The Scottish Celtic review

38 The Lau's of Auslaut in Irish.connected in the stem-formation with Skr. rajata-m, Goth.liuh(ifh) ; imneda (tribulationes, nom. sing, imned), Z. 226. H.d'Aibois Jubainville, at p. 56 and other places, has proved that,likewise, in the Lat. of the Merovingian period, the neuters in thenom. plur. were formed most frequently after the analogy of thefeminines. For the genuine neuter form of the nom. and ace.plur. dliged for dliged-a still preserved in the Old Irish, see B.xi. 3. At first the feminine form for the neuter form, as Ebelalready saw (Beitr. zur Vergl. Spi-. i. 157, 175), was introducedinto the article (Z. 215) ; the neuter inna, na, is identical in formwith the ace. plur. feminine; a genuine neut. form is not to bemet with in the oldest sources (according to the analogy of dliged,imned, it ought to have been in, ind, with asjiiration following).In the ace. plur. there is existing even for the masculine no otherform than the feminine inna, na: alieady in Old Irish inna fini(tow avSpai), instead of innufim. The nom. plur. masculine hasyet in Old Irish the special form ind or in (ind fir, ol ufSpei);already, however, in Middle Irish this genuine form is suppressedby the inna, na of the feminine. The adjectives follow thearticle: instead of Old Irish in rnaice (])ueri) one could say namaicc in Middle Irish, and instead of Old Irish maicc hicc (pueriparvi), mcMCC hecca in Middle Irish.The same analopy is, according to my opinion, to be acce])tedin the consonantal stems (masc. and fem. gen.), which end in a inthe ace. plural, e.g.,jUeda (poetas), aithrea {iraTtpu^). The Skr. nsin bharat-as. Or. ^e'porr-ay, would not have remained as a fullsyllable in Old Irish. That a prehistoric irarepa^ was attractedby a prehistoric tovtds is not to be wondered at, especially if wekeep in mind that the always unchanging accusative plural of thearticle could only fevour this transition, and that, on the otherhand, the same stems agree also in the accusative singular (B. V. 2).The termination as in the ace. plur. of the consonantal stems Ebelhas explained also in the Beitr. zur Vergl. Spr. i. 168, from whom,however, I differ in view. For the Gaulisli forms of this kind seeH. d'Arbois de Jubainville (Rev. Celt. i. p. 320).4. The 2nd pers. sing, of the present conjunctive of the conjunctfiexion may be best observed in the 1st conjugation ( = 3rd Lat.conjugation). Also, here the older -as is represented in Iiish bya, and in further weakening by e. E.g., cia as-heru, cia an-herc(quamvis dicas), Z. 440 ; -Leva — Lat. ferds, cf. Ved. gacchdn(Delbriick, Alt-Ind. Verb. p. S7). In open contrast to this stands