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


The Daltaí Boards » Archive: 2005- » 2005 (May-June) » Archive through May 20, 2005 » Student in linguistics need help « Previous Next »

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

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 07:43 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

hi !

I'm a French student in linguistics, and I'm doing my PhD on Irish syntax. But since I don't speak Irish, I would very much welcome some help.

I am at present focussing on the relative clauses...

could anyone translate :

"the man who is a priest"
"the man who is the priest"


thanx

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.221.221
Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 09:58 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

"the man who is a priest"
"the man who is the priest"

voici ma conjecture:

(i) an fear atá ina sagart

(ii) an fear atá an sagart

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 170
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 10:57 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Jax, a chara

The verb "tá" can not be used to link two nouns as you did in your second example,
quote:

(ii) an fear atá an sagart

Even though it is a relative clause you still need to use the copula. It should be
an fear is é an sagart.
You could also use the copula instead for the first sentence,
"the man who is a priest"
an fear ar sagart é
I think you could also use the direct relative,
the man who is a priest"
an fear is sagart
but it does not seem as natural as the direct relative form above it.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James
Member
Username: James

Post Number: 190
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:35 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Lucas,

Shouldn't there be an eclipsis in your first and second examples?

an fear is é an tsagart.

an fear ar tsagart é


Le meas,

James

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 05:28 am:   Edit Post Print Post

A chairde,

considering the two sentences bellow:

"Is é an fear an sagart" (The man is the priest)
"Is sagart é an fear" (The man is a priest)

would it be possible to say:

"An fear is é an sagart"
"An fear is sagart é"

?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.220.42
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 10:12 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Lúcas,
ya a bit elementary that (no two nouns linked by 'tá'). It is indeed odd when a man forgets to copulate.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 171
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:34 am:   Edit Post Print Post

James, a chara,

Good questions. Let me start with the first one.
quote:

Shouldn't there be an eclipsis in ...
an fear is é an tsagart.

Here, "an sagart" is the predicate nominative, because it is linked by the copula to the nominative "fear." Therefore, "sagart" needs to be in the nominative case, or what the Christian Brothers call the Common Case. The article before the nominative "sagart" has no affect on masculine nouns. If the article preceded a genitive form of a masculine noun beginning in s- then we would need the initial t-. Lets tweak our example above a bit to put "sagart" in the gentive case.
an fear is é athair an tsagart
the man who is the priest's father
In the second sentence
quote:

Shouldn't there be an eclipsis in ... an fear ar tsagart é

"sagart" is the subject of the Irish relative clause, in contrast to English where "priest" is the predicate nominative. Because "sagart" is an indefinite form of the verb, the roles get reversed in Irish when using the copula. The confusion comes when the relative particle "ar" is mistaken for the preposition "ar." In this case the relative particle "ar" also contains the the copula. The relative particle/copula "ar" would require séimiú in the past tense, mar shampla,
an fear ar shagart é
the man who was a priest.
The preposition "ar" requires the noun following it to be in the accusative case. Fortunately, the accusative case is the same as the nonminative case in Irish. This is why the Christian Brothers also call the accusative case the common case. However, there is an exception, namley when "ar" is followed by the article and a noun beginning with s-, mar shampla,
an fear a chur náire ar an tsagart
the man who shamed the priest
Does this make sense James?

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James
Member
Username: James

Post Number: 191
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:38 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Once I get my mind wrapped around the accusative, relative clause, relative particles, et.al....I'm sure it will make sense. The confusion over ar as a relative particle versus the preposition is easy enough to grasp.

I'm going to have to work on understanding the various cases, though.

Thanks for the clarification!!

Le meas,

James

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 172
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:59 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Jax,

I am getting old so I forget to copulate all the time. ;-)Your questions are also well put?
quote:

would it be possible to say:
"An fear is é an sagart"
"An fear is sagart é"


The problem with the above senentences is that each of them has a supefluity of copulas. The interogatory particle "an" in this case has the copula inside it. Using the copula twice inside a simple sentence is not a good idea in English or Irish. Less superfluous uses of the copula might be
An sagart an fear?
Is the man a priest?
Answers:
Is ea
yes

ní hea
no
An é an fear an sagart?
Is the man the priest?
Answers:
Is é
yes

ní hé
no
Note how "sagart" switches from subject to predicate nominative depending on whether or not it is definite. It is just like the affirmitave use of the copula. Also note that this is the only question form of "an" that can not be answered with one word.

Cheapaim go bhfuil an copail iontach casta. Nach bhfuil tusa?
I think the copula is very confusing. Don't you?
I hope this helped.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 173
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 12:16 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

James, a chara,

Sorry for all the grammatical jargon. I tried to squeeze a lot of information into the post using it. I know the mumbo jumbo often gets in the way of understanding. Discerning "ar" the preposition from "ar" the relative particle is the most important point in my earlier message to you.

Dont get too worried about cases. The only two that matter are the nominative and the genitive. The accusative and dative cases were dropped from the language, for the most part, years ago, buíochas le Dia. They were replaced by the nominative or common case. It is no big deal to form the vocative case.

Relative clauses are another story. They are used all the time in Irish, and yet, I have only found one grammar text in English that describes them well. It's A Learner's Guide to Irish by Donna Wong, ISBN 1 901176 48 7, Cois Life 2004. I'd recommend it.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 12:24 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

about "cases":

a "case" is a linguistic unit that links two other units together, just like prepositions do. the difference between a case and a preposition is that a case is not separable from one of the other two units, when a preposition is:

"the lady of the house" : preposition "of" linking "lady" and "house"
"bean an tí" : "genitive" case linking "bean" and "teach"


because the influence of latin was so strong a few centuries ago, people who were trying to analyze their own language used to do it "through" latin. that is to say that latin provided boxes, and these boxes had to be filled.

there is no case at all in French, but since there were "case-boxes", grammarians filled them with what they could (nominative = le chien / dative = au chien...)

it's the same with Irish, also there are cases in Irish:

"genitive", for sure
and "dative", but it has disappeared in certain dialects, and may not live much longer elsewhere

there is no "nominative" or accusative" or "common case"


hope this helps


max

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 12:37 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Lúcas, a chara,

1/

sorry for not being clear enough the first time:

the "an" wasn't the interrogative form of the copula in my "non-sentences", but the definite article.

so, you would have:

"Chonaic mé an fear is é an sagart."
"Chonaic mé an fear is sagart é."

(unless what i wrote is wrong)

2/

I'm using "A Learner's Guide to Irish" by Donna Wong, along with "Learning Irish" by Mícheál Ó Siadhail.
But I still have to get the data that miss...


max

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 174
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 02:26 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Max,

I could not agree with you more. Irish grammar book writers used Latin grammar books as their templates. This is especially true of the Christian Brothers grammars.

Take the Latin idea of declensions for example. Brian Ó Conchubhair of Notre Dame University pointed out, at a Teacher's Workshop in Esopus, that the idea of five declensions does not fit Irish as well as Latin. In Latin, for example, all the first declension nouns have the same endings in every case. For example, most Latin nouns in the first declension are feminine. Here is the declension of two first declension nouns.
puella, f, girlagricola, m. farmer
casesingularsingular
nominativepuellaagricola
genitivepuellaeagricolae
dativepuellaeagricolae
accusativepuellamagricolam
ablativepuellaagricola
casepluralplural
nominativepuellaeagricolae
genitivepuellarumagricolarum
dativepuellisagricolis
accusativepuellasagricolas
ablativepuellisagricolis


All Irish nouns in the first declension are masculine and end in a broad consonant. All Irish first declension nouns make the genitive singular the same way, by making the final broad consonant slender. In fact, nouns are gouped into five declensions by the way they make the genitive singular. However, the rest of the endings are not necessarily the same. Here are two examples of Irish first declension nouns.
úll, m., appleorlach, m., inch
casesingularsingular
nominativeúllorlach
genitiveúillorlaigh
dativesame as nominativesame as nominative
accusativesame as nominativesame as nominative
ablativesame as nominativesame as nominative
casepluralplural
nominativeúillorlaí
genitiveúllorlaí
dativesame as nominativesame as nominative
accusativesame as nominativesame as nominative
ablativesame as nominativesame as nominative


So learning declensions does not buy you as much in Irish as it does in Latin. It would probably be easier to forget the Irish declensions all together and learn the five most common ways to make the genitive instead.


(Message edited by lúcas on May 02, 2005)

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James
Member
Username: James

Post Number: 195
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:11 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Oh....yeah...I get it....uh huh....yeah....ablative and such...right....ok.....


That is the sound of grammar terms whizzing over my head!

(but hey...beats the heck out of bullets!!!)

Le meas,

James

P.S. Looks like I'm going to have to invest in another book!!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 175
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:17 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Max, a chara,

quote:

sorry for not being clear enough the first time:

the "an" wasn't the interrogative form of the copula in my "non-sentences", but the definite article

In the words of Emily Litella, "Nevermind." :-}

Let me see if I can answer the question you actually meant to ask.
quote:

so, you would have:

"Chonaic mé an fear is é an sagart."
"Chonaic mé an fear is sagart é."

The first sentence is fine. The second one is off a bit, I think. You can keep the "is" but not the "é,"
Chonaic mé an fear is sagart.
or, you can keep the "é" but not the "is." If you keep the "é" then it becomes an iartheachtaí (a subsequent) referring back to the réamtheachtaí (the antecedent), in this case, "an fear." Then, by definition, you are making an the indirect relative clause that should be written as,
Chonaic mé an fear ar sagart é.
The relative particle "ar" is required when you are using an indirect relative form of the copula.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 176
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:26 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

James,

Sorry to muddy the waters again. The important point is not to worry about cases in Irish, except the nominative and the genitive. Don't worry at all about declensions.

However, if you decide to learn Latin, then you will have to worry about declensions and cases. Dative cases are required for indirect objects. Accusative cases are used for direct object. Ablative cases are used, if I remember correctly, when following certain prepositions.

Don't worry. Be happy.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1315
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:59 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

"the man who is a priest"
An fear, gurbh sagart é.
"the man who is the priest"
An fear, gurbh é an sagart é.

I'm curious as to how one can do a PhD on Irish syntax without speaking the language....

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1317
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 04:31 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

"An fear atá ina shagart" would be fine for the first option, but I can't think of any other way to say the definite case - "the priest" .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 177
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 06:05 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A Aonghuis, a chara,

I am pretty certain that "gur" is reserved for indirect speech, e.g.,
Deir an fear gur sagart é.
The man says he is a priest.

Deir an fear gurbh é an sagart.
The man says that he is the priest.
"Is" and "ba" are reserved for direct relative clauses while "ar" is reserved for indirect relatives.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 178
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 06:49 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Opps. I forgot the final pronoun in last example above. It should be
Deir an fear gurbh é an sagart é.
The man says that he is the priest.
I'm getting more senile every day.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 07:54 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Irish, syntax and PhD...

welcome in the wonderful world of linguistics...!


It may look weird indeed, but it has a very logical explanation:

- Doing research in linguistics and being a professor at the university is what I would like to do, thence the PhD.
- I am merely interested in syntax, phonology, semantics and diachronics, (which constitutes the very core of this science), and less in the very famous sociolinguitics, ethnolinguistics, psycholinguitics, etc.
- I am of no Irish origin, but I feel very attracted to the language. I'm trying to learn it (along with doing my research on it)
- The fact that I do not speak Irish can be a real inconvenient at times, but it is also an asset because I am not influenced by grammatical tradition (which for example talks of those cases which do not exist in Irish)
- I hope that in the end, I'll be able to present a functional grammar of the language that would help those who want to view Irish form a different angle

...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 149
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 08:07 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

I'm curious as to how one can do a PhD on Irish syntax without speaking the language....

Fascinating subject. But I would be afraid that linguistics divorced from psychosocial elements that require a fluency in the language would render the language non-existent. I'd go so far as to say it can't be done. The bottom line is "who you gonna talk to?"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.221.143
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 08:23 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

"An fear atá ina shagart" would be fine for the first option..."
-aonghus

That's what I thought...what with the shave-you, sorry séimhiú, Aonghus. The computer told me drop the 'h'. Now I'm going to drop the computer program.

" I hope that in the end, I'll be able to present a functional grammar of the language that would help those who want to view Irish form a different angle..."
-Max

Ya, I'd be well sorted with a grammar bereft of ghosts and speil. As a psychology student I am very interested in the most efficient manner in which an Indo-European langue coudl be learned. Un helpful conventions like non existant cases does not right help.

"The bottom line is "who you gonna talk to?"
-Padraig

Why the 'ghost'busters of course...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 08:32 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A Lúcas, a chara,


i've been trying to analyse the sentences, and here is what i got:

(1) "Chonaic mé an fear is sagart."
(2) "Chonaic mé an fear ar sagart é."
Indeed, the explanation you give fits my analysis. It seems that in copula relative clauses, the relative is direct only when the antecedent is the grammatical subject of the predicate, like in (1), whereas in (2), it's "é".

Now I have a problem with
(3) "Chonaic mé an fear is é an sagart."
If I stick to what I said above, that means that "é" cannot be the grammatical subject of "an sagart", but that "an fear" is the one.
But "é" cannot not be the grammatical subjet, and fear cannot not be directly linked to the predicate "an sagart", thence be the grammatical subject.
I managed to find out a structure in which this seemingly paradoxical situation fits, but it's more complicated than anything I've ever got on relative clauses.

I wonder,
is :
"Chonaic mé an fear is an sagart."
or :
"Chonaic mé an fear arb é an sagart."
absolutely impossible ?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 09:07 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

A Jax, a chara,

It is true that some linguistics theories are somehow disconnected from linguistic reality (cf. the generativists' "ideal speaker").

functional linguitics is the theory I use.
It is based on the sole definition of language as a "doubly articulated communication instrument". This implies that the communicative pertinence is uttermost; in other terms, the theory has to fit the data, and not the other way round.

Not speaking the language only means that I don't provide the data myself. This cannot render the language not existent : Irish is Irish, and there's nothing I can do about it...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 09:11 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

oops, I wrote "Jax" when I meant "Pádraig"... my excuse is it's 3 a.m.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 179
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:22 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Max, a chara,

quote:

It seems that in copula relative clauses, the relative is direct only when the antecedent is the grammatical subject of the predicate, like in (1), whereas in (2), it's "é".

That is correct. If the antecedent is the subject of the relative clause, it must be direct. If the antecedent is a predicate nominative in the relative clause then it should an indirect relative.

However, I do not think I can extricate you from your dilemma in (3). Pronoun insertion between "is" and the definite noun is the rule found in the dialects with a slight variant in Donegal. Some Donegal speakers will tend to insert a short /e/ instead of é, í, and iad. Donegal speakers tend to shorten long vowels when they are not emphasized. In any case, it is not possible to say
"Chonaic mé an fear is an sagart."
None the less, I think it is possible to say
Chonaic mé an fear arb é an sagart é.
Most of what I have given you is from Chapter 33 of Úrchúrsa Gaeilge by Dónall P. Ó Baoill and Éamonn Ó Tuatrhail, Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann and Chapter 10 of Modern Irish: grammatical structure and dialectical variation by Mícheál Ó Siadhail, Cambridge University Press.

Ádh mór ort.

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 505
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 05:04 am:   Edit Post Print Post

a) "the man who is a priest" = an fear ar sagart é
b) "the man who is the priest" = an fear arb eisean an sagart

(Not 100% certain if that should be "ar" or "arb")

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 06:08 am:   Edit Post Print Post

A Lúcas, a chara,


I don't understand what is meant by "predicate nominative".
First because nominative doesn't exist in Irish.
And second because I don't see how any antecedent could be the predicate of the relative clause...
Maybe in a sentence like "the priest who he is". I don't have the time to analyse the English relative, but in French the sentence "le prêtre qu'il est" could be analysed as follow : since "relative pronoun" (RP) = "antecedent" (A), the RP can be the predicate of the relative clause, whose subject would be "third person singular masculine" (3M) :
[A] = [RP (predicate)]<--[3M (subject)]

The problem is that in Irish, I'm pretty sure that the "relative particle" is not a pronoun and does not stand for the antecedent, in which case the French explanation couldn't apply...


could you be more specific and give examples, it would help


le meas,
max

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1319
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 06:20 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Lúcás, Max:

I can't tell you the grammatical reasons for the versions I gave.

But as far as I can see "The man who is (the|a) priest" is relative.

I'd be a lot happier if I could see these fragments in a proper context, or if I knew what the general point Max is trying to establish is.

Most of the other attempts I have seen have caused me to shudder! or convey a different meaning to me.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1322
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 06:33 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Chonaic mé an fear arb é an sagart é. I saw the man who is the priest.

I recant. I should have used "ar"."gurbh" is what ocurred to me first.


I overflew most of the text above, and didn't notice that many of the examples given were intended to be incorrect.

Perhaps Lúcás an I can set up Áras na Sean-daltaí! .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 08:09 am:   Edit Post Print Post

I'm trying to understand the difference between direct and indirect relative clauses at the level of syntactic structure.
It seems that when the copula is involved, it gets more complicated than when it's a verb.
This is why I need examples, to sort the whole mess out.

As for a proper context, I have none. The point is : if it's grammatically possible, it's means that it can fit into a certain context. It's more like the other way round : here is a sentence, find a context in which it fits, if you don't, then the sentence is incorrect. The difficulty stands in finding the very context, because sometimes you can't find it because it's rarer...


Here is what I've got : (Chonaic mé...)

"an fear is sagart" (correct)
"an fear ar sagart é" (correct)
"an fear is é an sagart" (correct)
"an fear arb é an sagart é" (correct)

"an fear is é sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear is sagart é" (incorrect)
"an fear is é sagart é" (incorrect)

"an fear ar sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear arb é sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear arb é sagart é" (incorrect)

"an fear is an sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear is an sagart é" (incorrect)
"an fear is é an sagart é" (incorrect)

"an fear ar an sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear arb é an sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear arb an sagart é" (incorrect)

would agree with this?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1323
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 09:35 am:   Edit Post Print Post

"an fear is sagart" (incorrect) ) Is sagart an fear - the man is a priest
"an fear ar sagart é" (correct)
"an fear is é an sagart" (incorrect) Is sagart é an fear - the man is a priest, (emphatic)
"an fear arb é an sagart é" (correct)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 508
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 09:39 am:   Edit Post Print Post

With "is", the subject of the verb is in a different place at different times. I'll highlight the subject:

That man is a farmer.
That man is the village farmer.

Is feirmeoir é an fear sin.
Is é an fear sin feirmeoir an tsráidbhaile.

The man who is a farmer.
An fear ar feirmeoir é.

The man who is the village farmer.
An fear arb é feirmeoir an tsráidbhaile.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1324
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 09:41 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Max, I don't think deeply about grammar (ever), I just speak the language.

However, this page might help:

http://nualeargais.ie/gnag/kopul5.htm#direkter%20Relativsatz

The copula confuses many people...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1325
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 09:43 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Also, there is a difference between "l'homme est (le)pretre" and "l'homme qui est (le) pretre" (apologies for missing diacritics and other misspellings).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 180
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 09:52 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Max,

I am a native English speaker and therefore relate Irish structure to English grammar. English does not have a direct and indirect relative clause. This is why I have struggled with it for years. I am sorry but I do not understand French.
quote:

I don't understand what is meant by "predicate nominative".


In English, the predicate nominative is the noun or pronoun that follows a copula. The noun that precedes it is the subject of the sentence. Some have mistakingly called the predicate nominative the object of the sentence, but only transitive verbs can have an object. The copula is merely a linkng verb. For example,
subjectcopulapredicate nominative
The manisa priest.
The copula and the predicate nominative make up the predicate of the above sentence.
quote:

First because nominative doesn't exist in Irish.

But it does. For example, "fear" is the nominative case while "fir" is the genitive case of the word for man.
quote:

The problem is that in Irish, I'm pretty sure that the "relative particle" is not a pronoun and does not stand for the antecedent

A relative particle is not a pronoun. For example,
antecedentrelative particleverbobject
Chonaic méan fearacheannaighbád.
What may be confusing things here is that the relative particle gets absorbed by the verb of the relative clause when the verb is the copula, e.g.,
Classification Clauses
Direct Relative
antecedentrelative particle + verb"object" predicate nominative
Chonaic méan fearissagart

Indirect Relative
antecedentrelative particle + verbsubjectsubsequent "object"
Chonaic méan feararsagarté.
In the second sentence, the subsequent, "é," is referring back to the antecedent. In both of the above sentences the relative clause is a classification clause, i.e., one noun being linked is indefinite. When both nouns being linked are definte, then one must use an identification clause.
Identification Clause
Indirect Relative
antecedentrelative particle + verbpronoun insertion rulesubjectsubsequent "object"
Chonaic méan feararbéan sagarté.
The second pronoun in the above sentence, the subsequent, is referring back to the antecedent. You can not use the direct relative in an identification clause.

I am sorry but I do not have time now to review your examples. I must get back to my own work. I will try to review them later. Perhaps someone else can make the attempt.

Ádh mór.

(Message edited by lúcas on May 03, 2005)

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1327
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 09:57 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Lúcas, a chara
"Chonaic mé an fear is sagart" - tá sé seo mícheart! Níl fhios agam cén fáth, ach... (arbh sagart é a bheadh agamsa)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pádraig
Member
Username: Pádraig

Post Number: 150
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 11:10 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Max,


Regarding your question about the predicate nominative, the simplest definition is: "a noun or pronoun in the predicate (the part containing the verb and all its modifiers) of a sentence which renames the subject of the sentence.

"John is a boy." "Boy" is a predicate nominative in the most basic form. I tried to apply this rule to the use of the copula in Irish, but discovered that not all uses of the copula conform. Once again: Irish is Irish and English is English.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 01:07 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

about cases :

First because nominative doesn't exist in Irish. (me)

But it does. For example, "fear" is the nominative case while "fir" is the genitive case of the word for man. (Lúcas)


What makes people think there is a nominative case in Irish is due to the overpowering influence of Latin in traditional grammar plus the misunderstanding of what a case is.
To say that "puellam" is the accusative case of the word meaning daughter in Latin is a wrong statement, and the way it's formulated makes one think that the word is in some sort of state.
A case is a linguistic unit, a linker, just like a preposition. This means that "puellam", although it's one word, is TWO units ("girl"+"accusative"), just like "to her" is two units.
In latin, a noun is ALWAYS accompanied by a case, meaning that although it's 1 word, it's always 2 units.
But this is not what we have in Irish. "fir" is 2 units: (man+genitive), but "fear" is only one unit (man).

I hope I made things clearer...


max

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 01:21 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Considering the case where the antecedent is the predicate :

How would you translate "I know the man who he is" (French "Je sais l'homme qu'il est")?


ps: Aonghus, the difference between "l'homme qui est prêtre" and "l'homme est prêtre" is the same as between "the man who is a priest" and "the man is a priest". It's just that I'm solely focussed on relatives clauses...
at least righ now.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 282
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 01:25 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Salut Max.

Pas beaucoup de grammairiens par ici on dirait (ni beaucoup d'irlandophones de naissance). Je suis aussi en thèse de linguistique, mais pas sur l'irlandais (mais je parle irlandais couramment qd même).

"an fear is sagart" (incorrect) (a l'air très bizarre, jamais lu ni entendu une telle phrase. On a ce type de structure avec des adjectifs au superlatif: an bhean is áille = la plus belle femme, lit. "la femme qui-est la-plus-belle)
"an fear ar sagart é" (correct)
"an fear is é an sagart" (incorrect) (pareil, dans les phrases avec la copule, le sujet é et où le prédicat est défini, on a é deux fois.
"an fear arb é an sagart é" (correct)

"an fear is é sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear is sagart é" (incorrect)
"an fear is é sagart é" (incorrect)

"an fear ar sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear arb é sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear arb é sagart é" (incorrect)

"an fear is an sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear is an sagart é" (incorrect)
"an fear is é an sagart é" (incorrect)

"an fear ar an sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear arb é an sagart" (incorrect)
"an fear arb an sagart é" (incorrect)

Sinon, comme il a été dit, on peut dire aussi "an fear atá ina shaghart".

Sur les cas, en fait on peut dire qu'en irlandais, on a trois ou quatre cas: cas commun (nominatif+accusatif), (datif), génitif et vocatif. Je pense que même si la majorité des substantifs gardent la mm forme au datif, du pt de vue syntaxique c'est pas pareil, parce qu'il y a tout un tas de phénomènes de mutations qui apparaissent avec le datif, jamais avec le "commun".
Si t'as des questions...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 283
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 01:32 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>Considering the case where the antecedent is the >predicate :

>How would you translate "I know the man who he is" (French "Je sais l'homme qu'il est")?

I'd say:
Tá a fhios agam cad é an cineál fir atá ann. (je sais quel est le genre d'homme qui est dans lui)


>ps: Aonghus, the difference between "l'homme qui est prêtre" and "l'homme est prêtre" is the same as between "the man who is a priest" and "the man is a priest". It's just that I'm solely focussed on relatives clauses...
>at least righ now.

Est-ce que tu as "Modern Irish, grammatical structure and dialectal variation" de Mícheál O Siadhail? Il est super et te serait très utile.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan
Member
Username: Dan

Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 01:58 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

its about time you got here Lugaidh!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 286
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 02:15 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

’S fada ó thug mé cuairt ar an fhóram seo. Bhí mé giota beag gnoitheach ar na mallaibh.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James
Member
Username: James

Post Number: 196
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 02:54 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Looey!! You're back! I thought of you immediately when I saw this post. I knew you would be the ideal guy to help Max.

I don't understand a word of the french but I'm certain you're Irish is spot on.

Couldn't be a better guy to handle this one!

Le meas,

James

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 03:17 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

thanx Lughaidh, you're being very helpful.

Sorry to insist again, but what you call "common case" is in fact an absence of case, whatever the grammatical tradition says. Ockham's razor tells us that it's much more likely that "non-genitive/vocative/dative" is zero rather than something.

It's the same thing in French : we are so influenced by traditional grammar that it takes a great deal of hindsight to put in question certain things. Just like the "present tense": everybody believes that there is such a unit as "present tense" in French, but in fact, most certainly there isn't ("je mangeais" is "je" + "verb" + "past", but "je mange" is simply "je" + "verb" with no tense or mood at all...) (there is no way you can ever demonstrate the existence of a "present tense" in French)

As for the dative case, it exists in certain dialects: "cos" (no case), "coise" (+genitive), "cois" (+ dative). But the mutations you're refering to are morphologic, which means they prove nothing because they are never pertinent: the form "mbord" appear in "ar an mbord" as well as "bhur mbord" but "ar an bord" and "bhur bord" don't exist.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1332
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 05:21 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

La guerre des grammairien? En cas qu'il n'y a pas des cas, pourqoui utilisé tout le monde des cas?

(Is dócha go bhfuil an méid sin do thuigthe, ach...)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 05:45 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Aonghus,

that's because it looks prettier this way.

For instance, when I was a pupil, I learned that French verbs fall into 3 groups. But in fact, the 3rd group is intirely made up of irregular verbs (they are very numerous in French). That's neat and pretty, but now if I look in my dictionary (Le Petit Robert) how a verb conjugates, I find more than 60 types, not to mention the verbs which don't really fit anywhere and are called exceptions (each of them being a type in itself)...

In Irish, it's prettier to say that there is a common case (or nominative whatever) because then you can put the nouns into beautiful declension boards...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.221.86
Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 08:51 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Max,
I know it is rather superfluous to your purpose, but may I ask a simple question?: how many cases in Irish?

Is it only 2?

a) Morphological genitve and
b) Dative, then

c) absence of case? (Usually called the 'nominative')
d) 'Vocative' really only covers what occurs to the words when one is engaged in the act of calling - it si not Seán (nominative) which is transposed to A Sheán (vocative), but really a change to signal calling out to someone, and nothing at the level of case at all?
e) 'Accusative' when one is indicating the actor of subject or object in the sentance, but not a case either?

So could the declensions be like collapsed to a few simple changes as Lúcas said above, and let us tarry not on our sliding rules?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1334
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 05:17 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Max, I wasn't being entirely serious. Language is not my profession, and my hold on the theory of grammar is very shaky.

On the other hand, making bad puns is a habit of mine...

Grammar is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. (I think). So if you can find a more elegant way of describing it, so much the better.

If I may quote from one of the giants of my profession

quote:

Here, the noun "elegance" should be understood in the sense of the second meaning of "elegant", as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (6th Edition, 1976): "ingeniously simple and effective".

The practical significance of elegance has been contested, but that is only a social phenomenon caused by the fact that elegance requires great care to be achieved and education to be appreciated. In contrast we shall stress that in sophisticated designs, elegance is not a dispensable luxury, but a factor that often decides between success and failure

Edsger W. Dijkstra

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 509
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 05:24 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Here's the cases.

Pick a word: "lámh".

"lámh" is the root.

1st case: Nominative

Used when the noun is the object of the sentence, or the subject of the sentence, or when used alone (eg. a title, alias or name). It's also used with the verb "is". The nominative case is identical to the root of the noun - you could say it is the root of the noun.

Chonaic mé an lámh.
Bhuail an lámh an madra.
Léigh mé leabhar darb ainm "An Lámh".
Is lámh í.
Is maith liom an lámh.

2nd case: Dative

Used when the noun is following a preposition (eg. in the hand, on the hand, with the hand, under a hand). This case is identical to the nominative case, except for a handful of nouns. "lámh" is one such exceptional noun; its dative case is "láimh":

faoi láimh
i láimh
sa láimh
ar an láimh

3rd case: Genetive

Used when one noun is used to imply an aspect of another noun. Take two nouns: "school" and "bag". We have an object, a bag. We want to imply that the bag has a school aspect to it. We get "school bag". Learning how to conjugate nouns for the genetive case is a lesson in itself. The genetive case of "lámh" is "láimhe". If the noun that describes the other noun is definite, eg. "the school", then we have implied an aspect of the bag that refers to a particular, specific, school. We can label this "possession".

méar na láimhe
in aice na láimhe

4th case: Vocative

Used when addressing an object or person. Again, to conjugate for this case is a lesson. The vocative case of "lámh" is "lámh" - no change.

Give me a finger, hand = Tabhair dom méar, a lámh.
Hand, give me a finger = A lámh, tabhair dom méar.

(Message edited by Fear_na_mBróg on May 04, 2005)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 06:01 am:   Edit Post Print Post

I'll try to explain better :


A sentence is made up of different units at different levels.

"I told her"

level of monemes (or meaningful units) (there are thousands in a language) : "I" + "tell" + "past" + "she" (4 units)

level of phonemes (or distinguishing units) (the average is 50 per language) (each moneme is made up of a combination of phonemes) : /a+i/ /t+o+l+d/ /h+3:+r/

As you can see /told/ is 2 units (tell+past) but you can't separate them (as one could in "liked" /laik/+/t/. This is what happens with cases: you can't separate them from the noun.

Now, in Irish:

genitive: yes. ("fir" = "fear" + "gen.", "croinn" = "crann" + "gen", ...)

dative: yes in certain dialects (but you can't rely on the mutations to establish it; mutations is what you analyze once everything else has been sorted out)

accusative: no (accusative is a case, but non existant in Irish. If you want to indicate the object of a verb, you'll use position, e.g. "feiceann an fear an bhean" (an bhean = object) "feiceann an bhean an fear" (an fear = object)

nominative: no (nominative is a case, but non existant in Irish. If you want to indicate the subject of a verb, you'll use position, e.g. "feiceann an fear an bhean" (an fear = subject) "feiceann an bhean an fear" (an bhean = subject)

vocative: ? (I can't say yet, the situation isn't clear to me)

common: no (the question to ask is: is non-genitive/dative/vocative something? just like: is non-plural something (e.g. singular)? Since you can NEVER show a unit "common" or "singular" with phonemes just like I did above with the 1st person /ai/, you can only rely on the meaning. In a case like that the unit has to have a special meaning to exist (like "plural" or "genetive" have one). But if the only thing you can say is "common is what you have when none of the other cases is present" or "singular is what you have when plural is not present", then you just have nothing. If you see an empty room, you won't say that there is a non-person in it, you'll say that there isn't anyone.


The beautiful declension boards you have with singular/plural and the cases work only for the languages in which all these units exist, but they don't in Irish.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 06:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Aonghus,

if we are talking about description and not prescription, then elegance is not prior to facts. The linguistic data don't fit into the elegant description of traditional grammar. You can't change the data, therefore you have to change the description.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 510
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 06:44 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Max, it looks like you're trying to find the meaning of life...

Languages don't have "rules", nor do they have "declensions", nor "cases". There's no explaining a language. There may be patterns and "tendencies", and from these we may construct a "rule" so that a person learning the language can progress at a faster pace. I'll even admit myself that learning Irish grammar "rules" has helped me progress at a much greater pace, but still... there's no meaning to find... we can't talk to the person or people who shaped the language... or even say that these people even existed.

It seems very clear to me that language is a subject all on its own. Every other subject, I can base the understanding of it in intelligence. But language, there's something other than plain ol' intelligence working there, there's some special mental function we have which we have evolved as a species. Look at it this way: I can't mutliply two four-digit numbers in my head... but I can translate sounds into meaning in a length of time that I perceive as instant. It seems to me that the latter of the two is the greater feat. Think about it: we're listening to varying pitch and tambre in sound and from this we're re-constructing another person's thoughts. So I just tell myself that I haven't got the intelligence to understand language, the mechanics of it, or why sometimes I say "I'm not" and at others I say "I amn't". All I do is listen and read, imitate, listen and read, imitate, listen and read, imitate... slowly I develop a system in my head that can perceive "a different kind of sound" and construct thoughts from it.

So...

you say, "There's no such thing as the nominative case in Irish". If you say that's "true", you're neither right nor wrong. If you say that's "false", you're neither right nor wrong. "Case", "Declension", "Tense" are concepts, nothing more. These concepts have no etched-in-stone definition and so one cannot say definitively whether a language has these -- but, we just know they do.

Use rules like the rope that leads into a swimming pool's deep end: Hold onto it and pull yourself along, but eventually let go of it and swim when you think you're ready.

(Message edited by Fear_na_mBróg on May 04, 2005)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 07:14 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Fear_na_mbróg ,

I think you're missing the point completely...

I don't want to "explain a language" (this sentence really doesn't mean anything).
A language is a complicated structure made of several intertwined substructures. What is possible to do is describe it. But you can't do it from an introspective point of view nor can you do it if you don't define specifically the concepts you use : in this case it gets all blurry and all you can say is "I see tendencies and patterns but I can't explain them".

You have to take a great step back, define clearly the concepts you want to operate with, and then only construct a theory in which all data can fit.

linguistics may be younger than biology, it's none the less a science.
I can't write again what I've already written. Look how I defined the term "case" and what I said about "monemes" and "phonemes"...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1337
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 07:38 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Max á écrit
quote:

The linguistic data don't fit into the elegant description of traditional grammar. You can't change the data, therefore you have to change the description.



Précis. But if the description is not simple, it is not going to be adopted! But I really ought not to be taking you on in your profession, so I'll stop.

All this talk about phonemes, morphemes etc just confuses me.

Good luck with the PhD. But I recommend you search for better sources for your research. What you will get here is a bunch of opinions, and you have no way of gauging how reliable they are!

I'd say the book Lughaidh (who is of your profession) suggested, probably a good source.

There is a lot of bad Irish on the internet.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lúcas
Member
Username: Lúcas

Post Number: 181
Registered: 01-2004


Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 08:37 am:   Edit Post Print Post

This has been a most stimulating thread. Thanks Max. Thanks Lughaidh and Aonghus for the corrections. I take a new grammar rule from this discussion. Classification and identification require indirect relative clauses. As Fear_na_mBróg points out, this rule, like any rule, it is just a device to help this learner adopt the language. Or is it?

Didn't Noam Chomsky argue that every child is born with an internal universal grammar? If that is so, then wouldn't these internal grammar rules be prescriptive, not descriptive?

Mise le meas,

Lúcas
Ceartaigh mo chuid Gaeilge, mura miste leat .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seosamh Mac Muirí
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 193.1.100.104
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 08:55 am:   Edit Post Print Post

>>>I'm doing my PhD on Irish syntax. But since I don't speak Irish, .....

Nach bhfuil rud éigin as alt sa méid sin a Max? Is diabhalta an rud go nglactar leis mar chleachtas.

Ar aon chuma.

>>>nominative: no (nominative is a case, but non existant in Irish.

Tá. Breathnaigh anseo le haghaidh ceann amháin:
Abha Mhór na Mumhan díobh.


>>>accusative: no (accusative is a case, but non existant in Irish. If you want to indicate the object of a verb, you'll use position, e.g. "feiceann an fear an bhean" (an bhean = object) "feiceann an bhean an fear" (an fear = object)

Tá. Breathnaigh anseo le haghaidh sampla den tuis. cuspóireach - áinsíoch:
Tháinig sé amach.


>>>dative: yes in certain dialects

Breathnaigh anseo le haghaidh tuis. tabharthach, tuiseal atá FUD fad an bhaill sa chaighdeán féin (cé go mbíodh áins./cusp. leis an dá réamhfocal seo fadó):
D'fhan sé amuigh tráthnóna ag siúl le habhainn.
Chuirfeadh sé thar an abhainn tirim thú.


>>>vocative: ? (I can't say yet, the situation isn't clear to me).

Breathnaigh anseo le haghaidh tuis. gairme:
A Mhaxillimigh, a bhuachaill, is ag múineadh méiligh do do mháithair atáir. Fág ciumhais na habhann agus bí istigh!


>>>The beautiful declension boards you have with singular/plural and the cases work only for the languages in which all these units exist, but they don't in Irish.

Dá mba fhíor an méid sin, b'aisteach an chaint a bheadh ar bonn againn.
So from now on, everyone shall say for the above sentences with the appropriate empty sounds (or blank spaces when writing):

Abha Mhór na Mumhan.
Tháinig sé .
D'fhan sé tráthnóna ag siúl le . Chuirfeadh sé thar an tirim thú.
, , is ag múineadh méiligh do do mháthair atáir. Bí .

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.221.153
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 09:39 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Hey Max, I'm down with your perscriptions, baby! For they are like presriptions from the grammar doctor.

This reminds me of a few months ago when an engineer friend of mine and I got making a program to spit out all of the case and declensionary forms of the langue. It was his opionion at the time that there was no need for the cases as they did not fit the langue with much redundencies occuring...be he right by right thought or by accident, I dunno.

Max, when you are finished your thesis, and/or have written a piece on more constructive approches to Irish grmamar, I will be very interested in reading it. I would appreciate it if you posted your college and department, so that i could email you in a year or 18 months, or whenever you ahve finished it (thats if you want to share it, that is. I understand if you don't).

Fear na mBróg, that sounds like relativism...Benidict 16th would not be happy...

"we're listening to varying pitch and timbre in sound and from this we're re-constructing another person's thoughts."

As said above, introspection (due to the subjective nature of consciousness) is not applicable to consciousness analysis. I don't believe we 're-construct' as such. Langue is a code. Morse is a code. Pix can code too if there is agreement as to the function of pictogrpahic elements. If you were in prision and with an inmate you never met, but came to an agreement on what scratches on the wall meant, then simple messages coudl be sent back and forward, and your conscisousnes would 'add colour' to the experience if it were the only communication one had. Your toughts woudl nto travel thru the wall.

Granted spoken langue has greater 'bandwidth' so that much more information is conveyed, and our brains are both strcuturally determined to be more sensitive to certain modalities (sound and vision over smell) and culturally trained (speech and writing over pissing agin a lampost). Forms such as 'construct thoughts' is reflective of a tendency for people when talking about langue and consciosuness to shift upstream the encoding modality (sound between 20hz and 20Khz, langue etc) 'into the head', that is to assue that cognition and consciousness are langue based or based upon langue. There is only proof that it is not. The brain is a non conscious organic organ that 'processes' but does not compute using discrete elements in the way a computer does. It does not use grammar to decode langue. how it works, I do not know; however, many myths can be removed.

The reality is that no one on the planet knows how consciousness works, and if they say they do they are full of shit! In truth, no one has the consciousness to know. If someone was supremely psychic and could percieve from outside themselves their own brain working and any 'ethetic' or 'astal' bodies, (a sort of trancending of subjectivity), all we woudl be left with was a more complex quesiton of how consciousness can be so self referential. In the end, we seem to end up using metaphors to talk about things we know nothing of.

That is why scientists step back and involve themselves in the realm of measurement. It is not to suggest that other non physical realms do not exist, just that they are unknowable at present. That is why I assume Max stated what he said on the issue of 'stepping back', so as not to entertain maetaphor in the stead od descriptiona nd analysis. As an aside point, cognitive scientists are doing the same thing when they posit 'self referential neural nets', or neurons or some part of the brain as been the basis/seat of consciosness.

"Didn't Noam Chomsky argue that every child is born with an internal universal grammar?"
-Antaine

Ya, his LAD (Langue Acquisition Device) which he seems to beleive all infants are born with. Well, I can say I was born with a lad too...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Seosamh Mac Muirí,

I really don't undertsand the point of writing in irish since i don't understand it (yet); unless you wanna make sure some of us (me included) won't be able to reply...



as for "case", i am the only who ever gave a definition of the word...and the description I gave (with regard to the definition) fits the data.
now if you don't agree,
either you don't agree with my description, in which case you have to prove it's wrong (by describing the data, but keeping my definition),
or you don't agree with the definition i gave, in which case give yours, and show how the data can be analyzed

this is the only way to proceed scientifically, otherwise we will never know what we're really talking about.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonas
Member
Username: Jonas

Post Number: 680
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Scríobh max:

"nominative: no "

This should of course be "nominative: yes". As both Seosamh and FnaM have pointed out, the nominative do exist in Irish. The four Irish cases are: nominative, genitive, dative, vocative.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:21 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Frankly, I feel a bit like Galilea in front of the inquisition...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Searlas
Member
Username: Searlas

Post Number: 32
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:38 am:   Edit Post Print Post

You're in a bit of a tough spot, Max. You know linguistics, and the people responding to you know Irish! But most of the others probably don't know linguistics terribly well, and you admittedly don't know Irish very well.

As others have mentioned, corresponding with Lughaidh might be your best bet. He's a fluent speaker of Irish, is French, and I believe is also involved in linguistics. Sounds like a perfect match for you.

I don't think anyone here is trying to subject you to an "inquisition". Simply friendly disagreement on how the Irish language is structured.

Good luck with your thesis.

Regards,

Searlas

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1342
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:40 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Galileo!

Perhaps you can arrange for house arrest in the Gaeltacht?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 513
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:48 am:   Edit Post Print Post

quote:

The brain is a non conscious organic organ that 'processes' but does not compute using discrete elements in the way a computer does. It does not use grammar to decode langue. how it works, I do not know; however, many myths can be removed.



At which point I stopped reading.

The idea I'm trying to get across is akin to the following:

Ask a bat about the doppler effect. Ask a bat what formula he uses to calculate the distance away and the velocity at which a particular object is moving toward or away from him, given the frequency of the soundwave it produced, the frequency of the wave that returned and the duration of time in between.

Ultrasound is to bats as language is to humans. It's not intelligence that has bats navigating by ultrasound, and it's not intelligence that lets me interpret others' speech instantly.

I simply think that the science of ultrasound is just too complicated for a bat to comprehend, and likewise with language for us; we're just not intelligent enough. (And even if we do evolve greater intelligence, our language will probably have already evolved further more elaborate beyond our comprehension.)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 11:07 am:   Edit Post Print Post

Searlas,

indeed...

all i'm saying is: i may know very little irish, but i know my job as a linguist quite well.

i've been processing irish data for 2 years now. i know that traditionnal grammar is a wall over which it is difficult to jump, but people should give me a little more credit...


as for
"I simply think that the science of ultrasound is just too complicated for a bat to comprehend, and likewise with language for us; we're just not intelligent enough" (Fear_na_mbróg),
this is nonsense... it's just like saying man wasn't intelligent enough two centuries ago to understand genetics... human knowledge and technology evolve much faster than human intelligence, and that is because some of the human people do research...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 514
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 11:25 am:   Edit Post Print Post

quote:

as for
"I simply think that the science of ultrasound is just too complicated for a bat to comprehend, and likewise with language for us; we're just not intelligent enough" (Fear_na_mbróg),
this is nonsense... it's just like saying man wasn't intelligent enough two centuries ago to understand genetics... human knowledge and technology evolve much faster than human intelligence, and that is because some of the human people do research...



Genetics can be broken down in one's head though, and thought about piece by piece.

Try explain the difference between these two sentences:

1) Tá mé beag

2) Tá mise beag

I know when to use one over another, I just get a feeling (Like a bat, he just gets the feel of how far away that wall is) which persuades me to use one over the other, but I still can't fully explain in detail why I chose that particular one.

You can't teach some-one how and when to use "mise" over "me"... just try it. A native speaker of English when learning Irish will sound very strange trying to get the hang of "emphasized" pronouns (like a baby stumbling beginning to walk). The only way you get the hang of the (and how I did) is by practising with them. Over time I just got a feel for when to use each and all of a sudden it became second nature. I don't believe it was my intelligence that figured this out (because essentially I still don't understand it and can't explain it), so I think it's a mental function independant of intelligence (like bats with sonar!)

So...

The point I was trying to make...

When people try to define the grammatical rules by which a language abides... it's almost as if they're thinking of it as "man-made", ie. that there were any rules in the first place. I don't think of language as "man-made" -- I don't think we're intelligent enough to come up with something so elaborate -- and so I'm not at all surprised at people getting frustrated trying to comprehend why a certain rule broke down, or why "Cad a thugtar air?" isn't "Cad a dtugtar air?"... I don't just presume that there's some elaborate system of rules at play, I accept that that's just the way it is.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.220.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 12:21 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Ok psycho-gobbledy gook ag teacht

"The only way you get the hang of the (and how I did) is by practising with them" (automaticity).
One knows the target action has been practiced from compenent to sequence and is now one movement.

"I don't believe it was my intelligence that figured this out (because essentially I still don't understand it and can't explain it), so I think it's a mental function independant of intelligence (like bats with sonar!)"

What you are saying is that you did not consciously work it out piece meal, i.e. there was no 'intentionality' involved.

Terms like 'mental function' are vague. What is/are mental function(s)? If you were to put 'a bat in a cat scan' (ha ha ha!) one might see activity above background levels in part A as the bat 'squeeks' and then in B as the sound has been picked up (and presumably) is been processed. That is as you say automatic. No little bat thoughts involved. But function is an out of place word here, unless you say that so called 'cognitive processes' or 'brain regions' 'function' to achive certain process.

Here is an assumption: the brain is processing information, but not computing it. It may not seem like much of a distinction, but if one looks at computers (Turning machines, silicon chips,) which are designed to compute,
one sees their arithmetic attempts to analyse langue as very poor, wereas the organic processing of brains is very good. If one throws away the idea that brians are computers, but retains information theory and processing, then one is in new territory, even if one has less theory than traditional cognitive psychologists to go on.

With grammar, altho I am hardly qualified to make much input on it, at a greater degree of generalisation, one could state that utilising one grammatical traditon over another will lead to the abstraction (or even creation) of one set of rules rather than another.

Fear na mBróg, rules when stated are abstract and are, in a reified sense made up, (just as more concreatly, some might are of the opionion there are no 'laws' in physics only recurrences, and the recurrences allow prediction).

Maybe a peaceful medium would be to say that:

"grammars are not rules, but a set of formalised predictions that under a given set of constraints, hold in most observed examples, and afford derivaton of recurrent structural features".

In a sense, they are 'rule based', not rules.

If the theory predicts outcomes with a high of success, so high that modelling of a 'natural feature' (in this case spoken Irish) is possible, then observances afforded by it can be said to fit the data. But I wonder how malleable is data aquistion in linguistics,a nd as to that I have little answer.

Max's suppositions seems interesting and I would like to find out more; i am surprised at the rigid adherance to tradiotnal grammars here -but then again, I now little, so have nothign invested. he says that contempory data does not fit with yesteryears grammar.

To Max I ask: how much is your current data theory derived/lead? How confident are you that the data you speak of is independant of the frameworks used to get them? I could answe that by supossing that you are grand au fait avec autre grammaers in other langues, donc you have a frame in which to place irish and you find it to lack the features yuo know to exist in the other tongues. Therefore you say with confidence 'Irish has no nominative'.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.220.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 12:27 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

To rewrite that last paragraph:

"To Max I ask: how much is your current data theory derived/lead? How confident are you that the data you speak of is independant of the frameworks used to get them? I could answe that by supossing that you are grand au fait avec autre grammaers in other langues, donc you have a frame in which to place irish and you find it to lack the features yuo know to exist in the other tongues. Therefore you say with confidence 'Irish has no nominative'."
-Jax

Ok rewrite:
how can you be so sure what you say is correct? Is it that you have found the contentious case system to exist in other langues of which you are aware (such as Latin) and then in your analysis of Irish found evidence of no such features? which has led you to the logical conlusion that the traditional gaelic grammar which used Latinate grammical norms as its template is incorrect.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 12:28 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

what can i say, Fear_na_mbróg ?


as a non-linguist, you tell me that the only thing one can do is rely on a feeling, when i, being a linguist, tell you it is possible to analyze and describe, and even explain...
there's no way out of a situation like that.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seosamh Mac Muirí
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 193.1.100.104
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 02:37 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>>>I really don't undertsand the point of writing in irish since i don't understand it (yet);

Is riachtanach an 'yet' sin le mo leithéid a choinneáil ag scríobh, in aon teanga.



>>>unless you wanna make sure some of us (me included) won't be able to reply...

Scríobhfadh mo leithéid i nGaeilg anseo mar gur mhaith liom scríobh i nGaeilg. Is minic daoine ag scríobh leo ar chlár Dhaltaí na Gaeilge i dteangacha nach dtuigimse féin agus níor ghoill a leithéid orm in am ar bith. Is maith liom iad a fheiceáil ag scríobh amhlaidh agus is maith liom gabháil ag póirseáil thríd an méid a scríobhaid.



>>>as for "case", i am the only who ever gave a definition of the word ...

Tá an iliomad cuntas ar fáil ar an ábhar. http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0137800.html



>>>the description I gave (with regard to the definition) fits the data.

Data in a language which you don't presently understand (but shall, I trust). Is this ground that you feel secure on?



>>>all i'm saying is: i may know very little irish, but i know my job as a linguist quite well.

Then you ought to realise as a linguist involving oneself in Irish syntax that a word such as 'abha' can be simply found in Dinneen, page 2. Have you no curiosity in words plonked in front of you, words relating directly to your area of research and in the language which you are, of your own repute, involved in researching?


>>>i've been processing irish data for 2 years now.

2 years is a very short time in 'processing data', in Irish or in any language. Why should you think that we may regard such a short period of research, 'processing data', with some great dint of respect?


>>>i know that traditionnal grammar is a wall over which it is difficult to jump, but people should give me a little more credit...

This and your earlier mention of 'inquisition' and 'Galileo' tend to suggest that you have not crossed some cultural boundary of communication with other correspondents on the board. Ní hé go bhfuil slua ar do thóir - people are not out to 'get' you. I'm sure they all wish you well and indeed some have expressed as much in words.
Maidir le do leagan de scéal an ainmfhocail, níl aon tairbhe ann, tá mé a rá leat. As to your new discovery of noncaseability, onecaselessness, or whatever one may wish to call it, you shall find no merit in it, I can assure you. I hope you don't give the best years of your life to it, but rather that you may enjoy languages for what they are.

Go n-éirí leat.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 02:38 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

answering Jax:


as opposed to traditional grammar, the theory of a language being doubly articulated it very recent (less than a century).

"doubly articulated" means :

each utterance is made of a succession of "monemes" or "units whose purpose is to mean".
each moneme is made of a succession of "phonemes" or "meaningless units whose purpose is to distinguish the different and numerous monemes in an economical way"

for a very long time, we have been stuck with the idea of "words" and "sounds":

in german, "ich" is pronounced [iç] and "ach" is pronounced [ax].
[ç] and [x] are 2 different sounds, but it's the same unit /X/. we know it's the same unit because you can say neither [ix] nor [aç]; each time /X/ follows [i] it's prononced [ç], and each time it follows /a/ it's pronounced [x].
/X/ is a "phoneme"

in english, "men" is one word. but we know it's 2 "monemes" because, although the global meaning is "several man", if you swich it with "man", the idea of several disappear while the one of "man" remains, and if you swich it with "cats" the idea of "man" disappear while the one of "plural" remains. therefore you can say that you have 3 monemes: "man", "cat" and "plural". what happens with "men" is called amalgam: 2 monemes which cannot be separated at the level of phonemes (whereas with "cats" you can: "cat"+"plural" = /cat/+/s/)

nowadays, no serious linguist woul put in question those 2 concepts of "moneme" and "phoneme", whatever they name them.


now, a CASE is a moneme whose purpose is to link 2 other monemes together and which is amalgamed.

take "fear" "fir" "crann" "croinn". like above, by switching, you get 3 monemes: "fear" "crann" "genitive"
fir is "man"+"genitive"
croinn is "tree"+"genitive"


fear being "man"+"nominative"
crann being "tree"+"nominative"
is hardly likely, because unlike "genitive" whose meaning is definable in itself, "nominative" is not (all one can say is "it's not genitive").
this means:
you can't show the existence of nominative at the level of phonemes because it's an amalgam.
you can't show the existence of nominative at the level of meaning because you can't define it in itself.
at this point you can say that there is no such moneme as "nominative" in irish. and if it weren't for the latin tradition, no one would never think there is a "nominative" in irish.

i tried to make it simple. tell me if it's understandable.

max

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.221.32
Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 06:27 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Why are people so afraid to go for 100 posts on a thread?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

max
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 82.226.74.188
Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 08:38 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

"Like all people who try to exhaust a subject, he exhausted his listeners."

(Oscar Wilde, "The picture of Dorian Gray")

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 1354
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 04:22 am:   Edit Post Print Post

C'ést trés vrai, max.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seosamh Mac Muirí
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 193.1.100.105
Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 07:29 am:   Edit Post Print Post

>>> answering Jax:

>>> "Like all people who try to exhaust a subject, he exhausted his listeners."

(Oscar Wilde, "The picture of Dorian Gray")

'Mol an mhóin ach seachain í, cáin an choill is taithigh í.'

(Seanfhocal Gaeilge)

Praise the bog but avoid it, speak badly of the wood but hid in it.
(An Irish proverb)

So, now deal, if you may, with the noun 'abha' (nom.).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fear_na_mbróg
Member
Username: Fear_na_mbróg

Post Number: 523
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 07:45 am:   Edit Post Print Post

quote:

Praise the bog but avoid it, speak badly of the wood but hide in it.
(An Irish proverb)



Not sure if I'm taking the right meaning from this, but... is this proverb all about manipulating other people and other things (in a good way or in a bad way) to please yourself? Just curious. The first part of the proverb "Praise the bog but avoid it" seems to be about "keeping 'em sweet", ie. telling people what they want to hear (be it true or false); and the second part seems to be about not liking some-one, but still exploiting them and pretending you like them to suit your own ends...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 288
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 07:55 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>>>I'm doing my PhD on Irish syntax. But since I don't speak Irish, .....

>Nach bhfuil rud éigin as alt sa méid sin a Max? Is >diabhalta an rud go nglactar leis mar chleachtas.

>Ar aon chuma.

A bhuel a chara, tá rudaí i bhfad níos aistí agus is measa ná sin ins na hOllscoltacha Francacha, leis an fhírinn a ráidht - a sháróchadh ar ar shamhlaigh tú ’iamh... Tá aithne agam ar óigbhean a rinn PhD i dteangeolaíocht ar chomhréir na mbriathar i mBriotáinis, gan aon fhocal Briotáinise ’ci. Agus ar ndóighe, char scríobh sí ach rudaí gan chéill, ach tugadh a dioplóma PhD daoithe ar aon nós, siocair nach rabh Briotáinis ag duine ’bith sa ghiúiré (bhí ag duine amháin acu, ach cha rabh sé ’g iarraidh cur isteach ar na daoiní eile...). Rud eile: tá daoiní a bhfuil PhD acu i mBri.otáinis agus gan iad bheith ábalta abairt cheart Briot.áinise ar bith a ráidht. Agus fá dheireadh, ins na "Briotáinis-scoltacha", níl Briotá.inis líofa ná ceart ag a’ chuid is mó do na múinteoirí. Mar sin atá. Sin a’ fáth nach bhfuil muinín ar bith agam as na daoiní a bhain céim amach in Ollscoltacha sa Fhrainc.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dennis
Member
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 28
Registered: 02-2005


Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 03:07 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Tá nath againn i mBéarla: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. (And those who can't teach, teach "Education".) Meas tú an bhfuil nath mar sin ag teastáil maidir le teangacha agus teangeolaíocht?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 7
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 06:18 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>>ar chomhréir na mbriathar i mBriotáinis

what was she dealing with exactly?


>>Sin a’ fáth nach bhfuil muinín ar bith agam as na daoiní a bhain céim amach in Ollscoltacha sa Fhrainc.

don't you think it's a dangerous generalization?


>>Meas tú an bhfuil nath mar sin ag teastáil maidir le teangacha agus teangeolaíocht?

Generally, when I say I study linguistics, people ask me what language I learn.
But the two things are quite different.
I am indeed trying to learn Irish because I love that language, and I'm also trying to figure out what its syntactic structures are (because I am of those who believe that the sentences in a language are structured in a not so complicated syntactic way).
For instance, until now, I have managed to explain all the relative clauses I have analyzed (direct, indirect, with copula,...) with only one simple syntactic structure.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 295
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 07:34 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>>ar chomhréir na mbriathar i mBriotáinis
>what was she dealing with exactly?

Is fearr liom gan barraíocht a dh’inse fá dtaobh dó sin :)

>>Sin a’ fáth nach bhfuil muinín ar bith agam as na daoiní a bhain céim amach in Ollscoltacha sa Fhrainc.

>don't you think it's a dangerous generalization?

Cha rabh mé ach a’ labhairt fá dtaobh do mo bharúil féin.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 10
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 08:10 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

>>Is fearr liom gan barraíocht a dh’inse fá dtaobh dó sin :)

c'est secret?


by the way, what are you dealing with?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 297
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 08:25 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Je veux avoir de pbs avec personne :)

Dealing with? C'est à dire? dans mes études ou dans le message?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 11
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 08:33 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

tes études.

je préfères qd tu écris en français ou en anglais ;)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 301
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 08:42 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

Bon, si on se répond comme ca à chaque minute, pê qu'il faudrait mieux se parler sur msn ou yahoo messenger, nan? :)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 13
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 08:54 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

g msn, c'est quoi ton mail?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Max
Member
Username: Max

Post Number: 14
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 09:10 pm:   Edit Post Print Post



(Message edited by Max on May 07, 2005)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lughaidh
Member
Username: Lughaidh

Post Number: 302
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 09:11 pm:   Edit Post Print Post



(Message edited by Lughaidh on May 07, 2005)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jax
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 159.134.221.156
Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 03:44 pm:   Edit Post Print Post

(Message edited by Jax on May 08, 2005)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nash
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 83.71.14.255
Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:10 am:   Edit Post Print Post

What is all the editing about?



©Daltaí na Gaeilge