Chapter II: Of Composition (2)

[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