Dáithí Mac Giolla. wrote:
What do other languages do for words such as Hobbit ?
Checking the "other languages" links from the Wikipedia article
Hobbit" gives us the following (note that some of these are singular, some are plural):
Bosnian: hobiti
Catalan: hòbbit
Czech: hobit
Danish:
hobbitGerman:
hobbitEstonian: kääbikud
Spanish: hobbits
Esperanto: hobito
French:
hobbitetc etc
and the Swedish is "hober"
So most are directly from the English, even to the point of breaking their own spelling rules ("hobbits" is utterly impossible in natural Spanish).
But anyhow, why borrow from English a word that is really just an anglicised transcription of a non-English, fictional language? The function of the spelling in the book was to make the word readily pronounceable to the reader, nothing more, nothing less. (Although the same obviously cannot be said of Elvish, Orcish etc.)
Borrowing a native English word is all well and good, but borrowing English to use as a auxiliary phonetic spelling embedded in Irish seems silly.
The spelling "hobad", despite it's initial H, does work well, because it can take an immediately obvious genitive: taigh hobaid. Trying to inflect "
hobbit" would be more tricky. Do you broaden the final vowel? That rule applies to a closed set of words, so it wouldn't be recognised. Besides, by using the English form, it's going to be pronounced as English with a broad T, so you can't broaden it phonetically anyway. Add E -- hobbite? Again, the English spelling is going to interfere here, and it's also going to make it look like a feminine word, which seems an unlikely gender for a species of person in the context of Gaelic's masculine-dominant grammar.
Or do you just leave the word in italics the whole time, using an English plural, and continue pushing the idea to young readers that Irish isn't a complete language...?