H.
H is never used as an independent radical letter. When prefixed to a word beginning with a vowel, it is pronounced like h in how; as, na h-òighean the virgins, na h-oidhche of the night.
The following scheme exhibits a succinct view of the letters, both singly and in their several combinations. The first column contains the letters whose sound is to be exhibited; the prefixed figures marking the number of different sounds denoted by the same letter. The second column explains the sounds by examples or by references. The third column contains Gaelic words, with their translation, in which the several sounds are exemplified.
Vowels.
Diphthongs.
Triphthongs.
| 1 aoi | (1) ao | (1) i | caoidh lamentation. |
| 2 aoi | (1) ao | caoin mild, saoil to think. | |
| 1 eoi | (2) eo | (1) i | geoigh geese. |
| 2 eoi | (1) eo | meoir fingers. | |
| 3 eoi | (2) eo | deoir tears. | |
| 1 iai | (1) ia | fiaire more oblique. | |
| 1 iui | (2) iu | ciùil of music. | |
| 1 uai | (1) ua | (1) i | luaithe quicker. |
| 2 uai | (2) ua | (1) i | cruaidh hard, fuaim sound. |
| 3 uai | (1) ua | gluais to move, uair time. |
Consonants
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
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 pronunciation. 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 pronunciation 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,
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 pronunciation 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 pronunciation 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 pronounced 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
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 circumstance will strike an observer who steps into any deliberative assembly, 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 pronunciation of all languages: "Nec refert utrum Salem aut Salim nominetur; cum 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 constituents 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.
Thus a difficulty will occasionally occur in pronouncing certain words, where the general analogy 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 analogy, and altering or displacing some of those discrepant articulations, for the sake of ease and convenience in pronunciation, 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 pronunciation; 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
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 analogy 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 assigned; 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.
These observations being premised, I shall proceed to explain the present state of Gaelic Orthography, and shall endeavour to assist 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 passage, 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
done to all the other consonants. The analogy 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 pronouncing 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 pronunciation, 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
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 pronounced 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 homogeneous vowels, when used in their quiescent capacity, are often exchanged for each other, or written indiscriminately[[24]]. From the former of these circumstances, 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 Labials b, m, f, p, whether aspirated or not, have no distinction of broad and small sound.
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 abich, 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 pronunciation. 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 pronunciation, 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 Labials, 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
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. It seems, therefore, unnecessary to employ any more vowels in the adjected syllable than what are sufficient to represent its own vocal sound. The rule under consideration has, notwithstanding, been extended to the orthography of the oblique cases and tenses, and a supernumerary vowel has been thrown into the termination, whenever that was requisite to preserve the supposed necessary correspondence with the foregoing syllable. Thus, in forming the nominative and dative plural of many nouns, the syllables an and ibh are added to the singular, which letters fully express the true sound of these terminations. If the last vowel of the nominative singular is broad, an alone is added for the nominative plural; as, lamh-an hands, cluas-an ears. But if the last vowel be small, an e is thrown into the termination; as, sùil-ean eyes, sròin-ean noses. Now if it be observed that, in the two last examples, the small sound of the l and n in the root is determined by the preceding small vowel i, with which they are necessarily connected in one syllable, and that the letters an fully represent the sound of the termination, it must be evident that the e in the final syllable is altogether superfluous. So in forming the dative plural: if the last vowel of the root be small, ibh is added; as, sùil-ibh, sroin-ibh. But if the last vowel of the root is broad, the termination is written aibh; as, lamh-aibh, cluas-aibh, where the a, for the reason already assigned, is totally useless.
These observations apply with equal justness to the tenses of verbs, as will be seen by comparing the following examples: creid-idh will believe, stad-aidh will stop; chreid-inn I would believe, stad-ainn I would stop; creid-eam let me believe, stad-am let me stop; creid-ibh believe ye, stad-aibh stop ye.
The same observations may be further applied to derivative words, formed by adding to their primitives the syllables
ach, achd, ag, an, ail, as; in all which e has been unnecessarily introduced, when the last vowel of the preceding syllable was small; as, sannt-ach covetous, toil-each willing; naomh-achd holiness, doimhn-eachd depth; sruth-an a rivulet, cuil-ean a whelp; cauch-ag a little cup, cail-eag a girl; fear-ail manly, caird-eil friendly[[25]]; ceart-as justice, caird-eas friendship.
The foregoing observations appear sufficient to establish this general conclusion, that in all cases in which a vowel serves neither to exhibit the vocal sound, nor to modify the articulations of the syllable to which it belongs, it may be reckoned nothing better than an useless incumbrance. There seems, therefore, much room for simplifying the present system of Gaelic Orthography, by the rejection of a considerable number of quiescent vowels[[26]].
Almost the only quiescent consonants which occur in Gaelic are d, f, g, s, t, in their aspirated state. When these occur in the inflections of declinable words, serving to indicate the Root, or in derivatives, serving to point out the primitive word, the omission of them might, on the whole, be unadvisable. Even when such letters appear in their absolute form, though they have been laid aside in pronunciation, yet it would be rash to discard them in writing, as they often serve to show the affinity of the words in which they are found to others in different languages, or in different dialects of the Celtic. The aspirated form of the consonant in writing sufficiently shows that, in speaking, its articulation is either attenuated or wholly suppressed.
The writers of Gaelic seem to have carefully avoided bringing into apposition two vowels which belong to different syllables. For this purpose they have sometimes introduced a quiescent consonant into the middle of compound or of inflected words; as, gneidheil, or rather gnethail kindly, made up of gnè and ail; beothail lively, made up of beo and ail; diathan gods, from the singular dia; lathaibh days, from the singular là, &c. It may at least bear a question, whether it would not be better to allow the vowels to denote the sound of the word by their own powers, without the intervention of quiescent consonants, as has been done in
mnaibh women, déibh gods, rather than insert consonants which have nothing to do with either the radical or the superadded articulations of the word.
From the want of an established standard in orthography, the writers of Gaelic, in spelling words wherein quiescent consonants occurred, must have been often doubtful which of two or three consonants was the proper one, and may therefore have differed in their manner of spelling the same word. Accordingly we find, in many instances, the same words written by different writers, and even at different times by the same writer, with different quiescent consonants. This variation affects not indeed the pronunciation, or does it in a very slight degree. Hence, however, some who judge of the language only from its appearance in writing, have taken occasion to vilify it, as unfixed and nonsensical[[27]]. A proper attention to the affinity which the Scottish Gaelic bears to some other languages, particularly to other dialects of the Celtic, might contribute to fix the orthography in some cases where it appears doubtful, or has become variable[[28]].
IV. The last principle to be mentioned, which ought to regulate orthography, is that every sound ought to be represented by a corresponding character. From this rule there is hardly a single deviation in Gaelic, as there is no sound in the spoken language which is not, in some measure,
exhibited in the written language. The fault of the Gaelic orthography is sometimes a redundancy, but never a deficiency of letters.
A few observations on the mode of writing some particular words, or particular parts of speech, remain to be brought forward in the sequel of this work, which it would be premature to introduce here.
The Scottish writers of Gaelic in general followed the Irish orthography, till after the middle of the last century. However that system may suit the dialect of Ireland, it certainly is not adapted to the Gaelic of this country. In the Gaelic translation of the New Testament, printed in 1767, not only were most of the Irish idioms and inflections which had been admitted into the Scottish Gaelic writings rejected, and the language adapted to the dialect of the Scottish Highlands, but the orthography also was adapted to the language. In later publications, the manner of writing the language was gradually assimilated to that pattern. The Gaelic version of the sacred Scriptures lately published has exhibited a model, both of style and orthography, still more agreeable to the purest Scottish idiom, and has a just title to be acknowledged as the standard in both. Little seems to be now wanting to confer on the orthography of the Scottish Gaelic such a degree of uniformity as may redeem its credit and ensure its stability. This, it is to be hoped, may be attained by a judicious regard to the separate, and especially the relative powers of the letters, to the most common and approved modes of pronunciation, to the affinity of the Scottish Gaelic with other branches of the Celtic tongue, to the analogy of inflection and derivation, and, above all, to the authority of some generally received standard, to which pre-eminence the late Gaelic version of the Scriptures has the only indisputable claim.