Poppy Watch

Started by Orior, November 04, 2010, 12:36:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Evil Genius

Quote from: turk on October 30, 2011, 09:40:39 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2011, 12:16:55 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 27, 2011, 11:41:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 27, 2011, 09:26:47 PMOf course there was a standardised spelling of Irish from the time we became Christianised ( 5th Century ) till we were enslaved and impoverished in the 17th ( by the forebears of the EGs of this world no doubt ).
As Hardstation would say, "Really?" I think you're bluffing on this one...

I think you and that other buck will find that the learned classes that gave us the Book of Kells , Annals of the 4 Masters , Annals of Loch Cé etc etc would all have learned to spell the same way  ;).

The Book of Kells is in Latin, so the standards body that dealt with spelling for these learned classes must have messed up there somewhere on the way.
Beat me to it, Turk!  :D

As for other examples of Irish Literature, it was originally claimed by Rossfan that there was a single, standardised system of spelling and writing Irish from the 5th to the 17th* Centuries. This, of course, is complete balls, too. In fact, the system of spelling and writing Irish changed and evolved constantly during this period:

"It is usual to divide Irish, as we find it written, into three stages: I. Old Irish, from the eighth to the twelfth century. This is the language of the Irish found in the Book of Armagh, and of some few passages in the Book of the Dun Cow. II. Middle Irish, from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, marked by many departures from the pure Old Irish forms. This is the language of most of our important manuscripts...    ... such as the Book of the Dun Cow, the Book of Leinster, the Lebar Brecc, and the Book of Ballymote. III. Modern Irish, from the fifteenth century to the present day."
http://oracleireland.com/books/joyce-pw-001htm.htm

In fact, I think I'm correct in saying that even widely spoken languages such as French, Spanish and English, only developed standardised systems of writing and spelling comparatively recently (18th Century onwards?), as centralised government, advanced communications and universal education etc took hold.


* - When those big, bad Planters somehow hypnotised the Gaels into forgetting how to spell properly...  ;)
"If you come in here again, you'd better bring guns"
"We don't need guns"
"Yes you fuckin' do"

Hardy

#451
Yes, but

"what is quite remarkable about late medieval* Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as ‘classical modern Irish’), which was written … by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland.

"… anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine."


A View of the Irish Language: Language and History in Ireland from the Middle Ages to the Present
- Steven G. Ellis, National University of Ireland, Galway

(* The context of the piece puts this as having been the case by 1400 - i.e. by that time there had "long" been a standard literary form.)

dec

http://www.stm.unipi.it/programmasocrates/cliohnet/books/language2/06_Ellis.pdf

Turning to the fortunes of the language, in 1400 Gaelic was spoken throughout most of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, with the exception of the Scottish lowlands and small parts of eastern and southern Ireland.
What is quite remarkable about late medieval Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as 'classical modern Irish'), which was written (and presumably spoken) by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland. Presumably, the peasantry must have spoken different dialects, but anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine.
Although Gaelic was denigrated by English and Scots princes as a barbarous language spoken by savages, the reality was that Gaelic in 1400 was far more of a literary language than English or Scots. In both Ireland and Scotland, moreover, the language was, if anything, gaining ground as a result of the impact of the Gaelic Revival. It was only as a result of two major developments in the 16th century that the status of Gaelic went into long-term decline.

Rossfan

Quote from: dec on October 31, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
http://www.stm.unipi.it/programmasocrates/cliohnet/books/language2/06_Ellis.pdf

Turning to the fortunes of the language, in 1400 Gaelic was spoken throughout most of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, with the exception of the Scottish lowlands and small parts of eastern and southern Ireland.
What is quite remarkable about late medieval Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as 'classical modern Irish'), which was written (and presumably spoken) by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland. Presumably, the peasantry must have spoken different dialects, but anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine.
Although Gaelic was denigrated by English and Scots princes as a barbarous language spoken by savages, the reality was that Gaelic in 1400 was far more of a literary language than English or Scots. In both Ireland and Scotland, moreover, the language was, if anything, gaining ground as a result of the impact of the Gaelic Revival. It was only as a result of two major developments in the 16th century that the status of Gaelic went into long-term decline.

I couldnt have rebutted Evil Balls better myself.

Of course he stll won't admit we were a learned civilised nation before the robbing murderous bastards from the next island came over and stole all our land etcetc ... or did that not happen either ;)
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

mayogodhelpus@gmail.com

Quote from: Rossfan on October 31, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Quote from: dec on October 31, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
http://www.stm.unipi.it/programmasocrates/cliohnet/books/language2/06_Ellis.pdf

Turning to the fortunes of the language, in 1400 Gaelic was spoken throughout most of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, with the exception of the Scottish lowlands and small parts of eastern and southern Ireland.
What is quite remarkable about late medieval Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as 'classical modern Irish'), which was written (and presumably spoken) by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland. Presumably, the peasantry must have spoken different dialects, but anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine.
Although Gaelic was denigrated by English and Scots princes as a barbarous language spoken by savages, the reality was that Gaelic in 1400 was far more of a literary language than English or Scots. In both Ireland and Scotland, moreover, the language was, if anything, gaining ground as a result of the impact of the Gaelic Revival. It was only as a result of two major developments in the 16th century that the status of Gaelic went into long-term decline.

I couldnt have rebutted Evil Balls better myself.

Of course he stll won't admit we were a learned civilised nation before the robbing murderous b**tards from the next island came over and stole all our land etcetc ... or did that not happen either ;)

Word, brotha.
Time to take a more chill-pill approach to life.

stew

Quote from: Rossfan on October 31, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Quote from: dec on October 31, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
http://www.stm.unipi.it/programmasocrates/cliohnet/books/language2/06_Ellis.pdf

Turning to the fortunes of the language, in 1400 Gaelic was spoken throughout most of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, with the exception of the Scottish lowlands and small parts of eastern and southern Ireland.
What is quite remarkable about late medieval Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as 'classical modern Irish'), which was written (and presumably spoken) by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland. Presumably, the peasantry must have spoken different dialects, but anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine.
Although Gaelic was denigrated by English and Scots princes as a barbarous language spoken by savages, the reality was that Gaelic in 1400 was far more of a literary language than English or Scots. In both Ireland and Scotland, moreover, the language was, if anything, gaining ground as a result of the impact of the Gaelic Revival. It was only as a result of two major developments in the 16th century that the status of Gaelic went into long-term decline.

I couldnt have rebutted Evil Balls better myself.

Of course he stll won't admit we were a learned civilised nation before the robbing murderous b**tards from the next island came over and stole all our land etcetc ... or did that not happen either ;)


:D :D :D

Brilliant, he also lets the aul hatred show at certain times of the year more than others, this being one of them.
Armagh, the one true love of a mans life.

Denn Forever

[quote]* - When those big, bad Planters somehow hypnotised the Gaels into forgetting how to spell properly...  [/quote]

I'm confused.  What did EG say that had to be rebutted? 
I have more respect for a man
that says what he means and
means what he says...

Hardy

Quote from: dec on October 31, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
http://www.stm.unipi.it/programmasocrates/cliohnet/books/language2/06_Ellis.pdf

Turning to the fortunes of the language, in 1400 Gaelic was spoken throughout most of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, with the exception of the Scottish lowlands and small parts of eastern and southern Ireland.
What is quite remarkable about late medieval Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as 'classical modern Irish'), which was written (and presumably spoken) by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland. Presumably, the peasantry must have spoken different dialects, but anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine.
Although Gaelic was denigrated by English and Scots princes as a barbarous language spoken by savages, the reality was that Gaelic in 1400 was far more of a literary language than English or Scots. In both Ireland and Scotland, moreover, the language was, if anything, gaining ground as a result of the impact of the Gaelic Revival. It was only as a result of two major developments in the 16th century that the status of Gaelic went into long-term decline.

Ahem ...

dec

Quote from: Hardy on October 31, 2011, 11:37:15 PM
Quote from: dec on October 31, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
http://www.stm.unipi.it/programmasocrates/cliohnet/books/language2/06_Ellis.pdf

Turning to the fortunes of the language, in 1400 Gaelic was spoken throughout most of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, with the exception of the Scottish lowlands and small parts of eastern and southern Ireland.
What is quite remarkable about late medieval Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as 'classical modern Irish'), which was written (and presumably spoken) by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland. Presumably, the peasantry must have spoken different dialects, but anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine.
Although Gaelic was denigrated by English and Scots princes as a barbarous language spoken by savages, the reality was that Gaelic in 1400 was far more of a literary language than English or Scots. In both Ireland and Scotland, moreover, the language was, if anything, gaining ground as a result of the impact of the Gaelic Revival. It was only as a result of two major developments in the 16th century that the status of Gaelic went into long-term decline.

Ahem ...

I know, I was just providing a link to the whole article.

Hardy


Evil Genius

Quote from: Hardy on October 31, 2011, 04:23:31 PM
Yes, but

"what is quite remarkable about late medieval* Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as 'classical modern Irish'), which was written ... by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland.

"... anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine."


A View of the Irish Language: Language and History in Ireland from the Middle Ages to the Present
- Steven G. Ellis, National University of Ireland, Galway

(* The context of the piece puts this as having been the case by 1400 - i.e. by that time there had "long" been a standard literary form.)
Now if I were the suspicious type, Hardy, I'd say you were being a little disingenuous in not providing a link, so we could judge the "context of the piece" for ourselves.

But I'm not, so I won't.  ;)

Anyhow, nothing you or anyone else has posted contradicts or refutes anything I've posted.

For this dispute originated when I used the term "Faugh a Ballagh" and was informed by Apples that this was "incorrect". Of course this was nonsense, since as the recognised Anglicisation, not only was it not "incorrect", but it was entirely appropriate for a debate in English (as well as being the version used by the RIR).

Further, when I was informed that I should be using an Irish spelling and I questioned whether there was a standardised form of written Irish in 1798 (when Faugh a Ballagh was adopted), the responses pretty much proved that there was not (see Hardstation's posts etc).

At which point, 'Rossfan' tried to assert the following:
"Of course there was a standardised spelling of Irish from the time we became Christianised ( 5th Century ) till we were enslaved and impoverished in the 17th".

My instinctive reaction to this was to term it "balls", causing you and 'dec' to cite an extract from the Ellis piece. Yet a rudimentary google confirms my belief that 'Rossfan's 5th - 17th C claim is, indeed, balls, as follows.

It is not in dispute that there was a long period from around the 14th to 17th Century (sometimes known as the "Classical Irish" period) when the language has a scholarly standardised written form. This is the period to which Ellis refers when he deems it "long established [by 1400]".

Whether this standardised period stretched back as far as the Middle Irish period (12-14th Century?) is not so clear and is not specifically claimed to have done by Ellis.

In any case, it most certainly did not stretch back as far as the Old Irish period prior, since Irish used the Latin alphabet during that time.

And as for the earliest period of Rossfan's claimed unbroken line (5th, 6th, 7th Century?) such written Irish as remains was written in Ogham script.

So "Balls" it most certainly was; then again, what else would one expect from someone who cites the Book of Kells as a template for Irish spelling?  :D

P.S. Rossfan might also be wise not to berate me for using an Anglicisation, for when he himself refers to "Na Ceithre Máistrí"  as "The Annals of the Four Masters", he may be guilty of the same grievous offence himself! (Any ideas, Hardstation?)     

"If you come in here again, you'd better bring guns"
"We don't need guns"
"Yes you fuckin' do"

mayogodhelpus@gmail.com

Hate the sight of these poppies, and soon it will be the sectarian Guy Fawkes Day  >:(
Time to take a more chill-pill approach to life.

Hardy

Quote from: Evil Genius on November 01, 2011, 06:11:53 PM
Quote from: Hardy on October 31, 2011, 04:23:31 PM
Yes, but

"what is quite remarkable about late medieval* Gaelic is that there had long evolved a standard literary form, classical common Gaelic (usually described in Ireland as ‘classical modern Irish’), which was written … by the Gaelic learned classes throughout the Gaelic world and was maintained by schools of native learning established in Ireland and Scotland.

"… anything written in Gaelic was in this standard literary form, which was very much a scholarly language with a long tradition of writing on such topics as theology and medicine."


A View of the Irish Language: Language and History in Ireland from the Middle Ages to the Present
- Steven G. Ellis, National University of Ireland, Galway

(* The context of the piece puts this as having been the case by 1400 - i.e. by that time there had "long" been a standard literary form.)
Now if I were the suspicious type, Hardy, I'd say you were being a little disingenuous in not providing a link, so we could judge the "context of the piece" for ourselves.

But I'm not, so I won't.  ;)

Anyhow, nothing you or anyone else has posted contradicts or refutes anything I've posted.

For this dispute originated when I used the term "Faugh a Ballagh" and was informed by Apples that this was "incorrect". Of course this was nonsense, since as the recognised Anglicisation, not only was it not "incorrect", but it was entirely appropriate for a debate in English (as well as being the version used by the RIR).

Further, when I was informed that I should be using an Irish spelling and I questioned whether there was a standardised form of written Irish in 1798 (when Faugh a Ballagh was adopted), the responses pretty much proved that there was not (see Hardstation's posts etc).

At which point, 'Rossfan' tried to assert the following:
"Of course there was a standardised spelling of Irish from the time we became Christianised ( 5th Century ) till we were enslaved and impoverished in the 17th".

My instinctive reaction to this was to term it "balls", causing you and 'dec' to cite an extract from the Ellis piece. Yet a rudimentary google confirms my belief that 'Rossfan's 5th - 17th C claim is, indeed, balls, as follows.

It is not in dispute that there was a long period from around the 14th to 17th Century (sometimes known as the "Classical Irish" period) when the language has a scholarly standardised written form. This is the period to which Ellis refers when he deems it "long established [by 1400]".

Whether this standardised period stretched back as far as the Middle Irish period (12-14th Century?) is not so clear and is not specifically claimed to have done by Ellis.

In any case, it most certainly did not stretch back as far as the Old Irish period prior, since Irish used the Latin alphabet during that time.

And as for the earliest period of Rossfan's claimed unbroken line (5th, 6th, 7th Century?) such written Irish as remains was written in Ogham script.

So "Balls" it most certainly was; then again, what else would one expect from someone who cites the Book of Kells as a template for Irish spelling?  :D

P.S. Rossfan might also be wise not to berate me for using an Anglicisation, for when he himself refers to "Na Ceithre Máistrí"  as "The Annals of the Four Masters", he may be guilty of the same grievous offence himself! (Any ideas, Hardstation?)     



I wasn't trying to refute anything, much less trying to hide context. I was simply adding what I thought was illumination for people participating in the discussion, including yourself, because I took their participation as an indication of interest in the subject.

I thought you'd find it interesting, since you were discussing the relatively recent development of standard forms of English and French, to learn that classical modern Irish had a standard literary form that was already long established by 1400. That's all. I didn't claim or suggest that it went back to the 5th century or anything else, so I don't see the need for you to refute something that wasn't claimed or suggested and I don't understand why it's important for you to establish this.

To repeat - classical modern Irish had a standard literary form that was already long established by 1400. I find that fascinating.

armaghniac

The British vandals broke up monasteries and the like and inhibited the circulation of scholars, ensuring the balkanisation of Gaelic.

The people who lost out most in this  balkanisation were the Manx who lost their spelling and who had a pseudo Welsh orthography  applied to their language which disguises that it is Gaelic.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

Evil Genius

Quote from: Hardy on November 01, 2011, 06:25:06 PM
I wasn't trying to refute anything, much less trying to hide context. I was simply adding what I thought was illumination for people participating in the discussion, including yourself, because I took their participation as an indication of interest in the subject.
I guess I must be the suspicious type then, after all...

Quote from: Hardy on November 01, 2011, 06:25:06 PMI thought you'd find it interesting, since you were discussing the relatively recent development of standard forms of English and French, to learn that classical modern Irish had a standard literary form that was already long established by 1400. That's all.
Hmmm.
When, in response to the claim that something dated "from the 5th to the 17th Century", someone else points out that it was "long-established by 1400 etc", that certainly leaves open the possibility that the original claim is correct.
Therefore why didn't you post "that it was long-established by 1400, but I don't know whether as far back as 400" (or somesuch)?

Quote from: Hardy on November 01, 2011, 06:25:06 PMI didn't claim or suggest that it went back to the 5th century or anything else, so I don't see the need for you to refute something that wasn't claimed or suggested and I don't understand why it's important for you to establish this.
Rossfan made a claim that was patently balls, but you didn't take him up on it. Whereas you felt moved to "clarify" (shall we say?) my post, even though it was not incorrect?

I think that says more about you than me...
Quote from: Hardy on November 01, 2011, 06:25:06 PMTo repeat - classical modern Irish had a standard literary form that was already long established by 1400. I find that fascinating.
Me too.

Mind you, if someone told me that it actually went back, unbroken, to the 5th Century, I wouldn't just be fascinated, I'd be astonished.

Indeed, nearly as astonished as being "corrected" on the topic by someone like 'Rossfan', who believes that the Book of Kells, Ireland's most famous literary work, was written in Irish... ::)
"If you come in here again, you'd better bring guns"
"We don't need guns"
"Yes you fuckin' do"