księżycowy wrote:If I were to take out do, would i need the definite article?
Do bheadh.
księżycowy wrote:I also have a question regarding what I learned in Lesson VIII on the copula. (That lesson was quite mind blowing, by the way. I'm still not sure if I have fully understood it all. I probably haven't.)
That was probably the chapter that took me the longest to assimilate. I had to reread the explanations at least a dozen times before they really started to sink in.
księżycowy wrote:Is there any difference in meaning to the following two sentences:
Múinteoir maith is ea Séamas.
Séamas is ea múinteoir maith.
Or would the second sentence not be possible because of syntax or something?
It just doesn't look right to me. Remember that despite coming in final position, Séamas is considered the subject of this clause and not the predicate. It's also the topic; múinteoir maith is the comment, the new information the listener is presumably most interested in. In many languages, the topic precedes the comment, but that's not the case here.
I'm straining to think of a case where the syntactic roles would be reversed but not the definiteness.
księżycowy wrote:I'm curious because of the way that it is sometime stated in the English. For example:
Garsún mór is ea Séamas. - Séamas is a big boy. (which literally translated is something like "a big boy is Séamas")
Remember that sentences like these would typically be restructured to front the adjective:
Is maith an múinteoir é Séamas.
Is mór an garsún é Séamas.
At least, that's the impression that TYI gives.