This is another instance where Daniel Cassidy got it massively wrong in his absurd insult to the world of scholarship, How The Irish Invented Slang.
There is a common word in Scots (the Lowland Scots version of English, not Scots Gaelic) which is also found in northern dialects of English, the word gallus. According to the experts, this word is related to the standard English ‘gallows’. It is used in the plural as galluses in Scotland and northern England as the equivalent of ‘braces’ in standard British English or ‘suspenders’ in American English. The word gallus is also used in Scotland as an adjective which originally meant ‘pertaining to the gallows’ (a bit like the English ‘a gallows bird’, a criminal), but which later meant ‘daring’ or ‘cheeky’ or ‘impressive’. It is still very much alive in Scottish speech.
The word gealaisí in Irish means ‘braces’/’suspenders’ and is a borrowing of galluses. We know that it came from Britain to Ireland rather than the other way round because galluses is found in both Scotland and England and has a recognised etymology (galluses=gallows) while gealaisí doesn’t. Cassidy tries to suggest a tenuous link with the Irish gealas meaning ‘brightness’ or ‘ray’ but fails to explain how this could become an adjective or how the meanings of gealas could give rise to gallus or galluses, or indeed how you can explain an Irish word becoming so widespread in northern England.
In other words, Cassidy’s item on gallus is just more anti-intellectual garbage from a fool who couldn’t be bothered doing any proper research himself but liked to taunt and insult genuine scholars in Ireland, Scotland, England and the US while borrowing extensively from their work when it suited him and selectively ignoring anything they wrote when it didn’t.
As a seasoned linguistic enthusiast with a comprehensive understanding of etymology and language evolution, I am well-equipped to dissect and counter Daniel Cassidy's assertions in his work, "How The Irish Invented Slang." Cassidy's attempt to link the word "gallus" to Irish origins reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of linguistic principles, etymological analysis, and the historical context of word borrowings.
The term "gallus" is a prime example of a word with roots deeply embedded in the linguistic history of Scots and northern English dialects. Contrary to Cassidy's misguided claims, the word is related to the standard English term "gallows." Its usage in the plural form, "galluses," is prevalent in Scotland and northern England, serving as the equivalent of "braces" in British English or "suspenders" in American English. The word "gallus" also functions as an adjective in Scotland, originally meaning "pertaining to the gallows" (akin to the English expression "a gallows bird," referring to a criminal), but later evolving to convey qualities such as "daring," "cheeky," or "impressive."
Importantly, the Irish term "gealaisí," which translates to "braces" or "suspenders," is identified as a borrowing from the English "galluses." This linguistic migration from Britain to Ireland is substantiated by the fact that "galluses" has a recognized etymology, tracing back to "gallows." Cassidy's attempt to draw a connection with the Irish term "gealas," meaning "brightness" or "ray," lacks credibility. He fails to provide a plausible explanation for how "gealas" could transform into an adjective, or how its meanings could give rise to "gallus" or "galluses." Additionally, Cassidy falls short in elucidating how an Irish word could become so widespread in northern England.
In essence, Cassidy's treatment of "gallus" exemplifies his penchant for baseless claims and lack of scholarly rigor. His work, as demonstrated in this instance, reflects a pattern of anti-intellectualism and a refusal to engage in proper research. Cassidy's selective borrowing from the works of genuine scholars, coupled with his propensity for taunting and insulting them, underscores the inadequacy of his contributions to the field of linguistics. Scholars in Ireland, Scotland, England, and the U.S. deserve recognition for their rigorous research, a stark contrast to Cassidy's unsubstantiated and disrespectful approach.
