The Scottish Celtic review

The Scottish Celtic review The Scottish Celtic review

13.07.2015 Views

—312 The. Laws of Auslaut in Irish.in MoJevD Irish as heirim, with one m, but this m clearly pointsback to Tnm, since it is even now pronounced as an unaspiratednasal, and not as v. The spelling hcrimm, however, does notoccur very frequently in the Ancient Irish Glosses, as out of thehundred and twenty instances of this form quoted at pp. 429, 434and 435 of the Gramm. Celtica, a hundred are spelled vs'ith one m.Assuming our explanation of berimvi to be correct, still the unexteudedform might be found in such instances as berim, vidim, &c.This supposition is supported by the fact that the British languagesform the 1 st pers. present always with a single m, whichin Old Cymbric is preserved in w^riting, but which, at a laterperiod, became invariably an/ e.g.,0\d C'^'mbr. ranvam (partior),later curaf (amo), Z. 506. These forms are identical with Irishrannaim, caraim, only if we assume that the latter, likewise, hadoriginally only one m, viz., that of the personal termination mi.In Cymbric, the i of this termination has been lost, without even atrace remaining, like the i of the i-stems inor (sea) = Ir. inuir, givlad(regio) = Ir. Jiaith (regnnm), heul, haul (sun) = Ir. sail (eye).Original ?7i-auslaut has not been preserved in Cymbric any morethan in Irish, and therefore the to of Old Cymbr. rannam musthave had another letter after it, and that letter was just an i.The forms in -iin, -imra in Irish have been restricted to thepresent indicative, and have not penetrated into the futures norinto the preterites, in which, indeed, iu no language, the primarymi of the 1st person can be proved. In the pres. indicative, theforms in -imm have gradually taken the place of the other forms.Even as early as Old Irish, they occur not unfrequently iu thecompound verb : in the Wiirzburg Codex, for-thun, for example,occurs as well as for-chanim (praecipio). The forms in u, on theother hand, have gradually disappeared altogether. In the Mod.Ir. present, they no longer occur, and just as little in the future,in which, likewise, the so-called absolute form (e.g., carfad) hasbecome the only one. The preterite, however, has changed theold -us of the conjunct flexion into -as ; e.g., Old Ir. ro charus hasbecome in Modern Irish 7-o charas.The Old Irish showed the two ancient formations of the 1stpers. sing, active in d and d-mi differentiated in usage in apeculiar manner : Old Irish buir ( = Indogerm. bhard) was usedas 1st pers. to the 3rd pers. beir ( = Indogerm. bharat), but OldIv. heriw ( = Indogerm. bhardnii) was used as 1st pers. to the 3rd

The, Laws of Auslaut in Irish. 313pers. berid {= Indogcrm. hharati). As is well known, Sanskritand Greek have in the type -bharum a special form of the 1stpers. sing, with secondary personal termination, as, e.g., in theimperf. a-bharam, Gr. e^epoi'. This type bharam has been givenup in Irish, so far as our observation has gone, its place in thepreterite having been assumed by the type blturd. As bharas,bharat, have forced their way from the preterite into the presentindicative, so the original primary bhard could just as well be thepattern of the 1st pers. sing, of the preterite formations, as, e.g.,for Old Irish ro charus (like biur characterised as the 1st pers.singular). But this is the only form which had already at a veryearly period secured for itself a place in Old Irish. And, on thisoccasion, I might refer to the flexion of the old Irish s-preteriteas furnishing important support to my view, according to whichthe double forms -bir, -beir, -berat, and beri, berid, berit representoriginally the old distinction between forms with secondaryand forms with primary personal terminations. The former appearedoriginally in the augmented tense formations (dbharas,dbharat).After the augment had been discontinued, they wereused in Irish when the verbal form, whether the preterite or thepresent, was joined to a particle (preposition, conjunction, ornegative) ; as, e.g., as-beir, (dicit), no beir (fert), ni beir (non fert).Cf Beitr. zur. Vergl. Spr. viii. 451.Whilst the I'eduplicated future and the 6-future follow thepresent in the distinction between conjunct and absolute flexions,the conjugation of the s-preterite, according to Stokes (Beitr. zur.Vergl. Spr. vii. 37) is as follows :Conjunct form.Absolute form.Sing. 1. ro charus [carsii].2. ro charts [carsi].3. ro char carats.Plur. 1. ro charsaiii [carsimme].2. ro charsid [cart^tai].3. ro charsat carsaf, carsit.The forms within brackets have not hitherto been authenticatedas Old Irish forms, but the}' are found in Middle Irish. They areall ' forms which are constructed after the analog}- of the absolute' For " saramtliche " read " sammtlich."

—312 <strong>The</strong>. Laws of Auslaut in Irish.in MoJevD Irish as heirim, with one m, but this m clearly pointsback to Tnm, since it is even now pronounced as an unaspiratednasal, and not as v. <strong>The</strong> spelling hcrimm, however, does notoccur very frequently in the Ancient Irish Glosses, as out of thehundred and twenty instances of this form quoted at pp. 429, 434and 435 of the Gramm. <strong>Celtic</strong>a, a hundred are spelled vs'ith one m.Assuming our explanation of berimvi to be correct, still the unexteudedform might be found in such instances as berim, vidim, &c.This supposition is supported by the fact that the British languagesform the 1 st pers. present always with a single m, whichin Old Cymbric is preserved in w^riting, but which, at a laterperiod, became invariably an/ e.g.,0\d C'^'mbr. ranvam (partior),later curaf (amo), Z. 506. <strong>The</strong>se forms are identical with Irishrannaim, caraim, only if we assume that the latter, likewise, hadoriginally only one m, viz., that of the personal termination mi.In Cymbric, the i of this termination has been lost, without even atrace remaining, like the i of the i-stems inor (sea) = Ir. inuir, givlad(regio) = Ir. Jiaith (regnnm), heul, haul (sun) = Ir. sail (eye).Original ?7i-auslaut has not been preserved in Cymbric any morethan in Irish, and therefore the to of Old Cymbr. rannam musthave had another letter after it, and that letter was just an i.<strong>The</strong> forms in -iin, -imra in Irish have been restricted to thepresent indicative, and have not penetrated into the futures norinto the preterites, in which, indeed, iu no language, the primarymi of the 1st person can be proved. In the pres. indicative, theforms in -imm have gradually taken the place of the other forms.Even as early as Old Irish, they occur not unfrequently iu thecompound verb : in the Wiirzburg Codex, for-thun, for example,occurs as well as for-chanim (praecipio). <strong>The</strong> forms in u, on theother hand, have gradually disappeared altogether. In the Mod.Ir. present, they no longer occur, and just as little in the future,in which, likewise, the so-called absolute form (e.g., carfad) hasbecome the only one. <strong>The</strong> preterite, however, has changed theold -us of the conjunct flexion into -as ; e.g., Old Ir. ro charus hasbecome in Modern Irish 7-o charas.<strong>The</strong> Old Irish showed the two ancient formations of the 1stpers. sing, active in d and d-mi differentiated in usage in apeculiar manner : Old Irish buir ( = Indogerm. bhard) was usedas 1st pers. to the 3rd pers. beir ( = Indogerm. bharat), but OldIv. heriw ( = Indogerm. bhardnii) was used as 1st pers. to the 3rd

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!