Croeso i'r Gymraeg!

[Llawygath]

Continued from here:

I believe I learned that you can't have a definite article in front of a genitive thingy. Are you asking me to unlearn that? What do you want me to do?

Well, yeah, I do want you to unlearn that because you learned it wrong. What you can't have with a genitive construction is two definite articles. If both nouns are definite, the article will come between them. If only the first is, the article comes before that. If the second noun is definite but not the first, then you need to use an alternative construction.

I might believe you if not for this:

It [y cathod Cymru] should be cathod Cymru.

You had said that y cathod Cymru meant 'the cats of Wales'. It follows from there that the first noun (cathod) is definite, but not the second (Cymru); according to what you say above, cathod ought to be preceded by y, but according to Yng the resulting phrase is wrong.
I continue to be confused. Also, would you mind explaining the comment about Rhian Pierce-Jones? You never did tell me what that was about. I suppose you expected me to find out on my own?

[linguoboy]

Continued from here:

I believe I learned that you can't have a definite article in front of a genitive thingy. Are you asking me to unlearn that? What do you want me to do?

Well, yeah, I do want you to unlearn that because you learned it wrong. What you can't have with a genitive construction is two definite articles. If both nouns are definite, the article will come between them. If only the first is, the article comes before that. If the second noun is definite but not the first, then you need to use an alternative construction.

I might believe you if not for this:

It [y cathod Cymru] should be cathod Cymru.

You had said that y cathod Cymru meant 'the cats of Wales'. It follows from there that the first noun (cathod) is definite, but not the second (Cymru); according to what you say above, cathod ought to be preceded by y, but according to Yng the resulting phrase is wrong.

As I understand Yng's argument, since Cymru is a proper noun, it doesn't need an article to be considered definite. That is, Cymru is the one and only country of that name, so you could say the definite article is implied. I don't remember being taught this explicitly, but it makes intuitive sense and so far I haven't been able to find any counterexamples.

So then your mistake would be taking a rule which applies only to proper nouns and generalising it to all nouns.

I continue to be confused. Also, would you mind explaining the comment about Rhian Pierce-Jones? You never did tell me what that was about. I suppose you expected me to find out on my own?

I did consider it a possibility that you might attempt a rudimentary Google search, yes. And had you done that, you would've encountred this page. Note the fourth and fifth titles in the list (second and third in "Sglods Blods" series). What can you tell me about the grammar of them?

[Llawygath]

Continued from here:

I believe I learned that you can't have a definite article in front of a genitive thingy. Are you asking me to unlearn that? What do you want me to do?

Well, yeah, I do want you to unlearn that because you learned it wrong. What you can't have with a genitive construction is two definite articles. If both nouns are definite, the article will come between them. If only the first is, the article comes before that. If the second noun is definite but not the first, then you need to use an alternative construction.

I might believe you if not for this:

It [y cathod Cymru] should be cathod Cymru.

You had said that y cathod Cymru meant 'the cats of Wales'. It follows from there that the first noun (cathod) is definite, but not the second (Cymru); according to what you say above, cathod ought to be preceded by y, but according to Yng the resulting phrase is wrong.

As I understand Yng's argument, since Cymru is a proper noun, it doesn't need an article to be considered definite. That is, Cymru is the one and only country of that name, so you could say the definite article is implied. I don't remember being taught this explicitly, but it makes intuitive sense and so far I haven't been able to find any counterexamples.

So then your mistake would be taking a rule which applies only to proper nouns and generalising it to all nouns.

Okay, that's kind of what I was thinking too. Thanks for confirming it. In that case, I'd like to know what it would mean if one said/wrote cathod braster without any definite articles. Would that simply be incorrect?

I continue to be confused. Also, would you mind explaining the comment about Rhian Pierce-Jones? You never did tell me what that was about. I suppose you expected me to find out on my own?

I did consider it a possibility that you might attempt a rudimentary Google search, yes. And had you done that, you would've encountred this page. Note the fourth and fifth titles in the list (second and third in "Sglods Blods" series). What can you tell me about the grammar of them?

They don't look like genitives but rather just nouns being modified by adjectives; coll and aur would seem to be adjectives in that particular context. I suppose y cathod coll could mean 'the cats of loss' or something, but it seems more logical to me to translate it as 'the missing cats'. Once again I've missed your point.

[linguoboy]

They don't look like genitives but rather just nouns being modified by adjectives; coll and aur would seem to be adjectives in that particular context.

If they're adjectives, then what are their comparative forms?

[YngNghymru]

The rule is that a definite article can only come before the last noun. *Y Cathod Cymru is ungrammatical, and the same construction would be ungrammatical no matter what the two nouns involved. Proper names don't take articles but are construed as definite, as you've inferred.

There are some exceptions to this where the construction is, rather than a possessive or possessive-like phrase, a compound. Y siop ddillad is fine for 'the shoe shop' (note also the mutation which you don't see in modern Welsh in possessive phrases; I suppose dillad here is acting like an adjective, or something).

[Llawygath]

They don't look like genitives but rather just nouns being modified by adjectives; coll and aur would seem to be adjectives in that particular context.

If they're adjectives, then what are their comparative forms?

I haven't gotten there yet. I've read a bit about comparatives and superlatives, but that was totally extraneous to any exercise or lesson I've actually worked through and I can't think of any comparatives atm except for mwy and gwell.

The rule is that a definite article can only come before the last noun. *Y Cathod Cymru is ungrammatical, and the same construction would be ungrammatical no matter what the two nouns involved.

Wait a minute. You and linguoboy seem to disagree on this. What you just said is what I learned; linguoboy was contradicting that earlier. I'm inclined to believe you but I just have no idea what's going on anymore.

Y siop ddillad is fine for 'the shoe shop'

But dillad is 'clothes'. Is one of these expressions an idiom?

[YngNghymru]

Wait a minute. You and linguoboy seem to disagree on this. What you just said is what I learned; linguoboy was contradicting that earlier. I'm inclined to believe you but I just have no idea what's going on anymore.

Well, assume I'm right until linguoboy explains what his argument is.

But dillad is 'clothes'. Is one of these expressions an idiom?

Sorry, yes, the CLOTHES shop (I was originally going to write shoe shop but this one displays a mutation so it is more useful as an example).

[Llawygath]

Wait a minute. You and linguoboy seem to disagree on this. What you just said is what I learned; linguoboy was contradicting that earlier. I'm inclined to believe you but I just have no idea what's going on anymore.

Well, assume I'm right until linguoboy explains what his argument is.

I will do so.

But dillad is 'clothes'. Is one of these expressions an idiom?

Sorry, yes, the CLOTHES shop (I was originally going to write shoe shop but this one displays a mutation so it is more useful as an example).

Thanks for clarifying.

[Llawygath]

For what it's worth, TY Welsh (which I've been working through after getting as a Christmas present) doesn't mention anything about definite articles in front of genitives. Here's what it has to say:

How to denote possession: 's and of (the genitive)

In phrases such as the policeman's name or the name of the policeman, the thing which is 'possessed' (i.e. the name) comes first in Welsh, followed by the 'possessor' (the policeman):

Beth yw enw'r plisman? What's the policeman's name?
Beth yw enw'r ferch? What is the girl's name?
Pwy yw mam Luned? Who is Luned's mother?

(The construction is similar to the way an adjective follows a noun:

siop fach a small shop
siop y groser the grocers's shop
ysbyty'r dre the town('s) hospital)

If the possessor is a name the definite article is omitted.

pentre Ynyswen the village of Ynyswen

Speaking of TY Welsh, would linguoboy mind telling me what the lies are that she was taught by Rhys Jones, or is she busy again? Maybe someone else knows?

[Llawygath]

Rwy/dw i wedi dod yn o^l. (Esgusodwch yr acen.)
Was going to post in Welsh but realised I couldn't totally translate what I had to say. Some other time.

It says in TY Welsh that ei is [i:], but I thought it was [e:]. Which way is right? I suspect [i:] is because I think [e:] was an artifact of my incomprehension.

Also been thinking about this some more:

If they're adjectives, then what are their comparative forms?

If I've translated coll right, what on earth would it even mean if you made it comparative? 'More missing'? I'm starting to think you were grasping at straws here.

[YngNghymru]

e: and i: are both acceptable pronunciations. e: is a spelling pronunciation historically (IIRC the spelling was adopted by analogy with Latin, of all things) but is now so well-established it'd be unfair to stigmatise it.

[Llawygath]

I give up on trying to explain about this in Welsh - too tired. Anyway. Here is a piece of a class assigmment thingy that I wrote in Welsh for no particular reason. I have to translate it so I'm putting it here for...something. It's got issues with the register; I know that. If anyone is around please tell me what I did wrong.

Dw i ddim yn hoffi'r ysgol. Mae'n rhy anodd i mi wheud yr holl waith cartref - a dw i ddim yn hoffi'r gwaith cartref. Yn hytrach hoffwn i weithio ar fy *wicis. Mae'n llawer haws gwneud rhywbeth yn rhydd heb neb yn dweud wrthoch sut i'w wneud a phan i'w orffen, fel wneir yn yr ysgol.

Yn arbennig, dw i ddim yn hoffi'r dosbarth yma. Dw i ddim yn ei fwynhau eto. Mae [*] yn rhy anodd i mi ac mae'r athrawes yn ein dwrdio achos 'nad ein bod yn ddigon balch o'n gwaith'. Baswn i'n falch o fy ngwaith pe'i fod yn beth i fod yn falch ohono. Dyna bopeth y mae gyda fi i'w ddweud.

Dw i'n ysgrifennu yn Gymraeg am ddim ond i weld beth y mae fy athrawes yn mynd i'w ddweud.

[*] or is it wiciau? (diaeresis over the second i of course, too lazy to find one)
[*] name left out for privacy