Hello, I'm reading "An Bhalla Báin" by Colm Breathnach

I found a sentence:
"Níor stríoc ná níor staon ailtirí is lucht tógála, an iliomad ceardaithe, saor adhmaid agus saor cloch is brícléirí..." etc etc

I understand - more or less - the sense of the sentence, but when I looked up saor cloch focal.ie gave me saor cloiche. Is this because the writer is using a Munster dialect or a simple mistake?

More broadly, should I be wary of using this book to learn standardised Irish grammar, or will the difference be simply in the spelling?

Go raibh míle maith agaibh,
Remember

Saor cloch is a variant of saor cloiche. It is most likely not a mistake. Obviously if you want to learn standardized grammar, you'll want to use a book like the Christian Brothers' grammar. What the story will show though is the grammar and usage of one writer. Certainly with good writers such information can be very useful. A grammar book is grammar abstracted in a sense. A story is like grammar lived, if it's good.

Both Dinneen and Ó Dónaill give "saor cloiche" but that does not mean that "saor cloch" is incorrect. "cloiche" is the genitive singular of "cloch" while "cloch" is the genitive plural. You could look at it both ways:

stonemason: saor cloiche, where "cloiche" is functioning much like a general adjective, as is "stone" in the English. We do not say "stonesmason" for example.

saor cloch = "a mason of stones", one who works with stones, plural

Conas a chuirfí san iolra é, dála an scéil?

saoir cloiche?

Sea. "Saoir chloiche"" nó "saoir chloch", déarfainn

Is fíor d'Ormondo. "saoir chloiche/chloch".

Seo an riail choiteann:

ainmfhocail fhirinscneacha dar críoch consan caol (sa Chaighdeán Oifigiúil) san iolra (fir, báid, oileáin, cupáin, boird, crainn etc.) séimhítear consan tosaigh ainmfhocail a leanaíonn iad mas sa ghinideach dó.

Tá cásanna ná séimhítear (sa Chaighdeán Oifigiúil), áfaigh, agus tá cuir síos orthu i ndeireadh an doiciméid seo (Aguisín A)

http://www.irish.ie/dynamic/file/Stil_Ti_an_Ghuim2.pdf

Tá saortha cloiche agus saortha cloch ann san iolra fosta.

Cím san aige de Bhaldraithe.

Let me expose my ignorance: I don't know what iliomad means, but assuming the sentence can be read with "an iomad", then the following nouns are in the genitive plural.

I notice that PUL says: fear ceirde, craftsman, but lucht ceard, craftsmen.

I would assume stone mason is: saor cloiche, with the plural saoir chloch and the genitive plural saor cloch.

iol + iomad

iliomad [ainmfhocal]
mórán, an-chuid; éagsúlacht mhór

quote:

Let me expose my ignorance: I don't know what iliomad means

Don't you have Ó Dónaill? It means "many, a multidude of". Ó Dónaill appears to show genitive plural following "(an) iliomad". Breandán Mac Gearailt uses both nominative singular and genitive plural. I can't find the form in Dinneen under either il- or iol-.

Carmanach, it is listed under iol- in Dinneen's dictionary as "iliomad, a great number or variety". See p601, first column.

I noticed while looking for it that ollscoil is listed in Dinneen's as iolscoil.

Which is a more sensible name for it!

Oll = large
Iol = many

Thanks for that David.

Well, if you dislike "ollscoil", the Scots say "ollthaigh" - oll + taigh (tigh)!

I think Iolscoil na Mumhan may still be in existence in Ring. http://www.litriocht.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=3098

But Aonghus, are oll- and iol- not the same prefix etymologically? Dinneen's dictionary says to check under both oll- and iol-.

i feel strongly that words in sc- should be spelled sg-. this is not only because a native speaker in Cork strongly put that point of view to me, but also I read Dr Seán Ua Súilleabháin's wonderful essay on Dinneen's dictionary, where he explained that the Irish Texts Society specifically told Dinneen to use the sg- spelling, but he ignored them and presented the with a fait accompli. Apparently most scholars back then preferred sg-, but there was a little list of scholars on both sides of the debate. Are you sure "iolscoil na Mumhan" was not "iolsgoil"? Surely, if you're going to modernise it, you might as well go to "ollscoil".

quote:

But Aonghus, are oll- and iol- not the same prefix etymologically?

I believe not.

oll
óll uillida
Keywords: great; ample; vast; great; fame; fifth; major province; fifth day; great; pang; great; guest; visitor; big-fisted

http://www.dil.ie/results-list.asp?mode=ADV&searchText=%20oll&HIGH=%20oll&respag e=0&resperpage=10&Fuzzy=0&bhcp=1

il
iliu hil n-ili il lia il ilága il-
Keywords: many; numerous; manifold; much;

http://www.dil.ie/results-list.asp?mode=ADV&searchText=%20il&HIGH=%20il&respage= 0&resperpage=10&Fuzzy=0&bhcp=1

quote:

i feel strongly that words in sc- should be spelled sg-.

But -sc should remain -sc? See Irish of WM: 335. I wonder though if the consonant following s in scéal, say, is voiced in the speech of all speakers? I had a quick glance at DIL but can't see any reference to iol- and oll- having the same origin. The Scots of course have written nothing else but sg-: sgeul, sgian, sgùrr, etc. Writing -eu- as -éa- is another innovation in Modern Irish.

Carmanach, maybe iol- and oll- are separate then. As for the g of sgéal being voiced - I think Brian Ó Cuív was ad-libbing on that point. I don't think he was a trained phoneticist, and what he was probably trying to say was that the g or c was not aspirated, which is another thing entirely.

Oll- and il- certainly seem to be based on the same Indo-European root, pelə-. P goes to zero in Old Irish, and the change of vowels is easily explained. This doesn't mean much to us today, though. It might be like full and fill. They're similar in English, but not the same. And the split might have been precisely to clarify the meaning intended.

quote:

As for the g of sgéal being voiced - I think Brian Ó Cuív was ad-libbing on that point. I don't think he was a trained phoneticist, and what he was probably trying to say was that the g or c was not aspirated, which is another thing entirely.

All Ó Sé (8) says on the matter is that /ɡ̜ ́/ is unvoiced following /s/ and /ʃ/.

To what extent does an unvoiced /ɡ̜ ́/ differ from /k ́/?

quote:

To what extent does an unvoiced /ɡ̜ ́/ differ from /k ́/?

Well, I am sure Lughaidh knows more. I am not sure what the diacritical mark under the g means. If you just mean how does an unvoiced g differ from a k, well, it depends on the language. A k may be aspirated (followed by a puff of breath). In English that is usually the case (eg the k in kind), but after s a k loses aspiration (eg the k in skin). So a g and a k may not be different at all in circumstances where voice and aspiration don't differentiate them. But I read in some phonetics books that there is still a slight difference between an un unvoiced g and a k without aspiration. The difference relates to g being lenis and k being fortis - maybe one is slightly tenser than the other.

quote:

I am not sure what the diacritical mark under the g means

Sorry, that's not supposed to be there! I cut and pasted it from another site. I'm just referring to palatalised g and k. I understand your other points. Should have thought of them myself!

You don't just write every thing you hear. Some sound changes are allophonic.

quote:

You don't just write every thing you hear. Some sound changes are allophonic.

Yes, of course, thanks. I was aware of that.

This is not necessarily directed to you, but to Corkirish more. Maybe I should have put that in.

quote:

i feel strongly that words in sc- should be spelled sg-. this is not only because a native speaker in Cork strongly put that point of view to me, but also I read Dr Seán Ua Súilleabháin's wonderful essay on Dinneen's dictionary, where he explained that the Irish Texts Society specifically told Dinneen to use the sg- spelling, but he ignored them and presented the with a fait accompli. Apparently most scholars back then preferred sg-, but there was a little list of scholars on both sides of the debate.

Dinneen shares his reasoning on this in the preface to his 1904 dictionary. He felt using "sc" in uniformity with "sp" and "st" was preferable and says opinion among scholars he consulted was mixed.
Ultimately I think it's of no great consequence either way. I do find "sg" more aesthetically pleasing for some reason though :), simply because it's more unusual, probably.
You could add the word "coisméig" to the pro-"sg" column - formed through metathesis of "coiscéim" with "g" where one would expect "c".

quote:

Writing -eu- as -éa- is another innovation in Modern Irish.

I thought both were interchangeable for about the same amount of time.
Actually I read somewhere that Dubhaltach Mac Fir Bhisigh introduced "eu", is this true?