I have noticed a lot of sentences like:

quote:

An lámh a bhí agat féin sa ghadaigheacht san! Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfá-sa bheith agat sa ghadaigheacht san?

It is a very interesting construction, because logically "lámh" should be the subject of the following clause. What hand could be at you? The hand governs the verb "to be".

But then, in the middle of the clause, we switch from an impersonal third-person construction to a second-person one, with d'fhéadfá governing the verb "to be".

Logically, you would expect "an lámh a dh'fhéadfadh a bheith agat", but that is never what you get.

It makes it awkward grammatically for the verbal noun. If d'fhéadfá governs bheith, then no "a" is required: d'fhéadfá dul, d'fhéadfá bheith.

But if lámh governs the verbal noun, it would be "lámh a bheith agat".

Although Carmanach has stated that bheith and a bheith are identical in CD Irish - a logical approach would be to put the "a" in where other verbal nouns would have one. Eg. áit a d'fhéadfása dul ann - no "a", I don't think. So no "a" in lámh a d'fhéadfasa bheith agat" - but the whole construction is at least from the point of view of other languages with impersonal constructions utterly confused. Possibly due to the obsolescence of the accusative case in modern Irish, which makes complex constructions like this harder to parse?

I think in Russian, you would say иметь руку где-нибудь, but for my purposes here, what is correct Russian is not the main point. I just want to highlight the confused construction. So, while I welcome comments on the Russian, the Russian doesn't have to be correct here - I am translating d'fhéadfá by можешь in the present tense as I think it makes the screwed up construction clearer.

An lámh a dh’fhéadfá-sa bheith agat - this is like saying

рука, которую можешь быть у тебя (где-то)

when what would make sense would be:

рука, которая может быть у тебя (где-то)

probably in Russian it would be:

какая рука, которую ты имел бы в этом?

That could be totally wrong, but it is an attempt!

quote:

An lámh a bhí agat féin sa ghadaigheacht san! Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfá-sa bheith agat sa ghadaigheacht san?

Yes this is unusual. You would expect "an lámh a dh'fhéadfadh a bheith agatsa". You know, it reminds me of a little phrase used commonly in legislation here: "Scoirfidh an tAcht seo d'fheidhm a bheith aige" or "This Act shall cease to apply" which has been in use for donkey's years. Now I had always been suspicious of this particular phrase. It just seemed plain odd to me as I would have expected "Scoirfidh feidhm de bheith ag an Acht seo". One would say "tá feidhm ag an Acht seo" with "feidhm" being the subject of course. I suspected that it might be a calque of the English as it seemed as strange to me as someone saying "Scoir Cill Airne d'Aogán Ó Rathaille a bheith ann". I see now that I may well have been mistaken if PUL was using something on the same lines.

It reminds me also of "Tá a fhios agam é" and not "Tá a fhios agam".

Oh, and that is not the only example of this in PUL. He uses this construction a lot, as well as tá a fhios agam é - he doesn't always say the "é", but he does sometimes - and so these things have been around for a while at least!

“Airiú, cad é an Béarla fhéadfá-sa bheith agat?” arsa Con.

Mo Sgéal Féin, 6

quote:

Oh, and that is not the only example of this in PUL. He uses this construction a lot

Can you give us some more examples? These kinds of things fascinate me, I must say.

Well, in addition to the example I gave above and the example Seánw found in Mo Sgéal Féin, there are these:

Séadna chapter 3: Cáit. – Conus fhéadfainn tosach a bheith agam ar Shíle agus í anso i gcómhnuidhe agat?

NiamH: conus fhéadfadh sí aon lámh a bheith aici i nguid na cailíse? [similar to the one above, but actually from a totally different part of the book]

As for "a fhios agam é", I found this in Niamh: Is dóich léi ná fuil fhios agam-sa é.

What about two "i's", eg in Niamh: imthigh agus tabhair chúghainn anso an bosca iarainn úd n-a raibh an chailís óir ann. [N-a raibh contains "i" and so does "ann". Ina raibh an chailís óir would be sufficient without "ann", and go raibh an chailís óir ann would be fine too, but two lots of "i"?]

These things remind me of inconsistencies in spoken English. Particularly common is the use of a plural verb near a plural noun that is not actually the subject of the verb. Eg "neither of the women were there" -instead of "neither...was". This is so common that it will probably be taught as standard in 100 years' time. Also "only" qualifying the wrong word. "I only have 5 euros", instead of "I have only 5 euros" etc. Every language has these, and in PUL's case he may have decided that they were authentic Muskerry dialect and so what he was recommending as the standard for the pre-WW1 Ireland...

Stephen Pinker talks about that sort of thing in The Language Instinct. The everyday spoken language of native speakers often throws up things that sometimes defy the grammarian's tidy logic. "I don't know nothing" is a good example, and one that is stigmatised and taught as "bad English". The logic being that if you say "I don't know nothing", you are in fact saying the exact opposite since that which you don't know is nothing, it logically follows that you must know something. But as Pinker quite correctly points out, for the people who do actually say it that way, the phrase is not understood according to the tidy mathematical logic of the standard English grammarian. For them, two negatives do not cancel each other out. He also mentions French where two negative particles are used to express a definite negative meaning. I myself would say "I didn't say nothing to him" and the like with friends and relations in Wexford but I would not say that to my bank manager over the phone. The key here is register.

I remember being corrected by an Englishman once (not David!) for saying "He has more money than me" and not "He has more money than I have". I would not and have never used the latter.

Anyway, to get back to the original post; what is it exactly that native Gaeltacht speakers understand from the structure tá + ag used to denote possession? Putting on my grammarian's hat, "tá leabhar agam" literally means "a book is at me" where "leabhar" is the subject but expressions like "Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfá-sa bheith agat sa ghadaigheacht san?" demonstrate that native speakers don't quite see it exactly that way. That "tása" (< tá a fhiosa) itself has become a defective verb in its own right in Corca Dhuibhne is significant. According to the strict mathematical logic of the standard grammarian, one should say "Tá a fhios agam", literally, "It's knowing is at me" but that't not what people normally say but "Tá a fhios agam é" - "Its knowing is at me it"! Is there any possibility at all that such usage has been influenced by English?

The use of a subpredicate in copular expressions could also be brought into the discussion: is é fear an tí é or fear an tí is é é.

Another example from learners of Irish - but whether native Gaeltacht speakers would ever use it, I don't know - is the title of a song by Kíla: Tóg é go Bog é, literally "Take it it easy" clearly out of confusion with copular forms containing a subpredicate.

I suspect the Kíla title is deliberately ungrammatical.

In the case of "lámh a bheith agat i rud", I wonder does it bend rules because it is a stock phrase?

quote:

I suspect the Kíla title is deliberately ungrammatical.

I wouldn't be so sure . . .

quote:

In the case of "lámh a bheith agat i rud", I wonder does it bend rules because it is a stock phrase?

What rules does it bend?

The rule bending was a reference to David's original question:

quote:

It is a very interesting construction, because logically "lámh" should be the subject of the following clause. What hand could be at you? The hand governs the verb "to be".

But then, in the middle of the clause, we switch from an impersonal third-person construction to a second-person one, with d'fhéadfá governing the verb "to be".

It is not "lámh a bheith agat i rud" that is unusual; it is the d'fhéadfása in the middle - but we found four examples in PUL, so it is not a bending of a rule.

Now: does d'fhéadfása a bheith agat only exist like that because "beith agat" is felt to be an exact equivalent of "have" in English? In that case this construction is only possible with "ag".

Or (and this is v. unlikely) - could other constructions with other prepositions be so used too? What about with "ar"? An tocht a d'fhéadfása a bheith ort? I don't think this can work.

So it only with "bheith+ag" due to the influence of English...

Sorry, Aonghus, you've lost me . . .

Aonghus, would you say: an lámh a dh’fhéadfá-sa bheith agat, or an lámh a dh’fhéadfadh a bheith agat?

Is dócha go raibh mé féin ar strae. Tá "lámh a bheith i rud" mar chuid den dara abairtín a thug David freisin.

Is cuma pé scéal é.

"Cén lámha a d'fhéadfá-sa a bheith agat" feels more natural to me. But that is not evidence!

I wouldn't use "an lámh a d'fhéadfá-sa a bheith agat"; I can't think of a sentence where that would fit.

It was taken out of context, Aonghus. The cén (cad é an) at the beginning is not the point.

Cad é an lámh a d'fhéadfása a bheith agat sa scéal? OR
Cad é an lámh a d'fhéadfadh a bheith agat sa sceal?

The 2nd is more logical, but the first is PUL's form.

The 2nd would literally "what is the hand that could be at you in the matter?"

The 1st, bizarrely, is "what is the hand that YOU COULD be at you in the matter?"

I can't follow you because I don't think of "agat" as "at you".

But PUL's form feels more natural to me: I'd translate it as

"What could you have to do with the matter?"

Aonghus, think of it this way:

Imagine the phrase "tá leabhar agam". In English we say "I have a book" where "I" is the subject of the verb "have" and "book" is the object of the "having". Now in Irish, there is no verb for "have" (excluding "sealbhaigh" which has a much more limited usage than "have"), so Irish uses the structure tá + ag, is + at. So, the Irish phrase actually means "Is a book at me" or "A book is at me". Note that it is "book" that is the subject in the Irish not "I"! It is the book that is "at me" not me being at the book! Now, imagine trying to translate "How could you have such a book?", the Irish would have to be literally "How could such a book be at you?": "Conas go bhféadfadh leabhar dá leithéid a bheith agatsa?" not "Conas go bhféadfása leabhar dá leithéid a bheith agat?". Do you see what I mean?

I see a difference between having a book, and the metaphorical use of having a hand in something.

I would also say:
"Conas go bhféadfadh leabhar dá leithéid a bheith agatsa?"

But

Cén lámh a d'fhéadfása a bheith agat sa scéal?


I don't do grammar: but it seems to me that the subject here is "lámh a bheith agat" rather than just "lámh"

Aonghus, as I said before, it is the hand that is "at you", not "you being at you".

Aonghus I don't speak German, but let me try this.

I know "I have" is ich habe, but I am trying to recreate the impersonal construction of Irish in German guise.

Let us say: tá leabhar agat = es gibt buch bei dir

then:

wie könnte es buch geben bei dir?

wie könntest du es buch geben bei dir?

I've probably messed it all up!

No, It is not the hand which is at me, but it is me having a hand in the matter.

Tá lámh agam sa scéal.
Cén lámh a d'fheadfása bheith agat sa scéal?

This, to me, is fundamentally different to
Tá leabhar agam sa bhaile
Cén leabhar a d'fhéadfadh bheith agatsa sa bhaile?

While both Dinneen and Ó Dónaill have a lot to say about lámh, there is nothing that really covers this case - or I missed it.

There is no fundamental word for ownership in any language, as we all began in cave societies where private property had no meaning.

Chinese: 有 This word for "have" actually means "there is". 我有钱 is taught as meaning "I have money", but strictly speaking on historical grounds 我 is the topic ("as for me") 有 is "there is" and 钱 is money.

Russian: у this means "by" and is used in a way similar to Irish to make phrases. у меня деньги literally means "by me money".

English: have - this word goes back to a proto-Indo-European root meaning "I grab" and is etymologically cognate with the Latin capere (not with the Latin habere). Other Germanic languages have forms cognate with this - haben etc.

Latin: habere - this word goes back to a proto-Indo-European root meaning "I seize" and is etymologically cognate with the Irish "gabhaim". It is not cognate with the English word "have". Some modern Romance languages have forms cognate with this - avoir, avere etc.

Spanish: tener - this word means "I hold" originally, and Portuguese te^r is cognate with it.

Irish: ag - by.

ag [réamhfhocal]
san ionad nó ar an ócáid (ag an doras, ag an damhsa); foinse (chuala mé agat féin é); i dtuairim (tá sé ina fhear uasal acu); i seilbh (is agat is fearr é); i bpáirt le (tá comharsana maithe againn); ag freastal ar (bhí an dochtúir aici); ag tagairt do thréithe nó staid nó eolas nó scil nó mothú nó imeachtaí nó dualgas nó fiacha nó buntáiste nó am nó faill agus araile (bíodh ciall agaibh; bhí saol breá againn, tá léann acu, dá mbeadh snámh aige, tá cion aici air, bhí cluiche maith againn, tá an obair le déanamh agam, bhí airgead agam air, tá tosach agat orm, dá mbeadh bliain eile againn); le haidiacht (tá sé trom agat, ba mhaith againn é); le hainm briathartha (ag ithe, ag ól, ag díol, ag caint).

---

Ach sílim go bhfuil sé fánach againn lámh a bheith againn níos faide sa scéal seo. Is leor domsa lorg láimhe Pheadair Ua Laoghaire a bheith ar an leagan is túisce le lámh agamsa.

quote:

No, It is not the hand which is at me, but it is me having a hand in the matter.

Sorry, Aonghus. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. The "at me" is one and the very same thing as the "having". That is how Irish gets around the little problem of not having a single verb for "have". "A hand is at me in the thieving" is what one is literally saying word for word. Now turn that into a question and you get "What is the hand that could be at you in the thieving?" but PUL has "What is the hand that you could be at you in the thieving?", which on the surface at least doesn't make sense. What exactly is it that is at you: the hand or you? Can you be at you? Now that is why it is all so interesting! There is clearly something deeper at play here.

Now whether you say: "Tá leabhar agam ag baile" or "Tá lámh agam sa ghadaíocht", the exact same structure is being used. The word "leabhar" or "lámh" is not at issue here but the structure tá + ag and how native speakers interpret it.

Another example: you wouldn't say "Táim leabhar agam".

I agree; and what I am trying to say is that while the structure is the same, the meaning is different; and it is the meaning that governs how it is handled.

You could say
"Tá leabhar agam"
instead of
"Tá leabhar agam sa bhaile"
without changing the meaning at all.

But
"Tá lámh agam"
and
"Tá lámh agam sa scéal"
are two very different meanings.

One could even conceive a case where a man with no hands could nevertheless have a hand in the matter!

Interestingly, Hiberno-English takes elements from both languages in expressions like "I've an awful dose on me" (I have a very heavy cold).

quote:

But
"Tá lámh agam"
and
"Tá lámh agam sa scéal"
are two very different meanings.

Er, no they're not. Both mean "I have a hand" even if the second expression involves a metaphorical hand.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think {lámh sa scéal} and {lámh} are different units of meaning; which is why - to get back to the original point - I see no difficulty with PUL's phrase.

Lámh is a handy word.

ámh [ainmfhocal baininscneach den dara díochlaonadh]
(láimh in abairtí áirithe) an ghéag ón ngualainn anuas; crobh, an chuid den ghéag ón rosta anuas; páirt (lámh chúnta, lámh a bheith agat i rud); riar, stiúradh (cúram a ghlacadh ar láimh); scil (tá an-lámh aige); obair (rinne sé an-lámh air); comhiarracht (ag obair as láimh a chéile); coinneáil, cosaint (tugadh ar láimh é); cúram (faoi láimh dochtúra); gealltanas (seo mo lámh duit); diúltú (droim láimhe a thabhairt le duine); foréigean, neart (lámh láidir, an lámh uachtair); síniú (cuir do lámh leis sin); peannaireacht, scríobh (is deas an lámh atá aige); biorán (lámha cloig); an chuid de rud a mbeirtear greim air (lámh buicéid, maide rámha); tomhas (le capall) ceithre horlaí, (le hiasc, plandaí agus araile) trí cinn.

quote:

I think "lámh sa scéal" and "lámh" are different units of meaning; which is why - to get back to the original point - I see no difficulty with PUL's phrase.

I'm sorry Aonghus. I'm completely lost. Can you explain why that would bring about "Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfá-sa bheith agat sa ghadaigheacht san?" instead of "Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfadh a bheith agatsa sa ghadaigheacht san?".

(Message edited by carmanach on January 05, 2011)

Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfá-sa bheith agat sa ghadaigheacht san?

What hand could you have had you in that theft?

Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfadh [a] bheith agatsa sa ghadaigheacht san?

What hand could you have had in that theft?

There may be a resumptive pronoun requirement in PUL's Irish, or dialect, which is either lost or not common to today's Irish or dialects. Unfortunately I have not run across this, and at first it struck me as emphatic, but it makes sense.

quote:

Another example from learners of Irish - but whether native Gaeltacht speakers would ever use it, I don't know - is the title of a song by Kíla: Tóg é go Bog é, literally "Take it it easy" clearly out of confusion with copular forms containing a subpredicate.

I would agree with Aonghus that the extra "é" is likely deliberate there! Can't find any very good evidence to settle it for sure but there is a forum discussion here that gives an explanation.

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102165

By the way, as far as I know at least a couple of the band's members are neo-native speakers, so while it's not quite the same as being a Gaeltacht native, not actually learners as such either.

Thanks for that Seán. That makes a lot of sense. Well, it's clearly emphatic but an unusual structure nonetheless.

quote:

I would agree with Aonghus that the extra "é" is likely deliberate there! Can't find any very good evidence to settle it for sure but there is a forum discussion here that gives an explanation.

That's a nice story about the fellow in the bar but I can't find it on Kíla's website. Anyway, if you look at the lyrics of many of their songs, you'll find more than a few grammar and spelling errors.

quote:

By the way, as far as I know at least a couple of the band's members are neo-native speakers, so while it's not quite the same as being a Gaeltacht native, not actually learners as such either.

And the difference between the Irish of most learners and that of most neo-native speakers is?

Carmanach, how does Seanw's make a lot of sense? I don't see any grammatical sense to it at all at all.
The few times I've come across this "double subject" thing, (dunno wot the proper term would be) on "reputable" web-sites, I've simply assumed it was bad Irish shurely, or maybe an idiomatic thing beyond grammar. Would it be "lese-majesté (can't do some accents) to ask if PUL/native speakers sometimes get it "wrong"?
I came across this recently in "Na Rosa Go Brách" -first and only book in Irish I've (not quite completely yet) read: "Ach nár fhéad mé fios a bheith agam go raibh seo ag teacht?" Which seems to me to be the same kind of "double subject" thing Corkirish is referring to.

As for your "I didn't say nothing" [Dia ár sábháil!]; "than me" (perfeckly fine in context as you know) vs "than I have"; "tá a fhios agam é" - these deserve a separate thread.

native speakers sometimes get things "wrong" yes - PUL's exchange with Osborn Bergin shows he was prepared to entertain the idea that he might have failed to write the correct form from time to time.

It depends what wrong means.

1. wrong on historical grammatical grounds - on these grounds all Irish spoken today, whether in the Gaeltacht or by learners is "wrong". However PUL's idea of caint na ndaoine was to forget about historical grammar and go with the Cork Irish of the people (the concept of caint na ndaoine is problematic, as he wasn't writing the speech of most of the people, which would be Galway Irish). So he was deliberately bringing in things like "do dhein" instead of "do rinne" and tigh in the nominative instead of teach - although both wrong historically, because they corresponded to the real Irish of Co. Cork - so not wrong dialectally.

2. wrong in terms of the dialect - well, firstly, not all dialects were standardised or had established normative forms. There was and is variation on the ground and no-one to say what was the normative form. But PUL was specifically writing down what he thought was good Cork Irish. When asked what the plural of spear was by Osborn Bergin (sleithe), he was unsure how to pronounce it, and suggested Osborn Bergin ask a very old native speaker. So he accepted the idea that there was a notion of correctness in Cork Irish. But owing to the work of PUL, Cork Irish may have had more work done in terms of creating a normative form than other dialects, as PUL was specifically offering his Cork Irish as a standard for all learners to follow. As he repeatedly uses these double subject phrases, and his works were edited before publication and the double subject phrases are found in works edited by a number of different people, we have to assume that he naturally spoke like that. It was not a typo, but his natural dialectal form.

3. wrong from the point of view of the CO - but the CO didn't exist then, and part of the reason why PUL felt able to bring a number of things (do dhein, tigh) into his written Irish was because there was a free-for-all in progress with regard to written Irish and he didn't see why his native Cork Irish should not be advanced by him as the standard for all to emulate.

It doesn't seem a mistake. And if you have an example of "d'fhéadfá fios a bheith agat", then it must be fairly common. Is that book written by a native speaker of Ulster Irish? I haven't come across that exact phrase in PUL, but it fits with what I found above.

Let me recast the translation:

"An lámh a bhí agat féin sa ghadaigheacht san! Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfá-sa bheith agat sa ghadaigheacht san?"

The part you yourself had in that theft! What part could you have had in that theft?

To me, the message conveyed is that "you" (of all people) could not have had a part in the theft; rather than incredulity at the nature of your part in the theft.

Which is why what you are calling a "double subject" is necessary.

Aonghus, you haven't understood the point. Maybe it doesn't matter if you're not a learner anyway.

Cad é an lámh a dh'fhéadfása bheith agat ann? - this assumes that "bheith agat" is just a transitive verb like "have" in English, and not an impersonal verb-preposition construction.

Cad é an leabhar a dh'fhéadfása scríobhadh air? -This is fine because scríobhadh is a transitive verb.

Scríobhaim leabhar: "I" am the subject, scríobhaim is therefore a 1st person singular verb and leabhar is the object.

But it is impossible in Irish to write "I have a book" with "I" as the subject.

Tá leabhar agam - tá is not 1st person singular. The subject is leabhar. Aonghus, can you write a sentence in Irish meaning "I have a book" starting with "táim"? Do you see now?

Sealbhaím talamh. Cad é an talamh a dh'fhéadfá a shealbhú?

Here sealbhaím is first persons singular. "I" is the subject. In the second "you could" can direct govern the infinitive as sealbhú is transitive.

I know not everyone enjoys grammar, but don't really know why you don't see the point. Probably because you just understand the Irish, and that is all that counts.

Cad é an lámh a dh'fhéadfadh a bheith agat ann? What is the hand that could be with you in it? This =lámh a bheith agat, the book being with you.

Cad é an lámh a dh'fhéadfása a bheith agat ann? What is the hand that you could be with you in it? This =tú a bheith agat, you being with you. It is the splicing of two different constructions together.

It has got nothing to do with emphasing the you (that could be done by agatsa), and nothing to do with the fact that it is "you of all people".

In Spanish "I like wine" is said as "me gusta el vino" (the wine is pleasing to me, with wine as the subject).

How could you like wine? Cómo podría gustarte el vino? (how could the wine be pleasing to you, with wine as the subject)

it would make no sense to say: cómo podrías gustarte el vino?

Cad é an leabhar a dh'fhéadfása a thaithneamh leat?

This would be a direct equivalent - can you see Aonghus that that gets the impersonal construction wrong?

Damn it David; I am saying that you are narrowing it down to much by focusing on "lámh" as a thing; I believe you need to look at the idiom "lámh a bheith agat i rud".

I believe the structure and the thinking of "agat" as merely "at you" is getting in your way.

Both ag and lámh have a much wider and richer meaning.

Grammar explains: you have a form here from a reliable author where the grammatical explanation fails.

I hold that the author is correct!

I am sorry to irritate you, Aonghus. It wasn't my intention.

In lámh a bheith agat i rud - lámh is still the subject, not the object.

Now I think I know what why the idiom is confused. It is because these "noun+a+verbal noun" constructions can have the noun as either the subject or the object. ***and the confusion dates back to the obsolescence of the accusative case in Irish***

leabhar a scríobhadh - to write a book. Leabhar is actually the object of the verbal noun.

tú a dhul ann - for you to go there. Tú is the subject of the verbal noun.

Actually, from the point of view of grammar, there is no reason why leabhar cannot be the subject in leabhar a scríobhadh, meaning "for a book to write". Can you imagine if a book got up and started writing on the wall? Ba rud iontach é leabhar a scríobhadh ar an bhfalla! I mean: ba rud iontach é leabhar a bheith ag scríobhadh ar an bhfalla! [not: leabhar a bheith á scríobhadh]

I think, Aonghus, you highlighted an important thing: the lack of an accusative case means that some sentences may SEEM, as in lámh a bheith agat, as if lámh is the object (after all it is "you have a book" in English). But it is not, as bheith is not a transitive verb, and "tá leabhar agat" shows that the construction is to be interpreted with lámh as subject, not object.

I hope I answered directly on the point you were trying unsuccessfully to raise. But if you want me to cease writing on this topic, I'll do that, lest I irritate board members for no reason!

(Message edited by corkirish on January 06, 2011)

Tua a bhualadh - does this mean "to strike an axe" or "for an axe to strike"?

Sorry for being exasperated. It is more likely my denseness, as someone who has an underdeveloped analytical grasp of grammar.

My frustration is grounded in the fact that we are apparently failing to understand each others points.

I don't think that an idiom can be confused; although I fully accept that an idiom will not obey current rules (or any rules) of grammar. That is one of the features of an idiom; that it is frozen in older usage.

quote:

Tua a bhualadh - does this mean "to strike an axe" or "for an axe to strike"?

The former.

I agree totally with what Corkirish is saying above. I honestly don't understand Aonghus's point about "lámh a bheith agat i rud" being an idiom and therefore not having to conform to rules in the language itself. I think what Seán says about "What hand could YOU have had YOU in that theft?" involving a resumptive pronoun is a plausible explanation. Anyway, it's an unusual construction but not unique as Corkirish and others have pointed out.

The point I was trying to make is that we observe a reliable source using a form which appears to not conform to the rules of the language.

Since the usage is not unique, we can exclude a transient error.

So the rule is not sufficiently comprehensive.

In dubio pro Patrem Patricii! [I've proably violated the rules of Latin shamefully there]

My suggestion is that the rule applies differently to this because it is idiomatic use.

(But mostly I just have difficulty getting my head around this "at you" business, because I go from the Irish meaning to the English meaning without such constructs.)

(Message edited by aonghus on January 06, 2011)

It just sounds like they are emphasising the 'you' part to show disbelief maybe.

quote:

The former.

Aonghus, as David points out it could mean both:

chun an tua a bhualadh le cloch mhór = to strike the axe with a large stone

maidir le tua a bhualadh mo chinn, fastaím a deirimse leat! = as for an axe striking my head, nonsense I tell you!

In other words, "tua" can be the subject or object of the verbal noun. In the first sentence above it's the object, in the second the subject. In the first, it's the axe that's getting hit, in the second it's the axe that's doing the hitting.

I knew I should have asked for more context!

I meant that, on its own "Tua a bhualadh" means the former.

maybe this is why the Ultonians don't have an "a" there where the noun is the subject. In other words, it would be "tua bualadh mo chinn" in Ulster.

quote:

But mostly I just have difficulty getting my head around this "at you" business, because I go from the Irish meaning to the English meaning without such constructs.

But Aonghus, that is exactly what comes out of our mouths whenever we speak Irish: "a book is at me" not "I have a book". Apart from sealbhaigh, Irish does not have a verb for "to have" like English does. The whole thing hinges on the basic concept of something being "at you". Turn it into a question and you get "Cé aige a bhfuil an leabhar so?" which is "At whom is this book?". Note the difference between that and "Cé a shealbhaíonn an leabhar seo?" with a direct relative clause referring directly to the subject of the possessing without a preposition coming between the two and so requiring an indirect relative clause in "Cé aige a bhfuil an leabhar so?". All of this is very real and very concrete and used in speech all the time.

Irish and English are not unique in having the subject and object positioned differently. The Italian for "I like it" is "Mi piace", which literally - word for word - means "To me it pleases", i.e. "It pleases to me". Now turn it into a question and you get a similar construction to "Cé aige a bhfuil an leabhar?": "A chi piace?" - "To whom does it please?" i.e. "Who likes it?"

One more example from Italian: "Ti manco?", literally "To you I miss?" which in English is "Do you miss me?". Note how the subject and object are reversed in Italian! Similarly "Mi manchi tanto!" - "To me you miss so much" or in English "I miss you so much!".

quote:

I meant that, on its own "Tua a bhualadh" means the former.

No, on its own, it means both.

What I meant is that if I think "Tá fadhb agam" and then want to express that in English I don't think "There is a problem at me" I just think "I have a problem".

Or if I think "Tá pionta agam ort" I don't think "There is a pint at me on you" I think "You owe me a pint"!

quote:

Or if I think "Tá pionta agam ort" I don't think "There is a pint at me on you" I think "You owe me a pint"!

Well, if that is the case, you are thinking in English. Similarly, no native Italian speaker would think of "Mi manchi" as "I miss you" but as "To me you miss". Why would they be thinking of the word order of a completely different language? The fact that Italians often have difficulties with the word order of such expressions in English shows that they are thinking in Italian and not English.

Carmanach, would my spanish example be in italian:

Come potrebbe piacerti il vino?

[compare: come potresti piacerti il vino? would be wrong]

You miss my point: I am either thinking in Irish or in English (or more usually in concepts); I don't express one language in terms of another.

The point was related to wanting to translate in my head. (Something I seldom need to do between Irish, English and German, since I have been bilingual since I began to speak and trilingual for thirty odd years).

quote:

Similarly, no native Italian speaker would think of "Mi manchi" as "I miss you" but as "To me you miss".

I suppose what I am saying is that the concept in the mind of an Italian native speaker when thinking "Mi manci" is identical to the concept of a German native speaker thinking "Du fehlst mir" and to that of an Englsih native speaker thinking "I miss you".

Du fehlst mir is literally "You lacking for me" (I had to look mir up - couldn't think how to english it)

Well we have some impersonal constructions in English, but not as many as other languages. Suffice it to say that it behoves one to bear that in mind!

If I may, here is the appropriate (hopefully) restructuring w/ breakdown.

Féadfá-sa / an lámh bheith agat / sa ghadaigheacht san.

Féadfadh / an lámh / [a] bheith agatsa / sa ghadaigheacht san.

In the second an lámh is doing double duty.


Also:

I'm sorry.
Es tut mir leid.
Lo siento.

I think what Aonghus is saying is that he thinks about the deeper meaning without necessarily analyzing the structure, which of course a native of Irish and English would not do, I think -- at least one who is not a linguist. I think the to you thing may only apply to people who are natives of Irish with little exposure to English as a youth, or before they get extensive schooling in it.

By the way, I don't know if we'll get an answer to these questions without some authoritative source. Since PUL reproduces this on more than one occasion, it might have to be shelved until we accidently run across the answer in the future, which seems to happen. I'm not saying stop discussion, I just doubt the answer is to be found amongst us. If someone has a copy of Modern Irish, I'd look in there for an example of something like this.

quote:

I think what Aonghus is saying is that he thinks about the deeper meaning without necessarily analyzing the structure

Sin é go díreach. Analysing the structure confuses me!

quote:

Féadfá-sa / an lámh bheith agat / sa ghadaigheacht san.

So what is "an lámh bheith agat"? Are you saying that it is the object of "dh'fhéadfása"?

quote:

I think the to you thing may only apply to people who are natives of Irish with little exposure to English as a youth, or before they get extensive schooling in it.

So are you saying that the above sentence structure has been influenced by English?

quote:

So are you saying that the above sentence structure has been influenced by English?

No, what he is saying is that someone who speaks English through Irish will think in terms of "agat" meaning "to you".

quote:

No, what he is saying is that someone who speaks English through Irish will think in terms of "agat" meaning "to you".

. . . which is one and the same thing as saying that anyone who doesn't think of it that way is thinking in English while trying to speak Irish. It's "at you", by the way, not "to you".

Bladar.

Fágfaidh muid mar scéal é mar is ríléir go bhfuilimid ag míthuiscint a chéile go bunúsach.

Conas go bhfeadadh duine nach bhfuil aige ach Gaeilge smaoineamh ar "at you" chor ar bith?

Ní bheadh aon ghátair aige anailís a dhéanamh a bheag ná a mhór ar "agat", bheadh fhios aige cén coincheap a bhí i gceist.

Aonghus, you keep using "conas go". Does that exist? Conas a dh'fhéadadh duine... I don't see the need for go. But I am more than willing to be told that conas go is an established thing, of course, which is why I raising it.

It appears to:

Conas go mbíodh eolas acu ar cá raibh an scoil ? -- Siobhán Ní Shúilleabháin, Máirtín

Conas go gcuireann scipéir an bháid suas leo mura mbíonn siad ar fáil ach anois is arís ? Dochtúir na bPiast
Maidhc Dainín Ó Sé

The likes of "Caithfidh tú ceadúnas (or whatever) a bheith agat" is, sadly, common on public information websites - though it's heavily outnumbered by the version without "tú".
Corkirish, yes - the author of 'Na Rosa go brách' was a Donegal native speaker born in 1885.

quote:

Fágfaidh muid mar scéal é mar is ríléir go bhfuilimid ag míthuiscint a chéile go bunúsach

Ortsa an mhíthuiscint, a Aonghuis. "It is more likely my denseness, as someone who has an underdeveloped analytical grasp of grammar."

quote:

Conas go bhfeadadh duine nach bhfuil aige ach Gaeilge smaoineamh ar "at you" chor ar bith?

"Agat"!!!!! ag + tú!!!!

quote:

Aonghus, you keep using "conas go". Does that exist?

Conas mar a tháinig sé? - what way did he arrive (by train, bus, land, sea, etc.)?,

Conas a tháinig sé?/conas go dtáinig sé? - how is it possible that he came, how can it be so?

quote:

"Agat"!!!!! ag + tú!!!!

Maith go leor.

Is dóigh liom ámh nach bhfuil tú ag cuir an ilteangachas ó aois óg san áireamh. Pé scéal é, tá amhras orm go mbeadh aon ghá ag gnáth cainteoir an smaoineamh seo (agat = ag + tú) bheith aige. Glacaim leis, dá mbeadh duine ag scagadh an nath, agus gan aige ach an Ghaeilge, gur mar sin a dhéanfaí é. Ach tá amhras orm go raibh a leithéid de dhuine ann riamh.

quote:

Is dóigh liom ámh nach bhfuil tú ag cuir an ilteangachas ó aois óg san áireamh.

????

quote:

Pé scéal é, tá amhras orm go mbeadh aon ghá ag gnáth cainteoir an smaoineamh seo (agat = ag + tú) bheith aige.

In ainm an riaigh!! Tá an smaoineamh ceannann céanna sa teangain le sinsearacht! ag + tú = agat. Níl aon dul thairis!! "Tá leabhar agam" - tá slí éicineach eile agatsa lena rá, an bhfuil?

Cé hiad na cainteoirithe dúchas a déarfadh "gnáth cainteoir" in éamais an tséimhithe?? Abair sin liom.

quote:

Glacaim leis, dá mbeadh duine ag scagadh an nath, agus gan aige ach an Ghaeilge, gur mar sin a dhéanfaí é. Ach tá amhras orm go raibh a leithéid de dhuine ann riamh.

Nea-meabhair siar ó thuaidh! Is iad so a chúm agus a cheap agus a mhúnlaigh an teanga Ghaelainne glúin ar ghlúin ná iad so a bhí i dtúrtaoibh leis an nGaelainn mar le teangain labhartha chumarsáide. An bhfuileann tú ag áiteamh ná raibh riamh aon chainteoirí aonteangacha Gaelainne in Éirinn? Ladús, a dhuine! Tá an comhrá so ag titim chuin áiféise.

Tá, cionn is go bhfuil muid ag caint ar dhá rud éagsúla.

Shíl mise go raibh tú ag maíomh go mbeadh duine, go comhfhiosach, ag smaoineamh "ag + tú = agat" agus é ag smaoineamh "Tá leabhar agat".

Ní dóigh liom go mbíonn cainteoir líofa ag smaoineamh go comhfhiosach ar nithe mar é.

quote:

Shíl mise go raibh tú ag maíomh go mbeadh duine, go comhfhiosach, ag smaoineamh "ag + tú = agat" agus é ag smaoineamh "Tá leabhar agat".

Sin é díreach a bhíos a mhaíomh. Cainteoirithe aonteangacha Gaelainne a chúm an déanamh san tá + ag. Iad féin a chúm agus a cheap an teanga. Ní raibh an dara rogha acu ach a dteanga féin a cheapadh dhóibh féin! Ní raibh aon teanga eile acu! Cainteoirithe aonteangacha a chumann is a cheapann na' haon teanga. Is ríléir rífhollasach gur ag cuimhneamh ar tá + ainmní + ag + cuspóir a bhíodar so a cheap na leaganacha so a leanas, agus ní ar ainmní + have + cuspóir an Bhéarla:

Tá leabhar agam
An agatsa athá an leabhar nó agamsa?
Aige sin athá an leabhar, ab ea?
Ní agamsa athá an leabhar ach go háirithin!
Cé aige a bhfuil an leabhar?

Is cuma sa riach cad é a cheapann tusa ná cleas foghlama Bhleá Cliath nó a shílíonn sibh.

quote:

Ní dóigh liom go mbíonn cainteoir líofa ag smaoineamh go comhfhiosach ar nithe mar é.

Ní bhíonn foghlaimeoirithe nó cleas an Bhéarlachais nó "neo-natives" dod shórt féin ag smaoineamh ar a leithéid mar gur as saol an Bhéarla a fáisceadh iad. Is fíor san.

Tá mise ag caint ar anois, agus na foirmeacha ann.

What I was saying is that someone who thinks at you for agat (in an example like ours) is thinking in Irish while speaking English. It seems to me that Aonghus thinks in either language fully (unless of course he hits a rough spot and has to resort to another word from the other language), so his thought is pure bi(tri-)lingual concordance. Thinking I have ... for tá ... agam, and vice versa, is exactly what non-linguistic bilinguals do, which is just right. I don't think people parse language like that in their mind; they replace the meanings one for one wholly.

As for the other question (parsed from an English perspective!):

Féadfá-sa / an lámh bheith agat / sa ghadaigheacht san.

[V + S] + [DO + VN + ag + S] + ...

(I think I've tied my brain in a knot on this one!)

quote:

Féadfá-sa / an lámh bheith agat / sa ghadaigheacht san.

[V + S] + [DO + VN + ag + S] + ...

No, Seánw. I don't mean to be tenacious, but lámh is not the direct object of féadfása. it is not the DO of the VN either. It is the subject of the VN. Your pattern would be:

[V + S1] + [S2 + VN + ag + S1] + ...

Yes, I was parsing from English, so in English it is the DO. Perhaps I shouldn't parse that way, but I see your point as well.

Do scríobh Seanw "What I was saying is that someone who thinks at you for agat (in an example like ours) is thinking in Irish while speaking English. It seems to me that Aonghus thinks in either language fully"

I think I know exactly how Aonghus thinks about it.

Unlike Aonghus, my vernacular is English, but I've been exposed to Irish all my life. I never think the "at me" thing either - if I'm speaking English, I say "I have a XXX" - when I speak Irish, I say "Tá XXX agam" ... I don't translate in my mind before talking .. (well, I do! but not on basic stuff - more on subjunctives, and new vocab)

eadaoin

quote:

That's a nice story about the fellow in the bar but I can't find it on Kíla's website. Anyway, if you look at the lyrics of many of their songs, you'll find more than a few grammar and spelling errors.

I did say there was no good evidence for it! I just vaguely remember something about it having being deliberate, and I could be mistaken. I don't know whether the bar story has any truth to it, I just mentioned it as the only thing relating to the matter I found online. Either way I agree Kila's Irish is far from perfect.

quote:

And the difference between the Irish of most learners and that of most neo-native speakers is?

An average neo-native speaker would be much more fluent in Irish than an average second-language learner. The Irish of both these people would be heavily influenced by English. A learner who is fluent and has acquired a high level of proficiency in good Gaeltacht Irish (more the exception than the rule) is likely to have "better" Irish than that average neo-native speaker.

In any case this is irrelevant because it does not matter how "good" or "bad" the Irish of neo-natives is, they still are not second-language learners. That's a matter of fact not opinion.

I agree but it is not something that needs to be repeated over and over again.

Consider the contrary situation: those reared through English in the Gaeltacht whose parents know very little English and whose pronunciation owes more to Irish than "the home counties". Such people are not criticised for their English. A new term has been coined: Hiberno-English. Dramatists have achieved fame by putting such speech on the English stage.

Why can't native speakers of Irish accord similar approval to learners and neo-native speakers of their language.

>>>Dramatists have achieved fame by putting such speech on the English stage.

They are actually mocking the Irish when they do so. Maybe you don't realise that.

John Millington Synge? Riders to The Sea? The Tinker's Wedding? The Playboy of the Western World?

I'll accept your point of mockery in the musichall days but not in the days of Lady Gregory, W.B.Yeats, et al when Kiltartanese was raised to a literary level.

I have heard English spoken by people who knew no Irish and yet could not speak English as they speak it in Dunlow, Killybegs, Ballina, Galway etc "Thet preesht was at us three years." "Go up the shteers now."

Us anglophones are pleased to hear people speaking our language. We know they'll improve with practice. Why aren't Gaeltacht people pleased to hear us speaking theirs? Why are beginners warned against us? Because we mispronounce a diphthong or leave out a svarabhakti vowel? Use the present habitual instead of the future tense occasionally? Are these crimes to warrant anger?

Surely it is all a storm in a teacup. There must be more important things to address such as your study of An tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire's writing. I read Mo Sgéal Féin almost at a sitting high up on Mangartan on a gloriously sunny afternoon many many years ago. Séadna I found somewhat tedious. Why I don't know. I have one of his translations from Latin, Catilina I think, but apart from noticing the length of his sentences I cannot say I have read it. I will sometime if God spares me.

Is it true that Séadna is a modern version of Setanta and that it can be rendered in English as Sidney?

A Thaidhgín, tá formhór de leabhraibh an Athar Peadair agam, ach is go fíorannamh a fachtar le díol iad, agus mar sin tá roinnt díobh ná fuil macleabhair díobh fachta agam fós. Tá Caitilína agam, go siúrálta, ach ba mhaith liom macleabhar Lúcíán a dh'fháil má's féidir é...

Ní hamháin nach bhfuil sé sin agam ach nár chualas trácht air go dtí seo. Coinneoidh mé súil ar na siopaí leabhar anseo i mBaile Átha Cliath agus má fheicim cóip (macleabhar?) ceannóidh mé duit é mura bhfuil sé an-daor.

Seolfaidh mé chugat é saor in aisce mar leorghníomh as na míthuiscintí a d'éirigh eadrainn ar an gclár plé seo.

Má tá praghas millteanach air cuirfidh mé scéala chugat. Uaireanta samhlaítear do dhíoltóirí leabhar nach fiú tada an leabhar i nGaeilge ach má lorgaíonn tú ceann áirithe ardófar an praghas láithreach.

(Message edited by Taidhgín on January 08, 2011)

'sea, a Thaidhgín, geall leat ná fuil an leabhar so le fáil ann!

Níor ghá dhuit rud ar bith a thabhairt saor in aisce dhom, ach, mar a deirtear, "ná feic isteach sa bhéal capaill in aisce".

Duairt PUL nách Gaelainn i gceart an focal "cóip" in inead macleabhair...

Aonghus and others' here have expressed incredulity that "tá leabhar agam" could actually be conceived of by the monoglot native speakers who invented the Irish language as meaning precisely what it actually says - "a book is at me". They may be interested to know that Diarmuid Ó Sé, one of our foremose linguists and scholars in his book for learners - Teach Yourself Irish - describes the expression of possession in Irish as follows (page 31):

"2 Expressing possession with ag (at)

There is no verb to have in Irish. Instead you use a phrase which combines tá (there is) with ag (at) (pron. eg):

Tá carr ag Máire. - Mary has a car (lit. There is a car at Mary)".

Similarly, Mícheál Ó Siadhail in his Modern Irish - Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation, defines the prepositional pronouns agam, agat, aige etc as "at me", "at you", "at him" etc. (See index for page numbers).

Well, I understand Aonghus' point too, that he does not parse the Irish literally - he just understands and know it is equivalent to a certain phrase in England. But clearly the subject does shift half-way through this phrase...

This sentence in Niamh also seems to have a subject switch:

Bhíodh mná óga acu ina scoileannaibh agus iad ag múineadh gach aon tsaghas eolais dos na mnáibh óga san ar na nithibh a bhí riachtanach an uair sin do mhnaoi bheith ar eolas aici.

You are still mistaking my point: which is that a monoglot speaker would not consciously think of it as being "at me" as opposed to possessing it; they would not need to differentiate.

And that a speaker of one or more languages would jump between equivalents in meaning without consciously parsing them.

I assert that Ó Sé & Ó Siadhail are explaining for the benefit of English speakers who would require an explanation of the absence of "to have".

Also, I expressed doubt, not incredulity.

quote:

Well, I understand Aonghus' point too, that he does not parse the Irish literally - he just understands and know it is equivalent to a certain phrase in England. But clearly the subject does shift half-way through this phrase...

Fair enough. But that wasn't the point I was making in my last post. Aonghus and others here simply don't believe that "tá leabhar agam" was thought of by monoglot Irish speakers - the people who invented the language - as being just that: "is a book at me". They say that bilinguals simply switch "tá . . agam" for "I have . ." - and assume that native speakers have always done likewise - and think no more about it but we as bilinguals do that anyway when we translate from our own language to the other; we search for the equivalent wording in the target language, but the word order in the target language tells us nothing about that in the source language and vice versa. Just as I switch "mi piace" for "I like it", the native monoglot Italian speaker will carry on thinking of it as being "It pleases to me" blissfully unaware of what I, Aonghus or any other native Anglophone thinks. That Irish inverts the order of where the subject and object are placed in the sentence when compared to English that the people who invented this construction tá + ag, were looking at the situation from a completely different angle.

What about the original monoglot Irish speakers who had no other language - English or otherwise - to compare and contrast it to - how did they see the phrase "tá leabhar agam" inside their own minds as anything other than "is a book at me"?!

quote:

Bhíodh mná óga acu ina scoileannaibh agus iad ag múineadh gach aon tsaghas eolais dos na mnáibh óga san ar na nithibh a bhí riachtanach an uair sin do mhnaoi bheith ar eolas aici.

Corkirish, unlike your other example above, I'm not so sure that I see this particular sentence as involving a subject shift at all. Where do you see the subject switch?

quote:

You are still mistaking my point: which is that a monoglot speaker would not consciously think of it as being "at me" as opposed to possessing it; they would not need to differentiate.

How do you know that?! Answer my question: why did monoglot Irish speakers make up this construction: tá + ag + object pronoun? Why not just create a verb to denote possession like English or French? Explain that to me?

I don't believe that people sit down to hatch out a language. And frankly, I don't see any point in your question.

You seem to enjoy harping endlessly on on this point, and twisting what I say to fit your preconceived opinion of what I mean.

It's boring.

Let's not say how Aonghus feels about it. Let's say how a bilingual Irishman feels about it.

If he feels that "tá leabhar agam" has a 1st person verb with leabhar as the object, then he is clearly really thinking in English while he speaks Irish.

And yet the construction in my first post above does indicate that "bheith agam" began to be felt as a transitive verb with the thing possessed as the object by the time of PUL. Was this just Béarlachas? Or some kind of natural development?

(Message edited by corkirish on January 10, 2011)

quote:

Bhíodh mná óga acu ina scoileannaibh agus iad ag múineadh gach aon tsaghas eolais dos na mnáibh óga san ar na nithibh a bhí riachtanach an uair sin do mhnaoi bheith ar eolas aici.

As you say, Carmanach, there is no subject switch. It is really the fusion of two constructions. "Na nithe a bhí riachtanach do mhnaoi", where nithe is the subject, and "na nithe atá ar eolas aici"

quote:

And that a speaker of one or more languages would jump between equivalents in meaning without consciously parsing them.

It is utterly irrelevant what a bilingual does when translating between his own native language and a second non-native language of his. That a monoglot Irish speaker might think of something being "at him" as opposed to "having it" does not in any way mean that he is parsing the sentence every time he opens his mouth! He doesn't need to parse the sentence; from early childhood he has been thinking and saying that things are "at him". He has no more need to parse the sentence "is a book at me" than you have to parse the English "I have a book". You know instinctively that it is "I have a book" and not "A have a book I" or "Book I have a". You know instinctively in the sentence "What present will I buy you for Christmas?" that which is being bought is "what present" not "you"! My girlfriend is Italian and she has big problems with such expressions as she has with turning "Mi manchi?" into "Do you miss me?".

quote:

I assert that Ó Sé & Ó Siadhail are explaining for the benefit of English speakers who would require an explanation of the absence of "to have".

Nonsense. Neither Ó Sé nor Ó Siadhail invented the structure tá + ag + object pronoun. They simply try to describe and make sense of what native Irish speakers have given them to work with, not by making assumptions and assertions based on viewing Irish through the prism of English.

quote:

Also, I expressed doubt, not incredulity.

It sounds strongly like incredulity from where I'm sitting. "Ach tá amhras orm go raibh a leithéid de dhuine ann riamh."; strong word that - "riamh".

quote:

I don't believe that people sit down to hatch out a language. And frankly, I don't see any point in your question.

Er, leaving out the obvious examples of Esperanto, Klingon and Volapuk, I never said that people "sit down to hatch out a language", Aonghus. Where did I claim that? Languages evolve as systems of communication for expressing ideas to other human beings in communities living in particular geographical areas, a process that takes centuries to form and changes gradually over thousands of years. Your problem is that you just can't accept that monoglot Irish speakers actually thought of the concept of possession as something being "at you" in spite of that very same form being actually used in the Irish language.

quote:

You seem to enjoy harping endlessly on on this point, and twisting what I say to fit your preconceived opinion of what I mean.

It's boring.

I resent that. I'm not twisting anything here, Aonghus. I'm merely working with the language that I find in front of me and trying not to make assumptions based on some other language and some other thought system. Aonghus, if you're incapable of getting your head around what I've been endeavouring to explain to you here for so long now, I'm sorry, my friend, I can't do any more for you.

(Message edited by carmanach on January 10, 2011)

(Message edited by carmanach on January 10, 2011)

quote:

If he feels that "tá leabhar agam" has a 1st person verb with leabhar as the object, then he is clearly really thinking in English while he speaks Irish.

Yes, as I've been saying here all along.

quote:

And yet the construction in my first post above does indicate that "bheith agam" began to be felt as a transitive verb with the thing possessed as the object by the time of PUL. Was this just Béarlachas? Or some kind of natural development?

Well, as it happens Ó Siadhail (p 266) does discuss "tá a fhios agam é" instead of "tá a fhios agam". He says that idioms with the preposition ar, "on" are somehow more passive than those with ag "at" (p 265). He then says (p 266):

"It is probably this more active quality that causes the commonest ag-idiom tá a fhios (ag) 'know' to be reinterpreted as a verb both in responses and pronominalisation, questioning and clefting".

However he then says that the "older use" (his words) of tá a fhios 'where' "where it is still felt as a noun phrase. In that usage the noun fios 'knowledge' in a fhios 'its knowledge' may be followed by the adjective sin 'that'. This older practice is still current among middle-aged speakers in for example Inishmaan and in Dunquin: Níl a fhios sin agam (lit. That knowledge is not at me) (Im), Tá a fhios san agam (Dn)".

The fact that "Tá a fhios san agam" should be the older usage is indeed interesting. Therefore, I think the influence of English in such newer constructions as "Tá's agam é" cannot be completely ruled out.

>>>Yes, as I've been saying here all along.
------------------------------

yes, but I was commenting on the phenomenon in general on (a bilingual Irishmen) and not on Aonghus in particular. I don't know what language Aonghus thinks in - I don't think he has ever explained that to us - but if he thinks in Irish some of the time, he probably would agree there is some influence from English on that. Anyway, I don't want to gratuitously offend Aonghus for no particular advantage.

quote:

Well, as it happens Ó Siadhail (p 266) does discuss "tá a fhios agam é" instead of "tá a fhios agam". He says that idioms with the preposition ar, "on" are somehow more passive than those with ag "at" (p 265). He then says (p 266):

"It is probably this more active quality that causes the commonest ag-idiom tá a fhios (ag) 'know' to be reinterpreted as a verb both in responses and pronominalisation, questioning and clefting".

That's fascinating. I hadn't registered the implication of that passage!

PUL has some interesting comments in Notes on Irish Words and Usages:

Discussing the passage in his Lughaidh Mac Con "Tá 'fhios ag rí Sacsan, chómh maith agus tá 'fhios agamsa é". PUL explains:

quote:

This é would appear at first sight to be redundant, since the thing known is already expressed in the "a", which is understood before 'fhios. But the words tá 'fhios ag rí Sacsan are really followed by the whole passage from pé méid down to go h-éagcórtha, although the "a" is here also before the 'fhios, and there is no redundancy.

Now, that whole passage is the thing represented by the é after tá 'fhios agam-sa. Therefore the é is no more redundant than the whole passage is redundant.

Immediately following this we meet:

Ba dhóich liom...dá dtagadh L. i n-aonfheacht linn gur mhóide agus gur b'fhearrde a dh'éistfí linn é.

This final é represents, also, the whole passage from dá dtagadh i n-aonfheacht linn. Of course the same idea is represented also in the e of móide and in the e of fearrde.

These are speech usages which have had the nation's sanction for ages. They cannot be interfered with. They must be accepted like what are called "irregular verbs" in the classics.

Líon na málaí chómh lán agus is féidir é.

This final "é" is quite common in Irish where there seems to be nothing to represent it in English.

"Osgail an doras" -- "Ní fhéadfinn é."

The omission of the "é" in such a sentence would destroy the sense. The "é" represents the thing which the speaker says he cannot do. He must either say "ní fhéadfinn an dorus a dh'osgailt", or "ní fhéadfinn é."

Bhí 'fhios acu é.

The full express (in the passage in question) would be:

Bhí a fhios acu an namhaid a bheith ar a dtí. The possessive pronoun a before fhios represents the whole phrase an namhaid a bheith ar a dtí. Then for the sake of brevity that whole phrase is represented by the pronoun é at the end of the sentence.

quote:

I never said that people "sit down to hatch out a language", Aonghus. Where did I claim that?

You did say "invented" and "make up", which seem like odd verbs to use in this context.

As for the "at you" stuff, the entire thing seems to be absolutely moot. It seems like a competition to score the debate win instead of actually understanding the sentence, which was abandoned some time ago.

quote:

You did say "invented" and "make up", which seem like odd verbs to use in this context.

"Odd"? What on earth are you on about?!

quote:

As for the "at you" stuff, the entire thing seems to be absolutely moot. It seems like a competition to score the debate win instead of actually understanding the sentence, which was abandoned some time ago.

Er, hang on there now one minute. This has nothing to do with "scoring the debate win" but getting at some real answers so don't start playing victim here, please. I asked you before if you were you claiming "an lámh bheith agat" to be the object of "dh'fhéadfása" to which you did not respond. The structure tá + ag to denote possession is to be found in the very same sentence which Corkirish originally posted and that indeed is what we discussed at length here; its precise meaning in the mind of the native speaker in light of us finding "a dh'fhéadfása" instead of "a dh'fhéadfadh" as one would expect. I'm on here to find out the answer to that question; can you tell us what that it is, please?
I also asked the perfectly reasonable question: if monoglot speakers who formed the language over many centuries did not see the notion of possessing something as it being "at you" then why did they use tá X agam in their own speech? That question too went unanswered.

Carmanach, what did you think of my long quotation from PUL on "tá 'fhios agamsa é"? At least it shows it was not a typo or the hand of an editor when his works used that construction. He strongly believed that was the correct Irish.

Yes, odd, at least to me. I use invent for things like steam engines and microchips. I use make up for things like stories or excuses. Nobody "invented" or discovered the Irish language. The Irish speakers are not the prime movers of the language. The language precedes them and they participate in it from within. In a sense, they are invented, not the language. (Of course, there is a feedback loop here, as in all cause and effect situations.) So the idiom tá + ag is neither invented nor made up. In fact, it is probably more attributable to a sheer accident of history. It has been passed on through the ages. So I would choose a verb like produce or form, which you just used. They seem more appropriate, since it conveys they participate in molding the language.

Perhaps it is just a difference in our English. As for the other questions, all I have to say is I don't have the answers you are looking.

quote:

Carmanach, what did you think of my long quotation from PUL on "tá 'fhios agamsa é"? At least it shows it was not a typo or the hand of an editor when his works used that construction. He strongly believed that was the correct Irish.

I understand what you're saying about PUL's take on it:

"This é would appear at first sight to be redundant, since the thing known is already expressed in the "a", which is understood before 'fhios. But the words tá 'fhios ag rí Sacsan are really followed by the whole passage from pé méid down to go h-éagcórtha, although the "a" is here also before the 'fhios, and there is no redundancy.

Now, that whole passage is the thing represented by the é after tá 'fhios agam-sa. Therefore the é is no more redundant than the whole passage is redundant."

In a sentence such as "Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil leabhar aige Seán" for example, the "a" there is acting as an antecedent and refers to "go bhfuil leabhar aige Seán" in its entirety. "go bhfuil leabhar aige Seán" is a continuation of the "a", if you like. PUL says as much himself. His point about the "é" in "tá's agam é" being no more redundant than the whole passage it stands for being redundant is on the surface at least a plausible one but there is no getting away from the fact that "tá a fhios agam é" is an unusual structure in Irish. The possessive pronoun "a" already indicates the subject but then strangely we have an object pronoun "é" stuck on the end as though "tá a fhios agam" were a verb taking a direct object which chimes in with what Ó Siadhail says; that at some stage "tá a fhios agam" came to be understood as a verb which could take a direct object. Imagine a sentence such as "Tá a nglanadh ormsa iad" - strange, isn't it? Ó Siadhail would therefore seem to have a strong argument regarding tá + ag having a less passive sense that tá + ar and that this may explain "tá a fhios agam" being seen as a verb. The fact that "tása" is now treated as a defective verb in CD backs that up.

The fact that the older form (Ó Siadhail's words) "tá a fhios san agam" is still in use with older speakers shows that a change did indeed occur.

The only thing that seems to make sense is that "tá's agam" is now considered a verbal form which can take a direct object.

The other points PUL makes in the extract you quote are all well known and don't contain anything that couldn't easily be explained grammatically. "Tá's agam é" seems to be the only that can't easily be explained without seeing "tá a fhios agam" as a verb taking a direct object - whether the "é" is replacing an entire sentence or not, the question still remains about where the subject and object are.

One more example from speech that chimes in with what PUL says: "Ní 'od cháineadh é, an dtuigeann tú", the "it", the "é" here, refers to whatever follows. Such usage is common in Irish.

As regards the original sentence:

Cad é an lámh a dh’ fhéadfá-sa bheith agat sa ghadaigheacht san?

As I said above, looking at "bheith agat" as just another verbal noun phrase seems to be only way to parse it. Take out "bheith agat" and stick in some other verbal noun phrase and you wouldn't upset the syntax at all: "Cad é an lámh a dh'fhéadfása a dhéanamh sa ghadaigheacht san?" for example.

quote:

Yes, odd, at least to me. I use invent for things like steam engines and microchips. I use make up for things like stories or excuses. Nobody "invented" or discovered the Irish language.

"Make up", "form", "invent", "develop" - whatever vocabulary you care to pick me up on, the fact remains that it is communities made up of individuals who develop languages and mould them over centuries. Yes, indeed, languages are "developed" and "made up" by native speakers through accepted usage in day to day speech over the space of years and centuries. Where do you think languages pop out of, Seán Whittle; thin air or something?!! Without native speakers to use them and change them - and change involves creating new words and new ways of understanding old forms while discarding others - there wouldn't be any languages at all - Irish, English - nothing! Talk about twisting my words - at no point did I suggest that somehow native speakers all get together in a boardroom somewhere and "draw up" a language for themselves. To suggest that I said otherwise is absurd.

quote:

The Irish speakers are not the prime movers of the language. The language precedes them and they participate in it from within. In a sense, they are invented, not the language.

Absolute and utter horse manure.

quote:

So the idiom tá + ag is neither invented nor made up. In fact, it is probably more attributable to a sheer accident of history. It has been passed on through the ages.

Oh, right, so native speakers just found it hiding under a rock somewhere, did they? Did it fall from the sky onto someone's head perhaps? What could this "sheer accident of history" possibly be? Gwon, fill us all in, Seán.

quote:

So I would choose a verb like produce or form, which you just used. They seem more appropriate, since it conveys they participate in molding the language.

Er, hang on a minute. So, native speakers can't invent/make up/change etc their own language as a community through accepted everyday usage but they can, er, "mould" the language. Now I am confused.

Yes, Carmanach, PUL's strong assertion that this is good English ignores the fact that the grammar is very strange - and appears to be English-influenced. "Tá a fhios agam é" means "it's knowledge is at me IT". The only reason for the disjunctive pronoun at the end is that in English this would be "I know it". PUL was not a grammarian, although he had studied Latin. But that explanation by PUL was quite a find! Notes on Irish Words and Usages is full of such things.

Would the sentence "tá leabhar in aice leis/lena h-ais" cause a monoglot Irish speaker some confusion then ? OK, 'in aice' doesn't equate to 'at' exactly, but if the speaker is thinking of possession as an object being 'at' a subject would the spacial relationship of object to subject denoted by "in aice" for example (rather than the more abstract notion of possession) cause the monoglot Irish speaker to think more on the side of 'possessing' the object ?
If this is the case I imagine that the hard-wiring of the brain is different, that when a monoglot Irish speaker hears "tá leabhar aige" a different set of synapses are triggered....i.e. a slightly different image is conjured than when a bi-lingual Irish speaker (whose native language has a word for possession) hears the same sentence.

"in aice" has nothing to do with possession. "Aice" literally means "nearness", "proximity". So, "i m'aice" means "in my proximity" or "in aice liom" - "in proximity, nearness with me". "Ais" literally means "verge", "side", "back", so "lena hais" would literally mean "with her side" and so "beside her". I can't see how any of that would cause a monoglot speaker to be confused.

quote:

If this is the case I imagine that the hard-wiring of the brain is different, that when a monoglot Irish speaker hears "tá leabhar aige" a different set of synapses are triggered....i.e. a slightly different image is conjured than when a bi-lingual Irish speaker (whose native language has a word for possession) hears the same sentence.

I'm not sure about the "hard-wiring" of the monoglot Irish speaker's brain being different as such (I'm speaking strictly of monoglot native Gaeltacht speakers here) but it is clear that the monoglot looked at the concept of possession in a slightly different way; that something is in the position of being AT you, that the relationship is viewed spatially in some way. Irish uses prepositions in often surprising ways for the native Anglophone. "(Is) liomsa an leabhar san" - "That book is mine", literally "(It is) with me that book". This sort of thing can cause confusion for Anglophone learners as when school children on Gaeltacht summer courses come out with things like "Sin mise's agus sin tusa's!" Irish is a preposition-rich language; a small handful of verbs are combined with various prepositions to express different ideas. The norm in most other languages is to create seperate verbs instead.

Carmanach
I know "in aice" has nothing to do with possession....or to be more specific, "next to" has nothing to do with possession in English. My point is that as possession in Irish is denoted by a spacial relationship between object and subject, and that both at ("ag") and next to ("in aice") are both close spacial qualities, then in the monoglot Irish (Gaeltacht) speaker's mind a similar pattern of synapses must fire for both 'close' spacial relationships i.e. tá leabhar aige and tá leabhar in aice leis. I was too extreme in suggesting some confusion between the two in the mind of the monoglat Gaeltacht speaker. Similarly, the bi-lingual Irish speaker (whose other language has a distinct word for possession) exactly equates 'Tá leabhar aige' with 'he has a book' and the same mental image (i.e. synapse firing pattern) will be the same for both. But the bi-linguist will have more dis-similar mental images for "tá leabhar aige" and "tá leabhar in aice leis" than the monoglot Irish Gaeltacht speaker. As these images happen from childhood, they become re-enforced and the neuron path in the brain (i.e. the image associated with the sentence) means there will be an Irish (language) brain i.e. hard wired slightly differently than another language's 'brain'.

Yes, you may well be right about that.

It will be very interesting in the future to map individual thoughts as brain mapping techniques get more sophisticated.
There is some debate to whether or not brains are hard-wired for language...Naom Chomsky reckons they are for grammar. But the capacity to adapt for grammar had to come before grammar. Language has been around for about 200,000 years - a blip in evolutionary time. I'd imagine the brain is quite 'plastic' and is moulded from infancy by language (I mean the language parts of the brain). I'd guess that if you could take a baby from 200,000 years ago and raise it today it could handle language. There must be hardware differences too among languages that we can't detect yet.
At some stage it should be possible (hopefully there will still be native Irish speakers left) to see exactly the 'route' of "tá leabhar aige" vs. "he has a book".

Do you think Neanderthal man had language?

quote:

But the capacity to adapt for grammar had to come before grammar.

Indeed but the brain and language must have evolved in tandem, each reinforcing the other. The capacity to adapt for grammar must have existed before grammar itself - absolutely - otherwise there would be no grammar but perhaps the initial capacity for language was quite limited - as it would appear to be in most other species - and involved in sync with that of the brain over time each becoming steadily more complex.

quote:

At some stage it should be possible (hopefully there will still be native Irish speakers left) to see exactly the 'route' of "tá leabhar aige" vs. "he has a book".

The problem with that is that there are no monoglots left so English will always be getting in the way to some extent.