Author |
Message |
Domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh
Member Username: Domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh
Post Number: 389 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 08:44 pm: |
|
Dhá abairt seo as gaeilge, direach as Buntús Cainte: Tá an t-im ar an mbord. (Ceacht 12) agus Cá mhéad atá ar an im inniu? (Ceacht 21) Cén fáth "t-" ina chéad abairt ach ní ina dara abairt? In case I was not clear, I'm curious why there's a t- prefixing "im" in the first sentence but not in the second? What is the rule of grammar at work here? Thanks! |
|
Domhnall
Member Username: Domhnall
Post Number: 1374 Registered: 06-2005
| Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 08:56 pm: |
|
Welcome to the cases of grammar we have inherited from the Celts! I know someone else can do a better job at explaining it but here i go.... (i) All you are saying is "the butter" because of the gender of the word butter, it takes a t- (ii) You are saying "ON the butter" and all these little words like ag, ar, as, chuig, de, faoi, go, i, le etc etc will either put on a séimhiú or urú. The only comparison i can think of is this. In english we say "With whom" not "With who"... Who takes an M because of the little word in front of it... Anywho, that's my 2cents. If it makes no sense it's 1am over here so that's my excuse ;) Slán! A people without a language of its own is only half a nation.A nation should guard its language more than its territories, 'tis a surer barrier and a more important frontier than mountain or river
|
|
Bearn
Member Username: Bearn
Post Number: 454 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 09:16 pm: |
|
an t- can be thought of as actually ant or a(-)t -it is really a definite article (from an historical perspective) le díol
|
|
Antaine
Member Username: Antaine
Post Number: 1207 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 10:42 pm: |
|
but the definite article is present in both. I'm not sure about the preposition+ explanation |
|
Bearn
Member Username: Bearn
Post Number: 455 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 11:36 pm: |
|
No I mean the t comes from the definite article having a d/t in history and it been left on certain nouns in present time le díol
|
|
Lars
Member Username: Lars
Post Number: 217 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 11:47 pm: |
|
The answer is etymology: im is masculine. The masculine article in nominative once (even before Old Irish) was sindos. The -s of sindos had been lenited between vowels, so it became a h-sound, something like "sindoh" That h-sound devoiced the -d after the -o- had faded away. So we got sint. The initial s- faded earlier or later. So we got int, today an t-. That's why it is an t-im There were some other cases called "dative" and "accusative". Both were used after prepositions like "ar" The masculine article in dative was sindu. "ar" and dative indicated position (on). The masculine article in accusative was sindon. "ar" and accusative indicated motion (onto). In both cases there's no h-sound. So -d of article wasn't devoiced. So no form like sint as in nominative case could develop in these cases. That's why there's no t-prefix today following prepositions and article. Both case endings (-u and -on) got lost (except for lenition (< -u) or eclipsis (< -on) of following initial consonants caused by them). The differentiation of position/motion after prepositions by case disappeared, too. (lenition or eclipsis is used now generally, according to dialect) -nd further developed to -n. That's why it is ar an im. BTW: Accusative used in other circumstances as after prepositions (especially as a direct object of a sentence) merged with nominative case. That's why there's a t-prefix in "an t-im" today, no matter if it is subject or object of the sentence. That's all. Lars |
|