Fòram na Gàidhlig

'Andrew Carnie, a UA linguistics professor, is heading a research project to analyze and document Scottish Gaelic, a language that is slowly being lost because natives more readily are learning and speaking English.
By La Monica Everett-Haynes, University Communications July 29, 2010

Scottish Gaelic, an endangered language, is predicted to fall out of use within the century as a consequence of native speakers turning to English instead.
And those concerned with preserving and advancing the use of Scottish Gaelic face another dilemma – the lack of measures accurately stating what constitutes normative Gaelic speech.

At the University of Arizona, Andrew Carnie is leading a team in an analysis of Scottish Gaelic and its use among native speakers.

The team intends for the research – which involves modern instrumental and experimental measurements – to boost preservation efforts and improve what is understood about the language...

...Archangeli said: "A very highly complex language is what we're dealing with." '

Tuilleadh air làrach oilthigh Arizona
http://uanews.org/node/32670

I had no idea Gaelic was still spoken in Arizona! One would have thought the academo-linguistic community thereabouts would be rather more concerned with the plethora of native American languages facing imminent extinction. And would the research be conducted through Gaelic, or using the local language, Spanish?

Seonaidh wrote:I had no idea Gaelic was still spoken in Arizona! One would have thought the academo-linguistic community thereabouts would be rather more concerned with the plethora of native American languages facing imminent extinction. And would the research be conducted through Gaelic, or using the local language, Spanish?

Why was the GOC such a travesty? Because it was written by Celticists and Gaelic teachers rather than by linguists.

Who is running this research?

UANews wrote:Diana Archangeli, a UA linguistics professor and a collaborator on the project, comes with expertise in utilizing ultrasound to study ways native speakers form words in their mouths, offering important insight into articulations of consonants and vowels.

Other team members are: Mike Hammond, who heads the UA linguistics department; Natasha Warner, a UA associate professor of linguistics; native speaker Muriel Fisher, also a UA instructional aide and senior research specialist; and also Colin Gorrie, Lionel Mathieu, Micaya Clymer and Jessamyn Schertz, all gradute students in the linguistic department.

...linguists.

There'll be no politicking in this research and very little pollution from the team's preconceptions.

Archangeli's list of publications is extremely impressive: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~dba/publications.html. There are very few people better placed to do this important work.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the most important research in the history of the language.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the most important research in the history of the language.

Agus se mu dheidhinn 'Soillse'? Could have saved £5,000,000 by giving the Uni of Arizona a wee sub? Tha mi direach ri f2 leis a sin.

I had no idea Gaelic was still spoken in Arizona! One would have thought the academo-linguistic community thereabouts would be rather more concerned with the plethora of native American languages facing imminent extinction.

Cò ag iarraidh sgrìob san chàr agad don fhàsach chun nam bailtean robach dùthasach faisg air làimh nuair a tha cothrom dhut turas no dhà don Ghàidhealtachd a dhèanamh? - f2 eile.

Neil Begg wrote:Why was the GOC such a travesty? Because it was written by Celticists and Gaelic teachers rather than by linguists.

Lorg mi "Celticist" agus dh'fhoillsicheadh gu bheil mòran sa ghnè seo cuideachd an gnè "linguist". Agus 's e fìrinn gu bheil mòran "linguist" Gàidhlig a' buannachadh an aran ri teagasg an cànan. 'S dòcha sin an t-adhbhar nach robh GOC na uabhas idir. Fìrinn: cha toigh leat GOC. Breug: 's ann uabhasach a tha GOC.

Gràisg wrote:Cò ag iarraidh sgrìob san chàr agad don fhàsach chun nam bailtean robach dùthasach faisg air làimh nuair a tha cothrom dhut turas no dhà don Ghàidhealtachd a dhèanamh? - f2 eile.

'S e an fhìrinn a th' agad an sin - mar a chanar sa Bheurla "The grass is always greener..." (no rudeigin mar sin). Ach chan eil mi a' tuigsinn "f2": an e seòrsa teacspeak a th' ann?

Seonaidh wrote:Ach chan eil mi a' tuigsinn "f2": an e seòrsa teacspeak a th' ann?

Fealla-dhà

Seonaidh wrote:Breug: 's ann uabhasach a tha GOC.

Chan e breug a th' ann ach beachd, agus chan e an aon duine san t-saoghal a th' ann an Niall aig a bheil a' bheachd sin

Seonaidh wrote:

Neil Begg wrote:Why was the GOC such a travesty? Because it was written by Celticists and Gaelic teachers rather than by linguists.

Lorg mi "Celticist" agus dh'fhoillsicheadh gu bheil mòran sa ghnè seo cuideachd an gnè "linguist". Agus 's e fìrinn gu bheil mòran "linguist" Gàidhlig a' buannachadh an aran ri teagasg an cànan.

Seall air liosta ballrachd na chiad GOC:
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaidhlig/goc/membership.html
Chan eil "Dr" sam bith air, 's cha robh "Prof" ann ach aon: Ruaraidh MacThomais. Rinn e stuth math sa dhreuchd, ach 's e bàrd a bh' ann, agus cha do rinn e obair sam bith outside the field of Celtic languages. (a reir na bibliographies air eadar lion).

When I talk about linguists, I'm talking about people who know the principles of language and have no specific preconceptions or biases to a particular language. People who try to study language from within one area don't have the big picture and can mislead themselves.

Níall Beag wrote:As far as I'm concerned, this is the most important research in the history of the language.

More than eg Dwelly's or Mark's Dicts? I'll believe that when I see its results really used and helpful at schools &c, not just cited among references in other academic works. Which I'm afraid I won't.

Team members emphasized the difficulty in understanding and researching the language, noting that the elusive nature of Scottish Gaelic is rooted in it being such a rare and unique language.

For instance, it is not uncommon for speakers to change the first consonant of a word depending on the meaning they are trying to convey.

"There are a lot of very strange properties," Archangeli said.

Are the linguists already amazed having encountered lenition or is this meant to amaze the article's reader?

Niall wrote:Chan eil "Dr" sam bith air, 's cha robh "Prof" ann ach aon: Ruaraidh MacThomais. Rinn e stuth math sa dhreuchd, ach 's e bàrd a bh' ann, agus cha do rinn e obair sam bith outside the field of Celtic languages. (a reir na bibliographies air eadar lion).

Tha mi a' tuigsinn. Ged bha "Ollamh" am measg sgioba GOC, cha chiallaich seo dad, air sgàth 's gur e eòlaiche an raon nan cànan Ceilteach a tha e. Cuideachd, tha na litreachan "D.Litt." a' ciallachadh gu bheil "Dr." a th' ann, a bharrachd air "Prof". Tha agam ri ràdh nach eil mi nam "Dr." no "Prof." - thu fhèin?

GC wrote:Chan e breug a th' ann ach beachd, agus chan e an aon duine san t-saoghal a th' ann an Niall aig a bheil a' bheachd sin

'S e an fhìrinn nach e an aon duine amsaa - chan eil mi fhìn ro dheidheil air iomadh rud GOC - ach 's e breug cumail a-mach gur ann uabhasach a tha GOC.

3sel wrote:Are the linguists already amazed having encountered lenition or is this meant to amaze the article's reader?

Gu lèir, 3sel. Perhaps we'd better not tell them about that awful language, English, where you get internal lenition - e.g. "knife" => "knives"... Mas e seo gnè "eòlaichean cànain" na pròiseict, chan fhiach bodraigeadh mu dheidhinn.

Seonaidh wrote:

Niall wrote:Chan eil "Dr" sam bith air, 's cha robh "Prof" ann ach aon: Ruaraidh MacThomais. Rinn e stuth math sa dhreuchd, ach 's e bàrd a bh' ann, agus cha do rinn e obair sam bith outside the field of Celtic languages. (a reir na bibliographies air eadar lion).

Tha mi a' tuigsinn. Ged bha "Ollamh" am measg sgioba GOC, cha chiallaich seo dad, air sgàth 's gur e eòlaiche an raon nan cànan Ceilteach a tha e. Cuideachd, tha na litreachan "D.Litt." a' ciallachadh gu bheil "Dr." a th' ann, a bharrachd air "Prof".

I know he's got a doctorate -- very few people get a chair without one.

Tha agam ri ràdh nach eil mi nam "Dr." no "Prof." - thu fhèin?

No, and for that reason I wouldn't expect to be on the committee responsible for standardising a language.

Perhaps we'd better not tell them about that awful language, English, where you get internal lenition - e.g. "knife" => "knives"...

That's vocalisation (or "voice stealing"), and it's pretty common. I can say for sure it happens in English, Gaelic, French, Catalan and Basque, as a start.

Seonaidh wrote:'S e an fhìrinn nach e an aon duine amsaa - chan eil mi fhìn ro dheidheil air iomadh rud GOC - ach 's e breug cumail a-mach gur ann uabhasach a tha GOC.

'S fheàrr leam gu bheil GOC neo-fhoirfe ann na nach biodh rud sam bi, ach nach e "rudeigin a tha duine ag ràdh gun a bhith ga chreidsinn" a th' ann am breug? Tha mi a' saoilsinn gu bheil Níall ag innse a bheachd - càit' am breug?

Tha diofar eadar rudeigin mar "Tha mi a' creidsinn gur e càise uaine a th' anns a' Ghealaich" agus "'S e càise uaine a th' anns a' Ghealaich".

Chì mi. Bha a h-uile duine a thuirt gun robh a' Ghrian a' dol timcheall na Talmhainn sna Linntean Mheadhanach, seach gun robh e a' creidsinn gun robh, na bhreugaire.

Seonaidh wrote:Tha diofar eadar rudeigin mar "Tha mi a' creidsinn gur e càise uaine a th' anns a' Ghealaich" agus "'S e càise uaine a th' anns a' Ghealaich".

Chan eil diofar mór ann.
'S e beachdan a th' anns na dhà.

'S ann laidir mo bheachd, 's mar sin, their bidh mi ga h-innse gun "Cha chreid mi nach"*


*Why on Earth would I want to use the present continuous for a deeply held conviction anyway? "Tha mi a' creidsinn" indeed....