Author Archives: DebunkerOfCassidy

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.
Advertisements

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.

Cá huair nach troll é troll?

Sa bhliain 2013, thosaigh mé ar an bhlag seo a choinneáil mar fhreagra ar leabhar Daniel Cassidy, How The Irish Invented Slang. Bhí fuath agam don leabhar seo, agus ní gan chúis: tá dúil mhór agam sa Ghaeilge, agus bhí leabhar Cassidy lán den Ghaeilge bhréagach nach raibh baint dá laghad aici le fíorGhaeilge; bhí Cassidy iontach maith ag lí roimhe agus ina dhiaidh agus ag plámásaíocht le daoine a raibh cairde sa chúirt acu agus bhain sé úsáid as na naisc seo a bhí saothraithe aige chomh cúramach sin le cuma an léinn a chur ar shaothar nach bhfuil pioc níos léannta ná leabhair Erich von Daniken; chruthaigh Cassidy íomhá den radacacht, agus mar gheall air sin, rinneadh ionsaí ar aon iarracht an fhírinne a insint faoi Cassidy agus a chuid caimiléireachta agus maíodh nach raibh ann ach iarracht clíceanna mistéireacha Anglaifíleacha a chosaint i saol na teangeolaíochta. Agus mé ag déanamh taighde ar Cassidy, fuair mé amach (ó dheirfiúr Cassidy) gur theip air a chéim a fháil ó Cornell agus nach bhfuil míniú ar bith ar ghairm Cassidy mar ‘ollamh’ ag New College of California ach calaois lom neamhleithscéalach.

Ó thosaigh mé ag blagáil cúig bliana ó shin, is minic a cáineadh mé. Ar roinnt ócáidí, tugadh troll orm. An uair dheireanach dar tugadh troll orm, bhí sé roinnt míonna ó shin, nuair a thug deartháir Cassidy, Michael, an t-ainm maslach sin orm.

Mar sin de, tá mé ag machnamh ar na mallaibh faoi cad é go díreach a chiallaíonn an focal troll agus shíl mé go roinnfinn mo chuid smaointe le léitheoirí an bhlaig seo. I dtús báire, b’fhéidir gur chóir dúinn amharc ar shainmhíniú coitianta den téarma troll, cosúil leis an cheann seo ó Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.

An chéad rud a léim amach anseo ná an chuid sin faoi ‘in an online community’ (i bpobal ar líne’). Is blag é CassidySlangScam a bhunaigh mé leis an fhírinne a nochtadh faoi leabhar Daniel Cassidy, agus chomh maith leis sin, le faisnéis a chur ar fáil faoi rudaí iontaofa agus neamhiontaofa a chum daoine eile seachas Cassidy maidir le sanasaíocht na Gaeilge. Ar na hócáidí sin nuair a d’fhág mé teachtaireachtaí ar fhóraim níos poiblí, ní dhearna mé iarracht duine ar bith a ghortú ná olc a chur orthu. Is é an phríomhaidhm a bhí agam ná faisnéis a chur ar fáil agus na bréaga agus an raiméis a scaip Cassidy agus a chuid cairde a dhíchruthú.

An fhadhb atá ann, de réir cosúlachta, ná go bhfuil a lán daoine ann a shíleann gurb ionann troll agus duine nach n-aontaíonn leosan. Níl an ceart acu. Níl mise ag iarraidh olc a chur ar dhaoine, cé gur cuma liom dáiríre má chuirim olc ar dhaoine a bhfuil an cáineadh tuillte acu. Is é fírinne an scéil – agus is fírinne é, gan amhras – gur Daniel Cassidy agus an dream liútálaithe a lean é a thosaigh seo. Iadsan a scaip bréaga, iadsan a mhaslaigh scoláirí ionraice, iadsan a rinne ionsaí ar dhuine ar bith nár aontaigh le caimiléireacht lom fhollasach. Tá liosta fada frásaí gránna, míchumtha, mímhacánta i leabhar Cassidy, frásaí nach bhfuil baint ná páirt acu leis an Ghaeilge. Sa bhlag seo, thug mé dúshlán lucht cosanta Cassidy arís agus arís eile. D’iarr mé orthu fianaise a chur ar fáil le tacú le hamaidí Cassidy, fianaise ar féidir í a dhearbhú nó a bhréagnú go hoibiachtúil. Ní dhearna duine ar bith acu raiméis Cassidy a chosaint riamh. Síleann siad gur chóir do dhaoine a dtuairimí a ghlacadh i ndáiríre, fiú nuair nach bhfuil sna tuairimí sin ach deargchumadóireacht agus nuair nach bhfuil siad sásta iad a chosaint le cruthúnas.

Is maith leis na daoine seo ligean orthu gur fear ionraic a bhí i nDaniel Cassidy, duine a raibh dea-rún aige agus nach raibh ann ach go ndearna sé roinnt meancóg. Tá an méid sin ag teacht salach ar an fhianaise go léir. Tá a lán, lán samplaí ar an bhlag seo de mhímhacántacht, de phoimpéis, d’éirí in airde agus de dhroch-chroí an duine seo. Ní raibh meas dá laghad tuillte aige. Ní raibh oiread agus trua tuillte aige.

Más dóigh le duine ar bith gur chóir dom bheith níos cineálta faoi Cassidy (agus tá mé ag déanamh go bhfuil na daoine a thugann troll orm ag maíomh nach bhfuil bunús leis na hionsaithe a rinne mé ar Cassidy), tá sé thar am acu roinnt cruthúnais a thairiscint nach bréagadóir a bhí ann.  Níor thug duine ar bith fianaise ar bith nach naircisíoch agus caimiléir a bhí in Daniel Cassidy. Agus mura dtig leo sin a dhéanamh, leanfaidh mise de bheith ag insint na fírinne agus ag rá nach bhfuil in Cassidy agus sna daoine a dhéanann an cur i gcéill seo a chosaint ach bréagadóir gan náire.

Agus gach rud ráite, dá dtiocfadh leo an blag seo a bhréagnú agus fianaise a thabhairt go raibh an ceart ag Cassidy, nach neartódh sin an cás gur troll mise? Ach má shíleann siadsan gur chóir do gach duine glacadh lena gcuid tuairimí gan fianaise, agus go bhfuil an ceart acusan teacht anseo agus mise agus daoine eile a cháineann Cassidy a mhaslú gan argóint réasúnach a dhéanamh, nach cruthú é sin gurb iadsan na troill?

When is a troll not a troll?

In 2013, I decided to start this blog as a response to Daniel Cassidy’s book How The Irish Invented Slang. My reasons for hating this book were numerous: I am a lover of the Irish language, and Cassidy’s idiotic book is stuffed full of fake Irish which has nothing to do with the genuine article; Cassidy was good at sliming and sucking up to well-connected people and he used these carefully-cultivated links to give an air of scholarship to a work that is no more scholarly than Erich von Daniken; Cassidy cultivated an image of radicalism, so that any attempt to tell the truth about Cassidy’s hoax has been attacked as an attempt to protect mysterious right-wing and Anglophile cliques in the world of linguistics. During my research on Cassidy, I also found out (from his sister) that he failed his degree at Cornell and that the only explanation for his ‘professorship’ at New College of California is straightforward and simple fraud.

Over the last five years of blogging, I have been criticised many times. On a number of occasions, I have been accused of being a troll. The last time I was accused of trolling was a couple of months ago, by Cassidy’s brother Michael.

So, I have been thinking recently about what a troll is and what a troll is not and I thought I would share these thoughts with my readers here. Firstly, let’s take a common definition of the term, such as the definition from Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.

The first point that leaps out here is the bit about ‘in an online community’. CassidySlangScam is a blog established by me to tell the truth about Daniel Cassidy’s book, and also to provide information about genuine and not so genuine claims about Irish etymology made by people other than Cassidy. On those occasions where I have left messages on more public forums, I have never deliberately sought to cause offence. My primary aim here is to provide information, to counter the lies and the nonsense spread by Cassidy and his crony friends.

The problem seems to be that some people regard not agreeing with them as trolling. It isn’t. I am not primarily trying to upset people, though I really don’t care if I do upset people who deserve it. The fact is – and it is a fact – that Cassidy and his odious clique of hangers-on began this. They spread fake information, slandered genuine scholars, attacked anyone who disagreed with what was an obvious and demonstrable piece of dishonesty. There is a long list of ugly, misshapen and entirely bogus phrases in Cassidy’s book. In this blog, I have consistently challenged Cassidy’s defenders to provide genuine, objectively-verifiable evidence of any of his claims. None of them has ever done so. These people think they are special, better than the rest of us, just as Cassidy did. They think they have a right to have their ideas taken seriously, even when those ideas are pure invention and they are not prepared to defend them with proof.

They also like to pretend that Cassidy was an honest and well-intentioned man who just got it a bit wrong. This also flies in the face of all the evidence. This blog gives dozens of examples of this man’s dishonesty, pomposity, arrogance and bad faith. This man deserved no respect. He was not even deserving of my pity.

If anyone thinks I should be kinder about Cassidy (and presumably those who call me a troll are claiming that my attacks on Cassidy are unjustified), then they need to offer some proof that he wasn’t a liar. Nobody has ever provided any proof that Cassidy was anything other than a narcissist and a fake. Until they do, I’ll keep on telling the truth and saying that Cassidy and anyone who defends his hoax is a shameless liar.

After all, if they could disprove this blog and give evidence that Cassidy was right, wouldn’t that strengthen the case that I’m a troll? But if they think everyone should accept their beliefs without evidence, and that they have a right to come here and insult me and other critics of Cassidy without any attempt to argue rationally, isn’t that proof that they are the trolls?