djwebb2021 wrote:
If you're talking about a New Testament published in 1602, then that was before the modern dialects were formed as such (and indeed before the flight of the earls). It is not specifically Munster Irish, although some things in Munster Irish today were more widely found in Irish as a whole 400 years ago. Last time I looked at it it seemed that some passages had more Munster-like forms and other passages less. Eg in John 1:15, "an té ar ar labhuir mé" doesn't have the synthetic form labhras. But John 4:26 says: as meisi hé labhrus riotsa. One of the translators of that 1602 text was from Galway (Nehemiah Donnellan), but Uilliam Ó Domhnuill was from Kilkenny. Nicholas Walsh was from Waterford, but was stabbed by a member of his congregration before he could complete his work on the New Testament. John Kearney also played a role, but died before the full NT was complete - it is unclear where he was from. An Tiomna Nuadh is not in any one dialect.
For the record, I was referring to Joynt's 1951
Tiomna Nua, which is very much in Modern Irish. It's a revision of the 1602
Tiomna Nuadha. With that being said, if the earlier version is not dialectal, perhaps this isn't really either. I took a look at the following passage and determined that it must be Munster:
Agus do ghein an rí Dáibhí Solamh ó’n mnaoi do bhí ag Úrias; agus do ghein Solamh Robóam; agus do ghein Robóam Abia... etc.Though, this may just reflect what was in the earlier version. Joynt himself was from Mayo and schooled in Belfast, but seems to have learned Irish after moving to Dublin, so your guess is as good as mine what dialect, if any, this version should be considered.
With that being said, I suppose it may not be relevant if you really are using the 400 year old version as dj suggested.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
