Daltai.com is an interesting enough place, and useful if it encourages people to learn Irish and helps them in that process.

I am not sure how helpful some of the debates are however, or how encouraging, but that is besides the point.

Many of the debates seem to me to centre on one fundamental question - 'what is good Irish?'

That question would invite many views, some quite dogmatic and presented to learners as axioms rather than opinions.

The truth is is that the finest minds of Gaelic academia would only be united in the view that there is no answer to that question, only opinions and taste.

Learners would do well to remember that.

Perhaps a more suitable question to ask someone beginning the study of Irish and is perplexed by the options available and the various declarations of what is good Irish is - what do you want to use Irish for?

If one can establish that, then many learning choices are simplified.

You can begin your own journey to you understanding of what is good Irish if you ask that question.

Will you have to write the language?
Is it because you have to move to a particular Gaeltacht?
Is it for academic reasons?

Etc. etc.

I would hold that if practical questions such as these are answered, then the 'good Irish' question can be left on hold.

quote:

The truth is is that the finest minds of Gaelic academia would only be united in the view that there is no answer to that question, only opinions and taste.

I think we and they can define good Irish in most circumstances in all facets of the language, and including pronunciation for the most part. The debate is rather about the changing concept of "good" language overall. I think there is unity in what good language is for the most part. I have not received much ambiguity as regards this in any of my learning books. There are options presented in competing usages, but not much "we're not sure if this is good or not". I think there is more debate in English on "good English", believe it or not, because the field has been narrowed a lot in that language. I respect the rhetoricians on these matters more than the polemicists.

My primary interest is to be able to read Irish. The spoken dialect that interests me most is that of south Conamara because it's the most widely spoken in the Gaeltacht and I find is the most pleasing to the ear by far.

I don't see much point in trying to learn how to speak like someone from a Gaeltacht which isn't likely to survive more than a decade or two more (e.g. Muscraí, Gaeltacht na Rinne)

quote:

I don't see much point in trying to learn how to speak like someone from a Gaeltacht which isn't likely to survive more than a decade or two more (e.g. Muscraí, Gaeltacht na Rinne)

Unless you want to contribute to keeping it alive!

Is minic bás na Gaeltachtaí tuartha.

Ní gá gurbh amhlaidh a bheidh.

Totgesagte leben länger.

Ní lia duine ná tuairim áfach: ach tá nithe ann gur féidir fianaise a bhailiú ina leith. Ansin níl gá le tuairimíocht.

quote:

what is good Irish?

The Irish of the seanchaithe :-), and in general, the Irish of the Gaeltacht people who knew Irish before learning English.

quote:

I don't see much point in trying to learn how to speak like someone from a Gaeltacht which isn't likely to survive more than a decade or two more (e.g. Muscraí, Gaeltacht na Rinne)

Cá bhfios duit? Anyway, there are people who want to speak East Ulster Irish (Antrim Irish etc). Why not? It would be nice if these dialects were alive again, just as Cornish is re-born.
Múscraí and Rinn's Irish will stay alive if there are people who speak them. The longer they'll live, the better, because all dialects are precious and interesting.

quote:

Is minic bás na Gaeltachtaí tuartha.

Tá neart tuartha ann, ach níl go leor cuidithe.

From the learner's perspective, communication and ease of understanding is the primary goal, surely? If someone (especially someone based outside of Ireland) focuses on the Irish of Cúil Aodha or Ceathrú Thaidhg, for example, how does this help them?

I just think focusing too heavily on a specific dialect can do more harm than good for a learner, especially in the early and intermediate stages. Unless you're planning on moving to one of the smaller Gaeltachtaí, how can a learner help the dialects survive? That must come down to native speakers and their willingness to pass it on to their children at an early age when, to be blunt, the kid doesn't have a choice in the matter.

I'm just glad that I like the sounds of Conamara Irish and that it's the strongest dialect that remains. It's fortunate for me.

A few points if I may:

What is good Irish? The answer can be generally defined as the Irish of those who are first language Irish speakers from Gaeltacht areas whose knowledge and command of Irish is superior or equal to that of English in all respects. These are people who use a minimum of anglicisms and who speak Irish using indigenous Irish phonology (sound system) as opposed to learners who tend to use that of another language, namely Hiberno English. Native speakers are almost always distinguisable from learners because they differentiate velarised consonants from palatalised consonants use a fricative /x/ in place of the plosive /k/ used by learners, use tapped and fricative r which are generally absent from the Irish of learners and employ many other features such as elision of unstressed vowels in final position before an oncoming vowel.

As for encouraging learners, yes encourage them by all means, but should we shield them from the real world? How exactly does that help them?

As why someone should learn Irish, I think the reasons are immaterial. Either you learn the language properly and to the fullest from day one, or you don't bother at all.

As for not learning Ring or Muskerry Irish because they will be "gone in ten years" or because they may "impede" understanding, I strongly disagree. How on earth could speaking Ring Irish or Muskerry Irish impede understanding? I speak a mixture of Cork and Kerry Irish with people from the Donegal and Conamara Gaeltachtaí on a regular basis. They have no difficulties understanding me or me them, both inside and outside of the Gaeltacht. Ring and Muskerry are on their last legs, that is true, but it matters not in the slightest if you find a good speaker (see above) from either area to converse with. As for confining oneself to Conamara, that is all very well and fine, but speaking another dialect will not necessarily impede your understanding of other dialects.

Aonghus hit the nail on the head above when he said that one need only find evidence for a particular form from the mouths of good native speakers for that form to be deemed "good Irish". Indeed one should never make assumptions about what is "good Irish" without verifying if such forms are used by good Gaeltacht speakers. Anywhere, all native spoken forms of Irish are equally valid and worthy of study.

The Gaeltacht and the Irish language as a native spoken language are dying. Of that there is not doubt. People sometimes say to me "Ah yes, but they've been saying that for years and look the Gaeltacht hasn't died yet!". True, but the death of the language is a very slow death. The decline of Irish in the Gaeltacht has never stopped or being stemmed. The rate of decline might have been reduced but not reversed. When the Gaeltacht and native spoken Irish disappear, Irish will be like Cornish or Manx, essentially a hobby for the middle classes, spoken with a thick Anglophone accent.

I think also that people have a false idea of the gaps between the dialects: probably because works on a specific dialect concentrate on the features unique to that dialect, and assume knowledge of the common features.

I think that answers Danny 2007's concern - any fluent speaker of Irish will understand any fluent speaker of any dialect. There may be unfamiliar words - but that can happen in any language.

quote:

Unless you're planning on moving to one of the smaller Gaeltachtaí, how can a learner help the dialects survive?

why should a learner learn non-Gaeltacht Irish?
I try to speak Gweedore Irish as much as possible and I don't see any problem with that... What kind of problem may there be?...

quote:

I'm just glad that I like the sounds of Conamara Irish and that it's the strongest dialect that remains. It's fortunate for me.

that just means that there are more native speakers who speak "your" dialect, but except for that, learning Connemara Irish is no better than learning any other dialect... it's just as fine.

Gaeilge John Ghráinne!

Yeah, the Irish of the Northern part of Donegal is my favourite as well : seanchaithe from Rann na Feirste and Gaoth Dobhair... wow :-) Perfect pronunciation, idioms in every single sentence...

I think you will find individuals like John Ghráinne in all Gaeltacht areas but they're like the "Last of the Mohicans". I feel privileged to have met individuals like Seán Mhaidhc Léan Ó Guithín and his brother Muiris, Bab Feirtéar and Jóín Ó Sé before they died. Donnchadh Shéamuis Ó Drisceoil from Clear Island is an individual I would have loved to meet but he died in 1987 I think. I imagine the situation is rather similar in Brittany, am I right, Lughaidh?

quote:

any fluent speaker of Irish will understand any fluent speaker of any dialect

Especially with the modern media, and the exchange between the dialects.

We ought to be able to recognize good Irish among the young people as well. It exists and there has to be encouragement to speak well. There are natives who are children of Irish learners. I think they should not be treated as second class Irish speakers -- they did their job. There are language changes which are 100 or so years deep now that are accused of being recent. An example I hear is the affricated t and d of the North. This is generations old, but I still hear people accuse this as being second class or something, or pure English influence. Linguistically, such a change is not incredible, and there is precedent (take the languages of India). And what if it is a change begun through English influence? All it is is a little Sh/Zh tacked onto the end of the phoneme. Tongue's in about the same place, and gives the dialect a unique flavor. And it is now generations deep. And don't be surprised if there are English influence. I would be amazed if there weren't. But the past influences from French, etc., have enriched the modern language. As long as Irish remains Irish, I think it is a show of vibrancy. The ideals are out there, and they ought to be modeled, taught, and known. We also need to square up with the Irish of today. I think the environment is fun, and there are a lot of great strides being made, and good Irish.

Not second class [an emotive term]; but different.

As someone brought up by the son of a learner, I (now) consider the Gaeltacht speech to be the gold standard.

And certainly while the Gaeltacht is available, it ought to be the goal for learners who have that option.

I'm not saying it isn't nor shouldn't be the gold standard. But the fact that it is the gold standard means something else isn't. The silver standard! I.e. second class, but not willing to say it. That's the truth, perhaps, but I don't think they should be treated like a subordinate, per se. That's my point. I agree that the traditional Gaelteacht speech is the gold standard.

(Message edited by seánw on October 08, 2010)

I think the problem is that we are talking in terms of "Good Irish" being completely binary.

Like most human things, it's analog[ue].

John Gráinne is at one end of a scale. I'm somewhere in the middle. Des Bishop is somewhere else.

and so on....

I agree completely! And within that spectrum, we can't say that just John Gráinne's good Irish. John Gráinnes have always been a very small minority. I don't wish to downgrade the John Gráinnes, but rather show that good Irish is found amongst a wide variety of speakers. And we have to take into account economic factors. The majority of the populace that handed down Irish to us was uneducated in the book sense. Book Irish is therefore representative of a certain class of Irish. There will always be those class debates. A truly vibrant language, however, will always have people who abuse the language from our perspective. I think a vibrant language is one that can be abused with such disregard!

I understand that it is an emotive issue and I don't wish to cause personal offence to people but I'm sorry Seán, I'm afraid you are mistaken. There are indeed people, in Dublin in particular but also in Belfast and elsewhere, who deem themselves to be native speakers because their parents who are learners brought them up speaking Irish that they had learned themselves. Technically, they're right. They are native speakers. But from my own experience, and again I stress that I mean no offence but facts are facts, most of these people speak Irish using Anglophone phonology and there is little to distinguish them from the average Irish learner.

In my own case, I do my best to follow native Munster Irish phonology. I think it is the duty of all learners to follow native Gaeltacht phonology. It is not optional as some would have you believe. However, I am not so arrogant as to not know my own limits. There is always room for me to improve my own pronunciation and knowledge of the language in general. That is why I am learner. That's my job. To "learn".

Seán, I've never heard of anyone suggesting that Ulster affricative t and d evolved under influence from English. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Can you share it with us please?

The "Irish of today" is the Irish of the modern Gaeltacht, warts and all. The Gaeltacht is the only place where Irish is spoken naturally and not as part of any nationalistic ideology. Outside of the Gaeltacht, Irish exists primarily as a hobby for the English-speaking middle classes. People will be offended by that, but facts are facts.

Seán,
Perhaps you can explain to us the connection between the minority status or otherwise of the "John Ghráinnes" and the quality of an individual's spoken Irish? That the "John Ghráinnes" are a minority has no bearing whatsoever on the type of Irish that learners should be pursuing. The "John Ghráinnes" are at the top of the scale. That is what learners must follow. That is a complete no-brainer. A sine qua non. If I am learning French, which French do I endeavour to speak, that of Paris and Lyon or that of Dundalk, Bournemouth and Biloxi, Mississippi? And yes, the Irish spoken by learners outside the core Gaeltacht areas is on the whole "second class" and "subordinate", for want of a better term. People will get hot around the collar and spit venom at me, but the truth is painful. Just take off the green-tinted spectacles for a second and stand back and look coldly at the situation. It is nationalistic ideology that has created the myth of the "movement" with native Anglophones speaking Irish with a thick Anglophone accent being judged as being on the same level as the "John Ghráinnes". Take away the nationalist scaffolding and the whole facade comes tumbling down.

What are these economic factors you speak of, Seán? What possible connection could they have to the quality of spoken Irish?

You talk of Irish being "abused" from our perspective. Forgive me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick here, but are you saying that the mistakes, errors, misunderstandings and Anglophone phonology of learners are somehow equivalent to the natural dialectal and local and even personal variations found in the speech of native Gaeltacht speakers? That both are forms of "abuse"?

quote:

They are native speakers. But from my own experience, and again I stress that I mean no offence but facts are facts, most of these people speak Irish using Anglophone phonology and there is little to distinguish them from the average Irish learner.

But that's not their fault. They did their job, and they may well not be able to change that. Some people will not be able to master some nuances. That's a fact of reality and linguistics, and that's going to be passed on in the living language. But that's what I mean by squaring with modern Irish, there will be a subset of speakers who have a particular accent that one may call "English". What do we do when such a pronunciation is four generations deep? I'm not saying that is the standard, but the growing reality, not to mention the influence exerted on syntax, morphology, etc. You may well pass some of these aspects on whether you like it or not. The great vowel shift in English didn't render the language null. Neither has the steady stream of non-sense of Twitter.

quote:

I've never heard of anyone suggesting that Ulster affricative t and d evolved under influence from English. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Can you share it with us please?

I certainly didn't have in mind books or scholarly papers, but rather statements here and there of what I said were accusations of it being "second class or something, or pure English influence". Examples from this site:

quote:

Anyway, [ts and dz for slender t and d in Conamara are] ways and beyond better than saying English 'ch' and 'j'!

But it's found in North Ireland, so why not call it the slender t and d in parts of Donegal.

quote:

Pronunciation [tS] is very recent and is spreading under influence of English, although it was resident in Telinn for a while.

How recent is very recent, and how old does something have to be to be acceptable?

quote:

In Ulster, in younger speakers speech they pronounce ch and j respectively. Older speakers pronounce them quite like in ’tune’ and ’dew’ in English. Such is the pronounciation in Connaught as well. I think it’s the 'right' pronounciation, or better, the 'old pronounciation' (since the other pronounciations are all right, they’re evolutions of the ancient system).

But Lughaidh got it right, but implies that they are "second class or something".

Etc. Etc.

It is a general explicit or implicit assumption put forward.

quote:

I think that answers Danny 2007's concern - any fluent speaker of Irish will understand any fluent speaker of any dialect. There may be unfamiliar words - but that can happen in any language.

I agree, but most learners aren't fluent. I suppose I was looking at it from a learner's point of view. If you focus on one dialect, especially one that isn't widely spoken, and then go out and use your Irish and find that many of the words you've learned and memorized are pronounced differently, it can cause confusion and frustration...on the part of the learner, not the fluent speaker who you're trying to converse with.

quote:

That the "John Ghráinnes" are a minority has no bearing whatsoever on the type of Irish that learners should be pursuing.

It was an observation of reality, past and present, not a call on what is worthy of imitation.

quote:

The "John Ghráinnes" are at the top of the scale. That is what learners must follow.

I agree wholeheartedly. I wasn't disputing that. I am disputing the notion that all have done this or will do this, not that all should.

quote:

It is nationalistic ideology that has created the myth of the 'movement' with native Anglophones speaking Irish with a thick Anglophone accent being judged as being on the same level as the 'John Ghráinnes'.

I am not a recipient of that ideology. My family's culture was completely not Irish. I did not take any interest in Ireland till after I met my Irish wife. I am approaching this from my linguistic background and what I have leaned through study so far. I don't disagree with many of your points, as my previous posts show.

quote:

You talk of Irish being "abused" from our perspective. Forgive me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick here, but are you saying that the mistakes, errors, misunderstandings and Anglophone phonology of learners are somehow equivalent to the natural dialectal and local and even personal variations found in the speech of native Gaeltacht speakers?

No matter how much we kick against reality's goad, there will be abuse of language, that's my only point. There are things which native speakers will produce that would be considered and ab-use of the language, and not regarded as worthy of modeling. The same judgment can be made about learners. I am saying that the concept of "good Irish" can in fact surpass this different, as it does in terms of abuse.

quote:

What are these economic factors you speak of, Seán? What possible connection could they have to the quality of spoken Irish?

The same connection that Aonghus on his blog posted how children of lower income families hear 30 million less words than children of higher income levels, by the time they hit school. Irish is not exempt from this reality, and has a major impact on the quality of Irish in the Gaeltacht.

http://aonghus.blogspot.com/2010/09/bluirin-30-milliuin-focal.html

(Message edited by seánw on October 08, 2010)

quote:

If you focus on one dialect, especially one that isn't widely spoken, and then go out and use your Irish and find that many of the words you've learned and memorized are pronounced differently, it can cause confusion and frustration...on the part of the learner, not the fluent speaker who you're trying to converse with.

No two Irish people say a word the same way.

The "ch" and "j" pronunciations of slender t and d have existed for a long time in some places, namely South-Western Donegal and Inis Oirr, I think, and it isn't a very recent evolution caused by the influence of English.
In Wagner's study on Teelin's Irish, these sounds are described and his informators weren't people whose Irish were much influenced by English...
Same thing with Inis Oirr, I don't think it's the most "anglicized" place in Ireland (linguistically speaking) :-)


One has to consider if the ch/j pronunciation, in every dialect, is a recent evolution caused by English, or if it's a natural local evolution in phonetics, that began before English was known or common in the area...

What exactly is the reasoning behind the "ch" and "j" pronunciations of slender t and d in Ulster and Scotland as having arisen under English influence?

Ó Cuív tells us that the "ch" sound occurs in forms such as duitse, uaitse and thit sé, (Irish of West Muskerry; section 150), none of which can be said to have evolved under English influence. Something similar occurs in Cois Fhairrge, (de Bhaldraithe: 193-4)

Ó Sé (section 10) tells us that /d'r'/ and /t'r'/ are close to the affricate "j" and "ch" sounds respectively in the speech of many younger speakers. Can this be said to have crept in from English? I think not.

I know that some of this occurs due to consonant sandhi and is not entirely equivalent to slender t and d in Ulster being turned into affricates but at least it shows that those sounds or something similar to them do exist naturally in the language and not just in Ulster.

By the way, does anyone know how I can type phonetic symbols here? I normally type them into a Word document and paste them in here, but it never seems to work properly. The system can't recognise them or something and I end up with gobbledegook.

Thig leat do chuid stuife a scriobh anseo http://www.lexilogos.com/clavier/fonetik.htm

agus a choipeailt agus a ghreamu anseo. Sin an doigh a ndéanamsa é.

Sin é a dhéanfad feasta. Ardfhear, a Lughaidh!

Seán,
I'm not saying that many learners inability to learn and pronounce Irish correctly is necessarily their fault but there are unfortunately many individuals who wear their woeful command of the language as a badge of honour and seek to explain it away with such statements as "I'm not from Conamara or Corca Dhuibhne! I don't have to speak like them! I'm from Cabra!!" It's as if a learner of French refused to learn the French of Paris or Geneva or Toulouse because they are "not from Paris and don't talk like them. We don't talk like that in Ballyjamesduff, so we don't!!". They then expect this "Anglo-Irish" of theirs to be treated on the same level as say Ros Muc or Machaire Rabhartaigh or Baile na nGall. Utterly bizarre but true.

You talk about the "living language" as if it exists outside of the Gaeltacht. It doesn't. The language died out in most of Ireland over the space of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Irish is not used as an everyday community language anywhere outside of the core Gaeltacht areas in northwest Donegal, west Galway and west Corca Dhuibhne. Outside of the Gaeltacht, Irish exists as a middle class hobby for native English speakers. I am one of those.

You mention the Great Vowel Shift. Who do you think brought that about, Seán? Native speakers of English in England or second language learners from France, Spain and elsewhere? Native speakers are masters of their own languages and it is they who change their own languages.
It was native speakers of Ulster Irish who brought the affricates mentioned earlier into their language not learners in Dublin or Belfast!

Please explain to us how native speakers can "abuse" their own language? What can this possibly mean? I do believe that you are equating native speakers deviation from standard forms as "abuse" of the language under the mistaken assumption that the standard form is somehow the "correct" form and anything else is an "abuse". I also believe that you are using this notion to equate such non-standard variation with the errors and misunderstandings of second language Irish learners and fitting it all in under the label of "abuse". "Hey, if native speakers are doing it, then why can't learners?" appears to be the thrust of your argument. The argument is specious. What native speakers do to their own language is their prerogative. Native speakers lead and learners follow. That is the natural order of things.

You say that children from poorer backgrounds speak 30 million less words than children from more affluent backgrounds upon entering school. You then try to equate this with the situation in the Gaeltacht claiming that it has "a major impact on the quality of Irish in the Gaeltacht". My, how little you know about the educational system in the Gaeltachtaí! The fact is that it is the school system that is actively impoverishing the Irish of Gaeltacht children and not the other way around! From what I understand, many school teachers are not even native speakers or are not from the locality but are native Anglophones from elsewhere. As for the children from less affluent backgrounds in Dublin and elsewhere in Anglophone Ireland, do you have any proof that hearing 30 million less words of English results in the same children being less capable of communicating effectively with their peers?

Who knows 30 million words in any language?

30 million spoken words, not unique words.

30 million instances of words, even the same words, being used or 30 million lexical items? The second would appear to be impossible since the English language has at most one million lexical items, half of which are technical terms rarely used by the layman.

quote:

You talk about the "living language" as if it exists outside of the Gaeltacht. It doesn't.

I would say it does. It is not as vibrant, and it is not the community language as a whole, but it is alive in certain small communities. Many people recognize this, including the people who exist within those communities! The bucket is filled drop by drop.

quote:

You mention the Great Vowel Shift. Who do you think brought that about, Seán?

We actually don't know what brought it about.

quote:

Please explain to us how native speakers can "abuse" their own language?

I said abuse from our perspective. I've seen you correct native speakers here. I've seen other learners correct other natives in other places. In both my Taisce Focal and in my Speaking Irish books, there are mistakes indicated that native speaker make. They can be explained, but they haven't been codified into grammar books ... yet. It has nothing to do with the CO.

quote:

My, how little you know about the educational system in the Gaeltachtaí!

I wasn't talking about the education system, I was talking about the economic conditions. The 30 million figure is before they enter school. Economics certain has had an effect on the Gaeltacht and the language, otherwise people wouldn't be moving out as much from the Gaeltacht, and there wouldn't be a whole government body dedicated to their mainly economic affairs.

quote:

do you have any proof that hearing 30 million less words of English results in the same children being less capable of communicating effectively with their peers?

Read the article, and you decide. Communication is not the only factor. I work in a lower to lower middle class area, and everyone communicates quite "effectively". But on the average I would say that their lexicon is quite small. And as a result their community is stunted in its growth, materially and spiritually. Small lexicon = less words to place on ideas. We need words to convey our thoughts, not only externally but internally. If little Gaeltacht kids, let's say, don't get exposure to as many words as a kid in Dublin, then when they grow up they might have a narrower Irish lexicon than their ancestors. The possibility is there, that's all.

This will be my final post on this. I don't see much point in going further. Feel free to have the last word. Ádh mór ort!

The rate of older native speakers dying is faster than the rate of fully fluent secondary bilinguals from the Galltacht who emerge, I believe. Is the bucket being filled drop by drop or is it leaking out the side?

Seán,
What do you mean by "community"? Where are these supposed "Irish language communities" outside of the Gaeltacht? I live here in Ireland, in Dublin. I live and work with the language every day. There are no "Irish language communities". There are interest groups composed of private individuals, scattered throughout the city and beyond, almost all of whom are first language English speakers who have made a conscious ideological decision to speak Irish to one another. Irish is no more a living language in Dublin than Esperanto or Latin is. The vast majority of the indigenous people of this city don't get out of the bed in the morning and say "Well, that's it then, I'm going to speak only English from now on. And I'm going to speak English to my kids too!!". People just speak the language that their family, friends and neighbours speak all around them, irrespective of ideology. Just like people in the core Gaeltacht areas do. Just like the people of Toulouse speak French at the breakfast table or the people of Tokyo Japanese.

As for the Great Vowel Shift, my question was WHO brought it about not WHAT brought it about.

Before you close this discussion, you claim that I corrected the Irish of native Irish speakers on this forum. Who might these be? I would like to know.

What are these "mistakes" which native speakers supposedly make? Again I put it to you that you would have us believe that non-standard forms in native speaker speech are "mistakes". I believe that you are ignorant of the key differences between a prescriptive grammar and a descriptive grammar of language. I approach the native spoken language from a descriptive standpoint. You don't seem to comprehend that "grammar books" and the CO are one and the same thing! Do you think it fair to label non-standard forms in native spoken Irish or English or any other language as "abuses" and "mistakes"?

So, you are positing that because working class people have a supposedly "smaller" lexicon than your average member of the middle classes they cannot communicate as effectively and that their community is therefore "stunted in its growth, materially and spiritually". My family are working class. They speak working class English. They are not "stunted materially or spiritually". I find this highly offensive, I must say. What is more, the notion that their lexicon is smaller is debatable. They use words and phrases and terminology not used by the middle and upper classes but their English is nonetheless rich and colourful. They possess the full range of vocabulary and the expressions to describe their world as it affects them. They are not accountants or surgeons and are ignorant of their particular "in language", but then again so am I and I expect you are too.

You said: "Small lexicon = less words to place on ideas. We need words to convey our thoughts, not only externally but internally". You're obviously a disciple of IngSoc and O'Brien! The American linguist Stephen Pinker exploded this myth in his book "The Language Instinct", namely the notion that a reduction in the number of lexical items that a speaker possesses will mean that the speaker is incapable of fully describing the world around him such as IngSoc reducing the vocabulary of English so that no one could think seditious thoughts. As Pinker points out, if the thought exists in the speaker's mind, the speaker will invent a word to express it. Words are merely signs used to express ideas.

You say: "If little Gaeltacht kids, let's say, don't get exposure to as many words as a kid in Dublin, then when they grow up they might have a narrower Irish lexicon than their ancestors. The possibility is there, that's all." What on earth are you on about?! Do you know anything about Ireland and the language situation here? How exactly would a Gaeltacht child hearing Irish all around him be exposed to less Irish words than a native Anglophone child in Dublin hearing only English around him as soon as he walks out the gate of the Gaelscoil?

Ailín, I was told in Cúil Aodha about some families making a great effort with Irish and their children speaking it great until they went to school, and those children's Irish was never the same again after they started at school. I would say there is a dearth of material available in Cork Irish (the only books in editions faithful to the original dialect that are in print and not in seanachló are Séadna, Pinnochio and Dónall Bán's Scéal Mo Bheatha) means that the school is in Standard Irish, which, whatever its merits, weakens the local dialect, and not all the children go to school speaking Irish equally well.

quote:

30 million instances of words, even the same words

The point of the study was the disadvantage young children are under compared to their peers who have stories read to them, and are spoken to more by adults.

They are exposed to more ideas and concepts as a result and also introduced to books early.

I doubt that is transferable to the Gaeltacht. In fact, I suspect Gaeltacht children are exposed to a greater wealth of Irish - at least in that (dwindling) number of homes where Irish is spoken to the children.

I'd say most such households are as "middle class" in terms of respect for education and language as I am.

With regards to David's point: as I understand it the key issue is that the native speakers, even in strong Gaelatcht areas, are in a minority in the class. The pressure to conform leads them to adopt their Irish to that of their peers. Similar effects are seen in children brought up in Irish in the Galltacht and going to Gaelscoileanna where they are seldom even 10% of the class.

The lack of texts obviously doesn't help.

Conradh na Gaeilge has a long standing recommendation for teacher education: that trainee teachers should spend time in teh Gaeltacht:

http://cnag.ie/index.php?page=feachtais&campaign_id=2

quote:

Go múinfí gach ábhar oide trí Ghaeilge i dtimpeallacht lán-Ghaeilge, ag foghlaim tríd an tumoideachas agus faoin tumoideachas, ar feadh tréimhse bliana acadúla san iomlán le linn a gcúrsa oiliúna.

That is an overdue reform.

quote:

Conradh na Gaeilge has a long standing recommendation for teacher education: that trainee teachers should spend time in teh Gaeltacht:

I'd say : trainee teachers should speak as people do in the Gaeltacht. Spending time in the Gaeltacht doesn't always make you speak like the local people, it depends on your attitude towards Gaeltacht Irish...

No, but a period of immersion is a start.

Changing attitudes is more difficult. (and not really amenable to legislation!)

quote:

as I understand it the key issue is that the native speakers, even in strong Gaelatcht areas, are in a minority in the class.

Can this be? Even in places like Ceantar na n-Oileán or Camas or Gort a' Choirce, for example? God help us if that's the case.

I didn't mean in every strong Gaeltacht area; but in some

I know research was done, I believe by COGG, that was quite depressing in this area.

Okay, understood.

GRMA a Sheán.

Sadly, there are ways around every regulation. A large group of students from a certain college spend their stipulated period in "the Gaeltacht" in an area where there are no longer any Irish-speaking families and very few fluent speakers. Tutors are actually recruited from a different area and a different dialect. I hope the students benefit, learn something, and refrain from mixing with the locals in the pub. Those providing accommodation obviously make a few bob on the deal.

As for the question "what is good Irish" while I agree that the desirable characteristics are native pronunciation from whatever dialects the learner might be exposed to and a choice of words and idioms coined by monoglot Irish speakers reared before the Great Famine. The the truth is that Reg Hindley's prediction that the future of the Irish language lies with an elite who will choose to learn and use the language as a second language. Personally I hope the existing Gaeltacht communities will be allowed to continue maintaining Irish as a community language and that State support will be given to the establishment of many other communities such as Rath Cairn, Baile Gib, Bealach Conglais, Cill Mochriodóg, Gleann Maighir and Bóthar Seá.

To be honest I find the references to learners as "Anglophones" and their Irish no better than that of learners of Manx or speakers of Cornish irritating. A better comparison would be with speakers of English on the Indian sub-continent or in Africa.

In an age when there is any amount of material available to learners: dictionaries, modern terminology, recordings of excellent Irish-speakers, radio, television and courses run by native speakers who have come through teacher training colleges or teaching courses such as the Teastas Timireachta Gaeilge (Is it still called that?) why concentrate on the negative aspects of the new Irish speakers?

Each generation that has had to give way and yield to a younger generation deplores the abandonment of their own treasured objectives and cherished language customs and Irish-language enthusiasts seem to be more prone to such despondency than most. I am thinking of the Déise writer Seán Pléimeann, 1814-1895, who lamented the death of the Irish language. Could he have anticipated the foundation of Conradh na Gaeilge, the Irish Free State, the Official Working Language Status accorded to Irish in the European Union?

Why not give the youngsters a break and admire them for their achievement in aquiring fluency despite all the obstacles they have had to overcome. There are no more than 50,000 native-speakers of traditional Irish left. There are over a million people who claim to know some Irish. Those we hear speaking Irish on Nuacht TG4 every night seem to speak very good Irish indeed. Why discourage them with nit-picking.

I believe any discourse concerning what constitutes good X (X being any language one wishes to choose) should ideally:

1. be conducted in the language itself,
2. be conducted by native speakers,
3. be decoupled from any consideration as to whether the discourse or any of its conclusions might have an encouraging or discouraging effect on learners of the language.

(Message edited by ormondo on October 10, 2010)

Ach cá mhéad cainteoir dúchais atá anseo? Beirt? :-)

Éinne amháin ón nGaeltacht feadh m'eolais, Bríd Mhór ó Chonamara.

An-bhean.

(Message edited by sineadw on October 10, 2010)

Agus Mickrua?

"I believe any discourse concerning what constitutes good X (X being any language one wishes to choose) should ideally:

1. be conducted in the language itself,
2. be conducted by native speakers,
3. be decoupled from any consideration as to whether the discourse or any of its conclusions might have an encouraging or discouraging effect on learners of the language."

You certainly laid it on the line there, Ormondo!

Is that the end of this interesting discussion?

Would you consider, or would anyone else consider, the standard of Irish in your short story to be good Irish?

What is your opinion folks?

(My next posting will be in Irish!)

B'fhéidir go rabhas ró-dhian orainn!

ródhian - gan fleiscín

Dá 'lofa líofa' an Ghaeilge is ea is fearr í, is léir...!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErJ3U7ZVOeA

Ray agus Joe ar obair ag an Oireachtas!

Maidir lena ndúirt Taidhgín thuas:

Cuireann sé oighear air "Anglophones" a bheith á thabhairt ar fhoghlaimeoirí Gaelainne Bhleá Cliath, Bhéal Feirste agus áiteanna eile lasmuigh don nGaeltacht. An bhfuil a mhalairt glan á mhaíomh agatsa, a Thaidhgín? Ab ea nách Béarlóirí dúchaiseacha iad? Agus maidir le foghlaimeoirithe Coirnise nó Ghaelainn Mhanann, is ea go díreach, is beag idir iad súd agus foghlaimeoirithe Gaelainne abhus. Gaelainn an-lag athá ag breis is naocha faoin gcéad do chleas Gaelainne Bhleá Cliath, abair. Ba chóir duine ar bith a thugann fén dteangain seo a dh'fhoghlaim a mholadh agus misneach a thabhairt do ach amaidí gan chraiceann gan dealramh is ea a rá gur chóir a gcuidsean Gaelainne a bheith ar comhstádas agus ar comhchéim le Gaelainn na Gaeltachta. Amaidí a dhéanfaidh an-dhíobháil don dteangain mara ndeintear iarracht éigineach lena cosc.

Dearúd an-choitianta a deintear - agus féachaíg go bhfuil sé déanta aige Taidhgín féin, mo ghraidhin a cheann, - is ea "ceist na nglún" a tharrac chuige féin. Athraíonn teangacha ó ghlúin go glúin- gan aon agó ar aon chor - dálta gach teangan beo, ach CAINTEOIRÍ DÚCHAIS A ATHRAÍONN A DTEANGA FÉINIG, NÍ FOGHLAIMEOIRITHE GUR CAINTEOIRITHE DÚCHAIS TEANGAN EILE AR FAD IAD. Níl ciall ar bith lena rá gurb ionann dearúdaí gramadaí, comhréire, seimeantaice, fóineolaíochta aige foghlaimeoirithe Bhleá Cliath nó Dhroichead Átha nó Chathair Chorcaí agus na hathruithe nádúrtha athá ag teacht isteach i dteangain na gceantracha fíor-Ghaeltachta. B'fhéidir go mbeadh chomh maith agamsa meigeafón a cheannach toisc a liachtaí uair athá so ráite agus seanráite agam ar fhóraim idirlín Gaelainne! Ach mo léan, níl éinne ag éisteacht!

Maidir le stádas na Gaelainne san Aontas Eorpach, cad í an deifir a dhein sin go díreach don nGaeltacht?

Maidir le "giving learners a break", féach a ndúrt thuas. Moltar, agus mórtar agus spreagtar agus tugtar misneach d'fhoghlaimeoirithe ach cad ina thaobh go mbeadh smacht acu san ar an dteangain trí chéile?

Tugann Taidhgín duinn an liodán leamh céanna a bhíonn aige lucht gabhála leithscéil agus na ceartaiseachta polaitiúla gan dúchas: tá caoga míle cainteoir dúchais ann; tá breis is milliún duine a mhaíonn go bhfuil Gaelainne acu ach gur Béarlóirithe dúchais iad. Conclúid? Tugtar an tosaíocht don milliún agus téadh éinne a chuireann ina gcoinnibh tigh an diabhail do féin, muintir na Gaeltachta san áireamh. Deirimse díomas agus lán agus tiarnúlacht libh! Agus bíodh forlámhas feasta aige foghlaimeoirithe Béarla na Fraince ar Bhéarlóirithe dúchais Shasana!

Luaigh Taidhgín TG4 agus a fheabhas a bhíonn Gaelainn lucht léite na nuachta. Ach, cainteoirithe dúchais Gaeltachta iad san bíodh a fhios agat!

Tá a lán cainte déanta le deireanaí mar gheall ar dheireadh a chuir le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta agus "Údarás Gaeilge" a chuir ina bheart. Fanaíg go gcífidh sibh, is aige Béarlóirithe dúchaiseacha agus "Gaeilgeoirithe gairme" Bhleá Cliath a bheidh greim agus smacht docht daingean air sin, má cítear choíche fé sholas an lae é.

Pé scéal é, sin é an focal scoir agamsa ar an abhar so. Táim ag snámh in aghaidh easa anso.

Buíochas le Dia

Ní ag cothú imris atáim ach ba mhaith liom tagairt do phointe nó dhó atá luaite ag an gCarmanach thuas: ní ag caint ar Ghaeilge per se atáimse in aon chor ach ar dhaoine. Daoine.

Aontaim dá mbeadh slat draíochta ann nó luibh íce éigin a dhéanfadh cainteoirí foirfe Gaeilge de dhaoine a tógadh le Béarla nó le Polainnis/Liotuáinis / Yoruba srl go mba iontach an t-allagar Gaeilge a bheadh le cloisteáil in gach aon áit.

Ach admhaíonn urlabhraithe na Gaeltachta gurb é an Béarla teanga chlós na scoile anois. Ní rogha idir chineálacha Gaeilge atá ansin feasta ach géilleadh d'fhorlámhas an Bhéarla agus daoradh Gaeilge na Gaeltachta chun báis. Cad a bheidh fágtha i gceann fiche bliain?

Dá dhonacht í Gaeilge na ndíograiseoirí taobh amuigh den Ghaeltacht is fearr ann ná as í. Cad ab fhearr leis an gCarmanach? Tost? Deireadh a chur le hathbheochan na teanga toisc nár shroich gach aon duine an sár-chaighdeán feabhais a bhain sé féin amach? An á mholadh féin atá sé nuair a cháineann sé daoine nár chaith an oiread dúthrachta leis an bhfoghlaime is a rinne sé féin?

Nílim i bhfábhar daoine ar bheagán Gaeilge a bheith ag iarraidh an teanga a athrú mar a bhíodh á mholadh ag an INTO fadó: deireadh a chur séimhiú, urú agus tuisil. Cineál easpa-rainteo a dhéanamh di.

Maidir leis an Nuacht ar TG4 ní ag trácht ar na fostaithe a bhíos. Luíonn sé le réasún go mbeadh togha na Gaeilge acusan. Ag caint ar ghnáthmhuintir na hÉireann a bhíos, daoine a gcuirtear agallamh orthu gach aon lá agus a thugann tuairisc ar eachtra éigin ina gceantar féin. Ábhar iontais agam féin a fheabhas is atá labhairt na Gaeilge ag a bhformhór. Sin iad na daoine a bhfuil mise ag caint orthu.

Molaim muintir na Gaeltachta ach molaim an lucht foghlama chomh maith. Ní thabharfainn ceannas dóibh áfach muna mbeadh gan aon duine oiriúnach eile ar fáil.

Scéilín: Uair dá raibh fadó tharla cainteoir dúchais Gaeilge ag freastal ar an gcuntar poiblí in oifig Stáit áirithe. Tháinig an tseanbhean Bhleá Cliathach seo isteach agus rinne sí iarracht a gnó a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge leis. B'é an tuairisc a thug mo ghiolla domsa i ndiaidh an bheart a bheith curtha i gcrích "M'anam gur radas-sa Gaeilge suas a tóin aici." Chuir binib agus doicheall a dhearcaidh díomá orm amhail is nach raibh cead ag aon duine an teanga a úsáid ach a leithéidí féin.

Níl mórán Fraincíse agamsa ach cuirtear na múrtha fáilte roimh mo chuid lag-iarrachtaí i Roscoff nó Le Havre nuair a théim sall. Is aoibhinn liom an "accueil" sin. Spreagann sé mé le feabhas a chur ar mo chuid Fraincise.

Más í an cheist anseo cé is cóir a chur i gceannas ar "cheart na Gaeilge" a rianadh don saol atá anois ann níor mhiste smaoineamh ar leithéidí Niall Ó Dónaill a rinne an cúram sin caoga bliain ó shin. Glacaim leis gur cainteoirí dúchais atá ina a bhun i gcónaí.

Focal scoir: b'fhéidir nach é seo an fóram le ceist mar seo "What is good Irish?" a phlé. Ní bheimid ach ag trasnaíl ar a chéile amhail meisceoirí i lúib chruinnithe sa tábhairne. Fágaimis siúd mar atá sé. Cad is fiú dúinn bheith ag caint.

Deir an Carmanach gur cheart na foghlaimeoirí a mholadh agus a spreagadh ach gurb iad na dea-chainteoirí dúchais "an t-órchaighdeán".

Deir Taidhgín gurb iad na dea-chainteoirí dúchais "an t-órchaighdeán" ach gur cheart na foghlaimeoirí a mholadh agus a spreagadh.

Nach n-aontaíonn siad lena chéile faoin ábhar is tábhachtaí mar sin?

(Message edited by dahtet on October 12, 2010)

quote:

B'é an tuairisc a thug mo ghiolla domsa i ndiaidh an bheart a bheith curtha i gcrích "M'anam gur radas-sa Gaeilge suas a tóin aici." Chuir binib agus doicheall a dhearcaidh díomá orm amhail is nach raibh cead ag aon duine an teanga a úsáid ach a leithéidí féin.

N'fheadarsa agus n'fheadaraís-se cad é a bhain don nduine sin agus a dh'fhág chomh seanbhlastúil sin é. Is fíor dhuit nár chóir a bheith míbhéasach le daoine ach cá bhfios duitse nár chac "Gaeilgeoir gairme" éintig anuas sa mhullach air?

quote:

Glacaim leis gur cainteoirí dúchais atá ina a bhun i gcónaí.

M'anam, nach tu athá saonta, mo ghraidhin do cheannín!

ródhian - gan fleiscín

Touché!

GRMA,a Charmanaigh. Beidh sé ingreanta ar m'aigne go Lá an Bhreithiúnais - agus tá súil agam nach mbeifear ródhian orainn ar an lá céanna!

greanta ;o)

D'fheadfadh sé bheith in-ghreanta ach gan a bheith greanta!

Greanta faoi dhó anois! (Nó an bhfuil a leithéid inghreanta ar chor ar bith?)

inghreanta = is féidir a ghreanadh

Sin é agat go díreach glan.

Dála an scéil, táim geall le bheith cinnte de anois gur léas "ionghreanta" áit éigin agus gurbh é Breandán Ó hEithir a scríobh.

(Message edited by ormondo on October 13, 2010)

Is mór idir "ion" agus "in"

(Níl teacht ar sa chorpas, ámh)

Tá dhá réimír ann:

1) in- + consan/guta leathan/caol = is féidir a dhéanamh, is indéanta; inscríofa, inráite, inbhearrtha, infhillte, etc.

2) in + guta nó consan caol, ion + guta leathan nó consan leathan = laistigh do, ar an dtaobh istigh do rud = infheistíocht, instealladh, indíritheach, ionchorprú, ionfhás, ionphórú etc.

Anois, a thaisci, sin eolas nach raibh agam. Go raibh maith agat. Nach fánach an áit ina bhfaighfeá breac. Sin "good Irish" anois agat.

:o)

GRMA as bhur n-IONchur, a chairde.

Tá dhá réimír ann:

1) in- + consan/guta leathan/caol = is féidir a dhéanamh, is indéanta; inscríofa, inráite, inbhearrtha, infhillte, etc.

2) in + guta nó consan caol, ion + guta leathan nó consan leathan = laistigh do, ar an dtaobh istigh do rud = infheistíocht, instealladh, indíritheach, ionchorprú, ionfhás, ionphórú etc.
------------------------------------------------

Interesting. It can be difficult to tell how traditional Irish pronounced such things due to the habit of keeping to the caol le caol rule regardless of the pronunciation.

But traditionally inráite **was** ion-ráidhte.
ig spelling were redrafted in the 1940s. I am wondering whether in this case the new rules reflect the pronunciation better? What I mean is, was the "n" of inráite broad or slender in pronunciation in traditional Irish? I don't know the answer to that myself.

Meaning 2) you quoted is largely a function of translation from English, or maybe Latin. I can find insgríobhaim for inscribe in traditional Irish - probably from Latin, but I would suggest that meaning 1) is the real native usage.

quote:

Interesting. It can be difficult to tell how traditional Irish pronounced such things due to the habit of keeping to the caol le caol rule regardless of the pronunciation.

Indeed.

quote:

What I mean is, was the "n" of inráite broad or slender in pronunciation in traditional Irish? I don't know the answer to that myself.

Interesting question but one cannot rule out consonant sandhi anyway. Ó Sé (828) gives inphósta, ionlao, intuisceana, in each of which the n is broad, as one might expect. ion- would better indicate actual pronunciation. Though he also says that the prefix in- is confined to such fossilised forms.

quote:

Meaning 2) you quoted is largely a function of translation from English, or maybe Latin. I can find insgríobhaim for inscribe in traditional Irish - probably from Latin, but I would suggest that meaning 1) is the real native usage.

Most of the words using in- (meaning 2) in the modern language come from Latin via French and English. I note that Dinneen has "ionntlaise: inlaid, damascened" and of course "inchinn: the brain, brains". The first may be modelled on Latin but is inchinn an example of in + c(h)inn < ceann?

What is good Irish?

Someone who prononces properly, uses idioms, uses indirect word order, chooses a Gaeltacht dialect, able to talk about any topic.

The more idioms, native Gaeltacht prononciation you use, the more authenetic your Irish will be.

If you take all of them into account, you will be a good speaker of Irish.