Something funny happened today, I was asked how to say "I am hot" in Irish...and I discovered that in my time with Irish I have never used or learned these types of phrases...

My first guess would have been "táim te" but that just didn't sound correct...

Then I remember something like "a bheith te" meaning "to be hot" so my next guess would have been "Táim a bheith te" but again this doesn't sound correct...

How do you say something like "I am hot, We are hot, They are hot?"

Come to think of it, isn't saying your are cold the same way?

Is it it "a bheith....or...ag bheith...?" I am thinking that it is suppose to be the verbal noun of bí?

And if I may...throw in one more verb that is interesting because it can follow the same idea is to cook...

My dictionary says there is a verb for to cook "cócaráil."

But then it goes on to give listings like "déanamh cócaireacht" and "bheith ag cócaireacht"

Is there are correct and incorrect way to use this verb...do I have to use the other verbs like we do above?

I don't see what's wrong with "táim te".

I'm cold = Táim fuar
I'm wet = Táim fluich

That's just it I don't know if it is correct or not...

I am not sure, since all the examples in my dictionary have some form of "to be" in there...I think that the idea is to express the idea of "to be hot" and not "I am hot" that's why there has to be some kind of "to be" concept in there...

But I don't know, I was hoping someone here could help explain it all?

What your dictionary is doing is using the indirect speech form to show you how the contruction works. For instance you might look up hungry and find "bheith ocras ar dhuine"... which basically just tells you that you use the verb "bí" and say that ocras is "ar dhuine": Tá ocras ar Sheán.

Another example would be looking up "achieve" and finding "rud a chur i gcrích", which would result in:

I achieved my aim = Chuireas m'aidhm i gcrích.

Hmmm, I think I see what you're saying...

So then the following would be correct?

I am hot.
She will be cold.
They cooked pasta.

Tá mé te.
Beidh sí fuar.
Chócaráil siad an pasta.

Welcome, Welcome. You are now on the NIGHT-SHIFT. Normal services will resume at 10am GMT (i.e. when someone who knows what they are talking about comes along...)

The term cócaráil is not to be used as an independant verb form, is what he is saying. What this means is that it is a form not conjurable/conjugate-able (similar etemology???) in all ways.

In the dic you will of see 'vt' or 'i' or 'vt & i' which means transitive and intransitive.

Transitive: The dog (S) has risen (V) the quail (O)

Intransitive: Where? The quail (S) has risen (V) there

The differ? There is no direct object in the second

quote:

For instance you might look up hungry and find "bheith ocras ar dhuine"... which basically just tells you that you use the verb "bí" and say that ocras is "ar dhuine": Tá ocras ar Sheán.

Another example would be looking up "achieve" and finding "rud a chur i gcrích", which would result in:

Yeah, this is an important issue for me. How do we learners know how to create sentences, or at least phrases, based on dictionary info, as you elaborated upon above. Fear na mBróg's remarks clear up alot of confusion for me as it relates to the dictionary, but, for example, here's one example of confusion:

Scríobh Fear na mBróg: Another example would be looking up "achieve" and finding "rud a chur i gcrích", which would result in:

I achieved my aim = Chuireas m'aidhm i gcrích.

My question is basically, how did you make the "mental" transition from "rud a chur" to "Chuireas?"

Dictionaries are not enough!
You need to read, read, read,....


Especially, you need to get away from the idea that words in different languages are interchangable tokens.

(And cócaráil is a neologism, that I have rarely heard used. Usually you would say something like "réitigh mé X don dinnéar)

Is duine te mé... I'm hot.. I really am lol!

I'd go with this as opposed to "Tá mé te"

Because :

Tá is to say how you are
Is is to say what you are

Déanann sé sin ciall?!

I just don't understand how cócaráil can be the first entry in four different dictionaries, be a seperate entry in every one, and then be so complex as to be used in a different manner than any other verb that is listed in the same manner within the same dictionary....

Different languages aside, dictionaries regardless of their langauge are pretty much uniform in structure these days. What's the difference between these entries?


cook vt, vi cócaráil, i déan cócaireacht, bheith ag cócaireacht

count vt, vi cuntais, déan cuntais, tomhais, déan comhaieamh

And two the the dictionaries go on to state that "vt,vi has been used to save space, but indicateds the verb is both transitive and intransitive."

People making dictionaries don't have to know the language to make a dictionary...because someone who does is suppose to be feeding them the information.

Being new to the language I can't say what's being used and not...but the only occurence of "réitigh" is in the oldest of my dictionaries, the three more recent ones don't even mention it...I would hope if it was a more commonly used expression it would at least get a side note somewhere?

I guess I will just have to chalk this up to the growing list of things that don't make any sense about this language...

You can't learn any language from a dictionary.

As béal BRN:

quote:

Normal services will resume at 10am GMT (i.e. when someone who knows what they are talking about comes along...)

Was that a dig at me. . . ?

As béan an Mhic Léinn:

quote:

I achieved my aim = Chuireas m'aidhm i gcrích.

My question is basically, how did you make the "mental" transition from "rud a chur" to "Chuireas?"

I'll take another example. Let's say you look up the the verb "thank" in the dictionary and it gives you "buíochas a ghabháil le duine as rud deas".

First thing you have to understand is how indirect speech works for orders:

Close the door! = Dún an doras!
He told me to close the door = Dúirt sé liom an doras a dhúnadh

Basically, the noun goes first, then you have "a" followed by the verbal noun form of the verb. Lastly you'll have things like adverbs and prepositions:

Dún an fhuinneog go tapa sula tosaíonn sé ag cur báistí.

becomes:

Dúirt sé liom an fhuinneog a dhúnadh go tapa sular
thosaigh sé ag cur báistí. (I'll admit I'm not 100% on whether "go dtósodh" would be more fitting than "gur thosaigh").

Anyway, first thing you'll do is change "buíochas a ghabháil le duine as rud deas" into:

Gabh buíochas le duine as rud deas.

Then just stick it in whichever tense you want and replace words like "duine" and "rud deas" with your own:

Ghabh mé buíochas le Seán as a chabhair.

Finally, I myself had "Chuireas" because I use it instead of "Chuir mé":

Ghabhas buíochas le Seán as a chabhair.

As for "cooking", try a google search and look for a competant Gaeilgeoir who uses such a term in Gaolainn. In Ireland we have a gas supply company called Bord Gáis, and they have their information manuals in Irish too. I've looked over them and the Gaolainn seems top notch, so here's a few extracts:

Bealaí chun fuinneamh a shábháil nuair a bhítear ag cócaireacht.
Nuair is ar an sorn a bhíonn tú ag cócaráil.
Cloígh leis na hamanta molta cócaráilte seachas an bia a róchócaráil, agus déan iarracht cúpla píosa bia a chócaráil san oigheann ag an am céanna.
Is túisce mar sin a chócarálfar bia in uachtar an oighinn agus sábhálfar am agus úsáidfear níos lú fuinnimh.

Meamráiméis is ea an stuif sin ón mBord Gáis.

"béile a réiteach"

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-39%2CGGLJ%3Aen-GB&q=%22 b%C3%A9ile+a+r%C3%A9iteach%22&meta=

"réitigh greim bia"

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-39%2CGGLJ%3Aen-GB&q=%22 r%C3%A9itigh+greim+bia%22&meta=

Maybe "cócaráil" was introduced into the language to be more specific than "réitigh" (e.g. if "réitigh" can be used to say you "prepared a salad" -- which doesn't involve cooking).

Personally, I think it was introduced to cover the non specific nature of the english verb "to cook", which covers all types of food preparation involving heat!

"Was that a dig at me. . . ? "

No a reflexive dig on myself that I knew what you were talking about but had not the command of enough examples to make answering worthwhile. Someone later would have to come along and do it

I just don't understand how cócaráil can be the first entry in four different dictionaries, be a seperate entry in every one, and then be so complex as to be used in a different manner than any other verb that is listed in the same manner within the same dictionary....
It's not so unique as all that; there are a good many verbs in Irish that are rarely used as verbs. "Gráigh" and "fuathaigh" are prime examples. If you had to have a verb for "love" or "hate" those are inarguably the ones you'd have - and they do exist, so it makes sense to have them in the dictionary - but they're rarely ever used in practice, because those concepts tend to be expressed with other grammatical constructions.

In general if a term is translated twice with the same root word, once as a verb and once as a verbal noun, then it's a good bet the verbal noun construction is the more common.

Abigail

quote:

Dictionaries are not enough!
You need to read, read, read,....

I think that's fairly obvious to anyone! But I would venture to guess that most of the world's literate population relies on dictionaries during and after learning any given language. That's precisely why I have dictionaries - as sources for the meanings of words.

I hope we don't have to debate the value of dictionaries for someone learning a language.

BTW, I read, read, read. But keep in mind I'm still a learner and will therefore continue to use dictionaries to help me learn the language. It's common sense!

quote:

Personally, I think it was introduced to cover the non specific nature of the english verb "to cook", which covers all types of food preparation involving heat!

I don't think cooking is non-specific at all! Of course it implies that heat is being used! No one would cook a salad, would they? I think we're talking about two different concepts! One is réitigh, meaning to prepare something! The other is cócaráil meaning to cook something! The one word doesn't invalidate the use of the other!

Buntús Cainte has a number of examples where "ag cócaireacht" is used!

Ag cócaireacht I have no quarrel with. But outside of the kind of officialese FnB quoted, I have never seen ag cocáiráil used in anger.

Is féidir ubh a fhriochta, a bhruith, a bhácáil, ....

Abigail's point is well made.

'cook' IS a non-specific word, used instead any of the verbs that denote specific types of food preparation by means of heat such as 'bake', 'boil', 'fry'... There are lots of languages that lack such a word.
As Irish has been under an influence of English for quite a long time, it's no wonder new words (or new usages of old words) arise from time to time that resemble certain English words in the sense that they cover roughly the same semantic range. And cócaireáil is obviously a loan from English.
Lots of typically Irish constructions are being replaced (or at least joined) by other, more English-like ones currently - e.g. ag fáil (=get) tuirseach, instead of ag éirí tuirseach, though 'fáil' meant 'obtain', and not 'become' in older Irish (as English 'get' does)...

Daithí

quote:

And cócaireáil is obviously a loan from English.

I wonder what percentage of all the Irish words are loan words. For example, isn't it correct that all words beginning with the letter "p" are loan words? I would speculate that the majority of Irish words are loan words, coming from the Norse, the English, the French, the Romans, etc, etc, etc.

Here's an example of cooking, from Ó Siadhail's Learning Irish (Chapter 29, Text)

Ansin, chuir mé glaoch ar Mhícheál agus thug mé cuireadh dhó le haghaidh a shuipéir. Bhí sé buíoch dhíom mar dúirt sé nach raibh fonn cócaireacht ar bith air féin. Dháiríre, nil suim ar bith sa gcócaireacht

So, looks like the concept of "cooking" is present in at least one Gaeltacht. I wonder if the other Gaeltachts are familiar with the concept of cooking also?

From the Irish usage book:

"By far the most important matter in connection with the revival of our language is the syntax. If the syntax be good, we have good Irish, even if half the words were foreign. If the syntax be bad, the language is not Irish at all, even though each separate word be the purest Irish."

(Athair Peadar Ó Laoghaire)

Mac, do yourself a favor and read the thread again. Who are you arguing with? Nobody says the concept of cooking isn't found in Gaeltacht Irish. Nobody even says that the word "cócaireacht" isn't used in Gaeltacht Irish.

There are three related words under discussion.
cócaireacht (noun) - "cookery"
cócaráil (noun) - verbal noun of cócaráil; "cooking"
cócaráil (verb) - "cook"

What people are saying is that "cócaráil" is not a commonly-used verb for what goes on in kitchens. It derives its semantic range from English "cook," so if for some reason you had to have an exact equivalent for that verb it'd do nicely. For normal conversation though, it's more common to say that you "réitigh" a meal - or that you "brúigh" potatoes, "friochaigh" eggs, "bácáil" bread, or whatever it is you're doing to whatever it is you're having. If you do want to talk about all of cookery (for instance, to say that you enjoy it as a hobby), the term "cócaireacht" is normally used. "Cócaráil" as a verb or verbal noun just doesn't see a whole lot of game time.

The full range of cooking activities was pretty well described before "cócaráil" came along, so it's a bit redundant and that may be why it never caught on among native speakers. I can see its appeal to learners all right though! Why carry around half-a-dozen kitchen verbs in your head when you can get by with one? Chócarálainn, cócarálaim, bím ag cócaráladóireacht...

I suspect I tend to overuse "thall" and "abhus" for much the same reason. Féith an leisce atá ionainn uilig, nach mór...

quote:

There are three related words under discussion.
cócaireacht (noun) - "cookery"
cócaráil (noun) - verbal noun of cócaráil; "cooking"
cócaráil (verb) - "cook"

From Ó Dónaill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla:

cócaireacht, (Act of) cooking.

Abigail, the point I'm trying to make is that the Irish do use the verbal noun for cooking, but it's not cócaráil. Instead it's ag cócaireacht. It may not be used by every Irish-speaking person in Ireland but a word doesn't have to be used by everyone for it to be valid, does it?

quote:

For normal conversation though, it's more common to say that you "réitigh" a meal - or that you "brúigh" potatoes, "friochaigh" eggs, "bácáil" bread, or whatever it is you're doing to whatever it is you're having.

Of course, just like in English, we fry eggs, we bake bread, but we also cook.

quote:

The full range of cooking activities was pretty well described before "cócaráil" came along, so it's a bit redundant and that may be why it never caught on among native speakers. I can see its appeal to learners all right though!

I gave an example above from Ó Siadhail's where cooking is used. I'm sure I can find others. Take a look at Buntús Cainte and you'll see examples of ag cócaireacht being used for cooking. Just because we have words, both in Irish and English, that describe particular ways of preparing food, doesn't rule out the appropriate usage of the more general word cooking in either language.

I haven't checked Ó Dónaill (left him in the office) but I'm fairly sure that the verbal noun of cócaráil is the same as its imperative: cócaráil.
As far as I know, cócaireacht is just a plain ordinary noun denoting occupation or activity, like léitheoireacht and seoltóireacht.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please! If I am, then the entry for cócaireacht should refer you to the verb cócaráil, the same way as fáil does to faigh. The entry should look something like this:
cócaireacht, f. (gs. -a, pl. -aí). 1. = v.n. CÓCARÁIL. 2. (Act of) cooking.

Again: nobody has been saying that (ag) (déanamh) cócaireacht(a) is not used or is a neologism. I thought Aonghus had made that fairly clear above. We're just saying that the VERB cócaráil and its VERBAL NOUN cócaráil are not common.

Here's the complete entry for cócaireacht from Ó Dónaill:

cócaireacht, f. (gs.~a). (Act of) cooking.

The verbal noun for cócaráil is the same as its imperative form as shown in Ó Dónaill. Here's an interesting entry from MacBain's Dictionary,, which indicates that cócaire (a cook) comes from the Middle Irish cocaire.

http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb09.html

còcaire
a cook, Irish cócaire, Middle Irish cocaire, Cornish peber, pistor; from the Latin coquo, I cook.

I wonder if cócaire, along with its related words cócaráil and cócaireacht, is a loan word directly from Latin and not a loan word from English after all.

To repeat myself, a Mhac (and taking teh opportunity to correct my misspelling:

quote:

Ag cócaireacht I have no quarrel with. But outside of the kind of officialese FnB quoted, I have never seen ag cócaráil used in anger.

Aonghus,

I understood your posting the first time, but you're writing for yourself and there are others who have expressed different thoughts. During the course of this thread the case has been clearly made that the Irish don't say "cooking." That is, they don't use a word for cooking. Instead, as the case has been made, they use the particular word for whatever is being prepared, like frying, boiling, or baking. It's also been pointed out that the Irish-speakers have no need for the word since "cooking" came around after these particular food preparations were in place. Mar shampla:

The full range of cooking activities was pretty well described before "cócaráil" came along, so it's a bit redundant and that may be why it never caught on among native speakers.

Again, I would prefer not to re-visit the issue of the non-use of cócaráil, but point out that the Irish do use a word for "cooking," which in cócairacht

(Message edited by mac_léinn on May 22, 2007)

Fine, I hadn't seen that case as being clearly made!
The case I was making was against "cócaráil";
certainly "ag cócaireacht" is in frequent use.

And to quote Abigail:

quote:

Mac, do yourself a favor and read the thread again. Who are you arguing with? Nobody says the concept of cooking isn't found in Gaeltacht Irish. Nobody even says that the word "cócaireacht" isn't used in Gaeltacht Irish.

There are three related words under discussion.
cócaireacht (noun) - "cookery"
cócaráil (noun) - verbal noun of cócaráil; "cooking"
cócaráil (verb) - "cook"

What people are saying is that "cócaráil" is not a commonly-used verb for what goes on in kitchens.

Píosa spraoi:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22ag+c%F3caireacht%22&wor d2=%22ag+c%F3car%E1il%22


Maidir le:

quote:

I wonder if cócaire, along with its related words cócaráil and cócaireacht, is a loan word directly from Latin and not a loan word from English after all.

As we saw in the discussion some time ago on moimeint, nóiméad et al, it is quite common for langauges to borrow a word several times, at different periods, with different nuances.

I'd argue that cócaireacht has been around since the middle ages, and that cócaráil is a recent borrowing.

I found no reference to it in the Tobar na Gaeilge corpus, whereas there were many to cócaireacht.

Is dóigh liom go bhfuil do ghé cócaráilte go maith, a Mhac!

quote:

As we saw in the discussion some time ago on moimeint, nóiméad et al, it is quite common for langauges to borrow a word several times, at different periods, with different nuances.

And by the same token, it is common for two separate languages to borrow the same word independently from another language, possibly at different times. So I think at this point both of us are just speculating as to the origins of the Irish word for cooking "cócaireacht," although I have shown a reference (Mac Bain's dictionary) that claims the related word cócaire comes from Latin, not English. Furthermore, since Irish has been around a lot longer than English, and was borrowing words from Latin before English even existed, it's possible that "cócaireacht" came directly from Latin or was created by the Irish after they borrowed the word "cócaire" directly from Latin.

I think we agree on that; I could have been more specific.

The middle ages for me is pre English, which wasn't even spoken by the English Court in the Middle Ages!

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ages

quote:

The Middle Ages are commonly dated from the 5th century fall of the western Roman Empire until the end of the 15th century.

Before reading the above, if someone were to ask me when were the Middle Ages, I would have thought around the 13 through 16th centuries. I didn't realize that it started as early as the 5th century.

Is the any information on when Irish started borrowing Latin words? Would it be around the time of St. Patrick or much later?

Patrick helped...but Latin and Irish were touching before that. There are writings that prove the Romans knew about Ireland long before they hit the UK because some Romans generals wanted to try and use Ireland as staging point for their campaigns instead of modern day France (Gaul), however, Rome decided it would be better to conquer the bigger island first and then concentrate on the little one :-) Also...we know that other Mediterranean cultures made contact with Ireland long before the Romans. There are some writings on the matter...

But I think I will agree with the scholars that say it was the Roman Catholic Chruch who are guilty for the Latin influence in Irish. After all, even with the recorded trading and contacts made between the Irish and the Romans...the Romans themselves never really dominated Ireland.

I only know about them because they were discussed in THE IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRELAND: FROM GAODEL TO GLOBALISATION by Diarma Chraost.

Also, I don't know if it was finalized, but my dictionary as well as An Foclóir Beag both have "ag cócaireacht" as being the verbal noun?

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on May 22, 2007)

For what it is worth, Dinneen has cócaireacht, but not cócaráil.

Latinisms tend to be dominant in things ecclesiastical, just as most of the words for trading and sailing are Norse.

So, an mbéach-essent muid-nós a rá i Ladio-Ghaeilg-um?

This might be a little off topic, but it goes along with what Aonghus just said...

At school we went pretty deep into the history of the English language. What is funny about English for those who don't know is that it is a neat blending of the Saxon languages that were being spoken and the Norman-French government that came into power.

Anyway, French was strongly influenced by Latin in terms of vocabulary...and English was strongly influenced by French in terms of vocabulary. What's funny is that when French began it's move on the language, they had a situation on their hands because they found that people were struggling with the fact that there were two words for things...a Germanic Saxon word such as "to ask", and an Italic French word such as to "inquire."

Thanks to some Medieval propaganda...people started using more French inluenced vocabulary because people were being told that Italic words more regal/courtly/proper. Don't call your boss an "overseer," that's how a barbarian speaks...call them a "supervisor."

What is neat about this, is that in English and Irish we are seeing this happen again...Irish is borrowing words from English. But when there is an Irish word and an English borrowing people are tending to use the English borrowings...maybe out of habit, or maybe people today also feel that the English word might be a better choice of word usage...?

What do you think?

Here's an article containing a list of English words based on their origins. There's also a pie chart that gives a simple visual representation of where English words came from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_English_words_of_international_origin

I wonder if there's anything like this for Irish? All I can say, there's a whole lot of borrowin' goin' on!

I have seen something like this before, and I will agree with it for the most part. But remember that pie charts are only good if you know 100% of something...

Sadly, we still don't know the exact number of English words...they number crunchers are still debating it...I have seen estimates as low as 400,000 and as high as 600,000 and adding!!!

I know that the Oxford Dictionary did a break down of their dictionary and word origins:

It is very hard to make this estimate, particularly as many words reached English, for example, from Latin by way of Norman French. However, the result of a computerized survey of roughly 80,000 words in the old Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd edition) was published in Ordered Profusion by Thomas Finkenstaedt and Dieter Wolff (1973). They reckoned the proportions as follows:

Latin, including modern scientific and technical Latin:
28.24%

French, including Old French and early Anglo-French:
28.3%

Old and Middle English, Old Norse, and Dutch:
25%

Greek:
5.32%

No etymology given:
4.03%

Derived from proper names:
3.28%

All other languages contributed less than 1%

taken from:

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutenglish/proportion?view=uk

However, I read an article from Wikipedia also that says that there is current wok being done to prove the Celtic influence over English as well. Now I know Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt, but I have often wondered how English can have three present tenses when modern French and German don't?

One man out there is trying to prove that this is a Celtic influence...I don't know enough about the subject to comment on it, however, I find it hard to believe that the Celtic languages who were still strong during the early formation of English and were literally in English's backyard...had no influence?

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on May 22, 2007)

"how English can have three present tenses"

English nor any of the languages of Ireland and Britain (well I don't know about Scotch) have a present tense. To have a real present tense in the sense of conjuction from the infinitve.

There is the progressive construction verb (be) +ing form of verb (for example I am going; He is going). A real present tense would need to be 'I go' ='I am going'.

To my mind there is no real consitent infinitive either, as one has to tack on a 'to' particle before it. While you can say 'we let the people leave the station at night end' vs. 'they like to leave' it does not seem to me like the sort of infinitive iI saw in French, for example.

Some linguistics seems to be saying that the celtic influence was most strongly felt in the verbal system which differs in comparision to other Germanic languages.

How do you mean the 3 present tenses?

I am not a grammarian, and I know this might be dangerous water to tread...

Je parle français.

I speak French.
I am speaking French.
I do speak Fench.

Ich spreche Deutsches.

I speak German.
I am speaking German.
I do speak German.

I think this is the "indicative" present???

I will have to look it up again, but I think the point they were trying to make was, "if the two major influencing language families differ in construction from English, then why does English do it?" Maybe there is another influence in there we missed...and if I am not mistaken, then they taking a look at Welsh or Early Welsh...but again, I will find that article again if can.

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on May 22, 2007)

I speak French -bare infinitve use in a continous sense
I am speaking French -progessive construction with an inflexion of the auxilairy 'be' into a present tense form +ing form of main verb (speak)
I do speak Fench -use of dummy particle. In standard English this has an empthatic tenor. IN Hiberno-English there is the 'I do be speaking' which is a different thing.

My point was that there was not a present tense form of the verb for something happening right now. If we operate within the logic of an English speaker, the ways that a current event are constructed make comparisons with other langauges less clear, thats why I compared it to 'I go =I am going'

I must say, a Do Chinniunt agus a BRN, this is a most interesting thread - go raibh maith agaibh!

quote:

Also, I don't know if it was finalized, but my dictionary as well as An Foclóir Beag both have "ag cócaireacht" as being the verbal noun?

Excellent question a Do Chinniúint, since this has been the commom issue througout this thread. I would defer to the more advanced learners in terms of your question, especially Abigail and Aonghus. Some months ago, Abigail had a very interesting and detailed explanation of verbal nouns, including their gender. I'm under the impression that, thanks to Abigail's encouragement, that cócaireacht is a noun, at least as defined by Ó Dónáill. But it seems to function as a verbal noun. That's where I think the help of Abigail, Aongus, or others who are competent in the language could properly explain.

quote:

However, I read an article from Wikipedia also that says that there is current wok being done to prove the Celtic influence over English as well.

Yeah! Not only did we save Western civilization, but we also taught them how to talk/speak/say/write!

Gaeilge Abú!

Amárach...
Táim ag titim chun suain anseo (agus tá an chearc seo i m'ucht ina suan cheana féin.)

On the "ag + noun" construction (and self-plagiarising shamelessly from an explanation I wrote over at IGT once):

The first thing to understand is that a verbal noun really is an honest-to-goodness noun, not a verb form. It has a plural and a genitive, just like any other noun.
rithim - I run
rithfaidh sé - he will run
rithimís - they used to run
are all verb forms

rith - a run, the act of running
is a noun. Its genitive is reatha and its plural is rití.

In English, when you want to indicate an ongoing action, you usually do so by using a verb form, the present continuous:
She is running
She is talking
(Note that this is not the same as the gerund (noun form) "running," as in "Running is good exercise.")

In Irish, you indicate continuing action by using ag (= "at") and a noun:
Tá sí ag rith - She is at the-act-of-running
Tá sí ag caint - She is at the-act-of-talking

Incidentally, we do this in English too with a select few nouns:
The children are at play
The countries are at war
Thinking of those may make it easier to remember at first... it did for me.


There are two immediate benefits of taking this perspective:
(1) Ag is just what it looks like -- the preposition "at." No need to try and convince yourself it's a progressive verbal pseudoparticle thingamajig.
(2) Any noun denoting an action can be used with ag. Whether it's a verbal noun or not doesn't matter -- so words like caint and staidéar (and cócaireacht!) aren't exceptions any more. They're subsumed into the general pattern.

(It also helps further down the road, when you start dealing with progressive-passive constructions like "The house is being sold," ach sin scéal eile...)

Scríobh Do Chinniúint:

quote:

Also, I don't know if it was finalized, but my dictionary as well as An Foclóir Beag both have "ag cócaireacht" as being the verbal noun?

I don't think the answer to this question has been provided yet. In Abigail's detailed description of the verbal noun, she makes it clear that a verbal noun is indeed a noun. Abigail also points out that:

quote:

(2) Any noun denoting an action can be used with ag. Whether it's a verbal noun or not doesn't matter -- so words like caint and staidéar (and cócaireacht!) aren't exceptions any more. They're subsumed into the general pattern.

(Portions of Abigail's excerpt above have been bolded by me for emphasis.)

How can we answer Do Chinniúint's question as to whether (ag) cócaireácht is a verbal noun or not. I think the answer is no, unless certain nouns possess two different verbal nouns. Here's my rationale. As Abigail has already pointed out, Irish verbs have verbal nouns associated with them. Ó Dónáill's dictionary, Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla contains under each verb heading the form of the verbal noun and also the verbal noun's gender.

But often associated, from a meaning viewpoint, with certain nouns, there is a separate word describing "the act of (whatever the verb is)" These certain nouns are not the same as the verbal noun described under the verb headword. Often, these words have an "eácht" ending to them. Some examples:



cócarail, verbal noun "cócarail" (the same word).
Associated word, cócaireácht, the act of cooking.

múin, verbal noun "múineadh"
Associated word, múinteoireácht (Act of teaching)

Then, sometimes, the verbal noun happens to contain the "eácht" endng. For example:

Shop, téim ag ceannach, déanáim siopadóireacht.

Here's my theory: Barring some exceptions, these additional words, that are related to the verb, but are not listed under the verb's entry as its verbal noun, are either gerunds or they are separate verbal nouns. But since I don't think there's such a thing as a gerund in Irish (or is there?), that would make them verbal nouns - sort of like second versions of the verbal noun that is directly associated and listed with the verb.

After staring at these other words related to the verb, it's dawned on me that they are actually formed in the following fashion:

Person performing the action + éacht


On a related note in regard to the aspect of loan-words
being discussed in this thread, I found this link, http://www.ucc.ie/peritia/abstract67.html, which contains the following abstract. I've hear of the term Hiberno-Engish, but Hiberno-Latin is a new one for me.

SOME ASPECTS OF SEVENTH-CENTURY HIBERNO-LATIN SYNTAX: A STATISTICAL APPROACH

A. P. MCD. ORCHARD

ABSTRACT. This paper is an attempt to identify, on a statistical basis, the characteristic features of Hiberno-Latin with a view to finding a method of distinguishing it from Anglo-Latin and continental Latin. Demonstratives, prepositions, gerunds and gerundives have been analysed, and the statistical results are set out in extensive tables. It has been shown that clear and measurable differences exits between Hiberno-Latin and Latin from other sources in the early medieval period.

KEYWORDS: analysis of language, Hiberno-Latin, history of language, linguistics, philology, medieval Latin, statistical analysis, Aldhelm, Bede, Columba, Columbanus, Gildas, Gregory of Tours, Pseudo-Cyprian, St Patrick, Virgilius Maro Grammaticus.

A. P. McD. Orchard, Queen's College, Cambridge CB3 9ET, England

20984 words; 14 tables. Peritia 6-7 (1987-88) 151-201 Cork ISSN 0332-1592

quote:

After staring at these other words related to the verb, it's dawned on me that they are actually formed in the following fashion:

Person performing the action + éacht

Which adds a new twist to it.
I would have translated "múinteoireácht" as the craft/profession of teaching; but it is used as the act of teaching as well.

---

There is Hiberno Norse as well, a Mhac:
http://www.google.ie/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2 006-39,GGLJ:en-GB&q=hiberno+norse

"I don't think there's such a thing as a gerund in Irish (or is there?)"

If there is no comparable construction, would I be correct in saying that one gets 'pragmatic' on the case?

For example, instead of the gerund, could you use the impersonal in Irish?

'Running is good' 'Rithtear le do shláinte'.

I know they are hardly comparable; anyone else got something to add to this?

Tá rith go maith duit!

quote:

For example, instead of the gerund, could you use the impersonal in Irish?

No.

"Rithtear le do shláinte"

so how does one translate the impersonal personal pronoun 'one' as in 'one does running for ones health'?

A Mhic,
I don't know if this is a latent dislike of the p, but the Erris dialect book has the English parafin goes thru the following (my spelling) pearaifín -->fearaipín -->fearaibín (page 169, footnote)

"Déantar rith ar mhaithe leis an sláinte" or "ar mhaithe le sláinte duine", I suppose.

The "one's" is a bit of a problem. You can use the saorbhriathar all right, but once you do you can't really drag "do" into it later on in the sentence.

If I were translating this sentence for a health booklet or something and I wanted it to sound natural, I'd probably change to a personal subject:
"Déanann daoine rith ar mhaithe lena sláinte"
"Ar mhaithe lena sláinte a bhíonn daoine ag rith"
etc.

But that's just me, and my own Irish isn't what it should be yet, so don't take it as read.

Ritear ar mhaithe le sláinte

(undefined people) run for the good of their health

One's is a tricky one; it really means "I", or "Right minded people" or some such.

I'd agree with Abigail's suggestion, and offer also the even simpler "Tá rith go maith don sláinte"

quote:

I would have translated "múinteoireácht" as the craft/profession of teaching; but it is used as the act of teaching as well.

"Act of teaching" is what's shown in Ó Dónáill's dictionary. I suppose he used the word "act" in the general sense, which would include the more specific words, craft and profession.

quote:

There is Hiberno Norse as well, a Mhac:

From the limited googling I've done on Hiberno-Norse, it appears that it's a term applied to the intergration of the Norse into the Irish society and does not relate to a form of language. For example, at this site,

http://www.doyle.com.au/vikings_in_ireland.htm

it is claimed that:

quote:

From the mid-tenth century historians are justified in speaking of the Hiberno-Norse rather than the Vikings of Ireland, such was the level of integration and inter-marriage into Irish society. If we take language as a yardstick of that integration, the old Norse language of the settlers did not survive beyond a selection of loan words which were borrowed into Irish mostly for terms which did not already exist in the Irish language. These loan words, which relate to fishing, shipping and trade, reflect the areas in which the Scandinavian settlers made a positive impact on Irish society.

(Bolding of some words above added by me for emphasis)

On the other hand Hiberno-Latin refers to a language form, rather than an integration of the Roman race with the Irish race. At least, that's the way I see it.

Is fíor dhuit.
But I'm sure norse developed hiberno dialects.

So, we know of Hiberno-English, Hiberno-Latin, Hiberno-Norse (as posited by Aonghus).

What other Hiberno-'s are or were in existence?

Give us another 10 years and we'll have Hiberno Polish!