[StGeorge]

Going home now ladies....thanks for your help/understanding, and chat in awhile.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

It doesnt have to have English pronunciation....the Ogham symbols would be pronounced as the Irish would say it....but when they were then copied/translated from Ogham to English symbols ( a, b, c, etc) why was the English symbols not used to give the same sound?

So..the Ogham symbol for the sound which gives Vee, would be translated to the English symbol which gives Vee, which is V.
What numpty..back in the day..in a place far far away....oops sorry, thats another story....translated the Ogham alphabet to the English alphabet and buggered it all up?

Because it's not English..

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

Because it's not English..

Er..what isnt..sorry i have gone off the plot whilst coming home?

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Big Brother Fan

Because it went from Ogham to written Gaeilge ages before English was brought here

It's interesting you say that BBF as i think it's the metamorphosis of both the original written Irish and the original written English that has meant these anomalies have evolved.

Here is a brief history of Irish:

Written Irish is first attested in Ogham inscriptions from the fourth century AD; this stage of the language is known as Primitive Irish. These writings have been found throughout Ireland and the west coast of Great Britain. Primitive Irish transitioned into Old Irish through the 5th century. Old Irish, dating from the sixth century, used the Latin alphabet and is attested primarily in marginalia to Latin manuscripts. By the 10th century Old Irish evolved into Middle Irish, which was spoken throughout Ireland and in Scotland and the Isle of Man. It is the language of a large corpus of literature, including the famous Ulster Cycle. From the 12th century Middle Irish began to evolve into modern Irish in Ireland, into Scottish Gaelic in Scotland, and into the Manx language in the Isle of Man. Early Modern Irish, dating from the thirteenth century, was the literary language of both Ireland and Gaelic-speaking Scotland, and is attested by such writers as Geoffrey Keating. Modern Irish emerged from the literary language known as Early Modern Irish in Ireland and as Classical Gaelic in Scotland; this was used through the 18th century.

If you look up how the written English evolved, it goes through pretty much the same variations over time.

[Oooo_get_her]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

It doesnt have to have English pronunciation....the Ogham symbols would be pronounced as the Irish would say it....but when they were then copied/translated from Ogham to English symbols ( a, b, c, etc) why was the English symbols not used to give the same sound?

So..the Ogham symbol for the sound which gives Vee, would be translated to the English symbol which gives Vee, which is V.
What numpty..back in the day..in a place far far away....oops sorry, thats another story....translated the Ogham alphabet to the English alphabet and buggered it all up?

Irish is actually an older language than English and Irish monks had a great deal of contact with Latin (what with writing out bibles and preserving Latin culture through the Dark Ages) and THAT is where the Irish language came into contact with the Latin Alphabet - not via English.

If you are interested and have a few moments have a read of this:

http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j22/irish.php

[Ketman]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Well, as it happens, thats where your wrong and the confusion sets in.

The Irish, or more to the point, Celts..do have their own language....like just about most nations in the world. But my point is that when these different cultures originally converged, who decided that the translation from the symbols/characters/letters to anothers had such a variance on the sound?

EG: There is no V in Irish, but when the original Irish symbol (probably from the Ogham Alphabet) was tanslated as a sound, why wasnt the English symbol for V used?

You're right. The only way you can transcribe a word into another alphabet is phonetically - i.e. you write what it sounds like. That's especially true with alphabets that are very dissimilar, like the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets. Sound is all you've got. That's why it drives me nuts when you get a Russian name like Gorbachev, and then they tell you it's pronounced Gorbachov. I'm thinking, why didn't you write it Gorbachov in the first place, you nutjob!

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Oooo_get_her

Irish is actually an older language than English and Irish monks had a great deal of contact with Latin (what with writing out bibles and preserving Latin culture through the Dark Ages) and THAT is where the Irish language came into contact with the Latin Alphabet - not via English.

If you are interested and have a few moments have a read of this:

http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j22/irish.php

That just about nails it on the head....the anomalies of pronounciation over spelling were recognised way back. We still have them, but it is generally associated with what i would call old Irish names etc.

Thanks for that Oooo....very helpful.

[Nemo123]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

I appreciate that Nianhxo, but its the pronunciation of the letters/symbols that i see as representing my language that the confusion arises. If you were to say that Niamh is anim dom was pronounced Ne-am is an-im dom then in what order or meaning is not the issue, as our pronunciation as per my reading of those symbols would be pretty much the same.

Difference in pronunciation should follow certain rules, eg:

Machine could be -

Mac-hin-e(sounds like tinny) or Mac-hine(sounds like wine) or as it is generally known Ma-sheen.

When it comes out sounding like something completly different then where did the original translation go wrong?

You know how cockneys say, that's smashin', that's actually an anglicanisation of the Irish, is maith sin, which literally means, that's great

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Ketman

You're right. The only way you can transcribe a word into another alphabet is phonetically - i.e. you write what it sounds like. That's especially true with alphabets that are very dissimilar, like the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets. Sound is all you've got. That's why it drives me nuts when you get a Russian name like Gorbachev, and then they tell you it's pronounced Gorbachov. I'm thinking, why didn't you write it Gorbachov in the first place, you nutjob!

That is my point Ketman, but if you look at that piece i highlighted on the History of the Irish language, and also at the piece Oooo has linked, then you see that both languages have changed in the written formed many times and it has been a bit of a bind for the scholars to keep up and to make sense of differing interpretations.

Facinating stuff( boring to some i guess, and not exactly BB) and thanks to those that contributed in an intelligent manner.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Nemo123

You know how cockneys say, that's smashin', that's actually an anglicanisation of the Irish, is maith sin, which literally means, that's great

But how would is maith sin be pronounced?

If we say for arguments sake that the letters/symbols A, B, C etc were English....then my point is that how come those English symbols sound differently?

If is maith sin is pronounced is may-th sin, then it's not a good example of what i mean. But if for example it does literally pronounce as that's smashin, then can you see where i disagree with the original translation?

[Oooo_get_her]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

That just about nails it on the head....the anomalies of pronounciation over spelling were recognised way back. We still have them, but it is generally associated with what i would call old Irish names etc.

Thanks for that Oooo....very helpful.

Most welcome.

[Shasown]

Early written languages were done using runes, its from these runes most (but not all) modern letters are derived, however there will always be differences in languages because of local factors, the difference between English and Irish alphabets can be explained by the fact of both Roman (Latin) and Saxon influences on the English language as opposed to the almost pure original Irish.

Old English as in Celtic would have been very similar to Irish/Scottish - Gaelic. And Welsh - Celtic.

[Nemo123]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

But how would is maith sin be pronounced?

If we say for arguments sake that the letters/symbols A, B, C etc were English....then my point is that how come those English symbols sound differently?

If is maith sin is pronounced is may-th sin, then it's not a good example of what i mean. But if for example it does literally pronounce as that's smashin, then can you see where i disagree with the original translation?

I should have not put that's, I should just have wrote, smashin'.

Is (S), maith (ma), sin (shin).

[Oooo_get_her]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Old English as in Celtic would have been very similar to Irish/Scottish - Gaelic. And Welsh - Celtic.

Sorry - I don't understand.

Old English is a Germanic language and not at all related to Irish or Scots Gaelic*, which belong to one branch of the Celtic language family. Welsh is, of course, a Celtic language, but it is from a different branch of the Celtic 'tree' and is quite different.

Yes - the people of what is now England were Celts before the Anglo-Saxons became dominant, but their language is never referred to as Old English. Old English is an Anglo-Saxon thing - see Beowulf.

* bar as an Indo European language, both Celtic and Germanic being descendants of Proto-Indo-European

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Nemo123

I should have not put that's, I should just have wrote, smashin'.

Is (S), maith (ma), sin (shin).

Bloody hell..i see what you mean now as the comparison.

[Nemo123]

I've noticed the Irish word for work, obair, is almost identical to the Portuguese word.

But Irish has alwas been evolving and taking words from other languages when it doesn't already have one.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Oooo_get_her

Sorry - I don't understand.

Old English is a Germanic language and not at all related to Irish or Scots Gaelic*, which belong to one branch of the Celtic language family. Welsh is, of course, a Celtic language, but it is from a different branch of the Celtic 'tree' and is quite different.

Yes - the people of what is now England were Celts before the Anglo-Saxons became dominant, but their language is never referred to as Old English. Old English is an Anglo-Saxon thing - see Beowulf.

* bar as an Indo European language, both Celtic and Germanic being descendants of Proto-Indo-European

Oooo is correct, and if you look up the English written language, i beleive Chaucers Canterbury Tales was one of the first forms of a universal English language that was able to be read by the masses, (if you knew a bookstore ), and was known as Middle English. But even that piece of works is unrecognisable in its original form to todays language.

Oooo.
The more i read your link the better it gets, and i say to anyone who has the same inquisitiveness as me, it is the piece to read.
This gets me though:

While problems of discrepancies still continue to exist, one must recognize that great strides have already been made.
and
the spelling system of Irish will still have to undergo revision before it will be completely acceptable and satisfactory.

Personally i dont think there needs to be a change in how Irish is spelt/spoke, as long as the Irish understand and accept it, (like Jessica & Niamhxo do) and that there is an understanding and acceptance when unknowledgeable folk like me mis-pronounce someones Irish spelt name. I say this because it was the mis-pronunciation of a blokes tattoo spelling of his wifes name Siobhan that first introduced me to this anomaly. His reaction was way over the top and was if i was being rude for not knowing. Duh get a life mate i thought.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Nemo123

I've noticed the Irish word for work, obair, is almost identical to the Portuguese word.

But Irish has alwas been evolving and taking words from other languages when it doesn't already have one.

Blimey..you can definately say that for English....its full of various foreign words that were left behind by whatever invading force and adopted by the natives.

[Nemo123]

My little pet hate is how English pronounciation of Irish surnames like Moran, Keogh, Keown, and more, always seem to add an extra syllable - like More-ran, Key-ooh, Key-own. Moran is pronounced Mor'n. And Keogh like Tim Yeo, the politician, and Keown is one syllable too.

[bansheewails]

Doherty, in Donegal is pronounced Dor-tee, but else where is doc-er-ty!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Blimey..you can definately say that for English....its full of various foreign words that were left behind by whatever invading force and adopted by the natives.

Yes the English certainly are a bastard race

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Nemo123

My little pet hate is how English pronounciation of Irish surnames like Moran, Keogh, Keown, and more, always seem to add an extra syllable - like More-ran, Key-ooh, Key-own. Moran is pronounced Mor'n. And Keogh like Tim Yeo, the politician, and Keown is one syllable too.

Unfortunately some words sound the same spelt whatever way you say it.

Mor (moor) sounds like More (moor) i cant see how it can sound different.

Therefore Moran isnt More-an But Moor-an and actually comes out Moor-ran.

Unless you're saying it is in fact Mo-ran?

Mor'n sounds like Morn but is still beginning with Moor as in Moor-n.

[Shasown]

The interesting point to be noted from the house is the wankers who mispronounced her name wont have seen it wrote down, they would have heard how it was pronounced from her when she introduced herself, so there is really no excuse for them?

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The interesting point to be noted from the house is the wankers who mispronounced her name wont have seen it wrote down, they would have heard how it was pronounced from her when she introduced herself, so there is really no excuse for them?

That in itself is inexcusable and shows their ignorance.

[Stacey.]

in my head it's still ki-oma.