Okay, so the man who is talking to your friend would be rendered as an fear atá ag caint le do chara since the man is the merely the subject of the relative clause and so the direct relative should be used here, correct? But what if instead you want to say the man who is talking to himself? Here the man is both the subject and the indirect object in the relative clause. You would be required to use the indirect relative here, right? So for instance, an fear a bhfuil ag caint leis féin instead of an fear atá ag caint leis féin.

I would, yes, but that's instinct navigating. Wait for more input.

Redwolf

I would say that it would be the same if he was talking to your friend, himself, or his dog. The grammar only recognizes abstraction.

An fear atá ag caint le....The man who was talking to....(himself, his dog, himself)

but

An fear a bhfuil sé ag caint leis...The man to whom he's talking...

atá is in the present, rather than in the past, isn't it? (or am I missing something there)

As Mac Boo has said - it is direct relative here. An fear atá ag caint leis féin.

The reason is that "the man" is not both the subject and indirect object of the relative clause. The man is the indirect object of the verb (ag caint leis féin), but the key point in deciding on direct/indirect relatives is the case of the relative pronoun - it is "the man who is...." - the "who" is governed by "the man" as its subject only, and the fact that there is an indirect object later in the sentence doesn't make any difference, as that indirect object is not connected to the relative pronoun. In fact, it is not possible for a relative pronoun to be simultaneously nominative and oblique. You can't say "the man who is" and "the man with whom" all at the same time. So you need to focus solely on what the case of the relative pronoun is, and not further relationships mentioned later in the sentence.

Thanks Macboo and Patrick. That makes total sense now. Wasn't sure what to do in this instance cos these grammar books didn't really include a relative clause example like this. How yoy described it made total sense though Patrick.