ailig_ab wrote:
Quote:
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.
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"?
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).
Quote:
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?
Yes, I'd think so.
Quote:
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’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 ...
Quote:
Quote:
The reason why níos fearr can't be used inside a relative clause is because níos fearr is a relative clause already, at least etymologically. níos fearr - "a thing which is better".
Relative clauses inside relative clauses are avoided in Irish
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.
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.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
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?
Yes. Of course, you can use similar constructions in English.
An fear atá ina shuí thall ar an tolg,
is é deartháir Simon é.Quote:
So for the purpose of translating, does it need to have a "long subject" in english to use Type 15 in Irish?
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.
Quote:
Quote:
Cad é an donas (a is) é seo atá ar siúbhal
Why add 'a is' to this sentence? Probably something simple which I can't see.
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