I should know this, but of course I don't.

How was it decided that the Irish language has only 18 letters? And when did the spoken Irish language become the written Irish language?

1) Uimhir na méar ar lámha is ar chosa ach na hordóga thuas ;)

2) Timpeall deich noiméad roimh a naoi ar maidin ;)

quote:

And when did the spoken Irish language become the written Irish language?

The earliest manuscripts in Irish are about 6th Century (I think) but there are older ogham inscriptions.

How many letters were originally in Latin? Just reading a book on English which says u/v and i/j were not distinguished in English until the 15th century; I have a feeling the same is true of latin, because I have seen vae victis written uae uictis.

I like this question because I have had these thoughts also...

Why only 18 now?

One of the biggest problems with learning Irish, is that there are not enough letters to represent the phonetics of the language, so we must learn several letter combinations to represent single sounds, and often several combinations to represent the same sound?

I mean, I do like the current spellings...I really do. In the half century or so we have had them, I do feel that the stadard spellings have helped to solidify the Irish language. But in the early 20th century they had the other letters to play with, and they didn't???

Couldn't we have learned from the Russians who had a similar problem with the Greek alphabet not having enough letters to represent their phonetics? They just created the letters they needed...They didn't do anything extremely crazy that looked odd or out of place with the alphabet...couldn't we do that also for Irish?

True the alphabet might go from 18 to 40+...but there are languages out there with more...It's not like we are learning a language like Chinese with several thousands of characters.

And with the help of fadas or other markings we could reduce the 40+ to 20-30 characters which isn't too bad.

That might sound easy, but I don't know how many people would go for that sort of thing. I'm sure that there are people on both sides of it, then again has this ever even been seriously discussed by those who discuss such things.

Beir bua agus beannacht

easier to add letters now that we have computers. Russia did it when texts were still largely handwritten. But had Ireland attempted to create new letters at the time of standardization it would have been murder for a) presses, b)typewriters and c)making sense of older texts.

that might have been enough to have killed a revival movement for lack of printed materials as well as totally scaring off Irish-born english speakers...remember, the future of the Irish language rests on getting more of them to learn Gaeilge...

I agree that might have killed the revival movement...at that time.

But where does it say that the way it is...is the way it has to be? Who said that theirs was the final solution? Why can't it be like a stepping stone to the final solution?

If Russia can do it, why can't Ireland? If you look at the Russian example...they changed their alphabet two or three times and and it only took about 10 years for the conversion to be accepted and used by the public for each change. If you look at Korea's example...they completely created a new system of writing and it only took about 10 years before it was accepted and used by the public.

There is always going to be rejection to something new, but if it is an improvement, most will accept it eventually. Again I have to say this, the changes don't have to be drastic.

Are we really incapable of doing, or improving, what they did in the 1940's? What better time than now could we possibly be in to attempt such a venture...don't we live in better political times, better technological times, and in more elightened times.

As I said, I like the spellings...but I do think they could be improved and made simpler still for the new learners of the language...

If Russia can do it, why can't Ireland?

Quite simply, because Russian was not a minority language. Its native speakers far outnumbered its learners, so the chance that people would be "turned off" to the language altogether by its requiring a new alphabet was statistically insignificant. With Irish I think that's a very real risk.

Abigail

It sounds like the Cornish language situation and the attempt to create a new spelling system for it known as Kemmyn. Like Irish, it is a minority language in its own territory. The Revival has been hindered by factional infighting and had a "summit" recently to try and resolve their dispute. They are currently consulting with outside language experts to come to an agreement.

Are you proposing a new script that is radically different, or the addition of a host of diacratics?

Tá caighdeán againn, atá fréamhaithe i dtraidisiún liteartha a théann i bhfad siar -- níos mó ná míle bliain. Tá lear mór leabhartha agus a lán lán rudaí eile scríofa sa litriú a fheiceann sibh ar an scáileán seo -- níos mó in aghaidh an lae. Níl sa cheist seo ach cur amú ama, go háirithe do dhaoine nach bhfuil in ann í a phlé sa teanga atá faoi chaibidil. Learn Irish. Don't sit on the sideline telling the players what to do. Guys with arguments for reforming a language that they don't speak pass through here like clockwork, diligently practicing their English.

also, at the times russia made major alphabet retools there was less literacy, and less already in print. The arguments against redoing the irish alphabet with new letters is the same as the ones for remaking english spelling into a more phonetic system. Given the position of the language, the number of currently literate speakers as well as the body of things already in print it is simply impractical and any attempt to do so would do far more harm than good to the language.

Ráite go maith, a Dennis. Tá mo dhóthain le déanamh agam chun snas a chur ar mo chuid Gaeilgese - b'olc an mhaise dhom a dhul ag feabhsú na teanga féin!

I agree that changing the alphabet now is a bad idea, I was curious to see whether others agreed or if they had some reasons that might change my mind.

A Dhennis, I think that you ought not to be so harsh on Gavin, he was just tossing around an idea and wanted to know how people would think on the matter.

Beir bua agus beannacht

A Dhennis...

First of all...I post in English because if I were going to post in Irish...I would post in the Irish only section.

Second of all...I want everyone, both member and non-member, to be able to understand what I am saying. And not intimidate them into thinking that because they are not fluent in Irish, that their thoughts and feelings are any less important.

Or do you honestly believe that a person who does not speak the language is incapable of helping the language? Do you honestly believe that the only people who have the right to speak about the language are the speakers themselves? If that is true, than you must also honestly believe that 58% of the Irish people should have no say so when it comes to the Irish language because that's how many people said that they don't speak the language in 2002.

Since I have been here, I have gotten nothing but negative responses like yours above...and why? Because I asked a question? Because I care about the language and want to help it? Never once, have I ever said here it is boys...go to it. I didn't do it here, and I haven't done it in my other posts either...

But I have been accused of it twice now.

In my opinion, unfounded accusations are usually the signs of cowardice or guilt.

I have nothing against you...and believe or not, I am not trying to pick a fight. But do not think for a second that I will stand by and be told that I am wrong and then not told why I am wrong...if I am wrong prove me wrong, if you don't agree tell me why...that is why I made the suggestion in the first place!

It was a valid question.

Yes, even those who don't speak the language can help it.

We do have a tendency to get many, however (and I'm not saying you're one of them) who have only the most passing understanding of Irish and make suggestions that belie a complete lack of understanding of the language, the history or the politics.

Again, not saying you're one of that group, but it may explain some overly hostile responses you've gotten.

I also understand the desire to write in english for a broader audience. It is sad that that is the case everywhere the language is found, even on an Irish language organizations message board, but the truth is more people worldwide have a more thorough understanding of english than they do Irish...even in Ireland.

Lastly, I am of the opinion that while the language cannot be saved without the cooperation of the native speakers, the native speakers themselves cannot save it. They are no longer enough. The fate of the language rests twofold on the native speakers passing it on to their children, and in a major way on the english speakers of Ireland learning it and then passing it along to theirs. Without both of those things, I don't think any revival effort can meet with success.

Gavin, your committment and passion are clear to me, and perhaps we may be coming from roughly the same spot; American Irish who wish to learn the language of our heritage but are perplexed by its bizarre-seeming orthography and confounded by the lack of anything resembling clear learning materials. That's my take anyway.

As an American, I can appreciate both sides of this argument. On the one hand, Abigail says, above, that the Russian orthographic retooling was successful because the native speakers of Russian far outnumbered its learners, minimizing the chances that speakers would be put off by its requiring a new alphabet.

On the other hand, though, here in the US we have a whole nation, mostly literate, who will go King-Kong-Ape-Sh|t Angry when presented with a mandate to use the metric system as opposed to the traditional pounds-'n-cups system of measurement. We tried it half-heartedly in the 1970's and I QUITE clearly recall my grandmother becoming absolutely incensed that she should be required to "Go Metric." She would have nothing of it! So a largely already-literate populace isn't necessarily an argument that a new nomenclature will succeed.

And, on the one hand, we have the traditional spellings of Irish, and an abyssimally vacant bin of resources to teach the newcomer clearly how it works. I'm a linguist by education, and I have never been so thoroughly confounded and bewildered by the orthography of a language as I have been by Irish. What makes this all the more maddening to me is that I can see that, by and large, it is a generally regular language so far as orthography is concerned ... but finding a clear enunciation of the rules is like finding a needle in a haystack. It seems the pedagogs are either trying to be as pedantic as possible, or willfully making it more difficult than it needs to be. In any case, the last thing they seem to want is to enable a new learner to decipher the Irish Code in clear terms that are plainly stated.

This is absolutely, positively, utterly infuriating to a new learner, so there should be no cause for wonder that one voices that disgust with the spelling system as it stands, or that there are any number of otherwise willing learners who look at this morass of letters and say "to hell with it, I'll learn Eskimo and save THAT from extinction; it's got to be easier."

(Message edited by domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh on October 17, 2006)

Well in truth, I should say sorry...

After I sent that, I read it again and thought that it might have sounded a little rough...I did not mean it that way...

I stand by what I said, but I probably could have said that better.

I find Anglophones talking about Irish orthography being bizarre.. bizarre.

After all Englsih has an orthography which allows "fish" to be - perfectly logically - spelt "ghoti".

Irish orthography has served us well for centuries.

The spelling reforms have helped.

An orthography based on pronunciation is doomed to be in need of reform within a generation.

Consistency with the canon is more important.

"Learn Irish. Don't sit on the sideline telling the players what to do. Guys with arguments for reforming a language that they don't speak pass through here like clockwork, diligently practicing their English."


b'fhearr liom bíonn a scríobh i mBéarla, ach b'fhearr liom bíonn a rá i nGaeilge!

"I also understand the desire to write in english for a broader audience. It is sad that that is the case everywhere the language is found"

Bíonn an 'scriobhfhocal' i mBéarla mar tá sé an teanga amháin le scríbhneoirí

Nuair a bhí mé óg, ba mhaith liom cáca milis a dhéanamh, ach mar d'obair mo Mhamaí san USA riamh, tá na leabhair chócaireachta ag úsáid an 'sistim n-cups'. Bhí me trí chéile go minic, ach tá blas go deas orthu!....mmmmmmmm

On the subject of English orthography - a little humorous aside.

On the radio yesterday (RTE, here in Ireland) they were discussing the minority sport of 'Road Bowling' which is confined to Co. Cork in the south and Armagh in the north. It was pointed out that 'bowl' is pronounced by followers of the sport as rhymning with 'howl' not the standard English pronunciation that is used in bowling alleys etc. The presenter, Derrick Mooney, found this very funny apparently and we had at least one joke about 'moving bowels'. Mr Mooney who I believe is educated and intelligent then made the observation that even though the word is spelled 'bowl' it is pronounced 'bowel.' Of course, the standard pronunciation could be spelled 'bole' - most English words ending in 'owl', cowl, fowl, scowl, howl, etc. follow the Cork pronunciation :). Derrick Mooney just presumed that the standard pronunciation was the rational one without further thought.

That rather rambling semi-coherent report of mine above was just an attempt to illustrate how this Anglocentric mindset is not only confined to views on other languages but also to views on any variations from what is presumed to be the correct standard.

"an abyssimally vacant bin of resources "

tried the other day to do a short one page dialogue with another fellow. Despite his having bought some books, he thought 'chaoi' was 'chow'. Oh dear...

Then again, most people take language learning as the most passing of fads.

Funny, I always thought it was a great spelling system!

Well, you know what they say about Derek Mooney...

On the subject of English orthography - a little humorous aside.

On the radio yesterday (RTE, here in Ireland) they were discussing the minority sport of 'Road Bowling' which is confined to Co. Cork in the south and Armagh in the north. It was pointed out that 'bowl' is pronounced by followers of the sport as rhymning with 'howl' not the standard English pronunciation that is used in bowling alleys etc. The presenter, Derrick Mooney, found this very funny apparently and we had at least one joke about 'moving bowels'. Mr Mooney who I believe is educated and intelligent then made the observation that even though the word is spelled 'bowl' it is pronounced 'bowel.' Of course, the standard pronunciation could be spelled 'bole' - most English words ending in 'owl', cowl, fowl, scowl, howl, etc. follow the Cork pronunciation :). Derrick Mooney just presumed that the standard pronunciation was the rational one without further thought.

That rather rambling semi-coherent report of mine above was just an attempt to illustrate how this Anglocentric mindset is not only confined to views on other languages but also to views on any variations in English from what is presumed to be the correct standard.

What's this about:

www.ucc.ie/faculties/celtic/fonts/BANCNOIC.DOC

This looks like a) a quasi foreign spelling or b) some formatting corruption. Found it on the harddrive when cleaning it

[Gael A]

Bàn-Xnoic Èireann Òije
(Donnxay Ruay MacConmara)

Beir beannaxt òm’ xroiye go tìr na hÈireann,
Bàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
Xum a maireann de zìolray Ìr agus Èiwir
Ar wàn-xnuic Èireann òije;
An àit ùd ’nar w’aoiwinn binn-juk èan
Mar zàvxruit xaoin ag caoineay Gaeyeal —
Sè mo xàs a weik mìle mìle i gcèin
Ò wàn-xnoic Èireann òije.

Bìonn barra bog slìm ar xaoin-xnoic Èireann
Bàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
’S is fearra nà ’n tìr seo dìk gax slèiwe ann,
Bàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
Dob àrd a coillte ’s ba yìreax rèiy,
’S a mblàk mar aol ar vaoilinn gèag —
Tà grày im’ xroiye is im’ intinn fèin
Do wàn-xnoic Èireann òije.

Atà gasray lìonvar i dtìr na hÈireann
Bàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
Agus fearaxoin jroiye nà claoiyfeay cèadta
Ar wàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
M’ \adtuirse xroiye is mo xuivne sgèal,
Iad ag Galla-qoic sìos fà jrèim, mo lèan!
’S a mbailte dà roinn fà xìos go daor,
Ar Wàn-xnoic Èireann òije.

Is fairsing ’s is mòr iad cruaxa na hÈireann,
Bàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
A cuid meala ’gus uaxtair ag gluaiseaxt ’na slaoda
Ar wàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
Raxaiy mè ar xuairt nò is luak mo zaojal
Don talav beag zuairc is dual do Jaeyil
’S go mb\earra liom ’nà duais dà uaisleaxt è
Weik ar wàn-xnoic Èireann òije.

[Gael B]

Scaipeann an drùxt ar jeavar agus fèar ann
Ar wàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
Agus tagaid ann ùwla cùvra ar jèagaiw
Ar wàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
Biolar agus savay i ngleanntaiw ceo
’S na sroka sa tSavray ag lawairt ar neòin
Agus uisge na Siùire ag brùxt ina zlòij,
Ar wàn-xnoic Èireann òige.

Is oscailteax fàilteax an àit sin Èire,
Bàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
Agus toray na slàinte i mbarr na dèise
I mbàn-xnoic Èireann òije;
Ba winne nà mèara ar kèadaiw ceòil
Seinm agus gèimreay a laoj is a mbò,
Agus taikneav na grèine orka aosta is òg
Ar wàn-xnoic Èireann òije.


Nòta as Fìon na Filiyeaxta (Mìxeàl Breaknax agus Sovairle MacCana, gan dàta)

MacConmara, Donnxay Ruay: Rugay è sa gCreatzàlaij i gCo an Xlàir timxeall 1709. Wì sè le weik ina zagart agus cuireay go dtì an Ròiv è le stuidèar a yèanav ann. Krèig sè an jairm sin tar eis tamaill agus d’\ill ar Èirinn, ax nì yeaxaiy sè ar ais go Co an Xlàir. Xuir sè faoi ar Slìaw gCua i gCo Portlairge. Xuir sè aikne annsin ar vàijistir sgoile arw ainm dò Liam Ò Moyràin agus wì sgoil ag an mbeirt san àit ar feay tamaill. Cuireay ruaig orka mar jeal ar roinnt aor a xumadar faoi vuinntir na hàite agus xaik Donnxay trèivse annseo is annsiùd ar fud an Xondae in a yiaiy sin. Zocruij sè annsin ar yul go ’Meriocà ax nìor \an sè i wfad amuij gur \ill ar Èirinn airìs. Xuir sè sgoil eile ar bun sa gCaisleàn Nuay i gCo PortLairge, ax is dòxa nàr eirje rò-vaik leis agus d’imkij sè go ’Meriocà airìs agus deirtear gur ziuwal sè an Eòraip fèin zeal dà dtàinig sè ar ais. Fuair sè bàs sa mbliayain 1814. Xum sè dàn fada faoi eaxtra a kàrla yò i gCèin — Eaxtra Jiolla an Amaràin.

[Mà xreidtear an nòta seo, wì an file 105 bliayain d’aois nuair a fuair sè bàs. Do rèir Ristèard Ò Fojluya (Mil na hÈigse, 1945) wì a dàtaì 1715-1810.]

http://www.ucc.ie/faculties/celtic/fonts/

Glacaim leis gur litreacha seimhithe a thóg áit an x,v,w, j agus mar sin de.

quote:

Eight font files (TTFs) for use with Windows (version 3.0 or later) to provide Gaelic Fonts for display and printing. These can be installed using the Windows Control Panel (Fonts):

quote:

) WORD file BANCNOIC.DOC which illustrates how the appearance of these fonts can be improved by using kerning in Microsoft Word.

Ré eile!

I agree with you on all your points, Aonghus. For the record, I hardly hold English orthography up as a benchmark of anything except as what to avoid.

My gripe does not have to do with Irish orthography itself, but with the dearth of clear, straightforward explanations of it.

Ciao. Or is that Chow? Or perhaps chaoi... :)

As a beginning (and wanna be intermediate) student of Irish, I have found Irish orthography to be the least problematic area in regard to learning the language. Compared to English, I think that the pronunciation for the most part follows a relatively straightforward set of rules. I wouldn't see the need to change the number of letters currently used since any sound required, except for some loan words like "zoo," is easily represented by a single letter, or a combination of two or more letters.

Take, for example the word chaoi that Domhnall mentions above. The correct pronunciation of this word can be made following the pronunciation guide found in such dictionaries as Foclóir Scoile. That is, the "ch" is pronounced using the simplified IPA symbol x' and the the "aoi" is pronounced using the IPA symbol i:. Both sounds are clearly represented in the Pronunciation Guide section of such dictionaries, along with a sufficient number of examples for each vowel and consonant. I know that there are dialectical variations and exceptions to the rules, but by and large, the correct pronunciation of Irish words, from a beginner's or intermediate student's viewpoint, is easily attainable using the pronunciation guides contained in these dictionaries.

And that is why respelling the language would make little difference -many people do not take the time to use the IPA-ish guidelines that more formally repesent the sounds, so they would not do so in the new orthography either. What they really mean is that irish should be spelt in English

Did somebody say Manx?

http://www.gaelg.iofm.net/DHOORAGHT/dhoor1.html

well...with a good bit of Welsh thrown in for good measure...

The problem is, sounds change depending on initial mutations and the like, so will we have
tigin too, on digin too, nee higin too?

You think things are incomprehensible to learners now? Just wait!

I think the H both internally and for initial mutations adds to the confusion, but the solution there might be to start using the dot again so it's seen as an accent mark and not a spelling change. That would be as far as I'd go in changing the spelling system - along with possibly ressurecting some of the older spellings that followed a regular pattern as they were, but are irregular in the CO.

Tá mé ar son siombail na Sínise a úsáid sa Ghaeilge. Níl sí leathdheacair mar a mbíonn sí ;)

I think the H both internally and for initial mutations adds to the confusion, but the solution there might be to start using the dot again so it's seen as an accent mark and not a spelling change. That would be as far as I'd go in changing the spelling system - along with possibly ressurecting some of the older spellings that followed a regular pattern as they were, but are irregular in the CO.

I concur with this wholeheartedly, though I shouldn't look forward to the (now worldwide) pain among learners/writers that would be involved in "unlearning" 50 years of h-usage.

Sínis! Ná bac le haibítreacha eile! ;)

If there was a diacratic there, then they would say k for ch, t for th!

"I think the H both internally and for initial mutations adds to the confusion, but the solution there might be to start using the dot again so it's seen as an accent mark and not a spelling change."

I wonder if I'm misunderstanding you. For me, the mutations are easy-peasy ... it's the choice of vowell sounds that drive me absolutely insane.

One possible solution may be brute-force memorization, so I ask - is it ever the case that certain vowell combinations have multiple pronunciations?

Domhnall, I mean that aside from vowel combos, which can be learned as combinations and won't change, watching the initial spellings of words change to look like things they recognize from english, but yet bear no phonetic resemblance. eliminating the 'h' and using a diacritic in its place will help alleviate some of that difficulty for learners while still using a completely authentic system (in other words, using a native system to facilitate learning, rather than developing a system for learners).