Tá Seán i ndiaidh cos a bhriseadh; agus Tá cos briste ag Seán.

Do these mean the same?

Also, how does one tell the difference between:

I have broken a leg and I have a broken leg. (Tá cos briste agam.)

Both constructions are used to report an event that has recently occurred, but i ndiaidh (or tar éis) emphasises that it has only just now occurred. In most cases, I would translate the first sentence as "Seán has just broken his leg."

Also, how does one tell the difference between: I have broken a leg and I have a broken leg.

Not to be flippant, but why does one need to?

In German the two versions would be:

Ich habe ein Bein gebrochen. (= I have broken a leg. = Tá mé i ndiaidh cos a bhriseadh.)

Ich habe ein gebrochenes Bein. (= I have a broken leg. = Tá cos briste agam.)


In every one of the languages the first version seems to place emphasis on the event and the second on the condition.

What about "I have a leg broken"?

Ich habe ein Bein gebrochen. (= I have broken a leg. = *Tá mé i ndiaidh cos a bhriseadh.)

Schauen Sie sich gefälligst das an, was ich oben gerade geschrieben hab. "Tá mé i ndiaidh cos a bhriseadh" heisst doch "Ich habe gerade ein Bein gebrochen."

quote:

Not to be flippant, but why does one need to?

Because it makes a difference when placed in context. Mar sampla:

I'm walking through the Connor Pass and an angry herd of sheep suddenly springs from the fog and I go tumbling down the mountainside. (Don't laugh! This actually happened to me...OK...the tumbling down the mountainside didn't happen but the herd of sheep springing out of the fog did). A local teen out tending to his father's flock of wayward ovids happens upon me and asks "An bhfuil tú OK?" (I had to make it a teenager because I don't know how to convey that completely in Irish. I thought it would be more believable if a teenager mixed the Irish and the english just like they do on Ros Na Rún ) I respond "Níl mé OK. I have broken a leg!"

Now, some hours later after having been properly tended to by the good physicians in An Daingean I manage to contact my wife on the cell phone. She's been out shopping all day and despite repeated warnings to me about how we're travelling on a budget, she has managed to spend enough money on crystal and sweaters to finance the overthrow of a small country. (Again...don't laugh..that actually happened). So, once I finally manage to get her on the cell phone and explain that I've been injured, she asks "Cén scéal?" I respond "Tá cos briste agam. Ach, nach habair é. Táim ina Droichead Beag agus tá deoch go leor anseo. Taim OK."

OK..so I butchered some Irish but hopefully, this has illustrated the difference between "I have broken a leg" and "I have a broken leg" and why one would need to differentiate between the two.

Sorry, James, but you haven't illustrated anything. All you've done is shown that, given different contexts, certain English speakers would be likely to use different constructions. That tells me nothing about the necessity of using one construction rather than the other in each context--not even in English, let alone Irish.

Let's go back to the first case: You've fallen, the teenager ask you if you are ceart go leor. You reply, "Níl mé OK, tá cos briste agam!" He's not sure what to make of this (and, taking you for a litigious American tourist on account of your unidiomatic Irish, more than a little afraid of being sued) so he asks you to clarify: "An bhfuil cos i ndiaidh briseadh ort nó an raibh sí briste agat cheana?" He's made the distinction that's vital in context--did your leg break just now (exposing his family and their murderous sheep to potentially devastating legal action) or had you broken it previously (thus neatly accounting for your ignominious plunge down the hillside without any hint of liability on the part of his woolly charges)? And he's done so using the native resources of Irish which in this case--as in so many others--don't happen to line up perfectly with those employed in English.

That's all I was getting at, a Phádraig. Turn the question around and ask "How does one tell the difference between Bhris sé mo chos and Bhris sé mo chos orm (He broke my leg)" and perhaps you'll see the flaw in this line of thinking.

Tá sé tréis a chos a bhriseadh ~he is after breaking his leg

Ta a chos briste aige ~his leg is broken


I do not see the problem -in the first it has just happened, in the second it is a current state, but time is not explicitly referenced

A Dhomhnaillín,

I appreciate your humorous and effective response. Your points are well taken. Once again I've seen this through an English speaking mind rather than understanding it from a Irish speaking perspective.

Le meas,

James

Perhaps a bit too elementary but I also would look at it this way:

"I have broken a leg" This is something I've done. Maybe I just did it or maybe it's a confession of past indescretions...say, actions I took against a particularly loathin a dark alley late one night.

vs

"I have a broken leg" as a means of describing the state of my leg. It was a normal healthy leg capable of bearing weight, kicking a football and propelling me as quickly as could be expected across varying terrain. However, now it's broken.

To me these are two very different concepts. They may be concepts that do not have a differentiation in spoken Irish but conceptually there is a difference.

Bear in mind..I'm not a linguist. I'm just some product of the US Education system struggling to learn a language.

Maybe I see what you are getting at:

Bhris mé mo chos -I broke my leg (I did it myself, or in the course of my own actions)

Tá mo chos briste agam -I'm nursing a broken leg

Táim tréis mo chos a bhriseadh -God, I'm after breaking my leg

Briseadh mo chos orm -my leg was broken on me

quote:

"I have broken a leg" This is something I've done. Maybe I just did it or maybe it's a confession of past indescretions...say, actions I took against a particularly loathin a dark alley late one night.

Sorry that should have read...particularly loathesome individual in a dark alley...

Didn't catch it before I posted.

But yes...Bearn, those are the differences I was trying to illustrate. Each means essentially the same thing..my leg is broken. However, the context in which that leg and its broken state are being discussed differs.

At least, to me there's a difference.

Well I have nothing more to add to this discussion then, since I can't figure out what sort of distinction you are getting at.

Here are some more stabs for what it is worth:

He's breaking my leg now/ Tá sé á bhriseadh mo cos anois [Action]

He's after breaking my leg/ Tá sé tréis mo chos a bhriseadh orm [Recency]

My leg is broken because of a fight/Tá mo cos briste mar bhí mé ag troid [Statement]

He broke my leg/ Bhris sé mo chos [Statement]

My leg was broken/ Briseadh mo chos [Event]

My leg is broken now/ Tá mo cos briste anois [State]

Tá cos bhriste agam [Having/State]

Tá cos (liom) briste agam - I have broken a leg (of mine)
Tá cos bhriste agam - I have a broken leg

D'fhéadfaí 'leathchos' a rá chomh maith.

A Abigail,

Other than the aspiration in b(h)riste the two are identical. I did not know that the verbal adjective can be aspirated to alter its contextual intention. Can it?

The point of my initial question is that the statement can be read two ways:

Tá cos briste agam = I have a leg (which is now) broken.

Tá cos briste agam = (Years ago) I broke a leg.

'I broke a leg' would use the simple past:
Bhris mé cos (liom) - I broke (my) leg.

As for the aspiration, it's not a matter of intention really, but of syntax. In the first one the adjective modifies the noun attributively, so is declined and lenited based on gender and number of the noun. In the second it's predicative, so is not declined or lenited at all. It's the difference between 'na gasúir chiúine' and 'tá na gasúir ciúin.'

If you had said 'ceann briste' it would indeed be ambiguous, but 'cos' is feminine so it lenites an attributive adjective.


For what it's worth I would be inclined to include the 'liom' in these sentences where I've indicated - more strongly inclined than to use 'my' in English. I would also tend to say 'tá cos liom briste' (a leg of mine is broken) rather than 'tá cos bhriste agam' (I possess a broken leg) in the first place, but maybe that's just me.

A Dhomhnaillín,

nó mar a deirtear anseo "i han mei Fiaßle grad broche".

Ach an féidir le cos bhriste bheith díreach?


A Abigail,

my "cos briste" was aspirated; now it's ex-aspirated.

An bhféadfaí éirí níos measa?

Botzblitz, Ormondo! Si schwätze wi n ächt Bobbele! Hänse dr Brofessor Bilch aa dr Uni dert kännt?

(Mar is cás leis an chuid Gaelainne atá agam labhraím mo chuid Gearmáinise le blas iardheisceartach.)

You can see the difference in English:

He is good [predictive]
Good man [attributive]

"but maybe that's just me."

No, your examples trump mine

Dúirt Abigail As for the aspiration, it's not a matter of intention really, but of syntax. In the first one the adjective modifies the noun attributively, so is declined and lenited based on gender and number of the noun. In the second it's predicative, so is not declined or lenited at all. It's the difference between 'na gasúir chiúine' and 'tá na gasúir ciúin.'

I think this answers my question which was how does one tell the difference...etc...

Answer: lenite briste.

A Phádraig, as Abigail explains, that works in this instance because of the gender of cos, but it wouldn't work if you broke your hip, your neck, your wrist, and so forth.

But if you read what she's saying a little closer, it's similar to what Bearn and I have been trying to express: The ambiguity doesn't really come up because Irish has other more common constructions available. I agree with Abigail that "tá cos liom briste" sounds more idiomatic and, furthermore, I'm finding it hard to come up with a circumstance where someone would naturally say "tá cos briste agam". The Irish "perfect" just isn't used nearly as much as similar constructions in other languages (including English).

Dúirt Daniel The Irish "perfect" just isn't used nearly as much as similar constructions in other languages (including English).

Which is why in the past I have encountered so much difficulty getting answers about the perfect tenses in Irish. Apparently they exist as in the case of tá an doras dunta agam, but not frequently used, certainly not to the degree that warrants their inclusion in charts designed to teach conjugation of verbs: I have shut; I had shut; I will have shut etc.

Where do you find charts like that? My teaching materials only have charts for the synthetic tenses. Anything else is dealt with in a less-structured fashion in the sections on the verbal noun or the verbal adjective, as appropriate.

That's because they aren't verb tenses at all really. It's an honest-to-goodness preposition.

Tá an doras dúnta - the door is closed
Tá an doras dúnta agam - the door is closed due-to-me

We may use it to translate perfect tenses from English, but it isn't a perfect tense itself - isn't a verb tense at all - and it shouldn't be construed as one.

Great Big Go Raibh Maith Agat, Abigail. At last!! One more question:
Are there, indeed, no perfect tenses in Irish?

There are round about ways of saying the same, just not verb inflexions to do it

quote:

Are there, indeed, no perfect tenses in Irish?

Indeed, there are none. Most places where English uses a perfect, Irish prefers the simple past.

I came across a segment in The Christian Brothers Irish Grammar, in the chapter discussing verbs in general, a passage that alludes to "the Perfect Tenses." I don't have access to the book right now, but I think they refer to perfect tenses as composites. They then go on to cite examples of how the "perfects" are constructed, not by inflection, but by the phrasing. A case in point"

Tá an bainne ólta ag an gcat. The cat has drunk the milk.

A Phádraig, it's best not to get too hung up on terminology. I have a whole canned lecture I could give about the proper way to go about determining how many "tenses" a language has. (English, according to most experts, has only two: past and non-past. Every other construction commonly called a "tense" in grammar school is aspectual or modal in nature--or both.) But at the end of the day, it's not the technical linguistic points that are important, it's what terminology is most helpful for you to learn the Irish usage.

And that's why I think it's probably best not to use the term "perfect tense" in relation to Irish. If you do, you'll naturally try to map these constructions to the ones that go by the name of "perfect tense" and English, and that will lead to mistakes. The important thing isn't what the Christian Brothers call this construction, but when they tell about when to say Tá an bainne ólta ag an gcat instead of D'ól an cat an bainne or Tá an cat ag ól an bhainne or any of the other possibilities.

Tá an bainne ólta ag an gcat. The cat has drunk the milk.

Would anybody ever really say this? It sounds like "the cat possesses the milk that had been drunk."

(Message edited by Domhnall_Ó_h_aireachtaigh on September 23, 2008)

Yes.

Tá a leithéidí ráite go minic agam!

Well I wouldn't go asking for it back! Pusóg can have it at that point...

Tá brón againn mar fógraímid -- tá an téama seo críochnaithe ag an leithreas.

quote:

Tá brón againn mar fógraímid -- tá an téama seo críochnaithe ag an leithreas.

???

quote:

Would anybody ever really say this? It sounds like "the cat possesses the milk that had been drunk."

They would indeed. You're right that it's a little ambiguous - could mean "the cat possesses the drunken/intoxicated milk" - but in practice it's not an issue.

Keep in mind that ambiguity is all over the place in English too, but it's rarely ever a problem in natural speech. Usually one meaning is much more plausible in context than the others, and if you do mean one of the less-plausible ones there are plenty of alternative formulations which will make that clear. The audience knows about these alternatives too, and so the fact that you haven't opted to use one of them becomes an indicator in itself that you do mean the normal interpretation.

???

Go baileach.

quote:

???

Go baileach.

Ní thuigim ach oiread. Cén leithreas atá i gceist agat? Bosca an chait? (Is fuath liomsa é sin a ghlanadh, ach níl an dara rogha agam. Tá dhá chat "taobh istigh" agam.)

A Dhomhnaill, how do you think the perfect construction originated in the first place? You see relics of the earlier construction in languages like Catalan and French which show partial agreement between the past participle and the direct object, e.g. "La llet? Se l'ha beguda el gat." ("The milk? The cat drank it.")

A Dhennis,

An bhfuil tú Dennis ó "Focal an Lae"?

A Dhennis, téann do cháil romhat!

"A Dhomhnaill, how do you think the perfect construction originated in the first place? You see relics of the earlier construction in languages like Catalan and French which show partial agreement between the past participle and the direct object, e.g. "La llet? Se l'ha beguda el gat." ("The milk? The cat drank it.")"

Well, I certainly take your word for it! To me, this just seems to be an almost artificially created perfect construction, perhaps because I draw a distinction between the verb to have as it applies to indicating possession, versus how it applies as an auxiliary verb. In my whacky brain, the two words are almost homonyms, as I perceive no sense of "possession" when using a perfect tense in English.

Consequently, since Irish doesn't even have a verb to indicate possession, relying instead on the "tá X ag Y" construct, it just seems very long odds that this construct would also just happen to be used in the formation of perfect tenses.

I can't explain it, it's just how it strikes me.

quote:

An bhfuil tú Dennis ó "Focal an Lae"?

Fair caught! Sea, is mise an duine céanna.

quote:

To me, this just seems to be an almost artificially created perfect construction, perhaps because I draw a distinction between the verb to have as it applies to indicating possession, versus how it applies as an auxiliary verb. In my whacky brain, the two words are almost homonyms, as I perceive no sense of "possession" when using a perfect tense in English.

None of that is in the least surprising given how different the usage is in the modern language. It's similar to the divergence between "will" as a full verb ("I will it to be so!") and "will" as an auxiliary ("I will be there"). Sure, once the historical connexion is explained, you can sort of understand the development, but it's not something you would necessarily recognise otherwise.

There's a lot I don't know about the Irish "perfect" and part of that is how it arose historically. It's possible that it did originate as a calque on English. After all, I know that it's a relatively recent construction. On the other hand, it also seems to have been a natural part of the speech of Irish monolinguals, so perhaps all knowledge of English has done is contributed to the spread of its use.

Dúirt Dennis Ní thuigim ach oiread.

Léigh mé 'leithreas' in áit 'léithéidí' agus fágann sin go rinne mé imeartas focal neamhéifeachlach. Gabh mo leithscéal.

A Dhomhnaillín,

noi, dei Herrn Brofessor Bilch kenn i net.

Léigh mé áit éigin uair amháin go raibh cineál lán-aidiachtach "ar dtús" ag rangabhálacha cosúil le "déanta".

Is mar seo a tharla se is docha:

Sa tréimhse réamhstairiúil úd do thainig fear an tí um noin amach as an gcoill le rud eigin faoi cheilt aige taobh thiar do agus d'fhiafraigh se da bhean cheile.

"A bhean, cad ata faoi cheilt agam taobh thiar dom?"

Agus d'fhreagair a bhean cheile do,

"Is cuma liom a thuilleadh agus sinne a bheith siorphosta leis na blianta fada anuas."


D'ainneoin sin duirt a fear lei go meidhreach mar do bhi rud iontach aige an la sin,

"Feach, ta rud úsáideach agam inniu,"

agus é a shineadh chuici chun e a theaspaint di,

"cathaoir deanta!"


(Ta fabht eigin leis na fadas inniu)