1 And this opinion was the cause of the omission in the First Edition.

2 See Sweet, History of English Sounds, p. 17.

3 As pronounced, e.g., in Dutch gaan. This sound does not now exist in English.

4 This factor in the change of language (which has only recently received investigation) cannot here be dwelt upon, as readers who have not studied phonetics would be unable to follow the argument. Such should at once endeavour to obtain at least a mastery of the elements of phonetics, without which they cannot possibly understand many of the problems with which we have here to deal, and all should then read the very interesting article on Phonetic Compensations, by C. W. Grandgent and G. S. Sheldon of Harvard University, in Modern Language Notes, June, 1888, No. 6, pp. 177-187.

5 For further instances, see Skeat, Principles of English Etymology, p. 376.

6 A similar transference is observable in ???a???, ????, and in words in modern languages expressive of the same idea; cf. also corvus, which means a raven, a grapnel, a battering-ram, a surgical instrument, and a sea-fish.

7 See Marsh, English Language, in Students’ Series, lect. iii., pp. 55-62, with note on p. 64.

8 See the discussions of the examples below. The ‘various’ meanings of these words there given are mostly ‘usual’ ones. Whenever a speaker utters any of these words in the body of his discourse, the word has only one of the various ‘usual’ senses. The use of the word ‘body’ in this very note may serve as illustration of an ‘occasional’ signification of a word with sundry ‘usual’ meanings.

9 Vid. Murray, p. 1257.

10 A more definite and unmistakable instance of a word acquiring a concrete sense would be, ‘He raised his arm, and, with outstretched hand, exclaimed, etc.’

11 Murray, p. 898.

12 Shakespeare could not gain currency for his forgetive, nor Bishop Wilkins for his ‘unwalkative cripple.’

13 Cf. Whitney’s Life and Growth of Language, pp. 27, 28.

14 Other examples are fera, thier, deer; ????, queen, quean; and the modern Greek ?????(?) (the unreasoning animal), for ‘a horse.’

15 Skeat, English Etymology, p. 257.

16 In some cases the termination comes from the French -eur; and in this case, too, the same remarks apply. Cf. also the words butler = bottler; usher, ostiarius, etc.

17 So termed from the white streaked face of the animal. Gael. broc, O. Celtic broccos. Cf. Murray, Dictionary, i. v.

18 Bain’s ‘English Composition,’ p. 23.

19 Similar instances are Capability Brown, Satan Montgomery.

20 Cf. Rowland’s Grammar of the Welsh Language, 4th edition, (Wrexham, Hughes), p. 23, § 132, where more instances, and also some from Armorican, are cited.

21 Raoul de la Patisserie: De la Psychologie du Langage. Paris, 1889, pp. 22, 41.

22 So again, ‘brung’ can often be heard from children, and in German, ‘gebrungen’ appears as a humorous form, probably in imitation of an original blunder.

23 Cf. Studies in Classical Philology, No. II., B. I. Wheeler: Analogy, and the Scope of its Application in Language (Ithaca, N.Y., 1887), p. 7. Much of what follows is taken from this little work, which contains an admirable discussion of analogy, besides a highly useful bibliography of the subject. See also Jespersen’s article in the Internationale Zeitschrift fÜr Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Zur Lautgesetzfrage, (1886). Professor Wheeler, however, ranges under ‘Analogy-formation’ much that we should prefer to consider separately under ‘Contamination.’

24 The personal influence, or ‘magnetism,’ of the speaker or speakers who engender the ‘mistake’ is also an important element in determining its propagation. We, parrot-like, imitate the speech, like the manners, of some more readily than of others.

25 Cf. C. Goeders, Zur Analogiebildung im Mittel-und Neuenglischen. (Kiel, 1884.) Dr. Goeders has collected an enormous mass of illustrative material. Some of his examples, however, may not prove as new as he thinks. Our posterity will be able to decide this point if Dr. Murray’s Dictionary has made greater progress than at present. This apprehension, however, does not detract from the value of Goeders’ work, nor from the truth of the proposition which he illustrates.

26 Henry, Étude sur l’Analogie en gÉnÉral et sur les Formations de la Langue Grecque. Paris, Maisonneuve, 1883.

27 Professor Almkvest kindly informs us that there are rules about the grave accent in the Swedish, but that they are difficult to investigate. The grave accent, as it occurs in Swedish, is quite peculiar, and nothing similar exists in other languages.

For instance, the first syllable in bra?der (pl. of bra?de = board) and sÅnger (pl. of sÅng = song) has the accent, but is musically lower than the second syllable, which has a feeble secondary accent, and is musically higher. This is different—in contradiction to breder (pres. of breda = to spread), where the first syllable has the accent, and is musically higher than the second syllable, which is quite without accent.

It is the first-named pronunciation, bra?dÈ, bra?dÈr; gÓssÈ (a boy), gÓssÀr, which has nothing corresponding to it in other languages.

(a) Short treatises for practical use:—

Sweet: On Sounds and Forms of Spoken Swedish (1½ pp. about accent), in Transactions of the Philological Society, 1877-79.

Schwartz and Noreen: Swedish Grammar: Stockholm, 1881; (4 pp. about accent, mostly practical).

(b) Scientific works—

Lythkius and Wulff: About the Rules of Sounds and Signs in the Swedish Language, and about the Accent; Lund, 1885; 460 pp. (in Swedish).

Koch: Philological Researches about Swedish Accent; Lund, 1878; 211 pp.

Paul: Grundriss der German. Philol., vol. i., abschn. 5, pp. 417, etc.: Geschichte der Nordischen Sprachen, von Noreen (gives the historical cause for, and explains the growth of the grave accent).

28 Byrne, Principles of the Structure of Language, p. 475.

29 Cf. Spencer, Philosophy of Style.

30 On the sense in which the words concrete and abstract are here used, see Chap. IV., p. 45.

31 Mason’s English Grammar, p. 149, note.

32 Cf. Zumpt, Lat. Gr., § 609.

33 But cf. Quisnam hoc fecit? in Latin, by the side of Si quis hoc fecit.

34 Thus, in French: Ma fille l’aimerait? (Duval); Vous n’avez nul remords? (Delavigne); Ces messieurs viennent de Paris? (Picard). Latin: Clodius insidias fecit Miloni? (Cicero, pro Mil., xxii.).

35 Thus, in French: Richard dÉputÉ, pourquoi pas? (Dumas); Rien de Monsieur le duc de Richelieu? (Dumas).

36 Similarly, in French: Quoi tu connais l’amour et tu n’es pas humain! (Ducis).

37 We must not forget that these terms are here used in the very widest sense, and not in the limited meaning of ordinary grammar.

38 See pp. 119, fol.

39 This symbol is somewhat different from the one employed by Professor Paul, which is (a + (b) + c). Though we think the one we have chosen is rather more simple, the other is not difficult to understand, as symbolising the result of combining (a + b) with (b + c). If, instead of two similar sets of brackets, different ones were used, say {a + [b} + c], the meaning of what now appears as (b) might be clearer still. Professor Paul uses a, b, and c as indicating three different parts; we use three letters for three parts, but make two letters alike, because two of the three parts have the same function. Cf., later on, for our symbol of the second case, page 119.

40 Paul (a + b) + c. See note on p. 110.

41 Not to be understood as if it were English: A couple, who lived ... vexed. See the next example.

42 See Skeat, s.v. book.

43 A good collection of examples will be found in Sweet’s Anglo-Saxon Reader, introd., p. lxxxvii.

44 Cf. MÄtzner, iii. 202.

45 Cf. Koch (ii., p. 95), who cites a number of examples.

46 See Vocabulary to Beowulf, by Heine, under standan, gangan, lÁcan, etc., and their compounds. Also Koch, ii., p. 3, verbs from A.S. which are transitive and intransitive, e.g., winnan, to fight; fleogan, to fly; etc.

47 See King and Cookson, Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, p. 177.

48 Mason’s Grammar, p. 107.

49 See Zumpt, § 428.

50 Fiedler and Sachs, ii. 273.

51 Numerous instances are given in Hodgson, p. 105, and in MÄtzner, vol. iii., p, 80.

52 A strict attention to this difference would involve the transference of some of Professor Wheeler’s examples, in his admirable pamphlet on Analogy, to the head of ‘Contamination.’

53 ‘Synonymous’ must here be understood in a wide sense, embracing sets of words which, though really distinct in meaning as well as origin, become confused, and consequently become synonymous merely by misunderstanding (see our first example).

54 Skeat, Principles of English Etymology, p. 357.

55 Skeat, Principles of English Etymology, p. 361.

56 Cf. ibid., p. 368.

57 Cf. GrÖber, p. 630.

58 GrÖber, p. 524.

59 Ibid., p. 629.

60 Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary, p. 363.

61 Cf. ibid, s.v.

62 As in the case of many other verbs: cf., e.g., make with match; bake with batch; wake, watch; break, breach; speak, speech; stick, stitch. Cf. Murray, Dictionary, s.v. ache, upon which the discussion of the above example is based.

63 Of course, Anglo-Saxon is not derived from Gothic. The Anglo-Saxon forms are of common origin and cognate with Gothic, but not derived from them.

64 Quoted by Hodgson, Errors in the Use of English.

65 See Abbott’s Shakespearian Grammar, p. 297.

66 See note at end of chapter.

67 Cf. Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, s.v. behalf.

68 See other instances in Hodgson, p. 74.

69 Numerous other instances are given in Hodgson, p. 195.

70 Cf. Zumpt, § 424.

71 Numerous other examples are given in Hodgson, p. 72.

72 Quoted by Crombie, Etymology and Syntax, p. 256.

73 Zumpt, § 340.

74 See Hodgson, p. 215, where more instances are given.

75 Cf. Morris, p. 106.

76 Cf. Berliner Wochenschrift, No. 52, p. 1622.

77 Chevallet, vol. i., p. 40.

78 See other instances in Abbott, § 406.

79 Abbott, § 406 and § 408.

80 Cf. also such sentences as Il n’Écrit pas mieux cette annÉe ci qu’il N’en faisait l’annÉe passÉe; and Il faut plus d’esprit pour apprendre une science, qu’il N’en faut pour s’en moquer.

81 Cf. Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, p. 761.

82 In O.Fr. we find baer, Prov. badar, ‘to open the mouth,’ properly speaking to ‘utter the sound ba;’ bouffer, from a French interjection buf. The word piquer comes from an interjection representing the sound uttered on giving a prick, pic! Other examples are O.Fr. glapir, ‘to bark;’ ronfler, miauler, chuchoter, caqueter, toutouer, vonvonner, pouf.

83 Heb. hÓshÍ’ a, ‘to save,’ hiphil (i.e. active causative) of yÁsha’; and nÁ, a particle signifying entreaty. (Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, s.v.)

84 HalelÚ, ‘Praise ye,’ (from verb halal,) and jÁh, short form of Jahve = Jehovah. See ibid., s.v.

85 The relation of sound to meaning in gee-gee is, for infants, no clearer than between horse and its meaning. This offers the best proof of the conventionality of much nursery talk.

86 See also an article of S. Mallery on Gesture Language among Savages, in Techmer’s Internationale Zeitschrift, vol. i., p. 193.

87 The latter, the formation of new groups, forms the subject of the next chapter.

88 I.e. the sound of g was replaced by the sound of the (vowel) y; the spelling varies, as is shown by the given instances.

89 The Á and Í have here the acute accent to indicate length of the vowel, not the stress or ‘accent.’

90 MÄtzner, i., p. 380.

91 Cf. Fr. chez = (in) casis.

92 We choose this term in preference to ‘reaction,’ which, in the physical sciences, has a specific meaning not applicable here.

93 And by the expectation thus created of the regular occurrence of such differentiation between past singular and past plural, even where this ablaut did not show different vowels.

94 Thus says Professor Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, s.v.; others maintain that it is due to Northumbrian preservation of a, which in the South became o.

95 Professor Skeat (Principles of English Etymology, p. 411) draws a useful distinction between homographs and homophones, or words spelled alike and those sounded alike. For our purpose, as students of the spoken language, the homophones alone are of importance. A homograph is commonly, but not invariably, a homophone; cf. ‘I read now’ and ‘Yesterday I read.’ We need not here further consider such vagaries of English spelling.

96 It is unnecessary to point out in the text that we must bear in mind that French nouns or adjectives are almost always derived from the accusative case as representative of the oblique cases. For the full explanation of this see Brachet’s Grammaire Historique, Introd.

97 See Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, s.v. settle; Stratman, s.v. sahtlen.

98 Skeat, Principles of English Etymology, p. 410.

99 Or rather Fr. (je) cesse. Just as, in the French language, we must explain most nouns from the Latin accusative form, so in English most of the verbs which we owe to French can only be explained by the ‘strong’ forms, e.g. first person singular of the present tense; as complain from je complain, and not from complaindre; to despise, O.Fr. tu despis, not infinitive despire; to prevail, je prÉvail, not prÉvaloir; to relieve, je (re)lieve, not from relever; to acquire, j’acquier, not from acquÉrir.

100 See Skeat, s.v.

101 It appears that this, and not Billy ruffian, is the form used by sailors. It would thus seem that Billy ruffian is a further popular etymology, due to ‘scholars.’

102 See Palmer, Folk Etymology, s.v.

103 This derivation is given in a certain well-known SCHOOL edition of Milton’s Comus: liquorice = something which makes one lick one’s lips!

104 Braune, Goth. Gram., § 135-137.

105 For similar interchanges of r and z (s), cf. Latin Venus, Veneris for *Venesis; arbos, arboris for *arbosis, etc.

106 Braune, Alt-Hochdeutsche Gram., § 260 sqq.

107 The term umlaut is more convenient than ‘modification of the vowel sound.’

108 Noreen, Altisl. Gram., § 266, 299, 307.

109 So, indeed, is our present nom. sing. fem. she.

110 Murray, Dictionary, s.v. 29 c.

111 Cf. Murray, s.v.

112 Murray, s.v.

113 Ibid., s.v.; and Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, s.v.

114 Used very often in a sense quite distinct from the Liberal ones; the Conservative ones, etc.

115 Cf. King and Cookson, Principles of Sound and Inflexion, p. 285.

116 This last ungrammatical form, like the singular his self (now a vulgarism), testifies to the confusion of dative and genitive.

117 Cf. Roby, Latin Syntax, p. xxiii., and §§ 1069, 1073.

118 Morris, Historical Outlines, p. 6.

119 See Roby, Syntax, p. 51.

120 Nay, we even find the suffix -pse attached to other parts of speech; cf. sirempse, Plaut., Amphit., Prol. 73.

121 See MÄtzner, vol. ii., p. 313, 314, etc.

122 Cf. Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, s.v.

123 See ClÉdat, Grammaire de la Vieille Langue FranÇaise, p. 261.

124 ClÉdat, p. 253.

125 See DrÄger, Historische Syntax, vol. ii., p. 436.

126 Cf. Mason, English Grammar, p. 64.

127 Cf. Murray’s Dict., -ble and -able.

128 That ‘carriageable’ is a very unusual word does not matter at all, the point is that it is formed and that it cannot be derived from a verb.

129 What follows is almost entirely taken from the article in Murray’s Dictionary dealing with the suffix. Our excuse for reproducing it is the unavoidably high cost of the work, which places it beyond the reach of the ordinary student, so that a mere reference to it would be useless; and, secondly, that we believe that in Murray’s otherwise admirable treatment of the subject, one not unimportant side of the question has been overlooked. To avoid misunderstanding, we ought perhaps to assure the reader that what we give is not simply a copy of the article in question; this will appear to any one who will take the trouble to compare the two. Our object being different, we lay more stress upon some points which are less material to Dr. Murray; we, however, use his facts, and wish to acknowledge our indebtedness.

130 The number in brackets behind these words gives the date of the earliest quotation found for their use in Murray’s Dictionary.

131 It will help us to realise the strength of the ties which united these groups, if we remember that the modern pronunciation of the ending, tion as shun is really quite modern, i.e. that, formerly, the ti was in such words pronounced as tea and not as sh. The verb abject consisted therefore of the first two syllables of the noun abjection, WITHOUT ANY ALTERATION.

132 A carefully compiled list of all forms in ation, past participles in ate, verbs in ate, found in Dict. Murray, sub. let. A., has given the following results:—

Forms in ation 219. Of these the first instance belongs to the fourteenth century in 11, fifteenth in 26, sixteenth in 49, seventeenth in 76, eighteenth in 23, nineteenth in 34 cases.

Among the 219, the form in ation is the only one in 89 cases, distributed over the same centuries as follows,—fourteenth, 2; fifteenth, 9; sixteenth, 10; seventeenth, 31; eighteenth, 15; nineteenth, 22.

There are 138 verbs in ate, 20 of which stand alone. Distribution: fourteenth century, 0; fifteenth, 4; sixteenth, 53 + 7; seventeenth, 53 + 13; eighteenth, 13; nineteenth, 15.

Of all cases where we find both the noun in ation and the verb in ate, the noun is older in 74 and the verb in 34 cases. It seems plain therefore that we may say that in English the verbs in ate are in very many cases formed from the nouns in ation, and that both are chiefly due to the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries.

133 Vol. i., p. 433.

134 Goeders, p. 9.

135 Cf. Abbott and Seeley, English Lessons for English Readers, p. 55.

136 Vol. ii., p. 446, 467, Figures and Metaphors (Kenningar) of Old Northern Poetry.

137 See Brachet, Dictionnaire des Doublets, Appendice. Paris, 1868.

138 Other works on doublets are Romanische wortschÖpfung, by Caroline Michaelis, Leipzig, 1876. Latin doublets, by M. BrÉal, in the MÉmoires de la SociÉtÉ de Linguistique de Paris, i. 162, sqq. (1868). For German, O. Behagel, Die Neuhochdeutschen ZwillingswÖrter, Germania, 23, 257, sqq. For English doublets, cf. MÄtzner, Englische Grammatik, i. 221; and Skeat, Principles of English Etymology, p. 417; besides the appendix to his Lexicon.

139 See MÄtzner, Fr. Gr., p. 223.

140 Page 28.

141 Shoal, the substantive from A.S. scÓlu, meaning either ‘a school’ or ‘a multitude’ (see Skeat, s.v.), seems to have been used convertibly with school, and indeed, the meaning of shoal has survived in the fisherman’s phrase a ‘school of mackerel;’ while the adjectives shoal and shallow likewise had the same meanings; but they have become so far differentiated that the latter form alone can be employed metaphorically; as when we say, ‘a man of shallow intellect.’

142 See Meyer’s German Grammar, paral. series, p. 18.

143 See Trench, Select Glossary, p. 129, numerous other instances may be found in this work.

144 Cf. Sayce, Principles of Comparative Philology, p. 268 (3rd edit.).

145 See GrÖber, p. 788.

146 Vol. i., p. 250.

147 MÄtzner, vol. ii., p. 143 (edit. 1864).

148 In Hungarian, the plural ending is -k. But many nouns are thought of as collectives, and have no plural. And if the noun be preceded by a numeral, or by an adjective or pronoun of quantity, it does not take the plural form unless the number embraces the whole; as, tiz apostol (ten apostles), but Á tizenket apostolok (the twelve apostles). In the former case, the individuals are thought of indefinitely, and so the sense of the individual is weak; in the latter case, definitely, and therefore it is strong. Byrne, Principles of the Structure of Language, vol. i., p. 435.

149 Accius apud Non., iii. 65.

150 Cf. Roby, vol. ii., p. 183.

151 On ‘abstract’ v. ‘concrete,’ see p. 45.

152 Accordingly, in Welsh, the noun is invariably in the singular when preceded by a numeral.

153 On ‘abstract’ v. ‘concrete,’ see p. 45.

154 In a sentence like I am going out; I thought you were, even the past tense refers to future.

155 Cf. Storm, p. 217, for other instances, such as Sit you down (Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, 366), etc.

156 Cf. Earle (Philology of the English Tongue, p. 536), who cites these phrases as provincialisms to be heard in all classes of society in Yorkshire. Every careful speaker will agree with him in deeming them “one of the finest of our provincialisms.”

157 Cf. Cor., II. i. 217; Rich. II., III. iv. 13; 1 Hen. VI., I. i. 82.

158 Skeat, Principles of English Etymology, p. 468.

159 See MÄtzner’s Fr. Gr., p. 176, for more examples.

160 It is altogether unimportant that, in the case of such a sentence as the one which we took for our example, the ultimate result, as far as the understanding of the meaning goes, makes practically very little, if any, difference. Thus, we teach a child that three times five and five times three are the same, because the ultimate result of bringing together three fives or five groups of three each is identical. Still, no one will deny that, for correct conception of the operation, there is an important difference between—

..... ..... ..... and— ... ... ... ... ...

or maintain that the understanding of this difference is of no importance for the theory. Nay, even in practical life there would be a great difference between going thrice, e.g., to fetch five apples at a time, and making five journeys for three apples each time. Yet every one admits that 3 × 5 = 5 × 3 is a ‘truth’ generally quite ‘true enough.’

161 Is rather than am here, to symbolise the sense of I as predicate.

162 It would be worth investigating—a question which only the most extensive statistical collection of earlier examples of this construction could decide—whether the very extensive use of this construction in English is not due to, or has not been at least promoted by, the existence of the so-called pronominal prepositions in Welsh, and their construction. The personal pronouns are used in Welsh as suffixes to the prepositions: e.g., prep. at = to; ataf, ‘to me;’ atat, ‘to thee;’ ato, ‘to him;’ ati, ‘to her;’ atom, ‘to us;’ atoch, ‘to you;’ atynt, ‘to them;’ imi, ‘to me;’ iti, ‘to thee;’ iddo, ‘to him;’ iddi, ‘to her;’ ini, ‘to us;’ ichwi, ‘to you;’ iddynt, ‘to them;’ etc. (Rowland’s Welsh Grammar, §§ 374-381). These forms were used especially in relative clauses; e.g., instead of— Y cyfaill at yr hwn yr afonais lythyr, The friend to whom I-sent letter, we might say more elegantly— Y cyfaill yr hwn yr afonais lythyr ato. The friend whom I sent letter to (him). Similarly— Efe yw’r gwr yr ysgrifenaist ato. He is the man thou wrotest to (him). Rhoddwch i’r hwn y cymmerasoch oddi arno. Give to whom you took from (him).

Even the present occasional (and vulgar) repetition of the pronoun is found:—

A careful study of the translations here given will enable even one who has never seen any Welsh to judge of what is at least a possibility; viz., that our construction began with the relative clauses, and is, even in its present more extensive use, a remnant of Celtic origin.

163 The grammatical and the psychological distribution, however, differs. Grammatically: subject, ‘I;’ predicate, ‘asked;’ etc. Psychologically: subject, ‘I asked him;’ predicate, ‘after his health.’

164 Compare ‘the tother,’ e.g. in Wycliffe, Matt. vi. 24; ‘love the tother,’ which took its rise from ‘that other.’ The word ‘ewt’ also survived under the form eft.

165 See Roby, Lat. Gr., vol. ii., p. 28.

166 Cf. DrÆger, § vii. 4.

167 Cf. Ziemer, p. 71.

168 Roby, vol. ii., p. 23.

169 See Roby, vol. ii., p. 145.

170 Cf. Ziemer, p. 96: Madvig Kl. Schr.

171 Cf. MÄtzner, ii. 147; Abbott, § 335; Hodgson, p. 142.

172 Cf. Hodgson, p. 131.

173 See MÄtzner, vol. ii., p. 141.

174 See DrÄger, § 113, for more examples.

175 Cf. MÄtzner, vol. ii., p. 152.

176 Another instance is furnished by Hebrew, where the root pakad is conjugated 1st pakadti, 2nd masc. pakadta, 2nd fem. pakadt, 3rd masc. pakad, 3rd fem. pakdah, 1st plur. pakadnu. 2nd masc. pekadtem, 2nd fem. pekadten, 3rd pakdu. (Cf. any Hebrew grammar.)

177 A fuller list is given in MÄtzner, ii. p. 18.

178 For other examples, see MÄtzner, vol. ii., p. 151.

179 DrÆger, vol. i., p. 178.

180 See Abbott, p. 166.

181 For other instances, see Abbott, p. 281.

182 See other instances in Abbott, p. 269.

183 Hodgson, p. 81.

184 Abbott, p. 293.

185 Hodgson, p. 189.

186 For a full list, see Roby, p. 26.

187 Cf. Minto.

188 Cf. Abbott, p. 262.

189 See MÄtzner, Fr. Gr., p. 446, for more examples.

190 Cf. MÄtzner, p. 92, vol. ii.

191 On groom, see the excellent article in Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary.

192 Cf. Skeat, Prin. Eng. Etymol., p. 395, from which and from his Dictionary most of these ‘obscured’ compounds are taken.

193 Forms like fur-booted, blackeyed, etc., do not, of course, belong here. They are derived, with the suffix ed, from compounds or groups like fur-boot, black eye, eagle eye, cone-shape, etc., or formed by analogy to such derivatives. Some, indeed, are true compounds, but then the second element is an adjective and not a past participle. In that case they should be ranged under the compound formed from two adjectives.

194 The great importance of this distinction will be shown later on, see page 324.

195 It will be noticed that most of these formulative groups are alliterative.

196 See Skeat, Etymol. Dict., s.v. Jack.

197 A blackbird may be an albino and we still call it a blackbird.

198 For the disputed derivation, see Whitney and Skeat, s.v.

199 The student should note the difference: in the Old High German the article is nominative; in our English translation it is genitive: ‘the man’s son’ = ‘a son of the man.’

200 It is, of course, not intended to say that this very combination was thus formed. It is an example to illustrate the process, and no more.

201 Quoted by Earle, p. 493.

202 Cf. M. MÜller, Sanscr. Gram., § 249, which we here transcribe: The comparative is formed by tara or Îyas; the superlative by tama or ishtha. These terminations, tara and tama, are not restricted in Sanscrit to adjectives. Substantives such as nri, ‘man,’ form nritamah, ‘a thorough man;’ strÎ, ‘woman,’ strÎtarÂ, ‘more of a woman.’ Even after case-terminations and personal terminations, tara and tama may be used. Thus, from pÛrvÂhne, ‘in the forenoon,’ pÛrvÂhnetare, ‘earlier in the forenoon.’ From pachati ‘he cooks,’ pachatitarÂm, ‘he cooks better,’ pachatitamÂm, ‘he cooks best.’

203 Cf. also the (unusual) construction: ‘Geoffrey was not a religious when he wrote this play’ (Ward, Hist. Drama, p. 5, note), and ‘one more unfortunate’ (Hood).

204 MÄtzner, iii. p. 222.

205 It will be noted that in these examples, the more they are usual the more they appear as compounds, and the less clearly and definitely we feel the force of the first noun as adjectival; cf. a maiden over with a maiden speech.

206 MÄtzner, Fr. Gr., 157, sqq.

207 Quoted by Storm, Englische Philologie, p. 332.

208 Modern English spelling has been ably treated of by Skeat, Principles of English Etymology, p. 294, sqq. Clarendon Press.

209 Cf. Spelling Reform, by J. H. Gladstone, F.R.S. (Macmillan); Pitman’s Plea for Spelling Reform; and Max MÜller’s Essay on Spelling (Selected Essays, vol. i., pp. 252-299. Longmans, 1881).

210 Page 27, u.s.

211 Pitman, u.s., p. 8.

212 See Storm, Die lebende Sprache, p. 259, sqq.

213 Cf. Dilke’s Problems of Greater Britain, ch. ii., p. 53, where ‘Je n’ai pas de change’ is cited as usual.

214 See Skeat’s Principles of English Etymology, p. 14; also Peile’s Primer of Philology, p. 80.

215 Cf. Peile, p. 41.

216 Quoted by Peile, Primer of Philology, p. ii., from Gavin Douglas’s translation of the Æneid.

217 Vol. i., p. 53.

218 Schuchardt Romanisches und Keltisches, p. 280, sqq.

219 A good instance of this is seen in the ‘Somersetshire Man’s Complaint,’ dating from the seventeenth century, as against the ‘Exmoor Scolding,’ published at Exeter, in 1778: both are published by Elworthy in the ‘Specimens of English Dialects’ (1879). In the former of these the aspirate is fairly maintained; in the latter, it is frequently dropped.

220 Atlantic Monthly, vol. xli., 495.

221 See Sweet, Elementarbuch des gesprochenen Englisch, p. xxxi.

222 John G. Whittier, in a poem entitled The Landmarks, Atlantic Monthly, vol. xliii., p. 378.