[99] Thus, bhur inntinn your mind, Acts xv. 24.

[100] This, however, does not happen invariably. Where the Sex, though specified, is overlooked as of small importance, the Personal or Possessive Pronouns follow the Gender of the Antecedent. See 2 Sam. xii. 3.

[101] I am aware of the singularity of asserting the grammatical propriety of such expressions as ciod e Uchdmhacachd? ciod e Urnuigh? as, the nouns uchdmhacachd, urnuigh are known to be of the feminine Gender; and as this assertion stands opposed to the respectable authority of the Editor of the Assembly's Catechism in Gaelic, Edin. 1792, where we read, Ciod i urnuigh? &c. The following defence of it is offered to the attentive reader.

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

In the question 'What is Prayer?' the object of the querist is to learn the meaning of the term Prayer. The Interrogative what refers to the genus of Existence, as in the question 'What is Man?' not to the word Prayer, which is the subject of the query. It is equivalent to 'What is [that thing which is named] Prayer?' In those languages where a variety of gender is prevalent, this reference of the Interrogative is more conspicuously marked. A Latin writer would say 'Quid est Oratio*?' A Frenchman, 'Qu' est-ce que la 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?'

[102] The same arrangement obtains pretty uniformly in Hebrew, and seems the natural and ordinary collocation of the Verb and its Noun in that language. When the Noun in Hebrew is placed before the Verb, it will generally be found that the Noun does not immediately connect with the Verb as the Nominative to it, but rather stands in an absolute state; and that it is brought forward in that state by itself to excite attention, and denotes some kind of emphasis, or opposition to another Noun. Take the following examples for illustration: Gen. i. 1, 2. 'In the beginning God created [[Hebrew: BR' 'LHYM] in the natural order] the Heaven and the Earth.' [Hebrew: WH'RTS HYTH]; not and the Earth was, &c., but 'and with respect to the Earth, it was without form,' &c. Thus expressed in Gaelic: 'agus an talamh bha e gun dealbh,' &c. Gen. xviii. 33. 'And the Lord went his way [[Hebrew: WYLK YHWH] in the natural order] as soon as he had left communing with Abraham;' [Hebrew: W'BRHM SHB], not simply 'and Abraham returned,' &c., but 'and Abraham—he too returned to his place.' In Gaelic, 'agus Abraham, phill esan g' aite fein.' See also Num. xxiv. 25.—Gen. iii. 12. 'And the man said, the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, [Hebrew: HW' NTNH LY] she it was that gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' Gen. iii. 13. 'And the woman said, [Hebrew: HNCHSH HSHY'NY], not merely 'the Serpent beguiled me,' but 'the Serpent was the cause; it beguiled me, and I did eat.' Exod. xiv. 14. 'Jehovah—he will fight for you; but as for you, ye shall hold your peace.' This kind of emphasis is correctly expressed in the Eng. translation of Psal. lx. 12, 'for he it is that shall tread down our enemies.' Without multiplying examples, I shall only observe that it must be difficult for the English reader to conceive that the Noun denoting the subject of a proposition, when placed after its Verb, should be in the natural order; and when placed before its Verb, should be in an inverted order of the words. To a person well aquainted with the Gaelic, this idiom is familiar; and therefore it is the easier for him to apprehend the effect of such an arrangement in any other language. For want of attending to this peculiarity in the structure of the Hebrew, much of that force and emphasis, which in other languages would be expressed by various particles, but in Hebrew depend on the collocation alone, must pass unobserved and unfelt.

[103] I am happy to be put right, in my stricture on the above passage, by E. O'C., author of a Gaelic Grammar, Dublin, 1808, who informs us that truaighe is here the Nominative, and Iosa the Accusative case; and that the meaning is not Jesus took pity on them, but pity seized Jesus for them.

[104] This construction resembles that of the Latin Infinitive preceded by the Accusative of the Agent.

——Mene desistere victam, Nec posse Italia Teucrorum avertere regem?—I. Aenid 28.

[105] So in English, the Infinitive of a Transitive Verb is sometimes used instead of the Present Participle, and followed by the Preposition of; as, 'the woman was there gathering of sticks.' 1 Kings xvii. 10.

———— some sad drops Wept at completing of the mortal sin.—"Parad. Lost."

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

[106] On the same principle it is that in some compound words, composed of two Nouns whereof the former governs the latter in the Genitive, the former Noun is seldom itself put in the Genitive case. Thus, ainm bean-na-bainse, the bride's name; it would sound extremely harsh to say ainm mna-na-bainse; clach ceann-an-teine, not clach cinn-an-teine, the stone which supports a hearth fire.

[107] These examples suggest, and seem to authorise a special use of this idiom of Gaelic Syntax, which, if uniformly observed, might contribute much to the perspicuity and precision of many common expressions. When a compound term occurs, made up of a Noun and an Infinitive governed by that Noun, it often happens that this term itself governs another Noun in the Genitive. Let the two parts of the compound term be viewed separately. If it appear that the subsequent Noun is governed by the former part of the compound word, then the latter part should remain regularly in the Genitive Case. But if the subsequent Noun be governed by the latter part of the compound word, then, agreeably to the construction exemplified in the above passages, that latter part, which is here supposed to be an Infinitive, should fall back into the Nominative Case. Thus tigh-coimhid an Righ, the King's store house, where the Noun Righ is governed by tigh, the former term of the compound word; but tigh comhead an ionmhais, John viii. 20, the house for keeping the treasure, where ionmhais is governed by coimhead, which is therefore put in the Nominative instead of the Genitive. So luchd-coimhid, Matt. xxviii. 4, when no other Noun is governed; but fear-coimhead a' phriosuin, Acts, xvi. 27, 36, where the last Noun is governed in the Genitive by coimhead, which is therefore put in the Nominative. So also fear-coimhid, Psal. cxxi. 3, but fear-coimhead Israeil, Psal. cxxi. 4. Edin. 1799. Tigh-bearraidh nam buachaillean, the shearing-house belonging to the shepherds, 2 King, x. 12, but tigh-bearradh nan caorach, the house for shearing the sheep. Luchd-brathaidh an Righ the King's spies; but luchd-brathadh an Righ, the betrayers of the King. Luchd-mortaidh Heroid, assassins employed by Herod; but luchd-mortadh Eoin, the murderers of John.

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

[108] For this reason, there seems to be an impropriety in writing chum a losgaidh, 1 Cor. xiii. 3, instead of chum a losgadh.

[109] The same peculiarity in the use of the Article takes place in Hebrew, and constitutes a striking point of analogy in the structure of the two languages. See Buxt. Thes. Gram. Heb. Lib. II. Cap. V.

[110] This solecism is found in the Irish as well as in the Scottish Gaelic translation. The Manks translation has avoided it. In the Irish version and in the Scottish Gaelic version of 1767, a similar instance occurs in Acts, ii. 20, an la mor agus oirdheirc sin an Tighearna. In the Scottish edition of 1796, the requisite correction is made by omitting the first Article. It is omitted likewise in the Manks N. T. On the other hand, the Article, which had been rightly left out in the Edition of 1767, is improperly introduced in the Edition of 1796, in 1 Cor. xi. 27, an cupan so an Tighearna. It is proper to mention that, in the passage last quoted, the first article an had crept, by mistake, into a part of the impression 1796, but was corrected in the remaining part.

[111] The inserted m or n is generally written with an apostrophe before it, thus gu'm, gu'n. This would indicate that some vowel is here suppressed in writing. But if no vowel ever stood in the place of this apostrophe, which seems to be the fact, the apostrophe itself has been needlessly and improperly introduced.

[112] I much doubt the propriety of joining the Conjunction ged to the Fut. Affirm.; as, ge do gheibh na h-uile dhaoine oilbheum, though all men shall be offended, Matt. xxvi. 33. It should rather have been, ged fhaigh na h-uile dhaoine, &c. The Fut. Subj. seems to be equally improper; as, ge do ghlaodhas iad rium, though they shall cry to me, Jer. xi. 21, Edit. 1786. Rather, ged ghlaodh iad rium, as in Hosea, xi. 7. So also, ged eirich dragh, 's ged bhagair bàs, though trouble shall arise, and though death shall threaten. Gael. Paraph. xlvii. 7. Edin. 1787. See page 134. Note 93.

[113] The terminations air, oir, seem from their signification as well as form, to be nothing else than fear man, in its aspirated form fhear. From these terminations are derived the Latin terminations or, orator, doctor, &c., arius sicarius, essedarius, &c.; the French eur, vengeur, createur, &c.; aire, commissaire, notaire, &c., ter, chevalier, charretier, &c.; the English er, maker, lover, &c., ary, prebendary, antiquary, &c., eer, volunteer, &c.

[114] Timcheal na macraidhe beside the young men, Lhuyd, O'Brien. voc. timcheal. This passage proves macraidh to be a singular Noun of the fem. gender, not, as might be thought, the Plural of mac. So laochruidh, madraidh, &c., may rather be considered as collective Nouns of the singular Number than as plurals.

[115] The same termination having the same import, is found in the French words cavalerie, infanterie, and in the English cavalry, infantry, yeomanry.

[116] In the Gaelic N. Test, the Gentile Nouns [Greek: Korinthios, Galatai, Ephesioi], are rendered Corintianaich, Galatianaich, Ephesianaich. Would it not be agreeable to the analogy of Gaelic derivation to write Corintich, Galataich, Ephesich, subjoining the Gaelic termination alone to the Primitive, rather than by introducing the syllable an, to form a Derivative of a mixed and redundant structure, partly vernacular, partly foreign? The word Samaritanaich, John iv. 40, is remarkably redundant, having no fewer than three Gentile Terminations. From [Greek: Samareia] is formed, agreeably to the Greek mode of derivation, [Greek: Samareitai]. To this the Latins added their own termination, and wrote Samaritani; which the Irish lengthened out still further into Samaritanaich. The proper Gaelic derivation would be Samaraich, like Elamaich, Medich, Persich, &c. The Irish Galiléanach is, in the Scottish Translation 1796, properly changed into Galiléach, Acts v. 37.

[117] The termination ail is a contraction for amhuil like. In Irish this termination is generally written full, fearamhuil, geanamhuil, &c. From the Gaelic termination ail, is derived the Latin termination alis, fatalis, hospitalis, &c., whence the English al, final, conditional, &c. See page 33. Note 25.

[118] Two or three exceptions from this rule occur; as the Plurals dée gods, mnai women, lai days. But these are so irregular in their form as well as spelling, that they ought rather to be rejected altogether, and their place supplied by the common Plurals diathan, mnathan, lathan or lathachan.

[119] As if we should write in English impious, impotent, without a hyphen; but im-penitent, im-probable, with a hyphen.

[120] O beautiful ringlet.

[121] The above is the passage so often referred to in the controversy concerning the antiquity of Ossian's Poems. It was natural enough for the zealous Bishop to speak disparagingly of anything which appeared to him to divert the minds of the people from those important religious truths to which he piously wished to direct their most serious attention. But whatever may be thought of his judgment, his testimony is decisive as to the existence of traditional histories concerning Fingal and his people; and proves that the rehearsal of those compositions was a common and favourite entertainment with the people throughout the Highlands at the time when he lived.

[122] i.e., the Hebrides.

* * * * *

Corrections made to printed original.

page 17, "slat a rod": 'flat ...' in original.

page 31, "dligheach lawful,": 'dlighecah' in original.

page 34, "beo and ail": 'and and' over line break in original.

page 48, "iasg m. fish, g. s. eisg;": 'g. s. eifg' in original.

page 50, "n. p. and g. p. 'leabraichean'—When the nominative plural is twofold, the genitive is so too; as 'fear' n. a man," these two line missing in the 1892 edition are re-instated from that of 1812.

ibid, "rather than phairiseachaibh": 'phairseachaibh' in original (1812 edition: phairlseachaibh).

page 53, "mathair f. a mother, g. s. mathar": 'g. s. mathair' in original.

page 60, "300 Tri cheud fear.": '309' in original.

page 61, "120 Am ficheadamh fear thar cheud.": '200' in original.

page 69, "3 Do bhuail e": 'bhuall' in original.

page 89, "The Future marks future time": 'makes future time' in original (1812 edition: marks).

page 90, "bha mi ag bualadh an dé": 'buailadh' in original.

page 116, "Tar, Thar, over, across.": 'accross' in original.

page 134, "Bheil fhios, 'l fhios": ''l fhois' in original (1812 edition: fhios).

page 145, "D. A', 'n Chlarsaich fhonnmhoir": 'fhonnoir' in original, there is no explanation why the 'mh' should be dropped.

page 146, "Perhaps a distinction ought to be made": 'ought to made' in original.

page 162, "commonly put in the Comparative form": 'Comparitive' in original.

page 176, "Aobhach": 'Aobhachh' in original.

page 176, "Extract from Bishop Carsuel's Gaelic translation", etc: this appears in fact to be the Gaelic version of the following English section concerning the Poems of Ossian.

Footnote 89: "placed over the last vowel": 'the the' on footnote break across two pages in original.

Footnote 93: "an adjective or a personal pronoun": 'of' for 'or' in original (1812 edition: or)

Footnote 102: "Gen. i. 1, 2. 'In the beginning ...'": 'Gen. i. 1, 5' in original.

Footnote 107: "made up of a Noun and an Infinitive": 'Infinite' in original (1812 edition: Infinitive)

Footnote 110: "improperly introduced in the Edition of 1796": 'properly' in original (1812 edition: improperly)

THE END