orainde gaoidhil alban & eireand, tar an gcuid eile don domhan, gan ar
gcanamhna gaoidheilge do chur agcl['o] riamh mar ataid agcanamhna &
adteangtha f['e]in agcl['o] ag gach uile chinel dhaoine oile sa domhan, &
ata uireasbhuidh is m['o] ina gach uireasbhuidh oraind, gan an Biobla
naomhtha do bheith agcl['o] gaoidheilge againd, marta s[`e] agcl['o] laidne
agas bherla agas ingach teangaidh eile osin amach, agas f['o]s gan seanchus
arsean no ar sindsear do bheith mar an gcedna agcl['o] againd riamh, acht
ge t['a] cuid eigin do tseanchus ghaoidheal alban agas eireand sgriobhtha
aleabhruibh l['a]mh, agas adtamhlorgaibh fileadh & ollamhan, agas
asleachtaibh suadh. Is mortsaothair sin re sgriobhadh do laimh, ag fechain
an neithe buailtear sa chl['o] araibrisge agas ar aithghiorra bhios gach
['e]n ni dh['a] mhed da chriochnughadh leis. Agas is mor an doille agas
andorchadas peacaidh agas aineolais agas indtleachda do lucht deachtaidh
agas sgriobhtha agas chumhdaigh na gaoidheilge, gurab m['o] is mian leo
agas gurab m['o] ghnathuidheas siad eachtradha dimhaoineacha buaidheartha
bregacha {181} saoghalta do cumadh ar thuathaibh d['e]dhanond agas ar
mhacaibh mileadh agas arna curadhaibh agas fhind mhac cumhaill gona
fhianaibh agas ar mh['o]ran eile nach airbhim agas nach indisim andso do
chumhdach, agas do choimhleasughagh, do chiond luadhuidheachta dimhaonigh
an tsaoghail dfhaghail doibhf['e]in, ina briathra disle D['e] agas slighthe
foirfe na firinde do sgriobhadh, agas dheachtadh, agas do chumhdach.
_English Translation._
[_From the_ REPORT _of the Committee of the_
HIGHLAND SOCIETY _of_ SCOTLAND, _appointed to inquire into the
nature and authenticity of the Poems of_ OSSIAN.]
But there is one great disadvantage which we the Gaeil of Scotland and
Ireland labour under, beyond the rest of the world, that our Gaelic
language has never yet been printed, as the language of every other race of
men has been. And we labour under a disadvantage which is still greater
than every other disadvantage, that we have not the Holy Bible printed in
Gaelic, as it has been printed in Latin and in English, and in every other
language; and also that we have never yet had any account printed of the
antiquities of our country, or of our ancestors; for though we have some
accounts of the Gaeil of Scotland and Ireland, contained in manuscripts,
and in the genealogies of bards and historiographers, yet there is great
labour in writing them over with the hand, whereas the work which is
printed, be it ever so great, is speedily finished. And great is the
blindness and sinful darkness, and ignorance and evil design of such as
teach, and write, and cultivate the Gaelic language, that, with the view of
obtaining for themselves the vain rewards of this world, they are more
desirous, and more accustomed, to compose vain, tempting, lying, worldly
histories, concerning the _Tuath de dannan_, and concerning warriors and
champions, and _Fingal_ the son of _Cumhal_, with his heroes, and
concerning many others which {182} I will not at present enumerate or
mention, in order to maintain or reprove, than to write and teach and
maintain the faithful words of God, and of the perfect way of truth[121].
* * * * *
_From the Preface to a Metrical Version of the Book of Psalms
in Gaelic_, by Mr ROBERT KIRK, Minister of the Gospel
at Balquhidder; Printed in the year 1684.
Ataid na Psalma taitneamhach, tarbhach: beag nach mion-fhlaitheas l['a]n
dainglibh, Cill fhonnmhar le ceol naomhtha. Mur abholghort Eden, lionta do
chrannaibh brioghmhoire na beatha, & do luibhennibh iocshlainteamhail,
amhluidh an leabhar Psalmso Dhaibhioth, ata na liaghais ar uile anshocair
na nanma. Ata an saoghal & gach be['o] chreatuir da bfuil ann, na
chlarsigh; an duine, se is Clairseoir & duanaire, chum moladh an mor-Dhia
mirbhuileach do sheinn; & ata Daibhidh do ghn['a] mar fhear don chuideachd
bhias marso ag caoin-chaint gu ceolmhar ma nard-R['i].... Do ghabhas mar
chongnamh don obairsi, dioghlum ughdairidh an uile ch['a]il, ar
sheann['o]s, phriomh chreideamh & eachdardha na nGaoidheal, sgriobhta &
cl['o]-bhuailte: achd gu ba reula iuil & soluis dhamh, br['i]dh na nSalm
fein. Anois maseadh a Chomharbadha ro chaomh, ata mar phlaneidi dhealroidh
ag sdiurughadh na ngcorp ioch dardha gan mhonmar, is deaghmhaise dhaoibh an
tsaothairse a sgrudadh & a ghnathughadh gu neimhfhiat, gan ghuth ar
bheiginmhe & neimhnitheachd an tsaothairigh. Griosam oraibhse a Uaisle, & a
Thuatha charthanacha araon, gun {183} bheith mur thacharain ar luaidrean a
nunn & a nall go sbailpe breigi; achd le gcroidhibh daingne, dosgartha,
deagh-fhreumhaighte, druididh re Firinn, Ceart, & Ceannsachd, mar
fhuraileas na psalma: Ata clu & tarbha a nsdriocadh don choir; call &
masladh a ntuitim le heugcoir.
Imthigh a Dhuilleachain gu d['a]n,
Le D['a]n glan diagha duisg iad thall;
Cuir failte ar Fonn fial na bFionn,
Ar Gharbh chriocha, 's Indseadh gall.
_In English._
The Psalms are pleasant and profitable. A church resounding with sacred
melody is almost a little Heaven full of angels. As the Garden of Eden,
replenished with trees of life of potent efficacy, and with medicinal
plants, so is this Book of the Psalms of David, which contains a remedy for
all the diseases of the soul. The world and every living creature it
contains are the Harp; man is the Harper and Poet, who sings the praise of
the great wonder-working God; and David is ever one of the company who are
thus employed in sweetly and tunefully discoursing about the Almighty
King.... I was assisted in this work by culling from authors of every kind,
who have treated of the ancient manners, the primitive religion, and the
history of the Gaels, both in manuscript and in print: but the star and
light by which I steered was the sense of the Psalms themselves. Now, then,
my very dear colleagues, who as shining luminaries guide the inferior
bodies, it becomes you to examine and to use this work candidly, without
regarding the meanness and insignificancy of the workman. I beseech you,
men of high and of low degree alike, that you be not, like weak silly
creatures, tossed to and fro by false conceits; but with firm, resolute,
well-established hearts, adhere to Truth, Justice, and Temperance, as these
Psalms exhort. There is honour and profit in complying with what is right,
loss and disgrace in declining to what is wrong. {184}
Little Volume, move boldly on;
In pure godly strains awaken yonder people;
Salute the hospitable land of the Fingalians,
The highland regions, and the Isles of strangers[122].
* * * * *
PRINTED BY NEILL AND COMPANY, EDINBURGH.
* * * * *
Notes
* * * * *
[1] Analysis of the Gaelic Language, by William Shaw, A.M.
[2] A few examples of what I conceived to be deviations from grammatical
propriety are given from the Gaelic version of the Bible. As the
translation of the Prophetical Books underwent a revision, the
exceptionable passages in those Books have been changed in the second
edition from what they were as they came out of the hands of the original
translator. The criticism on those passages is, however, allowed to remain
in this edition of the Grammar, because the first edition of the Gaelic
Prophets is still in the hands of many, and because it often happens that
"we can best teach what is right by showing what is wrong."--_Lowth._
[3] It will immediately occur to any grammarian that there is a slight
difference between this and the common division into _mutes_ and _liquids_,
by the letter _m_ being removed from the class of liquids to that of mutes.
This is not an oversight, but an intentional arrangement; as the
_accidents_ of the letter _m_ are, in Gaelic, the same with those of the
mute, not of the liquid consonants. For a like reason, _s_ is included in
the class of liquids.
[4] Writers, who have touched on this part of Gaelic Grammar, following the
Irish grammarians, have divided the consonants further into _mutable_ and
_immutable_. The former name has been given to consonants which, in
writing, have been occasionally combined with the letter _h_; and the
latter name to those consonants which have not, in writing, been combined
with _h_. But, in fact, both classes of consonants are alike _mutable_ in
their pronunciation; and their _mutation_ ought to have been marked in the
orthography, though it has not. This defect in Gaelic orthography has been
often observed and regretted, though it has never been corrected. Rather
than continue a distinction which has no foundation in the structure of the
language, I venture to discard the division of _mutable_ and _immutable_
consonants, as not merely useless, but as tending to mislead the learner.
[5] In explaining the sounds of the letters I have availed myself of the
very correct and acute remarks on this subject annexed to the Gaelic
version of the New Testament, 1767.
[6] If it be thought that this renders the language too monotonous, it may
be observed, on the other hand, that it prevents ambiguities and
obscurities in rapid speaking, as the accent marks the initial syllable of
polysyllables. Declaimers, of either sex, have often found their advantage
in this circumstance.
[7] That is the second sound assigned to a.
[8] The plural of la or latha _a day_, is sometimes written laeth; but it
is doubtful how far this is a proper mode of writing it.
[9] The effect of the vowels in qualifying the sound of the adjoining
consonants will be explained in treating of the Palatals and Linguals.
[10] This propensity is seen in the aspirating of consonants in Gaelic
words, which have an evident affinity to words in other languages, where
the same consonants are not so aspirated. The following list will
sufficiently illustrate and confirm the truth of this remark:--
_Greek._ _Latin._ _Gaelic._
[Greek: Diabolos] Dia_b_olus Diabhol.
Scri_b_o* Scriobh, _write_.
Fe_b_ris* Fiabhrus, _a fever_.
Ba_c_ulum Bacholl, _a staff_.
[Greek: Deka] De_c_em Deich, _ten_.
Lori_c_a L[`u]ireach, _a coat of mail_.
Cleri_c_us Cleireach, _a clerk_.
Mo_d_us Modh, _manner_.
Gla_d_ius Claidheamh, _a sword_.
[Greek: Kardia] } Cor_d_-is Cridhe, _the heart_.
[Greek: Kradia] }
Me_d_ium Meadhon, _middle_.
Lau_d_o Luadh, _mention_.
Le_g_o Leugh, _read_.
Gre_g_-is Greigh, _a herd_.
Re_g_-is Righ, _a king_.
Pla_g_a Plaigh, _a plague_.
Sa_g_itta Saighead, _an arrow_.
Ma_g_ister Maighistir, _master_.
Ima_g_o Iomhaigh, _an image_.
Pri_m_us Priomh, _chief_.
Re_m_us R[`a]mh, _an oar_.
Si_m_ilis Samhuil, _like_.
Hu_m_ilis Umhal, _humble_.
Ca_p_ra Gabhar, _a goat_.
[Greek: Meter] Ma_t_er Mathair, _mother_.
Ro_t_a Roth, Rath, _a wheel_.
Mu_t_o M[`u]th, _change_.
It is probable that the consonants, thus aspirated, were pronounced without
aspiration in the older dialects of the Celtic tongue; for we are told that
in the Irish manuscripts of the first class for antiquity, the consonants
are for the most part written without any mark of aspiration. See "Lhuyd's
Archaeol. Brit.," p. 301, col. 1.
The tendency to attenuate the articulations shows itself in a progressive
state, in a few vocables which are pronounced with an aspiration in some
districts, but not universally. Such are deatach or deathach _smoke_,
cuntart or cunthart _danger_, ta or tha _am_, _art_, tu or thu _thou_,
troimh or throimh _through_, tar or thar _over_, am beil or am bheil _is
there?_ dom or domh _to me_, &c. Has not this remission or suppression of
the articulations the effect of enfeebling the speech, by mollifying its
bones and relaxing its nerves? Ought not therefore the progress of this
corruption to be opposed, by retaining unaspirated articulations in those
instances where universal practice has not entirely superseded them, and
even by restoring them in some instances, where the loss of them has been
attended with manifest inconvenience? It is shameful to see how many
monosyllables, once distinguished by their articulations, have in process
of time, by dropping these articulations, come to be represented by the
solitary vowel _a_, to the no small confusion of the language and
embarrassment of the reader. The place of the absent consonant is often
supplied, indeed, in writing, by an apostrophe. This, however, is at best
but an imperfect and precarious expedient.
* So in French, from Aprilis, _Avrilis_; habere, _avoir_; Febris,
Fi[`e]vre: [Greek: episkopos], _ev['e]que_.
[11] Ph is found in no Gaelic word which is not inflected, except a few
words transplanted from the Greek or the Hebrew, in which _ph_ represents
the Greek [phi], or the Hebrew [Hebrew: P]. It might perhaps be more
proper to represent [Hebrew: P] by _p_ rather than _ph_; and to represent
[phi] by _f_, as the Italians have done in _filosofia_, _filologia_, &c.,
by which some ambiguities and anomalies in declension would be avoided.
[12] The affinity between the sounds of _v_ and _u_ is observable in many
languages, particularly in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
[13] Agreeably to the like pronunciation, the Welsh write this word _marw_,
the Manks _marroo_.
[14] It is still pronounced fuair in the Northern Highlands, and it is so
written in Irish. See Irish Bible, Gen. xxxv. 18, 19; John ii. 14, viii.
62, 53.
[15] So fathast _yet_, fein _self_, are in some places pronounced as if
they began with an _h_ instead of an _f_. The latter word is, by the Manks,
written hene.
[16] Over a considerable part of the Highlands that propensity to
aspiration, which has been already remarked, has affixed to _c_, in the end
of a word, or of an accented syllable, the sound of _chc_; as, mac _a son_,
torc _a boar_, acain _moaning_; pronounced often machc, torchc, achcain.
There is reason to believe that this compound sound of _chc_ was not known
of old, but is a modern corruption.
This pronunciation is not universal over the Highlands. In some parts the
_c_ retains its proper sound in all situations.
If the articulation in question had, from the first, been compounded, it is
highly probable that it would have been represented, in writing, by a
combination of letters, such as _chc_; especially as we find that the same
sound is represented at other times, not by a single consonant, but by a
combination, as in the case of _chd_. Why should it be thought that boc _a
buck_, and bochd _poor_, were originally pronounced alike, when they are
distinguished both in writing and signification?
The word [Hebrew: SHQ] _a sack_, has been transplanted from the Hebrew into
many languages, among the rest the Gaelic, where it has been always written
sac, although now pronounced sachc. In none of the other languages in which
the word is used (except the Welsh alone), has the final palatal been
aspirated. It would appear therefore that the sound sachc is a departure
from the original Gaelic pronunciation. The same change may have happened
in the pronunciation of other words, in which the plain _c_ is now
aspirated, though it may not have been so originally.
[17] Though _th_ be quiescent in the middle of a polysyllable, over the
North and Central Highlands, yet it is, with more propriety, pronounced, in
the West Highlands, as an aspiration; as, athair _father_, mathanas
_pardon_, pronounced a-hair, mahanas.
[18] I am informed that this pronunciation of _chd_ is not universal; but
that in some districts, particularly the East Highlands, the _d_ has here,
as in other places, its proper lingual sounds. In many, if not all the
instances in which _chd_ occurs, the ancient Irish wrote _ct_. This
spelling corresponds to that of some foreign words that have a manifest
affinity to Gaelic words of the same signification; which, it is therefore
presumable, were all originally pronounced, as they were written, without
an aspiration, such as,
_Latin._ _Old French._ _Gaelic._
Noct-u Noct-is, &c. Nuict an nochd, _to night_.
Oct-o Huict Ochd, _eight_.
Benedict-um Benoict Beannachd, _blessing_.
Maledict-um Maudict Mallachd, _cursing_.
Ruct-us Bruchd, _evomition_.
Intellect-us Intleachd, _contrivance_.
Lact-is, -i, &c. Lachd, _milk_.
Dict-o, -are, &c. Deachd, _to dictate_.
Rego }
Rect-um } Reachd, _a law, institution_.
From the propensity of the Gaelic to aspiration, the original _c_ was
converted into _ch_, and the words were written with _cht_, as in the Irish
acht _but_, &c., or with the slight change of _t_ into _d_, as in ochd, &c.
This is the opinion of O'Brien, when he says the word lecht is the Celtic
root of the Latin _lectio_--the aspirate _h_ is but a late
invention.--_O'Br. Ir. Dict. voc. lecht._ In process of time the true sound
of _cht_ or _chd_ was confounded with the kindred sound of _chc_, which was
commonly, though corruptly, given to final c.
[19] It is certain that the natural sound of d aspirated is that of [the
Saxon dh] or _th_ in _thou_; as the natural sound of _t_ aspirated is that
of _th_ in _think_. This articulation, from whatever cause, has not been
admitted into the Gaelic, either Scottish or Irish, although it is used in
the kindred dialects of Cornwall and Wales.
[20] In sean _old_, the _n_ has its _plain_ sound when the following word
begins with a Lingual. Accordingly it is often written in that situation
seann; as, seann duine _an old man_, an t-seann tiomnaidh _of the old
Testament_.
[21] So in Latin, _canmen_ from _cano_ was pronounced, and then written
_carmen_; _genmen_ from the obsolete [Greek: geno] passed into _germen_.
[22] Another mode, proposed by a learned correspondent, of marking the
distinction in the sound of the initial Linguals, is by writing the letter
double, thus ll, nn, rr, when its sound is the same with that which is
represented by those double letters in the end of a syllable; and when the
sound is otherwise, to write the letter single; as, llamh _hand_, llion
_fill_, mo lamh _my hand_, lion mi _I filled_.
It is perhaps too late, however, to urge now even so slight an alteration
as this in the Orthography of the Gaelic, which ought rather to be held as
fixed beyond the reach of innovation, by the happy diffusion of the Gaelic
Scriptures over the Highlands.
[23] _Leathan re Leathan, is Caol re Caol._
Of the many writers who have recorded or taken notice of this rule, I have
found none who have attempted to account for its introduction into the
Gaelic. They only tell that such a correspondence between the vowels ought
to be observed, and that it would be improper to write otherwise. Indeed,
none of them seem to have attended to the different effects of a broad and
of a small vowel on the sound of an adjacent consonant. From this
circumstance, duly considered, I have endeavoured to derive a reason for
the rule in question, the only probable one that has yet occurred to me.
[24] As deanuibh or deanaibh _do ye_, beannuich or beannaich _bless_.
[25] It is worthy of remark that in such words as caird-eil _friendly_,
slaint-eil _salutary_, the substitution of _e_ in place of _a_ in the
termination, both misrepresents the sound, and disguises the derivation of
the syllable. The sound of this termination as in fear-ail _manly_, ban-ail
_womanly_, is properly represented by _ail_. This syllable is an
abbreviation of amhuil _like_, which is commonly written in its full form
by the Irish, as fear-amhuil, &c. It corresponds exactly to the English
termination _like_, in _soldier-like_, _officer-like_, which is abridged to
_ly_, as _manly_, _friendly_. By writing _eil_ instead of _ail_, we almost
lose sight of amhuil altogether.
[26] From the extracts of the oldest Irish manuscripts given by Lhuyd,
Vallancey, and others, it appears that the rule concerning the
correspondence of vowels in contiguous syllables, was by no means so
generally observed once as it is now. It was gradually extended by the more
modern Irish writers, from whom, it is probable, it has been incautiously
adopted by the Scottish writers in its present and unwarrantable latitude.
The rule we have been considering has been reprobated in strong terms by
some of the most judicious Irish philologers, particularly O'Brien, author
of an Irish Dictionary printed at Paris 1768, and Vallancey, author of an
Irish Grammar, and of various elaborate disquisitions concerning Irish
antiquities, from whom I quote the following passages: "This Rule [of
dividing one syllable into two by the insertion of an aspirated consonant]
together with that of substituting small or broad vowels in the latter
syllables, to correspond with the vowel immediately following the consonant
in the preceding syllable, has been very destructive to the original and
radical purity of the Irish language." _Vallancey's Ir. Gram. Chap. III.
letter A._ "Another [Rule] devised in like manner by our bards and rhymers,
I mean that which is called _Caol le caol, agus Leathan le leathan_, has
been woefully destructive to the original and radical purity of the Irish
language. This latter (much of a more modern invention than the former, for
our old manuscripts show no regard to it) imports and prescribes that two
vowels, thus forming, or contributing to form, two different syllables,
should both be of the same denomination or class of either broad or small
vowels, and this without any regard to the primitive elementary structure
of the word." _O'Brien's Ir. Dict. Remarks on A._ "The words _biran_ and
_biranach_ changed sometimes into _bioran_ and _bioranach_ by the abusive
rule of _Leathan le leathan_." _Id. in voc._ Fear. The opinion of Lhuyd on
this point, though not decisive, yet may properly be subjoined to those of
Vallancey and O'Brien, as his words serve at least to show that this
judicious philologer was no advocate for the Rule in question. "As for
passing any censure on the rule concerning broad and small vowels, I chose
rather to forbear making any remark at all upon them, by reason that old
men who formerly wrote arget _silver_, instead of airgiod as we now write
it, never used to change a vowel but in declining of words, &c. And I do
not know that it was ever done in any other language, unless by some
particular persons who, through mistake or ignorance, were guilty of it."
_Archaeol. Brit. Preface to Ir. Dict. translated in Bp. Nicolson's Irish
Historical Library._
[27] Pinkerton's Inquiry into the History of Scotland.
[28] _E.g._, troidh _a foot_, has been written troidh or troigh, either of
which corresponds to the pronunciation, as the last consonant is quiescent.
In Welsh, the articulation of the final consonant has been preserved, and
the word is accordingly written troed. This authority seems sufficient to
determine the proper orthography in Gaelic to be troidh and not troigh. For
a like reason, perhaps, it would be proper to write tr[`a]idh _shore_,
rather than tr[`a]igh, the common way of spelling the word, for we find the
Irish formerly wrote tr[`a]idh, and the Welsh traeth. Claidheamh _a sword_,
since the final articulation was wholly dropped, has been sometimes written
claidhe. The mode of writing it still with a final labial, though
quiescent, will probably be thought the more proper of the two, when it is
considered that claidheamh is the cognate, or rather the same word with the
Irish cloidheamh the Welsh cleddyf, and the French glaive.
[29] I flatter myself that all my readers, who are acquainted with any of
the ancient or the modern languages which have a distinction of gender in
their attributives, will readily perceive that the import of the term
Gender, in the grammar of those languages, is precisely what I have stated
above. The same term has been introduced into the grammar of the English
Tongue, rather improperly, because in an acceptation different from what it
bears in the grammar of all other languages. In English there is no
distinction of gender competent to Articles, Adjectives, or Participles.
When a noun is said to be of the masculine gender, the meaning can only be
that the object denoted by it is of the male sex. Thus in the English
grammars, gender signifies a quality of the _object_ named, while in other
grammars it signifies a quality of the _name_ given to the object. The
varieties of _who_, _which_, and _he_, _she_, _it_, refer not to what is
properly called the _gender_ of the antecedent _noun_, but to the _Sex_
real or attributed, or the _absence of Sex_, of the _object_ signified by
the antecedent. This is in effect acknowledged by writers on rhetoric, who
affirm that in English the pronouns _who_, _he_, _she_, imply an express
personification, or attribution of life, and consequently of Sex, to the
objects to which these pronouns refer. The same thing is still more
strikingly true of the variations on the termination of nouns, as _prince_,
_princess_; _lion_, _lioness_, which are all discriminative of Sex. It
seems therefore to be a mis-stated compliment which is usually paid to the
English, when it is said that "this is the only language which has adapted
the gender of its nouns to the constitution of Nature." The fact is, that
it has adapted the _Form_ of some of the most common names of living
creatures, and of a few of its pronouns, to the obvious distinction of
_male_, and _female_, and _inanimate_, while it has left its nouns without
any mark characteristic of _gender_. The same thing must necessarily happen
to any language by abolishing the distinction of masculine and feminine in
its attributives. If all languages had been constructed on this plan, it
may confidently be affirmed that the grammatical term _gender_ would never
have come into use. The compliment intended, and due to the English, might
have been more correctly expressed, by saying that "it is the only language
that has rejected the unphilosophical distinction of gender, by making its
attributives, in this respect, all indeclinable."
[30] Uan beag bainionn, 2 Sam. xii. 3. Numb. vi. 14. So leomhann boirionn,
Ezek. xix. 1.
[31] It must appear singularly strange that any nouns which signify females
exclusively should be of the masculine gender. The noun bainionnach, is
derived from the adjective bainionn, _female_, which is formed from bean,
the appropriate term for a _woman_. Yet this noun bainionnach, or
boirionnach, _a female_, is masculine, to all grammatical intents and
purposes. We say boirionnach c[`o]ir, _a civil woman_, am boirionnach
maiseach, _the handsome woman_.
The gender of this Noun seems to have been fixed, not by its signification,
but by its determination, for most Derivatives in _ach_ are masculines; as,
oganach _a young man_, marcach _a horseman_, Albanach _a Scotsman_, &c. So
in Latin, mancipium, scortum, though applied to persons, follow the gender
of their termination.
[32] It was necessary to be thus explicit in stating the changes at the
beginning and those on the termination as unconnected independent
_accidents_, which ought to be viewed separately; because many who have
happened to turn their thoughts toward the declension of the Gaelic noun
have got a habit of conjoining these, and supposing that both contribute
their united aid toward the forming the _cases_ of nouns. This is blending
together things which are unconnected, and ought to be kept distinct. It
has therefore appeared necessary to take a separate view of these two
_accidents_ of nouns, and to limit the term _case_ to those changes which
are made on the termination, excluding entirely those which take place at
the beginning.
[33] It is to be observed that these names of the cases are adopted merely
because they are already familiar, not because they all denominate
correctly the relations expressed by the cases to which they are
respectively applied. There is no Accusative or Objective case in Gaelic
different from the Nominative; neither is there any Ablative different from
the Dative. For this reason, it is not only unnecessary, but erroneous, to
reckon up six Cases in Gaelic, distinguished not by the form of the Noun,
but by the Prepositions prefixed. This is to depart altogether from the
common and proper use of the term _Case_. And if the new use of that term
is to be adopted, then the enumeration is still incomplete, for we ought to
have as many Cases as there are Prepositions in the language. Thus, besides
a Dative do Bhard, and an Ablative o Bhard, we should have an Impositive
Case air Bhard, a Concomitative le Bard, an Insertive ann am Bard, a
Precursive roimh Bhard, &c. &c. Grammarians have very correctly reckoned
only five Cases in Greek, two in English, one in French [See _Moore_,
_Murray_, _Buffier_, &c.] because the variations in the form of the Noun
extend no further. Surely nothing but an early and inveterate prepossession
in favour of the arrangements of Latin Grammar could ever have suggested
the idea of Six Cases in Gaelic or in English.
[34] It is not improbable that anciently all feminine nouns, except a few
irregular ones, added a syllable to the nominative, as _e_ or _a_, in
forming the genitive. The translators of the S. S. have sometimes formed
the genitive of feminine polysyllables in this manner, as sionagoige from
sionagog, Mark v. 36, 38. But it appears more agreeable to the analogy of
inflection that such polysyllables should now be written without an _e_ in
the genitive.
[35] It is probable that this noun should rather be written [`a]dh. See
McFarlane's Paraphrases, III. 3. also Lhuyd and O'Brien, _in loco_.
[36] Derivatives in _an_, and _ag_ should form their genitive according to
the general Rule, _ain_, _aig_; and in pronunciation they do so. When the
syllable preceding the termination ends in a small vowel, the Rule of 'Caol
re caol' has introduced an _e_ into the final syllable, which is then
written _ean_, _eag_. In this case writers have been puzzled how to form
the genitive. The terminations _eain_, _eaig_, would evidently contain too
many vowels for a short syllable. To reduce this awkward number of vowels
they have commonly thrown out the _a_, the only letter which properly
expressed the vocal sound of the syllable. Thus from caimean m. a _mote_,
they formed the gen. sing. caimein; from cuilean m. a _whelp_, g. s.
cuilein; from duileag f. a _leaf_, g. s. duileig; from caileag f. a _girl_,
g. s. caileig. Had they not yielded too far to the encroachments of the
Rule of 'Caol re caol' they would have written both the nom. and the gen.
of these and similar nouns more simply and more justly, thus: caiman, g. s.
caimain; cuilan, g. s. cuilain; duilag, g. s. duilaig; cailag, g. s.
cailaig.
[37] In many instances, the Plural termination _a_ is oftener written with
this final _n_ than without it. When the vowel preceding the termination is
small, the termination _a_ or _an_ is very needlessly written _e_ or _ean_,
to preserve the correspondence of vowels.
[38] We are informed by E. O'C. that this is the usual construction in the
Irish Dialect, and it appears to be the same in the Scottish. Thus, air son
mo dh[`a] sh[`u]l, _for my two eyes_.--Judg. xvi. 28. Ir. & Scott.
versions.
[39] So in Hebrew, we find a noun in the singular number joined with
_twenty_, _thirty_, _a hundred_, _a thousand_, &c.
[40] The Pronouns tu _thou_, se _he_, si _she_, siad _they_, are not
employed, like other nominatives, to denote the object after a transitive
verb. Hence the incorrectness of the following expression in most editions
of the Gaelic Psalms: Se chr[`u]nas _tu_ le coron graidh, Psal. ciii. 4.,
which translated literally signifies, _it is he whom thou wilt crown_, &c.
To express the true sense, viz., _it is he who will crown thee_, it ought
to have been, se chr[`u]nas _thu_ le coron graidh. So is mise an Tighearn a
slanuicheas _thu_, _I am the Lord that healeth thee_, Exod. xv. 26; Ma ta e
ann a fhreagaireas _thu_, _If there be any that will answer thee_, Job v.
1; Co e a bhrathas thu? _Who is he that will betray thee?_ John xxi. 20.,
Comp. Gen. xii. 3. and xxvii. 29.
[41] This use of the Pronoun of the 2d person plural is probably a modern
innovation, for there is nothing like it found in the more ancient Gaelic
compositions, nor in the graver poetry even of the present age. As this
idiom seems, however, to be employed in conversation with increasing
frequency, it will probably lose by degrees its present import, and will
come to be used as the common mode of addressing any individual; in the
same manner as the corresponding Pronouns are used in English, and other
European languages.
[42] There seems hardly a sufficient reason for changing the _d_ in this
situation into _t_, as has been often done, as t'oglach for d'oglach _thy
servant_, &c. The _d_ corresponds sufficiently to the pronunciation, and
being the constituent consonant of the pronoun, it ought not to be changed
for another.
[43] The Irish are not so much at a loss to avoid a _hiatus_, as they often
use na for a _his_; which the translators of the Psalms have sometimes
judiciously adopted; as,
An talamh tioram le na laimh
Do chruthaich e 's do dhealbh. Psal. xcv. 5.
[44] In the North Highlands this Pronoun is pronounced sid.
[45] This Pronoun occurs in such expressions as an deigh na chuala tu
_after what you have heard_; their leat na th' agad, or na bheil agad,
_bring what you have_. It seems to be contracted for an ni a _the thing
which_.
[46] There is reason to think that ge b'e is corruptly used for cia b' e.
Of the former I find no satisfactory analysis. The latter cia b' e is
literally _which it be_, or _which it were_; which is just the French _qui
que ce soit_, _qui que ce f[^u]t_ expressed in English by one word
_whosoever_, _whichsoever_. We find cia used in this sense and connection,
Psal. cxxxv. 11. Glasg. 1753. Gach uile rioghachd mar an ceadn' _cia_
h-iomdha bhi siad ann, _All_ _kingdoms likewise, however numerous they be_.
See also Gen. xliv. 9, Rom. ii. 1.
[47] This pronoun is found written with an initial c in Lhuyd's "Archaeol.
Brit." Tit. I. page 20. col. 2. ceach; again Tit. X. voc. Bealtine, cecha
bliadna _each year_. So also O'Brien, cach _all_, _every_, like the French
_chaque_. "Irish Dict." voc. cach.
[48] The pronouns _cach eile_ and _cach a ch['e]ile_ are hardly known in
Perthshire. Instead of the former, they use the single word c[`a]ch
pronounced long, and declined like a noun of the singular number; and
instead of the latter, a ch['e]ile, as in this example, choinnich iad a
ch['e]ile; thuit cuid, agus theich c[`a]ch, _they met each other; some
fell, and the rest fled_. Here c[`a]ch may be considered as a simple
pronoun; but the first clause, choinnich iad a cheile, _they met his
fellow_, hardly admits of any satisfactory analysis. The phrases, in fact,
seem to be elliptical, and to be expressed more fully, according to the
practice of other districts, thus: choinnich iad cach a chi['e]le; thuit,
cuid, agus theich cach eile. Now, if cach be nothing else than gach
_every_, (a conjecture supported by the short pronunciation of the _a_, as
well as by the authorities adduced in the preceding note,) the expressions
may be easily analysed: choinnich iad gach [aon] a cheile; thuit cuid, agus
theich gach [aon] eile; _they met every [one] his fellow; some fell, and
every other [one] fled_, See 1 Thess. v. 11.
[49] In the older Irish MSS. the Particle _do_ appears under a variety of
forms. In one MS. of high antiquity it is often written _dno_. This seems
to be its oldest form. The two consonants were sometimes separated by a
vowel, and the _n_ being pronounced and then written _r_, (See Part I. p.
19.) the word was written doro. (See _Astle's Hist. of the Orig. and Progr.
of Writing, page 126, Irish Specimen, No. 6._) The Consonants were
sometimes transposed, suppressing the latter Vowel, and the Particle became
nod (_O Brien's Ir. Dict. voc._ Sasat, Treas,) and rod (_id. voc._ Ascaim,
Fial.) Sometimes one of the syllables only was retained; hence no (_O'Br.
voc._ No,) ro (_id. voc._ Ro,) and do in common use. Do likewise suffered a
transposition of letters, and was written sometimes ad. (O'Br. _voc._ Do.)
[50] This correspondence of the Termination with the Root was overlooked in
the older editions of the Gaelic Psalms; as pronnfidh, cuirfar, molfidh,
innsam, guidham, coimhdar, sinnam, gluaisfar, &c.
[51] The disposition in the Gaelic to drop articulations has, in this
instance, been rather unfortunate; as the want of the _f_ weakens the sound
of the word, and often occasions a _hiatus_. There seems a propriety in
retaining the _f_ of the Future, after a Liquid, or an aspirated Mute; as,
cuirfidh, mairfidh, molfidh, geillfidh, pronnfidh, brisfidh, &c., for these
words lose much in sound and emphasis by being changed into caithidh,
mairidh, &c.
[52] The incorporation of the Verb with a Personal Pronoun is a manifest
improvement, and has gradually taken place in almost all the polished
languages. There is incomparably more beauty and force in expressing the
energy of the Verb, with its _personal_ relation and concomitant
circumstances, in one word, than by a periphrasis of pronouns and
auxiliaries. The latter mode may have a slight advantage in point of
precision, but the former is greatly superior in elegance and strength. The
structure of the Latin and Greek, compared with that of the English Verb,
affords a striking illustration of this common and obvious remark. Nothing
can be worse managed than the French Verb; which, though it possesses a
competent variety of _personal_ inflections, yet loses all the benefit of
them by the perpetual enfeebling recurrence of the personal Pronouns.
In comparing the Scottish and Irish dialects of the Gaelic, it may be
inferred that the former, having less of inflection or _incorporation_,
than the latter, differs less from the parent tongue, and is an older
branch of the Celtic, than its sister dialect. It were unfair, however, to
deny that the Irish have improved the Verb, by giving a greater variety of
inflection to its _Numbers_ and _Persons_, as well as by introducing a
simple Present Tense. The authors of our metrical version of the Gaelic
Psalms were sensible of the advantage possessed by the Irish dialect in
these respects, and did not scruple to borrow an idiom which has given
grace and dignity to many of their verses.
[53] Such at least is the common practice in writing, in compliance with
the common mode of colloquial pronunciation. It might perhaps be better to
retain the full form of the Preposition, in grave pronunciation, and always
in writing. It is an object worthy of attention to preserve radical
articulations, especially in writing; and particularly to avoid every
unnecessary use of the monosyllable _a_, which, it must be confessed,
recurs in too many senses.
[54] The Preposition iar has here been improperly confounded with air _on_.
I have ventured to restore it, from the Irish Grammarians. Iar is in common
use in the Irish dialect, signifying _after_. Thus, iar sin _after that_,
iar leaghadh an tshoisgeil _after reading the Gospel_, iar sleachdadh do
niomlan _after all have kneeled down_, iar seasamh suas _after standing
up_, &c. See "Irish Book of Common Prayer." Air, when applied to time,
signifies not _after_, but _at_ or _on_, air an am so, air an uair so _at
this time_, air an la sin _on that day_. There is therefore sufficient
reason to believe that, in the case in question, iar is the proper word;
and that it has been corruptly supplanted by air.
[55] The Imperative seems to have been anciently formed by adding _tar_ to
the Root. This form is still retained in Ireland, and in some parts of
Scotland, chiefly in verbs ending in a Lingual; as, buailtear, deantar.
(See the Lord's Prayer in the older editions of the Gaelic Version of the
Assembly's Catechism; also, the "Irish N. Test." Matt. vi. 10. Luke xi. 2.)
In other verbs, the _t_ seems to have been dropped in pronunciation. It
was, however, retained by the Irish in writing, but with an aspiration to
indicate its being quiescent; thus, togthar, teilgthear, "Ir. N. T." Matt.
xxi. 21, Mark xi. 23, crochthar, Matt. xxvii. 22. So also the "Gaelic N.
T." 1767, deanthar. Matt. vi. 10, Luke xi. 2. In the later publications the
_t_ has been omitted altogether, with what propriety may be well doubted.
[56] To preserve a due correspondence with the pronunciation, the Pass.
Part. should always terminate in _te_, for in this part of the verb, the
_t_ has always its _small_ sound. Yet in verbs whereof the characteristic
vowel is broad, it is usual to write the termination of the Pass. Part.
_ta_; as, togta _raised_, crochta _suspended_. This is done in direct
opposition to the pronunciation, merely out of regard to the Irish Rule of
_Leathan ri leathan_, which in this case, as in many others, has been
permitted to mar the genuine orthography.
When a verb, whose characteristic vowel is broad, terminates in a Liquid,
the final consonant coalesces so closely with the _t_ of the Pass. Part.
that the _small_ sound of the latter necessarily occasions the like sound
in pronouncing the former. Accordingly the small sound of the Liquid is
properly represented in writing, by an _i_ inserted before it. Thus, [`o]l
_drink_, Pass. Part. [`o]ilte; pronn _pound_, proinnte; crann _bar_,
crainnte; sparr _ram_, spairrte; trus _pack_, truiste. But when the verb
ends in a mute, whether plain or aspirated, there is no such coalescence
between its final consonant and the adjected _t_ of the Participle. The
final consonant if it be pronounced retains its broad sound. There is no
good reason for maintaining a correspondence of vowels in the Participle,
which ought therefore to be written, as it is pronounced, without regard to
_Leathan ri leathan_; as, tog _raise_, Pass. Part. togte; croch _hang_,
crochte; s[`a]th _thrust_, s[`a]thte; cnamh _chew_, cnamhte.
The same observations apply, with equal force, to the Pret. Subj. in which
the _t_ of the termination is always pronounced with its _small_ sound, and
should therefore be followed by a small vowel in writing; as, thogteadh,
chrochteadh, not thogtadh, chrochtadh.
[57] In all _regular_ verbs, the difference between the Affirmative and the
Negative Moods, though marked but slightly and partially in the Preterite
Tense, (only in the initial form of the 2d Conjugation,) yet is strongly
marked in the Future Tense. The Fut. Aff. terminates in a feeble vocal
sound. In the Fut. Neg. the voice rests on an articulation, or is cut short
by a forcible aspiration. Supposing these Tenses to be used by a speaker in
reply to a command or a request; by their very structure, the former
expresses the softness of compliance; and the latter, the abruptness of a
refusal. If a command or a request be expressed by such verbs as these, tog
sin, gabh sin, ith sin, the compliant answer is expressed by togaidh,
gabhaidh, ithidh; the refusal, by the cha tog, cha ghabh, cha n-ith. May
not this peculiar variety of form in the same Tense, when denoting
affirmation, and when denoting negation, be reckoned among the
characteristic marks of an original language?
[58] This part of the verb, being declined and governed like a noun, bears
a closer resemblance to the Latin Gerund than to the Infinitive; and might
have been properly named the Gerund. But as Lhuyd and all the later Irish
Grammarians have already given it the name of Infinitive, I choose to
continue the same appellation rather than change it.
[59] The Editor of the Gaelic Psalms printed at Glasgow, 1753, judging, as
it would seem, that cuidich was too bold a licence for cuideachaidh,
restored the gen. of the full form of the Infinitive; but in order to
reduce it to two syllables, so as to suit the verse, he threw out the
middle syllable, and wrote cuid'idh.
[60] I have met with persons of superior knowledge of the Gaelic who
contended that such expressions as--ta mi deanamh _I am doing_, ta e
bualadh _he is striking_ (see page 83), are complete without any
Preposition understood; and that in such situations deanamh, bualadh, are
not infinitives or nouns, but real participles of the Present Tense. With
much deference to such authorities, I shall here give the reasons which
appear to me to support the contrary opinion.
1. The form of the supposed Participle is invariably the same with that of
the Infinitive.
2. If the words deanamh, bualadh, in the phrases adduced, were real
Participles, then in all similar instances, it would be not only
unnecessary, but ungrammatical, to introduce the preposition ag at all. But
this is far from being the case. In all verbs beginning with a vowel, the
preposition ag or its unequivocal representative _g_ is indispensable; as,
ta iad ag iarruidh, ta mi 'g iarruidh. Shall we say, then, that verbs
beginning with a consonant have a present participle, while those that
begin with a vowel have none? But even this distinction falls to the
ground, when it is considered that in many phrases which involve a verb
beginning with a consonant, the preposition ag stands forth to view, and
can on no account be suppressed; as, ta iad 'g a bhualadh _they are
striking him_, ta e 'g ar bualadh _he is striking us_. From these
particulars it may be inferred that the preposition ag must always precede
the infinitive, in order to complete the phrase which corresponds to the
English or Latin pres. participle; and that in those cases where the
preposition has been dropped, the omission has been owing to the rapidity
or carelessness of colloquial pronunciation.
3. A still stronger argument, in support of the same conclusion, may be
derived from the regimen of the phrase in question. The infinitive of a
transitive verb, preceded by any preposition, always governs the noun,
which is the object of the verbal action, in the genitive. This is an
invariable rule of Gaelic Syntax; thus, ta sinn a' dol a dh' iarruidh na
spr['e]idhe, _we are going to seek the cattle_; ta iad ag iomain na
spr['e]idhe, _they are driving the cattle_; ta iad iar cuairteachadh na
spr['e]idhe, _they have gathered the cattle_. This regimen can be accounted
for on no other principle, in Gaelic, than that the governing word is a
noun, as the infinitive is confessed to be. Now, it happens that the
supposed participle has the very same regimen, and governs the genitive as
uniformly as the same word would have done, when the presence of a
preposition demonstrated it to be a noun; so, ta mi bualadh an doruis, _I
am knocking the door_; ta thu deanamh an uilc, _you are doing mischief_.
The inference is, that even in these situations, the words--bualadh,
deanamh, though accompanied with no preposition, are still genuine nouns,
and are nothing else than the infinitives of their respective verbs, with
the preposition ag understood before each of them.
4. The practice in other dialects of the Celtic, and the authority of
respectable grammarians, affords collateral support to the opinion here
defended. Gen. Vallancey, the most copious writer on Irish grammar, though
he gives the name of participle to a certain part of the Gaelic verb,
because it corresponds, in signification, to a part of the Latin verb which
has obtained that name, yet constantly exhibits this participle, not as a
single word, but a composite expression; made up of a preposition and that
part of the verb which is here called the infinitive. The phrase is fully
and justly exhibited, but it is wrong named; unless it be allowed to extend
the name of Participle to such phrases as _inter ambulandum_, [Greek: en
toi peripatein].--Lhuyd, in his Cornish Grammar, informs us, with his usual
accuracy, that the Infinitive Mood, as in the other dialects of the
British, sometimes serves as a Substantive, as in the Latin; and by the
help of the participle _a_ [the Gaelic ag] before it, it supplies the room
of the participle of the present tense, &c. "Archaeol. Brit." page 245,
col. 3. This observation is strictly applicable to the Gaelic verb. The
infinitive, with the particle _ag_ before it, _supplies the room of the
present Participle_. The same judicious writer repeats this observation in
his "Introduction to the Irish or Ancient Scottish Language": The
Participle of the Present Tense is _supplied_ by the Participle _ag_ before
the Infinitive Mood; as, _ag radh_ saying, _ag cainnt_ talking, _ag
teagasg_ teaching, _ag dul_ going, &c. "Arch. Brit." page 303, col. 2.
[61] It may appear a strange defect in the Gaelic, that its Verbs,
excepting the substantive verbs Bi, Is, have no _simple_ Present Tense. Yet
this is manifestly the case in the Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish dialects
(see "Arch. Brit." page 246, col. 1, and page 247, col. 1.); to which may
be added the Manks. Creidim _I believe_, guidheam _I pray_, with perhaps
one or two more Present Tenses, now used in Scotland, seem to have been
imported from Ireland, for their paucity evinces that they belong not to
our dialect. The want of the simple Present Tense is a striking point of
resemblance between the Gaelic and the Hebrew verb.
I am indebted to a learned and ingenious correspondent for the following
important remark; that the want of the simple Present Tense in all the
British dialects of the Celtic, in common with the Hebrew, while the Irish
has assumed that Tense, furnishes a strong presumption that the Irish is a
dialect of later growth; that the British Gaelic is its parent tongue; and
consequently that Britain is the mother country of Ireland.
[62] From observing the same thing happen repeatedly or habitually it is
naturally inferred that it will happen again. When an event is predicted it
is supposed that the speaker, if no other cause of his foreknowledge
appears, infers the future happening of the event from its having already
happened in many instances. Thus the Future Tense, which simply foretells,
conveys to the hearer an intimation that the thing foretold has already
taken place frequently and habitually. In Hebrew, the Future Tense is used
with precisely the same effect. In the law of Jehovah he _will_ meditate;
_i.e._, he _does_ meditate habitually. Psal. i, 2. See also Psal. xlii. 1,
Job ix. 11, xxiii. 8, 9, &c., _passim_.
[63] Though this be the precise import of the Compound Tenses of the second
order, yet they are not strictly confined to the point of time stated
above; but are often used to denote past time indefinitely. In this way,
they supply the place of the Compound Tenses of the first order in those
verbs which have no passive participle.
[64] See Moor. So tha 'n tigh 'g a thogail, _the house is in building_.
[65] T['e]id the Fut. Negat. of Rach to _go_, has been generally written
d'th['e]id; from an opinion, it would seem, that the full form of that
Tense is do th['e]id. Yet as the participle _do_ is never found prefixed to
the Future Negative of any regular verb, it appears more agreeable to the
analogy of conjugation to write this tense in its simplest form t['e]id.
See "Gael. New Test." 1767, and 1796, Mat. xiii. 28. xiv. 15. A different
mode of writing this tense has been adopted in the edition of the "Gael.
Bible," Edin. 1807, where we uniformly find dth['e]id, dthoir, dthig.
[66] Throughout the verb tabhair, the syllables _abhair_ are often
contracted into _oir_; as, toir, torinnn, &c. Acts xviii. 10. Sometimes
written d'thoir, d'thoirinn; rather improperly. See note 65.
[67] Tig rather than d'thig. See note 65.
[68] A Pres. Aff. of this Verb, borrowed from the Irish, is often used in
the G. SS. Deiream _I say_, deir e _he saith_, deir iad _they say_.
[69] Dubhairt, dubhradh, are contracted for do thubhairt, &c. Abairinn,
abaiream, abairear, are often contracted into abrainn, abram, abrar.
[70] It may appear an odd peculiarity in the Gaelic, that in many of the
most common phrases, a proposition or question should thus be expressed
without the least trace of a Verb. It can hardly be said that the
Substantive Verb is _understood_, for then there would be no impropriety in
expressing it. But the fact is, that it would be completely contrary to the
idiom and usage of the language, to introduce a Substantive Verb in these
phrases. It will diminish our surprise at this peculiarity to observe that
in the ancient languages numerous examples occur of sentences, or clauses
of sentences, in which the Substantive Verb is omitted, without occasioning
any obscurity or ambiguity; and this in Prose as well as in Verse. Thus in
Hebrew; Gen. xlii. 11, 13, 14. We [are] all one man's sons--we [are] true
men--thy servants [are] twelve brethren--the youngest [is] with his
father--ye [are] spies--&c.
[Greek: Ouk agathon polukoiranie.]--_Iliad_, B. 204.
[Greek: kaka kerdea is' atesi.]--_Hes._ [Greek: E. kai E. a].
[Greek: ego de tisou tachupeithes.]--_Theoc. Idyl._ 7.
Et m[^i] genus ab Jove summo.--_Virg. Aen._ VI. 123.
Varium et mutabile semper Femina.--_Aen._ IV. 569.
Omnia semper suspecta atque sollicita; nullus locus amicitiae. _Cic. de
Amic._ 15.
mira feritas, foeda paupertas; non arma, non equi, non penates;
victui herba, vestitui pelles, cubile humus; sola in sagittis spes,
&c.--_Tacit. de. mor. Germ. Cap. ult._ In these and the like examples, the
Substantive Verb might have been expressed, if with less elegance, yet
without grammatical impropriety. What has been frequently done in other
languages, seems, in Gaelic, to have been adopted, in certain phrases, as
an invariable mode of speech.
The omission of the Substantive Verb is not unknown in English; as,
"In winter awful thou."--_Thomson._
"A ministering angel thou."--_Scott._
"A cruel sister she."--_Mallet._
[71] The effect of this Tense in narration seems to be very nearly, if not
precisely, the same with that of the Present of the Infinitive in Latin; as
in these passages:
"----misere discedere quaerens,
_Ire_ modo ocius; interdum _consistere_; in aurem
_Dicere_ nescio quid puero."--_Hor. Sat. 1. 8. v. 9._
"At Danaum proceres, Agamemnoniaeque phalanges
Ingenti _trepidare_ metu; pars _vertere_ terga,
Ceu quondam peti[^e]re rates; pars _tollere_ vocem."--_Aeneid. VI. 492._
"----nihil illi _tendere_ contra;
Sed _celerare_ fugam in sylvas, et _fidere_ nocti.'--_Aeneid. IX. 378._
"Tarquinius _fateri_ amorem, _orare_, _miscere_ precibus minas, _versare_
in omnes partes muliebrem animum."--_Liv. I. 58._
"Neque post id locorum Jugurthae dies aut nox ulla quieta fuere: neque
loco, neque mortali cuiquam, aut tempori satis _credere_; cives, hostes,
juxta _metuere_; _circumspectare_ omnia, et omni strepitu _pavescere_; alio
atque alio loco, saepe contra decus regium, noctu _requiescere_; interdum
somno excitus, arreptis armis, tumultum _facere_; ita formidine quasi
vecordia _exagitari_."--_Sall. Bell. Jugur. 72._
[72] "An ceannard a mharbhadh" may be considered as the nominative to the
verb chaidh; and so in similar phrases; much in the same way as we find in
Latin, an Infinitive with an accusative before it, become the nominative to
a verb; as "_hominem_ hominis incommodo suum _augere_ commodum _est_ contra
naturam." _Cic. de. Offic._ III. 5. "Turpe _est eos_ qui bene nati sunt
turpiter _vivere_."
[73] So in Hebrew, the article prefixed to the nouns _day_, _night_,
imports the present day or night. See Exod. xiv. 13.
[74] Perhaps the proper Prep. in these phrases is _de_, not _do_--see the
Prepositions in the next Chap.--as we find the same Prep. similarly applied
in other languages; de nuit _by night_, John iii. 2; de nocte, Hor. Epis.
1. 2, 32; de tertia vigilia, Caes. B. G.
[75] These expressions are affirmed, not without reason, to refer to the
supposed destruction of the world by fire, or by water; events which were
considered as immeasurably remote. (See Smith's "Gal. Antiq." pp. 59. 60).
Another explanation has been given of dilinn, as being compounded of dith,
_want, failure_, and linn _an age_; qu. _absumptio saeculi_.
[76] Perhaps am f[`a]n, from f[`a]n or f[`a]nadh _a descent_. (See Lhuyd's
"Arch. Brit." tit. x. _in loco_.)
[77] _i.e._ anns an teach, anns an tigh, _in the house_. So in Hebrew,
[Hebrew: MBYT] _within_, Gen. vi. 14.
[78] Deas, applied to the hand, signifies the _right hand_. So in Hebrew,
[Hebrew: YMYN] signifies the _right hand_ and the _South_.
[79] Iar, as a Preposition, signifies _after_ or _behind_. In like manner
in Hebrew, [Hebrew: ATR] signifies _after_, or the _West_.
[80] Probably co luath _equally quick, with equal pace_.
[81] The probable analysis of seadh is, is ['e], _it is_, pronounced in one
syllable, 's e. When this syllable was used as a responsive, and not
followed by any other word; the voice, resting on the final sound, formed a
faint articulation. This was represented in writing by the gentle aspirate
_dh_; and so the word came to be written as we find it. In like manner ni
h-eadh is probably nothing else than a substitute for ni he, _it is not_.
[82] This mode of incorporating the Prepositions with the personal pronouns
will remind the Orientalist of the Pronominal Affixes, common in Hebrew and
other Eastern languages. The close resemblance between the Gaelic and many
of the Asiatic tongues, in this particular, is of itself an almost
conclusive proof that the Gaelic bears a much closer affinity to the parent
stock than any other living European language.
[83] "In corroboration of this (Mr. S.'s) hypothesis, I have frequently met
_de_ in old MSS. I have therefore adopted it in its proper place."--E.
O'C.'s "Grammar of the Irish Gaelic." Dublin, 1808.
[84] In many places, this Prep. is pronounced hun.
[85] Tar ['e]is, on the track or footstep. See O'Brien's "Ir. Dict." _voc._
['e]is.
[86] On consulting O'Brien's "Ir. Dict." we find son translated _profit,
advantage_, cum _a fight, combat_, r['e]ir _will, desire_. From these
significations the common meaning of air son, do chum, do r['e]ir, may
perhaps be derived without much violence.
[87] See Gaelic Poems published by Doctor Smith, pp. 8, 9, 178, 291.
[88] There is in Gaelic a Noun cion or cionn, signifying _cause_; which
occurs in the expressions a chionn gu _because that_, cion-f[`a]th _a
reason_ or _ground_. But this word is entirely different from ceann _end_
or _top_.
[89] Some confusion has been introduced into the Grammar of the Latin
language, by imposing different grammatical names on words, according to
the connection in which they stood, while they retained their form and
their signification unchanged; as in calling _quod_ at one time a Relative
Pronoun, at another time a Conjunction; _post_ in one situation a
Preposition, in another, an Adverb. An expedient was thought requisite for
distinguishing, in such instances, the one part of speech from the other.
Accordingly an accent, or some such mark, was, in writing or printing,
placed over the last vowel of the word, when employed in what was reckoned
its secondary use; while, in its primary use, it was written without any
distinguishing mark. So the conjunction _qu[`o]d_ was distinguished from
the relative _quod_; and the adverb _post_ from the preposition _p[`o]st_.
The distinction was erroneous; but the expedient employed to mark it was,
at least, harmless. The word was left unaltered and undisguised; and thus
succeeding grammarians had it the more in their power to prove that the
relative _quod_ and the conjunction _qu[`o]d_ are, and have ever been, in
reality, one and the same part of speech. It would have been justly thought
a bold and unwarrantable step, had the older grammarians gone so far as to
alter the letters of the word, in order to mark a distinction of their own
creation.
[90] From this use of the preposition _air_ arises the _equivoque_ so
humorously turned against Mr James Macpherson by Maccodrum the poet, as
related in the Report of the Committee of the Highland Society of Scotland
on the authenticity of Osian's Poems, Append. p. 95. Macpherson asked
Maccodrum, "Am bheil dad agad air an Fh['e]inn?" literally, "Have you
anything on the Fingalians?" intending to inquire whether the latter had
any poems in his possession _on_ the subject of the Fingalian history and
exploits. The expression partakes much more of the English than of the
Gaelic idiom. Indeed, it can hardly be understood in Gaelic, in the sense
that the querist intended. Maccodrum, catching up the expression in its
true Gaelic acceptation, answered, with affected surprise, "Bheil dad agam
air an Fh['e]inn? Ma bha dad riamh agam orra, is fad o chaill mi na
c[`o]irichean." "Have I any claim on the Fingalians? If ever I had, it is
long since I lost my voucher."
[91] This use of the preposition _ann_ in conjunction with a possessive
Pronoun, is nearly akin to that of the Hebrew [Hebrew: l], [for] in such
expressions as these: 'He hath made me [for] a father to Pharaoh, and [for]
lord of all his house;' _rinn e mi 'n am athair do Pharaoh, agus 'n am
thighearn os ceann a thighe uile_, Gen. xlv. 8. 'Thou hast taken the wife
of Uriah to be [for] thy wife;' _ghabh thu bean Uriah gu bi 'n a mnaoi
dhuit fein._ 2 Sam. xii. 10.
[92] This syllable assumes various forms. Before a broad vowel or consonant
_an_, as, anshocair; before a small vowel or consonant _ain_, as, aineolach
_ignorant_, aindeoin _unwillingness_; before a labial _am_ or _aim_, as,
aimbeartach _poor_; sometimes with the _m_ aspirated, as, aimhleas
_detriment_, _ruin_, aimh-leathan _narrow_.
[93] The conjunction ged loses the _d_ when written before an adjective or
a personal pronoun; as, ge binn do ghuth, _though your voice be sweet_; ge
h-[`a]rd Jehovah, Psal. cxxxviii. 6.
The translators of the Scriptures appear to have erred in supposing ge to
be the entire Conjunction, and that _d_ is the verbal particle do. This has
led them to write ge d' or ge do in situations in which do alters the sense
from what was intended, or is totally inadmissible. Ge do ghluais mi, Deut.
xxix. 19, is given as the translation of _though I walk_, i.e. _though I
shall walk_, but in reality it signifies _though I did walk_, for do
ghluais is past tense. It ought to be ged ghluais mi. So also ge do ghleidh
thu mi, Judg. xiii. 16, _though you detain me_, ought rather to be ged
ghleidh thu mi. Ge do ghlaodhas iad rium, Jer. xi. 11, _though they cry to
me_, is not agreeable to the Gaelic idiom. It ought rather to be ged
ghlaodh iad rium, as in Hosea, xi. 7. Ge do dh' fheudainnse muinghin bhi
agam, Phil. iii. 4, _though I might have confidence_. Here the verbal
particle is doubled unnecessarily, and surely not according to classical
precision. Let it be written ged dh' fheudainnse, and the phrase is
correct. Ge do 's eigin domh am bas fhulang, Mark xiv. 31, _though I must
suffer death_: ge do tha aireamh chloinn Israel, &c., Rom. ix. 27, _though
the number of the children of Israel be_, &c. The present tenses is and tha
never take the do before them. Ged is eigin, ged tha, is liable to no
objection. At other times, when the do appeared indisputably out of place,
the _d_ has been dismissed altogether, contrary to usual mode of
pronunciation; as, ge nach eil, Acts xvii. 27, 2 Cor. xii. 11, where the
common pronunciation requires ged nach eil. So, ge d' nach duin' an
t-aodach, &c. ge d' nach biodh ann ach an righ &c. (McIntosh's "Gael Prov."
pp. 35, 36), where the _d_ is retained even before nach, because such is
the constant way of pronouncing the phrase.
These faulty expressions which, without intending to derogate from the high
regard due to such respectable authorities, I have thus freely ventured to
point out, seemed to have proceeded from mistaking the constituent letters
of the conjunction in question. It would appear that _d_ was originally a
radical letter of the word; that through time it came, like many other
consonants, to be aspirated; and by degrees became, in some situations,
quiescent. In Irish it is written giodh. This manner of writing the word is
adopted by the translator of Baxter's "Call." One of its compounds is
always written gidheadh. In these, the _d_ is preserved, though in its
aspirated state. In Scotland it is still pronounced, in most situations,
ged, without aspirating the _d_ at all. These circumstances put together
seem to prove the final _d_ is a radical constituent letter of this
Conjunction.
I have the satisfaction to say that the very accurate Author of the Gaelic
Translation of the Scriptures has, with great candour, acknowledged the
justice of the criticism contained in the foregoing note. It is judged
expedient to retain it in this edition of the Grammar, lest the authority
of that excellent Translation might perpetuate a form of speech which is
confessed to be faulty.
[94] To avoid, as far as may be, the too frequent use of _a_ by itself,
perhaps it would be better always to write the article full, an or am; and
to apply the above rules, about the elision of its letters, only to
regulate the pronunciation. Irish books, and our earlier Scottish
publications, have the article written almost always full, in situations
where, according to the latest mode of Orthography, it is mutilated.
[95] The practice of suppressing the sound of an initial consonant in
certain situations, and supplying its place by another of a softer sound,
is carried to a much greater extent in the Irish dialect. It is termed
_eclipsis_ by the Irish grammarians, and is an evidence of a nice attention
to _euphonia_.
[96] The Dat. case is always preceded by a Preposition, ris a' bhard, do 'n
bhard, aig na bardaibh; in declining a Noun with the article, any _Proper
Preposition_ may be supplied before the Dative case.
[97] So in English, _Grandfather_, _Highlands_, _sometimes_; in Latin,
_Respublica_, _Decemviri_; in Italian, _Primavera_; in French, _Bonheur_,
_Malheur_, &c. from being an adjective and a noun, came to be considered as
a single complex term, or a compound word, and to be written accordingly.
A close analogy may be traced between the Gaelic and the French in the
collocation of the Adjective. In both languages, the Adjective is
ordinarily placed after its Noun. If it be placed before its Noun, it is by
a kind of poetical inversion; dorchadas tiugh, _des tenebres epaisses_; by
inversion, tiugh dhorchadas, _d' epaisses tenebres_; fear m[`o]r, _un homme
grand_; by inversion, in a metaphorical sense, m[`o]r fhear, _un grand
homme_. A Numeral Adjective, in both languages, is placed before its Noun;
as also iomadh, _plusieurs_; except when joined to a proper name, where the
Cardinal is used for the Ordinal; Seumas a Ceithir, _Jaques Quatre_.
[98] The same seems to be the case in the Cornish Language. See Lhuyd's
"Arch. Brit." p. 243, col. 3.
When an Adjective precedes its Noun, it undergoes no change of termination;
as, thig an Tighearn a nuas le ard iolaich, _the Lord will descend with a
great shout_, 1 Thes. iv. 16; mar ghuth mor shluaigh, _as the voice of a
great multitude_, Rev. xix. 6.
[99] Thus, bhur inntinn _your mind_, Acts xv. 24.
[100] This, however, does not happen invariably. Where the _Sex_, though
specified, is overlooked as of small importance, the Personal or Possessive
Pronouns follow the _Gender_ of the Antecedent. See 2 Sam. xii. 3.
[101] I am aware of the singularity of asserting the grammatical propriety
of such expressions as ciod e Uchdmhacachd? ciod e Urnuigh? as, the nouns
uchdmhacachd, urnuigh are known to be of the feminine Gender; and as this
assertion stands opposed to the respectable authority of the Editor of the
Assembly's Catechism in Gaelic, Edin. 1792, where we read, Ciod i urnuigh?
&c. The following defence of it is offered to the attentive reader.
In every question the words which convey the interrogation must refer to
some higher genus or species than the words which express the subject of
the query. It is in the choice of the speaker to make that reference to any
genus or species he pleases. If I ask 'Who was Alexander?' the
Interrogative _who_ refers to the species _man_, of which _Alexander_, the
subject of the query, is understood to have been an individual. The
question is equivalent to 'What man was Alexander?' If I ask 'What is Man?'
the Interrogative _what_ refers to the genus of Existence or Being, of
which Man is considered as a subordinate genus or species. The question is
the same with 'What Being is Man?' I may also ask 'What was Alexander?'
Here the Interrogative _what_ refers to some genus or species of which
Alexander is conceived to have been an individual, though the particular
genus intended by the querist is left to be gathered from the tenor of the
preceding discourse. It would be improper, however, to say 'Who is man?' as
the Interrogative refers to no higher genus than that expressed by the word
_Man_. It is the same as if one should ask 'What man is Man?'
In the question 'What is Prayer?' the object of the querist is to learn the
meaning of the term _Prayer_. The Interrogative _what_ refers to the genus
of Existence, as in the question 'What is Man?' not to the word _Prayer_,
which is the subject of the query. It is equivalent to 'What is [that thing
which is named] Prayer?' In those languages where a variety of gender is
prevalent, this reference of the Interrogative is more conspicuously
marked. A Latin writer would say '_Quid_ est Oratio*?' A Frenchman, 'Qu'
est-ce que la Pri[`e]re?' These questions, in a complete form, would run
thus; 'Quid est [id quod dicitur] Oratio?' 'Qu' est-ce que [l'on appelle]
la Pri[`e]re?' On the same principle, and in the same sense, a Gaelic
writer must say, 'Ciod e urnuigh?' the Interrogative Ciod e referring not
to urnuigh but to some higher genus. The expression, when completed, is
'Ciod e [sin de 'n goirear] urnuigh?'
Is there then no case in which the Interrogative may follow the gender of
the subject? If the subject of the query be expressed, as it often is, by
_a general term, limited in its signification_ by a noun, adjective,
relative clause, &c; the reference of the Interrogative is often, though
not always not necessarily, made to _that term_ in its general acceptation,
and consequently be 'What is the Lord's Prayer?' Here the subject of the
query is not _Prayer_, but an individual of that species, denoted by the
term _prayer_ limited in its signification by another noun. The
Interrogative _what_ may refer, as in the former examples, to the genus of
Existence; or it may refer to the species _Prayer_, of which the subject of
the query is an individual. That is, I may be understood to ask either
'What is that _thing_ which is called the Lord's Prayer?' or 'What is that
_prayer_ which is called the Lord's Prayer?' A Latin writer would say, in
the former sense, 'Quid est Oratio Dominica+?' in the latter sense,
'Quaenam est Oratio Dominica?' The former of these expressions is
resolvable into 'Quid est [id quod dicitur] Oratio Dominica?' the latter
into 'Quaenam [oratio] est Oratio Dominica?' The same diversity of
expression would be used in French: 'Qu' est-ce que l'Oraison Dominicale?'
and 'Quelle est l'Oraison Dominicale?' The former resolvable into 'Qu'
est-ce que [l'on appelle] l'Oraison Dominicale? the latter into 'Quelle
[oraison] est l'Oraison Dominicale? So also in Gaelic, 'Ciod e Urnuigh an
Tighearna?' equivalent to 'Ciod e [sin de'n goirear] Urnuigh an Tighearna?'
or, which will occur oftener, 'Ciod i Urnuigh an Tighearna?' equivalent to
'Ciod i [an urnuigh sin de 'n goirear] Urnuigh an Tighearna?'
* See a short Latin Catechism at the end of Mr Ruddiman's Latin Rudiments,
where many similar expressions occur; as 'Quid est fides? 'Quid est Lex?
Quid est Baptismus? Quid Sacramenta?' &c.
+ So Ruddiman, 'Quid est Sacra Coena?'
[102] The same arrangement obtains pretty uniformly in Hebrew, and seems
the natural and ordinary collocation of the Verb and its Noun in that
language. When the Noun in Hebrew is placed before the Verb, it will
generally be found that the Noun does not immediately connect with the Verb
as the Nominative to it, but rather stands in an absolute state; and that
it is brought forward in that state by itself to excite attention, and
denotes some kind of emphasis, or opposition to another Noun. Take the
following examples for illustration: Gen. i. 1, 2. 'In the beginning God
created [[Hebrew: BR' 'LHYM] in the natural order] the Heaven and the
Earth.' [Hebrew: WH'RTS HYTH]; not and the Earth was, &c., but 'and with
respect to the Earth, it was without form,' &c. Thus expressed in Gaelic:
'agus an talamh bha e gun dealbh,' &c. Gen. xviii. 33. 'And the Lord went
his way [[Hebrew: WYLK YHWH] in the natural order] as soon as he had left
communing with Abraham;' [Hebrew: W'BRHM SHB], not simply 'and Abraham
returned,' &c., but 'and Abraham--he too returned to his place.' In Gaelic,
'agus Abraham, phill esan g' aite fein.' See also Num. xxiv. 25.--Gen. iii.
12. 'And the man said, the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, [Hebrew:
HW' NTNH LY] _she_ it was that gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' Gen.
iii. 13. 'And the woman said, [Hebrew: HNCHSH HSHY'NY], not merely 'the
Serpent beguiled me,' but '_the Serpent_ was the cause; it beguiled me, and
I did eat.' Exod. xiv. 14. '_Jehovah_--he will fight for you; but as for
_you_, ye shall hold your peace.' This kind of emphasis is correctly
expressed in the Eng. translation of Psal. lx. 12, 'for he _it is that_
shall tread down our enemies.' Without multiplying examples, I shall only
observe that it must be difficult for the English reader to conceive that
the Noun denoting the subject of a proposition, when placed after its Verb,
should be in the natural order; and when placed before its Verb, should be
in an inverted order of the words. To a person well aquainted with the
Gaelic, this idiom is familiar; and therefore it is the easier for him to
apprehend the effect of such an arrangement in any other language. For want
of attending to this peculiarity in the structure of the Hebrew, much of
that force and emphasis, which in other languages would be expressed by
various particles, but in Hebrew depend on the collocation alone, must pass
unobserved and unfelt.
[103] I am happy to be put right, in my stricture on the above passage, by
E. O'C., author of a Gaelic Grammar, Dublin, 1808, who informs us that
_truaighe_ is here the Nominative, and _Iosa_ the Accusative case; and that
the meaning is not _Jesus took pity on them_, but _pity seized Jesus for
them_.
[104] This construction resembles that of the Latin Infinitive preceded by
the Accusative of the Agent.
----Mene desistere victam,
Nec posse Italia Teucrorum avertere regem?--I. Aenid 28.
[105] So in English, the Infinitive of a Transitive Verb is sometimes used
instead of the Present Participle, and followed by the Preposition _of_;
as, 'the woman was there gathering of sticks.' 1 Kings xvii. 10.
-------- some sad drops
Wept at completing of the mortal sin.--"Parad. Lost."
See more examples, Num. xiii, 25, 2 Sam. ii. 21, 2 Chron. xx. 25, xxxv. 14,
Ezek. xxxix. 12.
[106] On the same principle it is that in some compound words, composed of
two Nouns whereof the former governs the latter in the Genitive, the former
Noun is seldom itself put in the Genitive case. Thus, ainm bean-na-bainse,
_the bride's name_; it would sound extremely harsh to say ainm
mna-na-bainse; clach ceann-an-teine, not clach cinn-an-teine, the stone
which supports a hearth fire.
[107] These examples suggest, and seem to authorise a special use of this
idiom of Gaelic Syntax, which, if uniformly observed, might contribute much
to the perspicuity and precision of many common expressions. When a
compound term occurs, made up of a Noun and an Infinitive governed by that
Noun, it often happens that this term itself governs another Noun in the
Genitive. Let the two parts of the compound term be viewed separately. If
it appear that the subsequent Noun is governed by the _former_ part of the
compound word, then the latter part should remain regularly in the Genitive
Case. But if the subsequent Noun be governed by the _latter_ part of the
compound word, then, agreeably to the construction exemplified in the above
passages, that latter part, which is here supposed to be an Infinitive,
should fall back into the Nominative Case. Thus tigh-coimh_i_d an Righ,
_the King's store house_, where the Noun Righ is governed by tigh, the
former term of the compound word; but tigh comh_ea_d an ionmhais, John
viii. 20, _the house for keeping the treasure_, where ionmhais is governed
by coimhead, which is therefore put in the Nominative instead of the
Genitive. So luchd-coimh_i_d, Matt. xxviii. 4, when no other Noun is
governed; but fear-coimh_ea_d a' phriosuin, Acts, xvi. 27, 36, where the
last Noun is governed in the Genitive by coimh_ea_d, which is therefore put
in the Nominative. So also fear-coimh_i_d, Psal. cxxi. 3, but
fear-coimh_ea_d Israeil, Psal. cxxi. 4. Edin. 1799. Tigh-bearr_ai_dh nam
buachaillean, _the shearing-house belonging to the shepherds_, 2 King, x.
12, but tigh-bearr_a_dh nan caorach, _the house for shearing the sheep_.
Luchd-brath_ai_dh an Righ _the King's spies_; but luchd-brath_a_dh an Righ,
_the betrayers of the King_. Luchd-mort_ai_dh Heroid, _assassins employed
by Herod_; but luchd-mort_a_dh Eoin, _the murderers of John_.
I am aware that this distinction has been little regarded by the
translators of the Scriptures. It appeared, however, worthy of being
suggested, on account of its evident utility in point of precision, and
because it is supported by the genius and practice of the Gaelic language.
[108] For this reason, there seems to be an impropriety in writing chum a
losgaidh, 1 Cor. xiii. 3, instead of chum a losgadh.
[109] The same peculiarity in the use of the Article takes place in Hebrew,
and constitutes a striking point of analogy in the structure of the two
languages. See _Buxt. Thes. Gram. Heb. Lib. II. Cap. V._
[110] This solecism is found in the Irish as well as in the Scottish Gaelic
translation. The Manks translation has avoided it. In the Irish version and
in the Scottish Gaelic version of 1767, a similar instance occurs in Acts,
ii. 20, _an_ la mor agus oirdheirc sin _an_ Tighearna. In the Scottish
edition of 1796, the requisite correction is made by omitting the first
Article. It is omitted likewise in the Manks N. T. On the other hand, the
Article, which had been rightly left out in the Edition of 1767, is
improperly introduced in the Edition of 1796, in 1 Cor. xi. 27, an cupan so
an Tighearna. It is proper to mention that, in the passage last quoted, the
first article _an_ had crept, by mistake, into a part of the impression
1796, but was corrected in the remaining part.
[111] The inserted _m_ or _n_ is generally written with an apostrophe
before it, thus gu'm, gu'n. This would indicate that some vowel is here
suppressed in writing. But if no vowel ever stood in the place of this
apostrophe, which seems to be the fact, the apostrophe itself has been
needlessly and improperly introduced.
[112] I much doubt the propriety of joining the Conjunction ged to the Fut.
Affirm.; as, ge do gheibh na h-uile dhaoine oilbheum, _though all men shall
be offended_, Matt. xxvi. 33. It should rather have been, ged fhaigh na
h-uile dhaoine, &c. The Fut. Subj. seems to be equally improper; as, ge do
ghlaodhas iad rium, _though they shall cry to me_, Jer. xi. 21, Edit. 1786.
Rather, ged ghlaodh iad rium, as in Hosea, xi. 7. So also, ged eirich
dragh, 's ged bhagair b[`a]s, _though trouble shall arise, and though death
shall threaten_. Gael. Paraph. xlvii. 7. Edin. 1787. See page 134. Note 93.
[113] The terminations _air_, _oir_, seem from their signification as well
as form, to be nothing else than fear _man_, in its aspirated form fhear.
From these terminations are derived the Latin terminations _or_, orator,
doctor, &c., _arius_ sicarius, essedarius, &c.; the French _eur_, vengeur,
createur, &c.; _aire_, commissaire, notaire, &c., _ter_, chevalier,
charretier, &c.; the English _er_, maker, lover, &c., _ary_, prebendary,
antiquary, &c., _eer_, volunteer, &c.
[114] Timcheal na macraidhe _beside the young men_, Lhuyd, O'Brien. voc.
timcheal. This passage proves macraidh to be a singular Noun of the fem.
gender, not, as might be thought, the Plural of mac. So laochruidh,
madraidh, &c., may rather be considered as collective Nouns of the singular
Number than as plurals.
[115] The same termination having the same import, is found in the French
words cavalerie, infanterie, and in the English cavalry, infantry,
yeomanry.
[116] In the Gaelic N. Test, the _Gentile_ Nouns [Greek: Korinthios,
Galatai, Ephesioi], are rendered Corintianaich, Galatianaich, Ephesianaich.
Would it not be agreeable to the analogy of Gaelic derivation to write
Corintich, Galataich, Ephesich, subjoining the Gaelic termination alone to
the Primitive, rather than by introducing the syllable _an_, to form a
Derivative of a mixed and redundant structure, partly vernacular, partly
foreign? The word Samaritanaich, John iv. 40, is remarkably redundant,
having no fewer than three _Gentile_ Terminations. From [Greek: Samareia]
is formed, agreeably to the Greek mode of derivation, [Greek: Samareitai].
To this the Latins added their own termination, and wrote _Samaritani_;
which the Irish lengthened out still further into Samaritanaich. The proper
Gaelic derivation would be Samaraich, like Elamaich, Medich, Persich, &c.
The Irish Galil['e]anach is, in the Scottish Translation 1796, properly
changed into Galil['e]ach, Acts v. 37.
[117] The termination _ail_ is a contraction for amhuil _like_. In Irish
this termination is generally written full, fearamhuil, geanamhuil, &c.
From the Gaelic termination _ail_, is derived the Latin termination _alis_,
fatalis, hospitalis, &c., whence the English _al_, final, conditional, &c.
See page 33. Note 25.
[118] Two or three exceptions from this rule occur; as the Plurals _d['e]e
gods_, mnai _women_, lai _days_. But these are so irregular in their form
as well as spelling, that they ought rather to be rejected altogether, and
their place supplied by the common Plurals diathan, mnathan, lathan or
lathachan.
[119] As if we should write in English impious, impotent, without a hyphen;
but im-penitent, im-probable, with a hyphen.
[120] O beautiful ringlet.
[121] The above is the passage so often referred to in the controversy
concerning the antiquity of Ossian's Poems. It was natural enough for the
zealous Bishop to speak disparagingly of anything which appeared to him to
divert the minds of the people from those important religious truths to
which he piously wished to direct their most serious attention. But
whatever may be thought of his judgment, his testimony is decisive as to
the existence of traditional histories concerning Fingal and his people;
and proves that the rehearsal of those compositions was a common and
favourite entertainment with the people throughout the Highlands at the
time when he lived.
[122] _i.e._, the Hebrides.
* * * * *
Corrections made to printed original.
page 17, "slat a rod": 'flat ...' in original.
page 31, "dligheach lawful,": 'dlighecah' in original.
page 34, "beo and ail": 'and and' over line break in original.
page 48, "iasg m. _fish_, g. s. eisg;": 'g. s. eifg' in original.
page 50, "n. p. and g. p. 'leabraichean'--When the nominative plural is
twofold, the genitive is so too; as 'fear' n. a man," these two line
missing in the 1892 edition are re-instated from that of 1812.
ibid, "rather than phairiseachaibh": 'phairseachaibh' in original (1812
edition: phairlseachaibh).
page 53, "mathair f. a mother, g. s. mathar": 'g. s. mathair' in original.
page 60, "300 Tri cheud fear.": '309' in original.
page 61, "120 Am ficheadamh fear thar cheud.": '200' in original.
page 69, "3 Do bhuail e": 'bhuall' in original.
page 89, "The Future marks future time": 'makes future time' in original
(1812 edition: marks).
page 90, "bha mi ag bualadh an d['e]": 'buailadh' in original.
page 116, "Tar, Thar, over, across.": 'accross' in original.
page 134, "Bheil fhios, 'l fhios": ''l fhois' in original (1812 edition:
fhios).
page 145, "D. A', 'n Chlarsaich fhonnmhoir": 'fhonnoir' in original, there
is no explanation why the 'mh' should be dropped.
page 146, "Perhaps a distinction ought to be made": 'ought to made' in
original.
page 162, "commonly put in the Comparative form": 'Comparitive' in
original.
page 176, "Aobhach": 'Aobhachh' in original.
page 176, "Extract from Bishop Carsuel's Gaelic translation", etc: this
appears in fact to be the Gaelic version of the following English section
concerning the Poems of Ossian.
Footnote 89: "placed over the last vowel": 'the the' on footnote break
across two pages in original.
Footnote 93: "an adjective or a personal pronoun": 'of' for 'or' in
original (1812 edition: or)
Footnote 102: "Gen. i. 1, 2. 'In the beginning ...'": 'Gen. i. 1, 5' in
original.
Footnote 107: "made up of a Noun and an Infinitive": 'Infinite' in original
(1812 edition: Infinitive)
Footnote 110: "improperly introduced in the Edition of 1796": 'properly' in
original (1812 edition: improperly)
End of Project Gutenberg's Elements of Gaelic Grammar, by Alexander Stewart