A few more semi-random notes to all this:
If there’s still any doubt about my explanation of the “na daoine is lú ciall in Éirinn” as meaning in origin literally “the people whose sense is smallest” (ie. possessive relative clause), here’s the same assertion from someone actually competent in this stuff ;-):
In the course of a discussion of constructions used to express lesser degree in Modern Irish (Hoyne 2016a, 72–3), I made reference to some examples given in Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí of what are in origin possessive copular relative clauses with a comparative/superlative adjective as predicate, such as an duine ba lú eagla ‘the person whose fear was least’, that is, ‘the least fearful person’. All of the examples given in the Graiméar have definite headwords. I remarked, ‘It should be noted that, to my knowledge, sentences of this type cannot contain an object of comparison: *an duine ba lú eagla ná mé “the person less fearful than me” is not found’. The statement of this restriction is probably accurate, as far as it goes, but applies only where the headword of such a relative clause is definite. I should have added that duine ba lú eagla ná mé ‘a person less fearful than me’ is certainly grammatical.
(…)
This construction is also well attested in Early Modern Irish:
(7) go nach raibhe dúil duine ar talmhuin i bhféugmhais Sir Uilliam do b’fhearr inneall ⁊ éuccosg inās, ‘And there was no creature on earth, save only Sir Uilliam, fairer in appearance [more lit. ‘whose aspect and appearance was better’] than he’ (O’Rahilly 1949, ll 4055–6)
(…)
And another, about the use of
do in relative progressive – some nice notes by Bergin in the léamh.org Glossary, from his edition of
Trí Bior-Ghaoithe an Bháis:
Used in all dative relations, in varied application:---
(…)
5. With verbs of motion: do-chuaidh...don teaghdhais, 8749; imirce...don árus, 2728
6. Hence with verbal nouns to express purpose: do bhriseadh na híomháighe, 78; teacht d’fhios, 87; do theagasg an phobail, 151; do mhúchadh a hainmhian, 176; do chlaonadh na toile, 186; do thabhairt uirísle, 489; d’iarraidh milse, 584; do thurnamh an díomusa, 634; dol do dhéanamh comhairle, 652; do dhéanamh luaithridh, 1111
7. Its most characteristic use is to connect a vn. with a preceding noun or pron. which is the virtual subject or object of the action. Thus instead of, tig don pheacadh dalladh an aithrighigh ‘there comes from sin the blinding of the penitent,’ 9249, we find far more commonly the type, ‘tig don pheacadh an t-aithrigheach do dhalladh,’ lit. ‘there comes from sin the penitent for blinding.’ So, i ndiaidh déanta na póite, 9244, might be written, i ndiaidh na póite do dhéanamh. The virtual subj. or obj. (it can only be the former when the vn. belongs to an intrans. vb.) is in case-relation with the principal clause, and is not affected by the following vn. The construction may be compared to that of the Latin gerundive: príomh-ughdair na ngrás do dháil, 7986 = auctoris gratiarum afferendarum, or the type of ab urbe condita = ó aimsir na cathrach do chur ar bun.
[…]
8. By a peculiar idiom a rel. clause with atá may be inserted between the virtual obj. and do + vn.: na beatha suthaine do bhídís do thuar, ‘of the eternal life which they used to be earning,’ 2286 [[/i]ag tuar[/i] would be impossible here, for the vn. governs the gen. and the implied rel. pron. can only be nom. or acc.; hence, do bhí sé ag ól dighe, but, an deoch do bhí sé d’ol; ag ól in the latter phrase would be as ungrammatical as ag ól deoch]
9. When accompanied by a poss. pron. do may take the place of ag before a vn.; thus dá = agá, and one or other may occur as a variant in the MSS.; an uair bhíos dá chor amach, ‘when he is being evicted,’ 794; go raibhe dá il-chéasadh, ‘so that he was being tortured,’ 564; beid dá n-iomchur, 1255; atá Dia féin dá bhagar, 1471; atá Pól dá theagasg, 1693; ag gleic...7 dom chuibhreach, ‘repugnantem...et captivantem me,’ 2102
I still don’t really see how
an teach atáim do thógbháil could be grammatical (
an teach still can be neither the object nor the subject of
atáim do thógbháil – it already has a subject, and does not take object…), but at least I can accept where it came from. Actually I see some similarity to the double relative construction (
an fear a duart a dhein é or
an bhean a duart a chonac) – the antecedent is connected directly to the last part of the sentence (
an teach … do thógbháil,
an fear … a dhein é,
an bhean … a chonac) and some other phrase is inserted in the middle. In this sense it works better than
ag tógbháil because indeed
an teach … ag tógbháil in itself doesn’t make much sense and certainly doesn’t express the building of the house, doesn’t mark the house as the object of the action.
Also another confirmation about
agá and
dá (and
ag mo, agam’ and
dom’) being mixed in the progressive (but I knew already the two were pretty interchangeable in Keating’s writing).
And regarding his remark about the infinitive
X do ⟨verbal noun⟩ construction, that X is the subject of intransitive verb… There is another very interesting (and fairly long) article by Mícheál Hoyne,
Unaccusativity and the subject pronoun in Middle and Early Modern Irish about intransitive verbs taking the disjunctive (ie. the “object”) forms of the pronouns in Middle Irish and Classical Gaelic and showing similar syntax to the passive (modern autonomous) verbs. Hoyne explains it as being a highly marked construction signalling lack of agency in the subject, ie. the subject undergoing the action/state/change of state but not by their own decision.
This also shows that Middle Irish had some ergative features in its pronouns system. As Hoyne himself states:
Quote:
The Irish language in the Middle and Early Modern period is in most respects a nominative-accusative language: broadly speaking, the nominal subjects of transitive and intransitive verbs are distinguished morphologically (by initial mutation and case-marking) and/or syntactically (by word-order) from nominal direct objects of transitive verbs. With respect to pronouns, however, the Irish language in this period shows some clear ergative features.
(…)
The morphosyntax of the pronominal subject in Irish can be described as a ‘split’ (or more accurately ‘fluid’) intransitive system.
Some examples:
Do-chádar d’ég uile íad‘They all have died’, lit. ‘
They all went to death’
Mar thánuig go hEamhuin é‘As
he came to Eamhain’, but probably better understood as ‘as/when he happened to be in Eamhain, ended up in Eamhain’
da-fuit lessium hé‘
he [Girion] fell by him [Heracles]; he got killed by him’
nī roerchōidigestar dō hí‘
It [ie. fire] did not do harm to him’
Acht masa i n-uamas an catha Troíanna rohairged in fi[d]ceall ní torracht hÉrinn and sin í‘But if
fidchell [a board game] was invented at the time of the Trojan war,
it had not reached Ireland yet’
ocus dá lá déc ro baí immuigh hí‘and
she was away for 12 days’ [about a girl/woman who was kidnapped]
‘Ragaid duitsiu hí,’ ar Mac Rethi‘“You will have her”, said Mac Rethe’ (but lit. “
she will go to you” – about an arranged marriage where the bride doesn’t have a choice)
go raibhe í ag Éireannach‘until
it [a settlement] was in the hands of an Irishman’
Cia úaibh do agaill an rí
an uair do bhí againn é‘Who of you did the king speak to while
he was still among us?’ (or ‘while we had him’, probably from an eulogy)
and modern example (a speaker born in 19th c., Co. Clare):
nuair do chuaigh i dtalamh iad‘when
they [ie. potatoes] went into the ground’
The last one showing that the construction might have survived in some marginal capacity til modern times.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
