Plé:Darfur

Scríobh Panu: Ba chóir an uimhir uatha a úsáid ar lorg "trí": trí stát seachas trí stáit; ní úsáidtear an ginideach mar ba chóir: an tSúdáin, deisceart na Súdáine; mílitriú: "scrois" in áit "scrios"; ginideach ar lár: "mórán troid" -> "mórán troda", focal dothuigthe: "d'iarraigh"; téarmaíocht dhothuigthe: "béal an catha"; séimhiú ar lár ina lán áiteanna: béal an chatha ba chóir a scríobh sa ghinideach cibé; mílitrithe: "Íoslam" in áit Ioslam; "ráite" á úsáid go dothuigthe, nuair is "dúradh" nó "deirtí" a bheadh ag teastáil; mílitriú: "sclabhaí" in áit "sclábhaí", agus is féidir an cheist a chur nárbh fhearr "daor" a úsáid ina áit, ós rud é gur "oibrí ócáidiúil" seachas slave is príomhbhrí leis an bhfocal sclábhaí; agus go leor eile: tá "sítheád" ann le haghaidh "jihad" ó tháinig Ciste Cúrsaí Reatha i gcló; agus go leor eile

RóC: Go raibh maith agat a Phanu - tá na ceartúcháin seo déanta agam:

1. trí stát seachas trí stáit; 2. an tSúdáin, deisceart na Súdáine; 3. "scrois" in áit "scrios"; 4. "mórán troid" -> "mórán troda", 5.Aithriú déanta do focal dothuigthe: "d'iarraigh"; téarmaíocht dhothuigthe: "béal an catha"; 6. "Íoslam" in áit Ioslam; 6. "deirtí in iomad "ráite" 7. "sítheád" ann le haghaidh "jihad".

Níor thuigim cad atá i gceist le "mílitriú" - más féidir leat níos mó eolais a thabhairt faoi, déanfaidh mé ceartú.

Maidir le ceist sclábhaí in iomad "daor": The citation listed (Idris) translates Abid or Abeed as "slave", hence the use of "sclábhaí". The writer is a Sudanese political scientist and is referring in his book to the manner in which some northern Sudanese disparage both southern and western Sudanese as "slaves" because of their darker skin tone, regardless of their religion. Other Sudanese authors (such as Mansour Khalid and Francis Deng) confirm the use of the phrase in this manner by (some) northern Sudanese. In some respects the use of the term refers back to historical relations between north and south in the 19th century when slave raiding was common, and is generally cited as being indicative of racial prejudice on the part of the user.

You are correct though, in highlighting difficulties with modern usage: there has been a debate on whether raiding practices, including taking of captives by Arab murahileen militias in parts of southern Sudan (particularly Bahr El Ghazal) during the 1980s and 1990s constitued slavery or not. Several NGOs, notably Christian Solidarity International, engaged in buy back programs of people, claiming they were slaves. Other organisations working in governmental controlled areas have been more circumspect, noting that there are historical precedents for indentured labour during hard times - i.e. that the situation of at least some of these people is closer to "daor". The Sudanese government also rejects the use of the term slavery in this respect. Some of the researchers who have detailed the extent of this raiding and abduction include Jok Madut Jok, Jemera Rone (Human Rights Watch researcher - see www.hrw.org website for reports, particualrly related to the 1998 famine in Bahr El Ghazal), and John Ryle (Sudan Abduction and Slavery Project www.riftvalley.net/inside/projects.htm).

This debate does not, in my view, effect the use of the term in everyday usage, particularly with regard to the quotation cited. With that in mind, I think sclábhaí is the appropriate word to use. Having said that, I would value any further insights you might have in the use of both terms as Gaeilge. RóC 04:08, 16 Iúil 2007 (UTC)

I now corrected the article. Sorry to say, but I never had enough time to list all the grammatical errors, and some of them I found very alarming. I guess I must write something about those ones on my page, but the stark truth is, I am afraid, that the article was even after the corrections very, very bad Irish - so bad that it made me really depressed, if not desperate.

To be quite frank: I understand why people do find it difficult to write agreeable Irish. Irish is not a particularly easy language, and if you have been poorly taught, it is even harder to teach yourself the good Irish. But what I do find unacceptable, is, that people do not even take the trouble of consulting standard dictionaries and the Acmhainn.ie database before trying their hand at writing Irish. If I encounter a specimen of Irish syntax or grammar that comes straight from the darkest pits of Hell, I perfectly understand that the person writing it has done his damned very best, and that his best happens to be still not good enough. But, quite frankly, if you don't even bother to check the established or recommended terminology or spelling with one of the standard dictionaries and Acmhainn.ie, it really, really makes me angry, because it shows that you guys are not even trying to do your best. I am perfectly happy to lend people a hand with the language, if they really do their best themselves. Panu Petteri Höglund 23:06, 4 Lúnasa 2007 (UTC)

Panu, a chara - I have to say I am disappointed by your comments above, for a couple of reasons. The first is that as I see it, wikipedia should be a collaborative project with users working and complementing each others strengths. Undoubtedly you have and continue to make an enormous contribution to the vicipéid - one that is distinctive and tremendously important. However, no one has a monopoly on knowledge, and one of the great advantages of the wiki project is that each can contribute according to their distinctive competences and abilities. In the case of 'smaller' languages such as Gaeilge, this is particularly important, given the small size of the community engaged in making regular contributions. The tone of your comments above do not help in building community - rather they tend more towards an exclusivist orientation.

Secondly, with respect to adhering to standard Irish, again I see a positive, where you see a negative. I see it as a good thing that people attempt to use Gaeilge as best they can - given their knowledge level and the time they have available to contribute to the wiki project, which might mean that not everyone can spend considerable time checking grammar etc. Others (myself included) may not be aware of all the resources that are avaialble to check and use - explanation and guidance, rather than a condemnatory tone, would therefore be appreciated.

Finally, while maintaining standard Irish is important, I do not subscribe to essentialist notions of language - your comments above, and on one or two previous occasions, all to often come across as an exercise in attempting to maintain disciplinary power over others (myself included) whose ability to write gramatically correct Gaeilge is below the standards which you set for yourself. I have a problem with this on two levels - the first is that exclusivism will not assist in growing the Gaeilge language speaking (and writing) community; the second is that such essentialist notions fail to recognise that what we are doing here, and the ways in which Gaeilge is being used in new contexts - for example by graduates of Gaelscoileanna in English speaking urban areas, or on Raidió na Life, etc, are equally legitimate dialectical variations in the use of the language. Roddy Doyle for one, has done a superb job of representing the ways in which people actually speak English in some parts of Dublin - perhaps (at least some) of the attempts at writing as Gaeilge represent similar innovations and adaptations - which may derive, I'll admit, from deficiencies in how the language is taught and learned, but nonetheless, have value, for all that.

I would like to conclude on a postive note - as I said at the outset, your contribution is quite exceptional and of real value - but I would appeal to you to moderate the tone of comments that serve to exclude, criticize or condemn other users who value the language as much as you clearly do.

Is mise le meas, RóC 06:26, 5 Lúnasa 2007 (UTC)

Corrrect to text: As per discussion at the top of the section re: Sudanese usage of 'abd' or 'abeed' , I continue to think that "sclábhaí" meaning slave, rather than daor, being forced laborer, or indentured servant, is a better translation - unless further clarifcation canbe given on the word 'daor'.

Sclábhaí is OK for the time being. But as regards your diatribe on this page: as someone who is in daily contact with native and professional speakers of Irish, I must just say that I cannot agree with you, because I simply think you are mostly plain wrong. It would just be too long a lecture to explain to you all what is wrong about it, so let's put the plán mín on it. Keep on making new pages, I'll correct your Irish then. But do try to read books and Irish-language media on a daily basis, will you? You'll be astonished at how freely good Irish is used in all the contexts which you seem to think are new to it, and how well-established much of the terminology is. Panu Petteri Höglund 11:57, 6 Lúnasa 2007 (UTC)

And let me add just a couple of words. I have never attended one single class of formal tuition in Irish. Still, I have been to acquire a professional-level proficiency in the language. And it took a shorter time than you imagine to make the leap from what you have now (good understanding, but insecurity of grammar) to what I essentially have now (full proficiebcy). For you now, it'd take less than a year - after that, it would only be about fine-tuning. What I simply don't understand, is, that one wants to pose as an Irish-speaker but does not bother to take that one final leap.Panu Petteri Höglund 12:04, 6 Lúnasa 2007 (UTC)

Another couple of words. If you want to build a Wikipedia in an Irish-based Dublin pidgin, it is quite fine by me. If this pidgin has a stable grammar (distinct from Irish grammar), a stable vocabulary (distinct from Irish vocabulary), and a reasonable pool of fluent speakers, it is a distinct language in its own right, quite worthy of vernacular elevation, it needs a Wikipedia of its own, a literature of its own, and might even be more deserving of the status of the national language of Ireland than either Irish or English. However, if this language is not mutually comprehensible with established Irish literary usage, - i.e., if you understand this language but are not able to understand standard Irish based upon established usage, - then stop pretending that this language is Irish. It is not. It might be a related pidgin or creole language (I use "pidgin" and "creole" here in their linguistic, scientific sense, not as slurs or invectives), but it is not Irish, and you should not deceive yourself into believing that it is in any meaningful sense Irish. If you want to produce literature in it, please do. Nobody would be more interested in reading it and doing research into it than I. But don't call that language Irish. It is not. Panu Petteri Höglund 12:16, 6 Lúnasa 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Panu - and I appreciate your willingness to engage and debate, and indeed to continue to correct my grammatical deficiencies. It seems a modus vivendi has been established. RóC 15:19, 6 Lúnasa 2007 (UTC)

As regards daor and sclábhaí, here is what Dinneen says:

DAOR: a bondman, a guilty or condemned person.

SCLÁBHAIDHE (our orthography: sclábhaí): a serf or slave, a workman, a day labourer, an agricultural drudge.

And this is what Ó Donaill says:

DAOR: 1) unfree person, slave. An saor agus an daor: the free and the unfree. 2) Condemned, convicted, person.

SCLÁBHAÍ: 1) Slave. 2) Labourer, toiler. 3) Hack, drudge. [note that de Bhaldraithe gives sclábhaí údair as the Irish for "ghostwriter") 4) Mean, miserable, person.

The result is that I am hardly particularly justified to find very much fault with your use of sclábhaí, so I am definitely not going to start a revert war. The problem with daor here is the fact that it has very much the sense of a guilty or condemned person, and while it is not a very common, colloquial word today, the verb daor/daoradh, which means "to condemn a person to a punishment, to convict a person" is in quite common use; thus, it is very possible that the word daor would be perceived as "convicted, condemned person", which is definitely not the sense we want to convey here. On the other hand, sclábhaí is obviously related to the corresponding English word and will be understood, albeit, being a common and colloquial word often used in a figurative sense ("drudge, hack, mean person" - cf. the following quotation from Fuígfidh Mise an Baile Seo:

A Mhuire, nach mé an truaidhe 's mé pósta ar an sclábhaí

Nach ligeann amach chun Aifrinn mé lá saoire nó Dé Domhnaigh

where it obviously means a "mean person") and these figurative senses might deprive the word some of the definitive, "scary" idea of being a slave (i.e. being in the state of juridically defined unfreedom). However, neither word is particularly more misleading than the other, and if sclábhaí is the more colloquial word, it is definitely not a bad thing in my eyes. I tend myself to use daor and daoirse because these words do convey - to me at least - the sense of slavery as a juridically and legally defined state of unfreedom in a particular jurisdiction, but in this respect, my taste and fancy is not the law. So, I'll let you have the sclábhaí. It is much more a part of colloquial Irish, at the very least. Panu Petteri Höglund 18:34, 6 Lúnasa 2007 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat a Phanu. It is interesting to see the divergence and overlap in meaning between the two words. I can think of ways in which the word 'slave' in English is also used in a way that gives it a superficial air - e.g. 'slave to fashion', or even 'slave-driver' to describe someone who pushes people hard figuratively - the context is which it is used adds to its weight or not, I guess. Anyhow "sclábhaí" it is.