiomlán do Motherfoclóir féin. Is mó an bhaint atá aige leis an drochmheas ginearálta atá agam ar phodchraoltaí. Is é a bhíonn i gceist le podchraoltaí, comhrá éadrom faoi ábhar éigin agus cé go mbíonn roinnt fíricí iontu, is beag iad na fíricí i gcomparáid leis an chomhrá. Cuireann a lán acu (an ceann seo san áireamh) i gcuimhne dom na cúrsaí d’fhoghlaimeoirí teanga is measa dá bhfuil ann, ina gcaitear ceacht iomlán ar fhrása simplí ar nós “Peadar is ainm dom” agus san am céanna, cuirtear carachtair in aithne dúinn agus mínitear suíomh agus tá ceoilín ann srl.. Tá dlúthbhaint agam le teangacha agus leis an Ghaeilge agus leis an teangeolaíocht leis na blianta fada. Cé go mbíonn ábhar spéise sna podchraoltaí seo in amanna, is fíorannamh a phléitear rud ar bith nár chuala mé roimhe agus mar a dúirt mé sa phostáil eile, bíonn ábhar amhrais ann in amanna agus in amanna eile, tá an fhaisnéis mícheart amach is amach (mar a bhí sa phíosa faoi Abhartach).

Bhí mé ag éisteacht ar na mallaibh leis an phodchraoladh faoin nasc a mhaítear idir muintir na hÉireann agus Treibheanna Caillte Iosrael. (https://www.headstuff.org/motherfocloir/58-the-tribe-of-de-danann-irish-hebrew/)  (Aoi spéisiúil a bhí ann, ach sílim go dtiocfadh leis an phodchraoladh a bheith níos eolasaí dá gcuirfeadh siad na ceisteanna cearta uirthi. Mar shampla, mar theangeolaí, tá a fhios agam nach teanga Ind-Eorpach í an Eabhrais. Is teanga Ind-Eorpach í an Ghaeilge. Mar sin de, níl baint dhíreach idir an dá theanga agus má tá aon fhocail sa dá theanga atá cosúil lena chéile, níl ansin ach comhtharlú. QED.)

Agus sin ráite, i dtreo dheireadh an phodchraolta seo, tosaíonn Ó Séaghdha a labhairt go tobann faoi dhaoine de mo leithéid atá cinnte dearfa NÁR tháinig focal áirithe ón Ghaeilge. Deir sé faoi dhaoine diúltacha de mo leithéid “because of the way the burden of proof works, they can often be even more extreme than people who say it does.”

Níl a fhios agam go díreach cad é atá a rá aige leis an “because of the way the burden of proof works”. Thiocfadh leat glacadh leis go gciallaíonn sé nach bhfuil i dteangeolaithe agus daoine atá sásta fianaise a thabhairt lena dtuairimí a chosaint ach dream saoithíní gránna, cruálacha nach ligfidh do dhaoine eile sult a bhaint as corrfhíric bhréagach a nochtadh ag cóisirí dinnéir, ach is dócha nach nglacfadh duine ar bith leis ar an dóigh sin ach saoithín gránna, cruálach. An rud atá i gceist aige, is dócha, ná go mbíonn tromlach na fianaise ag an chomhthoil aitheanta nó ag an teoiric is mó. Ní féidir sin a shéanadh. Tá i bhfad níos lú ábhair ar fáil i nGaeilge ón 19ú haois ná mar atá sa Bhéarla, agus is lú i bhfad an seans gur fhág an Ghaeilge fianaise maidir le focal ar bith. Agus sin ráite, níl sé ceart ná cóir úsáid a bhaint as sin mar leithscéal le neamhshuim a dhéanamh den fhianaise. Má dhéantar sin, ní bheidh ar a shon againn ach drochthaighde agus ‘fíricí’ nach fíricí iad.

Is aisteach an rud é, ach baineann Ó Séaghdha úsáid as an fhocal craic mar shampla den ‘bhréagchinnteacht’ seo nár tháinig focal áirithe ón Ghaeilge. Tá seo thar a bheith aisteach, mar tá an oiread sin fianaise ann gur focal ar chomhrá a bhí san fhocal craic san Albainis agus i gcanúintí Béarla thuaisceart Shasana agus go ndearnadh sin a Ghaelú mar ‘craic’. Ní miste liom an focal a bheith litrithe mar chraic nó é a bheith in úsáid mar fhocal Gaeilge. Is focal Gaeilge é. Ach ní focal de bhunús Gaeilge é. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic)

Agus sin ráite, an rud is mó a chuir olc orm ná nuair a thosaigh sé a labhairt arís ar bhunús Gaeilge an fhocail Bhéarla mucker. Is dócha go raibh cuid den chaint seo dírithe ormsa, cé gur cinnte go raibh sé ag cáineadh duine eile fosta, mar níor luaigh mise an Dara Cogadh Domhanda. Tá an focal seo pléite agam cheana agus thaispeáin mé go soiléir go bhfuil an tsanasaiocht seo ón Ghaeilge iomlán mícheart. Sa phodchraoladh seo, áfach, in áit glacadh leis go ndearna sé meancóg, téann Darach Ó Séaghdha níos faide ná riamh agus deir sé go bhfuil dhá fhocal anseo, a bhfuil an fhuaim agus an litriú agus an chiall chéanna leo, ach a bhfuil dhá shanasaíocht ar leith acu. Mar sin de, nuair a deir daoine mucker in Éirinn, tháinig sin ón Ghaeilge, ach tá focal eile atá go díreach mar an gcéanna i Sasana “but ‘they’re different words and they’re different entries in the dictionary.’ Dáiríre? Cén foclóir sin? Tugann Wiktionary (rud atá cineál randamach) dhá shainmhíniú dhifriúla ar an úsáid mhíleata agus ar an úsáid neamhmhílteata ach tugann sé an bunús céanna ó muck don dá fhocal. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mucker) Tá an OED ar aon intinn fosta gurb ionann na muckers míleata agus na muckers neamh-mhíleata agus go dtagann siad beirt (is dócha) ó muck: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mucker

Is é fírinne an scéil nach bhfuil fianaise dá laghad ann go bhfuarthas mucker ó mo chara na Gaeilge, is cuma cá mhéad duine a chreideann an scéal sin. Tá a lán fianaise imthoisceach ann nár tháinig an focal sin ón Ghaeilge:

• Níl mucker le fáil go príomha ná go heisiach in Éirinn nó i bpobail Ghaelacha i dtíortha eile. Bíonn mucker le fáil i gcodanna áirithe de Shasana agus is ann a fuarthas é den chéad uair. (Sna 1940idí)
• Is minic a úsáidtear mucker in Éirinn (agus i Sasana fosta) le forrán a chur ar dhuine (how’s it going mucker?) ach ní úsáideann daoine a bhfuil Gaeilge mhaith acu mo chara ar an dóigh sin. Is é ‘a chara’ a úsáidtear agus duine ag labhairt go díreach le duine eile.
• Má deirtear Mo chara mar is ceart, rímeann sé le Sahara. Cad é mar a dhéanfaí mucker de sin i mBéarla?
• Deir an OED gur dócha go bhfuil baint ag mucker le mucking in nó mucking about agus ní aithníonn sé aon bhaint leis an Ghaeilge.
• Dá mba Ghaeilge é mucker, shílfeá go mbeadh daoine ag labhairt air sin le cúpla glúin anuas. Is é fírinne an scéil nach bhfuil aon tagairt dó ar Google roimh 2007 (on Urban Dictionary). Agus ní luaitear aon nasc leis an Ghaeilge i leabhar ar bith ar Bhéarla na hÉireann ná ar bhéarlagair.

Ansin téann sé ar aghaidh leis an téarma shamus a phlé (téarma béarlagair ar bhleachtaire), a tháinig ón Ghaeilge de réir daoine áirithe agus ón Ghiúdais de réir daoine eile. Is ceist spéisiúil é seo. Tá claonadh agam glacadh leis an alt seo (https://forward.com/articles/5064/bogie-speaks-yiddish/), ach sílim go mbeadh sé úsáideach scrúdú cúramach smaointeach a dhéanamh uirthi. (Agus chuirfinn fáilte roimh thuairimí David Gold ar an cheist fosta!)

Is é an chomhairle a bheadh agam do Dharach Ó Séaghdha ná an méid seo:

• Déan do chuid taighde go cúramach, ar eagla go dtitfeá isteach i bpoll.
• Má thiteann tú isteach i bpoll, déan iarracht dreapadh amach as. Ná bí ag tochailt.

More On The Motherfoclóir Podcasts

In a recent post, I criticised the Motherfoclóir podcasts associated with Darach Ó Séaghdha’s book Motherfoclóir. I am broadly in favour of Motherfoclóir. I like the Twitter feed it came from and the book itself was generally good, even if its research was sometimes shoddy (especially around etymological issues.)

After listening to a handful of the podcasts, I am afraid they are not for me. This is not entirely because of Motherfoclóir itself. It has more to do with a general dislike of the medium. Podcasts tend to be a bit of light-hearted chit-chat about some topic, with an incredibly low ratio of facts to padding. Many of them (Motherfoclóir’s included) remind me of the worst language-learning courses, where a simple phrase like “My name is” somehow occupies a whole lesson, while we are also introduced to characters and a situation and a jingle etc.. I have been immersed in languages and Irish and linguistics for decades. While the chit-chat on the podcasts is sometimes interesting, it rarely discusses anything I haven’t heard before and as I said in the last post, the material is sometimes suspect and even completely wrong (as in the Abhartach piece).

I was listening recently to the podcast about claims of a link between Irish and the Lost Tribes of Israel. (An interesting guest but I think they could have made the thing a lot more informative by asking the right questions. As a linguist, Hebrew is not Indo-European. Irish is Indo-European. Therefore they are not closely related and any supposedly similar words are probably coincidental. QED)

However, towards the end of this post, Ó Séaghdha suddenly starts talking about those of us who are very convinced that certain words DO NOT come from Irish. He argues that people who are dismissive of a particular Irish derivation “because of the way the burden of proof works, they can often be even more extreme than people who say it does.”

I don’t really know what he’s trying to say here with ‘because of the way the burden of proof works”. You could take it to mean that linguists and other people who actually present proof for their claims are a bunch of nasty, mean-spirited pedants who won’t let people delight in the odd fake factoid at dinner parties, but to take it like that would probably be the action of a nasty, mean-spirited pedant. What he probably means is that the burden of proof tends to work in favour of the consensus or most accepted opinion. This is undoubtedly true. There is less written material from the Irish language in the 19th century than there is for English, so Irish is less likely to leave evidence. However, using that as an excuse to stop demanding evidence isn’t making things better. It results in poor research and facts that aren’t facts.

Bizarrely, he uses the example of people saying that crack (craic) definitely doesn’t come from Irish. The reason why this is so bizarre is that there is plenty of evidence that crack was originally a northern English and Scottish term for conversation and that this was then Gaelicised as craic. I personally have no objection to people spelling it craic or using it as an Irish word. It is an Irish word. It’s just not a word of Irish origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic

However, the thing that really got my goat was when he started talking again about the Irish origin of the English word mucker. I presume part of this was probably aimed at me, though he must have been referring to some other critic as well because I never mentioned the Second World War. I have already dealt with this word and shown that the derivation from Irish is nonsense. However, here, rather than accepting that he got it wrong, Darach Ó Séaghdha goes further by saying that there are two words here, both pronounced mucker and both meaning mate, but having two completely separate etymologies. So when people say mucker in Ireland, it comes from Irish, but there is also a totally unrelated word with the same sound and meaning in England but ‘they’re different words and they’re different entries in the dictionary.’ Really? Which dictionary is that? Wiktionary arbitrarily gives different definitions for the military and civilian uses but gives the same English etymology for both. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mucker) The OED is quite clear that the military and civilian uses are the same and that they both (probably) derive from muck: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mucker

The truth of the matter is there is no evidence that mucker derives from Irish mo chara, however many people believe this to be the case. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that mucker does not come from Irish:

• Mucker is not principally or exclusively found in Ireland or in Irish communities in other countries. It is found in various parts of England and is attested there first. (In the 1940s)
• Mucker is often used in Ireland (and in England as well) to address people (how’s it going, mucker?) but mo chara is never used in this way by real Irish speakers. It’s always ‘a chara’ if you are addressing someone.
• Mo chara, if pronounced correctly, rhymes with Sahara. This would not be anglicised as mucker.
• The OED says that this is likely to come from the idea of mucking in or mucking about and does not recognise any Irish derivation.
• If mucker really came from Irish, you would expect this to be a long-held claim in Ireland. In fact, the earliest reference on Google (on Urban Dictionary) only dates back to 2007. No book on Hiberno-English or slang mentions any Irish link.

He then goes on to discuss the term shamus for a gumshoe, which has been claimed for both Irish and Yiddish. This is an interesting question. I’m inclined to agree with the article here (https://forward.com/articles/5064/bogie-speaks-yiddish/), but I think a proper, considered examination would be useful. (And I think David Gold’s input would be welcome!)

My advice to Ó Séaghdha would be this:

• Do your research carefully so that you avoid falling into any holes.
• If you do fall into a hole, climb out. Don’t start digging.

The Motherfoclóir Podcast

Earlier this year, I wrote a post about the book called Motherfoclóir. In that post, I stated that while I generally approved of Darach Ó Séaghdha’s book about the Irish language, I felt it was marred by some extremely sloppy research.

Over the last week, I have listened to a couple of podcasts by Ó Séaghdha and the Motherfoclóir team. The first one was a Halloween-themed post called The Vampirish For. You can find it here: https://player.fm/series/motherfocloir/ep-62-62-the-vampirish-for

This podcast started well. It criticised the ludicrous claims made about the Irish origin of Dracula, which some fools have tried to link to an Irish phrase ‘Drochfhola’, supposedly meaning bad blood. He pours scorn on this claim and describes it as bullshit. Quite right too.

However, the podcast then shows the same lack of common sense and proper research which made the book so unsatisfactory. I have dealt here with the fake claims about Abhartach, supposedly a vampire chieftain who lived in a mountainous area of Derry. As I have stated here, the genuine story of Abhartach describes this evil chieftain returning from the dead. He is later killed with a yew-wood sword and buried upside-down with a huge rock over his body.

Starting about twenty years ago, a revisionist version of this story appeared, claiming that Abhartach demanded the blood of his subjects and that he was described as a neamh-mharbh and a dearg-diúlaí.

So, this piece about Abhartach on Ó Séaghdha’s podcast is basically a rerun of what was wrong with the etymological section of the book. There is one piece of bogus information denied, then a welter of ignorant nonsense lifted from untrustworthy sources without the least attempt to establish the truth. To be fair to Ó Séaghdha, it is a guest of his who recounts this story. They probably lifted much of this nonsense about Abhartach from Wikipedia, which has a longish article on the subject. It looks credible on first inspection but anyone with any common sense would quickly realise that it has huge holes in it.

For one thing, it claims that Bob Curran is a lecturer in Celtic History and Folklore at the University of Ulster. There is no department of Celtic History and Folklore at the UU. I believe Curran is a Child Psychologist by profession and I am told that he has never been a lecturer, though he may have taught evening classes. History Ireland is not a peer-reviewed journal. You only have to read Curran’s article in it to realise that.

Also, I’m willing to bet the PSNI never decided to dig up a listed ancient monument to solve a local murder, and according to Curran, a man got a cut hand when a chainsaw broke during an attempt to uproot the thorn bush. In this piece of fantasy, the man’s hand is cut clean off by the curse of Abhartach! Do me a favour!

Of course, I don’t believe that Abhartach was a real person. That’s not the point. The point is that folklore is interesting and is a legitimate field of study, with its own methodology. Embellishing and inventing to make the story ‘better’ is not part of that methodology. In Patrick Weston Joyce’s story, Abhartach died and came back and then had to be stopped by supernatural means. He wasn’t a vampire. About twenty years ago, Abhartach suddenly became a vampire because Peter Haining and Peter Tremayne and Bob Curran said so. But where did that claim come from? Where’s the reference, the evidence? Until I see something from a recorded folk-tale or a magazine or a book predating these authors, Abhartach is a revenant, not a vampire. That’s what the original story says.

And let’s face it, if he wasn’t a vampire, he really has fuck all to do with Dracula.

There were other bits that were even stupider. Apparently Stoker’s notes contained no books on Transylvania and no mention of Vlad Dracul. Nonsense! Stoker copied some information from William Wilkinson’s An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia about Vlad III. He also set the first part of the book in Transylvania and makes it quite clear that his Count isn’t Irish. And if it’s true that Stoker had a copy of PW Joyce’s History of Ireland in his library, that is completely irrelevant, because that book doesn’t contain any reference to Abhartach or to any supposed Irish vampires.

The second podcast was even worse. You can find it here: https://www.headstuff.org/motherfocloir/45-2-mailbag-2-furious/

The description said that it was a mailbag edition, in which Daniel Cassidy’s legacy would be discussed, so I was keen to hear it.

A few minutes into the podcast, an anonymous critic writes that he likes the book and the podcast of Motherfoclóir and has been trying to learn a little Irish over the last year. He says that he is a writer and musician from the Irish-American community and that he is from New York. His initials are TW. He says that he has a bone of contention, namely the way that Motherfoclóir dismissed Cassidy’s revolutionary theory about the Irish origins of slang. Plainly, from the details given, this is an Irish-American mediocrity called Terence Winch.

Winch is typical of the pompous dimwits who support Cassidy. “I am not sure all his examples would hold up to academic scrutiny but that does not mean to say that his overall theory is completely flawed.” In other words, Winch is insisting on ignoring all the evidence on this blog and elsewhere, because he believes that there are only a few bad apples in Cassidy’s barrel. The reality is that not only is there no baby in Cassidy’s bathwater, there isn’t even anything that looks like a rubber duck, floats like a rubber duck and might just vaguely, possibly be a rubber duck. I have examined most of Cassidy’s nonsense here and shown why his derivations are fake. Winch is welcome to take up the challenge I have issued to the rest of the tribe of Dan. Let’s see if you can offer ten words from Cassidy’s work where any reasonable person would regard Cassidy’s explanation as convincing (i.e. where the Irish origin really exists and there isn’t a better explanation from English or some other language). Good luck with that!

I was disappointed with Darach Ó Séaghdha’s response to Terence Winch, which was, to say the least, a bit weasel-wordy. In the original book, Ó Séaghdha had criticised Cassidy’s book (before going off into the realms of etymological fantasy himself). In his reply to Winch on the podcast, he states that Cassidy has been described as the Andrew Wakefield of linguistics. I don’t know who said that, but I agree with it 100%. (Except, perhaps, that Wakefield was a real doctor who was struck off. Cassidy never had any qualifications in the first place.)

Ó Séaghdha then goes on to say that Cassidy just got it a bit wrong but that’s fine and he finds the hostility against Cassidy hard to understand and it is false to say that Cassidy was a con-man or a trickster. I think it’s quite clear from this that Ó Séaghdha has never read much of this blog. I also suspect that Ó Séaghdha has never read Cassidy’s book either, because he insists that Cassidy thought the English word jazz came from Irish deas (nice). If he had read the book properly, he would know that Cassidy claimed it came from teas (heat) – though confusingly, Cassidy also thought teas was pronounced as deas in Ulster Irish, information supplied to him by his principal source of enlightenment, his own arse.

Ó Séaghdha couldn’t be more wrong about Cassidy’s dishonesty. Cassidy was obviously a criminal fake. He ‘worked’ for twelve years as a professor in a university on the strength of his ‘education’ at Cornell and Columbia. As his sister (and then the Cornell registrar) informed me, Cassidy failed his degree at Cornell and never went to Columbia. Even Cassidy’s friends and supporters have not tried to challenge these facts or offer any evidence to the contrary or excuses for his criminal behaviour.

However, the worst evidence of Cassidy’s dishonesty is in the book itself. ‘Irish’ definitions were imagined, rewritten, miscopied, and ‘figurative’ meanings invented. Hundreds of completely fake phrases were invented by Cassidy.

That is (one of the reasons) why Winch’s comment is so stupid. He seems to be implying that linguists are being obtuse and difficult (because, apparently, they are ‘threatened by’ Cassidy) because they refuse to accept Cassidy’s candidate Irish phrases on the grounds that there is no contemporary evidence of these phrases crossing between the Irish language and English slang. This is not the issue.

Linguists and etymologists reject the overwhelming majority of Cassidy’s ‘Irish’ phrases not because there’s no evidence of them crossing from Irish but because they never existed in Irish. Nobody ever said that béal ónna meant nonsense in Irish until Cassidy made it up, nobody ever used comhroghna to mean friend or companion, foluach doesn’t exist as a way of saying a rare reward, leathluí géag and liú lúith and gus óil and sách úr and píosa theas and hundreds of other pieces of nonsense in Cassidy’s book are simply fantasy. Cassidy never provided any evidence that any of this rubbish existed and linguists shouldn’t waste their time and energy on the fantasies of a dishonest lunatic. Terence Winch should have known this, because I wrote a blog post answering his post of 2007 and explaining that all the words he provided as examples from Cassidy’s work are fake. I suppose it’s possible he’s never Googled himself but … mneh … Plainly, he isn’t ready to stop this nonsense. You can read my post here: https://cassidyslangscam.wordpress.com/tag/terence-winch/

There is another thing which irritated me. In the same podcast where Winch’s nonsense was discussed, there was a discussion of people misspelling Irish names and leaving off the accents. This is something that irritates me too, but it seems a bit rich to complain about this as a matter of respect and identity, while simultaneously, on the same podcast, saying that it’s perfectly OK for some random Yank to invent hundreds of phrases in our language, a language he had never made any attempt to learn, and try to pass it off as fact. It isn’t. It’s an insult to our culture and language and identity, and fatheads like Terence Winch should be told in no uncertain terms that intellectual debate should be conducted on the basis of the evidence, not on the basis of how good a friend-of-a-friend Cassidy was or who happens to be on Winch’s Christmas-card list.

However, I hope my American friends (who are self-deprecating, intelligent and reasonable) will forgive me for saying that there is more to this. It seems to me that there is a poisonous strain of arrogance in modern American culture. I found an interesting article by Tom Nichols here which chimes with my theory: (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-real-reason-americans-cant-agree-on-unemployment-or-just-about-anything-else-2017-03-29):

“This isn’t just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.”

This, I feel, is what’s happening here. Admitting you got it wrong simply isn’t a valued part of modern American culture, and people like Winch have no interest in learning the truth if the truth means admitting they were duped.

Whether that is the case or not, one thing that both of these podcasts show very clearly is that once fake memes are released into the wild, it’s almost impossible to stop them from eclipsing the truth. That’s why the Rubberbandits behaved like total dicks in relation to the list of fake Irish derivations they spread on social media. Once the genie is out of the bottle, or Abhartach out of his tomb drinking blood, it’s impossible to put them back again. Falsehoods with a good story behind them always outstrip the truth. Motherfoclóir is well-placed to try and restrain some of those falsehoods. Instead, because of poor research and intellectual laziness and a fear of strapping on a pair and offending arrogant American fans of Cassidy like Terence Winch, they are helping to spread this worthless fakery rather than challenging it properly.

Podchraoltaí Motherfoclóir

Níos luaithe sa bhliain, scríobh mé postáil faoin leabhar Motherfocloir. Sa phostáil sin, dúirt mé go raibh mé i bhfách le leabhar Dharaigh Uí Shéaghdha faoin Ghaeilge, ar an iomlán, ach mhothaigh mé go raibh an leabhar le cáineadh as taighde sleamchúiseach a bhí ann.

Ar na mallaibh, bhí mé ag éisteacht le roinnt podchraoltaí le Ó Séaghdha agus le foireann Motherfocloir. An chéad cheann ar éist mé leis, bhí sé bunaithe ar théama na Samhna, podchraoladh darbh ainm The Vampirish For. Is féidir leat é a aimsiú anseo: https://player.fm/series/motherfocloir/ep-62-62-the-vampirish-for

Thosaigh an podchraoladh seo go maith. Cháin sé cuid den amaidí a maíodh faoi bhunús an ainm Dracula, agus shéan sé an nasc leis an fhrása Gaeilge ‘Drochfhola’. Bréagnaíonn sé an teoiric seo agus deir sé nach bhfuil ann ach cacamas. Tá an méid sin ceart.

Agus sin ráite, léiríonn an podchraoladh an easpa céille agus taighde a d’fhág an leabhar chomh leamh sin. Phléigh mé na bréagtheoiricí faoi Abhartach, taoiseach agus vaimpír (mar dhea), a bhí ina chónaí i gceantar sléibhtiúil Dhoire fadó. Mar a scríobh mé roimhe seo, san fhíorscéal a scríobhadh faoi Abhartach, d’éirigh Abhartach ó na mairbh. Ina dhiaidh sin, maraítear le claíomh iúir é agus adhlacadh bun os cionn é agus carraig mhór os a chionn.

Tuairim is fiche bliain ó shin, cumadh leagan athbhreithnitheach den scéal seo. Sa leagan sin, d’éiligh Abhartach ar a phobal babhla fola a thabhairt dó agus dúradh gur neamh-mhairbh agus dearg-diúlaí é.

Mar sin de, tá an píosa seo faoi Abhartach ar phodchraoladh Uí Shéaghdha a bheag nó a mhór chomh holc leis an chuid den leabhar a bhaineann leis an tsanasaíocht. Bréagnaítear píosa amháin amaidí, agus ansin tugtar léar mór amaidí eile a tógadh ó fhoinsí neamhiontaofa gan an iarracht is lú an fhírinne a chinntiú. Lena cheart a thabhairt do Dharach Ó Séaghdha, ní eisean a insíonn an scéal seo ach aoi ar an phodchraoladh. Is dócha gur thóg an duine seo an chuid is mó den raiméis seo as Wikipedia, a bhfuil alt measartha fada ann faoi Abhartach. Tá sé inchreidte go leor ar an chéad dul síos, ach d’aithneodh duine ar bith a bhfuil ciall dá laghad aige gan mhoill go bhfuil sé chomh lán poll le píosa cáise ón Eilbhéis.

Rud amháin, maíonn sé gur léachtóir le Stair agus Béalóideas na gCeilteach é Bob Curran ag Ollscoil Uladh. Níl a leithéid de roinn ann in Ollscoil Uladh. Creidim gur síceolaí leanaí an ghairm atá aige agus deirtear liom nach léachtóir a bhí ann riamh, cé go bhfuil seans maith ann go raibh ranganna oíche á dteagasc aige. Ní irisleabhar piarmheasúnaithe é History Ireland. Is leor alt Curran ar vaimpírí a léamh leis an méid sin a thuiscint.

Ní hamháin sin, ach chuirfinn geall nach ndearna an PSNI cinneadh riamh séadchomhartha náisiúnta a thochailt le dúnmharú sa cheantar a réiteach, agus de réir Curran, gearradh lámh duine nuair a bhris sábh slabhrach agus daoine ag iarraidh an sceach a ghearradh. Sa phíosa fantaisíochta seo, gearrtar an lámh iomlán den duine de dheasca mhallacht Abhartaigh! Tchí Dia do chiall má chreideann tú sin!

Ar ndóigh, ní chreidim féin gur fíordhuine a bhí in Abhartach. Ach ní hé sin an fhadhb. Seo an fhadhb – is rud spéisiúil é an béaloideas, agus ábhar fiúntach staidéir, a bhfuil modhanna dá chuid féin aige. Níl scéalta a mhaisiú agus cumadóireacht a dhéanamh leis an scéal a ‘fheabhsú’ i measc na modhanna sin. I scéal Patrick Weston Joyce, fuair Abhartach bás agus d’éirigh sé ó na mairbh and bhí orthu cleasaíocht osnádúrtha a  úsáid lena chur chun báis arís. Ní vaimpír a bhí ann. Tuairim is fiche bliain ó shin, rinneadh vaimpír d’Abhartach go tobann cionn is gur scríobh Peter Haining agus Peter Tremayne agus Bob Curran gur vaimpír a bhí ann. (An Peter Haining céanna a scríobh leabhar faoi Sweeney Todd agus a mhaígh gur charachtar stairiúil a bhí ann!) Ach cad chuige a ndúirt siad gur vaimpír a bhí ann? Cá has ar tháinig sin? Cá bhfuil an tagairt, cá bhfuil an fhianaise? Go dtí go bhfeicim rud éigin ó scéal béaloidis nó ó irisleabhar nó ó leabhar a bhí ann sula raibh na húdair sin i mbun pinn, is taibhse é Abhartach, ní vaimpír. Sin an rud atá scríofa sa bhunscéal.

Agus lena rá go hionraic, más amhlaidh nach vaimpír a bhí ann, níl baint ná páirt aige le Dracula.

Bhí rudaí eile ann a bhí níos amaidí ná sin. De réir an duine a d’inis an scéal, ní raibh aon leabhair ar an Trasalváin ag Stoker agus ní raibh tagairt ar bith do Vlad Dracul ina chuid nótaí. Amaidí! Chóipeáil Stoker roinnt eolais ó An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia le William Wilkinson faoi Vlad III. Chomh maith leis sin, tá an chéad chuid den leabhar suite sa Trasalváin agus is ríléir sa leabhar nach Gael é Dracula ach comhthíreach le Vlad III. Agus más fíor go raibh cóip de Stair na hÉireann le PW Joyce ina leabharlann ag Stoker, ní bhaineann sin le hábhar, mar níl aon tagairt d’Abhartach ná do vaimpír Gaelach ar bith eile sa leabhar sin.

Má bhí an podchraoladh sin go holc, bhí an dara ceann níos measa. Thig leat é a aimsiú anseo: https://www.headstuff.org/motherfocloir/45-2-mailbag-2-furious/

Dúirt an cur síos gur clár speisialta le post agus ríomhphoist a fhreagairt, agus go bpléifi tionchar Daniel Cassidy ann. Bhí mise ar bís le héisteacht leis, ar ndóigh.

I ndiaidh cúpla nóiméad den phodchraoladh, luaitear duine anaithnid a scríobhann go bhfuil dúil aige sa leabhar agus sa phodchraoladh de Motherfocloir agus go bhfuil sé ag iarraidh giota beag Gaeilge a fhoghlaim le bliain anuas. Deir sé fosta gur scríbhneoir agus ceoltóir é ó Nua-Eabhrac agus is iad TW cinnlitreacha a ainm. Chomh maith leis sin, luann sé postáil a scríobh sé faoi Daniel Cassidy sa bhliain 2007. Deir sé go bhfuil cnámh spáirne amháin aige, is é sin, an dóigh a ndearna an leabhar beag is fiú de theoiric réabhlóideach Cassidy faoi bhunús Gaeilge an bhéarlagair. Ó na sonraí a tugadh, is léir gur éigsín leamh darb ainm Terence Winch atá ann.

Tá Winch cosúil leis na liúdramáin phoimpéiseacha eile a thugann tacaíocht do Cassidy. “I am not sure all his examples would hold up to academic scrutiny but that does not mean to say that his overall theory is completely flawed.” Lena rá ar dhóigh eile, tá Winch ag dul a chur neamhshuim san fhianaise uilig a tugadh ar an bhlag seo agus in áiteanna eile, mar go gcreideann seisean nach bhfuil ann ach go ndearna Cassidy corrmheancóg, go bhfuil na teangeolaithe gairmiúla ‘ag díol an asail leis an adhastar’. Is é fírinne an scéil nach bhfuil á dhíol i leabhar Cassidy ach carn de chac asail. Tá sanasaíochtaí Cassidy scrúdaithe go mion agam anseo agus thaispeáin mé cad chuige nach bhfuil iontu ach caimiléireacht. Tá fáilte roimh Winch an dúshlán a fhreagairt a chuir mé roimh dhaoine eile a shíleann go raibh an ceart ag Cassidy. An dtig leat deich bhfocal a aimsiú ó shaothar Cassidy a ndearna Cassidy cás éifeachtach ar a son (i. cinn ina bhfuil an leagan Gaeilge ann agus nach bhfuil míniú níos fearr ar fáil sa Bhéarla nó i dteanga éigin eile)? Ádh mór leis an cheann sin!

Chuir freagra Dharach Uí Shéaghdha ar Terence Winch díomá orm. Teanga-liom-leatachas neamhleithscéalach a bhí ann. Sa leabhar Motherfocloir, cháin Ó Séaghdha leabhar Cassidy (sular imigh sé féin go Tír na nÓg leanbaí na mbréagshanasaíochta.) Ina fhreagra ar Winch ar an phodchraoladh, deir sé gur baisteadh Andrew Wakefield na teangeolaíochta ar Cassidy. Níl a fhios agam cé a dúirt sin, ach aontaím leis go hiomlán. (Ach amháin, b’fhéidir, gur fíordhochtúir a bhí in Wakefield, go dtí gur baineadh de liosta na ndochtúirí é. Ní raibh cáilíochtaí ar bith ag Cassidy riamh.)

Leanann Ó Séaghdha leis ansin agus deir sé nach raibh ann ach go ndearna Cassidy meancóga agus tá sé sin go breá agus is deacair aige an nimh atá san fheoil ag daoine maidir le Cassidy a thuiscint agus gur bréag a rá gur caimiléir nó cleasaí a bhí in Cassidy. Sílim gur léir ón méid sin nár léigh Ó Séaghdha mórán den bhlag seo riamh. Tá amhras orm gur léigh sé leabhar Cassidy riamh ach oiread, mar go n-áitíonn sé gur dhóigh le Cassidy gur tháinig an focal jazz sa Bhéarla ón fhocal Gaeilge deas. Dá mbeadh an leabhar léite aige mar is ceart, bheadh a fhios aige gur mhaígh Cassidy gurbh ón fhocal teas a tháinig sé, ach leis an scéal a dhéanamh níos casta, chreid Cassidy gur fuaimníodh teas mar ‘deas’ i nGaeilge Chúige Uladh, faisnéis a fuair sé ón fhoinse ab ansa lena chroí, a thóin féin.

Is mór agus is rómhór an dul amú a bhí ar Ó Séaghdha maidir le mí-ionracas Cassidy. Chaith Cassidy dhá bhliain déag ag ‘obair’ mar ollamh ollscoile, a bhuíochas don ‘oideachas’ a fuair sé ag Cornell agus Columbia. Mar a d’inis a dheirfiúr dom (agus dhearbhaigh cláraitheoir Columbia an fhíric sin ina diaidh), theip ar Cassidy céim a fháil ó Cornell agus níor fhreastail sé riamh ar Columbia. Fiú cairde agus lucht leanúna Cassidy, ní dhearna siad iarracht ar bith na fíricí seo a bhréagnú agus níor thug siad aon fhíricí a bhréagnódh iad nó aon leithscéalta as mí-iompar coirpeach Cassidy.

Agus sin ráite, is é an leabhar féin an fhianaise is mó a dhamnaíonn Cassidy. Na sainmhínithe ‘Gaeilge’ a thug Cassidy, rinneadh iad a shamhlú, a athscríobh, a chóipeáil go mícheart agus cumadh bríonna ‘fáithchiallacha’. Chum Cassidy na céadta frása a bhí go huile abus go hiomlán bréagach.

Sin an fáth (nó ceann de na fáthanna) a bhfuil an méid atá le rá ag Winch chomh hamaideach sin. De réir cosúlachta, tá Winch ag cur i gcéill go bhfuil na teangeolaithe ag iarraidh bheith cadránta deacair (cionn is go mothaíonn siad ‘faoi bhagairt’ ag Cassidy), cionn is go ndiúltaíonn siad glacadh le sanasaíochtaí amaideacha Cassidy cionn is nach bhfuil aon fhianaise chomhaimseartha gur thrasnaigh na frásaí seo idir an Ghaeilge agus béarlagair an Bhéarla. Ní hé sin an cheist.

Is é seo an cheist. Diúltaíonn teangeolaithe agus lucht sanasaíochta glacadh le bunús na bhfrásaí ‘Gaeilge’ a mhol Cassidy, ní cionn is nach bhfuil fianaise ann gur thrasnaigh siad ón Ghaeilge go Béarla, ach cionn is nach bhfuil fianaise ar bith ann gur Gaeilge iad.

Níor mhaígh duine ar bith gurb ionann béal ónna agus amaidí sa Ghaeilge go dtí gur chum Cassidy é, níor úsáid duine ar bith comhroghna leis an chiall cara nó comrádaí, níl foluach ann mar dhóigh le hamhantar a rá, is fantaisíocht lom iad leathluí géag agus liú lúith agus gus óil agus sách úr agus píosa theas agus na céadta píosa raiméise i leabhar Cassidy. Níor thug Cassidy fianaise dá laghad go bhfuil cuid ar bith den raiméis seo fíor agus níor chóir do theangeolaithe a gcuid ama a chur amú ar an rámhaille mí-ionraic na geilte seo.

Ba chóir go dtuigfeadh Terence Winch an méid seo, mar scríobh mise postáil ar an bhlag seo mar fhreagra ar an phostáil a scríobh sé in 2007 agus ag míniú nach raibh ach caimiléireacht sna samplaí uilig a luaigh sé ó shaothar Cassidy. Ní hamháin sin, ach chuir mé ina leith nach raibh ann ach comhchoirí i mí-ionracas Cassidy. B’fhéidir nár ghúgláil sé a ainm féin riamh ach … ní chreidim sin! Is léir nach bhfuil sé réidh éirí as an raiméis seo. Thig leat an phostáil sin a léamh anseo: https://cassidyslangscam.wordpress.com/tag/terence-winch/

Tá rud amháin eile a chuir isteach orm anseo. Sa phodchraoladh chéanna inar pléadh raiméis Winch, pléadh daoine gan Ghaeilge a mhílitríonn ainmneacha Gaeilge agus a fhágann na sínte fada ar lár. Sin rud a chuireann isteach ormsa fosta, ach is dóigh liom gurb aisteach an mhaise dóibh gearán a dhéanamh faoi sin cionn is go léiríonn sé easpa measa ar na Gaeil agus ar ár bhféiniúlacht, ach, san am chéanna, ar an phodchraoladh chéanna, deirtear nach bhfuil rud ar bith cearr le Poncán randamach éigin nár fhoghlaim an teanga riamh, a chum na céadta frása bréige ‘Gaeilge’ agus a rinne iarracht a mhaíomh gur fíorGhaeilge a bhí ann.

Níl sé maith go leor. Is masla é don chultúr agus don teanga agus don fhéiniúlacht s’againne, agus ba chóir a rá go neamhbhalbh le liúdramáin ar nós Terence Winch gur chóir díospóireachtaí intleachtúla a dhéanamh bunaithe ar an fhianaise, agus ní ar an bhonn gur cara maith le cara de chuid Terence Winch a bhí in Cassidy nó go bhfuil cairde Cassidy ar liosta Chártaí Nollag Terence Winch.

Agus sin ráite, tá súil agam nach dtógfaidh mo chairde Meiriceánacha (daoine modhúla, éirimiúla, réasúnta) orm é má deirim go bhfuil a thuilleadh ag baint leis seo. Dar liomsa, tá féith nimhiúil díomais i gcultúr nua-aoiseach Mheiriceá. Tháinig mé ar alt spéisiúil le Tom Nichols atá ag teacht go maith leis an teoiric sin: (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-real-reason-americans-cant-agree-on-unemployment-or-just-about-anything-else-2017-03-29):

“This isn’t just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.”

Seo go díreach an rud atá ag tarlú anseo, dar liomsa. Níl mórán measa ag daoine i gcultúr na Stát Aontaithe na laethanta seo ar an chumas a admháil go ndearna tú meancóg, agus ní spéis le leithéidí Winch an fhírinne a chluinstin má chiallaíonn an fhírinne go gcaithfidh siad a admháil gur cuireadh dallamullóg orthu.

Bíodh seo fíor nó ná bíodh, rud amháin a léiríonn na podchraoltaí seo go ríshoiléir ná, a luaithe agus a scaoiltear méimeanna bréige mar seo amach sa tsaol mhór, tá sé beagnach dodhéanta iad a stopadh den ruaig a chur ar an fhírinne. Is é sin an fáth a raibh iompraíocht na Rubberbandits chomh míréasúnta ceanndána sin maidir leis an liosta sanasaíochtaí bréige a scaoil siad ar na meáin shóisialta. A luaithe agus a scaoiltear an ghinid as an bhuidéal, nó a ligtear d’Abhartach imeacht as a thuama le fuil a dhiúgadh, ní féidir iad a chur ar ais arís. Bréaga a bhfuil scéal maith ar a gcúl, sáróidh siad an fhírinne i gcónaí. Tá Motherfocloir in áit mhaith le hiarracht a dhéanamh cuid de na bréaga seo a stopadh. Ina áit sin, mar gheall ar dhrochthaighde agus falsacht intleachtúil agus an eagla atá orthu dul i ngleic leis an fhadhb go cróga agus olc a chur ar leantóirí díomasacha Cassidy mar Terence Winch, tá siad ag cuidiú leis an chaimiléireacht gan mhaith seo a leathadh in áit a dhúshlán a thabhairt mar is ceart.