This is an interesting question, re: the use of the article before language names. It cannot be shown that use of native speakers is consistent on this question. I would rather put it this way: that Irish use of the definite article is more variable than in English, and it can either be Gaelainn, or an Ghaelainn. Ag foghlaim Gaelainne is not wrong -it is not more wrong than Ag foghlaim na Gaelainne. Usage is often mixed in one sentence.

Examples:

1. Gaeluinn a labhradh gach aoinne liom an uair sin nuair a théighinn mar sin ag cur na h-ola ortha. [Peadar Ua Laoghaire, Mo Sgéal Féin]

2. I mBéarla iseadh bhí na focail ar na cártaibh. Níor bh'fhéidir na focail do chur ortha i nGaeluinn an uair sin, bíodh gur mhó go mór an Ghaeluinn a bhí d'á labhairt sa pharóiste 'ná an Béarla a bhí d'á labhairt inti. [ibid.]

3. Thánadar chúgham agus d'iaradar orm teacht chun a seómra tamall beag i dtosach gach oídhche agus iaracht a dhéanamh ar Ghaeluinn a mhúineadh dhóibh. [ibid.]

4, 'Ghá cur i gcomparáid dom le teangthachaibh eile, le Laidion nó le Gréigis nó le Frainncis, fé mar a dh'fhoghlumuigheas raint díobh n-a dhiaigh san, téighean sé 'n-a luighe ar m'aigne, gur bh'fhearr d'arm aigne í 'ná aon teanga acu. [ibid.]

5. D'fhiafraigheas dé ar mhaith leis Laidion a dh'fhoghluim.

6. I ndiaigh chéile do mhaoluigh an díogras ionam agus thugas aghaidh ar na gnóthaíbh a bhain le h-obair an Choláisde i mBéarla agus i Laidin agus sa bhFrainncis. [ibid.]

7. Is dócha gur Laidion ab éigean duit a labhairt leó i gcómhnuighe, a Airt? [Peadar Ua Laoghaire, Niamh].

My impression is that after prepositions it is more likely that a language name will have the article, but it not 100%. Ar Ghaelainn/ar an nGaelainn/i nGaelainn/sa Ghaelainn - are all found in the best authors. Gnás na Gaedhilge contains examples of language names used with and without the article from the works of Ua Laoghaire and Ó Grianna. The whole section on the article in that book bears close reading. Any thoughts? An bhfuil aon smaointe agaibh air seo?

Yeah, cp. ainmneacha na dtíortha, e.g., "in Albain" ach "na hAlban" ; "in Éirinn" ach "na hÉireann" nó "Éireann"

"na hÉireann" is not fully interchangeable with "Éireann".But the nuance is hard to grasp.

I wrote this in a footnote in my ongoing edition of Niamh:

quote:

The use of the genitive without the article denotes something fundamentally, concretely or essentially Irish, such as fir Éireann, “the men of Ireland”, rather than a part or a temporary or incidental attribute of Ireland, as in comhacht na hEireann, “the power of Ireland” and ar fuid na hÉireann, “throughout Ireland”.

You could quibble - why is it (in Peadar Ua Laoghaire's usage) Ardrí Éireann, but Ardríocht na hÉireann? Is it because the high king was a fundamental expression of Irishness in ancient times, whereas the high kingship is a just an abstract noun used in political discussions of alternative political systems? Why is it Dáil Éireann but Póblacht na hÉireann? Is it because the assembly of the Irish people was an ancient tribal feature of Irish culture, whereas the modern-day republic is just a newfangled political form?

But there is a difference.

Would it also be correct to say that "Tuaisceart Éireann" = "Northern Ireland" and "Tuaisceart na hÉireann" = "The North of Ireland"?

The way I translate the article in my head with context to languages, would be

Gaeilge - Irish
an Ghaeilge - the Irish language

this is just my way of giving the article some meaning in the sentence in my own head

The use of the genitive without the article denotes something fundamentally, concretely or essentially Irish, such as fir Éireann, “the men of Ireland”, rather than a part or a temporary or incidental attribute of Ireland, as in comhacht na hEireann, “the power of Ireland” and ar fuid na hÉireann, “throughout Ireland”.


What about 'muintir na hÉireann' though

Well, it is partly collocational. You need to know the noun phrases.

Hmm I suppose I was only offering another instance where the genitive might be formed either with the article or without — I agree that one or the other usage may yield each a different nuance in that case...

But as for the article with language names, it really is tougher to see anything regular...

"Tá Laidin agam," but definitely "scoth na Laidne" ?

"Ag caint Gaeilge"...

Does it simply have something to do with the specificity, or definiteness ? If you're "ag caint Gaeilge," you're speaking (some) Irish... but it has to have the article with something like "ar son na Gaeilge," because "Gaeilge" there is definite (the whole language)... ???

quote:

Does it simply have something to do with the specificity, or definiteness ? If you're "ag caint Gaeilge," you're speaking (some) Irish... but it has to have the article with something like "ar son na Gaeilge," because "Gaeilge" there is definite (the whole language)... ???

Yes, with the article you're talking about the language as a whole, without you're talking of the language in a more general sense. There is a subtle difference between the following phrases:

a) tá Gaelainn mhaith aici
b) tá an Ghaelainn go maith aici anois, ná fuil?

a) She speaks good Irish (overall, in a general sense, the sort of Irish she speaks)
b) Her command of the Irish language (the emphasis is on the language in its entirety, and how much of it she has acquired)

The article always comes before the name of a language when one is speaking of the language as a whole: An Ghaelainn, An Fhraincis, An Spáinnis, etc: tá an Ghaelainn ar na teangacha is sine san Eoraip, is breá liom an Fhraincis ach ní maith liom chuige an Spáinnis.

Note the difference between the following:

a) Tá a lán teangacha aige
b) Labhrann sé a lán teangacha (nuair a théann sé ar saoire thar lear, etc.

Both mean "He speaks many languages" but the first means that he knows or is able to speak many languages, the second refers to the action of actually speaking them. A common mistake made by learners is to use the second phrase for both senses.

Ailín, I think the approach you outlined is a good rule of thumb, but what did you think of my examples above? Particularly where PUL says "i mBéarla agus i Laidin agus sa bhFrainncis"? Sometimes grammarians by the nature of their profession have to systematize something less systematic "in the wild", right?

Or there is another possibility. "Agus sa bhFrainncis" and "agus i bhFrainncis" could sound very similar...

quote:

Or there is another possibility. "Agus sa bhFrainncis" and "agus i bhFrainncis" could sound very similar...

No, I think the difference at times is quite subtle and something analogous to the difference in English between "a book written in German" and "a book written in the German language". You would of course say "tá mórán téarmaí teicniúla sa Bhéarla ná fuil sa Ghaelainn" but also "tá mórán téarmaí teicniúla i mBéarla", so I think they are interchangeable in certain circumstances.

Speaking of languages, another very common error made by learners is to pronounce the i in the ending -is as a long i. It isn't. It's a short i: An Fhraincis, An Spáinnis, An Ghearmáinis, etc.

yes, but the speaker who read Mo Sgéal Féin for me clearly had Fraincís, with a long í. If you listen to the audio of chapter 5 at http://www.corkirish.com/wordpress/archives/128#more-128 , you will note that around 0:42 (42 seconds in), a clear Fraincís

I'm too tired right now to listen to your recording but I suspect your speaker picked that up at school. Ó Sé gives Fraincis with short i (853) as one would expect.

(Message edited by carmanach on December 06, 2010)