Difference between revisions of "Gleasure 1990"
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
David Greene, claims that a simple phonetic change cannot account for such a large semantic change. | David Greene, claims that a simple phonetic change cannot account for such a large semantic change. | ||
| − | + | ||
Borgstom attempted to characterize a lack of division in the tenses, by claiming that Norse verbs also make no distinction, but failed mention how Gaelic syntax is influenced by Norse, and why the use of the old present tense, with its predominately future meaning, is not in full accordance with norse. | Borgstom attempted to characterize a lack of division in the tenses, by claiming that Norse verbs also make no distinction, but failed mention how Gaelic syntax is influenced by Norse, and why the use of the old present tense, with its predominately future meaning, is not in full accordance with norse. | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
It therefore looks as though there was an early dialectical divergence from Old Irish to Gaelic that catalyzed the loss of tense. | It therefore looks as though there was an early dialectical divergence from Old Irish to Gaelic that catalyzed the loss of tense. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Articles on Gaelic Syntax]] | ||
Revision as of 10:01, 16 January 2013
Gleasure (1990)
The evolution of the Present/Future Tense in Scottish Gaelic
--SG is more conservative regarding phonology than other "Goedelic languages," but in Syntax and Morphology there has been more change than in other langs.
Irish has 3 simple tenses: past, present, future
In SG present and future are merged.
aims to explain diachronically the development of this change
Past Linguists have tried to explain the 'disappearance' of the future tense, e.g. Heinrich
Literary Texts and the preservation of a few remnants of the tense distinction suggest that there was once a separation between future and present.
Fraser 1915, first to tackle issue of division of tenses
suggests that the reduction of -f- to zero removed the formal difference between the future and the present, and that on occasion the present could be used to express a future action.
O'Rahilly adopted this idea without acknowledgement from Fraser, claiming that the present tense has adopted the old future…'the future and conditional have been merged in the present and imperfect, respectively, mainly as the result of the silencing of the =f= of the two former tenses.
dh'innsinn <- dh'innisfinn 'I would tell'
David Greene, claims that a simple phonetic change cannot account for such a large semantic change.
Borgstom attempted to characterize a lack of division in the tenses, by claiming that Norse verbs also make no distinction, but failed mention how Gaelic syntax is influenced by Norse, and why the use of the old present tense, with its predominately future meaning, is not in full accordance with norse.
Quin: the retention of the old present 3 sing. ending /-idh/ in SG, which meant that bacaidh and the future bacfaidh became indistinguishable as /baki/ was the main factor for the dissappearance of the distinction between the tenses.
Correspondence with earlier language in Modern SG present/future such as:
modern form: bearidh/-beir 'bears, will bear' 'gabhaidh/-gabh' 'take,will take'
--this resembles the the present tense of Old Irish verbs
Gleasure claims that his cannot be coincidental,
Finds that:
1- Irish could have participated in the Scottish development because some Irish dialects have future particles in the present tense.
2-The usage of the present tense in Irish was once much more common than it is. furthermore, it could express progressive, or continuous tense.
3-There was considerable 'scope' in the early language for a possible merging of the two tenses, present and future. This is true for the copula.
It therefore looks as though there was an early dialectical divergence from Old Irish to Gaelic that catalyzed the loss of tense.
