[1]Analysis of the Gaelic Language, by William Shaw, A.M.[2]A few examples of what I conceived to be deviations from grammatical propriety are given from the Gaelic version of the Bible. As the translation of the Prophetical Books underwent a revision, the exceptionable passages in those Books have been changed in the second edition from what they were as they came out of the hands of the original translator. The criticism on those passages is, however, allowed to remain in this edition of the Grammar, because the first edition of the Gaelic Prophets is still in the hands of many, and because it often happens that "we can best teach what is right by showing what is wrong."—Lowth.[3]It will immediately occur to any grammarian that there is a slight difference between this and the common division intomutesandliquids, by the lettermbeing removed from the class of liquids to that of mutes. This is not an oversight, but an intentional arrangement; as theaccidentsof the lettermare, in Gaelic, the same with those of the mute, not of the liquid consonants. For a like reason,sis included in the class of liquids.[4]Writers, who have touched on this part of Gaelic Grammar, following the Irish grammarians, have divided the consonants further intomutableandimmutable. The former name has been given to consonants which, in writing, have been occasionally combined with the letterh; and the latter name to those consonants which have not, in writing, been combined withh. But, in fact, both classes of consonants are alikemutablein their pronunciation; and theirmutationought to have been marked in the orthography, though it has not. This defect in Gaelic orthography has been often observed and regretted, though it has never been corrected. Rather than continue a distinction which has no foundation in the structure of the language, I venture to discard the division ofmutableandimmutableconsonants, as not merely useless, but as tending to mislead the learner.[5]In explaining the sounds of the letters I have availed myself of the very correct and acute remarks on this subject annexed to the Gaelic version of the New Testament, 1767.[6]If it be thought that this renders the language too monotonous, it may be observed, on the other hand, that it prevents ambiguities and obscurities in rapid speaking, as the accent marks the initial syllable of polysyllables. Declaimers, of either sex, have often found their advantage in this circumstance.[7]That is the second sound assigned toa.[8]The plural of la or lathaa day, is sometimes written laeth; but it is doubtful how far this is a proper mode of writing it.[9]The effect of the vowels in qualifying the sound of the adjoining consonants will be explained in treating of the Palatals and Linguals.[10]This propensity is seen in the aspirating of consonants in Gaelic words, which have an evident affinity to words in other languages, where the same consonants are not so aspirated. The following list will sufficiently illustrate and confirm the truth of this remark:—Greek.Latin.Gælic.ΔιαβολοςDiabolusDiabhol.Scribo*Scriobh,write.Febris*Fiabhrus,a fever.BaculumBacholl,a staff.ΔεκαDecemDeich,ten.LoricaLùireach,a coat of mail.ClericusCleireach,a clerk.ModusModh,manner.GladiusClaidheamh,a sword.ΚαρδιαΚραδιαbraceCord-isCridhe,the heart.MediumMeadhon,middle.LaudoLuadh,mention.LegoLeugh,read.Greg-isGreigh,a herd.Reg-isRigh,a king.PlagaPlaigh,a plague.SagittaSaighead,an arrow.MagisterMaighistir,master.ImagoIomhaigh,an image.PrimusPriomh,chief.RemusRàmh,an oar.SimilisSamhuil,like.HumilisUmhal,humble.CapraGabhar,a goat.ΜητηρMaterMathair,mother.RotaRoth, Rath,a wheel.MutoMùth,change.It is probable that the consonants, thus aspirated, were pronounced without aspiration in the older dialects of the Celtic tongue; for we are told that in the Irish manuscripts of the first class for antiquity, the consonants are for the most part written without any mark of aspiration. See "Lhuyd's Archæol. Brit.," p. 301, col. 1.The tendency to attenuate the articulations shows itself in a progressive state, in a few vocables which are pronounced with an aspiration in some districts, but not universally. Such are deatach or deathachsmoke, cuntart or cunthartdanger, ta or thaam,art, tu or thuthou, troimh or throimhthrough, tar or tharover, am beil or am bheilis there?dom or domhto me, &c. Has not this remission or suppression of the articulations the effect of enfeebling the speech, by mollifying its bones and relaxing its nerves? Ought not therefore the progress of this corruption to be opposed, by retaining unaspirated articulations in those instances where universal practice has not entirely superseded them, and even by restoring them in some instances, where the loss of them has been attended with manifest inconvenience? It is shameful to see how many monosyllables, once distinguished by their articulations, have in process of time, by dropping these articulations, come to be represented by the solitary vowela, to the no small confusion of the language and embarrassment of the reader. The place of the absent consonant is often supplied, indeed, in writing, by an apostrophe. This, however, is at best but an imperfect and precarious expedient.* So in French, from Aprilis,Avrilis; habere,avoir; Febris, Fièvre:επισκοπος,evéque.[11]Ph is found in no Gaelic word which is not inflected, except a few words transplanted from the Greek or the Hebrew, in whichphrepresents the Greek φ, or the Hebrewפ. It might perhaps be more proper to representפbyprather thanph; and to representφbyf, as the Italians have done infilosofia,filologia, &c., by which some ambiguities and anomalies in declension would be avoided.[12]The affinity between the sounds ofvanduis observable in many languages, particularly in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.[13]Agreeably to the like pronunciation, the Welsh write this wordmarw, the Manksmarroo.[14]It is still pronounced fuair in the Northern Highlands, and it is so written in Irish. See Irish Bible, Gen. xxxv. 18, 19; John ii. 14, viii. 62, 53.[15]So fathastyet, feinself, are in some places pronounced as if they began with anhinstead of anf. The latter word is, by the Manks, written hene.[16]Over a considerable part of the Highlands that propensity to aspiration, which has been already remarked, has affixed toc, in the end of a word, or of an accented syllable, the sound ofchc; as, maca son, torca boar, acainmoaning; pronounced often machc, torchc, achcain.There is reason to believe that this compound sound ofchcwas not known of old, but is a modern corruption.This pronunciation is not universal over the Highlands. In some parts thecretains its proper sound in all situations.If the articulation in question had, from the first, been compounded, it is highly probable that it would have been represented, in writing, by a combination of letters, such aschc; especially as we find that the same sound is represented at other times, not by a single consonant, but by a combination, as in the case ofchd. Why should it be thought that boca buck, and bochdpoor, were originally pronounced alike, when they are distinguished both in writing and signification?The wordשקa sack, has been transplanted from the Hebrew into many languages, among the rest the Gaelic, where it has been always written sac, although now pronounced sachc. In none of the other languages in which the word is used (except the Welsh alone), has the final palatal been aspirated. It would appear therefore that the sound sachc is a departure from the original Gaelic pronunciation. The same change may have happened in the pronunciation of other words, in which the plaincis now aspirated, though it may not have been so originally.[17]Thoughthbe quiescent in the middle of a polysyllable, over the North and Central Highlands, yet it is, with more propriety, pronounced, in the West Highlands, as an aspiration; as, athairfather, mathanaspardon, pronounced a-hair, mahanas.[18]I am informed that this pronunciation ofchdis not universal; but that in some districts, particularly the East Highlands, thedhas here, as in other places, its proper lingual sounds. In many, if not all the instances in whichchdoccurs, the ancient Irish wrotect. This spelling corresponds to that of some foreign words that have a manifest affinity to Gaelic words of the same signification; which, it is therefore presumable, were all originally pronounced, as they were written, without an aspiration, such as,Latin.Old French.Gaelic.Noct-u Noct-is, &c.Nuictan nochd,to night.Oct-oHuictOchd,eight.Benedict-umBenoictBeannachd,blessing.Maledict-umMaudictMallachd,cursing.Ruct-usBruchd,evomition.Intellect-usIntleachd,contrivance.Lact-is, -i, &c.Lachd,milk.Dict-o, -are, &c.Deachd,to dictate.RegoRect-umbraceReachd,a law, institution.From the propensity of the Gaelic to aspiration, the originalcwas converted intoch, and the words were written withcht, as in the Irish achtbut, &c., or with the slight change oftintod, as in ochd, &c. This is the opinion of O'Brien, when he says the word lecht is the Celtic root of the Latinlectio—the aspiratehis but a late invention.—O'Br. Ir. Dict. voc. lecht.In process of time the true sound ofchtorchdwas confounded with the kindred sound ofchc, which was commonly, though corruptly, given to finalc.[19]It is certain that the natural sound of d aspirated is that of [the Saxon ð] orthinthou; as the natural sound oftaspirated is that ofthinthink. This articulation, from whatever cause, has not been admitted into the Gaelic, either Scottish or Irish, although it is used in the kindred dialects of Cornwall and Wales.[20]In seanold, thenhas itsplainsound when the following word begins with a Lingual. Accordingly it is often written in that situation seann; as, seann duinean old man, an t-seann tiomnaidhof the old Testament.[21]So in Latin,canmenfromcanowas pronounced, and then writtencarmen;genmenfrom the obsoleteγενωpassed intogermen.[22]Another mode, proposed by a learned correspondent, of marking the distinction in the sound of the initial Linguals, is by writing the letter double, thus ll, nn, rr, when its sound is the same with that which is represented by those double letters in the end of a syllable; and when the sound is otherwise, to write the letter single; as, llamhhand, llionfill, mo lamhmy hand, lion miI filled.It is perhaps too late, however, to urge now even so slight an alteration as this in the Orthography of the Gaelic, which ought rather to be held as fixed beyond the reach of innovation, by the happy diffusion of the Gaelic Scriptures over the Highlands.[23]Leathan re Leathan, is Caol re Caol.Of the many writers who have recorded or taken notice of this rule, I have found none who have attempted to account for its introduction into the Gaelic. They only tell that such a correspondence between the vowels ought to be observed, and that it would be improper to write otherwise. Indeed, none of them seem to have attended to the different effects of a broad and of a small vowel on the sound of an adjacent consonant. From this circumstance, duly considered, I have endeavoured to derive a reason for the rule in question, the only probable one that has yet occurred to me.[24]As deanuibh or deanaibhdo ye, beannuich or beannaichbless.[25]It is worthy of remark that in such words as caird-eilfriendly, slaint-eilsalutary, the substitution ofein place ofain the termination, both misrepresents the sound, and disguises the derivation of the syllable. The sound of this termination as in fear-ailmanly, ban-ailwomanly, is properly represented byail. This syllable is an abbreviation of amhuillike, which is commonly written in its full form by the Irish, as fear-amhuil, &c. It corresponds exactly to the English terminationlike, insoldier-like,officer-like, which is abridged toly, asmanly,friendly. By writingeilinstead ofail, we almost lose sight of amhuil altogether.[26]From the extracts of the oldest Irish manuscripts given by Lhuyd, Vallancey, and others, it appears that the rule concerning the correspondence of vowels in contiguous syllables, was by no means so generally observed once as it is now. It was gradually extended by the more modern Irish writers, from whom, it is probable, it has been incautiously adopted by the Scottish writers in its present and unwarrantable latitude. The rule we have been considering has been reprobated in strong terms by some of the most judicious Irish philologers, particularly O'Brien, author of an Irish Dictionary printed at Paris 1768, and Vallancey, author of an Irish Grammar, and of various elaborate disquisitions concerning Irish antiquities, from whom I quote the following passages: "This Rule [of dividing one syllable into two by the insertion of an aspirated consonant] together with that of substituting small or broad vowels in the latter syllables, to correspond with the vowel immediately following the consonant in the preceding syllable, has been very destructive to the original and radical purity of the Irish language."Vallancey's Ir. Gram. Chap. III. letter A."Another [Rule] devised in like manner by our bards and rhymers, I mean that which is calledCaol le caol, agus Leathan le leathan, has been woefully destructive to the original and radical purity of the Irish language. This latter (much of a more modern invention than the former, for our old manuscripts show no regard to it) imports and prescribes that two vowels, thus forming, or contributing to form, two different syllables, should both be of the same denomination or class of either broad or small vowels, and this without any regard to the primitive elementary structure of the word."O'Brien's Ir. Dict. Remarks on A."The wordsbiranandbiranachchanged sometimes intobioranandbioranachby the abusive rule ofLeathan le leathan."Id. in voc.Fear. The opinion of Lhuyd on this point, though not decisive, yet may properly be subjoined to those of Vallancey and O'Brien, as his words serve at least to show that this judicious philologer was no advocate for the Rule in question. "As for passing any censure on the rule concerning broad and small vowels, I chose rather to forbear making any remark at all upon them, by reason that old men who formerly wrote argetsilver, instead of airgiod as we now write it, never used to change a vowel but in declining of words, &c. And I do not know that it was ever done in any other language, unless by some particular persons who, through mistake or ignorance, were guilty of it."Archæol. Brit. Preface to Ir. Dict. translated in Bp. Nicolson's Irish Historical Library.[27]Pinkerton's Inquiry into the History of Scotland.[28]E.g., troidha foot, has been written troidh or troigh, either of which corresponds to the pronunciation, as the last consonant is quiescent. In Welsh, the articulation of the final consonant has been preserved, and the word is accordingly written troed. This authority seems sufficient to determine the proper orthography in Gaelic to be troidh and not troigh. For a like reason, perhaps, it would be proper to write tràidhshore, rather than tràigh, the common way of spelling the word, for we find the Irish formerly wrote tràidh, and the Welsh traeth. Claidheamha sword, since the final articulation was wholly dropped, has been sometimes written claidhe. The mode of writing it still with a final labial, though quiescent, will probably be thought the more proper of the two, when it is considered that claidheamh is the cognate, or rather the same word with the Irish cloidheamh the Welsh cleddyf, and the French glaive.[29]I flatter myself that all my readers, who are acquainted with any of the ancient or the modern languages which have a distinction of gender in their attributives, will readily perceive that the import of the term Gender, in the grammar of those languages, is precisely what I have stated above. The same term has been introduced into the grammar of the English Tongue, rather improperly, because in an acceptation different from what it bears in the grammar of all other languages. In English there is no distinction of gender competent to Articles, Adjectives, or Participles. When a noun is said to be of the masculine gender, the meaning can only be that the object denoted by it is of the male sex. Thus in the English grammars, gender signifies a quality of theobjectnamed, while in other grammars it signifies a quality of thenamegiven to the object. The varieties ofwho,which, andhe,she,it, refer not to what is properly called thegenderof the antecedentnoun, but to theSexreal or attributed, or theabsence of Sex, of theobjectsignified by the antecedent. This is in effect acknowledged by writers on rhetoric, who affirm that in English the pronounswho,he,she, imply an express personification, or attribution of life, and consequently of Sex, to the objects to which these pronouns refer. The same thing is still more strikingly true of the variations on the termination of nouns, asprince,princess;lion,lioness, which are all discriminative of Sex. It seems therefore to be a mis-stated compliment which is usually paid to the English, when it is said that "this is the only language which has adapted the gender of its nouns to the constitution of Nature." The fact is, that it has adapted theFormof some of the most common names of living creatures, and of a few of its pronouns, to the obvious distinction ofmale, andfemale, andinanimate, while it has left its nouns without any mark characteristic ofgender. The same thing must necessarily happen to any language by abolishing the distinction of masculine and feminine in its attributives. If all languages had been constructed on this plan, it may confidently be affirmed that the grammatical termgenderwould never have come into use. The compliment intended, and due to the English, might have been more correctly expressed, by saying that "it is the only language that has rejected the unphilosophical distinction of gender, by making its attributives, in this respect, all indeclinable."[30]Uan beag bainionn, 2 Sam. xii. 3. Numb. vi. 14. So leomhann boirionn, Ezek. xix. 1.[31]It must appear singularly strange that any nouns which signify females exclusively should be of the masculine gender. The noun bainionnach, is derived from the adjective bainionn,female, which is formed from bean, the appropriate term for awoman. Yet this noun bainionnach, or boirionnach,a female, is masculine, to all grammatical intents and purposes. We say boirionnach còir,a civil woman, am boirionnach maiseach,the handsome woman.The gender of this Noun seems to have been fixed, not by its signification, but by its determination, for most Derivatives inachare masculines; as, oganacha young man, marcacha horseman, Albanacha Scotsman, &c. So in Latin, mancipium, scortum, though applied to persons, follow the gender of their termination.[32]It was necessary to be thus explicit in stating the changes at the beginning and those on the termination as unconnected independentaccidents, which ought to be viewed separately; because many who have happened to turn their thoughts toward the declension of the Gaelic noun have got a habit of conjoining these, and supposing that both contribute their united aid toward the forming thecasesof nouns. This is blending together things which are unconnected, and ought to be kept distinct. It has therefore appeared necessary to take a separate view of these twoaccidentsof nouns, and to limit the termcaseto those changes which are made on the termination, excluding entirely those which take place at the beginning.[33]It is to be observed that these names of the cases are adopted merely because they are already familiar, not because they all denominate correctly the relations expressed by the cases to which they are respectively applied. There is no Accusative or Objective case in Gaelic different from the Nominative; neither is there any Ablative different from the Dative. For this reason, it is not only unnecessary, but erroneous, to reckon up six Cases in Gaelic, distinguished not by the form of the Noun, but by the Prepositions prefixed. This is to depart altogether from the common and proper use of the termCase. And if the new use of that term is to be adopted, then the enumeration is still incomplete, for we ought to have as many Cases as there are Prepositions in the language. Thus, besides a Dative do Bhard, and an Ablative o Bhard, we should have an Impositive Case air Bhard, a Concomitative le Bard, an Insertive ann am Bard, a Precursive roimh Bhard, &c. &c. Grammarians have very correctly reckoned only five Cases in Greek, two in English, one in French [SeeMoore,Murray,Buffier, &c.] because the variations in the form of the Noun extend no further. Surely nothing but an early and inveterate prepossession in favour of the arrangements of Latin Grammar could ever have suggested the idea of Six Cases in Gaelic or in English.[34]It is not improbable that anciently all feminine nouns, except a few irregular ones, added a syllable to the nominative, aseora, in forming the genitive. The translators of the S. S. have sometimes formed the genitive of feminine polysyllables in this manner, as sionagoige from sionagog, Mark v. 36, 38. But it appears more agreeable to the analogy of inflection that such polysyllables should now be written without anein the genitive.[35]It is probable that this noun should rather be written àdh. See McFarlane's Paraphrases, III. 3. also Lhuyd and O'Brien,in loco.[36]Derivatives inan, andagshould form their genitive according to the general Rule,ain,aig; and in pronunciation they do so. When the syllable preceding the termination ends in a small vowel, the Rule of 'Caol re caol' has introduced aneinto the final syllable, which is then writtenean,eag. In this case writers have been puzzled how to form the genitive. The terminationseain,eaig, would evidently contain too many vowels for a short syllable. To reduce this awkward number of vowels they have commonly thrown out thea, the only letter which properly expressed the vocal sound of the syllable. Thus from caimean m. amote, they formed the gen. sing. caimein; from cuilean m. awhelp, g. s. cuilein; from duileag f. aleaf, g. s. duileig; from caileag f. agirl, g. s. caileig. Had they not yielded too far to the encroachments of the Rule of 'Caol re caol' they would have written both the nom. and the gen. of these and similar nouns more simply and more justly, thus: caiman, g. s. caimain; cuilan, g. s. cuilain; duilag, g. s. duilaig; cailag, g. s. cailaig.[37]In many instances, the Plural terminationais oftener written with this finalnthan without it. When the vowel preceding the termination is small, the terminationaoranis very needlessly writteneorean, to preserve the correspondence of vowels.[38]We are informed by E. O'C. that this is the usual construction in the Irish Dialect, and it appears to be the same in the Scottish. Thus, air son mo dhà shùl,for my two eyes.—Judg. xvi. 28. Ir. & Scott. versions.[39]So in Hebrew, we find a noun in the singular number joined withtwenty,thirty,a hundred,a thousand, &c.[40]The Pronouns tuthou, sehe, sishe, siadthey, are not employed, like other nominatives, to denote the object after a transitive verb. Hence the incorrectness of the following expression in most editions of the Gaelic Psalms: Se chrùnastule coron graidh, Psal. ciii. 4., which translated literally signifies,it is he whom thou wilt crown, &c. To express the true sense, viz.,it is he who will crown thee, it ought to have been, se chrùnasthule coron graidh. So is mise an Tighearn a slanuicheasthu,I am the Lord that healeth thee, Exod. xv. 26; Ma ta e ann a fhreagaireasthu,If there be any that will answer thee, Job v. 1; Co e a bhrathas thu?Who is he that will betray thee?John xxi. 20., Comp. Gen. xii. 3. and xxvii. 29.[41]This use of the Pronoun of the 2d person plural is probably a modern innovation, for there is nothing like it found in the more ancient Gaelic compositions, nor in the graver poetry even of the present age. As this idiom seems, however, to be employed in conversation with increasing frequency, it will probably lose by degrees its present import, and will come to be used as the common mode of addressing any individual; in the same manner as the corresponding Pronouns are used in English, and other European languages.[42]There seems hardly a sufficient reason for changing thedin this situation intot, as has been often done, as t'oglach for d'oglachthy servant, &c. Thedcorresponds sufficiently to the pronunciation, and being the constituent consonant of the pronoun, it ought not to be changed for another.[43]The Irish are not so much at a loss to avoid ahiatus, as they often use na for ahis; which the translators of the Psalms have sometimes judiciously adopted; as,An talamh tioram le na laimhDo chruthaich e 's do dhealbh. Psal. xcv. 5.[44]In the North Highlands this Pronoun is pronounced sid.[45]This Pronoun occurs in such expressions as an deigh na chuala tuafter what you have heard; their leat na th' agad, or na bheil agad,bring what you have. It seems to be contracted for an ni athe thing which.[46]There is reason to think that ge b'e is corruptly used for cia b' e. Of the former I find no satisfactory analysis. The latter cia b' e is literallywhich it be, orwhich it were; which is just the Frenchqui que ce soit,qui que ce fûtexpressed in English by one wordwhosoever,whichsoever. We find cia used in this sense and connection, Psal. cxxxv. 11. Glasg. 1753. Gach uile rioghachd mar an ceadn'ciah-iomdha bhi siad ann,Allkingdoms likewise, however numerous they be. See also Gen. xliv. 9, Rom. ii. 1.[47]This pronoun is found written with an initial c in Lhuyd's "Archæol. Brit." Tit. I. page 20. col. 2. ceach; again Tit. X. voc. Bealtine, cecha bliadnaeach year. So also O'Brien, cachall,every, like the Frenchchaque. "Irish Dict." voc. cach.[48]The pronounscach eileandcach a chéileare hardly known in Perthshire. Instead of the former, they use the single word càch pronounced long, and declined like a noun of the singular number; and instead of the latter, a chéile, as in this example, choinnich iad a chéile; thuit cuid, agus theich càch,they met each other; some fell, and the rest fled. Here càch 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 chiéle; thuit, cuid, agus theich cach eile. Now, if cach be nothing else than gachevery, (a conjecture supported by the short pronunciation of thea, 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 Particledoappears under a variety of forms. In one MS. of high antiquity it is often writtendno. This seems to be its oldest form. The two consonants were sometimes separated by a vowel, and thenbeing pronounced and then writtenr, (See Part I. p. 19.) the word was written doro. (SeeAstle'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 thefweakens the sound of the word, and often occasions ahiatus. There seems a propriety in retaining thefof 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 itspersonalrelation 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 ofpersonalinflections, 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 orincorporation, 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 itsNumbersandPersons, 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 monosyllablea, which, it must be confessed, recurs in too many senses.[54]The Preposition iar has here been improperly confounded with airon. I have ventured to restore it, from the Irish Grammarians. Iar is in common use in the Irish dialect, signifyingafter. Thus, iar sinafter that, iar leaghadh an tshoisgeilafter reading the Gospel, iar sleachdadh do niomlanafter all have kneeled down, iar seasamh suasafter standing up, &c. See "Irish Book of Common Prayer." Air, when applied to time, signifies notafter, butatoron, air an am so, air an uair soat this time, air an la sinon 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 addingtarto 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, thetseems 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 thethas 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 inte, for in this part of the verb, thethas always itssmallsound. Yet in verbs whereof the characteristic vowel is broad, it is usual to write the termination of the Pass. Part.ta; as, togtaraised, crochtasuspended. This is done in direct opposition to the pronunciation, merely out of regard to the Irish Rule ofLeathan 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 thetof the Pass. Part. that thesmallsound 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 aniinserted before it. Thus, òldrink, Pass. Part. òilte; pronnpound, proinnte; crannbar, crainnte; sparrram, spairrte; truspack, truiste. But when the verb ends in a mute, whether plain or aspirated, there is no such coalescence between its final consonant and the adjectedtof 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 toLeathan ri leathan; as, tograise, Pass. Part. togte; crochhang, crochte; sàththrust, sàthte; cnamhchew, cnamhte.The same observations apply, with equal force, to the Pret. Subj. in which thetof the termination is always pronounced with itssmallsound, and should therefore be followed by a small vowel in writing; as, thogteadh, chrochteadh, not thogtadh, chrochtadh.[57]In allregularverbs, 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 deanamhI am doing, ta e bualadhhe 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 representativegis 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 bhualadhthey are striking him, ta e 'g ar bualadhhe 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 spréidhe,we are going to seek the cattle; ta iad ag iomain na spréidhe,they are driving the cattle; ta iad iar cuairteachadh na spréidhe,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 asinter ambulandum,εν τῳ περιπατειν.—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 participlea[the Gaelic ag] before it, it supplies the room of the participle of the present tense, &c. "Archæol. Brit." page 245, col. 3. This observation is strictly applicable to the Gaelic verb. The infinitive, with the particleagbefore 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 issuppliedby the Participleagbefore the Infinitive Mood; as,ag radhsaying,ag cainnttalking,ag teagasgteaching,ag dulgoing, &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 nosimplePresent 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. CreidimI believe, guidheamI 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 hewillmeditate;i.e., hedoesmeditate 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]Téid the Fut. Negat. of Rach togo, has been generally written d'théid; from an opinion, it would seem, that the full form of that Tense is do théid. Yet as the participledois 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 téid. 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 dthéid, dthoir, dthig.[66]Throughout the verb tabhair, the syllablesabhairare often contracted intooir; 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. DeireamI say, deir ehe saith, deir iadthey 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 isunderstood, 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.
[1]Analysis of the Gaelic Language, by William Shaw, A.M.
[2]A few examples of what I conceived to be deviations from grammatical propriety are given from the Gaelic version of the Bible. As the translation of the Prophetical Books underwent a revision, the exceptionable passages in those Books have been changed in the second edition from what they were as they came out of the hands of the original translator. The criticism on those passages is, however, allowed to remain in this edition of the Grammar, because the first edition of the Gaelic Prophets is still in the hands of many, and because it often happens that "we can best teach what is right by showing what is wrong."—Lowth.
[3]It will immediately occur to any grammarian that there is a slight difference between this and the common division intomutesandliquids, by the lettermbeing removed from the class of liquids to that of mutes. This is not an oversight, but an intentional arrangement; as theaccidentsof the lettermare, in Gaelic, the same with those of the mute, not of the liquid consonants. For a like reason,sis included in the class of liquids.
[4]Writers, who have touched on this part of Gaelic Grammar, following the Irish grammarians, have divided the consonants further intomutableandimmutable. The former name has been given to consonants which, in writing, have been occasionally combined with the letterh; and the latter name to those consonants which have not, in writing, been combined withh. But, in fact, both classes of consonants are alikemutablein their pronunciation; and theirmutationought to have been marked in the orthography, though it has not. This defect in Gaelic orthography has been often observed and regretted, though it has never been corrected. Rather than continue a distinction which has no foundation in the structure of the language, I venture to discard the division ofmutableandimmutableconsonants, as not merely useless, but as tending to mislead the learner.
[5]In explaining the sounds of the letters I have availed myself of the very correct and acute remarks on this subject annexed to the Gaelic version of the New Testament, 1767.
[6]If it be thought that this renders the language too monotonous, it may be observed, on the other hand, that it prevents ambiguities and obscurities in rapid speaking, as the accent marks the initial syllable of polysyllables. Declaimers, of either sex, have often found their advantage in this circumstance.
[7]That is the second sound assigned toa.
[8]The plural of la or lathaa day, is sometimes written laeth; but it is doubtful how far this is a proper mode of writing it.
[9]The effect of the vowels in qualifying the sound of the adjoining consonants will be explained in treating of the Palatals and Linguals.
[10]This propensity is seen in the aspirating of consonants in Gaelic words, which have an evident affinity to words in other languages, where the same consonants are not so aspirated. The following list will sufficiently illustrate and confirm the truth of this remark:—
It is probable that the consonants, thus aspirated, were pronounced without aspiration in the older dialects of the Celtic tongue; for we are told that in the Irish manuscripts of the first class for antiquity, the consonants are for the most part written without any mark of aspiration. See "Lhuyd's Archæol. Brit.," p. 301, col. 1.
The tendency to attenuate the articulations shows itself in a progressive state, in a few vocables which are pronounced with an aspiration in some districts, but not universally. Such are deatach or deathachsmoke, cuntart or cunthartdanger, ta or thaam,art, tu or thuthou, troimh or throimhthrough, tar or tharover, am beil or am bheilis there?dom or domhto me, &c. Has not this remission or suppression of the articulations the effect of enfeebling the speech, by mollifying its bones and relaxing its nerves? Ought not therefore the progress of this corruption to be opposed, by retaining unaspirated articulations in those instances where universal practice has not entirely superseded them, and even by restoring them in some instances, where the loss of them has been attended with manifest inconvenience? It is shameful to see how many monosyllables, once distinguished by their articulations, have in process of time, by dropping these articulations, come to be represented by the solitary vowela, to the no small confusion of the language and embarrassment of the reader. The place of the absent consonant is often supplied, indeed, in writing, by an apostrophe. This, however, is at best but an imperfect and precarious expedient.
* So in French, from Aprilis,Avrilis; habere,avoir; Febris, Fièvre:επισκοπος,evéque.
* So in French, from Aprilis,Avrilis; habere,avoir; Febris, Fièvre:επισκοπος,evéque.
[11]Ph is found in no Gaelic word which is not inflected, except a few words transplanted from the Greek or the Hebrew, in whichphrepresents the Greek φ, or the Hebrewפ. It might perhaps be more proper to representפbyprather thanph; and to representφbyf, as the Italians have done infilosofia,filologia, &c., by which some ambiguities and anomalies in declension would be avoided.
[12]The affinity between the sounds ofvanduis observable in many languages, particularly in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
[13]Agreeably to the like pronunciation, the Welsh write this wordmarw, the Manksmarroo.
[14]It is still pronounced fuair in the Northern Highlands, and it is so written in Irish. See Irish Bible, Gen. xxxv. 18, 19; John ii. 14, viii. 62, 53.
[15]So fathastyet, feinself, are in some places pronounced as if they began with anhinstead of anf. The latter word is, by the Manks, written hene.
[16]Over a considerable part of the Highlands that propensity to aspiration, which has been already remarked, has affixed toc, in the end of a word, or of an accented syllable, the sound ofchc; as, maca son, torca boar, acainmoaning; pronounced often machc, torchc, achcain.
There is reason to believe that this compound sound ofchcwas not known of old, but is a modern corruption.
This pronunciation is not universal over the Highlands. In some parts thecretains its proper sound in all situations.
If the articulation in question had, from the first, been compounded, it is highly probable that it would have been represented, in writing, by a combination of letters, such aschc; especially as we find that the same sound is represented at other times, not by a single consonant, but by a combination, as in the case ofchd. Why should it be thought that boca buck, and bochdpoor, were originally pronounced alike, when they are distinguished both in writing and signification?
The wordשקa sack, has been transplanted from the Hebrew into many languages, among the rest the Gaelic, where it has been always written sac, although now pronounced sachc. In none of the other languages in which the word is used (except the Welsh alone), has the final palatal been aspirated. It would appear therefore that the sound sachc is a departure from the original Gaelic pronunciation. The same change may have happened in the pronunciation of other words, in which the plaincis now aspirated, though it may not have been so originally.
[17]Thoughthbe quiescent in the middle of a polysyllable, over the North and Central Highlands, yet it is, with more propriety, pronounced, in the West Highlands, as an aspiration; as, athairfather, mathanaspardon, pronounced a-hair, mahanas.
[18]I am informed that this pronunciation ofchdis not universal; but that in some districts, particularly the East Highlands, thedhas here, as in other places, its proper lingual sounds. In many, if not all the instances in whichchdoccurs, the ancient Irish wrotect. This spelling corresponds to that of some foreign words that have a manifest affinity to Gaelic words of the same signification; which, it is therefore presumable, were all originally pronounced, as they were written, without an aspiration, such as,
From the propensity of the Gaelic to aspiration, the originalcwas converted intoch, and the words were written withcht, as in the Irish achtbut, &c., or with the slight change oftintod, as in ochd, &c. This is the opinion of O'Brien, when he says the word lecht is the Celtic root of the Latinlectio—the aspiratehis but a late invention.—O'Br. Ir. Dict. voc. lecht.In process of time the true sound ofchtorchdwas confounded with the kindred sound ofchc, which was commonly, though corruptly, given to finalc.
[19]It is certain that the natural sound of d aspirated is that of [the Saxon ð] orthinthou; as the natural sound oftaspirated is that ofthinthink. This articulation, from whatever cause, has not been admitted into the Gaelic, either Scottish or Irish, although it is used in the kindred dialects of Cornwall and Wales.
[20]In seanold, thenhas itsplainsound when the following word begins with a Lingual. Accordingly it is often written in that situation seann; as, seann duinean old man, an t-seann tiomnaidhof the old Testament.
[21]So in Latin,canmenfromcanowas pronounced, and then writtencarmen;genmenfrom the obsoleteγενωpassed intogermen.
[22]Another mode, proposed by a learned correspondent, of marking the distinction in the sound of the initial Linguals, is by writing the letter double, thus ll, nn, rr, when its sound is the same with that which is represented by those double letters in the end of a syllable; and when the sound is otherwise, to write the letter single; as, llamhhand, llionfill, mo lamhmy hand, lion miI filled.
It is perhaps too late, however, to urge now even so slight an alteration as this in the Orthography of the Gaelic, which ought rather to be held as fixed beyond the reach of innovation, by the happy diffusion of the Gaelic Scriptures over the Highlands.
[23]Leathan re Leathan, is Caol re Caol.
Of the many writers who have recorded or taken notice of this rule, I have found none who have attempted to account for its introduction into the Gaelic. They only tell that such a correspondence between the vowels ought to be observed, and that it would be improper to write otherwise. Indeed, none of them seem to have attended to the different effects of a broad and of a small vowel on the sound of an adjacent consonant. From this circumstance, duly considered, I have endeavoured to derive a reason for the rule in question, the only probable one that has yet occurred to me.
[24]As deanuibh or deanaibhdo ye, beannuich or beannaichbless.
[25]It is worthy of remark that in such words as caird-eilfriendly, slaint-eilsalutary, the substitution ofein place ofain the termination, both misrepresents the sound, and disguises the derivation of the syllable. The sound of this termination as in fear-ailmanly, ban-ailwomanly, is properly represented byail. This syllable is an abbreviation of amhuillike, which is commonly written in its full form by the Irish, as fear-amhuil, &c. It corresponds exactly to the English terminationlike, insoldier-like,officer-like, which is abridged toly, asmanly,friendly. By writingeilinstead ofail, we almost lose sight of amhuil altogether.
[26]From the extracts of the oldest Irish manuscripts given by Lhuyd, Vallancey, and others, it appears that the rule concerning the correspondence of vowels in contiguous syllables, was by no means so generally observed once as it is now. It was gradually extended by the more modern Irish writers, from whom, it is probable, it has been incautiously adopted by the Scottish writers in its present and unwarrantable latitude. The rule we have been considering has been reprobated in strong terms by some of the most judicious Irish philologers, particularly O'Brien, author of an Irish Dictionary printed at Paris 1768, and Vallancey, author of an Irish Grammar, and of various elaborate disquisitions concerning Irish antiquities, from whom I quote the following passages: "This Rule [of dividing one syllable into two by the insertion of an aspirated consonant] together with that of substituting small or broad vowels in the latter syllables, to correspond with the vowel immediately following the consonant in the preceding syllable, has been very destructive to the original and radical purity of the Irish language."Vallancey's Ir. Gram. Chap. III. letter A."Another [Rule] devised in like manner by our bards and rhymers, I mean that which is calledCaol le caol, agus Leathan le leathan, has been woefully destructive to the original and radical purity of the Irish language. This latter (much of a more modern invention than the former, for our old manuscripts show no regard to it) imports and prescribes that two vowels, thus forming, or contributing to form, two different syllables, should both be of the same denomination or class of either broad or small vowels, and this without any regard to the primitive elementary structure of the word."O'Brien's Ir. Dict. Remarks on A."The wordsbiranandbiranachchanged sometimes intobioranandbioranachby the abusive rule ofLeathan le leathan."Id. in voc.Fear. The opinion of Lhuyd on this point, though not decisive, yet may properly be subjoined to those of Vallancey and O'Brien, as his words serve at least to show that this judicious philologer was no advocate for the Rule in question. "As for passing any censure on the rule concerning broad and small vowels, I chose rather to forbear making any remark at all upon them, by reason that old men who formerly wrote argetsilver, instead of airgiod as we now write it, never used to change a vowel but in declining of words, &c. And I do not know that it was ever done in any other language, unless by some particular persons who, through mistake or ignorance, were guilty of it."Archæol. Brit. Preface to Ir. Dict. translated in Bp. Nicolson's Irish Historical Library.
[27]Pinkerton's Inquiry into the History of Scotland.
[28]E.g., troidha foot, has been written troidh or troigh, either of which corresponds to the pronunciation, as the last consonant is quiescent. In Welsh, the articulation of the final consonant has been preserved, and the word is accordingly written troed. This authority seems sufficient to determine the proper orthography in Gaelic to be troidh and not troigh. For a like reason, perhaps, it would be proper to write tràidhshore, rather than tràigh, the common way of spelling the word, for we find the Irish formerly wrote tràidh, and the Welsh traeth. Claidheamha sword, since the final articulation was wholly dropped, has been sometimes written claidhe. The mode of writing it still with a final labial, though quiescent, will probably be thought the more proper of the two, when it is considered that claidheamh is the cognate, or rather the same word with the Irish cloidheamh the Welsh cleddyf, and the French glaive.
[29]I flatter myself that all my readers, who are acquainted with any of the ancient or the modern languages which have a distinction of gender in their attributives, will readily perceive that the import of the term Gender, in the grammar of those languages, is precisely what I have stated above. The same term has been introduced into the grammar of the English Tongue, rather improperly, because in an acceptation different from what it bears in the grammar of all other languages. In English there is no distinction of gender competent to Articles, Adjectives, or Participles. When a noun is said to be of the masculine gender, the meaning can only be that the object denoted by it is of the male sex. Thus in the English grammars, gender signifies a quality of theobjectnamed, while in other grammars it signifies a quality of thenamegiven to the object. The varieties ofwho,which, andhe,she,it, refer not to what is properly called thegenderof the antecedentnoun, but to theSexreal or attributed, or theabsence of Sex, of theobjectsignified by the antecedent. This is in effect acknowledged by writers on rhetoric, who affirm that in English the pronounswho,he,she, imply an express personification, or attribution of life, and consequently of Sex, to the objects to which these pronouns refer. The same thing is still more strikingly true of the variations on the termination of nouns, asprince,princess;lion,lioness, which are all discriminative of Sex. It seems therefore to be a mis-stated compliment which is usually paid to the English, when it is said that "this is the only language which has adapted the gender of its nouns to the constitution of Nature." The fact is, that it has adapted theFormof some of the most common names of living creatures, and of a few of its pronouns, to the obvious distinction ofmale, andfemale, andinanimate, while it has left its nouns without any mark characteristic ofgender. The same thing must necessarily happen to any language by abolishing the distinction of masculine and feminine in its attributives. If all languages had been constructed on this plan, it may confidently be affirmed that the grammatical termgenderwould never have come into use. The compliment intended, and due to the English, might have been more correctly expressed, by saying that "it is the only language that has rejected the unphilosophical distinction of gender, by making its attributives, in this respect, all indeclinable."
[30]Uan beag bainionn, 2 Sam. xii. 3. Numb. vi. 14. So leomhann boirionn, Ezek. xix. 1.
[31]It must appear singularly strange that any nouns which signify females exclusively should be of the masculine gender. The noun bainionnach, is derived from the adjective bainionn,female, which is formed from bean, the appropriate term for awoman. Yet this noun bainionnach, or boirionnach,a female, is masculine, to all grammatical intents and purposes. We say boirionnach còir,a civil woman, am boirionnach maiseach,the handsome woman.
The gender of this Noun seems to have been fixed, not by its signification, but by its determination, for most Derivatives inachare masculines; as, oganacha young man, marcacha horseman, Albanacha Scotsman, &c. So in Latin, mancipium, scortum, though applied to persons, follow the gender of their termination.
[32]It was necessary to be thus explicit in stating the changes at the beginning and those on the termination as unconnected independentaccidents, which ought to be viewed separately; because many who have happened to turn their thoughts toward the declension of the Gaelic noun have got a habit of conjoining these, and supposing that both contribute their united aid toward the forming thecasesof nouns. This is blending together things which are unconnected, and ought to be kept distinct. It has therefore appeared necessary to take a separate view of these twoaccidentsof nouns, and to limit the termcaseto those changes which are made on the termination, excluding entirely those which take place at the beginning.
[33]It is to be observed that these names of the cases are adopted merely because they are already familiar, not because they all denominate correctly the relations expressed by the cases to which they are respectively applied. There is no Accusative or Objective case in Gaelic different from the Nominative; neither is there any Ablative different from the Dative. For this reason, it is not only unnecessary, but erroneous, to reckon up six Cases in Gaelic, distinguished not by the form of the Noun, but by the Prepositions prefixed. This is to depart altogether from the common and proper use of the termCase. And if the new use of that term is to be adopted, then the enumeration is still incomplete, for we ought to have as many Cases as there are Prepositions in the language. Thus, besides a Dative do Bhard, and an Ablative o Bhard, we should have an Impositive Case air Bhard, a Concomitative le Bard, an Insertive ann am Bard, a Precursive roimh Bhard, &c. &c. Grammarians have very correctly reckoned only five Cases in Greek, two in English, one in French [SeeMoore,Murray,Buffier, &c.] because the variations in the form of the Noun extend no further. Surely nothing but an early and inveterate prepossession in favour of the arrangements of Latin Grammar could ever have suggested the idea of Six Cases in Gaelic or in English.
[34]It is not improbable that anciently all feminine nouns, except a few irregular ones, added a syllable to the nominative, aseora, in forming the genitive. The translators of the S. S. have sometimes formed the genitive of feminine polysyllables in this manner, as sionagoige from sionagog, Mark v. 36, 38. But it appears more agreeable to the analogy of inflection that such polysyllables should now be written without anein the genitive.
[35]It is probable that this noun should rather be written àdh. See McFarlane's Paraphrases, III. 3. also Lhuyd and O'Brien,in loco.
[36]Derivatives inan, andagshould form their genitive according to the general Rule,ain,aig; and in pronunciation they do so. When the syllable preceding the termination ends in a small vowel, the Rule of 'Caol re caol' has introduced aneinto the final syllable, which is then writtenean,eag. In this case writers have been puzzled how to form the genitive. The terminationseain,eaig, would evidently contain too many vowels for a short syllable. To reduce this awkward number of vowels they have commonly thrown out thea, the only letter which properly expressed the vocal sound of the syllable. Thus from caimean m. amote, they formed the gen. sing. caimein; from cuilean m. awhelp, g. s. cuilein; from duileag f. aleaf, g. s. duileig; from caileag f. agirl, g. s. caileig. Had they not yielded too far to the encroachments of the Rule of 'Caol re caol' they would have written both the nom. and the gen. of these and similar nouns more simply and more justly, thus: caiman, g. s. caimain; cuilan, g. s. cuilain; duilag, g. s. duilaig; cailag, g. s. cailaig.
[37]In many instances, the Plural terminationais oftener written with this finalnthan without it. When the vowel preceding the termination is small, the terminationaoranis very needlessly writteneorean, to preserve the correspondence of vowels.
[38]We are informed by E. O'C. that this is the usual construction in the Irish Dialect, and it appears to be the same in the Scottish. Thus, air son mo dhà shùl,for my two eyes.—Judg. xvi. 28. Ir. & Scott. versions.
[39]So in Hebrew, we find a noun in the singular number joined withtwenty,thirty,a hundred,a thousand, &c.
[40]The Pronouns tuthou, sehe, sishe, siadthey, are not employed, like other nominatives, to denote the object after a transitive verb. Hence the incorrectness of the following expression in most editions of the Gaelic Psalms: Se chrùnastule coron graidh, Psal. ciii. 4., which translated literally signifies,it is he whom thou wilt crown, &c. To express the true sense, viz.,it is he who will crown thee, it ought to have been, se chrùnasthule coron graidh. So is mise an Tighearn a slanuicheasthu,I am the Lord that healeth thee, Exod. xv. 26; Ma ta e ann a fhreagaireasthu,If there be any that will answer thee, Job v. 1; Co e a bhrathas thu?Who is he that will betray thee?John xxi. 20., Comp. Gen. xii. 3. and xxvii. 29.
[41]This use of the Pronoun of the 2d person plural is probably a modern innovation, for there is nothing like it found in the more ancient Gaelic compositions, nor in the graver poetry even of the present age. As this idiom seems, however, to be employed in conversation with increasing frequency, it will probably lose by degrees its present import, and will come to be used as the common mode of addressing any individual; in the same manner as the corresponding Pronouns are used in English, and other European languages.
[42]There seems hardly a sufficient reason for changing thedin this situation intot, as has been often done, as t'oglach for d'oglachthy servant, &c. Thedcorresponds sufficiently to the pronunciation, and being the constituent consonant of the pronoun, it ought not to be changed for another.
[43]The Irish are not so much at a loss to avoid ahiatus, as they often use na for ahis; which the translators of the Psalms have sometimes judiciously adopted; as,
An talamh tioram le na laimhDo chruthaich e 's do dhealbh. Psal. xcv. 5.
An talamh tioram le na laimhDo chruthaich e 's do dhealbh. Psal. xcv. 5.
An talamh tioram le na laimh
Do chruthaich e 's do dhealbh. Psal. xcv. 5.
[44]In the North Highlands this Pronoun is pronounced sid.
[45]This Pronoun occurs in such expressions as an deigh na chuala tuafter what you have heard; their leat na th' agad, or na bheil agad,bring what you have. It seems to be contracted for an ni athe thing which.
[46]There is reason to think that ge b'e is corruptly used for cia b' e. Of the former I find no satisfactory analysis. The latter cia b' e is literallywhich it be, orwhich it were; which is just the Frenchqui que ce soit,qui que ce fûtexpressed in English by one wordwhosoever,whichsoever. We find cia used in this sense and connection, Psal. cxxxv. 11. Glasg. 1753. Gach uile rioghachd mar an ceadn'ciah-iomdha bhi siad ann,Allkingdoms likewise, however numerous they be. See also Gen. xliv. 9, Rom. ii. 1.
[47]This pronoun is found written with an initial c in Lhuyd's "Archæol. Brit." Tit. I. page 20. col. 2. ceach; again Tit. X. voc. Bealtine, cecha bliadnaeach year. So also O'Brien, cachall,every, like the Frenchchaque. "Irish Dict." voc. cach.
[48]The pronounscach eileandcach a chéileare hardly known in Perthshire. Instead of the former, they use the single word càch pronounced long, and declined like a noun of the singular number; and instead of the latter, a chéile, as in this example, choinnich iad a chéile; thuit cuid, agus theich càch,they met each other; some fell, and the rest fled. Here càch 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 chiéle; thuit, cuid, agus theich cach eile. Now, if cach be nothing else than gachevery, (a conjecture supported by the short pronunciation of thea, 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 Particledoappears under a variety of forms. In one MS. of high antiquity it is often writtendno. This seems to be its oldest form. The two consonants were sometimes separated by a vowel, and thenbeing pronounced and then writtenr, (See Part I. p. 19.) the word was written doro. (SeeAstle'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 thefweakens the sound of the word, and often occasions ahiatus. There seems a propriety in retaining thefof 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 itspersonalrelation 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 ofpersonalinflections, 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 orincorporation, 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 itsNumbersandPersons, 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 monosyllablea, which, it must be confessed, recurs in too many senses.
[54]The Preposition iar has here been improperly confounded with airon. I have ventured to restore it, from the Irish Grammarians. Iar is in common use in the Irish dialect, signifyingafter. Thus, iar sinafter that, iar leaghadh an tshoisgeilafter reading the Gospel, iar sleachdadh do niomlanafter all have kneeled down, iar seasamh suasafter standing up, &c. See "Irish Book of Common Prayer." Air, when applied to time, signifies notafter, butatoron, air an am so, air an uair soat this time, air an la sinon 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 addingtarto 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, thetseems 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 thethas 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 inte, for in this part of the verb, thethas always itssmallsound. Yet in verbs whereof the characteristic vowel is broad, it is usual to write the termination of the Pass. Part.ta; as, togtaraised, crochtasuspended. This is done in direct opposition to the pronunciation, merely out of regard to the Irish Rule ofLeathan 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 thetof the Pass. Part. that thesmallsound 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 aniinserted before it. Thus, òldrink, Pass. Part. òilte; pronnpound, proinnte; crannbar, crainnte; sparrram, spairrte; truspack, truiste. But when the verb ends in a mute, whether plain or aspirated, there is no such coalescence between its final consonant and the adjectedtof 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 toLeathan ri leathan; as, tograise, Pass. Part. togte; crochhang, crochte; sàththrust, sàthte; cnamhchew, cnamhte.
The same observations apply, with equal force, to the Pret. Subj. in which thetof the termination is always pronounced with itssmallsound, and should therefore be followed by a small vowel in writing; as, thogteadh, chrochteadh, not thogtadh, chrochtadh.
[57]In allregularverbs, 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 deanamhI am doing, ta e bualadhhe 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 representativegis 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 bhualadhthey are striking him, ta e 'g ar bualadhhe 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 spréidhe,we are going to seek the cattle; ta iad ag iomain na spréidhe,they are driving the cattle; ta iad iar cuairteachadh na spréidhe,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 asinter ambulandum,εν τῳ περιπατειν.—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 participlea[the Gaelic ag] before it, it supplies the room of the participle of the present tense, &c. "Archæol. Brit." page 245, col. 3. This observation is strictly applicable to the Gaelic verb. The infinitive, with the particleagbefore 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 issuppliedby the Participleagbefore the Infinitive Mood; as,ag radhsaying,ag cainnttalking,ag teagasgteaching,ag dulgoing, &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 nosimplePresent 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. CreidimI believe, guidheamI 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 hewillmeditate;i.e., hedoesmeditate 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]Téid the Fut. Negat. of Rach togo, has been generally written d'théid; from an opinion, it would seem, that the full form of that Tense is do théid. Yet as the participledois 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 téid. 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 dthéid, dthoir, dthig.
[66]Throughout the verb tabhair, the syllablesabhairare often contracted intooir; 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. DeireamI say, deir ehe saith, deir iadthey 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 isunderstood, 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.