Οὐκ ἀγαθον πολυκοιρανιη.—Iliad, B. 204.κακα κερδεα ἰσ' ἀτησι.—Hes.Ε. και Η. ά.ἐγω δε τισου ταχυπειθης.—Theoc. Idyl.7.Et mî genus ab Jove summo.—Virg. Æn.VI. 123.Varium et mutabile semper Femina.—Æn.IV. 569.Omnia semper suspecta atque sollicita; nullus locus amicitiæ.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,Iremodo ocius; interdumconsistere; in auremDicerenescio quid puero."—Hor. Sat. 1. 8. v. 9."At Danaum proceres, Agamemnoniæque phalangesIngentitrepidaremetu; parsvertereterga,Ceu quondam petiêre rates; parstollerevocem."—Æneid. VI. 492."——nihil illitenderecontra;Sedcelerarefugam in sylvas, etfiderenocti.'—Æneid. IX. 378."Tarquiniusfateriamorem,orare,miscereprecibus minas,versarein omnes partes muliebrem animum."—Liv. I. 58."Neque post id locorum Jugurthæ dies aut nox ulla quieta fuere: neque loco, neque mortali cuiquam, aut tempori satiscredere; cives, hostes, juxtametuere;circumspectareomnia, et omni strepitupavescere; alio atque alio loco, saepe contra decus regium, nocturequiescere; interdum somno excitus, arreptis armis, tumultumfacere; ita formidine quasi vecordiaexagitari."—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 "hominemhominis incommodo suumaugerecommodumestcontra naturam."Cic. de. Offic.III. 5. "Turpeest eosqui bene nati sunt turpitervivere."[73]So in Hebrew, the article prefixed to the nounsday,night, imports the present day or night. See Exod. xiv. 13.[74]Perhaps the proper Prep. in these phrases isde, notdo—see the Prepositions in the next Chap.—as we find the same Prep. similarly applied in other languages; de nuitby night, John iii. 2; de nocte, Hor. Epis. 1. 2, 32; de tertia vigilia, Cæs. 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 linnan age; qu.absumptio sæculi.[76]Perhaps am fàn, from fàn or fànadha 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,מביתwithin, Gen. vi. 14.[78]Deas, applied to the hand, signifies theright hand. So in Hebrew,ימיןsignifies theright handand theSouth.[79]Iar, as a Preposition, signifiesafterorbehind. In like manner in Hebrew,אתרsignifiesafter, or theWest.[80]Probably co luathequally quick, with equal pace.[81]The probable analysis of seadh is, is é,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 aspiratedh; 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 metdein 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 éis, on the track or footstep. See O'Brien's "Ir. Dict."voc.éis.[86]On consulting O'Brien's "Ir. Dict." we find son translatedprofit, advantage, cuma fight, combat, réirwill, desire. From these significations the common meaning of air son, do chum, do réir, 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, signifyingcause; which occurs in the expressions a chionn gubecause that, cion-fàtha reasonorground. But this word is entirely different from ceannendortop.[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 callingquodat one time a Relative Pronoun, at another time a Conjunction;postin 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 overthelast 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 conjunctionquòdwas distinguished from the relativequod; and the adverbpostfrom the prepositionpòst. 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 relativequodand the conjunctionquòdare, 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 prepositionairarises theequivoqueso 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 Fhéinn?" literally, "Have you anything on the Fingalians?" intending to inquire whether the latter had any poems in his possessiononthe 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 Fhéinn? Ma bha dad riamh agam orra, is fad o chaill mi na còirichean." "Have I any claim on the Fingalians? If ever I had, it is long since I lost my voucher."[91]This use of the prepositionannin conjunction with a possessive Pronoun, is nearly akin to that of the Hebrewל, [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 consonantan, as, anshocair; before a small vowel or consonantain, as, aineolachignorant, aindeoinunwillingness; before a labialamoraim, as, aimbeartachpoor; sometimes with themaspirated, as, aimhleasdetriment,ruin, aimh-leathannarrow.[93]The conjunction ged loses thedwhen written before an adjectiveora personal pronoun; as, ge binn do ghuth,though your voice be sweet; ge h-àrd Jehovah, Psal. cxxxviii. 6.The translators of the Scriptures appear to have erred in supposing ge to be the entire Conjunction, and thatdis 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 ofthough I walk, i.e.though I shall walk, but in reality it signifiesthough 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, thedhas 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 thedis 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 thatdwas 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, thedis preserved, though in its aspirated state. In Scotland it is still pronounced, in most situations, ged, without aspirating thedat all. These circumstances put together seem to prove the finaldis 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 ofaby 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 termedeclipsisby the Irish grammarians, and is an evidence of a nice attention toeuphonia.[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, anyProper Prepositionmay 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 mòr,un homme grand; by inversion, in a metaphorical sense, mòr 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 inntinnyour mind, Acts xv. 24.[100]This, however, does not happen invariably. Where theSex, though specified, is overlooked as of small importance, the Personal or Possessive Pronouns follow theGenderof 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 Interrogativewhorefers to the speciesman, of whichAlexander, 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 Interrogativewhatrefers 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 Interrogativewhatrefers 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 wordMan. 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 termPrayer. The Interrogativewhatrefers to the genus of Existence, as in the question 'What is Man?' not to the wordPrayer, 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 'Quidest Oratio*?' A Frenchman, 'Qu' est-ce que la Prière?' These questions, in a complete form, would run thus; 'Quid est [id quod dicitur] Oratio?' 'Qu' est-ce que [l'on appelle] la Prière?' 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, bya general term, limited in its significationby a noun, adjective, relative clause, &c; the reference of the Interrogative is often, though not always not necessarily, made tothat termin its general acceptation, and consequently be 'What is the Lord's Prayer?' Here the subject of the query is notPrayer, but an individual of that species, denoted by the termprayerlimited in its signification by another noun. The Interrogativewhatmay refer, as in the former examples, to the genus of Existence; or it may refer to the speciesPrayer, of which the subject of the query is an individual. That is, I may be understood to ask either 'What is thatthingwhich is called the Lord's Prayer?' or 'What is thatprayerwhich 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 [ברא אלהיםin the natural order] the Heaven and the Earth.'והארץ היתה; 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 [וילך יהוהin the natural order] as soon as he had left communing with Abraham;'ואברהם שב, 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,הוא נתנה ליsheit was that gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' Gen. iii. 13. 'And the woman said,הנחש השיאני, not merely 'the Serpent beguiled me,' but 'the Serpentwas the cause; it beguiled me, and I did eat.' Exod. xiv. 14. 'Jehovah—he will fight for you; but as foryou, ye shall hold your peace.' This kind of emphasis is correctly expressed in the Eng. translation of Psal. lx. 12, 'for heit is thatshall 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 thattruaigheis here the Nominative, andIosathe Accusative case; and that the meaning is notJesus took pity on them, butpity 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. Ænid 28.[105]So in English, the Infinitive of a Transitive Verb is sometimes used instead of the Present Participle, and followed by the Prepositionof; as, 'the woman was there gathering of sticks.' 1 Kings xvii. 10.———— some sad dropsWept 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 anInfinitivegoverned 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 theformerpart of the compound word, then the latter part should remain regularly in the Genitive Case. But if the subsequent Noun be governed by thelatterpart 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-coimhid an Righ,the King's store house, where the Noun Righ is governed by tigh, the former term of the compound word; but tigh comhead 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-coimhid, Matt. xxviii. 4, when no other Noun is governed; but fear-coimhead a' phriosuin, Acts, xvi. 27, 36, where the last Noun is governed in the Genitive by coimhead, which is therefore put in the Nominative. So also fear-coimhid, Psal. cxxi. 3, but fear-coimhead Israeil, Psal. cxxi. 4. Edin. 1799. Tigh-bearraidh nam buachaillean,the shearing-house belonging to the shepherds, 2 King, x. 12, but tigh-bearradh nan caorach,the house for shearing the sheep. Luchd-brathaidh an Righthe King's spies; but luchd-brathadh an Righ,the betrayers of the King. Luchd-mortaidh Heroid,assassins employed by Herod; but luchd-mortadh 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. SeeBuxt. 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,anla mor agus oirdheirc sinanTighearna. 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, isimproperlyintroduced 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 articleanhad crept, by mistake, into a part of the impression 1796, but was corrected in the remaining part.[111]The insertedmornis 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 bàs,though trouble shall arise, and though death shall threaten. Gael. Paraph. xlvii. 7. Edin. 1787. See page134. Note93.[113]The terminationsair,oir, seem from their signification as well as form, to be nothing else than fearman, in its aspirated form fhear. From these terminations are derived the Latin terminationsor, orator, doctor, &c.,ariussicarius, essedarius, &c.; the Frencheur, vengeur, createur, &c.;aire, commissaire, notaire, &c.,ter, chevalier, charretier, &c.; the Englisher, maker, lover, &c.,ary, prebendary, antiquary, &c.,eer, volunteer, &c.[114]Timcheal na macraidhebeside 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, theGentileNounsΚορινθιος, Γαλαται, Εφεσιοι, 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 syllablean, 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 threeGentileTerminations. FromΣαμαρειαis formed, agreeably to the Greek mode of derivation,Σαμαρειται. To this the Latins added their own termination, and wroteSamaritani; which the Irish lengthened out still further into Samaritanaich. The proper Gaelic derivation would be Samaraich, like Elamaich, Medich, Persich, &c. The Irish Galiléanach is, in the Scottish Translation 1796, properly changed into Galiléach, Acts v. 37.[117]The terminationailis a contraction for amhuillike. In Irish this termination is generally written full, fearamhuil, geanamhuil, &c. From the Gaelic terminationail, is derived the Latin terminationalis, fatalis, hospitalis, &c., whence the Englishal, final, conditional, &c. See page33. Note25.[118]Two or three exceptions from this rule occur; as the Pluralsdée gods, mnaiwomen, laidays. 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.
Οὐκ ἀγαθον πολυκοιρανιη.—Iliad, B. 204.κακα κερδεα ἰσ' ἀτησι.—Hes.Ε. και Η. ά.ἐγω δε τισου ταχυπειθης.—Theoc. Idyl.7.Et mî genus ab Jove summo.—Virg. Æn.VI. 123.Varium et mutabile semper Femina.—Æn.IV. 569.
Οὐκ ἀγαθον πολυκοιρανιη.—Iliad, B. 204.κακα κερδεα ἰσ' ἀτησι.—Hes.Ε. και Η. ά.ἐγω δε τισου ταχυπειθης.—Theoc. Idyl.7.Et mî genus ab Jove summo.—Virg. Æn.VI. 123.Varium et mutabile semper Femina.—Æn.IV. 569.
Οὐκ ἀγαθον πολυκοιρανιη.—Iliad, B. 204.
κακα κερδεα ἰσ' ἀτησι.—Hes.Ε. και Η. ά.
ἐγω δε τισου ταχυπειθης.—Theoc. Idyl.7.
Et mî genus ab Jove summo.—Virg. Æn.VI. 123.
Varium et mutabile semper Femina.—Æn.IV. 569.
Omnia semper suspecta atque sollicita; nullus locus amicitiæ.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.
"In winter awful thou."—Thomson."A ministering angel thou."—Scott."A cruel sister she."—Mallet.
"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,Iremodo ocius; interdumconsistere; in auremDicerenescio quid puero."—Hor. Sat. 1. 8. v. 9."At Danaum proceres, Agamemnoniæque phalangesIngentitrepidaremetu; parsvertereterga,Ceu quondam petiêre rates; parstollerevocem."—Æneid. VI. 492."——nihil illitenderecontra;Sedcelerarefugam in sylvas, etfiderenocti.'—Æneid. IX. 378.
"——misere discedere quaerens,Iremodo ocius; interdumconsistere; in auremDicerenescio quid puero."—Hor. Sat. 1. 8. v. 9.
"——misere discedere quaerens,
Iremodo ocius; interdumconsistere; in aurem
Dicerenescio quid puero."—Hor. Sat. 1. 8. v. 9.
"At Danaum proceres, Agamemnoniæque phalangesIngentitrepidaremetu; parsvertereterga,Ceu quondam petiêre rates; parstollerevocem."—Æneid. VI. 492.
"At Danaum proceres, Agamemnoniæque phalanges
Ingentitrepidaremetu; parsvertereterga,
Ceu quondam petiêre rates; parstollerevocem."—Æneid. VI. 492.
"——nihil illitenderecontra;Sedcelerarefugam in sylvas, etfiderenocti.'—Æneid. IX. 378.
"——nihil illitenderecontra;
Sedcelerarefugam in sylvas, etfiderenocti.'—Æneid. IX. 378.
"Tarquiniusfateriamorem,orare,miscereprecibus minas,versarein omnes partes muliebrem animum."—Liv. I. 58.
"Neque post id locorum Jugurthæ dies aut nox ulla quieta fuere: neque loco, neque mortali cuiquam, aut tempori satiscredere; cives, hostes, juxtametuere;circumspectareomnia, et omni strepitupavescere; alio atque alio loco, saepe contra decus regium, nocturequiescere; interdum somno excitus, arreptis armis, tumultumfacere; ita formidine quasi vecordiaexagitari."—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 "hominemhominis incommodo suumaugerecommodumestcontra naturam."Cic. de. Offic.III. 5. "Turpeest eosqui bene nati sunt turpitervivere."
[73]So in Hebrew, the article prefixed to the nounsday,night, imports the present day or night. See Exod. xiv. 13.
[74]Perhaps the proper Prep. in these phrases isde, notdo—see the Prepositions in the next Chap.—as we find the same Prep. similarly applied in other languages; de nuitby night, John iii. 2; de nocte, Hor. Epis. 1. 2, 32; de tertia vigilia, Cæs. 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 linnan age; qu.absumptio sæculi.
[76]Perhaps am fàn, from fàn or fànadha 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,מביתwithin, Gen. vi. 14.
[78]Deas, applied to the hand, signifies theright hand. So in Hebrew,ימיןsignifies theright handand theSouth.
[79]Iar, as a Preposition, signifiesafterorbehind. In like manner in Hebrew,אתרsignifiesafter, or theWest.
[80]Probably co luathequally quick, with equal pace.
[81]The probable analysis of seadh is, is é,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 aspiratedh; 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 metdein 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 éis, on the track or footstep. See O'Brien's "Ir. Dict."voc.éis.
[86]On consulting O'Brien's "Ir. Dict." we find son translatedprofit, advantage, cuma fight, combat, réirwill, desire. From these significations the common meaning of air son, do chum, do réir, 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, signifyingcause; which occurs in the expressions a chionn gubecause that, cion-fàtha reasonorground. But this word is entirely different from ceannendortop.
[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 callingquodat one time a Relative Pronoun, at another time a Conjunction;postin 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 overthelast 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 conjunctionquòdwas distinguished from the relativequod; and the adverbpostfrom the prepositionpòst. 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 relativequodand the conjunctionquòdare, 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 prepositionairarises theequivoqueso 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 Fhéinn?" literally, "Have you anything on the Fingalians?" intending to inquire whether the latter had any poems in his possessiononthe 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 Fhéinn? Ma bha dad riamh agam orra, is fad o chaill mi na còirichean." "Have I any claim on the Fingalians? If ever I had, it is long since I lost my voucher."
[91]This use of the prepositionannin conjunction with a possessive Pronoun, is nearly akin to that of the Hebrewל, [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 consonantan, as, anshocair; before a small vowel or consonantain, as, aineolachignorant, aindeoinunwillingness; before a labialamoraim, as, aimbeartachpoor; sometimes with themaspirated, as, aimhleasdetriment,ruin, aimh-leathannarrow.
[93]The conjunction ged loses thedwhen written before an adjectiveora personal pronoun; as, ge binn do ghuth,though your voice be sweet; ge h-àrd Jehovah, Psal. cxxxviii. 6.
The translators of the Scriptures appear to have erred in supposing ge to be the entire Conjunction, and thatdis 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 ofthough I walk, i.e.though I shall walk, but in reality it signifiesthough 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, thedhas 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 thedis 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 thatdwas 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, thedis preserved, though in its aspirated state. In Scotland it is still pronounced, in most situations, ged, without aspirating thedat all. These circumstances put together seem to prove the finaldis 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 ofaby 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 termedeclipsisby the Irish grammarians, and is an evidence of a nice attention toeuphonia.
[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, anyProper Prepositionmay 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 mòr,un homme grand; by inversion, in a metaphorical sense, mòr 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 inntinnyour mind, Acts xv. 24.
[100]This, however, does not happen invariably. Where theSex, though specified, is overlooked as of small importance, the Personal or Possessive Pronouns follow theGenderof 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 Interrogativewhorefers to the speciesman, of whichAlexander, 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 Interrogativewhatrefers 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 Interrogativewhatrefers 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 wordMan. 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 termPrayer. The Interrogativewhatrefers to the genus of Existence, as in the question 'What is Man?' not to the wordPrayer, 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 'Quidest Oratio*?' A Frenchman, 'Qu' est-ce que la Prière?' These questions, in a complete form, would run thus; 'Quid est [id quod dicitur] Oratio?' 'Qu' est-ce que [l'on appelle] la Prière?' 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, bya general term, limited in its significationby a noun, adjective, relative clause, &c; the reference of the Interrogative is often, though not always not necessarily, made tothat termin its general acceptation, and consequently be 'What is the Lord's Prayer?' Here the subject of the query is notPrayer, but an individual of that species, denoted by the termprayerlimited in its signification by another noun. The Interrogativewhatmay refer, as in the former examples, to the genus of Existence; or it may refer to the speciesPrayer, of which the subject of the query is an individual. That is, I may be understood to ask either 'What is thatthingwhich is called the Lord's Prayer?' or 'What is thatprayerwhich 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 [ברא אלהיםin the natural order] the Heaven and the Earth.'והארץ היתה; 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 [וילך יהוהin the natural order] as soon as he had left communing with Abraham;'ואברהם שב, 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,הוא נתנה ליsheit was that gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' Gen. iii. 13. 'And the woman said,הנחש השיאני, not merely 'the Serpent beguiled me,' but 'the Serpentwas the cause; it beguiled me, and I did eat.' Exod. xiv. 14. 'Jehovah—he will fight for you; but as foryou, ye shall hold your peace.' This kind of emphasis is correctly expressed in the Eng. translation of Psal. lx. 12, 'for heit is thatshall 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 thattruaigheis here the Nominative, andIosathe Accusative case; and that the meaning is notJesus took pity on them, butpity 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. Ænid 28.
——Mene desistere victam,Nec posse Italia Teucrorum avertere regem?—I. Ænid 28.
——Mene desistere victam,
Nec posse Italia Teucrorum avertere regem?—I. Ænid 28.
[105]So in English, the Infinitive of a Transitive Verb is sometimes used instead of the Present Participle, and followed by the Prepositionof; as, 'the woman was there gathering of sticks.' 1 Kings xvii. 10.
———— some sad dropsWept at completing of the mortal sin.—"Parad. Lost."
———— some sad dropsWept at completing of the mortal sin.—"Parad. Lost."
———— 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 anInfinitivegoverned 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 theformerpart of the compound word, then the latter part should remain regularly in the Genitive Case. But if the subsequent Noun be governed by thelatterpart 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-coimhid an Righ,the King's store house, where the Noun Righ is governed by tigh, the former term of the compound word; but tigh comhead 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-coimhid, Matt. xxviii. 4, when no other Noun is governed; but fear-coimhead a' phriosuin, Acts, xvi. 27, 36, where the last Noun is governed in the Genitive by coimhead, which is therefore put in the Nominative. So also fear-coimhid, Psal. cxxi. 3, but fear-coimhead Israeil, Psal. cxxi. 4. Edin. 1799. Tigh-bearraidh nam buachaillean,the shearing-house belonging to the shepherds, 2 King, x. 12, but tigh-bearradh nan caorach,the house for shearing the sheep. Luchd-brathaidh an Righthe King's spies; but luchd-brathadh an Righ,the betrayers of the King. Luchd-mortaidh Heroid,assassins employed by Herod; but luchd-mortadh 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. SeeBuxt. 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,anla mor agus oirdheirc sinanTighearna. 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, isimproperlyintroduced 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 articleanhad crept, by mistake, into a part of the impression 1796, but was corrected in the remaining part.
[111]The insertedmornis 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 bàs,though trouble shall arise, and though death shall threaten. Gael. Paraph. xlvii. 7. Edin. 1787. See page134. Note93.
[113]The terminationsair,oir, seem from their signification as well as form, to be nothing else than fearman, in its aspirated form fhear. From these terminations are derived the Latin terminationsor, orator, doctor, &c.,ariussicarius, essedarius, &c.; the Frencheur, vengeur, createur, &c.;aire, commissaire, notaire, &c.,ter, chevalier, charretier, &c.; the Englisher, maker, lover, &c.,ary, prebendary, antiquary, &c.,eer, volunteer, &c.
[114]Timcheal na macraidhebeside 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, theGentileNounsΚορινθιος, Γαλαται, Εφεσιοι, 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 syllablean, 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 threeGentileTerminations. FromΣαμαρειαis formed, agreeably to the Greek mode of derivation,Σαμαρειται. To this the Latins added their own termination, and wroteSamaritani; which the Irish lengthened out still further into Samaritanaich. The proper Gaelic derivation would be Samaraich, like Elamaich, Medich, Persich, &c. The Irish Galiléanach is, in the Scottish Translation 1796, properly changed into Galiléach, Acts v. 37.
[117]The terminationailis a contraction for amhuillike. In Irish this termination is generally written full, fearamhuil, geanamhuil, &c. From the Gaelic terminationail, is derived the Latin terminationalis, fatalis, hospitalis, &c., whence the Englishal, final, conditional, &c. See page33. Note25.
[118]Two or three exceptions from this rule occur; as the Pluralsdée gods, mnaiwomen, laidays. 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.