It is currently Wed 17 Aug 2022 10:35 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: Thu 30 Jun 2022 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 426
galaxyrocker wrote:
djwebb2021 wrote:
OK. Do you have any proof it was considered orthographically correct in the pre-Standardisation period. I note that Ó Cadhain died in 1970 and partly belongs to the post-Standardisation period. Yes, I do have some proof that it was considered incorrect not to hyphenate: dictionaries are drawn up in order to codify a standard - and h- is used in Dinneen's dicitonary. h with no hyphen is used in FGB. Those who did not hyphenate in the period before FGB came out were doing so in the face of dictionary advice. Just as people today can write "cozy" in their emails, whether or not the dictionary says "cosy".


You're the one making the claims that it was not "correct", the burden of proof is on you. And, I mean, I just gave you three examples of books pre-Standard, still in the Gaelic type, that use it. Including perhaps the single best author of Irish-language literature of the modern period. If that's not enough to convince you, you don't want to be convinced.


You say I bear the burden of proof. So I gave the proof. Dinneen's dictionary was the standard Irish of the pre 1950s - and used the hyphen. That's what dictionaries are for. I don't know why Ó Cadhain is the best author of the modern period - but I haven't studied Conemara Irish. Obviously, those who have will make a bee-line for his work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2014 10:03 pm
Posts: 496
Location: SAM
Or, you can just assume both were perceived as equally correct by the authors, and it's not 'wrong' as you claimed it to be. I've also found an even older example, in An Béal Beo. Ó Máílle should fit anyone's description of a 'well-educated native', so he certainly perceived it as correct, even while sticking to the seanlitriú and cló Ghaelacht.

So perhaps it was an orthographic difference between Munster and Connacht (I, unfortunately, don't have any copies of Ó Grianna's work to hand though I do have a copy of Caint an Chláir that does not use the hypen, written in the Gaelic script pre-Standard), but either way I think it's entirely incorrect to say that 'a haon' is 'wrong' in the Gaelic script.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 426
galaxyrocker wrote:
Or, you can just assume both were perceived as equally correct by the authors, and it's not 'wrong' as you claimed it to be. I've also found an even older example, in An Béal Beo. Ó Máílle should fit anyone's description of a 'well-educated native', so he certainly perceived it as correct, even while sticking to the seanlitriú and cló Ghaelacht.

So perhaps it was an orthographic difference between Munster and Connacht (I, unfortunately, don't have any copies of Ó Grianna's work to hand though I do have a copy of Caint an Chláir that does not use the hypen, written in the Gaelic script pre-Standard), but either way I think it's entirely incorrect to say that 'a haon' is 'wrong' in the Gaelic script.


John O'Donovan writes in his grammar book of 1845:

"Modern grammarians, however, think that it would add much to the clearness of the written language if these combinations were separated by hyphens and apostrophes, and they recommend iona, cona, fona, lena, ona, tréna, to be written i n-a, co n-a, fo n-a, le n-a, ó n-a, tré n-a ; and dá, dár, &c., to be written d'á, d'ár, &c., and an apostrophe to be used where a vowel is omitted at the end, as om', dod', lem', trém', &c. "

See p149 at https://archive.org/details/grammariris ... ew=theater

Irish grammarians in the first half of the 19th century most definitely did state these things should be hyphenated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2014 10:03 pm
Posts: 496
Location: SAM
djwebb2021 wrote:
galaxyrocker wrote:
Or, you can just assume both were perceived as equally correct by the authors, and it's not 'wrong' as you claimed it to be. I've also found an even older example, in An Béal Beo. Ó Máílle should fit anyone's description of a 'well-educated native', so he certainly perceived it as correct, even while sticking to the seanlitriú and cló Ghaelacht.

So perhaps it was an orthographic difference between Munster and Connacht (I, unfortunately, don't have any copies of Ó Grianna's work to hand though I do have a copy of Caint an Chláir that does not use the hypen, written in the Gaelic script pre-Standard), but either way I think it's entirely incorrect to say that 'a haon' is 'wrong' in the Gaelic script.


John O'Donovan writes in his grammar book of 1845:

"Modern grammarians, however, think that it would add much to the clearness of the written language if these combinations were separated by hyphens and apostrophes, and they recommend iona, cona, fona, lena, ona, tréna, to be written i n-a, co n-a, fo n-a, le n-a, ó n-a, tré n-a ; and dá, dár, &c., to be written d'á, d'ár, &c., and an apostrophe to be used where a vowel is omitted at the end, as om', dod', lem', trém', &c. "

See p149 at https://archive.org/details/grammariris ... ew=theater

Irish grammarians in the first half of the 19th century most definitely did state these things should be hyphenated.


And in the same breath he implies that they often aren't. So what's more correct -- what grammarians say should be done, or what people actually use? I'm going with the latter. So even if the grammarians said it should be hyphenated, people often didn't and so both are equally acceptable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 426
galaxyrocker wrote:
djwebb2021 wrote:
galaxyrocker wrote:
Or, you can just assume both were perceived as equally correct by the authors, and it's not 'wrong' as you claimed it to be. I've also found an even older example, in An Béal Beo. Ó Máílle should fit anyone's description of a 'well-educated native', so he certainly perceived it as correct, even while sticking to the seanlitriú and cló Ghaelacht.

So perhaps it was an orthographic difference between Munster and Connacht (I, unfortunately, don't have any copies of Ó Grianna's work to hand though I do have a copy of Caint an Chláir that does not use the hypen, written in the Gaelic script pre-Standard), but either way I think it's entirely incorrect to say that 'a haon' is 'wrong' in the Gaelic script.


John O'Donovan writes in his grammar book of 1845:

"Modern grammarians, however, think that it would add much to the clearness of the written language if these combinations were separated by hyphens and apostrophes, and they recommend iona, cona, fona, lena, ona, tréna, to be written i n-a, co n-a, fo n-a, le n-a, ó n-a, tré n-a ; and dá, dár, &c., to be written d'á, d'ár, &c., and an apostrophe to be used where a vowel is omitted at the end, as om', dod', lem', trém', &c. "

See p149 at https://archive.org/details/grammariris ... ew=theater

Irish grammarians in the first half of the 19th century most definitely did state these things should be hyphenated.


And in the same breath he implies that they often aren't. So what's more correct -- what grammarians say should be done, or what people actually use? I'm going with the latter. So even if the grammarians said it should be hyphenated, people often didn't and so both are equally acceptable.

You're shifting your ground here. Now you're saying that it was acknowledged as incorrect not to hyphenate, but that people didn't always adhere to the rules - but then that is what I said all along.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri 08 Jan 2016 11:37 pm
Posts: 203
18th century, the grammar by Aodh Buidhe Mac Cruitín (The Elements of the Irish Language) – an educated native speaker, familiar with the bardic tradition:

Quote:
Tuig faḋeoiḋ an̄ so, u[air?] gur ab ríaġla dęrḃṫa suimęmhla na trí ċre[…?] (go hairiġṫe cré na neasbal) naċ iád na poinge speisialta (…)

Image

then in the manuscript containing the Irish Grammatical Tracts I (the “general”, “first” bardic grammatical tract, MS 24 P 8, page 4) – 17th century copy of an older (15th–16th century?) text, written and then copied by very highly educated native speakers – long before Irish speakers thought about writing Irish using the Roman script:

Quote:
(…) seiṁiuġ[aḋ] d[’]oġam[.]

⁊ cía an con̄suine do[-]nī ceiṫre huirrḋiġṫe (…)

Image

Peadar Ua Laoghaire didn’t exclusively own Irish language, there were native speakers before him and after him, there was a literary tradition long before him. And there even are editions of his own books, authorized by him, using this convention.

So saying that “authentically” it should be “a h-aon ....go h-Éirinn in the Gaelic script. Before the Roman script was imposed, hyphens were used in such phrases” is plainly wrong. As I wrote, both conventions coexisted for a long time, and writing h together with the following word is very authentic for Irish seanachló (as authentic as using the hyphen, and perhaps, historically, even more).


Last edited by silmeth on Thu 30 Jun 2022 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 426
Silmeth, you're caught in a trap of your own making. Of course Irish was written for centuries in manuscripts before the 19th century, but the first attempts at codifying the language were made in the 1845 grammar by O'Donovan and in Dinneen's dictionary. Before then, it was an uncodified language, like Middle English, with a confusion of forms and usages.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2014 10:03 pm
Posts: 496
Location: SAM
djwebb2021 wrote:
You're shifting your ground here. Now you're saying that it was acknowledged as incorrect not to hyphenate, but that people didn't always adhere to the rules - but then that is what I said all along.


You're the one who said it wasn't authentic. All I did was give examples of 'well-educated native authors' who didn't use it in the Gaelic script. Then you quoted one grammarian who said it should be used, while at the same time recognising authors of his period didn't use it! To me that shows it's 'authentic' in the Gaelic script, even if grammarians don't think it should be. That's not moving the goalposts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2014 10:03 pm
Posts: 496
Location: SAM
djwebb2021 wrote:
Silmeth, you're caught in a trap of your own making. Of course Irish was written for centuries in manuscripts before the 19th century, but the first attempts at codifying the language were made in the 1845 grammar by O'Donovan and in Dinneen's dictionary. Before then, it was an uncodified language, like Middle English, with a confusion of forms and usages.


So only what grammarians say is true? Then I guess it's time to drop all PUL's works given that the synthetic forms are not acceptable and are thus not 'authentic'. Do you see how dumb that argument is now? It was used by authors from all time periods, it's clearly authentic regardless of whether your precious grammarians or PUL used it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri 08 Jan 2016 11:37 pm
Posts: 203
djwebb2021 wrote:
Silmeth, you're caught in a trap of your own making. Of course Irish was written for centuries in manuscripts before the 19th century, but the first attempts at codifying the language were made in the 1845 grammar by O'Donovan and in Dinneen's dictionary. Before then, it was an uncodified language, like Middle English, with a confusion of forms and usages.


Where have I written anything about codification? You made a claim about authenticity and suggested that writing h-prefix without the hyphen is a new, post-Roman script trend (“Before the Roman script was immposed, hyphens were used in such phrases”). I gave you examples from 17th, 18th, early 19th, late 19th, and early 20th century writing the h-prefix without a hyphen. Am I supposed to understand all of those are post-Roman script and unauthentic? Or are you just moving the goalposts?

(Also, if you actually read the grammatical tracts, you’d be very surprised how much was actually codified, including the spelling, by late 16th century!)


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 7 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