djwebb2021 wrote:
Tá insa leabhar so aistí agus dialanna do scríbh Theobald Wolfe Tone insna blianta idir 1791 agus 1798, ’na thaobh féin agus i dtaobh na n‑imeachtaí agus na ngnóthaí, idir phoiblí agus príobháideach, go raibh sé páirteach iontu. Tá ann mar aon leó-san nithe do scríbh a mhac chun na mbeárthnacha ’ líonadh a thárla i dtuairisc an athar nú de dheascaibh cuid de sna dialanna a scríbh sé ’ bheith caillthe. An leabhar a chuir a mhac, William, in eagar, agus a foílsíodh i Washington sa bhliain 1826, ’sé is bun údaráis leis an aistriúchán so. Níor bhacas leis na paimpléidí ná na meamraim pholaitíochta atá sa leabhar san de bhrí a fhaid agus a thruime a bhí an saothar so dá n‑iúnais, agus de bhrí ná fuil aon léiriú nua iontu ar thuairimí ná ar mheón an té a scríbh iad seochas mar atá cheana le fáil nú le tuiscint insna dialanna. Thugas Beatha mar theideal coiteann ar an meascra le chéile.
Níor leanas den órd a bhí ar na habhair sa bhun-leabhar ná in aon ath-eagrán de dár foílsíodh ó 1826. Tá ath-órd curtha orthu d’fhonn iad a bheith i ndiaidh ’ chéile i gcómh-fhreagairt do ghluaiseacht na haimsire. Táid siad roinnte ’na rannaibh i bhfuirm caibidlí, fé theidil agus fo-theidil. D’fhonn cabhair a thabhairt don léitheóir chun nithe áirithe d’aimsiú, táid na nithe deiridh sin ar fad bailithe i dtosach an leabhair i bhfuirm cláir, in inead an index nárbh fiú, dar liom, a chur le haistriúchán mar seo.
An tAistritheóir.
Additional notes:
do scríbh (do scríobh): corresponding to David's transliteration the more common dialectal form would be
do scríbh in the past tense, rather than
do scríobh as it is written in the original manuscript. A more logical spelling might be something like
*scríghimh, as it would correspond to regular grammatical rules applicable to Munster dialects, e.g. second conjugation (verbs ending in
-igh) verbs who possess the ending
-amh in their verbal noun form take the ending
-imh in the analytic past tense and second person singular imperative (e.g.
seas -->
seasamh (verbal noun) -->
sheasaimh and
seasaimh ('... stood' and 'stand!'), and
scrígh -->
scrígheamh -->
scríghimh). I would propose the spelling
scríghimh as opposed to
scríbhimh, as the form
scrígh is often used in these contexts as well, and not all verbs that have a verbal noun form ending in
-amh consistantly follow this pattern.
insna blianta (ins na blianta): in CDh the form
ins na or
'sna (i.e. 'in the (plural)')is often replaced by
'sa (typically meaning 'in the (singular)'), though it calls for the same mutations as the expected plural form.
mar aon le: 'in addition to'
thárla: often
thárlaidh in CDh
de dheascaibh: prounounced
do dheascaibh, as is expected with the regular convolution of the two preposotions.
de na: pronounced (and often spelt)
dosnasa bhliain:
sa often takes eclipsis (as opposed to lenition) before the nouns
bliain, breis, méid, mí. In many dialects there is a distinction between
sa bhliain (referencing a single year) and
sa mbliain (per year/in a single year), though Diarmaid Ó Sé did not draw this distinction, suggesting that
sa mbliain may be used in both contexts in CDh Irish.
tuiscint:
tuigsint in the original. Both forms are found in CDh
abhair: as David notes there is a distinction in pronunciation (at least in CDh) between
abhar (/ɑur/), as it is used here, and
ábhar (/ɑ:vər/), meaning few. This can be confusing, since both are spelt
ábhar in the Caighdeán Oifigiúil, and both are often spelt
adhbhair in pre-reform spelling.
sa bhun-leabhar:
san mbuinleabhar in the original. Not sure why this form is given, as it wouldn't be expected in the dialect. Giving the first couple pages a quick scan it looks like eclipsis after
san is given almost entirely (the only exception I saw so far being
sa bhliain above), though, not eclipsing
d or
tcómh-fhreagairt:
cóimhfhreagairt in the original. Note the
mh is not pronounced:
có'-fhreagairtrannaibh: dative plural of
roinn. The dative plural is not common in the modern CDh dialect outside of certain set phrases.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
