looking at my copy of McCionnaith's dictionary, it is entitled Foclóir Béarla 7 Gaedhilge, and Dinneen's dictionary was called Foclóir Gaedhilge 7 Béarla.

It is important to notice these little things. Neither man called his dictonary Foclóir Béarla-Gaedhilge, or Foclóir Béarla-Gaedhilg. It seems that English-Irish, while an acceptable adjective in English is not an acceptable way of phrasing things in Irish, and so we get the remarkable phrasing "dictionary of English and Irish".

There must have been a reason why they chose that terminology. So I regard "Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla" (as in the 1977 dictionary of Niall Ó Dónaill) as a sort of Béarlachas - a sort of Irish title that would never have been chosen in the days when the monoglots were around.

These little things are the things that make Irish worthwhile!

(Message edited by corkirish on January 19, 2011)

quote:

There must have been a reason why they chose that terminology. So I regard "Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla" (as in the 1977 dictionary of Niall Ó Dónaill) as a sort of Béarlachas - a sort of Irish title that would never have been chosen in the days when the monoglots were around.

How do you know? Maybe there are two ways to say that. It may be correct to say "Gaeilg-Béarla" too, since it is said in many languages of the world. When you have two similar things in Irish and English it doesn't mean the Irish thing is always an Anglicism...

>>How do you know?
--------------------

I don't. That's why I was hoping to generate insight on this. But I read things into the way things are said - and it is possible I read too much in. But I think hyphenated "words" like English-Irish are part of modern academic terminology that is essentially foreign to traditional Irish.

You could say that academic Irish if it was to develop had to become like English. It is possibly true that jargon and academic terminology in all languages feels a little artificial, but Dinneen and McKenna both came up with the X agus Y construction, instead of X-Y - it seems likely that the form they used would have been acceptable in traditional Irish.

It is worth noting, as in English "dictionary of English and Irish" would sound like some kind of bizarre dictionary with monolingual English entries and monolingual Irish entries, rather than a dictionary with English entries only, giving the Irish translations.

Well, actually I own a copy of T. O'Neill Lane's dictionary, published 1904 I guess, in the cló Gaelach and in the old spelling etc (and it stinks of rat's piss...). Looks like it's the edition just before this : http://www.archive.org/details/largerenglishiri00onei

And the title is:

Larger English-Irish dictionary
(Foclóir Béarla-Gaedhilge)
by
T. O'Neill Lane.

Yes, that's interesting. Particularly in the genitive: Béarla-Gaedhilge, with Gaedhilge clearly in the genitive in the old spelling.

With Ó Dónaill's dictionary (I call it NÓD1977), it is not clear whether Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla is meant to be genitive or not - chiefly, because Ó Dónaill was confused over the nominative of Gaelainn, and thought it was Gaeilge, and so I am thinking that Gaeilge-Béarla may just be an adjective for NÓD, not 2 nouns in the genitive, and so it is difficult to parse. Is Gaeilge-Béarla even listed as a word in NÓD1977?

Ó Neill-Lane's version is more clearly a noun in the genitive, as if he believed there was an Irish noun Béarla-Gaelainn (is that noun actually listed in his dictionary?). Anyway, he seems confused - there is no such noun in Irish, which is why PSD1927 came up with Gaedhilge agus Béarla.

I have previously tried to find out about Ó Neill-Lane. It seems he came from Co. Limerick, although I can't find out if he was a native speaker or not. Is there any evidence to hand, Lughaidh?

Anyway, at that time (1904), if the title were wrong, someone would have told him, I think.

quote:

(and it stinks of rat's piss...).

LOL

Maybe that's just an old-fashioned way of describing the inside of a dictionary?
because I remember my grandmother (french) who had a "dictionnaire de Français et d'Anglais" in order to understand her daughter in law. This book was old enough at that time, so it must have been edited at the very beginning of the 20th century. That was the french way of saying French-English dictionary .

Don't forget that the hyphen is carrying an implication of motion or direction. I think, had an arrow been standard on early typewriters, it would have been used instead. We see this same shorthand in other places where motion (or something like motion) is unquestioned ("I took the Cork-Dublin train," "the show will be from 8-10pm," etc).

It is true that if we were to think about it, "Irish and English dictionary" does not adequately imply the relationship the languages have in that book; it does, in a sense, keep the concepts parallel. I think what we mean (at least what I would mean) when writing "Irish-English dictionary" is "Irish TO English [translating] dictionary." That is, after all, what the book is doing…allowing you to start from an Irish word and arrive at generally acceptable English equivalents. Perhaps "Foclóir Gaedhilge go Béarla" would have been a better choice. Perhaps even "Foclóir Gaedhilge le Béarla" would work. Of course, that then opens up discussion about the different world views implied by different uses of equivalent prepositions across languages (is it "Irish to English," "Irish with English," or something else altogether that you feel best expresses the function of the book?)...

Then again, perhaps this is more thought than was given for any of those old dictionaries similarly named than someone less pedantic than myself would have given. Of course, that would make me more of a pedant than several dictionary compilers, which would indicate a serious need for me to put down the books and take up drinking.

quote:

which would indicate a serious need for me to put down the books and take up drinking.

Is féidir léann agus leann a mheascadh gan aon ródheacracht...