Hi, everyone! I’ve been scouring the internet and my new grammar book, and can’t seem to find an answer to a question:

I’m doing a little project where I’m translating common Southern foods to Irish [e.g. séaclaí agus poileanta” (shrimp and grits )] …

But for the dish “hoppin’ john,” I initially thought “seán ag preabadh” would be appropriate, but then I started wondering if “seán atá ag preabadh” would be more correct…and if so, would it come across as TOO correct and formal?

This also seems pretty important even beyond the confines of my little fun project, as present participles as adjectives are a common part of language…e.g. a rising star, a spinning top, a laughing boy, etc.

Everyone’s so helpful on here…thanks for any insights!

Irish has not a "present participle" (and never had).
"ag + verbal noun" isn't really a participle, but simply ag + verbal noun

"Seán ag preabadh" is nevertheless possible and often used. It means "John jumping" (as in a photo caption or similar).
Though often ag + verbal noun is used in an attributive sense, as well ("jumping John").
With inserted "atá" (and so a complete attributive relative clause) this sense is (a little bit) clearer: Seán atá ag preabadh.
Another way to make it clearer is attributive use of agus, e.g. an fear agus é ag preabadh = the jumping man / the man who is jumping

The traditional attributive form of the verbal noun is its genitive. So, preabadh becomes preabtha.
(Yes, often the same form as the verbal adjective.)

So: Seán preabtha = jumping John

Compare with: cailín deas crúite na mbo = the nice cow-milking girl
or lucht foghlamtha na Gaeilge = Irish learning people, learners of Irish.

"Learning people" (w/o na Gaeilge) are just lucht foghlama (in intransitive verbs, i.e. w/o an object, some verbal nouns have a different genitive form, here: foghlama instead of foghlamtha).
Compare lucht óil (drinking people) and lucht ólta tae (tea drinking people).

In case of transitive verbs (i.e. with an object) another form is possible: lucht na Gaeilge a fhoghlaim.

A further way are simple adjectives in -ach made of (the genive of) verbal nouns, e.g. gáiriteach = laughing, buachaill gáiriteach = laughing boy, jolly boy
But they don't exist for all verbs and they are less verbal (e.g. labharthach = rather talkative than talking)

Thanks a million, Labhrás! That totally makes sense! And you again for being one of the ones who regularly has an answer to my many questions! I love this forum!

"Inneall bainte" means "a reaping machine". However "inneall briste" means "a broken machine", but would it also mean "a breaking machine"?

Could something like "inneall deisithe" mean "a repair(ing) machine" (where it is effectively the subject of the verb "repair"), as well as "a repaired machine" (where it is effectively the direct object of the verb "repair")? Is there potential for ambiguity here?

Good question. I’d think it is less likely.
Semantics play a role: A machine can’t be "reaped", so bainte is clearly "reaping" here.
But in case of briste, it could be both.

Both verbal nouns in genitive are used intransitively here (w/o object).
But there are different kinds of intransitivity:
- break is ergative ("My heart breaks." ... and broken therafter. There is no other object)
- reap is non-ergative ("I reap all day." There is an object but simply left out)

Ergative use is probably the problematic one.

But there is at least:
https://www.teanglann.ie/en/eid/breaking_point



"Repair" is non-ergative, so "no problem"
Examples from the dictionary:

https://www.teanglann.ie/en/eid/deisithe
https://www.teanglann.ie/en/eid/service-station

"repairing station", "repair(ing) ramp"

Okay. So I think I get it now.

"A breaking machine" would be "inneall briste", where "briste" is the genitive case form of "briseadh", which is the verbal noun of "bris". So, in a sense, more literally it means "a machine of breaking".

"A broken machine" would also be "inneall briste", but in this case "briste" is the past participle (aka verbal adjective) of "bris".

It just so happens that "briste" is both (i) the genitive form of "briseadh", which is the verbal noun of "bris" and is also (ii) the past participle of "bris".

Similarly, it just so happens that "deisithe" is both (i) the genitive form of "deisiú", which is the verbal noun of "deisigh", and is also (ii) the past participle of "deisigh".

As you say, this shouldn't really give rise to confusion in the case of non-ergative verbs, since you can probably tell from the semantic context as to which meaning applies e.g. "inneall bainte" should always mean "reaping machine" and not "reaped machine", whereas "arbhar bainte" should always mean "reaped corn" and not "reaping corn".

For ergative verbs, there is more potential for confusion e.g."croí briste" could be "a breaking heart" or "a broken heart".

I have a feeling that most verbs have the same form for (i) genitive case of its verbal noun, and (ii) past participle. But it seems there are some exceptions. In such cases, there should be no problem with understanding. Take the verb "péinteáil", whose verbal noun is also "péinteáil", the genitive case form of which is "péinteála". Otoh, the past participle of "péinteáil" is "péinteáilte". Therefore "a painting person" would be "duine péinteála", whereas "a painted person" would be "duine péinteáilte".

Yes.

Or: bean óil, drinking woman, bean ólta, drunken woman

bean ólta - I wonder if this is Béarlachas? It is a word for word translation from English. I like "bean m(h)eisce".

B’fhéidir.
Ní bhfuair mé ach sampla amháin (le cainteoir dúchais as Cúige Uladh de réir an Nua-Chorpais):
"Bhí fonn diabhalta díoltasach ar roinnt fear ólta dul i ngleic láithreach leis na bithiúnaigh a bháigh nó a mharaigh na tachráin." (Seán Mac Cumhaill, Gort na mara, agus scéalta eile)

roinnt fear ólta = some drunken men