  GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. CHAPTER I.GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—DATE. Its real origin is on the continent of Europe, and its real affinities are with certain languages there spoken. To speak more specifically, the native country of the Respecting the tribes by which they were made, the current opinion was, that they were chiefly, if not exclusively, those of the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles. The particular chieftains that headed each descent were also supposed to be known, as well as the different localities upon which they descended.[1] These were as follows:— First settlement of invaders from Germany.—The account of this gives us A.D. 449 for the first permanent Germanic tribes settled in Britain. Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet, was the spot where they landed; and the particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of Jutes. Their leaders were Hengist and Horsa. Six years after their landing they had established the kingdom of Kent; so that the county of Kent was the first district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany. Second settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D. 477 invaders from Northern Germany made the second permanent settlement in Britain. The coast of Sussex was the spot whereon they landed. The particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of Saxons. Their leader was Ella. They established the kingdom of the South Saxons (Sussex or SuÐ-Seaxe); so that the county of Sussex was the second district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany. Third settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D. 495 invaders from Northern Germany made the third permanent settlement in Britain. The coast of Hampshire was the spot whereon they landed. Like the invaders last mentioned, these tribes were Saxons. Their leader was Cerdic. They established the kingdom of the West Saxons (Wessex or West-Seaxe); so that the county of Hants was the third district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany. Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D. 530, certain Saxons landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex [East-Seaxe] was the fourth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany. Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany.—These were Angles in Norfolk and Suffolk. The precise date of this settlement is not known. The fifth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English was the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; the particular dialect introduced being that of the Angles. Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D. 547 invaders from Northern Germany made the sixth 1. The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but traditional.—a. Beda,[2] from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote nearly 300 years after the supposed event, i.e., the landing of Hengist and Horsa, in A.D. 449. b. The nearest approach to a contemporary author is Gildas,[3] and he wrote full 100 years after it. 2. The account of Hengist's and Horsa's landing, has elements which are fictional rather than historical—a. Thus "when we find Hengist and Horsa approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Ælli effecting a landing in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic tradition which carries a migration of Ostrogoths,[4] Visigoths, and GepidÆ, also in three vessels, to the mouth of the Vistula."—Kemble, "Saxons in England." b. The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told totidem verbis, by Widukind[5] and others, of the Old Saxons in Thuringia. c. Geoffry of Monmouth[6] relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the Britons as much land as could be enclosed by an ox-hide; then, cutting the hide into thongs, enclosed a much larger space than the granters intended, on which he erected Thong Castle—a tale too 3. There is direct evidence in favour of their having been German tribes in England anterior to A.D. 447.—a. At the close of the Marcomannic war,[7] Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain. b. Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under Valentinian.[8] c. The Notitia utriusque Imperii,[9] of which the latest date is half a century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of state, the Comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias; his government extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash. Perhaps, if we substitute the middle of the fourth, instead of the middle of the fifth century, as the epoch of the Germanic immigrations into Britain, we shall not be far from the truth. CHAPTER II.GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—THE GERMANIC AREA OF THE PARTICULAR GERMANS WHO INTRODUCED IT.—EXTRACT FROM BEDA. "Advenerunt autem de tribus GermaniÆ populis fortioribus, id est Saxonibus, Anglis, Jutis. De Jutarum origine sunt Cantuarii, et Victuarii, hoc est ea gens quÆ Vectam tenet insulam et ea quÆ usque hodie in provincia Occidentalium Saxonum Jutarum natio nominatur, posita contra ipsam insulam Vectam. De It is the first passage which contains the names of either the Angles or the Jutes. Gildas, who wrote more than 150 years earlier, mentions only the Saxons—"ferocissimi illi nefandi nominis Saxones." It is, also, the passage which all subsequent writers have either translated or adopted. Thus it re-appears in Alfred, and again in the Saxon Chronicle.[10]
The words usque hodie—Jutarum natio nominatur constitute contemporary and unexceptionable evidence to the existence of a people with a name like that of the Jutes in the time of Beda—or A.D. 731. The exact name is not so certain. The term Jutnacyn from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in favour of the notion that it began with the sounds of j and u, in other words that it was Jut. But the term Geatum, which we find in Alfred, favours the form in g followed by ea. Thirdly, the forms Wihtware, and Wihttan, suggest the likelihood of the name being Wiht. Lastly, there is a passage in Asserius[11] which gives us the form Gwith—"Mater" (of Alfred the Great) "quoque ejusdem Osburgh nominabatur, religiosa nimium foemina, nobilis ingenio, nobilis et genere; quÆ erat filia Oslac famosi pincernÆ Æthelwulf regis; qui Oslac Gothus erat natione, ortus enim erat de Gothis et Jutis; de semine scilicet Stuf et Wihtgur, duorum fratrum et etiam comitum, qui accept potestate Vectis insulÆ ab avunculo suo Cerdic rege et Cynric filio suo, consobrino eorum, paucos Britones ejusdem insulÆ accolas, quos in e invenire potuerant, in loco qui dicitur, Gwithgaraburgh occiderunt, cÆteri enim accolÆ ejusdem insulÆ ante sunt occisi aut exules aufugerant."—Asserius, "De Gestis Alfredi Regis." Now, Gwith-gara-burgh means the burg or town of the With-ware;[12] these being, undoubtedly, no Germans at all, but the native Britons of the Isle of Wight (Vectis), whose designation in Latin would be VecticolÆ or Vectienses. This being the case, how can they be descended from German or Danish Jutes? and how can we reconcile the statement of Beda with that of Asser? Precisely the same confusion between the sounds of w, j, g, io, eÆ, u, and i, which occurs with the so-called Jutes of the Isle of Wight, occurs with the Jutlanders of the peninsula of Jutland. The common forms are Jutland, Jute, Jutones, and Jutenses, but they are not the only ones. In A.D. 952, we find "Dania cismarina quam Vitland incolÆ appellant."—"Annales Saxonici."[13] The Jutes of Hampshire—i.e., the "Jutarum natio—posita contra ipsam insulam Vectam," and the Jutnacyn, I consider to have been the same; except that they had left the Isle of Wight to settle on the opposite coast; probably flying before their German conquerors, in which case they would be the exules of Asser. The statement of Beda, so opposed to that of Asser, I explain by supposing that it arose out of an inaccurate inference drawn from the similarity of the names of the Isle of Wight and the peninsula of Jutland, since we have seen that in both cases, there was a similar confusion between the syllables Jut- and Vit-. This is an error into which even a careful writer might fall. That Beda had no authentic historical accounts of the conquest of Britain, we know from his own statements in the Preface to his Ecclesiastical History,[14] and that he The present Jutlanders are not Germans but Danes, and the Jutes of the time of Beda were most probably the same. Those of the 11th century were certainly so, "Primi ad ostium Baltici Sinus in australi ripa versus nos Dani, quos Juthas appellant, usque ad Sliam lacum habitant." Adamus Bremensis,[15] "De Situ DaniÆ" c. 221. Also, "Et prima pars DaniÆ, quÆ Jutland dicitur, ad Egdoram[28] in Boream longitudine pretenditur ... in eum angulum qui Windila dicitur, ubi Jutland finem habet," c. 208. At the time of Beda they must, according to the received traditions, have been nearly 300 years in possession of the Isle of Wight, a locality as favourable for the preservation of their peculiar manners and customs as any in Great Britain, and a locality wherein we have no evidence of their ever having been disturbed. Nevertheless, neither trace nor shadow of a trace, either The Angles of Beda.—The statement of Beda respecting the Angles, like his statement concerning the Jutes, reappears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and in Alfred. Ethelweard[16] also adopts it:—"Anglia vetus sita est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale quod Nevertheless, it is exceptionable and unsatisfactory; and like the previous one, in all probability, an incorrect inference founded upon the misinterpretation of a name. In the eighth century there was, and at the present moment there is, a portion of the duchy of Sleswick called Anglen or the corner. It is really what its name denotes, a triangle of irregular shape, formed by the Slie, the firth of Flensborg, and a line drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick. It is just as Danish as the rest of the peninsula, and cannot be shown to have been occupied by a Germanic population at all. Its area is less than that of the county of Rutland, and by no means likely to have supplied such a population as that of the Angles of England. The fact of its being a desert at the time of Beda is credible; since it formed a sort of March or Debatable Ground between the Saxons and Slavonians of Holstein, and the Danes of Jutland. Now if we suppose that the real Angles of Germany were either so reduced in numbers as to have become an obscure tribe, or so incorporated with other populations as to have lost their independent existence, we can easily see how the similarity of name, combined with the geographical contiguity of Anglen to the Saxon frontier, might mislead even so good a writer as Beda, into the notion that he had found the country of the Angles in the Angulus (Anglen) of Sleswick. The true Angles were the descendants of the Angli of Tacitus. Who these were will be investigated in §§ 47-54. It is a language of considerable antiquity, and Hence it is probable that the original Frisian, extending to an uncertain and irregular distance inland, lay between the Saxons and the sea, and stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Elbe; a fact which would leave to the latter nation the lower Elbe and the Weser as their water-system: the extent to which they were in direct contact with the ocean being less than we are prepared to expect from their subsequent history. On the other hand the a priori probabilities of there being Frisians as well as Anglo-Saxons amongst the conquerors of Great Britain are considerable.—See §§ 55, 56. 1. Politically.—With the kingdom of Hanover, the duchy of Oldenburg, and parts of Westphalia and Holstein. 2. Physically.—With the basin of the Weser. It was certainly from the Anglo-Saxon, and probably This is as much as it is safe to say at present. The preceding chapter investigated the date of the Germanic migration into Britain; the present has determined the area from which it went forth. CHAPTER III.OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD SAXON. There were at least two divisions of the Saxon; (1st) the Saxon of which the extant specimens are of English origin, and (2nd), the Saxon of which the extant specimens are of Continental origin. We will call these at present the Saxon of England, and the Saxon of the Continent.
CHAPTER IV.AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA. 1. The Moeso-Gothic. 2. The High Germanic. 3. The Low Germanic. In the reign of Valens, when pressed by intestine wars, and by the movements of the Huns, the Goths were assisted by that emperor, and settled in the Roman province of Moesia. Furthermore, they were converted to Christianity; and the Bible was translated into their language by their Bishop Ulphilas. Fragments of this translation, chiefly from the Gospels, have come down to the present time; and the Bible translation of the Arian Bishop Ulphilas, in the language of the Goths of Moesia, during the reign of Valens, exhibits the earliest sample of any Gothic tongue. The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth century to the Reformation. I. II.—The Anglo-Saxon and Modern English. III. The Old Saxon. IV. V.—The Old Frisian and Modern Dutch. VI.—The Platt-Deutsch, or Low German. The truer view of the question is as follows:— 1. That a single language, spoken in two dialects, was originally common to both Holland and Friesland. 2. That from the northern of these dialects we have the Modern Frisian of Friesland. 3. From the southern, the Modern Dutch of Holland. The reason of this refinement is as follows:— The Modern Dutch has certain grammatical forms older than those of the old Frisian; e.g., the Dutch infinitives and the Dutch weak substantives, in their oblique cases, end in -en; those of the Old Frisian in -a: the form in -en being the older. The true Frisian is spoken in few and isolated localities. There is— 1. The Frisian of the Dutch state called Friesland. 2. The Frisian of the parish of Saterland, in Westphalia. 3. The Frisian of Heligoland. 4. The North Frisian, spoken in a few villages of Sleswick. One of the characters of the North Frisian is the possession of a dual number. In respect to its stages, we have the Old Frisian of the Asega-bog, the Middle Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[31] and the Modern Frisian of the present Frieslanders, Westphalians, and Heligolanders.
Whence, as an affix, in composition,
In the Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish this peculiarity in the position of the definite article is preserved. Its origin, however, is concealed; and an accidental identity with the indefinite article has led to false notions respecting its nature. In the languages in point the i is changed into e, so that what in Icelandic is it and in, is in Danish et and en. En, however, as a separate word, is the numeral one, and also the indefinite article a; whilst in the neuter gender it is et—en sol, a sun; et bord, a table: solon, the sun; bordet, the table. From modern forms like those just quoted, it has been imagined that the definite is merely the indefinite article transposed. This it is not. To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbet's, en = a, and -en = the, are the same combination of letters, but not the same word. In the modern Danish and Swedish, the passive is still preserved, but without the final t. In the older stages of Icelandic, on the other hand, the termination was not -st but -sc; which -sc grew out of the reflective pronoun sik. With these phenomena the Scandinavian languages give us the evolution and development of a passive voice; wherein we have the following series of changes:—1. the reflective pronoun coalesces with the verb, whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that of a middle verb; 2. the c changes to t, whilst the middle sense passes into a passive one; 3. t is dropped from the end of the word, and the expression that was once reflective then becomes strictly passive. Now the Saxons have no passive voice at all. That they should have one originating like that of the Scandinavians was impossible, inasmuch as they had no reflective pronoun, and, consequently, nothing to evolve it from. CHAPTER V.ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—GERMANIC ELEMENTS.—THE ANGLES. a. Elements referable to the original British population, and derived from times anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. b. Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, or imported elements. c. Elements introduced since the Anglo-Saxon conquest. All that we have at present learned concerning the Germanic invaders of England, is the geographical area which they originally occupied. How far, however, it was simple Saxons who conquered England single-handed, or how far the particular Saxon Germans were portions of a complex population, requires further investigation. Were the Saxons one division of the German population, whilst the Angles were another? or were the Angles a section of the Saxons, so that the latter was a generic term including the former? Again, although the Saxon invasion may be the one which has had the greatest influence, and drawn the most attention, why may there not have been separate and independent migrations, the
Extract from Tacitus.—This merely connects them with certain other tribes, and affirms the existence of certain religious ordinances common to them:— "Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis nationibus cincti, non per obsequium sed proeliis et periclitando tuti sunt. Reudigni deinde, et Aviones, et Angli, et Varini, et Eudoses, et Suardones, et Nuithones, fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur: nec quidquam notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune Herthum, id est, Terram matrem colunt, eamque intervenire rebus hominum, invehi populis, arbitrantur. Est in insula Oceani Castum nemus, dicatumque in eo vehiculum, veste contectum, attingere uni sacerdoti concessum. Is adesse penetrali deam intelligit, vectamque bobus feminis mult cum veneratione prosequitur. LÆti tunc dies, festa loca, quÆcumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. Non bella ineunt, non arma sumunt, clausum omne ferrum; pax et quies tunc tantÙm nota, tunc tantÙm amata, donec idem sacerdos satiatam conversatione mortalium deam templo reddat; mox vehiculum et vestes, et, si credere velis, numen ipsum secreto lacu abluitur. Servi ministrant, quos statim idem lacus haurit. Arcanus hinc terror, sanctaque ignorantia, quid sit id, quod tantÙm perituri vident."[32] Extract from Ptolemy.—This connects the Angles with the Suevi, and Langobardi, and places them on the Middle Extract from Procopius.—For this see § 55. Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne.—This connects them with the Werini (Varni) and the Thuringians—"Incipit lex Angliorum et Werinorum hoc est Thuringorum." The exact Germanic affinities of the Angles are, how ever, difficult to ascertain, since the tribes with which they are classed are differently classed. This we shall see by asking the following questions:— This brings the two sections within a very close degree of affinity, and makes it probable, that, just as at present, descendants of the Saxons are English (Angle) in Britain, so, in the third and fourth centuries, ancestors of the Angles were Saxons in Germany. Why, however, the one name preponderated on the Continent, and the other in England is difficult to ascertain. There is, however, something more than mere presumption upon this point. Archbishop Usher, amongst the earlier historians, and The main facts bearing upon this question are the following:— 1. Hengist, according to some traditions, was a Frisian hero. 2. Procopius wrote as follows:—???tt?a? d? t?? ??s?? ???? t??a p???a????p?tata ????s?, as??e?? te e?? a?t?? ???st? ?f?st??e?, ???ata d? ?e?ta? t??? ???es? t??t??? ??????? te ?a? F??ss??e? ?a? ?? t? ??s? ?????? ???tt??e?. ??sa?t? d? ? t??de t?? ????? p???a????p?a fa??eta? ??sa ?ste ??? p?? ?t?? ?at? p?????? ?????de eta??st?e??? ??? ???a??? ?a? pa?s?? ?? F??????? ?????s??.—Procop. B. G. iv. 20. 3. In the Saxon Chronicle we find the following passage:—"That same year, the armies from among the East-Anglians, and from among the North-Humbrians, harassed the land of the West-Saxons chiefly, most of all by their 'Æscs,' which they had built many years before. Then king Alfred commanded long ships to be built to oppose the Æscs; they were full-nigh twice as long as the others; some had sixty oars, and some had more; they were both swifter and steadier, and also higher than the others. They were shapen neither like the Frisian nor the Danish, but so as it seemed to him that they would be most efficient. Then some time in the same year, there came six ships to Wight, and there did much harm, as well as in Devon, and elsewhere along the sea coast. Then the king commanded nine of the new ships to go thither, and they obstructed their passage from the port towards the outer sea. Then went they with three of their ships out against them; and three lay in the upper part of the port in the dry; the men were gone CHAPTER VI.THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH. Of the Celtic stock there are two branches. 1. The British or Cambrian branch, represented by the present Welsh, and containing, besides, the Cornish of Cornwall (lately extinct), and the Armorican of the French province of Brittany. It is almost certain that the old British, the ancient language of Gaul, and the Pictish were of this branch. 2. The Gaelic or Erse branch, represented by the present Irish Gaelic, and containing, besides, the Gaelic of the Highlands of Scotland and the Manks of the Isle of Man. The scantiness of the declension of Celtic nouns.—In Irish there is a peculiar form for the dative plural, as cos = foot, cos-aibh = to feet (ped-ibus); and beyond this there is nothing else whatever in the way of case, as found in the German, Latin, Greek, and other tongues. Even the isolated form in question is not found in the car-wn = am-amus. car-ych = am-atis. car-ant = am-ant. Now the -wn, -ych, and -ant, of the persons of the verbs are the personal pronouns, so that the inflection is really a verb and a pronoun in a state of agglutination; i.e., in a state where the original separate existence of the two sorts of words is still manifest. This is probably the case with languages in general. The Celtic, however, has the peculiarity of exhibiting it in an unmistakable manner; showing, as it were, an inflection in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of language. CÂr, a kinsman.
TÂd, a father.
Pen, a head.
Gwas, a servant.
Duw, a god.
Bara, bread.
Lhaw, a hand.
Mam, a mother.
Rhwyd, a net.
From the Erse. SÚil, an eye.
SlÁinte, health.
1. The affinities of the ancient language of Gaul. 2. The affinities of the Pictish language or dialect. The old Gallic glosses are more Welsh than Gaelic. a. Petorritum = a four-wheeled carriage, from the Welsh, peder = four, and rhod = a wheel. The Gaelic b. Pempedula, the cinque-foil, from the Welsh pump = five, and dalen = a leaf. The Gaelic for five is cuig, and the Gaelic compound would have been different. c. Candetum = a measure of 100 feet, from the Welsh cant = 100. The Gaelic for a hundred is cead, and the Gaelic compound would have been different. d. Epona = the goddess of horses. In the old Armorican the root ep = horse. The Gaelic for a horse is each. e. The evidence from the names of geographical localities in Gaul, both ancient and modern, goes the same way: Nantuates, Nantouin, Nanteuil, are derived from the Welsh nant = a valley, a word unknown in Gaelic. f. The evidence of certain French provincial words, which are Welsh and Armorican rather than Erse or Gaelic. a. When St. Columbanus preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he used an interpreter. This shows the difference between the Pict and Gaelic. What follows shows the affinity between the Pict and Welsh. b. A manuscript in the Colbertine library contains a list of Pictish kings from the fifth century downwards. These names are more Welsh than Gaelic. Taran = thunder in Welsh. Uven is the Welsh Owen. The first syllable in Talorg ( = forehead) is the tal in Talhaiarn = iron forehead, Taliessin = splendid forehead, Welsh names. Wrgust is nearer to the Welsh Gwrgust than to the Irish Fergus. Finally, Drust, Drostan, Wrad, Necton, closely resemble the Welsh Trwst, c. The only Pictish common name extant is the well-known compound pen val, which is, in the oldest MS. of Beda, peann fahel. This means caput valli, and is the name for the eastern termination of the Vallum of Antoninus. Herein pen is unequivocally Welsh, meaning head. It is an impossible form in Gaelic. Fal, on the other hand, is apparently Gaelic, the Welsh for a rampart being gwall. Fal, however, occurs in Welsh also, and means inclosure. The evidence just indicated is rendered nearly conclusive by an interpolation, apparently of the twelfth century, of the Durham MS. of Nennius, whereby it is stated that the spot in question was called in Gaelic Cenail. Now Cenail is the modern name Kinneil, and it is also a Gaelic translation of the Pict pen val, since cean is the Gaelic for head, and fhail for rampart or wall. If the older form were Gaelic, the substitution, or translation, would have been superfluous. d. The name of the Ochil Hills in Perthshire is better explained from the Pict uchel = high, than from the Gaelic uasal. e. Bryneich, the British form of the province Bernicia, is better explained by the Welsh bryn = ridge (hilly country), than by any word in Gaelic.—Garnett, in "Transactions of Philological Society." CHAPTER VII.THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK. The Greek and its dialects, both ancient and modern, constitute the Greek of the Classical stock. The Latin in all its dialects, the old Italian languages allied to it, and the modern tongues derived from the Roman, constitute the Latin branch of the Classical stock. Now, although the Greek dialects are of only secondary importance in the illustration of the history of the English language, the Latin elements require a special consideration. This is because the Norman French, introduced into England by the battle of Hastings, is a language derived from the Roman, and consequently a language of the Latin branch of the Classical stock. Sometimes the war that the Romans carried on against the old inhabitants was a war of extermination. In this case the original language was superseded at once. In Just as in the United States the English came in contact with an American, whilst in New Holland it comes in contact with an Australian language, so was the Latin language of Rome engrafted, sometimes on a Celtic, sometimes on a Gothic, and sometimes on some other stock. The nature of the original language must always be borne in mind. From Italy, its original seat, the Latin was extended in the following chronological order:— 1. To the Spanish Peninsula; where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages allied to the present Biscayan. 2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of the Celtic stock. 3. To Dacia and Pannonia where it overlaid or was engrafted on a language the stock whereof is undetermined, but which was, probably, Sarmatian. The introduction of the Latin into Dacia and Pannonia took place in the time of Trajan. Specimen of the Romanese.
Specimen of the Wallachian.
The French requires to be more minutely exhibited. Between the provincial French of the north and the provincial French of the south, there is a difference, at the present day, at least of dialect, and perhaps of language. This is shown by the following specimens: the first from the canton of Arras, on the confines of Flanders; the second from the department of Var, in Provence. The date of each is A.D. 1807.
Practically speaking, although in the central parts of France the northern and southern dialects melt into each Of these two languages (for so they will in the following pages be called, for the sake of convenience) the southern, or ProvenÇal, approaches the dialects of Spain; the Valencian of Spain and the Catalonian of Spain being ProvenÇal rather than standard Spanish or Castilian. The southern French is sometimes called the Langue d'Oc, and sometimes the Limousin. 1. It was of later origin; the southern parts of Gaul having been colonized at an early period by the Romans. 2. It was in geographical contact, not with the allied languages of Spain, but with the Gothic tongues of Germany and Holland. Specimen from the Anglo-Norman poem of Charlemagne. Un jur fu KarlÉun al Seint-Denis muster, Reout prise sa corune, en croiz seignat sun chef; E ad ceinte sa espÉe: li pons fud d'or mer. Dux i out e dermeines e baruns e chevalers. Li emperÈres reguardet la reine sa muillers. Ele fut ben corunÉe al plus bel e as meuz. Il la prist par le poin desuz un oliver, De sa pleine parole la prist À reisuner: "Dame, vÉistes unkes hume nul de desuz ceil Tant ben sÉist espÉe no la corone el chef! Uncore cunquerrei-jo citez ot mun espeez." Cele ne fud pas sage, folement respondeit: "Emperere," dist-ele, trop vus poez preiser. "Uncore en sa-jo un ki plus se fait lÉger, Quant il porte corune entre ses chevalers; Kaunt il met sur sa teste, plus belement lui set" In the northern French we must recognise not only a Celtic and a Classical, but also a Gothic element: since Clovis and Charlemagne were no Frenchmen, but Germans. The Germanic element in French has still to be determined. In the northern French of Normandy there is a second Gothic element, viz., a Scandinavian element. See § 76. QUESTIONS.1. What are the present languages of Wales, the Isle of Man, the Scotch Highlands, and Ireland? 2. What are the present languages of Germany and Holland? How are they related to the present language of England? How to the original language of England? 3. Enumerate the chief supposed migrations from Germany to England, giving (when possible) the date of each, the particular German tribe by which each was undertaken, and the parts of Great Britain where the different landings were made. Why do I say supposed migrations? Criticise, in detail, the evidence by which they are supported, and state the extent to which it is exceptionable. Who was Beda? What were the sources of his information? 4. Give reasons for believing the existence of Germans in England anterior to A.D. 447. 5. Who are the present Jutlanders of Jutland? Who the inhabitants of the district called Anglen in Sleswick? What are the reasons for connecting these with the Jutes and Angles of Beda? What those for denying such a connection? 6. What is the meaning of the termination -uarii in Cant-uarii and Vect-uarii? What was the Anglo-Saxon translation of Antiqui Saxones, Occidentales Saxones, Orientates Saxones, Meridionales Saxones? What are the known variations in the form of the word Vectis, meaning the Isle of Wight? What those of the root Jut- as the name of the inhabitants of the peninsula of Jutland? 7. Translate Cantware, Wihtware, into Latin. How does Alfred translate JutÆ? How does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? What is the derivation of the name Carisbrook, a town in the Isle of Wight? 8. Take exception to the opinions that Jutes, from Jutland, formed part of the Germanic invasion of England; or, rather, take exceptions to the evidence upon which that opinion is based. 9. From what part of Germany were the Angles derived? What 10. What is the derivation of the word Mercia? 11. Give the localities of the Old Saxons, and the Northalbingians. Investigate the area occupied by the Anglo-Saxons. 12. What is the present population of the Dutch province of Friesland? What its language? What the dialects and stages of that language? 13. What was the language of the Asega-bog, the Heliand, Beowulf, Hildubrand and Hathubrant, the Carolinian Psalms, the Gospels of Ulphilas, and the poems of Gysbert Japicx? 14. Make a map of Ancient Germany and Scandinavia according to languages and dialects of those two areas. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages of the Gothic stock. Explain the meaning of the words Gothic, and Moeso-Gothic, and Platt-Deutsch. 15. Analyze the Scandinavian forms Solen, Bordet, and brennast. 16. Exhibit the difference between the logical and the historical analysis of a language. 17. What are the Celtic names for the English language? 18. Enumerate the chief Germanic populations connected by ancient writers with the Angles, stating the Ethnological relations of each, and noticing the extent to which they coincide with those of the Angles. 19. What are the reasons for believing that there is a Frisian element in the population of England? 20. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Celtic stock. To which division did the Gallic of ancient Gaul, and the Pict belong? Support the answer by reasons. What were the relations of the Picts to the Gaelic inhabitants of Scotland? What to the Lowland Scotch? What to the BelgÆ? 21. Explain the following words—petorritum, pempedula, candetum, Epona, Nantuates, peann fahel and Bernicia. What inferences do you draw from the derivation of them? 22. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Classical stock. 23. What is the bearing of the statements of Tacitus and other ancient writers respecting the following Germanic populations upon the ethnological relations of the Angles,—Aviones, Reudigni, Suevi, Langobardi, Frisii, Varini? 24. What is meant by the following terms, ProvenÇal, Langue d'Oc, Langue d'Oyl, Limousin, and Norman-French? 25. What languages, besides the Celtic and Latin, enter into the composition of the French? PART II.HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. CHAPTER I.HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 1. Those that are of late introduction, and cannot be called original and constituent parts of the language. Some of such are the words flannel, crowd (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and kerne (an Irish foot-soldier), galore (enough), tartan, plaid, &c., from the Gaelic branch. 2. Those that are originally common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks. Some of such are brother, mother, in Celtic brathair, mathair; the numerals, &c. 3. Those that have come to us from the Celtic, but have come to us through the medium of another language. Some of such are druid and bard, whose immediate source is, not the Celtic but the Latin. 4. Celtic elements of the Anglo-Norman, introduced into England after the Conquest, and occurring in that language as remains of the original Celtic of Gaul. 5. Those that have been retained from the original Celtic of the island, and which form genuine constituents of our language. These fall into three subdivisions. a. Proper names—generally of geographical localities; as the Thames, Kent, &c. b. Common names retained in the provincial dialects of England, but not retained in the current language; as gwethall = household stuff, and gwlanen = flannel in Herefordshire. c. Common names retained in the current language.—The following list is Mr. Garnett's:—
The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark. The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of Canute and his sons, may be called the direct Danish element, in contradistinction to the indirect Danish of § 76. The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is not difficult to prove a word Scandinavian; but, then, we must also show that it is not German as well. A few years back the current opinion was against the doctrine that there was much Danish in England. At present, the tendency is rather the other way. The following facts are from Mr. Garnett.—"Phil. Trans." vol. i. 1. The Saxon name of the present town of Whitby in Yorkshire was Streoneshalch. The present name Whitby, Hvitby, or Whitetown, is Danish. 2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was Northweortheg. The present name is Danish. 3. The termination -by = town is Norse. 4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the following inscription:— Ulf het arÆran cyrice for hanum and for Gunthara saula. "Ulf bid rear the church for him and for the soul of Gunthar." Now, in this inscription, Ulf, in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon Wulf, is a Norse form; whilst hanum is a Norse dative, and by no means an Anglo-Saxon one.—Old Norse hanum, Swedish honom. 5. The use of at for to as the sign of the infinitive mood is Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day. 6. The use of sum for as; e.g.,—swa sum we forgive oure detturs. 7. Isolated words in the northern dialects are Norse rather than Saxon.
The following are the names of foreign plants and animals:—camell, a camel, camelus; ylp, elephant, elephas; ficbeam, fig-tree, ficus; feferfuge, feverfew, febrifuga; peterselige, parsley, petroselinum. Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as pipor, pepper, piper; purpur, purple, purpura; pumicstan, pumicestone, pumex. This is the Latin of the second, or Saxon period. Previous, however, to that period we find notices of intercourse between the two countries. 1. The residence in England of Louis Outremer. 2. Ethelred II. married Emma, daughter of Richard Duke of Normandy, and the two children were sent to Normandy for education. 3. Edward the Confessor is particularly stated to have encouraged French manners and the French language in England. 4. Ingulphus of Croydon speaks of his own knowledge of French. 5. Harold passed some time in Normandy. 6. The French article la, in the term la Drove, occurs in a deed of A.D. 975. The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great portion of the law terms—duke, count, baron, villain, service, chivalry, warrant, esquire, challenge, domain, &c. The extent to which this is actually the case has only been partially investigated. It is certain, however, that some French words are Norse or Scandinavian. Such, for instance, are several names of geographical localities either near the sea, or the river Seine, in other words, within that tract which was most especially occupied by the invaders. As is to be expected from the genius of the French language, these words are considerably altered in form. Thus,
and in these shapes they appear in the Norman names Yvetot, Caudebec, and Harfleur, &c. Now any words thus introduced from the Norse of Scandinavia into the French of Normandy, might, by the Norman Conquest of England, be carried further, and so find their way into the English. In such a case, they would constitute its indirect Scandinavian element. A list of these words has not been made; indeed the question requires far more investigation than it has met with. The names, however, of the islands Guerns-ey, Jers-ey, and Aldern-ey, are certainly of the kind in question—since the -ey, meaning island, is the same as the -ey in Orkn-ey, and is the Norse rather than the Saxon form. 1. Being less altered in form: 2. Preserving, with substantives, in many cases its original inflections; axis, axes; basis, bases: 3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of science in general has required a nomenclature. 1. That it has a direct ratio to the date of the introduction, i.e., the more recent the word the more likely it is to retain its original inflexion. 2. That it has a relation to the number of meanings belonging to the words: thus, when a single word has two meanings, the original inflexion expresses one, the English inflexion another—genius, genii, often (spirits), geniuses (men of genius). 3. That it occurs with substantives only, and that only in the expression of number. Thus, although the plural of substantives like axis and genius are Latin, the possessive cases are English. So also are the degrees of comparison for adjectives, like circular, and the tenses, &c. for verbs, like perambulate. FIRST CLASS. Words wherein the Latin plural is the same as the Latin singular.
SECOND CLASS. Words wherein the Latin plural is formed from the Latin singular by changing the last syllable. (a).—Where the singular termination -a is changed in the plural into -Æ:—
(b).—Where the singular termination -us is changed in the plural into -i:—
(c).—Where the singular termination -um is changed in the plural into -a:—
(d).—Where the singular termination -is is changed in the plural into -es:—
THIRD CLASS. Words wherein the plural is formed by inserting -e between the last two sounds of the singular, so that the former number always contains a syllable more than the latter:—
In all these words the c of the singular number is sounded as k; of the plural, as s. FIRST CLASS. Words where the singular termination -on is changed in the plural into -a:—
SECOND CLASS. Words where the plural is formed from the original root by adding either -es or -a, but where the singular rejects the last letter of the original root.
Of the currently understood miscellaneous elements of the English language, the most important are from the French; some of which agree with those of the Latin of the fourth period, and the Greek, in preserving the French plural forms—as beau, beaux, billets-doux. Italian.—Some words of Italian origin do the same; as virtuoso, virtuosi. Hebrew.—The Hebrew words, cherub and seraph do the same; the form cherub-im, and seraph-im being not only plurals but Hebrew plurals. Beyond the words derived from these five languages, none form their plural other than after the English method, i.e., in -s, as waltzes, from the German word waltz. Arabic.—Admiral, alchemist, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, algebra, alkali, assassin. Persian.—Turban, caravan, dervise, &c. Turkish.—Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c. Hindoo languages.—Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy, &c. Chinese.—Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin &c. Malay.—Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c. Polynesian.—Taboo, tattoo. Tungusian or some similar Siberian language.—Mammoth, the bones of which are chiefly from the banks of the Lena. North American Indian.—Squaw, wigwam, pemmican. Peruvian.—Charki = prepared meat; whence jerked beef. Caribbean.—Hammock. Thus a word borrowed into the English from the French, might have been borrowed into the French from the Latin, into the Latin from the Greek, into the Greek from the Persian, &c., and so ad infinitum. The investigation of this is a matter of literary curiosity rather than any important branch of philology. The ultimate known origin of many common words sometimes goes back to a great date, and points to extinct languages— Ancient Nubian.—Barbarous. Ancient Egyptian.—Ammonia. Ancient Syrian.—Cyder. Ancient Lycian.—Pandar. Ancient Lydian.—MÆander. Ancient Persian.—Paradise. Let a word be introduced from a foreign language—let it have some resemblance in sound to a real English term: lastly, let the meanings of the two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst others, are beef-eater, from boeuffetier; sparrow-grass, asparagus; Shotover, Chateauvert;[35] Jerusalem, Girasole;[36] Spanish beefeater, spina Dog-cheap.—This has nothing to do with dogs. The first syllabic is god = good transposed, and the second the ch-p in chapman ( = merchant) cheap, and Eastcheap. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find god-kepe = good bargain. Sky-larking.—Nothing to do with larks of any sort; still less the particular species, alauda arvensis. The word improperly spelt l-a-r-k, and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the Anglo-Saxon lÁc = game, or sport; wherein the a is sounded as in father (not as in farther). Lek = game, in the present Scandinavian languages. Zachary Macaulay = Zumalacarregui; Billy Ruffian = Bellerophon; Sir Roger Dowlas = Surajah Dowlah, although so limited to the common soldiers and sailors, who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign terms. Birdbolt.—An incorrect name for the gadus lota, or eel-pout, and a transformation of barbote. Whistle-fish.—The same for gadus mustela, or weasel-fish. Liquorice = glycyrrhiza. Wormwood = weremuth, is an instance of a word from the same language, in an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really foreign origin. What has just been supposed has sometimes a real occurrence. To account for the name of Shotover-hill, I have heard that Little John shot over it. Here the confusion, in order to set itself right, breeds a fiction. Again, in chess, the piece now called the queen, was originally the elephant. This was in Persian, ferz. In French it became vierge, which, in time, came to be mistaken for a derivative, and virgo = the virgin, the lady, the queen. The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones. This leads to some observation respecting the— The terminations -ize (as in criticize), -ism (as in criticism), -ic (as in comic)—these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations. To add them to words not of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism. Hence, witticism is objectionable. The terminations -ble (as in penetrable), -bility (as in penetrability), -al (as in parental)—these, amongst many others, are Latin terminations. To add them to words not of Latin origin is to be guilty of hybridism. Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in works on science. It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors, there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek. Nevertheless, the etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not that it is put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the language to which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought whole from a language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The word penetrability is not derived from the English word penetrable, by the addition of -ty. It is the Latin word penetrabilitas imported. In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language, or, changing the expression, every derived word must have a possible form in the language from which it is taken. Such is the rule against hybridism. Now all this is what actually takes place in words like hÆmo-ptysis (spitting of blood), sema-phore (a sort of telegraph). The Greek imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the radical forms being hÆmat- and sÆmat-, not hÆm-and sÆm-. Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the classical writers, we have in words like d?st??? examples of incompletion of the radical. Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of 40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In this case the analysis is not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their origin, but according to their meaning. Now the logical and historical analyses of a language generally in some degree coincide; that is, terms for a certain set of ideas come from certain languages; just as in English a large proportion of our chemical terms are Arabic, whilst a still larger one of our legal ones are Anglo-Norman. CHAPTER II.THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Let the word smiÐum illustrate this. SmiÐ-um, the dative plural of smiÐ, is equivalent in meaning to the English to smiths; or to the Latin fabr-is. SmiÐum, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words (i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter s, in smiths, shows that the word is plural. The -um, in smiÐum, does this and something more. It is the sign of the dative case plural. The -um in smiÐum, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate word with an independent existence. SmiÐum is the radical syllable smiÐ + the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. The combination to smiths is the substantive smiths + the preposition to, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certain modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition; in The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. 1. The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them. 2. As languages become modern they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses. 3. The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs. 4. In the course of time languages drop their inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place. 5. Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional (smiÐum), the other circumlocutional[40] (to smiths), we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, state of language. The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the ancient Greek. NOUNS. 1. Gender.—In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With adjectives each gender had its peculiar declension. With 2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; ÞÆt eage, the eye; se steorra, the star; seo tunge, the tongue. 3. Number.—The plural form in -en (as in oxen), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension; e.g., eÁgan, eyes; steorran, stars; tungan, tongues. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in -u and -a as ricu, kingdoms; gifa, gifts. The termination -s, current in the present English, was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as endas, ends; dagas, days; smiÐas, smiths. 4. Case.—Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one. SmiÐ, a smith; smiÐe, to a smith; smiÐes, of a smith. Plural, smiÐas, smiths; smiÐum, to smiths; smiÐa, of smiths: he, he; hine, him; him, to him; his, his; se, the; Þa, the; Þy, with the; Þam, to the; ÞÆs, of the. 5. Declension.—In Anglo-Saxon it was necessary to determine the declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as, eage, steorra, tunga), and the strong declension for words ending in a consonant (smiÐ, sprÆc, leÁf). The letters i and u were dealt with as semivowels, semi-vowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like sunu and gifu belonged to the same declension as smiÐ and spr?c. 6. Definite and indefinite form of adjectives.—In Anglo-Saxon each adjective had two forms, one definite 7. Pronouns personal.—The Anglo-Saxon language had for the first two persons a dual number; inflected as follows:
Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well as the numerals twa and Þreo, had a fuller declension than they have at present. VERBS. 8. Mood.—The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one exception[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative.
The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (lufian), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form, to lufigenne. Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the differences between the ancient and modern stages of a language in respect to grammatical structure. 9. To bring about these changes a certain amount of time is, of course, necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to the rate at which languages change. This is different for different languages; but as the investigation belongs to general philology rather than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place here. At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows: a. In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon. b. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared with the Anglo-Saxon. The question requires more investigation than it has met with. An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present section, and introduces the next.
Some, amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are, 1. The substitution of -an for -as, in the plural of 2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, ÞÆt ylc for ÞÆt ylce; sone for sunu; name for nama; dages for dagas. 3. The substitution of -n for -m in the dative case, hwilon for hwilum. 4. The ejection of the -n of the infinitive mood, cumme for cuman (to come), nemne for nemnen (to name). 5. The ejection of -en in the participle passive, I-hote for gehaten (called, hight). 6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive termination -en; as to lufian for to lufienne, or lufigenne. 7. The substitution of -en for -aÐ in the persons plural of verbs; hi clepen (they call) for hi clypiaÐ, &c. The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above constitute Semi-Saxon in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper. 1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the substitution of the preposition to and the plural sign -s; as to smiths for smiÐum. Of the dative singular the -e is retained (ende, worde); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally recognized in pronunciation also. 2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the preposition of came before it; Godes love (God's love), but the love of God, and not the love of Godes. 3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case 4. The same in respect to the plural number; sterres for steorran; sons for suna. 5. The ejection of -na in the genitive plural; as of tunges for tungena. 6. The use of the word the, as an article, instead of se, &c. The preponderance of the forms above (and not their mere occasional occurrence) constitutes Old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon. 1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article; Þan, Þenne, ÞÆre, Þam;—in contradistinction to the Middle English. 2. The presence of the dative singular in -e; ende, smithe. 3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; heora, theirs; aller, of all. This, with substantives and adjectives, is less common. 4. The substitution of heo for they, of heora for their, of hem for them. 5. A more frequent use of min and thin, for my and thy;—in contradistinction to both Middle and Modern English. 6. The use of heo for she;—in contradistinction to Middle and Modern English and Old Lowland Scotch. 7. The use of broader vowels; as in iclepud or iclepod (for icleped or yclept); geongost, youngest; ascode, asked; eldore, elder. 8. The use of the strong preterits (see the chapter on the tenses of verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found—wex, wop, dalf, for waxed, wept, delved. 9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination -enne, but also of the infinitive sign -en after to; to honte, to speke;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon. 10. The substitution of -en for -eÞ or -eÐ, in the first and second persons plural of verbs; we wollen, we will: heo schullen, they should. 11. The comparative absence of the articles se and seo. 12. The substitution of ben and beeth, for synd and syndon = we, ye, they are.
1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say if it is, and if he speaks, rather than if it be, and if he speak. 2. The distinction between the participle passive and the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to say it is broke, and he is smote, for it is broken and he is smitten. 3. Of the double forms, sung and sang, drank and drunk, &c., one only will be the permanent. As stated above, these tendencies are but a few out of many, and have been adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it. QUESTIONS.
PART III.SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING. CHAPTER I.GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. a. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye. Thus— The syllables ka and ga are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Hence the words ka and ga are more allied to each other than the words ka and ba, ka and ta, &c., because the consonantal sounds of k and g are more allied than the consonantal sounds of k and b, k and t. Comparing the syllables ga and ka, we see the affinity between the sounds, and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and strikes the ear at once. It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised or might arise from accident, of concealing the The sounds of ph and of f, in Philip and fillip, differ to the eye, but to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated. The sounds of th in thin, and of th in thine, differ to the ear but to the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed. Furthermore. These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound. This is not the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of t followed by h, as the spelling leads us to imagine. b. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing the true nature of sounds. If I say that ka and ga are allied, the alliance is manifest; since I compare the actual sounds. If I say ka and gee are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the actual sounds, but only the names of the letters that express those sounds. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following names of letters that have a tendency to mislead:— The sounds fa and va are allied. The names eff and vee conceal this alliance. The sounds sa and za are allied. The names ess and zed conceal the alliance. In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves. It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of the l' in lo (isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with the a in fate. Between, however, the consonant l and the vowel a there is this difference: with a, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; with l, the tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage of the breath. Let b, v, d, g, z, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, but one at the natural tone of our voice. Now p, f, t, k, s (with some others that will be brought forward anon) are sharp, whilst b, v, &c., are flat. Instead of sharp, some say hard, and instead of flat, some say soft. The terms sonant and surd are, in a scientific point of view, the least exceptionable. They have, however, the disadvantage of being pedantic. The tenues of the classics (as far as they go) are sharp, the mediÆ flat. It is not so with f, v, sh, zh. Here the breath is transmitted by degrees, and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite space of time. Now b, p, t, &c., are explosive, f, v, &c., continuous. Concerning the liquids, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous, b) that they are all flat. Concerning the mutes, we may predicate a) that one half of them is flat, and the other half sharp, and b) that some are continuous, and that others are explosive. CHAPTER II.SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. 1. The É fermÉ, of the French.—This is a sound allied to, but different from, the a in fate, and the ee in feet. It is intermediate to the two. 2. The u of the French, Ü of the Germans, y of the Danes.—This sound is intermediate to the ee in feet, and the oo in book. 3. The o chiuso, of the Italians.—Intermediate to the o in note, and the oo in book. For these sounds we have the following sequences: a in fate, É fermÉ, ee in feet, Ü in Übel (German), oo in book, o chiuso, o in note. And this is the true order of alliance among the vowels; a in fate, and o in note, being the extremes; the other sounds being transitional or intermediate. As the English orthography is at once singular and faulty, it exhibits the relationship but imperfectly.
Lene and aspirate.—From the sound of p in pat, the sound of f in fat differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a difference in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it owing to a difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although f is continuous, whilst p is explosive. This we may ascertain by considering the position of s. The sound of s is continuous; yet s, in respect to the difference under consideration, is classed not with f the continuous sound but with p the explosive one. This difference, which has yet to be properly elucidated, is expressed by a particular term; and p is called lene, f is called aspirate. As f is to p so is v to b. As v is to b so is Þ to t. As Þ is to t so is Ð to d. As Ð is to d so is ? to k. As ? is to k so is ? to g. As ? is to g so is s to s. As s is to s so is ? to z. Hence p, b, t, d, k, g, s, z, are lene; f, v, Þ, Ð, ?, ?, s, ?, are aspirate. Also p, f, t, Þ, k, ?, s, s, are sharp, whilst b, v, d, Ð, g, ?, z, ?, are flat; so that there is a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as follows:—
All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of s and z, all the lenes are explosive. 1. Diphthongs with the semivowel w, a) preceding, as in the French word roi, b) following, as in the English word new. 2. Diphthongs with the semivowel y, a) preceding, as is common in the languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks, b) following, as in the word oil. 3. Triphthongs with a semivowel both preceding and following. The diphthongs in English are four; ow as in house, ew as in new, oi as in oil, i as in bite, fight.
From these the semivowels w and y make a transition to the consonants v and the so-called aspirate of g, respectively.
CHAPTER III.OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. The word mutes in the third sentence of this section must be dwelt on. It is only with the mutes that there is an impossibility of pronouncing the heterogeneous combinations above-mentioned. The liquids and the vowels are flat; but the liquids and vowels, although flat, may be followed by a sharp consonant. If this were not the case, the combinations ap, at, alp, alt, &c., would be unpronounceable. The semivowels, also, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp consonant. "Clay, not dead but soulless, Though no mortal man would choose thee, An immortal no less Deigns not to refuse thee." In the following words, all of which are compounds, we have true specimens of the doubled consonant.
It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped. In our own language the true aspirates, like the true reduplications, are found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the pronunciation.
CHAPTER IV.EUPHONY AND THE PERMUTATION OF LETTERS. 2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables into immediate contact, numrus. The m and r form an unstable combination. To remedy this there is a tendency to insert an intervening sound. In English, the form which the Latin word numerus takes is number; in Spanish, nombre. The b makes no part of the original word, but has been inserted for the sake of euphony; or, to speak more properly, by a euphonic process. The word euphony is derived from e? (well), and f??? (fÔnÆ, a voice). Permutation of Vowels.
Permutation of Consonants.
In have and had we have the ejection of a sound; in work and wrought, the transposition of one. Permutation of Combinations.
It must be noticed that the list above is far from being an exhaustive one. The expression too of the changes undergone has been rendered difficult on account of the imperfection of our orthography. The whole section has been written in illustration of the meaning of the word permutation, rather than for any specific object in grammar. CHAPTER V.ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES. In certain words, of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to which syllable an intervening consonant belongs. For instance, does the v in river, and the e in fever, belong to the first or the second syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, ri-ver, fe-ver? or thus, riv-er, feve-r? The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface. In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of view—an etymological and a phonetic one. That the c and r in become, berhymed, &c., belong to the second syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we get the words come and rhymed in an isolated independent form. But this fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because the c in the simple word come is exclusively attached to the letter that succeeds, it is, in the compound word become, exclusively attached to it also. To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's attention is particularly directed. 1. Let the vowel a (as in fate) be sounded.—2. Let it be followed by the consonant p, so as to form the syllable ap. To form the sound of p, it will be found that the lips close on the sound of a, and arrest it. Now, if the lips be left to themselves they will not remain closed on the sound, but will open again; in a slight degree indeed, but in a degree sufficient to cause a kind of vibration, or, at any rate, to allow an escape of the remainder of the current of breath by which the sound was originally formed. To re-open in a slight degree is the natural tendency of the lips in the case exhibited above. Now, by an effort, let this tendency to re-open be counteracted. Let the remaining current of breath be cut short. We have, then, only this, viz., so much of the syllable ap as can be formed by the closure of the lips. All that portion of it that is caused by their re-opening is deficient. The resulting sound seems truncated, cut short, or incomplete. It is the sound of p, minus the remnant of breath. All of the sound p that is now left is formed, not by the escape of the breath, but by the arrest of it. The p in ap is a final sound. With initial sounds the case is different. Let the lips be closed, and let an attempt be made to form the syllable pa by suddenly opening them. The sound appears incomplete; but its incompleteness is at the beginning of the sound, and not at the end of it. In the natural course of things there would have been a current of breath preceding, and this current would have given a vibration, now wanting. All the sound that is formed here is formed, not by the arrest of breath, but by the escape of it. I feel that this account of the mechanism of the apparently simple sound p, labours under all the difficulties The account, however, being recognized, we have in the sound of p, two elements:— 1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in ap. This may be called the sound of breath arrested. 2. That formed by the current of air, and the opening of the lips, as in pa. This may be called the sound of breath escaping. Now what may be said of p may be said of all the other consonants, the words tongue, teeth, &c., being used instead of lips, according to the case. Let the sound of breath arrested be expressed by p, and that of breath escaping be expressed by ?, the two together form p (p + ? = p). Thus ap (as quoted above) is p - ?, or p; whilst pa (sounded similarly) is p - p, or ?. In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second syllable; that if each sound were expressed by a separate sign, the word happy would be divided thus, hap-?y; and that such would be the case with all consonants between two syllables. The whole consonant belongs neither to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each. The reduplication of the p in happy, the t in pitted, &c., is a mere point of spelling. CHAPTER VI.ON QUANTITY. Let the n and the t of not be each as 1, the o also being as 1; then each letter, consonant or vowel, shall constitute ? of the whole word. Let, however, the n and the t of note be each as 1, the o being as 2. Then, instead of each consonant constituting ? of the whole word, it shall constitute but ¼. Upon the comparative extent to which the voice is prolonged, the division of vowels and syllables into long and short has been established: the o in note being long, the o in not being short. And the longness or shortness of a vowel or syllable is said to be its quantity. The vowel in the syllable see is long; and long it remains, whether it stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in see-n, or by a vowel, as in see-ing. The vowel in the word sit is short. If followed by a vowel it becomes unpronounceable, except as the ea in seat or the i in sight. By a consonant, however, it may be followed. Such is the case in the word quoted—sit. Followed by a second consonant, it still retains its shortness, e.g., sits. Whatever the comparative length of the syllables, see and seen, sit and sits, may be, the length of their respective vowels is the same. Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are long wherein there is a long one. Hence, measured by the quantity of the vowel, the word sits is short, and the syllable see- in seeing is long. The classic differs from the Englishman thus,—He measures his quantity, not by the length of the vowel, but by the length of the syllable taken altogether. The perception of this distinction enables us to comprehend the following statements. a. That vowels long by nature may appear to become short by position, and vice versÂ. b. That, by a laxity of language, the vowel may be said to have changed its quantity, whilst it is the syllable alone that has been altered. c. That if one person measures his quantities by the vowels, and another by the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, and vice versÂ. The same is the case with nations. d. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the classical languages is that the quantities (as far as they go) of the first are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman the word monument consists of two short syllables and one long one; to an Englishman it contains three short syllables. CHAPTER VII.ON ACCENT. Words accented on the last syllable—BrigÁde, pretÉnce, harpoÓn, reliÉve, detÉr, assÚme, besÓught, berÉft, befÓre, abroÁd, abÓde, abstrÚse, intermÍx, superÁdd, cavaliÉr. Words accented on the last syllable but one—An'chor, ar'gue, hÁsten, fÁther, fÓxes, smÍting, hÚsband, mÁrket, vÁpour, bÁrefoot, archÁngel, bespÁtter, disÁble, terrÍfic. Words accented on the last syllable but two—Reg'ular, an'tidote, for'tify, suscÉptible, incontrovÉrtible. Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)—RÉceptacle, rÉgulating, tÁlkativeness, Ábsolutely, lÚminary, inÉvitable, &c.
In the line, Better for us, perhaps, it might appear,—(Pope's "Essay on Man," I. 169.) the pronoun us is strongly brought forward. An especial stress or emphasis is laid upon it, denoting that there are other beings to whom it might not appear, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is a logical accent. "When one word in a sentence is distinguished by a stress, as more important than the rest, we may say that it is emphatical, or that an emphasis is laid upon it. When one syllable in a word is distinguished by a stress, and more audible than the rest, we say that it is accented, or that an accent is put upon it. Accent, therefore, is to syllables what emphasis is to sentences; it distinguishes one from the crowd, and brings it forward to observation."—Nares' "Orthoepy," part ii. chap. 1. CHAPTER VIII.ORTHOGRAPHY. Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency. This begins under conditions like the following:—Let there be in the language in point the sounds of the t in tin, In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following inconsistency:—The sound of the f in fate, in a certain relation to the sound of the p in pate, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas, the sound of the th in thin (similarly related to the t in tin) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of t; viz., th. a. Unsteadiness in the power of letters.—Of this there are two kinds. In the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it. Such is the sound of b. The aim at secondary objects.—The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing, is to express the sounds of a language. Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one, viz., the attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word, the representation of its history and origin. The sound of the c, in city, is the sound that we naturally spell with the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the only object of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (sity). The following facts, however, traverse this simple view of the matter. The word is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin, where it is spelt with a c (civitas); and to change this c into s conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is traversed by the etymology. c. Obsoleteness.—It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become incorrect; so that 1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple single sign. 2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs, and that uniformly. 3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it. 4. That no sign express more than one sound. 5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories. 6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling. With these principles in our mind we may measure the imperfections of our own and of other alphabets.
The diphthongal sounds are four.
This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letter i. The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3. fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4. ch in chest, and j in jest, compound sibilants; 5. ng, as in king; 6. the aspirate h. In all, twenty-four.
a. In respect to the vowels.—Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of the a in father, fate, and fat, and of the o and the aw in note, not, and bawl, are modifications of a and o respectively, we have still six vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but five signs. The u in duck, specifically distinct from the u in bull, has no specifically distinct sign to represent it. b. In respect to the consonants.—The th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, the z in azure, and the ng in king, five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require corresponding signs, which they have not. The compound sibilant sound of j in jest is spelt with The i in bite is considered as the long (independent) sound of the i in pit; whereas it is a diphthongal sound. The u in duck is looked upon as a modification of the u in bull; whereas it is a specifically distinct sound. The ou in house and the oi in oil are looked upon as the compounds of o and i and of o and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is not i and u, but y and w. The th in thin and the th in thine are dealt with as one and the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct. The ch in chest is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the power of k or of s); whereas its elements are t and sh. Q is superfluous, cw or kw being its equivalent. X also is superfluous, ks, gz, or z, being equivalent to it. The diphthongal forms Æ and oe, as in Æneas and Croesus, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant. In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words Philip and filip, &c.; a single sound has a double sign. In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that as many as three letters c, Æ, and oe are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes only. Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many letters in the English alphabet is singular. The letter i (when long or independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as ee. With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with the letter j. In English this has the sound of dzh, in French of zh, and in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues. In using j as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. With these views we may appreciate in the English alphabet and orthography— Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign tongues.—The sound given to the a in fate is singular. Other nations sound it as a in father. The sound given to the e, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations sound it either as a in fate, or as É fermÉ. The sound given to the i in bite is singular. Other nations sound it as ee in feet. The sound given to the oo in fool is singular. Other nations sound it as the o in note, or as the Ó chiuso. The sound given to the u in duck is singular. Other nations sound it as the u in bull. The sound given to the ou in house is singular. Other nations, more correctly, represent it by au or aw. The sound given to the w in wet is somewhat singular, but is also correct and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of v. The sound given to y is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power. In German the semivowel sound is spelt with j. The sound given to z is not the sound which it has in German and Italian, but its power in English is convenient and correct. The sound given to ch in chest is singular. In other languages it has generally a guttural sound; in French that of sh. The English usage is more correct than the French, but less correct than the German. The sound given to j (as said before) is singular. The y, sounded as in yet, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the Greek ?, a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such, that is, with the power of the German Ü. The use of j for dzh is historically incorrect. The use of c for k in words derived from the Greek as mechanical, ascetic, &c., is historically incorrect. The form c is the representative of ? and s and not of the Greek kappa. Let the sign () denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign (?) indicates shortness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of writing not and n?t, like the Greeks, we may write not and not, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of () and (?) is to express length or shortness, dependence or independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o to be As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of () we may, if we chose, substitute such a mark as (') and write nÓt = not = n?t = note; provided only that the sign (') expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural? For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. Neither is it convenient. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of quantity, but as the sign of accent; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity then, would be an orthographical expedient, or an inconvenient conventional mode of spelling. The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the modes of expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin with these:— The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in feet, cool), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable is long (or independent). The juxtaposition of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable (as in plain, moan), is an The addition of the e mute, as in plane, whale (whatever may have been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It denotes the lengthening of the syllable. The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in spotted, torrent, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent). The use of ph for f in Philip, is an orthographical expedient, founded upon etymological reasons. The use of th for the simple sound of the first consonant in thin and thine, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with as a single letter. Caution.—The letters x and q are not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical compendiums, x = ks, and q = kw. CHAPTER IX.HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. With few, if any exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician. At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighboring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. Now the chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient. Hence it may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was insufficient for even the Semitic languages. Of the twenty-two Phoenician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The eighteenth letter, tsadi ? was never imported into Europe. Compared with the Semitic, the Old Greek alphabet ran thus:—
The names of the letters were as follows:
The alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine being adapted to the language of Greece, the first change took place in the manner of writing. The Phoenicians wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles were recognised;— a. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, tsadi. b. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, 16, and probably with some others. c. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was the case with 6 and 19. d. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs f, ?, ?, ?. e. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones, but totally new letters. All this was correct in principle; and the consequence is, that the Greek alphabet, although not originally meant to express a European tongue at all, expresses the Greek language well. It was the Roman alphabet which served as the basis to the English. And it is in the changes which the Phoenician alphabet underwent in being accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and America. Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it was not taken directly from the Phoenician; in this important point differing from the Greek. Nor yet was it taken, in the first instance, from the Greek. It had a double origin. The operation of the principles indicated in § 161 was a work of the time; and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in character its Phoenician prototype much more than the later, or modified. As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier, whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand, the old alphabet has no such signs as f, ?, ?, ?, ?, and ?. Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain the equivalents to vaw (6), and kof (19); but be destitute of f, ?, &c.; whereas the latter would have f, ?, &c., but be without either vaw or kof. Much the same would be the case with any single This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived directly from the Greek, and from the old Greek. Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones.
a. Ejection.—In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary, letters 7,[44] 9, and 11: zayn (zÆta), teth (thÆta), and kaf (kappa). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was probably the case with 7 and 9, zÆta and thÆta, the latter with 11, kappa. b. Addition.—Out of the Greek iÔta, two; out of the Greek upsilon, four modifications have been evolved; viz., i and j out of ?, and u, v, w, y, out of ?. c. Change of power.—Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of the g in gun; in Latin that of k. The reason for this lies in the structure of the Etruscan language. In that tongue the flat sounds were remarkably deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that of g was wanting. Its sharp equivalent, however, the sound of k, was by no means wanting; and the Greek gamma was used to denote it. This made the equivalent to k, the third letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans. But the Romans had both sounds, the flat as well as Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latin c, as opposed to the Greek ?. But this is not all. The use of gamma, with the power of k, made kappa superfluous, and accounts for its ejection in the Etruscan alphabet; a fact already noticed. Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the existence of the sound of g, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of using c with a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter, c being altered into g; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet. Where was this? As the seventh letter between f (digamma) and h (hÆta). Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced the Greek zÆta, or the Hebrew zayn, a letter which, at that time, was not wanted in Latin. d. Change of order.—As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added is, that those letters which were last introduced from the Greek into the Roman alphabet, were placed at the end. This is why u, v, w, and y come after t—the last letter of the original Phoenician, and also of the older Greek. This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an element. X in power, coincided with the Greek xi; in place, with the Greek khi. Its position seems to have determined its form, which is certainly that of X rather than of ?. The full investigation of this is too lengthy for the present work. On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus— a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-called long and short e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that ? was omitted entirely, and ? changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between the o in not, and the o in note, would have been prevented—not, note, moat—bed, bead, heel, glede, &c. b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek ? was not treated like the Greek ?. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. ZÆta came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. ThÆta, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great. It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one—which was wrong. It further suggested the idea, that the sound of ? differed from that of t, by the addition of h—which was wrong also. The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly. This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had it a system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how? Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory. 1. The sound of the th in thin. 2. The sound of the th in thine. It had certainly these: probably others. W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"—"Hujus enim linguÆ barbaries, ut est inculca et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticÆ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quÆrit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente." This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably. 1. The sound of the sh in shine. 2. The sound of the z in azure. How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to originate new ones. To combine existing letters, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin substitution The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to— The Anglo-Norman language was Roman; the alphabet, Roman also. The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another. The Anglo-Norman took both from the same. In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signs Þ and Ð were Anglo-Saxon. Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings, when it became the Anglo-Norman of England. Then, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity. Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied. And whase wilenn shall Þis boc, Efft oÞerr siÞe writenn, Himm bidde icc Þatt hett write rihht, Swa sum Þiss boc himm tÆcheÞÞ; All Þwerrt utt affterr Þatt itt iss Oppo Þiss firrste bisne, WiÞÞ all swilc rime als her iss sett, WiÞÞ alse fele wordess: And tatt he loke well Þatt he An boc-staff write twiggess,[47] EggwhÆr ÞÆr itt uppo Þiss boc Iss writenn o Þatt wise: Loke he well Þatt hett write swa, Forr he ne magg noht elless, On Englissh writenn rihht te word, Þatt wite he well to soÞe. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:—
Let beth, vaw, and pe (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P. Let gimel, kheth, and kof (g, kh, k') constitute a series called series K. Let daleth, teth, and tau, (d, t', t) constitute a series called series T. Let aleph, he, and ayn constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.
Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and in the last place, comes the letter of series T. After this the order changes; daleth being followed by he of the vowel series.
In this second sequence the relative positions of v, kh, and t', are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter zayn but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now, pe, of series P, follows ayn; tau, of series T, is farthest from it, and kof, of series K, is intermediate. If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say, circulate, the alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder. QUESTIONS.
PART IV.ETYMOLOGY. CHAPTER I.ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. If in the English language we take such a word as fathers, we are enabled to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with the word father, we see that the s is neither part nor parcel of the original word. Hence the word is capable of being analysed; father being the original primitive word, and s the secondary superadded termination. From the word father, the word fathers is derived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended. What has been said of the word fathers may also be said of fatherly, fatherlike, fatherless, &c. Now, from the word father, all these words (fathers, fatherly, fatherlike, and fatherless) differ in form and in meaning. To become such a word as fathers, &c., the The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages. The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, historical etymology, or comparative etymology. In the Latin pater, and in the English father, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words descended or derived from a common original source. In fathers we have a formation deduced from the radical word father. With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology. "Etymology, n. s. (etymologia, Lat.) ?t??? (etymos) true, and ????? (logos) a word. "1. The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into primitives. "2. The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs." CHAPTER IION GENDER. In the Latin language we have the words taurus = bull, and vacca = cow. Here the natural distinction of sex is expressed by wholly different words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in English: e.g.,
The mode, however, of expressing different sexes by wholly different words is not a matter of gender. The words boy and girl bear no etymological relation to each other; neither being derived from the other, nor in any way connected with it.
Let the Latin words genitor and genitrix be declined:—
The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now those signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not affecting them.
Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are different; the difference being brought about by the difference of gender. Now it is very evident that, if genitrix be a specimen of gender, domina is something more. The pronoun him, from the Anglo-Saxon and English he, as compared with the pronoun her, from the Anglo-Saxon heÓ, is affected in its declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary, specimen of gender. The same is the case with the form his as compared with her. The pronoun it (originally hit), as compared with he, is a specimen of gender. The relative what, as compared with the masculine who, is a specimen of gender. The forms it (for hit) and he are as much genders as hoc and hic, and the forms hoc and hic are as much genders as bonum and bonus. Caution.—Which, is not the neuter of who. The Germans say the sun in her glory; the moon in his wane. This difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the English.—"Mundilfori had two children; a son, MÂni (Moon), and a daughter, SÔl (Sun)."—Such is an extract out of an Icelandic mythological work, viz., the prose Edda. In the classical languages, however, Phoebus and Sol are masculine, and Luna and Diana feminine. Hence it is that, although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon the sun is feminine, it is in English masculine. Philosophy, charity, &c., or the names of abstract qualities personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being feminine in Latin. As in all these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology. 1. With the false genders like baron, baroness, it is a general rule that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine from the feminine; as peer, peeress. The words widower, gander, and drake are exceptions. For the word wizard, from witch, see the section on augmentative forms. 2. The termination -ess, in which so large a portion of our feminine substantives terminate, is not of Saxon but of classical origin, being derived from the termination -ix, genitrix. 3. The words shepherdess, huntress, and hostess are faulty; the radical part of the word being Germanic, and 4. The termination -inn, is current in German, as the equivalent to -ess, and as a feminine affix (freund = a friend; freundinn = a female friend). In English it occurs only in a fragmentary form;—e.g., in vixen, a true feminine derivative from fox = fÜchsinn, German. Bruin = the bear, may be either a female form, as in Old High German pËro = a he-bear, pirinn = a she-bear; or it may be the Norse form bjÖrn = a bear, male or female. Caution.—Words like margravine and landgravine prove nothing, being scarcely naturalised. 5. The termination -str, as in webster, songster, and baxter, was originally a feminine affix. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon,
The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland: e.g., spookster = a female fortune-teller; baxster = a baking-woman; waschster = a washerwoman. The word spinster still retains its original feminine force. 6. The words songstress and seamstress, besides being, as far as concerns the intermixture of languages, in the predicament of shepherdess, have, moreover, a double feminine termination; 1st. -str, of Germanic, 2nd. -ess, of classical, origin. 7. In the word heroine we have a Greek termination, just as -ix is a Latin, and -inn a German one. It must 8. The form deaconness is not wholly unexceptionable; since the termination -ess is of Latin, the root deacon of Greek origin: this Greek origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling, deacon (from diaconos), as compared with the Latin decanus. 9. Goose, gander.—One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been indicated. In the older forms of the word goose, such as ???, Greek; anser, Latin; gans, German, as well as in the derived form gander, we have the proofs that, originally, there belonged to the word the sound of the letter n. In the forms ?d???, ?d??t??, Greek; dens, dentis, Latin; zahn, German; tooth, English, we find the analogy that accounts for the ejection of the n, and the lengthening of the vowel preceding. With respect, however, to the d in gander, it is not easy to say whether it is inserted in one word or omitted in the other. Neither can we give the precise power of the -er. The following forms occur in the different Gothic dialects. Gans, fem.; ganazzo, masc., Old High German—gÔs, f.; gandra, m., Anglo-Saxon—gÂs, Icelandic, f.; gaas, Danish, f.; gassi, Icelandic, m.; gasse, Danish, m.—ganser, ganserer, gansart, gÄnserich, gander, masculine forms in different New German dialects. 10. Observe, the form gÄnserich, has a masculine termination. The word tÄuberich, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same power. It denotes a male dove; taube, in German, signifying a dove. In gÄnserich and tÄuberich, we find preserved the termination -rich (or rik), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious word drake. To duck the word drake has no 11. Peacock, peahen.—In these compounds, it is not the word pea that is rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of cock and hen, but it is the words cock and hen that are modified by prefixing pea. CHAPTER III.THE NUMBERS. All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only. It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as the two eyes, the two hands, &c. The Latin has no dual number, except the natural one in the words ambo and duo. There is no dual in the present English. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon there was a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal pronouns (wit = we two; git = ye two), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual. There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there was one. In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found. From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that languages drop as they become modern. a. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in thine = Ð, or g, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp s affixed, was not a matter of choice but of necessity; the combinations abs, avs, ads, aÐs, ags, being unpronounceable. b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps, afs, ats, aÞs, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz, aÐz, agz), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not vice versÂ. c. Such combinations as peas, trees, hills, hens, &c., (the s preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written peace, treece, hillce, hence), being pronounceable, the change from s to z, in words so ending, is not a d. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change. It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles. Monarchs, heresiarchs.—Here the ch equals not tsh, but k, so that there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy of church, &c. Cargoes, echoes.—From cargo and echo, with the addition of e; an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel o. Beauty, beauties; key, keys.—Like the word cargoes, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthography. Pence.—The peculiarity of this word consists in having a flat liquid followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from pennies; in the second place, its Dice.—In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that pence is peculiar.—We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of z is expected. This distinguishes dice for play, from dies (diz) for coining. Dice, perhaps, like pence, is collective rather than plural. In geese, lice, and mice, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as in dice, viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where a flat one (z) is expected. The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word. Alms.—This is no true plural form. The s belongs to the original word, Anglo-Saxon, Ælmesse; Greek, ??e??s???; just as the s in goose does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word riches, from the French richesse. In riches the last syllable being sounded as ez, increases its liability to pass for a plural. News, means, pains.—These, the reverse of alms and riches, are true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. Mathematics, metaphysics, politics, ethics, optics, physics.—The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax. In the first place it is a double plural; the -en being the -en in oxen, whilst the simpler form child-er occurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects. Now, what is the -er in child-er? In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as geisl-ar = flashes, tung-ur = tongues, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question. Besides the word childer, we collect from the Old High German the following forms in -r:—
and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender. Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as follows:— 1. The -r represents an earlier -s. 2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number. 3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic: ag-is = fear (whence ague = shivering), hat-is = hate, riqv-is = smoke (reek). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number. To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the collective nature of the words in which it occurs: Husir = a collection of houses, eiger = a collection of eggs, eggery In Wicliffe we find the form lamb-r-en, which is to lamb as children is to child.
Peasen = pulse.—As children is a double form of one Pullen = poultry.
If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The -en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in rich-es (richesse.) The proper form is in -ain or -eyn. A false theefe, That came like a false fox, my pullain to kill and mischeefe. "Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2. Chickens.—A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the additional peculiarity of the form chicken being used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural of chick. So Wallis considered it:—"At olim etiam per -en vel -yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, an ox, a chick, pluralitur oxen, chicken (sunt qui dicunt in singulari chicken, et in plurali chickens)." Chick, chick-en, chick-en-s. Fern.—According to Wallis the -n in fer-n is the -en in oxen, in other words a plural termination:—"A fere (filix) pluraliter fern (verum nunc plerumque fern utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali ferns); nam fere et feres prope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view, the word fer-n-s would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word Women.—Pronounced wimmen, as opposed to the singular form woomman. Probably an instance of accommodation. Houses.—Pronounced houz-ez. The same peculiarity in the case of s and z, as occurs between f and v in words like life, lives, &c. Paths, youths.—Pronounced padhz, yoodhz. The same peculiarity in the case of Þ and Ð, as occurs between s and z in the words house, houses. "Finita in f plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendo v; ut wife, wives, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s et th, quamvis retento charactere, in house, cloth, path." The regular plural of these would be loafs, wifes, pronounced loafce, wifce, &c. But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z, not that of s. And the plurals are sounded loavz, wivz (wivez, weivz). Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other words, the first of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in violation to the rule of § 199 b. Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f has the sound of v; so that staf is sounded stav. Again, in the allied languages the words in question This makes it probable that, originally, the f in wife, loaf, &c. was sounded as v; so that the singular forms were wive, loav. If so, the plural is perfectly normal; it being the singular form on which the irregularity lies. CHAPTER IV.ON THE CASES. In the term a father's house, the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, however, differs. In a father's house the relation, or connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, father becoming father's. He gave the house to a father.—Here the words father and house stand in another sort of relationship, the relationship being expressed by the preposition to. The idea to a father differs from the idea of a father, in being expressed in one way only; viz., by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done with father's. The father taught the child.—Here there is neither preposition nor change of form. The connexion between Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in of a father), or of a change in form (as in father's). In this case (although child be not so) father's, of a father, and to a father, are all equally cases. Now it has long been remarked, that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "above a man, beneath a man, beyond a man, round about a man, within a man, without a man, shall be cases as well as of a man, to a man, and with a man."
Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but two, there are (as far, at least, as the word pater and father It does not, however, follow that because in the particular word father we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two. In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words smiÐ, ende, and dÆg, were respectively, smiÐes, endes, and dÆges; whilst the nominative plurals were, smiÐas, endas, and dÆgas. But when a change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each word was ejected, the result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident. This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe in father's being a mere matter of orthography. However, there was once a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:—for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed. One word in the present English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, viz., the word twain = two. The -n in twai-n is the -n in hine = him and hwone = whom. This we see from the following inflection:—
Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of twÉgen being accusative. The -n is by no means radical; besides which, it is the sign of an accusative case, and is not the sign of a nominative.
"The indeclinable Þe is often used instead of ÞÆt, se, seÓ, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article the. "ÞÝ seems justly to be received as a proper ablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, mid ÞÝ ÁÞe = with that oath ("InÆ Leges," 53). And in the same place in the dative, on Þ?m ÁÞe = in that oath."—Pp. 56, 57. Hence the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon ÞÝ is one word; whilst the the that has originated That why is in the same case with the instrumental the ( = ÞÝ) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflexion of the interrogative pronoun:—
Hence, then, in the and why we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, instrumentals. Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in -m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the words him and them their form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusatives, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take. My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the form of the word alone; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now the words 1. The expression the Queen's Majesty is not capable of being reduced to the Queen his Majesty. 2. In the form his itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in father's, &c. Now his cannot be said to arise out of he + his. 3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in English; so that even if the words father his would account for the English word father's, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive pad-as, of a foot; the Zend dughdhar-s, of a daughter; the Lithuanic dugter-s; the Greek ?d??t-??; the Latin dent-is, &c. CHAPTER V.THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only. Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was eow, for ye, ge. Neither bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you), is used either as a nominative or accusative, than to say Ye.—As far as the evidence of such expressions as get on with ye is concerned, the word ye is an accusative form. The reasons why it should or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph. Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi is bad French, and that c'est je is good. CHAPTER VI.ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH. Nor yet are there any equivalents to the forms suus, sua, suum: since his and her are the equivalents to ejus and illius, and are not adjectives but genitive cases. At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as se, there could be no such secondary form as suus. Such, however, is not the case. Suus might exist in the language, and yet se be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct. Such is really the case with the Old Frisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent to se, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent to suus, is found. In the Modern Frisian, however, both forms are lost. CHAPTER VII.THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c. He, she, and it, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons. 1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with he, it, and she. 2. The idea expressed by he, it, and she is naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin language is, ea, id; ille, illa, illud; hic, hÆc, hoc, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension. 3. The plural forms they, them, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root of that, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if he, she, and it could be treated as personal pronouns, they could not. 4. The word she has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon seÓ. Now seÓ was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article itself being originally a demonstrative pronoun. She.—The Anglo-Saxon form heÓ, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine article seÓ. Him.—A dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxon hine. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine. His.—Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced by its—"et quidem ipsa vox his, ut et interrogativum whose, nihil aliud sunt quam hee's, who's, ubi s omnino idem prÆstat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autem his pro hee's eodem errore quo nonnunquam bin pro been; item whose pro who's eodem errore quo done, gone, knowne, growne, &c., pro doen, goen, knowen, vel do'n, go'n, know'n, grow'n; utrobique contra analogiam linguÆ; sed usu defenditur."—Wallis, c.v. It.—Changed from the Anglo-Saxon hit, by the ejection of h. The t is no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly from he. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latin id and illud. Its.—In the course of time the nature of the neuter sign t, in it, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed from it the anomalous genitive its superseding the Saxon his. The same was the case with— Hers.—The r is no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the history of cases. Than or then, and there.—Although now adverbs, I. Se, seÓ ( = she). Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both in the nominative case; viz., masc., se; fem. seÓ ( = the). The neuter gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the pronoun ÞÆt ( = that). II.
III.
IV. Þe (the)—Undeclined, and used for all cases and genders. 1st. That the s is no inflection, but a radical part of the word, like the s in geese. 2nd. That the Anglo-Saxon form is ÞÁs. These facts create difficulties in respect to the word these. Mr. Guest's view is, perhaps, the best; viz., that the plural element of the word is the final -e, and that this -e is the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective plural; so that thes-e is formed from this, as gode ( = boni) is from god ( = bonus). The nominative plural in the Old English adjective ended in -e; as,
In Old English MSS. this plural in -e is general. It occurs not only in adjectives and pronouns as a regular inflection, but even as a plural of the genitive his, that word being treated as a nominative singular; so that hise is formed from his, as sui from suus, or as eji might have been formed from ejus; provided that in the Latin language this last word had been mistaken for a nominative singular. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.
2. In all the orders foure is non that can So much of dalliance and faire language, He hadde ymade ful many a marriage— His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives, And pinnes for to given faire wives.—Chau., Prol.
5. That fadres sone which alle thinges wrought; And all, that wrought is with a skilful thought, The Gost that from the fader gan procede, Hath souled hem.—Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale. 6. And alle we that ben in this aray And maken all this lamentation, We losten alle our husbondes at that toun.—Chau., The Knightes Tales.
13. When thise Bretons tuo were fled out of this lond Ine toke his feaute of alle, &c.—Rob Brunne, p. 3.
The present declension of the demonstrative pronouns is as follows:— A. She.—Defective in the oblique cases. B. He.
C. I. That.
II. Singular, This. Plural, These. III. Those. IV. The—Undeclined. CHAPTER VIII.THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS. To these may be added, 1. the adverb why, originally the ablative form hvi (quo modo? qu viÂ?). 2. The adverb where, a feminine dative, like there. 3. When, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxon hwÆne), and analogous to then. The two sounds in the Danish words hvi, hvad, &c., and the two sounds in the English, what, when (Anglo-Saxon, hwÆt, hwÆne) account for the forms why and how. In the first the w alone, in the second the h alone, is sounded. The Danish for why is hvi, pronounced vi. Same.—Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the word ylca, ylce. Probably derived from the Norse. Self.—In myself, thyself, herself, ourselves, yourselves, 1. The plural word selves, a substantival, and not an adjectival form. 2. The Middle High German phrases mÎn lÎp, dÎn lÎp, my body, thy body, equivalent in sense to myself, thyself. 3. The circumstance that if self be dealt with as a substantive, such phrases as my own self, his own great self, &c., can be used; whereby the language is a gainer. "Vox self, pluraliter selves, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum ipse redditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox persona vel propria persona ut my self, thy self, our selves, your selves, &c. (ego ipse, tu ipse, nos ipsi, vos ipsi, &c.), ad verbum mea persona, tua persona, &c. Fateor tamen himself, itself, themselves, vulgo dici pro his-self, its-self, theirselves; at (interposito own) his own self, &c., ipsius propria persona, &c."—Wallis. c. vii. 4. The fact that many persons actually say hisself and theirselves. Whit.—As in the phrase not a whit. This enters in the compound pronouns aught and naught. One.—As in the phrase one does so and so. From the French on. Observe that this is from the Latin homo, in Old French hom, om. In the Germanic tongues man is used in the same sense: man sagt = one says = on dit. One, like self and other, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing, one's own self: plural, my wife and little ones are well. Derived pronouns.—Any, in Anglo-Saxon, Ænig. In Old High German we have einÎc = any, and einac = single. In Anglo-Saxon Ânega means single. In Middle High German einec is always single. In New High German einig means, 1. a certain person (quidam), 2. agreeing; einzig, meaning single. In Dutch Ênech has both meanings. This indicates the word Án, one, as the root of the word in question. Compound pronouns.—Which, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter of who. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjective leiks, like, is preserved in the Moeso-Gothic words galeiks and missaleiks. In Old High German the form is lih, in Anglo-Saxon lic. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic hvÊleiks; Old High German, huËlih; Anglo-Saxon, huilic and hvilc; Old Frisian, hwelik; Danish, hvilk-en; German, welch; Scotch, whilk; English, which. The same is the case with— 1. Such.—Moeso-Gothic, svaleiks; Old High German, sÔlÎh; Old Saxon, sulÎc; Anglo-Saxon, svilc; German, solch; English, such. Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon swilc from swa-ylc, is exceptionable. 2. Thilk.—An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as thick, thuck, theck, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and Weber, from sË ylca, is found 3. Ilk.—Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; the ilk, or that ilk, meaning the same. In Anglo-Saxon this word is ycla, preceded also by the article se ylca, seÓ ylce, ÞÆt ylce. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced by same. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word as ei is the first, and lÎc the second element. Aught.—In Moeso-Gothic is found the particle, aiv, ever, but only in negative propositions; ni (not) preceding it. Its Old High German form is Êo, io; in Middle High German, ie; in New High German, je; in Old Saxon, io; in Anglo-Saxon, Â; in Norse, Æ. Combined with this particle the word whit (thing) gives the following forms: Old High German, Êowiht; Anglo-Saxon, Âviht; Old Frisian, Âwet; English aught. The word naught is aught preceded by the negative particle. Each.—The particle gi enters, like the particle in the composition of pronouns. Old High German, ÊogalÎher, every one; Êocalih, all; Middle High German, iegelich; New High German, jeglich; Anglo-Saxon, Ælc; English, each; the l being dropped, as in which and such. Ælc, as the original of the English each and the Scotch ilka,[51] must by no means be confounded with the word ylce, the same. Every in Old English, everich, everech, everilk one, is Ælc, preceded by the particle ever. (Grimm. D. G. iii. 54.) Either.—Old High German, ÊogahuËdar; Middle High German, iegewËder; Anglo-Saxon, ÆghvÄÐer, ÆgÐer; Old Frisian, eider. Neither.—The same with the negative article prefixed. Neither : either :: naught : aught. A. First, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not that of one out of many, but that of one out of two. 1. In Sanscrit there are two forms, a) kataras, the same word as whether, meaning which out of two; b) katamas, which out of many. So also Êkateras, one out of two; Êkatamas, one out of many. In Greek the Ionic form ??te??? (p?te???); in Latin, uter, neuter, alter; and in Moeso-Gothic, hvathar, have the same form and the same meaning. 2. In the Scandinavian language the word anden, Dano-Saxon, annar, Iceland. corresponds to the English word second, and not the German zweite: e.g., Karl den Anden, Charles the Second. Now anthar is the older form of other. B. Secondly, it may be stated of them, that the termination -er is the same termination that we find in the comparative degree. 1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not of many but of two things; this is better than that. 2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are pronouns in -ter, there is also a comparative degree in -ter. See next chapter. 3. As the Sanscrit form kataras corresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison of two things with each other; so the word katamas is a Hence other and whether (to which may be added either and neither) are pronouns with the comparative form. Other has the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural form others. Hence, like self, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival pronoun. CHAPTER IX.ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER. 1. Certain pronouns, as ei-th-er, n-ei-th-er, whe-th-er, or o-th-er. 2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, as ov-er, und-er, af-t-er. 3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of the positive degree; as upp-er, und-er, inn-er, out-er, hind-er. 4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; as wis-er, strong-er, bett-er, &c. Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign -er, and connecting the four divisions into one class? It is not the mere idea of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of which the affix in question is more particularly applied. Bopp, who has best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to be that of duality. In the comparative degree we have a relation between one object and some other object like it, or a relation between two single elements of comparison: A is wiser than B. In the superlative degree we have a relation between one "As in comparatives a relation between two, and in superlatives a relation between many, lies at the bottom, it is natural that their suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is individualised through that of duality or plurality."—"Vergleichende Grammatik," § 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation. The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,— 1. The Sanskrit form kataras = which of two persons? is a comparative form; whilst katamas = which of more than two persons? a superlative form. Similarly, Êkataras = one of two persons; Êkatamas = one of more than two persons. 2. The Greek forms, ???te??? = each (or either) out of two persons; whilst ??ast?? = each or any out of more than two persons. 1. Contrariety: as in inner, outer, under, upper, over. In Latin the words for right and left end in -er,—dexter, sinister. 2. Choice in the way of an alternative; as either, neither, whether, other. CHAPTER X.THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. 1. The older form in -s. In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in Moeso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza. 2. Adverbs are susceptible of comparison; e.g.—Come as soon as you can, but do not come sooner than is convenient. 3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the adjectives; there being one form in -re and -este, another in -or and -ost respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: as se scearp-re sweord = the sharper sword, and se scearp-este sword = the sharpest sword. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs: as, se sweord scyrÐ scearp-or = the sword cuts sharper, and se sweord scyrÐ scearp-ost = the sword cuts sharpest. 4. In the Anglo-Saxon, the following words exhibit a change of vowel.
The difference between the action of the small vowel in -re, and of the full in -or effects this difference, since o being a full vowel, it has the effect of making the a full also. The words thou, thy, thee, are words between which there is a formal or an etymological connexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one. In the case of thou, thy, thee, the etymological sequence tallies with the logical one. The ideas of I, my, and me are also in a logical sequence: but the forms I, my, and me are not altogether in an etymological one. In the case of I, my, me, the etymological sequence does not tally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one. This is only another way of saying that between the words I and me there is no connexion in etymology. It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, I, and, in the nominative case, me, are defective. Now the same is the case with good, better, bad, worse, &c. Good and bad are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees; better and worse are 1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which case s is part of the root. 2. It is a comparative degree from the positive form wor- (vair-, wir-, vyr-), in which case s is the s of the Old Moeso-Gothic inflexion preserved in this single word. Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the power of the word has always been comparative, and meant more rather than much, or many. Further.—Confounded with farther, although in reality from a different word, fore. Old High German, furdir; New High German, der vordere; Anglo-Saxon, fyrÐre. With the exception of worse and less, all the English comparatives end in -r: yet no superlative ends in -rt, the form being, not wise, wiser, wisert, but wise, wiser, wisest. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms in s; CHAPTER XI.THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. The root was for = the Latin prÆ, the Greek p??, and being the same combination which occurs in fore, fore-m-ost, &c. The m was the Anglo-Saxon sign of the superlative degree. It is the m in the Latin words pri-m-us, inti-m-us, exti-m-us, ulti-m-us, &c. It occurs even in the Gothic tongues; in other words, besides for-m-a. In short, m is an old sign of the superlative degree; probably older than the usual form, -st, discussed in § 254. This has some important applications. The Anglo-Saxon language presents us with the following forms:—
Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned, the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the word most. From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular superlative form in the usual manner; viz., by the addition of -st; as Æfte-m-est, fyr-m-est, lÆte-m-est, siÐ-m-est, yfe-m-est, ute-m-est, inne-m-est. Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable most (in words like upmost) come from different quarters. The m is the m in the Anglo-Saxon words innema, &c.; whilst the -st is the common sign of the superlative. Hence, in separating such words as midmost into its component parts, we should write
CHAPTER XII.THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. One is naturally and exclusively singular. Two is naturally dual. The rest are naturally and exclusively plural. As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin unus, una, unum, unius. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in English. CHAPTER XIII.THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. These are cardinal numbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the proper place for noticing them. There is good reason for believing that the final -n is no part of the original root. Thus,— a. Sev-en = the Latin sept-em, where the -m is equivalent to the -n. But in the Greek ?pt?, and the Scandinavian syv, and sju, neither -n nor -m occur. b. Ni-ne.—This same applies here. The Latin form is nov-em; but the Greek and Norse are ????a and niu. c. Ten.—The older form is ti-h-un, in Latin de-c-em. The English -n is the Latin -m. Nevertheless, in the Greek and Norse the forms are d??a and tuo.
I give no opinion as to the accuracy or erroneousness of this view. CHAPTER XIV.THE ARTICLES. Now, since it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words some man, a certain man, and a man, are much the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Moeso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words sum and t?? are pronouns with a certain sense, and that a and an are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article is t??, in Moeso-Gothic sum, and in English a or an. A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression ???? t?? (anÆr tis) = a certain man, or a man, and in the expression sum mann, the words sum and t?? preserve their natural and original meaning; whilst in a man and an ox the words a and an are used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the form a, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral one; Anglo-Saxon, Án; Scotch, ane. Now, between the words a man and one man, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and Moeso-Gothic expressions. In the one the word sum has a natural, in the other, the word an has a secondary power. The same reasoning applies to the word the. Compared with a man, the words the man are very definite. Compared, however, with the words that man, they are the contrary. Now, just as an and a have arisen out of the numeral one, so has the arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun ÞÆt, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form Þe, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers. In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of a and the. As tongues become modern, some noun with a similar sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e.g., one becomes an, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us ?, ?, t? (ho, hÆ, The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German ein, in Danish en, stand to one in the same relation that an does. The French un, Italian and Spanish uno, are similarly related to unus = one. And as, in English, the, in German der, in Danish den, come from the demonstrative pronouns, so, in the classical languages, are the French le, the Italian il and lo, and the Spanish el, derived from the Latin demonstrative ille. In his "Outlines of Logic," the present writer has given reasons for considering the word no (as in no man) an article. That the, in expressions like all the more, all the better, &c., is no article, has already been shown. CHAPTER XV.DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS. The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of principles. Amongst others: 1. According to their form.—The word hillock is derived from hill, by the addition of a syllable. The word tip is derived from top, by the change of a vowel. 2. According to their meaning.—In the word hillock there is the simple expression of comparative smallness in size. In the word doggie for dog, lassie for lass, the addition of the -ie makes the word not so much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries with it the idea of approbation; hence, the word clean in English, means, in German, little = kleine. The feeling of protection which is extended to small objects engenders the notion of endearment. 3. According to their historical origin.—The syllable -ock, as in hillock, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The -et, as in lancet, is of French and classical origin. 4. According as they affect proper names, or common names.—Hawkin, Perkin, Wilkin, &c. In these words we have the diminutives of Hal, Peter, Will, &c. 1. Those formed by a change of vowel.—Tip, from top. The relation of the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many diminutives. Hence in the word kit, from cat, it is doubtful whether there be meant a female cat or a little cat. Kid is a diminutive form of goat. 2. Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters.—Of the diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the simpler forms, are Ie.—Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; as daddie, lassie, minnie, wifie, mousie, doggie, boatie, &c. Ock.—Bullock, hillock. Kin.—Lambkin, mannikin, ladikin, &c. As is seen above, common in proper names. En.—Chicken, kitten, from cock, cat. The notion of diminution, if indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the -en, but in the vowel. In the word chicken, from cock, observe the effect of the small vowel on the c. The consideration of words like duckling, and gosling, is purposely deferred. The chief diminutive of classical origin is— Et, as in trumpet, lancet, pocket; the word pock, as in meal-pock = a meal-bag, being found in the Scottish. From the French -ette, as in caissette, poulette. The forms -rel, as in cockerel, pickerel, and -let, as in streamlet, require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the Italian forms acquerella and coserella—themselves, perhaps, of Gothic, rather than of classical origin. In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in -el; as ouga = an eye, ougili = a little eye; lied = a song, liedel = a little song. This indicates the nature of words like cockerel. Even in English the diminutive power of -el can be traced in the following words:— Soare = a deer in its third year. Sor-rel—a deer in its second year.—See "Love's Labour Lost," with the note. Tiercel = a small sort of hawk, one-third less (tierce) than the common kind. Kantle = small corner, from cant = a corner.—"Henry IV." Hurdle; in Dutch horde; German, hurde. Hording, without the -l, is used in an allied sense by builders in English. In the words in point we must assume an earlier form, cocker and piker, to which the diminutive form -el is affixed. If this be true, we have, in English, representatives of the diminutive form -el so common in the High Germanic dialects. Wolfer = a wolf, hunker = a haunch, flitcher = a flitch, teamer = a team, fresher = a frog,—these are north country forms of the present English. The termination -let, as in streamlet, seems to be double, and to consist of the Gothic diminutive -l, and the French diminutive -t. The termination -rd (in Old High German, -hart), as in drunkard, braggart, laggard, stinkard, carries with it this idea of depreciation. In buzzard, and reynard, the name of the fox, it is simply augmentative. In wizard, from witch, it has the power of a masculine form. The termination -rd, taken from the Gothic, appears in the modern languages of classical origin: French, vieillard; Spanish, codardo. From these we get, at secondhand, the word coward. The word sweetheart is a derived word of this sort, rather than a compound word; since in Old High German and Middle High German, we have the corresponding form liebhart. Now the form for heart is in German not hart, but herz. Words like braggadocio, trombone, balloon, being words of foreign origin, prove nothing as to the further existence of augmentative forms in English. Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics? Not in the present English? There was, however, in the Anglo-Saxon. In the Anglo-Saxon, the termination -ing is as truly patronymic as -?d?? in Greek. In the Bible-translation the son of Elisha is called Elising. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following:—Ida wÆs Eopping, Eoppa Esing, Esa Inging, Inga Angenviting, Angenvit Alocing, Aloc Beonocing, Beonoc Branding, Brand BÆldÆging, BÆldÆg VÓdening, VÓden FriÐowulfing, FriÐowulf Finning, Finn Godwulfing, Godwulf Geating = Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of BÆldÆg, BÆldÆg of Woden, Woden of FriÐowulf, FriÐowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.—In Greek, ?da ?? ??ppe?d??, ??ppa ?se?d??, ?sa ???e?d??, ???a ???e?f?te?d??, &c. In the plural number these forms denote the race of; as Scyldingas = the Scyldings, or the race of Scyld, &c. Edgar Atheling means Edgar of the race of the nobles. CHAPTER XVI.GENTILE FORMS. 1. The form is plural, however much the meaning may be singular; so that the -s in Wale-s is the -s in fathers, &c. 2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon from wealhas = foreigners, from wealh = a foreigner, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of Germany; and just as wal-nuts = foreign nuts, or nuces GalliÆ. Welsh = weall-isc = foreign, and is a derived adjective. 3. The transfer of the name of the people inhabiting a certain country to the country so inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both Anglo-Saxon and Old English. CHAPTER XVII.ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD. In the way of logic, the difference between a noun and a verb is less marked than it is in the way of grammar. Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never relations in place. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does or can express; e.g., the relation of the agency to the individual speaking, by means of person; the time in which acts take place, by means of tense; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means of mood. The idea of number is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common to these two important parts of speech.
a. That the name of any action may be used without any mention of the agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact of walking or moving, independently of any specification of the walker or mover. . That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of either person or number has no place in the conception; from which it follows that the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and without the distinction of singular, dual, and plural. ?. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in space have place in the conception. We can think of The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or infinitive state) consisted, in its fullest form, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in the Gothic languages is the least constant. In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an, with a single n.
In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was preceded by the preposition to.
The genitive, ending in -es, occurs only in Old High German and Modern High German, plÂsannes, weinnenes. 1. The independent form.—This is used after the words can, may, shall, will, and some others, as, I can speak, I may go, I shall come, I will move. Here there 2. The prepositional form.—This is used after the majority of English verbs, as, I wish to speak, I mean to go, I intend to come, I determine to move. Here we have the preposition to and the origin of the infinitive is from the form -nne. "To err is human, to forgive divine," are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having grown not only out of a dative but out of a dative plus its governing preposition. CHAPTER XVIII.ON DERIVED VERBS. Four classes, however, of derived verbs, as opposed to simple, especially deserve notice. I. Those ending in -en; as soften, whiten, strengthen, &c. Here the -en is a derivational affix; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive form -an (as lufian, bÆrnan = to love, to burn), and the Old English -en (as tellen, loven). II. Transitive verbs derived from intransitives by a change of the vowel of the root.
In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present.
All these intransitives form their prÆterite by a change of vowel; as sink, sank; all the transitives by the addition of d or t, as sell, sell'd. III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as to survÉy, from a sÚrvey.
Walker attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial termination -ing. All words thus affected are of foreign origin. IV. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a final sharp consonant into its corresponding flat one; as,
CHAPTER XIX.ON THE PERSONS.
Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the English have forms for two only; and even of these one (callest) is becoming obsolete. With the forms voc-o, voc-amus, voc-atis, voc-ant, there is, in the current English, nothing correspondent. In the word am, as compared with are and art, we find a sign of the first person singular. In the old forms tellen, weren, &c., we have a sign of the plural number.
1. The full form prennames in the newer Old High German, as compared with sÔkjam in the old Moeso-Gothic. 2. The appearance of the r in Icelandic. 3. The difference between the Old Saxon and the Anglo-Saxon in the second person singular; the final t being absent in Old Saxon. In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the prÆterite tense of one conjugation is, not -s, but -t; as Moeso-Gothic, svÔr = I swore, svÔrt = thou swarest, grÁip = I griped, grÁipt = thou gripedst; Icelandic, brannt = thou burnest, gaft = thou gavest. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like prÆterites. Of these, in each language, skal is one.
In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the class of verbs which form their prÆterite by changing the vowel of the present; as sing, sang, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon formed their second singular prÆterite, not in -st, but in -e; as ÞÚ funde = thou foundest, ÞÚ sunge = thou sungest. The English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the prÆterites formed by changing the vowel. Thou loved'st is Anglo-Saxon as well as English, viz., ÞÚ lufodest. The Scottes come that to this day Havys and Scotland haldyn ay.—Wintoun, 11, 9, 73. James I. of England ends nearly all his plurals in -s. CHAPTER XX.ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in— Moeso-Gothic.
Anglo-Saxon.
From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; viz. that words like
generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally different numbers of the same tense, the forms in a, as swam, being singular, and the forms in u, as swum, plural. CHAPTER XXI.ON MOODS. Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative, speak ye, and ye speak, there is no difference of form. Between the second singular imperative speak, and the second singular indicative, speakest, there is a difference in form. Still, as the imperative form speak is distinguished from the indicative form speakest by the negation of a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood. The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of were and wert, as opposed to the indicative forms was and wast.
CHAPTER XXII.ON TENSES IN GENERAL. I strike, I struck.—Of these words, the first implies an action taking place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already taken place. These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change of form, are true tenses. If there were no change of form, there would be no change of tense. They are the only true tenses in our language. In I was beating, I have beaten, I had beaten, and I shall beat, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by a combination of words, and not by a change of form, no true tenses are constituted. Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi; Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.—Æn. iv. Ut primum alatis tetigit magalia plantis.—Æn. iv.
In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and vice versÂ. In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms. In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single tense; lÁilÔ being called the prÆterite of lÁia, and svÔr the prÆterite of svara. The true view, however, is that in Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other. The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the CHAPTER XXIII.THE STRONG TENSES. In Anglo-Saxon, several prÆterites change, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as
The bearing of this fact upon the prÆterites has already been indicated. In a great number of words we have a double form, as ran and run, sang and sung, drank and drunk, &c. One of these forms is derived from the singular, and the other from the plural. In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular; indeed, it is often the plural;—e.g., Ic fand, I found, we fundon, we found, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word found comes, not from the singular fand, but from the plural fundon; although in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the singular form occurs; Donald Caird finds orra things, Where Allan Gregor fand the tings.—Scott. 1. In the first class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were Á in the singular, and i in the plural; as—
This accounts for—
2. In the second class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were a in the singular, and u in the plural, as—
This accounts for—
as they actually are by many speakers, they come in the same class with,—
and form their prÆterite by means of a similar change, i.e., by changing the sound of the ee in feet (spelt ea) into that of the a in fate; viewed thus, the irregularity is less than it appears to be at first sight. Again, tread is pronounced tredd, but many provincial speakers say treed, and so said the Anglo-Saxons, whose form was ic trede = I tread. Their prÆterite was trÆd. This again subtracts from the apparent irregularity. Instances of this kind may be multiplied; the whole question, however, of the conjugation of the strong verbs is best considered after the perusal of the next chapter. CHAPTER XXIV.THE WEAK TENSES. If necessary, the syllable -ed is substituted for -d. The current statement that the syllable -ed, rather than the letter -d is the sign of the prÆterite tense, is true only in regard to the written language. In stabbed, moved, bragged, whizzed, judged, filled, slurred, slammed, shunned, barred, strewed, the e is a point of spelling only. In language, except in declamation, there is no second vowel sound. The -d comes in immediate contact with the final letter of the original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was before. We say stabd, mÔved, bragd, &c. This is necessary, since the combinations slightt and brandd are unpronounceable. Whether the addition be -d or -t depends upon the flatness or sharpness of the preceding letter. After b, v, th (as in clothe), g, or z, the addition is -d. This is a matter of necessity. We say stabd, mÔvd, clÔthd, braggd, whizzd, because stabt, mÔvt, clotht, braggt, whizzt, are unpronounceable. After l, m, n, r, w, y, or a vowel, the addition is also All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning the s, in words like father's, &c., applied to another letter and to another part of speech. I. In the first there is the simple addition of -d, -t, or -ed.
To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of foreign origin.
Here the final consonant is -t.
Here the final consonant is -d.
To this class belong the remarkable prÆterites of the verbs seek, beseech, catch, teach, bring, think, and buy, viz., sought, besought, caught, taught, brought, thought, and bought. In all these, the final consonant is either g or k, or else a sound allied to those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to become h and y, as well as to undergo farther changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to seem anomalous. In wrought, from work, there is a transposition. In laid and said the present forms make a show of regularity which they have not. The true original forms should be legde and sÆgde, the infinitives being lecgan, secgan. In these words the i represents the semivowel y, into which the original g was changed. The Anglo-Saxon forms of the other words are as follows:—
a. By the form of the participle.—The -en in beaten shows that the word beat is strong. b. By the nature of the vowel.—The weak form of to beat would be bet, or beat, after the analogy of feed and read. By some persons the word is pronounced bet, and with those who do so the word is weak. c. By a knowledge of the older forms.—The Anglo-Saxon form is beÁte, beot. There is no such a weak form as beÁte, bÆtte. The prÆterite of sendan is sende weak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such form as sand, strong. In all this we see a series of expedients for distinguishing the prÆterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins. The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in feed, fed, &c., can only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed. Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in -d, the -d of the present may become -t in the prÆterite. Such is the case with bend, bent. When there is no long vowel to shorten, and no -d
Would, should, could.—It must not be imagined that could is in the same predicament with these words. In will and shall the -l is part of the original word. This is not the case with can. For the form could, see § 331. Now, although dare is both transitive and intransitive, durst is only intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin word provoco; only with the Latin word audeo. Moreover, the word durst has both a present and a past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of the -st, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here found in all the persons alike; as I durst, they durst, &c. This has still to be satisfactorily accounted for. Must.—A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither the -s nor the -t are part of the original root, is indicated by the Scandinavian form maae (Danish), pronounced moh; prÆterite maatt. This form has still to be satisfactorily accounted for. Wist.—In its present form a regular prÆterite from wiss = know. The difficulties of this word arise from the parallel forms wit (as in to wit), and wot = knew. The following are the forms of this peculiar word:— In Moeso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. vÁit; 2. do., In Anglo-Saxon.—WÂt, wÁst, witon, wiste, and wisse, wiston.—Hence the double forms, wiste, and wisse, verify the statement concerning the Moeso-Gothic vissa. In Icelandic.—Veit, veizt, vitum, vissi. Danish ved, vide, vidste. Observe the form vidste; since, in it, the d of the root (in spelling, at least) is preserved. The t of the Anglo-Saxon wiste is the t, not of the root, but of the inflection. In respect to the four forms in question, viz., wit, wot, wiss, wisst, the first seems to be the root; the second a strong prÆterite regularly formed, but used (like ??da in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak prÆterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second singular from wiss after the manner of wert from were, a second singular from wit after the manner of must, a secondary prÆterite from wiss, or finally, the form wisse, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the -t. In the present Danish they write duger, but say duer: as duger et noget? = Is it worth anything? pronounced dooer deh note? This accounts for the ejection of the g. The Anglo-Saxon form deÁh does the same. Did, from do = facio, is a strong verb. This we infer from the form of its participle done. If so the final -d is not the same as the -d in moved. What is it? There are good grounds for believing that in the word did we have a single instance of the old reduplicate prÆterite. If so, it is the latter d which is radical, and the former which is inflectional. CHAPTER XXV.ON CONJUGATION.
1. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong. 2. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical. 3. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues. 4. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early as A.D. 1085, the French word adouber = to dub, was introduced into English. Its prÆterite was dubbade. 5. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms drink and lie, are strong; the transitive forms drench and lay, are weak. This shows that the division of verbs into weak and strong is a truly natural one. CHAPTER XXVI.DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY. The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronouns I or me, the adjectives good, better, and best. The view of these words was as follows; viz., that none of them were irregular, but that they were all defective. Me wanted the nominative, I the oblique cases. Good was without a comparative, better and best had no positive degree. Now me and better may be said to make good the defectiveness of I and good; and I and good may be said to replace the forms wanting in me and better. This gives us the principle of compensation. To introduce a new term, I and me, good and better, may be said to be complementary to each other. What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. Go and went are not irregularities. Go is defective in the past tense. Went is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are complementary to each other. The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word irregular; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the prÆterite is formed by the addition of -t, or -d, or -ed; a position sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words like bent and sent, where -t exists, but where it does not exist as an addition. The regular forms, it may be said, should be bended and sended. Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the fiat of a rule, be restricted to those in -d. In this case words like wept and burnt would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars. Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed. Vital and obsolete processes.—The word moved is formed from move, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered prÆterite. The word fell is formed from fall, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered prÆterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ? For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a prÆterite tense of it be formed. This prÆterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No new verb ever takes a strong prÆterite. The like takes place with nouns. No new substantive would form its plural, like oxen or geese, by adding -en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like fathers and horses, add the lene sibilant. Now, the processes that change fall, ox and goose into fell, oxen, and geese, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are obsolete processes; whilst those that change move into moved, and horse into horses, operating on the language in its present stage, are vital processes. A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would make all the strong verbs irregular. The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this case stept (modified by a process of necessity), and wept (modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular. A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would class with the irregulars. Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation. When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar. A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular. Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word worse has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is ambiguous. A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes. Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, only appear to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion. Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like songstress, theirs, minded, where the words songstr-, their-, mind-, are dealt with as roots, which they are not. Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion—each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient. With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one. Can, cunne, canst, cunnon, cunnan, cuÐe, cuÐon, cuЗsuch are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the l. The presence of the l makes the word could irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it. Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In would and should the l has a proper The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the spelling. This reduces the word could to an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography. That the mere ejection of the -n in can, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greek ?d??t?? (odontos) into ?d??? (odows). CHAPTER XXVII.THE IMPERSONAL VERBS. For the explanation of this difference see Syntax, Chapter XXI. CHAPTER XXVIII.THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word had both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it was inflected throughout with -s; as visa, vas, vÊsum, visans. In that language it has the power of the Latin maneo = to
The following is a specimen of the future power of beÓn in Anglo-Saxon:—"Hi ne beÓÐ na cÍlde, soÐlice, on domesdÆge, ac beÓÐ swa micele menn swa swa hi migton beÓn gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."—Ælfric's Homilies. "They will not be children, forsooth, on Domesday, but will be as much (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age." It should also be stated, that although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms am, art, are, and is, are not, like am and was, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between am and be there is no etymological connexion,
Woe worth the chase, woe worth the day, That cost thy life, my gallant grey.—Lady of the Lake. CHAPTER XXIX.THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. The rising sun o'er Galston muirs Wi' glorious light was glintin'; The hares were hirplin' down the furs, The lav'rocks they were chantin'.—Burns' Holy Fair. ? p??ss?? = the actor, when a male. ? p?ass??sa = the actor, when a female. ?? p??tt?? = the active principle of a thing. But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g., Rising early is healthy, There is health in rising early. This is the advantage of rising early. The risings in the North, &c. Some acute remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the -ing in words like rising is not the -ing of the present participle; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in words like morning; which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verb morn, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substantival termination -ung. Upon this Rask writes as follows:—"Gitsung, gewilnung = desire; swutelung = manifestation; clÆnsung = a cleansing; sceawung = view, contemplation; eorÐ-beofung = an earthquake; gesomnung = an assembly. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first class in -ian; as hÁlgung = consecration, from hÁlgian = to consecrate. These verbs are all feminine."—"Anglo-Saxon Grammar," p. 107. Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination -ing in old phrases like rising early is The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this: 1. That the older forms in -ing are substantival in origin, and = the Anglo-Saxon -ung. 2. That the latter ones are irregularly participial, and have been formed on a false analogy. CHAPTER XXX.THE PAST PARTICIPLE. In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as sungen, funden, bunden. In English this -en is often wanting, as found, bound; the word bounden being antiquated. Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as prÆterites with a participial sense. In all words with a double form, as spake and spoke, brake and broke, clave and clove, the participle follows the form in o, as spoken, broken, cloven. Spaken, braken, claven are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say the spear is broke is better than to say the spear is brake. CeÓse, I choose; ceÂs, I chose; curon, we chose; gecoren, chosen. ForleÓse, I lose; forleÁs, I lost; forluron, we lost; forloren, lost. Hreose, I rush; hreÁs, I rushed; hruron, we rushed; gehroren, rushed. This accounts for the participial form forlorn, or lost, in New High German verloren. In Milton's lines, —— the piercing air Burns frore, and cold performs the effect of fire,—Paradise Lost, b. ii., we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participle gefroren = frozen. In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the prÆterite, inasmuch as it ended in -ed, or -t, whereas the prÆterite ended in -ode, -de, or -te: as, lufode, bÆrnde, dypte, prÆterites; gelufod, bÆrned, dypt, participles. As the ejection of the e (in one case final in the other not) reduces words like bÆrned and bÆrnde to the same form, it is easy to account for the present identity of form between the weak prÆterites and the participles in -d: e.g., I moved, I have moved, &c. The following are the chief facts and the current opinion concerning this prefix:— 1. It has grown out of the fuller forms ge-: Anglo-Saxon, ge-: Old Saxon, gi-: Moeso-Gothic, ga-: Old High German, ka-, cha-, ga-, ki-, gi-. 2. It occurs in each and all of the Germanic languages of the Gothic stock. 3. It occurs, with a few fragmentary exceptions, in none of the Scandinavian languages of the Gothic stock. 4. In Anglo-Saxon it occasionally indicates a difference of sense; as, hÂten = called, ge-hÂten = promised; boren = borne, ge-boren = born. 5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs. 6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea of association, or collection.—Moeso-Gothic, sinÞs = a journey, ga-sinÞa = a companion; Old High German, perc = hill; ki-perki (gebirge) = a range of hills. 7. But it has also a frequentative power; a frequentative power, which is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power; since things which recur frequently recur 8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality.
This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the object that possesses it; a sea with waves = a wavy sea. 9. Hence it is probable that the ga-, ki-, or gi-, Gothic, is the cum of Latin languages. Such, at least, is Grimm's view, as given in the "Deutsche Grammatik," i. 1016. Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point. It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like ge-feax and ge-heort; i.e., that they imply an association between the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view; he rather suggests that the ge- may have been a prefix to verbs in general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere except in the case of the participle. The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form. CHAPTER XXXI.COMPOSITION. In the compound words tree-apple and apple-tree, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the word tree-apple is not current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A tree-rose is a rose of a particular sort. The generality of roses being on shrubs, this grows on a tree. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the word tree prefixed. A rose-tree is a tree of a particular sort, distinguished from apple-trees, and trees in general (in other words, particularised or defined), by the word rose prefixed. A ground-nut is a nut particularised by growing in the ground. A nut-ground is a ground particularised by producing nuts. A finger-ring, as distinguished from an ear-ring, and from rings in general (and so particularised), is a ring for the finger. A ring-finger, as distinguished from fore-fingers, and from fingers in general (and so particularised), is a finger whereon rings are worn. Composition is the joining together, in language, of two different words, and treating the combination as a single term. Observe the words in italics. In language.—A great number of our compounds, like the word merry-making, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all words spelt Two.—For this, see § 369. Different.—In Old High German we find the form sËlp-sËlpo. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two different ones. This distinguishes composition from gemination. Words.—In father-s, clear-er, four-th, &c., there is the addition of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation. Treating the combination as a single term.—In determining between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a compound word and two words. In the eyes of one grammarian the term mountain height may be as truly a compound word as sun-beam. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as Alpine height is two words; mountain being dealt with as an adjective. It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part. "Then rÉst, my friÉnd, and spÁre thy prÉcious brÉath." On each of the syllables rÉst, friÉnd, spÁre, prÉc-, brÉath, there is an accent. Each of these syllables Now, if in the place of and, there were some other word, a word not so much accented as spare, but still more accented than and, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be at par, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being "Then rÉst, my friÉnd, spare, spare thy prÉcious brÉath." In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the words spare, spare, the accents are nearly at par. Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent. Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following: the lime house near the bridge north of the new port. Compare the parity of accent on the pairs of words lime and house, bridge and north, new and port, with the disparity of accent in the compound words LÍmehouse, BrÍdgenorth, and NÉwport. The separate words beef steak, where the accent is nearly at par, compared with the compound word sweÉpstakes, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further illustrations of the same difference. The difference between a compound word and a pair of words is further illustrated by comparing such terms as the following:—blÁck bÍrd, meaning a bird that Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English language, there is no composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent. In the words a red house, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement suggested by the term is that a house is red. By a parity of reasoning a mad house should mean a house that is mad; and provided that each word retain its natural meaning and its natural accent, such is the fact. Let a house mean, as it often does, a family. Then the phrase, a mad house, means that the house, or family, is mad, just as a red house means that the house is red. Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows that a mad house means a house for mad men; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as LÍmehouse has. Now, compared with the word red house, meaning a house of a red colour, and compared with the words mad house, meaning a deranged family, the word Such is the commentary upon the words, treating the combination as a single term; in other words, such the difference between a compound word and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to exceptions indicated above) thus:—there is no true composition without either a change of form or a change of accent. The term trÉe-rose is often pronounced trÉe rÓse; that is, with the accent at par. It is compound in the one case; it is a pair of words in the other. The terms mountain ash and mountain height are generally (perhaps always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllables mount- and ash, mount- and height, respectively. In this case the word mountain must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as two. The word moÚntain wave is often pronounced with a visible diminution of accent on the 1. A wet sheet and a blowing gale, A breeze that follows fast; That fills the white and swelling sail, And bends the gallant mast.—Allan Cunningham. 2. Britannia needs no bulwarks, No towers along the steep; Her march is o'er the mountain-wave, Her home is on the deep.—Thomas Campbell. To speak first of the term gallant mast. If gallant mean brave, there are two words. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent on mast. If the accent on mast be stronger, the rhyme with fast is more complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being considered as two. Gallant-mast, however, is a compound word, with an especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on gal- and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the metre favours. The same applies to mountain wave. The same person who in prose would throw a stronger accent on mount- and a weaker one on wave (so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, the words two, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent. The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be 1. Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy silver shining quiver. 2. Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy silver-shining quiver.—Cynthia's Revels. Again, without becoming obsolete, a word may alter its form. This is the case with most of our adjectives Real reduplications of consonants, as in hÓp-pÓle, may have the same parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They are rare combinations that require effort and attention. In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it exists in but few words. a. The -a- in black-a-moor is possibly such a connecting element. b. The -in- in night-in-gale is most probably such a connecting element. Compare the German form a. It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that Thursday = Thoris dies. In this case the word is an improper compound, since it is like the word pater-familias in Latin, in a common state of syntactical construction. b. It may be a connecting sound, like the -i- in nacht-i-gale. Reasons for this view occur in the following fact:— In the modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends otherwise than in -s. Nevertheless, the sound of -s- occurs in composition equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine. This fact, as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other exactly, but the effect of a false analogy. Words like mid-ship-man, gentle-man-like, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount to three, are no exception to this rule; since compound radicals like midship and gentleman, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites. These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination. CHAPTER XXXII.ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION. In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable laxity and uncertainty. Gender, number, case.—These have been called the accidents of the noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of declension. Nouns are declined. Person, number, tense, voice.—These have been called the accidents of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of conjugation. Verbs are conjugated. Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking generally, are inflected. Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense. The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c., or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from derivation properly so called, and considered as parts of inflection. I am not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than mere convenience. Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even composition. The details, however, are not entered into. I. According to the evidence.—In the evidence that a word is not simple, but derived, there are at least two degrees. a. That the word strength is a derived word I collect to a certainty from the word strong, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of the nature of the word strength there is the clearest evidence, or evidence of the first degree. b. Fowl, hail, nail, sail, tail, soul; in Anglo-Saxon, fugel, hÆgel, nÆgel, segel, tÆgel, sawel.—These words are by the best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I cannot do what was done with the word strength, I cannot take from them the part which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent word. Strength -th is a true word; fowl or fugel -l is no true word. If I believe II. According to the effect.—The syllable -en in the word whiten changes the noun white into a verb. This is its effect. We may so classify derivational forms as to arrange combinations like -en (whose effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations like -th (whose effect is, as in the word strength, to give the idea of abstraction) form another order. III. According to the form.—Sometimes the derivational element is a vowel (as the -ie in doggie), sometimes a consonant (as the -th in strength), sometimes a vowel and consonant combined; in other words a syllable (as the -en, in whiten), sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the -i in tip, compared with top), sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as the z in prize, compared with price). Sometimes it is a change of accent, like a sÚrvey, compared with to survÉy. To classify derivations in this manner, is to classify them according to their form. IV. According to the historical origin of the derivational elements. V. According to the number of the derivational elements.—In fisher, as compared with fish, there is but one derivational affix. In fishery, as compared with fish, the number of derivational elements is two. CHAPTER XXXIII.ADVERBS. Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we speak of the adverbs of time, place, number, manner. Now, then, here, there.—In the idea expressed by these words there are no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking any inflection. Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of inflection only, viz., that of degree. Better, worse.—Here the words are sometimes adverbs; sometimes adjectives.—This book is better than that—here better agrees with book, and is, therefore, adjectival. This looks better than that—here better qualifies looks, and is therefore adverbial. Again; to do a thing with violence is equivalent to do a thing violently. This shows how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English better, the Latin vi = violenter, the Greek ?a??? = ?a???, we have adjectives in their Brightly, bravely.—Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like brightly, &c., may be called adverbs of derivation. Now.—This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs absolute. a. Substantive; as needs in such expressions as I needs must go. b. Adjectives; as the sun shines bright. c. Prepositions; as I go in, we go out; though, it should be added, that in this case we may as reasonably derive the preposition from the adverb as the adverb from the preposition. a. Substantives in the genitive case; as needs. b. Substantives in the dative case; as whil-om, an antiquated word meaning at times, and often improperly spelt whilome. In such an expression as wait a while, the word still exists; and while = time, or rather pause; since, in Danish, hvile = rest. El-se (for ell-es); unawar-es; eftsoon-s are adjectives in the genitive case. By rights is a word of the same sort; the -s being the sign of the genitive singular like the -s in father's, and not of the accusative plural like the -s in fathers. Once (on-es); twice (twi-es); thrice (thri-es) are numerals in the genitive case. CHAPTER XXXIV.ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE. 1. The idea of rest in a place. 2. The idea of motion towards a place. 3. The idea of motion from a place. This habit gives us three correlative adverbs—one of position, and two of direction.
CHAPTER XXXV.ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN. The masculine accusative cases of the relative and demonstrative pronoun are hwÆne (hwone) and ÞÆne (Þone). Notwithstanding the difference, the first form is a variety of the second; so that the adverbs when and then are really pronominal in origin. This is good; then (or next in order) that is good, is an expression sufficiently similar to this is better than that to have given rise to it; and in Scotch and certain provincial dialects we actually find than instead of then. CHAPTER XXXVI.PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS. CHAPTER XXXVII.ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called their convertibility. Of this convertibility the following statements serve as illustration:— 1. Of case.—In our own language the words my and thy although at present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still, accusatives. Again, the accusative you replaces the nominative ye, and vice versÂ. 2. Of number.—The words thou and thee are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, ye and you, have replaced them. 3. Of person.—The Greek language gives us examples of this in the promiscuous use of ???, ??, sfe, and ?a?t??; whilst sich and sik are used with a similar latitude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian. 4. Of class.—The demonstrative pronouns become— a. Personal pronouns. b. Relative pronouns. c. Articles. The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal. The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its present power and its original power, are often conflicting. Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language as it is, we find, that, whilst my and thy are dealt with as genitive cases, mine and thine are considered adjectives. In the Anglo-Saxon grammars, however, min and Þin, the older forms of mine and thine, are treated as genitives or possessives. a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon mec and Þec. b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon min and Þin, minus the final -n. Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer. It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive.
In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as a case and one as an adjective. This involves two sorts of evidence. Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like mÎner, as opposed to mÎn, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive mÎns is evidently the derivative of mÎn. The reason why the forms like mÎner seem derived is because they are longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition. If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena Þin, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words Þin and min must be construed as the Latin forms tui and mei would be in oculorum mei, and viduÆ mei; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward. Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive. As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the neuter singular sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, nim thata badi theinata = ???? s?? t?? ???at?? (Mark ii. 9), opposed to nim thata badi thein, two verses afterwards. So also with mein and meinata. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with Old High German.—Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it—thin dohter, sÎn quenÂ, min dohter, sinaz lÎb. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the oblique cases drop the inflection. Middle High German.—Preceding the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; sÎn lÎb, mÎn ere, dÎn lÎb, &c. Following the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; ine herse sÎn. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place after the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its maximum in the Middle High German. In Moeso-Gothic we have mein leik and leik meinata. To suppose two adjectival forms, one inflected (min, minre, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (min), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected Þe, as compared with the inflected ÞÆt. CHAPTER XXXVIII.ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE. 1. The Slavonic prÆterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female. 2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the prÆterite is a participle. If, instead of saying ille amavit, the Latins said ille amatus, whilst, instead of saying illa amavit, they said illa amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians. 3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active prÆterite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and prÆterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active prÆterite, is the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive participle.
PART V.SYNTAX. CHAPTER I.ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. There is to me a father.—Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to I have a father. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than of syntax. The cities who aspired to liberty.—A personification of the idea expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the expression. It, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female child, is the reverse of the process. My banks, they are furnished,—the most straitest sect,—these are pleonastic expressions. In the king, he reigns, the word king is in the same predicament as in the king, God bless him. The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in English, is pleonastic. The verb do, in I do speak, is not pleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like must and should, as in I must go, &c.; i.e., it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German, Die Augen thaten ihm winken.—Goethe. Besides this, make is similarly used in Old English,—But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne.—Sir J. Mandeville. Now the words Roman emperor are said to be in apposition to CÆsar. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were, laid alongside (appositi) of the word CÆsar. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it Sand and salt and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding.—Let sand and salt and a mass of iron be dealt with as a series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression is allowable. The king and the lords and commons forms an excellent frame of government.—Here the expression is doubtful. Substitute with for the first and, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form is. The same reason applies to phrases like the two king Williams. If we say the two kings William, we must account for the phrase by apposition. True notion of the original form.—In the phrase I must speak, the word speak is an infinitive. In the phrase I am forced to speak, the word speak is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case, however, it is preceded by to; whilst in the other, the particle to is absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form. Speak - to = the Anglo-Saxon sprÉcan, a simple infinitive; to speak, or speak + to = the Anglo-Saxon to sprÉcanne, an infinitive in the dative case. At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of speech (e.g., a noun), may become another (e.g., a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words. There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility; and although, in some cases, the To err is human = error is human. Now this is an instance of syntactic conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at this moment. The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form only. To err = error; but we have no such form as to errs = errors. Nor is it wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a general statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just as man is mortal = men are mortal. Let the blind lead the blind is not an instance of conversion. The word blind in both instances remains So in the expression one long now, the word now = present time. The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their inflection. CHAPTER II.SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES. The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly points of ellipsis. Ellipsis of substantives.—The historical view of phrases, like Rundell and Bridge's, St. Paul's, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the class of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally. 1. Right and left—supply hand. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The words right and left, have not yet become true substantives; inasmuch as they have no plural forms. In this respect they stand in contrast with bitter and sweet; inasmuch as we can say he has tasted both the bitters and sweets of life. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined on. 2. All fours. To go on all fours. No ellipsis. The word fours is a true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural. CHAPTER III.SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. And this pleonasm really occurs— The more serener spirit. The most straitest sect. These are instances of pleonasm in the strictest sense of the term. When, however, the adjective is qualified by either the expression of its degree, or accompanied by another adjective, it may follow the substantive— A man just and good. A woman wise and fair. A hero devoted to his country. A patriot disinterested to a great degree. Single simple adjectives thus placed after their substantive, belong to the poetry of England, and especially to the ballad poetry—sighs profound—the leaves green. 1. From the fact that in most languages which have inflections to a sufficient extent, the word meaning like governs a dative case. 2. That if ever we use in English any preposition at all to express similitude, it is the preposition to—like to me, like to death, &c. Expressions like full of meat, good for John, are by no means instances of the government of adjectives; the really governing words being the prepositions to and for respectively. The reasons for employing one expression in preference to the other, depend upon the nature of the particular word used. When the word is at one and the same time of Anglo-Saxon origin and monosyllabic, there is no doubt about the preference to be given to the form in -er. Thus, wis-er is preferable to more wise. When, however, the word is compound, or trisyllabic, the combination with the word more, is preferable.
Between these two extremes there are several intermediate forms, wherein the use of one rather than another will depend upon the taste of the writer. The question, however, is a question of euphony, rather than of aught else. It is also illustrated by the principle of not multiplying secondary elements. In such a word as fruit-full-er, there are two additions to the root. The same is the case with the superlative, fruit-full-est. In this case, it is better in speaking of only two objects to use the comparative degree rather than the superlative—even when we use the definite article the. Thus—
is preferable to
This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits of speaking and writing will verify. Thus to go to other parts of speech, we should logically say—
rather than
but not
This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving fresh prominence to the idea of duality, expressed by the terminations -er and -ter. CHAPTER IV.SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS. 1. The king he is just. 2. I saw her, the queen. 3. The men, they were there. 4. The king, his crown. Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first. To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders, and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is against it. 1. We cannot reduce the queen's majesty to the queen his majesty. 2. We cannot reduce the children's bread to the children his bread. 3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in his. 4. The word his itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by assuming it to be he + his. 5. The -s in father's is the -is in patris, and the -?? in pat????. CHAPTER V.THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. Rob me the exchequer,—Henry IV., the me is expletive, and is equivalent to for me. This expletive use of the dative is conveniently called the dativus ethicus. It follows from this that the word self is used to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case. I strike me is awkward, but not ambiguous. Thou strikest thee is awkward, but not ambiguous. He strikes him is ambiguous; inasmuch as him may mean either the person who strikes or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word self when the idea is reflective. He strikes himself is, at once idiomatic and unequivocal. So it is with the plural persons. We strike us is awkward, but not ambiguous. Ye strike you is the same. They strike them is ambiguous. This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person. As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use the word self in combination with the personal pronoun. Yet this was not always the case. The use of the simple personal pronoun was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the first two persons, but for the third as well. The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative moods. He sat him down at a pillar's base.—Byron. Sit thee down. In the phrase I fear me (used by Lord Campbell in his lives of the Chancellors), the verb fear is intransitive or neuter; in other words, the word me (unless, indeed, fear mean terrify), expresses no object of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple expression I fear. Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place, i.e., after a neuter or intransitive verb. Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English. The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indicative and subjunctive moods, before the verb. Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power of the pronoun. The imperative mood, however, sometimes presents a complication. Here the governing person may follow the verb. Mount ye = either be mounted, or mount yourselves. In phrases like this, and in phrases Busk ye, busk ye, my bonny, bonny bride, Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow, the construction is ambiguous. Ye may either be a nominative case governing the verb busk, or an accusative case governed by it. This is an instance of what may be called the equivocal reflective. CHAPTER VI.ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON. mater ejus, not mater sua; pater ejus, — pater suus. The following instances are the latest specimens of its use:
CHAPTER VII.ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF. 1. Government.—In my-self, thy-self, our-selves, and your-selves, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case. My-self = my individuality, and is similarly construed—mea individualitas (or persona), or mei individualitas (or persona). 2. Apposition.—In him-self and them-selves, when accusative, the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun. Himself = him, the individual. 3. Composition.—It is only, however, when himself and themselves, are in the accusative case, that the construction is appositional. When they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like He himself was present They themselves were present, there is neither apposition nor government; him and them, being neither related to my and thy, so as to be governed, nor yet to he and they, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these conditions, the phrases should be either he his self (they Itself—is also ambiguous. The s may represent the -s in its, as well as the s- in self. This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English language. CHAPTER VIII.ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. My, thy, his (as in his book), her, its (as in its book), our, your, their, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms mei, tui, ejus, nostrum, vestrum, eorum. Mine, thine, his (as in the book is his), hers, ours, yours, theirs are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms meus, mea, meum; tuus, tua, tuum; suus, sua, suum; noster, nostra, nostrum; vester, vestra, vestrum. Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i.e., absolutely).—1. As part of a term—this is John's hat. 2. As a whole term—this hat is John's. And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term (i.e. absolutely).—1. As part of a term—these are good hats. 2. As a whole term—these hats are good. Now whether we consider my, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only one of the properties just illustrated, i.e., they can only be used as part of a term—this is my hat; not this hat is my. And whether we consider mine, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only one of the properties just illustrated, i.e., they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely—this hat is mine; not this is mine hat. For a full and perfect construction whether of an adjective or a genitive case, the possessive pronouns present the phenomenon of being, singly, incomplete, but, nevertheless, complementary to each other when taken in their two forms. The same with adjectives.—This weather is fine = this weather is fine weather. And the same with absolute pronouns.—This hat is mine = this hat is my hat; and this is a hat of mine = this is a hat of my hats.
CHAPTER IX.THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 1. John, who trusts me, comes here. 2. John, whom I trust, comes here. 3. John, whose confidence I possess, comes here. 4. I trust John who trusts me. 1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs—John who (1) trusts me (2) comes here. 2. Two verbs express two actions—(1) trust (2) come. 3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does or suffers them is single—John. 4. He (she or it) is single ex vi termini. The relative expresses the identity between the subjects (or objects) 5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same gender. The John who trusts is necessarily of the same gender with the John who comes. 6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number of Johns who trust, is the same as the number of Johns who come. Both these elements of concord are immutable. 7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an action in the other. The John whom I trust may trust me also. Hence a. I trust John—John the object. b. John trusts me—John the agent. 1. I trust John—(2) John trusts me. 2. I trust John—(2) He trusts me. 3. I trust John—(2) Who trusts me. 4. John trusts me—(2) I trust John. 5. John trusts me—(2) I trust him. 6. John trusts me—(2) I trust whom. 7. John trusts me—(2) Whom I trust. 8. John—(2) Whom I trust trusts me. 1. The first proposition; as the books are here. 2. The second proposition; as I want. 3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements. Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind—the word which connects the two propositions being wanting. 1. Solomon the son of David that slew Goliah.—This is unexceptionable. 2. Solomon the son of David who built the temple.—This is exceptionable. Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that Solomon-the-son-of-David is a single many-worded name. CHAPTER X.ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN. Direct.—Who is he? Oblique.—Who do you say that he is? All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative. DIRECT. Qu. Who is this?—Ans. I. Qu. Whose is this?—Ans. His. Qu. Whom do you seek?—Ans. Him. OBLIQUE. Qu. Who do you say that it is?—Ans. He. Qu. Whose do you say that it is?—Ans. His. Qu. Whom do you say that they seek?—Ans. Him. Note.—The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative. Note.—And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer to whom do you say that they seek? is, I say that they seek him.
This confusion, however, is exceptionable. CHAPTER XI.THE RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION. This amount of perspicuity is attained, by different processes, in the French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages. 1. French.—Ils (i.e., A. and B.) se battaient—l'un l'autre. Ils (A. B. C.) se battaient—les uns les autres. In Spanish, uno otro = l'un l'autre, and unos otros = les uns les autres. 2. Danish.—Hinander = the French l'un l'autre; whilst hverandre = les uns les autres. CHAPTER XII.THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS. Sometimes it is by the use of the passive voice. This is the common method in Latin and Greek, and is also current in English—dicitur, ???eta?, it is said. Sometimes the verb is reflective—si dice = it says itself, Italian. Sometimes the plural pronoun of the third person is used. This also is an English locution—they say = the world at large says. Finally, the use of some word = man is a common indeterminate expression. The word man has an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; as man sagt = they say. The word man was also used indeterminately in the Old English, although it is not so used in the Modern. In the Old English, the form man often lost the -n, and became me.—"Deutsche Grammatik." This form is also extinct. It has been stated, that the indeterminate pronoun one has no etymological connection with the numeral one; but that it is derived from the French on = homme When it is the predicate of a proposition, the number of the verb depends upon the number of the subject. These points of universal syntax are mentioned here for the sake of illustrating some anomalous forms. When we say there is these, the analogy between the words these and it misleads us; the expression being illogical. Furthermore, although a predicate, there always stands in the beginning of propositions, i.e., in the place of the subject. This also misleads. CHAPTER XIII.THE ARTICLES. When two or more substantives following each other denote the same object, the article precedes the first only. We say, the secretary and treasurer (or, a secretary and treasurer), when the two offices are held by one person. When two or more substantives following each other denote different objects, the article is repeated, and precedes each. We say, the (or a) secretary and the (or a) treasurer, when the two offices are held by different persons. This rule is much neglected. CHAPTER XIV.THE NUMERALS. Nevertheless such expressions—one two ( = one collection of two), two threes ( = two collections of three) are legitimate. These are so, because the sense of the word is changed. We may talk of several ones just as we may talk of several aces; and of one two just as of one pair. Expressions like the thousand-and-first are incorrect. They mean neither one thing nor another: 1001st being expressed by the thousand-and-first, and 1000th + 1st being expressed by the thousandth and the first. Here it may be noticed that, although I never found it to do so, the word odd is capable of taking an ordinal form. The thousand-and-odd-th is as good an expression as the thousand-and-eight-th. The construction of phrases like the thousand-and-first is the same construction as we find in the king of Saxony's army. The captains of two different classes at school should be called the two first boys. The first and second boys of the same class should be called the first two boys. I believe that when this rule is attended to, more is due to the printer than to the author: such, at least, is the case with myself. CHAPTER XV.ON VERBS IN GENERAL. Transitive verbs.—In transitive verbs the action is never a simple action. It always affects some object or other,—I move my limbs; I strike my enemy. The presence of a transitive verb implies also the presence of a noun; which noun is the name of the object affected. A transitive verb, unaccompanied by a noun, either expressed or understood, is a contradiction in terms. The absence of the nouns, in and of itself, makes it intransitive. I move means, simply, I am in a state of moving. I strike means, simply, I am in the act of striking. Verbs like move and strike are naturally transitive. Intransitive verbs.—An act may take place, and yet no object be affected by it. To hunger, to thirst, to sleep, to wake, are verbs that indicate states of being, rather than actions affecting objects. Verbs like hunger and sleep are naturally intransitive. Many verbs, naturally transitive, may be used as intransitive,—e.g., I move, I strike, &c. Many verbs, naturally intransitive, may be used as transitives,—e.g., I walked the horse = I made the horse walk. This variation in the use of one and the same verb A. Transitive verbs are naturally followed by some noun or other; and that noun is always the name of something affected by them as an object. B. Intransitive verbs are not naturally followed by any noun at all; and when they are so followed, the noun is never the name of anything affected by them as an object. Nevertheless, intransitive verbs may be followed by nouns denoting the manner, degree, or instrumentality of their action,—I walk with my feet = incedo pedibus. For the impersonal verbs see Chapter XXI. CHAPTER XVI.THE CONCORD OF VERBS. It must also agree with it in number,—we walk, not we walks: he walks, not he walk. Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected with the concord of the verb. A. It is I, your master, who command you. Query? would it is I, your master, who commands you, be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the person of the verb. B. The wages of sin is death. Query? would the wages of sin are death be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to the number of the verb. Rule.—In sentences where there is but one proposition, when a noun and a pronoun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the first of them,—I, your master, command you (not commands): your master, I, commands you (not command). To understand the nature of the difficulty, it is Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person—John speaks, the men run, the commander gives orders. Consequently the verb is of the third person also. But the pronoun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in apposition, may be a pronoun of either person, the first or second: I or thou—I the commander—thou the commander.—In this case the construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with the substantive which requires a third person? or with the pronoun which requires a first or second? Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and, undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines the construction of the verb. We may illustrate this from the analogy of a similar construction in respect to number—a man with a horse and a gig meets me on the road. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expression I, your master, the ideas are two; viz., the idea expressed by I, and the idea expressed by master. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single. Your master, I, is in the same condition. The general statement is made concerning the master, and it is intended to say what he does. The word I merely From the analysis of the structure of complex subjects of the kind in question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject, which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions, the foregoing rule is absolute. Rule.—In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun (whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first. 1. It is I. 2. Who commands you. Here the word master is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence, i.e., the whole sentence may be divided into Either—it is I your master— Or—your master who commands you. This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second clause (command or commands) is governed, not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative, i.e., in the particular case before us, not by either I or master, but by who. And this brings us to the following question—with which of the two antecedents does the relative agree? with I or with master? This may be answered by the two following rules;— Rule 1.—When the two antecedents are in the 1. It is I your master— 2. Who command you. Rule 2.—When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus— 1. It is I— 2. Your master who commands you. This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be called the distribution of the substantive antecedent will bear criticism. Rule 1. That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word master is logically connected with the word command; and this fact makes the expression, It is I your master who commands you the better of the two. Rule 2. That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the first clause. It is I, John, who command (not commands) you. To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:— 1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative. 2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents. 3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself. 4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative. Respecting the person of the verb in the first proposition of a complex sentence there is no doubt. I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am (not is) in a hurry. Here, I am in a hurry is the first proposition; who commands you to make haste, the second. It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition, their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent members of the sentence. Rule 1. That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the subject. The only way to justify such an expression as the wages of sin is death, is to consider death not as the subject, but as the predicate; in other words, to consider the construction to be, death is the wages of sin. Rule 2. That, except in the case of the word there, the word which comes first is generally the subject. Rule 3. That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction. The sun and moon shine,—the sun in conjunction with the moon shines. Singular subjects with plural predicates.—These constructions are rarer than the preceding: inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken of as being equivalent to two or more. Sixpence is twelve halfpennies. He is all head and shoulders. Vulnera totus erat. Tu es deliciÆ meÆ. ??t??, ?t?? s? ?? ?ss? pat?? ?a? p?t??a ?t??, ?d? ?as????t??, s? d? ?? ?a?e??? pa?a???t??. CHAPTER XVII.ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some object affected by the action of the verb,—as he strikes me; he wounds the enemy. It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c. The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may also be modal,—I strike the enemy with the sword = ferio hostem gladio. The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,—I walk with the stick. When we say, I walk the horse, the word walk has changed its meaning, and signifies make to walk, and is, by the very fact of its being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive into a transitive verb. The modal construction may also be called the adverbial construction; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,—I fight with bravery = I fight bravely: he walks a king = he walks regally. The modal (or adverbial) construction, sometimes takes the appearance of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are CHAPTER XVIII.ON THE PARTICIPLES. 1. When substantives, they are in regimen, and govern a genitive case—What is the meaning of the lady's holding up her train? Here the word holding = the act of holding.—Quid est significatio elevationis pallÆ de parte foeminÆ. 2. When participles, they are in apposition or concord, and would, if inflected, appear in the same case with the substantive, or pronoun, preceding them—What is the meaning of the lady holding up her train? Here the word holding = in the act of holding, and answers to the Latin foeminÆ elevantis.—Quid est significatio foeminÆ elevantis pallam? CHAPTER XIX.ON THE MOODS. When one verb is followed by another without the preposition to, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or from the form in -an. Such is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others:
This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions. When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the preposition to, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund, i.e., the form in -nne, i.e., the dative case—I begin to move. This is the case with the great majority of English verbs. CHAPTER XX.ON THE TENSES. It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future power—I beat you ( = I will beat you) if you don't leave off. CHAPTER XXI.SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. Ego et Balbus sustulimus manus. Tu et Balbus sustulistis manus. Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence we say I and you are friends, you and I are friends, I and he are friends, &c., so that for the practice of language, the question as to the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference. Nevertheless, it may occur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns of different persons, and of the singular number, follow each other disjunctively, the question of concord arises. I or you,—you or 1. Whenever the words either or neither precede the pronouns, the verb is in the third person. Either you or I is in the wrong; neither you nor I is in the wrong. 2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i.e. unaccompanied with the word either or neither) the verb agrees with the first of the two pronouns. I (or he) am in the wrong. He (or I) is in the wrong. Thou (or he) art in the wrong. He (or thou) is in the wrong. Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is placed first—whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence ego et Balbus sustulimus manus) sustulimus agrees, in person, with ego, not because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in the proposition, This is because in Anglo-Saxon the word Þincan = seem. Hence me-thinks is fa??eta? ??, or mihi videtur, and me is a dative case, not an accusative. The Þencan = think, was, in Anglo-Saxon, a different word. CHAPTER XXII.ON THE VOICES OF VERBS. The following couplet from Dryden's "Mac Flecnoe" exhibits a construction which requires explanation:— An ancient fabric, raised to inform the sight, There stood of yore, and Barbican it hight. Here the word hight = was called, and seems to present an instance of the participle being used in a passive sense without the so-called verb substantive. Yet it does no such thing. The word is no participle at all; but a simple preterite. Certain verbs are naturally either passive or active, as one of two allied meanings may predominate. To be called is passive; so is, to be beaten. But, to bear as a name is active; so is, to take a beating. The word, hight, is of the same class of verbs with the Latin vapulo; and it is the same as the Latin word, cluo.—Barbican cluit = Barbican audivit = Barbican it hight. CHAPTER XXIII.ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. A. Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflection or non-inflectional powers.—Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus—I am struck = the Latin ferior, and the Greek t?pt?a?. These auxiliaries are in the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional auxiliaries are,— 1. Have; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense—I have bitten = mo-mordi. 2. Shall; ditto. I shall call = voc-abo. 3. Will; ditto. I will call = voc-abo. 4. May; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. I am come that I may see = venio ut vid-eam. 5. Be; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. To be beaten = verberari, t?ptes?a?. 6. Am, art, is, are; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense. I am moving = move-o. 7. Was, were; ditto, ditto. I was beaten = ?-t?f???. I was moving = move-bam. Do, can, must, and let, are non-inflectional auxiliaries. B. Classification of auxiliaries according to their 1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession—have. 2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence—be, is, was. 3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent—shall. There are etymological reasons for believing that shall is no present tense, but a perfect. 4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon the volition of the agent—will. Shall is simply predictive; will is predictive and promissive as well. 5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent—may. 6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances internal to the agent—can. May is simply permissive; can is potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the cause which determines a contingent action, can is in the same relation to may as will is to shall.
7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance—let. 8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity—must.
9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action—do. C. Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of construction.—Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways. 1. With participles.—a) With the present, or active, participle—I am speaking: b) With the past, or passive, participle—I am beaten, I have beaten. 2. With infinitives.—a) With the objective infinitive—I can speak: b) With the gerundial infinitive—I have to speak. 3. With both infinitives and participles.—I shall have done, I mean to have done. D. Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their effect.—Thus—have makes the combination in which it appears equivalent to a tense; be to a passive form; may to a sign of mood, &c. This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than exhausting, the subject. 1. The combination with the participle of a transitive 2. The combination with the participle of an intransitive verb,—I have waited; thou hast hungered; he has slept. 3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive, I have been; thou hast been; he has been. It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true construction is to be shown. For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a previous existence. Hence, in all expressions like I have ridden a horse, there are two ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word denoting possession. For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,—the participle, ridden, being in the past tense. I have ridden a horse = I have a horse ridden = I have a horse as a ridden horse, or (changing the gender and dealing with the word horse as a thing) I have a horse as a ridden thing. In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1) Have = own = habeo = teneo; (2) horse is the accusative case equum; (3) ridden is a past participle agreeing either with horse, or with a word in apposition with it understood. Mark the words in italics. The word ridden does not agree with horse, since it is of the neuter gender. The true construction is arrived at by supplying the word thing. I have a horse as a ridden thing = habeo equum equitatum (neuter). Here the construction is the same as triste lupus stabulis. I have horses as a ridden thing = habeo equos equitatum (singular, neuter). Here the construction is— "Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres, Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllidos irÆ." or in Greek— ?e???? ???a???? a? d?' ?d???? ???a?. The classical writers supply instances of this use of have. Compertum habeo, milites, verba viris virtutem non addere = I have discovered = I am in possession of the discovery. QuÆ cum ita sint, satis de CÆsare hoc dictum habeo. The combination of have with an intransitive verb is irreducible to the idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In I have waited, we cannot make the idea expressed by the word waited the object of the verb have or possess. The expression has become a part of language by means of the extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate imitation. The combination of have with been is more illogical still, and is a stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German and Italian, where even intransitive verbs are combined with the equivalents to the English have (haben, and avere), the verb substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are Italian; io sono stato = I am been. German; ich bin gewesen = ditto. which is logical. 1. The idea of direction towards an object conveyed by the dative case, and by combinations equivalent to it. 2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are connected with the idea of something that has to be done, or something towards which some action has a tendency. 3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; since to speak grows out of the Anglo-Saxon form to sprecanne, which, although called a gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood. When Johnson thought that, in the phrase he is to blame, the word blame was a noun, if he meant a noun in the way that culpa is a noun, his view was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way that culpare, ad culpandum, are nouns, it was right. The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering that an object to be blamed, is an object for some one to blame, an object to be loved is an object for some one to love. The following table exhibits the expedients on the part of the different languages of the Gothic stock,
CHAPTER XXIV.THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS. Adverbs have no concord. Neither have they any government. They seem, indeed, to have it, when they are in the comparative or superlative degree; but it is merely apparent. In this is better than that, the word that is governed neither by better nor by than. It is not governed at all. It is a nominative case; the subject of a separate proposition. This is better (i.e., more good) than that is good. Even if we admit such an expression as he is stronger than me to be good English, there is no adverbial government. Than, if it govern me at all, governs it as a preposition. The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax, pre-eminently parenthetic; i.e., it may be omitted without injuring the construction. He is fighting—now; he was fighting—then; he fights—bravely; I am almost—tired, &c. Adverbs are convertible. The then men = ?? ??? ??t??, &c. This will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions. CHAPTER XXV.ON PREPOSITIONS. 1. I climbed up the tree. 2. I climbed up. All prepositions in English, precede the noun which they govern. I climbed up the tree, never I climbed the tree up. This is a matter not of government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages; and, from the frequency of its occurrence, the term pre-position (or pre-fix) has originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In many languages the prepositions are post-positive, following their noun. CHAPTER XXVI.ON CONJUNCTIONS. From this it follows, that whenever there is a conjunction, there are two subjects, two copulas, and two predicates: i.e., two propositions in all their parts. But this may be expressed compendiously. The sun shines, and the moon shines may be expressed by the sun and moon shine. Nevertheless, however compendious may be the expression, there are always two propositions wherever there is one conjunction. A part of speech that merely combines two words is a preposition,—the sun along with the moon shines. It is highly important to remember that conjunctions connect propositions. It is also highly important to remember that many double propositions may be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. When this takes place, and any question arises as to the construction, they must be exhibited in their fully expanded form, i.e., the second subject, the second predicate, and the second copula must be supplied. This can always be done from the first The conjunction of comparison, than, is derived from the adverb of time, then: which is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative pronoun. The conjunction, that, is derived also from a demonstrative pronoun. The conjunction, therefore, is a demonstrative pronoun + a preposition. The conjunction, because, is a substantive governed by a preposition. One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a conjunction or preposition, as the case may be. All fled but John.—If this mean all fled except John, the word but is a preposition, the word John is an accusative case, and the proposition is single. If instead of John, we had a personal pronoun, we should say all fled but him. All fled but John.—If this mean all fled but John did not fly, the word but is a conjunction, the word John is a nominative case, and the propositions are two in number. If, instead of John, we had a personal pronoun, we should say, all fled but he. From the fact of the great convertibility of conjunctions it is often necessary to determine whether a word be a conjunction or not. If it be a conjunction, it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case it is no conjunction 1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact—the day is clear because the sun shines. Here there is neither doubt nor contingency of either the day being clear, or of the sun shining. Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other—the day will be clear if the sun shine. Here, although it is certain that if the sun shine the day will be clear, there is no certainty of the sun shining. Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and that is certain only conditionally. Now an action, wherein there enters any notion of uncertainty, or indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, is expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive. If the sun shine (not shines) the day will be clear. Simple uncertainty will not constitute a subjunctive construction,—I am, perhaps, in the wrong. Neither will simple connection.—I am wrong, because you are right. But, the two combined constitute the construction in question,—if I be wrong, you are right. Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions may be said to govern an indicative mood. And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood. The government of mood is the only form of government of which conjunctions are capable. Between the relative pronouns and conjunctions in general there is this point of connection,—both join propositions. Wherever there is a relative, there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction. Between certain relative pronouns and those particular conjunctions that govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do, through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives: these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person, or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative is indefinite, there is room for the use of a subjunctive mood. Thus—"he that troubled you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be." 1. Except I be by Silvia in the night, There is no music in the nightingale.—Shakspeare.
3. ——Revenge back on itself recoils. Let it. I reck not, so it light well aimed.—J. Milton. 4. If this be the case.
Expressions like except and unless are equally conditional with words like if and provided that, since they are equivalent to if—not. Expressions like though and although are peculiar. They join propositions, of which the one is a prim facie reason against the existence of the other: and this is the conditional element. In the sentence, if the children be so badly brought-up, they are not to be trusted, the bad bringing-up is the reason for their being unfit to be trusted; and, as far as the expression is concerned, is admitted to be so. The only uncertainty lies in the question as to the degree of the badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal. But if, instead of saying if, we say although, and omit the word not, so that the sentence run although the children be so badly brought-up they are to be trusted, we do two things: we indicate the general relation of cause and effect that exists between bad bringing-up and unfitness for being trusted, but we also, at the same time, take an exception to it in the particular instance before us. These remarks have been made for the sake of showing the extent to which words like though, &c., are conditional. It must be remembered, however, that conjunctions, like the ones lately quoted, do not govern subjunctive moods because they are conditional, but because, in the particular condition which they accompany, there is an element of uncertainty. 1. Those which express a condition as an actual fact, and one admitted as such by the speaker. 2. Those which express a condition as a possible fact, and one which the speaker either does not admit, or admits only in a qualified manner. Since the children are so badly brought-up, &c.—This is an instance of the first construction. The speaker admits as an actual fact the bad bringing-up of the children. If the children be so badly brought-up, &c.—This is an instance of the second construction. The speaker admits as a possible (perhaps, as a probable) fact the bad bringing-up of the children: but he does not adopt it as an indubitable one. Although may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which is doubted. a. Although the children are, &c. b. Although the children be, &c. If, too, may precede propositions wherein there is no doubt whatever implied: in other words it may be used instead of since. In some languages this interchange goes farther than in others; in the Greek, for instance, such is the case with e?, to a very great extent indeed. Hence we must look to the meaning of the sentence in general, rather than to the particular conjunction used. It is a philological fact that if may stand instead of since. It is also a philological fact that when it does so it should be followed by the indicative mood. This is written in the way of illustration. What applies to if applies to other conjunctions as well. Insert, immediately after the conjunction, one of the two following phrases,—(1.) as is the case; (2.) as may or may not be the case. By ascertaining which of these two supplements expresses the meaning of the speaker, we ascertain the mood of the verb which follows. When the first formula is the one required, there is no element of doubt, and the verb should be in the indicative mood. If (as is the case), he is gone, I must follow him. When the second formula is the one required, there is an element of doubt, and the verb should be in the subjunctive mood. If (as may or may not be the case) he be gone, I must follow him. The most important point connected with the powers of that is the so-called succession of tenses. I do this that I may gain by it I did this that I might gain by it. In the Greek language this is expressed by a difference of mood; the subjunctive being the construction equivalent to may, the optative to might. The Latin idiom coincides with the English. A little consideration will show that this rule is absolute. For a man to be doing one action (in present time) in order that some other action may follow it (in past time) is to reverse the order of cause and effect. To do anything in A.D. 1851, that something may result from it in 1850 is a contradiction; and so it is to say I do this that I might gain by it. The reasons against the converse construction are nearly, if not equally cogent. To have done anything at any previous time in order that a present effect may follow, is, ipso facto, to convert a past act into a present one, or, to speak in the language of the grammarian, to convert I did this that I might gain. I have done this that I may gain. A king or queen always rules in England. Here the disjunction is real; king or queen being different names for different objects. In all real disjunctions the inference is, that if one out of two (or more) individuals (or classes) do not perform a certain action, the other does. A sovereign or supreme ruler always rules in England. Here the disjunction is nominal; sovereign and supreme governor being different names for the same object. In all nominal disjunctives the inference is, that if an agent (or agents) do not perform a certain action under one name, he does (or they do) it under another. Nominal disjunctives are called by Harris subdisjunctives. In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, vel is considered by Harris to be disjunctive, sive subdisjunctive. As a periphrasis, the combination in other words is subdisjunctive. Both nominal and real disjunctives agree in this,—whatever may be the number of nouns which they connect, the construction of the verb is the same as if there were but one—Henry, or John, or Thomas, walks (not walk); the sun, or solar luminary, shines (not shine). The disjunctive isolates the subject, however much it may be placed in juxtaposition with other nouns. CHAPTER XXVII.THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. When the verb is not in the infinitive mood, the negative follows it.—He advanced not. I cannot. This rule is absolute. It only seems to precede the verb in such expressions as I do not advance, I cannot advance, I have not advanced, &c. However, the words do, can, and have, are no infinitives; and it consequently follows them. The word advance is an infinitive, and it consequently precedes it. Wallis's rule makes an equivalent statement, although differently. "Adverbium negandi not (non) verbo postponitur (nempe auxiliari primo si adsit; aut si non adsit auxiliare, verbo principali): aliis tamen orationis partibus prÆfigi solet."—P. 113. That the negative is rarely used, except with an auxiliary, in other words, that the presence of a negative converts a simple form like it burneth not into the circumlocution it does not burn, is a fact in the practice of the English language. The syntax is the same in either expression. But not always. In Byron's "Deformed Transformed" we find the following lines:— Clay! not dead but soulless, Though no mortal man would choose thee, An immortal no less Deigns not to refuse thee. Here not to refuse = to accept; and is probably a Grecism. To not refuse would, perhaps, be better. The next expression is still more foreign to the English idiom:— For not to have been dipped in Lethe's lake Could save the son of Thetis from to die. Here not is to be taken with could. Or hear'st thou (cluis, Lat.) rather pure ethereal stream, Whose fountain who (no one) shall tell?—Paradise Lost. CHAPTER XXVIII.ON THE CASE ABSOLUTE. Considering the nature of the connection between the two actions, we find good grounds for expecting À priori that the participle will be in the instrumental case, when such exists in the language: and when not, in some case allied to it, i.e., the ablative or dative. In Latin the ablative is the case that is used absolutely. Sole orto, claruit dies. In Anglo-Saxon the absolute case was the dative. This is logical. In the present English, however, the nominative is the absolute case. He made the best proverbs, him alone excepted, is an expression of Tillotson's. We should now write he alone excepted. The present mode of expression PART VI.PROSODY. Then fÁre thee wÉll, mine Ówn dear lÓve, The wÓrld hath nÓw for Ús No greÁter griÉf, no paÍn abÓve The paÍn of pÁrting thÚs.—Moore. Here the syllables accented are the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 24th, 26th, 28th; that is, every other syllable.—Again, At the clÓse of the dÁy, when the hÁmlet is stÍll, And the mÓrtals the sweÉts of forgÉtfulness prÓve, And when nÓught but the tÓrrent is heÁrd on the hÍll, And there's nÓught but the nÍghtingale's sÓng in the grÓve.—Beattie. Here the syllables accented are the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 27th, 30th, 33rd, 36th, 39th, 42nd, 45th, 48th; that is, every third syllable. Abbot.—And whÝ not lÍve and Áct with Óther mÉn? Manfred.—BecaÚse my nÁture wÁs avÉrse from lÍfe; And yÉt not crÚel, fÓr I woÚld not mÁke, But fÍnd a dÉsolÁtion:—lÍke the wÍnd, The rÉd-hot breÁth of thÉ most lÓne simoÓm, Which dwÉlls but Ín the dÉsert, Ánd sweeps o'Ér The bÁrren sÁnds which beÁr no shrÚbs to blÁst, And rÉvels Ó'er their wÍld and Árid wÁves, And seÉketh nÓt so thÁt it Ís not soÚght, But bÉing mÉt is deÁdly: sÚch hath beÉn The pÁth of mÝ exÍstence.—Byron. The wÁy was lÓng, the wÍnd was cÓld.—Scott. or expressed symbolically x a x a x a x a, where x coincides with the, a with way, &c. The first of these is exhibited in the word mÉrrily (a x x). MÉrrily, mÉrrily shÁll I live nÓw, Únder the blÓssom that hÁngs on the boÚgh.—Shakspeare. The second is exhibited by the word disÁble (x a x). But vaÍnly thou wÁrrest, For thÍs is alÓne in Thy pÓwer to declÁre, That Ín the dim fÓrest Thou heÁrd'st a low moÁning, And sÁw'st a bright lÁdy surpÁssingly faÍr.—Coleridge. There's a beaÚty for Éver unfÁdingly brÍght, Like the lÓng ruddy lÁpse of a sÚmmer-day's nÍght.—Moore. When grouped together according to certain rules, measures form lines and verses; and lines and verses, Again—compared with the words bold and told, the words teeth and breeze have two of the elements necessary to constitute a rhyme. The vowels are alike (ee), whilst the parts preceding the vowels are different (br and t); and, as far as these two matters are concerned, the rhyme is a good one, tee and bree. Notwithstanding this, there is anything rather than a rhyme; since the parts following the vowel (th and ze) instead of agreeing, differ. Breathe and beneath are in the same Again—the words feel and mill constitute only a false and imperfect rhyme. Sound for sound, the letters f and m (the parts preceding the vowel) are different. This is as it should be. Also, sound for sound, l and ll (the parts following the vowel) are identical; and this is as it should be also: but ee and i (the vowels) are different, and this difference spoils the rhyme. None and own are in the same predicament; since one o is sounded as o in note, and the other as the u in but. From what has gone before we get the notion of true and perfect rhymes as opposed to false and imperfect ones. For two (or more) words to rhyme to each other, it is necessary a. That the vowel be the same in both. b. That the parts following the vowel be the same. c. That the parts preceding the vowel be different. Beyond this it is necessary that the syllables, to form a full and perfect rhyme, should be accented syllables. Sky and lie form good rhymes, but sky and merrily bad ones, and merrily and silly worse. Lines like the second and fourth of the following stanza are slightly exceptionable on this score: indeed, many readers sacrifice the accent in the word mÉrrily to the rhyme, and pronounce it merrilÝ. The wÍtch she hÉld the haÍr in her hÁnd, The rÉd flame blÁzed hÍgh; And roÚnd aboÚt the cÁldron stoÚt, They dÁnced right mÉrrilÝ.—Kirke White. Whose generous children narrow'd not their hearts With commerce, giv'n alone to arms and arts.—Byron. In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease, Sprang the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.—Pope. Bold in the practice of mistaken rules, Prescribe, apply, and call their masters fools. They talk of principles, but notions prize, And all to one loved folly sacrifice.—Pope. 'Tis hard to say if greater want of skill Appear in writing or in judging ill; But of the two, less dangerous is the offence To tire the patience than mislead the sense. Some few in that, but thousands err in this; Ten censure wrong, for one that writes amiss.—Pope. The meeting points the sacred hair dissever From her fair head for ever and for ever.—Pope. Prove and explain a thing till all men doubt it, And write about it, Goddess, and about it.—Pope. Beware that its fatal ascÉndancy Do not tempt thee to mope and repine; With a humble and hopeful depÉndency Still await the good pleasure divine. Success in a higher beÁtitude, Is the end of what's under the Pole; A philosopher takes it with grÁtitude, And believes it the best on the whole.—Byron. Of man's first disobedience and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world and all our woe, With loss of Eden, till one greater Man Restore us, and regain the blissful seat, Sing, Heavenly Muse!—Milton. The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle dew from heaven Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless'd, It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes 'Tis mightiest of the mighty, it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown. His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute of awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings: But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings: It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice.—Shakspeare. QueÉn and hÚntress, chÁste and faÍr, NÓw the sÚn is laÍd to slÉep, Seated Ín thy sÍlver chaÍr, StÁte in wÓnted splÉndour keÉp. HÉsperÚs invÓkes thy lÍght, GÓddess, ÉxquisÍtely brÍght.—Ben Jonson. In all these lines the last measure is deficient in a syllable, yet the deficiency is allowable, because each measure is the last one of the line. The formula for expressing faÍr, slÉep, chaÍr, &c. is not a, but rather a x followed by the minus sign (-), or a x-. A little consideration will show that amongst the English measures, x a and x x a naturally form single, a x and x a x double, and a x x treble rhymes. 1. Gay's stanza.—Lines of three measures, x a, with alternate rhymes. The odd (i.e. the 1st and 3rd) rhymes double. 'Twas when the seas were roaring With hollow blasts of wind, A damsel lay deploring, All on a rock reclined. 2. Common octosyllabics.—Four measures, x a, with rhyme, and (unless the rhymes be double) eight syllables (octo syllabÆ).—Butler's Hudibras, Scott's poems, The Giaour, and other poems of Lord Byron. 3. Elegiac octosyllabics.—Same as the last, except that the rhymes are regularly alternate, and the verses arranged in stanzas. And on her lover's arm she leant, And round her waist she felt it fold, And far across the hills they went, In that new world which now is old: Across the hills and far away, Beyond their utmost purple rim, And deep into the dying day The happy princess follow'd him.—Tennyson. 4. Octosyllabic triplets.—Three rhymes in succession. Generally arranged as stanzas. I blest them, and they wander'd on; I spoke, but answer came there none; The dull and bitter voice was gone.—Tennyson. 5. Blank verse.—Five measures, x a, without rhyme, Paradise Lost, Young's Night Thoughts, Cowper's Task. 6. Heroic couplets.—Five measures, x a, with pairs of rhymes. Chaucer, Denham, Dryden, Waller, Pope, Goldsmith, Cowper, Byron, Moore, Shelley, &c. This is the common metre for narrative, didactic, and descriptive poetry. 7. Heroic triplets.—Five measures, x a. Three rhymes in succession. Arranged in stanzas. This metre is sometimes interposed among heroic couplets. 8. Elegiacs.—Five measures, x a; with regularly alternate rhymes, and arranged in stanzas. The curfew tolls the knell of parting day, The lowing herds wind slowly o'er the lea, The ploughman homewards plods his weary way, And leaves the world to darkness and to me.—Gray. 9. Rhymes royal.—Seven lines of heroics, with the last two rhymes in succession, and the first five recurring at intervals. This Troilus, in gift of curtesie, With hauk on hond, and with a huge rout Of knightes, rode, and did her company, Passing all through the valley far about; And further would have ridden out of doubt. Full faine and woe was him to gone so sone; But turn he must, and it was eke to doen.—Chaucer. This metre was common with the writers of the earlier part of Queen Elizabeth's reign. It admits of varieties according to the distribution of the first five rhymes. 10. Ottava rima.—A metre with an Italian name, and borrowed from Italy, where it is used generally for narrative poetry. The Morgante Maggiore of Pulci, the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo, the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto, the Gierusalemme Liberata of Tasso, are all written in this metre. Besides this, the two chief epics of Spain and Portugal respectively (the Auraucana and the Lusiados) are thus composed. Hence it is a form of poetry which is Continental rather than Arrived there, a prodigious noise he hears, Which suddenly along the forest spread; Whereat from out his quiver he prepares An arrow for his bow, and lifts his head; And, lo! a monstrous herd of swine appears, And onward rushes with tempestuous tread, And to the fountain's brink precisely pours, So that the giant's join'd by all the boars. Morgante Maggiore (Ld. Byron's Translation.) 11. Terza rima.—Like the last, borrowed both in name and nature from the Italian, and scarcely yet naturalized in England. The Spirit of the fervent days of old, When words were things that came to pass, and Thought Flash'd o'er the future, bidding men behold Their children's children's doom already brought Forth from the abyss of Time which is to be, The chaos of events where lie half-wrought Shapes that must undergo mortality: What the great seers of Israel wore within, That Spirit was on them and is on me: And if, Cassandra-like, amidst the din Of conflicts, none will hear, or hearing heed This voice from out the wilderness, the sin Be theirs, and my own feelings be my meed, The only guerdon I have ever known. 12. Alexandrines.—Six measures, x a, generally (perhaps always) with rhyme. The name is said to be taken from the fact that early romances upon the deeds of Alexander of Macedon, of great popularity, were written in this metre. One of the longest poems in the 13. Spenserian stanza.—A stanza consisting of nine lines, the first eight heroics, the last an Alexandrine. It hath been through all ages ever seen, That with the prize of arms and chivalrie The prize of beauty still hath joined been, And that for reason's special privitie; For either doth on other much rely. For he meseems most fit the fair to serve That can her best defend from villanie; And she most fit his service doth deserve, That fairest is, and from her faith will never swerve.—Spenser. Childe Harold and other important poems are composed in the Spenserian stanza. 14. Service metre.—Couplets of seven measures, x a. This is the common metre of the Psalm versions. It is also called common measure, or long measure. In this metre there is always a pause after the fourth measure, and many grammarians consider that with that pause the line ends. According to this view, the service metre does not consist of two long lines with seven measures each; but of four short ones, with four and three measures each alternately. The Psalm versions are printed so as to exhibit this pause or break. The Lord descended from above, " and bow'd the heavens most high, And underneath his feet He cast " the darkness of the sky. On Cherubs and on Seraphim " full royally He rode, And on the wings of mighty winds " came flying all abroad.—Sternhold and Hopkins. In this matter the following distinction is convenient. When the last syllable of the fourth measure (i.e. the eighth syllable in the line) in the one verse rhymes with Turn, gentle hermit of the glen, " and guide thy lonely way To where yon taper cheers the vale " with hospitable ray— constitute a single couplet of two lines, the number of rhymes being two. But, Turn, gentle hermit of the dale, And guide thy lonely way To where yon taper cheers the vale With hospitable ray—(Goldsmith) constitute a stanza of four lines, the number of rhymes being four. 15. Ballad stanza.—Service metre broken up in the way just indicated. Goldsmith's Edwin and Angelina, &c. 16. Poulterer's measure.—Alexandrines and service metre alternately. Found in the poetry of Henry the Eighth's time. PART VII.THE DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Others are named as if their population were preeminently Angle rather than Saxon; thus, the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk once constituted the kingdom of the East Angles, and even at the present moment, are often spoken of as East Anglia. Thus, that the dialect of Hampshire, which was part of Wes-sex, should differ from that of Norfolk, which was part of East Anglia, is but natural. There is a great space of country between them—a fact sufficient to account for their respective characteristics, without assuming an original difference of population. Between the Saxons of Es-sex and the Anglians of Suffolk, no one has professed to find any notable difference. Hence, no division of the English dialects into those of Saxon or those of Angle origin, has been successful. Neither have any peculiarities in the dialect of Kent, or the Isle of Wight, verified the notion of the population for those parts having been originally Jute. Nor yet has any portion of England been shown by the evidence of its dialects, to have been Frisian. That differential points between the Angles and Saxons will be sought in vain is also probable. On the other hand, differential points between the Frisians and Angles are likely to be discovered. a. The combination Sk-, rather than the sound of Sh-, in such names as Skip-ton, rather than Ship-ton. b. The combination Ca-, rather than Ch-, in such names as Carl-ton rather than Charl-ton. c. The termination -by ( = town, habitation, occupancy,) rather than -ton, as Ash-by, Demble-by, Spills-by, Grims-by, &c. d. The form Kirk rather than Church. e. The form Orm rather than Worm, as in Orms-head. In Orms-kirk and Kir-by we have a combination of Danish characteristics. At their maximum on the sea-coast of Lincolnshire; i.e., in the parts about Spills-by. Common, but less frequent, in Yorkshire, the Northern counties of England, the South-eastern parts of Scotland, Lancashire, (Ormskirk, Horn-by), and parts of South Wales (Orms-head, Ten-by). In Orkney, and the northern parts of Scotland, the Norse had originally the same influence that the Anglo-Saxon had in the south.—See the chapter of the Lowland Scotch. This explains the peculiar distribution of the Norse forms. Rare, or non-existent, in central and southern England, they appear on the opposite sides of the island, and on its northern extremity; showing that the stream of the Norse population went round the island rather than across it. Mr. Guest has given good reasons for believing it to have arisen out of a Mercian, rather than a West-Saxon dialect—although of the Anglo-Saxon the West-Saxon was the most cultivated form. This is confirmed by the present state of the Mercian dialects. The country about Huntingdon and Stamford is, in the mind of the present writer, that part of England where provincial peculiarities are at the minimum. This may be explained in various ways, of which none is preferable to the doctrine, that the dialect for those parts represents the dialect out of which the literary language of England became developed. Such are the chief problems connected with the study NOTE.
QUESTIONS ON PARTS IV. V. VI. and VII.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
