Most occurrences of atá are the relative use "that is", as discussed in a number of threads. The relative particle is generally written with the verb, ie atá and not a tá. But this is at least partly because the verb itself used to be atá and not tá. It seems to be a little bit confused. Usages like "conas atá tú?" are regularly stated in various threads to be an example of the relative use, but the English "how are you?" does not seem to have a relative clause in itself. And yet Aonghus in a recent thread stated definitely that "conas atá tú?" was a relative use of the verb.

Cén chaoi a bhfuil tú? seems to have a clearer relative clause: what state is it that you are? Cad é mar atá tú? also has a clearer relative clause: how is it that you are?

These are the forms of the Classical Irish verb in the present:

atáim
ataoi
atá
atámaoid (note the broad "m": táimid is as much of a corruption as tá muid)
atáthaoi
atáid

In my copy of a pre-caighdeán Christian Brothers' Grammar, the standard forms (ie the pre-caighdeán standard) are:

táim
táir
tá sé
táimid
tá sibh or táthaoi
táid

The note says: "the early modern form, viz., taoi, is still used in Munster, e.g., cionnus taoi? (or cionnus taoi'r tú?) How are you?"

There is no indication here that a relative particle is required - and I believe that the older copies of the Christian Brothers' Grammar represent a good understanding of Irish grammar as traditionally understood, but I am open to good explanations.

Every Irish wh-question (i.e. c-question: cé, cá, cad, céard, conas, cathain, cén, céard, ...) contains a relative clause, except it is a simple copula construction (e.g.: Cé hé sin?)
conas atá tú = c'ionnas atá tú (Dinneen)
ionnas = state, habit, condition, way, manner, equality
c'ionnas = what state, habit, manner, ...

atá, tá:
Thurneysen, Old Irish Grammar:
"The commonest form is attá, atá, i.e. *ad-tá, which drops the prep. ad- after a conjunct particle (-tá)",

Graiméar na Gaedhilge leis na Bráithreachaibh Críostamhla (undated, probably first decade of 20th cent., obviously the same as your copy):
"The correct spelling of this verb is undoubtedly atáim, but long since it has lost its initial a, except when it occurs in the middle of a sentence, where it usually has a relative force."

Colloquially there is often tá instead of atá even in relative clauses. But they still are relative clauses.
"Cad tá uait?"
"Conas tá tú?" (as it is in the above mentioned book: "cionnus taoi")

Lars

(Message edited by Lars on July 16, 2006)

Lars, can you tell me the number of the paragraph of teh quotation from the Christian Brothers so that I can find it in my copy?

Yes, it is paragraph 318, page 127.

Lars

I found it.

As far as I understand your reply, it means that the word conas can be broken down into c'ionnas meaning "what state" so that it is possible to translate "conas atá tú" as "what state [is it] that you are", thus including a relative clause in the English translation too.

I can understand these as relative clauses when it is possible to get a relative clause in the English translation. But you also seem to saying that all wh- question words contain a relative clause, in other words, even when there is no relative clause in the English. Excuse me for my ignorance - I am only in chapter 11 of Learning Irish - but what does "cad tá uait?" mean? It seems to mean "what is from you?", which doesn't have a clear meaning in English, and definitely contains no relative clause.

I think part of the confusion re: relative clauses on this list is owing to the bald assertion that sentences like "how are you" contain a relative clause. They don't in the English, and it is not clear that they would do in any language until it is explained that "how" is expressed by "what state [is it] that". In other words, the question is really one of explaining why a sentence that does not contain a relative clause in English does in irish. Are you saying that "cad tá uait?" is to be understood as "what is [it that] is from you?", putting in a relative clause?

Many of these examples of "relative clauses" seem a little contrived, and the only way to understand that it is a relative clause would be to study the historical evolution - not to baldly state that "how are you" contains a relative clause.

The author of the Wikibooks page at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Irish has obviously realised that to say "conas atá tú" contains a relative clause is not a good or sufficient explanation. He writes:

"How are you?" = "Conas atá tú?" (if we made everything explicit it would be "How is that you are?" = "Is conas atá tú?")

quote:

But you also seem to saying that all wh- question words contain a relative clause, in other words, even when there is no relative clause in the English.

Yes, except most copula sentences (e.g.: no relative clause in: Cé hé an fear seo? = Who is this man?)

quote:

Excuse me for my ignorance - I am only in chapter 11 of Learning Irish - but what does "cad tá uait?" mean?

Cad (a)tá uait? = What do you want?

quote:

It seems to mean "what is from you?",

Literally, yes.
Tá uaim = I want.

quote:

which doesn't have a clear meaning in English, and definitely contains no relative clause.

There's no need for a relative clause in English but there is in Irish.
cad (a)tá uait = lit.: what-is [it] that-is from-you?

Lars

(Message edited by Lars on July 16, 2006)

A vague musing:
I don't know if this helps anyone here but I've always thought of 'Cad 'tá uait?' as 'What is it that is desired by you?' In other words, 'What is it that you desire?'
Like saying 'A book, please' when we mean 'I want a book please', the verb is understood and left out. In the case of 'Cad 'tá uait?', the desire is left out. The desire comes from the person. The preposition 'from' as in (uait) is used rather than the English equivalent with desire of 'by' you.

Forgive my rambling on if it doesn't help,
C

How do you quote text on Daltaí?

Lars, you say:

There's no need for a relative clause in English but there is in Irish.
cad (a)tá uait = lit.: what-is [it] that-is from-you?


But this is an example of the unclear thinking that leads to the type of explanations above. To say "there is no need for a relative clause in English but there is in Irish" is unsatisfactory as an explanation, because in any language there can only be a relative clause if there is a relative meaning to be expressed. The trick is to __explain why__ a relative clause is needed - and not just say that "cad is always followed by a relative clause".

As I said above, the Wikibooks explanation is much better. It said:"How are you?" = "Conas atá tú?" (if we made everything explicit it would be "How is that you are?" = "Is conas atá tú?"). This is not the same as saying "there's no neeed for a relative clause in English, but there is in Irish"; it actually explains why a relative clause is needed.

I don't just want to LEARN Irish grammar. I want to UNDERSTAND it.

David, see the help link on the left

http://www.daltai.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/daltai/discus/discus.pl?pg=help

\ quote { Text To quote} omitting the spaces will do it

quote:

mar seo

quote:

David, see the help link on the left

Thanks!

I usually say "Ceard tá uait." for "what do you want"

E

Eoin,

Do you ever use Céard (a)tá ag teastáil uait? I guess you could call that a longer version.

quote:

But this is an example of the unclear thinking that leads to the type of explanations above. To say "there is no need for a relative clause in English but there is in Irish" is unsatisfactory as an explanation, because in any language there can only be a relative clause if there is a relative meaning to be expressed. The trick is to __explain why__ a relative clause is needed - and not just say that "cad is always followed by a relative clause".

As I said above, the Wikibooks explanation is much better. It said:"How are you?" = "Conas atá tú?" (if we made everything explicit it would be "How is that you are?" = "Is conas atá tú?"). This is not the same as saying "there's no neeed for a relative clause in English, but there is in Irish"; it actually explains why a relative clause is needed.

I don't just want to LEARN Irish grammar. I want to UNDERSTAND it.

Well, the reason is Irish word order.
In English there is a relatively strict word order: (subject-verb-object).
But in Irish, the word order is even stricter and it is verb-subject-object, VSO. The verb is first, the subject is second, the object is third. Other parts of the sentence follow.
E.g.: "Chonaic mé capall = I saw a horse"
Neither a subject nor an object can be first in a simple Irish sentence, because of this VSO-rule.
You cannot say: "*Mé chonaic capall" or "*Capall chonaic mé"

And question words at the top of questions (who, what, where; Irish: cé, cad, cá) are subjects, objects or other parts of the interrogative sentence. So, according to VSO they couldn't be first.
"What did you see?" ("what" as object) cannot be "*Cad chonaic tú?" because this would break the VSO-rule in the same way as "Capall chonaic mé" would. So this doesn't occur.
A question which is built as a simple VSO-sentence "*Chonaic tú cad?" doesn't occur, too. The question word has to be first because it is the important message of the question.
So, what to do?

In Irish there are only a few ways to change word order.
And relative clauses are the most common way. The subject/object/etc. is introduced by a copula (is), the rest follows as a relative clause:
In the case of "Chonaic mé capall":
Is mé a chonaic capall = It's I who saw a horse.
Is capall a chonaic mé = It's a horse that I saw.
The copula can be ommitted.

Questions are built exactly the same way.
Except: the copula is understood and always ommitted: cé = who (is), cad = what (is), etc.
In the case of "What did you see?"
Cad a chonaic tú
In the case of "Who saw a horse?"
Cé a chonaic capall

That's it.
I don't think there is any "relative meaning" in "Is mé a chonaic capall" or in "Cé a chonaic capall?"
To use relative clauses is just an instrument to change word order. And word order has to be changed to use question words.

Lars

Lars,

I never thought of it in terms of VSO word order. Your explanation was really good.

quote:

"What did you see?" ("what" as object) cannot be "*Cad chonaic tú?" because this would break the VSO-rule in the same way as "Capall chonaic mé" would. So this doesn't occur.
A question which is built as a simple VSO-sentence "*Chonaic tú cad?" doesn't occur, too. The question word has to be first because it is the important message of the question. [...]

This is an interesting explanation! The Wiki-explanation ("How is that you are?" = "Is conas atá tú?").) echoes the one in Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí:

315. Is iad cá, cad, céard, cé na forainmneacha ceisteacha. Bíonn an chopail neamhspleách phríomha intuigthe rompu, agus bíonn clásal coibhneasta, díreach nó neamhdhíreach, ar a lorg nó intuigthe ar a lorg.

But that has always struck me as a bit contrived. This explanatory "is" is never actually seen, even in Old Irish. For example, here's a "how" question from the Milan Glosses:

Cindas (< cía indas) mbias iarna cétbuid-sem?

= How will it be according to their sense/understanding?

lit. What-way that-he/she/it-will-be according-to-their sense-EMPH. (bias is the 3rd sg. future relative)

As is always the case, there is no initial "is".

I've truly never given this any thought before.

Dennis said:
"Do you ever use Céard (a)tá ag teastáil uait? I guess you could call that a longer version."

Not specifically it seems a bit awkward, but I think it is in there somewhere in spirit. :-) Certainly when one says "Céard tá uait" there is almost an "a" before the "tá" if you get my drift!

Recently I have heard the phrase like "Chuala tú cad?" on a TV programme and there has been a certain controversy about usage with phrases like, "Seo píosa ceoil cun an clár a criochniú le."

Ugh

Eoin

quote:

Recently I have heard the phrase like "Chuala tú cad?" on a TV programme

That's bound to happen. Colloquial English and French do the same:

You heard what? T'as écouté quoi ?

What we end up with are different levels of formality, different "registers", which actually enrich the language... as long as speakers are aware of them and can move between them according to the social context.

I suppose I have been displaying linguistic snobbery here.

Yes really it is a development rather than a corruption.

I guess this type of observation leads to the publication of "Eats shoots and leaves" in the English language...

I have waited a long time to see a large tree crossing the road where I see the sign "Heavy plant crossing" and I'm always puzzld at the boasting sign which says "Major road works ahead"

E

There is such a thing as a linguistic corruption; they are nto all "developments that enrich the language". I find myself saying "there is" sometimes, when I mean "there are" - a product of too much US TV watching.

We live in dumbing down world, where we are taught, as a matter of political correctness, that all uses of languages are equally good all of the time. Ebonics = just as good as the language of Jane Austen. Cockney = as good as, or even more authentic and so better than, the Queen's English.

Lughaidh has frequently said that "Middle Irish is a corrupt form of Old Irish, Classical Irish is a corrupt form of Middle Irish, modern Irish is a corrupt form of Classical Irish", implyinig that language cannot become corrupted, but that development is natural and good and should not be judged.

Now think back to Classical Latin. It was a beautiful language with a precise grammar and it was used in a wonderful style by the Golden Age writers. Then came Vulgar Latin - the caint na daoine - and yet for a thousand years educated Europeans continued to study and ape the Classical Latin. I am not denying that the French of Moliere was once again a high quality literary language; a language can decay and eventually turn into something else and blossom once a formalised grammar turns it into a literary language.

At each point in history the standard is decided not by the speech of the people, but by the usages adopted by the educated minority. In English, the usage "if I was" is common, probably preferred by the majority of people in England, but the educated minority prefers "if I were" and so that is the standard, that is the usage of the literary language. I know this point of view is deeply non-PC - apparently British universities now study the language of bus tickets in order not to be elitist - but what counts is the language of the educated elite. So, let us imagine a world where standard English is lost, but Cockeny remains, "I should of done that" would be the language of the people, but nothing can make that a literary usage because it reflects ignorance.

All forms of Irish today are debased. When I say the language of the literary elite, it might sound like I would support a government-imposed literary standard Irish. But, in fact, no, because the Irish language movement was captured in the pre-war period by those who wished to dumb down the Irish language in favour of the language of the people, the Irish government decided to junk the genuine literary standard - the Irish of the educated people of the pre-war period, the Irish that Dinneen would have written, the Irish of the older versions of the Christian Brothers' grammar - and create a dumbed down standard. So you have 4 forms of Irish -CO, Galway, Munster and Donegal, all substandard in fact.

So I am currently learning Galway Irish, but I do not agree that Galway Irish, because it has authentically survived, must therefore be a high-quality version of the Irish language. Given that there are no speakers of good Irish left, only speakers of the Cockney, the Geordie and the Scouse of Ireland, I intend eventually to move to the pre-war literary standard, and speak and write Irish with the dative plural and what not, blithely indifferent to what goes on in the Gaeltacht.

A Dhavid, a chara!

Welcome to the club of enthusiasts of Cork dialect! Plural dative, dual, synthetic verb endings and still more of fun-stuff is alive and kicking in Cork dialects (Múscraí and Oileán Chléire) - it is not too late for you to switch the dialect. The only difference between current Cork dialect and the best specimen of literary Irish of 18-19 century is abandoning relative form of verbs (and duly so, as it is incompatible with synthetic verb endings).

Gaelainn Mhúscraí abú!

And by the way - the initial design for Caighdeán was to be based on Cork dialect! Exactly for the same reason, as it is grammatically the most conservative. But, alas, lazy Conamara's lobby won the day. (The Ultonians were not even consulted while constructing caighdeán to add insult to injury!).

Conas a thógtar caighdeán sna 4,999 de theangacha eile atá ann, in áit éigin?

A Fheirn,

Dá thuigeas do ceist go crúinn -

In Lithuania the most conservative dialect as described in the first mediaeval grammar of Lithuanian was chosen. Funnily enough the exact location of this dialect was East Prussia/Lithuania Minor (areas with Lithuanian speakers under German administration), as the first grammarian who took interest in our ancestral language was a German scholar. After WWII the original inhabitants of East Prussia fled to Germany as district was given over to Soviet Union. As a result those people whose speech used to be a model for Modern Standard Lithuanian became dispersed and assimilated. So for the last 60 years there are NO NATIVE SPEAKERS of literary language as canúint na ndaoine, as all living dialects in current Lithuania diverge from literary standard at some point. Of course there are urban children raised in well-bred families of intelligentsia (artists, writers, performers etc) who speak this "book-style" language but this hardly amounts to canúint na ndaoine.

And you know - no problem, because the most conservative dialect is the best common denominator. There is no dialect that would have some grammar thing which weren't present in literary language (except dual - but this is a long story), so everybody is happy. Basically every living dialect is a simplified version of literary language but the snag is that all of them simplified the standard in a different way. Compromise for everybody as everyone has to study a bit to get his native speech polished to the level of literary language.

(Message edited by Róman on July 19, 2006)

Maith thú, a Romáin.

Bhí sin gasta. Ní gá a mhór a dhéanamh de a dheirim i leith canúintí is caighdeán. Ní scoláire mé cé gur mhaith liom anois is arís cúléisteacht leis na scoláirí.

Beir bua

Román: I thought the dative plural had also gone in the Munster dialect too. Are you using the dative plural? And are the people of Múscraí still doing so? Can you comment further on how similar the language taught in TYI Myles Dillon is to the pre-war literary standard? Yes, I do want to learn Cork Irish, as I have ancestors from Cork. I have some ancestors with the surname Barry (Norman surname) from Cork City and some with surname Donovan from some unknown other location in Cork County. Román, are you saying that Cork dialect is more conservative than Kerry Irish? Which is the most conservative?

By the way, it is ESSENTIAL that Lithuanian remain pure and intact as it is a vital link to Indo-European. Bring back your dual!

quote:

The only difference between current Cork dialect and the best specimen of literary Irish of 18-19 century is abandoning relative form of verbs (and duly so, as it is incompatible with synthetic verb endings).

Román, can you give me an example of this, so I can understand better?

Quoth D.W.

quote:

We live in dumbing down world

Whether we like it or not, languages do gradually change. For quite some time, there has been this sort of contest between localization and efforts at standardization both in English and Irish.

Interestingly, most of the non-standard usages in American English are actually far older than the new "standard" version. It is, to me, rather ironic that older forms of speech would now be considered "incorrect" when they have been around far longer and are in use by the majority of people (in the U.S.).

WFM, I am not saying that American English is a dumbed down dialect; American English was nothing to do with my post. Some of the usages of American English have their roots in Middle English, it is true, and Washington and the others planned to create a highly literate, educated society. Compare the inauguration speeches of the early presidents with the more recent ones, and you will see the difference. American English could be the subject of a formalisation as a high-quality literary language, just as British English could be (see Jane Austen, Charles Dickens etc). But in fact English on both sides of the pond is dumbing down.

This has nothing to do with my post. But let us connect the two in this way. In the US, the "it would be wonderful if it **would be** true" usage - it pains me to even write it down - reflects similar decay in the Irish language. Ó Siadhail in chapter 10 of LI explains how the conditional is pushingg out the past subjunctive, eg "mara mbeadh Máirtín anseo, ní bheadh Cáit sásta". Does anyone know how you would say that using the proper past subjunctive? Would it be "mara mbíodh..."?

'Whether we like it or not, languages do gradually change.' True WFM! It's the most democratic process there is and no matter how we try to regulate languages or stunt their evolution, they will evolve in spite of efforts to prevent it happening.

I love Conamara Irish and Dublin Irish dosn't have the same music or magic for me nor does Munster Irish (I'm getting interested in Northern Irish) but that doesn't mean I can't have a great conversation with someone in Irish from these places and after a while forget the music of accent and get absorbed in the music of the meaning and wit and humor.

I feel sad when I hear an expression like "lazy Conamara's lobby." To me there is nothing on earth like Conamara Irish but I don't think that makes it objectively superior, or any other dialect inferior. It's just that I love it.

Isn't it most important that we're able to chat away in all our dialects and express ourselves in a wonderful, living, changing language?

Forgive me David, if I don't mourn the death of the subjunctive. In English I only hear 'I wish I was' these days and if I say 'I wish I were' people sometimes attempt to correct me. That's OK with me (at least in conversation). I've learned to adapt. I won't hold onto the past if most people have moved on to a new form.

With regard to the president's "English", my foreign language students of English know enough to be careful not imitate him. Nor would I imitate him. But that's another issue.

A Romain, Seosamh said you wanted to help on a farm while you were in Eire, I guess that didn't work out for you? I wish you much enjoyment and lots of people to speak Gaeilge with.

Beir bua agus beannacht

A Dhavid,

quote:

I thought the dative plural had also gone in the Munster dialect too.

Wrong assumption ;)

quote:

Are you using the dative plural?

Tá a fhios ag Dia, buinim fadhm as!

quote:

And are the people of Múscraí still doing so?

Siúralta, i n-éineacht le muintear Oiléan Chléire.

quote:

Can you comment further on how similar the language taught in TYI Myles Dillon is to the pre-war literary standard?

Cén cogadh, ní fheadar? Tá sé ana-chomhgarach do theangain Ua Dhuinnín ar aon chuma.

quote:

Yes, I do want to learn Cork Irish

Bhuel, what are you waiting for then? (à Gaelainn, más é do thoil é? Cad tánn tú ag feitheamh???)

quote:

are you saying that Cork dialect is more conservative than Kerry Irish?

Gan amhras, and much more so! Gaelainn Chiarraí has had much more advertising recently, but remember - this is not THE Munster Irish. There 3 variaties - Gaeilinn an Rinn, Gaelainn Mhúscraí/Oileán Chléire and Gaelainn Chorca Dhuibhne. Although very similar in pronounciation (still An Rinn stands out) - they are VERY different in grammar. Corcaigh is as different in grammar from Corca Dhuibhne as from Chonamara.

quote:

Bring back your dual!

Unfortunately it was intentionally killed by "well-meaning" grammarians between WWI and WWII. In the same fashion as dative is exterminated in Ireland "for reasons of simplicity". For those caighdeánisers it doesn't matter that dative is normally used from Oileán Chléire till Leòdhas in Scotland except for small patch in Conamara. They just determined to kill it - and they succeed in it. If nothing is done, dative will die, as has dual in Lithuanian. The texts have been forcibly edited throwing dual away (there are a lot well publicized memories of writers who complained about violated texts) - as it is done now in Ireland with dative.

(Message edited by Róman on July 20, 2006)

A Dhavid,

Re relative forms.

Deirtear i nGaeilge Chonamara is i nGaeilg Tír Chonaill:

an fear a bhuaileas tú - a man who hits you, as opposed to:
an fear a bhuaileann tú - a man WHOM you hit.

In caighdeán you have ambiguous "an fear a bhuaileann tú" which means both ways.

In Munster you don't need this special relative form with -s, as synthetic ending disambiguate:

an fear a bhuaileann tú - a man who hits you
an fear a bhuailir - a man WHOM you hit.

The Relative form fell into disuse in Munster as it mixed up things in the past -

an fear a bhuaileas means "the man whom I hit (past tense)".

Still this form is found even in Munster in songs, traditional sayings and so on.

quote:

Whether we like it or not, languages do gradually change.

Sure - but I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how can someone be so obnoxious to try to speed up the process by government decree, huh? How can someone i mBleá Cliath say to people who still speak uncorrupted version of language - for sake of SIMPLICITY (for whom?)switch your grammar, abandon your idioms because we don't like your correct forms, we want pidgeonised language. Can you explain this to you as I seem not to grasp this!

Can you imagine G.W.B. decreeing that saying "I shall come" is WRONG and deduct the marks for it at SAT test, because the only "correct" form shall be "I will come" from now on???

Caighdeán Oifigiúil was NOT a natural change of language - it was THE biggest rape ever done to Gaelainn bhinn. And remember it was designed for Dáil translators for their only INTERNAL usage. I wonder who was this "genius" who fancied that this document meant for 20 people shall become THE Irish to detriment of natural speech???

Tá ana-fhearg orm!

quote:

I love Conamara Irish and Dublin Irish dosn't have the same music or magic for me

There is no such thing as Dublin Irish. It is just a pale imitation of Munster Irish with a lot English words, grammar and mispronunciation thrown in.

quote:

nor does Munster Irish

How much do you know about it? This is THE dialect that produced almost all Irish literature and the finest Irish poetry. There must be some reason for it. Big respect for Ultonians giving as the best songs in Ireland (I really enjoy them), and of course Máire. But what coarse Conamara dialect with swallowed sounds can show for this? Not much I might guess.

quote:

To me there is nothing on earth like Conamara Irish but I don't think that makes it objectively superior, or any other dialect inferior.

Conamara dialect has the most simplified grammar. And sadly enough caighdeán is pretty much following Conamara in it. So even if majority of Irish people say other way around (like chím in Munster and tchím in Ulster) the dreaded CO imposes Conamara form (feicim) on us. So why MORE CORRECT and historically justified forms got thrown away is a mistery to me.

Román,

That was a great reply, or set of replies, I should say.

quote:

There 3 variaties - Gaeilinn an Rinn, Gaelainn Mhúscraí/Oileán Chléire and Gaelainn Chorca Dhuibhne. Although very similar in pronounciation (still An Rinn stands out) - they are VERY different in grammar. Corcaigh is as different in grammar from Corca Dhuibhne as from Chonamara.

I did not know that. I bet you are glad that Myles Dillon chose Múscraí for his Teach Yourself Book?

quote:

Deirtear i nGaeilge Chonamara is i nGaeilg Tír Chonaill:

an fear a bhuaileas tú - a man who hits you, as opposed to:
an fear a bhuaileann tú - a man WHOM you hit.

In caighdeán you have ambiguous "an fear a bhuaileann tú" which means both ways.

In Munster you don't need this special relative form with -s, as synthetic ending disambiguate:

an fear a bhuaileann tú - a man who hits you
an fear a bhuailir - a man WHOM you hit.

The Relative form fell into disuse in Munster as it mixed up things in the past -

an fear a bhuaileas means "the man whom I hit (past tense)".

Wow! What potential for confusion!

quote:

Sure - but I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how can someone be so obnoxious to try to speed up the process by government decree, huh?

Does the Irish constitution give the government the right to regulate and revise the Irish language? From my point of you, the CO, the official standard, is illegal.

Yes, thanks for rekindling my interest in Munster Irish. I want to learn all three dialects, but it looks like I should have paid more attention to Cork!!

A Charhu,

quote:

I bet you are glad that Myles Dillon chose Múscraí for his Teach Yourself Book?

While I concede that TYI le Dillon is not THE textbook, it is a very useful reference point. Without it I would not know that there is a dialect of Irish which is a straightforward descendant of literary langauge of 18 century. LI is not a great textbook either (although one of the best). Mind all those dry translation exercises and incomplete grammar explanations.

I study from Aydan's textbook which is the best in my opinion after trying to use all 4 of them (modern TYI as well). The textbook was printed in Poland (for Poles, of course) so not many people know about it. But this is THE textbook - very similar to any MODERN foreign language textbook. Very few translation exercises, more emphasis on making meaningful sentences, asking questions and so on. The texts represent a continuos plot (very interesting by the way), there are dialogues as well, a lot of reading comprehension exercises. That textbook is in Corca Dhuibhne dialect, which is reasonably close to Cork dialect, but I use TYI(D), Teanga Bheo: Gaeilge Oileán Chléire and Irish of West Muskerry le Brian Ó Cuív to hunt down the differences. These are minor but there are many of them.

quote:

it looks like I should have paid more attention to Cork!!

Unfortunately this is a very neglected dialect. When people think about Munster they recollect Corca Dhuibhne. Cé go bhfuil an-áthas orm go bhfuil Gaelainn bhinn ann féin, ní hé an áit amháin cá labhairtear Gaelainn i Mumhain!!! I find grammar in Cork much closer to traditional literary language, so I stick to it.


In case anyone has questions on Cork dialect I am more than happy to spread the word.


(Message edited by Róman on July 20, 2006)

Román, is Aydan's textbook in Polish?

A Charhu!

Tá, cinnte. This is the textbook used by Polish student at Celtic studies. So all grammar points and vocabularly is in Polish. There are 40 lessons which cover all Irish grammar and cover some 1500-2000 words vocabulary. The book is some 300 pages thick so you can imagine how comprehensive it is. Grammar is explained for 2-3 pages in every lesson with a lot of examples, and it is much more thinly spread than in both Dillon and Ó Siadhal. E.g. past tense is not introduced till lesson 25, because you are supposed to make ANY type of sentences in present tense (with adjectives, adverbs - not bare "Brian is waling"), before you dabb into past tense. It is a great study aid, indeed. Drawback - there are no tapes associated. But I use Dillon's records.

I also like a lot of irony and sense of humor in the book as it depicts a typical life in gaeltacht in a fictional town of Baile an Tobair. Now I thought - the book could be used to make several series of Ros na Rún, because this is what it is about - jealosy, drinking lads, hapless youth who want to sell everything and run away to England, gossiping neighbours and competing fishermen who boast their catch.

By the way of the text you learn colloquial expressions like "cogar", "dhera", "mhuise" and some seanfhocail as well. Those are that I already had in my lessons (I am in lesson 20) -

Nuair a bhíonn an braon istigh, bíonn an chiall amuigh.
Bíonn adharca fada ar na buaibh thar lear.
Ní bheathaíonn briathra bráithre.

Ach beathaíonn na briathra an achrann, go hairithe nuair a bhíonns an CO i gceist!


Seo an méid a bhí le rá fadó ag Breandán Ó hEithir:

---

Tabhair a dhóthain den ardléann do Ghaeilgeoir agus ní Gaeilgeoir a thuilleadh é ach SCOLÁIRE. Agus, a chairde mo chleibh, is iontach na héanacha iad na scoláirí nuair a bhainnean siad amach beanna arda an léinn mhóir. Tugann siad gráin don uile fhocal den teanga Ghaeilge ach na focla a bhfuil seacht sreama na seanaoise orthu. Níl canúint is fearr leo ná an chanúint atá marbh le céad blian.
Bíonn a chanúint fhéin ag gach duine acu agus murar féidir leat í sin a labhairt leo go clocharach pislíneach mar is dual labhróidh siad Béarla leat. Bíonn Béarla an-bhreá acu go hiondúil. Le fírinne agus leis an gceart bíonn sé acu chomh maith nó níos fearr ná an Ghaeilge féin. Béarla gan chanúint a chleactann siad, rud a chuireann ar a gcumas labhairt le formhór chuile Bhéarlóir. Buntáiste mór é seo gan dabht.

Breandán Ó hEithir, Feabhra 1958

---

Is caighdeán scríofa atá i gceist leis an CO, le haghaidh gnóthaí oifigiúla. Bhí (agus tá) a léithéid de dhíth. Ní hionann sin 's a rá go bhfuil gaeilge canúnach mícheart (cé go bhfuil pleidhcí ann a chreideann san).

Aonghuis,

You know better than me that all dialectal forms are "corrected" in Leaving Cert and points are deducted for them. So please, stop this demagogy that dialectal forms are correct from official point of view. And btw can you explain how can they be correct if even children in Gaeltacht who say "dheineas" are FORCED to write "rinne mé" for fear of failing exam?!

Román: thank you, you told me several things I did not know.

quote:

Although very similar in pronounciation (still An Rinn stands out) - they are VERY different in grammar. Corcaigh is as different in grammar from Corca Dhuibhne as from Chonamara.

Well, let's be thankful then that Myles Dillon's book is based on Cork Irish and not Kerr Irish.

quote:

Deirtear i nGaeilge Chonamara is i nGaeilg Tír Chonaill:

an fear a bhuaileas tú - a man who hits you, as opposed to:
an fear a bhuaileann tú - a man WHOM you hit.

In caighdeán you have ambiguous "an fear a bhuaileann tú" which means both ways.

In Munster you don't need this special relative form with -s, as synthetic ending disambiguate:

an fear a bhuaileann tú - a man who hits you
an fear a bhuailir - a man WHOM you hit.

The Relative form fell into disuse in Munster as it mixed up things in the past -

an fear a bhuaileas means "the man whom I hit (past tense)".

Wow! What potential for confusion!

quote:

Sure - but I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how can someone be so obnoxious to try to speed up the process by government decree, huh?

Which article of the Irish constitutionn gives the government the right to regulate and reform the Irish language? I woud suggest the CO is illegal.

Román, basically I want to learn all three dialects, Galway because of its dominance on TG4, Ulster because of my Ulster ancestors and Munster because of my Munster ancestors, but you have stirred my interest once again. Thanks. You are one of the best posters here!

A Rómain,

I've been trying to find a copy of Aidan Doyle's An Ghaeilge Podręcznik języka irlandzkiego for a while now, to no avail (Amazon.de lists it, but it's not in stock). Do you know of a shop where it can be found?

Le meas,
Cionaodh

A Chionaoidh - Do cheannaíos mo cheannsa sa siopa leabhair i bhFarseo fadó. Níl aon cheann ann fós. So - I have not a clue where you can find it. What I bought was a leftover from some warehouse as there was only one piece and it was very cheap. Never seen this book in any Polish bookshop since then. Maybe you can contact Catholic University of Lublin, the original publisher?

Scríobh Rómán:

quote:

You know better than me that all dialectal forms are "corrected" in Leaving Cert and points are deducted for them

I know no such thing. I spoke earlier on to a friend who works for the State Examinations Commission, who run the leaving Cert, and he had never heard that either.

What I do know is that the aural exam contains passages from all three dialect areas (because people are always complaining about how hard the Donegal one is!)

The only complaint I have heard around exam time on RnaG have been the difficult for the secondary school in Rinn Ó gCuanach to get an examiner for the oral exam who is sufficiently familiar with the dialect to allow the students to speak fluently and naturally to them.

I have never heard any complaints about the written exam.

---

http://www.examinations.ie/archive/examiners_reports/cer_2005/ComSEC.pdf

quote:

Ba chóir eolas na ndaltaí ar na canúintí a fhorbairt; baintear úsáid as téipeanna, míreanna ó Raidió na Gaeltachta, cláir thráthúla ó TG4, dlúthdhioscaí ROM, agus an t-idirlíon sa rang.

Aonghus -

You are driving me mad sometimes. Where did I say that you can't SPEAK in dialect during the exam? There is no caighdeán for pronunciation (baochas le Dia), so it is impossible NOT to speak dialect even if you wish. The most you can achieve is to mix a mish-mash but still every single word is dialectal.

what i actually said:

quote:

if even children in Gaeltacht who say "dheineas" are FORCED to write "rinne mé" for fear of failing exam?!

And yes - if you write táimíd with second fada, or dhineas - it all gets corrected by overzealous biggots who correct the papers.

"But what coarse Conamara dialect with swallowed sounds can show for this?" Ouch!
The French have swallowed sounds too. Do you feel the same way about their language?

I’m glad you love Irish, Róman, and I’m glad you have a special love for Munster Irish but calling Conamara Irish ‘coarse’ is a bit harsh.

A Romain

I wish there was a book like you describe yours to be, in English since I don't think I'd get anywhare with the Polish version. It sounds interesting and informative.

Beir bua agus beannacht

Yup Róman,
You're right - Munster dialect is great! There are lots of truly great poems and books written in that particular dialect. For a book-worm like me, who loves poetry and folklore, it was easy to decide that Munster Irish was the right choice for me. Fortunately, I discovered Pimsleur, Gaeltalk, Teach Yourself Irish (by Dillon), etc., so I am forging ahead quite well. One thing I must say, however: I don't think it is right to be putting down anyone else's dialect, C.O. excepted, of course. Eventually, I hope to become at least somewhat familiar with the Conamara and Ulster forms of Irish (once I become fluent in Munster dialect), and I will be the richer for it.

Caitriona, I think it is great that you love Conamara Irish! Any dialect that was spoken by Pádraig Piarais must needs be a grand dialect, indeed! I totally agree with your statement that there is no Irish dialect that is superior to any other. And, at the risk of sounding a bit silly, thank you for being yourself - a person who always stands up for what is right, regardless of whether or not your position happens to be popular. Right On!!!

All languages have been undergoing constant change, since the first human being that was able to speak uttered his/her first word. I wouldn't call this corruption. Compare Modern English to Gothic, and then you'll understand what swallowed sounds are. Does it mean that English is more corrupt than Gothic (or rather than its own ancestor, which must have been similar to Gothic)? However I agree with Roman that they shouldn't force children to stop using dialectal forms. Especially because Irish is an endangered language, and any sort of its usage must be encouraged.

BTW, at the beginning of this line, it was about questions and rel.clauses. I think that questions like Conas atá tú, do contain a relative clause because words such as cé, conas (c'ionas...) céard (cen rud)... etc., from historical point of view, contain a copula. Cé has developed from something like kwe-est (what-is) in proto-Celtic. That's why it prefixes h- (lenited 's' from is < *est) to words such as é (cé hé). So there IS a copula in Cé hé sin? In such sentences (questions) the word order is different because the WH word comes first in all european langs. So Conas atá tú - lit. What-is-state/condition that-are you.
Daithí

quote:

what i actually said:

quote:

if even children in Gaeltacht who say "dheineas" are FORCED to write "rinne mé" for fear of failing exam?!

I know what you said. I have never heard that being said; so I went looking for evidence, and found none.

What I did find, in the report of the Chief Examiner for Irish, was the strong recommendation that all pupils be made familiar with all dialects, both spoken and written.

What I also found is that the vast bulk of the marks are for knowledge of literature, how points are argued, with a small proportion for correctness of language.

So until you come up with evidence, I will not withdraw what I said.

WFM,
Re. Right on!!!
Buíochas ó chroí.
Cuireann cineáltas ionadh agus áthas orm i gcónaí.

http://www.examinations.ie/archive/examiners_reports/cer_2005/ComSEC.pdf
An-spéisiúil, a Aonghuis. GRMT

A Dhaithí,

Ana-shuimiúil, ní raibh a fhios agam, go raibh maith agat!

Ámhar mór ort

A Dhaithí:

Languages change. But on the way, linguistic standards are formed, punctuating the process. You gave the example of English, the ancestor of which was Primitive Germanic, no samples of which have survived.

1) Old English was undoubtedly different from primitive Germanic - you can say "corrupted" from it - but a formal standard was created based on Wessex English and used by the scribes before the Norman Conquest.
2) Middle English was different from Old English, but in the late 14th century formalised versions appeared based on the English of Chancery - ie the government standard.
3)Early Modern English was different again. It was a time of ferment, when many writers, such as Shakespeare were trying to introduce new words into the language, but the English Prayerbook and the King James Bible provided a slightly archaicised (even in those days) standard.
4)Late Modern English differed again, but was formalised especially in the 19th century reaching the apex of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy etc.

So, in amongst continual change, as there probably was in the language of the people, there were various formalised standards imposed by the educated people. In other words, the elite repeatedly stepped in to create a formalised educated standard, a literary language. It is naturally the case that the educated elite's use of the language, the literary language, did not incorporate such innovations in popular speech that the elite regarded as corrupt, although those "corruptions" may have fed into the next formalised standard proclaimed in later years.

Irish is the same. The monasteries will have created an Old Irish broad standard, although standards in those days may have varied more than later standards, and then came Classical Irish etc. There have been more than one literary forms of Irish, in other words. The transitions, in writing, from Old Irish to Middle Irish to Classical Irish, probably do not capture the continual change in the language of the people, which must have varied more often. Now the question is: is the Official Standard Irish a standard built on the same principles as those previous standards, ie an educated elite imposing what it sees as the best forms, what it sees as the least corrupt forms, to make a refined, literary language. [Of course, as the rest of my post shows, such refined, literary languages often included items previously regarded as corruptions, and not refinements, but in each period, the literary language was the most conservative form, was the most formalised and consistent form, and represented a new take on what was a corruption and what was a refined form.]

The answer is that the Official Standard is qualitatively different from standards imposed by educated elites in all countries, in that it was a deliberate simplification of the language, rather than an attempt to preserve refined forms in the face of changing popular usages. It is not a refined, literary language, and in some cases it is an attempt to eliminate refinements, such as the dative plural etc.

Maith thú, a Charhu, aointím leat.

The CO was an attempt to harmonise spellings and grammar to provide a common standard for written offical documents - something similiar was done recently in Germany.

It was not intended to mark the dialects as wrong or corrupt, although some people may interpret it so.

There had been a historical gap in a common Irish speaking elite; something needed to be done.

quote:

An Caighdeán Oifigiúil

B'éigean don Rialtas rogha a dhéanamh idir fhoirmeacha éagsúla na gcanúintí chun go mbeadh cinnteacht ann maidir le ceart na Gaeilge Oifigiúla. Seo iad na foirmeacha is coitianta sna canúintí go léir. Chomh maith leis sin rinneadh simpliú ar an litriú chun go mbeadh an focal a scríobhtar níos cóngaraí don bhfocal a deirtear. Cuiream i gcás deirtear "litriú" ach bhítí ag scríobh "litriughadh" anuas go dtí na caogaidí (ach go mbíodh "ponc" os cionn an g agus an d in áit an h).


Rábhadh

Ba chóir a thuiscint nach gcuireann an Caighdeán Oifigiúil Gaeilge na nGaeltachtaí ó mhaith. Baineann an caighdeán le hoifigí agus le dlí agus le gnótha oifigiúla. Tá lán-chead ag an scríbhneoir Gaeilge tarraingt ó chanúint ar bith agus má tá leagan nó abairt ceart i gcanúint ar bith glacfar leis i scrúduithe Gaeilge. Ní chuireann an Caighdeán Oifigiúil isteach ar na canúintí. A mhalairt. Saibhríonn sé iad agus tarraingíonn sé astu.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~eofeasa/gaeilge.htm

Aonghus,

Answer one question please - why has school edition of Séanna has excised EVERYTHING what is Munster-like? What is the point to change the words and grammar in the text, if dialects are "OK"? The change of "dheineas" with "rinne mé" is a clear indication that someone in Education ministry things that CO is BETTER than dialects. What plainly contradicts what you have highlighted in red. I don't care what is professed - I see pure facts - texts are "edited" and purged, throwing everything uncaighdeánesque out!

And all this jibe about "simplification" of spelling is laughable. CO does not correspond to pronunciation anymore, at least for ALL dialects outside of small patch to the west of Galway.

The answer is I don't know. I suppose somebody at the publishers thought it was a good idea - there has been an ebb and flow between standardisation and dialectisation several times since the standard was first proposed, and even before there was a standard, different publsihing houses tried to impose a house standard from the beginning of the 20th century.

But your original contention was that someone writing gaeltacht Irish would be marked as wrong - I still dispute that.

There are plenty of books available in dialect Irish, and some are on the school courses as far as I know (but it is more than 20 years since I was at school).

Aonghus, O Aonghus!

quote:

The CO was an attempt to harmonise spellings and grammar to provide a common standard for written offical documents - something similiar was done recently in Germany.

Knowest thou not that many Germans protested against those reforms? One professor told that his papers must all be in the new German caighdéan announced that he would write no more papers! And the newspapers have now dropped the reform. I read that so many readers wrote angry letters, was it to the Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeiting, that that venerable organ has dropped the new caighdéan?

And your point is? This was at least the second such attempt at reform - The first gave us Tür instead of Thür (but not Tron, because the Kaiser objected).

My point is that all dialects spoken in Gaeltacht areas are "good Irish" and the CO, while far from perfect, is the best we have for for its specific narrow purpose

quote:

chun go mbeadh cinnteacht ann maidir le ceart na Gaeilge Oifigiúla.

I'm just slightly tired of tirades along the lines of "this dialect spoken in these three villages in Corca Dorcha is the only true Irish, and the CO is a government plot to rape the language"

(Message edited by aonghus on July 21, 2006)

Aonghus, Karhus

German Rechtschreibungsreform is a children's play in comparison to caighdeán! The changes affected some 300 words, most of them borrowings, so I wouldn't care less if it was "After shave lotion" or it is now "After-shave-lotion" in German (sic!), the same goes for "Resumé" vs "Resumee". The core language is not affected. The cosmetic change of "ß" with "ss" in some words was long-ovedue, the rules are more consistent now. Anyway the phonetics of a words were not compomised in the process. And the whole process is not new at all. In 19th century French-borrowed "Bureau" was spelled like in the original language, now it is written according to German spelling rules like "Büro" with NO CHANGE in pronunciation.

Now try to convince me that "trá" is a good spelling for those who say [tra:g`] (the whole Munster) or [tra:j] (Ulster+ northern Conamara). Can anyone explain what was wrong with the old spelling "tráigh"???

Furthermore - words like "mhairbh", "sheasaimh" are pronounced with a clear [v] in the south. So why those have to be spelled "mhairigh", "sheasaigh" if no [g`] is found in those words?

I agree there is no sense to write "beirbhiughadh" anymore, "beiriú" is enough, but this is that rare occasion when CO did not violate the phonetics of the words. All those "crua", "dónn", "léann" clearly fail. And insisting on writing "abhainn", "gualainn" is simply laughable, if person's natural words are "abha" and "guala".

Rómán, the CO is a compromise between three main strands - so please stop harping on the fact that it is not pronounced as in Munster dialect. It never intended to be.

It's not perfect, but it serves its purpose until such a time as we have a genuine standard.

In the meantime I'm in full agreement with you and others that the best way to learn Irish is immersion in one of the gaeltachtaí. But please recognise that not everyone has that option, or your skill in linguistics which enables you to master a dialect from the notes of other scholars.

I'm not qualified to, and have no desire to get into a discussion of the finer points of phonetics - I'm a software engineer, not a linguist, verdammt nochmal!

quote:

Rómán, the CO is a compromise between three main strands

Stop spreading this misinformation! It is sad when people don't know things, but it is truly lamentable when then propagate this ignorance. Maybe CO was meant to be a compromise in the beginning, but in its current state CO clearly follows one single HAMLET's pronunciation (if you wish) situated somewhere in Cois Fhairrge.

quote:

so please stop harping on the fact that it is not pronounced as in Munster dialect

As a spelling system CO does not plausibly pronounce things, it only spells words. But there are spellings compatible with all 3 major dialects like 'tráigh' which is pronounced [tra:] in south Conamara by the way, and there are incompatible ones like 'trá' from which pronunciations like [tra:j] and [tra:g`] cannot be generated. So CO spelling is discomfiting for Ulster, Munster and north Conamara, i.e. more than 60% of native speakers. so again - what do we win with CO spelling? nothing. what do we lose? - we lose interest of native speakers in CO, who see new spelling as strange and foreign.

quote:

It's not perfect

So why it is not rectified if its MISTAKES (I am not afraid of this word) are obvious? Just because somebody in Dublin would have to admit drawbacks of their "perfect compromise"?

quote:

it serves its purpose

In my eyes it serves no other purpose than to alienate native speakers and learners who do not understand each other.

Róman, I know you feel strongly about the CO, but you're engaging in hyperbole now, and this does not help your argument. If the CO had no Munster input at all, we would likely have no synthetic verbs. Synthetic verbs are not a feature of Cois Fhairrge Irish.

I think the dialects which are least well represented in the CO are the Ulster ones. But as Aonghus has said, there's a mix of influences in the CO.

The CO, while quite flawed, is not a conspiracy of the people of the west in cahoots with evil government lackeys. It's just a poorly-thought out attempt to standardise government documents, which unfortunately has been adopted as a de facto standard in absence of something better.

I meant that the pronunciation of Conemara Irish can't be said to be corrupt because it the result of the normal, natural language evolutian, and there's nothing corrupt in that. On the other hand, I do agree that outlawing forms such as dhein, chí... is not alright, but it's a widespread characteristic of the people using standard languages to look contemptually at the dialects.

Roman. There are a lot of non-Cois Fhairrge features in the CO such as the -igh, -amh, -idh, etc. in forms such as dóigh, imigh, creideamh, feicfidh... which all end in a schwa in this dialect: they would be written: dó, ime, creide, feice in that case. Besides, as Cionadh said, there are very few foirmeacha tháite in Conemara. The plurals in -anna, acha, óga are pronounced annaí, achaí, ógaí, the feminine nouns often end in a slender consonant (bróig) in the nominative, lots of verbs too (dúin, tóig), the genitive plural is identical with the nominative plural (na bhfir, instead na bhfear), there are words such as teirim (tirim), eidir (idir) etc. etc.
Daithí

In Ainm Chroim. The CO does not outlaw anything.

Rómán, bíodh agat. Is léir gur mó do shaineolaisa cé go bhfuil tú na mílte cilimeadair i gcéin, na na hollúna abhus.

I see why the CO was felt to be needed. It can be considered easier to have a literary standard that everyone learns at school and that everyone can read. I agree with that logic and, flawed as it may be, it was done that way and that is that unless the government decides to change it, unlikely.
The point at which I disagree with standardization is when we start talking about a standard spoken Irish. This is unfair at best. Whose dialect do you choose, what about all the lovely features that get lost in the sands of time sooner because of it. I don't think that it is right to tell someone who speaks beautiful Irish and grew up in the Gaeltacht etc. that their Irish is no longer correct and that they need to switch over to this new standard.

quote:

don't think that it is right to tell someone who speaks beautiful Irish and grew up in the Gaeltacht etc. that their Irish is no longer correct and that they need to switch over to this new standard.

And only fools do so. How often must I say that there is no such policy, unoffical or official?

ok. 'outlaw' is a strong word. But that's what I've understood from what was said above, and I know that exactly that is done in lots of other countries, where dialects (spoken or written) are considered wrong and deviant forms of language, without grammar (what's of course a senseless idea)...
As for the southern Connemara 'lobby', there are also words such as inniubh, where the final /w/ is clearly pronounced - just another proof that the CO is not based exclusively, not even in a large measure, on those dialects. Otherwise quite a number of words wouldn't exist in Modern Irish dictionaries.

The case is different in Ireland, precisely because the CO was an artificial standard, for a specific purpose.

Most people here would certainly see Gaeltacht Irish, of whatever dialect, as correct.

But all the Gaeltachts are under pressure.

It is not feasible to teach a pure dialect in all the schools in the country - it is hard enough to find adequately fluent teachers.

So outside the Gaeltacht, the only feasible option is to teach a standardised form; and this explains why some books originally written in a dialect have been, by various editors, brought closer to the standard to make them more accessible to non Gaeltacht learners.

There should be movies in Irish with English subtitles, so people would have an opportunity to listen to the natural speech and learn the language (even unconsciously). Do any Gaelic movies exist? The RnaG and TV in Irish are a bit problematic for this purpose, because people who aren't fluent can't understand the speech, and so the majority are probably less inspired to listen (or watch) programs on these channels. Tthe RnaG and Gaelic Tv programmes are however useful for the fluent and native speakers.
Movies with subtitles are rather useful when learning a foreign language (at least as a help in understanding).
The Irish should try the Welsh 'recipe', where the Welsh language is not a compulsory subject in schools, but people still learn it. Even lots of immigrants from England send their children to Welsh kindergartens or so to learn the language. A language has a future if it enters all the spheres of society. So there should be movies, music bands, .. and not only political documents and subjects at school.

"In my eyes it serves no other purpose than to alienate native speakers and learners who do not understand each other."

I have been in several Gaeltacht areas and have had no prblem understanding and communicating with the locals, whats this your talking about.

There has to be a type of language that serves for official purposes. I don't think it can cause people not to understand each other, especially not the native speakers.