My name is Elizabeth Doyle, and I am trying to learn Irish Gaelic. I have been for a while. Can anyone suggest a cd or computer program that might help me. I've found books, but, it really helps when you can hear what needs to be pronounced. I live in Cypress, Texas and there isn't much out here on the subject! Thank you.

Hi Elizabeth!
My name is Udo and I´m from Germany.
I startet with "Now youre talking!" from Gael Media.
There are 5 audio cassettes you can order with the book and I think it´s very good for beginners.
I´m sure you can still order it in internet.

Thank you! I will definitley look for that.

Tá fáilte romhat!
You're welcome!

"but, it really helps when you can hear what needs to be pronounced"

my experience is that if you cannot hear a sound nor make a sound that is not in your native tongue, you often cannot make it -but of course native English speakers can do anything...

Yes! you are correct! I am lucky enough that my father and I have still have a bit of an Irish accent. I have been trying to learn Gaelic for about a year now. The closest class room type of teaching is in Austin, Texas, which is about 4 hours away from me.

"I am lucky enough that my father and I have still have a bit of an Irish accent."

An Irish accent is no use when learning Irish. How would it help you know grammar or idiom or pronunciation?

I apologize if I have offended you.

quote:

An Irish accent is no use when learning Irish. How would it help you know grammar or idiom or pronunciation?

Coz it helps to have a German accent if you speak German.
Coz it helps to have a Spanish accent if you speak Spanish.
Coz it helps to have a Polish accent if you speak Polish.
Coz it helps to have a Thai accent if you speak Thai.
Coz it helps to have a Japanese accent if you speak Japanese.

It seems downright STUPID that I even have to make this point. OF COURSE an Irish accent will help if you want to speak Irish. Sure, there are Irish sounds that aren't present in English, but the "lilt" or whatever they call it is the same.

It'd be a different story if I, as an Irishman, wanted to learn French. I'd learn to immitate the accent before even learning the language.

Wow! Did I "open up a can of worms" or what? This all started out quite innocent this morning. All I did was ask for some assistance. Oh well, negative or positive, the feed back is still educational. I just want to learn how to speak Gaelic, so I can hopefully teach my children. It is a beautiful language and it is a part of me and my family. When I am out and trying to "study" people will ask me what I am reading, after I explain to them about the Gaelic language they are shocked to find out that there is another language spoken in Ireland beside English. So it's nice to enlighten them.

An Irish accent will not help you to speak Irish as Irish Gaelic and English are two different languages. What you are saying is that speaking with an English accent is going to help you sound like you are a native Gaelic speaker. This is false equation.

German accent if you speak German.
Spanish accent if you speak Spanish.
Polish accent if you speak Polish.
Thai accent if you speak Thai.
Japanese accent if you speak Japanese.

Gaelic accent if you (grew up) speak(ing) (native) Irish Gaelic

Gaelic is not very like English in its sounds. If you have been abroad for months, you will appreciate that Irish and English people sounds very like each other, on an inter-language level

Much of what we call 'accent' is a whole suite of differences that strike our ear based on historical linguistic and dialect considerations -be it someone is from a different area from us, or is a native in another language. The important thing is making the phonemic differences in Irish. English speakers in Ireland dont pronounce Irish right as they are in the majority and dont care -but I tell you if English was spoken with Irish sounds, they'd soon change their tune.

Also, Hiberno English does not gets its sounds from Irish, so lets not have that old discussion again -it is not true. Where is is true, it is only in a few small places and among native Irish speakers and old ones at that.

Noelle4,
you did not offend me, I'm just pointing out that putting ona Darby O Gill brogue is not going to help you with gamma, beta, slender r etc in Irish

Well, I never meant for what I typed to sound like I was saying I could learn Gaelic because of my accent. I was merely saying that I am Irish and proud of it. If you reread what I sent at 11:44 I do not say anywhere in my message that because I have an accent I can learn to speak Gaelic. Again I do apologize if I pushed any of your buttons, so to speak. And I appreciate your input, thank you.

Noelle, try to ignore the snipes. For some reason this place has become a vipers' nest lately.

I'm a beginner just like you. What you will find most useful will depend on your learning style, but like you I find that I need a good audio component to ensure that I'm pronouncing things correctly. I find this is particularly important with Irish. With Spanish or German you can look at a word an pretty much know how it's pronounced. With Irish... not so much. So, the audio part is fairly critical.

Personally, I've found the book-and-CD set of "Learning Irish" to be the most productive use of my time. It's a solid, step-by-step approach with a thorough audio component.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300121773

If you decide to go this route, make sure you get the product that has the CD's or tapes. The book by itself will probably be useless to you.

Thank you very much, I will look into getting the "Learning Irish" book and CD set. As far as the snipes. It doesn't bother me. I believe everybody has a right to there own opinions. I tell my children it takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.

Thank you again!

I don't think there is much point in typing much more on the subject, as I think a blind spot has been hit.

Sometimes it helps to speak in generalities so the gist is communicated. I never care how people pronounce anything, it is the THINKING that i pick up on.

What I perceive to be going on (not you Noelle) generally, is when people talk about having sound samples is that they seem to assume that by listening to them that they then speak the same as the natives. This is nonscence.

In any new skill, one needs practice and feedback. I can still drive, but still go for lessons to ensure kinks are ironed out. I dont assume I'm Michael Schumacher.

Some of the posters here seem to think that by plucking for 'Conemara Irish' or 'Munster Irish' or 'Donegal Irish' etc that they are somehow speaking that dialect... They even refer to a 'Munster blas' etc. When I hear them, all I hear is another slow American accent. I cant see much of that Munster grammar, except adding -as to the 1st person singular verbs in the past. They are living in fantasy.

This is not a rant, I just write in a circumlocutous fashion

There are plenty of audio products available through Schoenhof's and Litriocht:

http://www.schoenhofs.com

http://www.litriocht.com/shop/index.php?cPath=46_40&osCsid=1d980af39d8ae7853a559 1b915c3c2f0

Like I said earlier I've opened up a cans of worms! This is the first forum that I have ever signed up on. And boy has it been an experience! Thank you also for your input.

Noelle4

Bearn, far be it from me to speak for most "slow Americans," but for my part the chief benefit of having a sound sample is not so I can delude myself into thinking I speak like a native. Where you get that is beyond me.

Rather, sound samples assure me that I'm pronouncing the word correctly, and this is critically important because Irish words, to my eyes and ears, are insanely easy to mispronounce.

Perhaps since you were raised with the language all around you, it's lost on you how incredibly byzantine and perplexing the spelling is relative to the pronunciation. A million apologies if I can't look at a word and get it right the first time, just like that. I need an audio guide.

Out of curiosity, I have to ask, is this kind of perpetual criticism for criticism's sake the way of life over there? It's like we can't do a damn thing right here. If one wants audio samples, then they're "trying to pretend they're fluent as a native" and "living in a fantasy world." On the other hand, I can't imagine what kind of put-down would get leveled at somebody who came in here saying they didn't need an audio guide--no doubt they'd be labeled arrogant and unappreciative of the complexities of the glorious Irish language. And may God forgive us for studying Connemara Irish - plainly that's just not Irish enough.

You freaking can't win around here.

"slow Americans" -as in you speak ver-y-slow-ly, that's all. I never said anyone was stupid.

I was just saying something from my perspective -I was not actually referring to this thread or people on this thread at all

As regards parochialism, i like all the dialects, so what I said was about people getting caught on one dialect, but then not actually speaking it!

Á, sin í an fhadhb is dócha! I mBéarla Mheiriceá ciallaíonn "slow" duine atá bómánta. Deireann sibhse "thick", nach ndeireann?

Noelle,

One of the things you'll have to learn on this site is to ignore the ranting and bickering. That would be my recommendation for about 2/3 of this thread.

Regarding a means of learning Irish...Gaelic is more properly a class of languages, of which, Irish is one. Manx is/was another and Scots Gaelic is another. When one says "Gaelic" it is generally accepted that one is talking about the Scots version. Irish is just called...well....Irish.

So...regarding a means of learning Irish....

Learning Irish

Teach Yourself Irish

Irish On Your Own

Failte agus Gaeilge

Buntus Cainte

these are just a few titles, each with their advantages and disadvantages. They range from very academic descending right down to rote memorization pretty much in the order I've listed them. The dialect ranges are equally diverse. We all have our preferences (mine is Learning Irish) but you'll have to decide which is best for you.

I would suggest you make your decision based upon your prefered style of learning rather than a particular dialect. Once you've been at it for a while, the dialect itself becomes a secondary issue. You'll be able to understand one versus the other with little difficulty.

Hope this was a bit more helpful than some of the less "focused" responses.

Le meas,

James

About Buntus Cainte... if you're even still here:

I'm not sure if it comes with CDs or not, but it's a great learning tool for beginners. I found Learning Irish very confusing - Buntus Cainte is what the Irish schoolteachers used to use to teach children Irish in the 1950s so it's nice and basic. I found an Irish teacher so I don't need the audio but you're going to need something with CDs.

If it comes down to Buntus Cainte vs Learning Irish (assuming Buntus Cainte has audio), I would go with Buntus Cainte.

Now this is all personal preference so I don't want to start a fight over something silly.

Yes...Buntus Does come with audio. My version has tapes but I'm almost certain that the newer editions have CD's.

No worries about starting a fight here...how one learns is HIGHLY personal. I love Buntus Cainte for some of its simplicity. I use it to augment what I've learned from O Siadhail....it's great for long car drives!!

Oh there are newer versions? I was under the impression that they were out of print!

Thank you everybody for all the suggestions. I am definitley going to sit down and look into each of them.

James, as far as your comment about the ranting and bickering, it did make for an interesting day, which started out rather dull.

Thanks again,
noelle

Remember, you can buy both Buntús Cainte and Learning Irish right here on daltai.com!

http://www.daltai.com/siopa/siopa.html

I got my BC here, but I bought LI through Barnes & Noble because I wanted the very newest one with CD's (the one on offer here appears only to have cassette tapes).

Irish accent usually has very little to do with Gaelic sounds. Majority of Irish English accents derive from the speech of planters from Mid-England. So having a forebear who spoke like a Broomie is NO HELP AT ALL in leaning Irish.

A Dhonaill,
further to the thinking angle, i would like to add that understanding the logic of Irish spelling, I find, like in other walks of life, intellectually, is a step towards actualizing it within ones ability.

For example, all that is really happening in Irish is that you have a) 2 categories of sounds b) a method for communicating this.

If you think of the two types of sounds as been fundamentally different, one can choose to view them as different aspect of a polarity, thus broad/slender, light/dark, tense/lax, dense/rarefied etc can become possible as codes for this distinction.

Now insert a rule that individual 'dark' elements tend to group together and individual 'light' aspects do the same, and when they are near to each other a shaded third level exists (glide).

All that is needed now is to code this difference. Dark consonants are flanked by a, o, u; light consonants are flanked by i, e. When vowels from one set are next to another it is either a) diphthong b) digraph =monothong c) glide.

At this point the sound samples should help you to get a feel for the sound system of the language

quote:

Oh there are newer versions? I was under the impression that they were out of print!

The new editions (2004/2005) of Buntús Cainte have CD's, and there is also a "complete series in one pack" version.

quote:

An Irish accent will not help you to speak Irish as Irish Gaelic and English are two different languages.

There are areas in Ireland in which Irish is the native language, i.e. Irish is the language spoken by the people, and Irish is the language which the baby child first hears and tries to communicate in. You can bet however, that the people in these areas also speak English. Furthermore, they speak English with the same accent they speak Irish, even though either language may contain sounds that the other doesn't.

So if you have a Munster accent in speaking English, it'll help in learning Munster Irish as you'll speak more like a native. My own accent, a Dublin accent, is unlike a Munster accent, however it's not as different from it as would be a New York accent, for instance.

That said though, people CAN speak different languages with different accents, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do -- i.e. English with a Dublin accent, Irish with a Munster accent. It's clearly evident that some people are better at picking up accents than others, I'm quite good at mimicking other people myself.

So if you learning to speak Irish, would you not want an accent as close to it as possible? Would such close accents not be found in the country of Ireland? I'd say so.

And even within languages, I've seen people change accent altogether when they go to another place. A friend of mine moves back and forth from the countryside every few months and he speaks totally different when he's down there, even though it's second nature to him.

I can only speak from experience, but I've tutored people in French and when they inevitably tell me they "can't pronounce it," I immediately speak English to them in a ridiculously exaggerated French accent. Then I invite them to do the same.

It's amazing how many people can mimic Pepé LePeu or Inspector Clouseau, sometimes to great effect. From there it's pretty easy to get them to pronounce French words correctly.

I'm not claiming this is a panacea, especially in the case of Irish with its broad and slender consonants. But when it comes to the language's rhythm and flow, the lilt and languor, the sing, song and soul of the language... I think somebody who speaks with a thick Hiberno-English accent has a 100% advantage over somebody who doesn't.

Will they screw up slender and broad consonants? I would assume so... but aside from that, I think they will likely sound more authentic than not.

I really think an English Irish accent could be helpfull in speaking Gaeilge, because there certainly is an influence of Gaeilge over English such as it is spoken in Ireland. How could it be otherwise?
And I also agree with you, FearnamBrog, about the fact that some people have an ability to mimick (just like an ape!) other people. I am this kind of guy, and maybe it's because I lived a lot abroad when I was a child and heard so many different languages (without understanding them!).

One thing I think is very important is the rhythm of the language .
I speak both French and English since my very childhood and I can assure you (I mean, I know you are aware of it , but I insist upon this point) that the rhythm of these two languages are COMPLETELY different and I think I wouldn't be wrong asserting that rhythm is more important than pronouncing certain vowels or consonants.

About picking up new accents: I just think the very first thing to do is NOT TO BE ASHAMED of uttering some strange sounds out of one's mouth or throat ... and sometimes you feel ashamed of that ...that's not so easy.
And it depends also of the surroundings... all the different sounds you hear around you (different parts of your country for instance)(as was saying FnmB about his friend).

In France it is obvious between The eastern part and the south and also my part (south-west). You have the same in London (an accent I know pretty well for having lived there for a while) and in Devon too. I but once went to Ireland , but it seems that my mother gave me this Irish accent (some people in my family say so).
Never been to the US but , I bet that differences are great between Texas and New Jersey for example...
All these different accents have an influence over our ability of uttering other sounds.
Well, that was my opinion ...

ah..the fantasy rolls on regardless. Like the time a few weeks ago when it was pointed out that Dublin could not have come from Hiberno English, given it did not exist till after Dublin had been named, but that did not stop the 'logic' from winning out

I will add, I get what ye are saying, just that it is been a bit over exptended.Sure it helps to characture -I was at a presentation skills course, and we had to get presentations and were rated. Ho hum.

Next, we were given an extremist personality to work 'thru' -I was given a Christian Brother who was pro corporal punishment (who I monikered Colm O Buailachain -pun, geddit?).

The difference was startling -my face, my gestures, by arms and hands -my very presence lit up. I WAS An t-Athair Colm O Bualachain and I was a fanatic.

I was just enjoying the freedom of expression that such lack of caring allowed -hamming it up as you could say.

So i agree, gettign into character is useful for all asorts of things -but I was talking about yes, the broad and slender sounds, that is all, not all the other stuff

Jehan, I doubt anyone could really have full native speaker ability in two languages. Or maybe they can in rare circumstances.


This sentence gave you away: "I speak both French and English since my very childhood"... shd be "I have spoken..."

"it depends also of the surroundings": depends on.

"as was saying FnmB about his friend": as FnmB was saying.


"I but once went to Ireland": I have been to Ireland but once.

Being raised bilingually doesn't mean both languages are spoken well...

A Pheadair,
your remarks lead to a bit of discussion, and... to some other points I wanted do talk about.
As for myself:
I have really been raised in a bilingual atmosphere, hearing and speaking both languages as well. But, of course, I didn't say I spoke these two languages as well...
this morning I must have been in what I call a "french mood" and this is precisely when I make mistakes , ... because I think in french . The mistake "it depends OF" you pointed out is horrible for me and it rarely happens to me. I think that was a mistake in writing (my unconscious drove my fingers, and I wasn't looking at my screen); the other mistakes happen to me when I think in French (syntax).
The reverse phenomenon happens when I speak French and at the same time I think in English.
I don't know if I am fully bilingual . What I know is that when I am tired , one of the two languages is dominant . Sometimes I am late at night with some friends and they just have to understand my English...
Sometimes, on the contrary, my children ask for a translation in English and I am uncapable of finding the correct word; and I just tell them I am not a "living French -English dictionary"!
So, that leads to the point of being in one mood or another... sometimes more French, sometimes more English, or maybe, for you, more Irish or more American (I don't know which nationality you are)... and that is what I was pointing at saying that the surroundings was important . I bet that if you're listening to American folk Songs, you'd have difficulty having some Irish words come to your mind. Ain't I right?
Now, do you know it has been proved in Medicine (by IRM and thermography)that the parts of the brains involved in languages are different in bilingual and monolingual persons. Thus, thermography shows distinct areas in a monolingual brain who has learned (or heard)a foreign language after 3 or 4 years of age and only one area in a bilingual one because then the two languages are mixed up together.
Well, I go back to what I meant firstly ; language is a music , and I think you must try and catch a rhythm, just like for a song, and, only afterwards, can you expect to have a good accent .
(by the way, my accent is certainly not so good as a person living in Ireland or America all throughout a year . I have been living in France for 30 years or so ...), but I just come from a little tour to Jersey (Channel island) and people thought I was Irish... (so what?)I have been to Ireland but once!!
I would like to go on with this discussion but I must leave . It's Saturady and I've got to go shopping...

By the way, I notice some mistakes some times in this place ... such as "been" for "being" , and some others from true American or Irish people .. .
That was just "un clin d'oeil" as we say in French .

Now excuse me if there are some mistakes in all this ; it's not that easy to speak very good English when one is surrounded with so many Frenchies!!!

Slan agaibh!.
PS : clin d'oeil means blink

A chara,

You clearly are proficient in English and don't let anyone else tell you different. I rather like your syntactic choices and don't see anything terribly wrong with them.

As to accents, you all may remember how scared I was before I went to Ireland about how I wouldn't be able to find my American accent and I'd just be able to speak with my Irish one and how I worried that everyone would hate me for it. I spoke with it the whole time and noone cared a lick. I wasted a lot of worry on something that didn't come true at all.

Beir bua agus beannacht

quote:

Jehan, I doubt anyone could really have full native speaker ability in two languages. Or maybe they can in rare circumstances.


This sentence gave you away: "I speak both French and English since my very childhood"... shd be "I have spoken..."

Don't be so quick to let your flawed grammar book dictate what you think. I myself am a native speaker of English and I would have siad the sentence exactly as he did, reason being that the action is carried forward into the present. And before anyone suggests it, I won't have a discussion about English grammar or lack thereof.

quote:

"as was saying FnmB about his friend": as FnmB was saying.

Again, you'll hear people switch the object and subject in certain contexts.

"I went to the shop", siad the tall bearded man.

quote:

"I but once went to Ireland"

Again there's nothing wrong with this sentence.

You're trying to judge our friend here based on your own dialect -- but I for one, as a native speaker of English, can say there's nothing odd about his speech.

As béal Ríona:

quote:

I wasted a lot of worry on something that didn't come true at all.

It's always the way.

"Don't worry about the future -- or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubblegum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind, the kind that blindside you at 4pm on some idle Tuesday." ~ Mary Schmich

**********Jehan, I doubt anyone could really have full native speaker ability in two languages. Or maybe they can in rare circumstances.********

a Pheadair,
It actually is possible. I myself live in a bilingual region and hear people every day talking in two languages and switching from one to the other without any effort. Most people, at least the young, speak both languages equally well.
Daithí

A riona, A Fhir na mBrog
Go raibh an-mhaith agaibh!
I was getting a little bit doubtful about my capacities in English (which after all is my mother language). You helped me getting things straight in my mind!
Thanks .

Here's something very true for all learners of every language:

Your abilities are far more than you imagine them to be.

I've probably been fluent in Irish for far longer than I've thought I am, but I've probably only made such a presumption recently.

Language is the ultimate "humbler". Even when people are borderline fluent, they seem to think they just know a few words. If you've got your head hidden in a book, you won't know til you get out there. Then will you trully see your abilities.

It's a matter of sink-or-swim, a matter of whether they'll stutter and freeze when someone speakes pure foreing-language to them.

P.S. (and I'm blue in the face saying this), the vocative case of my name is "A Fhear na mBróg".

Jehan, your English is fluent, and may be your mother tongue (but NOT your "mother language"). But Fear na mBróg is leading you up the garden path with respect to English grammar. If I managed to learn Irish as well as you speak English, I would count myself lucky, but that does not mean that your English is not clearly of the "foreigner's" variety. The only way I can understand FnB's many comments on English, including previous postings, is that as an Irishman he sees no reason to prize a language that has been foisted on Ireland, and even delights in mangling it.

For a start: "I myself am a native speaker of English and I would have siad the sentence exactly as he did, reason being that the action is carried forward into the present."

This is not an educated comment! Jehan probably knows that "the action being carried forward into the present" is precisely what the perfect tense conveys, and I don't know why FnB does not know that. "Said the tall bearded man" is correct English. "As was saying Tom" is not correct English. "I but once went to Ireland": incorrect on 2 counts. Firstly the "but once" is incorrectly placed; secondly the tense should be perfect.

Jehan, you can choose to listen and learn, or to persist in errors.

FnB's later post shows clearly the nonsensical nature of his earlier post:

"I've probably been fluent in Irish for far longer than I've thought I am, but I've probably only made such a presumption recently."

But according to his early post as "the action is being carried forward into the present", he should have said: "I am probably fluent for Irish for far longer than I think I am".

Clearly, "I've probably been fluent" is the correct form... and so other comments in this thread are **pour les oiseaux**.

Bilingual people that have been living among the speakers of only one of the two languages and with rare contacts with the other one tend to make mistakes though they are fluent in both. I know a couple of people who emigrated long ago and 'forgot' how to speak their mother tongue correctly, though they are quite fluent in it. Typically they introduce constructions from the other language and make mistakes in grammatical things that don't exist in the dominating language.
The people I've mentioned have full proficiency in their second language now.

Dave

What I've been trying to say is that Jehan would, English being his mother tongue, soon correct all his mistakes if he spent a certain amount of time (a couple of months or so) among other English speakers and far away from French.

quote:

This is not an educated comment! Jehan probably knows that "the action being carried forward into the present" is precisely what the perfect tense conveys, and I don't know why FnB does not know that. "Said the tall bearded man" is correct English. "As was saying Tom" is not correct English. "I but once went to Ireland": incorrect on 2 counts. Firstly the "but once" is incorrectly placed; secondly the tense should be perfect.

Incorrect. Who are you gonna believe -- a native speaker, or a book? Oh, "a book" you say? Which book? My book? John's book? The Queen's book?

I can very easily say that the quote I have of you above is complete and utter total bullshit because it differs to how I, as a native speaker, speak the language. Every native speaker has the authority to say how it's done.

quote:

FnB's later post shows clearly the nonsensical nature of his earlier post:

"I've probably been fluent in Irish for far longer than I've thought I am, but I've probably only made such a presumption recently."

But according to his early post as "the action is being carried forward into the present", he should have said: "I am probably fluent for Irish for far longer than I think I am".

And here you are trying to invent something called "grammar". I've said countless times how there's no such thing as grammar, that native speakers speak on-the-fly. The quote I have of you immediately above shows exactly how "grammar" can break down. In this situation you can either choose:

a) Go with the native speaker who isn't even thinking twice about what he's saying.
b) Say he has bad grammar and write a diatribe about how people should speak.

Jehan's English doesn't seem foreign at all to me. Very likely, you red his name, saw that it was foreign, and then red his post with a foreign voice in your head. (and yes I spell the past tense of "read" as "red").

Who has supremacy here? I'm a native speaker of English, should my speech not be valued by people who are trying to understand the language? Or should my speech be dissected and analysed for its differences from a particular dialect which you call the "standard". I don't speak standard English, don't claim to and don't pretend to, so kindly f*** off telling me how to speak my own mother tongue. While I'm at it, I may as well point out your errors. Firstly, "but once" can be put anywhere you like, even though there may be a tendancy in your own dialect to put it in a particular place. "As was saying Tom" is perfectly correct English, regardless of what your dialect thinks of it. "I but once went to Ireland" is grand too, even though the use of "but once" makes the speaker appear posh and pretentious in my own neck of the woods.

You'd really wanna open your eyes to the idea of dialects. Your own "standard" is nothing more than another dialect tossed into the basket, and the only supremecy it has over other dialects is the fallacy you hold in your own head.

“such as "been" for "being"”

Not all of us pronounce the n/ng difference at end of words, and mostly women. For me been is /bin/ or /bi:n/ and being /bi:nj/ or /bi:ng/, so I can see how mixing might occur in some places; for me, when a grammatical distinction is of important the difference is usually kept.


“I worried that everyone would hate me for it. I spoke with it the whole time and noone cared a lick. I wasted a lot of worry on something that didn't come true at all.”

That is because you mixed up the focus on phonetics here with the practicalities of speaking a language in the field. It is easy to get into obsession here but that does not mean natives will care on the ground. You will bore them on your bad grammar and so on –pronunciation that is good might makes them laugh in that situation


“I myself am a native speaker of English and I would have siad the sentence exactly as he did”

I cant agree with this. Grammar is what we call the constraints as a consequence of patterns in the brain and seen in the speech community as regards the syntax of the ‘language’ under question (if we were on an alien world where light flashes were used instead of sound and charge held in plasma clouds substituted for brains we might use ‘constraints’ as a useful tool, in theory at least).

Constraint is related to limitation and without limitation there is no syntax as we know as the simple act of modulating something presupposes a choice of one thing over another (zero or one, right or left, high/low). To me, syntax is predicated upon having a 1 dimensional steam of 0 dimensional code, where placement (beginning, mid, end) is of prime importance. So, if we have a language with VSO arrangement, you expect to find in most cases that scrambling that arrangement potentially messes up the meaning or at least gives more choice, and in a spectrum from correct (as Irish has fronting and other scrambling) to slightly wrong (nearly there but a little odd) to bad but understandable to absolutely wrong (not understandable to native).

To tell someone who is exhibiting too much variance from what a native speaker would PRODUCE is been a bit ‘leis na héin’ (Rómán: leis na héanaibh!) –you should know that we RECOGNIZE the above perfectly well, but do not say things that way. I think you know both the differences but have ignored them in order to make your point against linguistic prescriptivism.


Here is something I wrote in an exam for a English language course I am doing: "that is, 'he/she' are
not used" is the most important part, it could have been "that is, 'he/she' is not used" -are we referring to the two personal pronouns in seperatness or in singular on a more abstract level?

Variance there is OK, and in a way rather unfairly, it matters not what we choose as natives, but to the non-native English speaker, it is not good enough to be laissez faire. If you were learning sword play you would have to do it right, or become a poor swordsman. If you were a master, the odd derivation is a mere flourish


Full context: boring -dont read!
1. Assuming that it is not a simple ignorance of he/she, it may
come about do to the native language having a neuter pronoun for
referring to nouns or people disjunctively, that is, 'he/she' are
not used, but 'it' where pointing out something, or someone, the
gender of the referent having been already pointed out some other
way

My own measure of whether something is correct in English or not is pretty simple: Does it sound a bit weird?

Most things in a language are easily recognised by native speakers as correct or wrong, for the rest they aren't quite sure. That doesn't mean they don't speak the language correctly, it means some change in their language is under way.

The spoken language is rather different than the written language. When speaking you convey a lot of information by gestures, intonation ... which isn't usually shown in writing. You also don't say complete sentences, rather you omit the informationally redundant parts, which usually are shown in writing.

So in a grammar book you may read that this is a conditional sentence:
If you help me I'll lend you my bike.
...and this is a sentence with a temporal subordinate clause:
I'll need a bike while I'm in the country.

But really you'll probably hear something like.

What are you doing tomorrow?
Going on a trip to bla bla... Oh, and I'll need a bike, do you have one?
Yes...
Can you lend me it?
If you help me...

(of course, my English is far from being perfect)

So what some people write may be coming from their spoken variety and look weird in the written form, though it's quite correct really. The things you aren't sure if they're correct usually don't appear in texts, bud are abundant in speech. That however doesn't mean there's no such thing as grammar.

Dave

Fear na mBróg: I not a fan of debates that generate heat only, but no light. I am sure you have NEVER said "as was saying Tom", as there is no dialect of English that would commit such a solecism. As I showed above, your natural English is to use the perfect tense correctly, but for some reason you were prepared to tell a French man that not using it is natural English. However, your natural use of the perfect tense was spotted by yours truly, and ruthlessly exposed. Excuse me for taking no prisoners. And you will never have uttered a sentence like "as was saying Tom" in your life, but your lack of sensitivity to the language may make you unaware of that fact. As I said, I prefer to think that you deliberately crusade for poor English, as a way of paying back the English for the demise of Irish...

So, while it is NOT true that the English of every native speaker is good... there are no native speakers of English who say "as was saying Tom". In the Irish context: no, the Irish of every native speaker is not necessarily good... that sets the bar very low. That is why I go with the Munster variant - the most elegant and correct Irish.

quote:

I am sure you have NEVER said "as was saying Tom", as there is no dialect of English that would commit such a solecism.

One sec and I look up "solecism". . . seems to have something to do with "nonstandard grammar". I myself don't use the construction in question but it's common to hear people from the countryside talk like that.

quote:

As I showed above, your natural English is to use the perfect tense correctly, but for some reason you were prepared to tell a French man that not using it is natural English.

I dunno what the perfect tense is, sorry. What I do know is the words that came out of my mouth when I expressed the idea I had in my head.

quote:

However, your natural use of the perfect tense was spotted by yours truly, and ruthlessly exposed.

Again, I don't know what the perfect tense is. Also, there was nothing ruthless about the alleged exposure, as there was a different sentence altogether in question. There's many things about my speech that I can't explain to you, such as why in some contexts I favour "I've got" over "I have".

quote:

And you will never have uttered a sentence like "as was saying Tom" in your life, but your lack of sensitivity to the language may make you unaware of that fact.

Your grammar is wrong, buddy. We don't use "will never have" like that in Dublin. Dublin is my Standard, and seeing as how I've no regard for any other dialect than the Standard, your grammar is wrong.

quote:

As I said, I prefer to think that you deliberately crusade for poor English, as a way of paying back the English for the demise of Irish...

Cut to the chase. Make two columns, "good dialects" and "bad dialects", and fill it up with all the dialects of English you can find. Something tells me that one of the columns will have only one entry.

quote:

So, while it is NOT true that the English of every native speaker is good... there are no native speakers of English who say "as was saying Tom".

Here's where I have to call you a liar. Take a trip down to a rural area and you'll hear all sorts of poetic speech, "Ah sure twasn't it the small dog saw he 'fore he opened the gate, the big one not at'all."

quote:

That is why I go with the Munster variant - the most elegant and correct Irish.

Someone slap this man in the face with a fish. Really now, come on. How many dialects of English have you been exposed to? Have a real long think about what a dialect is! Have a real long think about what a "Standard" is!

A language is a basket. In this basket, there's eggs. (Yes, "there's"). These eggs are the dialects. The eggs are different shapes, different sizes, different colours. They've one thing in common though: They're all chickens' eggs. Someone came along one day, picked up one of the eggs and said, "Hey let's call this one the Standard". Years later, a chap called Peadar came along to preach how this egg IS the basket, and how all the others eggs are just mistakes. Think... if only they'd picked up the slightly bigger fatter egg, you'd be arguing how "shuda" is the past tense of "should".

"A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot."
--- Max Weinreich

"A language is a dialect with an army and navy."

""Ah sure twasn't it the small dog saw he 'fore he opened the gate, the big one not at'all." "

[brogue] to be sure, to be sure, to be sure! I dont think anyone uses 'saw he' instead of 'he saw' anymore. If they do there might be some tongue in cheek involved. Someone somewhere might, but it must be very rare at this stage

As for "as was saying Tom", I cant find the original context in the above post, but it could occur in country English, or it feels that way, but i dont have an example to hand

I can think of loads of places where "country folk" use different word order and so forth. It's actually quite likeable.

My own mother, for example, uses the following construction:

There he was cutting the grass and she asking him if he was gonna do any work today

Other people use "her" instead of "she", and then other people use "was" with it. There's a whole lot of variety.

As I said, Fear na mBróg, I don't like discussions that generate only heat but no light. You have successfully generated heat; sadly, no light!

The example you gave was: "There he was cutting the grass and she asking him if he was gonna do any work today". This is an example of substandard English as spoken by an Irish person... using Irish grammar in an English sentence. Hiberno-English is a case of badly learned English being transmitted on. Now, I don't doubt some "native English speakers" do speak with Irish grammar in English sentences, but if they do, then they are simply wrong. It is a classic example of speech production by the uneducated.

As for "as was saying Tom", instead of "as Tom was saying": firstly, this is definitely wrong and substandard (to say the least). But I am also disputing whether a SINGLE native speaker speaks like this. You admitted, under pressure from me, that you don't speak like that yourself, but think that some native speakers do [you probaly mean some Hiberno-Irish speakers, if they count as fully native, not being English, like...] But I don't believe you have the sensitivity to language and good grammar to know or have noticed how other speakers speak, and so I think your comments on the matter are not worth much. Please find me some examples of native English speakers speaking like that.

Fear na mBróg: the bottom line is that: whatever you do in life, do it well. If you are scrubbing toilets, make your face gleam in them. Why do anything badly or half-assedly? The Irish are doubly lucky in that they speak two of the most beautiful languages in the world, and ought to take price in both of them! What would Yeats think of this confabulation?

So, if you open your mouth to speak the Saxon language, then please bring your speech into approximation with that dialect taught in the public schools of England and best spoken by Her Majesty the Queen.

If you open you mouth to speak the tongue of the Gaels, then try to approximate to the speech of Peadar Ui Laoghaire.

If you open your mouth to speak the ancient Latin tongue, strive to be an orator in the mould of Cicero.

In so doing, you will be elevating your style and imitating the best!

Oops! Typographical error! I meant: take pride, not take price!

quote:

This is an example of substandard English as spoken by an Irish person... using Irish grammar in an English sentence.

No actually, we're going by the Dublin Standard, not the Oxford Standard. As for it being Irish grammar, that's a bit of a wild claim. It's like saying "He closed the door" is Irish grammar simply because we use all the same words in the same way.

quote:

Hiberno-English is a case of badly learned English being transmitted on.

Hiberno-English, or to give it its real name, The Dialect of English which is spoken in Ireland. How is it "badly learned English" if we're working off the Dublin Standard? Your own English is bad by my standard.

quote:

Now, I don't doubt some "native English speakers" do speak with Irish grammar in English sentences, but if they do, then they are simply wrong.

And what makes it wrong? Who are you to decide that? Are you a supremecist of some sort?

quote:

As for "as was saying Tom", instead of "as Tom was saying": firstly, this is definitely wrong and substandard (to say the least). But I am also disputing whether a SINGLE native speaker speaks like this. You admitted, under pressure from me, that you don't speak like that yourself, but think that some native speakers do [you probaly mean some Hiberno-Irish speakers, if they count as fully native, not being English, like...] But I don't believe you have the sensitivity to language and good grammar to know or have noticed how other speakers speak, and so I think your comments on the matter are not worth much. Please find me some examples of native English speakers speaking like that.

Try not to get too emotional on me there. If I felt under pressure the conversation would probably be a hell of a lot more colourful. As for "admitting" that I don't use that particular construct, are you going to tell me that "ain't" isn't a part of the language simply because I don't use that word either? Or would you have to consult the Queen and ask her?

quote:

Fear na mBróg: the bottom line is that: whatever you do in life, do it well. If you are scrubbing toilets, make your face gleam in them. Why do anything badly or half-assedly? The Irish are doubly lucky in that they speak two of the most beautiful languages in the world, and ought to take price in both of them! What would Yeats think of this confabulation?

You're damn right that I'll speak English brilliantly, and I'll be working off the Dublin Standard.

quote:

So, if you open your mouth to speak the Saxon language, then please bring your speech into approximation with that dialect taught in the public schools of England and best spoken by Her Majesty the Queen.

Finally you bring up the issue. You're preaching about this particular dialect of English simply because your queen speaks it and because public schools teach it. Personally, I think one is a traitor and a coward to adopt the dialect of someone whom they view to be superior to them -- in actuality I find it cowardly even for someone to find anyone superior to them. Not only am I motivated to speak my own dialect of English with pride, but I'm anti-motivated to speak the Queen's! I've no admiration for that woman whatsoever... in fact I quite dislike her kind of people. If I ever have children, I'll have a good stern talk with them if I ever get the inkling that they think someone is better than them -- and I'll be sure to contact their school if they're told that their dialect of English is in any way wrong.

quote:

If you open you mouth to speak the tongue of the Gaels, then try to approximate to the speech of Peadar Ui Laoghaire.

Why? Does Peader Uí Laoghaire drive a nice car or something? Or... let me see... does he have a degree in something? Oo Oo let me guess, did the Queen knight him?

quote:

If you open your mouth to speak the ancient Latin tongue, strive to be an orator in the mould of Cicero.

Don't know the dude, but judging from the people you admire, he or she is properly another pompous pretentious goon.

quote:

In so doing, you will be elevating your style and imitating the best!

Actually if I immitated the best, I'd probably speak like the Scottish... gotta love that accent. Or maybe the Northern Irish. Definitely not the South Africans in anyway, can't stand the way they speak.

"So, if you open your mouth to speak the Saxon language, then please bring your speech into approximation with that dialect taught in the public schools of England and best spoken by Her Majesty the Queen."

What is your rationale for assuming that the Queen's English is the highest standard to which any would-be speaker should aspire?

What are the qualities that make it objectively superior?

quote:

If you open you mouth to speak the tongue of the Gaels, then try to approximate to the speech of Peadar Ui Laoghaire.

With all due respect to an t-Athair Peadar (I presume you mean him), I'm not sure he's the standard that we ought to aspire to. Incidentally, where did you hear him speak? Peadar was a fine writer. He may have been a superb speaker as well, but I know that he learned Irish, not that that matters. But I believe there are many modern Irish speakers whose abilities we can attest to that we might want to emulate.

Domhnall: the English of Ireland is getting closer and closer to British English, and the demise of Hiberno-English shows that if the Galltacht learned Irish in Ireland, and began to speak it, with a bad accent and bad grammar, that problem could ultimately be solved through the education system and by exposure to good media. You ask why the Queen's English (=Standard English with Received Pronunciation) is objectively superior. Yawn. This constant dumbing down. Let me argue this way round: the English of Ireland, as an imperfectly learned neo-native variant, is objectively not standard. You can read all my other comments in other threads on the role of standard languages in society. Do I really need to tell you that in any society an educated variant of the language is established socially and culturally and is an aspect of the Establishment's authority? Do I really need to explain such things to you? Standard English is thus the variant established through public schools and associated with elite social groups. I think boarding schools teaching an elegant variant of the Irish language would have been a good way to go in the 1920s, had an intelligent government been available in Ireland at the time. The way they went about it would provide a certain amount of evidence that the Irish government has never, for a single second, intended to revive the Irish language, despite claiming to be doing so (see for example, the rejection of the introduction of an Irish-speaking administration in Irish-speaking areas - the recommendation of the Gaeltacht Commission). If Irish were the dominant tongue in Ireland, an elegant variety thereof would come to be associated with an educated elite. Standard English is standard because it is the educated variant associated with the British elite. The lack of an Irish equivalent condemns the language to eventual extinction.

As for Unregistered Guest: according to the introduction to Mo Sgéal Féin written in 1915, An tAthair Peadar learned Irish from his mother, who spoke both English and Irish correctly. As a matter of fact, his Irish has been recorded. But I meant that we can try to learn and then speak and write the type of Irish in Mo Sgéal Féin. You said "I believe that there are many modern Irish speakers whose abilities we can attest to that we might want to emulate". This is a meaningless sentence. First of all the "might" cancels out the sentence. Secondly, without naming them or saying on what basis they would be chosen, there is literally no content in that sentence. At a guess, I would say your meaning is that we should emulate ungrammatical Connemara Irish... and "you believe that we might want to emulate that". I know a few Cockney English speakers you "might want to emulate".

"You ask why the Queen's English (=Standard English with Received Pronunciation) is objectively superior. Yawn. "

Peadar, please note that I asked a simple, straightforward question and you greeted it instantly with a condescending "yawn" in lieu of a straightforward reply. This says much.

"This constant dumbing down" etc., etc., etc.

You still have not answered the clearly enunciated question. So, let me repeat it:

What is your rationale for assuming that the Queen's English is the highest standard to which any would-be speaker should aspire?

What are the qualities that make it objectively superior?

That the English have some contrived accent of "received English," of which the Queen is apparently some kind of mascot, proves exactly nothing. If you can produce no cogent reasons why the Queen's English is intrinsically best among all varieties spoken on the planet today then please just say so.

Otherwise, I'll anticipate specific replies to my questions.

Please don't hold this against me, Peadar. Grandiose claims require grandiose proof, and all that.

(Message edited by domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh on July 25, 2007)

(Message edited by domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh on July 25, 2007)

“English...one of the most beautiful languages”

If there ever was a statement rooted in subjectivity…


“Dublin Standard”

The ‘Dublin Standard’ is British English is what you hear on radio, all those blasted off glided vowels –the rounded off-glided o is my pet hate. Whenever I hear on news of someone who died, and then their family come on wailing on the news about it, if they speak with that sound, I know justice has been done. I don’t like British English here, and it is a sign of subordination. The fact that people wilfully emulate it, says it all


“The way they went about it would provide a certain amount of evidence that the Irish government has never, for a single second, intended to revive the Irish language, despite claiming to be doing so”

Everyone knows they never tried, as Irish is British tru and tru. Why would a post British, post colonial country where people are proud (tho they don’t admit it) of been an ex part of the British empire and all the ‘power’ that implied?


“But I meant that we can try to learn and then speak and write the type of Irish in Mo Sgéal Féin.”

I have to agree on the idea of making good early 20th century Irish the model –just look at how Irish has shifted in the last 3 generations. ‘Native speakers’ will have to read translations of their great grandparents in English in the future, so different is Irish getting due to this laissez faire attitude

Peadar, and this too:

quote:

Do I really need to tell you that in
any society an educated variant of the language is established
socially and culturally and is an aspect of the Establishment's
authority? Do I really need to explain such things to you?

Please remain polite or this thread will be closed.

Caoimhín

quote:

Everyone knows they never tried, as Irish is British tru and tru.

I presume this "tru" stands for "through"? If so it amuzes me very much why on earth the Irish fighting for independence did not reject all British artefacts having secured their own state? In this respect Irish independence is unique globally as everywhere elsewhere independence has lead to strong revival of national language and rejection of colonial heritage. Isn't national language the easiest natural way of reinforcing national identity and separateness from colonial masters?

A Chaoimhín, ní cheapaim gur gá idirghabháil sa chomhrá so go fóill. Cinnte, tá se beagán corraithe, ach níl daoine ag ionsaí a chéile -- ag cur a gcoda agóintí in iúl atá siad. Ana-shuimiúil an t-ábhar so atáimid a phlé, agus ba mhaith liom go leanfaí é.

While we're on the topic of which dialect should be "standard" -- if there should be a standard at all -- then I'd probably go with the one that has the most sounds (or phonemes or whatever yiz call them). For instance, in Dublin English, the two "th" sounds become "d" and "t", which can cause slight ambiguity. Another example would be how I pronounce the following two sentences identically:

Don't be rushing! Don't be Russian!

Another example would be a little joke we have here in Ireland:

-What's three trees?
-A small forest.

People always answer "nine".

I've already said that I speak Dublin English simply because it's my native language and dialect, and I've no interest in pretending I'm English, or any other nationality for that matter. I've also said though, that if I were to learn English as an acquired language, that I wouldn't touch Dublin English with a barge pole because it's watered-down from other dialects, and because it has less sounds. This is the difference I see between natives and learners when it comes to a particular dialect.

When it comes to Irish, I chose the one which had the most sounds and the most complication, i.e. Munster. If Munster had become the Standard, then we'd have people like Peadar up in Ulster telling people they should be saying "an t-am so" and that they're making mistakes when they say "seo" instead.

(Message edited by fear_na_mbróg on July 25, 2007)

(Message edited by fear_na_mbróg on July 25, 2007)

quote:

I presume this "tru" stands for "through"? If so it amuzes me very much why on earth the Irish fighting for independence did not reject all British artefacts having secured their own state? In this respect Irish independence is unique globally as everywhere elsewhere independence has lead to strong revival of national language and rejection of colonial heritage. Isn't national language the easiest natural way of reinforcing national identity and separateness from colonial masters?

Then take into account the usefulness of English in today's world. Something tells me there'd be no "Celtic Tiger" without it.

Sorry, I said things (not the one highlighted) that I kinda regretted saying. I came back after the half hour so could not edit it out.

"When it comes to Irish, I chose the one which had the most sounds and the most complication, i.e. Munster."

Mayo and Donegal have retained the most sounds; Munster in fact has the least number of phonemic distinctions left

What about all long a's becoming short a's in Ulster? Presumably this is similar to "Don't be Russian!"?

Also, Munster Irish reflects the spelling more so than any of the other dialects, e.g. pronounciation of "igh" at the ends of words, which is quite similar to how "Queen's English" reflects the spelling more than any other dialect.

(Message edited by fear_na_mbróg on July 25, 2007)

Loss of phonemic length but not quality in final unstressed syllables is what you are speaking of. They are still different vowels.

As for your example, they are different things, as the heavy initial stress has worn away northern endings or in this case deemphasized them (see also dubh, duf, dú for black).

Donegal has not lost the long/difference, but only in final position, and only for a few vowels. All dialects do not consider final a, i, or e when short as separate sounds, and Munster is the same.

Consonants outweigh vowels in number, and the northern dialects have the most consonants, so have the most sounds. Generally, Munster has kept the older grammar, and Mayo/Donegal the old sounds. This is why O Quiggin could reconstruct the sounds of Middle and Old Irish with a degree of confidence when comparing spoken central Irish in Donegal at the end of the 19th century to older written texts -this was not possible with Munster.

This is not a Donegal good/Muster bad, but rather the forms of English in the north keep more palatisation and so are less harsh on the Irish, phone by phone, than in the south. The sing song nature of Kerry Irish and Cork Irish are perhaps assisted in this way also by the fact that English speakers sing song too, so there is no pressure to modify this stress dancing.

Igh -is /j/ -I cannot see any g there. Munster may not have softened it and kept the g, but there is no harm in either pronunciation, g or not.

I like Munster Irish, I just cant understand it spoken liek I can Donegal or Mayo. I can read it of course



"it amuzes me very much why on earth the Irish fighting for independence did not reject all British artefacts having secured their own state? In this respect Irish independence is unique globally as everywhere elsewhere independence has lead to strong revival of national language and rejection of colonial heritage. Isn't national language the easiest natural way of reinforcing national identity and separateness from colonial masters?"

Well if we look at the self conscious elites in waiting in Finland, Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithunia -groups who did not have their native languages at first, we see people of integrity, people in 18th thru to 19th century, people who may have been foreign at first becoming nativized.

In Ireland, people become de-nativized, had NO integrity, and arrived late in the day when most natives were dead and only English was left. The independence was push by groups often outside of the elite. In Ireland, the Anglo Irish did not go, only the faces changed. Remember one thing about Irish people -they talk a good one, but they say one thing in public (Independance good), but in private they could not care if bills paid etc that UK was back in charge.

**** Domhnall: the English of Ireland is getting closer and closer to British English, and the demise of Hiberno-English shows that if the Galltacht learned Irish in Ireland, and began to speak it, with a bad accent and bad grammar, that problem could ultimately be solved through the education system and by exposure to good media *****

Hm, I'm not quite sure of that. English of Ireland is getting closer to BE because of the influence and prestige of the latter. If all English speakers in Ireland would learn and start speaking Irish every day, their Irish would be 'bad' from the viewpoint of the present day native speakers of this language and wouldn't be influenced by the 'good' varieties because these would probably have died out by then. Why? Because, as always, the urban speech, the speech heard on TV etc. is always somehow prestigious, and the rural varieties (in this case the present-day Gaeltacht ones) aren't.
What's happening today is the Gaeltacht eroding at its borders and 'diluting' from within. For Irish to regain its former position of long ago this process has to get reversed, and I doubt this can happen. As somebody has already written, English is a too important language, and nostalgic feelings about the past are just not enough for people to switch to another language.


**** Isn't national language the easiest natural way of reinforcing national identity and separateness from colonial masters? ****

But English is the national language for the most Irish people nowadays! Though many of them claim they'd like Irish to be their mother tongue, English is the language through which they live and recollect their memories. This is a very important fact.

Daithí

Scríobh Fear na mBrog:

quote:

Don't know the dude [Cicearó], but judging from the people you admire, he or she is properly another pompous pretentious goon.

Níl aithne agat ar Cicearó, dáiríre píre? Seo sliocht as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

quote:

Cicero is generally seen as one of the most versatile minds of Roman culture and his writing the paragon of Classical Latin. He introduced the Romans to the chief schools of Greek philosophy and created a Latin philosophical vocabulary. An impressive orator and successful lawyer, Cicero likely thought his political career his most important achievement. However, today he is appreciated primarily for his humanism and philosophical and political writings. His voluminous correspondence, much of it addressed to his friend Atticus, has been especially influential, introducing the art of refined letter writing to European culture.

Mac_Léinn_Fealsúnachta

Fáilte roimh cheartúchain, go raibh maith agaibh.

(Message edited by mac_léinn on July 25, 2007)

Níl aon aithne agamsa ar Cicero ach oiread. Tá an dúd sin marbh le fada, man!

("Eolas" a bhí i gceist agat, déarfainn.)

Níl aon aithne agamsa ar Cicero ach oiread.

Is féidir leat a léamh an Laidin ach níl aon aithne agat ar Cicearó? Tá sé suimiúil.

Níl. Bheadh sé níos suimiúla dá mbeadh!

Aithne ar dhuine = acquaintance

As béal an Mhic Léinn:

quote:

Níl aithne agat ar Cicearó, dáiríre píre?

Fiche bliain d'aois atáim!

Dia dhuit a Elizabeth, conas ata tu? is mise matt anseo,ta me ag foghlaim gaelige freisin, ta failte romhat anseo agus, slan go foill.

quote:

But English is the national language for the most Irish people nowadays!

Tánn tú trí chéile mar gheall airsean. You are confusing "native tongue" and "national language". "National language" can be something never spoken, just used for ritual purposes - but it is still something that defines the nation. I don't think there are many Cherokee-fluent Amerindians anymore, but if you asked any of them what their "national" language is - few would name English, although majority would consider their mother tongue exactly English.

Coming back to Ireland - no doubt few Irish would consider "Béarla" their national language. People are acutely aware that their true heritage is Irish, not English. They may find Irish daunting, not practical, they may wish that it is studied by "somebody else but them", but they still acknowledge that it is part of their psyche even if then can only ask about the loo in it.

quote:

Níl. Bheadh sé níos suimiúla dá mbeadh!

Aithne ar dhuine = acquaintance

Tuigim anois, go raibh maith agat.

I know about or of him = tá a fhios agam é.

You're right I misunderstood you in this case. But what I was trying to say is that there is a big difference between something someone would like to be and the reality. As you've written, they are aware their heritage is Irish, of course, but they really speak English and dream about Irish. And this is not effective, I'd say.

As for the Cherokees, they aren't a good example, because there are more of them who are fluent in their language (at least in percent) than fluent Irish speakers.

Back to the original request on this thread, if I may...

I suggest this site: http://www.independent.ie/education/features/learn-irish-with-liam-o-maonlai-692 551.html

and wish you all the best in your studies.

For some of the other posters who get a little heated I recommend more soy products in the diet, a good walk and some calming music.

Dia daoibh gach duine , is mise matt, agus ta me i mo chonai i gCeanada, agus ta me ag foghlaim gaelige freisin. Hi all, im matt from canada , and I to am a new learner of irish, gettin better I think, but anyway.. good luck to you all.

quote:

"I believe that there are many modern Irish speakers whose abilities we can attest to that we might want to emulate". This is a meaningless sentence. First of all the "might" cancels out the sentence. Secondly, without naming them or saying on what basis they would be chosen, there is literally no content in that sentence. At a guess, I would say your meaning is that we should emulate ungrammatical Connemara Irish... and "you believe that we might want to emulate that". I know a few Cockney English speakers you "might want to emulate".

The first thing you should do Peadar is learn to write and speak any dialect of Irish before you start criticizing anyone. Secondly, what is meaningless is your attempted parsing of my sentence. As for good modern speakers, they are legion--Máirtín Mac Donnchadh, Tomás Mac an Iomaire, Breandán Feiritéar, Albert Fry....But tell me, how can you with your limited abilities in Irish suggest to the rest of us(both learners and native speakers) whom we should emulate? But of course, why would that give you pause!

"The first thing you should do Peadar is learn to write and speak any dialect of Irish before you start criticizing anyone."

Hello. I am not criticizing anyone's Irish. But you say "learn a dialect first". And then the next question is: which one? The learner is not, as you imply, confronted by the dialectal question only after gaining fluency, but is confronted by it before he even buys his first textbook.

You may tell me "any dialect is fine", but I think many Irish learners will want to select their dialect carefully to avoid wasting time and effort.

I am not saying that any of those speakers you mentioned is not a good speaker of Irish - I have never heard of any of them. But the question instantly arises - and cannot be ducked - on what basis are you selecting your good speakers? Modern linguistic theory says that any native speech is equally good, and so none of these 4 people could be better than the other 80,000 residents of the GAeltacht. So you must be choosing other criteria other than "native speakers". What are those criteria? The trouble is that as soon as you mention your criteria, grounds will arise for discussing and criticizing them.

Let's put it this way: Russian is a language with 6 cases. Now if you told me there is a little known dialect somewhhere in Russia where case distinctions have been lost, I could not accept those speakers as speakers of "good Russian" regardless of other qualities that they might have (fluency, sonority of voice, poetic diction, good choice of vocabulary and syntax etc).

In Irish the far-flung dialect with a loss of case distinctions has owing to the loss of Irish in most areas become the largest dialect. I don't believe Róman is right to say the Donegal Gaeltacht is larger population-wise than the Galway one. And so the standard is based on the least grammatically correct dialect. That is the point. Some people have no problem with that, as linguistic theory says all dialects and languages are equally as good as long as communication is achieved... but in that case your 4 speaker are no better than other 80,000... So I think - how can I say this politely? - you are confused.

And here we go again. You have to learn a dialect, you can't possibly learn Irish without learning a dialect, you can't even start learning Irish without choosing a dialect, and if you choose the wrong one at first you will be "wasting time and effort." There is a kernel of truth in all of those assertions, but not much more than a kernel, particularly in the last one.

The similarities between the dialects are much, much greater than the differences. Doesn't it follow logically that the overwhelming majority of what you learn as a beginner will transfer even if you change dialects later?

Besides, what kind of a learner decides to learn Irish and does not eventually, someday, hope to understand all three dialects easily? If that's the case, then I submit that time spent familiarizing yourself with one dialect and its peculiarities is not time wasted.


Regarding the concept of dialects being more or less "grammatically correct" or having "grammatical errors": measured against what? Historical forms? Consensus of the other dialects? A generally recognized superior/standard form? (I assume it's not the last one, since as you'd pointed out earlier yourself no such thing exists for Irish today.)

Hear here, Abigail.

What particularly appalls me about this whole unending bickering is the extraordinary hypocrisy at play here. Widely-accepted-as-"correct" forms of English (such as "whom" instead of "who") are dismissed as "posh" or "stuck-up," yet the dialect of Irish that preserves antiquated datives is held up as something to be revered apparently on that very basis.

Nothing could have reinforced my dedication to learning Connemara Irish more strongly than the condescending, snide derision I've seen afforded to it here.

Interestingly, that kind of classist mentality is eminently English. Fancy that.

(Message edited by domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh on July 30, 2007)

Yes, Abigail, here we go again. I have answered all your questions in many previous posts. I know you have read them, because you replied to many of them... and yet, here we go again, you are asking the same questions... again.

To someone who does not focus on the details, and does not aim to learn well, things may be transferable between the dialects. To someone who notes careful differences, and tries to learn well, that is not the case at all. You can learn Connemara Irish, and to those who don't even notice such concepts as broad/slender, a higher % of it will be tranferable. But otherwise, the things you learn in Learning Irish are just confusing when you come to learn good Irish - it is as if broad and slender are being mixed up in most words, most of the plurals are wrong etc. I don't want to walk round in a haze permanently unsure of everything and doing as Maológ ó Ruairc has said, leniting every word just in case because the intricacy of the conflicting dialectal rules has confused me. What Abigail is recommending is just a Mind F***.

In any case, no one suggests that learners of English begin with US Ebonics (Black English) on the grounds that an English learner would want to be able to understand it. That is just a red herring. A form of Irish without cases is not grammatically correct. Yes, as I have said in countless posts that Abigail has read, yes, on historical grounds. Frequently Ulster and Munster agree against Connemara. And yes, a generally recognized superior form. Cork Irish is the quality standard Irish that was recognized as proper Irish until the Irish government stepped in with its Esperanto-like conlang called "official standard Irish". Cork Irish is continous with all earlier forms of the language. You can look at 17th century Irish and compare to Connemara - it is clear that Connemara Irish is not good Irish.

Abigail's position forces her to say that Ebonics would be a worthwhile starting point for learning English. After all it is as "valid" as standard English. Abigail, I wasted a year learning Connemara Irish and now regret it. I don't want others to waste their lives.

So, to distill this, am I to assume that your basic point is that Connemara Irish is "the Ebonics of Irish" in Ireland?

quote:

I don't believe Róman is right to say the Donegal Gaeltacht is larger population-wise than the Galway one.

You miscontrued my point. What I did say is that Donegal most likely has the highest population of daily speakers. While it is true that population-wise and area-wise Connacht Gaeltacht is the biggest - it is also true, that 3/4 of that territory (with people including) is a joke. Think of all area to the east of Gailleamh, to the north of it, and even couple miles to the west. It is only in the An Spidéal (sppelling?) breac-Gaeltacht starts. Then we have this funny area of Roundstone - the westernmost tip of Connacht Gaeltacht, the whole of Joyce county which is as Irish-speaking as Athlone, and the sad area of Mayo where only 2-3 places can claim to have some 25-30% of speakers. So when you look at the true Gaeltacht in Connacht - all you see are Arainn island, Garmna, and vicinities of Ceathrú Rua. Not too many people altogether.

Donegal's Gaeltacht may be smaller, but Irish is much stronger there. This is what I meant.

quote:

The similarities between the dialects are much, much greater than the differences.

The previous post was mine, sorry about anonymity. It all depends on your point of comparison. Yes, Irish dialects are closer to each other than to English, but how it helps in language studies? Currently I am facing the problem of Irish months' names. Even discarding all those non-standard and unusual things like "mí na súl mbuí" or "mí meithim an fhómhair", you have immense variation in 12 words. I am not happy with all those "options", it is much easier to know one thing, not 3 like: mí Lúnasa, mí na Lúnasa, mí an Lúnasa (and I even don't mention Lúna, Lúnasna, Lúnas etc). Is it "mí na Márta", "mí an Mhárta" or "mí Márta"; "mí Mhéain Fhómhair", "mí Meán Fómhair", "mí Mheán Fómhair", "mí Meán Fhómhair", "mí Mheán Fhómhair" and all other possible permutations. So dialect question haunts learner from the start, notwithstanding his wishes

I am not happy with all those "options", it is much easier to know one thing...

You and me, both. Unfortunately, Irish seems more fractured than worldwide Spanish and English combined.

And the Caighdeán Oifigiúil, which would do away with this endless backbiting, seems to be taken as a joke or an enemy no less perfidious than competing dialects by those bent on promoting their own pet dialect over all others.

When it comes to "correctness" of speech, despite the infinitesimally smaller portion of Irish speakers and learners than Spanish+English speakers and learners, and given the precarious state of the language's projected longevity... this in not funny, it is not tragic, it is simply pathetic.

... mí Lúnasa, mí na Lúnasa, mí an Lúnasa (and I even don't mention Lúna, Lúnasna, Lúnas etc). Is it "mí na Márta", "mí an Mhárta" or "mí Márta"; "mí Mhéain Fhómhair", "mí Meán Fómhair", "mí Mheán Fómhair", "mí Meán Fhómhair", "mí Mheán Fhómhair" and all other possible permutations. So dialect question haunts learner from the start, notwithstanding his wishes.

Point taken.

As a hapless student trying to learn this language on my own, from nothing, I ask: which dialect should take supremacy in this matter of something so unutterly basic as the months of the year?

My own inclination, given that it's only twelve items we're speaking of, would be to learn them all and just be done with it.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to satisfy the cataclysmically important question of which is the most proper and correct rendition.

(Message edited by domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh on July 30, 2007)

It comes back to the question of your goal.

If you are learning Irish for the fun of it (as almost all readers, and many writers here are) then learning any form above will get you by 99 % of the time.

If your goal is to master a particular dialect to perfection, then you have to master that dialect to perfection.

However, if you limit yourself to one dialect, then you are going to be very, very, very short of reading material.

quote:

And the Caighdeán Oifigiúil, which would do away with this endless backbiting

But, it does not! Many people defending CO have rather vague idea what it is in reality. You believe CO is a solution to do away with confusion. No, it is not, not at all. There are "options" all around, the only difference is that when you see the real Irish - the options are between the dialects, not in the same dialect. Open Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla - a paragon of CO - and look for the entry at "mí" - then you see that this word is feminine (?), with forms míosa (genitive) and míonna (plural). Then it states below that the word can be also masculine, with genitive mí, and plural míosa. If this solves confusion - then I am Lenin. There is no such dialect of Irish which would deem 'mí' as both masculine and feminine - it is either of the two.

quote:

it is simply pathetic.

Every dialect has an internal system, logic if you may. All words are interrelated and interdependent in a big, grand scheme. It is like a puzzle where all pieces fit together nicely. What is really pathetic - trying to weld a Conamarian ending on Munster stem - this is really pathetic. Then you obtain real-time aliens, unknown to any native speaker.

I listened to TYI (new edition) yesterday. The very first dialogue. They lady on the tape pronounced "ann" the same way as "an". There is no such dialect in Irish where those two words would sound the same. Either vowel is diphthonguized (Munster), or "n" is tense (Connacht, Ulster). So diphthongue in Munster and tense consonant in the north are two sides of the same coin, the phoneme /N/ has two different ways of realization. What all dialects agree - that "ann"<>"an".

quote:

which dialect should take supremacy in this matter

The dialect which you study. Then you are not facing prospect of using Munster name for July, combined with Ulster name for February. Choose one dialect and stick to it.

quote:

Widely-accepted-as-"correct" forms of English (such as "whom" instead of "who") are dismissed as "posh"

It is the first time I hear that "whom" is dismissed. Me, as a foreigner, I am not involved into your class warfare and I couldn't care less what is deemed "posh" in Dublin suburbs and what not. I was taught this way (using "whom") and I see no good reason why I have to unlearn it.

In case anyone wonders, the natural months' system in Munster:

Eanáir
mí na Feabhra
mí na Márta
Abrán
mí na Bealt(h)aine
Meitheamh
Iúl
mí an Lúnasa
Meán Fhómhair
Deireadh Fómhair
mí na Samhna
mí na Nollag

quote:

In Irish the far-flung dialect with a loss of case distinctions has owing to the loss of Irish in most areas become the largest dialect. I don't believe Róman is right to say the Donegal Gaeltacht is larger population-wise than the Galway one. And so the standard is based on the least grammatically correct dialect. That is the point. Some people have no problem with that, as linguistic theory says all dialects and languages are equally as good as long as communication is achieved... but in that case your 4 speaker are no better than other 80,000... So I think - how can I say this politely? - you are confused.

We went over this before, and I listed the page numbers from a reliable resource (Stair na Gaeilge) that dealt with the weakening of the case system, among other things, in Munster Irish. It has happened in all the dialects. Why don't you for once consult these resources, and if I'm in error, then by all means correct me. But I don't accept your opinion as proof of anything, and neither should anyone else.
It is misleading to refer to linguistic theory and claims of dialectal equality. I don't make that claim for the Connemara dialect on that basis. It is the equal of any dialect because of the wealth of folklore, songs, and literature that it has produced. You are perhaps confused. And please forget the politness; it doesn't become you.
It is also disingenuous to imply that Connemara Irish has no case system, or to equate it with Ebonics. It has the same case system as the others, except for a small difference in the dative of a relatively few words in parts of Munster. Again, consult the literature. It's unfortunate that you had that experience with the dialect. But tell me honestly, how are you faring with the Munster dialect? What level are you? Can you converse freely? Can you write it well? I sincerely wish you well, but I don't think you're doing yourself or anyone else any favors by this constant degradation based on half-truths, outright lies, and personal opinions.

quote:

What particularly appalls me about this whole unending bickering is the extraordinary hypocrisy at play here. Widely-accepted-as-"correct" forms of English (such as "whom" instead of "who") are dismissed as "posh" or "stuck-up," yet the dialect of Irish that preserves antiquated datives is held up as something to be revered apparently on that very basis.

Woah Woah Woah, not so fast.

First of all, there's mutliple viewpoints from which we can look at the situation of "Standard English". First and foremost, we'll consider Group A, who are the people who actually speak the "Standard" dialect. (I've never known any such dialect to exist in 2007, but I'll take your word for it that there's some parts of English where the "Standard" is what the babies naturally start speaking).

Now let's take Group B. Group B are people who speak a different dialect of English, perhaps Dublin English or Cork English. Group B are a group of shame-driven individuals who aspire to be more like Group A, going so far as to denounce their own native dialect and attempt to assimilate the dialect of Group A.

And then you have Group C. Group C are ordinary folk such as myself who speak a different dialect than Group A, but are completely fine with it. If anything, they're proud of their dialect and have no desire to emulate Group A.

It is because of the very existence of Group B, that Group C tend to view features such as "whom" and "shall" as pretentious, snobbish and posh. Group A are not to blame for the way they speak, it's perfectly natural to them. Group B, however, are ridiculed and loathed for their snobbery.

That's the situation with English as I see it. What's extremely important about my description however, is that all three groups are native speakers of English. For a learner learning from scratch, choice of dialect is a different kettle of fish altogether. For a learner to have the greatest success in understanding the language and being understood, it might be useful for them to pick the most "complicated" dialect, the one where "shall" and "whom" are used and so forth. I myself know quite well how these features work, and I could quite well immitate an Oxford professor if I wanted to... but then again I'm not a member of Group A so I'm not going to masquerade as one.

Before I move on to discuss the situation with Irish, let me make one more observation about the situation with English: Who are Group A? What kind of people are they? They're "Upper Class", they've got titles, they've got money, they've got political power, college degrees, all that crap, which provokes Group B feel so shitty about themselves that they have to emulate them.

Now let's move on to the situation with Irish.

Three dialects: Ulster, Munster, Connaught.

From a purely objective point of view -- if that's possible -- Which dialect is the most complicated? I think it would be safe to give Munster that title. Now some people might start to draw similarites between Munster Irish and Standard English... and that's all very well BUT... what we're forgetting is the whole "class" thing.

Are Munster Upper Class? Are Ulster Upper Class? Are Connaught Upper Class? Neither province can be exhaulted above the other when it comes to political power, wealth etc. (actually, one province probably could be but it's not in the list). For this reason, you might think it's safe to thred(tred?) the water coz there should be no snobbery... but low and behold Peadar had to enter the room and tell us how we should all be copying Peadar Uí Laoghaire. I asked if this Peadar Uí Laoghaire drove a fast car, or was knighted by the Queen or what but didn't get a reply, I was merely accused of generating more heat than light. Heat though, can be quite useful in a debate, as it can provoke the opposition to shed more light than they were originally willing to expose. We'll get to the bottom of this, wait you see.

And why do I choose Munster Irish? Because it's the most complicated, no other reason! And even if I had another reason, my opinion would be irrelevant coz I'm not a native.

quote:

And even if I had another reason, my opinion would be irrelevant coz I'm not a native.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I do believe, however, that one must attain a high degree of fluency in a particular language before he/she can make some of the outrageous claims about dialects that are sometimes made here by mere beginners.

quote:

I listed the page numbers from a reliable resource (Stair na Gaeilge) that dealt with the weakening of the case system, among other things, in Munster Irish.

I presuppose our anonymous friend thinks nobody has [read] the book and cannot check the facts for themselves? Your manupulation of the citations, quoting just the supporting evidence, and not the contradicting sentences, which follow immediately thereafter does not make you any honor. What Stair na Gaelainne really says is that "Gaelainn na Gaillimhe" has almost no cases. This stands in stark contrast even with fellow Connacht dialects, .i. Erris. And this is really different situation from Munster and Ulster, to say the least. Besides omnibus Stair na Gaelainne, there are specific dialect books, up-to-date Teanga Bheo series etc.

Let me quote several passage from "Irish of Erris,Co. Mayo":

p 194 - "The dual. 535. The dual is still vigorous in the dialect. In the nom. and dat. is it usually coincides in form with dat. sg, e.g. dhá chluais, an dá chois, an dá láimh... The form dhá dtrian is still current..."

p 183 - "Class II - Feminine. 504. Sg. flexion in three forms. Opposition -C, -C', -C'@"

Then you have p 179-189 full of declension tables full of genitives and datives where applicable with no mention whatsoever about alleged demise of genitive.

So please, when you decide to manipulate facts next time, use more obscure sources that we could not check your statements!

quote:

I presuppose our anonymous friend thinks nobody has [read] the book and cannot check the facts for themselves? Your manupulation of the citations, quoting just the supporting evidence, and not the contradicting sentences, which follow immediately thereafter does not make you any honor. What Stair na Gaelainne really says is that "Gaelainn na Gaillimhe" has almost no cases. This stands in stark contrast even with fellow Connacht dialects, .i. Erris. And this is really different situation from Munster and Ulster, to say the least. Besides omnibus Stair na Gaelainne, there are specific dialect books, up-to-date Teanga Bheo series etc.

What is that supposed to mean? I specifically requested that you check the facts. Supporting evidence? Contradicting sentences? What are they writing? Gibberish? Stair na Gaelainne? The book is entitled 'Stair na Gaeilge,' and is as far as I know a reliable and oft-quoted source by many on this board.
On what page does it really say that "'Gaelainn na Gaillimhe'" has almost no cases? And why don't you provide the so-called contradicting evidence if it exists?
So, you're saying that I manipulated the facts, and also suggesting that 'Stair na Gaeilge' is outdated anyway. Just in case I didn't manipulate the facts I guess.
Finally, what are you quoting, or what are you trying to prove by those quotations? Where did I disagree with any of that? Or where did I say something about the "'Irish of Erris, Co. Mayo'"?
If you did, in fact, check my statements as you say, provide the page numbers that refute what I said. Otherwise, please don't insult our intelligenge by providing material that has nothing to do with the issues at hand, as well as your own personal thoughts on the matter, and hope that that is sufficient to disprove my claims.

I think it is safest to ignore the gibberish and flame from Mr X. Talking to Mr Nobody is anyway below my dignity.

p.s. If you had read my post - you would have noticed I cited pages and specific excerpts. Alas, you are intent on talking to yourself only, as it seems.

Unregistered guest:

"But I don't accept your opinion as proof of anything, and neither should anyone else. "

You are quite right to say so. Yes, I don't think anyone should accept my opinion on anything; neither do I think anyone should accept anyone else's opinion anything. Everything should be established through discussion.

However, there is a difficulty when some interlocutors in a debate are basing their views on essentially a political proposition: that all dialects are equal, there should be no form promoted by or associated with a ruling class etc. As that is essentially a POLITICAL view - I would characterize as culturally demotic - it cannot be refuted as such, as everyone is entitled to his political views and they cannot be fully refuted.

All I can say by way of participation in the debate is that demotic culture is essentially the antithesis of high culture. In any society, a ruling class establishes distinctions within society based on social status and educational background, and these include the use of language. Typically, this sort of cultural hegemony does NOT state that all forms of a language are equal, but promotes the most historically correct forms, and then sifts and sorts the population on the basis of their adherence to this standard, which would largely reflect educational opportunities. In Britain, for example, the form "ain't" is regarded on this basis as inferior, as it is essentially a pronunciation derived from "isn't" via a relaxation of the pronunciation. Now: from the point of view of linguistic theory, all dialectal forms are equal because the SOLE purpose of language is to communicate (however, those who go down that route have to cope with the fact that a further ramification of that theory is that, as the Irish are successfully communicating in English there is no reason to learn Irish; so ultimately, this modern linguistic theory would destroy Irish learning...), consequently one can make an egalitarian argument that as long as communication is achieved, "ain't" is not inferior to "is not"... This essentially reflects the Western political obsession with making every one equal: it is social engineering transferred to the realm of linguistics.

Now, unregistered guest, we have the unusual situation that you have a view that is largely political - I cannot refute it as everyone is entitled to political viewpoints - but your understanding of the issues is much more basic than mine, and consequently you DON'T REALIZE that your views are political rather than linguistic. How can I debate with someone whose views are on this sort of level? You don't even understand your own views properly; I am put in the position of having to explain many things to you in language as simple as I can drawn upon, without any confidence you can understand the argument I am putting forward. You ask, "What level are you? Can you converse freely? Can you write it well? " But clearly, a political viewpoint cannot be assessed on such factors. You support demotic culture; this is a set of political opinions. And yet you somehow think that fluency in language X allows you to support your views on demotic culture. This is a nonsense, but I am not at all confident of my own ability to so simplify the discussion as to be able to explain to you the logical flaws you are committing.

Connemara Irish, you say, has produced folklore, songs and literature... and so its morphology is worth imitating by the learner. Is that your argument? Would you like to rethink it or rephrase it? Stripped down to its core, you argument is reduced to the first sentence in this paragraph, which unfortunately exposes your views as shallow and nonsensical. There is dialect literature in a range of dialects across the world, but no one would suggest as you do that the existence of "Chas 'n Dave" songs means that Cockney English should be established as the morphological standard. You are clearly confused on a number of different levels. Let me just add by the way that according to Mícheál Ó Siadhail, Connemara Irish has lost the vocative plural except for 2 words and the genitive plural except for 7 words. I suppose it is possible that by expose to the CO, those cases are prevented from disappearing entirely. May I ask you what the vocative singular of the word "lacha", "duck" is? What about the vocative singular of the word "caora", "sheep"? This is just an experiment; you *may* know owing to you exposure to the CO, but I somehow doubt that you know.

Now: onto FnB's point about the comparison between Munster Irish and Standard English. A linguistic standard is established on class lines as I outlined above, and is generally slightly elevated above popular usages, requiring some level of education to master well. This is important to the ruling class for a number of reasons. Now, if Irish had an Irish-speaking ruling class, that standard would probably be Cork Irish, as illustrated by pre-war editions of the Christian Brothers' Grammar and the standard of debates in Irish in the 1920s Dáil.

Going further down the page: unregistered guest opined: "I do believe, however, that one must attain a high degree of fluency in a particular language before he/she can make some of the outrageous claims about dialects that are sometimes made here by mere beginners."

But: anyone can say something about anything. The criterion is whether what they say is true or not, not whether they are fluent in a language. If I were to say that "feicim" instead of "chím" is not good Irish on historical grounds... whether I am fluent in Irish is neither here nor there. The fact is that this statement cannot be refuted. Can you explain WHY - without any dodging - someone not fluent in Irish could NOT say "feicim instead of chím is not good Irish on historical grounds". Clearly, you will be unable to answer this... If you are unable to answer this, please publish an apology on the list instead.

I believe that we have reached that point where we will have to agree to disagree.

Caoimhín

As béal Pheadair:

quote:

A linguistic standard is established on class lines as I outlined above, and is generally slightly elevated above popular usages, requiring some level of education to master well.

Our human brains are designed to handle language subconsciously, just as naturally as breathing and walking. I can't grasp this concept you have that somehow someone needs to be educated to speak a language? What's next, are we gonna send our kids to walking classes?

When I open my mouth to speak, I don't think about every individual word, about how I'll pronounce it, or what way the grammar works. Presumably, my brain handles all of that subconsiously. This is the way language is supposed to be, words are meant to fall off the tongue without a moment's thought. I've heard three-year-old's speak with remarkable fluency.

Are you, therefore, promoting an unnatural way of speaking? A way of speaking in which the speaker should pause and reflect over whether their grammar and word usage matches that of the "Standard"? I've seen people talk like that, the Queen most notably, and I can say that I've never seen such inexpressive speech in my life. One common example I cite, is that the Queen will pronounce "you" identically in all contexts. All natural dialects, however, have differring pronunciations of the word depending on whether it's stressed or unstressed (contrast tú with tusa).

But back to this whole idea of "education"... what kind of education are you talking about? Presumbly 99.9999% of children nowadays go to school, so at what point are they "educated enough" to speak properly, and what particular areas of education are relevant? Should they go to an "English class" to learn to emulate speakers of a different dialect and then unnaturally try to assimilate the differences into their own speech without any immersion whatsoever in the "superior" dialect? Should they start saying "John and I went" even though everyone else in their neighbourhood is saying "Me and John went"?

Lastly, the whole thing of social classes has fallen apart in recent decades. No longer does "upper class" have much to do with one's income, or whether one has much power of any kind. You'll see "working class" people nowadays with wallets bulging full of cash, and all sorts of powers coz they might have a brother or uncle who's a garda, or a sister who works in the bank or the tax office.

Nowadays, in my part of the world in anyway, one's social class is determined by nothing more than:

a) They way they speak
b) They way they dress and maintain their appearance
c) Their demeanour -- i.e. how snobbish or scumbag-ish they are to other people.

These three criteria, however, can vary from household to household on the same street. Relevant to the topic at hand though, I don't see the British royal family as being particularly "admirable" or "powerful". Ask a lot of people what they think of these "upper class" people... you might be surprised at what you hear.

(Message edited by Fear_na_mBróg on August 01, 2007)

"Presumbly 99.9999% of children nowadays go to school"

I think it is somwhat less here in Ireland!

"Lastly, the whole thing of social classes has fallen apart in recent decades"

It has been relaxed since the 2nd world war with the explosion of the middle classes, but I'd hazard a guess that the difference between the lowest and highest is now growing and the middle classes with become squeezed. I mean, if the numbers of billionaires continues to rise, it begs the question of how long that growth is sustainable. Middle class borrowing has the potential to endanger multiple economies for years to come. Who is going to pay for the borrowing now?

The class arguments are very relivant to the situaton historically -Ireland speaks English due to the change over of the upper and then middle classes.

The lower class always resent the power of the wealth, yet regardless of what they say, they unconsciously support them -taxes, been soldiers, providing services etc.

"The lower class always resent the power of the wealth, yet regardless of what they say, they unconsciously support them -taxes, been soldiers, providing services etc."

Better to say they "support them perforce," as there is little other choice in this matter for most of them if they wish to live above subsistence level. Otherwise, agreed.