Fòram na Gàidhlig

My understanding is that the response to a question in the conditional ("am biodh") should use the emphasised form "bhitheadh"

Am biodh Anna deònach fònadh thugam?
Bhithead/Cha bhitheadh
Am bitheadh?
Bhitheadh. Bhiodh i glè dhèonach

Now switch to the impersonal formof the conditional, where everything gets a "te" stuck on the end.

Am biodhte deònach fònadh thugam?

Is there a "te" form of bhithead - ie "bhitheadhte" - to be used in response?

Yes but you've over-constructed the forms It's just am bite? bhite in the conditional.

Note that some of these have both short and long (emphatic) forms: Bhiodh - Bhitheadh. Just use bhiodh when you write, and you'll be OK.

Whoa - what I have from SMO's An Cursa Adhartais is:
[sorry about the loss of formatting above - I intended that this should be displayed as two columns headed by tha and bhiodh respectively - unfortunately the browser strips out multiple spaces. I hope you can work it out]

Are you saying you'd prefer the second 'column' to read as follows :

bhiodh
bhite
cha bhite
am bite?
nach bite?
.. gum bite

SMO advice on a question posed in the impersonal is to revert initially to the appropriate tense of the personal form, so:

A bheilear ag obair air an rathad ùr an-drasta
Tha. Thathar ag obair air NO Chan eil. Chan eilear ag obair air.

But they didn't say anything about the impersonal conditional. I thought I was just following up on a minor details (the emphasised form). This is looking like a much bigger issue.

Is this contentious?

The parallel is:

A bheil thu - Tha. Tha mi...
A bheilear? Tha. Thathar...

The first "Tha" lacks the information about the person in both cases - the person for the 2nd one just happens to be impersonal.

Well, you had bhitheadhte to begin with, which is definitely overkill. SMO bhiodhte is, hm, controversial? I cannot think of an instance of the impersonal conditional where the -dh- actually makes an appearance. I suspect bhiodhte is hypercorrection because the phonetics of bhite are /vihdʲə/ which is not far off what you'd get from bhiodhte which would be */vjɤhdʲə/ in very careful speech but in normal speech probably reduced to */vəhdʲə/; cf. bhitheadh /vi.əɣ/ ~ bhiodh /vjɤɣ ~ və(ɣ)/.

Bhite is certainly more common.

MartinJ wrote:But they didn't say anything about the impersonal conditional.

Thuirt, ann an dòigh co-dhiù. Seall air an t-seantans dìreach ron eisimpleir a chur thu:

When answering a question formed with a bheilear (or one of the impersonal verbs in the other tenses), you respond with tha or chan eil (or the relevant form depending on tense) e.g., …

Mar sin (spelling aside):

- Am biodhte a' dèanamh sin?
- Bhiodh. Bhiodhte a' dèanamh sin. [no] Cha bhiodh. Cha bhiodhte a' dèanamh sin.

A bheil thusa ag obair air An Cùrsa Adhartais cuideachd ma-thà, no a bheil thu air a chrìochnachadh?

Well, you did though

Now switch to the impersonal formof the conditional, where everything gets a "te" stuck on the end.

Am biodhte deònach fònadh thugam?

Is there a "te" form of bhithead - ie "bhitheadhte" - to be used in response?

and in this

chan eilear cha bhiodhte

this can't be anything but an impersonal conditional.

Duilich, a h-uile duine. It had never occurred to me that SMO might include the conditional as a tense. I'm a bit freaked by all this just now - especially the appearance of the emphatic variation of the conditional - and my aging brain seems to have reached its limit!

But that's my original question effectively answered I think - no need to worry about "bitheadhte" as it never arises in a straightforward question/yes-no exchange in the impersonal conditional

I can, however find at least one case where the emphatic form appears independently of a straightforward yes/no response:

First, a "personal" version:

Am biodh sibh ag obair a h-uile Lunain?
Cha bhitheadh. Cha bhiomaid ag obair a h-uile oidhche Lunain idir.
Cuin a bhidheadh sibh ag obair ma-tha?

Now put that into the impersonal :

Am biodhte ag obair a h-uile Lunain?
Cha bhiodh. Cha bhiodhte ag obair a h-uile oidhche Lunain idir.
Cuin a ? ag obair ma-tha?

I think I'll have a lie-down as I've got more things to worry about just now - and I'm sure you do too!!

Le meas, MartinJ (a' dèanamh ACA Modal 5 an-drasta)

MartinJ wrote: Am biodh sibh ag obair a h-uile Lunain?
Cha bhitheadh. Cha bhiomaid ag obair a h-uile oidhche Lunain idir.
Cuin a bhidheadh sibh ag obair ma-tha?

I'd maybe be careful about switching between emphatic/regular forms in the one answer there, thinking in terms of SMO marking. I've a feeling they'd want that consistent.

Cha bhitheadh. Cha bhitheamaid ag obair a h-uile oidhche Luain idir.

[no]

Cha bhiodh. Cha bhiomaid ag obair a h-uile oidhche Luain idir.

Tha mise a' dèanamh Modal 5 an dràsta cuideachd — ’s e Gilleasbuig a tha gam theagaisg. Cò an tidsear agad fhèin?

Tha an t-eisimplir sin bhon mhìneachadh Modal 4 comhradh 2. Obh obh, tha seo na bùrach!

Tha Gilleasbuig gam theagaisg cuideachd - oidchche Luain 7.15. 'S e Martainn bho Milburn an seo. Cò tha "ithinkitsnice"???

Am biodh sibh ag obair a h-uile Lunain?
Cha bhitheadh. Cha bhiomaid ag obair a h-uile oidhche Lunain idir.
Cuin a bhidheadh sibh ag obair ma-tha?

Looks fine, apart from spelling (bhidheadh » bhitheadh) and Lunain (??) » (Di)Luain.

Am biodhte ag obair a h-uile Lunain?
Cha bhiodh. Cha bhiodhte ag obair a h-uile oidhche Lunain idir.
Cuin a ? ag obair ma-tha?

Yas, the missing one is also cuin a bhiodhte. Possibly Cha bhiodh » cha bhiodhte but I have not found consensus on agreement with the question in some of these amongst native speakers so I wouldn't get the red pen out.

I'd maybe be careful about switching between emphatic/regular forms in the one answer there, thinking in terms of SMO marking. I've a feeling they'd want that consistent.

No, that's kosher. At least linguistically, can't speak for marking, there's a lot of marking done which is on shaky linguistic ground. Anyway, it depends on the emphaticness (emphaticicity? emphe?) of the answer. It's like someone asking "do you work Mondays?" to which you can respond "No" or, slightly more emphatically "No bloody way".

akerbeltz wrote:emphaticness (emphaticicity? emphe?)

Oomph

Glè mhath. Tapadh leibh, a Akerbelz 's GhunChleoch.

'S e do bheatha