On p506 of Ó Dónall's dictionary, there is "rud a fháil le hithe".

Why hithe? I thought it should be le n-ithe?

"le n-ithe" is a dialect form (Connacht)
Standard is "le hithe".

Lars

I never heard anything other than "len' ithe" and I always took it to be le + a (it referring to whatever was to be eaten) + ithe. le + a becomes "lena" as it does with the personal adjectives 3rd person sing & plural. Since "ithe" begins with a vowel one of the two vowels, the "a", is elided.

An example of the structure I have in mind would be:

D'ardaigh an t-athair an leanbh lena chur in airde ar an mbord. (The father lifted the child to put him up on the table.)

Similarly:
D'ardaigh an t-athair an ceapaire lena ithe.

I don't think it is a dialect issue rather another example of what is customarily said in Irish being different to what is said in English. "le hithe" is merely a translation of the English. "len' ithe" is correct imho. That's my totally unscholarly view of it.

De Bhaldraithe's dictionary gives "uachtar oighir" for ice cream. You and I know what the real Irish for ice cream is. Don't we? That dictionary did a service to English-speakers seeking "equivalents" to English words. I hope the next dictionary does better. Supplying "equivalents" instead of the ordinary words used everyday did a disservice to spoken Irish. Credulous people imagined these "equivalents" in De Bhaldraithe to be the recommended standard and damage was done. Thankfully natural traditional spoken Irish was still strong enough to show up the equivalents for what they were. Máirtín Ó Cadhain, Donncha Ó Corráin, and others criticised that dictionary.

Paper never refused ink and the Irish spoken in the traditional Irish-speaking communities -- at least among the older generations -- is the best. :-)

The so-called standard is blamed for everything especially for the errors of those who misunderstand it.

Sorry (Unregistered Guest) you referred to Ó Dónaill's dictionary which is a much better source of good Irish despite ignoring lots of dialect words. I still think my own understanding of it may be correct. Both len' ithe and le hithe are correct although they are not precisely the same in meaning.

De Bhaldraithe's dictionary gives "uachtar oighir" for ice cream. You and I know what the real Irish for ice cream is. Don't we?

Go deimhin, ach ní raibh a lán téarmaí ag teastáil uainn sna seascaidí chun idirdhealú a dhéanamh idir na sóirt uachtair reoite a bhíodh ar fáil ag an am sin. Más buan mo chuimhne ní raibh ach trí chinn acu ann: fanaile, napóileach agus roc. B'é an uachtar reoite napóileach a roghnaítí agus rud éigin andúchasach nó sofaisticiúil uait chun dul i bhfeidhm ar na comharsana agus an cailín nua agus mar sin de ;).

(Message edited by ormondo on July 05, 2009)

quote:

De Bhaldraithe's dictionary gives "uachtar oighir" for ice cream.

De Bhaldraithe lists both uachtar oighir, and uachtar reoiteog for ice-cream. Is it possible that uachtar oighir is an accepted form in some parts of Irish-speaking Ireland? Or had been at some time in the past?

quote:

I never heard anything other than "len' ithe"

In "Tobar na Gaedhilge" I can't find anything else but "le h-ithe", "le hithe" in the works of Ulster authors.

Lars

Just a further word on my theory:

We are all familiar with the structure: á bhualadh (hitting it) and á ithe (eating it).

We know that that "á" is made up of either "ag" + "aidiacht shealbhach / possessive adjective = "a" (3rd person masc) or "a" (3rd person fem) or "a" (3rd person plural of aidiacht shealbhach / possessive adjective); or "do" + "a"

ag:
á bhualadh = hitting him
á bualadh = hitting her
á mbualadh = hitting them

do:
dá bhualadh = hitting him
dá bualadh = hitting her
dá mbualadh = hitting them

I think we have another incidence of the same structure in "le" + "a" giving us "lena ithe"

I am not suggesting that "lena hithe" or "lena n-ithe" exist but I think I may be right on len ithe.

Alternatively I may be wrong and it may just be the preposition "le" asserting its preference for an "n" between it and a following vowel. In that case we can blame the CO and these Ulster dialects for "le hithe" :-)

Is maith liom an Ghaeilge.

You are certainly right that "lena" is the source for "le n-"

Lars

Lars, I don't know where you got it from that "le n-ithe" is a dialect form from the Connemara. I got it out of a Cork Irish writere (Peter O'Leary). I have no idea which one is considered standard Irish. Does FGB have a leaning towards Ulster Irish?

I am learning standard Irish they use ag ithe (eating) and ith(eat). If this helps any.

Jodie, that's a different construction. The Standard Irish equivalent to Taidhgín's á bhualadh "hitting it" would be á ithe "eating it". (Dialectally, dhá ithe would be possible.) Compare:

Tá sí ag ithe béigil anois. "She's eating a bagel now."
Tá sí á ithe anois. "She's eating it now."

Wouldn't ithe then gain a H or N- prefix just according to the gender of the thing (and amount of things) being eaten?

Cheannaigh mé arán lena ithe...
agus cheannaigh mé cáis lena hithe ar arán...

OR

Cheannaigh mé arán, im agus cáis le n-ithe...

agus anois, táim á n-ithe... ???

Tá sí á ithe anois. "She's eating it now."



Yes: or "she is being eaten now".

Cheannaigh mé arán lena ithe...


I was told by native speakers of Irish that "le" should be used for matters of some compulsion. Tá rud agam le déanamh. Something you have to do.

So this would be better:

Do cheannaíos arán chun é a ithe.

quote:

Yes: or "she is being eaten now".

Well, no, because that would be "lena hithe" - but yes, good point if the subject had been "sé."

Lars, I'm pretty sure this isn't derived from "lena" at all.
"Le" used to eclipse; that's where the form "lena" comes from, just like "ina". (In fact, those forms used to be commonly written as "le n-a" and "i n-a" respectively.)

quote:

Lars, I'm pretty sure this isn't derived from "lena" at all.
"Le" used to eclipse; that's where the form "lena" comes from, just like "ina". (In fact, those forms used to be commonly written as "le n-a" and "i n-a" respectively.

No, I don't think so.
Well, "lena" is a construction composed in analogy to "i n-a" (ina), "go n-a" (gona, now obsolete) and "iar n-a" (arna).
Forms like "óna", "faoina", "trína" are alike.
I never heard about eclipsis following le (or ó, faoi, trí). There was only eclipsis following i, go, iar (i being the only survivor of these)
Such intrusive -n- constructions with le, ó, faoi, trí aren't very old, by the way.

Lars

Hmm, interesting.

FWIW, "le n-a" is at least as old as Modern Irish - examples in Bedell's Bible and Keating's "Foras Feasa ar Éirinn." I don't have any Classical Irish texts to hand though.

I'll have a look in Stair na Gaeilge tomorrow night...

Hmm (faoi dhó.)

Nach mbíodh urú i ndiaidh an réamhfhocail "re", rud atá tite isteach ar "le" an lae inniu?

Níl mé cinnte ach tá an tuairim sin agam. Ceadóidh mé na dea-leabhair amárach.

quote:

Well, no, because that would be "lena hithe" - but yes, good point if the subject had been "sé."

Is ar an bhforas san féin a bhaineas feidhm as "sí" mar ainmní!

quote:

FWIW, "le n-a" is at least as old as Modern Irish

But that is not very old, is it?

Eclipsis is due to nasal consonants (in etymology).
No nasal consonants (m,n) -> no eclipsis at all.
Compare the etymology of eclipsing prepositions in Classical Irish:
i < in, go < com "with", iar < *eran < *epirom "after", re (modern non-eclipsing roimh) < *riyan < *prihom "before"
with:
le < re < fri < friss "against"
le < la < *less < *lets "with"
(according to Stair na Gaeilge)

Interesting is the -s at the end of le/re forms.
That is probably the source of modern h-prefix after le.

In Middle Irish there was "lā" for modern "lena", i.e. le+a: lā thigerna = lena thiarna = with his lord (example from Stair na Gaeilge)

In Classical Irish there was usually "le" or "lé" (and even "le a" for modern "lena".
But forms of "lena" or "rena" started their way into the language because of analogy with ecclipsing prepositions.
Féach i Stair na Gaeilge IV, 9.3:

quote:

ach faighter leithead trena 'trína', le hais tre a [...] agus rena 'lena' le hais re a, (múnlaithe ar gona [...] agus rena 'roimh a' < goⁿ agus reⁿ

There were only four eclipsing prepositions in Classical Irish: iⁿ (in), goⁿ (with, obsolete), iarⁿ (after, obsolete) and reⁿ (before, modern roimh)

So the forms ina "in his", gona "with his", (i)arna "after his", rena > roimh a "befor his" are due to real eclipsis (i n-a, go n-a, iar n-a, re n-a).
All other forms (faoina, lena, trína, óna) have been composed in analogy with them and because such a medial -n- is very handy.

Lars

(Message edited by Lars on July 07, 2009)

I'm learning. Táim ag foghlaim liom agus alán le foghlaim agam.

Depends on the time scale! One can never be quite certain around here whether "old" will mean 'roimh teacht don Chaighdeán' or 'roimh chath Chionn tSáile.'

An ceart ar fad agat maidir le "lena". Bhí breall orm toisc an litriú "le n-a" bheith feicthe agam chomh minic sin.

quote:

I was told by native speakers of Irish that "le" should be used for matters of some compulsion. Tá rud agam le déanamh. Something you have to do.

So this would be better:

Do cheannaíos arán chun é a ithe.

Perfectly correct Munster Irish.
But elsewhere le is OK.
In verbal noun phrases it doesn't mean compulsion but only aim:
Cheannaigh mé arán le hé a ithe = i brought bread to eat it.
(or ... lena ithe, ... le n-é a ithe)

There's a difference between
- (bheith) obair le déanamh = work to be done -> compulsion
- (any clause) le n-obair a dhéanamh = to do work -> aim

(in Munster the last would be: chun obair a dhéanamh)

Lars

Fan go fóill, Lars:

your last example does not exist: le n-obair a dhéanamh. I would regard that as a mistake. It should be "le hobair a dhéanamh".

Incidentally "le" has another peculiarity: it becomes "leis" before the singular and plural article:

leis an ngunna! (with the gun);
leis an obair a chríochnú (in order to complete the work).
D'imigh sé leis na daoine. (with the people).
Theastódh oibrithe breise leis na hoibreacha bóthair a chríochnú. (More workers would be required in order to complete the roadworks.) [I know "obair" wouldn't necessarily have a plural but nowadays if English has Irish has too.]

"Cheannaíos arán len ithe" (bread to eat) or "len é a ithe" (in order to eat it) are ok whatever the underlying grammatical description might be.

Ceist: Cén fáth ar cheannaigh tú an tsluasaid?
Freagra: Le hobair a dhéanamh.

= in order to do work (a purpose clause)

To be honest I'd say any distinction between "chun" and "le" for purpose clauses may have become blurred in recent years. "Chun" being followed by An Tuiseal Ginideach may well gradually lose out to "le" which is easier to use whatever additional nuances of meaning it may have carried in the past.

That is not to say that diligent learners may not have access to sources of good information on these things that those of us who just speak the language carelessly or thoughtlessly would be unaware of. We might get it right most of the time without knowing why. On the other hand if we had to think of a myriad of rules we wouldn't speak or write at all lest we miss one. :-)

"Trí" is another preposition that we could look at some other time. It has some endearing features often missed.

quote:

your last example does not exist: le n-obair a dhéanamh. I would regard that as a mistake. It should be "le hobair a dhéanamh".

Oh, yes, you're right.

Lars