﻿688
AN GAOḊAL
MR. WARD'S LETTER.
Editor of The Gael
Dear Sir — Permit me to take a small part in
the discussion on the conjugation of Irish verbs,
which is being carried on so vigorously in your
columns.
As I understand it, the point of difference is nar¬
rowed down to the 3rd sing. cond. of those verbs
whose roots, or 2nd sing. imperatives are monosyl¬
labic. You § assert that all Irish verbs form their
3rd sing. cond. in óċaḋ. Your oppon¬
ents, however, say that only such verbs
as have dis or polysyllabic roots, take
óċaḋ — those with monosyllabic roots
taking faḋ not óċaḋ, in the person, no,
and mood referred to. You therefore only differ
as to the manner in which verbs with monosyllabic
roots form their 3rd person, singular in the con¬
ditional mood.
Mr. O'Donnell, in his able letter, cites our old
mss., † O'Donovan, Keating, O'Molloy and Windisch
as in opposition to your theory, and as you have
not disputed his assertion, I take it for granted that
you concede its truth.
I will now introduce another competent authority.
Rev. Father ‡ O’Sullivan whose translations of a
Kempis, is unrivaled for brevity and correctness of
expression, simplicity of language and beauty of
idiom, and proves him to have been a thorough
practical master of the Irish language.
I have read his translation — Dublin 1822 — care¬
fully to ascertain its bearing on the point at issue
and I can confidently assert that he never fails to
make the 3rd sing cond. of all Irish verbs with
monosyllabic roots, whether regular
or irregular, end in faḋ — the verb do
ḃeiṫ only excepted.
As the work is dialogue throughout, the 3rd sing.
cond. is seldom used and in the cases of regular
verbs much less frequently. The table of quotations
below, contains, I believe, all the regular verbs in
the entire translation that bear directly on the
issue; that is all the regular verbs in the 3rd sing.
cond. whose roots are monosyllabic. Of irregular
verbs I give only a few, as verbs of that class
might be considerd irrelevant and of little weight
in deciding the issue.
* d Fognfaḋ, raċfaḋ, g-caillfeaḋ,
nglacfaḋ, measfaḋ, ḋeunfaḋ, ċoisgf¬
eaḋ, seasfaḋ, d-fanfaḋ, ṡladfaḋ, riṫ¬
feaḋ, g-caiṫfeaḋ, meaṁarfaḋ, ċuirfeaḋ
ṫaḃarfaḋ, ċreidfeaḋ, ċnaoiḋfeaḋ, loit¬
feaḋ, leónfaḋ, m-bronfaḋ.
In the above table some verbs are given more
than once in order to show that the Rev. and tal¬
ented translator has not once deviated from the rule
which classifies all verbs with monosyllabic roots
in the first conjugation. The verb
deun to which particular reference is
made in this discussion, occurs six different times
in the person number and mood refer¬
red to in the entire translation, and
each time takes faḋ not óċaḋ.
Your explanation that you only advocate the
general adoption of the most popular of two forms
in use, appears to me both inadequate and mis¬
leading. Both forms (as in the future tense) are
indeed in use but each has its alotted place in Irish
Grammar, and the use of either except as prescrib¬
ed thereby is ungrammatical. If centuries of neg¬
lect and proscription, have corrupted our spoken
language, it is not for us, not, to accept it in its
corrupt state and to revise Irish grammar to its
lines. We should rather endeavor to raise it out
of its present corruption to its pristine purity.
On page 652 of The Gael, you say that because
certain grammarians use óċaḋ in form¬
ing the 3rd sing. cond. of some verbs,
because for instance they use ḟoillseó¬
ċaḋ, you have an equal warrant for the
use of ḃuaileoċaḋ This is arguing that
because they use it on † special occasions, you have
a right to its indiscriminate use. You might
as well argue that because man is an animal, all
animals are human.
The conditions under which those authorities used
óċaḋ are clear and well defined. They
place the former verb in the second
conjugation, because its root, soillsiġ,
consists of two syllables, while they place the latter
in the first ‡ conjugation for the all-sufficient reason
that its root, buail, is monosyllabic.
In your June issue, page 586, you say; “We see
of late, especially by those who have only a book
knowledge of the Irish language, a tendency to
write he would drink, he would do etc.,
ḋolfaḋ se, ḋeunfaḋ se, etc. Such form
is very grating to the Gaelic ear. The
natural Irish speaker will invariably
say d'olóċaḋ se, ḋeunoċaḋ se."
Now, were I in your place, I would have wtitten
just the reverse, i. e,, that the latter forms grat¬
ed on the Gaelic ear, and that the natural Irish
speakers always said dólfad sé, ḋeun¬
faḋ sé, etc., nor could you have charg¬
ed me with innovating, as I would have the author-
§ The speakers assert so by practicing it.
† As these men assert that the monosyllabic verb
is more numerous than the other verb when it is
only as 1 to 10, as the readers of THE GAEL now
know, quoting them as authorities is childish.
‡ Father Walsh has corrected Father O’Sullivan,
page 173, line 6.
[ * Mr. Ward gives 24 examples exemplified by
long quotations, but as his letter is very long, and
four of the examples repetitions, and as they are
all in the third sing cond, and their position not
controverted, we omit the repetends and the exem¬
plifying quotations. Mr Ward, also, gives the pa¬
ges, from 76 to 376. — Ed]
Father O,Sullivan uses “fadh" in dissyllabic
verbs also. All the writers seem to have fa on the
brain, like MacPherson when he destroyed the
Scottish Gaelic.
† We have shown that instead of being special
it is general, in the ratio of 10 to 1. That closes
this mode of argumentation.
‡ Why the difference between the monosyllabic
and dissyllabic while there is none between the
dissyllabic and the polysyllabic verbs ?
