No. This is literally, 'The rice and a sandwich are at him'... or, he has the rice and a sandwich.
More confused than ever. At him or with him I can understand. That does not lead me to believe that he IS a sandwich. It is either HIS sandwich ,or, he HAS a sandwich.
With him / at him / in him - not actually him?
The correct answer is 'has', as shown above. I'mm aasuming they accept 'he's' as a contraction of that. Irish haa no verb for 'have', so it uses 'ag X'
I think it all boils down to what the word (he's) means in English. I have heard it used as a short form of (he is) "he's been running, he's going to town, etc." I have never heard it used in the form given as an acceptable answer for the translation. I know of no English speaker who would say 'he's the rice and sandwich'.
Maybe it is a case of 'droch Béarla'?
Agreed. I've only heard it with "got" (He's got the rice and a sandwich), but yeah, I say that's where the confusion comes from.
Yes. "the rice and sandwich" is referring a definite sandwich - an rís agus an ceapaire.
It would be different if "rice and sandwich" was recognized as a single thing, like "soup and sandwich" being an item on a menu - beidh an t-anraith agus ceapaire agam - "I'll have the (soup and sandwich)".
"He has rice and sandwich" should be accepted. There is no "an* before ceapaire.
Can "an" not take scope over both "ris agus ceapaire" in a conjoined NP - "an ris agus ceapaire" = "the rice and sandwich", or does each noun require its own determiner?
If "rice and sandwich" could reasonably be considered a "conjoined NP", like "bread and butter", "fish and chips", "ham and cheese", "tomato and lettuce" or "soup and sandwich", then an could take scope over the whole phrase.
I don't think you can reasonably claim that "rice and sandwich" is a conjoined noun phrase.
I think the misunderstanding is that we're using "conjoined" in two different senses — I'm not talking about compound nouns or fixed expressions, but just phrases that have been joined by a co-ordinate conjunction.
So in English, the phrases (1) [DP the [NP [NP rice] [Conj and] [NP sandwich]]] and (2) [DP [DP the [NP rice]] [Conj and] [DP the [NP sandwich]]] can both be grammatically well-formed and they are equivalent in meaning, even though "rice and sandwich" don't have a strong collocational attachment.
And I'm wondering if there's just something different about Irish determiners or conjunctions that forbids constructions like (1). Is it maybe that rice is an uncountable noun and sandwich is countable?
Would "an [ris agus bainne]" or "an [ris agus uisce]" where the definite article still takes scope over both nouns be more grammatically acceptable than "an [ris agus ceapaire]"? Or would you still have to say "[an ris] agus [an bainne]" to ensure both rice and milk are assigned the definite property?
I'm not really familiar with any work done on that sort of sentence analysis in Irish, but the first question you would have to confront is how the lack of an indefinite article in Irish affects your definition of what a DP is., because [DP the [NP sandwich]] and [DP a [NP sandwich]] aren't equivalent.
Normally even in languages where there's no overt articles in certain contexts the phrase structure is still represented, just with a null symbol in determiner position. If I wanted to represent the phrase structure tree of "a sandwich" I'd probably just write it as [DP [D ∅] [NP [N ceapaire]]]
For an to take scope over both rís and ceapaire, you have to substitute "the" for that Ø.
That's problematic because Irish already has a determiner that means "the", and it isn't Ø
agus is a conjunction that usually means "and", but it can also mean "while" or "as" in certain constructions. It has zero connection with agam and aige (just as "and" has no connection to "an" or "any" in English).
aige and agam are "prepositional pronouns" - combined forms of the preposition ag and a pronoun - mé ("I"/"me") in the case of agam and é ("he"/"it") in the case of aige.
The most common (but definitely NOT the only) place that a beginner will encounter agam and aige is in a phrase with the verb tá, where it is used to show possession - tá úll agam - "I have an apple", tá úll aige - "he has an apple". Compare to tá úll ag Pól - "Paul has an apple" to see that agam and aige are combined forms.
Rather that just stating that something is incorrect, it's usually more helpful to suggest what you think the correct structure should be.
This structure is not incorrect.
Okay let me word it better, sorry. This structure is not how I (Individually) was taught. "A" is not there when you read the sentence...it is incorrect. It is correct without the a unless the sentence was worded differently. It is again different from how I was taught.
Irish doesn't have an indefinite article ("a"). That doesn't mean that you shouldn't use an indefinite article in English when it is appropriate.
How would you translate Tá fear sa charr without using "A" in English?
True but in the original case neither of us are wrong. A man is in the car, yes that is a good example.