Why Santa is krocking at your door - Eachdraidh nam mùthaidhean

Susanharris: /* Can you give me a date? */

2013-10-08T04:34:25Z

Can you give me a date?

Susanharris: /* Can you give me a date? */

2013-10-07T06:51:23Z

Can you give me a date?

Susanharris: /* Can you give me a date? */

2013-10-07T06:41:49Z

Can you give me a date?

Susanharris 06:31, 7 dhen Dàmhair 2013

2013-10-07T06:31:23Z

Akerbeltz: /* Can you give me a date? */

2013-10-06T22:43:19Z

Can you give me a date?

Akerbeltz: /* Can you give me a date? */

2013-10-06T21:47:55Z

Can you give me a date?

Akerbeltz 21:47, 6 dhen Dàmhair 2013

2013-10-06T21:47:41Z

Susanharris 20:38, 6 dhen Dàmhair 2013

2013-10-06T20:38:35Z

Akerbeltz 18:57, 6 dhen Dàmhair 2013

2013-10-06T18:57:07Z

Akerbeltz 12:38, 6 dhen Dàmhair 2013

2013-10-06T12:38:24Z

@@ Loidhne 43: / Loidhne 43: @@
 Here we have to tread carefully. The presence of <n> spellings is no guarantee that /n/ was there in speech. The author may have been exhibiting hypercorrection which means creating an overgeneralization of particular rules in a language in an attempt to speak or write "correctly". On the other hand, at a casual glance, I cannot find traces of hypercorrection with words that actually had <r> but were written with <n>. For example, there is no case of *bniven for britheamhan. However, hypercorrection appears occasionally in the Dean of Lismore, for example, mrave being set down for mnáibh.
-With a fair degree of certainty, the above text, which can be dated, tells us that by 1688 [kr] etc. were sufficiently established in spoken Gaelic to slip into this type of spelling. The use of [kr] was likely even more common than the text suggests because people ''tended'' to write conservatively, in that period. And, at a casual glance, looking into [http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/search.php eDil], there are no Old/Middle Irish incidents of croc type spellings.
+With a fair degree of certainty, the above text, which can be dated, tells us that by 1688 [kr] (also [gn]>[gr] and [mn]>[mr]) was sufficiently established in spoken Gaelic to slip into this type of spelling. The use of [kr] was likely even more common than the text suggests because people ''tended'' to write conservatively, in that period. And, at a casual glance, looking into [http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/search.php eDil], there are no Old/Middle Irish incidents of croc type spellings.
 Last but not least, the evidence from Irish shows that the first possible evidence of this change goes back to a place name recorded in 1551 as Gryeve na managh for Gníomh na Manach. Between 1551 and the end of the 17th century evidence is very patchy on the Irish side. For example, the majority of names recorded in English spelling, like the 1603 form Owen atnaght for Eóghan an tsneachta, show no trace of [r]. On the other hand, there's the instance of Cill Mic Crénáin, instead of Cill Mac nÉnáin, in Keating's manuscript, which is dated around the end of the 16th and the start of the 17th century.

@@ Loidhne 45: / Loidhne 45: @@
 With a fair degree of certainty, the above text, which can be dated, tells us that by 1688 [kr] etc. were sufficiently established in spoken Gaelic to slip into this type of spelling. The use of [kr] was likely even more common than the text suggests because people ''tended'' to write conservatively, in that period. And, at a casual glance, looking into [http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/search.php eDil], there are no Old/Middle Irish incidents of croc type spellings.
-Last but not least, the evidence from Irish shows that the first possible evidence of this change goes back to a place name recorded in 1551 as Gryeve na managh for Gníomh na Manach. Between 1551 and the end of the 17th century evidence is very patchy on the Irish side. For example, the majority of names recorded in English spelling, like the 1603 form Owen atnaght for Eóghan an tsneachta, show no trace of [r]. On the other hand, there's the instance of Cill Mic Crénáin, instead of Cill Mac nÉnáin, in Keating's manuscript which is dated around the end of the 16th and the start of the 17th century.
+Last but not least, the evidence from Irish shows that the first possible evidence of this change goes back to a place name recorded in 1551 as Gryeve na managh for Gníomh na Manach. Between 1551 and the end of the 17th century evidence is very patchy on the Irish side. For example, the majority of names recorded in English spelling, like the 1603 form Owen atnaght for Eóghan an tsneachta, show no trace of [r]. On the other hand, there's the instance of Cill Mic Crénáin, instead of Cill Mac nÉnáin, in Keating's manuscript, which is dated around the end of the 16th and the start of the 17th century.
-So, linguists put these clues together. There's the absence of cn- etc. in Manx by the 16th century, the absence of [kr] etc. in the Fernaig manuscripts, and the (seeming) absence of [kr]in Old/Middle Irish. Therefore, the change probably starts appearing in spoken Irish, Manx and Gaelic somewhere in the Early Modern Irish period (1200-1600) - when a lot of stuff went sideways in the language. Even so, the changes didn't actually enter into the written record, however faintly, until the 16th/17th century.
+So, linguists put these clues together. There's the total absence of cn- etc. in Manx by the 16th century, there's the presence of [kr] etc. in the Fernaig manuscripts, and the (seeming) absence of [kr] in Old/Middle Irish. Therefore, the change probably starts appearing in spoken Irish, Manx and Gaelic somewhere in the Early Modern Irish period (1200-1600) - when a lot of stuff went sideways in the language. Even so, the changes didn't actually enter into the written record, however faintly, until the 16th/17th century.
 <br />
 <br />
 {{BeaganGramair}}

@@ Loidhne 30: / Loidhne 30: @@
 ==Can you give me a date?==
 Tricky one. It's not always easy to set down exactly when changes occur, but not totally impossible, either. Linguists usually examine
-loanwords, typos, and authors who did not use the standard orthography but made up their own to help determine these issues. At a casual glance, the following are helpful in our case:
+loanwords, typos, and authors who did not use the standard orthography, but made up their own, to help determine timeline issues. At a casual glance, the following are helpful in our case:
-Manx orthography which is a heady mix of the phonemic and the insane, was fixed in the 16th century and retains almost no trace of cn- mn- etc. spellings, for example, cronk (cnoc), craue (cnàimh), grooish (gnùis), and so on. So, it's fairly safe to assume that by the time this orthography was devised, there was little or no trace of /kn/,on the Isle of Man.
+Manx orthography, which is a heady mix of the phonemic and the insane, was fixed in the 16th century and retains almost no trace of cn- mn- etc. spellings, for example, cronk (cnoc), craue (cnàimh), grooish (gnùis), and so on. So, it's fairly safe to assume that by the time this orthography was devised, there was little or no trace of /kn/,on the Isle of Man.
 However, in Scotland, the Fernaig Manuscript, dated to circa 1688, written in a non-standard orthography, paints a mixed picture, and we have:
@@ Loidhne 45: / Loidhne 45: @@
 With a fair degree of certainty, the above text, which can be dated, tells us that by 1688 [kr] etc. were sufficiently established in spoken Gaelic to slip into this type of spelling. The use of [kr] was likely even more common than the text suggests because people ''tended'' to write conservatively, in that period. And, at a casual glance, looking into [http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/search.php eDil], there are no Old/Middle Irish incidents of croc type spellings.
-Last but not least, the evidence from Irish shows that the first possible evidence of this change goes back to a place name recorded in 1551 as Gryeve na managh for Gníomh na Manach. Between 1551 and the end of the 17th century evidence is very patchy on the Irish side. For example, the majority of names recorded in English spelling, like the 1603 form Owen atnaght, for Eóghan an tsneachta, show no trace of [r]. On the other hand, there's the instance of Cill Mic Crénáin, instead of Cill Mac nÉnáin, in Keating's manuscript which is dated around the end of the 16th and the start of the 17th century.
+Last but not least, the evidence from Irish shows that the first possible evidence of this change goes back to a place name recorded in 1551 as Gryeve na managh for Gníomh na Manach. Between 1551 and the end of the 17th century evidence is very patchy on the Irish side. For example, the majority of names recorded in English spelling, like the 1603 form Owen atnaght for Eóghan an tsneachta, show no trace of [r]. On the other hand, there's the instance of Cill Mic Crénáin, instead of Cill Mac nÉnáin, in Keating's manuscript which is dated around the end of the 16th and the start of the 17th century.
-So, linguists put these clues together. There are the total absences of cn- etc. in Manx by the 16th century, the presence of [kr] etc. in the Fernaig manuscripts, and the (seeming) absence of [kr]in Old/Middle Irish. Therefore, the change probably starts appearing in spoken Irish, Manx and Gaelic somewhere in the Early Modern Irish period (1200-1600) - when a lot of stuff went sideways in the language. Even so, the changes didn't actually enter into the written record, however faintly, until the 16th/17th century.
+So, linguists put these clues together. There's the absence of cn- etc. in Manx by the 16th century, the absence of [kr] etc. in the Fernaig manuscripts, and the (seeming) absence of [kr]in Old/Middle Irish. Therefore, the change probably starts appearing in spoken Irish, Manx and Gaelic somewhere in the Early Modern Irish period (1200-1600) - when a lot of stuff went sideways in the language. Even so, the changes didn't actually enter into the written record, however faintly, until the 16th/17th century.
 <br />
 <br />
 {{BeaganGramair}}

@@ Loidhne 29: / Loidhne 29: @@
 ==Can you give me a date?==
-Tricky one. Timing such changes is not easy but not totally impossible either. What linguists usually do in this situation is look at loanwords, typos and authors who did not use the standard orthography but made up their own. At a casual glance, the following are helpful in our case:
+Tricky one. It's not always easy to set down exactly when changes occur, but not totally impossible, either. Linguists usually examine
-Manx orthography which is a heady mix of the phonemic and the insane, was fixed in the 16th century and retains almost no trace of cn- mn- etc spellings e.g. cronk (cnoc), craue (cnàimh), grooish (gnùis)... So it is fairly safe to assume that by the time this orthography was devised, there was little or no trace on the Isle of Man of /kn/.
+Manx orthography which is a heady mix of the phonemic and the insane, was fixed in the 16th century and retains almost no trace of cn- mn- etc. spellings, for example, cronk (cnoc), craue (cnàimh), grooish (gnùis), and so on. So, it's fairly safe to assume that by the time this orthography was devised, there was little or no trace of /kn/,on the Isle of Man.
-In Scotland, the Fernaig Manuscript (dated to circa 1688), written in non-standard orthography paints a mixed picture, we have:
+However, in Scotland, the Fernaig Manuscript, dated to circa 1688, written in a non-standard orthography, paints a mixed picture, and we have:
 *vo ni mrahi : bho na mnàith
@@ Loidhne 40: / Loidhne 41: @@
 *gna gi soyller : ghnàth gu soilleir
-Now we have to tread carefully. The '''presence''' of <n> spellings is no guarantee it was there in speech. The author may have been trying to adhere to elements of the formal spelling or what may have been considered "correct" speech. On the other hand, at a casual glance, I cannot find traces of hypercorrection i.e. the author taking a word which actually has <r> and writing it with <n>, for example there is no case of *bniven (for britheamhan).
+Here we have to tread carefully. The presence of <n> spellings is no guarantee that /n/ was there in speech. The author may have been exhibiting hypercorrection which means creating an overgeneralization of particular rules in a language in an attempt to speak or write "correctly". On the other hand, at a casual glance, I cannot find traces of hypercorrection with words that actually had <r> but were written with <n>. For example, there is no case of *bniven for britheamhan. However, hypercorrection appears occasionally in the Dean of Lismore, for example, mrave being set down for mnáibh.
-It also appears occasionally in the Dean of Lismore, for example as mrave (for mnáibh).
+With a fair degree of certainty, the above text, which can be dated, tells us that by 1688 [kr] etc. were sufficiently established in spoken Gaelic to slip into this type of spelling. The use of [kr] was likely even more common than the text suggests because people ''tended'' to write conservatively, in that period. And, at a casual glance, looking into [http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/search.php eDil], there are no Old/Middle Irish incidents of croc type spellings.
-It tells us this with a fair degree of certainty: by 1688 [kr] etc were sufficiently established in spoken Gaelic to slip into this type of spelling and it was likely more common that the text suggests because people ''tend'' to write conservatively in that period. Looking into [http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/search.php eDil], there are no Old/Middle Irish incidents of croc type spellings at a casual glance.
+Last but not least, the evidence from Irish shows that the first possible evidence of this change goes back to a place name recorded in 1551 as Gryeve na managh for Gníomh na Manach. Between 1551 and the end of the 17th century evidence is very patchy on the Irish side. For example, the majority of names recorded in English spelling, like the 1603 form Owen atnaght, for Eóghan an tsneachta, show no trace of [r]. On the other hand, there's the instance of Cill Mic Crénáin, instead of Cill Mac nÉnáin, in Keating's manuscript which is dated around the end of the 16th and the start of the 17th century.
-Last but not least, the evidence from Irish shows that possible the first evidence of this change goes back to a place name recorded in 1551 as Gryeve na managh (for Gníomh na Manach). Between 1551 and the end of the 17th century evidence is very patchy on the Irish side. For example, the majority of names recorded in English spelling (like the 1603 form Owen atnaght, for Eóghan an tsneachta) show no trace of [r] while on the other hand there is the instance of Cill Mic Crénáin (instead of Cill Mac nÉnáin) in Keating's manuscript which is dated around the end of the 16th and the start of the 17th century.
+So, linguists put these clues together. There are the total absences of cn- etc. in Manx by the 16th century, the presence of [kr] etc. in the Fernaig manuscripts, and the (seeming) absence of [kr]in Old/Middle Irish. Therefore, the change probably starts appearing in spoken Irish, Manx and Gaelic somewhere in the Early Modern Irish period (1200-1600) - when a lot of stuff went sideways in the language. Even so, the changes didn't actually enter into the written record, however faintly, until the 16th/17th century.
 <br />
 <br />
 {{BeaganGramair}}

@@ Loidhne 42: / Loidhne 42: @@
 Now we have to tread carefully. The '''presence''' of <n> spellings is no guarantee it was there in speech. The author may have been trying to adhere to elements of the formal spelling or what may have been considered "correct" speech. On the other hand, at a casual glance, I cannot find traces of hypercorrection i.e. the author taking a word which actually has <r> and writing it with <n>, for example there is no case of *bniven (for britheamhan).
-It tells us this with a fair degree of certainty: by 1688 [kr] etc were sufficiently established in spoken Gaelic to slip into this type of spelling and it was likely more common that the text suggests because people ''tend'' to write conservatively in that period. Looking into [http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/search.php eDil], I can't find any Old/Middle Irish incidents of croc type spellings at a casual glance.
+It also appears occasionally in the Dean of Lismore, for example as mrave (for mnáibh).
-So putting all this together, i.e. the total absence of cn- etc in Many by the 16th century and the presence of [kr] etc in the Fernaig manuscripts and the (seeming) absence in Old/Middle Irish, the change probably falls somewhere into the Early Modern Irish period (1200-1600) when a lot of stuff went sideways in the language.
+It tells us this with a fair degree of certainty: by 1688 [kr] etc were sufficiently established in spoken Gaelic to slip into this type of spelling and it was likely more common that the text suggests because people ''tend'' to write conservatively in that period. Looking into [http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/search.php eDil], there are no Old/Middle Irish incidents of croc type spellings at a casual glance.
 <br />
 <br />
 {{BeaganGramair}}

@@ Loidhne 27: / Loidhne 27: @@
 So, that explains why /kn/ moving to /kr/ is plausible and I'll leave the explanation at that. Sometimes such closely related sounds just flip in languages.
 <br />
 <br />
 {{BeaganGramair}}

@@ Loidhne 1: / Loidhne 1: @@
-The short answer as to why Gaelic words that begin with cn- are pronounced [kr] (for example cnoc [krɔ̃xk]) is that that's just the way it is.
+The short answer as to why Gaelic words that begin with cn- are pronounced [kr], for example, cnoc [krɔ̃xk], is that that's just the way it is.
-That's actually not a trivial point to make because you'll find all sorts of folk pontificating about this issue. Most of whom have no clue. The Survey of Scottish Gaelic Dialects which recorded people from Lewis to Barra, Strathy to Aran, Dunbeath to East Perthsire (207 informants in total when those areas still had local Gaelic speakers) actually did record several items with cn- including cnoc. And there is not a '''single''' incident of this being anything but /kr/, same for the other cn- items cnò, cnap, cnàimh and cnuimh.
+That's actually not a trivial point to make because you'll find all sorts of folk pontificating about this issue - most of whom have no clue. The Survey of Scottish Gaelic Dialects which recorded people from Lewis to Barra, Strathy to Aran, Dunbeath to East Perthshire (in total, 207 informants when those areas still had local Gaelic speakers) actually recorded several items with cn-, including cnoc. There's not a '''single''' incident of this being anything but cnoc [krɔ̃xk] and /kr/ was reflected in the other cn- items cnò, cnap, cnàimh and cnuimh.
-There is '''one''' variation for one of the three St Kilda speakers, informant 15, who has /kl/ in cnuimheag, but the other two St Kilda speakers have /kr/.
+There is '''one''' variation for one of the three St Kilda speakers, informant 15, who had /kl/ in cnuimheag, but the other two St Kilda speakers had /kr/.
-So to begin with, we can be crystal clear that whatever the pronunciation was at some point in the days gone by, it is now always /kr/. Usually with nasalisation on the nearby vowel.
+So, to begin with, we can be crystal clear that whatever the pronunciation was at some point in the days gone by, it is now always /kr/, usually with nasalisation on the nearby vowel.
-It's also interesting to note that Manx and most of Ireland also have /kr/. Only Kerry Irish retains /kn/. That, along with clues from the way words with cn have been spelled and mis-spelled over the centuries tells us that it indeed once was /kn/ but that this has moved towards /kr/ for a very long time.
+It's also interesting to note that Manx and most of Ireland also have /kr/. Only Kerry Irish retains /kn/. That, along with clues from the way words with cn have been spelled and mis-spelled over the centuries, tells us that once it was /kn/ but that the movement towards /kr/ began a long time ago.
 As to why... keeping the explanation simple, phonetically /r/ and /n/ are fairly close to each other. Don't be alarmed, here's a crazy looking linguistic schematic that will demonstrate just how close they are:
@@ Loidhne 22: / Loidhne 22: @@
 |}
-You don't need to know what all these features are (they're labels linguists use to categorise the mechanics of a sound). What should be obvious is that except for two features, [r] and [n] are produced exactly the same way. Now remember what I said about there usually being nasalisation near /kr/? That's the leftover from the nasal feature so if we take that into account, /knɔxg/ and [krɔ̃xk] are actually identical except for one single feature. The bigger this overlap, the easier it is for sounds to jump.
+You don't need to know what all these features. They're labels that linguists use to categorise the mechanics of a sound. What should be obvious is that except for two features, [r] and [n] are produced exactly the same way. Remember what I said about there usually being nasalisation near /kr/? That's the leftover from the nasal feature. So, if we take that into account, /knɔxg/ and [krɔ̃xk] are actually identical except for one single feature.  The more features that overlap, the easier it is for sounds to jump.
 In contrast, if you look at [p], it shares very few features with [r] or [n] so the chances of [knɔxg] turning into *[kpɔxg] are very slim indeed.
-So that explains why it's plausible and I'll leave the explanation at that. Sometimes such closely related sounds just flip in languages.
+So, that explains why /kn/ moving to /kr/ is plausible and I'll leave the explanation at that. Sometimes such closely related sounds just flip in languages.
 <br />
 <br />
 {{BeaganGramair}}

@@ Loidhne 15: / Loidhne 15: @@
 ! Sound !! consonantal !! syllabic !! sonorant !! coronal !! anterior !! high !! low !! back !! nasal !! lateral !! continuant !! tense !! voice
 |-
-| [r] || + || - || + || + || + || - || - || - || style="background: red" | - || - || style="background: red" | + || - || -
+| [r] || + || - || + || + || + || - || - || - || style="background: orange" | - || - || style="background: orange" | + || - || -
 |-
-| [n] || + || - || + || + || + || - || - || - || style="background: red" | + || - || style="background: red" | - || - || -
+| [n] || + || - || + || + || + || - || - || - || style="background: orange" | + || - || style="background: orange" | - || - || -
 |-
 | [p] || + || - || - || - || + || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

← Mùthadh nas sine		Mùthadh on 12:38, 6 dhen Dàmhair 2013
Loidhne 27:		Loidhne 27:

	So that explains why it's plausible and I'll leave the explanation at that. Sometimes such closely related sounds just flip in languages.		So that explains why it's plausible and I'll leave the explanation at that. Sometimes such closely related sounds just flip in languages.
		+	<br />
		+	<br />
		+	{{BeaganGramair}}