Part 4 — Notes

Greek. Latin. Gælic.

Διαβολος Diabolus Diabhol.

Scribo* Scriobh, write.

Febris* Fiabhrus, a fever.

Baculum Bacholl, a staff.

Δεκα Decem Deich, ten.

Lorica Lùireach, a coat of mail.

Clericus Cleireach, a clerk.

Modus Modh, manner.

Gladius Claidheamh, a sword.

Καρδια Κραδια Cord-is Cridhe, the heart.

Medium Meadhon, middle.

Laudo Luadh, mention.

Lego Leugh, read.

Greg-is Greigh, a herd.

Reg-is Righ, a king.

Plaga Plaigh, a plague.

Sagitta Saighead, an arrow.

Magister Maighistir, master.

Imago Iomhaigh, an image.

Primus Priomh, chief.

Remus Ràmh, an oar.

Similis Samhuil, like.

Humilis Umhal, humble.

Capra Gabhar, a goat.

Μητηρ Mater Mathair, mother.

Rota Roth, Rath, a wheel.

Muto Mùth, 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 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to be opposed, by retaining unaspirated articulations in those instances where universal practice has not entirely superseded them, and even by restoring them in some instances, where the loss of them has been attended with manifest inconvenience?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: επισκοπος, evéque.

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 שק 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.

Latin. Old French. Gaelic.

Noct-u Noct-is, &c. Nuict an nochd, to night.

Oct-o Huict Ochd, eight.

Benedict-um Benoict Beannachd, blessing.

Maledict-um Maudict Mallachd, cursing.

Ruct-us Bruchd, evomition.

Intellect-us Intleachd, contrivance.

Lact-is, -i, &c. Lachd, milk.

Dict-o, -are, &c. Deachd, to dictate.

Rego Rect-um Reachd, a law, institution.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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 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.

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.

Omnia semper suspecta atque sollicita; nullus locus amicitiæ. Cic. de Amic. 15.

  mira feritas, foeda paupertas; non arma, non equi, non penates; victui herba, vestitui pelles, cubile humus; sola in sagittis spes, &c.—Tacit. de. mor. Germ. Cap. ult. In these and the like examples, the Substantive Verb might have been expressed, if with less elegance, yet without grammatical impropriety. What has been frequently done in other languages, seems, in Gaelic, to have been adopted, in certain phrases, as an invariable mode of speech.

The omission of the Substantive Verb is not unknown in English; as,

"Tarquinius fateri amorem, orare, miscere precibus minas, versare in omnes partes muliebrem animum."—Liv. I. 58.

"Neque post id locorum Jugurthæ dies aut nox ulla quieta fuere: neque loco, neque mortali cuiquam, aut tempori satis credere; cives, hostes, juxta metuere; circumspectare omnia, et omni strepitu pavescere; alio atque alio loco, saepe contra decus regium, noctu requiescere; interdum somno excitus, arreptis armis, tumultum facere; ita formidine quasi vecordia exagitari."—Sall. Bell. Jugur. 72.

The translators of the Scriptures appear to have erred in supposing ge to be the entire Conjunction, and that d is the verbal particle do. This has led them to write ge d' or ge do in situations in which do alters the sense from what was intended, or is totally inadmissible. Ge do ghluais mi, Deut. xxix. 19, is given as the translation of though I walk, i.e. though I shall walk, but in reality it signifies though I did walk, for do ghluais is past tense. It ought to be ged ghluais mi. So also ge do ghleidh thu mi, Judg. xiii. 16, though you detain me, ought rather to be ged ghleidh thu mi. Ge do ghlaodhas iad rium, Jer. xi. 11, though they cry to me, is not agreeable to the Gaelic idiom. It ought rather to be ged ghlaodh iad rium, as in Hosea, xi. 7. Ge do dh' fheudainnse muinghin bhi agam, Phil. iii. 4, though I might have confidence. Here the verbal particle is doubled unnecessarily, and surely not according to classical precision. Let it be written ged dh' fheudainnse, and the phrase is correct. Ge do 's eigin domh am bas fhulang, Mark xiv. 31, though I must suffer death: ge do tha aireamh chloinn Israel, &c., Rom. ix. 27, though the number of the children of Israel be, &c. The present tenses is and tha never take the do before them. Ged is eigin, ged tha, is liable to no objection. At other times, when the do appeared indisputably out of place, the d has been dismissed altogether, contrary to usual mode of pronunciation; as, ge nach eil, Acts xvii. 27, 2 Cor. xii. 11, where the common pronunciation requires ged nach eil. So, ge d' nach duin' an t-aodach, &c. ge d' nach biodh ann ach an righ &c. (M^cIntosh's "Gael Prov." pp. 35, 36), where the d is retained even before nach, because such is the constant way of pronouncing the phrase.

These faulty expressions which, without intending to derogate from the high regard due to such respectable authorities, I have thus freely ventured to point out, seemed to have proceeded from mistaking the constituent letters of the conjunction in question. It would appear that d was originally a radical letter of the word; that through time it came, like many other consonants, to be aspirated; and by degrees became, in some situations, quiescent. In Irish it is written giodh. This manner of writing the word is adopted by the translator of Baxter's "Call." One of its compounds is always written gidheadh. In these, the d is preserved, though in its aspirated state. In Scotland it is still pronounced, in most situations, ged, without aspirating the d at all. These circumstances put together seem to prove the final d is a radical constituent letter of this Conjunction.

I have the satisfaction to say that the very accurate Author of the Gaelic Translation of the Scriptures has, with great candour, acknowledged the justice of the criticism contained in the foregoing note. It is judged expedient to retain it in this edition of the Grammar, lest the authority of that excellent Translation might perpetuate a form of speech which is confessed to be faulty.

A close analogy may be traced between the Gaelic and the French in the collocation of the Adjective. In both languages, the Adjective is ordinarily placed after its Noun. If it be placed before its Noun, it is by a kind of poetical inversion; dorchadas tiugh, des tenebres epaisses; by inversion, tiugh dhorchadas, d' epaisses tenebres; fear mòr, un homme grand; by inversion, in a metaphorical sense, mòr fhear, un grand homme. A Numeral Adjective, in both languages, is placed before its Noun; as also iomadh, plusieurs; except when joined to a proper name, where the Cardinal is used for the Ordinal; Seumas a Ceithir, Jaques Quatre.

When an Adjective precedes its Noun, it undergoes no change of termination; as, thig an Tighearn a nuas le ard iolaich, the Lord will descend with a great shout, 1 Thes. iv. 16; mar ghuth mor shluaigh, as the voice of a great multitude, Rev. xix. 6.

In every question the words which convey the interrogation must refer to some higher genus or species than the words which express the subject of the query. It is in the choice of the speaker to make that reference to any genus or species he pleases. If I ask 'Who was Alexander?' the Interrogative who refers to the species man, of which Alexander, the subject of the query, is understood to have been an individual. The question is equivalent to 'What man was Alexander?' If I ask 'What is Man?' the Interrogative what refers to the genus of Existence or Being, of which Man is considered as a subordinate genus or species. The question is the same with 'What Being is Man?' I may also ask 'What was Alexander?' Here the Interrogative what refers to some genus or species of which Alexander is conceived to have been an individual, though the particular genus intended by the querist is left to be gathered from the tenor of the preceding discourse. It would be improper, however, to say 'Who is man?' as the Interrogative refers to no higher genus than that expressed by the word Man. It is the same as if one should ask 'What man is Man?'

In the question 'What is Prayer?' the object of the querist is to learn the meaning of the term Prayer. The Interrogative what refers to the genus of Existence, as in the question 'What is Man?' not to the word Prayer, which is the subject of the query. It is equivalent to 'What is [that thing which is named] Prayer?' In those languages where a variety of gender is prevalent, this reference of the Interrogative is more conspicuously marked. A Latin writer would say 'Quid est Oratio*?' A Frenchman, 'Qu' est-ce que la Prière?' These questions, in a complete form, would run thus; 'Quid est [id quod dicitur] Oratio?' 'Qu' est-ce que [l'on appelle] la Prière?' On the same principle, and in the same sense, a Gaelic writer must say, 'Ciod e urnuigh?' the Interrogative Ciod e referring not to urnuigh but to some higher genus. The expression, when completed, is 'Ciod e [sin de 'n goirear] urnuigh?'

Is there then no case in which the Interrogative may follow the gender of the subject? If the subject of the query be expressed, as it often is, by a general term, limited in its signification by a noun, adjective, relative clause, &c; the reference of the Interrogative is often, though not always not necessarily, made to that term in its general acceptation, and consequently be 'What is the Lord's Prayer?' Here the subject of the query is not Prayer, but an individual of that species, denoted by the term prayer limited in its signification by another noun. The Interrogative what may refer, as in the former examples, to the genus of Existence; or it may refer to the species Prayer, of which the subject of the query is an individual. That is, I may be understood to ask either 'What is that thing which is called the Lord's Prayer?' or 'What is that prayer which is called the Lord's Prayer?' A Latin writer would say, in the former sense, 'Quid est Oratio Dominica†?' in the latter sense, 'Quaenam est Oratio Dominica?' The former of these expressions is resolvable into 'Quid est [id quod dicitur] Oratio Dominica?' the latter into 'Quaenam [oratio] est Oratio Dominica?' The same diversity of expression would be used in French: 'Qu' est-ce que l'Oraison Dominicale?' and 'Quelle est l'Oraison Dominicale?' The former resolvable into 'Qu' est-ce que [l'on appelle] l'Oraison Dominicale? the latter into 'Quelle [oraison] est l'Oraison Dominicale? So also in Gaelic, 'Ciod e Urnuigh an Tighearna?' equivalent to 'Ciod e [sin de'n goirear] Urnuigh an Tighearna?' or, which will occur oftener, 'Ciod i Urnuigh an Tighearna?' equivalent to 'Ciod i [an urnuigh sin de 'n goirear] Urnuigh an Tighearna?'

* See a short Latin Catechism at the end of Mr Ruddiman's Latin Rudiments, where many similar expressions occur; as 'Quid est fides? 'Quid est Lex? Quid est Baptismus? Quid Sacramenta?' &c.

† So Ruddiman, 'Quid est Sacra Coena?'

See more examples, Num. xiii, 25, 2 Sam. ii. 21, 2 Chron. xx. 25, xxxv. 14, Ezek. xxxix. 12.

I am aware that this distinction has been little regarded by the translators of the Scriptures. It appeared, however, worthy of being suggested, on account of its evident utility in point of precision, and because it is supported by the genius and practice of the Gaelic language.