I saw Litríocht has a bilingual book by Maolmhaodhóg Ó Ruairc called In search of new grammar. Has anyone read it and can anyone summarize what he is saying? Is it worth getting?

I have only read reviews.

But he is a well known supporter of radical simplification of grammar.

Is it the same proposals as the pamphlet named "Caighdeán Nua don Ghaeilge" in "An Aimsear Óg" series? I was abhorred by the book's suggestions, frankly speaking

The gist of the book - simplification by dumbing down. As if pidgeon Irish will make more people sutdy it.

(Message edited by Róman on January 12, 2007)

Similar, but even more radical, as I understand it based on reviews.

he is a well known supporter of radical simplification of grammar.

Nonsense. It would be better to speak only English then, it would be even easier.

I have to say that most of those proposals show a) no fluency, b) no cop on.

If you get rid of lenition and eclipsis, then new changes have to be made in all sorts of places:

a carr
a carr
a carr

How do you tell his, hers, theirs apart? It would be even worse in Connacht with a schwa for every thing after mo and do.

It seems that some such authors want to be able to speak Irish but won't learn it, or if they speak it, want a readily accesable code that they can use for purposes of differentiation or other personal reasons.

The blurb is ridiculas:

"**Insights from current research in the sciences**

**are applied**

to the **situation of the Irish language**

in this ** challenging new bilingual work**

by **one of its foremost and thought-provoking authors**"

Here we get multiple points conflated into one sentence to imply that the fellow is brilliant.


"an intellectual challenge to the guardians of linguistic forms, which he argues convincingly, are more applicable to another era"

Native speakers are still using all those archaic forms. What does he think purists want the accusitive case? !

quote:

If you get rid of lenition and eclipsis, then new changes have to be made in all sorts of places:

a carr
a carr
a carr

How do you tell his, hers, theirs apart?

Not by mutations, in anyway. Mutations in Irish are purely for decoration. Think of all the words which begin with L, N and R.

"his", "her" and "their" are concepts in the English language, you can't just drag them across to Irish -- there isn't a one-for-one word correlation between languages.

Here's an English sentence:

Mary met John and gave him his book.

In Irish, this sentence would possibly be:

Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug a leabhar dó.

The Irish sentence lacks any indication of "his" and "her". However, when you want to be specific when speaking a language, there's many ways of going about it:

Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug leabhar Sheáin dó.

I take it you are the author klaxing about to see who will respond

"Not by mutations, in anyway. Mutations in Irish are purely for decoration. Think of all the words which begin with L, N and R."

I will answer not by responding to the hook, but by clarifying my own position:

After 'possesive adjectives', or in this case, what would be there if anything more than a schwa existed

[ə xɑɾ] his car

[ə kˠɑɾ] her car

[ə ɡɑɾ] their car

No mere decoration -clear difference

L, N, R were traditionally in fortis as well as lax varieties. Dialect studies from the mid 20th century show it in full operation for L and N in Mayo (examples and references on request, if you want).

[ l̪ˠɑːβ] 'hand' [mʷɔ lˠɑːβ] 'my hand'

[ʎæβəɾ] (not sure what symbol to use on the sound I hear for a in the first transcription) or [ʎauɾ] ‘book’ [ə læβəɾ] or [ə lauɾ] ‘his book’

"Mutations in Irish are purely for decoration"

Mutations are a) required in some areas, b) not absolutly required in other places.

There are a feature of the language, and are in fact reflective of one of the processes that made Old Irish different from prior forms of the language. With consonants between vowels softening, and nasal consonants generating eclipsis, over time this incidental change became grammatical. Without this, Irish would have developed differently.

Irish is inflectional -what's wrong with that?

""his", "her" and "their" are concepts in the English language"

Mine and yours are concepts that every group known from the ethnographic record has exhibited. Whether the language they spoke had clear possive adjectives or some other mode of signalling ownership is not relivant, ownership is a human concept, and everyone has it, as do Irish speakers over its history. without ownership, no Irish lord would have every fought another for possesion of land, and tributes would never have been paid.

"Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug a leabhar dó."

If one can pronounce a fortis/lax slender l distinction, then you have one demarcation; if you don't then will the prepositional pronoun 'dó' not tell you the direction of events causally?

Mary met with John -not probs so far
&
gave [ə] -possible conflab of his, her, or theirs

dó -dom, duit, dó, dí etc -the constrcution 'a leabhar dó' for 'his book to-him' tells you what you need to know.


I suppose your position is coming from a written perspective. Myself, I put the actuall gestural, social, phonological and historical language as spoken in Na Gaeltachtaí first, and dont worry if learners in the cities find it difficult. I also prefer baroquness and inflection to syntax only languages. But that's me.


I read somethign on the net, which I can't find (I think it was on that Finnish fellow's very badly designed website) about that some writers find a lack of demarcation between verb, noun and adjective in Irish to be a curse. If so, then why not use a sort of artificial written form for text? The features decried above came about due to lenition, and softening of intervowel consonants continues to this day, so like, its the way the language is spoken. My transcriptions have beta in a way that not every speaker uses it, as is is wearing way, like so many sounds in that position before.

"Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug leabhar Sheáin dó."

Yes, for writing, why not make changes when needed to ensure clarity? Why extend it to contexts where clarity is provided by gesture or topical context, such as in conversation?

I've read the book, it's quite obviously meant to be controversial. I'm planning to have a good go at it on my blog sometime in the near future. But in the mean time, let me just say that I find some of his claims about Irish, and about how languages work in general, to be unfounded.

quote:

I take it you are the author klaxing about to see who will respond

In English, please.

quote:

[ə xɑɾ] his car

[ə kˠɑɾ] her car

[ə ɡɑɾ] their car

No mere decoration -clear difference.

Yes, a clear difference, but it's certainly not a reliable indicator:

a rothar / a rothar / a rothar
a leabhar / a leabhar / a leabhar
Sin an duine a labhríonn liom.
Sin an duine a labhríonn a chara liom.

quote:

Mutations are a) required in some areas, b) not absolutly required in other places.

Indeed, but they're only relied upon if people have chosen to rely upon them. There's no inherent "who exactly are you talking about, and what gender are they" system in place for personal pronoun ownership. In passive voice, i.e. without the need to emphasise exactly who we're talking about, the translation of "his bike / her bike / their bike" will be identical in both pronunciation and spelling. If you want emphasis, then Irish has a wealth of ways of expressing it.

quote:

Mary met with John -not probs so far
&
gave [ə] -possible conflab of his, her, or theirs

dó -dom, duit, dó, dí etc -the constrcution 'a leabhar dó' for 'his book to-him' tells you what you need to know.

What makes you think it's his book?

I don't take an absolute position; the other guy did. There are clear cases where mutations are used -I just gave exmaples relating to initial consonantal mutation.

Inflection occurs for case and number (cat -->cait, or fadhb --> fadhbanna). It is needed in verbs. If you use the verb 'bí' and verbal nouns, you need to inflect bí for mood and tense (beaidh, bíodh etc). Get rid of inflection, and no more plurals, so now you have to say "2 chip" or "10 chip". By all means, but be careful not to contradict yourself!

So, as I said, get rid of all mutations, and then you will have to further change the language as where you make it clear, you will by the same hand make dull.



"What makes you think it's his book?"

Didnt answer that one :) I dunno, if there were inflection in the pronouns and possesive adjectives (Anglo-Saxon and Slavic languages I think enjoy this), the problem could be gotten around.




If you so mad on modifying the language, why not turn it on its head, and add inflections! You can't change the possesive adjective, so change the noun:

Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug a leabhara dó. [his book]


Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug a leabhar dó. [her book (unmarked)]


Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug a leabhard dó. [their book (on analogy from Muster verbs with final d in 3rd person pl, and from iad/siad]. Of course, the next problem will be if you have English sounds where there is no distinction between '-ard dó' and '-ar dó'. Here is the crux again, you need to be careful not to be inert or troublesome for yourself.



In fact, one could embrace it, as a way of engaging in dialogue with learning. Why does irish do that? Or, "I'm confused, lets change it". By doing so, there is no harm; one is learning about language.

In the end, most of the grammar changer people dont seem to be ADDING, but rather are TAKING and not thinking through the ramifications. Like in the other post where I suggested urú inflection as a way around the relative sentance vaguries, if I had decided to use it, I would simply be arbitrarily changing one noun, even though the subject vs. object distinction is sullied in such sentances, making the 'accusative-esque' change inappropriate.


What does the writer, Maolmhaodhóg, propose in the book? the example of puting Séan into the genitive (plus lenition) is grand for the his distinction, and you can leave hers unmarked. This leaves 'theirs'. Suggestions?

quote:

Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug a leabhar dó

Is it just me, or duine eile leis misses "sé" or "sí" in this sentence after "thug"???

Furthermore, what about Máire not striking with Seán (whatever that means), but -

Buail Seán um Mháire ...

How about that?

I assumed the purpose was to nit pick for vaguries, in fact it was in my head implicitly for sí to be there. I dont see the construction on the net much. Maybe there is a reason.

If the word is vowel initial, often the /@/ is ommitted so you could get:

"Bhuail Máire le Seán agus thug airgead dó" -the problem is reinstated



HEre is a review. A lot of the problems, it sounds like from the review, are written word issues, and for non-natives


Aistrigh go Gaeilge: Treoirleabhar / I dTreo Teanga Nua
Maolmhaodhóg Ó Ruairc

These two volumes by Maolmhaodhóg Ó Ruairc, a professional translator with the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels, consider the current state of Irish and make provocative recommendations for its future development. The earlier volume is born of a frustration with deficiencies in the contemporary language which hamper the translator's efforts to avoid unnecessary difficulty and unintentional ambiguity. The absence of a definitive terminology and the inconsistencies of a chaotic grammar arerecited among the sources of confusion which need to be addressed. The later volume continues the critique with examples of the apparent inability of Irish, or at least of Irish speakers, to discriminate clearly and immediately between nouns, adjectives, and verbs in certain contexts and concludes with a proposal for the radical simplification of the grammatical conventions of written Irish. If the argument is contentious in places, it is based, nonetheless, on a detailed knowledge of the historical development of Irish in its written and spoken forms, professional engagement within its present difficulties and an informed approach to linguistic theory and its practical application.

Ó Ruairc argues that a preoccupation with linguistic difference as an expression of national identity has led to an insistence on those aspects of Irish which, by their unfamiliarity, are most difficult for English speakers, as definitive and essential. The insistence is such, he argues, that the language might be renamed an tuiseal ginideach after its most troublesome grammatical feature. He charges modern grammarians with a failure of nerve for refusing to acknowledge the collapse of the negative in spoken Irish and goes on to castigate linguistic scholars for their reluctance to reconsider the conventions of vocabulary, grammar and syntax in the light of contemporary theories of language. While Chomsky's theory of transformational grammar anticipates the generation of new possibilities of language and meaning, scholars of Irish, he says, continue to catalogue previous usage and cite traditional precedents as a barrier to new formulations.

If the deferece of early revivalists to the authority of native speakers was understandable at a time when substantial communities survived in Gaeltacht areas, Ó Ruairc argues that the overemphasis on caint na ndaoine led ultimately to a failure to distinguish between different registers of language, a distinction necessary if Irish were to develop a range of written forms appropriate to different kinds of discourse. The insistence that regulations governing the use of Irish are validated by the practise of those whose everyday speech underwrites the conventions of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary is made problematic in the contemporary situation by the relentless decline of those same communities. While the vernacular of any language abandons or modifies grammatical rules that lead to confusion, there is, according to Ó Ruairc, reluctance among scholars of Irish to acknowledge more recent changes in the speech of the Gaeltacht as though such changes would diminish the resources of the language rather than demonstrate its continuing adaptability.

Given that most learners of Irish are native English speakers, Ó Ruairc proposes a radical simplification of the grammatical conventions of modern Irish which would address the difficulties experienced by English speakers in the acquisition of Irish as a second language. Among the more drastic innovations he suggests are the elimination of lenition and eclipses as well as the grammatical distinction between masculine and feminine nuns and adjectives which, he says, are unnecessary and honoured more in the breach than in the observance by competent native speakers. He cites no less an authority than Tomás de Bhaldraithe for his assertion that the spoken language has gradually abandoned the accusative, dative and genitive and that the only necessary distinction is between singular and plural forms.

Ó Ruairc argues throughout that contemporary Irish is in a state of arrested development due to the failure of revivalists and scholars to reform the relationship between written and spoken forms for the language and establish a proper dynamic for its future development. It is a mark of the parlous state of the language in the early years of the twenty-first century that his controversial views have generated hardly a murmur among scholars, writers and educationalists by way of a studied response
Louis de Paor, Canadian Journal of Irish Studies, Vol. 29, Nr. 1. Spring 2003

BRN: an interesting posting. Can I write Maol-óg for short?

Maol-óg's thesis has some contradictions. If he thinks there should be registers of usage, then the caint na ndaoine movement would have been rejected and formal Irish would still be using the Irish of Dinneen, because under his thesis formal Irish and colloquial Irish could be different.

Is there any more evidence that native speakers don't observe the masculine/feminine difference regularly? Does de Bhaldraithe's comment about the only real distinction being between singular and plural only valid for Connemara?

What does "the collapse of the negative" in Irish mean? To what is he referring?

I don't like the idea of "experts" getting together and deciding to simplify grammar. We have already had round 1 of this in the Official Standard. And now he wants round 2?

Maológ (I am sure he would be delighted by this spelling) is simply a moron. Now as we all learnt that he is a translator at EU - I see where his agenda is coming from. Not many people over here are aware how the process of translation is done in EU. Despite onboxious charges for translation the translator have done their life very easy by semi-automated translation. They have software which automatically replaces certain very frequent words with their equivalents in the target language. If one has ever read EU produced gibberish - one know that the texts are predictable, repetitive and using the same core vocabulary of 2000 words.

So now I imagine Maolmóg's frustration when his colleagues push the button and the voila French -Dutch translation is almost complete. And Irish? You have to correct all mutations, check dependent/independent forms, genitives - everything he is railing about. So if we were to dumb the language to his taste - then yes translation to Irish would be also push-the-buttonesque and he could join his peers at never ending translators' fiesta.

I cannot feel but contempt for someone especially bearing in mind that he is masquerading as a friend of Irish!!!!

Some of his stupid points -

quote:

consider the current state of Irish and make provocative recommendations for its future development.

Was he commissioned by anyone to make recommendations? Does he have a power of attorney to determine future development of the language?

quote:

with deficiencies in the contemporary language which hamper the translator's efforts

At least now we know WHY he proposes such non-sense.

quote:

the inconsistencies of a chaotic grammar

????? If it was supposed to be a joke, it is not funny!

quote:

overemphasis on caint na ndaoine led ultimately to a failure to distinguish between different registers of language

What does he mean by that? The was caint na ndaoine and there was English for higher purposes. There was NO higher register of Irish to speak of. So what the revivalists were supposed to emphasize if not caint na ndaoine??? English?!

quote:

an insistence on those aspects of Irish which, by their unfamiliarity, are most difficult for English speakers

Has he EVER thought that Irish speakers did not invent the language to please or displease English speakers? Why is he not complaining about "unfamialiar and most difficult" aspects of Chinese, Russian, Arabic? Those are even more daunting than Irish?! Is it a some kind of conspiracy against English speakers???

quote:

renamed an tuiseal ginideach after its most troublesome grammatical feature.

He failure to understand this concept doesn't mean it is "troublesome". Almost 90% of languages ave it, and even English had it not so long time ago. Aparenly English ancestors were not "troubled" and survived with the wholesome brain intact.

quote:

failure of nerve for refusing to acknowledge the collapse of the negative in spoken Irish

Although he has Irish-looking name and surname - I start to suspect he is very far from fluent in Irish. His statements don't make any sense to anyone.

quote:

to reconsider the conventions of vocabulary, grammar and syntax in the light of contemporary theories of language.

Carn aoiligh - my only comment. All theories of languages seek to explain the languages and their development. I have never heard of anyone trying to formulate a theory which would mandate a change of langauge by force. The guy is hiding behind the name of Chomsky, but I am afraid he has never read him.

quote:

While the vernacular of any language abandons or modifies grammatical rules that lead to confusion

Again - if he is confused by "séimhiú", why on earth does he think - it is "confusing" for Irish speakers??? It is just a piece of the language, so when one SPEAKS the language - one even doesn't notice such trivia.

quote:

reluctance among scholars of Irish to acknowledge more recent changes in the speech of the Gaeltacht

Wasn't Teanga Bheo published with exactly this purpose in 90s??? But I am sure, he has never looked into those books himself!

quote:

Among the more drastic innovations he suggests are the elimination of lenition and eclipses as well as the grammatical distinction between masculine and feminine nuns and adjectives which, he says, are unnecessary and honoured more in the breach than in the observance by competent native speakers.

Has the guy EVER heard a native speaker SPEAKING??? What is he talking about???

quote:

He cites no less an authority than Tomás de Bhaldraithe for his assertion that the spoken language has gradually abandoned the accusative

His comptence is not ZERO, it is in negative terrain already. There is NO accusative for 400 years already. And to notice that you don't need to be Tomás de Bhaldraithe. There was NO "gradual decline" of accusative in our lifetime - as there was NO accusative to start with since a very long time.

"Is there any more evidence that native speakers don't observe the masculine/feminine difference regularly?"

One papaer I saw asked if Spanish had become the language of the eleite, been a gender language, would it have led to Irish retaining gender? The question here about natives is since they speak it unconsciously as regards the nuts and bolts, you can only observe them, not always ask them, as grammar knowledge might be lacking. Conemara, at least from Ó Siadhail seesm to have reanalysed many words to make them more feminine or masculine (slender final or broad final) so they are using gender as a guide very much, even were natives to start to ignore na/an and séimhiú distinctions with nouns of gender.

Still, I'd would not totally discount him here -given the state of Irish, it would not surprise me.


"What does "the collapse of the negative" in Irish mean? To what is he referring? "

-An bhfaca tú an cluiche inné?
-Chonaic/ ní bhfaca

Now you hear tá/ sea /níl/ neo etc

quote:

-An bhfaca tú an cluiche inné?
-Chonaic/ ní bhfaca

Now you hear tá/ sea /níl/ neo etc

This is the collapse of traditional "yes/no" in Irish under influence of English. It has nothing to do with non-existant ephemerical "collapse of the negative".

Well, that is the nearest I could get to "Collapse of neagative". What does he mean? Must grill him, if I get the chance...

quote:

What does he mean?

I don't think he means anything. His whole rant about "chaotic Irish grammar" is simply too non-sensical to look for any hidden meanings there. The guy doesn't know Irish and wants the whole world to know about it. That's the essence.

As I said earlier:

> I'm planning to have a good go at it
> on my blog sometime in the near future.

So I finally got myself to sit down and write it up, here it is:

http://cainteoir.blogspot.com/2007/01/n-bmis-ag-tamil-leis-ghramadach.html

I have taken note of this brilliant (in its own twisted way) sentence earlier in the conversation:

> They have software which automatically replaces
> certain very frequent words with their equivalents
> in the target language

Róman, you are scandalously uninformed. Typical automated translation software is a million times more sophisticated than this.