Howdy guys.

I was on Dj Webb's CorK Irish page and saw these examples:

leis an bhfocal deirineach úd
leis an té
leis an nduine
leis an nglóire shíoraí 
leis an dtighín
leis an bhfiach ndubh

The urú after 'an' is a Munster thing, I know, but I see variance. Any patterns?

Anyway, lenition in leis an nglóire shíoraí is I guess traditional (and possible in Donegal, yes?) as as a once dative construction, glory would be a non-progressive state, so lenition would be appropriate (as opposed to urú for the accusative, I'd imagine).

And I know leis an bhfiach ndubh would be a dialect thing or a dialect literary thing (It comes from An León agus na Cheithre Tairbh ), so since leis an nglóire shíoraí is from Aithris ar Chríost II:XII: CAIBIDEAL A DÓDHÉAG. BÓTHAR RÍOGA NA CROISE NAOFA, I guess more formal usage would follow the lenition variety.

I think I answered my own question.


Which leads me on to a question. If Do léim sé ar an mbord and Do bhí sé ar an bhord are the old ways of saying it (I'm probably wrong in some detail, like any residual 3rd person synthetic form), then the adjective would have followed something like: 'Ro léim sé ar an mbord mbuidhe', (but 'ar an mbord donn'), and 'Ro bhí sé ar an bhord bhuidhe)?

What about the accusative? 'Ro chonaic Brian Donn an baurd buidhe' or 'an baurd mbuide' or 'an mbaurd mbuidhe' or 'an mbuard bhuidhe'?


Not the most pressing of questions, but they just popped into my mind as I was reading the story

_________________
__̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.___

In Ulster dative rules prevail, i.e. lenition of noun and adjective (irresp. of its gender).
Elsewhere (Connacht and Kerry) there is eclipsis of the noun (former acusative case) or lenition (former dative case following den, don and partly sa).
But the adjective remains unchanged, i.e lenited following feminine nouns, unlenited following masculine nouns.



Eclipsis of adjectives is confined to Cork Irish (West Muskerry Irish).
leis an nglóir shíoraí is Standard Irish.



Very old ways.



There never was a 3rd person synthetic form, I think.



Yes.



You mean accusative without preposition:
Yes, eclipsis of the noun and adjective (fadó, fadó ...)

So.... I thought that it was the opposite. I thought it was:
Ro bhí sé ar an mbord mbuidhe (dative of location)
Ro léim sé ar an bhord bhuidhe (accusative of destination)

Are you sure you are not switching the two? Because I am pretty sure the lenition was the accusative and the eclipsis was the dative

_________________
ЯГОН ТОҶИК НЕСТ ИНҶО???

In Old Irish singular dative causes lenition and accusative causes eclipsis, as can clearly be seen from these declension tables. The article in (modern an) had the same effect on the following noun in any case as the noun itself on the following word¹.

I would expect Middle Irish and early Classical Gaelic to behave similarly, so that would mean stationary action with lenited dative and direction with eclipsed accusative.

That also means that every object (accusative) would be eclipsed after the article an (but not when not following the article).

Edit: and a relevant table about the article itself.

¹ At least in most common declension classes, AFAIK there are some rare ones, in which the nouns have a different effect, not sure if any of it remained after the Old Irish period.

Go raibh maith agat!

Feicim anois nach raibh an ceart agam. Ach nach fearr rud nua a fhoghlaim? :P

sonas ort

_________________
ЯГОН ТОҶИК НЕСТ ИНҶО???

Oh I know it was ages ago, but I think cases and the reflexes of cases can be easier to remember than a system of inflection when it is breaking down or changing.

_________________
__̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.___

Sorry to revive such old topic. I’ve just found this excerpt from Céitinn:

Translated as: ‘… would close in tightly on his neck till he delivered a just jugdment’, where apparently an mbreith gcóir, being a direct object of bheireadh (‘used to give’, modern thugadh, if I’m not mistaken), is an acc.sg. form of nom.sg. an bhreath chóir ‘the just judgment’.

So it seems it’s been sometimes used not that fadó, fadó – at least used to still happen in 17th century. I’m really surprised such archaic construction is to be found in Keating’s Irish – I thought he would eclipse the accusative only after prepositions, especially since he already had absolutely no differentiation between accusative of motion and static dative.

And yet here it is – a clear example of eclipsed accusative in a direct object, where modern language would just use common nom-acc. ;-)