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


The Daltaí Boards » Archive: 2005- » 2006 (March-April) » Archive through March 25, 2006 » Question on Classical Irish « Previous Next »

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

(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 07:25 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Dear all,

I am interseting in knowing which system for lenition and eclipsis is closest to classical Irish (=Geoffrey Keating's Irish). I read that Munster Irish speakers use eclipsis as much as possible, Ulster Irish speaker always lenite and Connacht Irish speakers use eclipsis, but not as much as Munster. Also in the Standard, to keep everyone happy, you can use either. The exampl.e given in one site is:

1. Standard: ag an bhfear/ fhear
2. Munster: ag an/aigen bhfear
3. Connacht: ag an bhfear
4. Ulster: ag an fhear

Which system is closest to classical irish?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 1067
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 07:55 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Ulster people say "ag an fhear".

Everyone else, including the Standard, say "ag an bhfear".

Never heard of "Classical Irish".

Fáilte Roimh Cheartúcháin
Correct me for the love of God... I'm a perfectionist! : )

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 1277
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 08:20 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Eclipsis when the preposition was followed by the accusative case, lenition when it was followed by the dative case.
Some prepositions were followed by the accusative case (le...), others by the dative case (do...), and some others by the accusative or by the dative according to the meaning (motion or not). Those of you who know German, Russian or Latin already know that 'cause the same system exists in those languages.

In Old Irish: for + Dative = on (without motion)
for + Accusative = on (motion).

In Classical Irish:

ar an charr = (to be) on the car

ar an gcarr = (to go) on the car


Hope it's clear and if my examples are right (Dennis, correct me if I'm mistaken!)

Tír Chonaill abú!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1104
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 02:26 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

ar an gcarr = (to go) on the car

Or more unambiguously in English, "onto the car". Sampla eile:

san chath = in the battle
san gcath = into the battle

But Keating actually uses both forms indiscriminately! His Classical Modern Irish is something of a model, so we just have to accept the fact that the distinction was already moribund in his time.
quote:

Never heard of "Classical Irish".

An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach a thugtar uirthi i nGaeilge. Teanga fhilíocht na scol ó ca. 1250 - 1650 atá i gceist. Tá Seathrún Céitinn ar dhuine de na húdair is tábhachtaí dár bhain úsáid aisti i bprós.

(Message edited by dennis on March 10, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 02:50 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Dennis,

I am wondering as a learner of Irish whether I could try to copy a classical approach to eclipsis and lenition. Ie: instead of using eclipsis as much as possible, or lenition as much as possible, I could try to resurrect the distinction, by eg using eclipsis after le and lenition after do, even though no modern Irish dialect splits it this way?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1105
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 02:57 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

You could, but probably no one would realize what you're up to. :-) If anyone noticed, they'd just assume you were just mixing dialect norms. Foghlaim an Ghaeilge atá ag daoine eile ar dtús. Ní gá do chló féin a chur uirthi i dtús báire.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 1279
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:08 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Yeah, I agree with Dennis. First learn today Irish; anyway nobody is able to speak in Classical Irish today, as far as I know. Using a kind of Irish with Classical features will sound odd. Even when you want to use a bit archaic grammar, like seanchaithe, Gaeltacht people will think it's really odd, so if you use even more archaic things, they will really think you're crazy, or that you make mistakes (even if you don't). It could be quite funny to try to speak Classical Irish, but choose the persons to whom you'll speak like that: friends, scholars, etc, because Gaeltacht speakers would really think you're crazy :-)

Tír Chonaill abú!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:50 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Lughaidh, I am thinking that the situation with Irish is like this: Imagine in 200 years' time you come back (as a ghost?) to England to find that English is only spoken in pockets. Actually 3 dialects remain: Cockney, Geordie and Scouse, spoken on the outskirts of London, Newcastle and Liverpool (I can't locate Cockney in rural areas, I am sorry). So the government comes along and says, "we need to revive English". A debate ensues with some people arguing that Charles Dickens and Jane Austen's use of the language was the high point, and should be revived, but others arguing that "native speakers" would be alienated by that and we need to focus on the "language of the people" - and it would be insulting to tell the speakers of Cockey, Geordie and Scouse that their English was debased, particularly when it was only so compared with a defunct standard. However, the 3 dialects are far apart hand it is not clear what the standard should be. Ever since the demise of standard English, the 3 dialects have drifted further and further apart. So a standard is required, and is cobbled together by committee as a rather poor "average" of the 3 dialects. Arguments ensue. What should the standard greeting be? Cockney speakers insist on "Wotcha, Cock", Geordies on "Howay, Man", and Scousers on "Arright dere, laa". One thing they all agree on is that "How do you do?" is impossibly archaic, and "Good morning" lacks dialectal authenticity. The subjunctive has gone. Language enthusiasts from Oxford University try to revive it in phrases like "if I were you", but "native speakers" insist this is absurd.
Of course I realise that the selection of any standard is arbitrary, although there may be historical reasons, like power centres, the speech of the ruling class etc. But in theory any dialect could be or could have been the standard, and so from a linguistic point of view there can be no "debased" forms of a language, only dialects seen as substandard in relation to a standard that may or may not be accepted by most speakers as having some relevance. If we accept however that the high point of Irish has passed - and a language can have more than one high historical point, as with Old Irish, Classical Modern Irish etc - then living dialects represent a decline from that high point. Although it may seem an important point to select a standard that native speakers would accept, the fewer of them there are the less important this is as a factor. In other words, the idea of a standard cobbled together as an average of "caint na duine" is based on the Gaeltacht idea, rather than based on the idea of reviving Irish as a language for all Ireland.
Yes, I am trying to learn a dialect. I want to speak with a natural accent of a real dialect and speak a modern colloquial dialectal form of Irish. But I feel at the back of my mind that the decision to base the standard on caint na duine was a flawed one. Who can say what words should be lenited and what words eclipsed? It is an arbitrary exercise without reference to classical Irish. The Irish government, had they acted intelligently, could have just picked one real living dialect and said "we all are going to learn Corca Duibhne Irish, or Ros Muc Irish, or Rannafast Irish" and be done with it. In that case, everyone else would have to accept that their Irish was "substandard" in relation to the chosen standard dialect, and hopefully over time all would begin to speak something closer to the chosen living dialect, together with its rules for lenition and eclipsis. But to just choose an average of them all seems like a nonsense. How come the standard generally accepts either lenition or eclipsis? This seems meaningless, as if Irish language experts did not know what function lenition and eclipsis played in the language.
The other option would be not to focus on the Gaeltacht - whose sole function would be to provide a place for Irish language practice, but with no role in choosing standard forms - and create a classical standard language. This is the only point of view form which it would be possible to say to "native speakers" that the standard was better than the living dialects. Just as speakers of Egyptian Colloquial Arabic can also write Classical Arabic, in this case a diglossia could be fostered, with speakers encouraged to maintain their dialects as purely spoken forms, but write classical Irish. From this point of you, you could say "tá mé", as long as you wrote "atáim", all other forms being regarded as unacceptable in writing.
I would like to know what Richard Henebry's attitude was to the lenition and eclipsis problem. Did he use eclipsis with le and lenition with do?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 1071
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 05:38 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

How come the standard generally accepts either lenition or eclipsis? This seems meaningless, as if Irish language experts did not know what function lenition and eclipsis played in the language.

The "rules" (if you want to call them that) regarding the urú and séimhiú are quite clear-cut. The vast majority of the time, you're simply "right" or "wrong" when you mutate the start of a word. For instance:

an madra (It's a plain error to séímhiú)
an pháirc (I's a plain error not to séimhiú)
caint na ndaoine (It's a plain error not to urú)

There are very particular, clear-cut places in which the speaker has a choice (dialect dependant) of how to mutate the word. I'm only aware of a handful of such occassions:

1) After "preposition + an": ar an mballa, ar an bhalla (but never unmutated)
2) Masculine noun that begins with "s" after "preposition + an": ag an siúcra, ag an tsiúcra
3) Putting an urú on "d t": ag an doras, ag an ndoras
4) Not abiding the "d t s" rule: don tír seo, don thír seo
5) Putting an urú after "an" when you have a vowel: An íosfaidh tú? An n-íosfaidh tú?


The whole game of urú's and séimhiú's isn't a game of chance, there are "rules" as to where to put them.

Fáilte Roimh Cheartúcháin
Correct me for the love of God... I'm a perfectionist! : )

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 05:58 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

FNM: I was talking about use of lenition and eclipsis with prepositions where the dialects differed and the standard allowed more than one version. I have been looking at the chart on the following website http://www.nualeargais.ie/gnag/artikel.htm#praeposition

ag, with article=ag an (aigen)
Standard: E/L, ts (fem.), - (d, t)
Ulster: L, ts, - (d, t)
Connaught: E, ts (fem.), - (d, t)
Munster: E

the key to the abbreviations:

* E/L: In the standard, there is generally a choice between lenition or eclipsis after most prepositions + article, e.g.: ar an mbord/ar an bhord = on the table

* E: In Munster and Connacht, one eclipses after most prepositions + article, e.g.: ar an mbord = on the table

* L: In Ulster, one lenites after most prepositions + article, e.g.: ar an bhord = on the table

* ts: In Ulster and Munster, a t-prefix is used with all nouns, beginning with s, if the preposition + article normally incurs lenition, and not eclipsis, e.g.: ar an tsúil = on the eye, ar an tsagart = on the priest

* ts (fem.): In the standard and Connacht, a t-prefix only precedes feminine nouns, independent of a customary lenition or eclipsis following the preposition + article, e.g.: ar an tsúil = on the eye but: ar an sagart = on the priest

* - (d, t): d,t is not lenited in all dialects according to the "dentals"-rule following"an". In the standard and Connacht, d,t are additionally not eclipsed, e.g.: ar an doras = on the door

* In Munster, on the other hand, eclipsis occurs. e.g.: ar an ndoras = on the door

Is the chart on that web page right?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 06:08 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Can I add that if the standard allows either lenition or eclipsis, then clearly it would make sense for the standard to prescribe "no change" instead. I am not suggesting this as such, just pointing out allowing either means the change is meaningless and no disallowing either would be just as valid. If Irish linguists can't decide between "ar an mbord" and "ar an bhord" then L/E is playing no role in that phrase and it might as well be "ar an bord".

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 394
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 06:40 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

>>If Irish linguists can't decide...

It's certainly not for linguists to decide.
Lenition and eclipsis rarely play a role, but that's not the point.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cionaodh
Member
Username: Cionaodh

Post Number: 179
Registered: 05-2005


Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 07:47 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Scríobh Fear na mBróg:

1) After "preposition + an": ar an mballa, ar an bhalla (but never unmutated)


A very small point of correction here (and I think Unregistered Guest # was onto it) -- in the instance you cite in the above quote, d & t -- normally lenitable and eclipsable letters -- are not lenited or eclipsed after preposition + "an" in Connacht & Ulster, so the description "never unmutated" isn't quite accurate.

The only dialect where mutation is consistently applied following preposition + "an" is Munster.




http://www.gaeilge.org

FRC - Fáilte Roimh Cheartúcháin

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1116
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 08:23 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Lughaidh, Max, UG, agus a chairde eile,

Fuair mé rud éigin de thaisme in Stair na Gaeilge (lch 511) anois díreach atá sách suimiúil:

"Áitíonn Holmer (The dialects of Co. Clare I, BÁC, 1962) gur mhair an sean-idirdhealú idir thabharthach agus áinsíoch sa réamhfhocal 'i' i ndeisceart an Chláir (.i. 'san' + urú le gluaiseacht, san + séimhiú le suíomh); samplaí ag tosú ar 's' amháin a thugann sé, .i. 'bách sa tsnámh é', ach 'amach sa snámh'." [bách = bádh < báigh]

Níl a fhios agam an raibh an ceart ag Holmer, áfach. Je ne suis pas tout à fait convaincu par an sampla seo.

(Message edited by dennis on March 12, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 401
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 06:44 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I'm not sure I understand the examples...

However, "technically" speaking, you can only prove that their is a difference by using a true commutation, that is: commuting lenition and eclipsis only.

So far, these examples could be fixations containing only the relics of an older distinction.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dearg
Member
Username: Dearg

Post Number: 120
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 02:17 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Unregistered Guest,

Well, look at it this way. Imagine a Roman citizen from 2 thousand years ago came upon Spanish and French and Italian. "Ah, they are just bastardized versions of Latin, and should be converted back to Latin!"

Uh, well, no. :-)

IANAL (in this case, "I am not a linguist" rather than the usual "I am not a lawyer"), but it seems the Irish dialects aren't so very apart. I'm a beginning student of Irish and find it sometimes difficult to understand the various dialects. But, hey, that's how people speak. Isn't that what language is?

Again, IANAL but it seems that eventually the 3 dialects and the Standard will eventually morph closer together, as more people learn from books than from family.

If Irish survives at all.

To me, worrying about the dialects is like someone checking to make sure the stove is turned off before leaving a house that is burning down. It's the least of our worries. :-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 864
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 05:48 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

English, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages have drifted apart as well, but I wouldn't encourage learners of any of these languages to use expressions from Beowulf, Eddan or the Gothic Bible instead of the modern languages.

It cannot be denied that some Germanic languages have remained very close to the "Classical" form, Icelandic and German being two examples. English and Afrikaans would be seen as bastardised versions (fully comparable to Cockney in David's example) of Classical Germanic. Does that mean that we should think less of Shakespeare than of Goethe? Of course not, and I don't see any reason to do the same thing in the case of Irish.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 865
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 05:52 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"IANAL (in this case, "I am not a linguist" rather than the usual "I am not a lawyer"), but it seems the Irish dialects aren't so very apart."

That is very true. I don't know where people constantly get the idea that the Irish dialects are so different from each others. They are much more similar than dialect of many European languages. On the top of my head, English, Swedish, Norwegian, German, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Slovenian, Croatian, Albanian and Italian all display much more dialect variation.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Riona
Member
Username: Riona

Post Number: 72
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 08:17 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

One can only go so far with antiquated speech before someone tells them to quit it and "talk like everyone else". In this case talking like everyone else means talking in a dialect or even standard (which isn't really how native speakers talk but maybe people will not mind as much since they know you're a learner.).

If my friend, for instance, starts talking to me like she stepped out of a Shakesspear play then I'd probably tell her that I don't get what she wants or what she is saying and if we are to have a meaningfull conversation then I must be able to understand her. It is not bad that she is speaking that way, it is just impractical. So it seems like classical Irish would be a little impractical too. I guess you could try to make a statement but I don't know if people would jump on your ship and sail with you.

Beir bua agus beannacht.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aindréas
Member
Username: Aindréas

Post Number: 50
Registered: 09-2005


Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 09:25 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I was chatting with a friend from the Nederlands, who doesn't speak English, but is learning it in school (I don't speak Dutch, but we both speak Esperanto, just to clarify). We ran into some guy and my friend tried his English out on him. He asked "how do you do". I couldn't believe that they (still?) teach that expression in foreign schools. I honestly can't say I've ever heard a native or fluent speaker of English use that phrase. But it got me thinking about how exactly the kind of language taught, vs. the kind of language used.

Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Riona
Member
Username: Riona

Post Number: 74
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:12 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Interesting that you should bring up Esperanto. So, that's like a language that someone made up one day as far as I know, well, not one day, but it isn't a naturally occuring language. So it's sort of interesting how actual people speak it, kine of like Klingon, though not quite as silly. Tell me if I'm wrong. So I wonder if I could just make up a language and market it somehow I wonder if someone would actually learn it, I wouldn't expect anyone to. Interesting.

Beir bua agus beannacht.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dearg
Member
Username: Dearg

Post Number: 121
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:49 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Well isn't Esperanto a student's paradise? Perfectly regular verbs, perfectly regular grammar, perfectly regular spelling/pronunciation?

It's only perfectly regular because humans don't speak it. :-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 01:26 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Aindreas: How do you do?: this is still perfectly good English, if somewhat high style. If I met someone at a Conservative Party meeting, I could say "how do you do?"

Jonas: English dialects far apart? Like which ones? Are you referring to Lowland Scots as an English dialect? Apart from Scots, we don't have any dialects as far apart as your Swedish ones. Apparently lots of Ostrobothnian dialects would be classed as unintelligible to other Swedish speakers. Apart from the broadest varieties of Scots, I don't think that is the case with English dialects.

DJW.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 866
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 03:51 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"English dialects far apart? Like which ones? Are you referring to Lowland Scots as an English dialect? Apart from Scots, we don't have any dialects as far apart as your Swedish ones."

You're probably right, but the question was whether the English dialects are as far apart from each other as the Irish dialects are. My friends from Kerry never have any problems going to Donegal, nor does Donegal speakers find it hard to speak Irish in Kerry.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 23
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 09:14 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A chairde,

It's good the Unregistered Guest (who might have taken some alias still :)) has brought up the issue. he almost seconded my thoughts. I would not advocate going back to Keating though but to the literary Irish of the end 19 century - beginning 20 century. My reasoning is following. At that time a considerable part of population still spoke the tongue ALL over the country. Now we are chasing some really MARGINAL dialect as the best examples of the Irish.

No one can deny that Tourmakeady is a much better example of Connacht Irish that Conamara is. But we ended up with Cois Fhairrge (which pronunciation is really different from rest of Connacht), Corca Dhuine (which is DIFFERENT from Clare, Muskerry, Carberry and Rinn) and so on.

Looking at my country which has so many thing in common with Ireland (great history, later colonisation, decline of the native language, famine, plague)- I can really make some conclusions on the parallel. When caighdeán was developped - I think they should have taken best examples of Mayo dialect and said - "That's it folks - this is your new literary language". I am no partisan in this respect - I like West Muskerry most, but I think Mayo could have been the best compromise. The funny thing is that they still ended up with something very close to Mayo after all - because this is what you get if you mix up all surviving dialects.So what was the point of making some artificial mongrel if they still had a live dialect??

Last point - during the weeked I got some of the textbooks that are used in Ireland to teach Irish at school. What can I say? Lamentable and pitiful. A lot of typos, over-simplified texts and of couse all those N.B. If you are weak in grammar you can say "cheannigh muid" instead of "cheanníomar" or gan dabht!!!. For God's sake! Children are taught corrupt language, so what can be expected? The bastardisation and "simplification" will simply kill Irish. We have to back to the basics.

When Lithuanian was on the verge of extinction in the beginning of XX century the language enthusiasts looked for inspiration in Classical liturature, not in debased Polish-influenced speech around them. That's how the language was restored. Now we can read old newspapers with those bastard expressions and simply laugh - because nobody is speaking this way anymore. I even remember from my childhood some words of Polish origin that have been since then successfully replaced with native ones. This is the way to go for Irish, or to become extinct.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 10:10 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman, what you say sounds interesting. Are there any turn of the 19th century writers in particular you recommend. I suppose you are not recommending Richard Henebry. I have a pre-war edition of the Christian Brothers Grammar that I was going to use to point me in the direction of a better standard.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aindréas
Member
Username: Aindréas

Post Number: 51
Registered: 09-2005


Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 10:24 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Riona, well not quite a language that "someone made up one day." It took years and years (over a decade I think?) of creating and testing. It's not like Klingon really. It's meant to be an international auxiliary language, that is to faciliate communication between people all over the world. In some respects it's failed, as it hasn't completed it's goal, because it's not a world language. But there are over 1 million who speak it worldwide. It's no less expressive than any other natural language.

Dearg, no one speaks it? You need to get around more. ;-) There are probably more fluent Esperanto speakers than Irish speakers (according to most of the statistics). Esperanto has been changing and evolving ever since it's creation. One can even argue that irregularities have emerged in the language's usage, if you're stuck on that it's regular because "no one speaks it." There are a fair number of first language speakers too.

Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 867
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 10:42 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I agree with Román. It would have made most sense to just pick the dialect of South Mayo. It's still a living dialect, and at that time it was stronger than it is today. Some of the most famous authors wrote in the dialect in the early 19th century. Most of all, it is the only dialect that was free from Northern influences (found in Ulster Irish and to some degree in North Mayo) and Southern influences (found in Munster Irish and in Cois Fhairrge Irish). I'm not saying those influences are bad, but they diverge from the standard and they make it a bit harder for outsiders to understand. South Mayo Irish is closest to the old standard, so it would have been a sensible choice.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 25
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:19 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A DJW, a chara,

Although it is very basic, but for sake of authentic phrases and un-spoilt grammar I refer frequently to "Simple Lessons in Irish" by O Growney at www.phouka.com. Last weekend I made use of very nice expression "Sonas ar do láimh" (when returning gratitude for the present) taken from that course. I find it really cute.

p.s. The course uses "atáim, atáir (while also mentioning taoi), táthaoi" and the likes

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig_toronto
Member
Username: Pádraig_toronto

Post Number: 20
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:38 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I find the information on the South Mayo dialect very interesting. Are there any sources that discuss it in detail ( along the line of the series that looked at dialects called An Teanga Bheo ) ?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 26
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:45 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Phádraig,

Unfortunately the plans to make An Teanga Bheo: Maigh Eo stayed only those: plans :(. But you can refer to thorough description of the dialect in "Irish of Tourmakeady" supplemented by "Irish of Erris" both published by Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. You can order the book directly from DIAS or through Amazon (as I did). There is a good description and some sample texts with IPA transcriptions in it.

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:22 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman can you say something about the difference between Erris and Tourmakeady Irish. Which are you suggesting is closest to the old standard? Tourmakeady by the sounds of it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 868
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:29 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Definitely Tuar Mhic Éadaigh, much closer.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 28
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:31 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

DJW, a chara,

I am only now having some more thourough understanding of Munster dialects, so I am no expert on Connacht at all. But Jonas who is much more knowledgeable suggests that Tourmakeady is the closest to the old standard. I believe him as he is mini-guru of the field. The best opinion can be obtained from member Peadar Ó Gríofa, who is fond of Mayo dialects, haven't seen him recently around though. I will take a look tonight as I have both books to say what is to my eyes that makes Tourmakeady more preferable.

Having said that - you should still bear in mind that what relates to verbal conjugation dialects of West Múscraí and Cléire island are un-beatable even among Munster dialects. This is one of the reasons I have chosen them. Whereas everybody (almost) says "tá mé" bar Corca Dhuine (even An Rinn does!) they still use "táim" solidly and so on.

Múscraí abú! :))

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Member
Username: Peter

Post Number: 26
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:46 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Hi everyone!!!

>>> No one can deny that Tourmakeady is a much better example of Connacht Irish that Conamara is.

What the hell??? It's like saying Vologda Region Russian is the best example of the North Great Russian speech :))) =Sorry for that literal translation, Roman!= Things of yore are better preserved therein, then I guess you right.

Bhoil, I'd say getting more and more involved in the Irish language way of life =Dennis, you phrase!= I do feel pleased with the work that was carried out by the Caighdea/n Oifigiu/il group. Why? - Because it is Conamara, mostly. 70% out of all cases cases =lexics chosen for the dictionaries, phraseology, grammar stuff and so on=. A year or so ago I opposed it greatly because of its artificiality, now I see a brushed-up normalised balanced-out Connemara cant. They have just called it that way so not to hurt other speakers' feelings, I guess.

Still don't want to speak it.

Le meas, Peter

(Message edited by Peter on March 14, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 29
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 12:57 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I have never seen anyone who would be fond of Conamara Irish :)) Anyone, real fan? :)))

somehow the consensus is that Donegal and Munster are leading the ball. Maybe Mayo would also fit in, if there were any teaching aids to advance it. But Conamara? brrrr... with all respect to the venerable "Learning Irish". :)))

p.s. just my point of view, no offence to anyone

Le meas

(Message edited by Róman on March 14, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 01:45 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Just purely on the sound of it all, the Irish of Tús Maith (= Ulaidh) is beautiful, it seems to kind of have a lilt to it. The Irish of Learning Irish: also quite nice from an auditory perspective. The Irish of the audio files of Myles and Dillon's Teach Yourself Irish (Cionaodh provided the audio files to many people) - oh, dear! oh, dear! oh, dear! Duome nanting, as they would say in Chinese. Not beautiful at all, although my ancestors from County Cork may have spoken something similar. As you say, the declensions are more retro, so there are advantages.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 01:48 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Is the reason why the Munster audio files sound so bad because they are all old men on the tapes? And the Connacht and Ulster alternatives have young people with attractive voices reading? By the way, I am learning Learning Irish, but planning to swap to Ulster Irish at some point in the future as the only exact village I can trace myself to in Ireland is in county Down (the other ancestors I can trace to counties, but not to specific locations due to the difficulties of Irish genealogy).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 01:56 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman, do you agree that the "real" nominative form of the world for the Irish language is not "Gaeilge" but Gaedhealg? Is this pronounced with an epenthetic vowel after l, ie as ge:l@k? How is the word pronounceed in Tourmakeady? Do they use Gaeilge or Gaelg or Gaeilic? Do they pronounce is ge:l@k' ?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Member
Username: Peter

Post Number: 28
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 01:59 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Opinion poll then? :))

I do be fond of Connemara Irish (have seen that construction in an Irish author's book) . Cois Fhairrge Irish is the best for me. I am a real fan of it. But I know for sure no one learning or teaching Irish in Russia likes it. Actually they hold it in contempt. E.g. Cois Fhairrge is often referred to as:

(as if it were written) Cois Fairrge
Cuis Fairrge
Cois Faidhrrge - the one I like most :) No guta cunta, of course, no fh :((

- I came across the last two in "serious" books on Irish, scientific reseach&paper, мать их -

It explains everything I believe.

Cheers

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 869
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 03:25 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Peter, добро пожаловать в Daltaí - всегда очень приятно познакомиться соседа. I think you're the first person I've met who thinks Conamara Irish is the most beautiful - and I have lived in the Conamara Gaeltacht for months, surrounded by native speakers of that dialect. Even they didn't agree :-) Actually I don't mind it at all, I think all Irish dialects are nice in one way or another.

David, I think the fact that sound files for Dillon's book were recorded in the 1960s explain much. I agree with you, having young and attractive voices do much to a recording, and produces of modern courses are aware of this. By the way, the Irish of county Down was very diffirent from Ulster Irish. The closest you get to that dialect today is probably the Scottish Gaelic dialect of Islay.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 06:43 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Jonas, I think you mean "познакомиться со соседом", or "познакомиться с людей, живущих в соседней стране".

Yes, I know East Ulster Irish is another subject altogether. I also have ancestors from Co. Tyrone.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 30
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 02:36 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

познакомиться с людей, живущих в соседней стране


It should be: познакомиться с людьми, живущими в соседней стране

DJW: Gaeilge is genitive, nominative used to be Gaeilg, pronounced [Ge:l'ik']. there is no point in spelling Gaedhealg - all dialects pronounce pure vowel between "g" and "l", so Gaeilg is good enough.

As to beauty of Munster Irish - get Pimsleur tape and then make a judgement. Dillon has been recorded by older people, it's true - but I get over it, it is still very good to build a good pronunciation.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 02:45 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman: thanks for all three points you made. Yes I should know that c in Russian needs the instrumental. The point of spelling Gaeilg Gaedhealg is because it is that way in Dinneen's. I think Pimsleur tapes are too expensive to buy.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 32
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 03:01 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

DJW: there is always peer2peer solution :)

Dineen's spelling shouldn't be followed slavishly. If some sound ceased to be pronounced in ALL dialects, then there is no point of keeping them. But if they are still pronounced - I am for keeping them.

Féach: léigheann is pronounced exactly this way in Maigh Eo and Ullaidh [l'e:j@n]. In Mumha it is pronounced léann. The "official" spelling prescribes "léann" as the only alternative, what is wrong to northern varieties of Irish.

Other example: word "tinn" is pronounced this way in the North, but it is pronounced as if spelled "teinn" in the South. The "official" spelling recognises only northern form, although both "teinn" and "tinn" would be read the same way in the north.

There can be tons of such examples.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Member
Username: Peter

Post Number: 29
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 03:04 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Jonas, DJW,

Happy to say you both made mistakes :)

Jonas: всегда приятно познакомиться с соседом

DJW: познакомиться с людьми, живущими в соседней стране

Not so bad anyway.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Member
Username: Peter

Post Number: 30
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 03:07 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Oops,

My message with corrections seems ot be a bit late.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Member
Username: Peter

Post Number: 32
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:40 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Jonas,

Since we are at it, though I think it has been discussed many times already, is it difficult to get to the Gaeltacht for a long stay, like you had (is the procedure any different for different Gaeltacht areas, btw?), for a non-EU citizen? Dunno, maybe it's even better to begin a new thread for that.

Peter

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 36
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:12 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Pheadair (alias Peter),

getting to Gaeltacht is no more difficult than getting to Ireland in general. Just get Irish visa and that's it.
In your situation an invitation from Gaeltacht's school of Irish or Conradh na Gaelainne might be helpful while obtaining the visa.

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Member
Username: Peter

Post Number: 33
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 01:25 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

>>> A Pheadair (alias Peter),

Rather than writing "a Pheadair" I'd suggest "a Phíotair" as I've seen the spelling Píotar in a reliable source :)

>>> Conradh na Gaelainne

:) Múscraí Irish madness?

I just thought, well, there are tons of ads kinda "go&learn English in Ireland" bla-bla-bla, is it the same price category? College, boarding school? the more Irish speaking is the Irish speaking district, the $$$?? :) Just kidding. Actually I never thought thouroughly&appropriately on the issue, I'd better spend an hour or two surfing the net.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 872
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 02:54 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Ouch, of course I should know to use the instrumental case. The problem with my Russian is that I always think in Serbian/Croatian (Uvijek je prijatno sresti susjeda) and then translate to Russia. I usually get the words right, but the grammar...

I don't think you should have any problems going to the Gaeltacht. I simply wrote to Údarás and asked them for help, some weeks later I got a mail offering a job. I don't think it would be a problem that you don't live in the EU. Of course, many jobs do demand a working knowledge of Irish.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig_toronto
Member
Username: Pádraig_toronto

Post Number: 22
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 02:57 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

not to pry... but what type of job did you do ? At what level was your Irish at that time. I could only imagine what that experience did for your fluency.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 873
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 03:05 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

My level of Irish was much better when I finished. :-) I have to admit that my Irish probably should have been a little bit better than it was when I went there. I did manage in Irish, I understood and I could speak, but the first weeks were hard. Actually, it was as much the Conamara dialect. I was so used to Kerry Irish that it took a while to adjust. One of my colleagues was a speaker from Cork, and it was so much easier to understand him. I was involved in an EU project, companies from Austria, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, and Slovenia participated in it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig_toronto
Member
Username: Pádraig_toronto

Post Number: 23
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 03:26 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

ah yes, I have experienced the same thing when I first went to Conamara for immersion. Up until that point I had learned Irish from a teacher from Dublin. She had great Irish but was definitely influenced by Munster Irish.

A friend who accompanied me said that for most of the two weeks I had the classic "deer in the headlights" look. I think I just looked contemplative :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 3
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 08:39 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I agree with Róman on this.
I believe we should have a written (& perhaps spoken) standard BASED on Classical Irish, modified to accomidate the natural changes which have occured in the language over time. For example, I think it would be absurd to write Atá, do-chum, oiléan etc. when they have changed everywhere. Likewise cases where an old dative form has become the nominative should be accepted eg. Abha > Abhainn etc. On the other hand I think changes that have occured as a result of the supression of Irish, the seperation of dialects, and pollution from English (whether vocabulary, syntax or pronounciation) should be completely discarded. Similarly, changes which lessen the range of sounds which can be expressed (eg. rothar > rór),which have destroyed subtle differences (eg. coalescence of preps. 'le', 'fri' and 're' to 'le')- which is one of the hallmarks of a rich, expressive language - and changes which blur similar sounding words together should not be encouraged to continue.
If any good comes from the state of our language today it is the chance to stop, take a good look at it and decide how we wish it to develop in the future.
I'd also agree with Róman & some others that of all the living dialects, Tourmakeady would undoubtadely make the best national standard.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 08:56 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Another couple of points while I'm at it:
1. I think the spellings found in Dinneen's Dictionary are the best to date (although not perfect).
2. An excellent critique of the córas oifigiúil and some suggestions are to be found in "Córas Fuaimeanna na Gaeilge".
3. The use of 'Gaeilge' as the standard written form of the name of our language was mentioned above. As all the modern spoken forms of this word are based on 'Gaedhilg'(the dative form of the classical 'Gaedhealg') I think this should be the standard form of the name. Ulster & north Connacht - ge:l'ik' (the devoicing of /g'/ to /k'/ at the end of a word is common in these dialects eg. reilig > reilic.
Munster - ge:ling. The /ng'/ is a developement of an older /g'/. South Connacht - ge:lg'@. This is not, as many suppose, a case of the genitive supplanting the nominative but is in fact a common feature of this dialect i.e. adding an unstressed vowel to words ending with a slender consonant eg. oifige, socraide, béice.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

djw (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:38 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

James, what was the difference between le, fri and re?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 37
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 03:23 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Shéamais Ó Murchú,

quote:

Likewise cases where an old dative form has become the nominative should be accepted eg. Abha > Abhainn etc.

I beg to differ. In Cléire&Múscraí dialect "abha" is still the norm. And if you accept this for some words - where do you stop? Éire or Éirinn, fuinneog or fuinneoig, lámh or láimh? If it is accepted that dative does exist in Irish (and even if there is no distinct ending - there are different mutations), then the distinction has to be kept
quote:

I think it would be absurd to write Atá


Now answer my conundrum. While I wouldn't write "Atáim anso" -> only "Táim anso", there is a problem with questions. Word "conas" (is Dineen's "cionnus" really a better spelling?) is followed by "a" and independent verbal form. E.g. "Conas a deinir é?" So analogically you should write "Conas a tá tú?" while the spelling convention is to run them together: "Conas atá tú?" So if we skip "atá" how should we write then? The same thing concerns many other words: nuair, cathain, cad: nuair atáim/nuair a táim? cad atá/cad a tá? etc The thing that "a" is not pronounced is not the point - usage of relative particles should be consistent - if "a" is used before other verbs it should be used before "tá" as well.
quote:

pollution from English

100% agreed. "gan dabht" - NO, "gan amhras" - YES
quote:

coalescence of preps. 'le', 'fri' and 're' to 'le'

distinction has been lost since Middle Ages. What is the point to re-surrect it? I would more think on de/do lines.
quote:

eg. rothar > rór

It is not even worth discussion. "rór" is only East Conamara thing. Even in Garmna it is not found, not even mentioning Munster, Mayo and Donegal. The common spelling shouldn't follow one village's pecularity!
quote:

the spellings found in Dinneen's Dictionary are the best to date

No. I don't agree. Why would you write "oidhche" if ALL dialects pronounce as if spelled "oíche"? There is no point to keep "idh" instead of "í" here. Or spelling "ugh" is clearly inferior to "ubh". If you accept that "atá" has changed to "tá" you accept those changes.
quote:

based on 'Gaedhilg' ... this should be the standard form of the name


Why not "Gaeilg"? What is the purpose of keeping "dh" there? It doesn't serve any purpose anymore.

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 05:49 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Silent letters? Need to be kept to ensure backward compatibility with earlier versions of the language.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 38
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 06:11 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

Need to be kept to ensure backward compatibility

And what about compatibility with 2 generations of people raised with caighdeán?

And I still don't get the point of writing "ingheon" instead of "iníon". If the language is not to become a torture device the spelling should be in line with current pronounciation and not with what was pronounced in 9th century. You are advocating spellings like in French "anima" insted of "âme" (soul) just for sake that it was pronounced like this 2000 years ago in Latin. There is no "dh" sound in "Gaeilg" in any Irish dialect, so why do you insist on putting it there? The only reason I can think of is a desire to make things look pseudo-archaic and overly complicated.

(Message edited by Róman on March 16, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 414
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 07:49 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

The modern French spelling is that of French as it was pronounced several centuries ago...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 39
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:51 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Mhaix,

But still it is not Latin. The reason French spelling is not seriously reformed is that save for several odd words like "douceâtre" or "poêle" it is rather regular. Even without knowing the word you can read it without problems.Admittedly writing is nightmare because of numerous homonimes. In this respect French spelling is much easier than English. Irish spelling is not as regular as French. Simple words like "scoil", "duit" are read differently by different speakers because the meaning of "oi" and "ui" is not settled.
Caighdeán spelling with all its deficiencies is not a phoneme-to-letter spelling, it has a lot of historical etymology to it, otherwise things would be spelled on Welsh principles: not "i mBaile Átha Cliath", but "i Meá Clia", not "sa phota", but "sa fota" and so on.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 874
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:56 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

The present Irish ortography is excellent, and the result of carefull considerations. With the exception of Dennis, none of the participants here are even close to the expertise that went into that labour.

I don't mean we should not discuss it, but the risk inventing the wheel is there.

(Message edited by Jonas on March 16, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 40
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 09:07 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Jonas, if you think it is so briliant, then I have several questions:

1. How to express in terms of Irish orthography [o] after slender consonant before a broad one.
2. How to make [i] after slender consonant before a non-dental broad consonant
3. How is it possible to make [v] sound between vowels inside of the word.

Those questions are not invented. Problems appear immediately when you try to transliterate foreihn names (placenames as well) into Irish

I will be grateful for suggestions

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 415
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 10:04 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman, French spelling was reformed by the Académie Française into an "orthographe étymologique" by reintroducing plenty of so-called "etymological consonants":
set > sept
ten > temps
cor > corps
doi > doigt

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Member
Username: Peter

Post Number: 34
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:11 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

>>> eg. rothar > rór
It is not even worth discussion. "rór" is only East Conamara thing. Even in Garmna it is not found, not even mentioning Munster, Mayo and Donegal. The common spelling shouldn't follow one village's pecularity!


No one would say /ro:r/, they'd say /`roh@r/ as it is a recent borrowing from an Caighdea/n. And btw. there are at least 3 relatively big villages in the parish that share the feature: Teach Mo/r, Locha/n Beag, Cor na Ro/n. And don't forget about the Aran Islands where they do drop h as well.

Peter

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 41
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:18 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

No one would say /ro:r/, they'd say /`roh@r/ as it is a recent borrowing from an Caighdeán. And btw. there are at least 3 relatively big villages in the parish that share the feature: Teach Mór, Lochán Beag, Cor na Rón. And don't forget about the Aran Islands where they do drop h as well.



A Pheadair, a chara

It's not the point. The common all-Ireland-inclusive spelling can shall have all those "th". I don't think anyone would try to prove otherwise.

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 42
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:28 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

set > sept
ten > temps
cor > corps
doi > doigt



A Mhaix,

But you have plenties of borrowings from Latin, where those consonants are present. sept - septimal, temps - temporel, corps - corporel, doigt - digital. There is some logic in having the same stem in the same word family notwithstanding words provenance. And you should agree that writing "le grant hôtel", la grande femme, les grans hôtels" is not very convinient.

Still nobody has shown the merits of writing "oidhche", "Gaedhaelg" beside being able to make etymological excavations.

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 875
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:57 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"Jonas, if you think it is so briliant, then I have several questions"

Brilliance is of course a relative thing. I'll admit that Finnish probably is the only European language that has a brilliant ortography. Once you know the letters, reading any new word is easy as you know the pronunciation. I don't think there is any other language in Europe that is so regular. Of course, it's not because of any superior quality in the language, it's because it was standardised relatively late. Serbian and Croatian were also standardised in the 19th century and have a fairly "brilliant" ortography - if they would mark the accent.

Of the other European languages, Spanish has the most "brilliant" ortography if we define regularity and ease as brilliance. English and Irish are about as far from brilliant as one can go in Europe. Again, it's because they have been standardised long ago.

When I say that I like the Irish ortography, I'm not thinking about these factors. All those languages have a strong standardised norm. What I like about the Irish ortography is that allows for the different dialects. A speaker from An Rinn and a speaker from Iorras write in the same way, but read the same text according to their own dialects.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 01:04 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Jonas kirjoitti:

"The present Irish ortography is excellent, and the result of carefull considerations. With the exception of Dennis, none of the participants here are even close to the expertise that went into that labour.

I don't mean we should not discuss it, but the risk inventing the wheel is there."

He also opined:

"Of the other European languages, Spanish has the most "brilliant" ortography if we define regularity and ease as brilliance. English and Irish are about as far from brilliant as one can go in Europe. Again, it's because they have been standardised long ago."

Jonas, you don't understand at all. It is not that people here - whether Dennis is included or not is neither here nor there - think they have an expertise equivalent to people who drew up the Official Standard. This is an irrelevant point. it is this: standardising a language is ultra vires from the point of view of the government. Some countries in Europe have a different view of freedom. I personally don't regard Finland as a free country - you are too used to accepting your status as cogs in the government's machine. The English-speaking countries have a more developed view of freedom. Changing the spelling of a language by government fiat is illegal and unconstitutional in all countries. These things must develop naturally. English orthography: it is glorious precisely because of its natural development. Do you think English people would accept a government imposed script reform? I am quite sure Finns would - but that is the difference. From a deep constitutional point of view, the Common Law is the fundamental law of England and Ireland. Even the Irish constitution, whatever it says, is only constitutional to the extent that it conforms with Ireland's traditional rights as specified under the common law. I do not pretend to know if there is an article in th e constitution of Ireland that purports to give the governemtn the right to reform the irish language, but I would reject the legality of such if it existed. So this is a profound political difference between the "actually existing socialism in one country" practised in Finland and the Common Law of England and Ireland. The Official Standard has no legal authority in Ireland, or anywhere else. These things must develop more naturally. You said the Irish experts who drew up the orthography gave it "careful consideration", but they had no authority to consider this matter. Your basic assumption is that society is, and ought to be, unfree.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cionaodh
Member
Username: Cionaodh

Post Number: 182
Registered: 05-2005


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 01:27 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

DJW, a chara --

You may have noticed that there isn't a groundswell of enthusiasm for creating a new & improved caighdeán, hence you're seeing a lot of "foot dragging" (polite or not) in readers' appraisals of your ideas in this thread.

I think your arguments/reasons are grand, and I wish you well in this pursuit, but I don't think there's a large crowd queuing up to join you.

And if you'd like there to ever be such a crowd, you might want to leave politics out of it. Where people might unite with regards to language proposals, they rarely see eye-to-eye in political matters. Dance your dance further away from that cliff, a chara.

http://www.gaeilge.org

FRC - Fáilte Roimh Cheartúcháin

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 417
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 01:36 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

>>Still nobody has shown the merits of writing "oidhche", "Gaedhaelg" beside being able to make etymological excavations.

Show me the merits of writing "comte", "étang", "compter", "dompter", "posthume" beside being able to make etymological excavations (which by the way, in the case of "dompter" and "posthume", are erroneous).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 876
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 04:15 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Well, I guess we are all biased by our background. I tend to think that a high turn out in elections is a fundamentally good thing, and I think that the number of voted received should correspond directly to the number of seats in parliament. David has got a different view on that, and it's up to him. The political system in Finland is not perfect, far from it, but compared to the UK we can at least be proud. We are allowed to vote for our head of state and the parties receive places in parliament based on percentage of votes they get in the elections. So while David might see faults in our democracy, we see other faults in that of the UK. I don't see it as a problem, trying to impose one's own view would be a step away from that democracy.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 5
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 05:36 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman - 1.I wasnt aware "abha" was still in use. Still the overwhelming majority of Irish speakers use "abhainn" so I think it would make the best WRITTEN STANDARD form.
2. Of course I understand that "atá" is used as the relative form of the verb.
3. Fri, re, le - "distinction lost since the middle ages". Fri may indeed have gone out of use some time ago but "re" & "le" were still used together until quite recently (at least in writing). I'd agree, of course, about "de" and "do".
4. "Rothar" - admittedly not the best example. Perhaps "leithéid" > /le:d'/ would have been better. I choose this simply as an example of the type of change which has been going on in the language which I dont believe would be of any benefit to it if it continued and spread.
5. "why would you write "oidhche" when ALL dialects pronounce it "oíche"" & "there is no "dh" sound in "Gaeilg"" - well firstly it would be my contention that the "dh" IS prounced in "oidhche" - in its modern form, corrosponding to the English "y". The slender "dh" is where the /i:/ sound comes from. Similarly, in a word such as "oifigeamhail" the /u:/ comes from the broad "mh" in its modern pronounciation. "dh", "mh" etc are no longer pronounced as they were in old Irish but they are not silent, their sound has simply changed. I'll also admit without the slightest shame or hesitation that I simply prefer the older spellings. The "dh" in "Gaedhealg" may serve no purpose in the modern pronounciation of the word but neither does it conflict with the modern pronciation and it links it back to the earliest forms of the word ("goídel", "goídelc"). I agree 100% with Dineen when he wrote that in some ways the written and spoken forms of a language are two different languages - one for the ear and the other for the eye. I'm just as proud of written Irish as I am of spoken Irish.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 419
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 07:30 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

>> I choose this simply as an example of the type of change which has been going on in the language which I dont believe would be of any benefit to it if it continued and spread.

Are you advocating that the elision of intervocalic [h] should be prevented from spreading lest it would prejudice the language?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:51 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"Are you advocating that the elision of intervocalic [h] should be prevented from spreading lest it would prejudice the language?"

Surely it would be of absolutely no benefit to the language it this spread until the time came when intervocalic /h/ was always dropped. The range of words that could be accomidated by the language would be lessened and how many words, which are distinguishable now, would slur together?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:23 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Dear all, including Cionaodh:

I didn't notice any footdragging in response to this thread, which I started. In fact Róman and Jonas both made constructive comments, in the first case the recommendation that a pre-standard standard from around 1900 be chosen, and in the 2nd case the discussion about Tourmakeady. If you read the thread again carefully, which I think you should do, you will see it was Jonas' post of March 16, 2006 - 08:56 am that put the spanner in the works. Pointing out that none of us have the expertise of the committee that drew up the standard was an irrelevant, and indeed ad hominem point. I was forced to point out that the question related, not to expertise, but to the idea of a committee drawing up a standard language in the first place. If politics was brought into it, it was brought into it by Jonas' intervention.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:54 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

OK. The Irish government announces that in Hiberno-English, the word "night" is to be written "nite" from now on. We all get into a silly debate about it, with many people pointing out that the "gh" is not pronounced anywhere (except in some types of Scots???). In the end a generashen ov children ah brort up ritin exactly az they speek. Does it matter? As sum peeple hav sed, a brilliant orthografy can be creatid by makin the script mach the pronunciashen. Yes, that's troo. I hope no wun iz goin to suggest that we start ritin in IPA. But this sort ov idealized orthografy lacks the historical granja ov Inglish az it iz akchually ritten. it forciz a rupcha between the modern langwij and historical forms therov. A brilliant orthografy iz a sort ov anti-colcha, dizined to separate us from ah roots. Finnish iz not a good example. This langwij woz only ritten down in the 1500s. No recordz ov anshent forms exist. In the case ov Irish, we ah talkin about a langwij with nearly 2000 yearz ov ritten history. Apparently it iz a Goidelic tung, but accordin to the guvvament the "de" in the middle ov that werd ort to be abolisht, so maybe it iz a Goilic tung after orl. Theez same peeple hoo ah suggestin we abolish orthografeez based on historical prinsiplez mite az well suggest that we stop eetin ah nashional cwizeenz and start eetin tablits insted. The hole idea iz that colcha shood be rejigged along pyoorly utilitarian linez. If yoo ah lucky enuf to hav 2000 yearz ov ritten history, wy not celebrate it? We shood incolcate pride in the langwij and history ov ah ancestorz in the next generashen ov children - that iz the point ov colcha - regardless ov wether thoze hoo hail from cuntreez with only pachily recordid historeez object or not.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 43
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 03:09 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Mhaix,

What you are saying is called "demagogy" - argument for sake of argument. What proportion words like you mentioned make of total in French? I guess <<1%, whereas Irish old spelling restored would mean that every second word will have silent letters.

A Eonais,

You switched the topic. So you agree that Irish writing system is deficient especially when transcribing foreign names?

A Chionaoidh,

Nobody is seriously advocating some "neo-caighdeán@ (at least a hope so). The proposal is to tweak some bad decisions here and there. Like writing "léighim" instead of "léim" (what means "jumping"), or "nighim" (because "ním" is "I do" in northern dialects). "Teinn" is much better spelling than "tinn" is, as "léigheadh" is much more logical to understand than "léamh" is. My proposal is to write the same stem the same way in all forms, that you wouldn't have to "drop -igh", "add -igh" back. Other thing - "eo" vs "eó". All words ending in -o in Irish have a long vowel. So you have bó, Cairó, but then Mecsiceo, beo. The same applies to future tense where some verbs have -ó-, other have -eo-. What is the point of this?

(Message edited by Róman on March 17, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 44
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 03:52 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Séamais Ó Murchú,

quote:

I wasnt aware "abha" was still in use. Still the overwhelming majority of Irish speakers use "abhainn" so I think it would make the best WRITTEN STANDARD form.

Now, that's interesting. Best for WHOM? So people in Múscraí and Cléire can be ignored? This is EXACTLY the problem with caighdeán - that some people have been IGNORED. So you suggest to replace one ignorant system by another one. So why bother then?
quote:

Of course I understand that "atá" is used as the relative form of the verb.

Really? Is it so clear cut for you? What is the logic of writing "An fear atá..." as opposed to "An fhear a bhí..."? I think it is simply inconsistent. "A" has to be appended to all verbs or written separately from them.
quote:

but "re" & "le" were still used together until quite recently

For decorative purposes only. If they served any meaningful distinction the prepositions would not have merged in the first place. So again - why to make things unnecessary complicated. There is no living Irish dialect which makes distinction between those. So R.I.P.
quote:

the "dh" IS prounced in "oidhche"

No, it is not. There is neither [gamma] nor [j] sound in this word. "Dh" is pronounced in "Tadhg", but not in "oidhche", there is only "í" sound there. If all Irish manuscripts were destroyed you would have no way of knowing that there used to be "dh" in "oidhche", because ALL dialect pronounce pure "í" there. Whereas you wouldn't have any trouble with "Tadhg" as you would immediately hear [j] in Connacht and Munster (although not in Dún na nGall).
quote:

The slender "dh" is where the /i:/ sound comes from

You contradict yourself. First you state "dh" is pronounced, then you add that there is "í" there. "Dh" is pronounced either as [gamma] or [j], there is none of this sounds in "oíche".
quote:

but they are not silent, their sound has simply changed

You are plainly wrong. They ARE silent. It is the sound of adjacent vowels that changed, not of the consonants. In word "oíche" "í" has become long exactly to compensate for "dh" disappearance. There are examples of this in many languages. In French "testa" has become "tête" with long [e:] to compensate for disappearing [s]. It's not the "s" has become to be pronounced [e], but "e" has become longer. In English word "night" [nixt] has become "nite" [nait] through stage [ni:t] exactly as in Irish. The ultra-conservative spelling of "Englyshe" is no reason to imitate it. The "Englyse" is no angel itself. Why wouldn't you spell this word "Angliske" then, what is the starting-form? Btw in English changes happen in recent times as well. Word "hiccough" is predominantly spelled "hiccup" now and so on.
quote:

The "dh" in "Gaedhealg" may serve no purpose in the modern pronounciation

Aha, it is good to agree on smth ;)
quote:

it links it back to the earliest forms of the word ("goídel", "goídelc")

You argument is counterproductive. Then I can ask why "Gaedhaelg" and not "Goídelc"? Where do you stop in your etymological excavations? Reasonable criteria for sounds is a possibility to hear all "silent" letters in at least some forms or to avoid confusion between words with the same pronounciation. I advocate writing "léighim" because in the past tense you have "(do) léigh" which has clearly audible [g'] sound in Munster. And "léim" means "jumping" so you solve two problems at the time. With word "oíche" or "Gaeilg" there is no form where you can here those "dh" - so this letter is absolutely unnecessary.

Last point - if you so fond of "historical" links why do you go for "second-best solutions"? Take Old Irish directly and converse in it. Just imagine the fun with all those "sindos" and "sindu" and the like

Sindos fer becca (an fear beag), sinda bena becca (an bhean bheag) and so on. Enjoy!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 45
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 03:57 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

Are you advocating that the elision of intervocalic [h] should be prevented from spreading lest it would prejudice the language?

Again demagogy - it is NOT spreading, it is a local Conamara feature. I don't understand your thinking - are you suggesting we should protect and encourage it even if it is annoying for other speakers and obstructs understanding?

A DJW

I agree to disagree with you. My primary interest is Irish language and what relates to it. I have no interest in lofty discussions about merits of Common law, republican/ sovereign system, and so on. Let's stick to original topic of this thread.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 877
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 06:14 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"You switched the topic. So you agree that Irish writing system is deficient especially when transcribing foreign names?"

I think the Irish ortography is perfectly suited to the Irish language and to the needs of native speakers. For learners, it does make things more difficult.

When it comes to transcibing foreign names, I think most lanugages are deficient. The Swedish prime minister is usually called "Goran" instead of "Göran" in English texts. Apart from the fact that Goran is a South Slavic name, the pronunciation is completely different. Many European languages transcibed the name of Finland's former prime minister as Jaeaetteenmaeki... In Swedish, most Slavic names are often wrong or confusing. In other words, it's not a problem that is limited to the Irish language.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 47
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 06:25 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

Swedish prime minister is usually called "Goran" instead of "Göran" in English texts

As far as I recall he is called Joranas Personas in Lithunia :)
féach anso:
http://www.delfi.lt/archive/article.php?id=4407386&categoryID=3939742&ndate=1085 540481

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 878
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 07:55 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I just wonder what the Ukrainians call him. As far as I know, they usually pronounce "g" as "h", so Göran Persson would become Horan Persson... :-)
("Horan Persson" = "The whore Persson" in Swedish.)

Joranas is better than Goranas, but it's still wrong since the "o" and "ö" are pronounced differently. Bringing us back to the original problem, that all languages are inadequate when transcribing names from some other languages.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 424
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 08:34 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

What you are saying is called "demagogy" - argument for sake of argument. What proportion words like you mentioned make of total in French? I guess <<1%, whereas Irish old spelling restored would mean that every second word will have silent letters.


All I am saying is that the argument that consists in saying that "silent etymological consonants should not appear in the speling" also applies to French and English. It is quite another thing to say that "every second word will have silent letters".
quote:

Again demagogy - it is NOT spreading, it is a local Conamara feature. I don't understand your thinking - are you suggesting we should protect and encourage it even if it is annoying for other speakers and obstructs understanding?


First, where did you see that I said it was spreading (or not)?
Second, you obviously don't understand my thinking: I don't care whether it spreads or not... I look at this from a linguistic viewpoint.
quote:

Surely it would be of absolutely no benefit to the language it this spread until the time came when intervocalic /h/ was always dropped. The range of words that could be accomidated by the language would be lessened and how many words, which are distinguishable now, would slur together?


Yet it happened in Cois Fhairrge: it did because it could, and if it could it means that it was somehow beneficial. It is of no benefit, indeed, to lose a formal distinction between two words, but that is only one side of the coin...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 425
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 08:43 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

all languages are inadequate when transcribing names from some other languages.


How can this be any surprising? You only transcribe the sounds that are used in your language... why would there be any spelling conventions for sounds you can't even pronounce?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 879
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 08:49 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"How can this be any surprising?"

I never said it was surprising, I think it is perfectly natural. I pointed out that this is not specific to Irish and does not depend on the present ortography.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 09:02 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman, you talk of "linguistic excavations", but no excavations are required - and it would be absurd to perform any. You yourself recommended writing Irish as it was about 100 years ago. One could approximate this by just using Dinneen's dictionary and a pre-war edition of the Christian Brothers' Grammar. So no excavations would be needed. I am not talking about major research in mediaeval manuscripts to rescue defunct forms.

Having spoken of 1900 as a good base for a better form of Irish, you now want to drop any forms that seem to have no base in existing dialects. Why have you changed your mind?

By the way, I am interesting in PIE theory (proto-Indo-European), and being Lithuanian you must know a lot about that. It was once asserted in the West that if a Sanskrit speaker bumped into a Lithuanian peasant they could converse well owing to the conservative nature of the Lithuanian language. Nowadays, scholars don't make such silly claims !!! The dative plural of fear is fearaibh, as far as I know, although I am no expert at all on the dative plural. But is this not Latin viribus in disguise? What a shame to lose it!

Anyway, the point is not to try to preserve distinctions only found in ancient manuscripts, but to adhere to a standard that bears a relationship with the high point of the language and is also not too ancient. In this case, your previous suggestion of a pre-war standard, a pre-standard standard, does not require going back too far in history, just restoring forms in use within living memory.

Early in this thread, I gave the example of English, where Cockey and Scouse and Geordie survived. None of these are appropriate standard languages. The high point of English, classical modern English is you want to call it that - it is not so called, but you could call it that - is the 19th century use of the language. For example, Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Emily Bronte, Thomas Hardy, Lord Tennyson. I think it is true to say that languages do decline, and I wonder whether we are studying forms of the language that classical Irish writers would have instantly dismissed as debased?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 427
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 09:03 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

My "question" was a reaction to:
"Those questions are not invented. Problems appear immediately when you try to transliterate foreihn names (placenames as well) into Irish"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 09:08 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I don't feel that it is necessary to get hung up on ways of representing foreign leaders' names. You should see what happens in Chinese!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 428
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 09:13 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

>>I think it is true to say that languages do decline

As we say in French : "il vaut mieux entendre ça que d'être sourd"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 48
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:27 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A DJW

All I am saying is that a GOOD spelling should reflect pronounciation in an unambiguous way. That's it. So you are free to use Dinneen as you please, but I consider those spellings outdated.

Concerning "fearaibh". I would use this form because it is a natural form in Múscraí and Cléire, not because it is similar to Latin "viribus". It's not Latin that I am studying so I sincerely don't care if Latin form is similar or not.

To me, the writing should reflect the BEST examples of spoken language, so if nobody makes distinction between "re" and "le" - so won't I. If somebody still says "bhíos, bhís, bhí" - so will I. But if nobody uses "tathaoi", only "tá sibh", I will not use "tathaoi" even if it is Dineen's dictionary.

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 05:41 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Taking all this very seriously aren't you Róman. If you disagree with me, fine. I never expected for one minute that a majority her would concur with my views on Irish orthography. But I dislike the dismissive tone in your responses.

1. "Best for WHOM? So people in Múscraí and Cléire can be ignored?" So would you suggest always using "abha" as the written form? Wouldnt that be "ignoring" the majority of Irish speakers?
2. "First you state "dh" is pronounced, then you add that there is "í" there." I never said there was an "í" in oidhche. I said the sound /i:/ exists in it. The reason the sound /i:/ exists in this word is because of the presence of the "dh". If it had been dropped the pronounciation would be /ex'@/ or /eh@/.
3. "Then I can ask why "Gaedhaelg" and not "Goídelc"?" Firstly, I suggested "Gaedhilg" as this is everywhere the basis of the modern pronounciation. Secondly, Obviously "Goídelc" is the Old Irish spelling for the Old Irish form of the word (/goidh'elk/), whereas "Gaedhilg" is the modern form (or at least the form on which /ge:l'ik'/, /ge:lg'@/ and /ge:ling'/ are based.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 49
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 08:01 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Sheumais Ó Múrchú,

quote:

Wouldnt that be "ignoring" the majority of Irish speakers?

This is exactly what you do while suggesting to write "oidhche" and "Gaedhilg" - ignoring not even majority - ALL speakers who don't pronounce a shade of "dh" in these words. Your argument is "to restore the historically correct form". OK - but this IS what I propose - "abha" - pefectly correct form which can be traced to Latin "aqua" and Lithuanian "upe". You don't like "correct" forms anymore? So maybe we should write Érinn instead of Éire, because this is what majority says?

Being serious - all natural language are in constant simplification process. The only thing what stops it - conservative literary language. So if you advocate literary standard you should be all for "abha" or you are simply inconsistent. Me personally, I like "Alba" much more cause it is the same as the Scots say, as opposed to sloppy "Albain" in Ireland.

quote:

The reason the sound /i:/ exists in this word is because of the presence of the "dh".

Non, non, jamais (no, no, never). The reason /i:/ sound exists is because people SAY it. People have spoken before letters were invented, and they will continue to speak no matter how spelling is reformed. You can write "i:hi" but the pronunciation will not change because of that. Otherwise you are suggesting that illiterate people are mute because they don't know how to spell words, so they can't know that there is /i:/ sound in this word.
quote:

If it had been dropped the pronounciation would be /ex'@/ or /eh@/.

You cannot drop non-existent sound from the word. There are 3 sounds in this word (at least in Munster) - [i:], [h], [i]. So how for God's sake you can drop /dh/ from there if it is not there?
quote:

"Gaedhilg" as this is everywhere the basis of the modern pronounciation.

All modern forms are perfectly deductible from spelling "Gaeilg". So try to prove otherwise. Good luck!!!!

Le meas

p.s But I support restoring of "eu" in the likes of "Seumas", "Beurla", "geur". Current spelling is wrong cause it is not the same sound in the words above and in "véarsa, téarma, paipéar, buidéal".

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 431
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 03:33 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

Being serious - all natural language are in constant simplification process.


Ben oui mon bon monsieur, c'était quand même bien mieux avant...
Being serious - you can't be serious.

quote:

Non, non, jamais


More like: "Non, non, certainement pas."

quote:

The reason /i:/ sound exists is because people SAY it...


Have you ever heard of "diachronic phonology", and, in this case, of "assimilation"?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 05:06 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Rómain, I'd imagine this little argument between us about "dh" has become a bit tiresome to most readers, so why don't we simply agree to disagree.

"The only thing what stops it - conservative literary language. So if you advocate literary standard you should be all for "abha" or you are simply inconsistent."
- Funnily enough,I think our views on the language are quite similar. I do believe in a conservative literary standard. But I simply think that it should be Classical Irish, modified where necessary to take into account the NATURAL changes that have occured in the language over time.

"But I support restoring of "eu" in the likes of "Seumas", "Beurla", "geur". Current spelling is wrong cause it is not the same sound in the words above and in "véarsa, téarma, paipéar, buidéal"." - Do you mean using "éa" where the sound has become /i:a/ in Munster Irish and "eu" where it remains /e:/ everywhere.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 07:38 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

James Murphy: what exactly do you mean when you say that the literary standard should be Classical Irish but modified? Do you mean some kind of conservative standard being experimented with around 1900? by whom? It might make sense the approach you mentioned - "Classical but modified for natural changes" - but what does it mean in practise?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 52
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 03:27 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Sheumais,

quote:

Funnily enough,I think our views on the language are quite similar.

I am glad you have noticed it. But the devil is in details.
quote:

modified where necessary to take into account the NATURAL changes that have occured in the language over time.

Then 2 questions. Firstly, if a change didn't happen all over Ireland - why are you so trigger-happy to accept those changes to detriment of classical forms? Second question - why you are ready to accept grammar changes but you persist to ignore pronunciation (and ensuing spelling) changes? There is no big difference between writing "tá sibh" instead of "táthaoi" and "Gaeilg" instead "Gaedhilg". In both cases you change the spelling (or even skip entire words) to reflect current speech. Are you really serious about writing "léagham" (I read) if current pronunciation indicates "léighim" as a more appropriate spelling? Last question - is "tá muid" really a good form if more justifiable form is "támaoid"? Is splitting of the word's spelling natural or otherwise?
quote:

Do you mean using "éa" where the sound has become /i:a/ in Munster Irish and "eu" where it remains /e:/ everywhere

Exactly opposite, and that was the use in pre-caighdéan Irish. Words like "sgeul" are pronounced like /ia/ not only in Munster but in Donegal and majority of Scottish dialects. They still use "eu" go bhfios dom.

A Mhaix

quote:

Being serious - you can't be serious.

The fact that languages are in a constant simplification and regularisation process is a truism. There is ample evidence of this in any living language and even more so in Irish. I didn't really get your point.
quote:

More like: "Non, non, certainement pas.

No, it is more like "Sem, sem, soha" - a famous Hungarian slogan. But being aware that majority doesn't speak Hungarian here I took a liberty to translate it into French.
quote:

Have you ever heard of "diachronic phonology", and, in this case, of "assimilation"?

Have you ever heard of 'synchronic phonology'? At the current stage (at least last 400 years) there is no /dh/ in the word "oíche". Spelling of pre-caighdeán Irish isn't a proof of phoneme existence.

(Message edited by Róman on March 20, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 06:03 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman and James: you are needlessly getting your knickers in a twist about nothing. oidhche - oíche. James' point just amountts to this: that the dh indicated that the i vowel was to be pronounced long, and so when the dh was removed they had to replace i with í. No one is arguing that a "d" sound has been enunciated in the word recently.

My original post was not about linguistic archaeology, but whether it was possible to make choices for eclipsis and lenition, where choices existed in the standard, that were not arbitrary, but in line with classical Irish. In this case, as someone so helpfully said, native speakers might think that **I** was getting confused, and mixing and matching the dialects, but I would know it was **they** whose use of eclipsis/lenition was haphazard, at least in comparison with a classical standard. Now, I am not talking about using words that no longer exist, but making choices that reflect an educated approach. Few people on the list here understood my question - hence the contentless ding-dong about whether dh is pronounced in oidhche...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 06:59 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"No one is arguing that a "d" sound has been enunciated in the word recently."

No one is saying about 'd' either, and if we are this could go back a long time

Tell me, Dennis, is there evidence for ícde/íde a long time ago? (some what tongue in cheek, or tongue on soft pallette)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 54
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 07:18 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A DJW

But you have got your answer long time ago - above in the thread. Nobody is developing your original topic because it has been fully exhausted. So to reiterate once more:

the distinction of eclipsis/lenition after preposition + article has been lost a long time ago. Keating himself used both mutation indifferently, so there is no basis for restoration of distinction lost some 500 years ago. For the last 200 years use is made of the same type of mutation (ignoring for the moment "ins an", "don", "den") in the given dialect. The different mutations currently signal different dialects, not different meanings. Furthermore, some lesser know dialects (like Cavan, Kilkenny) used BOTH mutations after prep+article depending on initial consonant of the word. e.g. sa phóca, but sa mbád. Using both lenition and eclipsis with the same noun - sa bhád and sa mbád would appear ecclectic to other speakers, but nobody would guess that you aim at distinguishing "on the boat" vs "onto the boat".

Le meas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 09:32 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Róman, I pointed out, helpfully, that you hadn't understood my original point, which was why you went on about linguistic excavations. It is not that my point was "fully exhausted", just misunderstood. Yes, it sounds interesting what you said about Cavan and Kilkenny. I would like to know more! But your point about "dh" is oidhche is genuinely "fully exhausted", if there was a point in the first place.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 55
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:15 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A DJW

Once more - your question:
quote:

which system for lenition and eclipsis is closest to classical Irish (=Geoffrey Keating's Irish).



My answer:
quote:

Keating himself used both mutation indifferently



Dennis's answer:
quote:

But Keating actually uses both forms indiscriminately! His Classical Modern Irish is something of a model, so we just have to accept the fact that the distinction was already moribund in his time.



So there was no system by Keating to imitate. So either reformulate your question or simply accept that your pet project is still-born.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

DJW (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 12:27 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Yes, probably stillborn.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:29 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

DJW - "what exactly do you mean when you say that the literary standard should be Classical Irish but modified?" Well, many forms used in Classical Irish (which was not one rigidly fixed standard) have simply changed with time and when these changes are part of the natural evolution of the language* I think they should be accepted eg. Keating uses "fá" as the past tense of the copula ("is") where today we use "ba". (*as opposed to changes resulting from it's denegration, pressure from English, ceasing to be cultivated as a language of learning and culture and changes resulting from the seperation of the Irish speaking areas.)

Rónain - "Firstly, if a change didn't happen all over Ireland - why are you so trigger-happy to accept those changes to detriment of classical forms?" Because it's inevitable that if a standard is chosen choices will have to be made about which form of a word, of which two or more forms exist in different parts of Ireland, to use. I believe it would make sense to use the form used by the majority.
"Are you really serious about writing "léagham" (I read) if current pronunciation indicates "léighim" as a more appropriate spelling?" - I agree with you there, "léighim" should be used (I never suggested "léaghaim" should be used).
"Last question - is "tá muid" really a good form if more justifiable form is "támaoid"? Is splitting of the word's spelling natural or otherwise?" - Again, I never suggested "tá muid" instead of "támaoid" (or anything else). I think you're assuming certain things about my oppinions which I haven't written at all.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 10
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:15 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

(Concerning "eu"/"éa") - "and that was the use in pre-caighdéan Irish."
Are you sure? Ive been under the impression that writers either used "eu" OR "éa". Not both at the same time for different sounds. Also, in Scottish Gaelic they use "eu" exclusively where "éa" is currently used in Irish.

(Message edited by James_Murphy on March 21, 2006)

(Message edited by James_Murphy on March 21, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 57
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 03:18 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

(Concerning "eu"/"éa") Are you sure?

Yes I am, I have seen old-print books with consistent usage of those letters. I find distinction cute. of course, it is difficult for non-Munster speakers to spell correctly because they don't know when it is "éa" and when "eu" as no distinction in pronunciation is made outside Munster (bar odd words like "sceul" in Dún na nGall) :))
quote:

Also, in Scottish Gaelic they use "eu" exclusively where "éa" is currently used in Irish.

Because in majority of cases it is old "eu". There aren't so many words with "éa" [e:] after all. Majority of them are spelled "ae" in Gàidhlig.
quote:

if a standard is chosen choices will have to be made

Sure, but why you prefer corrupt ones?
quote:

I believe it would make sense to use the form used by the majority.

I agree to disagree. Majority uses "tá muid", so according to your logic this is the preferred choice?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 11
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 09:07 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"I have seen old-print books with consistent usage of those letters." - Yes I've seen that myself. On page XII of "The Religious Songs of Connaught" are the words "sgeul céadna". But was this just inconsistant spelling - common at the time - or did it truely mean that the author meant them to be pronounced /sg'i:al k'e:N@/?

"Majority of them are spelled "ae" in Gàidhlig." I had a look through McBain's Dictionary and McFarlaine's Dictionary (www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/index.html www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MF2/index.html) and while I did indeed find a handful of words with "éa" (grave accent) eg. léana, éasgaidh, I didn't find a single word with the combination "ae". Perhaps using "eu" & "éa" would be a good system, if only to indicate to Munster speakers whether /i:a/ or /e:/ should be pronounced but I don't think this was ever standard in the past.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James_murphy
Member
Username: James_murphy

Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 09:17 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

"Majority uses "tá muid", so according to your logic this is the preferred choice?" - I believe the majority use should be preferred in the case of spelling of individual words. Not in spoken phrases like the above or cases like "cad é mar atá tú?", "Connas 'tá tú?" etc. etc.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Róman
Member
Username: Róman

Post Number: 61
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 03:04 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Sheumais Ó Múrchú,

You seem not to get it right. In pre-caighdeán spellings authors from Connacht and Ulster used "eu" and "éa" indiscriminately because it was and still is the same sound for them - [e:]. So if they wrote "sgeul" or "sgéal", they still meant the same pronunciation [s'k'e:l]. It is only the speakers from the south who used the letter differently - "véarsa" but "sgeul", "téann" but "Beurla". Because for them those were different things "eu" [ia] and "éa" [e:]. So using this system is good for Munster, but Connacht and Ulster would struggle. On the other hand Munster speakers struggle with "ao" and "ae" distinction which is all the same for them. Witness plethora of spellings like: Gaelainn, Gaeluinn, Gaolainn, Gaoluinn. So maybe not a big deal if other also have to follow. I mixed up a little bit with Scottish, you are right. Yes, they still use "eu" and "éa" appropriately. Actually it is common feauture of Scottish and Munster - breaking of historical [e:] sound before broad consonant in majority of cases.

Le meas



©Daltaí na Gaeilge