Please say my Gaelic name
Christine Lindamood
century Scottish persona. My name is Cairistiona nhic Dhùghaill, and I used
to have the pronunciation until my mail program ate the message Micheil sent
me that contained the pronunciation! Could someone give me the correct
Gaelic pronunciation again?
Slàinte,
Christine/Cairistiona
--
Christine M. Lindamood / Cairistiona nhic Dhughaill of Isenfir, Kingdom of
Atlantia
Dancer / Mommy / Artist / Speech Pathologist
Imagination rules the world
Micheil
<moon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I am a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, and have a 15th
>century Scottish persona. My name is Cairistiona nhic Dhůghaill, and I used
>to have the pronunciation until my mail program ate the message Micheil sent
>me that contained the pronunciation! Could someone give me the correct
>Gaelic pronunciation again?
>Slŕinte,
>Christine/Cairistiona
KAH-reesh-CHAW-na
- měcheil
- innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg...
Sharon L. Krossa
Please note that Micheil's comments were under the assumption that you
were attempting a *modern* Scottish Gaelic name, not a period one
suitable for the SCA.
That being said, the pronunciation he gave for your given name was
probably correct, and I expect was something like:
Cairsitíona \KAHR-ish-TCHEE-nah\
There is evidence that Cairistíona was being used by Scottish Gaels in
the 16th century. However, the particular Gaelic spelling <Cairistíona>
is a modern one -- I have not found any period examples of the name
spelled in Gaelic, only examples in the names of Gaels recorded in other
languages. For example, a list of Gaels who were parishioners in
Kilmacronak in Muckarne, in the west Highlands, in 1541 included
"Karistina nein a doura"**; <Karistina> is a Latin form/spelling of the
name which appears to be an attempt to phonentically render
<Cairistíona>. But <Cairsitíona> is a reasonable speculation for the
16th century spelling. Note also that the accent on the final <i> in
<Cairistíona> should be an acute accent for period use rather than a
grave accent as used in modern Scottish Gaelic. (In period all Gaelic
accents, both Irish and Scottish, were acute <í> rather than grave <ì>.)
However, your byname has some problems when it comes to historical
plausibility/authenticity.
Period Scottish Gaels used literal patronymics, such that Ealusaid who
was the daughter of <Dubhghall mac Eoin> would be known as <Ealusaid
inghean Dhubhghaill>, literally 'Ealusaid daughter of Dubhgaill'.
Gaelic <nic> (not <nhic>) is a contraction of period <inghean mhic>, and
the spelling <nic> was not used in period Gaelic. The story get's a
little complicated, though, because in the 16th century <inghean mhic>
was pronounced, at least in some Scottish Gaelic dialects, as roughly
\neek\ (which explains why later the Gaelic spelling was contracted to
<nic> ;-). However, in the 15th century <inghean mhic> was still being
pronounced roughly \EEN-yen veek\. Anyway, <inghean mhic> means
'daughter of son', not 'daugther', and so far as I've found only shows
up in certain circumstances in period Scottish Gaelic, these
circumstances including in the bynames of the daughters of clan chiefs
where their father's chiefly title is in the form <Mac X>. Used with
<Dubhghall>, it would imply that you were the daughter of a clan chief
with the chiefly title <Mac Dubhghaill> (perhaps the chief of Clann
Dubhghaill or the like).
Finally, <Dhughaill> is a modern spelling of period Gaelic
<Dhubhghaill>, which is the lenited genitive (possessive) form of
<Dubhghall>.
So, a historically plausible pre-1600 name meaning 'Cairistíona daughter
of Dubhgall' would be
<Cairistíona inghean Dhubhghaill>
It is most certainly suitable for the 16th century, when it would be
pronounced roughly
\KAHR-ish-TCHEE-nah NEE-yen GHOO-ghahl\
It is not certain that it suitable for the 15th century, since the
evidence for the given name dates only to 1541, but if it were used in
the 15th century it would be pronounced roughly
\KAHR-ish-TCHEE-nah EEN-yen GHOO-ghahl\
Notice the change is in the pronunciation of <inghean>.
The \GH\ and \gh\ are voiced versions of the rasping <ch> sound found in
Scottish <loch> or German <ach> and <bach>. Voiced means your vocal
cords are vibrating when you say it. For example, <g> is the voiced form
of <k>, <d> is the voiced form of <t>, <v> is the voiced form of <f>,
<b> is the voiced form of <p>.
Oops, I note from your .sig that you're a speech pathologist -- I expect
you know exactly what voiced means! But I'll leave it in for the
archives :-). If you like, I can give you a proper phonetic description
of the pronunciation and sounds (using ASCII IPA or technical
descriptions).
Information about historical Gaelic naming can be found at the web sites
listed in in my signature. Specifically you may want to look at the
article "Quick and Easy Gaelic Names" at
http://www.MedievalScotland.org/scotnames/quickgaelicbynames/
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me off list (I'm
not supposed to be reading soc.culture.scottish, and I really do intend
to behave after this posting). Researching historical Scottish naming,
including Gaelic naming, is one of the things I do ;-). (I can also help
provide documentation if you wish to register your name with Laurel.)
Sharon Krossa
**Ewen, C. L'Estrange. _A History of Surnames of the British Isles_.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 1931. Reprint, Detroit: Gale Research
Company, 1968, p. 209.
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Nick-Durie
Sharon L. Krossa <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:1ert1wt.3fwh93d38cdqN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
> Christine Lindamood <moon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I am a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, and have a 15th
> > century Scottish persona. My name is Cairistiona nhic Dhùghaill, and I
used
> > to have the pronunciation until my mail program ate the message Micheil
sent
> > me that contained the pronunciation! Could someone give me the correct
> > Gaelic pronunciation again?
> > Slàinte,
> > Christine/Cairistiona
> > --
> > Christine M. Lindamood / Cairistiona nhic Dhughaill of Isenfir, Kingdom
of
> > Atlantia
> > Dancer / Mommy / Artist / Speech Pathologist
> >
> > Imagination rules the world
Well expounded, as ever. All I can say Shaz is that thank God Adkins the
Pilk didn't claim ascendency from some 12th century Gaelic folk.
Christine Lindamood
--
Christine M. Lindamood / Cairistiona nhic Dhughaill of Isenfir, Kingdom of
Atlantia
Dancer / Mommy / Artist / Speech Pathologist
Imagination rules the world
"Nick-Durie" <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3ad78...@news1.vip.uk.com...
Tom Thomson
L. Krossa) wrote:
>Finally, <Dhughaill> is a modern spelling of period Gaelic
><Dhubhghaill>, which is the lenited genitive (possessive) form of
><Dubhghall>.
>
>So, a historically plausible pre-1600 name meaning 'Cairistíona daughter
>of Dubhgall' would be
>
><Cairistíona inghean Dhubhghaill>
>
>It is most certainly suitable for the 16th century, when it would be
>pronounced roughly
>
>\KAHR-ish-TCHEE-nah NEE-yen GHOO-ghahl\
>
>It is not certain that it suitable for the 15th century, since the
>evidence for the given name dates only to 1541, but if it were used in
>the 15th century it would be pronounced roughly
>
>\KAHR-ish-TCHEE-nah EEN-yen GHOO-ghahl\
>
>Notice the change is in the pronunciation of <inghean>.
>
There's one big snag with all this. To me it is inconceivable that
the D of DubhGhaill would be lenited after the n of nighean or inghean
in either the 15th or 16th century. Late 20th century teenagers who
have bad speech habits maybe, but certainly not even 100 years ago let
alone that far back.
M.
Tom Thomson
<Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote:
>
>Well expounded, as ever. All I can say Shaz is that thank God Adkins the
>Pilk didn't claim ascendency from some 12th century Gaelic folk.
>
I take it there's a drawl vowel between the l and the k?
M.
Micheil
Well, in 1566 the MacLeod Charters recorded "nc vcKenze", which we can
safely assume stands for "Nic Mhic", so there's lenition in the 16th
century for Nic.
Tom Thomson
>>
>>There's one big snag with all this. To me it is inconceivable that
>>the D of DubhGhaill would be lenited after the n of nighean or inghean
>>in either the 15th or 16th century. Late 20th century teenagers who
>>have bad speech habits maybe, but certainly not even 100 years ago let
>>alone that far back.
>>
>>M.
>
>Well, in 1566 the MacLeod Charters recorded "nc vcKenze", which we can
>safely assume stands for "Nic Mhic", so there's lenition in the 16th
>century for Nic.
>
>- měcheil
>
>- innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg...
And you think "m" is a dental consonant like "d"? God help us!
M.
Sharon L. Krossa
To the best of my knowledge, in Common Classical Gaelic (as in Middle
Gaelic and Early Gaelic) words that came after nominative feminine nouns
were lenited, most specifically, after nominative feminine or a-stem
nouns, such as <inghean> (Archaic Irish <inigena>). [See Thurneysen _A
Grammar of Old Irish_]. Thus, a word that come after <inghean>
(nominative feminine a-stem noun) was expected to be lenited, though
sometimes they did not show this lenition in the orthography (using an h
or dot to indicate lenition of letters other than c, t, f, and s was
inconsistent until relatively modern times).
Of course, the conscious rules & practice may have been in transition in
the 15th & 16th centuries (certainly the practice after <mac> was
undergoing transition in this period -- using lenition where previously
it had not), and what should have happened didn't always happen.
However, we have evidence of lenition after <inghean> in the
pronunciation spellings found in Scots language documents that use <nic>
and variants (note that is in Scots, not Gaelic, spelling) to represent
<inghean mhic> -- a pronunciation that would not be possible if
<inghean> was not leniting what came after (in this case, <mic>, the
genitive case of <mac>). Further, there are numerous examples of
lenition after <inghean> in pre-1600 Irish documents (see, for example,
the CELT archives at http://www.ucc.ie/celt/)
However, I'd be very interested to know why you would not expect
lenition after <inghean> in the 15th & 16th centuries -- perhaps there
is something I have overlooked. Also, why in the 15th & 16th centuries
would you expect lenition of dentals like <d> to be any different from
the lenition of bilabials like <m>?
Sharon
Micheil
You didn't specify "dental".
Carusus
to reform the spelling of Gaelic to make it easily pronounceable?
"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:1ervj5q.1pjgp7c15di36cN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
Niall
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:40:19 +0200, "Carusus" <caru...@netscape.net>
wrote:
>As a linguist and casual observer, can anyone tell me if there are any plans
>to reform the spelling of Gaelic to make it easily pronounceable?
It is more easily pronounceable than English, because it has
regular spelling rules. Perhaps you ought to reform English.
Niall
--
"o 's ālainn an t-āite"
Nick-Durie
Tom Thomson
Sharon,
Lenition obeys an odd combination of rules, some grammatical and some
phomnetic (of course the grammatical rules are all derived from
earlier phonetic rules).. So it's always a good idea to lok at the
phonetic issues as well as the grammatical ones that you outlined.
There is what might almst be described as a fundamental rule in modern
Gaelic that dental cononants are never lenited after "n" - ok, in the
late 20th century one sometimes encounters "nighean dhonn" in place of
"nighean donn" but to my generation it sounds very wrong. An example
of this that survives withou exception today (unlike the "nighean
donn" example) is the simple observation that "cha" never lenites "t"
- it voices it instead; one can observe the (rather weird at first
sight) spellings "cha d''thog" and "cha d'thig" in place of "cha tog"
and "cha tig" respectively over the last few hundred yeard ( earliest
example in Watson is claimed to be 1570, I think, but I don't have the
book to hand so I may have that completely wrong) as evidence that
this non-lenition of dentals after after "n" is not a recent
phenomenon.
When I said "mdern Gaelic" in the last paragraph, I meant anything
that I can read fluently. Obviously I can't rad common Gaelic (what
you may call early modern Iish) fluently, but certainly I have no
trouble with stuff commonly attributed to the 16th century and I am
ure that anything breaking the "dentals are not lenited after n" rule
would clash so much with my experience that I woulkd have noticed it.
Besides, the rule is a phonetic one, and has certainly been ifirmly in
place for the last 200 years and more (bservable in early editions f
Donnachadh Ban's poems, for example); usually gramatical rules
supercede phonetic ones by some process of forming analogies, so your
suggestion that "d" would have been lenited after "n" seems to
contradict the nrmal order of histrical develpment in pronunciatin.
M.
Micheil
Man, I'll second that! What a bastard language to learn to read and
write! Gaelic spelling is so regular that you can pronounce the words
correctly just by following the rules and reading them aloud.
Ever notice how only English-speaking countries hold "spelling bees"?
Other languages don't need them because they spell words just like
they say them. Only English has this insane spelling that bears no
relationship to the pronunciation.
I said angshetty for years, never knowing it was pronounced
ang-ZYE-etty and not like anxious. What a goofy language!
I realize that English has 26 letters and 42 sounds and so the
shortage of letters creates the problem. However, Russia managed to
reform its spelling *, so why not English? Turkey not only created a
simplified spelling, it even switched alphabets, from Arabic to Roman!
And Gaelic switched alphabets from Irish to Roman. So there!
Come on England, get your finger out!
Dr. Samuel Johnston - what a loser!
* (With the weird exception of the famous Nichevo, meaning Nothing or
Forget it! and for some obscure reason, written Nichego.)
James Silverton
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:54:06 GMT, all...@bruaich.org (Niall) wrote:
>
> >
> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:40:19 +0200, "Carusus" <caru...@netscape.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>As a linguist and casual observer, can anyone tell me if there are any plans
> >>to reform the spelling of Gaelic to make it easily pronounceable?
> >
> >
> > It is more easily pronounceable than English, because it has
> >regular spelling rules. Perhaps you ought to reform English.
> >
> >
> >Niall
>
> Man, I'll second that! What a bastard language to learn to read and
> write! Gaelic spelling is so regular that you can pronounce the words
> correctly just by following the rules and reading them aloud.
Without arguing the desirability or otherwise of phonetic spelling, can
someone point me to a pronunciation guide for Gaelic (and Irish too, if
possible)?
Jim.
--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland.
Sharon L. Krossa
> As a linguist and casual observer, can anyone tell me if there are any plans
> to reform the spelling of Gaelic to make it easily pronounceable?
Considering that Gaelic spelling to sound correspondence is so much more
regular and predictable than English spelling to sound correspondence, I
am always amused when people complain in English about Gaelic spelling
and how difficult it is and advocate reforming it "to make it easily
pronounceable". How exactly would you suggest it be reformed? By using
English letters and English spelling conventions? That was tried by a
couple of people in Scotland, most notably in the Book of the Dean of
Lismore and a couple of 17th and/or 18th century works. Thankfully, it
never really caught on -- the texts that used the English style spelling
are a nightmare to try to read! (And it may not be just coincidence that
Manx Gaelic, which did abandon traditional Gaelic spelling, is also the
dead branch of the Gaelic family ;-) English spelling notions simply
cannot convey the sounds of Gaelic, let alone mediate between the
different dialects (allowing them to all use the same Gaelic spelling
system and yet have it represent their own pronunciation relatively
reasonably).
So just as soon as someone comes up with a better spelling system than
the existing Gaelic one for representing broad, slender, lenited broad,
and lenited slender forms for each consonant sound while maintaining an
indication that all four are variations on the same theme (because both
lenition and slenderization are used for grammatical purposes), that
will be when Gaelic spelling is reformed "to make it easily
pronounceable".
In other words, Gaelic spelling is already almost as close to ideal as
one can get with languages & spelling with regard to being easily
pronounceable. And it's effecient, too -- it has both fewer letters and
fewer ambiguities than English! What more do you want?!?!? ;-)
Note also that an Irish style spelling reform is not really suitable for
Scottish Gaelic because hiatus is typically significant in Scottish
Gaelic dialects. Those <mh> or <gh> in the middle of a word that don't
seem to be pronounced in some dialects aren't dispensible -- they give
needed pronunciation information (if only 'the previous vowel and the
following vowel as two seperate vowel sounds').
Sharon
PS Not back yet, just playing a little temporary hooky!
Sharon L. Krossa
The short answer is that Tom was right regarding this particular aspect
of lenition, and I'm very grateful to him for pursuing this question!
Read on for details...
Tom Thomson <mich...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Lenition obeys an odd combination of rules, some grammatical and some
> phomnetic (of course the grammatical rules are all derived from
> earlier phonetic rules).. So it's always a good idea to lok at the
> phonetic issues as well as the grammatical ones that you outlined.
>
> There is what might almst be described as a fundamental rule in modern
> Gaelic that dental cononants are never lenited after "n" - ok, in the
> late 20th century one sometimes encounters "nighean dhonn" in place of
> "nighean donn" but to my generation it sounds very wrong. An example
> of this that survives withou exception today (unlike the "nighean
> donn" example) is the simple observation that "cha" never lenites "t"
> - it voices it instead; one can observe the (rather weird at first
> sight) spellings "cha d''thog" and "cha d'thig" in place of "cha tog"
> and "cha tig" respectively over the last few hundred yeard ( earliest
> example in Watson is claimed to be 1570, I think, but I don't have the
> book to hand so I may have that completely wrong) as evidence that
> this non-lenition of dentals after after "n" is not a recent
> phenomenon.
I'm not sure how <cha> not leniting dentals as early as 1570 is evidence
that dentals don't lenite after <n> -- there is no <n> in <cha>! Have
you left out some steps in this example?
> When I said "mdern Gaelic" in the last paragraph, I meant anything
> that I can read fluently. Obviously I can't rad common Gaelic (what
> you may call early modern Iish)
No, I call it Common Classical Gaelic (well, when referring to the
written forms -- I waffle majorly when it comes to spoken forms ;-) --
having done all my Gaelic studies in Scotland, I was carefully taught to
use <Gaelic> based terminology like <Early Gaelic> and <Middle Gaelic>
rather than <Irish> based terminology like <Old Irish> and <Middle
Irish> ;-) (But I have also learned, perhaps as you have, to mention the
<Irish> based terms for the benefit of those who only know the
Irish-centric terminology!)
> fluently, but certainly I have no
> trouble with stuff commonly attributed to the 16th century and I am
> ure that anything breaking the "dentals are not lenited after n" rule
> would clash so much with my experience that I woulkd have noticed it.
But this raises the question of what stuff are you reading that is
attributed to the 16th century and what are the modern editions you are
reading based on and how have the editors chosen to represent the
language used in them?
For example, 16th century Scottish Gaelic texts written in Gaelic
orthography (of which there aren't very many) can be difficult to use
for information about lenition after <-n> because they still didn't
always indicate lenition where it existed. That is, the absense of
marked lenition in any individual example doesn't mean the letter in
question wasn't actually lenited in speach -- what is needed is
sufficient different examples none of which are lenited, and even then a
few counter examples of lenition (or even one, depending on the number
of examples of any kind) is enough to throw the whole thing into doubt
again. (In other words, it is working in the realm of balance of
probabilities with unsatisfactory data.)
But, for 16th century Scottish texts written in Scots orthography (like
the Book of the Dean of Lismore), you have to go back to the original
Scots orthography to determine whether the editors of a modern Gaelic
orthography version have normalized or modernized the grammar and
lenition or are representing faithfully the lenition found in the Scots
orthography version. (And such texts are the main point of evidence for
what was actually happening in this time with regard to pronunciation --
if the question hadn't been solved by other evidence as will be seen
below, The Book of the Dean of Lismore was going to be my next stop to
try to figure out the answer!)
But this is just a side comment on the way to the real point...
> Besides, the rule is a phonetic one, and has certainly been ifirmly in
> place for the last 200 years and more (bservable in early editions f
> Donnachadh Ban's poems, for example); usually gramatical rules
> supercede phonetic ones by some process of forming analogies, so your
> suggestion that "d" would have been lenited after "n" seems to
> contradict the nrmal order of histrical develpment in pronunciatin.
But there is no law that new phonetic rules cannot arise after a related
grammatical one is established.
If my previous assumtion about the order for this particular development
were correct:
1. (over simplicification) phonetic lenition between vowels, and so
lenition after <inigena> [Archaic Irish]
2. grammatical lenition after words that used to end in vowels (such as
a-stem nouns in the nominative case, o-stem nouns in the genitive case,
etc.), and so lenition after <ingen> [Early Gaelic]
3. phonetic loss of lenition after <-n> for dentals (t, d) [some unknown
point]
The only question here would have been exactly when did step number 3
happen -- was it by the 15th century as you suggest, or after 1600 as I
assumed? But, based on the premises I was working from, either was
possible in some normal order of historical development. I agree that
grammatical rules usually supercede phonetic ones, but there is an
ongoing cycle of grammatical and phonetic changes -- there are other
phonetic developments that have arisen since 1600 (one need only look at
various phonetic differences between dialects to demonstrate this).
HOWEVER! and it is a BIG however, I overlooked something with regard to
the situation, and so was starting from false premises. While step two
is quite correct, the exception of non-lenition of <t> after final <-n>
existed _already_ in Early Gaelic (and cannot be determined from
evidence for <d> because lenition of <d> was not marked in Early Gaelic
orthography, but is most probable). From Thurneysen (section 231.2-3):
-------
2. Lenition does not take place where the O.Ir. final and following
initial consonants constitute a geminate (§ 137).
3. There is no lenition of <t> (and doubtless <d>) after after final
<n>, <l>, <s> (see § 139), <th>, <d>, nor of <c> (and doubtless <g>)
after <-ch>, <-g>.
------
[For the benefit of other readers, "geminate" in this case means a
doubling of a letter, like <nN> or <cC> , etc.]
In other words, the problem with number 3 in my assumption was that it
belonged just prior to or simultaneous with step 2 rather than after
step 2.
So it appears that from Early Gaelic onwards, and so of course in the
15th & 16th centuries, although after <inghean> genitive nouns should be
lenited, this is not so for said nouns starting with dentals <d> and
<t>. So for the particular case of the name in question, Tom is right
that it should be
<inghean Dubhghaill>
Note that what really confirmed the answer (at least for me) to this
question wasn't so much the evidence of modern Gaelic or Gaelic from 200
years ago -- this evidence only confirmed that for this particular issue
things continued to go on as they had in the past. The evidence that was
needed to really confirm the issue was evidence from the time in
question (15th & 16th centuries) or from *before* that time -- in this
case, way before that time. But in retrospect, and perhaps this is what
Tom was trying to get us to see, the specific logics of the sounds
involved and the history of those sounds and sound changes probably does
suggest that the <d>/<t> exception ought to have been in place from
earlier times rather than a modern development -- but I'm not a real
linguist so I will leave such theoretical feats of determining things
from modern dialects backwards to those who really know what they're
doing ;-)
Of course, having said that, doing a grep search through the CELT
archives finds a bunch of examples of <t> and <d> lenited after <n>,
including:
M1258.7 [Annals of the Four Masters]
Ba samhail do thurus Tuathail Techtmair tar muir anall a h-Albain iar
n-dilgenn t-saorclann Ereann la h-aithechthuathaibh an **turus-sin
Dhomhnaill** Oicc a h-Albain a leith le h-iomuaim n-airdrighe
M1444.16 [Annals of the Four Masters]
Dubhchoblaigh __inghean Tomáis__ Mheg Uidhir (tighearna Fear Manach)
bean Eoghain Mhég Cathmhaoíl **bean dhaonnachtach** dheshearcach
deigh-einigh do écc.
M1495.1 [Annals of the Four Masters]
Sean Mag Uidhir mhac Piarais mic Muiris, **persún Dhoire** Mhaolain
M1507.2 [Annals of the Four Masters]
Grainne inghen Még Uidhir (.i. Emann) ben Pilip mic Toirrdhealbhaigh,
**ben dhércach** deigh-einigh, & Cataríona inghen Chon Chonnacht mic
Maghnusa Mhég Mathghamhna d'écc.
M1507.16 [Annals of the Four Masters]
Ua **Dúnáin Dhomhnaigh** Maighe Da Claoíne do mharbhadh do shadhadh do
scín la a do bhrathair fein Giolla Padraicc mac Pilip.
M1513.10 [Annals of the Four Masters]
**Caislen Dhúin** Lis do ghabhail la h-Ua Domhnaill ar chloinn Gheroitt
Mic
Uidhilin
M1590.5 [Annals of the Four Masters]
Mac Uí Neill .i. Aodh Geimhleach, mac **Seain Dhonnghailigh**
Though note that example M1444.16 includes both an example of
non-lenition after <inghean> and lenition after the <-n> of <bean>. Also
note that the Annals of the Four Masters were written in the 16th or
17th century (I can't recall which offhand), but still they demonstrate
that occasionally leniting dentals after <-n> is not an invention of the
20th century. (And there were far more examples of non-lenition than of
lenition!)
Anyway, I didn't find any examples of <t> or <d> lenited after <inghean>
or <clann>.
Again, many, many thanks for raising this issue and pursuing it -- I
have some online articles to revise and co-conspirators to alert!
Sharon (not back, just playing a little hooky)
Micheil
L. Krossa) wrote:
>In other words, Gaelic spelling is already almost as close to ideal as
>one can get with languages & spelling with regard to being easily
>pronounceable. And it's effecient, too -- it has both fewer letters and
>fewer ambiguities than English! What more do you want?!?!? ;-)
It's surprising , isn't it, how people who are monoglot English assume
that English is essentially phonetic and every other language is not?
I've often explained, even to other Celtic language speakers, how
Gaelic is almost as close to a completely phonetic language as one
could hope for. Of course most people are so lazy it defies one's
imagination and learning a new set of spelling rules lies well beyond
their energy levels.
In particular, Gaelic's use of "h" to indicate lenition is a stroke of
linguistic genius, especially after trying to puzzle out a Brythonic
word which has simply changed its first consonant to indicate a
lenited spelling. I think the worth of "h" as a lenition indicator has
been proved by the wholesale Irish adoption of the same convention,
showing that Scottish Gaels are not burdened with an antique
orthography as people seem to believe, in sharp contrast to the almost
incomprehensible spelling of English.
As always, your Gaelic scholarship shines through the murk of
misunderstanding. I would give much to have your erudition and can
only wish that circumstances had steered me into the same field.
As ever,
Ruadhraigh
in the Irish Times many many moons ago, wrote a very funny piece. It
was in English, but using Gaelic sound correspondence. It looked
quite unintellible, but if you read it out loud as if it were Gaelic
you could hear the English. Very wierd! - but no more wierd than
"Clive More" for "Claimh Mór".
Rúadhraigh.
Chic McGregor
(Ruadhraigh) wrote:
>Flann O'Brien ('At Swim Two Birds' etc)writing as "Myles na Gopalleen"
>in the Irish Times many many moons ago, wrote a very funny piece. It
>was in English, but using Gaelic sound correspondence. It looked
>quite unintellible, but if you read it out loud as if it were Gaelic
>you could hear the English. Very wierd! - but no more wierd than
>"Clive More" for "Claimh Mór".
>
>Rúadhraigh.
>
His only gaelic story was 'The Poor Mouth', one of his funniest where
he pokes fun at the onomatapigic nature of gaelic.
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:32:46 GMT, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu (Sharon
>L. Krossa) wrote:
>
>>Carusus <caru...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> As a linguist and casual observer, can anyone tell me if there are any plans
>>> to reform the spelling of Gaelic to make it easily pronounceable?
>>
>>Considering that Gaelic spelling to sound correspondence is so much more
>>regular and predictable than English spelling to sound correspondence, I
>>am always amused when people complain in English about Gaelic spelling
>>and how difficult it is and advocate reforming it "to make it easily
>>pronounceable". How exactly would you suggest it be reformed? By using
>>English letters and English spelling conventions? That was tried by a
>>couple of people in Scotland, most notably in the Book of the Dean of
>>Lismore and a couple of 17th and/or 18th century works. Thankfully, it
A MacGregor god blessim.
>>never really caught on -- the texts that used the English style spelling
>>are a nightmare to try to read! (And it may not be just coincidence that
>>Manx Gaelic, which did abandon traditional Gaelic spelling, is also the
>>dead branch of the Gaelic family ;-) English spelling notions simply
>>cannot convey the sounds of Gaelic, let alone mediate between the
>>different dialects (allowing them to all use the same Gaelic spelling
>>system and yet have it represent their own pronunciation relatively
>>reasonably).
>>
>>So just as soon as someone comes up with a better spelling system than
>>the existing Gaelic one for representing broad, slender, lenited broad,
>>and lenited slender forms for each consonant sound while maintaining an
>>indication that all four are variations on the same theme (because both
>>lenition and slenderization are used for grammatical purposes), that
>>will be when Gaelic spelling is reformed "to make it easily
>>pronounceable".
>>
:-)
>>In other words, Gaelic spelling is already almost as close to ideal as
>>one can get with languages & spelling with regard to being easily
>>pronounceable. And it's effecient, too -- it has both fewer letters and
>>fewer ambiguities than English! What more do you want?!?!? ;-)
>>
>>Note also that an Irish style spelling reform is not really suitable for
>>Scottish Gaelic because hiatus is typically significant in Scottish
>>Gaelic dialects. Those <mh> or <gh> in the middle of a word that don't
>>seem to be pronounced in some dialects aren't dispensible -- they give
>>needed pronunciation information (if only 'the previous vowel and the
>>following vowel as two seperate vowel sounds').
>>
>>Sharon
>>
>>PS Not back yet, just playing a little temporary hooky!
Know the feeling.
>>--
>>Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
>>Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
>>The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
>> The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
>
regards
chic
Chic McGregor
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:32:46 GMT, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu (Sharon
>L. Krossa) wrote:
>
>>In other words, Gaelic spelling is already almost as close to ideal as
>>one can get with languages & spelling with regard to being easily
>>pronounceable. And it's effecient, too -- it has both fewer letters and
>>fewer ambiguities than English! What more do you want?!?!? ;-)
>
>It's surprising , isn't it, how people who are monoglot English assume
>that English is essentially phonetic and every other language is not?
>
>I've often explained, even to other Celtic language speakers, how
>Gaelic is almost as close to a completely phonetic language as one
>could hope for. Of course most people are so lazy it defies one's
>imagination and learning a new set of spelling rules lies well beyond
>their energy levels.
>
>In particular, Gaelic's use of "h" to indicate lenition is a stroke of
>linguistic genius, especially after trying to puzzle out a Brythonic
>word which has simply changed its first consonant to indicate a
>lenited spelling. I think the worth of "h" as a lenition indicator has
>been proved by the wholesale Irish adoption of the same convention,
>showing that Scottish Gaels are not burdened with an antique
>orthography as people seem to believe, in sharp contrast to the almost
>incomprehensible spelling of English.
>
Common Mike, the Irish did use the overdot, which in a written text
was a completely sensible thing to do.
>As always, your Gaelic scholarship shines through the murk of
>misunderstanding. I would give much to have your erudition and can
>only wish that circumstances had steered me into the same field.
>
>As ever,
>
>
>- měcheil
>
>- innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg...
regards
chic