Excuse me for repeating myself (thus making myself very heavily peated indeed), but the name is derived
from Gaelic; it is obviously not proper Gaelic. We have a similar circumstance in North America, where many place names are derived from the various aboriginal tongues, but plainly have changed from their original pronunciations, to the point that they would be unrecognizable to a native speaker. (Think of Alice Cooper telling Wayne about Mili Waukeh
.) (God, I hate myself for making such pop culture references.) I'd bet dollars to donuts it's much the same in Australia. In fact, I'm sure it's the same most everywhere. I cited the examples of Montréal, from the French Mont Royal
(royal mountain); Boston, from English "St. Botolph's Town"; and Massachusetts, from the Algonkian "land of ambitious senators". (
Actually, it's something about the bay, which doesn't mean a lot to those of us living 90 miles inland.) Most every place name has such a mutated history.
Nick, I certainly respect your points regarding Gaelic generally, and you obviously know a lot more about it than any of the rest of us, but I don't think there's any profit in getting hung up on the literal derivations of place names. Who's to say at this point that "ch" comes from the beginning of chladaich
rather than the end of bruach
? Ultimately it's a pointless distinction, given that the name no longer reflects proper Gaelic. If, in a bit of bilingual punning, the folks want to call the distillery and its products "the 'Laddie", it's their prerogative, and I see no harm in it. (Newcastle, on the other hand, is still recognizable English, and in any case I'd think twice before referring to anything or anyone that comes from there as an "Astle"!)