The Scottish Celtic review

—288 Oaelic Orthogniphy— CoriDiiOih Mininkes.2. Among the particles which cause eclipsis of the initial cjnsonantof the verb, O'Donovan (Gramm., p. 158) includes nocha,and gives, as an example, " nocha g-ceilim " (I do not conceal)above quoted. This proves the existence, now or formerly,of n between cha and the verb which follows it, which mustbe the n preserved in cJia 'n and nocha n-, as inferred byEbel.But other questions arise in connection with the particle cha,cha 'n, which do not appear to have been yet fully explained. How,for example, are we to account for the aspiration of / after" nocha," as in " nocha nfhuil," whilst, after the same particle,the c of ceilim is eclipsed ? Or, how are we to explain theeclipsis of c after nocha in the modern " nocha g-ceilira," when, inthe ancient language, the nasal of nicon is preserved before thesame tenuis, in " nf eonchoscram " (non quod destruamus), " niconchechrat " (non amabunt), &c., and the tenuis aspirated(cf. Z. 740)? Ebel's suggestion (Z. 417), that the con of nicon isfor cono = co-no, the no being the sign of the pres. tense, cognatewith Gr. vv, Skr. nu, &c., would account for the preservation ofthe nasal before the tenues and s, /, and for the aspiration of theseconsonants, but would leave the eclipsis after nocha in modernIrish unexplained, the nasal, in that case, although organic, nothaving been the primitive termination of the formula nicon.VI. The relative 'n^an erroneously written as a eupiionicletter.The Rev. Dr. Clerk, editor of an edition of Ossian's Poems,published, with an English translation, a few years ago, andjoint-editor of some editions of the Gaelic .Scriptures, havingado))ted the view that the nasal of the conjunction gu, 'n is merelya euphonic letter, was naturally led to take the same view of thenasal in the combinations gu 'n = gu san (until), do 'n (to whom,to which), fo ')i (under whom, under which), nuL 'n (about whom,about which), and o'n (from whom, from which). Accordingly,among the many orthographical changes of the same kind asthe substitution of gu-n tor gu'n, which he has introduced intothe works edited by him, we find repeatedly, although notuniformly, gu-n for gu'n (until), do-n for do'n (to whom), fo-nfor fo '« (under whom), o-n for o '7; (from whom), and mu-n formu'n (about whom). We have jotted down the following examplesfrom his edition of Ossian's Poems :