Conference tallis::celt

108.0. "VNS - English vs. Foreign languages" by TALLIS::DARCY (George @Littleton Mass USA) Fri Dec 26 1986 01:35

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 1211     Tuesday  2-Dec-1986   <><><><><><><><>

From: Finbar Matthews .......................................... Galway, Ireland

	Another contribution to the controversial English/foreign language 
discussion. 
	Re: Mesbah Captains letter on the "true Welshman" resisting the 
urge to put you right on calling him British:- This is probably also
true for the "true Scotsman" but not quite so for the "true Irishman"
(as applied to Northern Ireland, which is under British rule). 

	Ireland too, like Wales could be considered a conquered territory
because after the British had gained political control of the country,the 
only people who spoke Gaelic Irish lived "beyond the pale". This is still
the case, in that the only people who speak Irish live in small isolated 
pockets of the Country, such as Connemara (Not too far from the Galway 
plant) here in the West, in North Donnegal and along the Southwest coast.
This is not to say that the language is dead. It is still taught in 
schools in the Irish Republic and has to be passed as a pre-requisite to 
gaining a secondary school Certificate here (Hence one must have it, in
order to enter University). 

	A feature that is common to both the Irish Republic and Wales and
has always intrigued me (I've covered the British Isles quite extensively
in my car) is that the road signs are always written in a bi-lingual 
manner. This, though confusing for road users strange to an area, does give
the impression that you're driving in another country with a separate 
cultural identity, for those used to driving in the rest of Britain (which 
is, of course, true). I've never been able to understand why Scotland and 
Northern Ireland have not adopted this idea, as both these countries have 
cultural background of native Gaelic speakers. But then it seems more 
practical to make road signs as simple as possible (so that road users do 
not get slowed down or confused reading them) and therefore use the most 
commonly used language of the country which is of course English in 
each case.

	I think I can say from this that any community that wishes to 
preserve cultural values must, to some degree, sacrifice the advantage of 
widespread accepted standards that are not their own. And this can be 
applied to anywhere in the World. 

Finbar Matthews @	
GAOV08::FMATTHEWS

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 1211     Tuesday  2-Dec-1986   <><><><><><><><>

From: Mesbah Captain ....................................... Kaufbeuren, Germany

RE. LETTER FROM ALAN THOMSON, AYR, SCOTLAND

 Having graduated and worked for a total of 12 years in Wales, I would say the
 majority of the true welsh people do look at their "PRINCIPALITY" as a
 conquered territory. Historically they are right of course. Try to call a true
 welshman "british"; he would probably resist the urge to put you right. Call
 him "english"; then he would surely be deeply insulted.
 It is very difficult to define what conquered territory is, as if you go back
 far enough in history, you would be surprised to see how little of the present
 land all around the world was not conquered at some point in time, often more
 than once. Actually England itself was conquered by the Romans who drove the
 then inhabitants of present day England to the present day Wales and Scotland.
 I suppose you could say the welsh were conquered twice, however, the Romans
 did not manage to kill the WELSH language; the English have practically 
 achieved that.

================================================================================
From: Winton Davies ........................................... Reading, England

...

Re VNS 26-Nov-1986                                                  

> 2) Wales is a conquered territory ????? WHAT ????? - Oh boy you're wrong
> but I'll leave that to the capable fingers of a Welshman to put you right.
> (I'm sure there will be a few.)

Modern Wales is not so much a conquered territory, as an absorbed one. The
history of the Welsh Valleys under the English Iron masters (Crawshaw, and 3
others, who's name escape me), was the history of brutal exploitation and
extraction of wealth, to the benefit of an elite - but there again the history
of the industrialisation of England was much the same... .So Wales is part
of the UK, both employement wise, and structually so. The earlier subjugation 
of the free farmers, to the Barons, was much the same as in England.
                                                                  
          Winton Davies (IOSG::WDAVIES)        


<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 1209      Friday 28-Nov-1986   <><><><><><><><>

    Re .0: Mesbah Captain letter: The Romans didn't drive anybody (or
    maybe only very few) of the Bretons to Wales and Scotland (which
    was already occupied by the Picts). They simply established a Roman
    administration over the natives. The Celts were driven to Wales
    and Cornwall a few centuries later by the Angles and Saxons (and
    many of them crossed the Channel to Armorica, which then became
    known as Brittany).
    				Denis.

    	Would like to make one comment to the original note -- in
    Scotland the highland region does have duel language town signs:
    English and Gaelic and since that is the area of the country where
    the language was used is seems appropriate there.  Scots was the
    language of the east and south of Scotland so Gaelic signs would
    not reflect historic or current usage.
    						H. Donaldson