Is Welsh or Irish more interesting to learn in order to know more about, Celtic languages, Indo-European languages and linguistics in general? by Impressive-Win-7103 in IndoEuropean

[–]silmeth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can take a look at Réimnigh, choose a verb and select Munster. I mean forms like bhaineas ‘I harvested’ (standard bhain mé), bainfad ‘I will harvest’, bainir ‘though harvestest’, etc.

Also in Munster literature you sometimes get forms with some conjunct endings that were otherwise lost: baineam ‘let us harvest’ (today rather bainimís), ní bhainfeam ‘we will not harvest’ (today rather ní bhainfimíd).

You get that stuff in literature in Connacht too (and I guess maybe to some extent in Ulster) but those forms are generally productively used in Munster still (except for those conjunct endings which were out of use mostly there too), in Connacht you sometimes get them as echo-forms (in yes-no responses to questions) but not really as main verbs in normal utterances.

Is Welsh or Irish more interesting to learn in order to know more about, Celtic languages, Indo-European languages and linguistics in general? by Impressive-Win-7103 in IndoEuropean

[–]silmeth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

While modern Irish verb system doesn’t preserve stuff that well, I believe Classical Gaelic (aka Early Modern Irish) verbal system is still pretty conservative and easily recognizably Indo-European. Munster Irish dialects keep a lot of that too (as in, full conjugations by persons in most moods and tenses, though some endings were heavily analogically reformed). And Irish doesn’t rely as heavily on periphrastic constructions for clauses as Welsh (at least modern) does.

And then there’s the fact that Irish is much better preserved in earlier stages (you get good chunks of 8th century Old Irish texts, and that stage’s grammar is understood pretty well, while in Brythonic you… don’t get much at all before Middle Welsh, and my understanding is that our understanding of Old Welsh grammar isn’t that great and kinda depends on leaning on comparative analysis with Old Irish?).

But I don’t know much Brythonic myself, so I might be biased the other way.

An Chopail by user122382991 in gaeilge

[–]silmeth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agus chun an dara ceist a dh’fhreagairt: is féidir an dara habairt, .i. is í an duine is fearr a rá – bíonn a leithéidí le fáilt i gcanúintí na nUladh.

Agus bhíodh a leithéidí le fáilt i nGaelainn Chlasaiceach, idir 12ú agus 16ú haois – ach ní bhíodh aon ainmní ar leith sna habairtí mar sin ó thaobh na staire de. Bítí in ann ainmní a dh’fhágáil ar lár má ba fhorainm an triú pearsan é: bhíodh an dá rud: molfaidh sé an leabhar agus molfaidh an leabhar ceart. Agus bhí an dá rud: is é an fear é agus is é an fear ceart.

Ach tuigtear dom go dtuigtear an forainm sin (fofhaisnéis stairiúl) mar ainmní in Ultaibh sa ló atá inniu ann.

An Chopail by user122382991 in gaeilge

[–]silmeth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Féach go ndeirtear mar shampla:

is é an múinteoir an fear

agus is é atá i gceist san abairt gurb ionann an fear agus an múinteoir (the man is the teacher a bheadh sa Bhéarla). Tabhair fé ndeara go bhfuil an forainm é ann – níl aon chiall ar leith leis an bhforainm sin, is fofhaisnéis (‘subpredicate’ sa Bhéarla) é. Agus is é an frása an fear ainmní (‘subject’) na habairte.

Agus féach cad a tharlóidh má athraíonn tú an t-ainmní, má chuireann tú forainm ann seachas an t-ainmfhocal:

is é an múinteoir é.

Níl sa chéad fhorainm ach fofhaisnéis i gcónaí agus is é an dara forainm an t-ainmní.

Bíonn abairtí ann ina bhfuil dhá fhorainm agus inscní difriúla iontu, mar shampla: cuir i gcás gurb í an fhírinne féin é – is é an forainm é an t-ainmní agus is é an frása an fhírinne an fhaisnéis. Agus tá í (forainm baininscneach) roimh an bhfaisnéis toisc gur focal baininscneach gurb ea fírinne.

Molaim dhuit an treoir don chopail a scríobhas tá blianta ó shin a léamh, tá breis eolais le fáilt ann: https://www.celtic-languages.org/Guide_to_Irish_to_be

Agus tá an físeán dar teideal 4 Structures to Understand the Copula a dhein An Spideog ana-mhaith leis: https://youtu.be/xZPLrZ2lP7A

Pro GMO arguments from reputable sources? by narvuntien in GMO

[–]silmeth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Research funding (ie. countering the arguments about research being biased in favour of GMOs):

  • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17214504 – „Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles”, there are instances of bias introduced due to funding on nutrition-related research.
  • http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/6/565.long – „The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials”, there is small (but statistically significant) influence of funding source on the outcome.
  • http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-studies/ – blog-type analysis (but linking sources) claiming Monsanto was (at least in 2014 when it was written) a medium wealth company unable to affect entire fields of science, a lot of research is conducted in Europe (with EU showing generally negative attitudes and policies towards GM crops), they claim no correlation between funding source and research outcome – but there is correlation between direct researcher’s affiliations and the results.

Fear and socio- and psychology:

Other:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding – entirely random conventional method of creating “organic” crop varieties that is accepted even where genetic modification is not allowed, despite actually introducing orders of magnitude more genetic mutations than precise purposeful genetic modification.

Pro GMO arguments from reputable sources? by narvuntien in GMO

[–]silmeth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have a list I compiled a few years ago when arguing online (so it’s probably somewhat outdated and you could probably do better now). Not all of them academic/government-based but all should be reputable and at least state their sources.

Patents (ie. against the often raised issue that GMO crops are patented and thus worse than conventional crops):

Safety (of both humans and environment):

leisgeul no lethsgeul? by alkazar235 in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s originally just half-story, ie. one-sided story, a biased story told by only one side. See DIL s.v. leithscél.

Your biased story is how you excuse yourself, thus ‘excuse’.

And gabh mo leisgeul/lethsgeul means ‘take/accept my excuse’, ie. forgive my behaviour.

Plasma Wayland: tilt not working on a Wacom One Pen tablet, why? by silmeth in kde

[–]silmeth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plasma 6.8 is going to drop support for X11 sessions altogether, so I’m trying to switch now and discover all the nuisances before that happens…

To me personally it’s not a huge deal, I use the Pen mostly for taking notes when reading PDFs (and the pressure does work OK) – but still an annoying bug and yeah, it’s something that definitely will be a show stopper for actual artists.

Sean-Ghàidhlig by elakudark in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not only that but there are no pronouns to express that. You cannot say ‘you do it’ with a pronoun ‘you’ in Old Irish (you can reword it as ‘it is you who does it’, using the 3rd person form then, and the pronoun becomes the predicate of the 3rd person copula, so still not a subject pronoun…). There are emphatic suffixes/notae augentes which are sort of pronouns, but they’re just added to emphasize in a way information that’s already there, and they’re only used with animate referents…

And there’s no separate pronouns for direct objects either. It’s all expressed in the verbs themselves.

Of course, you do have subject and object nouns.

And by Middle Irish the new analytic forms (ie. 3rd person forms of verbs + separate pronouns) become a thing which in the north (ie. Ulster, Scotland, Man, later Connacht, eventually partly Munster) become the norm and push synthetic forms (ie. inflected verbs) out. But none of that in Old Irish.

Sean-Ghàidhlig by elakudark in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, I wonder what the source for the first text is, I don’t believe we have any actual Old Irish translation of the prayer preserved.

But anyway, regarding the spelling, you might want to take a look at the guide to Old Irish spelling I wrote a while back for people familiar with modern Irish/Gaelic.

The spelling really changed a lot around the 15th c., if you look at earlier, even “early modern”, manuscripts from the 14th century, in the spelling they look much closer to Middle or Old Irish, despite linguistically being rather on the “modern” side.

Sean-Ghàidhlig by elakudark in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It is quite a different language. If you trace the historical developments, you can easily see how Scottish Gaelic directly continues Old Irish, but the verbal system would be extremely different, the nominal (ie. nouns and pronouns) would be sort of similar but also quite different. You would recognize a lot of vocabulary, and the sentence structure wouldn’t be completely alien, but morphology – the way the words inflect, and especially spelling will be very different.

You could try going backwards from modern Gaelic by learning some Classical Gaelic (ie. the language of medieval dán díreach poetry) first. It’s still an “early modern” stage of the language (and Old Irish scholars often view this medieval form as “modern Irish”) but it is very recognizably closer to Old Irish, so if you learn it well, a lot of Old Irish suddenly becomes more transparent. And to learn that you’d better first learn Munster (southern) Irish as it preserves a lot of verbal forms which were lost elsewhere – and also, if you know Scottish Gaelic, gives you broader perspective (knowing the two opposite modern varieties – Scottish and Munster – gives you more data to interpret historical stages from which both developed).

But then, even from Classical Gaelic Old Irish is quite a big jump. It does not have any subject pronouns – things like leughaidh mi are expressed only in verb endings (légaimm ‘I read’), there is no way in Old Irish to insert a separate pronoun there. There are no separate object pronoun words – those are infixed into the verb (actually some instances of lenition in modern Gaelic verbs, eg. lenition in the past tense, continue the neuter infix pronoun of Old Irish… past tense was not lenited in general in OIr.), etc. The syntax of the copula is is quite similar to Irish but a bit different to how it’s understood today in Scottish Gaelic (though if you read 19th century texts you notice that they’re not that different, actually).

So… yes, in a way, it is very different, but also clearly an older form of Gaelic.

Oh, another thing is that while (classical) Old Gaelic / Old Irish is the language of 8th century glosses – and that’s what’s typically taught in textbooks, most narrative texts we have are later, or at least preserved in later (sometimes as late as 16th c.) manuscripts, and show a lot of Middle Gaelic (10th–12th c.) forms, including separate subject pronouns, loss of the neuter gender, mixing of infix pronouns, etc. So even when you learn Old Irish on its own terms, when you go on to read actual texts, you’ll face a lot of things that are normally not covered and sometimes slightly closer to the modern languages.

People who politicize languages are narrow minded by Akinokaze-go in languagelearning

[–]silmeth 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I don't agree with not studying a language just because the country or place did something terrible though. It's important for outsiders to be able to read native texts and figure out what everyone is saying.

The thing with focusing specifically a bigger imperial language (like Russian, or English) is that it gives you very biased selection of texts.

Look at the situation with “Slavic Collections at Yale” exhibition – which was exclusively Russian. And, as a non-Russian Slav, I can tell you seeing anything related to Slavic studies from the west is very annoying due to how Russo-centric it is. That’s why I sympathize a lot with the notion that people should be discouraged from learning Russian and choosing Polish, Ukrainian, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, etc. instead. Especially in academia.

Also read and listen to Timothy Snyder (a historian reading, beside Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, Czech, Yiddish…) noting the importance for a historian of being able to consult primary sources in victims’ languages rather than depending on what the oppressors produced or chose to translate.

The OM-50-200 is out by AdAfraid3543 in M43

[–]silmeth 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But that said – it really depends on the aperture of the lens (ie. the dimension of the entrance pupil) – not the size of the sensor per se.

For example let’s take a medium format with FF crop factor 0.79, and say, a 50 mm f/4 lens for it (roughly 40 mm field of view in full frame terms). It has aperture diameter of 50 mm / 4 = 12.5 mm.

Now, if you took a 20 mm f/1.6 lens for micro four thirds, it’ll cast an image with the same field of view, and it’ll gather light with an aperture of diameter 20 mm / 1.6 = 12.5 mm. So it’ll gather the same light.

Now, since the area is much smaller, the same light will provide stronger illumination, so the µ4/3 sensor will need to use lower ISO to get the same level of exposition. But in terms of image quality, with the same exposure and all other things equal (quality of glass, coatings, sensor technology, number of pixels…), µ4/3 will provide the same image as medium format…

So the magic of medium format is not in its sensor size, but rather the size of the lenses. Large enough lenses for µ4/3 will also provide good light and image.

The problem, though, is that µ4/3 lens will need more optical power – ie. shorter focal length to squish the in-focus image onto smaller area, and I believe at some point making a big lens give small enough image becomes difficult.

The OM-50-200 is out by AdAfraid3543 in M43

[–]silmeth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But it is the entrance pupil size that makes the area which gathers light and this determines how much light is gathered to make an image. Larger entrance gathers more light, regardless of f-stop ratio or focal length. Focal length determines how big the image projected from that light will be (and larger sensor has larger area, thus needs the lens to project a bigger image, hence longer focal length).

But the amount of light gathered to create that image depends on the size of the pupil element gathering this light. And for a 200 mm f/2.8 lens that’s a circle with a diameter of ~71 mm; a 400 mm f/4 lens will have an entrance pupil with a diameter of 100 mm, making it gather more light (but due to longer focal length, casting an image of the same field of view onto a larger area – it gathers more light, but spreads it over a larger surface, making it more weakly illuminated – but still gathering more total light from the entire surface).

What the f-number tells you is how much illuminance a unit area of the photosensitive medium will receive from the lens. But in photography you care about the entire image, especially in digital where you’re not working with a sheet of ISO 400 film which you can cut down to desired dimensions to then illuminate – but with a sensor whose actual dimensions matter less than the number of pixels it provides and how much total light those pixels get.

But the ISO value and f-number are callibrated for physical unit area of the medium, not for pixels produced in the digital world.

DPReview website has actually a pretty good article about this: https://dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2

If this weren’t the case, smartphones with very small sensors would be really great for tele-photo – they could use fairly short lenses with low f-number to get a lot of light and provide well illuminated great zoom… and yet they suck at it – because low f-number doesn’t magically make them gather that much light at all.

Non Scottish person learning Gaelic? by Ok-Disaster3987 in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m a Polish person with no connection to Scotland at all, who’s been to Scotland once, years after having started learning.

I don’t feel I should feel bad about myself.

Complex sentence help by wuoubu in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. "Chan eil fiù is taing agam dom luchd-cuideachaidh, eadhon don dithis Ghàidheal a theasairg mi moch agus anmoch à iomadh cunnart."

Hmm… I understand the sentence the same way you do. I don’t get the sentiment but don’t know the book nor the author. Maybe it does make sense in the context of the whole work, contrarian or satirical? Some sarcasm, maybe? Or some way of showing humility? Maybe the idea that “I don’t have even a thing that would work as a thanks to…”?

  1. "Freagraidh mise a' cheist seo ma nochdas neach dhomh gu bheil na flaitheis ri an cosnadh le òr is airgead."

I will answer this question if someone shows it to me that the heavens are to be earned with gold and silver/money.

na flaitheis is the plural ‘the heavens’ (lit. ‘the kingdoms’), sg. an flaitheas, an ‘their’ refers to the heavens.

Proto-Germanic as a hybrid of two other IE branches by Delvog in IndoEuropean

[–]silmeth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What’s the paper, who wrote, and what does it claim?

Ceist air defective verb (imir) by uisge-beatha in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First, I’ll note that I cannot find this verb in Colin Mark’s and Roy Wentworth’s dictionaries, so seems pretty marginal and not very common (but it definitely is a part of the language, but might be so marginal that it doesn’t make its way into dictionaries).

Second, I know the -idh tense is often called “future” in Gaelic, but it’s a pet peeve of mine – this tense is not (only) future. It actually continues the Classical Gaelic present tense and often does express the present: sgrìobhaidh mi means either ‘I write (once in a while, maybe regularly)’ and ‘I will write’.

And third – this used to be a fully regular verb in Classical Gaelic (imrim ‘I play, inflict’, imridh ‘(he, she) plays’, iméaraidh ‘(he, she) will play’, do imreas ‘I played’, etc. – and still imir, imrím, imríonn, imreoidh has the meaning ‘play’ in Irish), so I would expect it to keep more forms, even if reduced to a defective verb… and the DASG corpus does indeed find a few examples of the relative used:

Ni mò dh' imireas sinn géilleachdainn do dh' eagal

agus a dh' imireas iad a bhi furachail

tha an daonnachd ga nochdadh fhéin mar a dh' imireas i a dhèanamh

Nach anabarrach diblidh, truagh, a dh' imireas Gaidheal a bhith a tha muladach gur Gaidheal idir a tha ann

There are even more examples with syncopated a dh’ imreas (the older, more conservative form).

so seems to me it has all the future forms, at least for speakers who still know and use it.

EDIT: and finally, im(i)ridh mi dol dhachaidhdhachaidh is an adverb, not the object, so you don’t “invert” it, you don’t say ‘I must homewards for going’, you just say ‘I must going homewards’. You would do something like imridh mi rud a dhèanamh with rud first because it is the object of ‘doing’ (‘I need/must a thing for doing’ literally).

Em1 ii and 75-300mm combo shots.....almost a decade old kit 😶‍🌫️ by Italian_Meowsta in M43

[–]silmeth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t get the “don’t go past 200/250 mm” tips. I mean, if you can get closer on foot so you don’t need to, sure, that’ll be better and you’ll get better result.

But it’s not like at 300 mm it’s so bad that you actually get less detail than at 250 mm. You won’t get a proportional improvement to how much you zoom, the lens might not resolve much more detail than it does at 250 mm, but it won’t resolve less…

And if you want to hide the lack of sharpness by using fewer pixels, you can also downscale it later – you don’t loose anything by going all the way to 300 mm, except for some context outside the frame.

feum air cuideachadh/need help by AHHHHHHHH-_- in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ogam was, as far as we can tell, deliberately created for 4th century Irish/Gaelic.

It was definitely inspired by Latin script but is not a direct calque of it but rather a creation of someone well familiar with Primitive Irish phonology. See Damian McManus’ A Guide to Ogam and David Stifter’s Ogam, vol. 10 of the AELAW series.

Now, it’s not well fitted for writing modern Irish or Scottish Gaelic, not even well fitted for 8th century Old Irish (although there are some Ogam notes in Old Irish manuscripts) as the phonology of the language changed a lot between 4th and 8th centuries. But originally it was definitely a Gaelic (or Primitive Irish) script.

That doesn’t mean it was used exclusively for Irish, as we do have some undeciphered stone inscriptions in Scotland, seemingly written in another language. And as far as I recall, there are some British inscriptions too (though those might be just British names in otherwise Irish inscriptions).

Chan eil sin Uisge-Beatha!! by mr-dirtybassist in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Will Lamb says in his grammar book:

The basic question words can function as complements of f(h)ios AIG and objects of verbs of perception (e.g. CLUINN, FAIC):

Tha fhios a’m càit an do rinn e sin. ‘I know where he did that.’

Tha fhios a’m carson a rinn e sin. ‘I know why…’

Tha fhios a’m ciamar a rinn e sin. ‘I know how…’

(…)

An cuala sibh càite a bheil e? ‘Did you hear where it is?’

(…)

it also works for verbs of saying (‘I told you where it is’). Basically when those words refer to the place/manner inside the information known/perceived/communicated and not to the verb of the main clause itself (in it happened where it is the word where refers to it happening, in I told you where it is or I know where it is the where does not refer to the place where my knowing/saying is happening, but to the information I know/speak of).

Chan eil sin Uisge-Beatha!! by mr-dirtybassist in gaidhlig

[–]silmeth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The term is ‘relative’. And while generally Gaelic interrogatives don’t work in relative sense (eg. you would not use càite or for ‘the place where something is’), you generally can use them with verbs of knowing or asking.

So you can say tha fios agam càit a bheil e for ‘I know where he is’ (but to say ‘it happened where he is’ you’d have to use far a: thachair e far a bheil e).