I came across the following in 'Bun-Ghaeilge' (Risteárd Ó Glaisne):
"An mairnéalach a fuair an sagart marbh ar an oileán."

I'm aware it means "the sailor who found the dead priest on the island" but it seemed to me that it might also mean " the sailor the priest found dead on the island". Could it also have that meaning and if not how would " the sailor the priest found dead on the island" be translated?

I think simplified("an mairnéalach a fuair an sagart")it definitely could mean either -
(a)"the sailor who found the priest" or
(b)"the sailor the priest found".
Is there a way to make the distinction? Perhaps "an mairnéalach a fuair an sagart É" for (b)?

In older Irish would they have been distinguished thus: (a)"an mairnéalach DO fuair an sagart"
(b)"an mairnéalach A fuair an sagart"?

Also, in modern Munster Irish would it be:
(a)"an mairnéalach A fuair an sagart"
(b)"an mairnéalach GO (bh?)fuair an sagart"?

quote:

"An mairnéalach a fuair an sagart marbh ar an oileán."

I'm aware it means "the sailor who found the dead priest on the island" but it seemed to me that it might also mean " the sailor the priest found dead on the island".

Tá an tríú léamh ann freisin: "The sailor whom the dead priest found on the island" --más scéal taibhsí atá ann, ar aon nós! :-)

Bring back the accusitive case, that's what I say

As I understand this sentence means only
"the sailor who found the dead priest on the island". All other options are just theoretical, depending on unusual sentence stress. In all languages where accusative=nominative (at least in some instances) the usual way of understanding is that the first word is the agent, the second one is object.

Anyway "dead priests" find sailors only in very specific contexts. I would not imagine that normally "sailor who was found by dead priest" was said.

Róman, although dead priests do not find sailors often, it must be a possible reading of the sentence. An early pre-war Christian Brother's Grammar (hereinafter CBG) gives the example of :

an fear a bhuail Seaghán: which means either "the man who struck John, or the man whom John struck".

The book says that the latter meaning, to avoid doubt, can be expressed as "an fear gur bhuail Seaghán".

The latest version of the CBG gives the example of:

sin a fear a mhol an sagart: which means either "that is the man who praised the priest" or "that is the man whom the priest praised". This versiion of the CBG recommends saying the latter as: "sin an fear ar mhol an sagart é".

If you say that the agent always comes first and then the object, what about: "an chulaith a cheannaigh mé"? The suit that spends me? We just have to live with the fact that Irish relative clauses are a lot of fun!!

sin a fear a mhol an sagart

just add urú:

sin a fear a mhol an zsagart = ???

and it was at this point I got confused as it is a relative sentance, but if we bodge VSO over it, sagart is last and so is object of sentance, which is cheating and probably not right.

Scríobh Róman:
As I understand this sentence means only
"the sailor who found the dead priest on the island". All other options are just theoretical, depending on unusual sentence stress.

Aontaím leis an mbarúil sin. Sometimes we get lucky when the theoretical alternatives wouldn't make much sense, which leaves us less ambiguity.



By the bye, a James, do you own the recordings for this book? I've had the book a while now, but know of no one who has copies of the recordings.

Using "go"/"gur" instead of eclipsing "a" or "ar" is a Munster feature.

You can say "An mairnéalach a bhfuair an sagart é", as you said "sin an fear ar mhol an sagart é".

"By the bye, a James, do you own the recordings for this book? I've had the book a while now, but know of no one who has copies of the recordings."
No, unfortunately not. I came across the book just before Christmas in a second-hand bookshop. I've found it very interesting so far.


Regarding the second alternative I originally gave- " the sailor the priest found dead on the island". Besides this specific sentence, I'm not sure how to translate this type of sentence E.G. "The man the police found SHOT in the river"; "The plate Eoin left BROKEN in the sink" etc.
"An fear a fuair na gardaí LÁMHACHTA san abhainn".
"An pláta a d'fhág Eoin BRISTE sa doirteall".
It's how to use ther adjectives in sentences such as these I have difficulty with. Clearly "An fear lámhachta a fuair na gardaí san abhainn" means "the shot man the police found....".
Are the above examples right and, if so, does it matter that they could also mean "the man the shot police found in the river" & "the plate (that) broken Eoin left in the sink" :) ?

What about this?
"An fear a fuarthas lámhachta ag na Gardaí san abhainn"?

To avoid ambiguity

An fear a fuair na gardaí san abhainn, agus é lámhachta.

or

An fear lámhachta a fuair na gardaí san abhainn


Yours could mean the man found in the river having been shot by the Gardaí.

quote:

Yours could mean the man found in the river having been shot by the Gardaí.

Looks like a newspaper headline in the Six counties.

"Yours could mean the man found in the river having been shot by the Gardaí."
Of course! I see that now. It's a good thing I haven't tried reporting for an Irish language newspaper. Quite a scandal could have been caused :)

"just add urú: / sin a fear a mhol an zsagart = ???"

zsagart?

The urú s>z only exists in Cleare Island Irish. But anyway, why would there be urú on "sagart" in the sentence "sin an fear a mhol an sagart" ?

My reasoning was to suggestd a 'accusative-esque' solution to the subject /object confusion in the sentance, but then realised the very nature of the relative sentance made me feel unsure of which noun to elect as an object canidate

A BhRN,

There was no urú in accusative, so?

There was... in Old Irish, Middle Irish and maybe in Classical Irish (Dennis will tell us). No modern dialect has retained that, so except if you want to use a 400 years old (at least) dialect of Irish, I think it would be better to find another solution :-)

quote:

and maybe in Classical Irish

Bhí an tuiseal áinsíoch beo fós - ar éigean - sa Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach ar lorg réamhfhocal áirithe nuair a bhí "siúl" i gceist san abairt. Seo péire ó thráchtas gramadaí ón am sin:

Rachad ar an gcnoc. (Rachaidh mé [suas] ar an gcnoc.)

Atá fear 'na rioth ar an chnuc. (Tá fear ag rith ar an gcnoc.)

quote:

Bhí an tuiseal áinsíoch beo fós - ar éigean - sa Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach

Ach an raibh an t-urú tar éis an alt ann? mar shampla -

Chím an mbád (????)

So it was not a true accusitive (no seperate form)

Also:

eclipsis for motion "I went UPWARDS on the [E] hill" and statis "I was UP on the [L] hill"

Chuaidh mé suas ar an groc

Bhís thuas ar an chroc (dative of location)

quote:

Ach an raibh an t-urú tar éis an alt ann? mar shampla -

Chím an mbád

Tá abairtí mar sin le fáil sa Mheán-Ghaeilge, ach bhí an t-áinsíoch ag dul i léig faoin am sin. Uaireanta tá urú ann ar lorg an ailt, uaireanta eile níl. Mar shampla:

ór ná fil lem-sa in mbroind-sin = Since I don't have that belly (a very large one, just described). Is abairt í seo as an scéal Aislinge Meic Con Glinne.

ainmneach: brú
áinsíoch: broinn

NB: "fil" (mod. (bh)fuil) is followed by the accusative in early Irish. Nach suimiúil é sin?

Ach ar an láimh eile, seo abairt eile as an téacs céanna, gan urú (.i. d- in áit nd-):

Co n-acca trá in doirrseóir = Then I saw the doorkeeper.

Úsáidtear an t-áinsíoch + urú tar éis an ailt, le cuspóir an bhriathair a mharcáil, sa Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach freisin ó am go ham, i bhfilíocht go háirithe, ach ní go minic agus ní go rialta.

quote:

fil" (mod. (bh)fuil) is followed by the accusative in early Irish. Nach suimiúil é sin?

If I recollect correctly the initial meaning of "fil" was "to see", therefore "file" was some kind of "clarevoyant" (spelling???), not poet initially.

So accusative is logical

"since I [don't see] (what?} that belly (acc.)"

Anyway, this sentence is interesting in other way -

"ná fuil liom-sa an brú" - isn't it copula used with "le" now? like - "ní liom-sa an brú".

quote:

If I recollect correctly [más buan mo chuimhne] the initial meaning of "fil" was "to see",

Sin agat é.

quote:

therefore "file" was some kind of "clarevoyant" (spelling???), not poet initially.

Ceart.

History: Old Irish "fili" derives from Archaic Irish (ca. 500 AD) *welís. An Ogham inscription from this period contains the word VELITAS, apparently a genitive singular form ( = "of (a) poet") corresponding to Old Irish "filed". McCone derives the word from the Insular Celtic verbal root *wel-. Compare Welsh "gweld" (to see).The words "fuil", "bhfuil" and "níl", long firmly established as forms of the verb "to be", are related. They originally had the imperative meaning "see!, look at!", and in Old Irish were still followed by the accusative case.

Thóg mé an sliocht sin verbatim ó "Focal an Lae" :

http://w3.lincolnu.edu/~focal/

Here's an interesting survival of the accusative (with urú and motion) versus dative (with séimhiú and stasis) distinction in Modern Irish:

ar chúl vs. ar gcúl

Tá sé ag dul ar gcúl. Thug sí céim ar gcúl.

Tá sé (ina sheasamh) ar chúl an tí.

Would it be correct to say that the use of the accusative after (bh)fuil had long ceased by the 15th century?

Ni f(h)uil m(h)naoi istigh; ni f(h)uil in b(hean) istigh (from McKenna, 'Bardic Syntactical Tracts', a selection of grammatical snippets from a treatise on a form of 'Bardic Dialect' used after the 12th century)


Feminine def art nom singular forms: ind', in', int

Feminine def art acc singular forms: in n-, lasin n-, etc

(from Old Irish Paradigms, Osborn Bergin)

There is quite clearly no difference in case despite some apparent similarity in the written form of the def art


The book has many examples of the nom used instead