I've bee staring at my signature phrase at the bottom of this frame, and I have a suspicion that it contains a spelling error. The construct with the particle a (a beith) I believe should be translated as "to be." This flows easily with what I understand to be the meaning of the rest of the line:

It is not good (for) man to be alone.

My question concerns the "a beith." Should it be "a bheith?" If so, I'll change it.

Always "a bheith": "a beith" doesn't exist, as far as I know.

go raibh maith agat, a Lughaigh.

I've never seen "bheith" without a séimhiú, even when it's not preceeded by "a"; for instance:

Is maith liom bheith amuigh faoin spéir.

Pádraig, Lughaidh is right, but I also think a second look at Genesis in an Bíobla Naofa might be a good idea - I think there is a word missing.

Aonghus, a chara,

I won't have access to An Biobla until later in the day. But meanwhile, do you mean a word is missing from the signature, or from the printed Bible text?

Ditto.

I feel there is a word missing, whether from the sig or the original. If it's like that in the original, I'll concede!

It is. Genesis 2:18 However, just for the academia (craic) of it, what word did you think was missing.

Errors in the Scripture! I don't know how that goes over in Ireland, but here in the Bible belt the very thought would cause many to break out in a rash.

Chonaic mé sin. It was just a niggle, not a certainty.

But I am a Dei Verbum person, so typos etc don't cause me so much grief.

I might have written "Ní maith an rud é don duine bheith leis féin"

---

Luther: Es ist nicht gut, daß der Mensch allein sei
King James: It is not good that the man should be alone
Vulgate: non est bonum esse hominem solum

---

Hmm. Very close to the Vulgate, wish I knew Hebrew!

Aonghus,

I'm assuming the "don duine" would be translated "for the man." This use of the definite article would limit the man to Adam. I think duine has to be an indefinite noun to make the observation applicable to all of us. This raises another question: is it acceptable to delete the "an" from the existing sentence?

Ní maith é duine a bheith leis féin.

I checked out a number of English translations and they all have in common the absence of the word "thing (rud)." Likewise with Luther and with Jerome. I think the intent is to avoid any limitation on what is good or not good. As with duine (sans an) the circumstance of what is not good is left more open.

You make a good point wishing for a knowledge of Hebrew. Who knows, perhaps we have a Hebrew scholar lurking out there who can tell us what's in the original.

(Message edited by pádraig on January 05, 2006)

"Ní maith é duine a bheith leis féin."

I'd be happier with that - "An Duine" suggest a definite person, in this case Adam, to me.

What I didn't pick up on was that "maith" is being used as a noun in the phrase.

i.e. it is not a good (thing) for the Man to be alone.

Aha! Not being used to a language without the definite article, I never would have seen the use of maith as a noun. That makes it easier to state my point about unlimited (indefinite) good.

That still leaves us with the question of deleting "an" from the expression; ie, tampering with "imprimatured" translation. Scholars usually suggest that Moses authored Genesis. He might have something to say on the subject, but he's gone, and they can't even locate his grave.

For me the best news of all is the fact that I'm able to discuss this matter at all, especially at this level. Incidentally, this is pretty grammatical stuff for the native speaker who has repeatedly insisted he is no grammarian.

You are changing the meaning - from Adam (the only duine around at the time) to some duine.

I'll give you my imprimatur (remembering always that

The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or a pamphlet is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed

)

In the field of Christian Counseling (a significantly prevalent practice in the Southern U.S) this text is frequently cited to support the assertion that all persons need not to be alone; ie, "no man is an island."

Whatever else the change of meaning might indicate, it's a reminder of the dangers translation holds when accuracy of meaning is especially important.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhireann muid uilig, go deimhin.

Translation is always dangerous!

quote:

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann muid uilig

Nó mar a dúirt Méabh: "Ní raba-sa ríam cen fher ar scáth araile ocum."

http://www.sengoidelc.com/node/111

Dennis,

I'm trying to imagine you going about with so many cross references stored in your head, not to mention the system by which you retrieve them.

Bhuel, seans go bhfuil seacht mbliana caite sa dorchadas aige, mar a dhéanadh na filí fadó?

Bhuel, seans go bhfuil seacht mbliana caite sa dorchadas aige, mar a dhéanadh na filí fadó?

Ní thuigim. As Béarla le do thoil.

Facetious comment. The filí spent 7 years in training, some of which in darkness, while committing the canon of tales to memory.

Plato's Republic? Filí = The Poet (Philosopher) Kings?

No wonder! I guess I asked for it when I brought up the matter of vague cross references.

Put yourself in the shoes of a novice such as I.

I had Dennis writing poetry in some dark hole somewhere, and I was speculating that he might have done 7 years of hard prison time for some unmentionable crime with nothing to do but read obscure texts.