  TO THE STUDY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGEPART I.GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. ———— CHAPTER I.GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—DATE. 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 known, as well as the different localities upon which they descended. These were as follows:— Questions like these being answered, and a certain amount of mutual difference being ascertained, it would then stand over to inquire whether any traces of this original difference were still to be found in the modern English. Have any provincial dialects characteristics which are Jute rather than Angle? or Angle rather than Saxon? It is clear that the second of these questions is involved in the answer given to the first. 1. That the geographical locality of the Jutes was the Peninsula of Jutland. 2. That that of Angles, was the present Dutchy of Sleswick; so that they were the southern neighbours of the Jutes. 3. That that of the Saxons was a small tract north of the Elbe, and some distinct point—more or less extensive—between the Elbe and Rhine. 4. That, although there were, probably, dialectal differences between the languages, the speech of all the three tribes was mutually intelligible. 1. For the characteristic differentiÆ of the Jutes, in Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle of Wight. 2. For those of the Saxons in Sussex, Essex, Hants (Wessex), and Middlesex. 3. For those of the Angles in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland. Or, changing the expression:— 1. The differentiÆ of the people of Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle of Wight (if any), are to be explained by the differentiÆ of the original Jute immigrants— 2. Those of the rest of Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Middlesex, by those of the Saxons— 3. Those of the people of Norfolk, &c., by those of the Angles. Such is our reasoning, and such a sketch of our philological researches—assuming that the opinions just exhibited, concerning the dates, conductors, localities, and order, are absolute and unimpeachable historical facts. 1. The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but traditional.—a. Bede, from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote more than 300 years after the supposed event, i.e., the landing of Hengist and Horsa, in A.D. 449. b. The nearest contemporary author is Gildas, and he lived at least 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, Visigoths, and GepidÆ, also in three vessels, to the mouths of the Vistula." b. The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told totidem verbis, by Widukind, and others of the Old Saxons in Thuringia. c. Geoffry of Monmouth relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the Britons as much land as could be enclosed 3. There is direct evidence in favour of there having been German tribes in England anterior to A.D. 447.—a. At the close of the Marcomannic war, Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.—Dio Cassius, lxxi. lxiii. b. Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under Valentinian. c. The Notitia utriusque imperii, 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. I conclude with the following extract:—"We are ignorant what fasti or even mode of reckoning the revolutions of seasons prevailed in England, previous to the introduction of Christianity. We know not how any event before the year 600 was recorded, or to what period the memory of man extended. There may have been rare annals: there may have been poems: if such there were they have perished, and have left no trace behind, unless we are to attribute to them such scanty notices as the Saxon Chronicle adds to Beda's account. From such sources, however, little could have been gained of accurate information either as to the real internal state, the domestic progress, or development of a people. The dry bare entries of the Chronicles in historical periods may supply the means of judging what sort of annals were likely to exist before the general introduction of the Roman alphabet and parchment, while, in all probability, runes supplied the place of letters, and "Let us apply these observations to the early events of Saxon history: of Kent, indeed, we have the vague and uncertain notices which I have mentioned; even more vague and uncertain are those of Sussex and Wessex. Of the former, we learn that in the year 477, Ælli, with three sons, Cymen, Wlencing, and Cissa, landed in Sussex; that in the year 485 they defeated the Welsh, and that in 491 they destroyed the population of Anderida. Not another word is there about Sussex before the arrival of Augustine, except a late assertion of the military pre-eminence of Ælli among the Saxon chieftains. The events of Wessex are somewhat better detailed; we learn that in 495 two nobles, Cerdic and CynerÍc, came to England, and landed at Cerdices-ora, where, on the "Meagre as these details are, they far exceed what is related of Northumberland, Essex, or East-Anglia. In 547, we are told that Ida began to reign in the first of these kingdoms, and that he was succeeded in 560, by Ælli: that after a reign of thirty years, he died in 588, and was succeeded by ÆÞelrÍc, who again, in 593, was succeeded by ÆÞelfriÞ. This is all we learn of Northumbria; of Mercia, Essex, East-Anglia, and the innumerable kingdoms that must have been comprised under these general appellations, we hear not a single word. "If this be all that we can now recover of events, a great number of which must have fallen within the lives of those to whom Augustine preached, what credit shall we give to the inconsistent accounts of earlier actions? How shall we supply the almost total want of information respecting the first settlements? What explanation have we to give of the alliance between Jutes, Angles, and Saxon, which preceded the invasions of England? What knowledge will these records 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 IMMIGRANT TRIBES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO EACH OTHER. To criticise the evidence which derives the English in general from the Angles, the particular inhabitants of Sussex, Essex, Middlesex and Wessex, from the Saxons, and the Anglo-Saxon language from the Angle and Saxon would be superfluous; whilst to doubt the truth of the main facts which it attests would exhibit an unnecessary and unhealthy scepticism. That the Angles and Saxons formed at least seven-tenths of the Germanic invaders may be safely admitted. The Jute element, however, requires further notice. a. Were there Jutes in England? That there was a Jute element in England is to be maintained, not upon the tradition that one of the three ships of Hengist and Horsa was manned by Jutes, but from the following extract from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:—
Here the words gyt hÆt IÚtnacynn constitute cotemporary evidence. Still there is a flaw in it; since it is quite possible that the term IÚtnacynn may have been no true denomination of a section of the Germans of England, but only the synonym of a different word, Wiht-sÆtan. Alfred writes—comon hi of Þrym folcum Þam strangestan GermaniÆ; ÞÆt of Seaxum, and of Angle, and of Geatum. Of Geatum fruman sindon Cantware and Wiht-sÆtan, ÞÆt is seo ÞeÓd se Wiht ÞÆt ealond on eardaЗthey came of three folk, the strongest of Germany; that of Saxons and of Angles, and of Geats. Of Geats originally are the Kent people and Wiht-set; that is the people which Wiht the Island live on. This changes the reasoning, and leads us to the following facts. a. The word in question is a compound=Wight=the name of the isle, + sÆtan=people; as Somer-set, and Dor-set. b. The peninsula Jut-land was also called Vit-land, or With-land. c. The wiht- in Wiht-sÆtan is, undoubtedly, no such element as the vit- in Vit-land=Jut-land; since it represents the older Celtic term, known to us in the Romanized form Vectis. Putting all this together, it becomes possible (nay probable) that the whole doctrine of a Jute element in the Anglo-Saxon migration may have arisen out of the fact of there being a portion of the people of Southern England neighbours of the Saxons, and bearing the name Wiht-sÆtan; a fact which, taken along with the juxtaposition of the Vit-landers (Jut-landers) and Saxons on the Continent, suggested to the writers of a long later age the doctrine of a Jute migration. What were the Jutes of Germany? At present they are the natives of Jutland, and their language is Danish rather than German. Neither is there reason to suppose that during the third and fourth centuries it was otherwise. "Quem Geta, Vasco tremunt, Danus, Eutheo,[1] Saxo, Britannus, Cum patre quos acie te domitasse patet." Venantius Fortunatus ad Chilpericum regem.[2] a. The limited sense of the word Saxon.—This is what we get from Ptolemy, the first author who names the Saxons, and who gives them a limited locality at the mouth of the Elbe, bounded by the Sigulones, the Sabalingi, the Kobandi, the Chali, the Phundusii, the Harudes, and other tribes of the Cimbric Peninsula, of which the Saxons just occupied the neck, and three small islands opposite—probably Fohr, Sylt, and Nordstand. Now a sense of the word Saxon thus limited, would restrict the joint conquerors of Britain to the small area comprized between the Elbe and Eyder, of which they do not seem even to have held the whole. b. The wide sense of the word Saxon.—The reader need scarcely be reminded that the present kingdom of Saxony is as far inland as the northern frontier of Bohemia. Laying this, however, out of the question, as the effect of an extension subsequent to the invasion of Britain, we still find Saxons in ancient Hanover, ancient Oldenburg, ancient Westphalia, and (speaking roughly) over the greater part of the country drained by the Weser, and of the area inclosed by the eastern feeders of the Lower Rhine, the Elbe, and the range of the Hartz. Now as it is not likely that the limited Saxon area of Ptolemy should have supplied the whole of our Saxon population, so on the other hand, it is certain, that of a considerable portion of the Saxon area in its wider extent tribes other than the Saxons of England, were occupants. Thus to bring the great Angle population from an area no larger than the county of Rutland, is an objection—but it is not the chief one. The chief objection to the Angles of England being derived from the little district of Anglen, in Sleswick, lies in the fact of there being mention of Angli in another part of Germany. 1. Those portions of the Germanic populations, which from their geographical position, are the likeliest, À priori, to have helped to people England. 2. Those portions of the Germanic population, which although not supposed to have contributed in any notable degree to the population of Britain, had such continental relations to the Angles and Saxons, as to help in fixing their localities. These two scenes of facts, give us what may be called our preliminary apparatus criticus. a. That of the proper seaboard, or the coast from the Rhine to the Eyder. b. That of the rivers, i.e., the communications between the ocean and the inland country. This double division is sufficient, since it is not likely that Britain was peopled by any tribes which were not either maritime, or the occupants of a river. On the other hand, it is necessary, since although the À priori view is in favour of the coast having supplied the British immigration, the chances of its having proceeded from the interior by the way of the large rivers Rhine, Weser, and Elbe, must also be taken into consideration. The importance of this latter alternative, will soon be seen. Now, as the dialect of the modern province of Friesland differs in many important points from the Dutch of Holland and Flanders; and as there is every reason to believe that the same, or greater difference, existed between the old Frisians and the old Batavians, assuming each to have been the mother-tongues of the present Frisian and Dutch respectively, we may consider that in reaching the parts to the north of the Zuyder-Zee, we have come to a second sub-division of the Germanic dialects; nevertheless, it is not the division to which either the Angles or the Saxons belong, as may be ascertained by the difference of dialect, or rather language. Tacitus describes the Chauci thus:—"Tam immensum terrarum spatium non tenent tantum Chauci, sed et implent; populus inter Germanos nobilissimus." The Frisians, as has been stated, represent a separate subdivision of the German dialects, as opposed to the ancient Batavian, and the modern Dutch and Flemish. Did the Chauci represent a third, or were they part of the Frisian division? The latter is the more likely, and that for the following reasons—Vestiges of Frisian dialects are to be found on the Continent, in Oldenburgh, and also in the island of Heligoland. More important still is the North-Frisian dialect. North of the Elbe, in the Dutchy of Sleswick, and from the Eyder to Tondern, we find a tract of land called, by Saxo Grammaticus, Frisia Minor, and by other writers, Frisia Eydorensis. Now, as there are no grounds for considering these North Frisians as other than indigenous to the tract in question, we get an additional reason for looking upon the intermediate line of coast as Frisian rather than either Angle or Saxon—or, at least, such parts of it as are not expressly stated to be otherwise. In the ninth century, the tribes of these parts are divided into three divisions:— a. The Holtsati=the people of Holstein. Here holt=wood, whilst sat is the -set in Somer-set and Dor-set. b. The Thiedmarsi=the people of Ditmarsh. c. The Stormarii=the people of Stormar. Besides the names of these three particular divisions the tribes between the Elbe and Eyder were called by the general name of Nordalbingii=i.e. people to the north of the Elbe. Neither is it necessary to identify the two divisions, and to consider the Saxons as Frisians, or the Frisians as Saxons, as is done by some authors. It is only necessary to perceive the complication which the existence of the Northfrisians introduces, and to recognise the improbability of parts of the present dutchies of Holstein and Sleswick having constituted the whole of the Anglo-Saxon area. In other words, we have to ascertain in what direction the Germanic population represented by the Saxons at the mouth of the Elbe extended itself—for some further extension there undoubtedly must have been. The Franks.—We shall see that, taking the two terms in their widest sense, the Franks and the Saxons were in contact, a fact which makes it necessary to notice at least some portion of the Frank area. a. Salian Franks.—If the element Sal- represent the -sel, in the name of the Dutch river Y-ssel, the locality of the Salian Franks was Overyssel and Guelderland, whilst their ethnological relations were most probably with the Batavians. b. Chamavi.—In the Tabula Peutingeriana we find—Chamavi qui Elpranci (leg. et Franci). They were conterminous with the Salii—?pede???? ?? ???a? t?? Sa???? ??????, ?a???? d? ????asa.—Julian, Op. p. 280.—D.N. The following extract is more important, as it shows that a Roman communication at least took place between the Rhine and Britain: ?a??? ??? ? ???e??????, ?d??at?? ?st?? t?? t?? ??eta?????? ??s?? s?t?p?p?a? ?p? t? ?????a f?????a d?ap?pes?a?.—Eunap. in Except. leg. ed., Bonn, p. 42.—D.N. The name Chamavi is still preserved in that of the district of Hameland, near Deventer.—D.N. and G.D.S. The Bructeri, Sigambri, and Ripuarian Franks bring us to the Franks of the Middle Rhine, a portion of the division which it is not necessary to follow. By the Jutes they were limited on the north, by the Thuringians on the south-east, and by the Franks on the south-west; the middle portion of the southern frontier being formed by the Catti between the Franks and Thuringians. This gives us a southern and a northern limit. Western limit.—This is formed by the Batavians and Frisians of the sea-coast, i.e., by the Batavians of Holland, Guelderland, and Overyssel, and, afterwards, by the Frisians of West and East Friesland, and of Oldenburg. Here, however, the breadth of the non-Saxon area is uncertain. Generally speaking, it is broadest in the southern, and narrowest in the northern portion. The Frisian line is narrower than the Batavian, whilst when we reach the Elbe the Saxons appear on the sea-coast. Perhaps they do so on the Weser as well. a. The Thuringians, Catti (or Hessians), and Franks, on the southern boundary of the Saxon area were Germans. Hence the line of demarcation between their language was no broad and definite line, like that between the English and the Welsh, but rather one representing a difference of dialect, like that between the Yorkshire and the Lowland Scotch. Hence, too, we ought not only not to be surprised, if we find dialects intermediate to the Frank and Saxon, the Saxon and Thuringian, &c., but we must expect to find them. b. The same is the case with the Batavian and Frisian frontier.—We really find specimens of language which some writers call Saxon, and others Dutch (Batavian). The eastern frontier, however, will be like the frontier between England and Wales, where the line of demarcation is broad and definite, where there are no intermediate and transitional dialects, and where the two contiguous languages belong to different philological classes.—The languages to the east of the Saxon area will be allied to the languages of Russia, Poland, and Bohemia; i.e., they will be not Germanic but Slavonic. Note.—The northern frontier of the Saxon area is intermediate in character to the western and southern on one hand, and to the eastern on the other; the Danish of the Cimbric Peninsula being—though not German—Gothic. We begin at the northern portion of the Saxon area, i.e., the south-eastern corner of the Cimbric Peninsula, and the parts about the Town of Lubeck; where the Dutchies of Mecklenburg Schwerin and Holstein join. The attention of the reader is particularly directed to the dates. Now, Wend is the German designation of the Slavonians; so that there must have been Slavonians in the Cimbric Peninsula at least as early as the ninth century.—D.N. a.—Ethnologically considered.—Tract bounded on the north by the North Frisian Germans and Jute Danes of Sleswick; on the north and north-east by the Slavonians of the Elbe, sometimes Trans-Albian like the Wagrians and Obotrites; sometimes Cis-Albian, like the Linones and the Slaves of Altmark; on the south by the Thuringians, Catti, and Franks; on the west by the Franks, Batavians, and Frisians. b. Considered in relation to the ancient population that it c. Considered in relation to its modern population.—Here it coincides most closely with the kingdom of Hanover, plus parts of the Dutchies of Holstein and Oldenburg, and parts of Altmark? Brunswick? and Westphalia, and minus the Frisian portion of East Friesland, and the Slavonic part of Luneburg. d. River system.—By extending the Saxons of Westphalia as far as Cleves (which has been done by competent judges) we carry the western limit to the neighbourhood of the Rhine. This, however, is as far as it can safely be carried. In the respect to the Upper Ems, it was probably Saxon, the lower part being Frisian. The Weser is pre-eminently the river of the Saxons, with the water-system of which their area coincides more closely than with any other physical division. The Elbe was much in the same relation to the Germans and Slavonians, as the Rhine was to the Germans and the Gauls. Roughly speaking, it is the frontier—the Cis-Albian Slaves (the Linones and the Slavonians of Altmark) being quite as numerous as the Trans-Albian Germans, (the people of Stormar, Ditmarsh, and Holstein). The Eyder was perhaps equally Danish, Frisian, and Saxon. e. Mountains.—The watershed of the Weser on the one side, and of the Ruhr and Lippe on the other, is the chief high land contained within the Saxon area, and is noticed as being the line most likely to form a subdivision of the Saxon population, either in the way of dialect or political relations—in case such a subdivision exists, a point which will be considered in the next chapter. CHAPTER III.OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED, OLD SAXON. a. The Saxon of Holstein may be expected to approach the Jute and Frisian. b. That of South Oldenburg and East Friesland, the Frisian and Batavian. c. That of Westphalia, the Batavian and Frank. d, e. That of the Hessian and Thuringian frontiers, the Hessian and Thuringian. Finally, the Saxon of the centre of the area is expected to be the Saxon of the most typical character.
Of these names the last would be the best for strictly scientific purposes, or for the purposes of investigation; since the fact upon which it is based is the most undeniable. Such is what the nomenclature might be, or, perhaps, ought to be. What it is is another question. 1. Abrenuntiatio Diaboli, e Codice Vaticano.—Graff, Diutisca, ii. 191. 2. Confessionis FormulÆ, e Codice Essensi.—Lacomblet, Archiv, fÜr Geschichte des Niederrhins, 1, 4-9. 3. Fragmentum de Festo omnium Sanctorum, e Codice Essensi.—Ibid. 4. Rotulus redituum Essensis.—Ibid. 5. The Frekkenhorst Roll.—DenkmÄler von Dorow, 1, 2, 1. 6. GlossÆ SaxonicÆ, e Codice Argentorat.—Diutisca, 192. 7. T. Lipsii; Epist. cent. III. ad Belgas pertinentium, Ep. 44. 8. Hildebrand.—Heroic fragment, in alliterative metre. 9. The Carolinian Psalms.—A translation of the Psalms, referred to the time of Charlemagne; sometimes considered to be old Batavian. 10. Heliand, a Gospel Harmony in alliterative metre, and the chief Old Saxon composition extant. SPECIMEN. Luc. II. 8-13.
CHAPTER IV.AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA. SPECIMENS. Icelandic (FareyÏnga-Saga—Ed. Mohnike).
Feroic.
Swedish.
Danish.
English.
1. The Moeso-Gothic. 2. The High Germanic. 3. The Low Germanic. This history of this language, and the meaning of the term by which it is designated, is best explained by the following passages:— a. A.D. 482. "Trocondo et Severino consulibus—Theodoricus cognomento Valamer utramque Macedoniam, Thessaliamque depopulatus est, Larissam quoque metropolim depredatus, Fausto solo consule (A.D. 485)—Idem Theodoricus rex Gothorum Zenonis Augusti munificentia pene pacatus, magisterque prÆsentis militiÆ factus, consul quoque designatus, creditam sibi Ripensis DaciÆ partem MoesiÆque inferioris, cum suis satellitibus pro tempore tenuit."—Marcellini Comitis Chronicon, D.N. b. "Frederichus ad Theodoricum regem, qui tunc apud Novam Civitatem provinciÆ MoesiÆ morabatur, profectus est."—Vita S. Severini, D.N. c. "Zeno misit ad Civitatem Novam, in qu erat Theodoricus dux Gothorum, filius Valameris, et eum invitavit in solatium sibi adversus Basiliscum."—Anon. Valesii, p. 663, D.N. d. Civitas Nova is Nicopolis on the Danube; and the nation thus spoken of is the Gothic nation in the time of Zeno. At this time they are settled in the Lower Moesia, or Bulgaria. How they got here from the northern side of the Danube we find in the history of the reign of Valens. When pressed by intestine wars, and by the movements of the Huns, they were assisted by that emperor, and settled in the parts in question. 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. A.D. 249-251—The Goths are found about equidistant from the Euxine Sea, and the eastern portion of the range of Mount HÆmus, in the Lower Moesia, and at Marcianopolis. Here they gain a great battle against the Romans, in which the Emperor Decius is killed. His successor, Gallus, purchases a peace. Valerian defends himself against them. During the reign of Gallienus they appear as maritime warriors, and ravage Asia Minor, Greece, and Illyria. A.D. 269—Are conquered at Naissus, on the western boundary of Moesia Superior by Claudius. A.D. 282—Are defeated by Carus. A.D. 321—Ravage Moesia (Inferior?) and Thrace. A.D. 336—Attacked by Constantine in Dacia—north of the Danube. A.D. 373—In the reign of Valens (as already stated), they were admitted to settle within the limits of the empire. Concerning this there are three opinions— A. The Baltic doctrine. According to this the Goths migrated from the Baltic to the MÆotis, from the MÆotis to the Euxine, and from the Euxine to the Danube, along which river they moved from east to west. B. The Getic doctrine.—Here the Goths are made out to be the aborigines of the Lower Danube, of Dacia, Moesia, and even Thrace; in which case their movement was, also, from east to west. C. The German doctrine.—Here the migration is from west to east, along the course of the Danube, from some part of south-eastern Germany, as its starting-point, to Asia Minor as its extreme point, and to Bulgaria (Moesia Inferior) as its point of settlement. The fact that a tribe called G-O-T-H-I should, when they first peopled the Moesogothic country, have hit upon the To a writer who (at one and the same time) finds difficulty in believing that this similarity is accidental and is dissatisfied with Grimm's reasoning, there seems to be no other alternative but to consider that the Goths of the Lower Danube had no existence at all in Germany under that name, that they left their country under a different[5] one, and that they took the one by which they were known to the Romans (and through them to us), on reaching the land of the GetÆ—as, in England, the Saxons of Essex and Wessex did not (since they brought their name with them), but as the East and West Kent-ings[6] did. This doctrine, of course, falls to the ground directly it can be shown that the Goths of Moesia were either called Goths in Germany, or any where else, anterior to their settlement in the Geta-land. Be this, however, as it may, the first division of the Teutonic branch of languages is the Moeso-Gothic of the Goths of the Lower Danube, in the fourth century, as preserved in the translation of Ulphilas, and in other less important fragments. SPECIMEN. Luke i. 46-56.
SPECIMEN. Krist, i. 12. (Edit. Graff.) Tho uuarun thar in lante hirta haltente; Thes fehes datun uuarta uuidar fianta. Zi Ín quam boto sconi, engil scinenti; Joh uuurtun sie inliuhte fon himilisgen liohte. Forahtun sie in tho gahun so sinan anasahun; Joh hintarquamun harto thes Gotes boten uuorto. Sprah ther Gotes boto sar. "Ih scal ÍÚ sagen uuuntar. Ju scal sin fon Gote heil; nales forahta nihein. Ih scal iu sagen imbot, gibot ther himilisgo Got; Ouh nist ther er gihorti so fronisg arunti. Thes uuirdit uuorolt sinu zi euuidon blidu, Joh al giscaft thiu in uuorolti thesa erdun ist ouh dretenti Niuuui boran habet thiz lant then himilisgon Heilant; The ist Druhtin Krist guater fon iungeru muater. In Bethleem thiue kuninga thie uuarun alle thanana, Fon in uuard ouh giboran iu sin muater magad sconu. Sagen ih ÍÚ, guate man, uuio ir nan sculut findan, Zeichen ouh gizami thuruh thaz seltsani. Zi theru burgi faret hinana, ir findet, so ih ÍÚ sageta, Kind niuuui boranaz in kripphun gilegitaz. Tho quam unz er zin tho sprah engilo heriscaf, Himilisgu menigi, sus alle singenti— In himilriches hohi si Gote guallichi; Si in erdu fridu ouh allen thie fol sin guates uuillen The Same, in English. Then there was in the land herdsmen feeding: Of their cattle they made watch against foes. To them came a messenger fair, an angel shining, And they became lit with heavenly light. They feared, suddenly as on him they looked; And followed much the words of God's messenger: Spake there God's messenger strait, "I shall to you say wonders. To you shall there be from God health; fear nothing at all. I shall to you say a message, the bidding of the heavenly God: Also there is none who has heard so glad an errand. Therefore becomes his world for ever blythe, And all creatures that in the world are treading this earth. Newly borne has this land the heavenly Savior, Who is the Lord Christ, good, from a young mother. In Bethleem, of the kings they were all thence— From them was also born his mother, a maid fair. I say to you, good men, how ye him shall find, A sign and token, through this wonder. To your burgh fare hence, ye find, so as I to you said, A child, new born, in a crib lying." Then came, while he to them spake, of angels an host, A heavenly retinue, thus all singing: "In the heavenly kingdom's highth be to God glory; Be on earth peace also to all who are full of God's will." 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 for 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. 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.
The Same, in English.
Declension of substantives ending with a vowel.
Declension of Substantives ending with a Consonant.
whence, as an affix, in composition,
Reference will be made to this passage on more occasions than one, to show how words originally distinct may, in the process of time, take the appearance of being identical. To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbett's, en=a, and -en=the, are the same combination of letters, but not the same word. DECLENSION OF ADJECTIVES.
In Saxon there is of course no such an adjectival form. There the Possessives of the Third Person correspond not with the Latin suus, sua, suum; but with the Latin ejus and eorum. The English words his and her are genitive cases, not adjectives. Further remarks upon the presence of the Reflective Pronoun sik in Icelandic, and its absence in Saxon, will appear in the sequel. THE NUMERALS.
Of the Icelandic verbs the infinitives end in -a; as kalla, to call; elska, to love; whereas the Saxon termination is -an; as lufian, to love; wyrcan, to work.
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:—1st. the reflective pronoun coalesces with the verb, whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that of a middle verb; 2nd. the c changes to t, whilst the middle sense passes into a passive one; 3rd. 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. Having no reflective pronoun, they had nothing to evolve it from.
1st. The peculiar nature of the definite article. 2nd. The neuter form of the adjectives in -t. 3rd. The existence of a passive voice in -sc, -st, or -s. In Icelandic this inflection in -n is concealed by the fact of -an having been changed into -a. However, as this -a represents -an, and as fragments or rudiments of -n are found in the genitive plurals of the neuter and feminine genders (augna, tungna), we may make the same general assertion in Icelandic that we make in A. S., viz. that substantives ending in a vowel take an inflection in -n. Weak nouns end in a vowel; or, if in a consonant, in a consonant that has become final from the loss of the vowel that originally followed it. They also form a certain proportion of their oblique cases in -n, or an equivalent to -n—Nom. augÔ, gen. aug-in-s. Strong nouns end in a consonant; or, if in a vowel, in one of the vowels allied to the semivowels y or w, and through them to the consonants. They also form their oblique cases by the addition of a simple inflection, without the insertion of n. Furthermore, be it observed that nouns in general are weak and strong, in other words, that adjectives are weak or 1. A substantive is either weak or strong, i.e., it has one of the two inflections, but not both. AugÔ=an eye, is weak under all circumstances; waurd=a word, is strong under all circumstances. 2. An adjective is both weak and strong. The Anglo-Saxon for good is sometimes god (strong), sometimes gode (weak). Which of the two forms is used depends not on the word itself, but on the state of its construction. In this respect the following two rules are important:— 1. The definite sense is generally expressed by the weak form, as se blinde man=the blind man. 2. The indefinite sense is generally expressed by the strong form, as sum blind man=a blind man. Hence, as far as adjectives are concerned, the words definite and indefinite coincide with the words weak and strong respectively, except that the former are terms based on the syntax, the latter terms based on the etymology of the word to which they apply. Declension of Weak Substantives in Moeso-Gothic.
Declension of Strong Substantives in Moeso-Gothic.
These may be compared with the Saxon declensions; viz. aÚgÔ with eÁge, manna with nama, tuggÔ with tunge, vaÚrd with leÁf, fisks with smiÐ, and brÛÞs with sprÆc. Declension of Weak (or Definite) Adjectives in Moeso-Gothic.[8]
Declension of strong (or indefinite) adjectives in Moeso-Gothic.[9]
Observe—In the neuter form blindata M. G. we have the sound of t, as in Icelandic. This becomes z (ts) in Old High German, and s in modern German. The conjugation of the M. G. is as follows. From the Anglo-Saxon it differs most in its plural persons.
The conjugation of the auxiliary verb in Moeso-Gothic is as follows. It may be compared with the A. S. § 89.
In the comparison the first point to be noticed is the Transition of Letters.
As a general statement we may say, that in the transition letters the Frisian corresponds with the A. S. more closely than it does with any other language. It must, moreover, be remarked, that, in such pairs of words as frjund and freond, the difference (as far at least as the e and j are concerned) is a mere difference of orthography. Such also is probably the case with the words dÉd and dÆd, and many others. The Anglo-Saxon inflection of a) Substantives ending in a vowel, b) Substantives ending in a consonant, c) Adjectives with an indefinite d) Adjectives with a definite sense, e) Verbs Active f) and verbs auxiliar, may be seen in the comparison between the A. S. and the Icelandic. The corresponding inflections in Frisian are as follows:—
With respect to the masculine substantives terminating in a consonant, it must be observed that in A. S. there are two modes of declension; in one, the plural ends in -s; in the other, in -a. The specimen in § 83 represents the first of these modes only. From this the Frisian is essentially different. With the second it has a close alliance; e.g.:—
In the inflection of the verbs there is between the Frisian and A. S. this important difference. In A. S. the infinite ends in -an macian, to make, lÆran, to learn, bÆrnan, to burn; whilst in Frisian it ends in -a, as maka, lÉra, berna.
Infin. Wesa. Pr. Part. Wesande. Past Part. E-wesen. The Frisian numerals (to be compared with those of the Anglo-Saxons, p. 43), are as follows:—Én, twÁ, thrjÚ, In respect to the Pronouns, there is in the Old Frisian of Friesland no dual number, as there is in Anglo-Saxon. On the other hand, however, the Frisians (whilst they have no such form as his) possess, like the Icelandic, the inflected adjectival pronoun sin, corresponding to the Latin suus: whilst, like the Anglo-Saxons, and unlike the Icelanders, they have nothing to correspond with the Latin se. THE ARTICLE.
PRONOUN. The Demonstrative in the limited sense of the word.
The Saxons draw no such a distinction. With them the article and demonstrative is declined as follows:—
1. That it is no national name, but a name given by the Latins to the natives of the country called Germania. The word German is foreign to all the Gothic languages. 2. That it was first applied to proper Germanic tribes in the time of Julius CÆsar, and that it served to distinguish the Gothic Germans from the Celtic Gauls. 3. That, anterior to the time of CÆsar, there is no proof of it being applied as a distinctive designation to any of the tribes to whom it was afterwards limited. The first tribe to whom it was applied, was (in the opinion of the present writer) a Gallic tribe. 4. That since the time of Julius CÆsar, its application has been constant, i.e., it has always meant Gothic tribes, or Gothic languages. 5. That sometimes it has been general to the whole nation—Unde fit ut tantÆ populorum multitudines arctoo sub axe oriantur, ut non immerito universa illa regio Tanai tenus usque ad occiduum, licet et propriis loca ea singula nuncupentur nominibus, generali tamen vocabulo Germania vocitetur ... Gothi, siquidem, Vandalique, Rugi, Heruli, atque Turcilingi, necnon etiam aliÆ feroces ac barbarÆ nationes e Germania prodierunt.—Paulus Diaconus. 6. That sometimes it has been peculiar and distinctive to certain prominent portions of the nation—equi frÆnis Germanicis, sellis Saxonicis falerati. 7. That the general power of the word has been, with few exceptions, limited to the Germans of Germany. We do not find either English or Scandinavian writers calling their countrymen Germani. 8. That the two German tribes most generally meant, when the word German is used in a limited sense, are the Franks and the Alemanni. 9. That by a similar latitude the words Francic and 10. That the origin of the word Germani, in the Latin language, is a point upon which there are two hypotheses. a. That it is connected with the Latin word Germani=brothers, meaning either tribes akin to one another, or tribes in a degree of brotherly alliance with Rome. b. That it grew out of some such German word as Herman, Irmin, Wehrmann, or the Herm- in Hermunduri, Hermiones, &c. Neither of these views satisfies the present writer. For all the facts concerning the word Germani, see the Introduction to the third edition of the Deutsche Grammar. In Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, it means the language of the people of Germany in general; and this general power of the word is retained even with us in the expression High-Dutch, and Low-Dutch. In the present work the term is avoided as much as possible. Nevertheless, wherever it occurs it means the Dutch of Holland. The origin of the word has been a subject of much investigation; the question, however, may be considered to be settled by the remarks of Grimm, D. G.—Introduction to the third edition. 1. It was originally no national name at all. 2. In the earliest passage where it occurs, the derivative form ÞiudiskÔ corresponds with the Greek word ???????—The Moeso-Gothic Translation of the New Testament—Galatians, ii. 14. 3. The derivation of the word from the substantive Þiudu=a people, a nation, is undoubted. 4. So also is the derivation of the modern word Dutch, in all its varied forms:—Old High-German, Diutisc; Anglo-Saxon, ÞeÓdisc; Latin, Theodisca, Theudisca, Teutisca; Italian, Tedesco; Danish, Tyske; English, Dutch; the latter part of the word being the adjectival ending -isc=ish. 5. The original meaning being of, or belonging to, the people, or of, or belonging to, the nation, secondary meanings grew out of it. 6. Of these the most remarkable are a) the power given to the word in Ulphilas (heathen), illustrated by the similarly secondary power of the Greek ???????; b) the meaning vernacular, provincial or vulgar given to it as applied to language. 7. This latter power was probably given to it about the ninth century. 8. That it was not given much before, is inferred from negative evidence. The word theotisca is not found in the Latin writers of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, although there are plenty of passages where it might well have been used had it existed. The terms really used are either patrius sermo, sermo barbaricus, sermo vulgaricus, lingua rustica; or else the names of particular tribes, as lingua Anglorum, Alamannorum. 9. That it was current in the ninth century is evident from a variety of quotations:—Ut quilibet episcopus homilias aperte transferre studeat in rusticam Romanam linguam, aut Þeotiscam, quo tandem cuncti possint intelligere quÆ dicantur.—Synodus Turonensis. Quod in lingua Thiudisca scaftlegi, id est armorum depositio, vocatur.—Capit. Wormatiense. De collectis quas Theudisca lingua heriszuph appellat.—Conventus Silvacensis. Si barbara, quam Teutiscam dicunt, lingua loqueretur.—Vita Adalhardi, &c.—D.G., i. p. 14, Introduction. 10. That its present national sense is wholly secondary and derivative, and that originally it was no more the name of a people or a language than the word vulgate in the expression the vulgate translation of the Scriptures is the name of a people or a language. In favour of this view is the fact that Norway was the mother-country, Iceland the colony, and that much of what is called Old Icelandic was composed in Norway. Still the reason is insufficient; since the present term Icelandic is given to the language not because Iceland was the country that produced, but because it is the country that has preserved it. This leads to the argument in its most general form—should a language be named from the colony, or from the mother-country? The Norwegians say from the mother-country. Let us consider this. Suppose that whilst the Latin of Virgil and Cicero in Italy had been changing into the modern Italian, in some old Roman colony (say Sardinia) it had remained either wholly CHAPTER V.ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE—GERMANIC ELEMENTS. 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 wholly or partially occupied, and the tribes and nations with which they were conterminous whilst in Germany. 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 effects and record of which, have in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the more important divisions? Questions like these require notice, and in a more advanced state of what may be called minute ethnographical
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."[11] Extract from Ptolemy.—This connects the Angles with ??t?? ?a? es??e??? ????? ???sta ?? ?st? t?, te t?? S????? t?? ???e????, ?? e?s?? ??at?????te??? t?? ?a?????d??, ??ate????te? p??? t?? ???t??? ???? t?? ?s?? t?? ????? p?ta??. Extract from Procopius.—For this see § 129. Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne.—This connects them with the Werini (Varni), and the Thuringians—"Incipit lex Angliorum et Verinorum (Varni); hoc est Thuringorum."—Zeuss, 495, and Grimm. G.D.S. Extracts connecting them with the inhabitants of the Cimbric Peninsula.—a. The quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of § 16. b. From Bede; "Porro de Anglis, hoc est illa patria, quÆ Angulus dicitur, et ab eo tempore usque hodie, manere desertus inter provincias Jutarum et Saxonum perhibetur."—Angl. i. 15. c. From Alfred, "And be wÆstan eald Seaxum is Albe muÐa ÞÆre ea and Frisland. And Þanon west norÐ is ÞÆt land, the man Angle, hÆt and Sillende, and summe dÆl Dena."[12]—Oros. p. 20. Also, speaking of Other's voyage,[13] "He seglode to ÞÆm porte Þe man hÆt HÆÞum; se stent betwuhs Winedum and Seaxum, and Angle, and hyrÐ in on Dene ... and Þa d. From Etherwerd, writing in the eleventh century—"Anglia vetus sita est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale, quod sermone Saxonico Sleswic nuncupatur, secundum vero Danos Hathaby."[14] b. That the derivation of the Angles of England from the Anglen of Sleswick is an inference of the same kind with the one respecting the Jutes (see § 20), made by the same writers, probably on the same principle, and most likely incorrectly. c. That the Angles of England were the Angli of Tacitus, What the Suevi were, the Semnones were also, "Vetustissimos se nobilissimosque Suevorum Semnones memorant." Tac. Germ., 39. Speaking, too, of their great extension, he says, centum pagi ab iis habitantur.[15] Velleius states that there were Suevi on the west of the Middle Elbe, Ptolemy, that there were Suevi to the east of it, i.e., as far as the River Suebus (Oder?).—?a? t? t?? S????? t?? Se?????, ??t??e? d?????s? et? t?? ???? ?p? t?? e??????? ????? In the letter of Theodeberht to the Emperor Justinian, we find the North-Suevians mentioned along with the Thuringians, as having been conquered by the Franks; "Subactis Thuringis ... Norsavorum gentis nobis placata majestas colla subdidit."[16] As this word is compound (-varii=ware=inhabitants), the root remains Angr-, a word which only requires the r to become l in order to make Angl-. As both the locality and the relation to the Saxons, make the Angrivarian locality one of the best we could assume for the Angles, the only 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. 1. The termination -as is, like the -s in the modern English, the sign of the plural number in Anglo-Saxon. 2. The termination -ing denotes, in the first instance, a certain number of individuals collected together, and united with each other as a clan, tribe, family, household. 3. In doing this, it generally indicates a relationship of a personal or political character. Thus two Baningas might be connected with each other, and (as such) indicated by the same term from any of the following causes—relationship, subordination to the same chief, origin from the same locality, &c. 4. Of these personal connections, the one which is considered to be the commonest is that of descent from a common ancestor, so that the termination -ing in this case, is a real patronymic. 5. Such an ancestor need not be real; indeed, he rarely if ever is so. Like the eponymus of the classical writers, he is the hypothetical, or mythological, progenitor of the clan, sept, or tribe, as the case may be; i.e., as Æolus, Dorus, and Ion to the Æolians, Dorians, and Ionians. Now, by admitting these facts without limitation, and by applying them freely and boldly to the Germanic population of England, we arrive at the following inferences. 1. That where we meet two (or more) households, families, tribes, clans, or septs of the same name (that name ending in -ing), in different parts of England, we may connect them with each other, either directly or indirectly; directly when we look on the second as an offset from the first; indirectly, when we derive both from some third source. 2. That when we find families, tribes, &c., of the same name, both in Britain and in Germany, we may derive the English ones from the continental. Now neither of these views is hypothetical. On the contrary each is a real fact. Thus in respect to divisions of the population, designated by names ending in -ing, we have 1. In Essex, Somerset, and Sussex,—Æstingas. 2. In Kent, Dorset, Devonshire, and Lincoln,—Alingas. 3. In Sussex, Berks, and Northamptonshire,—Ardingas. 4. In Devonshire, Gloucestershire, and Sussex,—Arlingas. 5. In Herts, Kent, Lincolnshire, and Salop,—Baningas. 6. In Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, and the Isle of Wight,—Beadingas. 7. In Kent, Devonshire, Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Salop, and Somerset,—Beringas. 8. In Bedford, Durham, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Salop, Sussex, and the Isle of Wight,—Billingas, &c.—the list being taken from Mr. Kemble, vol. i. p. 64. 1. WÆlsingas,—as the Volsungar of the Iceland, and the WÆlsingen of the German heroic legends. 2. Herelingas,—mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon poem known by the name of the Traveller's Song, containing a long list of the Gothic tribes, families, nations, &c. 3. Brentingas.—Ibid. 4. Scyldingas.—Ibid. 5. Scylfingas.—Ibid. 6. Ardingas. 7. Baningas, Traveller's Song, mentioned as the subjects of Becca. 8. Helsingas.—Ibid. 9. Myrgingas.—Ibid. 10. Hundingas.—Ibid. 11. Hocingas.—Ibid. 12. Seringas.—Ibid. 13. Dhyringas=Thuringians. (?) 14. Bleccingas. 15. Gytingas. 16. Scydingas. 17. Dylingas. a. Those which we have no reason to think other than Angle or Saxon. b. Those which indicate elements of the migration other than Angle or Saxon. b. The Myrgings.—Ditto. This is the German form of the Merovingians. c. The Hocings.—This is the German form of the Chauci, and, as such, a Frisian gentile name. d. The Dhyrings.—Perhaps Thuringians of Thuringia. Thus, then, if we still assume that the method in question is unexceptionable, we have, from the evidence of what may be called either the gentile forms, or the patronymics in -ing, reasons for believing that Frank Myrgings, Frisian Hocings, and Thuringian Dhyrings, formed part of the invasion—these, at least; possibly others besides. And why should the reason be other than unexceptionable? Do we not in North America, believe, that, as a general rule, the families with particular names, coincide with the families so-called in England; that the names of certain places, sometimes, at least, indicate a population originating in places similarly designated here? that the Smiths and Johnstons 1. The termination -ing is sometimes added to an undoubtedly British root, so as to have originated within the island, rather than to have been brought from the continent, e.g., the Kent-ings=the people of Kent. In such a case, the similarity to a German name, if it exist at all, exists as an accident. 2. The same, or nearly the same, name may not only occur in different parts of one and the same division of the Germanic areas, but in different ones, e.g., the Dhyrings may denote the Thuringians of Thuringia; but they may also denote the people of a district, or town, in Belgium, designated as Dorringen.[17] Still as a method, the one in question should be understood; although it has been too short a time before the learned world to have borne fruit. N.B.—What applies to the coincidence of gentile or patronymic names on the two sides of the water, applies also to dialects; e.g., if (say) the Kentish differed from the other dialects of England, just in the same way, and with the same peculiar words and forms, as (say) the Verden dialect differed from the ones of Germany, we might fairly argue, that it was from the district of Verden that the county of Kent is peopled. At present we are writing simply for the sake of illustrating certain philological methods. The question of dialect will be treated in Part VII. b. The Frisians.—Great À priori probability, and 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. SPECIMENS. BRITISH. The Lord's Prayer in Cornish.
Welsh (Cambrian). Luke xv. 11. 19. The Prodigal Son.
Armorican of Bas-Bretagne (Cambrian). THE SAME.
GAELIC. Irish Gaelic (Gaelic). THE SAME.
Scotch Gaelic (Gaelic). THE SAME.
Manks (Gaelic). THE SAME.
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 Welsh and Breton. Hence
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 inflexion in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of language.
Inflections formed by Changes of Initial Consonants. The changes in Welsh, classified according to the relationship of the sounds are— 1. From the sharp lenes to the corresponding flats; as p to b, t to d, c to g. The changes in Irish are the same. 2. From the flat lenes to their corresponding so-called aspirates; as b to v, d to Ð. This is the change in Welsh. In Irish we have the same, but only as far as b is concerned; the aspirate of d (Ð) being wanting in that language. In neither Welsh nor Irish occurs the true aspirate of g. In neither Welsh nor Irish occurs the true aspirate of c; which, being wanting, is replaced by the sound of the ch in the German auch, here spelt Ç. Now the Welsh grammarians deal with the changes from sharp to flat, and from lene to aspirate, alike; since, in respect to the grammar of their language, they are enabled to state that they take place under the same circumstances. In Welsh—after all verbs, except those of the infinitive mood; as caravi gaer (for caer)=I love a fort. In Irish—after all verbs, provided that the substantive be masculine; as ta me ag gearrad Çrainn=I am cutting (at to cut) a tree. Here Çrainn comes from crainn. This change in Irish extends only to the change from lene to aspirate. In Welsh—after the possessive pronouns thy, thine, his, its, mine (but not my); as dy vÂr (for bÂr)=thy wrath; ei vraint (from braint)=his privilege. N. B. Although the same word (ei) means her, his, and its, it induces the light change only when it is either masculine or neuter. In Irish—after the possessive pronouns my, thy, and his. Here the change is of the first sort only, or an aspiration; as mo vÀs (bÀs)=my death; do Ços (cos)=thy foot; Çeann (ceann)=his head. N. B. Although the same word (a) means her, his, and its, it induces the aspirate only when it is either masculine or neuter. In Welsh—the initials of adjectives become light when their substantive is feminine. In Irish—the initials of adjectives singular, aspirated in the oblique cases only of the masculine, are aspirated throughout in the feminine. In Welsh—after certain adverbs called formative, used like the English words to, as, &c., in the formation of the degrees of nouns, and the moods of verbs (in other words, In Irish—the same, in respect to the change from lene to aspirate; ro veag=very little; ni vualim (bualim)=I do not beat; do vuaileas=I struck, &c. In Welsh—initials are light after all prepositions except in and towards. In Irish—the prepositions either eclipse the noun that they govern or else aspirate it. A Welsh grammarian would say that it made them light. In Welsh—initials of feminines become light after the Articles. In Irish—masculines are aspirated in the genitive and dative singular; feminines in the nominative and dative. N.B. The difference here is less than it appears to be. The masculine dative is changed, not as a masculine, but by the effect of the particle do, the sign of the dative; the genitive, perhaps, is changed ob differentiam. This being the fact, the nominative is the only case that is changed as such. Now this is done with the feminines only. The inflection explains this.
Such the changes from sharp to flat, and from lene to aspirate. The second order of changes is remarkable, viz. from the mutes to their corresponding liquids, and, in the case of series k, to ng. This, in Welsh, is as follows:—
e.g., nheyrnas for teyrnas, ngherÐ for cerÐ, nuw for duw, &c. In Irish the combinations m + h, n + h, ng + h are wanting: t, however, under certain conditions, becomes h, as mo high (tigh)=my house. With the unaspirated liquids the change, however, coincides with that of the Welsh—ar maile (spelt mbaile)=our town; ar nia (spelt ndia)=our God; ar ngearran=our complaint. These words come respectively from baile, dia, gearran. To show that this change takes place in Irish and Welsh under similar circumstances is more than can be expected; since Ð being wanting in Irish, leaves d to be changed into n. Inflections formed by changes in the middle of words. Plurals from Singulars.
Inflections formed by addition. Plural forms.—When not expressed by a change of vowel, -d (or an allied sound) both in Welsh and Irish has a plural power; as merÇ, merÇed; hyÐ, hyÐoÐ; teyrn, teyrneÐ=girls, stags, kings; Welsh:—gealaÇ, gealaÇad; sgolog, sgolagad; uiseog, uiseogad=moons, farmers, larks; Irish. In each language there are plural forms in -d. Also in -n, as dyn=a person, dynion=persons. In Irish there is the form cu=a greyhound; Plural cuin. It may be doubted, however, whether -n is not ejected in the singular rather than added in the plural. Also in -au, Welsh (as pÉn-au=heads), and in -a, Irish (as cos-a=feet). In each language there is, in respect to both case and The ordinals in Welsh are expressed by -ved; as saiÞ=seven, seiÞved=seventh. The ordinals in Irish are expressed by -vad, as seaÇt=seven, seaÇt-vad=seventh (spelt seachmhadh). The terminations -n and -g are diminutive in Welsh; as dyn-yn=mannikin, oen-ig=lambkin. They have the same power in Irish; as cnoc-an=a hillock; duil-eog=a leaflet. In Irish, currently spoken, there is no inflection for the comparative degrees;—there is, however, an obsolete form in -d, as glass, glaiside=green, greener. In Welsh the true comparative ends in Ç, as main=slender, mainaÇ=more slender. A form, however, exists in -ed, meaning equality, and so implying comparison, viz., mein-ed=so slender. As expressive of an agent, the termination -r is common to both languages. Welsh, mor-Ûr=a seaman; telynaur=a harpist; Irish, sealg-aire=a hunter; figead-oir=a weaver. As expressive of "abounding in," the termination -c (or -g) is common in both languages. Welsh, boliÛag=abounding in belly; toirteaÇ=abounding in fruit. In each language a sound of series t, is equivalent to the English -ly. Welsh, mab-aiÐ=boy-like. Irish, duin-eata=manly. Of the personal terminations it may be said, that those of both the Irish and Welsh are those of the other European tongues, and that they coincide and differ in the same way with those of the Gothic stock: the form in m being the one more constant. For the theory of the personal terminations, the reader is referred to the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, by Dr. Prichard. The present notices being indicative of grammatical affinities only, the glossarial points of likeness between the Welsh and Irish are omitted. 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, peaer=four, and rhod=a wheel. The Gaelic for four is ceathair, and the Gaelic compound would have been different. 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. g. An inscription on an ancient Celtic tablet found at Paris, A.D. 1711, and representing a bull and three birds (cranes), is TARWOS TRI GARANOS. Now, for the first two names, the Gaelic affords as good an explanation as the Welsh; the third, however, is best explained by the Welsh.
a. When St. Columba preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he used an interpreter—Adamnanus apud b. A manuscript in the Colbertine library contains a list of Pictish kings from the fifth century downwards. These names are not only more Celtic than Gothic, but 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, Trwstan, Gwriad, Nwython. Cineod and Domhnall (Kenneth and Donnell), are the only true Erse forms in the list. c. The only Pictish common name extant is the well-known compound pen val, which is in the oldest MS. of Bede 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 or Hellenic branch 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 or Ausonian branch of the Classical stock. Now, although the Greek or Hellenic dialects are of secondary importance in the illustration of the history of the English language, the Latin or Ausonian elements require a special consideration. The French element appeared in our language as a result of the battle of Hastings (A.D. 1066), perhaps, in a slight degree, at a somewhat earlier period. The Latin language overspread the greater part of the Roman empire. It supplanted a multiplicity of aboriginal languages; just as the English of North America has supplanted the aboriginal tongues of the native Indians, and just as the Russian is supplanting those of Siberia and Kamskatcha. 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 other cases their influence was introduced gradually. In this case the influence of the original language was greater and more permanent. 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 (i.e., languages of the Iberic stock), mixed in a degree (scarcely determinable) with Celtic elements=Celtiberic. 2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of the Celtic stock. This took place, at least for the more extreme parts of Gaul, in the time of Julius CÆsar; for the more contiguous parts, in the earlier ages of the Republic. 3. To Dacia and Pannonia; where it overlaid or was engrafted on a language the stock whereof is undetermined. The introduction of the Latin into Dacia and Pannonia took place in the time of Trajan. From (1stly,) the original Latin of Italy, and from the imported Latin, of (2ndly,) the Spanish Peninsula, (3rdly,) Gaul, (4thly,) Dacia and Pannonia, we have (amongst others) the following modern languages—1st Italian, 2nd Spanish and Portuguese, 3rd French, 4th Wallachian. How far these languages differ from each other is currently known. One essential cause of this difference is the difference of the original language upon which the Latin was engrafted. I. The Spanish and Portuguese are sufficiently like the Italian to be arranged in a single division. This may conveniently be called the Hesperian division. II. The second division is the Transalpine. This comprises the languages of Gaul, viz., the Modern French, the Specimen of the Romanese.
III. The third division is the Dacian, Pannonian, or Wallachian, containing the present languages of Wallachia and Moldavia. In the JahrbÜcher der Literatur, June, 1829, specimens are given of two of its dialects: 1, the Daco-Wallachian, north of the Danube; 2, the Macedono-Wallachian, south of the Danube. The present specimen varies from both. It is taken from the New Testament, printed at Smyrna, 1838. The Dacian division is marked by placing the article after the noun, as homul=the man=homo ille.
The French languages of the Transalpine division require 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. I.
II.
Practically speaking, although in the central parts of France the northern and southern dialects melt each into the other, the Loire may be considered as a line of demarcation between two languages; the term language being employed because, in the Middle Ages, whatever may be their real difference, the northern tongue and the southern tongue were dealt with not as separate dialects, but as distinct languages—the southern being called ProvenÇal, the northern Norman-French. 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. It is in the Southern French (ProvenÇal, Langue d'Oc, or Limousin) that we have the following specimen, viz., the Oath of Ludwig, sworn A.D. 842. The Oath of the King.
The Oath of the People.
The same in Modern French.
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. It is the Norman-French that most especially bears upon the history of the English language. The proportion of the original Celtic in the present languages of France has still to be determined. It may, however, be safely asserted, that at a certain epoch between the first and fifth centuries, the language of Gaul was more Roman and less Celtic than that of Britain. 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 demeines 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 humc nul de desuz ceil Tant ben sÉist espÉe ne 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 on 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; their language being High-Germanic. The High-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. By this the proper northern French underwent a further modification. Until the time of the Scandinavians or Northmen, the present province of Normandy was called Neustria. A generation before the Norman Conquest, a Norwegian captain, named in his own country Rolf, and in France Rollo, or Rou, settled upon the coast of Normandy. What Hengist and the Germans are supposed to have been in Britain, Rollo and his Scandinavians were in France. The province took from them its name of Normandy. The Norwegian element in the Norman-French has yet to be determined. Respecting it, however, the following statements may, even in the present state of the question, be made:— 1. That a Norse dialect was spoken in Normandy at Bayeux, some time after the battle of Hastings. 2. That William the Conqueror understood the Norse language. 3. That the names Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney are as truly Norse names as Orkney and Shetland. CHAPTER VIII.THE POSITION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS INDO-EUROPEAN. Furthermore, in each stock there has been some particular language that especially illustrates the English. In the Gothic stock there has been the Anglo-Saxon; in the Celtic the Welsh; and in the Classical the Anglo-Norman. Nevertheless, the importance of the languages of these three divisions is by no means equal. The Gothic tongues supply the basis of our investigations. The Celtic afford a few remnants of that language which the Anglo-Saxon superseded. The Anglo-Norman language exhibits certain superadded elements. The Gothic, Celtic (?),[20] and Classical stocks are but subordinate divisions of a wider class. Each has a sufficient amount of mutual affinities to be illustrative of each other, and each is contained, along with two other groups of equal value, under a higher denomination in philology. What is the nature of that affinity which connects languages so different as the Gothic, Celtic (?), and Classical stocks? or what is the amount of likeness between, e.g., the What other philological groups are connected with each other, and with the languages already noticed, by the same affinities which connect the Gothic, Celtic (?), and Classical stocks? Whatever these languages may be, it is nearly certain that they will be necessary, on some point or other, for the full illustration of the English. As both these questions are points of general, rather than of English, philology, and as a partial answer may be got to the first from attention to the degree in which the body of the present work exhibits illustrations drawn from widely different languages, the following statements are considered sufficient. All Indo-European languages illustrate each other. The other divisions of the great Indo-European group of languages are as follows:— 1. The Iranian stock of languages.—This contains the proper Persian languages of Persia (Iran) in all their stages, the Kurd language, and all the languages of Asia (whatever they may be) derived from the Zend or Sanskrit. 2. The Sarmatian stock of languages.—This contains the languages of Russia, Poland, Bohemia, and of the Slavonian tribes in general. It contains also the Lithuanic languages, i.e., the Lithuanic of Lithuania, the old Prussian of Prussia (now extinct), and the Lettish or Livonic of Courland and Livonia. 3, 4, 5. The Classical, Gothic, and Celtic (?) stocks complete the catalogue of languages undoubtedly Indo-European, and at the same time they explain the import of the term. Indo-European is the name of a class which embraces the majority of the languages of Europe, and is extended over He believes, however, that the Celtic can only be brought in the same group with the Gothic, Slavonic, &c., by extending the value of the class. "To draw an illustration from the common ties of relationship, as between man and man, it is clear that a family may be enlarged in two ways. "a. A brother, or a cousin, may be discovered, of which the existence was previously unknown. Herein the family is enlarged, or increased, by the real addition of a new member, in a recognised degree of relationship. "b. A degree of relationship previously unrecognised may be recognised, i.e., a family wherein it was previously considered that a second-cousinship was as much as could be admitted within its pale, may incorporate third, fourth, or fifth cousins. Here the family is enlarged, or increased, by a verbal extension of the term. "Now it is believed that the distinction between increase by the way of real addition, and increase by the way of verbal extension, has not been sufficiently attended to. Yet, that it should be more closely attended to, is evident; since, in mistaking a verbal increase for a real one, the whole end and aim of classification is overlooked. The publication of Dr. Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, in 1831, "Ever since then the Celtic has been considered to be Indo-European. Indeed its position in the same group with the Iranian, Classical, Slavono-Lithuanic, and Gothic tongues, supplied the reason for substituting the term Indo-European for the previous one Indo-Germanic. "On the other hand, it seems necessary to admit that languages are allied just in proportion as they were separated from the mother-tongue in the same stage of its development. "If so, the Celtic became detached anterior to the evolution of the declension of nouns, whereas the Gothic, Slavonic, Classical and Iranian languages all separated subsequent to that stage."[21] This, along with other reasons indicated elsewhere,[22] induces the present writer to admit an affinity between the Celtic and the other so-called Indo-European tongues, but to deny that it is the same affinity which connects the Iranian, Classical, Gothic and Slavonic groups. 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. Such are (amongst others) 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 common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks, and are Indo-European rather than either Welsh, or Gaelic, or Saxon. Such (amongst others) 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. 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. Whether this was aboriginal in Denmark, is uncertain. In Scandinavia it was imported; the tongue that it supplanted having been, in all probability, the mother-tongue of the present Laplandic. The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of Canute and his sons, may be called the direct Danish (Norse or Scandinavian) element, in contradistinction to the indirect Danish of §§ 144, 155. The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is not difficult to prove a word Scandinavian. We must also show that it is not German. 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 White-town, 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 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, pumice-stone, pumex. The above-given list is from Guest's English Rhythms (B. iii. c. 3). It constitutes that portion of the elements of our language which may be called 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.—See Ranouard, Journal des Savans, 1830. 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. Latin of the Fourth Period.—This means the Latin which has been introduced between the revival of literature and the present time. It has originated in the writings of learned men in general, and is distinguished from that of the previous periods by— 1. Being less altered in form— 2. Preserving, in the case of 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 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. Plurals in -es:—
Plurals in -a:—
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 plurals 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, from a paper of Mr. Crawford, read at the British Association, 1849. Persian.—Turban, caravan, dervise, &c.—Ditto. Turkish.—Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c.—Ditto. Hindu languages.—Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy, &c.—Ditto. Chinese.—Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin, &c.—Ditto. Malay.—Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c.—Ditto. Polynesian.—Taboo, tattoo.—Ditto. 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. Ancient Carian.—Mausoleum. 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 Syrian.—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 one: 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, Chateau vert;[24] Jerusalem, Girasole;[25] Spanish Dog-cheap.—This has nothing to do with dogs. The first syllable is god=good transposed, and the second the ch-p in chapman (=merchant) cheap, and East-cheap. 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 Dowlass=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 weazel-cod. 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 is sometimes a real 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 observations respecting— 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 of other than of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism. 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 of other than 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. 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 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman, 100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words that compose it, and the analysis (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is an historical analysis. 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 (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their origin, but according to their meaning. Now the logical and historical analysis of a language generally in some degree coincides, as may be seen by noticing the kind of words introduced from the Anglo-Norman, the Latin of the fourth period, and the Arabic. CHAPTER II.THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Let the word smiÐum illustrate this. SmiÐum, the dative plural of smiÐ, is equivalent in meaning to the English to smiths, or to the Latin fabris. 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, plus the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. To smiths is the substantive smiths, plus the preposition to, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon inflection is superseded by a combination of words. The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the auxiliaries (have, be, &c.) with verbs. The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. (1.) The earlier the stage of a given 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; so also the Modern High German to the Moeso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek. NOUNS. Of Gender.—In Anglo-Saxon there are three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With adjectives each gender has its peculiar declension; with substantives there are also appropriate terminations, but only to a certain degree; e.g., of words ending in -a (nama, a name; cuma, a guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of words in -u (sunu, a son; gifu, a gift), that they are never neuter; in other words, that they are either mas. or fem. The definite article varies with the gender of its substantive; ÞÆt eage, the eye; se steorra, the star; seo tunge, the tongue. Of 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. Of 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. Of the dative in -um, the word whilom (at times, at whiles) is a still extant and an almost isolated specimen. Of Declension.—In Anglo-Saxon it is necessary to determine the termination of a substantive. There is the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as eage, steorra, tunga), and the strong, or complex declension for words ending in a consonant (smiÐ, sprÆc, leÁf). The letters i and u are dealt with as semivowels, semivowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like sunu and gifu belong to the same declension as smiÐ and spr?c. That the form of adjectives varies with their definitude or indefinitude, has been seen from § 93: definite adjectives following the inflection of the simple; indefinite ones that of the complex declension. The detail of the Anglo-Saxon declension may be collected from §§ 83-89. The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the participles present is remarkable. With the exception of the form for the genitive plural definite (which, instead of -ena, is -ra,) they follow the declension of the adjectives. From the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they may be distinguished by a difference of inflection.
Pronouns Personal.—Of the pronominal inflection in Saxon, the character may be gathered from the chapter upon pronouns. At present, it may be stated that, like the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon language possessed 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. Mood.—The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with the exception of the conjugation of the verb substantive) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon inflected as follows:
The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (lufian), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form, to lufigenne. Tense.—In regard to tense, the Anglo-Saxon coincided with the English. The present language has two tenses, the present and the past; the Saxon had no more. This past tense the modern English forms either by addition (love, loved), or by change (fall, fell). So did the Anglo-Saxons. Number and Person.—In the present English the termination -eth (moveth) is antiquated. In Anglo-Saxon it was the only form recognized. In English the plural number (indicative as well as subjunctive) has no distinguishing inflection. It was not so in Anglo-Saxon. There, although the persons were identical in form, the numbers were distinguished by the termination -aÐ for the indicative, and -n for the subjunctive. (See above.) For certain forms in the second conjugation, see the remarks on the forms drunk and drank, in Part IV. Such are the chief points in the declension of nouns and the conjugation of verbs that give a difference of character between the ancient Anglo-Saxon and the modern English: and it has already been stated that the difference between the New and the Old German, the Dutch and the Frisian, the Italian, &c., and the Latin, the Romaic and the Greek, &c., are precisely similar. How far two languages pass with equal rapidity from their ancient to their modern, from their inflected to their uninflected state (in other words, how far all languages alter at the same rate), is a question that will be noticed elsewhere. At present, it is sufficient to say, that (just as we should expect À priori) languages do not alter at the same rate. Akin to the last question is a second one: viz.: how far the rate of change in a given language can be accelerated by external circumstances. This second question bears immediately upon the history of the English language. The grammar of the current idiom compared with the grammar of the Anglo-Saxon is simplified. How far was this simplification of the grammar promoted by the Norman Conquest. The current views exaggerate the influence of the Norman Conquest and of French connexions. The remark of Mr. Price in his Preface to Warton, acceded to by Mr. Hallam in his Introduction to the Literature of Europe, is, that every one of the
The History of King Leir and his Daughters is found in two forms. Between these there is a difference either of dialect or of date, and possibly of both. Each, however, is Semi-Saxon. The extracts are made from Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, p. 143.
The Grave, a poetical fragment, the latter part of the Saxon Chronicle, a Homily for St. Edmund's Day (given in the Analecta), and above all the printed extracts of the poem of Layamon, are the more accessible specimens of the Semi-Saxon. The Ormulum, although in many points English rather than Saxon, retains the dual number of the Anglo-Saxon pronouns. However, lest too much stress be laid upon this circumstance, the epistolary character of the Ormulum must be borne in mind. It is very evident that if, even in the present day, there were spoken in some remote district the language of Alfred and Ælfric, such a mode of speech would be called, not Modern English, but Anglo-Saxon. This teaches us that the stage of language is to be measured, not by its date, but by its structure. Hence, Saxon ends and Semi-Saxon begins, not at a given year, A.D., but at that time Some amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are, 1. The substitution of -an for -as, in the plural of substantives, munucan for munucas (monks); and, conversely, the substitution of -s for -n, as steorres for steorran (stars). The use of -s, as the sign of the plural, without respect to gender, or declension, may be one of those changes that the Norman Conquest forwarded; -s being the sign of the plural in Anglo-Norman. 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 recognized in pronunciation also. 2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the 3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders and to all declensions; heart's for heortan; sun's for sunnan. 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 occasional occurrence) constitutes old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon. The following extract from Henry's history (vol. viii. append. iv.) is the proclamation of Henry III. to the people of Huntingdonshire, A.D. 1258. It currently passes for the earliest specimen of English.
In the Old English the following forms predominate. 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;—ditto. 3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; heora, theirs; aller, of all;—ditto. This with substantives and adjectives is less common. 4. The substitution of heo for they, of heora for their, of hem for them;—in contradistinction to the later stages of English, and in contradistinction to old Lowland Scotch. (See Chapter III.) 5. A more frequent use of min and thin, for my and thy;—in contradistinction to 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;—ditto. 11. The comparative absence of the articles se and seo;—ditto. 12. The substitution of ben and beeth, for synd and syndon=we, ye, they are;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
That there was French in England before the battle of Hastings appears on the authority of Camden:—
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, for if it be, and if he speak. 2. The distinction (as far as it goes) 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 a few out of a number, and have been adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it. CHAPTER III.ON THE LOWLAND SCOTCH. The question as to whether the Lowland Scotch is a dialect of the English, or a separate and independent language, is a verbal rather than a real one. Reasons for considering the Scotch and English as dialects of one and the same language lie in the fact of their being (except in the case of the more extreme forms of each) mutually intelligible. Reasons for calling one a dialect of the other depend upon causes other than philological, e.g., political preponderance, literary development, and the like. Reasons for treating the Scotch as a separate substantive language lie in the extent to which it has the qualities of a regular cultivated tongue, and a separate substantive literature—partially separate and substantive at the present time, wholly separate and substantive in the times anterior to the union of the crowns, and in the hands of Wyntoun, Blind Harry, Dunbar, and Lindsay. What is the prim facie view of the relations between the English of England, and the mutually intelligible language (Scotch or English, as we choose to call it) of Scotland? One of three:— 1. That it originated in England, and spread in the way of extension and diffusion northwards, and so reached Scotland. 2. That it originated in Scotland, and spread in the way of extension and diffusion southwards, and so reached England. 3. That it was introduced in each country from a common source. In any of these cases it is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon, even as English is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon. a. "It is an opinion which, after many others, has been pretty generally received, and, perhaps, almost taken for granted, that the language spoken in the Lowlands of b. "It has generally been supposed that the Saxon language was introduced into Scotland in the reign of Malcolm Canmore by his good queen and her retinue; or partly by means of the intercourse which prevailed between the inhabitants of Scotland and those of Cumberland, Northumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham, which were held by the Kings of Scotland as fiefs of the crown of England. An English writer, not less distinguished for his amiable disposition and candour than for the cultivation of his mind, has objected to this hypothesis with great force of argument." Be this, however, as it may, the theory which is opposed to it rests upon the following positions— 1. That the Lowland Scotch were Picts. 2. That the Picts were Goths. In favour of this latter view the chief reasons are— 1. That what the BelgÆ were the Picts were also. 2. That the BelgÆ were Germanic. Again— 1. That the natives of the Orkneys were Picts. 2. That they were also Scandinavian. So that the Picts were Scandinavian Goths. From whence it follows that—assuming what is true concerning the Orkneys is true concerning the Lowland Scotch—the Lowland Scotch was Pict, Scandinavian, Gothic, and (as such) more or less Belgic. For the non-Gothic character of the Picts see the researches of Mr. Garnett, as given in § 139, as well as a paper—believed to be from the same author—in the Quarterly Review for 1834. For the position of the BelgÆ, see Chapter IV. To verify these views we want not a general dictionary of the Scottish language taken altogether, but a series of local glossaries, or at any rate a vocabulary, 1st, of the northern; 2ndly, of the southern Scottish. Between the English and Lowland Scotch we must account for the likeness as well as the difference. The Scandinavian theory accounts for the difference only. The Bruce, iv. 871—892. And as he raid in to the nycht, So saw he, with the monys lycht, Schynnyng off scheldys gret plentÉ; And had wondre quhat it mycht be. With that all hale thai gaiff a cry, And he, that hard sa suddainly Sic noyis, sumdele affrayit was. Bot in schort time he till him tais His spyrites full hardely; For his gentill hart, and worthy, Assurit hym in to that nede. Then with the spuris he strak the sted, And ruschyt in amaing them all. The feyrst he met he gert him fall; And syne his suord he swapyt out, And roucht about him mony rout, And slew sexsum weill sone and ma: Then wndre him his horss thai sla: And he fell; but he smertty rass, And strykand rowm about him mass: And slew off thaim a quantitÉ. But woundyt wondre sar was he. Wyntoun's Chronicle, I. xiii. 1—22. Blessyde Bretayn Beelde sulde be Of all Þe Ilys in Þe Se, Quhare Flowrys are fele on Feldys fayre Hale of hewe, haylsum of ayre. Of all corne Þare is copy gret, Pese and A'tys, Bere and Qwhet: BÁth froyt on Tre, and fysche in flwde; And tyl all Catale pasture gwde. Solynus Sayis, in Brettany Sum steddys growys sÁ habowndanly Of Gyrs, Þat sum tym (but) Þair Fe FrÁ fwlth of Mete refrenyht be, Ðair fwde sall turne Þam to peryle, To rot, or bryst, or dey sum quhyle. Ðare wylde in Wode has welth at wille; Ðare hyrdys hydys Holme and Hille: Ðare Bwyis bowys all for Byrtht, BÁthe Merle and Ma?esys mellys for myrtht: Ðare huntyng is at all kyne Dere, And rycht gud hawlkyn on Bÿwer; Of Fysche Þaire is habowndance; And nedfulle thyng to Mannys substance. Wallace, xi. 230-262. A lord off court, quhen he approchyt thar, Wnwisytly sperd, withoutyn prouision; "Wallace, dar ye go fecht on our lioun?" And he said; "Ya, so the Kyng suffyr me; Or on your selff, gyff ye ocht bettyr be." Quhat will ye mar? this thing amittyt was, That Wallace suld on to the lioun pas. The King thaim chargyt to bring him gud harnas: Then he said; "Nay, God scheild me fra sic cass. I wald tak weid, suld I fecht with a man; But (for) a dog, that nocht off armes can, I will haiff nayn, bot synglar as I ga." A gret manteill about his hand can ta, And his gud suerd; with him he tuk na mar; Abandounly in barrace entryt thar. Gret chenys was wrocht in the yet with a gyn, And pulld it to quhen Wallace was tharin. The wod lyoun, on Wallace quhar he stud, Rampand he braid, for he desyryt blud; With his rude pollis in the mantill rocht sa. Aukwart the bak than Wallace can him ta, With his gud suerd, that was off burnest steill, His body in twa it thruschyt euirilkdeill. Syn to the King he raykyt in gret ire, And said on lowd; "Was this all your desyr, To wayr a Scot thus lychtly in to wayn? Is thar mar doggis at ye wald yeit haiff slayne? Go, bryng thaim furth, sen I mon doggis qwell, To do byddyng, quhill that with thee duell. It gaynd full weill I graithit me to Scotland; For grettar deidis thair men has apon hand, Than with a dog in battaill to escheiff— At you in France for euir I tak my leiff." Gawin Douglas, Æn. ii. As Laocon that was Neptunus priest, And chosin by cavil vnto that ilk office, Ane fare grete bull offerit in sacrifice, Solempnithe before the haly altere, Throw the still sey from Tenedos in fere, Lo twa gret lowpit edderis with mony thraw First throw the flude towart the land can draw. (My sprete abhorris this matter to declare) Aboue the wattir thare hals stude euirmare, With bludy creistis outwith the wallis hie, The remanent swam always vnder the se, With grisly bodyis lynkit mony fald, The salt fame stouris from the fard they hald, Unto the ground thay glade with glowand ene, Stuffit full of venom, fire and felloun tene, With tounges quhissling in thar mouthis red, Thay lik the twynkilland stangis in thar hed. We fled away al bludles for effere. Bot with ane braide to Laocon in fere Thay stert attanis, and his twa sonnys zyng First athir serpent lappit like ane ring, And with thare cruel bit, and stangis fell, Of tender membris tuke mony sory morsel; Syne thay the preist invadit baith twane, Quhilk wyth his wappins did his besy pane His childer for to helpen and reskew. Bot thay about him lowpit in wympillis threw, And twis circulit his myddel round about, And twys faldit thare sprutillit skynnis but dout, About his hals, baith neck and hed they schent. As he ettis thare hankis to haue rent, And with his handis thaym away haue draw, His hede bendis and garlandis all war blaw Full of vennum and rank poysoun attanis, Quhilk infekkis the flesche, blude, and banys. In pronunciation, the substitution of d for Ð (if not a point of spelling), as in fader for father; of a for o, as bÁith for both; of s for sh, as sall for shall; and the use of the guttural sound of ch, as in loch, nocht, are the same. The ejection of the n before t, or an allied sound, and the lengthening of the preceding vowel, by way of compensation, as in begouth for beginneth, seems truly Scotch. It is the same change that in Greek turns the radical syllable ?d??t into ?d???. The formation of the plural of verbs in -s, rather than in -th (the Anglo-Saxon form), is Northern English as well as Scotch:—Scotch, slepys, lovys; Northern English, slepis, lovis; Old English, slepen, loven; Anglo-Saxon slepiaÐ, lufiaÐ. The formation of the plural number of the genitive case by the addition of the syllable -is (blastis, birdis, bloomis), instead of the letter -s (blasts, birds, blooms), carries with it a metrical advantage, inasmuch as it gives a greater number of double rhymes. The same may be said of the participial forms, affrayit, assurit, for affrayd, assured. Concerning the comparative rate of change in the two languages no general assertion can be made. In the Scotch words sterand, slepand, &c., for steering, sleeping, the form is antiquated, and Anglo-Saxon rather than English. It is not so, however, with the words thai (they), thaim (them), thair (their), compared with the contemporary words in English, heo, hem, heora. In these it is the Scottish that is least, and the English that is most Anglo-Saxon. CHAPTER IV.OF CERTAIN UNDETERMINED AND FICTITIOUS LANGUAGES OF GREAT BRITAIN. The BelgÆ.—By some these are considered a Germanic rather than a Celtic tribe; the view being supported by the following extracts from CÆsar:—"Gallia est omnis divisa in tres partes; quarum unam incolunt BelgÆ, aliam Aquitani, tertiam, qui ipsorum lingua CeltÆ, nostra Galli, appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos—a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit."—B. G. i. "BelgÆ ab extremis GalliÆ finibus oriuntur."—B. G. ii. "Quum ab his quÆreret, quÆ civitates, quantÆque in armis essent, et quid in bello possent, sic reperiebat: plerosque Belgas esse ortos a Germanis, Rhenumque antiquitÙs transductos, propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse; Gallosque, qui ea loca incolerent, expulisse; solosque esse qui patrum nostrorum memoria, omni Gallia vexata Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi prohibuerunt."—B. G. ii. 4. "BritanniÆ pars interior ab iis incolitur quos natos in insul ips memori proditum dicunt: maritima pars ab iis, qui prÆdÆ ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant."—B. G. v. 12. They have a still more important bearing, the historian over and above identifying the BelgÆ with the Germans, affirms that what applies to the BelgÆ applies to the Picts also. Now this is one of the arguments in favour of the doctrine exhibited (and objected to) in pp. 124-127, and the extent of questions upon which it bears, may be collected from the following quotation:—"A variety of other considerations might be mentioned, which, although they do not singly amount to proof, yet merit attention, as viewed in connexion with what has been already stated. "As so great a part of the eastern coast of what is now called England was so early peopled by the BelgÆ, it is hardly conceivable that neither so enterprising a people, nor any of their kindred tribes, should ever think of extending their descents a little farther eastward. For that the BelgÆ and the inhabitants of the countries bordering on the Baltic, had a common origin, there seems to be little reason to doubt. The Dutch assert that their progenitors were Scandinavians, who, about a century before the common era, left Jutland and the neighbouring territories, in quest of new habitations.[29] The Saxons must be viewed as a branch from the same stock; for they also proceeded from modern Jutland and its vicinity. Now, there is nothing repugnant to reason in supposing that some of these tribes should pass over directly to the coast of Scotland opposite to them, even before the Christian era. For Mr. Whitaker admits that the Saxons, whom he strangely makes a Gaulic people, in the second century applied themselves to navigation, and soon became formidable to the Romans.[30] Before they could become formidable to so powerful a people, they must have been at least so well acquainted with navigation as to account it no great enterprise to cross from the shores of the Baltic over to Scotland, especially if they took the islands of Shetland and Orkney in their way. "As we have seen that, according to Ptolemy, there were, in his time, different tribes of BelgÆ, settled on the northern "There is every reason to believe, that the Belgic tribes in Caledonia, described by Ptolemy, were Picts. For as the BelgÆ, Picts, and Saxons seem to have had a common origin, it is not worth while to differ about names. These frequently arise from causes so trivial, that their origin becomes totally inscrutable to succeeding ages. The Angles, although only one tribe, have accidentally given their name to the country which they invaded, and to all the descendants of the Saxons and BelgÆ, who were by far more numerous. "It is universally admitted, that there is a certain national character, of an external kind, which distinguishes one people from another. This is often so strong that those who have travelled through various countries, or have accurately marked the diversities of this character, will scarcely be deceived even as to a straggling individual. Tacitus long ago remarked the striking resemblance between the Germans and Caledonians. Every stranger, at this day, observes the great difference and complexion between the Highlanders and Lowlanders. No intelligent person in England is in danger of confounding the Welsh with the posterity of the Saxons. Now, if the Lowland Scots be not a Gothic race, but in fact the descendants of the ancient British, they must be supposed to retain some national resemblance of the Welsh. But will any impartial observer venture to assert, that in feature, complexion, or form, there is any such similarity as to induce the slightest apprehension that they have been originally the same people?"[31] It is doubtful, however, whether CÆsar meant to say more than that over above certain differences which distinguished the BelgÆ from the other inhabitants of the common country Gallia, there was an intermixture of Germans. The import of a possibly Germanic origin for the BelgÆ gives us the import of a possibly Germanic origin for— The continuation of the passage quoted in §193 has induced the notion that there have been in Britain Spanish, Iberic, or Basque tribes:—"Silurum colorati vultus, et torti plerumque crines, et posita contra Hispania, Iberos veteres trajecisse, easque sedes occupÂsse fidem faciunt."—Agricola, xi. As this, although an opinion connected with the history of the languages of Great Britain, is not an opinion connected with the history of the English language, it is a question for the Celtic, rather than the Gothic, philologist. The same applies to the points noticed in §§ 136-138. Nevertheless they are necessary for the purposes of minute philological analysis. In the Little Carthaginian (Poenulus) of the Latin comic writer Plautus, a portion of the dialogue is carried on in the language of Carthage. That the Punic language of Carthage should closely Emendated and interpreted by Bochart, the first ten lines of a speech in Act v. s. 1. stand thus:— 1. N' yth alionim valionuth sicorath jismacon sith 2. Chy-mlachai jythmu mitslia mittebariim ischi 3. Liphorcaneth yth beni ith jad adi ubinuthai 4. Birua rob syllohom alonim ubymisyrtohom 5. Bythrym moth ymoth othi helech Antidamarchon 6. Ys sideli: brim tyfel yth chili schontem liphul 7. Uth bin imys dibur thim nocuth nu' Agorastocles 8. Ythem aneti hy chyr saely choc, sith naso. 9. Binni id chi lu hilli gubylim lasibil thym 10. Body aly thera ynn' yss' immoncon lu sim— The Same, in Hebrew Characters. ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ????? .1 ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? .2 ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???????? .3 ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????????? .4 ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????????? .5 ??? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? .6 ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????????????? .7 ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? .8 ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? .9 ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? .01 Six lines following these were determined to be Liby-Phoenician, or the language of the native Africans in the neighbourhood of Carthage, mixed with Punic. These, it was stated, had the same meaning with the ten lines in Carthaginian. The following lines of Plautus have, by all commentators, 1. Deos deasque veneror, qui hanc urbem colunt, 2. Ut, quod de mea re huc veni, rite venerim. 3. Measque hic ut gnatas, et mei fratris filium 4. Reperire me siritis: Di, vostram fidem! 5. QuÆ mihi surruptÆ sunt, et fratris filium: 6. Sed hic mihi antehac hospes Antidamas fuit. 7. Eum fecisse aiunt, sibi quod faciendum fuit. 8. Ejus filium hic esse prÆdicant Agorastoclem: 9. Deum hospitalem et tesseram mecum fero: 10. In hisce habitare monstratum est regionibus. 11. Hos percunctabor, qui huc egrediuntur foras. Guided by the metrical paraphrase of the original author, Bochart laid before the scholars of his time a Latin version, of which the following is an English translation:— Close Translation of Bochart's Latin Version. 1. I ask the gods and goddesses that preside over this city, 2. That my plans may be fulfilled.—May my business prosper under their guidance! 3. The release of my son and my daughters from the hands of a robber. 4. May the gods grant this, through the mighty spirit that is in them and by their providence! 5. Before his death, Antidamarchus used to sojourn with me. 6. A man intimate with me: but he has joined the ranks of those whose dwelling is in darkness (the dead). 7. There is a general report that his son has here taken his abode; viz. Agorastocles. 8. The token (tally) of my claim to hospitality is a carven tablet, the sculpture whereof is my god. This I carry. 9. A witness has informed me that he lives in this neighbourhood. 10. Somebody comes this way through the gate: behold him: I'll ask him whether he knows the name. To professed classics and to professed orientalists, the version of Bochart has, on the whole, appeared satisfactory. Divisions of opinion there have been, it is true, even amongst those who received it; but merely upon matters of detail. Some have held that the Punic is Syriac rather than Hebraic, whilst others have called in to its interpretation the Arabic, The remark of Gesenius concerning the pretended affinities between the Punic and Hibernian arose from the discovery attributed to General Vallancey; viz. that the speech in Plautus was Irish Gaelic, and consequently that the Irish was Carthaginian, and vice versÂ. The word attributed is used because the true originator of the hypothesis was not Vallancey, but O'Neachtan. The Gaelic Version. 1. N 'iath all o nimh uath lonnaithe socruidshe me comsith 2. Chimi lach chuinigh! muini is toil, miocht beiridh iar mo scith 3. Liomhtha can ati bi mitche ad Éadan beannaithe 4. Bior nar ob siladh umhal: o nimh! ibhim a frotha! 5. Beith liom! mo thime noctaithe; neil ach tan ti daisic mac coinme 6. Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla 7. Uch bin nim i is de beart inn a ccomhnuithe Agorastocles! 8. Itche mana ith a chithirsi; leicceath sith nosa! 9. Buaine na iad cheile ile: gabh liom an la so bithim'! 10. Bo dileachtach nionath n' isle, mon cothoil us im. In English. 1. Omnipotent much-dreaded Deity of this country! assuage my troubled mind! 2. Thou! the support of feeble captives! being now exhausted with fatigue, of thy free will guide to my children! 3. O let my prayers be perfectly acceptable in thy sight! 4. An inexhaustible fountain to the humble: O Deity! let me drink of its streams! 5. Forsake me not! my earnest desire is now disclosed, which is only that of recovering my daughters. 6. This was my fervent prayer, lamenting their misfortunes in thy sacred temples. 7. O bounteous Deity! it is reported here dwelleth Agorastocles. 8. Should my request appear just, let here my disquietudes cease. 9. Let them be no longer concealed; O that I may this day find my daughters! 10. They will be fatherless, and preys to the worst of men, unless it be thy pleasure that I should find them. From the quotations already given, the general reader may see that both the text and the translation of Plautus are least violated in the reading and rendering of Bochart, a reading and rendering which no Gothic or Semitic scholar has ever set aside. The reasoning upon this point is preeminently that of the Scandinavian (i.e. Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) school of philology and ethnology. Arndt, I believe, was the first who argued that if the so-called Indo-European nations were as closely connected with each other as they are generally considered, their separation from the common stock must have been subsequent to the occupation of Europe by some portion or other of the human species—in other words, that this earlier population must have been spread over those areas of which the Indo-Europeans took possession only at a later period. That the divisions of such an earlier population were, at least, as closely connected with each other as the different members of the so-called Indo-European class, was a reasonable opinion. It was even reasonable to suppose that they were more closely connected; since the date of their diffusion must have been nearer the time of the original dispersion of mankind. If so, all Europe (the British Isles included) might have had as its aborigines a family older than the oldest members of the Indo-European stock; a family of which every member may now be extinct, or a family of which remains may still survive. Where are such remains to be sought? In two sorts of localities— 1. Parts beyond the limits of the area occupied by the so-called Indo-Europeans. 2. Parts within the limits of the so-called Indo-Europeans; but so fortified by nature as to have been the stronghold of a retiring population. What are the chief parts coming under the first of these conditions? a. The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Scandinavian and Slavonic areas, i.e. the countries of the Laplanders and Finnlanders. b. The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Iranian stock, i.e. the Dekkan, or the country of those natives of India (whatever they may be) whose languages are not derived from the Sanscrit. What are parts coming under the second of these conditions? a. The Basque districts of the Pyrenees, where the language represents that of the aborigines of Spain anterior to the conquest of the Roman. b. The Albanians.—Such the doctrine of the continuity of an ante-Indo-European population, from Cape Comorin to Lapland, and from Lapland to the Pyrenees. There is some philological evidence of this: whether there is enough is another matter. This view, which on its philological side has been taken up by Rask, Kayser, and the chief Scandinavian scholars, and which, whether right or wrong, is the idea of a bold and comprehensive mind, as well as a powerful instrument of criticism in the way of a provisional theory, has also been adopted on its physiological side by the chief Scandinavian anatomists and palÆontologists—Retzius, Eschricht, Niilson, and others. Skulls differing in shape from the Celtic skulls of Gaul, and from the Gothic skulls of Germany and Scandinavia, have been found in considerable numbers; and generally in burial-places of an apparently greater antiquity than those which contain typical Celtic, or typical Gothic crania. Hence there is some anatomical as well as philological evidence: whether there is enough is another question. PART III.SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING. ———— CHAPTER I.GENERAL NATURE OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. I. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye. The syllables ka and ga are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Now 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 likeness between the two sounds, or, at any rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty mode of spelling. If instead of ga we wrote gha the following would be the effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it would look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and consequently its affinity to ka would seem less than it really was. It is perfectly true that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as the sound remained the same, the relation 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. 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. II. 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. In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare syllables that contain those consonants; e.g., to determine the relations of p, b, f, v, we say pa, ba, fa, va; or for those of s and z, we say sa, za. Here we compare syllables, each consonant being followed by a vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often obliged to isolate the consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to utter (or half utter) imperfect sounds of p', b', t', d'. In doing this we isolate the consonant. 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 Sanskrit 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. Continuous and explosive.—Isolate the sounds of b, p, t, d, k, g. Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of resting upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once. 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. For the semivowels and the diphthongs, see the sequel. CHAPTER II.SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. 1. 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. 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. 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. 1. that the th in thin is a simple single sound, different from the th in thine, and that it may be expressed by the sign Þ. 2. That the th in thine is a simple single sound, different from the th in thin, and that it may be expressed by the sign Ð. 3. That the sh in shine is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign s (Greek s??a). 4. That the z in azure, glazier (French j), is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign ? (Greek ??ta). 5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there are two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and French, &c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the sign ? and the sign ? (Greek ??ppa and ??a). With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the sixteen mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms, and bearing in mind what was said concerning the words sharp and flat, continuous and explosive. 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, at the first glance, such might appear to be the case. F is continuous, whilst p is explosive. S, however, is continuous, and s, in respect to the difference under consideration, is classed not with f the continuous sound but with p the explosive one. I am unable to account for the difference between p and f. It exists: it is visible. It has been expressed by a term. 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:—
I am not familiar enough with the early grammarians to know when the terms lene and aspirate were first used. They were the Latin equivalents to the Greek words ????? (psilon) and d?s? (dasy) respectively. The Greek terms are preferable. They convey no determinate idea, whereas the Latin terms convey a false one. The origin of the word aspirate I imagine to be as follows. The Latin language, wanting both the sound of the Greek theta, and the sign to express it (?) rendered it by th. This orthography engenders the false notion that ? differed from t by the addition of the aspirate h. To guard against similar false notions, I rarely hereafter use the word aspirate without qualifying it by the addition of the adjective so-called. All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of s and z, all the lenes are explosive. I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a fourfold form (i.e. sharp, or flat, lene, or (so-called) aspirate), lies the essential character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids. Y and w.—These sounds, respectively intermediate to ? and i (the ee in feet), and to ? and u (oo in book), form a transition from the vowels to the consonants. 1. That m is allied to the series p.—The combination inp has a tendency to become imp. 2. That n is allied to the series t.—The combination imt has a tendency to become either impt, or int. 3. That l is allied to the series k.—The evidence of this lies deep in comparative philology. 4. That r is allied to the series s.—The evidence of this is of the same nature with that of the preceding assertion. The series p and k have this peculiarity.—They are connected with the vowels through w and u (oo), and through y and i (ee) respectively. The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system. 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. Compared with a in fate, and the o in note, a in father, To the preceding remarks the following statements may be added. 1. That the words independent and dependent correspond with the terms perfect and imperfect of the Hebrew grammarians. 2. That the Hebrew grammars give us the truest notions respecting these particular properties of vowels. The following sentences are copied from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, Art. 33, 34:—"By perfect vowels is meant, vowels which, being preceded by a consonant" (or without being so preceded), "will constitute a complete syllable, as ???? ba. By imperfect vowels is meant those vowels which are not generally" (never) "found to constitute syllables without either the addition of a consonant or of an accent. Such syllables, therefore, must be either like ????? bad, or ???? ba, i.e., followed by a consonant, or accompanied by an accent." For further remarks on this subject, see the chapter on accent. It not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. I (ee) and u (oo) are incapable of becoming broad. E in bed (as I have convinced myself), although both broad and slender, is incapable of becoming independent. For the u in but, and for the Ö of certain foreign languages, I have no satisfactory systematic position.
From these, the semivowels w and y make a transition to the consonants v and the so-called aspirate of g (?, not being in English), respectively.
That the letters most closely allied in phonetics should be most frequently interchanged in grammar, is what, on À priori grounds, we most naturally are led to expect. And that such is often the case, the study of languages tells us. That, however, it is always so, would be a hasty and an erroneous assertion. The Greek language changes p into f. Here the connexion in phonetics and the connexion in language closely coincide. The Welsh language changes p into m. Here the connexion in phonetics and the connexion in language do not closely coincide. CHAPTER III.OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS. For determining which of the two letters shall be changed, in other words, whether it shall be the first that accommodates itself to the second, or the second that accommodates itself to the first, there are no general rules. This is settled by the particular habit of the language in consideration. The word mutes in the second 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, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp consonant. The law exhibited above may be called the law of accommodation. Combinations like gt, kd, &c., may be called incompatible combinations. To a German, however, and a Frenchman, the sound of the English th (either in thin or thine) is equally a matter of difficulty. The reason of this lies in the fact of the respective sounds being absent in the German, French, and English languages; since sounds are easy or hard to pronounce just in proportion as we have been familiarised with them. There is no instance of a new sound being introduced at once into a language. Where they originate at all, they are evolved, not imported. Let there be a language wherein there are no such sounds as sh, ch (tsh), or j (dzh); but where there are the sounds of s, t, d, and y. Let a change affect the unstable combinations sy, ty, dy. From this will arise the evolved sounds of sh, ch, and j. The phenomena of evolution help to determine the pronunciation of dead languages. In a given language let there be the absence of the sound z, the other conditions being those noted in the case of the words stag, slab, stud, &c. Let the intermediate vowel be ejected. Then, instead of the s being changed into an evolved z, let the other alternative take place; so that the words become staks, slaps, stuts. In this latter case we have an alteration of the original word, brought about by the insufficiency of the system of articulate sounds. "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 duplications, are found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the pronunciation.
Now in certain languages the true aspirates are of common occurrence, i.e., sounds like the t in nuthook, the ph in haphazard, &c., are as frequent as the sounds of p, b, s, &c. In the spelling of these sounds by means of the English we are hampered by the circumstance of th and ph being already used in a different sense. CHAPTER IV.EUPHONY; THE PERMUTATION AND THE TRANSITION 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 (mark, not an absolute necessity) 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). The province of euphony has not been very accurately determined. 1. That the letter inserted should be a consonant is evident. The vowel e (in numerus) had been previously ejected. 2. That it should be a mute is evident. A liquid would have given the unstable or unpronounceable combinations mnr, mlr, mrr, mmr. 3. That it should be a consonant, either of series b or of series s, was natural; it being series b and series s with which m and r are respectively connected. 4. That it should be a consonant of series b, rather than one of series s, we collect from the fact that msr (numsrus) or mzr (numzrus) give inharmonious, and, consequently, unstable combinations. 5. That of the b series, it should be b or v (flat) rather than p or f (sharp), we infer from the fact of m and r both being flat. 6. Of v and b, the latter alone gives a stable combination, so that we have the Spanish form nombre, and not nomvre. In this we have an illustration of the use of attending to the nature and connections of articulate sounds in general. Similar tendencies, in a certain degree, affect the combinations enp, enb. They are liable to become emp, or emb. Any one may see that the word enperor embarrasses the utterance. In respect to the unstable combination tupth, we may observe this, viz. that the ways of altering it are two. Either the first letter may be accommodated to the second, tufÞ, or the second may be accommodated to the first, tupt. Which of these two changes shall take place is determined by the particular habit of the language. In Greek we add to the radical syllable t?p-, the inflectional syllable -???. The first letter, p, is accommodated to the second, ?, and the word becomes t?f??? (tyfÞÆn), as in ?t?f??? (etyfÞÆn). In English we add to the radical syllable stag, the inflectional syllable s. Here the second letter is accommodated to the first, and the resulting word is not staks, but stagz. 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. Important changes are undergone by the sounds k, g, and the allied ones nk, ng, y, as will be seen in the chapter on verbs. 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 v 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, fev-er? 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 follows it, 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 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 that attend the description of a sound; and for this reason I again request the reader to satisfy himself either of its truth or its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the conclusions that will be drawn from it. The account, however, being recognised, we have in the current natural 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 the current natural sound 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 each sound being expressed by a separate sign, the word happy is divided thus, hap-?y; and that such is 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, of which more will be said in the chapter on orthography. 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 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. In the independence and dependence of vowels there are no degrees. Subject to the views laid down in the next section, the vowel ee in seeing is long, and it is certainly independent. Whether the syllable see- be long is another question. 1. All long vowels are independent, but all independent vowels are not long. 2. All dependent vowels are short, but all short vowels are not dependent. Clear notions upon these matters are necessary for determining the structure of the English and classical metres. The independent 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 seen, or by a vowel, as in see-ing. The dependent 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, and still retain its dependent character and also its shortness. Such is the power it has 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. Measured by the quantity of the vowel the word sits is short, and the syllable see- in seeing is long. But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken of the syllables see (in seeing) and sits. It is well known, that, in the eyes of a classical scholar, the see (in seeing) is short, and that in the word sits the i is long. The classic differs from the Englishman thus,—He measures his I. That vowels long by nature may appear to become short by position, and vice versÂ. II. 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. III. 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. IV. 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. These remarks are appreciated when we consider the comparative characters of the classical and the English prosody. CHAPTER VII.ON ACCENT. Words accented on the last syllable—BrigÁde, pretÉnce, harpoÓn, reliÉve, detÉr, assÚme, besoÚght, 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—RÉgular, an´tidote, for´tify, suscÉptible, incontrovÉrtible. Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)—RÉceptacle, rÉgulating, tÁlkativeness, Ábsolutely, lÚminary, inÉvitable, &c. A great number of words are distinguished by the accent alone. The following list is from Nares' Orthoepy, a work to which the reader is referred.
That class of words that by a change of accent are converted from nouns into verbs (sÚrvey, survÉy, cÓntrast, contrÁst, &c.) will be noticed more at large in the Chapter on Derivation. To assert as a universal rule that the accent is always on the root, and never on the subordinate part of a word, is too much. Although in the English language such an assertion (with one exception) is found true; by the French and other languages it is invalidated. In words like len´g-then-ing, we have a second inflectional or subordinate syllable; and the accent remains in its original place, absolutely, but not relatively. It is all the farther from the end of the word. Besides indicating the propriety of determining the place of the accent by counting from the end, rather than the beginning of a word, this circumstance indicates something else. Imagine the English participles to be declined, and to possess cases, formed by the addition of fresh syllables. In this case the word len´gthening would become a quadri-syllable. But to throw the accent to the fourth syllable from the end is inconvenient. Hence a necessity of removing it from the radical, and placing it on an inflectional syllable. The German word lÉben (to live) illustrates the foregoing sentence. LÉb- is the root, lÉb-end=living, from whence lebÉndig=lively (with the accent on an inflectional syllable), although this last word might without inconvenience have been accented on the first syllable; that being only the third from the end. Confusion between the radical and inflectional syllables of a word, arising from the situation of the accent, may work the deterioration of a language. 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. I.) It also plays an important part in determining the nature of the English metres—See Prosody. Thirdly (the subject of the present section), it plays an important part in all systems of orthography. The quotation from Professor Lee's Hebrew Grammar, in p. 149, is referred to; and a particular attention to a somewhat difficult subject is requisite. The u in the word monument is what a classic would call short. The second syllable in the word monument is what a classical scholar would call short. The vowel is short, and the syllable taken altogether is short. Herein it agrees with the first syllable mon-. It differs, however, from the syllable mon- in being destitute of an accent, mÓnument. With the third syllable -ment, it agrees in the eyes of an Englishman, but differs in the eyes of a scholar. The vowels u and e are equally short, and, as the Englishman measures by the vowel Now the -u in mÓnument although short, is not dependent. If, however, the syllable -nu take an accent; that is, if the place of the accent be removed from the first to the second syllable, the vowel u still being kept short, we have a word which we spell thus, monumment. Now the u in monumment is not only short, but dependent. It is upon this effect of an accent that the quotation from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, p. 149, especially bears. And now two questions arise:—1. How is it that the accent has the effect of rendering such a syllable as the u in monumment dependent? 2. Why do we in spelling such a syllable double the consonant? An accent falling upon a syllable must, of necessity, do one of two things: it must affect the vowel, or it must affect the consonant. If it affect the vowel, the vowel becomes the predominant part of the syllable, as in mÓnooment; but, if it affect the consonant, the consonant becomes the predominant part of the syllable, as monum´ment. In words like monumment the consonant is, strictly speaking, as single as it is in monument, or monooment. Its absolute sound is the same. Not so its relative sound. This is exaggerated by two circumstances:—1, The comparative shortness of the vowel u; 2, the fact of the accent falling on it. The increased relative importance of the letter m in the word monumment is mistaken for a reduplication of the sound. This is the reason why in most languages the shortness of a vowel is expressed by the doubling of the consonant following; this doubling being no true reduplication of the sound, but a mere orthographical conventionality. 1. Of showing that the generality of writers have the credit of confusing accent with quantity— 2. Of showing that there is a reason for such a confusion having existed— 3. Of indicating the propriety of the expressions in italics—It is not stated that the consonant c is doubled, but that it is added to the first syllable. The difference lies, not in its reduplication, but in its distribution. 4. Of taking a slight exception—A syllable (accented or unaccented) must be either independent or dependent; if the latter, then in most immediate contact with the consonant that follows.
CHAPTER VIII.THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY. That the preceding classification is natural I am induced to believe by the following circumstances. Errors in the way of articulation generally arise from a source different from those of accent and of quantity. Errors in accent and quantity are generally referable to insufficient grammatical or etymological knowledge, whilst the errors of articulation betray a provincial dialect. The misdivision of syllables, an orthoepical error of a fourth kind, has in the English, and perhaps in other languages, given rise to a peculiar class of words. There have been those who have written a nambassador for an ambassador, misdividing the syllables, and misdistributing the sound of the letter n. The double form (a and an) of the English indefinite article, encourages this misdivision. Now, in certain words an error of this kind has had a permanent influence. The English word nag is, in Danish, Ög; the n, in English, having originally belonged to the indefinite an, which preceded it. The words, instead of being divided thus, an ag, were divided thus, a nag, and the fault became perpetuated. That the Danish is the true form we collect, firstly, from the ease with which the English form is accounted for, and, secondly, from the old Saxon form ehu, Latin equus. In adder we have the process reversed. The true form is nadder, old English; natter, German. Here the n is taken from the substantive and added to the article. In newt and eft we have each form. The list of words of this sort can be increased. 1. The fault of incompetent enunciation.—A person who says sick for thick, or elebben for eleven, does so, not because he knows no better, but because he cannot enounce the right sounds of th and v. He is incompetent to it. His error is not one of ignorance. It is an acoustic or a phonetic defect. As such it differs from— 2. The fault of erroneous enunciation.—This is the error of a person who talks of jocholate instead of chocolate. It is not that he cannot pronounce rightly, but that he mistakes the nature of the sound required. Still more the person who calls a hedge a nedge, and an edge a hedge. I. Undefined notions as to the language to which a word belongs.—The flower called anemone is variously pronounced. Those who know Greek say anemone, speaking as if the word was written anemohny. The mass say, anemone, speaking as if the word was written anemmony. Now, the doubt here is as to the language of the word. If it be Greek, it is anemone. ??a ??d?? t??te?, t? d? d????a t?? ??e??a?. Bion. And if it be English, it is (on the score of analogy) as undoubtedly anÉmmony. The pronunciation of the word in point is determined when we have determined the language of it. II. Mistakes as to fact, the language of a word being determined.—To know the word anemone to be Greek, and to use it as a Greek word, but to call it anemony, is not to be undecided as to a matter of language, but to be ignorant as to a matter of quantity. III. Neglect of analogy.—Each and all of the following words, orator, theatre, senator, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are derived, accented on the second syllable; as orÁtor, theÁtre, senÁtor. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first; as Órator, thÉatre, These, amongst others, the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation, have been adduced not for the sake of exhausting, but for the sake of illustrating the subject. I. The authority of scholars.—This is of value up to a certain point only. The fittest person for determining the classical pronunciation of a word like anemone is the classical scholar; but the mere classical scholar is far from being the fittest person to determine the analogies that such a word follows in English. II. The usage of educated bodies, such as the bar, the pulpit, the senate, &c.—These are recommended by two circumstances: 1. The chance that each member of them is sufficiently a scholar in foreign tongues to determine the original pronunciation of derived words, and sufficiently a critic in his own language to be aware of the analogies that are in operation. 2. The quantity of imitators that, irrespective of the worth of his pronunciation, each individual can carry with him. On this latter ground the stage is a sort of standard. The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability. It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined. Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that, although good standards on points of accent and quantity, they are bad ones upon points of articulation. III. The authority of societies constituted with the express purpose of taking cognizance of the language of the country.—These, although recognized in Italy and other parts of the Continent, have only been proposed in Great Britain. Their inefficacy arises from the inutility of attempting to fix that which, like language, is essentially fluctuating. IV. The authority of the written language.—The value of this may be collected from the chapter on orthography. V. These, amongst others, the standards that have been appealed to, are adduced not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show the unsatisfactory nature of authority in matters of speech. I. The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain pronunciation.—To determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a sufficient knowledge of English analogies. He must also have some test by which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:—Let it be asked whether the word lens (in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact will give an answer. There is of the word lens a plural number, and this plural number is the English form lenses, and not the Latin form lentes. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the contrary. That the word anemone is English (and consequently pronounced anemone) we know from the plural form, which is not anemonÆ, but anemones. II. The preference of one pronunciation over another on the score of utility.—The word ascetic, for certain orthographical reasons, notwithstanding its origin from the Greek word askeÓ, is called assetic. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the word sceptic, septic. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the analogy of ascetic has not been overlooked) is in III. The tendencies of language.—From p. 153, we see that the combination ew is an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to become yoo, and that the y in yoo has a tendency to change a d preceding into j; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons, dew is pronounced jew. It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a hundred years hence, than to determine its present pronunciation. Theoretical propriety is in favour of dew, so also is the view in the way of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will say jew, for the tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences. We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given pronunciation should prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35] CHAPTER IX.GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY. A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:—1. The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more fully. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a 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, and of the th in thin; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each other as the p in pate and the f in fate. Let each of these sounds have a sign (or letter) expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in fate. If the letter expressing the th in thin be a mere modification of the letter expressing the t in tin, then must the letter expressive of the f in fate be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in pate, and vice versÂ. If this be not the case, the alphabet is inconsistent. 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 third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of ?? and ??, mere varieties of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst ?? and ???, sounds specifically distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter. 1. 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 the letter f in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in fill; whilst in Greek words it is denoted by a combination, as in Philip. The reverse of this takes place with the letter g; here a single sign has a double power; in gibbet it is sounded as j, and in gibberish as g in got. 2. The aim at secondary objects.—The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing (for the three terms mean the same thing), 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 3. 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 orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling. 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.
For the relations of these see Chapter II. 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.
Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the É fermÉ of the French; believing that the vowel in words like their and vein has a different sound from the vowel in words like there and vain. For my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own speech or that of my neighbours; although I am far from denying that in certain dialects of our language such may have been the case. The following is an extract from the Danish grammar for Englishmen, by Professor Rask, whose eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled his ear: "The É fermÉ, or close É, is very frequent in Danish, but scarcely perceptible in English; unless in such words as, their, vein, veil, which appear to sound a little different from there, vain, vale." The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being so closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others being combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in requiring to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be distinguished from each other. Now, although every sound specifically distinct should be expressed by a distinct sign, it does not follow that mere modifications or varieties (especially if they be within certain limits) should be so expressed. In the Greek language sounds as like as the o in not and the o in note are expressed by signs as unlike as ? and ?; that is, by the letters omicron and omega respectively; and so it is with e and ?. All that can be said in this case is, that it is the character of the Greek alphabet to represent a difference which the English neglects. With respect to the diphthongs it is incorrect, uncommon, and inconvenient to represent them by simple single signs, rather than by combinations. In the English language the sounds The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by the combinations tsh and dzh; although, for certain reasons, such a mode of spelling is inconvenient. With these views we may appreciate, I. The insufficiency of the English alphabet. 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. II. Its inconsistency.—The f in fan, and the v in van sounds in a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by signs as unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sound of the th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, similarly related to t, d, and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and sh. The compound sibilant sound of j in jest is spelt with the single sign j, whilst the compound sibilant sound in chest is spelt with the combination ch. III. Erroneousness.—The sound of the ee in feet is considered the long (independent) sound of the e in bed; whereas it is the long (independent) sound of the i in pit. 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 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. IV. Redundancy.—As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the letter c is superfluous. In words like citizen it may be replaced by s; in words like cat by k. In ch, as in chest, it has no proper place. In ch, as in mechanical, it may be replaced by k. 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. V. Unsteadiness.—Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The consonant c with the double power of s and k; 2. g with its sound in gun and also with its sound in gin; 3. x with its sounds in Alexander, apoplexy, Xenophon. 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 the c, Æ, and oe are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes only. The defects noticed in the preceding sections are absolute defects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to be noticed; for them, indeed, the word defect is somewhat too strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences. 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 In using j as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter j was originally a modification of the vowel i. The Germans, who used it as the semivowel y, have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done, who sound it dzh. With these views we may appreciate, of the English alphabet and orthography, I). 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 The sound given to j (as said before) is singular. II.) The historical propriety of certain letters.—The use of i with a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also historically incorrect. The Greek iota, from whence it originates, has the sound of i and ee, as in pit and feet. 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. In remodelling alphabets the question of historical propriety should be recognized. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter in a particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. 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 As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of () we may, if we choose, 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 (´), viz. 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. 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 is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of spelling. The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the mode 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 juxta-position of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable (as in plain, moan), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means the same as the reduplication of a vowel, i.e., that the syllable is long (independent). 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. X, however, and q are not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical compendiums. The above instances have been adduced as illustrations only. Further details will be found hereafter. For many of them we can give a reason (for instance, for the reduplication of a consonant to express the shortness of the preceding vowel), and of many of them we can give an historical account (see Chapter X.). A second mischief of orthographical conventionalities, is the wrong notions that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That th is really t + h, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling. "A, sounded as aw, or as a modification of o."—A, as in father, and o, as in note (as may be seen in p. 150), form the extremities of the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange. The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In French the au in autel has the sound of o; in Danish aa=o (baade being pronounced bohde); in Swedish Å has the same power. In Old English the forms hond, strond, &c., occur, instead of hand, strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, brÁd, stÁn, &c., correspond to the English forms broad, stone. I am not able to say whether a changes oftenest to o, or o to a. The form hond is older than the form hand. In the word salt, however, the a was pronounced as the a in fat before it was pronounced (as at present) like the o in not. If this were not the case it would never have been spelt with an a. In the words launch and haunch, by some called lanch, hanch, and by others lawnch, hawnch, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds. The change from a to o takes place most especially before the liquid l, wall, call, fall. When the liquid l is followed by another consonant, it (viz. l) is generally sunk in pronunciation, falcon, salmon, &c., pronounced faucon, sammon, or saumon. The reason of this lies in the following fact, viz., that syllables wherein there are, at the same time, two final consonants and a long vowel, have a tendency to become shortened by one of two processes, viz., either by ejecting one of the consonants, or by shortening the vowel. That the l in falcon is affected not by the change of a to o, but by the change of a short vowel to a long, or of a slender one to a broad one, is shown in the tendency which the common people have to say hode for hold, as well as by the Scotch form gowd for gold. This fact bears upon the difficult problem in the Greek (and in other languages), viz., whether the lengthening of the vowel in words like ?d??? (compared with ?d??t??), is the cause or the effect of the rejection of the consonant. "E is long, as in scene; or short, as in cellar."'—Johnson. It has been stated before that the (so-called) long sound of e is non-existent, and the e in scene, is the (so-called) long sound of the i in pit. For the power of e in since and once, see the remarks on s. For the power of e in hedge and oblige, see the remarks on g. The power of e mute in words like cane, bane, tune, robe, pope, fire, cure, tube, has already been noticed. It serves to denote the length of the preceding vowel. For this purpose it is retained; but it was not for this purpose that it was invented. Originally it expressed a sound, and it is only by a change of language that it has come, as it were by accident, to be an orthographical expedient. Let a word consist of two syllables. Let the latter end in a vowel. Let there be between the vowel of the first and the vowel of the second syllable, one consonant and no more, e.g., namÆ. Let the consonant belong to the root of the word; and let the first syllable of the word be the essential and the radical part of it. Let this same syllable (as the essential and radical part of it) have an accent. The chances are that, under such circumstances, the vowel of the first syllable will be long (independent), just as the chances are that a vowel followed by two consonants will be short. Let a change in language affect the final vowel, so that a word which was originally pronounced nama, should become, first, namË, and afterwards nam, naim, or nÆm; the vowel being sounded as the a in fate. Let the final e, although lost in pronunciation, be retained in the spelling. The chances are that, the above conditions being given, such an e (final and mute) shall, whenever it occurs, occur at the end of a long syllable. The next process is for a succeeding generation to mistake a coincidence for a sign, and to imagine that an e mute expresses the length of syllable. I consider this to be the key to the use of the e mute in all words where it is preceded by one consonant only. From the circumstance that the French and the English are the only nations wherein the e mute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words of Saxon and of Norman origin. The fact that, in certain words, an e mute is preceded by "I has a sound, long, as in fine, and short, as in fin. That is eminently observable in i, which may be likewise remarked in other letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound wholly different."—Johnson. This extract has been made in order to add the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already; viz., that the i in bite is not the long sound of the i in bit. For the sound of u in guest, prorogue, guard, see the remarks on g. As a vowel, y is wholly superfluous. It is a current remark that more words end in y (fortify, pretty) than in any other letter. This is true only in respect to their spelling. As a matter of speech, the y final has always the sound either of the ee in feet, or of the i in bite. Such is the case with the words fortify and pretty, quoted above. For some reason or other, the vowel e is never, in English, written at the end of words, unless when it is mute; whilst i is never written at all. Instead of cri, we write cry, &c. This is a peculiarity of our orthography, for which I have no satisfactory reason. It may be, that with words ending in e, y is written for the sake of showing that the vowel is not mute, but sounded. Again, the adjectives ending in y as any, and the adverbs in ly, as manly, in the older stages of our language ended, not in y, but in ig (manlig, Ænig); so that the present y, in such words, may be less the equivalent of i than the compendium of ig. I venture this indication with no particular confidence. The b in debtor, subtile, doubt, agrees with the b in lamb, limb, dumb, thumb, womb, in being mute. It differs, however, in another respect. The words debtor, subtle, doubt, are of classical, the words lamb, limb, dumb, &c., are of Saxon, origin. In debtor, &c., the b was, undoubtedly, at one time, pronounced, since it belonged to a different syllable; debitor, subtilis, dubito, being the original forms. I am far from being certain that with the other words, lamb, &c., this was the case. With them the b belonged (if it belonged to the word at all) to the same syllable as the m. I think, "Ch has a sound which is analysed into tsh, as church, chin, crutch. C might be omitted in the language without loss, since one of its sounds might be supplied by s, and the other by k, but that it preserves to the eye the etymology of words, as face from facies, captive from captivus"—Johnson. Before a, o, u (that is, before a full vowel), c is sounded as k; before e, i, and y (that is, before a small vowel), it has the power of s. This change of sound according to the nature of the vowel following, is so far from being the peculiarity of the English, that it is common in all languages; except that sometimes c, instead of becoming s, becomes ts, tsh, ksh, in other words, some other sibilant; but always a sibilant. A reference to p. 153 will explain this change. At a certain time, k (written c, as is the case in Latin) becomes changed by the vowel following into ksh, and from thence into s, ts, or tsh. That the syllables cit, cyt, cet, were at one time pronounced kit, kyt, ket, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so, they would have been spelt with an s; 2. from the comparison of the Greek and Latin languages, where the words cete, circus, cystis, Latin, are ??t?, ??????, ??st??, Greek. In the words mechanical, choler, &c., derived from the Greek, it must not be imagined that the c represents the Greek kappa or ?. The combination c + h is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of ?, nor the sign ?, rendered the Greek chi (?), just as by th they rendered ?, and by ph, f. The faulty representation of the Greek ? has given rise to a faulty representation of the Greek ?, as in ascetic, from ?s??t????. "C, according to the English orthography, never ends a Now the reason against c ending a word seems this. From what has been remarked above, c seems, in and of itself, to have no power at all. Whether it shall be sounded as k or as s seems undetermined, except by the nature of the vowel following. If the vowel following be small, c=s, if full, c=k. But c followed by nothing is equivocal and ambiguous. Now c final is c followed by nothing; and therefore c equivocal, ambiguous, indefinite, undetermined. This is the reason why c is never final. Let there be such words as sticke and blocke. Let the k be taken away. The words remain stice, bloce. The k being taken away, there is a danger of calling them stise, blose. A verbal exception being taken, the statement of Dr. Johnson, that in words like stick and block the c is mute, is objectionable. The mute letter is not so much the c as the k. "G at the end of a word is always hard, as ring, sing."—Johnson. A verbal exception may be taken here. Ng, is not a combination of the sounds of n+g, but the representation of a simple single sound; so that, as in the case of th and sh, the two letters must be dealt with as a single one. "G before n is mute, as gnash, sign, foreign."—Johnson. The three words quoted above are not in the same predicament. In words like gnash the g has been silently dropped on the score of euphony (see remarks on k); in sign and foreign the g has not been dropped, but changed. It has taken the allied sound of the semivowel y, and so, with the preceding vowel, constitutes a diphthong. Before a, o, u (full vowels), g has the sound, as in gay, go, gun: before e, i, y, that of gem, giant. At the end of a word (that is, followed by nothing at all), or followed by a consonant, it has the same sound that it has before a, o, u—agog, grand. This shows that such is its natural sound. In hedge and oblige the e mute serves to show that the g is to be pronounced as j. Let there be the word rog. Let the vowel be lengthened. Let this lengthening be expressed by the addition of e mute, roge. There is now a risk of the word being called roje. This is avoided by inserting u, as in prorogue. Why, however, is it that the u runs no chance of being pronounced, and the word of being sounded prorogwÉ? The reason for this lies in three facts. 1. The affinities between the sounds of ga and ka. 2. The fact that qu is merely kw. 3. The fact that in qu, followed by another vowel, as in quoit (pronounced koyt), antique, &c., the u is altogether omitted in pronunciation. In other words, the analogy of qu is extended to gu. For the varied sounds of gh in plough, tough, enough (enow), through, we must remember that the original sound of gh was a hard guttural, as is at present the case in Scotland, and between g, h, f, v, w, there are frequent interchanges. "H is a note of aspiration."—It is under the notion that th, ph, sh, as in thin, thine, Philip, shine, are aspirated sounds, that h is admitted in the spelling. As has been repeatedly stated, th, ph, sh are to be treated as single signs or letters. "J, consonant, sounds uniformly like the soft g (i.e., as in gem), and is, therefore, a letter useless, except in etymology, as ejaculation, jester, jocund, juice."—Johnson. It may be added that it never occurs in words of Saxon origin, and that in the single word Allelujah it has the sound of y, as in the German. K never comes before a, o, u, or before a consonant. It is used before e, i, y, where c would, according to the English analogy, be liable to be sounded as s; as in kept, king, skirt. These words, if written cept, cing, scirt, would run the risk of being sounded sept, sing, sirt. Broadly speaking, k is never The use of k final, as in stick, &c., has been noticed in p. 194. "Skeptic, for so it should be written, not sceptic."—Johnson. Quoted for the sake of adding authority to the statement made in p. 193, viz., that the Greek kappa is to be represented not by c, but by k. "K is never doubled, but c is used before it to shorten the vowel by a double consonant, as cockle, pickle."—Johnson. "K is used before n, knell, knot, but totally loses its sound."—Johnson. This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages; in German and Danish, in words like knecht, knive, the k is sounded. This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that in the words knife, knight (and also in gnaw, gnash), we have an antiquated or obsolete orthography. For the ejection of the sound of l in calf, salmon, falcon, &c. see under a. For the l in could, see that word. "N is sometimes mute after m, as damn, condemn, hymn."—Johnson. In all these words the n originally belonged to a succeeding syllable, dam-no, condem-no, hym-nus. Q, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is always followed by u, as queen, quilt, and the two letters qu must be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an abbreviation) of kw. Q is not=k alone. The combination qu, is never sounded koo. Neither is kw. If it were so, there would be in the word queen (currently speaking) three sounds of u, viz., two belonging to q (=kw), and one belonging to u itself. W being considered as=2 u: q=k + ½ w. This view of q bears upon the theory of words like prorogue, &c. The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends in a flat consonant, b, v, d, g, the plural termination is not the sound of s, but that of z (stagz, dogz); although s be the letter written. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the liquids (peaz, beanz, hillz, not peace, beance, hillce). This fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending in s are found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst in the majority of these the s is sounded as z. Hence, the inference from analogy that s single, at the end of words, is sounded as z. Now this fact hampers the orthography of those words wherein s final retains its natural sound, as since, once, mass, mace; for let these be "It is the peculiar quality of s that it may be sounded before all consonants, except x and z, in which s is comprised, x being only ks, and z only a hard [flat] or gross s. This s is therefore termed by grammarians suÆ potestatis litera, the reason of which the learned Dr. Clarke erroneously supposed to be, that in some words it might be doubled at pleasure."—Johnson. A reference to the current Greek Grammars will indicate another reason for s being called suÆ potestatis litera. It will there be seen that, whilst p, , f—?, ?, ?—t, d, ?—are grouped together, as tenues, mediÆ, and aspiratÆ, and as inter se cognatÆ, s stands by itself; ? its media (flat sound) being treated as a double letter, and sh, its so-called aspirate, being non-existent in the Greek language. The sound of ti before a vowel, as in salvation, is explained in p. 153. "Th has two sounds; the one soft [flat], as thus, whether; the other hard [sharp], as thing, think. The sound is soft [flat] in all words between two vowels, as father, whether; and between r and a vowel, as burthen."—Johnson. The reason of the latter statement lies in the fact of both the vowels and r being flat (see p. 152), and so exerting a flattening influence upon the sounds in contact with them. In the substantives breath and cloth, the th is sharp (i.e., as th in thin); in the verbs breathe and clothe, the th is flat (i.e., The sounds of the s in sure, of the t in picture (when pronounced pictshure), and of the z in azure and glazier, are explained in p. 153. The present chapter is intended not to exhaust the list, but to illustrate the character of those orthographical expedients which insufficient alphabets, changes in language, and the influences of etymology engender both in the English and in other tongues. CHAPTER X.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, Hebrew, or Semitic alphabet. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind,—1. The fact that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabian alphabets, are all founded upon this; and, 2. The great influence of the nations speaking those three languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of accounting for defects. 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. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above the average. It was, moreover, inconsistent: since sounds as like as those of teth and tau (mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike as ?? and ??; whilst sounds as unlike as those of beth with a point, and beth without a point (b and v), were expressed (if expressed at all) by signs as like as ?? and ???. In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found, at once, to coincide. The Greeks had, in all probability, sounds which were wanting in Palestine and Phoenicia. In Palestine and Phoenicia it is certain that there were sounds wanting in Greece. Of the twenty-two Phoenician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The eighteenth letter, tsadi, ??, was never imported into Europe.
Such the order and form of the Greek and Hebrew letters. Here it may be remarked, that, of each alphabet, it is only the modern forms that are compared; the likeness in the shape of the letters may be seen by comparing them in their
1. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, tsadi. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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, ?, ?, ?. 5. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older In all this there was an improvement. The faults of the newer Greek alphabet consisted in the admission of the compendium ?=ps, and the retention of the fifteenth letter (samech, xi), with the power of ks, it being also a compendium. Afterwards, however, the Romans modified their alphabet by the alphabet of the Italian Greeks; these Italian Greeks using the late Greek alphabet. This accounts for the presence of v, originating in the Greek ypsilon. In accommodating the Greek alphabet to their own language, the Latins recognised the following principles:— I. The ejection of such letters as were not wanted. Thus it was that the seventh letter (zayn, zÆta) was thrown out of the alphabet, and the new letter, g, put in its place. Subsequently, z was restored for the sake of spelling Greek words, but was placed at the end of the alphabet. Thus also it was, that thÆta, kappa (c being equivalent to k), and the fifteenth letter, were ejected, while ? and ? were never admitted. In after-times the fifteenth letter (now xi) was restored, for the same reason that z was restored, and, like z, was placed at the end of the alphabet. II. The use of the imported letters with a new power. Hence the sixth letter took the sound, not of v or w, but of f; and the eighth of h. Beyond this the Romans made but slight alterations. In ejecting kappa, thÆta and chi, they did mischief. The same in changing the power of c. The representation of f by ph, and of ? by th was highly erroneous. The retention of x and q was unnecessary. V and j, two letters whereby the alphabet was really enriched, were mere modifications of u and i respectively. Y also seems a modification of v. Neither the Latin, Greek, nor Hebrew orthographies were much warped to etymological purposes. It should be observed, that in the Latin the letters have no longer any names (like beth, bÆta), except such as are derived from their powers (be, ce). It may now be seen that with a language containing such sounds as the th in thin and thine, and the ch in the German auch, it is to their advantage to derive their alphabet from the Greek; whilst, with a language containing such sounds as h and v, it is to their advantage to derive it from the Latin. It may also be seen, that, without due alterations and 1. In the sound of the third letter being not that of ? (c), but of the g in gun. 2. In retaining kappa and chi. 3. In expressing the simple single sound of th by a simple single sign. This sign, however, has neither the shape nor alphabetical position of the Greek thÆta. With the Latin they agree, 1. in possessing letters equivalent to f, g, h, q, y. 2. In placing z at the end of the alphabet. The Moeso-Gothic alphabet seems to have been formed on eclectic principles, and on principles sufficiently bold. Neither was its application traversed by etymological views. I cannot trace its influence, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters Þ and ?, upon any other alphabet; nor does it seem to have been acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet. 1. The th in thin.—A sign in Greek (?), but none in Latin. 2. The th in thine.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. 3. The ch in the German auch.—A sign in Greek (?), but none in Latin. 4. The flat sound of the same, or the probable sound of the h in Þurh, leoht, &c., Anglo-Saxon.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. 5. The sh in shine.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. 6. The z in azure.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. 7. The ch in chest.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the Latin c in words like civitas had the power, which it has in the present Italian, of ch. 8. The j in jest.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit the same supposition in respect to g, that has been indicated in respect to c. 9. The sound of the kj; in the Norwegian kjenner; viz., that (thereabouts) of ksh.—A sign neither in Latin nor Greek. 10. The English sound of w.—A sign neither in Latin nor Greek. 11. The sound of the German Ü, Danish y.—No sign in Latin; probably one in Greek, viz., ?. 12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short vowels, as e and ?, ? and ?.—Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek. In all these points the classical alphabets (one or both) were deficient. To make up for their insufficiency one of two things was necessary, either to coin new letters, or to use conventional combinations of the old. In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following features:— 1. C used to the exclusion of k. 2. The absence of the letter j, either with the power of y, as in German, of zh, as in French, or of dzh, as in English. 3. The absence of q; a useful omission, cw serving instead. 4. The absence of v; u, either single or double, being used instead. 5. The use of y as a vowel, and of e as y. 6. The absence of z. 7. Use of uu, as w, or v: Old Saxon. 8. The use, in certain conditions, of f for v. 9. The presence of the simple single signs Þ and Ð, for the th in thin, and the th in thine. Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was insufficient. The points wherein the Latin alphabet was The preceding sketch, as has been said more than once before, has been given with one view only, viz., that of accounting for defective modes of spelling. The history of almost all alphabets is the same. Originally either insufficient, erroneous, or inconsistent, they are transplanted from one language to a different, due alterations and additions rarely being made. And whase wilenn shall Þis boc, Efft oÞerr siÞe writenn, Himm bidde iec 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 wel Þatt he An boc-staff write twiggess,[37] 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 wel to soÞe. Concerning the various other orthographical expedients, such as the reduplication of the vowel to express its length (mood), &c., I can give no satisfactory detailed history. The influence of the Anglo-Norman, a language derived from the Latin, established, in its fullest force, the recognition of the etymological principle. The original number of the Runic letters is sixteen; expressing the sounds of f, u, Þ, o, r, k, h, n, a, i, s, t, b, l, m, y. To these are added four spurious Runes, denoting c, x, Æ, Ö, and eight pointed Runes after the fashion of the pointed letters in Hebrew. In all this we see the influence of the imported alphabet upon the original Runes, rather than that of the original Runes upon the imported alphabet. It should, however, be remarked, that in the Runic alphabet the sound of th in thin is expressed by a simple sign, and that by a sign not unlike the Anglo-Saxon Þ.
Let beth, vaw, and pe (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P. Let gimel, kheth, and koph (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. 1. Aleph of the vowel series. 2. Beth of series P. 3. Gimel of series K. 4. Daleth of series T. 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 D. After this the order changes: daleth being followed by he of the vowel series. 5. He of the vowel series. 6. Vaw of series P. 7. Zayn —— 8. Kheth of series K. 9. Teth of series T. 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 In Mr. Donaldson's hands this view is not only a fact, but an instrument of criticism:—"The fact is, in our opinion, the original Semitic alphabet contained only sixteen letters. This appears from the organic arrangement of their characters. The remaining sixteen letters appear in the following order:—aleph, beth, gimel, daleth, he, vaw, kheth, teth, lamed, mem, nun, samech, ayn, pe, koph, tau. If we examine this order more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary or accidental, but strictly organic, according to the Semitic articulation. We have four classes, each consisting of four letters: the first and second classes consist each of three mutes, preceded by a breathing; the third of the three liquids and the sibilant, which, perhaps, closed the oldest alphabet of all; and the fourth contains the three supernumerary mutes, preceded by a breathing. We place the characters first vertically:—
In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity, omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have
In this we see, that, while the horizontal lines give us the arrangement of the mutes according to the breathings, the vertical columns exhibit them arranged according to the organ by which they are produced. Such a classification is obviously artificial." Let, however, a different view of the compound sound be taken. Let it be thought that the sound of ksh differs from that of k, not by the addition of the sound of y, but by that of h; and so let it be spelt kh or ch. In this case the orthographies kh and kj (or ce) are not parallel, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by the Anglo-Saxon ce, the Norwegian kj, and the English ch. In this case ce and kj are parallel, ce and ch equivalent, orthographies. 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. The word fathers is a word 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 (not, however, necessarily) in meaning. To become such a word as fathers, &c., the word father is changed. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance. Compared with the form fathers, the word father is the older form of the two. The word father is a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word was current in In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance of the changes of the form of words. However, as the etymology that compares the forms fathers and father is different from the etymology that compares father and pater, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language (father, fathers), the other dealing with the changes that words undergo in passing from one language to another (pater, father). 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. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the changes of form that words undergo. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as father, fathers, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, as pater, father, is a matter of indifference. 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. In fatherlike we have a compound word capable of being analysed into the two primitive words, 1. father; 2. like. With these preliminaries we may appreciate (or criticise) 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 II.ON GENDER. How far is there such a thing as gender in the English language? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word gender. In the Latin language, where there are confessedly genders, we have the words taurus, meaning a bull, and vacca, meaning a 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.
This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather than gender itself. Its difference from true grammatical gender is as follows:— Let the Latin words genitor and genitrix be declined:—
The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now these 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. As terms, to be useful, must be limited, it may be laid down, as a sort of definition, that there is no gender where there is no affection of the declension: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words corresponding to genitrix and genitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to dominus and domina. The pronoun him, from the Anglo-Saxon and English he, as compared with the pronoun her, from the Anglo-Saxon heÒ, is affected in its declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary, specimen of gender: for be it observed, that as both words are in the same case and number, the difference in form must be referred to a difference of sex expressed by 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 hic and hÆc, and the forms hic and hÆc are as much genders as dominus and domina. Which, as seen below, is not the neuter of who. Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his ship she, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a Let there be a period in the history of a nation wherein the sun and moon are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a period in the history of a nation wherein dead things are personified, and wherein there is a mythology. Let an object like the sun be deemed a male, and an object like the moon a female, deity. 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 (taken second-hand from Grimm, vol. iii. p. 349) 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 these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology. Upon phrases like Cock Robin, Robin Redbreast, Jenny Wren, expressive of sex, much information may be collected from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. p. 359. 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 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 the secondary part classical: indeed, in strict English grammar, the termination -ess has no place at all. It is a classic, not a Gothic, element. 4. The termination -inn, so current in German, as the equivalent to -ess, and as a feminine affix (freund=a friend; freundinn=a female friend), is found only in one or two words in English. There were five carlins in the south That fell upon a scheme, To send a lad to London town To bring them tidings hame. Burns. Carlin means an old woman: Icelandic, kerling; Sw., kÄring; Dan. kÆlling. Root, carl. Vixen is a true feminine derivative from fox. German, fÜchsinn. 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. 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; bakster=a 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 not, however, be considered as derived from hero, by any process of the English language, but be dealt with as a separate importation from the Greek language. 8. The form deaconess 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. The circumstance of prince ending in the sound of s, works a change in the accent of the word. As s is the final letter, it is necessary, in forming the plural number, and the genitive case, to add, not the simple letter s, as in peers, priests, &c., but the syllable -es. This makes the plural number and genitive case the same as the feminine form. Hence the feminine form is accented princÉss, while peÉress, prÍestess, &c., carry the accent on the first syllable. PrincÉss is remarkable as being the only word in English where the accent lies on the subordinate syllable. 10. It is uncertain whether kit, as compared with cat, be a feminine form or a diminutive form; in other words, whether it mean a female cat or a young cat.—See the Chapter on the Diminutives. 11. 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, 12. 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 etymological relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with which it has but one letter in common; viz. the Latin anas=a duck. Of this the root is anat-, as seen in the genitive case anatis. In Old High German we find the form anetrekho=a drake; in provincial New High German there is enterich and Äntrecht, from whence come the English and Low German form drake. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 341.) 13. Peacock, peahen, bridegroom.—In these compounds, it is not the words pea and bride that are rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of cock, hen, and groom, but it is the words cock, hen, and groom that are modified by prefixing pea and bride. For an appreciation of this distinction, see the Chapter on Composition. 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 (in Greek being extended to verbs). 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 at all, except the natural dual in the words ambo and duo. §Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,—over what extent of our language have we numbers? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said typtÔ=I beat, typteton=ye two beat, typtomen=we beat, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual 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. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say, bonus pater=a good father; boni patres=good fathers. In the Latin, the adjective bonus changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives. For the forms selves and others, see the Syntax. For the present, it is sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the word self, viz. that whether it be a pronoun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a disputed point. Words like wheat, pitch, gold, &c., where the idea is naturally singular; words like bellows, scissors, lungs, &c., where the idea is naturally plural; and words like deer, sheep, where the same form serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change of form, are not under the province of etymology. I. 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. See the Section on the Law of Accommodation. II. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps, afs, ats, aÞs, asks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, aÐz, agz), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions (mark the word apparent), it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not vice versÂ. III. 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 matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language. IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we 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 sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from lens, sounded lenz. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a distinction to which the reader's attention is directed), we learn from the word sixpence, which, compared with sixpences, is no plural, but a singular form. 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 (diez) 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 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 Besides the word childer, we collect from the other Gothic tongue the following forms in -r.—
and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most frequently is the Dutch of Holland. Now, the theory respecting the form so propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p. 270) 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, rigv-is=smoke (reek). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number. To these views Bopp adds, that the termination in question is the Sanskrit -as, a neuter affix; as in tÊj-as=splendour, strength, from tij=to sharpen.—V. G. pp. 141-259, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation. To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, 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, eigir=a collection of eggs, eggery or eyry. For further observations on the power of -r, and for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words Jew-r-y, yeoman-r-y, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. There we find the remarkable form lamb-r-en, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi. Lamb-r-en : lamb :: child-r-en : child.
Peasen=pulse.—As children is a double form of one sort (r + en), so is peasen a double form of another (s + en); pea, pea-s, pea-s-en. Wallis speaks to the singular power of the form in -s:—"Dicunt nonnulli a pease, pluraliter peasen; at melius, singulariter a pea, pluraliter pease:"—P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically, pease was the proper singular form; as shown by the Latin pis-um. 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, pluraliter oxen, chicken (sunt qui dicunt in singulari chicken, et in plurali chickens)."—(P. 77). 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."—(P. 77.) Subject to this view, the word fer-n-s would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word chicke-n-s. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon form fearn, and the Old High German, varam. 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."—P. 79. CHAPTER IV.ON THE CASES. In a fathers 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 the words father and child is expressed by the arrangement only. Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the words or sentences, child; to a father; of a father; and father's, are all equally cases; of which one may be 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 is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie,[39] 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." For etymological purposes it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that where there is no change of form there is no case. With this remark, the English language may be compared with the Latin.
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 are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English. It does not, however, follow that because in father we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two. In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form.—This statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out of it; viz., whether every change of form constitute a case? In the Greek language there are the words ???? (erin), and ???da (erida). Unlike the words father and father's these two words have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each, In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words smith (smiÐ), end (ende), and day (dÆg), were, respectively, smithes (smiÐes), endes, and dayes (dÆges); whilst the nominative plurals were, respectively, smithas (smiÐas), endas, and dayas (dÆgas). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each 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. Accusative.—Some call this the objective case. The words him (singular) and them (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms I, my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only. One word of 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 Note.—The words him and them are true accusatives in even a less degree than thee, me, us, and you. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the Latin words eos and illos were hi (or hig) and ÞÁ (or ÞÆge); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the sound of -m. The case which really ended in -m was the so-called dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms him (or heom) and ÞÁm=the Latin iis and illis. This fact explains the meaning of the words, whatever they may have been originally, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; viz., the extent to which the history of a form regulates its position as an inflection. Dative.—In the antiquated word whilom (at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The sense of the word is adverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case. Genitive.—Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (father's, his), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (father, fathers; buck, bucks); or if the word end in s, by that of es (boxes, judges, &c.) It is found in both numbers: the men's hearts; the children's bread. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as fatherses, foxeses, princesseses, &c. Instrumental.—The following extracts from Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt t-h-e, or of the so-called definite article. "The demonstrative pronouns are ÞÆt, se, seÓ (id, is, ea), which are also used for the article; and Þis, Þes, ÞeÓs (hoc, hic, hÆc). They are thus declined:—
"The indeclinable Þe is often used instead of ÞÆt, se, seo, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article the. "Þy seems justly to be received as a proper ablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, mid Þy ÁÞe=with that oath (InÆ Reges, 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; the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon Þe, another. The latter is the common article: the former the the in expressions like all the more, all the better=more by all that, better by all that, and the Latin phrases eo majus, eo melius. That why is in the same case with the instrumental the (=Þy) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection 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 accusative, 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, as stated above, the words him and them (to which we may add whom) were once dative cases; -m in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word give takes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, give it him, give it them, remnants of the old dative sense. To say give it to him, to them, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, whom shall I give it? If ever the formal test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, him, them, and whom will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms you, thee, us, me, and twain. My, an accusative form (meh, me, mec), has now a genitive sense. The same may be said of thy. Me, originally an accusative form (both me and my can grow out of mec and meh), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. Give it me is correct English. The same may be said of thee. Him, a dative form, has now an accusative sense. Her.—For this word, as well as for further details on me and my, see the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns. The word um occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is om; in the Germanic languages omme, umbi, umpi, ymbe, and also um. Its meaning is at, on, about. The word whilom is the substantive while=a time or pause (Dan. hvile=to rest), with the addition of the preposition om. That the particular dative form in om has arisen out of the noun plus the preposition is a safe assertion. I am not prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this manner. 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 all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246. 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. In other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in English, demonstrative rather than personal. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. I and me, thou and ye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. I has no oblique, and me no nominative case. And so with respect to the rest. I, in German ich, Icelandic ek, corresponds with ???, and ego of the classical languages; ego and ??? being, like I, defective in the oblique cases. My, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a genitive sense. Me.—In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be that both my and me grow out of an accusative form, meh, mec. That the sound of k originally belonged to the pronouns me and thee, we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxons mec, Þec, meh, Þeh, but from the Icelandic mik, Þik, and the German mich, dich. This accounts for the form my; since y=ey, and the sounds of y and g are allied. That both me and my can be evolved from mik, we see in the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same district, mig is pronounced both mey and mee. We and our.—These words are not in the condition of I and me. Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation to each other. This we infer from the alliance between the sounds of w and ou, and from the Danish forms vi (we), vor (our). It may be doubted, however, whether our be a true genitive rather than an adjectival form. In the form ours we find it playing the part, not of a case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form: vor=noster; vort=nostrum. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin genitive nostrÛm, but with the adjective noster. Us, we, our.—Even us is in an etymological relation to we. That we and our are so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms of our, viz., Úre (=nostrÛm), and user (=noster). This connects we and us through our. From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true personal pronouns, as follows:—
You.—As far as the practice of the present mode of speech Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was eow, for ye, ge. Neither bear any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the habit of language may make them. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you) is used either as a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear that you can be used instead of ye only so far as it is nominative in power. 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. Me.—Carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting you to be a nominative, or quasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the word me, and call it also a secondary nominative; inasmuch as such phrases as it is me=it is I are common. 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. The fact is, that the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the forms me, ye, and you from one case to another, as it is admitted to have done with the forms him and whom, once dative, but now accusative? Observe.—That the expression it is me=it is I will not justify the use of it is him, it is her=it is he and it is she. Me, ye, you, are what may be called indifferent forms, i.e. nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. Him and her, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative. Again: the reasons which allow the form you to be CHAPTER VI.ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH. Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so-called adjectival 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 (or its equivalent), there could be no such secondary form as suus (or its equivalent). 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; as they also are in the present English. The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as follows:— In Moeso-Gothic.—Found in three cases, seina, sis, sik=sui, sibi, se. In Old Norse.—Ditto. Sin, ser, sik=sui, sibi, se. In Old High German.—The dative form lost; there being no such word as sir=sis=sibi. Besides this, the genitive In Old Frisian.—As stated above, there is here no equivalent to se; whilst there is the form sin=suus. In Old Saxon.—The equivalent to se, sibi, and sui very rare. The equivalent to suus not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon. In Anglo-Saxon.—No instance of the equivalent to se at all. The forms sinne=suum, and sinum=suo, occur in Beowulf. In CÆdmon cases of sin=suus are more frequent. Still the usual form is his=ejus. In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and possessive, occur; so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in respect to the entire absence of them.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 321-348. The statement concerning the absence of the true reflective in English, although negative, has an important philological bearing on more points than one. 1. It renders the use of the word self much more necessary than it would be otherwise. 2. It renders us unable to draw a distinction between the meanings of the Latin words suus and ejus. 3. It precludes the possibility of the evolution of a middle voice like that of the Old Norse, where kalla-sc=kalla-sik. 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 (and se when found in the language) be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with he, it, and she. The absence of gender, the peculiarity in their declension, and their defectiveness are marked characters wherein they agree with each other, but not with any other words. 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, it could only be in their so-called singular number. 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 being a demonstrative pronoun. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:— She.—The Anglo-Saxon form heÓ, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine article seÓ. Her.—This is a case, not of the present she, but of the Anglo-Saxon heÓ: so that she may be said to be defective in Him.—A true 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. They, their, them.—When hit had been changed into it, when heÓ had been replaced by she, and when the single form the, as an article, had come to serve for all the cases of all the genders, two circumstances took place: 1. The forms ÞÁm and ÞÁra as definite articles became superfluous; and, 2. The connexion between the plural forms hÍ, heom, heora, and the singular forms he and it, grew indistinct. These were conditions favourable to the use of the forms they, them, and their, instead of hÍ, heom, heora. Theirs.—In the same predicament with hers and its; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case. Than or then, and there.—Although now adverbs, they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender.—Than and then masculine accusative and singular, there feminine dative and singular. An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language. I. Se, seÓ. 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. ÞÆt (that, the), and Þis (this).
III. Hit (it), he (he), heÓ (she).
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 ÞÂs. 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 letter e, and that this -e is the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective plural; so that thes-e is formed from thes, as gode (=boni) is formed from god (=bonus). The nominative plural in the Old English 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 Tale.
13. Whan 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:— I. The—Undeclined. II. She—Defective in the oblique cases. III. He.
IV. That.
V. Singular, This. Plural, These. VI. Those. 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. Throughout the Indo-European tribe the interrogative or relative idea is expressed by k, or by a modification of k; e.g., qu, hv, or h; as Sanskrit, kas, who; kataras, which of two; katama, which of many.—Lithuanic, kas, who; koks, of what sort; kokelys, how great; kaip, how.—Slavonic: kto, who, Russian and Polish; kdo, who, Bohemian; kotory, which, Russian; kolik, how great.—Quot, qualis, quantus, Latin.—??s??, ?????, ??te, Ionic Greek; in the other dialects, however, p?te???, p?s??, &c.—Gothic: hvas, who, Moeso-Gothic; huer, Old High German; hvaÞar, which of two, Moeso-Gothic; huËdar, Old High German; hvem, hvad, huanne, huar, Norse; what, why, which, where, &c., English. Throughout the Indo-European tribe the demonstrative idea is expressed by t, or by a modification of it; as, Sanskrit, tat, that; tata-ras, such a one out of two.—Lithuanic, tas, he; toks, such; tokelys, so great; taip, so.—Slavonic, t' or 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; in Swedish the word is hu. 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, a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. In himself and themselves an adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case. Itself is equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements are it and self, or its and self; the s having been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form like himself, or the form like thyself, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms like myself (self being a substantive), are the following facts:— 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, 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.—Grimm, D. G. iii. 9. 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. (Grimm, D. G., iii. 47). The same is the case with— 1. Such.—Moeso-Gothic, svaleiks; Old High German, sÔlih; Old Saxon, sulÎc; Anglo-Saxon, svilc; German, solch; English, such. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 48). 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, 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 ylca, 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. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.) 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, Éowiht; Anglo-Saxon, Âviht; Old Frisian, Âwet; English, aught. The word naught is aught preceded by the negative particle. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.) 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,[42] must by no means be confounded with the word ylce, the same. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.) 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. Other, whether.—These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly 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 Sanskrit 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 Sanskrit form kataras corresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison of two things with each other; so the word katamas is a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the comparison of many things with each other. 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, 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 object and all others like it, or a relation between one single and one complex element of comparison: A is wiser than B, C, D, &c. "As in comparatives a relation between two, and in superlatives a relation between many, lies at the bottom, it is The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,— 1. The Sanskrit forms kataras=which of two persons? a comparative form; 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; ??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. An extension of the reasoning probably explains forms like the Greek ?f?-te?-??, and the plural possessive forms ???-te?-??, ??-te?-??, &c, which, like our own forms in -r, (ou-r, you-r) correspond in termination with the comparative degree (s?f?-te?-??, wiser). Words, also, like hither and thither are instances of what is probably the effect of a similar association of ideas. 1. Gi=who, so that guabba may be called its comparative form. 2. Gutte also=who, so that guttemush may be called its superlative. 3. Precisely as the words guabba and guttemush are formed, so also are the regular degrees of adjectives. a. Nuorra=young; nuor-ab=younger; nuora-mush=youngest. b. Bahha=bad; baha-b=worse; baha-mush=worst. The following extracts from Stockfleth's Lappish Grammar were probably written without any reference to the Sanskrit or Greek. "Guabba, of which the form and meaning are comparative, appears to have originated in a combination of the pronoun gi, and the comparative affix -abbo."—"Guttemush, of which the form and meaning are superlative, is similarly derived from the pronoun gutte, and the superlative affix -mush."—Grammatik i det Lappiske Sprog, §§192, 193. CHAPTER X.THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. In the Sanskrit language the signs of the comparative degree are two:—1. -tara, as punya=pure; punya-tara=purer; 2. -Îyas, as ksipra=swift; ksÊpÎyas=swifter. Of these the first is the most in use. The same forms occur in the Zend; as husko=dry; huskÔ-tara=drier; -Îyas, however, is changed into -is. In the classical languages we have the same forms. 1. in uter, neuter, alter, p?te???, ?ept?te???. 2. In the adverb magis, Lat. In Bohemian and Polish, -ssj and -szy correspond with the Sanskrit forms -Îyas. Thus we collect, that, expressive of the comparative degree, there are two parallel forms; viz., the form in tr, and the form in s; of which one is the most in use in one language, and the other in another. The importance of a knowledge of the form in s is appreciated when we learn that, even in the present English, there are vestiges of it. The sun shines to-day brighter than it did yesterday, and to-morrow it will shine brightest.—Here also the sense is adverbial; from whence we get the fact, that adverbs take degrees of comparison. Now let the root mag-, as in magnus, ??a?, and mikil (Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival comparative major=greater; 2. the adverbial comparative magis=more (plus). The same takes place in Moeso-Gothic: maiza means greater, and is adjectival; mais means more, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still; e.g., ÞÄs Þe mÂ=all the more, ÞÄs Þe bet=all the better, have a comparative sense, but not a comparative form, the sign r being absent. Now, compared with major, and subject to the remarks that have gone before, the Latin magis is the older form. With m and bet, compared with more and better, this may or may not be the case. M and bet may each be one of two forms; 1. a positive used in a comparative sense; 2. a true comparative, which has lost By reference to p. 159 of the present volume, it may be seen that the fulness or smallness of a vowel in a given syllable may work a change in the nature of the vowel in a syllable adjoining. In the Anglo-Saxon the following words exhibit a change of vowel.
Of this change, the word last quoted is a still-existing specimen, as old, elder and older, eldest and oldest. Between the two forms there is a difference in meaning, elder being used as a substantive, and having a plural form, elders. The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable small: old, elder. The adverbial form has a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable full. Of this effect on the part of the adverbial form the adverbial comparative rather is a specimen. We pronounce the a as in father, or full. Nevertheless, the positive form is small, the a being pronounced as the a in fate. The word rather means quick, easy=the classical root ?ad- in ??d???. What we do quickly and willingly we do preferably. Now if the word rather were an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as the a in fate. As it is, however, it is adverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the a in father. The difference between the action of the small vowel in -re, and of the full in -or, effects this difference. The forms (or words) thou, thy, thee, are forms or words 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 defective in the positive; whilst between good and better, bad and worse, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence in etymology. To return, however, to the word better; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form of good. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Moeso-Gothic, bats; Old High German, pats; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, bet; Middle High German, baz; Middle Dutch, bat, bet.—Grimm, D. G. iii. 604. If the form worse be taken without respect to the rest, the view of the matter is simply that in the termination s we have a remnant of the Moeso-Gothic forms, like sutiza, &c., in other words, the old comparative in s. Wirser and vairsiza traverse this view. They indicate the likelihood of the s being no sign of the degree, but a part of the original word. Otherwise the r in wirser, and the z in vairsiza, denote an excess of expression. The analogies of songstress, children, and betsËrÔro show that excess of expression frequently occurs. The analogy of m and bet show that worse may possibly be a positive form. The word vËrri indicates the belief that the s is no part of the root. Finally the euphonic processes of the Scandinavian languages tell us that, even had there been an s, it would, in all probability, have been ejected. These difficulties verify the statement that the word worse is one of the most perplexing in the language. The adverbial and the Norse forms indicate that the l is no part of the original word. Comparison with other Indo-European languages gives us the same circumstance: Sanskrit, maha; Latin, mag-nus; Greek, ??a? (megas). There is in Moeso-Gothic the comparative form mÁiza, and there is no objection to presuming a longer form, magiza; since in the Greek form e????, compared with ??a?, there Mickle (replaced by great) expresses size; much, quantity; many, number. The words more and most apply equally to number and quantity. I am not prepared either to assert or to deny that many, in Anglo-Saxon mÆnig, is from the same root with much. Of the word m notice has already been taken. Its later form, moe, occurs as late as Queen Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense. Further.—Confounded with farther, although in reality from a different word, fore. Old High German, furdir; New High German, der vordere; Anglo-Saxon, fyrÐre. Languages have a comparative without a superlative degree; no language has a superlative degree without having also a comparative one. 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; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced into the Indo-European tongues after the establishment of the comparative, and before the change of -s into -r. I give no opinion as to the truth of this theory. CHAPTER XI.THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. In Sanskrit there is, 1. the form tama, 2. the form ishta; the first being the commonest. The same is the case in the Zend. Each of these appears again in the Greek. The first, as tat (tat), in ?ept?tat?? (leptotatos); the second, as ?st (ist), in ???t?st?? (oiktistos). For certain reasons, Grimm thinks that the tat stands for tamt, or tant. In Latin, words like intimus, extimus, ultimus, preserve im; whilst venustus, vetustus, and robustus, are considered as positives, preserving the superlative form -st. Just as in inferus and nuperus, there was the ejection of the t in the comparative ter, so in infimus, nigerrimus, &c., is there the ejection of the same letter in the superlative tim. This gives us, as signs of the superlative, 1. tm; 2. st; 3. m, t being lost; 4. t, m being lost. Of the first and last of these, there are amongst the true superlatives, in English, no specimens. Of the third, there is a specimen in the Anglo-Saxon se forma, the first, from the root fore, as compared with the Latin primus, and the Lithuanic pirmas. The second, st (wise, wisest), is the current termination. Of the English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed examination are those that are generally despatched without difficulty; viz., the words in most; such as midmost, foremost, &c. The current view is the one adopted by Rask in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar (§133), viz., that they are Let especial notice be taken of the Moeso-Gothic forms fruma, first; aftuma, last; and of the Anglo-Saxon forms forma, aftema, aftermost; ufema, upmost; hindema, hindmost; midema, midmost; innema, inmost; Ûtema, outmost; siÐema, last; latema, last; niÐema, nethermost. These account for the m. Add to this, with an excess of expression, the letters st. This accounts for the whole form, as mid-m-ost, in-m-ost, &c. Such is Grimm's view. Furthermost, innermost, hindermost.—Here there is a true addition of most, and an excess of inflection, a superlative form being added to a word in the comparative degree. Former.—Here, as stated before, a comparative sign is added to a word in the superlative degree. CHAPTER XII.OF THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. In another sense they are strictly etymological. They are the basis of the ordinals, which are formed from them by derivation. Furthermore, some of them either have, or are supposed to have, certain peculiarities of form which can be accounted for only by considering them derivatives, and that of a very peculiar kind. And it is also an ethnological fact, that in a great many other groups of languages the numerals differ, even when many of the common terms agree. This is the case with many of the African and American dialects. Languages alike in the common terms for common objects differ in respect to the numerals. What is the reason for this inconsistency in the similarity or dissimilarity of the numerals as compared with the similarity or dissimilarity of other words? I believe that the following distinction leads the way to it:— The word two=2, absolutely and unequivocally, and in a primary manner. The word pair also=2; but not absolutely, not unequivocally, and only in a secondary manner. Hence the distinction between absolute terms expressive of number, and secondary terms expressive of number. When languages separate from a common stock before the use of certain words is fixed as absolute, there is room for considerable latitude in the choice of numerals; e.g., whilst with one tribe the word pair=two, another tribe may use the word couple, a third brace, and so on. In this case dialects that agree in other respects may differ in respect to their numerals. When, on the other hand, languages separate from a common stock after the meaning of such a word as two has been fixed absolutely, there is no room for latitude; and the numerals agree where the remainder of the language differs. 1. One=unus, Latin; ??? (??), Greek. 2. Two=duo, d??. 3. Three=tres, t?e??. 4. Four=quatuor, t?tta?a. This is apparently problematical. Nevertheless, the assumed changes can be verified by the following forms:— a. Fidvor, Moeso-Gothic. To be compared with quatuor. . ??s??e?, Æolic. Illustrates the change between t- and p- (allied to f-), within the pale of the classical languages. 5. Five=quinque, p??te. Verified by the following forms:— a. ??pe, Æolic Greek. . Pump, Welsh. These account for the change from the n + t in p??te to m + p. ?. Fimf, Moeso-Gothic; fÜnf, Modern High German. d. Fem, Norse. The change from the p- of p??te to the qu- of quinque is the change so often quoted by Latin and Celtic scholars between p and k: ?pp??, ?????, equus. 6. Six=??, sex. 7. Seven=?pt?, septem. This form is difficult. The Moeso-Gothic form is sibun, without a -t-; the Norse, syv, without either -t- or -n (=-m). A doubtful explanation of the form seven, &c., will be found in the following chapter. 8. Eight=??t?, octo. 9. Nine=????a, novem. The Moeso-Gothic form is nigun, the Icelandic niu. In the Latin novem the v=the g of nigun. In the English and Greek it is wanting. The explanation of the -n and -m will be found in the following chapter. 10. Ten=d??a, decem. The Moeso-Gothic form is tihun; wherein the h=the c of decem and the ? of d??a. The Icelandic form is tiu, and, like d??a, is without the -n (or -m). The hypothesis as to the -m or -n will be given in the next chapter. 11. Eleven. By no means the equivalent to undecim=1 + 10. a. The e is ein=one. Einlif, ein-lef, eilef, eilf, elf, Old High German; andlova, Old Frisian; end-leofan, endlufan, Anglo-Saxon. This is universally admitted. . The -lev- is a modification of the root laib-an=manere=to stay=to be over. Hence eleven=one over (ten). This is not universally admitted. ?. The -n has not been well accounted for. It is peculiar to the Low Germanic dialects.—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946. 12. Twelve=the root two + the root laib=two over (ten). Tvalif, Moeso-Gothic; zuelif, Old High German; toll, Swedish. The same doubts that apply to the doctrine of the -lv- in eleven representing the root -laib, apply to the -lv- in twelve.—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946. 13. Thirteen=3 + 10. So on till twenty. 30. Thirty=3 × 10, or three decads. This difference in the decimal power of the syllables -teen and -ty is illustrated by— a. The Moeso-Gothic.—Here we find the root tig- used as a true substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greek d??-a?. TvÁim tigum Þusandjom=duobus decadibus myriadum. (Luke xiv. 31.) JÊrÊ ÞrijÊ tigivÉ=annorum duarum decadum. (Luke iii. 23.) Þrins tiguns silubrinaize=tres decadas argenteorum. (Matthew xxvii. 3, 9.)—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948. . The Icelandic.—"The numbers from 20 to 100 are formed by means of the numeral substantive, tigr, declined like viÐr, and naturally taking the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case.
"This is the form of the inflection in the best and oldest MSS. A little later was adopted the indeclinable form tigi, which was used adjectivally."—Det Oldnorske Sprogs Grammatik, af P. A. Munch, og C. B. Unger, Christiania, 1847. One is naturally and exclusively singular. Two is naturally dual. The rest are naturally and exclusively plural. As to the inflection of gender and cases, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin unus, una, unum, unius. CHAPTER XIII.ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. First.—In Moeso-Gothic, fruma, frumist; in Anglo-Saxon, forma, fyrmest; in Old High German, vurist; in Old Norse, fyrst; in New High German, erst. In all these words, whether in m, in mst, or in st, there is a superlative form. The same is the case with pratamas, Sanskrit; fratemas, Zend; p??t??, Greek; primus, Latin; primas, Lithuanic. Considering that, compared with the other ordinals, the ordinal of one is a sort of superlative, this is not at all surprising. Between the words one and first there is no etymological relation. This is the case in most languages. Unus, primus, ???, p??t??, &c. Old High German, andar; Old Saxon, othar; Old Frisian, other; Middle Dutch, ander. In all these words we have the comparative form -ter; and considering that, compared with the word first, the word second is a sort of 1. Comparing third, fourth, fifth, &c., with three, four, and five, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply to consist in the addition of d or th. Such, however, is far from being the case. 2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words first and second, of which one has been called a superlative and the other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is peculiar. First is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal, one, but as compared with the other numerals. Second, or other, is a comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, two, but as compared with the numeral one. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. Sixth, to be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with six. This is better than that, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison between two objects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may determine, that, with a sentence like this is one and that is the other, it has something in common; since both assert something concerning one out of two objects. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason. He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the connexion in meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that words like other and better have one and the same termination. For this identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical method. At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed by forms evidently allied. At times the connexion between the ideas is evident; but the connexion between the forms obscure: and vice versÂ. Oftener, however, the case is as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied? The metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence; whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views, however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called cumulative, which is weak or strong according to its degree. Compared with three, four, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the addition of th, or t; and th, Ð, t, or d, is the ordinal sign, not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated before, this is not the whole of the question. The letter t is found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as in tertius, quartus, quintus, sextus; 2. Greek, as in t??t?? (tritos), t?ta?t?? (tetartos), p?pt?? (pemptos), ??t?? (hectos), ???at?? (ennatos), d??at?? (dekatos); 3. Sanskrit, as in tritiyas, caturtas, shasht´as=third, fourth, sixth; 4. In Zend, as in thrityas=the third, haptathas=the seventh; 5. In Lithuanic, as ketwirtas=fourth, penktas=fifth, szesztas=sixth; 6. In Old Slavonic, as in cÉtvertyi=fourth, pjatyi=fifth, shestyi=sixth, devjatyi=ninth, desjatyi=tenth. Speaking more generally, it is found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo-European stock. The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning. Again, the Greek forms ????a (ennea), and the Icelandic nÍu=nine, have been compared with the Latin novem and the Gothic nigun. Thirdly, the Greek d??a (deka), and the Icelandic tÍu, have been compared with the Latin decem and the Gothic tihun=ten. These three examples indicate the same circumstance; viz. that the m or n, in seven, nine, and ten, is no part of the original word. CHAPTER XIV.THE ARTICLES. Now, as it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words some man, a certain man, and a man, are, there or thereabouts, 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; 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, to), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language, ? (ho)=the, had the power of ??t?? (howtos)=this. 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. 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. In Middle High German we have vaterlÌn=little father, mÜtterlÌn=little mother. In Middle High German there is the diminutive sunnelÌn; and the French soleil is from the Latin form solillus. In Slavonic the word slunze=sun is a diminutive form. The Greek word e??s?? (meiÔsis) means diminution; the Greek word ?p?????sa means an endearing expression. Hence we get names for the two kinds of diminutives; viz., the term meiotic for the true diminutives, and the term hypocoristic for the diminutives of endearment.—Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 664. 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 686. 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 -l; as ouga=an eye, ougili=a little eye, lied=a song, liedel=a little song. "In Austria and Bavaria 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 -l, 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.[43] 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 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. The termination -ling, like the terminations -rel and -let, is compound. Its simpler form is -ing. This, from being affixed to the derived forms in -l, has become -ling. In Anglo-Saxon the termination -ing is as truly patronymic as -?d?? is 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 Êsing, Êsa 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 Esing, Esing of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, In the opening speech of Marlow's Jew of Malta we have the following lines:— Here have I pursed their paltry silverlings. Fie! what a trouble 'tis to count this trash! Well fare the Arabs, that so richly pay For what they traffick in with wedge of gold. The word silverlings has troubled the commentators. Burst their silverbins has been proposed as the true reading. The word, however, is a true diminutive, as siluparlinc, silarbarling=a small silver coin, Old High German. A good chapter on the English diminutives may be seen in the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 679. CHAPTER XVI.GENTILE FORMS. The only word in the present English that requires explanation is the name of the principality Wales. 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, 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: wal-nuts=foreign nuts. 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.—Guest, Phil. Trans. 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 position. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does or can express; e.g., the relation of the agent 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. Logically, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance, and a verb does no more. To move=motion, to rise=rising, to err=error, to forgive=forgiveness. The only difference between the two parts of speech is this, that, whereas a noun may express any object whatever, verbs can only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the phenomena of conjugation. Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension, it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like
oftener than the Romans. The fact of there being an article in Greek may account for this. a. 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 a person being in the act of striking a blow, of his having been in the act of striking a blow, or of his being about to be in the act of striking a blow. We can also think of a person being in the act of doing a good action, or of his being from the act of doing a good action. This has been written to show that verbs of languages in general are as naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of the Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that fragments of this declension remain in the present English. In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an:
Be it observed, that the -en in words like strengthen, &c., is a derivational termination, and by no means a representation of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection is lost in the present English, except in certain provincial dialects. In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was (as a matter of syntax) generally, perhaps always, 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 is no preposition, and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in -an. 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 in -nne. Expressions like to err=error, to forgive=forgiveness, in lines like 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 it has been already remarked that 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. The following list is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 386.
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 fell, fell'd. III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as to survÉy, from a sÚrvey. For a fuller list see the Chapter on Derivation. 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 of voco marked in italics 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. In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of comparison:—
Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition of t in the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number; 3. the change of -aÐ into -en in the Old English plural; 4. the total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of the th into s, in loveth and loves. These are points bearing especially upon the history of the English persons. The following points indicate a more general question. 1. The full form prennames in the newer Old High German, as compared with sÓkjam 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. 4. The respective powers of M in the first, of S in the second, and of T (or its allied sounds) in the third persons singular; Plural.—The original sign MES. Dadmas, Sanskrit; d?d?e?, afterwards d?d?e?, Greek; damus, Latin=we give. The current form in Old High German. These forms in M may or may not be derived from the pronoun of the first person; mÂ, Sanskrit; me, Latin, English, &c. Second person singular.—The original sign S. Dadasi, Sanskrit; d?d??, Greek; das, Latin; dasi, Slavonic. Preserved in the Gothic languages. Plural.—The original sign T, or an allied sound. Dadyata, Sanskrit; daidhyÂta, Zend; d?d?te, Greek; datis, Latin; d[ou]kite, Lithuanic; dashdite, Slavonic=ye give. Current in the Gothic languages. These forms in T and S may or may not be derived from the pronoun of the second person; tva, Sanskrit; s?, Greek; thou, English. Third person singular.—-The original sign T. Dadati, Sanskrit; dadhÂiti, Zend; d?d?t?, Old Greek; dat, Latin; d[ou]sti, Lithuanic; dasty, Slavonic=he gives. Preserved in the Gothic languages. Plural.—The original sign NT. Dadenti, Zend; d?d??t?, afterwards d?d??s?, Greek; dant, Latin=they give. In Moeso-Gothic and Old High German. The preceding examples are from Grimm and Bopp. To them add the Welsh form carant=they love, and the Persian budend=they are. The forms in T and NT may or may not be derived from the demonstrative pronoun ta, Saxon; t?, Greek; that, English, &c. I. Change of form.—a) The ejection of -es in -mes, as in sÔkjam and kÖllum, compared with prennames; b) the ejection of -m, as in the first person singular, almost throughout; c) the change of -s into -r, as in the Norse kallar, compared with the Germanic sÔkeis; d) the ejection of -d from -nd, as in loven (if this be the true explanation of that form) compared with prennant; e) the ejection of -nd, as in kalla; f) the addition of -t, as in lufast and lovest. In all these cases we have a change of form. II. Confusion or extension.—In vulgarisms like I goes, I is, one person is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like I are, we goes, one number is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like I be tired, or if I am tired, one mood is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like I give for I gave, one tense is used for another. In all this there is confusion. There is also extension: since, in the phrase I is, the third person is used instead of the first; in other words, it is used with an extension of its natural meaning. It has the power of the third person + that of the first. In the course of time one person may entirely supplant, supersede, or replace another. The application of this is as follows:— The only person of the plural number originally ending in Ð is the second; as sÓkeiÞ, prennat, kalliÞ, lufiaÐ; the original ending of the first person being -mes, or -m, as prennames, sÔkjam, kÖllum. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the first person ends in Ð, as lufiaÐ. Has -m, or -mes, changed to Ð, or has the second person superseded the first? The latter alternative seems the likelier. I call, first person singular.—The word call is not one person more than another. It is the simple verb, wholly uninflected. It is very probable that the first person was the Thou callest, second person singular.—The final -t appears throughout the Anglo-Saxon, although wanting in Old Saxon. In Old High German it begins to appear in Otfrid, and is general in Notker. In Middle High German and New High German it is universal.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041. 857. He calleth, or he calls, third person singular.—The -s in calls is the -th in calleth, changed. The Norse form kallar either derives its -r from the -th by way of change, or else the form is that of the second person replacing the first. LufiaÐ, Anglo-Saxon, first person plural.—The second person in the place of the first. The same in Old Saxon. LufiaÐ, Anglo-Saxon, third person plural.—Possibly changed from -ND, as in sÔkjand. More probably the second person. Loven, Old English.—For all the persons of the plural. This form may be accounted for in three ways: 1. The -m of the Moeso-Gothic and High Old German became -n; as it is in the Middle and Modern German, where all traces of the original -m are lost. In this case the first person has replaced the other two. 2. The -nd may have become -n; in which case it is the third person that replaces the others. 3. The indicative form loven may have arisen out of a subjunctive one; since there was in Anglo-Saxon the form lufion, or lufian, subjunctive. In the Modern Norse languages the third person replaces the other two: Vi tale, I tale, de tale=we talk, ye talk, they talk. 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
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. The word personal is printed in italics. It does not follow, that, because there is no plural personal characteristic, there is also no plural characteristic. There is no reason against the inflection of the word love running thus—I love, thou lovest, he loves; we lave, ye lave, they lave; in other words, there is no reason against the vowel of the root being changed with the number. In such a case there would be no personal inflection, though there would be a plural, or a numeral, inflection. 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.
In all the Anglo-Saxon words, it may be remarked that the change is from a to u, and that both the vowels are short, or dependent. Also, that the vowel of the present tense is i short; as swim, sing, &c. The Anglo-Saxon form of run is yrnan. In the following words the change is from the Anglo-Saxon Á to the Anglo-Saxon i. In English, the regularity of the change is obscured by a change of pronunciation.
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 u, as swum, and the forms in i, bit, being plural. CHAPTER XXI.ON MOODS. 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. They are however, 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. In Greek the case is different. ??pt? (typtÔ)=I beat; ?t?pt?? (etypton)=I was beating; t??? (typsÔ)=I shall beat; ?t??a (etypsa)=I beat; t?t?fa (tetyfa)=I have beaten; ?tet?fe?? (etetyfein)=I had beaten. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses;[47] whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms t?t?fa and ?t??a are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial t, and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form ?t??a an e is prefixed, and an s is added. In the allied language of Italy Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi; Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibit imago.—Æn. iv. Ut primum alatis tetigit magalia plantis.—Æn. iv. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and vice versÂ. The two ideas I have struck and I struck are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to five; forms like cucurri and vixi being dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view is, that in curro the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in vixi the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.
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 Moeso-Gothic. A trace of it is found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word heht, which is considered to be hÊ-ht, the Moeso-Gothic hÁihÁit, vocavi. This statement is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 378. Did from do is also considered to be a reduplicate form. CHAPTER XXIII.THE STRONG TENSES. The first point in the history of these tenses that the reader is required to be aware of, is stated in the Chapter upon the Numbers, viz., that, in Anglo-Saxon, several prÆterites change, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as
As a general rule, the second singular has the same vowel with the plural persons, as burne, thou burntest, plural burnon, we burnt. The bearing of this fact upon the prÆterites has been indicated in p. 300. 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. I cannot say at what period the difference of form ceased to denote a difference of sense. In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular one. For instance, 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 fund; 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. Even in the present English it will be found convenient to Be it observed, that, though this fact accounts for most of our double forms, it will not account for all. In the Anglo-Saxon, Ic spr?c, I spake, we spr?con, we spake. There is no change of number to account for the two forms spake and spoke. First Class. Second Class.
In these words the w has grown out of a g, as may be seen from the Anglo-Saxon forms. The word see (saw) belongs to this class: since, in Anglo-Saxon, we find the forms geseÁh and gesegen, and in the Swedish the prÆterite form is saag. Third Class.
Fourth Class. Fifth Class. Sixth Class. Seventh Class.
The prÆterite of stand was originally long. This we collect All the words with secondary forms will appear again in the eighth class. Eighth Class.
Here observe,—1. That in speak, cleave, steal, the ea has the same power with the ee in freeze and seethe; so that it may be dealt with as the long (or independent) sound of the i in bid, sit, give. 2. That the same view may be taken of the ea in break, although the word by some persons is pronounced brake. Gabrika, gabrak, Moeso-Gothic; briku, brak, Old Saxon; brece, brac, Anglo-Saxon. Also of bear, tear, swear, wear. In the provincial dialects these words are even now pronounced beer, teer, sweer. The forms in the allied languages are, in 3. That the ea in tread was originally long; Anglo-Saxon, tredan, trede, tr?d, treden. 4. Lie.—Here the sound is diphthongal, having grown out of the Anglo-Saxon forms licgan, l?g, legen. 5. Sat.—The original prÆterite was long. This we collect from the spelling sate, and from the Anglo-Saxon s?t. Ninth Class. The sounds that are evolved from the accentuated Ó, are the o in note and the oo in book.
Tenth Class. Eleventh Class. A.
B.
On this list we may make the following observations and statements. 1. That, with the exception of the word slit, the i is sounded as a diphthong. 2. That, with the exception of bat and slat, it is changed into o in the singular and into i in the plural forms. 3. That, with the exception of shone, the o is always long (or independent). 4. That, even with the word shone, the o was originally long. This is known from the final -e mute, and from the Anglo-Saxon form scÉan; Moeso-Gothic, skÁin; Old Norse, skein. 5. That the o, in English, represents an Á in Anglo-Saxon. 6. That the statement last made shows that even bat and slat were once in the same condition with arose and smote, the Anglo-Saxon forms being arÁs, smÁt, bÁt, slÁt. Twelfth Class.
Upon this list we make the following observations and statements:— 1. That, with the exceptions of bind, find, grind, and wind, the vowels are short (or dependent) throughout. 2. That, with the exception of run and burst, the vowel of the present tense is either the i or e. 3. That i short changes into a for the singular, and into u for the plural forms. 4. That e changes into o in the singular forms; these being the only ones preserved. 5. That the i in bind, &c., changes into ou in the plural forms; the only ones current. 6. That the vowel before m or n is, with the single exception of run, always i. 7. That the vowel before l and r is, with the single exception of burst, always e. 8. That, where the i is sounded as in bind, the combination following is -nd. 9. That ng being considered as a modification of k (the Norse and Moeso-Gothic forms being drecka and drikjan), it may be stated that i short, in the twelfth class, precedes either a liquid or a mute of series k. From these observations, even on the English forms only, we find thus much regularity; and from these observations, even on the English forms only, we may lay down a rule like the following: viz. that i or u, short, before the consonants m, n, This statement, however, is nothing like so general as the one that, after a comparison of the older forms and the allied languages, we are enabled to make. Here we are taught, 1. That, in the words bind, &c., the i was once pronounced as in till, fill; in other words, that it was the simple short vowel, and not the diphthong ey; or at least that it was treated as such.
When the vowel i of the present took the sound of the i in bite, the u in the prÆterite became the ou in mouse. From this we see that the words bind, &c., are naturally subject to the same changes with spin, &c., and that, mutatis mutandis, they are so still. 2. That the e in swell, &c., was once i. This we collect from the following forms:—hilpa, Moeso-Gothic; hilfu, Old High German; hilpu, Old Saxon; hilpe, Middle High German; hilpe, Old Frisian. Suillu=swell, Old High German. Tilfu=delve, Old High German; dilbu, Old Saxon. Smilzu, Old High German=smelt or melt. This shows that originally the vowel i ran throughout, but that before l and r it was changed into e. This change took place at different periods in different dialects. The Old Saxon preserved the 3. That the o in swoll, holp, was originally a; as
4. That a change between a and o took place by times. The Anglo-Saxon prÆterite of swelle is sweoll; whilst ongon, bond, song, gelomp, are found in the same language for ongan, band, sang, gelamp.—Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, p. 90. 5. That run is only an apparent exception, the older form being rinn. The rain rinns down through Merriland town; So doth it down the Pa.—Old Ballad. The Anglo-Saxon form is yrnan; in the prÆterite arn, urnon. A transposition has since taken place. The word run seems to have been originally no present, but a prÆterite form. 6. That burst is only an apparent exception. Before r, e, i, u, are pronounced alike. We draw no distinction between the vowels in pert, flirt, hurt. The Anglo-Saxon forms are, berste, byrst, bÆrse, burston, borsten. Thirteenth Class. CHAPTER XXIV.THE WEAK TENSES. 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. When, however, the original word ends in -d or -t, as slight or brand, then, and then only (and that not always), is there the addition of the syllable -ed; as in slighted, branded. 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 -d. This is the habit of the English language. Filt, slurt, strayt, &c., are as pronounceable as filld, slurrd, strayd, &c. It is the habit, however, of the English language to prefer the latter forms. All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning the s, in words like For some historical notices respecting the use of -d, -t, and -ed, in the spelling of the English prÆterites and participles, the reader is referred to the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 655.
To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of foreign origin. In the following list, the words ending in -p are remarkable; since, in Anglo-Saxon, each of them had, instead of a weak, a strong prÆterite.
In this class we sometimes find -t where the -d is expected; the forms being left and dealt, instead of leaved and dealed.
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:—
In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable -ed; in other words d is separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel; as ended, instructed, &c. Of this e two views may be taken. 1. It may be derived from the original o in -ode, the termination of the first class in Anglo-Saxon. This is the opinion which we form when the word in question is known to have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon language, and, in it, to the first class. Ended, planted, warded, hated, heeded, are (amongst others) words of this sort; their Anglo-Saxon forms being endode, plantode, weardode, hatode, and eahtode, from endian, plantian, weardian, hatian, and eahtian. 2. The form may be looked upon, not as that of the prÆterite, but as that of the participle in a transferred sense. This is the view when we have two forms, one with the vowel, and the other without it, as bended and bent, wended and went, plighted and plight. A. In several words the final -d is changed into -t, as bend, bent; rend, rent; send, sent; gild, gilt; build, built; spend, spent, &c. B. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as feed, fed; bleed, bled; breed, bred; meet, met; speed, sped; read, read, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel. 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 separating the prÆterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins. The addition of the vowel takes place only in verbs of the first class. 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 to change into -t, the two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case with cut, cost, &c. Words like planted, heeded, &c., belong to the first class. Words like feed, lead, to the second class. Bend and cut belong also to the second class; they belong to it, however, by what may be termed an etymological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could. 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 the Chapter upon Irregularity. Aught.—In Anglo-Saxon Áhte, the prÆterite of the present form Áh, plural Ágan.—As late as the time of Elizabeth we find owe used for own. The present form own seems to have arisen from the plural Ágen. Aught is the prÆterite of the Anglo-Saxon Áh; owed of the English owe=debeo; owned of the English own=possideo. The word own, in the expression to own to a thing, has a totally different origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon an (plural, unnon)=I give, or grant=concedo. Durst.—The verb dare is both transitive and intransitive. We can say either I dare do such a thing, or I dare (challenge) such a man to do it. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past the double power of the word dare is ambiguous; still it is, to my mind at least, allowable. We can certainly say I dared him to accept my challenge; and we can, perhaps, say I dared venture on the expedition. In this last sentence, however, durst is the preferable expression. 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. The Moeso-Gothic forms are dar, dart? dar, daÚrum, daÚruÞ, daÚrun, for the persons of the present tense; and daÚrsta, daÚrstÊs, daÚrsta, &c., for those of the prÆterite. The same is the case throughout the Germanic languages. No -s, however, appears in the Scandinavian; the prÆterites being ÞorÐi and tÖrde, Icelandic and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon is dear=I dare, dearst=thou darest, durron=we, The readiest mode of accounting for the form in question is to suppose that the second singular has been extended over all the other persons. This view, however, is traversed by the absence of the -s in the Moeso-Gothic present. The form there (real or presumed) is not darst, but dart. Of this latter form, however, it must be remarked that its existence is hypothetical. In Matthew xxvi. 67, of the Moeso-Gothic Gospel of Ulphilas, is found the form kaÚpastÊdun, instead of kaÚpatidÉdun, the prÆterite plural of kaÚpatjan=to beat. Here there is a similar insertion of the -s.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 848, 852, 853. The -s in durst 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 maatte. The readiest mode of accounting for the -s in must, is to presume that it belongs to the second singular, extended to the other persons, mo-est=must. Irrespective, however, of other objections, this view is traversed by the forms mÔtan, Moeso-Gothic (an infinitive), and mÓt, Moeso-Gothic, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon (a first person present). These neutralise the evidence given by the Danish form maae, and indicate that the -t is truly a part of the original root. Now, the -t being considered as part of the root, the -s cannot be derived from the second singular; inasmuch as it precedes, instead of following the -t. At one time, for want of a better theory, I conceived, that in the word in point (and also in durst and a few others), we had traces of the Scandinavian passive. This notion I have, for evident reasons, abandoned. In p. 298 it was stated that the Moeso-Gothic termination of the second singular of the strong prÆterites was -t. It is The euphonic reason for the -s, in must, is sufficient to show that it is in a different predicament from durst. The provincial form mun, there or thereabouts equivalent in meaning to must, has no etymological connexion with this last named word. It is a distinct word, in Scandinavian monne. 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., vÁist; 1. pl. vitum; prÆterite 1. s. vissa; 2 vissÊss; 1. pl. vissÊdum. From the form vÁist we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of must; that is, vÁist stands instead of vÁit-t. From the form vissÊdum we see that the prÆterite is not strong, but weak; therefore that vissa is euphonic for vista. In Anglo-Saxon.—WÂt, wÂst, witon, wiste and wisse, wiston.—Here 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, wist; 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 Do.—In the phrase this will do=this will answer the purpose, the word do is wholly different from the word do, meaning to act. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin valere; in the second to the Latin facere. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is deÁh, dugon, dohte, dohtest, &c. Of the second it is dÓ, dÓÐ, dyde, &c. I doubt whether the prÆterite did, as equivalent to valebat=was good for, is correct. In the phrase it did for him=it finished him, either meaning may be allowed. 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 deah does the same. In respect to the prÆterite of do=facio, difficulties present themselves. Is the word weak?—This is the view that arises from the form did. The participle done traverses this view. Is the word strong?—In favour of this notion we have the English participle done, and the prÆterite second singular in Old High German tÂti. Against it are the Old Saxon dÉdos, and the Anglo-Saxon dydest, as second singulars. Is there a reduplication?—If this were the case, we might assume such a form as dÔan, dÁidÔ, for the Moeso-Gothic. This view, however, is traversed by the substantival forms dÊds, Moeso-Gothic; tÂt, Old High German; dÆd, Anglo-Saxon; which show that the second -d is part of the original word. The true nature of the form did has yet to be exhibited.—See Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041. Mind—mind and do so and so.—In this sentence the word mind is wholly different from the noun mind. The Anglo-Saxon forms are geman, gemanst, gemunon, without the -d; this letter occurring only in the prÆterite tense (gemunde, A prÆterite formed upon a prÆterite may also be called a secondary prÆterite; just as the word theirs, derived from their (a case formed from a case), is called a secondary genitive. In like manner the present form mind is not a genuine present, but a prÆterite with a present sense; its form being taken as the test. Presents of this sort may be called transformed prÆterites. It is very evident that the prÆterites most likely to become present are those of the strong class. In the first place, the fact of their being prÆterite is less marked. The word tell carries with it fewer marks of its tense than the word moved. In the second place they can more conveniently give rise to secondary prÆterites. A weak prÆterite already ends in -d or -t. If this be used as a present, a second -d or -t must be appended. Hence it is that all the transposed prÆterites in the Gothic tongues were, before they took the present sense, not weak, but strong. The word in question, mind (from whence minded), is only an apparent exception to this statement. Now the words shall, can, owe (whence aught), dare, may, man (of the Anglo-Saxon geman, the origin of mind), are, (irrespective of their other peculiarities), for certain etymological reasons, looked upon as prÆterite forms with a present sense. And the words should, could, aught, dared (or durst), must, wist, might, mind, are, for certain etymological reasons, looked upon as secondary prÆterites. This fact alters our view of the form minded. Instead of being a secondary prÆterite, it is a tertiary one. Geman (the apparent present) being dealt with as a strong prÆterite with a present sense, mind (from the Anglo-Saxon gemunde) is the secondary prÆterite, and minded (from the English mind) is a tertiary prÆterite. To analyse the word, the The proof of this we collect from the second persons singular, Moeso-Gothic. The second singular prÆterite of the strong class is -t; of the weak class, -es; of the present, both weak and strong, -s. Now the second singular of the words in point is skal-t, kan-t, Áih-t, dar-t? mag-t, man-t, respectively.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 852. Besides this, in Anglo-Saxon, the plural forms are those of the strong prÆterites. See Rask, p. 79. Yode.—The obsolete prÆterite of go, now replaced by went, the prÆterite of wend. Regular, except that the initial g has become y. CHAPTER XXV.ON CONJUGATION.
Exhibited in a tabular form, the changes of the vowels in Moeso-Gothic are as follows:—
For a full and perfect coincidence three things are necessary:—1. the coincidence of form; 2. the coincidence of distribution; 3. the coincidence of order. 1. Coincidence of form..—Compared with the Moeso-Gothic rinna, rann, runnum, runnans, the Old High German inflection coincides most rigidly; e.g., rinnu, ran, runnumÊs, runnanÊ. The vowel is the same in the two languages, and it is similarly changed in each. It is very evident that this might be otherwise. The Moeso-Gothic i might have become e, or the u might have become o. In this case, the formula for the two languages would not have been the same. Instead of i, a, u, u (see the tabular arrangement), serving for the Old High German as well as the Moeso-Gothic, the formula would have been, for the Moeso-Gothic, i, a, u, u, and for the Old High German e, a, u, u, or i, a, o, o. The forms in this latter case would have been equivalent, but not the same. 2. Coincidence of distribution.—A given number of words in the Moeso-Gothic form their prÆterites by changing i into a; in other words, a given number of verbs in Moeso-Gothic are inflected like rinna and rann. The same is the case with the Old High German. Now if these words are the same in the two languages, the Moeso-Gothic and the Old High German (as far as the agreement extends) coincide in the distribution of their verbs; that is, the same words are arranged in the same class, or (changing the phrase) are distributed alike. 3. Coincidence of order.—The conjugation to which the Moeso-Gothic words rinna and rann belong is the twelfth. The same is the case in Old High German. It might, Now a coincidence of form, a coincidence of distribution, and a coincidence of order, in all the classes of all the Gothic languages, is more than can be expected. If such were the case, the tenses would be identical throughout. Coincidence of form is infringed upon by the simple tendency of sounds to change. Hilpa in Moeso-Gothic is helpe in Anglo-Saxon: hulpans in Moeso-Gothic is holfanÊr in Old High German, and holpen in Anglo-Saxon. A change, however, of this sort is insufficient to affect the arrangement. Helpan, in Anglo-Saxon, is placed in the same class with spinnan; and all that can be said is, that the Moeso-Gothic i is, in Anglo-Saxon, represented not by i exclusively, but sometimes by i and sometimes by e. Coincidence of distribution is of great etymological importance. A word may in one stage of a language take the form of one conjugation, and in another that of another. The word climban is, in Anglo-Saxon, placed in the same conjugation with drincan, &c. For this there was a reason; viz., the fact of the i being short. For the i being short there was a reason also. The b preceded the vowel a, and consequently was sounded. This was the case whether the word was divided clim-ban or climb-an. An, however, was no part of the original word, but only the sign of the infinitive mood. As such it became ejected. The letter b then came at the end of the word; but as the combination mb, followed by nothing was unstable, b was soon lost in pronunciation. Now b being lost, the vowel which was once short became lengthened, or rather it became the sound of the diphthong ei; so that the word was no longer called climb, but clime. Now the words that follow the analogy of spin, span ,&c. (and consequently constitute the twelfth class), do so, not because the vowel is i, but because it is a short i; and when the i is sounded like a diphthong, the prÆterite is formed differently. The Anglo-Saxon prÆterite of climban was sounded clomm, and rhymed to from; the English prÆterite (when strong) of Coincidence in the order of the classes is violated when a class which was (for instance) the third in one language becomes, in another language the fourth, &c. In Moeso-Gothic the class containing the words smeita, smÁit, smitum, smitans, is the eighth. This is a natural place for it. In the class preceding it, the vowel is the same in both numbers. In the classes that follow it, the vowel is changed in the plural. The number of classes that in Moeso-Gothic change the vowel is five; viz., the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. Of these the eighth is the first. The classes where the change in question takes place form a natural subdivision, of which the eighth class stands at the head. Now in Anglo-Saxon the vowel is not changed so much as in the Moeso-Gothic. In words like choose, give, and steal, the vowel remains unaltered in the plural. In Moeso-Gothic, however, these words are, respectively, of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh classes. It is not till we get to the eleventh that the Anglo-Saxon plurals take a fresh vowel. As the presence or absence of a change of vowel naturally regulates the order of the classes, the eighth class in Moeso-Gothic becomes the eleventh in Anglo-Saxon. If it were not so, the classes where a change took place in the plural would be separated from each other. The later the stage of the language, the less complete the coincidence in the classes. Of the present arrangement, the twelfth class coincides most throughout the Gothic languages. In the word climb, a reason was given for its having changed from the twelfth class to the eleventh class. This, in the present state of our knowledge, cannot always be done. These statements are made lest the reader should expect to find between the English and the Anglo-Saxon classification anything more than a partial coincidence. A detailed exhibition of the English conjugations would form a work of Observe, that it is the classes of the strong verbs that are provisional. With the great divisions into weak and strong, the case is far otherwise. The general assertions which will be made in p. 333, respecting the strong conjugation, show most cogently that the division is a natural one.
I. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong. II. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical. III. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues. IV. 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 dubb, was introduced into English. Its prÆterite was dubbade.[56] V. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms drink and lie, are strong; the transitive forms drench and lay, are weak. The fourth statement will again be recurred to. The present object is to show that the division into strong and weak is natural. 1. Those like swoll and swelled; where there is the same tense, but a different conjugation. 2. Those like spoke and spake; where the tense is the same and the conjugation the same, but where the form is different. The bearings of these double forms (which, however, are points of general rather than of English grammar) are as follows. Their number in a given language may be very great, and the grammarian of a given language may call them, not double forms of the same tense, but different tenses. Let the number of words like swoll and swelled be multiplied by 1000. The chances are, that, in the present state of etymology, they would be called first prÆterites and second prÆterites. The bearing of this remark upon the so-called aorists and futures of the Greek language is evident. I think that a writer in the Cambridge Philological Museum[57] indicates the true nature of those tenses. They are the same tense in a different conjugation, and differ from swoll and swelled only in the frequency of their occurrence. Difference of form, and difference of conjugation, may each simulate a difference of tense. CHAPTER XXVI.DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY. The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronouns I and me, and the adjectives good, better, and best. See the sections referred to above. 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 (at least in the present stage of our language) defective in the past tense. Went (at least in its current sense) is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are to each other complementary. The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to terms. 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. Now this position is 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. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards (but not to) the definition of the word irregular. I. 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 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, in the present English, make words like bent, sought, &c. (the euphonic processes being allowed for), regular, and all the strong verbs irregular. The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this. II. Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit.—The combinations -pd-, -fd-, -kd-, -sd-, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words like step, quaff, back, kiss, &c., take after them the sound of -t: stept, quafft, &c. (the sound being represented), being their prÆterites, instead of stepd, quaffd. Here the change from -d (the natural termination) to -t is a matter (or process) of necessity. It is not so with words like weep and wept, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary. Weept might have been said if the habit of the language had permitted. 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 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. III. Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes.—The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms wept and slept correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process; viz. by the shortening of the vowel in weep and sleep. The analogy of weep is extended to sleep, and vice versÂ. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is an ultimate fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words. 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. IV. Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes.—The words wept and slept are similarly affected. Each is changed from weep and sleep respectively; and we know that Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word worse is explained in p. 267, and the reader is referred to the section. 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. V. Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion.—Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical. Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, 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-, and 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 Notwithstanding this, the presence of the -l is accounted for. In would and should the -l has a proper place. It is part of the original words, will and shall. A false analogy looked upon could in the same light. Hence a true irregularity; provided that the L be pronounced. The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance to 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). The whole of the present chapter is indicative of the nature of irregularity, and of the elements that should enter into the definition of it, rather than exhaustive of the detail. The principle that I recognise for myself is to consider no word irregular unless it can be proved so. This view includes the words affected by ambiguous processes, and by processes of confusion, and no others. The words affected by THE IMPERSONAL VERBS. Of this word we have also the past form methought. Methought I saw my late espoused wife Brought to me, like Alcestis, from the grave. Milton. These three are the only true impersonal verbs in the English language. They form a class by themselves, because no pronoun accompanies them, as is the case with the equivalent expressions it appears, it pleases, and with all the other verbs in the language. In the old language impersonal verbs, or rather the impersonal use of verbs, was commoner than at present. Him oughten now to have the lese pain. Legend of Good Women, 429. Him ought not to be a tyrant. Legend of Good Women, 377. Me mete.—Chaucer. Well me quemeth.—Conf. Amantis. In the following lines the construction is, it shall please your Majesty. I'll muster up my friends to meet your Grace, Where and what time your Majesty shall please. Richard III., iv. 4. See a paper of Mr. Guest's, Phil. Trans., vol. ii. 241. Strictly speaking, the impersonal verbs are a part of syntax rather than of etymology. CHAPTER XXVIII.THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word has both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it has an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it is inflected throughout with -s; as visa, vas, vÊsum, visans. In that language it has the power of the Latin maneo = to remain. The -r first appears in the Old High German; wisu, was, wÂrumÊs, wËsaner. In Norse the s entirely disappears, and the word is inflected with r throughout; vera, var, vorum, &c.
The line in Milton beginning If thou beest he—(P. L. b. ii.), leads to the notion that the antiquated form beest is not indicative, but conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case: bÝst in Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive form being beÓ.—And every thing that pretty bin (Cymbeline).—Here the word bin is the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxon bÉon; so that the words every thing are to be considered equivalent to the plural form all things. The phrase in Latin would stand thus, quotquot pulcra sint; in Greek thus, ? ?? ???a ?. The indicative plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not beÓn, but beÓÐ and beÓ. 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 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, there is one between am and is. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.
In English and Anglo-Saxon the word is found in the Worth.—In the following lines of Scott, the word worth=is, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb weorÐan=to be, or to become; German, werden. 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. It is with the oblique cases of the present participles of the classical languages, rather than with the nominative, that we must compare the corresponding participle in Gothic; e.g., ? p??ss??=the actor, when a male. ? p?ass??sa=the actor, when a female. ?? p??tt??=the active principle of a thing. Rising early is healthy, There is health in rising early. This is the advantage of rising early. The risings in the North, &c. Archbishop Whately has some remarks on this substantival power in his Logic. Some 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 healthy, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in -ung is out of the question. 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 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. These two statements bear upon the future history of the prÆterite. That of the two forms sang and sung, one will, in the course of language, become obsolete is nearly certain; and, as the plural form is also that of the participle, it is the plural form which is most likely to be the surviving one. CeÓse, I choose; ceÁs, 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 reduces words like bÆrned and bÆrnde to the same form, it is easy to account for the present 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 (ge-birge)=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 with a tendency to collection or association; Middle High German, ge-rassel=rustling; ge-rumpel=c-rumple. 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 is Grimm's view, as given in 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. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified or defined, by the second. Of yards, beams, trees, loads, smiths, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine what particular sort of yard, beam, tree, load, or smith, may be meant, the words vine, sun, apple, ship, and silver, are prefixed. In compound words it is the first term that defines or particularises the second. In the compound words tree-apple and apple-tree, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the 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 ear-rings, 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 with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers' compounds. 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.—Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 405. 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, in certain cases, 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 sunbeam. 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. This fact was foreshadowed in the Chapter upon Accents. "Then rÉst, my friÉnd, and spÁre thy prÉcious brÉath." On each of the syllables rest, friend, spare, prec-, breath, there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one that precedes it; rest with then, friend with my, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the word and, the word spare is not only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so little on and, and so much on spare, that the disparity of accent is very manifest. Now, if in the place of and, there was 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 breath.— 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 separate 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. Subject to four small classes of 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. The reader is now informed, that unless, in what has gone before, he has taken an exception to either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound form and a compound idea. In the words a red house, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement 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 mÁdhouse, in its common sense, expresses a compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The word beef steak is evidently a compound idea; but, as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound; its form is not compound, but double. This indicates the objection anticipated, which is this: viz., that a definition, which would exclude such a word as beef steak from the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in etymology. 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 the four classes of exceptions) thus: There is no true composition without either a change of form or a change of accent. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application. The word trÉe-rose is often pronounced trÉe rÓse; that is, with the accent at par. It is compound in the one case; it is two words in the other. The words 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 last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of accent, and the word is compound. 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 word (or words) gallant mast. If gallant mean brave, there are two words. If the words be two, there The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be read in two ways; and the accent may vary with the reading. 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 in -ly. At present they appear derivative; their termination -ly having no separate and independent existence. The older language, however, shows that they are compounds; since -ly is nothing else than -lic, Anglo-Saxon; -lih, Old High German; -leiks, Moeso-Gothic;=like, or similis, and equally with it an independent separate word. For the following words a separate independent root is presumed rather than shown. It is presumed, however, on grounds that satisfy the etymologist. Mis-, as in misdeed, &c.—Moeso-Gothic, missÔ=in turns; Old Norse, Â mis=alternately; Middle High German, misse=mistake. The original notion alternation, thence change, thence defect. Compare the Greek ?????.—Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 470. Dom, as in wisdom, &c.—The substantive dÔm presumed.—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 491. Hood and head, as in Godhead, manhood, &c.—The substantive hÁids=person, order, kind, presumed.—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 497. Nothing to do with the word head. Ship, as in friendship.—Anglo-Saxon, -scipe and -sceÄft; German, -schaft; Moeso-Gothic, gaskafts=a creature, or creation. The substantive skafts or skap presumed. The -skip or -scape in landskip is only an older form.—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 522. Less, as in sleepless, &c., has nothing to do with less. Derived from lÁus, lÔs, destitute of=Latin, expers.—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 565. For the further details, which are very numerous, see the Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. Real reduplications of consonants, as in hop-pole, 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. The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllable en masse, as to counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented. One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of double words) is the term upstÁnding. Here it should be remembered, that words like haphÁzard, foolhÁrdy, uphÓlder, and withhÓld come under the first class of the exceptions. The third class of exceptions contains words like perchÁnce and perhÁps. In all respects but one these are double words, just as by chance is a double word. Per, however, differs from by in having no separate existence. This sort of words To anticipate objections to the rule respecting the disparity of accent, it may be well to state in fresh terms a fact already indicated, viz., that the same combination of words may in one sense be compound, and in the other double (or two). An uphill game gives us the combination up + hill as a compound. He ran up hill gives us the combination up + hill as two words. So it is with down + hill, down + right, and other words. Man-servant, cock-sparrow, &c., are double or compound, as they are pronounced mÁn-sÉrvant, mÁn-servant, cÓck-spÁrrow, or cÓck-sparrow. The fourth class is hypothetical. I can, however, imagine that certain compounds may, if used almost exclusively in poetry, and with the accent at par, become so accented even in the current language. 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 nacht-i-gale, and remember the tendency of vowels to take the sound of -ng before g. 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. In the first edition the sentence ran "two or more" words; being so written to account for compounds like mid-ship-man, Nevertheless, the caution was unnecessary. Compound radicals like midship and gentleman, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites. There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have in combination. Mark the word combination. The terms in question are points of combination, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions time and tide—might and main—rede me my riddle—pay your shot—rhyme and reason, &c. These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species with bishopric, colewort, spillikin, gossip, mainswearer, and the words quoted in p. 362. These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination. The other words are etymological curiosities. They may occur in any language. The English, however, from the extent of its classical element, is particularly abundant in them. It is a mere accident that they are all compound words. 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 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 can not do what was done with the word strength, I can not 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 these latter words to be derivations at all, I do it because I find in words like handle, &c., the -l as a derivational addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree. 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 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 IV. According to the historical origin of the derivational elements.—For this see the Chapter upon Hybridism. 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.
ADVERBS. Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we speak of the adverbs of time, place, number, manner. This division is logical rather than etymological. A division, however, which although logical bears upon etymology, is the following:— Well, better, ill, worse.—Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of taking an inflection, viz., that of the comparative and superlative degrees. 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. Words like better and worse are adjectives or adverbs as they are joined to nouns or verbs. Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of inflection only, viz., that of degree. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin. This is truly an etymological classification. A Better, worse.—Here the combination of sounds gives equally an adjective and an adverb. 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 ?????=?????, we have B Brightly, bravely.—Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like brightly, &c., may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of derivation. C 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. When, now, well, worse, better.—here the adverbial expression consists in a single word, and is simple. To-day, yesterday, not at all, somewhat—here the adverbial expression consists of a compound word, or a phrase. This indicates the division of adverbs into simple and complex. The following notices are miscellaneous rather than systematic. Else, unawares, eftsoons.—These are the genitive forms of adjectives. By rights is a word of the same sort. Once, twice, thrice.—These are the genitive forms of numerals. Needs (as in needs must go) is the genitive case of a substantive. Seldom.—The old dative (singular or plural) of the adjective seld. Whilom.—The dative (singular or plural) of the substantive while. Little, less, well.—Neuter accusatives of adjectives. Bright, in the sun shines bright, is a word of the same class. The Athwart.—A neuter accusative, and a word exhibiting the Norse neuter in -t. It is highly probable that not only the adverbs of derivation, but that also the absolute adverbs, may eventually be reduced to adverbs of deflection. For now, see Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 249. 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.
Now a reason for the comparative frequency of these forms in Moeso-Gothic lies in the fact of the Gospel of Ulphilas being a translation from the Greek. The Greek forms in -?e?, ?s??e?, ????e?, ????e?, p?????e?, p??t??e?, were just the forms to encourage such a formation as that in -Þro.—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 199, &c. Anon, as used by Shakspeare, in the sense of presently.—The probable history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a root akin to the root yon, signifying distance in place. The second is a shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German, -nt, a termination expressive, 1, of removal in space; 2, of removal in time; Old High German, Ënont, Ënnont; Middle High German, 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 pronominal in origin. As to the word than, the conjunction of comparison, it is a variety of then; the notions of order, sequence, and comparison being allied. 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. CHAPTER XXXVI.PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS. No word is ever made a preposition by the addition of a derivational[59] element. If it were not for this, the practical classification of the prepositions, in respect to their form, would coincide with that of the adverbs. As it is, there are only the prepositions of deflection, and the absolute prepositions. On another principle of division there are the simple prepositions (in, on, &c.), and the complex prepositions (upon, roundabout, across). The prepositions of deflection, when simple, originate chiefly in adverbs, as up, down, within, without, unless, indeed, we change the assertion, and say that the words in point (and the others like them) are adverbs originating in prepositions. The absence of characteristic terminations renders these decisions difficult. The prepositions of deflection, when complex, originate chiefly in nouns, accompanied by an absolute preposition; as instead of of substantival, between of adjectival origin. The absolute prepositions, in the English language, are in, on, of, at, up, by, to, for, from, till, with, through. The conjunctions of deflection originate chiefly in imperative moods (as all save one, all except one); participles used like the ablative absolute in Latin (as all saving one, all excepting one); adverbs (as so); prepositions (as for); and relative neuters (as that). The absolute conjunctions in the English language are and, or, but, if. CHAPTER XXXVII.ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. 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.—Laying aside the habit of the Germans and other nations, of using the third person plural for the second singular (as in expressions like wie befinden sie sich = how do they find themselves? instead of how do you find yourself?) the Greek language gives us examples of interchange in the way of persons 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. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present English they, these, and she are personal pronouns at all. The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its present power and its original power, are often conflicting. In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms like mine and thine; in other words, of the forms in -n. Are they genitive cases of a personal pronoun, as mei and tui are supposed to be in Latin, or are they possessive pronouns like meus and tuus? 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; of which my and thy have been dealt with as abbreviated forms, and that by respectable scholars. Now, to prove from the syntax of the older English that in many cases the two forms were convertible, and to answer that the words in question are either genitive cases or adjectives, is lax philology; since the real question is, which of the two is the primary, and which the secondary meaning? 1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to the two preponderating notions of possession and partition. 2. The circumstance of the particular notion of possession being, in the case of the personal pronouns of the two first persons singular, generally expressed by a form undoubtedly adjectival. 3. The extent to which the idea of partition becomes merged in that of possession, and vice versÂ. Compared with these two powers all the others are inconsiderable, both in number and importance; and if, as in the Greek and Latin languages, they take up a large space in the grammars, it is from their exceptional character rather than from their normal genitival signification. Again, if both the ideas of possession and partition may, and in many cases must be, reduced to the more general idea of relation, this is a point of grammatical phraseology by no means affecting the practical and special bearings of the present division. The ideas of partition and possession merge into one another.—A man's spade is the possession of a man; a man's hand is the part of a man. Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the idea which arises from the fact of its being part of his body is merged in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without following the refinements to which the further investigation of these questions would lead us, it is sufficient to suggest that the preponderance of the two allied ideas of partition and possession is often determined by the But as persons may be degraded to the rank of things, and as things may, by personification, be elevated to the level of persons, this distinction, although real, may become apparently invalid. In phrases like a tributary to the Tiber—the criminal lost his eye—this field belongs to that parish—the ideas of possessorship and partition, as allied ideas subordinate to the idea of relationship in general, verify the interchange. An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned in the sequel. A personal pronoun of the singular number is the name of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like, some of them, one of you, many of us, any of them, few of us, &c., have no analogues in the singular number, such as one of me, a few of thee, &c. The partitive words that can This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no argument in favour of the so-called singular genitives, like mine and thine, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence of the true plural genitives ou-r, you-r, thei-r. The two ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, one of ten, or ten of twenty; but we cannot say one of one—WÆs hira Matheus sum=Matthew was one of them; Andreas—Your noither=neither of you; Amis and Ameloun—from Mr. Guest: Her eyder=either of them; Octavian.—Besides this, the form of the two numbers are neither identical, nor equally genitival; as may be seen by contrasting mi-n and thi-n with ou-r and you-r. Akin to these, and a point which precedes the À posteriori evidence as to the nature of the words in question, is the determination of the side on which lies the onus probandi. This question is material; inasmuch as, although the present writer believes, for his own part, that the forms under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is the fact of the genitival character of mine and thine requiring a particular proof; which particular proof no one has yet given: in other words, his position is that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such. It has not been sufficiently considered that the prim facie evidence is against them. They have not the form of a genitive case—indeed, they have a different one; and whoever assumes a second form for a given case has the burden of proof on his side. 1. It is by no means an indubitable fact that mei and ??? are really cases of the pronoun. The extension of a principle acknowledged in the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used pronominally. Thus,
Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle to the Latin language, and ??? and mei may be cases, not of ?? and me, but of ??? and meus. 2. In the classical languages the partitive power was expressed by the genitive. "—— multaque pars mei Vitabit Libitinam." This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such forms exist in the Gothic; part my is not English, nor was dÆl min Anglo-Saxon,=part of me, or pars mei.
In this list, those languages where the two forms are alike are not exhibited. This is the case with the Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon. In the above-noticed 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 As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology furnishes instances both ways. Ours is a case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective. Cujus (as in cujum pecus) and sestertium are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one. 1. The words min or Þin, with a power anything rather than possessive, would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to be genitive cases rather than possessive pronouns; since such latitude in the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of languages—pat?? ??? (not ??te???) in Greek is pater noster (not nostrum) in Latin. If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena Þin, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not be conclusive. As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of the 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender. 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 474-478. 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 480. 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.—Deutsche Grammatik, 470. 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.—See pp. 251-253. CHAPTER XXXVIII.ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE. l. 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; and the fact of its being so accounts for 3. Hence, as one language, the Slavonic gives us the undoubted fact of an active prÆterite growing out of a passive participle (unless, indeed, we chose to say that both are derived from a common origin); and as the English participle and prÆterite, when weak, are nearly identical, we have reason for believing that the d, in the English active prÆterite, is the t in the Latin passive participle.
PART V.SYNTAX. ———— CHAPTER I.ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. Much that is considered by the generality of grammarians as syntax, can either be omitted altogether, or else be better studied under another name. To show the difference in force of expression, between such a sentence as great is Diana of the Ephesians, and Diana of the Ephesians is great, wherein the natural order of the subject and predicate is reversed, is a point of rhetoric. I am moving.—To state that such a combination as I am moving is grammatical, is undoubtedly a point of syntax. Nevertheless it is a point better explained in a separate treatise, than in a work upon any particular language. The expression proves its correctness by the simple fact of its universal intelligibility. I speaks.—To state that such a combination as I speaks, 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. I am speaking, I was reading.—There was a stage in the Gothic languages when these forms were either inadmissible, or rare. Instead thereof, we had the present tense, I speak, and the past, I spoke. The same is the case with the classical languages in the classical stage. To determine the difference in idea between these pairs of forms is a matter of metaphysics. To determine at what period each idea came to have a separate mode of expression is a matter of the history of language. For example, vas lÁisands appears in Ulphilas (Matt. vii. 29). There, it appears as a rare form, and as a literal translation of the Greek ?? d?das??? (was teaching). The Greek form itself was, however, an unclassical expression for ?d?das?e. In Anglo-Saxon this mode of speaking became common, and in English it is commoner still.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 5. This is a point of idiom involved with one of history. Swear by your sword—swear on your sword.—Which of these two expressions is right? This depends on what the speaker means. If he mean make your oath in the full remembrance of the trust you put in your sword, and with the imprecation, therein implied, that it shall fail you, or turn against you if you speak falsely, the former expression is the right one. But, if he mean swear with your hand upon your sword, it is the latter which expresses his meaning. To take a different view of this question, and to write as a rule that Much of the criticism on the use of will and shall is faulty in this respect. Will expresses one idea of futurity, shall another. The syntax of the two words is very nearly that of any other two. That one of the words is oftenest used with a first person, and the other with a second, is a fact, as will be seen hereafter, connected with the nature of things, not of words. I am going.—Pure syntax explains this. I have gone.—Pure syntax will not explain this. Nevertheless, the expression is good English. The power, however, of both have and gone is different from the usual power of those words. This difference mixed syntax explains. 1. To account for such a fact in language as the expression the man as rides to market, instead of the usual expression the man who rides to market, is a question of what is commonly called metaphysics. The idea of comparison is the idea common to the words as and who. 2. To account for such a fact in language as the expression I have ridden a horse is a question of history. We must know that when there was a sign of an accusative case in English the word horse had that sign; in other words that the expression was, originally, I have a horse as a ridden thing. These two views illustrate each other. 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. The fact of the word he neither qualifying nor explaining the word king, distinguishes pleonasm from apposition. Pleonasm, as far as the view above is applicable, is reduced to what is, apparently, its opposite, viz., ellipsis. 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 can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number. 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 reasoning 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, There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility; and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient. 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 an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected. 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 either ellipsis, or apposition. Ellipsis of substantives.—The historical view of phrases, like Rundell and Bridge's, St. Pauls', &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. A. 1. The words most commonly understood, are house and family, or words reducible to them. In Latin, DianÆ=Ædem DianÆ.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262. 2. Country, retinue.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262. 3. Son, daughter, wife, widow.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262.—???e?? ??d???, Greek. B. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations— 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. From expressions like p?t????? ?????? (Matt. xiv. 51), 1. The persons called George, &c. 2. Or, persons so like George, that they may be considered as identical. 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 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 most that can be said, in cases like these, is that particular adjectives determine the use of particular prepositions—thus the preposition of, generally follows the adjective full, &c. 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— This is the better of the two is preferable to This is the best of the two. 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— Whether of the two rather than Which of the two. Either the father or the son, but not Either the father, the son, or the daughter. 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. The same is the case with adjectives. The want of inflexion simplifies their syntax equally with that of the substantives. But with the pronouns this is not the case. Here we have— 1. Signs of gender; 2. Signs of case; 3. Signs of number, to a greater extent, and with more peculiarities, than elsewhere. Furthermore, the pronouns exhibit in a great degree the phenomena of conversion indicated in p. 400. 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 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. Mr. Guest remarks, "that at one time the two forms ye and you seem to have been nearly changing place in our language. As I have made ye one, Lords, one remain; So I grow stronger you more honour gain. Henry VIII. 4, 2. What gain you by forbidding it to teaze ye, It now can neither trouble you nor please ye. Dryden." In German and the Danish the pronomen reverentiÆ is got at by a change, not of number, but of person—in other words, the pronoun of the third person is used instead of that of the second; just as if, in the English, we said will they walk=will you walk, will ye walk, wilt thou walk. 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 occurs more frequently in the Latin than in the 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 two first 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) 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.
The following instances are the latest specimens of its use.
"The genitive its is of late introduction into our language. Though used by our dramatists and many of their cotemporaries, it does not occur in the versions of our Bible, the substitute being his or the compound term thereof."—Phil. Trans., No. 25. Sometimes the expression is still more anomalous, and we hear the so-called nominative case used instead of the accusative. In the expression take they things away, the use of they for them (itself for those) is similarly capable of being, down to a certain period of our language, explained as an archaism. The original accusative was Þa, and Þo: the form in -m being dative. Quocunque aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer; Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax. Here hic (=this or the one) refers to the antecedent last named (the air); whilst ille (=that or the other) refers to the antecedent first named (the sea). Now on the strength of this example, combined with others, it is laid down as a rule in Latin that hic (this) refers to the last-named antecedent, ille to the first-named. Suppose we say John's is a good sword and so is Charles's; this cut through a thick rope, the other cut through an iron rod. Or instead of saying this and that we may say the one and the other. It is clear that, in determining to which of the The truth is, that it is a question which no authority can settle; and all that grammar can tell us is (what we know without it) that this refers to the name of the idea which is logically the most close at hand, and that to the idea which is logically the most distant. What constitutes nearness or distance of ideas, in other words, what determines the sequence of ideas is another question. That the idea, however, of sequence, and, consequently of logical proximity and logical distance, is the fundamental idea in regard to the expressions in question is evident from the very use of the words this and that. Now the sequence of ideas is capable of being determined by two tests. 1. The idea to which the name was last given, or (changing the expression) the name of the last idea may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, and, consequently, the idea referred to by the pronoun of proximity. In this case the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above was the idea of the atmosphere (aer), and it was, consequently, expressed by (this) hic. 2. Or the idea to which the name was first given, or (changing the expression) the name of the first idea may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, and consequently the idea referred to it by the pronoun of proximity; inasmuch as the idea which occurs first is the most prominent one, and what is prominent appears near. In this case, the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above would have been the idea of the sea (pontus), and it would, consequently, have been the idea expressed by this (hic). As Ovid, however, considered the idea at the end of the last half of one sentence to be the idea nearest to the As I believe that one and the same individual may measure the sequence of his ideas sometimes according to one of these principles, and sometimes according to another, I believe that all rules about the relations of this and that are arbitrary. It is just a matter of chance whether a thinker take up his line of ideas by the end or by the beginning. The analogies of such expressions as the following are in favour of this, in English, applying to the first subject, that to the second; since the word attorney takes the place of this, and applies to the first name of the two, i.e., to Thurlow.
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. Him-self=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
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 their selves), or else he he self (they they selves). In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the words himself and themselves, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind; inasmuch as the inflectional element -m, is dealt with as part and parcel of the root. 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. In this world wote I no knight, Who durst his one with hym fight. Ipomedon, 1690. Þah ha hire ane were Ayein so kene keisere and al his kine riche. St. Catherine, 90. Though she alone were Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom. Here his one, her one, mean his singleness, her singleness. He made his mone Within a garden all him one. Gower, Confess. Amant. Here him one = himself in respect to its construction. Myself, thyself, himself, itself, and herself, are naturally singular, and under no circumstances can become plural. Themselves is naturally plural, and under no circumstances can become singular. Ourselves and yourselves are naturally plural; yet under certain circumstances they become singular. a. Just as men say we for I, so may they say our for my. b. Just as men say you for thou, so may they say your for thy. In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive form self's except the habit of the English language not to use one, founded on the little necessity for so doing.—Are you sure this is your own? Yes, I am sure it is my own self's. Such an expression is both logic and grammar. When an adjective intervenes between self and its personal pronoun the construction is always in the way of government; in other words, the personal pronoun is always put in the genitive case. His own self, not him own self. Their own selves, not them own selves. 1. When myself or thyself stands alone, the verb that follows is in the third person—myself is (not am) weak, thyself is (not art) weak. Here the construction is just the same as in the proposition my body is weak. 2. When myself or thyself is preceded by I or thou, the verb that follows is in the first person—I, myself, am (not is) weak; thou, thyself, art (not is) weak. CHAPTER VIII.ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. The first class is the class of what may be called the oblique possessives; the name being founded upon the etymological fact of their being connected with the oblique cases of the pronominal inflection.—My, thy, his (as in his book), her, its (as in its book), our, your, their. These are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms mei, tui, ejus, nostrum, vestrum, eorum. The second class is the class of what may be called the absolute possessives; the name being founded upon the syntactic fact of their being able to form the term of a proposition by themselves; as whose is this? Mine (not my).—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. How far either or both of these two classes of pronouns are cases, or adjectives, is a point of etymology that has already been noticed (Part IV., chap. 37). How far either or both are cases or adjectives is, in syntax, a matter of indifference. 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, complimentary to each other when taken in their two forms. In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the single word only so far as the expression is concerned. A substantive is always understood from what has preceded.—This discovery is Newton's=this discovery is Newton's discovery. 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. In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a genitive case that Wallis considers the
CHAPTER IX.THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 1. He that spoke.—Masculine gender. 2. She that spoke.—Feminine gender. 3. They that fought.—Plural number. 4. The man that I struck.—Objective case. 1. The dagger which stabbed CÆsar.—Nominative singular. 2. The daggers which stabbed CÆsar.—Nominative plural. 3. The dagger which I grasp.—Objective singular. 4. The daggers which I grasp.—Objective plural. 1. The dagger what stabbed CÆsar. 2. The dagger what I grasp. In one case, however, what is used as a true relative, viz., when the antecedent is either this or that. This is what I mean; not, this is which I mean. That is what I mean; not, that is which I mean. This expression is not to be imitated. It ought, however, to be explained. As is a conjunction denoting comparison. The ideas of comparison and equivalence are allied. The relative is ex vi termini the equivalent, in one part of a sentence, to the antecedent in another.
Here who=man.
Here snow=white. 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 4. He (she or it) is single ex vi termini. The relative expresses the identity between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus who=John, or is another name for John. 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. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction. 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, 1. Every sentence wherein a relative occurs, is complex, i.e., it consists of two propositions—the man who rides is come=(1) the man is come; (2) who rides. Here the relative who has no meaning in itself, but takes a meaning from the noun of the preceding clause. 2. The relative is the demonstrative or personal pronoun under another form.—The two propositions (1) the man is come; (2) who rides=(1) the man is come; (2) he rides. 3. The demonstrative or personal pronoun is the substantive in another form.—The two propositions (1) the man is come; (2) he rides=(1) the man is come; (2) the man rides. 4. Hence the relative is the equivalent to a demonstrative pronoun, or to a substantive, indifferently. 5. But the relative is the equivalent to the pronoun and substantive, and something more. In sentences like The man is come—he rides— The man is come—the man rides. The identity between the person mentioned in the two propositions is implied, not expressed. This the relative expresses; and hence its use in languages. 6. From these observations we get a practical rule for determining doubtful constructions. a. Reduce the sentence to the several propositions (which are never less than two) which it contains. b. Replace the relative by its equivalent personal or demonstrative pronoun, or by its equivalent substantive. c. The case of the demonstrative or substantive, is the case of the relative also. By applying this rule to such expressions as Satan, than whom None higher sat, thus spake we find them, according to the current etymology, incorrect— Satan spake—none sat higher than he sat. Satan spake—none sat higher than Satan sat. Hence the expression should be, Satan than who None higher sat. Observe.—The words, according to the current etymology, indicate an explanation which, rightly or wrongly, has been urged in favour of expressions like the one in question, and which will be noticed in a future chapter. 1. The elliptic form of the generality of the sentences wherein it follows the word than. 2. The influence of the oblique interrogation. 3. The influence of an omitted relative. When the relative and antecedent are in different cases, and the relative is omitted, the antecedent is sometimes put in the case of the relative. He whom I accuse has entered. Contracted according to p. 424. He I accuse has entered. Changed, according to the present section,— Him I accuse has entered. And so (as shown by Mr. Guest, Philological Transactions), Shakspeare has really written,— Him I accuse, The city gates by this has entered. Coriolanus, v. 5. Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire Too high a fame, when him we serve's away. Antony and Cleopatra, iii. 1. The reason of this is clear. The verb that determines The Greek phrase, ???a? ?????? ??? ???, is an instance of the converse process. 1. Solomon the son of David who 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.
"Tell me in sadness whom she is you love." Romeo and Juliet, i. 1.
Two circumstances encourage this confusion. 1. The presence of a second verb, which takes the appearance of a governing verb. 2. The omission of a really oblique antecedent or relative. 3. The use of accusative for nominative forms in the case of personal pronouns. It is clear that much of this reasoning applies to the relative powers of who, as well as to the interrogative. But, it is possible that there may be no incorrectness at all: insomuch as whom may have become a true nominative. Mr. Guest has truly remarked that such is the case in the Scandinavian language, where hve-m=who=qui. This view, if true, justifies the use of whom after the conjunctions than and as; so that the expression,— Satan than whom None higher sat, may be right. Nevertheless, it does not justify such expressions as— None sit higher than me. None sit higher than thee. None sit higher than us. None sit higher than her. The reason of this is clear. Whom is supposed to be admissible, not because the sentence admits an accusative case; but because custom has converted it into a nominative. For my own part, I doubt the application of the Danish rule to the English language. Things may be going that way, but they have not, as yet, gone far enough. 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. The Lapplandic, and, probably other languages, have the same elements of perspicuity. 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.—Deutsche Grammatik. In the Old English, the form man often lost the -n, and became me.—Deutsche Grammatik. This form is also extinct. The present indeterminate pronoun is one; as, one says=they say=it is said=man sagt, German=on dit, French=si dice, Italian. It has been stated in p. 257, that the indeterminate pronoun one has no etymological connection with the numeral one; but that it is derived from the French on=homme=homo=man; and that it has replaced the Old English, man or me. 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 there 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 thousandth-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 is of much importance in the question of the government of verbs. 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. This does not apply to the infinitive mood. The infinitive mood of the so-called verb substantive is a noun; not, however, because it is a verb substantive, but because it is an infinitive mood. For the impersonal verbs see Part IV., Chapter 27. 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 necessary to remember that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and that a complex subject may contain, at one and the same time, a noun substantive and a pronoun,—I, the keeper; he, the merchant, &c. 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 defines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the same for both. 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 same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus— 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 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 (p. 434), the word which comes first is always the subject, until the contrary be proved. 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 (or government) sometimes takes the appearance of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a substantive; which substantive is in the objective case. Nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object: and To sleep the sleep of the righteous is to sleep in agreement with—or according to—or after the manner of—the sleep of the righteous, and the construction is adverbial. In the grammars of the classical languages, the following rule is exceptionable—Quodvis verbum admittit accusativum nominis sibi cognati. It does so; but it governs the accusative case not objectively but modally. 1. Appositional.—As, she walks a queen: you consider me safe. The appositional construction is, in reality, a matter of concord rather than of gender. It will be considered more fully in the following section. 2. Traditive.—As, I give the book to you=do librum tibi. I teach you the lesson=d?d?s?? s? t?? d?das????a?. In all traditive expressions there are three ideas; (1.) an agent, (2.) an object, (3.) a person, or thing, to which the object is made over, or transferred, by the agent. For this idea the term dative is too restricted: since in Greek and some other languages, both the name of the object conveyed, and the name of the person to whom it is conveyed are, frequently, put in the accusative case. 3. Instrumental.—As, I fight with a sword=pugno ense=feohte sweorde,—Anglo-Saxon. 4. Emphatic.—As, he sleeps the sleep of the righteous. It is I. It is thou. It is he, &c. Here, although the word is is followed by a nominative case, it by no means governs one—at least not as a verb. It has been stated above that the so-called verb substantive is only a verb for the purposes of etymology. In syntax, it is only a part of a verb, i.e., the copula. Now this fact changes the question of the construction in expressions like it is I, &c., from a point of government to one of concord. In the previous examples the words it, is, and I, were, respectively, subject, copula, and predicate; and, as it is the function of the copula to denote the agreement between the predicate and the subject, the real point to investigate is the nature of the concord between these two parts of a proposition. Now the predicate need agree with the subject in case only. 1. It has no necessary concord in gender—she is a man in courage—he is a woman in effeminacy—it is a girl. 2. It has no necessary concord in number—sin is the wages of death—it is these that do the mischief. 3. It has no necessary concord in person—I am he whom you mean. 4. It has, however, a necessary concord in case. Nothing but a nominative case can, by itself, constitute a term of either kind—subject or predicate. Hence, both terms must be in the nominative, and, consequently, both in the same case. Expressions like this is for me are elliptic. The logical expression is this is a thing for me. Rule.—The predicate must be of the same case with its subject. Hence—The copula instead of determining[60] a case expresses a concord. Rule 1.—All words connected with a nominative case by the copula (i.e., the so-called verb-substantive) must be nominative.—It is I; I am safe. Rule 2.—All words in apposition with a word so connected must be nominative.—It is difficult to illustrate this from the English language from our want of inflexions. In Latin, however, we say vocor Johannes=I am called John, not vocor Johannem. Here the logical equivalent is ego sum vocatus Johannes—where— 1. Ego, is nominative because it is the subject. 2. Vocatus is nominative because it is the predicate agreeing with the subject. 3. Johannes, is nominative because it is part of the predicate, and in apposition with vocatus. N.B. Although in precise language Johannes is said to agree with vocatus rather than to be in apposition with it, the expression, as it stands, is correct. Apposition is the agreement of substantives, agreement the apposition of adjectives. Rule 3.—All verbs which, when resolved into a copula and participle, have their participle in apposition (or agreeing) with the noun, are in the same condition as simple copulas—she walks a queen=she is walking a queen=illa est incedens regina. Rule 4.—The construction of a subject and copula preceded by the conjunction that, is the same in respect to the predicate by which they are followed as if the sentence were an isolated proposition. This rule determines the propriety of the expression—I believe that it is he as opposed to the expression I believe that it is him. I believe=I am believing, and forms one proposition. It is he, forms a second. That, connects the two; but belongs to neither. Now, as the relation between the subject and predicate of a proposition cannot be affected by a word which does not belong to it, the construction is the same as if the propositions were wholly separate. N.B. The question (in cases where the conjunction that is not used), as to the greater propriety of the two expressions—I believe it to be him—I believe it to be he—has yet to be considered. The verb and dative case.—The word give, and a few others, govern a dative case. Phrases like give it him, whom shall I give it, are perfectly correct, and have been explained above. The prepositional construction give it to him,—to whom shall I give it? is unnecessary. The evidence of this is the same as in the construction of the adjective like. Here, the word, to be, is, in respect to its power, a noun. As such, it is in the accusative case after the verb believe. With this accusative infinitive, it agrees, as being part of the same complex idea. And him does the same. In English we have two methods of expressing one idea; the method in question, and the method by means of the conjunction, that. 1. I believe it to be him. 2. I believe that it is he. In the first example, it is the object; and it-to-be-him forms one complex term. In the second, he agrees with it; and it is the subject of a separate, though connected, proposition. Of these two forms the Latin language adopts but one, viz., the former,—credo eum esse, not credo quod illud est ille. 1. It is believed.— 2. Who spoke. Now, here, it is the subject, and, as such, nominative. But it is also the equivalent to to be he, which must be nominative as well. To be he is believed=esse-ille creditur,—or, changing the mode of proof,— 1. It is the subject and nominative. 2. Believed is part of the predicate; and, consequently, nominative also. 3. To be he is a subordinate part of the predicate, in apposition with believed—est creditum, nempe entitas ejus. Or, to be he is believed=esse-ille est creditum. As a general expression for the syntax of copulas and appositional constructions, the current rule, that copulas and appositional verbs must be followed by the same case by which they are preceded, stands good. 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? For the extent to which the view differs from that of Priestley, and still more with that of Mr. Guest, see Phil. Trans., 25. 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. This 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. The following examples, from the Old English, of the gerundial construction where we have, at present, the objective, are Mr. Guest's. 1. Eilrid myght nought to stand Þam ageyn. R. Br. 2. Whether feith schall mowe to save him? Wiclif, James ii. 3. My woful child what flight maist thou to take? Higgins, Lady Sabrine, 4. 4. Never to retourne no more, Except he would his life to loose therfore. Higgins, King Albanaet, 6. 5. He said he could not to forsake my love. Higgins, Queen Elstride, 20. 6. The mayster lette X men and mo To wende. Octavian, 381. 7. And though we owe the fall of Troy requite, Yet let revenge thereof from gods to lighte. Higgins, King Albanaet, 16. 8. I durst, my lord, to wager she is honest. Othello, iv. 2. 9. Whom, when on ground, she grovelling saw to roll, She ran in haste, &c. F. Q. iv. 7, 32. 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 he,—he or I. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:— 1. Whenever the words either or neither precede the 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. The reasons for these rules will appear in the Chapter on Conjunctions. 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. That the greater supposed worth of the first person may be a reason for putting it first in the proposition is likely enough. 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 inflectional 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 non-auxiliary significations.—The power of the word have in the combination of I have a horse is clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same word in the combination I have been is not so clear; nevertheless it is a power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that 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 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. Time considered in one point only— 1. Present.—An action taking place at the time of speaking, and incomplete.—I am beating, I am being beaten. Not expressed, in English, by the simple present tense; since I beat means I am in the habit of beating. 2. Aorist.—An action that took place in past time, or previous to the time of speaking, and which has no connection with the time of speaking.—I struck, I was stricken. Expressed, in English, by the prÆterite, in Greek by the aorist. The term aorist, from the Greek ?-???st??=undefined, is a convenient name for this sort of time. 3. Future.—An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one which will take place.—Expressed, in English, by the combination of will or shall with an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection. I shall (or will) speak, ???-s?, dica-m. None of these expressions imply more than a single action; in other words, they have no relation to any second action occurring simultaneously with them, before them, or after them.—I am speaking now, I spoke yesterday, I shall speak to-morrow. Of course, the act of mentioning them is not considered as an action related to them in the sense here meant. By considering past, present, or future actions not only by themselves, but as related to other past, present, or future actions, we get fresh varieties of expression. Thus, an act may have been going on, when some other act, itself an act of past time, interrupted it. Here the action agrees with a present action, in being incomplete; but it differs from it in having been rendered incomplete by an action that has past. This is exactly the case with the— 4. Imperfect.—I was reading when he entered. Here we have two acts; the act of reading and the act of entering. Both are past as regards the time of speaking, but both are present as regards each other. This is expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb substantive and the present participle, I was speaking; and in Latin and Greek by the imperfect tense, dicebam, ?t?pt??. 5. Perfect.—Action past, but connected with the present by its effects or consequences.—I have written, and here is the letter. Expressed in English by the auxiliary verb have, followed by the participle passive in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number. The Greek expresses this by the reduplicate perfect: t?-t?fa=I have beaten. 6. Pluperfect.—Action past, but connected with a second action, subsequent to it, which is also past.—I had written when he came in. 7. Future present.—Action future as regards the time of speaking, present as regards some future time.—I shall be speaking about this time to-morrow. 8. Future prÆterite.—Action future as regards the time of speaking, past as regards some future time.—I shall have spoken by this time to-morrow. These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the relations of actions to each other, and to the time of speaking, either in the English or any other language. But over and above the simple idea of time, there may be others superadded: thus, the phrase, I do speak means, not only that I am in the habit of speaking, but that I also insist upon it being understood that I am so. Again, an action that is mentioned as either taking place, or as having taken place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea of habit may arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time. a. In English, the present form expresses habit. See p. 455. . In Greek the aorist expresses habit. Again, one tense, or one combination, may be used for another. I was speaking when he enters. The results of these facts may now be noticed: 1. The emphatic present and prÆterite.—Expressed by do (or did), as stated above. A man says I do (or did) speak, read, &c., when, either directly or by implication, it is asserted or implied that he does not. As a question implies doubt, do is used in interrogations.
2. The predictive future.—I shall be there to-morrow. This means simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the circumstances that will determine his being so. 3. The promissive future.—I will be there to-morrow.—This means not only that the speaker will be present, but that he intends being so. For further observations on shall and will, see pp. 471-474. 4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but habitual, has already been twice stated. The use of the representative present to express simple actions is unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it gives an illogical character,—As I was doing this he enters (for entered). Nevertheless, such a use of the present is a fact in language, and we must take it as it occurs. The present tense can be used instead of the aorist; and that on the principle of representation. Can a past tense, or combination, be used for a present? In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression, I come that I may see; with the expression, I came that I might see; i.e., the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect construction, I have come. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with the present. I have come that I may see. The reason for this is clear. There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like I shall go, need give us no trouble; even though shall be considered as a perfect tense. Suppose the root, sk-ll to mean to be destined (or fated). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up to the time of speaking, we may say I have been destined to go, just as well as we can say I am destined to go. The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree in their power of expressing habitual actions) is a more difficult investigation. It bears upon such expressions as I ought to go, &c., and will be taken up in p. 475. "Ut sumus in ponto ter frigore constitit Ister." Here the connection of the present and perfect ideas explains the apparent contradiction. The present state may be the result of a previous one; so that a preterite element may be involved in a present expression. Ut sumus=since I have been where I am. It is hardly necessary to remark that such expressions as since I am here (where since=inasmuch as) do not come under this class. 1. Continuance in the case of future actions.—A future action may not only take place, but continue: thus, a man may, on a given day, not only be called by a particular name, but may keep that name. When Hesiod says that, notwithstanding certain changes which shall have taken place, good shall continue to be mixed with bad, he does not say, ?s??? ????seta? ?a???s??, but, ???' ?p?? ?a? t??s? e??eta? ?s??? ?a???s??. Opera et Dies. Again,— ?pe??' ? p???t?? ??te?e?? ?? ?ata???? ??de?? ?at? sp??d?? ete???af?seta?, ???' ?spe? ?? t? p??t?? ???e????eta?. Aristoph. Equites, 1366. Here ete???af?seta? means change from one class to another, ???e????eta? continuance in the same.—See MathiÆ, ii. §498. Upon the lines,— ??e? p??? ??d??? ?st???? ?e???seta? ????e??? ?pp??. Troades, 13, 14. Seidler remarks that ?????seta?, est nomen accipiet; ?e???seta?, nomen geret. Now it is quite true that this Greek tense, the so-called paulo-post-futurum, "bears the same relation to the other futures as, among the tenses of past time, the perfectum does to the aorist."—(MathiÆ.) And it is also true that it by no means answers to the English shall have been. Yet the logical elements of both are the same. In the English expression, the past power of the perfect predominates, in the Greek its present power. 2. Habit in the case of past actions.—I had dined when I rode out. This may apply to a particular dinner, followed by a particular ride. But it may also mean that when the speaker had dined, according to habit, he rode out, according to habit also. This gives us a variety of pluperfect; which is, in the French language, represented by separate combination—j'avais dinÉ, j'eus dinÉ. It may consist in the present proof of the past fact,—I have written, and here is the evidence. It may consist in the present effects of the past fact,—I have written, and here is the answer. Without either enumerating or classifying these different kinds of connexion, it is necessary to indicate two sorts of inference to which they may give origin. 1. The inference of continuance.—When a person says, I have learned my lesson, we presume that he can say it, i.e., that, he has a present knowledge of it. Upon this principle 2. The inference of contrast.—When a person says, I have been young, we presume that he is so no longer. The action is past, but it is continued up to the time of speaking by the contrast which it supplies. Upon this principle, fuit Ilium means Ilium is no more. In speaking, this difference can be expressed by a difference of accent. I have learned my lesson, implies that I don't mean to learn it again. I have learned my lesson, implies that I can say it. 1. The combination with the participle of a transitive verb.—I have ridden the horse; thou hast broken the sword; he has smitten the enemy. 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. Neither if we said I have ridden the horses, would it agree with horses; since it is of the singular number. 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 equitatam (singular, neuter). Here the construction is— "Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres, Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllides 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 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 (see Mr. Guest, Phil. Trans. No. 44) 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 promissive future verb is will. Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the predictive verb shall. "In primis personis shall simpliciter prÆdicentis est; will, quasi promittentis aut minantis. "In secundis et tertiis personis, shall promittentis est aut minantis: will simpliciter prÆdicentis.
nempe, hoc futurum prÆdico.
nempe, hoc futurum spondeo, vel faxo ut sit." Again—"would et should illud indicant quod erat vel esset futurum: cum hoc tantum discrimine: would voluntatem innuit, seu agentis propensionem: should simpliciter futuritionem."—Wallis, p. 107. "Archdeacon Hare's usus ethicus is taken from the brighter side of human nature:—'When speaking in the first person we speak submissively; when speaking to or of another, we speak courteously.' This explains I shall, thou wilt; but I cannot think it explains I will, thou shalt. It often happens "In introducing the common mode of stating the future tenses, grammar has proceeded as if she were more than a formal science. She has no more business to collect together I shall, thou wilt, he will, than to do the same with I rule, thou art ruled, he is ruled. "It seems to be the natural disposition of man to think of his own volition in two of the following catagories, and of another man's in the other two: Compelling, non-compelling; restrained, non-restrained. "The ego, with reference to the non-ego, is apt, thinking of himself, to propound the alternative, 'Shall I compel, or shall I leave him to do as he likes?' so that, thinking of the other, the alternative is, 'shall he be restrained, or shall he be left to his own will?' Accordingly, the express introduction of his own will is likely to have reference to compulsion, in case of opposition: the express introduction of the will of another, is likely to mean no more than the gracious permission of the ego to let non-ego do as he likes. Correlatively, the suppression of reference to his own will, and the adoption of a simply predictive form on the part of the ego, is likely to be the mode with which, when the person is changed, he will associate the idea of another having his own way; while the suppression of reference to the will of the non-ego is likely to infer restraint produced by the predominant will of the ego. "Occasionally, the will of the non-ego is referred to as under restraint in modern times. To I will not, the answer is sometimes you shall, meaning, in spite of the will—sometimes you will, meaning that the will will be changed by fear or sense of the inutility of resistance."[62] The following table exhibits the expedients on the part of the different languages of the Gothic stock, since the loss of the proper passive form of the Moeso-Gothic.
Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19. They are present in power, and past in form. So, perhaps, is shall. But they are not, like shall, perfect forms; i.e., they have no natural present element in them. They are aorist prÆterites. Nevertheless, they have a present sense. So had their equivalents in Greek: ?????=???, ?de?=de?, p??s??e?=p??s??e?. In Latin, too, would was often not represented by either volo or volebam, but by velim. I believe that the usus ethicus is at the bottom of this construction. The assertion of duty or obligation is one of those assertions which men like to soften in the expression: should, ought. So is the expression of power, as denoted by may or can—might, could. Very often when we say you should (or ought to) do this, we leave to be added by implication—but you do not. Very often when we say I could (or might) do this, we leave to be added by implication—but I do not exert my power. Now, if what is left undone be the present element in this assertion, the duty to do it, or the power of doing it, constitutes a past element in it; since the power (or duty) is, in relation to the performance, a cause—insufficient, indeed, but still antecedent. This hypothesis is suggested rather than asserted. I am bound to do this now = I owe to do this now. However, we do not say owe, but ought. Hence, when we wish to say I was bound to do this two years ago, we cannot say I ought (owed) to do this, &c., since ought is already used in a present sense. We therefore say, instead, I ought to have done this two years ago; which has a similar, but by no means an identical meaning. I was bound to pay two years ago, means two years ago I was under an obligation to make a payment, either then or at some future time. I was bound to have paid, &c., means I was under an obligation to have made a payment. If we use the word ought, this difference cannot be expressed. Common people sometimes say, you had not ought to do so and so; and they have a reason for saying it. The Latin language is more logical. It says not debet factum fuisse, but debuit fieri. 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 prefix) has originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In many languages the prepositions are post-positive, following their noun. Again, Mr. Guest quotes, amongst other passages, the following:— Suffice this hill of ours— They fought two houres of the nightes— Yet neither class of examples is conclusive. Ours does not necessarily mean of us. It may also mean of our hills, i.e., of the hills of our choice. Nightes may mean of the night's hours. In the expression, what a grand castle, &c., it is submitted to the reader that we do take into our account other castles, which the Duke of Northumberland Yet not to have been dipt in Lethe's lake, Could save the son of Thetis from to die. 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 proposition,—he likes you better than me=he likes you better than he likes me. The compendious expression of the second proposition is the first point of note in the syntax of conjunctions. 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 but a preposition. A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the following reason,—the word that follows it must be the subject of the second proposition, and, as such, a nominative case. 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. 2. 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 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 be indefinite, there is room for the use 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.
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 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.
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 (probably referable to the usus ethicus) 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 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. In English the word that, so used, cannot be said to govern a mood, although generally followed by either may or might.
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 an aorist into a perfect. To say I did this that I may gain by it, is to make, by the very effect of the expression, either may equivalent to might, or did equivalent to have done.
A clear perception of the logical necessity of the law of the succession of tenses, is necessary for understanding the nature of several anomalous passages in the classical writers. In the following, an aorist is followed not by an optative, but by a subjunctive. ??? ??a??? p???????a???? ??? ????a??? ?st?, ??? as??e??, ? ?d??e ?????? pa?? ???????te? S??pt??? t' ?d? ???sta?, ??a sf?s?? ?as??e??. Here it is necessary to construe ?d??e, has given and continues to allow, which is to construe it like a perfect[64] tense. Upon similar passages MathiÆ writes, "but frequently the conjunctive is used, although the preceding word be in the time past, viz., when the verb which depends upon the conjunction shows an action continued to the present time." That means when the verb is really a perfect. In Latin, where the same form is both aorist and perfect, the succession of tenses is a means of determining which of the two meanings it conveys. Veni ut videam=I have come that I may see. Veni ut viderem=I came that I might see. Arnold states, from KrÜger and Zumpt, that even where the prÆterite was clearly a perfect (i.e., =to have with the participle), the Roman ear was so accustomed to the imperfect subjunctive, that it preferred such an expression as diu dubitavi num melius esset to diu dubitavi num melius sit. The latter part of the statement is sure enough; but it is by no means so sure that dubitavi, and similar forms in similar constructions are perfects. There is no reason for considering this to be the case in the present instance. It seems to be so, because it is connected with diu; but an action may last a long time, and yet not last up to the time of speaking. Diu dubitavi probably expresses, I doubted a long time, and leaves it to be inferred that now I do not doubt. The present writer has no hesitation in stating his belief, that all the phÆnomena explicable by the assumption of an optative mood are equally explicable by an expansion of the subjunctive, and a different distribution of its tenses. 1. Let t??? be considered a subjunctive future instead of a subjunctive aorist. 2. Let t??t??? be considered an imperfect subjunctive. 3. Let tet?f??? be considered a pluperfect subjunctive. 4. Let t??a?? be considered an aorist subjunctive. Against this view there are two reasons: 1. The double forms t??a?? and t?????, one of which would remain unplaced. 2. The use of the optative and conjunctive in simple propositions, as— ? pa?, ?????? pat??? e?t???ste???. The first reason I am not prepared to impugn. Valeat quantum, &c. The second indicates a class of expressions which tense will not explain, and which mood will. Yet this is not conclusive. Would that thou wert is thoroughly optative: yet it is expressed by a tense. The form of the so-called optatives proves nothing. Neither the subjunctive nor the optative has any signs of mood at all, except the negative one of the absence of the augment. Their signs are the signs of tense. In favour of the view are the following reasons:— 1. The analogy of other languages. The imperfect has a subjunctive in Latin. So has the future. 2. The undoubtedly future character of the so-called aorist imperative. To give an order to do a thing in past time is a philological contradiction. Forms like ????? must be future. Though ??? and t??e? differ in power, they both mean an 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, 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. When the word either is connected immediately with the copula of a proposition, it is, if not a true conjunction, at least a part of a conjunctional periphrasis.—This either is or is not so. When it belongs more to one of the terms of a proposition than to the copula, it is a pronoun,—Either I or you is in the wrong. It is either you or I. I use the words, part of a conjunctional periphrasis, because the full conjunction is either + or (or neither + nor); the essential conjunctions being the latter words. To these, either (or neither) is superadded, indicating the manner in which the disjunction expressed by or (or nor) takes place; i.e., they show that it takes place in the manner of an alternative. Now, this superadded power is rather adverbial than conjunctional. In expressions like either you or I is in the wrong, we must Then, as to expressions like I, or you, am in the wrong. Here, I is the leading pronoun, which determines the person of the verbs; the words, or you, being parenthetic, and subordinate. These statements bear upon the rules of p. 457. Or will it justify such expressions as either he or they is in the wrong? Or will it justify such expressions as I or they am in the wrong? In all which sentences one pronoun is plural. Perhaps not. The assumption that has been just alluded to, as helping to explain certain doubtful constructions, is the following, viz., that in cases of apposition, disjunction, and complex terms, the first word is the one which determines the character of the sentence wherein it occurs. This is a practice of the English language, which, in the opinion of the present writer, nothing but a very decided preponderance of a difference in person, gender, or number, can overrule. Such may fairly be considered to be the case in the three examples just adduced; especially as there is also the secondary influence of the conjunctional character of the word either. Thus, although we say,—
We also say,—
As for the other two expressions, they are in the same predicament, with an additional reason for the use of the plural. It contains the singular. The chief object of the present remarks has been less to explain details than to give due prominence to the following leading principles. 1. That either (or neither) is[66] essentially singular in number. 2. That it is, like any common noun, of the third person. 3. That it is pronominal where it is in apposition with another noun. 4. That when it is the first word of the proposition it determines the concord of the verb, unless its character of a noun of the singular number and third person be disguised by the prominence of some plural form, or some pronoun of the first or second person in the latter part of the term. 5. That in a simple disjunctive proposition (i.e., one where either does not occur) all nouns are subordinate to the first. 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 Ætherial stream, Whose fountain who (no one) shall tell? Paradise Lost. "I would not here note by the way that Tyndall here translateth no for nay, for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde: saving that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so common as in naye and no can not tell when he should take the one and when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. No aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe? lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew Englishe, he must aunswere nay and not no. But and if the question be asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must aunswere no and not nay. And a lyke difference is there betwene these two adverbs ye and yes. For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde, be his bokes worthy to be burned? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere ye and not yes. But now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false heresyes seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned? To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe he may not aunswere ye but he must answere yes, and say yes marry be they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth them." 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 is only to be justified by considering the nominative form to be a dative one, just as in the expression you are here, the word you, although an accusative, is considered as a nominative. A real nominative absolute is as illogical as a real accusative case governing a verb. PART VI.ON THE PROSODY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Metre is a general term for the recurrence, within certain intervals, of syllables similarly affected. Syllables may be similarly affected: 1. in respect to their quantities; 2. in respect to their accents; 3. in respect to their articulations. 1. Palai k?nÆgetounta kai metroumenon. ????? ?????e?t???t? ??? e?t???e????.—Soph. Ajax, 3. Here there is the recurrence of similar quantities. 2. The wÁy was lÓng, the wÍnd was cÓld. Lay of the Last Minstrel. Here there is the recurrence of similar accents. 3. The way was long, the wind was cold, The minstrel was infirm and old.—Ditto. Here, besides the recurrence of similar accents, there is a recurrence of the same articulate sounds; viz. of o + ld. 1. Alliterative metres.—In alliterative metres a certain In Caines cynne Þone cwealm gewrÆc. CÆdmon. Alliteration is the general character of all the early Gothic metres. (See Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, Rask, On the Icelandic Prosody, and Conybeare, On Anglo-Saxon Poetry.) 2. Assonant metres.—In assonant metres a certain number of words, within a certain period, must end with a similar articulation. All rhymes and all approaches to rhyme, form the assonant metres. The word assonant has a limited as well as a general sense. Already doubled is the cape, the bay Receives the prow, that proudly spurns the spray. Alliteration, as an ornament, must be distinguished from alliteration as the essential character of metre. Alliteration, as an ornament, is liable to many varieties. Let the syllable told be taken to pieces. For metrical purposes it consists of three parts or elements: 1, the vowel (o); 2, the part preceding the vowel (t); 3, the part following the vowel (ld). The same may be done with the word bold. The two words can now be compared with each other. The comparison shows that the vowel is in each the same (o); that the part following the vowel (ld) is the same; and, finally, that the part preceding the vowel is different (t and b). This difference between the part preceding the vowel is essential. Told, compared with itself (told), is no rhyme, but an homoeoteleuton (?????, homoios=like, and te?e?t?, teleutÆ=end) or like-ending. It differs from a rhyme in having the parts preceding the vowel alike. Absolute identity of termination is not recognized in English poetry, except so far as it is mistaken for rhyme. The soft-flowing outline that steals from the eye, Who threw o'er the surface? did you or did I? Whitehead. Here the difference in spelling simulates a difference in sound, and a homoeoteleuton takes the appearance of a rhyme. Bold and note.—As compared with each other, these words have two of the elements of a rhyme: viz. the identity of the vowel, and the difference of the parts preceding it. They want, however, the third essential, or the identity of the parts following; ld being different from t. The coincidence, however, as far as it goes, constitutes a point in metre. The words in question are assonances in the limited sense of the term; and because the identity lies in the vowels, they may be named vowel assonances. Vowel assonances are recognized in (amongst others) the Spanish and Scandinavian metrical systems. In English they occur only when they pass as rhymes. Bold and mild.—Here also are two of the elements of a rhyme, viz., the identity of the parts following the vowel (ld), and the difference of the parts preceding (b and m). The identity of the vowel (o being different from i) is, however, wanting. The words in question are assonances in the limited sense of the term, and consonantal assonances. Recognized in the Scandinavian, they occur in English only when they pass as rhymes. Rhymes may consist of a single syllable, as told, bold, of two syllables, as water, daughter; of three, as cheerily, wearily. Now, the rhyme begins where the dissimilarity of parts immediately before the main vowel begins. Then follows the vowel; and, lastly, the parts after the vowel. All the parts after the vowel must be absolutely identical. Mere similarity is insufficient. Then come ere a minute's gone, For the long summer day Puts its wings, swift as linnets' on, For flying away.—Clare.[68] In the lines just quoted there is no rhyme, but an assonance. The identity of the parts after the main syllable is destroyed by the single sound of g in gone. A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall on syllables equally accented.—To make sky and the last syllable of merrily serve as rhymes, is to couple an accented syllable with an unaccented one. A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall upon syllables absolutely accented.—To make the last syllables of words like flighty and merrily serve as rhymes, is to couple together two unaccented syllables. Hence there may be (as in the case of blank verse) accent without rhyme; but there cannot be rhyme without accent. A rhyme consists in the combination of like and unlike sounds.—Words like I and eye (homoeoteleuta), ease and cease (vowel assonances), love and grove (consonantal assonances), are printers' rhymes; or mere combinations of like and unlike letters. A rhyme, moreover, consists in the combination of like and unlike articulate sounds. Hit and it are not rhymes, but identical endings; the h being no articulation. To my ear, at least, the pair of words, hit and it, comes under a different class from the pair hit (or it) and pit. The deviations from the above-given rule, so common in the poetry of all languages, constitute not rhymes, but assonances, &c., that, by poetic licence, are recognized as equivalents to rhymes. The wÁy was lÓng, the wÍnd was cÓld. This accented syllable and its accompanying unaccented one constitute a measure. The number of the syllables being two, the measure in question is dissyllabic. At the clÓse of the dÁy when the hÁmlet is stÍll.—Beattie. The primary division of the English measures is into the dissyllabic and the trisyllabic. A measure like presÚme (where the accent lies on the second syllable) may be repeated throughout a whole verse, or a whole series of verses; as, Then fÁre thee wÉll mine Ówn dear lÓve; The wÓrld has nÓw for Ús No grÉater grÍef, no paÍn abÓve, The pÁin of pÁrting thÚs.—Moore. Here the accent falls on the second syllable of the measure. A measure like tÝrant (where the accent lies on the first syllable) may be repeated throughout a whole verse, or a whole series of verses; as, HÉed! O hÉed, my fÁtal stÓry; Í am HÓsier's Ínjured ghÓst; CÓme to sÉek for fÁme and glÓry, FÓr the glÓry Í have lÓst.—Glover. The number of dissyllabic measures is, of necessity, limited to two. 1. MÉrrily, mÉrrily, shÁll I live nÓw, Únder the blÓssom that hÁngs on the bÓugh. Tempest. 2. But vÁinly 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. Christabel. There's a beÁuty for Éver unfÁdingly brÍght; Like the lÓng ruddy lÁpse of a sÚmmer-day's nÍght. Lalla Rookh. The number of trisyllabic measures is, of necessity, limited to three. The classical grammarians express their feet by symbols; [] denoting length, [?] shortness. Forms like [? ? ?? ?? ??] &c., are the symbolical representations of the classical feet. The classical grammarians have names for their feet; e.g., iambic is the name of [?], trochee of [?], dactyle of [??], amphibrachys of [??], AnapÆst of [??], &c. The English grammarians have no symbols for their feet: since they have no form for expressing the absence of the accent. Sometimes they borrow the classical forms [?] and []. These, however, being originally meant for the expression of quantity, confusion arises from the use of them. Neither have the English grammarians names for their measures. Sometimes, they borrow the classical terms iambic, trochee, &c. These, however, being meant for the expression of quantity, confusion arises from the use of them. As symbols for the English measures, I indicate the use of a as denoting an accented, x an unaccented syllable; or else that of + as denoting an accented, - an unaccented syllable. Finally, ´ may denote the accent, ¨ the absence of it. As names for the English measures I have nothing to offer. At times it is convenient to suppose that they have a definite order of arrangement, and to call words like tÝrant the first measure, and words like presÚme the second measure. In like manner, mÉrrily is measure 3; disÁble, 4; and cavaliÉr, 5. As the number of measures is (from the necessity of the case) limited, this can be done conveniently. The classical Symbolically expressed, the following forms denote the following measures:
On these measures the following general assertions may be made; viz. That the dissyllabic measures are, in English, commoner than the trisyllabic. That, of the dissyllabic measures, the second is commoner than the first. That of the trisyllabic measures, No. 3 is the least common. That however much one measure may predominate in a series of verses, it is rarely unmixed with others. In TÝrants swim sÁfest in a pÚrple floÓd— Marlowe— the measure a x appears in the place of x a. This is but a single example of a very general fact, and of a subject liable to a multiplicity of rules. The absence or the presence of rhyme constitutes blank verse, or rhyming verse. The succession, or periodic return, of rhymes constitutes stanzas, or continuous metre as the case may be. The quantity of rhymes in succession constitutes couplets, or triplets. The quantity of accents in a line constitutes the nature of the verse, taken by itself. The succession, or periodic return, of verses of the same length has the same effect with the succession, or periodic return, of rhymes; viz., it constitutes stanzas, or continuous metre, as the case may be. This leads to the nomenclature of the English metres. Of these, none in any of the trisyllabic measures have recognized and technical names; neither have any that are referable to the measure a x. 1. Octosyllabics.—Four measures x a, and (unless the rhyme be double) eight syllables. Common in Sir W. Scott's poetry. The way was long the wind was cold. Lay of the Last Minstrel. 2. Heroics.—Five measures x a. This is the common measure in narrative and didactic poetry. To err is human, to forgive divine. 3. Alexandrines.—Six measures x a. This name is said to be taken from the early romances on the deeds of Alexander the Great. He lifted up his hand " that back againe did start.—Spenser. 4. Service metre.—Seven measures x a. This is the common metre of the psalm-versions. Thence its name. But one request I made to him " that sits the skies above, That I were freely out of debt " as I were out of love. Sir John Suckling. 1. Heroic couplets.—Heroics, in rhyming couplets, successive.— 'Tis hard to say if greater want of skill Appear in writing or in judging ill. Essay on Criticism. The heroic couplet is called also riding rhyme; it being the metre wherein Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (told by a party riding to Canterbury) are chiefly written. 2. Heroic triplets.—Same as the preceding, except that three rhymes come in succession. 3. Blank verse.—Heroics without rhyme. 4. Elegiacs.—The metre of Gray's Elegy. Heroics in four-line stanzas with alternate rhymes. 5. Rhyme royal.—Seven lines of heroics, with the last two rhymes successive, and the first five recurring at intervals. Sometimes the last line is an Alexandrine. There are varieties in this metre according to the intervals of the first five rhymes:— This Troilus in gift of curtesie With hauke on hond, and with a huge rout Of knights, rode and did her companie Passing all the valey far without, And ferther would have ridden out of doubt, Full faine, and wo was him to gone so sone, And tourne he must, and it was eke to doen. Chaucer's Troilus. 6. Ottava rima.—The metre in Italian for narrative poetry. Eight lines of heroics; the first six rhyming alternately, the last two in succession.—Byron's Don Juan in English, Orlando Furioso, &c., in Italian. 7. Spenserian stanza.—Eight lines of heroics closed by an Alexandrine. There are varieties of this metre according to the interval of the rhymes. 8. Terza rima.—Taken from the Italian, where it is the metre of Dante's Divina Commedia. Heroics with three rhymes recurring at intervals.—Lord Byron's Prophecy of Dante. 9. Poulterer's measure.—Alexandrines and service measures alternately. Found in the poetry of Henry the Eighth's time. 10. Ballad metre.—Stanzas of four lines; the first and third having four, the second and fourth having three measures each. Rhymes alternate. Turn, gentle hermit of the dale, And guide thy lonely way, To where yon taper cheers the vale With hospitable ray. Edwin and Angelina. It may, perhaps, partake of the nature of a metrical fiction to consider that (in all rhyming poetry) the length of the verse is determined by the occurrence of the rhyme. Nevertheless, as the matter cannot be left to the printer only, and as some definition is requisite, the one in point is attended by as few inconveniences as any other. It must not, however, be concealed that lines as short as It screamed and growled, " and cracked and howled— it treats as two; and that lines as long as Where Virtue wants and Vice abounds, And Wealth is but a baited hook— it reduces to a single verse. In metres of measure x a the number of syllables is double the number of accents, unless the rhyme be double (or treble); in which case the syllables are the most numerous. Now this view (which may be carried throughout the whole five measures) of the proportion between the accents and the syllables, taken with the fact that it is determined by the nature of the final syllable, indicates a division of our metres into symmetrical (where the number of the syllables is the multiple of the number of accents), and unsymmetrical (where it is not so). For practical purposes, however, the length of the last measure may be considered as indifferent, and the terms indicated may be reserved for the forthcoming class of metres. He sÁt him dÓwn at a pÍllar's bÁse, And drÉw his hÁnd athwÁrt his fÁce. In the second of these lines, the accents and the syllables are symmetrical; which is not the case with the first. Now to every, or any, accent in the second line an additional unaccented syllable may be added, and the movement be still preserved. It is the fact of the accents and syllables (irrespective of the latitude allowed to the final measure) being here unsymmetrical (or, if symmetrical, only so by accident) that gives to the metres in question their peculiar character. Added to this, the change from x x a, to x a x, and a x x, is more frequent than elsewhere. One point respecting them must be borne in mind; viz., that they are essentially trisyllabic metres from which unaccented syllables are withdrawn, rather than dissyllabic ones wherein unaccented syllables are inserted. The majority of English metres are of the form x a; that is, lines like The wÁy was lÓng, the wÍnd was cÓld are commoner than lines like QÚeen and hÚntress chÁste and fÁir. The multitude of unaccentuated words like the, from, &c., taken along with the fact that they precede the words with which they agree, or which they govern, accounts for the apparent antagonism between the formulÆ of our words and the formulÆ of our metres. The contrast between a Swedish line of the form a x, and its literal English version (x a), Swedish. VÁren kÓmmer; fÚglen qvittrar; skÓven lÓfvas; sÓlen lÉr. English. The sprÍng is cÓme; the bÍrd is blÝthe; the wÓod is grÉen; the sÚn is brÍght. This is quoted for the sake of showing the bearing of the etymology and syntax of a language upon its prosody. 1. The classical poets are authors preeminently familiarized to the educated English reader. 2. The notions imbibed from a study of the classical prosodies have been unduly mixed up with those which should have been derived more especially from the poetry of the Gothic nations. 3. The attempt to introduce (so-called) Latin and Greek metres into the Gothic tongues, has been partially successful on the Continent, and not unattempted in Great Britain. The second, viz., "that the notions imbibed, &c." will bear some illustration; an illustration which verifies the assertion made in p. 505, that the English grammarians "sometimes borrow the classical terms iambic, trochee," &c., and apply them to their own metres. How is this done? In two ways, one of which is wholly incorrect, the other partially correct, but inconvenient. To imagine that we have in English, for the practical purposes of prosody, syllables long in quantity or short in quantity, syllables capable of being arranged in groups The less incorrect method consists in giving up all ideas of the existence of quantity, in the proper sense of the word, as an essential element in English metre; whilst we admit accent as its equivalent; in which case the presence of an accent is supposed to have the same import as the lengthening and the absence of one, as the shortening of a syllable; so that, mutatis mutandis, a is the equivalent to [], and x to [?]. In this case the metrical notation for— The wÁy was lÓng, the wÍnd was cÓld— MÉrrily, mÉrrily, shÁll I live nÓw— would be, not— x a, x a, x a, x a, a x x, a x x, a x x, a respectively, but— [? ? ? ? ] [ ? ? ? ? ? ? ] Again— As they splÁsh in the blÓod of the slÍppery streÉt, is not— x x a, x x a, x x a, x x a, but [? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ]
And so on in respect to the larger groups of similarly affected syllables which constitute whole lines and stanzas; verses like A. CÓme to sÉek for fÁme and glÓry— B. The wÁy was lÓng, the wÍnd was cÓld— C. MÉrrily, mÉrrily shÁll I live nÓw— D. But vÁinly thou wÁrrest— E. At the clÓse of the dÁy when the hÁmlet is stÍll— are (A), trochaic; (B), iambic; (C), dactylic; (D), amphibrachych; and (E), anapÆstic, respectively. And so, with the exception of the word amphibrachych (which I do not remember to have seen) the terms have been used. And so, with the same exception, systems of versification have been classified. 1. Certain English metres have often a very different character from their supposed classical analogues. 2. Certain classical feet have no English equivalents. As they splÁsh in the blÓod of the slÍppery strÉet— with ?e?at?? e? et?? t?d' epe? ???a??. For the latter line to have the same movement as the former, it must be read thus— DekatÓn men etÓs to d' epÉi PriamÓu. Now we well know that, whatever may be any English scholar's notions of the Greek accents, this is not the way in which he reads Greek anapÆsts. Again the trochaic movement of the iambic senarius is a point upon which the most exclusive Greek metrists have insisted; urging the necessity of reading (for example) the first line in the Hecuba— H?ko nÉkron keuthmÓna kai skÓtou pÝlas. rather than— HÆkÓ nekrÓn keuthmÓna kai skotÓu pylÁs. With the exception of the so-called second futures, there is no word in Greek whereof the last syllable is accented. Hence, no English line ending with an accented syllable can have a Greek equivalent. Accent for accent—
but no Greek word (with the exception of the so-called second futures like ?e?=nemÔ) and (probably) no Latin word at all, is accented like presÚme and cavalÍer. From this it follows that although the first three measures of such so-called English anapÆsts as— As they splÁsh in the blÓod of the slÍppery strÉet, may be represented by Greek equivalents (i.e., equivalents in the way of accent)— Ep' omÓisi feroÚsi ta kleÍna— a parallel to the last measure (-ery strÉet) can only be got at by one of two methods; i.e., by making the verse end in a so-called second future, or else in a vowel preceded by an accented syllable, and cut off— Ep' omÓisi ferÓusi ta kleÍna nemÓ— or, Ep' omÓisi ferÓusi ta kleÍna prosÓp'.[70] Now it is clear that when, over and above the fact of certain Greek metres having a different movement from their supposed English equivalents, there is the additional circumstance of such an incompatibility being less an accident than a necessary effect of difference of character in the two languages, the use of terms suggestive of a closer likeness than either does or ever can exist is to be condemned; and this is the case with the words, dactylic, trochaic, iambic, anapÆstic, as applied to English versification. On the other hand, the classical metrists have several measures in both predicaments. Thus to go no farther than the trisyllabic feet, we have the pyrrhic ([? ?]) and tribrach ([? ? ?]) without a long syllable at all, and the spondee ([ ]), amphimacer ([ ? ]), and molossus ([ ]) with more than one long syllable. It follows, then that (even mutatis mutandis, i.e., with the accent considered as the equivalent to the long syllable) English pyrrhics, English tribrachs, English amphimacers, English spondees, and English molossi are, each and all, prosodial impossibilities. It is submitted to the reader that the latter reason (based wholly upon the limitations that arise out of the structure of language) strengthens the objections of the previous section. 1. Accent and quantity differ; and the metrical systems founded upon them differ also. 2. The classical systems are founded upon quantity. 3. The English upon accent. 4. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the difference of the principle upon which they are constructed, the classical metres, even as read by Englishmen, and read accentually, are metrical to English ears. 1. That, the correctness or incorrectness of the English pronunciation of the dead languages has nothing to do with the matter. Whether we read Homer exactly, as Homer would read his own immortal poems, or whether we read them in such a way as would be unintelligible to Homer reappearing upon earth, is perfectly indifferent. 2. That whether, as was indicated by the author of ??t??? ???st??, we pronounce the anapÆst patulÆ, precisely as we pronounce the dactyle Tit?re, or draw a distinction between them is also indifferent. However much, as is done in some of the schools, we may say scri-bere rather than scrib-ere, or am-or, rather than a-mor, under the notion that we are lengthening or shortening certain syllables, one unsurmountable dilemma still remains, viz., that the shorter we pronounce the vowel, the more we suggest the notion of the consonant which follows it being doubled; whilst double consonants lengthen the vowel which precedes them. Hence, whilst it is certain that patulÆ and Tityre may be pronounced (and that without hurting the metre) so as to be both of the same quantity, it is doubtful what that quantity is. Sound for sound Tityre may be as short as patulÆ. Sound for sound pattulÆ may be as long as Tittyre. Hence, the only assumptions requisite are— a. That Englishmen do not read the classical metres according to their quantities. b. That, nevertheless, they find metre in them. The particular way in which syllables are affected in English metre is that of accent. The more regular the period at which similar accents recur the more typical the metre. Nevertheless absolute regularity is not requisite. This leads to the difference between symmetrical and unsymmetrical metres. Similarly, in all lines where the measures are trisyllabic the syllables will also be multiples of the accents, i.e., they will be thrice as numerous. Hence, with three accents there will be nine syllables, with four accents, twelve syllables, and with seven accents, twenty-one syllables. Lines of this sort may be called symmetrical. The case, however, is different where the whole character of the versification is unsymmetrical, as it is in the greater part of Coleridge's Christabel, and Byron's Siege of Corinth. In the yÉar since JÉsus diÉd for mÉn, EÍghteen hÚndred yeÁrs and tÉn, WÉ were a gÁllant cÓmpanÝ, RÍding o'er lÁnd and sÁiling o'er sÉa. Óh! but wÉ went mÉrrilÝ! We fÓrded the rÍver, and clÓmb the high hÍll, NÉver our steÉds for a dÁy stood stÍll. WhÉther we lÁy in the cÁve or the shÉd, Our sleÉp fell sÓft on the hÁrdest bÉd; WhÉther we cÓuch'd on our rÓugh capÓte, Or the rÓugher plÁnk of our glÍding bÓat; Or strÉtch'd on the beÁch or our sÁddles sprÉad As a pÍllow beneÁth the rÉsting hÉad, FrÉsh we wÓke upÓn the mÓrrow. Áll our thÓughts and wÓrds had scÓpe, WÉ had hÉalth and wÉ had hÓpe, TÓil and trÁvel, bÚt no sÓrrow. x x a x a x a x a a x a x a x a a x x a x a x a a x x a x a x x a a x a x a x x x a x x a x x a x x a a x x a x x a x a a x x a x x a x x a x a x a x x a x a a x x a x x a x a x x a x a x x a x a x a x x a x x a x a x x a x x a x a x a a x a x a x a x a x a x a x a a x a x a x a a x a x a x a x Now many Latin metres present a recurrence of accent little more irregular than the quotation just analysed. The following is the accentual formula of the first two stanzas of the second ode of the first Book of Horace. Accentual Formula of the Latin Sapphic.
Latin Asclepiad. Horace, Od. I. i., 1-6.
Latin Hexameter. Æn. i., 1-5.
A longer list of examples would show us that, throughout the whole of the classical metres the same accents recur, sometimes with less, and sometimes with but very little more irregularity than they recur in the unsymmetrical metres of our own language. Not a drum was Heard, not a funeral note as his corse to the rampart we hurried, Not a soldier dis- Charged his farewell shot o'er the grave where our hero we buried. We buried him Darkly at dead of night, the sods with our bayonets turning; By the struggling Moonbeams' misty light and the lantern dimly burning. Lightly they'll Talk of the spirit that's gone, and o'er his cold ashes upbraid him, But little he'll Reck if they let him sleep on in the grave where a Briton has laid him. 1. Make rÉady my grÁve clothes to-mÓrrow; or Shelly's— 2. LÍquid PÉneus was flÓwing, are the exact analogues of lines like— 1. Jam lÁcte depÚlsum leÓnem, and 2. GrÁto PÝrrha sub Ántro. 1. The necessity in the classical metres (as just indicated) of an accented syllable in certain parts of the verses. 2. The nearly total absence in the classical languages of words with an accent on the last syllable. From the joint effect of these two causes, it follows that in certain parts of a verse no final syllable can occur, or (changing the expression) no word can terminate. Thus, in a language consisting chiefly of dissyllables, of which the first alone was accented, and in a metre which required the sixth syllable to be accented, the fifth and seventh would each be at end of words, and that simply because the sixth was not. Whilst in a language consisting chiefly of either dissyllables or trisyllables, and in a metre of the same sort as before, a. If the accented syllable (the sixth) be the first of a word of any length, the preceding one (the fifth) must be the final one of the word which went before; in which case the first and last parts belong to different words, and the measure (foot) is divided or cut. b. If the accented syllable (the sixth) be the second of a word of three syllables, the succeeding one which is at the end of the word, is the first part of the measure which follows; in which case the first and last parts of the measure (foot) which follows the accented syllable is divided or cut. As the cÆsura, or the necessity for dividing certain measures between two words, arises out of the structure of language, it only occurs in tongues where there is a notable absence of words accented on the last syllable. Consequently there is no cÆsura[71] in the English. Why his idea of quantity is violated may be seen in p. 165. Ere her faithless sons betray'd her, may be read in two ways. We may either lay full stress upon the word ere, and read— Ére her faÍthless sÓns betrÁy'd her; or we may lay little or no stress upon either ere or her, reserving the full accentuation for the syllable faith- in faithless, in which case the reading would be Ere her faÍthless sÓns betrÁy'd her. Lines of this sort may be called examples of convertible metres, since by changing the accent a dissyllabic line may be converted into one partially trisyllabic, and vice versÂ. This property of convertibility is explained by the fact of accentuation being a relative quality. In the example before us ere is sufficiently strongly accented to stand in contrast to her, but it is not sufficiently strongly accented to stand upon a par with the faith- in faithless if decidedly pronounced. The real character of convertible lines is determined from the character of the lines with which they are associated. Let Érin remÉmber her dÁys of Óld, Ere her faÍthless sÓns betrÁy'd her, When MÁlachi wÓre the cÓllar of gÓld, Which he wÓn from the prÓud invÁder. Again, such a line as For the glory I have lost, although it may be read For the glÓry I have lÓst, would be read improperly. The stanza wherein it occurs is essentially dissyllabic (a x). HeÉd, oh heÉd my fÁtal stÓry! Í am HÓsier's Ínjured ghÓst, CÓme to seÉk for fÁme and glÓry— FÓr the glÓry Í have lÓst. Syllables combined as words, or words combined as portions of a sentence, are syllables and words grammatically combined, or in grammatical combination. The syllables ere her faith- form a metrical combination. The words her faithless sons form a grammatical combination. When the syllables contained in the same measure (or connected metrically) are also contained in the same construction (or connected grammatically), the metrical and the grammatical combinations coincide. Such is the case with the line RemÉmber " the glÓries " of BrÍan " the BrÁve; where the same division separates both the measure and the subdivisions of the sense, inasmuch as the word the is connected with the word glories equally in grammar and in metre, in syntax and in prosody. So is of with Brian, and the with Brave. Contrast with this such a line as A chieftain to the Highlands bound. Here the metrical division is one thing, the grammatical division another, and there is no coincidence. Metrical, A chÍef " tain tÓ " the HÍgh " lands bÓund. Grammatical, A chieftain " to the Highlands " bound. In the following stanza the coincidence of the metrical and grammatical combination is nearly complete:— To Árms! to Árms! The sÉrfs, they rÓam O'er hÍll, and dÁle, and glÉn: The kÍng is deÁd, and tÍme is cÓme To choÓse a chiÉf agÁin. In WÁrriors or chiÉfs, should the shÁft or the swÓrd PiÉrce me in lÉading the hÓst of the LÓrd, HeÉd not the cÓrse, though a kÍng's in your pÁth, BÚry your stÉel in the bÓsoms of GÁth.—Byron. there is a non-coincidence equally complete. a x, x a, x x a, x x a, a x, x a x, x a x, x a, a x, x a, x x a, x x a, a x, x a x, x a x, x a. The variety which arises in versification from the different degrees of the coincidence and non-coincidence between the metrical and grammatical combinations may be called rhythm. Of the three parts, or elements, of a rhyme the part which precedes the vowel is inconstant, i.e, it must be changed in order to effect the rhyme. Thus, old and old, told and told, bold and bold, do not rhyme with each other; although old, bold, told, scold, &c. do. Rule 1. In two or more syllables that rhyme with each other, neither the vowel nor the sounds which follow it can be different. Rule 2. In two or more syllables that rhyme with each other, the sounds which precede the vowel cannot be alike. Now the number of sounds which can precede a vowel is limited: it is that of the consonants and consonantal combinations; of which a list can be made a priori.
and so on, the combinations of s being the most complex. This gives us the following method (or receipt) for the discovery of rhymes:— 1. Divide the word to which a rhyme is required, into its constant and inconstant elements. 2. Make up the inconstant element by the different consonants and consonantal combinations until they are exhausted. 3. In the list of words so formed, mark off those which have an existence in the language; these will all rhyme with each other; and if the list of combinations be exhaustive, there are no other words which will do so. Example.—From the word told, separate the o and -ld, which are constant. Instead of the inconstant element t, write successively, p, pl, pr, b, bl, br, &c.: so that you have the following list:—t-old, p-old, pl-old, pr-old, b-old, bl-old, br-old, &c. Of these plold, blold, and brold, have no existence in the language; the rest, however, are rhymes. This has been written, not for the sake of showing poets how to manufacture rhymes, but in order to prove that a result which apparently depends on the ingenuity of writers, is reducible to a very humble mechanical process, founded upon the nature of rhyme and the limits to the combinations of consonants. PART VII.THE DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It is also best taken in hand after the analysis of the grammatical structure of the language. For this, see Part IV. This is because both the last-named subjects are necessary as preliminaries. The structure of the language supplies us with the points in which one dialect may differ from another, whilst the history of the immigrant populations may furnish an ethnological reason for such differences as are found to occur. For a further illustration of this see pp. 4, 5. According to the former, we place in the same class those dialects which were introduced by the same section of immigrants. Thus, a body of Germans, starting from the same part of Germany, and belonging to the same section of the Germanic population, even if, whilst at sea, they separated into two, three, or more divisions, and landed upon widely separated portions of Great Britain, would introduce dialects which were allied ethnologically; even though, by one of them changing rapidly, and the others not changing at all, they might, in their external characters, differ from each other, and agree with dialects of a different introduction. Hence, the ethnological principle is essentially historical, and The structural principle is different. Two dialects introduced by different sections (perhaps it would be better to say sub-sections) of an immigrant population may suffer similar changes; e.g., they may lose the same inflexions, adopt similar euphonic processes, or incorporate the same words. In this case, their external characters become mutually alike. Hence, if we take two (or move) such dialects, and place them in the same class, we do so simply because they are alike; not because they are affiliated. Such are the two chief principles of classification. Generally, they coincide; in other words, similarity of external characters is prim facie evidence of affinity in the way of affiliation, identity of origin being the safest assumption in the way of cause; whilst identity of origin is generally a sufficient ground for calculating upon similarity of external form; such being, a priori, its probable effect. Still, the evidence of one in favour of the other is only prim facie evidence. Dialects of the same origin may grow unlike; dialects of different origins alike. Two bodies of immigrants, one from the Eyder, and the other from the Scheldt, even if they left their respective localities on the same day of the same month, would most probably differ from one another; and that in the same way that a Yorkshireman differs from a Hampshire man. On the other hand, two bodies of immigrants, each leaving the very same locality, but one in 200 A.D., and the other in 500 A.D., would also, most probably, differ; and that as a Yorkshireman of 1850 A.D. differs from one of 1550 A.D. A language which changes rapidly, will, at the end of a certain period, wear a different aspect from one which changes slowly. 1. The exact details of the present provincialisms. 2. The details of the history of each dialect through all its stages. 3. The exact details of the provincialisms of the whole of that part of Germany which contributed, or is supposed to have contributed, to the Anglo-Saxon immigration. 4. The details of the original languages or dialects of the Aboriginal Britons at the time of the different invasions. This last is both the least important and the most unattainable. Of such preliminaries, the most important are those connected with 1. the structure of language, and 2. the history of individual documents; in other words, certain points of philology, and certain points of bibliography. 1. A plural in en—we call-en, ye call-en, they call-en. Respecting this, the writer in the Quarterly Review, has the following doctrine:— "It appears to have been popularly known, if not in East Anglia proper, at all events in the district immediately to the westward, since we find it in Orm, in an Eastern-Midland copy of the Rule of Nuns, sÆc. XIII., and in process of time in Suffolk. Various conjectures have been advanced as to the origin of this form, of which we have no certain examples before the thirteenth century.[72] We believe the true state of the case to have been as follows. It is well known that the Saxon dialects differ from the Gothic, Old-German, &c. in the form of the present indicative plural—making all three persons to end in -aÞ or -ad;—we—?e—hi—lufi-aÞ (-ad). Schmeller and other German philologists observe that a nasal has been here elided, the true ancient form being -and, -ant, or -ent. Traces of this termination are found in the Cotton MS. of the Old Saxon Evangelical Harmony, and still more abundantly in the popular dialects of the Middle-Rhenish district from Cologne to the borders of Switzerland. These not only exhibit the full termination -ent, but also two modifications of it, one dropping the nasal and the other the dental. E.g.:—
—the last exactly corresponding with the Mercian. It is remarkable that none of the above forms appear in classical German compositions, while they abound in the Miracle-plays, vernacular sermons, and similar productions of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, specially addressed to the uneducated classes. We may, therefore, reasonably conclude from analogy that similar forms were popularly current in our midland counties, gradually insinuating themselves into the I prefer to consider this termination as -en, a mere extension of the subjunctive form to the indicative. 2. An infinitive form in -ie; as to sowie, to reapie,—Wiltshire. (Mr. Guest). 3. The participial form in -and; as goand, slepand,—Lincolnshire (?), Northumberland, Scotland. 4. The common use of the termination -th in the third person present; goeth, hath, speaketh,—Devonshire. 5. Plural forms in -en; as housen,—Leicestershire and elsewhere. 6. Old preterite forms of certain verbs; as,
The following changes (a few out of many) are matters not of grammar, but of pronunciation:— Ui for oo—cuil, bluid, for cool, blood,—Cumberland, Scotland. Oy for i—foyne, twoyne, for fine, twine,—Cheshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk. Oy for oo—foyt for foot,—Halifax. Oy for o—noite, foil, coil, hoil, for note, foal, coal, hole,—Halifax. Oy for a—loyne for lane,—Halifax. Ooy for oo—nooin, gooise, fooil, tooil, for noon, goose, fool, tool,—Halifax. W inserted (with or without a modification)—as spwort, scworn, whoam, for sport, scorn, home,—Cumberland, West Riding of Yorkshire. Ew for oo, or yoo—tewn for tune,—Suffolk, Westmoreland. Iv for oo, or yoo when a vowel follows—as Samivel for Samuel; Emmanivel for Emmanuel. In all these we have seen a tendency to diphthongal sounds. In the following instances the practice is reversed, and instead of the vowel being made a diphthong, the diphthong becomes a vowel, as, O for oy—boh for boy, Suffolk, &c. Oo for ow—broon for brown,—Bilsdale. Ee for i—neet for night,—Cheshire. O for ou—bawn' for bound,—Westmoreland. Of these the substitution of oo for ow, and of ee for i, are of importance in the questions of the Appendix. Ee for a—theere for there,—Cumberland. Ee for e—reed, seeven, for red, seven,—Cumberland, Craven. A for o—sair, mair, baith, for sore, more, both,—Cumberland, Scotland. A for o—saft for soft,—Cheshire. O for a—mon for man,—Cheshire. Lond for land,—East-Anglian Semi-Saxon. Y inserted before a vowel—styake, ryape, for stake, rope,—Borrowdale; especially after g (a point to be noticed), gyarden, gyown, for garden, gown,—Warwickshire, &c.; and at the beginning of a word, as yat, yan, for ate, one (ane),—Westmoreland, Bilsdale. H inserted—hafter, hoppen, for after, open,—Westmoreland, &c. H omitted—at, ard, for hat, hard,—Passim. Transition of Consonants. B for v—Whitehebbon for Whitehaven,—Borrowdale. P for b—poat for boat.—Welsh pronunciation of many English words. See the speeches of Sir Hugh Evans in Merry Wives of Windsor. V for f—vind for find,—characteristic of Devonshire, Kent. T for d (final)—deet for deed,—Borrowdale. T for ch (tsh)—fet for fetch,—Devonshire. D for j (dzh)—sled for sledge,—Hereford. D for th (Þ)—wid=with; tudder=the other,—Borrowdale, Westmoreland. Initial (especially before a consonant)—drash, droo=thrash, through,—Devonshire, Wilts. K for ch (tsh)—thack, pick, for thatch, pitch,—Westmoreland, Lincolnshire, Halifax. G for j (dzh)—brig for bridge—Lincolnshire, Hereford. G preserved from the Anglo-Saxon—lig, lie. Anglo-Saxon, licgan,—Lincolnshire, North of England. Z for s—zee for see,—Devonshire. S for sh—sall for shall,—Craven, Scotland. Y for g—yet for gate,—Yorkshire, Scotland. W for v—wiew for view,—Essex, London. N for ng—bleedin for bleeding,—Cumberland, Scotland. Sk for sh—busk for bush,—Halifax. Ejection of Letters. K before s, the preceding vowel being lengthened by way of compensation—neist for next, seist for sixth,—Halifax. D and v after a consonant—gol for gold, siller for silver,—Suffolk. The ejection of f is rarer; mysel for myself, however, occurs in most dialects. L final, after a short vowel,—in which case the vowel is lengthened—poo for pull,—Cheshire, Scotland. Al changed to a open—hawf for half, saumon for salmon,—Cumberland, Scotland. Transposition. Transpositions of the liquid r are common in all our provincial dialects; as gars, brid, perty, for grass, bird, pretty. Here the provincial forms are the oldest, gÆrs, brid, &c., being the Anglo-Saxon forms. Again; acsian, Anglo-Saxon=ask, English. 1. The ge- (see § 409), prefixed to the past participle (ge-boren=borne) is, in certain localities,[73] omitted. 2. The present[74] plural form -s, encroaches upon the form in -n. Thus, munuces=munucan=monks. 3. The infinitive ends in -a, instead of -an. This is Scandinavian, but it is also Frisian. 4. The particle at is used instead of to before the infinitive verb. 5. The article[74] the is used instead of se, seo, ÞÆt=?, ?, t?, for both the numbers, and all the cases and genders. 6. The form in -s (use, usse) replaces ure=our. In the way of sound— 1. Forms with the slenderer, or more vocalic[74] sounds, replace forms which in the West-Saxon are broad or diphthongal.[75] Beda mentions that Coelin is the Northumbrian form of Ceawlin. 2. The simple[74] sound of k replaces the combination out of which the modern sound of ch has been evolved. 3. The sound of sk replaces either the sh, or the sound out of which it has been evolved. The meaning of these last two statements is explained by the following extract: "Another characteristic is the infusion of Scandinavian words, of which there are slight traces in monuments of the tenth century, and strong and unequivocal ones in those of the thirteenth and fourteenth. Some of the above criteria may be verified by a simple and obvious process, namely, a reference to the topographical nomenclature of our provinces. Whoever takes the trouble to consult the Gazetteer of England will find, that of our numerous 'Carltons' not one is to be met with south of the Mersey, west of the Staffordshire Tame, or south of the Thames; and that 'Fiskertons,' 'Skiptons,' 'Skelbrookes,' and a whole host of similar names are equally introuvables in the same district. They are, with scarcely a single exception, northern or eastern; and we know from Ælfric's Glossary, from Domesday and the Chartularies, that this distinction of pronunciation was established as early as the eleventh century. 'Kirby' or 'Kirkby,' is a specimen of joint Anglian and Bibliographical preliminaries.—The leading facts here are the difference between 1. the locality of the authorship, and 2, the locality of the transcription of a book. Thus: the composition of a Devonshire poet may find readers in Northumberland, and his work be transcribed by Northumbrian copyist. Now this Northumbrian copyist may do one of two things: he may transcribe the Devonian production verbatim et literatim; in which case his countrymen read the MS. just as a Londoner reads Burns, i.e., in the dialect of the writer, and not in the dialect of the reader. On the other hand, he may accommodate as well as transcribe, i.e., he may change the non-Northumbrian into Northumbrian expressions, in which case his countrymen read the MS. in their own rather than the writer's dialect. Now it is clear, that in a literature where transcription, combined with accommodation, is as common as simple transcription, we are never sure of knowing the dialect of an author unless we also know the dialect of his transcriber. In no literature is there more of this semi-translation than in the Anglo-Saxon and the early English; a fact which sometimes raises difficulties, by disconnecting the evidence of authorship with the otherwise natural inferences as to the dialect employed; whilst, at others, it smoothes them away by supplying as many specimens of fresh dialects, as there are extant MSS. of an often copied composition. Inquiring whether certain peculiarities of dialect in Layamon's Brut, really emanated from the author, a writer in the Quarterly Review, (No. clxiv.) remarks, that to decide this it "would be necessary to have access either to the priest's autograph, or to a more faithful copy of it than it was the practice to make either in his age or the succeeding Again, in noticing the orthography of the Ormulum (alluded to in the present volume, § 266), he writes: "It is true that in this instance we have the rare advantage of possessing the author's autograph, a circumstance which cannot with confidence be predicated of any other considerable work of the same period. The author was, moreover, as Mr. Thorpe observes, a kind of critic in his own language; and we therefore find in his work, a regularity of orthography, grammar, and metre, hardly to be paralleled in the same age. All this might, in a great measure, disappear in the very next copy; for fidelity of transcription was no virtue of the thirteenth or the fourteenth century; at least with respect to vernacular works. It becomes, therefore, in many cases a problem of no small complication, to decide with certainty respecting the original metre, or language, of a given mediÆval composition, with such data as we now possess." From all this it follows, that the inquirer must talk of copies rather than of authors. "We subjoin an extract from the poem, in order to give our readers an opportunity of comparing southern and northern English, as they co-existed in the fifteenth century. It is from a MS. that has never been collated; but which we believe to be well worthy the attention of any future editor of the Canterbury Tales. The italics denote variations from the printed text:— "John highte that oon and Aleyn highte that other: Of oo toun were thei born that highte Strother, Ffer in the north I can not tellen where. This Aleyn maketh redy al his gere— And on an hors the sak he caste anoon. Fforth goth Aleyn the clerk and also John, With good swerde and bokeler by his side. John knewe the weye—hym nedes no gide; And atte melle the sak a down he layth. Aleyn spak first: Al heyle, Symond—in fayth— How fares thi fayre daughter and thi wyf? Aleyn welcome—quod Symkyn—be my lyf— And John also—how now, what do ye here? By God, quod John—Symond, nede has na pere. Hym bihoves to serve him self that has na swayn; Or ellis he is a fool as clerkes sayn. Oure maunciple I hope he wil be ded— Swa werkes hym ay the wanges in his heed. And therefore is I come and eek Aleyn— To grynde oure corn, and carye it ham agayne, I pray yow spedes[77] us hethen that ye may. It shal be done, quod Symkyn, by my fay! What wol ye done while it is in hande? By God, right by the hoper wol I stande, Quod John, and see how gates the corn gas inne; Yit saugh I never, by my fader kynne, How that the hoper wagges til and fra! Aleyn answerde—John wil ye swa? Than wil I be bynethe, by my crown, And se how gates the mele falles down In til the trough—that sal be my disport. Quod John—In faith, I is of youre sort— I is as ille a meller as are ye. * * * * * * And when the mele is sakked and ybounde, This John goth out and fynt his hors away— And gan to crie, harow, and wele away!— Our hors is lost—Aleyn, for Godde's banes, Stepe on thi feet—come of man attanes! Allas, oure wardeyn has his palfrey lorn! This Aleyn al forgat bothe mele and corn— Al was out of his mynde, his housbonderie. What—whilke way is he goon? he gan to crie. The wyf come lepynge in at a ren; She saide—Allas, youre hors goth to the fen With wylde mares, as faste as he may go. Unthank come on this hand that band him so— And he that bet sholde have knet the reyne. Alas! quod John, Alayn, for Criste's peyne, Lay down thi swerde, and I wil myn alswa; I is ful swift—God wat—as is a ra— By Goddes herte he sal nought scape us bathe. Why ne hadde thou put the capel in the lathe? Il hayl, by God, Aleyn, thou is fonne." "Excepting the obsolete forms hethen (hence), swa, lorn, whilke, alswa, capel—all the above provincialisms are still, more or less, current in the north-west part of Yorkshire. Na, ham(e), fra, banes, attanes, ra, bathe, are pure Northumbrian. Wang (cheek or temple) is seldom heard, except in the phrase wang tooth, dens molaris. Ill, adj., for bad—lathe (barn)—and fond (foolish)—are most frequently and familiarly used in the West Riding, or its immediate borders." Now this indicates a class of writings which, in the critical history of our local dialect, must be used with great caution and address. An imitation of dialect may be so lax as to let its only merit consist in a deviation from the standard idiom. In the Lear of Shakspeare we have speeches from a Kentish clown. Is this the dialect of the character, the dialect of the writer, or is it some conventional dialect appropriated to theatrical purposes? I think the latter. In Ben Jonson's Tale of a Tub, one (and more than one of the characters) speaks thus. His residence is the neighbourhood of London, Tottenham Court. Is it no sand? nor buttermilk? if't be, Ich 'am no zive, or watering-pot, to draw Knots in your 'casions. If you trust me, zo— If not, praforme 't your zelves, 'Cham no man's wife, But resolute Hilts: you'll vind me in the buttry. Act I. Scene 1. I consider that this represents the dialect of the neighbourhood of London, not on the strength of its being put in the mouth of a man of Tottenham, but from other and independent circumstances. Not so, however, with the provincialisms of another of Ben Jonson's plays, the Sad Shepherd:— —— shew your sell Tu all the sheepards, bauldly; gaing amang hem. Be mickle in their eye, frequent and fugeand. And, gif they ask ye of Eiarine, Or of these claithes; say that I ga' hem ye, And say no more. I ha' that wark in hand, That web upon the luime, sall gar em thinke. Act II. Scene 3. The scene of the play is Sherwood Forest: the language, however, as far as I may venture an opinion, is not the language from which the present Nottinghamshire dialect has come down. The language of the United States was imported from England into America in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The language of South Australia has been introduced within the present generation. In one sense, the American English is older than the Australian. It was earliest separated from the mother-tongue. The language, however, of America may (I speak only in the way of illustration, and consequently hypothetically), in the course of time, become the least old of the two; the word old being taken in another sense. It may change with greater rapidity. It may lose its inflections. It may depart more from the structure of the mother-tongue, and preserve fewer of its old elements. In this sense the Australian (provided that it has altered least, and that it retain the greatest number of the old inflections) will be the older tongue of the two. Now what may be said of the language of two countries, may be said of the dialects of two districts. The one dialect may run its changes apace; the other alter but by degrees. Hence, also, it is a lax expression to say that it is the old forms (the archaisms) that the provincial dialects retain. The provincial forms are archaic only when the current language changes more rapidly than the local idiom. When the local idiom changes fastest, the archaic forms belong to the standard mode of speech. The provincial forms, goand, slepand, for going and sleeping, are archaic. Here the archaism is with the provincial form. The forms almost, horses, nought but, contrasted with the provincialisms ommost, hosses, nobbot, are archaic. They have not been changed so much as they will be. Here the archaism (that is, the nearer approach to the older form) is with the standard idiom. A sequestered locality is preservative of old forms. But writing and education are preservatives of them also. The districts north of the Humber.—There is so large an amount of specimens of the dialects of this area in the Anglo-Saxon stage of our language, the area itself so closely coincides with the political division of the kingdom of Northumberland, whilst the present arrangement (more or less provisional) of the Anglo-Saxon dialects consists of the divisions of them into the, 1, West-Saxon; 2, Mercian; and 3, Northumbrian, that it is best to give a general view of the whole tract before the minuter details of the different counties which compose them are noticed. The data for the Northumbrian division of the Anglo-Saxon dialects are as follows:— 1. Wanley's Fragment of CÆdmon.—The north-east of Yorkshire was the birth-place of the Anglo-Saxon monk CÆdmon. Nevertheless, the form in which his poems in full have come down to us is that of a West-Saxon composition. This indicates the probability of the original work having first been re-cast, and afterwards lost. Be this as it may, the
Translation.
2. The death-bed verses of Bede.
From a MS. at St. Gallen; quoted by Mr. Kemble, ArchÆologia, vol. xxviii. 3. The Ruthwell Runes.—The inscription in Anglo-Saxon Runic letters, on the Ruthwell Cross, is thus deciphered and translated by Mr. Kemble:—
"The dialect of these lines is that of Northumberland in the seventh, eighth, and even ninth centuries. The first peculiarity is in the Æ for e in the oblique cases, and which I have observed in the cotemporary MS. of CuÐberht's letter at St. Gallen. This, which is strictly organic, and represents the uncorrupted Gothic genitive in -as, and dative in -a, as well as the Old Saxon forms of the substantive, is evidence of great antiquity. But that which is, perhaps, the most characteristic of the Northumbrian dialect is the formation of the infinitive in -a and -Æ, instead of -an (hÆldÆ, gistiga). The Durham Book has, I believe, throughout but one single verb, which makes the infinitive in -an, and that is the anomalous word bean=to be; even wosa and wiortha following the common rule. The word ungket is another incontrovertible proof of extreme antiquity, having, to the best of my knowledge, never been found but in this passage. It is the dual of the first personal pronoun Ic, and corresponds to the very rare dual of the second personal pronoun incit, which occurs twice in CÆdmon."[78] 4. The Cotton Psalter.—This is a Latin Psalter in the Cotton collection, accompanied by an Anglo-Saxon interlineation. Place uncertain. Time, ninth century or earlier. The following points of difference between this and the West-Saxon are indicated by Mr. Garnett, Phil. Soc. No. 27.
5. The Durham Gospels—Quatuor Evangelia Latine, ex translatione B. Hieronymi, cum gloss interlineat Saxonica. Nero, D. 4. Matthew, cap. 2.
6. The Rituale EcclesiÆ Dunhelmensis.—Edited for the Surtees Society by Mr. Stevenson. Place: neighbourhood of Durham. Time: A.D. 970. Differences between the Psalter and Ritual:— a. The form for the first person is in the Psalter generally -u. In the Ritual it is generally -o. In West Saxon, -e. Psalter.—Getreow-u, I believe; cleopi-u, I call; sell-u, I give; ondred-u, I fear; ageld-u, I pay; getimbr-u, I build. Forms in -o; sitt-o, I sit; drinc-o, I drink. Ritual.—Feht-o, I fight; wuldrig-o, I glory. The ending in -u is rarer. b. In the West Saxon the plural present of verbs ends in -aÐ: we lufi-aÐ, ge lufi-aÐ, hi lufi-aÐ. The Psalter also exhibits this West Saxon form. But the plurals of the Ritual c. The infinitives of verbs end in the West Saxon in -an, as cwed-an=to say. So they do in the Psalter. But in the Ritual the -n is omitted, and the infinitive ends simply in -a: cuoetha=to say; inngeonga=to enter. d. The oblique cases and plurals of substantives in West Saxon end in -an: as heortan=heart's; heortan=hearts. So they do in the Psalter. But in the Ritual the -n is omitted, and the word ends simply in -a or -e; as nome=of a name (West Saxon nam-an); hearta=hearts. 7. The Rushworth Gospels.—Place, Harewood in Wharfdale, Yorkshire. Time, according to Wanley, the end of the ninth century. Here observe— 1. That the Ruthwell inscription gives us a sample of the so-called Northumbrian Anglo-Saxon, and that as it is spoken in Scotland, i.e., in Galloway. For the bearings of this see Part II., c. 3. 2. That the Rushworth Gospels take us as far south as the West Riding of Yorkshire. 3. That there are no specimens from any Cumberland, Westmoreland, or North Lancashire localities, these being, most probably, exclusively Celtic. 1. It prefers the slenderer and more vocalic to the broader and more diphthongal forms. 2. The sounds of k and s, to those of ch and sh. 3. The forms without the prefix ge-, to those with them. Nevertheless the form ge-cenned (=natus) occurs in the first line of the extract from the Durham Gospels. 1. Transcriptions with accommodation from works composed southwards. Here the characteristics of the dialect are not absolute. 2. Northern copies of northern compositions. Here the characteristics of the dialect are at the maximum. Sir Tristram is one of the most important works of this class; and in the wider sense of the term Northumbrian, it is a matter of indifference on which side of the Border it was composed. See § 190. Northumberland.—Northern frontier, East Scotland; the direction of the influence being from South to North, rather than from North to South, i.e., Berwickshire and the Lothians being Northumbrian and English, rather than Northumberland Scotch. West frontier Celtic—the Cumberland and Westmoreland Britons having been encroached upon by the Northumbrians of Northumberland. Present dialect.—Believed to be nearly uniform over the counties of Northumberland and Durham; but changing in character in North Yorkshire, and in Cumberland and Westmoreland. The Anglo-Saxon immigration considered to have been Angle (so-called) rather than Saxon. Danish admixture—Very great. Possibly, as far as the marks that it has left on the language, greater than in any other part of England.[79]—See § 152. Cumberland, Westmoreland, North Lancashire.—Anglo-Saxon elements introduced from portions of Northumbria rather than directly from the Continent. Celtic language persistent until a comparatively late though undetermined period. Northern frontier, West-Scotland—the direction of the influence being from Scotland to England, rather than vice versÂ; Carlisle being more of a Scotch town than Berwick. Specimens of the dialects in the older stages, few and doubtful. Topographical nomenclature characterized by the preponderance of compounds of -thwaite; as Braithwaite, &c. North Lancashire, Westmoreland, and Cumberland, "exhibit many Anglian[80] peculiarities, which may have been occasioned in some degree by the colonies in the south, planted in that district by William Rufus (Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 1092.) A comparison of Anderson's ballads with Burns's songs, will show how like Cumbrian is to Scottish, but how different. We believe that Weber is right in referring the romance of Sir Amadas to this district. The mixture of the Anglian forms gwo, gwon, bwons, boyd-word (in pure Northumbrian), gae, gane, banes, bod-worde, with the northern terms, tynt, kent, bathe, mare, and many others of the same class, could hardly have occurred in any other part of England."[81] Yorkshire, North and part of West Riding.—The Anglo-Saxon specimens of this area have been noticed in § 692. The extract from Chaucer is also from this district. The modern dialects best known are— 1. The Craven.—This, in northern localities, "becomes slightly tinctured with Northumbrian."—Quart. Rev. ut supra. 2. The Cleveland.—With not only Northumbrian, but even Scotch characters. Quart. Rev. ut supra. Danish admixture—Considerable. All these dialects, if rightly classified, belong to the Northumbrian division of the Angle branch of the Anglo-Saxon language; whilst, if the prim facie view of their affiliation or descent, be the true one, they are the dialects of § 692, in their modern forms. The plural form in -en is a marked character of this dialect—at least of the Lancashire portion. Supposed original population—Angle rather than Saxon. Original political relations—Mercian rather than Northumbrian. These last two statements apply to all the forthcoming areas north of Essex. The latter is a simple historical fact; the former supposes an amount of difference between the Angle and the Saxon which has been assumed rather than proved; or, at any rate, which has never been defined accurately. The elements of uncertainty thus developed, will be noticed in §§ 704-708. At present it is sufficient to say, that if the South Lancashire dialect has been separated from the north, on the score of its having been Mercian rather than Northumbrian, the principle of classification has been based upon political rather than philological grounds; and as such is exceptionable. Shropshire and Cheshire have a Celtic frontier. Here, also, both the a priori probabilities and the known facts make the Danish intermixture at its minimum. Danish elements may now be expected, Derbyshire being the most inland Danish area. Original political relations—Mercian. Specimens of the dialects in their older stages, preeminently scanty. Hallamshire.—This means the parts about Sheffield East Riding of Yorkshire.—It is not safe to say more of this dialect than that its affinities are with the dialects spoken to the north rather than with those spoken to the south of it, i.e., that of— Lincolnshire.—Frontier—On the Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire frontier, passing into the form of speech of those counties. Pretty definitely separated from that of Norfolk. Less so from that of North Cambridgeshire. Scarcely at all from that of Huntingdonshire, and North Northamptonshire. Danish admixture.—The number of towns and villages ending in the characteristic Danish termination -by, at its maximum; particularly in the neighbourhood of Spilsby. Traditions Danish, e.g., that of Havelok the Dane, at Grimsby. Physiognomy, Danish. Language not Danish in proportion to the other signs of Scandinavian intermixture. Specimens of the dialects in its older form—Havelok[82] the Dane (?), Manning's Chronicle (supposing the MS. to have been transcribed in the county where the author was born). Provincial peculiarities (i.e., deviations from the written language) nearly at the minimum. Huntingdonshire, North Northamptonshire, and Rutland.—Anglo-Saxon period.—The latter part of the Saxon Chronicle was written at Peterboro. Probably, also, the poems of Helena and Andreas. Hence, this area is that of the old Mercian in its most typical form; whilst South Lancashire is that of the new—a practical instance of the inconvenience of applying political terms to philological subjects. Specimens of the dialects in the Anglo-Saxon stage.—The Natale St. Edmundi, in Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica. Early English—The Promtuarium Parvulorum. Probably, approaching the written language of England more closely than is the case with the dialects spoken to the south of them. Certainly, approaching the written language of England less closely than is the case with the dialect of Huntingdonshire, North Northamptonshire, and South Lincolnshire. Mr. Guest first diverted the attention of scholars from the consideration of the West Saxon of the chief Anglo-Saxon writers as the mother-dialect of the present English, to the Mercian; so turning their attention from the south to the centre of England. The general principle that a central locality has the a priori likelihood in its favour, subtracts nothing from the value of his suggestion. Neither does the fact of the nearest approach to the written language being found about the parts in question; since the doctrine to which the present writer commits himself, viz., that in the parts between Huntingdon and Stamford, the purest English is most generally spoken, is, neither universally recognised, nor yet part of Mr. Guest's argument. Mr. Guest's arguments arose out of the evidence of the MSS. of the parts in question. That the dialect most closely allied to the dialect (or dialects) out of which the present literary language of England is developed, is to be found either in Northamptonshire or the neighbouring counties is nearly certain. Mr. Guest looks for it on the western side of that county (Leicestershire); the present writer on the eastern (Huntingdonshire). These, to a certain extent, may be dealt with like those to the north of the Humber. Just as the latter were, in the first instance, and in the more general way, thrown into a single class (the Northumbrian), so may the dialects in question form the provisional centre of another separate class. For this we have no very convenient name. The dialects, however, which it contains agree in the following points. 1. These are considered to be derived from that variety of the Anglo-Saxon which is represented by the chief remains of the Anglo-Saxon literature, i.e., the so-called standard or classical language of Alfred, Ælfric, the present text of CÆdmon, &c. 2. About half their present eastern area consists of the counties ending in -sex; viz., Sussex, Essex, and Middlesex. 3. Nearly the whole of their original area consisted in kingdoms (or sub-kingdoms) ending in -sex; viz., the districts just enumerated, and the kingdom of Wessex. Hence they are— a.—Considered with reference to their literary history.—They are dialects whereof the literary development began early, but ceased at the time of the Norman Conquest, being superseded by that of the central dialects (Mercian so-called) of the island. The truth of this view depends on the truth of Mr. Guest's doctrine noticed in page 555. If true, it is by no means an isolated phÆnomenon. In Holland the present Dutch is the descendant of some dialect (or dialects) which was uncultivated in the earlier periods of the language; whereas the Old Frisian, which was then the written language, is now represented by a provincial dialect only. "In speaking of the Anglo-Saxon language, scholars universally intend that particular form of speech in which all the principal monuments of our most ancient literature are composed, and which, with very slight variations, is found in Beowulf and CÆdmon, in the Exeter and Vercelli Codices, in the translation of the Gospels and Homilies, and in the works b.—Considered in respect to their political relations.—Subject to the influence of the Wessex portion of the so-called Heptarchy, rather than to the Mercian, c.—Considered ethnologically—Saxon rather than Angle. The exceptions that lie against this class will be noticed hereafter. Celtic elements, probably, at the minimum. Predominance of local terms compounded of the word -hurst; as, Penshurst, Staplehurst, &c. Frisian hypothesis.—The following facts and statements (taken along with those of §§ 15-20, and §§ 129-131), pre-eminently require criticism. 1. Hengest the supposed father of the Kentish kingdom is a Frisian hero—Kemble's SÄchsische Stamtaffel. 2. The dialect of the Durham Gospels and Ritual contain a probably Frisian form. 3. "The country called by the Anglo-Saxons Northumberland, and which may loosely be said to have extended from the Humber to Edinburgh, and from the North Sea to the hills of Cumberland, was peopled by tribes of Angles. Such, at least, is the tradition reported by Beda, who adds that Kent was first settled by Jutes. Who these Jutes were is The details necessary for either the verification or the overthrow of the doctrine of a similarity of origin between So have the differentiÆ between the dialects of Kent, and the dialects of Sussex, Essex, Middlesex, and Wessex. Probable Anglo-Saxon of Kent.—Codex Diplomaticus, No. 191. Hampshire.—Theoretically, Saxon rather than Angle, and West Saxon (Wessex) rather than south, east, or Middle-Saxon. Jute elements in either the Hants or Isle of Wight dialects, hitherto undiscovered. Probably, non-existent. Present dialect certainly not the closest representative of the classical Anglo-Saxon, i.e., the so-called West Saxon. Berkshire.—Present dialect, probably, the closest representative of the classical Anglo-Saxon. Cornwall.—Celtic elements at the maximum. Devonshire and West Somerset.—Present dialect strongly marked by the use of z for s (Zomerzet=Somerset). Celtic elements probably considerable. Worcestershire.—The language of the Anglo-Saxon period is characterized by the exclusive, or nearly exclusive, use of s in the forms usse and usses for ure and ures. See Codex Diplomaticus, Nos. 95 and 97. The affiliation of the present dialect has yet to be investigated. North Glostershire.—Politically, both North Gloster and Worcestershire are Mercian rather than West-Saxon. Now the language of Layamon was North Gloster. And one at least of the MSS. is supposed to represent this language. Nevertheless its character is said to be West Saxon rather than Mercian. What does this prove? Not that the West Saxon dialect The Welsh frontier.—Herefordshire, &c.—Celtic elements. General character of the dialects, probably, that of the counties immediately to the east of them. Essex.—Theoretically, Saxon rather than Angle. No such distinction, however, is indicated by the ascertained characteristic of the Essex dialects as opposed to the East Anglian, Suffolk, and the Mercian. Hertfordshire.—I am not aware of any thing that distinguishes the South Hertfordshire form of speech from those of— Middlesex.—Here, as far as there are any characteristics at all, they are those of Essex. The use of v for w, attributed (and partially due) to Londoners, occurs—not because there is any such thing as a London dialect, but because London is a town on the Essex side of Middlesex. Surrey.—The name (SuÐ rige=southern kingdom) indicates an original political relation with the parts north rather than south of the Thames. The evidence of the dialect is, probably, the other way. a. Geographical.—The river Thames. b. Ethnological.—The line which separates Middlesex and Essex (so-called Saxon localities) from Herts and Suffolk (so-called Angle localities). Of these the first line involves an undeniable fact; the second a very doubtful one. No evidence has been adduced in favour of disconnecting Saxon Essex from Anglian Suffolk, nor yet for connecting it with Sussex and Wessex. The termination -sex is an undoubted fact; the difference between the Saxons and Angles which it is supposed to indicate is an assumption. Dorset—Hants and Somerset. Wilts.—Hants, Dorset, Somerset, Berks. Buckingham, Beds, Northampton.—These connect the two most convenient provisional centres of the so-called West-Saxon of Alfred, &c., and mother-dialect of the present written English, viz.: Wantage and Stamford (or Huntingdon); and in doing this they connect dialects which, although placed in separate classes (West-Saxon and Mercian), were, probably, more alike than many subdivisions of the same group. To investigate the question as to the Mercian or West-Saxon origin of the present written English without previously stating whether the comparison be made between such extreme dialects as those of the New Forest, and the neighbourhood of Manchester, or such transitional ones as those of Windsor and Northampton is to reduce a real to a mere verbal discussion. Warwickshire, Staffordshire.—From their central position, probably transitional to both the north and south, and the east and west groups. Celtic elements increasing. Danish elements decreasing. Perhaps at the minimum. 1. A coincidence between the philological divisions of the Anglo-Saxon language, and the political division of the Anglo-Saxon territory. 2. Any broad difference between the Angles and the Saxons. 3. The existence of a Jute population. 1. Little England beyond Wales.—In Pembrokeshire, and a part of Glamorganshire, the language is English rather than Welsh. The following extracts from Higden have effected the belief that this is the result of a Flemish colony. "Sed A little below, however, we learn that these Flemings are distinguished by their origin only, and not by their language:—"Flandrenses vero qui in Occidua WalliÆ incolunt, dimissa jam barbarie, Saxonice satis loquuntur."—Higden, edit. Gale, p. 210. On the other hand, Mr. Guest has thrown a reasonable doubt upon this inference; suggesting the probability of its having been simply English. The following vocabulary collected by the Rev. J. Collins,[84] in the little peninsula of Gower, confirms this view. It contains no exclusively Flemish elements. Angletouch, n. s. worm. Bumbagus, n. s. bittern. Brandis, n. s. iron stand for a pot or kettle. Caffle, adj. entangled. Cammet, adj. crooked. Cloam, n. s. earthenware. Charnel, n. s. a place raised in the roof for hanging bacon. Clit, v. to stick together. Deal, n. s. litter, of pigs. Dotted, adj. giddy, of a sheep. Dome, adj. damp. Dreshel, n. s. a flail. Eddish, n. s. wheat-stubble. Evil, n. s. a three-pronged fork for dung, &c. Firmy, v. to clean out, of a stable, &c. Fleet, adj. exposed in situation, bleak. Flott, n. s. aftergrass. Flamiring, s. an eruption of the nature of erysipelas. Fraith, adj. free-spoken, talkative. Frithing, adj. a fence made of thorns wattled. Foust, v. act. to tumble. Flathin, n. s. a dish made of curds, eggs, and milk. Gloy, n. s. refuse straw after the "reed" has been taken out. Gloice, n. s., a sharp pang of pain. Heavgar, adj. heavier (so also near-ger, far-ger). Hamrach, n. s. harness collar made of straw. Hay, n. s. a small plot of ground attached to a dwelling. Kittybags, n. s. gaiters. Lipe, n. s. matted basket of peculiar shape. Letto, n. s. a lout, a foolish fellow. Main, adj. strong, fine (of growing crops), Nesseltrip, n. s. the small pig in a litter. Nommet, n. s. a luncheon of bread, cheese, &c.—not a regular meal. Noppet, Nipperty, adj. lively—convalescent. Ovice, n. s. eaves of a building. Plym, v. to fill, to plump up. Plym, adj. full. Planche, v. to make a boarded floor. Peert, adj. lively, brisk. Purty, v. n. to turn sulky. Quat, v. act. to press down, flatten. Quapp, v. n. to throb. Rathe, adj. early, of crops. Reremouse, n. s. bat. Ryle, v. to angle in the sea. Riff, n. s. an instrument for sharpening scythes. Seggy, v. act. to tease, to provoke. Semmatt, n. s. sieve made of skin for winnowing. Shoat, n. s. small wheaten loaf. Showy, v. n. to clear (of weather); (show, with termination y, common). Soul, n. s. cheese, butter, &c. (as eaten with bread). Snead, n. s. handle of a scythe. Songalls, n. s. gleanings: "to gather songall" is to glean. Sull, or Zull, n. s. a wooden plough. Stiping, n. s. a mode of fastening a sheep's foreleg to its head by a band of straw, or withy. Susan, n. s. a brown earthenware pitcher. Sump, n. s. any bulk that is carried. Suant, part. regular in order. Slade, n. s. ground sloping towards the sea. Tite, v. to tumble over. Toit, n. s. a small seat or stool made of straw. Toit, adj. frisky, wanton. Vair, n. s. weasel or stoat. Want, n. s. a mole. Wirg, n. s. a willow. Wimble, v. to winnow. Weest, adj. lonely, desolate. Wash-dish, n. s. the titmouse. Address in the Barony of Forth Language.
1. Influence of the aboriginal Indian languages. 2. Influence of the languages introduced from Europe anterior to the predominance of English; viz.: French in Louisiana, Spanish in Florida, Swedish in Pennsylvania and Delaware, and Dutch in New York. 3. Influence, &c., subsequent to the predominance of the English; viz.: German in Pennsylvania, and Gaelic and Welsh generally. 4. Influence of the original difference of dialect between the different portions of the English population. 5. Influence of the preponderance of the Anglo-Saxon over the Anglo-Norman element in the American population in general. 'Under the tropie is our language spoke, And part of Flanders hath received our yoke.' "'I care not,' said Milton, 'to be once named abroad, though perhaps I could attain to that, being content with these islands as my world.' A French Jesuit, Garnier, in 1678, laying down rules for the arrangement of a library, thought it superfluous to say anything of English books, because, as he observed, 'libri Anglic scripti lingu vix mare transmittunt.' Swift, in the earlier part of the eighteenth century, in his 'Proposal for correcting, improving, and "Every year that has since elapsed has added a superior degree of probability to the anticipations of Hume. At present the prospects of the English language are the most splendid that the world has ever seen. It is spreading in each of the quarters of the globe by fashion, by emigration, and by conquest. The increase of population alone in the two great states of Europe and America in which it is spoken, adds to the number of its speakers in every year that passes, a greater amount than the whole number of those who speak some of the literary languages of Europe, either Swedish, or Danish, or Dutch. It is calculated that, before the lapse of the present century, a time that so many now alive will live to witness, it will be the native and vernacular language of about one hundred and fifty millions of human beings. "What will be the state of Christendom at the time that this vast preponderance of one language will be brought to bear on all its relations,—at the time when a leading nation in Europe and a gigantic nation in America make use of the same idiom,—when in Africa and Australasia the same language is in use by rising and influential communities, and the world is circled by the accents of Shakspeare and Milton? At that time such of the other languages of Europe as do not extend their empire beyond this quarter of the globe will be reduced to the same degree of insignificance in comparison with English, as the subordinate languages of modern Europe to those of the state they belong to,—the Welsh to the English, the Basque to the Spanish, the Finnish to the Russian. This predominance, we may flatter ourselves, will be a more signal blessing to literature than that of any other language could possibly be. The English is essentially a "The prospect is so glorious that it seems an ungrateful task to interrupt its enjoyment by a shade of doubt: but as the English language has attained to this eminent station from small beginnings, may it not be advisable to consider whether obstacles are not in existence, which, equally small in their beginnings, have a probability of growing larger? The first consideration that presents itself is that English is not the only language firmly planted on the soil of America, the only one to which a glorious future is, in the probable course of things, assured. "A sufficient importance has not always been attached to the fact, that in South America, and in a portion of the northern continent, the languages of the Peninsula are spoken by large and increasing populations. The Spanish language is undoubtedly of easier acquisition for the purposes of conversation than our own, from the harmony and clearness of its pronunciation; and it has the recommendation to the inhabitants of Southern Europe of greater affinity to their own languages and the Latin. Perhaps the extraordinary neglect which has been the portion of this language for the last "At the time when Hume wrote his letter to Gibbon, the conquest of Canada had very recently been effected. The rivalry of the French and English in North America had been terminated by the most signal triumph of the English arms. Had measures been taken at that time to discourage the use of French and to introduce that of English, there can be little doubt that English would now be as much the language of Quebec and Montreal as it is of New York and the Delaware. Those measures were not taken. At this moment, when we are approaching a century from the battle of the Heights of Abraham, there is still a distinction of races in Canada, nourished by a distinction of language, and both appear likely to continue. "Within the United States themselves, a very large body of the inhabitants have remained for generation after generation ignorant of the English language. The number is uncertain. According to Stricker, in his dissertation 'Die Verbreitung des deutschen Volkes Über die Erde,' published in 1845, the population of German origin in the United States in 1844 was 4,886,632, out of a total of 18,980,650. This statement, though made in the most positive terms, is founded on an estimate only, and has been shown to be much exaggerated. Wappaus (in his 'Deutsche Auswanderung und Colonisation'), after a careful examination, arrives at the conclusion that the total cannot amount to a million and a half. Many of these are of course acquainted with both "It may be asked if any damage will be done by this? The damage, it may be answered, will be twofold. The parties who are thus formed into an isolated community, with a language distinct from that of those around them, will be placed under the same disadvantages as the Welsh of our own day, who find themselves always as it were some inches shorter than their neighbours, and have to make an exertion to be on their level. Those of them who are only masters of one language are in a sort of prison; those who are masters of two, might, if English had been their original speech, have had their choice of the remaining languages of the world to exert the same degree of labour on, with a better prospect of advantage. In the case of Welsh, the language has many ties: even those who see most clearly the necessity of forsaking it, must lament the harsh necessity of abandoning to oblivion the ancient tongue of an ancient nation. But these associations and feelings could not be pleaded in favour of transferring the Welsh to Otaheite; and when these feelings are withdrawn, what valid reason will remain for the perpetuation of Welsh, or even, it may be said, of German? "The injury done to the community itself is perhaps the greatest; but there is a damage done to the world in general. It will be a splendid and a novel experiment in modern society, if a single language becomes so predominant over all others as Thieves' language, or that dialect for which there is no name, but one from its own vocabulary, viz. Slang, is of greater value in philology than in commerce. It serves to show that in speech nothing is arbitrary. Its compound phrases are either periphrastic or metaphorical; its simple monosyllables are generally those of the current language in an older form. The thieves of London are conservators of Anglo-Saxonisms. In this dialect I know of no specimens earlier than the reign of Queen Elizabeth. In the dramatic literature of that age they are rife and common. The Roaring Girl, the Jolly Beggars, amongst the plays, and Deckar's Bellman amongst the tracts, preserve us a copious vocabulary, similar to what we have now, and similar to what it was in Gay's time. Of this the greater part is Saxon. Here and there appears a word of Latin origin, e.g., pannum, bread; cassons, cheese. Of the Gypsy language I have discovered no trace. It is Dutch rather than English; it shows, however, the latter language as an element of admixture. SPECIMEN.[87]
And Frenche she spake ful feteously, After the scole of Stratforde at Bowe, For Frenche of Parys was to her unknowe. Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Testamenta Eboracensia, CLIX.
The doctrine that languages become dead when they lose a certain power of evolving new forms out of previously existing ones, is incompatible with views to which the present writer has committed himself in the preface. If the views there exhibited be true the test of the vitality of a language, if such metaphors must be used, is the same as the test of vitality in material organisms, i.e., the power of fulfilling certain functions. Whether this is done by the evolution of new forms out of existing materials, or by the amalgamation (the particular power of the English language) of foreign terms is a mere difference of process.
If true, the bearings of this is important; since, if common physical conditions effect a common physiognomy of language, we may have a certain amount of resemblance without a corresponding amount of ethnological affinity. PRAXIS.The following extracts are given in the form of simple texts. They are meant, more especially, to be explained by masters to their classes; and as such were used by myself during the time that I was Professor of the English language and literature at University College. They are almost all taken from editions wherein either a translation or a full commentary can be found by reference. To have enlarged the present Appendix into a full Praxis, would have been to overstep the prescribed limits of the present work. I.MŒSO-GOTHIC.Mark, Chap. 1. 1. 2. Anastodeins aivaggeljons Ïesuis xristaus sunaus guÞs. sve gameliÞ Ïst Ïn esaÏ in praufetau. sai. Ïk Ïnsandja aggilu meinana faura Þus. saei gamanveiÞ vig Þeinana faura Þus. stibna vopjandins 3. Ïn auÞidai. manveiÞ vig fraujins. raihtos vaurkeiÞ 4. staigos guÞs unsaris. vas Ïohannes daupjands Ïn auÞidai jah 5. merjands daupein Ïdreigos du aflageinai fravaurhte. jah usÏddjedun du Ïmma all Ïudaialand jah Ïairusaulymeis jah daupidai vesun allai Ïn Ïaurdane awai fram Ïmma andhaitandans fravaurhtim 6. seinaim. vasuÞ-Þan Ïohannes gavasiÞs taglam ulbandaus jah gairda filleina bi hup seinana jah matida Þramsteins 7. jah miliÞ haiÞivisk jah merida qiÞands. qimiÞ svinÞoza mis sa afar mis. Þizei Ïk ni Ïm vairÞs anahneivands andbindan skaudaraip 8. skohe is. aÞÞan Ïk daupja Ïzvis Ïn vatin. ÏÞ Ïs daupeiÞ Ïzvis 9. Ïn ahmin veihamma. jah varÞ Ïn jainaim dagam. qam Ïesus fram nazaraiÞ galeilaias jah daupiÞs vas fram Ïohanne Ïn 10. Ïaurdane. jah suns usgaggands us Þamma vatin gasaw usluknans 11. himinans jah ahman sve ahak atgaggandan ana Ïna. jah stibna qam us himinam. Þu Ïs sunus meins sa liuba. Ïn Þuzei 12. vaila galeikaida. jah suns sai. ahma Ïna ustauh Ïn auÞida. 13. jah vas in Þizai auÞidai dage fidvortiguns fraisans fram satanin 14. jah vas miÞ diuzam jah aggileis andbahtidedun Ïmma. Ïp afar Þatei atgibans varÞ Ïohannes. qam Ïesus Ïn galeilaia merjands 15. aivaggeljon Þiudangardjos guÞs qiÞands Þatei usfullnoda Þata mel jah atnewida sik Þiudangardi guÞs. ÏdreigoÞ jah galaubeiÞ 16. Ïn aivaggeljon. jah warbonds faur marein galeilaias gasaw seimonu jah andraian broÞar Ïs. Þis seimonis. vairpandans 17. nati Ïn marein. vesun auk fiskjans. jah qaÞ Ïm Ïesus. hirjats 18. afar mis jah gatauja Ïgqis vairÞan nutans manne. jah suns 19. affetandans Þo natja seina laistidedun afar Ïmma. jah jainÞro Ïnngaggands framis leitil gasaw Ïakobu Þana zaibaidaiaus jah 20. Ïohanne broÞar Ïs jah Þans Ïn skipa manvjandans natja. jah suns haihait Ïns jah affetandans attan seinana zaibaidaiu Ïn Þamma skipa miÞ asnjam galiÞun afar Ïmma jah galiÞun Ïn kafarnaum. 21. jah suns sabbato daga galeiÞands Ïn synagogen laisida 22. Ïns jah usfilmans vaurÞun ana Þizai laiseinai Ïs. unte vas laisjands 23. Ïns sve valdufni habands jah ni svasve Þai bokarjos. jah vas Ïn Þizai synagogen Ïze manna Ïn unhrainjamma ahmin jah 24. ufhropida qiÞands. fralet. wa uns jah Þus Ïesu nazorenai. qamt fraqistjan uns. kann Þuk was Þu Ïs. sa veiha guÞs. 25. jah andbait Ïna Ïesus qiÞands. Þahai jah usgagg ut us Þamma. 26. ahma unhrainja. jah tahida Ïna ahma sa unhrainja jah hropjands 27. stibnai mikilai usÏddja us Ïmma. jah afslauÞnodedun allai sildaleikjandans. svaei sokidedun miÞ sis misso qiÞandans. wa sijai Þata. wo so laiseino so niujo. ei miÞ valdufnja jah ahmam Þaim unhrainjam anabiudiÞ jah ufhausjand Ïmma. 28. usÏddja Þan meriÞa Ïs suns and allans bisitands galeilaias. 29. jah suns us Þizai synagogen usgaggandans qemun Ïn garda seimonis 30. jah andraiÏns miÞ Ïokobau jah Ïohannem. ÏÞ svaihro 31. seimonis log Ïn brinnon. jah suns qeÞun Ïmma bi Ïja. jah duatgaggands urraisida Þo undgreipands handu Ïzos. jah affailot 32. Þo so brinno suns jah andbahtida Ïm. andanahtja Þan vaurÞanamma. Þan gasaggq sauÏl. berun du Ïmma allans Þans ubil 33. habandans jah unhulÞons habandans. jah so baurgs alla garunnana 34. vas at daura. jah gahailida managans ubil habandans missaleikaim sauhtim jah unhulÞons managos usvarp jah ni 35. fralailot rodjan Þos unhulÞons. unte kunÞedun Ïna. jah air uhtvon usstandans usÏddja jah galaiÞ ana auÞjana staÞ jah jainar 36. baÞ. jah galaistans vaurÞun Ïmma seimon jah Þai miÞ 37. Ïmma. jah bigitandans Ïna qeÞun du Ïmma Þatei allai Þuk 38. sokjand. jah qaÞ du Ïm. gaggam du Þaim bisunjane haimom 39. jah baurgim. ei jah jainar merjau. unte duÞe qam. jah vas merjands Ïn synagogim Ïze and alla galeilaian jah unholÞons 40. usvairpands. jah qam at Ïmma Þrutsfill habands bidjands Ïna jah knivam knussjands jah qiÞands du Ïmma Þatei. jabai 41. vileis. magt mik gahrainjan. ÏÞ Ïesus Ïnfeinands ufrakjands handu seina attaitok Ïmma jah qaÞ Ïmma. viljau. vairÞ hrains. 42. jah biÞe qaÞ Þata Ïesus. suns Þata Þrutsfill affaiÞ af Ïmma jah 43. hrains varÞ. jah gawotjands Ïmma suns ussandida Ïna jah qaÞ 44. du Ïmma. saiw ei mannhun ni qiÞais vaiht ak gagg Þuk silban ataugjan gudjin jah atbair fram gahraineinai peinai. Þatei 45. anabauÞ moses du veitvodiÞai Ïm. ÏÞ Ïs usgaggands dugann merjan filu jah usqiÞan Þata vaurd. svasve Ïs juÞan ni mahta andaugjo Ïn baurg galeiÞan ak uta ana auÞjaim stadim vas. jah Ïddjedun du Ïmma allaÞro. II.OLD HIGH-GERMAN.MUSPILLI. From Schmeller. ... sÎn ta piqueme, Das er towian scal, Wanta sÂr so sih dui sÊla In dem sind arhevit, Ente si den lÎhhamun Likkan lÂzzit; So quimith ein heri Fona himilzungalon; Daz andar fona pehhe: Dar pÂgant siu umpi. SorgÊn mac diu sÊla, Unzi diu suona argÊt, Za wideremo herie, Si gihalot werde. Wanta ipu sia daz Satanazsses Kisindi giwinnit, Das leitet sia sÂr Dar iru leid wirdit, In fiur enti in finstri, Dazu ist reht virinlih ding. Upi sia avar kihalont die, Die dar fona himile quemant, Enti si dero engilo eigan wirdit, Die pringant sia sÂr Ûf in himilo rÎhhi, DarÎ est lÎp Âno tÔd, lioht Âno finstri, Selida Âno sorgun; dar nist neoman suih. Denne der mar in pardÎsu PÛ kiwinnit, HÛs in himile, Dar quimit imu hilfa kinuok Pidiu ist durft mihhil allero manno welilihemo Daz in es sÎn muot kispane, Daz er kotes willun Kerno tuo, Ente hella fuir Harto wÎsÊ, Pehhes pina, Dar piutit den Satanaz altist Heizzan lauc. So mac huckan za diu, SorgÊn drÂto Der sih suntigen weiz. WÊ demo in vinstrÎ scal SÎno virina stuen, Prinnan in pehhe; Daz ist rehto palwig ding— Daz man den harÊt ze gote, Ente imo helfa ni quimit; WÂnit sih kinÂda Diu wÊnaga sÊla Ni ist in kihuctin Himiliskin gote, Wanta hiar in werolti After ni werkÔta. So denne der mahtigo khuninc Daz mahal kipannit Dara scal queman Chunno kilÎhhaz Denne ni kitar parno nohhein Den pan furisizzan, DÎ allero manno welÎh Ze demo mahale sculi, Der scal er, vora demo ricche, Az rahhu stantan, PÎ daz er, in werolti, Kiwerkota hapÊta. Daz hÔrt ih rahhon Dia werolt-rehtwÎson, Daz sculi der Antichristo Mit Eliase pÂgan. Der warch ist kiwÂfanit; Denne wirdit untar in wÎk arhapan; Khensun sind so kreftic, Diri kosa ist so mihhil. Elias strÎtÎt PÎ den ewigon lÎp, Wili den rehtkernon Daz rÎhhi kistarkan; Pidiu scal imo halfan Der himiles kiwaltit. Der Anticristo stÊt PÎ dem Altfiante StÊt pÎ demo Satanase, Der inan farsenkan scal; Pidiu scal er in der wÎcsteti Wunt pivallan, Enti in demo sinde Sigalos werdan. Doh wÂnit des vila gotmanno, Daz Elias in demo wÎge arwartit (werdit). SÂr so daz Eliases pluot In erda kitruifit, So inprinnant die perga, Poum ni kistentit Einic in erdu, Aha artruknÊnt, Muor varsuilhet sih, Suilizot lougui der himil MÂno vallit, Prinnit mittilagart, Stein ni kistentit einik in erdu. Verit denne stuatago in lant, Verit mit diu viuriu Viriho wÎsÔn, Dar ni mai denne mÂk andremo Helfan vora dema Muspille. Denne daz preita wasal Allaz varprinnit, Enti viur enti luft Iz allaz arfurpit, War ist denne diu marha, Dar man dar eo mit sÎnem magon (Diu marha ist farprunnan Diu sÊla stÊt pidungan), Ni weiz mit win puoze; SÂr verit si za wÎze. Pidui ist dem manne so guot, Denne er ze demo mahale quimit, Daz er rahhono welihha Rehto arteile; Denne ni darf er sorgÊn, Denne er ze deru suonu quimit. Denne varant engila; Uper dio marho, Wecchant diota, WÎssant ze dinge; Denne scal manno gelÎh Fona deru moltu arsten; LÔssan sih ar dero lÊuuo vazzon Scal imo avar sÎn lÎp piqueman, Daz er sÎn reht allaz Kirahhon muozzi, Enti imo after sÎnen tÂtin Arteilet werde. Denne der gisizzit, Der dar suonnan scal, Enti arteillan scal, TÔten enti quekken, Denne stÊt darumpi Engilo menigi, Quotero gomono girust so mihhil. Dara quimit ze deru rightungu so vilo dia dar arstent, So dar manno nohhein Wiht pimÎdan ni mak; Dar scal denne hant sprehhan, Houpit sagÊn, Allero lido wehh Unsi id den luzigun vinger. Ni weiz der wÊnago man Wielihhan urteil er habÊt; Denne er mit den miaton Marrit daz rehta, Daz der tiuval darpÎ Kitarnit stentit; Der habÊt in ruovu Rahhono welihha, Daz der man er enti sÎd Upiles kifrumita, Daz er iz allaz kisagÊt, Denne or ze deru suonu quimit. * * * * * * III.ANGLO-SAXON.Evangelium Nicodemi, xxi. From Thwaite's Heptateuch.
IV.From Schmid's Anglo-Saxon Laws. Þis syndon Þa domas Þe Ælfred se cyning geceas.
V.OPENING OF BEOWULF. Edited and Translated by J. M. Kemble.
VI.THE BATTLE OF BRUNANBURG. From Warton's History of English Poetry, Ed. 1840. Vol. I. p. lxvii. Translated by R. Taylor.
VII.HILDIBRAND AND HATHUBRAND. TEXT OF GRIMM. TRANSLATION IBID. Also in—Langue et LitÉrature des Anciens Francs, par G. Gley. Ih gihorta that seggen, that sie urhetton Ænon muotin Hildibraht enti Hathubrant untar heriuntuem, Sunu fatar ungo; iro saro rihtun, Garutun se iro guthhamun, gurtun sih iro suert ana, Helidos, ubar ringa, do sie to dero hiltu ritun. Hiltibraht gimahalta, Heribrantes sunu, her was heroro man, Ferahes frotoro, her fragen gistuont, Fohem wortum: wer sin fater wari; Fires in folche, eddo weliches cnuosles du sis? Ibu du mi aenan sages, ik mideo are-wet, Chind in chuninchriche, chud ist min al irmindeot. Hadubraht gimahalti Hiltibrantes sunu: Dat sagetun mi Usere liuti alte anti frote, dea erhina warun, Dat Hilbrant haetti min fater, Ïh heittu Hadubrant. Forn her ostar gihueit, floh her Otachres nid Hina miti Theotriche enti sinero degano filu; Her furlach in lante luttila sitten Prut in bure; barn unwahsan, Arbeolosa heraet, ostar hina det, Sid delriche darba gistuontum, fatereres mines, Dat was so friuntlaos man, her was Otachre unmettirri, Degano dechisto, unti Deotriche darba gistontum; Her was eo folches at ente, imo was eo feheta ti leop. Chud was her chonnem mannuma, ni wanin ih, in lib habbe. Wittu Irmin-Got, quad Hiltibraht, obana ab havane, Dat du neo danahalt mit sus sippan man dinc in gileitos! Want her do ar arme wuntane bouga, Cheiswringu gitan, so imo seder chuning gap Huneo truhtin; dat ih dir it un bi huldi gibu! Hadubraht gimalta, Hiltibrantes sunu: Mit geru scal man geba infahan, Ort widar orte, du bist dir, alter Hun, ummet, Spaher, spenis mi mit dinem wortema, Wilihuh di nu speru werpan, Pist al so gialtet man, so du ewin inwit fortos; Dat sagetun mi Sacolidante Westar ubar Wentilsaeo, dat man wic furnam, Tot ist Hiltibraht Heribrantes suno, Hildibrant gimahalta Heribrantes suno: wela gisihu ih, In dinem hrustim, dat du habes heine herron goten, Dat du noh bi desemo riche reccheo ni wurti, Welaga, nu waltant Got, quad Hiltibrant, we wurt skihit! Ih wallota sumaro enti wintro sehstick urlante. Dar man mih eo scerita in folc scestantero. So man mir at burc einigeru banun ni gifasta; Nu scal mih suasat chind suertu hauwan, Bieton mit sinu billiu, eddo ih imo tÍ banin werden. Doh maht du nu aodlicho, ibu dir din ellent aoc, In sus heremo man hrusti girwinnan; Rauba bi hrahanen ibu du dar enic reht habes. Der si doh nu argosto, quad Hildibrant, ostarliuto, Der dir nu wiges warne, nu dih es so wel lustit. Gudea gimeirum niused emotti. Wer dar sih hiutu dero prel-zilo hrumen muotti, Erdo desero brunnono bedero waltan. Do laettun se aerist asckim scritan Scarpen scurim, dat in dem sciltim stout; Do stoptun tosamene, starmbort chludun, Hewun harmilicco huitte scilti Unti im iro lintun luttilo wurtun— VIII.OLD SAXON.FROM THE TEXT OF A. YPEIJ. Taalkundig Magazijn. P. 1, No. 1.—p. 54. Psalm LIV. 2. Gehori got gebet min, in ne furuuir bida mina; thenke te mi in gehori mi. 3. Gidruouit bin an tilogon minro, in mistrot bin fan stimmon fiundes, in fan arbeide sundiges. 4. Uuanda geneigedon an mi unreht, in an abulge unsuoti uuaron mi. 5. Herta min gidruouit ist an mi, in forta duodis fiel ouir mi. 6. Forthta in biuonga quamon ouer mi, in bethecoda mi thuisternussi. 7. In ic quad "uuie sal geuan mi fetheron also duuon, in ic fliugon sal, in raston sal." 8. Ecco! firroda ic fliende, inde bleif an eudi. 9. Ic sal beidan sin, thie behaldon mi deda fan luzzilheide geistis in fan geuuidere. 10. Bescurgi, herro, te deile tunga iro, uuanda ic gesag unriht in fluoc an burgi. 11. An dag in naht umbefangan sal sia ouir mura ira, unreht in arbeit an mitdon iro in unreht. 12. In ne te fuor fan straton iro prisma in losunga. 13. Uuanda of fiunt flukit mi, is tholodit geuuisso; in of thie thie hatoda mi, ouir mi mikila thing spreke, ic burge mi so mohti geburran, fan imo. 14. Thu geuuisso man einmuodigo, leido min in cundo min. 15. Thu samon mit mi suota nami muos, an huse gode giengon uuir mit geluni. 16. Cum dot ouir sia, in nithir stigin an hellon libbinda. Uuanda arheide an selethe iro, an mitdon ini. 17. Ic eft te gode riepo, in herro behielt mi. 18. An auont in an morgan in an mitdondage tellon sal ic, in kundon; in he gehoron sal. 19. Irlosin sal an frithe sela mina fan then, thia ginacont mi, uuanda under managon he uuas mit mi. 20. Gehorun sal got in ginetheron sal sia; thie ist er uueroldi. 21. Ne geuuisso ist ini uuihsil; in ne forchtedon got. Theneda hant sina an uuitherloni. IX.MODERN DUTCH OF HOLLAND.Mark, Chap. I. 1. Het begin des Evangelies van Jezus Christus, den Zoon van God. 2. Gelijk geschreven is in de Profeten: ziet, Ik zend mijnen Engel voor uw aangezigt, die uwen weg voor u heen bereiden zal. 3. De stem des roependen in de woestijn: bereidt den weg des Heeren, maakt zijne paden regt! 4. Johannes was doopende in de woestijn, en predikende den doop der bekeering tot vergeving der zonden. 5. En al het Joodsche land ging tot hem uit, en die van JerÛzalem; en werden allen van hem gedoopt in the rivier de Jordaan, belijdende hunne zonden. 6. En Johannes was gekleed met kemelshaar, en met eenen 7. En hij predikte, zeggende: na mij komt, die sterker is dan ik, wien ik niet waardig ben, nederbukkende, den riem zijner schoenen te ontbinden. 8. Ik heb ulieden wel gedoopt met water, maar hij zal u doopen met den Heiligen Geest. 9. En het geschiedde in diezelve dagen, dat Jezus kwam van NÁzareth, gelegen in GalilÉa, en werd van Johannes gedoopt in de Jordaan. 10. En terstond, als hij uit het water opklom, zag bij de hemelen opengaan, en den Geest, gelijk eene duive, op hem nederdalen. 11. En er geschiedde eene stem nit de hemelen: gij zijt mijn geliefde Zoon, in denwelken Ik mijn welbehagen heb! 12. En terstond dreef hem de Geest uit in de woestijn. 13. En hij was aldaar in de woestijn vertig dagen, verzocht van den Satan; en was bij de wilde gedierten; en de Engelen dienden hem. 14. En nadat Johannes overgeleverd was, kwam Jezus in GalilÉa, predikende het Evangelie van het Koningrijk Gods, 15. En zeggende: de tijd is vervuld, en het Koningrijk Gods nabij gekomen; bekeert u, en gelooft het Evangelie. 16. En wandelende bij de GalilÉsche zee, zag hij Simon en AndrÉas, zijnen broeder, werpende het net in de zee (want zij waren visschers); 17 En Jezus zeide tot hen: volgt mij na, en ik zal maken, dat gij visschers der menschen zult worden. 18. En zij, terstond hunne netten verlatende, zijn hem gevolgd. 19. En van daar een weinig voortgegaan zijnde, zag hij Jacobus, den zoon van ZebedÉÜs, en Johannes, zijnen broeder, en dezelve in het schip hunne netten vermakende. 20. En terstond riep hij hen; en zij, latende hunnen vader ZebedÉÜs in het schip, met de huurlingen, zijn hem nagevolgd. 21. En zij kwamen binnen KapernaÜm; en terstond op den Sabbatdag in de Synagoge gegaan zijnde, leerde hij. 22. En zij versloegen zich over zijne leer: want hij leerde hen, als magt hebbende, en niet als de Schriftgeleerden. 23. En er was in hunne Synagoge een mensch, met eenen onreinen geest, en hij riep uit, 24. Zeggende: laat af, wat hebben wij met u te doen, gij Jezus NazarÉner! zijt gij gekomen, om ons to verderven? Ik ken u, wie gij zijt, namelijk de Heilige Gods. 25. En Jezus bestrafte hem, zeggende: zwijg stil, en ga nit van hem. 26. En de onreine geest, hem scheurende, en roepende met eene groote stem, ging uit van hem. 27. En zij werden allen verbaasd, zoodat zij onder elkander vraagden, zeggende: wat is dit? wat nieuwe leer is deze, dat hij met magt ook den onreineen geesten gebiedt, en zig hem gehoorzaam zijn! 28. En zijn gerucht ging terstond uit, in het geheel omliggen land van GalilÉa. 29. En van stonde aan uit de Synagoge gegaan zijnde, kwamen zij in het huis van Simon en AndrÉas, met Jacobus en Johannes. 30. En Simons vrouws moeder lag met de koorts; en terstond zeiden zij hem van haar. 31. En hij, tot haar gaande, vattede hare hand, en rigtte ze op; en terstond verliet haar de koorts, en zij diende henlieden. 32. Als het nu avond geworden was, toen de zon onderging, bragten zij tot hem allen, die kwalijk gesteld, en van den duivel bezeten waren. 33. En de geheele stad was bijeenvergaderd omtrent de deur. 34. En hij genas er velen, die door verscheidene ziekten kwalijk gesteld waren; en wierpe vele duivelen uit, en liet de duivelen niet toe te spreken, omdat zij hem kenden. 35. En des morgens vroeg, als het nog diep in den nacht was, opgestaan zijnde, ging hij uit, en ging henen in eene woeste plaats, en bad aldaar. 36. En Simon, en die met hem waren, zijn hem nagevolgd. 37. En zij hem gevonden hebbende, zeiden tot hem: zig zoeken u allen. 38. En hij zeide tot hen: laat ons in de bijliggende vlekken gaan, opdat ik ook daar predike: want daartoe ben ik uitgegaan. 39. En hij predikte in hunne Synagogen, door geheel GalilÉa, en wierp de duivelen uit. 40. En tot hem kwam een melaatsche, biddende hem, en vallende 41. En Jezus, met barmhartigheid innerlijk bewogen zijnde, strekte de hand uit, en raakte hem aan, en zeide tot hem: ik wil, word gereinigd. 42. En als hij dit gezegd had, ging de melaatschheid terstond van hem, en hy werd gereinigd. 43. En als hij hem strengelijk verboden had, deed hij hem terstond van zich gaan; 44. En zeide tot hem: zie, dat gij niemand iets zegt; maar ga heen en vertoon u zelven den Priester, en offer voor uwe reiniging, hetgeen Mozes geboden heeft, hun tot eene getuigenis. 45. Maar hij vitgegaan zijnde, begon vele dingen te verkondigen, en dat woord te verbreiden, alzoo dat hij niet meer openbaar in de stad kon komen, maar was buiten in de woeste plaatsen; en zij kwamen tot hem van alle kanten. X.OLD NORSE.THE DESCENT OF ODIN. From the Edda of SÆmund. Copenhagen Edition.
XI.ICELANDIC.From Snorro's Heimskringla. Translated by Laing. Y'NGLINGA SAGA. KAP. I. Her Segir frÁ Landa Skipan. Sva er sagt, at kringla heimsins, sÚ er mannfÓlkit byggir, er mjÖk vag-skorin: gÁnga hÖf stÓr Úr ÚtsjÁnum inn Í jordina. Er Þat kunnigt, at haf gengr af Njorvasundum, ok allt Út til JÓrsala-lands. Af hafinu gengr lÁngr hafsbotn til landnordrs, er heitir Svartahaf: sa skilr heims ÞridjÚngana: heitir fyrin austan Asia, en fyrir vestan kalla sumir EvrÓpa, en sumir Enea. En nordan at Svartahafi gengr SviÞjod in mikla eda in kalda. SvÍÞjÓd ena miklu kalla sumir menn ecki minni enn Serkland hÍt mikla; sumir jafna henni vid BlÁland hit mikla. Hinn neyrdri lutr SvÍÞjÓdar liggr Óbygdr af frosti ok kulda, swa sem hinn sydri lutr BlÁlands er audr af sÓlarbruna. I SvÍÞjÓd eru stÓr hÉrut mÖrg: Þar eru ok margskonar Þjodir undarligar, ok margar tÚngur: Þar eru risar, ok Þar eru dvergar: Þar eru ok blÁmenn; Þar eru dÝr ok drekar furdulega stÓrin. Ur Nordri frÁ fjÖllum Þeim, er fyrir utan eru bygd alla, fellr Á um SvÍÞjÓd, sÚ er at rettu heitir Tanais; hÚn var fordum kÖllut TanaqvÍsl edr VanaquÍsl; hÚn kÉmur til sjÁvar inu i Svarta-haf. I VanaqlvÍslum var Þa kallat Vanaland, edr Vanheimr; sÚ Á skiir heimsÞridjÚngana; heitir fyrir austan Asia, en fyrir vestan EvrÓpa. KAP. II. FrÁ AsÍa MÖnnum. Fyrir austan TanaqvÍsl Í AsÍa, var kallat Asa-land edr Asaheimr; en hÖfutborgina, er Í var landinu, kÖlludu Þeir Asgard. En Í borginni var hÖfdÍngi sÁ er Odinn var kalladr, Þar var blÓtstadr mikill. Þar var Þar sidr at 12 hofgodar vÓru Æztir; skyldu Þeir rÁda fyrir blÓtum ok dÓmum manna Í milli; Þat eru Diar kalladir edr drottnar: Þeim skyldi ÞjÓnustu veita allr folk ok lotnÍng. Odinn var hermadr mikill ok mjÖk vidfÖrull, ok eignadiz mÖrg riki: han var sva SigrfÆll, at Í hvÖrri orustu feck hann gagn. Ok sva kom at hans menn trÚdu ÞvÍ, at hann Ætti heimilann sigr Í hverri orustu. Þat var hÁttr hans ef ann sendi menn sÍna til orustu, edr adrar sendifarar, at hann lagdi adr hendur Í hÖfut Þeim, ok gaf Þeim bjanak; trÚdu Þeir at ÞÁ mundi vel faraz. Sva var ok um hans menn, hvar sem Þeir urdu Í naudum staddir Á sjÁ edr Á landi, ÞÁ kÖlludu Þeir Á nafn hans, ok ÞÓttuz jafnan fÁ af Þvi fro; Þar Þottuz Þeir ega allt traust er hann var. Hann fÓr opt sva lÁngt Í brot, at hann dvaldiz Í ferdinni mÖrg misseri. XII.SAGA ÓLAFS KONÚNGS TRYGGVASONAR. Bardagi Í StorÐ. HÁkon konÚngr hafÐi ÞÁ fylkt liÐi sÍno, ok segja menn at hann steypti af sÈr brynjunni ÁÐr orrostan tÆkist; HÁkon konÚngr valdi mjÖk menn meÐ sÈr Í hirÐ at afli ok hreysti, sv sem gert hafÐi Haraldr konÚngr faÐir hans; Þar var ÞÁ meÐ konÚngi ÞorÁlfr hinn sterki SkÓlmsson, ok gekk Á aÐra hliÐ konÚngi; hann hafÐi hjÁlm ok skjÖld, kesju ok sverÐ Þat er kallat var FetbreiÐr; Þat var mÆlt at Þeir HÁkon konÚngr vÆri jafnsterkir; Þessa getr ÞÓrÐr SjÁreksson Í drÁpu Þeirri er hann orti um ÞÓrÁlf: Þar er bavÐbarÐir bÖrÐust bands jÓ draugar landa lystr gekk herr til hjÖrva hnitz Í StorÐ Á Fitjum: ok gimslÖngvir gÁnga gÍfrs hlÈmÁna drÍfu nausta blaks hit nÆsta NorÐmanna gram ÞorÐi. En er fylkÍngar gengu saman, var fyrst skotit spjÓtum, ÞvÍnÆst brugÐu menn sverÐum; GerÐist ÞÁ orostan ÓÐ ok mannskjÆd; HÁkon konÚngr ok ÞÓrÁlfr gengu ÞÁ fram um merkin ok hjÖggu til beggja handa; HÁkon konÚngr var auÐkendr, meiri enn aÐrir menn, lÝsti ok mjÖk af hjÁlmi hans er sÓlin shein Á; ÞÁ varÐ vopnaburÐr mikill at konÚngi; tÓk ÞÁ Eyvindr Finnsson hatt einn, ok setti yfir hjÁlm konÚngsins; ÞÁ kallaÐi hÁtt Eyvindr Skreyja: leynist hann nÚ NorÐmanna konÚngr, eÐr hefir hann flÝit, ÞvÍat horfinn er nÚ gullhjÁlmrinn? Eyvindr ok Álfr brÓÐir hans gengu ÞÁ hart fram sv sem ÓÐir ok galnir vÆri, hjÖggu til beggja handa; Þa mÆlti HÁkon konÚngr hÁtt til Eyvindar: haltu sv fram stefnunni ef ÞÚ vill finna hann NorÐmanna konÚng, Var ÞÁ skampt at bÍÐa at Eyvindr kom Þar, reiddi upp sverÞit ok hjÓ til konÚngs; ÞÓrÁlfr skaut viÐ honum Eyvindi skildinum, sv at hann stakaÐi viÐ; konÚngr tÓk ÞÁ tveim hÖndum sverÞit KvernbÍt, ok hjÓ til Eyvindar, klauf hjÁlminn ok hÖfuÐit alt Í herÞar niÐr; Í ÞvÍ bili drap ÞÓrÁlfr Álf Askmann. Sv segir Eyvindr SkÁldaspillir: Veit ek at beit enn bitri byggvÍng meÐal dyggvan bÚlka skiÐs or bÁÐum benvÖndr konÚngs hÖndum: ÚfÆlinnklauf Ála eldraugar skÖr hauga gullhjaltaÐum galtar grandrÁÐr Dana brandi. Eptir fall Þeirra brÆÐra gekk HÁkon konÚngr sv hart fram at alt hravkk fur honum; slÓ ÞÁ felmt ok flÓtta Á liÐ EirÍks sona, en HÁkon konÚngr var Í ÖndverÐri sinni fylkÍng, ok fylgÐi fast flÓttamÖnnum, ok hjÓ tÍdt ok hart; ÞÁ flÓ Ör ein, er Fleinn er kallaÐr, ok kom Í hÖnd HÁkoni konÚngi uppi Í mÚsina firir neÞan Öxl, ok er Þat margra manna sÖgn at skÓsveinn Gunnhildar, sÁ er KispÍngr er nefndr, ljÓp fram Í Þysinn ok kallaÐi: gefi rÚm konÚngs bananum, ok skaut ÞÁ fleinnum til konÚngs; en sumir segja at engi vissi hverr skaut; mÁ Þat ok vel vera, firir ÞvÍ at Örvar ok spjÓt ok Önnur skotvÂpn flugu sv Þykkt sem drÍfa; fjÖldi manns fÈll Þar af EirÍks sonum, en honÚngarnir allir komust Á skipin, ok rÈro Þegar undan, en HÁkonar menn eptir Þeim; sv segir ÞÓrÐr SjÁreksson: VarÐi vÍga myrÐir vÍdt svÁ skal friÐ slÍta jÖfur vildo Þann eldast Öndvert fÓlk Á lÖndum: starf hÓfst upp, ÞÁ er arfi Ótta vanr Á flÓtta gulls er gramr var fallinn Gunnhildar kom sunnan. ÞrÓt var sÝnt ÞÁ er settust sinn rÓÐr viÐ Þraum stinna maÐr lÈt Önd ok annarr ÚfÁr bÆndr sÁrir afreks veit Þat er jÖfri allrÍkr Í styr slÍkum gÖndlar njÖrÐr sÁ er gerÐi gekk nÆst hugins drekku. XIII.MODERN SWEDISH.FRITHIOFS SAGA. XI. Frithiof hos Angantyr.
THE END.LONDON: Printed by Samuel Bentley & Co., Bangor House, Shoe Lane. NOTES[1] Qu. the people of Euten, in Holstein. [2] Zeus, p. 591. [3] From Zeuss, v. v. Frisii, Chauci. [4] The chief works in the two dialects or languages. [5] Probably, for reasons, too long to enter upon, those of Grutungs and Tervings; this latter pointing to Thuringia, the present provincial dialect of which tract was stated, even by Michaelis, to be more like the Moeso-Gothic than any other dialect of Germany. [6] Nearly analogous to Ostro-goth, and Visi-goth. [7] The meaning of these terms is explained in § 90-92. The order of the cases and genders is from Rask. It is certainly more natural than the usual one. [8] Compare with the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in § 85. [9] Compare with the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in § 85. [10] The syllables vulg-, and Belg-, are quite as much alike as Teuton-, and Deut-sch; yet how unreasonable it would be for an Englishman to argue that he was a descendant of the BelgÆ because he spoke the Vulgar Tongue. Mutatis mutandis, however, this is the exact argument of nine out of ten of the German writers. [11] Tacitus, De Mor. Germ. 40. [12] And on the west of the Old Saxons is the mouth of the river Elbe and Friesland; and then north-west is the land which is called Angle and Sealand, and some part of the Danes. [13] He sailed to the harbour which is called HÆÐum, which stands betwixt the Wends (i.e. the Wagrian Slaves, for which see § 42) and Saxons, and Angle, and belongs to Denmark ... and two days before he came to HÆÐum, there was on his starboard Gothland, and Sealand, and many islands. On that land lived Angles, before they hither to the land came. [14] Zeus, in voc. [15] Zeus, in voc. [16] Zeus, in voc. [17] See G. D. S. Vol. ii. II. [18] Zeus, p. 492. [19] As in Amherst and inherent. [20] The meaning of the note of interrogation is explained in § 148. [21] Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine. [22] Natural History of Man. [23] This list is taken from Smart's valuable and logical English Grammar. [24] As in Shotover Hill, near Oxford. [25] As in Jerusalem artichoke. [26] A sort of silk. [27] Ancient Cassio—"Othello." [28] This class of words was pointed out to me by the very intelligent Reader of my first edition. [29] V. Beknopte Historie van't Vaderland, i. 3, 4. [30] Hist. Manch. b. i. c. 12. [31] Dissertation of the Origin of the Scottish Language.—Jamieson's Etymological Dictionary, vol. i. p. 45, 46. [32] Sir W. Betham's Gael and Cymry, c. iii. [33] ScripturÆ LinguÆque PhoeniciÆ Monumenta, iv. 3. [34] To say, for instance, Chemist for Chymist, or vice versÂ; for I give no opinion as to the proper mode of spelling. [35] Mr. Pitman, of Bath, is likely to add to his claims as an orthographist by being engaged in the attempt to determine, inductively, the orthoepy of a certain number of doubtful words. He collects the pronunciations of a large number of educated men, and takes that of the majority as the true one. [36] Gesenius, p. 73. [37] Write one letter twice. [38] Rev. W. Harvey, author of EcclesiÆ AnglicanÆ Vindex Catholicus. [39] Murray's Grammar, vol. i. p. 79. [40] Used as adverbs. [41] Used as the plurals of he, she, and it. [42] Different from ilk. [43] Guest, ii. 192. [44] Or call-s. [45] Thou sangest, thou drankest, &c.—For a reason given in the sequel, these forms are less unexceptionable than sungest, drunkest, &c. [46] Antiquated. [47] As the present section is written with the single view of illustrating the subject, no mention has been made of the forms t?p? (typÔ), and ?t?p?? (etypon). [48] Obsolete. [49] Obsolete. [50] Obsolete. [51] The forms marked thus[51] are either obsolete or provincial. [52] Obsolete. [53] Sounded wun. [54] Obsolete. [55] PrÆterite, or Perfect. [56] Philological Museum, ii. p. 387. [57] Vol. ii. p. 203. [58] Found rarely; bist being the current form.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 894. [59] Over, under, after.—These, although derived forms, are not prepositions of derivation; since it is not by the affix -er that they are made prepositions. He went over, he went under, he went after—these sentences prove the forms to be as much adverbial as prepositional. [60] In the first edition of this work I wrote, "Verbs substantive govern the nominative case." Upon this Mr. Connon, in his "System of English Grammar," remarks, "The idea of the nominative being governed is contrary to all received notions of grammar. I consider that the verb to be, in all its parts, acts merely as a connective, and can have no effect in governing anything." Of Mr. Connon's two reasons, the second is so sufficient that it ought to have stood alone. The true view of the so-called verb substantive is that it is no verb at all, but only the fraction of one. Hence, what I wrote was inaccurate. As to the question of the impropriety of considering nominative cases fit subjects for government it is a matter of definition. [61] The paper On certain tenses attributed to the Greek verb has already been quoted. The author, however, of the doctrine on the use of shall and will, is not the author of the doctrine alluded to in the Chapter on the Tenses. There are, in the same number of the Philological Museum, two papers under one title: first, the text by a writer who signs himself T. F. B.; and, next, a comment, by the editor, signed J. C. H. (Julius Charles Hare). The usus ethicus of the future is due to Archdeacon Hare; the question being brought in incidentally and by way of illustration. The subject of the original paper was the nature of the so-called second aorists, second futures, and preterite middles. These were held to be no separate tenses, but irregular forms of the same tense. Undoubtedly this has long been an opinion amongst scholars; and the writer of the comments is quite right in stating that it is no novelty to the learned world. I think, however, that in putting this forward as the chief point in the original paper, he does the author somewhat less than justice. His merit, in my eyes, seems to consist, not in showing that real forms of the aoristus secundus, futurum secundum, and prÆteritum medium were either rare or equivocal (this having been done before), but in illustrating his point from the English language; in showing that between double forms like s??e?????? and s??e?????, and double forms like hang and hanged, there was only a difference in degree (if there was that), not of kind; and, finally, in enouncing the very legitimate inference, that either we had two preterites, or that the Greeks had only one. "Now, if the circumstances of the Greek and English, in regard to these two tenses, are so precisely parallel, a simple and obvious inquiry arises, Which are in the right, the Greek grammarians or our own? For either ours must be wrong in not having fitted up for our verb the framework of a first and second preterite, teaching the pupil to say, 1st pret. I finded, 2d pret. I found; 1st pret. I glided, 2d pret. I glode: or the others must be so in teaching the learner to imagine two aorists for e???s??, as, aor. 1, e???sa, aor. 2, ?????; or for ?????, aor. 1, ????sa, aor. 2, ?????."—p. 198. The inference is, that of the two languages it is the English that is in the right. Now the following remarks, in the comment, upon this inference are a step in the wrong direction:—"The comparison, I grant, is perfectly just; but is it a just inference from that comparison, that we ought to alter the system of our Greek grammars, which has been drawn up at the cost of so much learning and thought, for the sake of adapting it to the system, if system it can be called, of our own grammars, which are seldom remarkable for anything else than their slovenliness, their ignorance, and their presumption? Is the higher to be brought down to the level of the baser? is Apollo to be drest out in a coat and waistcoat? Rather might it be deemed advisable to remodel the system of our own grammars." This, whether right or wrong as a broad assertion, was, in the case in hand, irrelevant. No general superiority had been claimed for the English grammars. For all that had been stated in the original paper they might, as compared with the Greek and Latin, be wrong in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. All that was claimed for them was that they were right in the present instance; just as for a clock that stands may be claimed the credit of being right once in every twelve hours. That the inference in favour of altering the system of the Greek grammars is illegitimate is most undeniably true; but then it is an inference of the critic's not of the author's. As the illustration in question has always seemed to me of great value,—although it may easily be less original than I imagine,—I have gone thus far towards putting it in a proper light. Taking up the question where it is left by the two writers in question, we find that the difficulties of the so-called second tenses in Greek are met by reducing them to the same tense in different conjugations; and, according to the current views of grammarians, this is a point gained. Is it so really? Is it not rather the substitution of one difficulty for another? A second conjugation is a second mode of expressing the same idea, and a second tense is no more. Real criticism is as unwilling to multiply the one as the other. Furthermore, the tendency of English criticism is towards the very doctrines which the Greek grammarian wishes to get rid of. We have the difficulty of a second conjugation: but, on the other hand, instead of four past tenses (an imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist), we have only one (the aorist). Now, when we find that good reasons can be given for supposing that the strong preterite in the Gothic languages was once a reduplicate perfect, we are at liberty to suppose that what is now the same tense under two forms, was, originally, different tenses. Hence, in English, we avoid the difficulty of a second conjugation by the very same process which we eschew in Greek; viz., the assumption of a second tense. But this we can do, as we have a tense to spare. Will any process reconcile this conflict of difficulties? I submit to scholars the following hypotheses:— 1. That the true second future in Greek (i.e., the future of verbs with a liquid as a characteristic) is a variety of the present, formed by accentuating the last syllable; just as I beÁt you=I will beat you. 2. That this accent effects a change on the quantity and nature of the vowel of the penultimate. 3. That the second aorist is an imperfect formed from this secondary present. 4. That the so-called perfect middle is a similar perfect active. [62] Transactions of Philological Society. No. 90, Jan. 25, 1850. [63] Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appearance of conjunction, there is always one unequivocal method of deciding its true nature. The relative is always a part of the second proposition. A conjunction is no part of either. [64] Unless another view be taken of the construction, and it be argued that ?d??e is, etymologically speaking, no aorist but a perfect. In form, it is almost as much one tense as another. If it wants the reduplication of the perfect, it has the perfect characteristic ?, to the exclusion of the aorist s; and thus far the evidence is equal. The persons, however, are more aorist than perfect. For one of MathiÆ's aorists (e???e) a still better case might be made, showing it to be, even in etymology, more perfect than aorist. ?te??e? e ???s??, t?? ta?a?p????, ????? ????? pat????, ?a? ?ta??? ?? ??d' ???? ?e???', ??' a?t?? ???s?? ?? d???? ???. ?e?a? d' ?p' ??ta??. Eur. Hec. [65] It is almost unnecessary to state that the sentence quoted in the text is really a beautiful couplet of Withers's poetry transposed. It was advisable to do this, for the sake of guarding against the effect of the rhyme. To have written, What care I how fair she is If she be not fair to me? would have made the grammar seem worse than it really was, by disappointing the reader of a rhyme. On the other hand, to have written, What care I how fair she were, If she were not kind as fair? would have made the grammar seem better than it really was, by supplying one. [66] In the first edition of the present work I inaccurately stated that neither should take a plural and either a singular verb; adding that "in predicating something concerning neither you nor I, a negative assertion is made concerning both. In predicating something concerning either you or I, a positive assertion is made concerning one of two." This Mr. Connon (p. 129) has truly stated to be at variance with the principles laid down by me elsewhere. [67] Latin Prose Composition, p. 123. [68] Quoted from Guest's English Rhythms. [69] To the definition in the text, words like old and bold form no exception. At the first view it may be objected that in words like old there is no part preceding the vowel. Compared, however, with bold, the negation of that part constitutes a difference. The same applies to words like go and lo, where the negation of a part following the vowel is a point of identity. Furthermore, I may observe, that the word part is used in the singular number. The assertion is not that every individual sound preceding the vowel must be different, but that the aggregate of them must be so. Hence, pray and bray (where the r is common to both forms) form as true a rhyme as bray and play, where all the sounds preceding a, differ. [70] For prosÓpa. The Greek has been transliterated into English for the sake of showing the effect of the accents more conveniently. [71] For the sake of showing the extent to which the accentual element must be recognised in the classical metres, I reprint the following paper On the Doctrine of the CÆsura in the Greek senarius, from the Transactions of the Philological Society, June 23, 1843:— "In respect to the cÆsura of the Greek tragic senarius, the rules, as laid down by Porson in the Supplement to his Preface to the Hecuba, and as recognized, more or less, by the English school of critics, seem capable of a more general expression, and, at the same time, liable to certain limitations in regard to fact. This becomes apparent when we investigate the principle that serves as the foundation to these rules; in other words, when we exhibit the rationale, or doctrine, of the cÆsura in question. At this we can arrive by taking cognizance of a second element of metre beyond that of quantity. "It is assumed that the element in metre which goes, in works of different writers, under the name of ictus metricus, or of arsis, is the same as accent, in the sense of that word in English. It is this that constitutes the difference between words like tÝrant and resÚme, or sÚrvey and survÉy; or (to take more convenient examples) between the word AÚgust, used as the name of a month, and augÚst, used as an adjective. Without inquiring how far this coincides with the accent and accentuation of the classical grammarians, it may be stated that, in the forthcoming pages, arsis, ictus metricus, and accent (in the English sense of the word), mean one and the same thing. With this view of the arsis, or ictus, we may ask how far, in each particular foot of the senarius, it coincides with the quantity. First Foot.—In the first place of a tragic senarius it is a matter of indifference whether the arsis fall on the first or second syllable; that is, it is a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as tÝrant or as resÚme, as AÚgust or as augÚst. In the following lines the words ???, pa?a?, e?pe?, t??a?, may be pronounced either as ?´??, pa´?a?, e?´pe?, t?´?a?, or as ???´, pa?a?´, e?pe?´, t??a´?, without any detriment to the character of the line wherein they occur. ?´?? ?e???? ?e????a ?a? s??t?? p??a?. ?a´?a? ?????et???ta ?a? et???e???. ??´pe? d??a??? es?' e?? ta pat???e?. ??´?a? p??' ?d?a? tasde ?? ??a?ete. or, ???´ ?e???? ?e????a ?a? s??t?? p??a?. ?a?a?´ ?????et???ta ?a? et???e???. ??pe?´ d??a??? es?' e?? ta pat???e?. ???a´? p??' ?d?a? tasde ?? ??a?ete. Second Foot.—In the second place, it is also a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as AÚgust or as augÚst. In the first of the four lines quoted above we may say either ?e´???? or ?e???´?, without violating the rhythm of the verse. Third Foot.—In this part of the senarius it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as AÚgust or as augÚst; that is, it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the arsis and the quantity coincide. In the circumstance that the last syllable of the third foot must be accented (in the English sense of the word), taken along with a second fact, soon about to be exhibited, lies the doctrine of the penthimimer and hepthimimer cÆsuras. The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quantity in the third foot is derived partly from a posteriori, partly from a priori evidence. 1. In the Supplices of Æschylus, the PersÆ, and the BacchÆ, three dramas where licences in regard to metre are pre-eminently common, the number of lines wherein the sixth syllable (i.e., the last half of the third foot) is without an arsis, is at the highest sixteen, at the lowest five; whilst in the remainder of the extant dramas the proportion is undoubtedly smaller. 2. In all lines where the sixth syllable is destitute of ictus, the iambic character is violated: as T????? pe?asa´?te? ???? p???? p???. ????? ?e???t??´? de st?at??e?ta? f???. These are facts which may be verified either by referring to the tragedians, or by constructing senarii like the lines last quoted. The only difficulty that occurs arises in determining, in a dead language like the Greek, the absence or presence of the arsis. In this matter the writer had satisfied himself of the truth of the two following propositions:—1. That the accentuation of the grammarians denotes some modification of pronunciation other than that which constitutes the difference between AÚgust and augÚst; since, if it were not so, the word ???e??? would be sounded like mÉrrily, and the word ??????? like disÁble; which is improbable, 2. That the arsis lies upon radical rather than inflectional syllables, and out of two inflectional syllables upon the first rather than the second; as ?e´p-?, ?e?-a´s-a, not ?ep-?´, ?e?-as-a´. The evidence upon these points is derived from the structure of language in general. The onus probandi lies with the author who presumes an arsis (accent in the English sense) on a non-radical syllable. Doubts, however, as to the pronunciation of certain words, leave the precise number of lines violating the rule given above undetermined. It is considered sufficient to show that wherever they occur the iambic character is violated. The circumstance, however, of the last half of the third foot requiring an arsis, brings us only half way towards the doctrine of the cÆsura. With this must be combined a second fact, arising out of the constitution of the Greek language in respect to its accent. In accordance with the views just exhibited, the author conceives that no Greek word has an arsis upon the last syllable, except in the three following cases:— 1. Monosyllables, not enclitic; as sf?´?, pa´?, ???´?, d?´?, ??´?, ??´?, &c. 2. Circumflex futures; as ?e?´, te?´, &c. 3. Words abbreviated by apocope; in which case the penultimate is converted into a final syllable; d?´', fe?des´?', ?e?te?´t', e??´?', &c. Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely final, taken along with that of the sixth syllable requiring, in the senarius, an arsis, gives as a matter of necessity, the circumstance that, in the Greek drama, the sixth syllable shall occur anywhere rather than at the end of a word; and this is only another way of saying, that, in a tragic senarius, the syllable in question shall generally be followed by other syllables in the same word. All this the author considers as so truly a matter of necessity, that the objection to his view of the Greek cÆsura must lie either against his idea of the nature of the accents, or nowhere; since, that being admitted, the rest follows of course. As the sixth syllable must not be final, it must be followed in the same word by one syllable, or by more than one. 1. The sixth syllable followed by one syllable in the same word.—This is only another name for the seventh syllable occurring at the end of a word, and it gives at once the hepthimimer cÆsura: as ??? ?e???? ?e???´?a ?a? s??t?? p??a?. ??t?????? ??ad??´s?? e?estee???. ??? te pa?a??´? te ?a? ste?a?at??. 2. The sixth syllables followed by two (or more) syllables in the same word. This is only another name for the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) syllable occurring at the end of a word; as ?d? ??te??? a?´at?? e p??s?e?a. ?ap???? d??asta? e´p?ep??ta? a??e??. Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives anything rather than a hepthimimer; so that if it was at this point that our investigations terminated, little would be done towards the evolution of the rationale of the cÆsura. It will appear, however, that in those cases where the circumstance of the sixth syllable being followed by two others in the same words, causes the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) to be final, either a penthimimer cÆsura, or an equivalent, will, with but few exceptions, be the result. This we may prove by taking the eighth syllable and counting back from it. What follows this syllable is immaterial: it is the number of syllables in the same word that precedes it that demands attention. 1. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by nothing.—This is equivalent to the seventh syllable at the end of the preceding word: a state of things which, as noticed above, gives the hepthimimer cÆsura. ???????? ?e?a´sa pa"?t?? de ??. 2. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by one syllable.—This is equivalent to the sixth syllable at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which, as noticed above, rarely occurs. When however it does occur, one of the three conditions under which a final syllable can take an arsis must accompany it. Each of these conditions requires notice. a). With a non-enclitic mono-syllable the result is a penthimimer cÆsura; since the syllable preceding a monosyllable is necessarily final. ??? se?´??? s?´? ???´ta?"??st?a ??at??. No remark has been made by critics upon lines constructed in this manner, since the cÆsura is a penthimimer, and consequently their rules are undisturbed. ). With poly-syllabic circumflex futures constituting the third foot, there would be a violation of the current rules respecting the cÆsura. Notwithstanding this, if the views of the present paper be true, there would be no violation of the iambic character of the senarius. Against such a line as ?a?? t? s?? ?e?´ p??e?"??? a????? there is no argument a priori on the score of the iambic character being violated; whilst in respect to objections derived from evidence a posteriori, there is sufficient reason for such lines being rare. ?). With poly-syllables abbreviated by apocope, we have the state of things which the metrists have recognised under the name of quasi-cÆsura; as ?e?te?te ? fe?de´s?' e?? " 'te??? ?a???. 3. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by two syllables.—This is equivalent to the fifth syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding: a state of things which gives the penthimimer cÆsura; as ?d? ??te??? a?´ at?? " e p??s?e?a. ?ap???? d??asta? e´p?ep?? ta? a??e??. ?????? e??? p??´s?e??sa s?at??. 4. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by three or more than three syllables.—This is equivalent to the fourth (or some syllable preceding the fourth) syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which would include the third and fourth feet in one and the same word. This concurrence is denounced in the Supplement to the Preface to the Hecuba; where, however, the rule, as in the case of the quasi-cÆsura, from being based upon merely empirical evidence, requires limitation. In lines like ?a? ta??a p???' epe?´?asa? " d??a??? ??, or (an imaginary example), ???? s??s?? asp?d?´st??f???"?? a?d?as?, there is no violation of the iambic character, and consequently no reason against similar lines having been written; although from the average proportion of Greek words like epe??asa? and asp?d?st??f??s??, there is every reason for their being rare. After the details just given, the recapitulation is brief. 1. It was essential to the character of the senarius that the sixth syllable, or latter half of the third foot, should have an arsis, ictus metricus, or accent in the English sense. To this condition of the iambic rhythm the Greek tragedians, either consciously or unconsciously, adhered. 2. It was the character of the Greek language to admit an arsis on the last syllable of a word only under circumstances comparatively rare. 3. These two facts, taken together, caused the sixth syllable of a line to be anywhere rather than at the end of a word. 4. If followed by a single syllable in the same word, the result was a hepthimimer cÆsura. 5. If followed by more syllables than one, some syllable in an earlier part of the line ended the word preceding, and so caused either a penthimimer, a quasi-cÆsura, or the occurrence of the third and fourth foot in the same word. 6. As these two last-mentioned circumstances were rare, the general phÆnomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either the penthimimer or hepthimimer. 7. Respecting these two sorts of cÆsura, the rules, instead of being exhibited in detail, may be replaced by the simple assertion that there should be an arsis on the sixth syllable. From this the rest follows. 8. Respecting the non-occurrence of the third and fourth feet in the same word, the assertion may be withdrawn entirely. 9. Respecting the quasi-cÆsura, the rules, if not altogether withdrawn, may be extended to the admission of the last syllable of circumflex futures (or to any other polysyllables with an equal claim to be considered accented on the last syllable) in the latter half of the third foot. [72] Sceolon, aron, and a few similar words, are no real exceptions, being in structure not present tenses but preterites. [73] Quarterly Review, No. clxiv. [74] Quarterly Review, No. clxiv. [75] From the Quarterly Review, No. cx. [76] From the Quarterly Review, No. cx. [77] Apparently a lapsus calami for spede. [78] J. M. Kemble, "On Anglo-Saxon Runes," ArchÆologia, vol. xxviii. [79] But not of Great Britain. The Lowland Scotch is, probably, more Danish than any South-British dialect. [80] In opposition to the typical Northumbrian. [81] Quarterly Review—ut supra. [82] The subject is a Lincolnshire tradition; the language, also, is pre-eminently Danish. On the other hand, the modern Lincolnshire dialect is by no means evidently descended from it. [83] For some few details see Phil. Trans., No. 36. [84] Transactions of the Philological Society. No. 93. [85] Philological Transactions. No. 84. [86] Transactions of the Philological Society, No. 92. [87] Quarterly Review, vol. xliii. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
