Possessive adjectives

Viewing 10 posts - 46 through 55 (of 55 total)
  • Author
  • #42322

    A Héilics Órbhuí,

    A similar thing happens in Finnish films. Writers make manuscripts with standard spelling and grammar and actors rehearse their lines the way they are written, even though very few people would ever speak like that in such casual situations that most of the scenes are about. It sounds very unnatural and it sometimes gets really annoying no matter how exciting the story might be. It is something the native English- or Swedish-speaking writers, directors, and actors seem to be able to avoid rather well.
    It works in a book, although some authors actually write in dialect – either their own, or that of the characters, although strongly dialectal works tend to be poetic or to aim at a humorous effect. It doesn’t work that well in plays and films which should mimic a live situation.

    Séril Báicéir

    From my understanding with English and how it is here and around the world, all English speakers can speak formal English that is taught in schools and use it to communicate with other English Speakers from other areas. It’s no different if I can speak formal English with someone from Australia as I could two blocks from me. Idioms and metaphors and certain expressions may differ in the virnacular but that’s only a matter of getting used to the language dialect of an area.

    I do argree that dialects will always exist in some form. People in my state talk differently than people farther north, and so on. But we all still understand eachother, and if we go to write something that will be published, it will be with formal English and standardized grammar regardless of what we actually speak like. So I can understand how things will probably continue to have variances depending on the virnacular of the areas.


    Séiril, a chara,

    I’d hardly claim that “all English speakers”—either “here” or “around the world”—could speak “formal English,” even if it were successfully disseminated through the school system. I, for example, live on the border of Detroit, where the four-year high school graduation rate was 26.19% in 2010-2011. (Cf.: <[url=http://detroitk12.org/schools/reports/2010-2011_annual_education_report/letters/07651.pdf]http://detroitk12.org/schools/reports/2010-2011_annual_education_report/letters/07651.pdf[/url]>). Furthermore, someone born and raised on one side of the border might well have quite some difficulty understanding everything a person born on the other side said. I’m sure countless other anecdotal data could be found along these lines, but there’s no need.

    I guess I just wanted to point out that any “standard” language is mostly an illusion: it’s really just a product of a more general thing we humans do, viz. to come up with and agree upon various categories that we might assign them to things—and then, once we’ve arrived, for instance, at the conception of a sort of platonic form of a standard language, our brains automatically soften, rationalize, and obfuscate the inevitable variations between it and any (i.e., all) of its real-life kindred, pretty much for (cognitive/psychological) efficiency’s sake… That is, our brains seem to tend to project our own cognitive model of, e.g., a language, onto any given instantiation thereof, softening, rationalizing, and obfuscating what they think of as cognitively irrelevant deviations that they must correct…

    So yeah, as you say, it’s “only a matter of getting used to the language dialect of an area,” and exposure and frequency are indeed important—but I think you could say the same of different languages themselves, couldn’t you? 🙂

    …Dála an sceil, an raibh fhios agaibhse gur cuireadh amach an leagan athbhreithnithe de Chaighdeán Oifigiúil na Gaeilge le gairid?


    Ón réamhrá ann:

    Rinne an Rannóg athbhreithniú ar an gCaighdeán Oifigiúil i rith na mblianta agus
    braitheadh go raibh sé tráthúil anois athbhreithniú cuimsitheach a dhéanamh air chun
    nithe áirithe a chur san áireamh. Ar na nithe sin, tá an roghnachas a leathnú: ó thaobh
    foirme de, go háirithe sa bhriathar, chun an úsáid chainte is leithne agus is féidir a chur
    san áireamh; ó thaobh córais de – maidir leis an aidiacht shealbhach, mar shampla; agus ó
    thaobh foirme agus córais de i dteannta a chéile – sa tuiseal tabharthach den ainmfhocal,
    mar shampla.

    Rinneadh iarracht ar leith san athbhreithniú seo foirmeacha agus leaganacha atá ar fáil go
    tréan sa chaint sna mórchanúintí a áireamh sa Chaighdeán Oifigiúil Athbhreithnithe sa
    tslí is go mbraithfeadh an gnáthchainteoir mórchanúna go bhfuil na príomhghnéithe den
    chanúint sin aitheanta sa Chaighdeán Oifigiúil agus, mar sin, gur gaire don ghnáthchaint
    an Caighdeán Oifigiúil anois ná mar a bhíodh.

    Níl ach spléachadh caite agam air fós. Ach más rud é gur éirigh leo an méid sin a chuir i gcrích, céim chun cinn a bheidh ann.

    Héilics Órbhuí

    Sin ba chóir go mbeadh! Caithfidh mé gíoc a thabairt air.


    Tà sè giota beag nìos leithne nà ‘n sean-Ch.O. ach nìl tù saor le scrìobh in do chanùint go dìreach.
    Agus cad é mar a scrìobhann siad ins na tèacsannaì oifigiùla òn am seo amach?


    Ceist mhaith.

    Níl aon “iad” aonarach ann; is dócha go bhforbróidh na dreamanna éagsúla a stíl tí féin.

    Agus níl aon chosc feictear dom ar litríocht a scríobh i gcanúint ar bith (ach eagarthóir inniúil a aimsiú!)


    Ar ndòighe. Thig leat scrìobh i gcanùint ar bith, ach nìl mòràn foilsitheoir a d’fhoilseochadh do thèacs mar a scrìobh tù è, cuirfidh sè sa Ch.O. è, nò creideann siad nach gceannòchaidh duine ar bith è (nò nach dtuigfidh duine ar bith è) muna bhfuil sè scrìofa sa Ch.O.
    Is ionann sin is a rà nach bhfuil cead tèacs a dh’fhoilsiù i nGaeilg nàdùrtha…


    N’fheadar faoi sin.

    Is beag duine a léann, pé scéal é.

    Ach sílim go bhfuil foilsitheoirí níos fearr ná a chéile ann.

Viewing 10 posts - 46 through 55 (of 55 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.