Talk:Hiberno-English

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)

@Matt Insall: You might give 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)

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)

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)

---

Hiberno-English → Irish English – The proposed name fulfills all 5 WP:CRITERIA. Importantly, it fufills WP:COMNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY, which the last RM didn't take into account. Its also the overwhelming WP:PRITOP. 90.252.42.166 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for all of the reasons mentioned on 6 December 2020 above. I'm a native speaker, BTW - Alison ^talk 21:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• oppose per last time particularly the fact native speakers prefer the current title. Current title fulfills 5 criteria as well. What isn't the current title consistent with?—blindlynx 23:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - @ the OP: WP:PRITOP isn't used to determine which of several titles goes with a given topic, but which of several topics goes with a given title. So both Hiberno-English and Irish English can be primary topics for the native variety of English spoken in the island of Ireland, but the article itself can only be at one topic. A primary topic is thus totally irrelevant to which article a title is at, however. Second, the correct shortcut for title consistency is WP:CONSISTENT. BilCat (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Mild oppose - "Irish English" could conceivably be limited to the English only spoken in the Republic of Ireland, and "Irish English" is also somewhat ambiguous. BilCat (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as outlined in 2020. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as already discussed in 2020. Denisarona (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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 WP:RECOGNIZABILITY or WP:NATURALNESS. I'm also not convinced by an argument that native speakers prefer the current title. Native French speakers could prefer the article French language be titled Français, obviously that would fail. Estar8806 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

IP-range blocked. The Banner talk 20:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

PS: If you want a response from who you reverted, ping them: Bastun.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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." 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."

References

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)

Forced suppression?

Laws were passed in the 16th Century that outlawed Irish, but none were enforced. By the 18th Century bilingualism was typical, and then after the Famine there was an economic crisis that compelled Irish primary schools to enforce strict English-only policies. This is why you have a 300 year gap in the record from the Tudor conquest to widespread adoption of English in the 19th Century -there was no "forced suppression" of the Irish language as claimed in the article (and of course unsourced). Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

1) This is not a forum. 2) The language was deliberately omitted from the curriculum of schools with had the same effect as active suppression. The Banner talk 10:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

1. I raised an objection to the wording in the article, which is what talk pages are for. You don't need to abuse NOTAFORUM policy to dispense with any issues I raise -just do what you usually do and go slink back into the shadows.

2. "Forced suppression" is vague and does not imply that "the language was deliberately omitted from the curriculum." The people who "omitted the language" were Irish primary school teachers, at a time of post-Famine economic crisis. It is more accurate and neutral to say that economic pressures in the 19th Century led to changes in the curriculum, as opposed to hyperbolic language like "forced suppression" without any context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)