[1] Analysis of the Gaelic Language, by William Shaw, A.M.

[2] A few examples of what I conceived to be deviations from grammatical propriety are given from the Gaelic version of the Bible. As the translation of the Prophetical Books underwent a revision, the exceptionable passages in those Books have been changed in the second edition from what they were as they came out of the hands of the original translator. The criticism on those passages is, however, allowed to remain in this edition of the Grammar, because the first edition of the Gaelic Prophets is still in the hands of many, and because it often happens that "we can best teach what is right by showing what is wrong."—Lowth.

[3] It will immediately occur to any grammarian that there is a slight difference between this and the common division into mutes and liquids, by the letter m being removed from the class of liquids to that of mutes. This is not an oversight, but an intentional arrangement; as the accidents of the letter m are, in Gaelic, the same with those of the mute, not of the liquid consonants. For a like reason, s is included in the class of liquids.

[4] Writers, who have touched on this part of Gaelic Grammar, following the Irish grammarians, have divided the consonants further into mutable and immutable. The former name has been given to consonants which, in writing, have been occasionally combined with the letter h; and the latter name to those consonants which have not, in writing, been combined with h. But, in fact, both classes of consonants are alike mutable in their pronunciation; and their mutation ought to have been marked in the orthography, though it has not. This defect in Gaelic orthography has been often observed and regretted, though it has never been corrected. Rather than continue a distinction which has no foundation in the structure of the language, I venture to discard the division of mutable and immutable consonants, as not merely useless, but as tending to mislead the learner.

[5] In explaining the sounds of the letters I have availed myself of the very correct and acute remarks on this subject annexed to the Gaelic version of the New Testament, 1767.

[6] If it be thought that this renders the language too monotonous, it may be observed, on the other hand, that it prevents ambiguities and obscurities in rapid speaking, as the accent marks the initial syllable of polysyllables. Declaimers, of either sex, have often found their advantage in this circumstance.

[7] That is the second sound assigned to a.

[8] The plural of la or latha a day, is sometimes written laeth; but it is doubtful how far this is a proper mode of writing it.

[9] The effect of the vowels in qualifying the sound of the adjoining consonants will be explained in treating of the Palatals and Linguals.

[10] This propensity is seen in the aspirating of consonants in Gaelic words, which have an evident affinity to words in other languages, where the same consonants are not so aspirated. The following list will sufficiently illustrate and confirm the truth of this remark:—

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 deathach smoke, cuntart or cunthart danger, ta or tha am, art, tu or thu thou, troimh or throimh through, tar or thar over, am beil or am bheil is there? dom or domh to me, &c. Has not this remission or suppression of the articulations the effect of enfeebling the speech, by mollifying its bones and relaxing its nerves? Ought not therefore the progress of this corruption to be opposed, by retaining unaspirated articulations in those instances where universal practice has not entirely superseded them, and even by restoring them in some instances, where the loss of them has been attended with manifest inconvenience? It is shameful to see how many monosyllables, once distinguished by their articulations, have in process of time, by dropping these articulations, come to be represented by the solitary vowel a, to the no small confusion of the language and embarrassment of the reader. The place of the absent consonant is often supplied, indeed, in writing, by an apostrophe. This, however, is at best but an imperfect and precarious expedient.

* So in French, from Aprilis, Avrilis; habere, avoir; Febris, FiÈvre: ep?s??p??, 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 which ph represents the Greek ­f, or the Hebrew ?. It might perhaps be more proper to represent ? by p rather than ph; and to represent f by f, as the Italians have done in filosofia, filologia, &c., by which some ambiguities and anomalies in declension would be avoided.

[12] The affinity between the sounds of v and u is observable in many languages, particularly in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

[13] Agreeably to the like pronunciation, the Welsh write this word marw, the Manks marroo.

[14] It is still pronounced fuair in the Northern Highlands, and it is so written in Irish. See Irish Bible, Gen. xxxv. 18, 19; John ii. 14, viii. 62, 53.

[15] So fathast yet, fein self, are in some places pronounced as if they began with an h instead of an f. The latter word is, by the Manks, written hene.

[16] Over a considerable part of the Highlands that propensity to aspiration, which has been already remarked, has affixed to c, in the end of a word, or of an accented syllable, the sound of chc; as, mac a son, torc a boar, acain moaning; pronounced often machc, torchc, achcain.

There is reason to believe that this compound sound of chc was not known of old, but is a modern corruption.

This pronunciation is not universal over the Highlands. In some parts the c retains its proper sound in all situations.

If the articulation in question had, from the first, been compounded, it is highly probable that it would have been represented, in writing, by a combination of letters, such as chc; especially as we find that the same sound is represented at other times, not by a single consonant, but by a combination, as in the case of chd. Why should it be thought that boc a buck, and bochd poor, were originally pronounced alike, when they are distinguished both in writing and signification?

The word ?? a sack, has been transplanted from the Hebrew into many languages, among the rest the Gaelic, where it has been always written sac, although now pronounced sachc. In none of the other languages in which the word is used (except the Welsh alone), has the final palatal been aspirated. It would appear therefore that the sound sachc is a departure from the original Gaelic pronunciation. The same change may have happened in the pronunciation of other words, in which the plain c is now aspirated, though it may not have been so originally.

[17] Though th be quiescent in the middle of a polysyllable, over the North and Central Highlands, yet it is, with more propriety, pronounced, in the West Highlands, as an aspiration; as, athair father, mathanas pardon, pronounced a-hair, mahanas.

[18] I am informed that this pronunciation of chd is not universal; but that in some districts, particularly the East Highlands, the d has here, as in other places, its proper lingual sounds. In many, if not all the instances in which chd occurs, the ancient Irish wrote ct. This spelling corresponds to that of some foreign words that have a manifest affinity to Gaelic words of the same signification; which, it is therefore presumable, were all originally pronounced, as they were written, without an aspiration, such as,

From the propensity of the Gaelic to aspiration, the original c was converted into ch, and the words were written with cht, as in the Irish acht but, &c., or with the slight change of t into d, as in ochd, &c. This is the opinion of O'Brien, when he says the word lecht is the Celtic root of the Latin lectio—the aspirate h is but a late invention.—O'Br. Ir. Dict. voc. lecht. In process of time the true sound of cht or chd was confounded with the kindred sound of chc, which was commonly, though corruptly, given to final c.

[19] It is certain that the natural sound of d aspirated is that of [the Saxon Ð] or th in thou; as the natural sound of t aspirated is that of th in think. This articulation, from whatever cause, has not been admitted into the Gaelic, either Scottish or Irish, although it is used in the kindred dialects of Cornwall and Wales.

[20] In sean old, the n has its plain sound when the following word begins with a Lingual. Accordingly it is often written in that situation seann; as, seann duine an old man, an t-seann tiomnaidh of the old Testament.

[21] So in Latin, canmen from cano was pronounced, and then written carmen; genmen from the obsolete ?e?? passed into germen.

[22] Another mode, proposed by a learned correspondent, of marking the distinction in the sound of the initial Linguals, is by writing the letter double, thus ll, nn, rr, when its sound is the same with that which is represented by those double letters in the end of a syllable; and when the sound is otherwise, to write the letter single; as, llamh hand, llion fill, mo lamh my hand, lion mi I filled.

It is perhaps too late, however, to urge now even so slight an alteration as this in the Orthography of the Gaelic, which ought rather to be held as fixed beyond the reach of innovation, by the happy diffusion of the Gaelic Scriptures over the Highlands.

[23] Leathan re Leathan, is Caol re Caol.

Of the many writers who have recorded or taken notice of this rule, I have found none who have attempted to account for its introduction into the Gaelic. They only tell that such a correspondence between the vowels ought to be observed, and that it would be improper to write otherwise. Indeed, none of them seem to have attended to the different effects of a broad and of a small vowel on the sound of an adjacent consonant. From this circumstance, duly considered, I have endeavoured to derive a reason for the rule in question, the only probable one that has yet occurred to me.

[24] As deanuibh or deanaibh do ye, beannuich or beannaich bless.

[25] It is worthy of remark that in such words as caird-eil friendly, slaint-eil salutary, the substitution of e in place of a in the termination, both misrepresents the sound, and disguises the derivation of the syllable. The sound of this termination as in fear-ail manly, ban-ail womanly, is properly represented by ail. This syllable is an abbreviation of amhuil like, which is commonly written in its full form by the Irish, as fear-amhuil, &c. It corresponds exactly to the English termination like, in soldier-like, officer-like, which is abridged to ly, as manly, friendly. By writing eil instead of ail, we almost lose sight of amhuil altogether.

[26] From the extracts of the oldest Irish manuscripts given by Lhuyd, Vallancey, and others, it appears that the rule concerning the correspondence of vowels in contiguous syllables, was by no means so generally observed once as it is now. It was gradually extended by the more modern Irish writers, from whom, it is probable, it has been incautiously adopted by the Scottish writers in its present and unwarrantable latitude. The rule we have been considering has been reprobated in strong terms by some of the most judicious Irish philologers, particularly O'Brien, author of an Irish Dictionary printed at Paris 1768, and Vallancey, author of an Irish Grammar, and of various elaborate disquisitions concerning Irish antiquities, from whom I quote the following passages: "This Rule [of dividing one syllable into two by the insertion of an aspirated consonant] together with that of substituting small or broad vowels in the latter syllables, to correspond with the vowel immediately following the consonant in the preceding syllable, has been very destructive to the original and radical purity of the Irish language." Vallancey's Ir. Gram. Chap. III. letter A. "Another [Rule] devised in like manner by our bards and rhymers, I mean that which is called Caol le caol, agus Leathan le leathan, has been woefully destructive to the original and radical purity of the Irish language. This latter (much of a more modern invention than the former, for our old manuscripts show no regard to it) imports and prescribes that two vowels, thus forming, or contributing to form, two different syllables, should both be of the same denomination or class of either broad or small vowels, and this without any regard to the primitive elementary structure of the word." O'Brien's Ir. Dict. Remarks on A. "The words biran and biranach changed sometimes into bioran and bioranach by the abusive rule of Leathan le leathan." Id. in voc. Fear. The opinion of Lhuyd on this point, though not decisive, yet may properly be subjoined to those of Vallancey and O'Brien, as his words serve at least to show that this judicious philologer was no advocate for the Rule in question. "As for passing any censure on the rule concerning broad and small vowels, I chose rather to forbear making any remark at all upon them, by reason that old men who formerly wrote arget silver, instead of airgiod as we now write it, never used to change a vowel but in declining of words, &c. And I do not know that it was ever done in any other language, unless by some particular persons who, through mistake or ignorance, were guilty of it." 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., troidh a foot, has been written troidh or troigh, either of which corresponds to the pronunciation, as the last consonant is quiescent. In Welsh, the articulation of the final consonant has been preserved, and the word is accordingly written troed. This authority seems sufficient to determine the proper orthography in Gaelic to be troidh and not troigh. For a like reason, perhaps, it would be proper to write trÀidh shore, rather than trÀigh, the common way of spelling the word, for we find the Irish formerly wrote trÀidh, and the Welsh traeth. Claidheamh a sword, since the final articulation was wholly dropped, has been sometimes written claidhe. The mode of writing it still with a final labial, though quiescent, will probably be thought the more proper of the two, when it is considered that claidheamh is the cognate, or rather the same word with the Irish cloidheamh the Welsh cleddyf, and the French glaive.

[29] I flatter myself that all my readers, who are acquainted with any of the ancient or the modern languages which have a distinction of gender in their attributives, will readily perceive that the import of the term Gender, in the grammar of those languages, is precisely what I have stated above. The same term has been introduced into the grammar of the English Tongue, rather improperly, because in an acceptation different from what it bears in the grammar of all other languages. In English there is no distinction of gender competent to Articles, Adjectives, or Participles. When a noun is said to be of the masculine gender, the meaning can only be that the object denoted by it is of the male sex. Thus in the English grammars, gender signifies a quality of the object named, while in other grammars it signifies a quality of the name given to the object. The varieties of who, which, and he, she, it, refer not to what is properly called the gender of the antecedent noun, but to the Sex real or attributed, or the absence of Sex, of the object signified by the antecedent. This is in effect acknowledged by writers on rhetoric, who affirm that in English the pronouns who, he, she, imply an express personification, or attribution of life, and consequently of Sex, to the objects to which these pronouns refer. The same thing is still more strikingly true of the variations on the termination of nouns, as prince, princess; lion, lioness, which are all discriminative of Sex. It seems therefore to be a mis-stated compliment which is usually paid to the English, when it is said that "this is the only language which has adapted the gender of its nouns to the constitution of Nature." The fact is, that it has adapted the Form of some of the most common names of living creatures, and of a few of its pronouns, to the obvious distinction of male, and female, and inanimate, while it has left its nouns without any mark characteristic of gender. The same thing must necessarily happen to any language by abolishing the distinction of masculine and feminine in its attributives. If all languages had been constructed on this plan, it may confidently be affirmed that the grammatical term gender would never have come into use. The compliment intended, and due to the English, might have been more correctly expressed, by saying that "it is the only language that has rejected the unphilosophical distinction of gender, by making its attributives, in this respect, all indeclinable."

[30] Uan beag bainionn, 2 Sam. xii. 3. Numb. vi. 14. So leomhann boirionn, Ezek. xix. 1.

[31] It must appear singularly strange that any nouns which signify females exclusively should be of the masculine gender. The noun bainionnach, is derived from the adjective bainionn, female, which is formed from bean, the appropriate term for a woman. Yet this noun bainionnach, or boirionnach, a female, is masculine, to all grammatical intents and purposes. We say boirionnach 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 in ach are masculines; as, oganach a young man, marcach a horseman, Albanach a Scotsman, &c. So in Latin, mancipium, scortum, though applied to persons, follow the gender of their termination.

[32] It was necessary to be thus explicit in stating the changes at the beginning and those on the termination as unconnected independent accidents, which ought to be viewed separately; because many who have happened to turn their thoughts toward the declension of the Gaelic noun have got a habit of conjoining these, and supposing that both contribute their united aid toward the forming the cases of nouns. This is blending together things which are unconnected, and ought to be kept distinct. It has therefore appeared necessary to take a separate view of these two accidents of nouns, and to limit the term case to those changes which are made on the termination, excluding entirely those which take place at the beginning.

[33] It is to be observed that these names of the cases are adopted merely because they are already familiar, not because they all denominate correctly the relations expressed by the cases to which they are respectively applied. There is no Accusative or Objective case in Gaelic different from the Nominative; neither is there any Ablative different from the Dative. For this reason, it is not only unnecessary, but erroneous, to reckon up six Cases in Gaelic, distinguished not by the form of the Noun, but by the Prepositions prefixed. This is to depart altogether from the common and proper use of the term Case. And if the new use of that term is to be adopted, then the enumeration is still incomplete, for we ought to have as many Cases as there are Prepositions in the language. Thus, besides a Dative do Bhard, and an Ablative o Bhard, we should have an Impositive Case air Bhard, a Concomitative le Bard, an Insertive ann am Bard, a Precursive roimh Bhard, &c. &c. Grammarians have very correctly reckoned only five Cases in Greek, two in English, one in French [See Moore, Murray, Buffier, &c.] because the variations in the form of the Noun extend no further. Surely nothing but an early and inveterate prepossession in favour of the arrangements of Latin Grammar could ever have suggested the idea of Six Cases in Gaelic or in English.

[34] It is not improbable that anciently all feminine nouns, except a few irregular ones, added a syllable to the nominative, as e or a, in forming the genitive. The translators of the S. S. have sometimes formed the genitive of feminine polysyllables in this manner, as sionagoige from sionagog, Mark v. 36, 38. But it appears more agreeable to the analogy of inflection that such polysyllables should now be written without an e in the genitive.

[35] It is probable that this noun should rather be written Àdh. See M^cFarlane's Paraphrases, III. 3. also Lhuyd and O'Brien, in loco.

[36] Derivatives in an, and ag should form their genitive according to the general Rule, ain, aig; and in pronunciation they do so. When the syllable preceding the termination ends in a small vowel, the Rule of 'Caol re caol' has introduced an e into the final syllable, which is then written ean, eag. In this case writers have been puzzled how to form the genitive. The terminations eain, eaig, would evidently contain too many vowels for a short syllable. To reduce this awkward number of vowels they have commonly thrown out the a, the only letter which properly expressed the vocal sound of the syllable. Thus from caimean m. a mote, they formed the gen. sing. caimein; from cuilean m. a whelp, g. s. cuilein; from duileag f. a leaf, g. s. duileig; from caileag f. a girl, g. s. caileig. Had they not yielded too far to the encroachments of the Rule of 'Caol re caol' they would have written both the nom. and the gen. of these and similar nouns more simply and more justly, thus: caiman, g. s. caimain; cuilan, g. s. cuilain; duilag, g. s. duilaig; cailag, g. s. cailaig.

[37] In many instances, the Plural termination a is oftener written with this final n than without it. When the vowel preceding the termination is small, the termination a or an is very needlessly written e or ean, to preserve the correspondence of vowels.

[38] We are informed by E. O'C. that this is the usual construction in the Irish Dialect, and it appears to be the same in the Scottish. Thus, air son mo 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 with twenty, thirty, a hundred, a thousand, &c.

[40] The Pronouns tu thou, se he, si she, siad they, are not employed, like other nominatives, to denote the object after a transitive verb. Hence the incorrectness of the following expression in most editions of the Gaelic Psalms: Se chrÙnas tu le coron graidh, Psal. ciii. 4., which translated literally signifies, it is he whom thou wilt crown, &c. To express the true sense, viz., it is he who will crown thee, it ought to have been, se chrÙnas thu le coron graidh. So is mise an Tighearn a slanuicheas thu, I am the Lord that healeth thee, Exod. xv. 26; Ma ta e ann a fhreagaireas thu, If there be any that will answer thee, Job v. 1; Co e a bhrathas thu? Who is he that will betray thee? John xxi. 20., Comp. Gen. xii. 3. and xxvii. 29.

[41] This use of the Pronoun of the 2d person plural is probably a modern innovation, for there is nothing like it found in the more ancient Gaelic compositions, nor in the graver poetry even of the present age. As this idiom seems, however, to be employed in conversation with increasing frequency, it will probably lose by degrees its present import, and will come to be used as the common mode of addressing any individual; in the same manner as the corresponding Pronouns are used in English, and other European languages.

[42] There seems hardly a sufficient reason for changing the d in this situation into t, as has been often done, as t'oglach for d'oglach thy servant, &c. The d corresponds sufficiently to the pronunciation, and being the constituent consonant of the pronoun, it ought not to be changed for another.

[43] The Irish are not so much at a loss to avoid a hiatus, as they often use na for a his; which the translators of the Psalms have sometimes judiciously adopted; as,

[44] In the North Highlands this Pronoun is pronounced sid.

[45] This Pronoun occurs in such expressions as an deigh na chuala tu after what you have heard; their leat na th' agad, or na bheil agad, bring what you have. It seems to be contracted for an ni a the thing which.

[46] There is reason to think that ge b'e is corruptly used for cia b' e. Of the former I find no satisfactory analysis. The latter cia b' e is literally which it be, or which it were; which is just the French qui que ce soit, qui que ce fÛt expressed in English by one word whosoever, whichsoever. We find cia used in this sense and connection, Psal. cxxxv. 11. Glasg. 1753. Gach uile rioghachd mar an ceadn' cia h-iomdha bhi siad ann, All kingdoms likewise, however numerous they be. See also Gen. xliv. 9, Rom. ii. 1.

[47] This pronoun is found written with an initial c in Lhuyd's "ArchÆol. Brit." Tit. I. page 20. col. 2. ceach; again Tit. X. voc. Bealtine, cecha bliadna each year. So also O'Brien, cach all, every, like the French chaque. "Irish Dict." voc. cach.

[48] The pronouns cach eile and cach a chÉile are 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 gach every, (a conjecture supported by the short pronunciation of the a, as well as by the authorities adduced in the preceding note,) the expressions may be easily analysed: choinnich iad gach [aon] a cheile; thuit cuid, agus theich gach [aon] eile; they met every [one] his fellow; some fell, and every other [one] fled, See 1 Thess. v. 11.

[49] In the older Irish MSS. the Particle do appears under a variety of forms. In one MS. of high antiquity it is often written dno. This seems to be its oldest form. The two consonants were sometimes separated by a vowel, and the n being pronounced and then written r, (See Part I. p. 19.) the word was written doro. (See Astle's Hist. of the Orig. and Progr. of Writing, page 126, Irish Specimen, No. 6.) The Consonants were sometimes transposed, suppressing the latter Vowel, and the Particle became nod (O Brien's Ir. Dict. voc. Sasat, Treas,) and rod (id. voc. Ascaim, Fial.) Sometimes one of the syllables only was retained; hence no (O'Br. voc. No,) ro (id. voc. Ro,) and do in common use. Do likewise suffered a transposition of letters, and was written sometimes ad. (O'Br. voc. Do.)

[50] This correspondence of the Termination with the Root was overlooked in the older editions of the Gaelic Psalms; as pronnfidh, cuirfar, molfidh, innsam, guidham, coimhdar, sinnam, gluaisfar, &c.

[51] The disposition in the Gaelic to drop articulations has, in this instance, been rather unfortunate; as the want of the f weakens the sound of the word, and often occasions a hiatus. There seems a propriety in retaining the f of the Future, after a Liquid, or an aspirated Mute; as, cuirfidh, mairfidh, molfidh, geillfidh, pronnfidh, brisfidh, &c., for these words lose much in sound and emphasis by being changed into caithidh, mairidh, &c.

[52] The incorporation of the Verb with a Personal Pronoun is a manifest improvement, and has gradually taken place in almost all the polished languages. There is incomparably more beauty and force in expressing the energy of the Verb, with its personal relation and concomitant circumstances, in one word, than by a periphrasis of pronouns and auxiliaries. The latter mode may have a slight advantage in point of precision, but the former is greatly superior in elegance and strength. The structure of the Latin and Greek, compared with that of the English Verb, affords a striking illustration of this common and obvious remark. Nothing can be worse managed than the French Verb; which, though it possesses a competent variety of personal inflections, yet loses all the benefit of them by the perpetual enfeebling recurrence of the personal Pronouns.

In comparing the Scottish and Irish dialects of the Gaelic, it may be inferred that the former, having less of inflection or incorporation, than the latter, differs less from the parent tongue, and is an older branch of the Celtic, than its sister dialect. It were unfair, however, to deny that the Irish have improved the Verb, by giving a greater variety of inflection to its Numbers and Persons, as well as by introducing a simple Present Tense. The authors of our metrical version of the Gaelic Psalms were sensible of the advantage possessed by the Irish dialect in these respects, and did not scruple to borrow an idiom which has given grace and dignity to many of their verses.

[53] Such at least is the common practice in writing, in compliance with the common mode of colloquial pronunciation. It might perhaps be better to retain the full form of the Preposition, in grave pronunciation, and always in writing. It is an object worthy of attention to preserve radical articulations, especially in writing; and particularly to avoid every unnecessary use of the monosyllable a, which, it must be confessed, recurs in too many senses.

[54] The Preposition iar has here been improperly confounded with air on. I have ventured to restore it, from the Irish Grammarians. Iar is in common use in the Irish dialect, signifying after. Thus, iar sin after that, iar leaghadh an tshoisgeil after reading the Gospel, iar sleachdadh do niomlan after all have kneeled down, iar seasamh suas after standing up, &c. See "Irish Book of Common Prayer." Air, when applied to time, signifies not after, but at or on, air an am so, air an uair so at this time, air an la sin on that day. There is therefore sufficient reason to believe that, in the case in question, iar is the proper word; and that it has been corruptly supplanted by air.

[55] The Imperative seems to have been anciently formed by adding tar to the Root. This form is still retained in Ireland, and in some parts of Scotland, chiefly in verbs ending in a Lingual; as, buailtear, deantar. (See the Lord's Prayer in the older editions of the Gaelic Version of the Assembly's Catechism; also, the "Irish N. Test." Matt. vi. 10. Luke xi. 2.) In other verbs, the t seems to have been dropped in pronunciation. It was, however, retained by the Irish in writing, but with an aspiration to indicate its being quiescent; thus, togthar, teilgthear, "Ir. N. T." Matt. xxi. 21, Mark xi. 23, crochthar, Matt. xxvii. 22. So also the "Gaelic N. T." 1767, deanthar. Matt. vi. 10, Luke xi. 2. In the later publications the t has been omitted altogether, with what propriety may be well doubted.

[56] To preserve a due correspondence with the pronunciation, the Pass. Part. should always terminate in te, for in this part of the verb, the t has always its small sound. Yet in verbs whereof the characteristic vowel is broad, it is usual to write the termination of the Pass. Part. ta; as, togta raised, crochta suspended. This is done in direct opposition to the pronunciation, merely out of regard to the Irish Rule of Leathan ri leathan, which in this case, as in many others, has been permitted to mar the genuine orthography.

When a verb, whose characteristic vowel is broad, terminates in a Liquid, the final consonant coalesces so closely with the t of the Pass. Part. that the small sound of the latter necessarily occasions the like sound in pronouncing the former. Accordingly the small sound of the Liquid is properly represented in writing, by an i inserted before it. Thus, Òl drink, Pass. Part. Òilte; pronn pound, proinnte; crann bar, crainnte; sparr ram, spairrte; trus pack, truiste. But when the verb ends in a mute, whether plain or aspirated, there is no such coalescence between its final consonant and the adjected t of the Participle. The final consonant if it be pronounced retains its broad sound. There is no good reason for maintaining a correspondence of vowels in the Participle, which ought therefore to be written, as it is pronounced, without regard to Leathan ri leathan; as, tog raise, Pass. Part. togte; croch hang, crochte; sÀth thrust, sÀthte; cnamh chew, cnamhte.

The same observations apply, with equal force, to the Pret. Subj. in which the t of the termination is always pronounced with its small sound, and should therefore be followed by a small vowel in writing; as, thogteadh, chrochteadh, not thogtadh, chrochtadh.

[57] In all regular verbs, the difference between the Affirmative and the Negative Moods, though marked but slightly and partially in the Preterite Tense, (only in the initial form of the 2d Conjugation,) yet is strongly marked in the Future Tense. The Fut. Aff. terminates in a feeble vocal sound. In the Fut. Neg. the voice rests on an articulation, or is cut short by a forcible aspiration. Supposing these Tenses to be used by a speaker in reply to a command or a request; by their very structure, the former expresses the softness of compliance; and the latter, the abruptness of a refusal. If a command or a request be expressed by such verbs as these, tog sin, gabh sin, ith sin, the compliant answer is expressed by togaidh, gabhaidh, ithidh; the refusal, by the cha tog, cha ghabh, cha n-ith. May not this peculiar variety of form in the same Tense, when denoting affirmation, and when denoting negation, be reckoned among the characteristic marks of an original language?

[58] This part of the verb, being declined and governed like a noun, bears a closer resemblance to the Latin Gerund than to the Infinitive; and might have been properly named the Gerund. But as Lhuyd and all the later Irish Grammarians have already given it the name of Infinitive, I choose to continue the same appellation rather than change it.

[59] The Editor of the Gaelic Psalms printed at Glasgow, 1753, judging, as it would seem, that cuidich was too bold a licence for cuideachaidh, restored the gen. of the full form of the Infinitive; but in order to reduce it to two syllables, so as to suit the verse, he threw out the middle syllable, and wrote cuid'idh.

[60] I have met with persons of superior knowledge of the Gaelic who contended that such expressions as—ta mi deanamh I am doing, ta e bualadh he is striking (see page 83), are complete without any Preposition understood; and that in such situations deanamh, bualadh, are not infinitives or nouns, but real participles of the Present Tense. With much deference to such authorities, I shall here give the reasons which appear to me to support the contrary opinion.

1. The form of the supposed Participle is invariably the same with that of the Infinitive.

2. If the words deanamh, bualadh, in the phrases adduced, were real Participles, then in all similar instances, it would be not only unnecessary, but ungrammatical, to introduce the preposition ag at all. But this is far from being the case. In all verbs beginning with a vowel, the preposition ag or its unequivocal representative g is indispensable; as, ta iad ag iarruidh, ta mi 'g iarruidh. Shall we say, then, that verbs beginning with a consonant have a present participle, while those that begin with a vowel have none? But even this distinction falls to the ground, when it is considered that in many phrases which involve a verb beginning with a consonant, the preposition ag stands forth to view, and can on no account be suppressed; as, ta iad 'g a bhualadh they are striking him, ta e 'g ar bualadh he is striking us. From these particulars it may be inferred that the preposition ag must always precede the infinitive, in order to complete the phrase which corresponds to the English or Latin pres. participle; and that in those cases where the preposition has been dropped, the omission has been owing to the rapidity or carelessness of colloquial pronunciation.

3. A still stronger argument, in support of the same conclusion, may be derived from the regimen of the phrase in question. The infinitive of a transitive verb, preceded by any preposition, always governs the noun, which is the object of the verbal action, in the genitive. This is an invariable rule of Gaelic Syntax; thus, ta sinn a' dol a dh' iarruidh na 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 as inter ambulandum, e? t? pe??pate??.—Lhuyd, in his Cornish Grammar, informs us, with his usual accuracy, that the Infinitive Mood, as in the other dialects of the British, sometimes serves as a Substantive, as in the Latin; and by the help of the participle a [the Gaelic ag] before it, it supplies the room of the participle of the present tense, &c. "ArchÆol. Brit." page 245, col. 3. This observation is strictly applicable to the Gaelic verb. The infinitive, with the particle ag before it, supplies the room of the present Participle. The same judicious writer repeats this observation in his "Introduction to the Irish or Ancient Scottish Language": The Participle of the Present Tense is supplied by the Participle ag before the Infinitive Mood; as, ag radh saying, ag cainnt talking, ag teagasg teaching, ag dul going, &c. "Arch. Brit." page 303, col. 2.

[61] It may appear a strange defect in the Gaelic, that its Verbs, excepting the substantive verbs Bi, Is, have no simple Present Tense. Yet this is manifestly the case in the Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish dialects (see "Arch. Brit." page 246, col. 1, and page 247, col. 1.); to which may be added the Manks. Creidim I believe, guidheam I pray, with perhaps one or two more Present Tenses, now used in Scotland, seem to have been imported from Ireland, for their paucity evinces that they belong not to our dialect. The want of the simple Present Tense is a striking point of resemblance between the Gaelic and the Hebrew verb.

I am indebted to a learned and ingenious correspondent for the following important remark; that the want of the simple Present Tense in all the British dialects of the Celtic, in common with the Hebrew, while the Irish has assumed that Tense, furnishes a strong presumption that the Irish is a dialect of later growth; that the British Gaelic is its parent tongue; and consequently that Britain is the mother country of Ireland.

[62] From observing the same thing happen repeatedly or habitually it is naturally inferred that it will happen again. When an event is predicted it is supposed that the speaker, if no other cause of his foreknowledge appears, infers the future happening of the event from its having already happened in many instances. Thus the Future Tense, which simply foretells, conveys to the hearer an intimation that the thing foretold has already taken place frequently and habitually. In Hebrew, the Future Tense is used with precisely the same effect. In the law of Jehovah he will meditate; i.e., he does meditate habitually. Psal. i, 2. See also Psal. xlii. 1, Job ix. 11, xxiii. 8, 9, &c., passim.

[63] Though this be the precise import of the Compound Tenses of the second order, yet they are not strictly confined to the point of time stated above; but are often used to denote past time indefinitely. In this way, they supply the place of the Compound Tenses of the first order in those verbs which have no passive participle.

[64] See Moor. So tha 'n tigh 'g a thogail, the house is in building.

[65] TÉid the Fut. Negat. of Rach to go, 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 participle do is never found prefixed to the Future Negative of any regular verb, it appears more agreeable to the analogy of conjugation to write this tense in its simplest form 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 syllables abhair are often contracted into oir; as, toir, torinnn, &c. Acts xviii. 10. Sometimes written d'thoir, d'thoirinn; rather improperly. See note 65.

[67] Tig rather than d'thig. See note 65.

[68] A Pres. Aff. of this Verb, borrowed from the Irish, is often used in the G. SS. Deiream I say, deir e he saith, deir iad they say.

[69] Dubhairt, dubhradh, are contracted for do thubhairt, &c. Abairinn, abaiream, abairear, are often contracted into abrainn, abram, abrar.

[70] It may appear an odd peculiarity in the Gaelic, that in many of the most common phrases, a proposition or question should thus be expressed without the least trace of a Verb. It can hardly be said that the Substantive Verb is understood, for then there would be no impropriety in expressing it. But the fact is, that it would be completely contrary to the idiom and usage of the language, to introduce a Substantive Verb in these phrases. It will diminish our surprise at this peculiarity to observe that in the ancient languages numerous examples occur of sentences, or clauses of sentences, in which the Substantive Verb is omitted, without occasioning any obscurity or ambiguity; and this in Prose as well as in Verse. Thus in Hebrew; Gen. xlii. 11, 13, 14. We [are] all one man's sons—we [are] true men—thy servants [are] twelve brethren—the youngest [is] with his father—ye [are] spies—&c.