Short vowels show no significant phonemic oppositions on the front–back axis, so that these traditionally recognised oppositions, retained in my description, can be reduced to a series of four short vowels: high, mid, low and atonic schwa. The front and back realisations of these three short vowels (ignoring schwa) are allophonically conditioned primarily by the quality of neighbouring consonants, so that, for example, front phones are general in palatal environments. This analysis was first presented by Skerrett (1967) for Iorras, Co. Mayo and was foreshadowed by Holmer (1962) for Co. Clare. (For further discussion, see Bliss 1972: 64–5.) Ó Maolalaigh (1997: 76–149) deals comprehensively with the published descriptions of Gaelic short vowel phoneme inventories.
Morphophonemically, however, the front–back opposition is significant, although only facultatively and to a limited extent, and perhaps only for i vs. uþþ. This can be seen in the forms of the prepositional pronouns of i Eþþ: ionaibh iniÉ ~ inEb !,
ionntu intEb ~ intuÉþþ; where ‘allophonically’, given the nonpalatal environment, one would expect the un- variants. The i- variants are supported within the paradigm by forms containing allophonically regular i- and, perhaps more importantly, by the corresponding long vowel iÉ-þþ: innte iÒÉÔÐt !E and ionntu iÉntEb; perhaps also influenced by the by-form insa insE (i + an). With relatively common ionntu intEb one can contrast the allophonically regular i ~ u alternation
in the paradigm of iontaigh where there is no alternant in iÉ-þþ: d’iontaigh d !intE ~ d !untE ~ d !uÉntEþþ, iontú (VN) untuÉ ~ uÉntuÉ but significantly even here IntuÉ 881J, 01P, occurs (noted following nonpalatal consonant, as well as ionsaighe InsiÉ 01P, lena hanáil l !enE hInAÉl ! 01P). The noun ionlacht (< iomlacht) is realised as uÉnlExt 21Pt, but also ag ionlacht beithíoch Eg ! inlExt b !ehiEx M, as well as initial inlExt M and d’ionlaigh d !unlE M. In ionga only uNgE is allophonically regular given the nonpalatal environment. But SID.46 provides succinct morphophonemic evidence: ’áNgE singular 453, ’áNgIÉExi plural Mp 136, and the paradigmatic hinge of the long vowel iÉN !in !e* plural 453. Similarly, one
plural variant of Seán’s (speaker 12S) is iNgEn !iÉ S. The frequent palatal environments an ionga, t’ionga, presumably also support i- in this lexeme. The i- variant of ionntu is similarly noted as exceptional for Iorras, Co. Mayo in IEM §304 (although not given in the paradigm §571) a dialect which does not have a lengthened iÉ- variant in this environment. Mhac an Fhailigh’s description does not cover the instance of i in agus ionnsóghaidh EgEs insoÉ text 804. Perhaps nt and ns are fronting environments in the Irish of Iorras, cp. i ~ u in pronntanas,
clons §306. Cf. io (1.35), o (1.40), u (1.44). There is no evidence, however, for ‘allophonic’ irregularities in the Irish of Cois Fharraige in ICF or GCF, nor for that matter in ITM; for instance ‘u only in ionga’ ICF §604 (supported by SID.40 q 453–4), and the prepositional pronoun i GCF §307 has no i- variants.1
Morphophonemically more complex are cases of non-initial i following lenited consonants where one might expect uþþ. Lenited derivatives with marked x !i- (for expected hi-) such as dhá thibheacht gAÉ x !iv !Ext Mq are treated as their bases which contain back vowels, e.g. ro-thiugh rE"x !uw (1.119, 1.135, 9.10 (iv)). Cp.
sionnach > shionnach: SunEx > x !unEx, SinEx > hinEx. A possible example of paradigmatic retention of o for phonologically expected e occurs in mo dheirbh-
shiúr mo* V !r !EFuÉr 46.347 best classified as Vr !of-, genitive mo* V !r !oáf !iÉr !e* 46.346 classifiable as Vr !of !-, whereas more commonly -of- corresponds to -ef !- in the more palatal environment of the genitive form, i.e. mo dheirbhshíre mE jr !ef !iÉr !Eþþ. We can also compare singular soitheach sohEx with plural soithighe sehiÉ >> sohiÉ (1.117).
I follow ITM and IEM in positing only one a phoneme. The high number of a phonemes in ICF (four in all, two if nonphonemic length is discounted) has been called into question by Sommerfelt (1949: 417) using more rigorous phonological criteria. There may be evidence of an emerging phonemic split of a in ICF for Cois Fharraige but further investigation is necessary. The two (or three) short a phones described for Ros Muc in LFRM (p. x) are not strictly phonemic. De Bhaldraithe (1953b: 153–4) speculates that the origin of the phonetic length of phonemic /a/ in Cois Fharraige may be found in instances where intervocalic h was lost. In fact Mhac an Fhailigh (1946: 143) had discussed this very point with much perception and had pointed the direction for ‘further investigation’. In his
1 I am informed by Nicholas Williams (personal communication) of the opposition in one possible
pronunciation of ith ubh as i u (which he tells me is permitted in An Cheathrú Rua, in West Cois Fharraige). The i vs. u contrast in this instance corresponds to the consonantal quality opposition in the segmentally fuller by-forms ith ubh ix ! uw. The verb ith can nonetheless be realised as u (between nonpalatal consonants), e.g.
Se hiò r "u mæd ! iEd – "d !i mæd ! iEd – 25M sé an chaoi ar ith muid é. D’ith muid é.
Historical phonology and developments 70
later publication, FFG, de Bhaldraithe uses one a only, although his phonemic interpretation is not explicit (FFG iv).
Similarly, following strictly surface distributional criteria, there is only one schwa phoneme, as in IEM and LFRM, in contrast with ICF (and ITM) where, between consonants, i and E are conditioned by front and back consonant quality respectively, e.g. ICF Nodlaig Ðoûik !, buille biû !Eþþ, are here nolEk !, biû !Eþþ.
Vowels
We begin the historical phonology with a description of developments of the vowels in our dialect with reference to Early Modern Irish.