On 5/4/05 20:05, "Dennis King" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Micheál wrote:
>>>> (c) Daor oraind ni fhuil
>>> "Daor" in the late meaning "dear, precious" would have to be
>>> followed by "do", I think. Followed by "oraind" (< for, ar = on),
>>> it would have to have the earlier oppressive sense of "base,
>>> ignoble; hard, painful".
>>> Generous Aignech is not hard on us (= is not stingy with us).
>> If modern usage of use, "daor orainn" rather than "daor dúinn"
>> is the usage to which I think you are referring here with meaning
>> 'dear', 'expensive' -> 'precious'.
> That doesn't make any sense. See FGB s.v. "daor", para. 3.
> "Hard, severe; costly (in effort, in suffering). 'Ní bheidh
> Dia daor orainn', God will not be to hard on us. 'Bhí an
> ghaoth daor orainn', we had an unfavourable wind. 'Ba dhaor
> an turas orm é', I paid dearly, suffered, for that journey."
While paragraph 3 under "daor" in FGB does indeed give many examples of
"daor" followed by "ar", none of that gives a basis for stating that what I
wrote "doesn't make any sense".
Nowhere in Paragraph 3 does a heading indicate that it is an
all-encompassing entry for "daor ar" rather than a subsection of "daor" in
general. Nor is it indicated that the examples given there, with their
particular meaning, contain the exclusive meaning of "daor ar" in modern
Paragraph 4 is the one relevant to my particular bit of *nonsense* but as
FGB does not go into the use of prepositions (ag, ar, le, do*) with "daor"
there, that provides no basis for such absolutism either.
What could bridge these gaps in FGB so absolutely?
* in my dialect "do" only in particular construction of comparative
description (ró-dhaor do X) rather than in general application with "daor".