Hey Everyone, I'm back again to finish off the classification copula section in Gearóid Ó'Nualláin's (GÓN) book:

"New Era Grammar of Modern Irish".

GÓN splits the classification copula in "types". I'm going to list the ones out that I am having trouble understanding, although what I'm looking for most is to understand how to use them myself. My goal is that by understanding the translation and GÓN's comments, I will be competent to form sentences of my own someday.

Link to the book is below. Classification copula begins on pg 146. I will be quoting directly from book.
https://archive.org/stream/NewEraGramma ... 6/mode/1up

Type 12: "Dá mba ná beadh sé fagháltha roimh ré aige - if he not got it beforehand.
Usually explained by saying that the predicate 'rud=a' fact, is understood. It is more satisfactory to take 'ná .... aige' as predicate with subject understood at the end (é = the state of affairs in question)".

Couple of questions regarding the above:
1) Assuming "Dá mba ná ..." is equivalent to "Dá mba nach", how is this logically correct? What does it mean and could you provide another example to demonstrate?
2) Does a verb with "bheadh .... agam" mean I would have + verbal adjective e.g. Bheadh an bia ithe agam = I would have eaten the food. Is this the correct way to form a sentence of this type e.g. if I wanted to say "I would have ran" or "I would have drank?
Mainly what I wanted to ask regarding the above was: how does one say "I would have been + verbal adjective" e.g. I would have been found eventually. What would that be as a sentence?
3) I don't really understand what GÓN means by saying "Usually explained by saying that the predicate 'rud=a' fact, is understood. It is more satisfactory to take 'ná .... aige' as predicate with subject understood at the end (é = the state of affairs in question)". Could someone please elaborate and if possible please provide an example to demonstrate context.

Type 13: "Níl aoinne is fearr a tháinig as ná mise". This is translated by GÓN as "No has come out of it better than I". My own attempt yielded "There is no one better who came out of it than me". GÓN mentions in his commentary "The subject is a relative and must come first. The subject (relative 'a') is understood before 'is'. There is a double relative construction.
My questions for this are:
1) How is there a double relative construction? Is GÓN saying the 'is' in is fearr is a relative particle because I took it to mean the adjective 'better'
2) Could someone explain what GÓN means by "The subject is a relative and must come first. The subject (relative 'a') is understood before 'is'"

Type 14: "A long predicate is often divided, the fundamental noun coming first, then VpS+remainder of predicate. This is what we call 'The Split Predicate'. (1) fir ab' eadh iad ná leogfadh a gcroidhe ná a n-aigne dóibh fanamhaint sa bhaile - They were men whose heart or minds would not allow them to stay at home. (2) This is usual, also, when the predicate though short, contains a relative - bean is eadh í ná fuil puinn céille aici - She's a woman of but little sense. Conn. I. sometimes does not avail of this order: bean nár thug sé aon áird uirri ariamh b'eadh í siúd - instead of bean ab' eadh í siúd nár..."

Being honest, I'm not really following much going on here, couple of questions I have would be:
(1) What is meant by the "fundamental noun" exactly and what would the fundamental nouns be in the 2 examples above? Could you provide another example to demonstrate it?
(2) What do "bean nár thug sé aon áird uirri ariamh b'eadh í siúd' and 'bean ab' eadh í siúd nár...' mean? What is the difference between the two?

Type 15 - SVPs : "The subject is projected for emphasis and a pronoun takes it place at the end: (1) an teagasg so a thugaimse, ní liom é - This doctrine which I give is not mine (2) Óir an áit na bhfuilir ad' sheasamh, is talamh naomhtha é - For the place where thou standest is holy ground"

Type 16 - SPVps: "Na sgéaltha beaga san a dh'ínnseadh Íosa, neithe ab eadh iad a thuit amach - These little stories which Jesus told were things that had happened. This is much neater than - neithe do thuit amach ab eadh na sgéaltha ... Note the split predicate"

The above two looked very similar to me, I can't seem to figure out the difference except pronouns aren't at the end of type 16. It seems to be characterised be a long subject and spit into two clauses. Is the way to look at this is: if two clauses exist - one main clause and a relative clause connected by a relative pronoun - should they be split into 2 separate clauses without relative pronoun?
Could you provide examples of each type to reinforce any clarifications made?

Type 18 - SP : "An chuairt is fearr cuairt ghearr" - The best visit is a short. Another way of saying "cuairt ghearr is eadh an chuairt is fearr" which I translate as "the better visit is the short visit".
Is the above the equivalent to saying "The more, the merrier" or "The bigger, the better".
If not, what does it mean and could you provide an example please?

Type 19 - PsS "Cad é an donas é seo atá ar siúbhal? - Whats all this mischief thats going on? - 'Cad' is predicate noun to 'is', 'é' is proleptic subject (s), the real subject being 'an donas (a is) é seo etc."
Questions:
1) How would you define what a proleptic subject is, what is the difference between proleptic subject and real subject and what does GÓN mean when he says 'é' is proleptic noun here
2) Could you provide another example to demonstrate this please?

Remember, what I really want to be able to do is to understand them well enough that I could give an example of each if I were wanted to.
Thanks in advance!

1) ná is Munster for nach.
Dá mba nach is the negative version of dá mba go which is the condition form of an ea go ...? or ní hea go ... or (though usually not used) is ea go ....
an ea go .. = is it (so) that ...?
ní hea go ... = it is not so that ...

I.e. ea is left out, whyever (I'd think dá mb'ea ná isn't very different in pronunciation from dá mba ná).
so, dá mba ná means "if it would be [so] that not ..."

It is often the same as simple "mura", if not.
So, there are two negative forms of dá: mura and dá mba nach
Dá mba nach is more intensifying - and it has a slightly different meaning:
Mura mbeadh sé = If it would not be ... (without any statement about whether it actually is or not.)
Dá mba nach mbeadh sé = If it would not be ~ "If it would be so that it would not be ..." (but the immanent proposition is: actually, it is)

2) Yes it means "I would have (been) eaten the food" (What's the difference been makes?)
But: No, usually you use simple conditional mood of the verb. Íosfainn an bia = i would eat the food/I woud have (been?) eaten the food.
Conditional mood is tense-less, it is past, present or future. So it refers to something missed out on, too.
"Bheadh sé ite agam" - is rather rare.
GÒN uses "ná beadh sé fagháltha (faighte) roimh ré aige", whyever. He could have used "ná faigheadh sé roimh ré é."

3) Something is missing in the sentence (either subject or predicate).
Someone misses "rud". I'd miss "ea" (see above). GÓN misses "é" at the end.

"É", "rud" can stand before the ná clause.
So, all of these forms are used:
Dá mba ná ... (or my theoretical Dá mb'ea ná ..., or GÓN's theoretical Dá mba ná ... é)
as well as:
Dá mba é ná ...
Dá mba rud é ná ...
and some other phrases.
They mean all the same.

I split my answer because it is easier to manage.

níl aoinne is fearr a tháinig as ná mise. = There's no one who came out of it better than me.
- "fearr" is here a comparative adverb: better.

The non-comparative form of this sentence is:
Níl aoinne a tháinig as go maith. = There is no one who came out of it well.
It is the same as in a non-relative clause:
Níor tháinig aoinne as go maith. = No one came out of it well.

But:
Comparative adverbs are a bit strange.
You can say: Níor tháinig aoinne as níos fearr ná mise. = No one came out of it better than me.
So far so easy.
But, in case this sentence is made a relative clause, níos fearr can't be used anymore. The comparative adverb is made an extra relative clause, put before the main relative clause: is fearr = which is better.
And because "is" is a copula form, GÓN calls it "type XIII" of copula clauses.
The reason why níos fearr can't be used inside a relative clause is because níos fearr is a relatiive clause already, at least etymologically. níos fearr - "a thing which is better".
Relative clauses inside relative clauses are avoided in Irish. Instead, two relative clauses are put in a row:

Níl aoinne is fearr a tháinig as ná mise. = There is no one who is better who came out of it than me.
which can be separated:
1) Níl aoinne is fearr ná mise = there's no one who is better than me
and
2) Níl aoinne a tháinig as = there's no one who came out of it.

Your own attempt of tranlation isn't that wrong. But you must bear in mind that both relative clauses are entangled - making is fearr dependent of the following verb and so making it its adverb: come out better rather than be better and come out

GÓN argues that the relative particle "a" is subject of a relative clause. But this is pretty much debatable because "a" is considered only a particle in modern grammars. Particles can't be subject or object. Subject of a relative clause is its antecedent, the relative particle being not more than a conjunction.
And very often "a" is left out in Irish. It is especially always left out in copula relative clauses: a is fearr -> is fearr.
But if (acc. to GÒN) "a" is subject, "is" is verb, "fearr" is predicate, so we have SVP order of such relative clauses.

A copula sentence is like:
Is fear é. = He is a man.
or
Fear is ea é. = He is a man.

But what to do if the predicate isn't only short "fear" but long "fear a tháinig as an gClochán aréir lena dheartháir" = a man who came from Clifden yesterday evening with his brother?

You could say:
Is fear a tháinig as an gClochán aréir lena dheartháir é.
or even:
Fear a tháinig as an gClochán aréir lena dheartháir is ea é.

But you wouldn't.
Most often, you would split the cumbersome long predicate:

Is fear é a tháinig as an gClochán aréir lena dheartháir. He is a man who came from Clifden yesterday evening with his brother.
or :
Fear is ea é a tháinig as an gClochán aréir lena dheartháir

The "fundamental noun" here is fear.
The subject é is put between both parts of the predicate so that it comes next to the "fundamental" noun of the predicate (or next to the surrogate ea)

That's it.

The fundamental nouns in the 2 examples above are: fir and bean:

Fir ab' eadh iad ná leogfadh a gcroidhe ná a n-aigne dóibh fanamhaint sa bhaile. = They were men who ...
Bean is eadh í ná fuil puinn céille aici = She is a woman who ...

The last sentence (standardized):
An unsplit predicate:
Bean nár thug sé aon aird uirthi ariamh b'ea í siúd. = That was a woman he never paid attention to.
A split predicate:
Bean b'ea í siúd nár thug sé aon aird uirthi ariamh. = That was a woman he never paid attention to.

Colours are more instructive:

SVPs:

an teagasg so a thugaimse, ní liom é
an teagasc ... put at the beginning, é taking its place at the end.

SPVps:

Na sgéaltha beaga san a dh'ínnseadh Íosa, neithe ab eadh iad a thuit amach.
na sgéalta ... and néithe ...put at the beginning, iad and eadh taking their place in normal word order.
néithe ... split so that a thuit amach comes last.

SP:

An chuairt is fearr cuairt ghearr = The best visit (is) (a) short visit.

This sentence is noticeable because subject comes first. (an chuairt is fearr = the best visit, lit. the visit which is best)
Usually, the predicate comes first, esp. indefinite predicates in classification sentences. (here: cuirt ghearr = a short visit)
To make this possible, copula "is" must be left out.
(You could not say: *Is í an chuairt is fearr cuairt ghearr. but only: Is cuirt ghearr í an chuairt is fearr.)

A relative clause is fearr without anything compared to (ná mise, e.g.) following a definite noun (an chuairt = the visit) means usually rather best than better.


The bigger the better etc. is totally different: Dá mhéad é is fearr (é).
Dá ghiorracht í an chuairt is fearr í. = The shorter the visit is the better is it.

Cad é an donas (a is) é seo atá ar siúbhal

A proleptic subject is like a sub-subject. Actually, it is a sub-subject.
(e.g. sub-subject é in: Is iasc é an bradán).

Sub-subjects (and sub-predicates) are almost always pronouns: é, í, iad.

You can't say Cad an donas ... . A pronoun é must come in between: the sub-subject.

Following cad, it is debatable if é is sub-predicate, sub-subject or the "real" predicate (and cad being the sub-predicate).
It differs acc. to the rest of the sentence and acc. to the person parsing such sentences.
Only important is: a pronoun must be inserted.

Excellent explanations!

Thank you very much Labhrás for your many answers. I realise you must have dedicated a fair amount of time to construct them and I very much appreciate it.

I just wanted to follow up with a few quick clarifications.



So just to clarify, there is no definite way to distinguish between sentences like "I would eat the food" and "I would have eaten the food"? Is there no way to distinguish between the two tenses and must we rely on the context to imply the actual meaning? Is this something that has never existed in Irish at all?

To address your query regarding the presence of the word "been" in the sentence, I've been finding it hard to source direct translations for sentences like:

"I should have been"
"I would have been"
"I could have been"

Words involving could and should I was intending to leave for another day but I wanted to make a start by enquiring about a translation for sentences like: "I would have been gone sooner if I had known" or "I would have been caught earlier". Or other equivalent sentences that require "been" specifically with the conditional tense.



I understood everything else in that answer but this particular bit slightly threw me. How can níos fearr be a relative clause? What makes it as such - does the presence of the word "níos" add an extra meaning (Is it a potential relative particle that I may not know about)?
I think if you could provide an example of it being used in a sentence as a relative clause, that would really help me understand better.




Would it be fair to say that Type 15 - SVPs - might apply, for example, to a non-infinite relative clause e.g. "The man sitting on the sofa over there is Simon’s brother" which might also be said as "The man sitting on the sofa over there, that/he is Simon's brother".

Would that be an equivalent way to look at it? In the example above "he/that" pronouns are added, which is then what the 's' in the SVPs indicates?

So for the purpose of translating, does it need to have a "long subject" in english to use Type 15 in Irish?




Why add 'a is' to this sentence? Probably something simple which I can't see.

That is it from me.

Again, thank you for all of your help with this. It is truly appreciated.

No, there isn't.
D’íosfainn = I would eat (now / tomorrow)
D’íosfainn = I would have eaten (yesterday)

You don't eat, you won’t eat and you didn’t eat. It is all hypothetical, all dependent on an unfulfilled and unrealizable condition. So it doesn't matter if later or sooner. Context decides.
An Irish native speaker doesn't feel any need to make a difference (as an English, German or French speaker does).



Yes, I'd think so.



I’m not so very fluent in English. I know "been" only in passive voice:
I would have been caught earlier. = Bhéarfaí orm níos luath. (or Ghabhfaí níos luath mé) (not only perfect is avoided in irish, passive voice, too. )
But to my surprise it is used in active voice, too.
I would have (been) gone sooner if I had known= D'imeoinn níos luath dá mbeadh a fhios agam.

This (i.e. the Irish ) is the normal way to say so. You don’t need no perfect or whatever.

Of course you can emphasize the fact that you wouldn't be there anymore. (And only this justifies a perfect tense)
But beware: Even such perfect tense phrases can refer to past, present or future events.
Bheinn imithe cheana dá mbeadh a fhios agam. = I would be gone / wouldhave been gone already ... (You wouldn't find even a trace of me here anymore if I knew ...)
In case of catching you can emphasize the result of your captivity:
Bheadh beirthe orm or Bheinn gafa ... = I would be caught / would have been caught ...

Or you can emphasize the certainty of your leave or the certainty of being caught (using simple past tense)
But again, there's no difference between "would go" and "would have gone".
D’imigh mé dá mbeadh a fhios agam. = Certainly I would go / would have gone (As soon as I would know I'm gone)
Gabhadh mé dá ... = Certainly I would be caught / would have been caught if ...



níos = ní (a thing) + is (relative form of copula), "a thing which is", a relative clause.
"Ní" is a noun, a thing. (no relation to ní = not)
carr níos fearr <- car ní is fearr -> "a car a thing which is better" (or perhaps more idiomatically in English: "a car what's better") -> a better car.

In past tense you can use "ní ba" - more obviously ní + relative form of copula.



Yes. Of course, you can use similar constructions in English.
An fear atá ina shuí thall ar an tolg, is é deartháir Simon é.



I don't know how long the subject has to be in Irish to justify prolepsis.
Perhaps, even very short ...
An fear, is é an sagart é. = The man, he's the priest.
... is considered (at least) grammatically correct in Irish. But usually some kind of extension is necessary, I'd think.



Just to clarify the construction, I'd think. The relative construction is masked here.
"an donas é seo" is really (acc. to GÓN) "an donas (a) is é seo" = the misery which is this