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


The Daltaí Boards » Archive: 2005- » 2005 (March-April) » Archive through March 11, 2005 » Crazy; ie mentally challenged « Previous Next »

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

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 120
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 07:35 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

I have a grammar question that has to do with what parts of speech other than nouns are inflected in the plural. This sort of thing is often self-evident to those who are fluent speakers, but the search through grammar books et al can be exhausting as well as nerve wracking.

Anyhow...

...duine nach bhfuil i gceart ...

I'm reasonably certain that this expression is grammatically correct and can be translated to mean "someone who is not in his right mind." (Playing with a deck of 51 cards.)

Question: If one pluralizes duine, does the relative "nach bhfuil" remain the same?

...daoine nach bhfuil i gceart ...

GRMA

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 153
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 11:27 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Yep it remains the same.
The words that change in plural are: nouns, most adjectives when they’re in the same group as the noun (ex: "chonaic mé fear mór", but not "tá an fear sin mór"), personal pronouns of course. Some verbal forms (but they agree both in person and number):

ghlacamar
ghlacabhar
ghlacadar

ghlacfaidís

glacaimid...

(They don’t really agree, they just have the subject pronoun inside them, in the ending)


For "daoine nach bhfuil i gceart", there’s no problem, you don’t make the verb agree with any person if the subject of the verb is before the verb (and that its true in all Celtic languages). Maybe you find it strange because it’s different from English (in which the verb "to be" has different forms according to the person: is/are...).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 121
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 12:38 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Go raibh maith agat, a Lughaidh, a chara,

I had a handle on the Táim Táimid variations, but the uncharted ground of relative expressions ... well...

It's difficult to get my mind around this because I'm trying to take the English "who is not" and apply it to the Irish "nach bhfuil," and at the same time reconcile that with "cá bhfuil."

Why not say "Cá tá sé"?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1034
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 03:19 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Because it is an irregular verb. "Tá" and "is" between them probably account for 90% of the headaches in learning Irish!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 122
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:45 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Okay. I think the fact is that I'm so confused that I can't even ask the question clearly. Actually, there are probably several questions:

(1) What's the difference between "nil mé" and "bhfuil me?"

(2) Can "bhfuil mé" be translated out of context, or must there be an auxilliary such as an bhfuil, cá bhfuil, or nach bhfuil?

(3) Is raibh the past tense of bhfuil? If so, then what tense is raibh as it is used in "go raibh maith agat?"

(4) What's the difference between dependent and independent tenses?

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to respond very simply and slowly as though you were addressing an idiot.

This message and its writer will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dearg
Member
Username: Dearg

Post Number: 41
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 01:09 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Well, I'm just a beginner, so don't take my answers too seriously. I'm sure you'll get much better answers soon.

1. "Níl me" = "I am not"; "bhfuil mé" can be part of several constructions. See #2.

2. I don't think it can. It would be like trying to translate the English word "are"--you don't know if it's a question or an answer, the second person singular (You are, are you?) or first person plural (we are, are we?).
"Tá mé" = I am.
"An bhfuil mé?" = Am I?
"Nach bhfuil mé?" = Am I not? (which begs the question, how do we get "Aren't I?" in English?! Maybe some folks are right with "Amn't I?"?) http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001061.php
"Cá bhfuil mé?" = Where am I?

3. Well, "raibh" is the past tense of "tá". (Reminds me of "Cá raibh mé areir?"--"Where was I last night?"--which is the opening line in "An Tobar" which is a beginner's Irish story we're reading in class.) "Go raibh", however, is the verbal noun I think ("being").

As bad as the first three answers are, I couldn't possibly even try to answer #4.

I'm sure the experts will be along shortly. I learn a lot here.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 160
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 08:13 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Several irregular verbs (there are 11 in Irish) have different forms for dependent and independent forms.

dependent> form used after most verbal particles (an, nach, go, sula, gur, nár, ar, a - indirect relative particle...) (which means that you won’t never use the dependent form if you don’t have any verbal particle before)

independent > form used in the other cases: after a (direct relative) or without any verbal particle.

Regular verbs have the same form for dependent and independent forms.


Tá (ponctual present of "to be") is irregular and has different independent forms:



- independent: tá, direct relative "atá" (you could write "a tá" as well, but actually you don’t; it isn’t a different form, people just write it in one word)

- dependent: *fuil > go bhfuil, an bhfuil, nach bhfuil...




chuaigh (to go, in the past)

- independent: chuaigh, direct relative "a chuaigh"

- dependent > *deachaigh > go ndeachaigh, an ndeachaigh, nach ndeachaigh...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 123
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 08:53 am:   Edit Post Print Post

A Lughaigh,

Buiochas. Now I have something to do with my spare time for the next six weeks. Having glibly taught English grammar for years to long suffering, bewildered young learners, I'm now getting a sense of their angst.

(which means that you won’t never use the dependent form if you don’t have any verbal particle before)

I assume the use of the double negative here is intentional and that I can't rely on the mandatory particle to determine the use of the independent form.

With this question of dependent vs independent, I'm looking for something to hang my hat on. Dependent upon what? Independent of what?

One other thing. In the following, is "chun gur threoraigh tú" all part of the verb, and how would it be translated?

Thanks for your patience.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1042
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 09:01 am:   Edit Post Print Post

quote:

In the following, is "chun gur threoraigh tú" all part of the verb, and how would it be translated



Can you give us the sentence? On its own, it looks wrong.

If it were "chun go dtreorófá", I would translate it as
(something) in order that you might direct

"chun" is a form of "chuig"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 124
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:22 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Cé hé mise, chun gur threoraigh tú an fad seo mé?

Seems a bit archaic as I approach it verbatim. Is the "mé" at the end being used in the objective (accusative) case perchance?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1044
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:29 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Who am I, that you led me thus far

It seems a bit dodgy to me; is this someone's translation of a religious phrase? I think the "chun" there is superfluous.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1045
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:38 am:   Edit Post Print Post

I wonder is it this:

2 Samuel 7: 18 Then went king David in, and sat before the LORD, and he said, Who am I, O Lord GOD? and what is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?

I'll look that up in an Bíobla Naofa later. I'd trust Padraig Ó Fiannachta's Irish!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 125
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:48 am:   Edit Post Print Post

WOW! Did you pull that out of your head like a Southern Baptist preacher, or do you have some software?

Interestingly confusing, this. Look at I Chronicles 17:16.
These fellows tend to repeat themselves.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1046
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 12:23 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

No, I looked it up on: http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp


It sounded like it was biblical, it's a fairly standard form of prayer. I put in "Who am I," and looked at the results.

I'll look up both later.

As a matter of interest, did you get that from An Bíobla Naofa?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Séamas_Ó_neachtain
Member
Username: Séamas_Ó_neachtain

Post Number: 67
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 02:39 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Chonaic mé an t-ábhar seo agus cheap mé go raibh sibh ag caint fúmsa...
I saw this subject and thought that you all were talking about ME...
You might enjoy this: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/neachtain
and also this: http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=21432
Both of which qualify me...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1047
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 03:28 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Tá níos mó na tusa as a meabhar, a fhile buile ar buile!




2 Samuel 7:18 Cé hé mise, a Thiarna Dia, agus cad é mo theaghlach, gur threoraigh tú an fad seo mé?

I Chronicles 17:16 Cé hé mise, a Thiarna Dia, agus cad é mo theaghlach, chun gur threoraigh tú an fad seo mé?

Now I'm confused: This is two versions of the same story. Nathan is making David get his act back together. I can see no reason for "chun" in the second version. I don't have an English bible for comparison. But in the German bible I have (Luther's excellent prose) the wording is identical in both verses.

I'm tempted to say "chun" here is a missprint.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 126
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 03:41 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A Aonghus,

Yes, it is from An Bíobla Naofa, but from your last post I guess you've discovered that already.

Back to "chun," could it be part of an archaic way of speaking? (that you led me to ...?)

The English NIV translates the phrase as: "that you have brought me this far."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1048
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 03:47 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

However, Dineen gives "chum go" as "so that", "in order that" (Chum being an older spelling of chun, which he gives at the end of the article on chum)

An object lesson in the dangers of word for word translation, then. (Mine, not PÓFs)

Both versions are equivalent, I think.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1049
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 03:51 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A Phádraig, our posts have crossed. I think my last answers yours?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1051
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 03:58 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Dala an scéil: An Bíobla Naofa is available on CD-ROM from fios feasa : http://www.fiosfeasa.com

http://www.fiosfeasa.com/script/bearla/products/bible.asp

It includes translations to Irish of the two known letters of our patron saint, a Phádraig.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mack
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 12.75.241.65
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 04:14 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Chronicles 17:16: "Who am I, Oh Lord God, and what is my family, that you should have brought me as far as I have come?" 2 Samuel 7:18: Who am I, Lord God, and who are the members of my house, that you have brought me to this point?" New American Bible, Catholic Publishers, 1971.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 163
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 09:45 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>(which means that you won’t never use the dependent >form if you don’t have any verbal particle before)

>I assume the use of the double negative here is >intentional

Oh, I didn’t notice that. I think I’ve been (unconsciously) influenced by Ireland English... It wasn’t intentional at all, sorry :)

>and that I can't rely on the mandatory >particle to determine the use of the independent form.

>With this question of dependent vs independent, I'm >looking for something to hang my hat on. Dependent upon >what? Independent of what?

Dependent on the particle that comes before. The independent depends on nothing, it stands alone without particle except when the direct relative particle ’a’ (leniting) is before.

>One other thing. In the following, is "chun gur >threoraigh tú" all part of the verb, and how would it >be translated?

chun go (chun gur in the past)= in order to/to
threoraigh tú = you led

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1052
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 07:14 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Mack's post makes me curious.

We now have two versions in English, and two versions in Irish. It's the same story, but in two different books of the Bible.

As I said, Luther's version uses identical wording is both cases. I wonder is there a difference in the hebrew -or perhaps in the Vulgate Latin, - since both are from Catholic editions.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1054
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 07:23 am:   Edit Post Print Post

2 Samuel 7:18 - ingressus est autem rex David et sedit coram Domino et dixit quis ego sum Domine Deus et quae domus mea quia adduxisti me hucusque

1 Chronicles 17:16 cumque venisset rex David et sedisset coram Domino dixit quis ego sum Domine Deus et quae domus mea ut praestares mihi talia

That would appear to be the answer as to the differences! The Vulgate differs.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 128
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 01:03 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Nothing like a little Latin to stop an interchange dead in its tracks. I have some thoughts on this discrepancy cited by Aonghus, but they'll have to wait. Gotta run. Meanwhile, should we consider the Vulgate a valid, primary source? True, its very "Romish," but the original's in Hebrew.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1059
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 03:58 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

I wouldn't be able to make head or tail of the Hebrew. Also, the Jews translated what we call the Old Testament to Greek early on.
I don't know which the Vulgate is based on; nor how An Bíobla Naofa was translated. I intend to read the preface again to see what they say.

I know Luther went back to the Hebrew for his translation - but that doesn't prove the wording in the hebrew was identical.

My inter-cert latin was enough to see that the wording differs where it does in the irish, that's all.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 129
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 06:55 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

http://users.erols.com/whitaker/words.htm

Here you go, Aonghus. This is the best program I've ever seen for deciphering Latin for those with a rudimentary understanding of the language. If I had had this program 50 years ago, I would not hate Caesar's Gallic Wars today.

And here's a challenge to you and all your engineer brothers out there. Develop the Gaeilge equivalent of this program and you will qualify for Canonization.

P.S. I posted this challenge to SMcS several years ago and he vanished from sight. But I know it must be possible. Someone has done it with Latin; why not Irish?

(Message edited by pádraig on March 02, 2005)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1061
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 05:12 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Ah but, you are forgetting the three cardinal traits of software engineers - laziness, impatience and hubris.

I don't need such a program, therefore I am too damn lazy to come up with it.

But somebody has - isn't that what easyreader is about?
http://www.irishforlife.com/



I had a quick look at the preface to An Bíobla Naofa - they just mention "buntéacs" without specifying which. Translation was a long project (20+ years) involving biblical scholars and Irish scholars (and some who were both). I would expect them to have drawn on all available sources. - Hebrew, Greek and Latin. My understanding is that ancient Hebrew is difficult to decipher/read because vowels were not written - which is why some people say the Hebrew name God gave Himself is Jehovah and others Jahwe.



©Daltaí na Gaeilge