mainoff.gif
lastdyoff.gif
lastwkoff.gif
treeoff.gif
searchoff.gif
helpoff.gif
contactoff.gif
creditsoff.gif
homeoff.gif


The Daltaí Boards » Archive: 2005- » 2005 (January-February) » Archive through February 18, 2005 » Pronounciation « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

T Cortez
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 166.61.238.10
Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 08:44 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

I recently read a book about some Irish people(fiction). Anyway, to get to the point, I was wondering if someone could tell me how to pronounce "Seanchai?"(sorry if it doesn't have all of the `'s or whatever) I know that it means "storyteller," but I don't know how to say it.
Thank you for your help.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mack
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 12.75.178.8
Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 09:29 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Shan ah key

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 618
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 08:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Mack, I really hope you're joking. In IPA it would be [s´an@xi:] and in English spelling something like "shan a *ee". The * is there for the sound found in many European language but not in English. You'll find in the the German name "Bach" or in the Irish word "Loch".

I don't see the point in claiming that this sound would be "k" (or "b", "l" or "w" for that matter) just because it does not exist in English.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seán a' Chaipín
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 81.139.46.187
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 10:18 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Jonas is right, as usual, but I think the K sound, shan-a-kee, is Munster pronunciation.

In most of Ireland it would sound a bit like:

Shan-a-hee

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Smaointeach
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 24.185.223.101
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:35 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Jonas,
Many people who have not had the advantage of formal language study are not familiar with IPA. I think Mack's answer got the idea across.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 620
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 12:03 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Seán a' Chapín, thanks for the "as usual" :-) However, as a speaker of Munster Irish I can guarantee that pronouncing "ch" as "k" is very much frowned upon in Munster and definitely not what a native speaker would ever use.

Smaointeach, I know that many people don't know IPA. Unfortunately, Mack's answer did not get the idea across, it was wrong. The difference between "c" /k/ and "ch" /x/ is as important as the difference between "m" /m/ and "mh" /w/. Excuse me, but I think it's arrogant of English speakers (only a few speakers of English, of course) to "decide" that the distinctions they cannot make in foreign languages are of no importance.

Spanish makes no distinction between /b/ and /v/, neither does German between /w/ and /v/. Would you tell a group of speakers of these languages that the pronunciation of "We will be very worried" is "Be bill be bery borried"? If not, what is the difference between that case and this one?

(Message edited by jonas on February 08, 2005)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dearg
Member
Username: Dearg

Post Number: 26
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 02:45 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Jonas,

You are, of course, correct.

But I think we need a little context here. T Cortez was asking how to pronounce one isolated word in a foreign language. Giving too much information might confuse more than it helps. Sure, you and I might be language nuts, but how many people would want to learn a new vocalization just to pronounce a single word? :-)

Mack's reply to T Cortez's question was "good enough" for its intended purpose. Maybe T Cortez might want to go beyond the initial question and learn more about Irish--and we'd all be happy to oblige--but that would come later.

And it's not just lazy English speakers who cannot or will not learn vocalizations. How many non-English speakers can pronounce any variation of "th" correctly? How many Japanese speakers can easily distinguish 'l' and 'r'? How many German speakers get 'w' correct on their first try?

Even Irish language teachers are guilty of this (using "good enough" pronunciation at the beginning). From my own experience, the difference between broad and slender pronunciations in Irish is explained but generally glossed over until a larger vocabulary is developed. Then it's easier to learn because you're more familiar with the language.

I've been learning Irish for about 2 years, and I'm sure my pronunciation is still way off. If T Cortez's sole Irish word is pronounced a little off, does it really matter?

Just my 2 cents.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 621
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 02:56 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

I agree with you, a chara. If this was the first time I would have heard or seen the pronunciation of Irish "ch" represented by "k" I would have ignored it. Unfortunately, it's literally closer to the 100th time than the first. In most tourist guides to Ireland you'll find a short description of Irish, often with a few phrases and the approximate pronunciation. It's almost a rule for these to give "ch" as "k".

And it's not just lazy English speakers who cannot or will not learn vocalizations. How many non-English speakers can pronounce any variation of "th" correctly?

Very few, at least in proportion to the huge number of foreigners with at least some knowledge of English. The difference is that you will never find a Swedish, Finnish, Danish, German etc. saying that the pronunciation of "that thing" is "dat ting".

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

'djaeks
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.220.230
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 03:03 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Smaointeach,
I'd like add a snippet to this question of IPA. I'm on your side, so I hope this piece will not seem needlessly longwinded.

The IPA is like a palette of most phonemes producible by the human mouth. It allows specialists or learners to write out a representation of the sounds produced in the speaking of a langue independent any particular alphabet. It is simply a code, and a more precise method of signalling sounds than the alphabet.

In English one is seeing the result of Caxtons mixing of Northern English, London English, French and 'Dutchified' spellings (such as 'ghost' for 'gost'). We are cobbled by historical and generally non-phonetic spelling. The examples of this are legion; 'knight' for a word pronounced like 'nite' [naIt] today. Moreover, as many know, Shaw's 'ghoti' is a particular favourite of would be reformers. Some psychological research suggests we recognise written words with the same part of the brain as used in patterns and picture recognition.

As learners, we must be more ‘analytic’ than native speakers. We cannot afford to be blasé on pronounciation, nor rely on a brain to pattern recognise automatically by virtue of Gaelic upbringing to comprehend Irish. By will we must do our own patterning.

Both Irish and English use the same general letters, but they refer to different sounds, so to render 'Tá an seanchaí ag caint' where the source langue is composed of broad and slender consonants with pure vowels as 'Taw a shan-a-key egg kyntch' in a target langue with neutral consonants means one cannot get a good phonetic transcription. It is impossible. Period. ‘Kyntch’ in English above is not ‘caint’.

I'm not been patronising, only pointing out some reasons why structurally, English quick n’ dirty renderances differ from Irish convention. I'm a psychology student and would like to do a study of relative speeds of langue acquisition in a) a control group using 'analogical' methods of sound transcription and b) an experiment group using IPA and professional sound training (accent, phonemes, syllable patterns, phonemic feedback etc) to see who with all other parameters been equal (immersion, same teachers, initial linguistic ability) which group can turn sound recognition into comprehension the fastest.

In the end, Irish has only a sub set of all possible sounds and one can link a symbol to a sound and with practice reproduce it on demand. Again, I am not been patronising, and hope the explanation helps. From what the DIAS books say one can seemingly get from 45 to over 70 phonemes in Irish. Most symbols used in the quasi IPA of Foclóir Póca and some such are everyday letters, just used in a particular context. The only problem is that if one sees the letter /n/ referred to as a ‘Dental or alveolar nasal’ one needs to then learn what that is, and like a cascade one chases explanations. But that is a price that seems to have to be payed.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

deiric
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 216.241.232.218
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 03:17 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

'djaeks, you'll appreciate this then:

The penheomnal pweor of the hmuan mnid.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist
and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you
can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not
raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 622
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 03:33 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Not again....! :-) I've already proved this wrong on three other discussion boards. It seems to be very popular, but I guess that most people on this forum (the other two are not about languages) would never be fooled by this. ;-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

deiric
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 216.241.232.218
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 03:58 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Huh?
Two questions:
1) Can most english speakers understand this? Yes.
2) Is it jumbled? Yes.
Last I checked, this wasn't a linguistics forum and I didn't post it to fool anyone. I just think its cool and it coincided with some of 'djaeks comments.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 625
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 04:17 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Sorry deiric, I certainly didn't intend to say that you tried to fool anyone. I should have written a longer reply but I'm so bored by this claim by now - I've seen the same story so many times. Anyway, here goes:

1. The "university" at which this "discovery" has been made is usually a respectable one. Sometimes it's Cambridge, sometimes Oxfors, sometimes Edinburgh and sometimes some other university.

2. Who are the researchers who have made this discovery? Where has it been published?

3. Yes, it is possible to take a word, change some letters and still be able to read that word. The shorter the word, the easier it is. In this rather short text, most words are very short, giving few options. What is more, in most words the "jumbling" is not random, it is less random than what would be acceptable in real research claiming something like this.

4. Here is a short text in English, I've changed the words myself, according to the rules above.

Tihs peapr swohs the teieecdnns in the paaioaaisttlln of aaoellvr plsveois and aollaver faticrives wehn feoolwld by a paaatll amrxoianppt, btoh wrod-irlenltnay and asocrs word buroeandis. Pliisaaaatoltn is "a snoarecdy aocritlaitun in wcihh the fnort of the tugone is resaid traowd the hrad paatle" (Ladefoged 295). Hctllphtiaeoyy sekinapg, the pesorcs of pltiaaaaoisltn wlil ouccr rvllatieey flrtueneqy in iranmfol and smei-faomrl cxnottes, scine no aoitttenn is piad then to sinundog "creorct". Frorrmheute, iaormfnl secpeh bneig fsat and pnore to eiiplsls, it mkaes a pfcreet gnorud for srdcnoaey pglhcaooonil pscsoeers, idnnilcug pitotlslaaaian.

I'm not saying that it's not possible to read it - of course it is. But claiming that "it does no matter in what order the letters in a word are" is of course absurd. No normal person will be able to read the above text as fast as he would do in normal spelling. I would even dare to guess that most speakers of English would give up rather soon.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 912
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 04:41 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Actually, I think I'd have given up on the unjumbled version, too.

Béarlagar seachas béarla, dar liomsa.

But I think you have made your point well.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dearg
Member
Username: Dearg

Post Number: 27
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 04:52 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A Jonas,

Ah that's very funny to read! So it's not just the first and last characters that we need, but the overall arrangement has to be close enough?

Probably why we all miss typos so easily!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

deiric
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 216.241.232.218
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 05:00 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

So true Aonghus!
Jonus, I agree that the pseudo-theory breaks down when introducing large amounts of jargon and when the grammer is terrible. Your quote was a good example of the two:

This paper shows the tendencies in the paaioaaisttlln of aaoellvr plsveois and aollaver fricatives when followed by a palatal amrxoianppt, both word-internally and across word boundaries. Pliisaaaatoltn is "a secondary aocritlaitun in which the front of the tongue is raised toward the hard palate" (Ladefoged 295). Hypothetically speaking, the process of pltiaaaaoisltn will occur relatively frequently in informal and semi-formal contexts, since no attention is paid then to sounding "correct", Furthermore, informal speech being fast and prone to ellipsis, it makes a perfect ground for secondary pglhcaooonil pscsoeers, including pitotlslaaaian.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 626
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 05:11 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Jonus, I agree that the pseudo-theory breaks down when introducing large amounts of jargon and when the grammer is terrible.

I agree. I copied the text from an academic paper, mainly to get a number of longer words. By the way, when I first encountered this claim I saw it in Finnish and then it was extremely easy to show the errors. It was a lot harder in Swedish and now in English since the number of words with one or two syllables is so high. This is an example I often give:
English: Even in our house
Swedish: Även i våra hus
Finnish: Talossammekin
In a sentence such as this one, it would be impossible to change the English or Swedish words beyong recognition while the Finnish one is very easy.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

'djaeks
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.220.86
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 07:13 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A dheiric, thanx 4 bringing it. I will find use in it I believe, in synthesis if not directly.

A Jhonas, do you have the journal ref. for the paper you sequestered that example from?

Just a little addendum to the ‘jumble’ míon-thread. It is short as not to go too off topic. Taken from New Scientist May 2003, pages 30 to 33.

“It doesn't matter whether you see a word in CAPITALS, in lower case or even in MiXeD CASE, in a different font, or in an unusual position or SIZE… [formatting not reproduced] yet you are also exquisitely sensitive to tiny subtleties that may make all the difference to a word…learning to read [means to] divert brain circuits from their previous uses…the primate visual system evolved to do a different job that was sufficiently similar to allow it to be ‘recycled’ into a reading machine… dozen [brain] regions involved spread all over the brain [which] seem to mediate visual recognition, extract meaning, integrate each word into a phrase and allow us to pronounce them…”

But “…one tiny region, responsible for the earliest stages of reading, [called the] ‘visual word form region’. It lies on the left side of the brain within a strip of cortex that takes part in our object-recognition pathway… this region plays a particular role in the visual stages of reading…it only responds to written words, not to spoken ones [and] produces the same amount of activity whether we see real words or "pseudowords" - words such as "gub" that are pronounceable, follow the phonetic rules of the language, but are not found in the dictionary. In short, the region is interested only in visual form and not meaning…”

But damage to this region means can give rise to “a peculiar syndrome, known as ‘pure alexia’. People with this condition are unable to read words at normal speed, tho they may be able to decipher the word letter by letter, often having to trace them with a finger…patients remain able to write words, yet unable to read them back; they have no particular difficulty in understanding or repeating spoken words; and other forms of visual recognition, such as identifying faces or objects, are often largely preserved. Clearly, this brain region plays a rather specialised role in the visual identification of words.”

I could go on but copyright rules may get infringed as the article is a few pages long. Perhaps such research has been ‘co-opted’ or distorted in the telling or other similar research has been. It is suggested that words are treated like objects by the brain and we are engaging in ‘object recognition’ when reading.

Well with English spelling does it means we have to learn each word separately? :)

Thankfully, the auld Gaeilge is a bit more coherent in that department. Caol [kwe:l] le caol…

New Scientist, May 2003, p. 30-31
Ref: Dehaene, S (2003) Natural Born Readers. New Scientist, [volume and issue no. not available], 30-31
Research by Stanislas Dehaene (cognitive neuroscientist) at Fréddéric Joliot Hospital, Orsay, near Paris.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

T Cortez
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 64.240.180.143
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 08:08 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Thanks for the help. I have another question, though. In another book by a different author, they spell it "seanchus." Is that a different case(are there cases? or is it kind of like English that we don't really have cases like there are in Latin) or is it just a different spelling? If it is a case, which case is this and which case is the other spelling? How do you pronounce this spelling, or is it the same?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 74
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 08:51 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

There are cases in Irish, but seanchus (modern spelling: seanchas) is an other word. It means "lore, tradition; storytelling; informative talk, discussion".

The seanchaí is the man who knows the seanchas... (both words come from the same root, of course).

Seanchas is pronounced /s'an@x@s/, in the English way of spelling "shah-nuh-KHuss" (KH being the guttural Spanish j or German ch).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Smaointeach
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 24.185.223.101
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 08:51 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Mr. Cortez

Seanchai is a storyteller.
Seanachas is lore, tradition, the act of storytelling.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 417
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 05:48 am:   Edit Post Print Post

quote:

Thankfully, the auld Gaeilge is a bit more coherent in that department. Caol [kwe:l] le caol…



The "caol le caol" thing makes it harder to spell in Irish, it just complicates things. If there were a better way to indicate whether a consonant was broad or slender, (other than by the vowels surrounding it), then it'd be easier to spell.

But then again, who wants spelling to be that easy... ? Many people take pride in their ability to spell, sure there's even those spelling contests and all. It isn't so much of a talent though, more of a memory game.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 628
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 06:07 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Yes, spelling is quite interesting. In many countries, it has also served as a way to show your class. In the old Tsarist Russia there was one letter that was used specifically for this purpose. :-) Of course it had had a sound of its own when Cyrillic was introduced, but over the centuries it had merged completely with another sound (e). In the 19th century it was suggested that it should be removed to make the spelling more straightforward, but this was opposed with the argument that it served as a badge of the elite. :-)

Unfortunately, spelling contests would be useless in Finland. Although the grammar can be complicated, it is often cited as most straightforward language in the word in terms of the relation between spelling and sound. Each letter has one sound and each sound has only one letter. I know many foreigners who can hardly speak a word of Finnish but still manages to read text absolutely correct. One Colombian man I know is married to a Finnish woman and their children speak Spanish with him and Finnish with their mother. Although he himself does not understand Finnish, he reads bedtime stories for his children in Finnish. :-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 418
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 08:12 am:   Edit Post Print Post

quote:

Although he himself does not understand Finnish, he reads bedtime stories for his children in Finnish. :-)


This I find hard to comprehend...

Read this sentence:

It's not that I'm talking about.

I recently wrote such a sentence in a txtmsg and the recipient misinterpreted what I intended -- they thought I intended the "that" which may also be called "which", but I intended the pronoun.

Anyway, with speech, there's a clear difference between the two sentences; in the sentence I intended, the strongest stress is on "that"; in the other sentence, the strongest stress is on "talking".

Also in txtmsgs it's common to abbreviate any "too" sound to "2":

I like it 2!
I went 2 the shop.
I ranked number 2.

There are times though when I do actually have to explicitly spell-out the intended word. So you think to yourself how can people comprehend it when it's spoken... ? The answer is stress, we put different stress on different words for a number of different reasons:

a) Because of the type of word, eg. noun, adjective, preposition, verb

b) Because of the relevance of the word, eg. contradicting some-one:

Person A: That book's red.
Person B: That book's BLUE!

I'm not an expert as this stuff or anything, these are just some of my observations! Speech isn't just about the sound you make, it's also the stress you apply to that sound.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 631
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 08:41 am:   Edit Post Print Post

I understand your question. In English, the stress would make a huge difference in the sentence you gave as an example. Not so in Finnish. One of the beuaties of being able to put any noun (or adjective, or quesiond word etc.) in 14 different cases is a great reduction in ambiguity. For this reason, word order is not so important either. In English, we all know that

"Tony loves Anna" is not the same thing is "Anna loves Tony". The word order changes the meaning.

In Finnish you can say "Tony rakastaa Annaa" or "Annaa Tony rakastaa" or "Annaa rakastaa Tony" and they all mean "Tony loves Anna". We know this, since "Annaa" is conjugated in the partitive case, the case used of the object of an emotion. To say "Anna loves Tony" you would of course say "Anna rakastaa Tonya", "Tonya Anna rakastaa" etc.

Note by the way that "y" is always vowel. Another funny thing with Finnish is the 16 vowel phonemes and the 16 diphthongs, making Finnish one of the "vowel richest" languages in the world. Finnish is short on consonants though. b, c, f, q, w, x, z are all either obsolete or very rare - not to mention the pronunciations that in English are represented in "shop", "measure" or "Jack". G is only found in "ng" and "d" is quite restricted to certain settings.

(Message edited by jonas on February 09, 2005)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 915
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:14 am:   Edit Post Print Post

But how would he know what emotion to express, reading stories? Otherwise, his children will be bored!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 635
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:27 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Perhaps they are :-) I have no idea, I can only say what he told me. I have no reason to doubt it, since I know many foreginers who cannot speak Finnish but are still able to read it with a correct pronunciation. Of course I assume it would get boring, but at least it's understandable.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

'djaeks
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.221.16
Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 03:07 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

"The "caol le caol" thing makes it harder to spell in Irish, it just complicates things"
-Fear na mBróg

Well I take pride in my spellin’ as my handle would have you imply, or is it pride to be able to spell at all?

I meant in the context that one could train someone ignorant or Irish and English to make Gaelic noises by the rule (assuming they could pronounce the letters to some decent approximation to a real speaker), and then open up a dictionary and on average pronounce a random sample of 10 target words more correctly in Irish than of 10 taken from an English dictionary.

The reason supposed is that English words are such a mish-mash of words with such histories that the spellings don’t reflect how it is now pronounced, compared to the a b c etc sounds one learns as a baby, either in the standard or dialects. Therefore, a foreigner could not use a quick n’ fast rule o’ thumb to pronounce English too readily; but in Irish it might just happen.

All this is not as mad as it seems. There is worse to come! A trick called the ‘Chinese rooms argument’ purports to enable an ignorant to communicate with symbols and a 3 layer set of rules to a fully fluent Chinese native, by not translating and not knowing what he is saying, and still be considered fluent! Bananas you will agree. If it is ever relevant, I will post something about it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mack
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 12.75.254.228
Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 09:22 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A Jonas, No, indeed I wasn't joking, I intended to give a simple answer to T. Cortez who obviously hadn't Irish. The pronunciation I gave is standard among the non-Irish speaking natives of Ireland since seanachie is usually not translated into English. The Hiberno-English spelling is shanachee. I believe that when a person asks for the time he does not need a course in the construction of Big Ben.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 636
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:20 am:   Edit Post Print Post

No, quite right. What he need is the time. So I wouldn't tell him 11:40 if it's 10:15.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mack
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 12.75.184.173
Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:30 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

An answer not understood is no answer at all

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 119
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 03:35 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Among the Romanians I know is one from the Serbian Banat who immigrated to Canada forty years ago, at the age of nine. He still speaks Romanian and Serbian, but has never bothered to study either of them, and can't read Serbian in Cyrillic because he's never bothered to learn that alphabet. He told me long ago that he also spoke the "Volksdeutsch" that he'd learned in Yugoslavia. As for his attitude about language use, let's just say that if he were a native Irish-speaker he'd be one of those who speak their first tongue sometimes with the older folk but refuse to pass any of it on to their offspring, because "they don't need it."

A few weeks ago, when someone said something about "falling asleep," this guy mused about how funny that idiom was, "if you stop to think about it," and wondered whether any other languages had similar expressions. In Serbian it's "zaspao sam," and in Romanian "am adormit." Nothing about "falling" in those languages.
I said, "In Irish: 'thit mé i mo chodladh.'"

He said, "IRISH? [hit´ m´e: mэ xoLu:]? That doesn't sound like English!"

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seosamh Mac Muirí
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 193.1.100.105
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 09:19 am:   Edit Post Print Post

He said, "IRISH? [hit´ m´e: mэ xoLu:]? That doesn't sound like English!"

Ní beag a bhí ráite aige leis an méid sin.

Port na traenach i mBÁC inné, casadh beirt i ndiaidh a chéile orm agus chaitheadar seal ag caint i nGaeilg liom. Bean Ghaeilge an chéad bhean, bean ríomhaireachta nach bhfacas le roinnt blianta an bhean eile.

Bhí an traein leathlán. Shuígh bean eile fós liom, an tríú bean, ar an traein ar ball, bean cheoil nár casadh orm le roinnt blianta, agus labhraíomar tuairim is 20 nóiméad i nGaeilg go ndeachaigh sí i mbun ríomhaire glúine agus scaoileas féin néal leathuaire as mo cheann. Nuair a bhíos ag dealú léi ar an traein roimh Bhaile Uí Bhróithe, bhí orainn labhairt leis na paisinéirí eile i mBéarla, ach gach ré abairt eadrainn féin i nGaeilg agus sinn ag fiosrú stopanna na traenach le muintir an Bhéarla thart orainn. Ba shin an chéad uair a tuigeadh do na paisinéirí eile, measaim, gur i nGaeilg a bhí muinn ag caint roimhe sin.

Measaim gur shamhlaigh siad le heachtrannaigh sinn nuair nár mhothaigh siad an Béarla againn i dtosach báire.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

T Cortez
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 64.240.180.142
Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 04:12 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Thanks to everyone who helped me. I really appreciate it and don't bother. Even if it was a "lesson about the construction of Big Ben when I (only?) asked the time," I thought it was really interesting.



©Daltaí na Gaeilge