I am posting this one in English because it involves the learning process.

Más buan mo chuimhne, there was a thread last year about the relative difficulties of certain aspects of learning a language.

There were basically two schools of thought: the structural school and the quantity school - to put it that way.

The structuralists' view was that the grammar is the decisive aspect; the grammar makes learning the language hard, or easy.

The quantifists were more of the opinion that the vocabulary was the major stumbling block in becoming competent in a language.

I remember that I was of the first point of view and if I remember correctly Domhnaillín_breac_na_dtruslóg was of the view that the mass of unknown words at any particular time as the major challenge.

I have changed my humble opinion in the meantime for the following reason: because grammar describes a structure which is essentially finite, it is more readily circumscribable than vocabulary which tends towards the infinite.

Vocabulary is the final challenge, nach ea?

How do you define the Gaussian hump of commonly used words for a language?

Is the Foclóir Póca a good core basis?

(Message edited by ormondo on January 11, 2010)

quote:

There were basically two schools of thought: the structural school and the quantity school ..

Not either … or, but both … and. It's like someone who says they have a mathematical mind, and another says they are “artistic”. I think that people have different learning styles depending on their background (genetic make-up), their personality, their intelligence, and their motivation, and even many more factors (like do they already have a second language). This could also change during one’s life, one can find more difficultly with grammatical structure early in life, and then vocabulary later. So what is harder depends on the person’s peculiar situation, in my opinion. I don’t think it can be predicted based on objective criteria, but certain patterns can help identify where help is needed more.

quote:

… [grammar] is more readily circumscribable than vocabulary which tends towards the infinite.

I guess this depends on your view of each. Each have constituent parts which form the whole. Vocabulary is not so cut and dry either. Knowing a few very common words is dramatically different than knowing a lot of very rare words. Even in vocabulary there is a hierarchy. And the same for grammar. One may go through life speaking fluent Irish without needing to know some finer points of grammar. I see more of a feedback, or a tandem situation here, in which an increase in skill in one feeds into the other, and vice versa, making the other easier at a given point.

quote:

Is the Foclóir Póca a good core basis?

I guess. I think this is actually too much. A core basis I think would be much smaller. We’re talking about basis here, not what someone with average intelligence would speak or recognize. Studies show that after 1000 to 2000 words the advantage or more words is less and less. For instance, 2000 words could account for a good 75% of a text.

For instance, what I just wrote:

167 words

a = 11 instances
and = 9 instances
I = 7 instances
is = 7 instances

Etc. See how these very fundamental words account for a greater percentage of the text. But a word like “tandem” is much less common, and some people may have to look it up.

quote:

Vocabulary is the final challenge, nach ea?

Sílim gurbh (é?) an chéad dúshlán é.

This is a very interesting subject and I know that we've discussed it go ó am go ham. Although we may be talking at this time about acheiving competency, I think for a lot of learners (myself included) it would be nice to just get by with Irish, sort of like "conversational survivability."

What does it take to keep a dialog or conversation going with someone, and let's say that other person is fluent so we can focus on one person's ability independent of other persons.

Maybe something like:

2000 nouns
100 verbs
basic mutation ability (lenition and eclipsis)
articles and particles, etc.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but thought I would ask this question of conversational survivability since it might be a stepping stone to conversational competency.

http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp

quote:

The CEFR is a document which describes in a comprehensive manner i) the competences necessary for communication, ii) the related knowledge and skills and iii) the situations and domains of communication. The CEFR defines levels of attainment in different aspects of its descriptive scheme with illustrative descriptors scale. The illustrative descriptor scales, plus other descriptors related to the CEFR, are available in a Data bank of descriptors.

Tá an Teastas Eorpach sa Ghaeilge bunaithe ar an gcreatlach seo.

Linguistic theory etc is not my thing but just my take on things...

I would be at the stage where I can understand the vast bulk of texts without the use of a dictionary. I may not understand every single word but context usually provides the answers. This process itself increases my vocabulary, and does it in a way that 'sticks' much better than running for the dictionary every time I hit a word I don't know. Vocabulary is an issue but not one that holds any great fear. Poetry and the further reaches of literary prose (and possibly Alan Titley in the Irish Times!) might defeat me but generally I get by.

In conversation, I generally have enough vocabulary to get around a particular problem. If I can't lay my hand on the precise word, I can explain around it. I have a lot of vocabulary to learn but it isn't a fundamental obstacle to 'conversational survivability'. Grammar (usage as well as the hard technicalities) is another story. I commonly run into situations where I have all the words but in an "on the hoof" situation, I can't put them together. I then mangle a vaguely understandable utterance, all the while suffering the crucifying look of patience on my more competent companion's face.

So, at my stage of learning, grammar is the biggest obstacle. However, I suppose it is possible that there will come a time when I have grammar more or less cracked and there will still be a richness of vocabulary to which I don't have access.

quote:

http://www.teg.ie/

Has anyone here taken this exam?

Bhí mé ag smaoineamh air ach ní dhearna mé faic go fóill. Tá cuid de na páipeir samplaí léite agam ach níl mé cinnte maidir leis an léibheal oiriúnach. Mar sin féin, seasfadh scrúduithe mar spríoc agus tabharfaidís cúnamh leat agus tusa ag iarraidh do chuid staidéir a heagrú.

I have been meaning to do it but I haven't done much about it. Despite looking at some of the sample papers, I am unsure as to what level I would fit in at. In general, I think exams act as a spur and a target and they help you put some shape on your efforts.

Related in an indirect way, the youth are being dumbed down. Complex, critical thinking is dependent on vocabulary. The future of Irish, as it stands now, can be directly linked to the younger people being raised to speak well, and learning proper grammar to a certain extent. They need to be raised to have discernment/nuance -- don't speak like you're in a pub when you're interviewing for a job. Sad to say I interact with a lot of dunderheads during the day in my job. A good number of the young folks (and some old ones) here do not know how to form a multi-clausal sentence, do not know how to open and close conversations, have not been taught anything relating to verbal manners (like, "excuse me"), and generally do not know how to verbalize their thoughts beyond the basics --

"What type of story are you looking for?" "Uh, I don't know." "Well, what kind of stories do you like?" "Uh ... I don't know."

Now I am not saying all, but many. And I am not generationally biased either. The language of younger folks has generally been dumbed down. I happen to think it is deliberate to produce obedient plebs with enough brains to keep the cash flowing to the elite, but too little to form complex lines of reasoning like "What should a just government be like?", "What is a just day's wage?", "Where are my taxes put?", and "What is riskier, walking down stairs, or being struck by 'Al-Qaida'?" Etc. I think the Irish are behind in this process in this respect, but they are involved in the same international associations (e.g., the UN) which create the same substandard standards (essentially Newspeak), and are enamoured with the same cultural trends which have little substance. Let's just say, the future of Irish will not rest on these types of children.

Teenagers "only use 800 different words a day"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/6960745/Teenagers-only-use-80 0-different-words-a-day.html

An bhfuil duine éigin t'réis m'ainm a ghlaoch?

I think it's important in all of this not to confuse "vocabulary" with a word list. As cognitive linguistics has taught us, our knowledge of vocabulary isn't definitional, it's encyclopaedic. When you think of "red", there's a lot more in your mind than just the visual effect of a particular wavelength of light. You bring up associations with everything from drinking to debt to apples and emergency vehicles.

This would be tough enough if all languages used the same encyclopaedia, but vocabulary doesn't line up neatly between languages. Consider, for instance, all the times the subject of the proper translation of "family" in to Irish has come up. The reason we keep wrestling with it is that there is no single translation; there are a range of Irish words (e.g. teaglach, clann, muintir, etc.) all of which have some overlap in coverage with the English term and all of which cover some things which it does not.

Really, this is true of every Irish word, it's just more obvious in some instances than others. But more importantly, on an abstract level words don't have translations, only utterances do. How many times have we learners done our level best to Irishify our thoughts and come out with something that's strictly grammatical, perfectly understandable to a fluent speaker, yet something that no native speaker would ever say? Even a modest vocabulary yields a huge range of alternative means of expression, most of which will be rarely used (if at all) and then only in specific circumstances.

It could be argued that if communication is your primary goal, than you shouldn't let yourself be too bothered by such situations. True enough. But if it's mastery you're after, then this--knowledge of collocations and commonplaces, register and literary allusion, idiom and fixed phrases--will always be the hurdle which keeps fluency just out of your reach long after ordinary grammatical patterns no longer pose any challenge to you.

@ An Chilleasrach & Paploo
TEG recommends that anyone who has learned Irish in school should enter at A2. A1 is recommended for those who have never learned Irish before.
What I did was to have a go at the free on-line test provided by Gaelchultur and that will give you a decent indication as to where you’re at. I’m working my way through A2 at the moment (unfortunately not in a classroom situation, which most of the material is geared toward) and if I feel I can manage it, I will attempt the exam later this year. It’s a bit stiff at €100, but I suppose the fact that all the material is free to download makes up for it. Yes, I would agree that an exam acts as a spur. I’ve always found this to be the case.
DMD

quote:

Teenagers "only use 800 different words a day"

But the same article mentions "they [teenagers] know an average of 40,000 words."

So maybe it's 800 to get by - sustain a conversation - and 40,000 to be fluent/competent?

There are many nuances to this. How do they define "know"? Are they "aware" of the word, or can they employ it in many different social contexts? This wikipedia article fleshes out some of the factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabulary

Maybe it just means that they understand 40,000 words but they don't use them (passive knowledge).

(Message edited by Lughaidh on January 12, 2010)

quote:

What I did was to have a go at the free on-line test provided by Gaelchultúr

So did I, and I'm still getting spammed by them a year later despite sending a letter--i nGaelainn!--asking them to stop sending me advertisements for such things as classes in a country where I don't live.

Cén seoladh ar bhain tú feidhm as? Seans nach bhfuil aoinne ag léamh an bosca r-phoist sin.

An ceann amháin a bhí agam, a Aonghuis: .

Hmm. Ba cheart go dtabharfaí aird ar sin, cgl.

Native Irish speakers tend not to imitate the written word - because there is so little of it in Irish - well, anymore at least.

Native speakers of the major languages, on the other hand, have more of a tendency to imitate the written word. The so-called cultivated speakers almost completely have the written word as their template i.e. they do not speak in the spontaneous, rambling way of pre-historical times but imitate complicated sentence structures that have been designed and structured on paper (the "drawing board") with interweaving sub-clauses etc etc. They have created an unnatural mould that did not exist before the written - maybe I should say "printed" - word came into existence and they have adapted to this mould.

Should one consider this aspect when dealing within the the Irish language within the environment of other languages especially English, of course.

(Message edited by ormondo on January 12, 2010)

I think that's a good point. You probably have further to go in Irish after you achieve reasonable competence in the written language than would be the case in many other languages. Of course, it all depends how you acquire the language. If you were immersed in a Gaeltacht, it wouldn't make too much difference.

Ormondo,
I agree with you, but this could apply to almost any language that has lost much of its oral culture, or that has built up some overly prescriptive grammatical points (double negative, preposition at the end of sentences, etc.). I think that is the crux of this, not how much printed word there is. I think the oral culture is still highly prized in Ireland, the old "gift of the gab", the general hospitality of the Irish, the love of a good story. I think this also comes out in country areas which prize community, common sense, and simplicity. But, some of the most wonderful conversationalists that I interact with in my life are very well educated, and very picky about grammar. So ....?

I am late in this conversation and find it quite intriguing. I too at present am looking for "conversational survivability". I want to be able to speak Irish, even if flawed, to the point of being understood. That core competency will create the linguistic feedback loop for expanding and understanding and ultimately perfecting.

I recently wrote a brief letter on Talk Irish, and tried to do so from my mind only. I did not consult a dictionary, lesson sheets or anything. I promptly received an email giving me a line by line correction on what I had written. This is exactly the reason why folks don't engage in this language. I could have written it all perfectly consulting books, etc., but in my opinion it is the "mind to mouth" or "mind to pen" that creates conversational survivabiility.

English has the great advantage of being an easy language to speak at "conversational survivability" levels. My state (Texas) is full of hispanics who can communicate in English however crudely, but yet effectively. We don't sit and correct their syntax and grammar. We just engage and converse. Anglos who wish to speak spanish have the same wonderful opportunity. I have not found a place to engage in that kind of primitive communication in Irish. I feel if I could, in time it would roll off of my tongue and out of my mind.

It would be great fun to have a list of the 1000 most used words (noun, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, conjunctions) in Irish and the 100 most used verbs with the tenses in which they are used. This would be a great base upon which to build.

Has anyone created such a beast?
Faberm

Not to my knowledge faberm.I recently did a bit of basic English/literacy teaching.I took a short course beforehand and acquired some useful teaching aids,one of which was the 'Dolch' list-or lists really.12 words acount for a quarter of all reading in English.A further 20 words take you up to a third.Add another 68 and you are on a half.

So 100 words cover 50% of all written matter in English.Irish must be fairly similar? 1000 or 1500 words would be a very good jumping off point i mo thuarim.Such a book would fly off the shelves.Verbs and conjunctions,prepositions are the dodgy lads.You can't picture them.My 'pupil'from Pakistan had no problem with complicated technical terms.But he just could not remember to use the definite article. A neighbour of mine says he has no use for Irish ; it ruined his schooldays etc.However,he knows hundreds od Irish words - and he didn't learn them at school.They are nearly all nouns and adjectives though.Animals ,birds ,insects,trees and old sayings come easy to him.Some techie wizard on daltaí must get on the case!

Féach ar an nasc seo:

http://www.daltai.com/discus/messages/13510/48153.html

I would recommend the following for the nearest thing to a Dolch list 'as gaeilge':

Liostaí Bhreacadh - Focail Choitianta Sa Ghaeilge

Rphost:
or google Breacadh, Casla, Co. na Gaillimhe

Kevin Scannell, who is working on the new English-Irish dictionary, has a "top 1000" list on his site.

http://borel.slu.edu/fleiscin/index.html

direct link:

http://borel.slu.edu/fleiscin/mile.html

But - as Lughaidh pointed out - those are collated from a corpus of (mostly) official documents and as such may not represent casual speech too well.

They were created for a hyphenation tool project.

My understanding is that he uses a web crawler (An Crúbadán). Does anyone know where he says that it is made of mostly official documents, besides maybe that that is the greater bulk of Irish language resources on the web? Aonghus, wouldn't it also crawl this forum, and your blog, for instance?

A lot of postings and every one interesting and constructive. And no slagging! Go raibh maith agaibh, a chairde!

I like that concept of "conversational survivabilty". And Faberm's posting introduces the comparative linguistics aspect which is a very important source of experience - which tends to be ignored too often.

I believe that it is realistic that a large minority could achieve the level of conversational survivabilty.

Maybe that should be the aim for the big picture. Of course, a large inner core of very competent people will always be a pre-requisite to carry the language forward into the future but it would be very conducive if this smaller core were surrounded by a larger - let's say, protective - minority which has achieved conversational survivability.

Why couldn't the government, for example, put up a weekly news digest on the internet - with a slow, clear voice version in tandem - to supplement the effort (not as competition to the other Irish media publications, of course) including all aspects of life in fairly simple Irish? This could be very encouraging for those of threshold ability who are really not interested in developing upper-arm biceps from wielding the old FGB several times a day.

For example:
Bhí an bua ag foireann rugbaí na hÉireann ar an deireadh seachtaine seo caite. D'imir siad i gcoinne na Breataine Bige. Bhain B.O'D. dhá úd amach agus shlánaigh R.O'G. ceann amháin díobh... srl.

So this would be an account of an event that would interest most people and it would be in relatively uncomplicated Irish. Of course, "úd" and "slánaigh (úd)" would be translated in a gluais so that two Irish speakers with conversational survivability competence could expand their vocabulary in a non-strenuous way by two meaningful words and could have something like the following conversation the next time they meet:

Cara a haon: An bhfaca tú an cluiche inné? Bhain B.O'D dhá úd amach.

Cara a dó: Sea, agus shlánaigh R.O'G. iad.

Cara a haon: Faraor, ach níor shlánaigh sé ach ceann amháin.

This would give people with a friendly leaning towards Irish a positive buzz which they could build on.

(As regards an existence for the Irish language within the realm of the written word... I'm still mulling over that!)

(Message edited by ormondo on January 13, 2010)

Thanks Aonghus for pointing me to this thread. I should probably get rid of that top 1000 list from the hyphenation site - it wasn't assembled very scientifically and I didn't keep very careful track of the corpus I used to create it. There were certainly plenty of official documents in it, but I'm sure there was some literature and some informal web-crawled material mixed in as well (Gaeilge-A archives for example). There are other bits of weirdness as well - for reasons that are lost in the mists of time I converted everything to lowercase and then spell checked the list, so "gaeilge" isn't in there, but "béarla" ("jargon") is. In fact a scholar in Ireland sent me a paper he'd written that remarked on this very thing - that Irish speakers must be more interested in English than Irish - citing the top 1000 list!

Here's what I hope is a better frequency list, all words appearing at least 10 times in a corpus of about 1.7M words, wide range of genres. There are 11281 words. Didn't take capitalization or mutations into account at all - these are raw word counts as they appear in the corpus. Hope this helps.

http://borel.slu.edu/obair/freq-ga.txt

Kevin

Ormondo:Aontaim leat.A very helpful thread.Maith agaibh.

@Kevin

Cén códú atá sa chomhad? Ní fheicim na gutaí fada i gceart!

Oibríonn sé le UTF-8. Ar chúis éigin tá an brabhsalaí seo socraithe air ISO-8859-1.

(Message edited by aonghus on January 14, 2010)

Ar chúis éigin tá an brabhsalaí seo socraithe air ISO-8859-1

Nach maíonn an suiomh a chódleathanach?

Ah, is teacs atá an leathanach. Ní féidir an codleathanach a maíomh le teacs loma.

quote:

I like that concept of "conversational survivabilty". And Faberm's posting introduces the comparative linguistics aspect which is a very important source of experience - which tends to be ignored too often.

I also like what Faberm had to say about language, especially how Hispanics and Anglos in his area treat each other, no matter what their background - pretty cool. In regard to my coining the term "conversational survivability," I'd like to adjust it to something more like "conversational perserverance." But the basic concept is to try and just survive the phruigean conversation, forget about trying to be fluent!

I looked over his list and I think Kevin's list of 1,000 words is a very good start. He mentions above a list of 11,000 words - ? -sounds like way too many words for new speakers who want only to survive the conversation.


(Message edited by bodhrán on January 15, 2010)

quote:

I looked over his list and I think Kevin's list of 1,000 words is a very good start. He mentions above a list of 11,000 words - ? -sounds like way too many words for new speakers who want only to survive the conversation.

Since they're in order, you can just delete from the bottom what you don't want. I think he was supplying more than was needed to be helpful.

I will stick with your original term of "conversational survivability". It is closely tied with what I will call "language efficiency". The more efficient the language, the more likely it is to succeed, adapt, morph, survive, etc. English is the great example of this. It dispensed with much of its indo-european inflection centuries ago. It has minimal conjugational variation in verbs and minimal change to nouns, and no gender of nouns. It contains expansive thought in minimal wording. Hebrew is somewhat like this as well.

Spanish flourishes due to many reasons as well. One reason is it's total and complete efficiency of spelling. Children in latin America spend a total of 0 (zero) days in spelling class because the language is 100% phonetic (yes I realize that v's and b's can cause a mistake or two). The big challenge in Spanish is verb endings, but they too can lend efficiency. Pronouns become unnecessary. It is less efficient than English, but it has some real advantages going for it. It can become boring to me with it's minimal variation in tone and sound, but it is a survivor.

I would imagine that if the Chinese truly desire increased world influence they will have to learn what the phoenicians taught the europeans millenia ago. Unless you're in love with the characters and culture the average learner will probably say, "you've got to be kidding!"

I do not intend to offend anyone, but Irish seems less efficient than any other language I've studied. It may be a function of my age (53) when things don't come to me as easily as they once did. It doesn't mean that I love it any less and in fact enjoy its linguistic quirkiness, but it seems to have many needless impediments to its survival, and needless variations to communicate a thought. I don't know the answers, but I am merely an observer and readily admit that I may be missing something due to my lack of depth of knowledge in the language. Unless sounds are carried in words that my ear cannot hear, the spelling is needlessly cumbersome and complicated. I looked up the word today for "Ice" "oighear" and was amazed at how complicated a spelling could be made to utter a sound which the dictionary shows merely pronounced as "air". The array of prepositional pronouns also complicates without need. In the long run such complication might send any communication medium to the ash bin of linguistic history. Time will tell with An Gaeilge. I will do my best to learn it, teach it, and speak it however flawed.

i am not saying these things to criticize the language for criticisms sake, but to try to objectively address the original thread of discussion regarding relative difficulties of language learning. Language survives when it is spoken. It is spoken when it is an efficient means of communicating thoughts in the brain and it is not needlessly complicated.

These are my two cents, (that may be all they're worth)
Slán go foill,
FaberM

quote:

you can just delete from the bottom what you don't want.

Go raibh maith agat a Sheáin, good idea. But it doesn't look like a simple task to figure out the top 1,000, since many of them score the same ranking.

A Faberm, your points are very well made, especially in regard to the Spanish language. I never thought of the fact that that language is 100% phonetic, although I've studied it and try to speak it in that manner And maybe we're talking about two different things, which is fine, but I wanted to clarify. I think you're talking about the efficiency or survivability of a language over time, and I'm talking about a beginner's survivability during a conversation using the Irish language.

Faber,

One of my teachers once said that a Finn could read Spanish text out with the Finnish pronunciation rule, and be 95% understood. Probably only Finnish yields a better result.

So here's my two cents...

Let's look at Finnish and some of its pros and cons as it comes to ease of learning:

+) Almost 100% phonetical spelling
+) 8 distinct vowels, little if any degradation
+) Virtually one irregular verb

-) Consonant gradation may seem messy
-) Almost everything is inflected by case
-) High agglutination

quote:

But it doesn't look like a simple task to figure out the top 1,000, since many of them score the same ranking.

Copy the list into a spreadsheet. The words down as far as those that have a frequency of 169 give you the top 1,000 plus matches (there is 1,004 of them). Delete everything else.

I realized I did sort of mix apples and oranges although they might be somewhat related. I suppose the simplicity and efficiency give the learner a little more ease in the process of surviving and achieving some level of conversation.

I realize that Irish is what it is, and I must add that I can't imagine it any other way. I think it probably began to look much more complicated when they eliminated the "dots" over consonants that create seimhiu, and added so many "h's". They probably did it so the language could be typed on a typewriter, but the "dot" would be easy on a computer. It helps me to think of the h not as a letter, but as an accent of sorts.

It we can get our hands on the top 1000 most spoken words it will help immensely.

Slán go foill,
Faberm

Faber,
The Spanish spelling system is great, but remember that within Spanish there are variations. Cubans drop the ends of words. The Mexicans use a lot of usted, while the Argentinians use vosotros a lot. They all have regional pronunciations of words that don't match with their standard.

Also, don't be fooled, language is not physics. Not all languages tend toward simplicity or toward increased efficiency or a more ordered system. A better way to phrase changes is that they are simply changing. English changed from an inflectional language to a mostly analytic language. This is happening to Irish as well, right now!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflexion_%28linguistics%29

Some people have proposed this evolution:

> agglutination > fusion (synthetic) > non-synthetic (analytic) > isolating > agglutination > etc

Bengali is an example of a language that took up new inflections from its postpositional system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticalisation#Mechanisms

The moral is, not all changes are more "efficient"!

quote:

Copy the list into a spreadsheet. The words down as far as those that have a frequency of 169 give you the top 1,000 plus matches (there is 1,004 of them). Delete everything else.

Thanks. I want to make sure I understand that the number shown to the left of the word is its frequency. Would that mean the last word is deoch (169)?

David

There is one more below it. I have the code problem Aonghus referred to but I assume it is "bhíodar" (they were - you would often see it rendered as "bhí siad").

The number to the left of the word represents the number of times it appeared in the corpus of texts that were "crawled".

(Message edited by an_chilleasrach on January 18, 2010)

Thanks Seán:

I did indeed simplify and made assumptions that may not be sound. I look forward to reading the "wiki" articles when I'm home from work.
Slán, Faber

Ps. Looked at the blogs and can only hope to read with ease some day.

quote:

I have the code problem Aonghus referred to

Ba cheart go mbeadh tú in ann é a athrú.

I Firefox - Amharc - Ionchódú Carachtar - Unicode (UTF-8)
In IE Page - Encoding - Unicode (UTF-8)

One thing I noticed about the list is that - as Kevin said - it hasn't been cleaned up, so there are single letters, and bits such as m' in there.

But you should be able to easily see those.

Go raibh maith agat as an gcomhairle teicniúil. Oíbríonn sé go maith anois.