Fòram na Gàidhlig

So I'm making flash cards for myself, but in my vocabulary list, my teacher has written the following:

coimhead + air -- looking
faicinn -- seeing
sealltainn + air -- looking/seeing

fàgail -- leaving
falbh -- leaving


This is fine, but which type of looking vs. seeing are these? looking for something? looking at something? seeing something physical? going to see someone? It's the same for leaving, which is which? I'm very confused and we've discussed it before but it slipped my memory. Can you guys help me out? In what contexts would each of these be used?

Tapadh leibh!

No.

OK, here's a start. "coimhead" and "sealltainn" are pretty similar, in that they both tend to mean "look". And just as you don't "look a book", so you don't "seall leabhar": in English you need "at" and in Gaelic you need "air". However, modern Gaelic is tending to leave out the "air" in certain situations with "coimhead".

"faicinn" is pretty much equivaent to "see[ing]" in English - "Chunnaic mi duine" = "I saw a man".

As for "fàgail" and "falbh", let's include "rach" (or "dol") also. Now, whereas in English you can say such things as "I'm going", as a complete sentence, you can't really do that with "dol" in Gaelic - "Tha mi a' dol" is really only part of a statement and you need to add, e.g., where you're going to. But the usual meaning behind "I'm going" in English is actually "I'm leaving" - and you can say "Tha mi a' falbh" as a complete thing in Gaelic. But you wouldn't really say "Tha mi a' fàgail" as that again, like "dol", tends to demand some further information about, e.g., what it is you're leaving.

Ohh, okay so a better gloss of the words would be:

coimhead/sealltainn + air -- looking (at)
faicinn -- seeing

falbh -- leaving (intransitive)
fàgail -- leaving (transitive)
dol -- going (transitive)

Is that the gist of it, more or less?

Pretty much!

Strictly speaking, a' dol can't be transitive as 'going' doesn't take an object. What you need is a destination, in the form of an adverb or adverbial phrase of place, e.g. home, to Glasgow, down the road, past the pub.
(Or a purpose - I'm going to wash my hair.)
But I think you have the principle.

How about writing us a few examples so you can check you've got it?

Another difference between falbh and fàg is that falbh always focuses on somebody or something departing, while fàg can also refer to some result or consequence:

Dh'fhalbh mi. I left.
Dh'fhàg mi an taigh. I left the house.
Dh'fhàg mi an còta agam anns an taigh. I left my coat in the house.
Chan eil càil air fhàgail agam. I have nothing left.

You can even stretch this to situations where in English you wouldn't use "leave" but "make":

Dh'fhàg sin brònach mi. That left/made me sad.
Dh'fhàgadh dealbhan dathach an leabhar na bu dhaoire. Coloured pictures would make the book more expensive.

The last distinction you need is "coimhead" vs "seall". (Warning: as with all distinctions, this is a bit fuzzy.)

"Seall"... consider that a "sealladh" is a view. "Abair sealladh!" you might say when you gaze across Skye from one of MacLeod's Tables. It's a view, a scene, a show. In fact you can seall rudeigin do cuideigin -- show someone something.

You "coimhead air an telebhisean", and the reason that Gaelic is losing the "air" is interference from the English phrase "watching TV".

"Coimhead" has a sense of observing something that changes, whereas "seall" suggests that there's a fixed, unchanging or specific thing to be seen.

As I said, it's fuzzy, because you would say seall an uair! for "look at the time"... but the time changes, right?
Not exactly: look at the time it is right now at this very moment. At another moment, the "hour" will be different, but the hour is now what it is now.

So perhaps:

coimhead + air -- watching, observing (a place or thing that changes)
sealltainn + air -- witnessing (a place or thing that does not change), showing (would this also work for showing in the context of visible? e.g. "your underwear is showing.")
faicinn -- seeing, having within sight, being able to see (a thing)

Is that better?

I think that pretty much covers it