spendergast wrote:
Thanks for the response, so without a verb 'to have' how would one describe the condition of possession of something worthy of pursuit?
Irish does the same as most Slavic languages (and also Latin and Greek, though they have fully-fledged ‘have’ verbs, too): to say “I have X”, you say “X is for/to/by/at me”.
Quote:
Not surprised on the multiple forms of 'to be' as this is somewhat common among languages. Can you provide examples of forms used for describing different states?
Basically, there are two verbs:
Bí is (for some reason) called the substantive verb. It’s mainly used to describe a state in which the subject is, or give an attribute to the subject:
tá an fear mór = ‘the man is big’ (
tá is the present tense of
bí; the verb comes before the subject in Irish).
Is is called the copula. It’s used to classify or identify the subject with its predicate:
is fear mór é = ‘he is a big man’.
Quote:
One kick to the particular inter-realtionship of these words is that there are various implications of using different forms and the overall relationship continues to work :-)
Indeed—but one kick to the English language is that half the forms of verbs look the same. Not so in Irish: you kind of have to choose a form to go with.
Something Irish does like a lot is using nouns instead of verbs. English is quite verb-heavy, whereas Irish is more noun-heavy. The infinitive, for example, doesn’t really exist at all in Irish—instead, a verbal noun is used. That verbal noun means something quite close to the infinitive, but it is unmistakeably a noun (‘an instance of doing X’ or ‘the concept of doing X’). It often sounds better in these ‘string-of-verbs’ axioms to simply use a string of verbal nouns in Irish.
This also reduces the options a bit, because the copula
is doesn’t have a verbal noun, so you have to go with
bí (whose verbal noun is
bheith). The verbal noun of
déan is
déanamh, though perhaps
gníomh (an abstract noun which is—believe it or not—derived from the same root as
déan) would be a better choice here; it means something more like ‘action’, i.e., a more ‘active’ doing, rather than just any doing … if that makes sense.
The construction for ownership, unfortunately, isn’t helped much here, because there’s no verbal noun for that, either.