Hello,

personally, I'm saving An tOileánach for when I can read it in the original Irish, but I'd like to get an English version as a Christmas gift for my father.

There are two translations

1. The old one, based on the 1929 original and translated by Robin Flower (http://www.amazon.com/Islandman-Oxford-Paperbacks-Tomas-OCrohan/dp/0192812335/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8) which Myles na gCopaleen himself trashed thusly: "Mr Brooks in his article refers to the translation of An t-Oileánach by the late Robin Flower as being 'a failure'. Alas, Mr Brooks excels in charity, a charge never made at my own door. A greater parcel of bosh and bunk than Flower's Islandman has rarely been imposed on the unsuspecting public. Not only was it a mistranslation but it gives the wholly wrong impression, hiding inside its covers of opulent tweed."
I've also heard this one has certain parts omitted that were considered too racy at the time. On the other hand, Flower knew Ó Criomhthain personally, spent a lot of time on the island and, from what I've heard, he learned much of his Irish from him.

2. The new translation, based on the new Irish edition released in 2002, and unabridged (http://www.amazon.com/Islander-Complete-Unabridged-translation-tOile%C3%A1nach-ebook/dp/B008XZWWG4/ref=cm_rdp_product) which has a lot going for it, but one of the reviews calls the translation into question. Apparently in this version, Tomás says that he had a brother also named Tomás, which is curious. I'm unqualified to speak about the translation quality, but I have the Irish 2002 edition and here (https://wikisource.org/wiki/An_t-Oile%C3%A1nach) is what is ostensibly a copy of the 1929 original. The relevant sentences are as follows

2002: Bhíos mar 'bheadh gearrcach éin acu: Máire Dhónaill, Cáit Dhónaill, Eibhlín Dhónaill agus Nóra Dhónaill, Pádraig Dhónaill agus Tomás Dhónaill.

1929: Bhíos mar bheadh gearrcach éin aca: Máire Dhomhnaill, Cáit Dhomhnaill, Eibhlín Dhomhnaill agus Nóra Dhomhnaill, Pádraig Dhomhnaill agus me féin Tomás Dhomhnaill.

I don't know what happened to the "me féin" between the two editions; that would seem to be vital.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone who's more familiar with the book than I am and who has seen either of these can share their opinions and help me decide on one here. Go raibh maith agaibh!

Sorry you weren't answered in time. Did you get one of them?
I wouldn't know which is better.

Oh yeah, it was no problem at all. I ended up getting the Robin Flower translation because it seemed like a sure thing that my dad would definitely enjoy regardless of any of that controversy, and he did. He actually said it was the best book he'd read in years and he's already starting to re-read it. Given how much he liked it I think I'll pick up the new translation for him just to see what he makes of the differences.

I am still curious about this whole Tomás Dhónaill issue though.

'I was like a nestling to them: Máire ... Cáit ... and (myself) Tomás Dhomhnaill'

I'm taking Tomás Dhomhnaill here to be Tomás Ó Criomhthainn (i.e. the man himself).

The inclusion of 'myself' would imply that Tomás treated himself like a nestling, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If somebody else is saying the line (and we removed the mé féin), it would make more sense; as it implies Tomás and the test of Tomás' family treated him like a nestling.

Who is actually speaking in the the line?

The mé féin looks to me to be a haplographical copyist error, known as a dittograph and it is where the copyist repeats a word from a previous or following line that is not suppose to be there.

Does mé féin occur in the previous or following line?

Given the fact that the exemplar was probably a manuscript (i.e. handwritten), taken down as Tomás was speakig, it would have to been copied out on a type writer at a later date. These haplographs are very common in copying, as the copyist keeps having to draw his eyes back and forth from his copy and the original.

Cian

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice

That is Tomás speaking, as narrator of the book. "Mé féin" doesn't appear again anywhere near that line.

But in the 2002 translation, it is translated as: I had four sisters, each of them putting morsels of food into my mouth as if I were their very own fledgling bird. My sisters were Mary Donal, Kate Donal, Eileen Donal and Nora Donal, and I also had two brothers, Patrick Donal and Tomás Donal.

So the 2002 translation has him stating unequivocally that he has a brother with the same name.

Here's the whole passage if it helps you make sense of it.

"Lá San Tomás, sa mbliain 1856, ’seadh rugadh me.

Is cuimhin liom bheith ar bhrollach mo mháthar. Cheithre bliana bhíos sarar baineadh de dheol me. Is me dríodar an chrúiscín, deire an áil. Sin é an fáth gur fágadh comh fada ar na cíní me.

Do bhíos im’ peata ’na theannta san. Ceathrar driféar agam agus gach nduine aca ag cur a goblaigh féin im’ béal. Bhíos mar bheadh gearrcach éin aca: Máire Dhomhnaill, Cáit Dhomhnaill, Eibhlín Dhomhnaill agus Nóra Dhomhnaill, Pádraig Dhomhnaill agus me féin Tomás Dhomhnaill. Tá Máire fós beo san oileán so, tá beirt eile aca beo i Meirice, tá Pádraig beo.[1] Cailleadh Cáit agus an pinsion ráithe aici. Sin iad an t-ál do bhí againn ann. Do bhíodar san ar fad mór le linn mise bheith im’ bháb insa tslí nárbh’ iongantas dom a bheith im’ peata eatartha. Ní raibh mór-shúil chuige liom san am gur bhuaileas chúcha.""

Ya, that's what it sounds like when féin is used. Did he have a brother of the same name? That would seem very odd?

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice

Yeah, I don't know what his family tree is like or anything but it would be very unusual, and that makes me doubt the quality of this translation, even though it's supposed to be the new gold standard. But it's possible that there's a mistake in the revised Irish version on which the new translation was based.

I think it may be more a mistake of punctuation and paragraph structure, rather than anything else. The sense is clear if you imagine that Tomás is having a conversation with you and if you forget about the text as being a written narrative. Like any natural conversation, someone might deviate from the topic at hand (before suddenly returning to it) or add in quite a lot of additional information; but if you were to write it down it wouldn't flow naturally and the sense would be obscure. I think you have to remember that we are dealing with two different types of mediums here, i.e. written and oral; this book is a written filter through which we are interpreting verbal communication.

You'll notice very quickly if you actually transcribe a conversation between two or three people that it very rarely makes any sense.

The sense which I drew from it was:

Tomás’ large description about his brother and sisters is in fact providing additional information about the ál litter (ál, i.e siblings) and whether or not they were still alive or dead and where they lived: "sin iad an t-ál do bhí againn ann 'that is the litter that we had'.

And not just meant to be about his four sisters, which one may have deduced from reading the previous line: "Ceathrar driféar agam agus gach nduine aca ag cur a goblaigh féin im’ béal. Bhíos mar bheadh gearrcach éin aca" 'I have/ had four sisters and each one of them was putting beakfuls of food in my mouth. I was like a fledgling bird to them' - this is additional information, brought about by the previous memory of describing his eating habits as a young child.

If you try and understand Tomás' thought process further, the order and sense of things becomes clearer (I think):

-He went from being breast fed until he was four.
-He then describes his further humiliation as being the peata 'pet' of the family, i.e. one who everyone looked after.
-Then he naturally thought of his sisters feeding him little mouthfuls (goblaigh > gob 'beak') of food.
-Then we are given the additional information that he was like a fledgling bird (that description was probably inspired by the word gob in the previous line).
-Then he proceeds to give a list of all his siblings (ál), while supplying the additional information of whether or not they are dead or alive and where they currently live.
-He then says that "sin an t-ál do bhí againn" 'that was the litter that we had'; thus bringing an end to the description of his siblings.
-Then he links back to the previous paragraph by reintroducing the word peata 'pet', saying that he wasn't surprised that they treated him like a baby considering that they were all grown up by the time he was born.

Less intrusive edit, using amended punctuation and paragraph structure:

Do bhíos im’ peata ’na theannta san. Ceathrar driféar agam agus gach nduine aca ag cur a goblaigh féin im’ béal (bhíos mar bheadh gearrcach éin aca).

[next parragraph]

Máire Dhomhnaill, Cáit ..., Eibhlín ... agus Nóra ... Pádraig and myself Tomás Dhomnaill -- tá Máire fós beo san oileán so, tá beirt eile aca beo i Meirice, tá Pádraig beo; Cailleadh Cáit agus an pinsion ráithe aici -- sin iad an t-ál do bhí againn ann.

[next parragraphy]

Do bhíodar san ar fad mór le linn mise bheith im’ bháb insa tslí nárbh’ iongantas dom a bheith im’ peata eatartha. Ní raibh mór-shúil chuige liom san am gur bhuaileas chúcha"

If I was editing this text - and going by my interpretation - I would change the order of two lines, due to the fact that their order is one of the main sources for the ambiguity:

"Do bhíos im’ peata ’na theannta san. Ceathrar driféar agam agus gach nduine aca ag cur a [n]goblaigh féin im’ béal. Bhíos mar bheadh gearrcach éin aca.

[Seo] iad an t-ál do bhí againn ann:] Máire Dhomhnaill, Cáit Dhomhnaill, Eibhlín Dhomhnaill agus Nóra Dhomhnaill, Pádraig Dhomhnaill agus me féin Tomás Dhomhnaill. Tá Máire fós beo san oileán so, tá beirt eile aca beo i Meirice, tá Pádraig beo.[1] Cailleadh Cáit agus an pinsion ráithe aici. (

---

Sin iad an t-ál do bhí againn ann).

Do bhíodar san ar fad mór le linn mise bheith im’ bháb insa tslí nárbh’ iongantas dom a bheith im’ peata eatartha. Ní raibh mór-shúil chuige liom san am gur bhuaileas chúcha".

Cian

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice

I agree that punctuation may be the key, added to the fact that it was oral speech being written down. If you put a period after the preceding text, then the next sentence could be understood as a separate thought such as this [implied words in brackets]: "[Yes, we were/there were] Máire Dhomhnaill, Cáit ..., Eibhlín ... agus Nóra ... Pádraig and myself Tomás Dhomnaill."

_________________
I'm not a native (or entirely fluent) speaker, so be sure to wait for confirmations/corrections, especially for tattoos.

Tomás did have two brothers, but the older one was called Seán if I remember correctly and I think he died young. I think An Cionnfhaolach has the right of it.

The 2002 Irish edition prepared by Seán Ó Coileain is undoubtedly better than the 1929 original. The 1973 edition is sort of strange, it's the book rewritten, not as the Caighdeán, but sort of in the modern Corca Dhuibhne dialect.

It's kind of:
1929: Pre-Caighdeán "proper" Irish, I don't know if others are familiar with what this is, you see it in several older books.
1973: Dialectal, but modern dialect.
2002: What Tomás actually wrote and sounded like, which is significantly more difficult to understand than the two above, for reasons I can elaborate on if anybody wishes.

As for translations, Bannister and Sowby's translation is a lot more faithful to the feel of the Irish original (Flower's is a bitt twee), but there were some points where I found their translation odd.

_________________
The dialect I use is Cork Irish.
Ar sgáth a chéile a mhairid na daoine, lag agus láidir, uasal is íseal