How do you spell and pronounce "Patricia" in Gaeilge? And "Bruce"?

They are not Irish names, so its more a case of 'as you like it'. I direct analogy would be [pat̪ɾɪʃə] and [bɾuːs] which would be more likely than [pʷatˠ̪ɾɪʃ̪ʲə] and [bʷɾuːs̪ˠ] (kind of half way house between Irish and English sounds)

Spelling would be left in English

(Message edited by bearn on July 01, 2007)

If you're looking for Irish equivalents, for Patricia it would be Pádraigín [ˈpʷæːdɾɪɟin]. Bruce would be Brús [bɾuːsˠ] as a first name, de Brús [dˠə ˈbɾuːsˠ] as a surname.

I could use some help with this. I'm studying Gaelic, but haven't learned much. How would you say the name "Heather" in Gaelic?

"Heather" is "Fraoch". I recall having a little debate before about what the vocative and genitive case of this name should be.

(In Irish, the vocative case is used when you're addressing someone, as in "John, come here.")

Anyway, "fraoch" is a noun in Irish that refers to the heather plant. Its forms are as follows:

nominative singular: fraoch
nominative plural: fraoigh

dative singular: fraoch
dative plural: fraochaibh

genitive singular: fraoigh
genitive plural: fraoch

vocative singular: a fhraoigh
vocative plural: a fhraocha

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that the vocative singular is "A Fhraoigh", but this conflicts with the normal treatment of feminine names whereby the vocative doesn't change them. Anyway in the end I decided that all forms of the name should be "Fraoch".

Go raibh maith agat!!!
I know someone named Heather.

dative singular: fraoch
dative plural: fraochaibh

what exactly is the dative case? :-/

Imagine like, say 7000 years ago, there was a language where instead of saying, like in English, 'Jack sees the cat', where the first noun in the sentence is the main person/thing of the sentence, you used a little particle like (s) for the subject of the sentence and (o) for the object of the sentance, so you got 'Jacks sees the the cata).

Now that we use this system, we dont need the words in a rigid sequence, so:
Jacks sees the the cata
Cata sees the the Jacks

mean the same thing. This means that the word changes its form to signal meaning changes. Over many generations and centuries the endings stopped been mobile, so all words were just learned with them added on when they did a certain function in the sentance.

Europeans langauges were once like this -the dative was to indicate the noun to whom something is given, so 'Cat got a kick" might be (d for dative) 'Jacks kicks the ca(t)d'. (Román will know better examples!)

We dont really need it now, but it was something that just developed over time.

In Irish the dative is a catch all term for the old dative, as well as the instrumental and ablative case that disappeared before old Irish.

It is seen only in bits and pieces in Irish today (fuinneóg vs ar an bhfuinneóig) -the change in form comes after the preposition 'on' (ar as in ar fhuinneóig).

That is the history lesson! FRC

quote:

so you got 'Jacks sees the the cata'.

You don't need 7000 years, a chara. Lithuanian still is this way. Or the way all Europeans spoke 3000 years ago. The sentence above is:

Džekas mato katiną.

Nominative of all masculine nouns ends in -as
Accusative in -ą.

Actually, I was trying to portray a suffixing language becoming a case based, then a syntax based one :), tho fixing, case, and syntax are not always mutually exclusive

quote:

what exactly is the dative case? :-/

A case used after most simple prepositions (so "prepositional case" fits better)

Lars

Question. If one is using the Irish variant of their surname
what is the difference between O'Conghaile and O'Conaola... is it the same or does it depend on what you just want to call yourself or is O'Conaola an updated spelling? Just wondering. I guess it doesn't really make a difference how one spells their name. I got a kick out of trying to track down my great grandfather. I first found him in the 1860 census as Conley in 1870 he was Connolly in 1880 he was Conly in 1890 he was Conely and by the time he died in 1896 he was Connelly. I don't know what he called himself in Irish. He was an Irish speaker but my father said he could never understand him. Another old uncle said the he thought the old man said he was O'Connell and the O became the the y at the end of Connelly, another version is the name was Connellan and the English changed it to Connelly. On well
I imagine it doesn't really matter but I sure wish I could time travel bck and ask the old man what the heck the original name of our family might be.

Where was he from?

Different septs went for different spellings in Irish and Englsih.

QUOTE: what exactly is the dative case? :-/

The following is admittedly an over-simplification, but I would find the following helpful if I were just starting out:

Nominative = Subject of the sentence -- John threw the ball.

Accusative = Direct object -- John threw the ball.

Dative = Indirect object -- John threw Harry the ball.

quote:

Dative = Indirect object -- John threw Harry the ball.

Most simple explanation I'd give is that you have the dative case after a preposition (on, in, under, about, between, with, of, through, over, to, from).

Subject of the sentence uses the "null" case: Bhí an bháisteach ag titim ar an tigh

Object of the sentence uses the "null" case: Chonaic mé an bháisteach

After a preposition used the dative case: Bhíomar ag caint mar gheall ar an an mbáistigh

And then there's a handful of reasons for using the genitive case: Is aoibhinn liom fuaim na báistighe

The "An Caighdeán Oifigiúil", Irish for "A pile of crap", likes to pretend that the dative case takes the null form. Also I believe it has "na báistí" instead of "na báistighe".

QUOTE: Most simple explanation I'd give is that you have the dative case after a preposition (on, in, under, about, between, with, of, through, over, to, from).

Is fior é, ach this starts to wobble when you get into languages; ie Latin which have the Ablative Case that also follows an understood preposition.

No big deal. Just showing off.

If I can be of some help :
The word "dative" comes from the latin verb "dare" which means "to give". The idea is thus TO GIVE something to somebody or , in actions, to have an action towards somebody . There is a notion of movement "towards", or giving "to" or "towards" somebody.
Consequently, in many cases , in many languages (Indo-european languages), it is used after prepositions which have this meaning of "giving to" or "direction towards", in prepositions of movement for instance and in many prepositions in which you can find this idea of movement or gift .
It is used without preposition in many languages to mark the person to whom something is given or towards whom the action is directed.
In some languages the place of the noun is also very important even if the dative case indicates all this .
In the English phrase : "John threw Harry the ball", "Harry" would be in the dative case if declensions still existed . With the alternative, i.e. : "John threw the ball to Harry" , "Harry" would also be in the dative case and we could have said that the preposition "to" was followed by a "dative case".

Failte Romhat, a Jehan! I believe you'll have much to offer here. Don't go away.

FIRST NAMES

http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaeilge/focloiri/abhair/

Look under 'Ainmneacha', where there is a large no. of relevant links.

By the way, my favorite woman's name in Irish is
Lasairfhíona, which is usually anglicized as 'Lassarina'.
It means 'flame of wine' and probably refers to the fact
that if one holds a bottle or glass of red wine up to a light, there seems to be a flame in it. 2nd favorite:
Dordmair [or Dordmuir]- 'murmuring of the sea'. Both
names were those of daughters of kings.

Our Irish names are the best!

SURNASMES

The most authoritative source of data is
_The Surnames of Ireland_, by Edward McLysaght, who for many years was the Chief Herald of Ireland. He
also wrote a sequel called _More Irish Surnames_. Both
books should be available in the reference room of
any good library.

PS. to Tim Connelly- my mother was a Connelly, whose
people came from Bantry Bay, County Cork.

As béal Phádraig:

quote:

Is fior é, ach this starts to wobble when you get into languages; ie Latin which have the Ablative Case that also follows an understood preposition.

No big deal. Just showing off.

Not only do people make the mistake of thinking that grammar actually exists, but they use the same grammar for all languages. In other languages, the dative case may exist even where prepositions aren't concerned, but that doesn't apply to Irish -- (not that I know of in anyway). Well actually, I can think of one place where it might apply:

Lig sé dosna fearaibh ithe.

I've seen people not bother with the preposition "do" when they're using "lig", so I wonder if they'd say:

Lig sé na fearaibh
or
Lig sé na fir

The "An Caighdeán Oifigiúil", Irish for "A pile of crap",

LOL !

The "An Caighdeán Oifigiúil", Irish for "A pile of crap", likes to pretend that the dative case takes the null form.
Bhíomar ag caint mar gheall ar an an mbáistigh
Real living speech in Connemara also uses mar gheall ar an mbáisteach

Yes but Connemara Irish is the most watered down of all Irish. The hit show, Ros na Rún, is based there, and ya here the likes of "Beidh mé ag babysiteáil" and "Tá an bainne sa fridge". My own ancestors, (well, great grandparents, if ya can call them that), are from Connacht, but I prefer to learn Munster Irish as I feel it's more Irish. Also, I suppose there's a certain amount of laziness involved, as I really don't wanna go down the road of learning "ainmneacha na bhfir".

I don't consider what I learned from the cradle watered down. Furthermore, I don't consider Ros na Rún to be representative of Connemara Irish. Maybe Johnny Chóil Mhaidhc, Máirtín Ó Cadhain, or Páraic Ó Conaire. I'm as disgusted as you are by the use of English terms. I don't agree that Munster Irish is any more Irish than ours, and I'm not sure on what basis you can make that assessment. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but it is just that--your opinion.
Having had the privilege of hearing the old speakers before radio and television polluted the language, I think our Gaeilge was the equal of any other. Pearse and Synge must have thought so too.
We say "ainmeacha na bhfear." I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm also not quite sure what purpose it serves to criticize other dialects, particularly when you yourself are but a learner.

I've heard all sorts of things about these watered-down dialects of Irish where there's no genitive case and so forth. I've also heard that some dialect says "na bhfir" for genitive plural. As for Munster Irish being less watered-down, I base this on quite a few things, here's two:

1: Still has forms such as "cheapas" instead of "cheap mé".
2: Still has the dative case plurals "ar na daoinibh, ar na fearaibh, leis na múinteoiríbh"

My own dialect of English is a watered down version of Oxford English, e.g. I don't distinguish between "shall" and "will", and I don't use "whom". English is my native tongue however and I can understand all dialects of it so I couldn't be bothered learning more "proper" English. Also, everyone would look at me weird in my local town. As for Irish though, this is an acquired language of mine, and so I can freely choose which dialect I want, and I choose Munster over Connacht.

As for claims that you're a native speaker, ya probably have to give yourself a name before people take any heed in what you say.

quote:

ya probably have to give yourself a name before people

That's rich coming from someone who uses a pseudonym in order to be able to be abrasive and abusive with impunity.

Of course you can freely elect which dialect you want to learn, but unless your credentials and abilities supercede those of people such as De Bháldraithe and Ó Siadhail, I don't think you're in any position to lecture anyone on dialects. English is an acquired language of mine and I do use whom, and nobody seems to care. As for my name, I gave you that already. Besides, what's written ought to stand and be judged on its own merits, regardless of who its author is.

Scríobh Fear na mBróg

quote:

I've heard all sorts of things

Ní fianaise atá ansin. Ní hionann claonbhreith agus tuairim bhunaithe.

Maidir le Ros na Rún; tá sár-chainteoirí le clos ansin freisin. Leithéidí Diarmaid mac an Adhastair. Ach pé scéal é, níl i Ros na Rún ach siamsaíocht. An nglacfá le Fair City mar phictiúr cruinn de do shaol i mBÁC?

quote:

ya probably have to give yourself a name before people take any heed in what you say.

I wonder if it's possible to choose the username Unregistered Guest, and if so, would that meet Fear na mBróg's criterion for heed taking?

As béal Aonghuis:

quote:

That's rich coming from someone who uses a pseudonym in order to be able to be abrasive and abusive with impunity.

What exactly is a psuedonym, a Aonghuis? Is "Aonghus" a psuedonym? My name here is Fear na mBróg, and has been Fear na mBróg for a long time now.

As béal ár n-aoi neamhchláraithe:

quote:

As for my name, I gave you that already.

You post as "Unregistered Guest" -- how in the name of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes am I supposed to know who I'm talking to and whether they previously "identified" themselves.

As béal an mhic léinn:

quote:

\I wonder if it's possible to choose the username Unregistered Guest, and if so, would that meet Fear na mBróg's criterion for heed taking?

A name is a label by which someone is known. It is a handle. When someone says "Jamie", people knows who's being talked about. One acquires a name through usage. If the poster in question were to choose the name "Unregistered Guest", and if they could somehow distinguish them from new posters who use the same name, (e.g. by a different font colour even), then all would be fine in the world of Daltaí. Until then, the name "Unregistered Guest" referes to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Someone said "I don't consider what I learned from the cradle watered down". The only way I can understand that statement is that the person - who chooses to remain without a moniker - is saying that the language of a native speaker must **by definition** be good, and cannot be watered down. That is a point of view. You could say it represents the approach of modern linguistics. But it is not the only point of view possible on the subject. Take English for example: from Unregistered Guest's point of view, Scouse, Geordie and Cockney English (spoken in Liverpool, Newcastle and the East End of London respectively) must be good, cannot be watered down, purely because they are native. No other criterion is being adduced. Native = good quality. However, there are other criteria that could be brought into play: accuracy in historical terms, accuracy in terms of words that are clearly confused etc. Look at this:

Speaker A(native): I bought mine in MFI.
Speaker B(native): I brought mine in B&Q.

Speaker A(native): I could have done that.
Speaker B(native): I could of done it too.

Both are native. Modern linguistics professors might say both are good, as native=good quality. Someone else would say speaker B was confusing words and grammatical forms.

Connemara Irish: it really makes no difference what Unregistered Guest thinks of Connemara Irish, because certain statements can be made about that dialect that are irrefutable (regardless of whether the person making the statement is fluent or not, a native speaker or not, or even Irish or not). I have never heard Unregistered Guest speak, so I can't address his Irish. All I can do is talk about the Irish described by O'Siadhail in Learning Irish, which may or may not be the same as UG's. On the basis of this, I will make a couple of examples: Connemara people pronounce "do" and "de" both as "go" and make no distinction between them. This is like the brought/bought could of/could have thing above. If you take the view native is always good, then you will think it good to speak like that. Otherwise, you might think that sort of Irish is uneducated. Connemara people also say "feicim" for I see, instead of "chím" [ní fheicim for the negative verion is correct; feicim for I see, is however a serious grammatical error]. Now of course we know grammatical errors/simplifications in Connemara Irish have been adopted into the absurdly named Official Standard Irish. But: in this case, with Ulster and MUnster both preserving the original distinction between chím/feicim. This sort of Irish is not good, however native it is.

Unregistered Guest: have you seen the show Little Britain, with "native speaker" Vicki Pollard? Do you think the words "sumfink" and "nuffink" are good English? If you can say yes to that question, then I will agree you are someone who believes that authentic dialects cannot be incorrect. But if you cannot say yes to that question... your assertion Connemara Irish is good cannot be logically sustained.

quote:

If the poster in question were to choose the name "Unregistered Guest", and if they could somehow distinguish them from new posters who use the same name, (e.g. by a different font colour even), then all would be fine in the world of Daltaí.

I just realised that "Unregistered Guest" would be an impossible username, since it contains a space and a second capital letter and I don't think one can have different colors in a username - shucks! The best one could hope for would be "Unregistered_guest." Then the question is, would the underscore and lower-case "g" be enough to make all fine in the world of Daltaí?

Personally, I think it's great that folks can post here as unregistered guests and hope that they can continue to do so. I don't think being registered gives any more credence to what one has to say. If fact, often I take more heed to some of the unregistered guests' postings than those with posh monikers.

quote:

Speaker A(native): I could have done that.
Speaker B(native): I could of done it too.

Not that it's terribly relevant to the discussion but I'd like to tackle this one. How this whole "should of" error thing came about is that "have" is pronounced as "a" or "uv" in some contexts:

I should have seen it / I shuda seen it.

Did you give him the number? No? Well you should'uv.

People then went to write this down and figured they were saying "of" because "of" also takes up these prounciations at times. It's just a sound to them.

Another modern development is taking place in Dublin English at the moment. People are saying "I shuda telling um" instead of "I shuda told him". I'm pretty sure this has come from the phenomenon that "being" and "been" are prounounced identically here, and so people are switching from using the adjective form to using the "ing" form.

As béal an mhic léinn:

quote:

I don't think being registered gives any more credence to what one has to say.

You're right, being registered doesn't make much difference, other than the fact that you can't be impersonated. What does make a difference however is having a name by which people are familiar with you. You have the handle, An Mac Léinn, well established here.

scríobh Fear na mBróg:

quote:

What exactly is a psuedonym, a Aonghuis? Is "Aonghus" a psuedonym?

It would take you about 5 mins research to find that I post here under my real name. Several posters on this board have met me in person. Several others have interacted with me under this name across several fora and years, and are aware that it is my real name. I am willing to have my opinions associated with my real name.

You (for reasons which seem obvious to me) are not.

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

pseu·do·nym
a fictitious name used by an author to conceal his or her identity; pen name

how in the name of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes am I supposed to know

Cha chuala ná char léigh mé a leithéid ariamh! Tá sin ionta’ greannmhar, maith thú :-D

Scríobh Peadar:

quote:

feicim for I see, is however a serious grammatical error]. Now of course we know grammatical errors/simplifications in Connemara Irish have been adopted into the absurdly named Official Standard Irish.

A Pheadair, cén chaighdeán is bunús leis an ráiteas sin?

We have a strange coalition of the willing here: FnaB who claims grammar doesn't exist, and Peadar claiming that Connemara Irish contains serious grammatical errors...based on an unspecified standard.

quote:

Speaker A(native): I could have done that.
Speaker B(native): I could of done it too.

quote:

How this whole "should of" error thing came about is that "have" is pronounced as "a" or "uv" in some contexts:

There are two ways of conveying the meaning could have or should have. Let's look at "Could have:"

1. Could have
2. Could've

In both instances the pronunciations are obvious. Both are correct, Standard English, but they have different pronunciations of the same meaning. Furhermore, there's no difference in pronunciation between "could've" and "could of," but before now, I never saw anyone write "could of," or "should of." On a similar note, there are many people in the States, particularly in the South East, who pronounce "isn't" without sounding the "s." It's as though they're pronouncing "in't." But I never saw anyone, no matter how they pronounced it, write anything other than "isn't."

Pseudonyms! There have been so many wonderful pseudonyms over the course of history. My favorite is Mark Twain. I learned recently that even the great philosopher Aristocles went by a pseudonym, which means "broad backed." A Member of the Day award goes out to the first one who can tell me that great philosopher's pseudonym. Unregistered guests are also eligible to participate, but will receive an Unregisted Guest of the Day award instead.

http://aonghus.blogspot.com/2006/11/cleiteachin-agus-ainmneacha-cleite.html

Níl freagra do cheiste agam, a Mhic Léinn, ach tá súil agam go bhfuil droim leathan agus muineál teann ag fear Chonamara.

Le ceithearnaigh na Mumhain agus Ulaidh chomh flúirseach anseo...

Aristocles was the real name of the philosopher Plato.

Dialects don't contain errors. People who speak a dialect use certain words/grammatical constructions with a purpose and not randomly... All these things are correct for the linguistic system of a dialect though they may and do look wrong when compared to another variety.

The whole standard English is 'watered down' and 'incorrect', actually a mere jibberish, when compared with the language of, say, Beowulf.

Daithí

I'd love to see a life cycle of a language, illustrating when in its life it gets more complicated (e.g. adding cases), and where it gets watered down (e.g. removing cases).

Can anyone give me a link to a web which will teach me how to PRONOUNCE the little Irish I am learning, le do thoil?

A Fhir na mBróg

Languages are shifting from synthetic to analytic and back all the time. For example the verbal system of French is rather simple (if we exclude spelling) when compared to that of its precursor, Latin, and grammatical person is denoted by means of pronouns rather than by adding endings. However in the future the pronouns may fuse with the following verb yielding synthetic forms. This might happen because of different sound changes at the boundaries between the two that would make these boundaries obscure. Eg, je m'appelle /zhmaPEL/, tu t'appelles (tytaPEL) or so... then zhm- and tyt- would become personal prefixes. After this, due to more sound changes, lots of forms can become irregular and complicated to memorise or the affixes become identical to each other and thus not clear enough - then people start using personal pronouns again, and drop the endinigs and the story is at its beginning...

A Bhrúis

I know no links with instructions how to pronounce Irish, and I don't think it's very useful to learn from such instructions, because Irish pronounciation is rather different than that of English. So the best thing for you to do is get yourself a CD with the texts from which you are learning..

Slán go fóill,
Daithí

Oh yes, and analytic languages aren't 'watered down' either. The fact they lack (a complex) morphology almost always makes them have a complicated syntax.

Mar shampla, tá (syntax) Bhéarla réasúnta casta i gcomparáid le (syntax) na dteangacha Slábhacha, a bhfuil gramadach casta go maith acu (7 dtuiseal srl)

Daithí

ps. cén Ghaeilge atá ar syntax?

http://www.focal.ie/Search.aspx?term=comhr%C3%A9ir&lang=2

comhréir

Does anyone know how to spell "Lovvorn" in Gaeilge?

Does anyone know how to spell "Mozart" in English?

A Pheadair,
Tuig leatsa an rud a scríobh mise a thuiscint ar bhealach ar bith is mian leat féin. Níl sé cóir, áfach, go ndéarfadh tusa leis an saol céard a bhí i gceist agamsa nuair nach bhfuil a bhfuil an t-eolas sin agat féin. Tá fhios ag an saol nach bhfuil i ngach ráiteas anseo ach barúil. Cén fáth go gcuirfeá an méid sin áma amú dá scríobh sin? Gan dabht, tá an oiread barúlacha faoin téama sin is a bhfuil de dhaoine lena dtabhairt.
Thug tú le tuiscint freisin gur shíleas gur sórt saineolaí ar an ábhar mé de bhrí gur chainteoir dhúchais mé. Ní raibh mé ach ag iarraidh peirspictíocht an chainteora dhúchais ar a theanga féin a thabhairt, rud nach dtuigeann tú de réir do chuid rámhaillíochta.
Ní dóigh liom go sílfeadh cainteoir dúchais d'aon teanga go bhfuil a theanga féin "watered down." Sin a raibh i gceist agam: nach ndéanann cainteoir dúchais ar bith anailís ar a theanga de réir chritéir ghramadaí. Sin í obir an teangeolaí nó an fhoghlaimeóra.
Maidir le do chuid ceisteanna i dtaobh Vicki Pollard, ní fhreagróidh mé iad mar níl aon bhaint acu leis an rud a bhí i gceist a'msa.
Níl fhios agam cé acu de na canúintí a labhrann tú féin, ach táim cinnte go bhfuil ar do chumas an méid seo a fhreagairt i nGaeilge mhaith ón méid a bhí le rá agat faoi Ghaeilge Chonamara. Agus más é do thoil é, tabhair freagra ar cheist Aonghusa freisin. Agus a Aonghuis, tá mé ábalta do rud ar bith atá ag na h-Ultaigh agus na Muimhnigh nuair a thagann sé chomh fada le Gaeilge Chonamara a chosaint.
Micheál Ó Tnúthail
Boston

A Fhear na mbróg, you can study the evolution of any of the Romance languages--e.g. Spanish from Classical Latin--to see how they dispensed with synthetic forms in favor of prepositions etc. Does anyone consider Spanish a watered down version of Latin?

As béal an chuairteora neamhchláraithe:

quote:

Ní dóigh liom go sílfeadh cainteoir dúchais d'aon teanga go bhfuil a theanga féin "watered down".

Cainteoir dúchas den Bhéarla mise, agus is féidir liom adhmháil go bhfuil mo chanúint féin uiscithe thíos ón mBéarla a labhraítear i gcodanna Shasana. Ní dhéanaim idirdhealú idir "shall" agus "will", agus ní úsáidim "whom". Cé go dtuigim an Béarla a labhraítear i Sasana, agus cé go dtuigim an chaoi ina oibríonn an ghramadach, ní dhéanaim iarracht é a labhairt mar is as Bleá Cliath mé, agus is Béarla Átha Cliath a labhróidh mé. D'ainneoin sin, dá dtósódh duine ag labhairt canúint eile ina cheantar féin, bheadh muintir na háite ag caitheamh súil ait air!

Agus maidir le Spáinis agus an Laidin Chlasacach, déarfainn féin gur leagan uiscithe thíos í an Spáinis di.

quote:

Dialects don't contain errors.

Wrong assumption. Otherwise, why are seanchaí so valued if you could stop any Jack-Mary and record her speech? Only the best speakers usually don't make mistakes. By mistake I mean the discrepancy from the usual way of saying things by the same speaker. If someone says form X, say, 1000 times, and all of sudden in the identical situation the same person once says Y - what it is? Is it not a mistake? We all have slips of tongue from time to time even in our native tongue - it is very humane.
Now - when we talk about dialect speakers - there is even more complicated situation. People are never schooled in dialect, so those people usually even don't know how to spell the forms they pronounce. All they have is a sound, so many things are wrongly re-interpreted. See the discussion above about "should've" becoming "should of". Due to good knowledge of English language history we know for sure that "should of" could never evolve naturally - only as re-interpretation of 'should've'. I will give you example of obvious mistake in the dialect.

There is such word "cuideachta" - which is obviously derived from "cuid", no doubt about that. In Corca Dhuibhne this word is pronounced "cleachta" (just like 'exercise') and the way was following:

in Munster -ach- gets a strong stress if in the second syllable, so the first vowel falls out. You have:

cuideachta -> c'deachta -> cleachta

Shall we claim that Corca Dhuibhne has a special meaning of the word 'exercise' - "company" as well (with sinister implications)? No, it is what it is - wrong analogy.

No, Spanish is not a watered down version of Latin; it is a separate language. But the Vulgar Latin from which it emerged was a watered down version of Latin.

It is true that periods of decline can give birth to something new eventually. But in the case of the examples we gave [de/do confused, feicim used wrongly], the trouble is that these distinctions have not died out in the Irish language. Even if Connemarans say feicim, 2 dialects against 1 say chím. If every native speaker of English uses "brought" as the past tense of the verb "to buy", then there is no sense in going back to past forms. But if the educated classes still maintain the distinction between bought and brought, then those who do not are speaking bad English.

Languages change. But the languages of the educated classes change more slowly.

The case with Irish is unusual. The educated classes maintained all these distinctions (de vs. do, feicim vs. chím, synthetic verb forms, the dative case etc), but all of a sudden the Irish government intervened to say "the new standard" removed these distinctions. This was not natural evolution of the educated classes' Irish, but a decision by the government to teach future generations of Irish people a watered down Irish, so that even those "educated" through Irish would lose those distinctions.

Now: there were logically 3 possibilities. Given the situation they faced with quite a large variety in Irish speech, a savage reduction in the number of speakers of the most conservative dialect, they could do 1 of 3 things. Let me give examples from English to clarify.

"To whom" is on its way out, but is not dead. However, its use is not compulsory.

1. The government could say: "to whom" [or chím] is the standard, has always been the standard, and so must remain so, regardless of the numbers using it. Result: may the standard deviates increasingly from the speech of the majority.
2. The government could say: "to whom" [and chím] cannot be "wrong", as they are historically correct, but their use is not mandatory. I think this is the situation in English: we have a "broad" standard where "who... to" and "to whom" are both seen as correct. Even if the language of the majority has moved on, it would not be right to tell those who keep up traditional forms that they are "wrong". So the standard can include both forms. In the case of the Irish, this approach would result in an **extremely** broad standard, where anything from Munster to Connemara Irish was regarded as correct.
3. The government could say "to whom" [and chím] are no longer correct. They would face accusations of social engineering and duumbing down, and it would require marking as incorrect the historically correct forms, but would have the advantage of moving the standard close to the language of Connemara natives, who are in the majority.

The Irish government chose option #3.

quote:

close to the language of Connemara natives, who are in the majority.

Are they? I was under impression there are more *daily* speakers in Donegal, than in Connacht. Please remember that vast swathe of Connact Gaeltacht is no more Irish speaking than any other non-Gaeltacht territory in Ireland - meaning all area east of Galway, to the north of it, Joyce county, then this funny area of Roundstone (I think nobody, locals including, knows why the area is "Gaeltacht"), then almost whole of Magh Eo (except Ceathrú Thaidhg and Blacksod) and Achill islands. There is more of territory than of content in Connacht.

Scríobh Míchéal

quote:

Agus a Aonghuis, tá mé ábalta do rud ar bith atá ag na h-Ultaigh agus na Muimhnigh nuair a thagann sé chomh fada le Gaeilge Chonamara a chosaint.

Mo ghraidhn thú!

Scríobh Peadar:

quote:

3. The government could say "to whom" [and chím] are no longer correct.

That is a misrepresentation of the stature and purpose of CO. It is a NORM for official use only. It is explicitly stated that what is correct in a dialect is and remains correct for speakers of that dialect.

Irish did not have an opportunity to evolve a standard; one was needed for official work to ensure a common standard, one was created by the foremost scholars in Ireland at the time.

A slip of tongue is a different thing. I'm talking about completely wrong assumptions that new phenomena in a speech (whatever their origin) are wrong. They may be considered incorrect from the viewpoint of a Standardized grammar or so but they certainly aren't wrong for a native speaker of a dialect.

I don't understand how pre-Spanish vulgar Latin can be said to be watered down, and that the even more watered down Spanish isn't so?! Maybe because the latter has a standardised grammar book and a dictionary?

Languages are changing constantly. And not any degree in their evolution is either wrong or watered down. English still has the th's of 'thing' and 'that' and German doesn't but German still has the cases. Gothic had both. However, whilst in the present-day English a pronounciation like 'tanks' or 'fanks' is considered watered down, a Proto-Indo-European could OF proclaim the same 'th' of the Proto-Germanic dialect (in say 'that') to be a corrupt and sloppy version of 't' (in PIE *tod)!!

Daithí

quote:

Languages are changing constantly.

True, but how is it related to the whole story of caighdeán creation? When 3-4 guys proclaim that "in the window" is "ag an bhfuinneog" - does it mean that the language has changed? Munster, Connacht and Ulster alike have a slender consonant at the end of the word, caighdeán notwithstanding.

quote:

I don't understand how pre-Spanish vulgar Latin can be said to be watered down

Because there was established written language, and the speakers of vulgar Latin were perfectly aware that they use debased literary language. The language change becomes established fact when the change is "sanctified" by some language authorities. Untill then it is just a bad language, like saying "fank you" instead of "thank you".

quote:

That is a misrepresentation of the stature and purpose of CO.

Theoretically true, but look at the facts on the ground. Something what was developed with the sole purpose of standardising output of Dáil's translators has been imposed through educational system on the whole country as THE language. And then we had hordes of freshly baked "múinteoirs" correcting native children, because their speech did not comply with "the" language. I am not sure if caighdeán's creators were aware that their child would be used to impose literary standard - they would make the same caighdeán. Maybe they would eschew some of non-sensical rules in grammar which are contrary to 95% of dialectal usage (like leniting of -s- depending on gender, rules for genitive plural of adjectives and the like).

I don't approve of things such as ag an bhfuinneog either, but something that exists in the spoken language can't be said to be wrong and that's it. It's just people's attitude, and it can be and often is not realistic.

** Because there was established written language, and the speakers of vulgar Latin were perfectly aware that they use debased literary language. The language change becomes established fact when the change is "sanctified" by some language authorities. Untill then it is just a bad language, like saying "fank you" instead of "thank you". **

Ok. Now the CO has been 'sanctified by some language autorities' and thus it's the only correct variety and all the rest is corrupted and sloppy. But we all know it's not so.

quote:

something that exists in the spoken language

Ok, but what about something that does not exist in spoken language (like "ag an bhfuinneog")? Can it be said to be wrong?

quote:

Now the CO has been 'sanctified by some language autorities'

Which authorities? Does (now defunct) ITÉ have the same prestige and standing like Académie Française? Such bodies have won trust and prestige over centuries. Still - I am not sure you all know this - but Académie has tried to make a minor reform of French spelling in the beginning of 90s (major feature would be abolishment of accent circumflex) but faced with fierce protest by publishers of major dictionaries (Hachette et al) and general public - they had to back down.

Féach an rud a scríobh Daithí:

But we all know it's not so

quote:

Aristocles was the real name of the philosopher Plato.

Maith thú a Mhaidhc! Is é Platón an freagra ceart! Bhí mé i Virginia inné agus inniu ach is tú Ball an Lae!

Tá fáilte roimh cheartúcháin, go raibh maith agaibh.

quote:

3. The government could say "to whom" [and chím] are no longer correct. They would face accusations of social engineering and duumbing down, and it would require marking as incorrect the historically correct forms, but would have the advantage of moving the standard close to the language of Connemara natives, who are in the majority.

The Irish government chose option #3.

And since then, people like Peadar have come up with all sorts of fantastic theories to try to discredit both the CO and the Connemara dialect.
M Ó T

quote:

I will make a couple of examples: Connemara people pronounce "do" and "de" both as "go" and make no distinction between them. This is like the brought/bought could of/could have thing above.

I don't think this is the same phenomenon. Ruairí Ó hUiginn writes about this in Stair na Gaeilge: "Malartaíonn /g/ (nó /g'/) agus /d/ (nó /d'/) i roinnt focal eile, m.sh. dualainn(STíre 2; CO gualainn). De bharr go ndeachaigh an t-idirdhealú idir na fuaimeanna seo ar ceal agus iad faoi shéimhiú a tharla seo." I can't see how you can equate that process with that of confusing two different verbs, or employing prepositions instead of auxillary verb forms.

Somebody remind me what's the Munster practice with "de" and "do"?

There was this book I read once called "An tOileánach"....

quote:

I can't see how you can equate that process with that of confusing two different verbs

Sad that you don't see it, as it is the same process rooted in phonetics. [br] in English is a single sound not [b]+[r], and its difference from [b] is slight in some English dialects, that is why you have this bought-brought confusion, or could've-could of (again, the same pronunciation). Conamarian "go" instead of do - was confused in lenited forms: both dho/gho sound the same. From there confusion spread to unlenited forms. I don't suppose that saying "dualainn" instead of "gualainn" is something to be proud of - such things arise from poor schooling and nothing else.

quote:

Somebody remind me what's the Munster practice with "de" and "do"?

In Ciarraí - merged into "do"
Corcaigh, an Rinn - separate
Uíbh Ráthach - have no idea

A Rómain,
I guess most sound changes are rooted in phonology, but it doesn't follow that all sound changes occur for the same reasons. As for the [br] and [b] sounds in English dialects, I would need a more objective, more learned analysis of that than what you can provide.
I presume that you would consider metathesis, e.g. 'berdán' for 'bradán' in Munster as something perhaps arising from over-education, if 'dualainn' instead of 'gualainn' is a consequence of poor schooling in Connemara! Or were the [br] and [b] sounds also similar in Munster Irish? Read Seán Ó Súilleabháin (Stair na Gaeilge p. 491).
All of these sound changes are natural linguistic phenomena, as Daithí explained earlier. They occur across all languages and all dialects. I certainly don't mean to disparage Munster Irish; I like it, and I like those I know who speak it. My argument is with the small group on this forum--most of whom haven't displayed proficiency in any Irish dialect--who nit-pick and whose sole purpose seems to be to put down an entire region and its people, rather than to learn, or to educate and inform.

quote:

I presume that you would consider metathesis, e.g. 'berdán' for 'bradán' in Munster as something perhaps arising from over-education

I would leave my presumptions to my self. Metathesis in such words is caused by stress shift in Munster, so your irony is not appreciated.

quote:

if 'dualainn' instead of 'gualainn' is a consequence of poor schooling in Connemara!

Yes it is. If someone knows how the word is written, then there is no such confusion of d/g, as initial form is wrongly restored on the basis of lenited form. All this Conamarian "tigim" instead of "tuigim" is of the same provenance. And YES, there was historically poor schooling in Irish in Conamara - witness of that almost total absence of literary production from that province in 16-19 centuries.

quote:

witness of that almost total absence of literary production from that province in 16-19 centuries.

I thought we would come around to this eventually.
More Munster manuscripts have survived, therefore Munster Irish is the only true Irish, the only worthwhile literature.

That is an old canard.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, a Róman.

http://www.clanntuirc.co.uk/TRAA/TRAAreamhra.html#Anchor-Connacht-5773

quote:

Mhair tábhacht Chonnacht i dtaobh an TRAA go dtí c.1775, nuair a scríobhadh LS 55, a bhfuil trí cinn de TRAA inti, le Brian Ó Fearghail, file agus géag d’fhine léannta eile. Is dócha gurbh é Brian é féin a rinne uimhreacha 14 agus 15 as véarsaí a thóg sé as lámhscríbhinní eile, agus feictear dúinne gur comhartha é seo go raibh tionchar na foirmle ag dul i léig anois i measc aos dána Chonnacht, cé go raibh samplaí de TRAA á scríobh i lámhscríbhinní i gCo. Liatroma go dtí 1842 (LS 133). Ní féidir, ar ndóigh, a bheith cinnte cén uair a dtáinig deireadh lena gcumadh in áit ar bith, ach is cosúil gur mheath ar thábhacht na foirmle i measc filí Chonnacht i ndiaidh c.1775.

TRAA = Trí rann agus amhrán, foirmle litríochta thabhachtach.

I thought that Munster and SE Ulster were the main preservers of a literary tradition. They kept up a literary culture. Is that not true?

Why are more manuscripts available from those places?

Even if Aonghus shows that thousands of manuscripts were written in Connaught... I doubt he can show that current-day Galway Irish is the general content of those manuscripts. Did Douglas Hyde choose to write in Munster Irish? Or does his "by the fireside" writing show that Roscommon Irish was quite different from Cois Fhairrge?

Anyhow, Aonghus, manuscripts or no manuscripts, you have your work cut out showing that the Galway Irish with no cases apart from genitive singular has not simplified or dropped a lot of Irish grammar when compared with previous centuries' forms.

Irisher-than-Thou-ism.

God, if anything will be the death of this language...

Peadar,

if that were the case, how is it some of the foremost writers of the 20th century are from Connacht? (Mairtín Ó Cadhain, Mairtín Ó Diréain, et al).

And, as an additional twist, Tomás Ó Criomthain (An tOileánach) was illiterate in Irish until people gave him books in it, and he learned to write from them. (Peig was completely illiterate).

This kind of dialect one-up-manship is silly.

Dúirt Róman:
'If someone knows how the word is written, then there is no such confusion of d/g, as initial form is wrongly restored on the basis of lenited form. All this Conamarian "tigim" instead of "tuigim" is of the same provenance.'


I don't think languages are changing just because they're not written (if they aren't). Compare the differences in pronounciation between the New Zealand English and the American English, as well as those between the Southern US English and the speech of New England or the Midwest... As far as I know, English has been written for the last 300 years at least.:-)

Concerning 'tigim', how would you explain 'tóig' instead of 'tóg', or 'dúin' instead of 'dún'? By the way, to my knowledge, words like tiomáint, are pronounced 'tumáint' in other dialects as well, and there are lots of other words that used to begin in a slender consonant in Old Irish but this changed to a broad one or the opposite.

My own language was seldom written in the past, and still it's rather archaic compared to other languages of its family, some of which have a rather long tradition of writing. It's also interesting that a lot of its dialects that have never been written at all (or have been so only recently) often have certain remarkably archaic features.

Daithí

P.s. There seems to be another Daithí around here too!

The whole "do" and "de" merging thing is quite similar to what we have here in Dublin, i.e. people pronouncing "then" and "than" the same. Some of them don't even know that "than" exists as a word separate from "then".

I'm bigger than you = I'm bigger then you

quote:

This kind of dialect one-up-manship is silly.

A Aonghuis, it is simple bigotry. And these are the very ones carping about education.

quote:

I thought that Munster and SE Ulster were the main preservers of a literary tradition. They kept up a literary culture. Is that not true?

Why are more manuscripts available from those places?

This is what Seosamh Mac Grianna from Donegal, one of the pre-eminent writers and intellectuals of the past century, wrote:

Níl dóigh ar bith ab fhearr a dtuigfeá an duifear atá eadar na trí Ghaeltacht ná éisteacht le fear as Tír Chonaill agus le fear as Conamara agus le fear as Ciarraí ag inse scéil. Beidh scéal an Ultaigh faobhrach, agus beidh sé soiléar céillí ó thús deireadh. Inseochaidh fear Chonamara scéal lena chroí agus lena chorp, agus beidh fuinneamh gaoithe sa scéal sin agus beidh tormán gáirí ann mar bheadh ag scaifte a dhéanfadh dearmad den tsaol. Inseochaidh an Muimhneach scéal nach bhfuil aon chuid mhór brí ann, agus scéal b'fhéidir nach dtuigeann aon duine ach é féin é....D'fhéadfá an chéad scéal a scríobhadh gan athrach ar bith a chur air; mhillfeá an dara scéal dá scríobhfá é; níorbh fhiú go minic an triú scéal a scríobhadh.
Dúirt mé go millfeá an scéal Connachtach dá scríobhfá é. Ach níl sé sin fíor go hiomlán; dá mbítheá i do scéalaí mhór d'fhéadfá é a scríobhadh.

This is from Mac Grianna's critical essay on Páraic Ó Conaire, who along with Páraic Mac Piarais, developed the modern Irish short story. So much for literary tradition and manuscripts!

quote:

Inseochaidh an Muimhneach scéal nach bhfuil aon chuid mhór brí ann, agus scéal b'fhéidir nach dtuigeann aon duine ach é féin é.

And this is the argument? We all know Mc Grianna brothers hated Munster Irish - thanks for reminding, so? Where is the argument? Maybe because everybody outside of Munster was simply jealous of copious and exquisite literature existing in the South for centuries?

quote:

Mhair tábhacht Chonnacht i dtaobh an TRAA

What does this prove? Nobody really thinks there was nothing written. But the amount and quality of texts is simply incomparable.

quote:

Tomás Ó Criomhthain... Peig

Yes, when I mention Munster literature then everybody in a bout of faux-naïvety deflects attention to Peig. No, i didn't mean this rural autobiographies, not at all. I meant the great poetic schools of 18th century, Parliament na mBan, Midnight Court, Merryman - many other names, I am sure you know - and this has nothing to do with Peig. Can you cite anything comparable to Parliament na mBan?

quote:

how would you explain 'tóig' instead of 'tóg', or 'dúin' instead of 'dún'?

There was always variantion between broad and slender root consonants in all Irish dialects. However "d/g" variation in "guala(inn)" is cause by sole reason - people don't know how the word is written, period. Can you explain why only Conamarians have such problem with this word and nobody else?

Róman,

I suppose you know Cúirt an Mheon-Oíche is available in audio form from this address?
http://www.rte.ie/rnag/cuirtanmheanoiche.html

In theory it should be possible to capture the audio without buying the CD...

quote:

Yes, when I mention Munster literature then everybody in a bout of faux-naïvety deflects attention to Peig.

Not my point. My point was that at the start of the 20th century, even the best speakers of Munster Irish, along with pretty much all other Irish speakers, was illiterate in Irish. The Irish literary tradition was the preserve of a small and scattered elite. Therefore I think your argument that Connachtmen cannot speak Irish properly beacuse they cannot write it properly is irrelevant.

The only reason I got involved in this argument at all was that I see a Californian and a Lithuanian from their respective Ivory towers being needlessly offensive to a native speaker from Conamara. The probable result of that will be to drive away someone who could very likely be very helpful to learners on this board, a number of whom are interested in Conamara Irish for good reasons of their own.

'There was always variantion between broad and slender root consonants in all Irish dialects. However "d/g" variation in "guala(inn)" is cause by sole reason - people don't know how the word is written, period. Can you explain why only Conamarians have such problem with this word and nobody else?'

I'm sure there are a lot of similar examples elsewhere. Can you explain why the Lithuanian nasal vowels lost their nasality despite the fact they have always been represented by special letters with ogonek denoting nasality (ą etc)??? Writing can't prevent the spoken language from changing (compare Welsh too).

Daithí

quote:

Writing can't prevent the spoken language from changing

"Guala" did not change in "duala" in Irish. At least if we think that whole of Munster, Ulster, Mayo and even north Connacht (Tuar Mhic Éadaigh) are representative enough of Irish. It is only in a small patch of Gaelach territory called Cois Fhairrge people took to the habit of saying "dualainn". Even there word "shouldering" is still "guailneáil", not "duailneáil". So your example is not very helpful.

Róman, you're saying that Conamara people (or at least some of them) have "a problem with" this word gualainn/dualainn, and with g/d in general. I guess I don't understand the reason you call it a "problem." So far you seem to be raising two separate objections to it:
(1) It's too localized. Irish didn't change, only Conamara Irish, or only Cois Fharraige Irish. Dialects are okay but we need to limit how far they diverge - is that it? If so, is it divergence from each other you're concerned about, or divergence from Classical Irish, or what?
(2) It was rooted in a spoken rather than a written understanding of the language. Again, I really don't see why this makes a particular change an "error", or dialects in which it has occurred inferior, less valid, less Irish.

Am I right that you'd consider "cnuimh" (Munster back-formation from "cruimh") a "problem" of the same magnitude and for the same reasons?

quote:

"cnuimh" (Munster back-formation from "cruimh")

Hypercorrection, actually. Nuair a dhéantar "enthuse" ó "enthusiastic", sin back formation. Ach is suimiúil an phointe í sin. Conas atá cúrsaí san Iorua?

quote:

you're saying that Conamara people (or at least some of them) have "a problem with" this word

What I said initially was that saying "dualainn" instead of "gualainn" is nothing to be proud of. Do you consider this habit a reason for pride, Abigail? We should start by answering this simple question, otherwise, we are just talking in circles with no clear direction.

Neither pride nor shame - any more than I attach to someone's saying either "cluinstean" or "cloisteáil" or "cloisint" in preference to the other two. Different forms are present in different dialects. I'm comfortable with that, and I don't think any of them is (objectively, linguistically, in and of itself) a cause for pride. Nor do I think any of them is a problem.

In practice, I do enjoy it when I find out that something I've been saying myself is particular to Conamara. (It happened with "luí" the other day; I hadn't stopped to think that I was pronouncing it differently from how it's spelled or how other dialects pronounce it.) I'm always a little bit proud of myself when that happens - not because I feel that the Conamara way is the best way or the only way or the most-Irish way, but because it means I'm succeeding as a learner, absorbing and internalizing the language the way I hear it.

In English it's another story. Certainly I'm proud of my own dialect: it reflects who my people are and where I was raised. Again, I don't necessarily consider it the best way or the only way, and I don't speak that way myself all the time, but I'm glad that it is different and that I do have it. (At the same time, it's a pride that does not translate into scorn for other people's dialects or for "standard" (i.e. CNN or BBC) English.)

If I were a native Irish speaker I imagine that's how I'd feel about my own dialect of Irish too. I'm not, though, so the satisfaction I take in using Conamara forms is just a student's pride in a lesson properly learned.

Abigail

quote:

quote:

"cnuimh" (Munster back-formation from "cruimh")

Hypercorrection, actually. Nuair a dhéantar "enthuse" ó "enthusiastic", sin back formation. Ach is suimiúil an phointe í sin. Conas atá cúrsaí san Iorua?

Ah. GRMA as ucht mo théarmaíocht a dheisiú!

Níl a fhios agam - ach bhí siad maith go leor cúpla seachtain ó shin! Bhí an-an-scoil againn: neart matamaitice, neart comhluadair agus neart cnoc. (Deirimse "cnoic" mar gurb é sin a thug na hIoruaigh féin orthu. Rudaí chomh hard sin agus crannteorainn le feiceáil orthu agus paistí sneachta ar a mullach, deirimse leatsa nach é "cnoic" an chéad fhocal a ritheanns liomsa!) Ar mo bhealach abhaile i ndiaidh na scoile, chaith mé Oíche Fhéile Eoin in Oslo agus bhí sé sin suimiúil.

Bhí mé rud beag traochta faoi deireadh an turais áfach. Ní dheachaigh sé ó sholas i gceart san oíche, agus is cosúil nach féidir leis an óinseachín seo dhul a luí in am ceart in easpa an chomhartha sin.

"We all know Mc Grianna brothers hated Munster Irish"

Cén fáth? She's old fashioned, but still a lady, even if not as dark and exotic as Donegal. Still gots those hips (case system) too!

*** "Guala" did not change in "duala" in Irish. At least if we think that whole of Munster, Ulster, Mayo and even north Connacht (Tuar Mhic Éadaigh) are representative enough of Irish. It is only in a small patch of Gaelach territory called Cois Fhairrge people took to the habit of saying "dualainn". Even there word "shouldering" is still "guailneáil", not "duailneáil". So your example is not very helpful. ***



My example is extremely helpful. Most language changes start somewhere, in some dialect, and then they spread to the rest.
However, I don't want to argue. I'm perfectly sure that what I've written is correct. And the point is that there's nothing wrong or incorrect in any spoken idiom if all members of a speech community consider it OK. And the speakers of Conemara Irish ara such a community. So dualainn is wrong (or rather weird) to an Ulsterman, but it's quite fine for a Cois Fhairrge speaker.

When you create the Standard Language, you tend to choose the most widespread forms and words. So in this case you wouldn't choose duala(inn). On the other hand choosing special dative plural forms as the only correct options also wouldn't be right because most Irish speakers don't use them.

I however agree with you concerning 'ar an bhfuinneog' etc. because something like this simply doesn't exist nor has it ever existed...

Daithí

I tend to find that the "Standard" or "most exhaulted" dialect tends to be the one which is least evolved. If we had an English dialect today that still said "thou, thee, thine", then you can be sure it would be the Standard.

With Irish, I'm sure there was a time when everyone said "le gréin", but the language has evolved since then, but in different directions for different dialects though. Munster Irish, I think, would be the least evolved, the least changed. Ulster has its nice features too. I've never had an interest in Connemara Irish though, mostly because of the extensive use of English words -- I mean if the goal isn't to speak their native language then why speak it at all? I'm sure they'd get along just fine in English.

You say this as though the Irish in Connemara is nothing more than English with a particularly strong paddy accent.

Conemara people don't listen well to outsiders -so what and how they speak is more an abstract debate

As to language borrowing, is there any language on Earth that borrowed more that English did? And it's still English!

Standard isn't always the most conservative variety. Actually, concerning English, the South-Eastern English which served as a base for the Standard is rather innovative in many respects:

Which = witch
bind, blind, find for beend, bleend, feend (in certain northern traditional dialects of England and Scotland)
house, about for hoos, aboot... (Scotland)
light, eight (=lite, ayt) for hmm /lixt, ext/ (Scottish dialetcs...)
etc. etc.

By the way, I think there IS an English (actually Scottish) dialect with thou/you distinction.

Daithí

quote:

an English (actually Scottish) dialect

English dialect? I am sorry, but if you mean Scots - it is not an English dialect, but a separate language evolving from different base.

quote:

On the other hand choosing special dative plural forms as the only correct options also wouldn't be right because most Irish speakers don't use them.

Your point doesn't have any merit, as whether it is -ibh or -í - pronunciation is the same in Connacht and Ulster. Thus when you say "áiteachaí" - actually you say "áiteachaibh" - you just don't know it. Replacement of original nominative with dative is a well attested trait of Connacht Irish. So we may say that Connacht irish has lost all nominatives in both singular and plural and replaced them with datives.

Munster dialect is the only one which clearly articulates both -í and -ibh, so when someone uses dative there is no ambiguity that dative was used.

dia dhaoibh, my Im wondering if any of you know the irish version of my surname Dillon. go raibh maith agat.

my surname Dillon I think is either diolun or dilmhain, not sure any help?

quote:

What I said initially was that saying "dualainn" instead of "gualainn" is nothing to be proud of. Do you consider this habit a reason for pride, Abigail?

I was the one who wrote about this, in an attempt to explain the change from the /d/ sound to /g/. Whether it's something to be proud of or not, never entered into my reckoning: I don't see it as a battle for dialectal superiority. But obviously, I was leaving myself open for those who have other agendas.
If these people who criticize Connemara Irish, rave about the dative case, etc. actually took the trouble to read the literature available on this, they would find the following: there are but vestiges of the dative case in Munster Irish; the dative case is often used for the nominative; the gentive has weakened, as it has in other dialects.

Dillon - Diolún --An HIberno-Norman name according to MacLysaght.

quote:

the dative case is often used for the nominative

Says someone from Conamara. It is simply ridiculous...

quote:

The only reason I got involved in this argument at all was that I see a Californian and a Lithuanian from their respective Ivory towers being needlessly offensive to a native speaker from Conamara. The probable result of that will be to drive away someone who could very likely be very helpful to learners on this board, a number of whom are interested in Conamara Irish for good reasons of their own.

And I'm grateful that you did weigh in with your usual rational and insightful comments, Aongus. I say the same to the other people who took a stand against this needless silliness. I know it's pointless to debate these individuals, but I simply cannot watch them write this stuff and not say anything--which for me would be tantamount to tacit agreement.
No, they will not drive me away. The great majority of people on this board are tolerant, fair-minded, and respectful of diversity. We can allow these few to hoist themselves with their own petard.
Micheál Ó Tnúthail

quote:

against this needless silliness

Can you say anything on the topic. Or the sole purpose of your anonymous apearance is to flame?