Fòram na Gàidhlig

Recently my course at SMO has covered the use of Tha xxx ann to denote "existence" ie. there is/it is etc

* Tha an t-uisge ann : Rain is existing = there is rain = It is raining
* Tha bùth ann : A shop is existing = There is a shop

Very handy structure, but I'm a bit unclear when it comes to extending beyond the above, such as with the following 2 examples:

* There is a shop in Biggar
* There is a shop on our street

I think these 2 phrases could work with or without the "exists" ie.

* Tha bùth ann ann am Biggar OR Tha bùth ann am Biggar
* Tha bùth ann air an t-sràid againn OR Tha bùth air an t-sràid againn

My question is is there a right and a wrong time to use the ann for existence. The above examples work without it and the "ann ann" looks a bit clunky. Would these examples sound different to a Gaelic ear? I like the ann for existence concept but would worry about overusing it.

As I understand things, the versions with 'existential ann' sound more correct to my ear, if you are saying/emphasising "There is a shop..."

The double 'ann ann' is not such a problem, it might look a little odd in writing, but if I were saying "Tha bùth ann ann am Biggar" these would be grouped together as two phrases, with a slight pause between the two: "Tha bùth ann.. ann am Biggar", with a bit of emphasis falling on the first "ann".

Thanks, jeltzz. I do like the 'existential ann', just worried I might use it too much and perhaps make the sentence sound focused in the wrong places.

Tha bùth ann am Biggar
Tha bùth air an t-sràid againn

Those constructions are enough to denote that it's there, so no extra "ann " is needed

Many languages don't have any "there is"/"there are" and would just say "a house is" for "there is a house".
English is the other extreme, saying there must always be there is/are for existential. However, centuries ago you would have been looked at funny for saying "there's a house there", because you're saying "there" twice, or for saying "there's a house here", because you should make up your mind -- is it there or here?

Gaelic's in between. If something exists, it must exist somewhere. "ann" in this case is the "it" of places. I'm not specifying where -- you know where I'm talking about, so I don't need to. If I tell you explicitly where it is, I don't say "there".

This, like many things, is changing under the influence of English, but as a learner, I focus on conservative forms and use them until I find that nobody else does.

GunChleoc wrote: Tha bùth ann am Biggar
Tha bùth air an t-sràid againn

Those constructions are enough to denote that it's there, so no extra "ann " is needed

Ah, I see. You only need ann if you haven't already explicitly specified where "something" is? As my two examples clearly state where the shop is (Biggar), there is no need for ann. By using ann I was sort of saying "a shop is somewhere/in existence/in it in Biggar" when " a shop is in Biggar" is sufficient. Is this correct?

Níall Beag wrote:Gaelic's in between. If something exists, it must exist somewhere. "ann" in this case is the "it" of places. I'm not specifying where -- you know where I'm talking about, so I don't need to. If I tell you explicitly where it is, I don't say "there".

Ann/There is/There are is a fascinating subject and one which I think is a real potential lightbulb moment for my learning. Looking at another example, If I wanted to say:

There is a bus from Biggar to Glasgow.

is that:

Tha bus ann à Biggar gu Glaschu - [a bus is existing] [from Biggar to Glasgow] i.e. [There is a bus] [from Biggar to Glasgow]

The above without ann would be "A bus is from Biggar to Glasgow", which sounds like gibberish.

Tha sin ceart

Thanks for the input so far. I am now at the stage in my learning (and in particular with ann), that I'm starting to look back at phrases which I previously didn't think much about, but now want to dig a little deeper into their meaning - and whether I was even right. This was my understanding a few weeks ago:

1. 'S e tidsear a th' ann - It is a teacher that is existing - It is a teacher
2. 'S e tidsear a th' ann - It is a teacher that is in him - He is a teacher
3.' S e tidsear a th' ann am Murchadh - It is a teacher that is in Murdo - Murdo is a teacher

4. 'S e latha brèagha a th' ann - It is a lovely day that is existing - It is a lovely day
5. 'S e latha brèagha a th' ann ann am Biggar - It is a lovely day that is existing in Biggar - It is a lovely day in Biggar

6. 'S e aìte snog a th' ann - It is a nice place that is existing - It is a nice place
7. 'S e aìte snog a th' ann am Biggar - It is a nice place that is existing Biggar - Biggar is a nice place

Now I'm looking at these and wondering if my interpretations are correct. In particular, 5 looks clunky with the double ann, and I not sure if the ann in 7 is actually "is existing" or "in".

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Feel I'm getting close (ish) to cracking this one, just need a bit more reinforcement.

You do find/hear 'double ann' constructions like in 5.

7. is more 'that is in Biggar', i.e. Biggar is a nice place.

But I would say (others might disagree, I concede) that you are pushing for 'ann' to mean 'is existing' and a kind of conceptually different 'ann' to mean 'in', except that the existential usage is itself an extension of ann meaning 'in it'. I.e. I'm not sure you can push the grammar to maintain as strict a differentiation as you might like.

I think you're trying to make too pretty a sentence of it in English. The thing I suggest with 'exist(s)' is only a mental trick, not a guid for tr*nsl*t**n. So in 'S e latha brèagha a th' ann this trick isn't meant to get you beyond is it nice day that exist(s). I never suggested you try and make a pretty English sentence with it, that opens a whole new can of worms!

5. 'S e latha brèagha a th' ann ann am Biggar - It is a lovely day that is existing in Biggar - It is a lovely day

You could say that for it's a nice day in Biggar. Technically the more common shorter form 'S e latha brèagha a th' ann am Biggar is ambiguous because it could mean 1) it's a nice day in Biggar OR 2) Biggar is a nice day. But since 2 doesn't make sense, it's not really that confusing. But technically the short form ann am is short for ann (ann) am here i.e. the first ann is the tha ... ann part and the am Biggar is the (ann) am Biggar part. The magic is in the parsing!

It's àite, incidentally.

jeltzz wrote: ann meaning 'in it'

I used to view "ann" as "in it" or "in him", but Micheal kinda steered me towards thinking more along the lines of "exists"/"is existing" for the first case (and it does help).

With regards to:

3.' S e tidsear a th' ann am Murchadh - It is a teacher that is in Murdo - Murdo is a teacher
7. 'S e aìte snog a th' ann am Biggar - It is a nice place that is in Biggar - Biggar is a nice place

Are these basically the same idea i.e. something is IN something?

The point is, to get beyond thinking of its tr*nsl*t**n, and think instead of its meaning.

jeltzz wrote: The point is, to get beyond thinking of its tr*nsl*t**n, and think instead of its meaning.

Aidh, but my worry is if I don't know how "ann" actually works I'll make a mess of using it properly.

I think you're basically on the right track with that.

So, back to 3 and 7, yes, they are both saying that something is 'in' something. It's just that the "logic" here is that the idea of being 'in' something is used for an identity relationship. For 'a teacher' to be 'in' Murdo, is a Gaelic way of saying Murdo = teacher.
The same with 7, I'd say.

jeltzz wrote: It's just that the "logic" here is that the idea of being 'in' something is used for an identity relationship. For 'a teacher' to be 'in' Murdo, is a Gaelic way of saying Murdo = teacher.
The same with 7, I'd say.

Gu dearbh. Just wasn't sure if it was ok to associate Biggar + nice place and Murdo + teacher in the same construct i.e. was the latter perhaps more "in" than the former (more permanent, more of an identity relationship).