Scooby wrote:
Deghebh - whatever you quote from wherever (and the reference you give doesn't help in any way other than to point out the blatantly obvious that we already know) - '10 is lacking 5' still sounds riciculous in English, and is a slightly odd translation of your Irish suggestion which doesn't suit the context in any way.
Of course you are right here.
Irish idioms are ridiculous when translated word for word into English.
The reverse of this is also ridiculously true.
What I was trying to put over, and Brid made a similar point, is that Irish did not have the words to convey the concept of negative numbers as late as 1920, or if it did, it was limited to the ivy coated halls of learning.
Even in English, the negative numbers are expressed as zero less x, it is just that 'zero' is implied, and not expressed.
The expressions used are simply vocalisations of mathematical expressions.
originally, negative numbers were written as 0-x, but even "0" is a recent concept.
The name "zero" comes from the Arabic "sifar", meaning 'empty'.
It was such a revolutionary concept, that the word in Arabic is still used, for the key to a mystery, and now spelled in English as 'cypher'.
So how would the negative Celsius temperature by naturally expressed in Irish, well Brid says it would not.
It is cold, freezing, or bloody cold!
You might talk about degrees of coldness in Centigrade, like you talk of the depth of water in fathoms.
Context give the sign of the number.
You dont describe a mountain being a negative number of fathoms deep, nor a sea being a negative number of feet high.
Actually, in common talk, even in English, negative numbers are not used. The sign vector of the number is defined by context, and the numbers used are moduli, that is, without sign.
If you want an understanding of how mathematical expressions were used in the 1920s, there is a book which you can find here:
https://www.box.com/s/oifzobk3eol6z6glggyyQuote:
BTW, to echo some of what Aislingeach said:
Holes are not necessarily round. Pegs both square and round come in different sizes and by the marvel of modern technology, one is not significantly harder to make than the other. As from pegs, holes and gripping - too much grip can be a bad thing!
No, holes are not necessarily round, but in the days when this expression originated, a round hole is what you got with an auger. If you wanted a square hole, you needed to work this hole with a hammer and chisel, and a great deal of care.
Likewise, square pegs are how they came from the axe. If you wanted round pegs, it required some time spent whittling, or standing at a bodger's lathe.
So the round hole, and the square peg are produced with the minimum of finishing, and are satisfactory used 'rough'
Yes, we now put round pegs in round holes, but we have to deliberately put grooves into the profile of these round pegs, so that the glue can flow, and grip the wood. This is not of course needed with the square peg, which naturally comes with 4 grooves.
If, stupidly you fit a round peg into a square hole, you waste time and effort making the round hole square, and making the square peg round.
also, when you force the round peg into the square hole, if it is big enough to grip, and initially, no glue was used, but the natural resin of the green oak, then the round peg driven into the square hole will likely split the wood with the hole in it, because the excess wood is too strongly backed up. The converse case, with the square peg, the excess wood forms sharpe corners which cut into the round walls of the hole, and collapse nicely as they cut in, making a sweet interfering fit, which needs no glue.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
