The Infinitives of Transitive Verbs, being themselves Nouns, (See Part II. Chap. V. p. 86.) govern in like manner the Genitive of their object; as, ag cur sìl, sowing seed; a dh' fhaicinn an t-sluaigh, to see the people; iar leughadh an t-soisgeil, after reading the gospel[[105]].
Although no good reason appears why this rule, which is common to the Gaelic with many other languages, should ever be set aside, yet it has been set aside in speaking, and sometimes in writing Gaelic.
1. When the Noun governed does in its turn govern another Noun in the Genitive, the former is often put in the Nominative instead of the Genitive case. The following instances of this anomaly occur in the Gaelic Scriptures:—Guth briathran an t-sluaigh, instead of, bhriathran, the voice of the words of the people, Deut. v. 28; do mheas craobhan a' gharaidh, instead of, chraobhan, of the fruit of the trees of the garden,
Gen. iii. 2; ag itheadh tighean bhantrach, for thighean, devouring widows' houses, Matt. xxiii. 14; ag nochdadh obair an lagha, for oibre, showing the work of the law, Rom. ii. 15; ag cuimhneachadh gun sgur obair bhur creidimh, agus saothair bhur graidh, for oibre, saoithreach, remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, 1 Thess. i. 3; trid fuil is fearta Chriost, through the blood and merits of Christ, Gael. Paraph. 1787, p. 381, for trid fola Chriost, as in Eph. ii. 13; ag àiteach sliabh Shioin, for sleibh, inhabiting the hill of Zion, Psal. ix. 11. metr; air son obair Chriosd, Phil. ii. 30, 1767, according to the usage of the language, but changed to oibre, in Edit. 1796, to suit the Grammatical Rule[[106]]. For the most part, however, the general rule, even in these circumstances, is followed; as, guth fola do bhrathar, the voice of thy brother's blood, Gen. iv. 10; amhainn duthcha cloinne a shluaigh the river of the land of the children of his people, Numb. xxii. 5; a' nigheadh chos sheirbhiseach mo thighearna, to wash the feet of the servants of my lord, 1 Sam. xxv. 41.
2. Such expressions as the following seem to be exceptions to the rule:—Dithis mac, 2 Sam. xv. 27, 36; ceathrar mac, 1 Chron. xxi. 20; leanabaibh mac, Matt. ii. 16. In the following similar instances, the rule is observed:—Dithis mhac, Gen. xli. 50; dithis fhear, 2 Sam. xii. 1; ceathrar fhear, Acts xxi. 23; ceathrar mhaighdiona, Acts xxi. 9.
The same anomaly takes place in the regimen of the infinitive, as in that of other Nouns. Though an Infinitive be in that grammatical relation to a preceding Noun which would require its being put in the Genitive, yet when itself also governs another noun in the Genitive, it often retains the form of the Nominative. The Infinitives naomhachadh, gnathachadh, briseadh, admit of a regular Genitive, naomhachaidh, gnathachaidh, brisidh. In the following examples,
these Infinitives, because they govern a subsequent Noun in the Genitive, are themselves in the Nominative, though their relation to the preceding word naturally requires their being put in the Genitive Case. Tha an treas àithne a' toirmeasg mi-naomhachadh no mi-ghnathachadh ni sam bith, &c., the third commandment forbids the profaning or the abusing of any thing, &c. Assem. Cat. Gael. Edin. 1792, Answer to Q. 55. Ged fheud luchdbriseadh na h-aithne so dol as, &c., id. Q. 56., though the transgressors of this commandment may escape, &c. Cuis crathadh cinn is casadh béil, Psal. xxii. 7, as it is in the older edition of the Gaelic Psalms. An deigh leughadh an lagha, after the reading of the Law, Acts. xiii. 15; luchd cumadh uilc, Rom. i. 30[[107]].
The Infinitive is not put in the Genitive, when preceded
by a Possessive Pronoun, because it is in the same limited state as if it governed a Noun in the Genitive Case; as, a chum am marbhadh 's na beanntaibh, to kill them in the mountains, Exod. xxxii., not marbhaidh, which is the Case regularly governed by chum. Co tha 'g iarraidh do mharbhadh? John vii. 20, not do mharbhaidh. Thug iad leo e chum a cheusadh. Matt. xxvii. 31. Chum an cruinneachadh gu cath. Rev. xx. 8[[108]].
This coincidence in the Regimen of the Infinitive in two similar situations, viz., when limited by a Possessive Pronoun, and when limited by a subsequent Noun, furnishes no slight argument in support of the construction defended above, of putting the Infin. in the Nom. case when itself governs a Noun in the Genitive; for we find the Infin. is invariably put in the Nom. when limited in its signification by a Possess. Pronoun.