I have seen that there has shortly been a thread where has been talk about Leinster Irish. Furthermore, I have got to know that tapes had been made with the speech of the last mothertongue speakers from shares of Ireland outside today´s Gaeltacht. Leinster has today no Irish dialect of its own other than so called urban Irish, even no main dialect of its own.


This has made me think why on earth one has not begun in Ireland to teach the own, inborn dialect of Irish at school. When the Gaelic League had begun to work for keeping up the Irish tongue, nearly every county in Ireland still has had its last mothertongue speakers from who they could gather knowledge of the Irish of each county and afterwards putting everything into grammar books under the chapter "outline of the shape of Irish dialects". Beneath national pride, regional pride is as well weightful for many folks. Perhaps, the Irish tongue would have a better standing, all above in Eastern Ireland, if not only today´s Gaeltacht swathes had their own kind of Irish. The belief that Irish is the tongue of the folks in the West may be spread much less in Eastern Ireland. Instead of going to the Gaeltacht, gatherings together with the last mothertongue speakers could have brought forth new highly good speakers of each dialect.

Beir bua,

Alex

I've tried to find out about Leinster Irish, it basically seems it was very like Connacht Irish in most of the province, with Kilkenny being a kind of Déise (East Munster) dialect and the Louth/North Meath area being an Ulster style dialect. (Although I have heard from experts that Monaghan, Louth, North Meath, East Cavan and South Armagh were really a fourth dialect called Oriel Irish).

_________________
The dialect I use is Cork Irish.
Ar sgáth a chéile a mhairid na daoine, lag agus láidir, uasal is íseal

I don't have the book with me that explains the state of play prior to the collapse of Irish, but the basic scheme went as such: there were three large dialects, with two especially being the most vigorous (Munster and Ulster). According to the author, the Ulster dialect stemmed from East Ulster and had Scots Gaelic influence to it and was spoken down to the Oriel area (which was itself a sub-dialect), so Ulster was Ulster plus north Meath and Louth.

Munster was current Munster PLUS Leinster (there was no 'Leinster' dialect) except Louth, (most of Meath), Offaly and Laoise, Longford and Westmeath. I don't know how much Clare and Galway over lapped, but I don't think much.

Connacht was Connacht, Longford, Westmeath, Laoise and Offally, and a part of Meath. Cavan had some Connacht influence too in the west/south.

It's interesting that Meath being once the central Cúige reflected this in being the most mixed area. Perhaps the dialects reflected old polities and so once Meath fell as an independent entity, so it came under the sway of multiple competing elements.

Longford and the midlands were probably under the ken of Connacht lords for much of their existence and so their speakers would be likely to align with the West.

According to the author, the two main ones were in competition for which one would take over with Connacht just on the sidelines and end with the almost rueful note that before it could be decided all fell to English

_________________
__̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.___

The use of language in nation-building was pioneered by the Renaissance French kings, who sought to build a single national identity. It was picked up by the Napoleonic lot, and the policy extended. The annexation of the Italian city states by the French Empire actually popularised the Italian language, which later became the tool of those trying to unify Italy. And of course Franco in Spain was quite keen to eliminate all variation in language.

The politicians behind the Irish revival were in the same camp -- they weren't interested in the real Irish language in all its variety, they wanted a single universal language as a political tool. (See also "Caighdeán Oifigiúil".)

_________________
A language belongs to its native speakers, and when you speak it, you are a guest in their homes.
If you are not a good guest, you have no right to complain about receiving poor hospitality.

Yes, as a political tool, and also as a ticket to the front of a public-sector trough. See Foras na Gaeilge, the Coiste Téarmaíochta and all the rest.

This aspect is constantly mentioned in Ireland, whenever the Irish-language crops up. People will immediately tell you, "they only speak Irish because they're grant-aided".

Shame to see the language dominated by parasites.

Politicians weren't behind the Irish revival - not at the early stages anyway. It was a collection of enthusiastic amateurs and scholars from various backgrounds, e.g. Archbishop McHale and Douglas Hyde, that drove the movement.
The majority of politicians have done little besides paying lip-service to Irish from the inception of the state.

_________________
(SL)(GM)

It was still a political movement, though, wasn't it? Irish identity rather than minority language rights.

_________________
A language belongs to its native speakers, and when you speak it, you are a guest in their homes.
If you are not a good guest, you have no right to complain about receiving poor hospitality.

Indeed in hindsight it seems to have been little more than that

_________________
__̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.___

Yes, but to the extent that it was implicitly political, it was so in a civilian and popular way, not in a top-down, bureaucratic way.

McHale is an interesting figure whose contribution should be made more of today.

Is this what you are refering to? -
http://doegen.ie - Tionscadal Gréasáin Cheirníní Doegen and there's also the recording of Douglas Hyde speaking in the Roscommon dialect.
https://www.uni-due.de/DI/Dialects.htm