Print

Print


Exactly! The best thing of all about what OLD-IRISH-L is doing now
(something impossible before e-mail) is giving us the chance to do
expose very close readings of text to a muyriad of varied viewpoints,
minimizing the risk of bias and telescoping into a short space of time
something which might otherwise have taken generations to achieve.
Molaim Donncha. Now, let's get down to the smallest units of grammar,
pin down every third pers. preterite in every sentence, give every
adjective every possible nuance, even the less likely, until we can say
we have (well, not me -- I'm busy trying to learn how to do that for Old
Norse just now, from a starting point of zero knowledge) stripped
Amrae's engine down to the cogs and can rebuild it.
mg


Francine Nicholson wrote:
>
> > From: Marion Gunn [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> >
> > The example given below by Francine would not have shocked an ordinary
> > Irish speaker of the time. One must remember that Whitley Stokes, just
> > like any other scholar coming to the materials without himself having
> > had a background in folklife, could not help but put his own spin on
> > things.
> >
>         Exactly. Even collectors of the time who did have some exposure to
> the folklife--figures such as Lady Gregory--were inclined to "clean things
> up" in the motivation that they were making the material more acceptable to
> potential audiences. And perhaps, in their time, they were right!
>
> > Today, the spin is more likely to be due to the scholar's
> > projecting (reading into the texts) something of his/her own spiritual
> > predilections/brainwashing, generally resulting in the imposition
> > philosophical terms alien to the materials, or misunderstanding the
> > native terms. I much prefer the kind of twist we can more easily
> > correct, such as censorship of sexual materials -- where it is so much
> > easier for us to just use our imagination/experiences to restore the
> > essence of the original.:-)
> >
>         Agreed, to a point. But Stokes also had his philosophical biases and
> they often have the potential to influence our understanding of individual
> words, since in many cases, the only attested occurrences are in documents
> that have been edited/translated/published only by Stokes and, on top of
> that, Stokes was the lead editor on the corresponding fascicle of the RIAD!
> While, we have every reason to be grateful for his achievements, we also
> need to be aware that he was not without philosophical bias.
>
>         Francine