It is currently Sat 13 Aug 2022 12:18 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 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 425
galaxyrocker wrote:
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.


I argued it was viewed as wrong - this means by the very meaning of the phrase that grammarians stated it was wrong, which I have shown. I made no statement that everyone in their private writing adhered to the rules, such as they were, nor that people adhered to them before those rules were ever formulated. And the synthetic verb forms were the original correct ones. The analytical verb forms are a later development.


Last edited by djwebb2021 on Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 425
silmeth wrote:
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!)

The grammatical tracts relate to Middle Irish, the final recension of which was Classical Irish. That is a different language to Modern Irish. I don't know how much, IF ANYTHING, is in the grammatical tracts on punctuation. I suspect nothing.

As I stated, in the pre-Standardisationi period, it was considered correct to use the hyphen. Some people may have been trying to bring a different standard into existence, yes, but most books reflected Dinneen's dictionary and its usages. The most prolific writer ever in Irish - Peadar Ua Laoghaire - used the hyphen consistently in his manuscripts. Haghaidh is an error, as there is no such Irish word. Nonetheless, in my version of Niamh I did not use the hyphen, purely in order not to deviate from what most learners regard as correct, when the point at issue didn't make any different to the dialect as such.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri 08 Jan 2016 11:37 pm
Posts: 203
Quote:
The analytical verb forms are a later development.


Only if by “later” you mean “Middle Irish”. At least some analytical forms exist in Irish texts from 12th century if not earlier. Ragaid missi (as if raghaidh mise in modern spelling) and ragatsa (~raghadsa) coexist in a single poem, Bórama, in Lebor Laignech – they seem to be a northern innovation that reached Munster very late, hence synthetic verbs in common use there and PUL’s objection to the use of analytical verbs. The Classical Gaelic bardic standard allowed the use of both synthetic and analytical forms side by side, and it was created during the late 12th century.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 30 Jun 2022 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 425
Yes, silmeth, you're right on that. The Grammatical Tracts allowed both uses. Bedell's Bible has both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 01 Sep 2011 11:36 pm
Posts: 514
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 01 Sep 2011 11:36 pm
Posts: 514
djwebb2021 wrote:
tiomluasocein wrote:
silmeth wrote:
djwebb2021 wrote:
tiomluasocein wrote:
Here are the examples you gave above:a haon
go hÉirinn


Those are, authentically, a h-aon ....go h-Éirinn in the Gaelic script. Before the Roman script was imposed, hyphens were used in such phrases.


Bullshit. Both practices existed for a long time. See eg. this page from Irisleabhar na Gaedhilge, right-bottom corner, le haġaiḋ na soċraide: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Irisle ... 6.djvu/178, or eg. this page in Táin Bó Cuailnge ’na dhráma with Ní haon ċeataiġe ḋúinn: https://wikisource.org/wiki/Page:T%C3%A ... re.pdf/29; or go hoban on this page from some 19th c. Bible (though I’m not sure which exact edition): https://twitter.com/ansiopaleabhar/stat ... 08/photo/1 (also nice use of a ligature for ui, macron for marking double/fortis consonants eg. in bean̄aċd, and a special ę-like glyph for ea where manuscripts sometimes used the “tall e”)


Go raibh maith agat. Táim ró-tuirseach . . .


ró-thuirseach - or "tá tuirse orm".


"Ró-tuirseach" is fine. Many real native speakers say it that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 425
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 12:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 425
tiomluasocein wrote:
"Ró-tuirseach" is fine. Many real native speakers say it that way.


Do they? Ró-tuirseach without a lenited t? Which dialect? Which Gaeltacht village? Or are you, as I suspect, talking about the poor Irish of learners in the Galltacht? I'm prepared to be shown I am wrong on this - if you can name the Gaeltacht village whose Irish that is.

See potafocal on this: http://www.potafocal.com/beo/?s=r%C3%B3thuirseach


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri 08 Jan 2016 11:37 pm
Posts: 203
djwebb2021 wrote:
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.


First, let’s look at Dinneen’s dictionary (the second edition, but similar examples are in the first one too), we find among others a haon or ó ṁaidin go hoiḋċe, alongside na h-uaire:

Image

So, doesn’t seem an Duinníneach was very consistent here himself, whatever his views on the matter.

Also the passage from O’Donovan’s grammar you cited says nothing about h-prothesis – it’s exclusively about marking preposition + possessive pronoun compounds. Sure, O’Donovan himself uses the hyphen, but does he argue this is in any way “more correct” in his book? What he says about h is:

As no word in Irish begins, in its radical form, with this consonant, it has been much disputed among Irish grammarians, whether it is a letter of the language or not; and the latest writers on the subject of philosophical or general grammar have stated that “the letter h is no articulate sound, but only a breathing.”

Thus, since it’s not a consonant in its full right, it doesn’t matter if you separate it with a hyphen or not, it’s always just a prefix (this, obviously, isn’t strictly true, there are modern borrowings starting with an actual /h/ written as h, like eg. hata – but he doesn’t consider those here at all). O’Donovan also hyphenates eclipsis (thus a d-tiġ ‘in a house’), he even explicitly says “The eclipsing consonant is separated, in some modern books, from the radical one by a hyphen (…) the hyphen placed by the moderns between the m and the b is now preferable” – does this make a dtiġ or i dtiġ not authentic?

Then, a 100 years earlier, in 1728, Mac Curtin’s grammar writes those without a hyphen (and it also is a Modern Irish grammar, although heavily influenced by the bardic tradition and pretty archaizing in places).

(Of course, those early grammars often have lots of complete nonsense too, like O’Donovan claiming that in “ancient manuscripts” (but citing examples from not-that-ancient Keating too) eclipsis is put “merely for euphony, for no grammatical reason whatever” just because, it seems, he does not understand classical accusative or Old Irish neuter.)

Anyway, the point is, writing h-prefix without the hyphen was a common practice throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, even if opposed by PUL, and if O’Donovan, Ó Nualláin, and some others wrote the hyphen themselves. An Duinníneach was inconsistent, Eleanor Knott, when editing PUL with his approval, did not use the hyphen, neither generally did the typesetters of Irisleabhar na Gaedhilge. So again, saying that writing h-prefix without the hyphen is not authentic for Gaelic type, or that it is a later post-Roman script thing, is just plainly not true. The hyphen was never a universally agreed-upon standardized convention.

Saying that “a few grammarians in the 19th and early 20th century considered writing it with the hyphen to be a better practice” could be true, but that’s not the claim you made.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 01 Jul 2022 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 425
silmeth wrote:
Saying that “a few grammarians in the 19th and early 20th century considered writing it with the hyphen to be a better practice” could be true, but that’s not the claim you made.


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.


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: Google [Bot] and 6 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