As a novice of Gaeilge, I have a question regarding to Ó Siadhail's "Learning Irish" (I use the German version).

In his seventh lesson, Ó Siashail translates the sentence "Hier gab es viele reiche Leute" i.d. "Here were many rich people" with "Bhí neart daoine soibhir anseo.
Soibhir is dialectal for saibhir.
Neart requires the genetive, i.d. "neart ama, neart leabhar".

duine saibhir : a rich man
daoine saibhre : rich men
of the men : na ndaoine

The rule says for the gen. pl.: If the noun uses its nom. pl. form, the adjective does likewise, so why is it not

Bhí neart daoine saibhre.

On the other hand would I say:

Bhí neart ban / fear / asal / gasúr saibhir.

It's in this scholars book, so it must be right, mustn't it? So where do I err?

The next Gaeltacht is two thousand km away from our German village, so I put the question here. Thanks.

Methinks there are inflection losses in the dialect/ or typos

"soibhir" looks really ugly. Before you wrote it was a dialectal form, I was under impression it was a typo. Why is such spelling necessary?

regarding the adjective. Gen pl. of adjective usually is equal to nom. sg. CO tried to mess with syncopating adjectives (like saibhir - saibhre) making them to keep nom. pl. ending, but this is against natural language usage. So the book is right after all.

See examples from TYI (Munster edition):

nom. pl. - gen. pl

fir mhóra - fear mór
clocha móra - cloch mór
fir mhaithe - fear maith
clocha maithe - cloch maith

Ó Siadhail's book is full of invented, ugly(?) spellings, adapted for the dialect of Conamara (orlár, suíleáil, compóirteach, amáireach etc. etc), but I check them against the Foclóir of Ó Dónaill and learn the official standard, but which is it?

The dfferent grammars contradict each other in the point of gen.pl.

Ó S. says: Normally there is only one form of the plural in all cases i.d.

Tá úinéiri na mbáid anseo. (Here are the owners of the boats)

There be only rare exceptions like "na n-éan, na muc, na lachan" etc.

But according to Nollaig Mac Congáil's grammar, you take only the nom.sg. form, if

a) the plural is formed by making the final consonant slender:

asal, asail ---> na n-asal
bád, báid ---> na mbád
fear,fir ---> na bhfear

b) the plural is formed by simply adding -a to the nom.sg. form:

bróg, bróga ---> na mbróg mór
bos, bosa ---> na mbos mór

And the adjectives behaves accordingly. All the others are similar to the plural (with a dozend or so exceptions with extra forms.) à la "na madraí ciúine" (of the quiet dogs)

You, Róman, cited only such examples like a) and b)

Last but not least the "Christian Brothors" (maybe a bit antiquated) prescribe forms like "na bpearsan, na gcarad", but have fixed form of the adjectives, in the gen.pl., which equals the nom.sg.m.,

so it would be "na madraí ciúin"

So is this confusion a consequence of the famous "loss of the genitiv" in modern Irish with it's simplification of forms (like the loss of the dativ) or again the problem to unify different usages of the dialects?

(I have learned Latin and classical Greeek and speak German, so I was used to decline in a streightforward manner through the cases)

Ingeborg, thanks for an enlightening post. You feel the same way I felt 2004, when I just started dabbing into Irish. Being very sympathetic to your plight and very well remembering my own confusion I will save you a lot of time. But first a good advice:

-IGNORE the people who say "don't worry, don't ask questions - Irish is not logical"! Keep asking questions, get to the bottom of even the smallest details, and as a reward you will realize Irish is VERY logical. The myth of its "illogicality" is based on innate inability of English speakers to understand the logic of inflecting languages.

Now to your questions .

quote:

Ó Siadhail's book is full of invented, ugly(?) spellings, adapted for the dialect of Conamara

I have the book, I know what you are talking about. I don't follow myself CO strictly, but there should be some reasonability criterion involved. "Soibhir" is clearly over the bord. To be sure - I pronounce this word the same way book describes - [sev`ir`], and spelling "seibhir" might be even a better idea than "soibhir" ever was, but! The fact is there only 3 words which are pronounced this "abnormal" way, the other are "raibh" ('was') and "air" ('on him'). So unless Ó Siadhail is ready to write "roibh" and "oir" (and he is not!), there is no justification for spelling change. It is easier and more efficient to remember the aberrant pronunciation of 3 words (saibhir, raibh, air) than to make your writing unintelligible to other. Word "beag" is also pronounced as if it was "beog", but as far as I know, Ó Siadhail is not advocating writing "beog", so his spelling is clearly inconsistent.

quote:

orlár, suíleáil, compóirteach, amáireach etc. etc

Well, "amáireach" merits a separate discussion. Both people of Munster and Conamara say "amáireach", and only Ulstermen say "amárach", so it is a better idea to challenge CO spelling in this case. If (as the authors of CO never tire repeating) the creators of CO had really followed the principle of "majority" (alas they didn't!), the word "amáireach" should have been spelled this way all along.

compóirteach, orlár - this is the type of variation like "Ik wasch mik in di Kicke" as they say in Berlin, .i. very regional. There is nothing wrong with speaking like this, but writing it - this is completely other matter altogether. The choice is yours.

suíleáil - what is this word? I am not familiar with it

quote:

I check them against the Foclóir of Ó Dónaill and learn the official standard, but which is it?

Checking against Ó Domhnaill's dictionary is a good idea, but be aware that ALL words in that dictionary (even those with "YYY - see XXX" remark) are part of CO. This means that anything you find in that dictionary is a valid spelling.

CO itself (I mean the grammar part) - I would not be too crazy about this. I am OK with CO spelling, but the grammar they really invented is really a far cry from real Irish.

quote:

The dfferent grammars contradict each other in the point of gen.pl.

They don't, just (usually) they describe something different. Majority of grammars describe CO, other books - dialects. There is no "contradiction" inside of CO, nor inside of a dialect. There are differences between those though.

quote:

Ó S. says: Normally there is only one form of the plural in all cases i.d

Ó Siadhail talks about Conamara only. So if he says so, then it is so, but in Conamara, not somewhere else, and certainly not in CO.

quote:

Tá úinéiri na mbáid anseo.

This looks ungrammatical to me. This is the reason I never liked Conamarian dialect very much.

quote:

There be only rare exceptions like "na n-éan, na muc, na lachan" etc.

They look ordinary to me, what is so exceptional?

quote:

But according to Nollaig Mac Congáil's grammar

But this is CO grammar. So I am amazed you tried to compare it with Ó Siadhail. Just to give you an example. Think of Ó Siadhail as describing the spoken language of Hamburg with all its pecularities. And the other grammar you mention is Duden's Deutsche Grammatik. Would you really be surprised if those didn't match? Or you would rather be surprised if they coincide?

quote:

a) the plural is formed by making the final consonant slender:

asal, asail ---> na n-asal
bád, báid ---> na mbád
fear,fir ---> na bhfear

b) the plural is formed by simply adding -a to the nom.sg. form:

bróg, bróga ---> na mbróg mór
bos, bosa ---> na mbos mór

And the adjectives behaves accordingly.

Those are the most common patterns, but surely not all of them. See these examples:

súil, súil ----> súile, súl
seachtain, seachtaine ----> seachtaine, seachtain (this plural is used only after numerals)
pingin, pingine -----> pingine, pingin (this plural is used only after numerals)
pearsa, pearsan ------> pearsain, pearsan
cara, carad -----> cairde, carad
briathar, briathair ----> briathra, briathar


The confusing thing is that modern Irish has liquidated almost all plurals ending -e in nouns by appending additional -anna or -í, thus, where you had

áit, áite ----> áite, áit, now you have:

áit, áite -----> áiteanna, áiteanna

The old plurals ending in -e are only visible in some relic nouns like "súil", and in measures of time and money after numerals (uair, seachtain, pingine etc)

The problem is that nothing of the kind happened in adjectives, so you still have:

maith, maithe -----> maithe, maith

(Message edited by róman on March 15, 2008)

quote:

All the others are similar to the plural (with a dozend or so exceptions with extra forms.) à la "na madraí ciúine" (of the quiet dogs)

Those are not "exceptions"! All adjectives ending in a slender consonant behave the same way as I explained above

quote:

You, Róman, cited only such examples like a) and b)

No, I didn't. Behaviour of "maith" does not fit neither a) nor b).

quote:

Last but not least the "Christian Brothors" (maybe a bit antiquated)

The texts are antiquated, but grammar is perfectly in compliance with CO.

quote:

prescribe forms like "na bpearsan, na gcarad"

This is a 5th declension, which does not relate to this topic very much. Do not get diverted into unrelated topic.

quote:

"na madraí ciúin"

First "na madraí ciúine" was nominative, I hoped, no?

quote:

So is this confusion a consequence of the famous "loss of the genitiv" in modern Irish

There is no "famous loss of genitive". Genitive is not used by bad learners whose native language is English, and there are some strange things in Conamara. in Ulster and Munster not only genitive is OK (including even forms like "áiteann", "leitreach"), but even dative is reasonably ok in singular.

quote:

have learned Latin and classical Greeek and speak German, so I was used to decline in a streightforward manner through the cases

Then do so in Irish. There is no "loss of genitive" in CO, so the bets are you will see a lot of genitives in printed books.

quote:

I pronounce this word the same way book describes - [sev`ir`], and spelling "seibhir" might be even a better idea than "soibhir" ever was, but!

If you write "seibhir", people will pronounce [ʃevɪɼ]...

quote:

The fact is there only 3 words which are pronounced this "abnormal" way, the other are "raibh" ('was') and "air" ('on him').

As far as I know, in Connemara "raibh" is pronounced [ɾo].

quote:

So unless Ó Siadhail is ready to write "roibh" and "oir" (and he is not!), there is no justification for spelling change.

There is: in Connemara, most of the time "oi" is pronounced [e], while "ai" is [aː].

quote:

It is easier and more efficient to remember the aberrant pronunciation of 3 words (saibhir, raibh, air) than to make your writing unintelligible to other. Word "beag" is also pronounced as if it was "beog",

Nope, since "eo" is always long in Irish (except in seo, anseo, eochair and deoch).

quote:

suíleáil - what is this word? I am not familiar with it

Síleáil, nach eadh?

quote:

If you write "seibhir", people will pronounce [ʃevɪɼ]...

And if you write "soibhir" people will pronounce it [siv`ir`], so maybe it is better to stick to "saibhir"?

quote:

As far as I know, in Connemara "raibh" is pronounced [ɾo].

In Ulster, yes. But in Conamara?

quote:

There is: in Connemara, most of the time "oi" is pronounced [e], while "ai" is [aː].

And the key word is "most of the time". And when you add that it usually IS NOT pronounced this way in either Donegal or Munster, then the benefit of writing "soibhir" becomes unclear all of sudden.

quote:

Nope, since "eo" is always long in Irish

It is always 'long" just in CO spelling. If you spell properly, then "eó" is long (which is not surprising), not "eo".

quote:

in seo, anseo, eochair and deoch

Again - in spelling butchered by CO. But then you have words like "deocair", "leogaim" etc.

quote:

And if you write "soibhir" people will pronounce it [siv`ir`], so maybe it is better to stick to "saibhir"?

No because in Connemara and Ulster, there are words where oi is pronounced [e].

quote:

quote:As far as I know, in Connemara "raibh" is pronounced [ɾo].

In Ulster, yes. But in Conamara?

In Connemara too, at least in Cois Fhairrge, cf Learning Irish p. 25.

quote:

quote:There is: in Connemara, most of the time "oi" is pronounced [e], while "ai" is [aː].

And the key word is "most of the time". And when you add that it usually IS NOT pronounced this way in either Donegal or Munster, then the benefit of writing "soibhir" becomes unclear all of sudden.

Most of the time means most of the time, ie. more than 50%.

quote:

quote:Nope, since "eo" is always long in Irish
It is always 'long" just in CO spelling. If you spell properly, then "eó" is long (which is not surprising), not "eo".

In the caighdeán they said: "eo" is always long except in the words seo, anseo, eochair and deoch (and maybe another one I can't think of right now). Just learn the list and you know that all others are long...

quote:

quote:in seo, anseo, eochair and deoch

Again - in spelling butchered by CO. But then you have words like "deocair", "leogaim" etc.

For those I'd just spell "liogam" (that's what we say in Ulster too), "diocair", etc. However, for "beag" it wouldn't be clear to write "biog" because it has a [j] glide in Connemara and Munster, as if there were a long back vowel after, but there isn't. That word is an exception. Even in Ulster, there's no clear spelling that would correspond to the sound, since we pronounce it like [b͍ø̈gˠ] or so.
Beag should be spelt bdhiog in Munster and Connemara maybe :-)

Dear Róman, thanks for the explanations, especially I liked your insistency on the inner logic of Irish.

quote: First "na madraí ciúine" was nominative, I hoped, no?

You hoped falsely, I took it litterally from Mac Congáils "Irish Grammar Book", page 96 (he follows CO, methinks)

nom sg. an madra ciúin
nom.pl. na madraí ciúine
gen.pl. na madraí ciúine

because, he says, madra forms his nom. plural not like my quoted patterns a) +a or b) Lenition of the ending.

So Gen.pl. would sometimes be ciúine, sometimes ciúin, depending on the plural, according to Mac Congáil.

(as in na n-asal ciúin, "of the quiet asses" as of pattern b) asail asses)

But the Christian brothers prescribe always in the second declension

Nom.pl. ciúine
Gen.pl. ciúin

so "na madraí ciúin" and "na n-asal ciúin". This was the contradiction. Your system follows the Chr.Br.; by streightforward declination I meant, there should only one gen.pl. form, i.d. ciúin.

(May I mention, my edition was printed 1919, but the writing reform of CO did not change grammar, didn't it?)


PS Right, Lughaid, suíleáil is síleáil (ceiling)

quote:

But this is CO grammar. So I am amazed you tried to compare it with Ó Siadhail. Just to give you an example. Think of Ó Siadhail as describing the spoken language of Hamburg with all its pecularities. And the other grammar you mention is Duden's Deutsche Grammatik. Would you really be surprised if those didn't match? Or you would rather be surprised if they coincide?

Ó Siadhail wrote in his appendix systematically (sic!) about the grammatical discrepancies between the official standard and the dialect of Cois Fhairrge, he described.

a) some words are always lenited, f.e. thrí, not trí
b) Plural and verbal nouns have often longer endings
c) after sa they eclipse (so sa mbád instead of sa bhád)

So I thought, that this were all, the rest would be standard.

After all, he understated obviously and I have to check not only spelling but rules also.

Lughaidh, I hate to argue with you, but you are've really written some non-sense.

quote:

No because in Connemara and Ulster, there are words where oi is pronounced [e].

The crucial thing is that usual pronunciation in Donegal is not [e], whereas in Conamara it is. How do you pronounce word "scoil"? So if this word is going to have exceptional pronunciation in both Donegal and Munster - why is it a good idea to tinker with spelling at all?

quote:

Most of the time means most of the time, ie. more than 50%.

But it does not apply Donegal, does it? And there NONE words like this in Munster.

quote:

In the caighdeán they said: "eo" is always long except in the words seo, anseo, eochair and deoch

Correction - in CO they said "let's spell eó as eo, because "eo" sound is rare". There is no real logic for this substitution even for grammatical reasons as 2nd conjugation's future is completely messed up in CO now.

quote:

Just learn the list and you know that all others are long...

Playing smart, aren't you? What about word "seó"? This single word destroys the whole logic of abandonment of "eó" spelling as there are both "seó" and "seo" in Irish. Furthermore, we live in 21st century and you have a big demand on transliteration of foreign names into Irish, thus distinction "eo" vs "eó" is needed again.

quote:

For those I'd just spell "liogam"

Which sounds [l`ugam`] in Munster, thus I can't afford such spelling. Isn't it easier recognize that CO decision was simply wrong?

“amáireach”

Usual Connacht form –with medial broad r in Donegal


“have learned Latin and classical Greek and speak German, so I was used to decline in a straightforward manner through the cases”

Case and number marking transferred historically to the final consonants (cat --> cait) and some final vowels (cos -->cos), some initial marking (cos -->gcos) and an odd example of an extra consonant (cú -->con) so with this in mind, in a language with a great deal of liaison, case marking and initial and final mutations, and a weakened literary tradition, is it any wonder declensions would go AWOL?


“suíleáil” –ceiling (of room) ‘pata logue’ in Russian?!!!


“They look ordinary to me, what is so exceptional?”

Within the form of Cois Fhairrge they are –muic for nom of pig etc


“including even forms like "áiteann", "leitreach")”

for those who don’t know Donegal, that is the genitive plural where a strong plural is clipped to make it differ from the nom pl (áit -->áiteanna; áiteanna -->n-áiteann)


“we pronounce it like [b͍ø̈gˠ] or so.” I take to mean that that symbol is your way of showing a slender b (‘beg’) of placenames.

quote:

You hoped falsely, I took it litterally from Mac Congáils "Irish Grammar Book", page 96 (he follows CO, methinks)

nom sg. an madra ciúin
nom.pl. na madraí ciúine
gen.pl. na madraí ciúine

ahh, now I understand. They invented a stupid rule (courtesy of Conamara?) that adjective gen. pl. ending depends on plural formation of noun. Something about "short" and "long" plurals - but who cares? I never followed the rule, neither made an effort even to remember it as it 1) contradicts to the language history 2) is a narrow feature of Conamara only. Thus, I just ignore it. Normally, adjective is declined independently from a noun. In traditional Irish you have:

an madra ciúin
na madraí ciúine (nom.)
na madraí ciúín (gen.)

Lenition of adjective - is a different question altogether, we are talking about adjective ending here.

quote:

So Gen.pl. would sometimes be ciúine, sometimes ciúin, depending on the plural, according to Mac Congáil.

And as a student of many Indo-european languages you should smell rot here. The rule is illogical and really flies into the face of IE languages' grammar.

quote:

But the Christian brothers prescribe always in the second declension

Nom.pl. ciúine
Gen.pl. ciúin

And they are right.

quote:

Your system follows the Chr.Br.; by streightforward declination I meant, there should only one gen.pl. form, i.d. ciúin.

My system follows Munster (southern) dialect and I would guess Donegal as well in this case. As I said - those "shrinking adjectives" are Conamarian invention.

quote:

but the writing reform of CO did not change grammar, didn't it?

It did, you are wrong on that. They abolished dative (except for some 5 words), messed the conjugation of syncopating verbs, played around with a future tense of second conjugation (Lughaidh will tell you more), butchered subjunctive in clauses, relative form and destroyed adjective mutation in dative. It is just a short sketch. CO changed many things in grammar, that is why I accept [almost] spelling changes, but ignore the grammar rules and follow Munster dialect.

quote:

bdhiog

This would be pronounced [b`jug] in Munster. It does not make sense. We pronounce it as if spelled beog, just like deocair, leogaim, eochair and all other words where eo stands in front of velars.

quote:

a) some words are always lenited, f.e. thrí, not trí
b) Plural and verbal nouns have often longer endings
c) after sa they eclipse (so sa mbád instead of sa bhád)

This is just a scrath on the surface, the differences may count up to 100. Those mentioned are the most obvious ones. I repeat the book described Conamarian dialect through and through, NOT CO.

quote:

After all, he understated obviously and I have to check not only spelling but rules also.

What is wrong with learning Conamarian dialect straight away? There is nothing wrong about that. There are no people speaking CO on the ground. On TV or radio you are most likely to hear exactly the same language which is described in the book, at least phonetically. CO exists only on paper. Even non-natives polish their language in some Gaeltacht closest to them, so all of them speak with some admixture of real Irish as opposed to made-up caighdeán oifigiúil

"They abolished dative (except for some 5 words), "

Something I find odd -it added an extra constraint (and thus more load on memory) than just letting all broad consonant final feminine nouns have a real dative and just leave it at that (ordóg, cleiteog, long, whatever)

"destroyed adjective mutation in dative."

Again, made it more complex -it is easier, except in exceptions to follow the inflexion from the noun to adjective (cat beag, chait bhig, etc). Of course, ar an chapaill bheag was only in Munster pushed to ar an chapaill mbeag, Madra na nOcht gCos (lua scéail i Séadna)

quote:

ar an chapaill mbeag

This was invented by 18th-19th century grammarians who prescribed this usage although it contradicted the popular usage. They concede themselves the adjective is lenited in these circumstances, but it is "illogical". Adjective is eclipsed only in plural gen.

quote:

ar an chapaill mbeag

Who would say that?
Go bhfios domh, deirtear:

ar an chapall bheag (Ulster)
ar an gcapall beag (Connemara)
ar an gcapall (m)beag (Munster)

Nach eadh?

Munster - ar an gcapall bheag

urú-ed version was grammarians' invention as I said.

Sorry, I got confused. I meant ar an gcapall mbeag to show an (old) Munster usage. Why I used the genitive, I dunno. I think maybe coz I was thinking of the older Ulster speakers using capall bheag in dative and the Munster using mbeag and just flung it all out...

I mentioned Madra na nOcht gCos due to seeing it in Séadna...whatever that is worth. Speech of the fireside, apparently...

Diachronically,it would not be natural to eclipse there as there would be few conditions phonologically to cause it. It could only happen if the mutation was extended to the adjective over time.

quote:

Munster - ar an gcapall bheag

urú-ed version was grammarians' invention as I said.

Not sure, I think I saw it somewhere, in some book about a dialect, maybe in An Teanga Bheo: Oileán Chléire or in a book about Muskerry. Anyway, it wasn't a grammarian's invention but a description of some living dialect.

In An Teanga Bheo: Corca Dhuibhne, they don't mention what you say (ie. lenition of adjective in dative singular); they just say it occurs when the preposition+article lenite, and they give these examples: sa chogadh mhuar, san oileán mhuar.

I didn't find it either in Sjoestedt's book but I've not searched in the whole book.

It would be logical to have an eclipsis on the adjective too, let's see:

ar an gcapall mbeag < wor sindon cappallon beccon
I don't see why "sindos" would be in the accusative (eclipsing, then) and not cappallos nor beccos...
In Old Irish, I think you would have had a nasalisation on both capall and beag (becc).

I'll look at it later (I have both here) but must rush out

Lughaidh > Which page in An Teanga Bheo describes this?

Lughaidh,

Except that modern prep+article is not continuation of ancient accusative, buts is a mix of dative and accusative, and in dative there was séimhiú, not urú.

The other thing - you say "it is logical", well that is the point. Urúed adjectives were formed only because it was "logical", not because that was the spoken practice.

Teanga Bheo: Gaeilge Chléire is pretty clear that séimhiú prevails in this environment

quote:

Lughaidh > Which page in An Teanga Bheo describes this?

P.18, §3.5

quote:

Except that modern prep+article is not continuation of ancient accusative, buts is a mix of dative and accusative

Cá bhfios duid?

quote:

Teanga Bheo: Gaeilge Chléire is pretty clear that séimhiú prevails in this environment

Well, "prevails", but they say it's not riachtanach and they give examples in which you wouldn't lenite... so it seems you do what you want, lenite or not when the word is masculine.

quote:

Except that modern prep+article is not continuation of ancient accusative, buts is a mix of dative and accusative

quote:

Cá bhfios duid?

Is fíor do Róman. Tig liom é a mhíniú, más gá -- ach tá mé cinnte go mbeidh Róman sásta é sin a dhéanamh.

Why not write it in standard form and pronounce it in whatever dialectal form we wish to use unless we're quoting someone with a distinct talking style and we want to draw attention to it?
I hate to say this but I also think the spelling soibhir is wrong in that it confuses people too much.
Ó Siadhail's book needs some tweaking (simplification and standardization).

quote:

ach tá mé cinnte go mbeidh Róman sásta é sin a dhéanamh.

Is féidir leat é a dhéanamh, a Dhonnacha, ní miste liom ar chor ar bith.

quote:

Why not write it in standard form and pronounce it in whatever dialectal form we wish to use

That is my point. If I pronounce "fuinneóg" as if it was written "finneóg" there is nothing to be won to insist on non-standard spelling, the difference is very slight anyway. However, I can't write "bhí mé" if I say "bhíos" - it is not spelling issue anymore.

But who will understand you outside of Munster? For all its faults the CO is what holds the language together. Ultimately, your way leads to the further fragmentation of Irish into still more unintelligible dialects. My own experience comes from Donegal, where (older) native speakers regard Munster Irish on RTE almost as a foreign language and switch off. Younger people, of course, are motre 'tolerant' , thanks in great part to the media and the CO.
Climb down from your ivory tower.

quote:

Why not write it in standard form and pronounce it in whatever dialectal form we wish to use

That is a workable solution, like in Norway, where the Norwegians write Bokmål (and some scanty ones "Nynorsk"), which is only a written standard, but spoken are only the dialects. In the media, you are continually confronted with the different ways of speaking and get used to it.

But in a language, where for 90% of its users it is not a in childhood orally learned language, why not follow our German example:

Excurs: When Martin Luther translated the Bible in 1522 he based his translation mainly on the bureaucratic standard language used in Saxony, which became the written standard. Until about 1800, standard German was almost only a written language. At this time, people in urban northern Germany, who spoke dialects very different from Standard German, learned it almost like a foreign language and tried to pronounce it as close to the spelling as possible. This "artificial spelling-prononciaton" is, what I and dozens of millions of Germans use now exclusively.

That would be pronouncing according to CO.

quote:

Is féidir leat é a dhéanamh, a Dhonnacha, ní miste liom ar chor ar bith.

Tá go maith. I nGaeilge nó i mBéarla?

quote:

But who will understand you outside of Munster?

Native speakers will, and if learners have any problems with that - well, they have problems with many things. Foirm tháite is well known to both Conamarian and Donegalian speakers because they use them natively in responsives (short answers) for clarity of meaning. And for purported CO "holding language together"? It is a piece of joke. How can a variety of language not used orally by anyone "hold the language together"? People who might use it, e.g. inhabitants of Dublin, don't speak any Irish at all. And those who do really speak Irish (majority of them outside of Dublin) - couldn't give a damn about CO. So you clearly wrong on that, mate.

The crucial difference between CO and "literary languages" in other countries is that
1) CO has no literature in it. All real Irish literature is dialectal
2) CO has no prestige to it (as the capital speaks English)
3) it has no native speakers.

So, face it - CO is doomed. If Irish survives long enough a new literary language will develop based on Conamarian dialect (courtesy of TG4) with a strong admixture of Munster and Donegal's elements*. TG4 is the closest we have to prestigious Irish language due to the pull of media sector and glamour of showbiz. Female presenters on TG4 (like Síle) or actors on Irish-language soaps (Aifric, Seacht and OF COURSE Ros na Rún) have done much more for "holding the language together" than Údaras has done in the previous 70 years.


* I noticed recently that Connacht's "led thoil" is replaced by "más é do thoil é" recently. A sure sign dialects started to mix.

(Message edited by róman on March 17, 2008)

quote:

Tá go maith. I nGaeilge nó i mBéarla?

Do bhí an cheist seo ag Lughaidh mar sin ná bíodh eagla ort i nGaelainn é a mhiniú.

p.s. Is maith liom gur bhuinis feidhm as an abairt "i nGaelainn", ní "as Gaelainn", maith thú!

Ingeborg,

As regards “neart daoine soibhir”, it’s good that you’ve noticed that, however it’s not the sole instance of this kind of usage in this book. If I recall it rightly Ó Siadhail has “na cuit dhall” in one of the first lesson. Long had I racked my brains thinking it could be another typo as Bearn suggested. However, these two instances consitutute examples of a Connemarian adjectival declension which simply does not add any plural suffix. i.e. you’ve got “tigeann na daoine soibhir go…”, “ní fheiceann na cuit dhall é” and “neart na ndaoine soibhir”, “neart cuit dhall”. I strongly advise that you consult An Deilbhíocht where de Bhaldraithe provides a thorough description of all these cases.

quote:

And those who do really speak Irish (majority of them outside of Dublin) - couldn't give a damn about CO

I learned (nearly) by heart the prescription in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_orthography and use it. Is it that artificial? It's no dialect, but I don't thing, it is pure litteral pronunciation,also. You have to vary your pronociation e.g. of vowels according to the surrounding, so

"fios" as [fis] but "siopa" as [ʃʊpə]

"ceist" as [cɛʃt] but geimhreadh as [givrə]


Has anyone seen that chart? It is very elaborated.

Is this, what you called "Dublin Irish", which is (?) condemned to death.

Or do you think, the chart in Ó Siadhail book (which is also quite explicit) is so superior, that one should learn better that.

Pronuciation you have to drill early, so to decide, which rules to follow, I should not postpone to long.

quote:

I learned (nearly) by heart

Waste of time, sorry.

quote:

Is it that artificial? It's no dialect, but I don't thing, it is pure litteral pronunciation,also.

This is neither of the dialects, nor is it the dreaded "lárchanúint". What is presented in the table is the self-invented pronunciation by Antony D. Green, who actually lives in Germany as far as I know. His system of pronunciation is very close to traditional northern Connacht dialect (Maigh Eó, Tuar Mhíc Éadaigh). Many people think that Connacht dialect = Conamara, but this is not true. There is southern Connacht dialect which is very lively, promoted by TG4 and RnG - thus, very well known, but there is also northern Connacht dialect which is close to it but still is different from Conamara on several key points (like medial -th- or "á" type of vowel).

However, it must be stressed that the system of pronunciation devised by A. D. Green is neither official, nor is it an accurate description of northern Connacht as it has one fundamental FLAW.

I mean the treatment of /N/ and /L/ phonemes which Mr. Green decided simply to ignore. That is a mistake as /N/, /L/ phonemes (at least their slender equivalents) are clearly distinguished in all Irish dialects. The realisation may vary from diphtongization of previous vowel in Munster to distinct "tense" consonants in the north. However nowhere is the n:nn, l:ll contrast simply ignored. Think of L as consisting of two l's, then Munster vocalizes them:

aL -> al-l -> aw-l -> aul (e.g. dall [daul])
iL -> il-l -> ij-l -> íl (e.g. poill [pi:l`])

Thus, even Munster dialect which does not have the sounds [L] and [N] anymore still marks those with diphtongization (lengthening) of preceding vowel.

Why would he choose to collapse the l and n category, just because they do not behave like gemminates?

quote:

You have to vary your pronociation e.g. of vowels according to the surrounding, so

"fios" as [fis] but "siopa" as [s`upə]

Welcome to Irish . On a serious note - yes, the pronunciation of Irish phonems is dependent on surrounding, especially of vowels. It is even fair to say that only consonants (their broadness-slenderness) matter as vowels are dependent on them. According to most phonological theories Irish has only 3 short vowels:

/a~A/, /e~o/, /i~u/. The exact allophone to be chosen depends on the following consonant: back vowel is chosen in front of a broad consonant, and the front allophone in front of a slender consonant. In reality it is a bit more complicated than that, but the principle holds to its own.

Now regarding your exact questions.

Digrpaph "io" is pronounced [u] all of the time except when in front of coronals (d, t, s, th, r). Thus:

siopa [u], but fios [i]
giolla [u], but giota [i]

"ei" is always [e], in reallity there is no other way to write [e] sound in Irish, spelling "*e" is not allowed. However in nasal contexts (n, m, mh) it is often raised to [i]. This raising has been reflected in modern spelling in words like "tine" (previously "teine"), "minic" (previously "meinic"), however some words (like "geimhreadh") retain the archaic spelling. Actually I don't know why CO didn't change the spelling as in both Conamara and Munster it is pronounced with [i], maybe Donegal keeps [e] sound - honestly I don't know. The word itself is a cognate of Latin "heims" + readh element which means "a season", "a time span".

Is that the fellow that insists that broad ch is /x/ rather than /χ/ just because it says /x/ in dialect books?

quote:

Or do you think, the chart in Ó Siadhail book (which is also quite explicit) is so superior, that one should learn better that.

Pronuciation you have to drill early, so to decide, which rules to follow, I should not postpone to long.

You are correct on that. As you are going to speak with real people, not some governments papers - I recommend to choose one of real Irish dialects for phonology and stick to it. There are several options for you all of them described in thorough 'Irish of X' series published by Dublin institute for Advanced studies (DIAS):

1. Irish of Waterford (east Munster dialect)
2. Irish of Muskerry (western Munster dialect)
3. Irish of Cois Fhairrge (southern Connacht)
4. Irish of Tourmakeady (northern Connacht)
5. Irish of Erris (nothern Connacht)

There is book on Donegal (to be precisely - Tellin) but it would look intimidating for beginner. Then you always have in-depth studies like Finck (actually in German) for Aran islands, perennial Soestedt-Jonval (for Kerry - in French - Une description d'une parlais de Kerry?) etc but from my own experience I would suggest to stick to one of "Irish of X" series. they are VERY helpful and will answer a lot of question for you.

quote:

Why would he choose to collapse the l and n category, just because they do not behave like gemminates?

My guess is that he is unable to pronounce [L] and [N], and he didn't like the "Munster option" - so he ignored the issue altogether. I don't agree with such approach. Next time somebody doesn't understand mutations - so he discards them, too? You don't like cases - forget them? Where do you stop in this forgering of Irish?

quote:

Is that the fellow that insists that broad ch is /x/ rather than /χ/ just because it says /x/ in dialect books?

Go bhfios dom the symbols you type represent the same sound, no?

Lughaidh,

A propos, you have access to Sjoestedt-Jonval I understand. Do you have the book itself, or it is in some kind of library. Could you please look several things for me in the book as I have no access to the book and it is impossible to buy it, más é do thoil é.

I am not better than Mister Green and am not sure, what is meant my these tense "L" and "N"

quote:

The difference comes roughly in the precision of the pronunciation, [L], [N], [R] are somewhat lengthened, [l], [n], [r] are spoken a bit more lax. [L], [N] are formed by a pressing of the tongue on the front teeth, [l], [n] are produced on the alveolae.
In written Irish, the tensed variant (except at the beginning of a word) often expressed as a double (nn, ll, rr).

This would be like Italian "nona "ninth" verus "nonna" "gandma", where you have to hold the n just a bit longer.
But there seems to be more to it, as your tongue is also shifting.

The word "often" worries me also, so there are more "tense" ls and ns than I see written.

I saw once someone write about lenition of n to N (like leabhar (l) -> mo leabhar [L]), which adds to the problem, that Irish phonetical richness is greater than I have grasped yet.

(Message edited by ingeborg on March 17, 2008)

The idea is roughly the following:

[l], [n], [l'], [n'] are formed on alveols (i.e. normal German or English [n] and [l])

[L] and [N] are formed by pressing the tongue against the front teeth (so no corresponding sound in German or English). I am not sure Italian is of any help here, it is the position of tongue that is different not "length" which is just a by-product of different articulation.

[R] does not exist anymore in Irish, forget it. You just to have pronounce vowels longer in front of /R/, thus gearr and gar are different not only by slenderness of [g`] but also by the length of [a]. To be frank in Conamara broad varieties [l] and [L], [n] and [N] have collapsed into [L] and [N] correspondingly. Only [L'] vs [l'] and [N'] vs [n'] remains. Thus the phonological system of sonorants in Conamara:

[r], [r'], [L], [N], [l']:[L'], [n']:[N']

Donegal still has [l] and [n] too, but [R'] is not sure to have existed at all (as all word initial r- are broad), and existance of [R] in Donegal is claimed by some people (like Lughaidh) but it is not proved by any hard evidence.

Lenition - you got it umgekehrt ;) [L'], [N'] are unlenited, and [l'], [n'] are lenited:

leabhar [L'] - mo leabhar [l']
neart [N'] - mo neart [n']

quote:

So Gen.pl. would sometimes be ciúine, sometimes ciúin, depending on the plural, according to Mac Congáil.

(as in na n-asal ciúin, "of the quiet asses" as of pattern b) asail asses)

But the Christian brothers prescribe always in the second declension

Nom.pl. ciúine
Gen.pl. ciúin

No, they don't.
In New Irish Grammar (p. 61) they say:
"An adjective qualifying a strong-plural noun has the same form for all cases in the plural"

In Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Criostaí (p. 93-94) they say:
"Maidir le haideachtaí atá indíochlaonta, is mar a chéile na foirmeacha atá i ngach ceann de na ceithre ghrúpa seo a leanas:
- an t-ainmneach agus an tabharthach uatha, firinscneach agus baininscneach; agus an ginideach iolra lag (is é sin, an fhoirm den ghinideach iolra a ghabhann le hainmfhocal a bhfuil iolra lag aige.)
- na foirmeacha iolra go léir taobh amuigh den iolra lag
- [...]"

Regarding to this genitive plural is "ciúin" in "iolra lag" (weak plural) but "ciúine" in "iolra tréan" (strong plural), e.g.:
chun na bhfear ciúin = to the quiet men
but
chun na mbuachaillí ciúine = to the quiet boys
and of course:
chun na madraí ciúine = to the quiet dogs

Lars

quote:

pressing the tongue against the front teeth

I hear and feel no difference, especially with the n, but that is normal for such subleties, which are not different phonems in your language.

So when is a n a [N] and a l a [L]

When its written double and obviouly wordinitally, if it is unlenited. But that won't be all cases.

I may read it in one of these "Irish in X" series.

Dear Lars,

for that I mentioned that I have the "old" Irish Grammar of the Christian Brothers, printed in 1919.

They have changed their mood in the meantime, methinks, these brothers.

Lars,

true, you confuse Christian Brother's CO edition with the initial pre-caighdeán grammar Ingeborg was referring too. The value of CO-inspired Christian brothers is close to zero as they just restate what is written in "An Caighdeán Oifigiúil", whereas beginning of 20th century grammar is one of many takes on grammar and is a valuable resource of its own.

quote:

I hear and feel no difference

Ingeborg, but this is the point. [n] and [N] don't contrast in Conamara, there is only [N] (.i. dental sound) in both lenited and unlenited environment. Both "náire" and "mo náire" have [N] in Conamara, so lenition of broad [L] and [N] simply does not happen. Furthermore, the young generation is importing an alveolar sound ([n]) from English. So now [n] vs [N] is a more generational thing in Conamara, not a phonemic contrast. The studies have shown that the native speakers themselves are not aware if the pronounce a dental [N] or alveolar [n] in this environment. If you find alveolar [n] easier (because it is your native German sound)- then don't worry about it, stick to it.

However, there IS contrast in the case of slender sounds. [N'] and [n'] do sound differently, with [n'] being "more slender" to my ears, almost like Italian -ign-, the same applies to [L'] vs [l'] (the last one not unlike Italian -igl-). As I imagine the proper mastering of [N'] and [L'] should be tricky to you. If you find any Polish or Russian native speakers ask them to demonstrate "soft" "n" and "l" - those will do the trick.

quote:

Dear Lars,

for that I mentioned that I have the "old" Irish Grammar of the Christian Brothers, printed in 1919.

They have changed their mood in the meantime, methinks, these brothers.

Oh, sorry.
Yes, they don't mention it in "Graiméar na Gaedhilge leis na Bráthreachaibh Criostamhla".
Other pre-CO grammars don't mention it as well, except O'Nolan's "New Era Grammar of Modern Irish" (1934):
"Pl. and Dual. G. -mór(a), dileas (dilse)."
and
"In G.pl. there is a tendency to assimilate to the other cases - Bliain na mBuachaillí mBána-The Year of the Whiteboys."

quote:

However, there IS contrast in the case of slender sounds. [N'] and [n'] do sound differently, with [n'] being "more slender" to my ears, almost like Italian -ign-, the same applies to [L'] vs [l'] (the last one not unlike Italian -igl-).

I'd think [L´] and [N´] are like Italian "gl" and "gn". [l´] and [n´] are like normal German "l" and "n"-sounds .

(Message edited by lars on March 17, 2008)

Arndt Wigger, who tranlated Ó Siadhails book to German, gives as rough parallels:

N' as in Cognac and L' as in Million
n' as in Wein and l' as in viel

so n' would be our normal German n and the N' the foreign n mouillé of Romance languages, as Lars indicated.

But such parallels are always dangerous, as this confusion demonstrates.

PS: The only exsisting German dictionary "Wörterbuch Irisch-Deutsch", written by Thoma Feito Caldas / Clemens Schleicher which gives you the pronunciation in brackets, ignores the difference. So you find e.g.

cine [k'in'ə] Rasse
cinneadh [k'in'ə] Übertreffen, Entschluß

So Mr Green has obviously pals in Germany.

(Message edited by ingeborg on March 17, 2008)

quote:

PS: The only exsisting German dictionary "Wörterbuch Irisch-Deutsch", written by Thoma Feito Caldas / Clemens Schleicher which gives you the pronunciation in brackets, ignores the difference.

That's like in Foclóir Scoile, the so called "Lárchanúint". It's not really the idea of Caldas/Schleicher.

quote:

So Mr Green has obviously pals in Germany

If you refer to Wikipedia's "Irish Phonology" (which is written by Anthony AFAIK) there are different sounds of r, l, n (see: lenis and fortis sonorants).

Lars

quote:

[l´] and [n´] are like normal German "l" and "n"-sounds .

Only by the position of the tongue tip. However palatalisation and velarisation as such are realised by raising-lowering of the middle of the tongue. Without it - it will be just German/English... [l] and [n], they are NOT Irish [l'] and [n'] because they are not palatalised. They are only fit as a poor approximations of [L] and [N].

Writing [N], [N'] etc is nonsense: square brackets are used for phonetics and slashes for phonology. N and N' (and L' etc) are phonological symbols, they don't exist in phonetics. The apostrophe means "ejective consonant" in phonetics, and there are no ejective consonants in Irish.

[k'] means "ejective k", for example, and [n'] is ejective n (I wonder how it would sound!).

When you write stuff like that, please write it between slashes...
/L'/ = [λ]
/l'/ = [lʲ]
/L/ = [l̪ˠ]...

/L'/ = [λ]
/l'/ = [lʲ]
/L/ = [l̪ˠ]..
/l/ = [lˠ]..

If you want to know how to make the sounds, let me advise this

[λ] --> 'million' (in HE at least)
[lʲ] --> 'pill'
[l̪ˠ] --> take some water (a small mouthful) and put the tip of the tongue to the back of the teeth, and try to scoop and hold the water without it falling back into the mouth. The tongue will naturally fan out to accomplish this. Practice this and broad dental l will be done!
[lˠ] -->if you speak RP English it is in the word 'all' (but don't labialize it, like they do). Also in the Korean word Hangul as the final sound too...

/N'/ = [ɲ] -->as in 'minion'
/n'/ = [nʲ] -->as in 'pin'
/N/ = [n̪ˠ] -->as above instruction
/n/ = [nˠ] -->make all above but with n

quote:

Writing [N], [N'] etc is nonsense: square brackets are used for phonetics and slashes for phonology. N and N' (and L' etc) are phonological symbols, they don't exist in phonetics.

They exist in Celtic phonetics.

quote:

[k'] means "ejective k", for example

There are no ejective sounds in Celtic language, and the convention to denote palatalized sounds with apostrophe is well established.

quote:

When you write stuff like that, please write it between slashes...
/L'/ = [λ]
/l'/ = [lʲ]
/L/ = [l̪ˠ]...

Precisely because I see meaningless squares instead of symbols in your post I will continue to use internet-friendly notation which was established even before you were born!

quote:

the convention to denote palatalized sounds with apostrophe

In most prints it's a diagonal stroke, resembling more an accute accent than an apostroph (e.g.: k´, L´, x´)

Lars