Talk:Hiberno-English

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Dead link to irish slang page

I tried the external link http://www.irishslang.co.za/ and today (2020-11-26@17:18 CST) it’s dead. Matt Insall (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
The Wayback Machine a go. It’s a grand tool for peeking back in time at websites. It could help you find what you’re after, even if the link is gone now. Give it a try, and you might just find what you’re looking for. – Mariâ Magdalina (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It's been quite a while since I posted that comment; now I don't recall exactly why I mentioned it, but I suspect that it was because I thought someone might want to fix it in the article. Matt Insall (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable lifelong native speakers"

Christine Bleakley, Jamie Dornan, Rory McIlroy, and Liam Neeson are somehow "lifelong native speakers" is done by a link to a newspaper article, which states, in full, "The dulcet tones of Liam Neeson, Jamie Dornan, Christine Bleakley and Rory McIlroy helped ensure the accent came top of the popularity charts when it comes to 'sweet talk'." So that's a no-no already, and the sourcing for the others is no better. But Wolfdog claims that "It's a commonplace on multiple WP dialect pages"--even if that were true, that wouldn't make it right for this article; in addition, how is it true? In the move discussion, above, Wolfdog lists a few Englishes (Texan English, Scottish English, Indian English)--none of them have it. I'll list a couple that I know, none of which have it: West Frisian Dutch, Limburgish, Brabantian dialect, Gronings dialect, South Guelderish, West Flemish, Southern American English--and The Banner knows some of these too. In addition, other sections in this article (Dublin English, Standard (Southern) Irish English) don't have it either. Wolfdog, you may be attached to this content because you added it, so I'm sorry, but you didn't add it to other articles you edited: Jamaican English, Western New England English, Canadian English, New England English, and while that undermines your "commonplace" argument, it's a good thing that you didn't.

I'm not the first one to have problems with this content: Ceoil thought it was "silly" too, and you reverted him with a simple "reverting material removal". So I'm sorry, but the arguments you provided don't hold water, and the content should be removed. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on this matter but I looked at this addition with alarm. The Banner talk 14:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivia, it's hard to nail down as it's highly subjective, and it's going to be a magnet for throwing in just about anyone from Ireland. I'm fine with its being gone - Alison ❤ 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, it is always nice to see that little heart of yours pop up. Thank you for all you've done over the years to make this place better. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) It's nice to pop in here as often as I can, though I'm less active these days. Trying to step up just a little bit of late! Lovely to see you here, too - Alison ❤ 23:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your objections. However, why are you oddly cherrypicking dialects I mentioned in an unrelated post above (what do Texan English, Scottish English, etc. have to do with this particular discussion?). Anyway, I'm quite sure I didn't start the trend, though I've certainly added/expanded such sections or speakers on various pages, true. What does that, or the fact that many (most) dialect pages "don't have it," have to do with its validity? The fact that certain notable people use certain accents can surely be useful for lay readers unacquainted with linguistics, so this is obviously well-intentioned. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "it's a good thing that you didn't" along with its subtly threatening tone, as if I'm editing pages in bad faith. What's that about? All you needed was to provide some logic for your point of view. If anything, the "poorly verified" argument and Alison's argument about the inherent subjectivity of choosing speakers make sense. I get that. Obviously if the consensus is against me then so be it, but I'd at least throw this out there: Can we think of any way to keep this section but with stronger sources (less vulnerable to subjective disagreements)? (And maybe the answer is honestly "no" and so be it.) Wolfdog (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because those other dialects are not relevant for this discussion? The Banner talk 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Wolfdog (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are relevant, and both
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to this, I'm saying that we should decide what to do with such sections in all relevant articles, not that the section shouldn't be removed from here because other pages have it. We don't have to do both at once. Sol505000 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It reads to me that Drmies is making the point that your actions belie your arguments. Also, I suspect that Drmies would be far happier with examples that a qualified linguist had said were examples, rather than the unidentified "Staff Writer" at the Belfast Telegraph with unknown credentials in the field that you are presenting.

    Shane Walshe who wrote

    ISBN 9781851829576 and elsewhere observing how Charlotte Godley is an example of how New Zealanders and Australians once commonly conflated Irish and Scots accents, quoting this letter. I suspect that you'll get a lot less resistance to genuine scholarship than to "Staff Writer" at the Belfast Telegraph and a poll run by a supermarket as a publicity stunt for Valentine's Day.

    As noted at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing good content keeps out the bad somewhat. This is currently the latter, though.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

Great finds. Feel free to bolster the article with those better sources. No one here is thinking staff writers are the best we can do. That was my whole point! I'm glad to see there are strong sources out there -- thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal. Arbitrary and poorly sourced. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Messages for doing the shopping, is that exclusively Irish. It's used in Scotland too. And might come from the Dutch "boodschappen" (messages), which is used in the Netherlands as the word for doing the shopping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.174.48.97 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRITOP. 90.252.42.166 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral - The points raised by others regarding the potential ambiguity are fair. The present title is fine, but the proposed title could be better. Using a worldwide google trend from the last 5 years, "Irish English" is by far the primary topic [1]. I'm also unconvinced that the present title meets
Français, obviously that would fail. Estar8806 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Early Modern English or not

Please discuss ... - Alison talk 20:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP-range blocked. The Banner talk 20:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to point-by-point analyze what's wrong with what the anon has been injecting into the article? I could do some of that, but it's past my bed time, and I guess we have some time to spare to get around to it at leisure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of monophthong and diphthong sections

My edits have been reverted, could someone explain why? If you look at pages such as International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects, American English or Barbadian English the keywords of lexical sets are in small all caps. Monophthongs and diphthongs don’t need to be seperate sections, as they aren’t in most English dialect pages, and particularly in the case of Irish English since it realises a lot of the "diphthongs" as monophthongs. I removed came, gave, any and many since they are irrelevant to the section, they are irregular dialectal pronunciations that don’t represent any phonemic mergers or splits. I also restored a link and organised the footnotes. Any feedback on what was unconstructive would be appreciated. 2A01:B340:86:6AA:B025:530E:91C4:78F6 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are two separate discussions, actually. Nothing at
MOS:ALLCAPS or anywhere else suggests using that format for lexical sets, doing so doesn't tell our readers anything (no one is going to understand that you mean lexical set by using that markup), and you're not even using the template properly (the output was regular all-caps not small all-caps – but we would not want it in small call-caps anyway, because that use is already reserved for a linguistics-particular markup case, as covered at MOS:ALLCAPS). At this point, two people are reverting you on this already, so you clearly don't have a consensus to do it.
On the completely unrelated matter of whether to merge the monophthongs and diphthongs material into just "vowels", someone reverted that; I am leaning toward agreement with the reversion, because it confusingly leaves out the "Vowels + ⟨r⟩ combinations" subsection, which really obviously pertains to vowels. The original subsectioning was not in any way broken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
PS: If you want a response from who you reverted, ping them: Bastun.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I took up the lexical sets question over at
WT:LINGUISTICS and there is strong support for rendering lexical sets in small caps. I think personally this is a poor idea, because it's based on the markup of a particular primary source and it conflicts with other linguistic use of smallcaps. But I also know when to drop a stick. Given the overwhelming preference for rendering them this way, I would think that MOS:SMALLCAPS should be updated to include it, so more squabbling about it doesn't re-arise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Historical notes an anon wants to add

There was some editwarring recently about some material that an anon kept adding (to the section on grammar, where it clearly doesn't belong). A cleaned-up version would look something like this, though needs proper citations not pasted-in bare URLs:

In 1591, a German traveler, Ludolf von Münchhausen, visited Dublin, and wrote of the Pale: "Little Irish is spoken; there are even some people here who cannot speak Irish at all."[1] Albert Jouvin de Rochefort of France traveled to Ireland in 1668, and wrote: "In the inland parts of Ireland, they speak a particular language, but in the greatest part of the towns and villages on the [eastern] sea coast, only English is spoken."[2]

References

  1. ^ https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T100083/
  2. ^ https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T100075/

My edit makes it into a single paragraph, fixes up the grammar, and removes editorialising/supposition (

WP:OR). This seems reasonable to include somewhere, after the cites are fleshed out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hiberno-English&oldid=1207504689"