Talk:Irish phonology/Archive 2

Strange things
I have some questions about what is written in this article. Because what I read here doesn't correspond to what I hear when native speakers are speaking... For me, as I said above, the broad consonants are velarised when they are not labial (t̪ˠ, d̪ˠ, n̪ˠ, kˠ, gˠ, etc. You mentioned the sound ɰ, I'm not sure it's right, for me they are simply velarised), and bilabialised (followed by a [ʷ] glide) when they are labial (so: pʷ, bʷ, ɸʷ, mʷ, plus βʷ in Munster). For me, the broad r’s are not velarised (ɾ, and in some dialects r). For me, the slender single r's are not simply palatalised, they are pronounced [ɼ]. For me, the Irish slender s is [ʃ], not [ɕ]. For me, the Irish broad ch is uvular, not velar. I heard the velar sound [x] in Slavic languages, and I've never heard that sound in Irish so far. I guess scholars say it's a velar sound because it must have been velar in Old Irish (since it derives from older k), but now, the sound I hear is not velar. What do pʲ, mʲ, bʲ, ɸʲ sound like, for you? For me, slender labial consonants are pronounced with the lips stretched on the 2 sides (as when you smile), the tongue doesn't touch the palate so they are not palatalised. In the article, you seem to generalise rules from a dialect to the Irish language in general, and it isn't always right. For example, the l of díol is not dental in Ulster, nor in Munster, I think. Normally, the broad dental l's are written ll or single l at the beginning of words when they are not lenited. The single slender n is pronounced [ɲ] between vowels in Donegal, while it's written [nˠ] (if I remember well) in the table. For example, duine is pronounced [ˈd̪ˠɪɲɪ] in Donegal. And for ng, I saw a confusion between the symbols [ɲ] and [ŋˠ] in the table. Other question: why haven't you used the standard phonologic symbols for Irish: /b', b, k, k',.../ etc? Lughaidh 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not surprised what you hear is somewhat different from what's listed here, because what's listed here is based on published descriptions of Irish dialects, which are based on fieldwork done in the late 19th and early 20th century mostly among people who had very little English. Modern pronunciation has probably changed somewhat due to language contact with English. But since very little has been published about the phonetics of 21st century Irish, we have to report on what has been published. The symbol stands for a sound with the same place of articulation as, so it's equivalent to the [ŋ'] found in other works. (The article uses  for "[N']", as in the Donegal pronunciation of duine.) That brings me to my last point: I use standard IPA rather than the traditional transcription because it cannot be expected that Wikipedia's readers are already familiar with the conventions of Irish dialectologists. (Okay, it cannot really be expected that Wikipedia's readers are already familiar with the IPA either, but at least more of them will be, and those who aren't can learn it here at Wikipedia too.) You might like to see WP:IPA-ga for more information. —Angr 20:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Haigh! Actually, I wonder if the people who did the phonetic descriptions have heard well or have described properly what they had heard. Quite often in such studies, there are things that are not accurate. For example, who pronounces broad ch as velar? Even 100 years ago, I'm almost sure it was already uvular (older speakers who are alive today pronounce them uvular, and their parents with whom they've learnt Irish were born at the end of the 19th century... Éist leis seo: http://fiosfeasa.com/bearla/language/sounds/chuir.aif . Is the first sound velar?
 * [ɲ] and [ŋ'] are not the same sound. Who uses [ŋ'] in phonetics? The apostrophe is not an IPA symbol (except for ejective consonants...). When speaking Irish, do you make a difference between an fheall and a ngeall? I do !
 * I don't understand your point. In phonology anyway you have to explain somewhere how your phonemes are being realized. So what's the difference between traditional phonologic Irish conventions and your ones? Just the traditional ones are simpler (less symbols)... Whatever symbols you choose, you'll have to give the phonemes realisation somewhere, and then any reader will see what you're talking about. In phonologic transcription, you can use any symboles (even little stars or triangles if you like) for your phonemes, they don't mean anything till you explain somewhere how they are to be realized.
 * Tchífidh mé thú, a chara! Lughaidh 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and [ŋ'] are the same sound, and in phonetics no one uses [ŋ']. My point is that in the system used here, an fheall is transcribed with  (= conventional [n']) or  (= conventional [N']), while a ngeall is transcribed with  (= conventional [ŋ']), just as geall is transcribed with  (= conventional [g']), gheall with [j] or  (= conventional, ceann with [c] (= conventional [k']), and cheann with [ç] (= conventional [x']). Basically, the entire palatal series of IPA is used for the Irish "slender velars"; the article uses  rather than  for conventional [L'] for precisely this reason. I don't know whether /x/ is velar or uvular for most speakers, but I do know that all the sources I checked call it velar, so that's what the article says. Wikipedia has to reflect what's been published, not what readers and editors know in our hearts (and ears) to be true; cf. Verifiability. Of course you have to define how you use your symbols, and I believe this article does, but for the sake of consistency with other phonology articles at Wikipedia, this article sticks to symbols that are official parts of the IPA. I do think there will be more readers familiar with IPA than with the traditional symbols of Irish philology, and for those readers who are more familiar with the latter, WP:IPA-ga, which is linked to at the top of this article, should clear up any confusion. —Angr 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A ngeall with [ɲ]? Seafóid! ’Bhfuil fadhb le do chluasa? [ŋʲ] atá ann in achan chanúint. Fuaim dhifriúil ar fad atá in [ɲ]. Sin fuaim an n dhúbáilte chaol i gcanúint Chonnacht agus Uladh. Má mheascann tú ’n dá fhuaim cha dtuigeann na cainteoirí dúchais thú.
 * According to what you've written above, it seems that you don't know the difference between phonetics and phonology. Everybody writes phonological transcription between // and phonetics between []. [L'] doesn't exist, nor [k'], [x'], [N'], and so on. These are symbols that represent phonemes, in the traditional phonological Irish transcription system. So you have to write them between slashes, never between square brackets.


 * If Wikipedia has been done to share what has been published (even when it's wrong) and not only the truth, it's really a pity. A lot of crap has been published, does it mean that we are right to put it on Wikipedia? Ok, I'm going to look for completely stupid things on paper and put them on Wikipedia, then we'll see what you do. For example, that the sun goes around the Earth, that Breton derives from Egyptian (and that Hebrew derives from Breton) and such stuff that has been published. Lughaidh 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, quite soon I'll publish an Irish-French dictionary with phonetics. Then when it is published, I can put my stuff on Wikipedia, instead of the wrong things that are in this article. Lughaidh 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed to  since Ó Sé describes it as postalveolar  and that's the more familiar symbol and is less likely to be confused with [ç]. But I'm keeping  for ngeall since it clearly has the same place of articulation as geal, which has . —Angr 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Go rabh maith agat as an [ʃ]. Maidir le ng chaol, tá sé mícheart ar fad. Abair liom cá bhfaca tú /ng'/= [ɲ]! An té a deireas sin níl Gaeilg aige. ’Nois tá tagairt agam maidir leis sin: amharc ar Bunchúrsa Foghraíochta, lch. 58, agus tchífidh tú cad é ’n áit a bhfuaimníthear /N'/= [ɲ]. Níl ort ach a ghabháil ar na suíomhannaí a dtug tú a seoladh URL agus éisteacht leis na fuaimeannaí, ’s cluinfidh tú ’n duifear eadar /N'/ agus /ŋ'/. Nuair a shéimhíthear nó nuair a uraíthear consan, is féidir nach bhfuaimníthear an consan séimhithe/uraithe san áit chéarna leis a’ bhunchonsan. Mar shampla: s>sh, t>th, d>dh, f>fh, srl. Ar an dóigh chéarna, g>ng: áit chéarna nuair a bíos sé leathan, áit giota beag difriúil nuair a bíos sé caol. Tá /ŋ'/ giota beag níos fuide thiar ná /g'/.
 * Tagairt: Annuntiata le Muire, Ó Huallacháin, C., (1966), Bunchúrsa Foghraíochta, Baile Átha Cliath: An Gúm.
 * Lughaidh 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ní Chasaide in the paper cited in the References uses in ngiall; she's describing a Gweedore accent. And I simply can't find evidence to support your contention that [ŋ'] is farther back than [g']. For one thing, that would suggest that the nasal and the following stop in words like rince and loingeas have different places of articulation, which I simply don't buy. I think perhaps the problem is that the symbol  is often used to indicate a nasal that is somewhat prepalatal, for example in French, Spanish, and Italian. In those languages, a narrower transcription  would be appropriate. But for Irish (and Icelandic; see Icelandic phonology) the same symbol is used to indicate a nasal that is a pure palatal or even palatovelar; a narrower transcription would be  or . The article even mentions this: in the "Allophones" section it says "The palatal stops  may be articulated as true palatals  or as palatovelars ." And please write your comments in English; it takes me about five times longer for me to read Irish, and other people who have no Irish at all may be reading this talk page too. —Angr 11:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Quiggin also uses the symbol in an ngearrfaidh mé? "shall I cut?", a ngé "their goose", Tá mé i ngéibheann "I am in distress", cliabh na ngliomach "lobster-pot", aonach na nGleanntach "Glenties fair", aingeal "angel", aingíoch "given to complaining", cuing "bond, obligation", cuingir "team of oxen", Cincís "Whitsuntide", loing "ship (dative)", loingis "fleet", an Fhrainc "France", spinc "precipice", etc. Of the articulation of the sound he writes that it is "formed with the back of the tongue against the place where the hard and soft palates meet and is therefore similar to the French gn in 'signe'". —Angr 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

About Quiggin's [ɲ], if he uses this symbol for /ŋ'/, can you tell me what symbol he uses for /N'/ ?

Now, explain me why in ALL the books that deal with Irish phonology, the authors use 2 different symbols for the phonemes /N'/ and /ŋ'/ if they represent the same sound? Just some examples from Ó SIADHAIL, M. (1989), Modern Irish, Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation, Cambridge University Press. (And remember Ó Siadhail is a native speaker from Cois Fhairrge, Connemara, and his wife is a native speaker from Gweedore, Co. Donegal). Page 95, he explains the following evolution /N'/ > /ŋ'/ in Muskerry, Co. Cork: oibhní /ev'əN'iː/ > /ejN'iː/ > /əiN'iː/ > /əiˈŋ'iː/ (Mk) 'rivers' goibhní /gev'N'iː/ > /gəjN'iː/ > /gəiN'iː/ > /gəiˈŋ'iː/ (Mk) 'smiths' Suibhne /siv'N'ə/ > /sivN'ə/ > /siːN'ə/ > /siːˈŋ'ə/ (Mk) a surname How would that be possible if /N'/ and /ŋ'/ were the same sound??? And there are plenty of examples like that (in several dialects) in the chapter on consonants.

Other examples, in Mc CONE, K. (dir.) et alii, (1994), Stair na Gaeilge, Maynooth: Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge. Page 621 (in the chapter about Ulster Irish, written by Art Hughes, from Ulster University) (I translate for you, 'cause it's in Irish):

Nasal consonants:

bilabial: m, m'

dental: N

alveolar: n

palato-alveolar: n', N'

palato-velar: ŋ'

velar: ŋ

These are references, ok? And they show that, as I said, /ŋ'/ is further back than /N'/.

Furthermore, have a look at this, about Scottish Gaelic consonant system (which is very close to the Irish one, unfortunately, there's no website like that on the web, except those I made): http://www.akerbeltz.org/beagangaidhlig/gramar/treoraiche.pdf ; http://www.akerbeltz.org/beagangaidhlig/gramar/grammar_imitatedpron.htm. Don't you feel cheeky to uphold I'm wrong, while you don't even speak Irish? I've begun to learn Irish more than 10 years ago, I've learnt it from native speakers from Donegal, I'm fluent in Irish, and I've got a diploma in the Irish language with commendation in the University of Ulster at Coleraine in 2002. I'm not telling that to boast, but just to show you I know what I'm talking about. Tchífidh mé thú.
 * This isn't about which of us speaks Irish better, it's about what the sources say. No source says that /N'/ and /ŋ'/ are the same sound, and neither did I. No source denies that /ŋ'/ is further back than /N'/, and neither did I. What the sources do not support is your claim above that "tá /ŋ'/ giota beag níos fuide thiar ná /g'/". /N'/ is an alveopalatal nasal, while /ŋ'/ is a palatal nasal; in languages that don't contrast the two, the symbol can be used for either, but in languages that do contrast them, such as non-Munster dialects of Irish, it makes sense to use the symbol, defined as a palatal nasal by the IPA, for the palatal nasal, and some other symbol, such as , for the alveopalatal one. That's what Ní Chasaide does, and that's what this article does. (Quiggin, incidentally, uses /N'/ for /N'/.) It's true that most books on Irish phonology don't use the symbol  at all, but only /N'/ and /ŋ'/. That's fine in those contexts, because their readership is largely limited to people already familiar with the conventions of Irish philology, but it wouldn't be a good idea for an article at Wikipedia, whose readers may already be struggling with the standard IPA, to use a separate system that's specific to Irish. That's why this article never uses the prime/apostrophe mark to indicate palatalization, and only uses capital letters to indicate "tense sonorants" when discussing Old Irish (because the precise phonetic values are unknown). —Angr 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, it's wrong to use the symbol [ɲ] because it is not the sound of the slender ng. [ɲ] is the sound of French gn, Spanish ñ, Portuguese nh. It is NOT the Irish slender ng. Irish slender ng is palato-velar, as I said above. And [ɲ] is not palato-velar, it's palatal. If you want to be precise, please use a symbol that shows it's palato-velar, and not palatal. The difference is important. It's like the difference between /t'/ and /k'/, pronounced in very close places in the mouth, but still different.
 * Lughaidh 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As Quiggin points out, slender ng is the sound of French gn, etc. Slender ng is palatal or palato-velar, just like k', g', x', and γ' are. They all have the same place of articulation, and they all are correctly transcribed with symbols belong to the "palatal" column of the IPA chart. —Angr 04:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Quiggin is simply wrong. I don't know if he didn't master French or Irish or both, but French gn is not the sound of the Irish slender ng. French is my mothertongue so I know how it sounds.
 * And things are not that simple in phonetics, you know. Hey, I'll give you a bit of advice: don't believe everything that is printed on paper. It's not always true. Life is not that simple, you know. Lughaidh 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right; it's entirely possible Quiggin is mistaken. However, it's equally possible that you are. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter: even if French gn and Irish ŋ' do have different places of articulation, that doesn't mean they can't be represented with the same symbol. You've probably noticed that the French vowel /i/ in si is different from the English vowel /i/ in see; yet it's correct to transcribe them both with the same symbol. Or the vowels in English bet and bait. One pronunciation dictionary I have uses /bet/ as its transcription of bet, while another uses /bet/ to transcribe bait. So is one of the dictionaries wrong? No, they're just using different conventions, because these IPA symbols are flexible in their reference. Of course this article could follow the convention of transcribing the alveopalatal L' and N' sounds with and ; but then to be consistent we'd also have to transcribe t' and d' as /c/ and  (which is what Finck does, incidentally). And we'd have to find new transcriptions not just for ŋ' but for all the slender velars: we'd have to use  for k',  for g',  for x',  for j, and  for ŋ'. And not only would that be a lot of work for no discernible benefit, it would also be skirting the edges of Wikipedia's policy against original research, because no published source uses those symbols. —Angr 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. At least, correct the table and put "palato-velar" instead of "palatal" in the head of the column with c, ɟ, ŋʲ etc.
 * You wrote: Most dialects of Irish contain at a minimum the consonant phonemes shown in the following chart (see International Phonetic Alphabet for an explanation of the symbols). But it doesn't make sense: you're talking about phonemes symbols, and then you say 'go and see the IPA chart' ? What you'll find in the IPA chart is the sound of the IPA symbols, not the way your Irish phonemes have to be realised! One again, it seems you mix up phonemes and phonetic sounds... If you write /bet/ in English phonological transcription, and say 'go and have a look at the IPA chart', your reader won't know how the English word is really pronounced. He'll think it's [bet], and he'll be wrong. The symbols one uses for phonological transcription are arbitrary and often don't correspond to their phonetic realisation. So, correct that as well, and explain (maybe in another article about Irish phonetics?) how all these phonemes are to be realised, because you only explained some of them in the article (and generalised from some dialects to the whole Irish language, which is wrong, like the story of the onglide etc. Tell me where in Donegal people say [æːitʲ] for the word áit ! And I'm even not sure if these onglides exist in Connaught. I've heard them in Munster only, so far, and I'm sure they don't exist in Donegal (it's the dialect I speak, as you may have noticed). Tchífidh mé amárach thú. Lughaidh 00:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ó Sé says the sounds in question are palatal or palato-velar, so the label in the table is accurate. Any sounds that are realized in a way that isn't predictable from the IPA chart are discussed below the chart in the "Allophones", including the fact that the palatals can also be palato-velars. To the best of my knowledge, the article doesn't generalize anything that happens in only one dialect to all of Irish; I worked hard to make sure everything discussed happens in at least two of the three main dialects, as anything that happens in only one is better discussed in the article about that dialect; exceptions are noted as such. As for onglides, the text says "when a slender consonant follows a back vowel, there can be an onglide [i̯] before the consonant" (emphasis added); since the Donegal realization of /a:/ is a front vowel [æ:], of course you don't expect an onglide before a slender consonant there. But you do expect it after the back vowels; for example (since you seem to be more persuaded by personal experience than published sources) when I learned Irish at Oideas Gael in Glencolmcille (Co Donegal) we were taught to pronounce cúig with a very clear [i] portion. I'll add some more examples to the text. —Angr 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ó Sé only deals with Munster Irish. Cúig is an exception. Anyway, people say [kˠwɪc], at least in Donegal (I almost never heard [kˠuːɪɟ] so far). I don't know other words with úi where you would hear an i-glide after the ú in Donegal Irish. See: súile, dúil, dúinn, etc. There are other back vowels that would not be followed by a glide: baile, móine, óil, etc. Other problem (I already mentioned): in phonetics, you write that broad labial consonants are velarised: [bˠwiː], for example. I don't think it's possible an Irish speaker pronounces [bˠ]... In your table about sonorants, some corrections: Rʲ is not ɾˠ in Donegal (and are there velarised r's in Irish? I don't think so), not anywhere else, I think. You wrote: Old Irish nʲ = n̠ʲ between vowels, nˠ elsewhere (Ó Siadhail 1989:94). Wrong (I've Ó Siadhail’s book under my eyes now), it can be n (which you write [nʲ]) or ɲ (which you write [n̪ʲ]). Normally, slender nn (except word initially) is [ŋʲ] in Muskerry (see Ó Siadhail, same page).

Now, generalisations, there are too many, so I'll just give you one example this time: scuabfaidh /ˈsˠkuəpˠəɟ/. That pronunciation is typical of Munster Irish, and you didn't write it. So readers will wonder why this time -aidh is /-əɟ/ and in other times /-ə/ or /-i/. And the article is full of things like that. Tchífidh mé amárach thú, b’fhéidir. Oíche mhaith. Lughaidh 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was in Donegal when I heard, and Sommerfelt was in Donegal when he heard for dúinn. Broad labials are indeed velarized in Irish; the back of the tongue is raised to the position of  or [u] while the labial is being articulated. The lip rounding, when there is any at all (there isn't always), doesn't start until after the release, so  is strictly more accurate than . Broad r is also velarized in Irish, and r is broad in Irish (including Donegal) in positions where it was slender but tense (i.e. [R']) in Old Irish, namely where orthographically it stands next to i or e, but is word-initial (e.g. rí "king" has a broad r), where it is spelled rr (e.g. cairr "car (genitive) has a broad r), or where it is before t, d, n, or l (e.g. boird "table (genitive) has a broad r). The statement "Old Irish nʲ = n̠ʲ between vowels, nˠ elsewhere" applies only to Ulster Irish, and it's only Old Irish Nʲ that becomes ŋ' in Muskerry/Ring. At the very top of page 94, Ó Siadhail writes, "In some Donegal dialects, Gweedore for example, a /n'/ [i.e. Old Irish ] becomes /N'/ [i.e. ] between vowels as in: duine /diN'ə/, gloine /gliN'ə/, gainimh /gaN'əv'/}}. This is confirmed by Ní Chasaide who transcribes duine as  but ansin as . Finally, scuabfaidh  isn't a generalization, it's an example. It's illustrating the generalization (true in all dialects as far as I know) that voiced stem-final consonants become voiceless when they come in contact with a suffix-initial /h/. Individual examples have to be dialect-specific, because it would be almost impossible to find example words that (1) are used by the published sources, (2) illustrate the generalization under discussion, and (3) are pronounced the same in all dialects of Irish. The relevant portion of scuabfaidh, the internal , is the same across dialects, while the Munster-specific portion, the ending in  is not relevant to the discussion. The word is clearly sourced as being taken from Breatnach and therefore in Munster. I could have given examples for this generalization from Connacht and Ulster as well, but it would have made the text much longer and would have made the reader wonder why on earth I was giving so many examples when one would suffice. —Angr 12:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Angr, I admire your calmness! Lughaidh, you said that you don't bring up your educational background in order to boast, but all you have been doing in this unnecessary argument is to boast and boast and try to show everyone that you know and the other is an ignorant, where probably the reverse is true. Angr's writing is based on published descriptions. We all know that these descriptions are not perfect. We are all aware that pronunciation has changed since the descriptions were made. However, until you show otherwise that you are an authority on phonetic transcription, which, from your writing, you are clearly not, then you are definitely not any better than O'Cuív, Mhac an Fhailligh, Quiggin and their friends. Most of these guys had the best impressionistic phonetic training one could get in the old days. And, man, read their dialect descriptions, no-one could be more thorough than them. At the absence of any other published scientific work, Angr did exactly what a scholar writing in Wikipedia should do. Perhaps he could have mentioned that these phonetic descriptions (a) might not be valid anymore, and (b) are based on impressionistic transcriptions. In any case, the silly argument about the alveo-palatal vs. palatal/palato-velar nasals demonstrated the difference between you too: Angr was SOOOOOO consistent, so careful, and so not trying to show off, while you, Lughaidh, simply weren't listening. From the very beginning Angr wrote that the two consonants are distinct. His transcription for slender 'nn' was transparently a post-alveolar palatalized nasal, which is a sound very similar to what we find in Romance languages (other than Portuguese, where it is usually a palatal). His transcription for slender 'ng' was clearly different from that, and was transparently a palatal nasal. Anyone who knows phonetics well enough knows that the use of the 'palatal nasal' for those sounds in Romance (except Portuguese) is a mistake, and is like the slender 'ng' in Irish (which, truly, can be post-palatal, as Angr did mention). Same holds for the argument about velarization. Man, claiming that broad labials are labialized rather than velarized in Donegal is anything but knowledgeable. Read Ní Chasaide's work in this regard. That retracted onglide you hear in 'maos', for example, is as such due to velarization. You hear it falsely as a labialization effect simply because you hear it with your 'English speaking' ears, and you fail to notice velarization without lip-rounding. Acoustic research I conducted, in collaboration with my former MA supervisor, Máire Ní Chiosáin, with Éamon O'Domhnaill as the speaker, clearly indicates that broad labials are velarized. The best evidence is the difference in the acoustic quality of the long high rounded vowel when following a broad labial vs. broad coronal or broad velar, e.g. bú vs. tú/cú. In the former, the second spectral formant is substantially lower than in the latter ones - we are talking about a 300Hz difference (ca. 900Hz vs. 1200Hz). This cannot be due to labialization since the vowel is already rounded in all cases. This difference can only result from excessive dorsum retraction, exerted by the preceding consonant. Unfortunately, our work with Eamon O'Domhnaill has never been published. I could show many other cases where it's clear that Angr has it, while you, Lughaidh, don't. But I see no point. Angr, I think you did a tremendous job in this article. It is probably impossible to write it any better in Wikipedia.

Roy. Linguistics PhD student at UCLA, specializing in phonetics. MLitt in linguistics (phonetics and phonology of Irish) from UCD.

Random break for ease of editing
I was in Donegal when I heard, 

And I was in Donegal when I heard [kwɪc].

and Sommerfelt was in Donegal when he heard for dúinn.

And I was in Donegal when I heard [d̪ˠuːɲ] a thousand times.

Broad labials are indeed velarized in Irish; the back of the tongue is raised to the position of or [u] while the labial is being articulated.

The only velarisation just result from the following [w] glide. [w] is labio-velar by itself, so you don't need a velarisation symbol before it. When you write [bˠw] you write it twice.

The lip rounding, when there is any at all (there isn't always), doesn't start until after the release

Ask Micheál Ó Murchú, from Coleraine University, about his opinion on that. He's probably one of the people who best know Irish on earth. I've learnt Irish pronunciation with him among others (he has learnt Donegal Irish mainly in Rannafast, from people like John Ghráinne Ó Duibheannaigh... don't say that kind of speaker is not reliable...).

Broad r is also velarized in Irish,

You don't hear it, so you need not to write it.

where it is spelled rr (e.g. cairr "car (genitive) has a broad r),

When have you found that? Looks like you've never heard a native speaker pronouncing bairr or cairr. I have.

The statement "Old Irish nʲ = n̠ʲ between vowels, nˠ elsewhere"

Where have you read that?

Finally, scuabfaidh isn't a generalization, it's an example.

Then why don't you say where it comes from? Readers will believe it's the pronunciation for whole Ireland!

Connacht and Ulster as well,

Finally, in an English sentence, please use the English form "Connaught" or the Irish form "Connachta". "Connacht" is the genitive form of Connachta, so you can't use it in the middle of an English sentence. Tchífidh mé amárach thú. Lughaidh 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "You don't hear it, so you need not to write it." Well, yes you do, because the palatalization/velarization contrast is robust and important in Irish, so you need to emphasize for the reader where each type is present.
 * "When have you found that? Looks like you've never heard a native speaker pronouncing bairr or cairr. I have." Take your pick; look it up in any published description of any dialect of Irish.
 * "Then why don't you say where it comes from? Readers will believe it's the pronunciation for whole Ireland!" I do say where it comes from; the reference is at the end of the sentence.
 * "Connacht" is the usual English name for the province nowadays. The name "Connaught" is old-fashioned and hardly used by anyone any more. —Angr 11:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "You don't hear it, so you need not to write it." Well, yes you do, because the palatalization/velarization contrast is robust and important in Irish, so you need to emphasize for the reader where each type is present.


 * You don't need to write something that is not heard. The difference between a palatalised r and a plain r is big enough, it's impossible to mix them up. No need to write the broad one is velar if it is not.


 * "When have you found that? Looks like you've never heard a native speaker pronouncing bairr or cairr. I have." Take your pick; look it up in any published description of any dialect of Irish.


 * Ok, we'll see that. Anyway I always heard bairr as [bʷæːɼ] in Donegal..., whatever I'll find in books won't change what people actually say... So far, none of the books I have at home mention -irr as broad (Learning Irish, Stair na Gaeilge, Modern Irish, Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí, etc).


 * "Then why don't you say where it comes from? Readers will believe it's the pronunciation for whole Ireland!" I do say where it comes from; the reference is at the end of the sentence.


 * It's not clear enough, I think. It would be better to write in the article itself the name of the place where these pronunciations exist.


 * "Connacht" is the usual English name for the province nowadays. The name "Connaught" is old-fashioned and hardly used by anyone any more. —Angr 11:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's Google it: Connaught: 3,600,000 results. Connacht: 950,000 results... Connaught seems to be pretty much in use on the web, I'm sorry!
 * Tchífidh mé amárach thú. Lughaidh 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Having spent a fair amount of time there, and having done extensive work there, I can assure you Connacht is the current spelling. Connaught is an appalling Anglicization. Note that the official Wikipedia spelling is Connacht. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connacht. —User:AndrewCarnie comment added by AndrewCarnie (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it's appalling or not is a matter of taste, but it's definitely an old-fashioned Anglicization, barely used since Irish independence except in historical contexts or when discussing one of the Dukes of Connaught and Strathearn. —Angr 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing a lot of those google search results that came up "Connaught" had something to do with places named after the Duke of Connaught...there are quite a few here in Toronto. --Lesouris 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)