Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/17/84; site ur-valhalla.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ur-valhalla!james
From: james@ur-valhalla.UUCP (James Beausang)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.celts
Subject: Re: "Eire" yet again
Message-ID: <80@ur-valhalla.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Sep-84 01:29:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: ur-valha.80
Posted: Sat Sep  1 01:29:54 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 05:34:01 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. of Rochester, EE Dept.
Lines: 65

[An attempt at a definitive clarification on the use or abuse of "Eire"
and answers to John Respess' reply to my original posting]

The correct use of "Eire" is best explained by distinguishing between the 
political and geographical uses of the word. Geographically, "Ireland" and 
"Eire" serve equally to denote a small island in the North Atlantic. Where 
problems arise is when either are used in the political sense.

Consider the well-nigh immortal phrase

> What I don't like is the interfamily relation between Church and
> State that exists in Eire today.

which undoubtedly suggests that a temporal State called "Eire" exists. This 
use of "Eire" to describe a present-day political entity is incorrect. Instead
the Republic of Ireland or "Poblacht na hEireann" should have been used.

Readily conceding my "Jack Lynch" on the punt to John Respess'
currency-in-the-hand technique, the question remains as to why then the "Eire"
on Irish coins, postage stamps and government documents. I can only speculate
on the reason for this. Perhaps the anti-climactic break with Great Britain 
caught an unpopular and divided government, still struggling with a country 
emerging from the closed economy of the Emergency, unwilling to commit the 
expense and manpower necessary to ring in such incidental changes. Doubtless 
the inconsistency is intentional, which leads me to suppose that some 
beaurocratic amendment reserved the use of "Eire" for such purposes.

John Respess writes in his reply:

>In the second place, I have to dispute your claim that "Eire" is even mild-
>ly derogatory.
>  ............ And if you think about, it ought to be considered a 
>laudatory term, harking back, as it does, to the greatest concessions that
>England has had to make to the Irish in 135 years.

Two comments John. The statement I make is that

>>Any description of the Republic of Ireland as 'Eire' could be considered 
>>mildly derogatory, 
>>                   .......................................     , but
>>only by those who have nothing better to do than harp on such trivialities.

which is not the unqualified claim you make it out to be. Also, what was
this last great concession? Surely not Catholic Emancipation? :-)

John Respess' initial posting was laudably apolitical, but when faced with 
such historical vulgarities as these from another gentleman of lesser wit;

>By the way, Ireland hasn't been called "Eire" for about three decades.
>Some time ago the country renounced all ties of political dependency to England
>and since that time it has officially been named the Republic of Ireland. I
>think it was after that "communist" Eamon De Valera got into office. But
>that's all right, Trisha, I know how the word "Republic" sticks in some
>people's throats.

(To add to my list, Mr deValera, who was no communist, first "got into 
office", if by that is meant became Prime Minister, in 1932. If not he was 
elected to the House of Commons as far back as 1918.)

I wished to balance my interpretation of the use of "Eire", which supported 
his, with my abhorrance that "facts" which seemed to have been learned over
several pints of Stout should follow in artless argument.

	   James Beausang