Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Continue or start your personal language log here, including logs for challenge participants
User avatar
Josquin
Blue Belt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:38 pm
Location: Germany
Languages: German (native); English (advanced fluency); French (basic fluency); Italian, Swedish, Russian, Irish (intermediate); Dutch, Icelandic, Japanese, Portuguese, Scottish Gaelic (beginner); Latin, Ancient Greek, Biblical Hebrew, Sanskrit (reading only)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=737
x 1764

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Josquin » Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:00 pm

The best printed reference grammars for Irish are New Irish Grammar by the Christian Brothers and Easy Learning - Irish Grammar by Collins. However, this German website is superior to all of them: Gramadach na Gaeilge, of which there is also an English translation.

Concerning the cases in Modern Irish: According to the notorious Official Standard, there are only three cases left in Modern Irish: nominative, genitive, and vocative. There is no accusative in the modern language! Its forms have merged with the nominative long ago.

Concerning the dative: The dialects retain some remnants of the Old Irish dative case, but they're mostly restrained to fixed expressions. Some linguists call the mutations after prepositions "dative case" or even "prepositional case", because this is where the dative case would have been used in Old Irish, but this is not standard terminology.

The dative plural ending "-aibh" is dated, even in the pretty conservative dialect of Munster. This ending comes directly from Old Irish, but it has fallen out of use over the last century. Today, the dative is identical with the nominative-accusative, except for some fixed expressions.

Anyway, good to see you back at studying Irish! :)

Maith an fear! Beir bua agus beannacht!
4 x
Oró, sé do bheatha abhaile! Anois ar theacht an tsamhraidh.

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4782
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 15019

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Iversen » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:10 pm

So basically my conclusions were correct: the Nominative and the Accusative have fused and the Dative form "-aibh" is outdated (and shouldn't be taught to poor innocent learners). Now you mention it, something at the back of me mind reminds me having read that the dative is going out of fashion ... but apparently the associated eclipse survives in the situations where the dative should occur, and then it may be a little premature to declare the death of the dative. Josquin doesn't comment on the lost vocative in the Assimil booklet, but it is used in H.P. agus an Órchloch, so it can't be totally dead yet.

I actually remember having studied "Gramadach na Gaeilge" in the old days, and now that I see it again I must agree that this is a splendid source - but I prefer having my grammars on paper since I like sitting in my armchair with piles of paper around me when I study grammar. The solution could be to do some copy-and-paste of tables and particularly salient comments - and then make my own 'mini Gramadach', which I can use during my comparisons.
0 x

User avatar
Josquin
Blue Belt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:38 pm
Location: Germany
Languages: German (native); English (advanced fluency); French (basic fluency); Italian, Swedish, Russian, Irish (intermediate); Dutch, Icelandic, Japanese, Portuguese, Scottish Gaelic (beginner); Latin, Ancient Greek, Biblical Hebrew, Sanskrit (reading only)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=737
x 1764

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Josquin » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:00 pm

Iversen wrote:Now you mention it, something at the back of me mind reminds me having read that the dative is going out of fashion ... but apparently the associated eclipse survives in the situations where the dative should occur, and then it may be a little premature to declare the death of the dative. Josquin doesn't comment on the lost vocative in the Assimil booklet, but it is used in H.P. agus an Órchloch, so it can't be totally dead yet.

Yes, the eclipsis is mandatory! That's why some linguists still refer to the construction "preposition + eclipsed noun" as the dative case, while in standard grammar it's nowadays viewed as an initial mutation of the noun. However, there are mostly no special forms for the dative case any more (with the exception of a few nouns and fixed expressions). This is e.g. a great difference to Scottish Gaelic, where the dative case (and the dual!) is still alive.

The vocative is still well and kicking, that's why I didn't comment on it. Maybe, the Assimil book isn't very comprehensive? In any case, you should still use (and study) the vocative.
1 x
Oró, sé do bheatha abhaile! Anois ar theacht an tsamhraidh.

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4782
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 15019

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Iversen » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:23 pm

I think that the dative should be retained as a case even though it isn't marked by endings - it is definitely marked by the use of eclipsis, which you don't find in the other cases.

Eclipse (or Urú na gréine).jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
1 x

User avatar
Josquin
Blue Belt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:38 pm
Location: Germany
Languages: German (native); English (advanced fluency); French (basic fluency); Italian, Swedish, Russian, Irish (intermediate); Dutch, Icelandic, Japanese, Portuguese, Scottish Gaelic (beginner); Latin, Ancient Greek, Biblical Hebrew, Sanskrit (reading only)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=737
x 1764

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Josquin » Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:31 pm

That's true, but as there are other instances where the noun gets eclipsed (e.g. after the definite article in the genitive plural), the eclipsis itself isn't enough to mark a special case. Irish distinguishes strictly between case endings and intial mutations. The latter don't play a role in declension, but only in combination with other words, such as the definite article or prepositions.

Also, the dative used to have special forms, which are now lost, so one can't really speak of a separate dative case in the Irish language any more. It has only survived for a few nouns and in fixed expressions, e.g. the dative of "teach" would be "tigh", of "lámh" it would be "láimh", of "Éire" it's "Éirinn", of "bean" it would be "mnaoi" etc. So, IMHO one can call the construction "preposition (+article) + eclipsed noun" dative case only for historical reasons, but that's all.

In a nutshell, an eclipsed noun is not the same as a noun in the dative case at all! There's a huge difference between these two grammatical phenomena.
0 x
Oró, sé do bheatha abhaile! Anois ar theacht an tsamhraidh.

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4782
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 15019

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Iversen » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:06 pm

On the chair serving as my night table I have now placed the "Irish Grammar Book" of Nollaig Mac Congáil, and this book (from around 2000) proposes the following definition, which I might choose to adopt when thinking about the language: "A name is said to be in the dative case in Irish if it is preceded by the following common, simple prepositions: ag, ar, as, at, chuig, de, do, faoi, go, i, le, ó, roimh,, thar, trí, um" (p. 32). However there is then a catch, since some prepositions don't govern the eclipsis, but the other main mutation, the lenition, and still others the nominative or the gentitive with whatever mutations they may be associated.

The prepositions that govern the dative singular with eclipsis after the definite article is given on page 54 as "ag, ar, as, at, chuig, faoi, le, ó, roimh,, thar, trí, um". After "í" there is apparently always eclipsis ... but there is a devious catch even here since on page 57 it is stated that there is lenition after "den, don, sa(n)", i.e. after the fusion of de, do and (!) i with the definite article" - and "sa/san/sna" is actually the result of a fusion between "í" and the definite article. There is eclipsis after "í" with no article, but lenition when there is an article involved (fused). And after "de, do, faoi, mar, o, roimh, tri, um" (and under some circumstances "ar, gan, idir, thar") there is generally lenition. And to boot there are prepositions that govern the nominative/accusative or the genitive. According to p. 62 those that govern the nominative are "gan, go, dti, idir, seachas" and those that govern the genitive are "chun, dála, dearacht, timpeall, trasna,". Phew!

Summa summarum: the dative isn't then defined as a case characterized by certain mutations (and not by certain endings either, since the old endings have been dropped in favor of those of the Nominative/accusative case), but simply as some kind of prepositionalis. And because of the mess surrounding the mutations I can see why later grammars simply have dropped the concept of a dative case in modern Irish. The necessary information is carried by the specific preposition (which may overrule the normal choice of mutation).

But there isn't always a preposition involved. And there is an interesting pattern to be seen here. The basic form of the definite article in the singular is "an" except in the genitive feminine, where it is "na" (as it always is in the plural). It is of course the noun that is either masculine or feminine, and there is lenition of feminine nouns in the Nominative/accusative singular - and you could add the dative singular except preceded by something that govern the eclipsis (which it does 'across' the article). But with masculine nouns there is lenition in the genitive singular (plus a tendency to slenderization in the ending where appropriate) - and what then in the nominative/accusative singular of masculine nouns? Well there you find a variation on eclipsis if the noun begins with a vowel, insofar that it then is preceded by "t-" (note the hyphen, which actually is written).

And in the vocative (which for some reason isn't included in most tables) there is always lenition, which can be conventiently ascribed to the obligatory preceding particle "a".

So to summarize: if you just take the combination of article plus noun the system governing the beginning of the noun is the following:

"Dative": cross fingers and apply the mutation dictated by the preposition and the ending of N/A

Vocative: always lenition (caused by the particle "a")

Singular:
Nominative/Accusative:
masculine nouns beginning with a consonant: nothing
masculine nouns beginning with a vowel: initial t- (with hyphen)

feminine nouns beginning with a consonant except d,t:,s: lenition
feminine nouns beginning with s: initial t (and no hyphen - and allegedly pronounced with a silent s))
feminine nouns beginning with a vowel: nothing

Genitive:
masculine nouns beginning with a consonant except d,t:,s: lenition
masculine nouns beginning with s: initial t (no hyphen)
masculine nouns beginning with a vowel: nothing

feminine nouns beginning with a consonant: no problem ... except that the article used is "na", not "an"
feminine nouns beginning with a vowel: initial h ... and the article used is of course still "na", not "an"

Plural:
Nominative/Accusative:
nouns beginning with a consonant: nothing
nouns beginning with a vowel: initial h (without hyphen)

Genitive:
nouns beginning with a consonant: eclipsis (where applicable)
nouns beginning with a vowel: initial n- (with hyphen - and described as a special kind of eclipsis in the grammars)

OBS: this list is based on the grammars I have mentioned (including the examples in Gramadach na Gaeilge), but there are still things which I don't understand - like the difference in the genitive singular between two feminine substantives from the 2. declination:

N/A sing: an obair (the work), G sing: na hoibre, D sing. don obair, N/A plur.:na hoibreacha, G plur.: na n-oibreacha
N/A sing: an abairt (the phrase), G sing: na habairte, D sing.don abairt, N/A plur.: na habairtí, G plur.: na n-abairtí


GR: Χθες το βράδυ Χαλαρώσα διαβάζοντας ένα άρθρο μερικά άρθρα από το περιοδικό "Διαδρομές" από το 2007 και άλλαξα το κελτικό μενού με ενάμιση σελίδα από τον "Χάρι Πότερ" στα ιρλανδικά. Μερικοί θεωρητικοί (όπως o Krashen) νομίζουν ότι μπορείτε να μάθετε μια γλώσσα βρίσκοντας πηγές σε επίπεδο δυσκολίας n+1. Αλλά σχεδόν τα πάντα στα ιρλανδικά είναι τώρα n+27. Είχα το ίδιο συναίσθημα όταν άρχισα να διαβάζω ελληνικά κείμενα (συμπεριλαμβανομένων οδηγών για τη Ρόδο και την Αθήνα σε παράλληλες εκδόσεις με ένα βιβλίο στα ελληνικά και άλλο σε άλλη γλώσσα).

Το ένα άρθρο ήταν μια αστρολογική πρόβλεψη για το 2007. Ήταν πιο διασκεδαστικό εάν εφαρμοζόταν το 2008 ... και δεν θα αναφερότα η οικονομική συμφιλίωση.

Kunst079.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
2 x

Suairc
White Belt
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:49 pm
Location: Ireland
Languages: English, Irish

Learning: German, Italian
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=8920
x 28

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Suairc » Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:42 pm

Hello, Iversen

It's great to see that you're taking an interest in Irish again! I'm impressed that you managed to glean all that information in a relatively short period of time. You're obviously more systematic in your approach to grammar than I am! Maybe I can help clarify a few things for you:

Iversen wrote:
1. After "í" there is apparently always eclipsis ... but there is a devious catch even here since on page 57 it is stated that there is lenition after "den, don, sa(n)", i.e. after the fusion of de, do and (!) i with the definite article" - and "sa/san/sna" is actually the result of a fusion between "í" and the definite article. There is eclipsis after "í" with no article, but lenition when there is a article involved (fused).

...


2. But there isn't always a preposition involved. And there is an interesting pattern to be seen here. The basic form of the definite article in the singular is "na" except in the genitive feminine, where it is "an" (as it always is in the plural).

...

3. And in the vocative (which for some reason isn't included in most tables) there is always lenition, which can be conventiently ascribed to the obligatory preceding particle "a".

...

4. feminine nouns beginning with a consonant except d,t:,s: lenition
feminine nouns beginning with s: initial t (and no hyphen - and allegedly pronounced with a silent s))

...




5. feminine nouns beginning with a consonant: no problem ... except that the article used is "an", not "na"
feminine nouns beginning with a vowel: initial h ... and the article used is of course still "an", not "na"

...

6. OBS: this list is based on the grammars I have mentioned (including the examples in Gramadach na Gaeilge), but there are still things which I don't understand - like the difference in the genitive singular between two feminine substantives from the 2. declination:

N/A sing: an obair (the work), G sing: na oibre, D sing. don obair, N/A plur.:na hoibreacha, G plur.: na n-oibreacha
N/A sing: an abairt (the phrase), G sing: na habairte, D sing.don abairt, N/A plur.: na habairtí, G plur.: na n-abairtí


1. The official standard now also accepts an eclipse following i+an (i.e. "sa") :
sa charr or sa gcarr
san fharraige or sa bhfarraige

This form with sa > eclipse is dominant in Connaught, i.e. Galway and Mayo. I'm not sure of the status of don/den + eclipse in the official standard, but it exists in some spoken dialects.

2. I think you might have made a typo here, an=article in the singular article except for genitive feminine singular = na

3. Yes, lenition as a result of the particle "a". But note that masculine names (not all) are often slenderised:

Tomás > a Thomáis
Seán > a Sheáin
Peadar > a Pheadair
Deasún > a Dheasúin

While all feminine names are lenited only:
Bríd > a Bhríd
Doireann > a Dhoireann
Méabh > a Mhéabh

4. Yes, the s is silent. an tseachtain is pronounced as if it were an teachtain.

5. See point 2

6.N/A sing: an obair (the work), G sing: na hoibre, D sing. don obair, N/A plur.:na hoibreacha, G plur.: na n-oibreacha
N/A sing: an abairt (the phrase), G sing: na habairte, D sing.don abairt, N/A plur.: na habairtí, G plur.: na n-abairtí

I hope that was helpful and clear, if not feel free to ask any questions.
2 x

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4782
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 15019

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Iversen » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:36 pm

Your comments were definitely helpful. I don't know why I suddenly started to confuse "an" and "na", but I have corrected those errors in the message above. I also inserted the missing "h" in the first example from the Gramadach -and painted it green to celebrate that I found an error in the otherwise infallibe Gramadach. I didn't change my remarks about "í", but your comment suggests that it is beginning to lean towards the larger group of prepositions, namely those that cause eclipse. And the possible slenderizing (or palatalization) of masculine names/nouns in the vocative suggests that the vocative has 'learnt' something from the singular genitive of masculine nouns from group I - maybe because of the shared lenition -but since this doesn't directly affect the mutations I have just taken the information ad notam.

My studies into the mutations at the beginning of nouns are definitely not complete - for instance there is a lot to be learnt about situations with two adjacent nouns, where one or both or none may be in the genitive, but nevertheless retain the nominative form, and where lenition of the second element is possible, but not always found ... and of course you can also have other complications involved like possessive 'adjectives' and real adjectives ... HOWEVER in order not to get stuck in this morass my next study area will be the other end of the substantives, where you find the endings (including the palatalization on the genitive singular masculine) that define the different declensions. I have already noted one source that refuses to recognize the 5. declension with the motivation that it just is a heap of exceptions. But this leaves 4 declensions, and at least two of those are based on a whole gamut of unpredictable plural endings.

GER: Ich habe auch im deutschen Regionalfernsehen gesehen, daß Haithabu und Danewerk (auf Dänisch "Hedeby" und "Dannevirke") jetzt als Welterbe anerkannt geworden sind. Dies ist keine Minute zu früh! Dannevirke wurde im frühen Wikingerzeit (unter könig Gudfred) gegründet als Verteidigung gegen den etwas zu energischen Kaiser Karl den Großen, und es wurde später während der Regierungszeit von Gorm dem Alten verstärkt (laut dem "kleinen" Jellingstein vielleicht auf Initiative seiner Königin Thyra), diesmal vermutlich als Verteidigung gegen den ersten Ottonische Keiser, Otto I. Hinter dieser Anlage entstand die Handelsstadt Hedeby. Unter Otto II haben die Deutschen dann mehrmals Haithabu angegriffen und niedergebrannt, und der dänische König Harald Blauzahn hat die Stadt aufgegeben - sie lag offensichtlich zu nahe an den wilden und barbarischen Deutschen. Nahe Haithabu lag eine andere Siedlung Sliasthorp (genannt nach dem Fluß Schlei), später als Schleswig bekannt, und dorthin haben sich die örtlichen Aktivitäten sich verlegt. Schleswig liegt aber etwas entfernt, und deshalb sind die historische Anlagen von Haithabu und Danewerk ganz gut erhalten. Sie liegen jetzt in Deutschland, weil die heutige Grenze sp etwa die sprachliche Grenze zwischen Deutsch und Dänisch wiederspiegelt, und diese Grenze hat sich seit der Zeit von Thyra und seinem Gemal nach Norden geschoben.

F2709a04_Knochen-aus-Haithabu.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
0 x

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4782
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 15019

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby Iversen » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:01 am

Ready for one more dose of Irish? Yesterday evening I read the pages about the 5 or so declensions in my Irish Grammar Book, and when I woke up this morning I added the pages about prepositions and the effects of preceding them with things called possessive adjectives and relatives - and after that the pages about the socalled relative clauses.

Let's take these topics one by one. I yesterday mentioned that another of my sources thought it was enough with four declensions, and then I added that at least two of them had unpredictable endings in the plural. Wrong and wrong. I can now see that the 5. declension isn't much more chaotic than no. 1-4 (especially since the grammar book has put a few nouns completely outside the declension system) so we can just as well retain it, and there are unpredictable 'strong' endings in all five declensions - for instance a little lady named -"anna" pops up as possible ending in all five declensions. But there are also a few patterns.

For instance the large 1. declension, which consists of masculine nouns with a broad consonant at the end in the nominative singular, can be subdivided into two or three subgroups (and remember, this has not much to do with what happens at the beginning of the words - we are speaking endings here). To produce the genitive singular the first subgroup makes the end of the noun slender without adding an ending, but sometimes this entails some other changes. The preferred simple example seems to be "an bád" (the boat), which becomes "an bháid". And if this goes well then the same form (without the lenition) is used as plural nominative-accusative: "báid", and the genitive plural form is then borrowed from the nominative singular (although with eclipsis). But there are also nouns in the 1. declension that insist on adding an ending in the plural, like the word for a noblemean (a vassal) - and then funny things happen: N/A sing: "an t-uasal", gen.sing.: "an uasail", N/A plural: "na huaisle", Gen.plural: "na n-uaisle". Here the plural ending is "-e", and it is obvious that the singular now follows the Nominative-Accusative plural form (apart from the usual eclipsis for vowels, which is "n-" with a hyphen).

Actually the grammar book gives a surprisingly simple rule for the genitive plural (p.52): if the nominative-accusative plural has been formed by slenderizing the final consonant (by inserting an -i- and maybe doing a few things more) OR by simply adding an -a, then the genitive plural ending is snatched from the nominative singular. If not, then it is the same as the nominative-accusative plural form (and remember: we are only talkning endings here. You need to apply the relevant mutations too!).

However there seems also to be a movement in the other direction, although the grammar doesn't make much of it: nouns from the fifth conjugation that have a slender ending tend to broaden it and then add an ending of some kind: nominative-accusative singular "an traein" (train, railroad), but "an traenach" in the genitive singular. An extra -a is added in the plural: "na traenacha" - and following the general rule this is also the form used in the gentitive plural, except that there is eclipsis after the article: "na dtreanacha".

Kunst064.JPG

But sometimes there isn't an article. For instance there could be something the grammar insists on calling a possessive adjective, even though it looks like the possessive pronouns of almost any other language I have ever studied. This thingy has the effect of causing the same mutation in an articleless (i.e. indefinite) noun as you find in the genitive forms - i.e. lenition, h, eclipse or no change - but without causing the noun to take on the usual genitival endings. Example: "do chapall" (thy horse). So again, the surroundings plus gender and the phonetic shape of the noun dictate what happens to the beginning of the noun (mutation or not), but the end of it behave like a case ending - totally oblivious to whatever happened at the beginning. One further complication is that the 3. person form "a" and 1. person plural "ár" tend to fuse with some, but not all prepositions. For instance with "ó" (from) you get the forms "óna" and "ónar" (which of course leads to the suspicion that the possessive thingies had an initial n- in the old days, which got lost somewhere along the road).

And of course an even longer list of prepositions fuse with the personal pronouns, which can produce somewhat obscure results. With "ó" you get forms like "uaim, uait, uaidh, uaithi" (from ó + me, you sing, him, her) etc. which still is understandable - luckily my dictionary (the Collins one) quotes such forms as headwords with a reference to the relevant preposition, otherwise it would be sheer hell to try to guess where they came form.

And finally the relative clauses, ha ha. Some of them actually do look like relative clauses in other languages, but the constructions include some that look slightly weird - and then there are two types: direct and indirect, with different relative 'particles in positive and negative sentences, and to boot they are associated with different verbal forms. Let's save that for another time...

Kunst009.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
3 x

User avatar
mick33
Orange Belt
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Lakewood, Washington, USA
Languages: First language: English
Languages I'm focusing on learning now: Italian.
Languages I'm learning but not focusing on: Afrikaans, Polish, Finnish Turkish, Spanish, Swedish, Catalan, Hungarian, Russian.
Just for fun I sometimes learn a little of: Hindi, Japanese, Indonesian, Georgian, Thai etc.
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=762
x 362

Re: Iversen's second multiconfused log thread

Postby mick33 » Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:59 pm

Wow! Irish grammar looks fascinating. As I read these last few posts about mutations and lenition, I'm beginning to wonder why anyone claims that Finnish, Hungarian or Polish are so complex and therefore difficult.
0 x


Return to “Language logs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wynnsam and 2 guests