If someone were to ask another "Cad is ainm duit", one would reply "___ is ainm dom".

However reading GnaG, it becomes clear the above response "___ is ainm dom" is an emphasised form of the copula.
Apparently, one cannot say "Is ainm dom Seán", its unemphasised counterpart.
My question is why could I not say "Is ainm dom Ailig_ab"?

Also how would would both be translated?
1) Is ainm dom Ailig_ab = Ailig is a name to me/a name to me is Ailig
2) Ailig is ainm dom = ?

One other very interesting point to bring up is in Mícháel Ó'Siadhail's "Modern Irish", his chapter "Overview of Syntax of Copula" on pg 233, he provides one sentence as an example to describe idiomatic use of the copula with "do"

"Fear darb ainm dó Máirtín" = a man whose name is Martin

I don't really understand the structure of this sentence, although GnaG gives its as "The man to-whom-is name Seán."

To quote a passage from "Modern Irish" on pg 224 regarding the sentence in question, "with a curious doubling of the preposition do "to" in darb "to whom is" and dó "to him". My question here is why is there dó preceding the name "Máirtín"? Does it literally translate as "to him" or could it have anything to do with the resumptive pronoun seeing as this is an indirect relative clause.

Lastly, could the sentence be phrased in the following way: "Is fear darb ainm dó Máirtín"
Is it possible the copula could have been omitted? I find this explanation easier to understand.

I am not sure if I am right, but I think of those sentences this way: since cad is ainm duit? means literally ‘what-is-it that-is your name?’ (cad means ‘what is it’ and is a copula form by itself) and is here is the direct relative form, ‘that is’, I interpret the answers like ‘Seán is ainm dom’ as a shorthand to something along the lines of *is é is Seán an rud is ainm dom – ‘Seán is the thing that is my name’ (edit after Labhrás’ reply: or rather ‘the thing that is my name is Seán’).

Not sure if it’s possible to rephrase it without the relative copula (the is in the middle of the sentence), ’cause I think the predicate (edit after Labhrás’ reply: or rather the subject, as the predicate is Seán, the name itself) is always ‘[the thing] that is my name’, and not just ‘my name’.



Interesting. I’d phrase it fear gurb ainm dó Máirtín (or fear arb ainm dó…) – not sure if any native would say that though, and it seems to be easily googlable. But repeated prepositions in general also happen elsewhere. I think I’ve seen in Peadar Ua Laoghaire’s works things like an áit ina bhfuil sé ann ‘the place where he was’, lit. ‘the place in-which he was there’ (instead of an áit ina bhfuil sé or an áit go bhfuil sé ann), but I can’t find an example right now.

I guess the dó, di, dom, etc. part just became a part of a set phrase of stating the name, and you cannot leave it even if you already put do before the relative copula (ie. dar(b)).

On a side note, since áit is feminine, it always puzzled me why I always see an áit go bhfuil sé ann and not, as I’d expect, *an áit go bhfuil sé inti, but I guess this ann got generalized to mean generally ‘there’ and not really ‘in him, in it’ in such sentences.



What would is refer here to, what would be the predicate and what would be the subject? fear darb ainm dó Máirtín is a full single noun phrase meaning ‘the man whose name is Máirtín’, you can’t put copula before a single noun phrase.

If you mean ‘He is the man whose name is Mairtín’, that would be:
is é (an) fear (d)arb ainm dó Máirtín é
or
is é (an) fear é (d)arb ainm dó Máirtín.

I think that the name is needed as the predicate (focal an eolais as O'Leary called it) but in "is ainm dom Ailig" Ailig is the subject.
So you front the name, making it the predicate of a new sentence, and voilà:
(Is) Ailig is ainm dom. It is Ailig which is my name.



Keeping in mind that subject comes first in English:
1) Ailig is my name.
2) My name is Ailig.



There are two ways to produce indirect relative clauses with prepositions
1) preposition (+ pronoun) within the relative clause, often last:
fear arb ainm dó Seán.
2) preposition (+ relative pronoun) first:
fear darb ainm Seán.

And there's an "idiomatic" (or simply "wrong") way, combining both, used only in such copula clauses:
fear darb ainm dó Seán - "a man to-whom-is name to-him Seán"
So, preposition do is doubled




fear darb ainm (dó) Seán isn't a sentence; it is just a noun phrase (noun + relative clause): a man who is named Seán, a man named Seán.
There's no "is" omitted.

But of course you can put it in a sentence:
Is fear darb ainm (dó) Seán é. = He is a man who is named Seán.
Or:
Chuaigh fear darb ainm (dó) Seán abhaile. = A man named Seán went home.

Please, keep in mind that "Seán" isn't definite here but a name on its own, and so an indefinite noun.
So: Is Seán ...



"'na" is here a historical relict (as well as "go" in relative usage).
In Munster indirect relative clauses can start with go (< ag a) or 'na (< i n-a) no matter what follows. Both originally were combinations of preposition and relative pronoun but aren't understood as such anymore.

Technically in "an áit 'na bhfuil sé ann" i is doubled.
But "'na" could occur in "an áit 'na chuaigh sé chuige" as well.
It is just a Munster form of indirect relative particle, no real combination of i and a anymore (so it is usually never written "ina" as a relative particle).

The copular darb is perhaps similar though not generalized as go and 'na (only dom, duit, dó ... can follow)



Yes.
But also: Though the noun áit is feminine it is usually referred to by masculine pronouns (as well as uair).
Is é an áit é. - It is the place.