It is currently Wed 17 Aug 2022 10:29 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2014 10:03 pm
Posts: 496
Location: SAM
djwebb2021 wrote:
They are not just a few grammarians - as if there were 100s of Irish grammars published in the 19th century. O'Donovan's grammar was the main grammar, indeed the first full grammar of Irish, until the Christian Brothers' Grammar of the 20th century. He doesn't comment specifically on h-, but comments on other similar things. The weakness of the points you are making is that few native speakers of Irish have ever written in a standard way in any period. Few can do so today, and few could do so in the Dinneen period (see a h-aon on p580 of his dictionary), and few could do so in the O'Donovan period or before. But grammarians regarded it as correct to spell h- with a hyphen. Eleanor Knott was not a native speaker of Irish. I don't know if she edited Táin Bó, but if you tell me she did, I would believe it. There is no evidence that Ua Laoghaire approved the galley-proofs of his works before final publication, and plenty that publishers and editors often fiddled with his spelling.



But what does it matter what the grammarians say? We're arguing whether it was 'authentic' or not, and it clearly was as illustrated by the range of native speakers who did use it. If you're arguing that only grammarians can say what is 'authentic' in Irish, then modern grammarians say most synthetic verb forms are not authentic, as I've already said. Therefore they shouldn't be used. We can both see how stupid that argument is. Native speakers used the prefix with both the hyphen and without when writing in the Gaelic Script, so both are as authentic as the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri 08 Jan 2016 11:37 pm
Posts: 203
Quote:
The weakness of the points you are making is that few native speakers of Irish have ever written in a standard way in any period.

Is this weakness of my point (that the two conventions coexisted, both were authentic; and I gave examples of published texts in Irish, written by native speakers, from 17th to 20th century – even if the later ones not always edited or typeset by native speakers), or a weakness of the points you are making? You make some claims about what is authentic and what is not, completely removed from the actual usage (by anyone who’s not an authority according to you). You also disregard the grammars written in 18th century.

Quote:
They are not just a few grammarians - as if there were 100s of Irish grammars published in the 19th century. O'Donovan's grammar was the main grammar, indeed the first full grammar of Irish, until the Christian Brothers' Grammar of the 20th century. He doesn't comment specifically on h-, but comments on other similar things.

Except that they are not “similar things” at all. He comments on compounds of prepositions and possessive pronouns, which has nothing to do with mutations. He also comments on eclipsis (suggesting spelling that wasn’t used much outside of his grammar!). None of those cases deals with a letter that, according to him, an Irish word cannot begin with in its radical form, a letter that shouldn’t really be considered a letter at all – this is very different to eclipsis or t-prefixing, or n-prefixing, or compound forms.

You also make claims about views of authors (like Dinneen) who were not consistent themselves – even if they leaned towards the hyphen (and again… are those views explicitly expressed by them anywhere?).

And, going back, the fact that “few native speakers of Irish have ever written in a standard way” is an argument for multiple conventions being equally authentic. (Even though the spelling, at least of words and mutations, was quite standardized long before modern times; the conventions were changing throughout the centuries – but the manuscripts aren’t written in a completely haphazard manner, they show fairly standardized continued tradition.)

So you are arguing that the only “authentic” thing is some standard that never existed and was adhered to by no one, not even by PUL (did he ever write the likes of i d-tiġ, a ḃ-fuil with a hyphen?). I’m arguing that authentic is whatever can be found in published texts written by native speakers using the script. And that means both a haon and a h-aon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 426
galaxyrocker wrote:
But what does it matter what the grammarians say? We're arguing whether it was 'authentic' or not, and it clearly was as illustrated by the range of native speakers who did use it. If you're arguing that only grammarians can say what is 'authentic' in Irish, then modern grammarians say most synthetic verb forms are not authentic, as I've already said. Therefore they shouldn't be used. We can both see how stupid that argument is. Native speakers used the prefix with both the hyphen and without when writing in the Gaelic Script, so both are as authentic as the other.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. You haven't shown a large range of native speakers used h without a hyphen. Some names have been mentioned, but a small fraction of the natives speakers who lived in 1800-1950. Galaxyrocker you may not realise it, but vast numbers of native speakers were illiterate in this time period and did not use any spelling at all. So standard rules have always been and still in tangential to the language of the Gaeltacht. Once again, in saying that if grammarians don't like synthetic verb forms, they shouldn't be used, you are mixing too things up: the spoken language and the orthography. Most native speakers don't write in Irish and so questions of orthography don't arise. What orthographical rules are recommended by grammarians is a different question as to what actual grammatical forms they recommend. This is because the language exists as a spoken language independent of committees of grammarians and their rules. The relative few who ever wrote the language down had the influence of grammarians at their back, but the spoken language of the ti' táirne never did. Haghaidh does not authentically convey the pre 1950s correct form, h-aghaidh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2014 10:03 pm
Posts: 496
Location: SAM
djwebb2021 wrote:
galaxyrocker wrote:
But what does it matter what the grammarians say? We're arguing whether it was 'authentic' or not, and it clearly was as illustrated by the range of native speakers who did use it. If you're arguing that only grammarians can say what is 'authentic' in Irish, then modern grammarians say most synthetic verb forms are not authentic, as I've already said. Therefore they shouldn't be used. We can both see how stupid that argument is. Native speakers used the prefix with both the hyphen and without when writing in the Gaelic Script, so both are as authentic as the other.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. You haven't shown a large range of native speakers used h without a hyphen. Some names have been mentioned, but a small fraction of the natives speakers who lived in 1800-1950. Galaxyrocker you may not realise it, but vast numbers of native speakers were illiterate in this time period and did not use any spelling at all. So standard rules have always been and still in tangential to the language of the Gaeltacht. Once again, in saying that if grammarians don't like synthetic verb forms, they shouldn't be used, you are mixing too things up: the spoken language and the orthography. Most native speakers don't write in Irish and so questions of orthography don't arise. What orthographical rules are recommended by grammarians is a different question as to what actual grammatical forms they recommend. This is because the language exists as a spoken language independent of committees of grammarians and their rules. The relative few who ever wrote the language down had the influence of grammarians at their back, but the spoken language of the ti' táirne never did. Haghaidh does not authentically convey the pre 1950s correct form, h-aghaidh.



I've literally listed more native speakers who wrote without the hyphen than you did of native speakers who wrote with it, and I can guarantee I can find more. But now you're arguing that because 50% of natives never wrote we must agree that what the grammarians said is 'authentic' regardless of what those natives who did write used? Sure, you might argue PUL is the 'most prolific' (I wonder about that, especially given Ó Grianna's output), but did he really write more than all those others combined? If so, by your whole 'majority' bit, the lack of the hypen should be considered standard.

That still can apply to how grammarians 'codify' the language of speech as well. Since most natives don't use synthetic forms nowadays, and since grammarians don't use them in their grammars, they're thus not authentic. It's a stupid argument, and you know it, but you're too arrogant to think you might be wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 01 Sep 2011 11:36 pm
Posts: 514
djwebb2021 wrote:
tiomluasocein wrote:
djwebb2021 wrote:
Yes, silmeth, you're right on that. The Grammatical Tracts allowed both uses. Bedell's Bible has both.


You would have saved us all a lot of time if you had simply admitted you were wrong in the first place.

I was right all along -- as I showed. The Grammatical Tracts do not relate to modern Irish. O'Donovan's grammar of 1845 and Dinneen's dictionary are authoritative works relating to modern Irish.


It doesn't matter whether or not the text relates to modern Irish or not. The poster asked a question, I answered it, and you said it was wrong. Well, it's not wrong. Period.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 426
Yes, Father Peter did write bh-fuil with a hyphen at one point, early on in his career. His very first published letter, in The Irishman of May 4th 1878, p693, says:
Quote:
Ta anois machtnamh beag agam le cur os bhur g‑cómhair. Do chuir an obair an meud so ’n a luidhe orm. Ma thíg a’m láthair fear de’n choitchionntacht os cionn fiche bliadhain d’aois, na’r labhair ríamh focal Gaedhilge agus na raibh i n‑a taithighe is comadh í na bás aon fhocal dí chur i n‑a bheul asteach, acht ma chuirim chum leinbh deich m‑bliadháin do mhúine, foghlumóchaidh se í chó tiubh a’s do labharfad í. Rud eile, án muíntir go bhfuil eolas agus taithighe aco air an n‑Gaedhilge ní’l puinn meas aco uirre, oir ceapaid gur comhartha uaisleachta air dhuine bheith dall uirre. Dá m‑budh fhéidir an nídh sin do chur as a g‑croídhe búdh ró‑gheárr an mhoill orra í d’fhóghluim agus í labhairt go blasda.

Anois dá m‑béidheadh an Ghaedhilge d’á múine anns na scoilibh coitchionna, béidheadh dhá ghnó d’á n‑deunadh: béidheadh an mhuintir óg d’á fóghluim gan fhios dóibh‑féin agus béidhfí d’á cur ’n‑a luídhe air an muintir críona gur mó an náire a h‑ainbhfhios iona a h‑eolas.

Budh dhóigh‑liom, da g‑cuireadh sibhse chuige go d‑tiocfadh libh an tír go léir do chur air aon ghúth ag lorg an mhéid sin air lucht deunta ar n‑dlighthe; agus ann‑san do mhúinfídh níos mó Gaedhilge i n‑aon bhliadhain amháin ’ná a bh‑foghlumóchaidhe anois air feadh deich m‑bliadhain.


I note that Bourke's College Grammar (https://archive.org/details/collegeiris ... ew=theater) shows h-. To the extent that education in Irish was available, young Irishmen were taught to write h- in the 19th century and early 20th century. It is deceitful to claim otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 426
tiomluasocein wrote:
djwebb2021 wrote:
tiomluasocein wrote:
djwebb2021 wrote:
Yes, silmeth, you're right on that. The Grammatical Tracts allowed both uses. Bedell's Bible has both.


You would have saved us all a lot of time if you had simply admitted you were wrong in the first place.

I was right all along -- as I showed. The Grammatical Tracts do not relate to modern Irish. O'Donovan's grammar of 1845 and Dinneen's dictionary are authoritative works relating to modern Irish.


It doesn't matter whether or not the text relates to modern Irish or not. The poster asked a question, I answered it, and you said it was wrong. Well, it's not wrong. Period.


You gave the OP a form taught to be wrong in the pre-standardised schools and grammar books of the century before the introduction of the Caighdeán Oifigiúíl.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 01 Sep 2011 11:36 pm
Posts: 514
djwebb2021 wrote:
tiomluasocein wrote:
djwebb2021 wrote:
tiomluasocein wrote:
djwebb2021 wrote:
Yes, silmeth, you're right on that. The Grammatical Tracts allowed both uses. Bedell's Bible has both.


You would have saved us all a lot of time if you had simply admitted you were wrong in the first place.

I was right all along -- as I showed. The Grammatical Tracts do not relate to modern Irish. O'Donovan's grammar of 1845 and Dinneen's dictionary are authoritative works relating to modern Irish.


It doesn't matter whether or not the text relates to modern Irish or not. The poster asked a question, I answered it, and you said it was wrong. Well, it's not wrong. Period.


You gave the OP a form taught to be wrong in the pre-standardised schools and grammar books of the century before the introduction of the Caighdeán Oifigiúíl.


IT DOESN'T MATTER. I gave him examples in Modern Irish using Gaelic Script. There is nothing wrong with that. PERIOD.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri 08 Jan 2016 11:37 pm
Posts: 203
djwebb2021 wrote:
You gave the OP a form taught to be wrong in the pre-standardised schools and grammar books of the century before the introduction of the Caighdeán Oifigiúíl.


Do you have any proof that it indeed was taught to be wrong?

So far you’ve shown that late 19th c. and early 20th c. grammar books used that spelling, nothing more. I’ve shown that you could find both in the most authoritative dictionary of the time, and it was also shown to you that many actual published texts used a different convention.

Also, those students would often encounter Irish written in seanachló in graveyards. And when you look at many Gaeltacht grave stones from late 19th and early 20th century, you’ll again often see the h-prothesis without a hyphen, like on this grave from Corca Dhuibhne:

Image

Tomás Ruiséal bocht, his grave is not authentic.




It seems to me the grammars wrote h- in order to be more explicit about the mutations, thus making it a bit easier to parse for learners. But that does not mean that this was really deemed a better convention by educated native speakers, or that any consensus about it really existed. And from the variation in Dinneen’s dictionary (or the variation between ḃfuil and ḃ-fuil in Christian Brothers’ grammar) it seems to me that most of them did not care and considered both to be correct. All the literate ones were probably used to reading all those variants anyway.


Last edited by silmeth on Fri 01 Jul 2022 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2014 10:03 pm
Posts: 496
Location: SAM
On top of that, I just went and checked out many other pre-Caighdeán works by native speakers. Tomás Ó Máille and his brother both used it without the hyphen, as did Ó Cadhain and Pádraig Óg Ó Conaire. Seosamh Mac Grianna didn't use the hyphen, and, since apparently on stuff written in Munster is 'authentic', neither did An Seabhac, himself a very well-educated native speaker from Kerry.

And, going to other famous authors of the type, An Craoibhín Aoibhinn also didn't use the hyphen.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group