Mu choinnimh; opposite, over against.
Mu thimchoill, timchioll; by the circuit, around.
O bharr, bharr; from the top, off.
Os ceann; on the top, above, atop.
Ré; duration, during.
Taréis; after[[85]].
Trid; through, by means.
It is evident, from inspection, that almost all these improper Prepositions are compounded; and comprehend, as one of their component parts, a Noun, which is preceded by a simple or Proper Preposition; like the English, on account, with respect, &c. The words ceann, aghaidh, lorg, barr, taobh, &c., are known to be real Nouns, because they are employed in that capacity in other connections, as well as in the phrases here enumerated. The case is not so clear with regard to son, cum, or cun, reir, which occur only in the above phrases; but it is probable that these are nouns likewise, and that, when combined with simple Prepositions, they constitute phrases of precisely the same structure with the rest of the foregoing list[[86]]. Comhair is probably comh-aire mutual attention. Dàil and còir, in the sense of proximity, are found in their compounds comh-dhail and fochair [fa chòir.] Tòir, in like manner, in its derivative tòireachd, the act of pursuing. Dh' fhios, to the knowledge, must have been originally applied to persons only. So it is used in many Gaelic songs: beir mo shoiridh le dùrachd dh' fhios na cailinn, &c., bear my good wishes with cordiality to the knowledge of the maid, &c., i.e., present my affectionate regards, &c. This appropriate meaning and use of the phrase came by degrees to be overlooked; and it was employed, promiscuously with do chum and dh' ionnsuidh, to signify unto in a more general sense. If this analysis of the expression be just, then ghios[[87]] must be deemed only a different, and a corrupt manner of writing dh' fhios.
In the improper preposition os ceann, the noun has almost
always been written cionn. Yet in all other situations, the same noun is uniformly written ceann. Whence has arisen this diversity in the orthography of a simple monosyllable? And is it maintained upon just grounds? It must have proceeded either from a persuasion that there are two distinct nouns signifying top, one of which is to be written ceann, and the other cionn[[88]]; or from an opinion that, granting the two words to be the same individual noun, yet it is proper to distinguish its meaning when used in the capacity of a preposition, from its meaning in other situations, by spelling it in different ways. I know of no good argument in support of the former of these two opinions; nor has it probably been ever maintained. The latter opinion, which seems to be the real one, is founded on a principle subversive of the analogy and stability of written language, namely, that the various significations of the same word are to be distinguished in writing, by changing its letters, the constituent elements of the word. The variation in question, instead of serving to point out the meaning of a word or phrase in one place, from its known meaning in another connection, tends directly to disguise it; and to mislead the reader into a belief that the words, which are thus presented to him under different forms, are themselves radically and essentially different. If the same word has been employed to denote several things somewhat different from each other, that does by no means appear a sufficient reason why the writers of the language should make as many words of one[[89]].