No Irish Need Apply

Guest   Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:57 am GMT
Is that correct English?
Irishman   Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:27 am GMT
It was an expression used in the late 19th century in employment ads.
Guest   Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:53 am GMT
Yes, it is.
Uriel   Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:22 am GMT
"Irish" here is a collective plural, so it's perfectly grammatically correct.
furrykef   Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:09 am GMT
I think the lack of "to" before "apply" is more interesting... normally "need' must be followed by "to". I think this is a special case, but it's common enough by now that it's accepted.

- Kef
Damian in London E14   Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:26 am GMT
Technically it's correct, but I can't see it ever being used to be honest with you, not in this country anyway. Under current British law you are most unlikely ever to see such a statement as this being advertised under any circumstance so the whole thing is purely academic.
furrykef   Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:05 am GMT
I don't know about that... I mean, yeah, as it is, you would never see that phrase in modern employment ads. At least, I'd hope not. But if you google for "need not apply", you'll find plenty of uses.

- Kef
Native Korean   Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:22 am GMT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nina3.jpg

I don't know why they hated Irish back in the 19th century.
Aren't they one of the mainstream ethnicities in the US right now?
Travis   Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:29 am GMT
>>I think the lack of "to" before "apply" is more interesting... normally "need' must be followed by "to". I think this is a special case, but it's common enough by now that it's accepted.<<

The matter is that "need" can be used as a modal verb, even if it is only infrequently used as such in many dialects today. One note, though, is that adding "to" here actually would change the meaning of the sentence, as "No Irish need to apply" would mean "No Irish are required to apply" rather than "No Irish should apply".
furrykef   Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:20 am GMT
Well, my understanding is that no Irish would need to apply, because they would be wasting their time. If you'd waste time doing something, you don't need to do it. ;)

- Kef
furrykef   Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:40 am GMT
That said, I do think one pretty much never sees that statement with the word "to".
Damian in London E14   Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:36 pm GMT
Googling for anything on the internet can no way be compared with officially approved means such as employment ads or any other form of advertising in the media or similar sources. We all know what the internet is like - it's very difficult to distinguish the genuine and above board from the fraudulent and the obscene. "Need not apply" phraseology on a google search does count for much in my opinion.

"Irish need not apply" would never get official recognition in any context in the UK, and the same would apply to any other nationality or ethnic group, or to anyone who belongs to any section of the community which would be considered a minority, whatever it may be...race, culture, sexual orientation, religion etc....

What actually happens in practice, sadly, is a different issue altogether, human nature being what it is.
furrykef   Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:39 am GMT
I'm not sure what the problem is. The question was whether or not it's an unusual grammatical construction, and I think google strongly suggests that it isn't... where do "officially approved means" enter the picture?

- Kef
Guest   Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:03 am GMT
The expression was "No Irish need apply"; wouldn't it be more effective for you to google "need apply" instead of "need not apply"?


In this case, "need to apply" refers to "applying to a job". As someone already said, "no Irish need apply" is stronger than "no Irish need to apply", think because there was really no job for them to apply for.
furrykef   Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:05 am GMT
Ahh, you're right, I googled the wrong phrase. Googling for "no * need apply" still returns a lot of results, though most of them seem to be referencing the original "Irish" version.

- Kef