The internet has made it easier than ever to consult texts in other languages. I would now come into a lot more contact with Scottish Gaelic and Manx than at any point previously, particularly by reading blogs.

My Irish is lower intermediate but I find that I can very roughly understand texts in the other two languages quite easily (the Manx spelling system is not the hindrance I had feared it might be). Admittedly I lose a lot of nuance, but basic comprehension is not problematic.

I notice that there does not appear to be any co-ordinated policy for neologisms between the three languages, although Manx seems to obtain a lot of new terms by analogy to Irish. (Feel free to correct if I am being presumptious.)

This is different to the Continental Scandinavian experience, where a new word tends to be adopted by all three languages at the same time, either formally or informally. This is because interaction between speakers of these languages at both the official and personal levels is intensive and extensive.

Norwegian speakers, certainly, would tend to consult the Swedish and Danish language media (in that order, even though Danish is easier to read than Swedish) a lot. Swedish speakers admittedly would not do the inverse as far as I know.

Does anyone know what the policies for new terminology are in Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx, and whether the three language boards co-operate with one another? At present it does not seem that they do.

How many of us read Scottish Gaelic or Manx on a regular basis, and how does it go?

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

quote:

Norwegian speakers, certainly, would tend to consult the Swedish and Danish language media (in that order, even though Danish is easier to read than Swedish) a lot. Swedish speakers admittedly would not do the inverse as far as I know.

Indeed, but remember that those are all languages with millions of native speakers and are not minority languages on the edge as is the case with the three Gaelic languages.

quote:

How many of us read Scottish Gaelic or Manx on a regular basis, and how does it go?

In general, reading Scottish Gaelic and understanding most of it shouldn't be a massive problem for anyone with good written Irish. Understanding the spoken language is a quite harder. Reading Manx is more difficult, as Manx has been straddled with a particularly ugly orthography based on English. Understanding revived Manx is also hindered by the fact that all modern speakers are learners who speak the language with a strong north of England accent and pronunciation. I've heard recordings of old native speakers whose accent and pronunciation was much less English.

Manx is like a cross between Irish and Norse isn't it?

quote:

Manx is like a cross between Irish and Norse isn't it?

No. Manx is a Goidelic or Gaelic language which has many Norse loanwords but not to the extent that it can be said to be a cross between Goidelic and Norse. Norse had a much greater impact in general on Scottish Gaelic and Manx than it had on Irish.

Carmanach - obviously the Continental Scandinavian languages have roughly a hundred times more speakers than the Goidelic languages, but I think the online presence of the latter has never been better. In my original post I specifically mentioned blogs and the fact that the internet has enabled speakers of Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx to more easily and reflexively come into contact with each others' texts.

While the Scandinavian languages are not critically endangered in the way our languages are, their domains of use are undoubtedly shrinking - third level education is dominated by English, many workplaces are English only, advertising is substantially in English, pop culture is utterly Anglophone, and a Norwegian is as likely to use websites in English as they are Norwegian or another Scandinavian language - more so in some work and social groups. Code-switching between the local language and English is as daily a fact of life in Oslo as it is in, say, Ceathrú Rua or Gort a' Choirce.

One difference between the Scandinavian languages and, say, Irish is that Norwegian, for example, is the default language of nearly all social and public life everywhere in Norway. Even in areas where non-Norwegian speakers are a majority, Norwegian will still be the 'lingua norvegica' - people will struggle by in bad Norwegian rather than resort to English, which nearly all would also know nearly perfectly. It's not really an issue of social pressure either, as Norwegians are ecstatic at the opportunity to speak English. It's just the case that when in Norway, most people who don't have Norwegian choose to learn it and to become full everyday users of it, rather than be the one who relies on English in a group. It's just a given, unlike in the Gaeltacht - even the category 'a' areas - where English speakers will be accommodated at great cost to Irish.

(The one group that struggles in Norway in my experience is native English speakers: many refuse to learn Norwegian as 'everyone speaks English anyway' - Norwegians tend not to expect Irish, English, US, Australian, Canadian et al to be able to speak Norwegian.)

I completely agree that the Manx orthography is ugly and unhelpful in terms of communication with speakers of Irish and Scottish Gaelic. It's also fair to say that the recent spelling reforms in Irish have impeded understanding between Irish and Scottish Gaelic.

Incidentally, you'll likely know that Manx can be written in a Gaelic orthography (I'm sure most of the posters on here have had a go at transliterating Manx in their leisure time), but one core phonological issue with Manx is that it has lost the distinction between slender and broad consonants. I certainly agree that it sounds like Irish (or Scottish Gaelic) spoken by a learner from Lancashire, which earlier Manx certainly wouldn't have exhibited. There has been large scale immigration to the Isle of Man from this area that - amongst other factors - completely swamped the local Manx English accent and so, I presume, whatever remnants of Gaelic phonology that historically exhibited.

This of course brings us to the issue of the effect of different phonological substrates on learner's Irish, something that I am very interested in - as a learner myself, I am aware that learner's Irish is often decried as very corrupt in this area (mine certainly is), but the same is often said of all languges. Norwegian and Swedish, for example, have sociolects considered (pilloried) as specific to 'foreigners' - so-called 'kebabnorsk' and Rinkeby Swedish respectively. Personally, I'd welcome any links to journal articles on the phonology of learner's Irish, and if anyone knows any more about Shaw's Road Irish beyond what Maguire (1990) has written, I would very much like to read it.

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

the online presence? look, the Internet is not a Gaeltacht! The online presence is mainly by poor learners writing dodgy Irish.

So are you saying that, Corkirish, that those who write in Manx and Scottish Gaelic online are also poor learners writing dodgily?

Sure, SOME people online writing online in Irish may be poor learners writing dodgily (why do you think I write in English here?), but all of them? I don't agree.

Anyway, if there is a lack of native speakers on the internet showing us how Irish should be written, what can a learner do about it?

How does one become a good learner in your view?

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

quote:

Does anyone know what the policies for new terminology are in Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx, and whether the three language boards co-operate with one another? At present it does not seem that they do.

I don't think they do, most of the new technical terms are different between Scottish and Irish, for example linguistic terms and computer science terms. Maybe on purpose?
Quite often though, I saw Manx new words that looked like the Irish equivalents - except for the spelling of course.

quote:

but one core phonological issue with Manx is that it has lost the distinction between slender and broad consonants.

Not true, only some consonants have lost the distinction.
Namely, those who've lost the distinction are b, m, p, f, r, v, ŋ, r. It still exists, though, for k, g, ɣ, t, d, x, n, l.
By the way, Scottish Gaelic has lost the distinction for labial consonants as well : b, f, m, p, v.

Thanks for that clarification on Manx phonology, Lughaidh.

Yes, I agree with what you write about technical terms being different in Scottish and Irish, but similar to Irish in Manx - that's my interpretation too.

You're also right to point out the white elephant in the room of some of the differences between Scottish Gaelic and Irish being deliberate. Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for such agendas to be followed in the case of either language.

That said, there is some variation between Swedish on the one hand and Danish and Norwegian on the other in terms of lexical selection, but it rarely enough to cause any difficulties of comprehension whatsoever. The variation is also decreasing because new terms (especially in IT) are calques on English anyway - i.e., N Bokmål. bredbånd N Nynorsk breibånd, literally 'broad band' for broadband, N Bokmål trådløst nettverk (cognate 'threadless network') for 'wi-fi', brannmur literally 'fire wall' and so on.

I am fascinated by this thread.

Corkirish's comment

quote:

The online presence is mainly by poor learners writing dodgy Irish.

alludes to a fact of life in all languages. Even among native speakers of any language, least of all the older native speakers of Irish, not all can read and write. Few can write well. I think those who write anything in Irish such as my phrase in an earlier post "táim leamh-thursach" are doing a service to the preservation and revival of the language among people who want to learn it. The issue is whether we write to communicate our thoughts on the major issues of the day [the IMF Bail-Out / Wikileaks / Perpetual War / Sin] or supply authentic texts to academics who want to dissect, analyse, describe, compare and move on. They have no desire to raise children through Irish.

I suspect the fingers of the last of the best native speakers of traditional Irish are far too feeble now to click on a keyboard. Their interest must lie more in their Rosary Beads than online blogs.

What of the rest of us? We have learnt the language. We have degrees, diplomas, awards and certifcates to prove it. Not that we need them. We speak Irish. Must we fear criticism in English from those who don't write Irish? Those who resent the existence of the CO and school Irish, Gaeilge na leabhar, and the attempts by employees of TV & Radio stations to speak Irish now even though they had never been required to speak Irish before ? Surely the more people who use the language in any form the better. Why try and silence the living language?

We are all familiar with the letters to the Irish Times deploring "bad English" - Who done it / "It was me" versus "It was I" (??) / Going forward etc. How long does it take descriptive grammarians to accept change?

Incidentally, I read Scottish Gaidhlig. I think I have all the editions of Gairm plus all the dictionaries except one of the recent ones, that of Colin Mark. I have spent holidays in Staffin, Barra, Uibhist a Deas, and the north of Leodhais.

I think there may well be a desire among the Gaidhlig speakers to put as much space as possible between their language and ours. I was told in that Gaidhlig bookshop in Glasgow that they called Irish: "Tinker's Gaidhlig". Well, tapa libh!

Sadly the number of speakers of the Gaidhlig decreases dramatically in each census. Unlike Ireland where I, Taidhgín Tréan, (an cuimhin le héinne mé sa Ghael Og fadó?) and hundreds of thousands of Irish speakers like me keep the language going despite being "poor learners with dodgy Irish". I think we're doing well. We deserve support and approval rather than criticism.

All right, Corkirish, I understand perfectly where you are coming from and I do not intend this as a criticism of you personally. I'm very much on your side. But there is more than one way of looking at dodgy Irish however much we may dislike it.

Three language boards co-operating? Manx is a dead language! It may have neo-natives (as Latin did for 1000 years after that stopped being a proper native language) - but why would whatever the Manxmen have to say about Standard Irish be relevant anyway? They're not Irish! And yes, I recognise that does count my comments out too, as neither am I.

As for: Manx consonants losing distinction. I think the Galltacht Irish will be the same thing - probably the same consonants too. b, m, f, r, v, r - probably all broad in the Galltacht. ng- probably slender (as ng tends to be slender in English). It Scottish Gaelic has lost the distinction for b, f, m, p, v, then that proves that the labial consonants lose the distinction earlier.

Actually I said beog in the Gaeltacht, and they corrected my pronunciation, which I had intended to be /bʹog/ and not /bjog/, but which had sounded like bog. I welcome corrections by the way, and the main problem is getting enough of them! But it is my impression that beog, which ought to be /bʹog/ has become /bjog/ in the speech of the person who corrected me - it was too much of a "b" and then a "y", rather than a palatalised b. This may reflect an attempt to fight against loss of palatalisation of b by some native speakers?

Taidhgín, is cuimhin liom "An Leanbh Láidir"!

Ni raibh mise ag freastal ar Gaelscoil, faraor, ach bhí mo dheirfiúr agus mo dheartháir i Scoil Lorcán, agus bhí an comic sin acu.

eadaoin

GRMA,

I often read Scottish Gaelic and can read some of it more easily than alot of Irish.

I rarely read Manx, although I did read an entire book lately.

The spelling defeats me, but in truth there is very little vocab to learn, for mé at least.

I understand both but both have speakers that I do find it had to understand.

The person who creates alot of vocab for Manx also has Irish.

Scottish Gaelic and Irish do not to my knowledge collabate.

I suspect that many in Scotland but also in Ireland would like to stress the difference rather that the similarites.

Whether they are interintelligible or not depends in my experience NOT on dialect, but on outlook.

People who understand the Gaelic language as something that stretches from Ros to Cléire can understand.

Those for whom the IRISH language or SCOTTISH Gaelic are totally separate cant.

There is no answer to the question.

Even in terms of linguistic, there are dialectologists who naturally seek to highlight difference, others who seek similarities.

I am one of the latter.

For example, there are reports of Manx men and Cork men conversing without trouble.

I have heard a native of Cork city who spoke a Múscraí type of Irish speaking Gaelic to a native of Skye with little trouble.

However I have been assured by natives of Ceathrú Thaidhg that there understood nothing of Gaoth Dobhair Irish.

I hope this post clarifies nothing.

(Message edited by ggn on December 16, 2010)

>However I have been assured by natives of Ceathrú Thaidhg that there understood nothing of Gaoth Dobhair Irish.
-----------------------

yes, and I have been assured by one lady in Coolea that she can't understand Ulster Irish...

And maybe she can't.

And students in Gaoth Dobhair complain that they when they did their exams they didnt understand because the words conas and cathain were in the texts.

But other youth people in Gaoth Dobhair chat away to anyone.

Perception, effort, openess, these are the tools of intelligibilty.

I regularly have a pint in a bar where Múscraí, Corca Dhuibhne, Gaoth Dobhair, Cois Fharraige, Gaoth Dobhair and even Scottish Gaelic speakers mix - never heard of something saying they didnt understand.

"Neo-natives" are still native speakers, just of their own form of the language. Take Hebrew: there's simply no argument that Israeli Hebrew is a living, breathing language with millions of speakers, many of whom know no other language (surely an important aspect of whether a language really is one or not?), but at the same time it has a curious relationship to other forms of Hebrew to the extent that people can argue endelessly over whether it is 'really' Hebrew or some sort of Indo-Europeanised creole.

Revived languages will naturally face a situation, if they are lucky, where the number of "neo-natives" outnumber true native speakers. I'll leave it up to this thread to discuss whether that's a good thing or a bad thing - certainly I don't think anyone can complain that SOME form of Manx is being spoken, likewise with Cornish, and, yes, "neo-Irish" or "bad Irish" or "learner's Irish" or whatever one wants to call new urban 'revived' varieties.

Languages change - if Manx speakers want to re-adopt the lost consonant distinctions they could do so, just as English speakers are taught to admire or buckle to a certain type of 'upper class' pronunciation. But surely to do this people need to be learning and speaking Manx? The same goes for Irish - learn it, use it, perfect it! But start at the beginning.

Ideally everyone would speak a dialect that is perfectly continuous with the dialects of Irish as they existed but given that Irish was extirpated from most of the country this is simply an impossibility for most people where they live today. What, then, are learners meant to do to find "authenticity"? I mentioned in another thread that they could the extant native dialect closest to where they live, but what are vast swathes of Leinster or "contested" dialectal areas like Louth or Kilkenny going to do?

We can reconstruct 'extinct' dialects to some degree, but then people would complain still that these would be "neo" dialects that wouldn't be as good as a native speaker's.

There has to be some middle way.

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

I realise now that this thread is just an attempt to create an argument. I'll leave you all to it! I wish there were a way to hide threads on this Daltaí platform.

GGN, thanks for that - I think you make some very good points.

I had to switch from Connacht Irish to Ulster Irish to be understood in the north, and now speak a mixed dialect that is probably truly atrocious to all who hear it.

I completely agree that "perception, effort, openness" are probably the most important issue here - I have unfortunately met many a self-proclaimed Irish speaker whose relationship with the language extends no further than complaining about a learner's pronunciation - literally to the extent of receiving impromptu patronising lectures (in English, naturally) rather than having a conversation in Irish where I might actually learn something.

In my experience with Norwegian (where dialects are EXTREMELY important and rarely toned down) it is important for speakers of different dialects to really make an effort to communicate. With Irish it seems more often the case that people will simply shrug their shoulders if they meet someone who has - God forbid! - a different dialect to their own and then switch the conversation to that ever-present and easy crutch English, thereby not learning a thing or teaching a thing for that matter.

Some people actually seem proud that they don't or won't understand dialects outside their own, learners included. Which seems to defeat the purpose of a language revival in my opinion but there you go.

I think it's divide-and-rule that any speaker of a Gaelic language would be hostile to a speaker of any other Gaelic variety, be that dialect or language.

I think Iomairt Cholmcille do a bit of work in this area in terms of bringing speakers of Irish and Scottish together, and Manx seems increasingly involved too. But I really don't know much about IC at all (apart from that nice map that you use so wonderfully on the Rathlin Gaelic site).

No, Corkirish - if that was a dig at me, I've actually looked on your very impressive site and respect your views on the position of the dialects. I can't argue with anything you wrote.

I think your position is very well thought out and well argued.

quote:

The issue is whether we write to communicate our thoughts on the major issues of the day [the IMF Bail-Out / Wikileaks / Perpetual War / Sin] or supply authentic texts to academics who want to dissect, analyse, describe, compare and move on. They have no desire to raise children through Irish.

This last comment of Taidhgín's is another one of his sideswipes against those of us who have a passion for the phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics etc of the Irish language of native Gaeltacht speakers and wish to discuss such matters on this forum. His "gibberish from God know's where" comment was not remarked upon by anyone else except myself nor to my belief was he censured on this. All of this is becoming most tedious. What is more, Taidhgín creates a false dichotomy; one cannot take an academic interest in the nuts and bolts of the language and have an interest in the language's future. That is patently absurd.

quote:

the online presence? look, the Internet is not a Gaeltacht! The online presence is mainly by poor learners writing dodgy Irish.

David is right. The presence of a few websites is no reliable indicator of the health of the language. And, yes, sadly, most of the people writing blogs and articles on the web have woeful Irish. There are exceptions of course, some of a very high standard indeed.

As for the "dodgy Irish", the notion that one need only have a "cúpla focal" and that you don't really need to make an effort to learn the language properly because someone like Taidhgín will always be waiting in the wings to laud you to the heavens has done, and is doing, considerable damage to the written and spoken Irish. Criticism of the Irish language lobby in the Galltacht is verboten, interdit, vietato, forbidden. The basic idea that learners should actually learn something and roll up their sleeves and do a bit of work is something that is obvious to anyone with an ounce of cop-on, but if you dare to mention that here or elsewhere, expect to be pounced upon immediately by Taidhgín and co.

quote:

We are all familiar with the letters to the Irish Times deploring "bad English" - Who done it / "It was me" versus "It was I" (??) / Going forward etc. How long does it take descriptive grammarians to accept change?

One wonders how many times we have to tell Taidhgín before the penny finally drops. Those who deplore so-called "bad English" in the letters' page of the Irish Times are deploring non-standard usage in English by native English speakers who have committed the "crime" of not speaking Oxbridge English. That sort of thing is nothing more or less than old-fashioned class snobbery.

However it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that this scenario is one and the same with regard to Irish language learners who are native English speakers and whose knowledge of the Irish language and its indigenous phonological system is often very weak. Those who change languages are the native speakers of those languages and they alone. It's a sad day indeed for the Irish language when those holding the whip hand are native speakers of some other language only distantly related to Irish. The vast majority of the learners in Dublin for example wouldn't even come close to speaking Irish at the level at which working class Dubliners speak working class Dublin English! The idea that learners' Irish is no different from non-standard native English is false but is nonetheless trotted out by the usual suspects at every conceivable opportunity.

"With Irish it seems more often the case that people will simply shrug their shoulders if they meet someone who has - God forbid!"

Níl mórán daoine mar sin i ndáirire.

Hi Carmanach. Thanks for giving a newcomer to the forum an update - it is very much appreciated. Believe me, it was not my intent to provoke an argument between any groupings on this messageboard - indeed, I was not aware such divisions existed and I am saddened that they do.

I have no dog in this fight - I'm a learner, a hobby linguist with a professional background in sociology which frequently impinges on sociolinguistics, a person who is interested in how languages function and develop, and someone who has a great love (as I am sure most here do) for Irish in all its variety, vitality and reality.

As my Irish has improved, different aspects have interested me, and I am now far more intrigued by dialects and phonology than I was, say, ten years ago when I thought any Irish was good Irish.

I was attracted here by some of those blogs you mention - notably GGN's on Rathlin Gaelic, which was the first anything I had ever seen on the Rathlin dialect!

I suppose I am caught between two stools because I am interested in both native speaker dialects and the precise features of learner phonology that you mention - that's mainly because I find language revival and reconstruction (yes, you read that right) fascinating, no matter how imperfect and contentious (I have personal experience of Cornish).

I abhor the cúpla focail attitude, and I don't hesitate to say that native speakers and Irish speakers generally have their basic linguistic rights denied at the hands of government policy in both the north and the south - it saddened me greatly to see a native speaker like Pearse Doherty having to give his opening speech in the Dail mainly in English, just as it saddens me to hear politicians still paying lip service to Irish in the cúpla focail whilst actively obstructing the language in both the Gaeltacht and the Galltacht. I think there is a strong anti-Irish animus in the twenty six counties that is drunk on its own supremacy, even though most people are still very favourable to and fond of Irish.

I can assure you that I think most learners begin with the determination to learn Irish properly - just like you do with Norwegian or any other language. Obviously to get to 'near native' level one has to pass through many stages - no English speaker who learns Irish will have perfect pronunciation or grammar immediately, but hopefully most will work at it dilligently. My Norwegian is good but I still sound like, well, an Irish person speaking Norwegian, which is of course what I am.

There should be no compromise in terms of native speaker level being the model to which all learners should aspire, but at the same time I don't think it's fair or accurate in characterising learners as content with a cúpla focail and no real effort. Corkirish is a good example, from what I can tell, of a learner who undertakes every aspect of the process extremely dilligently, and I imagine there are many other such examples on this forum.

I don't know who's who on here and who stands for what and I don't care - it's a discussion forum for a language we hopefully all love and that is where I hope we all stand. If not, well, I for one don't intend to take sides. Best wishes to all!

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

GGN

Then I've just had bad experiences, which is actually a relief as I have met some truly ignorant people in this regard (perhaps I more tolerant and will try and engage with them when others will simply turn and walk away).

Haters of Irish often try to make out that they can speak the language but for some reason in the conversation they have elected not to deign to speak it with me, either because of dialect, my pronunciation, what they had for dinner that evening etc etc.

They're a tiny minority of all people I have conversed with about or in Irish, no doubt, but a vocal one.

GRMA,

I have a few other blogs you might be interested in - I am only really started on my wee project.

http://tyronegaeltacht.blogspot.com/

For example - lots of work needed - and it shares some material with the Rathlin one.

I post here occasionally to see if I can help learners and to highlight my own work - don't really bother with many of the debates.

But I have to say, that as someone who lives in a Gaeltacht and is very interest in dialects that I disagree with a lot of what is said here - there is a great variety of views.

For example, I agree strongly with the idea of an official standard because of my affection for a variety of dialects.

This would horrify many people, just pointing out that other views exist even if they dont always volunteer themselves.

I have done some work of the attitude of learners towards Irish phonology, I may publish it or post it sometime.

Ach ar scor ar bith, cad é an chúis leis an Béarla seo?

Dá mba rud é gur scríobh daoine i nGaeilge nach dtiocfadh leis na foghlaimeoirí Google translate a úsáid!!??

quote:

For example, there are reports of Manx men and Cork men conversing without trouble.

I'd be glad to know what they were talking about, because there are really many differences, even in basic words.

quote:

I have heard a native of Cork city who spoke a Múscraí type of Irish speaking Gaelic to a native of Skye with little trouble.

there too, I'd like to know what they were talking about. Scottish Gaelic has many words that aren't used in Irish (or not used any more)...

quote:

However I have been assured by natives of Ceathrú Thaidhg that there understood nothing of Gaoth Dobhair Irish.

Once, in a 2-weeks cours in the Donegal Gaeltacht, we had a teacher who was from Mayo, we would understand everything he said and he would understand everything we said as well as what the local people said.

quote:

yes, and I have been assured by one lady in Coolea that she can't understand Ulster Irish...

and I had a teacher of Irish who was from Coolea and he would understand everything I said (and vice-versa) - and you know I speak Ulster Irish. I had a teacher from Corca Dhuibhne as well, same thing.

quote:

"Neo-natives" are still native speakers, just of their own form of the language.

their own faulty form of the language :-) (except for those who are neo-native speakers and who speak properly, because there are).

quote:

Take Hebrew: there's simply no argument that Israeli Hebrew is a living, breathing language with millions of speakers, many of whom know no other language (surely an important aspect of whether a language really is one or not?), but at the same time it has a curious relationship to other forms of Hebrew to the extent that people can argue endelessly over whether it is 'really' Hebrew or some sort of Indo-Europeanised creole.

Modern Hebrew is not the same language as Biblical Hebrew, everybody knows that...

quote:

Ideally everyone would speak a dialect that is perfectly continuous with the dialects of Irish as they existed but given that Irish was extirpated from most of the country this is simply an impossibility for most people where they live today.

Many things can be learnt from Skype chat, online tv, recordings and books.


************

quote:

I had to switch from Connacht Irish to Ulster Irish to be understood in the north,

Last summer I went to Gaoth Dobhair with a friend who had Connemara Irish. He would speak Connemara Irish and had no problem...

*************

quote:

The basic idea that learners should actually learn something and roll up their sleeves and do a bit of work is something that is obvious to anyone with an ounce of cop-on, but if you dare to mention that here or elsewhere, expect to be pounced upon immediately by Taidhgín and co.

True.

quote:

Those who change languages are the native speakers of those languages and they alone.

Yes! There's no language on earth that would evolve from the speak of learners instead of that of native speakers.
Just imagine learners of English would tell you that you are wrong to say this and that and tell you that you should say some (wrong) thing instead. Nonsense.

Another fantastic link, GGN - go raibh céad míle maith agatsa! For me, the dialects of Rathlin, Tyrone, Airghialla etc are an exciting hidden history which has been ignored or under-researched for too long. They help to illuminate the full story of Irish outside of the tired old debates.

It's good to have a wide variety of views but it's even better when everyone assumes good faith toward one another.

In Norway there is a (variable) standard - actually, there's two - but the dialects are EXTREMELY strong and often seen in writing. There's no reason why the dialects can't be more widely published in Irish too, just like there are various varieties of English (US, British, Australia etc). Like I said in another thread, Donegal Irish holds sway in the north.

I'd love to read anything you might have on learners and phonology, so do please publish it or post it.

The reason for English is twofold: 1) I am embarrassed over my intermediate level Irish; 2) it would take too much time to compose a post in Irish and I wouldn't get my point across. Shades of what happens in real life I suppose... Tá sé níos fearr a scriobh an chuid Gaeilge atá agam, tá a fhios agamsa...

I know the rule is practice makes perfect, but in my case that works with hypocrisy too.

"I'd be glad to know what they were talking about, because there are really many differences, even in basic words."

Níl a fhios agam, ach i mo thaithí féin bíonn doimhneacht ag cainteoirí dúchais maith a sharaíonn go furasta difríochta canúna - b'fhéidir liom tagairt a chur ar fáil.

"there too, I'd like to know what they were talking about. Scottish Gaelic has many words that aren't used in Irish (or not used any more)... "

Buachaillí is dócha, arís cainteoirí fíormhaithe a bhí iontu dís.

"Once, in a 2-weeks cours in the Donegal Gaeltacht, we had a teacher who was from Mayo, we would understand everything he said and he would understand everything we said as well as what the local people said."

Níl mé ach ag tuairisciú - shíl mise go raibh an bheirt a dúirt é liomsa falsa go díreach.

Hi Lughaidh!

Many things can be learnt via Skype and the resources you mention, but not the dialects of places like Longford, Westmeath, Meath, Laois etc. that were either not recorded properly or not recorded at all. My initial post on here concerned the dialect of what is now Leinster - what dialect would you have people in, say, Wicklow learn? Ideally we could via conjecture reconstruct these dialects and then people could learn 'their own' rather than some pass-me-on like people in Derry and Belfast do with Donegal Irish (which, I hasten to add, is a decent idea that I am not at all against, having learnt Donegal Irish myself!).

One of the things I am most interested in (thanks to GGN's blogs mainly but also due to other posts on here and to newer books like the recent one on the Irish of Omeath), is the revival of 'extinct' dialects. I think it's a wonderful idea on so many levels from the socio-cultural through to the linguistic.

PS: When speaking Irish English, I get 'corrected' all the time by younger Norwegians who now universally learn US English, so while it may be nonsensical and even arrogant of a learner to challenge a native speaker there are plenty of ones who will chance their arm. When they ask me a question about grammar or lexical choice in English, I tell them, and then they say, "No way, I learnt something different - I think you're wrong" and walk away none the wiser than when they asked you in the first place... but there you go.

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

An-shuim agam i gcaighdeán na hIorua. Caithfidh mé rud beag taighde a dhéanamh air.

I bhfírinne, nuair a bhí mise iontach óg, bhí mise dubh i gcoinne gach caighdeánú.

Ansin, rinne mé rud beag staidéar (ní saineolaí mé ar an ábhar) agus thuig mé nach raibh mórán fadhb ann.

Is é an fhadhb is mó is dócha ná gur baineadh úsáid as an caighdeán i bhfad níos forleathana ná mar a bhí daoine ag súil leis, ba do dhlíthe agus mar sin de amháin a bhí sé ag an tús agus leathanaigh sé go mór mór.

Ar léigh tú an t-ábhar a d'fhoilsigh Gabrielle Maguire?

GRMA,

Tá mé ag obair ar leabhar ar Ghaeilge Oirialla le breis is deich mbliana.

Tá dóchas agam go mbeidh sé amuigh an bhliain seo chugainn.

Níor mhaith liom níos mó ná sin a rá fá sin faoi láthair ach tá neart daoine ag obair sa gort sin.

Ná bí buartha fá sin.

GGN

That is good to hear - forensic dialectology seems to be thriving in Irish, and that can only be a good thing for the living dialects too in terms of raising their prestige relative to this 'standard' I keep hearing about. I look forward to next year.

The two standards in Norwegian present absolutely no comprehension problems - I can write both easily, but most learners tend to adopt bokmål because most people who move to Norway live in the east of the country where nynorsk has little to no presence.

There are still a lot of heated debates (by Norwegian standards) about the relative roles of nynorsk and bokmål in the two language areas (the west of Norway is universally nynorsk, the east is bokmål and there is 'neutral' transition zone that is about 65/35 bokmål), various endings in bokmål, etc.

There is little to no debate about the corrosive effect of English on both Norwegian standards and the dialects, as Norwegians are hopelessly in love with English as the language of "cool".

Most teenagers tend to text and write on the internet in dialect only (or an approximation of it for effect), and code-switching between English and Norwegian dialect is worryingly widespread, but it seems more and more to be considered childish or attention-seeking and seems to be beginning to be frowned upon.

Norwegian is still on the march in Sami-speaking areas, but Norwegian itself is secure even in urban areas that are predominantly composed of recent migrants to Norway. In fact, the dialect of these areas is considered 'socially prestigious' and 'street' amongst teenagers, and these new sociolects do not exhibit code-switching with English as much as non-migrant sociolects do.

The only work by Maguire that I have read is 'Our Own Language' - could you direct me to some more of her work, preferably online and available in pdf?

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

GGN,

Do you live in Donegal?

quote:

what dialect would you have people in, say, Wicklow learn?

Well, if I were from there I guess I'd try to find how the dialect was like. And if it's too difficult, I'd learn the closest one (geographically), I guess Ring's Irish (?).

quote:

is the revival of 'extinct' dialects. I think it's a wonderful idea on so many levels from the socio-cultural through to the linguistic.

Aye, it's very nice and interesting. However I think I would feel frustrated because I know it's not possible to get a comprehensive knowledge of the dialect, since it has no native speaker left. If you want to speak it, you need to borrow stuff from other dialects to fill the gaps...

quote:

I tell them, and then they say, "No way, I learnt something different - I think you're wrong" and walk away none the wiser than when they asked you in the first place... but there you go.

If that happened to me I'd send them packing... or ask them something in Norwegian and tell them "no way, that's not what I was taught" :-)

Yes, Lughaidh, I think reconstruction of any 'lost' dialect would be as frustrating and tantalisingly inaccurate a task as it would be rewarding. There's a lot of scope for error and wrong-headedness.

If we are going to teach dialects because they represent local variation then it just seems intuitively wrong and a defeat of the purpose of the effort to install a dialect of best fit from a completely different regional area - I presume Wicklow would have used the lost Leinster dialect, and whilst the Leinster dialect was reportedly quite influenced by Munster forms, there's some linguistic distance between them.

Likewise, whilst it would be fair to argue that Derry city should use Donegal Irish because the Irish of the Derry area probably was very like that of Donegal (or perhaps transitional to that recorded from Tyrone in the twentieth century), what would we recommend for use in Belfast, where four dialect areas met? Dublin, too, would be an utter headache.

Using other dialects to fill the gaps is ideal if those dialects are reasonably nearby, but for areas like East Leinster and East Ulster the approach would be a maddening challenge, not to mention too complex for people who like dialects to match county and provincial boundaries (even if such boundaries are essentially arbitrary).

And where do we draw the line? It's clear from Wagner that subdialects could vary quite radically in pronunciation, grammar and lexicon - from the few maps I can remember clearly (I don't have the book, so I stand open to correction), Fanad was quite different from its neighbours, for example. So do we teach the subdialects to accurately reflect local variation? Or do we teach broader dialect areas for the simplicity of it? There's a lot of (too many) options if we take this route and not a lot of guidance... pretty soon you end up at townland level...

As for Norwegian, I will take your advice. :)

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

quote:

Well, if I were from there I guess I'd try to find how the dialect was like. And if it's too difficult, I'd learn the closest one (geographically), I guess Ring's Irish (?).

No. The Irish of mid and south Leinster (apart from Kilkenny which is considered an East Munster dialect) is generally considered to be closer to that of Connachta than the other two. Nicholas Williams claims that Connnachta and Leinster shared a sort of "superdialect" which he calls Gaeilge Ghaileónach.

quote:

Aye, it's very nice and interesting. However I think I would feel frustrated because I know it's not possible to get a comprehensive knowledge of the dialect, since it has no native speaker left. If you want to speak it, you need to borrow stuff from other dialects to fill the gaps...

I think it would be virtually impossible to revive fully an extinct dialect, let alone an extinct language. The language of learners can never replace that of native speakers. There would be many many gaps in any revived language just as there are in the sort of Irish spoken in Dublin for example.

quote:

If that happened to me I'd send them packing... or ask them something in Norwegian and tell them "no way, that's not what I was taught" :-)

I say again, the notion that native speakers of any language are incapable of speaking their own language properly is a pernicious fiction. Language of course cannot be divorced from human predjudices and so we see time and again how certain individuals try to bring their own class politics and other baggage with them when speaking of standard forms vs dialect etc. Language is all too often used as a political weapon with which to bash others on the head.

Carmanach, you raise an interesting moral dilemma for at least one Celtic language when you say, "I think it would be virtually impossible to revive fully an extinct dialect, let alone an extinct language. The language of learners can never replace that of native speakers. There would be many many gaps in any revived language just as there are in the sort of Irish spoken in Dublin for example."

What is your view of revived Cornish - or, if you prefer, the reconstructed Cornishes? Would you rather that Cornish be left as a footnote in history simply so that it could remain preserved in a pock-marked but otherwise pristine condition? The last 'native speakers' of Cornish were hardly that - they showed a unusually imperfect knowledge of the language (as, I believe, was also the case with Manx), e.g., with the mutational system breaking down for example.

There are now 'neo-native' speakers of Cornish (and Manx, and Irish, and Breton) in areas that haven't been Celtic speaking for centuries. Yes, they speak 'new dialects' that are in many respects created out of whole cloth. But would you seriously rather that these new speakers did not exist at all?

I think that's a harsh interpretation...

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

quote:

What is your view of revived Cornish - or, if you prefer, the reconstructed Cornishes? Would you rather that Cornish be left as a footnote in history simply so that it could remain preserved in a pock-marked but otherwise pristine condition? The last 'native speakers' of Cornish were hardly that - they showed massively imperfect knowledge of the language (as, I believe, was also the case with Manx).

Yes, of course, that happens with all dying languages; the last handful of speakers end up having no one else to speak to, let alone being able to use their language as part of a native speaker community.

I think if people wish to learn any language, Irish, Cornish, Manx, whatever, that is to be praised and encouraged. However there is simply no getting away from the fact that any language spoken by learners will be by its very nature a compromised and incomplete form of the original native spoken language. It could not be otherwise! The revived language will lack the depth of expression, the vocabulary, the various nuances pertaining to words that only native speakers can come up with. I'm a student of Irish, particulary that of Munster and Corca Dhuibhne especially and I'm constantly amazed at the sheer extent of the native spoken language in its capacity to explain practically every minute facet of the world around it. My head aches just to think of it! I often discuss the Irish of Pádraig Ua Maoileoin with a colleague of mine, and it is a deeply humbling experience. I feel very lucky to have the opportunity to study such language. However, I know that learning Irish is a long long road and that I will still be learning something new when I'm an old man.

As for Cornish, I suspect that much of the pronunciation of today is based on guesswork and as is the case with learners of Irish, English language phonology is used instead of an indigenous Cornish one. I believe the phonoligical system of any language is every bit as much a part of the language and gives it its essence as its vocabulary or syntax. Most learners of Irish cannot pronounce Irish words according to the language's own phonology and others, pushing their own agenda, are brazenly contemptuous of the native spoken language, or "gibberish from God know's where" as one individual here labels it.

Another point about revived languages, the native spoken language has an energy and a sheer craftiness and an imagination and a colour that learners will always struggle to understand completely. As a learner you are constantly trying to grasp something that is always two steps ahead of you.

Carmanach

You write, "Yes, of course, that happens with all dying languages; the last handful of speakers end up having no one else to speak to, let alone being able to use their language as part of a native speaker community."

In the case of Cornish and Manx, it was worse than that. I am no expert (just a hobby linguist with a link to the former), but I think in both cases the last so-called 'native' speakers were 'native' in a second hand sense - they were able to act as messengers to pass on an imperfect form of the language to antiquarians and linguists, but they had never really been active users in the sense a true native speaker is - they had been spoken to by people who were. About five people are claimed as the last native speaker of Cornish, and all we know for certain is that Dolly Pentreath was not it! Native speaking Cornish bilinguals could be found well into the nineteenth century if this criterion is used.

In the Wikipedia article on Ned Madrell - which of course being Wikipedia cannot be relied upon - makes the curious statement that he kept his Manx 'alive' by chatting with "Gaelic-speaking" sailors. Imagine the last native speaker of English trying to keep the language 'alive' only by chatting intermittently with Frisian fishermen and you can see the problems in this uncritical assertion. (Please don't anyone interpret this as me insulting or impugning Ned Madrell - I would never wish to do that! - I am simply pointing out that there are various categories of 'native speaker' and 'native speaking'.)

I completely agree with your insistence that we see native speakers as the foundation on which the language is built (or re-built, if you like), but you're playing a bit of a game: it's well known that native speakers in all Gaeltact areas in Ireland and Scotland use English loanwords - 'tha mi ag watchigeadh a' telly' in Leodhais is a nice example - so if we are to uncritically plan the language around them are we to adopt these loanwords and ubiquitous phrases like "so" and "you know" "fair play duit" in what is 'proper Irish'? Native speakers do not exist in isolation any more than neo-natives or learners do.

I don't want you to think I'm being facetious, but I'm simply stating that not everything in the sociolinguistics of Irish and the other Celtic languages or their ongoing language planning is as simplistic or as straightforward as you make out.

"Guesswork" is a bit harsh when it comes to your description of Cornish, considering you and others are happy to quote Nicholas Williams when it comes to Stair na Gaeilge - his and other scholars' work on Cornish and its reconstruction is just as rigorous as it is for Irish and its history.

As to the phonology of Cornish, well, it depends which form you cleave to. But to use a phrase that's been bandied at me a bit without hesitation, it is simply "not true" to say "English phonology is used instead of an indigenous Cornish one" - English doesn't generally use a velar fricative (Cornish did and does) or a voiceless lateral fricative (Cornish did and does). There are other examples, including in the vowels, but I'm trying to be brief. You can't simply pronounce Cornish as if it's English, you know.

If you're suggesting that a 'real' language dies with its last native speakers, then you're condemning a lot of languages and a lot of people to an 'unreal' status.

I do take your point and what you're trying to get at, but I think a bit more flexibility would be fairer.

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

(Message edited by grma on December 16, 2010)

Carmanach

"Another point about revived languages, the native spoken language has an energy and a sheer craftiness and an imagination and a colour that learners will always struggle to understand completely. As a learner you are constantly trying to grasp something that is always two steps ahead of you."

A good point well made, but you're risking implying that every native speaker is, by her or his very nature, an unbridled poet. And that a learner, by her or his very nature, cannot be. That's unfair to both.

Most native speakers and learners use language in utterly mundane rather than starry-eyed ways - they use it to comment on the (English language) television, on their (English language) brands down the Coop. They're not endlessly writing poetry in an unbroken bardic tradition! (Thought it would be nice.)

I don't imagine there is really much difference in the way an advanced learner (who has mastered phonology) and a native speaker say "the cat sat on the mat".

By the way, in no way am I denigrating native speakers or learners - I have already said that native speakers are absolutely the model to which all learners should aspire. But I think we need to be careful not to treat native speakers like museum artefacts - that can actually turn them against Irish!

quote:

I abhor the cúpla focail attitude, and I don't hesitate to say that native speakers and Irish speakers generally have their basic linguistic rights denied at the hands of government policy in both the north and the south - it saddened me greatly to see a native speaker like Pearse Doherty having to give his opening speech in the Dail mainly in English, just as it saddens me to hear politicians still paying lip service to Irish in the cúpla focail whilst actively obstructing the language in both the Gaeltacht and the Galltacht. I think there is a strong anti-Irish animus in the twenty six counties that is drunk on its own supremacy, even though most people are still very favourable to and fond of Irish.

Pearse Doherty didn't have to give his opening speech in Irish! He chose to do so! The Translation Section of the Houses of the Oireachtas provides a full interpretation service through all sittings of either the Dáil or Seanad.

quote:

There should be no compromise in terms of native speaker level being the model to which all learners should aspire, but at the same time I don't think it's fair or accurate in characterising learners as content with a cúpla focail and no real effort.

I don't say that all learners can be categorised as such but a good many of them can be. The fact is that there are more than a few learners who wear their woeful command of the language as a veritable badge of honour; "I'm not from the Gaeltacht! Why should I have to speak like them?!" It's like me refusing to speak Italian like someone from Rome or Milan or Florence because "I'm not from there". "I'm going to speak me Wexford Italian with me Wexford accent and me Wexford pronunciation: Doh vay laa statseeohnay seenyohray?" There are other individuals I know who think that because Hectoh' or Monnakawn and others who have done quite well for themselves in the Irish language sector though incapble of forming a coherent sentence in Irish without a great deal of effort, then that means that you don't really need to learn Irish properly to get ahead. "Hey, if they can speak like that, why can't I??".

(Message edited by carmanach on December 16, 2010)

(Message edited by carmanach on December 16, 2010)

quote:

A good point well made, but you're risking implying that every native speaker is, by her or his very nature, an unbridled poet. And that a learner, by her or his very nature, cannot be. That's unfair to both.

That's not quite what I said. I'm speaking of the everyday language and how one speaks about the mundane and the ordinary. There's no escaping the fact that the native speaker has a capacity to describe the world around him or her much more fully than the typical Irish learner. I say the "typical" Irish learner as there are always exceptions, individuals who have really put the work in and who approach a level nearing that of good native speakers. They are, sadly, a tiny minority of learners. But that goes for all languages.

The Gaeltacht itself is under enormous pressure and I reckon we're probably in the last century of Irish surviving as a native spoken community language. There probably will still be a handful of native speakers left in the early decades of the 22nd century but they will be like those last Manx speakers you refer to.

I don't hold much with nostalgia personally. You will hear people claim that the English of their youth was better than that of the youth today, which is patently absurd. However, English is not in the precarious position that Irish is and I think it is true to say that the Irish of the past was on the whole - taking the native speaker community as a whole - superior to that of today. When I say, superior, I mean less ravaged by English phonology, syntax, etc. English does not have the problem; it doesn't have some other language hanging over its head like a knife.

quote:

Most native speakers and learners use language in utterly mundane rather than starry-eyed ways - they use it to comment on the (English language) television, on their (English language) brands down the Coop. They're not endlessly writing poetry in an unbroken bardic tradition! (Thought it would be nice.)

Again, that's not quite what I was getting at. I've no problem with random English loanwords such as "microwave", "babysitter", "shower", etc. Italian is full of such loanwords, and it's a thriving language with millions of native speakers. The problem is that English is wreaking havoc with the syntax and semantics of Irish, and that is the real problem. I'm not claiming that the everyday language of native speakers is akin to "bardic poetry" but it does have a confidence and richness that most learners lack.

quote:

I don't imagine there is really much difference in the way an advanced learner (who has mastered phonology) and a native speaker say "the cat sat on the mat".

Agreed, but they are a tiny minority of all learners.

quote:

By the way, in no way am I denigrating native speakers or learners - I have already said that native speakers are absolutely the model to which all learners should aspire. But I think we need to be careful not to treat native speakers like museum artefacts - that can actually turn them against Irish!

Yes, and contrary to the opinions of some, the Irish of the strongest Gaeltacht areas is constantly changing and evolving just as any native spoken language does. Two examples: the gradual loss of the genitive which has been ongoing for at least two centuries if not more, and the rationalisation of verbal particles in Corca Dhuibhne; "ar chuais?", "ar bhainis?" is now "an gcuais?", "an mbainis?" using the same particle as the other tenses and moods. None of that stuff came out of a grammar book!

Thanks for a fascinating discussion and some excellent points, Carmanach.

Please don't think I was criticising Pearse Doherty - far from it, believe me! - rather I was saying that it was indicative of the way Irish public life operates that a native speaker like him who clearly wished to give his speech in Irish felt a pressure to switch to English despite the translation facilities that everyone knows is available. The reason obviously being that RTE etc would not broadcast excerpts from his speech were it entirely in Irish. So my point was a criticism of the way in which public life is conducted de facto in English, and that native speakers and learners are under great pressure to adapt to that.

(Look at the Donegal by-election debates - there was the bizarre situation of Doherty and Ó Domhnaill - native speakers both - using only English on television. Now, fair enough, you can say that Donegal SW is a constituency that is both Gaeltacht and Galltacht, and that Frontline is an English-language programme, but still, it's pretty obvious to anyone that use of Irish would not have been considered appropriate by the host, and that if Doherty for example had spoken Irish then the English language media would have gone to town on him as using Irish in a divisive fashion which would have done his electoral chances more harm than good. So there's a clear bind there for native speakers, despite all this lunacy from the anti-Irish brigade about the twenty six counties being some sort paradise for Irish where English is excluded or denigrated.)

In terms of the standards learners should aspire to, well, there is a bitter irony here. Because of the realtively low number of native speakers of Irish, there is more pressure on learners to copy the way they speak, so as to protect (rightly) the integrity of the language as a whole. There simply isn't that pressure if you learn Italian or Norwegian - I can and have heard lots of interesting accents in learner's Norwegian, and my own is certainly nowhere near native speaker standard even though I speak Norwegian all the time. People do speak Italian with, say, a Wexford accent, or Norwegian with, say, a Derry accent, and generally I think Italians and Norwegians would just be happy that they had bothered to learn the language rather than relying on English.

I don't agree with your criticism of Hector Ó hEochagáin or anyone else who is trying to raise the profile of Irish for that matter. I think it's just harsh - and no, I am no fan of the man personally (personally his code-switching irritates me to the point that I can't watch him, and in many senses it reifies Irish English rather than Irish per se), but I think that harshness toward learners or 'non-native' standards of Irish is profoundly counter-productive. It would be wiser to familiarise learners with native phonology, syntax etc, and to get them to learn Irish to the highest standard possible (at present many learners will never have heard a native speaker), rather than be stand-offish or harsh about it, wherein you risk appearing elitist. As it stands, in my experience about 60-80 per cent of adults who begin an Irish class drop away from it before it's finished, and only a tiny proportion who start at beginner level end up reaching full fluency (let alone near native) level. Surely that's an important issue for you too?

(Message edited by grma on December 17, 2010)

quote:

(at present many learners will never have heard a native speaker),

how is that possible... what you need is just to turn the radio on and listen to RnaG... (or watch TG4 on tv, although not everybody speaks native Irish there)...

Many of them don't listen to RnaG or watch TG4. Many learners don't expose themselves to Irish outside of the class, except in the written form of their homework. So unbelievably enough there would be plenty (not a majority, but plenty) of learners who don't hear native speakers on a regular or even very intermittent basis. Also a lot of people who attend adult classes simply don't have a lot of time to sit and watch TG4 or RnaG, particularly if they have a full-time job and a family - if they're going to learn Irish, the hour in the class and perhaps half an hour for homework is all the time they can allot to it.

(Message edited by grma on December 17, 2010)

quote:

Many of them don't listen to RnaG or watch TG4. Many learners don't expose themselves to Irish outside of the class, except in the written form of their homework.

These will never be able to speak fluently anyway...

quote:

Also a lot of people who attend adult classes simply don't have a lot of time to sit and watch TG4 or RnaG, particularly if they have a full-time job and a family - if they're going to learn Irish, the hour in the class and perhaps half an hour for homework is all the time they can allot to it.

Five minutes during the weekend would be better than nothing...

Did Doherty and Ó Domhnaill ever debate on RnaG or TG4?

Are both native speakers or do people just assume they are because they have solid Irish and come from the Gaeltacht? Doherty for example was born in Scotland and I have heard that he was raised in an English speaking household, but was educated in Irish once his family moved back to Donegal. Just what I've heard...

Obviously there is a question of desire and how the parents, state, and communities are prompting this desire if there isn't self-motivation. There is the battleground in my view. As for myself, I have a borderline obsession with Irish . The only thing that's going to stop me is the grave. I'm of the view that very few Irish people have an excuse. The field is just too fertile for people to say that if they plant seed it won't grow. So we need to cultivate a view on what that field is like when it is ready for harvest. What is the good of the effort to sow it (because it is already prepared). And what the product of it does for the Irish people as a whole, the "nourishment" and joy that comes at that table. Obviously there is a question of desire and motivation. You can't stop someone once they have an eye on it. There are enough success stories to show this is the proven path. And it is isn't expensive either!

Lughaidh

It was sloppy exaggeration of me to write in passing that "many" learners "never hear native speakers" - thinking about it, I can see that statement is patently absurd. In every class there would obviously be cassettes of native speakers reading texts played, or videos of native speakers talking watched. And thankfully I'm sure RTE, TG4 and RnaG online are more widely utilised than when I began learning Irish.

What I meant to get across was that most learners are not encouraged to perfect their pronunciation, or to prioritise the copying of native speakers, and many learners are more preoccupied with learning the language in a rough rather than perfectionist fashion, a line of best fit if you like - that's the same with learners of every language, I think. I'm not defending that approach, promoting it or saying that I think it should be lauded. But most learners will do what they think is good enough.

There are different types of learner, too, who learn for different reasons and who are willing to put in different levels of effort. While there are always those who wish to attain a 100 per cent fluency in Irish to the extent that they can pass as a native speaker, the reality is, at least in my experience, that most learners sign on with substantially less ambitious aims in phonology and grammar and even in terms of the fluency they expect to attain.

I don't know many learners who take the time to 'perfect' their pronunciation to native or near-native level - they're content with transferring their English phonology to the Irish they speak with minimal modification. I don't believe most learners think too much about it either way, to be honest.

I don't think it's so much an issue of effort as understanding what it takes to learn a language - most learners of Irish aren't linguists, and if they can 'get by' in some way then that's good enough for them.

It may not be good enough in terms of the issues we discuss here, but there's no denying that's the way it is.

Danny2007

About 15 per cent of the population of the Donegal Gaeltacht was born in the west of Scotland - many native Irish speakers there have been born in Glasgow (just like many in the Gaeltachtaí in Cork, Kerry, Galway, Mayo and Waterford have been born in England and the US). It's neither unusual nor a big deal and shouldn't be used in evaluating whether someone is a 'true' native speaker or not.

I don't know if Doherty is a native speaker or not. I presumed he was. Certainly his birthplace shouldn't go against him.

SeanW

I agree but I don't think the vast majority of learners are as passionate about stuff like phonology as we on this messageboard are. They're just out to try their best and what that 'best' is depends on the individual involved - same with learners of every language.

It also depends, I think, on what sort of teacher(s) you get. Some might emphasise phonology whereas others might be content to let that fall by the wayside so long as the students give it a decent stab.

It suppose it depends on where the class is too - if you've just set up a class in an area where there wasn't one before, or say in the diaspora, and only six people turn up, you're not going to want to alienate them. And people DO be alienated if you insist that if they don't pronounce IDENTICALLY to someone born and raised in e.g., Gort a' Choirce then their Irish is risible.

(and hundreds of thousands of Irish speakers like me keep the language going despite being "poor learners with dodgy Irish". I think we're doing well. We deserve support and approval rather than criticism.)

Very well said !!! And I, for one, support you and others like you who refuse to let their language die out.
And for all the help you give those, like myself, who are trying to learn the language.
So..maith thú!!
Kindest regards,
Deb