Having had a look at Eachtra Phinocchio, produced by the Coiste Litríochta Mhúscraí, it is clear to me that the approach to the editing of dialectal works is different to mine, which could make it awkward if I tried to co-operate with that literary society in publishing a modernised-spelling version of Niamh.

I want to get some opinions on the best approach.

My approach so far is:

1) try not to generate too many spellings at variance with Standard Irish. The whole point of the exercise is to enhance accessibility of the text. This includes:

a) where a pronunciation may be regularly derived, it doesn't need to be indicated by a variant spelling. Eg: "cinn" should be "cinn", as it was spelled "cinn" in the original, is spelled "cinn" in Standard Irish, and the the long vowel in -inn can be regularly derived from the rules set out in The Irish of West Muskerry. So I don't spell this word "cínn".

Another example is "orlach", which would be spelled "órlach" in the original, but once again the length of the vowel before medial -rl- can be deduced from rules, and so I think it better to spell such words "orlach".

Another example is "fáilte", which was spelled "fáilte" in PUL's original, and is so spelled in Standard Irish, but which could be pronounced with an -lh-. This pronunciation, which few or no speakers have today, can be derived from rules, and so I eschew "fáilthe".

Yet clearly this rule 1a) is not observed in Eachtra Phinocchio, which has "fáilthe", "millthe", "úrlár", "cínn" etc. It seems to be that you could generate a huge number of differently spelled words by adopting this approach, thus spoiling the whole exercise. And the words that are actually spelled the same as Standard Irish in the original of Niamh (fáilte, cinn, etc) I would be extremely reluctant to change to a "deeper dialectal" form, as the original is already fully accessible to readers of Standard Irish. I can see modernisation approaches can be the subject of quite a lot of disagreement.

b) The autonomous forms in Pinocchio are a spelled "déanfí" and "deintar" and such like. Here you can also generate a large number of variant forms, when the rules (present autonomous pronounced broad -tar, future autonomous broad -far, conditional autonomous slender -fí and imperfect autonomous slender -tí, regardless of the spelling) can give you right pronunciation in all cases. While "déanfaí" is indeed pronounced with a slender "f", that is clear from the rules set out in the Irish of West Muskerry, and although PUL wrote "déanfí", it would seem better to me to go with "déanfaí".

2) I prefer to write out all relative particles for clarity. Pinocchio takes a different approach, often using an apostrophe ("chun é 'chur i bpríosún). As the original works of Cork Irish contain haphazard spelling out of relative particles, you could find yourself with inconsistencies (é a chur in one place, é 'chur in another), and so the most consistent approach is to always give the relative particle. But clearly Eachtra Phinocchio was edited using a different approach.

3) Where a spelling used in an original work dovetails with that of Standard Irish, I always keep it, to avoid making the work "more deeply dialectal" in its appearance. An example is "dó", "to him". This is indeed pronounced with a short "o" in Cork Irish, but as the original spelling used by PUL was "dó" and that is the Standard Irish spelling too, it seems to me to be correct to keep it (I put a footnote explaining its pronunciation). But "dó" is spelled "do" throughout in Pinocchio.

Other examples are "coimeád" and "tar". While these would be pronouncecd "cimeád" and "tair" in Cork Irish, it seems to me to be incorrect editing to replace a Standard spelling by a spelling that deviates from the Standard.

Other examples of the approach of Pinocchio are "a' bhfuil" for "an bhfuil", " i n-ao' chor" for "in aon chor", "a' rá" for "ag rá", "cainnt" for "caint", "tairfe" for "tairbhe", "dalthaí" for "daltaí", "dian-mhaith" for "dianmhaith", "i n-áirde" for "in airde", "b'in é" for "b'shin é", "ceoca" for "cé acu". I noticed "althaithe" for "altaithe", but the editors don't seem to have realised that the pronunciation is -hl- in this word: "athlaithe".

If you're going to mark every word pronounced differently from the spelling used in Standard Irish, you would end up producing thousands of variant spellings in the course of one book. I am not sure this is the right approach at all (if there is one "right" approach, that is).

There are also things like this: "do ráinig do 'bheith i gceártain siúinéara gurbh ainm do Aontonio Ceárdaí". The apostrophe before "bheith" makes it clear the editors think there is an "a" that has become inaudible there--but I don't believe it is "a bheith" there at all, and so there, in my view, no need for the apostrophe. The general approach also appears haphazard. Why "ainm" and not "ainim" if they're trying to be dialectal? Why "gurbh" and not "gurabh" if they're trying to show the dialectal pronunciation? I would have the spelling "ceártain" for sure, but not "ceárdaí", because the length of a vowel before medial -rd- is governed by a rule.

I would rather edit Niamh into a spelling that uses, wherever possible the Standard spellings, except where they really cannot be used for Cork Irish, and I would be very unhappy to have Niamh edited into the style of this Eachtra Phinocchio. Do people have strong feelings on how dialectal works should be edited?

quote:

b) The autonomous forms in Pinocchio are a spelled "déanfí" and "deintar" and such like. Here you can also generate a large number of variant forms, when the rules (present autonomous pronounced broad -tar, future autonomous broad -far, conditional autonomous slender -fí and imperfect autonomous slender -tí, regardless of the spelling) can give you right pronunciation in all cases. While "déanfaí" is indeed pronounced with a slender "f", that is clear from the rules set out in the Irish of West Muskerry, and although PUL wrote "déanfí", it would seem better to me to go with "déanfaí".

Why not "déinfí" ?
Anyway, someone who is able tu understand P. O Laoghaire's Irish will know it's "déan" in the conditional autonomous...
"deintar" should be spelt "dentar" but of course you don't write an "e" alone in the middle of a word in Modern Irish - nor ei followed by a broad consonant. But "dentar" may be the solution if you want to keep close to the dialect.

quote:

2) I prefer to write out all relative particles for clarity. Pinocchio takes a different approach, often using an apostrophe ("chun é 'chur i bpríosún). As the original works of Cork Irish contain haphazard spelling out of relative particles, you could find yourself with inconsistencies (é a chur in one place, é 'chur in another), and so the most consistent approach is to always give the relative particle. But clearly Eachtra Phinocchio was edited using a different approach.

in your examples it isn't a relative particle. It's the preposition "a" used before a verbal noun. It's also "a" but it's a different word.

quote:

Why "ainm" and not "ainim" if they're trying to be dialectal? Why "gurbh" and not "gurabh" if they're trying to show the dialectal pronunciation?

most dialects pronounce "ainim" and "gurabh" anyway. Because you always insert a svarabhakti vowel between n and m and between r and bh. So you don't need to write it. What is regular and predictable doesn't need to be written.

Sorry, I am getting a little confused. PUL does actually write déanfaí, but in other cases he used spellings like féadfí. I don't know why he adhered to leathan le leathan in one word and not the other.

The autonomous forms are:

deintear (pronounced dein-tar)
déanfar
déanfaí (pronounced déan-fí)
deintí
and of course: deineadh

Lughaidh deintear is pronounced: din-tar, with an "i" /dʹinʹ-tər/.

quote:

in your examples it isn't a relative particle. It's the preposition "a" used before a verbal noun. It's also "a" but it's a different word.

Yes, the two things are writing out relative particles, and writing out the particle governing the verbal noun. I had started to write about the first one and then went onto the other. But the same consideration holds - Pinocchio elides most of both of these things. (By the way, the relative particle developed analogically from the various other particles in Irish, including the infinitival particle "do", which is now "a", and so etymologically these are the same word.)

quote:

most dialects pronounce "ainim" and "gurabh" anyway. Because you always insert a svarabhakti vowel between n and m and between r and bh. So you don't need to write it. What is regular and predictable doesn't need to be written.

Yes, but that is exactly my point. What is regular doesn't need to be written out. So why write "cínn" for "cinn"? It seems muddled to write cínn for cinn and then not write ainim for ainm, but I am actually arguing it should be cinn and ainm.

Lughaidh, it is too long to paste here, so I published my editing rules for my modernised spelling edition of Niamh at http://www.corkirish.com/wordpress/my-editing-rules - you can see what "house style" I am using.

Eg as Ó Dónaill's dictionary shows 'n-a as "ina" and 'n-ar as "inar", I am trying to adhere to that, but I am very unsure about "fear n-ar bh'ainim dó Colla", whether it is right for me to edit this into "fear inarbh ainm dó Colla", as the "i" of inarbh is not heard. I could do: fear 'narbh ainm dó Colla, but Ó Dónaill's dictionary simply does not show 'na/'nar/'narbh as the correct spellings of these (see the entry for "i")...

I am trying to adhere to Standard spellings whether possible.

quote:

The autonomous forms are:

deintear (pronounced dein-tar)
déanfar
déanfaí (pronounced déan-fí)

Have you got a recording of such forms? I wonder how people pronounce a broad n and a slender f just after it. It's not a common thing in Irish.

quote:

Lughaidh deintear is pronounced: din-tar, with an "i" /dʹinʹ-tər/.

Then why wouldn't one write "diontar" ?

quote:

Yes, but that is exactly my point. What is regular doesn't need to be written out. So why write "cínn" for "cinn"?

No reason.

quote:

It seems muddled to write cínn for cinn and then not write ainim for ainm, but I am actually arguing it should be cinn and ainm.

In older texts, not everything is logical in the spellings (Standard Irish isn't either, for other reasons).

quote:

Having had a look at Eachtra Phinocchio, produced by the Coiste Litríochta Mhúscraí, it is clear to me that the approach to the editing of dialectal works is different to mine, which could make it awkward if I tried to co-operate with that literary society in publishing a modernised-spelling version of Niamh.

As I understand it, that book is a reprint of the 1933 edition rather than a new edition.

http://www.litriocht.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=4038

Lughaidh, the pronunciation of all forms of deinim can be heard at http://www.corkirish.com/wordpress/verb-conjugation/deinim .

It is not written diontar because the n is slender. A slender n followed by a broad t. IWM is quite explicit on this point. See p109. Of course there might be a degree of assimilation or switchover from slender to broad. [Think of who English "d's" begin unvoiced and become voiced half way through, like /td/ - a point many learners never grasp...]

quote:

In older texts, not everything is logical in the spellings (Standard Irish isn't either, for other reasons).

yes, but I'm not talking about older texts. I'm talking about edited versions of Cork literature produced a couple of years ago in Muskerry. Some choices have to be made on how dialectal to go, and they chose "úrlár, cínn, ainm, etc" - an illogical set of choices. But my choices have drawbacks too, eg "fear inarbh ainm dó...", where inarbh seems suboptimal.

quote:

As I understand it, that book is a reprint of the 1933 edition rather than a new edition.

Aonghus, it isn't a reprint. It is a full modernisation, as it clear from a long note inside. I am just concerned I am making choices in my modernisation of Niamh that don't dovetail with the approach in Muskerry, which could make it hard for us to co-operate.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people doing their own thing in the Irish world, and none of them seem to be able to co-operate with each other. I am no different in that respect in that I have a set approach and wouldn't want to adopt a different set approach but it is suboptimal to not co-operate.

It seems to me you have three options:

1) The original text rendered in romanized typeface.
2) The original text rendering in romanized typeface and according to the principles of the spelling reform.
3) The original text rendering in romanized typeface and according to the principles of the spelling reform and edited according to dialectical features (like pronunciation).

Each approach has its advantages and its disadvantages.

1) More readable for modern readers, without anyone accusing you of betraying the original text or the dialect.
2) Most readable for modern readers, but more risk that you are betraying the original text or the dialect.
3) More readable for modern readers, but much more risk that you are betraying the original text.

quote:

Do people have strong feelings on how dialectal works should be edited?

I prefer that every spelling, if possible, be in Ó Donaill's dictionary, or deduceable from it. Sure there are other dictionaries, but this is the main one, so I prefer it. The more you get to the standard spelling without offending against the original text, the better.

I also waver depending on the text. For example in English I sometimes want to read the original Shakespeare or Robert Southwell, and sometimes I want the modernized spelling. Even more extreme, take Chaucer for instance. It's hard to make that call. Also, am I coming to the books for the story or the linguistic information? Perhaps a book that wants to cater to the dialect crowd will have a subtitle, like "Niamh: Dialect Authentic Edition" or something like that. If I want the story, I would care much less about some points of the text. The whole thing is odd to me too. I know the concerns with the dialect/standard debate, but my English life is completely devoid of any such debate. Spelling is so uniform that there is no controversy involved, and "dialect" is rarely introduced. I think the debate can go to two extremes, so I prefer dialect that adheres to the standardized spelling as much as possible without offending the dialect, especially when such use is traditional in that area.

(Message edited by seánw on December 04, 2010)

quote:

It is a full modernisation, as it clear from a long note inside.

I stand corrected. The new edition I saw must have been a different one (it certainly had a different cover, and no introductory notes).

Aonghus, the note (on the copyright page) says:

quote:

"1933 d'fhoilsigh an Gúm aistriúchán Gaeilge Phádraig Uí Bhuachalla. Cuireadh athchló air 1936. Tá an t-eagrán so leasaithe do réir ceartúchán a dhein Pádraig Ó Buachalla ar a chóip féin den leabhar (eagrán 1933)...d'oir do sna heagarthóirí 1) litriú stairiúil eagrán 1933 a thabhairt chun dáta gan cur isteach ar Ghaelainn Phádraig Uí Bhuachalla, agus 2) ceartúcháin lámhscríte a dhein an Buachallach ar chóip d'eagrán 1933 a chur i bhfeidhm ar an eagrán so...Mar a raibh -nn- nó -ll- +consan in eagrán 1933, agus gur guta fada atá i nGaelainn Mhúsgraí cuireadh síneadh fada os cionn guta san eagrán so, m. sh. rínce--rinnce, agus fo-huair nuair ná fuil ach aon n amháin in eagrán 1933, m.sh. tínteán---teinteán. Mar ar fágadh -nn- nó -ll- roim chonsan eile san eagrán so, nuair is consan singil a bheadh ann do réir an Chaighdeán Oifigiúil, défhoghar atá le clos sa chanúint, m.sh. cainnt, deallramh. Scríobhadh an síneadh fada roim rd, rl, rn nuair is fada don ghuta ann sa chanúint. Deineadh -aei- de -aoghai- eagrán 1933. Tá fleiscíní fágtha in áiteanna ná fuil do réir an Chaighdeáin Oifigiúil mar mhaithe le soiléire, nó chun a thaispeáint go bhfuil dhá aiceann i bhfocal. Duairt a deineadh de dubhairt toisc gur défhoghar (ua) atá le clos ann in Músgraí agus i roinnt Ghaeltachtaí eile sa Mhumhain".

(Message edited by corkirish on December 04, 2010)

In fairness to the editors of Eachtra Phinocchio, I think they are trying to do more than just produce a nice story but relate it in an orthography which they believe to be as close as possible to the actual dialect. David, you've put your finger on a lot of different points and I'm not sure if I agree with most of what you say. You also assume that people can just go off to the IWM and look up the pronunciation when in doubt or will simply know which sets of letters are pronounced in which way in the dialect.

I think there is a good case for using a spelling that is closer to the dialect when that differs significantly from the standard; fáilthe, déanfí, deintar (even dintar!), do (to him), tairife, etc.

If you wish to produce a text that is easier for the typical learner who only has school Irish, fair enough, but I don't believe that was the thinking behind Eachtra Phinocchio. In fact, I think forms such as "a' rá" are to be lauded and should be part of any new Caighdeán Oifigiúil as very few learners indeed seem to understand or even accept that the g is almost always silent before a consonant.

>>>In fact, I think forms such as "a' rá" are to be lauded and should be part of any new Caighdeán Oifigiúil as very few learners indeed seem to understand or even accept that the g is almost always silent before a consonant.

Reply: maybe you could make a recommendation to the CO worthies? I would prefer people knew that the a' of a' rá was from ag, so they knew it was followed by the dative, so they got "ag béicigh, ag amhastraigh, ag léimrigh" and all the rest right...

But I'm not bothered either what the CO does... because I don't intend to read anything in it, ever.

Ailín on "do, fáilthe" and others - I am reluctant to change an original spelling where that spelling is the CO spelling. PUL wrote dó, and the CO accepts dó, so it would be strange, at least from my point of view, to go in and change it to "do", deliberately making it less accessible than the original.

I understand why and how Pinocchio was produced, and also they worked off a printed copy of the 1933 Pinocchio that the original author had annotated, so there may have been some evidence for the view the author wanted things more dialectal. In Niamh, I am trying to ensure all spellings are appropriate for the dialect, but without changing things like "dó" that are accepted in the CO. This had necessitated nearly 500 footnotes to explain things. So I mean it to be a scholarly study edition...

Ailín, I will take advice in Muskerry, and my focus first is on digitising the whole book, and if I am prevailed upon to change things, i will have an electronic version that I can perform find-and-replace changes on... So nothing is set in stone.