From the dialect argumentdiscussion:

In Conamara:

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

I can't imagine what a lenited L sounds like. Likewise with a lenited N.

Does anybody know of an internet site that features these two sounds?

There is no 'lenition' -it is grammatical lenition, not phonological lenition -presumably the pattern was extended on a grammatical level -it is just a strong l, n, r to a weak one, regardless of quality (i.e. L(') -->l('), N(') -->n('), R(') -->r(')

There *is* a difference, even in sound, between L' and l', N' and n'. If you can read IPA, it's this:

/L'/ = [λ] almost as in "million"
/l'/ = [lʲ] almost as in "to live"
/N'/ = [ɲ] almost as in "new"
/n'/ = [nʲ] almost as in "niece"

a leabhar (m) > [ə ˈlʲauɾˠ]
a leabhar (f) > [ə ˈλauɾˠ]

I can make a recording if you like.

(Message edited by Lughaidh on May 02, 2008)

This is why there is arguments on boards -I'm after saying there is a difference but I get construed as saying I didn't. What would the bit about this: (i.e. L(') -->l('), N(') -->n('), R(') -->r(') be about otherwise?

Those who say there's no difference are just Munster speakers (for whom there are only l and l', n and n', r and r'), or learners whose ear is not good (or who have only heard other learners or Munster speakers).

There's a huge difference between L' and l', if you hear them it's impossible not to hear a difference. By the way, go to phouka.com (cf URL at the bottom of my message) and you'll hear recordings (some links are broken so some sounds won't work, unfortunately).

About /r'/ and /R'/, today there's no difference. I read somewhere that /R'/ is pronounced as /R/, but I can't say if it's true or not because I've never heard any native speaker pronouncing a word with slender rr... There are mainly two common words that would have it: cairr (genitive of carr) and bairr (genitive of barr). But I never heard them...

Those who say there's no difference are just Munster speakers (for whom there are only l and l', n and n', r and r'),

Not quite. In at least some Munster varieties, /N'/ is [ŋʲ], e.g sinn [ʃɪ̝ŋʲ] vs. sin [ʃɪ̝n̪ʲ]. You can hear the velar quality quite clearly on the Pimsleur recordings I have.

Aye, sorry, I thought of Kerry Irish. Waterford and West Cork have /N'/ = [ŋʲ] as you said. But anyway, for r's and l's, no difference.

Lughaidh,
I gave the pattern, you gave the examples; thus I did not say there was a living R' -> r' example and the thrilled r to tapped r flexion has been gone for some time now

quote:

the thrilled r to tapped r flexion has been gone for some time now

Not with some old speakers in Donegal (and maybe Connaught too).

quote:

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

It’s not a functional distinction any longer, so there’s no need to try and maintain the lenition here. Another thing, I’m afraid those who could have regularly used it are either “ar Shlí na Fírinne” or very old indeed.

quote:

It’s not a functional distinction any longer, so there’s no need to try and maintain the lenition here.

There is a need, since otherwise there's no difference between his book and her book.

quote:

otherwise there's no difference between his book and her book.

A scoil - his or her? Why is this a problem anyway? Yet again, Domhnall refers to Connemara for which I have provided a brief account.

(Message edited by peter on May 04, 2008)

Is suimiúil an rud é go gcailleannn teangacha "minimal pairs" le himeacht aimsire. Tá a lán daoine sa tír seo nach ndéanann aon idirdhealú ar:

Wales agus whales

pin agus pen

ladder agus latter

marry agus merry

agus mar sin de.

Tá an Fhraincis ag cur thar maoil le homophones nach mbíodh ann na céadta bliain ó shin.

Seidh, ach do réir an chomhthéacs tuigeann muid cad é atá i gceist, a’ chuid is mó don am.

Is dóigh liom go ndéanann na hÉireannaigh duifear eadar Wales agus whales, which agus witch, srl, siocair go mbíonn wh neamhghlórach acu.

quote:

Tá a lán daoine sa tír seo nach ndéanann aon idirdhealú ar

Bhuel, nach dual é sin, gach’s a bhfuil leadrán agus tilleadh iarrachtaí fisiceacha ag baint leis, a sheachaint? Is cosúil go bhfuil an teanga happy gan é. Ar an taobh eile den scéal, tá an oiread sin cásanna, a bhfuil eolas chruinn againn orthu, gur fhás fuaimeanna nua a spreag minimal pairs úrnua. Céar’ dtaobh palatalization ar éigean dhaoibh buíochas a ghlacadh dhó as ucht /k/ agus /t∫/ a bheith i mBéarla an lae inniu?

(Message edited by peter on May 05, 2008)

MInimal effort trumps minimal pairs? ;-)

quote:

Céar’ dtaobh palatalization ar éigean dhaoibh buíochas a ghlacadh dhó as ucht /k/ agus /t∫/ a bheith i mBéarla an lae inniu?

Ar mhiste leat é sin a mhíniú, má bhíonn an t-am agat? Níl mé dall ar fad ar stair mo theanga féin, ach caithfidh mé a admháil nach ndearna mé staidéar uirthi ach oiread.

Is ar éigin a chreidfinn nach bhfuil a fhios a’d céard tá mé a rá =) Más maith leat mé a bheith suaite cráite (to say nothing of seacht sean-dubh-dóite) ag míniú a thabhairt air seo thrí Ghaeilge, thuigfinn é ach is ar éigin a ghlacfainn leis =)). Bain trial as an nasc seo Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_phonology agus gabh go “The distribution of velars and palatals”:

quote:

The PWG ancestor of both c and ċ is *k; the ancestor of both g and ġ is *γ. Palatalization of *k to ċ and of * to ġ happened in the following environments

k > [tʃ] as in "church" or "child", maybe ? (church is kirk in Braid Scots, kirke in Norwegian...)

Karl ~house karl

~ Charles

Go raibh maith agaibh. Nuair a fhéachaim ar théacs a scríobhadh i nGaeilge 1,200 bliain ó shin, tá a fhios agam gur Gaeilge atá ann. Nuair a fhéachaim a théacs a scríobhadh i mBéarla 1,200 bliain ó shin, séard a fheicim ná teanga nach n-aithním ar chor ar bith!

Tá tú ceart. Ba ghnách le formhór na gciníocha Muslamacha sa tír seo leagan na scripte Arabaí a úsáid sular chuir na Sóivéadaigh cosc air seo agus thosaíodar ag múnadh scríobh nua ar scoil a bhí bunaithe ar an aibítir Cyrillic. Dá bharr sin, níl aon scríobh ná léamh na teanga dúchasaí ag seandaoine sa lá atá inniu ann agus an leagan nua uirthi. An rud is measa ná é, ní thuigeann an dream óg na seanscríbhínní agus is minic a bhíonn sé de thuarim acu nach raibh aon litríocht ná scríobh fiú’s ag a gcuine roimhe sin agus sin é an bharúil de ghnáth-Rúiseach, chomh maith. Cara de mo chuid, ní fhéadfadh sé na scéalta a chum a sheanathair a léamh dhá bharr. Buíochas le Dia, tá a scéal athraithe anois.

(Message edited by peter on May 07, 2008)

An iad na teangacha Turcacha sna "Stans" atá i gceist agat? Chuaigh siad ón aibítir Arabach go dtí an aibítir Choireallach* go dtí an aibítir Rómhánach i níos lú ná céad bliain -- an bhfuil an ceart agam?

* Is ó www.focal.ie a fuair mé an litriú sin ar "Cyrillic". Ach cén fáth an 'C' leathan? Ní thuigim.

Dála an scéil, "tá tú ceart" a scríobh tusa, agus "an bhfuil an ceart agam" a scríobh mise. Feicim / cloisim "tá tú ceart" sách minic, ach dúradh liom riamh go bhfuil "tá an ceart agat" níos fearr; go gciallaíonn "tá tú ceart" go bhfuil tú "right in the head" nó "an okay guy". An bhfuil an tuiscint seo seanfhaiseanta anois?

Is ó www.focal.ie a fuair mé an litriú sin ar "Cyrillic". Ach cén fáth an 'C' leathan? Ní thuigim.

Ná mise ach chomh beag, ach féadaim a rá leat gur ionann i nGearmáinis é: Kyrillisch ach zyprisch ("Cipireach"), Zyklop ("Cioclóp"), &c.

quote:

An bhfuil an tuiscint seo seanfhaiseanta anois?

Níl.

quote:

An iad na teangacha Turcacha sna "Stans" atá i gceist agat? Chuaigh siad ón aibítir Arabach go dtí an aibítir Choireallach* go dtí an aibítir Rómhánach i níos lú ná céad bliain

Tá an ceart agat ach is cosúil go bhfuil an scéal rud beag níos casta ná sin: ón aibítir Rómhánach a chuaigh siad siúd go dtí an aibítir Choireallach, is cuma cén litriú atá air seo. Is iontach an rud é agus cé chomh minicí a tháinig athruithe ar a leithide de Uzbek, cuir i gcás: d’athraigh scríobh na teanga seo cheithre uaire as a chéile taobh istigh den chéad seo caite.

Maidir le “Cyrillic”, go gcuimhin liom tá [k] nó [k’] i macasamhailt an fhocail seo i dteangacha Slávacha, mar sin is léir go raibh an té a chruthaigh an focal Gaeilge seo ag iarraidh cuma Slavach nó Gréigise a aimsiú, meas tú?

Maidir le “tá tú ceart”, sé deirtí liom agus cúnamh á iarraidh orm agus ní thuiginn é de bharr mo chuid Gaeilge liopastach =)) Cineál “no worries, you’re ok”. Sin í an bhrí a bhí agamsa, like you’re ok, tá fadhbanna níos measa ag daoine eile agus ní thuigeann siad a dteanga féin agus isteach’s amach leathchéad bliain atá sleamhnaithe thart, ach tá other factors at play here, ceart go leor.

Is maith liom do pheictiúr nua – tá tú ag breathnú like caithfidh níos mó measa a bheith ag an lucht plé ortsa ná mar is iondúil =)

Ainm misinéara Gréagach atá i gceist le Cyril.

Scaip sé (agus an dream a tháining ina dhiaidh) an scríobh thoir, mar a scaip a leathbahdóirí gaelacha thiar!

Nach bhfuil ‘s ag an saol é seo? Sin é an fáth a ndearna mé trácht ar an nGréigis, ar an dath. Ná dean dearmad ar Methodius, cuid den scéal céanna a bhainneanns leis seo.

quote:

Nach bhfuil ‘s ag an saol é seo?

N'fheadar. Tá níos mó sa tsaol ná mise gaus tusa!
Agus ní dhearna.

quote:

is léir go raibh an té a chruthaigh an focal Gaeilge seo ag iarraidh cuma Slavach nó Gréigise a aimsiú, meas tú?

Ach nach mbeadh "Cireallach" nó "Cirilleach" níos giorra d'fhuaimniú an ainm "Cyril"? Is é sin an rud nach dtuigim.

quote:

Is maith liom do pheictiúr nua – tá tú ag breathnú like caithfidh níos mó measa a bheith ag an lucht plé ortsa ná mar is iondúil =)

Ós rud é go bhfuil cuma níos críonna orm sa phictiúr sin? Tá níos mó ná ciall amháin le "críonna", ar ndóigh! ;-) Tógadh é i bPuebla, Méx. i Mí Feabhra.