There are so many different spellings and meanings for this. What is the REAL phrase in Irish?

This link leaves me more lost than before: http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_does_'Erin_go_braugh'_mean

Oh, dear. It would lose me too!

The phrase means "Ireland forever."

Its correct spelling is either Éirinn go brách or Éire go brách (the difference is one of dialect and standardization.) "Éireann go brách," which was mentioned several times on that page, is not correct... that would be the genitive case, and would mean "of Ireland forever."

Abigail

I think we here in the U.S would often see the phrase as "Érin[n] go bragh." From the little I've read about this (almost?) ubiqitous version being using by the Americans in general(at least Americans that like to say "Ireland forever"), including many Irish-related social groups, is that it originated in the 1800's here in the States possibly using the Scots Gaelic (or some close rendition) of the term "forever," which for whatever historical reasons of which I'm ignorant, gave ultimate rise¹ to the "bragh."

Of course, when speaking or writing Irish, the versions indicated by Abigail are the way to go, but I think we here in the States will be seeing "bragh" for a very long time.


{1} I'm using rise here in the sense of success or result, and not in terms of any roads being elevated. Inside joke - Tá bron orm, a Abigail, I couldn't help it.

"bragh" is just an older version of "brách", before the simplification of the spelling system. sampla eile is ea "sgoil" in ionad "scoil".

Although I cannot attest nor affirm the accuracy, from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Go_Bragh I found the following:

quote:

Erin Go Bragh (also commonly spelled Erin Go Braugh) is the Anglicization of a Gaelic phrase used to express allegiance to Ireland. It is most often translated as "Ireland Forever."


Origin
Speakers of the Irish language often state that the phrase is a corruption of the Irish "Éire go brách", or "Éireann go Brách". However, it should be noted that the Scottish Gaelic phrase "Éirinn gu bràth," which literally means "Ireland until the Day of Judgement," is pronounced almost identically to the Anglicized phrase.

It may seem surprising that a phrase which has come to so strongly represent Ireland could have come not from Irish (Gaeilge) but instead from Scottish (Gàidhlig). However, a Scottish song from the 19th century entitled "Erin-go-Bragh" may have had something to do with this unusual progression. It tells the story of a Highland Scot who is mistaken for an Irishman. The first two verses are presented here, and a link to the lyrics may be found in the External links section.

My name's Duncan Campbell from the shire of Argyll
I've travelled this country for many's the mile
I've travelled through Ireland, Scotland and a'
And the name I go under's bold Erin-go-bragh
One night in Auld Reekie as I walked down the street
A saucy big polis I chanced for to meet
He glowered in my face and he gi'ed me some jaw
Sayin' "When cam' ye over, bold Erin-go-bragh?"

What does Erin go Bragh mean? The popular phrases "Erin go Bragh" or "Erin go Braugh" means "Ireland forever." It's the anglicised version of the Gaelic phrase which would be known to some Irish Americans (although its English spelling is quite meaningless). The correct spelling is "Éireann go Brách."[1]

While other dialects disagree [2] stating, "'Eireann' is wrong because it's in the wrong grammatical case for its position in the sentence (it's genetive, and one needs the nominative here)." So, to be correct, one needs "Éire go Brách." These appear to be largely regional differences in grammar. Some dialects optionally use the dative case "Éirinn" as the nominative and it is from this that the English word "Erin" comes from.

However the phrase became Anglicized, it was already in use as "Erin Go Bragh" by 1847. In that year, a group of Irishmen serving in the United States Army during the U.S. - Mexican War deserted and joined the Mexican side. These soldiers, known as Los San Patricios, or Saint Patrick's Battalion, flew as their standard a green flag with a harp on it, with the motto "Erin Go Bragh" underneath it. Variations on this flag design have been used ever since to express Irish nationalism.

By 1862 there was an emigrant ship operated by the Black Ball Line called the Erin go Bragh, which had the dubious honour of making the longest trip from Britain to Moreton Bay, Australia. She suffered many dead on the voyage, according to an unpublished contemporary account and, ironically, arrived in the same week that Black Ball's Young Australia completed the fastest crossing.

The Wikipedia link shown above also shows the Flag very popular here in the States which includes the Irish harp and the phrase "Erin go Bragh." There are also some interesting links in the article at Wikipedia.

Seems fairly accurate to me.

See here for more info on the flag

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1648/bratacha.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1648/flags.htm

(The Green Flag / An Bratach Uaine)

A Pháidímacu agus a Aonghuis,

Thanks for the additional information. It appears that the websites, especially the picture of the Green Flag, indicated by Aonghus confirms Páidimacu's statement that "Bragh" is an earlier spelling of the word "Brách."

So, the Wikipedia contention that "Bragh" came by way of Scots Gaelic doesn't seem to be correct, since the Green Flag used by the Irish since 1798 has the word "Bragh" on it.

Another follow-up question. I notice on the Green Flag that "Ireland" is spelled "Erin," with one "n" and no fada mark over the "E." Just curious as to whether this is also an original spelling (the single n) and whether the font is what causes the lack of a fada mark over the "E."

quote:

Páidimacu's statement that "Bragh" is an earlier spelling of the word "Brách."

It's an earlier Anglicized spelling of "brách", never one in general using in writing Irish. "Brách" is the standardized spelling of earlier "bráthach". Scottish Gaelic has "gu bràth". "Bráth" = Doomsday, Day of Judgment.

The English use of -gh instead of native -ch in spelling Irish names and words goes way back. An excellent example is "lough" for "loch".

""bragh" is just an older version of "brách", before the simplification of the spelling system. sampla eile is ea "sgoil" in ionad "scoil"."

May I say that a) data (and experience) would suggest that in Ireland -ach in Gaelic is most likely to be rendered -agh in Hiberno-English place names. The examples are legion, therefore, it is not a case of simplification, rather English speakers or bilinguals using an orthographic conciet that became the standard way to show the sound left when final gaelic 'ch' dropped out of speech and was replaced by 'ah'. The sound given for -agh in Irish would often be /j/; in Hiberno-english final position 'a' as in 'away'; and -ach in Irish is /x/.

sgoil vs scoil is not just a spelling issue -there is acoustically, not a great difference between broad g and k after initial braod s, as per a) books b) what I have heard from speech. In other words, the voice/devoice issue is not that important here. It may have been respelled in the caighdeán, but I suspect both forms were used for centuries anyway

I'm not attack your appraisal (please dont take offence), but if i did not remark on this, I would be ignoring a get proportion of signs in the irish country side. The issues spoken above have a more complex history than I think the author of the wikipedia article thinks. Their mistake was to lay out facts just as historical milestones and forget the other factors involved. Besides, an English poem about a Highlander is hardly proof of anything! Its quirky logic at work.


"It may seem surprising that a phrase which has come to so strongly represent Ireland could have come not from Irish (Gaeilge) but instead from Scottish (Gàidhlig). However, a Scottish song from the 19th century entitled "Erin-go-Bragh" may have had something to do with this unusual progression"

The example I give below is from a 16th century book, which is copied (plus added extras) from a 15th century book), so perdates the cited poem. Mic Rua warned about wikipedia and irish before.

Example:

Atat dono nethe eli labrus in duansa do rinde Caillin mac Niatach, dianad adbar na nethesi anuas .i. in gabhaltur sa anuas, ocus in rem rigraide o shlange mac Dela mic Loith co Diarmait mac Cerbaill ; ocus ro tharngair iarsin gach ri ro gebad Erind co brath.

There are other things spoken of in this poem, which Caillin son of Niata composed, the subject of which is these foregoing affairs, i.e. the gabhaltus down to this, and the roll of kings from Slainge, son of Dela, son of Loth, to Diarmait Mac Cerbhaill. And he afterwards fortold every king who would possess Ireland untill doom.

doom. –brath ; lit. “judgement”.

Erind co brath ; “Ireland until doom”

Ireland. –The form in text, eriu (Eriu), is the proper nomin., gen. erend ; dat. erind ; from which latter the popular form Erin is incorrectly taken

[The above notes are taken from annotations in a reprit work; I just add them as a note of interest. Perhaps they're wrong too! The spelling is not set in stone in such works either]

Dennis has answered it while I was typing.

nd to nn seems to have occured (as per the works I ahve scanned) due to a sort of assimilation. n and d are traditionally the same shape in the mouth, so d in the cluster seems to have given away to a slender strong n

the lack of É just supports the contention that non Irish speakers were using the phrase

Can anyone explain why apparently sensible people quote Wikipedia as if it were a source of wisdom? Do they not realise that anyone can write anything on that site? The most learned article can be amended by any ignoramus (and anyone who thinks that 'Éireann' can be used in the nominative case is a 24-carat ignoramus), crank or vandal who is so inclined. Wikipedia has all the authority of a graffiti-covered wall in a public convenience. To have credibility, a work of reference requires expert authors, peer reviewers and competent editors. That's a boring, middle-aged, 'establishment' way of producing an encyclopedia, but it's the only responsible way.

As for 'Erin go Bra(u)gh', the reason it's written as 'bragh' or 'braugh' and not 'brách' is because:
1. English doesn't use diacritic marks.
2. English pronounces 'ch' like 'tsh' (as in 'cheese'), so Irish 'ch' is systematically transliterated as 'gh' in Hiberno-English (e.g. 'Tallaght' for 'Tamhlacht', 'Drimnagh' for 'Droimeanach', 'Drogheda' for 'Droichead Átha' and so on.)
3. The variation between 'bragh' and 'braugh' reflects the difference in pronunciation of 'á' between northern and southern dialects.

quote:

Can anyone explain why apparently sensible people quote Wikipedia as if it were a source of wisdom?

In an attempt to answer this question, here's an article from Design News about the popularity of Wikipedia among college students, in particular those at MIT (Massachussetts Institute of Technology), which has quite a fair share of sensible people:

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6330008.html

Here's a extract from the above-site webpage:

quote:

But Wikipedia, with nearly a million entries in English today, is starting to prove that leveraging the collective minds of many may not be a bad strategy. In fact, in a recent comparison of scientific entries in Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature reported that there were few differences in accuracy. Read a BBC article about the research study at http://rbi.ims.ca/4922-530

.

It's suprising how popular Wikipedia is amongst the engineering/technical community, not only in the professional ranks, but amongst college students as well. Wikipedia is often used as a starting point in research and often provides the user with valuable links that are peer-reviewed etc.

quote:

Do they not realise that anyone can write anything on that site?

Doesn't the same hold true for this forum? Anyone can write here, even me, but I think few would doubt that this forum is an extremely useful resource, with many helpful and intelligent people.

Dennis and Bearnaigh: Thanks for your input! I'll need a little time to digest all of it.

quote:

To have credibility, a work of reference requires expert authors, peer reviewers and competent editors.

From the BBC article cited above:

quote:

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Since the peer review conducted by Nature Magazine finds the Encylopedia Britannica tied with Wikipedia in terms of serious errors and, if Wikipedia has only the authority of a graffiti-covered wall in a public convenience, does that mean the Encyclopedia Brittannica also ranks as having only public-convenience graffiti-covered wall credibility?

The article also mentions that Wikipedia is already instituting steps to improve it's expert-review process, so who knows, may one day soon, it will be even better than Encylopedia Brittanica.

Wikipedia's very value is as a countermeasure to "expert" references.

I'd be willing to bet that any thinking person has read, at one point or another, an entry in a so-called "expert" refernce that was flatly incorrect.

From my own experience, I can attest to this. When I was growing up, we had the supposedly "expert reference" Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopaedia in our home, and as a kid I looked up American Sign Language.

The graphic that accompanied that article depicted the single-handed letters of the alphabet that are used by deaf/mute persons here to spell words.

Curiously, the letter "Z" was depicted as a "P"/"G" handshape with outpointed fingers pointed upward.

As it happens, my mother's maternal grandparents were both stone deaf and used Sign Language as their only language. My grandmother always signed a "Z" as a letter "Z" traced in the air with an outpointed forefinger: in other words, nothing remotely resembling the depiction in the so-called expert reference.

This incongruency stayed with me, and over the years I've checked this with other deaf/mute people whereever I go, and not once have I found a single instance of the letter "Z" being signed as it was depicted in that so-called "expert" reference.

So, plainly, "experts" aren't always very expert at all. If my one incidental experience is emblematic, then Wikipaedia serves a worthy purpose.

Isn't there a term in Irish also 'go bráth'? I assumed that it was from that source that the English pronunciation 'guh braw' for the anglicised spelling 'go braugh' came.

As for the term "Erin go Braugh" it's been used for centuries in Ireland, for names of boats, sporting teams, greyhounds, horses as well as a political slogan. Just because it is an anglicised spelling, doesn't make it incorrect in English.

Are anglicised names such as Mao Tse Tung, Munich, Tai Kwan Do, etc, incorrect just because they are not written in the standard dialect of the original language?

For proof of Wikipedia's lack of quality control we don't have to look any further than the entry submitted by Cúcúc above. Any Irish historian would know that the phrase in question was popularised by the Society of United Irishmen in the 1790s; any Irish speaker would know that 'Éireann' isn't a dialect variant of 'Éire/Éirinn'.

I accept the point that Wikipedia entries may provide useful links to more credible sources. It is also probably the case that an article on, say, the chemistry of halogenated aromatic heterocyclics is less likely to attract the attention of amateurs, cranks or vandals than is the case with articles relating to the humanities (not to mention such hot potatoes as politics or religion). But I have seen a lot of appalling entries over the past few years: some of it is the result of ignorance, some of prejudice, some of a misapplied sense of humour. Errors and omissions can be found in any reference work, of course, but Wikipedia's modus operandi guarantees a product that will be far more uneven than the most sloppily-edited traditional publication.

It's the very uneveness of the entries that is the most insidious aspect of the project. Because it really does contain some high quality articles written by expert contributors, that very fact can lure those who use it into a false sense of security when they venture into a field in which they are unable to assess the quality of an entry. Those who trust Wikipedia are playing Russian roulette.

Antóin asked about 'go bráth'. That this form was also used is clear from the occasional use of 'Erin go Brah' in contemporary documents. See, for example, W.A. Maguire, 'Up in Arms; the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland', p. 270 (an illustrated catalogue of the bicentenary exhibition held in the Ulster Museum in 1998). However, 'bra(u)gh' was more common and there is no doubt that it is an anglicised spelling of 'brách'.

Scriobh Grumpy:

quote:

For proof of Wikipedia's lack of quality control we don't have to look any further than the entry submitted by Cúcúc above.

In regard to the entry submitted by me above, where Wikipedia is off the mark, we see, thanks to Domhnall's entry above, where a venerated, peer-reviewed encyclopaedia is off the mark, and this is not in the realm of halogenated aromatic heterocyclics, but in sign language, that you would expect a so-called expert to get things right.

Scoreboard:

First Inning: 1 error for Wiki, 1 error for 'peer' reviewed encyclopedia by so-called experts.

Score tied.........Wiki Abú

Until the advent of Wikipedia, I've found encyclopedias to be of use mainly to school children and of course to encyclopedia salespersons, who tried to sell a set to every parent. For example, you have do a report on Bolivia for grammar school, so, whaddya do? Go to the library to the reference section, grab the "B" book of the encyclopedia, trace out the shape of Bolivia and copy a few paragraphs or pages of information, depending on how long the report has to be. I think the encyclopedia, at least for millions and millions of school kids, has been limited to this sole purpose of providing "school-report" fodder.

Now, with Wikipedia, we have a living encyclopedia online and free! Unlike conventional encyclopedias, which are outdated even before they're printed, Wikipedia is constantly being updated, and yes, improvements are being made in their review process.

In regards to Wikipedia's review process, is anyone familiar with it? I'll have to ask my son, who has had some experience with the submission of information to Wikipedia, where I got the clear impression from him that steps can be taken to correct or limit the vandals that Grumpy describes.

In regards to the Irish language, I know that Wikipedia is not perfect, but does anyone know if other, conventional encyclopedias have information on the Irish language themselves? If they don't, then at least they can claim they make no mistakes in that area. That would be similar to how I can claim I've never made a mistake in golf - that's because I've never played golf!

Mac Léinn na Gaeilge (aka Cúcúc) is playing with a marked deck. In the case of Wikipedia, he selected an article at random which turned out to be unfit for use. In the case of Funk and Wagnall's, he selected an article that he knew to be flawed, and he selected it for that very reason. A fair test would be to select a random article from Funk and Wagnall's.

But even with Cúcúc's marked deck the score isn't 1-1. It's at least 3-1 against Wikipedia. He cited an error in the sign for the letter 'Z'; that's one point against Funk and Wagnall's. I cite the failure to refer to the United Irishmen, the attempt to justify 'Éireann go Brách', and the Scottish wild-goose chase, as three independent errors by Wikipedia. There also seems to be an implication that the use of 'Erin go Bragh' on flags originated with the San Patricio volunteers in the Mexican army ('variations on this flag design have been used ever since to express Irish nationalism ...'). That would be a fourth serious error, but I'll be generous and accept that this implication might possibly be a result of the author's sloppy prose.

Cúcúc states that 'Wikipedia is constantly being updated'. It is, but it's a unique feature of Wikipedia that the 'updated' articles are frequently much worse than the versions they replace.

If Wikipedia had a proper editorial system, I might be inspired to write an article on 'Erin go Bragh' and to submit it in the hope that it would replace the current nonsense. Naturally, I would include footnotes in support of my statements. But as things are, I wouldn't dream of writing such an article. I wouldn't do so, because I know that the day after it was published a complete ignoramus could come along and 'update' my work out of all recognition.

Knowledge is not democratic: all (wo)men are born equally ignorant, but they don't stay that way.

Actually, GOF, the Funk & Wagnall's article was most certainly random when I picked American Sign Language out of the air as a subject upon which to do a presentation to my class as a kid.

Not to be too pedantic or anything.

Domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh is not being pedantic. He is being illogical. The reason for his initial consultation of the F&W article is irrelevant. What matters is that it was mentioned in this discussion only because he found a mistake in it. Wikipedia's defenders have loaded the dice and they don't even realise what they have done.

Even so, the F&W article appears to have got 25 of the 26 letters right. I wouldn't be writing this if the Wikipedia article had achieved a similar 96% accuracy level. I wouldn't have bothered if it had been only 75% accurate. In fact, if it had even managed 50% accuracy I think I might have decided to save myself the trouble.

The reality is that no work of reference organised on sound editorial principles will ever approach Wikipedia's level of inaccuracy.

Er, the previous message was from me, Grumpy Old Fogey.

I think I've said all I want to say on this subject for the moment.

quote:

Mac Léinn na Gaeilge (aka Cúcúc) is playing with a marked deck.

Those who trust Wikipedia are playing Russian roulette.

Wikipedia's defenders have loaded the dice and they don't even realise what they have done.

A Dhomhnaill,

Between my marked cards, our roulette, and the loaded dice, we could start one heck of a house of chance! We could later expand our operations the moment someone else disagrees with Grumpy. They'll probably be told they're dealing in wooden nickels - great - then we've got a Slots partner!

quote:

But even with Cúcúc's marked deck the score isn't 1-1. It's at least 3-1 against Wikipedia. He cited an error in the sign for the letter 'Z'; that's one point against Funk and Wagnall's.

On a qualitative note, I think we should compare apples to apples. That is, for example, the errors found in Wikipedia's "Erin go Bragh" errors, and errors on the same subject in a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. We may find their error score to be higher than the single sign-language error cited by Domhnall above.


Regarding Wikipedia's error-correcting ability, what I understand is that yes, anyone can go in and edit an article, and that sounds good and it sounds bad. But, the good news is that if that editing wasn't to the liking of the original author, steps are easily and quickly taken by Wikipedia to replace the original piece. But on the flip side the news is also good. Because if someone finds an error, as someone thinks they see an error with Wikipedia's "Erin go Bragh" flag, they can immediately edit the article and the corrections would continue to stay after a review process.

Well, we Wiki-fans (all two of us!) have shown via the publication Nature's peer-review process that Wikipedia can be comparable to a conventional encyclopedia, but this has been dismissed by Grumpy based on being too narrow of a review. Fine, but the fact still stands that there is evidence that Wikipedia can be accurate.

And most importantly, I think it has the editing control processes in place for the most part, along with contributions that will take place from Irish-language experts, like the ones we have here, into a valuable on-line, encylcopedic reference for the Irish language.

Anyway, for those interested, you can reach the Wikipedia website at www.wikipedia.com The feature article in humanities was very interesting, coming from a world renowned writer!

It's also worth noting that at the time I referenced that article on American Sign Language (ASL), lo these many years ago, ASL was the second most widely used language in the United States. It has only recently been supplanted by Spanish here.

Imagine that. A longstanding, peer-reviewed "expert" publication making a mistake on a topic that important -- yet there it is. It's almost like any Joe off the street could write an article for F&W. Too bad such a writer didn't also have the benefit of a vast pool of editors to come by and remediate his schoolboy error, but such is the nature of an ossified peer-reviewed publication. :)

In any event, fun though this has been, it's got nothing to do with the origin of "Erin Go Bragh" (by whatever variant you care to spell it), which was after all the original topic of discussion. G'nite!

This discussion shows well one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia, and indeed of IT culture itself. When a subject is dear to our hearts, we have a tendency to dive into a religious war.

I agree with Grumpey Old Fogey: I would'nt trust Wikipedia on anything that in any way enagages someones emotions. I know that the Wikipedia originators are trying hard by promulgating a doctrine of "Neutral Point of View", and flagging suspect pages.

But the fundamental strength and simulataneously weakness of Wikis is that anybody can edit them; and people have opinions.

On Domhnall's point on F&W - are you sure that the Z character was never used, never part of the standard? Printed encylopediae have a long production cycle, and are therefore out of date well before being available - and I suspect your copy was several years old when you consulted it!

A Aonghuis,

Ní duirt Domhnall go nach raibh "Z" ann, ach duirt sé go raibh "Z" mícheart.

FRC

"ÍRELAND FOREVER"?

Conas a dhéarfainn i nGaeilge "Éire ar feadh Lá 'le Pádraig agus Meiriceá ag an fuíoll"?

A Mhic Leinn, séard a bhí i gceist agam ná an raibh sé cinnte nach raibh feidhm leis an leagan úd de "Z" a bhí ag F & W riamh.

(Message edited by aonghus on September 12, 2006)

Go raibh maith agat a Aonghuis. Tuigim anois.

I happened to being reading today's issue of Design News today (www.designnews.com) where the editorial was about the Wilcox-McCandlish Law of Online Discourse Evolution, so I couldn't help thinking about your remark on religious-war diving above.

I've enjoyed the discussion above and thanks to Abigail the original poster's question was answered before we engaged in what I thought was quite a civil, non-emotional discussion on the pro's and con's of Wikipedia. I also got to learn some new game-of-chance terminology at the same time.

Anyway, for those interested, here's some information on the Wilcox-McCandlish Law of Online Discourse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox-McCandlish_law_of_online_discourse_evolution

And for anyone who questions whether I wrote this posting with loaded dice or marked cards - the answer's no. I did not purposely choose Wikipedia as the link; it's part of Today's Design News editorial.

I thought that article was interesting aside from the fact that I don't think I understood it completely, possibly because I didn't read the whole thing. I think that it isn't completely acurate in the sense that a subject changeover is not always related to the importance of the original topic, being as our views of what is important are all different and so an absolute statement like this can't be made.

Beir bua agus beannacht

The "Z" looked like a "P" turned 90 degrees clockwise, hence my perplexion. :)

Aonghus, I did indeed seek to determine whether this ever was an accepted way of signing this letter. It's been years now, and I've asked wherever I've travelled.

And so date? Not one deaf or hard-of-hearing signer has told me he's ever seen of such of thing as this for the letter "Z".

If I had to guess, a handshape cut-out fell on the floor before the graphic was to be photographed and nobody knew what to do with it, so the editorial staff figured "who gives a fig?" since the language was so second-rate that nobody would notice if they just stuck something on there and called it good.

This is merely my conjecture, but it seems reasonable, and it also illustrates the haughtiness and condescention of dominent cultures toward subservient ones.

Ríona writes that "our views of what is important are all different". Perhaps. Let me therefore explain what I would expect to find in a competent encyclopedia entry on the subject of "Erin Go Bragh" (or "Erin Go Braugh").

I would expect the following at a minimum:

1. The meaning of the phrase in English.
2. The correct form of the phrase in Irish.
3. The origin of the phrase.
4. A brief account of the history of the phrase.

Let's see how Wikipedia performed under those headings:

1. "Ireland Forever" is given as the meaning. That's 25% to Wikipedia.
2. Wikipedia states that "The correct spelling is "Éireann go Brách." I'd be tempted to give 0%, but I'll be generous and let Wikipedia have 5% for getting the "go Brách" bit right.
3. The United Irishmen are not mentioned. Instead, there is some ridiculous speculation about a Scottish origin. They really deserve a negative score for that nonsense, but again I'll be generous and give them 0%.
4. There is some scope for subjectivity here, but Wikipedia mentions only a flag used by an Irish unit in the Mexican army (a minor historical footnote) and a slow boat to Australia (which is not even a minor historical footnote). There is no mention of it's use by Napoleon's Irish Legion (many of them former United Irishmen), during O'Connell's campaign for Repeal of the Union, or by the Fenians - all certainly more important than the two episodes mentioned. 5% would be a very generous score.

Total: 25% + 5% + 0% + 5% = 35%
That's a fail grade.

Domhnall, my guess is that the unused sign was the Z as originally conceived, but found impractical and replaced almost immediately by those using the system. Those compiling a diagram through research, even many years later, would turn up that sign as opposed to the one actually in use.

The more sources in which the faulty sign is found, the more likely it is to be found during research for future publications.

Professor Grumpy needs to re-read the Wikipedia article which indicates:

quote:

While other dialects disagree [2] stating, "'Eireann' is wrong because it's in the wrong grammatical case for its position in the sentence (it's genetive, and one needs the nominative here)." So, to be correct, one needs "Éire go Brách." These appear to be largely regional differences in grammar. Some dialects optionally use the dative case "Éirinn" as the nominative and it is from this that the English word "Erin" comes from.

So, the Wikipedia article correctly indicates that the correct spelling is "Éire go Brách," thus upping Wikipedia's total score from 35 to 55.

In regards to negative scores, in all my years of studying and teaching, I have never heard of such a preposterous idea. I think Professor Grumpy is mixing the educational process with some take off of the TV show Jeopoardy.

Also, a la marked decks and loaded dice, it appears that Professor Grumpy has arbitrarily decided that each area gets equal weight. I would argue that the correct meaning and spelling get a higher weight, perhaps 40 percent each; thus the Wikipedia score is at least 80 percent, which isn't a bad grade at all.

On a final note, usually professors have more than one student, or in this case, paper to grade. Where are the other entries, such as the "peer-reviewed" encyclopedias? Could it be they've been ignored in this grading process because they simply don't have an entry? If so, that would give them scores of ZERO. If this is true, I'd take Wikipedia's 80 plus score any day over a ZERO score.

According to the sentence immediately preceding the one you've quoted above:

quote:

The correct spelling is "Éireann go Brách."[1]

Note that this is a plain statement, unqualified by any reference to "other dialects" and the like. If I were an uninformed reader, I'd interpret it as the more authoritative of the two, wouldn't you?

Assuming there is a single, logically consistent answer to be extracted from these two paragraphs (it seems reasonable to expect one, doesn't it?), that answer would appear to be that:
(1) "Éireann go Brách" is correct.
(2) Some dialects require "Éire go Brách" instead, because of "largely regional" grammar differences.
(3) Some dialects allow the use of "Éirinn" instead.

Of those statements, only the third is at all correct. You'll pardon me if I don't give full marks...




It could be that the peer-reviewed encyclopedias don't have entries -- or it could simply be that nobody has gotten the urge to go to the library and check yet. Let me know what you find, I'd be mildly interested.

Anyway, unless you are planning to grade this "class" on a curve, whether they have entries or not is frankly irrelevant. If "an Seanruachán Cancrach" is right about what a good encyclopedia article should include (and I tend to think he is) then that's the standard -- not what Britannica et al. do or don't contain.

Abigail

Hmm. Deus vult?

Can we have the equivalent of the Peace of Westphalia please?

Cuius lector, eius encyclopediae?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076697

Fair enough.

I suppose we've already spent more time arguing over it than would have been needed to just *fix* the darn thing...

As my excerpt shows above, Wikipedia indicates "So, to be correct, one needs "Éire go Brách." I agree that the statement preceding my excerpt above, which Abigail has pointed out, is confusing.

quote:

Can we have the equivalent of the Peace of Westphalia please?

Well, Aonghus has spoken, and if all warring parties agree, I shall acquiesce to peace - darn it, just when things were getting fun.

On a final note, I entered "Erin go Bragh" and "Erin go Brach" in the britannica link above and got nothing.
So there's an example of a ZERO score. Abigail makes a good point above about grade curves. Therefore, so far, Wikipedia is likely to be the A+ student, or should I say A+ encyclopedia.

By the way, I didn't start this debate on the merits or demerits of Wikipedia. I merely came to its defense when it was attacked and have enjoyed the debate/discussion. I'm always puzzled why folks who aren't interested in a certain post just don't read them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Go_Bragh

I don't have the sources at my fingertips to rewrite the historical section, but at least "Éireann" is gone...

Go raibh maith agat a Abigail. Not only did you provide the correct answer to the original poster's question above, but you took the time to improve Wikipedia. - perhaps it will receive a passing grade!

Aonghus locuta, causa finita? I hope not.

I'd like to be a pontifex, but not an imperator or even a dictator!

Ach cheap mé go raibh an plé ag síor dul siar ar na pointí céanna, mar is dual do "chogadh creidimh" ar an idirlíon. Mórchuid teasa agus fíorbheagán solais.

Wikipedia:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language

quote: "In Ireland, Norman remained strongest in the area of south-east Ireland where the Normans invaded in 1169. In particular a distinctive variety of "Norman French" remained alive in the barony of Forth and Bargy in Wexford until very recent times."

Hhhmmhh!
Could they possibly be refering to 'Yola' - a dialect of English?

Cá bhfios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yola_language

An lámh clé agus an lámh deas?

"bragh" is just an older version of "brách", before the simplification of the spelling system. sampla eile is ea "sgoil" in ionad "scoil".

Now that's funny because in Scottish Gaelic they never use scoil they always use sgoil.

Odwyer's statement that:

"bragh" is just an older version of "brách", before the simplification of the spelling system.

is Wikipedian in its accuracy. "Brách" has never been spelt "bragh" in Irish. "Brách" could not be spelt "bragh" in Irish because:
1. "á" is pronounced differently to "a"
2. "ch" is pronounced differently to "gh"
These facts will be known to anyone who is literate in the language.

The older pre-Caighdeán spelling of "brách" was "bráthach". The "th" long ago became silent and the second short unstressed syllable merged with the long stressed initial syllable. From the absence of forms such as "Erin go brahogh", "Erin go brauhogh", etc. it is clear that this process had already been completed by the 1790s. It probably took place sometime before 1600.

The Wikipedia article noted by Antóin at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language

is very interesting. If it is true that the Department of Folklore in UCD has recordings of speakers of Norman French from the Wexford area, it would imply that some form of recording apparatus was known in Ireland by the 14th century (or the 15th century at the very latest). I imagine it would have been similar to the early wax cylinders, with a turntable powered by a hand-wound spring.

What a pity it is that nobody recorded a dán díreach performed by a bard's reacaire with accompaniment on the wire-strung harp! Could it be that the authorities in Dublin castle prohibited the use of the recording apparatus among the king's Irish enemies in case it helped to spread treasonable ideas? Or perhaps it was realised that Norman French was on the brink of extinction in Ireland so that special efforts were made to record its last native speakers? This precedent may well have prompted the visit by the Irish Folklore Commission (now the Department of Folklore in UCD) to the Isle of Man in the 1940s in order to record the last native speakers of Manx.

I am working on an article for Wikipedia on the English word "brogue" and I would be interested in receiving your comments before I send it in. Here it is:

Brogue

What does "brogue" mean? The word "brogue" means "shoe". It is the anglicized version of the Gaelic term and is known to many Americans of diverse ethnic backgrounds (although its English spelling is quite meaningless). The correct spelling is "bróige."

Others disagree, stating that "bróige" is wrong because it's in the wrong grammatical case (genitive rather than nominative) and that to be correct one needs "bróg". However, this appears to be largely a regional difference in grammar. Some dialects optionally use the dative case "bróig" as the nominative and it is from this that the English word "brogue" comes.

However, it should be noted that the Scottish Gaelic word "bròg", which literally means "boot", is pronounced almost identically to the English word. It may seem surprising that a term which has come to describe the Irish accent could have come not from Irish (Gaeilge) but instead from Gaelic (Gàidhlig). However, the Scots had great difficulty understanding the accent of Irish immigrants in the 19th century and many Scots probably wanted to boot them all back to Ireland.

A chairde,
focal nó dhá ó' Carmannach!!

Yola was an English dialect found in South Wexford until recently..some words are still used locally-it was NOT a dialect of French! The Normans arrived first in Ireland in this area..they didnt go far..if you go to Kilmore thesedays the majority of people have Norman surnames..below some links to Yola and the traditions of south county Wexford..Kilmore for example has it's own carols and burial traditions..

http://homepage.eircom.net/~yolawexford/yolapeople.html

http://www.kilmoreparish.com/local_customs.htm

Scríobh Grumpy Old Fogey:

quote:

I am working on an article for Wikipedia on the English word "brogue" and I would be interested in receiving your comments before I send it in.

Since I'm still at the beginner level in Irish, I wouldn't be able to comment on Grumpy's article, but I checked Wikipedia and there appears to be an entry for "brogue" already and can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brogue

Maíonn an Duinníneach gurb é an focal "barróg" é.

Dia dhaoibh,
I am the person who submitted the info on the Wikipedia discussion page. The explanation about "someone speaking as if they had a shoe in their mouth" never quite sounded correct. It sounded like a folk etymology from someone with no knowledge of Irish except that bróg meant shoe. In the Munster dialect barróg would sound the same. Even though I listed 2 sources someone has added a comment.

Odwyer's statement that:

"bragh" is just an older version of "brách", before the simplification of the spelling system."

Actually I was quoting another post. Anyway, my point was Scottish Gaelic seems to be using some of the Old Irish spellings.

From what I know, I might be wrong, Scottish Gaelic is spelled today similarly to how Irish was spelled before standardization in the 40s, that is why you are noticing that.

Beir bua agus beannacht

Chuaigh mé go dtí Disney World an scheachtaine caite, agus chonaic mé bratacha leis "Erin go Bragh" in siopa Eirennach ansin.

In case my Irish above is completely unreadable:

I went to Disney World this weekend and saw flags saying "Erin go Bragh." in an Irish shop there. I didn't have the heart to tell the shopkeeper that the flags were wrong. I can see tourists, both international and American, returning home with grammatically incorrect flags. Horrors of horrors! .

But I think it lends some truth to my observation above that "Erin go Bragh" is in widespread use. Is it time to start producing and marketing "Éirinn go brách" or "Éire go brách," flags and if so, which of the two should be chosen?

FRC

I doubt they would understand what you were talking about.

I'm glad you didn't, because "Erin go bragh" isn't grammatically incorrect at all. As an acknowledged anglicization, it's no worse than Rossaveel, Clonmel or Pogue Mahone. Sure, I wish more people wanted to use it in its original language, but if they don't, they don't.

I'm only bothered when people start claiming it is an Irish(-language) phrase just as it stands, or when they give the grammatically incorrect "Éireann go Brách" as the Irish version of it.

(If we're making flags I vote for "Éirinn," definitely!)

Here in Ireland we actually say Éire go deo, 'Ireland forever'

Here in Ireland we actually say Éire go deo, 'Ireland forever'

That's interesting. I wonder how we can anglicize that - Erin go Joe? - just kidding!

"Erin go bragh"?

Cailín ina héadaigh cnis?

"Erin go Bragh"?


cailín ina héadaigh cnis?

I knew a gal named Erin who was going with a Joe...does that count?

gal= girl; cailín, bean?
Joe= Joe Stalin; cumannach?

From today's "Irish Times":

Wikipedia founder to launch rival

One of the founders of Wikipedia is days away from launching a rival to the collaborative internet encyclopedia, in an attempt to bring a more orderly approach to organising knowledge online ... [Wikipedia's] openness has also drawn charges of unreliability and left it vulnerable to disputes between people with opposing views.

Más maith, is mithid!

The idea of a free collaborative on-line encyclopedia is excellent in principle, but quality control requires both competent editors and the screening of contributors. Other than in exceptional circumstances approved by the editors, all published contributions should be signed and the relevant qualifications of the contributor should be available to readers.

Thanks for the news, Grumpy. Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription (yet) to the Irish Times, but I was able to locate information about this rival launching at:

http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-6126469.html?part=rss&tag=6126469&subj=news

Here's an excerpt from above-cited CNET article:

quote:

Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia and the site's former editor-in-chief, is launching a rival site called Citizendium. It will include user registration and editorial controls to govern user-submitted articles, unlike the free-for-all submission process that reigns on Wikipedia. With "gentle" controls in place, Sanger said Citizendium will naturally weed out so-called trolls from posting obscenities or biased information.

"Wikipedia is amazing. It has grown in breadth and depth, and the articles are remarkably good given the system that is in place. I merely think that we can do better," Sanger said. "There are a number of problems with the system that can be solved, and by solving those we can end up with an even better massive encyclopedia."

It will be interesting to see how much better Sanger and Company can do. Perhaps you'll want to save your yet-to-be submitted article on "brogue" for Citizendium.

More info about Citizendium can be found at http://www.citizendium.org/