I found an irish language clip, which is causing me some problems, I can understand everything, except the last line, it sounds like "D'ullmhaigh mé rud éigin no (nua???) gach aon la" but I don't think that is correct, can someone tell me what he's saying, i don't need a translation, just the last line in Irish.

Thanking you in advance

www.linguaphone.de/mp3/irisch_1.mp3

I learned something new each day.

D'fhoghlaim mé rud éigin nua gach aon lá.

Thanks, that makes more sense than what I wrote, but at least i wasn't too far wrong, there's hope for me yet.

Any ideas what type of accent that ist, I thought he was probably saying "nua" it's the only word that really fits, but it sounded like "nó" even after listening to it over and over...

He pronounces it exactly like the English word "new" to me, that is, just one syllable with a long "u" sound.

I haven't travelled around Ireland much, but I can tell you that that accent definitely isn't from Ulster or Leinster, so that leaves us with Munster and Connacht. So... hmm... if I'd to guess, I'd go with Munster -- though it's just as probable to be Connacht. I'm sure someone here will spot the accent from a mile away.

Yeah when I was at an early stage it was a nightmare trying to understand Irish spoken with different accents! Take words like "arís"; I was hearing "aríst" which is an alternate pronunciation in a certain dialect... and so forth. I'm at a level now where I'm actually pretty comfortable with different pronunciations! Reading Lughaidh's posts has also got me used to "chan" for the negative and so on. I see it real plainly now, like how some people say "eye" for "yes".

Irish is just another language; with time it becomes fluidic in your mind.

No, it's neither Munster nor Connacht. I'd say that it is standard Irish with a hint of Munster at times. But both the words and the grammar is unlike what you would use in Munster. In any case, it's an artifical accent designed for learners.

I wasn't referring to dialect, Jonas, but to the speaker's actual accent. For instance if he'd have been speaking English, I still would have said Munster or Connacht. Most likely Mayo, Clare, Cork, Kerry. Not so much Galway. Cork would be my guess.

I see. In that case I'll agree. The speakers are probably from Munster, but what they are speaking is not Munster Irish.

But then again who's to say what is "Munster Irish"? I was born and bred in Dublin, Ireland and so one could say I speak the "Dublin" dialect of English, one feature of which is that no-one uses the word "ain't".

But throughout Dublin you'll find individual people speaking all sorts of different ways. For instance I'm one of the minority of Dublin people who uses "these" and "those" in the place of "them", and also uses "whom" when applicable...

Sure, people talk differently in different places but still it's hard to strictly define a dialect.

Anyway, I've never actually travelled to different Gaeltachts so it's all just Gaeilge to me! I'd say I'm a right mongrel by now, getting different pronounciations and phrases from everywhere!

just for information, this clip is from the Linguaphone Irish course, perhaps the worst language course ever produced, which is surprising as I have the Spanish linguaphone and it is excellent.

West Cork (Coolea) speakers pronounce "nua" as "nó".

I can't listen to the clip due to not having any speakers-small problem! Does he really say "D'fhoghlaim mé rud..."?? should it not be just "d'fhoghlaim rud"?
Perhaps I am confused!

...oh right sorry, past tense
i always do that!! read a verb as its root form and then just put whatever tense on it from the context. not intentionally of course but i find myself doing it anyway...

You don't need to know the context to decipher which tense it is.

Let's say there was a verb called "foghl", and for argument's sake let's say that it means "puke", as in "vomit". "I puke every morning" would be:

Foghlaim gach maidin.

But what we have is "d'fhoghlaim". That "d apostraphe" tells you straight off that it's the past tense.

Secondly, and more importantly, to know a language you must know its vocabulary. A language is nothing without vocabulary. Grammar isn't as necessary, but you haven't got a language without vocabulary. No "thought processes" happened when I heard that particular sentence. I wasn't like "oh well the stem is this, and the ending is that" -- I just instantly recognised "d'foghlaim" because I've heard it so many times, and spoken it so many times myself!

>>Grammar isn't as necessary, but you haven't got a language without vocabulary.

This is of course totally wrong.

There's a difference between communication and language.

To communicate very basic things within a context where the meaning of what one says is rather obvious, it is possible to simply use a string of words without grammar. Like : "mother feed baby" (or "feed mother baby", "baby mother feed", "baby feed mother) = "the mother feeds the baby"

But there is no language without grammar. Grammar is part of what defines language. Simple example : it is possible to say "the baby feeds the mother"... grammar not only allows you to understand the (strange) meaning of that sentence but also prevents you from understanding otherwise. Grammar is everywere, even though you don't always see it.


As for "d'fhoghlaim":
This was in an audio sample, which means that you don't see "d'fhoghlaim" but hear [doL@m'].
Grammar and context tell you it's a verb (I won't explain how here), but since we have [doL@m'] it could be : "d'fhoghlaim" (past + foghlaim) or "d'olaim" (past + olaim) or "dolaim" (dol + mé ; (but the fact that mé follows eliminates this possibility)).
The fact that you can recognize "foghlaim" is not sufficient, it is the context that confirms that it is the right choice.



>>No "thought processes" happened when I heard that particular sentence.

Well, not consciously... but inconsciously, we can be fairly sure that the sentence was processed.

Yes.

If there were no grammar in a language, it means that you can put words in any order, you can conjugate your verbs by the beginning or the middle or even not conjugate them and do whatever... No language works like that because people wouldn’t understand each other.

Just imagine if "English had no grammar":

"Gone now because hungry fishes I and buys is I",

for: "Now I’m going to buy fish because I’m hungry".


A language exists through its vocabulary and its grammar, as a car has wheels.

>>If there were no grammar in a language, it means that you can put words in any order, you can conjugate your verbs by the beginning or the middle or even not conjugate them and do whatever... No language works like that because people wouldn’t understand each other.


The point of grammar is not just enabling people to understand each other.

Word order and conjugations at the end, beginning or middle all belong to convention, but are not obligatorily grammatical (the inacceptability of "cat the" as opposed to "the cat" is only conventionnal but not grammatical).

Grammar enables to say anything, even things that otherwise would not or could not be understood :
"Yesterday, I saw a white-furred fish eating a big-scaled bear."
If it weren't for grammar (word order is grammatical in that sentence), anybody would understand that "Yesterday, I saw a white-furred bear eating a big-scaled fish."

"You don't need to know the context to decipher which tense it is."

yes! but that's what i was saying. Like with you when you read "d'fhoghlaim" your brain came up with the past tense meaning, mine just understood it as the root of the verb. so like you where it wasn't a conscious process, neither was it with me! not entirely sure why this happens because i do know the rules of irish verbs. might be because this wasn't a word i'd seen so many times so it didn't come as quickly to me. like if i saw bhris or chuaigh i'd know straight away "without thinking about it" so it comes back to what you were saying again. you knew it was past tense without thinking about it because of the amount of times you'd come across it.

I remember when I was in 6th year (last year of school) we listened to an audio tape and we heard something like the following:

Barlum gan dul.

The teacher asked "What did he say?" and nobody put their hand up for a few seconds. It couldn't been anything like:

Barlaim (a present tense verb)
Bearr liom (another example)

but in actual fact what was being said was:

B'fhearr liom

which is a contraction of:

Ba fhearr liom

Only one fella in a class of thirty got it, and it even took him a few seconds to cop it.

I only began to recognise such combinations when I started using them myself:

B'aoibhinn liom dul abhaile.
B'ait an cailín í!

But then again you don't necessarily have to use the construction yourself, like how Nothern Irish people say "eye" instead of "yes"; I never say "eye", but I still understand them when they say it...

unrelated question : why do you spell "aye" "eye" ?

"Aye" is not only Northern Ireland: you'll find it in Shakespeare's works as well.

"Aye" and "nay" are still the terms used for "yes" and "no" votes in the Senate and House of Representatives over here. A reporter will say, for example, "The ayes have it." = The measure voted on passed.

>>"Aye" and "nay" are still the terms used for "yes" and "no" votes in the Senate and House of Representatives over here. A reporter will say, for example, "The ayes have it." = The measure voted on passed.

actually "yea" is used rather than "aye." though i may be incorrect, "aye" is mainly used in Europe(though i have never been there, i have many friends from Ireland, England, Germany, and other countries and i have learned to recognize the different variations of English)