MacNeill — Notes on Irish Ogham Inscriptions. -343 



The declensions are clearly and consistently observed in the genitive 

 formation. The following I regard as beyond doubt: — 



1. Genitive in -i from masculine o-stems. In late forms, -i disappears, 

 and since palatalization is not expressed in Ogham orthography, the form 

 appears to the eye to be uninflected. Largely on this appearance Ehys has 

 grounded a theory of agglutinative syntax, due, he suggests, to the influence 

 of a non-Aryan language. He is led to this view also by the occurrence of 

 the older forms in -i side by side with forms without -i. Macalister adopts 

 the agglutination theory. It appears, however, unnecessary and untenable. 

 The apparent absence of inflexion is due to the limitations of the spelling, 

 and may be paralleled in eaily MS. Irish by such forms as fir, mil, sil, mis, 

 where the quality of the final consonant is not defined by the orthography. 

 The mixture of earlier and later forms applies to all the declensions, and is of 

 great frequency in Ogham usage. 



2. Geniti^'e in -i from masculine -w-stems, persisting throughout the 

 Ogham period and in 0. 1, 



3. Genitive in -las from ft-stems. 



4. Genitive in -ias from feminine /« -stems. 



5. Genitive in -ias from (feminine ?) z'-stems. 



-ias, from whatsoever stem, becomes -ia and lastly -e, which is the MS. 

 ending. Sometimes -eas, -ea are used, perhaps through inaccurate archaistic 

 I'estoration from -e. 



6. Genitive in -as from consonant-stems. The ending becomes later -a, 

 and finally falls off, leaving desinence in the stem-consonant (broad) as in 0. 1. 



7. Genitives in -os from 2'-stems. 



8. Genitives in -os from 76-stems. 



-OS, from whatsoever stem, becomes later -o, which persists into 0. 1., and 

 then gradually changes to -a. 



Besides these, there are some three examples of genitives in -ais, wdiich 

 I cannot equate in MS. Irish or elsewhere. I think they may arise from 

 faulty inscription, or may be pseudo-archaisms. The names in which they 

 occur have not been identified by MS. equivalents. 



I have noted no other likely instance of confusion in forms. The usage, 

 where it may be archaic, exhibits an accurate tradition. 



The Ogham vowels are preserved or changed in the MS, orthography, 

 and frequently in the later Ogham orthography, according to definite 

 and constant laws. The regularity of these phenomena proves the accuracy 

 and systematic character of Ogham orthography.^ Sometimes the changed 



^ E.g. finding Dovatuci equated with ms. nom. Buhthach, I concluded that an early ms. form 

 Dubthoch ought to exist. I found this form twice instanced in Hogan's Glossary to the Book nf 

 Armagh. 



