The Scottish Celtic review

The Laws of A ash i at in Irinh. 193comparative. Tim form uvdh is out of the (|uestion, for the comparativesterminate in the iiora. plur. also in u {e.g., laigiu) Z. 270.If they contained the suffix-form ians, an s would have been pre-.sei-ved in the nom. plural, according to the analogy of mi (month),nom. plur. mis. There remains, therefore, only a choice betweenids and ias. But since, in Iri.sh, the sentences are so constructedthat the comparative always stands in the nominative, we maysafely affirm that only the suffix-form ids is to be assumed aspossible in that language. The nom. sing, laigiu stands forlagiSs ; the nom. plur. la igi a, however, has lost the case-characteristic,like other stems in «. From the suffix-form ias, wouldhave originated not iu, but only e, as in the nom. sing, of themasc. stems in ia («(7e=Lat. alius). I know of no case in whichshort a of the last syllable has become u in Irish.We might expect the iu of the comparative to be dissyllabic,since the original termination (is, as we know, has always beenpreserved as a distinct syllable (A. II. 3). It has, however,become monosyllabic, as, e.g., in the following half-verse ofseven S3dlables—a molad maissiu, mdenaib (his praise morebeautiful than treasures) Stokes' Goid.^ 178. The i could easilybe suppressed ; and thus from laigiu, by the regressive assimilationof the vowels, originated lugu, which also is found in OldIrish.Similarly, we should expect that the iu of the ace. plur. of themasc. stems in ia would be dissyllabic, as, e.g.,in ciliu (socios).But the suppression of the i, e.g., in fi% Macciihjndu (apudMacedonas) Z. 232, shows that here, likewise, synizesis has takenplace.5. According to Stokes, one would have to assume for no rddi(loquitur), 3rd sing, conjunct flexion of the 3rd conjugation(= Lat. 4th conjugation), an older form rudit, contracted fromrddiit (Beitr. zur Vergl. Spr. vi. 46-5). But as do-heir in the 1stconjugation (= 3rd Lat. conjugation), goes back to a prehistoricber-it (B. IX.), so 7W rddi goes back direct to a prehistoric rddi-it;and, inversely, by the .same principle according to which the olderform herlt became heir, the older form rddiit became necessarilyrddi.6. Quite as certain it is that aili (= Gr. aWoi) has not originatedfrom a prehistoric ali, but from a prehistoric ali-i, like firfrom a prehistoric vir-i (B. XVI. 2).7. The feminine stems in id do not in the plural follow the