I always thought that this was an absolute rule (à la Christian Bros) but I've just looked up the word 'lá' on Pota Focal and realised (to my horror) that in the plural it's - laethanta - will someone kindly tell to me why there isn't an 'e' after the th ?

You know you have been studying Irish too long when what causes 'horror' in your life is the 'caol le caol, leathan le leathan rule' not being followed! Sorry, not helpful, but I couldn't resist.

_________________

ospidéal breaks the caol le caol, leathan le leathan rule (although óispidéal doesn't). There are always exceptions.
Compound words routinely break the 'rule': banphrionsa, dlúthdhiosca
Words with ae like Gaeltacht/traein/aerach etc. pretty much always break the rule as ae is treated as one broad vowel.

Even in English ae is kinda weird, and is sometimes joined together: pædiatric (pediatric in American!)

Ceart go leor (as the word paediatric comes from Greek, they were trying to keep as close to the original as they could, I suppose - and there's Ch and ph in Christopher)

not "pretty much always", "ae" is always followed by broad consonants (otherwise you write "aei" as in Gaeilge).

_________________
Is fearr Gaeilg na Gaeltaċta ná Gaeilg ar biṫ eile
Agus is í Gaeilg Ġaoṫ Doḃair is binne

Not always - pretty much always. I never presume to know everything about any language. I don't like to make 100% definite pronouncements about grammatical rules (usually! - there, that takes the edge off it a bit!). There's always the possibility of a loan-word or something from older Irish which breaks the rules.

Let's start with gaethe - variant plural of ga. (Another variant is gaetha.)

Gaethe isn't a modern spelling, it's pre-1950. You find it in FGB because FGB has some older spellings (with cross-references to the "modern spelling" entries). You'll also find it in Dinneen (which isn't in the modern spelling). Older spellings weren't always as "logical" or regular as the modern spelling.
Another example is "Gaedhilge", which has been replaced by "Gaeilge".

_________________
Is fearr Gaeilg na Gaeltaċta ná Gaeilg ar biṫ eile
Agus is í Gaeilg Ġaoṫ Doḃair is binne

The "modern" spelling - logical and regular!? Surely you jest

draoi > draíocht
gnaoi > gnaíúil
an bhean rua > na mná ruaí
an bhean lách > na mná láí
cláirseach > cláirsí
ollamh > ollúna
nigh > ním > ní > nite
ath > ata
ith > itear
sáigh > sánn > shádar > sá
dearbh > dearfa
bláth > bláfar
ath + threabh > atreabh
leaba > leapa
olainn > olla
teach > tí > tithe
etc. etc.

Logic and regularity were sacrificed in the vain attempt to create a "phonetic" orthography. Impossible in a living, dialectically diverse language like Irish.
The "talents" of the civil servants who devised the new spellings would have been more suited to an artificial language like Esperanto.
Istead they've created their own "Gaelsperanto" in the "caighdeán oifigiúil" with its new, improved phonetic spelling, matching standardised pronunciation (an "lárchanúint") and imported vocabulary.
Meanwhile real Irish literature is ignored (it's too hard!) and living Irish in the Gaedhealtachtaí is fading fast.

it's the contrary, the theorical pronunciation created by the authors of Foclóir Póca is based on the spelling, which was created much earlier.

That's right, there are illogical things in the new spelling, but there were many unpronounced letters in the old spelling too so some simplifications are a good idea (eg. -ughadh > -ú... since everybody pronounces -ú). Some others are not...



as far as I know, these don't exist in standard Irish.
"Rua" remains "rua" in the plural, and lách becomes láiche, I think.

And "olla" did exist before the CO, I think.

_________________
Is fearr Gaeilg na Gaeltaċta ná Gaeilg ar biṫ eile
Agus is í Gaeilg Ġaoṫ Doḃair is binne

Yes, I know this. The point is the "lárchanúint" is an artificial pronunciation system created to corrospond to another creation, the C.O. orthography.
The focus has been shifted away from native speakers' Irish and the literature they developed over centuries and onto civil servant/translators Irish more resembling a constructed language (complete with calls on the "authorities" to tinker with it further: "they should do away with initial mutation", "they should introduce words for yes and no" etc. We've all heard this nonsense) - a code into which English is translated rather than a medium of thought and composition.


I agree there was a case for the simplification of some spellings, and certainly change where the traditional spelling conflicted with the modern pronunciation (e.g. chum, aimhdheoin), but instead of a central authority (motivated by now outdated ideas about a perfect, phonetic orthography) laying down general rules, simplified forms found commonly in use in the work of good writers should have been accepted, or rejected, based on their individual merits.

Something like this was already happening: the plural -í had displaced -idhe, -iúil rather than -eamhail was becoming increasingly common along with individual simplifications like bliain and muinín instead of bliadhain and muinighin etc.

Spellings found cumbersome enough and frequently enough tend to be modified by users over time. All that was needed was guidance - especially to ensure that any modifications were suited to all dialects.


I wouldn't agree with you about ughadh. It's not a unit/single suffix like -eamhail. Rather it's the regular verbal noun suffix -adh + the last syllable of the root (the last letter broadened as in buail > bualadh): breathnuigh + -adh = breathnughadh.
It's on the long side , undoubtedly, but a simple and obvious solution would be to permit the contraction -u', so breathnu' etc.


No, they're not standard forms but are dialectical variants found occasionaly. The point was to show the irregularity of the orthography.


All sorts of variant spellings - sometimes resembling the C.O. forms - were to be found. Were they suitable as standard forms though?