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-coimh_i_d an Righ, _the King's store house_, where the Noun Righ is governed by tigh, the former term of the compound word; but tigh comh_ea_d 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-coimh_i_d, Matt. xxviii. 4, when no other Noun is governed; but fear-coimh_ea_d a' phriosuin, Acts, xvi. 27, 36, where the last Noun is governed in the Genitive by coimh_ea_d, which is therefore put in the Nominative. So also fear-coimh_i_d, Psal. cxxi. 3, but fear-coimh_ea_d Israeil, Psal. cxxi. 4. Edin. 1799. Tigh-bearr_ai_dh nam buachaillean, _the shearing-house belonging to the shepherds_, 2 King, x.

12, but tigh-bearr_a_dh nan caorach, _the house for shearing the sheep_.

Luchd-brath_ai_dh an Righ _the King's spies_; but luchd-brath_a_dh an Righ, _the betrayers of the King_. Luchd-mort_ai_dh Heroid, _assassins employed by Herod_; but luchd-mort_a_dh 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 bas, _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 Galileanach is, in the Scottish Translation 1796, properly changed into Galileach, 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 _dee 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 de": 'buailadh' in original.