Hi!
I’m not sure whether you’ve discussed the same topic here already, but still. What is the correct way of pronouncing loan words, especially the ones that are recent English borrowings? Do I have to stick to their English pronunciation or read them according to the rules of the dialect I learn?
For example, consider the word hiopno/isigh. I know the way the initial syllable is pronounced in English [hip-]. But you see I feel like saying [x’up-] in Irish, treating it the same way as thiocfainn or mo shiopa. Or do words like this have to be closer in pronunciation to the source-words? So [hipno:s’@] vs. [x’upno:s’@] (Connemara Irish).
Thanks

Just pronounce as native speakers do :)

That’s actually what I want to know – the way they pronounce. I haven’t heard any say that, I don’t even think they would use this word… Though it exists in Irish. So?

If they don't, just pronounce as it should be according to your dialect.

Anyway i'd say [hipno:s’@] is better.

Thank you… for understanding :) At least both variants are quite Irish, that couldn’t but please me. :)))
By the way, Lughaidh, once you wrote here there are four different r’s in the Irish you use. I believe you meant tensed and laxed r’s and their palatalised counterparts. Could it be so? I hear this trait has been extinct for tens of years in Ireland, but preserved in Scottish – I mean distinguishing between the tensed and the laxed r’s. At least my books say so. Thanks

In traditional Donegal Irish (old people), there are 4 r's,

R r R' r'


but younger speakers only distinguish 2 or 3:

(R) r r'

Thank you!

Lughaidh,
could you exlain the tensed palatised r /R'/ ? I have not heard it, and have not seen it's palletogram anywhere. By my reckoning, /R/ is most often, nowadays at least, a more tensed version of /r/. Is this the case for /R'/ ?

/R/ isn't really tenser, just /r/ is done with one tap of the tip of the tongue on the alveolar ridge, /R/ with several taps (spanish perrrrrrrro).

I think /R'/ is just a bit longer than /r'/ . Nowadays /R/ and /R'/ are rare except in older people (especially seanchaithe) speech. When you speak fast (as we do in Donegal), you can't pronounce too long sounds.

Hi!
Look, what about “euro”? How to pronounce this “Irish” word? :) I can’t make it out.
Peter

http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eor%C3%B3

eoró?

I guess it begins little like í, only shorter and with slightly different quality with /o/ thrown in (making a diphthong), with /r/ then /ó/

/i:oro:/ is perhaps too broad a transcription

So it is eoró. Funny. My dictionary - Oxford Irish Minidictionary 1999 - says it is euro. I quote:

"the euro - an euro
the value of the euro - luach an euro
the number of euros - líon na euronna (!)
( Note that "euro", unlike other nouns in Irish, has no gender or declension)"

I believe things have changed since the publishing of that dictionary. Then it is certainly [ o:ro: ] and [ @ t'o:ro: ] for an t-eoró.
Thanks.
Peter

>>( Note that "euro", unlike other nouns in Irish, has no gender or declension)"

I don't see how that could be possible. Gender is not an option: in Irish (as in French or any other language where gender appears), nouns whether they are loan words or not are bound to fall into one of the two categories masculine or feminine.
For instance, look at the 3rd person singular pronouns: it's "sé" or "sí", and there's no alternative.

Now my guess about euro is that: at the time it entered the Irish lexicon, it had the possibility to be either masculine or feminine, and there was a tendency not to follow the phonetical changes that normally occur according to the different contexts (lenition of adjectives, prefixed "t" or "h", etc.).
here:
"an euro" shows it's feminine, otherwise it would be "an t-euro";
but "luach an euro" shows it's masculine, otherwise it would be "na heuro"

Now it appears that the "uncertainty" apropos of the gender of "euro" or rather "eoró" has given place to an established "masculine gender", rendered in "an t-eoró"

In Donegal Gaeltacht, people say "euró" as /ju:ro/ ("ghiúró"). I don't know if it's masculine or feminine in that dialect.

There was a discussion on Wikipedia as Gaeilge about this as well, it's somewhat undecided still. Lughaidh, as an Irish speaker in the Gaeltacht, is euro/eoró formed as masculine or feminine? And how is it spelt, if/when spelt.

Also, Max, where did you see that it's been rendered masculine?

Peter wrote : "an t-eoró"

The prefixed "t" shows the noun is masculine.

I assumed it was the habitual way of saying it today (as opposed to "an eoró")...

I asked the same question about the gender of "euro" on the Gaeilge-A list back in 2000. Vincent Morley -- who did the Irish-language version of Google and whose judgment in linguistic matters is well nigh impeccable in my opinion -- replied as follows:

Focal gan inscne is ea é:
ainmneach - 'an euro'
ginideach - 'luach an euro'

As I said above : "non-gender" is not an option...

Simple question: when refering to "eoró", would sé or sí be used?

é and sé are generally used for abstract non-gender things, eg. Is féidir é or B'fhéidir é. I don't like it not having a gender though, seems like a complete bastardisation of the language. What would Foras na Gaeilge have to say about it I wonder?

Firstly "euro" is unique in that is begins with a y-glide. I'm not of aware any noun in Irish that begins with a y-glide or a w-glide.

Point 1) It starts with a weird sound.

This is the first thing that perverts this noun away from the usual grammar rules.


Point 2) It ends with a vowel. This would strongly suggest it's masculine, as upwards of 95% of such nouns are masculine.

We've already established in English that "euro" has no plural, so I'd presume we'd all follow suit:

Nominative singular: euro
Nominative plural: euro
Genitive singular: euro
Genitive plural: euro

I'm keeping the foreign spelling as you can see, that's one of the things the EU wanted.

Okay, so firstly, I'm going to try say "I like the euro". Even though it's masculine, I'm still going to say:

Is maith liom an Euro

And that's because "an t-euro" sounds very unnatural because of that y-glide. Maybe some people disagree with me here, but that's how I see it. I would however stick an urú on it in places. Here's how I'd use it:

Is maith liom an euro!
Tá ceithre euro agam.
Tá ocht n-euro agam.
An bhfuil tú ag comháireamh d'euro? (Are you counting your euro?)
Táim ag lorg na n-euro ar bhailigh muid (I'm looking for the euro we collected.)

So in summation:

1) It's masculine
2) I don't stick a "t-" on it, it doesn't sound right.
3) Its lenited form is "euro" -- vowels can't be lenited as we all know.
4) Its urú'ed form is "n-euro" or "nEuro".

Vowels And Consonants:


The spelling "eoró" suggests the word should be pronounced [oro:].

Now, if the pronunciation of that word is [juro(:)], here's what we have:

1/ Ó Siadhail gives "Ghiúdach" [ju:d@x] for "Jewish", which means that at least in Cois Fhairrge Irish, certain nouns (or rather: roots) begin whith [j].

2/ [j] is supposingly the lenited form of [g'] (or [d']), but since it's now a phoneme in its own right, any (new-coined) noun can begin with it (in any dialect).

3/ [j] belongs to the consonantic system in Irish (as opposed to certain other languages where it belongs to the vocalic system)

4/ [j] has no lenited form or eclipsed form, for obvious diachronical reasons

5/ As a consequence:
- "euro" [ju:ro(:)] doesn't begin with a vowel as the EU spelling has it, but by a consonant (and would better be spelt something like "ghiúró"),
- it has no lenited or eclipsed form (simply because it cannot)
- if it's masculine, "the euro" should therefore be "an euro" [@ ju:ro(:)] and "the value of the euro" be "luach an euro" [Lu@x @ ju:ro(:)]

Apart from the spelling, we can see that it's absolutely regular... But my guess is that the spelling (and the unusual [j] at the beginning) is confusing people into applying weird rules to it (like the urú above).

It may take some time for people to realize that "euro" has a gender (because it cannot not have one - it's a given feature of the language) and that there is no reason to treat it differently from the other nouns in the language.

quote:

The spelling "eoró" suggests the word should be pronounced [oro:].

I have yet to see someone actually use this spelling.

quote:

1/ Ó Siadhail gives "Ghiúdach" [ju:d@x] for "Jewish", which means that at least in Cois Fhairrge Irish, certain nouns (or rather: roots) begin whith [j].

Incorrect. Burn that dictionary.

The word in question is "giúdach". It begins with the consonant "g" (both written and pronounced) and it's followed by a y-glide. There are a handful of words in Irish whose root form actually has a séimhiú, very few though. Some examples: chomh, chuig. None of them start with a y-glide or a w-glide.

No noun in Irish begins with a y-glide or a w-glide. "euro" breaks the mould. As such, it's perfectly entitled to break the rules. If we want it to be masculine, we can say:

Is euro é.

But when we go to stick a "t" on it, it sounds arkward (in my humble opinion):

an t-euro

As such, I would be inclined to leave out the "t-", but other than that, give it masculine noun treatment.

Even if it were feminine, the y-glide would still be arkward in:

ag lorg na heuro

quote:

[j] is supposingly the lenited form of [g'] (or [d']), but since it's now a phoneme in its own right, any (new-coined) noun can begin with it (in any dialect).

Give me an example and I'll eat my hat. Or I'll at least believe you.

You are correct that every noun in Irish has a defined gender, though don't be led to believe that everyone follows the rules...

Here's two transgendered nouns. They are both masculine, but act as though they're feminine:

teach ( bean an tí ) - This is a feminine conjugation
sliabh ( barr an tsléibhe ) - Again, a feminine conjugation.

Also note that "gender" isn't always analogus with sexual gender:

an cailín

I think i've already seen or heard "eurónnaí" somewhere.

It seems weird to me that euró has no plural.

>Give me an example and I'll eat my hat. Or I'll at >least believe you.

Just open O Dónaill's dictionary at "i" and you'll find some words that begin with /j/:

Iónach = Ionic
iógart = yoghourt
iúmar = humour...

etc

About teach and sliabh, they are masculine 2nd declension: they are exceptions. They were neuter s-stems in Old Irish. They don't act as if they were feminine, just the way they're declined is normally used only for feminine nouns. Apart from that, they are masculine: bean an tí (not *na tí), barr an tsléibhe (not *na sléibhe); teach beag (not *bheag), sliabh mór (not *mhór); an teach sin, chonaic mé é (not *í), etc.


Enjoy your meal with your hat. ;-)

>>Incorrect. Burn that dictionary.

I certainly wouldn't. Have you ever encountered the word "dialectal"? Amongst other things, it means "non-standard". As you can see, I was refering to the Cois Fhairrge dialect. And if "Ghiúdach" is what is said there, there's nothing you can do about it. (This kind of narrow-mindedness on your part leads nowhere.)

>>Give me an example and I'll eat my hat. Or I'll at least believe you.

euro.
There you are. (cf. Lughaidh's examples too.) (Of course they are loan words... that's the point.)

>>No noun in Irish begins with a y-glide or a w-glide. "euro" breaks the mould. As such, it's perfectly entitled to break the rules
>>You are correct that every noun in Irish has a defined gender, though don't be led to believe that everyone follows the rules...

This, and the rest, shows how shallowly you've read me. I've demonstrated how "euro", considering its actual pronunciation, does, in fact, follow the rules...

>>Also note that "gender" isn't always analogus with sexual gender

I'm a linguist, I know the difference between gender and sex, thanks.
By the way, you can notice that in English, gender has given place to sex...

We might want to consider some other instances of "gender weirdness" in Irish.

a) "Leabhar, bád, carr" are masculine, but some speakers, esp. native speakers, refer to them with the pronoun "sí". I think Ó Siadhail says something about this in his textbook.

b) "Talamh" can be either masculine or feminine, which is esp. apparent in the genitives "an talaimh" and "na talún". It's not unheard of for Irish-speakers to say "talamh tirim" in one breath and "os cionn talún" in another.

c) "Tír" is normally feminine, except in the common phrase "tír mór" (= mainland), where it's masculine.

I'm sure a linguist can provide a concrete explanation for each of these developments, but that does not make them any less weird synchronically. This sort of weirdness just paves the way for "an euro, tá sé ann".

Well, sure it's weird...

In French, certain nouns are masculine when singular and feminine when plural.
E.g.:
- délice (delight) ("un vrai délice" vs "de vraies délices")
- orgue (organ - in a church) ("un grand orgue" vs "de grandes orgues)

Because these are synchronic aberrations, there is a natural tendency to regularize them.

(Message edited by Max on July 20, 2005)

Max, I see you edited out "grandes amours", just as I've come back from googling the web, where "grands amours" and "grandes amours" are both common. C'est question de liaison ou d'euphonie (comme le 't' de "a-t-il"), pas du genre, n'est-ce pas ... et pour "grandes orgues" également?

>>pas du genre, n'est-ce pas

This part I don't understand in your question.


Liaison and euphony have a lot to do together in French.
For instance, "go fetch it!" is "va chercher!" (go find), but simply "go!" is "vas-y!" (go there) [vazi]: in this case, the -s- that had been dropped through history is maintained in the expression.

I edited out "grandes amours" because, although my first instinct had it feminine, I though it could be moot...
Gender is something tricky. Certain names have changed gender in the course of history. Certain names are commonly thought feminine although the dictionary has them masculine, and vice versa.

As for "amour", "orgue" or "délice", and liaison and euphony, I can't tell. I know that euphony evolves too, and this is partly why liaisons are less common in modern French.
I think that if you ask people in the street how they say "un grand orgue" in the plural, they most probably won't answer "de grandes orgues" [d@ grãdz org] but "des grands orgues" [de grãz org]. (Here is the natural tendency to regularize things)

>a) "Leabhar, bád, carr" are masculine, but some >speakers, esp. native speakers, refer to them with the >pronoun "sí". I think Ó Siadhail says something about >this in his textbook.

"Cat" is refered to by í as well.
For "leabhar", it is feminine in Donegal: leabhar bheag, tús na leabhaire.

>c) "Tír" is normally feminine, except in the common >phrase "tír mór" (= mainland), where it's masculine.

"Tír" was neuter in Old Irish (Pre-Historical Irish *têrso-n?), and neuter would put urú on the following word in the same syntagm. M doesn't change with an urú > tír mór. It's one of the remainings of the neuter case in Modern Irish. Tír mór is a fossilized expression. In other cases, tír is feminine.

Well, according to an e-mail I got from Foras na Gaeilge, if you're interested, they said "Níl inscne ag baint leis an bhfocal" and that no 't' comes before it, agus, that it doesn't take an urú, m.sh. 10 euro. They said it's "euro" in Irish like in any other language, implying they left it alone, meaning with weird grammar rules so that it would be left the same in every language. So, there you are, if you accept Foras na Gaeilge's view on things.

I don't. I don't see why we should make such word broke all Irish grammar rules to please to Forás na Gaeilge or anybody else. If they say that "euro" has no gender, it clearly shows that they don't know anything about even basic linguistics - and don't seem to know any language except English (most European languages have genders for nouns).

I don't remember who, in the EU authorities, said that the word "euro" should be invariable in all the languages of the EU and that the word should be written in every language... even in languages like Irish, in which the cluster is impossible. Maybe a French man (French politicians are particularly untolerant about languages, except theirs). Anyway, in all countries, people don't care for that and the put "euro" in the plural, decline it and use it as a normal word, because, so far, politicians are not supposed to dictate to the people how they should speak. - Mór an t-ádh!

Now, if you want to know how we should use "euro" in Irish, just go to the Gaeltacht and listen to people - they don't care for these stupid rules, they just speak Irish for centuries and more and know better than anybody how they should speak.

I'm curious....

If "euro" begins with [j], then, apart from the way it's spelt, there is absolutely nothing irregular in its behaviour, that is: the fact that it's not eclipsed or lenited, etc. - (cf. what I wrote above). So how come people are so confused about it?

Another question: how do the words beginning by [j] work, with articles etc?

an iógart nó an t-iógart? (it’s masculine) It's written with an initial , but since it's the semi-consonant [j] in pronounciation and not the vowel [i]... it may be different...

It would resolve our problem with euró...

Bheadh sé deacair an t-iógart a rá, cheapfainn gurbh "an iógart" a bheadh nadúrtha.

Okay first thing I wanna clarify. What sound is [j]? Is it a y-glide, as in:

yhogurt
yes
Yemen
Yin yang
Yay!
Yippie

If so, then I didn't know that any noun in Irish began with that sound. If the following ones do:

Iónach
iógart
iúmar

then I've never heard them before!

Well then it seems simple to me -- find out how people work with "iógart" and then you know how to work with "euro".

quote:

Bheadh sé deacair an t-iógart a rá, cheapfainn gurbh "an iógart" a bheadh nadúrtha.

Seo go díreach a rabhas á rá ón tús. Anois aontaíonn beirt. D'fhágfainn an "t-" ar lear maidir le "an euro", ach go fóill d'úsáidfinn mar ainmfhocal firinscneach é:

an euro
na euro (Ní úsáidfinn "na heuro", is deacair é a rá)
scéal an euro
scéal na n-euro (ach chuirfinn urú air go fóill)

>Bheadh sé deacair an t-iógart a rá,

Chan níos deacra ná "tiomáint" "tionlaic" "teorainn" srl. Más deacair leatsa iad seo a ráidht... :-)

>cheapfainn gurbh "an iógart" a bheadh nadúrtha.

tá "na euró" aisteach go leor agam. Deirfinn féin "na heurónnaí".

A Lughaidh, what do they say in your Gaeltacht? An t-eoró? nó an eoró agus ar gcuifeá urú air san iolra? Buíochas le d'fhreagraí ba mhaith go mór liom deireadh a chur ar an scéal liom.

I dunno what they say because everytime i heard "euró" so far, it was after numbers: trí euró, ceithre euró, fiche euró etc, it doesn't help for gender, mutations etc. I think they say seacht n-euró /s'art N'u:ro/.

>>Bheadh sé deacair an t-iógart a rá,

> Chan níos deacra ná "tiomáint" "tionlaic" "teorainn"
> srl. Más deacair leatsa iad seo a ráidht... :-)

Fuaim eile a bheadh agaim i dtús iógart seachas i dtús iomáint.

Ach is dócha gurbh an fuaim Gearmánach (Joghurt) a bheadh agam ar an mbia úd.

>Fuaim eile a bheadh agaim i dtús iógart seachas i dtús >iomáint

Ní "iomáint" a bhí i gceist agam, ach tiomáint (to drive). Teorainn = a border, "tionlaic" = to escort.

D'fhuaimneochainnse "iógart" mar /jo:g@rt/

It’s strange to hear that [j] at the beginning of an Irish word ( in its principle form ) is somewhat innatural and stuff. Consider this: [h] earlier did not possess this independent status. But now you can’t imagine Irish without words like “hata”, “halla”, “haca” etc. The same thing is with [w] as it is ( see O Siadhail ) pronounced in “vóta” and the like. Glide, not that innatural.

The system of initial mutations proved to be inflexible and unable to meet the demands of new language contacts. This is a fact. And it is a natural course of events.

But on the other hand I don’t see any linguistic reasons to turn down the variant “eoró” for it would have a natural place within the framework of the language – words like “Eorpach”, “an Eoraip”. Then, why not making use of “Eurpach” and “Euraip” in their stead. I don’t personally think it has any sense.

Le meas,
Peter

As can be pointed out here, ‘j’ and /j/ are not the same. As /ju:ro:/ starts as a voiced palatal fricative, it can in some speakers be classed as a semi-vowel. So if it is written éuré then it is /ju:ro:/ in transcription, but the grammar may still act as if it were a vowel, which it is in the orthography, thus ‘an t-éuró’.

Speaking of new letter and new sounds…

"The system of initial mutations proved to be inflexible and unable to meet the demands of new language contacts"

I think it is more that a) the linguistic community in Irish is small and unstandardised, so there is no strict code of what changes to use b) people are not using the mutations to their full effect c) there are physiological reasons why some mutations to not occur.

As for eclipsis (definition: "Nasalisation covers the voicing of voiceless stops, as well as the true nasalisation of voiced stops") there are issues based on what occurs when you eclipsis and where it is appropriate. Eclipsis voices what is unvoiced, so ‘p’ is eclipsed by ‘b’. Where this cannot occur, nasalisation can be brought into the breech.

new orthographic consonants: j, k, q, v, w, x, y, z.

j: is an affricative and /dz'/ when used in Irish. Many words could use /dz'/ or slender /d'/ as initial consonants. If 'job' was altered rendered as 'diub' /d'ub/ or /d'@b/ it could mutate as 'dhiub' or 'ndiub' /jub/ or /n'ub/ . If it were 'jab' /dz'@b/ there is 'mo jhab' /mo í@b/ (like 'yab'). Perhaps one could nasalise it as 'nj' so 'i njab' /i n@b/.

k: (no need for as 'c' has the same value /k/).

q: lost to Irish historically, so not natural. One can see this in 'quinín' (quinine) /kwin'i:n'/ today, but notice there is for /q/ no /G/ which is its voiced equivalent. If it is considered a stop, then /qin'i:n'/ would become /Gin'i:n'/ 'i gwquinín' (only because gquinín looks even worse). For lention one could have 'mo qhuinín' /mo hvin'i:n'/ (or for those who use /w/, /mo hwin'i:n'/ where 'q' becomes 'w' and is aspirated, i.e. like the 'wh' in Hibero-English 'where' or 'why'/. In essence it is unvoiced and breathed.

v: a bi-labial or sometimes labiodental. Broad: 'vóta', and slender, 'veidhlín'. 'Mo vhót' causes de-voicing to /mo hvo:t@/ like 'where' or 'why'/ above. Mo vheidhlín would be /mo ail'i:n'/. 'i nvóta' /i no:t@/. 'i nveidhlín' /i nail'i:n'/.

w: use in 'wigwam' when you need a broad bilabial next to a slender vowel and there is no grammatical manner of getting 'bh' or 'mh' into the equation. Would 'úigiavam' do? /u:ig'@vam/ ; /u:ig'@vaum/ ; /u:ig'@v@m/. t-'úigiavam, hÚigiavam, n-úigiavam./mo u:ig'@v@m/ for 'my wigwam'.

x: /`ek's/ in 'x-gha' (x-ray). 'Mo x-gha' /m'ek'sYa/. ‘i nx-gha’ /i n’ek’s Ya/. Slender in xileafón /`z'il'@,fo:n/ it is the same as slender 'z' (just make a 'ssssssss' sound as in 'shush, good night' and then voice it to get /z'/ or very near). There is no need of it broad as 'x' is never used so, but if it were, perhaps on the analogue of the Spanish 'Xavier', it could be held to be /z/ as in 'Xaibhíer' /zaiv'i:er'/. 'mo xhaibhíer' /mo haiv'i:er'/. ‘i naiv’i:er’/

y: yó-yó. Why not 'íó-íó'? /i:o: i:o:/ or /jo: jo:/. 'í' has a different value to 'y', but is native, as I think should be the point. /j/ here revisits the 'éuró debate' as above. Here i think by using the /j/ phoneme, but vowels in orthography, but constraints are satisfied. It saves us from ‘an t-yó-yó’.

z: 'zú' /zu:/ as broad. When slender /z’/ as in ‘xileafón’ /`z’il’@,fo:n/. ‘Mo zhú’ /mo hu:/ and ‘i nzú’ /i nu:/. ‘Mo zhileafón’ /mo hil’@,fo:n/, and ‘i nzileafón’ /i nil’@,fo:n/.

"Nasalisation covers the voicing of voiceless stops, as well as the true nasalisation of voiced stops"

It looks a bit scribbly, but the idea was to look at extending lention and eclipsis to the new consonants, but in my zeal I tried a lot of combinations, perhaps pushing it a bit too far, as not all of the sounds are stops.

Scríobh Lughaigh

quote:

Ní "iomáint" a bhí i gceist agam, ach tiomáint (to drive). Teorainn = a border, "tionlaic" = to escort.

Is eol dom sin. Bhíos ag déanamh comparáid idir an fuaim a bheadh ag "an t-iógart" agus (dá mbeadh san an) t-iomáint.

Tá a lán bealaí an stuif bainneach úd a fhuaimniú!

Agus ní teangeolaí mé; níl raibh mé ach ag rá conas a fhuimneoinnse and diabhal focail. Miaidr le Euro, bhí agusín suimiul leis an gConradh ag bunú Bunreachta don Eoraip:
Ní thig liom é fhail anois, ach bhí tagairt ann do ainm a euro a bheith eagsumhal sa Laitvís agus Magyar - is dóigh liom.

(Message edited by aonghus on July 23, 2005)

Aimsithe!

50. Dearbhú ó Phoblacht na Laitvia agus ó Phoblacht na hUngáire maidir le litriú ainm an airgeadra aonair sa Chonradh ag bunú Bunreachta don Eoraip
Gan dochar do litriú aontaithe ainm airgeadra aonair an Aontais Eorpaigh dá dtagraítear sa Chonradh ag bunú Bunreachta don Eoraip agus mar atá ar na nótaí bainc agus ar na monaí, dearbhaíonn an Laitvia agus an Ungáir nach bhfuil aon éifeacht ag litriú ainm an airgeadra aonair, lena n‑áirítear a dhíorthaigh, mar atá arna úsáid sa leagan Laitvise agus sa leagan Ungáirise den Chonradh ag bunú Bunreachta don Eoraip, ar rialacha láithreacha na Laitvise agus na hUngáirise.

---

Ní ag lucht na gaeilge amháin atá fadhb leis seo!

Tá an rud ar fad ar fáil anseo:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:ga:HTML

>Is eol dom sin. Bhíos ag déanamh comparáid idir an >fuaim a bheadh ag "an t-iógart" agus (dá mbeadh san an) >t-iomáint.

>Tá a lán bealaí an stuif bainneach úd a fhuaimniú!

Chan fheicimse ach dóigh amháin do "tiomáint": /t’oman’t’/... Agus gan amhras, an t-iógart mar /@ t’(j)o:g@rt/ .

Ní i nGaeilge amháin a bhí i gceist agam, ach i dteangacha eagsúla. Pé scéal é, níl tuairim agam céard a deirtear sna Gaeltachtaí - níor chualas mórán cainte ar iógairt ann.

>>As for eclipsis (definition: "Nasalisation covers the voicing of voiceless stops, as well as the true nasalisation of voiced stops") there are issues based on what occurs when you eclipsis and where it is appropriate. Eclipsis voices what is unvoiced, so ‘p’ is eclipsed by ‘b’. Where this cannot occur, nasalisation can be brought into the breech.

>>new orthographic consonants: j, k, q, v, w, x, y, z


This confuses:
1/ the spelling of the language and the language itself
2/ diachronics and synchronics

Eclipsis (and lenition) is a phonetical change that took place in Irish but is now over... eclipsis (and lenition) is now a morphological change. This means that there is no reason why the sounds that have been lately introduced into the phonological system (as a result of the extinct phonetical changes or of language contact) should ever be affected by the now morphological eclipsis (and lenition).

I should also add that:
1/ initial mutations are not the monopole of the celtic languages
2/ since eclipsis and lenition are hardly ever relevant to the meaning of a sentence, they are bound to disappear (if not tomorrow, then the next day...)

quote:

since eclipsis and lenition are hardly ever relevant to the meaning of a sentence, they are bound to disappear (if not tomorrow, then the next day...)

There's a lot of unnecessary features in a lot of languages. These features add character to the language and I think many people want them to stay.

The point is:

languages evolve

whatever people want, or prefer, or deem correct or incorrect, or do (even trying to coerce people into speaking one way or another).

Unless Irish disappears altogether, my guess is you won't see the extinction of eclipsis and lenition in your lifetime. But they are bound to dissappear.

Unlike the cases which Irish is now practically devoid of, save for genitive (I stick to the fact that there is no common or nominative case) and which add something to the meaning, eclipsis and lenition in most instances are absolutely superfluous (eg: "mo mháthair", "do Cháit", "ar an mbord", etc.)

Eclipsis and lenition add character to present Irish, other features will add character to future Irish (again if Irish survives).

lenitions/eclipses ar needed to denote his/her/their. e.g. a cat, a chat agus a gcat. I can't think of another case but I'm sure there's at least one. I'm not sure that just because they're un-neccesary means they'll dissapear. They're not overly cumbersome, especially after possesive adjectives and generally unless they are, they stay. e.g. "ne.. pas" in French is fairly cumbersome, now it's being shortened to just "pas" or "point" etc.

a scáthán, a scáthán, a scáthán
a rásúr, a rásúr, a rásúr
a hata, a hata, a hata
a máthair, a mháthair, a máthair
etc.

The distinctions are lost for a little more than just a couple of words.

When lenition and eclipsis appeared, they were phonetical changes, whichs means that they were regular. Once they became morphological, they lost all phonetical regularity but remained by habit. They will disappear for the very reason that they are (indeed) cumbersome.
This is always what happens.

>>"ne.. pas" in French is fairly cumbersome, now it's being shortened to just "pas" or "point" etc.

It's not "fairly cumbersome". Ne...pas is regular in every aspect. It is shorten to pas because a) pas can convey the same meaning as e...pas (since there is no other adverb pronounced [pa]) b) because the stress falls on pas but not on ne. Ne...pas is still used in formal situations where the use of pas would be considered (far) too familiar. Point is never used, either in speech or writing, except ironically.

"It's not "fairly cumbersome". Ne...pas is regular in every aspect. It is shorten to pas because a) pas can convey the same meaning as e...pas (since there is no other adverb pronounced [pa]) b) because the stress falls on pas but not on ne. Ne...pas is still used in formal situations where the use of pas would be considered (far) too familiar. Point is never used, either in speech or writing, except ironically."

Em.. well, that's nice and all, but I was just giving it as an example for how languages change cause it's easier to say something else. I've seen point used, but that wasn't my point, it was just an example of what can be used instead of pas, e.g. ne.. rien, ne.. que etc. In familiar talk (which will eventually become the formal talk), they don't bother with pas. I accept your point about the eclipses. We'll see what happens, I guess.

>>In familiar talk (which will eventually become the formal talk)

There are factors which slow down the evolution of languages in a very significant manner (above all when combined). These are: writing / literature / standard / etc.
Sometimes, the tendency toward simplicity (familiar talk) even reverts under the influence of these factors (e.g.: the relative pronouns in French).

This concerns French as well as Irish, and that is why I wrote that we won't live long enough to see the above mentioned evolution(s)


ps: even in familiar talk, ne...pas can still be used... it depends (and it has a lot to do with the educational and social background)