Wept at completing 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 some compound words, composed of two Nouns whereof the former governs 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 examples suggest, and seem to authorise a special use of this idiom of Gaelic Syntax, which, if uniformly observed, might contribute much to the perspicuity and precision of many common expressions. When a compound term occurs, made up of a Noun and an Infinitive governed by that Noun, it often happens that this term itself governs 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 compound word, then the latter part should remain regularly in the Genitive Case. But if the subsequent Noun be governed by the latter part of the compound word, then, agreeably to the construction exemplified in the above passages, that latter part, which is here supposed to be an Infinitive, should fall back into the Nominative Case. Thus tigh-coimhid an Righ, the King's store house, where the Noun Righ is governed by tigh, the former term of the compound word; but tigh comhead an ionmhais, John viii. 20, the house for keeping the treasure, where ionmhais is governed by coimhead, which is therefore put in the Nominative instead of the Genitive. So luchd-coimhid, Matt. xxviii. 4, when no other Noun is governed; but fear-coimhead a' phriosuin, Acts, xvi. 27, 36, where the last Noun is governed in the Genitive by coimhead, which is therefore put in the Nominative. So also fear-coimhid, Psal. cxxi. 3, but fear-coimhead Israeil, Psal. cxxi. 4. Edin. 1799. Tigh-bearraidh nam buachaillean, the shearing-house belonging to the shepherds, 2 King, x. 12, but tigh-bearradh nan caorach, the house for shearing the sheep. Luchd-brathaidh an Righ the King's spies; but luchd-brathadh an Righ, the betrayers of the King. Luchd-mortaidh Heroid, assassins employed by Herod; but luchd-mortadh Eoin, the murderers of John.
I am aware that this distinction has been little regarded 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 seems to be an impropriety in writing chum a losgaidh, 1 Cor. xiii. 3, instead of chum a losgadh.
[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 similar instance occurs in Acts, ii. 20, an la mor agus oirdheirc sin an Tighearna. In the Scottish edition of 1796, the requisite correction is made by omitting the 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 mention that, in the passage last quoted, the first article an had crept, by mistake, into a part of the impression 1796, but was corrected in the remaining part.
[111] The inserted m or n is generally written with an apostrophe before it, thus gu'm, gu'n. This would indicate that some vowel is here suppressed in writing. 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 much doubt the propriety of joining the Conjunction ged to the Fut. Affirm.; as, ge do gheibh na h-uile dhaoine oilbheum, though all men shall be offended, Matt. xxvi. 33. It should rather have been, ged fhaigh na h-uile dhaoine, &c. The Fut. Subj. seems to be equally improper; as, ge do ghlaodhas iad rium, though they shall cry to me, Jer. xi. 21, Edit. 1786. Rather, ged ghlaodh iad rium, as in Hosea, xi. 7. So also, ged eirich dragh, 's ged bhagair bàs, though trouble shall arise, and though death shall threaten. Gael. Paraph. xlvii. 7. Edin. 1787. See page [134]. Note [93].