Goireasan Akerbeltz - Obair a' chleachdaiche [gd]

Ri

2017-04-14T07:57:26Z

Susanharris: /* To infinity... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri had been originally (when the f was still around) pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page [[PPP_-_Pronouns,_prepositions_and_their_pronunciation#Ri|here]]. It does, oddly enough, survive in one instance: the prefix frith- but we won't go into that here because it would be too much of a tangent, even for me!

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know [[Compensatory lengthening and The secret of time|what that leads to]] in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited". Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

[[Faidhle:fan.jpg|centre]]

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against', e.g. fri fál 'against a wall'. A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something to keep it from falling to the ground - and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

Incidentally, the last example forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use a different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle, but in Gaelic we're still in the same meaning system. This usage of ri is old and can be seen in Old Irish words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group, we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with". That's does not seem so strange when you think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

That use is old and existed as far back as Old Irish.

For the next group, again, we get closer to the meaning 'against'. You can think of the following as "against, tackling", while still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So, where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? There's not much. Some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns to give slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by the word 'with' that has a seemingly unrelated meaning, in English. Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical realities of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody are not far apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...), so in Gaelic they are close in meaning and entail the same concept:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting convergence because the same "symbol", ri, is used in both cases to represent the action relationship which is going on:

[[Faidhle:argamaid.jpg|centre]]

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there are the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there are a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and
gabh ri 'to accept'. But every language has annoying constructions which do not fit easily into the paradigm.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T09:43:20Z

Susanharris: /* and beyond... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails, within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited". Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against', e.g. fri fál 'against a wall'. A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something to keep it from falling to the ground - and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

Incidentally, the last example forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use a different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle, but in Gaelic we're still in the same meaning system. This usage of ri is old and can be seen in Old Irish words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group, we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with". That's does not seem so strange when you think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

That use is old and existed as far back as Old Irish.

For the next group, again, we get closer to the meaning 'against'. You can think of the following as "against, tackling", while still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So, where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? There's not much. Some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns to give slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by the word 'with' that has a seemingly unrelated meaning, in English. Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical realities of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody are not far apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...), so in Gaelic they are close in meaning and entail the same concept:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting convergence because the same "symbol", ri, is used in both cases to represent the action relationship which is going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there are the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there are a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and
gabh ri 'to accept'. But every language has annoying constructions which do not fit easily into the paradigm.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T09:41:20Z

Susanharris: /* and beyond... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails, within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited". Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against', e.g. fri fál 'against a wall'. A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something to keep it from falling to the ground - and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

Incidentally, the last example forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use a different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle, but in Gaelic we're still in the same meaning system. This usage of ri is old and can be seen in Old Irish words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group, we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with". That's does not seem so strange when you think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

That use is old and existed as far back as Old Irish.

For the next group, again, we get closer to the meaning 'against'. You can think of the following as "against, tackling", while still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So, where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? There's not much. Some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns to give slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by the word 'with' that has a seemingly unrelated meaning, in English. Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical realities of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody are not far apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...), so in Gaelic they are close in meaning and entail the same concept:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting convergence because the same "symbol", ri, is used in both cases to represent the action relationship which is going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there are the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there are a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and
gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which do not fit easily into the paradigm.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T09:24:16Z

Susanharris: /* To infinity... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails, within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited". Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against', e.g. fri fál 'against a wall'. A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something to keep it from falling to the ground - and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

Incidentally, the last example forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use a different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle, but in Gaelic we're still in the same meaning system. This usage of ri is old and can be seen in Old Irish words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group, we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with". That's does not seem so strange when you think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

That use is old and existed as far back as Old Irish.

For the next group, again, we get closer to the meaning 'against'. You can think of the following as "against, tackling", while still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So, where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? There's not much. Some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns to give slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by the word 'with' that has a seemingly unrelated meaning, in English. Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical realities of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody are not far apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...), so in Gaelic they are close in meaning and entail the same concept:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting convergence because the same "symbol", ri, is used in both cases to represent the action relationship which is going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T09:22:04Z

Susanharris: /* To infinity... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails, within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited". Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against', e.g. fri fál 'against a wall'. A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something to keep it from falling to the ground - and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

Incidentally, the last example forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use a different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle, but in Gaelic we're still in the same meaning system. This usage of ri is old and can be seen in Old Irish words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group, we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with". That's does not seem so strange when you think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

That use is old and existed as far back as Old Irish.

For the next group, again, we get closer to the meaning 'against'. You can think of the following as "against, tackling", while still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So, where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? There's not much. Some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns to give slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by the word 'with' that has a seemingly unrelated meaning, in English. Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical realities of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody are not far apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) so in Gaelic they are close in meaning and entail the same concept:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting convergence because the same "symbol", ri is used in both cases to represent the action relationship which is going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T09:17:40Z

Susanharris: /* To infinity... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails, within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited". Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against', e.g. fri fál 'against a wall'. A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something to keep it from falling to the ground - and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

Incidentally, the last example forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use a different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle, but in Gaelic we're still in the same meaning system. This usage of ri is old and can be seen in Old Irish words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group, we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with". That's does not seem so strange when you think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

That use is old and existed as far back as Old Irish.

For the next group, again, we get closer to the meaning 'against'. You can think of the following as "against, tackling", while still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So, where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? There's not much. Some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns to give slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by the word 'with' that has a seemingly unrelated meaning, in English. Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) so in Gaelic they are close in meaning and entail the same concept:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting convergence because the same "symbol", ri is used in both cases to represent the action relationship which is going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T09:16:01Z

Susanharris: /* To infinity... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails, within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited". Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against', e.g. fri fál 'against a wall'. A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something to keep it from falling to the ground - and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

Incidentally, the last example forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use a different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle, but in Gaelic we're still in the same meaning system. This usage of ri is old and can be seen in Old Irish words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group, we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with". That's does not seem so strange when you think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

That use is old and existed as far back as Old Irish.

For the next group, again, we get closer to the meaning 'against'. You can think of the following as "against, tackling", still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So, where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? There's not much. Some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns to give slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by the word 'with' that has a seemingly unrelated meaning, in English. Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) so in Gaelic they are close in meaning and entail the same concept:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting convergence because the same "symbol", ri is used in both cases to represent the action relationship which is going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T08:33:07Z

Susanharris: /* To infinity... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails, within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited". Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against', e.g. fri fál 'against a wall'. A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T08:27:59Z

Susanharris: /* To infinity... */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than give a long list of ways that this preposition can be translated (the format of most textbooks), depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails, within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word which was most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning "to turn" and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. Already, you're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the preposition ri. So, the number one meaning of ri is 'against', both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T08:07:59Z

Susanharris: /* First things first */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, a problem arose. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of a word is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than do what most textbooks do which is to give you a long list of ways in which this preposition can be translated depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word and is most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning to turn and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. You're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the word already. So, meaning number one is 'against' both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T08:02:43Z

Susanharris: /* First things first */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad -r-? Probably two things happened at the same time:

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic, to some extent, people would have tried to to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, we have a problem. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of words is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than do what most textbooks do which is to give you a long list of ways in which this preposition can be translated depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word and is most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning to turn and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. You're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the word already. So, meaning number one is 'against' both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T07:56:26Z

Susanharris: /* First things first */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f just got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad one? Probably two things happened at the same time.

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic people would have tried, to some extent, to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, we have a problem. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of words is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than do what most textbooks do which is to give you a long list of ways in which this preposition can be translated depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word and is most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning to turn and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. You're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the word already. So, meaning number one is 'against' both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T07:55:13Z

Susanharris: /* First things first */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong, as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are clear. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f simply got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad one? Probably two things happened at the same time.

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic people would have tried, to some extent, to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, we have a problem. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of words is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than do what most textbooks do which is to give you a long list of ways in which this preposition can be translated depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word and is most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning to turn and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. You're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the word already. So, meaning number one is 'against' both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T07:53:19Z

Susanharris: /* First things first */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are simple. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f simply got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad one? Probably two things happened at the same time.

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic people would have tried, to some extent, to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, we have a problem. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of words is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than do what most textbooks do which is to give you a long list of ways in which this preposition can be translated depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word and is most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning to turn and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. You're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the word already. So, meaning number one is 'against' both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T07:52:43Z

Susanharris: /* First things first */

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong as [R].

The reasons for this seem mysterious but it's not really such a mystery. The reasons for the r being slender are simple. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word because ri used to be fri. Over time, the f simply got lenited away. However, because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm of ri can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So, why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad one? Probably two things happened at the same time.

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on with people trying to fit an irregular pattern into a regular pattern. Something like this is occurring among modern English speakers who are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them. These days, although "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, it's certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic people would have tried, to some extent, to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But, at the same time, something else was going on. Consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. Let's take it one step at a time to understand the sequence of the daisy chain: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, probably somewhere around the year 1500, we have a problem. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic, of course.) The easy solution was to make the r broad because that fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of words is always broad. But then, what about ribh/ruibh? I'm not sure, but perhaps a case of analogy surfaced, i.e. people applied the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and therefore very similar in its sound structure.

Thus, the variant spellings are simply reflexes of something that used to be rinn & ribh and are now ruinn & ruibh.

Again, the Leòdhasaich need a footnote again because in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than do what most textbooks do which is to give you a long list of ways in which this preposition can be translated depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word and is most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning to turn and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. You're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the word already. So, meaning number one is 'against' both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T07:00:03Z

Susanharris:

Here's one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong as [R].

The reasons for this are shrouded in mystery. No, not really. The reasons for the r being slender is simple. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word - ri used to be fri. The f simply got lenited away over time, but because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad one? Probably two things happening at the same time.

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on, that is, people trying to fit something which is irregular into a regular pattern. Like speakers of modern English are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them - these days "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, but certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic people will have tried to some extent to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But something else was going on at the same time - consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. But let's take it one step at a time. This is what the daisy chain looks like: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, we are probably somewhere around the year 1500 and we have a problem. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic of course.) Easy solution: we make the r broad, which fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of words is always broad. So what about ribh/ruibh then? I'm not sure, but perhaps case of analogy i.e. people applying the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and thus very very similar in its sound structure.

The variant spellings are thus simply reflexes of something that used to be (rinn & ribh) and what is now (ruinn & ruibh).

And the Leòdhasaich need a footnote again - remember that in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than do what most textbooks do which is to give you a long list of ways in which this preposition can be translated depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word and is most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning to turn and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. You're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the word already. So, meaning number one is 'against' both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

Ri

2017-04-04T06:59:34Z

Susanharris:

Here is one of the more entertaining prepositions that Gaelic has to offer. But first, let's get the easy stuff out of the way before you let yourselves be entertained by a mad linguist.

As with most simple prepositions, ri [rʲi] can be conjugated (i.e. the preposition has merged into one word with the pronouns mi, thu etc.)

{| style="width: 20%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| mi || rium || /rʲium/
|-
| thu || riut || /rʲiuhd/
|-
| e || ris || /rʲiʃ/
|-
| i || rithe || /rʲi.ə/
|-
| sinn || r(u)inn || /rɯiNʲ/
|-
| sibh || r(u)ibh || /rɯiv/
|-
| iad || riutha || /rʲu.ə/
|-
|}

==First things first==
Now, easy bits first:

You will sometimes see ruinn and ruibh spelt as rinn and ribh. Also, you will have noticed that most unexpectedly, the ri in rium, riut, ris, rithe and riutha is pronounced as [rʲ] even though you will have learned that at the beginning of a word all r-sounds are pronounced strong as [R].

The reasons for this are shrouded in mystery. No, not really. The reasons for the r being slender is simple. In Old Irish, the r was simply not at the beginning of the word - ri used to be fri. The f simply got lenited away over time, but because fri was pronounced as [fɾʲi], the -r- was fixed in the linguistic memory of people as being non-initial and slender. The whole paradigm can be found in the page on the history of prepositions.

So why has the -r-, which apparently was still slender in Old Irish changed to a broad one? Probably two things happening at the same time.

On the one hand, there has probably been a certain amount of re-analysis going on, that is, people trying to fit something which is irregular into a regular pattern. Like speakers of modern English are re-analysing irregular plurals and slowly getting rid of them - these days "fishes" is perhaps frowned upon, but certainly current in the spoken language. So in Gaelic people will have tried to some extent to squeeze ri into the regular pronunciation patterns by pronouncing rinn as it now "appears" to be - with an initial r which has to be strong.

But something else was going on at the same time - consonant length was shifting away from the consonant and onto the vowel. And we all know where that leads to in modern Gaelic. But let's take it one step at a time. This is what the daisy chain looks like: [fɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiɲː] > [ɾʲiːɲ] > [ɾʲuiɲ]. At this stage, we are probably somewhere around the year 1500 and we have a problem. The [ɾʲ] is suddenly in front of a very broad diphthong [ui] which makes it difficult to pronounce and "illegal" in terms of its phonetic structure (according to the rules of Gaelic of course.) Easy solution: we make the r broad, which fits in nicely with the usual rule that r at the beginning of words is always broad. So what about ribh/ruibh then? I'm not sure, but perhaps case of analogy i.e. people applying the pattern of another preposition e.g. dhuibh which used to be duibh and thus very very similar in its sound structure.

The variant spellings are thus simply reflexes of something that used to be (rinn & ribh) and what is now (ruinn & ruibh).

And the Leòdhasaich need a footnote again - remember that in Lewis Gaelic [ɾʲ] has changed to [ð], so don't be surprised if you hear things like [ðiʃ].

==To infinity...==
Now, that was the easy bit.

Meaning and use of ri are a bit more tricky. Rather than do what most textbooks do which is to give you a long list of ways in which this preposition can be translated depending on context and the verbs it is used with, we will try to give you an idea of what concept(s) ri entails within Gaelic.

The primary meaning of ri is best summed up as "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited." Think of a man holding his head in front of a fan blowing at full force and you're not far off the concept. And contrary to some grammars, it *can* involve physical motion.

The reason for not just giving you a list of possible translations is that such a long list would suggest that it's a very convoluted preposition when it really isn't. We're just trying to get away from the English speaking point of view for a bit.

If you open your dictionary of Old Irish, you will see that the above definition squares largely with the original meaning of the word and is most commonly translated as 'against,' e.g. fri fál 'against a wall.' A look into your etymological dictionary will tell you that ri is most likely connected to the Indo-European root of *vṛti meaning to turn and is connected to Latin versus and the English suffix -wards. You're probably getting a pretty good idea of the fundamental meaning of the word already. So, meaning number one is 'against' both in a physical and metaphorical way. This covers phrases like the following:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha fàradh ris a' bhalla || there is a ladder leaning against the wall
|-
| geug a' gnogadh ris an uinneag || a branch knocking against the window
|-
| sheas i ris a' chàr || she leaned against the car
|-
| dèan strì ri nàimhdean || fight against enemies
|-
| croch ri craobh || hang from a tree
|-
| air neo bidh mi riut! || or else you'll get it!
|-
| tha an ite maoth ri m' aghaidh || the feather is soft against my face
|-
| shuidh e r' a thaobh || he sat next to him
|-
|}

So why is 'hang from a tree' in there? Think of it - the rope has to be attached to something, doesn't it? Something is keeping it from falling to the ground and that is the tree.

This is where some grammars get into really hot water because they look at ri from the English point of view. But staying with the definition that ri is used for the "interaction between two participants in which some form of feedback or resistance is exhibited" the following are quite logical:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e a' dol ris a' ghaoth || he is going against the wind
|-
| shnàmh i ris an t-sruth || she swam upstream/against the current
|-
| bha e ris a' ghrian || it was exposed to the sun
|-
| shreap sinn ris a' bhruthach || we ascended/went up the slope
|-
|}

The last one incidentally forms a nice pair with leis a' bhruthach which means exactly the opposite. Notice how in English we have to use different idiom because English looks at the world from a different angle - but in Gaelic we're still in the same system. This usage of ri is old too - Old Irish has words like fresngabál meaning 'ascent' (lit. 'taking against').

For the next meaning group we are simply going to state that in Gaelic you "compare against" rather than "with" - not as strange, think of the English idiom "to measure against!"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e coltach ri cù || he is similar to a dog
|-
| tha seo mór an taca ris an té sin || this is big in comparison with that one
|-
| tha e cho glas ri càl Obar Dheathain || it is as green as grass
|-
| tha e an aon dath ri mo phlangaid || it is the same colour as my blanket
|-
|}

This use again is old and existed as far back as Old Irish. For the next group, we get closer to the meaning 'against' again. You can think of the following as "against, tackling," still staying within the Gaelic definition of ri:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| tha e ris an iasgach || he's fishing (for a living)
|-
| bha i ri ùrnaigh || she was praying
|-
| dé tha thu ris? || what are you up to?
|-
| tha iad ri trod || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || they were at it again
|-
|}

So where exactly is the difference between bha i ag ùrnaigh and bha i ri ùrnaigh? Not much - some dialects even use ri instead of ag with verbal nouns - slightly more emphasis on the action taking place than in phrases with ag.

The next group also stays quite close to home - even though it gets translated into English by a word whose meaning is seemingly unrelated - 'with.' Again, it's a question of your point of view. The physical reality of leaning against a wall and standing side by side with somebody aren't miles apart (unless you're trying to push the wall over of course ...) and in Gaelic they are just that:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| chaidh mi ann còmhla ris ||I went there with him
|-
| bha iad ann maille rithe || they were there alongside her
|-
| tha iad ri chéile a-nis || they are together now
|-
| rinn mi deasbad riutha || they're having a fight
|-
| bha iad ris a-rithist || They argued with him again
|-
|}

It still is the same concept in Gaelic. The next group is even more obvious as "two participants with some form of feedback or resistance:"

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thachair mi ri muc-mhara || I met a whale
|-
| coinnichidh mi rithe || I will meet her
|-
| tha mi a' fuireach ris || I am waiting for him
|-
|}

If you think back to the image with the fan and compare it to this one, you'll notice an interesting coincidence - the same "symbol" is used in both cases to represent the action going on:

{| style="width: 60%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| thuirt mi ris gun a dhèanamh || I told him not to do it
|-
| dh'éist mi ruibh || I listened to you
|-
| eughaidh mi ris || I will yell at him
|-
|}

==and beyond...==
And then there is the remainder of expressions and idioms which use ri which are perhaps best just learned, things like réidh ri Dia 'at peace with God' where you could somehow invoke the above, but only with difficulty. Here's a list of usages which are difficult to predict but thankfully not that tricky to learn:

ri + Verbal Noun » to be V-PAST
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri ithe || to be eaten
|-
| ri ràdh || to be said
|-
| ri dhèanamh || to be done
|-
|}

aig + ri » have to [present/non-tense]
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| tha agam ri èisteachd || I have to listen
|-
| tha aca ri bruidhinn || they have to speak
|-
|}

ri + Temporal Adverb » during/in
{| style="width: 35%;" border="0"
|-
| ri linn Jingis Khan || during the age of Jingis Khan
|-
| ri (a) latha || in his day
|-
| ri aimsir theth || in hot weather
|-
|}

And then there is a number of verbs which take ri for reasons best known to themselves which you just have to learn such as feitheamh ri 'waiting for' and gabh ri 'to accept', but then every language has annoying constructions which don't fit into the paradigm easily.

{{Teamplaid:Roimhearan}}

The many functions of a

2017-03-04T21:46:19Z

Susanharris:

Certainly, from a learner's point of view, it would seem that every language has a small, annoying word which has so many possible functions. In Albanian (yes, I did Albanian for a while, I've always like Albania though I've not yet been there) this happens to be të, which can be any of the following:
* a short form of a second person pronoun in the dative or accusative
* a short form of a third person pronoun in the dative or accusative - meaning that the short form "for him" and "for you" are identical
* a particle which forms the conjunctive
* a particle which forms the future conditional
* a particle which forms the jussive (i.e. it helps form a kind of imperative)
* a particle needed for some infinitive constructions
* the definite article before a noun

Once you get into it, it's not too bad but can still be a head-scratcher.

Of course, Gaelic has one too - a. This covers an even wider range of options than Albanian të, so here's a list which hopefully will help you make a bit more sense of it.

==The vocative particle==
This a [ə] is placed in front of a noun or proper noun when directly addressing a thing or person. It lenites and forces the noun or proper noun into the vocative case, if the noun has a vocative case. English doesn't have a vocative case. The closest English equivalent is "oh!", but the Gaelic vocative particle doesn't sound as corny when you use it, it's just, well, normal.

Before a vowel or fh-, the a disappears.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Seumas [ʃeːməs] » || a Sheumais! [ə heːmɪʃ]
|-
| James » || (oh) James!
|-
| fir [firʲ] » || fheara! [ɛrə]
|-
| men » || (oh) men!
|-
| Mórag [moːrag] » || a Mhórag! [ə voːrag]
|-
| Morag » || (oh) Morag!
|}

==The leniting article==
Technically, this is not just a but a' [ə], with an apostrophe, but I included it, nonetheless. This leniting article takes the form a' and it lenites the following word. It appears before feminine singular nouns in the nominative and before masculine singular AND feminine singular nouns in the prepositional case, before b c g m p.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a' bhròg || the show
|-
| air a' bhalach || on the boy
|-
|}

==The participle-forming particle==
Similarly, this a also takes an apostrophe, a' [ə], but I've included it because as the leniting article, in spoken Gaelic, it also comes out as [ə]. This isn't Borge's spoken punctuation you know :)

It is the reduced form of ag and appears before anything that is not a vowel and not r. It appears before b c d f g l m n p s t, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha mi a' bualadh || I am hitting
|-
| tha mi a' lagachadh || I am weakening
|-
|}

==The masculine possessive pronoun==
No apostrophe this time, just a [ə], and it lenites everything.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a bhalla || his wall
|-
| a mhàthair || his mother
|-
| a mhàthair [N » n] || his snake
|}

==The feminine possessive pronoun==
This is the reduced form of a h-, which you get before feminine nouns beginning with vowels. The only other difference from the masculine possessive pronoun is that this one doesn't lenite the noun. It's also pronounced [ə]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a balla || her wall
|-
| a màthair || her mother
|-
| a nathair [N » N] || her snake
|-
|}

==The infinitive particle==
Please see [[Habemus infinitivum necne]] for a full exposé on what's with the infinitive in Gaelic. Here, I'm just giving a couple of brief examples. Also pronounced [ə], it appears in certain types of sentences before a verbal noun and it prompts lenition:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Bu toigh leam cù a cheannach || I would like to buy a dog
|-
| Tha mi airson ùbhal a ròstadh [R » r] || I intend to roast an apple
|-
|}

==The counting particle==
The reduced form of a h-[ə h] appears before numbers up to twenty, starting with a consonant. It's used when counting numbers but not objects.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a còig || five
|-
| a seachd || seven
|-
|}

==The reduced form of the preposition do==
The preposition do often reduces to just a [ə]. It lenites consonants, and before vowels and fh it gets reduplicated as do dh' and also a dh'. And yes, it overlaps, almost completely, with de. In many dialects, even the full forms do and de are pronounced [də].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir a Mhurchadh e || give it to Murdo!
|-
| theirig a Mhiùghalaigh || go to Mingulay!
|-
|}

==The reduced form of the preposition de==
The preposition de often reduces to just a [ə]. It lenites consonants, and before vowels and fh it gets reduplicated as de dh' and also a dh'. And yes, it overlaps with do, almost completely. In many dialects, even the full forms do and de are pronounced [də].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir a sheinn || stop singing!
|-
| dèan truinnsear a chlach || make a plate from stone!
|-
|}

==The relative particle==
The relative particle a [ə] marks a relative clause. That's it really...
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| cuin a sheinneas tusa? || when will '''you''' sing?
|-
| an tè a thuit || the woman who fell
|-
|}

==The first part of various adverbs==
Which is sadly relevant because of some GOC nonense. For some arcane reason, they took offence to the hyphen in an-seo, an-sin, and an-siud and re-spelled them as an seo, an sin and an siud. As if Gaelic didn't have enough words that look like an...
Anyway, this means that people who have a tendency to write everything exactly as they say it, and who follow GOC a bit too religiously, sometimes reduce the an to a [ə]:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an-seo [əˈʃɔ] || a-seo [əˈʃɔ] || an seo [əˈʃɔ] || a seo [əˈʃɔ]
|-
| an-sin [əˈʃin] || a-sin [əˈʃin] || an sin [əˈʃin] || a sin [əˈʃin]
|-
| an-siud [əˈʃid] || a-siud [əˈʃid] || an siud [əˈʃid] || a siud [əˈʃid]
|-
|}
Yes, the n is almost always deleted in spoken Gaelic. If you pronounced it '''very''' carefully, it would be [əNʲˈʃɔ].

==The letter a==
To confuse matters, when a represents just the letter a, this is mostly read the English way i.e. "ay" even though Gaelic has very old indigenous names for the letters. But there are a few people who still know the old names of the letters.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a, b, c || [ɛj] [biː] [siː]
|-
| a, b, c || ailm, beith, coll
|-
|}

==A dialectal form of e==
In writing, in some dialects, people use a where you'd expect e, in order to represent the regional pronunciation of it, [a].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chonaic sinn a || [xɔNɪgʲ ʃiNʲː a]
|-
| chualaig a caile || [xuaLɪgʲ a kalə]
|-
|}

==The interrogative particle==
The reduced form of an [ən], appears only before bheil:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a bheil thu tinn? || are you ill?
|-
|}

==The exclamation==
This comes out as a clear [a]. Nothing much else to say about it really.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| A, sin agad e || Ah, there you go
|-
|}

==The preposition á==
Of course, this has an acute - well, a grave these days - but added just for the sake of completeness. In this instance only, the acute/grave on á does not make it a long vowel. The acute is just there to distinguish it from other particles written a which are pronounced [ə], whereas á has a clear, short [a].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig mi á Peairt || I came from Perth
|-
|}

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2017-03-04T21:45:20Z

Susanharris: /* A word on relatives */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || ability || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are '''infinitive(-like) constructions'''. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

===A word on relatives===
No, not the kind that visits and drinks your alc, but relative clauses. Let's take the sentence from above (I would like '''to read''' a book) and make it "the book" which will help make the form more transparent:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || an || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || the || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to read''' the book
|-
|}

When you turn that into a relative clause, the words move around, but the a stays the same:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || leabhar || a || bu || toigh || leam || a || leughadh
|-
| the || book || REL || COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="8" | The book I would like '''to read'''
|-
|}
So we've picked up a relative particle which does nothing except link the an leabhar bit with the bu toigh leam a leughadh bit, but other than that, no change really. Fortunately the place where "the book" goes in the sentence is the same as in English, so it's not too much of a mind-bender.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after the modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent book except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || chòir || dhut || mo || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || right || to.you || my || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | You ought '''to hit''' me
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2017-03-04T21:42:43Z

Susanharris: /* A word on relatives */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || ability || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are '''infinitive(-like) constructions'''. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

===A word on relatives===
No, not the kind that visits and drinks your alc, but relative clauses. Let's take the sentence from above (I would like '''to read''' a book) and make it "the book" which will help make the form more transparent:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || an || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || the || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to read''' the book
|-
|}

When you turn that into a relative clause, the words move around, but the a stays the same:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || leabhar || a || bu || toigh || leam || a || leughadh
|-
| the || book || REL || COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="8" | The book I would like '''to read'''
|-
|}
So we've picked up a relative particle which does nothing except link the an leabhar bit with the bu toigh leam a leughadh bit, but other than that, no change really. Fortunately the place where "the book" goes in the sentence is the same as in English, so it's not too much of a headbender.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after the modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent book except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || chòir || dhut || mo || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || right || to.you || my || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | You ought '''to hit''' me
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2017-03-04T21:40:30Z

Susanharris: /* But what about that other one? */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || ability || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are '''infinitive(-like) constructions'''. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

===A word on relatives===
No, not the kind that visits and drinks your ale, but relative clauses. Let's take the sentence from above (I would like '''to read''' a book) and make it "the book" which will help make the form more transparent:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || an || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || the || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to read''' the book
|-
|}

When you turn that into a relative clause, the words move around, but the a stays the same:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || leabhar || a || bu || toigh || leam || a || leughadh
|-
| the || book || REL || COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="8" | The book I would like '''to read'''
|-
|}
So we've picked up a relative particle which does nothing except link the an leabhar bit with the bu toigh leam a leughadh bit, but other than that, no change really. Fortunately the place where "the book" goes in the sentence is the same as in English, so it's not too much of a headbender.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after the modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent book except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || chòir || dhut || mo || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || right || to.you || my || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | You ought '''to hit''' me
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

The many functions of a

2017-03-04T07:57:26Z

Susanharris:

'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''

Certainly, from a learner's point of view, it would seem that every language has a small, annoying word which has so many possible functions. In Albanian (yes, I did Albanian for a while, I've always like Albania though I've not yet been there) this happens to be të, which can be any of the following:
* a short form of a second person pronoun in the dative or accusative
* a short form of a third person pronoun in the dative or accusative - meaning that the short form "for him" and "for you" are identical
* a particle which forms the conjunctive
* a particle which forms the future conditional
* a particle which forms the jussive (i.e. it helps form a kind of imperative)
* a particle needed for some infinitive constructions
* the definite article before a noun

Once you get into it, it's not too bad but can still be a head-scratcher.

Of course, Gaelic has one too - a. This covers an even wider range of options than Albanian të, so here's a list which hopefully will help you make a bit more sense of it.

==The vocative particle==
This a [ə] is placed in front of a noun or proper noun when directly addressing a thing or person. It lenites and forces the noun or proper noun into the vocative case, if the noun has a vocative case. English doesn't have a vocative case. The closest English equivalent is "oh!", but the Gaelic vocative particle doesn't sound as corny when you use it, it's just, well, normal.

Before a vowel or fh-, the a disappears.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Seumas [ʃeːməs] » || a Sheumais! [ə heːmɪʃ]
|-
| James » || (oh) James!
|-
| fir [firʲ] » || fheara! [ɛrə]
|-
| men » || (oh) men!
|-
| Mórag [moːrag] » || a Mhórag! [ə voːrag]
|-
| Morag » || (oh) Morag!
|}

==The leniting article==
Technically, this is not just a but a' [ə], with an apostrophe, but I included it, nonetheless. This leniting article takes the form a' and it lenites the following word. It appears before feminine singular nouns in the nominative and before masculine singular AND feminine singular nouns in the prepositional case, before b c g m p.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a' bhròg || the show
|-
| air a' bhalach || on the boy
|-
|}

==The participle-forming particle==
Similarly, this a also takes an apostrophe, a' [ə], but I've included it because as the leniting article, in spoken Gaelic, it also comes out as [ə]. This isn't Borge's spoken punctuation you know :)

It is the reduced form of ag and appears before anything that is not a vowel and not r. It appears before b c d f g l m n p s t, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha mi a' bualadh || I am hitting
|-
| tha mi a' lagachadh || I am weakening
|-
|}

==The masculine possessive pronoun==
No apostrophe this time, just a [ə], and it lenites everything.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a bhalla || his wall
|-
| a mhàthair || his mother
|-
| a mhàthair [N » n] || his snake
|}

==The feminine possessive pronoun==
This is the reduced form of a h-, which you get before feminine nouns beginning with vowels. The only other difference from the masculine possessive pronoun is that this one doesn't lenite the noun. It's also pronounced [ə]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a balla || her wall
|-
| a màthair || her mother
|-
| a nathair [N » N] || her snake
|-
|}

==The infinitive particle==
Please see [[Habemus infinitivum necne]] for a full exposé on what's with the infinitive in Gaelic. Here, I'm just giving a couple of brief examples. Also pronounced [ə], it appears in certain types of sentences before a verbal noun and it prompts lenition:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Bu toigh leam cù a cheannach || I would like to buy a dog
|-
| Tha mi airson ùbhal a ròstadh [R » r] || I intend to roast an apple
|-
|}

==The counting particle==
The reduced form of a h-[ə h] appears before numbers up to twenty, starting with a consonant. It's used when counting numbers but not objects.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a còig || five
|-
| a seachd || seven
|-
|}

==The reduced form of the preposition do==
The preposition do often reduces to just a [ə]. It lenites consonants, and before vowels and fh it gets reduplicated as do dh' and also a dh'. And yes, it overlaps, almost completely, with de. In many dialects, even the full forms do and de are pronounced [də].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir a Mhurchadh e || give it to Murdo!
|-
| theirig a Mhiùghalaigh || go to Mingulay!
|-
|}

==The reduced form of the preposition de==
The preposition de often reduces to just a [ə]. It lenites consonants, and before vowels and fh it gets reduplicated as de dh' and also a dh'. And yes, it overlaps with do, almost completely. In many dialects, even the full forms do and de are pronounced [də].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir a sheinn || stop singing!
|-
| dèan truinnsear a chlach || make a plate from stone!
|-
|}

==The relative particle==
The relative particle a [ə] marks a relative clause. That's it really...
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| cuin a sheinneas tusa? || when will '''you''' sing?
|-
| an tè a thuit || the woman who fell
|-
|}

==The first part of various adverbs==
Which is sadly relevant because of some GOC nonense. For some arcane reason, they took offence to the hyphen in an-seo, an-sin, and an-siud and re-spelled them as an seo, an sin and an siud. As if Gaelic didn't have enough words that look like an...
Anyway, this means that people who have a tendency to write everything exactly as they say it, and who follow GOC a bit too religiously, sometimes reduce the an to a [ə]:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an-seo [əˈʃɔ] || a-seo [əˈʃɔ] || an seo [əˈʃɔ] || a seo [əˈʃɔ]
|-
| an-sin [əˈʃin] || a-sin [əˈʃin] || an sin [əˈʃin] || a sin [əˈʃin]
|-
| an-siud [əˈʃid] || a-siud [əˈʃid] || an siud [əˈʃid] || a siud [əˈʃid]
|-
|}
Yes, the n is almost always deleted in spoken Gaelic. If you pronounced it '''very''' carefully, it would be [əNʲˈʃɔ].

==The letter a==
To confuse matters, when a represents just the letter a, this is mostly read the English way i.e. "ay" even though Gaelic has very old indigenous names for the letters. But there are a few people who still know the old names of the letters.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a, b, c || [ɛj] [biː] [siː]
|-
| a, b, c || ailm, beith, coll
|-
|}

==A dialectal form of e==
In writing, in some dialects, people use a where you'd expect e, in order to represent the regional pronunciation of it, [a].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chonaic sinn a || [xɔNɪgʲ ʃiNʲː a]
|-
| chualaig a caile || [xuaLɪgʲ a kalə]
|-
|}

==The interrogative particle==
The reduced form of an [ən], appears only before bheil:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a bheil thu tinn? || are you ill?
|-
|}

==The exclamation==
This comes out as a clear [a]. Nothing much else to say about it really.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| A, sin agad e || Ah, there you go
|-
|}

==The preposition á==
Of course, this has an acute - well, a grave these days - but added just for the sake of completeness. In this instance only, the acute/grave on á does not make it a long vowel. The acute is just there to distinguish it from other particles written a which are pronounced [ə], whereas á has a clear, short [a].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig mi á Peairt || I came from Perth
|-
|}

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

The many functions of a

2017-03-04T07:56:16Z

Susanharris:

'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''

Certainly, from a learner's point of view, it would seem that every language has a small, annoying word which has so many possible functions. In Albanian (yes, I did Albanian for a while, I've always like Albania though I've not been there yet) this happens to be të, which can be any of the following:
* a short form of a second person pronoun in the dative or accusative
* a short form of a third person pronoun in the dative or accusative - meaning that the short form "for him" and "for you" are identical
* a particle which forms the conjunctive
* a particle which forms the future conditional
* a particle which forms the jussive (i.e. it helps form a kind of imperative)
* a particle needed for some infinitive constructions
* the definite article before a noun

Once you get into it, it's not too bad but can still be a head-scratcher.

Of course, Gaelic has one too - a. This covers an even wider range of options than Albanian të, so here's a list which hopefully will help you make a bit more sense of it.

==The vocative particle==
This a [ə] is placed in front of a noun or proper noun when directly addressing a thing or person. It lenites and forces the noun or proper noun into the vocative case, if the noun has a vocative case. English doesn't have a vocative case. The closest English equivalent is "oh!", but the Gaelic vocative particle doesn't sound as corny when you use it, it's just, well, normal.

Before a vowel or fh-, the a disappears.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Seumas [ʃeːməs] » || a Sheumais! [ə heːmɪʃ]
|-
| James » || (oh) James!
|-
| fir [firʲ] » || fheara! [ɛrə]
|-
| men » || (oh) men!
|-
| Mórag [moːrag] » || a Mhórag! [ə voːrag]
|-
| Morag » || (oh) Morag!
|}

==The leniting article==
Technically, this is not just a but a' [ə], with an apostrophe, but I included it, nonetheless. This leniting article takes the form a' and it lenites the following word. It appears before feminine singular nouns in the nominative and before masculine singular AND feminine singular nouns in the prepositional case, before b c g m p.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a' bhròg || the show
|-
| air a' bhalach || on the boy
|-
|}

==The participle-forming particle==
Similarly, this a also takes an apostrophe, a' [ə], but I've included it because as the leniting article, in spoken Gaelic, it also comes out as [ə]. This isn't Borge's spoken punctuation you know :)

It is the reduced form of ag and appears before anything that is not a vowel and not r. It appears before b c d f g l m n p s t, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha mi a' bualadh || I am hitting
|-
| tha mi a' lagachadh || I am weakening
|-
|}

==The masculine possessive pronoun==
No apostrophe this time, just a [ə], and it lenites everything.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a bhalla || his wall
|-
| a mhàthair || his mother
|-
| a mhàthair [N » n] || his snake
|}

==The feminine possessive pronoun==
This is the reduced form of a h-, which you get before feminine nouns beginning with vowels. The only other difference from the masculine possessive pronoun is that this one doesn't lenite the noun. It's also pronounced [ə]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a balla || her wall
|-
| a màthair || her mother
|-
| a nathair [N » N] || her snake
|-
|}

==The infinitive particle==
Please see [[Habemus infinitivum necne]] for a full exposé on what's with the infinitive in Gaelic. Here, I'm just giving a couple of brief examples. Also pronounced [ə], it appears in certain types of sentences before a verbal noun and it prompts lenition:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Bu toigh leam cù a cheannach || I would like to buy a dog
|-
| Tha mi airson ùbhal a ròstadh [R » r] || I intend to roast an apple
|-
|}

==The counting particle==
The reduced form of a h-[ə h] appears before numbers up to twenty, starting with a consonant. It's used when counting numbers but not objects.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a còig || five
|-
| a seachd || seven
|-
|}

==The reduced form of the preposition do==
The preposition do often reduces to just a [ə]. It lenites consonants, and before vowels and fh it gets reduplicated as do dh' and also a dh'. And yes, it overlaps, almost completely, with de. In many dialects, even the full forms do and de are pronounced [də].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir a Mhurchadh e || give it to Murdo!
|-
| theirig a Mhiùghalaigh || go to Mingulay!
|-
|}

==The reduced form of the preposition de==
The preposition de often reduces to just a [ə]. It lenites consonants, and before vowels and fh it gets reduplicated as de dh' and also a dh'. And yes, it overlaps with do, almost completely. In many dialects, even the full forms do and de are pronounced [də].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir a sheinn || stop singing!
|-
| dèan truinnsear a chlach || make a plate from stone!
|-
|}

==The relative particle==
The relative particle a [ə] marks a relative clause. That's it really...
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| cuin a sheinneas tusa? || when will '''you''' sing?
|-
| an tè a thuit || the woman who fell
|-
|}

==The first part of various adverbs==
Which is sadly relevant because of some GOC nonense. For some arcane reason, they took offence to the hyphen in an-seo, an-sin, and an-siud and re-spelled them as an seo, an sin and an siud. As if Gaelic didn't have enough words that look like an...
Anyway, this means that people who have a tendency to write everything exactly as they say it, and who follow GOC a bit too religiously, sometimes reduce the an to a [ə]:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an-seo [əˈʃɔ] || a-seo [əˈʃɔ] || an seo [əˈʃɔ] || a seo [əˈʃɔ]
|-
| an-sin [əˈʃin] || a-sin [əˈʃin] || an sin [əˈʃin] || a sin [əˈʃin]
|-
| an-siud [əˈʃid] || a-siud [əˈʃid] || an siud [əˈʃid] || a siud [əˈʃid]
|-
|}
Yes, the n is almost always deleted in spoken Gaelic. If you pronounced it '''very''' carefully, it would be [əNʲˈʃɔ].

==The letter a==
To confuse matters, when a represents just the letter a, this is mostly read the English way i.e. "ay" even though Gaelic has very old indigenous names for the letters. But there are a few people who still know the old names of the letters.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a, b, c || [ɛj] [biː] [siː]
|-
| a, b, c || ailm, beith, coll
|-
|}

==A dialectal form of e==
In writing, in some dialects, people use a where you'd expect e, in order to represent the regional pronunciation of it, [a].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chonaic sinn a || [xɔNɪgʲ ʃiNʲː a]
|-
| chualaig a caile || [xuaLɪgʲ a kalə]
|-
|}

==The interrogative particle==
The reduced form of an [ən], appears only before bheil:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| a bheil thu tinn? || are you ill?
|-
|}

==The exclamation==
This comes out as a clear [a]. Nothing much else to say about it really.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| A, sin agad e || Ah, there you go
|-
|}

==The preposition á==
Of course, this has an acute - well, a grave these days - but added just for the sake of completeness. In this instance only, the acute/grave on á does not make it a long vowel. The acute is just there to distinguish it from other particles written a which are pronounced [ə], whereas á has a clear, short [a].
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig mi á Peairt || I came from Perth
|-
|}

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2017-03-04T07:40:13Z

Susanharris: /* A word on relatives */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || abilits || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are '''infinitive(-like) constructions'''. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

===A word on relatives===
No, not the kind that visits and drinks your ale, but relative clauses. Let's take the sentence from above (I would like '''to read''' a book) and make it "the book" which will help make the form more transparent:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || an || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || the || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to read''' the book
|-
|}

When you turn that into a relative clause, the words move around, but the a stays the same:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || leabhar || a || bu || toigh || leam || a || leughadh
|-
| the || book || REL || COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="8" | The book I would like '''to read'''
|-
|}
So we've picked up a relative particle which does nothing except link the an leabhar bit with the bu toigh leam a leughadh bit, but other than that, no change really. Fortunately the place where "the book" goes in the sentence is the same as in English, so it's not too much of a headbender.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after the modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent book except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || chòir || dhut || mo || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || right || to.you || my || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | You ought '''to hit''' me
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2017-03-04T07:27:43Z

Susanharris: /* But what about that other one? */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || abilits || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are '''infinitive(-like) constructions'''. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

===A word on relatives===
No, not the kind that visits and drinks your ale, but relative clauses. Let's take the sentence from above (I would like '''to read''' a book) and make it "the book" which will help make the form more transparent:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || an || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || the || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to read''' the book
|-
|}

When you turn that into a relative clause, the words move around, but the a stays the same:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || leabhar || a || bu || toigh || leam || a || leughadh
|-
| the || book || REL || COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="8" | The book I would like '''to read'''
|-
|}
So we've picked up a relative particle which does nothing except link the an leabhar bit with the bu toigh leam a leughadh bit but other than that, no change really. Fortunately the place where "the book" goes in the sentence is the same as in English, so it's not too much of a headbender.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after the modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent book except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || chòir || dhut || mo || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || right || to.you || my || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | You ought '''to hit''' me
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2017-03-04T07:19:17Z

Susanharris: /* But what about that other one? */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || abilits || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are '''infinitive(-like) constructions'''. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

===A word on relatives===
No, not the kind that visits and drinks your ale, but relative clauses. Let's take the sentence from above and make it "the book" which will help make the form more transparent:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || an || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || the || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to read''' the book
|-
|}

When you turn that into a relative clause, the words move around, but the a stays the same:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || leabhar || a || bu || toigh || leam || a || leughadh
|-
| the || book || REL || COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="8" | The book I would like '''to read'''
|-
|}
So we've picked up a relative particle which does nothing except link the an leabhar bit with the bu toigh leam a leughadh bit but other than that, no change really. Fortunately the place where the book goes in the sentence is the same as in English, so it's not too much of a headbender.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after the modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent book except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || chòir || dhut || mo || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || right || to.you || my || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | You ought '''to hit''' me
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2017-03-04T07:03:02Z

Susanharris: /* But what about that other one? */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || abilits || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are '''infinitive(-like) constructions'''. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

===A word on relatives===
No, not the kind that visits and drinks your ale, but relative clauses. Let's take this sentence from above and make it "the book" (because the book will make more sense):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || an || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || the || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to read''' the book
|-
|}

When you turn that into a relative clause, the words move around, but the a stays the same:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || leabhar || a || bu || toigh || leam || a || leughadh
|-
| the || book || REL || COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="8" | The book I would like '''to read'''
|-
|}
So we've picked up a relative particle which does nothing except link the an leabhar bit with the bu toigh leam a leughadh bit but other than that, no change really. Fortunately the place where the book goes in the sentence is the same as in English, so it's not too much of a headbender.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after the modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent book except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || chòir || dhut || mo || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || right || to.you || my || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | You ought '''to hit''' me
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2016-10-23T04:50:48Z

Susanharris: /* What about a dhol and a bhith? */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || abilits || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are infinitive(-like) constructions. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after the modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent text except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2016-10-23T04:45:08Z

Susanharris: /* But what about that other one? */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || abilits || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are infinitive(-like) constructions. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the '''infinitive particle''' a and the '''preposition''' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after your modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent text except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Habemus infinitivum necne

2016-10-23T04:43:49Z

Susanharris: /* But what about that other one? */

No, not showing off, I had to ask a friend to correct my Latin (it's been a long time!) and there's a reason for the Latin phrase being added to the page because it loosely translates as ''We have an infinitive, or do we?''.

==First things first==
What's an infinitive and would it go with a glass of Château Musar? Probably yes, as to the latter. As to the former, it's actually hard to state exactly what it is because the definition of ''the infinitive'' varies slightly depending on which language you're looking at.

Coming at the infinitive from English, it is often described as the ''dictionary form'' (also called the ''citation form''), for example, ''to go'' or by dropping the ''to'', simply ''go''. It gets more complicated than that but I want to sidestep the precise definition of the infinitive in English because it's a bit of a head-bender (and that's me you're talking to!) and because the English concept is not really a helpful concept for Gaelic, as we'll see.

Anyway, this thing called the infinitive crops up in many European languages. For example, in Spanish, the basic form of verbs (those ending in -ir, -er or -ar) is referred to as the infinitive and these are also the forms you look for in the dictionary, for example, morir "(to) die" or masticar "(to) chew". In German, the equivalent is -en, for example, bedienen "(to) serve" or verniedlichen "(to) make cute". And so on.

==What's the attraction?==
Well, on the whole, the infinitive is the basis for inflection if the language in question has an inflection system. In English, ignoring irregular verbs, if you know ''(to) place'' then you know that by adding ''-(e)d'' you get the past, by adding ''-(e)s'' you get the he/she/it forms (''he/she/it places'') and by adding ''-ing'' you get the participle (''placing'').

In some languages, you can also use infinitives to make ungrammatical but somewhat intelligible sentences if you're not fluent. So something like "I place money here yesterday" or "Ich lesen Buch", while not grammatical, can be understood. Infinitives are one of the first verb forms taught to students of English, German, Spanish or French because they allow you to say a lot relatively fast, with relative ease.

==What about languages which are not English?==
Depends. Some languages outside the Indo-European family entertain the idea of an infinitive. Others go even further and do not inflect at all - such as Cantonese where the verb 生 (''sāng'' "to give birth") does not change at all, and it can also be a noun. As a verb, it takes no endings, no prefixes, no suffixes, no he/she/it -s ... nothing like that. You can add a word like 咗 (''jó'') to indicate that this was in the past but ''jó'' is seen as an independent word, not part of ''sāng''.

And then there are languages which entertain neither concept. Many Native American languages have nothing even approaching an English infinitive. They use a system where there is no such thing as an un-inflected verb. You might ask, what happens in a Lakhóta dictionary? No sweat. Lakhóta considers the most basic form of a verb to be the 3rd person singular. So, while an English dictionary will list ''(to) sing'', Lakhóta will list lowáŋ "he/she/it sings". Because if you look at the whole shebang, you'll see this is the form with the least amount of 'bits' stuck on:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| wa'''lowáŋ'''
| I sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''
| you sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''
| he/she/it sings
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''
| we two sing
|-
| uŋ'''lowáŋ'''pi
| we (more than two) sing
|-
| ya'''lowáŋ'''pi
| you (plural) sing
|-
| '''lowáŋ'''pi
| they sing
|-
|}

Which brings us to Gaelic and the Gaelic dictionary in which the most un-inflected, un-changed and basic form of a verb is considered to be the imperative singular, the form you use to order one person around.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| leugh!
| read!
|-
| seinn!
| sing!
|-
| gearr!
| cut!
|-
|}

Once you know the imperative singular form, you can derive all but one of the required verb forms by applying a set of rules. Again, we're ignoring irregular verbs. So, as an example, using gearr! you get the following:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| gearraidh
| to form the independent future, add -(a)idh to the imperative
|-
| ghearras
| to form the relative future of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)as at the end
|-
| ghearramaid
| to form the conditional of a word beginning with b/c/d/g/m/p/s/t, lenite the initial letter and add -(e)amaid at the end
|-
|}

And so on. It's a fairly long list but on the whole entirely predictable.

The only form that is not predictable is the verbal noun. So just by looking at gearr, it's hard to guess how to say "cutting". It could be gearradh or gearrachdainn or gearramh or gearrail or gearrachd, and so on. While there are preferred forms common to many areas, in this case gearradh, there is usually a lot of variation between dialects. So, while one area says gearradh, another might prefer gearrachdainn. That isn't as confusing as it may sound because it's almost always clear from the word order that a word is or isn't a verbal noun and many people are fairly used to hearing different endings for verbal nouns.

==Get to the darned infinitive already==
If you equate the English infinitive with "the basic form of a verb that's listed in a dictionary" then you already know that this does not apply to Gaelic since Gaelic uses the imperative singular for this purpose.

But, there's a bit more to this story, because you're probably thinking of expressions like tha mi a' dol '''a bhualadh''' cù "I am going '''to hit''' a dog" or bu toigh leam '''a dhol''' a Ghlaschu "I want '''to go''' to Glasgow".

I've written before that it's important to distinguish between how something is constructed and how it's translated. On the surface, both those forms looks like infinitives because the English translations have "to go" and the Gaelic has the handy little word a which in the dictionary means "to".

Yes, a means "to", except you probably ignored the bit where it says "prep(osition)", or something like that. So, let's analyse our Gaelic sentence, word for word:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

Unfortunately, the a in front of bhualadh is not an infinitive particle or anything like that. It's the reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)", the same do that forms dhomh/dhut/dha/dhi. However, in Modern Gaelic, after a verb of motion, such as dol, you don't use the full form do but rather the reduced form a. So, a clearer translation would be:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || bhualadh || cù
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.hitting || dog
|-
| colspan="7" | I am going to'''(wards)''' hitting a dog
|-
|}

You're probably already comfortable with that construction, so just swap the bhualadh with a place name or event, for example:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| tha || mi || a' || dol || a || mhòd
|-
| be.PRES.IND || I || at || going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.mod
|-
| colspan="6" | I am going to'''(wards)''' a mòd
|-
|}

...and in doing that you most likely wouldn't bat an eyelid. Well, they're the same a (« do "to(wards)").

Of course, the fact that in translation it '''looks''' like an English infinitive does not help. But, if instead of saying "going to hitting a dog" you say "going towards hitting a dog" it might be a bit more apparent.

===Miss, miss!===
Yes, I was getting to that. And it's "Sir, Sir!" if you please...😉 There is a pattern that grammar books mention in conjunction with "expressions of motion". Consider this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to speak to him
|-
|}

A novice might be tempted to invoke the dratted infinitive here. But, take a gold star if you already spotted that this is actually the same as the examples further up where a does not mark an infinitive but is just the worn down form of the preposition do. So translating more clearly, the above two are really:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Thàinig || Iseabail || a || dh'fhaicinn || film
|-
| came || Ishbel || to'''(wards)''' || seeing || film
|-
| colspan="5" | Ishbel came to'''(wards)''' see a film
|-
|}

or

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Dh'fhalbh || iad || a || bhruidhinn || ris
|-
| PAST.leave || they || to'''(wards)''' || speaking || against.him
|-
| colspan="5" | They went to'''(wards)''' speak to him
|-
|}
Yes, I know the last two aren't great English but I'm making a grammatical point about Gaelic.

==But what about that other one?==
I was getting there. So there are sentences like the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || leabhar || a || leughadh
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || book || INF || reading
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to read''' a book
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| 's || urrainn || dhomh || cù || a || bhualadh
|-
| COP || abilits || to.me || dog || INF || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="6" | I am able '''to hit''' a dog
|-
|}

These are called modal constructions which is not a very intuitive or self-explanatory name. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it. A modal construction contains a modal verb or expresses a modal concept. Don't frown, I'm getting there. Basically, modal concepts are expressions of wanting, being able to or having to do something. In English, they are mostly simple verbs: ought, must, should, could, want, desire, wish, love... In Gaelic, there are some which are just simple verbs, like feum and faod. However, Gaelic mostly uses modal constructions that are roundabout ways of stating things like wanting, necessity, possibility, probability, or ability such as: bu toigh leam, tha agam ri, 's urrainn dhomh etc.

Ok, now this is where you must pay '''very''' close attention to the difference between an ''infinitive'' and an ''infinitive('''-like''') construction''.

English has a '''''genuine''' infinitive'', the un-changed and basic form of verbs: (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like, and so on. You can use the infinitive in English to derive other verb forms: like » likes; liked; liking; liketh. Or, you can use it to make English sentences with infinitive constructions such as "I like '''to read'''".

Still with me? OK, so what we have in those Gaelic sentences are infinitive(-like) constructions. They are called infinitive-like because they get '''translated''' into English by using an English infinitive form. But look again at the verbs in the Gaelic sentences. Yes, they're just verbal nouns, ''reading'' and ''going'' with an
a slapped in front of them. Indeed, this a is called an '''infinitive particle''' (marked INF above) because of its function, but that's as far as it goes. Unlike in English, it is not followed by a verb in the infinitive form but rather followed by a verbal noun. The infinitive particle a causes lenition and you may want to check out the page on [[The many functions of ə]].

So, the Gaelic resembles an infinitive-like construction, and the English translation uses an infinitive, but neither of these two things mean that Gaelic has a basic, un-changed, un-inflected form of the verb that you can use like (to) sit/eat/drink/run/read/like.

For convenience, here's a full table showing how the ''infinitive particle'' a and the ''preposition'' a (the reduced form of do) behave regarding lenition and dh':
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |a (infinitive particle)
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |example
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |a (reduced form of do "towards")
! scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |effect on verbal noun (or noun)
! scope="col" style="width: 390px;" |example
|-
| a || a/à » - || bu toigh leam amaladh || a (do) || a » dh'a || thig a dh'Alba (do dh'Alba) ; thig a dh'amaladh
|-
| a || b » bh || bu toigh leam a bhualadh || a (do) || b » bh || thig a Bharraigh (do Bharraigh) ; thig a bhualadh
|-
| a || c » ch || bu toigh leam a chàradh || a (do) || c » ch || thig a Chàrlabhagh (do Chàrlabhagh) ; thig a chàradh
|-
| a || d » dh || bu toigh leam a dhùnadh || a (do) || d » dh || thig a Dhiùranais (do Dhiùranais) ; thig a dhùnadh
|-
| a || e/é/è » - || bu toigh leam éisteachd || a (do) || e/é/è » dh' || thig a dh'Éisteal (do dh'Éisteal) ; thig a dh'èisteachd
|-
| a || f » fh || bu toigh leam fhosgladh || a (do) || f » dh'fh || thig a dh'Fhionnsbhagh (do dh'Fhionnsbhagh) ; thig a dh'fhosgladh
|-
| a || g » gh || bu toigh leam a ghlanadh || a (do) || g » gh || thig a Ghiogha (do Ghiogha) ; thig a ghlanadh
|-
| a || i/ì » - || bu toigh leam ìsleachadh || a (do) || ì » dh' || thig a dh'Ìle (do dh'Ìle) ; thig a dh'ìsleachadh
|-
| a || l » l [Lʲ » l] || bu toigh leam a leigeil || a (do) || l » l [Lʲ » l] || thig a Leòdhas (do Leòdhas) ; thig a leigeil
|-
| a || m » mh || bu toigh leam a mharbhadh || a (do) || m » mh || thig a Mhealabost (do Mhealabost) ; thig a mharbhadh
|-
| a || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || bu toigh leam a neartachadh || a (do) || n » n [N/Nʲ » n] || thig a Nòsdaidh (do Nòsdaidh) ; thig a neartachadh
|-
| a || o/ó/ò » - || bu toigh leam òl || a (do) || o/ó/ò » dh' || thig a dh'Ormasairigh (do dh'Ormasairigh) ; thig a dh'òl
|-
| a || p » ph || bu toigh leam a phasgadh || a (do) || p » ph || thig a Phaibeal (do Phaibeal) ; thig a phasgadh
|-
| a || r » r [R » r] || bu toigh leam a ragachadh || a (do) || r » r [R » r] || thig a Ratharsair (do Ratharsair) ; thig a ragachadh
|-
| a || s » sh || bu toigh leam a shàrachadh || a (do) || s » sh || a Shasainn (do Shasainn) ; thig a shàrachadh
|-
| a || t » th || bu toigh leam a thilgeil || a (do) || t » th || thig a Thiriodh (do Thiriodh) ; thig a thilgeil
|-
| a || u/ù » - || bu toigh leam ùrachadh || a (do) || u/ù » dh' || thig a dh'Uibhist (do Uibhist) ; thig a dh'ùrachadh
|-
|}

So there is a bit of an overlap, on the face of it, but as you can very clearly see, they're not the same.

==What about a dhol and a bhith?==
Well, it wouldn't be Gaelic if there wasn't an odd one. Normally, if there is no object you just place the verbal noun after your modal verb or expression, such as:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || seinn
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || singing
|-
| colspan="4" | I would like to sing
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| faodaidh || tu || falbh
|-
| may || you || going
|-
| colspan="3" | You may go
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chan || urrainn || dhomh || snàmh
|-
| NEG || ability || to.me || swimming
|-
| colspan="4" | I cannot swim
|-
|}

But if the verbal noun happens to be dol or bith (and in some dialects tighinn), the infinitive particle, a, gets put in front of dol, bith (and tighinn), causing them to lenite:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || dhan || sgoil
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to.the || school
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to go''' to school
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || thighinn || dhachaigh || a-rithist
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.coming || homewards || again
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like '''to come''' home again
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| an || caomh || leat || a || bhith || ag || éisteachd?
|-
| INTERR || gentle || with.you || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || listening
|-
| colspan="7" | would you like '''to be''' listening?
|-
|}

Just those two, or three, if you include tighinn. Don't ask me why.

Of course, you can combine the uses of do, worn down to a:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || dhol || a || Ghlaschu
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.going || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.Glasgow
|-
| colspan="7" | I would like to go to'''(wards)''' Glasgow
|-
|}

===and ''a bhith''?===
Nice try, but no, a bhith is not an infinitive, just an infinitive-like form. Bith is just a verbal noun, the equivalent of English "being", rather than "to be". It's quite obvious from expressions such as bith-bhuan or a' dol á bith that it's a verbal noun, even though it is not possible to use it with ag. The form *a' bith is not an option.

But, in terms of use, bith behaves like a verbal noun, except that bith has to be followed by ag/a' plus another verbal noun.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toigh || leam || a || bhith || ag || ithe
|-
| COND || agreeableness || with.me || INF || LEN.being || PARTICIPLE || eating
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like to eat (lit. I would like '''to be''' eating)
|-
|}

Since I can't say this often enough, I'll state it again even though this page is not about correct idiomatic usage: don't over-use this, it's not a common construction. As a rule of thumb, if you use a bhith more than once on half an A4 page of written Gaelic, you're probably over-using it.

==But I have a book which says there is an infinitive==
As the Germans say: Paper is patient. It will hold E=m² just the same as an election leaflet promising a land of milk and honey.''

There are two important points to be aware of regarding the particle a. First, there are many different particles in Gaelic which are just written and spoken as a. One has to learn the specific uses of each a and keep their meanings and uses apart. Second, many people writing about grammar have come from a university background where traditionally the description of grammar (of any language) is, or was, heavily influenced by Latin and Greek grammar. Like a pair of shades, the Latin and Greek formulas kind of colour your vision, without your thinking about the coloured tint. I experienced the same issue when I ran into Native American languages for the first time. I discovered there were very few concepts of European grammars that were helpful.

So, one can be prone to see the Latin and Greek categories in languages that don't have those categories. There can be a tendency to try and force-fit these concepts and then explain things that do not fit as "exceptions". For example, in unit 95, from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks (an excellent text except for this unit), you are told that:

:''Infinitives are used with the following auxiliary verbs and idioms:

:''(a) the modal verbs feum and faod''
:''(b) modal idioms expressing obligation''
:''(c) a number of idioms expressing 'wanting, liking, hoping, capability, remembering, obligation, managing'''
:''(d) verbs expressing motion or intent''
:''(e) the verb sguir 'cease'''

This list unfortunately conflates at least three different things, which is not helpful. To begin, (a), (b) and (c) are really the same thing. They present a long way of saying "modal verbs and expressions" - which is both shorter and more correct because there are other modal verbs in addition to feum and faod.

The (d) examples kind of refer both to (a)-(c), regarding ''intent'', and the expressions of motion which we have already examined. The (d) examples, in Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks, are really instances of "motion", already discussed, which operate using a, the reduced form of do "to(wards)":

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| chaidh || Iain || a || cheannach
|-
| (PAST).go || Iain || to'''(wards)''' || LEN.buying
|-
| colspan="4" | Iain went '''to buy''' (« '''towards''')
|-
|}

It is blatantly obvious, in this (d) example, that a is not an infinitive particle but the preposition do/a "towards":
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thàinig || Anna || a || dh'fhaicinn
|-
| (PAST).come || Ann || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.seeing
|-
| colspan="4" | Ann came '''to see''' (« '''towards''' seeing)
|-
|}

The combination of dh' appearing alongside lenition is classic behaviour for do "to(wards)". Compare these sentences, of the type you may be familiar with:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thoir || an || leabhar || do || dh'Fhionnlagh
|-
| give || DEF.ART || book || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Finlay
|-
| colspan="5" | give the book '''to(wards)''' Finlay
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| thug || e || ubhal || do || dh'Fhearchar
|-
| PAST.give || he || apple || to'''(wards)''' || dh'.LEN.Fergus
|-
| colspan="5" | he gave an apple '''to(wards)''' Fergus
|-
|}

And (e) is again a misreading of the a that appears in sguir constructions. Some verbs simply take certain prepositions, and sguir normally takes de. So the a, in the case of sguir, is just the worn down form of the partitive particle de. So, here's a re-analysis of the example from Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| squir || iad || a || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

The above is the shortened version of:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| sguir || iad || de || chaoineadh
|-
| (PAST).stop || they || PARTITIVE || LEN.crying
|-
| colspan="4" | they stopped crying (lit. they stopped from crying)
|-
|}

Scottish Gaelic in Twelve Weeks goes on, in unit 95a, to talk about ''Indirect objects of infinitives'' even though there is not a hint of anything infinitive-like in the Gaelic examples. The only reason this unit has been given that heading is because the English translations use infinitives. In Gaelic, it's just the verbal noun being employed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || bruidhinn || ri || Seumas
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || speaking|| against || James
|-
| colspan="6" | I would like '''to speak''' to James
|}

Unfortunately, because the translation of this is "I would like '''to speak''' to James", this is incorrectly labelled an infinitive.

===Isn't the infinitive particle just a possessive pronoun?===
Good question. I would say no, simply because if it was a possessive, one would expect a difference between masculine and feminine objects; compare a chù "his dog" vs a cù "her dog". But the infinitive particle, unlike the possessive pronouns, always lenites the verbal noun after it.

Of course, there is the special case of having a pronoun as an object, i.e. something like "I want to hit '''you'''", in modal expressions:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || do || bhualadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || your || LEN.hitting
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to hit''' you
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || am || faicinn
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || their || seeing
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to see''' them
|-
|}

Over time, it's conceivable that the pattern of the third person masculine possessive pronoun has resulted in creating some sort of generalized infinitive-like pattern, i.e.:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || phòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || his || LEN.marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' him
|-
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| bu || toil || leam || a || pòsadh
|-
| COND.copula || pleasant || with.me || her || marrying
|-
| colspan="5" | I would like '''to marry''' her
|}
But, overall, it makes no difference because one just has to learn these patterns the way they are today.

==In a word==
Practically speaking, these are the points to remember:
# Don't go hunting for references to the infinitive in Gaelic. You're wasting your time. There is nothing approaching any kind of basic, infinitive verb form in Gaelic. That's just the way it is.
# The dictionary form of a Gaelic verb is the singular imperative (order/command form).
# After a verb of motion, most commonly a' dol, the a is a reduced form of the preposition do "to(wards)".
# In inverted phrases, such as bu toigh leam leabhar a leughadh, the a is the infinitive particle plus a verbal noun. That a is often ''translated'' into English using an English infinitive form; however, that does '''not''' make Gaelic have an infinitive it can call its own.

So, the whole hunt for a Gaelic infinitive is fuelled mainly
* by learners hoping for a quick fix,
* by linguists (in the old days) trying to squeeze all languages into the corset of grammatical terms that work in Latin and Greek,
* and by various people looking at an English sentence and thinking "English has an infinitive here, so Gaelic must have one too".

Simples!

Now, what's [[inversion]]?

 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-23T21:57:32Z

Susanharris: /* The horrible history */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the naming issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as Keltoi, the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back Transalpina and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from in-migrāre where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" align="center"
|-
| style="width: 50pt;" |
| style="width: 50pt;" | t
| style="width: 50pt;" | k
| style="width: 50pt;" |
|-
| b || d || g ||
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" align="center"
|-
| style="width: 50pt;" |
| style="width: 50pt;" | t
| style="width: 50pt;" | k
| style="width: 50pt;" | p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || || cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-20T05:55:19Z

Susanharris: /* The horrible history */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the naming issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as Keltoi, the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from in-migrāre where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" align="center"
|-
| style="width: 50pt;" |
| style="width: 50pt;" | t
| style="width: 50pt;" | k
| style="width: 50pt;" |
|-
| b || d || g ||
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" align="center"
|-
| style="width: 50pt;" |
| style="width: 50pt;" | t
| style="width: 50pt;" | k
| style="width: 50pt;" | p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || || cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Adjective Ordering

2016-09-19T07:18:52Z

Susanharris:

Languages have a certain order in which you can attach adjectives to the noun they are describing. For example, in English, it sounds odd to a native speaker to talk about a *black beautiful big dog, whereas a ''beautiful big black dog'' is perfectly acceptable. In the same way, adjectives in Gaelic are attached in a certain order, as follows:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| ['''Noun'''] ['''Size'''] ['''Quality'''] ['''Colour''']
|-
|}

So our canine friend would be described as:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| cù mór brèagha dubh
|-
|}

You can either remember the order that way or think of it that way: size goes closest to the noun, colour furthest away. Doesn't matter which way you remember it as long as you remember it.

Here are more examples:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| caileag mhór laghach ruadh
|-
| girl big nice red-haired
|-
| a nice tall red haired girl
|-
|
|-
| càr beag saor uaine
|-
| car small cheap green
|-
| a cheap small green car
|-
|}

These aren't ironclad rules, in case someone was going to email in with nighean donn bhòidheach. They're more like strong guidelines although I suspect that our nighean donn bhòidheach may be muddled due to the fact that the composer of this song wanted it to rhyme with the next few lines!

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Adjective Ordering

2016-09-19T07:17:58Z

Susanharris:

Languages have a certain order in which you can attach adjectives to the noun they are describing. For example, in English, it sounds odd to a native speaker to talk about a *black beautiful big dog, whereas ''a beautiful big black dog'' is perfectly acceptable. In the same way, adjectives in Gaelic are attached in a certain order, as follows:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| ['''Noun'''] ['''Size'''] ['''Quality'''] ['''Colour''']
|-
|}

So our canine friend would be described as:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| cù mór brèagha dubh
|-
|}

You can either remember the order that way or think of it that way: size goes closest to the noun, colour furthest away. Doesn't matter which way you remember it as long as you remember it.

Here are more examples:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| caileag mhór laghach ruadh
|-
| girl big nice red-haired
|-
| a nice tall red haired girl
|-
|
|-
| càr beag saor uaine
|-
| car small cheap green
|-
| a cheap small green car
|-
|}

These aren't ironclad rules, in case someone was going to email in with nighean donn bhòidheach. They're more like strong guidelines although I suspect that our nighean donn bhòidheach may be muddled due to the fact that the composer of this song wanted it to rhyme with the next few lines!

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-19T07:12:28Z

Susanharris: /* Goidelic and Brythonic */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the naming issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from in-migrāre where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || || cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-19T07:11:15Z

Susanharris: /* So what? */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the naming issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || || cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-19T07:09:08Z

Susanharris: /* So what? */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the naming issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || || cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-19T07:07:44Z

Susanharris: /* So what? */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the naming issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || || cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-16T06:48:29Z

Susanharris: /* So what? */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the naming issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || ||
cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-16T06:35:21Z

Susanharris: /* The horrible history */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the naming issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || ||
cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-16T06:34:37Z

Susanharris: /* The horrible history */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the name issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || ||
cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-16T06:33:36Z

Susanharris: /* The horrible history */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know people were there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the name calling issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || ||
cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Adjective Ordering

2016-09-16T06:30:21Z

Susanharris:

Languages have a certain order in which you can attach adjectives to the noun they are describing. For example, in English, it sounds odd to a native speaker to talk about a *black beautiful big dog, whereas a beautiful big black dog is perfectly acceptable. In the same way, adjectives in Gaelic are attached in a certain order, as follows:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| ['''Noun'''] ['''Size'''] ['''Quality'''] ['''Colour''']
|-
|}

So our canine friend would be described as:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| cù mór brèagha dubh
|-
|}

You can either remember the order that way or think of it that way: size goes closest to the noun, colour furthest away. Doesn't matter which way you remember it as long as you remember it.

Here are more examples:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| caileag mhór laghach ruadh
|-
| girl big nice red-haired
|-
| a nice tall red haired girl
|-
|
|-
| càr beag saor uaine
|-
| car small cheap green
|-
| a cheap small green car
|-
|}

These aren't ironclad rules, in case someone was going to email in with nighean donn bhòidheach. They're more like strong guidelines although I suspect that our nighean donn bhòidheach may be muddled due to the fact that the composer of this song wanted it to rhyme with the next few lines!

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Adjective Ordering

2016-09-16T06:28:38Z

Susanharris:

Languages have a certain order in which you can attach adjectives to the noun they are describing. For example, in English, it sounds odd to a native speaker to talk about a *black beautiful big dog, whereas a beautiful big black dog is perfectly acceptable. In the same way, adjectives in Gaelic are attached in a certain order, as follows:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| ['''Noun'''] ['''Size'''] ['''Quality'''] ['''Colour''']
|-
|}

So our canine friend would be described as:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| cù mór brèagha dubh
|-
|}

You can either remember the order that way or think of it that way: size goes closest to the noun, colour furthest away. Doesn't matter which way you remember it as long as you remember it.

Here are more examples:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| caileag mhór laghach ruadh
|-
| girl big nice red-haired
|-
| a nice tall red haired girl
|-
|
|-
| càr beag saor uaine
|-
| car small cheap green
|-
| a cheap small green car
|-
|}

These aren't ironclad rules, in case someone was going to email in with nighean donn bhòidheach. They're more like strong guidelines although I suspect that our nighean donn bhòidheach may be muddled due to the fact that the composer of this song wanted it to rhyme with the next few lines!

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Adjective Ordering

2016-09-16T06:26:48Z

Susanharris:

Languages have a certain order in which you can attach adjectives to the noun they are describing. For example, in English, it sounds odd to a native speaker to talk about a *black beautiful big dog, whereas a beautiful big black dog is perfectly acceptable. In the same way, adjectives in Gaelic are attached in a certain order, as follows:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| ['''Noun'''] ['''Size'''] ['''Quality'''] ['''Colour''']
|-
|}

So our canine friend would be described as:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| cù mór brèagha dubh
|-
|}

You can either remember the order that way or think of it that way: size goes closest to the noun, colour furthest away. Doesn't matter which way you remember it as long as you remember it.

Here are more examples:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| caileag mhór laghach ruadh
|-
| girl big nice red-haired
|-
| a nice tall red haired girl
|-
|
|-
| càr beag saor uaine
|-
| car small cheap green
|-
| a cheap small green car
|-
|}

These aren't ironclad rules, in case someone was going to email in with nighean donn bhòidheach. They're more like strong guidelines although I suspect that our nighean donn bhòidheach may be muddled due to the fact that the composer of this song wanted it to rhyme with the next few lines!

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Adjective Ordering

2016-09-16T06:26:21Z

Susanharris:

Languages have a certain order in which you can attach adjectives to the noun they are describing. For example, in English, it sounds odd to a native speaker to talk about a *black beautiful big dog, whereas a beautiful big black dog is perfectly acceptable. In the same way, adjectives in Gaelic are attached in a certain order, as follows:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| ['''Noun'''] ['''Size'''] ['''Quality'''] ['''Colour''']
|-
|}

So our canine friend would be described as:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| cù mór brèagha dubh
|-
|}

You can either remember the order that way or think of it that way: size goes closest to the noun, colour furthest away. Doesn't matter which way you remember it as long as you remember it.

Here are more examples:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| caileag mhór laghach ruadh
|-
| girl big nice red-haired
|-
| a nice tall red haired girl
|-
|
|-
| càr beag saor uaine
|-
| car small cheap green
|-
| a cheap small green car
|-
|}

These aren't ironclad rules, in case someone was going to email in with nighean donn bhòidheach. They're more like strong guidelines although I suspect that our nighean donn bhòidheachnighean donn bhòidheach may be muddled due to the fact that the composer of this song wanted it to rhyme with the next few lines!

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Adjective Ordering

2016-09-16T06:23:13Z

Susanharris:

Languages have a certain order in which you can attach adjectives to the noun they are describing. For example, in English, it sounds odd to a native speaker to talk about a *black beautiful big dog, whereas a beautiful big black dog is perfectly acceptable. In the same way, adjectives in Gaelic are attached in a certain order, as follows:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| ['''Noun'''] ['''Size'''] ['''Quality'''] ['''Colour''']
|-
|}

So our canine friend would be described as:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| cù mór brèagha dubh
|-
|}

You can either remember the order that way or think of it that way: size goes closest to the noun, colour furthest away. Doesn't matter which way you remember it as long as you remember it.

Here are more examples:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| caileag mhór laghach ruadh
|-
| girl big nice red-haired
|-
| a nice tall red haired girl
|-
|
|-
| càr beag saor uaine
|-
| car small cheap green
|-
| a cheap small green car
|-
|}

Now these aren't ironclad rules, in case someone was going to email in with nighean donn bhòidheach. They're more like strong guidelines although I suspect that our nighean donn bhòidheach may be muddled due to the fact that the composer of this song wanted it to rhyme with the next few lines!

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Adjective Ordering

2016-09-16T06:22:13Z

Susanharris:

Languages have a certain order in which you can attach adjectives to the noun they are describing. For example, in English, it sounds odd to a native speaker to talk about a *black beautiful big dog, whereas a beautiful big black dog is perfectly acceptable. In the same way, adjectives in Gaelic are attached in a certain order, as follows:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| ['''Noun'''] ['''Size'''] ['''Quality'''] ['''Colour''']
|-
|}

So our canine friend would be described as:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| cù mór brèagha dubh
|-
|}

You can either remember the order that way or think of it that way: size goes closest to the noun, colour furthest away. Doesn't matter which way you remember it as long as you remember it.

Here's some more examples:

{| style="width: 35%;" border="0" align="center"
|-
| caileag mhór laghach ruadh
|-
| girl big nice red-haired
|-
| a nice tall red haired girl
|-
|
|-
| càr beag saor uaine
|-
| car small cheap green
|-
| a cheap small green car
|-
|}

Now these aren't ironclad rules, in case someone was going to email in with nighean donn bhòidheach. They're more like strong guidelines although I suspect that our nighean donn bhòidheach may be muddled due to the fact that the composer of this song wanted it to rhyme with the next few lines!

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-16T06:12:01Z

Susanharris: /* Goidelic and Brythonic */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know there were people there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the name calling issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Then things got interesting because this was roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || ||
cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}

Minding Your Ps and Qs or Why Porcom is a Headache

2016-09-16T06:07:58Z

Susanharris: /* The horrible history */

Today we'll take just a little dip into the history of Gaelic which starts about 5000 BC, so fasten your seatbelts.

==The horrible history==
5000 BC is roughly when the first Indo-Europeans started invading Europe. We say "invading" because we know there were people there before them. Amongst this lovely bunch of hooligans, from the steppes of Central Asia, there was a group which settled on the northern edges of the Alps. The Celts. Back then, they weren't known as the Celts and the two earliest "Celtic cultures", that we know about, are often called the Hallstatt and the La Tène Cultures. Irrespective of the name calling issue, this bunch did well and by the 3rd century AD they'd established quite a track record. They muscled the Etruscans out of most of northern Italy, had taken over most of Gaul as well as large swathes of the Iberian peninsula, Southern Germany, the British Isles, parts of modern day Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, a fair chunk of land in central Turkey(!), sacked Delphi in 279 BC and Rome, itself, in 390 BC.

Incidentally, it's from the Greeks that the Celts got their name. The historian, Hecataeus, described them as ''Keltoi'', the meaning of which can not be absolutely ascertained. But, seeing that they sacked Delphi, it can't have meant anything nice.

However, after that, the Celts slipped a bit. In 192 B.C., Rome took back ''Transalpina'' and gradually took over... well ... really most of Europe and the decline of the Celts began.

==Indo-European==
So what about the language? Patience! The main thing that distinguished the Celts from other Indo-Europeans, in terms of their language, was the loss of Indo-European p. Pardon? Well, Indo-European, which is not recorded, but reconstructed based on what we know of its daughter languages, seems to have had an elaborate system of stops, 12 of them:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
| bʰ || dʰ || gʰ || gʷʰ
|-
|}

==Celtic==
Now we come to Celtic, meaning very old Celtic. Those speakers decided to drop the entire set of aspirated voiced stops and made do with just 8 stops:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| p || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

One thing you need to know about that little superscript ʷ is that it represents something called labialisation. It means that you round your lips when making that sound, like in the English word ''quick'' which is [kʷɪk]. This is important. Why? You'll see.

==Late Common Celtic==
Next, for whatever reason, Late Common Celtic dropped p and said k wherever there was a p before. It just does. That leaves us with:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || kʷ
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==Goidelic and Brythonic==
Now things get interesting because this is roundabout the time when Goidelic (the granfer of Irish, Gaelic and Manx) and Brythonic (granma of Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric and Breton) put in for a divorce. Over a p. What happened is that Brythonic took the kʷ sound and turned it into a p. That works because labialisation is made with the lips and there seems to have been a struggle between the labial nature of the ʷ and the velar nature of the k. It appears that the lips won and the k bit was assimilated into a p. It's like the word ''immigrate'' which comes from ''in-migrāre'' where the n has been assimilated into an m because it is immediately followed by one.

Goidelic on the other hand would have none of it and did not redevelop the p. However, out of sheer spite, it merged the labial series with the plain stops so that kʷ merged with k and gʷ with g.

So, this in Goidelic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k
|-
| b || d || g
|-
|}

But, this in Brythonic:

{| class="wikitable" width="30%" align="center"
|-
| || t || k || p
|-
| b || d || g || gʷ
|-
|}

==So what?==
This is the reason for a great many things. For example, it is the reason why Goidelic is sometimes referred to as Q-Celtic and Brythonic as P-Celtic. It's based on the development of the Indo-European word for 5, penkʷe which in Q-Celtic becomes cóic (remember, Goidelic dropped p) and in Brythonic pimp (remember, Brythonic kept p). That explains the P but not the Q. Well, it does explain it in Manx because cóig is spelled queig.

So, what else does it explain? It explains why modern Brythonic languages have a gap - meaning there's no historic [kw] sound which explains why they have [p] where modern Goidelic languages have a [k]:

{| style="width: 70%;" border="0" align="center"
| || Indo-European || Loanword from || Gaelic || Irish || Manx || Welsh || Cornish || Breton
|-
| five || penkʷe || ||
cóig || cúig || queig || pump ||pymp || pemp
|-
| head || ? || || ceann || ceann || qione || pen || penn || penn
|-
| sense || ? || || ciall || ciall || keeaill || pwyll || poell || poell
|-
| who || kʷos || || có || cé || quoi || pwy || piw || piv
|-
| wool/feather || petna || Lat. plūma || clòimh || clúmh || clooie || plufyn || pluvenn || plu
|-
|}

It also explains some lovely loanwords like Càisg for Easter which is derived from ecclesiastical Latin Pascha (cf. Sp. Pasqua) or even the twice borrowed Patricius who shows up as earlier Cadrach and later as Pádraic > Pàdraig. Even some relatively late loans show this change, such as Norse upsi ''mature saithe'' which was borrowed as ugsa (and in some areas then metathesized to
ucas).

It also makes for a headache because modern Irish and Gaelic, as we have just seen, do not retain the kʷ sound but sometimes borrow words from English which has kʷ. How to borrow? Do you borrow the sound kʷ and change the set of sounds in these languages? Or, do you adjust to Irish/Gaelic spelling? Or, do you try to come up with your own word? Tricky one. Traditionally, the second option seems to have prevailed. For example, Irish borrowed Quaker as Caecar and Gaelic turned a quadruped into ceithir-chasach. But, lately, words like quinín 'quinine' have showed up in Irish. and Gaelic now boasts cuaraidh for 'quarry' and cuòta for 'quota'. Really tricky one.

So, what on earth then is porcom? Well, in the Mesopotamian clay table of Ashur-Bannipal... just kidding. There is a 3rd century inscription in Lusitanian, a language spoken in the west of the Iberian peninsula and which is generally described as Celtic, and it goes:

OILAM TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO

etc. etc. The tricky bit is that it translates as "a sheep to Trebopala and a pig to Laebo'. And, as we all know, the great clue to something being an old Celtic language is the loss of p '''before''' the stage where Brythonic reinvents it. Yet, here we have porcom 'pig' ... The answer? Actually, we don't have an answer except that there may be a question mark over Lusitanian being a Celtic language. If you find out, publish and you'll be famous!

Oh, and in case this kind of thing fascinates you, we've made a little picture for you of what happened to two words - hundred and five - all the way from Indo-European down to over 50 modern Indo-European languages here:

[[Faidhle:Five and Hundred in Indo European.png|thumb|center|900px]]

 
 
{{BeaganGramair}}