The Scottish Celtic review

156 Notes on Gaelic Grammar and Orthography.meut«, however, are of great value, as showing the place which ata,correctly ata or aid, held, in Dr. Stewart's time, in the languageof the people, a place which, indeed, notwithstanding the unfairtreatment to which it has been subjected, this old and classicalform still maintains. Atd{= acl-td) is from atdu (I am) = ad-tdu{=z *ad-stau), agreeing both etymologically and as to meaningwith Lat. asto (I stand, I exist) = ad-sto = ad-stao.Towards this ancient but still healthy and vigorous form, theeditors of the eds. of 1860 and 1880 have conceived an inveteratehostility which has moved them to do their utmost to destroy it.Accordingly, they have deliberately removed it from the numerousplaces in which it was retained, although with its prefix separatedfrom it, in the edition of 1826 and its reprints, and have substitutedfor it, not td, but the weakened form thu, of which Dr.Stewart disapproved.So great, indeed, has been their destructivezeal that, in numerous instances, they have cancelled the relativebefore td, mistaking it for the prefix of atd. Of this mode of revisingthe Scriptures by cancelling words which hold an essential placein the construction of sentences, the following examples occur inthe early chapters of John's Gospel (eds. 1860 and 1880,) : (Ch.i. 22), "Ciod tha thu 'g radh mu do thimchioll fein " (therelative « cancelled before tha) ; (ch. i. 38) " Ciod tha sibh agiarraidh " (the relative cancelled before ta, which is changed intotha) ; (ch. iii. 4) " 'n uair tha e aosda " for " 'nuair a ta e aosda " inedition 1826; (iv. 9) " Cionnus tha"? for "Cionnus a ta"? inedition 1826 ;(iv. 11) " Cia as tha " ? for " Cia as a ta " ? in edition1826 (iv. 27) " Ciod tha thu 'g iarraidh " ? for " Ciod a tha thu 'g;iarraidh"? in 1826; (v. 7) "Ach am feadh tha" for " Ach amfeadh a ta " in edition 1826 ; (v. 21) " Oir mar tha an t- Athair "for " Oir mar a ta an t-athair " in edition 1826 ;(v. 21) " Is amhuilsin tha am Mac " for " Is amhuil sin a ta am Mac " in edition 1826 ;(v. 26) "Oir mar tha aige an Athair" for "Oir mar a ta aig anAthair" in edition 1826 ;(vi. 57) " Mar tha 'n t-Athair beo" for" Mar a ta 'n t-Athau- bed " in edition 1826.These mistakes, for they cannot with propriety be called anythingelse, caused by not distinguishing the parts of speech, have]n'oduced, as we might expect, anomalous constructions withoutnumber, which must prove very perplexing to persons desirous oflearning the grammar of the Gaelic language. For example, inJohn v., 57, the relative is cancelled before tha in the first clauseof the verse, but is retained before it in the very next clause, the