Can anyone explain the difference? I hear they are the same, but I don't believe it

Níl againn i nGaeilge an lae inniu ach an "saorbhriathar" nó an "briathar saor", agus múnlaí eile ar nós "tá sé á dhéanamh". Tháinig an saorbhriathar ó fhaí chéasta na Sean-Ghaeilge, ach ní hionann iad agus ní oibríonn siad sa dóigh chéanna.

And what function/meaning is conveyed by the imperfect used instead of the preterite?

imperfect is habitual action in the past
preterite - single action in the past

autonomous form and passive mean the same by different grammatical means.

I know about the imperfect and preterite, but I think I have seen examples, where the imperfect autonomous was used with a 'past simple' meaning for some extra nuance. There was an example a few weeks back that FnmB pointed out, I think

quote:

autonomous form and passive mean the same by different grammatical means.

I disagree.
- Autonomous forms have only objects (a passive would have a subject), so it is Déantar é. (not: *Déantar sé.)
- Autonomous forms of intransitive verbs exist. (There's no passive of intransitive verbs.) E.g. Táthar.
I have to translate Táthar as "One is." because there's no passive equivalent.
- The person who performs the action of an autonomous form cannot be specified (in passive it could be done by means of "ag" (= "by"), e.g. Bhí sé deanta ag an fear but not *Rinneadh é agam. So if you translate Rinneadh é. as It was made) you cannot add " ... by me". So, the literal translation of autonomous forms is rather "One made it" than "It was made".

Lars

quote:

Autonomous forms have only objects (a passive would have a subject), so it is Déantar é.

Déantar é = Tá sé á dhéanamh. Where is the difference?

quote:

The person who performs the action of an autonomous form cannot be specified (in passive it could be done by means of "ag" (= "by")

The fact that it can be done, does not mean it is done. Normally passive is used exactly when you don't bother to name the agent. If you want to name the agent the most usual construction is plain active voice by a wide margin.

And again - when I said that they are "the same" - I meant the semantics. Of course there are grammatical nuances, but I explicitly stated that there are grammatical differences.

"Séimhítear Muire ar lorg M(h)aighdean, agus Máthair ar lorg M(h)uire."

"Tá Muire á shéimhiú..."

Ní hionann an dá ráiteas seo in aon chor!

I am afraid I was lot early on in this thread. About the point the imperfect made an appearance in a thread about passive constructions. So: I don't know what YOU LOT are talking about. But here is my comment:

The Autonomous Form of the Verb is not passive.

Buailtear an bord: someone/they/people/one strikes the table.

This is not passive. It does not mean "the table is struck". It is an active construction but does not mention the agent. Compare:

Táthar buailte: somebody is struck: this is a passive form, proving that the autonomous form is not passive as it itself has a passive form.

As the Christian Bros said in an old edition "surely it is the passive of buailtear, and if so buailtear itself cannot be passive, although it may be rendered by a passive in English".

Now look at intransitive verbs: siúltar ar an mbóthar: people walk on the road. This cannot even be rendered by a passive in English.

Note: buailtear é: he is beaten. The é is the object, and not the subject - and therefore it is not passive.

Dennis,

Bhíodh níos mó den "passive & autonomous" sa Sean-ghaeilge nach raibh?

"I am afraid I was lot early on in this thread. About the point the imperfect made an appearance in a thread about passive constructions."

I took in Dennis' statement and started a new question

As for the passive, I feel it is used in English to 'front' in ones consciousness the 'receiver' of the action; see "Bearn's good singing hit their ears" vs "their ears were hit by Bearn's good singing"

If we take all of the above viewpoints, does this suggest you can still make a distinction (grammatically), but that influence from English has eroded the distinction?

quote:

Buailtear an bord: someone/they/people/one strikes the table.

This is not passive. It does not mean "the table is struck".

No, it means exactly this. How come you can't discriminate between grammatical appearance and the meaning of the sentence???

Buailtear an bord = Tá an bord á bhualadh.

The meaning is exactly the same.

No, at least for the aspect:

buailtear an bord = one strikes the table (habitual present)

//

tá an bord á bhualadh = the table is struck (now, ponctual present).

And "táthar ag bualadh an bhoird" would still be another thing: one is striking the table (now).

Ok, so let's start nit-picking.

I open the book called Teach Yourself Irish le Dillon (familiar?) on the page 109, and what do I read there? O horror, the chapter entertaining saorbhriathar is called "Passive and Impersonal" with sub-title "Passive-Impersonal Forms of Regular Verbs". To add insult to injury the p. 110 has the following to say: "Táthar ag déanamh bóthair nua - they are making a new road, a new road is being made", then there is footnote which is even plainer - "The commoner construction here, however, is tá bóthar nua dá dhéanamh".

So the books believes (as I do to) that "táthar ... ag déanamh" is translated as "being made" plus it is equivalent of "tá ... á dhéanamh". Tá sorry orm, a chairde, ní fíor dhaoibh i n-aon chor!

quote:

buailtear an bord = one strikes the table (habitual present)

//

tá an bord á bhualadh = the table is struck (now, ponctual present).

It is an insignificant detail. But just to make you happy:

Bíonn an bord á bhualadh = Buailtear an bord.

What is different in the meaning of those sentences (bar for their different English translations)?

Well, you are saying, a Rómain, that there is no fundamental difference between active and passive, because the sentences can be turned round.

He is being hit = someone is hitting him.

But:

siúltar ar an mbóthar: people walk on the road. Eg: people walk on the road whenever the pavement is being dug up.

This is difficult to turn into a passive equivalent. The road is walked on (whenever the pavement is dug up)?

Of course we know that any action has a subject and an object, and so it can be looked at from two sides. The table is being hit. Someone is hitting the table. But the nuances are different because the focus is different.

You can tie yourself in knots. A passive sentence uses the subject in the nominative and says what happened to him. He is struck. He is nominative. But then if you say "buailtear" is passive, then you have your work cut out explaininig why it must be: buailtear é, and not buailtear sé.

O'Donovan addressed this in his Grammar saying "it is more convenient in a practical grammar to call this form by the name passive, as in other languages, and to assume that thú, é, í and iad, which follow it, are ancient forms of the nominative case". In other words: by saying "buailtear é" was a passive construction, he is forced to say that the subject is é, and then to say that the subject é is not sé, because this is ome kind of ancient nominative.

But Molloy's Grammar says "the grammarians who maintain that this form of the verb takes a nominative case clearly show thaat they did not speak the language; for no Irish-speaking person would say buailtear sé, sí, said. It is equally ridiculous to say that é, í, iad are nominatives in Irish, although they be found so in Scotch Gaelic".

The pronoun after the autonomous form of the verb is in the accusative case... hence it can't be passive.

Could it be the distinction remained longer in Ulster Irish, like the usage of present and past subjunctive?

quote:

"Táthar ag déanamh bóthair nua - they are making a new road, a new road is being made"

I would have taken that sentence to mean the plural, i.e. new roads, because the nominative case follows "ag + verbalnoun" if it's more than one word.

ag tógáil bóthair = building a road
ag tógáil bóthar mór = building a big road

As béal Pheadair:

quote:

O'Donovan addressed this in his Grammar saying "it is more convenient in a practical grammar to call this form by the name passive, as in other languages, and to assume that thú, é, í and iad, which follow it, are ancient forms of the nominative case". In other words: by saying "buailtear é" was a passive construction, he is forced to say that the subject is é, and then to say that the subject é is not sé, because this is ome kind of ancient nominative.

But Molloy's Grammar says "the grammarians who maintain that this form of the verb takes a nominative case clearly show thaat they did not speak the language; for no Irish-speaking person would say buailtear sé, sí, said. It is equally ridiculous to say that é, í, iad are nominatives in Irish, although they be found so in Scotch Gaelic"

There's a far simpler explanation: There's no such thing as grammar. Buailtear is followed by "é", not "sé", and if you want to know the reason, you'll have to ask the person who designed the language. It could just as easily have been followed by "sé" and nobody would batt an eyelid. For that matter, the future tense could reverse the meaning of "muid" and "siad" if it wanted to. Rachaidh siad = We will go. Fortunately the language isn't like that, but if it was, you'd only have the designer to ask why... but then I suppose you could write a grammar book and pull an explanation out of your arse.

The idea of back propagating a rule into the past, not just for thinking about it, or hypothesizing, or making a model etc but done in all seriousness when there is no evidence is not good practice.

Slightly related, Did not classical 17th century Irish (or is it another Keatonism?) have impersonals with agents?

" Earlier (still in Classical Irish) it was possible to include the agent using the prepositions le, ó, ar:
e.g. "Marbhadh leis é = he was killed by him." (Keating, 17. Jh.). In Modern Irish this is incorrect!
Purely idiomatic is the modern: "Casadh cailín orm = I met a girl", lit.: "One twisted the girl on-me"."

quote:

It is an insignificant detail. But just to make you happy:

Bíonn an bord á bhualadh = Buailtear an bord.

What is different in the meaning of those sentences (bar for their different English translations)?

Languages need details.
Aspects and tenses are important and differences between passive and active are important, too.
That's why there are different forms.
For some reason one says so or so or uses another form.
It's rather hard to understand such nuances in other languages. Often it's of no relevance but sometimes it is.

One detail (among others) in your examples above is this:
Bíonn an bord á bhualadh denotes a progressive/continuous action performed repeatedly (maybe every day), and this action takes some time.
Buailtear an bord can be performed every day, too, but it happens at once: one single punch with my fist.

Lars

The preposition 'ó' was used to indicate agency with the
autonomous forms well into the 20th century, as Father
O Nuallain makes clear in _Studies In Modern Irish_ (1921).

Do rinneadh uaim é. = It was done by me.

Tá áthas orm a dh'fheiscint go bhuil an liosta so chomh
beogha sin. Thairis achan rud eile, an rud is Éireannaigh atá againn 'sí an Ghaoluinn. Nó, iar Mumhan, an _Gaedhilg_. Nach eadh?

Ceartú

Pardún, a chomhaltai.

An rud is ÉireannaighE atá againn 'sí an Ghaoluinn.

Ceartú

Pardún, a chomhaltai.

An rud is ÉireannaighE atá againn 'sí an Ghaoluinn.