Elements of Gaelic Grammar Part 6

2 uai (2) ua (1) i cruaidh _hard_, fuaim _sound_.

3 uai (1) ua gluais _to move_, uair _time_.

CONSONANTS

_l.a.b.i.als._

1 p part poll _a pool_, streap _to climb_.

2 ph Philip phill _returned_.

1 b boil baile _a town_, breab _to kick_.

2 bh vile bhuail _struck_, gabh _to take_.

1 m my mr _great_, anam _life, soul_.

2 mh mhothuich _perceived_, damh _an ox_.

1 f feel fill _to fold_.

2 fh _quiescent_ fheara _O men_.

_Palatals._

1 c c.o.c.k can _to say, sing_, creid _to believe_.

2 c kick ceann _end, head_, reic _to sell_.

3 ch [Greek: chora] chaidh _went_, rach _go_.

4 ch [Greek: cheimon] chi _shall see_, crche _of a boundary_.

1 g go gabh _to take_, rag _stiff_.

{22} 2 g give geinne _a wedge_, ruig _to reach_.

3 gh ghabh _took_, ghleidh _kept_.

4 gh you gheibh _will get_.

5 _quiescent_ righ _a king_, sluagh _people_.

_Linguals._

1 t tone tog _to raise_, slat _a rod_.

2 t chin tinn _sick_, aite _a place_.

3 th have thainig _came_.

4 th _quiescent_ maith _good_, fath _occasion_.

1 d done dol _going_, dragh _trouble_.

2 d join diom _resentment_, maide _a stick_.

3 dh (3) gh dhall _blind_.

4 dh (4) gh dhearc _looked_.

5 dh _quiescent_ radh _saying_, bualadh _thres.h.i.+ng_.

1 s so sannt _desire_, sloc _a pit_.

2 s show seimh _gentle_, so _this_.

3 sh how shuidh _sat_, shaoil _thought_.

1 l lom _bare_, slat _a rod_, moll _chaff_.

2 l million lnn _an age_, caillte _lost_.

3 l look blath _blossom_, shlanuich _healed_.

4 l believe leum _leaped_, shleamhnuich _slipped_.

1 n crann _a tree_, naomh _holy_, naisg _bind_.

2 n opinion seinn _to sing_, nigh _wash_.

3 n no fan _to stay_, naisg _bound_.

4 n near coin _dogs_, nigh _washed_.

1 r roar fearr _better_, righ _a king_, ruith _run_.

2 r rear fear _a man_, ruith _ran_.

3 r fir _men_, a righ _O king_, treoir _strength_.

There is no doubt that the Gaelic has been for many ages a written language. It is equally certain that its orthography, since it was first committed to writing, has undergone {23} considerable changes. In this respect it has shared the common fate of all written languages.

In the first exhibition of the sounds of a living language, by alphabetical characters, it is probable that the principle which regulated the system of orthography was, that every elementary sound should be represented by a corresponding character, either simple or compounded, and that the same sound should be represented by the same character. If different sounds were represented by the same letter; if the same sound were represented by different letters; if more letters were employed then were necessary to exhibit the sound; or if any sound were not represented by a corresponding character; then the _written_ language would not be an adequate representation of the _spoken_. It is hardly to be supposed that, in the first rude attempts at alphabetical writing, the principle above laid down could be strictly and uniformly followed. And though it had, yet, in the course of a few generations, many causes would occur to bring about considerable departures from it. A gradual refinement of ear, and increasing attention to _euphonia_; contractions and elisions brought into vogue by the carelessness or the rapidity of colloquial speech, or by the practice of popular speakers; above all, the mixture of the speech of different nations would introduce numberless varieties into the p.r.o.nunciation. Still, those who wrote the language might choose to adhere to the original orthography for the sake of retaining the radical parts, and preserving the etymon of vocables undisguised, and for maintaining an uniformity in the mechanism of the inflections. Hence the p.r.o.nunciation and the orthography would disagree in many instances, till at length it would be found expedient to alter the orthography, and to adapt it to such changes in the speech or spoken language as long use had established, in order to maintain what was most necessary of all, a due correspondence between the mode of speaking and the mode of writing the same language.

It will probably be found on inquiry that in all languages when the _speech_ has undergone material and striking changes, {24} the _written language_ also has varied in a considerable degree in conformity to these changes, but that it has not scrupulously kept pace with the spoken language in every smaller variation. The written language of the Greeks suffered many changes between the time that the old Pelasgic was spoken and the days of Demosthenes. The various modes of p.r.o.nunciation used in the different districts of Greece are marked by a diversity in the orthography of the written language. The writing of the Latin underwent considerable alterations between the era of the _Decemviri_ and the Augustan age, corresponding, no doubt, to the changes which had taken place during that interval in speaking the Latin. English and French books printed within the last century exhibit a mode of orthography very different from what is found in books printed two or three hundred years ago. These instances show the tendency which the written language has to follow the lead of the spoken language, and to maintain a certain degree of conformity to those modes of p.r.o.nunciation which are from time to time adopted by those who speak it.

On the other hand, numberless examples might be adduced from any living language to prove that the written language does not adapt itself, on all occasions and with strict uniformity, to the sounds of speech. Words are written differently which are p.r.o.nounced alike. The same combinations of letters, in different situations, represent different sounds. Letters are retained in writing, serving to point out the derivations of words, after they have been entirely dropped in speaking.

From such facts as these, it appears a just conclusion that _written language_ generally follows the _spoken language_ through its various revolutions, but still at a certain distance,--not dropping so far behind as to lose sight of its precursor, nor following so close as to be led through all its fantastic deviations.

Here a question occurs of importance in settling the orthography of any particular tongue: How near ought the _written language_ to correspond to the _spoken_, and where may a disagreement between them be allowed with {25} propriety? The following observations may serve to throw some light on the subject of this question, though by no means sufficient to furnish a complete answer.

It is obvious that in speech the _articulations_ (which are represented by consonants in writing) are the least liable to variation. _Vowel sounds_ are continually varying. In this variety chiefly consists that diversity of tone and dialect which is found in the speech of different districts of the same country, where the same words are spoken. The changes, too, which are introduced by time fall with greater effect on the vowel sounds than on the articulations. This circ.u.mstance will strike an observer who steps into any deliberative a.s.sembly, where the speakers are of different ages. St Jerome makes a remark on the reading of Hebrew, which is applicable, in some measure, to the p.r.o.nunciation of all languages: "Nec refert utrum _Salem_ aut _Salim_ nominetur; c.u.m vocalibus in medio literis perraro utantur Hebraei; et pro voluntate lectorum, ac _varietate regionum_, eadem verba _diversis sonis_ atque accentibus proferantur." It may be observed that the superior stability of the articulations above the vowel sounds is the natural consequence of the position of the organs of speech in uttering them. The different modifications of the vowel sounds are effected by minute changes in the conformation of the organs; those of the articulations are made by more distinct and operose inflections of the organs.

It seems, then, a warrantable conclusion that, of the elementary const.i.tuents of speech, viz., articulations and vowel sounds, the _articulations_ are, in their own nature, ESSENTIAL, PERMANENT, and PREDOMINANT; the _vowel sounds_, comparatively considered, are ADJUNCTIVE, FLUCTUATING, and SERVILE.

Further, all the vowel sounds that usually occur in speech seem to be uttered with equal ease, in whatever situation they occur, as the same organs are employed for all. In forming the common articulations of speech, as different organs are employed, a degree of difficulty is sometimes felt in making a transition from one articulation to another. {26} Thus a difficulty will occasionally occur in p.r.o.nouncing certain words, where the general a.n.a.logy of inflection or of collocation has brought together articulations which do not easily coalesce. Hence a necessity arises of departing in such a case from the general a.n.a.logy, and altering or displacing some of those discrepant articulations, for the sake of ease and convenience in p.r.o.nunciation, and to relieve the ear from an offensive discordant sound. Departures are made from the general rules of speech in the case of the vowel sounds also, of which the Greek tongue abounds with examples. These departures, however, seem to have been made from a desire to indulge the ear in certain national predilections or aversions which it had conceived with regard to particular sounds. In examining the anomalies of speech, or those peculiarities which have been reckoned anomalous, it will be found that such of them as affect the articulations have, for the most part, been adopted for the purpose of ease and convenience in p.r.o.nunciation; while those which affect the vowel sounds have proceeded from the peculiar taste of the speakers. Thus the former spring from a cause urgent and constant in its nature, and uniform in its operation; the latter, from a cause local and temporary in its nature, and variable in its operation.

If this theory be just, it ought to follow that, in all polished tongues, an agreement will be found among those irregularities which affect the articulations, that is not so observable in those which affect the vowel sounds. There is reason to believe that, if a full comparison were made between different languages, this would accordingly be found to be the case. Let it be observed, then, that in speech a deference has been usually paid to the articulations which has not been paid to the vowel sounds, inasmuch as the latter have been changed from the state in which the structure of each tongue had at first placed them, frequently and from peculiar taste or humour; the former more rarely, and for the most part from necessity. If this observation be found to be well supported, we shall have the sanction of general practice in favour of the conclusion that was formerly {27} drawn from the nature of articulate sounds, viz., that the articulations are ESSENTIAL, PERMANENT, and PREDOMINANT; the vowel sounds ADJUNCTIVE, FLUCTUATING, and SERVILE.

If it appear, then, that the vowel sounds in speech are perpetually varying in the mouths of different speakers, from causes which either elude our search, or, when discovered, are seen to be of small importance, may we not judge that it would be equally vain and improper to attempt to make _Writing_ follow all these minute variations; and that, however it may happen that the same vowel sound may be represented in many instances by different letters, and different vowel sounds by the same letters, yet this disagreement between _Speech_ and _Writing_ must be connived at, for the sake of preserving some degree of uniformity, where alone it can be preserved, in the _written language_? If it appear, again, that the variations from the established a.n.a.logy which are made on the articulations are less frequent, and proceed from causes obvious and cogent, ought not these variations to be exhibited in writing, for preserving that general correspondence between the written and the spoken language which ought to be preserved, as far as the limited powers of letters will permit, and without which the words I speak and those I write do not belong to the same language?

One exception from this principle seems allowable in the case of quiescent consonants. It may be inferred, from the practice of all living languages, that consonants whereof the corresponding articulations have been suppressed in speaking may yet be retained with propriety in writing, when they are requisite to point out the derivation of vocables, or the radical part of declinable words. But this exception ought to be allowed only to a moderate extent, for the reasons already a.s.signed; to which it may be added, that the far greater part of the suppressed articulations can be easily discovered and retraced to their roots, without any index in the _written_ any more than in the _spoken_ language to point them out. {28}

These observations being premised, I shall proceed to explain the present state of Gaelic Orthography, and shall endeavour to a.s.sist the reader in forming a judgment of its merit, and how far it may admit of improvement.

I. It may be laid down as one settled principle in orthography, that each letter or combination of letters in the written language ought always to denote one and the same sound. From the explanation that has been given of the powers of the letters, it may be seen how far this principle has been regarded in the Gaelic. Though almost every one of the letters represents more than one sound, yet there is an evident affinity between the several sounds of the same letter. And it may be readily allowed that less confusion and inconvenience follow from exhibiting a few kindred sounds by the same letter, than would have taken place had the characters been multiplied to such a degree as that a separate one could have been appropriated to each minute variety of sound.

It is obvious to remark, as a departure from this principle, that in the case of the consonants _l_, _n_, _r_, the distinction between their _plain_ and their _aspirated_ state is not marked in writing, but that in both states the consonant is written in one way. In the middle and end of words, as has been shown, this distinction may be known from the relative situation of the letters. In the beginning of certain cases and tenses of declinable words, it may often be known from their _grammatical_ connection, but is not marked by any _graphical_ index whatever. The proper reading is to be determined by the sense of the pa.s.sage, instead of the sense being understood by the proper reading. It is not easy to discover how those who first committed the Gaelic to writing neglected to mark such a material distinction. Inconveniencies and ambiguities not unfrequently arise from this cause, which have been long felt and regretted. Is there room to hope that it is not yet too late to recommend a method of remedying this defect? The method I would suggest is the most simple and obvious of any. It is to annex to the initial _l_, _n_, and _r_, in their aspirated state, the letter _h_, just as has been {29} done to all the other consonants. The a.n.a.logy of orthography would thus be maintained, the system of inflection would be more justly exhibited, and carried on by an uniform process in _Writing_ as it is in _Speech_, and errors in reading and ambiguities in syntax would be avoided[22].

II. Another principle of authority in regulating orthography is, that each sound ought always to be represented by one and the same letter, or combination of letters. The deviations from this rule in Gaelic are extremely few. The sound of _ao_ is represented sometimes by _a_ alone, sometimes by _o_ alone. The sound of _gh_ is represented also by _dh_; and final _c_ often, though corruptly, represents the same sound with _chd_.

III. A third principle in orthography is, that no more letters ought to be employed than are necessary to represent the sound. There are probably few polished languages in which departures from this rule are not found in abundance. Reasons have been already mentioned which render it expedient to retain letters in writing many words, after the corresponding sounds have been dropped in p.r.o.nouncing the same words. Quiescent letters, both vowels and consonants, are not unfrequent in Gaelic. Though these quiescent letters have no sound themselves, they are not always without effect in p.r.o.nunciation, as they often determine the sound of other letters. Most, if not all, the quiescent vowels seem to have been introduced for this purpose. They ascertain the _broad_ or the _small_ sound of the adjoining {30} consonants. This has been made sufficiently clear in treating of the vowels and diphthongs separately. A consonant, as has been shown, has its _broad_ sound, both when preceded and when followed by a broad vowel; and in like manner has its _small_ sound, both when preceded and when followed by a small vowel. If a consonant were preceded by a vowel of one quality, and followed by one of a different quality, the reader, it has been thought, might be doubtful whether that consonant ought to be p.r.o.nounced with its broad or with its small sound. Hence this rule has long obtained in Gaelic orthography, that in polysyllables the last vowel of one syllable and the first vowel of the subsequent syllable must be both of the same quality[23]. To the extensive application and the rigid observance of this rule it is owing that so many diphthongs appear where one vowel is sufficient to express the vocal sound, and that the h.o.m.ogeneous vowels, when used in their quiescent capacity, are often exchanged for each other, or written indiscriminately[24]. From the former of these circ.u.mstances, most of the words in the language appear loaded with superfluous vowels; from the latter, the orthography of many words appears, in some respects, arbitrary and unsettled. Even a partial correction of these blemishes must be desirable. It may therefore be worth while to examine this long established canon of Gaelic orthography, with a view to discover whether it has not been extended farther than is necessary, and whether it ought not in many cases to be set aside.

We have seen that the l.a.b.i.als _b_, _m_, _f_, _p_, whether aspirated or not, have no distinction of broad and small sound.

{31} It cannot, then, be necessary to employ vowels, either prefixed or postfixed, to indicate the sound of these. Thus, abuich _ripe_, gabhaidh _will take_, chromainn _I would bow_, ciomaich _captives_, have been written with a broad vowel in the second syllable, corresponding to the broad vowel in the first syllable; yet the letters ab.i.+.c.h, gabhidh, chrominn, ciomich, fully exhibit the sound. The prepositive syllable im, when followed by a small vowel, is written im, as in imlich _to lick_, imcheist _perplexity_. But when the first vowel of the following syllable is broad, it has been the practice to insert an _o_ before the _m_, as in iomlan _complete_, iomghaoth _a whirlwind_, iomluasg _agitation_. Yet the inserted _o_ serves no purpose, either in respect of derivation, of inflection, or of p.r.o.nunciation. The unnecessary application of the rule in question appears most unequivocally in words derived from other languages.

From the Latin words _imago_, _templum_, _liber_, are formed in Gaelic iomhaigh, teampull, leabhar. Nothing but a servile regard to the rule under consideration could have suggested the insertion of a broad vowel in the first syllable of these words, where it serves neither to guide the p.r.o.nunciation, nor to point out the derivation.

Another case, in which the observation of this rule seems to be wholly unnecessary, is when two syllables of a word are separated by a quiescent consonant. Thus in gleidheadh _keeping_, itheadh _eating_, buidheann _a company_, dligheach _lawful_, the aspirated consonants in the middle are altogether quiescent. The vocal sound of the second syllable is sufficiently expressed by the last vowel. No good reason, then, appears for writing a small vowel in the second syllable.

Thus far it is evident that the rule respecting the correspondence of vowels is wholly impertinent in the case of syllables divided by l.a.b.i.als, or by quiescent consonants. If we examine further into the application of this rule, we shall find more cases in which it may be safely set aside.

Many of the inflections of nouns and verbs are formed by adding one or more syllables to the root. The final {32} consonant of the root must always be considered as belonging to the radical part, not to the adjected termination. The sound of that consonant, whether broad or small, falls to be determined by the quality of the vowel which precedes it in the same syllable, not by the quality of that which follows it in the next syllable.