Study Group: Teach Yourself Irish Dillon/Ó Cróinín (GM)

Deghebh · **Posted:** Tue 30 Oct 2012 12:56 am

Deghebh wrote:

Now up to page 49
There are some complex sutures, (joinings), and I do need help.
Work files can be seen at:
https://www.box.com/s/pzq9zhi6y2f940r25oqg
Le meas,
Deghebh.

Everything is very quiet here.
Is the TYI study group dormant?
Is anyone out there interested in my present task, which is now up to page 61.
Help would be appreceated, and credited.
Le meas,
Deghebh.

An Cionnfhaolach · **Joined:** Fri 09 Mar 2012 6:16 pm **Posts:** 1527

Deghebh wrote:

Now up to page 49
There are some complex sutures, (joinings), and I do need help.
Work files can be seen at:
https://www.box.com/s/pzq9zhi6y2f940r25oqg
Le meas,
Deghebh.

Everything is very quiet here.
Is the TYI study group dormant?
Is anyone out there interested in my present task, which is now up to page 61.
Help would be appreceated, and credited.
Le meas,
Deghebh.

I would love to know what you are undertaking, but from what I've seen it looks fairly extensive and impressive. I think you deserve great credit. I would also love to help in anyway I can, but I don't really understand what is it your doing or where you need the help?

Beir Beannacht,

Cian.

Mick · **Joined:** Fri 18 Nov 2011 2:27 pm **Posts:** 622

Deghebh wrote:

Everything is very quiet here.
Is the TYI study group dormant?

I have fallen WAAAY behind. In the middle of a house move, going from a fully furnished rented house to a completely empty apartment. These days, all my spare time is spent on renovations and tracking down furniture, appliances etc.

I should be settled within the next 2 weeks, then I'll be back to my Irish studies again.

Deghebh · **Posted:** Thu 08 Nov 2012 12:59 pm

An Cionnfhaolach wrote:

Deghebh wrote:

Now up to page 49
There are some complex sutures, (joinings), and I do need help.
Work files can be seen at:
https://www.box.com/s/pzq9zhi6y2f940r25oqg
Le meas,
Deghebh.

Everything is very quiet here.
Is the TYI study group dormant?
Is anyone out there interested in my present task, which is now up to page 61.
Help would be appreceated, and credited.
Le meas,
Deghebh.

I would love to know what you are undertaking, but from what I've seen it looks fairly extensive and impressive. I think you deserve great credit. I would also love to help in anyway I can, but I don't really understand what is it your doing or where you need the help?

Beir Beannacht,

Cian.

A Chiaine, a chara,
My experience with the Latin Diatessaron dates back many years, probably 12 or more.
Contrary to popular propaganda, it now seems likely that the Latin Diatessaron was the FIRST form of the Gospel(s) in Latin.
That is, the harmonized Gospel appeared in Latin BEFORE the individual Gospels, and thus, if the individual Gospels mirror the phraseology of the Latin Diatessaron, then they were derived therefrom, and not as commonly believed, vise versa.

Thus, I believe that the Latin Diatessaron, as found in SG56, which you can find in archive.org at:
http://archive.org/details/CodexSangallensis56
is a most important document, and the evidence is that the Codex Fuldensis, from which it was copied, was the work of Irish scribes.
So, I thought: Why not put it back into Irish, using a script similar to the original, and the Gospels, as translated from the Latin by Father Peter O'Leary.
The technique of Fragment Substitution does not require an extensive understanding of both source and destination languages for the greater part, only the ability to recognise equivalent phrases.
The only places where problems can arise is where there is a context change, such as a switch from one author to another, or where the text in the key Gospels does not exactly match the source text.

Where I am in difficulty, I have used either Orange type, Yellow highlight, or both, each with a new footnote in Orange or Red.

So far, I am up to page 76. The text runs from page 25 to page 342, with 2 page number missing, but this is a numbering error in the manuscript, not missing pages.

So look please first at the bits that bother me, then, if you have the time, read the RHS column, and see if the text runs smoothly, and makes as much, hopefully more sense than the English in the middle column.

The original intent was for this to be the work file only, and to transfer the finished text to a file matched to the manuscript, but I am tempted now to keep it as it stands.

Tell me what you think.

I prefer the seanchló as it does not require that I mess with P.U.L.'s spellings, though I do prefer the later seanchló, as it is easier on the eye.

Is mise, le meas,
Deghebh.

An Cionnfhaolach · **Joined:** Fri 09 Mar 2012 6:16 pm **Posts:** 1527

An Lon Dubh wrote:

Well I'm reading it at the moment, I really want to get my hands on the original printing, but I have to say Amhlaoibh is some character, he's very descriptive in the sex scenes! I must post up some of the short historically interesting sections for people here. Funnily enough, in one part he makes love in front of a waterfall (Eas) with some local girl (not his wife, who was off somewhere else), however on first reading I understood it as weasal (also Eas) and I thought "They had sex in front of a big weasal, what?!". Luckily the article (an t-eas, not an eas) clued me in soon enough!

, I wonder if we have the same book! :LOL:

. What page is that on?

An Lon Dubh wrote:

Saoirse wrote:

An Lon Dubh wrote:

"They had sex in front of a big weasal, what?!".

Now, there's a tattoo request we are unlikely to get here on ILF!

Well, if you do, I can be relied on to give you it in genuine 19th century Déise Irish.

Quote:

This Amhlaoibh does sound like a bit of an eas.

He certainly is.[/quote]

Hey, don't but down a man for getting some eas! :darklaugh:

An Cionnfhaolach · **Joined:** Fri 09 Mar 2012 6:16 pm **Posts:** 1527

Deghebh wrote:

A Chiaine, a chara,
My experience with the Latin Diatessaron dates back many years, probably 12 or more.
Contrary to popular propaganda, it now seems likely that the Latin Diatessaron was the FIRST form of the Gospel(s) in Latin.
That is, the harmonized Gospel appeared in Latin BEFORE the individual Gospels, and thus, if the individual Gospels mirror the phraseology of the Latin Diatessaron, then they were derived therefrom, and not as commonly believed, vise versa.

Thus, I believe that the Latin Diatessaron, as found in SG56, which you can find in archive.org at:
http://archive.org/details/CodexSangallensis56
is a most important document, and the evidence is that the Codex Fuldensis, from which it was copied, was the work of Irish scribes.
So, I thought: Why not put it back into Irish, using a script similar to the original, and the Gospels, as translated from the Latin by Father Peter O'Leary.
The technique of Fragment Substitution does not require an extensive understanding of both source and destination languages for the greater part, only the ability to recognise equivalent phrases.
The only places where problems can arise is where there is a context change, such as a switch from one author to another, or where the text in the key Gospels does not exactly match the source text.

Where I am in difficulty, I have used either Orange type, Yellow highlight, or both, each with a new footnote in Orange or Red.

So far, I am up to page 76. The text runs from page 25 to page 342, with 2 page number missing, but this is a numbering error in the manuscript, not missing pages.

So look please first at the bits that bother me, then, if you have the time, read the RHS column, and see if the text runs smoothly, and makes as much, hopefully more sense than the English in the middle column.

The original intent was for this to be the work file only, and to transfer the finished text to a file matched to the manuscript, but I am tempted now to keep it as it stands.

Tell me what you think.

I prefer the seanchló as it does not require that I mess with P.U.L.'s spellings, though I do prefer the later seanchló, as it is easier on the eye.

Is mise, le meas,
Deghebh.

Pg 28 of the first pdf:

You have: de theaghlach dáibhid

I understand that you mentioned it in your footnote about Abraham but Dáibhí is the Gaelicised version of David so I think it should agree with Irish grammar. Therefore: Dháibhidh

The paragraph of which this phrase is located, is well translated and makes perfect sense to me in Irish. I don't think a direct translation: "De thoigh Dháibhídh" would make any sense in an Irish language context.

What about using Muinntear/ Muinntir or Clann instead of Teaghlach.

Is this the kinda input you were looking for or am I off the mark?

Sorry for late reply!

Deghebh · **Posted:** Wed 14 Nov 2012 10:29 pm

An Cionnfhaolach wrote:

Deghebh wrote:

A Chiain, a chara,
My experience with the Latin Diatessaron dates back many years, probably 12 or more.
Contrary to popular propaganda, it now seems likely that the Latin Diatessaron was the FIRST form of the Gospel(s) in Latin.
That is, the harmonized Gospel appeared in Latin BEFORE the individual Gospels, and thus, if the individual Gospels mirror the phraseology of the Latin Diatessaron, then they were derived therefrom, and not as commonly believed, vise versa.

Thus, I believe that the Latin Diatessaron, as found in SG56, which you can find in archive.org at:
http://archive.org/details/CodexSangallensis56
is a most important document, and the evidence is that the Codex Fuldensis, from which it was copied, was the work of Irish scribes.
So, I thought: Why not put it back into Irish, using a script similar to the original, and the Gospels, as translated from the Latin by Father Peter O'Leary.
The technique of Fragment Substitution does not require an extensive understanding of both source and destination languages for the greater part, only the ability to recognise equivalent phrases.
The only places where problems can arise is where there is a context change, such as a switch from one author to another, or where the text in the key Gospels does not exactly match the source text.

Where I am in difficulty, I have used either Orange type, Yellow highlight, or both, each with a new footnote in Orange or Red.

So far, I am up to page 76. The text runs from page 25 to page 342, with 2 page number missing, but this is a numbering error in the manuscript, not missing pages.

So look please first at the bits that bother me, then, if you have the time, read the RHS column, and see if the text runs smoothly, and makes as much, hopefully more sense than the English in the middle column.

The original intent was for this to be the work file only, and to transfer the finished text to a file matched to the manuscript, but I am tempted now to keep it as it stands.

Tell me what you think.

I prefer the seanchló as it does not require that I mess with P.U.L.'s spellings, though I do prefer the later seanchló, as it is easier on the eye.

Is mise, le meas,
Deghebh.

Pg 28 of the first pdf:

You have: de theaghlach dáibhid

I understand that you mentioned it in your footnote about Abraham but Dáibhí is the Gaelicised version of David so I think it should agree with Irish grammar. Therefore: Dháibhidh

The paragraph of which this phrase is located, is well translated and makes perfect sense to me in Irish. I don't think a direct translation: "De thoigh Dháibhídh" would make any sense in an Irish language context.

What about using Muinntear/ Muinntir or Clann instead of Teaghlach.

Is this the kinda input you were looking for or am I off the mark?

Sorry for late reply!

Thankyou for your response. What I am trying (very) to do is use Father Peter's Irish, and his style to translate this harmonised gospel.
Now Father Peter abstained deliberately from Gaelicising the names used beyond transliterating into the Irish font, so he uses: "Dáibhid" for "David". Likewise he only transliterates the Latin and Jewish terms without imposing Irish grammar upon them. This is the style of Father Peter, and that then is what I must follow.
This is not a forgery, though some might see it as such. It is a "What if?"
I am now reformatting the earlier pages into phrases, which correspond line by line with the Latin and the English, so that this becomes almost an interlinear text, and can thus be used in reading, as in writing, as a learning tool.

So, "de theaghach Dáibhid" is implying, "of the (royal) house of David", and, yes, the language used is archaic, but that reflects the style.
Father Peter uses "theaghach" in this context elsewhere, so I assume it is the correct word to use here.

The real difficulties are where the weaving might cause requirement to alter delensions, or where I have missed a typo, or worse, made one.
You will see how the weaver lightly switches between the evangelists. It work well in the Latin, the English seems to work ok. How does the Irish work? Can it be improved?
These are the areas where I will need help. The style is a given. It is my errors in this style which need correcting.
I have reformatted up to page 50. Pages 59 to 82 are already in the new format, though the index column is not correctly formatted. Page 82 is the latest page translated. There is getting to be quite a lot to read. Yes, there are typos, I found lots during reformatting. My average is about a dozen per page. Not very good, but 100 times better than the OCR!
Is mise, le meas,
Deghebh.

Deghebh · **Posted:** Fri 18 Jan 2013 3:39 pm

An Lon Dubh wrote:

Mick wrote:

Is féidir linn caint faoi páirt 1 anois, roimh an Mháirt.

Quote:

From page 9: One sound about which a special note is required is r. It is always trilled, never flapped or silent as in English. For broad r there is no further difficulty, but slender r is difficult for English speakers. It approaches the sound of z. (In some dialects it has almost become z.)

This piece stood out in my mind for two reasons. First, the book says that broad r is "always trilled." I don't think "trilled" is the right word here. I would call it a "tapped" or "flapped" r. (The book says it's "never flapped" but I think they're using these words differently to how I would use them. I'm not saying the book is wrong here, just that the terms they're using are a bit confusing.)

Yeah, you're right. The broad "r" is tapped, not trilled in the middle of a word. At the beginning of a word it has a slightly different sound for older speakers where it can sound like a trill. I'll try recording myself doing it.

Quote:

The book says that slender r "has almost become z" in some dialects. I think they could be talking about Connemara dialects here. Even though I prefer Munster Irish, I found that listening to Connemara speakers really helped me to pick up the sound of the slender r. Am I right in thinking that the "z" sound is very subtle in Munster, and that the r is a lot closer to (but not the same as) an English r?

Not only is it more subtle, but often slender r becomes broad r. At the end of words if the next word begins with t,d,s or l for example. I might as well write a long post on the Munster "r" if that would be of interest to anybody.

A Cháirde,
May I add my understanding of "r"
Broad:
A single tap is phonologically identical with a 'd'
A double tap is identical with 'dd'
Three or more taps are a trill.
If you attempt a trill with your mouth in a slender position, the buccal cavity is too small to support the relaxation oscillation which results in a trill, and instead, a buzz is produced, and since the tongue is in the position of a 'd', the sound is very similar to the English voiced 'th', as in 'thee'.
le meas,
Deghebh.

franc 91 · **Posted:** Thu 24 Jan 2013 8:59 am

Dia daoibh ar maidin,
I've been away for a while, but does anyone know what's happened to the Cork Irish wordpress site? I'm very sad and surprised to see that it's gone. It was so useful and comprehensive, that I just can't believe that's disappeared.
Franc

An Lon Dubh · **Joined:** Fri 30 Sep 2011 10:08 pm **Posts:** 1313

Don't worry, it's simply at a new address:
http://corkirish.wordpress.com/

Forum rules

Study Group: Teach Yourself Irish Dillon/Ó Cróinín (GM)

Who is online