The first of BBC Northern Ireland's Na Dódaí stories ends with the line Anois, tá Lúsaí sona sásta! The English version translates that as 'very happy!'

My dictionaries define sásta as 'satisfied, pleased, glad, willing' - no mention of happy. Nevertheless, it looks as if sona sásta is the equivalent of 'happy, happy', therefore 'very happy'.

Am I right about that, and if so, is it in common use everywhere, or do the other dialects only use something like an-sona?

(Message edited by Linda_Kathleen on August 29, 2009)

Linda, don't people say "Are you happy with that?" when they mean "Are you satisfied with that?" where you are from? They certainly do around here.

Other uses of happy:
I'd be happy to do it for you. (willing)
I'm so happy you are here. (pleased, glad)

In fact, "happy" gets used more colloquially where other words like "satisfied" would be considered a bit stilted or formal, so I have always included "happy" among my definitions of the meaning of sásta, even if the dictionaries don't explicitly state it.

Part of the effect of sona sásta comes from alliteration, which Irish is very fond of. You may also come across sách sásta which can also mean "very happy" as in "quite satisfied".

It is a form of emphasis which is not unique to Irish. The two words are very similar in meaning and grammatical form, but not the same. Another case given on these boards is "úr nua". The only example I can give off the top of my head in English is a restaurant near where I live named "Tasty Goody" (www.tastygoody.com).

Additional information from English, but I am sure there is an Irish grammar which covers this. Again, it is common in many languages, including repetition of the same word for the same purpose. (I see the better way to classify this is intensification.)


A Handbook of Varieties of English, pg. 314:

"A sequence of two adjectives of similar meaning is occasionally used for intensification, as in "a little small book".

quote:

Linda, don't people say "Are you happy with that?" when they mean "Are you satisfied with that?" where you are from? They certainly do around here.

Go raibh maith agat, a Bhreandán, ar do freagra. Did I get that right (ie. for your answer)? I usually mention in my posts that I am a rank beginner, and I mean the rankest of the rank, but I forgot last time. You've reminded me that I shouldn't forget, because it could affect people's impressions of my post.

quote:

I have always included "happy" among my definitions of the meaning of sásta, even if the dictionaries don't explicitly state it.

Interesting that you should say that. My first encounter with sásta was through a computer program called BYKI - Before You Know It by Transparent Language, where it was translated as 'happy'. It was only when I got Micheal Ó Siadhail's Learning Irish, where he consistently translates sásta as 'satisfied' or 'content', that it even occurred to me to question what I'd learned. Perhaps, I thought, it's not used as 'happy' in Connacht. But I looked it up in 2 dictionaries, and 'happy' wasn't listed under sásta in either of them. Then along came this little story from Northern Ireland using sásta in an interesting way, leading me to wonder whether the word has gone from willing > more than willing > happy, in the area I'm most interested in (Donegal).

And I'd still like to know if there are any regional differences in the way this word is used. I'm 'happy' to learn that for you, sásta includes 'happy'. Now all I need to know is, would that by any chance be because you learned Ulster Irish? I'm ashamed to admit I know little of the Irish spoken in Queensland.

quote:

I'd be happy to do it for you. (willing)
You may also come across sách sásta which can also mean "very happy" as in "quite satisfied".

I guess I'm interested in the distinctions. I appreciate that's not everyone's cup of tea. As someone who used to earn my living as a French/English translator, I would never use the words 'very happy' where the original contained words meaning 'quite' and 'satisfied'. Though I'll grant you that in day-to-day conversation, 'happy' covers 'satisfied' and 'willing', I doubt that the reverse is really true. (Especially on surveys!) When someone asks you whether you are willing to do something, I don't think he/she is going for something as positive as happiness. That's why we have answers like 'more than willing', and 'yes, in fact I'd be happy to' when we want to convey 'beyond willing'.

Having said all that, you took out time on a Sunday(?) to answer my question, which you didn't have to do, and I'm grateful. I learned a lot from your post.

quote:

Go raibh maith agat, a Bhreandán, ar do freagra.

...as do fhreagra (contracted in speech to d'fhreagra).

Hi, Linda, I know you are a beginner but am impressed by the depth of the questions you ask. My aim was not to chastise you but only to point out that "happy" does cross over in meaning with "satisfied" in some contexts, including formal ones, so don't rule it out just because the dictionary doesn't state it as such.

As a translator of Japanese to English, I find that translators of European languages often mistakenly expect one-to-one correspondence where there may be none. Japanese culture and the inherent differences in its linguistic perception make those assumptions impossible from the start. Irish lies somewhere away from the usual European cluster on the linguistic spectrum of similarity, though nowhere near as far away as Asian languages.

My Irish is mostly Connemara/Cois Fhairrge with some northern influence from Ó Grianna, etc. Ó Siadhail was my starting point for Irish, but I remember rewriting most of his translations of sásta using "happy" as it made more sense to me that way. I would say sásta definitely covers a lot of the territory of "happy" but not so much of the concept of "glad". I think it was translated by Ó Siadhail as "satisfied" for consistency and conciseness.

Distinctions can be important but you also have to be careful not to overdo it.

Anyway, keep up the good work. Your questions stimulate the rest of us to think harder about our Irish.

PS: I think the preposition used for "for" with Go raibh maith agat is as (rud) or as ucht (ruda)

PPS: When you are a freelance translator, every day is a working day. My breaks are measured in minutes between work sessions. But then again "a change is as good as a holiday" - it's good to think about something else sometimes, even for just a few moments...

quote:

Hi, Linda, I know you are a beginner but am impressed by the depth of the questions you ask. ...
keep up the good work. Your questions stimulate the rest of us to think harder about our Irish.

Go raibh maith agat, a Bhreadán, as d'fhocail cineálta. (for your kind words?)

quote:

Distinctions can be important but you also have to be careful not to overdo it.

Tá ceart agat. (You're right?) I'll try to watch that. And I'll try to do a better job of indicating which distinctions I'm interested in and why.

quote:

Part of the effect of sona sásta comes from alliteration, which Irish is very fond of.

Certainly, that's why I found it so appealing, along with the 'happy happy' thing. I confess to having declared myself to be 'happy, happy' from time to time, but I wouldn't say it in, for example, an acceptance speech, should I ever be in a position to make one. In English, it sounds a bit too cutesy – at least, in the absence of children or alcohol – for the occasion.

What about sona sásta? Is it a phrase for all occasions?

Go raibh maith agat, a Bhreadáin, as d'fhocail chineálta.

It may only be me, but there seems a whiff of Béarlachas to "focail chineálta". Ní fheadar, an bhfuil aon duine in ann cor cainte nach bhfuil chomh litriúil sin a cheapadh?

quote:

Tá ceart agat. (You're right?)

Tá an ceart agat. (Literally "You have the right", which just goes to show how dangerous it is to be too literal. )

And to anticipate your next question, I think "You have the right (to do sth, etc.) " would be Tá sé de cheart agat (rud a dhéanamh) "You are entitled (to do sth)", literally "You have it 'by right' (to do sth)".

A Dhomhnaillín, I understand your concern about cineálta (I felt the same when I first saw it) but I think it is pretty well established in this usage now.

Back to "sona sásta" - it is, as Sean W points out, an intensification by using two similar words.

Úr nua is another, as is fliuch báite, te teolaí, etc.

"Very happy" will do as a translation, but the sense of satisfaction is there too. After all, satisfied people are usually happy!

Others are "tinn tuirseach de ~~~" and "ciaptha cráite".

"Sásta" certainly includes a degree of happiness arising from "satisfaction".

There are other ways of saying "I am happy that ..."

Tá ríméad orm ....
Tá lúcháir orm ...

aoibhinn and aoibhneas might be useful too:

Is aoibhinn liom go ... I am delighted that ...
Cuireann aimsir seo an fhomhair aoibhneas ar mo chroi This autumn weather delights my heart.

I have heard that "sona" means "lucky" in places.

quote:

I have heard that "sona" means "lucky" in places.

Is contexts, is dóigh liom.
Tá an méid seo le rá ag an bhFB.
sonas [ainmfhocal firinscneach den chéad díochlaonadh]
áthas, sástacht; ádh, séan, rath (sonas ort!).

Clúdaíonn an focal Glücklich sa Ghearmáinis an dá chiall - áthasach agus ámharach.

Sampla eile:


Estoy contento.
Estoy feliz.

(No son los mismos.)

Pero quien es contento, esta (de vez en quando) tambien feliz. Y tiene suerte!

Tá mé sásta le pionta deas!

Thanks for all the input concerning sona sásta's meaning, usage and general intangibles. Since I haven't heard anything to the contrary, I shall conclude that it's an intensification that can be used on all occasions, and has no 'childish' connotation. (Feel free to contradict.) That is to say, if it were described in mathematical ratio terms, sona sásta is NOT to happiness as 'teeny, weeny' is to size. 'Teeny, weeny' being a wonderfully descriptive but somewhat juvenile intensification which I would not expect to hear in the typical acceptance speech. Apart from my natural inclination to 'hammer', I'm hammering away at this because sona sásta seems to show up frequently at the end of fairy tales -- 'happily ever after'.

And now, to insinuate a touch of the grammatical into the conversation, I know that when located in the predicate, sona sásta does not change with the gender/number of the noun it describes. And I believe that 'Happy Lucy' (ie, not an adjective in the predicate) would be Lúsaí shona. But I'm not at all sure what happens for 'Happy Happy Lucy'. Is it:

(a) Lúsaí shona sásta, or
(b) Lúsaí shona shásta?

Searches of this forum's archives brought up nada. An internet search brought up one of each, but the one in favour of (a) was Bhreithlá shona sásta. Which we all know is incorrect (including me, because I asked in a previous post), and possibly smacks of Béarlachas. (Good word, that. Sounds so much more sinister than English's 'anglicism'.)

My English grammar teachers taught me that the word 'dark' in 'dark red coat' is an adverb modifying the adjective 'red', which in turn modifies the noun 'coat'. (Means 'how red', not a dark coat, as opposed to a pale one.) Some people would say the same for 'teeny, weeny', though I would say they are both adjectives. But if there's one thing I've learned so far, it's that Irish grammatical categories often do not equate to the English ones (as they have every right to do). So, if you know why sásta is, or is not, aspirated in the indented phrase above, please be so good as to 'share it with the class'. Thank you.

I'll make a go of this one, but I'm just guessing here based on other studies: The words sona sásta should be used as though they were a single compounded word, so any initial mutations happen to the s of sona, any inflexions happen to the a of sásta. Again, I'm guessing, so if anyone has the answer besides this, please correct me.

Dark red coat: Dark is not an adverb (adverbs modify verbs), but it is an adjective functioning in a manneer to intensify the next adjective "red". (As I stated for Irish, this could be regarded as one new word: dark-red.) The idea of them as one word stems from the concept "dark red" being really a unique concept. I am sure some languages have a unique word for it, instead of "red that is dark". Grammatically they function like this.

An Addition: You can think of "dark red coat" as "dark red-coat" also. This difference in conception doesn't matter in English, but it probably matters in Irish because the adjectives change according to grammatical function.

(Message edited by seánw on August 31, 2009)

Words need to be in context.

Irish prefers "Tá lúcháir ar Shíle" (Síle is delighted -- literally "There is delight upon Síle.")to any other structures. Emotions and illnesses are "on" a person. "Tá brón orm" has a different meaning to "Táim brónach" and so on.

I can visualise a sentence such as "Bíonn Lúsaí sona sásta nuair a bhíonn a cara ag spraoi léi." I don't know the grammatical terms to explain that that partucular sentence is different to "Chaith Lúsaí bróg dhubh ar chois amháin agus bróg bhán ar an gceann eile."

"Breithlá sona" is certainly a common translation of "Happy birthday" but listening to native speakers at Christmas time you hear "Bíodh Nollaig mhaith mhór agat."

Similarly, the Irish for "enjoy" is "bain taitneamh as" although "injaigheáil" is heard and should be stamped out.

Tá Lúsaí sona sásta is OK but not Lúsaí shona. Wrong. A physical characteristic might be acceptable: Lúsaí mhór!

quote:

Dark red coat: Dark is not an adverb (adverbs modify verbs), but it is an adjective functioning in a manneer to intensify the next adjective "red".

That's an interesting explanation, but it's not the accepted one. It's generally held that adjectives exclusively modify nouns. (See for example the definition here: http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAnAdjective.htm.) The usual term for anything which modifies an adjective is "adverb".

You could, of course, make the case that dark red is a compound adjective like honey-coloured, but I think this is a bit tricky given that the comparative form is not *dark redder but darker red. How many compounds do you know of in English which decline internally?

Good example. I think it doesn't fit the test, though.

Here are other entries:

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAnAdverbLinguisti cs.htm

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAnAdverbGrammar.h tm

At least in English, I simply see if it can replace a simple well-known adverb. Take fast. "He went fast". Now dark. "The room was lit dark." Doesn't fit. Darkly fits.

I understand what you're saying, but I was refering to the narrow linguistics definition. Maybe Linda was using the one you gave. The other definition, though while acceptable, I think is simply a lack of clarity. "Any word with lexical content that does not clearly fit the categories noun, verb, or adjective is usually considered an adverb." That is a very comprehensive category, but I think it doesn't serve well understanding the concepts.

quote:

You could, of course, make the case that dark red is a compound adjective like honey-coloured, but I think this is a bit tricky given that the comparative form is not *dark redder but darker red. How many compounds do you know of in English which decline internally?

You don't say dark redder? Come on, where do you live? Just kidding. Thanks, that proves that that idea was wrong.

Linda when you have a string of adjectives attributed to a noun all of the adjectives receive the same treatment, so I would say (b) is technically correct.

Examples from Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí (translations added by me):

an fear beag glic "the little clever man" (could also be "the clever little man")
na fir bheaga ghlice "the little clever men"
cosa an fhir bhig ghlic "feet of the little clever man"
cosa na bhfear beag glic "feet of the little clever men"

an bhean bheag chóir "the little honest woman";
na mná beaga córa "the little honest women"
lámh na mná bige córa "hand of the little honest woman"
lámha na mban beag cóir "hands of the little honest women"

na caoirigh beaga bána "the little white sheep (pl)" (caoirigh is an exception in that it doesn't cause lenition).

What Taidhgín is trying to say is that Irish avoids adjectives in certain contexts and idioms, for instance Tá tuirse orm is preferable to Tá mé tuirseach for "I am tired". What Taidhgín says is true in spirit but it is somewhat tangential to the topic. Attributive adjective clusters _do_ occur, especially in literature, and are sometimes unavoidable even in speech.

Some adjectives (and adverbs) are also covered by prefixes and suffixes in Irish, such as sean- "old", fíor- "true", -ín "little", reducing the number of attributive adjectives somewhat.

My advice is to look for alternatives before translating English adjective clusters holus-bolus, but know how to decline the adjectives for when it is unavoidable.


(Seánw, your rule is kind of derived from the one for noun clusters, but still isn't quite right...)

I trust we're now all agreed that English adverbs do modify adjectives (as well as verbs, other adverbs, and a few other things not relevant to the discussion). I was also taught that adverbs generally but not always answered 'how, when, where or why' with respect to the word they modified. Those answering 'how' were adverbs of manner. In the 'dark red coat', 'red' is an adjective describing 'coat' and 'dark' is an adverb of manner modifying 'red'. How red? Dark red. As opposed to 'pure red', 'light red' ... There certainly are sentences in which 'dark' could be an adjective modifying 'coat', either alone, (eg. 'dark coat' as opposed to 'pale coat'), or with another adjective also modifying 'coat' (eg. 'dark, warm coat') -- an English adjective cannot modify another adjective -- but this isn't one of them. At the very least, the two words would have to be separated by a comma to show the intended distinction. (A 'dark, red coat', as opposed to a 'dark, blue coat'.)

quote:

You could, of course, make the case that dark red is a compound adjective ...

Even so, you can't make an English compound adjective out of 2 adjectives (unless you call past and present particles adjectives, which you really shouldn't). And 'dark red' doesn't really follow the rules for compound adjectives.

quote:

I simply see if it can replace a simple well-known adverb. Take fast.

If you'll forgive me for saying so, 'fast' is a rather poor choice for testing adverbs. It's one of the relatively few adverbs of manner which does not end in 'ly' when modifying a verb. You'd be far better off using 'rapidly', though it won't help much in the particular example you've given. In the room was lit darkly, you've got a postpositioned adverb modifying the past participle 'lit'. In the darkly lit room, it's a prepositioned adverb modifying the adjective 'lit'. Neither of those precludes 'dark' from being used as an adverb modifying an adjective in a different sentence without 'ly'.

quote:

Even so, you can't make an English compound adjective out of 2 adjectives.

So there's no bittersweet chocolate where you are? No red-hot pokers nor blue-black ink?

(To keep this on topic, I'll point out that Irish is a bit more free about forming compound adjectives than English, e.g. dúchrón "black-and-tan" [contrast with dúrua "chestnut red"], fuarbhruite "cooked and allowed to cool; lukewarm", seanchríonna "old and experience; precocious", etc.)

quote:

If you'll forgive me for saying so, 'fast' is a rather poor choice for testing adverbs. It's one of the relatively few adverbs of manner which does not end in 'ly' when modifying a verb.

What difference should that make? Plenty of adverbs lack -ly. It's the syntax that matters, not the form. Of course, this means--as you rightly point out--that the permissibility of word in one syntactic position (e.g. after a verb) doesn't tell us anything about its role elsewhere (e.g. before an adjective).

The principle holds even if I give bad examples. (In general, I apologize for 90% of my posts which are from work with no references available.) More important, of course, to your question is how it pertains to the Irish phrase, which I unsatisfactorily attempted to elucidate through English. The main point being that often two closely associated words start to be treated by speakers as one. Other examples have been given here like compound nouns. Is there a test to put these two words to to see if they can be replaced by single adjectives, an adverb and an adjective, or whatever (again, my test examples were not the best, but replacement is often the best way to test a word's function)? Just as in other disciplines, the final word is not out on every concept. Just take, for example, the lagging concept of the dative to explain prepositional mutations.

Anois, tá Seán sona sásta!

quote:

Linda when you have a string of adjectives attributed to a noun all of the adjectives receive the same treatment

Haigh, a Bhreandán. Since you had the perspicacity (great word!) to correctly anticipate (split infinitive!) my next question with respect to 'you have the right', I assume you're telling me that in Irish, sona sásta is, without a doubt, a series of adjectives. Which I will now accept unequivocally. We'll leave the question of adverbs modifying adjectives to another time and another example.

quote:

so I would say (b) is technically correct.

Technically? I sense a reservation. Or perhaps you're just trying to say what's grammatically correct is not necessarily what's said or written in day-to-day Irish. Which, of course, goes without saying as it is true in all languages.

So I'll try it a different way. The subject of a sentence contains shona sásta or even sona sásta following a feminine noun. Nothing else. (To avoid peripheral discussions, we'll restrict the sentence to a reputable publication of some type - not the internet, and definitely not Wikipedia/Wikitionary.) 'Technically' means lights flash and bells go off, even though your eye might run right past it in a letter from a friend? Or 'technically' means we all know -- and I'm being facetitious there -- it's supposed to be shona shásta, but it doesn't matter what everybody says and writes, anywhere -- all 4 possibilities are OK, because we all know what they're trying to get across?

"Technically" was there because Taidhgín was basically saying "why would anyone want to say "very happy Lúsaí"? Lúsaí shona shásta is gramatically correct.

This might get around that problem:

Is bean shona shásta í Lúsaí. "Lúsaí is a very happy woman."
Is cailín sona sásta í Lúsaí. "Lúsaí is a very happy girl."

As for the adverb question, I can see what you are getting at with regard to English adverbial use of adjectives. If it is difficult to test them in English, then Irish is even less clear about adverbs/adjective distinctions.

Have you encountered the adverbial presentation of some adjectives in the predicate yet? I mean: Tá sé go maith, go deas, go breá, go hiontach, go hálainn, go haoibhinn, go holc, go dona. (I believe all predicate adjectives are treated this way in Welsh, yn fawr, yn dda, etc., so it may have a deeper Celtic origin.)

To say something is "nice and warm" in Irish you use deas te. Irish doesn't use agus between adjectives the way English sometimes uses "and". I think deas te is just "nice and warm" but it could equally be interpeted as "nicely warm". In Irish, I think it is better gramatically to treat them as adjectives and apply the appropriate declensions to them even if their function might be adverbial.

quote:

So there's no bittersweet chocolate where you are? No red-hot pokers nor blue-black ink?

Interesting examples. To quote the BBC, which I never thought I'd live to do, "compound adjectives are regarded as productive features of English which means that use is not so restricted as it is in many categories of grammar." So, assuming that 'red-hot' and 'blue-black' are compound adjectives, and I'm willing to say that they are, though thousands wouldn't, here's how things work Where I am, which is at my desk, in my house. I'm not speaking for my country (Canada), my province (Ontario), my community (native English-speakers, with a fair bit of French/English bilingualism thrown in), or anybody else. And especially not for the vast majority of Ontario schoolchildren, current and graduate, who came after me and for whom grammar is an alien concept because our school system decided the subject was worth no more than a few hours of their time.

• red-hot pokers: 'red' is an adverb modifying the adjective 'hot'. Depending on the way you see the function of compound adjectives, 'hot' is an adjective modifying the noun 'pokers' or 'red-hot' is a compound adjective modifying the noun 'pokers'. 'Red' is not a an adjective modifying 'pokers'. They're not 'red pokers'. For all you know, they're black pokers, brass pokers, silver or gold. (Though silver and gold would be unwise, not to mention messy.) They are hot pokers, and it's the hot parts of the pokers which are red. But that doesn't mean that 'red' is an adjective modifying the adjective 'hot'. It isn't. As stated by your own reference, "an adjective specifies the properties or attributes of a noun referent." 'Red' is not a property of 'hot' and 'hot' is not a noun referent. It states 'how hot' - an adverb modifying an adjective.
• blue-black ink: I won't go through the same laborious process again. Suffice it to say, it's not 'blue ink', it's not 'black ink'. It's 'blue-black', 'blue' being an adverb telling you 'how black' the black is. (Note that that last 'black' was a noun.) The compound-adjective sticklers would have a harder time excluding 'blue-black' than 'red-hot', because 'blue-black' actually denotes a new colour, neither blue nor black. 'Red-hot' is not a new colour, temperature, concept etc. It's just 'hot to the point of red', as opposed to 'hot to the point of white' or 'hot to the point of blue'. (Not that I insist on 'entity in its own right' as a criterion for compound adjectives. I'm just mentioning one of the arguments in the ongoing debate.)
• As for 'bittersweet chocolate', what you've given me is a noun 'chocolate', modified by an adjective 'bittersweet'. In my humble opinion, 'bittersweet' is not a compound adjective, although it is a compound word which is an adjective. If you were to press the point by making it 'bitter-sweet chocolate', I'd refer you back to my comments on 'blue-black ink.' It's not 'sweet chocolate' or 'bitter chocolate'; it's a separate flavour called 'bitter-sweet'. The adverb 'bitter' tells you how sweet the sweet flavour is. Not 'sweet sweet'. Not 'semi-sweet'. 'Bitter sweet'. But I'd put that in one simple adjective.

To make it clear before everybody jumps all over me, THE ABOVE PERTAINS STRICTLY TO THE PARSING OF ENGLISH. (Never used the blink command before. Annoying, isn't it.) I now know and fully accept that the Irish language does these things differently. And I fully accept everybody else's superiority in that language.

Back to what you mentioned earlier about connotation and register: no, not childish or colloquial at all. In fact, most of these pairs tend to have a slightly literary feel to them, rather like 'complete and utter' does in English.

Judging by the defensive nature of your post, a Linda, it seems I have touched a never. I apologise for that. I'm only addressing the topic as I normally would in a casual but academic setting, which I understand can come off as a bit aggressive to someone not used to this form of debate. If there's any interest in discussing the topic further (it should come as no surprise that I disagree fundamentally with your analysis), we can continue it outside of Daltaí. Or we can simply write it all off as an unproductive tangent and let it drop.

Linda wrote: We’ll leave the question of adverbs modifying adjectives to another time and another example.

I am certainly for that going to another thread if there is further discussion. My final points to clarify (after consulting my references): You previously said “do the other dialects only use something like an-sona” (= an-shona). I couldn't recall the term then, but the term I was looking for (besides adverb) is qualifier. Qualifiers increase or decrease quality and are best exemplified by very and much. They are very similar to adverbs but they are not the same, at least according to some. Phrases like very polite and much more polite are substitution test sentences to see if something is a qualifier or an adverb (as you can see proper adverbs don’t fit). But relating to Irish, prefixes like an-, fíor-, and ur- function in a very similar way. My question, and I believe yours, was whether an-shona or an-shásta could be replaced by sona sásta. While I know Irish isn’t English, some concepts do convert over because the linguistic concepts cross language lines (not all of course), and I am still operating from an English perspective (I haven’t developed any “native” skills yet).

On the qualifier, if interested, you can read: Analyzing English Grammar, by Klammer, Schulz, and Della Volpe.

As it stands sona and sásta are both formally adjectives which do not inflect, but can undergo initial mutation.

Other examples of intensification but through doubling:

Bhí sé tinn tinn. He was very sick.
Tá sé trom trom. He is very heavy.
Lá fliuch fliuch. A very wet day.

Breandán wrote: … Irish is even less clear about adverbs/adjective distinctions. Have you encountered the adverbial presentation of some adjectives in the predicate yet? I mean: Tá sé go maith, go deas, go breá, go hiontach, go hálainn, go haoibhinn, go holc, go dona. (I believe all predicate adjectives are treated this way in Welsh, yn fawr, yn dda, etc., so it may have a deeper Celtic origin.)

1906 Christian Brothers: “Almost every Irish adjective may become an adverb by having the particle go prefixed to [= placed in front of] it.” They add that the preposition is an older one meaning “with”.

To add complexity to the debate, O'Donaill has the sentence: Tá siad (go) sona sásta. “They are happy and content.” This may very well be: “They are happily content” or “They are very happy/content.” The intriguing thing is the go in parentheses.

Oh well, the plot thickens!

Happy?

Táim sona suairc.

quote:

no, not childish or colloquial at all. In fact, most of these pairs tend to have a slightly literary feel to them, like 'complete and utter'.

Thanks, a hAbigail. (Oh, dear. I've probably botched that up, haven't I. Please forgive me.) Very helpful answer. As you perceived, that question was important to me. I don't mind sounding like a 3-year-old, but I 'd prefer to know it in advance so that I can laugh at me along with everybody else. Now I can enjoy the alliteration of sona sásta and shona shásta and still feel like a grown-up.

quote:

Judging by the defensive nature of your post, a Linda, it seems I have touched a [nerve]. I apologise for that.

Thanks for your apology, a Dhonaillin. I tried to keep the defensiveness to a minimum, but I do find the 'where you live' thing a bit aggressive, as Breandán can attest. Can't help but cringe every time I see it, even when it's directed to someone else. Smacks of a bit of 'I don't know how you were raised, but …' to me. Easier to take face-to-face from someone you know. Anyway, I'm over it now. Will try not to be such a baby next time. Though you – and everybody else – would be doing me a great kindness if you used, 'Where I am/live, we …' instead. Yes, the difference is miniscule, but … . Know the old adage, "God is in the details"? (Some would say, "The devil is in the details.") Well, God's in the nuances too.

quote:

To say something is "nice and warm" in Irish you use deas te. Irish doesn't use agus between adjectives the way English sometimes uses "and".

I didn't know that, a Breandán. I've come across 'is' in place of 'agus' (at least, that's what the author said was going on), and one of my older and more useless textbooks said that 'agus' (or 'is') is sometimes shortened to 'apostrophe s', but I didn't realize it sometimes disappears altogether. Had I known, I might just have read it as sona agus sásta, and spared us the whole adjective/adverb debate. (Apologies to everyone who hated it.) But then I wouldn't have seen all these cool intensification examples people have given me.

quote:

Is bean shona shásta í Lúsaí. "Lúsaí is a very happy woman."
Is cailín sona sásta í Lúsaí. "Lúsaí is a very happy girl."

A Bhreandán, I'm beginning to worry that you're reading my mind, from half a world away! The above examples are precisely what I was trying to get at. I should have kept the stuff about 'outside the predicate' out of it - all it did was complicate things. But my confidence about the copula has been severely shaken of late, so I tried to stick to Ó Siadhail's between attributive/predicate adjectives distinction. Didn't help, did it? Although, looking on the bright side, I learned that since sona sásta is a legitimate intensification, I probably shouldn't split it and put one verb in the subject and one in the predicate. And I learned that in Irish, "in a string of adjectives attributed to a noun, all of the adjectives receive the same treatment" – great rule! And "caoirigh is an exception in that it doesn't cause lenition." (Which makes my pesky little brain wonder why.) Pretty good haul, wouldn't you say?

quote:

In Irish, I think it is better gramatically to treat them as adjectives and apply the appropriate declensions to them even if their function might be adverbial.

My conclusion, precisely.

Thanks to one and all who put up with me. I shall now go away for a day or two and let you all recuperate. Slán.

I think an appropriate alliterative couple for the moment would be "docht daingean". I use this to refer to all you grammar mavens, lest anyone feel their are being singled out!

quote:

I think an appropriate alliterative couple for the moment would be "docht daingean". I use this to refer to all you grammar mavens, lest anyone feel their are being singled out!

A new couple! Thank you.