mainoff.gif
lastdyoff.gif
lastwkoff.gif
treeoff.gif
searchoff.gif
helpoff.gif
contactoff.gif
creditsoff.gif
homeoff.gif


The Daltaí Boards » Archive: 2005- » 2005 (January-February) » Archive through February 09, 2005 » Weird things in languages « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 385
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 07:18 am:   Edit Post Print Post

When you learn a language you might be discouraged by some of the simply weird things that just seem stupid. Take for instance when a certain grammatical rules exists, but people regularly flout it; a common example:

the dog that ate my homework
the dog which ate my homework

These things are invisible to us in our native language, and we only notice them if we scrutanize it. One thing which particularly bothered me in Irish was:

an buachaill a bhfaca mé
an buachaill go bhfaca mé

I just couldn't comprehend why the hell people turned "go" into "a" and I couldn't see that we did anything like it in English... but over time I've seen that these weird things exist in every language, it's just that you can only spot them when you're trying to learn them. For any irregularity in any language, I'm sure with some thought I could give you example of the very same thing in English. Take for example:

I shuda gone... well I woulda gone if I had the money.

Some-one try explain why "have" has become a simple little "a" sound!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 820
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 07:28 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Is uirlis teanga cosúil le rud ar bith eile. Má bhaineann tú usáid as casúr ar feadh na blianta, tiocfaidh athrú "neamh rialta" ar an gcasúr chun go luífidh sé níos fearr i do lámh.

Sin go díreach a tharlaíonn le teanga, dar liom.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 386
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 08:25 am:   Edit Post Print Post

...agus déarfainn go ndéarfadh daoine áirithe, dá mba mhaith an teanga í, nár ghá rúdaí neamhrialta a chruthú sa teanga...

Ach is maith liom an "analogy" a bhaineann tú as an gcasúr... b'fhéidir le ham go n-athróidh sé sin freisin!


He went
He goes
He will go

Chuaigh sé
Téann sé
Rachaidh sé

Ní mé... cén briathar is neamhrialta sna teangacha go léir ar domhan? "go" maybe?

Rud eile, siad na briathra don chuid is mó a bhíonn neamhrialta i dteangacha, níos mó ná ainmfhocail, réamhfhocail, aidiachtaí... dúirt múinteoir liom am amháin gurbh iad inneal na teanga iad!

--
Cad í an Ghaeilge ar "analogy"?
Ar úsáid mé an téarma "ní mé" i gceart thuas?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 822
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 09:02 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Cad í an Ghaeilge ar "analogy"?

Nílim cinnte, ach "samhail" nó "samhlaoid" a d'úsáidfinn fhéin

samhlaoid [ainmfhocal baininscneach den dara díochlaonadh]
léiriú samhailteach.

samhail [ainmfhocal baininscneach]
macasamhail, cosúlacht, leithéid (níl a shamhail le fáil); íomhá; taibhse.



Ar úsáid mé an téarma "ní mé" i gceart thuas?
Ní mé!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

An_mídheach_mealltach
Member
Username: An_mídheach_mealltach

Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:18 am:   Edit Post Print Post

A Fhir na mBróg,

The a bhfaca/go bhfaca thing is a dialectic difference. In Munster they say go bhfaca instead of a bhfaca.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 102
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:47 am:   Edit Post Print Post

A Aongus, a chara,

Cad faoi analach, ainmfhocal baininsceanach?
an analach na hanalacha
X na hanalaí.............X na n-analach
Tá fadhb ag an analach seo; mura bhfuil ach casur agat, bíonn cuma tairne ar achan rud. Is aoibhinn liom rialacha na gramadaí agus is uirlisí maithe iad ach mar atá a fhios agat, is í leath na ceirde an uirlis.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 103
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 12:00 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A FnaB, a chara,

You are absolutely right about being discouraged by weird things going in the language. For example, it took me years to figure out what is going on in Irish with direct and indirect relative clauses and how they differ from indirect speech. The only thorough explantion of this I ever found in English is in Dona Wong's new book. Progess in Irish has a lesson on each but leaves it up to reader to figure it out. Ó Siadhail talks about it, but surprisingly for a linguist, does not examine the syntax deeply.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

An_mídheach_mealltach
Member
Username: An_mídheach_mealltach

Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 12:10 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Don't get too frustated Fear na mBróg. Confusion in learning is good for the brain. Especially if it's in language learning.
They reckon now that learning languages in later life will stop your brain turning to mush(i.e. stop senile dementia, alzheimers etc.)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 60
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 12:16 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

1. Céard a chonaic sé maidir leis an mbuachaill?

2. Not everything that's different from Munster usage has been "turned into" something different from Munster usage. It's very, very often the other way around.

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 61
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 12:25 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

3. "I should o' went. Well, I would o' went if I would o' had the money."

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 35
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 12:36 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>an buachaill a bhfaca mé
>an buachaill go bhfaca mé

If you mean "the boy (who) I saw", it is "an buachaill a chonaic mé" i nGaeilg.
But i know what you mean:

an buachaill a dtugaim leabhar dó / (Munster) an buachaill go dtugaim leabhar dó.

Yes, a dialectal problem. "Go" is all right but it isn’t in the Standard, because "a" is used in Connaught and Ulster.

The verb "to go" isn’t irregular in all languages. According to linguists, the most regular verb is the verb to be, which is irregular in most known languages (except Esperanto). "To be" is the only irregular verb in Turkish, for example (it is "olmak"). I think it’s irregular in all Indo-European languages.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 62
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 01:06 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>Confusion in learning is good for the brain.<

Yup. The other night I was telling a couple of Irish friends that in Scottish Gaelic they say:

Chaidh mi a Ghlaschu (< Chaidh mi do Ghlaschu);

Tha mi a' dol dhan an oifig (Tha mi a' dol dhan oifig, < Tha mi a' dol do'n oifig);

Chaidh mi gu Oifig a' Phuist.

And then I said, "Oh, wait, no, I think it's 'oifis,' yeah, 'Oifis a' Phuist'..."; but when I got home I looked in my dictionaries and found both. Presumably "oifig" is much older, but both are in the dictionaries. They both sounded right because I'd learned both...without realizing that I'd learned both. Cha robh fios agam gu robh fios agam gu robh an dà chuid ann.

And last night I wrote a message using the phrase "éisteoidh mise leis"; and when I woke up this morning I was embarrassed to realize I'd made the same "mistake" that I'd corrected in other people's messages in the past (as inevitably happens): that should have been "éistfidh"! But then I looked into it, and it's not just other learners that have infected me with the form "éisteoidh," but it's found in literature from Munster and Ulster ("éisteochaidh"), at least; and "éistím" is an alternative to "éistim" in Munster, at least.

So, the goal is to progress from being a sorely confused learner to being a fully fluent speaker, happily confused the way native speakers are, which is different.

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 97
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 01:19 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

I shuda gone... well I woulda gone if I had the money.

Some-one try explain why "have" has become a simple little "a" sound!

A Fhear, a chara,

I haven't read this entire thread since you raised this question, so bear with me if I'm repeating what someone else already said.

I have always thought that the "a" in shoulda or woulda was actually a hold over of the particle, "a" and might even have it's roots in Irish. Common expressions among the Appalachian residents (hillbillies) are things such as "I been aworkin hard all day," and he's been ahankerin after a slug o shine.

Reminds me of the use of "ag" in the progressive tenses.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 104
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 02:23 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

I think both the phrases
an buachaill a bhfaca mé
an buachaill a chonaic mé
are problematic. The former is an incomplete indirect relative clause and the latter is an ambiguous direct relative clause.

Lets look at the last one first. The phrase
an buachaill a chonaic mé
is syntactically correct, but it can be translated into English in two different ways:
  1. the boy who saw me, or,
  2. the boy whom I saw

In the first translation, an réamhtheachtaí (the antecedent), an buachaill, is assumed to be the subject of the relative clause, i.e, [the boy] saw me. In the second translation, the antecedent, an buachaill, is assumed to be the direct object of the relative clause, i.e, I saw [the boy]. However, there is no way to tell from the structure which meaning was intended by the speaker/writer.

One way to resolve this ambiguity is to use the indirect relative form
an buachaill a bhfaca mé é
instead fo the direct relative form. An indirect relative form requires an t-iartheachtaí (the subsequent) to refer back an réamhtheachtaí (the antecedent). In this case the pronoun é is the iartheachtaí and it refers back to an buachaill. (The original phrase above had no iartheachtaí.) The other pronoun, , is first person and thus can not refer to a third person noun.

Since é comes after in this phrase, Irish word order (Verb - Subject - Object) requires it to be the object of the sentence. The accusative form of the pronoun is another indication. Therefore, this can only mean the boy whom I saw.

(Message edited by lúcas on January 28, 2005)

Mise le meas,

Lúcas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 826
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 05:00 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Scríobh Lúcas
quote:

Cad faoi analach, ainmfhocal baininsceanach?



Fuaireas san sa bhfoclóir ceart go leor. Ach níor chuala ná níor léigh riamh é. Tá sé ag Dinneen, fiú.

Bhain an samhlaoid leis an slí a athraíonn hanla casúr chun dul i réir le do lámh. casúr an chéad uirlís a tháinig i'm ceann. Ní hionann sin is a rá gurbh buille réiteach gach fadhb.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 63
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 05:22 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>One way to resolve this ambiguity is to use the indirect relative form
an buachaill a bhfaca mé é<

Theoretically, yeah, but I think that should be done as rarely as possible; otherwise "buachaill a bhfaca mé é" would sometimes be misunderstood as "buachaill a bhfaca mé," which means "buachaill dá bhfaca mé," which means "any boy that I ever saw."

Would anyone really say "an buachaill a bhfaca sé mé"? I hope not.

The expression is usually unambiguous by virtue of its context. If on occasion a short phrase like "an buachaill a chonaic mé" really needs to be expressed differently for the sake of clarity, I reckon one would use the emphatic pronouns: "an buachaill a bhfaca mise eisean."

In fact, I have a feeling that a more natural solution, and at least an equally justifiable one, would be "an buachaill a chonaic seisean mise" and "an buachaill a chonaic mise eisean"; but I'm only theorizing, I think. Maybe tomorrow I'll remember writing this and say, "What was I talking about?" Or not.

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 39
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 06:08 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>I'd corrected in other people's messages in the past (as inevitably happens): that should have been "éistfidh"! But then I looked into it, and it's not just other learners that have infected me with the form "éisteoidh," but it's found in literature from Munster and Ulster ("éisteochaidh"), at least;

Yeah, éisteoidh/éisteochaidh is all right but you shouldn’t correct anyone who says éistfidh because it does exist! In Ulster we also say things like fanóchaidh mé, etc.

>Bhain an Tsamhlaoid leis an Tslí a N-athraíonn hanla casúr chun dul i réir le do lámh. casúr an chéad uirlís a tháinig i'm cHeann. Ní hionann sin is a rá GUR buille réiteach gach faIdhbE.

Six basic mistakes in two lines. Still claiming you’re a native speaker? Would you make as many mistakes while writing in English?

>"buachaill a bhfaca mé é"

Yeah, that can be said but I think it’s not used in speech, within a context people know who you are talking about when saying "an buachaill a chonaic mé".

>"an buachaill a bhfaca sé mé"

Same problem: possible but never used, I think.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alix (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 64.231.135.53
Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 12:22 am:   Edit Post Print Post

And here I always thought that "shoulda" was replacing "should of", which I think I've been saying my whole life without realising that it's completely grammatically false. I think no one has corrected me, because "of" and "have" sound the same when you say them fast, (and swallow the h, which I guess might be attributed solely to my accent, even though it's even hard to think of myself as having an accent in my native tongue).

Maybe I got confused with "kinda" replacing "kind of" and I just never actually sat done and thought about it.

Ironically, thinking about it now, I think I write "should have" or "would have" in my academic writing, but say "should of" when speaking, and I never actually noticed the difference until now.

Thinking about the way you speak your native language is very interesting.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 67
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 07:14 am:   Edit Post Print Post

>>"buachaill a bhfaca mé é"<<

>Yeah, that can be said but I think it’s not used in speech<

In other words, it's really pretty preposterous. Native speakers do indeed always find a way to resolve any ambiguity. Sometimes this results in a new ambiguity, and they find a way to take care of that too. Natural, traditional Irish is a real language and is good enough as it is; and the way for us learners to overcome our problems with the language, and what we may perceive as problems in the language itself, is not to try to invent something better, but to keep on listening to what native speakers say, and keep on reading what native speakers have written.

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 12.75.183.97
Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:43 am:   Edit Post Print Post

One of the dead giveaways of a non-native speaker of any language is their grammatically perfect text book use of it. Few idioms or colloquialisms are used and many are taken literally and the point missed. Listen to the native speakers and stop trying to impress them with your knowledge.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 830
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 01:05 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

The meaning is usually crystal clear from the
context.

"Sin an buachaill a chonaic mé" is unlikely to be used in isolation.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 70
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 07:12 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Amen.

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 71
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 01:49 am:   Edit Post Print Post

>Amen.<

Yes, and furthermore:

an buachaill a chonaic mé ar an mbóthar
the boy I saw on the road

an buachaill a chonaic ar an mbóthar mé
the boy who saw me on the road

&c.

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 105
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 09:29 am:   Edit Post Print Post

There are many ways to disambiguate the phrase
an buachaill a chonaic mé
but, unfortunately, neither
an buachaill a chonaic mé ar an mbóthar
nor
an buachaill a chonaic ar an mbóthar mé
does the trick. These phrases can mean either
the boy whom I saw on the road, or
the boy who saw me on the road
You still can not tell which meaning is intended from the phrase. Each of these ambiguous phrases can be disambiguated by using the indirect relative, as shown earlier in this thread, or as Aonghus implies, you can add context. For example, you could add the sentence
chonaic mé ag an siopa é
to make the first phrase clear. I would naturally defer to the native speaker as to which way was more esthetically pleasing, but the grammar in this case is irrefutable.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 72
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 04:40 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>neither...does the trick. These phrases can mean either...You still cannot tell which meaning is intended from the phrase.<

Wrong.

>I would naturally defer to the native speaker<

Please do. Take a survey. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in "an buachaill a chonaic ar an mbóthar mé," and virtually none in "an buachaill a chonaic mé ar an mbóthar."

"The boy who saw me on the road" might come out in casual conversation as "an buachaill a chonaic mé, chonaic sé ar an mbóthar mé, an dtuigeann tú anois mé?"; but in writing or in more careful speech (and also in equally casual speech) it would be "an buachaill a chonaic ar an mbóthar mé."

By the way, it's "Phádraig Uí Chearúil" and "Sheáin Uí Thighearnaigh" and "Coláiste Pobail" and "Tá saol an mhadaidh bháin agam" and "Gearmáinis."

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 107
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 06:04 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A Pheadair, a chara,

Thank you for the corrections to my profile. I may still be struggling with the genitive case, but I think I know relative clauses fairly well. Your claim
There is no ambiguity whatsoever in "an buachaill a chonaic ar an mbóthar mé," and virtually none in "an buachaill a chonaic mé ar an mbóthar."
does not make it so.

If you think I am wrong, please, explain to me the errors of my argument, because I sincerely would like to learn from my mistakes. By the way, I took my argument, from Chapters 31 and 32 of Úrchúrsa Ghaeilge. Do you think the native speakers from Institiúid Teangeolaíchta Éireann who wrote that text got it wrong? Did I misinterpret it? How?

Mise le meas,

Lúcas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 73
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 11:39 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Panu Höglund mentions the indirect relative construction as an alternative to expressions like "an saighdiúir a mharaigh an t-oifigeach." That one is ambiguous unless the context renders it otherwise; and, because the subject and object are both nouns, "ar an mbóthar" could only be added after "an t-oifigeach" and would not clarify which is which.

<<...an saighdiúir ar (AR!! seachas "a"!!!) mharaigh an t-oifigeach é (É!)...>>

Panu also mentions another construction, which he says sounds quite old-fashioned:

<<..."an saighdiúir a maraíodh leis an oifigeach">>

But that's ambiguous (or worse) too, huh?

http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaeilge/gramadach/gnathbhotuin/saorbhriathar.html

It makes a difference whether two nouns are involved, or one noun and a pronoun. "An buachaill a chonaic mé" is ambiguous without context, but I'd say "mé" would be understood to be the subject unless something is added, or known, that indicates otherwise. If anything is inserted between "chonaic" and "mé," then "mé" is the object, and that's all there is to it.

I haven't seen the "Úrchúrsa Gaeilge," but of course Dónall Ó Baoill knows what he's talking about, a few thousand times better than I do, and presumably his collaborator does too. I suspect, though, that the examples in the chapters you cite are mainly of the "saighdiúir–oifigeach" type rather than the "buachaill–mé" type.

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 834
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 04:26 am:   Edit Post Print Post

I'd have to agree with Lúcás here. Both sentences could be construed either way.

But I don't think anyone would actually write either without there being a broader context which would make everything clear.

I'd say:
Chonaic an buachaill sin ar an mbóthair mé
Chonaic mé an buachaill sin ar an mbóthair

because I see no need to use the saorbhriathar.

Maidir le:
..."an saighdiúir a maraíodh leis an oifigeach"

It is old-fashioned, and rarely heard, but not ambiguous.

"leis" here could not, in my ear, mean "in the company of"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 108
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 07:41 am:   Edit Post Print Post

As Ó Baoill and Ó Tuathail explain below, the ambiguity of direct relative clauses arises when the antecedent is the object of the clause, and when both the subject and the object of the relative clause are living things:

31.5 An Cuspóir mar Réamhtheachtaí - Débhríocht

Nuair is ní neamhbheo an tAinmní in abairtí mar iad seo thíos ní féidir ach ciall amháin a bhaint astu.

Sin an páipéar a Mann an múinteoir.
Sin an scéal a chuala mg.
Seo an obair a bhím a dhéanamh.
Seinn an port a bhí tú a chleachtadh aréir.

Amanna bíonn abairtí mar iad sin thuas débhríoch go háirithe nuair is nithe beo iad an tAinmní agus an Cuspóir.

Sin an stócach a bhuail an fear.
Sin an fear a bhuail an stócach.
Sin an gadaí a chonaic na gardaí.
Sin na gardaí a chonaic an gadaí.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 78
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 08:34 am:   Edit Post Print Post

>Both sentences could be construed either way.<

uni:§

"Construed" meant "constructed" when people still knew what it meant, but I know what you mean.

Please fill in the blanks below:

"An buachaill a chonaic ar an mbóthar mé" means:
1. ________________________________________
2. ________________________________________

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 79
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 08:34 am:   Edit Post Print Post

>Both sentences could be construed either way.<

uni:§

"Construed" meant "constructed" when people still knew what it meant, but I know what you mean.

Please fill in the blanks below:

"An buachaill a chonaic ar an mbóthar mé" means:
1. ________________________________________
2. ________________________________________

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 838
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:07 am:   Edit Post Print Post

1) The boy who saw me on the road.

I've been staring at screens too long, and got confused. There is no ambiguity there. I withdraw the allegation, and eat the alligator.

Tá brón orm!

Maidir le construed, an bhfuil tú ag rá gur brí nua é?: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=construed

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 68.68.208.113
Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 05:25 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Seadh, níos nuaidhe ná an tseanbhrí.

To construct > to use in construction > to use with a certain meaning > to understand as having a certain meaning...

"It should be pointed out that constructs are not 'verbal' at all. Constructs are usually confused with the verbal labels we assign to them. Before we have reached the stage of assigning verbal labels we have already made our discriminations by cleaving events into similarities and differences. This line of cleavage is then labeled where possible. A simple example is to look at how the Irish and English cleave themselves mutually into racial stereotypes. The Irish prefer to view themselves as 'pastoral', 'in love with the land', 'in touch with nature' etc., while polarising the English as 'urbanised imperiallsts, plundering other countries for weaIth' etc. The English for their part construe the Irish as 'crude peasants with pigs in the kitchen' while seeing themselves as 'refined, civilized' etc. Here we can see that the same line of cleavage is drawn between the two parties, but the way it is labeled alters with the labeler."

http://www.oikos.org/vincpcp.htm

"Cleave themselves mutually"??? Hmm...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Antaine
Member
Username: Antaine

Post Number: 175
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 06:05 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

That's just what we need to make Gaeilge "sexier" to the younger generation...more talk about "cleavage"...maith thú!

=)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 845
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 05:01 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Ar an lámh eile, tá "construe" mar a d'usáid mise é san Shorter OED do 1937! Nílim chun seacht sreama na seanaoise a bhuaileadh ar mo chuid cainte sa Sacsbhéarla ná sa Ghaeilge!

Fch freisin: http://homepage.eircom.net/~aonghus/forogra.htm !

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 95
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:00 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Another among countless examples of semantic shift is "expletive." An expletive is a filler, a superfluous word or phrase used to fill out an utterance. Padding. "Well" is an expletive. "Okay" is an expletive. "Basically" is now an expletive. Most people have no idea what "expletive" means, but think they know exactly what it means, and use it accordingly. Almost everyone is acquainted with it but hardly anyone understands its proper meaning, so to most people it just means whatever most people think it means, and what was once a secondary or tertiary connotation is now treated as the primary one.

Not to mention "radical" and "graphic" and...

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peadar_Ó_gríofa
Member
Username: Peadar_Ó_gríofa

Post Number: 96
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:03 am:   Edit Post Print Post

And "radically graphic expletives," and...

Peadar Ó Gríofa

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 401
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:59 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

My favourite is expletitive is "like", you know like.



©Daltaí na Gaeilge