I am learning Irish and I was wondering what the difference between the dialects is. The book I have is 'Learning Irish' by Mícheál ó Siadhail. Is this a good book to start with? What other books are equally wonderful? Ect, ect.
Basically, I have a lot of beginners questions and I just want to clear things up before I throw myself into learning another language.
Much obliged,
J

There are 3 dialects in Irish

Munster is spoken in > Kerry, Waterford, and Cork.
Connacht is spoken in > Around Galway and the Irish speaking areas of Connemara including the Aran Islands
Ulster is spoken in > The strong Irish speaking areas of Donegal which includes Ranafast, Gweedore, Gortahork, Tory Island etc, and to a certain extent its spoken in Gleann Cholm Cille.

If you want to know what dialect to speak, I'd recommend Donegal Irish (aka Ulster) when you hear it spoken its nice to the hear.

Mícheál ó Siadhail book is in Connacht Irish.

quote:

If you want to know what dialect to speak, I'd recommend Donegal Irish (aka Ulster) when you hear it spoken its nice to the hear.

Which is as much as saying that redheads are prettier than blondes or brunettes, or that Beamish tastes better than Guinness or Murphys.

Ní lia duine ná barúil, a mhic!

Níl mé ag caint fá dtaobh don chac sin, tá mise ag caint fá dtaobh don chanúintí is fearr liom i nGaeilge a mhic.

Faoi do bharúil. Ach ní thuigim cén fáth a bhfuil an oiread sín béime ar chanúintí i measc Gaeilgeoirí/foghlaimeoirí taobh amuigh d'Éirinn. Atavistic urge le tacaíocht a thabhairt d'fhoireann amháin agus pointí a scóráil ón bhfoireann eile? Nó saghas authenticity angst? Ba cheart dúinn a bheith ar an bhfoireann chéanna, foireann na Gaeilge, gan a bheith ag maíomh go bhfuil ceann de na canúintí níos fearr ná na cinn eile. Sin í mo bharúilse.

Cad chuige go bhfuil tú ag lorg troid liom?

Bhí an UG ag scríobh fá canúintí sa teanga agus thug mé mo 2 cent di, cad é an fhadhb a chara?

Tá íogaireacht beirte ionat inniu! Tóg go réidh é.
Thug tú do bharúil. Thug Dennis a bharúil seisean. Tharla nach ionann iad. Níl aon ionsaí ná aon lorgaireacht troda feicthe agam go fóill.

quote:

Faoi do bharúil. Ach ní thuigim cén fáth a bhfuil an oiread sín béime ar chanúintí i measc Gaeilgeoirí/foghlaimeoirí taobh amuigh d'Éirinn. Atavistic urge le tacaíocht a thabhairt d'fhoireann amháin agus pointí a scóráil ón bhfoireann eile? Nó saghas authenticity angst? Ba cheart dúinn a bheith ar an bhfoireann chéanna, foireann na Gaeilge, gan a bheith ag maíomh go bhfuil ceann de na canúintí níos fearr ná na cinn eile. Sin í mo bharúilse.

Maidir liom féin: bhí suim agam i gcónaí ins na canúintí in achan teangaidh a bhfuil dúil agam inti. Sin saidhbhreas achan teangtha. Tá dúil agam san éagsúlacht.
An chéad uair a chualaidh mise Gaeilg ba in amhráin Chlannad agus Altan a chualaidh mé í, agus nuair a chualaidh mé canúintí eile ’na dhiaidh sin, char thaitin siad liom gomh mór le cionn Ghaoth Dobhair. Ba bhinne liom í seo. Agus is é mo bharúil nach bhfuil aon mhaith i meascadh chanúintí, má ghníthear é cailltear féiniúlacht achan chanúna agus achan cheantair.

Ar ndóighe, más fearr liom féin Gaeilg Ghaoth Dobhair, níl ann ach mo bharúil féin agus gheobhaidh achan duine cúiseannaí le suim a chur i gcanúint eile. Agus tá sin iontach maith. Cha bheadh an Ghaeilg gomh deas gus atá sí dá mbíodh achan duine á labhairt ar an dóigh chéarna.

A Dhennis, d’úrt Trigger gurbh fhearr leis féin canúint Thír Chonaill, sin a’ méid, agus nach bhfuil cead againn ráidht cad é ár mbarúil?

"Is beannaithe lucht déanta na síochána, mar tabharfar iníonacha Dé orthu..."

Returning to the UG's questions:

Learning Irish is an excellent book to start with. The only major problem I have with it is that it mixes standard and dialect spellings throughout, and these can be difficult to untangle in spite of the helpful appendix. It teaches the dialect of Cois Fhairrge, a Connaught variety. Connaught dialects have the most speakers nowadays. Also, they're centrally located, which supposedly makes them well understood by both Munster and Ulster speakers. The standard spelling is also based largely on Connemara Irish, another Connaught variety.

Munster Irish may not be spoken as much in the present day, but it was the basis for the 19th-century literary language, so there's a fair bit of "classic" literature in it. It's also generally more conservative in morphology (for instance, it uses rather more synthetic verb forms than the other dialects), which makes it a better bridge to Early Modern Irish and still older varieties.

Lughaidh makes a good case for Ulster Irish, which is the language of such prolific modern bands as Clannad and Altan. It's a more analytic variety than Connaught, let alone Munster, which is good news if you hate memorising inflections. Also, it's the closest to Scottish Gaelic, which would be useful if you have an interest in learning that as well.

So it really comes down to what you want to learn the language for. Dennis is probably correct that it doesn't make a great deal of difference in the end. The dialects aren't so different that learning one means you can't pick up another. You're never going to speak the language unless you find people (in Ireland or elsewhere) to speak with regularly, and in that case the best thing to do is probably imitate their variety, particularly if they're native speakers.

Unregistered Guest, you would also be well advised to studiously ignore anybody who gives you an answer to the question of "which dialect is best, most correct, most melodious," etc.

It's like asking "which dialect of American English is best: Vally Girl, Deep South Rural, or Brooklyn NYC?" Fact is, they're all understandable to speakers of the other varieties and none conform 100% to the "official standard." That's about the state of affairs with Irish. It took me way too long to learn this.

For some reason, this language seems to attract a vocal minority of people who espouse one dialect over the others in an absolutely strident manner, and treat discussion of this topic like a World Wrestling Federation Smackdown Match. Unfortunately this has the perverse effect of putting people off of learning the language. Don't let it stop you.

If you have Learning Irish, you're well served. Run with it!

My only suggestion to you here is that you should absolutely have the audio component of it! Trust me, trying to "sound out" Irish words just will not work; the rules for spelling are complex and befuddling to most beginners, so an audio component is indispensable.

You can get the book with CD audio from Yale University Press here:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300121776

If you prefer cassette tapes, you might as well buy it right here at daltai.com:

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

Learning this language can be a bit of a grail-quest for somebody not in Ireland, so if you have any questions don't hesitate to come back here and ask them. I ask "stupid questions" on a regular basis.

Good luck!

(Message edited by Domhnall_Ó_h_Aireachtaigh on April 24, 2008)

quote:

cad é an fhadhb a chara?

Féirplé duit, Trigger. Fonn troid a bhí orm ar maidin. Maith dom é, le do thoil.

It's like asking "which dialect of American English is best: Vally Girl, Deep South Rural, or Brooklyn NYC?" Fact is, they're all understandable to speakers of the other varieties and none conform 100% to the "official standard."

While I agree wholeheartedly that there's no general answer to this question, there are certainly better and worse responses for a given context. If you're going to be speaking primarily to Europeans, for instance, "Deep South Rural" is a poor choice. IME, they have a terrible time understanding it and you'll be in for lots of frustration. Even within the USA, it's going to open you up to a lot of mockery and disparagement of your abilities. On the other hand, if you plan to live in the rural South, then it's a completely different story.

So that's why I was trying to provide some general information on what each dialect is "good for". If you know you'll studying in a particular spot, learning a variety closer to the local one will make things much easier in the beginning. If you want to read Tomás Ó Criomhthain in the original, Ó Siadhail's book is going to leave you scratching your head an awful lot, and if you want to understand Enya, Pimsleur's Munster-based course will be less than ideal. The more UG can tell us about their particular situation, the more helpful we can be in our replies.

A Dhomhnail LL, a chara, I was just using an analogy. ;)

For my part, I'm just assuming that UG is a garden variety American like me, since their IP addy is from Iowa. Personally, I'm very happy using Learning Irish because it's the closest thing to a textbook that I could find, and that's how I learn best. I supplement it with the Buntús Cainte and where I come across differences, I ask questions here or pester my Irish-speaking acquainces. Easy peasy.

I will say this, though: beginner though I am, I'm frequently astonished at the bitter viciousness that certain fans of one dialect sometimes direct at other dialects. I've listened to a fair amount of audio from Ulster and Munster and, so far as I can determine, the differences are frankly negligible. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

quote:

Fonn troid

Aargh. Mea culpa.

Recte: fonn troda

Fonn codlata a bhí orm nuair a scríobh mé é sin?

Here's a quote from Canon Ulick Bourke on the subject:

"After intimite association with Irish speakers in the four Provinces of Ireland, I am convinced that there is no such thing as different dialects spoken in different provinces. There is only one language, the language of the Irish race. It is true that there are a few forms of expression, and some peculiar sounds, or a certain manner of pronouncing the language in one locality which are not found in another. But even in London, the very heart of England, strange and very quaint pronunciation of the English language is heard every day."

Thread like this put people of Irish.

Dialects! Irish! There are three.

Scottish, Manx and Irish.

Hmm, Scottish, Manx, and Irish are not dialects...

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

Definition 4: they are!

Agus dúirt duine éigin eile gur canúint le harm is ea teanga. Inniu, canúint le státseirbhís.

One of the difficulties with discussions of this type, on this board and elsewhere, is that there is no shared set of assumptions about semantics. Some people are using terms casually; others with a narrow technical definition - and often a terms is used with different narrow technical definitions.

I agree with Domhnall Liaim Liaims post above:
http://www.daltai.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/daltai/discus/show.pl?tpc=20&post=69066#PO ST69066

Dialects? Language?

My argument is this.

1. Funadmentally know by the same name - Gaedhilg or immediate variant there of.

2. Spoken by people of shared ethinticity who share a common label > Gaedhal.

3. Moderate > very high levels of mutual intelligibilty.

4. Common classical standard, interupted by conflict.

5. Lexicon is fundamentally shared, grammar is most similar. Shared spelling system.Similar phonology.

6. Common literature until circa 1600.

quote:

Agus dúirt duine éigin eile gur canúint le harm is ea teanga.

Is breá liom an nath sin! Max Weinreich a chuir faoi bhráid an domhain é, cé go ndúirt sé go bhfuair sé ó dhuine eile é.

"אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט"
(a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot).

For my part, I'm just assuming that UG is a garden variety American like me, since their IP addy is from Iowa. Personally, I'm very happy using Learning Irish because it's the closest thing to a textbook that I could find, and that's how I learn best.

I hate to assume, which is why I ask lots of questions. But I think this last line is key: Find a method that will work for you and run with it, regardless of which variant it teaches. Learning another variant of a language you know is peanuts compared to the hard work of learning that language in the first place. Do whatever it takes to stay interested in the project over the long haul, and worry about details like do dheineas vs. rinne mé and goidé vs. conas later.

I will say this, though: beginner though I am, I'm frequently astonished at the bitter viciousness that certain fans of one dialect sometimes direct at other dialects.

Sad to say, I'm not surprised at all, since I've seen the same sort of viciousness regarding English dialects. The one topic that is always guaranteed to spark a flamewar in one of the online communities I participate in--a community of language fanatics, no less--is "Ulster Scots--language, dialect, or just funny way of talking?" And the absolutely apocalyptic discourse sparked by minor variations in the standard dialect of English has been thoroughly chronicled in the Language Log columns on "word rage".

So when I see comments about the "Connemara Taliban" over some silly quirk of CO spelling, I merely sigh and move on. There's no point at all in arguing with someone who is that irrationally emotionally invested in something.

Mar a dúirt an drámadóir George Bernard Shaw, "The moment an Englishman opens his mouth, he makes another Englishman despise him."

Mar a dúirt an drámadóir George Bernard Shaw...

Ach bhí sé ag labhairt fé idirdhealuithe aicmeacha, ní raibh? Ní cheapfainn go mbíodh mórán canúintí sóisialta na Gaelainne sa nua-aos.

A Dh LL, an tusa atá ann? Is fíor duit, gan dabht. Tá cara liom anseo, Crispin an t-ainm atá air. An gá dom a rá gur Sasanach é? Pé scéal é, dúirt sé liom uair amháin faoina bhlas féin go bhfuil sé "admired but not liked". Aicme agus oideachas a bhí i gceist aige.

quote:

My argument is this.

1. Funadmentally know by the same name - Gaedhilg or immediate variant there of.

Think of Latin, Ladino, etc, think of Slovene and Slovak (whose native names are almost the same one)... By the way, the name of the language doesn't mean anything: many languages are almost identical and have a different name...

quote:

2. Spoken by people of shared ethinticity who share a common label > Gaedhal.

Doesn't prove anythin either.

quote:

3. Moderate > very high levels of mutual intelligibilty.

That's the case with many languages (Scandinavian, Slovak and Czech...)

quote:

4. Common classical standard, interupted by conflict.

That's not rare...

quote:

5. Lexicon is fundamentally shared, grammar is most similar. Shared spelling system.Similar phonology.

Spelling system: there are differences; phonology: there are differences; lexicon: many differences too.

quote:

6. Common literature until circa 1600.

Same with other languages... (and many didn't have literature until recently)

Actually, those who say that Irish and Gaelic are very close one to another are those who have not studied both languages in detail. I have, and although I'm fluent in Irish, I'm not fluent in Gaelic. I've difficulty to understand novels in Gaelic (while I understand Irish ones very well). I don't understand much in spoken Gaelic.

In comparison, I think that a Norwegian would understand written Danish without any problem, I know that Czechs and Slovaks understand each other very well, even in speech... And nobody would say Czech and Slovak are the same language, or that Danish and Norwegian are the same language (although I think they are even closer one to another than Ulster Irish to Munster Irish)...

Try to learn Gaelic and Irish and to speak both fluently, and you'll see how different they are...

In my opinion dialects, women and Christmas trees have one thing in common -they come in all shapes and sizes, and are beautiful for that fact :)

quote:

In my opinion dialects, women and Christmas trees have one thing in common - they come in all shapes and sizes, and are beautiful for that fact :)

But you choose normally only one of them. To satisfy several women at one time will give you often much trouble. The same with dialects...

Dialects is one of the things that makes you excited about Irish.

And funny enough with other languages the dialects dosen't interested me as the ones in Irish do.

Apparently there is different pronunciation of certain words of one side of the Tory Island to the other! And Aibigéal was saying that she was speaking to someone from the Aran Islands and he said that there is a few words that is unique to one of the Aran islands that you won't hear in the other ones.

In Tír Chonaill this year I will ask some very old native speakers if there are any unique words around Gweedore area because there might be. :-)

quote:

The same with dialects...

It would be possible to speak several dialects. I speak several dialects of Breton...

Lughaidh is right, its possible for someone to be able to speak Munster, Connacht, and Ulster it wouldn't be that hard as its the same language after all.

As far as I know, there is a member on IGT who speaks both Connacht and Ulster.

Debates like this about dialects are almost amusing. Rud a bhí ann a rinne tú sular fhoghlaim tú Gaeilge agus sular thuig tú gur teanga amháin í ar fud na háite.

As for Gaeilge/Gáidhlig, both forms are used in the new sexy Gaelic magazine - www.nosmag.com - agus níl mórán sa difear eadarthu ag deireadh an lae.

Rg cuan > éist le Rèidio nan Gàidheal agus inis dúinn cad é a thuigeas tú... : http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/alba/radio/

Tugaim féin cibé ar bith, tá Gaeilge Mhannain beagan nas deacra domhsa cé go bhfeil cáil mhór cosalachtai le Gaedhilg s'againne?

RG > An bhfeil muinn ar a'n fhacal fá sin? Saoilim nach dtaitnionn canúint Mhanainn leat?

"Try to learn Gaelic and Irish and to speak both fluently, and you'll see how different they are"

I think Im doing alright!!

Lughaidh,

Is aisteach liom go bhfuil do chuid barulacha chomh laidir ar an abhar, ce go n-admhaionn tu fein nach bhfuil Gaeilge na hAlban agat.

Is suimiuil liom go bhfuil gach duine a bhfuil an da chanuint acu ag maiomh gurb teanga amhain i an Ghaeilge go bunusach.

Tá an dá theanga agam, agus ní dóigh liom gur canúintí den teanga chéanna iad. Cad is brí le "go bunúsach"? Ní dóigh liom gur "teanga amháin" iad an tSean-Ghaeilge agus an Nua-Ghaeilge ach oiread, cé go bhfuil bunús ag an dara ceann sa chéad cheann. Is féidir liom cuid mhaith Iodáilis agus Catalóinis a thuiscint cé nar fhoghlaim mé ceachtar acu, toisc go bhfuil Spáinnis agus Fraincis agam. An caúintí den teanga chéanna iad seo uilig?

quote:

Is suimiuil liom go bhfuil gach duine a bhfuil an da chanuint acu ag maiomh gurb teanga amhain i an Ghaeilge go bunusach.

Chan eil e sin fìor idir. Tha an fheadhainn dà-chànanach a' tuigsinn gu math nach e dualchainnt a th'anns a' Ghàidhlig.

Ach cha miann linn ar n-ùine a' chaitheamh an seo oir tha an saoghal goirid is tha tòrr rudan nas fheàrr againn ri dhèanamh.

Tha Gàidhlig bhlasta agad, bail ó dhia ort !

http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~oduibhin/ouch.htm

Aontaim le an aiste seo.

I disagree.

Just because its ''Gaeilge, Gaelg, Gàidhlig'' and they all begin with G's doesn't make them dialects of each other they are all different languages.

Some people use ''Gaelic'' the umbrella name for all the Gaelic languages, but Romance is a selection of languages example French, Italian, Spanish but would someone call them all Romance? I wouldn't think so.

Ach cha miann linn ar n-ùine a' chaitheamh an seo oir tha an saoghal goirid is tha tòrr rudan nas fheàrr againn ri dhèanamh.

Tá mise ag aontú leis sin!

Mise leis (tar éis dom dóthain d'fháil d'fhocail as foclóir Gaelainne na hAlban leis é a thuiscint).

Though, really, I see no real harm in discussing "dialects" as long as we keep in mind that these are entities of no real existence. What is factual is that people from different places do not talk the same. How we organise this concrete data--where we draw imaginary lines between "local varieties", "dialects", "languages", "subfamilies", etc.--is an interesting set of puzzles with no definitive answers.

(Message edited by antaine on April 27, 2008)

"Some people use ''Gaelic'' the umbrella name for all the Gaelic languages"

Quelle suprise.

"but Romance is a selection of languages example French, Italian, Spanish but would someone call them all Romance?"

Well I have a linguistic text book or two which call them all reomance languages.

quote:

Lughaidh,

Is aisteach liom go bhfuil do chuid barulacha chomh laidir ar an abhar, ce go n-admhaionn tu fein nach bhfuil Gaeilge na hAlban agat.

Cha tuirt mi ariamh nach robh Gàidhlig na h-Alba aigheam, ach nach robh mi fileanta innt. Is doirbh leam a tuigs nuair a tha cuideigin gha bruidhinn, agus tha tòrr faclan nach eil mi 'tuigs sna leabhraichean (chan urrainn mi novel a leumh fon a tha cus faclan nach eil mi 'tuigs). Ach man a tha thu 'faiceann, 's urrainn dhomh a sgrìobhadh beagan.

quote:

Is suimiuil liom go bhfuil gach duine a bhfuil an da chanuint acu ag maiomh gurb teanga amhain i an Ghaeilge go bunusach.

Man am biodh ann ach cànan a-mhàin, chan fheumaist an cànan eile a dh'ionnsachadh gus i a thuigs...
Man am biodh ann ach cànan a-mhàin, cha bhiodh leabhraichean diofarach gus an dà chànan a dh'ionnsachadh, cha bhiodh faclairean diofarach, agus mar sin air adhart.

quote:

"gur teanga amhain i an Ghaeilge go bunusach"

Dè tha "go bunúsach" a' ciallachadh nad sheantans? Cànan a-mhàin i a' Ghàidhlig man do dh'fhàs dà chànan eadar-dhealaichte, ann an deireadh na Meadhan-Aoise. Agus tha fhios aig càch gum beil dà chànan ann fon uair od.

Lughaidh,

Is e an rud ata me ag iarraidh cur in iul duit na nach aontaim leat.

Tá ’s agam ach cha ndéanann sé lá duifir...

Dá mb’ionann Gaeilg na hÉireann agus Gaeilg na hAlban, ghéanfaí cur síos ar a’ bheirt acu le chéile sna leabharthaí gramadaí. Agus cha ndéantar, ar ndóighe, siocair go bhfuil barraíocht duifreach eatarthu !

Thats a bit inaccurate, I think they need to be a bit more specific by specifying which language they are talking about, surely.

Shall I speak some Indo-European for you?

quote:

Agus cha ndéantar, ar ndóighe, siocair go bhfuil barraíocht duifreach eatarthu !

Vive la différence!

Tá deacracht bhunúsach anseo. Tá GgN ag maíomh go mínáireach gur teanga amháin iad - sa mhéid agus go raibh, uair amháin, an tan go raibh Gaeil in Éirinn beo - "continuum" ó Tigh Móire i Ciarraí go Uachtar Albain, tá an cheart aige.

Is cuimhin liom Jonas ag rá a mhacasamhail faoi na hAlpanna go dtí an Nordkap - dá ngluaisfeá sách mall, go dtuigfeá an teanga fán slí.

Ach is beag cainteoir anois a mbeadh sin amhlaidh dó.

Is mian le GgN an staid sin a bheith againn arís - feictear dom go raibh an staid sin ann dos na filí fáin uair. Seans go mbeidh aos oilte ann amach anseo a bheidh chomh sásta ceanna ag ól sa Bhuailtín agus an cantaireacht sailm ar Uist, agus tuiscint muintir na háite acu san dá áit.

Ach ó thaobh an gnáth Ghaeilgeora de, anseo nó thall, níl sé fíor. Tuigimse Gaeil na hÉireann Uilig (le dua uaireanta). Ní thuigim ach corr focal fánach ó Gaeil Albain. Mar an gcéanna dom le - abair - Dúitsigh, ainneoin Gearmáinis líofa a bheith agam.

quote:

an tan go raibh Gaeil in Éirinn beo - "continuum" ó Tigh Móire i Ciarraí go Uachtar Albain, tá an cheart aige.

Agus aigen am adaí féin, tchífeá duifear nuair a rachfá thaire Shruth na Maoile. Na canúintí Éireannacha is cosúla le cuid na hAlbana féin, tá siad difriúil ó chuid na hAlbana ar scar ar bith. Mar shompa, na briathra neamhrialta agus cuid mhór rudaí eile a bhaineas leis a’ ghramadaigh; cupla rud san fhuaimniú fosta; cuid mhaith focal coitianta (cé a deireas "feadhainn" le "some" a ráidht in Éirinn, nó "cus" le "barraíocht" a ráidht, srl?)...
Déan staidéar ar Ghaeilg na hAlbana agus tchífidh tú go bhfuil cuid mhór difríochtaí eatarthu.

Cé a deireas "feadhainn" le "some" a ráidht in Éirinn, nó "cus" le "barraíocht" a ráidht, srl?

Mise - bhuel scríobhaim iad ar chuma ar bith - ach sin cionn is gur mian liom focail as an taobh eile den Sruth a úsáid sa Ghaeilge s'agam féin.

Agus an dtuigeann Gaeilgeoirí na hÉireann iad ? (an chuid acu nár fhoghlaim Gaeilg na hAlbana, ar ndóighe)

quote:

"feadhainn" ... bhuel scríobhaim iad ar chuma ar bith

Agus cén chaoi a ndear tú é? Tá an focal "feadhain" againn i nGaeilge, ceart go leor, ach ní bhainimse feidhm as ach sa ghinideach: "ceann feadhna". Is éan corr é an focal Gaeilge a bhfuil -dh- ina lár idir dhá ghuta.

RG,

An bhfeil 'Feidhmfidh / Feumaidh' agat sa chaint?

Silim go bhfuil drios maith focal in úsáid againn nach fheil in-glactha in Éirinn de bhrí go saoileann daoine gur Gaeilg na hAlban iad.

Mar shampla, bhí mé ag éisteach le boadach ag caint inniu fá móirí s'aige, anois sin focal nárbh féidir leat úsáid ach amháin thart ar an tSruth ná nach dtuigfeadh duine thú.

- Feadhmfaidh muinn spell in Íle a shocrú!

(Message edited by gaelgannaire on April 28, 2008)

Rud éinseach eile, mhothaigh mé go raibh tú ag maíomh gur focal beo breá Gaeilge é 'Achadh'i bparóiste eile - go dearfa a mhic.

Níl mórán Éireannaigh sásta glacadh leis inniu faraor ach bhí an fhocal sin beo sa chaint chomh fada siar le Gleann Gaibhle!

(Message edited by gaelgannaire on April 28, 2008)

Agus an dtuigeann Gaeilgeoirí na hÉireann iad?

Tuigeann siad ón chomhthéacs cad atá i gceist, nó scríobhaim/deirim na focail Albannacha in éineacht le focail Éireannacha.

Den chuid is mó úsáidim focail a bhfuil feidhm leo nó a dhéanann comhrá níos éifeachtaí/níos deise - mar sin ní úsáidfinn 'feadhainn' le duine nach raibh Gaeilge na hAlban acu.

I measc na bhfocal atá in úsáid agam go rialta i mo chuid Gaeilge féin tá:

Sgoinneil
Cus
Snog
Is urrainn dom
Feumfaidh mé
Bruidhinn
Áireamh
Deiseil
Ar Falbh
Fuirich
Teagamh
Tric

Agus ar ndóigh ní mé - nó GGN - an t-aon duine ón oileán seo a bhaineann úsáid as focail Ghaeil na hAlban nó bhí siad ag Máirtín Ó Cadhain go tric chomh maith.

RG,

Cinnte, is é an fhadhb atá agam anseo, agus ar ndóigh níl mórán ciall leis an chruadal seo idir ná, má amharcann tú ar an liosta sin, is focail iad seo -

Teagamh - Tric - Ar Falbh - Fuirich - Is urrainn dom -Feumfaidh mé

atá i nGaeilge na hÉireann chomh maith.

An deacracht atá ann ná daoine gan mórán eolas in Éirinn ag ceartú daoine a bhfuil Gaeilg mhaith acu as 'Gaeilg na hAlbain' a labhairt - ach tarlaíonn an rud ceanna in Albain.

Tá 'sgoinneal' ag éirí coiteannta go dearfa.

atá i nGaeilge na hÉireann chomh maith.

Gan teagamh! Agus tá an ceart ar fad agat faoi 'sgoinneal', tá sé formhór na nGael óg in Ard Mhacha, An Dún srl anois!

Thig libh mur rogha rud a dhéanamh ar ndóigh, ach muna dtuigtear sibh, ná bíodh iontas oraibh.
Cib bith, fiabhram domh féin cad é ’n mhaith focla Alabnacha a thógáilt ar iasacht nuair atá a gcomhaith Ghaeilge ar eolas agus á húsáid ag achan duine... Mórtas a dhéanamh siocair go bhfuil eolas agad ar theangaidh na hAlbana? :-)

Lughaidh,

Mórtas in mo theanga fhéin i mo chás fhéin, chuir mé spéis riamh in gach aon rud a bhaineas leis an Ghaeilg, char chloígh mé riamh le canúint nó le paróiste amháin.

Char bhac mé riamh leofa siúd a rinne iarracht gach focal, fuaim nó cora cainte nach mbaineann leis an chanúint is uaisle dar leo a chuir faoi chos.

Teanga mór suimiúil atá ins an Ghaeilg, cha bhíom fhéin ag déanamh neamhaird ar fhocal ar bith di.

In mo thuairim fhéin fosta, is cuma cé chomh láidir is atá canúint áitiúil ar bith ach an oiread, ní leor sin, sin a bhfuil fágtha thar éis meath tubaisteach, chan ionann é an teanga iomlán.

Dar ndóigh, is Ó Cadhainista mé.

(Message edited by gaelgannaire on April 28, 2008)

muna dtuigtear sibh, ná bíodh iontas oraibh

Má dhéanann tú i gceart é, tuigtear thú. Agus cuireann focail Albannacha arl. le stóras focal ár dteanga.

Cha mbaineann sé le mórtas in aon chor - mar a mhínigh GGN, baineann sé leis an Ghaeilg. Focail as Corca Dhuibhne nó focail as Leodhas, tá siad maith go leor domhsa is cuma cá háit as a dtig siad.

Bhí Mairtín Ó Cadhain ar aon fhocal libh faoi seo.
http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~axel/celtica/paipeir.html

quote:

Mar tá a fhios ag cách tá a lán cainte beo in Albain nach bhfuil beo in Éirinn anois ach a bhí sa nGaeilge abhus tráth. Bainim corrfhocal aisti. Sílim go n-aithneoinn céard is féidir a bhaint aisti agus nach mbeadh in a choirce scéin sa nGaeilge. Scríobhaim ``teine bhial na hoíche'', leagan nár chuala mé ariamh in Éirinn ach a thuigfeadh Gaeilgeoir ar an toirt. Ar a mhalairt ní scríobhfainn rud a bhí in Éirinn deireanach go leor: ruigim a leas (leigidh mi a leas), ná an trásta ach an oiread. Tá siad ro-sheargtha, ro-chosúil le Gaeilgeoirí Éireannach arb é ``an féileadh'' a bheadh orthu.

Duine ar bith a scríobh Gaeilge bhain sé rudaí siar as an litríocht. Dar a shon nach mbainfeadh. Teagasc Críostaí a scríobhadh i lár an chéid seo caite agus ar chosúla le saothar Louvain é a bhí agam féin ag an scoil. Bhi an Ghaeilge tórúil ariamh ar rudaí ársa dothuigthe agus tá fós, ``An Mharthainn Phádraig'' mar shampla. Má theastaíonn focal uaim agus gan é agam ach é sa litríocht, nó más dóigh liom gur fearr an focal atá agam ón litríocht ná focal ó chanúint eile nach móide go mbeadh a bhrí go barrainneach agam, is as focal na litríocht a bhainim leas. I gCath Mhuighe Léana a fuair mé ``báire baoise'': ``Eoghan ar a báire baísi a coimideacht a oide ann''. Thuigfí é mar tá an dá fhocal seanbheo fós, cé nach i gcuingir a chéile mar sin é sílim

quote:

Thig libh mur rogha rud a dhéanamh ar ndóigh

Is léir agus is ríléir (róléir?) go ndeanann tusa amhlaidh. I mean, nuair a léigh mé an an abairt seo,

quote:

Cib bith, fiabhram domh féin

bhí orm stad agus samoineamh. Fiabhram ??? .... hhhmmmm .... **bolgán solais** Fiafraím!

Aonghusa,

Direach le ra, bhi 'cha ligeann tu a leas' le cloisint in Eirinn go dti deireadh na seascaidi - O Meith

Fiafraigh > [ˈɸjawɾi] in iarthuaisceart Thír Chonaill.

Why iz it dat maní pípil on dis websyt ryt aní wé dé wont and ignór dí establisht rúlz ov Yrish ortografí? Ym not táking abaut typóz, but abaut pípil hú komplítlí ignór de egzisting standerd.

If dé kan dú dis sort ov ting in Yrish, iz it óké for mí tú dú de sém in Inglish, givin dat dí ófishil Inglish speling duzint reflekt de prónunsíéshun ov my nétiv Dublin dyalekt?

(Más amhlaidh go ligtear do dhaoine droim láimhe a thabhairt do litriú na Gaeilge ar an suíomh seo agus córais litrithe dá gcuid féin a chumadh, an dtabharfar an tsaoirse chéanna dom sa dara teanga oifigiúil?)

Hírz a kweschun of de 'chikin or eg?' kynd dats bín bodering mí for sum tym: dú pípil bíkum interested in Yrish bíkáz dér krakt, or dú dé bíkum krakt from trying tú lern Yrish?

(Cé acu is túisce a bhuaileann daoine meas sibh: suim sa Ghaeilge nó seachmall?)

Yd sé de ferst won, in my ón kés aníwé.

(An dara ceann, déarfainn.)

Iontach, bheadh Myles bródúil asat.

Tógadh le Gaeilge mise, mar sin is dócha gurbh é mo shin sheanathair a bhí ar seachmaill, agus mise fós air...

quote:

Aonghusa,

Direach le ra, bhi 'cha ligeann tu a leas' le cloisint in Eirinn go dti deireadh na seascaidi - O Meith

A GhGn

1) Glacaim leis gur "A Aonghuis" a bhí i gceist agat.

2) Ní mise a scríobh an méid thuas, ach an Cadhnach. Ní saineolaí ag chanúintí mise.

I have to agree with Aonghus on his comment above that one of the reasons this is such problem topic is that people are not all on the same page with the term "dialect."

After dusting it off I opened some of my old linguistics textbooks to see if I could find out what is causing the problem with a definition. All of them carry the exact same definition, so I will assume this a generally accepted definition:

dialect:

provincial or socially distinct varieties of a language that differ from an accepted standard of a language in terms of features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.

"Dialect" for some reason has a very different meaning to people when it comes to Irish. While there is a clear black and white linguistic definition, people have given it the meaning of "association." It's as if Irish speakers are a street gang, and their dialect is the gang's colors or banner.

It is not correct to say that there are three dialects of Irish.

The last work I read on it was Heinrich Wagner's Linguistic Atlas and Survey of Irish Dialects...now I know there are more current works out there, but I haven't read any of them. In 1958 when he came out with his work, their were around 28 to 30 plus dialects of Irish. He was able to classify them based on the linguistic differences in the definition above.

Also, I don't like saying that "there are three regional dialects of Irish" because again this is not true.

If this is true then that means that all Irish falls into one of these three groups. So what is the Irish of Dublin and the school systems? If you say, "Oh well they are doing something different anyway...then you have to accept that there is at least a fourth and different Irish out there making the three dialect classification false."

I think that when the early revival efforts took off...there were a lot of "would be heroes" out there that honestly believed that in order to save Irish, there could only be one Irish. Their Irish. This "in the group or out of the group" mentality only drives wedges deeper and separates people trying to come together.

While there is a clear black and white linguistic definition[.]

Couldn't disagree more. If all of your linguistics textbooks carry the same definition, DC, then I can only conclude you don't have a very diverse selection of them. Most of mine assert that the "accepted standard" is just another dialect, albeit a supraregional one with privileged status vis-à-vis the others. This is clearest in plurilocal languages like English, Spanish, or Standard Chinese where the dialect accorded this privilege may differ from country to country. In high school, I was docked points from my essays for writing "realise" and "lealise" instead of "realize" and "legalize".

So Heinrich Wagner says the number of Irish dialects stands at 28 or more. He's entitled to his opinion--everyone is, and his is a much more educated one than most. However, it is--as I pointed out above--still just that: An opinion. There simply is no objective scientific definition of the term "dialect" which allows one to say categorically that, e.g., "Mayo" is not a dialect but "Erris" is or that "Clare" is neither "Connaught" nor "Munster".

If you don't like the grouping of Irish speech varieties into the three traditional regional divisions, feel free to propose an alternative classification. As I've said before (and doubtless will have to repeat again) it's a fun game everyone should feel free to play as long as they don't get dogmatic about the answers.

Hmm...

Actually, there is not only an objective definition, but it gives the guidelines for the separations of linguistic variety.

It is the accepted definition for which all dialectology is based off of.

Now I will not argue that it is at best, a classification system and nothing more...but it is the one that seems to working for every dialectologist in the world.

It would be like telling people that you can call human beings "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" all you want. But that is just a classification system and doesn't mean anything.

I will also grant you that it was his classification system, but he and his team used a very strict and detailed criteria in their of classifications of the Irish language. In fact, I am not certain a better system has been devised yet.

Also, Irish is unique in that it is one of the few languages that in an effort to standardize...created something new. The historical pattern tends to be that the "official dialect" of a language comes from the dominance of one particular naturally occurring dialect (usually the dialect of the authority). You are absolutely correct in saying that in Irish's case, the proposed written standard is in fact, a creation.

I think the reason why people like the three dialect division is because it fits nicely with three large Gaeltachts. I think people are afraid to acknowledge the diversity of Irish. But the majority of the people don't live in the Gaeltacht, and some of them speak Irish. If they are separate from the provincial regions for which the Munster, Ulster, and Connacht divisions were created...then does that mean they are not speaking Irish? Or a natural form of Irish? I personally see a lot of potential harm in a system that separates someone's Irish by a particular region they most likely are not from.

But I will agree 100% that people take the whole dialect thing a little too seriously.

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on April 29, 2008)

De rízen wy mení pípil du not yúz de ofishil speling n gramer ov Yrish iz dat it iz not ríl Yrish. It haz nó nétiv spíkerz. An it haz nó histórikal faundéshan Yder. Shou mí de cuntrí dat duz not bés its standed dyalekt on de formz dat fit wid de literí tradishan.

Wot did Píter ó Lírí sé about dis in chapter fyv ov hiz otobyografí??

Sar ar fhágas-sa Lios Caragáin níor airigheas riamh amach a' béal duine na h-abartha so, .i. "Tá mé"; "bhí mé"; "bhí siad." D'airighinn i gcómhnuighe "Táim"; "bhíos"; "bhíodar," 7c. Neithe beaga iseadh iad san, ach is neithe beaga iad a thagan isteach go mion minic sa chaint. Agus is slacht ar an gcaint an módh dlúithte seachas an módh sgurtha. Ar an gcuma gcéadna, is neamhshlacht ar an gcaint an módh sgurtha seachas an módh dlúithte. D'á éaghmuis sin bíon sa chaint dhlúithte neart agus fuinneamh nách féidir a bheith sa chaint a bhíon ag tuitim as a chéile...Tá bárr 'á thabhairt do'n mhódh sgurtha sa Ghaeluinn, agus módh sgurtha ar fad iseadh an Béarla. Tá an Béarla tuitithe as a chéile ar fad.

Before I left Liscarrigane, I had never heard from anybody's mouth phrases such as "tá mé", "bhí mé", "bhí siad"; I always used to hear "táim", "bhíos", "bhíodar", etc. Little things! - but little things that come repeatedly into conversation. A taut mode of expression, as against one that is lax, makes for finish in speech; in the same manner, a lax mode of expression as against the taut, makes for speech that is deficient Besides, the taut speech possesses a force and a vigour that cannot be contained in speech that is falling apart...The loose mode of expression is prominent in Gaelic today and English is nothing else. English has fallen apart completely.

"A GhGn

1) Glacaim leis gur "A Aonghuis" a bhí i gceist agat.

2) Ní mise a scríobh an méid thuas, ach an Cadhnach. Ní saineolaí ag chanúintí mise."

Aonghuis,

Tá's agam ach bhíos díreach a rá - ní aontaím leis an Chadhnach i ngach cás.

Agus an chead sin agat. Chuir tú mearbhall orm toisc gur dhírigh tú do fhreagra ormsa!

Hí sertenlí had de ryt tú dat opinyon, but lets not misték it for anítin els.

It iz wert nóting dat de kwót abov dozent sopórt íúr ón argíúment at ál. Fr. Ó'Lírí iz nát argíúing dat de sintetik fórmz ar bedr graunded in de litertúr ór in lingwistic histerí, but ónlí dat hí fyndz dem plezent bíkoz dér mór kompakt. Nótis dat hí diplórz dí anelitic fórmz in Inglish tú, wer dé hev bin prezent for sentúríz.


Agus an ceart aige don tuairim sin! Tuairim atá ann áfach, agus sin a bhfuil ann. Ná glactar mar shóiscéal é. I ndeireadh na dála ní hí Ua-Laoghairis a mbím ar mo dhícheall á foghlaim ach Gaeilge.

Ní miste a thabhairt faoi deara nach bhfuil baint dá laghad ag an sliocht thuas leis na foirmeacha dlúite a bheith níos dílse don litríocht nó do dhul stairiúil na teanga. Níl sa méid thuas ach go bhfuair sé féin na foirmeacha scartha uafásach gránna, sa méid is gur cháin sé teanga eile uilig iontu, teanga ar rí-dhual di iad.

Abigail, are you arguing - please be specific on this point - that the synthetic forms are an innovation and that Irish was originally analytic? Please be quite specific on that point.

To my mind, the analytical forms are grammatical mistakes:

Táim = 1st psn form
tá = 3rd psn form

tá mé = someone saying "I is" instead of "I am"


Y iz kwait shúr shí wil ivéd de queshchon.

"When I look back now on the type of GAelic which used to be spoken about me, and when I compare it with that which I heard afterwards in other places, the fact impresses itself upon my mind that it was finer, more accurate, more finished and, in addition, more powerful as a sword of the mind than any other Gaelic I have since come across from the mouths of men and from books".

Same chapter.

Nílim. An bhfuil sé sin sainiúil go leor dhuit?
Ach ní ghéillim gur botúin iad ach oiread, sa lá atá inniu ann. Cuid den teanga anois iad, murab iad an chuid is sine dí.

Le "botún" a thabhairt ar rud, ní mór caighdeán áirithe a sáraíonn sé a bheith i gceist. Cé acu ar chóra leat go nglacfaí leis mar chaighdeán don lá atá inniu ann?
- Gaeilge an Athair Ua Laoirigh
- Gaeilge an Chéitinnigh
- Gaeilge na gCeithre Máistrí
- Gaeilge duine eicínt ní ba shine arís

Gaeilge an tSeanduine Liath, gan dabht ar domhan!



Dá mbeahd cóip den mBéal Bocht le lámh, thabharfainn an tagairt don Ahur Peadar dhuit as.

Tom quoted:

"When I look back now on the type of GAelic which used to be spoken about me, and when I compare it with that which I heard afterwards in other places, the fact impresses itself upon my mind that it was finer, more accurate, more finished and, in addition, more powerful as a sword of the mind than any other Gaelic I have since come across from the mouths of men and from books".

I like that...

You said this is the autobiography of "Píter ó Lírí." Is that Reverend Peter Canon Ó Leary 1839-1920? I read a story by him at university many moons ago called "The Hunger" and really liked it.

I didn't know there was an autobiagraphy for him, what is the title of the book?

Scríobh Aonghus:
Dá mbeahd cóip den mBéal Bocht le lámh, thabharfainn an tagairt don Ahur Peadar dhuit as.

Seo dhuit é! Baineann sé gáire asam i gcónaí.

Labhair an Seanduine Liath faoin gceist seo le Gaeilgeoir uasal a casadh leis.
"Cad chuige agus cad uaidh," ar seisean, "go bhfuil an lucht foghlama ag imeacht uainn? An amhlaidh go bhfuil a oiread sin airgid fágtha acu againn le deich mbliana anuas go bhfuil fóirithint déanta acu ar ocracht na dúiche agus ar an ábhar sin go bhfuil meath ag teacht ar ár nGaeilge?"
"Nee doy lum goh vwill un fukal sin 'meath' eg un Ahur Padur," arsa an Gaeilgeoir go cneasta.
Níor fhreagair an Seanduine an abairt sin ach ní móide ná go ndearna sé caint bheag os íseal dá chluais féin.
"'Do vool shay an durus amack' - un vwil un aubirch sin ogutt?" arsa an Gaeilgeoir.
"Nawbocklesh, avic," arsa an Seanduine, agus d'imigh leis ar a bhealach lena cheist ina chloigeann fós gan réiteach uirthi.

A Aonghuis,

An é seo atá ar intinn agat?

"Cad chuige agus cad uaidh," ar seisean, "go bhfuil an lucht foghlama ag imeacht uainn? An amhlaidh go bhfuil a oiread sin airgid fágtha acu againn le deich mbliana anuas go bhfuil fóirithint déanta acu ar ocracht na dúiche agus ar an ábhar sin go bhfuil meath ag teacht ar ár nGaeilge?"

"Nee doy lum goh vwill un fukal sin 'meath' eg un Ahur Padur," arsa an Gaeilgeoir go cneasta.

Níor fhreagair an Seanduine an abairt sin ach ní móide ná go ndearna sé caint bheag os íseal dá chluais féin.

Sorry, Mo Chinniúint, but I still don't think we're on quite the same page. By "objective", I mean "quantifiable". Otherwise, how do you ensure that two different researchers, applying the same guidelines clearly outlined by Wagner, won't come up with different classifications? (Moreover, I'm sceptical that his criteria are complete a priori and weren't modified in any way over the course of his research to ensure that the dialect divisions didn't fall where he intuitively felt they should. This wouldn't make him a bad researcher; it would just make him like every other individual engaged in the field of language classification.)

And then there's the fact of dialect mixing. You ask where to classify those learning Irish in Dublin and so forth. Well, where do you classify those who for whatever reason (switching schools growing up, married a speaker of a different variety, had to learn a new dialect for work, etc.)use a mix of forms? If the criteria are truly "objective", then at some point this person's idiolect will fall outside the limits of their native variety and within the limits of another.

I'm not knocking the work of dialectologists, but it's wrong to think that they can ever define their objects of study with the same rigour as, say, chemists. Since language is a constantly changing abstraction, no dialect classification can ever be other than provisional. What you present above is no more than a working definition that allows for the creation of some fuzzy categories distinct enough to make some useful generalisations about. But it's an error of reification to think that this generalising transforms these into concrete entities of some sort.

Your Homo sapiens sapiens analogy isn't the most apt since this species stands alone in its genus; it's the genetic equivalent of a language isolate. For a more relevant comparison, look to the field of botany, since plants exchange genes almost as freely as languages do features. For many genera, taxonomists all but throw up their hands. My field guide to local trees does this with the Crataegus genus, pointing out that hawthorns hybridise so promiscuously that even experts in the field can't agree on the number of distinct species. (Or, to quote Wikipedia, "The number of species in the genus depends on taxonomic interpretation, with numerous apomictic microspecies; some botanists recognise a thousand or more species, while others reduce the number to 200 or fewer.") As a result, it gives describes of three "meta-species", so you can at least assert that you've identified a "downy hawthorn", even if you can't narrow the field any more than that.

So, yes, at the end of the day these labels--"Mid-Donegal", "Aran Islands", "Crataegus sanguinea Pall.", "Homo sapiens sapiens", "Bollybeat", "tweecore", "Nuevo Latino", etc. etc.--are just classifications of convenience and don't mean anything more than we chose to make them mean. At least we agree that makes them nothing to get too het up about.

quote:

To my mind, the analytical forms are grammatical mistakes

Más meancóga atá iontu, tá siad sa teanga le fada fada an lá, agus glacadh leo go hoifigiúil sa Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach 700+ bliain ó shin!

Scríobh Damian McManus alt an-suimiúil faoi seo, "Teanga an Dána agus Teanga an Phróis" in An Dán Díreach: Léachtaí Cholm Cille XXIV, Maigh Nuad, 1994.

Sa chaighdeán nua a chum na filí proifisiúnta timpeall AD 1250 as cíor thuathail na Meán-Ghaeilge, "Ceadaítear rogha idir foirmeacha scartha agus foirmeacha táite den bhriathar (m.sh. do-léigeas nó do léig mé.)" (lch. 121)

Dennis, the situation has changed relatively recently with the collapse of Munster Irish in the early years of the state, shifting the "average" Irish to the "Irish fallen apart" of Conemara. It is not a question of 700 years.

By the way, there is an amusing story in Mo Sgéal Féin, the title of the autobiography, how he started teaching Irish with materials that encouraged students to say "bean mór" "bó dubh" etc, so as not to bother students with lenition, and he ended up chucking those books away!!Little did he know that 100 years after his death and state-mandated abolition of lenition is a live proposal!

Cé thusa?

@DC

Mo Scéal Féin is teideal do dhírbheathaisnéis leis an Athair Peader. Bhíos ar lorg cóipe ar feadh tamaill, ach níor éirigh liom fós.

@Abigail & DLL.

Sin an sliocht a bhí uaim! Maith sibh.

To return to the subject of dialects; I notice the "Teach Yourself Irish Conversation" (2007) by Máire Mhic Ruairí & Dónall Mac Ruairí had the following on the subject:

"There are three major dialects in modern Irish, which roughly coincide with the the provinces of Munster, Connacht and Ulster. There is an official standard An Caighdeán Oifigiúil, which was composed using elements of the three main dialects. This is what is taught in most schools in Ireland. In recent times, with the growth in the Irish language media, it has become much easier for speakers of different dialects to understand one another."

The course TYIC uses speakers of all 3 dialects in the dialogues. It has a 48-page booklet & 3 audio CDs. The price was about $22 US/ $24 Canada. (You might want to check this course out and see which dialect most appeals to you.)
I have recently started watching TG4 and although different dialects are used it really doesn't seem that hard to understand.
If Irish had been the national language perhaps one of the dialects would have risen above the others as more prestigious but that didn't happen.
Perhaps language can't be planned in the end, look at the Cornish fiasco currently underway. If you want to see short-sighted partisan enthusiasts wreck a language revival.

Quote: If Irish had been the national language perhaps one of the dialects would have risen above the others as more prestigious but that didn't happen.

No, it did happen, with the emergence of Cork Irish as the prestigious dialect during the Gaelic Revival. Cork Irish was the Irish that was most grammatically correct when compared with historical forms. But the government artificially intervened in the 1950s to "retire" this agreed standard Irish that had been written up for decades in the Christian Brothers' grammarbooks to invent a new standard, with little reference to anyone not on the committee inventing the standard.

Cork Irish **is** standard Irish.

Feicim go bhfuil Píobaire an Aon Phoirt, aka David~Josh~Seaghán~Taig~Unregistered Guest ar ais, ag seinm his tired old hornpipe Is-Fuath-Liom-Gaeilge-An-Lae-Inniu.

Taig,

You nailed it. Yes there are different dialects, and yes they vary from each other here and there, but in the end it's all Irish and a person from Donegal can chat the night way with a person from Cork. There is a short period of adjustment, but eventually you understand each other.

I just saw the final episode of No Béarla II and I was amazed at the segment where he went to the Isle of Man. Not only could the host understand him, but I was able to follow both men. Well, that's not completely true, The older man was a little tough to understand because of the quality of his voice. But the younger man was very clear in his words and I could follow along.

Now here we have Manx and Irish, two recognized different languages capable of intercommunication. And come to think about it, I am usually able to catch a good portion of Scottish being spoken.

Yeah, I have to admit that I didn't go into the detail I needed to for my "homo sapiens sapiens" thing. What I was thinking in my head is that you have to be careful with classification systems because people have a habit of simplifying things and can often cause problems.

It is not as accurate because not all Connacht dialects are the same. So to just lump them into one umbrella category is an injustice to them. Take for example the dialects of Meath which are historically Connacht dialects. However, they have evolved into something new and in some cases unique from their Connacht brethren, however, even though they are different.

They are still being lumped in the Connacht group which is a provincial (regional) classification. However, their provincial classification would put them into a Leinster category and that would violate the three region classification system. So even though we have new unique dialects of Irish in a fourth province, we still mislabel them.

This is what Wagner and his team were trying to bring to light.

What I meant with "homo sapiens sapiens" is that you can simplify and put all human beings into the "homo sapiens" category, but you would be laughed at of the room by most of the scientific community. Why? Neanderthals were also homo sapiens. And humans are not Neanderthals.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis = Neanderthal
Homo sapiens sapiens = human being

Agus an ceart sin aige gan dabht. Is fuath liom féin egg salad. 'S é an difear eadrainn nach mbím ag brú ar chuile dhuine eile gur meancóg gramadaí é egg salad!
(Difear eile, ar ndóigh, go bhfuil ainm seasta orm. Airím gur fearrde an comhrá é.)

Sorry...I tried to go back and edit my paragraph and my time to do so expired.

What I wanted to say is...

What I meant with "homo sapiens sapiens" is that you can simplify and just call human beings "homo sapiens," but you would not be accurate and could be laughed out of the room by some of the scientific community. Why? Neanderthals were also homo sapiens. And humans are not Neanderthals.

Just as it is important to be specific in some areas of classification, I believe it to be just as important to be this specific with languages.

And while like biology, languages are always evolving into new forms...they do not do so constantly. Instead it seems that they evolve in terms of rapid bursts with long periods of adjustment. Long enough to attach specific classifications to them


(Message edited by do_chinniúint on April 30, 2008)

quote:

And humans are not Neanderthals

.

Tá amhras orm faoi roinnt againn.....

(Message edited by aonghus on April 30, 2008)

Aonghus,

I know the feeling...from all the documentries I find myself watching on the history and discovery channels, I think we were more "cave man" than they were ;-)

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on April 30, 2008)

quote:

Is fuath liom féin egg salad.

Gabh mo leithscéal, a Aibí, ach cé a dúirt "egg salad" ar dtús? Níor léigh mé chuile rud sa snaithe seo. Saghas egg salad a bhí sa chaighdeán a chuir na filí i bhfeidhm dóibh féin thart faoin mbliain 1250. Cuid den tsean, cuid den nua, agus cuid den dá chuid (.i. an rogha idir "do léigeas" agus "do léig mé", etc.) a bhí ann. Meascán (mearaí?) de núáil agus de choimeádachas a bhí sa chaighdeán sin -- an caighdeán céanna a bhí ag an Céitinneach fós na céadta bliana ina dhiaidh sin. Níl aon locht ar egg salad má dhéantar i gceart é, le mustard Dijon agus mayonnaise den chéad scoth.

Cork Irish **is** standard Irish.

I gcead duit, Unregistered Guest, I think this should read "Cork Irish was standard Irish". Anyone who thinks that this is still the case despite the existence of Caighdean Oifigiúil needs to review what the word "standard" means.

The difficulty, I think, comes from considering elevation to the status of "standard" a pronouncement on the intrinsic worth of the variety rather than a largely practical decision. I say this as someone who has made the conscious choice to learn Cork Irish on aesthetic grounds, but I recognise this as a purely private choice which says far more about my own biases than about the merits of different varieties of Irish.

Unfortunately, this seems to set me apart from many others have made the same decision. Whether they are drawn to Cork Irish for ideological reasons (because of its close relationship to earlier literary standards and its apparent conservatism in general) or are simply using ideological arguments to justify their own aesthetic biases, there's an unattractive chauvinism to the way they tend to denigrate other varieties (particularly Connemara).

Does anyone have any insight as to what degree this might be related to Cork particularism? I know Corkonians have a strong sense of distinctiveness and sometimes it seems that they suffer from something of the "second-city phenomenon" (which is often exacerbated when the rival is seen as an upstart; I know this is the case with, for instance, my hometown of St. Louis, which have never fully resigned itself to the fateful choice of Chicago as the terminus of the Trans-Continental Railway and the economic consequences that unleashed).

Is there any words or verbs that is unique in Cork Irish, that isn't used in any dialect if so could you tell me some, or is there any site on the web?

I'm interested.

Go raibh maith agaibh!

(Message edited by Trigger on April 30, 2008)

quote:

Now here we have Manx and Irish, two recognized different languages capable of intercommunication.

Maybe it's because they choose words that are similar in Irish and Manx, or because they spoke about a subject where most words are common. I did study Manx too, and it's full of words you wouldn't understand. Last year I saw a part of a cartoon in Manx, I didn't understand much of it. And when I read the Manx news sent by B. Stowell on the list "Gaelg", there are so many words I don't understand that it's difficult to understand most of what is told. So, don't trust "No Béarla II", there are plenty of things in it that are twisted so that we believe what Manchán wants us to believe...

There's some vocabulary (and a lot of morphology) on this site for the community of Gleann Maghair/Glanmire, a suburb of Cork: http://homepage.eircom.net/~timbrackencourt/. Unfortunately, the organisation of the grammar section isn't the best it could be. (There are actually three separate pages to it, but I'm not sure it's set up so you can page through them sequentially.)

My main sources for the dialect are Teach Yourself Irish (1961 ed.) and The Irish of West Muskerry, Co. Cork. The latter is only a phonetic study, but it does contain a few short texts and an exhaustive glossary. Since I know little about other Munster dialects, I can't tell you what in them is specifically West Cork. I could only mention a few expressions which I don't recall encountring elsewhere, for instance Is méinn [sic] liom... "I like..." (Standard Irish has Is méin mhaith agam do... "I'm well disposed toward..."; "I like..." is usually Is maith liom...) or i n-aon bhall "anywhere" (pron. /ə'ne:vəl/; Standard Irish i n-aon áit ar bith).

B'fhéidir go bhféadfadh daoine eile a thuilleadh dh'insint duit.

Maybe Standard irish would be "in aon áit" or "in áit ar bith". Using both "aon" and "ar bith" sounds strange.

As to what could have been:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_%28novel%29
"there's an unattractive chauvinism to the way they tend to denigrate other varieties "

I love all the dialects and shipped out (at a cost of hundreds of euro) books out to where I live because I like the lovely clear cut enunciation of consonants and idiom of Donegal, the naturalness of Mayo, the conversational cut and thrust sytle of Conemara, the odd words of Rinn and the compactness of West Munster. In my mind all should be fused into a new spoken dialect, with the Caighdéan as the written form (even tho I *personally* am not mad about it (no lenition of l and n.....).

The important thing is that we get to a threshold where most of this board is in Irish, technical discussions included.

A Lughaidh,

My bad, (in) áit ar bith is what it gives in the Gearrfhoclóir Gaeilge-Béarla of An Roinn Oideachais, which is my primary source for CO (even though it's a bit dated and contains some neologisms which never found their feet).

Táim buíoch duit as mé a coinneáil ionraic inniu!

quote:

Is méinn [sic] liom... "I like..." (Standard Irish has Is méin mhaith agam do... "I'm well disposed toward..."; "I like..." is usually Is maith liom...)

Maidir le "méinn", is leagan malartach de "mian" é.

The expression "is miann leam" is current in Scottish Gaelic. "Méin(n)" is its historical accusative/dative form. The replacement of nominative forms by dative forms in feminine nouns is an old, old trend in the language.

"*Is méin mhaith agam do..." is not possible. What you want is "Tá méin mhaith..." The word "méin" here is identical with an earlier word "méin" meaning "mineral, ore, metal", which is now "mianach".

Dennis, ní raibh canúint ná caighdeán i gceist agam san egg salad sin thuas. Ní raibh ann ach egg salad - is beag rud is fuath liom i ndáiríre, agus sin an chéad cheann a rith liom.

(D'fhéadfadh go bhfuil an ceart agat faoin mayonnaise ach is iad na huibheacha bruite brúite a mhilleann é domsa!)

quote:

is iad na huibheacha bruite brúite a mhilleann é domsa!

Agus mura bhfuil siad brúite? Céard faoi rud chomh simplí le oeuf dur à la mayonnaise ?

I bhfad níos fearr! Is dócha nár Lieblingsessen liom é, agus ní bhacfainn len é a réiteach dom féin - is iomaí rud eile is féidir a dhéanamh d'ubh! - ach d'íosfainn é go lántoilteanach dá gcuirfí romham é, ní hionann agus an egg salad.

quote:

words ... unique in Cork Irish?

Seo ceann duit:

"drisín", a rud a itear a bhfuil fuil agus franclus ann, atá mé a rá.

A Dhennis,

The interesting thing is that Is mian liom... also exists in the dialect with the meaning of "I wish..." Would hardly be the first time etymologically identical variants have acquired different meanings over time.

A Thrigger,

Amadán is ea mé! I forgot that the Wikipedia articles on Munster Irish/Gaeilge na Mumhan have vocabulary lists. (The lists differ quite a bit between the English and Irish versions of the articles.) Hardly comprehensive, and they only occasionally note which variants are specific to West Cork, but it's a start at any rate.

DLL,

Educational standards have nothing to do with chauvinism. If I were to deprecate lack of use of the subjunctive in English, it would be in order to encourage use of the language of Jane Austen, not out of any chauvinism. You say Cork **was** the standard, but since when did that change? Since the Irish government decided to dumb down the language and debase the education system? Surely the government merely has to teach good Irish and to maintain standards, but has no locus standi in the selection of the forms that constitute good Irish, that being determined by educated native speakers. If the US govt sent down an edict that Ebonics had been selected as the new standard English, and taught that in the education system, despite the fact that educated people in the US do not believe that to be standard English, you might get a situation where after one generation children had been raised with this new English and could no longer read Dickens or Austen. The artificiality of the attempt to encourage the use of ungrammatical forms should alert you to the fact that the CO is not in fact good Irish.

A Chinniúint,

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to belittle the accomplishments of Wagner et al. in the least. Even just to the extent that their (re)classification has forced people to discard their prejudices and take a closer look at the facts on the ground, they've made a contribution of real value.

I don't disagree with you when you say that simplification is a problem, but there are some things you need to keep in mind about the process of categorisation and chief among them is that every classification represents a simplification. This is what I meant when I said that there are no "dialects" as such; all there really are are masses and masses of raw data--countless utterances from the mouths of thousands of speakers, past and present. It's far too much to take in in its "wild" state, which is why we resort to organising it into neat categories that we can generalise productively about.

This categorisation only becomes a problem when we commit the fallacy of reification--of thinking that, because we have defined and labeled these categories, they must represent real entities that are "out there" in the world rather than convenient fictions that exist only inside our heads. Hand in hand with this is the recognition that classification is always teleological. That is, there is always an end we have in mind when we build our categories.

It follows from this that classifications only have utility only in relation to how they serve these ends. For some purposes, the three-way classification of Irish dialects is a gross oversimplification; for others, it works just fine and Wagner's system represents a surfeit of detail. For still other purposes, Wagner's classification isn't detailed enough and would require further refinement. (For instance, dialect studies often identify chronological divisions in dialects in addition to geographical ones, as a variety spoken by the younger generation in an area might have more in common with a variety spoken elsewhere than the speech of older members within the same community.) This, in a nutshell, is why no single taxonomy can ever be regarded as definitive: Because there are always a multiplicity of ends which need to be served and, even if language were static (which it never is, even according to the punctuated equilibrium model you propose), these ends would still be dynamic.

There's an even greater issue underlying all this which is the inadequacy of the classical theory of classification to represent the way categorisation really functions in human languages (and, by extension, how concepts are formed and manipulated within our brains), but that's far too much to get into here. For those interested, I recommend works in the field of cognitive linguistics, particular those by George Lakoff (the most accessible), Gilles Fauconnier, Eleanor Rosch, and Ronald Langacker.

(We now return your to our ongoing discussion of egg salad already in progress.)

Unregistered Guest,

I don't see much point in continued discussion when our fundamental assumptions are such poles apart, but I do find one curious contradiction in your post: The majority of educated native speakers of Irish do not, in fact, speak Cork Irish. Thus, by your own definition, it cannot be the "standard". The only solution I can see to this dilemma is to declare by fiat any native speaker of, say, North Connemara or Central Donegal Irish to be "uneducated", regardless of their background. And that's where I see the justification for charges of chauvinism.

Speak Cork Irish as much as you like--I relish having someone to practice with, after all, and I'm sure we can find topics unrelated to language policy to discuss--but don't try to convince me that it's in any way objectively "superior" to any other form of Irish, let alone the modern "standard". That's a trick no amount of special pleading or alarmist comparisons to the linguistic ecology of the United States can accomplish.

DLL, when the govt produced the CO, without reference to native speakers apart from those on the committee, it did so at a time when there was an agreed standard Irish, written down in the Christian Brothers' Grammars, and used by educated native speakers. What is there not to understand here?

Nowadays, "native speakers" in the Gaeltachts have been confused by education in the CO, and apparently even in the Cork GAeltacht CO-flavoured Irish is gaining ground. Just listen to RnG - the Muskerry programme is full of "anseo", however ungrammatical it is. I don't think anyone schooled in Irish since the introduction of the CO can be described as an "educated native speaker", due to the destructive effects of the Irish education system.

I don't think anyone schooled in Irish since the introduction of the CO can be described as an "educated native speaker", due to the destructive effects of the Irish education system.

See comment re: "special pleading", above. As even you admit, CO is a fait accompli. I'm sorry this offends your sensibilities and I wish you all the best in your quixotic quest to sweep back the tide, but I know I don't speak only for myself when I say this is one dead horse I'd really prefer to see flogged somewhere else.

If you truly wish to keep discussing this, then by all means include your e-mail address in your next reply and I'll respond with mine. Otherwise, oíche mhaith duit agus go gcuire Dia an t-ádh ort!

''The Irish of West Muskerry''

How good is this book, does it give words and pronunciation in the Cork Gaeltacht and is the book very good? What else do they explain?

I'm thinking of getting it. :-)

Y hav herd maní crézí ydíez abaut Yrish óver de yírs, but de ydíe dat 'anseo' iz ungramatikil iz widaut aní daut de crézíest ov ál.

Der iz rílí ónlí wun posibil eksplanéshun for the vyúz eksprest on dis syt: dat akses tú de internet iz nau bíng méd avélabil tú sykíatrik péshents az a forem ov terapí.

(Is ríléir ón suíomh seo go bhfuil teacht ar an idirlíon ag othair sna gealtlanna anois.)

Tanx, Grampí Óld Fógí. But de werd "anso" iz méd from "ann" plas "so", íkwolz "anso". Akórding tú gramatikul rúlz, "so" shud bí apendid tú werdz ending in bród, an "seo" apendid tú werdz ending in slender. Daz "ann" end wid bród ór slender? Anoder rúl sez dat bród mast gó wid bród an slender wid slender, só it iz yder "ainseo" ór "anso" bat not "anseo". It iz ónlí bícaz de Konamérienz dónt hav gud Yrish dat wí hav dis nonsense ov trying tú kopí dér mistéks.

Just a note to anyone interested in Irish that has just tuned in.

Sorry, it is worth learning Irish but I cannot guarantee that you can alway avoid the likes of the conversation on this thread.

Irish does not have a firmly established standard in speech. It does however has a standard set of grammatical rules, this standard does not extend much beyond basic grammatical rules, spelling and some basic vocubulary regualtions.

This written standard is accepted and used by the vast majority of people who use Irish in Ireland. Dont take my word for it. That is the opinion of Prof. Ó Baoill QUB.

But there is no language police, you can write in whatever way you like, spell whatever way you like but government publications will be written according to the Standard - Good.

There is nothing stopping me from writting in Rathlin Irish and pulbishing it for example. It is not banned but it is not widely known. I dont expect tax legislation to be written in the Irish of Coolea anymore than I would expect it to be written in the Irish of South Derry.

quote\{with the Caighdéan as the written form (even tho I *personally* am not mad about it (no lenition of l and n.....).}

That you don't lenite l and n is not a *vice* of CO alone. Some dialects do, some don't.

In Conamara:

a leabhar (her book): [ə L´aur]
a leabhar (his book): [ə l´aur]

but in Munster:

a leabhar (her book): [ə l´our´]
a leabhar (his book): [ə l´our´]

It gives a nicer picture, if you can lenite all consonants, but if you take it, the gaps in the list of eclipsable consonants are certainly wider.

Is tábhachtach a bheith ag séimhiú roimh a naoi ar maidin. Sin í an Ghaeilg cheart. Ní mar a chéile séimhiú roimh a naoi ar maidin agus séimhiú i ndiaidh a naoi. Beidh barraíocht le séimhiú. Chuala mé sin ó Andaí Andaí Andaí.

Níl sé sin sa Chaighdéan ná níl aon trácht air i gCúil Ae, a Aoidh.

Ní hionann gabháil chun an bhaile móir agus teacht thar n-ais.

Ní hionann Andaí Andaí Andaí ná a chanúint roimh a chéadphroinn is ina dhiaidh. (andi: andi: andí; v. /andi: andə (bram) andə/

Ábhar machnaimh don DIAS agus don Choiste Téarmaíochta, (gan trácht ar an gcoiste cróinéara).

A Thrigger,

''The Irish of West Muskerry''

How good is this book, does it give words and pronunciation in the Cork Gaeltacht and is the book very good? What else do they explain?

The subtitle of the book is "a phonetic study" and that's exactly what it is. Part I is an inventory of the phonemes of the dialect and their chief allophonic realisations and also includes some brief accounts of phonetic processes (such as sandhi phenomena) and prosodic features (such as stress levels and intonation). The significantly shorter Part II basically takes the pre-reform spelling as a proxy for the phonology of an earlier stage of the language and traces the chief developments underlying modern West Muskerry forms.

All in all, it's not bad for what it is. The book is only 159 pages in all, but it packs in a lot of information, including phonemic/broad phonetic transcriptions of over a thousand lexical items. But there are several things it is not:

1. It is not a lexicon of the dialect. The index contains only a brief gloss for each item (e.g. géag "a branch", féith "nerve, talent", etc.).

2. It is not a grammar of the dialect. There are no explicit notes on usage or grammar and morphological information is dispensed only incidentally insofar as different forms of the same lexeme are grouped together in one entry, e.g. beirim "I bear", do rug, v.n. breith. Obviously, beirim has a lot more (irregular) forms than just these three (e.g. future/conditional stem béar-), but none of the other happen to occur in the text.

3. It is not a thorough phonological analysis. There is a conspicuous lack of information on rule ordering, for instance. Where Ó Siadhail proposes the development /s'l'e:v'ə/ > /s'l'e:jə/ > /s'l'e:i:/ > /s'l'e:/ by a series of ordered rules (palatalisation, vocalisation, deletion), Ó Cuív simply notes in the "Historical Development" section that sléibhe is pronounced /ʃl'e:/ and moves on. This makes it difficult to tell when a particular pronunciation is the result of a general change and when it is an isolated exception.

4. It's not an empirical phonetic analysis. There's no hard data on pronunciation--no spectrogrammes, no formant values, no VOT figures, etc. And Ó Cuív uses a very broad transcription that's hardly more than phonemic, so you are basically left with only prose descriptions of the various phones.

So will be any use to you? I can't say. I bought it because Ó Siadhail describes only some of the phonological rules affecting the dialect in his Modern Irish and gives only a selection of the exceptions to them. Moreover, he occasionally contradicts himself (such as when gives sioc /s'uk/ as an example of vowel raising between a slender and broad consonant--and then immediately afterwards tell us "However, if the broad consonant is /g/, /k/, or /x/..., this rule does not apply." Huh?). I wanted a text that would give me pronunciation information for a substantial number of lexemes that aren't found in the glossary to Teach Yourself Irish, and this book had them. So, overall, I'm quite pleased with $20 I paid to have shipped to me. YMMV.

I have all those books and they are nice in that they seem to have followed a plan for everyone of them, so dialects are comparable

Ingeborg, if you want to get the pronunciation of many thousands of words in Muskerry, you could master the Leitriú Shimplí promoted by Ó Caoimh's father, Seán Ó Caoimh, in the early part of the 20th century. You can buy whole books transliterated into this semi-phonetic script. For example, the book Séadna is translated as Shiàna, and is intermittently available second hand on www.abebooks.com. The idea behind leitriú shimplí was to spread the Muskerry pronunciation via a simplified script.The script is fairly regular in its correspondences. It should be possible to work out the pronunciations of any word in the script. This is a flavour of it. Note the circumflex denotes nasal vowels.

Ví fear aun fad ó agus ish é ainim a ví er ná Shiàna. Griàsy b'ea é. Ví tig beog deas clohar igè ig bun cnuic, er häv na fohana. Ví cahír húgáin igè do ghin shé fén do fén, agus ba ghnáh lesh sí inti um hránhóna, nuer a víoch obuir an lä críochnuihi, agus nuer a híoch shé inti víoch shé er a hásdacht. Ví mealavóg mini igè er crocha a n-aici na tini, agus inìsh agus irísh cuireach shé a lâv inti agus hógach shé lán a ghuirin den vin, agus víoch shé á coguint er a hueneas. Ví craun úl a fás er a däv amùh de ghoras igè, agus nuer a víoch tart er ó veh a coguint na mini, chuireach shé lâv sa chraun sun agus hógach shé ceaun des na húluiv agus d'ihach shé é.

quote:

Anoder rúl sez dat bród mast gó wid bród an slender wid slender, só it iz yder "ainseo" ór "anso" bat not "anseo".

Sadly, de simptomz ar unmistékabil: its a klasik kés ov obsesiv-kompulsiv disorder.

Domhnall Liaim Liaim..

In truth, I cannot argue with what you say because I share your point of view. But as a dialectologist, this is a topic that never ends for us, and we always have to get involved with it. In fact, it is often referred to as the LSS "Looped Spiral Staircase" debate because while it constantly goes in circles, there are times when it feels like you are going up with it, or down with it. What is funny is that it doesn't matter what language is being debated, this dialect debate is universal.

Personally, when it comes to Irish which is not my area of expertise, I like to give each county it's own Irish. I like to say Galway Irish or Antrim Irish. Is it very specific or accurate...not really. But I do feel that this is at least little more specific than the three region system.

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on May 02, 2008)

Of course it's universal! As I've tried to explain, the debate stems from the very nature of classification itself. It's not an issue confined to linguistics, but it's found in every field of human endeavour. In addition to the examples I gave from biology and popular music, you could add countless more from gastronomy, sports, tax law, poetry, astronomy, card-playing--you name it. Whatever it is, we're always struggling with the task of breaking down a dizzying array of variations into a finite number of sets we can label and discuss--which inevitable leads to simplifications, distortions, and disagreements.

Your "one county, one dialect" system might be more specific, but greater specificity should not be equated with greater accuracy. For instance, on page 4 of Modern Irish, Ó Siadhail says:

For the purposes of this study it may be useful to think of Donegal and Munster as two ends of a spectrum with Galway and South Connacht as a central point. Then, in very broad terms, the northern Connacht dialects of Mayo, while obviously having their own characteristics, are a halfway house between Donegal and Galway. On the other hand, Clare, which is northern Munster, is in many ways a patchwork of isoglosses with, as one might geographically expect, South Clare showing a bias toward Munster features and North Clare towards Galway.

In fact, he finds Clare varieties so problematic that he excludes them from his generalisations about both Munster and Connacht features. By lumping them all together under a single designation, you, on the other hand, end up implying a homogeneity which simply does not exist.

Again, there are certainly occasions on which a county-level categorisation is useful, but it's in no way intrinsically superior to the three-province system. Both distort the full picture of diversity in different ways.

I wasn't implying that a county based system was better by any means, I find it works better for me than the three region system because if I say Kerry Irish or the like...people know what and where I am talking about.

Well, that is assuming they know what Irish is and where Kerry is :-) But that's another matter altogether.

I know that the three region system is in use, and probably will always continue to be used unless something drastic changes, but I cannot help but feel that this is a gross over-simplification for Irish diversity. And I also believe that in the coming years if Irish ever really does gain strength thoughtout the country, there is going to be an injustice to those who are going to be lumped into a classifaction they don't belong to.

The only way I can see on outing for it is if the "artificial dialect" as it is often called being cemented in the school system is going to be accepted as a new branch of Irish. I honestly feel that this is going to be the Irish of the future.

quote:

I honestly feel that this is going to be the Irish of the future.

An todhchaí? Is í Gaeilge an lae inniu í cheana féin sna meáin chumarsáide. Dá gcaithfeá níos mó ama ag léamh Gaeilge agus níos lú ama á plé i mBéarla, bheadh a fhios agat.

About Mayo Irish its very similar to Donegal Irish more than the Connacht Irish it self the Northern Connacht Dialect is very close to the Irish spoken in Donegal.

Cad'na thaobh an naimhdeas, a Dhennis? Conas an bhfuil a fhios cinnte agat tá an plé seo á chosc ar na nithe sin a dhéanamh?

Ví fear aun fad ó agus ish é ainim a ví er ná Shiàna.

It's ManxGreek to me.

quote:

Cad'na thaobh an naimhdeas, a Dhennis?

Ní dóigh liom gur naimhdeas atá ann, ach dearg-exasperation. Tá mé páirteach sa chlár plé seo le roinnt blianta agus chonaic mé go leor daoine ag teacht agus imeacht. Ina measc siúd chonaic mé daoine atá ar bheagán Gaeilge (ní tusa atá mé a rá in aon chor) a bhfuil a lán le rá acu -- aistí faaaaaada i mBéarla fadálach -- faoi thodhchaí na Gaeilge, faoi cheart na Gaeilge, faoi fhadhbanna na Gaeilge, faoi réiteach na bhfadhbanna sin, faoin díobháil a rinne X, Y agus Z don Ghaeilge, agus mar sin de ad nauseam. Hobby -- nó hobbyhorse -- dóibh í "ceist na teangan". Bíonn siad cinnte i cónaí go bhfuil an ceart acu, cé nach bhfuil aithne acu ar an teanga is cás leo ar chor ar bith. Táim bréan de na hexperts (mar dhea) seo. Sin an méid. Ba cheart dóibh luí isteach ar an obair atá rompu, ceisteanna a chur, agus a gcuid tuairimí ar na rudaí a luaigh mé thuas a choinneáil faoi ghlas go dtí go mbeidh siad in ann iad a chur in iúl i nGaeilge. Is rídhócha go mbeidh siad ar mhalairt tuairime faoin am sin.

However, a Dhonnchadh, a learner has to grasp some of the issues surrounding Irish even before he buys his first textbook, otherwise he might end up buying a textbook that taught the CO, LOL! Seriously, you need to take an attitude on the language before you buy your first book. The idea that you should just get your head down learning the language and asking questions and accepting the answers is highly disingenuous at the least. First of all, native speakers differ among themselves on their attitude towards the CO. So do fluent learners, such as Donnchadh. So to suggest that learners should all accept Donnchadh's views on a range of controversial topics would be quite wrong.

What is clear is that Donnchadh has no real answer to some of the things raised here (other than to try to say he monopolizes the viewpoints allowed by insisting only fluent speakers can take a view). He cannot deny an agreed and accepted standard Irish was contained in early copies of the Christian Brothers Grammar. He cannot deny the government introduced a new standard without reference to the real users of the language. He cannot deny the government's new standard contains some completely artificial points not reflecting ANY dialect of Irish (eg, cara as the dative of cara, when all Irish dialects incl the beloved Conemara have caraid). Now conversely, I cannot deny that the Munster Irish entered a huge decline after the founding of the state, and that the majority of native speakers are in Galway. I cannot deny that the Irish school system has adopted the CO and that most writing now goes on in this "form" of Irish. But once again he cannot deny this form has no native speakers. And he cannot deny that real native speakers in the GT seldom read the CO (Aonghus: thanks for the info that a "bestselling" Irish book sells 200 copies - the 80,000 natives of the GT are not reading Irish language books in their spare time by and large.), and there is no great literature worth reading in CO Irish. All the classics are in the dialects - Donnchadh cannot deny this either. But I cannot deny that if you wish to read EU legislation in Irish, then the CO is the way to go.


So there is a mish-mash of points to and fro, and people have to make their choice - and do so before they start learning - NOT when they're fluent, and so entitled to a view in Donnchadh's eyes. Oddly enough, the logical conclusion of all the points Donnchadh could raise in the paragraph above would be to adopt Galway Irish as the standard, not the CO (because this is REALLY where Irish is at now, not the CO -if, that is, you are talking about the form most NATIVE speakers use, and not learners). But Donnchadh seems confused. It simply is not right for Donnchadh to claim that he speaks Irish fluently and so he monopolizes a view on a very political subject - the government's decision to change the goalposts of standard Irish. Donnchadh, your post amounts to special pleading - you are insisting the CO has a prestige it doesn't actually have, and that learners should never challenge you on that point (even if they know enough unchallengeable facts to know that that is false). I guess what you are REALLY concerned about is that someone learning Cork Irish *implicitly* devalues the Irish you have learned, just as when someone speaking the Queen's English implicitly infers that Cockney/Scouse/Geordie etc are not correct. It is almost as if you are panicking that Munster enthusiasts will eventually master an Irish richer and finer than yours. I see your frustration!!!

He is not saying that you haved to be fluent to have a view; only that that view is unlikely to be informed by good data.


The 800000 natives in the gaelacht, like most of the reset of the population are not reading bokks, period.

Certainly not classics, in anay language. That is a disingenous argument.

quote:

guess what you are REALLY concerned about is that someone learning Cork Irish *implicitly* devalues the Irish you have learned

Since when is an ad hominem an argument?

An ceart ag Dennis, ar fad.

Fanaigí thart, bígí ag cur le bhur gcuid Gaeilge gach lá agus imeoidh an bhaois díbh (is beidh sibh arís óg). Baois an Bhéarla!

Is cur amú ama a bheith ag cíorú canúintí siar i scornach a chéile as leabhair. B'fhearr a bheith crom os cionn na leabhar, ciúin suaimhneach fá do chroí, ach a bheith á léamh os ard!

I fear for the amount of time that learners may waste on some threads of dialect or standard, sometimes writing at lenght on imagined or construed situations. Tá an saol róghearr.

Ceart ag Dennis.

,

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, something oft revealed on this forum, but never more perfectly by yourself.

quote:

Since when is an ad hominem an argument?

I found it always strange in English that you can have an argument with someone without having arguments.

But Irish is the first language I am learning were the decision which standard to follow in speaking and writing is not totally obvious and has to be taken at the beginning before buying the wrong books. But it is an important decision, so threads like this are not nonsensical.

I wonder if the people who learn Norse are also debating so vehemently about Bokmål and Nynorsk.


PS. Perhaps we should have better learned Icelandic, it's the only language I know of which has virtually no dialects.

http://www.nosmag.com/eagrain/eagrain.html

Example of good writing in standard Irish, only traces of non standard. In Ireland we write in standard Irish 90% of the time - fact.

So if people are serious about learning Irish I would suggest people deal with that fact.

The standard will not be changed - there is no demand for it.

(Message edited by gaelgannaire on May 03, 2008)

With respect to Gaelgannaire, in Ireland you write in English more than 99% of the time. It is completely untruthful to claim you write in "standard Irish" 90% of the time. In fact, the vast majority of Irish people *never* write in Irish. Who are these people writing the standard Irish? Are they native speakers from the Gaeltacht, or enthusiasts from the English-speaking part of Ireland? Unless you can answer that and adduce some means of ascertaining who is doing this "writing", you don't have a point. What writing? A few blogs on the Internet? A daily newspaper that has only existed for a while and is nearly defunct? What writing are you talking about? Listening to you it has become the literary language in Ireland. Let me tell you one thing - that brooks no denial - the native speakers who speak Irish every day are not speaking your "standard Irish". That is the one truth you cannot gainsay. As for the enthusiasts in the GAllthacht, well I am glad they are enthusiastic. They are speaking their attempt at standard Irish and doing most of the "writing" in the CO, but they are not native speakers. One might as well travel to India to collect information on "standard English"... and with greater justification.

Please everyone, stop the bigotry. There MUST be room for more than one approach. learning Irish should not give rise to such bigotry as I have experienced on Daltaí - let's not forget this is a not-for-profit organization that should be more welcoming to all!

ah well, one must try. "bigotry" - I think you need a wee cup of tea.

I think when you learn a bit of Irish and when you learn a bit more about its use in Ireland I think you might see things a bit more clearly.

As to La, BTW, it is doing well as is Foinse. There are also a number of magazines.

One more thing, if you are going to debate things on the internet you should read what people actually said and not read into things what you wish?

Are you a young person?

The editor of Lá Nua is a native speaker from Donegal. The previous editor was a native speaker from Musgraí.

The editor and staff of Foinse are, for the most part, native speakers from the Gaeltacht.

The staff of RnaG and TG4 - as well.

and so on.

You lack data, unregistered guest, and you show a pattern of recycling other's arguments which you have read in English, and which are often either dated or just plain wrong.

Learn what you like: no one is objecting to that. We are however objecting to being subjected to long tirades in English about the one true path to the salvation of Irish, which are based on no clear knowledge.

As for the classics not being in Standard Irish - that is a truism, given that they were written long before it came into being...and it is not a literary standard anyway.

If one were to ask english speakers in a remote area of England/Australia/America to write their biographies, the result would hardly be in the standard English of that country. and so on.....

Let me tell you one thing - that brooks no denial - the native speakers who speak Irish every day are not speaking your "standard Irish".

The great majority of them are not speaking Cork Irish, either, honeybunch.

Huge numbers of French people don't speak the standard, huge numbers of English people don't speak the standard, huge numbers of Germans, Italians, Spanish, Chinese, etc., ad nauseam.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Please everyone, stop the bigotry.

At one point, my eyes would be rolling like a slot machine upon hearing this from someone so transparently prejudiced, but I've become inured to it by now. Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, at this point I assume that these frothing-at-the-mouth proponents of Munster Irish are not motivated by a desire to promote the language so much as to feel smugly superior to the majority.

Draw your own conclusions, but I characterize them as the linguistic equivalent of football hooligans, and to my ears, "Gaelainn na Mumhan abú!" now sounds more like "Munster Über Alles."

Given the marginal differences between these so-called "dialects," this entire argument is beyond pathetic.

Thank you, Aonghus, for your permission to learn what I like. RnaG - are they writing in Irish or speaking in Irish? Do they speak in standard Irish? TG4 - are they writing in Irish too? TV and radio are not written media.

YOu yourself have argued on that list that most native speakers are not reading Irish. Convenient how your arguments can slip back and forth. You mentioned a handful of people who write in Irish. Where did I say that that "there are not a handful of people who write IRish in Ireland"? I heard recently about a native speaker who translates for the EU and apparently gaily includes as much dialect as she likes. [Considering few people are going to READ EU legislation in Irish, it doesn't really matter, does it???]

Actually one of those publications you mentioned, i think it is a page in Foinse IS IN MUNSTER IRISH (gasp - you need me to tell you this??) If you are data-rich, Aonghus, can you quote the % of the readership of Lá that is native speakers in the Gaeltacht, and not learners/neo-native enthusiasts in Northern Ireland? Quote sources too. Either way, the data would be interesting to read.

Your arguments, Aonghus, are an ad hominem attack. It is not because you have access to the data, or my arguments are wrong, but because you resent people learning Munster Irish. That is all it is. So for example: if the editor of Foinse/Lá/RnG/TG4 write in Irish, and according to you they always write in CO IRish, they would all use "cara" as the dative of "cara", right? If that is the case - quite possible - exercising your grey cells now - THAT SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY HIRED TO EDIT A CO IRISH PUBLICATION MAY ACTUALLY WRITE IN CO IRISH AS PER THE JOB SPECIFICATION (get it? are the grey cells in a whirr?) - but if they do, they will each write down something he knows to be a travesty, simply because he was "taught" that at school. If England decreed that the plural of children was now to be "childs" and I were hired to edit a magazine in this pidginized form of English, I would have to write "childs", even though I would know this was not proper English.

What is there not to get about this? Aonghus you speak English, German and Irish and have IT knowledge. You should be a person of at least average intelligence. So there is nothing here that should be difficult for you to grasp.

As for you comments on the English of autobiographies - we have only mentioned An tAthair Peadar in this thread - he specifically states that when he was growing up he heard fine Irish the likes of which he never heard in other areas, and specifically adds that in his autobiography he is trying to convey to the author that fine IRish that he heard around him. He wrote the autobiography as an example of good Irish. Shall I dig out some quotes for you, both from the work itself and Cyril Céirin's translation?

Autobiographies of people in remote areas of the Anglosphere are normally written in standard English. There are very few English language books that are not. I do not what you are talking about claiming that autobiographies in remote areas are written in dialect. Maybe it is because a standard of English (or rival ones) are widely accepted and not far from the way people speak - but I would actually challenge you to walk into Waterstones and find ANY English book whatsoever not in Standard English. Unless they had a copy of Robbie Burns' poetry, your task would be fruitless (and yes, I know, Robbie Burns' English, or rather Scots, was the literary language of Scotland at the time).

Your comment, supposedly derived from your superior knowledge of the facts on the ground, turns out to be a tissue of nonsensical assertions.

http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=12707


There are about 800 daily speakers of Irish in the Gaeltacht in Cork County.

---

You do not need my permission for _anything_ Unregistered guest, nor did I suggest that I was giving or refusing it.

quote:

Your arguments, Aonghus, are an ad hominem attack. It is not because you have access to the data, or my arguments are wrong, but because you resent people learning Munster Irish.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Evidence that I resent people learning any form of Irish would be welcome.

quote:

according to you they always write in CO Irish

I didn't say that. I was answering your question, about who writes in standard Irish.The answer is, everybody, if it is the appropriate form to use. And I am perfectly aware of and enjoy Breandan 'ac Gearailt's articles. They are opinion pieces, and it is entirely correct and appropriate that they be written as he chooses. The only complaints I have ever heard were from foreign learners who complained it was "too hard".

The news, being semi official, is in CO Irish.

My argument is against excluding any fit for purpose form of Irish. If you become fluent in the idiolect of an tAthar Peadar, brilliant. If you restrict yourself to it, you will have very little to read and less conversation.

BTW, nobody "speaks" standard Irish. It is a system of spelling and written grammar, not a dialect.

(Message edited by aonghus on May 03, 2008)