Hello there!

I was looking to be certain of a particular sentence from english to Irish if anybody could offer any insights, for which I would be much appreciative of.
Learned back in school days like most Irish people but can barely recall more than a few sentences as an adult due to lack of use. Wish that I had paid more attention back then!

Its for a title of a short film that I'm helping a friend put together, which they would like to be "no irish no blacks no dogs" but in Irish of course.
Of course googling gives a variety of answers from "aon gaeilge gan dubh gan madraí" to other poorly translated variations, so I wanted to make a post to find an accurate answer for them. As they are doing artwork for the cover including the title, we hoped to find confirmation for this.
I explained that it might not be something that there is a definitive translation for, but we're open to changing it to make sense if that makes sense.

So that's really it anyway, if anybody has any input on the correct translation for this phrase feel free to let us know below.
Many thanks in advance and have a great day!

The film sounds like a dreary vehicle for anti-English hatred. The signs that you claim rejecting Irish people, black people and dogs from rental properties simply never existed (see https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/in ... bic-148416). And had they existed, they wouldn't have been written in Irish. Missing from this is the fact that at the time Irish migrants in England had a certain reputation. Drunkenness, violence, people harassing their neighbours, auto parts all over the lawn... this was not just something that sometimes happened but was the norm. I accept there are Irish people who are well-to-do, middle class, decent members of the community, but migrants aren't always representative of the nation they come from. Yes, landladies had a good reason not to wish to rent to drunken thugs. But the signs themselves are apocryphal. Did not happen.

I think it's a shame to see the Irish language as nothing other than a vehicle for hatred and carefully curated lies. Hatred is a destructive emotion that decent people avoid. Isn't the Irish language worth something in and of itself, as an object of study? Why does it have to be linked to terrorism and hatred ALL THE TIME?

I'm resigned to being expelled from this forum eventually, so there you have it....

Definitely don't use that translation. It's pure junk.

This would be my attempt at a translation: "Cosc ar Ghaeil, ar dhaoine gorma agus ar mhadraí. (literally: prohibition on Irish people, on blue people (in Irish, black people were traditionally referred to as blue people) and on dogs."

Some provisos:

I'm not sure if you should use "Éireannaigh" instead of "Gaeil". They both essentially mean "Irish people" but I'm not sure if the word "Gaeil" also implicitly includes the Scots (especially Highland Scots) and Manx, i.e. like the English word "Gaels", in which case maybe "Éireannaigh" would be better.

Instead of "ar dhaoine gormacha", maybe "ar ghormaigh" would work i.e. turning an adjective into a noun. This works in English but I suspect it is also acceptable in Irish.

Repetition of preposition: In English, instead of repeating a preposition in the context of a word list, it often suffices to say it only the first time e.g. "Prohibition on Irish people, blue people and dogs", instead of "Prohibition on Irish people, on blue people and on dogs". I'm not sure if this would be acceptable in Irish, but if it was, the question then arises as to whether or not the lenition associated with the omitted instances of the preposition should also be omitted. There is some limited discussion of this topic at the following: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2321&p=21140&hilit=preposition+repeated#p21140. But in the case under discussion here, I somehow think it would be better to include all three instances of the preposition.

As Djwebb points out though, the existance of such signs seems to be more of an urban legend than anything else.

A Chaoilte, níl 'fhios agam cad é an ceanntar Gaelthachta as ar tháinig an focal "duine gorm". Is Gaelainn mhaith í, gan dabht - ach b'fhéidir gur ó Chonamara a tháinig sé - d'fhéadfadh Bríd Mhór a ínsint dúinn cad é an focal atá acu i gConamara. I nGaelthacht Chiarraí is "duine dubh" adeirthar. Na daoine dúbha (fuaimniú: daoine dú). Níl aon tarcaisne á cur ar éinne leis an bhfocal san - ach is mar sin adéarfí é i nGaelainn na Múmhan.

Ach, níl aon ghá leis an réamhfhocal d'athdhúbailt roimis gach aon ainm atá féna réir. Do chuireas ceist air sin chun duine eólgaisigh, agus is amhlaidh aduairt sé liom ná fuil aon ghá leis an athdhúbailt.

I should add that Caoilte's version is correct, in case anyone is seeking a second view.

I can give a third confirmation on Caoilte's translation.

The article that David (djwebb2021) cites in his first comment above concludes:

QUOTE

Arguably the best rebuttal of the ‘No proof’ theory came from Dr Tony Murray, director of the Irish Studies Centre at London Metropolitan University.

In a reply to John Draper’s letter in the Guardian, Dr Murray shot back at his claim that the much-reproduced ‘No Irish…’ photograph “emerged only in the late 1980s”. He explained that although the picture was donated to his university in 1989, by the Irish in Britain History Group, there is “no reason to doubt” its authenticity.

And he's right – Draper’s paper-thin claim that the photograph was faked is based merely on the fact it was donated decades after it was taken.

As Dr Murray explained: “With community ventures of this kind, such items are not always formally acquisitioned and their provenance not always recorded.

“We had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the image and that the archive had received it in good faith.

“Mr Draper appears to be confusing authenticity with provenance. Numerous artefacts with minimal provenance are held in archives but this does not necessarily mean they are not genuine.

“[Draper] claims the photograph was ‘mocked up’ for the exhibition An Irish Experience. But this took place in the mid-90s, a decade after the original photograph was donated”.

He added: “I’m puzzled by what exactly Mr Draper is trying to prove. Ample evidence exists in numerous oral history interviews with both Caribbean and Irish migrants that such signs existed well into the 60s.

“Further proof can be found in the report Discrimination and the Irish Community in Britain published by the Commission for Racial Equality in 1997.

“It seems mischievous at best and malicious at worst on John Draper’s part to suggest that this photograph is a fraud and by implication that Irish people in Britain were not discriminated against in the post-war era.”

And discriminated against, they certainly were. That is not up for debate – especially not for the many thousands of Irish men and women who crossed the sea to Britain in the aftermath of the Second World War.

So there you have it – the infamous ‘No Irish, no blacks, no dogs’ signs almost certainly existed. (bold mine)

But even if – for argument’s sake – it was all a myth, those menacing six words encapsulated the lived experiences of an entire generation of outsiders who made Britain their home. And that perseverance meant something.

END OF QUOTE

I get the impression that David either didn't read it, or he didn't read it all the way through to its conclusion, or he thought he could post it as proof from the title thinking that no one would pursue it. In any case, the signs and the prejudice towards Irish people did exist, and is not just a cultural myth or urban legend as some would have you believe.

Tim, I don't know if you've attended university or know what a cogent argument is. In a thesis defence at university you have to use cogent arguments, and cannot just ignore counter-arguments.

Tony Murray's comments in that article are not a rebuttal at all. They simply express a different view, with no proof. He says there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of a photo that supposedly was taken decades before, but there is no reason to believe in its authenticity either. Murray's "rebuttal" is paper thin. There is no academically accepted proof that there were "no Irish" signs in England. But it is a fact that many Irish people in England were not necessarily fully representative of the range of people in Ireland -- drunken builders were the key demographic until comparatively recently. So it is possible that an Irish builder went to rent a flat in the 1950 and found the landlady didn't want a drunken lout as a tenant. In fact, this is almost certainly what happened.

The Commission for Racial Equality is a woke anti-British institution, and any claims made by them are as partisan as hell.

The Irish were not discriminated against in England. Rather - at that time we had freedom of association under the Common Law - abolished by the appalling Race Relations Act of 1967 - and if a landlady didn't want a problem tenant, she did not have to jump through hoops trying to explain why a drunken Irishman was not a victim of discrimination.

A little bit of self-awareness on the part of the Irish is required. Are you saying it is news to the OP that the Irish nation contains drunks, tinkers, that these are over-represented in the ranks of emigrants (like trouble-making English party lads are in Ayia Napa and other parts of Cyprus)?

I'm afraid it is the Irish who have treated the English badly. The Irish Times showed that the Irish government set up the IRA. Ireland was an official exporter of terrorism for thirty years at least. How many landladies wanted their bedsits turned into bomb factories? All the while, Britain was subsidising Ireland to the tune of billions through the EU (Britain was always a net contributor, Ireland until recently a net recipient). The Irish hostility towards England is shameful and continues to this very day. I ask you: how many English people hate the Irish? You would struggle to find one.

It is totally wrong to be continually grasping for Victim Status. Try setting out a claim for Hero Status instead.

Suimiúil. 'Sé an cheist seo díreach a thug orm an suíomh gréasáin seo a aimsiú i dtosach.

Nuair nach n-athdhúblaítear an réamhfhocal, 'sé an chéad cheist eile ná: an bhfágtar ar lár freisin an séimhiú nó an t-urú a bhaineann leis an réamhfhocal.

Samplaí:
in asal, i gcapall agus i gcaora -> in asal, gcapall agus gcaora nó in asal, capall agus caora
ar asal, ar chapall agus ar chaora -> ar asal, chapall agus chaora nó ar asal, capall agus caora

Samplaí leis an alt:
ar an asal, ar an gcapall agus ar an gcaora -> ar an asal, an gcapall agus an gcaora nó ar an asal, an capall agus an caora
(D'fhéadfaí a rá go bhfuil cuma ait ar an gceann deireanach toisc gur ainmfhocal baininscneach 'caora'.)
don asal, don chapall agus don chaora -> don asal, an chapall, agus an chaora nó don asal, an capall, agus an caora
(I ndáirire, níl aon tairbhe sa chás so mar go bhfuil an méid céanna siollaí ann tar éis an réamhfhocal a fhágaint ar lár.)

N'fheadar an gceadaítear freisin gan an t-alt a athdhúbailt (ní dóigh liom é):
ar an asal, ar an gcapall agus ar an gcaora -> ar an asal, gcapall agus gcaora nó ar an asal, capall agus caora

Tá an oiread san roghanna ann.

A Chaoilte (nú a Chaoilthe adéarfí sa tseana-chanúint):
Is deocair teacht ar a lán samplaí de seo, ach sin í abairt do fuaras in Aodh de Róiste le Dónall Bán Ó Céileachair: "is do tháinig na focail go garg as a bhéal leis an bhfeirg agus an diomá a tháinig air". Féach, ná léimíd "leis an bhfeirg agus an ndiomá".

Agus i láimhscríbhinní an Athar Peadar léimíd "agus Aialon, agus Hebron, cathracha atá i Iúda agus Beniamín" (2 Paralipomenon 11:10) - ní "i mBeniamín", ach "i Beniamín", ach is go ró-annamh samplaí den tsórd so, agus is dócha nár mhaith leis an Athair Peadar gan an réamhfhocal d'athdhúbhailt, bíodh gur dhein scríbhneóirí eile Ghaelainn Mhúscraí é.