How, when, where, what and why did business people come to butcher lanugage? And how did their changes become accepted even by the standarisation people?! Examples of this are where business people will say:

Check those figures and revert back.
Advise him of the costs involved.

The verbs, "revert" and "advise", don't really mean what they're trying to mean in these sentences.

Are business people linguistically incompetant, but too pretentious to realise they shouldn't give their creativity free rein?

Good Heavens, FnaB, you seem to be oscillating between linguistic nihilism and dirigism by the new time.

Tóg bog é!

It pisses me off that a standarisation committee will listen to the idiotic babblings of business people before they'll listen to actual real people who speak a language with competence.

While my thoughts are flowing. . . I had a long discussion with a Polish girl today (in person) about language. Her English was magnificient, she understood what I said and replied quickly and fluently. I was slightly disconcerted though to hear that she'd recently started going to a college to learn English. She was far beyond a level where she would need the help of grammar and so forth... she just needed to speak, speak, speak.

Also I had to warn her about the kind of "English" she'd be learning in this place. One question she asked me is when do you use "will" and when do you use "shall". I gave her a very blunt answer: I never use "shall", always "will". It's to do with my dialect. I think you'll only hear "shall" in England, it's more of a posh thing. There was to supposed to be a difference between them at one stage but it doesn't apply any more.

She also paused during one sentence to correct herself saying "the children were" instead of "the children was". I took the opportunity to tell her that there's people in England who use "was" for the plural. Her reply was "but isn't that a mistake?", and I said No, not really, that's how they talk. It depends what point of view you're looking at it from. The Queen will tell you it's a mistake, but it's perfectly correct in these people's dialects.

Another thing she asked me about was when someone would say "you was". I said to here that you'll never see that in "proper English", and she said "No, my teacher told me today, something about conditions". Even though I was certain that you'll never see "you was" in the Queen's English, I didn't want to blurt it in her face... but after thinking over what she was talking about I realised she might have been talking about how you say "If I were...". Again I explained to her that she'll hear "if I was..." instead in this part of the world.

Anyway it just goes to show how learning a "standard" can leave you il-equipped to communicate in a language. Another thing she had a problem with was me saying "playin'" instead of "playing"... even though the former is probably even more prevalent than the latter. Also she hadn't been informed of many people dropping final T's at the end of words in a lot of dialects: "ri" instead of "right", "bri" instead of "bright".

Fortunately she had already picked up on "d,t" in the place of "th" by herself.

Her English was magnificent, she understood what I said and replied quickly and fluently.

Anyway it just goes to show how learning a "standard" can leave you ill-equipped to communicate in a language.

Wait a minute, I'm not getting it.

Did she in fact have trouble understanding you at some point, or you her? Anything that couldn't be resolved by the fluent person slowing down and speaking clearly? If not I wouldn't really say she was "ill-equipped" at all. It sounds to me like her questions dealt with the fine points of (standard) grammar, more than with anything required for effective communication.

It depends on the range of language you use.

I frequently, in technical writing draw a hard and clear distinction between shall and will. And it certainly matters.

quote:

Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer.

prof.dr.Edsger W.Dijkstra

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD04xx/EWD498.html

quote:

It depends on the range of language you use.

I frequently, in technical writing draw a hard and clear distinction between shall and will. And it certainly matters.

I didn't comment much on the usage of "shall" in other parts of the world. What I can say with authority though is that I've lived in Dublin all my life and nobody here uses "shall" -- only "will". Therefore, to say that there's a distinction between "shall" and "will" in my own dialect is way off the mark.

Here's what dictionary.com has to say:

—Usage note The traditional rule of usage guides dates from the 17th century and says that to denote future time shall is used in the first person (I shall leave. We shall go) and will in all other persons (You will be there, won't you? He will drive us to the airport. They will not be at the meeting). The rule continues that to express determination, will is used in the first person (We will win the battle) and shall in the other two persons (You shall not bully us. They shall not pass). Whether this rule was ever widely observed is doubtful. Today, will is used overwhelmingly in all three persons and in all types of speech and writing both for the simple future and to express determination. Shall has some use in all persons, chiefly in formal writing or speaking, to express determination: I shall return. We shall overcome. Shall also occurs in the language of laws and directives: All visitors shall observe posted regulations. Most educated native users of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between shall and will.

quote:

Wait a minute, I'm not getting it.

Did she in fact have trouble understanding you at some point, or you her? Anything that couldn't be resolved by the fluent person slowing down and speaking clearly? If not I wouldn't really say she was "ill-equipped" at all. It sounds to me like her questions dealt with the fine points of (standard) grammar, more than with anything required for effective communication.

While I only speak one dialect of English, I can understand them all (well a hell of a lot of them in anyway). You can say "ain't" or "whom" or "shall" or "cannie" to me and I'll still know what you're saying. So, to answer your question, I understood her fine.

She herself had difficulty though when I dropped the final T of "bright", and the final G of "playing". She'd already been used to the pronunciation of "yes" as "yeah". I'm only guessing here, but what percentage of dialects would you say pronounce the final "g" in "playing,swimming,singing"? If I'd to guess I'd say 20%, maybe less. (More dialectal differences: notice my use of "If I'd to guess" instead of "Were I to guess").

Speaking of the "finer points" of standard grammer... well ya might look a little more posh if ya know how to use "whom" or "shall", but how is that gonna help in speaking the language, or even writing the language? If anything, using "shall" and "whom" makes your speech and writing less intelligible as they're used in a minority of dialects.

quote:

If anything, using "shall" and "whom" makes your speech and writing less intelligible as they're used in a minority of dialects.

I'm sorely tempted to make a snobby remark based on the related meanings of "intelligible" and "intelligent"

You "can understand them all (well a hell of a lot of them in anyway)", because you have had practice. Your Polish acquaintance has not (yet). And how do you suggest she should have been taught to be better able to cope with your idiolect?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiolect

I grew up in Dublin; but I doubt I speak English as you describe yourself doing.

You can look at things from a mystical, methaphysical point of view and take the Standard to be "proper English" and assume everything to the contrary to be littered with mistakes.

Or you can wise up to the idea that a language has dialects. People who speak the same dialect of a language can have marvellous conversation. People who speak different dialects can have pretty good conversation.

I don't believe the Standard of English reflects any living dialect -- other than the ultra-posh who maticulously scrutanise every word before they utter it. If we talk in terms of percentages, what percentage of native English speakers speak the "Standard"? Less than 1%.

Does it not seem ridiculous, therefore, that people who aim to learn the language to be able to communicate with other people, learn the Standard? Why should they learn to use "whom" for the accusative if very few dialects do it? And more importantly, why should they be told it's a mistake if 99% of native speakers are making this "mistake"?

The end product for these learners is, while they can speak "nice proper English", that they won't be able to understand people who speak real English. "wuda, shuda, cuda" are far more part of the language than "would have, should have, could have". "can't" is far more prevalent than "cannot". "Yeah" is more prevalent than "yes".

Either we shouldn't have standards at all, or we should get people with a bit of cop-on to make them.

I have a feeling that some of you will disagree with me about something I said to the Polish girl. She asked me about how to ask questions. She asked if she should say things such as "Shall we dance?". I gave her a direct answer persuant to my own experience with the English language "That's the 'correct' way to do it according to the Standard, but people are just gonna think you're posh if you say that. Something like 'Let's dance' or 'Do you wanna dance?' is far more natural in Dublin."

Another thing which learners should know is this: There's a syllable limit in the English language. If a word has a ridiculous amount of syllables, a native English speaker will trim it down. For example, the pronunciation of "chocolate" by 99% of people is "choclate". I've seen myself do this plenty of times with big words. I wish I could give more examples but it's hard to think of them off-the-cuff. If an English teacher tells someone to pronounce "chocolate" with three syllables, then they may as well tell them to say "thou shalt".

What all this thing above has to do with Irish? I shall be clearly disappointed.

"Shall" is still used like a substitute for "should".

quote:

What all this thing above has to do with Irish? I shall be clearly disappointed.

Irish is a language. Languages have dialects. If thread-drift bothers ya you should check out my posts about electronic engineering and tattoos.

quote:

"Shall" is still used like a substitute for "should".

By people who still wet the bed?

A Fhear na mbrog a chara,

I hardly think that the use of shall has such a stigma attached to it that it should be compared with wetting the bed. :) I actually think shall can be nice in written form.

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm not talking about the cannonical use of "shall" but rather its usage for "should".

quote:

She asked me about how to ask questions. She asked if she should say things such as "Shall we dance?".

The correct answer is:

YES!!!! = Get with it my man a Fhear!!!

quote:

The correct answer is:

YES!!!! = Get with it my man a Fhear!!!

Her objective wasn't to impress the queen, but rather to fit in and communicate proficiently with native speakers.

[quote]Speaking of the "finer points" of standard grammer... well ya might look a little more posh if ya know how to use "whom" or "shall", but how is that gonna help in speaking the language, or even writing the language? If anything, using "shall" and "whom" makes your speech and writing less intelligible as they're used in a minority of dialects.[/quote]

In my dialect of American English, the correct use of "whom" vs. "who" is expected as a matter of proper speech. You'd sound like a hopelessly uneducated hick if yuh wuz tuh say "whom are you?" or "the person to who I wuz speakin' with".

"Shall," on the other hand... at best, it's considered quaint; at worst, it's considered outlandishly pretentious. The vast majority of people here draw no distinction between "will" and "shall" and yet are understood readily.

Then again, we're prone to using contracions here, and there's no difference between "shall" or "will" then... which further proves this pont.

quote:

Her objective wasn't to impress the queen

Get a life, man! Compare somebody asking "Shall I close the window?" with "Will I close the window?" - Queen has nothing to do with it. The second question is really weird as you normally don't ask other people about your own future actions. "Shall we dance?" vs "Will we dance" is the same thing. First one is an unambiguous invitation, the other - abstract question. I am under impression you see poshness where there is none!

As Béal Domhnaill:

quote:

In my dialect of American English, the correct use of "whom" vs. "who" is expected as a matter of proper speech. You'd sound like a hopelessly uneducated hick if yuh wuz tuh say "whom are you?" or "the person to who I wuz speakin' with".

To borrow a term from you, the use of "whom" is outlandishly pretentious in my own dialect of English... except for question sentences which are just "preposition + whom".

-I gave the book away.
-To whom?

We say "Who'd ya give da buck ta?", while "To whom did you give the book?" sounds very posh to us.

As Béal Rómáin:

quote:

Get a life, man! Compare somebody asking "Shall I close the window?" with "Will I close the window?" - Queen has nothing to do with it. The second question is really weird as you normally don't ask other people about your own future actions. "Shall we dance?" vs "Will we dance" is the same thing. First one is an unambiguous invitation, the other - abstract question. I am under impression you see poshness where there is none!

Your own dialect is quite different to mine here -- those two sentences have exactly the same meaning to me, likely reason being that "shall" is absent from my dialect and so I make it synonymous with "will" when I hear it.

quote:

Your own dialect is quite different to mine here - those two sentences have exactly the same meaning to me

The fact you don't use a certain word doesn't mean it is "posh". Judging people on the basis of your own vocabulary is rather egocentric, pretentious and arrogant. This trench ideology "us vs. 'em" doesn't lead anywhere.

Aontaím le Rómán

The mistake you are making FnaB, is equating "Non standard" with "incorrect"; and also ignoring the fact that people use language differently in different circumstances.

And the reasons learners from abroad learn the standard is quite simple; all speakers, regardless of where they are, who have received some form of education will be able to communicate in the standard.

What is the alternative? To teach with the dictionary in one hand and a dialect atlas in the other? To teach a plethora of variants? "If you be talking to FnaB of a Saturday afternoon, be sure you ain't using posh english?"

This applies across languages, whether it be Irish, English or German; people will communicate in one circle almost purely in dialect; in other circles almost purely in standard - but most of the time somewhere in between.

Here is nice illustration of the point, from the link BRN gave us:

http://www.acmhainn.ie/athchlo/lorganbhearla/lorg06.htm

Tuairim is cúig bliana déag agus fiche ó shin, chuala mé cainteoir dúchais ag trácht ar scéala a raibh sé i ndiaidh a léamh as páipéar nuachta. “De réir mar a deir an páipéar,” ar seisean, “bhí Craig agus Lloyd George ag caint le chéile inné, agus ní raibh an t-interview ina success, ar chor ar bith. Óna thús go dtí a dheireadh, bhí an bheirt ag loggerheads le chéile.”



Dar liom féin, “is fada an smachladh sin ón rud a déarfá, dá mbeadh macalla an Bhéarla gan bheith i do cheann!” Agus níor mheath mo bharúil orm. Anonn go maith sa tráthnóna, tháinig lucht an airneáin chun an tí, agus thosaigh an comhrá mar ba ghnách. Fiafraíodh de mo dhuine an raibh aon dada iontach ar an pháipéar; agus d’inis sé scéal Craig agus Lloyd George. Ach san am sin, ní ar fhocail an Bhéarla a bhí sé ag smaoineamh ach ar an chiall a bhí leo. Mar sin de, labhair sé go nádúrtha.



“Bhí Craig agus Lloyd George ag caint le chéile inné, de réir mar a deir an páipéar, ba é an comhrá gan chaoithiúlacht acu é,” ar seisean. “Óna thús go dtí a dheireadh, bhí siad in adharca a chéile” – Gaeilge lán níos fearr ná leithéid ‘bhí agallamh ag Craig agus Lloyd George inné; ach níor tháinig toradh fónta ar bith as, mar níor réitigh siad le chéile maidir le haon phointe dá raibh i gceist.’

Shall –often suggest obligation “I shall go to town” versus a more flat “I will go to town”. Usually, difference is collapsed now.

-Ing tends to be more from women, than men who generally say -in’

“Bright bri” I share with Ross O Carroll-Kelly the hissing/softening/aspiration of stops at the end of words –but that does not make me posh! (me: braighs, Ross: broysh) as due to pure country vowels there is no mangling

“I don't believe the Standard of English reflects any living dialect” – maybe once RP, but the social networks who used it are diversifying their speech

“Does it not seem ridiculous, therefore, that people who aim to learn the language to be able to communicate with other people, learn the Standard?” Learn both. I grew up with a very broad accent and odd idiomatic expressions, but as I was never exposed to anything other than standard American and British grammar in writing/TV/print, I’m comfortable with differing registrars. I also never watched Irish TV or radio, so don't like all the faux English accents I here on them. Sad and pathetic at a time when English regional accents are on british radio all the time.

“In my dialect of American English, the correct use of "whom" vs. "who" is expected as a matter of proper speech. "

In mine, who/whom/whose and which are nearly always replaced by ‘that’ or ‘thats’ in the middle of sentences and relative sentences: “There’s the man thats son is to (get) marr(ied)y” etc

“of a Saturday afternoon,” of a Sunday! Aonghus, you must have picked this up in trips to the country? (Said with irony among younger people)

“bhí Craig agus Lloyd George ag caint le chéile inné, agus ní raibh an t-interview ina success, ar chor ar bith. Óna thús go dtí a dheireadh, bhí an bheirt ag loggerheads le chéile.”

Use of differing registrars must be allowed and does not suggest a dogmatic mind or backwardness or pretentiousness. On the farm for example, if a wall capping is loose, people (young and old) would say something like “If that fell [if would be bad]”. If you said “If that were to fall” it would sound less natural. Outside of such a ‘conditional of danger” I don’t think it is ever used.

Personally, I suspect the reason the Bebo generation is so slang heavy is that their parents brought them up without slang (although most irish people speak to their parents with a greater level of standard English that with friends), so they lack registrar levels and have had to create thier own. I may be natural to have differening levels or it is a context thing.

As béal Rómáin:

quote:

The fact you don't use a certain word doesn't mean it is "posh". Judging people on the basis of your own vocabulary is rather egocentric, pretentious and arrogant. This trench ideology "us vs. 'em" doesn't lead anywhere.

I'm speaking for my own dialect, for the area in which I live. Maybe "shall" is perfectly normal where you're from, but it's snobbish where I'm from.

As béal Aonghuis:

quote:

The mistake you are making FnaB, is equating "Non standard" with "incorrect"; and also ignoring the fact that people use language differently in different circumstances.

You're exactly right Aonghus, I am attacking the idea that what is non-standard is incorrect. Mac Léinn has already labelled the following as mistakes:

I ain't gonna go.
There's six men in the room.

[And before this thread delves too deep into English grammar, the idea is not to discuss the implications of "shall Vs will" specifically, but rather the implications of different dialects.]

"To teach with the dictionary in one hand and a dialect atlas in the other? To teach a plethora of variants?"

Sadly, this is the way Irish seems to be taught most outside the Gaeltacht - even outside Ireland - where such things have the least importance.

The effect is that complexities and variants are emphasised, leading to confusion and students losing heart (and subsequently giving up).

Even though nobody speaks the "standard" in english, it is what is taught in schools - even where english is the native language. It just makes good sense. Outside the home area for the language, if you wanted to teach someone in China to speak english, you wouldn't be giving them six different variants for each pronunciation, rule or phrase for various areas of the US/Canada, UK and Australia. You would teach them a standard (either US or uk) and move on. If they want to learn the finer points of the native speakers they can visit the countries in question and immerse themselves. If not, at least they can understand and be understood and are using it - which for an endangered language like Irish is paramount.

It seems to me that by insisting on dialectal representation in the classroom, Irish is slitting her own throat.

As béal Antaine:

quote:

Sadly, this is the way Irish seems to be taught most outside the Gaeltacht - even outside Ireland - where such things have the least importance.

The effect is that complexities and variants are emphasised, leading to confusion and students losing heart (and subsequently giving up).

My opinion on the matter is at the opposite end of the spectrum. It's great to learn the dialectal variations, even if they're just brushed over. Can you believe that I did four years of Irish in secondary school before I was told that "cha" was used for "ní" in Ulster? Or that "dhúnas" was used for "dhún mé" in Munster? I may have been pretty handy at the Standard, but I hadn't a hope of understanding Tom, Dick or Harry.

quote:

Even though nobody speaks the "standard" in english, it is what is taught in schools - even where english is the native language.

Yes, teachers and also snobbish parents try to force an alien dialect down a child's throat... it's the antonym of patriatism. Are these people so ashamed of their heritage that they mimick a non-existant dialect? How many times have you heard a snobbish adult interrupt a child saying "Me and John went.." to tell them "John and I went..."? Are they really so stupid as to think that a few nagging remarks now again is going to CHANGE their dialect?!

quote:

It seems to me that by insisting on dialectal representation in the classroom, Irish is slitting her own throat.

Quite the contrary... if the dialects are shunned upon, there is no throat to slit! Students should learn the dialect of the language which their teacher speaks... simply because the teacher isn't qualified to teach any other dialect! If people would like to learn English from me I'd show them exactly how I speak (e.g. "who" for accusative, shuda wuda cuda gonna wanna, etc.). Even though I'll be teaching my own dialect, I'll brush over things they're likely to hear from other dialects, such as "shall", "whom", "cannie", "Should I decide...", "Were I to enquire..." -- not only from snobbish upper-class, but also from working-class too. For instance, in Dublin, there's a 2nd person plural personal pronoun, "yizer", which is used only by working-class, e.g. "Girls, where's yizer coats?".

If anything, it is flawed standards that erode a language. Can anyone explain how they came up with "sa seomra", "sa tsráid"?! Using those two phrases in the same sentence would be akin to using Scotland's "aye" and "cannie" along with America's "ain't" and "y'all" in the same sentence.

I cannie do it ya'll, I ain't been told Aye by the captain.

quote:

I ain't gonna go

This is colloquial English, not very suitable for formal setting (e.g. article in a high-brow newspaper). But it is not incorrect.

quote:

There's six men in the room.

This is simply wrong on any measure. The fact that you are native speaker doesn't change anything. The only difference between native speaker and non-native is that the former make less mistakes. Not everything what comes from the mouth of "natives" passes for correct language, dialect or no dialect. If I were wrong, we wouldn't need such wonderful institutions as schools. (Why to teach anyone if everything said is "correct"?)Haven't you ever heard small children saying "flied", "throwed"? Is it a "dialect", or a badly learned lesson, and verbs constructed on analogy?

I think the problem is that you confuse anything non-standard or even (I am perfectly comfortable with this word) SUB-STANDARD with dialect. There is no such thing as "urban dialect". Dialect by its very definition is a historical, unbroken continuation of the same speech in the same territory notwithstanding emergence literary language. The way people speak around Manchester or Dublin can be traced to the times of Old English, and when there was not even a hint of such thing as "Queen's/BBC English". Thus, real dialects predate literary language, and we can even state that literary, standard language is simply one of the local dialects which was, due to history, elevated at some point above other dialects. Therefore, it is uncontroversial to say that dialects have the same rights as the literary language. They are perfectly fit for communication.

On the other hand, when we look at the sub-standard urban speech, then there is not a hint of unbroken development of ancient patterns. Usually we are dealing with a hodge-podge of dialects from all over the places, brought by migrating peasants in 17-19 century. In such circumstances it is obvious that by mixing regular but different dialects you get not a new dialect, but a porridge of a questionable quality. So urban dwellers have no other choice but to pursue literary language, as

1) there is no uniform way people in the city speak
2) by being exposed to variety of sound, grammar, vocabulary systems natural "feel" for correct language gets diluted

Getting back to Irish. It is a perennial discussion, but nobody has ever succeeded in demostrating that I was wrong claiming that Irish "literary language" (aka caighdeán oifigiúil) is fundamentally different from any other literary language in the Europe. Everywhere the local NATURAL dialect, usually of the capital (notable exception - Italy, where literary language is based on Florentine talk) has at some point established as a literary language. So you can go to a point X in any of those countries and hear how locals converse in a language which very close to TV-speak. Not so in Ireland. There is no such Gaeltacht where locals converse in caighdeán on a daily basis. And this is the problem with CO - it doesn't feel at home anywhere, just like medieval Latin. I am afraid CO is a last nail into coffine of Gaelainn bhlasta, tá sorry orm.

(Message edited by Róman on May 19, 2007)

quote:

The effect is that complexities and variants are emphasised

This is tough, but there is no way around. I would prefer myself that there were 3 different textbooks - for Munster, Connacht and Ulster Irishes. So the learner could concentrate on one dialect of choice only. CO only introduces a "fourth" dialect making 4-way distinction already.

quote:

Even though nobody speaks the "standard" in english

You are wrong. South-western England does exactly that. And mid-western American English (CNN English) is not so far BBC English bar for minuscle pronunciation points.

quote:

You would teach them a standard

Yes, because there is sizeable amount of people who speak that "standard" in their daily life. This is NOT the case with irish. I said - let's teach 3 Irishes. For 10 years. And then see which one is more popular - and proclaim that one - "standard". I bet it would be North Conamara dialect.

quote:

This is simply wrong on any measure. The fact that you are native speaker doesn't change anything.

Do you live in Dublin? Do you speak the dialect of English spoken in Dublin? In Dublin, "there's" is used for both singular and plural.

quote:

The only difference between native speaker and non-native is that the former make less mistakes.

I don't even know where to begin disagreeing. . .

quote:

Not everything what comes from the mouth of "natives" passes for correct language, dialect or no dialect.

Should I shout from the rooftops that your use of "what" is wrong because my grammar book says so?

quote:

If I were wrong, we wouldn't need such wonderful institutions as schools.

We don't. Plenty of travellers in my country never went to school and they can communicate just fine vocally.

quote:

(Why to teach anyone if everything said is "correct"?)

To sound posh.

quote:

Haven't you ever heard small children saying "flied", "throwed"? Is it a "dialect", or a badly learned lesson, and verbs constructed on analogy?

They're learning. Far from me to try dissect how the linguistic centre of the brain works, but I'd guess they try to make as many patterns as possible, hence coming out with "flied".

quote:

I think the problem is that you confuse anything non-standard or even (I am perfectly comfortable with this word) SUB-STANDARD with dialect.

Exactly.

quote:

There is no such thing as "urban dialect".

There's countless urban areas that speak English, thousands probably... so that would give thousands of urban dialects.

quote:

Dialect by its very definition is a historical, unbroken continuation of the same speech in the same territory notwithstanding emergence literary language.

Social classes often speak different dialects living in the same area.

quote:

On the other hand, when we look at the sub-standard urban speech, then there is not a hint of unbroken development of ancient patterns.

Who's to say what's sub-standard? Is the Queen's speech better than mine because the English she speaks has been give "Standard" status?

quote:

Usually we are dealing with a hodge-podge of dialects from all over the places, brought by migrating peasants in 17-19 century. In such circumstances it is obvious that by mixing regular but different dialects you get not a new dialect, but a porridge of a questionable quality. So urban dwellers have no other choice but to pursue literary language, as

1) there is no uniform way people in the city speak
2) by being exposed to variety of sound, grammar, vocabulary systems natural "feel" for correct language gets diluted

I disagree with the above.

quote:

Getting back to Irish. It is a perennial discussion, but nobody has ever succeeded in demostrating that I was wrong claiming that Irish "literary language" (aka caighdeán oifigiúil) is fundamentally different from any other literary language in the Europe. Everywhere the local NATURAL dialect, usually of the capital (notable exception - Italy, where literary language is based on Florentine talk) has at some point established as a literary language. So you can go to a point X in any of those countries and hear how locals converse in a language which very close to TV-speak. Not so in Ireland. There is no such Gaeltacht where locals converse in caighdeán on a daily basis. And this is the problem with CO - it doesn't feel at home anywhere, just like medieval Latin. I am afraid CO is a last nail into coffine of Gaelainn bhlasta, tá sorry orm.

Don't forget Standard English, which isn't spoken anywhere either.

A Fhir na mbróg,

From your replies I see that you don't know the difference between dialect, sociolect, language register and so on calling everything with "umbrella-notion" dialect. Thus, the discussion becomes futile as you use well-known terms in irregular and unexpected ways, denying by that clear understanding of your ideas to the discussant. Either you browse around and get those basic terms straight, or this discussion will become a circular argument for want of identical understanding of the word "dialect".

p.s. The way people speak in Dublin is NOT called "dialect" in any book on English dialects.

" Even though nobody speaks the "standard" in english


You are wrong. South-western England does exactly that. And mid-western American English (CNN English) is not so far BBC English bar for minuscle pronunciation points."



While the "standard" in any language is usually based off an actual dialect, there are still differences (slang, etc) that the dialect may possess or develop which are not included as part of the "standard." As such, no one uses perfectly "standard" english as their everyday speech.

The point is, while it may bear a remarkable similarity to one or more "actual dialects," true, grammmatically correct, totally "standard" english is not what is used on the street in even those dialects from which the standard was developed.

There most certainly is a way around having that "dialect muddle" which makes for three or four examples of common phrases and pronunciation variants for common words listed for beginners - just teach them the CO. The CO bears a relationship to Connacht Gaeilge similar to that between SAE and the english of the US Midwest that you mentioned earlier. So very few students, whether from Dublin, New York or Sydney, have reasonable expectations (or even desire) of being mistaken for a native that frequency of use and competence in making oneself understood should be the main focus of study. If they really want to pick up a blas indistinguishable from the natives they can immerse themselves in the gaeltacht of their choice once they have already learned to speak.

Some definitions that may help us move beyond the pissing-contest phase of this discussion. PLEASE add further definitions as appropriate. I could find nothing for "language register".

DIALECT:

di·a·lect /ˈdaɪəˌlɛkt/

–noun

1. Linguistics. a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.
2. a provincial, rural, or socially distinct variety of a language that differs from the standard language, esp. when considered as substandard.
3. a special variety of a language: The literary dialect is usually taken as the standard language.
4. a language considered as one of a group that have a common ancestor: Persian, Latin, and English are Indo-European dialects.
5. jargon or cant.
[Origin: 1545–55; < L dialectus < Gk diálektos discourse, language, dialect, equiv. to dialég(esthai) to converse (dia- dia- + légein to speak) + -tos v. adj. suffix]

—Synonyms 2. idiom, patois. See language.

SOCIOLECT:

so·ci·o·lect /ˈsoʊsiəˌlɛkt, ˈsoʊʃi-/

–noun

a variety of a language used by a particular social group; a social dialect.
[Origin: 1970–75; socio- + (dia)lect]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(linguistics)

quote:

In linguistics, a register is a subset of a language used for a particular purpose or in a particular social setting. For example, an English speaker may adhere more closely to prescribed grammar, pronounce words ending in -ing with a velar nasal (e.g. "walking", not "walkin'") and refrain from using the word "ain't" when speaking in a formal setting, but the same person could violate all of these prescriptions in an informal setting.

But I don't think we are going to get beyond the pissing match. FnaB occasionally loses the run of himself, and positively enjoys getting us all worked up.

Of course, Rómán, Mac and myself, being earnest people, frequently fall into this kind of trap.

I can't see much point in demolishing his straw man arguments any more.

Ní thagann ciall (ná stuaim) roimh aois, ach tá FnaB sách óg fós.

(double posting - gabh mo leithscéal)

(Message edited by mac_léinn on May 20, 2007)

From Aonghus' quote above: when speaking in a formal setting, but the same person could violate all of these prescriptions in an informal setting.

I think that the concept of formal versus informal setting is the answer to this great Ain't Debate. I understand that Fear na mBróg thinks there's no such thing as grammar, but I took a university course named Grammar and one of the concepts discussed in some detail was formal versus informal settings. The professor indicated that most, if not all people have the tendency to talk (or is that speak, or is that say ), in a more casual way around family and friends and then will talk more formally in settings with other folks where formality would be expected. In informal settings I tend to use words like ain't, and hardly ever say "ing" at the end of words containing it, but rather almost always say "runnin'" instead of "running," etc. Some of us will make small adjustments to our speech from informal to formal, while others may make larger changes. Some may make no changes at all.

Fats Waller, who wrote many songs, including Ain't Mis'behavin' was, besides the greatest jazz composer and musician, a master at the use of informal and informal speech. Many of his songs contain informal speech, but then there are others that are perfectly executed examples of Standard English, both sung and unsung.

"in a more casual way around family"

Given Ireland's history, slang is often, as I said, removed from parent/child interaction in Ireland

“There's six men in the room.”

I think this is very common in Ireland. I did not notice it till it was pointed out. I would not call it wrong if so many natives are failing to diff is and are in such 'copularic' sentances. I wonder if the similarity of 'there' and 'they're' (they are) leads to this confusion. When I used it like an adverb, I immediatly used the number agreement with the noun pl. Prior to that, it all seemed OK to me.

"“I am afraid CO is a last nail into coffine of Gaelainn bhlasta, tá sorry orm.”

I think that provincially, only the nearest dialect to ones that were formally spoken/or are affinative should be taught. Ex: Conemara (Galway, maybe Clare), Kerry (Kerry), Cork (Cork and some other parts of Munster), Ring (most of Munster and most of Leinster), Mayo (Connacht, north midlands, some of Meath), Donegal (Ulster, north Meath and Louth).

THe Caighdeán could be a series of protocols that easily modify the dialects (gen pl always weak, regardless of declension etc) which would be easy to learn once a native one is mastered. Might be similar to current one.

My few cents...

A language is a dialect with an army and navy

I found this quote while surfing about in an attempt to discover what might help me better understand this thread. What I dicovered is that this linguistics business is a lot more complicated and intricate than I had imagined. Has anyone out there devoted himself to a formal study of the field? I'd like to have a list of terms with definitions which we could all use and upon which we agree so as to be assured others knew and agreed with what was being said.

Language
dialect
register
sociolect
regional
colloquial

And so on.

By the way, the difference between shall and will has to do with the speaker's ability to guarantee the occurence of something in the future.

I shall implies a promise.
I will implies it is my will. (no promise)

You shall implies whether you wish it or not.
You will implies if you will.

It will is never correct since inanimate objects have no will.

Anyway, that's the way this rather old geezer was taught it in the days when speaking incorrectly got you a crack across the knuckles from Sister Mary Genuflecta ... the days when grammar had no e's in it.

Considering that professional linguists disagree, I'm not sure that there is much hope for us here.

Hi, here I am again, from France (how dare I?) (posh isn't it?)
Well, I tried to keep clear of the debate as FnB already told me, but I really can't help from giving you another (one more) opinion.
First, thanks a lot Aonghus for telling us about FnB's enjoyment at having people all worked up sometimes at discussions . I really fell into the trap, the other day. I just wanted to say some words about all this .
Shall or Will : I personnaly make a difference betwwen both because my family always did it (and still does it) ; shall has a notion of "having to do" and will has a notion of "intending to"; all that in the future . But , I must say , English begins being taught in a different way in France and, in this particular case, my daughter (14 years old) knows that the future is " 'll " and she doesn't understand me when I say "I shall.." (she does though, if I say : "you shall" because my tone is different then!!). I don't think I am that old though and I don't consider myself as "posh" either. Is it because french is a very strict language (cf. l'Académie Française) but I like speaking the best English I can . Anyway, I am in contact with pure blooded English (not Irish though) cousins who live in England (in Bath,in London and also in a little village in Devon)and they all seem to speak what FnB would call a "posh" English. I don't agree with that of course because they seem all very normal people to me.
I think that "there's" is a singular and not a plural (I would never use it as a plural and I can say that my daughter wouldn't do it either with the English course she'having in France) and I am astonished at what FnB says about it being a normal form in Dublin . But he's a Native, so ...( without any irony).
What I also could say is that I think a language has to be taught in a strict way at the beginning, for the students to catch the basis of it. I think, for example, french students would never be able to speak a word of English , were they taught that the past conditional of can or will is cudda or wudda . I think you have first to understand the construction of this past conditional ; only afterwards can you then shorten the pronunciation to such a point that you hear " cudda or wudda" ... A language is such a mass of things to understand that your ear is important but your brains too in order to understand "how it works".
To speak of another point : I think a language is a way of communication ,( isn't it?) . It then should be understood by the most people as could be; That means, that a "standard language" must exist; a language which could be learned by many people , with rules which are the same (or practically), and with words which are the same . Of course, after a while, when you get used to it, can you try some dialectal words (and constructions). English is spoken throughout the world in so many ways and I think it's tremendous ; it's such a language for communication! But, people have had to learn the basic rules before attempting to say any word, haven't they?.
Anyway, going back to Irish , which I am trying to re-learn , with "teach yourself Irish" ,which is Munster Irish . Could one of you tell me please if I am right . That's the Irish I was taught when I was 12, but I have practically lost it all. I then would'nt like to lose time (and energy!)putting non standard things in my head, because, I would like to be understandable by the most of you . I know what FnB would say : go on learning it ; it has as much value as any other Irish in the world . I agree with him but , really, I have'nt got so much energy as to learn 2 dialects at a time . One is sufficient for me! I would like to know your opinion .
These were my few centimes...
Thanks for reading me .
See you in a while . Jean.

A Jean a chara,

Don't feel intimidated by Fear na mbrog, he gets riled up occasionally but you shouldn't take it seriously. You have just as much right to be here as has anyone else so don't be shy.

Beir bua agus beannacht

Advise.

In business it means the same as in: I 'suggest' you....

In English or Irish/Geilge, it means the same... an updated version of the same meaning: Advise = suggest.

Just as the Irish have found a way to find Geilge in the modern day computer world. I'm still a novice as far as Geilge, but I know that the words are there.

Beannácht.

(I have a new pc and I can't find the fada for 'a', but the meaning is still the same, so I used the 'help with fadas on this site'.)

Not much time to learn the language fully does not mean a lack of interest (and then some).

quote:

Anyway, I am in contact with pure blooded English (not Irish though) cousins who live in England (in Bath,in London and also in a little village in Devon)and they all seem to speak what FnB would call a "posh" English. I don't agree with that of course because they seem all very normal people to me.

The speech of certain areas might sound perfectly normal in one place, while sounding very posh in another, or even very working-class in another! Persumably, where your friends live in England, their use of language isn't posh at all. However, if a Dubliner was to come out with that kind of speech then it'd raise a few eye-brows.

quote:

I think that "there's" is a singular and not a plural (I would never use it as a plural and I can say that my daughter wouldn't do it either with the English course she'having in France) and I am astonished at what FnB says about it being a normal form in Dublin . But he's a Native, so ...( without any irony).

I'm fully aware that it's incorrect in Standard English... but it's perfectly normal in my dialect.

quote:

I think, for example, french students would never be able to speak a word of English , were they taught that the past conditional of can or will is cudda or wudda . I think you have first to understand the construction of this past conditional ; only afterwards can you then shorten the pronunciation to such a point that you hear " cudda or wudda" ... A language is such a mass of things to understand that your ear is important but your brains too in order to understand "how it works".

I presume you've already heard my rants about how grammar doesn't exist. At the moment, you think that "cudda" is a contraction of "could have", and your grammar book indicates this. What, though, if I gave you a different grammar book that just clearly and plainly stated that it was "cuda" -- that wouldn't be too hard to get your head around, now would it? Of course it could also inform the reader of form that is "could have".

quote:

To speak of another point : I think a language is a way of communication ,( isn't it?) . It then should be understood by the most people as could be; That means, that a "standard language" must exist; a language which could be learned by many people , with rules which are the same (or practically), and with words which are the same.

I know exactly what you're talking about... but consider one thing: The reason I don't speak Standard English is the same reason why I speak Irish, and that reason is complete and utter total arrogance. I'm Irish, and I'm from Dublin. Firstly, I'll speak the language of my people. And secondly, if I'm degraded to speaking the language of an alien people, then I'll speak it the way my people speak it. I concede though that there's nothing to gain from sticking to my own dialect, or even to learning Irish -- except of course pride and pure enjoyment.

As béal Ríona:

quote:

Don't feel intimidated by Fear na mbrog, he gets riled up occasionally but you shouldn't take it seriously. You have just as much right to be here as has anyone else so don't be shy.

The only reason I told anyone to stay away from any debate was when they interrupted it to give an emotional diatribe which didn't contribute to the debate.

As béal Mharcia:

quote:

In business it means the same as in: I 'suggest' you....

Actually, in business, they also use it to mean "inform":

Advise him of the company's closure = Tell him about it. (no hint of offerring counsel or making suggestions)

A Riona a chara,

I wasn't really intimidated by FnB, just a little bit shocked! but it doesn't matter much .

Nevertheless, go raibh maith agat for your kind answer which comforts me in being with you all discussing about Irish and other things... and which gives me heart to try and speak this beautiful language! Long live Irish ! (how can you say that in irish?)
.

quote:

Long live Irish ! (how can you say that in irish?)

Gaeilge Abú! (b'fhéidir?)

Go raibh maith agat a Mhic Leinn,

and all right for "Abù" then ; excuse me for the inverse fada, my riomhaire is not yet ready for that !

Slàn !

Your fada situation is quite grave, Jean . Try cut and paste from below.

Gaeilge Abú, gan amhras, a Mhac.

Your fada situation is quite grave

I once had an English prof who said the appropriate response to a pun is a groan. And so, Aonghus, grooooahnnn.

A Phádraig,

Ní maith liom ag cocaireacht leat, ach is breá liom imeartas focal.


http://www.focal.ie/Search.aspx?term=cocaireacht

FRC-GRMA

A Mhic,

Cmpletely off the thread, but FYI your URL to teachyourselfirish is a deadend. I got an error message saying the group doesn't exist? Wrong address?

I decided to delete the group since there was no activity and had posted a message asking for input before doing so. Since I got no input and there was no activity, I figured why have a group that doesn't serve any purpose.

ag cocaireacht leat

Tá confusion orm. Cad é atá ag cócaireacht? Nó cocaireacht gan fada?

quote:

Tá confusion orm

That has to be the best anglicism I've ever seen in my life - maith thú a Phádraig!!!

I know this is gunna ruin your day ('cause there's a pun involved), but there's a word spelled exactly like cócaireacht, but it doesn't have a fada over the "o." The word coraireacht means sparring or being cocky. I was just trying to have my go at an Irish pun, that's all. I understand that you don't like puns, so I hope your are not offended by my meagar attempt at humor.

And you beat me to it; I was planning a post on the importance of fadas as illustrated by co(ó)caire.

cocaire [ainmfhocal firinscneach den cheathrú díochlaonadh]
duine cocach.
cocach [aidiacht den chéad díochlaonadh]
biorach, cocáilte; soibealta, dána.
cócaire [ainmfhocal firinscneach den cheathrú díochlaonadh]
duine a ullmhaíonn bia le hithe.

I know this is gunna ruin your day

Níl "ruin" gunna screach mo lá, a rún.

An maith leat sin?

(Message edited by pádraig on May 23, 2007)

Osssssssssssnaaaaaaaaaaaaa

---

osna [ainmfhocal baininscneach den cheathrú díochlaonadh]
anáil á tarraingt go trom le tuirse nó brón.

Dear Fear na mbróg:

Apologies, but what does, 'As béal' mean? :}

Míle Buíochas!

I miss my numeric section on my old pc. The new laptops don't have that and I even had the codes memorized. There is a way about going around that I'm sure.

I envy you, Pádraic and/agus Aonghus... you seem to be so fluent in Geilge.

Beannácht!

Marcia,

Here's a program that Abigail posted a link to some months ago. I've been using it ever since. It's a great time saver! It's easy to download and install and you easily switch between your regular keyboard functionality to this one that lets you type vowels with fadas.

http://mearchlar.tripod.com/

as is a preposition and it translates to "out of" in this context.
béal is "mouth".

As béil babaithe agus leanaí ar an gcíoch.
(My attempt at "out of the mouthes of babes and sucklings.)

Before Marcia asked her question above, I had just thought of Fear na mBróg's way of referencing someone as slightly anatomical, but after his response to Marcia's question, I starting thinking "I've heard a phrase something like "out of the mouthes of babes" before but I couldn't put my finger on where. So after a little googling I found at:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/275000.html

quote:

From the Bible, King James Version:

Psalms 8:2: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

Matthew 21:16: And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

This is a nit-pick, but in Irish you never have a séimhiú on an adjective or genitive noun that describes another noun which is plural... unless the plural noun ends on a slender consonant.

Another way of remembering it is that if there's a slender consonant at the end, then you're gonna wanna have a séimhiú on the adjective or genitive noun that follows.

Therefore you have:

Chonaic mé fir mhóra.
As béil bhabaithe

A Fhear na mBróg,

Go raibh maith agat as an ceartúcháin. I hope I can remember that one. I'll add it to my ever-growing compendium of the workings of the genitive in Irish.

Seo na véarsaí chéanna ón mBíobla Naofa:

"Cinnte!" arsa Íosa leo, "nár léigh sibh riamh é seo: 'As béal naíonán agus leanaí deoil bhain tú moladh amach duit féin'?" Matha 21:16

Moltar do mhaorgacht os cionn na spéartha
as béal naíonán agus leanaí cíche. Salm 8:2-3

quote:

'As béal naíonán agus leanaí deoil bhain tú moladh amach duit féin'?" Matha 21:16

In my attempt at translating into Irish, I used Ó Dónáill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Bearla's entry for the plural of "mouth" which is shown to be "béil." I see from Foclóir Beag, http://www.csis.ul.ie/scripts/focweb/Exe/focloir.exe, that the the plural for "mouth" is listed as "béala" with a footer indicating "béil" also.

I also see at Focloir Beag that "naionán" is the plural genitive for "infant," which is also the case with Ó Dónáill. So, my question is why is there this construction of using the singular "béal" for mouth coupled with a plural genitive "naionán.?"

Go raibh maith agaibh.

I think I might have figured my dilemna out above. In Aonghus' quote, they are using the plural genitive of "mouth" which is "béal."

I'm still confused, just now on a different point.

So my question now: Is the genitive case used after the preposition "as?" Ó Dónáill's FGB indicates under the entry for "as:" does not affect the initial letter of following noun.

Go raibh maith agaibh

(Message edited by mac_léinn on May 27, 2007)

(Message edited by mac_léinn on May 27, 2007)

Foirmeacha
béal - ainmfhocal béal [ainmneach uatha]
béil [ginideach uatha]
béala [ainmneach iolra]
béal [ginideach iolra]
béala [ginideach iolra]
béil [ainmneach iolra]

4.3 An Tuiseal Tabharthach
Leanann an Tuiseal Tabharthach an chuid is mó de na
Réamhfhocail Shimplí. Cad iad na Réamhfhocail Shimplí? Seo
liosta díobh:
ag, ar, as, chuig, de, do, faoi, go, i, ionsar, le, ó, roimh, thar, trí,
um.

---

But I wouldn't expect any change for the dative> This is one for the grammar gurus.

(Message edited by aonghus on May 27, 2007)

A Aonghuis, tuigim anois. Agus ceist eile, le de thoil. An ionann an tuiseal tabharthach leis an tuiseal ginideach?

I mean the word form is the same. I know they have different lots in life

(Message edited by mac_léinn on May 27, 2007)

If béal is feminine there is nothing stopping you doing i mbéil for the dative

Go raibh maith agat a BRN. I can't wait to delve into the mysteries of the dative and all its forms, both feminine and masculine and I'm sure there are hundreds of exceptions to each rule. Only problem is that time-wise, my current lifetime is needed to try and figure out the genitive!

Only a handful of nouns have a unique dative, and most of them are parts of the body (i láimh, i gcois). Use of a special dative elsewhere, I would say, is probably gonna make you come across as a stuck-up posh ponse.

Béal is masculine, and has always been so. Its unique dative was beol (compare with ceann - cionn). So "i mbéil" could be plural only.

and by the way...

béil as plural means "lips", thus "as béil" means - "from lips" etc..