It is currently Tue 21 May 2024 2:19 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu 09 May 2024 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 22 Dec 2011 6:28 am
Posts: 396
Location: Corcaigh
beepbopboop wrote:
Genuine clarification - what do you define as young in terms of Irish native speakers?


Anyone younger than Peadar Ua Laoghaire is too modern for djwebb. And anyone older is irrelevant because of their antiquity. The mid-late 1800s was the sweet spot when Irish was "correct". :darklaugh:

beepbopboop wrote:
Helen from Saol ó Dheas is likely in her fifties/sixties and seems to have very strong Irish.
I've heard a few other Kerry folk (probably 50s+ also) on RnaG saying 'bhúr'.


In all seriousness, Helen is often lauded as the gold standard for Munster Irish, and learners are advised to listen to her if they want to focus on the Munster dialect. If she says it, it's perfectly fine. The fact that many other Munster speakers also use it alongside her is a strong enough indication to me that this is the current standard for Munster Irish.

djwebb2021 wrote:
Well, as I said, some people may have "reading" pronunciations. Think of English if someone pronounced "said" as "say-d" instead of "sedd" - that would be a reading pronunciation. The r in arís is slender.

You can copy the younger speakers, and as you say, there is a difference between the Irish of an RnG presenter who is totally comfortable with Irish, and other younger speakers who have anglicised pronunciation. I suppose I would be interested to know how Helen's grandparents pronounced the word "úr". Is anyone alive in Munster the equivalent of an Amhlaoibh Ó Loingsigh? The real question is whether the word has always been pronounced the way she says it in her village - or whether she copied it from learners in the Galltacht... After all, she is probably the product of a Gaeltacht school, and those schools push the new pronunciations.


At the risk of being falsely accused of having an agenda again, I'll say this. I'm from Munster. Any bean/fear an tí I've ever lodged with in a gaeltacht here, and any native speaker I've encountered have all said "bhúr". When I was growing up I knew native speakers who would have been in their eighties 20 years ago, and they all pronounced "bhúr". Given all of that, I find it difficult to believe that "bhúr" is a new development, and that it wasn't used at all 100-150 years ago. In any case, it's not a "reading pronunciation" and it's certainly not "copying the younger speakers" to use it. So, the pronunciation I suggested above is perfectly valid, as far as I'm concerned.

That's not to dismiss the validity of the pronunciation, "úr". It was certainly used in a historical context, and can be heard on some of the Doegen recordings. You're overextending your argument, though, if you try to claim that the fact some people did use "úr" back then means that "bhúr" cannot have existed alongside it. As for whether "úr" is still used, I doubt it has entirely died out entirely among native speakers, though most seem to now prefer "bhúr". In the absence of any recent recordings in which "úr" attested, though, I'm withholding my judgement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 09 May 2024 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 1153
I didn't say you shouldn't copy a strong speaker like Helen, and copying someone like her would probably give you access to a large pool of strong speakers, whereas trying to speak like someone who died in the 1950s wouldn't. But Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne doesn't even give vúr as a variant. I doubt Helen herself would deny that úr was the pronunciation among the generation of people who were informants for Diarmuid Ó Sé - their ages are listed in that book - I think they were born between 1900 and 1930. The book is in another room and so I'm quoting the ages from the top of my head. "Úr" is not as common a word as "do" - how often do you address multiple people at once in this way? It seems to me - and Ade has given zero evidence to the contrary - that this had developed as a reading pronunciation. Of course, reading pronunciations do creep in in any language. The word "ate" (ate an apple) used to be pronounced "ett", and although I try to say "I ett an apple", I do have to force myself to do so, as it an obsolescent pronunciation today, and "ate" has replaced it, albeit a reading pronunciation.

I don't deny it: I am encouraging learners of Muskerry Irish to use the pronunciations of Amhlaoibh Ó Loingsigh (d. 1947) and Dónall Bán Ó Céileachair (d. 1950). These are the pronunciations of the strong generation of seanchaithe who died in the mid-20th century.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 09 May 2024 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 1153
Another good example is "lenúr dtoil" (see https://twitter.com/RoisinNicLiam/statu ... 9028202499 for an example of "lenúr dtoil" by someone who spent a lot of time in Corca Dhuibhne). The reason the "n" is in there is because "bhur" is pronounced "úr". It there were a "v", it would be "le bhur dtoil", which I believe it is ELSEWHERE in Ireland. RnG presenters are influenced by Standardised Irish.

See the point made by Dr Seán Ua Súilleabháin: “Múintear an Ghaeilge anois do mhuintir na Gaeltachta ar scoil, agus tá seo á dhéanamh ó bunaíodh Saorstát Éireann sa bhliain 1922, ionas gur beag cainteoirí Gaeltachta nach bhfuil tionchar na scoile a bheag nó a mhór ar a c(h)uid Gaeilge”. (Stair na Gaeilge, 538).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 12 May 2024 1:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat 31 Jul 2021 8:03 pm
Posts: 131
djwebb2021 wrote:
Well, I'm not Irish, and so while I probably would agree with what Barrett said on Palestine, I would probably disagree on everything else. The idea that the Irish are particularly close to the Palestinians as they have had a similar history is nonsense - although some of these left-wing people say this. The UK didn't respond to the troubles by carpet-bombing the Falls Road and indeed everything west of the River Bann. Ultimately, the real struggle in Ireland (and England and everywhere in Europe) is against immigration - and constantly referring everything back to SF-style rhetoric is backward-looking and victim-mongering. We need a united struggle against immigration everywhere in Europe. England should be English. Ireland should be Irish. France should be French. And if we can all agree on that, we can advance as a continent. The Palestine issue is an example of the espousal of all Western governments of US foreign policy, including the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East (in the name of, gasp, democracy, if you can believe it). We shouldn't be part of that - but to argue the Palestinians should be transplanted to Ireland, or England even, is insane.

Someone described neo-conservatism - the US ideology - as "invade the world, invite the word". It is an imperialist perspective and not a national perspective. Globalism is the ideology of US hegemony. This includes endless foreign wars (and yes there are people over-represented in the US media and deep state who have ties to a certain Middle Eastern state and are not afraid to be as manipulative as possible in pursuing their own ethnocentric aims), and it includes mass immgration and multiculturalism. I reject the whole package. I think we have to accept the Israelis aren't going anywhere - many were born there - and the only viable thing is to create a single state with rights for all - but our main preoccupation should be our home nations - and that means zero immigration, and indeed fostering a large outflow.

What has happened in modern Palestine is quite similar in many ways to what happened in Ireland (especially in Ulster) in the 17th century, with subsequent lasting discrimination against the indigenous populations in both areas. Other than that, I agree with you. SF are globalists who want to import the world into Ireland, which will in reality make a politically united Ireland even more out of reach, considering that a majority of recent migrants to NI favour maintenance of the union with England. It wouldn’t surprise me if the rumours about SF being an MI5 operation are true. And what’s the point of a united Ireland anyway if it’s not an Irish Ireland?

All west European countries are now being targeted for plantation in what is obviously a co-ordinated effort. Apparently, the fall of the West must occur before the end goal can be reached. It seems to me that the Gaza situation is designed to set off a chain of events that will also help bring this about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 12 May 2024 1:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat 31 Jul 2021 8:03 pm
Posts: 131
djwebb2021 wrote:
Labhrás wrote:
Words in -ín are masculine if -ín is the diminutive suffix but not so if -ín is part of the stem.

An Phalaistín is not a "little palast". It derives from Latin Palæstina, feminine.
Other examples are an tSín, China, an Abaisín, Abbysinia, an tSairdín, Sardinia, or the German capital Beirlín, Berlin (Latin: Berolina), all feminine.

The fish sairdín is masculine because it derives from Latin sardina, already masculine there (Sardina pilchardus).


There is some variation in such noun genders. Góislín, "gosling" (= a baby goose, Gänschen), is masculine in Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla, but feminine in the works I've read in Muskerry Irish. This is obviously a loan-word from English. It wouldn't be that surprising if there were some variation between native speakers on this.

Other words I've noted as unexpected in terms of gender: céibhín (little locket of hair, fillet), feminine; ceirtlín (ball of thread), feminine; dóithín (source of expectation, etc), feminine; réilthín (star), feminine; veidhlín (violin), feminine. These are only feminine in the works I've consulated, eg réilthín is feminine in Peadar Ua Laoghaire's Críost Mac Dé. I'm not saying that it could not be found masculine, but I do think there is some native-speaker inconsistency on this.

That reminds me of a placename in south-west Kerry, in the parish of Waterville, called An Chillín Liath, (There is a church and primary school there - although there is no village - and it is situated in what is still officially a Gaeltacht area). I had wondered in the past if the word Cillín is feminine only in the context of the placename, or if it was treated as feminine generally in the local dialect – I’m guessing the latter.

In fact, there is another placename not too far from there and still in the official Gaeltacht called Baile an Sceilg (Ballinskelligs in English). This is a coastal townland and half-parish. The name is a reference to the tiny rocky island of Sceilg Mhichíl, which is out in the ocean near Baile an Sceilg, and on which there was an early medieval monastic foundation. The word ‘sceilg’ in the dictionary is given as feminine, while it is treated as masculine in the placename. Anyway, the secondary school in the nearby town of Cahersiveen is also named after Sceilg Mhichíl but with the word ‘sceilg’ treated as feminine: Coláiste na Sceilge. So that demonstrates a local inconsistency. But presumably they wanted to accord with the more standard usage when naming the school.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 12 May 2024 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 1153
Caoilte wrote:
What has happened in modern Palestine is quite similar in many ways to what happened in Ireland (especially in Ulster) in the 17th century, with subsequent lasting discrimination against the indigenous populations in both areas. Other than that, I agree with you. SF are globalists who want to import the world into Ireland, which will in reality make a politically united Ireland even more out of reach, considering that a majority of recent migrants to NI favour maintenance of the union with England. It wouldn’t surprise me if the rumours about SF being an MI5 operation are true. And what’s the point of a united Ireland anyway if it’s not an Irish Ireland?

All west European countries are now being targeted for plantation in what is obviously a co-ordinated effort. Apparently, the fall of the West must occur before the end goal can be reached. It seems to me that the Gaza situation is designed to set off a chain of events that will also help bring this about.

That is not quite true. Ireland is relevant to British security because it is right next door, and the Irish sought, in history, to ally with France and bring French troops into Ireland in a way that would threaten British security. (Think of how the Ukraine thought it would be a great idea to enter NATO - and thus pose a threat to Russia - or even how Israel objects to Iranian troops in Syria or Cuba thought it would be a great plan to introduce Soviet nukes next to the US.) Britain does have a strategic interest in Ireland, whereas the Jews of Poland literally had no interest in Palestine at all. Britain (or England, it was, at the time) sought to retain the Gaelic landowning structure through the Surrender and Regrant policy. All the Gaelic lords were to remain in place and receive British titles, but they were not to be extirpated - and still they continued their insurrections. If you look in history, it was the same people who accepted the British crown who subsequently rose up again - and so lost their land. It wasn't the original policy of the British to take any of the land.

You can see this in Muskerry itself. As I write in Mo Scéal Féin, the Cork lands were originally owned by Donough MacCarthy (1668-1734), whose family had accepted the title of earls of Clancarty, and he was the 4th Earl of Clancarty. Yet in 1689 MacCarthy joined James II in the siege of Londonderry, and so lost his titles and land when attainted by William III in May 1691. In fact, the MacCarthy's still held that land well after the Flight of the Earls (1607), and only lost it in 1691. [The Flight of the Earls followed the Nine Years' War, when Hugh O'Neil, who had accepted the title Earl of Ulster in 1585, sought Spanish military assistance to wage war against the English -- the same Spanish who had been defeated by England in the Spanish Armada attempted invasion of England.]

MacCarthy's lands were then bought from the Crown by the Hollow Sword Blade Company, incorporated in England by Royal Charter in 1691, which spent £200,000 on an Irish property portfolio in 1703, comprising lands confiscated by the English government after the Williamite conquest, before divesting of most of them by 1710. The company was set up to manufacture sword blades, but then branched into property and finance.

Arthur Saunders, Peadar Ua Laoghaire's landlord, told a parliamentary committee in London in 1844 (in Evidence taken before Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Law and Practice in Respect to the Occupation of Land in Ireland), that his ancestor purchased the land directly from the Hollow Sword Blade Company.

The Irish had agency in history, and if history is correctly taught as history, this point will be brought out. In fact in the 1780s, Ireland had its full independence from Britain as a united country - and what did they do? They brought the French in in 1796. It was simply not the original British plan to create a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - and this was done only because of Irish actions. By contrast, even in the 1920s, the Zionists intended a fully Jewish Palestine with Palestinians to be "transferred" elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 14 May 2024 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat 31 Jul 2021 8:03 pm
Posts: 131
If only those unruly Irish knew their place, the long-suffering English wouldn’t have had to oppress them so much! That way of thinking is almost a form of Talmudic inversion. It reminds me of Rosa Meir’s (former Israeli PM) statement where she said something to the effect: “it will be difficult for us to forgive the Arabs for forcing us to kill their children”.

djwebb2021 wrote:
That is not quite true. Ireland is relevant to British security because it is right next door, and the Irish sought, in history, to ally with France and bring French troops into Ireland in a way that would threaten British security.
You’re putting the cart before the horse here. It was because of England’s pre-existing occupation of Ireland and its suppression of the Catholic Church that the Irish sought allies abroad. Historically, England was a far bigger threat to Ireland’s security than the other way around.

djwebb2021 wrote:
In fact in the 1780s, Ireland had its full independence from Britain as a united country - and what did they do? They brought the French in in 1796.
Your understanding of Irish history is again limited. Ireland was far from an independent country in the 1780s. Rather, it was ruled by a colonial elite, where the indigenous population held no power. If the Irish had been independent, there would have been no impetus to invite in the French


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 15 May 2024 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu 27 May 2021 3:22 am
Posts: 1153
I think you mean Golda Meir.
England had occupied part (actually usually a small part) of Ireland since the early Middle Ages. In fact - and the point washes over most Irishmen who are not taught history properly - is that it was Norman-French knights who conquered the Pale - and not Englishmen. The Statute of Kilkenny was written in which language? - drumroll - drumroll - wait for it - most Irishmen don't know - it wasn't written in English - but in Norman French. Ireland was under the control of Norman French knights as England was. This point is specifically and deliberately glossed over in Irish schools. And the early mediaeval period was before the formation of modern nation-states and the conquest of the Pale (=Strongbow being invited in by an Irish king in Dublin, actually) fully in line with international practice at the time.

The Roman Catholic Church (which had earlier handed Ireland to the English crown) was always a very political animal, and the break with Rome had to do with Habsburg influence on the Papacy at the time, and very little to do with theology. Importantly, the RC church cynically sought to use the Irish in their own power games. But the church was a powerful institution at the time, and for Ireland to be under the control of Rome would be a political and military threat to England.

You fail to understand what Professor John Mearsheimer calls the tragedy of great power politics. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Smaller nations next to great powers have to fit in or face the consequences. The Ukraine is learning right now that it was a buffoonish step for it to declare itself an eternal enemy of Russia and seek to join NATO. This is just realist geopolitics. Ireland has time and again overplayed its hand - and indeed shows signs of doing so again - because Ireland has learnt NOTHING from history. I think it very unlikely the Republic of Ireland will exist at the end of the century, because it has made clear it wants a relationship of hostility with its neighbour. As the international system breaks down - visibly - and China and Russia begin to rise, a new order with more freedom of action for regional great powers will be created. There is no space in that for a small country spewing hostility towards its larger neighbour. Currently, the UK prefers to let the Irish and the EU calm down and is seeking to rise above the tensions those countries create, but people like Sunak (=a traitor to Britain) will not always be in power.

In the 1780s, Ireland was formally independent (=Poyning's Law had been repealed), but, yes, it was ruled by the Protestant Ascendancy. This was not at all the same as in the 1600s when open warfare raged in Ireland. In 1795, the British actually set up Maynooth for the RC Church. Ireland was an independent country that could have evolved, but Wolf Tone (a Protestant who only knew other Protestants and doesn't mention Catholics in his autobiography) sought, for his own interests, to involve the French in Irish affairs.

Once again this is about geopolitical realism. Fairness doesn't come into it. A small nation that does everything it can to present a problem to a larger neighbour will be punished for it. Just like Cuba was not allowed to station Soviet missiles - theoretically "unfair", but it is laughable for a small nation like that to try to threaten its larger neighbour. This is reality.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Elias, Google [Bot] and 7 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