Author |
Message |
Lost newbie Unregistered guest Posted From:
| Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 07:39 am: |
|
Could someone help clear this up. The conditional in Irish seems sometimes to be used in different contexts yet with the same words , or perhaps it is I who is mixed up . I have seen translations of 'should ' when the conditional has been used . Im not sure if what the are refering to is the formal english would : IE I should like to go , which is the exact same meaning as contemporary ' I would like to go ' but on occasions it seems to have been used to say ' ought to ' is this a mistake from the writer ? also how does work with the ' being able to ' aspect of could ? ní bhíefeá dul , to me is about I wouldn´t go , but it seems to have been used as I couldnt go . could someone clear this up for me as it is causing a great headache . One last thing how would you put the ' if ' of the conditional ? Ie I would go if you go . If it is good weather I would go etc thanks |
|
Aonghus
Member Username: Aonghus
Post Number: 1735 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 09:08 am: |
|
ní bhíefeá dul ... you have the wrong word there, pure and simple. There is no such word as "bhíefeá" I'll come back on the others when I can check my spelling. |
|
Aonghus
Member Username: Aonghus
Post Number: 1736 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 09:22 am: |
|
An Foclóir Beag is offline, and I frequently misspell verbs in the conditional. To avoid further confusing you I'll wait for it to come back online so that I can check my spelling. Meanwhile, have a look at this: http://nualeargais.ie/gnag/zeitform.htm#Konditional |
|
Aonghus
Member Username: Aonghus
Post Number: 1737 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Níorbh fhéidir liom dul: I was unable to go rachainn dá rachfá : I would go if you would ní rachainn dá rachfá : I wouldn't go if you would (These can have a -se and -sa attached to emphasis the "i" or "you" ) ní rachainnse dá rachfása : I wouldn't go if you would Má bhíonn an aimsir go maith, rachaidh mé (future) If the weather is good, I will go. Rachainn dá mbeadh an aimsir go maith: (conditional) I would go if the weather were good Errors and ommissions excepted. |
|
Antaine
Member Username: Antaine
Post Number: 449 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
|
|
Aonghus
Member Username: Aonghus
Post Number: 1740 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 04:33 am: |
|
Bhí, ar feadh seal. |
|
Fear_na_mbróg
Member Username: Fear_na_mbróg
Post Number: 689 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 09:14 am: |
|
I would kill the dog. = Mharóinn an madra. I should kill the dog. = Is ceart dom an madra a mharú. I could kill the dog. = B'fhéidir liom an madra a mharú. "ceart" translates as "right". "Is ceart dom" loosely translates as "it is right for me", or "I should". "féidir" translates as "can". I can. = Is féidir liom. The past tense of "is féidir liom" is "b'fhéidir liom" (which is a contraction of "ba fhéidir liom"). "b'fhéidir liom" also happens to be the conditional mood also (just like in English). "mharóinn" is straight forward, it translates directly as "I would kill". |
|
Max
Member Username: Max
Post Number: 97 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
>>"mharóinn" is straight forward, it translates directly as "I would kill". This is duvious... My point is: In certain contexts, the tranlations given for 'would - should - could' will be acurate, but there is no such this as word-to-word translations that can conver all the different contexts (that is to say: all the (subtly) different meanings of these words). 'would - should - could' belong, amongst other things, to what cannot be taught by explaining but would only be assimilated through habit. Same thing in Irish. |
|
Antaine
Member Username: Antaine
Post Number: 456 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 01:11 pm: |
|
I don't know that they can't be explained... would - my intent is to do it if/when a set of criteria are fulfilled, "I would get it if I had the money" occasionally, the conditions are implied, but are still there. should - it would be right or optimal if i did it, "i should look both ways before crossing the street" as opposed to "i *would* look both ways before crossing the street if the sun weren't in my eyes" could - i have the ability to do it. sometimes, one only has the ability to do it after a set of criteria are fulfilled. "I could drive a truck" -or- "I could drive a truck with the appropriate training." I does not imply that you necessarily *will* do it, nor does it imply that it is desirable to do (should). |
|
Max
Member Username: Max
Post Number: 98 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
counter-examples: every day, he would get up at dawn. should he come, let me know. could you get up, please? Semanticians spend months (if not years) trying to encompass the meaning of these things... I really don't think anyone on this board could do better, especially if only a couple of minutes are dedicated to the subject... |
|
Antaine
Member Username: Antaine
Post Number: 458 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 07:13 pm: |
|
your first one is present habitual ('gets up'), not a 'would' statement in irish ('he gets up every day at dawn') second is conditional, handled by má/dá in irish ('if he comes'), not a 'should' statement in irish third works according to what I gave for 'could' but is sarcastic. the implied criterion in that instance is 'now' or 'now that it has become later' (i'm imagining a mother calling for the third time to get her kid up for school) - also may be a sarcastic statement made off mocking politeness, where the implied criterion is 'if it doesn't trouble you too much..." (i'm imagining someone laying on the floor in front of the tv, while the speaker attempts to vacuum around them). If I failed in either of those to capture the exact sentiment you had in mind let me know...it's hard to tell without a tone of voice. i'd be interested to know if either of your first two examples actually can be expressed using the irish versions of would and should, if anyone cares to post them i'd be interested to read... |
|
Davidoc
Member Username: Davidoc
Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 03:40 am: |
|
I would interpret the first one as past habitual ('used to get up'): "...d'éiríodh sé..." Second one: "má dtagann sé..." nó "dá dtiocfadh sé..." Third one: perhaps, "An bhféadfá éirí..." |
|
Max
Member Username: Max
Post Number: 100 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 07:49 am: |
|
Now you can see that contextless and pitchless sentences lead to multiple interpretations, and multiple interpretations lead to different translations...(the reason being that the meaning of these words is never consciously known by the speakers, the only way to learn it being through habit) As for 'could you get up, please': I only meant 'polite way of asking someone to do something' (without sarcasm or mockery, just plain politeness). |
|
Aonghus
Member Username: Aonghus
Post Number: 1753 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 08:00 am: |
|
every day, he would get up at dawn. d'éiríodh sé ag breacadh an lae gach lá (Past habitual) should he come, let me know. Abair liom má thagann sé could you get up, please? Éirigh, le'd thoil (imperative - le'd thoil makes it polite!)
One of the first things any technical software document does is define the precise meaning of "shall" "should" and "could" within the context of that document, precisely because the semantics are so vague - especially in English. |
|
Antaine
Member Username: Antaine
Post Number: 459 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 09:21 am: |
|
well, even without the sarcasm read into it, my take on the phrase is the same. the implied condition is "if you please" or something similar - the only difference being that the speaker means it... |
|
Lars
Member Username: Lars
Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 02:47 pm: |
|
There are obviously situations one would use "should, could" in English but conditional mood ("would") in Irish. E.g.: Bhrisfinn a mhuineáil! = I could break his neck! (... so angry I am!) Cé a chreidfeadh sin? = Who ever should believe that? (... I myself doubt it and everybody should do so) An bhfaca tú an madra? - Cad a d'fheicfinn? = Have you seen the dog? - What should I've seen? (... oh, I beg your pardon, what did you ask?) An dtabharfá dom an t-im, le do thoil! = Could you pass me the butter, please! (Would you be so kind as to ...) Lars (Message edited by lars on August 11, 2005) (Message edited by lars on August 11, 2005) |
|
Aonghus
Member Username: Aonghus
Post Number: 1756 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 03:58 pm: |
|
Gruss Dich, Lars. Conas tá an saol i nDún Bhreannáin ar na saolta seo? I've often linked to your grammer (via nualeargais) to here. It is very thorough. |
|
Max
Member Username: Max
Post Number: 101 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 05:32 pm: |
|
Antaine, I don't mean to be a nuisance here, but: If you want to define 'could' (and the rest), your definition shall encompass all the different meanings of the word, and thus without overlapping the definition of other words. This is a very tricky thing to do. Linguists spend a great lot of time trying to do it. Do you think you could do any better in so short a time? >>One of the first things any technical software document does is define the precise meaning of "shall" "should" and "could" within the context of that document, precisely because the semantics are so vague - especially in English. I don't understand 'especially in English'. "shall" "should" and "could" are English words, so, of course, this applies especially (I should say exclusively) to English. But if you mean that the expression of tense or mood are semantically vaguer in English, this statement is simply incorrect. ('conditional' and 'subjunctive' in French are as "vague"...) |
|
Antaine
Member Username: Antaine
Post Number: 460 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 06:28 pm: |
|
"without overlapping the definition of other words. " my second post there was an expansion of my first, and does not overlap. would is for conditional and habitual uses should implies an ideal set of circumstances could simply denotes ability |
|
Fear_na_mbróg
Member Username: Fear_na_mbróg
Post Number: 696 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 11:11 pm: |
|
quote:If you want to define 'could' (and the rest), your definition shall encompass all the different meanings of the word, and thus without overlapping the definition of other words. I understand what Max is getting at here. Makes me think of the following... anyone here use Microsoft Excel? Imagine you have cell "A7"; you set its value to what's stored in cell "A8". Now if you set the value of cell "A8" to what's stored in "A7"... well then you've sort of got a pandoras box... you can't determine the value of the first one without consulting the second one, but then when you go to consult the second one, it leads you back to the first... it's vicious circle. If you try to define the meaning of "could", then you'll probably end up using words like "should" and "would" in its definition... but then when you try to define "would", you'll make reference to the word "could"... tricky business indeed! Long story short, "should", "would" and "could" have homonyms in English, which is clearly shown by: I should go home and go to bed if I don't want to be tired in the morning. Tell him I'm in the shower should he call. I could swim across the Atlantic if I had a life vest. I could lift 60kg back when I was in school. I would do my homework if I had a pen. Would you help me with my bags please? Direct Speech: I will go to the shop. Indirect speech: He said that he would go to the shop. (Note though that I rarely actually say "would", I almost invariable contract it to "'d".) |
|
Aonghus
Member Username: Aonghus
Post Number: 1757 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 06:09 am: |
|
Max, I meant semantics in general in Technical English is vague for the purposes of technical documents as compared to say Technical German. |
|
Max
Member Username: Max
Post Number: 103 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 01:03 pm: |
|
Antaine, >>would is for conditional and habitual uses should implies an ideal set of circumstances could simply denotes ability Each of these definitions overlaps the meaning of other words. Plus, they don't encompass the wholle meaning of each of these words. E.g.: 'can' also denotes ability, so does 'able'; and could doesn't "simply" denotes ability (because when you politely ask someone whether he 'could' do something, you certainly don't ask whether he is 'able' to do it). Fear_na_mbróg, >>"should", "would" and "could" have homonyms in English If you mean that you have 2 homonyms in: I should go home and go to bed if I don't want to be tired in the morning. Tell him I'm in the shower should he call. the statement is simply wrong. Homonymy means that you have 2 different words that are pronounced (and generally are written) the same way. In the present case, we are dealing with polysemy, that is 1 word with different meanings depending on the context. Aonghus, I take your word. But it is also true that the speakers themselves make the words vague or less vague. (I mean that the vagueness of Technical English is not due to the language itself but to what the speakers make of it) |
|
Lars
Member Username: Lars
Post Number: 4 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 03:56 pm: |
|
quote:Aonghus a scríobh Gruss Dich, Lars. Conas tá an saol i nDún Bhreannáin ar na saolta seo? Hallo a Aonghus. Áit an-tuirsiúil é "Dún Bhreannáin". Dá bhrí sin bím i "mBéarlinn" go minic. ;-) quote:I've often linked to your grammar (via nualeargais) to here. It is very thorough. Go raibh míle maith agat. But I should work on the translation and content of the English version which is rather outdated, but unfortunately I'm too busy. Lars |
|
Aonghus
Member Username: Aonghus
Post Number: 1764 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 03:28 pm: |
|
Icke war zehn jahre da, und kam mit'n Weib und zwei Kinder zurueck. Cathair dáinséarach Cathair na mBéar! |
|