The Scottish Celtic review
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

The Scottish Celtic review

The Scottish Celtic review The Scottish Celtic review

deriv.nls.uk
from deriv.nls.uk More from this publisher
13.07.2015 Views

282 Oaelic Orthography— Common Mistakes.that, considering tlie history and affinities of this preposition, theexpressions witli an are the more accurate.(2.) But we frequently cannot substitute amn an for an. Thisapplies more especially to the archaic adverbial phrases consistingof a noun, and the preposition an or a{n) such as " a muigh," " amach," "an diu," which are constantly used in the living language.We cannot say " aun am muigh " for " a muigh " (out, foris)=" ammuigh = " Old Gael. " im-muigh " (the prep, im for in before afor" a mach " (out, foras) = " am mach " = Old Gael. " im-mach "labial, and muigh, dat. of magh, a plain), nor " ann am mach "(the same prep, im for in and inach, ace. of magh), nor " ann andiu " for " an diu " (to-day) = Old Gael. " in-diu " (the prep, inand the dat. or abl. of dia, day). These phrases show that annan is of modern origin.Our first reason, however, is alone sufficient to prove that theprep, an is not an abbreviation, but the full and regular modernform of the ancient prep, in (in), and that, therefore, the spellingwith an apostrophe is erroneous.IV. The nasal termination of the conjunction gu'n erroneouslyregarded as merely a euphonic letter.In recent editions of the Gaelic Scriptures, the conjunctiongun (that, quod) is printed with a hyphen between git and n,to indicate that n is not an organic part of the conjunction, butmerely a euphonic letter added, in certain positions, to gu, whichis thus regarded as the proper conjunction. In support of thisview the authority of Br. Stewart is often quoted (ct. Gramm., p.170). But it is overlooked that, in the Pentateuch edited by thatdistinguished scholar along with Dr. John Stuart of Luss, andpublished in 18:20 (eight years after the publication of the secondedition of the Gaelic Grammar), gu'n is printed with an aposti'opheto show that 'n is a contraction. Nor is it taken sufficientlyinto account that it was not until long after Dr. Stewart's timethat the study of ancient Gaelic began to throw new light uponthe construction and idioms of the modern language.This holdstrue especially in regard to the adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions,which are most unsatisfactorilj' dealt with in Stewart'swork.What has led to n of gun being regarded as a euphonic letteris the fact that, although invariably used before verbs beginningwith a vowel, as (Luke xxii. 30) "gu'n ith," "gu'n 61," it is fre-

Gaelic OrtliO(jraph\j— Common Mistal-es. 283queutly omitted before verbs beginning with a consonant, as(2 Cor. V. 20) "gu cuireadh," (Ps. xiv. 7) "gu tigeadli," (Acts xvi30) " gu tearnar," (Metrical Ps.xxvii. 4) " gu faicinn," " gu fiosraichinn,""gu faighinn." The regular absence of n before "bheil" inthe combination " gu bheil," has been sometimes advanced as anargument to prove that the proper conjunction is not giCn but gii(= Ir. go), although "gu bheil" alone furnishes, as will afterwardsappear, sufficient evidence that the nasal termination of gun isoriginal or organic. We shall now show that the nasal in gu'nianot a euphonic but an organic letter, although it is frequentlyomitted in both spoken and written Gaelic. We shall alsoexplain why this conjunction appears so often without thenasal.1. Gu'n ( = Ir. go n-) is the modei'n form of the ancient conjunctioncon, formed from the prep, co (to, ad) = *coth (cognatewith Gr. Kara and governing the accusative) and n of the relativean (cf. Gramm. Celt., pp. 342, 417, 719).' There are, however,some difficulties connected with the explanation of this conjunction,which have not yet been fully removed. A satisfactory explanationof the conjunctions on, quod, class, that, &zc., in the cognatelanguages, would, no doubt, greatly help to clear up the difficultiesconnected with the Gaelic conjunction.At present, we know thatoTt, quod, Szc, are pron. neut. accusatives (cf Jelf's Gr. Gramm., i.330, third edition, for on) ; but how have they become accusatives? Does quod, for example, stand for "propter quod" or "adquod" (cf Leverett's Lat. Dictionary, s. conj. quod) ?But whatever difficulties may still remain in regard to theetymology of con, it is certain that its n is an organic letter,although it disappears in certain positions in accordance with thelaw applicable to a pi'imitive nasal termination, as in "co-carad"(ut amaret) = " con-carad," " cocomalnammar " (ut impleamus)= " con-comalnammar," " comman " (ut simus) = " comban,"" comad " = " com-bad " = mod. Ir. " go madh " = " go mbadh,"usually written " gu ma " in Scottish Gaelic.2. In modern Irish, in accordance with the same law, the nasaltermination of gu 'n regularly causes eclipsis if the followingword begins with an eclipsable consonant (a tenuis, a medial, or/). The following examples illustrate the effect of this law (Is.1 See also Zimmer's Keltische Sludien, part 2nd, pp. 54, 55, published sincethis article was written.

Gaelic OrtliO(jraph\j— Common Mistal-es. 283queutly omitted before verbs beginning with a consonant, as(2 Cor. V. 20) "gu cuireadh," (Ps. xiv. 7) "gu tigeadli," (Acts xvi30) " gu tearnar," (Metrical Ps.xxvii. 4) " gu faicinn," " gu fiosraichinn,""gu faighinn." <strong>The</strong> regular absence of n before "bheil" inthe combination " gu bheil," has been sometimes advanced as anargument to prove that the proper conjunction is not giCn but gii(= Ir. go), although "gu bheil" alone furnishes, as will afterwardsappear, sufficient evidence that the nasal termination of gun isoriginal or organic. We shall now show that the nasal in gu'nianot a euphonic but an organic letter, although it is frequentlyomitted in both spoken and written Gaelic. We shall alsoexplain why this conjunction appears so often without thenasal.1. Gu'n ( = Ir. go n-) is the modei'n form of the ancient conjunctioncon, formed from the prep, co (to, ad) = *coth (cognatewith Gr. Kara and governing the accusative) and n of the relativean (cf. Gramm. Celt., pp. 342, 417, 719).' <strong>The</strong>re are, however,some difficulties connected with the explanation of this conjunction,which have not yet been fully removed. A satisfactory explanationof the conjunctions on, quod, class, that, &zc., in the cognatelanguages, would, no doubt, greatly help to clear up the difficultiesconnected with the Gaelic conjunction.At present, we know thatoTt, quod, Szc, are pron. neut. accusatives (cf Jelf's Gr. Gramm., i.330, third edition, for on) ; but how have they become accusatives? Does quod, for example, stand for "propter quod" or "adquod" (cf Leverett's Lat. Dictionary, s. conj. quod) ?But whatever difficulties may still remain in regard to theetymology of con, it is certain that its n is an organic letter,although it disappears in certain positions in accordance with thelaw applicable to a pi'imitive nasal termination, as in "co-carad"(ut amaret) = " con-carad," " cocomalnammar " (ut impleamus)= " con-comalnammar," " comman " (ut simus) = " comban,"" comad " = " com-bad " = mod. Ir. " go madh " = " go mbadh,"usually written " gu ma " in <strong>Scottish</strong> Gaelic.2. In modern Irish, in accordance with the same law, the nasaltermination of gu 'n regularly causes eclipsis if the followingword begins with an eclipsable consonant (a tenuis, a medial, or/). <strong>The</strong> following examples illustrate the effect of this law (Is.1 See also Zimmer's Keltische Sludien, part 2nd, pp. 54, 55, published sincethis article was written.

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!