old family,1 some going so far as to claim that the Kelts were "the aborigines of Europe and their language the aboriginal

On the other hand modern research has proved that the Hebrew language, although remarkable for strength, refinement, and elaborate completeness of grammatical structure, yet is not the oldest of the Semitic tongues. The Gaelic, although more or less primitive, is so complete in itself that the illiterate speak it with the same propriety as the educated, and the common people thoroughly understand its highest and most refined sentences. It has been demonstrated over and over again that the illiterate handle the language with consummate skill.. Macintyre of Glenorchy stands unsurpassed in his descriptive poetry, yet he could neither read nor write. The poems of Ossian contain some of the finest compositions to be found in any language. They arise to the very height of descriptive powersome of them moving along in grandeur and majestic splendor.

While the two languages present high and just claims for themselves, it cannot be safely held that those of the Hebrew are of better quality than the other, although it has received a polish from contact with surrounding neighbors. Apparently the Hebrew has the advantage in its twenty-three letters, two

1 Mons. Pezron's Antiquities of Nations; Prichard's Eastern Origin Celtic Nations, p. 232; Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man, Vol. I., p. 192; Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres; Malcome's Letters and Essays; Morton's Crania Americana, p. 16; Nott & Gliddon's Types of Mankind, p. 91; Same, Indigenous Races, p. 34; Reclus' Europe, Vol. I., p. 19; Büchner's Man in the Past, p. 38; Lubbock's Pre-Historic Times, p. 116; Winchell's Pre-Adamites, p. 122; Figuier's Human Race, p. 75; Nicholas' Pedigree of the English People, in extenso; Yeatman's Early English History, same; Scott's History of Scotland, Vol. I. chap. i; Cuvier's Animal Kingdom, p. 38; Robertson's History of Scotland, Vol. I., chap. i., etc., etc. On the antiquity of the Gael see particularly, Keltie's Highland Clans, Vol. I., pp. 26, 28. etc.; Brown's Highland Clans, Vol. I., chap. i. to v. ; Skene's Highlands of Scotland, Vol. I., chaps. ii. to v.; Gregory's Introduction to Western Highlands; Mackay's Gaelic Etymology, Introduction; Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, in extenso; Logan's Scottish Gael, Vol. I.. chaps. i. ii.; Sir Donald Monro's Description Western Isles, (1549), p. 13; Robertson's Historical Proofs, chaps. ii. to v.; McCallum's Hist. Antiq. Scots, in extenso; Lachlan Maclean's Hist. Celtic Language, in extenso; Bede's History, chaps. xii. to xv.; McLaughlin's Celtic Gleanings, in extenso; Blackie's Lang. and Lit. of the Highland Scotch, in extenso; etc., etc., etc.

2 Huddlestone's Preface to Toland's History of the Druids.

thousand root words and six thousand words. The Gaelic has but eighteen letters, four of which are vowels. Speaking of the root words, Prof. Blackie has observed: "I have gone through Armstrong's Gaelic Dictionary very carefully twice, arranging all the roots alphabetically in columns, and placing in a line parallel to each column of Gaelic roots, the real or probable corresponding roots in Greek, Latin, German, English and Scotch. My list includes about eight hundred words, and from a rough comparison with another list which I made, I should say it leaves two-thirds of the simple vocabulary of the language unconnected with any known form of Aryan speech." If this should hold true after being carried through Danish, Swedish, and Icelandic, then the Gaelic etymology must be put on an entirely new basis.

The above suggestion is not given in order to show a close relation with the Hebrew, for such a relation does not exist any more than may be found in many other languages which have been formed from diverging stems. The relationship only implies unity of languages, at least such as have corresponding characteristics. If, however, the attempt should be made to weld the Gaelic unto the Eastern tongues, it will be found that it bears a closer affinity to the parent stock than any other living European language.

That the Gaelic enters into the Hebrew language must be conceded when the structure, onomatopoeia, and root-words are carefully compared. If it be admitted that the Gaelic is the parent of the Hebrew, or of any other tongue, it must not be expected that in any one or more of the parts of speech, uniformity must occur throughout the various modifications; for variations necessarily take place whether the language be written or unwritten.

In all languages the two essential elements are the nominative and the verb. Growth may change their forms, yet certain characteristics appear to remain stationary, as though intended for mile-stones, showing the highway formerly trod. All such features, however, do not necessarily belong to a language, for 3 Lang. and Literature of the Scottish Highlands, p.

47.

incorporations do take place, but mostly in words and their va

rious uses.

It might be assuming too much to claim that all points of resemblance between the Gaelic and the Hebrew were incorporations from the former into the latter. These resemblances are so strong as to prove an identity, but where or by what process might involve many inextricable questions.

The noun in the Hebrew, as in all other Semitic languages, has but two genders, the masculine and the feminine. The former is the primary expression and has no characteristic termination, while the feminine ends either with the letter He or Tav. The Gaelic has the same genders; but the natural and artificial qualities of things named and the forms of words given do not furnish any invariable rule by which the gender of the noun may be known. There is another very striking peculiarity of the language which consists in forming nouns in the masculine gender which exclusively signify females.

The general use of the singular and plural numbers finds a remarkable violation in both languages. In the Gaelic when the numerals da (two), fichead (twenty), cend (a hundred), mile (a thousand) are prefixed to a noun, the latter is not put in the plural, but retains the singular number and admits of no variation of case. In Hebrew when the nouns are preceded by the tens, or numbers compounded with them, the singular number is commonly used.

Only the definite article is used in either language, and its use with the nouns day and night has a remarkable coincidence, say the least. When the article is prefixed to said nouns, it imports the present day or night. This use may be observed in Exodus xiv. 13.

to

A striking point of analogy in the structure of the two languages is the use of the article when one noun governs another in the genitive. When such takes place it is never joined to both, even though each be limited in its signification. For the most part the article is joined to the latter noun; as, mac an righ (the son of the king). When, however, two nouns figure as one complex term, then the article is joined to the former

As an

noun; as, an ceann tighe (the head of the family). illustration in Hebrew, see Joshua iii. 13, "the feet of the priests." 4

Many languages, among them the Gaelic and the Hebrew, are void of the indefinite article; which thing of itself would have no particular bearing upon this discussion, were it not supported by the considerations and peculiarities above noted. Neither of the two languages under discussion has any use for the present tense.5 In both languages time is conceived of as either past or future. The present, in either tongue, is an inappreciable moment, the instant transition between two boundless periods of duration. Every action, every state of being is either in the future or else absolutely past, and what does not belong exclusively to the one may be indifferently referred to the other. The mind observing what has habitually happened declares it will inevitably occur again. Hence the future tense simply conveys the intimation that the thing foretold has already taken place repeatedly; as, "In the law of Jehovah he will meditate," i.e., "he does habitually meditate."6

Both languages clearly show that in many of the most common phrases a proposition or question is expressed without the least trace of a verb. In the Gaelic it would be contrary to the idiom to introduce a substantive verb in such phrases, although it can be scarcely said that the verb is understood, for if so, there would be no impropriety in using it. In the Hebrew there are numerous instances, both in prose and poetry.

4 This idiom, so well understood by all Gaelic scholars was violated in the following instances: Matthew xvi. 9, "cuimhneachadh (remember) nan (the) cùig (five) aran (loaves) nan (the) cùig (five) mìle (thousand); Matthew xvi. 10, nan seachd aran nan ceithir mile (the seven loaves of the four thousand). The same solecism is found also in the Irish version. In both the Irish and Scottish versions of 1796 a similar instance occurs in Acts ii. 20. In the Scottish edition of 1796 the correction was made. But on the other hand the article, which had been properly omitted in the edition of 1767, is introduced in the edition of 1796, in 1 Corinthians xi. 27, "an cupan so an Tighearna" (this cup of the Lord.")

5 This is also true of the Welch, Cornish and Manks, all dialects of the Keltic. I notice that Kelly in his Manks Grammar (p. 30) gives the present tense to that language.

6 There are a few instances of the present tense now used in Scotland, but these are importations from Ireland; such as Creidim, I believe; guidheam, I pray.

where the substantive verb is omitted, without occasioning any obscurity or ambiguity. This is clearly set forth in our Authorized Version wherever the italicized substantive verb occurs.

The natural and ordinary collocation of the verb and its noun in the Hebrew language is to place the latter after the former. If, however, the noun is placed before the verb, it generally follows that the noun does not immediately connect with the verb as the nominative to it, but stands rather in an absolute state, denoting some kind of emphasis, to which attention is called. The very first sentence in Genesis fully illustrates this fact. The first word is a noun with a preposition affixed to it. The second word is the verb, bara (to make, to fashion, to form), and its nominative, Elohim (God), immediately follows it. In the Gaelic the nominative, whether noun or pronoun, is ordinarily placed after the verb; as rugadh (was born) duine-cloinne (man-child), "a man child is born."

The principle of onomatopoia occurs in all known languages, and it has been suggested that it is concerned in producing the original germs of words. If this theory be true it would not imply that the same name for one species of animals would hold good throughout the various forms of speech for the reason that the same sounds would not suggest like notes to different ears and minds. For example, the animal cow is known by its actual voice to the nursery as moo; to the Hindoo gu; to the the Latin bos; to the Teuton, kuk; to the Gael, bua or bo; to the Erse bo; to the British or Welsh, bu; etc. Around the radix bua or bo, the Gael has created quite a system of words which represent different things, as buar, cattle; buachar, cow-dung; ba-thigh, cow-house; buachaille, a cow-herd; buac, dung used in bleaching; etc.8

Onomatopoeia enters into Gaelic to a greater extent than in 7 Cloinne is the genitive of clann, which latter means children. From this word we have the "clans" of Scotland, i.e., children.

8 We have the word Bohemia, which signifies the land or residence of the Bou, who were a branch of the great Keltic family that passed from Gaul into Germany 600 B.C. The word Bou is the primary note of the cow, from which the name is derived. The same is the base of Bavaria, Boetia, Bosphorus. Even Bashan is resolvable into bă, (cows) and esh (he, a man); "Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round " (Psalm xxii. 12).