Here's another example (MSF ch 25)

Thaisbeánadar féin ná raibh aon uraim do dhlígh acu nuair a dheineadar sgiot sgot de'n dlígh úd an leórghnímh.


When you saee that "do dhlígh" you would think it would be "don dlígh", wouldn't you? The more you go into it, the less the guidance in grammar books on the use of the article seems correct...

Why would you expect "don"?
The first "do" is connected to* "uraim" - "ur(r)aim do dhligh" = "respect for (to) law".
"De'n" is connected to* "sgiot sgot" - "dheineadar sgiot sgot de'n dhligh" = "They made a 'sgiot sgot' of the law".
("do-ghním sciot sceat de" = I ruin, beggar, leave the worst of, cut up according to Dinneen.)


*Again, I'm not up to speed on grammatical terminology.

I would expect "an dlí" for "the Law", yes - because it is the Law in general, in principle. Maybe there is a contrast between dhlígh with no article here, and the article later on in the sentence: They showed they have no respect for the LAW IN GENERAL when they flouted that compensation LAW IN PARTICULAR?

quote:

They showed they have no respect for the LAW IN GENERAL when they flouted that compensation LAW IN PARTICULAR?

Sin díreach é, dar liomsa.

For 'do dhlí' I would say it translates as 'for a law'

>>>For 'do dhlí' I would say it translates as 'for a law'

That is not how Sheila Sullivan's translation has it. I suppose you could make a case that he was saying "flouting this law amounted to disrespecting a law" - somewhat tortological. But Sheila Sullivan's translation takes the view that by flouting this particular law, they evinced a wider respect for the law itself, the abstract principle of the law.

The point I am trying to make is that an examination of PUL's article usage does not back up grammar book explanations of article usage. For example, grammar books often say you should say "an Ghaelainn" but usage in books by native-speakers does not show such a consistency on the issue. The other thread about "brí" meaning "the meaning" with no article is the same thing. On page 1 of Mo Sgéal Féin, there is "do briseadh cath ar Ghaelaibh" - not "ar na Gaelaibh" - for no particular reason.

Compare:

Sa bhliain d'aoís an Tighearna míle sé chéad a dó do
briseadh cath ar Ghaedhlaibh

and

i gcaitheamh na naoi mblian san do rugadar
buadh ar na Gallaibh ins gach cath trom d'ár buaileadh
eatartha go dtí an briseadh sin Chionntsáile

You spot straightaway "ar Ghaedhlaibh" and "ar na Gallaibh". I asked about this in the Gaeltacht when I was there, and the answer I got was that it was largely stylistic, and that the seanchas of Amhlaoibh Ó Loinsigh exhibited a similar fickleness with respect to the article.

I think there is more variation on the ground in article usage that grammar books suggest - and that Irish has a tendency to leave the article out when English speakers would view it as essential.

James, I wonder if studies in Modern Irish by Ua Nualláin addresses this point?

Do you really think it is 'fickleness'? 'de'n dhlígh' repeated twice wouldn't have sounded as good

How would you yourself translate 'for a law' without using éigin/eicínt?

Sineadw, I acknowledged that your interpretation may be right. But there are so many instances where use of the article differs from what I would expect that I think some stylistic devices are at play, as well as the normal grammatical rules. But I am not insisting on my point of view here - your interpretation makes its own sense.

Looking at O'Nolan's New Era Grammar of Modern Irish, I see his section on the article is quite thorough:

1) he mentions that languages have the article - but says only sometimes.

2) I asked recently about "an" with a plural numeral and noun - and he explains that if the phrase is felt to be a unity they do indeed take the singular article: tagaidh aon lá is maith libh de'n sé lá san, where the singular article is correct according to Nolan.

3) An Choróinn Mhuire - he explains that even though Muire is definite, it feels "adjectival", so the noun may take an article

Nothing to do with "do dhlí", but all good stuff anyway.

Oh no worries I know you're not, but I was just interested in hearing how you visualise 'for/of a law' etc. Sure they mean the same thing, a law, or the law in general.

One strange thing for me at the start was using the article instead of the possessive, so 'an mháthair', 'the mother', when you would expect 'her mother' etc. It's widespread in Hiberno English, but I still found it odd at the beginning!

Did PUL use the article in that context?

quote:

I think there is more variation on the ground in article usage that grammar books suggest - and that Irish has a tendency to leave the article out when English speakers would view it as essential.

I'd agree. Grammar books can't cover all elements of style - and often simplify for the sake of giving clear guidance. Masters of any langauge take liberties that no grammar book would sanction.

My gut feeling is that an article is optional if the noun is already definite (Gaeil, for example)

Dlí is a tricky one, since it may be the abstraction Law, or a particular Law.

Thank you, Aonghus. You summed it up nicely.

Sineadw, I think you would find that PUL used "an mháthair" to mean "his mother", rather than using the possessive, but I would have to do a huge word search on Mo Sgéal Féin to find an example. But I am sure things of the sort have cropped up.

Hiberno-English has this also:

"have you the tea eaten", "the brother is sick", "the car is acting up" etc.