An gaidheal - National Library of Scotland

——254 THE GAEL.October, 1873.I intend to notice them in my" Notes." Meanwhile, however, Imay call attention to the followingexamples, taken from the GaelicHcriptures, of the as2)iratiou of thegenitive singular feminine of theadjective:Heb. v. 9. " . . . . ùghdarslàinte shìorruidli," not ". . ...ùghdar slàinte sìorruidh."1 Pet. iv. 12. " . . . . thaobh nadeuchainn theiniitich," Tiot ". . . .thaobh na deuchainn teinntich."Rev. XX. 3. ". . . . rè ùinebhig," not ". . ùine bige.". . rèPs. xxxviii. 3. (metrical version).". ... air son do chorruich gheir,"not " . . . . air son do chorruichgeii-e."Although Drs. Maclauchlan andClerk have introduced many seriouserrors into their edition of the GaelicScriptures, they have also made severalcorrections. Among their corrections,or, at least, emendations, Ii-egard the substitution of the aspiratedfor the unaspirated form of theadjective (gen. sing, fern.) in thefollowing places :1 Sam. i. 21. ''.... a dh' iobradhna h-iobairt bhliadhnail". . . for " .... a dh' iobradh . . . . nah-lobairt bliadhnail."1 Sam. ii. 17. ". . . . a dh' iobradhna h-iobairt bhliadhnail" for".... a dh' iobradh na h-lobairtbliadhnail."Heb. ix. 15. " . . . . gcalladh nah-oighreachd shiorruidh" for ". . . .gealladh na h-oighrcachd siorruidh."In using " caismeachd," which isan indeclinable noun, as a genitiveafter the infinitive, although it isfollowed by another noun in tliegenitive, I have acted in accordancewith the almost invariableusage of the translators of theGaelic Scriptures. Whether or notthat usage be strictly idiomatic Ineed not at present discuss, as no2)ersonof sense would regard the aboveexample of it as a grammatical error.I do not consider it necessary tonotice your correspondent's grammaticalcomments. Remarks ofwliicli the following is a fair specimenrequire no reply :— " Is it [' gu'in the conjunction 'gu' n'] not rathera prejiositive verbal particle used foremphatically affirming a direct assertion" !In reference to " gu 'n," I maystate that I have observed that Mr.O'Beirne Crowe, a distinguished Irishscholar, in one of the notes to histranslation of "Siabur-Charput Chonculaind"in the Journal of the RoyalIrish Arcluvological Association, hasexplained the old conjunction •' con"exactly as I have explained itsmodern form. That a gentleman ofDr Clerk's ability and acuteness, onassuming that ?i of " gu 'n" is merelyeuphonic, was forced, for the sake ofconsistency, to regard n of "do'n,"" fo 'n," " o 'n," " mu 'n," &c., also aseuphonic, furnished an argumentagainst " gu-n" which I would nothave been justified in overlooking inmy "Notes,"andthat,audnotadesire »to expose Di\ Clerk's editorial mistakes,,many extracts from his edition ofOssian.When I was preparing my "PhilologicalNotes" for your Augustnumber, I had not before me, unfortunately,your correspondent's spellingof " Beinn-neabhais," nor evenDr. Maclauchlaii's, and, therefore, Iwas obliged to spell the word as Ihad always heard it pronounced, notin one of the " more northerncounties," but in a part of thecounty of Inverness adjoining Lochaber.At the foot of Ben-nevis,where, of course, the name is morefrt'cpiently used, there j^revails, itseems, a more attenuated pronunciation,indicating, possibly, a more