Plé úsáideora:Ben-bh

Hello, Ben-bh. I hope you don't mind if I explain here some of the corrections I made in your article about Séamus VI. (Btw, Séamus has a long é, so I'll need to rename it yet. If it were written Seamus, it would be pronounced more like Sham-us, but having a long é, it is more like Shame-us.) I haven't revided the whole article yet, but here are some notes. I hope you don't find it tedious. I tend to lecture, because I find the subject of Irish grammar and idiom so fascinating.

You wrote "Briontanach", I reckon it was simply a misprint for "Briotanach", so I changed it. I am not very happy with the word "Briotanach" itself, but with "Breatnach" meaning Welsh, we seem to have no better word for British. My idea would be "Mórbhreatnach", from An Bhreatain Mhór, but it's not my job to decide it.

You wrote "Ba rí Seamus VI na hAlban agus Seamus I Shasana é." The problem is now the old one, i.e. the substantial differences in article usage between Irish and English. If you say "rí na hAlban", it can only mean "THE king of Scotland", and if you say "rí Shasana", it can only mean "THE king of England". I.e. the whole noun-phrase is inherently definite. And if you have such a noun-phrase, you must have a pronoun between the copula (ba) and the topic (rí na hAlban, rí Shasana). So, it is better to say "B'é rí na hAlban agus rí Shasana é". And by the way, please try to avoid such expressions as "Séamus VI na hAlban". While I don't want to say they are out-and-out wrong, I do find them English-inspired and untypical of Irish. I'd prefer "Séamus VI, rí na hAlban".

In Irish, the default setting is "he is the King of Scotland" - "is é Rí na hAlban é" - because there can be only one at a time. (Note that you need the extra "é" between the topic "rí na hAlban" and the copula, because the topic is definite, THE king of Scotland). If you want to say in Irish, "he is A king of Scotland", then this is in some opposition to the default setting, and you must think of what you want to say that is different from the default setting. If you want to say that he is one in a line of kings, then you say "is duine de ríthe na hAlban é", i.e. he is one of the kings of Scotland. If the particular information is, that he is a king of Scotland, with the particular attributes of the king of Scotland, you say "is rí de chuid na hAlban é", i.e. a king belonging to Scotland's "share" of all the kings of the world (I am sorry, I don't know of a better way to explain this usage of "cuid" in Irish).

Anyway, in order to say what you probably wanted to say, or to emphasise, I had to devise my own interpretation. I hope you are content with it.

"Mac an banríonn [[Máire I na hAlban]] agus an [[Tiarna Darnley]] ab ea é."

Well, the genitive form of "banríon" (one "n"!) is "banríona", and it gets the article "na", as feminine genitive singular, thus "mac na banríona" is correct for "the son of the Queen", "the Queen's son". However, the problem is not that. Again, note that "mac na banríona" can only mean "THE son of the queen", it cannot mean "a son of the queen", because that one "na" in Irish makes the whole noun-phrase definite. (That's why we don't write "*an tUachtarán na hÉireann", but "Uachtarán na hÉireann" for "THE President of Ireland". The one "na" in between is enough to put a "the" before the whole thing, so to speak.) Now, you did not want to say James was THE son of the queen, you wanted to say he was a son of the queen (and not, for example, a son of the old lady of Beara). This is conventionally expressed, in this case, by "le", which is indeed frequently used to express family relations. In fact, you had quite a grasp of that when you further down used "le" with "col ceathar", though I'd prefer "ba chol ceathar le Máire í". I can't say "bhí sí ina col ceathar le Máire" is out-and-out wrong, though I'd prefer the copula "ba" myself. (Remember that if you are somebody's cousin, you are inherently his/her cousin, it's not an act you put on, or a profession you have.)

More later, if you don't mind. Panu Petteri Höglund 11:58, 19 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sheas Eilís chun máthair baistí ag Shéamus. I am sorry to say, I don't quite understand the sentence. But if you meant to say Eilís was his godmother, why don't you simply say so: "b'í Eilís a mháthair bhaistí"? Note that it is "máthair bhaistí", baistí is lenited after the feminine noun "máthair" (see "baistí" in Ó Dónaill's dictionary). By the way, "ag" does not lenite a following naked noun, thus it would be "ag Séamus". The simple prepositions that do it, are above all "faoi", "ó", "do", "de", in most instances "ar", in Munster dialect (but not in the standard language) even "as". Panu Petteri Höglund 13:01, 19 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I am most grateful for your corrections and forebearance -- I don't want to write nonsense and expect other people to clean it up, but there are certain aspects of our unique grammar and idiom that are a bit of struggle for me. Any contributions you make about what I put up here will always be more than welcome. I will inevitably make certain mistakes repeatedly.

The definite noun-phrase agreement is difficult in clumsy hands, so please bear with me. I am imagining me saying something to the effect that James was uniquely "the" son of Mary and Darnley, not because those two just happened to have one son, but in the same way Nessie would be "the" Loch Ness Monster?

In that case, the correct way to phrase it would be "B'é mac na Banríona Máire agus an Tiarna Darnley é". You see, if the topic of the noun-phrase is definite, then you must put a flanking pronoun between it and the copula. Panu Petteri Höglund 17:20, 23 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a word-choice question over on your page: I couldn't find a word for "regent" -- and I think that that might get confused with, say, the English lord who represented the throne at Dublin Castle. I don't like "steward" -- if "maor" is even the right translation -- because in English, that implies someone who the monarch has trusted with the job. I tried for "caretaker-king" but I think I got something like "caretaker for the king". The idea of a powerful feudal lord who ruled from behind the throne of a boy who was effectively almost his prisoner -- it comes up a surprising amount in the period.

Yes, I got your drift. Well, I am not sure about the "correct" term , but to me "airíoch an rí" sounded quite good and I found there was as yet no need to change it. (Now that I checked with "Téarmaí Staire" at acmhainn.ie, I found "leasrí" for "regent" there. But I'll leave "airíoch an rí" there, as long as nobody makes a case.) Panu Petteri Höglund 17:20, 23 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Séamus VI" is fraught -- I was going by the Gàidhlig, but is it parochial to default his title as King of Scotland? And would "Rí na hAlbanaigh" express the subtle difference of "King of Scots"?

"Rí na nAlbanach", actually ("na hAlbanaigh" is nominative, "na nAlbanach" is genitive). Well, that is a tricky question. Do we perceive James VI's Scotland as part of a common Gaelic world in any sense? Would the perspective be any more "Irish" or "Gaelic" if we called him Séamus VI instead of giving him the English numeral? I think not, because it is above all as the king of England he has any relevancy as to Irish history. But this is only my idea. Panu Petteri Höglund 17:20, 23 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Ben-bh 04:41, 23 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)[reply]