This is something that confuses me so much:

Notwithstanding what official grammar says, some verbs seem to ignore that they belong to second conjugation, at least in Munster.

E.g. - labhrann, imreann. Is there any way to determine which syncopated verbs are not in the second conjugation?

I'm sure you know that labhrann and imreann are non-standard, regional forms. In standard grammar, the verbs labhair and imir do belong in the second conjugation and they do syncopate: labhraíonn, imríonn. These are not only "official" but also widely used - arguably more widely than the Munster forms.

As for labhrann and imreann, my hypothesis is that they derive from the now extinct variants "labhraigh" and "imrigh". If these did ever exist (and I have no proof that they did), they would have been first conjugation and non-syncopating.

Anyway, it's just a hypothesis. I find Munster Irish hugely confusing. Cén teanga a labhraítear ar an Ghealach? Gaeilge na Mumhan! :-)

(Message edited by mbm on June 06, 2006)

Ní hea, ach Gaolainn na Moon.

quote:

As for labhrann and imreann, my hypothesis is that they derive from the now extinct variants "labhraigh" and "imrigh". If these did ever exist (and I have no proof that they did), they would have been first conjugation and non-syncopating.

But you are saying something contradictory! If that were true, then these verbs were no different from "ceannaigh", "críochnaigh", .i. were plain second conjugation verbs.

And you didn't understand my point. Both:

imreann and imríonn - are syncopated (compare to imir)

So Munster is no different in that respect from other dialect. What is different - those verbs still stay in the first conjugation!

At first: "imríonn", i.e. ending -íonn doesn't mean "2nd conjugtion" (see: luíonn, níonn, etc., all of them 1st conjugation)

The only marker of 2nd conjugation is -ó- in future tenses (including conditional).

This ó is due to the change of the second syllable -igh to -óch in disyllable verbs ending in -igh to mark future tense. (ceannaigh - > ceannóchaidh -> today: ceannóidh)

"Syncopated" verbs are disyllable verbs, too, and so they were conjugated in a similar manner.
But their second syllable is not -igh (but -ir, -in, -il)
So they originally changed the vowel of their second syllables to -ó: -ir -> -eor.
imir -> imeoraidh sé = he will play.

As you see, there is no syncopation in "imeoraidh".
This was later "regularized" by analogy to verbs ending in -igh (transferring their "ending" -óchaidh) and with means of syncopation used in other tenses:
imeoraidh sé -> imreochaidh sé, and today: imreoidh sé.

The change imreann -> imríonn (both syncopated) occured later. Probably due to a feeling of further regularization and analogy to the nummerous verbs ending in -igh.
So these verbs have become more and more similar to verbs ending in -igh. But you still find examples of labhrann, imreann, etc. in dialects.
Old 2nd conjugation future tense "imeoraidh" is rare or extinct today, methinks.
(except in Munster: ineosaidh -> neosaidh instead of regular inseoidh = will tell)

Perhaps, in one or two hundred years we will find only "imrigh" and we won't find any trace of "imir" in spoken language, these verbs then being totally "regularized".

Lars

(Message edited by Lars on June 06, 2006)

In North Donegal, I think you can conjugate almost every verb with -eann/-ann endings, even the syncopated ones:

imreann, ceanglann, and imeann, labhrann, ceannann, etc.

Lughaidh,

It is because unstressed -í- gets shortened in Dún na nGall. So there is no big difference in pronunciation of "imreann" vs "imríonn".

Lars,

Thanks for helpful comment. But

1. I know about luíonn, suíonn (even if those verbs are hardly used), but I meant two-syllable verbs ar ndóigh, which all ARE second conjugation.


2. There is a twist to what you say. I am not sure about Conamara, but in Mumhain and Dún na nGall ar laghad the verb "labhraim" is NOT a two-syllable verb i n-aon chor. This verb in its structure is no different from siobhlaim/siúlaim apart from spelling (darn caighdeán!). So having it in second conjugation doesn't make any sense, if "siobhail/siúil" is not.

3. Verbs like imir/imrim are NOT syncopated i Mumhain. I could write imir - imirim as well, no difference in pronunciation. So this verb can be compared to verbs like "tiomáin/tiomáinim", "tais(p)eáin/ tais(p)eáinim".

Any ideas?

A Ronáin,

scríobhais:

quote:

Notwithstanding what official grammar says, some verbs seem to ignore that they belong to second conjugation, at least in Munster.

E.g. - labhrann, imreann

That's why I said that forms like "imreann" do not exclude verbs from second conjugation (only "imirfidh" would). Forms like "imreann" do not matter in that respect as well as forms like "imríonn" don't.
"Labhrann" and "imreann" are 2nd conjugation because of "labhróidh" and "imreoidh", i.e. ó/eo in future tense.

quote:

but I meant two-syllable verbs ar ndóigh, which all ARE second conjugation.

Probably all disyllable verbs with -íonn in present tense belong to 2nd conjugation (except some combined verbs)
But a few disyllable and syncopated verbs are not in second cojugation, e.g. deighil, achair, adhair because of their future forms deighilfidh, acharfaidh, adharfaidh. (lots of these verbs are monosyllable in spoken Irish today)
And some disyllable verbs without syncopation belong to 1st conjugation, too, e.g.:
adhlaic, tionóil, tiomáin and of course all verbs with -áil.

quote:

2. There is a twist to what you say. I am not sure about Conamara, but in Mumhain and Dún na nGall ar laghad the verb "labhraim" is NOT a two-syllable verb i n-aon chor. This verb in its structure is no different from siobhlaim/siúlaim apart from spelling (darn caighdeán!). So having it in second conjugation doesn't make any sense, if "siobhail/siúil" is not.

The form "labhair" has two syllables at least in written Irish, and of course it was disyllable in spoken irish some centuries ago.
"Siubhlann/siubhail" is obviously similar in that respect.
But perhaps there never was a form "siubhlóchaidh/siubhólaidh" which would cause it to belong to 2nd conjugation. (As well as there is no form "adhróidh". Their future tense forms are "subhalfaidh and "adharfaidh", whyever.)
Or perhaps such forms have been extinct for centuries
But "labhróidh" is quite alive.
Well, it doesn't have to make sense. Language isn't logical.

quote:

3. Verbs like imir/imrim are NOT syncopated i Mumhain. I could write imir - imirim as well, no difference in pronunciation. So this verb can be compared to verbs like "tiomáin/tiomáinim", "tais(p)eáin/ tais(p)eáinim".

One hint could be this: All verbs with long vowels in their second syllable belong to first conjugation (tiomáin, taispeáin, tionóil, sabháil, etc.)
The reason is clear: They could not build 2nd conjugation future forms like imir -> imeoridh (and later: -> imreochaidh -> imreoidh) because their second syllable is already long. They had and have to build future forms like "tiománfaidh"

Lars

(Message edited by Lars on June 07, 2006)