Maybe it'd've felt more natural with iad in place of sibh.

Eg "that's the difference between us and them".

Or maybe something without a pronoun in the second position:
"There's a thousand miles between us and our parents."

_________________
A language belongs to its native speakers, and when you speak it, you are a guest in their homes.
If you are not a good guest, you have no right to complain about receiving poor hospitality.

In older forms of Irish you could say (taking Bríd's phrase):

Eadram féin is tú féin.

instead of the modern:

Idir mé féin is tú féin.

so you could combine the first pronoun mentioned with idir.

Although this was not the most common use of these forms of idir. Idir used to also convey "to me/you/e.t.c.", like "leave it to me". Acallam na Senórach (~1160) has:

Léig eadram agus Fianna Éireann = Leave the warriors of Ireland to me.

A Irish biography of Guy of Warwick (~1420) has:
Lig eadram-sa is an cath = Leave the battle to me.

_________________
The dialect I use is Cork Irish.
Ar sgáth a chéile a mhairid na daoine, lag agus láidir, uasal is íseal

Slightly off topic, but imagine if the current process of personal pronouns being weakened after verbs were to continue (bíonn mé /bi:onm'e/) we might end up with bíonnime then bíoimm then bímm (tense final slender m).

And as this happens for all three temporal tenses you might see chuaim, téimm, rachaim; chuat, téannt, rachat etc arise.

Preposiional pronouns would post-positional elements (tá leabhar [ag]am in future maybe thá liór'm) which might then become case endings (but also marked for person!)

Constructions with the copula (as in is breá liom X, might harden to spráim, sprát, spráis, spráidh?, spráinn, spráibh, spráó) and become backworked to cognitive verbs

Devoicing in the middle of verb in the future and conditional would lead to voiceless l, n, r, and ng sounds (via the likes of buailfidh mé) and in a monoglot, pre-written land with 4-way constrasts, you'd end up with 8 ls, 8 ns and up to 6 rs if trilling was kept phonemic!

It's only conjecture, but it does keep one open to just a taste of the possibilities of grammar

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

Heavens above!

If you carried on like that bíonn mé might become bím, tá mé might become táim, glanann mé might become glanaim, and who knows what trouble would result?

And if raghaimíd became ragham - Oh I'm having a fit of the vapours!

Synthetic Irish !!!!

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

no, glanaim doesn't come from glanann mé, glanaim is "older" ; and ragham is older than raghaimíd too as far as I know, and they are different etymologically.

_________________
Is fearr Gaeilg na Gaeltaċta ná Gaeilg ar biṫ eile
Agus is í Gaeilg Ġaoṫ Doḃair is binne

If you and might mean I'm talking conjecturally, meaning not historically.

I was just waxing on how in a hypothetical scenario, Irish might cycle back to being more inflective on it's verbs and nouns because I hear native speakers say not */b'i:oN m'e:/ but as if it's bionn'me, so if that continued over time, the verb might become synthetic again, and as people do this for the past and the future, in such a situation, you might see the same synthetic endings for the past, present (habitual) and future forms

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

[bʲiːm(ʲ)] and [ˈbʲiːnmʲa], the o is just there to show the -nn is normally broad.

_________________
Is fearr Gaeilg na Gaeltaċta ná Gaeilg ar biṫ eile
Agus is í Gaeilg Ġaoṫ Doḃair is binne

I know that, it's only a glide

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

Fair enough, but it's extremely uncommon for lexical words to get any stress anyway. Who says /h'i:z k'ʌmɪŋ/ rather than /hizk'ʌmɪŋ/ anyway?

(NB: I'm aware that English has no short /i/ according to the textbooks, but as everyone I know makes a distinction between /i/ and /ɪ, I don't care what the books say. /hɪk'ʌmɪŋ/ would be "his coming", and seriously, does anyone really pronounce "he's coming" and "his coming" the same?)

_________________
A language belongs to its native speakers, and when you speak it, you are a guest in their homes.
If you are not a good guest, you have no right to complain about receiving poor hospitality.