An Lon Dubh wrote:
Titley writes the following in the intro:
Quote:
Just in case of ambiguity, “Irish” here refers to the Irish language, and “Irish literature” refers to writing in the Irish language, just as “English literature” generally refers to that which is written in English, or “Spanish literature” to that which is written in Spanish. The term is linguistic and not geographical. “Irish” is sometimes erroneously referred to as “Gaelic.” The Irish language should never be referred to as “Gaelic” because doing so is historically, socially, formally, and linguistically wrong. “Gaelic” is now correctly applied to the principal historical language of Scotland, although it also was referred to (in English) as “Irish” for most of its history. The distinction is not subtle: “Irish” refers to the native language of Ireland, and “Gaelic” refers to the major native language of Scotland, although the term came into common usage only in the past two hundred years, or less.
Thanks for the clarification. He's certainly very insistent that it's wrong to refer to the language as "Gaelic", but at least by my reading of this it doesn't seem like he's suggesting it's offensive, as djwebb suggested.
An Lon Dubh wrote:
Well even where I am from in rural Ireland people will say Gaelic.
My impression is that "Gaelic" was the usual term in rural Ireland in my grandparents' time and the use of "Irish" spread through the education system from Dublin.
I'm inclined to suspect your impression is correct based on the Irish people I've heard referring it to as one or the other, Irish or Gaelic. Titley's wording here seems to imply that he's making his argument from the perspective that Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic are distinct languages, and that this ought to be reflected in the names applied to these distinct languages.
This doesn't seem to be reflected in actual usage of the term "Gaelic", however, and in lieu of any evidence to support his argument that it is "historically, socially, formally, and linguistically wrong" I'm inclined to suggest this is a matter of Titley's own opinion. It may be a well considered opinion, one based on academic or socio-political conventions, but it's not clearly based on any quantitative assessment of which term is typically utilised and by whom.