Views on language are controversial as they are connected with many cultural issues that are widely debated. I have summed up my views on what constitutes good English and good Irish at http://www.corkirish.com/wordpress/quality-language , but I will keep my contributions on Daltaí focused on learning Irish.

I have transcribed 25 chapters of Niamh, and have done all my paid work for 2010, so I have a week or so to focus on Niamh before Christmas...

I agree with many of your points. I wonder if you are too pessimistic about Irish having a both/and future, that is, having both the standard and the dialects. None of us can predict the future, but another standard would be foreign to someone in Ireland no matter what, and the pronunciation not their own. Considering what was needed to be achieved, it may have been their only choice to compromise on those aspects. From my point of view as a learner of just over one year now, I have little problem reading Ulster Irish pronunciation into Standard Irish in most texts. I have little problem figuring out other dialects. (Granted little I do is "live" like in conversation, and I am not blowing my own horn, but I am making the point that it is not unrealistic for people to grasp a wide knowledge of the Irish language after some earnest study.) I do think each area's children should be educated in the specific variations of their area, and be taught the skill of shifting in and out of the standard. They should have experience speaking to people of the other dialects. And they should be taught their classical texts to a degree. (I don't read 16th century English without some editing, and it is fair that Irish people should have access to the classics in modern spelling and font.) I find more fault with the teaching methods than with the standard as such, and the standard can be praised as a universal entryway into the dialects. Even my English dictionary under amongst refers me to among. No need to duplicate entries when there is a variation on the same word. I have no problem using that word in papers or amongst friends.

Dia dhuitse a SheáinW,

Apologies for not replying to your excellent post sooner. For some reason I overlooked it.

I agree with your statement, "I do think each area's children should be educated in the specific variations of their area," but that inevitably raises what we might as well call the "Leinster and Louth Questions" - namely that in Leinster very little evidence of the native dialects have survived; certainly we could try and reconstruct or perfect a native dialect for use in the area, but I can't see it catching on (though as Cornish shows, never say never).

Likewise the "Louth Question" where you have a dialect that by all accounts was Ulster Irish - Airghialla being part of the Ulster Irish area until the British reset administrative boundaries and attached the new County Louth to their new province of Leinster. These new boundaries tend to be fiercely regarded by people nowadays, and if they think they're in Leinster, likewise Kilkenny, they might gravitate toward a neo-Leinster dialect or some other dialect rather than adopt the actual Ulster Irish that was spoken locally, no matter how appropriate it might be. (I'm speculating here based on incorrigible attitudes to county allegiance, which are also essentially British in origin.)

What would you propose in these scenarios? I'd be very interested to hear others' views.

I think there is more than one solution. I am really most in favor of anything which allows the Gaeltacht children to learn their dialect in formal education and the Galltacht children to learn Irish from native/fluent speakers with native/fluent chracteristics. For Gaeltacht children, precedent should be given to the local dialect. They should learn the spelling standard, but they should also know how to spell their local forms and use them if they want. For children outside of the Gaeltacht, this is problmatic because teachers may speak from different areas, or there may be a shortage of teachers available. There can be a focus on the nearest Gaeltacht dialect, or even the Standard with information given on variations. Certainly the mixing is slowly giving rise to new local forms, but it is way to early to clarify them into a dialect for curriculum. I think each school should devise its own program based on the needs of the students and the prevailing qualities of their teachers. If a situation is very mixed, like every teachers has a different dialect, and the parents don't know which end is up, then the curriculum should rely more heavily on the standard forms. Advice should be given to the kids to copy the teachers. If I lived in Dublin, I would have my sons learn from the teachers whatever they give them and then flesh out the dialectical information for the Ulster area (which I favor).

I am not very interested in the idea of going back and resurrecting some dialect in the past, or at least the distant past. I think there is much more advantage to adopting the standard than doing that to be quite honest. If someone's learning Irish, they should be learning from someone who is native/fluent. Copy the teachers. If this doesn't provide enough of the dialectical information, then bolster it with materials and visits to the Gaeltacht. This may not be workable for everyone, but I am just abstracting from what I'd do. I think parents need to take an active roll in the education of their children.

I think your approach is both logical and pragmatic. I agree that resurrecting 'extinct' dialects is more an intellectual than a practical exercise, but there are a few areas where - I'm thinking mainly about Omeath - where there has been a lot of grass roots work done to support the old dialect, and I think areas such as these would want to re-introduce variants that existed within living memory - there's still something of an unbroken phonological chain, if a weakening one.

Otherwise, yes, I completely agree. I think in Dublin in particular there is (or was) scope for children to learn any dialect preferred by their parents, and for the development of a new koine from that, but I am of course engaging in fancy here now considering most are probably well socialised into this controversial 'standard'.

I say go for it, if they want, because the "check" to such an approach will be the people they're speaking with and the media they're engaging in. I think as is I barely get away with some of the more obscure dialectical forms for LIVING dialects. I think speakers need to be flexible to develop their own language but also adapt to the language of their neighbor. When I speak English, for instance, I speak WITH my neighbor, not TO them, so to speak. So everything I say is run through a neighbor filter.

Here's a very short example. I once said to a man, "I was trying to not put you out." This phrase is very natural to me. He didn't understand me at all. I rephrased it as, "I was trying to not inconvenience you." So I had to adjust my speech to him since he had only one of these forms. It didn't matter to him that I had two.

Yes, I agree. I think you've hit the nail on the head in this - any dialects (whether existing or reintroduced) will undergo a process of negotiation, from which newer forms will emerge (and these forms, as in the example you give, need not necessarily be simplifications).

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

" I agree with your statement, "I do think each area's children should be educated in the specific variations of their area," but that inevitably raises what we might as well call the "Leinster and Louth Questions" - namely that in Leinster very little evidence of the native dialects have survived; certainly we could try and reconstruct or perfect a native dialect for use in the area, but I can't see it catching on (though as Cornish shows, never say never). "



I do think it to be a little nonsensical to take the "educate children in their territorial dialect" to the extreme where the gov't would be trying to come up with some artificial, "reconstructed" form of a dead dialect. For children in such galltacht areas, what would be the point? It would be just as artificial as the CO.

Why not amend the statment to read, "...each area's children should be educated in the specific variations of their area WHEN THAT AREA HAS A LIVING DIALECT." [emphasis mine]

In areas where there is no living dialect, why not simply use the traditional literary dialect (as was written in the linked essay: Munster)? Galltacht children don't have an immediate community of speakers surrounding them (by definition), so they could start using any dialect they're taught in school (even the CO) if they want to use it with their classmates outside of class. At that point, who cares if kids in Leinster are using and reading in the Munster dialect (so long as they are using and reading ONE of them...)?

Yes, Antaine, I think your proposal makes eminently more practical sense than the academic exercise of reconstructing an 'extinct' dialect. I think your approach allows for a reasonable degree of latitude in places like Airghialla where they would want to reintroduce a local dialects, whilst dealing with the 'problem' of places like Wicklow, where there is no evidence at all of the local dialect.

I think Ireland should be divided into three zones in which each of the three major dialects would be taught, along with the written standard.
The boundary lines should, where possible, go through sparsely populated areas and not follow county or provincial borders which frequently cut through urban districts. Teaching Ulster Irish in one side of a town and Connacht in the other would clearly be absurd.

This is, roughly, what I have in mind: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6058121/phys1c.jpg

Obviously the question of which 'sub-dialect' the form taught outside Gaedhealtacht areas would be based on (or whether to use all of them in further sub-divisions) comes up. Muskerry for Munster and Tourmakeady for Connacht seem best suited to me. I don't know about Ulster.

Thanks for this, James. I can see you've given the idea a lot of thought. How did you decide where to put the boundary lines? In Cavan for example the line seems to follow the southern county border exactly.

(Message edited by grma on December 17, 2010)

In positioning the boundary lines I’d try to follow:
(a)the former dialect boundaries* – which, obviously, can only ever be rough approximations as the living dialects would have had no sharp divisions - and (b) the most sparsely populated route.

The correspondence with the southern border of Cavan was unintentional. I do think, though, that it would be pretty close to the ideal position. Cavan was historically considered to be part of Connacht but the Irish spoken there was, as far as I’m aware, closer to Ulster Irish.

*Kilkenny Irish was basically east Munster Irish so I thought it best to include the remainder of south Leinster along with it in the Munster dialect zone.


The map is just a rough illustration of the shape such ‘dialect zones’ could take.

I think this is the best solution and, hopefully, would give learners clear guidance as to which spoken variety of the language to aim towards.
It also automatically creates in Connacht/Tourmakeady a genuine ‘Lárchanúint’ as the dialect of the centre of Ireland and the capital.

Interesting.

quote:

Muskerry for Munster and Tourmakeady for Connacht seem best suited to me. I don't know about Ulster.

I think it's odd to teach Muskerry Irish outside the Muskerry area because that dialect has too few native speakers now. Corca Dhuibhne would be better, I think.

For Connacht, I think some Connemara dialect (say, Iorras Aithneach because it has be described in great detail) because of the number of speakers as well.
As far as I know, Tourmakeady has less speakers and the dialect hasn't be described in detail, except its phonology.

For Ulster, outside the Gaeltacht (where the local dialects should be taught), I think they should teach Rann na Feirste Irish, because of its rich literature (the Grianna brothers, etc) and it's fairly central, linguistically speaking, in Donegal.

Is Muskerry more central, linguistically speaking, than Corca Dhuibhne in terms of the Munster dialects? Corca Dhuibhne just seems very 'western' to be basing a regional standard on, even if it is the healthiest subdialect in terms of number of speakers.

Though maybe that latter aspect should be the deciding factor...

As for Ulster Irish, I don't see any problem with Rann na Feirste as the basis for the Ulster standard.

Pardon me if this sounds strange, but I think the idea of having regional standards seems to go against the whole idea of using one's dialect. Instead of one standard which the Irish people can use and abuse, there would now be three! While I think Gaeltacht children should be taught their local dialect, and I mean as local as you can get, I don't see any need to codify the curriculum on a state-wide level. Just sounds like another bureaucracy to me. I say, just widen up the materials that we have. Give the dialects some recognition so people can use them. This seems to be happening and we're supposed to see more of this in the new dictionary. We shall see!

quote:

I think it's odd to teach Muskerry Irish outside the Muskerry area because that dialect has too few native speakers now. Corca Dhuibhne would be better, I think.

For Connacht, I think some Connemara dialect (say, Iorras Aithneach because it has be described in great detail) because of the number of speakers as well.
As far as I know, Tourmakeady has less speakers and the dialect hasn't be described in detail, except its phonology.

For Ulster, outside the Gaeltacht (where the local dialects should be taught), I think they should teach Rann na Feirste Irish, because of its rich literature (the Grianna brothers, etc) and it's fairly central, linguistically speaking, in Donegal.

I think it would be best to choose the sub-dialect which is linguistically and geographically most central as the 'regional standard' for use outside the Gaedhealtachtaí. I don't think number of speakers should be much of a factor, especially considering that the present state of places like Muskerry is relatively recent. Also, I don't think it would matter much to someone from Carlow that Corca Dhuibhne has more native speaking inhabitants than Muskerry.

Rann na Feirste seems perfect for Ulster.

quote:

Pardon me if this sounds strange, but I think the idea of having regional standards seems to go against the whole idea of using one's dialect. Instead of one standard which the Irish people can use and abuse, there would now be three! While I think Gaeltacht children should be taught their local dialect, and I mean as local as you can get, I don't see any need to codify the curriculum on a state-wide level. Just sounds like another bureaucracy to me. I say, just widen up the materials that we have. Give the dialects some recognition so people can use them. This seems to be happening and we're supposed to see more of this in the new dictionary. We shall see!

To be clear: any 'regional standard' would be a spoken standard and intended for use outside present Gaedhealtachtaí (and, perhaps, the areas adjacent to them).
A written standard for the whole country makes perfect sense and should continue, provided it's broad and accepting of major dialect features - as the current one is (or is meant to be at least).
I don't envisage a situation where schoolchildren in, say, the 'Munster zone', would be taught only Munster Irish and read only Munster literature - that would be ridiculous. I'd hope that students everywhere would be familiarised with all the dialects that make up Irish from an early stage as well as the same literature.

quote:

To be clear: any 'regional standard' would be a spoken standard and intended for use outside present Gaedhealtachtaí (and, perhaps, the areas adjacent to them).

If it's outside of the Gaeltacht, then how can it be a spoken standard? It probably first would be codified in some document, like the CO is, and then taken as gospel. Would a teacher from Donegal teaching in Dublin bury here peculiarities to follow the Connacht standard? Risky venture in my estimation. I say just teach and let the kids be with filled with whatever good Irish hits their ears.

quote:

It probably first would be codified in some document, like the CO is, and then taken as gospel.

I don't see why. Some instruction and guidelines for teachers. Adult learners could choose themselves how closely they wished to adhere to any 'standard' - as they do today.

quote:

Would a teacher from Donegal teaching in Dublin bury here peculiarities to follow the Connacht standard?

Not at all. That would be completely over the top and a waste of a wonderful asset.


I don't claim this 'three dialect zones' approach is the perfect solution - simply one possibility.
In my own experience of school there was no consistency in pronunciation. It had a Munster 'flavour' overall, e.g. 'ao' always /e:/, but could vary considerably depending on the teacher.

quote:

Corca Dhuibhne just seems very 'western' to be basing a regional standard on

That don't matter, Corca Dhuibhne still has a vibrant Gaeltacht and would be perfect for a standard. Tourmakeady can't be classed as a central dialect, because there is no Irish spoken there!

There is no solution to the pronunciation issue. It reminds me of An Bhean a cheannaigh bronntanas Nollag dá fear.

Trí cinn de charbhait a cheannaigh sí dó. Gréasa difriúla, dathanna éagsúla, fabraicí difriúla. An chéad ócáid eile a raibh carbhat de dhíth air roghnaigh sé ceann acu. Nuair a chonaic a bhean an ceann a roghnaigh sé thosaigh sí ag pusaíl goil: "Bú! Hú! Céard a bhí cearr leis na cinn eile."

Greann, a chairde, greann.

Hmm. Ní bheidh na mná ró shásta leat....

lol

quote:

Also, I don't think it would matter much to someone from Carlow that Corca Dhuibhne has more native speaking inhabitants than Muskerry.

Yes, for summer courses maybe.

And also the key point is to improve the language skills of teachers, preferably by having immersion courses - this is best done in a strong Gaeltacht.