Cúpla Sliocht fá dtaobh de Phaavo Rintala (tuilleadh)

Ins an Fhionlainn d'áitigh a lán tráchtairí ón eite dheis gur leabhar bolscaireachta a bhí ins an tSiansa Cinniúna agus nach rabh i Rintala ach oirnéis i lámh na gCumannaithe Sóivéadacha. Bhí an t-údar féin míshásta leis na líomhaintí sin, nó ba é a léamh féin ar an scéal ná nach rabh sé ach ag inse scéalta na ngnáthdhaoiní ón taobh eile, mar a chuaigh an cogadh i bhfeidhm orthu siúd.

Ón taobh eile de níor cuireadh Rúisis ar an leabhar ariamh, amach ó na bloghanna a chuaigh i gcló ar an iris liteartha udaí Sever ("An Tuaisceart") i dtús na nóchaidí. Rinne an scríbhneoir cáiliúil cogaidh Konstantin Simonov iarracht a áitiú ar na foilsitheoirí oifigiúla Sóivéadacha an leabhar a aistriú go Rúisis ina iomláine. D'éiligh na foilsitheoirí Sóivéadacha ar Rintala, áfach, na tagairtí don chanablacht i Leningrad agus d'fhrith-Ghiúdachas na Sóivéadach a bhaint den leabhar. Cha dtug Rintala isteach do na héilimh, áfach, agus mar sin cha dtáinig an leabhar i gcló ins an Aontas Sóivéadach ach an oiread.

Is dóigh liom go dtearn mé tagairt ínteach cheana don tionchar mhór a bhí ag Norman Mailer ar Rintala. Mar sin ní díol iontais é ar aon nós gur bhreac Rintala síos leabhar fá dtaobh de chogadh Vítneam fosta, leabhar a tharraing go mór mór ar Why are we in Vietnam le Mailer. Ins an am sin bhí sé as pabhar faiseanta ins na Stáit Aontaithe a dhul a dh'agallamh na saighdiúirí a bhí ag pilleadh chun an bhaile ó Vítneam, na hagallaimh a chur in eagar agus a fhoilsiú faoi chlúdach leabhair. Bhí Fraincis ag Rintala, agus rinne sé staidéar ar na díolamaí litríochta ó Vítneam a bhí ar fáil go flúirseach ins an teangaidh sin. Mar sin d'fhoghlaim sé uraiceacht an chultúir Vítneamaigh cosúil le tuismeá na Síne, bliain an tairbh, bliain an chapaill agus araile, agus scríobh sé úrscéal fá dtaobh de Vítneam fosta, Romeo ja Julia härän vuonna - "Romeo agus Juliet i mbliain an tairbh". Chaith sé súil ínteach ar na foinsí a foilsíodh ins an Ghearmáin [scríobh mé "an Ghearmáin Thiar" ach is dócha gurb í an Ghearmáin Thoir a bhí i gceist - PPH sa bhliain 2019], ach níor bhain sé mórán leasa astu, ó bhí sé barúlach go rabh siad curtha ó mhaith ag an tseanmóiríocht Chumannach iontu. 

Cha rabh Rintala féin ina Chumannach ariamh i gciall cheart an fhocail, ach nuair a bhí sé ag obair ar an tsaothar áithrid seo bhí sé go mór faoi thionchar lucht an "Tríú Domhandais", is é sin scríbhneoirí iarchoilíneacha cosúil le Franz Fanon. Bhí Fanon agus a leithéidí claonta chun Cumannachais ar bhealach ar leith, is é sin dhearc siad ar bhochtáin an Tríú Domhain mar "phrólatáireacht dhomhanda", agus iad inbharúla nach prólatáireacht cheart a bhí i lucht oibre na dtíortha saibhre, gidh go rabh seoraí cainte an phrólatáireachais go minic ina mbéal siúd. Bhí aicme oibre an Iarthair i ndiaidh an réabhlóid dhomhanda a chaitheamh i dtraipisí mar chuspóir, ach ba iad prólatáirigh an domhain, muintir an Tríú Domhan, a bhainfeadh amach an ceann scríbe seo gan cead a iarraidh ar Bhiúró Polaitiúil an Pháirtí Chumannaigh Shóivéadaigh.


Bhí Rintala barúlach fosta, mar a deir Kai Ekholm [a scríobh an leabhar úd Paavo Rintala, dokumentaristi - PPH sa bhliain 2019] nach rabh i ndaonlathas an Iarthair i ndiaidh an iomláin ach cur i gcéill. Agus d'fhéadfá a rádh gur fhoghlaim sé an drochamhras seo ó na Cumannaigh, nó ó eite chlí a linne.

Ins an bhliain 1971 d'fhoilsigh Rintala an leabhar doiciméadach udaí Viapori 1906. Ba é ab ábhar don tsaothar áithrid seo ná ceannairc Viapori ins an bhliain 1906, mar a deir teideal an leabhair féin. Is é Viapori (Sualainnis: Sveaborg) an daingean mara i gceann de na hoileáin in aice le Heilsincí. Suomenlinna atá ar an daingean inniu. Tógadh ins an 18ú haois é mar sciath chosanta a choinneochadh na Rúisigh amuigh, ach íorónta go leor nuair a phléasc Cogadh na Fionlainne amach eadar an tSualainn agus an Rúis ins an bhliain 1808, ghéill ceannasaí an daingin, Carl Olof Cronstedt, do na Rúisigh é gan mhórán troda a chur ar a shon. De thoradh an chogaidh sin shealbhaigh Impireacht na Rúise an Fhionlainn, agus rinne na Rúisigh a gcuid féin de Viapori, mar bhunáit chabhlaigh. I ndeireadh Mhí Iúil 1906 d'éirigh mairnéalaigh na bunáite amach faoi cheannas cúpla oifigeach agus le cuidiú áithrid ó Shóisialaigh Fhionlannacha.

Ba é ba spreagadh don leabhar a bhreac Rintala síos fá dtaobh den cheannairc seo ná an scannán a rinne Fionlannaigh agus Sóivéadaigh roimhe sin inar cardáladh na himeachtaí céadna. Ghlac Rintala páirt ins an scannánú agus é ag obair ina thaighdeoir agus ina scriptscríbhneoir. Mar a d'iompaigh an scéal amach ní rabh mórán maithe ins an scannán, agus ba é ba chúis leis ná nach rabh Rintala in ann treabhadh leis an stiúrthóir Shóivéadach. Barrúil go leor ba é an locht ba mhó a fuair Rintala ar an fhoireann Shóivéadach ná go rabh a ndearcadh siúd ar na himeachtaí "róchosúil le Hollywood", is é sin ró-éadrom: beirt oifigeach óga ag teacht go Viapori agus iad ag canadh amhrán, ag damhsa agus ag tarraingt réabhlóide. Cha rabh na Sóivéadaigh sásta aird ar bith a thabhairt ar an chúlra shóisialta, ar chruachás na mairnéalach, mar spreagadh don mheon réabhlóideach, - ba é sin barúil Rintala, dar le hEkholm. Cha rabh Rintala agus Sergey Kolosov, an stiúrthóir Rúiseach, in ann teacht le chéile fá dtaobh de rud ar bith. Mar sin nuair a d'fhoilsigh Rintala a leabhar féin fá dtaobh den cheannairc seo, iarracht a bhí ann an taobh den tseith a thaispeáint nach rabh Kolosov sásta a iompó le lucht féachana an scannáin.

[---]

[An leabhar Lakko, "An Stailc", a foilsíodh sa bhliain 1956]

An stailc a bhí faoi chaibidil ins an úrscéal Lakko, thit sí amach in Kemi ins an bhliain 1949. Anois tá sé tábhachtach cúpla focal a rádh i dtaobh shaol polaitiúil na Fionlainne ins an am. Thoisigh ré an neamhspleáchais ins an Fhionlainn le cogadh fuilteach cathartha ins an bhliain 1918. Ar aon taobh amháin a bhí na Sóisialaigh - na Dearga - agus ar an taobh eile a bhí na buirgéisigh, nó na Bána. Fuair na Bána cuid mhór tacaíochta ó mhuintir na tuaithe - ó na scológa bochta. Cibé scéal é bhris na Bána an cath ar na Dearga, agus d'imir na buaiteoirí an-díoltas ar na cailliúnaithe. Cuireadh cuid mhór de na Dearga chun báis, agus stiúg tuilleadh acu le hocras ins na campaí géibhinn i ndiaidh an chogaidh. D'fhág an cogadh seo goimh fhrithir ag déanamh ábhair ina lán croíthe ins an Fhionlainn, agus is é an t-ainm a bhí ar an ábhar sin ná Cumannachas. Mar sin, gidh go rabh an Fhionlainn i ndiaidh cogadh fada fuilteach a chur ag iarraidh na trúpaí Sóivéadacha a chur ó dhoras, bhí a lán lucht oibre ann agus iad ag tacú leis an Chumannachas óna gcroí amach, ó mhair an fonn díoltais orthu ó laetha an chogaidh chathartha.

Bhí taithí áithrid ag Rintala ar shaol an lucht oibre, nó nuair a bhí sé óg, chaith sé seal ag obair ina measc agus tharraing sé ar na cuimhní cinn seo nuair a bhí sé ag cur síos ar na hoibrithe in Kemi. Ba mhór eadar Kemi agus Raksila, an ceantar in Oulu ina bhfuair Rintala a chéad aithne ar phrólatáireacht na Fionlainne. Le fírinne is doiligh a rádh an rabh ainm na "prólatáireachta" tuillte i gceart ag lucht oibre Raksila. An chuid ba mhó de bhunadh Raksila bhí siad ag obair do chomhlacht iarnróid an Stáit, rud a chiallaigh, faoi imthoscaí na linne, nach rabh eagla orthu roimh an dífhostaíocht ná cúis eagla acu, nó go háithrid i mblianta an chogaidh ba eochairdhream iad na hoibrithe iarnróid agus an Stát ag déanamh a dhichill lena ngiúmaráil.

Mar a chuir sé síos ar an lucht oibre, thug Rintala le fios nach rabh an aicme seo féin díreach cosúil leis an idéalú a rinneadh uirthi i mbolscaireacht na heite clí. B'áil leis fosta a thaispeáint nach mb'ionann gluaiseacht an lucht oibre agus na Cumannaigh a bhí díleas go héag do Mhoscó, gidh go mba iad an darna dream a bhí i lár an aonaigh i meáin na linne. Ba é dearcadh Rintala ar an Chumannachas go rabh sé iontach cosúil leis an Laestaidiachas, an ghluaiseacht athbheochana creidimh a d'fhág a sliocht ar Thuaisceart na Fionlainne go léir. Ba reiligiún é an Cumannachas agus ba reiligiún é an Laestaidiachas, agus an dá chuid bunaithe ar sheoraí mórluachacha ardnósacha cainte.

Bhí Rintala go mór faoi thionchar John Dos Passos agus William Faulkner nuair a bhreac sé síos an leabhar Lakko, nó bhí sé barúlach go rabh an bheirt sin in ann cur síos gan idéalú a thabhairt ar an lucht oibre.

Is é an chiall a baineadh as an leabhar gur ionsaí fíochmhar ar na Cumannaigh a bhí ann, rud nach rabh súil ná coinne ag Rintala leis. Ar ndóighe bhí ábhar á chardáil aige nár thaitin leis na Cumannaigh: achrann inmheánach i ngluaiseacht na gceardchumann eadar na Cumannaigh agus na Daonlathaigh Shóisialta. 

Bhí an scríbhneoir ag iarraidh a dhearcadh féin ar an lucht oibre, a bhaint agus a chaidreamh féin leis an aicme sin, a chur in iúl i gcarachtar agus i bpearsantacht an laoich, Kalle Perkiö. Fear óg éirimiúil atá in Kalle, agus é eadar dhá thinidh Bhealtaine ag féacháil le háit cheart a fháil dó féin ins an tsaol. Ó thaobh amháin de is dóigh le Kalle Perkiö go bhfuil sé á thachtadh ag cnuasmheon frithindibhidiúil an lucht oibre. Ón taobh eile de is léir dó nach bhfuil cead isteach aige i saol na "ndaoiní uaisle" ná na meánaicme féin, ós rud é go bhfuil cuid mhór d'eisiatacht na buirgéiseachta is na "huaisleachta airgid" ag roinnt le meánaicme na linne. Bíonn Perkiö ag baint a shuilt as a "fhealsúnacht" féin agus é ag dréim le gairm an ealaíontóra mar ghléas beatha a chuirfeadh ar a chumas na teorainneacha righne eadar na haicmí a shárú, a thrasnú is a tharchéimniú.

Cúpla Sliocht fá dtaobh de Phaavo Rintala, an scríbhneoir Fionlannach, ó mo thréimhse Ultachais

Chan fhuil mé féin comh heolach ar shaothar dhoiciméadach Phaavo Rintala agus ba chóir domh ach, ar ámharaí an tsaoil, bhí a fhios agam go rabh monagraf scríofa ag Kai Ekholm ar an taobh seo den údar agus, mar sin, tharraing mé ar an tobar bheannaithe seo agus mé ar lorg tuilleadh faisnéise.

Nuair a chardáil Paavo Rintala cúrsaí an chogaidh, bhí sé go mór mór faoi thionchar Lev Tolstoy. Bhunaigh Tolstoy a mhór-úrscéal, "An Cogadh agus an tSíocháin", ar an smaoitiú gurb iad na sluaite síoraí inneall gluaiste na staire, rud atá le haithne ar an chur síos a thug sé ar na cathanna: cha rabh a fhios ag aon duine de na hoifigigh arda cad é a bhí ar obair i bpáirc an áir, agus ba ar chrann na ngnáthshaighdiúirí a thit sé buaidh a bhreith ar an namhaid de réir na tuigse ab fhearr a rabh acu.

Gidh go rabh meas mór ag Rintala ar smaoiteoireacht Tolstoy bhí sé eadar eatarthu i dtaobh an tsíochánachais ag an scríbhneoir mhór. Cibé fá dtaobh den lochtú a rinne Rintala ar Chogadh na Leanstana - an cogadh ins na bliantaibh 1941-1944, nuair a bhí an Fhionlainn ag treisiú le hiarracht Hitler an tAontas Sóivéadach a chloí - bhí sé barúlach agus bhí sé dianbharúlach gur cogadh cóir ceart a bhí i gceist le Cogadh an Gheimhridh ins na bliantaibh 1939-1940, nuair a bhí an Fhionlainn ina haonar ag cosaint a saoirseachta ar na trúpaí Sóivéadacha. Bhí iarsmaí Chogadh an Gheimhridh le feiceáilt ina thimpeall ag Rintala i gcónaí, go háithrid na seansaighdiúirí ar fhág an cogadh ciothram orthu. An mbeadh sé ceart síochánachas saonta sóntach agus dí-armáil aontaobhach a chraobhscaoileadh agus locht moráltachta a fháil ar na seansaighdiúirí céadna, a d'fhiafraigh Rintala de féin. Ins an bhliain 1981, agus é ag tuirsiú de ghluaiseacht na síochána, bhí de chlaonadh ins an scríbhneoir a shílstint go rabh an ghluaiseacht sin ag déanamh dochair dá cuspóir féin, is é sin nach rabh sí ach ag spreagadh frithghnímh lena sóntacht.

Maidir leis na húdair Rúiseacha chuaigh Fedor Dostoyevsky i bhfeidhm ar Rintala fosta, go háithrid ar an tsúil a chaitheadh an scríbhneoir Fionlannach ar anam agus ar intinn a chuid laochra. Ins an am chéadna áfach bhí Rintala in ann laigí Dostoyevsky a aithne. Bhí sé inbharúla gur réamhtheachtaire do Friedrich Nietzsche agus, fiú, don Naitsíochas a bhí ann. Caithfidh mé a aidmheáil go rabh cuid ínteacht den cheart ag mo dhuine ar a laghad, nó mar shampla ba é Dostoyevsky an t-údar ab fhearr le Joseph Goebbels.

Thaitin Herman Melville le Rintala go mór mór. Prós fearúil filiúnta a bhí i saothar Mhelville dar le Rintala, agus is dócha gur spreag réamhshampla Mhelville é i dtreo scéalaíocht an chanbháis leathain fosta.

Leabhar tábhachtach a bhí i L'Étrangere le hAlbert Camus do Rintala. D'fhoghlaim sé an dearcadh ó Chamus gur gléas í an litríocht a chuireas ar chumas na nglúnta cumarsáid is caidreamh a choinneáil le chéile. Le fírinne seo é an dearcadh atá agam féin agus a spreag chun pinn ins an Ghaeilge an chéad uair ariamh mé. Char léigh mé líne ná leathfhocal le hAlbert Camus ach in aois na tríocha bliain domh, agus mar sin creidim gurb ó Rintala a fuair mé féin an smaoitiú seo: is é sin gurb é príomhfhiúntas na litríochta Gaeilge an dóigh a gcuireann sí ar chumas na nGael meon agus intinn a gcuid réamhtheachtairí a thuigbheáilt. An cur chuige coimeádach a chleachtaim féin i gcúrsaí stíle agus gramadaí is dócha go bhfuil sé bunaithe ar an smaoiteachas seo comh maith.

Ainm eile is fiú a lua - Yrjö Kallinen. Ainm é nach gcuala mórán ins an Fhionlainn féin le fada, ach mar sin féin fear as an ghnáth a bhí ann. Bhí sé ina hipí i bhfad roimh na seascaidí, mar a déarfá. Ghlac sé páirt i gcogadh cathartha na Fionlainne ins an bhliain 1918, nuair a bhí sé dhá bhliain déag is fiche d'aois, agus daoradh chun báis i ndiaidh an chogaidh sin é, cosúil lena lán Gardaí Dearga eile. Char cuireadh an pionós i ngníomh ariamh, áfach, agus mar a d'iompaigh na cúrsaí amach bhí sé deich mbliana is ceithre scór d'aois nuair a d'fhág sé slán is beannacht ag an tsaol seo faoi dheireadh. Saor cloiche a bhí ann nár fhreastail ar scoil, ach mar sin féin rinn sé staidéar ar chraobhacha éagsúla léinn agus d'fhoghlaim sé sraith teangacha. Gidh go dteachaigh sé le síochánachas chaith sé seal ina Aire Cosanta go gairid i ndiaidh an Darna Cogadh Domhanda. Má deirim go rabh sé ina hipí roimh lá na hipithe, is éard is brí leis sin ná go raibh suim aige i reiligiúin an Chian-Oirthir i bhfad sula dteachaigh siad i bhfaisiún i dtíortha an Iarthair.

Faoi thionchar Kallinen a chuaigh Rintala ar lorg smaoiteoirí ar nós an Mháistir Eckhart (fealsamh misteach meánaoiseach ón Ghearmáin), Henri Bergson, agus C.G.Jung. Chum Rintala an t-úrscéal udaí Sissiluutnantti (tá aistriúchán Béarla ann, The Long Distance Patrol) i dtuilleamaí Jung, nó ba mhian leis coincheap na deamhantachta ag Jung a léiriú i bpríomhcharachtar an úrscéil. Níos deireanaí, áfach, chaith Rintala saothar Jung ins an truflais, agus é ag cur síos don fhealsamh nach rabh ann ach oidhre bocht ar Dostoyevsky.

Luaigh Ekholm Stephen Crane fosta - údar an Red Badge of Courage, úrscéal tábhachtach fá dtaobh de Chogadh Chathartha na Stát Aontaithe. Go bhfios domh char cuireadh Fionlainnis ar an leabhar sin ariamh - le fírinne cha rabh a fhios beo agam féin a leathbhreac de leabhar a bheith ann sular thagair mo chailín [inniu, mo bhean chéile] don úrscéal sin agus sinn ag labhairt fá dtaobh den litríocht go gairid i ndiaidh ár gcéad choinne. Chuaigh an t-úrscéal seo go mór i gcion ar Rintala, ó thug sé cur síos síceolaíoch, impriseanach ar chogadh chathartha na Stát.

Chan fhuil anseo ach cuid de na scríbhneoirí a rabh tionchar acu ar Rintala dar le hEkholm, ach is dócha go dtugann na deismireachtaí seo féin le fios an cineál oibre a bhí eadar lámhaibh ag Rintala - scríbhneoireacht shíceolaíoch, caitheamh na súile ar intinn an laoich.

I gcúrsaí staire chuir Rintala suim mhór i scríbhinní Charles Leonard Lundin fá dtaobh de ról na Fionlainne ins an Darna Cogadh Domhanda. Ollamh Meiriceánach a bhí i Lundin agus é ag léachtóireacht in Ollscoil Indiana, agus mar a deir Google fuair sé bás faoi dheireadh na nóchaidí. Tá cuma na Sualainnise ar an tsloinneadh sin Lundin, agus is dócha go rabh gaolta ag mo dhuine ins an Fhionlainn. Cibé scéal é, fuair Lundin locht ar "theoiric an adhmad farraige", agus mar sin d'fhear glúin óg cheannairceach an chultúir Fhionlannaigh an-fháilte roimh a chuid saothair.

Is éard a bhí i gceist le "teoiric an adhmad farraige" ná iarracht an staraí Arvi Korhonen a bheag a dhéanamh den pháirt a ghlac muid in Oibríocht Barbarossa, nó ionsaí na Gearmáine ar an Aontas Sóivéadach ins an bhliain 1941. D'fhéach Korhonen lena thaispeáint nach rabh ins an Fhionlainn ach "adhmad farraige" a bhfuair fórsaí dostiúrtha na staire domhanda greim air, ar dhóigh is nach rabh le déanamh againn ach taobhú leis an Ghearmáin. Bhí Lundin inbharúla nach raibh ins an adhmad farraige ach iarracht leis heasaontas a chur ó dhoras [?], agus é féin bhí sé claonta i dtaobh an "fhreasúra síochána" agus an "tseisir". Agus anois dealraíonn sé go bhfuil míniúchán ínteacht de dhíth.

Feisirí Daonlathacha Sóisialta a bhí ins an "tseisear", agus ba é Karl Harald Wiik an fear ba chliúití acu. Go bunúsach ba feisirí ó eite chlí an pháirtí Dhaonlathaigh Shóisialta iad, agus iad míshásta leis an fhaomhadh a thug a bpáirtí féin do chomhoibriú na Fionlainne leis an Ghearmáin Naitsíoch. Nuair a thoisigh Oibríocht Barbarossa, bhí an Seisear i dtóin an phríosúin, agus gidh nach rabh an páirtí róshásta leis an chimiú seo, cha rabh mórán le déanamh ach fá dtaobh de.

Bheirthear an Freasúra Síochána, aríst, ar na polaiteoirí buirgéiseacha a bhí ag éileamh, ón bhliain 1943 i leith, go socrófaí conradh síochána leis an Aontas Sóivéadach, beag beann ar an Ghearmáin. I dtosach báire cha rabh ach club liobrálach de mhic léinn a rabh Sualainnis ó dhúchas acu ag plé leis an chineál seo smaoitíocha, ach in imeacht ama fuair siad tacaíocht óna lán polaiteoirí, Urho Kekkonen ina measc.

Bhí an-tionchar ag Lundin ar Phaavo Rintala ins na seascaidío. Scríbhneoirí eile a rabh suim acu i saothar Lundin ins an am a bhí i bPaavo Haavikko agus Veijo Meri, agus iad ina n-intleachtóirí óga nua-aoiseacha ins na caogaidí. Ba é a phrós a thabhaigh a chliú do Mheri. Scríobhadh Haavikko filíocht, ach thairis sin ba staraí amaitéarach é a rabh a shúil féin ar stair na Fionlainne agus a bharúil féin d'imeachtaí na staire aige. I ndiaidh na seascaidí áfach d'fhuaraigh Rintala i dtaobh Lundin beagáinín, agus é ag rádh go rabh seisean agus na scríbhneoirí eile, roimhe sin, ag adhradh Lundin thar a cheart, gan locht ar bith a fháil ar an Mheiriceánach.

Cibé scéal é bhí Rintala ar aon fhocal le Lundin nach rabh lucht ceannais na Fionlainne i mbliantaibh an chogaidh ábalta a thuigbheáilt comh lag is a bhí arm na Fionlainne ó thaobh an trealaimh de, ná comh láidir is a bhí na trúpaí Sóivéadacha. Thairis sin d'aontaigh Paavo Rintala le Lundin fá dtaobh de comh lag is a bhí Líne Mhannerheim, an líne chosanta in Oirthear na Fionlainne, rud nár thuig lucht ceannais an Airm i mbliantaibh an chogaidh dar leis an bheirt acu.

(---)


Ins an bhliain 1966 a d'fhoilsigh Rintala Sotilaiden äänet, nó Glórtha na Saighdiúirí. Bhí an leabhar seo bunaithe ar chuimhní cinn na saighdiúirí i gcartlann na dtaifeadtaí ag comhlacht náisiúnta craolacháin na Fionlainne, nó thug an comhlacht ar Rintala an t-ábhar fuaime seo a iompó ina leabhar. Bhí taithí cogaidh ann ó trí chéad saighdiúir, agus iad an-éagsúil ó thaobh na céimíochta agus an chineál trúpaí a rabh baint acu leofa. Bhí eadar ghnáthshaighdiúirí agus oifigigh ann.

Bhí Rintala dírithe ar a chruthú nár thit an drioll ar an dreall ag na saighdiúirí nuair a d'éirigh leis na Rúisigh briseadh fríd na línte cosanta ag Beloostrov ar an 9ú agus an 10ú lá de Mheitheamh 1944, ach gur cúlú ciallmhar faoi ordú is faoi inneall a bhí ann. Is é an bharúil a bhí ag an Ghinearál Karl Lennart Oesch mar shampla go bhféadfadh líne chosainta na bhFionlannach an fód a sheasamh in aghaidh na Sóivéadach. Cha rabh Rintala ar aon fhocal le hOesch, áfach, nó ba é a léamh féin go raibh na Rúisigh i ndiaidh an oiread sin saighdiúirí a chomhchruinniú ag Beloostrov is nach rabh na Fionlannaigh in ann acu ar aon nós, agus go rabh na gnáthshaighdiúirí ag teitheadh lena n-anam cionn is go rabh siad i ndiaidh breith cheart a thabhairt ar na himthoscaí.

Nuair a tháinig Sotilaiden äänet ar an mhargadh, saothar liteartha gan réamhshampla a bhí ann, ins an Fhionlainn ar a laghad. Tá sé sábháilte a rádh go rabh Rintala ina cheannródaí ag iarraidh teicníochtaí na húrscéalaíochta doiciméadaí a thabhairt isteach i litríocht na Fionlainne agus mar a thuigim is beag scríbhneoir a lean é. Deirtear go mbíonn na teiciníochtaí céadna in úsáid ag Sofi Oksanen, an scríbhneoir Fionlannach de phór na hEastóine a d'fhoilsigh drámaí agus úrscéalta fá dtaobh de via dolorosa na nEastónach faoi bhráca an stáit Shóivéadaigh. Ar mhí-ámharaí an tsaoil chan fhuil a dhath le hOksanen léite agam, agus mar sin cha dtig liom a cuid saothar a chur i gcomparáid lena bhfuil scríofa ag Rintala.

Ins an bhliain 1967 d'fhoilsigh Rintala saothar doiciméadach úr fá dtaobh den Darna Cogadh Domhanda mar ab aithin don ghnáthshaighdiúir Fhionlannach é - Sodan ja rauhan äänet, is é sin Glórtha an Chogaidh agus na Síochána. Is éard is ábhar don leabhar seo ná na cathanna i ndeireadh Chogadh na Leanstana, nuair a bhí na fórsaí Fionlannacha in ann caol, caoi agus inneall catha a chur orthu féin nuair a bhí siad i ndiaidh cúlú a dhéanamh roimh na Rúisigh. I mbreis air sin áfach thug Rintala cur síos ar chás na n-iarshaighdiúirí i sochaí a linne féin, ins an bhliain 1967. Cuid mhaith de na fir a bhí faoi agallamh aige bhí siad dífhostaithe ins an am, agus iad i gcruachás go háithrid nuair a bhí fuacht an gheimhridh ag cúngú orthu. Na fir seo a shábháil an tir in am an ghátair, a d'áitigh Rintala - agus féach comh gann is a thál an tír a buíochas orthu. - Rinneadh dráma den leabhar seo fosta, agus chuaigh sé ar stáitse ar Lá Caille na bliana 1967.

Ins an bhliain 1969 a d'fhoilsigh Rintala an chéad leabhar eile a bhí bunaithe ar ábhar dhoiciméadach ó shaighdiúirí aonair. An turas seo áfach bhí sé ag tabhairt tuairisce ar eachtraí na saighdiúirí Gearmánacha i dTuaisceart na Fionlainne. Is é an breithiúnas coitianta a bíos ag na Fionlannaigh ar an chuidiú a fuarthas ó na Gearmánaigh i dtuaisceart na tíre ná nach rabh a gcuid iarrachtaí thar moladh beirte. Is é an fuadar ba mhó a bhí fúthu ná an bóthar iarainn ó Leningrad/Cathair Pheadair go Murmansk a bhriseadh.

Cuan chois na Mara Arctaí é Murmansk, agus cuan straitéiseach a bhí ann, nó nuair a thoiligh na Meiriceánaigh trealamh cogaidh a sholáthar do na Rúisigh de réir an Achta Léas-Iasachta, bhí cuid mhaith den trealamh chéadna ag goil go Murmansk, rud atá le léamh, mar shampla, ar an úrscéal sceitimíní le hAlistair MacLean HMS Ulysses. Ba é port na bolscaireachta Cumannaí ná nach rabh na Meiriceánaigh sásta ach drochthrealamh a thabhairt do na Sóivéadaigh, ach nuair a tháinig deireadh leis an aoireacht pholaitiúil ins an Rúis, chualathas port eile ar fad ó na seansaighdiúirí ins an tír. Bhí sé ina dheilín ag na bolscairí ar feadh na mbliantach fada ná nach rabh maith ar bith ins na heitleáin chogaidh den déanamh Bell Airacobra a tugadh do na Sóivéadaigh. Dealraíonn sé gur fíor nach rabh siad fóirsteanach don chogadh mara a bhí na Meiriceánaigh a chur ar na Seapánaigh, ach bhí na Rúisigh buíoch beannachtach as na "hAerchobraí", ó chruthaigh siad thar barr ar fad faoi imthoscaí an chathéadain thoir. Bhí na heitleoirí Sóivéadacha an-dóite dá gcuid "Cobraí". Is cuimhneach liom leathanach gréasáin amháin: bhí duine de na seaneitleoirí faoi agallamh ansin, agus Rúisis bhreá nádúrtha na cosmhuintire á labhairt aige. Nuair a thug sé a chur síos féin ar an Aerchobra, cha rabh sé spárálach ar an mholadh a fuair an t-eitleán agus an "Meiriceánach cliste" a dhear í uaidh. Ba léir gur fear ceirde a bhí ann agus é ábalta acra mhaith oibre a aithne nuair a chonaic sé í, agus d'aithneofá ar a chuid focal fosta an dóigh a dteachaidh an t-eitleán seo i bhfeidhm air i dtús: gur togha meaisín a bhí ann a cheadóchadh dá thír an cogadh a bhuachan. Le fírinne seo peaca eole dá dtearn an Cumannachas: buíoch beannachtach is uile mar a bhí na gnáth-Rúisigh de Mheiriceá as an chuidiú a fuair siad i mblianta an chogaidh rinne coimiseáir pholaitiúla Stailín spior spear den bhuíochas sin i ndiaidh an chogaidh, agus mar is eol dúinn chuaigh sléacht orthu siúd a rabh de mhisneach iontu canúint a chur ar an bhuíochas sin. 

Ach cromaimis ar ais ar Rintala anois. Is é an scéal a d'inis sé ins an leabhar udaí Napapiirin äänet ná scéal saighdiúra darbh ainm Paul a ghlac páirt in iarrachtaí na bhfórsaí Gearmánacha an bóthar iarainn ó Mhurmansk a bhriseadh. Thairis sin tá cuid mhaith ábhair ann a bhaineans le lá scríofa an leabhair. Ins an aguisín d'fhoilsigh Rintala a lán "athlíricí" greannmhara nó tarcaisneacha a chum na saighdiúirí Gearmánacha don amhrán chliúiteach udaí Lili Marleen, amhrán a bhí á chanadh ag na saighdiúirí i ngach aon arm i mbliantaibh an Darna Cogadh Domhanda, gidh gur amhrán Gearmánach a bhí ann ar tús.

Ins an bhliain 1967 chum Rintala a dhráma doiciméadach Amerikkalainen passio - níor cuireadh an dráma i gcló ariamh, go bhfios domh. Is é is ábhar don dráma seo ná an t-aon saighdiúir Meiriceánach amháin a cuireadh chun báis ins na Stáit Aontaithe mar thréigtheoir airm i rith an Darna Cogadh Domhanda, mar atá, Eddie Slovik. Leis an tsaothar seo bhí Rintala ag iarraidh aithris a dhéanamh ar amharclannaíocht dhoiciméadach chomhaimseartha na Gearmáine, cosúil le saothar Heiner Kipphardt, Peter Weiss nó Rolf Hochhuth. Ins an am sin bhí Kipphardt i ndiaidh In der Sache J. Robert Oppenheimer a fhoilsiú cheana féin, agus bhí Der Stellvertreter le Rolf Hochhuth i mbéal an phobail ins an bhliain 1963 - dráma a chaith súil ar chaidreamh na hEaglaise Caitlicí leis an Ghearmáin nuair a bhí an t-éag mór ag siúl ar na Giúdaigh ins na campaí báis.

Ins an bhliain 1968 tháinig Leningradin kohtalosinfonia i gcló. Caithfidh mé a aidmheáil gurb é an ceann seo an t-aon saothar doiciméadach amháin le Rintala a léigh mé féin [sular chrom mé ar na nótaí seo a bhreacadh síos as Gaeilge] - ar ndóighe tá St. Petersburgin salakuljetus ann, ach tá níos mó den "fhíricsean" ná den doiciméadachas ann, mar a d'úirt Ekholm féin. Cibé fá dtaobh de sin is é léigear Leningrad is ábhar don "tSiansa Cinniúna" seo. Is éard ab áil le Rintala a dhéanamh ná cuimhní cinn mhuintir Leningrad ó laetha an léigir a chur i míotar, gan a chloigeann a bhuaireamh leis an staraíocht. 

Nuair a d'fhoilsigh Rintala an leabhar seo, d'úirt na meáin Fionlainnise ná go mba é sin an chéad leabhar cuimsitheach fá dtaobh den léigear sin a scríobhadh ariamh. Cha rabh iomlán an chirt acu, nó bhí leabhar staire le Sasanach ínteach i gcló roimhe sin féin, ach is dócha gurb é an chéad chur síos doiciméadach ar thaithí mhuintir na cathrach é. Char foilsíodh leabhar cosúil ins an Aontas Sóivéadach féin ach deich mbliana ina dhiaidh sin - Blokadnaya kniga ("Leabhar an Léigir"). [Dealraíonn sé go bhfuil níos mó ná aon aistriúchán Béarla amháin ann: Leningrad under Siege agus The Book of the Blockade.] Ba iad Daniil Granin agus Ales Adamovich a scríobh an saothar sin. Chan fhuil mé ró-eolach ar Ghranin [nó cha rabh, nuair a scríobh mé na nótaí seo!], ach tá a fhios agam go rabh Adamovich ina threallchogaí sa Bhealarúis, nó i ndiaidh an leabhair sin scríobh sé an script don scannán udaí Idi i smotri ("Tar go bhfeice tú"), scannán fá dtaobh de chinniúint na mBealarúiseach le linn an chogaidh. 

Fuair Rintala cead a chuid agallamh féin a dhéanamh, ach ar ndóighe bhí an rúnseirbhís, Coiste Slándála an Stáit [is é sin an KGB], ag coinneáil súile air. Ba é Rudolf Sykiäinen a d'ionchollaigh an tsúil sin ina phearsa - Fionlannach eitneach ón Aontas Sóivéadach a bhí ann, agus é ag obair ina iriseoir ins an Fhionlainn. Go hoifigiúil, ba í an nuachtghníomhaireacht udaí APN (níos déanaí, RIA-Novosti) a d'íocadh a pháighe le Sykiäinen, ach is iomaí Fionlannach a chreid ins an am agus a chreideas i gcónaí gur spiaire de chuid an KGB a bhí ann i ndáiríribh.

Dhiúltaigh Sykiäinen do na ráflaí seo ina chuimhní cinn, ach is doiligh mórán creidiúna a thabhairt dá shéanadh. Ar ndóighe tá sé incheaptha nach gníomhaire de chuid na státslándála a bhí ann ach diabhal bocht a bhí ag cabhrú le lucht na rúnseirbhíse ó nach rabh an darna suí ins an bhuaile aige, ach cibé fá dtaobh de sin bhí sé ina bhall de Pháirtí uilechumhachtach Chumannach an Aontais Shóivéadaigh, agus é ina aoire pholaitiúil ag Rintala.

Fear de chineál eile ar fad a bhí in Efim Etkind, áfach. Seanchara le Rintala a bhí ann, ollamh, fear léinn agus taighdeoir litríochta a rabh an chuid ba mhó dle radh d'easaontóirí polaitiúla an Aontais Shóivéadaigh faoi chomaoin aige as an chuidiú a fuair siad uaidh. Is é an t-éacht ba mhó a rinne Etkind áfach ná gur choinnigh sé lámhscríbhinn an úrscéil udaí Zhizn' i sud'ba ("An Saol agus an Chinniúint") i dtaisce nuair a fuair an t-údar féin Vasilii Grossman bás. Úrscéal fá dtaobh de chath Stalingrad atá ann go bunúsach ach thairis sin tá cur síos ann ar chinniúint na nGiúdach ins an Uileloscadh comh maith le comparáid an Naitsíochais leis an Stailíneachas - agus ba é an rud deireanach seo a chaill an leabhar agus an scríbhneoir. Chuaigh an lámhscríbhinn le thine i bhfoirnéis an KGB, agus d'úirt fear na ceastóireachta le Grossman nach bhféadfaí a úrscéal a fhoilsiú ins an Rúis go ceann na gcéadta bliain. Cailleadh an leagan críochnaithe, mar sin, ach d'éirigh le hEfim Etkind an darna rud ab fhearr a chur i gcrích, nó chuir sé leagan iomlán in eagar as an dá lámhscríbhinn uireasacha a bhí ar fáil dó, agus d'fhéach sé chuige gur foilsíodh an ceann seo ar an choigríoch. Maidir leis an Rúis féin, tháinig an t-úrscéal i gcló ansin ins an bhliain 1989. Bhí an t-údar ag iompar na bhfód le cúig bliana fichead cheana, ach ar a laghad fuair na Rúisigh an chéad radharc ar a leabhar i bhfad ní ba luaithe ná mar a shíl fear an KGB. (ar lean) 

Verb Forms not Found in the Caighdeán

To start with: I am not particularly happy with the war people wage against the Caighdeán Oifigiúil, because I have seen too much printed material in make-believe dialect which has been about as riddled with clumsy English-influenced syntax as the worst school Irish you ever saw. The reason why people detest the Caighdeán Oifigiúil is that bad Irish (i.e. bad syntax and word-for-word translation from English) usually goes hand in hand with the Caighdeán. However, they then tend to follow the clue in the wrong direction and adopt morphological features (i.e. words and inflectional forms) from some dialect, while sticking to English-influenced constructions and syntax. (For the linguistically challenged, here is a simple explanation of the concept of syntax: it is how words depend on each other in the sentence as a whole. The Irish term for syntax is comhréir, i.e. mutual consistency, and that pretty much summarizes it.)


I must say though that many people parroting away about how bad the Caighdeán is are those who seize upon any convenient excuse not to learn Irish. I have my issues with the Caighdeán but as standard languages go it isn't that bad. (Of course, these days they are changing the Caighdeán in new ways. You can rest assured I couldn't care less about their new Caighdeán. I have my own ideas of what standard Irish should be, and those ideas are firmly rooted in the Irish of the Gaeltacht folklore and literature. I teach you my own caighdeán, and that's the end of it.)


This does not mean that it is not sensible to learn the word forms not used in the Caighdeán. The best linguistic models (even syntactic models) are to be found in Gaeltacht literature, which for natural reasons is written in more or less dialectal language. Thus, it is important to see to it that your quest into that world will not be stopped by your unfamiliarity with the non-Caighdeán forms. (Note though one of the reasons why I am nowadays critical of the anti-Caighdeán stance is the fact that the Caighdeán as defined by the unabridged Irish-language edition of the Christian Brothers' grammar is solidly based on the syntax of the best native writers. The problem is, again again again, that people don't read that particular grammar or focus on syntax.)


Here are the stems of strong verbs including those not used in the Caighdeán. (There will, I hope, be a later blog post about those personal endings which are most typical of Munster dialects.)


FEIC!/FEICEÁIL 'to see'


For the verb feic!/feiceáil 'to see', the main problem is the stem tchí-, chí-, tí- (based on earlier ad-chí, do-chí). In the mythical good Irish of bygone days this was the form used in statements and in direct relative (and note that in direct relative clauses the t- is not lenited!). The stem feic- was used after go, ní, nach, an. 


Thus, the present tense has the form tchí, chí, tí when it is not preceded by any verbal particles other than the direct relative a. (The added -onn in present as well as the broad -os of the direct relative are allowed but not required.) After ní, go, an, nach the feiceann form is preferred.


Similarly, the future tense has the forms tchífidh [tʃ-], tífidh, chífidh (and where applicable, it takes the direct relative broad -s: an fear a tchífeas/chífeas/tífeas a leithéid de radharc 'the man who'll see such a sight'). After the verbal particles, the stem is again feic-: ní fheicfidh, go bhfeicfidh, nach bhfeicfidh and so on.


The conditional mood has the forms tchífeadh [tʃ-], tífeadh, chífeadh - but after the verbal particles, go bhfeicfeadh, ní fheicfeadh and so on.


The habitual past tense has the forms tchíodh, tíodh, chíodh - and after the verbal particles: go bhfeiceadh et cetera.


The tchí- stem can be pronounced tiu-, tʃu- in Ulster, but is seldom so written.


Even in the Caighdeán there is the absolute vs dependent distinction in the past tense: chonaic vs go bhfaca, ní fhaca, an bhfaca, nach bhfaca.


The chí/feic- distinction is however most typical of Ulster. In Munster, at least in colloquial Kerry Irish, the chí- stem has been generalized (in the way feic- has been generalized in the caighdeán), so that we have such forms as go gcíonn, ní chíonn in the present, go gcífidh in the future and so on. The ch- is usually delenited in the absolute forms: cíonn, cífidh - but of course it is lenited after the direct relative a. (Actually, direct relative a tends to become do in Munster.)


In the past tense Kerry Irish also keeps the absolute stem even in the dependent forms, so you should not be surprised to see forms such as gur chonaic, níor chonaic rather than go bhfaca, ní fhaca in Kerry literature. And of course, these days the verbal particles ending in -r are becoming extinct in Kerry, so I guess go gconaic, ní chonaic are quite common too. Personally, though, I think these are vulgar dialect that should only be used where very colloquial style is called for.


Note that the old form for "I saw", still used in Munster, is chonac (pronounced more like ch'nuc though).


The autonomous (impersonal) form is chonacthas/go bhfacthas, but as dialects go chonaiceadh is not that uncommon - I'd say it is most typical of Munster. 


Note that in the sense 'seemed to', you often see b'fhacthas. B'fhacthas dom 'it seemed to me'. This sort of thing is found at least in Ulster and Connacht.


The verbal noun is feiceáil, with some typical provincial alterations: feiceál in Connemara, feiceáilt in Ulster. In Munster, feiscint is common. 


FAIGH!/FÁIL 'to find, to get'


Then faigh. Now that's a nice one. To start with, the present tense in the "good old Irish" used to be gheibh, and the faigh- stem is only ever used after the verbal particles. 


Even in the Caighdeán, the future tense has a somewhat similar distinction: gheobhaidh vs ní/go/nach/an bhfaighidh. Note that here even ní eclipses.


And similarly in the conditional mood: gheobhadh vs ní/go/nach/an bhfaigheadh. 


In the Caighdeán, we use faigheann rather than gheibh, but Ulster Irish basically keeps the gheibh vs faigheann distinction, and in Munster gheibh has become gheibheann and is also used in dependent forms, so that you encounter such forms as ní gheibheann, go ngeibheann. 


After chan, we can use the faigh- stem: chan fhaigheann; but as I have pointed out elsewhere, the construction chan gheobhann (future form with -ann substituted for the future ending) also exists in the dialect. I have seen it in literature only once - the writer was an Ulsterman but not a native Irish speaker, and he used it for dialectal plausibility - and there are some instances in East Ulster folklore. I must say though that using this kind of expressions is precisely the kind of petty dialect enthusiasm that I have grown suspicious of, and I would prefer people to take more interest in syntax and idiom.


Note that gheobhaidh has the direct relative form gheobhas. Giving the form gheibh a direct relative ending where applicable (gheibheas) is hardly wrong, but it is not required or necessary.


The past tense is fuair, as you should know, and it takes the -r-less verbal particles. And even here, ní eclipses: fuair, an bhfuair, nach bhfuair, ní bhfuair, go bhfuair. Note though that the Ulster particle chan lenites: chan fhuair. The autonomous form is fuarthas, although fuaireadh does have some currency in dialects. There is also the completely irregular autonomous form frítheadh or fríth, which can sometimes be spotted in Connacht or Clare literature (Sean-Phádraic Ó Conaire uses it). It takes the -r particles, as far as I know, and resists lenition, as autonomous forms of regular verbs do.


The verbal noun is fáil; the Ulster variant is fáilt. The participle is faighte, but in Munster, there is the form fachta.


ITH!/ITHE 'to eat'


Then let's consider ith. As you certainly know, the future and conditional moods use the stem íos-: íosfaidh, d'íosfadh. The past tense is usually regular in all dialects: d'ith. However, you should remember that the irregular form d'uaidh, níor uaidh, nár uaidh, gur uaidh (it can also be written d'uaigh or d'ua) is sporadically found in folklore. It is a remnant of classical Irish rather than part of any particular dialect. I have seen it (as d'ua) in a folklore volume from Clare.


FÁG!/FÁGÁIL 'to leave'


Fág!/fágáil 'leave' is basically a regular verb. However, in Ulster it has the irregular future form fuígfidh - as in the song Fuígfidh mé an baile seo nó tá sé dúghránna - and similarly the conditional mood d'fhuígfeadh; and in Connacht it has the past form d'fhága rather than d'fhág. 


TAR!/TEACHT 'to come'


Tar!/teacht shows quite a lot of variation. Tagann is the present form, you say? Well yes, but in Ulster they typically prefer thig. (Obviously, tig and tigeann as well as the direct relative form thigeas also exist in dialects. In fact, tig- forms are found even in Connacht.) Tag- can be pronounced teag- in dialects, but this is seldom written.


The subjunctive present has theoretically the form taga, but in Ulster both tige and tara are found (with extra -idh added in pronunciation if the following word is not a pronoun). Thus: fan go dtaga mé, fan go dtaga Seán in the caighdeán, but in Ulster:


fan go dtara mé, fan go dtaraidh Seán


or


fan go dtige mé, fan go dtigidh Seán.


Now you obviously ask me what the hell the subjunctive present is, because they never taught you that at school. Well, I am afraid I'll need to blog about that separately.


Anyway, Ciarán Ó Duibhin, who is much more versed in Ulster Irish than yours truly, told me that for Ulster the rule is that you never have the tag- stem - instead, you have either the tar- or the t(h)ig- stem in those forms that don't have t(h)ioc-. (Future and conditional forms are in Ulster tiocfaidh, thiocfadh, as anywhere else.) The past habitual, which is in Ulster also used as past subjunctive, is thigeadh: dá dtigeadh sé abhaile, bheinn breá sásta. 


The past tense has, as everybody should know, the form tháinig. The caighdeán recommendation is to use the -r particles with it: níor tháinig, gur tháinig, ar tháinig, nár tháinig, but actually such forms as ní tháinig, go dtáinig, nach dtáinig, an dtáinig are quite widespread in dialects (even other dialects than Munster). The Ulster cha is used without -r: cha dtáinig. 


Note that the historically correct synthetic form for 'I came' is thánag. However, this is only used in Cork. In Kerry, thána (in analogy with chuala 'I heard') is used. 


The imperative of gabh! can be used in Ulster in the meaning "come!" - which has given rise to the word goitse, goitseo "come here" (basically gabh anseo).


The verbal noun is usually teacht, but the parallel form tíocht exists at least in Connemara. The verbal noun tends to be permanently lenited in many dialects (i.e. theacht, thíocht).


TABHAIR!/TABHAIRT 'to give, to bring'


Tabhair!/tabhairt used to have the (permanently lenited) present form bheir when not preceded by verbal particles (tugann is always used after them: ní thugann, cha dtugann, an dtugann, nach dtugann, go dtugann). In Ulster, such forms are still used, but even there tugann is common even without verbal particles. The form tabhrann (in Ulster pronounced tóireann) also exists, but I tend to think it is very colloquial (in the sense ain't and gonna are very colloquial English). 


Similarly, the future and conditional forms (tabharfaidh and thabharfadh in the caighdeán) distinguish in Ulster between bhéar- forms used in independent or direct relative position: bhéarfaidh (future), bhéarfas (future direct relative) and bhéarfadh (conditional mood).  T(h)abhar- stem is used after verbal particles: ní thabharfaidh, nach dtabharfaidh, go dtabharfaidh, an dtabharfaidh; ní thabharfadh, nach dtabharfadh, go dtabharfadh, an dtabharfadh, cha dtabharfadh. (Note that Ulster Irish does not use cha[n] before the future form - instead, the present form caters for both present and future, cha dtugann = ní thugann AND ní thabharfaidh.)


The written form tabhar- conceals many different phonetic realizations, such as tiúr- and tóir-. These are seldom written even in relatively dialectal texts, though.


The habitual past is in Ulster bheireadh, but after verbal particles -thugadh, -dtugadh: ní thugadh, cha dtugadh, an dtugadh, go dtugadh, nach dtugadh. 


The verbal noun is tabhairt, but of course there are different ways to pronounce it, such as tiúirt and tóirt - these are seldom written. The participle is tugtha, but tabhartha is used in the set expression leanbh tabhartha "illegitimate child" (also páiste ceo, páiste gréine, páiste díomhaointis). 


CLUIN! = CLOIS!/CLUINSTIN = CLOISTEÁIL 'to hear'


In the caighdeán, the cluin- and clois- stems are perfectly equal, and nothing keeps you from using them in free variation (if you are not trying to imitate the preferences of a particular dialect). Present is thus cluineann or cloiseann, future is cluinfidh or cloisfidh, and conditional is chluinfeadh or chloisfeadh. 


Cluin = clois has the present form chluin in Ulster; this is permanently lenited, but responds to eclipsis: go gcluin, nach gcluin, an gcluin.


The past tense of course has the form chuala, impersonal form chualathas; note though that the regularized cluineadh is also known in dialects. Both chuala/chualathas and cluineadh take the -r particles (ar, nár, níor, gur), but such forms as go gcuala are not unheard of. The verbal noun has the standard forms cloisteáil and cluinstin, but there are several nonstandard ones such as cluinstint, clos, cloisint, cluinsbheáilt (the last one I mined from some very marginal Ulster dialect and made a point of using it back when I tried to cling to Ulster Irish). The participle is cloiste or cluinte.


The form for 'I heard' is in Kerry simply chuala with no ending or pronoun added. In Cork, it is chualag (under the influence of thánag). Chualas for 'I heard' is an innovation based on the regular verb; it is more typical of those dialects where the synthetic form is only used in poetry or in answering a question.



Note that the verbs mothaigh!/mothú (in Ulster often mothachtáil in the verbal noun) and airigh!/aireachtáil both meaning basically "to feel" are often used in the meaning "to hear". (As far as I know, braith!/brath is not used in this sense, though.)


BEIR!/BREITH 'to bear; to seize upon, to catch' 


Beir has regular present: beireann. The past tense is in the caighdeán based on the rug- stem: rug mé, rug tú. However, there is a tendency in several dialects to spare the rug- stem for the autonomous verb rugadh 'was born', and use bheir in the sense of catching, seizing. Many writers of Irish, even those who use a relatively caighdeán kind of style, would write rugadh Einstein in Ulm 'Einstein was born in Ulm', but beireadh ar Veerappan i bPapparapathi 'Veerappan was caught in Papparapathi'.


I seem to recall (but this is on strictly 'I seem to recall' basis) that in Connemara the rugadh/beireadh distinction is expressed as rugadh/rugthas (or rugadh/rugús). I should check the literature though.


In Ulster, the regularized past forms bheir mé, bheir tú are usually used, although they can be confused with the old present of tabhair!/tabhairt. 


In future and conditional, the written forms are béarfaidh, bhéarfadh, although at least in Ulster the pronunciation is more like beirfidh, bheirfeadh to keep them distinct from the forms of tabhair!/tabhairt. 


The verbal noun is breith, the participle is beirthe - but the form rugtha does find some idiomatic use in some dialect, I think.


DÉAN!/DÉANAMH 'to do, to make'


The present is regular in the standard language: déanann, ní dhéanann, go ndéanann, nach ndéanann, an ndéanann. However, in Ulster ní (< ghní, do-ghní) is still used when not preceded by verbal particles (and you do find it sporadically in other dialects too). The spelling ghní is sometimes used, but it should not be interpreted too phonetically, because that gh- is not pronounced - it is rather a way to keep ghní distinct from both the verbal particle ní 'not' and the stem of the regular verb nigh!/ní 'to wash'. Note that at least for some speakers, initial slender n- can be audibly lenited; the initial n- in (gh)ní 'does' is permanently lenited, while the one in níonn 'washes' is not, if it is not preceded by a leniting verbal particle.


The form used after the verbal particle in Ulster is déan or téan, often sounding more like deán or teán. Thus, ní dhéan/ní théan/ní dheán/ní theán; cha dtéan/cha ndéan/cha dteán/cha dtéan; go dtéan/go ndéan/go dteán/go ndeán, and so on.


The past is rinne, with the form dearna used after the verbal particles: ní dhearna, go ndearna, nach ndearna, an ndearna and so on. We saw above that the impersonal past of the verb 'to hear' can be cluineadh although the personal forms use the chuala stem; similarly, déanadh has some currency in the spoken language instead of rinneadh. The form used after the verbal particles is dearnadh: ní dhearnadh, nach dhearnadh, go ndearnadh, an ndearnadh - but I am positive I have seen ní dhearnthas in some Munster text. (Update: yes, ní dhearnthas is used in Co. Cork Irish, probably because they indeed have the form dhearnag in the first person singular, under the influence of thánag 'I came' and chualag 'I heard'. This I have never seen in any folklore book, but Breandán Ó Buachailla tells in his book about Cork Irish that the dhearna stem is used even in positive statements, i.e. where you would in the standard language use the rinne stem: do dhearnag 'I did', do dhearnamar 'we did' etc.)


Sometimes we see the rinn- stem used after verbal particles: níor rinne, gur rinne and so on. This occurs in some places in Connemara. 


Déanadh takes -r particles: níor déanadh, ar déanadh; this sometimes occurs with dearnadh too: níor dearnadh. Both in Connemara.


In Ulster, the past forms are rinn rather than rinne and dearn/tearn rather than dearna: thus, ní thearn/ní dhearn, go dtearn/go ndearn, cha dtearn/cha ndearn. 


In some places in Munster, the past of déan is based on the dein stem, and it is regular: dhein sé, deineadh: níor dhein sé, níor deineadh (such forms as go ndein sé, go ndeineadh occurring instead of gur dhein sé, gur deineadh are not due to irregularity of irregular verbs, but to the more common loss of -r particles in Munster Irish). I am not versed enough in Munster Irish to tell, whether this dein- stem is phonetically very different from the déan- stem used in other forms. 


Habitual past, future, and conditional forms are regular in the Caighdeán. At least in Ulster, though, habitual past is based on the (gh)ní- stem; and not just conditional but also future forms are permanently lenited: dhéanfaidh. And as in present and past, the verb in Ulster does not seem to be able to decide whether its stem vowel is eá or éa, and whether its first consonant is t or d. Thus, we get forms such as cha dteánfadh, cha dteánfaidh, go dteánfadh, go dteánfaidh, and so on.


The verbal noun is déanamh and the participle is déanta, but in the recently published book on East Ulster Irish, Scéalta Mhuintir Luinigh, I have spotted teanamh, which seems to be another example of Ulster t- for d- in this verb.


ABAIR!/RÁ 'to say, to sing'


The present is deir, and in the Caighdeán it is the same after verbal particles: go ndeir, nach ndeir, ní dheir, an ndeir. Some textbooks suggest that there is a difference in meaning between deir and deireann, but this is bonkers: I say it is one of style.


Note that deir is not lenited after direct relative particle: an fear a deir nach bhfuil sé sásta 'the man who says that he is not satisfied'. This is due to the fact that historically a- is part of the stem. This is why some writers prefer adeir to a deir.


The impersonal present is deirtear. The old form ráitear should be avoided, as it is hardly living language anywhere. The old formula ris a ráitear is sometimes used, but this is in today's Irish purely facetious; it means 'which is called', i.e. ar a dtugtar or a dtugtar...air/uirthi/orthu in better and more modern Irish.


The historically correct way obviously was to use the abair-/abr- stem after verbal particles: ní abraíonn/ní abrann, go n-abraíonn/go n-abrann, an abraíonn/an abrann, nach n-abraíonn/nach n-abrann; an abraítear/an abart(h)ar etc. However, even where abr- stems survive, they are not always used according to this rule - in Ulster, ní dheir is seen alongside ní abraíonn or ní abrann, and in Connacht, you see such forms as abraíonn used without any verbal particles. 


Very much the same applies to future and conditional forms, which are based on the déar- stem (déarfaidh, déarfadh) with the d- resisting aspiration after the direct relative particle (a déarfas, a déarfadh), but not after ní (ní dhéarfaidh, ní dhéarfadh).


Again, the use of the abair-/abr- stem after verbal particles has been most stable in Ulster. Note though that the abr- forms in Ulster show the usual Ulster features of second conjugation verbs in conditional and future. Thus, the conditional and future endings are either two-syllable: abróchaidh [abrahi], abróchadh [abrahu] (note that in Ulster, non-initial long o is realized as short but clear [a]) or intrusive: abórfaidh [abarhi], abórfadh [abarhu]. 


The habitual past form is deireadh, with the impersonal form deirtí. It is not lenited except after ní; such forms as dheireadh, dheirtí with a regularized lenition of the initial consonant are typical of Waterford Irish. The abair-/abr- stem after verbal particles is again possible: ní abraíodh, ní abraítí or ní abart(h)aí. But note again that where the ab(ai)r- stem does exist, it is often used even where you would except deir-: I am positive I have seen d'abraíodh rather than deireadh in folklore volumes from Mayo, at the very least.


The past is dúirt, the past impersonal is dúradh (dúrthas is dialectal.) The personal endings are added to dúr- stem, and the first person form used in Munster is dúrt (old orthography dubhart). However, both in Ulster and Connacht, the past form is frequently reanalyzed as d'úirt, which gives rise to such forms as níor úirt, nár úirt, ar úirt, gur úirt (note that the caighdeán recommendation is ní dhúirt, nach ndúirt, an ndúirt, go ndúirt). This is orthographically often represented as níor (nár, ar, gur...) dhúirt or níor (etc.) 'úirt. Similarly, the impersonal form is in these dialects húradh or húrthas (the addition of h- to the initial vowel of past impersonal is a regular feature in those dialects). The initial d- resists lenition after direct relative a (and of course some writers prefer to spell the direct relative form as one word, adúirt).


The verbal noun is rá (rádh, ráidht, ráit are seen in Ulster literature), ráite is the participle.


TÉIGH!/DUL 'to go'


This verb has a number of issues. We saw above that gabh! is used for 'come!' in Ulster, but at least in Connacht the forms of gabh!/gabháil are more typically substituted for forms of téigh, such as future (gabhfaidh for rachaidh) and conditional (ghabhfadh for rachadh). 


The present form is téann. However, in Ulster they use théid with all personal pronouns. It is permanently lenited but it responds to eclipsis: go dtéid, nach dtéid, cha dtéid... 


The future form is rachaidh and the conditional form is rachadh. However, in Munster these forms are created from the ragha- rather than racha- stem at least if they end in personal endings, thus raghainn for rachainn 'I would go', and raghad for rachaidh mé 'I will go'. The -f- is used only in the impersonal form: rachfar (raghfar), rachfaí (raghfaí). 


The past tense is chuaigh, and the past form used after verbal particles is deachaigh (an ndeachaigh, go ndeachaigh, nach ndeachaigh, ní dheachaigh). While -igh is the standard spelling, some people insist on -idh as the historically correct spelling, but as you know this is not phonetically relevant anywhere. 


In Munster, expect such forms as gur chuaigh and (due to loss of -r particles) go gcuaigh. And in Ulster, there is again some confusion about the first consonant: cha dteachaigh, an dteachaigh etc.


The impersonal past is chuathas/go ndeachthas; the form chuadh (or chuathadh)/go ndeachadh is dialectal.


The verbal noun is dul, obviously, but in Ulster and Connacht, ghoil (delenited only after ag: ag goil) is preferred. It is obviously another example of gabh invading the paradigm of this verb. It is sometimes written ghabháil, but as far as I know the real honest-to-God gabháil has even in those dialects a full pronunciation [gawa:l'] to keep it distinct from ghoil [γol'/γel']. The participle is dulta, but the construction ar shiúl is preferred at least in Ulster.


There will be a separate post about tá and is of course.

Some notes on relative clauses

The difference between indirect and direct relative clause is a key difficulty in Irish, and you never study it long enough. Here is how it works in traditional language.

The main difference between direct and indirect clauses is, that in a direct clause, the element relativized is either the subject or the object of the relative clause, and it is not written out in the relative clause. Like this:

Sin é an fear a chonaic mé. That is the man who saw me/whom I saw.

Sin é an fear a chonaic ag obair mé. That is the man who saw me working.

Sin é an fear a chonaic mé ag obair. That is the man whom I saw working.

Sin é an fear a chonaic sé. That is the man whom he saw.

Sin é an fear a chonaic é. That is the man who saw him/it.

Sin é an rud a thuig sé. That is the thing that he understood.

An fear atá ag obair anseo, is é mo mhac é. The man who is working here is my son. (More literally, "the man who is working here, he is my son".)

The particle that signifies direct relative clause is a, and it always lenites, if this is applicable. It does not lenite the impersonal forms of regular verbs in past tense:

an mac a saolaíodh dóibh the son who was born to them

or those irregular verbs which are similar to regular ones in not leniting the impersonal form in past tense:

an bronntanas a tugadh dó the present that was given to him

But note that chonacthas is always lenited whether there is a direct relative particle before it or not. The past tense forms of faigh!/fáil, both personal and impersonal, resist lenition: an t-airgead a fuair mé uait the money I got from you, an pota óir a fuarthas ag deireadh an bhogha báistí the pot of gold that was found at the end of the rainbow. 

As you see above, the verb tá has the direct relative form atá - such forms as athá are dialectal (Munster), because the a- is historically speaking part of the stem. For a similar reason, the verb abair!/rá does not usually lenite the d- in direct relative: a deir, a deireadh, a déarfadh, a dúirt. It is not unheard of to write these relative forms as one word, i.e. adeir, adeireadh and so on, but it is not the present standard. 

The d' used before vowel and fh- is usually kept after the direct relative a, and it is not lenited (in the written language, that is - the spoken language is a more complicated story). This d' can be dropped at least in conditional mood before fh- + consonant, i.e. a fhliuchfadh is as correct as a d'fhliuchfadh, but I have learned to keep the d' and usually do so, so I am not very sure where it can be dropped. 

The addition of a broad -s to present and future forms in relative clauses is not part of the standard, but it is the rule in the most widely spoken dialects, and I use it in my Irish, because it is my opinion that it is a good way to keep direct and indirect relative distinct. Thus, I write:

An fear a thagas ag glanadh an urláir gach uile lá, is iarchaptaen mara é a chuaigh ar an drabhlás.

The man who comes to clean the floor every day, he is a former sea captain who went/has gone to the dogs.

An fear a thiocfas ag glanadh an urláir amárach, is iarchaptaen mara é a chuaigh ar an drabhlás.

The man who will come to clean the floor tomorrow, he is (etc.).

In the standard language they prefer a thagann, a thiocfaidh. Note that this form can also keep the -nn before the -s in the present tense:  a thaganns. However, it is my opinion that this latter form is less established in literary Irish.

Such present forms of strong verbs as chí/tchí/tí 'sees', gheibh 'gets', 'finds', deir 'says', thig 'comes' do not usually take the -ann, and nor do they need the relative -as, even in dialects and styles where it is otherwise preferred. However, I don't think such forms as a (t)chíos, a gheibheas, a deireas, a thigeas are wrong either. 

Note that tchí/chí/tí and gheibh are not part of the standard language, which prefers respectively feiceann and faigheann. Thig is accepted by the standardizers in the phrase thig leis [rud a dhéanamh] = is féidir leis [rud a dhéanamh] 'he can [do something]', and sometimes those who don't know that it is basically the same as tagann perceive it as a distinct verb and try to introduce other finite forms of the same "verb".

The habitual present of the verb "to be", bíonn, is typically treated as a regular habitual present. Thus, its direct relative form is a bhíonn in the standard language and a bhíos, a bhíonns in those dialects which take the relative -s. However, in Ulster the delenited forms a bíos and a bí also exist. This is as far as I know due to some ancient irregularity.

If the verb has a personal ending, the -s forms are of course not used: seo é an seomra a ghlanaim gach uile lá this is the room I clean every day. However, I don't think it is wrong at all to use pronoun and -s form: seo é an seomra a ghlanas mé gach uile lá.

It is a well-known problem that the direct relative clause can be ambiguous. Sin é an t-oifigeach a mharaigh an gnáthshaighdiúir can mean "that is the officer who killed the common soldier" or "that is the officer whom the common soldier killed". Scroll down for how the ambiguity can be avoided.

The direct relative clause is also used in emphasis:

Airsean a rinne mé trácht 'It's of him I made mention'

Ar an traein a tháinig mé 'It's by train I came'

Leis an gcailín a labhair mé 'It's with the girl I spoke'

The indirect relative clause is used when the relativized element is written out inside the relative sentence. Most often this means that the element relativized is a prepositional phrase in the relative clause, but it can also be something that is referred to by a possessive pronoun:

Seo é an fear a ndearna mé trácht air. This is the man I made mention of. 

An duine a nglanaim a sheomra gach uile lá, níl a fhios agam a dhath ina thaobh. The person whose room I clean every day, I don't know anything about him or her. (In English "him or her", or maybe "them", but in Irish we use the masculine gender, because the noun duine is masculine.)

An duine ar cheannaigh mé an rothar uaidh, chuaigh sé ar imirce go dtí an Astráil. The person from whom I bought the bike emigrated to Australia.

An t-arrachtach ar dhírigh an captaen a gha-ghunna air, is é peata an Tliongánaigh úd thall é. The monster at which the captain aimed his raygun is the pet of that Klingon over there. (The noun Tliongánach for Klingon is purportedly based directly on the Klingon language, so I'll use it. Earlier, I preferred Cliongónach, but as Tliongánach is so much more authentic, I guess Irish-speaking Trekkies should prefer it. Qapla'!)

The preposition can be put before the indirect relative clause, but this is a somewhat posh or literary usage not all are aware of:

Seo an fear ar a ndearna mé trácht. This is the man of whom I made mention. (In fact, you do sometimes see this done wrongly, like this: Seo an fear ar a rinne mé trácht. I tend to think that this is a pure Anglicism rather than a rethinking of the old structure. I.e., the old one being entirely forgotten by or unknown to the speaker, the new one is introduced under the influence of literary English. Of these two I recommend the older form though, because it is an established literary form; but being stylistically marked, it is less acceptable than Seo an fear a ndearna mé trácht air.) 

Similarly: 

Tháinig an fear ar labhair mé leis = Tháinig an fear lenar labhair mé The man to whom I spoke came. 

D'imigh an fear a bhfuair mé an peann ar iasacht uaidh = D'imigh an fear óna bhfuair mé an peann ar iasacht The man from whom I borrowed the pen went away/left.

An t-arrachtach ar dhírigh an captaen a gha-ghunna air, is é peata an Tliongánaigh úd thall é = An t-arrachtach ar ar dhírigh an captaen a gha-ghunna, is é peata an Tliongánaigh úd thall é.

As you see, the indirect relative a eclipses, i.e. behaves like the go ("that") particle. In the past tense of the regular verbs, we use ar, which lenites and which behaves like gur. Thus:

Seo é an fear ar thrácht mé air. This is the man I mentioned (note that in Irish trácht!/trácht 'to mention' takes the ar preposition).

Note that the inflected preposition agrees in person with the element relativized:

Mise a ndearna sé trácht orm, ní maith liom a iompraíocht ar aon nós. Me, whom he mentioned, I don't like his behavior at all. (Yes, the example is somewhat contrived, but I vouch for its grammaticality. The English translation is intentionally clumsy, meant to keep close to the original.)

Mise an duine a ndearna sé trácht air - I am the person he mentioned, because here the element relativized is not mise immediately, but rather an duine.

Indirect relative clauses are also used after such nouns as áit "place" or dóigh "way, manner, method", although no preposition is written out: an áit ar chaith mé laethanta m'óige the place where I spent the days of my youth, an dóigh ar chríochnaigh sé an obair the way he finished the work. The underlying structure here is *an áit inar chaith mé laethanta m'óige/*an áit ar chaith mé laethanta m'óige inti; *an dóigh ar ar chríochnaigh sé an obair/*an dóigh ar chríochaigh mé an obair uirthi - note that we say san áit, ar an dóigh; but the underlying structure is no longer used. You do see direct relative clause used here sometimes, but it should be avoided as substandard language. The direct/indirect relative clause distinction might be disappearing in spoken Irish, but what I am concerned about is established literary language (whichever dialect). 

After nouns meaning "way" in the sense of a concrete way or road, you have a direct relative clause: an bealach a tháinig sé the way he came. Here bealach is treated as a kind of object or accusative, although the verb tar!/tag-/t(h)ioc-/tháinig/teacht does not take a real object. 

After units of time you can have either: an lá a bhí mé ansin = an lá a raibh mé ansin the day I was there. (Of course if the verb is a transitive one and the unit of time is obviously its object, then use only the direct relative clause: an lá a chaith mé ansin the day I spent there.) Actually, I would see those units of time as "extra objects" and prefer an lá a bhí mé ansin, an bhliain a bhí mé ansin, an mhí a bhí mé ansin, but some people insist an indirect relative clause should be used here.

I'd like to point out however that the conjunction nuair 'when' is always followed by a direct relative clause, and nuair comes from an uair 'the hour, the time, the occasion (when)', so it occurs to me that putting the direct relative after units of time is a usage that has been around for a while and should be accepted.

Finally, there is the "all-inclusive relative clause". This can be an indirect or a direct one, but it uses the a + eclipsis (or with the regular past tense, ar + aspiration), which then has the meaning "all available ones":

Tháinig a raibh ann All who were there came.
Labhair mé lena raibh sásta freagra a thabhairt I spoke to all who were willing to answer.
Labhair mé lenar casadh orm I spoke to all whom I met.

Direct and indirect relative clauses look the same when negated. Compare:

Sin é an fear a chonaic mé. That is the man whom I saw.
Sin é an fear nach bhfaca mé. That is the man whom I didn't saw.
Sin é an fear ar chuala mé trácht air. That is the man whom I heard mention of.
Sin é an fear nár chuala mé trácht air. That is the man whom I didn't hear mention of.
Labhair mé lena raibh sásta freagra a thabhairt. I spoke to all who were willing to answer.
Labhair mé le nach raibh sásta freagra a thabhairt. I spoke to all who weren't willing to answer. 

And finally: 

If you want to avoid the ambiguity in direct relative clauses, you are allowed to write out the subject or the object and make the relative clause indirect. Like this:

Sin é an t-oifigeach a mharaigh an gnáthshaighdiúir. That is the officer who killed the common soldier/whom the common soldier killed (the original direct relative clause).

Sin é an t-oifigeach ar mharaigh an gnáthshaighdiúir é. That is the officer whom the common soldier killed. (This is the more common variant.)

Sin é an t-oifigeach ar mharaigh sé an gnáthshaighdiúir. That is the officer who killed the common soldier. (This is less common of the two, because for the direct relative clause, this is the default interpretation.)

This possibility is overlooked by practically every learners' grammar, and when I suggest it, there is always someone who suggests it is wrong. Indeed, you need to sift through literally thousands of pages of native literature and folklore (I have done it, obviously) to see this often enough to be sure of it. However, it is common enough to be acceptable, and it is used in every dialect zone, both Connacht, Ulster and Munster.