Talk:Unidirectionality hypothesis
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Irish data? edit
The Irish data discussed in the counter-example section contains a number of inaccuracies. Additionally it appears to be original research, as no sources are cited.
First it says that in Old Irish pronouns could be added for emphasis. This is not correct. Pronouns cannot be added to verbs at all in Old Irish. There are special non-pronoun suffixes that attach directly to the verb for emphasis, or a cleft can be used.
Then the subject pronouns of Modern Irish are discussed. The problem is the 1st person plural form given "sinn", is not used as a subject pronoun anywhere in Ireland, it is found only in the Munster dialect where it's used as a direct object pronoun. In the more northerly dialects the 1st person plural subject pronoun is "muid", which is also the direct object pronoun. As the article notes, "muid" is derived from a re-analysis of the 1st person plural verb ending "-m(a)id" as an independent pronoun.
The biggest issue is in discussing the Modern Irish verb forms however. The article claims the form "táim" is being replaced by "tá mé" and that this is true for all verbs. This is an inaccurate claim. "Tá" is the only present tense verb that allows "mé" as an independent subject pronoun. Every other verb require the 1st person ending in the present tense in every dialect, and it is impossible for "mé" to appear as a subject pronoun.
Meanwhile "táimid" which the article claims is robust everywhere is not actually robust everywhere. It is found only in the southern dialects, while in the north the aforementioned independent pronoun "muid" is used as in "tá muid".
Unless sources can be furnished which support the data and argument presented in the article, this section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.157.214 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)