1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Scottish Gaelic
  4. >
  5. "Seall, chan eil bròg orm!"

"Seall, chan eil bròg orm!"

Translation:Look, I do not have a shoe on!

November 27, 2019



Is there a clear meaning to this sentence or would it depend on context? By which I mean, does it suggest that the person has one shoe on but not the other, or does it suggest they have no shoes on at all?


Since bròg is singular I would interpret this to mean that only one shoe is not being worn. It's an odd statement to make out of a specific context. Obviously is someone wanted to specify that they weren't wearing any shoes they'd use the plural brògan


Are you a native of Gaelic/advanced speaker? Just so I know from what experience you're speaking :P Languages often don't behave obviously or intuitively, particularly according to the logic followed by other languages that often form learner biases—hence why I'm asking rather than forming my own conclusion based on what seems to make sense from my point of view.


Honestly only about half of these sentences make sense im English. Poor Ian gets ❤❤❤❤ on in the other half


I'm wondering. To a native speaker hearing this sentence, when you look would you expect to see a person with one shoe on and one off, or with no shoes on? In English it's very ambiguous.


Look, I have no shoe on should also be correct

[deactivated user]

    why not seo?


    So what does this sentence actually mean? Is this a generalisation (as in "I don't have any shoes on") or it implies that I have one shoe on and one shoe off?


    The plural shoes was marked wrong, so sounds like it is one shoe on and one off (or just talking about one foot).


    Of course not, I you two shoes on


    Why would sentence not be "Seall, chan eil bròg agam orm"?


    Because there's too many verbs in that sentence. Agam and orm both fill the same function so you can use one or the other. "Chan eil brog agam" means "I have no shoe" and "Chan eil brog orm" means "I wear no shoe". (I changed it to a slightly awkward sentence structure there so that you can see the similarity better). You wouldn't say "I wear have no shoe". It's just not done.


    I can't be sure how new you are to language learning, so apologies if this seems too condescending - I really don't mean it that way. But it occurs to me that you might be thinking you ought to literally translate "have on" as a two word construction so that's why you're thinking have/agam + on/orm. But that's not how languages work. It's not like a codebook where you just swap out words to get the answer. Gaidhlig uses a completely different sentence structure and many words won't translate nearly on a one-to-one basis.

    In English, "have on" is effectively a compound verb (technically a verb phrase). In Gaidhlig "orm" is a single word verb that fulfills almost the same function. (It's actually slightly more because the m at the end indicates "me/I" so it's conveying more "I have on"). So there's no need to put a separate "have" into the sentence.

    Learn Scottish Gaelic in just 5 minutes a day. For free.