Just quoting myself here from another thread so the rest of the discussion will make sense.
Hi IO -Verily art thou a hive of thoughtful industry.
Please don't think me a churl for referring to one little item that caught my eye in line 3 of your opening post.
I beheld there the phrase 'do ghach chuid' .My abiding impression is that 'gach' is never aspirated.,,ostensibly on grounds of phonetic elegance - 'ghach' being almost impossible to articulate without sounding like you're choking.
Not so sure either that 'cuid' should be aspirated in this context.
Perhaps you could check this out with some Gaelic grammar nerd or with some higher authority - assuming one can be found who can pronounce with oracular certainty on such matters.
Of course such is the decrepit state of Gaelic long since - it could be a case of 'anything goes' and nobody 's the wiser.
Interesting points! I'll look into it in more detail once I get back to my laptop. I'd be surprised if the question hasn't come up before on the Daltaí boards, or the Irish Language Learners' Forum. It might even be covered somewhere in Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí.
Níl aon séamhú ar 'gach' ná níl aon séamhú ar 'cuid'. Níl a fhios agam cén fáth ach chuir mé ceist ar m'athair (iar-mhúinteoir scoile ab ea é agus dúirt sé go bhfuil sé mí-cheart.
Deirtear an rud céanna anso: http://www.daltai.com/discus/messages/13510/15335.html?1139236588 Ach níl aon mhíniú ar an tuiscint taobh thiar den chleachtadh. Taighde le déanamh agam!
Cuirfidh mé ceist ar mo dhearthair. Tá sé ag obair mar aistritheoir san European Parliament(???). Brón orm. Níl mo chuid Gaeilge go romh mhaith!!
You are right, there is no séimhiú in: do gach duine. But note: do gach uile dhuine, where the lenition is because of uile. Also a similar phrase that does take lenition is: do chách.
It's difficult to remember now, over a year removed, but I think that might be where my error came from. I couldn't find advice about "gach" so I went with the info I found on "chuile". I'll edit my OP and move this discussion into a new thread later in the week so that it doesn't confuse people looking for resources.
Done! Let the discussion of the intricacies of grammar recommence.
Well IO, although gach is not lenited, there are dialects that insert an s.
I ngach (in CO) = ins gach (in many Munster dialects)
Ó gach = ós gach
Do gach = dos gach
For an example of dos gach see https://wikisource.org/wiki/Page:An_t-oileanach.djvu/99 where you can see that Tomás Ó Criomhthain used that in An tOileánach.
I forget the origin of this s. I think it may be a development by analogy with in sna, which then infects many preposition+article compounds and then is spread to gach too. I'm sure someone has a better explanation - please post it!
There also exists a dialectal form of 'gach' which on the surface looks exceedingly strange.
Let's say one wants to ask 'Does everyone have a book ?', You could hear something in Kerry that would sound like ' Bhfuil leabhar ages na' héinne ?' Here 'gach' has been replaced by 'nach' -though in speech the final aspirated consonant is frequently omitted .
( The form 'that sounds like 'ag is ' is another dialectal flourish !) Incidentally, Dinneen has recorded on p.779 of his Dictionary that 'nach' sometimes replaces 'gach'.
There's no limit to dialectal variation in any language system -it can take on most unexpected twists and turns.
Dialects are natural and workable for the local communities that use them . But they are a hindrance to supralocal communication. For this one absolutely needs an agreed , stabilised ,codified standard set of forms -clearly for writing but also, as far as possible. for speech .
The whole topic of language /dialect / standard is hugely complicated . There is no 'scientific' measure to hand to guide us to any consensus .Hence , arguments continually rage as people bring their own values and assumptions to bear on the subject. All I can say is that one should be slow to be dogmatic about any matter and be thankful that we have achieved the small modicum of clarity we have.