In looking thru written Irish I notice that there is not a large set of words in which meaning depends on the above distinction.

When listening to programmes on TG4 and in a gaelscoill, especially in Dublin, one feels that they lack any polar distinction, and in essence, there is but half the phonemes in 'Dublin Irish' than in the traditional dialects.

The lack of massive distinctions in the language seems to allow them to get away with it (or just insert an English word!)

I suppose one is asking for major changes if one a) leaves the language to learners and b) mainly to children who already have a native tongue (English). Kids are less concerned about linguistic purity, especially teenagers.

I also notice that most of the teachers and directors of these institutions don't seem to concerned about the technical aspects of language aquisition (phonetics, prosody (rythm + intonation), breathing patterns, metathesis (bolgam /blog@m/ where the first vowel drops out), glides...and the other elements that make an idiomatic speaker. As Lughaidh says, what is the point of not doing it the native way?

I'm not dissing the movement tho; I'd like to know how many schools produce 'native like' speakers, if any.

>As Lughaidh says, what is the point of not doing it the >native way?

It's easier when you are lazy...

A Gaelscoil that would produce "native like" speakers would be a Gaelscoil with native speakers teachers (i mean, from the Gaeltacht, or people who speak exactly as in the Gaeltacht). I don't know if that exists. For now, all people I know who have been in a Gaelscoil pronounce in the "Dublin way": English sounds only, bad grammar, etc.

An interesting debate. Let me play devil's advocate for a bit:

What would it take for Dublin or Caighdeán Irish to be accepted as suitably "native" or "authentic"? The pronunciation may not sound like any of the existing Gaeltacht dialects, but assuming the grammar, idioms and the basic pronunciation are OK to the point of being intelligible between speakers (including native speakers), what's the problem?

What's the difference between telling someone from Ulster that he doesn't speak English properly because he uses Ulster pronunciation and idioms, and telling someone from Dublin that he doesn't speak Irish properly because he uses Dublin pronunciation and idioms?

It seems to me that any large-scale revival of the language would almost certainly be accompanied by changes in pronunciation (perhaps a drift towards simplified/Dublin/Caighdeán pronunciation) and idioms.

From the point of view of revival, would you accept that a nation of people speaking Irish with a non-Gaeltacht accent, and using Béarlachas idioms, is better than nothing?

Davidoc,
I will answer your questions in number format. the answer is a bit long, but I tend to write like that (and I am in neutral mood as I write this!)

1. The Caighdeán was created from native dialects and ws intended to be a standard where the phonology was slightly reduced (2 r's l's and n's, as opposed to 4 contrasts, as was traditional; the Hiberno-English alveolar d's and t's removed, but which are used in the Gaeltacht). It utilised a standardised grammar based on Munster and Connacht. It's spelling was more like the 1600's than today's pronounciation. Consequently, its pronounciation became a mix of modern and classical, but with the rolling r's etc removed. It was a decent attempt for the time given the experience had at the time. It was not artifical or made up from scrach or based on the grammar of some foreign language (like Latin).

Nobody really speaks it tho today. Civil servents riddle official documents with claques 'tabhair suas' etc and have made up their own dialect where English semantics and grammar are communicated thru irish words.

2. The Dublin/gaelscoilleanna dialect is not authentic as it does nto sound 'OK' as it uses English phonetics, not Irish. Early Hiberno-English (as seen in 'Rambles in Teigue-Land, a 17th century book) was not Ok as it used Irish grammar, semantics, and phonetics to attempt English. The idioms of the gaelscoil are English, and the grammar is markedly deviant from gaelic.

3. If native and nua become mutually intelligable it is by a) the learners becomeing more native b)the natives losing their idiom and becomeing anglicised in speech c) the native dynamically allowing for code switching etc and using knowledge of both languages to understand the conversation.

4. We communicate becasue we have consciouness, and our languages are simple codes next to the complexity of cognition and relective consciousness, so any code can be used to convey meaning if one person (via writing notes) or two or more people (linguistic community) decide or settle on a concensus medium. If the only speakers in 100 years left are Dublin speakers, then that will be Irish.

5. What's the problem? Next to grave world issues, perhaps little, but in the context of the gaelic langauge, it will be akin to the break English made with Anglo-Saxon in been ground down grammar wise and altering its sound etc in the centuries after the Norman invasion. It is a massive break with the past, and is based on arorgance; arrogance to not learn a skill correctly, even an arrogance of labelling. Many gaelgeoirí say 'we are irish, we must speak out national lanaguage, our native language'. Consequently, a third language is been created, modelled consciously on Irish, and unconsciously on English, just so notions of ethnic nationalism can be carred on.

6. Someone from any part of Ireland who speaks English uses at least the minimum phonemes required for intelligability in English. They may use different allophones (variations of phonemes) than others, yet English does not count them significent to alter comprehension. For example, I will generally use the 'l' pronounced towards the front of the mouth, a Scotsman a 'dark' (velar l) and an RP Englishman both (depending on circumstance). Meaning is not altered as their is but one significent 'l' in English.

Only one l is used in Dublin irish, only one r etc In other words, they are using the basic phonetic set required for English to speak Irish. They are not using the basic set required for Irish (which is near twice the size).

7. I would not attack a Dubliner for speaking bad Irish, but point out (if asked) areas in which I believe there is a large departure, enough to consider 'Dublin-Irish' a seperate language.

8. "From the point of view of revival, would you accept that a nation of people speaking Irish with a non-Gaeltacht accent, and using Béarlachas idioms, is better than nothing?"

Ireland made the break from been a Celtic country to been an anglo one in the 19th century. If the linguistic community makes the break from gaeilge to a langauge based on english, it will be a parody, a bit like the southern Welsh who are desperate to be seen as seperate from the English, such that symbols are over-revved beyond their place. If the Irish spoken in Ireland is only a dialect of English, then it is such a joke, it woudl say that the English even decide not only what langauges Ireland speaks now, but what lanaguges it will speak even into the future. That is truly a colonised mentality.

Been colonised is not about 'the English are evil etc' as that is a position of inferiority, colonisation is about rape and dishonour. It is about removing control of the land, just as a rapist removed self-control over the body of the man or woman who is assaulted, and so only leaves disempowerment. It is about control. So well was Ireland colonised and so mechanised that it cannot develop either independantly or inter-dependantly with Britain, but is co-dependant on it for policy decisions, culture, (and now) accent etc. Been mechanised means the past is not let go, but just goes around like a record or like the abused who begins to act like the abuser has 'trained' them to because their experience is so narrow and warped nthing else is imaginable.

Is fearr Béarla cliste ná gaeilge briste!

9. And finally, why should Dublin have the last say on cultural decisions? every probelm in ireland starts there (drugs, institutional abuse, conquests,...) and speads out.

>What would it take for Dublin or Caighdeán Irish to be >accepted as suitably "native" or "authentic"? The >pronunciation may not sound like any of the existing >Gaeltacht dialects, but assuming the grammar, idioms >and the basic pronunciation are OK

they aren't, most of the time

>to the point of being intelligible between speakers >(including native speakers), what's the problem?

Problem be if me speaking like this, you understanding me but this is English still, thinking you?


>What's the difference between telling someone from >Ulster that he doesn't speak English properly because >he uses Ulster pronunciation and idioms, and telling >someone from Dublin that he doesn't speak Irish >properly because he uses Dublin pronunciation and >idioms?

Ulster English isn't as different from Standard English as Dublin Irish is from native one.

>It seems to me that any large-scale revival of the >language would almost certainly be accompanied by >changes in pronunciation (perhaps a drift towards >simplified/Dublin/Caighdeán pronunciation) and idioms.

Will it still be Irish? Dublin Irish is that bad because it's only spoken by learners, and most of them may be too lazy to learn to speak it properly.

>From the point of view of revival, would you accept >that a nation of people speaking Irish with a non->Gaeltacht accent, and using Béarlachas idioms, is >better than nothing?

No, it *is* nothing because it isn't Irish anymore. When you change everything in a language (morphology, syntax, vocabulary, pronounciation, idioms, etc), it becomes another language.

Gaeilge was painted into a corner where its very survival was in question. In order to succeed in this new global economy, EU, mainly-english-speaking-Ireland it must adapt.

No language is spoken today the same way it was in 1840 or even 1920 - additions to and subtractions from it over time in the form of idiom, accent evolution and even some grammar rules have resulted in something different.

To say that all students must speak like a native in order to be doing the language good is silly...that's like saying english taught in texas (with its peppering of spanish) or new york (with its pronunciation) or australia (with its, well, everything) doesn't count as 'english' because it's not they way english is spoken in its native heartland of oxford or some such nonsense.

to survive, Irish must become more than the langauge of the gaeltacht or else it simply won't appeal to the young to invest their personal time to learn it. Essentially, Gaeilge is a product, and it's not being marketed to the new generation very well.

as an american, i haven't much practical use for it - in fact, i have none, whatsoever. that being said, i am determined to become fluent, marry a fluent gal and have children to which only irish is spoken at home (they'll pick up english quickly enough from tv, friends, school etc). But then again i'm also the impractical sort who only uses quill pens and ink I've made (or fountain pens if i have to carry one to class), wind watches, rotary phones and all sorts of other impractical anachronisms I've adopted simply for their romantic flair. The average elementary or teenage student (here or in ireland) simply doesn't have that inclination.

1 the language needs to become cool
2 the language needs to become essential for daily life in ireland
3 the language needs to present enough of an opportunity that foreigners will want to learn it for employment (perhaps now as EU translators)

they're already working on 1. 3 remains to be seen, but more than just that one job will be necessary. 2 is entirely possible given politicians with enough chutzpah to do it (all schools taught as gaeilscoils, all signage gaeilge only, all gov't publications gaeilge only, etc)

but i digress. my point is, gaeilge is changing - and it must change by virtue of the fact that it is a living language. the gaeilge that will be spoken when i'm an old man will be a very different language, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. There may come a time, perhaps after a "speak irish at home" campaign aimed at gaeilscoil graduates, when "gaeilscoil irish" will be the only irish left.

Then what, if these ex-students make it the langauge of their households and their children speak it as a first language? That wouldn't 'count'? You can think of the emergence of gaeilscoil irish as the beginning of a new standard/standardization.

"No, it *is* nothing because it isn't Irish anymore. When you change everything in a language (morphology, syntax, vocabulary, pronounciation, idioms, etc), it becomes another language."


yes and no. Chaucer and Shakespeare are not separated by that much time (the death of chaucer in 1400 and the birth of shakespeare in 1564...164 years, about the same amount of time as separates us from pre-famine irish), and yet their englishes were fundamentally different.

compare the english of chaucer
http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem457.html

with the english of shakespeare
http://albionmich.com/valentine.html

now - they're both english...the evolution of shakespeare's english did not "kill" the language or invalidate chaucer (or himself)...the language evolved, the world continued to spin, and the country maintained its national language.

"1 the language needs to become cool
2 the language needs to become essential for daily life in ireland
3 the language needs to present enough of an opportunity that foreigners will want to learn it for employment (perhaps now as EU translators)"

1. cool=fashion and what is fashionable is changable and fickle. Gaeilge needs esteem, which is very much harder to weave. If a minority langauge rests on fashion it will go out of fashion. Another problem is that ambience/fashion is rather shallow. If one can buy a product, then people can be moved to do so. However, learning a foreign language requires conscious focus, time, and mastery. In a wordl of quick fixes and pop-culture telling you to turn off, become non conscious, and accept what civil servants, spin doctors, media enterprises, corporations etc tell you in the interest of selling some product, I see a diametric dichotomy in trying to sell what requires increased focus to a section of the population who tend to want everything immediatley and will do nothign to work towards it (teenagers).

2. Very true, and how do you propose such is achieved?

3. European translators are employed in a closed civil service arrangement. Their skills may never ben employed elsewhere, and tax money is required to fund them. Any form of job or business not based on service or manufacture, but on tax dollars is ultimaltely counter productive as here people will end up been paid to speak irish, but not even in any wider community.

"To say that all students must speak like a native in order to be doing the language good is silly"

Not so, the point was made clearly above that the degree of difference between Auzzie English and British English is of a few percent. Betwixt Dublin Irish and native irish, there exists a greater differences than between Scots gaelic and Irish, or between Dutch and German. Both 'versions' cannot both be called irish. There is no need to speak irish to understand Dublin Irish. i think what is occuring, is that you have not heard what kids are speaking in the gaelscoilleanna, and so might find it hard to believe what is been said, but it is shockingly bad, worse actually than many normal schools. The better acedemic results seem down to a more cogent teaching athmosphere where techers care to come in to teach, as opposed to coming in drunk, apathetic etc as in normal schools.

"Chaucer and Shakespeare are not separated by that much time...and yet their englishes were fundamentally different."

England underwent massive social changes in those years, and consequently the langauge changed. That could not be helped. In Ireland tho, the linguistic change is occuring in one generation due to ignorance and the avowed lack of countinance of such things as phonetics, grammar etc by teachers. The language is undergoing vanity changes for the learners sake.

Also, the analogy is flattering: Chaucer and Shakesphere were masters of their tongue; most learners are not.

I fully agree with Robert.

>No language is spoken today the same way it was in 1840 >or even 1920 - additions to and subtractions from it >over time in the form of idiom, accent evolution and >even some grammar rules have resulted in something >different.

The difference is that Irish evolves gradually from generation to generation. Why would it become completely different in just one generation now (these Gaelscoil children) ? In one generation, it would loose its phonology, its syntax, a great part of its vocabulary, its morphology...
Languages don't evolve through the mistakes learners make. It evolves through the speech of native speakers.

>to survive, Irish must become more than the langauge of >the gaeltacht

I've never said that it should only be spoken in the Gaeltacht, but that it should only be spoken AS in the Gaeltacht.

>or else it simply won't appeal to the young to invest >their personal time to learn it. Essentially, Gaeilge >is a product, and it's not being marketed to the new >generation very well.

Because it's bad taught. If it was taught in a funny way, children would like to learn it.

>as an american, i haven't much practical use for it - >in fact, i have none, whatsoever. that being said, i am >determined to become fluent, marry a fluent gal

that means that you consider native Irish as superior then... !

>all gov't publications gaeilge only, etc)

all politicians and journalists speaking Gaeilge only :-)

>but i digress. my point is, gaeilge is changing - and >it must change by virtue of the fact that it is a >living language.

cf above: a language evolves through its native speakers, not through learners.

>the gaeilge that will be spoken when i'm an old man >will be a very different language, and that's not >necessarily a bad thing.

Ok if it's just what will have come from native speakers... Now Gaeltacht children don't speak as their grandparents, but it's still good Irish (and it has nothin in common with Gaelscoil children irish) and is an evolution from their parents and grandparents Irish.
Irish should not change completely by the only reason that most non-native speakers have not been able to learn Irish properly. Native speakers have.

>Then what, if these ex-students make it the langauge of >their households and their children speak it as a first >language? That wouldn't 'count'?

no if they aren't able to make a sentence without mistake, if they don't make any difference between and in pronounciation, etc.

>You can think of the emergence of gaeilscoil irish as >the beginning of a new standard/standardization.

If so, it will kill irish: if all the mistakes that Gaelscoil children make become acceptable, what sort of grammar will be taught in your "new standard"? that you can say anything anyhow and that it'll always be right?



>yes and no. Chaucer and Shakespeare are not separated >by that much time (the death of chaucer in 1400 and the >birth of shakespeare in 1564...164 years, about the >same amount of time as separates us from pre-famine >irish), and yet their englishes were fundamentally >different.

Chaucer and Shakespeare were native speakers, not learners.

but my point was that influences and trends were brought to bear on the language that made it almost unintelligible from what it had been in a comparitively short amount of time...shakespeare was a native speaker, but the english he learned in the cradle was 'new english'

yes, evolution typically comes from the native speakers - but languages don't typically take the hit gaeilge has and manage to survive in any long-term sense.

all the spanish due to immigration in southern florida has had quite an impact on the english spoken there - but it doesn't make it any less english. norman french had such an impact that it fundamentally altered the language in a major way (old vs middle english)...yet we don't say english 'died' - it evolved (due to french speaking foreigners, not natives). (examples of old english to compare to chaucer's middle english above http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/pater_noster.html#OE )

gaeilge finds itself beseiged by a powerful global language that has taken root and displaced it among the native population of the only country in which it's spoken (except for scattered rural areas). Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be figuring out how to better teach the language in the gaeilscoils...but i do think the key is to seize upon the established standard (rather than picking a dialect...even when we teach english we teach american standard, rather than any dialect that's actually spoken) and more vigorously insist on it from the students, rather than running around willy-nilly with bad grammar...but make no mistake about it - a large body (perhaps doubling the number of speakers) of committed people with bad grammar is far better than outright death. We need to inspire the students to use the language among themselves and their future families, even if they don't need to do so for their jobs...

We may have become a little spoiled with hopeful news and numbers with regards to the language, but make no mistake...it wouldn't take much of a backslide to bring on a dire situation again or slide past the point of no return.

personally, i see the teaching of dialects as counterproductive unless you live in the small area where a particular dialect is spoken. americans, aussies, canadians and most residents of ireland should be learning the standard. unless you're trying to fool a native (which is foolish and not likely to happen) at least adherance to the standard would allow uniformity of teaching and hopefully reduce the "bad irish" that bothers you about the gaeilscoils. i know that in my own studies i have had teachers who taught versions of all the major dialects...and I think it has made it much harder. Every time i'd get a new teacher it would be like starting again with problems understanding pronunciations and grammatical oddities.

sigh...why do i always get long winded...alright...the cliffs notes version of what i have been trying to say: english is to irish today what norman french had been to english 1066-1400, and to expect irish to survive without being similarly affected by english vocabulary, idiom and in some cases grammatical convention simply drives a wedge between the language and almost every prospective learner, resulting in a slow death by attrition.

bearlacas idiom is going to work its way into the language through the very youth who are whatever future they language may have, and it will do so in spades. some grammatical things like syntax will not change...but some will (like the possible development of a yes/no, or elimination of gender). pronunciation will no doubt simplify a bit, but probably not much more than was already done during the development of the standard.

It doesn't really have to do with native/secondary speakers (tho many would like it to). as with any language, the largest/most powerful group *using* the langauge is who will set the rules for the coming generation(s). The Normans were a minority in england, but they were the ones in control of the country and so they got to make the rules...it's as simple as that.

" a large body (perhaps doubling the number of speakers) of committed people with bad grammar is far better than outright death"

No, its not. To accept anything as Irish, is to take it beyond a language into the realm of symbolism and even fetish. Gaelic is better off not spoken if the speakers have no tolerance of setting constraints on what is allowable or not. If I want to be seen as Irish, I can buy a leprachaun.

"but i do think the key is to seize upon the established standard (rather than picking a dialect..."

There is need to a new standard, with proper spelling reflecting the changes from late classical irish to the modern era, i.e spelling reflecting gaeltacht pronounciation. athshonach = ahondach etc. Of course, any standard needs some redundency to allow for varience in pronounciation. The 'standard' is only a body of rules, and some phonological detail...there are no parametres for rythm, tunes, metathesis etc, so much is left at the speakers discression. There should be no discression; a standard should be a standard.

"We may have become a little spoiled with hopeful news and numbers with regards to the language"

It is not a situation where numbers = success. What hopeful news?

"Every time i'd get a new teacher it would be like starting again with problems understanding pronunciations and grammatical oddities".

Most teachers are poor because they are not grounded in the complexities of lanaguage aquisition. No doubt it is a difficult area, but modern teaching by focussing on either grammar or conversation is highly bizzare in my opinion. What woudl occur if a mechanic or an engineer took a vicarious route to fixing a car or building a bridge? Nothing. You cannot twist a nut tight by circling tools around the nut, it must be physically acted upon directly. Unfortunatly, the difficulties involved in langauge training are such that no direct method has yet been created, one of the issues is that one is altering oneself and ones vocal setting, tongue positons, brain and so on, which brings in great complexity.

"...expect irish to survive without being similarly affected by english vocabulary, idiom and in some cases grammatical convention simply drives a wedge between the language and almost every prospective learner..."

I understand your point, however the people who are teaching a) either use grammar as a fundamental teaching tool, which can have the effect of been taught x, y, and z, without what the entities x, y, and z refer to, or b) a conversational approach, where the pupil is taught to communicate, and damn the details. Most 'teachers' of irish ar not fluent, even in the gaeltacht. I recall been told by natives how they would go down to the langauge schools and talk to the techers in full paced irish to embarress them, as they found it hard to follow. If the stories are true, it suggests it is the language movement that is doing the cleaving, keeping learners distinct from the native population. Also, remember, gaeltacht summer schools are often owned by TDs and senators and are rackets for money. Such enterprises have a bad corporate ethic with poor service, perhaps stemming from the civil service.

"the largest/most powerful group *using* the langauge is who will set the rules for the coming generation(s)".

The largest group cannot speak Irish. They are just a haze from which fluent speakers could be made. My guess is that Dublin Irish would mutate into a cant, if left to its own devices, using gaelic slang on top of a sort of distorted english grammatical base, in some respects like shelta today. Irish could even become an amorphous entity like 'The Thing', taking on the grammar of new lanagues from immigrants and becoming anything one wnats it to be.
Remember, the gaelgeoirí clique own billions in monies and equity. A small gaeltacht could easily be set up by the sales of their holiday homes in the Connemara alone and some land bought. Are they doing it? Heavens no!



Finally, I will say this. At the end of the day, it comes down to what you want to occur in the future, and what the language does for you. Does one want a language grounded in its own history, or grounded in another's history? Does one want Irish at any cost? For some people, it is about linguistic exellence, even moral, as the effort of learning a complex code places many tests of will upon one. For others, it is about continuing on a connexion to ones ancestors, and for yet more a statement of identity and national pride.

It seems in danger of becoming a linguistic and political football. The only thing is that I don't think their should be one game. The lanaguge is now fractured, with gaeltacht irish, civil servant irish, and Dublin irish, and since people do what they are comfortable with, you can only leave them to it when you have not the power to modify their will. It si more comfortable for me to train to be idiomatic, even if it is hard, while for a middle class Dubliner, it is easier to make up a code that keeps out skangers and plebs, since it comes down to aesthetic and emotional positions, not logic. and I know, irish is not airtight, english will somehow creep in, but there are limits.

Time is money, now more than it used to be. I don’t know whether it is bad. But that is why you come across heaps of books called ”German for 3 days”, “Russian for 1 week” etc. Phonetics is being completely neglected in this case, but that is – as I understand from the discussion - what makes us marvel the language. But I personally think that it is self-perfection that makes a good speaker. Those people who will find it interesting to master Irish will some day turn to dialectal phonetics (as well as morphology, syntax etc.), to the way some handful of people still speak the language. And that’s, I believe, the only way for Irish to remain afloat.

Irish will never be able to defeat English on its own territory - modern technologies, business, etc. – though Irish has its traditional spheres of usage where it is unbeatable, and these things attract more and more people. Once you’re involved, you’ll never be able to leave it, that’s for sure. It is no victory, I understand, some will say, it will only prolong the agony. Well, God knows…

I see another problem – the way Irish is taught abroad. These people contribute very much to the revival of the language. And they must not be deceived. There is a common mix of dialectal and unknown (for me) ways of pronouncing words and using grammatical constructions in the heads of Irish teachers abroad! This repels learners when their Irish grows stronger, this causes disenchantment with their teachers and, through this, with the so-called Standard Irish that they were taught. (From personal experience)

That has always been the trouble, but as far as Irish is concerned the process is absolutely uncontrolled and you hear people say: “Bhoil, you know, pet, I strongly believe someone on the southern cost must speak the way I do…” You see there’s always an opportunity to claim that your mistakes are no mistakes, but dialectal variants.

Le meas,
Peter

Lughaidh wrote:
>> The pronunciation may not sound like any of the
>> existing Gaeltacht dialects, but assuming the grammar,
>> idioms and the basic pronunciation are OK
>
> they aren't, most of the time.

That's a fair point. I suppose I'm wondering what the minimum requirements are.

...

> Problem be if me speaking like this, you understanding
> me but this is English still, thinking you?

I understand your point, but do you really think that, for example, non-native-speaker school teachers or students are that bad?

Just for fun, let me attempt to translate your sentence above into Irish and see how badly I do:

"Is é an fadhb ná, má tá mé ag labhairt mar seo, tuigeann
tú mé ach an gceapann tú gur Gaeilge í fós?"

...
> Will it still be Irish? Dublin Irish is that bad
> because it's only spoken by learners, and most of
> them may be too lazy to learn to speak it properly.

I agree that it's bad, and I'm one of these learners, if you hadn't guessed, but I think laziness is the wrong way to view it. I would dearly love to become more fluent and idiomatic, but I find it very difficult, not least because of the lack of everyday opportunities to practice with better speakers. I try to listen to RnaG, but I don't listen to the radio much in English or in Irish. Certainly if I was more committed I could take time of work to spend in the Gaeltacht, but that's not really practical for me.

...
> No, it *is* nothing because it isn't Irish anymore.
> When you change everything in a language (morphology,
> syntax, vocabulary, pronounciation, idioms, etc), it
> becomes another language.

I'm no linguist, but I don't really think school-Irish or Dublin-Irish is quite that bad. Certainly the school teachers I had didn't let us get away with mistakes like "tá mé fear".

Having said that, I think the Irish teaching I received in school was seriously deficient with respect to the intricacies of dealing with nouns and cases and things like that. I didn't found out about how noun gender worked until some time in secondary school!

again, I say...I'm not against finding ways to improve the irish coming out of the gaeilscoileanna. More authentic grammar is always a good thing. I say use the current established standard as a baseline for pronunciation and whatnot because a) to now establish another standard 50 years after the first would not inspire confidence in the language and foster further confusion - just think back to germany's recent experiment with 'new spelling'

granted, you don't want to produce a cant, but i think a cant is more in how it's used. if it's being used as a language - in the home etc, is not intelligible to, in this instance, english speakers and it's being called a language, it's a language. shelta is used to keep out the outsiders and has never called itself anything but a code langauge for expressly that end.

again I return to middle english...more than half the vocabulary became outright french, much of the germanic grammar and syntax became latin (through the french), the pronunciation shifted and the language found itself riddled with foreign idiom as dictated by foreigners not natives - all in a short period of time. are you saying that english died in the late 1000s and we are currently speaking a french 'cant', or pidgin french?

sorry, I forgot my "b)" at the end of the first paragraph above:

b) pronunciation varies widely between the different gaeltacht dialects...choosing one presents a problem - and a needless one considering that the students don't belong to any dialect nor do they live where one is spoken. Everyone will know they're a secondary speaker no matter how good they get, so a school standard will at least provide uniformity of a skill level standard.

"are you saying that english died in the late 1000s and we are currently speaking a french 'cant', or pidgin french?"

Anglo-Saxon gradually was modified until it was divergent enough to not warrant such a term. The label 'English' may have been static, but the structure of what was spoken was not. We speak a lanaguage that was made hybrid from two streams historically, with, as I understand it a ground down Saxon gramatical and lexicular base, with medieval french insinuated thru it.

As for semantics, I cannot say...recently I saw "It's the economy, stupid!" as a header in one of the sections of the Sunday Business Post. Now that phrase is situated (semantically) in a postion (if I may speak metaphorically) that even my father would not get. Its the Reese Witherspoon/Valley Girl etc manerisms that have been spread by popular teen culture thru films, prodominantly. I knew from the line what to expect in the article. Now looking back thru time, I cannot say for certain that ones can know all of the referents that a writer or speak in history utilised, i guess not. If there were a science of historical semantics, it may be very conjuctural indeed. Anthropology has these issues, even now, when confronted by alien cultures. We even have sub-cultures (goths, necrophilia, radio aeroplanes) with their own referents not accesable to the majority.

"to now establish another standard 50 years after the first would not inspire confidence in the language".

As i related above, in a case of a minority langauge there generally is no standard. The Caighdeán is not a standard and I will explain why i think it not.

The standard is created by non linguists in the metropolis (London, Paris, Moscow), such as the governance or intelligensia. They prescribe standards in spelling, pronounciation, and grammar. It is spread via mass education and mass media. Irish is in too low a position to be foistered on the Republic's people, as no such group of extreme power uses it as their mark fo identity. Grammar, spelling, and pronouciation are not enough to become fluent, one needs rythm, intonation, semantics and usage (when using 'cool!' is appropriate or when it is considered wrong, demarcing insider from outsider), and a host of other features. Now mass culture teaches you how to act and use the langauge within a large country with a centralised mass culture. However, in ireland, the caighdeán is only basic phonetics, grammar, and spelling. It is, in essence, ungrounded from a large population which via interaction with them, supplies the referents, the sub-phonetic elements, and the very ambience of usage. The caighdeán is only a piece-meal standard, so the users add in their English semantics ('tabhair suas do shuiochán seo' 'give up your seat' on buses), or prosodic tunes (girl on TG4 recently in Limerick markert using Auzzie tone rises at the end of words that signal questions in most Englishes, but is traditionally out of place elsewhere, and then using it in Irish! In Irish, stress at the beginning of the sentance starts at at medium height for tone range and a slids down. Rising a tone is for questions).

For a west-brit, Home county culture provides the other elements due to its ubiquity, that the speech trainer in Kiliney could not. Its not just the dental fricatives that make an Englishman, you know. It takes work. Ask Ruth 'Dud'-ley Edwards.

So, i think, given the small size of the gaelic concensus, and lack of leadership, a very stringent and detailed approach to creating of a standard is required. It will ahve to be drawn from the gaeltacht, as the caighdeán does not describe the parametres wide enough or in enough detail to suffice. Less was known, both technically and sociologically about language analysis and revival. A new standard needs to fit into any revival by steering training. Outside of that, there still are all the other issues of pedagogy, acceptance, and esteem to work on.

Dúirt Lughaidh:

>> In one generation, it would loose its phonology, its syntax, a great part of its vocabulary, its morphology...

For a model of this within the history of the Gaelic family, leaving the battered history of English aside, just have a look at Manx. The language of Manx speakers of two hundred years ago, when the language was still vigorous, resembles in many ways the language of "semi-speakers" of Scottish Gaelic and Irish: the same erosion of the copula, of the broad/slender distinction, of the autonomous verb forms, etc. The theory is this state of affairs developed in a few generations following the Norse conquest. The language of the ruling class shifted from Norse to the simplified/creolized Gaelic that they acquired, and the low-status speakers of "pure Gaelic" then followed their lead, gradually adopting the "broken Gaelic" as high status. This was all laid out very cogently a number of years ago in an article whose author/title now eludes me! Ring any bells amoung you linguists?

>Those people who will find it interesting to master >Irish will some day turn to dialectal phonetics (as >well as morphology, syntax etc.), to the way some >handful of people still speak the language. And that’s, >I believe, the only way for Irish to remain afloat.

YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS !

>I understand your point, but do you really think that, >for example, non-native-speaker school teachers or >students are that bad?

most of them, yes. Some of them learn in the Gaeltacht, and that's all right. Most don't.

>Just for fun, let me attempt to translate your sentence >above into Irish and see how badly I do:

>"Is é an fadhb ná, má tá mé ag labhairt mar seo, >tuigeann
>tú mé ach an gceapann tú gur Gaeilge í fós?"

not very good Irish, but most learners would make much worse. Fadhb is feminine > an fhadhb.

>Having said that, I think the Irish teaching I received >in school was seriously deficient with respect to the >intricacies of dealing with nouns and cases and things >like that. I didn't found out about how noun gender >worked until some time in secondary school!

That's completely crazy. But maybe it is so because teachers themselves don't really know what is gender... A teacher of German or French would explain it in the first lesson. Why don't they do it in Irish???

>pronunciation varies widely between the different >gaeltacht dialects...choosing one presents a problem - >and a needless one considering that the students don't >belong to any dialect nor do they live where one is >spoken. Everyone will know they're a secondary speaker >no matter how good they get, so a school standard will >at least provide uniformity of a skill level standard.

Students should choose a dialect, for any reason, ot doesn't matter. Because outside the Gaeltacht dialects, there's no Irish...

>This was all laid out very cogently a number of years >ago in an article whose author/title now eludes me! >Ring any bells amoung you linguists?

No, i don't read much articles about Irish (not enough time and my university doesn't have all Irish linguistics journals).

not to digress, a Lughaidh, but do you have a simple, concise way of putting forth irish gender rules? It is something that I don't find simple. the only 'rules' i've been taught seems reminiscent of english 'rules' where there are more exceptions than not.

if you have a good way of putting it i'd be grateful.

" Less was known, both technically and sociologically about language analysis and revival."

I meant to say 'it was technically very difficult to record and analyse the sub-phonetic and non phonetic features that make up speech, back in the early to mid 20th century'. Today with cheap digital technology and software more more data can be accrued from speech, thus, a more detailed record is possible, and so a more complete standard is attainable.

Dennis,
that paper does not seem to be on the web. Was it from a journal?

Peter,
" there’s always an opportunity to claim that your mistakes are no mistakes, but dialectal variants".

Good point, and a terrible shame.

Davidoc,
"I'm no linguist, but I don't really think school-Irish or Dublin-Irish is quite that bad".

I viewed Paisean Faisean last week, all decked out with Dubs, and was surprised by that weeks girl and two of the contenstants hearing their fluency in conversation, even if one lad appeared to think initital mutations were a foreign idiom, and the girl said "like" after every second word, but you'll have that. The previous week, I don't know what happened...'semi-speakers?' '1/8 speakers', more like...

Antaine,
one of the complexities, for me, of Irish, is how such elements as so contingent on other grammatical elements (noun, adjective, sometimes declension agreement etc), which make rules diffilcult to put concisely.

>not to digress, a Lughaidh, but do you have a simple, >concise way of putting forth irish gender rules? It is >something that I don't find simple. the only 'rules' >i've been taught seems reminiscent of english 'rules' >where there are more exceptions than not.

There are no rules. For most languages that have gender (Turkish, Finnish, Hungarian, Japanese etc don't have), you can't know if a noun is masculine or feminine (or neuter) unless you learn it with every noun.
For Irish, there are some rules that say that "most nouns ending in X are feminine" "most nouns ending in Y are masculine", but there are exceptions. You'll find that in a grammar. For example, most nouns ending in -óg are feminine (2th declension). Most nouns ending in -án are masculine (1st). Most nouns ending in -ín are masculine (4th) (exceptions: muinín...), etc. But most of the time, you have to learn the gender with every noun. That’s how it is. Just you have to know that you’d have the same problem with most languages (Spanish, German, French, Russian, Swedish, etc).

" there’s always an opportunity to claim that your mistakes are no mistakes, but dialectal variants".

Yeah of course, but for some things, it's easy to see that these are mistakes. And it just depends on the honesty of the person.

>one of the complexities, for me, of Irish, is how such >elements as so contingent on other grammatical elements >(noun, adjective, sometimes declension agreement etc), >which make rules diffilcult to put concisely.

Mmm, can you give examples, please?

Apologies in advance for my faulty grasp of Irish, French and German!

I think there's contrast between learning noun genders in Irish and in some other languages. For example, in French you have "le-words" and "la-words" (and ambiguous "l' words"), which helps a little: I can remember "la table" and "le verre" as units which specify the gender. In Irish we have "an bord" and "an ghloinne". The subtle cue to the genders may not be immediately obvious, especially if the words appear in a word list without the article (same problem in French), or in a context where the form of the word is different ("... na mbord", "... na gloinne").

Native speakers pick these things up, but learners, especially learners whose native language does not have genders, may find this difficult. I'm not saying that the language should be changed to suit learners, but that there may be reasonable explanations why these concepts are poorly grasped by many learners, or me at least!

learners whose native language does not have genders

Is english the only European Language which has phased out gender? I think it may be.

To be honest, I find genders fairly handy to learn. Generally, broad-ending words with one consonant at the end are masculine, slender ending ones are feminine. All this 1st declension, 2nd declension stuff just confused me. When I got into the language properly after school, it became fairly clear. Though, the main problem I find is getting the fluency that comes with being a native or speaking it often. Especially hard when you can't speak it often.

By the way, according to the census 2002 1.5 million people are irish speakers. Not only that, but the number has been growing strongly since semi-liberation. Of course, only 60,000 of them actually use it as 'the' language. And a big part of them can't actually speak Irish at all.

The oll-fhadbh with Irish though, the all-conquering, all-consuming problem that must be eradicated immediately without any trace remaining, is the appauling, horrific, terrible education system. ESPECIALLY with regards to Irish, it is an absolute fucking sham, excuse my swearing, but emphasis is required. The education ministers of the last 80 years should be locked up and have everyone stand around them speaking Irish really fast until they go insane. Especially Eoin Mac Neill, Irish scholar my arse.


....Sorry, continue, great thread.

>Native speakers pick these things up, but learners, >especially learners whose native language does not have >genders, may find this difficult. I'm not saying that >the language should be changed to suit learners,

some teachers do.

>but that there may be reasonable explanations why these >concepts are poorly grasped by many learners, or me at >least!

yes: they are bad-taught, maybe because teachers themselves don't know what they're talking about!

>Is english the only European Language which has phased >out gender? I think it may be.

No: Finno-Ugrian languages as Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, Saami have no genders. Basque hasn't either. Nordic languages have only common gender/neuter opposition (masculine and feminine have fallen (?) together).


>The education ministers of the last 80 years should be >locked up and have everyone stand around them speaking >Irish really fast until they go insane.

Take Northwestern Donegal speakers :-D

"Mmm, can you give examples, please?"

Lughaidh,
Well, where to start. I'm doing this quick, so it is not logically consistant in it's entirety, strictly speaking, but the gist is OK.

One knows that a noun is mutated in relation to case, gender, and number. Gender has elements of a) definite article polarity (2 forms, ‘an’ and ‘na’), and b) case agreement ('an' in all cases for masculine nouns, and in the nominative/ accusative/dative used for feminine nouns; 'an' results in prefix of 't-' to vowel initial masc. nouns, and causes lenition in feminine nouns...'na' used in all plurals, and in genitive with feminine nouns).

All this means that knowing when and how to use ‘an’ or ‘na’ is contingent on knowing the appropriate noun gender, and how it fits with case. In essence, it would seem that not understanding one or more of either i) gender of noun ,ii) definite articles, iii) case, means that the system starts to distort and traditional systems fall apart. That is why I used the 'self-structuring' analogy before. Perhaps a linguist here can attest or confirm in the negative, if the loss of gender and the weakening of the genitive are con-committed.

I meant this in response to Antaine's statement that he would like a 'quick n' dirty' method of ascertaining appropriate noun gender, and I felt that the contingencies of the system precluded a simple rule of thumb heuristic.

i didn't think there was one, it just seemed to have been indicated (at least as i took it) that someone had figured a good way of putting it (they said it should be lesson one if the language were properly taught). the way it has been put here is the same as i've ever heard it...

I haven't time right now but I'll post a pretty comprehensive noun gender guide later on.

I am still unsure how to weigh class and regional dialects of any language vs. the "standard" government issue academic "ruling class" version of that language; i.e. OED English vs. Brooklyn "English," for instance, as well as their relative merits. Of course Irish, while not being a "singularity," is certainly a very special and unique case. So the English analogies are pretty lame.

Like many, I susepect, my heart and gob (cab) are with the breac-Ghaeltachta and my ceann is with the so-called Irish standard text books and dictionaries and classes. Perhaps at the end of the day your "dogs" (do chos, your feet)determine the outcome? Meaning "where you're atis how you'll speak." Out here on the left coast I learn Irish from who is around: Irish teachers, Irish speakers, and now off the radio. In other words many dialects.

As the old song goes: "There's something happening here/ What it is ain't exactly clear..."

As an optimist I think much of what happening is (as they say in so-called "Shelta") d'arp (real, good, excellent.) We just to encourage D'arp sl'uxter (good scholars) rather than gammi (bad) ones

>>Nordic languages have only common gender/neuter opposition (masculine and feminine have fallen (?) together)

neuter is a gender... if we want to have it both historically and linguistically cogent, we can term these genders: neuter / non-neuter.

>>Perhaps a linguist here can attest or confirm in the negative, if the loss of gender and the weakening of the genitive are con-committed.

If gender is only showed in the genitive, then yes.... but do you mean that Irish is loosing both gender and genitive?

.....

Genders are "types" that have morphological consequences:
1/ The consequences may affect: the anaphorical pronoun (e.g.: sé or sí), the artical, the adjective, etc.
2/ When there is gender, all the nouns in the lexicon fall into one of the "gender types"
3/ certain endings are reliable giveaways as to which gender the noun pertains, certain others are less reliable, and for the majority of nouns you just have to know it by heart
4/ one "gender type" = no gender at all (e.g: English)

quote:

3/ certain endings are reliable giveaways as to which gender the noun pertains, certain others are less reliable, and for the majority of nouns you just have to know it by heart

Not with Irish -- you only have to know the vast minority of them by heart. For the great majority, they fall into a gender category based upon their ending.

This is not exactly what Ó Siadhail says in Leaning Irish. I find it hard to believe that the other dialects should be any different.

Do you have any percentage?

>neuter is a gender...

i wrote: common-gender/neuter. It doesn’t mean that neuter isn’t a gender, but that it’s a gender that is oppsed to common gender. In nordic grammars, they call it common gender or non-neuter.

Sorry, I read too quickly...

"If gender is only showed in the genitive, then yes.... but do you mean that Irish is loosing both gender and genitive?"

There would seem to be indications of it yes...if in Conemara the genitive is weakening, by your statement, it would mean the gender is weakening too.

It is indeed most probable that genitive (the only remaining case) will dissappear, and be replaced by position and/or a preposition. But then again, we'll probably won't live long enough to see that.

As for gender, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that it is "weekening".
(I wrote "If gender is only showed in the genitive, then yes", which is certainly not the case in Irish; eg: pronouns)

"replaced by position and/or a preposition."

Max,
could you synthesise a possible sentance of the future based on this conjecture?

>>could you synthesise a possible sentance of the future based on this conjecture?

If it is possible to see general tendencies in the evolution of language, it's absolutely impossible to know in every detail how a language will evolve.
Still, there are other instances in the history of languages where genitive has evolved into something simpler:


1/ From genitive to a preposition:
(I love the master's maid)
Latin:
Amo ancillam domini
French :
J'aime la servante du maître

2/ From genitive to position:
Someone else will have to provide the example...
(Welsh uses position for instance)

ps: genitive - which is a quite complicated feature called case - comes, like all cases, from older postpositions - which are simple features - that have merged with the preceding noun.

"from older postpositions - which are simple features - that have merged with the preceding noun"

So the genitve arose out of someting like 'hata an fear i'
where the positon is post 'i'? and then fell back into 'fear' to become 'fir', and then with the phonetic chnages were regularised '...an fhir'?

Bhuel, 'hata an fhear' might be one step...

then 'hata an fear'

Maybe you could hammer 'de' into service, altho is it not historically related to the dative?

'hata den fear'

then 'hat' and no velar/palatal distinction

'hat den far'

hat + of + the + man

'Is maith liom cailín an mháistir'

'Is grá liom cailín den mháistir'

'Iz gaw lum kaleen den master'

Dublin: 'Iz gaw lum mee bur@d!' ('I like my woman')

Genitive could disappear in Irish: cases have disappeared in the 5th century in Brythonic languages (Welsh, Breton, Cornish) and people still understand each other. Mutations still exist though.

In Dublin, don't they say "mé grá an iníon de an máistir" (pronounced "may graw an ineen jay an master") ? Just kidding.

'Is maith liom cailín an mháistir'

I like the teachers girlfriend?

The existance of prepositions or postpositions in a language is related to word order.

When the object comes after the verb, you have prepositions :
V prep. O

When the object comes before the verb, you have postpositions :
O post. V

Finnish used to have V-O order, and so had postpositions, but because of the influence of the neighbouring I.E. languages, the order is now shifting to O-V (allowed by the fact that Finnish has cases which means that the word order is never so strict as in the caseless languages) and as a consequence prepositions are appearing.

'Is maith liom cailín an mháistir'

I like the teachers girlfriend?

I do not have the female version of a 'gilly' (a 'boy' in the derogative sense) who worked in a position of subservience, so I used 'girl'.

What would that be?

I took 'máistir' to do for master given the ethmology. I understand its use in education, but I was attempting to use them as teknonymic demarcators (in the master/slave archetype)

The construction was simply to create a sentance where the genitive could be seen in effect

teknonym

teknonym (noun): A name derived from a child’s name that is used to address a parent. For example, Johnsdad (as opposed to Johnson).

Opps, I heard it used before to signal relationship dyads (like father/son; brother/sister; master/slave)

The above post then makes little sense...

As for the slave reference, I consider working as a maid to be in a subservient relationship, and that is what I felt connotated by 'maid', thus I wanted a term for 'gilly'.

Max,
http://www.akerbeltz.org/beagangaidhlig/gramar/grammar_lenition.htm
http://www.akerbeltz.org/beagangaidhlig/gramar/grammar_prepositionshistory.htm

this site has little bits about old irish. I know you have your own sources, been a linguist, but I'd thought I'd ask (more clearly than above) if you meant that Irish once had indicators after the noun (like (making one up) 'fear-a' for 'his man') which then fell into the noun creating cases (?)

Lughaidh
"cases have disappeared in the 5th century in Brythonic languages "

was that due to social upheavals and the influence of Latin? (which, did it not have 6 cases in its classical incarnation?)

And where are the dubs?...

>When the object comes after the verb, you have >prepositions :
>V prep. O

>When the object comes before the verb, you have >postpositions :
>O post. V

Persian has verbs at the end and it has prepositions :-D

>Lughaidh
>"cases have disappeared in the 5th century in Brythonic >languages "

>was that due to social upheavals and the influence of >Latin? (which, did it not have 6 cases in its classical >incarnation?)

It had 6 cases. Brythonic lose declensions because it lose the declension endings because of the stress on the syllable before the declension ending. Now, I don't know why Goidelic conserved declensions and not Brythonic, but "c'est la vie" :)

>>I'd ask (more clearly than above) if you meant that Irish once had indicators after the noun (like (making one up) 'fear-a' for 'his man') which then fell into the noun creating cases (?)

No. The cases come form I.E.. And if there were cases in I.E., this means that the noun and postposition merging process took place even before that... Which gives an idea of how slowly certain features evolve.


>>Persian has verbs at the end and it has prepositions :-D

Chinese has postpositions even though the word order is S-V-O...
What I wrote might well be too much simplified, but the explanation still holds. (I don't think that an overdetailed explanation would serve the purpose here.)


As for the causes of all those changes, they are quite too numerous, too subtle and too much entangled for us to understand fully the evolution of languages at this juncture.

>I don't think that an overdetailed explanation would >serve the purpose here.)

When I am in the room, it does: "faut toujours que j’aille chercher la petite bête" :-)

In which case you should not just give the counter-example but try and explain it, otherwise your point is rather unavailing, "tu ne crois pas ?"

Robert, a cumhal (handmaid) is what you are looking for.
But I was being deliberately obtuse.

This Dub is an engineer, not a linguist, and avoids discussions on grammar.

>not a linguist, and avoids discussions on grammar.

is amhlaidh atá ’s againn: deireann tú an t-am ar fad é.

Freagra ar cheist Robert a bhí ann

quote:

And where are the dubs?...