Part 41 (1/2)

or, which will occur oftener, 'Ciod i Urnuigh an Tighearna?' equivalent to 'Ciod i [an urnuigh sin de 'n goirear] Urnuigh an Tighearna?'

See a short Latin Catechism at the end of Mr Ruddiman's Latin Rudiments, where many similar expressions occur; as 'Quid est fides? 'Quid est Lex?

Quid est Baptismus? Quid Sacramenta?' &c

+ So Ruddiement obtains pretty uniformly in Hebrew, and seems the natural and ordinary collocation of the Verb and its Noun in that language When the Noun in Hebrew is placed before the Verb, it will generally be found that the Noun does not immediately connect with the Verb as the Nominative to it, but rather stands in an absolute state; and that it is brought forward in that state by itself to excite attention, and denotes some kind of e exa God created [[Hebrew: BR' 'LHYM] in the natural order] the Heaven and the Earth' [Hebrew: WH'RTS HYTH]; not and the Earth was, &c, but 'and with respect to the Earth, it ithout forun dealbh,' &c Gen xviii 33 'And the Lord went his way [[Hebrew: WYLK YHWH] in the natural order] as soon as he had left co with Abraham;' [Hebrew: W'BRHM SHB], not simply 'and Abraham returned,' &c, but 'and Abrahaus Abraha' aite fein' See also Num xxiv 25--Gen iii

12 'And the avest to be with ave me of the tree, and I did eat' Gen

iii 13 'And the woman said, [Hebrew: HNCHSH HSHY'NY], not uiled uiled ht for you; but as for _you_, ye shall hold your peace' This kind of e translation of Psal lx 12, 'for he _it is that_ shall tread down our ene examples, I shall only observe that it lish reader to conceive that the Noun denoting the subject of a proposition, when placed after its Verb, should be in the natural order; and when placed before its Verb, should be in an inverted order of the words To a person well aquainted with the Gaelic, this idiom is familiar; and therefore it is the easier for hie to this peculiarity in the structure of the Hebrew, es would be expressed by various particles, but in Hebrew depend on the collocation alone, must pass unobserved and unfelt

[103] I ae, by E O'C, author of a Gaelic Grahe_ is here the No is not _Jesus took pity on them_, but _pity seized Jesus for them_

[104] This construction resembles that of the Latin Infinitive preceded by the Accusative of the Agent

----Mene desistere victaelish, the Infinitive of a Transitive Verb is sometimes used instead of the Present Participle, and followed by the Preposition _of_; as, 'the wos xvii 10

-------- so of the mortal sin--”Parad Lost”

See more examples, Num xiii, 25, 2 Sam ii 21, 2 Chron xx 25, xxxv 14, Ezek xxxix 12

[106] On the same principle it is that in sooverns the latter in the Genitive, the former Noun is seldom itself put in the Genitive case Thus, ainm bean-na-bainse, _the bride's name_; it would sound extremely harsh to say ainm mna-na-bainse; clach ceann-an-teine, not clach cinn-an-teine, the stone which supports a hearth fire

[107] These exaest, and seem to authorise a special use of this idioht contribute much to the perspicuity and precision of many common expressions When a cooverned by that Noun, it often happens that this teroverns another Noun in the Genitive Let the two parts of the compound term be viewed separately If it appear that the subsequent Noun is governed by the _former_ part of the coularly in the Genitive Case But if the subsequent Noun be governed by the _latter_ part of the coreeably to the construction exees, that latter part, which is here supposed to be an Infinitive, should fall back into the No's store house_, where the Noun Righ is governed by tigh, the forh co the treasure_, where ionoverned by coimhead, which is therefore put in the Nominative instead of the Genitive So luchd-coioverned; but fear-coimh_ea_d a' phriosuin, Acts, xvi 27, 36, where the last Noun is governed in the Genitive by coimh_ea_d, which is therefore put in the Nominative So also fear-coimh_i_d, Psal cxxi 3, but fear-coih-bearr_ai_dh na to the shepherds_, 2 King, x

12, but tigh-bearr_a_dh nan caorach, _the house for shearing the sheep_

Luchd-brath_ai_dh an Righ _the King's spies_; but luchd-brath_a_dh an Righ, _the betrayers of the King_ Luchd-mort_ai_dh Heroid, _assassins employed by Herod_; but luchd-mort_a_dh Eoin, _the murderers of John_

I aarded by the translators of the Scriptures It appeared, however, worthy of being suggested, on account of its evident utility in point of precision, and because it is supported by the genius and practice of the Gaelic language

[108] For this reason, there seeaidh, 1 Cor xiii 3, instead of chuadh

[109] The same peculiarity in the use of the Article takes place in Hebrew, and constitutes a striking point of analogy in the structure of the two languages See _Buxt Thes Gram Heb Lib II Cap V_

[110] This solecism is found in the Irish as well as in the Scottish Gaelic translation The Manks translation has avoided it In the Irish version and in the Scottish Gaelic version of 1767, a sius oirdheirc sin _an_ Tighearna In the Scottish edition of 1796, the requisite correction isthe first Article It is omitted likewise in the Manks N T On the other hand, the Article, which had been rightly left out in the Edition of 1767, is improperly introduced in the Edition of 1796, in 1 Cor xi 27, an cupan so an Tighearna It is proper to e last quoted, the first article _an_ had crept, by mistake, into a part of the i part

[111] The inserted _enerally written with an apostrophe before it, thus gu'u'n This would indicate that so But if no vowel ever stood in the place of this apostrophe, which seems to be the fact, the apostrophe itself has been needlessly and improperly introduced

[112] I ed to the Fut

Affirh all men shall be offended_, Matt xxvi 33 It should rather have been, ged fhaigh na h-uile dhaoine, &c The Fut Subj seehlaodhas iad riuh they shall cry to hlaodh iad riuair bas, _though trouble shall arise, and though death shall threaten_ Gael Paraph xlvii 7 Edin 1787 See page 134 Note 93

[113] The ternification as well as for else than fear _man_, in its aspirated form fhear